LET ME KNOW WHEN THE RECORDING'S
[00:00:01]
UP.WE'RE GONNA CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES, UH, AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT AND GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, THE I THANK YOU.
UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL MR. SPIELMAN.
MR. OZUNA PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN.
AND I'M ALSO PRESENT, SO THAT MAKES A QUORUM OF 10 PEOPLE.
SO IF WE COULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SO THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME DURING THE MEETING.
UH, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'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 RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TWO, AUTHORIZED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND AN APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRES PRESENT THE PETITION.
THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
THE 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, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELEASE CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED 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 AND REMARKS OF 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, IN 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.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER
[00:05:01]
WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.AND 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.
YES, I LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER LEONARD SHOWED, UH, UH, JOIN THE BOARD AT, UH, 1 0 6.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
ALRIGHT.THE SECOND ITEM, UH, ENDING IN 47, UH, IS CAN BE PRESENTED GOOD AFTERNOON, BO O A UH, DASH 22 1 0 3 0 0 4 7.
THE ADDRESS IS 1 27 BLUE RIDGE COUNCIL.
DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS JA MS. SANCHEZ A REQUEST FOR A NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE SITE PROPERTY LINE.
AND ALSO A REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FOUR INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE AND A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FEET.
CLEAR VISION STANDARD ALLOW TO ALLOW A GATE TO BE NINE FOOT FROM THE CURB.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 27 BLUE BRIDGE.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A FENCE, UH, ABOVE THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT.
AND, UH, D S D STAFF HAS, UH, TRAFFIC STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE, UH, CLEAR OBSTRUCTION.
THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTION FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SITE PLAN, THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SETBACK, CARPORT FENCE, HEIGHT, AND A DISTANCE FROM THE CURB FOR THE CLEAR VISION AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
RECOMMENDATION STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR BA A 22 1 0 3 0 0 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE IN THE DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE A CARPORT AND MEET THE 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, SITE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FOR B O 8 22 1 0 3 0 0 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, D S D TRAFFIC REVIEWED A CLEAR VISION VARIANCE REQUEST AND DID NOT FIND ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FOR THE PROPERTY OR THE SURROUNDING AREA.
A SITE SETBACK OF THREE FOOT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING MORE SPACE.
RECOMMENDATION FOR SITE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL M B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OF ADDITIONAL FEET AND HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
NOTIFICATION PLAN, 45 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSE FROM PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM WEST END IN ACTION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? I THINK THEY MAY NEED AN INTERPRETER, BUT I FIND OUT FOR SURE.
I I THINK THEY MAY NEED AN INTERPRETER, BUT I'LL FIND OUT FOR SURE.
UH, WHEN, UH, WE WILL, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE REASON WHY I BUILT THIS CARDBOARD IS BECAUSE I ACQUIRED SOME TRUCKS AND THEY WERE GETTING DAMAGED BY SUN.
UH, I DIDN'T THINK I NEED A PERMIT, UH, A PERMIT TO BUILD THIS CARDBOARD.
I'VE MADE ALREADY ADDITIONS IN, IN MY HOUSE WITH PERMITS AND EVERYTHING, BUT THIS TIME I DIDN'T THINK, I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO NEED A PERMIT.
[00:10:18]
AND IF I REDUCE THE SPACE TO, UH, DRIVE BACK IN THE TRUCK, I WON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO GET OUT.SO THE CITY IS ASKING ME FOR FIVE FEET AND I CANNOT GIVE THAT BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE THE SPACE TO LEAVE THE HOUSE.
AND ALSO WITH THE HAIL AIL ALREADY HAD DAMAGED MY CAR.
SO IT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I DID THE CARPET.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNING TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO'D LIKE TO START MANANA? COMMISSIONER MANANA.
SO YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD, UM, SEVERAL VEHICLES THAT YOU PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY.
HOW MANY VEHICLES IS IT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PARK IN THIS DRIVEWAY? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANCHACA.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION, BUT I'LL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO THAT ON THE FRAMING ON THIS ONE HERE.
AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHEN I REVIEWED IT EARLIER, IS THERE A WIRE GOING UNDERNEATH THE FRAME OF, TO THE OTHER HOUSE? RA WE PUT THE GARTER IN THE, IN THE FRAME.
AND WHEN I PUT THE WATER IN THE STREET, UH, YOU REFERRING TO THE ELECTRICAL WIRE? YEAH.
IT'S THE GARTER VERSUS THE WIRE? YEAH.
WE'RE HE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER WAS ASKING ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL WIRE THAT, THAT APPEARS IN THE PICTURE.
I WOULDN'T INSTALL ANY, UH, ELECTRIC THING OR ANYTHING.
WE PUT THE LIGHT SOMETHING FOR THE, FOR WE DO MECHANIC OR WHATEVER, AND, UH, IT'S JUST ONE LIFE.
I WAS ONLY CLEAR THE PICTURE WHAT, WHAT IT, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO, SO HERE'S A OOP, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE, PLEASE? THERE WE GO.
SO THAT PICTURE THERE, THERE LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS WIRE GOING UNDER THE FRAME.
AND SO, SO THAT'S THE WIRE I THINK THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT OR ASKED ABOUT.
THAT WIRE IN THE PICTURE BELONGS TO THE OTHER HOUSE? NO, IT'S, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT PICTURE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT LIKE THAT IT IS FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY.
IS THAT, IS THAT GOING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY TO GET TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? NO.
COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION.
UH, THE CITY RECOMMENDED, UH, A TWO FOOT, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE ON THIS.
HOW WIDE IS YOUR DRIVEWAY? WOULD THERE BE ROOM IF THERE, IF IT WAS MOVED BACK FROM, FROM WHAT YOU'VE SET IT AT? COULD YOU STILL GET YOUR TRUCK UNDERNEATH THERE THEN GO? I HAVE, UH, 11 FEET.
AND THE, AND THE DRIVEWAY? YEAH.
I GOT THE CARPORT IS 10, 10 FEET.
AND, UH, I WANT ONE FOOT AND THE, AND THE, AND THE FENCE.
SO, SO TO FOLLOW UP, IS THAT 10 FOOT CLEAR BETWEEN THE SUPPORT POST OR 10 FOOT OUTER WIDTH? NO.
THAT'S THE WHOLE SPACE INSIDE.
COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY, UH, GUTTER, YOU KNOW, ANY, UH, UH, RAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, GUTTERS UP THERE FOR
[00:15:01]
RUNOFF, DOES THAT JUST GO INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD? UH, YES.I WAS THINKING, UM, INSTALLING A GUTTER AT THE END SO THE WATER CAN FLOW TO THE STREET.
UH, THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE SAYS FOR A, UM, A, A FOUR AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE SETBACK.
IF YOU INSTALL A GUTTER, IS THAT, IS THAT ADEQUATE TO STILL HAVE SIX INCHES BETWEEN THE EDGE OF GUTTER AND THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S ENOUGH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COULD, COULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO MANDATE OR TO CHANGE HIS REQUEST TO INCLUDE THE GUTTERS OR, SURE.
UM, IT, IT IS, UH, THE, THE, WE CAN'T REQUEST OR REQUIRE THAT YOU INSTALL GUTTERS, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO SAY THAT YOU ARE IN FACT GOING TO INSTALL GUTTERS, IT, IT, IT MAY, YOU KNOW, BE TO YOUR BENEFIT TO THIS COMMISSION.
I WANT TO CHANGE MY APPLICATION AND INCLUDE GATHERERS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONING MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT THE CLEAR VISION, UM, BECAUSE OF CLEAR VISION TO MOVE THE GATE FORWARD BY ANOTHER THREE FEET.
AND SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT TYPE OF HARDSHIP DOES THAT PRESENT? WOULD YOU STILL BE ABLE TO PARK YOUR TRUCK IF YOU WERE TO MOVE THE FENCE THREE FEET? UM, STAFF STAFF WANTED TO REMOVE THAT ALTOGETHER.
WERE THEY CONCURRENT? COULD I CLARIFY THE RECOMMENDATION? YES, UH, PLEASE.
UM, SO THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS ONLY REGARDING THE SIDE SETBACK, THE CLEAR VISION WERE, WE'RE FINE WITH THE CLEAR, YEAH.
AND THEN, BUT STAFF, YOU, YOU WERE ALSO RECOMMENDING NOT GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT WAS NOT CLEAR VISION, IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF THE SETBACK THEN THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO? CORRECT.
THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE IT, THE POST FIVE FEET BACK.
SO, UH, STAFF IS ASKING FOR YOU TO MOVE THE POST FIVE FEET FURTHER BACK.
UH, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT, UH, THE NUMBER OF CARS, UH, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PARK UNDER THIS CARPORT? OKAY, IT WORK.
I CAN MOVE, UH, THE POLES, FIVE FEET AND EASY ENOUGH SPACE TO PARK THE CARS.
SO WITH THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT IS, HAS AMENDED HIS, HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS.
HE'S, UM, IS ACCEPTABLE, UH, TO FOLLOW A STATUS RECOMMENDATION MOVED FROM THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, MOVE FROM THE, THE FRONT SETBACK, MOVE THE POST BACK FIVE FEET.
UH, CLEAR VISION WAS NOT OPPOSED BY STAFF.
AND THE SIDE SET, UH, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED SIDE SETBACK AND THEN THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE WAS NOT OPPOSED BY STAFF.
SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, HEARING NONE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
OZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO BOA DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 4 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT THE REQUEST FOR ONE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE SIX UH, INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THREE, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW A GATE NINE FEET FROM THE CURB SITUATED AT 1 2 7 BLUE RIDGE.
APPLICANT BEING, UH, HIGH MS. SANCHEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C 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 A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE RE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE, UH, FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND, UH, SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
ANOTHER REQUEST FOR THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A GATE NINE FEET FROM THE CURB, THE GATE IS ON A ROLLING TRACK AND IT'S NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRACTED WITH PUBLIC INTEREST.
AS THE D S D TRAFFIC STAFF HAS NO ISSUE WITH THE CLEAR VISION WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
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 HAVING TO RELOCATE THE
[00:20:01]
CARPORT STRUCTURE, UH, TO ALLOW TO FOLLOW ZONING SETBACKS, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR PARKING UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT.BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS 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 PROPOSED SETBACK FOR THE FRONT SIDE WILL NOT IMPOSE ANY HARM AS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE.
OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE IS, UH, RE AS REQUESTED, APPEAR TO BRING THE CARPORT, UH, THE SAME AS OTHERS IN THE AREA.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS.
AND THE DISTRICT WORKS OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STAFF FINDS IS APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IN SUCH AS LIMITED SPACE OF THE LOT AND A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YES, I'M SUPPORTING IT.
UH, WE SAW NO RESPONSE TO THE PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NO RESPONSE FROM THE WEST END TO ACTION.
HIS, UH, UH, NEIGHBORS, UH, UH, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE IF THEY DID.
UH, THE APPLICANT AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE THE GUTTERS AND, UM, IT'S NOT A CLEAR VISION ISSUE OR ANY OTHER ISSUES HERE.
AND THE APPLICANT, UM, UM, MODIFIED HIS REQUEST TO ALLOW THE FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
SO FOR ALL THOSE, UH, REASONS, UM, SUPPORTING THE MOTION, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MANNA.
UM, ALSO I THINK IN ADDITION IS THE, THE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE GUTTERS.
SO, SO THAT WAY WE AREN'T IMPACTING THE NEIGHBOR.
UM, THEN ALSO, UH, GOOGLE DRIVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S, UM, CONS.
THERE ARE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THIS.
SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR AS WELL.
IS THERE ANYONE I'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.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, NOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THE FENCE SITE.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 4 7.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR THE ONE FOOT FOUR INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FROM THE MA MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FOUR INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT, OR SITUATED AT 1 2 7 BLUE RIDGE, A APPLICANT BEING HIGH.
MS. SANCHEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.
THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION.
THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHTS WAS OBSERVED UPON THE SITE VISIT.
AND IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE, OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS.
TO PROTECT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, A SIX FOOT FOUR TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD DOES NOT POST ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE FENCE WILL CREATE CO, UH, ENHANCE SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE FRONT PORTION AND IS UNLIKELY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION ASSAULT.
THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE FRONT YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
UH, THE REQUEST FOR THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHTS IS TO MAINTAIN SECURITY.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS IN HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIAL, UH, FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT ZONING PER PERMITS, THE CURRENT USE AND WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA.
I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION AGAIN.
WE HAVE A STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE.
AND THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED AT THE HIGHEST POINT, WHICH IS NOT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FENCE.
AND AGAIN, NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
SO I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER MANNA ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR AS WELL.
ANYONE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
[00:25:02]
I CONCUR.MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN, UH, TALK TO STAFF.
UH, AGENDA ITEM THREE, BO A 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 5 2.
ADDRESS BEING 1 14 1 16 N 1 22 HUERTA STREET COUNCIL, DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT IS TOBIAS MANDU.
A REQUEST FOR A ONE SEVEN FOOT SQUARE, EXCUSE ME, A SEVEN 70 FOOT SQUARE LOT VARIANCE SIZE FOR THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,230 SQUARE FOOT LOT AT ONE 14 AND ONE 16 WATA STREET.
A EIGHT FOOT FOUR INCH FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 11 FEET EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND THREE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE AT ONE 14 AND ONE 16 WORTH THE STREET TO BE 10 FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND ZONING IS R FOUR CASE SUMMARY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 1 14, 1 16, AND 1 22 WORTH THE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS CO IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON EACH LOT, AND THE DESIGN WILL BE THE SAME FOR EACH DUE TO THE LOT SIZES.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WITH THE GARAGES WILL BE WITHIN THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE WILL REQUIRE GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR 1 22.
WHAT THE STREET, A PREVIOUS CASE WAS HEARD BY THE B O A IN DECEMBER OF 2021.
THE B O A APPROVED A VARIANCE FROM THE MINERAL AND LOT SIZE AS WELL AS THE REAR SETBACK.
UPON THE INSPECTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THERE WAS A GARAGE SETBACK.
ENCROACHMENT FOUND THIS PROPERTY ONLY NEEDS THE PROPOSED GARAGE SETBACK FOR ONE 14 AND ONE 16.
THE LOT SET ONE 14 AND ONE 16 ARE BOTH VACANT.
AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT, SIMILAR TO 1 22.
THE LOTS ARE LESS THAN 4,000 MIL SQUARE FEET FOR R FOUR ZONING.
ADDITIONALLY, VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE ROOF SETBACK FOR THESE ZONING.
R FOUR ZONING SITE PLAN A SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE FRONT SETBACK WITH THE GARAGE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THE OTHER SIDE, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
RECOMMENDATION, GARAGE SETBACK, REAR SETBACK, AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 5 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES DID NOT RESULT IN A DWELLING, APPEARING OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND TWO, THE GARAGE WILL BE 11 FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WILL PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LENGTH FOR AN APPROACH FOR LIMITED SIZE OF THE LOT.
AND THREE, THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH AREAS OTHERS IN THE AREA.
NOTICES WERE MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSE FROM SAN JUAN GARDEN'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ONE IN COLLINS GARDEN IS IN FAVOR.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
IS ANYONE, UH, OUTTA OUTTA CURIOSITY? ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK OR ANY UH, VOICEMAILS? NO, NOT FOR THIS CASE.
SO IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD AND, AND STAFF, UM, AND THEN GO TO THE PROJECT STAFF, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT, UH, SITE PLAN READY TO SHOW THE ONE ON THE ATTACHMENTS.
SHOULD I WAIT FOR THEM? UH, YOU, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, START WITH YOU? SURE.
CAN JUST YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? OKAY.
TOBIAS MAJADO IS MY BUSINESS PARTNER.
AND THESE, UH, THREE, UM, PROJECTS THAT WE ARE DOING TOGETHER, HE IS NOT, HE WASN'T AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT TODAY.
UM, I JUST SENT HIM A FULL, THE FULL, UM, PLAN SET FOR 1, 2, 2 HUTA.
[00:30:01]
GONNA BE VERY SIMILAR.I ALSO PUT DIFFERENT LAYOUTS WE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT CHANGING FOR FLIPPING THE LAYOUT.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S THIS, IT'S JUST, IT'S REAL SIMPLE.
