[00:00:04]
I'LL BE PRESIDING OVER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNTIL OUR CHAIR GETS HERE.
UH, WE WILL, UH, COMMENCE THE MEETING HERE AT 1:05 PM AND, UH, LET'S SEE HERE.
UH, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER.
WE DO HAVE INTERPRETATION SERVICES IF THEY'D COME UP AND, UH, MAKE THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT PLEASE.
ALRIGHT, AS WE GET THIS MEETING UNDERWAY, UH, IF EVERYONE WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE THEIR MOBILE DEVICES.
UH, THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL COME TO ORDER.
UH, PLEASE CALL ROLL MR. SPIELMAN.
MS. KAPLAN, UM, PRESENT, IS THAT WORKING? YES.
MR. ZUNIGA AND MR. THI PRESENT IF EVERYONE WOULD JOIN ME IN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
UH, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.
THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME IN THE, OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS.
THE FOLLOWING, THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE, THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS SIT-IN CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR, INTERIM CHAIR, AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
IN THIS MEETING, UH, LET'S SEE HERE.
BOARD ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF 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 OF LAW.
WE EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE, TO THE RELIEF, SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES SPECIFICALLY, EXCUSE ME.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28.
ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE POWERS TO HEAR THE CASES IN OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL AND UNDER UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE HEARD BASED, MUST BE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ALL THE EXCUSE ME, BOARD OF MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT, UH, REST WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT THESE FACTS IN WHICH REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCE ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL.
[00:05:01]
PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE, UH, WITH A, A BRIEF DESCRIPTION WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OR REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AS AN X, EXCUSE ME, IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST, AND AN X INDICATES PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO USE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE, THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT.
YOU'LL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP TO INFORM YOU THAT THE THE THREE MINUTES IS UP.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL TIME OF NINE MINUTES.
THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.
GROUPS CONSISTING AT THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOTTED NINE MINUTES TOTAL TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE ITEM.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU AND LET'S GET THE MEETING UNDERWAY.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
CALL THE FIRST CASE PLEASE.ADDRESS IS 1130 LAMAR STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO AND APPLICANT IS ALEJANDRO MALDONADO, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP AND HIS ZONING IS R FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON LAMAR STREET AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE BUSINESS OF A ONE OPERATED BOOTY SALON ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION ARE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 11:00 AM TO 6:00 PM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREAS.
RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 9 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THE BEAUTY SHOP BARBER SALON WILL BE OPERATED BY A SINGLE OPERATOR AND THE PROPOSED OPERATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
NOTIFICATION PLAN, 36 NOTICES WERE MAILED, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM DIGNITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE IF THE APPLICANT WILL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
WE'LL ALSO NEED A SPANISH INTERPRETER.
UH, SPANISH INTERPRETER AS WELL, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS ALEJANDRO MALDONADO AND I LIVE AT 1130 LAMAR STREET.
I AM HERE TO REQUEST A PERMIT TO HAVE A BEAUTY SALON AT HOME TO COME MEN AND WOMEN'S HERE.
AND THE REASON I'M DOING THIS FROM HOME IS BECAUSE I FEEL MORE SAFE THERE.
UM, DO WE HAVE THE HOURS OF OPERATION, DAYS OF THE WEEK AND HOURS OF OPERATION FROM THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
IT'S TUESDAY TO SATURDAY, 11 TO SIX.
WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER.
CRUZ, MS. CRUZ? UM, YES MA'AM.
IS THIS HER FIRST APPLICATION OR HAS SHE HAD ONE BEFORE? UM,
[00:10:05]
I DID REQUEST ONE 20 YEARS AGO, BUT IT WASN'T A BUSINESS PLAZA.UH, BUT THEN SINCE IT WAS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP, I MOVED OVER TO MY HOUSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UH, YES.
WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UM, MICHAEL REESE.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND UH, YOU CAN BEGIN.
I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WASN'T NOTIFIED, BUT DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO IT.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BUILT WITHOUT, UM, DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT OF THE STREET.
ACTUALLY IN THE, ACTUALLY IN THE FRONT OF THE 1130 THERE'S A FIRE HYDRANT, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE EVERYBODY'S GONNA PARK.
UM, I HAVE A FEW PHOTOS IF, IF YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT 'EM, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH PARKING RIGHT NOW, EVEN MIDDAY.
SO I KNOW THE HOURS OF OPERATION WERE 11 TO SIX, SO EVEN NOW, UM, I KNOW SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE, UM, STAY AT HOME, UH, FAMILY MAKERS, SO YEAH, OPPOSED TO THIS.
AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR PARKING REASONS, CORRECT? YEAH, PARKING REASONS.
AND ALSO I WANT TO KEEP IT MORE OF LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL.
I FEEL LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE FULL STORY OF MISS ALEJANDRA'S, UM, BUT DEFINITELY LOOKING TO KEEP IT MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF BUSINESSES.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BUSIER STREETS THAT CAN, THAT HAVE BUSINESS SPOTS OPEN, BUT FOR SOME REASON IT'S, SHE DOESN'T FEEL SAFE.
ANYTHING ELSE, UH, BEFORE YOU FINISH? NO.
DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION? HEARING NONE, UH, WILL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL.
UM, YOU MAY WANT TO DETAIL THE, UH, THE PARKING SITUATION.
IF IT'S TWO VEHICLES AND ANYBODY THAT COMES TO ME, IT'S ONLY BY APPOINTMENT.
THEY, IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE THAT I, THAT COME TO ME, I KNOW THEM PERSONALLY, SO THEY COULD FEEL FREE TO PARK INSIDE.
I, UH, MY PROPERTY IS IN LAMAR AND ST.
JAMES SIDE, SO THEY COULD JUST GO INSIDE AND PARK IN THERE AND, AND TO CLARIFY, SO THE PARKING IS LOCATED OFF OF ST.
JAMES AND THEN ALL, ALL APPOINTMENTS ARE, UH, EXCUSE ME, ALL SERVICES ARE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YES, SIR.
I JUST HAVE A SMALL QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE ROOM THAT SHE'S GONNA USE FOR THE BARBERSHOP, IS IT CLOSED OFF OR IS IT OPEN TO THE REMAINDER OF THE HOUSE? IS THERE A DOOR SEPARATING THIS? UH, NO.
SO IT'S, IT'S, UM, A JOINT TO THE HOUSE, BUT IT'S SEPARATED.
IT'S CLOSED OFF IN A DIFFERENT AREA.
THERE'S A RESTROOM THERE AND THERE IS A DRAWING THAT SHOWS JUST THAT.
AND ON THANK YOU ON THIS A BATHROOM IN THE BACK WHERE IT SAYS BATHROOM IN THE BACK.
THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN, BUT IT'S CLOSED OFF.
THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN DRIVE IN.
[00:15:01]
THAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THIS CASE TO THE PUBLIC.UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
NANA, MR. MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 2 1 0 3 0.
I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY SALON BARBERSHOP SITUATED AT 1 1 3 0 LAMAR STREET, APPLICANT BEING ALEJANDRA NANDO.
UM, BECAUSE 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 UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, UH, A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER BECAUSE THE OPERATION OF ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY SLASH BARBERSHOP DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR A ONE OPERATOR SHOP AS ESTABLISHED IN THE U D C AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER B.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE BECAUSE THE BEAUTY SALON WILL OCCUPY ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE HOME AS REQUIRED BY THE U D C AND A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT A PORTION OF THE HOME IS BEING USED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED HOURS THE OPERATION ARE MONDAY THROUGH.
UM, LET'S SEE, THEY GET MODIFIED, UH, UH, WE'LL, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE SHOULD USE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
UH, SHE STUDIED TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH.
UM, I'LL LIST IT AS READ, UH, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 11 TO SIX.
UM, 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 BECAUSE THE HOME IS IN CHARACTER WITH THOSE SURROUNDED, NOTHING VISIBLE FROM THE STREET WOULD BE, UH, IT WOULD BE INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF A BEAUTY SALON.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT, BECAUSE AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R FOUR AND THE USE OF PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DRAWING AND A MOTION.
SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
UM, SO ONE IS, AS I TAKE A LOOK ALONG GOOGLE, UH, MAPS, I DO SEE THAT THERE, THERE IS PARKING ALONG THE STREETS, REALLY ON BOTH LAMAR, UM, UM, AND ST.
UM, SECOND IS THAT, UH, THERE IS, UH, APPEARS TO BE ADEQUATE PARKING PROVIDED HERE.
