* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:05] UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. UH, BEFORE WE, UH, CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, WE HAVE, UH, BRIEF COMMENTS FROM OUR SPANISH INTERPRETERS WHO ARE AVAILABLE. GOOD AFTERNOON. INTERPRET. INTERPRET. THANK YOU. IT'S 1 0 7. THE MEETING OF THE SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHALL COME TO ORDER. UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE OUR ROLL. CALL MS. INGLES. PRESENT. MR. ALBERT? PRESENT. MR. MENCHACA? PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. MANA PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT. MR. DELMER? PRESENT. MR. THIEL? PRESENT. MR. UNA PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I AM ALSO PRESENT. SO WE HAVE A QUORUM OF 11. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US. IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDERGONE INDIVISIBLE WITH DELIVERIES OF THE JUSTICE ALL HONOR TEXAS FLAG. TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD AND INDIVISIBLE. ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, S CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE 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 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORDS OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH 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 RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED IN SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION OR REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND [00:05:01] PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU WILL HEAR THIS, YOU WILL HEAR, UH, A BEEP WHEN YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, CAN WE PLEASE HEAR THE FIRST CASE? GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD MEMBERS. [2. (Continued from 10/04/2021) BOA2110300119: A request by Texas Republic Signs, LLC for 1) a 104 square foot sign variance from the 650 square foot sign maximum to allow a multitenant sign to be 754 square feet and 2) a 24’ 7” sign variance from the maximum 60’ sign height maximum to allow a multitenant sign to be 84’ 7”, located at 1815 North Foster Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 2) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner (210) 2070197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CASE BO O A 2 1 103 0 0 1 1 9. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1815 NORTH FOSTER ROAD WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. UM, THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE 104 SQUARE FOOT SIGN VARIANCE FROM THE MINI MINIMUM 650 SQUARE FOOT, SORRY, MAXIMUM TO ALLOW THE MULTI-TENANT SIGN TO BE 754 SQUARE FEET AND TWO A 24 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 60 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT ALLOWANCE TO ALLOW A MULTI-TENANT SIGN TO BE 84 FEET AND SEVEN INCHES TALL. UM, THE APPLICANT WILL BE AMENDING THE REQUEST TO, UM, GET RID OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCE. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS C THREE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF I 10 EAST, UM, AND NORTH FOSTER ROAD. UM, A SIGN INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED ON JULY 8TH WHEN THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE WAS NOTICED AT THE LOCATION. UM, THEY CURRENTLY QUALIFY FOR THE MULTI-TENANT SIGN STANDARDS, WHICH ALLOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 60 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 650. THEY ARE REPLACING AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN, UM, BECAUSE THEY ARE REPLACING THE SIGNAGE, THEY DO HAVE TO BRING THE, THE SIGN INTO COMPLIANCE AND MEET THE CURRENT CODE. UM, SIGN STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND FOUND THAT THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SIGNAGE, UM, IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THEY BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE PROPOSED SIGN. AND THESE ARE IMAGES OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY QUALIFIES FOR MULTI-TENANT SIGN REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIAL FOR THIS LOCATION. TWO, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT EXCEEDS THE LIMIT ABOUT BY ABOUT 25 FEET. THREE, THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE EXCEEDS THE LIMIT BY UM, 104 SQUARE FEET. AND FOUR D S D SIGNED STAFF FINDS A REQUEST TO BE EXCESSIVE FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF MAILED 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. UH, THERE IS NONE RETURN IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. ALRIGHT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, UH, FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. SURE. I'M MICHAEL EVERETT WITH TEXAS REPUBLIC SIGNS 2211 PECK ROAD, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 5 5. FROM ONCE WE FILED THE VARIANCE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PULL BACK AND REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SIGNAGE THAN WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND JUST ASK FOR THE 24 FOOT SEVEN INCHES IN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AS REQUESTED IN THE VARIANCE. UM, WE FEEL THAT THIS SIGN HAS BEEN HERE FOR 20 PLUS YEARS WITHOUT BEING FIXED OR REPLACED, [00:10:01] AND IT'S, IT'S TIME THAT, UM, THE INSIDES ARE RUSTED. THEY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT THIS TIME. UM, THEY'VE ALSO MOVED THE EXIT FOR THIS SIGNAGE QUITE, QUITE FAR BACK NOW. IT'S AT AT LEAST ANOTHER HALF MILE BACK FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE RIGHT AT THE EXIT. UM, IN DOING SO, UM, WE FEEL YOU CAN'T SEE THE SIGNAGE AS WELL AS YOU COULD BEFORE. UH, OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES DO HAVE SIGNS. THE CIRCLE K ACROSS THE STREET, THEY HAVE A SIGN THAT'S PROBABLY 120 FOOT TALL. UM, THE, UM, PETRO DOWN THE STREET IS IN EXCESS OF 85 FOOT TALL WE BELIEVE AS WELL. UM, THE, I BELIEVE IT'S A NEXT ACROSS THE STREET. WHAT IS THE THAT'S A, THERE'S A TA ACROSS THE STREET WITH FOUR GROUND SIGNS THAT WE FEEL FACTOR INTO A A, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE ON THOSE, UH, EXISTING SIGNS THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET. AND YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO THERE'S ONE BIG ONE IN THE BACK AND THEN SEVERAL MORE ALONG THE WAY AS YOU TURN AND MAKE THE EXIT FOR THE TA, WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT JUST TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN AND KEEP IT THE SAME HEIGHT AS IT AS IT WAS. THERE'S, UM, UM, SINCE THEY MOVED THAT EXIT, WE DO FEEL THAT THAT'S A, A FACTOR INTO TRYING TO KEEP IT ABOVE THE 60 FOOT. YOU, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT. IT'D BE WELL DOWN BELOW WHERE YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING. BUT WE DID GO AHEAD AND REMOVE THE BOTTOM SIGN TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE, TO MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE RULE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, UH, IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND, SIR. SURE. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANYTHING, UH, THAT CAME IN LAST MINUTE TO READ IN? ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK LAST MINUTE? NO. OKAY. NO. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT, I'LL OH, ZOOM. SURE. GO. READY. UM, MR. EVERETT? YES, MA'AM. YES, SIR. COULD YOU SPEAK OF THE, OF THE HARDSHIP INVOLVED IF YOU WERE HAVING TO, UH, LOWER THE POLE OR CUT YOU PLAN TO USE THE EXISTING PYLON POLE? CORRECT. AND WHAT IS, IS HARDSHIP OF HAVING TO LOWER TO CUT THAT POLE? HAVE YOU MADE ANY COST ESTIMATES OR WHAT? AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, CAN YOU SPEAK OF ANY SAFETY ISSUES? YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY TRYING TO MAKE IT TO THAT EXIT AND THEN SEE THE SIGN AND THEN HAVE TO CUT ACROSS TO TRY TO MAKE THAT EXIT, THERE'S A SAFETY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THERE AS WELL? ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. GOOD POINT. UM, THE, THE FURTHER BACK THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO VIEW THAT SIGN, THE FASTER THESE TRUCK DRIVERS AND THEY'RE DRIVING VERY LARGE TRUCKS, ARE ABLE TO GET OVER AND NOTICE, ONCE THEY NOTICE THAT SIGN, IT MAKES IT EASIER AND SAFER FOR THEM TO GET OVER TO THAT, UM, UH, EXIT. WE FEEL THAT SAFETY IS A BIG ISSUE IN THIS AS WELL. UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST QUESTION? WAS IT, WHAT'S IT THE COST OF HAVING TO, UM, IF, IF YOU MADE ANY ESTIMATES OF, OF REDUCING TO CUT THE PILE ON TO MAKE IT COMPLY WITH THE, UH, OF WE HAVEN'T, WELL, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY HAD A, TO REDUCE ONE YET TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO NOTICE THE COST DIFFERENCE THAT IT WOULD AFFECT THE CUSTOMER, BUT IT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THEIR INCOME. I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD SAY THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, I HAVE UH, TWO QUESTIONS. ONE, WE HAVE TWO SIGNS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE FACING NORTH AND SOUTH AND THE OTHER ONE FACING EAST AND WEST. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE NORTH AND SOUTH? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT CAN BE VIEWED FROM THE FREEWAY. OKAY. EAST AND WEST. OKAY. I SAW THAT. AND, UH, I DIDN'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE ELEVATIONS BECAUSE THE EXIT IS A THOUSAND FEET, 5,000 FEET BACK, BOTH ON THE EAST SIDE AND ON THE WEST SIDE. HOW CAN YOU SEE, YOU CAN'T SEE THE SIGN IF YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE EXIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE EXIT HAS MOVED SINCE I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE EXIT HAS BEEN MOVED BACK ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION. CORRECT. AND THE EXIT WILL BE NUMBERED, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. SO WHEN I MEASURED FROM THAT MAIN INTERSECTION BACK, IT'S ABOUT 5,000 FEET. SO YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE THE SIGN FROM 5,000 FEET. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE EXIT IN ORDER TO KNOW WHERE TO GET OFF. SO HOW DO YOU CLAIM RAISING THE SIDE AND IT'S GONNA GIVE YOU BETTER VISIBILITY? WELL, COMING INTO IT, COMING INTO SAN ANTONIO TODAY [00:15:01] WHEN I WAS THERE, I COULD SEE THE POLES STICKING UP IN THE AIR FROM THE EXIT, THE NEW EXIT. SO AS BIG AS THE SIGNS ARE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE GOING TO BE ABLE TO NOTICE THE PILOT FLY OR THE, THE FLYING JAY AND THE DENNY'S SIGN ON THAT. NOW NOTICE THAT THE GOING WEST ON I 10 GOING TOWARD FOSTER ROAD, IT WAS ALSO ABOUT 5,000 FEET AND I COULD SEE THE SIGN FROM WAY BACK THERE. YOU HAVE GOOD VISIBILITY FROM THAT, FROM THAT EXIT. YES, SIR. BUT I DIDN'T SEE AN ELEVATION PROBLEM COMING FROM THE EAST, FROM HOUSTON TOWARD FOSTER ROAD COMING FROM SAN ANTONIO TOWARDS HOUSTON. COMING FROM HOUSTON TOWARD SAN ANTONIO, TOWARD FOSTER ROAD. THAT, THAT ONE WE BELIEVE IT'S 60 FOOT WILL BE INTERFERED WITH. WELL, THANK YOU. BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. THANK YOU. HOW TALL ARE THE GROUND SIGNS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THE EXISTING ONE IS 84 FOOT SEVEN INCHES TALL. THE OTHER ONE I BELIEVE IS AROUND 20 FEET TALL. BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THE OTHER SIGN. THE OTHER SIGN'S SMALL AND IT'S ON THE, THE SIDE SIDE ROAD. THANK YOU MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU'D HAVE TO DO TO LOWER IT. SO, SO IS THE THOUGHT, IF YOU HAVE TO LOWER IT, YOU'RE BASICALLY GONNA CUT OFF THE TOP PART OF THE POLE, BUT YOU'LL USE THE EXISTING POLES FOR THE REMAINDER. CORRECT. AND YOU'LL REDUCE THE VISIBILITY OF THAT. OKAY. YES, SIR. AND THEN, UM, AND IS THERE ABILITY TO ATTACH SIGNS TO THAT LOWER PORTION? UM, IF YOU WERE TO LOWER IT? SO COULD YOU STILL LEVERAGE THE, THE LOWER PART OF THAT SIGN IF YOU NEEDED TO? YES. IT'LL HAVE TO BE REWORKED, BUT YES. YES SIR. YOU CAN. OKAY. SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? JUST MR. ALBERT? YES, SIR. I WAS WONDERING, UM, HAD YOU DONE ANY STUDIES, TOPOGRAPHIC STUDIES THAT YOU COULD SHOW THAT SAY THE MINIMUM HEIGHT THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE STILL TO THE SIGN ORIGINAL DISTANCE? WELL, I, I DON'T BELIEVE, DID WE, WE DIDN'T PRESENT THAT WITH THIS PACKAGE. I THOUGHT I DID IN THE ORIGINAL. NO, THAT'S, IT WAS, I WOULD'VE SUBMITTED IT WITH THE ORIGINAL. IT WOULD'VE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE IT IN HERE IN THE PACKAGE. MY APOLOGIES. THERE WAS, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH IT. OKAY. THANK CRUZ. OKAY. I ONLY WANT GOT ONE QUESTION. IF THE SIGN STAYS AT THE HEIGHT IT IS, IF YOU'RE COMING I 10 EAST TOWARDS SAN ANTONIO FROM HOUSTON, IT ISN'T THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPRESSWAY HIGHER. SO YOU, IT'S STILL WOULD BE PRETTY TALL FOR THAT AREA. IT WOULD BE. IT'S, IT'S TALL FOR THE AREA, BUT IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER SIGN THAT'S IN THAT AREA. SOME ARE 120 FEET, SOME OF 'EM ARE A HUNDRED FEET. SOME OF THEM ARE, YEAH. BUT THEY VARY IN THAT AREA. YEAH. BUT THE REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN, SINCE THOSE SIGNS WERE PUT UP. I AGREE. YES, MA'AM. THEY HAVE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, FROM THE, UH, STANDARDS THAT Y HAVE NOW ADOPTED. OKAY. STAFF, WHAT YEAR DID THOSE STANDARDS, WERE THEY ADOPTED? YEAH. WHERE, WHERE IT CHANGED, BECAUSE WE HEARD TESTIMONY THIS WAS, UH, ACCEPTABLE 10 YEARS AGO. [00:20:01] SO IT WAS, IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN TOO MUCH LONGER AGO. MAYBE 2012. SO CHAPTER, WE HAVE OUR SIGN INSPECTOR HERE, BUT, UM, CHAPTER 28 WAS UPDATED IN 2017. OKAY. 2017. AND IS THERE A PROCESS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE, UH, NON-CONFORMING SIGNS TO REGISTER THOSE SIGNS? WELL, THIS ONE IS REGISTERED, SO YES. ALL OF THEM, BASICALLY, THEY ALL BECOME NON-CONFORMING IF THE RULES HAVE CHANGED. RIGHT. AND SO THEY REMAIN IN THAT NON-CONFORMING GRANDFATHERED STATUS. SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T ALTERING ANYTHING, THERE'S SOME PROVISIONS FOR ALTERATIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED. UH, BUT WHEN YOU EXCEED THOSE ALTERATIONS, YOU THEN HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE OR REQUEST A VARIANCE. AND WHAT WAS THE TRIGGER ON THIS CASE? IS WHAT, WHAT CAUSED THIS TO BE CONSIDERED TITAN SQUARE FOOTAGE? NO, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT CAUSED THIS TO COME BEFORE US? IF THE SIGN WAS EXISTENT, WERE YOU DOING MAINTENANCE ON IT OR CHANGING OUT THE CABINET? WE'RE GONNA CHANGE OUT THE CABINETS. OKAY. AND JUST WITH A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME OR A BRAND NEW CABINET? NO NEW CABINETS. 'CAUSE THEY, THEY DEER DETERIORATE OVER TIME. STEEL AS FINITE LIFE, IT DETERIORATES REST OF THE WEIGHT. IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. AND THAT'S, THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED, UH, MAINTENANCE. THAT'S, THAT'S CONSIDERED AN ALTERATION IF WE'RE REPLACING IT AS IS? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, AND SO YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GONNA TAKE OUT THE DENNY SIGN, KEEP THE FLYING J WE'RE TAKING OFF THE BOTTOM PORTION OF IT. VERY BOTTOM PORTION. YEAH. THE SOUTHERN TIRE MART. OKAY. IT'LL BE GONE. SO YOU'RE NOT ASKING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO NOT CONSIDER THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS A, A SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE AND YOU'RE SOLELY ASKING FOR THE 24 FOOT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND DOES, UM, THE OTHER SIGNS THAT YOU'RE COMPETING WITH THESE OTHER COMPANIES, UH, DOES, DOES TEXDOT HAVE THOSE ANNOUNCEMENT BILLBOARDS NEAR EXITS THAT TELL THEM WHAT GAS STATIONS ARE COMING AND IF SO, ARE YOU ON THAT BILL SUCH A SIGNAGE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. IF THEY DO, I, I WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THAT. WE'RE STRICTLY, AS FAR AS TDOT GOES, WE, WE DON'T. OKAY. TEX DOT DOESN'T REGULATE ON, ON PREMISE STAFF. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE NOTICED IF THEY, IF THEY HAD HAD ANY SORT OF EARLY WARNING THAT THERE, THAT THERE WAS A FLYING J UH, UPON EXITING OR PERHAPS THEIR COMPETITORS? HOW YOU DOING? UH, YES SIR. IF YOU COULD TAKE A SEAT. UM, EDWARD EDWARD RODRIGUEZ, SENIOR SIGN INSPECTOR OF CITY SAN ANTONIO? YES, SIR. 1901 SOUTH OLE ON THAT QUESTION, WHETHER, WHETHER THERE'S ANY SIGNAGE INFORMING PEOPLE THAT THERE'S A FLYING JAY COMING UP OR ANY OTHER, UM, BUSINESS I DO NOT KNOW. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM. MANANA FOR COMM COMMISSIONER MANNA. SIR, SIR. SO SORRY. SO, SO THE HIGHWAY'S BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, IT'S KIND OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT? UM, AND SO, SO COULD BE THAT THEY PUT A SIGN 'CAUSE THEY'RE ALL OVER THE CITY, UH, IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS FOR HAVING THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF UPCOMING BUSINESSES, UM, ON THE ROADWAY, RIGHT? SO IT IS AN OPTION THAT, THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT, THEY COULD. THERE'S NOTHING RESTRICTING THAT FROM HAPPENING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, PROBABLY SO. MM-HMM. . OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE'S, UH, NO ONE ELSE. UH, SO, UH, THE APPLICANT BACK UP. UH, YOU HAVE, UM, YOU HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES TO MAKE ANY CLOSING REMARKS. YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF OUR, UH, DISCUSSION AND, AND QUESTIONING. SO YOU HAVE JUST WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER BEFORE. UH, AS FAR AS BILLBOARDS GO, THEY'RE HARD TO GET ON. MM-HMM. ONE AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM, THEY DON'T U USUALLY GIVE 'EM UP AND THEY ARE A PRETTY EXPENSIVE ITEM. EXPENSIVE ITEM AND BEYOND AS WELL. AND IF, UM, LEMME MAKE ONE MORE POINT IS IF, IF PILOT THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST FAVOR TO LOWER THAT TO 60 FOOT, I MEAN, IT COST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AMOUNT OF MONEY TO KEEP IT AT THAT HEIGHT. COULD BE IN AS FAR AS THE STEEL GOES, THE REPLACING OF THE STEEL PIECES THAT ARE RUSTED AND WHATNOT, UH, THEY WOULD SURELY LOWER IT. IT'S ABOUT $2,000 A FOOT TO KEEP THAT AS FAR AS THE, THE SIGNS GO. SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 48,000 EXTREMELY. THAT'D BE LIKE $48,000 THEN. WHAT'S THAT? THAT'D BE AROUND $48,000 TO LOWER THE SIGN. IT, IT WOULD COST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. OKAY. IT COST THEM A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, AMOUNT OF MONEY. EXCUSE ME. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS O ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O DASH 21 DASH 0 3 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT REQUEST FOR A 24 FOOT SEVEN INCH SIGN VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM 60 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A MULTI-TENANT SIGN TO BE 84 FEET, SEVEN INCHES SITUATED AT 1815 NORTH FOSTER ROAD. APPLICANT BEING TEXAS REPUBLIC SIGNS L L C, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED [00:25:01] TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, UH, CHARACTERISTICS 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 ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENTS IS THE ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPE, OR TOPOGRAPHY, OR A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL 24 FEET, SEVEN INCH HEIGHT AND 104 SQUARE, UH, PERIOD WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL AREA. IT ALSO PRESERVES EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PYLON. THREE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN SUBPARAGRAPH ONE AND TWO, THE BOARD FINDS THAT A GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND THE PROPO AND THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL NOT BLOCK ANY EXISTING BUSINESS AS THERE ARE SIMILAR SIGNS WITHIN THE AREA. B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE. THE REQUESTED SIGN HIDE VARIANCE, WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. END OF MOTION. SECOND, UH, WE HAVE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THIEL. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. WELL, FIRST I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO, UM, POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. SO, SO THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DID HAVE A CHANCE TO PROVIDE SOME INPUT AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. UM, I BELIEVE IT'S A, IT'S A FAIR, UM, LITIGANT THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS, UH, TAKING OFF THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. AND SO EVEN IF HE, IF HE LOWERED THE SIGN, YOU KNOW, AND HE COULD STILL BUILD THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE, UH, KEEP THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN. SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT HE'S, UH, REQUESTING THE HEIGHT, BUT THEN TAKING THE SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE OFF THE TABLE, I THINK IS A, IS A, IS A, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A FAIR MEDIC FOR THE REQUEST. THEN I SEE THE NEIGHBORING SIGNS THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET THAT CLEARLY, UM, UH, EXCEED, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE CODE IN TERMS OF HEIGHT. AND HE IS MERELY TRYING TO PROVIDE FOR, YOU KNOW, A SAFETY AND, AND FOR THE TRUCKERS THAT COULD SEE THE SIGNAGE FOR THE DISTANCE AND CAN SAFELY MAKE THE MANEUVER TO EXIT TO GET TO THE SIDE. I MEAN, I, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY, UH, THIS MOTION, UH, SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED HERE. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THIEL. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UH, THE SIGNS EXISTED AT THIS HEIGHT FOR SEVERAL YEARS THAT'S BEEN ILLUSTRATED, UH, WITHOUT ISSUE OR COMPLAINT. UH, I ALSO FEEL THAT, UH, WHAT IS BEING DONE IS ACTUALLY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH. UH, SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ COMMISSIONER MANNA MANNA. SO, UM, I'M IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO GOT TOGETHER AND KIND OF DEVELOPED THE, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND GOT TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY, A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES TO SAY, HERE'S WHAT THE HEIGHTS THAT WE REALLY WANT THE CITY TO LOOK LIKE. AND SO, UM, ALL TOO OFTEN, YOU KNOW, SO, SO WHILE IT IS THAT WE GRANDFATHERED A LOT OF THESE, UM, SIGNS INTO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS INTO EXISTENCE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT IS THAT THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE REALLY ADOPT, REALLY, WHAT IS IT THE CITY WANTED TO DO. AND SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THE SIGN BE LOWERED. SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MANCHACA MANCHACA. UH, I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER MANNA FOR THE SAME REASON. STATED, AND, UH, I DON'T THINK SAFETY IS THE ISSUE HERE AS WELL. FAMILIAR WITH SOME, UH, TRUCKERS AFTER A WHILE GOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TERRAIN AND THEY CALL AHEAD AND THEY'RE AWARE OF WHERE THE EXITS ARE. SO I WILL BE NOT SUPPORTING THIS. OKAY. UM, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CHIME IN MYSELF. UH, I, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS IS, UH, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. IF THEY WERE CHANGING THE SIGN TO SOMETHING ELSE OR MAKING IT DIFFERENT, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT THEY'RE JUST DOING MAINTENANCE IN MY OPINION. AND BY REMOVING, AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA, BY REMOVING THE, UH, THE LOWER SIGN, THEY'RE, THEY ARE MAKING HEADWAY TOWARDS, UM, THE GOAL OF BEING FULLY COMPLIANT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT WITH THAT STAFF. PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. MR. INGLES. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I DO NOT CONCUR, MR. VASQUEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR. UH, MOTION FAILS. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. UH, SIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET WITH STAFF THOUGH, TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR OPTIONS. [00:30:04] , YOU . ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER [3. BOA2110300128: A request by Sean Bourg for a 35’ variance from the 40’ sign height maximum to allow a sign to be 75’ tall, located at 1846 South General McMullen. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 5) (Kayla Leal, Principal Planner (210) 2070197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] THREE IS CASE BO A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1846 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS, UH, SEAN BORG. THE REQUEST IS FOR A 35 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE 75 FEET TALL. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS C THREE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG GENERAL MCMULLEN ROAD, NEAR THOMPSON PLACE. THERE IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, UM, WITH AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN. THE SIGN, UH, WAS DAMAGED IN SOME RECENT STORMS, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE A SIGN AND TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF 75 FEET. UM, SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE, SINCE THIS SIGN IS BEING REPLACED, IT DOES NEED TO ABIDE BY THE CURRENT CODE STANDARDS, UH, WHICH IS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET FOR THIS SECONDARY ARTERIAL, TYPE A, HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN, AND HERE IS THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY ENDS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO O A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY QUALIFIES FOR A SINGLE TENANT SIGN REGULATIONS ALONG SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A TWO. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT EXCEEDS THE LIMIT BY 35 FEET. AND THREE D S D SIGN STAFF, UH, DO FIND THE REQUEST TO BE EXCESSIVE FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF MAILED 12 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION. AND THE THOMPSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. UH, WE DO HAVE A VOICEMAIL FOR THIS CASE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, LET'S, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON UP. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, JAMES GRIFFIN WITH KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMAN, UH, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UM, OH YEAH, PERFECT. THANK YOU. UM, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS, UM, UH, MCDONALD'S AND THE, UH, ACOSTA FAMILY AS A, UH, LOCAL FRANCHISEE, UH, FOR MCDONALD'S. UM, I'LL, I'LL RUN THROUGH THESE SLIDES, UH, PRETTY QUICKLY, UH, HERE. UM, UH, THE REQUEST, UH, BEFORE YOU IS, IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN, THAN WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE. UM, THERE'S ALSO, UH, SOME SIMILARITIES TO, TO THE CASE YOU JUST HEARD, BUT ALSO SOME, SOME, UH, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, UH, AS WELL. AND, AND, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE, UH, QUICKLY. UM, DOES THIS, IT'S JUST AMAZING. OH, I CAN'T CHANGE IT WITH THIS. I WAS, I WAS LOOKING, I WAS LOOKING FOR A BUTTON. UM, UH, SO HERE'S OUR SITE. UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT AT THE CORNER, UH, OR JUST OFF THE CORNER, I SHOULD SAY, OF GENERAL MCMULLEN AND, AND THOMPSON PLACE. WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT A HALF A MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 90. UM, UH, OVER, UH, NEAR, NEAR WHAT WAS, UH, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE. UM, UH, WHAT I MEANT BY THIS REQUEST IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. UM, THIS SIGN AS, AS, UH, KAYLA MENTIONED, HAS BEEN HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT WAS, UH, FIRST CONSTRUCTED IN THE LATE EIGHTIES, 1987 WHEN THIS STORE WAS BUILT. UM, THE STORE ITSELF HAS BEEN REDONE A COUPLE TIMES, BUT THE SIGN ITSELF HAS, HAS REMAINED THERE. UH, IT WAS DAMAGED, UH, IN SOME RECENT STORMS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. UH, AND WE ARE SEEKING TO REPLACE, UH, REALLY JUST THE SIGN FACE. AND SO, UH, THE SIGN CODE ALLOWS FOR NON-CONFORMING SIGNS, WHICH THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING SIGN. UH, IF, IF THIS WAS GOING UP NEW TODAY, UH, WE'D BE LIMITED TO 40 FEET, AND WE'RE, WE'RE HIGHER THAN THAT, AS YOU'VE HEARD. UM, THE, AGAIN, THE SIGN CODE ALLOWS US TO, UH, REPLACE THE SIGN FACE, UH, AND REMAIN AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING SIGN. AS LONG AS THE CABINET ISN'T MODIFIED, YOU KNOW, THE POLE DOESN'T CHANGE. NONE OF THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS ARE REPLACED, MODIFIED. UM, AND, AND REALLY I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS ENLARGED. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO, UH, ENLARGE THE SIGN, UH, OR REALLY TRY TO CONTINUE THE, UH, THE, THE LIFE OF WHAT IS A NON-CONFORMING SIGN, UH, HERE, THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE. UM, WE, WE COULD AVOID THE VARIANCE BY, UH, JUST REPLACING THAT SIGN FACE AND KEEPING THE CABINET, YOU KNOW, KEEPING ALL THE OTHER MATERIALS, UH, AND STAYING IN LINE WITH WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. UH, THE VARIANCE BEFORE YOU TODAY, UH, REALLY, UH, IS TO [00:35:01] ALLOW US TO REPLACE THE SIGN FACE WITH A SMALLER SIGN. UM, AND YOU SAW THE PICTURES THERE, AND I'LL, I'LL CYCLE THROUGH HERE IN, IN JUST A SECOND AND, UH, I'LL SHOW YOU THAT AGAIN. BUT REALLY, THE OLD SIGN, THE, THE 1987 SIGN THAT WENT UP WAS THE GOLDEN ARCHES, AND THEN A BIG RED BLOCK UNDERNEATH IT THAT SAYS MCDONALD'S. UH, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT TODAY, UH, UH, WITH YOUR SUPPORT IS, UH, REALLY A SMALLER, MORE EFFICIENT SIGN, UH, THAT, THAT MCDONALD'S HAS BEEN USING, UH, IN RECENT TIME. AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, JUST THE GOLDEN ARCHES WITH THE, UH, A SMALL RED STRIP. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A, A VARIANCE, UM, BEING SUPPORTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD TODAY, UH, WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SIGN FACE TO BE SMALLER. IT IT RESULT IN A SMALLER SIGN. UM, AGAIN, THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS, UH, WE JUST REPLACE IT WITH THE SAME SIZE AS THAT ORIGINAL OLDER SIGN. IT ISN'T, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE THIRD OPTION OF HAVING TO COME DOWN INTO COMPLIANCE IS, IS, IS NOT SOMETHING THE OPERATOR IS, IS WILLING TO DO AND, AND HONESTLY DOESN'T, DOESN'T NEED TO DO. UM, WHILE THAT SIGN IS STILL USEFUL, UH, FOR MANY REASONS BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT ADVERTISING ASPECT, BUT ALSO, AND YOU HEARD SOME OF THE NUMBERS FROM THAT, UM, UH, LAST PRESENTATION, THE, THE COST OF HAVING TO TAKE DOWN WHAT IS STILL A GOOD SIGN, UH, AND START FROM SCRATCH TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, UH, IS, IS, IS REALLY AN, AN EXTENSIVE COST. SO AGAIN, UH, REALLY OUR OPTIONS ARE REPLACE IT WITH THE SAME SIGN FACE, WHICH IS A LARGER SIGN, UH, OR, OR BE ABLE TO REPLACE IT, UH, PRETTY MUCH UNDER THOSE NON-CONFORMING USE REGULATIONS. UH, BUT ALLOW FOR A, A, AN ACTUAL SMALLER SIGN THAT THAT EVEN REDUCES THE HEIGHT JUST A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO MAYBE IF YOU CAN CYCLE THROUGH THESE REAL, REAL QUICK, UH, YOU, YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO PAST THAT. I THINK I, I, I THINK I REALLY COVERED, UM, MOST OF THAT. BUT HERE'S SOME PICTURES. HERE'S THE SIGN ITSELF. YOU SEE WHAT I'M, UH, TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE BIG, BIG RED PART DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM THAT I'M SURE ALL OF Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH. UM, YOU CAN GO THROUGH A FEW MORE OF THOSE. UH, THAT'S JUST A LITTLE ZOOMED IN, UH, AERIAL OF THE, UH, MCDONALD'S LOCATION. UM, UH, A COUPLE LITTLE THINGS TO ADD. UM, THE, KINDA THE REASON FOR THE SIGN HEIGHT ORIGINALLY AND, AND STILL TODAY WAS, UH, WE'RE ABOUT, LIKE I SAID, HALF A MILE FROM HIGHWAY 90. UM, UH, THE, THE SIGN WAS ORIGINALLY PUT AT THAT LEVEL AND IS STILL NEEDED AT THAT LEVEL TO BE ABLE TO PULL, PULL MOTORISTS AND, UH, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS FROM HIGHWAY 90. UM, KEEP, UH, HERE, HERE'S A VIEW, UH, FROM HIGHWAY 90, UH, FROM THE OFF RAMP, KIND OF FACING TOWARDS IT. YOU CAN SEE BARELY, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE SIGN JUST ABOVE THE TREE LINE. UH, YOU REALLY, REALLY GOTTA SEARCH THERE. UM, BUT IT, IT PEAKS OUT JUST ABOVE THE, UH, TREE LINE THERE. BE ABLE TO DRAW MOTORISTS. ALL RIGHT, NOW I'M GONNA, NOW NOW I GET TO USE THIS, UH, RIGHT, RIGHT THERE. AND IT, UM, I DUNNO IF Y'ALL HAVE THAT UP ON YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE THAN IT IS UP, UP THERE ON THE, UH, UH, ON THE BIG SCREEN. UH, HERE WE ARE, UM, LOOKING DOWN, GENERAL MCMULLEN. UM, THERE'S OUR SIGN RIGHT THERE, UM, KIND OF IN LINE WITH A LOT OF THESE OTHER SIGNS, UH, ON GENERAL MCMULLEN. UH, YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT IN BETWEEN THE, THE STOPLIGHT THERE. I THINK YOU, UH, HERE WE ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT, LITTLE BIT CLOSER UP. UM, AND, UH, A FEW MORE COMMENTS. THERE'S A, A REPEAT OF, UH, WHAT WENT OVER ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE SIGN HEIGHT. UH, A COUPLE OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECTS ARE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT, UH, GIVE US A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR GIVE THIS PROPERTY A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. YOU HAVE, UH, SEVERAL OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO, UH, REPLACE NOT JUST THE SIGNED FACE, BUT ALSO THE SIGNED CABINET. UH, AND I THINK THAT WAS, UH, UH, A COMBO OF, UH, PRIOR TO RECENT CHANGES, KIND OF ADDING TO THE MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS IN THE SIGN CODE. UH, BUT ALSO, EXCUSE ME, THERE'S A, UH, PROVISION IN THE SIGN CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR REPLACEMENT OF TRADEMARK SIGNS, UH, THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING. UH, AND THAT MEANS YOU CAN REPLACE THE CABINET, THE FACE, YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE THAN THE, THE NORMAL, UH, SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN. AND THAT IS IF THERE'S A, A TRADEMARK SIGN THAT IS CHANGING. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON OUR SITE HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO REPLACE IT WITH AN UPDATED MCDONALD'S SIGN. IF WHATABURGER CAME IN AND WANTED TO PUT THEIR SIGN UP, UTILIZING THOSE SAME PROVISIONS, UH, THEY'D GET TO REPLACE THE CABINET BECAUSE THEIR TRADEMARK IS, IS DIFFERENT THAN THE MCDONALD'S GOLDEN ARCH IS THERE. SO, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY IN A UNIQUE [00:40:01] POSITION HERE. UM, AND, AND REALLY, UH, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THOSE PROTECTIONS OF THE NON-CONFORMING SIGN REGULATIONS, UH, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, UH, BECAUSE IT'D RESULT IN A BIGGER, TALLER, LARGER SIGN, UH, GOING UP THERE WHEN THE SIGN FACES REPLACED. UH, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO CREATE A, UH, UH, REALLY A SMALLER, SMALLER SIGN, SLIGHTLY LOWER, UH, STILL UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS. UM, ONE OTHER THING, UH, THAT, THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO, TO MENTION IS DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM. UH, AND THAT IS, UH, WE, WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST, UH, SPOKEN TO A COUPLE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, AND, AND HAVE THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL. ONE OF 'EM, UH, UH, MAILED IN THEIR COMMENT, UH, IN SUPPORT. SO, UM, I GUESS, YEAH, MAYBE JUST SWITCHING TO THE NEXT ONE. SO THERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. UH, LITTLE, LITTLE FUZZY RENDERING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, BUT YOU SEE THE CURRENT, UH, SIGN. UH, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU SEE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT WITH. UM, LOOKING AT THAT LEFT HAND PICTURE AGAIN, UH, IF, IF, IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THAT THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD BE REPLACED WITH AGAIN. SO, UH, HOPEFULLY I'LL DO SEE THE BENEFIT OF, UH, ALLOWING FOR REALLY A SMALLER SIGN, MORE EFFICIENT SIGN, UM, WHILE STILL KEEPING IN LINE WITH THE SIGN CODE AND THE NON-CONFORMING USE PROVISIONS. SO, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. UH, REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME AND, AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST. OKAY. UH, IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, TAKE A SEAT FOR A SECOND. WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL TO, TO PLAY. YEAH. HI, THIS IS MARCO GAMBOA. I'M CALLING ABOUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE TWO ONE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1846 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, UH, TO PUT A 92, I'M GONNA TRY THAT AGAIN. IT JUST STOPPED. OKAY. YEAH. HI, THIS IS MARCO GAMBOA. I'M CALLING ABOUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, TWO ONE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1846 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, UH, TO PUT A 92 FOOT HIGH SIGN, 52 FEET ABOVE THE, UH, EXISTING ZONING. UH, WE HAVE THE PROPERTY BASICALLY ACROSS THE STREET, 1831 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN, UH, FORMERLY A WELL NED CLINIC. UH, WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT VARIANCE. UH, I THINK 40 FEET IS MORE THAN ENOUGH, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT, I GUESS IT WOULD BE SOME SORT OF BILLBOARD [00:45:01] OR WHAT WOULD BE 92 FEET TALL, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIT OF A NUISANCE AND, UH, UH, NOT CONDUCIVE TO EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AREA. UH, THANK YOU. MY NUMBER'S 2 1 0 4 1 4 5 0 4 4. UH, AGAIN, IT'S MARCO GAMBOA. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, MR. GRIFFIN. UH, SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, I HAVE A SMALL QUESTION. WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING A SIGN FROM HIGHWAY 90, YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE EXIT IN ORDER TO SEE THE, THE SIGN, DON'T YOU? UM, NO. I, I, I, I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT. UM, PRIOR TO THAT EXIT, WE, WE TOOK THAT, NO, YOU CAN'T, WHAT, WHAT I'M, PARDON ME. BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THE LAND IS FLAT, IT'S A THOUSAND FEET NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SIGN, YOU CAN SEE IT VERY CLEARLY. IT'S ABOVE ALL SIGNS. YOU CANNOT DISTINGUISH THE LABEL OR THE BRAND UNTIL YOU TURN ONTO THE STREET AND REALLY FACING THE SIGNS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WHEN I HAVE DRIVEN DOWN 90, I, I, I COULD SEE IT FROM, WELL, FROM 90, UH, WE, WE TOOK THAT PICTURE KIND OF ON THE EXIT JUST TO REALLY HAVE A BETTER PICTURE OF IT. THE, THE PICTURE DOESN'T, DOESN'T NECESSARILY DO THE SAME AS EVERYBODY'S EYES DO, I GUESS. DOES THAT, DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, NO, BUT THAT'S OKAY. SORRY. WELL, WELL, LET'S, UH, ARE YOU MAKING THE SIGN SMALLER IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OR HEIGHT? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN. UH, UH, BOTH. IT'S ACTUALLY, UH, SLIGHTLY LOWER, UM, AND SMALLER ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WELL. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND, AND, AND REAL QUICK, UH, ABOUT THE VOICEMAIL. WE, WE HAD NOT HEARD THAT UNTIL, UM, UNTIL JUST NOW. UH, I, I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THERE, UM, A ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND MAYBE THE FACT OF WE'RE REPLACING OR PROPOSING TO REPLACE EXISTING SIGN, UH, AND NOT PUTTING UP A NEW SIGN. SO WE'RE AT, UH, THE, THE CURRENT, AND THIS KIND OF, UH, GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION YOU JUST ASKED, SIR. UH, THE, THE CURRENT SIGN IS A LITTLE OVER 79 FEET TALL TO THE, TO THE TOP. UH, AND THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT, SHOULD THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED, IS ABOUT 75 FEET, UH, TALL AND NOT, NOT AT THE 92 THAT I THINK WAS MENTIONED ON THE, ON THE VOICEMAIL. OKAY. MANNA, MANNA. UM, SO, SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. SO ONE IS THAT THERE'S APPEARS TO BE A SECOND SIGN ON THAT PROPERTY, UH, TO INDICATE MCDONALD'S. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THAT SIGN IS THERE? UM, I, I, I DO NOT. SEAN, DO YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY 25? ABOUT 25 WITH THE, THE RECORDS OF THOSE SIGNS WERE SO OLD, IT WAS TOUGH TO, UH, FIND RECORDS OF WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY BUILT AT IN THE PERMIT SYSTEM. OKAY. AND SO, AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT, UH, IT APPEARS THAT THIS HAS MULTIPLE, UH, PEER OR TEARS TO THE SIGNAGE ITSELF. AND KIND OF GOING BACK TO AN EARLIER QUESTION TO REMOVE, UH, IS IT POSSIBLE TO REMOVE ONE OF THE TIER TO LOWER THE SIGN AND ACTUALLY PUT UP ON TOP OF IT? AND SO, SO, SO THE QUESTION REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRST PIER, THEN THE SECOND PIER? UM, YOU KNOW, SO, SO KIND OF UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, WHAT THAT WOULD IMPLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO WORK WITH, WHAT IS THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE? UM, YEAH. CAN YOU SWITCH TO THE AERIAL OR MAYBE THAT ONE OF THOSE EXHIBITS? UM, WELL, YEAH, WE, WE, WE CAN USE THIS ONE. UM, OH YEAH. SO I, I I'M NOT SURE, UH, WHAT THESE DIFFERENT TIERS ARE, UH, ON THE POLE. I THINK, UM, YEAH, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S, UH, MAYBE, MAYBE THREE, UH, THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED THERE, UH, IF IT WAS A COMPLETE SIGN REPLACEMENT, UM, THEY, THEY WOULD REPLACE THE ENTIRE POLE. I MEAN, IT REALLY WOULD BE STARTING OVER, UH, BECAUSE THAT POLE HAS BEEN THERE FOR, FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UM, BUT AGAIN, HERE IT STILL DOES HAVE SOME USEFUL LIFE LEFT IN IT. UH, AND, AND THEN WHEN IT DOESN'T BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT CONFORMS TO CITY CODE, UH, BUT HERE, REALLY THEY'RE, THE, THE OPTIONS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS, IS REPLACING IT WITH JUST REPLACING THE SIGN FACE WITH, UH, REALLY THE EXACT SAME YOU SEE HERE, OR, OR SOMETHING A LITTLE SMALLER. SO, UH, I KNOW I DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER YOUR, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION OTHER THAN SAY I, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, IT WOULD BE, UH, REALLY JUST FOCUSED ON THE SIGNED FACE, KIND OF THE SAME AS SAME AS THERE IS NOW, UH, OR THIS SMALLER, NEWER FACE WITH THE VARIANCE APPROVAL. UH, AND THEN AT THE END, UH, OF THE SIGNS USEFUL LIFE OVERALL, UH, THAT POLE WOULD COME DOWN AND, AND BE REPLACED WITH, UM, ENTIRELY NEW, NEW SYSTEM AND SET UP THERE, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT CODES. YEAH. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, AS I DRIVE DOWN THE GOOGLE [00:50:01] MAP, UM, UH, JOHN MCMULLEN THERE, YOU KNOW, EVERY SIGN IS BELOW THE, THE HIGH WIRE LINE. AND SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE HIGH WIRE LINE OF ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT, THAT COME UP TO THAT SPOT. SO, UM, DOES APPEAR TO BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HIGH RIGHT NOW. SO, YEAH. UH, UH, UNDERSTOOD. AGAIN, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT WILL BE A REMAIN A NON-CONFORMING SIGN, BUT WE'RE, WE, WE HOPE WITH THE VARIANCE APPROVAL THAT IT'LL BE ABLE TO GET, GET A LITTLE SMALLER AND A LITTLE LOWER, UH, FOR THE TIME BEING. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIGN, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE NOW, AND WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? COULD YOU SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC? WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU. SURE. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING SIGN AND THE ONE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? UH, YES. GOOD, GOOD QUESTION. UM, I'LL ACTUALLY LET SEAN ANSWER THAT. HE, HE, HE KNOWS IT BETTER. , SORRY, SEAN BORG. UM, SO THE, THE CURRENT, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE IS, IT IS, UH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 200 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR PER THE SIGN ORDINANCE, YOU DON'T INCLUDE THE, THE OPEN SPACE IN BETWEEN THE ARCHES. SO IT'S APPROXIMATELY 194 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN THE NEW SIGN FACE, UM, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE ABOUT 140. SO IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY 137.7 SQUARE FEET. SO, YOU KNOW, OVERALL REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET. I, I'M, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU, I, I APOLOGIZE. COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID WITH REGARDS TO UNDER THE ARCHES THING? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THE, THE SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, IT, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE SIGN SQUARE, THE OPEN SPACE UNDER THE OPEN SPACE, YES, SIR. OKAY. UNDER THE S IT'S NOT IN, IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN, IN A, IN A CALCULATION. SO, SO 60 FEET, 60 SQUARE FEET, SMALLER, UM, WITH THE NEW PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, SEAN. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, SO I NOTICED THAT, UH, YOU HAVE, UH, THREE FACE PRIMARY WIRES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET, AND WHEN I'M GOING DOWN, UH, ON A GOOGLE MAP VIEW, YOU KNOW, FOR SIGNS TO REALLY BE, UH, VIEWABLE, THEY EITHER NEED TO BE BELOW THAT OR THEY NEED TO BE ABOVE THAT. AND SO YOU'RE, WHEN THIS WAS BUILT, UM, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW DEVELOPED THE AREA WAS IN THE EIGHTIES? WAS IT PRETTY MUCH FULLY DEVELOPED OR WERE YOU ONE OF THE FIRST BUSINESSES THERE? 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE SIGN WAS A DECEIVE VIEW FROM THE HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING DOWN GENERAL MCMULLEN, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES IN QUESTION, YOU KNOW, GAS STATIONS AND, AND FOOD PLACES OR, AND FAST FOOD PLACES ARE DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, A LOCAL RETAIL CENTER THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA WANT TO CARE ABOUT FROM THE HIGHWAY. RIGHT. AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, LIKE BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, WERE YOU ONE OF THE FIRST BUSINESSES THERE? UH, AS I, EXCUSE ME, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN TRYING TO KIND OF LOOK AT HISTORICAL PHOTOS AND, AND TALKING TO THE OPERATOR, IT, IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, UH, RETAIL BUSINESSES THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO, UH, ATTRACT FOLKS FROM THE HIGHWAY. THE, THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, ARE PRETTY WELL ESTABLISHED, UH, IN THAT AREA. AND THERE WAS SOME COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, UH, KIND OF LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL TYPE, UH, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, UM, UH, IN THE AREA. BUT, UH, BUT THE MCDONALD'S WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES TO OKAY. KIND OF TRY TO PULL FOLKS FROM A, A LARGER AREA. OKAY. AND, AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I KNOW THAT WE HEARD A PRESENTATION WITH SOME, UH, TEXAS LAW CHANGES THAT ALLOW, UH, FINANCIAL TO COME IN IN SOME RESPECT. UH, WAS THAT PART OF ANY REVIEW OF THIS? OR AM I OFF ON THAT? YOU KNOW, HOW WE HAVE THE SIX, UH, ITEMS THAT WE USE, UH, BUT THERE WAS LIKE FIVE ADDITIONAL ONES, AND I COULD HAVE SWORN ONE OF 'EM WAS AN UNDUE, UH, FISCAL BURDEN. UH, YES. UH, WITH THE STATE LAW, THERE'S SOME ADDED, UM, FINDINGS OF FACT THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE, UH, WHEN LOOKING AT VARIANCES TO CODE AND, AND HOW, HOW, HOW DOES THE FINANCIAL ONE APPLY HERE? 