WE, I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO SEE THE KIND OF WORK WE DO.
'CAUSE NORMALLY WE FLIP, WE'RE STARTING TO BUILD.
AND OUR, AND OUR, YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA SEE A LOT MORE OF US 'CAUSE WE WANT BUY MORE LAND AND WE WANT TO BUILD, KEEP BUILDING LITTLE COMMUNITIES OF BOTH RENTALS AND, AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT SELL PARTICULARLY IN THIS AREA.
SO WE OWN ANOTHER LOT THAT'S PRETTY BIG THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING ON TOO AS WELL.
UM, WE'RE NOT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR ANYTHING CRAZY THAT'S IN, THAT'S OUT OF THE NORM.
UM, REALLY IT'S, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME, UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA.
WHEN YOU, UH, GOT A PROOF OF THE GARAGE SETBACK, WHO OR WHAT CAUSED THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE GARAGE SINCE IT WAS APPROVED TO BE AT A CERTAIN SETBACK ANYWAY? WELL, THE THING ABOUT THIS WHOLE AREA IS THAT IT'S ALL ZONED R FOUR, BUT A LOT OF THE LOTS ARE DRASTICALLY SMALLER THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WE ADDITIONALLY, THE FIRST TIME WE APPEARED, WE, UM, WE ADDITIONALLY HAD A, UM, A CARPORT OPTION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE.
UM, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
THERE'S NO REALLY OTHER REASON OTHER THAN THE LOT'S TOO SMALL.
SO IF WE, IF WE WERE TO IT, IT'D MAKE THE HOUSE LOOK WEIRD.
IN ESSENCE, IF WE WERE TO NOT HAVE THAT VARIANCE IN THE REAR AND IN THE FRONT, YOU'D HAVE A BIG LOT AND A TINY LITTLE HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT LOT.
SO FOR 1 22 YOU RECEIVED THE VARIANCE FOR A CARPORT.
WE, WE INITIALLY, I HAD, UH, I HAD THOUGHT, I I THAT WE APPLIED FOR BOTH THE, THE GARAGE AND THE REAR.
WE RECEIVED THE VARIANCE FOR THE REAR AND I JUST DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE FRONT.
SO THEY WANTED A SECOND OPTION IN WHICH WE PRESENTED THE CARPORT OPTION.
AND WE'RE BACK TO DO THE, TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE.
COMMISSIONER MACHACA, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, GO AHEAD.
I DON'T, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU.
YOU WANT ME TO, WHAT IS YOUR, OKAY, SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO THE HOUSE AT 1 22 IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED? YES.
SO WE KIND OF DID THIS A LITTLE BACKWARDS.
WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS FIRST.
ORIGINALLY WE APPLIED FOR ZONING 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO GET IT REZONED.
UM, SO THE, WHEN WE APPLIED FOR ZONING, THEY EMAILED US BACK, SAID, HEY, YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE B O A.
UM, BUT AT THAT TIME WE HAD ALREADY APPLIED FOR PERMITS.
SO WE HAD ALREADY STARTED THE FOUNDATION.
WE ALREADY, WE HAD ALREADY GOT APPROVED FOR, FOR CERTAIN THINGS UNTIL, BUT IS IT AT 1 22? I'M, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, THE GARAGE.
SO IT ALREADY CONSTRUCTED IN, IT'S IN THE SETBACK, CORRECT? YES.
SO WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE, WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE CARPORT SET UP AND THEY KEPT BREAKING IN.
THEY TORE OUT THE ELECTRIC, THEY TORE OUT THE BOX THAT WE HAD.
THEY, THEY KEPT FIVE, FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THEY HAD ALREADY BROKEN IN.
SO WE HAD DECIDED LIKE, WELL, WE'LL, THEY ALREADY TOLD US THAT THERE WAS A BIG LIKELIHOOD WE'D GET APPROVED FOR THE GARAGE.
SO WE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED TO ENCLOSE IT.
WE HAD PRETTY MUCH NO OTHER CHOICE, OTHERWISE THEY'D KEEP BREAKING IN.
AND ARE YOU BUILDING, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, THAT ONE OF 'EM, UH, ARE YOU BEING REQUIRED TO BUILD SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET? THERE'S SIDEWALKS ALREADY EXISTING, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S OH YEAH.
THE, THE PICTURES THAT ARE IN THE STAFF, DIDN'T THEY JUST SHOW CURB? THEY DIDN'T SHOW A A SIDEWALK? NO, THEY'RE SIDEWALK.
AND WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH JUST OVER 11 FEET FROM THE FACE OF THE GARAGE OUT TO THE PROPERTY LINE MM-HMM.
SO WHAT, SO WHAT IS, UH, WHAT KIND OF DISTANCE DO YOU HAVE FROM THE BACK OF SIDEWALK TO THE PROPERTY LINE, DO YOU THINK? TO THE PROPERTY LINE? FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDE? FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT OF THE SIDEWALK TO THE PROPERTY LINE? UH, BACK OF THE SIDEWALK? WELL, LEMME SEE.
SHOULD BE GETTING THAT UP TO HERE TOO, BECAUSE I JUST THINK PEOPLE, I KNOW WE MEET, WE MEET THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE FRONT, FROM THE FRONT TO THE SIDEWALK.
SO I KNOW THERE'S LIKE 11 OR 12 FEET.
YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE.
SO WE HAVE TO, YOU SEE WHERE IT COMES DOWN HERE? THE, THE GARAGE IS ACTUALLY PAVED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
THE DRIVEWAY IS ACTUALLY WAS PAVED ON THIS SIDE.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ACTUALLY CLOSE THAT OFF AND RE SIDEWALK THAT AND THEN HAVE A DRIVEWAY COMING.
WELL, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF A CAR IS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY MM-HMM.
[00:35:02]
HERE WE GO.I AM GOING TO PULL UP THE PLAN.
OR MAYBE STAFF CAN PULL UP THAT SIDE PLAN AND ZOOM INTO THAT AREA.
I KNOW THERE'S ENOUGH CLEARANCE FOR A ONE CAR GARAGE.
I KNOW THAT IT WON'T BE COMING OUT OF THE FENCE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, UM, I HAVE A SNEAKY SUSPICION THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A CAR PARKED IN THAT DRIVEWAY AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO BLOCK THE SIDEWALL.
OKAY, SO THERE'S A, SO HE'S TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT HERE.
SO, UH, BACK WAS, UH, A, A 1.1.
IT SHOWS, SEE, IT SHOWS 10 FEET.
AND THEN IT SHOWS THE SIDEWALK AND THE DRIVEWAY.
THIS WILL SHOW YOU RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS WHAT, IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE? YEAH.
SO THERE SHOULD BE A SUFFICIENT ENOUGH ROOM THERE FOR TO, TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MCHA? UH, YES, I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE CAR ABOUT 17 FEET AND YOU GET A LARGE TRUCK, 23 FEET, IT'S DEFINITELY GONNA STICK OUT INTO THE SIDEWALK.
YOU'RE TALKING JUST ABOUT A SMALL CAR, RIGHT? THIS IS A SINGLE, THIS IS, THIS IS A SINGLE CAR GARAGE.
IT'S NOT MEANT FOR, YOU'RE NOT GONNA FIT A DUALLY IN HERE.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A SINGLE CAR GARAGE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT UP.
BUT SAVANNAH, SO THE QUESTION THOUGH ISN'T NECESSARILY THE VEHICLE IN THE GARAGE IS A VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
AND SO BASICALLY THE GARAGE DOOR'S SHUT, YOU PULL UP A VEHICLE TO, YOU KNOW, CORRECT.
IS THE BACK OF THE CAR OR THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE GOING TO BE BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK? AND THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION.
SO WE GOT 10, 11, AND THEN FROM THE SIDEWALK, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS FROM THE SIDEWALK.
UH, MOST, MOST CARS ARE BETWEEN 16 AND AND 18 OR SO FEET.
UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LARGE TRUCK OR SOMETHING LARGE.
IT, IT'S REALLY, IT IS REALLY MEANT FOR A SMALL COMPACT CAR.
BUT MOST OF THE CARS IN THAT AREA, MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THAT AREA, UM, HAVE MOST OF THEIR VEHICLES PARKED ON THE STREET BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ALL SIMILAR.
THEY'RE ALL SMALL LITTLE TINY HOMES AND THEY EITHER HAVE LIKE A SMALL DRIVEWAY OR A CARPORT.
BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THE TENANT THAT'S GONNA BE THERE, WHAT ITS GONNA BRING.
HE'S GONNA USE THE STREET IF YOU ASK TWO CARS, SO.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS THAT? I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN THE LOT'S ALREADY FAIRLY TINY ALREADY.
I, I'M, I'M, I'D BE MORE PRONE TO, UH, THINK AT LEAST 16 FEET.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT BACK A LITTLE BIT LIKE, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT 12 FEET, MAYBE 12 AND A HALF.
SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE SHORT FOR ME.
BUT, UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, ASK FOR A MOTION ON THIS.
SO WE'VE GOT FOUR DIFFERENT, UM, I'M SORRY, THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
SO WANT SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 1 3 0 0 0 5 2.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE IS 770 SQUARE FOOT LOT VARI SIZE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,230 SQUARE FOOT LOT AT ONE 14 AND ONE 16 WHERE IT'S A STREET TWO AND EIGHT FOOT FOUR INCH FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 11 FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND THREE A 10 INCH, SORRY, 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE AT ONE 14 AND ONE 16 HUTA TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 14, 1 16, AND 1 22 ES STREET.
APPLICANT BEING TOBIAS, UH, HANNO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS ADMITTED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY, UH, 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
[00:40:01]
AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO THE GARAGE SETBACK FOR ALL THREE PROPERTIES.
ADDITIONALLY, VARIANCES FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES FOR ONE 14 AND ONE 16 WHERE IS STREET INCLUDE VARIANCES TO THE LOT SIZE AND REAR SETBACK.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES AND LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
SO THE VARIANCE REQUESTS DO 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.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE REDUCTION IN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE LOT, WHICH MAY RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED.
THE 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.
THEIR PROPOSED SETBACKS APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SETBACKS OF OTHER DWELLINGS IN THE AREA AND APPEAR TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES IN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SINCE VARIANCES WILL NOT VARIANCE, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTIES LOOK PROPERTIES ALONG WHERE JUST STREET APPEAR TO HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ESTABLISHED LONG AGO.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE VARIANCE HAS SOUGHT.
ITS 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 PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
FIRST, THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE LOT.
AND THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE NOT MERELY FINANCE.
SECOND, WE HAVE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA.
UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, UH, THE MOTION, UH, AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING CRISIS AND THE FACT THAT, UH, ON THESE VERY SMALL LOTS, UM, HE'S BUILDING, YOU KNOW, THREE PROPERTIES, UH, TO HOUSE FAMILIES.
UM, AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE DOING MORE OF THAT.
SO, UM, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT TRYING
I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL.
UM, SAME CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PROVIDING A, A, A NICE HOUSING STOCK WORKFORCE HOUSING IN A MUCH NEEDED AREA.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE THEY'RE, ALTHOUGH THE PARKING IS TIGHT, I MIGHT SUGGEST PUTTING A NO PARKING SIGN ON THE DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING.
UM, SO THE FORCED PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR THE TYPE OF, UH, RESIDENT WOULD BE HERE, MOST LIKELY THEY'RE GONNA PARK ON THE, ON THE STREET AND THEN, UH, THE GARAGE IF AVAILABLE.
UH, I'D JUST LIKE THAT I, I'M LOOKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I, I CAN'T SUPPORT, UH, THE EIGHT FOOT FOUR ON THE GARAGE.
I COULD SUPPORT FIVE FEET OR FOUR FOOT VARIANCE, BUT I CAN'T GO THAT HIGH, SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, I CAN'T HEAR EVERYTHING YOU SAID.
COULD YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? YES.
UH, I, I I, I ASKED FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO DROP THE GARAGE SET BACK FROM EIGHT FOOT FOUR, UH, TO EITHER FOUR FOOT OR FIVE FOOT.
I WOULD ACCEPT EITHER MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO, SO THE CURRENT READING IS FOR ALL THREE LOTS.
UH, WOULD THERE BE DIALOGUE ABOUT ACCEPTING THE CURRENT ONE AND SET IT FOR THE OTHER TWO? SURE.
UM, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T LOVE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR THE EXISTING HOME AT 1 22 HUERTA WITH A, UH, FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FOR ONE 14 AND ONE 16 HUERTA.
COULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT OF THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD PRESENT ON THE YEAH.
TO BE BUILT PORTION GIVEN THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD STAY AS COMPLETED? SURE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? NO,
SO WHAT DID WE, WOULD WE, WE WERE, WE'RE, UM, ENTERTAINING OR LOOKING INTO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO DROP, RIGHT? CORRECT.
FOR 1 22 TO BE REMAIN AS IS, BUT FOR THE OTHER TWO TO JUST BE A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE 16 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
IS THE TOTAL YOU AMOUNT YOU WANT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? FROM THE END OF THE STREET? NO, FROM THE, FROM THE SIDEWALK OR FROM THE BIG, THE BEGINNING OF, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF GARAGE.
IT'D PROBABLY BE DEFINITELY WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT INCLUDING ONE, TWO.
SO JUST ON THE OTHER TWO? ON THE OTHER TWO, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PLANS COMPLETELY DRAWN UP.
SO THAT, THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A BIG ISSUE.
UM, TO, TO ME, SO I CAN GET WITH THE ARCHITECT ON, ON THE DESIGN
[00:45:01]
AND, AND HAVE HIM MAKE THAT, SET IT BACK A LITTLE MORE.SO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DO I HAVE TO ARTICULATE OR CAN I JUST SAY, SO MOVED? YES, YOU CAN SAY I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
SO WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO FOR 1 22 HU TO, UH, TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FOUR INCH, UH, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK WITH A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE APPLIED FOR ONE 14 AND ONE 16 HUERTA.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTARY FROM COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT, HEARING ON STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, MOTION PASSES IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
UM, B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 4 LOCATED AT 1 2 1 0 SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE AND LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT BEING FRANCISCO GONZALEZ.
UM, REQUEST FOR A ONE A VARIANCE FROM A LOT LAYOUT REGULATION TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE AND A TWO TWO A 250 FOOT SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE VARIANCE AND MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,750 FOOT SQUARE FOOT LOT.
UH, CURRENT ZONING RIGHT NOW IS RESIDENTIAL MIXED.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
IT'S LOCATED ON SOUTH NEW OFFICE AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS OPPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A PL ON THE PROPERTY WITH ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS.
UM, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT FACE ANY OTHER LOCAL STREETS, AND THERE APPEARS TO BE A SMALL UNIMPROVED ALLEYWAY ALONGSIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH DOES NOT SERVE AS GOOD ACCESS UPON SITE VISIT STAFF BY CONDUCTED BY STAFF.
OTHER PROPERTIES WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA THAT HAVE SIMILAR ACCESS FROM SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE.
UH, CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 5 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE MINIMUM AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE AND LOTS FRONTAGE VARIANCE.
UM, ONE OTHER LOTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
AND THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING LOT IS CURRENTLY 3,750 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE CENTRAL CARE OF THE DISTRICT.
AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOT APPEARS TO BE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL REQUIRE ACCESS OFF FROM SOUTH LEE BRAUNFELS AVENUE.
UH, THERE WERE 17 NOTICES, SAID ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
UM, IS APPLICANT PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
A IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME, YOU CAN BEGIN, BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
HOW'S IT GOING? FRANCISCO GONZALEZ.
THANK YOU FOR SEEING ME TODAY.
UH, SO YES, WE DO NEED ACCESS FROM SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS.
UH, WE ARE LOOKING INTO, SO I'M JUST A QUICK STORY BACKGROUND FOR MYSELF.
I'M, I'M FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, GROPE AND RAISED, AND I'VE BEEN BLESSED TO GET INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.
AND, UM, THIS HERE, THIS LITTLE PROJECT THAT WE'RE DOING HERE, IN MY OPINION, IT'S GONNA HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S GONNA REVITALIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY OBVIOUSLY PROVIDING A NEW, UH, NEW FACE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN BUILDING LITTLE HOUSES, JUST LIKE THE GENTLEMAN OUT THERE.