UM, AND SO I DON'T SEE THAT, UH, THAT'S AN ISSUE, UH, JUST IN GENERAL.
UM, AND, AND ACTUALLY THAT PARKING IS OFF STREET.
UH, AND THE THIRD OPTION, OR THIRD, UH, POINT IS THAT, UH, LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE ENTRANCE, UM, UM, PER THE DIALOGUE HERE, UM, IT DOES APPEAR THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT IS DIVIDED, UH, BUT NOT REALLY, UM, THAT PREVALENT WITH REGARDS TO THE BUSINESS ITSELF.
AND SO YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL THERE'S A BUSINESS GOING ON.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MR. MANA SAID, AND I THINK THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBORS WILL PROBABLY REALLY ENJOY HAVING SOMEONE CLOSE BY THEM.
WITH THAT, UH, STAFF, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE.
ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT, UH, CHAIR ORIAN HAS ENTERED THE ROOM AT 1:23 PM MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. CRUZ.
I THINK THAT MAKES IT, UH, NINE TO ZERO.
AND, UH, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT CASE.
I THINK I'LL LET THE, THE CHAIR TAKE OVER.
ALL RIGHT, ITEM THREE, PLEASE.
AGENDA ITEM THREE, BO A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2.
ADDRESS IS 4 0 7 PARKLAND COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
APPLICANT CELESTE PONS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.
IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 4 0 7 PARKLAND, AND THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
A NEW FENCE WAS REPLACED WITHOUT PERMITS.
THE FENCE REPLACEMENT IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR A SWIMMING POOL.
THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING
[00:20:01]
AREAS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE TWO ADDITIONAL FEET AND HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR YARD.AND THERE IS NO NOTICE, THERE IS A NOTICEABLE CHANGE IN GRADE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY AND THE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT NOTIFICATION PLAN, 22 NOTICES WERE MAILED.
ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
A MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NOT IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE ADD TO THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER BRAMAN ENTERED AT, UH, 1:24 PM YES.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
YOU WONDER WHY WE'RE HERE? UH, JUST TO, UM, UH, APPLY TO GET AN AFOOT FENCE PUT BETWEEN OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND OUR HOUSE.
HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? UH, YES, WE DO HAVE A VOICEMAIL AND SIGNED IN.
LET'S START WITH THE VOICEMAIL PLEASE.
MY NAME IS SUSAN FARMER AT 4 1 8 ELMHURST.
AND THE CASE NUMBER, THE LAST THREE NUMBERS ARE 1 0 2.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
AND IF WE HAD SOMEONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK, SIR, IF YOU COULD, UH, MA'AM, YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT.
THANK, WE'LL HEAR FROM ANOTHER CITIZEN AND THEN WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP FOR QUESTIONS.
MY NAME IS JOHN NEUM AND I LIVE AT 3 4 9 PAR LAND PLACE.
I AM THE DIRECT NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST.
UH, I'M HERE TODAY, UH, WITH SOME PHOTOS OF MY BACKYARD.
UH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH, UH, UM, MR. PONTE AT 4 0 7 PARLIN PLACE.
UH, I DISCOVERED THIS FENCE BEING BUILT, UH, ROUGHLY 60, 60 DAYS AGO.
UM, IT IS A, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, ROUGHLY AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UM, CURRENTLY BEING BUILT ON MY PROPERTY LINE.
UM, WHEN I, WHEN WE DISCOVERED THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, I WENT AHEAD AND GOT THE PROPERTY RESURVEYED.
I HAVE LIVED AT THE HOME SINCE OCTOBER, 2021.
SO I GOT AN INITIAL SURVEY AT THE CLOSING, UH, WHEN THIS FENCE WENT UP, UH, I NOTICED THAT IT'S ON MY PROPERTY LINE, SO I DID GET IT RESURVEYED WITH A CATEGORY ONE B SURVEY FROM, UH, SINCLAIR LAND SURVEYING.
AND IF YOU'LL SEE HERE IN ON THE SURVEY, UH, IN THE BACK RIGHT CORNER, UH, IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, BUT THE SURVEY IN THE BACK RIGHT CORNER DOES SHOW THAT THE FENCE IS ONE FOOT THREE INCHES INTO MY PROPERTY LINE.
UH, ME AND MR. PONTE HAVE DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF MOVING IT AND, UH, HE'S IN OPPOSITION OF MOVING IT.
HE DISAGREES, UH, WITH THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT NONETHELESS, UH, THIS IS AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE CONVERSATION TODAY.
UH, SO I DID WANT, DID WANNA SHOW TWO, UH, TWO, TWO PICTURES HERE.
UH, ONE IS, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
WELL, A FENCE CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE TODAY.
IT'S NOT AN ATTRACTIVE FENCE, BUT IT DOES GO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU CAN SEE THAT'S ME LOOKING INTO MR. PONCE'S BACKYARD.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A, A RAILROAD TIE THAT RUNS, UH, ALONG THE, THE DRIVEWAY THERE THAT'S ABOUT A FOOT TALL.
SO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS GONNA CREATE A NINE FOOT, UH, CONTAINMENT OF MY DRIVEWAY.
UH, AND THAT, THAT, THAT'S A CAP FENCE THERE.
STANDING NEXT TO IT, IT, IT'S MORE LIKE NINE FEET, TWO INCHES.
UH, SO, AND, UH, A NEW EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH PRE EIGHT THAT, UH, A MUCH, MUCH LARGER FEELING OVERHANG, UH, ONTO MY DRIVEWAY.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN THE FENCE BEGAN, I WENT AHEAD AND TOOK PICTURES, UH, OF THE IDEA.
[00:25:01]
I GUESS THE IDEA OF 4 0 7 PARLANCE, CONSTRUCTION IS A LITTLE IN QUESTION FOR ME.YOU, YOU SEE, THEY TOOK A SIX FOOT FOUR BY FOUR, AND THEY STAPLED, UH, A ROUGH PIECE OF FOUR BY FOUR ON TOP OF THAT TO CREATE THE EIGHT FEET.
SO IT'S NOT TRULY EIGHT FEET THERE.
UH, IT'S PROBABLY AT A VARIANCE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TALL THAT LITTLE PIECE ON TOP IS.
CAN, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF THE BOARD CAN SEE WHERE THAT'S KIND OF JUST SITTING ON TOP.
UH, SO, UH, THE CRAFTSMANSHIP IS IN QUESTION THERE.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO CIRCLE BACK ON, UM, CURRENTLY WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME, THERE IS A FENCE THAT EXISTS.
YOU'LL SEE IN THIS PHOTO, YOU, YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE IT, BUT THE CURRENT FENCE TURNS INTO MY GARAGE, WHICH KEEPS ME OUT OF ABOUT FOUR FEET OF LANDSCAPING THAT I HAVE.
SO I HAVE BEEN FENCED OUT OF MY PROPERTY, UH, SINCE I PURCHASED IT.
AND THE NEW FENCE THAT IS BEING BUILT BEHIND, UH, THE PROPERTY LINE THAT I'M, UH, THAT I AM FENCED OUT OF, AND HERE'S JUST A CLOSER SHOT THERE.
HE, UH, SO YOU SEE I'M BEING FENCED OUT OF MY PROPERTY LINE THAT IS INTO MY PROPERTY LINE.
YOU SEE THAT THERE'S NO WAY I COULD GET BEHIND MY, BETWEEN MY GARAGE IN THAT FENCE.
AND THEN YOU SEE THE FOUR BY FOUR POSTS WITH THE ROUGH CUTOFF STAPLED, UH, TO THE TOP OF THAT.
SO CRAFTSMANSHIP IS IN QUESTION.
SO IT JUST TO SUMMARIZE, UH, IT'S REALLY, UH, THE CRAFTSMANSHIP OF THE FENCE, OF THE FENCE, THE EXTRA FOOT.
WE'VE GOT, UH, THAT'S THREE MINUTES.
BUT WE'RE GONNA SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
ANY PERMISSION QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THE CITIZEN, I'M GONNA, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, THE, THE SURVEY SHOWING ONE FOOT, YOU GOT THAT AFTER THE FENCE WAS BUILT, CORRECT? YES.
UH, I REQUESTED MR. PONTE MOVE THE FENCE THAT IT WAS ON MY PROPERTY LINE.
HE DISAGREED WITH THE CURRENT SURVEY.
SO I WENT AND GOT IT RESURVEYED BY A NEW CREW AND GOT A, A SURVEY THAT WAS COMPLETED.
