[00:00:04]
ALL RIGHT, WELL, I GOT A TIME OF 1:08 PM UH, IF EVERYONE WOULD BE, UH, KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL THEIR MOBILE DEVICES.THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR DECEMBER 6TH, 2021 WILL COME TO ORDER.
UH, MS. LIND CHAIR ORIAN AND I AM ALSO PRESENT, SO IF EVERYONE CAN PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALL RIGHT, 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.
UH, 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 WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS, I ASK THAT BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS, UH, SUPPORTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND 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 TO DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED, ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITIES 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 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 BEEN HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE LAW RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN 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 PRESENTATION OR REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.
STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU WILL BE CALLED 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.
[00:05:01]
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.
UM, UH, WE ALSO NEED, YOU ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THE T TRANSLATION SERVICES ARE ANNOUNCED, UH, IS THE TRANSLATE TRANSLATOR SERVICES, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HERE INTERPRET.
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT WE DO HAVE SPANISH INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE, WHOEVER IS NEEDING THESE SERVICES.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO, UH, COME UP TO THE INTERPRETER BOOTH THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE, TO THE ENTRANCE.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
WE'RE GONNA BE, UH, UPON REQUEST BY STAFF, WE'LL BE MOVING.ITEM NUMBER 13 REGARDING THE 2021 U D C AMENDMENTS, UH, FROM THE V O A TO THE FIRST ITEM TO BE HEARD STAFF FOR ITEM 13, WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AMENDMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE 35 DASH 5 10 35 DASH FIVE 14 AND 35 DASH THREE 11.
THANK YOU, UM, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALL PRESENT AT THE WORK SESSION, UH, DOES ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE U D C AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER THIEL? NOPE.
I THINK, UH, OUR, OUR SPECIAL WORK SESSION, UH, WE, WE KIND OF WENT OVER EVERYTHING AND, UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE DECIDED ON.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, I CONCUR WITH MR. UH, THIEL.
AND IS THERE ANY BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY? HEARING NONE.
STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
MR. MENCHACA, I APPROVE MR. VASQUEZ.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR.
UH, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS CASE BO A 21 103 0 0 1 61.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1407 NORTH PINE STREET WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A 14 FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A ONE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN, NORTHERN AND REAR PROPERTY LINE.
UM, THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AUTO RENTAL.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH PINE STREET AND DUVAL STREET.
UM, THEY ARE REQUESTING THE REDUCTION IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN ORDER TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE THEIR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, UM, AND TO DEVELOP THE LOT WITH OFF STREET PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS.
UM, THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS BEING PROPOSED CLOSER TO THE CORNER OF NORTH PINE AND DUVAL, WHICH WILL BE SET BACK AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT FROM THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOTS.
THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED IN 2019 TO THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT, UM, AND WAS APPROVED WITH THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN, UM, SHOWING THAT BUILDING THAT'S PUSHED TOWARD THE NORTH PINE AND DUVAL STREET.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE.
THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THE REZONING PROCESS IN 2019
[00:10:01]
AND TWO, THE REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WILL MEET, WILL ALLOW FOR MORE PARKING SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS STAFF.MAIL 26 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
UH, NONE ARE RETURN IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION.
AND WE DID RECEIVE A, A NEW RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY'RE IN SUPPORT.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES.
UH, UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, THE ADDRESS IS 1407 PINE STREET, NORTH PINE STREET.
OH, UM, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SHOW, UM, IT'S EASIER TO SHOW YOU GUYS WHAT IS YES.
THEY CAN PROJECT IT ONTO THE SCREEN.
UM, YEAH, JUST THE FIRST PAGE.
THERE'S ALSO MAYBE A LASER POINT OVER THERE IF YOU NEED TO.
UM, THIS IS, FIRST OF ALL, I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CITY AUCTION IN, UM, IN ATTENTION TO ENHANCE MY BUSINESS AND DEVELOP THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CITY OF GOVERNMENT HILL.
UM, UH, SIR, YEAH, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO, OH, SORRY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME WELL? ALRIGHT.
SO ORIGINALLY I, I BOUGHT IT FROM THE CITY SO I CAN ENHANCE MY BUSINESS AND HELP DEVELOP THE, THE CITY OF GOVERNMENT HILL.
UM, MY ARCHITECT AND I PROPOSED, UM, ENTRY FROM, LET'S SEE IF THAT THING SHOWS.
SO, UH, WE PROPOSED TO ENTER TO THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE, OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING, UM, OF OFF MAIN STREET, I MEAN PINE STREET, RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY, UH, AS A ENTRY AND EXIT WITH A 15 FEET BUFFERING ZONE RIGHT HERE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE AN EMERGENCY EXIT THROUGH DOVAL.
UH, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS DOVAL DOVAL STREET IS ACTUALLY A VERY SMALL ALLEY THAT IT'S ERODING TO THE TRAIN TRACKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN HAVE, UH, SHOW PICTURES ON GOOGLE.
THE TRASH, UH, COMPANY WITH THE TRUCKS CAN BARELY GO INTO THIS ALLEY.
UH, THERE'S ALSO SOME RESIDENT, UH, THAT LIVES IN THE BACK OF THE ALLEY, AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS AND ALSO VERY DIFFICULT TO BRING IN AND OUT CARS AND TRUCKS THROUGH THIS LITTLE SMALL ALLEY.
SO, UM, WHAT I REQUEST IS A 15 FEET BUFFERING ZONE, WHICH I'M GIVING.
UM, I'M FOLLOWING THE CITY ORDINANCE, UH, AND CODES, AND THEN GIVE ANOTHER 15 FEET BUFFERING ZONE FROM THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND HAVE THE PARKING IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
UM, WHILE ALL THIS IS A LANDSCAPE, ACTUALLY, SO KEEP, KEEP IT REALLY NICE AND PRETTY FROM, UM, NORTH PINE STREET.
UM, IF YOU COULD JUST SAY PRE FOR A SECOND STAFF, IS THERE ANYBODY CENTERED TO SPEAK OR? THERE IS.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS IF YOU COULD JUST TAKE A SEAT, WE'RE GONNA LISTEN TO SOME, UM, PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP AND WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS.
I'M PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
YOU THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
UH, THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR ADDRESS ALLIANCE, I YOUR ADDRESS.
UH, CAN YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD? OH, I'M SORRY.
AND, UH, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, THIS, UH, PROJECT CAME TO US ABOUT IN 2019.
UH, WE ARE IN SUPPORT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
UH, THE APPLICANT SINCE 2019 HAS ATTENDED, CONTINUED TO COME TO ALL OUR MEETINGS BEFORE THE PANDEMIC BROKE, BROKE IN, BUT HE HAS BEEN KEEPING US, UH, ABREAST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.
[00:15:01]
OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN A VA BIG, UH, EYESORE.IT'S, UM, BEEN, UM, A CORNER FOR DRUGS, UH, CRIME.
UH, THERE WAS A HOUSE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE CITY, UH, WHICH PEOPLE, THE HOMELESS WERE LIVING IN THERE.
UH, VERY, VERY, VERY DISTURBING, UM, NUISANCE TO THE SENIORS THAT LIVE ALONG BROOK STREET, THE MAJORITY OF BROOKS' SENIORS.
UH, SO WHEN HE CAME TO US TO PROPOSE THAT, UH, UH, PROJECT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD BECAUSE WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA REVITALIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT LITTLE COM IT'S A SMALL LITTLE COMMUNITY RIGHT NEXT TO THE TRAINING TRACKS.
UM, AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE, UM, ALSO IN SUPPORT OF IT IS BECAUSE, UH, THEY'RE NOT, IT'S NOT ONLY HIS BUSINESS, BUT THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER BUSINESSES ALONG PINE STREET, WHICH IS A CHA SUPERMARKET, WHICH IS MAYBE, MAYBE NOT EVEN 50 FEET AWAY FROM HIM.
HE HAS THE SAME PROBLEM THERE.
HIS BUSINESS GOES RIGHT INTO, COMES RIGHT ONTO TO PINE STREET.
YOU HAVE TACO MULINO AND LA GARINA RESTAURANT TOO.
THEY ALL HAVE, THEY ALL COME THROUGH THE FRONT.
THE ONLY THING DIFFERENCE WITH HIS IS THAT HIS IS A VERY, VERY NARROW STREET.
UM, YOU CANNOT, THE GARBAGE TRUCKS CANNOT PASS THERE BECAUSE IT'S SO NARROW.
UM, I WANNA SAY IT'S PROBABLY MAYBE FROM WHERE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER IS MAYBE TO EVEN LESS WORK.
UH, COMMISSIONER CAPE CAPLIN'S AT, IT'S VERY NARROW.
SO THE PEOPLE ALONG THAT HAVE HOUSES ALONG DUVAL HAVE TO BRING THE TRASH CANS ACTUALLY OUT TO PINE SO THAT THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND PICK UP THE TRASH.
UM, HE'S REQUESTING, IF I'M CORRECT, HE'S REQUESTING THAT THE ENTRANCES COME IN AND OUT THE BUSINESSES AND IF FOR AN EMERGENCIES COME OUT DUVAL, WHICH IS OKAY, AND THE RESIDENTS ARE OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT IF WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING ALL THE TRAFFIC COMING IN STRAIGHT FROM AL, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.
AND FOR THAT IS FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE CUSTOMERS AND THE RESIDENTS, BECAUSE THE TRAIN IS CONSTANTLY FEW.
UM, IF YOU NOTICE THAT THERE'S A TRAIN THAT PASSES THERE CONSTANTLY, UM, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT WOULD MEET, THAT WOULD BRING ME A BIG CONCERN.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, HE HAS IS TRYING TO DO IS TRY TO ENHANCE IT, UH, THAT COMMUNITY.
AND I THINK, UH, BY HAVING SOMETHING THERE, UH, WITH SECURITY, AND NOT ONLY THAT, HE'S PROPOSING TO, UM, PUT A BUFFER ALONG THE ENTIRE, BACK INSIDE FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND PUTTING THEM A NEW FENCE.
UM, SOME OF THEM ARE SENIORS AND THEY CAN'T AFFORD, THE FENCES ARE FALLING DOWN AND THEY JUST CAN'T AFFORD IT.
SO, UH, HE'S OFFERED TO DO THAT FOR THEM.
AND HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND COMMUNICATING WITH HIM.
AND I, I WAS SURPRISED THAT, UH, THEY DIDN'T SEND IN ANY, UH, IN FAVOR OF, BECAUSE MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS THEY'VE BEEN MEETING AND, AND I MADE HIM WALK HOUSE TO HOUSE TO HOUSE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND AS FAR AS I KNEW, THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN IN FAVOR BECAUSE THEY'VE COME TO OUR MEETINGS.
I HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE YES, BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE A GOOD BUSINESS PARTNER IN THAT COMMUNITY THAT WILL WORK WELL WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY OUR SENIORS THAT'S ABLE TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT, IS NOT GONNA JUST BUY THE PROPERTY AND TAKE OFF.
HE'S GONNA BE THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
WE'RE GOING TO, THERE MIGHT BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
STAFF, WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE? NO, THAT CONCLUDES IT, JUDGE.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HILL? NONE.
UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANANA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, COME BACK UP.
WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
SO MY QUESTION, UM, IS THE, UM, THE ALLEY OR THE DUVAL LOOKS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE AN ALLEY ALLEYWAY, SO IT'S A, IT, YOU KNOW, IT DOES LOOK VERY POOR THERE.
AND SO YOU COMMITTED TO A, UM, USING IT AS EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY.
UM, SO, SO HOW ARE YOU GONNA ENFORCE THAT? SO IS IT GONNA BE VOLUNTARY OR ARE YOU GONNA HAVE SOME KIND OF STRUCTURE IN PLACE THAT YOU, THAT YOU'LL REMOVE YOUR IN EMERGENCY OR, OR HOW'S THAT GONNA BE MANAGED? UM, UH, SINCE IT'S JUST AN EMERGENCY EXIT, I WAS PLANNING TO CLOSE IT WITH THE POLE GATE AND MAYBE HAVE IT OPEN WHEN WE'RE IN, UH, DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
UM, ARE YOU TALKING AS FAR AS DEVELOPING THE ALLEY SIDE OR? NO, IT'S JUST A JUST THE EXIT ITSELF.
AND SO, SO THE QUESTION WAS JUST REALLY THE EXIT AND, AND HOW AND HOW ARE YOU'RE GONNA MANAGE IT AS AN EXIT.
SO ANNIE ANSWERED IT, SO THAT'S FINE.
UM, AND THEN ARE YOU, ARE YOU PUTTING IN ANY LANDSCAPING? I KNOW THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU HAD A BUFFER, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU, YOUR BUILDING HAS OFFSET THE, THE WIDTH OF YOUR DRIVE.
ARE YOU PUTTING ANY LANDSCAPING IN THAT, THAT STRIP? UH, SO YEAH, SO YOU'LL HAVE A FIRST RING OF, UH, OF LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BUILDING.
THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE PARKING, UM, THE ENTRY AND EXIT WAY.
AND THEN ON OUTSKIRTS AROUND THE PROPERTY, WHICH I ONLY HAVE THE NORTH SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE, UH, MEETING WITH RESIDENTS, I'LL HAVE 15 FEET BUFFERING ZONES AND LANDSCAPE ALSO, UH, THE TYPE OF, UH, FENCE
[00:20:01]
THAT I'M, I'M PLANNING TO BUILD IS ACTUALLY MORE OF A WALL, LIKE A CINDER BLOCK WALL WITH STUCCO.SO IT WILL PREVENT THE SOUND OF THE TRAIN THAT IT WILL HELP WITH THE SOUND AND ALSO, UM, WILL PREVENT, UH, WILL PROVIDE PRIVACY AND A BETTER BARRIER BETWEEN THAT BUSINESS AND THE RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS AROUND.
UH, MINKA MENCHACA, SIR, I HAVE MORE OF AN, UH, UH, QUESTION.
UM, THE BACK OF THE BUILDING TOWARD THE RESIDENCE, HOW MUCH LIGHTING WILL YOU HAVE TOWARD THOSE HOUSES? UM, IT, IT'S NOT, I'M NOT GONNA HAVE THAT MUCH LIGHTING.
UH, ANY KIND OF LIGHTING WILL PROBABLY JUST BE FOCUSING ON THE BUILDING ONLY.
UM, THERE, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY BUSINESS CONDUCTING PAST THE HOUR, SIX OR SEVEN.
UM, SO IT WILL BE MOSTLY JUST FOR SECURITY AND WE'LL BE POINTING ON THE BUILDING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL I APPRECIATE YOU.
SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
O ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 61.
I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A FALSE TO ALLOW A ONE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 14 0 7 NORTH PINE STREET, APPLICANT BEING ROY BATON BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE PARKING AND BETTER ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY WENT THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS WITH THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
THE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE 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 OPPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO PROVIDE A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE ON THE PROPERTY FOR OFF STREET PARKING.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT, 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 PLACEMENT OF PARKING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES OF BUDDING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL PROVIDE INADEQUATE BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENCES AND THE, AND THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING, AND WILL PROVIDE SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR, UH, VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON A SMALL LOT, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS NOT UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PRO OF THE DISTRICT.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
THEY'RE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE COMMERCIAL LOT.
COMMISSIONER MAMMA HAS A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE LEAD.
YES, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST AND WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.
I MEAN, THIS IS A, A, A GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT HAS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS A GOOD BUSINESSMAN AND HAS RESPONDED TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND HAS BEEN PRESENT FOR ALL THE BOARD MEETINGS AND HAS, HAS SHOWN, YOU KNOW, HIS, HIS RESPECT AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, HAVE DONE ALL THE RIGHT THINGS HERE.
AND I, I THINK THE LANDSCAPE, UH, THAT HE'S, UH, THAT HE'S, UH, GONNA COMMIT TO DO, AND IT, IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY ON SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, UH, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE, I GUESS, UH, UM, CLOSING OF THE, UH, I EMERGENCY EXIT GATE.
UM, IT, YOU KNOW, IT KINDA SATISFIED MY QUESTION, SO I'LL BE VOTING ALSO IN FAVOR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? ANY HEARING? NONE.
STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS.
[00:25:08]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 7.ADDRESS IS GONNA BE FIVE 19 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY CITY COUNCIL.
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE APPLICANT IS A FELICE DENOVO, UH, REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE.
AND REAR PROPERTY LINES ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, WE DID GET NOTIFICATION EARLIER TODAY THAT THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE AS WELL AS MS. DENOVO TILL JANUARY 10TH.
THE NEXT AVAILABLE JANUARY 10TH.
IS, UM, COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT.
TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL, I MOVE THAT, I MOVE THAT CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 3 57.
UH, BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 11TH, 2022.
IT'S JANUARY 10TH, JAN ACCEPTED.
OKAY, SO IT'S, THE MOTIONS BEEN MADE IN AMENDED ACCEPTED TO JANUARY 10TH.
WHO IS THE SECOND, SECOND BRACKMAN? UH, I'LL GIVE, GIVE THAT TO COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN
UH, IF STAFF WILL YOU TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE.
MR. DELMER, MR. ME, HE LOOKS LIKE HIS SCREEN'S FROZEN.
UH, ONCE YOU CONTINUE WITH THE VOTE.
I WAS HAVING ISSUES WITH MY, UH, INTERNET CONNECTION HERE ON THE, I DUNNO IF THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.
MR. DELMER, CAN YOU HEAR THIS? WELL, FOR THIS ITEM, LET'S CALL, WE CAN CALL THIS AS A NO VOTE.
IF THAT, IF YOU THINK THAT'D BE ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER MANNA, COULD, COULD WE DO THESE, UM, UM, BY VOICE VOTE? SO IF WE SHOULD, YEAH, WE JUST CAN'T HEAR HIM.
OKAY, SO HE VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MOTION PASSES CONTINUE TO JANUARY 10TH, 2022.
UH, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A TWO MINUTE BREAK JUST TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HEAR HIM.
COMMISSIONER DELMER, CAN YOU HEAR, UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO 8 21 DASH 1 0 3 1 6 5.
ADDRESS IS 1 7 0 1 4 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER NINE.
APPLICANT IS GONNA BE A JOHN HIGGINBOTHAM REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE LEFT SIDE.
RESIDE, UH, ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CRIC.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SUMMER CREEK DRIVE NEAR BLANCO WOOD, AND CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED ON
[00:30:01]
THE LOT.THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE UPON SITE VISIT.
STAFF ALSO OBSERVED THERE WAS A CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY ON THE LOT FROM EAST TO WEST.
UH, SITE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY, EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE.
THAT'S THE, THIS IS ACTUALLY A PICTURE OF THE, UH, LEFT PROPERTY LINE, UH, BETWEEN HIM AND THE NEIGHBORING FENCE.
THAT'S THE EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN B O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 65 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THERE IS A CHANGE OF GRADE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, SLOPING FROM EAST TO WEST, AND TWO, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL ADD ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE AREA.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
OH, IS IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR.
UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
14 WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
AND BLANCO WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION.
I LIVE AT 1 7 0 1 4 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE.
UH, THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS, UH, UH, OUR NEIGHBOR AT 1 0 1 7 0 1 5, THE MENDOZAS.
WE LOOK INTO THEIR HOUSE, INTO BOTH THEIR BEDROOMS AND, UH, TO THEIR KITCHEN AND THEY IN IN KIND.
CAN LOOK INTO OUR BREAKFAST ROOM, OUR KITCHEN, AND OUR DINING ROOM.
UH, THE LOT DOES ASCEND FROM THE REAR OF THE LOT TO TOWARDS THE FRONT, SO IT DOES SLOPE DOWN AND, UH, THAT FENCE.
AND IT REALLY PROVIDES SECURITY AND SOME PRIVACY FOR BOTH OF US IN OUR APPLICATION.
FOR THE, UM, VARIANCE, WE SUBMITTED A LETTER WHERE THE MENDOZAS HAVE AGREED TO THIS, UH, FENCE BEING PUT IN.
UH, THIS IS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH OH 3 0 1 6 5.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT TOM'S REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW HIS EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
UH, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE OTHER FENCES JUST LIKE IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HIS FENCE DOESN'T FACE THE STREET.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IN MY OPINION, HE AND HIS NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE HAVE AGREED TO THIS FENCE AND THERE'S NO ISSUE THERE.
I LIVE AT 1 7 0 1 1 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 7 8 2 4 8 2 DOORS DOWN FROM TOM WITHIN THE 200 FOOT, UH, LIMIT WHERE I HAVE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS.
UM, I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER OH 1 6 5.
I'M AT 1 7 0 0 2 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE.
UM, MY, UM, PHONE NUMBER IS (336) 406-7812.
AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SAY THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE AT 1 7 0 1 4 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE.
UM, I'VE BEEN IN THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FOUR YEARS NOW.
I'D NEVER EVEN NOTICED THAT THAT FENCE, IT BLENDS IN NICELY WITH THE SURROUNDINGS.
UM, THAT THIS IS A LOVELY CUL-DE-SAC AND I DON'T SEE THAT THAT FENCE DETRACTS IN ANY WAY FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IF IT SERVES THE PRIVACY, UM, DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE, UM, THEN I THINK IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
UM, SO, UM, I, I FULLY SUPPORT THEIR REQUESTED EXEMPTION.
