* 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] ALL [Call to Order] RIGHT. THE TIME IS ONE OH FIVE. UH, I'M GONNA CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IF WE CAN HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER PLEASE. UM, UH, MAKE THE PRESENTATION. AND THIS, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT IS TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE DO HAVE INTERPRETATION SERVICES. IF THERE'S ANYONE NEEDING INTERPRETATION SERVICES, YOU CAN FIND THE, THE INTERPRETER'S CABIN RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL MS. KAPLAN. HERE. MR. ALBERT. PRESENT. MR. BIN CHAKA. PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. MANA? PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT. MS. MEESE? HERE. MR. THIEL. PRESENT. MR. OZUNA PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M ALSO PRESENT. SO IF EVERYONE CAN PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION FOR GOD IN LIBERTY FOR ALL. FOR ALL, ALL TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE ONE STATE, ONE INDIVISIBLE. RIGHT. EVERYONE'S GETTING THAT ONE BACK ALL. SO, 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 STREET ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS, AND I ASK THAT BOARD MEMBER SMITH THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR, AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY, 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 RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET, 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 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 AN APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS 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 THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS 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 RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE 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 THE MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESIDENT 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 AND 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. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF THE CASE. UM, STAFF STAFF WILL BEGIN E WE'LL 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 PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY [00:05:01] 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 THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU WILL BE CALLED AN 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 THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. WE WILL INFORM YOU 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. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO TODAY WE'RE [4. BOA-21-10300143] GONNA BE, UH, STARTING WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA. SO IF, UM, IF THE APPLICANT WHO IS PRESENT FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AND THAT'S, UH, REGARDING, UM, 18 3 0 7 BROOKWOOD FOREST, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND JUST HAVE A SEAT AND STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION PRIOR. YEAH. THANK YOU. ADDRESS, ADDRESS IS, UH, B O A CASE NUMBER 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 43. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ADDRESS IS 18 3 0 7 BROOKWOOD FOREST CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NUMBER NINE. APPLICANT IS, UH, RO UH, REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED REQUIREMENT OF SIX FEET TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINES CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BROOKWOOD FOREST, NEAR EBNER ROAD. SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED ON IT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT-FOOT SOLID SCREEN PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY DOES ABUT COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. SO AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT, AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS ONLY REQUIRED FOR THE PORTION OF THE FENCE ALONG THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINES, SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT'S THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE CURRENTLY HAS A SIX FOOT, UH, SOLID SCREEN FENCE. IT'S THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, SURROUNDING AREA, UH, FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 43. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT WILL ALLOW FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. TWO, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS ABUTTING A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY DIRECTLY BEHIND IT. THREE, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN ELEVATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND FOUR IN EIGHT FOOT FENCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THERE WERE 20 NOTICES MAILED OUT. TRUE. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THIS CONCLUDES STEPH'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. TAKE MY MASK OFF OR NO? NO. OKAY. UH, YES. UH, WELL, WE JUST WANTED THE EX, WE WERE GONNA REPLACE OUR MASKS. OH, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE TO HAVE YOUR NAME. THE, OH, ROSIE RUSK AT 18 307 BROOKWOOD FOREST. THANK YOU. SORRY. UH, SO OUR NEIGHBORS, THE THREE HOUSES TO THE LEFT OF US ALL HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND SO WHEN IT CAME TIME TO REPLACE OURS, WE REALIZED, AND THESE, I TOOK PICTURES FOR YOU TO SEE THIS, UH, THE ADDRESS THAT'S ON THERE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT IT'S, YEAH, 18 22 15. AND THEN I FORGET THE NUMBERS NOW, BUT, UH, THERE'S THE FENCE. UH, OUR, WELL, ANYWAYS, BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CONSIDERED THAT WE WOULD WANT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE FOR THE EXTRA SECURITY, EXTRA PRIVACY. AND I ALSO INCLUDED PICTURES. THERE'S THE FENCE FROM THE, UM, TWO 15 TO TWO 19. UH, AND I ALSO INC YEAH. AND THERE'S THE SIDE OF, UH, TWO 19 TO 3 0 3. THAT'S THE HOUSE NE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US. THAT ONE. AND THEN, UH, OUR FINS WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET BECAUSE WE HAVE, UH, GATES. SO THE FENCES WOULD ACTUALLY JUST START BEYOND THE FAN. THE, UH, SO YOU COULD NOT VISIBLY SEE IT. IT WOULD JUST PROVIDE US THE EXTRA SECURITY AND EXTRA, UH, PRIVACY FROM THE TWO NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE. [00:10:01] AND I TOOK, I TOOK A COUPLE PICTURES. YOU SEE THIS ONE WHERE THE FENCE, IF I GOT A COUPLE, TWO MORE FEET, YOU COULD JUST GIVE ME A LITTLE, I COULD GET A LITTLE MORE PRIVACY FROM THE NEIGHBOR ON THAT SIDE. AND THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE OTHER SIDE. AND I, AND THAT'S 18 3 11. AND THIS IS THE 18 3 0 3. AND YOU CAN SEE HIS FENCE JUST PAST THAT, WHERE HE IS GOT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. MINE IS THE WEATHERED ONE IN THE FOREGROUND. UH, SO THAT'S MY ARGUMENT FOR TRYING TO GET THE EXTRA, THE VARIANCE FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. IT WOULD BE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 'CAUSE WE HAVE IRON GATES. IT WOULD JUST BE TO, FOR THE EXTRA PROTECTION, EXTRA SECURITY, UH, UH, PRIVACY, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE NEIGHBORS. IT WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD JUST BE VERY UN UM, UNOBTRUSIVE TO, TO THE, TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. UH, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF, UH, IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A SECOND. WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY, UM, ANY, ANYTHING TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD. ANY VOICEMAILS? OKAY. THIS ONE? NO, UH, NO. NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, I THINK. AND NO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? MENCHACA, UH, COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, SHE, SHE STATED THAT EXTRA PROTECTION FOR WHAT? OH, I'M, I, THE, THE BACKYARD THERE HAS BEEN, OH, EXCUSE ME, SOME, UM, REPORTS FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE, UM, LOITERING BACK THERE. THEY, I, I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT, BUT I'VE HEARD THAT THERE'S LIKE A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT IN THE WOODS THAT'S BEHIND OUR HOUSE. AND SO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE MORE, YOU KNOW, I, THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I SAID PROTECTION. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S SOME WOODS BEHIND YOUR HOUSE? YES. OR AN EASEMENT. OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE, I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PICTURES. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. WELL, I DIDN'T TAKE THAT, BUT YEAH, IT'S OKAY. I DIDN'T, MAYBE FROM A ARIEL, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOTHING BACK THERE. BUT, UM, 6 0 4 IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT. AT THE VERY, BETWEEN OUR HOUSE IS THAT, UM, UNDEVELOPED. THERE IS, UM, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT THERE'S ALSO WOODED AREA AND WHAT OUR VERY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, 18 3 11, THEY HAVE A GATE. YES. SEE THAT WOODED AREA. SO 18 3 11, THEY HAVE A GATE AND WE DO TOO, THAT LEADS, SO WE COULD CLEAR OUT THE EASEMENT. AND, UH, SOMEONE TOLD, HE TOLD ME THAT WHEN ONE OF THE WORKERS WAS TRYING TO CLEAR THAT OUT, THEY FOUND SOMEONE BACK THERE THAT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS HOMELESS. AND SO THAT ALARMED US A LITTLE BIT. SO WE WANTED MAYBE AN EXTRA COUPLE FEET ALSO FOR THAT REASON, I NEVER SAW THAT PERSON. I WAS JUST TOLD ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA. IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? NO, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, ANYONE ELSE? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, THIS QUESTION'S FOR STAFF. UM, IS THIS LIKE THE THIRD, UM, THIRD REQUEST THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THIS STREET, KIND OF DEALING WITH THE ELEVATION IN, IN THE, IN THE BACK LOT? IT SEEMS LIKE I RECALL SOME OTHER CASES HERE. NO, SIR. IT'S NOT. IS THAT, SO THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THERE? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT. I THOUGHT WE'VE HEARD TWO OR THREE OF THE NEIGHBORS ASKING FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE HERE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE HAVE EIGHT FOOT FENCES. YES. UH, I BELIEVE THAT ADDRESS WAS OFF OF LIKE SPRING VALLEY. THAT'S WHERE WE HAD LIKE TWO OR THREE NEIGHBORS REQUESTING THE FENCE. I MEAN, THIS IS BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL AT VINEYARD RANCH, RIGHT? OH, NO, THIS IS, UM, VINEYARDS, THE VINEYARDS, THE VINEYARD, THE VINEYARDS, UH, THE SHOPPING CENTER IS THE, THE, I THINK THE VINEYARD SHOPS. I'M, I'M THE CENTER. DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THOSE SHOPPING CENTER, BUT IT'S LAKE VINEYARD, THE VINEYARD SHOPPING CENTER, I THINK IS WHAT IT'S CALLED. YEAH. I, I RECALL THERE BEING A, A, A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF APPLICATIONS I RECALL AS WELL. I SOMEONE WAS, UH, DIRECTING THE HEADLIGHTS FROM THE CARS AS BEING ONE OF THE REASONS THEY WERE SEEING. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. IS THERE ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND, UH, WELL, I, I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M LOOKING FOR YOU CAN, YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 1 43. A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FI FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 1 8 3 0 7 BROOKWOOD FOREST APPLICANT BEING ROSES RUSK, 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 [00:15:01] OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET OF HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY AND SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY. D S D TRAFFIC HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. B, 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. AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE REAR SIDE, PROPERTY LINES DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS THE DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. D S D TRAFFIC STAFF DID REVIEW THE FENCE AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. 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 CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, YOU CAN PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. YES. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, MOTION. UH, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE FENCE ISN'T GONNA START UNTIL WELL BACK OF THE, UH, FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. SO, AND, AND WILL LIKELY BE NOT VISIBLE FROM, UH, FROM THE FRONT. SO I'M, UH, GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I POUR THE MOTION AS WELL. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF KINDA THE TOPO DIFFERENCES AND, AND FROM CLEARLY FROM HER PATIO. UH, YOU KNOW, SHE DOESN'T GET THE PRIVACY THAT THE SIX FOOT, UH, FENCE PROVIDES. SO THE TWO ADDITIONAL FEET, I THINK GIVES HER THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY THAT SHE'S SEEKING. WE SAW NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NO OPPOSITION FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND ACTUALLY TWO, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT IN FAVOR. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. GREAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MEESE, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF THE APPLICANT'S STILL IN HERE, YOU CAN, UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS. THANK VERY MUCH APPRECIATE. THANK YOU. ALL [1. BOA-21-10300037] RIGHT, NEXT CASE. ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, LOCATED AT 69 19 NORTH 1604 WEST. GOOD AFTERNOON, KAYLA AL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE IS CASE BO, O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 3 7. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 69 19 NORTH 1604 WEST WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. UM, THE APPLICANT IS EMILY WEISLER, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A WAIVER TO THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR 104 PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY. THE, UH, ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS MULTIFAMILY. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 16, OH, NORTH LOOP 1604 AND CHASE HILL BOULEVARD. UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL. UM, IT WAS RECENTLY REZONED TO MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT. UM, IN ORDER TO CONVERT IT INTO A MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR A ONE-TO-ONE PARKING RATIO. UM, THERE ARE 122 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED 122 UNITS TOTAL. UM, THERE IS A, A SECTION OF CODE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING WAIVER. UM, SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT CO THAT WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING BY 12 SPACES. UM, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE 104 SPACES, SO THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE HEARING TODAY IS TO ALLOW FOR SIX LESS SPACES. UM, THEY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE EDWARD RECHARGE ZONE. UM, REVIEW HAS BEEN DONE BY SAWS AND THEY CANNOT, [00:20:02] UM, INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE, THE PROPERTY, THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 21. 