SO BOTH SURVEYS REFLECTED IN AS YES, SIR.
DID YOU FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE CITY? UH, I HAVE NOT FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE CITY YET, NO.
BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE TO GET A, A PERMIT FOR THE FENCE, AND HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A FENCE ON YOUR PROPERTY.
AND SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY BE NOTIFIED, INFORMED OF ALL THIS STUFF.
BUT WHAT WE ARE HERE TODAY IS JUST THE IDEA OF WHETHER YOU CAN DO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
IF THEY WERE TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE, YOU KNOW, NOT IN YOUR PROPERTY, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE? I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, NOT ON MY PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE ONE FOOT ELEVATION CHANGE FROM MY DRIVEWAY TO HIS, BUT I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO AN ALTERATION OF A SEVEN FOOT FENCE THAT WOULD CREATE AN EIGHT FOOT, UH, TOTAL EIGHT FOOT.
UH, IS THE FENCE ATTACHED TO THE, IS THE FENCE FENCE ATTACHED TO THE, UH, UM, RAILROAD TIE? THE FENCE IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE RAILROAD TIE, BUT THE RAILROAD TIE BECOMES THE NEW GRADE LEVEL OF, OF THE, UH, SO YOU'RE SAYING THE TOP OF THAT FENCE IS EIGHT FOOT ABOVE THE RAILROAD TIE? YES, EXACTLY.
UH, AND, AND THIS MAY BE FOR THE, UM, UH, COUNT THE CITY.
UM, IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A DROP.
YOU, YOU WERE, YOU WERE GOING TO APPROVE, YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS A DROP IN GRADE.
WHERE IS THIS DROP IN GRADE? 'CAUSE THESE PICTURES DON'T GIVE US ANY INFORMATION.
SO THE, YOU COULD, THERE'S A NOTICEABLE ELEVATION CHANGE BETWEEN THE PROP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE, UM, THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THE MR. NEUM BETWEEN HIS PROPERTY.
WHERE ARE YOU STANDING FROM THIS PICTURE? ARE YOU STANDING ON MR. PONCE'S PROPERTY OR ARE YOU STANDING ON MR. MITCHUM'S PROPERTY? I CAN ANSWER IT.
THAT WAS PROVIDED BY, THAT'S NOT ME.
I KNOW, I KNOW THAT I'M ASKING.
IT'S NOT TELLING ME WHERE YOU'RE TAKING THAT PICTURE FROM.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL MAP, UM, IN THE PRESENTATION, IT'S ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, THAT PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SO THEY COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON WHERE THEY'RE STANDING.
SEE WHERE, OKAY, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
WE'RE DOING ONE QUESTION AT A TIME.
THIS IS THE SAME QUESTION, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS, IS THE DROP IN THE CAN HAVE A SEAT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE? UH, OKAY.
SO ARE WE SAYING A SAYING PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
I, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS DROP IS.
UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
UH, AND, AND PLEASE ADDRESS THE QUESTION BEFORE THE, THE BOARD? YEAH.
[00:30:01]
GO AHEAD.IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT, UH, JOHN, UH, PRESENTED BEFOREHAND, THE ONE THAT'S BEHIND THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
UH, PLEASE TALK INTO THE MIC, SIR.
CAN YOU REMOVE THAT PICTURE RIGHT NOW FOR, OKAY, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT IN BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND JOHN'S LOT, AND THEN OUR HOUSE SITS UP ON TOP.
SO THE ONE IS TO WHERE THE HOUSE IS, TO THE RIGHT SWIMMING POOLS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE.
AND THEN THERE'S A FOUR FOOT DROP ONTO A LOWER ELEVATION OF OUR, UM, UH, OH, GOOD.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU ARE FOUR HIGHER THAN THIS PROPERTY? EXACTLY.
SO IT, FROM RIGHT HERE, FROM THE HOUSE TO WHERE JOHN'S HOUSE IS, IS FOUR FEET.
SO NOW IF YOU PUT THAT PICTURE BACK UP THAT YOU HAD BEFORE OH, PRIOR TO, YOU WERE ALREADY, YOU WERE ALREADY FOUR FEET HIGHER.
AND, UH, OKAY, JUST TO MAKE NOTE, UH, HOLD ON, SIR.
YEAH, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE RAILROAD TIE THERE.
AND SO, SO I THINK ON THAT ONE PICTURE, IF WE GO BACK TO IT, THAT WE WERE JUST SHOWING A SECOND AGO, SO, SO, UM, THE RAILROAD TIE THAT, UH, YOU WERE SPEAKING TO, IS THAT THE RAILROAD TIE RIGHT THERE? YES, THAT'S, AND IT RUNS ALL THE WAY BACK.
SO, SO NOW FOR YOU THEN, UM, YOU SAID THAT YOU OWN, SO THERE'S A PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT YOU ALSO OWN, AND THE, UM, THE LANDSCAPING BETWEEN YOUR HOUSE WITH THE FIRST DROP TO THAT RAILROAD TIE, THAT'S KIND OF AN EVEN SLOPE THERE.
AND SO THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS AT THE HEIGHT OF THAT RAILROAD TIE, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE GRADE THAT YOU'VE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN, UM, WE'LL SAY THAT LOT, THE NEXT ONE.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY NOW MM-HMM.
SO LET'S SAY FOUR AND A HALF FEET.
UM, YOU'VE GOT FOUR FOOT DROP AND A HALF A FOOT, AND THEN YOU'RE PUTTING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
UM, YOU'RE CLEARING EIGHT AND A HALF FEET.
SO, UH, OKAY, WELL THAT COMMISSIONER MANEZ THERE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO.
SO THAT THE ANSWER IS NO TO HER QUESTION AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHY.
SO, SO MY NEXT QUESTION, YEAH.
SO I HAD ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN.
SO, SO AS FAR AS THE REASONING FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS, UM, IS LISTED BECAUSE OF THE SWIMMING POOL, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT, FOR PRIVACY.
SO, SO HERE'S A QUESTION ACTUALLY FOR STAFF.
UM, AND SO, SO WE'LL SAY WITH A EIGHT INCH GRADE, OR WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE IT, WE'LL SAY WE WILL USE A ONE FOOT GRADE DIFFERENCE THERE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE TALK ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED OR, OR IS I GUESS IS AN OPEN DIALOGUE WHEN THERE'S A, A SWIMMING POOL, UM, DOES HAVING THAT ONE FOOT GRADE WEIGH INTO THAT PICTURE AT ALL BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I JUST ASKED? WELL, I'M GONNA, I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT.
FIRST OF ALL, IF THE RAILROAD TIE, WHOSE PROPERTY IS THAT? DOES THAT LIE ON IT'S ON OURS.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL COMPONENT ON HIS PROPERTY, AND THEN THEY'RE PUTTING AN EIGHT FOOT, THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON TOP OF IT, SO THEY WOULD ACTUALLY GET EIGHT FOOT ON TOP OF WHATEVER THE RETAINING FOR THE RAILROAD TIE IS, CORRECT? UH, THAT'S CORRECT.
IF THE RETAINING WALL IS ACTUALLY RETAINING WALL, THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL HEIGHT.
SO SIR, IS THAT, IS THAT RAILROAD TIE RETAINING EARTH ON YOUR PROPERTY? IT'S RETAINING EARTH ON OUR PROPERTY, YES, SIR.
SO, SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSION, THEY'RE REQUESTING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
THEY WOULD GET THAT ON TOP OF THE RAILROAD TIE IF WE APPROVED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TODAY.
SO DOES THAT MEAN WITH THE RAILROAD TIE AND THEY FOOT FENCE AND IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 10 FEET TALL? WELL, IT WOULD BE EIGHT FOOT PLUS, MAYBE EIGHT OR NINE INCHES, WHATEVER TALL THAT RAILROAD TIE IS.
BUT YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S HOW IT WORKS IS SO WHEN YOU ASK FOR A FENCE SITE, IT GOES ON TOP OF A RETAINING WALL COMPONENT.
BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO BUILD IT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A SURCHARGE, I MEAN, IT WOULD A RETAINING WALL APPLICATION WITH THE RETAIN, WITH THE FENCE, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IS THIS APPLICANT ALREADY APPLIED FOR HIS FENCE PERMIT? YES, WE HAVE.
NO, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED YET.
SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS, UM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS AT THIS BOARD, THERE'S A FENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT, I'M SURE CODE COMPLIANCE
[00:35:01]
KNOWS ABOUT IT.UM, AND IF THE NEIGHBOR MAKES AVAILABLE HIS SURVEYS, UM, YOU KNOW, TO STAFF, THEY'LL HAVE TO, THEY WON'T, THEY'RE NOT GONNA PERMIT SOMEBODY TO BUILD SOMETHING NOT ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND SO, HOLD ON, HOLD ON A SECOND.
AND SO, UH, THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS BOARD RIGHT NOW IS SIMPLY, SHOULD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BE GRANTED TO THIS, TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER? AND THAT'S ALL, THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, KNOWING THAT IF WE DO GRANT EIGHT FEET, IT'LL BE RIGHT ON TOP OF THAT RETAINING WALL, UM, RAILROAD TIE.
SO WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, THE, THE CASE SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL IN YOUR YARD, SIR.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON FOR THE PRIVACY OF THE SWIMMING POOL? YES, SIR.
IS THAT ON THE MAIN HOME'S BACKYARD? IT'S IN THE MAIN HOME'S BACKYARD.
SO IF WE'RE SITTING ON OUR DECK, WE ACTUALLY LOOK INTO JOHN'S BACKYARD THE WHOLE TIME AND VICE VERSA, IF HE'S SITTING ON HIS DECK, HE'S LOOKING IN OUR BACKYARD.
I DID WANNA MAKE A STATEMENT, IF I CAN PLEASE.
HE, HE, UM, ALLEGED THAT THE SURVEY SHOWS THAT OUR FENCE LINE, UH, OR WE BUILT A FENCE ON HIS PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S STILL IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYS.
WE HAVE OUR CURRENT SURVEY DIFFERENT FROM JOHN'S SURVEY AND WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO LAND DISPUTES.
BUT WHAT I, BACK IN TERMS OF HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, THE FENCE WOULD NOT GO ON TOP OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE, WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT RAILROAD TIE.
IT'D BE ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE EIGHT FEET FROM HIS DRIVEWAY.
SO IT'S NOT, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EIGHT EXTRA FOOT, UH, ISSUE.
WELL, THE ONLY THING THIS BOARD CAN VOTE ON, YEAH.
CAN WE OFF THE GROUND OF WHEREVER EXACTLY, WHEREVER IT'S GONNA GO.
WHAT WOULD BE THE COST TO YOU IF YOU HAD TO MOVE IT? WHAT WAS CHIP? IF I HAD TO MOVE THE FENCE, UM, WELL THAT, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO US BECAUSE YEAH, I, WE HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED IN A PRICE TO, IT'S NOT A HARD, HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A FENCE OUTSIDE OF HIS PROPERTY, SO WHETHER HE IT COST MONEY FOR HIM TO MOVE IT OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO US.
SO THE HARDSHIP, IF YOU HAD
YEAH, I THINK MY MIC IS, IS WEIRD.
THE HARDSHIP, YOU HAD TO, UM, REMOVE THE FENCE AND PUT IN A SIX FOOT FENCE, YOU KNOW, NO HARDSHIP, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL, WE JUST HAVE IT UP THERE.
NOBODY HAD BEEN LIVING IN THAT HOUSE FOR TWO YEARS AND WE HAD A SWIMMING POOL BACK THERE.
IT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF PRIVACY.
BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT DOUBLE ELEVATION ISSUE AND, UH, UH, JOHN HAS MOVED IN THERE, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAS A A SWIMMING POOL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT MADE.
SO WITH REGARDS TO THE ELEVATION CHANGE FROM, FROM HIS DRIVEWAY TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT EIGHT FOOT THERE OR ARE YOU LOOKING ACTUALLY EIGHT FOOT ON TOP OF THE, THE, THE, THE LANDSCAPING THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE? IT WOULD BE ON HIS DRIVEWAY.
SO, SO EIGHT FOOT FROM HIS DRIVEWAY? EXACTLY.
SO IF HIS DRIVEWAY, SO, SO THEN IS IT REALLY, IF IT'S A, WE'LL SAY A ONE FOOT IN, UH, INCREASING SIZE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ONLY ASKING FOR A SEVEN FOOT FENCE THEN? NO, WE'RE, WE ARE ASKING FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT OUR CURRENT SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS ON JOHN'S DRIVEWAY, NOT ON TOP OF OUR YARD.
THE PICTURES THAT YOU SHOW OR THAT HE SHOWED OF OUR EXISTING FENCE WAS PUT ON THERE 27 YEARS AGO BY THE HOMEOWNER THAT LIVED THERE, PUT IT ON THE, ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND, UH, WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME, THEY SAID HE WENT AND SIGNED SOMETHING AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I PUT THE FENCE ON WRONG.
I DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY WHERE THAT LINE IS, WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE IT.
AND, UM, WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF EVERYBODY WHO HAS BOUGHT THE HOUSE AFTERWARDS HAS ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE, NOT ALONG THE FENCE LINE, THE CURRENT FENCE LINE.
SO, OKAY, MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO, SO CLARIFYING QUESTION THEN.
SO, SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE OR, OR TWO FOOT VARIANCE, SO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE FROM THE HEIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY NEXT DOOR.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH WOULD NOT GO OVER AS YOU SAID, MAYBE NINE OR 10 FEET.
SO I GUESS THE, BUT THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IF IT MOVES OVER AND THERE IS, UH, AND IT IS ACTUALLY, UM, YOU DISCOVER THROUGH DIALOGUE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY, UM, UP ON TOP OF THE GRADE, UM, YOU KNOW, SO THEN WOULD A SEVEN FENCE, SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE BE OKAY ON YOUR SIDE? IF IT WAS ACTUALLY UP ON TOP OF THAT BERM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE HEIGHTS, YOU'D STILL GET THE EIGHT FOOT FROM THE, UH, FROM THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE DESIRING.
THAT WASN'T GONNA CHANGE AT ALL.
WE WEREN'T GONNA MAKE A HIGHER FENCE THAN EIGHT FOOT.
[00:40:01]
I'M GLAD TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT I GUESS THAT'LL BE A STRANGE QUESTION TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT.I ALSO, WE DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH THE RAILROAD TIE IS.
I ALSO DID WANNA POINT OUT, I KNOW HE'S OPPOSED TO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT IF YOU, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS THING WORKS.
UM, IF YOU SEE ON HIS LAWN UP BY WHERE, UP BY WHERE HIS TRASH CANS ARE, JOHN HAS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THERE.
SO WE FIND IT STRANGE THAT HE'S OKAY WITH HAVING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT HE DOESN'T WANT US TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
I THINK, I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH, UH, TESTIMONY, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY CLOSING REMARKS, I'LL GIVE YOU A SHORT MINUTE.
UM, THE ONLY THING IS WE JUST WANT TO ADD THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
THE ONLY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE HAVING A PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE AND, UH, HIS NEW SURVEY PEOPLE CAME OUT.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE? WELL, IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET INTO PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE.
BUT, UH, HE, HE MENTIONED TO YOU THAT WE HAD PUT OUR FENCE ON HIS PROPERTY LINE.
IT, IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE PICTURES HE PRESENTED HIS ORIGINAL SURVEY TEAM CAME OUT AND PUT A NEW FLAG THERE, WHICH SHOWS THAT OUR FENCE IS ON OUR SIDE.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS THAT, UH, SIR, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S OKAY.
SO, UH, WHAT'S BEF, SIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO, UH, PULL THIS CASE BACK OR POSTPONE IT UNTIL AFTER WE, UH, HAVE FIGURED OUT THE PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE? WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S, OKAY.
SO HERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS AT BAY HERE.
I'M JUST GOING TO DO A QUICK ASIDE.
THERE'S THE, UM, PLANNING, PLANNING COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD.
UM, THE ALLOWANCE FOR, TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BY RIGHT? IF YOU HAVE A POOL, YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A POOL.
SO PROBABLY BY JANUARY 1ST YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO COME HERE PROBABLY.
BUT THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT WE DON'T GET INVOLVED IN PROPERTY LINE DISPUTES.
IT'S, AND, AND WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT TO.
UM, I I DO THINK, HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR BOTH OF Y'ALL MAYBE TO HIRE THE SAME SURVEYOR, SPLIT THE COST AND AND AGREE WITH WHATEVER THEY SAY MIGHT BE THE BEST THING PERHAPS.
BUT, UM, OTHERWISE YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE A SURVEY, HE'LL HAVE A SURVEY AND YOU'LL JUST BE AT EACH OTHER'S.