WE'VE BEEN BUILDING MULTI-FAMILY TO HELP SERVE THE TENANT COMMUNITY.
UM, NOT ONLY THAT, IT, IT'S BRINGING MORE INCOME INTO THE AREAS AND POLICING AND, AND TAXES AND IT'S BETTERING THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN MY OPINION.
I, I GREW UP HERE IN THE SOUTH TOWN AREA RIGHT HERE OFF OF PROBAND.
I'VE NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE INVESTING IN THERE WITH THE DIFFERENCES MADE IN THIS COMMUNITY, THIS BUILDING THAT'S COME UP, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, LIKE THEY DID SAY THERE IS CURRENT PROPERTIES, UH, ON NEW BRAUNFELS THAT ARE, UM, RECEIVING ACCESS FROM NEW BRAUNFELS ITSELF.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE IT AS A BIG ISSUE.
UM, HOWEVER, OBVIOUSLY I'M HERE IN FRONT OF Y'ALL TODAY AND, UH, WE ARE ASK ASKING FOR THAT.
NOT ONLY THAT, WE HAVE INVESTED SOME MONEY INTO IT.
SO, I MEAN, I'M HERE RIGHT NOW JUST ASKING FOR PERMISSION.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I, I DID LOOK
[00:50:01]
IT UP AND IT, IT IS LOCATED IN A, A CRAG AREA, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION ACTION GROUP.SO I KNOW FOR A FACT THIS PROJECT WILL HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IT'LL BRING MORE OF A VISUAL EFFECT TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT DOES NEED HELP.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR Y'ALL GUYS.
UH, IF YOU COULD JUST HANG TIGHT, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF WE HAVE ANYBODY SEND IT TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS.
AS WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
SO THE, UH, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE ALTERNATE ACCESS BE TO THE PROPERTY IF YOU COULDN'T GET ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE? IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S YOUR ONLY OPTION, CORRECT? THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION.
SO, SO IT'S BASICALLY A LANDLOCKED PROPERTY THEN IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ON WITH YOUR CORRECT FRONTAGE ON SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS? YEAH.
THE ONLY ACCESS WOULD BE FROM NEW BRAUNFELS AND, AND STAFF.
WHAT, WHAT REMEDY WOULD HE HAVE IF HE CAN'T ACCESS THE PROPERTY OFF OF SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS? WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE ALTERNATIVE BE HERE? UH, I THINK, UM, WHEN WE SPOKE WITH TRAFFIC STAFF, THE ONLY ALTERNATE WOULD'VE BEEN TO IMPROVE THAT ALLEYWAY.
UM, BUT IT'S A PRETTY TIGHT ALLEYWAY.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING.
HE WOULD'VE TO GRANT RIGHT AWAY, IMPROVE THE ALLEY.
IS THERE ANY, LIKE A COMMON ACCESS DRIVE OR COMMON UM, SHARE DRIVE WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES? WAS THAT EVEN AN OPTION? IF BUT THAT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER RIGHT? TO IT COULD BE AN OPTION.
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, WAS THERE A PROPERTY, UH, WAS THERE, UM, A BUILDING OR A HOME ON THAT PROPERTY BEFORE YOU PURCHASED IT? MAN, I'VE PASSED BY THAT LOT.
AND WHEN WE PURCHASED IT, IT JUST LAND ITSELF.
WELL, IT JUST SEEMS STRANGE 'CAUSE THERE'S A CURB CUT OUT THERE, CORRECT? YEAH.
AND THAT'S, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, I LOOKED IN SAWS AND IT USED TO HAVE UTILITIES ON SITE, SO IT MIGHT'VE HAD A PROPERTY ON THERE MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, UH, COMMEND WE'RE BUILDING IN THAT AREA.
UM, IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE BE EXITING THE PROPERTY YOU'RE ABOUT TO BUILD, WILL THEY BE BACKING UP INTO NEW BROWN FALLS OR, OR THEY HAVE A TURNAROUND INSIDE THE PROPERTY? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM? SO WE PLAN ON BUILDING, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GONNA BE 20 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE NEW SITE PLAN.
SEE, THAT'S THE, I THINK THAT'S THE OLD SITE PLAN.
DID YOU IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR EMAIL AND ON THERE, WE, UH, PROPOSED THAT THE BUILDING FURTHER BACK, SO THEY'LL HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO BE ABLE TO TURN OR BACK OUT OR WHATNOT, UM, FROM THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE SIDELINE YOU HAVE HERE.
SO HE HE'S GONNA PULL UP THE NEW ONE.
YEAH, WE, WE MADE SURE WE ADJUSTED THAT.
UM, THIS IS THE OLD ORIGINAL ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN, THIS IS THE NEW, THE NEW SITE PLAN.
YOU CAN GIVE THAT TO, UH, STAFF AND THEY CAN PROJECT IT.
WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, UH, WHEN TRAFFIC WEIGHED IN ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, DID THEY EVER BRING UP THE POTENTIAL OF PAVING A, A PORTION BEHIND THE, THE SIDEWALK AND THE PROPERTY LINE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE IN CITY RIGHT AWAY SO THAT THERE COULD BE A BACK OUT? OR DID THAT NOT COME UP AT ALL? THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN OUR CONVERSATIONS.
ALL, ALL WE GOT WAS THAT HE NEEDED A VARIANCE TO THAT SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE CODE.
I THINK COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, YOU WERE THE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR THERE.
WHAT, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN? YES, I THINK I HAVE MY ANSWER NOW ON THAT NEW SIDE PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, I HAVE A, A QUICK QUESTION.
THAT ALLEY THAT'S NEXT DOOR, DOES HE, DOES HE GET A SIDE SETBACK REDUCTION BECAUSE HE'S NEXT TO THAT ALLEY? YES.
HALF OF THE ALLEYWAY WILL GO TOWARD THE SETBACK.
SO YOU DO HAVE THAT POTENTIALLY YOU CAN SCOOT YOUR BUILDING OVER IF YOU SO DESIRE.
UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 4.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE LOT LAYOUT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFFICE SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE AND TWO, A 250 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,750 FOOT SQUARE LOT SITUATED AT 1 2 1 0
[00:55:01]
SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE APPLICANT BEING FRANCISCO GONZALEZ.BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT 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 VARIANCES TO THE MINIMUM SIZE LOT, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND, UH, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE LOT CURRENTLY HAS UNIQUE ORIENTATION WHERE THE ONLY ENTRANCE CAN BE FROM SOUTH THROUGH BRAUNFELS, WHICH IS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL B TWO.
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 HAVING TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS AND POSSIBLY IMPROVE THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS.
THESE WILL CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE BEST ACCESS POINT TO THE PROPERTY IS FROM SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS.
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.
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STREET FRONTAGE ON A PRIMARY TRAIL.
ARTERIAL B WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS ONLY, UH, IT IS THE ONLY ACCESS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION TO BE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED, UH, UH, WITH THIS VARIANCE.
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.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DUE TO THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE SIMILAR IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS.
IN ADDITION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE.
IS, IS, IS DUE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SMALL AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE ORIENTATION AND LOCATION OF THE LOT.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN.
UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING, UH, DOWN THE STREET, I SEE MANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE KIND OF LINED UP THE SAME WAY.
UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE ON THE NEXT BLOCK THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE EVEN, UH, HAVING MORE CHALLENGES.
SO, SO, UH, I COMMEND THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR, COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN.
I THINK THE, UH, ORIENTATION IS NOT OUTTA LINE WITH WHAT'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ON NEW BRAUNFELS.
COMMISSIONER ALBERT? I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
I ACTUALLY DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET QUITE OFTEN AND SURPRISINGLY IT'S ONE OF THE STREETS WHERE PEOPLE OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT AND THE SCHOOL ZONES AND EVERYTHING, AND IT'S, IF YOU HAVE TO BACK OUT ONTO A STREET, UH, A LARGER STREET, THAT'S NOT A BAD ONE TO DO IT ON.
SO, ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UH, STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT CASE I, GOOD AFTERNOON.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS FOR CASE BO O A 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 6 LOCATED AT 1423 SANTA ANA WITHIN COUNSEL'S DISTRICT ONE.
THE APPLICANT BEING MARY HERNANDEZ IS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SANTA ANA AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES WITHOUT OBTAINING A FENCE PERMIT.
AND A CODE INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED DURING THE SITE VISIT.
STAFF MEASURED THE FENCE AT EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED FOR A SIDE AND REAR FENCE IS SIX FEET.
AN ALLEYWAY WAS OBSERVED LOCATED ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH ALLOWS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BY RIGHT ALONG THE ALLEY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY HAS A SWIMMING POOL INSTALLED RECENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
WAS OBSERVED TO BE SLIGHTLY ELEVATED.
[01:00:01]
THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE EIGHT FOOT WOOD FENCE, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE LOT, THE NEW WOOD PRIVACY FENCE LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE, AND THE NEW SWIMMING POOL THAT WAS RECENTLY INSTALLED.AND THEN THIS IS A WOOD PRIVACY FENCE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAS AN ELEVATED WINDOW THAT CAN VIEW INTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S BACKYARD, THE SURROUNDING AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA.
REGARDING THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS.
ONE, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL ADD ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
AND TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT WOOD PRIVACY FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE ALLEY THREE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A SWIMMING POOL, AND FOUR, THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCE SITS ON AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION.
WE HAD ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, AND NO RESPONSE FROM LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS DOES CONCLUDE STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU BEGIN YOUR GON PRESENTATION.
HI, UH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, SINCE WE PUT IN THE POOL, UH, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO PRIVACY, UM, AND WE'RE JUST REQUESTING THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE SO THAT WE, UH, ARE ALLOWED TO GO SKINNY DIPPING
AND AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE ONLY REQUESTING IT ON THE EAST SIDE, NOT THE, NOT BOTH SIDE.
YEAH, RIGHT ON THE ALLEY ON THE SIDE.
OH, I HAVE SIGNATURES ALSO TOO.
OH, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO STAFF.
AND BY THE WAY, STAFF, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR, UH, VOICEMAIL? NO, NONE ON THIS CASE.
UM, SIGNATURES ARE FROM, UH, HOUSE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US, DIRECTLY BEHIND US.
ALRIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT?
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UH, NO, JUST OUR PRIVACY
SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND, AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE, SO ANYONE, COMMISSIONER MAN.
UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 0, I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM OF SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHTS TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREENED FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY, UH, LINE SITUATED 1 4 2 3, UH, SANTA ANA, APPLICANT B AND MARY HERNANDEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION.
THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA, BE IT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
AN EIGHT FOOT WOOD PRIVACY FENCE LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE FENCE WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
OTHER SOLID SCREEN FENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA, THEREFORE, THE REQUEST IS UNLIKELY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ANY NEIGHBORING 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 TWO FOOT AND HEIGHT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE AFOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT ALONG PROPERTY LINES THAT ABUT AN ALLEY.
AND THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS BEING REQUESTED ALONG SIDE PROPERTY LINE CONCLUDING, UH, WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER WITH THE, UH, WELL NOT CHANGE, UH, E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ.
UH, I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THIS.
UM, SO, UH, BEING THAT, UH, YOU OBTAINED THE SIGNATURES FROM THE NEARBY RESIDENCE, THAT'S REALLY GOOD AND UM, YOU KNOW, GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA.
[01:05:01]
SINCE THE NEIGHBOR WRITING BACK DID NOT OBJECT TO IT.SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH.
IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD AT HEARING NOW, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCURRED THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS FOR CASE BO A 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 6 2 LOCATED AT 9 2 2 4 GEORGE WOODS WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX.
THE APPLICANT BEING BRETT POTTER IS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE SIDE YARD.
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG JORA WOODS AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THERE IS AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND GATE LOCATED ALONG IN THE SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY WHICH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REPLACE.
THE FENCE IS COMPOSED OF A SIX FOOT CEDAR AND TWO FEET OF LATTICE FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT FEET AND HEIGHT.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED FOR A SIDE YARD FENCE IS SIX FEET.
STAFF DID OBSERVE ELEVATION CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE ELEVATION CHANGES APPEARED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE EIGHT FOOT WOOD FENCE AND GATE, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE LOT, THE EIGHT FOOT WOOD FENCE, THE EXISTING METAL FRAME ON THE FENCE.
AND THIS IS A LOCATION WHERE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD BE REPLACED.
THE ONLY LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA SURROUNDING AREA REGARDING THE FENCE.
UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THERE'S AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REPLACE.
AND TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A SWIMMING POOL AND THREE VARIOUS ELEVATION CHANGES WERES OBSERVED IN THE AREA, INCLUDING ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE WERE 25 NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED.
WE DID RECEIVE ONE OPPOSED AND WE RECEIVED NORTHWEST CROSSING ASSOCI OF SAN ANTONIO'S RESPONSE AND THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION.
AND THIS DOES CONCLUDE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
AND BEFORE YOU GO THEIR APPLICATION IS ONLY FOR THE PORTION OF THE FENCE FACING THE STREET.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, MY NAME IS BRETT POTTER AND WE HAVE BEEN IN NORTHWEST CROSSING, UH, SINCE 2001.
WE HAD LIVED IN A PRIOR HOUSE AND WE WERE VERY AWARE OF THE HEIGHT ON THE FENCE.
WE MOVED INTO THIS HOUSE IN THE SAME AREA IN 2007 AND THIS FENCE.
AND IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND LOOK, THAT THING WAS STEEL FRAMED ALL THE WAY AROUND, WAS ALREADY THERE.
IT WAS EXISTING AND BUILT WITH THE HOUSE.
AND WE WOULD ASK ABOUT THAT AND WE WERE ASSURED THAT THAT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN.
EVERYTHING WAS GOOD, THERE WAS NO ISSUES WITH IT.
UM, WE ENDED UP HAVING, AND YOU COULD SEE THE STEEL ACTUALLY GOES ACROSS THE TOP AS WELL.
UM, WE DID HAVE A NEW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THAT TOOK OVER THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN 2008.
THEY HAD SENT A NOTICE, BUT THEN WHEN WE KIND OF DID A REPLY TO THAT, THEY SAID THAT THEY CHECKED INTO IT AND ASSURED US THAT IT INDEED HAD BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN THE VARIANCE AND IT WAS GOOD.
APPARENTLY THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
UM, THE NEW THAT YOU SEE ON THE TOP WAS THE RESULT OF HAVING A TREE REMOVED.
THE LATTICE WORK GOT BUSTED UP AND ALL WE DID WAS REPLACED LIKE WITH LIKE, WE DIDN'T ADD TWO, WE DIDN'T BUILD MORE.
WE WERE JUST KIND OF REPLACING IT.
AND NOW WE WERE TOLD SINCE WE DID, UM, AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE FENCE THAT THAT GRANDFATHERING WAS NO LONGER AN EXCEPTION.
AND SO THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DO THIS AGAIN.
UM, AND ALSO I, THE REASON THAT IT'S THAT COLOR NOW WAS BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO REPLACE THE BOARDS AND ALSO STAIN AT THE SAME COLOR TO MATCH THE HOUSE.
BUT I WAS TOLD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL COVENANT OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION I NEED TO GET APPROVAL BEFORE I CAN EVEN REPLACE THE FRONT BOARDS WITH LIKE, WOULD LIKE.
SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST LOOKING
[01:10:01]
FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THAT THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE INCEPTION TO JUST REMAIN.WE'RE NOT ASKING TO BUILD UP ANYTHING NEW.
WE'RE NOT ASKING TO EXPAND OUT.
IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SIDE.
AND THAT ONE OPPOSITION LETTER, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT SHE HAD WROTE, I DIDN'T EVEN GET A CHANCE TO TALK WITH HER 'CAUSE MY CALIBRATED EYE DIDN'T PUT HER IN THE 200 FEET RADIUS, UM, WAS ABOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT'S THERE.
AND FROM WHAT WE CAN ASCERTAIN, THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNER BUILT IT THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE IS RV HOOKUP, RV SEWER AND STUFF IN THAT COURTYARD.
AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY HE PUT THAT AND HAD THAT BUILT.
SO, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE COVENANTS PROBLEMS IS BECAUSE OF, UH, THE SIX FOOT IS BECAUSE OF FIRE AND SAFETY.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS AN UNLOCKED GATE.