1 0 3 0 0 3 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THERE'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND EXISTING PARKING THAT IS BEING CONVERTED TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW USE. TWO, UH, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 104 PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY. AND THREE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EDWARD RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT AND IS LIMITED TO THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF MAILED SIX NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. UH, THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD RE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS THE ONE THAT WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR. UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? I GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ROB KILLEN. I'M AN ATTORNEY LAW FIRM KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT, LOCATED AT 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MOUNTAIN CLASSIC REAL ESTATE. THEY ARE THE PROPOSED, UH, REDEVELOPER OF THIS EXISTING STAYBRIDGE SUITES EXTENDED STAY HOTEL. ARE YOU ADVANCED? MY SLIDES? I WASN'T. OKAY. NO, THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S GOOD. YEAH, JUST KIND OF FOLLOW MY RHYTHM. THAT'S GOOD. I LIKE IT. UH, UH, THE STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL OUT ON 1604 OUT BY U T S A. SO WHEN THEY HIRED US BACK IN THE SPRING, WE LOOKED AT WHAT THEY NEEDED FROM AN ENTITLEMENT STANDPOINT. IT WAS ZONED C THREE, WHICH IS INTENSE COMMERCIAL. WE NEEDED TO REZONE TO MF 40, WHICH ALLOWED FOR, UH, APARTMENTS. AND WE ALSO NOTED THAT WE DIDN'T MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING RATIO, SO WE VISITED WITH STAFF. WE KNEW GOING INTO THIS THAT WE WOULD BE IN FRONT OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT SOME POINT, ASKING FOR A PARKING ADJUSTMENT. WE WENT THROUGH THE, UH, FULL ZONING PROCESS. WE MET WITH, WE'RE NOT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP IS HILLS AND DALE'S. THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY OVER TO, UH, THE WEST OF US. SO WE MET WITH HILLSDALE'S, UH, MET WITH OBVIOUSLY ZONING COMMISSIONER STAFF, UH, COUNCILMEN. IT WENT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND WAS APPROVED. REZONED, MF, UH, 40 ON OCTOBER 7TH. HERE'S THE SITE ITSELF. HERE'S AN ARROW. NOW YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LARGE DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACK. AND, AND WHAT'S LEFT IS, IS KIND OF THIS LITTLE NUB. UH, MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED. IN FACT, ONLY 47% OF THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY PAVED. AGAIN, YOU SAW THIS, UH, SPLANK. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UH, LET'S GO ON THE NEXT SLIDE. SO, RIGHT NOW IT IS BEING USED, UH, STILL BEING USED BY STAYBRIDGE, UH, PENDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, PARKING REDUCTION. THEY HAVE 122 UNITS IN THERE, AND THEY HAVE 104 PARKING SPACES. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THEY'VE OPERATED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED. AND, UH, HOTEL WAS OPEN IN 2007. SO THEY'VE BEEN OPERATED UNDER THE SAME, UH, STANDARD IN TERMS OF THE RATIO THAT'S OUT THERE TODAY. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA ADD ANY NEW UNITS AS PART OF THE CONVERSION. WE'RE NOT GONNA ADD ANY PARKING. WE'RE NOT GONNA ADD ANY IMPERVIOUS COVER. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UH, FUNCTIONALLY THOUGH, THE CURRENT USE IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO, AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL AND EXTENDED STAY HOTELS, AS YOU MAY KNOW, UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS A CORPORATE APARTMENT. AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL OR A CORPORATE APARTMENT IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU GO IN AND YOU STAY TYPICALLY FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY OVER 30 DAYS, BUT ALLOWS YOU TO STAY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. IMAGINE YOU'VE COME TO SAN ANTONIO, MAYBE YOU'RE TEACHING U T S A FIRST SEMESTER. YOU NEED A PLACE TO STAY. YOU COULD STAY THERE FOR SIX MONTHS. SO PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY ACTUALLY LIVE THERE. EACH OF THE UNITS HAS A KITCHEN. IT'S, IT'S GOT A BEDROOM, A CLOSET, ALL THAT. IT'S, IT IS FUNCTIONALLY AN APARTMENT TODAY. LET'S GO AHEAD. UH, THIS SHOWS THE PREVIOUS ZONING AND THE, UH, CHANGES ZONING. OCTOBER 7TH CITY HAS NOT YET UPDATED THE, UH, GI G I S, BUT IT IS MF 40. AS PART OF THE ZONING PROCESS, BECAUSE WE'RE OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM GOES IN AND THEY PREPARE A REPORT. THEY NOTED IT WAS, UH, CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AS CATEGORY ONE. WE'RE CHANGING THE USE. AND AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE, THE MINIMUM MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER TYPICALLY WITH MULTIFAMILY OR THE [00:25:01] RECHARGE ZONE IS 50%. THAT'S UNDER THE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE. UH, SAWS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THEY RECOGNIZED EXACTLY WHAT THIS WAS, WAS A CONVERSION FROM THE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL TO THE APARTMENTS. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THEY NOTED IT'S EXISTING FOUR STORY BUILDING WITH THE ASSOCIATED PARKING BUILT IN 2007. THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL LIMITING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE EXISTING 47%, WHICH MEANS, UH, EVEN THOUGH THE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE IS 50%, THEY SAID IT'S 47%. IT'S WHAT YOU GOT THERE. NOW, WE CAN'T ADD A SINGLE SQUARE INCH OF IMPERVIOUS COVER PER THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE. AND THERE WE ARE AGAIN, AGAIN ON THE CHANNEL. UH, YOU SAW SOME PICTURES IN KAYLA'S REPORT OF THE OUTSIDE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE, I, UH, I WENT TO U T S A, AN UNDERGRADUATE BACK IN THE, UH, BACK IN THE NINETIES. AND, UH, I LIVED ON CAMPUS. I LIVED AT THE UNIVERSITY OAKS APARTMENTS, WHICH SOME OF YOU MAY BE AWARE ARE THE APARTMENTS ON CAMPUS UP FRONT ON U T S A BOULEVARD. MY COMMUTE FROM MY APARTMENT TO A CLASSROOM IS FURTHER THAN IT IS FROM THE STATE BRIDGE SUITE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT, AND THIS IS JUST THE GOOGLE WALKING MAP, IT TAKES ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO GET TO CAMPUS FROM OVER HERE, ACROSS AND ACROSS 1604. IT'S, IT'S PRETTY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. AND THEN ANOTHER FEW MINUTES INTO A CLASSROOM. I HAD TO WALK EVEN FURTHER ACROSS, ACROSS THE PARKING LOT. IT'S ACTUALLY EASIER FOR ME TO DRIVE FROM MY APARTMENTS ON CAMPUS THAN TO WALK. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE. THE TARGET MARKET FOR THIS IS OBVIOUSLY STUDENTS WITH U T SS A RIGHT THERE. THE OTHER THING, THE SLIDE TO THE RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE THERE IS A BUS STOP. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT LITTLE, UH, LITTLE MARKER IS AT CHASE HILL IN 1604. IT SAYS IT TAKE YOU THREE MINUTES TO WALK TO THAT BUS STOP. HE JUST KIND OF CUT ACROSS. IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT A TWO MINUTE WALK OVER THAT BUS STOP WHERE WE'RE NEAR LOCK ANDRA. WE'RE OBVIOUSLY RIGHT ACROSS FROM CAMPUS, EASY TO WALK OR BIKE, UH, FROM HERE TO SHOPPING AND PLACES TO WORK, AND OF COURSE TO TO SCHOOL. UH, KAYLA, UH, COVERED THIS OF COURSE, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE, UH, MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, ALSO UNDER, UH, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA THAT IS DISCUSSED IN NUMEROUS CASES ON VARIANCES, UH, NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, WE HAVE 104 SPACES FOR 122 UNITS. WE ARE CREATING ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH, UH, THE SA TOMORROW PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE U T SS A, UH, REGIONAL CENTER PLAN, UH, UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AS KAYLA MENTIONED, OUR, OUR PARKING SPACE DEFICIT IS SIX SPACES, WHICH MEANS IF THIS REDUCTION IS NOT APPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE SIX OF THOSE UNITS. UM, OUR CLIENT IS GOING IN, THEY'RE REALLY NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. THEY JUST BASICALLY HAVE SIX HOUSING UNITS THAT WOULD BE SITTING EMPTY BECAUSE WE CAN'T, UH, MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO, UH, THAT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED. SUBSTANTIAL, UH, JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE. AGAIN, UH, WE'RE NOT MAKING THE SITUATION ANY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY. WE'VE HAD THE SAME 122 UNITS AND SAME 104 PARKING SPACES, UH, SINCE 2007. NEXT SLIDE. UH, NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. LIKE I SAID, THE EXTENDED STAY IS FUNCTIONALLY APARTMENTS TODAY, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY ZONED MF 40, WHICH ALLOWS US TO CONVERT, UH, TO THE, UM, MULTIFAMILY. AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST VERY RECENTLY GONE THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS, THROUGH ZONING COMMISSION, THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT. UH, NUMBER FIVE IS, UM, WON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. IT'S NOT A CHANGE. EVERYTHING'S GONNA LOOK THE SAME AND OPERATE THE SAME AS IT AS IT DOES TODAY, EXCEPT, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE SOME STUDENTS LIVING THERE. AND THEN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THAT'S VERY CLEAR. WE HAVE AN ODDLY SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE HAVE THE RECHARGE ZONE, WE HAVE THE LIMITATION ON IMPERIOUS COVERING, WORKING WITH AN EXISTING BILL THAT WE CAN'T ALTER. AND, UH, AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER OF THE ODD SHAPE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. SO THAT, UH, MR. CHAIR, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UM, I'LL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE. UH, UH, ONE SECOND, UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY COMMENTARY, ANYONE UNDER TO SPEAK? NO ONE'S SIGNED TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. OKAY. WELL THAT'S, THAT'S FANTASTIC. SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. BRAGMAN UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UM, YEAH, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. KILLEN? YES. UM, IS THE DEVELOPER PLANNING ON, UM, REWORKING ANY OF THESE UNITS? WILL THEY BECOME TWO BEDROOMS OR ARE THEY PLANNING ON STAYING ONE BEDROOM? EVERYTHING WILL STAY AS THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY. OKAY. AND SO YOU SAID YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE OR MARGIN STUDENTS IS STUDENTS? YES, MA'AM. IS IT CONCEIVABLE, IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE MIGHT BE TWO STUDENTS PER BEDROOM? THESE ARE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE TWO CARS? UH, NO. AND OUR CLIENT, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN THEY HAVE UNITS, WE'LL HAVE OUT PARKING PASSES. AND THEY ONLY GIVE OUT ENOUGH PARKING PASSES FOR THE NUMBER OF SPACES. OH, [00:30:01] ONE PER UNIT. SO IF THERE'S, IF SOMEHOW ANOTHER STUDENT SQUEEZES INTO THAT ONE BEDROOM, FIRST OF ALL, THEY DO IT WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF MANAGEMENT. UH, 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND TWO, UH, THAT PERSON IS WALKING. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW ARE STUDENTS? IT'S AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL. THERE, THERE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY STUDENTS LIVING THERE. NOW HOW WITH EXTENDED STAY DO YOU HAVE 122 ROOMS AND, UH, SO MANY FEWER PARKING SPACES? ASSUME PRESUMABLY PEOPLE PULL UP TO A HOTEL WITH A CAR. I, I, I WOULD ASSUME SO. I WAS NOT PART OF THE, UH, APPROVAL PROCESS IN 2007, BUT I AM ASSUMING AT MET CODE IN 2007, IT SHOULD HAVE. BUT I WILL DEFER TO STAFF. WHY THAT TO THE, OH, HELLO. I'M CHRISTINA DALA CRUZ. I'M WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. I'M THE MANAGER FOR OUR TRAFFIC AND STREETS. UH, AS PART OF A HOTEL, THE RATE THAT IS UTILIZED IS 0.8. SO IT'S A LESSER RATE THAN THREE REQUIRED FOR AN ACTUAL MULTI-FAMILY. SO THAT'S WHY THE STAY BRIDGE HAD LESS. 'CAUSE AT THE TIME, PER OUR CODE, IT INDICATES IT'S A 0.8 RATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. SO IF YOU WERE TO DO THE 1 22 BY THE 0.8, IT WOULD, I THINK IT ROUGHLY COMES OUT ABOUT 94 PARKING SPOTS. I'LL DO THE MATH. I I KNOW IT'S LESS THAN THE 1 22, OBVIOUSLY 0.8. I CAN BRING MY CALCULATOR UP HERE. IT'D BE LIKE 96, 97. OKAY. YEAH, ABOUT 98 9 7. A SMART CAR. YEAH. . NOW WE CAN'T BREAK A CAR IN HALF. SO EVERY SINGLE TIME I WAS TELL STAFF, MOVE IT RIGHT UP SMART CAR. IT'S, IS IT, IS THERE EXTRA PARKING NEARBY IN CASE THAT YOU HAD 112 PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP WITH A CAR THERE? THERE ARE, LET'S SEE. I DON'T, I DID NOT IN MY PRESENTATION, PULL OUT ON THE AERIAL. THERE ARE SOME EXISTING BUSINESSES NEARBY. WE HAVE APPROACHED THEM. OUR CLIENTS APPROACHED THEM ABOUT A COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT. AND WITH COOPERATIVE PAR, IF WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN A COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. UH, TODAY THEY HAVE APPROACHED THEM. THEY, THEY'RE IN CONVERSATIONS. THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO LIMIT TO WHAT THEY HAVE. OKAY. ONLY BECAUSE I SPENT OVER 15 YEARS WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ISSUES WITH PARKING. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE USES THAT YOU FIND RIGHT NEXT TO THE C V S AND THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE STRIP AND LOOKING AT THIS, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED THAT IF THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY ANY OVERFLOW THAT THE USES THAT YOU SEE THERE, THAT WIND TRAFFIC IS EITHER COMING AND LEAVING, IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE OPERATION OF THOSE PARTICULAR USES. NOT THAT THEY DID TRY TO ATTEMPT TO DO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, BUT THERE ARE, THERE IS THAT C V S AND PROBABLY HAS MORE SPOTS IN IT REALLY NEEDS BY MINIMUM, SO THAT IF THERE WAS ANY OVERFLOWS, THERE'S THAT C V S THAT THEY CAN TRY TO WORK WITH, OR THERE'S THAT LITTLE STRIP THAT I LOOKED TO. IT WAS LIKE A LIQUOR. THERE WAS A VAPOR PLACE. IT LOOKS LIKE ONE WAS VACANT. SO, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ALL THOSE PARKING SPOTS ARE BEING UTILIZED. BUT IF THERE WAS OVERFLOW, MORE LIKELY THEY MIGHT, IF THAT HAPPENED, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THEN THE APPLICANT AT THAT TIME MIGHT TRY TO WORK WITH THEM. BUT THEIR USES ARE DIFFERENT THAN THIS. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR, UH, QUESTION, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? UH, SO I ASSUME YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY, THEY COULD PARK IN OTHER, IN THE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS? I WOULD THINK, AND I GUESS I'LL LOOK TO THE APPLICANT. I KNOW THAT IN WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS, AT TIMES THEY WOULD TRY TO WORK WITH HIM. WE SAW OVERFLOW. WELL, I'M GONNA STEP IN AND JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT HA HAS STATED THAT THEY'RE IN TALKS FOR A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND UNTIL ONE IS IN PLACE, UH, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK THERE, BUT THERE'S A POTENTIAL. SO, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA FOR THE APPLICANT. CAN YOU TALK AGAIN ABOUT THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE CREATED IF THE VARIANCE WAS HAVE PASSED? IT SEEMS LIKE SAWS IS IMPOSING THAT LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH YOU'RE CAUGHT. YOU'RE SAYING SAWS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ADD THE SIX BASES YET, YOU KNOW, THE SIX BASES ARE NEEDED. AND I MEAN, TO ME IT'S RIDICULOUS TO SAY YOU'D HAVE TO SHUT DOWN SIX UNITS OF THE OPERATING CASH FLOW FOR THESE SPACES AND THEN TALK ABOUT, UH, THE NEED FOR CAMPUS HOUSING, UH, FOR THE UNIVERSITY. YEAH. THANK YOU MR. ROSE. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. AND, AND SO OBVIOUSLY SAULS WENT OUT, THEY VISITED THE SITE, THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PARKING SITUATION. AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HILLS AND DALES, THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PARKING SITUATION THAT, THAT WE COULDN'T ADD ANYTHING. AND OBVIOUSLY [00:35:01] SAWS, THEIR NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO PROTECT THE AQUIFER, RIGHT? AND SO THEY MAKE DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THAT. UM, AS I NOTED, THE UH, WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE IS 50%. SO EVEN IF THEY'D RECOMMENDED 50%, WE STILL WITH THAT EXTRA 3% PROBABLY COULD NOT HAVE SQUEEZED IN ANOTHER SPACE. MAYBE, MAYBE ONE MORE SPACE. UH, BUT, UH, ABSOLUTELY PROTECTING THE RECHARGE ZONE WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATION WITH THE PARKING BEING SECONDARY, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE A, A LANDLORD IN THIS CASE WHO WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN PARK. AND WE HAVE A, UH, CONSTITUENCY, A TENDENCY THAT WE ANTICIPATE, UH, WILL BE STUDENTS AT U T S A AND, AND MANY OF WHOM MAY NOT NEED, UH, CARS, THE, THE HOUSING PIECE OF IT. AND WE ALL KNOW WE'VE, WE'VE ALL WATCHED OVER THE LAST, UH, COUPLE OF YEARS, THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING GO UP. THE, THE DEMAND FOR HOTELS DECREASE. WE'VE WATCHED THE INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION COST. WE'VE WATCHED THE INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION DELAYS, WHICH IS WHY FOR OUR CLIENT, MOUNT CLASSIC, AND WE HAD ONE OF THESE, I WORKED ON ONE OF THESE IN SAN MARCO. UH, SAN MARCOS ALWAYS ALSO A COLLEGE TOWN. IT'S THE COUNTRY IN SUITES ON I 35. SAME THING, A CONVERSION. IT'S SOMETHING WHERE THEY CAN GO IN AND WITHIN A A FEW MONTHS HAVE IT UP AND READY FOR RESIDENTS AND MEET A VERY IMMEDIATE DEMAND FOR HOUSING AS OPPOSED TO FINDING, YOU KNOW, GREENFIELD SITE AND BUILDING FROM THE GROUND UP, GOING THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS, THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, THE DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL THAT COULD BE A TWO TO THREE YEAR, IF NOT LONGER PROCESS, THIS WILL BE TURNKEY, UH, WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YES, SIR. UM, IS THIS GONNA HAVE A LEASING OFFICE? YES, IT WILL. AND SO IT'S WITH 104 SPACES AS A HOTEL. THERE'S CERTAIN HANDICAPPED PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHEN THIS GOES TO RESIDENTIAL, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S AN ELEVATOR IN THERE. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO YOU'LL HAVE 2% FAIR HOUSING ACT PARKING, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE AT LEAST ONE FOR THE LEASING OFFICE. IS THERE A POSSIBLE TO GET ANOTHER ONE FROM THE REDUCTION OF HANDICAPPED PARKING THROUGH THIS? I'M JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY. I I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION THAT I, BUT THERE MIGHT BE. YES, ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. THANK YOU MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? MENCHACA COMMISSIONER MENCHACA? UH, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. SO THESE SPACES WILL NOT AFFECT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BOTTOM LINE. NO, SIR. WE WILL NOT ADD A SINGLE SQUARE INCH OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE CANNOT NOT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, STAFF, IF YOU TAKE A ROLL CALL, UH, I'M SORRY. WE NEED A MOTION ON THIS, PLEASE. OH, ZONA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 3 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER TO THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR 104 PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 6 9 1 9 NORTH 1604 WEST, APPLICANT BEING EMILY, UH, WEISLER, 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 PROVISION OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE TO THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO, TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE UNITS, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING PROVIDED THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS RE RECHARGE ZONE. SO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CURRENTLY PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT, SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD, 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, THE REAR, THE, THE REASON TO REDUCE THE PARKING'S BY SIX SPACES OF SERVICE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD DOES FIND THAT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS SIX LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARDS SUBSTANTIAL TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOLID IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE, WHICH IS RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR PARKING. THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YES. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UM, WE'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED WHERE SAWS, PROVO PER, UH, IMPOSED THE LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS [00:40:01] COVER. UH, I THINK THAT THE CONVERSION USE IS, IS A, UM, IS A GREAT, UH, USE OF, UH, CONVERSION. OBVIOUSLY WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT THE, THE LACK OF, OF HOSPITALITY NEEDS DUE TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ECONOM ECONOMICS AND THE INCREASED DEMAND FOR STUDENT HOUSING. SO THIS IS A WIN-WIN SITUATION AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AND THAT IT PROVIDES A MUCH NEEDED HOUSING FOR THE UNIVERSITY. UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX SPACES. I THINK IT PROVIDES A, UH, A TRUE HARDSHIP IF WE WERE TO TELL THE APPLICANT THAT HE'D HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN SIX OF THOSE OPERATING UNITS IN ORDER TO COMPLY. AND, AND WHEREBY, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, CHANCES ARE THAT THE, THE STUDENTS, SOME STUDENTS WILL NOT HAVE CARS AT ALL. I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT, UM, UH, USE OF THE PROPERTY AND I, FOR THAT REASON, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. UM, I AGREE NOT, NOT EVERY, UH, STUDENT IS GONNA HAVE A CAR. I CERTAINLY DIDN'T WHEN I WENT TO COLLEGE. SO, UM, AND THEN I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD USE, UH, OF, UH, A AN ASSET THAT MAYBE IS NOT PERFORMING, UM, AND CONVERTING IT TO STUDENT HOUSING. AND THEY MAY ACTUALLY FREE UP SOME HOUSING FOR, UM, OTHER FOLKS, UH, WHO ARE NOT STUDENTS IN, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSED LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, ALBERT, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT. UH, YEAH, I'D BE, UH, DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE. THIS MOTION. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANTS FOR CONTINUING TO PROTECT THE AQUIFER INSTEAD OF, UH, TAKING THE OTHER COURSE OF ACTION AND TRYING TO JUST GET THOSE PARKING SPACES HOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, WITH THAT, THE STAFF COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ARMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. ME, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NEXT CASE. ITEM TWO. [2. BOA-21-10300145] OKAY, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CASE BO O A 21. 103 0 1 4 5. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 79 79 AND 79 89 BENDERA ROAD WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN. THE APPLICANT, UM, IS JENNIFER GONZALEZ, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG BENDERA ROAD TO ONE INCH. UM, THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS C THREE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BENDERA ROAD. UM, THERE WERE SOME EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE, UM, SINCE BEEN DEMOLISHED AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR MORE PARKING, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. UM, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C THREE AND THAT REQUIRES A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG BENDERA ROAD SINCE IT'S A MAJOR ARTERIAL. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE SUBMITTED A NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH I HAVE. UM, I'LL PROJECT AND I'LL PASS OUT TO YOU WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, OUR TREE TREE REVIEW DIVISION. HERE'S, UH, AN IMAGE OF THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN. AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL PASS OUT A, AN UPDATED ONE HERE SHORTLY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND, UH, THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REDUCE IT 50%, UM, SEVEN FOOT SIX INCHES, UM, TWO SEVEN FOOT AND SIX INCHES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS 15 FEET ALONG BENDERA ROAD. AND TWO, THE D S D TREE REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDED THE BUFFER BE REDUCED TO NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD. UM, THIS WAS, UH, PUT TOGETHER AND ANALYZED PRIOR TO THE UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO, UM, WE DO HAVE AN UPDATED ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL WITH FROM OUR TREE REVIEW TEAM, WHICH THEY CAN TOUCH ON. STAFF MAIL 13 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE ARE RETURNED [00:45:01] IN FAVOR AND NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, EDMUND MCNO, 1 26 ARCH CEDES SAN ANTONIO. UH, SORRY TO GET BEFORE Y'ALL, WITH SOME THINGS STILL SCRAMBLING IN THE BACKGROUND ON THIS. MM-HMM. , UH, WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH, UH, CORPORATE FOR A COUPLE OF RESTAURANTS, UH, AND TREE, UH, DOWN AT PUBLIC WORKS. SO WE HAVE COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE PLAN THAT WE THINK CAN MAKE THIS A PALATABLE, UH, PROPERTY FOR EVERYBODY. UH, GOING BACK TO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THESE TRACKS WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1992 BACK BEFORE THE BUFFER ORDINANCE WAS THERE. SO THEY'RE REALLY SHORT TRACKS. UH, SO AS A USE FOR THOSE SHORT TRACKS, THERE WAS A SONIC AND A CARWASH, AND THEY JUST DON'T HAVE STANDARD PARKING CONFIGURATION. SONIC, YOU KNOW, HAS THE PULLINS AND THE, AND THE, IN THE OLD DAYS, THE ROLLERSKATING WAITRESSES THAT CAME UP TO YOUR CAR. UH, SO TO GET TO A MORE STANDARD FAST CASUAL RESTAURANT CONFIGURATION, THE APPLICANTS HAVE PURCHASED SOME ADDITIONAL LAND IN THE BACK, UH, TO GET ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT MEETS THEIR REQUIREMENTS. AND WE'VE GONE BACK, UH, AND MET WITH TREE AND CORPORATE. WE'VE RELOCATED SOME FRONT DOORS, WE'VE SHIFTED SOME, SOME DRIVE AISLES SLIGHTLY, AND WE CAN GET TO FIVE FOOT ON THE FRONT AND STILL MEET THEIR PARKING NEEDS FOR THE MR. PANDA AND THE CHIPOTLE FAST CASUALS. UH, THE PROPERTY IS, YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. IT'S 50 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE ROADWAY NOW. UH, AND THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION, WHICH DOESN'T SHOW ON THIS PLAN, HAS FOUR DRIVEWAY PENETRATIONS ON THOSE TWO LITTLE TRACKS. WE'RE REMOVING THREE OF THOSE, GETTING DOWN TO A SINGLE, UH, AND PROVIDING INTERCONNECT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO WE'VE MET WITH ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS, UH, AND TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER THE BEST PROJECT WE CAN FOR THE NEEDS OF THE AREA, WHILE ALSO GETTING THEM BARE, BARE, BARE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT EACH OF THESE RESTAURANTS SAYS THEY CAN WORK WITH. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF, IF Y'ALL HAVE CONCERNS. OKAY. UH, BEFORE WE DO THAT STAFF, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK, ANY NOTICES TO READ IN? NO ONE SENT IN TO SPEAK FOR THIS CASE AND NO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. FANTASTIC. UH, ALRIGHT, WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. ZUNA, MANNA, THE COMMISSIONER ZUNA, THEN A THEN MANNA. SO JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO WHAT IS THE, THE, THE, UM, OFFER REQ, UH, REQUEST NOW? ARE WE, WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM WHAT THE, I'M SORRY. I THAT'S ME. I SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT WE CAN GET TO FIVE FEET AND MEET ALL THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THAT FIVE FEET. OKAY. SO YOU ORIGINALLY REQUESTED ONE INCH AND YOU'RE, NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN LIVE WITH FIVE FEET? YES. YES. UH, COMM, COMMISSIONER, MANO. SO, UM, SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO FIRST IS, UM, SO SO DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO, UH, TXDOT WITH REGARDS TO FUTURE USE OF BANDERA? BECAUSE THERE'S WHOLE DIALOGUES ON WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARDWALK AND OTHER THINGS WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA EXPAND, UM, UH, BANDERA ITSELF AS FAR OR WIDEN IT. YEAH. SO, SO DOES THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WILL THAT HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THE IMPACT TO THE, TO, THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. ACTUALLY. WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PLATTING PROCESS AND THEY HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PULL MORE, MORE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY IF THEY NEEDED IT. AND THEY HAVEN'T REQUESTED THAT THEY'VE ALREADY GOT 50 FEET, WELL, 45 TO 60 FEET, UH, BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY LINE AND THEIR STREETS NOW. SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF ROOM FOR EXPANSION. OKAY, PERFECT. YEAH. 'CAUSE 'CAUSE IT'S STILL WAY IN EARLY DIALOGUES AND SO, SO, SO I'M TEXTILE HAS HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY, IT'S GONE THROUGH THEIR PROCESSES. OKAY, PERFECT. AND THEN, UM, AND THEN SECOND, I GUESS WOULD BE, UM, SO IT'S ALSO LOTS OF VIA TRAFFIC THERE AS WELL. AND SO, SO IS THERE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IS THAT GONNA IMPACT THE FLOW OF THE VIA, UH, TRANSPORTATION UP AND DOWN THAT CORRIDOR? IT'S ACTUALLY BY ELIMINATING A LOT OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS AND PROVIDING AN ACCESS TO MAINLAND, WE'VE KIND OF MITIGATED A LOT OF THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT THESE TWO SMALL SITES WERE GONNA GENERATE. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT. UH, SO WE SHOULD BE IN, IN BETTER STEAD THAN BEFORE. OKAY. THE THIRD QUESTION IS THAT THIS IS, UH, UPSTREAM JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM, UM, UH, LEON CREEK. UM, AND SO, SO IS THERE, WILL THERE BE MITIGATION FOR, 'CAUSE YOU'RE MOVING FOR MORE PRAIRIE SURFACE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NOW. SO WILL THERE BE MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR MANAGING? I GUESS THE, THE RUNOFF I'D, I'D HAVE TO VERIFY THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT THIS IS A FEE IN LIEU OF DETENTION, UH, AREA. BUT I, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'VE RESEARCHED. [00:50:02] THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, I'VE DONE SOME WORK UP BANDERA ROAD AND WHAT I RECALL IS THAT A LOT OF IT PREDOMINANTLY DRAINS FROM THE HIGHWAY BACK MM-HMM. , AND, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE, BY REMOVING THE DRIVEWAYS AND READJUSTING THE SITE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ADDING, UH, OR DECREASING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. MM-HMM. , IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN VERIFY OR IT, IT, IT IS A VERI VERIFIABLE, BUT WE'RE DECREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NOT TECHNICALLY ON OUR SITE. SO, SO THE WATER DOESN'T CARE, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE US CREDIT. OKAY. I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. SOMETIMES WHEN WE HEAR THESE BUFFER CASES, UH, WE, WE HEAR ARGUMENTS THAT THERE'S AN INCREASE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. YEAH. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, UH, WHAT SORT OF BUFFER, I KNOW THIS MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT PRIOR TO THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, BUT DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF A BUFFER CURRENTLY THERE? THERE'S NOTHING CURRENTLY THERE. NO. THIS WAS IN, ORIGINALLY PLANTED IN 92. AND, BUT YOU HAVE PAVEMENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE? NO, THERE'S 50 FEET BETWEEN THE PAVEMENT AND THAT PROPERTY LINE. I MEAN, YOUR SITE LIKE THAT, THAT'S CURRENTLY THE YES, THERE'S 50 FEET BUFFER. YOU CAN SEE THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT ON OUR DRIVEWAY. THE LITTLE NO, NO, I SEE THAT. I MEAN, NOT, NOT THE PAVEMENT OF BANDERA. I MEAN THE, THE, YOUR PARKING LOT PAVEMENT OH, TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE. YES. IS IS IT AROUND FIVE FEET? IS IT MORE OR LESS? CAN YOU THE PROPOSED IS FIVE FEET THE CURRENT, I I'M NOT SURE I COULD QUOTE YOU THAT AND BE ACCURATE. ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST CURIOUS. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO FIVE FOOT, SITUATED AT 7 9 7 9 AND 7 9 8 9 BANDERA ROAD, APPLICANT BEING JENNIFER GONZALEZ. 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 PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE A BUFFER, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO FIVE FOOT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE MORE FOR MORE PARKING FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT PARKING SPACES WOULD BE ELIMINATED FOR THE PROPOSED BUSINESS. 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 SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS STILL OBSERVED WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. 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 VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, DOES NOT APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, NOR WILL IT 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 IN WHICH THE DISTRICT, UH, OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE P TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END. THE MOTION IS THERE. SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. UM, YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, AS, UH, AMENDED HERE WITH THE FIVE FOOT BUFFER. UM, I THINK THAT YOU, SO MY MAIN CONCERN, UH, TO BE ADDRESSED WAS THAT THE, UH, THE TXDOT EXPANSION OF BANDERA, UH, 'CAUSE UH, THAT IS GONNA BE A MAJOR, UH, OR GONNA BE AN IMPROVED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. AND SO, UH, BY THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED IT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS WILL BE IMPACTING THAT. UM, AND THEN, UM, AND THAT THERE IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF, OF, UM, BUFFER THERE, UH, WITH, UH, THAT STILL REMAINS, I GUESS TO DO WA UH, WATER, WATER MITIGATION, WATER AND POLLUTION MITIGATION. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORTED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL BECAUSE THE CURRENT CONDITION REQUIRES NO BUFFER. AND SO GIVEN THE FIVE FOOT BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING, THAT TO ME IS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CURRENT STATUS. ALSO, THERE'S GONNA BE A REDUCTION, ALTHOUGH IT KIND OF IMPLIED BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT, UH, THERE WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM THE EXISTING. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS WHAT FOUR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES DOWN TO ONE MAJOR APPROACH. THAT CLEARLY IS GONNA BE, UH, AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE, IN THE IMP INCREASE, UH, IN THE IMPERVIOUS CO OR DECREASE IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER HERE ON THE, ON THE [00:55:01] PROPERTY. AND THEN THIRD, MOST IMPORTANT, I MEAN, THIS IS A, UH, ECONOMICS HERE. SO WE HAVE A CHANCE OF, OF, UH, REPLACING A CLOSE SONIC, A CLOSE CAR WASH WITH A CHIPOTLE AND A, WHAT IS IT? PANEX EXPRESS, WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES NOT ONLY JOBS, BUT THEN, UH, UH, REVENUE FOR THE CITY. SO I, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? I HEARING NONE THE STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. ARMANA. I, UH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. AN 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. MS. MEESE. I CON MR. THIEL? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, YOUR MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UM, GET WITH STAFF. YOU CAN TALK TO 'EM ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS, UH, STAFF. UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE. [3. BOA-21-10300104] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 4. ADDRESS IS 3 3 9 HERRIMAN PLACE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE. APPLICANT IS SANTOS RODRIGUEZ. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. CURRENT PROPERTY ZONE IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG HARRIMAN PLACE NEAR US. HIGHWAY 90 WEST, UH, CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WRT IRON FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED OTHER SIMILAR FENCES IN THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE ACCESS ROAD OF HIGHWAY 90 SITE PLAN, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, IT'S A PICTURE OF THE FRONT GATE, SIX FOOT AND HEIGHT. THIS IS THE, UH, VIEW OF THE HIGHWAY. UM, THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE. SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE REASON WHY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WROUGHT IRON FENCES. 'CAUSE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND A CAR CAME OFF THE HIGHWAY RIGHT IN THIS AREA AND FLEW RIGHT INTO THE HOUSE. SO, UM, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, GOTTEN WITH TDOT ABOUT, UM, PUTTING SOME TREES THERE. UH, IRONICALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY SECTION OF HIGHWAY 90 WHERE THERE'S NO TREES. EVERYONE ELSE HAS TREES. AND WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE, UH, TIRE TRACKS FROM WHERE THAT CAR WENT INTO THE PROPERTY. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SIMILAR FENCES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 4. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE WR IRON FENCE WILL BE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS FACING AND ENCLOSED PROXIMITY TO HIGHWAY 93. THE FENCE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND FOUR, THERE OTHER WR IRON FENCES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE WERE 24 NOTICES MAILED OUT. ONE WAS IN FAVOR, THERE WERE ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE COLIN GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT OPPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, MY NAME IS SANTOS RODRIGUEZ. UH, I LIVE AT 3 3 9 HARRIMAN. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE HEIGHT FENCE AND THE REASON WHY WE WENT FROM FOUR FEET TO TWO SIX FEET. UM, FIRST OFF, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. MY DAD HAD A, MY DADDY HAD A, A STROKE BACK IN 2006, SO, YOU KNOW, HE'S DIDN'T COME BACK TO, YOU KNOW, FULL CAPACITY, BUT HE LOVES TO STAY OUTSIDE IN THE FRONT PORCH. NOW, JUST RECENTLY HAVE, WE HAD PEOPLE COME OVER TO THE FENCE AND THEY WOULD ACTUALLY OPEN THE FENCE, GO THROUGH THE YARD, JUMP OVER THE FENCE, [01:00:01] AND THEN GO INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND START STEALING. OR IF NOT, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY JUST JUMP OVER THE FENCE AND ACTUALLY SEE MY DAD AND SAY, HEY, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? YOU'RE GONNA COME CHASE ME. I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. SO WE'LL JUST PUT A PIN ON THAT. ON 2000, IN 2020 IN DECEMBER, UH, 31ST, WE WERE GOING OUT TO GO HAVE SOME, SOME, UH, CELEBRATORY, UH, UM, BRUNCH. I GOT EVERYBODY IN THE VAN, GOT EVERYBODY IN THE CAR. AS WE WERE LEAVING, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD EVERYTHING. IT WAS STARTING TO DRIZZLE REALLY BAD, SO WE GOT HIM IN THE CAR. AS WE DROVE OFF, WE HAD A, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DROVE OFF AND I HEARD A VERY LARGE SOUND, VERY LARGE CRASH. WE TOOK A TURN. AS I GOT ON THE HIGHWAY, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MY NEIGHBOR, AND THEY STATED TO ME, SAYS, SOMEBODY JUST RAN INTO YOUR HOUSE. IT'S LIKE, WHAT? SO I TOOK THE NEXT EXIT, CAME BACK AROUND, NOTICED THE HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY PICTURES TO THAT ONE. UM, BUT IT WAS, UM, YEAH, THE HOUSE WAS PRETTY WELL, THE, THE, THE WHOLE FENCE LINE WAS DOWN. AND, UH, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT I HAD BUILT A, A RAMP FOR MY PARENTS. AND WHEN THEY RAN INTO IT, SOME OF THE BOARDS WERE ON TOP OF THE WIRES BY THE HOUSE. THEY RAN INTO A MASSIVE, A MASSIVE, UH, BARBECUE PIT, HEAVY DUTY BARBECUE PIT, AND ALSO A, UM, A CONCRETE BENCH. FUNNY ABOUT IT, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY GLASS. WE COULDN'T DO IT. WE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. THE POLICE WERE CALLED. THE POLICE SHOWED UP IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, 30 MINUTES, 45 MINUTES, THEY ARRIVED. WHEN THEY ARRIVED, THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING. THEY COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, SEE ANY, ANY EVIDENCE OF WHO IT WAS OR IF THERE WAS ANY BROKEN GLASS OR ANYTHING. BUT THE TIRE MARKS WERE ALL UP INTO THE HOUSE. NOW, ONCE THAT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO CALL U SS A, A, HE SAID, HEY, I NEED TO BUILD A FENCE. THIS IS NO PROBLEM. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I SENT THEM THE PICTURES. ONCE I SENT THEM THE PICTURES, YOU HAVE OUR APPROVAL. WE STARTED GETTING A FENCE. WE CALLED ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE LOCAL PERSONNEL THAT HAD DONE BUILDS FENCES. THEY SAID, WE HAVE TWO TYPES OF FENCES. WE GOT ONE THAT'S FOUR FOOT, AND WE GOT ONE THAT'S SIX FOOT. I SAID, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN HARASSING MY PARENTS AND THE SAFETY AND THE PROTECTION FOR MY FO FOR MY FOLKS, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE IN SAFE HANDS. SO I SAID, GO WITH SIX. BUT BEFORE I WENT WITH SIX, I LOOKED AT ONE OF THE, UH, ONE OF THE CODES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I WAS LOOKING UP THE MUNICIPAL, DO WE HAVE THAT ONE? I SENT YOU THE, THE TEXT ON NUMBER. IT WAS THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY. SO IN SECTION, SECTION, SECTION, UH, CHAPTER SIX, SECTION ONE AND TWO. ON THE SECOND ONE, IT SAYS, YOU CANNOT BUILD A PERMIT OVER SIX FEET WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. I'M LIKE, WELL, GREAT. SIX FOOT, I'M GOOD TO GO. I THOUGHT I WAS GOOD TO GO. SO WHEN I BUILT THE FENCE, I WENT AHEAD, BUT NOT ONLY DID I GO WITH THAT, BUT TO KEEP THE FA THE, TO KEEP THE SAFETY, THE PROTECTION OF MY, OF MY FOLKS. AND THAT'S WHY I DID, THAT'S WHY I BUILT THE FENCE AT SIX FEET. NOW, GOING BACK TO THE SECURITY, I JUST RETIRED AND I JUST CAME BACK FROM UTAH, AND NOW THAT I'M BACKING, I WAS BACKING THE TRUCK UP. I SAW THAT WE HAD SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, WHICH THEY HAVE A SUBSTATION. I THOUGHT, GREAT, WE HAVE SECURITY, WE HAVE EVERYTHING THERE. I FEEL SAFE ALREADY. OKAY. THEN I FIND OUT THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE SAFE, THE SAFETY ANYMORE, BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT THAT WHY THEY'RE JUMPING OVER THE FENCE, WHY THEY'RE THREATENING MY FAMILY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE, THE INMATES, THE OFFENDERS COMING IN FROM, UH, T D C J COMING IN FROM AND PICKING UP THEIR BELONGINGS. I TALKED TO THE COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ASSISTANT, AND HE SAYS, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING COMPLAINTS OF PERSONNEL SLEEPING IN CARS, GO, UH, BREAKING INTO THEIR, BREAKING INTO GARAGES SO THEY CAN SLEEP. SO THAT WAY THEY CAN WAIT UNTIL, UNTIL, UM, THE, THE PERSON UNTIL IT OPENS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR BELONGINGS. WELL, AS THEY LEAVE, AND THEY'RE GOING, THEY'RE FLOWING THROUGH OUR, OUR COMMUNITY. THEY'RE STEALING STUFF, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE STEALING FROM, THEY'RE STEALING PROPERTY FROM OUR, FROM OUR COMMUNITY OR JUST, OR EVEN VANDALIZING IT. SO WITH THAT SAID, UH, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OH, AND THEN [01:05:01] FURTHERMORE, ONE MORE WOULD BE FOR THE, THE, THE HIGHWAY. THE HIGHWAY ITSELF. THE HIGHWAY ITSELF, WHEN IT'S, IT GETS, STARTS GETTING BACKED UP. THEY JUMP FROM OUR AREA, FROM OUR, UM, FROM THE, FROM THE HIGHWAY THROUGH THE HIGHWAY, AND THROUGH THE MEDIUM AND IN BETWEEN THOSE TREES. AND THEY USUALLY LOSE CONTROL AND RUN INTO OUR HOUSE. NOW, MY HOUSE, THEY RAN INTO IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SECOND. THAT SAME EVENING AT SEVEN O'CLOCK, THE NEIGHBORS, THEY WERE HAVING THEIR GET TOGETHER, THEIR FAMILY GET TOGETHER. THE, THE DAUGHTER WAS LOCKING UP THE FENCE. AS SHE WAS LOCKING UP THE FENCE. SHE HEARD A CAR APPROACHING, SHE TURNED AROUND, SHE HAD TO JUMP OUT OF THE WAY THE CAR RUNS INTO THE, A VAN, AND THEN THE CAUSES A DOMINO EFFECT TO A VAN, TO ANOTHER CAR, AND TO ANOTHER VEHICLE THAT THEY WERE VISITING THAT FAMILY. SO THIS ISN'T JUST A ONE TIME THING. THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING THING. SO, AGAIN, UM, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, IF YOU CAN PLEASE LET US KEEP THE SAFETY AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR HOME FOR MY MOM AND DAD, YOU KNOW, BY ALLOWING US TO KEEP THIS SIX FOOT FENCE. UH, RIGHT NOW, UH, I HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL, SO THAT'S OKAY. WELL, WE, WE, UH, OR I, NO, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE CAN, WE CAN DO THAT. STAFF. IS THERE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? THERE IS, I'M GUESSING IT'S, UH, YANCY SALAZAR RE, YANCY SALAZAR. MY NAME IS JANIS AZAR, AND I AM A NEIGHBOR OF MR. SANTO, AND I'M A WITNESS. I SAW WHEN THE TRUCK GOT IN THE PROPERTY. COULD YOU STATE THE ADDRESS, PLEASE? OKAY. 3 33. AND I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ELDER PEOPLE. AND YOU SAW ALREADY IN THE PICTURE, UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CARS COME OFF THEIR WAY FROM THE HIGHWAY, AND THAT'S VERY DANGEROUS PROTECTION. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT FENCE IS A VERY GOOD PROTECTION FOR MY NEIGHBORS. . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP THAT'S ALL, THAT'S SIGNED IN TO SPEAK? UH, NO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? YES. HAS THIS FENCE PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM COMING INTO YOUR YARD? ABSOLUTELY, MA'AM. SINCE IT'S BEEN ERECT, SINCE THAT FENCE HAS BEEN ERECTED, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN SAFE. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, I JUST HAVE SMALL FOR STAFF. WAS THIS BUILT BEFORE PERMIT? YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. MANER? UM, SO THE, SO THIS QUESTION IS, UM, WELL, SO, UH, THE, I I STILL FEAR FOR YOUR HOUSE, UH, SHOULD, SHOULD A CAR COME FLYING THROUGH? 