UH, AND IN LINE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER SAID, PERHAPS WE SHOULD BONUS THIS UNTIL YOU'VE GOTTEN THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY LINE ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
WELL, THAT, AND, AND THAT'S THE THING ABOUT BUILDING PERMITS.
THE CITY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE THERE'S A RETAINING WALL COMPONENT AND THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A PERMIT WITH A, WITH A COMPLAINT IN PLACE AND I'M SURE THE, HIS NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WILL PROVIDE THE CITY HIS SURVEYS AND THAT'S WHAT CODE COMPLIANCE IS FOR.
THIS IS JOSEPH HARNEY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND REITERATE WHAT, UH, CHAIR ORIAN IS, IS SAYING THAT WHAT'S BEFORE Y'ALL TODAY IS, IS SIMPLY THE FENCE HEIGHT.
UH, ANYTHING ELSE, UM, IS, WOULD BE PERTINENT.
SO THERE'S NO REAL REASON FOR THE DELAY.
SO WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
UH, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SHOULD WE DENY THE, THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TODAY AND THEN THE U D C DOES APPROVE THE EIGHT FOOT BY RIGHT FENCE, WILL THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO REAPPLY FOR A FENCE PERMIT AT THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT AFTER 2023? UH, AND IT'S NOT A BY RIGHT? THEY DON'T GET THE EIGHT FEET BY BY.
SO THEY'VE GOTTA ASK FOR THE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO GET THE HEIGHT E EVEN IF THE U D C AMENDMENT IS APPROVED FOR THE EIGHT FOOT BY RIGHT.
AND THE U D C AMENDMENTS ARE, UH, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL LIKE, BUT THEY'RE CONSIDERED IN OCTOBER, BUT THEY WON'T ACTUALLY BE IN EFFECT UNTIL, UH, JANUARY OF 2023.
MY QUESTION BEING IS IF WE WERE TO DENY HIM TODAY, WOULD THAT PRECLUDE HIM FROM BEING ABLE TO GET AN EIGHT FOOT PERMIT LATER? IF THAT ACTUALLY PASSES AND IT GETS ADOPTED, THEN IT IS A POSSIBILITY.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH THREE TWO.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES SITUATED AT 4 0 7 PARLIN, APPLICANT BEING CELESTE POMPEY.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY, HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR A POOL.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED BECAUSE AN EIGHT FOOT WOOD PRIVACY FENCE LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES WILL NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE BY SUCH PROPOSED USE BECAUSE OTHER FENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA, AND THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS UNLIKELY TO BE SUB, UNLIKELY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
[00:45:01]
WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IS BEING REQUESTED ALONG THE SIDE OF AND REAR PROPERTY LINES CONCLUDING THAT THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER WILL NOT BE CHANGED.E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT BECAUSE THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSES OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE, ALL HE HAD TO DO IS GET A PERMIT.
UM, AND IF THE EIGHT FOOT WAS DESIRED, THAT VARIANCE COULD HAVE COME HERE, UH, DIRECTLY.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, AND I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO APPROVING ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
UM, I'M ACTUALLY, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UM, THEY DO HAVE A POOL.
UH, WE HAVE GRANTED EIGHT FOOT, UH, FENCES AROUND POOLS MANY, MANY TIMES.
IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT, UH, CITY COUNCIL WILL PASS THE AMENDMENT TO THE, UM, U D C, UM, EFFECTIVE JANUARY THAT THEY WOULD BE BY RIGHT.
AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT WE ARE NOT HERE TALKING ABOUT SURVEYS AND WHERE FENCE SHOULD BE PLACED.
THIS IS STRICTLY ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD IN ENC CHAKA? YES, GO AHEAD.
I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OPTION FOR SEVEN FEET.
IS THAT OFF THE TABLE? UH, YOU CAN CERTAINLY REQUEST IT.
THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER THIEL.
IS THAT ACCEPTED? I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT AND WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THAT SINCE, UH, THE, THE, THE ONE, UH, INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD SPOKE AGAINST IT WAS AMENABLE TO THAT.
UM, SO IF, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, MS. BRAGMAN WOULD ALSO ACCEPT, THEN I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.
SO THEN WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION, UH, FOR A SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. SPILLMAN? YEAH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
SO SIR, YOU'VE JUST BEEN, UH, GIVEN A VARIANCE FOR A SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
IF THE FENCE IS BUILT ON TOP OF THE, IT CAN BE SEVEN FEET ABOVE THE, UM, RAILROAD TIE.
UM, BUT YOU STILL, AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, JUST BE AWARE THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ISSUES RAISED WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE.
SO, AND THEN FOR THE, AND, AND, AND FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOU'RE WELCOME TO PROVIDE YOUR, YOUR SURVEYS, UH, TO THE CITY, BUT IT WOULD REALLY, PROBABLY WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR Y'ALL TO AGREE AND JUST USE ONE SURVEYOR.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF IS OVER HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE JUST HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT YET.
WE JUST HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT UNTIL THIS HAPPENED.
AND, AND I'VE, I'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH KAYLA AL ABOUT IT.
SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE DID APPLY.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST STUFF, YOU KNOW.
UM, PAPERWORK ALL, UH, BUT GOOD LUCK IN YOUR, IN YOUR ENDEAVORS.
UH, BO O 8 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 1 ADDRESS AT 1 3 4 CARTRIDGE COUNTER DISTRICT FIVE, APPLICANT BEING FOR
UM, REQUEST FOR A, UH, FOUR FOOT TWO VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH OVERHAND AND GUTTERS TO BE 10 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, A FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTER TO BE EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY.
LINE THREE, A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW A FENCE, UH, TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS R SIX.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS, IS REQUEST, UH, IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 15TH.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
THEN I'M LOOKING THEN I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO, UH, CONTINUE TO AUGUST 15TH.
TOMAN COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POSTPONE CASE NUMBER TWO TWO DASH 0 3 0 0 9 1 UNTIL AUGUST 15TH.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THIEL.
ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ON THE STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I AGREE.
[00:50:01]
MANCHACA CONCUR.UH, MOTION, UH, CASES CONTINUE TO AUGUST 15TH.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS FOR CASE BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 9 3 LOCATED AT 1307 WEST LINWOOD WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT BEING LUIS MARTINEZ IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A SEVEN FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH OVERHANG TO BE TWO FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
TWO, A FOUR FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THREE FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE FIVE FEET, FIVE INCHES TALL IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND FOUR, A THREE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW FRONT GATE TO BE 11 FEET TO INCHES FROM THE CURB.
OUR FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF IH 10 ALONG WEST LINWOOD AND CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A CARPORT IN THE, IN THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT.
AND A CODE INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED DURING A SITE VISIT.
IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CARPORT ONLY MAINTAINED TWO FEET, FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
A CARPORT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN 10 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE FEET TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE, THAT THERE IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT MEASURED UP FIVE FEET, FIVE INCHES IN HEIGHT.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED IS A PRE FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IS FIVE FEET IN THE FRONT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE FRONT GATE IS ENCROACHING INTO THE CLEAR VISION AREA AS IT IS ONLY 11 FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE CURB, BUT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN 15 FEET.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE LOT ALONG WITH THE NEW CARPORT THAT WAS BUILT.
THIS IS THE, UM, VIEW OF THE FENCE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE FENCE TAKEN DURING THE SITE AND ALSO THE INTERIOR OF THE CARPORT.
AND ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SURROUNDING AREA REGARDING THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, A SIDE SETBACK OF TWO FEET WOULD PROVIDE, PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURE BETWEEN STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
TWO, MAINTAINING A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT.
THE CARPORT WIDTH AND LENGTH CAN BE REDUCED AND STILL ACCOMMODATE PARKING OF VEHICLES.
FOUR CARPORTS WERE OBSERVED IN THE MEDIA AREA, THEREFORE THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
REGARDING THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND THE GATE IS 11 FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE CURB, AND TWO, THE GATE IS ON A ROLLING TRACK AND WILL NOT FURTHER IMPEDE INTO THE CLEAR VISION FIELD.
LASTLY, THE, UM, REGARDING THE FRONT YARD FENCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE FIVE FOOT FIVE INCH FENCE WILL ADD ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD.
FENCES WERE OBSERVED WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THREE ADDITIONAL FENCE TO A PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DID MAIL OUT 31 NOTICES AND WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, AND NO RESPONSE FROM KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, UM, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AND WE'RE THE RESIDENCE AT 1307 LINWOOD.