THIS COMPLETELY SWINGS WIDE OPEN.
YOU COULD DRIVE TWO FIRE TRUCKS IN THERE IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT, ALRIGHT.
HAS ANYONE TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS ZUNA? UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA? UH, SO THE, UH, THERE'S SO TWO ISSUES HERE.
ONE WOULD BE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH PROBABLY GRANTED YOU THE VARIANCE AND WE, THAT'S A PRIVATE ISSUE, SO WE HAVE NO, UH, BEARING OR SWAY WITHIN THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
SECOND STEP IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THE RIGHT STEP HERE IS COMING BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THE VARIANCE.
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE TWO STEP KIND OF PROCESS.
YEAH, THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO GET THE VARIANCE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO NOT GIVE US A FINE, THE REASON THAT THEY WERE FINDING US IS BECAUSE OF THE, THE CODE, THE CITY CODE, THE SIX FOOT CODE.
SO, SO EVEN IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE HERE, THERE'S NO INSURANCE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION GRANT THE SAME, BUT THEN THEY'RE LOOKING TO US TO GIVE THE, THE GREEN POINT FIRST.
AND AND FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOKED IN THE, IN, BECAUSE I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUTTING IN A NEW, UH, POSSIBLE COVENANT IN OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BASICALLY SAYING THAT ANY, UH, NEW GARAGE IS A NEW STRUCTURES.
THEY DON'T WANT APARTMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT ON THE TOP OF 'EM.
SO IF I HAVE TO REPLACE MY ROOF, WE'LL REPLACE MY WINDOWS.
DOES THAT MEAN I HAVE TO TEAR DOWN YOU THE GARAGE? NO, WE, WE HAVE NO SAY SO OVER WHAT.
YOUR NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION E EXACTLY.
BUT THIS, LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS JUST BASICALLY THEY WERE REQUESTING ME TO COME DOWN HERE TO GET THIS APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND SO ONE MORE QUESTION.
AND SO THE REQUEST IS ONLY GONNA BE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? UM, 'CAUSE AS I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE HERE, THERE IS NO, COULD, COULD YOU BRING THE PICTURES BACK UP SO WE CAN, SO THAT THAT'S IT.
JUST, JUST WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE ON THIS LEFT SIDE THAT DOESN'T SHARE A PROPERTY LINE OR ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
SO, UM, SO THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, I GUESS.
UH, WERE YOU OR HAVE YOU OBSERVED ANY OTHER, UM, TALLER FENCES, UH, IN YOUR COMMUNITY, UH, BESIDES YOURS? THERE ARE, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THAT, BUT IT IS, I'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S THE SAME THING.
IT'S JUST AS SOON AS THEY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO IMPROVE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS.
WHEN AND JUST TO POINT OUT, I I USED TO LIVE IN NORTHWEST PROCESSING A LONG TIME AGO, AND PART OF THAT USED TO BE IN THE COUNTY WHEN A LOT OF IT WAS DEVELOPED.
WHO, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY NOT EVEN BEEN SUBJECT TO ZONING BACK THEN.
I DUNNO WHEN YOUR HOUSE WAS BUILT, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS 88 OR 89.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED.
I WAS, I'M TALKING ABOUT 1980, SO
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, IF YOUR FENCE WEREN'T THERE OR IF IT WERE SHORTER, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEE YOUR POOL BETWEEN THE CORNER OF YOUR HOUSE AND THE CORNER OF YOUR GARAGE? YES.
UH, BUT I'M NOT SKINNY DIPPING, SO
BUT, BUT IF WE DID HAVE TO LOWER THE FENCE, THE OTHER PART IS THAT HARD METAL PART IN THERE.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET SOMEBODY TO COME IN METAL, GRIND IT DOWN.
PROBABLY REDO THE WHOLE FENCE.
'CAUSE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, THE WAY THE FRAMEWORK IS, PROBABLY JUST HAVE TO REDO THE WHOLE THING.
UH, AND HE'S, AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS ONLY ASKING FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, UH, ON THE PORTION FACING THE STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIS HOME.
UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 0 62, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MA MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, UH, SITUATED AT 9 2 2 4, UH, GEORGE WOODS DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING BRETT POTTER.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY FOR THIS.
WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER, THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
[01:15:01]
FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION.AND THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA, BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND EIGHT FOOT WOOD PRIVACY.
PRIVACY FENCE LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PROPER OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE, BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE BOARD FINDS THE DEFENSE WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE IS CURRENTLY AN EIGHT EXISTING EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
THEREFORE, IT'S UNLIKELY THE REQUEST WILL INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET IN HEIGHT WILL AL WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THERE ARE OTHER WOOD PRIVACY FENCES OBSERVED IN THE AREA, THEREFORE, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ALTERED.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEARINGS ESTABLISHED FOR THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS ARE CURRENT USE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UH, THE REQUEST OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER MANDEN HAS A SECOND.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE HAS BEEN THERE FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THE HOUSE HAS BEEN, UH, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEY, IT WAS TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE OF THE TREE, UH, DAMAGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME, SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER MANNA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FACT.
UH, BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 7 LOCATED AT 1 1 0.
RADON LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR, APPLICANT BEING RAMONO ANO, UM, REQUEST FOR A 3,800 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
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.
AND THREE, UM, AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND FOUR, UH, A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CLAREDON STREET AND IS A BUDDING AND ALLEYWAY ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PROPOSING THE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, TWO FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY, AND TWO FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE SURROUNDING LOTS IN THE AREA.
THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
HOWEVER, HALF OF THE WIDTH OF THE ALLEY, WHICH, UM, IS 18 FEET ALLEY, WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
THEREFORE, A VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS SIDE SETBACK.
UH, THAT'S THE CURRENT, UM, I GUESS YOU SIDE PLAN THE LOT ITSELF WITH THE ABUTTING, UH, ALLEYWAY TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THE ABUTTING ALLEYWAY ITSELF AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS, UH, RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 6 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, SIDES TO THE EXISTING LOTS.
CURRENTLY 20 2200 SQUARE FEET AND THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT DO NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
UM, RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND THREE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE TYPE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN
[01:20:01]
BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 7 BASING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE LOT SIDE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE PROPOSED DWELLING WILL BE A NEW CONSTRUCTION.THE SMALL SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE, OF THE LOT PRESENTS HARDSHIP TO NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH THE U D C UM, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE.
AND THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES FOR THE SMALL STRUCTURE.
THERE WERE 25 NOTICES SENT, UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE QUINTANA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT AND I BELIEVE THEY MAY NEED AN INTERPRETATION.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME, YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, I WANNA, I START THIS RAM, UM, TON STREET AT IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CLATON 11 ZERO CLATON STREET.
UM, I WANNA KNOW, WHAT DECISION ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE BECAUSE THE PIECE OF LAND IS VERY SMALL AND I NEED, I REALLY NEED THE DRIVEWAY.
WE ARE FROM EAGLE PASS, TEXAS, BUT WE BOUGHT A PROPERTY HERE OUT OF NEED SO WE DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL THAT MUCH.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE OUR DOCTORS AND SPECIALISTS AND THE CARDIOLOGIST.
IT IS WHY WE DECIDED TO BUY A HOUSE, A LITTLE HOUSE IN HERE.
AND WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU AND GOD AND YOU COULD HELP US WITH OUR PROPOSAL, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING RIGHT HERE.
UH, IF, LET'S TAKE ONE MINUTE.
IS, UH, STAFF, ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS AND, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED SOME, UH, I GUESS, UH, SOME CHANGES TO WHAT YOU CURRENTLY ARE REQUESTING.
AND, AND SO, SO I'M TRYING TO DO SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WHAT SIZE SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WERE YOU LOOKING TO BUILD? AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT, I GUESS THE CHANGE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ON YOUR PROPERTY AND WHAT HARDSHIP DOES THAT CAUSE? IS PROPERTY 40 BY 30? YES.
AND 10 FEET FOR THE CARPORT? NO, SOME 50.
[01:25:02]
WELL, HOW FAR THEY GOING BE FROM THE, WELL WHAT, WELL, WHAT OUR QUE WHAT THE LINE OF QUESTION IS, IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO YOUR REQUEST AND WE'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM TO SEE HOW THEY AFFECT YOUR PLAN.MY QUESTION IS, THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE WAY IT IS IS 50 BY 40, RIGHT? 44? NO, 45.
WELL, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A, A PLOT PLAN, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT SHOWS IT TO BE 50 BY 45.
UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S FOUR SIDES TO THE PROPERTY.
THE SIDE THAT'S ABUTTING THE ALLEY IS NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED TO BE AFOOT.
THEN THERE'S, UH, WHAT WE CALL THE, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND STAFF IS ASKING FOR THAT TO BE FIVE FEET.
AND, AND YOUR INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO BE, WAS TO BE, UM, INSTEAD OF TO HAVE AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE TO BE TWO FEET AWAY.
SO STAFF WAS ASKED, YOU'RE ASKING FOR TWO FEET FROM THE BACK STAFF IS WANT WANTING IT TO BE FIVE FEET, FIVE FEET FROM THE BACK.
UM, NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, SO BEFORE WE DO THAT, STAFF IS A, THE PROPERTY THAT'S A BUDDING, THAT, THAT'S A ADDRESSED OFF OF, UM, LET ME SEE HERE.
THAT'S ADDRESSED OFF OF LOVETT, CORRECT? BECAUSE IF IT IS, AND THEN THEN THEY WOULD HAVE A 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, MM-HMM.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE 20 FEET.
SO IF, IF THEY HAD A REDUCTION ON THE SIDE, IT WOULDN'T BE THE END OF THE WORLD.
UM, IS, BUT YOU ALL ARE RECOMMENDING THREE FOOT, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO STAFF IS ASKING FOR YOUR, YOUR STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE, FROM THE SIDE, FROM THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE ONE FOOT AWAY.
CAN YOU DO THREE FEET? COULD IT BE THREE? SURE.
THAT'S WHAT THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING.
AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE, THAT'S IT.
AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE THE FRONT, UH, YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE, UM, TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND STAFF IS ASKING IT TO BE FI UH, FIVE FIVE, YEAH.
FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT.
YEAH, THEY'RE ASKING FOR FIVE FEET.
UH, SO IF YOUR LOT IS, UH, 50 BY 45, STAFF WOULD, WOULD FOLLOWING THESE RECOMMENDATION FOR, UM, SO STAFF IS ASKING IS IS SAYING IT WOULD BE 40 FOOT BY 41 FOOT.
SO, UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE APPLICANTS BEFORE WE, UH, MOVE ON TO A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, I JUST HAVE ONE CONCERN THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE THEY'RE ABOUT TO GET INTO.
DO YOU THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THAT? YES.
UH, AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT THIS WOULD BE A, A RELATIVELY SMALL FOOTPRINT? IT WOULD BE.
IT'S 1600 SQUARE FOOT, SO YEAH.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, UH, WE'RE GONNA, UH, OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION.
[01:30:06]
WE ARE, WE ARE THINKING ON BUILDING A SMALL HOUSE WITH AN OPEN, UM, CARDBOARD.EVERYTHING WOULD, UH, UH, FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, EVERYONE, EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN A 40 BY 41 FOOT FOOTPRINT, SO, SOUNDS GOOD.
WHAT ABOUT THE FENCE? IS THERE, IS THERE A FENCE INCLUDED? IT'S FENCE INCLUDED.
NOW WE DIDN'T HAVE A, THAT WASN'T PART OF THE APPLICATION.
YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF AFTERWARDS.
SO ON THE SIDE, ON THE YEAH, ON THE ALLEY SIDE, CAN THEY PUT A CARPORT THERE AND BECAUSE THEY GET, THEY GET NINE FEET, RIGHT? THEY GET HALF OF THE ALLEYWAY STAFF.
HOW WIDE IS THAT ALLEY? IT'S 18, RIGHT? THEY SAID 18, SO RIGHT.
SO DOES THAT AFFECT THEIR FOUR? YEAH.
SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THE QUESTION COMES UP, IF YOU PUT A CARPORT OFF THE ALLEY, IT COULD GO RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE 40 TO 41.
NEXT TO THE ALLEY IS WHERE WE RECEIVE THE POWER AND WATER AND EVERYTHING.
OH, IS IT, IS IT DRIVABLE? IS IT PAVED? NOT PAVED.
THEY COULD, THEY COULD PAVE IT.
THEY CAN STILL PUT THE CARDBOARD THERE.
IT, IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE, IT'D HAVE TO BE SO MANY FEET FROM THE FRONT, BUT IT COULD GO RIGHT UP TO THE, WHAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS YOUR CARPORT COULD, COULD PULL IN OFF THE STREET, BUT BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ALLEY PROPERTY LINE, LIKE RIGHT ON.
SO, UM, WHAT IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE? I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF NO ONE WANTS TO
WHERE ARE WE AT? OKAY, REGARDING CASE NUMBER, UH, B O A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 6 7.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A 3,800 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM, I'M SORRY, 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY, FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND FOUR A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE.
A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM.
ARE YOU, WHAT IS NO, THAT'S, IT'S OUT OF ORDER FROM WHAT? YEAH.
AND THEN NUMBER FOUR, A, UM, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT ONE 10 CLARATON.
APPLICANT BEING RAMONA ANO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO ALLOW A 2200 SQUARE FOOT LOT, WHICH WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THERE ARE ALSO VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED FOR THE REAR, FRONT AND SOUTHERN SIDE SETBACK.
THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT, AND THE PROPOSED SETBACKS WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES DUE TO DO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A LOT BEING UNDEVELOPABLE WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS, THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LAW AND CONFIGURATION PRESENT, PRESENT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE DESERTED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LITTER OF THE LAW.
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE APPEARS TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCES AS THEY WILL ALLOW FOR A HOME TO BE BUILT ON THIS SMALL LOT.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE OF AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING
[01:35:01]
PROPERTY OR ALTER DUE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE MINERAL AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE IS NOT LIKELY TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROP NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE REQUEST FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE APPROPRIATE DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOT.
THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH OF VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS A SMALL AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT.
OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UM, I'LL JUST START OFF, I DON'T HAVE, I I I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ, WHICH IS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND JUST TO REITERATE, UH, IT'S FOR A 3,800 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE 6,000 LOT SIZE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, OKAY, I'M SORRY.
I NEED TO GO OVER THIS AGAIN,
UH, THE, THE LOT SIZE NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, A A, UH, THE SIDE SETBACK IS, WAS TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE.
UH, THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT WOULD BE, WOULD BE A 15 FOOT VARIANCE.
SO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY, AND THEN FOUR, IT IS A VARIANCE, UH, FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SAC BACK THAT ALLOWS STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
EZRA COMMISSIONER BRAGG, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF AS WELL.
UH, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THEY CAME TO, UH, THE BOARD FIRST BEFORE THEY STARTED BUILDING, SO WE COMMEND YOU FOR THAT.
I'M GLAD THAT WE WERE ABLE TO WORK SOMETHING OUT THAT MAKES EVERYBODY, SO I'LL BE IN.
UH, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MICKA.
UM, IN REFERENCE TO WHAT I SEE ON GOOGLE, AND YOU SEE THE FRONT SIDEWALK WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS RIGHT NOW SUPPOSEDLY, BUT THE DRIVEWAY WON'T BE THERE.
IS THAT GONNA BE AN ISSUE FOR THEM TO RESOLVE WITH THE CITY? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE A CONTINUATION OF THE SIDEWALK, BUT IT GOES INTO A DRIVEWAY, BUT THE DRIVEWAY WOULD NO LONGER BE FUNCTIONAL IF THEY'RE GONNA PUT THE DRIVE, THE GARAGE OR CARPORT BY THE ALLEY AND THEY HAVE TO BE GO TO THE COST OF REPAIRING THAT CONCRETE.
THE, THE ENTRY WOULD STILL BE OFF THE STREET.
IT, IT JUST, THE CARPORT, THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT WOULD BE NEXT TO THE ALLEY.
BUT THE SIDEWALK IS NOT AN ISSUE.
'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO REPAIR, ANYTIME YOU BUILD A HOME, UH, HOME IN SAN ANTONIO, THEY HAVE TO REPAIR AND PROVIDE A SIDEWALK ALONG YOUR FRONTAGE.