'CAUSE THE FENCE MAY SLOW IT DOWN. UM, AND SO, SO, SO YES, I UNDERSTAND IT'S GONNA PROVIDE SOME SAFETY, BUT, BUT I STILL, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU TALKED WITH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCE AND, AND THE CHALLENGES THAT, THAT YOU'RE HAVING? YES, WE DID. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TELLING ME ABOUT, THAT BECAUSE OF THAT, IT WOULD REALLY HELP YOU BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HAVING TROUBLE WITH PEOPLE SLEEPING IN PEOPLE'S GARAGES. THE PEOPLE THEY BREAK INTO THE CARS AND SLEEP IN THE BACKSEAT OF THEIR CARS OR IN THE, IN THE BACK OF THEIR PICKUP TRUCKS IN THE GARAGES. SO THIS WOULD REALLY HELP YOU, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT, IT SAYS, AS FAR AS PUTTING, UH, TO KEEPING FROM CARS, FROM BREAKING IN TO, OR RUSHING IN, YOU SHOULD PUT A CONCRETE BARRIER ON THE BOTTOM. AND I SAID, I CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SEWER LINE AND THE MAIN LINES GOING THROUGH THERE. RIGHT. AND IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE [01:10:01] TO BREAK THOSE, THAT CONCRETE BARRIER JUST SO YOU CAN FIX OR WHATEVER. IF ANYTHING, WE CAN PUT TEMPORARIES SUCH AS RETRAINING, RETAINING BRA RETRAINING, RETAINING WALL BRICKS, THANK YOU. RETAINING WALL BRICKS IN ITS WAY, AND MAKE IT LOOK MORE DECORATIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE IN THE, IN THE YARD, NOT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE YARD. SO ONE, ONE THING, YOU MAY WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO WORK WITH MS. CASTILLO, YOUR COUNCIL PERSON TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH. 'CAUSE IF I LOOK OVERHEAD, YOU YES. YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT, YOU SEE THAT EVERY GAP THERE, THERE IS KIND OF A ROADWAY OFF 90 INTO, YOU KNOW, ONTO YOUR STREET. ABSOLUTELY. SO BASICALLY EVERY ONE OF THOSE HOMES ARE AT RISK, YOU KNOW, AND SO THEY COULD PUT UP SOME KINDA WIRE STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, TALK WITH YOUR COUNCIL PERSON. WE DID. BUT, BUT I DO AGREE THAT I THINK THE FENCE WILL, WILL HELP SOMEONE. SO, OH, SIR, ANOTHER THING, WE DID TALK TO TDOT AND WE DID TALK TO THEM AND THEY SAID THAT, UH, THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING INTO IT AND ON FEBRUARY THE, ON FEBRUARY, 2022, THEY MAY BE, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO START THE PROJECT ON PUTTING IN THAT CABLE LINE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. FOR THAT, FOR THAT, UH, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. UH, HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. I, SIR. AND I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. TEAL RUTH COMMISSIONER TEAL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH THREE FOUR. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 3 3 9 HARIMAN PLACE APPLICANT BEING SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, 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 THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE, ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY. D S D TRAFFIC HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE, HEIGHTS AND TYPE OF FENCES INTENDED TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS FROM FURTHER DAMAGE WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS THAT DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PROTECT 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 THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF FRONT YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. D S D TRAFFIC STAFF DID REVIEW THE FENCE, AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. 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 CURRENT USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAK WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS LOOKING AT THE AERIALS AND, AND WHATNOT. I MEAN, YOU CAN JUST SEE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE PEOPLE JUST PULL OFF RIGHT INTO THAT, THAT SPOT COMPLETELY. SO FOR SAFETY AND HOPEFULLY SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. AND, UM, YES, THAT IS A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC AREA AND UNFORTUNATELY, 90 IS BAD FOR THAT. SO YES, I WILL SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONSTOP, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN? YE I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. ROMAN. MANA I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MEESE, I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT, UH, WHAT TO DO NEXT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, . [01:15:03] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. [5. BOA-21-10300136] UH, CASE B OH 8 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 36 ADDRESS IS GONNA BE SEVEN 10 NORTH ELMENDORF CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT NUMBER ONE APPLICANT IS, UH, ELA SANDOVAL. REQUEST IS FOR 152 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,848 SQUARE FOOT. LOT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH ELMENDORF STREET, NEAR MONROVIA STREET, AND IS CURRENTLY IS A VACANT LOT. THEY'RE REQUESTING 152 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A LOT SIZE OF 3,848 SQUARE FEET UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT ON OTHER SIMILAR SIZE LOTS. UH, PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF THE NEW STRUCTURE, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA MINIMUM, UH, IN WRITTEN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE STACK. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 36. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE IS 3,848 SQUARE FEET. TWO. A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WILL HELP ENHANCE THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THREE, THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE AREA WITH SIMILAR LOT SIZES. THERE WERE 26 NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PROSPECT HILLS WEST END HOPE IN ACTION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. UH, MY NAME IS DAR. MY ADDRESS IS 8 3 8 SOUTHWEST, UH, UH, 30, UH, 40TH STREET. OKAY. AND I WAS, UH, LETTING YOU KNOW THAT THE LOT IS VERY SMALL, SO THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO BUILD A TWO STORY HOUSE THERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANY ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO ONE SIGNED IN AND NO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M SORRY. THERE IS, THERE'S SOMEONE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. OKAY, I FORGOT. I FORGOT. WE'RE ON THE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. IF SHE COULD JUST TAKE A, A SEAT AND WE'LL HEAR FROM, UM, THE RESIDENT WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. CARLOS GONZALEZ. HELLO, SIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR RECORD. UHHUH . I'M CARLOS GONZALEZ AT 1512 AL AND I'M THE NEIGHBOR TO HER, UM, GRACIA MS. I'VE LIVED ACROSS THE STREET ACROSS MVA ALLEY FOR, UH, 47 YEARS. AND BEFORE THAT MY GRANDMOTHER LIVED AT 1512. AND WHEN THIS HOUSE BURNED DOWN ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO, IT'S BEEN A VACANT LOT. AND I'VE HAD THE, UM, THE LUCK OF BEING THE, THE PERSON WHO CLEANS UP THAT VACANT LOT PRETTY OFTEN AND REPORT IT TO CODE COMPLIANCE PRETTY OFTEN. AND WHEN DIEGO AL GOT IN OFFICE, WE FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS WITHIN THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY ZONE IF YOU MEASURED THE BACK OF IRVING. UM, AND SO IT'S BEEN CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT MORE OFTEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. AND THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF OWNERS THAT HAVE COME BY BEFORE AND, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON, UH, MAYBE THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. UH, I'M VERY UNFAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS MY FIRST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. BUT, UM, I'M VERY IMPRESSED [01:20:01] WITH ALL OF YOU, AND I WANTED TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE IN SITTING HERE. BUT, UM, WE, WE SUPPORT IT. I'M ALSO THE CO-CHAIR OF WEST END HOPE IN ACTION. WE MEET, UH, VERY REGULARLY AT THE FRANK GARRETT COMMUNITY CENTER FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, BUT WE DIDN'T BECOME AN OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION UNTIL ABOUT FOUR, THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO. AND, AND SOMEHOW WE'RE STILL NOT ON THE, UH, THE CORRECT E LIST IN GETTING NOTICE ON THIS KIND OF STUFF. I DID GET NOTICE AND MY NEIGHBORS ALL GOT NOTICES OF, UH, ABOUT THE VACANT, ABOUT TODAY'S MEETING. UM, WE'RE AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR, UH, MOTTO IS NEIGHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY. UH, BUT OUR BATTLE CRY IS NO MORE VACANT LOTS, NO MORE VACANT HOUSES, AND NO MORE VACANT BUILDINGS. UH, THOSE VACANT STRUCTURES JUST BREED CRIME AND, UH, BECOME BIGGER PROBLEMS IS THE MORE WE NEGLECT THEM. UH, SAME WITH THIS VACANT LOT. THERE'VE BEEN A COUPLE OF TIMES WHERE I'M JUST STARTLED BY, UH, SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN SLEEPING IN THE OVERGROWN WEEDS, UM, THAT ARE JUST NOW WAKING UP. AND I'VE GOT THREE GRANDCHILDREN THAT ARE IN, IN AND OUT OF THAT. UM, WE, WE CROSSED MLO ALLEY A LOT, SO, UM, , IT'LL BE A REALLY GOOD STRUCTURE AND WE WELCOME HER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP, PLEASE AND THE TRANSLATOR. SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY SIR, UH, COMMISSIONER, IS IT KAPLAN OR MINKA? MINKA? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. IS THIS THE ONLY TWO STORY HOUSE ON THE BLOCK OR IN THE SUBDIVISION? THE AREA? I HONESTLY HAVEN'T PAID ATTENTION. UH, THERE'S ON GOOGLE EARTH THERE, UM, GOOGLE EARTH. THERE ARE SOME RIGHT ON THE SAME BLOCK. MM-HMM. . OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THE BUILDING PLANS, BUT DO THEY MEET WITH ALL THE SIDE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CITY? UH, STAFF IF YOU COULD CHIME IN, PLEASE. YES, IT DOES MEET ALL THE SIDE REQUESTS. SET. UH, ONE, UH, ONE MOMENT PLEASE. WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM STAFF AS A, AS A TECHNICAL EVALUATION. IT DOES MEET ALL SIDE, UH, SETBACKS, INTERVIEW SETBACKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UH, SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY CLOSING REMARKS? NO. NO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. TEO. COMMISSIONER TEO, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 3 6. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A 152 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT ON A LOT SIZE OF 3,848 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT SEVEN 10 NORTH ELMENDORF DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING OUR A SANDOVAL. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. ONE. 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 A RESIDENTIAL HOME CONSTRUCTED ON A LOT OF 3,848 SQUARE FEET IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TOO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF 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 OWNER WOULD HAVE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY OR LEAVE IT AS AN EMPTY LOT AS THERE IS AN INADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE PER THE MINIMUM ZONING REQUIREMENTS. 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 MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH [01:25:01] IS OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. 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 FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE 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. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THERE ARE OTHER NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE LACK OF AVAILABLE PROPERTY IN THE LOCAL AREA TO CONSTRUCT IS LIMITED. END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YEP. I'M ALWAYS A BIG PROPONENT OF, UH, INFILL DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND WE'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I, I JUST LIKE TO ADD, UH, APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THE NEW NEIGHBOR FOR COMING DOWN AND SPEAKING. UM, CERTAINLY A, A A BIG PROBLEM IN THE AREA. AND SO HAVING A PRODUCTIVE LOT INSTEAD OF AN EMPTY LOT THAT YOU HAVE TO CLEAN UP. UM, WE'RE, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING SHORTAGE AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, HAVE MORE HOUSING, BUT ALSO TO, UH, JUST BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I WOULD BE IN S I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT ALSO BECAUSE, UM, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS AN OLDER AND POOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE NEW HOUSING PUT IN. WE WILL CERTAINLY IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE AT HEARING NONE? STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MEESE. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, THEY'LL TALK TO YOU THROUGH THE NEXT STEPS. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SIX. [6. BOA-21-10300139] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, BO O A CASE 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 39. ADDRESS IS GONNA BE 2 0 6 SOUTH MESQUITE CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT IS MARIO MANZANO. UH, REQUEST IS FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT. UH, CURRENT ZONING IS ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SPECIFIC USE FOR TWO DWELLING APARTMENT UNITS. UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH MESQUITE STREET NEAR IDAHO STREET AND IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT, UH, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR HALF A STORY OF BUILDING HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHERE TWO AND A HALF STORIES ARE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED PER U D C 35, 5 35 50 35, 3 58 UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES. UH, ONE BLOCK OVER SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN CASE B O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 39 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WILL ALLOW FOR MORE LIVABLE SPACE IN THE NEW PROPOSED STRUCTURE. TWO, THERE ARE SIMILAR STRUCTURES JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS VACANT LOT. THREE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR. THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL NOT HARM ANY ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND FIVE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY REZONED FOR THIS USE, WHICH INCLUDED THE SITE PLAN. [01:30:01] THERE WERE 21 ME, UH, NOTICES MAILED OUT. ZERO. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ALAMO GARDEN'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THERE WERE TWO IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 SQUARE FOOT RADIUS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ALBERT FUQUA. I THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME COME HERE TODAY. UM, THE ADDRESS IS, UH, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, DO THE BEST YOU CAN? YEAH. THANK YOU. . THE ADDRESS IS, UH, 2 0 6, UH, SOUTH MESQUITE. YES, SIR. AND, UM, WE'RE HERE, UM, UH, REQUESTING OR ASKING FOR PERMISSION FOR A FULL THIRD STORY. UM, RIGHT NOW PER THE CODE, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWO AND A HALF. UM, TECHNICALLY I STILL THINK IT'S A THIRD STORY BECAUSE YOU GO UP A, UH, YOU KNOW, SECOND FLIGHT OF STEPS TO A THIRD LEVEL. UM, THE CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS WE ONLY CAN BUILD ON THE THIRD LEVEL. UM, 50% OF THE, THE BOTTOM FLOOR, WHICH ESSENTIALLY EQUATES TO ABOUT FOUR. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING 431, UM, SQUARE FEET. UM, PERMISSION FOR THAT ON THE THIRD FLOOR MAKING ON THE FOUR, UH, THIRD LEVEL. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANYONE, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANYTHING TO READ INTO THE RECORD? THERE ARE A COUPLE OF VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. OKAY, SIR, IF YOU COULD JUST TAKE A SEAT, WE'RE GONNA LISTEN TO THOSE AND WE'LL BRING YOU BACK UP FOR QUESTIONS. HI, MY NAME IS SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. I'M CALLING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX REGARDING 2 0 6 SOUTH MESQUITE STREET. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT LIVE IN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD, I DO LIVE IN A NEAR DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND AM WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE CHALLENGE. ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS FACED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES. IT IS ENOUGH THAT THAT RMM FOUR ZONE PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP TO THREE STORIES BY RIGHT. BUT WHEN THAT RIGHT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT SPECIFICALLY RESTRICT THE HEIGHT TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, THE RESULTING PRECEDENCE ENCOURAGES A SPREADING OF THE SAME EXCEPTION. AND PRETTY SOON THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO WONDER WHAT IS THE POINT? VARIANCES ARE DESIGNED FOR HARDSHIP CASES. AS THIS IS AN INVESTMENT AND CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT, THE PROFORMA UPON PURCHASE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE CALCULATION WITH A TWO AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE. IT IS A PROBLEM WHEN INVESTORS BASE THEIR PERFORMANCE ON A MODEL THAT MAXIMIZES THE BUILD OUT WITH NO REGARD FOR THE FACTORS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THE GROUND AND NO RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT SURROUND IT. IN AN EFFORT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THREE STORY CONSTRUCTION ON PREDOMINANTLY SQUARE SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE STORY BLOCKS IS AN ONGOING ISSUE. I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND WHETHER THEY MEET THE LITMUS TEST FOR A VARIANCE. THANK YOU. YES. MY NAME IS WILLIAM HENER. I LIVE AT 1123 WYOMING STREET. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (830) 313-3950. I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO BO O A DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 3 9. UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AT 2 0 6 SOUTH MESQUITE, AND THEY WANT TO GO THREE STORIES AS OPPOSED TO TWO AND A HALF. I AM EMINENTLY OPPOSED TO THEM BEING GRANTED THIS VARIANCE. UH, THIS PROPERTY WAS SET UP FOR RECENT REZONING EFFORT TO CREATE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS AREA. THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THOUGHTFULLY INCLUDED STANDARDS SUCH AS USES HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SETBACKS THAT ARE FAVORABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, WHILE ALSO RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHED CONTEXT AND CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STANDARDS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE ARE ADEQUATE, ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. SO I AM OPPOSED TO ANY VARIANCE. THANK YOU AND HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY. OKAY. UM, YOU COME BACK UP IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MANNA, MR. MANNA. SO, SO I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WITH REGARDS TO, UM, YOU MENTIONED SOME, SOME DIFFERENCES FOR THE THREE STORY. IT WAS WASN'T FULL THREE STORY OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. CAN YOU GO INTO SOME DETAIL THERE, SIR? BECAUSE SIR, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. YES, SIR. TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ME, OR TECHNICALLY IT'S THREE STORIES. IT JUST MEANS THAT, UM, THE THIRD FLOOR IS ONLY 50% OF THE SECOND FLOOR. SO TECHNICALLY IT'S, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY HAVE THE CODE LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S THREE STORIES. BUT I GUESS THIS CITY HAS, UM, IF YOU GUYS COULD, I MEAN IT'S THREE STORY WE CAN ASK STAFF TO YEAH. EXPAND ON THAT. I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY [01:35:01] IT'S THREE STORIES, BUT IT'S YOU, THE THIRD FLOOR CAN ONLY BE 50% OF THE SECOND FLOOR. SO, WELL, YOU'RE BUILDING A THREE STORY STRUCTURE. SO IT'S, YOU ARE BUILDING A THREE, A FULL THREE STORY STRUCTURE IS YOUR DESIRE. SO ESSENTIALLY IT IS A THREE STORY STRUCTURE, BUT BE, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY CAN BE 50% OF THE BOTTOM, THEY CALL THAT THIRD FLOOR A HALF. OKAY. I, I'M MISSING THE POINT ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR. I GUESS I IS BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING PARKING UNDERNEATH, IS THAT WHY? YEAH, FIRST FLOOR IS, IS GARAGE, CORRECT, SIR. SECOND FLOOR IS LIVING SO GARAGE, SO, OKAY. OKAY. NOW, OKAY. STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPAND ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TWO AND A HALF VERSUS A THREE STORY? SURE. SO, UM, ALL, ALL OF THESE ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THIS A AND E TWO, UM, REQUIRES A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET. UM, SOME, MOST OF THESE DISTRICTS HAVE A TWO AND A HALF STORY LIMITATION. SOME OF THE DISTRICTS HAVE THREE STORY LIMITATION. UM, SO BASICALLY WHAT IT IS, IS FROM THE STREET THEY LOOK LIKE THREE STORIES. BUT INSIDE THAT, THAT TOP LEVEL, UM, IT IS ONLY 50% OF HABITABLE SPACE. SO, UM, YOU COULD STILL HAVE YOUR, UH, FULL FLOOR, BUT WHAT YOU EXCLUDE IS CLOSETS, BATHROOMS, UM, STAIRCASES. THOSE ARE THE THINGS. SO IT'S, AND IF I SAID BATHROOMS, BATHROOMS AS WELL. SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S CONSIDERED PART OF HABITABLE IS THE BEDROOM SPACE. SO IF YOU WANNA BE BIGGER THAN 50% WITH YOUR LIVING SPACE OR YOUR BEDROOM SPACE ON THAT TOP LEVEL, 'CAUSE IT'S 50% OF THE FLOOR BELOW YOU, THAT'S THE HALF. UM, THEN YOU NEED THAT HALF STORY, UM, VARIANCE. SO THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE TODAY. HE WANTS TO BE MORE THAN 50% OF, UH, THE, UH, OF THE LEVEL BELOW HIM OF THAT HAS THE LIVING SPACE BECAUSE HIS FIRST FLOOR IS ONLY GARAGE. AND IS, IS THERE ANY ASPECT OF THAT THAT REQUIRES, UH, BEING, UM, HABITABLE UNDER THE ROOF PITCH? OR COULD IT JUST BE, COULD IT BE A FLAT ROOF AND STILL BE FLAT ROOF? IT, IT, IT APPLIES TO ALL ROOFS, IT ALL TYPES OF ROOFS, ROOFS, GAMBLES, HIP, ALL OF THOSE AS WELL AS FLAT ROOFS IN, IN HIS CASE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT KIND OF ROOF YOU'RE SHOWING, BUT, UM, AGAIN, IF HE WANTS TO HAVE MORE HABITABLE SPACE THAT'S MORE THAN 50% OF THE FLOOR BELOW HIM, THEN HE NEEDS TO GET THE HALF STORY VARIANCE. BUT FROM THE STREET, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR THREE STORIES, IT'S THE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS STILL THE SAME AND THE, AND THE PROVISION OF, OF A TANDEM STYLE PARKING OR, OR A LARGER GARAGE ON THE BOTTOM HAS NO BEARING. IT'S SIMPLY THE FOUR THAT'S, THAT'S CONSIDERED THE FIRST FLOOR REGARDLESS. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT IS, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO WITH A 35 FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION, HE STILL WILL COMPLY, WHETHER IT'S A TWO AND A HALF OR THREE STORY, IT'LL STILL COMPLY WITH THE 35 FEET. YES. HE CANNOT GO OVER THE 35 FEET. HE'S ONLY REQUESTING THE HALF STORY. AND, AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD FROM THE TWO CALL-INS, WHAT WAS THE, THE, REMIND ME AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE EMPHASIS OF THEIR OBJECTION? WAS IT THE FACE FRONT LOOKING LIKE A THREE STORY OR, I'M TRYING TO RECOLLECT WHAT THAT OBJECTION WAS ON THOSE CALL-INS. I THINK IT WAS, IT'S JUST RESPECTING WHAT THE MINIMUM OR, OR THE STANDARDS ARE FOR THE DISTRICT. AND, UH, KNOWING THAT WHEN YOU, UH, GO IN, UM, WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS CASE IS THAT IT DID GO THROUGH A REZONING WITH THAT SITE PLAN WITH THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND IT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THAT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. SO THAT WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS WHERE THEY WOULD'VE HAD THE ABILITY TO, TO PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS AT THAT TIME WITHIN THE ZONING PROCESS. THAT, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. YEAH, WHAT, OKAY, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS REZONING. SO WHAT WAS IT REZONED FROM? WHAT DID IT USED TO BE? ORIGINALLY, MA'AM, I HAD REZONED TO REQUEST THE FULL THIRD FLOOR, BUT I, UM, I GUESS IT WAS A NEW CHANGE WHERE I D Z, REGARDLESS, I D Z GIVES YOU A THREE FLOORS. I THINK IT MAY BE EVEN GIVE YOU FOUR FLOORS TO WHICH WE WERE REQUESTING. BUT THE NEW RULE WAS SOME NEW RULE WHERE REGARDLESS OF I D Z, YOU ONLY COULD DO TWO AND A HALF. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I HAD TO COME TO THE B O A. RIGHT. IT, IT, SO WE REZONED TO I D Z FROM THE OLD A AND E IN ORDER TO, UH, RELAX SETBACKS AND, UM, AND DENSITY I BELIEVE AS WELL. UH, BECAUSE THE A E RESTRICTED THEM TO ONLY ONE UNIT PER LOT BASED ON THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THEY REZONED IN ORDER TO RELAX THOSE SETBACKS AS WELL AS GET ADDITIONAL DENSITY. BUT PART OF THAT I D Z REZONING INCLUDES A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, THE, THE FULL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND, AND THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY NEEDED THE FULL THREE LEVELS. UH, I'M GONNA STEP IN. IS THIS, WAS THIS DONE, UH, POST-NOVEMBER 2018? SO THIS WAS AN IDZ TWO OR ONE, THIS WAS JUST DONE IN AUGUST. SO THIS WAS PART OF THE NEW CATEGORIES. YOU'RE, YOU'RE A E TWO, IS THE S STILL PRESENT OR IS IT JUST, UH, IT RE RE-ZONED TO I D Z ONE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE I D Z ZONE IS, PLEASE. , [01:40:01] I D Z IS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE THAT ALLOWS, UM, SOMEONE TO REQUEST IT IN ORDER TO INCREASE DENSITY, RELAXED SETBACKS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, A E TWO, LET'S JUST SAY THAT THEY HAD SIMILAR SETBACKS TO OUR TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LIKE FIVE FOOT REAR, 20 OR FIVE FOOT SIDE, 20 FOOT REAR, MAYBE IT'S A 10 FOOT FRONT. I D Z ALLOWS YOU TO, UH, MAXIMIZE THE, THE, UH, AMOUNT OF THE LOT FOR BUILDABLE SPACE. SO IT RELAXES A REAR SETBACK DOWN TO FIVE. YOU STILL HAVE FIVE FOOT SIDES, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU, UH, THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS TO INCREASE THE DENSITY. SO HIS CURRENT, THE PREVIOUS DISTRICT, WHICH WAS A A E TWO, TO NOT ALLOW FOR THOSE, UM, FOR THE RELAXED SETBACKS AS WELL AS, UH, TO DIVIDE UP THE LOT THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO WITH THE TWO UNITS I D Z ALLOWS YOU SMALLER LOT SIZES. UH, SO THAT'S WHY THEY GO THROUGH, UH, I REZONING IN ORDER TO DO IT AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENT. AND, AND COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, JUST, JUST SO YOU KNOW, UH, MY COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS POST 2018, SO WHEN I D Z FIRST CAME OUT, UH, I D Z IN THE PAST AND I D Z TODAY, YOU ALSO GET A WAIVER FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU DO IT POST 2018, THE IDZ ONE, TWO, OR THREE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MORE DETAILED SUBMITTAL. THE SITE PLAN HAS TO INCLUDE MORE INFORMATION. AND SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING A BETTER PICTURE OF WHAT, UH, THE, OF WHAT IS BEING INTENDED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. AND SO, AND, AND IT'S JUST, JUST TO POINT OUT THAT HE DOES, HE IS PROVIDING FOR TWO TANDEM PARKING SPACES ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANY, SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. RIGHT. THE CHAIR'S CORRECT IN THAT, UM, PRIOR TO THESE NEW CATEGORIES IN 2017 WHEN WE UPDATED THE I D Z CODE, THIS DETAILED SITE PLAN WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED. THIS, UM, WITH THE NEW I D Z CATEGORIES, HE DID SUBMIT THAT SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWED THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OH, JUST, JUST CAN YOU USE YOUR MIC? I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ON THE MIC. UH, YES, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. UH, AND I THINK THAT YOU GOT, YOU GOTTA HOLD THE, TO HOLD IT DOWN BUTTON DOWN , I, I, I THINK I WAS HOLDING IT. OH, NEVERMIND. . OKAY. MY QUESTION, UM, IS, IS, UH, EVERY, WELL, IT IS PROCEEDED WITH A COMMENT. THE COMMENT THAT I WANNA MAKE IS THAT I HEARD, UH, MR. HERNANDEZ, UH, GIVE A DESCRIPTION OF A LOT OF, UH, UH, IMPORTANT INFORMATION, BUT NONE OF 'EM ADDRESSED, UH, THE, THE STORIES, YOU KNOW, LIKE A THREE STORY. SO NOW THE QUESTION IS, IF I WERE TO STAND AT THE CURB AND LOOKED AT THE PROPOSED PROPERTY, WOULD I BE SEEING A STRUCTURE WITH THREE STORY, UH, APPEARANCE? SO FROM THE STREET? YEAH, IT STILL WOULD BE 35 FEET. IT MAY LOOK THREE STORIES, BUT WHAT IS INSIDE? IT MAY STILL ONLY BE TWO AND A HALF, RIGHT? IF, IF IT WAS BUILT TO CODE. RIGHT. UM, SO IT MAY, AND IT MAY APPEAR THREE STORIES, LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE THREE FULL LEVELS, BUT INSIDE THAT TOP LEVEL MAY, UM, WOULD MEET CODE AT ONLY A HALF STORY. SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS HE'S GETTING, LIKE HE'S, HE'S ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANT FOR THE VARIANCE OF WHAT'S INSIDE THE TOP LEVEL, NOT WHAT'S OUTSIDE THE TOP LEVEL. BUT IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE OBJECTIONS, UH, WERE ON THE BASIS OF, OF ITS APPEARANCE. WELL, LET ME, LET ME CHIME IN. ARE, ARE YOU DOING A FLAT ROOF OR A PICTURE? NO, ACTUALLY, SIR, IT'S THE ARCHITECT, UM, WAS PRETTY THOUGHTFUL ON THE DESIGN WHERE HE DID IT DORMER STYLE. SO IT APPEARED AS IF IT WAS AN ATTIC SPACE. SO IF YOU SEE THE ELEVATION OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE AN ATTIC BECAUSE THE, THERE IS NO ATTIC, THERE IS NO ATTIC ON THE THIRD FLOOR. SO ESSENTIALLY THE INSTALLATION WILL BE DONE AT THE RAFTERS. OKAY. SO IT WAS BUILT WITHIN THE ATTIC. SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BUILDING THE INSIDE. IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE A STANDARD TWO STORY, ALMOST. ALMOST, YES. 'CAUSE OF THE DORMER STYLE ROOF. THAT CORRECT? THAT THIRD, THAT THIRD LEVEL IS NOT GONNA BE EXACTLY THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AS THE SECOND LEVEL, CORRECT? CORRECT. IT WILL BE SLIGHTLY SMALLER, BUT MORE THAN HALF. CORRECT. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ DID, DID YOU, WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT HERE IS, IS THAT IT'LL BE SIMILAR TO A HOME, BUT IT'S JUST GOING TO, IT. THEY, THE, THE PITCHES ON THE ROOF ARE JUST, THEY'RE GONNA MAXIMIZE EVERYTHING UNDER THAT ROOF TO GET MORE THAN A HALF OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BELOW, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA BE ANY HIGHER OR, OR ANY WIDER. SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU GOT IT. I THINK THEY'RE GONNA SHOW YOU ON THE OVERHEAD WHAT, UM, THE DESIGN LOOKS LIKE. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT KIND OF, IT'S THREE FOURS, BUT THE, THE ROOF WAS KIND OF DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE IT'S BUILT IN THE ACT. UH, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO EXPLAIN. IT'S MORE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL YEAH. TYPE THING. UM, BUT YEAH, IT'S LIKE A DORMER STYLE. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TOP PITCHES TO GAIN A LITTLE EXTRA, UH, ROOM UNDER THE ROOF, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA EXPAND ANY MORE. IT'S STILL GONNA HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT APPEARANCE. SO, AND, AND, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO APPROVING THE ELEVATION. WE JUST, WE JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, LET'S KEEP IT ON THE, THE HALF STORY. BUT IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? MANA? [01:45:01] COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO THE QUESTION FOR STAFF, SO I, I THINK WHEN YOU WERE GOING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS TWO PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT THAT WERE AN OBJECTION. WERE THOSE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT PROVIDED THE, THE RECORDINGS? THEY WERE. OKAY. UM, AND THEN, YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, ALBERT, I THINK HE WAS ASKING ABOUT THE MAP. WELL, THE MAP DIDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE 200. UH, THEY WERE THE, THE TWO OBJECTIONS WERE FROM OUTSIDE THE TWO, RIGHT? THE TWO, OKAY, I GET IT NOW. THANKS. SO, SO COMMISSIONER ALBERT? YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WAS THE I D Z REZONING, UH, FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OR DID THE, DID YOU MASS REZONE THE A E TWO DISTRICT? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? YEAH, YOU, THIS WAS RECENTLY REZONED FROM A E TWO TO I D Z. WAS IT JUST THIS PROPERTY OR WAS IT THE AE TWO DISTRICT THERE? IT WAS JUST THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? AND ALRIGHT, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANANA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 1 1 0 3 0 1 3 9 AND MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE HALF STORY VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED, UH, UH, OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED, SITUATED AT 2 0 6 SOUTH MESQUITE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING IN, UH, MARIO MANZANO 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 UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE, UH, FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WILL BE AT MAXIMUM, UH, WILL BE AT MAXIMUM OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES IN HEIGHTS, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LIVABLE SPACE FOR THE HOMEOWNERS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO PROVIDE UNIFORMITY BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE 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 IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM, THE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ALLOWED, WHICH DOES NOT POSE A RISK SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF, LET'S SEE, REQUEST TO, WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. UM, UH, POSES 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 AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THIS PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLY TO THE OWNER FOR THIS 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 IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIMITING AVAILABLE LIVING SPACE ON A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CAN CAUSE END OF MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, SIR, YOU OPEN TO TAKE A SEAT IF YOU LIKE. UH, AND COMMISSIONER MANN, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. SO I, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. I THINK, UH, LOOKING AT THE, THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING, I DO THINK THAT IT DOES LOOK, UH, KIND OF SET UP SET. IT LOOKS LIKE A LOFT VIEW AND I THINK THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY OBTRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS THEMSELVES. ALSO, I THINK THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS, AS STATED AND, YOU KNOW, DRIVE THROUGH GOOGLE, UH, SEEING THAT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER HOMES THAT ARE, UH, A THREE STORY IN STRUCTURE. AND, UH, THE THIRD POINT IS THAT I THINK, UM, GOING THROUGH THE CITY AND HAVING THESE, UH, ZONING DIALOGUE ALREADY BEFORE COMING HERE AND HAVING THE, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC, UM, UH, COMMENT, UM, AND, AND GETTING THE MOTION MOVED FORWARD SO THAT, UH, THEY, THEY PROVED IT THERE. I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T PROVE IT HERE. SO. ALRIGHT. COMM, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. THANK YOU. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE OUTSIDE IS GONNA LOOK JUST LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO REALLY DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING IT A FULL THREE STORY OR A TWO AND A HALF. IT SEEMS LIKE A TECHNICALITY. AND AGAIN, WE'VE GOTTA TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THIS IS CREATING TWO HOMES, UM, FOR [01:50:01] OUR RESIDENTS TO LIVE IN. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? OH, ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. AND I, I HANG MY HAT ON REALLY THE, THE PUBLIC, UM, ZONING PROCESS WHICH, UH, PROVIDED THE REZONING TO THE I D C. THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE, ANY, ANY OPPOSITION TO, TO VET THEIR OPPOSITION AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD. AND THAT PROCESS KIND OF PLAYED ITSELF OUT. AND I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE. IT'S A, IT'S A PURPOSE THAT I THINK WE'RE HERE FOR THE, FOR THE, A VARIANCE AND SUPPORTS A GOOD PROJECT FOR MUCH NEEDED HOUSING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE, UH, STAFF TO TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MRNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MS. MEESE I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. A MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS. MM-HMM. . SO WE'VE GOT, UH, TWO FIFTY FOUR. I'M GONNA CALL A SMALL BREAK. WE'LL RECONVENE AT THREE O'CLOCK. OKAY. JAN. MISSED MOTION ALL DAY. ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE'S BACK. IT'S 3 0 2 PROJECT PRESENTATION FOR THE REAL ESTATE BRIEF, BUT THAT WAS ALL, BUT YOU MISSED ALL. WHY DON'T YOU, UH, GO AHEAD AND START . ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET THIS, [7. BOA-21-10300141] UH, MEETING GOING AGAIN. UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS CASE BO A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1419 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS DAVID GOMEZ. THE REQUEST IS FOR, UM, THERE'S SEVERAL REQUESTS. THE FIRST ONE IS A THREE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH THREE FEET OF OVERHANG TO BE SIX FEET TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE, A ONE FOOT THREE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FEET, THREE INCHES TALL AND FOUR SEVEN FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINI 15 MINIMUM CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. 15 FOOT MINIMUM CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SEVEN FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE CURB. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. UM, THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING CARPORT. UM, THEY WERE, THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS AND, UM, AN INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, WHICH IS WHY THEY WHAT BROUGHT THEM TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND APPLIED FOR THE, THE VARIANCE. UM, UPON THE SITE VISIT, WE MEASURED THE CARPORT TO BE SIX FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, ADDITIONALLY, UPON THE SITE VISIT, WE DID NOTICE A SOLID SCREEN FENCE, UM, WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS IT, WHICH IS PAST THE FRONT FACADE. UM, SO IT IS ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES, BUT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME. AND IT WAS EXCEEDING THE FIVE FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM. UM, THE PORTION OF THE FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE IS ENCROACHING INTO THE CLEAR VISION FIELD AS IT WAS SEVEN FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE CURB. HERE IS A IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THE FRONT OF THE, THE CARPORT DID MEASURE NINE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UM, FROM THE FENCE, THE EXISTING FENCE LINE, THE REAR OF THE CARPORT IS WHERE IT MEASURED ONE INCH. SO WE DID ME, WE DID, UH, GO BY THE CLOSER MEASUREMENT. THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE ALONG THAT EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE TALLEST PORTION, UM, THERE IS WHAT MEASURES THAT SIX FEET, THREE INCHES. [01:55:03] SO THAT PORTION THAT IS SIX FEET, THREE INCHES DOES EXCEED THE, OR IT'S 18 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME. SO THERE'S 18 FEET OF THAT SIX THREE FENCE. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR THE, UM, SETBACK, VARIANCES AND THE CLEAR VISION. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN B O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CARPORT IS CURRENTLY SET BACK ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND SIX FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE SPACE TO MOVE THE CARPORT. UM, AND THREE, THREE, THE CARPORT IS OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA AS NO OTHERS WERE OBSERVED FOR THE FRONT YARD. SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN B O A 21, 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. ONE, THERE ARE SOLID SCREEN FENCES, UM, EXCEEDING HEIGHT ALONG BOTH THE EASTERN AND WESTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINES. TWO, THE SOLID SCREEN FENCE IS CURRENTLY FOUR THREE, UH, FOUR FEET, THREE INCHES TALL ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, AND AS TALL AS, UH, SIX FEET, THREE INCHES ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. THREE, THE SOLID SCREEN FENCE SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 35 5 14 AND NOT EXCEED THE THREE FEET, UH, MAXIMUM. AND FOUR, THE FENCES AS INSTALLED APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AS NOT MANY OTHER PROPERTIES WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE THE SOLID SCREEN FENCES IN THEIR FRONT YARD. STAFF MAIL 34 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND OR RETURN IN FAVOR AND NONE IN OPPOSITION. AND, UH, DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE FROM THE KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, STAFF'S ONLY RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL IS ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THEY WEREN'T, THEY DIDN'T TAKE ISSUE WITH THE OTHER ITEMS? NO, IT'S DENIAL FOR THE VARI VARIANCES AS WELL. OH, OKAY. YEAH. AND, UH, WHAT WAS YOUR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION? WE DON'T HAVE ONE. NO ALTERNATE. OKAY. UH, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING. OH, OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, ALEJANDRO GO PLACE, GOMEZ. MY NAME IS DAVID GOMEZ AND I LIVE AT, UH, 1419 WEST PLACE, WEST SEAT PLACE. UH, YOU CAN PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. THE REASON I EXTEND THE CARPORT IS THAT THERE WAS ONE THERE ALREADY AND I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE CITY, SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE, THE STANDARDS OR THE, UH, REQUISITES FOR IT. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR WHICH I BUILT IT WAS BECAUSE LAST YEAR THERE WERE THREE HAILSTORMS AND IT DAMAGED ONE OF MY VEHICLES. AND, AND ALSO THE NEIGHBOR, HE HAD A BIG BRANCH FALL AND IT FELL ON HIS OLD, UH, CARPORT. SO, SO WHAT I WANTED TO ASK REQUEST IS IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, LET ME KEEP IT. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD GUTTERS TO IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANY COMMENTARY TO RE TO PLAY? NO ONE'S SIGNED IN AND NO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO, SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MANANA? COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I, I SEE, UM, THE EARLIER CARPORT, UM, WAS SLOPED FACING THE STREET AND YOU'VE CHANGED THE STRUCTURE SO THAT NOW HALF OF IT SLOPES TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU TALKED ABOUT PUTTING UP A GUTTER, BUT YOU'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT LINE. YOUR GUTTER'S GONNA BE OVER IN YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, [02:00:01] SO THAT KIND OF PRESENTS YOU A CHALLENGE. I THINK. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I MEASURED THE GUTTERS AND IT, THEY WOULD BE INSIDE THE, THE BROWN FENCE. OKAY. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. 'CAUSE THE STAFF SHOWED THAT THE, IT WAS ONE INCH AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO I GUESS, WAS IT ONE INCH TO THE FENCE OR, OR WHAT WAS THAT MEASUREMENT TO? WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE GUTTER IS GONNA GO PARTIALLY UNDERNEATH THE, THE BLACK STRUCTURE. SO ONLY ABOUT AN INCH IT'S GONNA BE STICKING. OKAY. HE'S GONNA, HE'S GONNA BUILD THEM HANGING UNDERNEATH THE OUTSIDE BEAM WITH A LITTLE OUTSIDE EXPOSURE TO GET IN LAS YES. RIGHT, LIKE THE TRIM OF THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. YES. AGAIN, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, I'M ALSO LOOKING AT, UH, REGARDING THE FENCING. I'M LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC, UH, PICTURES AND IT, IT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE. AND IS THERE A, UM, A PURPOSE OF IT BEING WOOD VERSUS CHAIN LINK? THE CHAINLINK FENCE IS STILL THERE. THE, THE REASON I PUT THE WOOD FENCE, UH, WOOD FENCE, UH, ON NEXT TO IT IS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR HAS, UH, MANY PETS AND IT SMELLS BAD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ANYONE ELSE? I WANT THIS, UH, HEARING NONE. UH, IS THERE ANY CLOSING REMARKS, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? NO. JUST FOR YOU TO PLEASE TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION WHAT I CONSTRUCTED. ALSO, MY DRIVEWAY IS VERY NARROW AND I DIDN'T WANNA PARK ON THE YARD AND THEN END UP GETTING A TICKET. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. YES. TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 1 41. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW THE CARPORT WITH THREE FOOT OVERHANG TO BE SIX FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE AND FOUR, A SEVEN FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SEVEN FOOT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE CURB SITUATED AT 1 4 1 9 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. APPLICANT BEING DAVID GOMEZ. 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 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. THEY REQUESTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK AND FENCE INTO THE CLEAR VISION FIELD, DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT 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 WITH WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR PARKING A VEHICLE. 