UM, BASICALLY I'M HERE JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RELOCATE THE CARPORT.
UM, UH, AND THEN I DIDN'T KNOW THE VARIANCE, UH, PROCESS, SO I DID LIKE A, I DID THIS, IT'S LIKE A, IT'S THE TWO NEIGHBORS ON MY SIDE AND THE ONE'S
[00:55:01]
IN FRONT JUST STATING THAT IT DOESN'T DIMINISH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY OF MY NEIGHBORS.AND, UM, I JUST GOT THEM TO SIGN AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS AND THEN I BROUGHT MY PHOTOS AND THEN LIKE, STATED IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THERE'S OTHER CARPORTS THAT ARE SIMILAR THAT HAVE THE, THE SAME, UM, BASICALLY ON THE, THEY DON'T HAVE THE FIVE FOOT CLEARANCE OR SETBACK.
AND I DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND I JUST, I GUESS I WOULD NEED THE PROCESS TO, TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY CARPORT.
I JUST HAVE IT TO PROTECT, UH, FROM SUN DAMAGE AND HAIL DAMAGE IN SAN ANTONIO.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? I GUESS? OKAY.
UM, WELL WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO FIRST, SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS ON STAFF.
THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP, UH, FOR QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SOUNDS GOOD.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, YOU SAID YOU APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, BUT THAT WAS AFTER YOU CONSTRUCTED IT WAS OKAY.
MR. MIN CHAKA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION IN TERMS OF, UH, WHAT ARE THE SPECS OF THE CARPORT? OH, YES, GOOD, GOOD QUESTION.
UM, RIGHT NOW THE OPENING IS 12 FEET, WHICH IS LIKE THE MINIMUM FOR A A TWO DOOR SINGLE, SINGLE GARAGE.
IF IT'S TWO CARS IN LENGTH, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE LENGTH, SIZE, UM, BUT THE, THE WIDTH IS 12 FEET, SO IF WE DO RELOCATE IT, IT WOULD NOW BE NINE FOOT SIX INCHES AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT IN THERE.
UM, SO IT IS 12 FOOT WIDE AND I DO NOT KNOW THE LENGTH.
UH, THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A DRIVEWAY WAS INITIALLY A SINGLE CAR AND YOU ADDED, UH, PAVEMENT TO INCREASE THE WIDTH.
SO YOU INCREASED THE CARPORT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT ADDITION OF PAVEMENT? YES, UH, YES.
THE DRIVEWAY WAS ALREADY THERE AND WE JUST PUT THE, IT'S STILL A SINGLE, UM, CAR DRIVEWAY.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVING WATER RUNNING OFF ONTO PROPERTY MM-HMM.
AND SO QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THAT AN AMENABLE, UM, YOU KNOW, ALONG THAT LINE THERE, UH, FOR THAT CARPORT IS TO ADD GUTTERS THERE TO ENSURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE WATER RUN OFF GOING NEXT DOOR? YES.
WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE ANYMORE AND UNTIL WE GOT IT SETTLED, BUT WE WILL ADD GUTTERS.
SO TO, SO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, YOU WOULD NEED TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION.
UM, SO HERE YOU CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW TO SAY THAT, UH, YOU'D LIKE TO AMEND IT BY ADDING GUTTERS.
AND ACTUALLY I THINK YOU ALREADY DID IT.
DID HE? YEAH, IT SAID IT WAS FOR THE SIDE, IT WAS A FOUR FOOT SEVEN VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE.
I GUESS I'VE MISSED THAT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE 'EM ON THE, ON THE, UM, THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY INSTALLED, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, NOT CURRENTLY.
I DO THEN TO ADD GUTTERS? YES, CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THE INTENTION IS TO ADD THE GUTTERS THEN? YES, YES, SIR.
HAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO I HAVE A, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, IT APPEARS THAT YOUR DRIVEWAY GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE AND EVEN INTO THE BACKYARD.
IT'S ALONG THE WHOLE, THIS WHOLE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I MEAN, IF YOU HAD TO SHORTEN THE FRONT, COULD YOU LENGTHEN THE BACK? LENGTHEN THE, OH, THE BACK OF THE DRIVEWAY? UH, YES.
OKAY, SO I, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
SO ON THE, ON THE FRONT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR SEVEN FOOT EIGHT WITH A MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT, SO THAT YOUR CARPORT WOULD BE TWO FOOT FOUR.
WHERE IS YOUR, YOUR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS? IS THAT, IS THAT SET BACK YOU HAVE, IS IT A CANTILEVERED CARPORT OFF THE FRONT OR IS IT POST RIGHT ON THE CORNER? UH, IT'S, IT'S NOT RIGHT ON THE CORNER.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS BACK, BUT IT IS NOT RIGHT ON THE CORNER.
'CAUSE WHAT, 'CAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS, UM, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE 10 FEET OFF, BUT YOU CAN HAVE A POST 10 FEET AND THEN HAVE IT OVERHANG FIVE.
AND IS, AND, AND STAFF IS, UH, RECOMMENDING YOU TO HAVE THE POST FIVE FEET BACK.
IT'S, UH, WITH THE OVERHANG TO BE TWO FEET, FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S INCLUDING NO OVERHANG, NOT JUST THE POST, BUT WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
[01:00:07]
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE? YEAH.SO, UM, IS, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO, IS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, TO HAVE A POST FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN HAVE OVERHANG 'CAUSE BECAUSE USUALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU GET FIVE FEET, THE POST CAN BE SET BACK AND THEN YOU CAN OVERHANG FIVE FEET.
SO ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE, THE, LIKE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WHEN YOU GUYS ARE COMING UP WITH YOUR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO CONSIDER, ARE YOU, WHERE WOULD BE THE CLOSEST PART OF THE, UH, OF THE CARPORT? INCLUDING THE OVERHANGS? UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE OVERHANG MEASUREMENT THAT WE TOOK.
'CAUSE IF HE MOVES THAT POST ALL THE WAY BACK THEN THEORETICALLY HE KIND OF KEEP IT WHERE HE HAS IT NOW.
IS ONE, IS, IS THERE ANY, SO LET ME CLARIFY THAT.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ULTIMATE RECORDS OF FIVE FEET, JUST MOVE THE POST AND LEAVE THE ROOF THE WAY IT IS AND, AND DEAL WITH THE GUTTERS.
IS THAT, THAT THAT MIGHT BE, 'CAUSE THE WAY THE CODE WORKS, SIR, IS YOU GOTTA STAY, YOU KNOW, 10 FEET OFF.
UM, BUT THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A, A POST WITHIN AND THEN HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAVE AN OVERHANG GO.
THE POST COULD BE AT 10, THEN IT CAN OVERHANG, CANTILEVER OVER.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING HOW FAR OF A CANTILEVER DID YOU HAVE NOW? OKAY.
YOU COULD POTENTIALLY JUST MOVE THE POST BACK IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE.
UM, YEAH, THERE IS NO OVER HANGER CANDY AT THE MOMENT.
SO WE WOULD PUT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE'LL PUSH IT BACK FIVE FEET AND THEN THAT HANG OVERHANG, OR YOU COULD PUSH IT BACK TWO AND A HALF FEET AND THEN PUT THE POST FIVE FEET FURTHER.
BUT YOU COULD KEEP THE EDGE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE, TO THE FRONT.
SO WHEN A COMMISSIONER MAKES A MOTION FOR THAT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA BE AS BAD AS IT AS IT SOUNDS SO
SO, UH, IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS HEARING NOW, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO O A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 3, A MOVE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A SEVEN FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
IS THAT RIGHT? NO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR.
ONE OF FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM OF FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CO REPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
TWO, A FOUR FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY.
LINE THREE OF FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT FIVE INCHES TALL IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND FOUR, A THREE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW A FRONT GATE TO BE 11 FEET TWO INCHES FROM THE CURB SITUATED AT 1307 WEST LINWOOD.
APPLICANT BEING LUIS MARTINEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED TO 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 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FIVE FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE NEW STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINES.
IN ADDITION, THE FENCE WOULD BE LIMITED TO A HEIGHT OF FIVE FOOT FIVE INCHES AND IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT.
NO, UM, STRIKE THAT, UM, HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE FENCE WOULD ALSO NEED
[01:05:01]
TO BE REDUCED TO FIVE FOOT IN HEIGHT AND MOVED TO MEET THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT.THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND LIMITED SPACING IN THE FRONT YARD.
THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS A STRUCTURAL WILL MAINTAIN A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHILE ALSO ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CARPORT.
THE FENCE WILL ALSO ASSIST WITH ADDING ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
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 AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED.
R FOUR AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
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 BECAUSE OTHER PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING FENCES EXCEEDING THE FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION.
ADDITIONALLY, CARPORTS ARE ALSO PRESENT IN THE AREA AND APPEAR SIMILAR MATERIAL TO THE ONE BUILT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT APPEARS 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 THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, YES, I THINK, EXCUSE ME, POPCORN.
UM, WITH THE CHANGES PRESENTED BY STAFF, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER MANNA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
UM, AND BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN ANY MORE QUESTIONS, JUST A QUICK NOTE.
UM, SHE ALSO READ INTO THE MOTION THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
DOES IT HAVE TO BE READ SEPARATELY? YEAH, THERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THAT.
SO THEN THE, THE, THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE THE TABLE IS GONNA HAVE, UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE REGARDING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, STRIKED FROM THE MOTION.
AND WE MADE SEPARATELY JUST SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? WE'LL INCLUDE FOUR AS WELL.
SO THREE AND FOUR OR JUST THREE? UH, JUST NUMBER THREE.
CLEAR, CLEAR VISION IS, IS WOULD BE A VARIANCE.
SO, UH, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, THANK YOU.
THE STAFF TO SAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN.
I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, NOW WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE QUIRKY.
SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 3 93, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, GRANT A FIVE INCH, UH, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE SITE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT FIVE INCHES TALL, UM, ALONG THE, UH, SIDE TALL IN THE FRONT YARD, UH, SITUATED AT 1307 WEST LINWOOD.
APPLICANT BEING LUIS MARTINEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY, UH, PROVIDED 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 PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL FENT HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE, UH, ADDITIONAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR THE NOT PRIVACY, JUST SECURITY FOR THE FOR THE LOT.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED BECAUSE A FIVE FOOT, FIVE INCH, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD WILL NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE INFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AND BY SUCH PROPOSED USE BECAUSE, UH, THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF OTHER FENCES, UH, ALONG, UH, PRIMARILY OPEN FENCES, UH, OBSERVED, UH, WITHIN THE AREA, UH, BEHIND THE SIDEWALK, SIMILAR FASHION TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.
UH, D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL FIVE INCH FENCE HEIGHT, UH, BEING REQUESTED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, UH, WILL, WILL NOT, UH, UM, ALTER THE, UH, ESSENTIAL CHARACTER.
[01:10:01]
WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISH WITH THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT BECAUSE THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSES OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THE AREA IN QUESTION.SECOND, I'M GONNA GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER CRUZ
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
ALRIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, FRIENDLY OR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, IS TO INCLUDE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UH, 'CAUSE YOU MISSED THAT WORD THERE, SO I APOLOGIZE.
UM, I I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO, TO, UH, UH, UH, INCLUDE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UH, IN THE, IN THE, UH, DESCRIPTION.
SO THEN THAT'S THE MOTION FOR FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD.
UH, I, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANNA I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF JUST SO YOU, IF IF SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DID, WE USE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, FROM THE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOME OVERHANG IN THAT.
SO PLEASE TALK TO THEM ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, GOOD AFTERNOON.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS FOR CASE BO BOA DASH 22 DASH TEN THREE NINE FOUR.
LOCATED AT 5 6 5 NORTH SAN MANEL WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
THE APPLICANT BEING SUSAN ALMANSAN IS FOR A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT ONE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF COLLIBRA ROAD ON NORTH SAN MANWELL AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ATTACHED ADDITION ON THE SIDE YARD WITHOUT OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT AND A STOP WORK ORDER WAS POSTED.
MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED DURING THE SITE VISIT CONFIRM THAT THE ATTACHED STRUCTURE IS 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
ATTACHED STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET.
THE STRUCTURE IS 26 SQUARE FEET AND IS BEING UTILIZED AS A CLOSET AND HAS AN OVERHANGING GUTTERS.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW ADDITION, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE ADDITION AND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS A GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING, UM, THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO HAVING THE NEW ADDITION BUILT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
REGARDING THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ROOM ADDITION TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY ONLY 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY.
A SIDE SETBACK OF THREE FEET WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND THREE, A SIDE SETBACK OF THREE FEET DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE MAILED OUT 29 NOTICES WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM LOMA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
HELLO, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
MY NAME IS SUSAN ALSAN AND I AM FROM 5 65 NORTH MANELA.
UH, PRETTY MUCH WE JUST, I WANTED AN ADDITION FOR MY SHOES BECAUSE I HAD TOO MANY AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MORE SPACE IN MY REGULAR CLOSET, SO I WAS INSISTING ON MY DAD AND MY BROTHER AND WAS LIKE, PLEASE JUST HELP ME AT IT THINKING IT WASN'T GONNA BE NO PROBLEM.
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE, MY BROTHER WENT AHEAD AND HELPED ME OUT.
[01:15:01]
UNTIL MY NEIGHBOR, WELL MY OLD NEIGHBOR TOOK, I GUESS THEY SAID HE CALLED CITY SAYING THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT.SO WHEN 2021 IS WHEN, UM, THE CITY WENT TO GO CHECK AND HE PRETTY MUCH GAVE ME THE CITATION, BUT HE NEVER TOLD ME, UM, DON'T DO IT OR TAKE IT OFF OR ANYTHING.
AND I WAS TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF HIM AND IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO GET AHOLD OF HIM AND I DIDN'T UNTIL THERE WAS A CITATION.
BUT IT'S JUST PRETTY MUCH THE, THE NEIGHBOR THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO, IT DOESN'T NO LONGER LIVE THERE.
THERE'S ANY TENANT ON THAT SIDE OF THE, UM, SIDE OF MY HOUSE AND CLOSET AND OTHER TWO NEIGHBORS, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF IT.
'CAUSE LIKE THEY SAY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, BUT THEY JUST DIDN'T SEND OUT THEIR LETTERS OR ANYTHING.
UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, LOOKING AT IT, UM, IS THE NEW ADDITION ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE HOME WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, IT'S GONNA BE AT ON? YES.
AND THEN THAT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT, IF YOU'RE FACING THE HOME, THAT IS THEIR DRIVEWAY THAT IT'S CLOSEST TO, CORRECT? YES.
AND DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW FAR IT IS FROM THEIR STRUCTURE TO YOUR NEW ADDITION? UM, NO, I REALLY DUNNO.
SO, FROM THE PICTURES, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU, YOU DID A, A SMALL ADDITION TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME, BUT THEN YOU ALSO INCREASED AND COVERED THE PORCH.
NO, THAT'S, IT STOPS, UH, IT'S JUST THE DRAWING IF YOU COULD PUT THAT UP.
UM, WELL, NOT REALLY BECAUSE LIKE IT DIDN'T GO, IT, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT ALL THE WAY FORWARD BECAUSE ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF THIS, I THINK IT STOPS RIGHT HERE.
AND IN FRONT OF THIS, THERE'S AN AC UNIT RIGHT THERE.
STEPH, CAN YOU BRING UP THE PICTURE? THE, WHERE YOU HAD REMARKED THAT IT WAS THE PREVIOUS PICTURE? OH, THE GOOGLE ONE.
IF YOU COULD, UH, USE YOUR LASER POINTER, KIND OF TALK ABOUT IT.
SO I WANNA SAY IT ENDS RIGHT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THAT ROOM ENDS, WHICH IS MY ROOM.
OKAY, SO YOU DIDN'T, AND THEN RIGHT IN FRONT OF THERE IS THE AC UNIT.
SO YOU DIDN'T EVEN DO IT THE WHOLE NO.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER SHANKA? UM, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE.
IS THAT PICTURE BEFORE? AND WE HAVE NO AFTER PICTURE A, A CLEAR, A CLEAR PICTURE THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.
SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST AN ADDITION.
LIKE, IT'S LIKE LITERALLY LITTLE, IT'S JUST LIKE STARTS FROM RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS THE, THE END OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE.
SO THAT'S THE NEW PART UP TO RIGHT HERE.
AND IT LITERALLY JUST COMES RIGHT HERE.
SO IT'S TECHNICALLY A FOUR BY NINE.
AND YOU, AND YOU ALSO KEPT THE, THE EXISTING ROOF PITCH.
SO THE THE DRAINAGE IS GOING FRONT TO BACK, FRONT OR BACK.