[00:35:01]
AND I LIVE AT 1 7 0 1 0 WOOD CANYON STREET.AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS AREA CODE (979) 777-3751.
AND I AM CALLING REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 1 7 0 1 4 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE.
THE, UH, CASE NUMBER IS 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 5.
AND I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS, UH, WITH ROS AND TOM HIGGINBOTHAM'S FENCE.
IT IS, UM, FINE WITH ME FOR THEM TO KEEP IT UP.
THIS CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAILS.
UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, SIR, UM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM.
SIR, HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD THIS FENCE ALREADY? HAS IT BEEN UP FOR A WHILE AND THEY JUST NOTICED IT? IT'S, UH, BEEN UP SINCE JULY OF, UH, 2020.
SO DID YOU GET A NOTICE FROM THE CITY ABOUT THE FENCE? YES.
IS THAT WHY YOU'RE HERE? YES, MA'AM.
SO THE QUESTION IS KIND OF FOR THE CITY, UH, FIRST, UM, SO IT SHOWED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN OPPOSITION.
WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL OUTSIDE OF JUST IN OPPOSITION? WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WITH REGARDS TO THEIR POSITION? IT JUST STATED THAT THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION.
I, A QUICK QUESTION OF, AS A FOLLOW UP, DID, DID YOU ATTEND A A AN H O A MEETING, A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING TO, TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? OR DID NO, I DID NOT, SIR.
UM, WHAT WE DID WAS WE, WE PLACED AN EXISTING FENCE.
AND THE FENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN THERE, AND, UH, WE'VE REPLACED CEDAR WITH CEDAR.
UM, AND I LOOKED IN OUR COVENANT, THERE'S NO RESTRICTION FOR HEIGHT IN THE COVENANT.
I UNAWARE OF A CITY RESTRICTION.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IS THAT USUALLY WHEN A NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION OR AN HOA IS IN OPPOSITION, THEY EITHER WILL SEND A LETTER OR AN EXPLANATION.
DO YOU HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE REAR, UH, WHERE THE, UH, CONDOS ARE? UH, WE DO NOT.
WE DO NOT, BUT WE HAVE HEDGES BACK THROUGH THERE, SO.
DO YOU THINK YOUR SITE SLOPES MORE THAN TWO FEET FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, GREAT.
UH, IF THERE'S ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH 0 365.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN PRIVACY OFFENSE ALONG THE LEFT SIDE OF PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 1 7 0 1 4 SUMMER CREEK DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING JOHN HIGGINBOTHAM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED.
SO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION.
THE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE, TWO FEET OF HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE PROPERTY.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THE THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE LEFT REAR 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 THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF REAR YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAK THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE CURRENT USE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT.
UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE, UH, IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR IS IN SUPPORT, UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THE THE NEIGHBOR'S AROUND, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE, THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT
[00:40:01]
IS IN SUPPORT.UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE, THE MOTION AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH, UH, MS. BERGMAN.
UH, I THINK IT IT'LL BE A GOOD, UH, FENCE AREA AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WILL HELP ALL THE NEIGHBORS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS, THE U D C DOES ALLOW FOR YOU TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT HEIGHT ON A FENCE WHEN SLOPE CONCERNS ARE ARE PRESENT.
UH, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T DEVIATE MORE THAN TWO FEET.
SO IMPOSING THAT FROM THE BACK CORNER TOWARDS THE FRONT, THIS RESIDENT WOULD PRACTICALLY HAVE ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALMOST REGARDLESS.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIA AND I ALSO CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS.
UM, BO O A CASE 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 1 6 0.
ADDRESS IS 1414 ESTANCIA STREET CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
APPLICANT IS A JOE RAAS REQUESTING FOR ONE A UH, 1500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 4,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE.
PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG ESTANCIA STREET, NEAR ROOSEVELT AVENUE, AND IT CURRENTLY SITS AS A VACANT LOT.
THEY'RE REQUESTING ONE A 1500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000, UH, SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE SHAPE OF THE LOT IS AN IRREGULAR LOT, AND THE STAFF OBSERVE A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE, WHICH WILL BE REMOVED.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SITE PLAN.
SO THE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, UM, ESTANCIA IS THE STREET AT THE TOP OF THE DIAGRAM.
AND, UM, YOU CAN SEE IT'S AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT THAT, UH, BUTTS THE APPLICANT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL APPROACH.
UM, THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE, WHICH YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE WILL BE REMOVED.
SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE STACK IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN BO 8 2103 0 1 6 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE LOT SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 4,500 SQUARE FEET.
AND TWO, THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN SHAPE, WHICH WILL, WHICH WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER.
AND THREE, THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BUILT ON A VACANT PROPERTY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREA ON THE SIDE.
SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 60 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PROPERTY'S UNIQUE IN SHAPE AND WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER.
AND TWO, A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
THERE WERE 25 NOTICES MAILED OUT.
RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE VEDO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
I'M THE DESIGNER REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF JUAN AND ADRIANA HERNANDEZ.
[00:45:01]
UM, I THINK THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH SUMMED IT UP.IT'S, UH, WE HAVE A VACANT LOT OF ESTANCIA STREET.
UM, IT'S WITHIN A SIR, UH, CAN YOU RAISE A MIC JUST A LITTLE BIT? THE LOT, UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH.
SO THE LOT'S, AN IRREGULAR S SIZE, UH, SIZED LOT.
UM, IT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO, UH, REQUEST FROM THE BOARD IS BASICALLY, UM, TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT MEETING THE MINIMUM, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE LOT.
AND THE SECOND ITEM WAS TO, UH, HAVE REDUCE THE SITE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING.
UH, THEY WERE REQUESTING A FOOT.
UM, I BELIEVE THE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TWO FEET, WHICH, UH, THEY WILL BE IN FAVOR OF.
UH, SIR, I, I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAUGHT YOUR ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING.
THE ADDRESS IS 1 4 1 4 STACIA STREET.
AND SO YOU, AND SO JUST TO END, UH, YOU STATED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UM, THEY HAD ORIGINALLY HAD A, A PLAN, A FOUR PLAN TO BUILD.
UH, WHEN THEY TRIED TO APPLY FOR PERMIT, THEY TOLD THEY WERE NOT TO, 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO THEY'RE HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME TRYING TO DESIGN THEIR HOME, UH, UH, BEING THAT THE, THE LOT IS IRREGULAR IN SHAPE AND, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT, UH, SIDE, UH, BUILDING SETBACK.
UH, IS THERE ANY ONE SIGN TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY? WE DO HAVE A VOICEMAIL.
YOU DO? OKAY, SIR, IF YOU COULD HANG TIGHT, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF, UH, AFTER THE VOICEMAIL, GO AHEAD.
UH, MY HUSBAND AND I, JOHN LUCIO, ARE OWNERS AT 1415 SAVA STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 4.
I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO JUAN HERNANDEZ, UH, CASE NUMBER ENDING IN 1 6 0.
WE JUST WANTED TO GIVE OUR SUPPORT FOR HIS PLAN TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL BACK AT (210) 290-2515.
THIS, THIS CONCLUDES VOICEMAILS.
UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MACHACA COMMISSIONER MINKA? SIR, SIR, UH, THE, UH, CORRUGATED FENCE ALONG THAT SIDE, WHY IS IT BEING REMOVED? IS IT A VIOLATION? UH, IT'S NOT, UM, IT WILL BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO, TO BUILD THEIR, THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHEN THEY ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY.
I, I BELIEVE IT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, JUST ABOUT THE, UH, ALSO ABOUT THE CORRUGATED METAL.
ARE YOU'RE REMOVING ALL OF THE CORRUGATED METAL OR JUST THE ONE ABOVE THE STREET? UH, ALL OF IT JUST ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOT.
UH, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S ANY, UH, IF A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION KNOWING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ACCEPTED A STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR A TWO FOOT, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE SET, I'M SORRY, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK.
SO THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE TWO FEET AWAY.
IS THAT WHAT I RECALL? ALRIGHT, GREAT.
IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
MANNA COMMISSIONER MANANA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0.
I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE, A 1500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 4,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE, UH, THREE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
DID I GET THOSE NUMBERS RIGHT? UM, UH, SITUATED AT 1 4 1 4 ESTANCIA STREET APPLICATION BEING JOE RAS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE FACTS, UH, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT ON A LOT SIZE OF 4,500 SQUARE FOOT AND TO ALLOW A VARIANCE OF TWO FOOT TO ALLOW FOR STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY, UH, IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AS THE APPLICANT AS HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO, UM, BE BUILT AS IT LACKS IN LOT SIZE AND SIDE SETBACKS WOULD, UH, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LIVABLE SPACE FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME.
BY GRANTING A VARIANCE, A SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
[00:50:01]
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 SETBACK IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER NON-CONFORMING HOUSES BUILT, ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE.
SETBACKS WITH SIMILAR LOT SIZES.
SIX, APPLY TO 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 PLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND DEALING WITH THE UNIQUE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, PLEASE LEAD, LEAD THE DISCUSSION.
SO, UM, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY, UM, YOU KNOW, APPEARS TO BE IN AGREEMENT AS WELL, AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THEY'D REALLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, I GUESS WAITING FOR US TO KIND OF MAKE THE, THE DECISION.
UM, AND SO IT DOES SOUND LIKE IT'S A GOOD USELESS PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY, UH, COLLEAGUE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING GOOD USE OF, UH, IRREGULAR SIZED LOTS AND, AND LOOKING OUTSIDE THE BOX IN TERMS OF FILLING IN.
UH, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING SHORTAGE AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UTILIZING EVERY AVENUE THAT WE CAN.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT'D LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE.
STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIA AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS.
ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, BO O A CASE.
21 DASH BO 21 DASH HUNDRED 360 2.
SUBJECT ADDRESS IS GONNA BE 7 0 5 WEST CRAIG PLACE.
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE JOHN CORTEZ.
REQUEST FOR A 1700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 4,300 ZONING IS GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST CRAIG PLACE NEAR RIPLEY AVENUE AND CURRENTLY IS A VACANT LOT.
THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR A 1700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 4,300 SQUARE FEET UPON SITE VISIT.
STAFF ALSO OBSERVED SIMILAR VACANT NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
UH, CURRENT SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA IN REFERENCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 DASH 103 0 1 62.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREA.
TWO, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL ADHERE TO ALL BUILDING SETBACKS.
THERE WERE 19 NOTICES MAILED OUT.
RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU JUST, UH, EXPAND ON WHY IT DIDN'T, UH, QUALIFY AS A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD? UM, INITIALLY, UH, IT WAS, UM, IT WAS, UH, AN ENTIRE LOT.