SO THEY WOULD'VE TO FIX WHATEVER ISSUES ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
UH, IS THAT CORRECT STAFF? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE UNLESS I HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE CHAIR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, AND PLEASE GET WITH STAFF IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION IF YOU WISH.
OUR PLAN IS TO BUILD A LITTLE HOUSE IN HERE.
AS I TOLD YOU, WE HAVE OUR DOCTORS AND SPECIALISTS DOWN IN HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, SO WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE IN THIS CITY.
CAN WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK? YES.
AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A QUICK BREAK.
WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY BACK IN 10 MINUTES.
LET'S GET THIS, UH, MEETING BACK ENGAGED.
HOPING TO MAYBE ITEM DON'T, NUMBER EIGHT.
UM, BUT I THINK WE ASPIRE TO DIE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BO 8 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 8.
UM, LOCATED AT 2 0 3 BRENTWOOD
[01:40:01]
DRIVE ON COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING FREEDOM MARTIN.UM, REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH SEVEN FEET CREDIT FROM THE ALLEY.
UM, CURRENTLY THE ZONE IS R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CORNER OF BRENTON WOOD DRIVE AND, AND OVER REPLACED.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING FAM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UPON SITE VISIT, UM, CONNECTED BY STAT.
IT WAS OBSERVED IN AN ALLEYWAY ABED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
THE ALLEYWAY MEASURED TO BE 14 FEET WIDE, SO SEVEN FEET HALF OF THE ALLEY WOULD BE CREDITED TO THE REAR STEP REQUIREMENT.
STAFF ALSO NOTED THAT CURB CUT, UH, WILL HAVE TO BE PERMITTED AND COMPLETED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR THE SIDE GARAGE.
UM, SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.
YOU CAN SEE THAT I THING ON THE NORTH, UH, THAT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE GARAGE WOULD BE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT, THE REAR OF THE ALLEY, THE REAR YARD.
UM, SO RECOMMENDATION FOR GARAGE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THE LIMITED SPACE IN THE REAR YARD AND A USER CONFIGURATION OF A LOT PRESENTS A HARDSHIP IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE AND THE ALLEY LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY SERVES IN ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE REAR SETBACK.
AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UH, THERE WERE 27 NOTICES, UH, SENT, UH, THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE WILSHIRE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY'RE ASKING, THEY'RE ACCESSING THE GARAGE FROM THE ALLEY, FROM THE SIDE, FROM THE SIDE.
HI, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND, UM, HE, AS IT AS IT'S, HE SAID, THE, BASICALLY WHAT I HAVE WANT TO DO IS JUST ADD A GARAGE TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON HOW FAR BACK FROM THE FRONT THAT THE HOUSE IS.
UM, THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT GOES INTO, USED TO GO INTO THE GARAGE, WHICH I HAVE INCORPORATED INTO THE ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN.
UH, SO THERE'S NO LONGER A GARAGE THERE.
AND, UH, SO THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE BASICALLY THE DRIVEWAY THAT I WOULD BE CUTTING WOULD BE RIGHT BESIDE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND THE, THE PROPERTY, OR, I MEAN, THE TRAFFIC THERE HASN'T BEEN RESTRICTED BY SOMEONE BACKING UP INTO THAT STREET HISTORICALLY.
AND, UH, UM, I THE HA THE GARAGE WILL GO ALONG THE, THE HOUSES LINE THERE ON THE SIDE, SO IT WON'T BE GOING ANY FARTHER, UH, INTO THE SETBACK AREA, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE'S REQUIRED.
UH, ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO, NO.
UH, ANY, WE CAN OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS? UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MINKA? COMMISSIONER MINKA? I JUST HAVE ONE, UH, CLARIFICATION ON, ON THE PRESENTATION.
IT SAYS A REQUEST NUMBER ONE AND IT SAYS, UH, THE GARAGE SHOULD BE 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OR FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
YEAH, I, I, I WAS CONFUSED BY THAT TOO, BUT WHAT, SO THE, THE, THE, THE GARAGE IS GONNA OPEN UP TO THE SIDE STREET? YES.
'CAUSE THEY'RE ADDRESSED OFF OF BRITON WOOD, AND SO THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE 20 FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE TO THE GARAGE.
THEY'RE USING S BECAUSE IT'S A SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
SO, UH, A QUESTION I HAVE, SO IF IT'S THE RIGHT PICTURE, IT SHOWS THERE'S, THERE'S A PRETTY BIG TREE RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE, UM, OF THE DRIVEWAY.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS ACTUALLY, I HAD A, A, A STUMP GRINDERS COME AND CUT THAT DOWN BECAUSE I HAVE HAD, UM, A BRANCH FALL AND THEN WE FOUND ANOTHER CRACK, AND SO WE COMPLETELY REMOVED THAT TREE AND IT'LL END UP MAKING IT EASIER TO DO THE PROPOSED, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
BUT, WELL, THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION THEN.
SO THE TREE, THE TREE IS GONE, SO IT'S NO LONGER THE TREE IS, IS GONE? YES.
[01:45:01]
IT WAS AN OLD ASH, IT WAS WADE.AND ARE YOU KEEPING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY? SO I AM KEEPING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, UM, MAINLY JUST BECAUSE OF A COST THING AT THIS TIME.
AND I, THE DRIVEWAY, WE WILL HAVE TO CUT THE CURB THERE.
AND POOR CONCRETE FOR A NEW DRIVE IS, THERE'S A, AN EXISTING C P S UH, UTILITY POLE WITH A TRANSFORMER ON ON IT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT, IT'S KIND OF IN THE PLANE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
IS THAT GONNA BE OF ANY CONFLICT WITH WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO? NO, SIR.
WE'VE BEEN DOING REMODELING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND, UH, PERMITS FROM C P S AND ALL OF THIS, AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, I JUST HAVE, UH, ONE MORE.
I, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, THE, THE 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, AND, AND ARE YOU BUILDING A, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR WORK, SINCE THE TREE'S NO LONGER THERE, ARE YOU EXTENDING THE SIDEWALK DOWN YOUR SIDE PROPERTY LINE? NO.
ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO OR NOT? NO.
UH, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REQUIRED WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ALONG THE EASEMENTS ON THAT SIDE STREET.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD APPLY HERE.
BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PULL A PERMIT, THEY MAKE YOU BUILD THE SIDEWALK EVEN IF THERE'S NO OTHER SIDEWALK UNLESS YOU GET A VARIANCE.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION.
UM, I WOULDN'T, UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANANA.
COMMISSIONER MANANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 8, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 10 FOOT FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE SIX FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH SEVEN FOOT CREDIT, UH, FROM THE ALLEY SITUATED 2 0 3 BRENDAN WOOD DRIVE APPLICANT BEING FREDDA MARTIN, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN 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 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THEIR GARAGE TO BE SET BACK 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND SIX FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH SEVEN FOOT CREDIT FROM THE ALLEY.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST, UH, DO NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE LIMITED SPACE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO POSSIBLY POSTPONE DEVELOPMENT OR ADAPT THE PLANS TO MEET THE 20 FOOT REAR SLASH SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
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 VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE ADDITION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATIONAL USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES, UH, OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
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.
STAFF FINDS REQUEST IS NOT LIKELY TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THESE DISTANCES ARE NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THERE IS A GARAGE WITH A SIMILAR APPROACH NEAR THE PROPERTY.
THE 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.
STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS ORIENTATION OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE AND THE LIMITED SPACE IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION.
THAT'S YOUR SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MENCHACA.
UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS ON A, ON A, A VERY S SMALL SIDE STREET, SO I DON'T SEE, UH, MUCH TRAFFIC, UH, CONCERN WITH
[01:50:01]
REGARDS TO THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY.UM, ALSO THERE ARE CARS PARKED ALONG THE STREET AS WELL.
SO, SO THAT MAY BE ALSO, UM, UM, ALLEVIATING THERE.
THE TREE'S NO LONGER THERE UNFORTUNATELY.
UH, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT, UH,
COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE THAT PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. MANNA.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AGENDA ITEM NINE, BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 7 0.
UH, DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT IS CASANDRA DEARTH.
AND A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE TWO FOOT, FIVE FOOT FIVE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS R FOUR A.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONTINUANCE UNTIL THE JULY 18TH MEETING.
UM, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT.
I MOVE FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 7 0 TO UH, THE NEXT, UH, AVAILABLE MEETING, WHICH IS JULY THE EIGHTH.
MR. S SPILLMAN? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR.
UH, ITEM IS CONTINUED TO THE JULY 18TH BO O A MEETING.
ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10, AGENDA ITEM 10.
BO O A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 7 1 ADDRESS IS 2127 WEST WOODLAWN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT IS JANELLE CHASE.
A REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO A HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 800 SQUARE FOOT AND ONE BEDROOM REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DUING UNIT TO BE 965 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO BEDROOMS. ZONING IS R SIX.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2127 WEST WOODLAWN AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SITE SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A D D U TO BE TO EXCEED THE 800 SQUARE FOOT AND ONE BEDROOM REQUIREMENT.
THE PRO PRO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AND LIVING AREA IS CONSISTENT WITH H D R C ACTION ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 2022.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FOOT PLAN AND MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE STORMWATER DIVISION DURING THE PLAN REVIEW STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, PLAN OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY REAR OF THE PROPERTY, REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
RE RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA AS OTHER PROPERTIES APPEAR TO HAVE SIMILAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT WAS HEARD BY H D R C AND WAS GIVEN APPROVAL OF THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND THREE, ANY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE STORMWATER DIVISION DUE TO THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN NOTIFICATION PLAN.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSE FROM JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM WOODLAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
AND HOW BIG IS THE ALLEY, UH, BEHIND THERE? DO YOU KNOW, SIR? HOW BIG IS THE ALLEY? YEAH.
AND THEY DON'T GET CREDIT FOR, FOR THAT, FOR THE SETBACK? YES, THEY DO.
[01:55:11]
HI.IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
HI, MY NAME'S JANELLE CHASE AND WE'RE REQUESTING THIS, UM, VARIANCE FOR OUR A D U TO BE BUILT.
WE HAVE A 17 YEAR OLD THAT WILL BE 18 THIS SUMMER AND WE ANTICIPATE HER STAYING AT HOME THROUGH COLLEGE.
SO, UM, WITH HOUSING AS HIGH IT IS AS IT IS, WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD AN A D U TO ACCOMMODATE OUR FAMILY AND THE CHANGES WE'RE GOING THROUGH.
AND EVENTUALLY ALSO BE A MOTHER-IN-LAW FOR WHEN IT'S TIME TO ALSO HOUSE AGING PARENTS.
IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? NO.
WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? THERE'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO, UM, FOR AN A D U, UM, IS TWO BEDROOM IS THAT PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
UM, ACCESSORY DETACHED DOLING UNITS ARE LIMITED TO ONE BEDROOM.
UM, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED THAT IN THE REQUEST.
SO THE NEED FOR THE TWO BEDROOMS THEN IS BECAUSE, UM, JUST TO HAVE ADDITIONAL SPACE.
ONE IS LIKE AN OFFICE AND THEN ONE AS A BEDROOM.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE IS TALK ABOUT AMENDING THAT TO ALLOW FOR TWO BEDROOMS, BUT THAT WOULDN'T GO INTO PLACE UNTIL JANUARY AFTER ALL OF THE CURRENT, I GUESS, REVIEW PROCESS.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE THAT'S AT.
SO ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU'RE SHOWING A, A NEW GARAGE WITH APARTMENT ABOVE.
AND IS THE ACCESS COMING IN FROM WHERE IT SAYS COVERED WALKWAY? THOSE, THOSE ARE THE TWO OPENINGS INTO THE GARAGE? UM, YES, THERE'S TWO DOORS RIGHT THERE UNDER THE, THE COVERED WALKWAY AND THERE'S ALSO A GARAGE DOOR THAT FACES THE ALLEY SO THAT WE CAN PULL THROUGH.
AND, AND STAFF, UM, WHAT ABOUT THE CREDIT FROM THE ALLEY? SO DIDN'T THEY, DON'T THEY GET LIKE SEVEN OR SO FEET OF CREDIT R RIGHT, SO THE HALF OF THE ALLEYWAY WILL ACCOUNT TOWARD THE REAR SETBACK.
UM, THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T INCLUDE A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THIS.
WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE, THE SIDE DUE TO THAT COVERED PARKING AREA.
I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT, WHERE, WHERE EXACTLY THE SIDE IS YOU RICHARD, IF YOU WANNA SHOW THE SITE PLAN.
SO THAT COVERED PARKING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 1.
I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR JUAN A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO A HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE FOOT SQUARE VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 800 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, AND THEN I'M GONNA ADD A THREE, A ONE BEDROOM, UH, A CHANGE, UH, FROM A ONE BEDROOM TO ALLOW FOR A TWO BEDROOM, UM, UH, ON THIS ACCESSORY DRAWING OF 965 FEET, UH, SITUATED AT UH, 2 1 2 7 WEST WOODLAWN.
ADVOCATE BEING JANELLE CHASE BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN 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 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK IS JUST A COVERED PARKING AREA.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A ACCESSORY STRUCTURED DWELLING UNIT TO BE, UH, 965 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO BEDROOMS, UH, DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS DESIGNED, WAS ALREADY GIVEN APPROVAL FROM H D R C AND THE STRUCTURE WILL NEED TO MEET BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE AS THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE CONSTRUCTION WILL NEED TO BE, UH, FOLLOWING BUILDING CODE INSPECTIONS WILL NEED TO BE COMPLETED FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
[02:00:01]
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY LOCATED STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
MANY PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE APPEAR TO HAVE GARAGES AND ADUS CLOSE TO OR WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
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 ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE LOT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BAGMAN.
SO, UM, SO I BROKE UP THE THIRD ONE, UM, JUST TO CALL OUT.
UM, THAT IT IS THE ADDITION OF A SECOND BEDROOM AND, UM, IT IS NOT PERMITTED CURRENTLY, UH, IN WITHIN THE U D C AND THERE IS DIALOGUE AND IT WAS FOUGHT A WHOLE LOT WITH REGARDS TO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE DIALOGUE.
SO I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY IT'S GONNA PASS.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO, BUT I WANTED TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO EVERYBODY HERE ON THE BOARD SO THEY CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT DIALOGUE AS THEY, AS THEY KIND OF, UH, THINK THROUGH THEIR THOUGHTS.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE.
UM, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT I, YOU KNOW, UH, BEING THAT THE H D R C APPROVED IT.
YOU KNOW, I, I'M KIND OF GOING ALONG WITH THEIR FEEDBACK AND INPUT HERE, SO, SO I'LL BE, UH, PROVEN AS READ.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? I HEARING NONE.
UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ADDRESS IS 8 22 NORTH CHERRY COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN.
APPLICANT IS FERNANDO DE LEON, A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH FOUR INCH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SOUTH TERRY STREET AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY REPAIRING AND EXISTING CARPORT.
THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH FOUR INCH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SITE SETBACK, AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CARPORT IS SET BACK FIVE INCHES AND WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS.
THE CARPO, THE CARPORT WAS REPLACING AND IMPROVING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND DOES NOT APPEAR OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA.
AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA APPEAR TO HAVE SIMILAR CARPORTS IN PLACE WITHIN THE SAME DISTANCES.
NOTIFICATION PLAN, 24 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM NO RESPONSE FROM DIGNITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND STATE THEIR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
IT CAN BE IN YOUR PRESENTATION, FERNANDO DE 1560 WEST ATCH.
AND, UM, YES, THIS CARPORT WAS AN EXISTING ONE.
UH, WE OBTAINED THE BUILDING PERMITS TO DO REPAIRS FOR THE, FOR THE HOUSE, THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE TO INCLUDE, UM, UH, THE CARPORT.
WE ALSO GOT A, A PERMIT TO DO THE ROOF FOR BOTH THE, UH, THE, THE HOUSE AND THE CARPORT.
AND WHILE WE WERE DOING THE REPAIRS, UH, THE CARPORT NEEDED MORE, UH, REPAIRS THAN WHAT WE ANTICIPATED.
WE, WE STARTED FACING THE DECKING AND THE, WE SAW THAT THE RAFTERS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.