'CAUSE WE HEARD ON THE PREVIOUS CASE IT WAS ABOUT 2000 A FOOT, WHICH WAS TESTIMONY FROM THIS APPLICANT THAT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR. SO I'M TRYING TO GET GAUGE IF THAT'S ONE OF THOSE, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER THEM THAT. THAT'S UP TO YOU. WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN OUR, UM, STAFF ANALYSIS. UH, 'CAUSE AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE UTILIZING IS, UM, THE INTENT OF THE ADOPTION, THE 2017 REWRITE OF THE SIGN CODE. OKAY. AND, UH, THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING NON-CONFORMING INTO COMPLIANCE EVENTUALLY. OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY, YOU MENTIONED ABOUT TRADEMARKS, UH, BECAUSE IT'S THE GOLDEN ARCHES IN YOUR MAINTAINING THE GOLDEN ARCHES. HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT EXEMPTION APPLY? UH, IT, IT DOES NOT. I, I'VE MENTIONED IT, UM, KIND OF COMPARING IT TO OTHER PROPERTIES, UM, BECAUSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, UM, REPLACE THE CABINET AS WELL AS THE SIGN FACE, UH, IF IT WAS A TRADEMARK SIGN. UM, AND, AND AGAIN, KIND OF KIND OF USING JUST OUR PROPERTY AS THE EXAMPLE, IF A COMPETITOR, [00:55:01] IF MCDONALD'S MOVED OUT, LEFT THEIR SIGN AND A COMPETITOR CAME IN, THEY WOULD GET TO REPLACE KIND OF THE FULL SIGN COMPONENTS, CABINET FACE AND EVERYTHING. UM, YOU KNOW, TO PUT UP AGAIN, A, A WATER BURGER OR BURGER KING SIGN, UH, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T USE THE, THE MCDONALD'S GOLDEN ARCHES THERE. UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS, UH, COST, AND, AND YOU BRING UP A GREAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION, UH, WAS A, WAS WAS A NO-NO BEFORE Y'ALL FOR, FOR SO MANY YEARS. UM, AND, AND HERE, YOU KNOW, NOW AT THE, UH, RECENT CHANGES AT THE LEGISLATURE, IT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN EVERY VARIANCE, UH, FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS COME INTO PLAY HERE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY A EIGHT TO $10,000 DIFFERENCE TO USE THE SIGN THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT A VARIANCE AND KEEP THAT SAME SIGN HEIGHT. UH, IT'D BE ABOUT EIGHT TO $10,000 MORE JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE THOSE SIGNS ANYMORE. BUT THEY CAN CUSTOM MAKE 'EM IN THAT REGARD. I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FALLING IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THE SIGN CODE AND EVEN THE NON-CONFORMING PROVISIONS, UH, IS THAT THIS REALLY DOESN'T EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE SIGN. AND IT ALLOWS FOR A SMALLER SIGN HERE, UM, AS KIND OF A THIRD OPTION. IF WE WERE COMPLETELY TAKING DOWN THIS SIGN AND, AND STARTING OVER OR DOING SOME MAJOR, UH, UH, CHANGES TO THE POLL ITSELF, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT ABOUT $80,000 OR SO. OKAY. AND I THINK THE TEST, UH, IS 50% FOR US FOR THAT, BUT, ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. IF THERE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER MANON. SO THIS QUESTION'S FOR THE CITY STAFF. UM, SO, SO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, ON THE POLL THERE ITSELF, DID WE TAKE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF THE EXISTING SIGN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH OF THOSE PYLON HEIGHTS ARE? UM, SO ARE THERE ANY DETAILS, YOU KNOW, MORE DETAILS THAN, THAN WHAT THE, THE APPLICANT HAD AS FAR AS THE HEIGHTS OF EACH OF THOSE PYLONS? SO, SO IT'S ON, IT'S A FOURIER PYLON, UM, FROM THE PICTURE HERE, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHTS ARE OF EACH OF THOSE PYLONS? UM, AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS IF I WAS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A LOWER HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, THOSE PYLON HEIGHTS KIND OF HELP A LITTLE BIT TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, SO STOP IT OFF. PYLON HEIGHT, OTHER SURROUNDING AREA SIGNS? NO, I, I AND THEN, AND THE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, I WENT THROUGH GOOGLE MAPS ON 2007 AND BASICALLY ALL THE EXISTING STORES WERE THERE WITH THE LOWER SIGNS. SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT ANY OF THOSE SIGNS CHANGE HEIGHTS. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO, SO I, YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE HERE A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE IF, IF I WAS GONNA WORK ON A HEIGHT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, THE EXISTING HEIGHTS OF THE POLES ARE. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I'M STRUGGLING A BIT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MR. MR. RODRIGUEZ, UH, NAME, I'M SORRY. EDWARD RODRIGUEZ, CITY, SAN CASE, ANTONIO SENIOR SIGN INSPECTOR, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SOME, SOME OF THE OTHER SIGNS THAT THEY HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEY'RE ABOUT 40 AT TWO 40. COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHICH ONES THEY ARE, BUT I DID RESEARCH A FEW OF 'EM, AND I, AND I, IT WAS PROBABLY SOME TIME BACK POINT THAN SIX MONTHS AGO THAT I RESEARCHED THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND CHAKA, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, AND THEN BRAGMAN. IS THERE A TREND NOW FOR CONFORMANCE, OTHER SIGNS ALONG THAT AREA? ANY NEW SIGN COMING UP IS, UM, THAT WE FOLLOW THE CODE NOW AND, YOU KNOW, PUT 'EM IN TWO, I'M TALKING ABOUT EXISTING SIGNS, OLD ONES. IF JUST LIKE THIS ONE, WE WOULD BRING IT INTO CODE, BRING IT INTO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, THIS IS FOR STAFF AS WELL. IS THERE ANY LENGTH OF TIME THAT THAT GRANDFATHER IS GOOD FOR, OR IS IT IN PERPETUITY UNTIL THE SIGN FALLS APART OR A REQUEST TO REPLACE IT UNTIL THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING? THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING. THEY RETAIN THEIR NON-CONFORMING STATUS FOR THE LIFE OF THE SIGN. AND, UM, THEY CAN REFACE THEM ALL THEY WANT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO TAKING THE CABINETS DOWN AND REPLACING THEM, THEN THEY'VE EXCEEDED THEIR LIFE AND THEY MUST COME INTO THE, INTO THE CODE. I, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? I DID QUITE UNDERSTAND. SO, SO THEY GET ONE TIME TO REPLACE A CABINET? NO, NO. THEY CAN REFACE THEM ALL, ALL THEY WANT. THEY CAN REPHRASE 'EM EVERY YEAR, EVERY OTHER YEAR, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THEY NEED TO BE. JUST THE FACE THOUGH. JUST THE FACE. JUST FACE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR US TODAY, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL STILL BE ABLE TO REFACE THE, THE, THE, THE SIGN AND THAT WILL BE THE STATUS QUO UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN DETERIORATES YEARS FROM NOW. IF WE ALLOW THE VARIANCE TO GO FORWARD, THEN WE'RE REDUCING THE SIGN FA SIGNED PHASE. SO IF THAT'S OUR CONCERN ABOUT CLUTTER ALONG JOHN MCMULLEN, THEN WE CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 60 SQUARE FEET. AND IF WE DENY IT, THEN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD STILL EXIST. THAT CURRENT SITUATION, UH, WOULD STILL EXIST. SO IT'S KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN HERE AND HOW DO WE ADDRESS IT? OKAY. SO WITH THAT, UH, I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN, UH, GIVE THE APPLICANT A COUPLE MINUTES JUST FOR A QUICK REBUTTAL BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. UH, WELL, WELL THANK YOU. AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL JUST END WITH, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER UNA'S COMMENT, UM, KIND OF RE REITERATING THAT. YEAH, WE'RE, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE SIGN AT, AT ITS CURRENT, YOU KNOW, [01:00:01] HEIGHT, UM, OR, OR CLOSE TO I SHOULD SAY, UH, KIND OF REGARDLESS WHAT, UH, UM, WHAT YOU'VE HEARD WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, PURSUANT TO THE SIGN CODE, WE CAN REPLACE THE SIGN, UM, KEEPING THE POLE INTACT, KEEPING THE CABINET INTACT, WE WOULD JUST REPLACE THE SIGNED FACE AND IT WOULD STAY AT THAT, UH, 79 FEET, UM, AND THE LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE. UM, BUT WITH A VARIANCE, UH, TODAY, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DROP THAT OVERALL HEIGHT DOWN BY FOUR FEET, UH, AND REDUCE THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 60 SQUARE FEET. UH, KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE, UH, WITH THE SIGN REGULATIONS WILL COME IN IN THE FUTURE AS THE, UH, OTHER COMPONENTS OF THAT THAT SIGN AGES. SO, UH, REALLY FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE MEETING THE INTENT HERE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, UM, ADMITTEDLY WE'RE NOT, NOT BRINGING IT DOWN IN, IN HEIGHT TO WHAT THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWS, UH, BUT UH, APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR HEIGHT TO BE REDUCED, WILL ALLOW FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE REDUCED, UH, REALLY WILL ALLOW FOR A, A MORE EFFICIENT SIGN. AND, UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN THAT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SUPPORTIVE AS WELL. IT WAS JUST, UH, TO END WITH THAT. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, WITH THAT IS THERE COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE. OZUNA COMMISSIONER UNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 0 28. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 35 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE 75 FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 1846 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN, APPLICANT BEING, UH, SEAN BORG. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT, THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING TOMOGRAPHY, OR TWO, A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL 35 FEET IN HEIGHT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE SURROUNDING, UH, COMMERCIAL AREA. IT ALSO PRESERVES THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN, AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL BE IN DECREASED DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THREE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN SUB PARAGRAPHS ONE AND TWO, THE BOARD FINDS THAT A GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT'S SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS. SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL NOT BLOCK ANY EXISTING BUSINESS AS IT EXISTS AS IT IS EXISTING. AND THERE ARE SIMILAR SIGNS WITHIN THE AREA. B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE. THE REQUEST TO SIGN HIGH VARIANCE WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. I'LL GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER THI UH, COMMISSIONER ZU, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. RIGHT. I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, UH, VARIANCE. UH, GIVEN THAT I BELIEVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE TRADE OFF HERE IS THAT WE CAN, UH, GET A, A LOWER SIGN WITH LOWER SQUARE FOOTAGE TO REDUCE THE CLUTTER OF GENERAL MULLIN, UH, VERSUS THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN AND THE EXIST EXISTING STATUS QUO. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, IT WOULD RE HAS, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE SAW NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORING, UM, WITH, FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S ASSOCIATION. AND I THINK THEY, UH, THE APPLICANT, THE NEIGHBOR THAT DID VOICE IN, UM, IT DID, DID NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE IF HE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE, THE VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER THIEL, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE AGAIN. WE ARE, UH, THERE IS A REDUCTION IN BOTH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE OVERALL HEIGHT. UH, THE SIGN HAS EXISTED WITHOUT ISSUE FOR YEARS, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. UH, THEREFORE I WILL BE AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER MANCHACA. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, DO WE NEED TO STATE SPECIFIC THE REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE TO WHAT? SO WE KNOW AS WE'RE REDUCING THE HEIGHT, WHAT IS THE REDUCTION TO SQUARE FOOTAGE? UH, MR. GRIFFIN, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE IS FOR? WE ASK. I THINK IT WAS 60 FEET. UH, YEAH, SO OUR, OUR NEW, UM, OUR, OUR NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE, YES, IT'S 60 FEET. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET. SO, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY, UH, TO ADD TO THE, UM, THE VARIANCE TO INCLUDE THE REDUCTION OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE FACE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN. OKAY. UH, ANYONE ELSE? [01:05:01] UH, THIEL, UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL, DO YOU AGREE WITH? THAT'S FINE. ACCEPTED. IT'S ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER THIEL. COMMISSIONER ANO. SO, UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING. UM, YOU KNOW, AND SO I WISH I KNEW THE HEIGHTS OF THAT OTHER POLE. UM, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT IS ABOVE THE, THE, THE EXISTING LIMIT. AND IF WE PUT THE SIGN ON TOP OF THAT, IT WOULD STILL BE ABOVE ALL THE EXISTING ADDRESSES. UM, AND ACTUALLY, I, I DIDN'T CARE TO SEE FROM THE HIGHWAY, THE SIGN BY ITSELF AND THE ENTIRE HORIZON. IT WAS THE ONLY SIGN THERE. AND SO I WAS, THAT WASN'T A GOOD PICTURE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND THE WHOLE NOTION ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINANCE IS THAT, UH, THERE ARE LOTS OF CITIES THAT HAVE SIGN ORDINANCES THAT ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL, UH, THAT ARE EVEN MORE RESTRICTED THAN SAN ANTONIO. AND SO, SO I DON'T AGREE WITH THE, UM, NUMBER TWO DENIAL WOULD, UH, CAUSE A CESSATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT IS A WELL-KNOWN BUSINESS AND I FRE FREQUENTLY VISIT THEM, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. UM, SO, SO, SO YEAH, I, I GUESS I'M JUST, YEAH, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE WOULD LOWER IT TO THAT ONE POLL, UH, WHATEVER HEIGHT THAT WOULD BE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALBERT? COMMISSIONER ALBERT? YEAH, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. UM, AS IT IS NOW, EVENTUALLY THE SIGN WILL HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE, THE NEW CODE. UH, WITH THE VARIANCE, UH, THE BUSINESS, WE WILL KEEP THE, THE NEW HEIGHT AS LONG AS THEY ARE THE SAME BUSINESS. SO WE'RE BASICALLY GIVEN A PERMANENT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT, UH, WHEREAS THROUGH ATTRITION, WE CAN MEET THE CODE. UH, STAFF CLARIFICATION, I KNOW THAT WHEN VARIANCES ARE GIVEN, IT USUALLY TIED TO THE PROPERTY FOREVER. IS THAT GOES TRUE FOR A SIGNED EXCEPTION? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? BRAMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER, UM, ALBERT, UM, FOR THE VERY SAME REASON. I FEEL LIKE AT SOME POINT THIS SIGN IS GONNA HAVE TO BE REPLACED, AND SO IT'LL BE BROUGHT INTO, UM, CONFORMING. SO I'M, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF IT EITHER. OKAY. UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CHIME IN. I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, AND THE REASONING IS, IS THAT LOOKING ON STREET VIEW, YOU SIGN NEEDS TO EITHER BE UNDER THE THREE PHASE ELECTRIC OR ABOVE. AND, YOU KNOW, SINCE PRIOR TO 2017, WHICH WASN'T THAT LONG AGO, ALL THE ABUTTING, UH, UH, BUSINESS OWNERS CHOSE TO PUT IT BELOW THE, UH, THE ELECTRIC LINES WHEN THEY COULD HAVE EASILY GONE HIGHER. AND I THINK MCDONALD'S DID SO BECAUSE THEY, THEY WANTED THAT SORT OF PRESENCE FROM, FROM THE HIGHWAY BASED ON THE NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS. AND WITH THEIR, THIS, THIS NEW, UM, CHARGE BY UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. WE CAN TAKE IN FINANCIAL ISSUES. I I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THAT AS WELL. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT WITH THAT STAFF. PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. OZ. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF MS. INGLES. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO THREE. UM, MR. GRIFFIN, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF THOUGH, MANNA? UH, YES, SIR. SO, SO I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT OF THAT, THAT ONE PYLON, YOU KNOW, OTHER ONE HEIGHT. AND SO, SO I'D BE WILLING TO OFFER VARIANCE UP TO THAT ONE PYLON HEIGHT. SO AT LEAST THEY HAVE A, AT LEAST A STARTING POINT. AND I THINK THAT DOES LOWER AND PUTS IT ABOVE THE, THE LINES PER YOUR, PER YOUR POINT ABOVE THOSE LINES. AND IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE 40 FEET IS OR THE CLOSEST POLE TO THAT 40 FOOT. SO I THINK YOU, I'D BE COMFORTABLE BRINGING IT DOWN TO THAT HEIGHT. RIGHT. AND SO IF, IF, UH, WITH THAT, UH, IF THERE'S, UH, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, BRING THIS BACK, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UH, THERE'S THREE, THREE WHO, UH, WERE IN DENIAL, UH, TEAL COMMISSIONER THIEL, THIS MIGHT NOT BE WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS AT THE, WITH THE FAIL OF THIS MOTION, THEY CAN KEEP THE HEIGHT AS, AS IS RIGHT NOW. SO WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO LOWER IT? UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BE, UH, OPEN TO ACCEPTING ANY SORT OF A MIDWAY POINT ON THIS OR, OR, OR NOT? MR. CHA, UH, I'M SORRY. I WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO SET THE LOWER LIMIT TO WHAT THE SIGN IS GONNA BE PROPOSED TO, WHICH IS A LOWER LIMIT THAN, THAN WHAT THE VARIANCE OKAY. REQUEST IS. IF WE COULD USE THAT AS A, AS, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR LOWER LIMIT? HOW MUCH IS IT DROPPING? UM, THE, THE SIGN AS PROPOSED WOULD BE AT, UH, 75 FEET. AND CURRENTLY IT'S WHAT, AND CURRENTLY IT'S A, A LITTLE OVER 79. OKAY. SO IT IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING, [01:10:01] PREVAILING SIDE WILLING TO, UM, THE MOTION WAS THAT IT'S AT 75. THE MOTION, THE MOTION WAS AT 75. OKAY. SO I, I, AND, AND I GUESS I WILL SAY TO, TO, UH, MR. TEAL'S POINT, UM, WE, WE, WE WOULD, WE WOULD CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN IT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN TAKE BACK TO, TO THE CLIENT IN, IN THIS SITUATION. YEAH. THEY'D STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO REPLACE THE SIGN FACE WITH RIGHT. WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY OR APPEAL IT TO CITY COUNCIL. UH, BUT, BUT THEY MAY, THEY MAY CHOOSE TO SAY, WE'LL, WE'LL USE THE SMALLER SIGN, THE NEWER SIGN AT THAT REDUCED LEVEL, UM, AND YOU CAN ALSO APPEAL IT TO CITY COUNCIL IF YOU SO TO SIGN, SO, CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IF, IF, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NO ONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, I'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. SORRY, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WAS SAYING, YEAH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD TAKE THAT OPTION JUST SO WE CAN TAKE IT BACK TO CONSIDER THE, THE TWO OPTIONS OF THE SLIGHTLY LOWER YEAH. THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE A, MADE A RENDERING ON ONE. WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO, CAN WE VOTE TO RECONSIDER AT A FUTURE MEETING OR DO WE HAVE TO DO IT? NO. OKAY. YOU'D HAVE TO DO IT HERE IF YOU'RE GONNA RECONSIDER. UM, IF IT'S COMING BACK TO A FUTURE MEETING HAS TO BE ADVERTISED AND NOTIFIED. OKAY. SO THE PREVAILING SIDE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY WILLING TO RECONSIDER IT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE. SO IS THERE SOMETHING MOTION TO RECONSIDER THEN? SO IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER ALBERT BRAGMAN, OR WHO WAS THE THIRD MANNA OR MANNA OR MANNA WHO, YES. OR ME. RIGHT. OR YOU. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. UM, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, GOING FOR THAT PILLAR, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PILLAR IS. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE HEIGHTS OF THE 40 FOOT, AND I COULD SEE ABOVE THE 40 YARDS. SO YOUR SIGN ABOVE AT THE 40 FOOT LINE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AND SO, SO I WOULD SAY, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, THAT THE, THAT THE, THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE POST AT 40 FOOT IS WHAT I WOULD SAY. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST. OKAY. WELL, I SAID THAT FIRST. MOTION TO RECONSIDER, PLEASE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MINKA, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. MANNA? YES. MR. MINKA? YES. MS. INGLES? YES. MR. ALBERT? YES. MR. VASQUEZ? YES. MS. CRUZ? YES. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MR. DELMER? YES. MR. TEAL? YES. MR. OZUNA? YES. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. UH, MOTION PASSES. SO WE CAN NOW RECONSIDER THIS CASE. UM, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH A MOTION FOR, UM, A NEW HEIGHT MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, REGARDING CASE BO EIGHT, UH, UH, UM, 1 28, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A, UM, LET'S SEE. WHAT WAS THE HEIGHT OF YOUR TOTAL SIGN OF MCDONALD'S OR THE, THE LOGO ITSELF WAS 15 FOOT, IS THAT CORRECT? OH, YES, SIR. SO 15 FOOT. SO, UM, SO A, UH, UH, 55 SIGN HEIGHTS MAXIMUM, UH, TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE, UM, UH, 55 FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 1 8 4 6, UH, SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN, APPLICANT B AND SCHOMBURG, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US, UM, 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 UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON A SITE, CONSTRAIN THE FEATURES OF THE SITE, SUCH AS, AS DIMENSIONS, LAND ESCAPING OR TOPOGRAPHY, OR TWO, A DENIAL OF THE PROPERTY WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, 15 FOOT IN HEIGHT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL AREA. IT ALSO PRESERVES THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN. UH, PARTS OF THE NON-CONFORMING SIGN AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL BE DECREASED. A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY, UH, CAUSE A CESSATION OF COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THREE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN SUB PARAGRAPHS ONE AND TWO, THE BOARD FINDS OUT, UM, AIDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE, DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILAR SITUATED, POTENTIALLY SIMILAR, UH, OR POTENTIALLY SITUATED. THE BOARD FINDS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL NOT BLOCK ANY EXISTING BUSINESSES, OR IT IS EXISTING AND THERE ARE SIMILAR SIGNS WITHIN THE AREA. B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. C GRANTING THE VARIANCE [01:15:01] WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. THE REQUESTED SIGN, HEINZ VARIANCE WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SO, COMMISSIONER MANDA, ANY? SO, SO THE, SO MY GOAL HERE IS, IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, ONE IS TO LOWER IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT DOES BRING IT MUCH MORE INTO COMPLIANCE. IT USES THE EXISTING POLL THAT IS THERE AND BASICALLY JUST, UH, REMOVES THAT, UH, WE'LL SAY THAT TOP, THAT TOP TIER SECTION. SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO, YOU REU UTILIZE THE MAJORITY OF THE POLLS. SO I THINK IT PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A, A NICE COMPROMISE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. UH, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, I DO THIS GI I BELIEVE THIS GIVES YOU THE MOST OPTIONS. UH, YOU CAN CURRENTLY REPLACE THE FACE OR YOU COULD MAKE IT SMALLER, A LITTLE TALLER, UH, THAN THE CURRENT, UH, CODE ALLOWS OR YOU COULD STILL APPEAL IT SO YOU HAVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF OPTIONS. UH, SO WITH THAT, I'M IN FAVOR. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? SURE. I'D JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM WITH THE CITY THAT, THAT HE DOES HAVE THOSE OPTIONS AND THAT ONE OF THE OPTIONS STILL ON THE TABLE IS FOR HIM TO REFACE THE EXISTING SIGN AND KEEP THE HEIGHT AS EXISTS TODAY. IS THAT STILL AN OPTION IF THIS VARIANCE IS, IS, UH, PASSED? YES, THAT'S STILL AN OPTION. THANK YOU. UH, I WILL, UH, WITH THAT ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. INGLES. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ALUNA. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU'ALL. UH, NEXT CASE, PLEASE. OKAY. UH, AGENDA [4. BOA2110300137: A request by Mary Ellen Hardee for an appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s approval of front yard fencing to not exceed four (4) feet in height, located at 1123, 1127, and 1129 North Hackberry Street. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 2) (Edward Hall, Sr. Historic Preservation Specialist (210) 2074680, edward.hall@sanantonio.gov, Office of Historic Preservation; Kayla Leal, Principal Planner (210) 2070197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, IS CASE BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. UM, I'M GONNA QUICKLY GO OVER THE, UM, RESPONSES THAT WE RECEIVED, AND THEN I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. SO, UH, STAFF DID MAIL 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE RECEIVED EIGHT IN FAVOR. UM, NONE IN OPPOSITION. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE DINU HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND WE DID, I DID RECEIVE ONE ADDITIONAL IN FAVOR, UM, THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET. UH, ONE SECOND. UH, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, ADAMS IS LEAVING THE ROOM FOR RECUSAL PURPOSES ON THIS CASE. ALBERT, UH, ALBERT, UH, AND THAT IS, UH, 2:25 PM THANK YOU. UH, SO AT THIS POINT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, EDWARD HALL, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1901 SOUTH ALAMO. UH, THANK YOU. UH, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS IS, UH, THIS REQUEST IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S, UH, APPROVAL OF FRONT YARD FENCING NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. UH, CASE HISTORY. THIS CASE WAS REVIEWED AT THE AUGUST 18TH, 2021 HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION HEARING, AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AT THAT TIME WAS INSTALL FRONT YARD FENCING AT 11 23, 11 27, AND 1129 NORTH HACKBERRY. THAT REQUEST WAS APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT FENCING NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. AT THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS TO INSTALL SIX FEET OR FENCING TO, TO BE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. APPLICABLE CITATIONS INCLUDE, UH, THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, CHAPTER FIVE, GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS, NEW FENCES AND WALLS. AND THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, I'LL BRIEFLY GO OVER THESE FINDINGS. THERE'S JUST THREE, UH, REQUESTS TO INSTALL FRONT YARD FENCING AROUND THE LOT AT 11 23, 11 27, AND 1129. NORTH HACKBERRY STREET WAS REVIEWED BY THE H D R C ON AUG AUGUST THE 18TH, 2021. AT THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST INCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF A WR IRON FENCE TO FEATURE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. THE GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS TWO BE ONENOTE THAT FENCES AND WALLS SHOULD APPEAR SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEIR SIZE, TRANSPARENCY, AND CHARACTER. THAT FENCES SHOULD BE INSTALLED WHERE APPROPRIATE, HISTORICALLY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. O H P STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCING NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THIS REQUIREMENT IS BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE AREA, WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL. THE UNDERLYING [01:20:01] ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED. THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVED THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING WITH THE STIPULATION THAT FENCING NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. O H P STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, IS STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S APPROVAL OF FRONT YARD FENCING THAT DOES NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT. UH, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN TAKE THOSE NOW. OKAY. UH, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE, UH, APPLICANT PLEASE. AND, AND BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES UP, IS THERE ANY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, MA'AM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES. MY NAME IS MARY ELLEN HARDY, AND I LIVE AT 3 26 SHERMAN STREET. AND, UM, SO THE CITY HAS LEFT OUT SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THIS CASE. IN 2013, I WENT BEFORE THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD, UM, AND GOT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE THAT GOES AROUND. THESE THREE LOTS ARE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEY'RE NOT RESIDENTIAL. UM, AND AT THE TIME, THE SAME HISTORICAL GUIDELINES WERE IN PLACE. AND IN 2013, I WAS GIVEN APPROVAL FOR THE SIX FOOT FENCE. UM, I ACTUALLY HAD STARTED THE FENCE IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY IN THE 3 26 SHERMAN, AND I WAS JUST CONTINUING IT AROUND, AROUND THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. UM, AND SO IT'S ALREADY STARTED AND THE, ACCORDING TO THE CITY STATUTES, ONCE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS GIVEN, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WITHDRAW IT UNLESS I MAKE CHANGES TO MY DESIGN, WHICH I DID NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO MY DESIGN. WHEN I WENT FOR THE PERMIT TO BUILD A FENCE, THEY SAID I NEEDED TO GO BACK BEFORE THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD. UM, THE FOUR FOOT VARIANCE WAS ACTUALLY CITYWIDE AT THAT TIME. IT WASN'T JUST FOR HISTORICAL, UM, SITES. UM, BUT THE CITY HAS NOW CHANGED THEIR FENCING POLICY, AND IF YOU'RE NOT IN A HISTORICAL DISTRICT, YOU CAN HAVE A FIVE FOOT FENCE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. UM, MY, THE FENCE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE IS FOUR FOOT, BUT THIS FENCE IS GOING AROUND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT RESIDENTIAL. UM, ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT I TALKED TO THAT ACTUALLY LIVE THERE WERE IN FAVOR OF IT. AND I THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD BE HONORED BY THE CITY, UM, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CHANGE. WHY, WHY DID THE CITY GET TO CHANGE THEIR MIND WHEN NOTHING REALLY CHANGED? THE, THE ORDINANCES ARE THE SAME AS THEY WERE IN 2013 WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN THIS, GIVEN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SINCE WE HAVE NO, UH, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND NOTHING TO READ INTO THE RECORD VOICEMAILS OR ANYTHING? NO, NOTHING. OKAY. WELL, WHILE YOU'RE UP THERE, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER THIEL DEAL? YES. IT APPEARS THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, UH, THE ELECTRICAL COMPANY HAS A SIMILAR WR IRON FENCE THAT APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST SIX FEET TALL. IT'S ACTUALLY EIGHT FOOT TALL. THANK YOU. THAT'S TALL. AND, UM, THE EVERY HOUSE ON, ON SHERMAN STREET, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SIX FOOT FENCES, BUT I ONLY HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE. OKAY. AND THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF BURLESON AND HACKBERRY IS ALSO A SIX FOOT FENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? GRANTED THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER HOUSE ON THE STREET, BUT, BUT IT DOES HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE. YES. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER CHAKA, JUST A SMALL ONE. UH, WHY SIX FEET? SO IT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO, MY GOAL IN THE FUTURE IS TO BUILD A URBAN FARM, BUT CURRENTLY, IF I WERE TO DO THAT IN THAT AREA, UM, I WOULDN'T GET TO KEEP ANY OF MY STUFF. IT WOULD DISAPPEAR BECAUSE THE AREA IS, UM, MORE OR LESS CRIME RIDDEN. THERE'S A LOT OF HOMELESS IN THE AREA. WE GET THINGS STOLEN ALL THE TIME. AND SO PUTTING UP A FOUR FOOT FENCE WOULD DO BE NO GOOD. OKAY. I SEE. WHETHER THERE, LIKE, UH, THE CHRIS AND I ASKED, AND THANK YOU FOR FILLING ME ON ON THAT. I WAS CONCERNED IF THERE WERE DOGS ALSO WOULD JUMPING THE FENCE, SO COULD JUMP THE FENCE. THEY ACTUALLY COULD JUMP THE FENCE. BUT I HAVE A WIRELESS COLLAR, SO BECAUSE I THEY CAN JUMP THE FOUR FOOT FENCE. THANK YOU. SO WE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM. OKAY. WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED MM-HMM. THAT YOU LIVED OFF OF. SHERMAN. ARE YOU THE HOMEOWNER THAT'S DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY? YES. OKAY. UH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, [01:25:01] I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE HISTORIC OFFICER, PLEASE. THANK YOU. UM, SO THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT SHE HAD GOT A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS SOME YEARS AGO. IS THAT TRUE OR CAN YOU PLEASE TALK THAT IS, UH, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS OR VALID FOR 180 DAYS. SO, UH, VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO A PERMIT THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WOULD ISSUE. UM, AS STAFF MENTIONED, FOUR FEET IS WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE GUIDELINES. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOUR FEET IS BASED OFF OF RECENT APPROVALS AND THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, UH, IN REGARDS TO FRONT YARD FENCING, NOT EXCEEDING FOUR HEIGHTS. OKAY. UM, IF, UM, WAS THERE ANY, DID YOU RECALL ANY REASONING AS TO WHY IT WAS APPROVED A LONG TIME AGO? WAS THERE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAYBE AREN'T PRESENT TODAY OR, OR THAT THEY, OR THEY'RE JUST NOT BEING CONSIDERED AS? I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT, THAT WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO. I WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY AT THAT TIME. OKAY. , THANK YOU. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY AS WELL. SO, SO, UH, DIG HILL ALSO IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IS IN FAVOR OF THIS. AND SO DID THEY HAVE A ROLE IN, WITH REGARDS TO THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND OR ONGOING DIALOGUES WITH REGARDS TO, UM, UM, WE'LL SAY VARIANCES, UH, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE REGARDING HISTORICAL DISTRICTS? SO FROM A PLAY ROLE, FROM, FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT, I CAN'T RECALL IF WE RECEIVED COMMENTS, UH, FROM AN OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE HEARING. UH, WE DO RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT SUBMIT COMMENTS AS A GROUP. UM, I, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHETHER THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OR, OR, OR NOT. UM, BUT I DON'T RECALL IF WE RECEIVED AN ACTUAL OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENT FOR THAT HEARING. BUT IF THEY WERE IN FAVOR, WOULD, WOULD THAT, UH, PROVIDE FEEDBACK OR INPUT, UH, POTENTIALLY ON YOUR POSITION? I, WITH REGARDS, STAFF CONSISTENTLY RECOMMENDS WHAT THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT STAFF STANDS ON. UM, AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY STAFF PRODUCED THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DID. AND, UH, QUICKLY FOR STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP THE ZONING MAP FOR THIS AREA? PLEASE TAKE A QUICK ZOOM BACK. THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STARTS AT SHERMAN. IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN. AND THE AREA PREDOMINANTLY, PRETTY MUCH PREDOMINANTLY ABOVE IT IS ALL INDUSTRIAL WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES IN PLACE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICTS NORTH BOUNDARY IS THE CENTER LINE OF SHERMAN STREET. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UM, HEARING NONE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A, UH, ACTUALLY I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A, UH, TWO MINUTES TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE WE CONSIDER YOUR CASE. UM, YES, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT HIM, UM, THE CITY PERSON STATING THAT YOU HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR YOUR PERMIT, EVERY 180 DAYS IS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE CITY, UM, I DUNNO WHAT IT'S CALLED, BUT IT'S SECTION 35 2 H. IT STATES THAT IF YOU HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND PULLED THE PERMIT WITHIN 180 DAYS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO REAPPLY. IF YOU DON'T OR YOU CHANGE ANY OF YOUR DESIGNS, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO REAPPLY TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING YOU HAVE CHANGED IS, UM, CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. OKAY. UH, BEFORE I LET YOU CONTINUE STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, DISCUSS IT FROM WHAT I RECOLLECT THAT ONCE YOU, UH, UM, RECEIVE A PERMIT, IT HAS A SIX MONTH LIFE AND IT, AND IT DIES FROM DORMANCY AFTER SIX MONTHS UNLESS YOU REAPPLY. IS THAT HOW THIS WOULD THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT, THAT'S FOR OFFENSE OR, OR I MEAN, THAT'S FOR A NORMAL PERMIT. THIS SPECIFICALLY TALKS TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE 180 DAYS FROM THE TIME OF BEING ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PULL A PERMIT. AND DID YOU PULL A PERMIT? YES, I DID. I, I, I PULLED THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. UM, THE FIRST SECTION WE DID. OKAY. SO WE PULLED THE PERMIT WITHIN 180 DAYS AND THEN, UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YES, IF I DIDN'T BUILD THE FENCE WITHIN 180 DAYS AND I HAVE TO RE-PULL THAT CON CONTINUOUSLY. OKAY. BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT. CONTINUE. YOU JUST BE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE CONSIDER NO, JUST THAT, UM, IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. SO THIS ISN'T RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, SO I DON'T FEEL THAT YOU SHOULD APPLY THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, RESTRICTIONS TO IT. OKAY. IT'S COMMERCIAL AND THE CITY DOESN'T, ACCORDING TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, YOU COULD HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UM, IF YOU'RE INDUSTRIAL. NO, ACTUALLY IT SAYS COMMERCIAL ACCORDING TO YOUR DOCUMENTS. BUT I DON'T WANT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. I ONLY WANT A SIX FOOT FENCE. AND IT SAYS, UM, ALSO YOU HAVE A INORDINANCE THAT SAYS TO GO AROUND EMPTY LOTS, YOU CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE. OKAY. UM, STAFFIE, PLEASE CLARIFY, WAS [01:30:01] MY IMPRESSION THAT ONLY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES WERE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE BY RIGHT. SO AN EIGHT FOOT BY RIGHT DE DEPENDS ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION. UM, IT IS, UH, IF IT'S ALONG A SIDE OR REAR LOT LINE, WHICH ABUTS AN ALLEY OR A STREET WITH A CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN A LOCAL STREET. MM-HMM. . UM, AND AGAIN, THAT'S ONLY FOR, UH, CIDER REAR LOT LINES, NOT FOR FRONT YARD. AND YOU'RE CORRECT. COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES ARE RESTRICTED TO SIX FEET FOR SIDE YARD, REAR YARD AND THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE. UH, AND FIVE FOOT COMBINED OR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FOR FRONT YARD. IT'S INDUSTRIAL USES THAT HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT PROVISION. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. OKAY. UH, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, UM, MY ORIGINAL DESIGN HAD, UM, POSTS AND IT HAD OTHER STUFF AND THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, I GOT, UM, MODIFIED THAT, SO THEY SAID I COULDN'T DO SOLID POSTS AND I HAD TO, UM, CONFORM TO WHAT THEY SAID. SO THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED MY ORIGINAL DRAWINGS TO BE WHAT THEY CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, BEFORE WE HEAR A MOTION ON THIS, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR THE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE WHAT WE DO IS WE'LL, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EITHER, UH, UM, ACCEPT OR DENY THAT THIS APPEAL. AND I, I WAS JUST WONDERING, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE? YES, IT WAS A, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE TYPICALLY DESIGN WROUGHT FENCE. UH, AND, AND ALSO FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, THE H D R C APPROVED THE FENCE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET. OKAY. UM, SO JUST THANK CLARIFICATION. THE WR IRON FENCE WAS APPROVED AT FOUR FEET BY THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS TEAL COMMISSIONER THIEL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 3 7. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED AN APPEAL TO THE, A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL O H P DECISION SITUATED AT 11 23, 11 27, AND 1129 NORTH HACKBERRY STREET, APPLICANT BEING MARY ELLEN HARDY IN A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. COMMISSIONER MANDA. COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YEP. UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIX FOOT FINCH WAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED. UM, THE DESIGN HAS NOT CHANGED. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE DIVIDING LINE FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ACTUALLY RESTS DIRECTLY THERE ALMOST AT THE PROPERTY. AND THE NEIGHBORING INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, HAVE, UH, AN EVEN HIGHER FENCE. I OWN A PROPERTY ABOUT A BLOCK FROM HERE. WE'VE BEEN BROKEN INTO MULTIPLE TIMES. UH, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY FENCING UP AND IT, IT DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE PUTTING UP A SIX FOOT FENCE WOULD DEFINITELY HELP WITH THE SAFETY. COMMISSIONER MATTA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA? I CONCUR TO, WITH THE VISIBILITY OF THE FENCE THROUGH THAT FOR ANY KIND OF BIG VEHICLES OR LOWER ONES? YES. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO CHIME IN THAT, UM, WITH, WITH, WITH THE PREDOMINANT OF INDUSTRIAL USES ACROSS THE STREET AND THE EXISTENCE OF, OF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING AND THE FACT THAT IF THIS APPEAL IS GRANTED, IT IS GOING TO BE FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, NOT FOR A, A SOLID SIX FOOT FENCE. SO I, I AM ALSO IN, IN SUPPORT, UH, OF, OF GRANTING THE APPEAL. SO, AND, AND FINALLY, THE, THE APPLICANT IS THE ABUTTING LANDOWNER. SO I I, THAT EVEN HELPS MAKE THIS EASIER FOR ME. UH, WITH THAT STAFF ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. INGLES, I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR. MR. DELMER I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET, UM, GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT TO DO NEXT. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE 2 41. UM, UNLESS ANYONE OBJECTS, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE STAFF. AND IS IT, UH, STAFF, WE OR WE STILL HAVE A PERSON THAT'S OUTTA THE, OH, THAT'S RIGHT. UH, PLEASE GO , PLEASE GO. PLEASE GO GET, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT. AND FOR THOSE COMMISSIONERS WHO DO HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, IF YOU GO TO THE ROOM NEXT DOOR, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THE AUDIO. IF, IF NO ONE'S TAUGHT, TAUGHT YOU HOW TO DO THAT, THERE'S A LITTLE SWITCH BY THE DOOR. NEAREST THE OUTSIDE DOOR. [01:35:21] PLEASE LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER ALBERT RETURNED AT 2:42 PM UH, GO AHEAD. UP NEXT, [5. BOA2110300130: A request by Heath Wenrich for 1) a 2’ variance from the maximum 8’ fence requirement to allow a 10’ solid screened fence along the northern side and rear property lines and 2) a 2’ variance from the 8’ maximum fence requirement to allow a 10’ predominantly open fence in the front yard, located at 4902 Fredericksburg Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 7) (Roland Arsate, Planner (210) 2073074, Roland.Arsate@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. SORRY. YEAH. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 30. ADDRESS IS 49 OAK TWO FREDERICKSBURG ROAD CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN, APPLICANT IS HEATH WIN RICH. UH, REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT SOLID AND PREDOMINANTLY OPEN COMMERCIAL SCREEN. UH, COMMERCIAL FENCING ZONING IS, UH, IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, NEAR LOOP FOUR 10. IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER RENOVATION BY A VIA CURRENT, UH, REQUESTING A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT SOLID AND PREDOMINANTLY OPEN COMMERCIAL FENCE IN THE FRONT AND THE, AND THE FRONT SIDE AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. SO, UH, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE REAR AND THE SIDES IS GONNA BE SOLID SCREEN FENCE, AND THE FRONT'S GONNA BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE, UH, THE ACTUAL PICTURES, THE, UH, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS LOCATED FURTHER DOWN. UH, THE, THERE'S A GRADE IN THE SLOPE, WHEREAS FREDERICKSBURG SITS UP ON TOP OF THE HILL AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S DOWN BELOW. SURROUNDING AREA, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN B O A 21 DASH 103 0 1 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT 10 FOOT SOLID AND PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WILL SERVE AS A SAFETY AND SECURITY FEATURE FOR THE COMPANY AND THE VEHICLES BEING STORED. FREDERICKSBURG ROAD IS A BUSY ARTERIAL STREET WITH LOOP FOUR, 10 BEING, UH, ENC CLOSE PROXIMITY. AND THREE, THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT SITS AT A LOWER ELEVATION THAN FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. 11. NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. UH, MY NAME IS JASON PAU WITH, UH, I'M AT 2002 NORTH ST. MARY'S. UM, YES, WE ARE, UM, REQUESTING THIS, UM, HEIGHT INCREASE. UM, THREE, THREE PREDOMINANT REASONS. UM, AS, UM, SOME ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED HERE. UM, THE HEIGHT INCREASE FOR THE, FOR SECURITY OF A MASS TRANSIT, UM, AUTHORITY, UM, DOES A COUPLE THINGS. IT, IT MAKES SURE THAT IT'S, UH, SECURES THE, UM, THE FOLKS WORKING IN THE FACILITY, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S GOING TO BE SECURING THE VEHICLES THAT ARE GONNA BE USED FOR, UM, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UM, ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. UM, THE SECOND, UH, CONCERN, UM, WE, WE ARE, OR THE SECOND ISSUE, EXCUSE ME, IS WE ARE, UM, PROVIDING, UM, THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCING. UM, A, A MORE DECORATIVE ORNAMENTAL, UM, FENCE THAT IS GOING TO BE, UH, FRONTING THE, THE PUBLIC FACE, WHICH WOULD BE FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, UM, CHAIN LINK FENCES, UM, IN, IN AREAS WHERE WE'RE ABUTTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. AND THEN, UM, A, A MORE SOLID, UM, CONCRETE, UH, FENCE. UM, THAT'S GONNA BE ABUTTING THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, PORTION. UM, WE, UM, WE CHANGED THE, UH, THE USE OR THE, OR THE TYPES OF FENCING PRIMARILY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. UM, WITH THIS, WITH THE VEHICLES COMING IN AND OUT SOUND AS WELL AS JUST KIND OF, UH, LIGHTS AT ALL HOURS. UM, UM, THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE, UM, REQUESTING DIFFERENT, UM, FENCE TYPES. UM, AND THEN LASTLY, UH, THE EXISTING, UM, APPLICANT FACILITY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED WITH A, [01:40:01] WITH A 10 FOOT HIGH, UM, FENCE. QUESTIONS, UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANY, UH, BEFORE WE GO INTO QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANY, UM, ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? ANYTHING TO READ INTO THE RECORD? NO. NO. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO ON THE SIDE, UH, DEX OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS, IT, IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S SOLID FENCING LIKE CONCRETE FENCE CREEK TYPE MATERIAL, FENCE CREEK. PERFECT. THE MATERIAL? YES, SIR. GOOD TO HEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, UH, ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, YOU SAID IT WAS FOR, UH, AN M T A USE. CAN, CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT SORT OF VEHICLES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? LARGE VEHICLE BUSES, 18 WHEELERS, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? SURE, YEAH, THESE ARE, UH, PARA TRANSIT VEHICLES, UM, UH, PRIMARILY, UM, BUT THERE WILL ALSO BE, UM, SOME OTHER, UH, UH, VEHICLE OR EXCUSE ME, UH, VIA VEHICLES ON, ON SITE, BUT IT DID, AND THEY'RE, UM, IT'S A MAINTENANCE FACILITY, SO THEY'LL BE BRINGING THEM IN FOR, FOR MAINTENANCE, BUT THEN ALSO STORING, UM, SURE. IS IT A 24 HOUR FACILITY? UM, I BELIEVE IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, ANYONE ELSE? UH, COMMISSIONER MANCHACA IS, IS THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE SETUP OF THE FENCES SIMILAR TO THE MAIN BUS STATION MAINTENANCE RIGHT NOW? UH, ON SAN PEDRO? YES. YES. UM, SIMILAR. UM, BUT OF COURSE THAT ONE IS IN MORE OF A COMMERCIALIZED AREA. UM, BUT YES, THE, THE 10 FEET CHAIN LINK FENCE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YES, ALBERT. COMMISSIONER ADAMS? I, I'M ALBERT, I'M SO SORRY. UM, I APPRECIATE THE FACT, SIR, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BUFFER THE, THE RESIDENTIAL AREA FROM YOUR ACTIVITY IN YOUR LIGHTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. UH, WITH THE CEMENT WALL, DID YOU INVESTIGATE OR DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WAY TO CREATE A BUFFER OF SOUND AND LIGHT OTHER THAN JUST A 10 FOOT CEMENT WALL? UH, NO, WE DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANY, ANY, UM, ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL, BUT THE FENCE CREEK MATERIAL DOES PROVIDE, UM, A, A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A PLEASING LOOK THAN JUST A, A STANDARD FLAT CONCRETE OR C M U WALL. OKAY. SO IT, IT, IT APPEARS DIFFERENT THAN JUST SAY A CEMENT WALL? YES. OKAY. WHICH WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET, THE LOOK THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, AND IF SIR, AND BY THE WAY, WE, IF YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING OR REMARKS YOU WANT TO ADD BEFORE YOU, YOU GO. OKAY. NO CLOSING ROOM REMARKS. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM A COMMISSIONER, MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM EIGHT FOOT FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES. AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE EIGHT FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 4 9 0 2 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. APPLICANT BEING HEALTH OR HEATH, UH, WINDRIDGE APOLOGIZE, UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL OF HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT SOLID SCREEN IN 10 FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS IN ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING LITTLE ENFORCEMENT, THE FENCE WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO EIGHT FOOT IN HEIGHT, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY NEEDED FOR THE VEHICLES AND AND EQUIPMENT. 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 10 FOOT TALL FENCE IS TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR BOTH EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES TO THE COMPANY. AND THOSE MAY BE PASSING AND THOSE THAT MAY BE PASSING THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS OBSERVED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY SITS AT A LOWER ELEVATION THAN FREDERICKSBURG ROAD FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS 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 INCREASE THE FENCE HEIGHT ON THE PROPERTY DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLY TO THE OWNER 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS [01:45:01] IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THIS PROPERTY SITTING IN A LOWER ELEVATION THAN FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. UM, YES, I, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND, AND YES, IT DOES, UH, DIP DOWN. UH, BUT IS, YOU KNOW, IT IS A, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL INTEREST RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK BY PROVIDING THAT 10 FOOT FENCE, UH, TO, UH, UH, ACCOMMODATE FOR THE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR, I THINK IS, UH, IS PERFECT. SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I WILL CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PROJECT AND THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WOULD HELP THE COMPANY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. INGLES? I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, UH, LIKE TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK, PLEASE SEE EVERYBODY BACK AT 2 59. ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE'S BACK. WE'RE GONNA, UH, CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. IT'S 3 0 1 AND STAFF. WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER SIX. [6. BOA2110300154: A request by Paul ElBayeh for a variance from the Accessory Structure Standards to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, located at 9318 Oakland Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 8) (Kayla Leal, Principal Planner (210) 2070197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CASE BO, A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 54. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 93 18 OAKLAND ROAD WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS PAUL AYA. THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STANDARDS TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG OAKLAND ROAD. UM, THERE IS A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD. UM, SECTION 35 3 70 PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STATES THAT THEY SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD AREA. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UM, TO THE LEFT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING ONE, THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY. UM, WE, WE MAILED 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. ONE WAS RETURNED IN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM. . UM, WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. MY NAME IS PAUL ELBA AND, UH, THE, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THERE. REALLY? OH, AND YOUR ADDRESS, SIR? 93 18 OAKLAND ROAD. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THERE IN THAT PROPERTY NEARLY LIKE 12 YEARS WITH THE HORSES, UH, ANIMAL SERVICE, UH, CARE SERVICES, THEY COME EVERY YEAR. WE ARE, UH, PASSING THE REQUIREMENT EVERY YEAR. WE HAVE THE PERMIT EVERY YEAR JUST FOR THE WEATHER BEING CHANGED LATELY. I MEAN, CAN YOU, CAN YOU TALK CLOSER TO THE MIC? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. WE CAN'T HEAR, SIR. OKAY. UH, THE PAST TWO YEARS WE HAD SNOW AND WEATHER CHANGES A LOT. ALMOST. WE LOST A HORSE LAST YEAR, SO WE TRYING TO PUT THAT BARN JUST TO PROTECT THE HORSES. THAT'S I WAS TRYING TO DO. ACTUALLY, WE PUT IT IN THE FRONT BECAUSE A LOT OF WATER WHEN IT RAINED, IT'S LIKE AN INCLINE AND ALL THE WATER GOES TO THE BACK OF THE POVERTY. [01:50:05] THAT'S ALL. OKAY. UH, THAT'S IT. MM-HMM. . ALRIGHT. UH, WELL, LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANY, UH, ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, SIR, EXACTLY. WHAT KIND OF STRUCTURE ARE YOU TRYING TO BUILD? IT'S A METAL BUILDING. IT'S LIKE A CARPORT OR A BARN JUST COVERED FOR THE HORSES. OKAY. BUT IT'S TWO STORY OR NO? OR THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT? NO, IT'S NOT TWO STORIES. IT'S JUST ONE STORY. YEAH. RIGHT THERE. OKAY. BUT IS THAT THE PICTURE RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT? YES. OKAY. SO WHAT ARE YOU GONNA PARK UNDERNEATH THEN? THE HORSES? NO COVER FOR THE HORSES. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE'S A COVER ON TOP? IT'S NOT A CARPORT, IT'S, IT'S A HORSE BARN, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIDES. YEAH. OKAY. MENCHACA, COMMISSIONER MINCHA, SIR, WERE THERE PERMITS ISSUED FOR THIS? YES. AND WHEN, WHAT DATE WAS THAT? IT WAS IN NOVEMBER THE SECOND, I BELIEVE. PARDON ME. WHAT YEAR LAST YEAR. NOVEMBER 2ND. OKAY. UM, ANYONE ELSE? OH, ZUNA AND COMMISSIONER ZUNA. OH, THAT KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION, DAN. AND HOW, HOW DID, WAS HE ABLE TO GET THE PERMITTING FOR THE PROJECT IF HE WAS OUT OF THE, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD? I, I THINK THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT AND, AND A, MAYBE A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT WAS BEING BUILT. UM, WHAT, UH, THE STAFF HAD SEEN, UH, THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS WAS A DETACHED CARPORT. UM, AND THEN WHEN THE INSPECTION WAS BEING FINALIZED, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY MORE THAN JUST A CARPORT, UH, WHICH LED HIM TO HERE. SO THE, THE NUANCE BETWEEN A CARPORT AND A COVERED BARN, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT'S THE NUANCE OR WHY WOULD ONE BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE OTHER ONE NOT? THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW GARAGES IN THE FRONT YARD, LIKE A DETACHED GARAGE OR ANY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS A CARPORT BECAUSE IT'S OPEN. UM, AND IT CAN BE DETACHED USUALLY AND LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. UH, SO THIS IS CONSIDERED, UM, LIKE A PARTIALLY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. SO IF HE WERE TO PUT A CAR UNDERNEATH IT, IT WOULD COMPLY, BUT A HORSE DOESN'T WITH THE WALLS, WITH, EVEN IF THERE HALF WALLS, IT'S NO LONGER A CARPORT. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. UH, WHAT THE, IN THE APPLICATION. HOLD ON, SIR. WE'RE, I'M SORRY. WE SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? SO, SO MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO ONE IS, UH, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHY IT IS THAT THE STRUCTURE, UH, IS NOT IN THE BACKYARD. AND SO, SO YOU KIND OF EXPLAINED THAT, UH, THERE IS A SLOPE TO THE PROPERTY. YES. UM, SO, SO, BUT, UM, HOW IS THIS FRONT PIECE DIFFERENT THAN THE BACK PIECE? I MEAN, WHEN A DRAIN IN THE FRONT, BECAUSE WE ARE, THAT'S WHEN, WHERE THE INCLINE STARTED. SO WHEN REALLY RIGHT THERE, EVEN THE NEXT DAY IT GET DRY OVER THERE, IT TAKES FOUR OR FIVE DAYS AND THERE'S A LOT OF MUD. LIKE WHEN IT RAINS, THEY BRING ALL THIS SAND AND THE DIRT TO THE BACK. AND SO, SO THEN AS FAR AS, UM, IS THE NEXT PROPERTY, UH, THAT'S ADJACENT TO YOU, DOES IT CHANGE THE ELEVATION OR ANYTHING TO CAUSE THE WATER TO BACK UP ONTO YOUR PROPERTY OR DOES IT CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE SAME SLOPE? NO, SAME SLOPE. SAME SLOPE. SO, SO THE WATER ESSENTIALLY RUNS ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY, THEN ACROSS YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, UM, UH, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, SO IT DOESN'T POOL ON YOUR PROPERTY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING UP AN AERIAL ON THIS? SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A E STAB. ONE MORE. COMMISSIONER, ZUNA, GO AHEAD. SO THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE BARN, THAT, THAT'S THE FINISHED PRODUCT, IS THAT IT'S WHAT'S NEVER GONNA HAVE A FULLY ENCLOSED WALLS? NOT YET. ACTUALLY IN THE PERMIT, I HAVE ALL THE PICTURES, THE ONE I SUBMIT FOR, AND IT'S SHOWING ALL THE, HOW IT'S GONNA BE. SIR, IF YOU, IF YOU HAND THAT TO STAFF, IT BECOMES PART OF, OR THE RECORD, UM, IS IT, [01:55:05] IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, CONCENTRATE ON ANY SKETCHES. UM, THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, SO THIS IS SHOWING WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FULLY ENCLOSED AT LEAST, OR PARTIALLY AT LEAST. UH, IS CAN YOU PLEASE ALLUDE ON THAT, SIR? I'M, I'M SORRY. WAS YOUR INTENT TO FULLY ENCLOSE, LIKE HAVE THE, HAVE THE BOTTOM, HAVE THE SIDING? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU, YOU HAVE IT OPEN, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ON THE BOTTOM, JUST IN THE BOTTOM WITH THE, WITH THE DOORS FOR EACH STALLS, FOR EACH STALL. AND THE TOP IS GONNA BE LIKE, UH, BARS OPENING FOR THE HORSES. BUT THAT'S ALMOST THE REVERSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, CORRECT? NO, BECAUSE IF YOU SEE THE, THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GONNA START FROM THE, THE WALL WE PUT. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, YOU, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. OH, THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, IT LOOKS FROM HERE THAT THERE, THAT THE SIDE, UH, CEDAR SIDING IS GONNA BE UP TO THE FOUR FEET. SO THE, SO THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION IS JUST THE METAL AND THEN IT'S GONNA BE CEDAR DOWN TO THE GROUND FROM YES. THE SIDES, YES ON THE SIDES, BUT THEN PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ON THIS OTHER SIDE. RIGHT. WHERE WHAT'S NOT SHOWN ON THIS PICTURE IS THAT THE OPEN SIDE IS GONNA BE, UM, ON THE, I GUESS THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE, THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT, LIKE THE FRONT AND THE BACK OF IT ARE GONNA BE OPEN. YES. CAN YOU PLEASE BRING UP THE BACK OPEN JUST HALF WITH THE BARS? SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE CEDAR, LIKE THE PICTURE FROM THAT WALL GOING DOWN, THAT'S WHERE THE CEDAR IS GONNA GO. JUST ON THE END TO INSTALL? YEAH, TO ENCLOSE IT. OKAY. SO IT WILL BE ENCLOSED. MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA, THIS QUESTION'S FOR CITY. UM, SO WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE SURVEY, IT SAYS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION EXISTS, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR THIS HOME WAS IN OAKLAND ESTATE'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO WERE THEY QUERIED FOR THIS HOME OR ABOUT THIS, UH, REZONING? THEY MAY NOT BE REGISTERED. NO, IT'S CERTAINLY REGISTERED, SO ABSOLUTELY, AND IT SHOWS ON BEAR CAD, IT SHOWS THAT IT IS REGISTERED WITH THAT ASSOCIATION. SO, AND, AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE VERY GOOD INPUT WITH REGARDS TO THIS CASE. LET ME VERIFY WITH THE MAILING LIST. OKAY. SO THE STATUS OF THIS WAS A PERMIT WAS GRANTED UNDER, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION IT WAS POSSIBLY A CARPORT. UH, AND THE APPLICANT, UM, WAS, UH, PUTTING IN THE SIDEWALLS, BUT HIS LONG-TERM GOAL WAS TO ENCAPSULATE THE WHOLE THING EXCEPT FOR ONE SIDE. IS THAT, SO IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING HE SUBMITTED ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS WITH THE APPLICATION. I THINK DURING THE REVIEW IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS A DETACHED STRUCTURE AND NOT A CARPORT. OKAY. IT'S NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, OKAY. I, SO, UH, BEAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT DOES SHOW THAT IT IS, AND I'M, UH, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH ITS COMMUNITY. I'D BE SURPRISED THAT IT'S NOT, UM, IT'S PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE AND ALSO PART OF THE OAKLAND STATE, UH, UM, UM, PLAN. I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN ONCE THEY POP IT UP IS, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES. IT MAY BE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, BUT NOT WITHIN THE ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES. SO THE, THE GREEN IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARY AND THEN WE'RE OFF OF OAKLAND ROAD? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, DOES THIS ANY WAY AFFECT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? [02:00:01] NO, THIS IS JUST, UM, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO, UM, HE JUST CAN'T COMPLETE THE INSPECTION AND PERMIT PROCESS UNTIL, UH, THIS IS RESOLVED. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, I, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YEAH, I GUESS BEING THAT I, I HAVEN'T HEARD, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FROM OAKLAND AND STATE'S, UH, COMMUNITY PLAN WHO WOULD PROVIDE INPUT? YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE A HARD TIME, I GUESS, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THEIR INPUT, SO I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT ON THAT PART. OKAY. WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION AND PERHAPS WHILE I'M DOING THAT, MAYBE SOMEONE AND STAFF COULD LOOK AT THE PLAN AND SEE IF IT, IF, IF ANY OF THIS, UH, IS IN THERE. UH, BUT, UM, MY QUESTION IS IF YOU COULD PLEASE BRING UP THE AERIAL AND I'M LOOKING FOR A PLAN VIEW ON THE AERIAL WELL THAT'S HAPPENING. UH, SIR, WHAT'S THE ACREAGE OF YOUR PROPERTY? UH, ACRE AND A HALF. ACRE AND A HALF. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING AT A PREDOMINANTLY RECTANGULAR PROPERTY WITH A FULL TURNAROUND DRIVE. THE HOME IS APPARENTLY IN THE REAR TWO-THIRDS OF THE LOT, UH, AND THERE IS A LARGE SWAB OF LAND, UH, THERE TO THE, WHAT WE CAN CALL IT, PLAN WEST, UH, ON THE LEFT SIDE. AND IT JUST SEEMS, UH, APPROPRIATE TO PUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMETHING BEING MORE APPROPRIATE IN THAT AREA, WHICH MAY NOT BE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE REAR ON THE SIDE IS, IS IS INEVITABLE. IT JUST, IT'S JUST A LARGE PIECE OF LAND. BUT YOU HAD COMMENTED ABOUT, ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. YOUR SITE PREDOMINANTLY SLOPES FROM THE STREET TO THE BACK. YES. OKAY. AND AND HOW MANY, HOW MANY HORSES ARE WE, ARE YOU KEEPING IN THERE RIGHT NOW? I HAVE FOUR. AND WHAT'S THE MAX YOU CAN KEEP IN THERE? I'M SORRY. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT? THERE'S NO LIMIT. I, I NEVER BEEN TOLD ANY LIMIT. I MEAN, I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT GONNA PUT 10 HORSES THERE. OKAY. SO, UM, I'M SURE THE REASON WHY I ASK IS YOUR, YOUR BUDDING PROPERTY OWNER WAS IN OPPOSITION, UHHUH . AND SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU'RE, UH, ATTEMPTING TO DO. SO, YOU KNOW, HOLDING MAYBE FOUR HORSES MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN 20 HORSES OR 10 HORSES. AND SO I'M TRYING TO HORSE, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE ANIMAL, UH, CARE SERVICES AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CHECK FOR HOW MANY HORSES AND HOW YOU KEEP THEM, HOW YOU MAINTAIN THEM. OKAY. YOU KNOW, AND EVERY YEAR WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT. DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THIS UH, UH, LARGEST STATE COMMUNITY HAVE HORSES ON THEIR PROPERTY? OF COURSE. OKAY. UH, THE WHOLE PROPERTY. I GREW UP IN THE AREA AND I RECALL THIS BEING A, A LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL ESTATE TYPE OF AREA. YOU GO DOWN HOLLY HAWK. YES. I MEAN, THERE WAS EVEN A HOME FROM KING WILLIAM, LOT OF NEIGHBORS, THEY STOP BY WITH THE KIDS FEEDING THE HORSES. I MEAN, WE REALLY HAVE VERY, I'M SURPRISED SOMEBODY COMPLAINED BECAUSE I MEAN, THE HORSES IN OUR LAND AND WE CARE A LOT TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN. GOOD. AND, AND I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND, AND, AND HOW THIS IS GONNA AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEIGHBOR HAS A DRIVEWAY GOING UP, ABUTTING THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S STRUCTURES NEAR THERE, BUT, UH, I JUST WANTED TO GET AN IDEA OF, OF WHERE THIS WAS IN RELATION TO THE DRAINAGE. SO, UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THAT'S ENOUGH FROM, FROM MY LINE OF QUESTIONS. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I, I LIVE IN THE SISTER COMMUNITY TO THIS, TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SO WE ALSO LIVE ON THE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL STATE LOTS. UM, CITY CODE DOES SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE ONE LIVESTOCK ON OUR PROPERTIES, BUT, UM, BECAUSE WE ARE PROMOTING, UH, THE RURAL FEEL OF OUR COMMUNITY WE GENERALLY TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT WE HAVE, AS LONG AS IT IS THAT THEY'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS. AND SO ONCE WE, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HOUSE AROUND OUR CORNER HAS A HUNDRED CHICKENS ON IT, AND IT'S LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE TURNING THE BAD NEIGHBORS. AND SO, SO WE KIND OF WATCH IT FROM A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE. SO, SO IT IS BY, RIGHT, UH, ONE LIVESTOCK IS A, IS ALLOWED ON A PROPERTY, UH, OT. UM, AND SO ANYWAYS, TO, TO ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION O ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, UM, PAUL, UH, MR. UM, EL BAIT, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE, TO THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED ON YOU? IF THIS VARIANCE WAS DENIED AND YOU WERE, YOU WERE HAVING TO MOVE THE HORSE SHELTER, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE IMPACT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU AND, UH, HARM? I MEAN, OF COURSE WE, I SPEND A LOT OF MONEY PUTTING WHAT WE ALREADY DID. I MEAN, ALMOST 40 GRAND RIGHT NOW. UH, BUT THE WAY I SEE IT, LIKE I'M HOR LIKE WE ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE HORSES. EITHER I HAVE THE BARN OR NOT, OR I CAN HAVE IT THE WAY IT IS AND KEEP IT OPEN. I THINK THAT'S ALLOWED TOO. SO THE BARN IS NOT GONNA AFFECT ANYBODY, THE HORSES. MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE HORSES. BUT ACTUALLY, I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY I CAN MOVE MY HORSES ANYWHERE ELSE BUT THE BARN, I, I DON'T SEE IT. IT'S [02:05:01] AFFECTING ANYBODY. I PUT IT EXACTLY FAR AS MUCH AS I CAN FROM EVERYBODY AND OKAY. AT THE END, WE DON'T WANNA HARM ANYBODY. BUT THAT'S THE REASON WE PUT IT. I MEAN, REALLY FAR. CAN YOU, CAN YOU GUESSTIMATE HOW FAR AWAY, UH, THE STRUCTURE IS FROM YOUR SIDE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT LINE AND IT'S ABOUT OVER 40 FEET. FROM THE NEIGHBOR. FROM THE SIDE? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO I GUESS ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS, IS A POSSIBILITY OF, OF DEL A DIALOGUE ON THIS UNTIL IT IS THAT WE REACH OUT TO OAKLAND STATES? 'CAUSE I WILL, UM, I, I WILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS UNLESS IT IS, UH, HEAR FROM THEIR POSITION. OKAY. UM, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UM, IF A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, WE'VE HEARD FROM ONE COMMISSIONER. HE WOULD, HE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, UM, MAYBE A CONTINUANCE SO THAT, UH, WE CAN HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION ACROSS THE STREET. UM, BUT OTHERWISE, IF I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, THIS MOTION WOULD BE FOR CONTINUANCE. UH, WOULD YOU ACCEPT A CONTINUANCE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE OAKLAND ESTATES, OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO MAKE A MOTION AND DELIBERATE ON THIS CASE TODAY? I MEAN, WHATEVER YOU THINK. IF IT'S BETTER, I CAN CONTACT THEM AND GET THEIR PROOF. WELL, WE'VE HEARD FROM ONE COMMISSIONER THAT IT, IT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO HIM. UH, SO, AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD WHETHER OR NOT, UH, FROM EVERY ANYONE ELSE, BUT IT MIGHT BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST. UH, IS, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE FIND ACCEPTABLE? LET'S SAY TWO WEEKS? THAT'S FINE. OKAY. CHAIR, WOULD YOU MIND IF WE DID A MONTH ONLY BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE A, A, A LARGE OKAY. NUMBER OF CASES. WHAT'S, WHAT WOULD BE THE DATE? IT IS NOVEMBER 15TH. OKAY. UH, SO, UH, NOVEMBER 15TH, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A MONTH. UM, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING TO HEAR, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE COLD WEATHER BY THEN. THAT'S ALL MY ATTENTION. OKAY. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHERE ARE THE HOUSE HORSES HOUSED NOW? I MEAN, AND IF YOU TYPICALLY HAVE COLD WEATHER, OBVIOUSLY FEBRUARY WAS AN EXTREME CASE. OKAY. BUT IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, IT'S COLD REGARDLESS. SO WHERE ARE THEY HOUSED NOW? THAT'S THE OLD BARN. YOU SEE IT ON YOUR RIGHT HAND? THAT'S IT USED TO BE MY PROPERTY NEXT, NEXT TO THE CIRCULAR. YEAH. RIGHT THERE. NO, NO. ON THIS SIDE. ON THIS SIDE. OTHER SIDE. OTHER SIDE, YES. RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THE OLD BARN. WE HAD TO SELL THE LAND. SO WE DON'T HAVE BARN ANYMORE. AND WAS THAT JUST RECENT? YES, THIS YEAR. SOMETIME, MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO. OKAY. AND YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IN TEXAS, RIGHT HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, ACTUALLY MOST OF THE TIME THE HORSES THERE AND THE LAND, EXCEPT THIS COUPLE WEEKS WHEN IT REALLY GET COLD AND LATELY SNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S NEW FOR US. THAT'S ALL. SO IF, IF THE LAND WAS SOLD TWO YEARS AGO, WHERE ARE THE HOUSE HORSES BEEN HOUSED IN THE MEANTIME? SAY LAST WINTER. OKAY. WINTER BEFORE, THAT'S ANOTHER THING. AND THE BOTTOM OF MY LAND AT THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU SEE THAT SILVER, UH, RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S A BARN FOR MY NEIGHBOR. AND I WAS USING IT, THAT'S A BARN FOR MY NEIGHBOR. AND I WAS USING IT TILL I START PUTTING MY OWN BARN. AND AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING YOU TO USE IT AGAIN THIS YEAR? OH, HE SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR SOMEBODY ELSE THIS YEAR. OKAY. YES. ALRIGHT. MINKA, COMMISSIONER MINKA, UH, LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE, SIR, WHICH WAY DOES THE WIND BLOW FROM RIGHT TO LEFT ONTO THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, OR FRONT TO BACK? I MEAN, THAT'S HARD TO, TO, I'M ASKING THAT 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND CATTLE AND I'VE BEEN DOWN WIND FROM CATTLE. YEAH, I MEAN, VERY UNPLEASANT. IT DEPENDS HOW IT'S BLOWING. I MEAN, , I REALLY, I CAN'T TELL, BUT IF, IF THE NEIGHBOR IS, SHE'S COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUST OR SOMETHING, WE CAN, WE CAN PUT A FENCE IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO, IF THAT CAN HELP. OKAY. IF THAT'S WHAT SHE'S COMPLAINING ON. SO HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE HAVE, UM, UM, A SUGGESTION FOR A CONTINUANCE IN NOVEMBER 15TH. UM, UH, AND THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT? THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO WE, WE'VE HEARD THAT. SO IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER Z UH, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FOR CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 DASH 3 1 54 2 NOVEMBER 15TH. [02:10:01] SECOND. OKAY. HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, UH, STAFF PLEASE. SECOND A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. OZUNA. I, I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MS. INGALLS. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR. MS. BREGMAN I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. A MOTION PASSES. SIR, YOU HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 15TH. UH, PLEASE MAKE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING HOW THAT GOES. WE WILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT CASE IS [7. BOA2110300086: A request by John Casanova for a special exception from the 6’ maximum fence height standard to allow a side yard fence to be 8’ tall, located at 1348 Blanco Woods Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Kayla Leal, Principal Planner (210) 2070197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, BO A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 6. ADDRESS IS GONNA BE, UH, 1348 BLANCA WOODS. OH, NO WAIT, I'M SORRY. CAN I WANNA CHANGE IT? SORRY, WRONG CASE. UH, BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 8 6. HOLD ON. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OH, IT'S, OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I GUESS SO. OKAY. UH, ADDRESS IS 1348 BLANCO WOODS COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER NINE. APPLICANT IS JOHN CASANOVA. A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS TO ALLOW A SIDE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. ZONING IS GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BLANCO WOOD STREET, UH, NEAR HIDDEN TIMBERWOOD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. THE UNIQUE LAYOUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COMBINED WITH THE LAYOUT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, HAVE CREATED A REASON FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVACY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY HAS A DOWNWARD SLOPE TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT, WHICH PRESENTS A UNIQUE FEATURE OF THE LOT. OTHER EIGHT FOOT FENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, EIGHT FOOT FENCE MEASURED IN HEIGHT. UH, THE FENCE ABUTTING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO ON THIS PICTURE, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS, IS THEY HAVE A SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR OF THEIR YARD. BUT THIS SWIMMING POOL, UM, ESSENTIALLY THEY WERE LOOKING INTO THEIR NEIGHBOR'S BATHROOM. SO FOR PRIVACY ISSUES, THEY TALKED AND, UH, HE BUILT A EIGHT-FOOT FENCE SURROUNDING AREA. SURROUNDING AREA, UH, OTHER HOUSES WITH EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE PRO IN THE LOCATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O 8 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 6. UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE 10 AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PROPOSED ONLY A ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE, OF THE HOUSE. THERE'S A DOWNWARD SLOPE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND THREE, THE FENCE WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY. AND FOUR, THE FENCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 24 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. THREE. WERE RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. BLANKET WOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YES, WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE. WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED IN TO SPEAK, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME VOICEMAILS. SO WE, WE CAN DO THE PERSON WHO'S SIGNED IN TO SPEAK FIRST. UM, I'D ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, OH YES. THAT, SORRY. THE APPLICANT'S FIRST. NO, THAT'S GOOD. I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND SO, , IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. JOHN CASANOVA, 1348 BLANCO WOODS. UH, THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING THE, UH, THE VERY INSERT MAP IS BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBOR, REAL NICE YOUNG LADY, SINGLE LADY, SHE ASKED, SORRY, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC? UH, OUR NEIGHBOR, THANK YOU. UH, SHE ASKED US IF [02:15:01] WE WOULD MIND PUTTING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THERE FOR HER PRIVACY ALONGSIDE OF THE HOUSE THERE, WHERE OUR POOL IS IS, AND WE HAVE A KITCHEN IN OUR FAMILY ROOM, SO WE'RE CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND HER BATHROOM DRESSING AREA AND TOILETS IN, IN THAT SECTION THERE. SO SHE ASKED US POLITELY IF WE WOULDN'T MIND PUTTING A FENCE. WE AGREED TO IT AND SHE HIRED A CONTRACTOR, PUT IT UP THERE. UH, SO WE'RE JUST IN AGREEMENT IN AGREEMENTS WITH HER. AND THAT'S IT. JUST, UH, THE PRIVACY FOR THE YOUNG LADY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. UH, IF YOU COULD TAKE A SEAT, WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UM, LET'S HAVE THE FIRST STEP PERSON WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ROY HILL. SIR, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. AND YOU MAY BEGIN. ROY HILL, UH, 1 6 8 0 3 SUMMER CREEK. AND, UH, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE BLANCO WOODS HILL MOTORS ASSOCIATION. UM, REALLY, OUR, OUR, OUR CONCERNS ARE A COUPLE THINGS. NUMBER ONE, UM, IT'S A CONSISTENCY ISSUE. PART OF OUR RESTRICTED COVENANTS TALK ABOUT MAINTAINING THE HARMONY AND, UH, AND THE CONSISTENCY, CONSISTENCY OF THE DESIGN OF, UH, STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THE OTHER ISSUES WHEN THE, UH, EARLIER IN THE YEAR, WE HAD A NUMBER OF, A NUMBER OF FENCE ISSUES IN WHICH, UH, D S D WAS INVOLVED. UM, CITATIONS OR, I DON'T KNOW, NOT NOTIFICATIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTS. UM, I KNOW THREE OF WHICH THEN HAD TO BRING THEIR FENCES DOWN TO SIX FOOT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. UM, WHEN THE INITIAL, UM, REQUEST WITH OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE CAME THROUGH FOR THE FENCE, UM, IT WAS DECLINED. AND PRIMARILY THE, THE MAIN REASON WAS THE, UH, THE CODE CITY CODE. UM, WE DID PROVIDE THE LINK TO GO ON AND SEEK THE VARIANCE AND SO FORTH. WE DID NOT GET ANY ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP OR NOTIFICATION UNTIL ONE DAY THE, THE FENCES WERE UP, UM, THE FRONT FENCE AND, AND THE SIDE FENCE. WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE, THE ADJOINING RESIDENT IS THE ONE THAT REQUESTED IT, NOR I TAKE IT PAID FOR IT. BUT, UH, THOSE ARE OUR MAIN CONCERNS. SO WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME, I THINK THERE'S THREE THAT I'M AWARE, FOUR MAYBE THAT I'M AWARE OF, THAT DO HAVE PORTIONS OF THEIR FENCE AT EIGHT FOOT. SOME WERE STANDARD SIX FOOT WITH THE LITTLE, UM, LATTICE ON TOP. UM, THE ONE THAT WAS SHOWN UP THERE, IT ABUTS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, A CHURCH BEHIND IT. UM, AND THESE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND I THINK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, UH, PROPERTY CODE, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S SOME KIND OF REFERENCE IN THERE ABOUT A, A FOUR YEAR STATUTE. THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN IN PLACE. BUT, UH, THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY CONCERNS THAT WE HAD AT THIS POINT, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, OKAY, THE ASK WAS MADE. IT WAS REJECTED, BUT JUST CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. UH, AND WE MAY HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS WELL. SURE. UH, SO IS, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP THAT'S ALL FOR IN PERSON? AND THEN WE HAVE THE VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'RE GONNA HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. AND WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER YOURSELF OR CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. SO LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL. OKAY. WE HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS AND HERE GOES THE FIRST ONE. THIS IS, UH, RICHARD MARCO, M A R C O. MY HOME PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 410-4986. MY ADDRESS IS 1 6 9 3 0 HIDDEN TIMBERWOOD, UH, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 4 8. THE CASE NUMBER IS B OH A DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 8 6. AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO AT THIS TIME WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE, THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE ONE MORE? UM, OH, I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. GO AHEAD. HELLO, MY NAME IS NORA CHAVEZ. MY ADDRESS IS 1 3 5 2 BLANCO WOODS, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO FOUR EIGHT. AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 378-1799. I'M CALLING REGARDING CASE NUMBER 0 8 6. AND I VOTE IN FAVOR OF [02:20:01] IT'S CASE NUMBER 0 8 6 REGARDING 1348 BLANCO WOODS LOT SIX BLOCK TWO N CCB 1 8 3 8 2. AGAIN, I VOTE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. I'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME UP FIRST. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, SIR? YES. SO YOU SAID THAT THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY, UH, TO YOUR, TO THE EAST IS THE ONE THAT REQUESTED THE, THE FENCE? YES, MA'AM. AND, AND SHE PAID FOR IT? UH, WE SPLIT THE COST, MA'AM, YOU SPLIT THE COST. OKAY. UM, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT, BECAUSE PART OF THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SIDE, BUT THE FRONT FACING, UH, EIGHT FOOT, UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO BRING THE HEIGHT DOWN OF THAT FRONT PORTION, UM, SO THAT IT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, FACE OF THE FRONT OF THE, OF THE FENCE RIGHT NEXT TO IT? IF WE CAN GO TO THE PICTURE OF THE FRONT YEAH, RIGHT THERE. IS IT POSSIBLE TO BRING THAT FRONT PORTION DOWN TO MEET THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE TO THE LEFT SO THAT IT'S NOT AS JARRING LOOKING? UH, SINCE THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH THAT, BUT I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH THE FRONT FACING. UH, IT IS VERY POSSIBLE MA'AM. HOWEVER, THERE, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THERE'S A SMALLER BATHROOM WINDOW TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. HER HOUSE, HER HOUSE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LOWER FENCE, THE SIX FOOT FENCE WOULD COVER THAT BATHROOM WINDOW. THE ISSUE THAT OUR CONCERN IS, NOT THAT WE CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE, BUT THE SILHOUETTES WHEN THE LADY'S USING THE FENCE, UH, USING THE TOILET FACILITY, UH, I COULD CERTAINLY LOWER IT. THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME. THE ISSUE FOR WOULD BE FOR HER. THANK YOU. AND, AND ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER MANO, I I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT. UH, OKAY. THAT'S SO NUMBER, SIR. IF YOU CAN COME BACK UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AGAIN. UH, ROY HILL, 1 6 8 0 3 SOMER CREEK DRIVE. THANK YOU MR. HILL. THANK YOU MR. HILL. YES. UM, SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT THE NEIGHBOR IS THE ONE WHO REQUESTED IT, WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGED YOUR OPINION AT ALL FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PERSPECTIVE? AND YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOW Y'ALL, I GUESS, ARE TRYING TO MANAGE YOUR PROPERTY? IF, IF IT WAS A NEIGHBOR THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT? WELL, IF SHE HAD, IF SHE HAD SUBMITTED THE, THE PROPER FORMS AND, YOU KNOW, WE GOT THE PERMITS, I GUESS WE MAY CONSIDER IT. BUT THIS WAS OUR, OUR FIRST, OR AT LEAST MY FIRST NOTIFICATION OF, UH, THAT BEING A CONCERN ON HER PART. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, AND THEN, SO, SO WHEN SOMEONE DOES PUT A REQUEST FOR, FOR FENCE HEIGHTS CHANGES, ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE, UH, THE RESIDENTS THAT KIND OF SAY, HERE'S OTHER MITIGATING PIECES THAT YOU CAN DO TO, UH, WE'LL SAY, PROVIDE PRIVACY OR, OR MASKING? YEAH, WE TRY TO, YES. MM-HMM. . OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HILL. UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT, UH, THE A C C HAD INITIALLY DENIED THE REQUEST, CORRECT. BUT THEN PROVIDED, UH, INFORMATION ABOUT GETTING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OR FROM THE A C C FROM THE CITY. FROM THE CITY. SO IF, IF THE APPLICANT IS SUCCESSFUL HERE, WOULD THAT THEN MEET YOUR, YOUR, UM, YOUR A C C REVIEW FIRM? WE THEN HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE, THE HARMONY PIECE, UM, AND THE CONSISTENCY OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S PART OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D PROBABLY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE UP WITH THE BOARD. AND YEAH'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING, 'CAUSE IF YOU, AND, AND WHEN WAS THAT DECISION RENDERED? WAS THAT DONE POST? IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER 1ST. IT WAS IN APRIL. IT WAS IN APRIL. OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IN SEPTEMBER 1ST THE STATE LAW CHANGED THAT ALLOWED APPEALS OF ACCS TO GO TO THE H O A BOARD. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT PROCESS WAS INITIATED OR ANYTHING. NO. MM-HMM. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILL. UM, MR. COMMISSIONER MANKA. SO IF THE FRONT FENCE FACING THE STREET WERE LOWER TO SIX FEET, WOULD THAT BE SUFFICE IN TERMS OF AESTHETICS? WELL, FROM ROY HILL'S PERSPECTIVE, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE , BUT THEN AGAIN, I HAVE THE, THE CONCERN IS IT'S THE OTHER RESIDENTS WHO ARE THE ONES WHO'VE VOICED AND BROUGHT UP THE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN FORCED TO OR NOT BEEN FORCED. THEY HAVE REDUCED THE, THE HEIGHT OF THEIR FENCES BASED UPON THE, UM, D S D CONTACTS WITH THEM. AND IT KIND OF PUTS US IN A [02:25:01] BAD SITUATION THAT WE'VE KIND OF SET A PRECEDENT FOR ONE, AND THEN WE HAVE ALL THE OTHERS. AND OUR CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT IT COULD JUST KIND OF SNOWBALL FROM THAT POINT GOING FORWARD. OKAY. I, I UNDERSTAND. AND THE THING THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT IS A SLOPE. IT DIDN'T MENTION HOW MUCH THE SLOPE IS, BUT ANY LO THE FENCE WOULD, UH, IMPOSED ON THE PRIVACY OF THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, REGARDLESS. YEAH, I'LL, I COULDN'T TELL THAT MUCH OF A SLOPE TO THE EAST SIDE. I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN, BUT STAFF, WHAT WAS THE SLOPE? WE DON'T HAVE A, UM, A MEASUREMENT OF THE DECLINE, BUT THERE WAS A SLIGHT SLOPE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. DID, I DON'T THINK MR. MENCHACA HEARD ME, BUT , THERE WAS NO MEASUREMENT OF THE ELEVATION CHANGE, BUT THERE WAS A SLIGHT SLOPE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ZUNA? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? SO GIVEN THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT GET, GET INVOLVED IN, IN, IN PRIVATE MATTERS, AND THE, AND THE ASSOCIATION IS, IS A PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANTS OR A PRIVATE ISSUE, THE BOARD CAN ONLY DO GRANT THE VARIANCE OR GRANT ANY RELIEF BASED ON WHAT POWERS AND AUTHORITIES WE HAVE. SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THE VARIANCE TO BE MODIFIED TO SIX FEET ON THE FRONT, IT STILL IS GONNA BE A PRIVATE ISSUE BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE APPLICANT. SO JUST WANNA MAKE THE, THE BOARD HERE AWARE OF THAT, BUT WE CAN GRANT RELIEF AND THAT, I BELIEVE WILL BE A, UH, A, A GOOD FAITH, UM, MEASURE FROM THE APPLICANT AS, AS THE BOARD PRESIDENT TAKES THIS, UH, ISSUE BACK TO HIS BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. SO I THINK WE WOULD, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IF IT'S REDUCING THE FRONT TO SIX FEET, I THINK WOULD BE A, SOMETHING THAT, THAT'LL BE FAVORABLY RECEIVED. OKAY. UM, WE'LL, WE'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE, UH, MAKER OF THE MOTION TO SEE WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GONNA GO TO AND, AND WE CAN HANDLE THAT DURING DELIBERATION. UH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THAT PART OF THE MEETING? OKAY. HEARING NONE, UM, UH, YOU MAY TAKE A SEAT. THANK YOU FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, YOU HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL FORMATION, REBUTTAL REMARKS, UH, THAT WE, THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? UH, NO SIR. OTHER THAN I DID CONTACT, UH, OR COUNCILMAN, UH, MR. JOHN KURT'S OFFICE AND HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND. AND, UH, HE SAID IT WAS, HE WAS FINE. UH, JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, HE IS CORRECT. THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE THAT, UH, HAVE PUT EIGHT FOOT FENCES AFTER WE PUT THIS FENCE UP. SO IT'S, IT DOES, IT'S NOT HURTING THE PROPERTY, NOT HURTING PROPERTY VALUES EITHER. OUR PROPERTY VALUE KEEPS GOING UP AND UP, AND I CAN ATTEST BY THAT BECAUSE OF OUR PROPERTY TAXES THAT KEEP GOING UP, . SO, YES, SIR. THANK YOU. SO IT DOESN'T HURT PROPERTY VALUE. THANK, THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA, UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE'S TWO AVENUES. ONE COULD JUST BE AS, AS REQUESTED, UH, OR IT COULD BE AS REQUESTED SANDS, UM, THE EIGHT FOOT ALONG, WHAT PARALLELS THE STREET. AND WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS, UM, YOU KNOW, UNLESS WE HEAR DURING, DURING, UH, COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY, UM, WHEN THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, UH, SPEAKS, UH, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF A A VARIETY OF COMMISSIONERS COULD CHIME IN ON THEIR THOUGHTS SO WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THIS. SO WITH THAT, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? RAGMAN? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FIRST. YES. THE WAY THE MOTION IS WRITTEN NOW, IT SAYS ALLOW A SIDE FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL. IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE FRONT PORTION. SO IF IT WAS READ AS WRITTEN, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT THE FRONT PORTION WOULD HAVE TO BE SIX FEET, UH, AS WRITTEN? NO. SO WHEN IT SAYS SIDE YARD, REMEMBER FRONT MEANS THAT IT'S BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S FRONT YARD. SO THE FENCE IS IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. YEAH, YOU WOULD, THE ONLY THING YOU WOULD ADD IS EAST SIDE OF THE HOME, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE YARD OF THE HOME. 'CAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. WELL, THE, THE, THE, THE TEMPLATE MOTION, UH, DISCUSSES A, A, UH, A DEVIATION FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, A SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. UM, WHICH MEANS ANYTHING FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME BACKWARDS. AND SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE, THE LITTLE PIECE THAT PARALLELS. 'CAUSE IT'S BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE HOME. YOU WOULD, YEAH. YOU, YEAH. WHAT WHAT YOU WOULD READ IS, UM, MAYBE SAY EXCLUDING THE FRONT, UH, EXCLUDING THE FRONT PORTION THAT THAT FACES, UH, THE STREET STREET. [02:30:01] BUT AS LONG AS YOU, I WOULD RECOMMEND PUTTING EAST SIDE ON THERE SOMEWHERE. 'CAUSE THEY'RE ONLY WANTED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THEN. RIGHT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 0 6 8 SORRY, EIGHT SIX. A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FROM THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED STANDARD TO ALLOW A SIDE FENCE YARD TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL, EXCLUDING THE PORTION FACING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SITUATED AT 1 3 4 8 BLANCO WOODS STREET APPLICANT BEING JOHN CASANOVA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH, THERE ARE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE CHAPTER. THE BOARD FINDS THE ADDITIONAL TWO FOOT FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE POOL IN THE REAR YARD. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SUB SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE YARD DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT AL, 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 FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE YARD WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THIEL. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. CAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? I NOTICED YOU SAID EAST SIDE ON ITEM B. UH, SO IT IS YOUR INTENT FOR THE MOTION TO BE FOR THE EAST SIDE ONLY. SO LET ME, LET ME LOOK AT THE, UM, SO SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT THE SCHEMATIC. SO , SO IT WOULD BE THE, THE LONG PORTION IS THE EIGHT FOOT EXCEPTION. THE SHORT PER PORTION FACING FORWARD TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE SIX FOOT? YES. I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON BOTH SIDES. JUST THE EAST SIDE, CORRECT? YES. OKAY, GREAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. UH, SURE. I THINK THIS, THIS IS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE NEIGHBOR IS THE ONE THAT REQUESTED IT FOR PRIVACY SAKES. AND THEN I THINK IT ALSO, UH, SORT OF ACCOMMODATES WHAT THE A C C MAY BE LOOKING FOR IN THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. SO I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. FANTASTIC. COMMISSIONER MADA. OH, OH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER TEAL TO SAY I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, BEING THAT THE EIGHT FOOT PORTION OF THE FENCE IS GONNA BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET, UM, IT'D BE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS, UH, SIX FOOT OR EIGHT FOOT. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YEAH, SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS. UH, AND SO I DO SEE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE, THE PICTURE OF THE POOL, IT DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS A DROP BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES AND YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT PICTURE, IT DOES SHOW A DROP. IT'S, IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT, BUT IT IS ENOUGH. I THINK THAT IT WILL IMPACT OR DOES HAVE AN IMPACT HERE. UM, ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THAT THERE IS DIALOGUE THAT STILL CAN IN OCCUR WITH THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR THE NEIGHBOR YEAH. THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION TO, TO DETERMINE REALLY THE LENGTH OF THAT FENCE AND, AND MAYBE THERE'S A COMPROMISE, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK AS WELL. SO THERE MAY BE SOME OPTIONS THERE, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MORE FROM A NEIGHBOR FROM THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PROVIDING FOR THE PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE WOULD AGREE THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY IMPORTANT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER MENCHACA MENCHACA. I ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY THE DUAL INVESTMENT BY BOTH HOMEOWNERS AND THE RESPECT AND THE HARMONY BETWEEN 'EM TO BE MAINTAINED AND THAT SLOPE OFFERS ANY OTHER, DOES NOT OFFER ANY OTHER REMEDY FOR PRIVACY. SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS. OKAY. [02:35:01] I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FACING BLANCO WOODS PERSONALLY BECAUSE JUST FROM THE PICTURES THAT SHOWS A BATHROOM WINDOW, UM, APPARENTLY THAT WOULD BE VIEWABLE FROM THE, IF YOU'RE STANDING ON THE POOL DECK. SO I WOULD BE COMPLETE IN FAVOR OF, UH, OF THAT. BUT I'M ALSO IN FAVOR WITH THAT AS READ, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE A C C UM, SUGGESTED OR PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY, TO THE APPLICANT. SO ANYONE ELSE? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. INGOS. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MONA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. UH, SIR. UH, SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE APPROVED A MOTION FOR THE EIGHT FOOT RUNNING DOWN THE COMMON LINE WITH YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOR. BUT THE ONE THAT, THE PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT FACES BLANCO WOODS, UH, WAS NOT APPROVED, THAT WOULD, WOULD NEED TO BE LOWERED TO SIX FEET. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO GET WITH STAFF, THEY CAN EXPLAIN, UM, FURTHER ABOUT WHAT TO DO. NOT A PROBLEM, SIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL. ALL RIGHT, NEXT CASE PLEASE. OF NEXT, [8. BOA2110300115: A request by Christopher Coffey for a 3’ 3” variance from the minimum 5’ side setback to allow a detached structure to be 1’ 9” away from the side property line, located at 323 Devine Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Roland Arsate, Planner (210) 2073074, Roland.Arsate@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department) (Part 1 of 1)] UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BO O A CASE 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 5. UH, ADDRESS IS GONNA BE 3 23 DIVINE CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT NUMBER ONE APPLICANT IS CHRISTOPHER COFFEE. A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT NINE INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL MIX. UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG DIVINE STREET, LABOR STREET AND IS CURRENTLY, UH, HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UH, ON THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A THREE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE TO A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO HAVE A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT NINE INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED OTHER DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE REAR, UH, PROPERTIES. SITE PLAN, UH, BY, BY LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. UH, WHAT'S PROPOSED IS THEY'RE GONNA BE ADDING ONTO THAT STRUCTURE. UH, IT'S ALSO AN IRREGULAR SHAPE. LOT PROPOSE, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT'S THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. UH, YOU COULD SEE IT'S A EXISTING CARPORT. THEY'RE GONNA BE ADDING ON TO THE RIGHT OF THAT WHERE YOU SEE THE FENCE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THAT'S THE, UH, SETBACK SIDE, PROPERTY LINE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 15 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE DETACH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE ONE FOOT NINE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINE TWO, THERE IS AMPLE ROOM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THREE. THE STRUCTURE IS NOT OUT OF THE, NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND FOUR, THE CON THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT IS AN, IS, UH, UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. 30 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THAT WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY. GOT YES. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST HAS THIS GONE THROUGH H D R C YET? YES IT HAS. AND WAS THE C OF A, UH, AWARDED? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD. UH, MR. COFFEY? UH, I DON'T SEE THE APPLICANT HERE, SIR. OKAY. SO, UH, UH, YEAH, WE'LL JUST GO TO THE NEXT CASE. UM, WE WILL TABLE THIS ONE FOR NOW. UH, THE NEXT CASE, UH, IS, IS IS OFF OF, UH, 26 18 PEBBLE BREEZE. IS, IS THAT APPLICANT IN HERE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. [02:40:01] GO AHEAD. STAFF . SORRY, I THOUGHT HE SNUCK IN WHILE WHILE WE WERE STARTED ALREADY. UH, NEXT [9. BOA2110300124: A request by Christine Little for a 2’ special exception from the 6’ maximum fence height to allow an 8' solid screen fence along the side and rear property lines, located at 2618 Pebble Breeze. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 10) (Roland Arsate, Planner (210) 2073074, Roland.Arsate@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE. BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 24 ADDRESS IS GONNA BE 26 18 PEBBLE BREEZE. UH, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER 10. APPLICANT IS, UH, CHRISTIE LITTLE, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES. CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG PEBBLE BREEZE DRIVE NEAR FOR PEBBLE FOREST DRIVE, AND CURRENTLY HAS A EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN. WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES UPON SITE VISIT. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED NEARBY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITH EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCES TO THE SIDE AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES. SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS ACTUALLY TO THE REAR OF THEIR PROPERTY. THEIR PROPERTY'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE. EIGHT FOOT FENCE, EIGHT FOOT HIGH MEASUREMENT SURROUNDING AREA STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 24. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR OF THE YARD. TWO, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOME. THREE, THE PROPOSED FENCE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND FOUR, THERE IS A, A TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE IN THE GRADE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. 30, 30 NOTICES WERE MOWED OUT. UM, ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM OCALA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. UH, AND BEFORE YOU LEAVE, JUST TO BE CLARIFIED, THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE, THE WEST SIDE AND ALONG THE REAR, BUT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR EIGHT FEET ALONG THE PEBBLE BREEZE STREET. CORRECT? THE, THE MAP WAS A LITTLE BRIGHT. IT'S HARD. IT WAS HARD TO TELL. LET ME SEE. THEY, UH, NO, NOT ALONG PEBBLE BREEZE. UH, IT'S GONNA BE THE, THEY'RE ADDRESSED OFF OF PEBBLE BREEZE. OKAY. SO IT'S GONNA BE THE, THE SIDES AND THE REAR. OKAY. THANK YOU MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO DID WE PREVIOUSLY JUST RECENTLY REVIEW A CASE ON THE BECK NEIGHBOR? EXACTLY. YEAH. RIGHT BEHIND HIM. AND DO WE RECALL WHAT THE, UH, WHAT, HOW THE BOARD VOTED ON THAT? THEY VOTED APPROVAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? MS. LITTLE IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND PLEASE BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. MY NAME IS CHRISTINE LITTLE AND I LIVE AT 26 18 PEBBLE BREEZE. WE HAVE LIVED AT THE HOUSE FOR SIX YEARS NOW, AND WHEN WE FIRST MOVED THERE, THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND US HAD SIX, UM, BIG DOG, BIG, BIG PIT BULLS, . AND THEY WERE CONSTANTLY BARK, BARKING AT MY DOGS. AND THAT WAS WHEN I CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT MY NEIGHBOR'S ACTUALLY THREE FEET HIGHER THAN ME. SO WHEN SHE'S STANDING AT THE FENCE, SHE CAN LOOK OVER THE FENCE AT OUR HOUSE IN OUR YARD. UM, SO WE, WHEN SHE, AFTER SHE MOVED OUT, WE TALKED WITH THE NEIGHBOR THAT MOVED IN AFTER US, AFTER HER. AND THEY, WE AGREED THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT FENCE TALLER. UM, THE NEIGHBOR TO A RIGHT OF US ALREADY HAS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, SO IT MADE SENSE TO HAVE IT BE UNIFORM. UM, BUT THE LOCATION THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC 'CAUSE WE'RE AT THE RIGHT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT. UM, SO IT MADE SENSE FOR ALSO TO HAVE SECURITY ON THE, THE STREET SIDE. WE HAVE A SWIMMING POOL AND WE ALSO HAVE TWO BARKY DOGS TOO. UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS, THAT WAS OUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, UM, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK STAFF. WE HAVE VOICEMAIL. ALRIGHT. UH, SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE A SEAT, WE'RE GONNA HEAR SOME VOICEMAILS AND WE'LL ASK YOU BACK, BACK UP FOR QUESTIONS. HI, MY NAME IS MAUREEN LANCASTER. MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE AT 2 6 2 7 PEBBLE BREEZE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 496-3467. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO ONE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. [02:45:04] AND I WANTED TO SAY WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE NEIGHBORS INSTALLING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THERE ARE TWO REASONS. ONE IS SECURITY. UM, THEY LIVE ON THEIR STREET. THEIR HOUSE IS ON A MAIN STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL TIMES THAT, UM, DRUG DEALERS OR THEFTS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY JUMP FENCES TO HIDE FROM POLICE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I, AND THERE'S ALSO A BOX FROM THE CITY UTILITIES RIGHT BY THEIR HOUSE. THEY COULD BE EASILY JUMPED, A FENCE JUMPED. MY OTHER ISSUE WITH HAVING IT UP IS PRIVACY. WE LIVE DIAGONALLY FROM 'EM AND WITH A SIX FOOT FENCE WE COULD SEE INTO THEIR BACKYARD WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THAT IS A MORE PRIVATE SITUATION FOR BOTH OF US. I CAN'T SEE INTO THEIR BACKYARD AND THEY CANNOT SEE THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE FROM THEIR BACKYARD. SO I, WE ARE DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THEM BEING ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, YES, THIS IS VIRGINIA LUER. MY ADDRESS IS 26 63 PEBBLE DAWN STREET, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 3 2. UH, THE CASE NUMBER IS BO O A DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. AND UH, I SUPPORT THE VARIANCE FOR, UH, TINA LITTLE HOUSE AND TODD LITTLE. UM, THE FENCE IS, UM, A VERY NICE FENCE. IT, UM, MATCHES THE SIZE OF THE OTHER FENCES THERE. IT'S, IT'S NOT AN EYESORE. IT, UM, IT MAKES THE PROPERTY LOOK GOOD AND I SUPPORT THE VARIANT. THANK YOU. HI, THIS IS BARBARA LEGNER. I LIVE ON 2 6 6 6 PEBBLE DAWN, UH, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 3 2. I'M CALLING REGARDING A EIGHT FOOT FENCE AT 26 18 PEBBLE BREEZE. LAST THREE DIGITS OF THEIR CASE NUMBER IS 1 24. THEY MEET WITH YOU TODAY AT 10 O'CLOCK. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUES WITH THEIR EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THEY ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE I LIVE. UM, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR IT AS THE HOUSE BEHIND THEM IS A LITTLE RAISED UP AND THEY CAN LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THEIR YARD. ALSO, THERE IS A, UM, AN ELECTRICAL BOX TYPE THING THAT I CAN SEE HOW SOMEBODY COULD VERY EASILY STEP ONTO IT AND JUMP OVER THE SIX FOOT FENCE INTO THEIR BACKYARD AND HOPEFULLY NOT DROWNED IN THEIR SWIMMING POOL. SO, UM, FOR SECURITY REASONS, I'M ALL FOR THEIR EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THEY HAVE SHRUBBERY ON THE SIDES OF IT, SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. SO, UM, LET 'EM KEEP IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. BYE. THIS CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. UH, MS. LITTLE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME BACK UP. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANNA? COMMISSIONER ANNA? SO I BRING UP GOOGLE MAPS AND IT SHOWS, I GUESS THEY HAD THE LITTLE CAR GO BY WITH THIS LITTLE CAMERA AND I COULD SEE YOUR POOL YOU FROM GOOGLE MAP. SO, SO IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY LOW. SO IS THE PROPERTY SLOPED, I GUESS TO THE STREET? SO IT HAD A PRETTY GOOD LEVEL THEN? YEAH, THE, THE PROPERTY SLOPES DOWN SOME TOO. 'CAUSE WE ARE IN THE HILL COUNTRY. . OKAY. YEAH. SO YEAH, SO GOOGLE, YEAH, YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE SWIMMING, SO, SO THAT'S PRETTY LOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE CLOSING REMARKS OR STATEMENTS FOR US TO CONSIDER. WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY AS FAR AS PROPERTY VALUE GOES, THE HOUSE ACROSS, ACROSS FROM US, THEY SOLD IT IN MAY FOR 3 75, AND THEN THEY TURNED AROUND AND SOLD IT TWO MONTHS LATER FOR 4 45. WOW. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE AFFECTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, IF YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT PLEASE. THE PICTURES? YEAH, I HAD, I SUBMITTED SOME PICTURES THAT YOU COULD SEE. THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE NEW FENCE RIGHT THERE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW THAT WE PUT IT IN. AND THEN, UH, THAT'S THE SIDE, THAT'S WHERE YOU LOOK AT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT TOWARDS THE STREET, THAT'S WHAT WE, YOU SEE. UM, AND THAT'S THE OLD FENCE. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S MUCH LOWER THAT, UM, IT, IT, IT, IT HAS, IT'S ACTUALLY GIVING US MORE PRIVACY TO HAVE THE TALL, HAVE A TALLER FENCE. AND ALSO THAT'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE, OF THE SIDE FENCE THAT WHEN IT WAS LOWER, WHEN IT WAS SIX FOOT, [02:50:05] AND I THINK I DID THE DIVISION ONE TWICE, I'M SORRY. MM-HMM. ? YES. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT, WE'LL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SORRY. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER, EXCUSE ME, BO 8 21 103 0 0 1 2 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID GREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 26 18 PEBBLE BREEZE, APPLICANT B CHRISTINE LITTLE, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C 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, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE, TWO FEET OF HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY AND PRIVACY FOR THE POOL OF TO THE REAR BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND A FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE. AND REAR PROPERTY DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IT'S 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 SOFT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF WHITE OF SIDE AND REAR FENCE 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 HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE, THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. IS THERE? SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND BACK. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. ALL RIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, PLEASE LE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. EXCUSE ME. UM, I, UM, THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA. I CAN SEE THE, THE ENHANCEMENT IT WOULD BE FOR THE PROPERTY AND WITH THE POOL IN THE BACK BACKYARD. I, IT WOULD DEFINITELY HELP A LOT. THANK YOU. GREAT. COMMISSIONER BASQUEZ, I CONCUR WITH THE REMARKS OF MY COLLEAGUE. FANTASTIC. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NUN STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. INGLES I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. 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. TEAL? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. UH, THE NEXT CASE, I DON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE, UH, YEAH, LET'S GO ON TO ITEM 10. GO TO THE NEXT ONE, THE OTHER ONES ON HIS WAY. NUMBER 10. NEXT UP, NEXT AGENDA. ITEM [10. BOA2110300129: A request by Charles Whitehead for a special exception from the maximum fence height to allow an 8’ solid screened fence along the side and rear property lines, located at 4001 Skyridge Avenue. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 3) (Roland Arsate, Planner (210) 2073074, Roland.Arsate@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] NUMBER 10, UH, BO. 8 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 29. ADDRESS IS GONNA BE 4,001 SKY RIDGE AVENUE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE. APPLICANT IS CHARLES WHITEHEAD. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDING. REAR PROPERTY LINES. CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SKY RIDGE AVENUE NEAR GLOVER STREET AND IS CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY, REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO THE SIDE AND REAR [02:55:01] PROPERTY LINES UPON THE SITE VISITS. STAFF. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED NEARBY RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITH AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO THE SIDE AND REAR OF PROPERTY SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FENCE, HEIGHT, EIGHT FEET. THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE SIDE OF THE FENCE, THAT'S THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FENCE AND THAT'S SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 29. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE REAR, UH, YARD. TWO, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOME. THREE, THERE'S A SLIGHT SLOPE DOWNWARDS TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, SO IT SLOPES DOWN FROM FRONT TO REAR. AND FOR THE PROPOSED FENCE, UH, BEGIN, BEGINS TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE, OF THE HOME AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. 27 NOTIFICATIONS WERE MAILED OUT. ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM HIGHLAND PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, ON A SIDE NOTE THAT I BELIEVE HIS NEIGHBOR WAS ALSO IN B O A LAST TIME AS WELL FOR THE EXACT SAME THING. EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL, THIS IS THE HOUSE WHERE HE SAID THAT IT WAS A AIRBNB. THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT IS THE, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL. THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION. CAN YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY ON THE SITE PLAN, UH, WHERE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS ON, ON THE SITE PLAN? CURRENTLY? RIGHT NOW THE FENCE IS ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. SO, SO LET ME JUST LASER POINTER. SO NOT ON THE REAR, ONLY THE TWO SIDE PROPERTY LINES? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. UH, WHERE'S THAT? SO THIS IS THE RESIDENCE RIGHT HERE? MM-HMM. CURRENTLY THE, THE FENCE IS ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE. HIS NEIGHBOR'S THE ONE THAT CAME LAST TIME THAT LIVES OVER HERE. AND, BUT EVENTUALLY HE SAID HE WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BACK HERE. RIGHT NOW. CURRENTLY IT'S SIX FEET. AND DOES HE, AND IS HE EIGHT FOOT INCLUDING ON THE GATES OR THE, OR THE SIDE THAT'S PARALLEL OF THE STREET? IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM. , UH, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT PLEASE. IS THERE, MR. WHITEHEAD RIGHT HERE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. UH, MY NAME IS CHARLES WHITEHEAD AND I LIVE AT 4,001 SKY RIDGE AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO. 7 8 2 1 0. UM, THAT, UM, NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCE OR THE, THE PROPERTY, THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE RESIDENT, WELL, MY SHORT TERM RENTAL, UM, GUEST, YOU KNOW, UH, FROM MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, THEY COULD SEE INTO THE FENCE 'CAUSE IT WAS ONLY SIX FEET FROM THEIR HOUSE. AND SO, I MEAN, I'M SIX FEET, I COULD STEP OVER THERE AND SEE THE OTHER FENCE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANTED PRIVACY FOR THE GUESTS. AND SECONDLY, BOTH, UH, PROPERTIES ON, ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF ME HAVE, UH, DOGS. AND SO THE FENCE WAS PRETTY BAD SHAPE AND WE REALLY NEEDED TO REPLACE IT. AND SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE ENDED UP, UH, ONE FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY, BECAUSE WE'RE LOCATED ON A BUS ROUTE AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC, AND A LOT OF KIDS WERE RIGHT DOWN FROM A HIGH SCHOOL. AND MY NEIGHBOR SAID SOMEBODY, UM, TRIED TO BREAK THEIR BREAK INTO THEIR, THEIR GATE. THEY HAVE AN AUTOMATIC GATE. AND SO, UM, THERE IS SOMEWHAT OF CRIME AREA. AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR GUESTS ARE SECURELY SAFE AND, AND, UM, THEY HAVE THE PRIVACY THAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR, NOT ONLY FOR OUR GUESTS, BUT FOR MYSELF AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, OKAY. IS IS THERE ONE SIDED TO SPEAK OR ANY? WE DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS AND VOICEMAIL. OKAY. UH, LET'S START WITH THE, UH, SPEAKERS. UH, SHARON RANG HOW, HELLO? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HELLO. UH, MY NAME'S SHARON LANDIS RINGLE, UH, FORGIVE MY APPEARANCE AND MY SPEECH. I HAD A STROKE RECENTLY AND I'M LEARNING HOW TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. AGAIN, I NORMALLY READ LIPS, SO IF I DON'T HEAR YOU, I'M GONNA TURN TO MY HUSBAND WHO WILL TRANSLATE SO I CAN READ YOUR LIPS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. FORGIVE ME. UM, I LIVE [03:00:01] ON THE CORNER OF SKY RIDGE AT 3 9 0 3 SKY RIDGE AVENUE ON CORNER OF GLOVER. I AM OPPOSED OF THE SIX FOOT FENCE. A BRIEF BACKGROUND, I GREW UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT 10 BLOCKS AWAY. I RECENTLY MOVED THERE SEVEN YEARS AGO. MY HUSBAND RETIRED FROM THE AIR FORCE AFTER 28 YEARS OF SERVICE. UM, I'M A RECENT GRADUATE OF THE, OF THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY. UH, MY SON IS A SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICER. UH, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE, UH, CELLULAR ON PATROL FOR BOTH MILITARY AND FOR CIVILIAN. UM, THE REASON I APPROACH TO THIS FENCE IS BECAUSE SECURITY REASONS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF CRIME IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON TWO OCCASIONS. THAT IS AN AIRBNB SITE. ONE OF HIS RESIDENTS HAS APPROACHED ME AND THREATENED TO KILL ME, UM, BECAUSE THEY WERE PLAYING LOUD MUSIC AND WE CALLED LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE AIRBNB SIDE HAS HAD CONTINUOUS, UH, PROBLEMS WITH POLICE PRESENCE. THEY'VE HAD, UM, THEIR RESIDENTS COME TO OUR RESIDENCE IN INEBRIATED, CAN'T LOCATE THEIR, WE HAVE A HIGH FOOT TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA TRYING TO FIND THAT AIRBNB. THE OWNER OWNS SEVERAL B AIR, ANOTHER AIRBNB BEHIND ON THE NEXT STREET OVER. UM, AND IT'S A PROBLEM SEEING, UM, PEOPLE WALKING AROUND WITH SUITCASES. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HOMELESS OR LOOKING FOR AN AIRBNB IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY. THERE'S A BUS STOP. WE HAVE A VIA BUS LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE THE HIGH SCHOOL THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT PROPERTY WITH THE BUSES. UH, IT'S BEEN NOTED AND RECORDED THAT CRIMINALS HAVE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OR, UH, CRIMINALS HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA JUMPING THE FENCES TO HIDE. ONE OF THE SECURITY REASONS I DO NOT LI UH, APP I DO NOT WANT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS BECAUSE AS A RECENT GRADUATE OF THE, THE, UH, CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY, AND AS A MOTHER OF A POLICE OFFICER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE LOOKED AT IS OFFICERS BEING ABLE TO SEE A RESIDENT FROM A PATROL VEHICLE. WHEN IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, THEIR VIEW IS BLOCKED. SO THEN THEY MAY NOW HAVE TO GET OFF OF THE VEHICLE, GO AND APPROACH THE FENCE. THEY CANNOT SIMPLY LOOK OVER THE FENCE. THEY NEED ASSISTANCE TO LOOK OVER AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. SO A SIX FOOT FENCE IS A, IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER VARIANT FOR THEM TO LOOK FOR SECURITY REASONS, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY CRIMINALS ACTIVITY OR ANYTHING. ANYBODY IN DISTRESS, ESPECIALLY WITH AN AIRBNB, YOU DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO NEED ASSISTANCE IN THAT LOCATION BECAUSE THE, THE FLOW OF ACTIVITY IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING. SO THAT IS MY CONCERN WITH IT. UM, I WAS NOT ALLOWED, I DIDN'T FALL IN THE VARIANT TO COME AND SPEAK FOR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, SO I COULDN'T COME FOR THAT. BUT I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THE SAME POINT FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, NO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE ENTIRE FENCE LINE. AND IT'S BECAUSE OF SECURITY REASONS. SO, UM, I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WHILE YOU'RE UP ON THE PODIUM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. UH, TO, TO THIS RESIDENT. IS THERE ANYBODY I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THIS RESIDENT MOSTLY BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION I JUST WANT WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. OH, I, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, ABOUT POLICE BEING ABLE TO LOOK OVER A SIX, A SIX FOOT FENCE EASIER THAN AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. CORRECT. UM, AND SO IF THE FRONT OF THE FENCE THAT FACES THE STREET WAS SIX FEET, WOULD THAT MEET YOUR CONCERN? THAT WOULD, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANTED TO ASK WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE. OKAY. OKAY. WE CAN HAVE THE NEXT I APPRECIATE YOU TOO. YOU HAVE A VERY NICE FACE. I'D LIKE SEEING YOUR FACES, . THANK YOU. YOU'RE GOOD LOOKING TOO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SORRY, I WENT OVER IT. OKAY. PHILLIP HIL, DID YOU WANNA TALK TO YOU SIR? SURE. WE'RE HUSBAND AND WIFE, SO, BUT PHILLIP RANGAL 3 9 0 3 SKY RIDGE, UM, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UM, I SEE THESE THINGS THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS, UM, THAN OTHERS. AND I PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE SAME LENS AS AS MY SPOUSE. UM, MY BACKGROUND IS 28 YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE. MY LAST 10 YEARS OF SERVICE WAS, UH, I'M A MILITARY POLICEMAN, WAS A FORCE PROTECTION EVALUATOR FOR NORAD HEADQUARTERS AND US NORTHERN COMMAND. SO I WORKED FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ONE OF THE, SO MY EXPERTISE [03:05:01] AND MY BACKGROUND IS PHYSICAL SECURITY AND ANTI-TERRORISM. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS AS RESPONDENT OFFICERS THAT I LOOK AT IS, AM I ABLE TO APPEAR OVER A CERTAIN STRUCTURE FOR NOT ONLY FOR MY SAFETY, BUT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER INCIDENTS GOING ON BEHIND THAT STRUCTURE AND HOW WOULD I RESPOND TO THAT, TO THAT INCIDENT BEHIND THAT STRUCTURE? LIKE I SAID, I'M SEEING THINGS THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS THAN YOU, THAN WHAT Y'ALL SEE IT. I, THROUGH THE GET THROUGH THE LENS OF, OF MY EXPERTISE, I'M CONSIDERED A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN, IN THIS AREA. SO, AND THEN, UM, OF A RESPONDENT OFFICER. SO NOT ONLY OF AN OFFICER, BUT OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS AS WELL. UM, AND ALSO BECAUSE LIKE SHE HAD SAID, THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE POLICE RESPONSES TO THAT, TO THAT RESIDENCE. YOU KNOW, I WON'T NAME THEM ALL OR REALLY IDENTIFY HOW THEY, WHAT THEY WERE. UM, BUT I'M PRETTY, PRETTY SURE THEY'RE PART OF RECORD. AND SO WITH THAT AND HAVING THAT HEIGHTENED CONCERN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SEEING THROUGH THAT LENS OF BEING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND RETIRED, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND SHOULD BE. UM, I DON'T IT HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ANYONE ELSE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO. UM, I GUESS YOU CAN, YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. I, I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. MIGUEL, SIR, WE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE QUESTIONS FROM YOU AS WELL. SO, SO ONE QUESTION. SO, SO RECENTLY THERE IS, I GUESS WE APPROVED THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR. UM, AND SO, UM, AND I, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T RECALL THE WHOLE DIALOGUE, BUT SO IS THE FRONT FENCE ON THAT OPEN AS WELL OR IS IT, IS IT SIX FOOT NO. OR IS THERE, IS IT EIGHT FOOT AS WELL? IT'S EIGHT FOOT AS WELL. AND THAT FELLS OUTSIDE THAT EIGHT, THAT 200 FOOT CIRCLE. SO WE WEREN'T SENDING A LETTER TO A TO ATTEND THIS, SO. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'M GONNA, I'LL GO AHEAD AND WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED YOUR WIFE IF, IF A SIX FOOT FENCE WAS ALONG THE FRONT PLANE FACING THE STREET, WOULD THAT HELP WITH THE SECURITY ISSUE? IT, IT WOULD. AND CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UH, YOU GO AHEAD. I JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, UM, I THOUGHT WE HAD TO PULL PERMITS BECAUSE I'M SEEING THESE PICTURES PULL PERMITS BEFORE SOMETHING IS CONSTRUCTIVE AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE END UP HERE BEFORE THEY END UP GETTING THEIR PERMITS, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM. BUT, AND, UM, JUST, IT JUST SEEMS TO BE PRETTY HABITUAL AND I DON'T KNOW HOW ANY OTHER RESIDENTS AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. JUST SO YOU KNOW, HABIT AND SO FORTH. JUST SO YOU KNOW, UM, PULLING A FENCE PERMIT IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S LIKE 15, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I THINK. 15 OR 25 BUCKS. AND SOMETIMES THEY END UP BECOMING EIGHT FEET WITHOUT ANYONE'S KNOWLEDGE AND IT ENDS UP HERE, UM, WHILE IT'S IN PERMITTING OR INSPECTION, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW IT GOES SOMETIMES, SO. OKAY. IT'S JUST THAT I'M SEEING IT AS A, BECOMING AN ACCEPTED P YOU KNOW, ACCEPTED PRACTICE. RIGHT. AND WE DON'T DO FENCE. THERE'S NO FENCE INSPECTIONS EITHER, SO USUALLY IT'S COMPLAINT JUDGE. WELL, IF, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, MREL, IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE A SEAT. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL OR TWO TO LISTEN TO. RIGHT. THIS IS BETTY STEIN. I LIVE AT 4 0 0 2 MEADOWRIDGE STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 0. I'M CALLING REGARDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST. THE PROPERTY MAKING, THEIR REQUEST IS AT 4 0 0 1 SKY RIDGE, AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX INCH MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FENCE, EIGHT FOOT FENCE. SOLID SCREEN FENCE. UH, I SPOKE TO ROLAND OR SARTY, UH, . THE, THE, THE CASE NUMBER IS BO O A DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 9. UH, SO AT 2001, HE WANTS AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND I SPOKE TO HIM AND ALTHOUGH I WAS AGAINST IT, I AM NOW FOR IT. I HAVE SPOKE TO HIM AND, UH, SO YOU CAN COUNT ME. I DO NOT OPPOSE IT. I AM IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THAT HOMEOWNER TO, UH, HAVE HIS EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES, UH, VOICEMAILS. UH, OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MR. MR. WHITEHEAD, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME BACK UP. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. UM, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION AND LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND PLEASE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES YEAH. TO PROVIDE ANY, UH, CLOSING REMARKS. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, UM, WE'RE NEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT SOME AIRBNBS HAVE GOTTEN [03:10:01] A BA, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN IN THE PAPERS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T APPROVE OF PARTIES. THERE'S BEEN NO, YOU KNOW, WILD PARTIES OR ANYTHING. WE HAVE VERY PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE. IN FACT, DURING C O V I D WE HAD A LOT OF, UH, NURSES, TRAVELING NURSES THAT WERE HERE WORKING HERE IN SAN ANTONIO FOR THE LAST, WHAT, YEAR AND A HALF. AND, UM, AS FAR AS THE POLICE, UM, RECENTLY HERE A GUEST HAS A SPOUSE THAT WAS A TRACK, YOU KNOW, A TRUCK DRIVER. SO THAT PERSON PULLED THEIR TRUCK UP TO THE HOUSE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. I DON'T KNOW THE RULES FOR, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THE TRUCK DRIVER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS DID CALL THE POLICE. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY OCCASION THAT POLICE HAVE BEEN THERE IS THAT ONE OCCASION. WE'VE BEEN THERE THREE YEARS. SO, UM, I, YOU KNOW, I, UM, I, I, I'M, WELL, I FEEL BAD THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OPPOSITION OR IF PEOPLE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEAL, BUT FOR THE GUESTS THAT WE, WE SERVE, THIS IS A REAL GOOD DEAL FOR THEM. AND SO I HOPE THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, APPROVE THE VARIANCE, UM, THAT WE'VE REQUESTED. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS, SO PLEASE FORGIVE ME. BUT, UM, UM, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH, YEAH, IF WE NEED TO DO SOME, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTING AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE FRONT OF THE FENCE, I'M WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE BACK PART OF THE FENCE WHERE MS. STEIN SAID THAT SHE WAS IN APPROVAL. I KNOW SHE SAID SHE WAS, UM, EVENTUALLY, I MEAN INITIALLY AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE, UM, EXISTING FENCE, SHE THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA PUT ANOTHER FENCE NEXT TO THAT FENCE. AND SO THAT'S WHY SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS AGAINST IT. OKAY. UM, ALSO, I'M A NAVY VET, OKAY. AND I SERVE THIS COUNTRY AND, UM, WE ARE, UM, DECENT AND LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . SO WITH THAT, UM, I HAVE A CLARIFICATION FOR EMOTIONS MADE THAT THIS WAS ADVERTISED FOR SIDE AND REAR, CORRECT. I KNOW THAT WE HEARD IT WAS ONLY GONNA BE THE SIDES, BUT IT IS OKAY FOR SIDE AND REAR. SO IF THERE IS, AND WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THAT, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO NOT HAVE THE FRONT PART OF THE FENCE THAT FACES, UH, SKYRIDGE, UM, AT EIGHT FEET. SO DOES ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 1 29. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID STREET FENCE ALONG THE FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FENCE FACING SKY RIDGE, THE SIDE REAR, EXCUSE ME, THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE. YES, CORRECT. YES. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SIX FOOT FRONT FACING FENCE, RIGHT. SITUATED AT 4 0 0 1 SKY RIDGE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING CHARLES WHITEHEAD, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW 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 THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL TWO FOOT HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE. HE TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID GREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR YARD DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. C THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS THAT DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE THE 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 SECTION OF THE SIDE AND REAR FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. THERE ARE SIMILAR FENCES IN THE AREA, IMMEDIATE AREA E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE 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. END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER THIEL. LEAVE THE DISCUSSION PLEASE. YEP. I, I THINK THAT, UH, [03:15:01] ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I THINK HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, UH, GOOD FENCES CAN MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I THINK, UH, ADDRESSING THE FRONT FACING FENCE TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IS A GOOD COMPROMISE. AND THIS ALSO WILL ALLOW PRIVACY BOTH FOR HIS GUESTS AND THE, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALSO, I THINK IT'S, UH, UH, RESOLVES SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ATTENDING. SO I THINK WITH THAT THEN THIS KIND OF IS A NICE COMPROMISE. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. GREAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HEARING NONE? STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. INAL. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER? I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. A MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, MR. WHITEHEAD, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IT LOOKS LIKE PERHAPS, UH, MR. COFFEY IS, ARE YOU HERE FOR, UH, YOU ARE. OKAY. SO WE CAN RESUME ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. [8. BOA2110300115: A request by Christopher Coffey for a 3’ 3” variance from the minimum 5’ side setback to allow a detached structure to be 1’ 9” away from the side property line, located at 323 Devine Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Roland Arsate, Planner (210) 2073074, Roland.Arsate@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department) (Part 2 of 2)] WE ALREADY HEARD THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND WE, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYTHING ELSE TO LISTEN TO BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? NO SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO, MR. COFFEE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION PRESENTING MR. COFFEE IN THE MATTER, UM, FOR 3 23 DIVINE. UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE EARLIER. WE DIDN'T RECE OR I DIDN'T RECEIVE A SCHEDULE OR A TIME FOR THE ME FOR THE, UH, B O A MEETING TODAY. SO I HAD TO RUN OVER HERE. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. UM, THE CRUX OF THE REQUEST IS THE HOMEOWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO A CARPORT TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING STORAGE STRUCTURES AND EXISTING CARPORT. THEY'D ALSO LIKE TO RELOCATE THEIR DRIVEWAY TO THE NEW CARPORT AND THEN THEY WILL RECLAIM THE CARPORT AS KIND OF AN OUTDOOR DINING, RELAXING COVERED SPACE. UM, THE INTENT IS FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE HISTORIC CARPORT STORAGE BUILDING, WHICH WILL BE MAINTAINED JUST EXTENDING THE ROOF AND UTILIZING NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL TO BUILD A NEW STEEL FRAME AND ROOFED CARPORT AT THE NORTH END. UM, THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY PART OF THE PROJECT THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE, UH, SIDE SETBACK. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE REQUESTING A B O A VARIANCE FOR THAT SETBACK. OKAY. UM, HAVE YOU RECEIVED H D R C APPROVAL? YES, WE HAVE. THEY HAVE APPROVED, UH, THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN THAT, UH, YOU SEE THERE OUT IN FRONT OF YOU. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL, JUST TO CONFIRM, UH, MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT, UH, THE NEW CARPORT WILL JUST FOLLOW IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING FACADE ON THE REAR THERE. CORRECT? EVERYTHING WILL BE ALIGNED. UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE WILL, WE WILL BUILD TO WHATEVER CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR ANY NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR FIRE RATED CONDITIONS ON THAT BACK WALL. BUT THE GOAL WAS JUST REALLY TO MAINTAIN, WE KNEW H D R C WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CARPORT, NOR DID THE OWNER HAVE ANY INTEREST IN DOING THAT. SO THE GOAL WAS JUST TO EXTRUDE AND CONTINUE THAT FORM TOWARDS THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALBERT? COMMISSIONER ALBERT? UH, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, IS THIS PROPERTY HELD TO THE, UH, TO THE U D C RULE THAT STATES, UH, 25% OR LESS FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR IS IT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S MIXED? THAT WAS REVIEWED? SHE'S CALCULATING WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S UNDER THE 2,500 FROM WHAT OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT WAS. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF CARPORTS WERE INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION. I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE OCCUPANCY. IT'S ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. OKAY. ACTUALLY ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN. ANY STRUCTURE THAT HAS THREE SIDES IS NOT CONSIDERED A CARPORT, RIGHT? A CARPORT HAS TO HAVE TWO SIDES OR LESS. I THINK CAR CARPORTS TYPICALLY ONLY HAVE TWO WALLS. UM, A ANY MORE WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS A, AS A BUILDING. SO STAFF, CAN YOU, UM, EXPAND ON THAT? UM, YEAH, LAST REMARK. SO THIS IS A BUDDING AND EXISTING SHED. SO IT DOES HAVE ONE WALL ON THE SIDE, UH, BUT THEN THE IT ON THERE'S SIDE PLAN, [03:20:01] IT SAYS PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, OPEN CARPORT PLUS STORAGE. IS THE STORAGE ASPECT OF IT CREATING ADDITIONAL WALLS? AND IF SO, WHERE ON AT WHICH SIDE? SO INITIALLY THERE WAS A STORAGE TO THE RIGHT OF IT. UM, THIS IS A REVISED SITE PLAN AND THEY HAVE REMOVED THAT STORAGE. SO IT'LL BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN EX IT'S OPEN EXCEPT FOR THE SIDE THAT ABUTS A SHED? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. CAN I CHIP IN REAL QUICK? BECAUSE OF FIRE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING, WE MAY BE REQUIRED TO PUT A FIRE RATED WALL ON THE NOR ON THE WEST SIDE. SO THERE MAY BE TWO WALLS, THE EXISTING STORAGE WALL, THAT'S FOR THE EXISTING STORAGE STRUCTURE AND WE MAY HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER WALL FACING THE OR ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE RIGHT. ABUTTED TO. LET'S SEE. RIGHT HERE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALBERTA, THEN ADJUST YOUR CONCERNS. UH, YEAH, THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. JUST THANK YOU. GREAT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER OR MINKA? UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF. SO IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE, WHAT ALREADY EXISTS AND THEN THEY MAKE IT BIGGER, IT DOES NOT EXIST, EXCEED THE PERCENTAGE THAT WAS INITIALLY ALLOWED. THE CALCULATION IS BASED ON ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INSIDE AND REAR YARD. SO YOU, YOU TAKE THE CALCULATION OF ALL SIDE AND REAR, THAT'S YOUR AREA. UM, IT CAN'T GO OVER A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, BUT NO LARGER THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET ALTOGETHER. AND SO IT'S LESS THAN THAT. ANY IF THEY WANNA MODIFY IT ANYMORE AFTER TODAY, UH, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. AND THAT'S REVIEWED AGAIN. THANK YOU. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, YOU MAY TAKE A FEW MINUTES IF THERE'S ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE DELIBERATE. YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK TO WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE INTENTIONALLY WITH THE CLIENT DID REMOVE THAT ADDITIONAL STORAGE THAT WAS GOING EXTENDING TOWARDS THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE WE HAD IDENTIFIED THAT IT WAS GETTING CLOSE TO THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT AND THE CLIENT, YOU KNOW, DECIDED HE DIDN'T REALLY NEED IT. 'CAUSE HE HAS SOME OTHER STORAGE IMPLEMENT SPACES THAT ARE EXISTING THERE. SO. OKAY. THAT'S REALLY IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, IF YOU CAN PLEASE TAKE A SEAT AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR, UH, A MOTION ON THIS PLEASE. TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 115. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR THREE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT NINE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 3 2 3 DIVINE STREET. APPLICANT BEING CHRISTOPHER COFFEE 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE FORCE, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUEST TO ALLOW DETACHED STRUCTURE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE. 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 A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE CARPORT WIDTH WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED FI FIVE FOOT, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR THE STRUCTURE ON AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. 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 AN OPERATION OF, UH, USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION BUT USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH A 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 SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE APPEAR TO BE OTHER NON-CONFORMING DETACHED STRUCTURES ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, 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 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 BOARD FINDS THAT THE P TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SHORT WIDTH OF AVAILABLE SPACE [03:25:01] FOR A TWO VEHICLE CARPORT AND A REGULAR LOT SHAPE INTO MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THIEL. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YES. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITH THE H D R C, UH, APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UH, ALSO GIVEN THE NATURE OF A REGULAR SIZED LOT, AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY'VE MADE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. UH, SO I THINK THIS WILL BE JUST MORE CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? UH, STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ENGLES. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UM, WITH THAT WE MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES. [11. Approval of the minutes from the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 4, 2021.] UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA AND I BOTH HAD SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY STAFF. WAS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MINUTES BY THE REST OF THE COMMISSION? CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, I HAD SENT HER A EMAIL SAYING THAT MY NAME GOT SPELLED WRONG. SO OTHERWISE THEY WERE OKAY. . SILLY LITTLE PROBLEM. YES. WAS THAT ADJUSTED? YES. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THE MINUTES. CRUZ. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A, A MOTION, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANCHACA TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. UM, AS CORRECT. PARDON ME? AS CORRECTED. AS CORRECTED. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY. MS. CRUZ. I APPROVE. MR. MENCHACA. I APPROVE MS. INGLES. I APPROVE MR. ALBERT. I APPROVE MR. VASQUEZ. I APPROVE MR. MANNA. I APPROVE MS. BRAGMAN. I APPROVE MR. DELMER. I APPROVE MR. TEAL? YES. MR. OZUNA. I APPROVE CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO APPROVE THE MINUTES HAVE ARE PASSED. UH, BEFORE WE ADJOURN, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY WITH STAFF, UH, THE FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 1ST IS THAT WHEN WE'RE HAVING OUR FIRST, UH, U D C WORKSHOP, SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER, THE SECOND MEETING, SO THAT ON NOVEMBER 15TH, WE'LL BE MEETING, UH, AT WHAT TIME HAVE Y'ALL DECIDED? UM, I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE PROBABLY START ABOUT 11 O'CLOCK. OKAY. SO, UM, WE'LL FEED LUNCH. OH, WE'LL FEED YOU LUNCH, TURKEY, UM, AND . UH, BUT, BUT LET'S GET STARTED AT 11. AND WHAT WE'LL DO THAT MEETING IS WE WILL BE PRESENTING TO YOU WHAT, UH, SOME OF THE, UH, DEPARTMENT STAFF, UM, AMENDMENTS ARE. UH, SO THAT WAY YOU CAN GET A LOOK AND FEEL IN CASE, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THAT RELATE TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISIONS. UH, SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE FIRST, YOU, WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND THAT'S WHEN WE CAN START DISCUSSING THE ONES THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST THAT YOU THOUGHT MAYBE SHOULD BE, UH, INCLUDED. OKAY. SO WE CAN THEN START FIGURING OUT HOW TO DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HELP SUPPORT, UM, U D C AMENDMENTS THAT COME FROM A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. JUST FURTHER. SO, SO THE COMMISSION KNOWS THAT THERE'S, UM, THIS PROCESS COULD BE TIME CONSUMING OR NOT TIME CONSUMING. SO IF YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE U D C THAT, THAT YOU WOULDN'T PLEASE CALL STAFF AND ASK THEM. 'CAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A PHRASING, A CLARIFICATION. THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO DO IT THAT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR BETWEEN YOU AND A STAFF MEMBER JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO. 'CAUSE WE HEAR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. UH, AND THAT WAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE BRINGING ALMOST A POLISHED PRODUCT. UH, AND REQUEST INTO OUR WORK SESSION AND, AND WE'LL GET THIS SMOOTH AND OVER . SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING. IT IS 4 4 4 44. ALRIGHT. * 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.