LIKE IF YOU GO BACK TO THE, UH,
[00:55:01]
LIKE TO THE OVERVIEW.OH, ACTUALLY, JUST RIGHT THERE.
SO I, IT WAS, IT WAS ALTERED AFTER 2005.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HI THERE.
HI, JOHN CORTEZ, 86 ROUNDUP SAN ANTONIO.
UM, IT'S A PLEASURE TO FINALLY MEET YOU.
WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, UM, AND AS WE WERE APPLYING FOR OUR, OUR, UH, UH, BUILDING PERMIT, UM, WE FOUND OUT THAT THE PROPERTY WASN'T CONFORMING IN AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UH, THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT'S, UH, KIND OF GOING, UH, LET'S SAY LEFT TO RIGHT.
UM, BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING FRONT TO BACK, THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THOSE PROPERTIES AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
UM, THE, THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED BACK IN THE THIRTIES.
THE PROPERTY WAS SPLIT, UH, BEFORE 1970.
UM, DURING THAT TIME IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED, I THINK IN R ONE.
I DON'T THINK WE USE R ONES ANYMORE.
BUT, UH, SO THE CITY WENT IN THERE AND ZONED IT AS AN R SIX.
SO, UM, I SPOKE TO THE LADY THAT THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY AND I ASKED HER, UH, HOW LONG THAT PROPERTY HAD BEEN EMPTY AND SHE SAID, UM, LONG TIME.
SO NOBODY'S BEEN NA UH, HAS, HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THAT, UH, UNTIL WE PURCHASED IT.
SO, UH, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT, UH, WE'RE ALLOWED TO, UH, BUILD A 1400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
UM, IF YOU COULD HOLD TIGHT, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
STAFF, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY? NONE.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? O ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA.
REGARDING PARKING, UH, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE OFFSITE PARKING, OFF STREET PARKING.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE, UH, THE PLOT PLAN, IT SHOWS PARKING, UH, ON THE PLOT PLAN, IT SHOWS A DRIVEWAY.
SO PARKING WILL BE SELF-CONTAINED WITHIN THE LOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, HEARING NONE, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
TEAL COMMISSIONER THIEL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH 0 360 2.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND QUEST FOR 1700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 4,300 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT 7 0 5 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APPLICANT BEING JOHN CORTEZ.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED HAVE SHOWN THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, OTHER 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.
PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A LOT SIZE OF 4,300 SQUARE FEET IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
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.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARI VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION, BUT USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT TO, TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE LOT BEING PREVIOUSLY DIVIDED INTO SMALLER LOTS INTO MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
I'M ALWAYS A BIG PROPONENT OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I THINK THIS WILL BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE AREA.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY, UH, COLLEAGUE AND I'LL GO ON TO ADD THAT.
UH, IN LOOKING AT THIS, THE LOCATION OF THIS LOT, IT IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO RAILROAD TRACKS AND SO, UH, THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO COMMIT TO, UH, BUILDING, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UM, IT, IT'S COMMENDABLE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT.
[01:00:01]
NONE, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT TO DO NEXT.
THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS CASE BO A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 63.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 31 23 AND 31 27 WINSOME LANE WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR.
THE APPLICANT IS CLIFFORD SOTO.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A 904 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 5,096 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
UH, LOCATED AT 31 23 WINSOME LANE AND TO A 908 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE.
UH, TO ALLOW A 5,092 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED AT 31 27 WINSOME LANE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UH, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED, UH, WITHIN A RELATIVELY NEW SUBDIVISION.
UM, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY VACANT.
THEY WERE PLATTED ON JANUARY 24TH, 2007.
UM, DURING THE BUILDING REVIEW THAT WAS DONE RECENTLY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE, UH, SLIGHTLY BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR R SIX, WHICH IS, UH, 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR BUILDING PLANS, UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO MOVE FORWARD.
HERE IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH LOT.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S 31 23 WINSOME LANE, AND THIS IS 31 27.
AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN B O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, ONE THE LOT SIZE FOR 31 23 WINSOME LANE IS 5,096 SQUARE FEET.
THE LOT SIZE FOR 31 27 WINSOME LANE IS 5,092 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND THREE, THE VARIANCES WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, AND THEY DO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF MAIL 23 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
NONE ARE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, BEFORE YOU GO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, THIS WAS PLOTTED IN OH SEVEN.
UH, WAS IT JUST THE ZONING REVIEW? DISMISSED THE LOT SIZE.
AND, AND JUST OUTTA CUR FOR LEGAL, I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, IF A PLAQUE GETS RECORDED, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE OKAY.
THEY DON'T, DO THEY HAVE TO COME HERE? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, USUALLY WE ONLY SEE THESE IF, IF THEY, IF THERE'S ANOTHER VARIANCE ATTACHED OR THERE'S SOME NEED.
THE ZONING REVIEW WAS MISSED DURING THE PLATT, UH, PROCESS.
THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CODE.
UM, AND SO THE ONLY WAY TO, UM, RESOLVE THIS IS TO BRING 'EM FORWARD TO, FOR, UH, VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR.
MY NAME IS CLIFFORD
AND, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE OR ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THOSE TWO LOTS? UH, WELL, WELL, IT'S, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION.
UH, LIKE I'LL GIVE YOU A, A QUICK QUESTION.
WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE LAND? I BOUGHT IT IN DECEMBER OF 2020.
I BOUGHT THE, UH, 23 27, 23 20, UH, 23, 20, WHAT IS IT? 32 23 WAS THE ATTORNEYS.
[01:05:01]
CHANGEOVER, THE DE CHANGEOVER, THEY MADE A MISTAKE.AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE 31 23 UNDER MY NAME.
NO, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU PURCHASED THEM AFTER THE PLATING OR WHERE YOU WERE PART OF THE PLANNING, SO MM-HMM.
BUT IT WAS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UH, IS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? SHE'S WITH 31 23.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE REC, UH, FOR THE RECORD.
UH, SUTTON, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN THREE.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO KNOW? ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? UH, YEAH, HAVE SOMETHING ON THAT.
'CAUSE WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME PULLING OUR PERMITS, AND IT WAS ALL, WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS THE, WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS ZONE, UH, SIX.
WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN THE ZONE FIVE AREA, BUT THAT WHOLE AREA, WE BUILT HOUSES IN THAT WHOLE AREA.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TWO HOUSES THAT WE'VE COME ACROSS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO A VARIANCE OR THAT IT WAS AN R SIX.
SO WE WERE STILL, A LOT OF US WERE ALL CONFUSED ABOUT IT, SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO OKAY.
WELL, IF Y'ALL COULD BOTH HANG TIGHT, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THERE'S ANY, UH, UH, ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANYTHING TO, UH, PLAY ANYONE? NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? YES.
UH, WHEN YOU, IS THIS WORKING WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE, THE LOT? UH, SO YOU PURCHASED IT FAIRLY RECENTLY.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANDARD LOT FOR BUILDING? NO.
AND IT WAS REPRESENTED, OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT IT WAS A BUILDING LOT.
THE FIRST WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IS WHEN WE PULLED A PERMIT, TRIED TO PULL A PERMIT, AND WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE HAD TO HAVE A VARIANCE.
SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS IN 2007, THE LAND WAS PLATTED AND THE, AND THE SIZE WAS, AND ALL OF THE LOTS ARE R SIX.
THERE WAS A, IT WAS A MISTAKE DURING PLAT REVIEW, SIR.
AND LIKE I SAID, HERE IT IS, IT SHOWS ALL THE R SIX, ALL OF THEM.
AND NORMALLY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LET YOU MADE TWO LOTS IN THAT AREA.
AND TWO LOTS WERE RECORDED AND NO ONE NOTICED IT.
SO YEAH, IT WAS JUST, YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
'CAUSE EVERY, THAT WHOLE AREA, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE ALL, I CAN NAME ALL THE HOUSE THE STREETS IN THAT AREA WHERE WE BUILT AND WE'VE NEVER COME ACROSS.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, NO, I MEAN, I, I I ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT IT'S NOT RELEVANT REALLY.
I, I DID HAVE ANOTHER, UM, ONLY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS, UH, YOU'RE NEAR PALO ALTO COLLEGE, WHICH IS A FAIRLY LOW INCOME AREA.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW LIKE WHAT THE HOUSES ARE SELLING FOR, ONLY BECAUSE IT IS, IS IT GOING TO CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY RAISING THE VALUES THERE? NOT THAT THAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS BUT'S, JUST, IT WOULD HELP ME IF I KNEW IT WAS SAYING NO AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE.
YEAH, NO, WHEN WE DO THE BUILDING, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH, WE PRETTY MUCH THAT.
COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH.
WE PRETTY MUCH SEE HOW THE AREA IS.
AND WE KNOW WE'RE IN THE PALO ALTO AREA AND WE KNOW IT'S A MORE, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO, WE BUILD GOOD HOMES.
WE DON'T, IT'S NOT LIKE A $300,000 HOME.
'CAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO STAY AND WE, WE BUILD PRETTY GOOD HOMES THERE.
SO A LOT OF PEOPLE, OUR HOMES GO UP, THEY SELL AS FAST AS THEY'RE GOING UP.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE IN THE 200 HUNDRED RANGE? MM-HMM.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 63.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A NINE OH NINE HUNDRED AND FOUR SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE, FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIRED TO ALLOW A 5,096 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE LOCATED AT 3 1 2 3 WINSOME LANE AND TWO A 908 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD TO ALLOW A 5,092 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE LOCATED AT 3 1 2 7 WINSOME LANE, SITUATED AT 3 1 2 7 3 1 2 3 AND 3 1 2 7 WINSOME LANE.
APPLICANT BEING CLIFFORD SOTO, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST FOR THE LOT VARIANCE IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD OR BE OR BEING REQUIRED TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS DOES NOT POSE AN UNNECESSARY, HARD, THIS DOES POSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL
[01:10:01]
BE DONE.THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROVIDE UNIFORMITY AMONG LOTS.
AND THE REQUEST FOR A LOT SIZE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
DOES APPEAR TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE FOR 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.
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 VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE ORDINANCE PRIDE, 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'S LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YES.
I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF, OF WHENEVER WE CAN, UH, MAKE A LOT USEFUL TO BUILD ON BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
AND SO THESE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE, UH, NOW TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AVAILABLE TO BE PURCHASED, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE UNAWARE AND IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CITY THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THAT.
SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF IT TOO.
UM, AND UH, STAFFIE, YOU CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL LET YOU KNOW THERE'S ANYTHING YOU NEED TO DO AT THIS POINT.
UH, NEXT CASE IS ITEM NUMBER NINE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, BO A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 51.
ADDRESS IS GOING TO BE, UM, 2 0 7 HAVANA DRIVE.