AND WHEN WE CALLED FOR OUR, OUR FIRST INSPECTION, WHICH WAS THE FRAMING INSPECTOR, SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE, UH, THE PERMIT, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE
[02:05:01]
HAD DONE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK THAN WHAT WE ANTICIPATED.SO WHEN WE CAME TO AMEND THE, THE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY ASKED US THAT IT WAS PROBABLY MORE THAN 50%.
SO THIS WAS CONSIDERED MORE THAN A REPAIR.
IT WAS GONNA BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE POLICY THAT IT WAS A, UH, A NEW, UM, CARPORT.
SO THEREFORE, WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR, FOR THE, UH, THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO FINISH THIS CARPORT.
I DO HAVE A PICTURE OF HOW THE, UM, CARPORT USED TO LOOK, WHICH IT'S ALMOST THE SAME AS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UM, THERE'S REALLY NO CHANGES.
THERE WAS, UM, FOUR COLUMNS, UH, EXISTING COLUMNS ON ONE SIDE OF THE CARPORT.
WE LEFT THREE OF 'EM, AND WE, UH, REPLACED THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS DAMAGED.
UM, SO EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE, ON THE CARPORT HAS BEEN, UH, MODIFIED, BUT THE COLUMNS THAT WERE AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE STAY THE SAME.
NOW, THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE ADDING THAT, THAT CARPORT DOESN'T HAVE WAS THE GUTTERS WE'RE ADDING, ADDING THE GUTTERS IN ORDER TO COLLECT WATER AND, UH, DIRECT IT TOWARDS THE STREET AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
AND THIS IS HOW I THINK STAFF HAD IT.
BUT THIS IS HOW, UH, THE CARPORT, UH, IS LOOKING RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT FINISHED YET, BUT IT'S HOW, HOW IT'S LOOKING.
SO THE CO, THE, UH, CITY INSPECTORS SAID TO CONTINUE WITH THE HOUSE WITH THE REPAIRS OF THE HOUSE, EXCEPT JUST LEAVE THE, UH, THE CARPORT UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE FOLLOWING.
ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YES, WE HAVE, UH, STEPHANIE MARTINEZ.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
MY NAME IS STEPHANIE MARTINEZ, AND I AM THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS THE BLUE HOUSE.
UM, I'M 8 8 8 1 8 NORTH CHERRY.
AND I AM HERE BECAUSE HE DID HIS PITCH DIFFERENTLY, WHICH IF YOU CAN SEE FROM WHEN IT WAS FIRST, WHEN IT WAS FIRST THERE, IT WAS A FLAT CARPORT.
NOW HE DID IT WITH THE PITCH A LITTLE TOO HIGH, WHICH WHEN THE RAINS, THE WATER COMES ONTO OUR SIDING, LIKE IT HITS OUR SIDING, IT HITS OUR WINDOWS, AND IT'S GONNA DAMAGE OUR FOUNDATION.
SO WHAT I CAME UP, WELL, WHAT I, WHAT I'M HERE FOR IS I WOULD REALLY WANT HIM TO PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT BEING FLAT.
BUT NOW THAT HE HAS A PITCH, IT'S, IT'S GONNA DAMAGE OUR FOUNDATION BECAUSE THE WATER'S GONNA FALL TO US.
AND HE STATED THAT HE WAS GONNA PUT GUTTERS.
IF HE PUTS GUTTERS, THEN HE'S GONNA BE ON OUR PROPERTY LINE, UM, WITH THE GUTTERS.
AND I HAVE PICTURES AND STUFF, BECAUSE I MEAN, NOT ONLY DID THEY JUST DO THAT, THEY, UM, DAMAGED OUR HOUSE.
WHEN THEY PUT CEMENT, WE, THEY DAMAGED CEMENT ALL OVER OUR HOUSE, WHICH WE WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT.
UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NO, UM, HOW WOULD I SAY? LIKE, THEY DO STUFF AND THEY DON'T ABIDE ON OUR SIDE.
LIKE, THEY JUST TEAR UP THINGS, UM, THREW SEMEN ON OUR HOUSE.
WE HAD GRASS LAID ON THE SIDE.
IT'S ALL DEAD BECAUSE THEY KEEP COMING ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND STEPPING THERE.
AND, UM, I HAD ALREADY TOLD THEM, LIKE, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO TO YOUR HOUSE.
LIKE, I, I MEAN, I'M HAPPY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA REMODEL YOUR HOUSE INTO WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE LIKE, MESSING UP MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S WHY I CAME IN TO SEE, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT WAS GONNA GO ON BECAUSE OF HIS PITCH BEING SO HIGH, HOW WOULD IT, YOU KNOW, HOW IS HE NOT GONNA DAMAGE MY PROPERTY NEXT DOOR? OKAY.
SO, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO, YES, UM, S SO, UM, YOU KIND OF MENTIONED, SO IF THEY, SO THE, THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION, THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION TALKS ABOUT GUTTERS, AND YES.
WHAT YOU HAVE STATED IS THAT BASICALLY IF THEY DO PUT GUTTERS ON IT, IT'S GONNA EXTEND OVER YOUR PROPERTY LINE? YES, SIR.
'CAUSE IT SHOWS THAT YOU'RE LIKE FIVE INCHES.
SO IT SHOWS THEY HAVE A, UM, LIKE A, A FOUR INCH GUTTER WITH A, WITH, AND STILL HAVE FIVE INCHES LEFT.
AND SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE THEN? WELL, BECAUSE LIKE, IF YOU SEE WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR PRIVATE FENCE RIGHT HERE, ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE LITTLE THING SET UP HERE, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, HOW DO YOU, OH, THERE, IT'S, UM, SO THEY HAVE A PRIVATE FENCE RIGHT HERE.
AND, UM, WE ACTUALLY DID A PROPOSAL AND WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT'S GONNA GO ON HERE TO EXTEND THAT, THAT PRIVATE FENCE ALL THE WAY UP TO HERE SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ON OUR PROPERTY LINE.
SO IF THEY PUT GUTTERS, WOULDN'T THAT CAUSE THEM BEING ON OUR PROPERTY LINE? WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA STEP IN REAL QUICK.
[02:10:01]
WHAT THEY BUILT YES.IS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY BUILT, BUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS, UH, PERMISSION TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK.
BUT THEY, THEY, INCLUDING GUTTERS, WILL STAY FIVE INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
NOW, A SURVEY WAS NOT PROVIDED, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE EXACTLY THAT PROPERTY LINE THAT SEPARATES YOUR PROPERTY AND, AND THEIR PROPERTY IS OKAY.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO BE FIVE INCHES AWAY WITH THE GUTTERS INSTALLED.
UM, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UH, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS CARPORT IS IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE? NOT REGARDING THE PITCH, BUT IS, ARE THE POSTS IN THE SAME PLACE AS BEFORE OR ARE THEY MOVED? UM, I THINK THEY DID MOVE SOME, I HAVE PICTURES OF WHERE THEY HAVE NEW BOARDS AND LIKE OLD BOARDS.
UM, AND BECAUSE WE, WE CAN ONLY, WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED US.
AND WHAT, WHAT I'M SEEING IS AT THE PREVIOUS CARPORT, WHILE IT WAS NOT PITCHED AS MUCH, IT ALSO DID NOT HAVE AN OVERHANG.
AND THIS ONE APPEARS TO HAVE A SLIGHT OVERHANG.
AND SO IF THE POSTS ARE IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE AND THE EDGE OF THE CARPORT WITHOUT THE GUTTERS WOULD BE, WELL, SINCE THEY, UM, SINCE THEY, WHEN THEY BUILT THE CARPORT, THEY WENT OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? IT'S HARD, IT'S HARD TO GAUGE.
IT'S HARD TO LIKE LOOK AT LIKE A LITTLE BIT.
BUT WHEN I'M TALKING AND SEE HOW THEY DID THAT, THEY WENT OUT SIX, LIKE THE SIX INCHES, BECAUSE WHEN THEY DID THEIRS, IT WAS IN FURTHER INSIDE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
SO THE, YEAH, THEY, WHEN THEY HAD THEIR ORIGINAL CARPORT, IT WAS INSIDE THE POST.
AND I HAVE PICTURES AND I HAVE PICTURES OF THE NEW ONE THAT THEY DID.
I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE EARTH PICTURE IT STAFF, YOU CAN WELCOME TO BRING THEM UP IF, UH, THE GOOGLE EARTH PICTURES FROM A FEW YEARS AGO.
UH, IT SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IF, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, WHAT, HOW THE PITCH LOOKED AND WHERE THE POST, HOW THE POST LOOKED S SO, WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, SO 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UM, ALLOWING FOR A, UM, A, A VARIANCE UP TO THE SIX INCH LINE IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
AND SO WHEREVER THAT LINE IS YES.
AND SO IS WORD IS, IS THAT LINE BEING DRAWN? AND SO IF THE POSTS ARE AT THE LINE, THEN BASICALLY THEY WOULD'VE TO BE MOVING THE POST OVER SIX INCHES.
IF THE POSTS ARE WITHIN SIX INCHES OF THE LINE, THEN, THEN THEY HAVE TO BASICALLY, THEY'D HAVE TO CUT, UM, YES.
BUT IF THEY'RE FOOT IN, THEN THEY WOULD ALLOW, THEN IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THEM TO HAVE THE ROOF AS IT AS IT EXISTS.
AND SO REALLY IT DEPENDS UPON WHERE THAT LINE IS DRAWN.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, SO THE DIALOGUE IS ARE WE ALLOWING THEM ON THEIR PROPERTY TO BASICALLY MOVE RIGHT UP TO THAT LINE? OKAY.
SO, I MEAN, IF THEY'RE INSIDE THEIR PROPERTY, I DON'T SEE WHY NOT.
BUT IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE THEIR PROPERTY, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING, YOU KNOW.
WELL, THERE'S A SECOND POINT THAT YOU DID BRING UP THOUGH.
THE PITCH IS THAT THE WELL WATER IS, SO WE GENERALLY DISCOURAGE, HIGHLY DISCOURAGE PEOPLE, UH, ALLOWING WATER TO RUN OFF ON THEIR PROPERTY ONTO ANOTHER, THE PROPERTY.
AND SO GUTTERS IS NORMALLY THE SOLUTION THAT, THAT, THAT IS TALKED ABOUT.
AND, AND GENERALLY, DEPENDING ON HOW THE STRUCTURE OR HOW THOSE GUTTERS ARE LAID OUT, YES.
WOULD, WOULD HELP KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DRIVE, I GUESS THAT DIALOGUE.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, SO IF IT WAS THAT THEY'RE INSIDE THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND THEY PUT UP GUTTERS THAT PREVENTS THE WATER FROM RUNNING OFF.
THEN WOULD YOU BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DIALOGUE THEN, OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT SOLUTION THEN? SO YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THAT'S, YEAH, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION THEN.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, FOR THIS RESIDENT? I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER MANOCK.
SO, UM, SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT IS BETWEEN A PROPERTY FOR FIRE, UH, CODE RATING.
AND SO THIS LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THAT, THAT CARPORT.
AND SO, UH, WOULD, UH, THAT'LL BE PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, CORRECT? TO HAVE THAT CORRECTED IF THAT IS TOO CLOSE? YES.
ANYTIME A STRUCTURE IS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE, FIRE RATE AND MATERIALS WILL BE REQUIRED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA.
AND BECAUSE IT IS A CARPORT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, RIGHT? WE SAW SOME TESTIMONY, I GUESS, WHERE SOMEBODY WAS PROPOSING TO EXTEND THE PRIVACY FENCE OUT ALONG THAT SAME FENCE LINE? OR IS THAT NOT, NOT, WELL, WE HAVEN'T, WE, UM, WE, UM, CAME UP TO SEE IF WE COULD GET IT APPROVED, BUT WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE GONNA DO, ONLY BECAUSE, UM, THE, AND THEN THEY TOLD US ABOUT THAT, THAT IT WAS TWO, OUR HOUSES ARE JUST TWO CLOSE TOGETHER MM-HMM.
UM, AND SO THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO PUT THE PRIVATE FENCE IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THEIR SPACE, AS IN THEY COME INTO OUR PROPERTY LINE MM-HMM.
AND SO WE KIND OF WANNA LIKE, STOP THAT.
BUT THERE'S NO OTHER WAY WE COULD DO IT WITHOUT HAVING, UM, HOW DO YOU SAY IT, LIKE A FENCE,
[02:15:01]
BECAUSE, UM, WHEN WE DID CALL THE POLICE, WHEN THEY THREW SEMEN ALL OVER OUR HOUSE, UM, THEY SAID THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A FENCE UP IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM OUT.SO, SO STAFF, IF THEY WERE TO PUT A FENCE UP AND THAT FENCE IS AN INCHES AWAY FROM WHERE THIS CARPORT LIES, DOES THAT AFFECT HOW YOU LOOK AT THE CARPORT? IS BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR NOT, OR MEAN? NO, NO.
'CAUSE THE TWO, THE TWO COMPONENTS ARE SEPARATE.
A FENCE IS SEPARATE, THE CARPORT IS SEPARATE.
JUST BECAUSE A FENCE WOULD BE, UH, UP CLOSE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY NOW DON'T HAVE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN CARPORT.
UH, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WHEN SHE COMES IN AFTERWARDS, SHE MAY HAVE TO FIRE RATES SOME OF THOSE FENCING MATERIALS.
UH, SO IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE, NOT JUST YOUR TYPICAL WOOD.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE RESIDENT OR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCHES HERE.
DO, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A SURVEY? UM, WE DON'T HAVE A SURVEY.
UH, WE COULD GET ONE IN ORDER TO, UH, PLEASE THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S IN A, WITHIN OUR PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S TWO ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP THE PITCH, UH, WHICH, UH, YOU'D BE SOLVING USING GUTTERS, UH, BUT THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE YOU VERIFYING THAT DEMEANOR? CORRECT? I, I DON'T KNOW.
AND WE WILL, I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD POINT.
SO, BUT NO ONE'S GONNA VERIFY THAT THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
IF NOBODY GETS A SURVEY, THERE'S NO, HOW DOES STAFF EVEN VERIFY THIS? LIKE IF THE, IF THE NEIGHBOR WERE TO RAISE CONCERNS, LIKE WHEN EVERYTHING'S SAID AND DONE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS? I MEAN, HOW IS THAT VERIFIED? IT'S A CIVIL ISSUE.
WELL, OKAY, IF WE HAVE A SURVEY FROM ONE PROPERTY OWNER AND SHE DOES A DIFFERENT SURVEY, IT'S A CIVIL ISSUE, THE CITY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED.
BUT IF THERE'S NO SURVEY, HOW DO YOU CHECK TO SEE IF IT'S FIVE INCHES OFF? IT'S A CIVIL ISSUE.
THERE ARE PINS ON THE PROPERTY THAT, THAT SHOW YOU WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS, AND SO THE INSPECTORS WOULD USE THAT.
BUT IF SHE IS, UH, CLAIMING THAT NO, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S, THEY'RE ENCROACHING ONTO HER PROPERTY BECOMES A CIVIL ISSUE.
WHEN, WHEN Y'ALL WENT OUT THERE, DID Y'ALL BASE THE FIVE INCHES IN THE MOTION ON PINS THAT WERE FOUND ON THE GROUND? YES.
UM, WHAT SIZE GUTTERS DO YOU PLAN ON PUTTING UP AND, AND HOW ARE YOU GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THE RUNOFF GOES NOT IN ANYBODY ELSE'S YARD? THIS IS THE, UH, OWNER, DR.
WE'RE GONNA PUT A, AT LARGE, IT NEEDED TO KEEP THE WATER AWAY, SO, SO YOU'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE RUNOFF IS YEAH, DEFINITELY NOT AFFECTING ANYONE ELSE.
WE HAD NO PROBLEM PUTTING THE GUTTER.
AND, AND WHEN STAFF WENT THROUGH THIS WITH THE GUTTERS, DID THEY, USING THE PINS THAT WERE FOUND ON THE GROUND TO D DETERMINE THE FIVE INCHES, WERE YOU INCLUDING REMOVING THE OVERHANG TO PUT IN GUTTERS OR PUTTING GUTTERS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE OVERHANG THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE? UH, WE, WE, UH, COMMUNICATED THAT THEY NEEDED GUTTERS.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE MEASUREMENT WITH THE EXISTING OVERHANG.