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 SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE [02:05:01] VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT 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 CLEAR VISION IS ONLY AFFECTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO THIS DOES NOT APPEAR, DOES NOT APPEAR TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YEP. SO I, I READ THIS A AS WRITTEN KIND OF FEELING THAT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO, TO NEED TO ALTER IT SLIGHTLY, BUT, UH, KIND OF WANTED TO PULL, UH, OUR COLLEAGUES HERE AND, AND SEE WHAT WE CAN WORK OUT. OKAY. I'M GLAD YOU DID THAT, . YEAH, I GUESS I DO HAVE SOME CHALLENGES. UM, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE FIRST ONE IS JUST SIMPLY THE RUNOFF GOING STRAIGHT IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD, UH, WITH A FENCE. AND SO, UM, YOU, SO I I I WOULD STRUGGLE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT AT LEAST HAVING ENOUGH SPACE ON THE SIDE FOR A GUTTER. UH, ONE SECOND PLEASE. CAN THE INTERPRETER COME OUT? YES. YEAH, WE, WE MAY NEED YOU. PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. SO, YEAH, SO THE, SO THE, SO THE GUTTERING I GUESS IS, IS I GUESS MY MAIN, PROBABLY MY MAIN CONCERN, UM, IT'S SIMPLY THE GUTTERING 'CAUSE BASICALLY IT'S POURING RIGHT ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, WHICH WE HISTORICALLY HAVE NEVER REALLY APPROVED ANYTHING POURING INTO A NEIGHBOR'S YARD. SO, UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SOLUTION THAT RESOLVES THAT PERSONALLY. OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS? WELL, I WAS, SO, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT, UM, YOU KNOW, SO TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE FOOTING ON THAT ONE SIDE MAYBE WILL BE MOVED OVER TO ALLOW FOR THAT SIDE TO BE SHORTENED BY, WE'LL SAY A FOOT SO THAT YOU CAN PUT A GUTTER THERE AND, AND STILL ALLOW FOR, FOR THE PARKING UNDERNEATH THAT CARDBOARD. SO WOULD WE AMEND IT, SAY ONE FOOT FROM WHAT WAS READ? I THINK THAT WOULD BE, I, I WOULD BE MORE AMENABLE TO THAT. THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE. YEP. NO, I'D BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT. I MEAN, BASICALLY I WAS, I'M SPITBALLING HERE. YEAH. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO THAT WOULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I GUESS, TO, TO MOVE IT SO THAT IT'S ONE FOOT, UH, ON THE SIDE PROPERTY. SO, SO FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, FROM AS A MOTION AS READ, SO INSTEAD OF A FOUR 11 VARIANCE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A FOUR FOOT OR A THREE 11? UH, FOUR FOOT. FOUR FOOT. OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT IS, UM, AND DOES, DOES THE MAKER OF THE MOTION ACCEPT THAT? YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT TAKES, THAT'S ITEM TWO. THE, AND, AND AS A COMMENT, IT WAS READ, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT DID STATE THAT THEY WERE GONNA PUT, OR THAT THEY WERE PUTTING A GUTTER IN? CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL GET THAT ADDED. UM, OR, OR, OR ADDRESSED IN A SECOND. SO THE FIRST ITEM WAS, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THE THREE THINGS THAT WERE READ IN. THERE WAS A THREE FOOT 10 VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT. UH, DO Y'ALL TWO? YEAH. OKAY. SO THE MO THAT STAYS, AND THEN THE FOURTH ONE WAS A SEVEN FOOT 10 VARIANCE ON THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION. SO I, I, AGAIN, I, I, I THINK I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CHALLENGE WITH THAT. OKAY. AND IN DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, I DO SEE, UH, FENCES THAT ARE THREE FOOT TALL, UH, THAT ARE SOLID SCREEN. SO I THINK THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOWN THE STREET IS COMPLIANT. O OKAY. SO LET, LET'S, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. I'M GONNA, UM, I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REALLY QUICK. UM, I'M GONNA GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION, UH, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS IF HE SO WISHES. MM-HMM. AND I, AND I'LL NEED HIM TO, TO STATE IT LIKE HE IS FORMERLY AMENDING HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS. YES. I WILL INCLUDE THE GUTTERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REOPEN. UM, AND SO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS, UH, WE'LL JUST, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT WAS READ IN THAT IS, UH, UNDER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HAVE, UM, UH, TO BE FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT 10 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CORE PORT TO BE THREE FEET OF OVERHANG, TO BE SIX FOOT TWO FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. IT'S, UH, NUMBER TWO IS A FOUR [02:10:01] FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SITE SET BACK TO ALLOW A CORPORATE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN, UM, ITEM NUMBER FOUR THAT WAS READ IN WITH A CLEAR VISION IS STRICKEN. IS THAT ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER? YES. IS THAT ACCEPTED BY THE SECOND? YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD WHO NEEDS CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WE'RE, UH, VOTING ON OR FURTHER DELIVERING ON? UH, COMMISSIONER MENCHACA? I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION ON THE, ON THE SIDE AGAIN. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE GUTTERS AND THEN THE SETBACK? YES. THE SIDE, UH, THE MOTION IS FOR, UM, THREE FOOT 10 FROM THE FRONT. UM, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE ON THE SIDE. SO IT HAS TO BE ONE FOOT OFF AND WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS PER, UM, AS SO AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THEN, UH, THERE IS NOTHING REGARDING THE CLEAR VISION. NO, NO ENTERTAINMENT OF A CLEAR VISION VIOLATION. HE HAS TO BE THE CLEAR VISION, CORRECT? YES, HE HAS TO, WE WE'RE NOT THAT, THAT THE ITEM FOUR THAT WAS READ IS, WAS STRICKEN. I'M NOT ADDRESSING CLEAR VISION. OKAY. NO, I, I'M JUST RE REITERATING WHAT, WHAT'S ON THE TABLE THAT WE'RE VOTING ON. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? UH, MISS, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT? UH, I WAS WONDERING WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THOUGHT ABOUT THE LEFT OR THE WEST SIDE OF THE CARPORT. IT'S NEARLY HALF THE STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY IN THE FRONT YARD, NOT OVER THE DRIVEWAY OR OVER THE CAR. UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S NOT UNDER, IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE CODE TO DO THAT. IT, IT MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE IN, IN SOME OF THE OPINION, BUT IT'S NOT A, A CODE VIOLATION. SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION TOO. YES. THE HEIGHT, UH, I NOTICED FROM THE OTHER CARPORT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TWICE AS HIGH. IS THAT ANY, IS THERE ANY ISSUES ON THAT TALKING ABOUT, UH, WE, WE CAN'T ENTERTAIN THE HEIGHT AESTHETICS? YEAH, IT'S BELOW 35 FEET, AS LONG AS IT'S BELOW 35 FEET, I GUESS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UH, SO CHAIR, UH, DOES THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A QUESTION? UH, WELL, WE'RE, WELL, WE'RE, I, I, I WILL, THIS, I'M GOING TO, UM, ALLOW ONE QUICK QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, IF I'M BEING ASKED TO MOVE IT ONE FOOT IN, THEN IT'S GONNA BLOCK THE DRIVEWAY SO THAT I CAN DRIVE BACK TO THE BACK. WELL, IF IT'S, IF, IF, IF, UM, IF THE VARIANCE PASSES, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO USE IT. HE CAN JUST TAKE THE WHOLE CARDBOARD DOWN. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, UM, 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. KAPLAN. UH, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MEESE. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR, CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, THE LAST THING WE FORCE IS A MOTION FOR THE, UM, FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IF THERE'S NO MOTION, IT WILL, UM, IT WILL JUST DIE. SO CHAIR, YES. GIVEN THAT HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAR VISION MM-HMM. , UH, DOES THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION THEN? WELL, THERE'S A, THE, THE FENCE GOES 18 FEET PAST THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE AT THAT HEIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY THE PRIME ISSUE, UH, BEFORE US. SO IF ANY, IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION, THAT WOULD REALLY BE WHAT, UH, THE PRIME DIRECTIVE OF IT WOULD BE. THERE'S NO MOTION HE HAS TO COMPLY. IF THERE'S NO MOTION, THEN HE'LL HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THE FENCE, UH, 1.3 FEET FROM THE FRONT, IN THE FRONT YARD, FROM THE FRONT FAC SIDE OF HIS HOME, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. OKAY. THAT'S IT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. UH, SIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, HE'LL, THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT TO DO NEXT. WHAT'S THAT? YEAH, WHY? [02:15:04] ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM BEFORE [8. Approval of the 2022 Board of Adjustment Meeting Calendar] US, UH, IS OUR CALENDAR. YEP. SO, UM, WHAT THE BOARD DOES IS THEY HAVE TO APPROVE A CALENDAR FOR THE YEAR. UH, THAT WILL DICTATE THEIR, UM, MEETING DATES AND, UH, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. WE ALSO PROVIDE WITHIN THIS CALENDAR, 'CAUSE THIS IS A CALENDAR THAT WE WOULD POST ONLINE FOR ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS. IT INCLUDES OUR APPLICATION DEADLINE. UH, SO YOU'LL NOTICE WHAT WE DID WAS WE HAVE, UH, FIVE, TYPICALLY IN JANUARY, WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING, BUT THIS COMING, UH, JANUARY, WE HAVE FIVE MONDAYS IN THE MONTH. SO WE'RE ABLE TO UTILIZE, UM, TWO OF THE MONDAYS IN JANUARY TO HAVE, UH, MEETINGS. SO THAT WAY WE DON'T GET TOO FAR BEHIND. STILL HAVE A BREAK OF A WEEK. UM, MOVING INTO FEBRUARY. CATHERINE, IS THERE A CALENDAR THAT WE CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN? THERE SHOULD BE, YEAH, I THINK HE'S PULLING IT UP. OKAY. SORRY. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO, UM, IN YOUR, UM, IN YOUR INFORMATION ON ONE OF THE TABS. UM, AND THEN WE HAVE, AGAIN, TWO MEETINGS IN MARCH, TWO MEETINGS IN APRIL, UM, APRIL 4TH ONE, I WANNA, NO, WE NEED THE PUBLIC CALENDAR FOR 2022. SHOULD BE THE ITEM THAT'S POSTED IN THE AGENDA TOO. UH, APRIL 4TH. THAT'S THE WEEK OF FIESTA. SO THAT'S ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE THE, UM, RIVER PARADE, I BELIEVE IT IS. UM, AND IN PAST YEARS WE HAVE, UM, CANCELED THAT MEETING BECAUSE OF QUORUM ISSUES. SO WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT ONE TO YOUR ATTENTION. OKAY. WE HAVE IT THERE IN CASE. UM, YOU STILL WANNA HAVE IT? JUST NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT, UM, YOU GUYS WANNA DO WITH THAT ONE. UM, MAY, JUNE, UM, STILL HAVE ACTUALLY MAY HAS, UH, TWO MEETINGS. JUNE AND JULY HAS HOLIDAYS. UH, SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING EACH MONTH, UH, SCHEDULED AUGUST, TWO MEETINGS SEPTEMBER, BECAUSE OF THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY. WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING, UM, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER EACH HAVE TWO MEETINGS. SO, AND AS YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALSO SCHEDULE, UM, SPECIAL MEETINGS IF NEEDED DEPENDING UPON THE CASELOAD. SO THIS, FOR THE YEAR 2021, HOW MANY MONTHS DID WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING OUTTA CURIOSITY? WAS IT THREE? SO I'M NOT GONNA COUNT THE PANDEMIC AND THE WINTER STORM. . , BUT IT, BUT IS IT THE GOAL, IS IT, IS THAT WHAT USUALLY ENDS UP HAPPENING? TYPICALLY WE HAVE TWO MEETINGS A MONTH TYPICALLY, BUT BECAUSE OF HOLIDAYS, THERE'S ABOUT THREE MONTHS ON AVERAGE THAT ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING A MONTH. AND THIS PROPOSED CALENDAR DOES THAT AS WELL. UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU, YOU HAVE THREE THAT HAVE ONE. APRIL, JUNE, JULY, SEPTEMBER. YEAH. AND, AND POTENTIALLY A FOURTH WITH APRIL, BUT WE'LL SEE, DEPENDING UPON WHAT HAPPENS HERE. MM-HMM. . OKAY. DOES ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NONE. UH, OKAY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION. YES, COMMISSIONER BRADLEY? ARE WE CAUGHT UP ON CASES AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, WHAT, WE STILL HAVE A FULL VOTE FOR THE NEXT FEW MEETINGS. UM, SO I'M, I'M SURE WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A FULL VOTE FOR ALL OF THESE. AND, AND AGAIN, WITH JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH, HAVING TWO MEETINGS EACH, I, I DON'T ANTICIPATE US GETTING BEHIND. AND, AND THE, THE THREE THAT WERE ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED IN THE PAPER THAT, THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THIS AGENDA, WERE THEY WITHDRAWALS OR WERE THEY, UM, CONTINUED POSTPONEMENTS? I KNOW ONE OF THEM WAS WITHDRAWN. WHAT WERE THE OTHER TWO? I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL NOTICED IN, IN THE PAPER ADVERTISEMENT, WE HAD 10, BUT TODAY WE ONLY HAD SEVEN. SO IT WAS, I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S TWO OR THREE MORE LOOMING. UH, SOMETIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT WE HAVE MORE FOLLOW UP WITH THE APPLICANT AND SO THEN THEY GET DELAYED UNTIL WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE WOULDN'T CALL IT THAT THEY ARE DELAYED BECAUSE OF US. IT'S, IT'S THE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER FOR US TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. OKAY. SO I BELIEVE THERE'S A COUPLE THAT ARE CONTINUED. UH, PARDON. THEY'RE CONTINUED. OKAY, THEN CONTINUE. IS THAT, UM, ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. SO, UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY, UNLESS THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CALENDAR? UH, CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE CALENDAR, THE CALENDAR AS IT STANDS FOR RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? TEAL? GIVE IT TO TEAL. WE CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE ON THIS ONE? YES. OKAY. SO ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM [9. Approval of the minutes from the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 18, 2021] IS THE MINUTES. UM, I HAD ONE SMALL CORRECTION, WHICH HAS BEEN, UH, DONE. IS THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS? NONE. NOBODY? CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE ON THAT? ALL RIGHT, SO IS THERE A MOTION PLEASE? BRAGMAN? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. [02:20:01] I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN OR AS AMENDED. AS AMENDED. WRITTEN. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. UH, I'D LIKE TO, I I DO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. SO TODAY WE HAD, UM, A, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LAST CASE, WE HAD SOMEONE WITH THE NEED OF A, OF THE SPANISH INTERPRETER, AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE INTERPRETER KEPT LEAVING. CAN YOU PLEASE TALK TO THEM ABOUT LIKE STAYING UP HERE WHILE THE APPLICANT'S UP HERE? IT, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO, THERE'S TWO OF 'EM. ONE HAS TO, UM, SO THERE WAS SOMEBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WAS, UM, LISTENING IN. OH. AND SO ONE IS INTERPRETING FOR THE RECORDING AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS INTERPRETING FOR THAT PERSON. OH. SO, OKAY. SO THERE WASN'T ANY UH, UH, DIS UM, THERE WAS CONTINUITY AND AGAIN, THAT'S RARE, BUT YEAH. WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TWO IN ATTENDANCE. IT, IT COULD, TO US IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS LEFT AND WE WERE, YOU KNOW. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE A EARPHONE. YEAH. AND, AND I THINK HE UNDERSTOOD. I THINK IT'S JUST MORE COMFORTABLE SPEAKING SPANISH. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE, EVERYONE GETS A, A FAIR HEARING. SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S, UH, NOTHING ANYONE WANTS TO SAY, I'M GONNA ADJOURN THIS MEETING. * 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.