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN.
APPLICANT IS IRMA IBANEZ REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE.
PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG HAVANA DRIVE.
NEAR HILLCREST DRIVE CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOME CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 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.
THE PREVIOUS EXISTING CARPORT DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THIS, INTO THE SETBACK.
THIS IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
SUBJECT PROPERTY 2 0 7 HAVANA DRIVE, CARPORT EDITION SIDE OF CARPORT, SIDE OF CARPORT ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S EIGHT FOOT THREE INCHES FOR THE NEW CARPORT EDITION AND 24 FEET, FOUR INCHES FOR THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE CARPORT EXISTING.
AND NEW, UH, THAT'S THE PICTURE OF THE EXISTING CARPORT AND THAT'S THE RIGHT ANGLE OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREAS SITE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 51 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
[01:15:01]
TWO, THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE FOR VE VEHICLE PARKING WITH THE EXISTING CARPORT.THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE WOODLAWN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND FOUR WERE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE 200 SQUARE FOOT SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
AND JUST, UH, STAFF AND JUST TO BE SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE SMALLER COURT PORT THAT IS RECESSED IN THE REAR IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S SUBJECT TO THIS CASE, RIGHT? THE ONE TO THE RIGHT? YES, SIR.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT HERE? UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND, AND I'M ARMANDO IBANEZ, HER HUSBAND.
AND WE RESIDED 2 0 7 HAVANA, WHICH WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR OUR CARPORT TO REMAIN STANDING IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR ANTIQUE CARS.
WE DO HAVE SOME ANTIQUE CARS AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY WE BUILT THE ADDITIONAL CARPORTS.
UH, WE WANNA KEEP 'EM, YOU KNOW, PRESERVED AND RESTORED INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM JUST OPENED OUT THERE.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE, WE DID DO THE, UH, CARPORT.
WE WERE NOT AWARE WHEN WE THREW THE CONCRETE, WE THOUGHT THAT WE'D BE, SINCE WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT A PERMIT FOR THAT, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE GONNA BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE BY BUILDING THE CARPORT.
AND, AND ASSUMING THAT, UM, IF WE DO, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO BUILD THE FIVE, IF WE WERE TO DO IT FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN IT, ALL, THE CARPORT WOULD BE THREE FEET.
SO NOTHING WOULD BE, WOULD FIT INSIDE THAT CARPORT AT ALL.
UM, LIKE I SAID, THE MAIN REASON IS FOR US TO KEEP OUR OLD VEHICLES.
I KNOW I DID SEND A PICTURE OF THAT.
I DID GO AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE LIVE IN A VERY OLD, OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S ABOUT MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK 50, 60 YEARS OLD.
'CAUSE I THINK WHEN WE MOVED IN THE HOUSE IT WAS 25 YEARS OLD.
WE'VE BEEN THERE OVER 30 YEARS.
UM, AND A LOT OF THE HOMES ARE LIKE THAT.
A LOT OF THE HOMES HAVE THE CARPORT.
I MEAN, SOME OF THEM, THE HOUSES WERE SIDE BY SIDE TO EACH OTHER.
SO I KNOW BEFORE WE BUILT IT WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, DROVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE FIGURED, WELL A LOT OF THE HOMES WERE LIKE THAT.
SO WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WOULD BE, LIKE I SAID, OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS? UM, ALSO THE MAIN REASON TO TAKE OFF THE CARPORTS.
OF COURSE THE VEHICLES WILL BE MORE OPEN, THEREFORE PEOPLE WOULD VANDALIZE 'EM OR STEAL THEM, YOU KNOW.
BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LIVE IN.
WELL, UH, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY CENTERED TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY IN THE RECORD.
NO, I DIDN'T KNOW WE COULD DO VOICEMAILS.
WE HAD A PETITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ME AND MY WIFE WALKED UP AND DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ASKED OUR NEIGHBOR IF THAT WAS A NUISANCE ON OUR CARPORT PART.
AND THEY SAID, NO, WE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH Y'ALL GUYS.
AND I'M ALWAYS KEEPING OUT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
'CAUSE I'M ALWAYS OUTSIDE WORKING ON THESE VEHICLES.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE PICTURES OF IT, YOU CAN JUST SHOW SHOW.
A A A LARGE PLURALITY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT.
AND I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW, UM, IN SPEAKING WITH MR. ROSSA, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ANYTHING'S OF FIRE HAZARDS.
WE'VE HAD THIS VEHICLE SINCE TWO THOU.
I MEAN, WE HAD THE CARPORT SINCE 2018.
SO RIGHT THERE, THERE'S A PICTURE WHERE EVERYTHING WAS OPEN WHEN WE FIRST BUILT THE CARPORT.
AND THEN WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDED SOME SIDINGS ON THAT.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE REASON WHY.
UM, THEN ANOTHER TIME WE HAD ADDED HALF OF IT.
AND THEN THIS LAST TIME, WHICH WAS LIKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT THE NOTICE OF BEING OUTTA COMPLIANCE, WAS WHEN WE WENT AHEAD AND CLOSED IT OUT COMPLETELY.
I FIGURED THAT WAS THE REASON WHY, THAT'S WHY WE WENT IN AND TOOK OFF THE SIGHTINGS.
BUT I MEAN, WHATEVER WILL HELP US TO KEEP IT, WE'RE WILLING TO DO IT.
IF WE NEED TO PUT THE SIGHTINGS BACK ON THERE OR DO GUTTERS, WHATEVER WE NEED, WE'LL BE WILLING TO WORK WITH Y'ALL.
LET'S SEE IF, UH, STEPH, IS THERE ANYONE CENTERED TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY? NO, THERE'S NO ONE.
SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, WHO'D LIKE TO START CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, YES.
YES, UH, MA'AM ON YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBOR'S TO YOUR RIGHT.
WHAT KIND OF, UH, I, I CAN'T TELL OF WHAT DRAINAGE, WHAT NO, I SEE THE DRAINAGE, BUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S MADE OF? BECAUSE I CAN'T TELL IF THE IT'S ALUMINUM, LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR FENCE OR IF IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.
DO YOU KNOW? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? I'M SORRY.
THE, THE SIDING OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME.
DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S IT'S WOOD? I THINK'S WOOD SIDING.
AND IT DOES HAVE A WINDOW, UH, A CENTRAL THERE ALSO? YES, SIR.
AND OF COURSE HE DIDN'T OBJECT TO YOUR MAKING THE CARPORT.
I TALKED TO HIM BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED THAT I WOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL THE TRIMMING, THE MAINTENANCE ON THIS SIDE WHERE HE HAS HIS RAMP.
SO HE HAS NO PROBLEM AND I'M ALWAYS ON KEEPING IT NICE AND CLEAN ON THAT
[01:20:01]
PART.AND YOU CAN KIND OF TELL THE DIFFERENCE ON IT.
AND HE DOESN'T HAVE NO PROBLEM.
IT'S JUST, JUST OKAY, THANK YOU.
JUST TRYING TO PRESERVE THESE OLD VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA? UH, THIS IS QUESTION FOR STAFF.
HOW WAS THIS CASE ORIGINATED? I BELIEVE IT WAS A CODE COMPLIANCE CASE.
WAS IT, WAS SOMEBODY CALLED IN OR WAS IT JUST A CODE COMPLIANCE DRIVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DO WE KNOW? UH, THAT I'M NOT SURE OF.
IT APPEARS WHAT I SEE FROM THE OLD GOUL HERE, THERE'S AN ELEVATION FROM YOUR HOUSE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
SO THE RUNOFF FROM YOUR CARPORT, IT'S OBVIOUS IT'S RUNNING INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD RIGHT NEXT TO THAT.
DO YOU SEE THAT TOO? YES, SIR.
WHAT YOU SEE WHENEVER YOU'RE ANSWERING QUESTIONS OH, I'M SORRY.
GO AHEAD AND, UH, SAY THAT AGAIN.
THERE'S AN ELEVATION FROM YOUR HOUSE HIGHER NEXT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S.
SO ALL THAT RUNOFF FROM THE ROOFS FROM YOUR CARPORT GOES ONTO HIS PROPERTY.
AND HE'S ACCEPTABLE WITH THAT WATER COMING TO HIS PROPERTY? YES, HE DOES HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO PUT A GUTTER, THAT'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I'VE TALKED TO HIM AND HE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST LIVE, HE WAS SURPRISED WHEN, I MEAN, MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS WERE SURPRISED THAT, MA'AM, IF YOU COULD YEAH, I'M SORRY.
MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS WERE SURPRISED THAT WE HAD GOTTEN THE VARI THE VARIANCE WHEN WE WENT AROUND, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO 'EM THAT WE HAD GOTTEN CITED.
SO, UH, THE FIRST QUESTIONS FOR CITY.
SO, UM, SO IT APPEARS THAT PART OF THE STRUCTURE HAS, UM, UM, SIDING COMING DOWN OF IT, DOWN IT, SO IT CHANGES FROM A CARPORT TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY DWELLING IN.
IS THAT TRUE? 'CAUSE WE, WE HAD A SIMILAR CASE LIKE LAST WEEK, DID WE NOT, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT CARPORT WITH A SIDING.
I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS, UH, A LITTLE MORE ENCLOSED.
THIS ONE IS, THIS IS CONSIDERED A CARPORT, SO STILL CONSIDERED A CARPORT.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
UM, SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, THIS TO THE APPLICANT HERE IS, UM, SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A, IT'S A TIERED, UM, CARPORT.
AND, AND SO WHAT IS THE DEPTH, WE'LL SAY OF THE, THE SECOND TIERING THAT YOU ADDED ON THERE? SO IS THAT LIKE, LIKE 20 FEET OR 30 FEET? UH, THE SECOND PART OF IT, I WANNA SAY IT'S 20.
IT'S 70 FEET LONG FROM THE SMALLER CARPORT IN THE FRONT.
AND IT'S JUST THE CONCRETE THAT OKAY.
SO IT'S ALMOST ABOUT THE SAME 70 FEET LONG, EIGHT FEET TALL AND FIVE INCH STICKS OF CONCRETE.
BUT THAT'S, THIS IS A CONCRETE, UM, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
MY QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE, I GUESS WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF THE CARPORT THAT HAS, IS RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY LINE? SO I WAS ONE INCH AWAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON PROBABLY ABOUT, PROBABLY ABOUT 21 FEET, GIVE OR TAKE.
THE LAST PART OF THE THE TALLEST PART OF THE CAR PART IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YEAH.
HE'S ASKING ABOUT THE CAR PART THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE HERE DISCUSSING TODAY.
DID YOU, DID YOU MEASURE, HAPPEN TO MEASURE THAT WHILE YOU'RE OUT THERE? THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.