SO IF THEY ADDED A FOUR INCH GUTTER TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, THEY WOULD STILL BE FIVE INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
IF THEY ADDED FOUR INCHES OF GUTTERS, THEY WOULD BE ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THEY, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, IF YOU'RE HEARING THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CUT THE OVERHANG AND THEN ADD THE GUTTERS.
SO AS LONG AS EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE AND WE'RE ALL HEARING THIS ALL TOGETHER SO PROPERLY, THERE'S NOTHING CAN DO.
SO WITH THAT, UM, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 3.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTED REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH FOUR INCH OVERHANG, INCLUDING GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 8 2 2 CHERRY STREET.
APPLICANT BEING FERNANDO DELEON.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIF, 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 TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A FOUR INCH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TOO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNEC UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE CARPORT HAVING TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY WITH AVAIL WITH AVAILABLE TO FIT A VEHICLE.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE
[02:20:01]
OBSERVED IN 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 DUE TO THIS EXISTING PROPERTIES AND LOCATIONS OF THE OTHER CARPORTS.
THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CHERRY STREET, ALL MAINTAIN CARPORTS WITHIN THE DISTANCE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.
SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW 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, NOT NEW DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY ARE LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS OF THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH OF THE VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, UH, SUCH AS THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE, AND THE WIDTH AVAILABLE FOR A CARPORT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION.
SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UH, WE RECEIVED TESTIMONY THAT, UH, UH, THE SETBACK RE UH, THE SETBACK AS GRANTED WITHIN THE MOTION WOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH DISTANCE TO ALLOW AND, AND THE REQUIRED GUTTERS, UH, TO, UM, REDIRECT THE WATER OFF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND SO WE SAW TESTIMONY THE APPLICANT IS GONNA PUT THE GUTTERS IN AND THEY'LL BE CHECKED BY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN PLACE AND THAT SHOULD APPEASE, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AND HER RIGHT TO ENJOY A PEACEFUL USE OF HER HOUSE WITHOUT WATER COMING IN.
UM, I'LL ALSO BE SUPPORTING, UM, I DO WANNA REMIND THE APPLICANTS THAT, UH, THE, UH, CURRENT, EXISTING MATERIAL LIKELY IS NOT FIRE RATED.
SO BEFORE YOU SPEND ANY MORE MONEY, YOU MAY WANT TO, UH, RESOLVE THAT.
AND THEN SECOND, FOR THE, THE PERSON WHO CAME IN TO SPEAK, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT A STRING ON YOUR, ON, ON THOSE POLES OR THOSE PINS AND TO WELL-DEFINED.
SO THAT WAY YOU'RE, YOU, YOU ARE VERY AWARE OF IT AND CAN JUST ENSURE THAT THEY ARE KEEPING UP WITH WHAT IS THAT'S BEING AGREED TO HERE.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR, UH, NOW THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE WORKED OUT, UH, THE FACT THAT THE EDGE HAS TO BE TRIMMED OFF TO ADD THE GUTTERS, AND THE NEIGHBOR IS HEARING ALL THIS SO SHE KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR.
AND WITH THAT ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ALBERT.
MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DELMER.
CHAIR ORIAN AND ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AND NOW OUR LAST CASE ITEM NUMBER 12.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS FOR CASE BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 9.
LOCATED AT 3 1 2 WEST AGITA AVENUE WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT BEING ALAN F IS A REQUEST FOR 184 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40% ALLOWANCE OF 530 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE 714 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED R FIVE H RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN THE HISTORIC MONTE VISTA DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST AGITA AVENUE.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 640, UH, EXCUSE ME, 630 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT AND REBUILD A NEW 714 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CANNOT EXCEED 40% OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
BECAUSE THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 1,326 SQUARE FEET.
THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS 530 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION H D R C COMPLETED A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN TO H D R C HAD A LARGER SQUARE FOOT FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT THE ONE STIPULATIONS FOR APPROVAL IS THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REDUCED BY 50 SQUARE FEET.
THE REQUEST BEING PROPOSED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 50 SQUARE FEET SMALLER THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO H D R C.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THIS IS THE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE
[02:25:01]
PROPERTY AND THE VIEW OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FROM THE ALLEYWAY, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA.REGARDING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOOTPRINT VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THERE'S AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT ALLOWED.
TWO, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THREE H D R C HAS GRANTED A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BASED ON STIPULATION THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BE REDUCED BY 50 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING.
THERE WERE 18 NOTICES MAILED TWO WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE A FORMAL RESPONSE FROM MON MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT WE DID RECEIVE A VOICEMAIL FROM THEM AND THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST.
WE DO HAVE THE, UM, REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND SO YOU HAVE A VOICEMAIL TO PLAY FOR US OR? YES, WE HAVE ONE.
IS, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT
MY ADDRESS IS 8 2 9 DAKOTA 7 8 2 0 3.
UM, CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE.
THESE ARE COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE ENDING IN 0 0 7 9.
I AM A CURRENT BOARD MEMBER OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I'M ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING AND CO COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION WHERE A REQUEST FOR A NEW DETACHED DWELLING UNIT OF 714 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 54% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS.
NUMBER ONE, THE CURRENT DETACHED DWELLING UNIT CODE DOES NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP SINCE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED DWELLING UNIT WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED SMALLER IN FOOTPRINT THAN WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED.
BUT MEETING CODE NUMBER TWO, BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE MET.
THE ORDINANCE SERVES A PURPOSE IN PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
IT SERVES TO PROMOTE A COMPATIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND A DETACHED DWELLING UNIT ON A LOT, AND PRESERVES THE RESIDENTIAL AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MONTE VISTA.
NUMBER THREE, OUR INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE UNDER STRESS FROM INTENSE INCOMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
WE BELIEVE THAT APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT FOR MONTEA IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD BE THE NORM.
AT BEST, THE ASSOCIATION WOULD SUPPORT A NEW DETACHED DWELLING UNIT ON THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING DWELLING UNIT OF 630 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 47.5% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
OTHERWISE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CONCERNS, THE MONTEA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS SEEKING A DENIAL FOR THE VARIOUS REQUESTS FOR A 714 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED DWELLING UNIT.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S NOT A REGISTERED NEIGHBORS, ARE THEY? YES, THEY ARE.
AND SECOND, SECOND QUESTION, DID HE SAY 600, 630 AT THE END, OR DID OR DID HE STICK TO 530? I I DIDN'T.
AND THAT IS THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE CURRENT A D U.
UM, I'M GONNA BE CHANGING MY PRESENTATION AND WORKING ON THE FLY HERE BECAUSE I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT PHONE CALL WAS COMING IN.
UM, THE STAFF DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THE PROJECT.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MY CLIENT FOR OVER A YEAR.
THEY LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR I THINK ABOUT 12 YEARS.
THEY, UH, THEIR KIDS ARE GROWING UP TURNING INTO TEENAGERS.
THEY BOTH PARENTS WORK FROM HOME, SO THEY'RE CROWDED.
UH, THEY ALSO HAVE ELDERLY PARENTS IN DALLAS THAT THEY PLAN ON MOVING DOWN HERE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO.
UH, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE AN AIRBNB.
IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A FOR-PROFIT RENTAL.
THIS IS TRULY A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR THE FAMILY TO LIVE IN.
UH, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AS HAS BEEN SAID A FEW TIMES NOW, IS 630 SQUARE FEET, UH, THAT IS LARGER THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED BY CODE.
IT WAS BUILT IN 1948, ORIGINAL TO THE HOME.
UH, THE FOOTPRINT TO FOOTPRINT RATIO PUTS THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 47.5%.
[02:30:02]
UH, THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE ALSO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE SIDE SETBACK THAT EXISTS TODAY.PROBABLY COMPLIED IN 1948, AS WE ALL KNOW.
BUT, BUT RIGHT NOW IT SITS, I BELIEVE, TWO AND A HALF OR THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, SO MY CLIENTS ARE REQUESTING AN ENLARGED STRUCTURE.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY, THERE IS A TWO CAR GARAGE THAT THEIR CARS WON'T FIT IN AND THE DOORS DON'T OPEN PROPERLY.
AND THERE IS A SMALL LITTLE CASITA ATTACHED IN IT, WHICH IS A VERY SMALL BEDROOM WITH A SMALL BATH, NO KITCHEN, NO CLOSET.
UH, THEY HAD A FAMILY MEMBER STAY IN THAT FOR NINE MONTHS AT ONE POINT IN TIME, AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW HE SURVIVED BECAUSE HE JUST ORDERED TAKEOUT FOR EVERY SINGLE MEAL AND NEVER LEFT THAT BEDROOM.
AND IT ISN'T FUNCTIONAL FOR THEM.
THEY, THEY BASICALLY USE IT AS STORAGE.
UH, IT ALSO HAS TERMITE DAMAGE, FLOOD DAMAGE, SOME ROTTED WOODS, YOU KNOW, ALL AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
SO, UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORS FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW.
I'VE HAD THREE DIFFERENT MEETINGS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM MONTE VISTA, UH, ALL OF WHICH WERE VERY FAVORABLE.
THEY HAVE SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT, UH, FROM THE FIRST MEETING THROUGH THE THIRD MEETING.
UH, THE THIRD MEETING WAS RIGHT BEFORE WE HAD OUR H D R C HEARING.
UH, THE COMMITTEE WAS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
THEY PROVIDED A LETTER TO H D R C IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, AND THEY HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH THE DENSITY, THE SCALE, THE MASSING, THE LOCATION, UH, ALL OF THAT WAS EXPLAINED THROUGH MY DRAWINGS, AND THEY WERE ALL ON BOARD WITH IT.
THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
UH, THIS HEARING IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD, UH, MR. GARCIA'S COMMENTS.
AND THOSE WERE STATED TO BE FROM THE COMMITTEE, WHICH I WAS EVEN MORE SURPRISED BY.
UH, I TRIED REACHING OUT TO RYAN REED, WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE SINCE STAFF TOLD ME THAT THIS PHONE CALL WAS RECEIVED.
UH, HE HASN'T REPLIED TO, UH, EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS DURING THIS HEARING, WHICH I DON'T EXPECT HIM TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BUSINESS DAY, BUT STILL, I WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING BECAUSE I WAS SHOCKED BY IT.
UM, SO THE NEW STRUCTURE, UH, WILL BE TWO STORIES.
INSTEAD OF ONE STORY, IT'LL STILL HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE.
IT'LL HAVE A BEDROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND THEN A LIVING SPACE AND BEDROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
TWO, TO REQUIRE THAT MY CLIENT BUILD SOMETHING NEW THAT HAS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE SEVERELY LIMITING.
THEY ALREADY CANNOT USE THE BEDROOM UNIT OR THE PARKING GARAGE OR THE GARAGE SPACES.
UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT A STAIR IN TO GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS, WHICH WOULD FURTHER REDUCE THE USABLE AREA ON THAT GROUND FLOOR TO EVEN LESS THAN 630 SQUARE FEET.
YOU'D BE TICKING OUT ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET BY THE LENGTH OF 20 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION, UH, OR THE PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.
UH, AS REQUESTED, OUR FOOTPRINT WOULD BE 714 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S 53.8% COMPARED TO THE MAIN FOOT MAIN HOUSE FOOTPRINT.
UH, BUT IT'S ONLY ABOUT 6% HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT THAT IS THERE.
SO ENFORCING THAT 40% RULE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD LIMIT THE NEW A D U TO BE SMALLER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENT SINCE 1948.
AND IT'S ALREADY DETERMINED THAT WHAT IS PRESENT CURRENTLY DOES NOT WORK FOR MY CLIENT'S NEEDS.
IT'S A EXPENSIVE STORAGE ROOM THAT THEY'RE PAYING TAXES ON.
SO I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMITTEES.
I'VE SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS SERVING IN THOSE.
UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT AFTER A YEAR OF EARNESTLY WORKING WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THAT THEY WOULD FLIP FLOP ON THEIR DECISION ON THE DAY OF A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AND I'LL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH THEM TO FIND OUT WHAT WENT WRONG.
WAS THIS A COMMITTEE DECISION? WAS IT REVIEWED WITHIN THE OVERALL COMMITTEE? AND WHY WAS THAT COMMENT MADE? UH, NOT BY THE CHAIR.
UH, IT SEEMED TO REPRESENT THE COMMITTEE'S BODY ITSELF.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND, BUT THEY CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.
IF I HAD KNOWN THIS WAS COMING, I WOULD'VE BROUGHT THEIR PREVIOUS LETTERS OF APPROVAL.
UH, SO THAT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF MY
[02:35:01]
PRESENTATION.SO I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I I, I JUST WANTED TO ASK STAFF.
UM, SO YOU, YOU HAVE THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND THIS GENTLEMAN WAS FROM THE, HIS MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
IT'S A MONTE VISTA, IT'S VISTA HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS.
SO, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MR. NEFF MIN CHACO, MR. N MR. UH, COMMISSIONER? SPIN DIFFERENCE IS, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 84 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE AND BETWEEN WHAT YOU KNOW, UH, YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UH, AT 714, IF YOU BUILT THAT NEW STRUCTURE, COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO IT WITHIN THIS 600, THE, THE FOOTPRINT THAT IS THERE? COULD YOU GET A KITCHEN AND THE THINGS IN, IS THE 84 SQUARE FEET GONNA MAKE THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE? YES.
IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE VERY MUCH, BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUCH A SMALL STRUCTURE, IT DOES MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY THE TWO GARAGE SPACES AREN'T LARGE ENOUGH FOR THEIR VEHICLES, AND THE CURRENT APARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE A KITCHEN WITH IT.
IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS STRUCTURE WORK, WE WOULD'VE TO ADD A STAIR AS WELL.
SO THAT'S SQUEEZING ONE MORE COMPONENT OF FLOOR SPACE INTO THE PLAN.
SO WE WOULD BASICALLY LOSE THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR, UH, BEDROOM AND BATHROOM IN ORDER TO GAIN SOME GARAGE SPACE AND A STAIR GOING UP.
AND THEN IT DOESN'T SUIT THE CLIENT'S NEEDS.
THEY SHOULDN'T SPEND, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BUILDING SOMETHING ANYMORE.
YEAH, I, I, I'M AWARE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, MONTE VISTA HAS BEEN, UH, WORKING WITH THE U D C, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL, UH, AMENDMENTS.
AND SO I'M SURE THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, GONE THROUGH TRYING TO, UH, ANTICIPATE FUTURE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, CHANGES TO THE PERCENTAGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I'M, I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THAT'S WHERE THIS CHANGES COME FROM IN THE MONTE VISTA'S, UH, ATTITUDE TOWARD IT.
UM, BUT I DON'T SEE EXACTLY HOW THAT SHOULD AFFECT IT IF YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS APPROVAL ON IT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO, TO KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THIS ONE.
I, I KNOW TONY GARCIA VERY WELL, AND I'VE WORKED WITH MANY OF THEM IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THE A D U REVAMPING OF THE CODES AS WELL.
SO I'M REAL FAMILIAR WITH THE DIFFERENT CODE CHANGES THAT POSSIBLY MAY COME.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANNA SET A PRECEDENT WITH THIS PROJECT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS, BUT I WOULD ASK, WHY DOES MY CLIENT HAVE TO BE THE ONE PERSON YOU WANNA START A PRECEDENT WITH WHEN ALL ALONG YOU'VE BEEN IN FAVOR IN SUPPORTING MY CLIENT'S GOALS IN THIS PROJECT? MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, QUESTION, SORRY.
UM, QUESTION I HAD WAS, UM, SO IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF A CONTINUANCE FOR TWO WEEKS? JUST SO THAT YOU CAN RESOLVE THAT DIALOGUE TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE WAS AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T A CHANGE AND, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, HAD A TALK WITH, UM, UM, WITH THEM JUST TO, OR THEM TO SEE, UH, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE MISS WAS.
AND SO THAT WAY Y'ALL CAN COME BACK TO THE TABLE KIND OF WITH A VOICE.
I MEAN, I CERTAINLY WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH MR. GARCIA AND MR. REED AND THE COMMITTEE TO FIND OUT WHAT WENT WRONG.
BUT I WOULD ASK TO NOT IMPOSE THAT HARDSHIP UPON MY CLIENT, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS HEARING SINCE JANUARY.