I, I DON'T BELIEVE LENGTH WAS IN THERE, JUST THE WIDTH.
WELL WE HAVE, I RECALL 24 FEET BEING BOUNCED AROUND AS A NUMBER.
LET ME SEE, WE HAVE ANOTHER PIECE ON MAP.
SEE THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THERE.
SO IT SHOW IT TO THEM SO THEY CAN YOU SHOWING IT AT 26 FEET.
SO IT'S 26, THE FIRST ONE, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS 12 FEET, I MEAN 12, YEAH, 12 FEET, RIGHT? 26 AND 12.
THE SMALLER CARPORT IN THE FRONT IS 12 FEET LONG.
AND THE SECOND ADDITION, IT'S LIKE A LITTLE BIT TALLER, LIKE A, A A FOOT TALLER.
IT'S 26 26 FEET, EIGHT, EIGHT INCHES.
SO, UM, SO, SO NORMALLY WHEN A CASE COMES THROUGH WHERE THE CARPORT IS DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO MOVING THE CARPORT IN BY LIKE, UH, UM, TWO FOOT OR THREE FOOT.
UM, SO THAT WAY WE KIND OF PRESERVE THE, THE, THE SIDE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, UH, RESPECT THAT BOUNDARY THERE.
AND SO, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE HARDSHIP? UH, IF IT WAS THAT WE MOVED THAT IN BY, UM, BY THREE FOOT, THE WAY IT LOOKS.
THE UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW THE WAY THE CARPORT IS REALLY A VEHICLE WOULDN'T FIT IN THERE.
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT A VEHICLE THERE.
I'M, I'M GONNA CHIME INTO, UM, AS MENTIONED BY MY COLLEAGUE, UH, WE DO HEAR ABOUT, UH, THE BIG ISSUES ARE DRAINAGE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU MAKE IT THINNER? UH, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY GUTTERS, YOU KNOW, WHICH WE'RE WILLING
[01:25:01]
TO, TO PUT THE ISSUE IS THAT IF YOU WERE TO ELECTIVELY ON YOUR OWN, AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN YOUR OWN PROPERTY.AND SO THE CONCERN WOULD BE IS, YOU KNOW, IS IT, IS YOUR CURRENT COVER, UH, BE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE GUTTERS AND STILL HAVE IT BE ENTIRELY ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY.
'CAUSE A GUTTER'S USUALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, THREE, FOUR INCHES WIDE.
OR MAYBE AN INCH SHORT OF, OF HITTING THE OUR ARE THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE.
BUT I CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS, THIS, THIS BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO, TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS.
WE CAN, WE CAN EITHER FLAT OUT DENY IT OR WE CAN MODIFY IT TO MOVE IT IN A LITTLE REDUCE WHERE IT EXISTS DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE.
CURRENTLY YOU HAVE 38 FEET, UM, BUT IF YOU WERE TO ELECTIVELY STATE THAT GUTTERS ARE A PART OF YOUR APPLICATION AND THAT WILL, THEY WILL BE ENCASED IN YOUR PROPERTY LINE AND WITH A MINIMUM OFFSET OF ONE INCH, FOR EXAMPLE.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER.
JUST, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE HOW THE QUE LINE OF QUESTIONS GOES.
SO THE FLOOR'S BACK TO COMMISSIONER MANNA IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY.
YEAH, I THINK, WELL THE GUTTER THAT YOU, YOU COVERED A GUTTER QUESTION THAT WAS COMING UP WITH, SO THAT'S PERFECT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? UM, THIS IS REALLY FOR THE COUNT, UH, FOR THE CITY.
UM, IS THIS A UNIQUE SITUATION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WOULD THIS SET A PRECEDENT FOR, UH, HAVING A ZERO LOT LINE? UH, IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A ZERO LOT LINE.
UM, THERE WERE OTHER CARPORTS OBSERVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO SIR, UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE, WE'LL MOVE AFTER HEARING FROM YOU, WE'LL MOVE INTO DELIBERATION.
THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
UH, SIR, DID, DID YOU I'M SORRY.
OH, LOOKING, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YEAH, LET ME, LEMME SAY, SO.
SO IF, UH, YOU, YOU CAN TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, OKAY.
WE CAN'T ASK YOU TO, WE CAN'T MAKE IT A CONDITION OF ANYTHING, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELECTIVELY, AMEND, FORMALLY AMEND, UM, YOUR APPLICATION SUCH THAT IT WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS AND NOT BE, YOU KNOW, VIOLATE A ONE INCH, YOU KNOW, SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD YES.
USE THEREFORE IN OUR DELIBERATIONS.
SO I, I WOULD NEED YOU TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT COMPLETELY ON YOUR OWN RECORD YES.
JUST MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO MICROPHONE.
I FORMALLY AMEND TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, UM, WITHIN ONE INCH OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO NOT, TO NOT, YOU'RE FORMALLY AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION SUCH THAT OKAY.
WE ARE FORMALLY AMENDING OUR APPLICATION SUCH THAT IT WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS AND NOT, WHICH WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS AND NOT ENCROACH NO CLOSER THAN ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND IT WOULD NOT BE NO MORE THAN ONE INCH WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO WITH THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE THIS, UH, CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO DELIBERATIONS.
IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO GET THE BALL ROLLING WITH THIS MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 1.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A REQUEST FOR 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 SITUATED AT 2 0 7 HAVANA DRIVE APPLICANT BE IRMA VEES.
UH, BECAUSE THE, UM, TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP.
I WOULD AMEND THAT TO, UH, THAT THE UH, CARPORT IS NO LONGER, NO MORE THAN 38 FOOT IN LENGTH.
UM, UM, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A CARPORT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY, UH, SPECIAL CONDITION THAT IF ENFORCED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT AT THE CARPORT WIDTH WOULD NEED TO BE FIVE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR A HOMEOWNER TO PARK THEIR VEHICLES.
BY GRANTING THIS, UH, VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW.
[01:30:01]
INTENT OF THE SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED.THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH IS VARIANCE IS SAW, IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY ENTERING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IT DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THIS SPECIFICALLY APPLIES AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADMITTED THEIR REQUEST TO INCLUDE GUTTERS.
UH, THAT WILL BE WITHIN, UH, THAT STILL WILL MAINTAIN THE ONE INCH VARIANCE.
UM, SIX APPLY 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 NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT FOR WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR, UM, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT.
AND A MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A CAR PORT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS NOT TO COME WITHIN ONE INCH OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OF, UH, NOT TO BE A NEXUS OF 38 FEET.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THERE A SECOND THIEL? UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THIEL.
COMMISSIONER MANDA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION.
SO I THINK, UH, GETTING COMMIT WITH THE GUTTERS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DO NOT LIKE WATER RUNNING OFF ONTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES.
UM, AND, AND, UM, GENERALLY WE DO THE SETBACKS ACCORDINGLY.
SO, UH, BECAUSE YOU'VE MADE THAT COMMITMENT, UH, UH, AMEN.
YOUR MOTION, UH, THEN, UM, I, I THINK THAT SATISFIES THAT CONDITION.
UM, IT IS KIND OF A LONG CARDBOARD, BUT I THINK IF WE RESTRICT IT TO 38 FEET, UH, I THINK THAT YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO PARK YOUR CARS UNDERNEATH IT.
LOOKING, UH, DOWN TWO HOUSES DOWN, I SEE ANOTHER CARPORT THAT'S SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE.
SO, UM, LOOKING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I SEE OTHER, UH, LIKE YOU INDICATED.
SO, UH, BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE THINGS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER THIEL? YES, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I THINK, UH, ADDING THE AMENDING THE APPLICATION TO CONCLUDE THE GUTTERS IS WHAT SWAYED ME THIS DIRECTION.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, YOU CAN PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TIME FOR AT LEAST ONE MORE BEFORE BREAK.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS B O A CASE NUMBER 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 6.
THE APPLICANT BEING PATRICK CHRISTENSEN.
AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIRED BY THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX TO BE 10 FOOT FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE ZONING IS R THREE CD, UH, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF ASHBY PLACE IN BLANCO ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO BUILD A DUPLEX.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIRED BY THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX TO BE 10 FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, THE, THE LOT SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 33,850 SQUARE FEET AND THE VARIANCE IS TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE SMALL LOT.
AND THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY REZONED AND APPROVED, UH, WITH THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE SITE PLAN IS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG ASHBY SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG BLANCO ROAD AND SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, NUMBER ONE, THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN WITH THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THE REZONING CASE AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OBSERVED THIS PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND, UH, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS ALONG WITH THE APPLICANT.
[01:35:03]
OH, UH, THERE WERE 19 NOTICES MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.AND THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
CAN, CAN YOU RESTATE, YOU SAID CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A REDUCTION TO A 10 FOOT SETBACK? DID I HEAR THAT? THEY APPROVED THE REZONING BA WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.
SO THAT'S TIED FOR THE SITE PLAN.
BUT THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THE VARIANCE, BUT THEY FOR THE REZONING.
UM, IS THERE, UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH WHITE, SOUTH ST.
UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPROACHED ME ABOUT THIS SITE.
IT'S, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED FOR ANYTHING.
UM, PROBABLY BACK IN THIS, OH, HERE WE GO.
OH, WE GO PROBABLY BACK IN 19.
THIS THING IS NOT WORKING VERY GOOD.
WELL IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY THAT'S LET LISTED AS 1110 WEST ASHBY, THAT PROPERTY, UM, BASICALLY CUT OFF THE BACK HALF.
THIS LOT WAS ORIGINALLY A HUNDRED AND, UH, 50 FEET LONG.
THE PROPERTY BEHIND US BASICALLY CUTS THE BACK HALF OF THOSE THREE LOTS THAT GO SOUTH ON BLANCO FROM THIS PROPERTY.
SO WE KIND OF HAVE A, A SUBSTANDARD LOT THERE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER'S GONNA HAVE TO REPLANT IT 'CAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE, UH, PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS WHERE IT DESCRIBES ONLY THE FRONT HALF OF THE LOT.
UM, THE, THE OWNER WANTS TO DEVELOP A DUPLEX.
WE MET WITH BEACON HILL TWICE, BOTH WITH THEIR BOARD AND WITH THE GENERAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THEY SUPPORTED BOTH THE REZONING AND, UH, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
BASICALLY THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED.
UH, WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE PROPERTY ALSO IS WE NEED THE VARIANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO WE CAN PUSH THE BUILDING FORWARD JUST 10 FEET.
THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ONTO ASHBY, AND THAT WILL BE THE ACCESS AND IT WILL BASICALLY COME INTO THE BACK OF THE PROPOSED DUPLEX THAT WILL FRONT ON BLANCO.