I'M JUST GONNA, IT'S TAKEN SIX MONTHS TO GET HERE.
SO TO DELAY IT EVEN FURTHER BECAUSE OF THE WHIM OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, CHANGING THEIR MIND IS UNFAIR TO MY CLIENT.
DID, UM, COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, DID YOU WANT TO, AND THEN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, IN TERMS OF THE RESEARCH THAT YOU HAVE DONE, IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE, UH, A LOT OF ADU OR IS A THING NOW, KIDS STAYING AT HOME AND YOUR A D D U IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE, UH, WE'VE GOTTA PUT A STOP TO IT KIND OF THING? UM, WELL, HISTORICALLY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAD A D THROUGHOUT, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S A, A DIVERSE MIX OF HOUSES IN MONTE VISTA.
THEY'RE THE LARGEST STATE MANSIONS THAT YOU SEE THAT WILL HAVE A LARGE A D U.
AND THERE ARE THE SMALLER HOMES THAT ALSO HAVE SMALL ADUS ALLEYWAYS ARE PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, REAR FACING GARAGES AND APARTMENTS ABOVE AND NEXT TO ARE VERY COMMON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THEY WERE BUILT ORIGINALLY.
UH, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING STRIKING OR OUT OF THE NORM TO BE REQUESTING AN A D U IN THE BACKYARD OF ONE OF THESE HISTORIC HOMES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S PROMPTING THE CHANGE IN ATTITUDE.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A FEELING OF, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO OVERBUILD AND CHANGE THEIR
[02:40:01]
HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I CAN RESPECT THAT.BUT I, I DID SOME CALCULATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AREAS SURROUNDING MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, AND 60% OF THE PROPERTIES HAD ADUS JUST WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
SO IT'S VERY COMMON ALONG THE ALLEYWAY THAT WE ALL SHARE.
THIS HOUSE SHARES TOWARDS THE BACKYARD.
UH, THERE ARE MULTIPLE TWO STORY ADUS, ONE STORY ADUS.
THERE'S OVER A 60% RATIO OF ADUS IN THE BACKYARDS OF THE HOMES ON THESE TWO STREETS THAT SHARE AN ALLEYWAY.
UH, SO THERE'S NOTHING OUT OF THE NORM WITH THIS REQUEST.
MY QUESTION WAS BASED, UH, ON THE USE OF HIGH DENSITY AND SOME, UH, SO, UM, ASSOCIATIONS WANT TO CONTROL THAT, SO THAT'S, THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UH, SO HAS THE DISCUSSION ALL ALONG ALWAYS BEEN A TWO STORY, A D U THIS ISN'T SOME A, A CHANGE THAT THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S TRIGGERING THERE.
SO IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A DISCUSSION OF THE A TWO STORY.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH THE SAME FLOOR PLANS, SAME LOCATIONS ON THE LAND.
EVERYTHING HAS REMAINED THE SAME UNTIL IN DECEMBER WHEN I WENT BEFORE H D R C, UH, WE HAD THE SUPPORT OF MONTEVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SORRY, MONTEVISTA, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
I'M GONNA SAY IT RIGHT, 'CAUSE I KEEP SAYING IT WRONG.
THEY, UH, THEY WERE IN SUPPORT.
THEY PROVIDED THE LETTERS TO, UH, H D R C, AND IT WAS SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON H D R C THAT SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? WHAT CAN YOU DO TO BRING IT DOWN? AND THEY JUST SAID, REMOVE 50 SQUARE FEET FROM THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
SO SINCE THEN, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK ME HALF AN HOUR TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
I REDUCED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN CAME TO SUBMIT TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AND SO NOW SIX MONTHS LATER, I'M HERE.
SO THEN ESSENTIALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE, BECAUSE THE CURRENT A D U IS ONE STORY, CORRECT? IT IS.
SO REALLY YOU'RE REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT, JUST INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE FOOTPRINT IS INCREASING SLIGHTLY, SLIGHTLY, AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR HAS AN IDENTICAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS THE FIRST FLOOR.
IF I MAY JUST, UH, CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT, UM, JUST FOR Y'ALL'S INFORMATION, I KNOW THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A CONTINUANCE.
THE NEXT MEETING IS NOT UNTIL A MONTH AWAY.
UH, SO THAT WOULD BE JULY 18TH.
AND THEN SECONDLY, THE H D R C, UM, COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH THIS CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE, IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS WELL.
AND SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOTIFIED OF, OF THAT AND, AND LIKE YOU SAID, PROVIDED THEIR SUPPORT OF THAT.
AND AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME CASE THAT WENT BEFORE THEM, EXCEPT NOW IT'S 50 SQUARE FEET SMALLER.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA, SO, UH, YOU PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT THERE'S 60% OR SO OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ACCESSORY ADULTING UNITS.
WOULD YOU SAY MAJORITY OF THOSE WOULD EXCEED THE 40%, UM, WITHIN, THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN CODE RIGHT NOW OF THOSE ADUS, IF THEY WERE TO BE REBUILT TODAY IN TODAY'S CODE, MAJORITY OF THOSE, I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT PASS.
I THINK THAT'S A HIGHLY LIKELY ASSUMPTION, AND IT WOULD JUST BE AN ASSUMPTION ON MY PART.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE APPEARS TO BE AN IDENTICAL HOME PLAN TO MY CLIENTS, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT THE FRONT FACADES AND THEIR REAR STRUCTURE IS LARGER THAN MM-HMM.
SO THAT ONE RIGHT THERE WOULD LIKELY NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT 40% FOOTPRINT RULE.
YEAH, THAT, THAT'S MY OBSERVATION AS WELL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT TO THE, TO THE BOARD.
SO WHEN DID YOU FIRST, WHEN DID YOU FIRST MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR, TO THE H C R C FOR A PERMIT FOR ANYTHING ON THIS JOB? HOW LONG, WHEN DID YOU FIRST START PUTTING THIS IN MOTION? THE HEARING WAS IN DECEMBER.
I THINK IT TOOK ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF TO GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS.
SO MAYBE THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER, YOU APPLIED TO WIN IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND YOU HAD ONE OF THOSE PRE-MEETINGS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
IT WAS, UH, EARLIER IN OCTOBER WHEN I SUBMITTED, ADMITTED, UH, I HAD STAFF OF, UH, THE H P O STATING SOME ISSUES THEY HAD WITH IT.
THERE WERE SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
I SCHEDULED AN ARCHITECTURE OR A, WHAT DO THEY CALL IT? A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH THE H P R C COMMISSIONERS.
THEY CAME OUT, I HAD POSTPONED A MEETING THERE FOR A MONTH TO HAVE THAT D R C HAPPEN.
AND THEN WE HAD A DECEMBER HEARING.
SO, SO MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE, WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO, AND HAS BEEN BOUNCED AROUND BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE H C R C CITY.
AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN SPENDING TIME AND MONEY ON THIS.
AND I JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A, A GRASP OF HOW LONG THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN OUT THERE.
UM, AND SO IF, IF THE H C R C RECEIVED COMMENTARY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WAS IN SUPPORT, I'M JUST, IT IS CURIOUS WHY TODAY THIS NEW, YOU KNOW, CONCERN IS BEING RAISED
[02:45:01]
WHEN ALL THESE, IT'S BEEN EIGHT MONTHS AT LEAST, UH, SINCE THIS HAS BEEN OUT OF THE, IN THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM, I GUESS SO, AND I HAD THREE MEETINGS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.I UNDERSTAND WITHIN 2021 IN WHICH ALL THREE OF THOSE MEETINGS, THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
I, I, I BELIEVE ME, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S QUICK, SO.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE ASK FOR A MOTION, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
UH, SO IS THERE A COMMISSIONER I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS O ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO H DASH 22 DASH 3 79.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 184 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40% ALLOWANCE OF 500, UH, 530 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, UH, TO BE 714 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT 3 1 2 WEST AGARITA AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING L AND F.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C 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 A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 40% ALLOWANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND THERE IS CURRENTLY AN EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY THAT EXCEEDS IT.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS, IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
BY IMPOSING A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO REDESIGN PLANS, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE STRUCTURE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER AND UNUSABLE FOR THE HIS CLIENT'S NEEDS.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL, WOULD, WILL ONLY EXCEED THE 40% ALLOWANCE BY 184 SQUARE FEET AND WILL MEET THE ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THEREFORE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED FOR THE VARIANCE WITHOUT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WITHOUT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE, OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT, SUCH VARIANCE WILL, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUEST FOR 184 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THERE ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY DWELLING FOUND THROUGHOUT, UH, THE, THE BLOCK AND NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, AND NOT DUE TO, DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS WITH THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE BOARD FINDS THAT APPLIED.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
DUE TO THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, EXPANSION OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE MAY BE LIMITED, WHICH POSES A LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF AN ACCESSORY DETACHED ROLLING UNIT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? OH.
ALRIGHT, MS. CRUZ AS A SECOND.
SO I AM GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, SO THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ME WOULD ONLY EXCEED 84 SQUARE FOOT OF WHAT EX IS EXISTING AND BUILT RIGHT NOW, UM, WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED.
THE, THE, THE BUILDING, UH, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE UTILIZED EITHER FOR A GARAGE OR FOR THE A THE CLIENTS OR THE, THE APPLICANT'S CLIENT'S NEEDS.
UM, PROVIDE A TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS AN EX, THERE HAD BEEN USE OF THAT BUILDING BEFORE AS, UH, A DWELLING UNIT.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA USE IT FOR FAMILY MEMBERS.
UM, SO THE, IN TERMS OF OCCUPANCY, IT'S BEEN OCCUPIED BEFORE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN USERS IN THAT DWELLING UNIT PRIOR.
UM, WE HAVE SUPPORT, HE MENTIONED THAT THE, THE, UH, THE, THE PLANS HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY THE APPROPRIATE REVIEWING PARTIES AND, UH, PROVIDED LETTER SUPPORT, WHICH, UH, DIDN'T BRING THE LETTER, BUT PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS LETTER TEST LETTER SUPPORT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
UM, IF WE WERE TO, UH, TRY TO, UM, UM, TRY TO RESCHEDULE TO, TO BRING IN, I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP.
WE'RE NOT BEING ABLE TO REVIEW IT UNTIL JULY THE 18TH OR SO.
SO, UM, TO ME THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S INCON INCONSEQUENTIAL.
ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, WE SEE, UH, UH, IF YOU PULL UP AERIALS, THERE'S DWELLING UNITS ALL THROUGHOUT.
AND I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE EXCEED WHAT'S ALLOWABLE BY CODE RIGHT NOW.
UH, OF COURSE IT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, TO ME IT'S, IT'S, UH, MAKES ALL THE ARGUMENTS FOR SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, YES, I DO CONCUR WITH MR. ROSE.
I THINK THIS WILL BE A PROJECT THAT WILL HOPEFULLY IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT, UH, IT WILL, UH, REALLY, UH, HELP THE CLIENT.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MENCHACA? COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, I, I ALSO CONCUR ON MY COLLEAGUES WITH A TESTIMONY THAT APPLICANT
[02:50:01]
HAS PRESENTED AND, UH, IT'S, HE'S DONE THE HOMEWORK AND THE DILIGENCE ON THIS AND MAKING SURE HE QUERIES THE, THE, UM, SPECS AROUND THIS PLACE AND OTHER PLACES.I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
AND AS FOR THE, UH, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, TO SUPPORT IT AT ONE COMMISSION AND THEN NOT SUPPORT IT AT ANOTHER COMMISSION, UH, IN MY OPINION, THEY'VE CANCELED THEMSELVES OUT AND IT'S SAYS IF THEY HAVE NO OPINION.
SO, UH, BASED ON ALL OF THAT, CERTAINLY I WILL SUPPORT IT.
ANYONE ELSE? MANNA, DELMER, COMMISSIONER MANNA, THEN DELMER? YEAH, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING HERE, SO I'M, UM, YOU KNOW, SO ABSOLUTELY, IT SOUNDS LIKE A WONDERFUL PROJECT AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT, BUT I DO STRUGGLE HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH BON VISTA, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A HISTORIC COMMUNITY AND IF, IF THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY CAME IN LAST MINUTE, SAID FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY AREN'T, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'D WANT TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT WHY THEY WEREN'T, UM, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT CHANGED, YOU KNOW, SO, 'CAUSE I'M, I'M, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT CHANGED TO HAVE THEM CHANGE THEIR OPINION.
AND SO, SO TO ME, THE ONE A ONE MONTH DELAY MAY BE OF VALUE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF INTERESTED IN.
SO, UM, SO I, SO I AM STRUGGLING ON THIS DIALOGUE HERE.
COMMISSIONER DELMER, I, I COULD NOT AGREE WITH MY, UH, OTHER COLLEAGUES ANYMORE.
UM, THIS WOULD CREATE AN INCREDIBLE HARDSHIP ON THE LANDOWNERS.
IS ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT TOO BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, WELL, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY, YOU KNOW, MONTE VISTA WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, OPPOSED TO THIS NOW EITHER.
AND, AND TO, TO BE HONEST, I I, I, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
WELL, I'M, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA ADD THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEBODY GOES THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND GOING THROUGH THE H R C, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PRE-MEETINGS, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN INITIAL MEETING, THEN YOU HAVE THE CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, AND THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.
UM, AND, AND IT'S, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE, THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS AGARITA STREET, THEY HAVE TWO IN SUPPORT.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE OPPOSED IN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS.
AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATIONS CHANGED THEIR MINDS.
AND I'VE BEEN ON MY BOARD 16 YEARS AND EVERY TIME, EVERY FEW YEARS WE GET SOME NEW MEMBERS, SOME THINGS CHANGE DIRECTIONS AND OTHERS, BUT WHEN YOU ISSUE SOMETHING IN WRITING AND YOU HAVE SOMEBODY MOVING FORWARD ON A JOB, THERE'S GOTTA COME A POINT WHERE YOU JUST GOTTA HONOR THAT.
SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SPOKE UP SOONER.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, AND WHAT IS HE'S ASKING FOR ISN'T, I DON'T EVEN SEE IT AS BEING A BIG DEAL.
HE'S JUST PUTTING SOMETHING BACK TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE AND IT'S GONNA BE TO CODE AND NICER.
SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UH, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE.
MR. SPIELMAN, CAN I PASS ON THIS? YOU MAY, YEAH.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AND THAT LEAVES, UH, COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN.
UM, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
DO WE CARE FOR COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DID SHE GET COLD? SHE CONCURRED.
YEAH, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVING ON THIS BOARD AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO STAY NICE AND COOL IN HERE ALL DAY.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
ALL RIGHT, NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES.UH, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES AND STAFF DID MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
COUPLE ITEMS. SO IF THERE'S ANY, AND THEY WERE, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, AMENDMENTS BY ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT.
I MOVE THAT IT BE PROVED AS AMENDED.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ THIRD.
[Director’s Report: Update on 2022 UDC Amendments]
RIGHT.WE MENTIONED EARLIER, NEXT MEETING IS NOT UNTIL JULY 18TH, SO YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK.
SO HAVE GREAT SUMMER VACATIONS, IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL PLANNING TO DO.
AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL BE HAVING A WORK SESSION STARTING AT 11.
SO WE CAN REVIEW THE U D C AMENDMENTS AND THAT MEETING ALSO,
[02:55:01]
WE WILL BE, UH, CONSIDERING THOSE FOUR MOTIONS, SO THAT WAY WE CAN RECORD YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS IT MOVES FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS.AND YES, YOU WILL BE FED
SO THE FIRST MEETING BACK, WE WILL HEAR THOSE.
OKAY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING UNTIL JULY 18TH.
SO THE NEXT MEETING, UM, IS CANCELED BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY JUNETEENTH.
AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS CANCELED BECAUSE OF THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY.
ARE WE GONNA HAVE A MAKEUP MEETING? NO, WE DON'T NEED ONE RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE WE'RE GOOD ON, THAT'S WHY WE HAD 12 CASES TODAY, EH,
WELL, YOU DID PRETTY WELL ON THE 12 CASES, SO THAT'S GOOD.
UH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN ETERNITY SINCE WE'RE ALL GONNA COME BACK HERE, SO, YEAH.
I HEREBY, UH, CALL THIS MEETING IN ADJOURNMENT.