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS INTERSECTION, THERE'S A LIGHT THERE.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO STREET PARKING AVAILABLE ON THIS PROPERTY, SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET SOME PROP, SOME PARKING WITHIN THE SITE.
AND BY ALLOWING THE VARIANCE, ALLOWING US TO PUSH THE BUILDING FORWARD 10 FEET, WE'LL HAVE SOME ROOM FOR, FOR BOTH RESIDENT AND SOME VISITOR PARKING IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED TWO UNITS.
UM, SO I WOULD MAKE THE, UH, SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS A, AN REGULAR LOT CREATED DECADES AGO AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND WE HOPE YOU WOULD SUPPORT OUR VARIANCE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO, UH, TO SPEAK STAFF OR ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY? THERE'S NO ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
SO WE'LL OPEN THIS UP WITH QUESTIONS THERE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER BERT? UH, SIR, I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S GONNA BE A DUPLEX NOW WILL IT BE FACING ASHBY OR BE FACING UH, BLANCO? THEY'LL BE FACING BLANCO SIDE BY SIDE UNITS.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PULL IN OFF OF ASHBY AND PULL INTO, BASICALLY WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ENCLOSED GARAGES WITHIN THE BEACON HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, BUT THEY WILL HAVE LIKE AN OPEN, I DON'T WANNA CALL IT A CARPORT, CARPORT, BUT THERE WILL BE A BUILDING ABOVE AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PULL IN THE BACK.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, UH, WAS NUMBER TWO.
I WAS WONDERING HOW FAR IN FRONT OF 1110 ASHBY WILL YOU, WILL YOU BE OR WILL YOU BE? HOW FAR IN FRONT? OH, AS FAR AS, UM, DO YOU MEAN THE, THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEHIND US, THE, TO THE WEST OF US? UH, THE, THE NEIGHBOR ON WEST ASHBY, THE BIG YELLOW HOME.
1110, I BELIEVE THE ADDRESS IS, UH, I DO NOT KNOW HOW FAR THE SETBACK IS ON THAT PROPERTY.
IF YOU, MAYBE IF YOU HAVE AN AERIAL OR ANYTHING THAT WE CAN SHOW YOUR EXHIBITS.
I DO KNOW THERE THE, THERE'S A PROPERTY.
IF YOU LOOK STRAIGHT THROUGH, YOU SEE THAT PROPERTY BEHIND US.
SO, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE A POINTER.
UM, IF YOU'RE ON BLANCO, THE NEXT HOUSE SOUTH, UM, AND THEN THE NEXT HOUSE, THAT HOUSE IS ABOUT 10 FEET FROM THE STREET, THE TWO STORY OLDER RESIDENCE THAT'S BEHIND US, THAT KIND OF TOOK PART OF OUR LOT.
I AM NOT POSITIVE AS TO HOW CLOSE THAT IS TO ASHBY, BUT MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, THAT WE ARE GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT IN FRONT OF IT ON THAT CORNER.
THERE'S JUST, THERE'S JUST NO OTHER WAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PROBABLY 20 FEET BACK AND YOU'RE KIND OF REDUCING US BACK INTO A SMALL CORNER IF WE TRIED TO MATCH HIS FRONT SETBACK AND THE 20 FOOT SETBACK ON BLANCO.
'CAUSE WITH AN ASHBY ADDRESS ON THE PROPERTY, NORMALLY THE, THE FACADE OF THE HOME WOULD FACE THE ADDRESS.
WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT WITH THE REPLY OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'LL CHANGE THE ADDRESS TO FRONT ON BLANCO.
[01:40:03]
OKAY.UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, WELL ZUNA WAS NEXT AND THEN MINKA.
UH, FIRST I WAS GONNA ASK IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE UNIQUENESS ABOUT GETTING THE, UH, THE ZONING CASE APPROVED WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK, BUT STILL HAVING TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THAT SAME VARIANCE REQUEST.
AND THEN SECOND THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IF THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY TODAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT WE SHOULD, SHOULD ASK FOR IN OUR REZONING.
I MEAN, YOU WOULD NORMALLY THINK, WELL LET'S JUST ASK FOR I Z ZONING.
THAT GETS RID OF ALL THE SETBACKS AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
ALTHOUGH I THINK I WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET AN AMENDMENT OR A VARIANCE FROM THE, THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
BUT IN TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS AN AVERSION TO I D Z BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY, YOU KNOW, PARKING FOR, FOR RESIDENTS AT LEAST THE I D Z, WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR I D Z ONE.
UM, AND WE, WE DIDN'T NEED THAT, THAT, SO WE JUST SAID, LOOK, LET'S GO FOR R THREE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 3,800 SQUARE FEET AND UNDER ITS CURRENT R SIX, IT'S UNDEVELOPABLE 'CAUSE IT'S A 3,800 SQUARE FOOT LIFE.
THE PEOPLE THAT JUST HAD THE CASE A COUPLE OF CASES BEFORE ME, IT'S THE SAME, SAME ISSUE.
UM, AND THEN WE DECIDED LET'S DO A CD CONDITIONAL DISTRICT SO THAT THAT LOCKS US IN A SITE PLAN.
BEACON HILL HAS, UM, IS ALWAYS A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS.
SOME DEVELOPERS HAVE SAID THEY'RE GONNA DO ONE THING, THEY DO SOMETHING ELSE.
THEY, THEY LIKE THE FACT WE WERE LOCKED IN ON A SITE PLAN.
WE KNEW GOING IN WITH THE REZONING, IF WE GOT THE ZONING APPROVED WITH THE, AND LOCKED IN WITH THE SITE PLAN AND WE GET DENIED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO START ALL OVER.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A RISK WE WERE WILLING TO TAKE.
'CAUSE WE DO, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE.
BUT THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE IS THE PROPERTY'S JUST UNDEVELOPABLE.
'CAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE REAR END PARKING AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE 20 FOOT SETBACK.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MINKA, UH, YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS, BUT, UH, IT, IT'S A DUPLEX, SO, UH, IT IMPLIES TWO STORIES.
SO IT IMPLIES FOUR CAR PARKING OR ONE CAR PARKING FOR EACH.
WE'RE DOING, I APOLOGIZE, WE'RE DOING ONE, ONE UNIT LARGER THAN THE OTHER.
SO ONE UNIT WILL HAVE TWO, TWO CAR PARKING AND ONE UNIT WILL HAVE ONE AND, UH, WE'LL STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM BACK IN THE CORNER TO ADD ANOTHER VISITOR PARKING SPOT.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE I GET HANDLE ON THIS.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO, HE ABSOLUTELY HAS TO REPL, IS THAT TRUE? AND THE REASON WHY I ASK IS IT LOOKS LIKE BLANCO MIGHT, MIGHT BE A COLLECTOR.
I MEAN, ARE YOU GONNA HAVE TO GIVE A RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S GONNA AFFECT WHAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY? THAT I'M NOT SURE.
REAPPLY FOR, SO HE'S, SO HE'S, HE'S ASKING FOR, UM, THESE SBACK VARIANCES AND HIS SITE PLAN IS SHOWING THE STRUCTURE RIGHT? ON THE S SETBACK LINES.
BUT IF HE'S GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH A, WITH A SUBDIVISION PLAT, I MEAN, DO WE HAVE, IF THERE'S ANY SUBSTANDARD STREETS OR IF, OR LIKE, LET'S SAY BLANCO WAS CLASSIFIED AS A COLLECTOR OR SOMETHING AND HE HAS TO GIVE UP SOME RIGHT OF WAY, THAT'S GONNA REALLY AFFECT HOW WE LOOK AT THIS.
UH, SECOND THING IS, IS DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, IF YOU CHANGE YOUR ADDRESS TO A BLANCO ADDRESS, DOESN'T THAT AFFECT HOW THE SETBACKS ARE? LIKE, WOULDN'T THAT MAKE ONE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND AS OPPOSED TO A REAR? IF YOU COULD JUST COMMENT ON THAT.
SO CHANGING THE ADDRESS CHANGES WHERE YOUR FRONT SETBACK IS VERSUS YOUR SIDE SETBACK.
SO, UM, THE FRONT SETBACK WILL THEN BECOME BLANCO AND THEN HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE N C D REQUIREMENTS FOR IT'S, UH, BETWEEN, OR IT'S A MINIMUM 20 FOOT.
UM, SO I, I GUESS I'M AT, I'M GONNA ASK PATRICK, IF YOU ARE RE-ADDRESS, ARE YOU GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK? NO, BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS APPROACHED THIS THAT WE'RE, THE, THE 20 FOOT SETBACK THAT WE'RE ASKING THE VARIANCE FOR IS A FRONT SETBACK.
SO WE'RE WE'RE SAYING THAT THE FRONT IS GONNA BE ON BLANCO? YEAH.
SO HERE'S A, SO HERE'S A QUESTION FOR, FOR LEGAL.
WHEN THIS GETS READ INTO A MOTION TODAY, DOES IT, AND, AND HE'S HE'S BEEN ADVERTISED AS A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
IS THAT AN ADJUSTABLE THING OR, OR DO OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A A SPECIFIC SIDE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT AT NO.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT BY STREET, IT'S JUST BASED ON WHEREVER HIS FRONT IS GOING TO BE.
UM, IT'S DESIGNATED, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S PECULIAR FOR US BECAUSE IT, IT IS CHANGEABLE FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY.
'CAUSE ADDRESSES CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME.
UM, SO, UM, WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS JUST A GENERIC 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEREVER HE'S ADDRESSED OFF OF, HE GETS THE FRONT SETBACK.
UH, AND THEN IF YOU HAD TO GIVE A RIGHT AWAY ON BLANCO, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM TO SCOOT IT BACK SLIGHTLY IF YOU HAD TO.
HOPEFULLY, I, I WOULD IMAGINE.
I, I'VE NEVER NOT BEEN AWARE OF ANY, UM, WIDENING PROJECTS ON BLANCO.
IT'S, IT WAS WIDENED PROBABLY IN THE LATE SEVENTIES WHEN THEY BUILT THE BLANCO APARTMENT.
SAHA BUILT THE BLANCO APARTMENTS UP A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH.
UM, BUT I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF WHEN WE WE HIT THE PLAT.
WELL THAT, THAT ANSWERS ALL MY
[01:45:01]
QUESTIONS.IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, WE CAN HAVE A COMMISSIONER MAKE A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 21 DASH 3 56, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIRED BY THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS TO ALLOW A DUPLEX TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 11 0 2 WEST ASHBY AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING PATRICK CHRISTENSEN.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US 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 U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN APPLICANT, UH, BUILDING THE DUPLEX 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE LOT SIZE WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BASED ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN, WHICH PRESENTS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED.
A 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 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK WILL PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE REQUEST APPEARS TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
NO USES OF THE, THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS NOT, UH, LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOLID IS DUE TO DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF A GENERAL CONDITION.
THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE BOARD FINDS IT APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO ME TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION RIGHT.
I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
UM, WE SAW THE, THE BEACON HILL AND, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AS CONSERVATION.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF IT.
UM, HE'S PROVIDING FOR THE ONSITE PARKING, WHICH IS A NECESSITY.
IT PROVIDES FOR, UH, UH, UH, ECONOMIC USE OF A LOT THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRIOR USED.
UH, PROVIDES, UH, HOUSING, UH, THAT IS MUCH, MUCH NEEDED FOR THIS, UH, FOR THE CITY AND FOR THIS PART, UH, THAT WILL COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
AND, UH, I, FOR THOSE REASONS, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. KAPLAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIENT AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, IF YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS AND IT BEING THREE O'CLOCK IF, UNLESS SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY OBJECTS, I'LL CALL A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
IT'S UH, 3:10 PM AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
ITEM 11 IS FOR BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 4 LOCATED AT 1843 DAWSON STREET WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
THE APPLICANT IS ELIJAH HOGE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10 TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS MF 33, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY, UM, DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG DAWSON STREET STREET, NEAR NORTH MITTMAN STREET.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ATTACHED STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD WITHOUT OBTAINING BUILDING PERMITS AND A STOP WORK ORDER WAS POSTED.
THE ATTACHED REAR STRUCTURE HAS A SETBACK MEASUREMENT OF NINE FEET TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE, AND FIVE FEET TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
SMALLER LOTS WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA.
SO THE ADDITION DOES NOT APPEAR TO DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DEPICTING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW ADDITION.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REMODELED, INCLUDING A NEW ATTACHED REAR ADDITION.
[01:50:02]
AND HERE'S THE REAR ADDITION.THE MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE NEW STRUCTURE TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WHILE STAFF MEASURED 11 FEET FOUR INCHES.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THEN HERE'S ANOTHER LOOK OF THE ADDITION FROM THE SIDE SURROUNDING AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN B O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE.
THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE STRUCTURE CONFORMS TO THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR OUT OF CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF MAILED 46 NOTICES, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
WE RECEIVE NO RESPONSE FROM NIG, UH, EXCUSE ME, FROM HARVARD PLACE, EAST LAWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS AVAIL AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
UH, WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, NAME IS VINCENT WHITTEN AT 17,239 CHAU ROAD.
WE, UH, FLIPPING HOUSES AND WE ACQUIRED THIS HOUSE AND WE HIRED A CONTRACTOR AND HE PULLED NO PERMITS.
HE, UH, OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T, UH, LOOK AT THE ZONING FOR THE ADDITION ON THE BACK.
UM, WE'VE SINCE HAD TO FIRE HIM AND FILE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST HIM 'CAUSE WE HAD FIVE OTHER HOUSES HIT BY THE STRIKE TEAM.
'CAUSE HE PULLED NO PERMITS WITH THOSE.
HE WASN'T EVEN A LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THE CITY AT THE TIME.
WE GOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF PRETTY WELL.
WE WERE PRETTY GREEN TO THE HOUSE SLIPPING INDUSTRY.
SO THAT WAS OUR, OUR BET FOR NOT DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
BUT WE'VE, WE'VE SINCE, UH, GOT ALL THE STRIKE TEAMS LIFTED WITH, UH, WORKING WITH INSPECTOR ELIAS.
AND, UH, JUST WANNA MOVE FORWARD AND FINISH THE HOUSE IF WE CAN.
UM, IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD TIME FOR A SECOND.
IS THERE, UH, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO, THERE'S NO ONE SIGNING ALL.
AND WE WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ.
UM, DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN, UH, UH, VACANT? I DO NOT.
WHEN DID YOU ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY? UM, I'D SAY ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AGO.
AND YOU STARTED WORKING ON IT RIGHT AWAY? YES.
UH, SO DO WE KNOW THAT THE, THE MORE, I GUESS FOR STAFF ABOUT PERMITTING, UM, WILL ALL PERMITS BE CUR UH, CURRENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE WOULD BE REINSPECTED OR HOW DOES THE PERMITTING WORK WHEN I GUESS WE'RE SWITCHING CONTRACTORS.
IT'S, IT'S PAST INSPECTIONS NOW SINCE WE'VE LIFTED THE, UH, STRIKE THE STRIKE TEAM OR THE NOTICE WE'VE GOTTEN ALL THE, ALL THE, UH, TRADES PASSED.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, UH, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
UH, THE OTHER ONE IS, UH, WHEN THIS ADDITION CAME INTO BEING, AND IT WAS ON PAPER, DID HE REVIEW IT WITH YOU AND YOU SAW THE PROPERTY LINE? YES.
AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? DID HE MAKE I WASN'T AWARE OF THE 20 FOOT VARIANCE.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, ANOTHER QUESTION.
UH, SO FOR THE RECORD, DO YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR JUST SO WE PUT 'EM ON THE BAD BOY LIST? YES, IT'S BRENT ZU FOR PINNACLE CONSTRUCTION.
WE ACTUALLY JUST WON A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM.
UH, HOW DOES THE SITE PREDOMINANTLY DRAINED? IS IT DRAINED FROM BACK TO FRONT? I'M NOT SURE.
I SAW IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK.
UH, SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? NO, I'M OKAY.
SO WITH THAT, UH, LOOKING FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER CRUZ? OKAY, LET ME LOOK FOR IT.
OKAY, HERE WE ARE REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O 8 21 103 0 0 1 5 6.
I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT MIN MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIRED BY THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS TO ALLOW A DUPLEX TO BE 10 FEET
[01:55:01]
FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1102 WEST ASHBY AVENUE.APPLICANT BEING PATRICK PATRICK CHRISTENSEN BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
IT'S IN THE, THAT'S THE WRONG MOTION.
I DIDN'T MOVE IT FAST DOWN FAST ENOUGH.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 21 103 0 0 1 64, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND GRANTED A REQUEST FOR 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 1843.
DAWSON BEING, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO PRONOUNCE THAT.
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 S 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.
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED REAR STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE 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, THE NEW ATTACHED STRUCTURE COULD NOT BE BUILT ON THIS LOT.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUSTAIN, UH, 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.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY ALLOWING A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE REAR THAT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING TO SURROUNDING LOTS FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF U OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE STRAI 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.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE DOES NOT CAUSE ANY CONCERN AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE USES OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WHERE SMALL LOTS ARE COMMONLY FOUND.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE 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 NOT, AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS, IS NOT SOUGHT.
IT'S DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT, AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE, UM, THE CONCERNS OF THE OWNER, BUT, UH, I THINK THAT WITH, UM, IT, UH, BEING A FAIRLY NEW HOME AND, UM, EXTENDING THE, THE OUTLINE, UH, AND IT STILL HAS PLENTY OF SPACE IN THE BACK.
I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
UM, I ALSO DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
UM, I THINK IT LOOKS IT'S FINE.
AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, HEARING NONE.
STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. KAPLAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIENT AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT ANY NEXT STEPS.
AND SO NOW WE HAVE OUR LAST CASE.
[02:00:01]
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS CASE BO A 21 103 0 0 1 68.SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 16 51, 16 55 AND 1659 NORTH CENTER STREET.
UM, THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF CENTER STREET AND NORTH WALTERS STREET.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE THAT THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF ALL THREE LOTS, UM, AND ON EITHER SIDE.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON EACH LOT.
UM, SO THEY WANNA BUILD SIX INCHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK ON EACH SIDE.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THIS IS THE VIEW FROM NORTH CENTER STREET AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 68 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.
OF FACT, THE VARIANCE IS FOR ONE, THE VARIANCE IS FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH SIX INCHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
AND TWO, THE SIX INCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF MAILED 30 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE JEFFERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
YEAH, WE'RE JUST, I'M JUST LOOKING TO GET A, A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE THAT, THAT WAY WE CAN GET, CAN YOU PLEASE? OH, I'M JUST LOOKING TO GET A, UH, SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE ON EACH SIDE OF EACH OF EACH LOT, SO THAT WAY WE CAN GET A 16 FOOT WIDE HOUSE INSTEAD OF A 15 FOOT WIDE HOUSE.
UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, WELL NO ONE'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYTHING? NO, THERE ARE NONE.
UH, SO WE'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? THAT'S IT.
SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THI COMMISSIONER THIEL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 1 68.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SIDE BACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 16 51, 16 55 AND 1659 NORTH CENTER STREET.
APPLICANT BEING BRETT HEKE 'CAUSE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY SUCH IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIVA DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST FOR A SIX INCH VARIANCE ALONG THE SIDE, PROPERTY LINES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD NEED TO BE, NEED TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS, WHICH WOULD ALTER THE DESIGN OF THE RESIDENCES.
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.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZED AN OPERATION OF USE 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.
SUCH A VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF A ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF EACH LOT.
THEY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION.
[02:05:01]
STRAIGHTFORWARD.UH, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE A, A USABLE NEW HOME.
UH, I THINK, UH, THE SMALL VARIANCE ON EACH SIDE IS, IS WARRANTED HERE.
AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I'LL BE SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HEARING NON STAFF? PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. CHAIRMAN MIN CHAKA I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, SEE IF THERE'S ANY INSTRUCTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF? NONE.
UH, IS THERE, UH, THE NEXT HEARING WE HAVE IS ON THE 20TH OR THE SIXTH 20TH DECEMBER 20TH.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, MANNA? YEAH.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
THAT, UH, I'VE READ THE, UH, UH, MINUTES AND, UM, I MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND OUTSIDE OF THAT, UM, I VOTE THAT THEY BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.SO WITH THAT, UH, I'M GONNA TAKE A, WE DO HAVE, UH, ONE MORE AMENDMENT WE WANNA MAKE TO THE MINUTES.
UH, WHICH IS, SO FOR CASE, UH, BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 1 58, WE'RE GONNA ADD TO THE RECORD ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR FROM SARAH WILKINS, LOCATED AT 6 2 5 EAST EVERGREEN STREET.
SO WE HAVE, UM, LET'S GO THROUGH THE MINUTES, THEN WE HAVE A, UM, MINUTES AS AMENDED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY.
WHO I'LL, I'LL GIVE CREDIT MAN, UH, MANNA WITH THE MOTION FOR THE MINUTES.
WHO'D LIKE TO BE THE SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
COMMISSIONER KAPLAN WILL BE THE SECOND.
AND WE'RE GONNA DO THIS BY VOICE VOTE, IF THAT'S OKAY.
AND WE HAVE ONE ABST, ONE ABSTAIN FROM COMMISSIONER MENCHACA.
SO MINUTES PASS, 10 TO ZERO TO ONE WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY, THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT MEETING AND Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT, UH, REST OF THE WEEK.