NOTHING IS BEING DIRECTED TO THE SIGN? EXACTLY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MY DAD AND MY BROTHER ARE ROOFERS, SO THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT ARE HARDSHIPS.
UM, SHOULD IT BE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PUSH IT BACK AND, UM, BY, I GUESS ANOTHER FOOT OR, OR UH, UM, I GUESS 13 INCHES BACK FURTHER.
SO WHAT HARDSHIP WOULD YOU HAVE, UM, IF WE WERE TO ASK YOU TO MOVE IT BACK? UH, THAT AMOUNT? UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S GETTING A HOLD OF MY BROTHER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY IN LUBBOCK, SO IT'S GETTING HIM TO LIKE, HAVE FREE TIME TO ACTUALLY START ON THAT AND EVERYTHING AND THEN GETTING THE PERMITS RIGHT AND EVERYTHING ON TIME AND EVERYTHING.
ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION DEAL COMMISSIONER DEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 22 DASH 3 9 4.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT ONE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 6 5 NORTH SAN MANUEL, APPLICANT BEING SUSAN ALMA, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN THE NUN THAT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE STRUCTURE MEETS THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A
[01:20:01]
STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS AMPLE SPACING BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE REDUCED IN SIZE TO MEET THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE YARD, EXCUSE ME, IS DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE YARD.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 11 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND WILL MAINTAIN GUTTERS TO ASSIST WITH POTENTIAL WATER RUNOFF THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH NOT ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SIDE ADDITION.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE AN OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED.
AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
OTHER RESIDENCE IS OBSERVED ALONG THE STREET, ARE WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.
MAINTAINING AN 11 INCH SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT APPEARS 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 THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE RESIDENCE.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
COMMISSIONER THIEL? YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
THERE'S WELL MORE THAN ENOUGH SPACE IN BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES.
UM, SO I I DON'T SEE A FIRE HAZARD THERE.
UH, I DO BELIEVE SINCE IT IS IN THE SIDE SETBACK, GETTING A PERMIT MAY REQUIRE THEM TO DO, UH, SOME OF THE FIRE, UH, MEASURES.
IT'S SETBACK OFF THE FRONT SETBACK ADEQUATELY.
AND ALSO I THINK IF IT MEASURES OUTRIGHT, IF I DID MY MATH CORRECTLY, UH, THE HOUSE ITSELF IS ALREADY IN THE SETBACK.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION LIKE TO ADD MANNA? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, ONE THING I NOTICED ALSO, UM, IF YOU LOOK NEXT DOOR, THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO THEM, UH, HAS THE SAME, UH, THE SAME WIDTH, UH, OR THE SAME SETBACK.
SO, SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH BASICALLY EVERY HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE A RULE CALL VOTE PLEASE.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO NOT CONCUR AND CHAIR ORIAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO, UNLESS SOMEONE NEEDS A BREAK, WE'RE GONNA PRESS ON TO ITEM SEVEN.
UH, BO 8 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 5 LOCATED AT 1 7 9 0 3 DEPOT DRIVE.
UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SIX, APPLICANT BEING ELLA PEREZ, UM, REQUESTS FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIZE SETBACK TO A LARGE STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG TO BE THREE, THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.
UM, CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE, UM, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ENCROACHED TO THE SIDE SETBACK BY THREE FEET UPON THE SITE VISIT.
UM, SITE DID NOT FIND ANY OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CONSTRUCT, THE CONSTRUCTIVE STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOOK OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT A RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO THAT IS THE SIDE PAN WITH THE ADDITION, KIND OF SHOWN THE TOP LEFT CORNER, UM, THAT IS THE, THE TEMPERATURE PROPERTY, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SIDE, UM, THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT, THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE OVERHANG SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND THERE'S MORE PICTURES AS WELL.
I GONNA PULL UP THE OTHER ONES.
THAT IS ANOTHER PICTURE THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF THE HOME.
[01:25:01]
THE LAST ONE.AND THEN THAT IS AN ALTERNATE LOOK AT IT AS WELL.
SO WE CAN GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT AND ANOTHER VIEW FROM IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AS WELL.
THE STRUCTURE THEN, AND IT'S AROUND THE AREAS AND RECOMMENDATION, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 5 BASING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, THERE ARE GUTTERS LOCATED ON THE SECTION STRUCTURE.
THERE DOES NOT APPEAR ANY ISSUES WITH WATER RUNOFF.
AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CORNER LOT AND THEY DO NOT.
UM, THERE ARE NOT ANY ADJACENT STRUCTURES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE STRUCTURE SEEKING A VARIANCE.
UM, THERE WERE 39 NOTICES SENT OUT, ZERO FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA.
UM, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PRESENT AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, ANYONE, UH, IS APPLICANT PRESENT? HELLO? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
HELLO? AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION ES OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE HAVE A POOL THAT WE HAD BUILT, UM, LAST YEAR.
AND UM, OUR HOUSE IS A LITTLE BIT ELEVATED FROM THE STREET, FROM THE OTHER HOUSES, SO YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING IN THERE.
SO THE REASON FOR US BUILDING THIS PATIO WAS JUST FOR PRIVACY.
UM, WE GOT THREE PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE AND GAVE US ESTIMATES AND THEY ALL TOLD US, YOU KNOW, THE MEASUREMENTS WHERE THEY CAN PUT IT AND WE JUST ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN THE PERMITS AND TURNS OUT THAT THEY DIDN'T.
SO THE STRUCTURE OBVIOUSLY IS ALREADY BUILT.
UM, AND I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THE, THE, UM, THE, THE, WHAT IS IT? THE OVERHANG ON THE, ON THE SITE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORS.
WE'RE LIKE FOUR HOUSES AWAY FROM THE COUNTY.
SO REALLY, LIKE EVEN THE CITY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE WERE PART OF THE CITY.
LIKE WE'RE LITERALLY FOUR HOUSES AWAY FROM COUNTY
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S ALREADY BUILT.
UM, WE'LL MAKE WHATEVER ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED, BUT OKAY.
YEAH, IT JUST HANG TIGHT FOR ONE SECOND.
IS THERE ANY ONE SENATOR TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND THEN WE'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
I AM LEGAL COUNSEL FOR TALI DEBRA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
MY ADDRESS IS 4 6 3 0 NORTH LOOP WEST 1604, SUITE 3 11 7 8 2 4 9.
I LEAVE THIS MESSAGE IN RELATION TO CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 5 AND THE REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK LINE FOR 7 9 0 3 DEEP.
WELL, THE PLATT DEPICTING THIS PROPERTY PROVIDES FOR A 10 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK, WHICH WOULD CONTROL AS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SETBACK WHEN COMPARED TO THE CITY'S FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
THE ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, CONSIDERS SETBACKS SACROSANCT, AND THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT WILL BE A VIOLATION OF THE RECORDED PLAT AFFECTING 7 9 0 3 DEEP.
ADDITIONALLY, THE OWNER REQUESTED APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO COVER OR GAZEBO AND IS ENCLOSING THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT APPROVAL.
ADDITIONALLY, IN VIOLATION OF THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY, AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND SETBACK IDENTIFIED IN THE PLATT FOR THE PROPERTY.
MY CONTACT NUMBER IS 2 1 0 8 7 6 2 7 6 7.
SHOULD ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO IS THAT THE ONLY ONE? ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THOSE UP TO QUESTIONS.
UH, BUT BEFORE WE DO, I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT ABOUT THIS.
SO, WHEN YOU PLANT LAND IN BEXAR COUNTY, THE COUNTY WANTS YOU TO PUT BUILDING SETBACKS ON THE PLAT.
NORMALLY THE CITY WOULD NOT DO THAT, BUT THE COUNTY DOES.
AND THEN ON THAT SAME PLATT, THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS THAT THOSE ARE IMPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, ENFORCED BY ANYBODY EXCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPER.
SO IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING, UM, THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR WHETHER THIS WAS A, A RESTRICTION FROM THE H O A.
IS THIS A MANDATORY H O A DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE TO PAY THESE? IT IS MANDATORY.
AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE WHEN I SENT ALL THE MEASUREMENTS AND EVERYTHING,
[01:30:01]
THEY APPROVED IT RIGHT AWAY.YOU GOT, SO I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF.
DID YOU HAD AN, YOU HAD AN APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE H OA? YES, I GOT THE DO ANY DOCUMENTATION WITH YOU ON THAT? I DON'T.
BUT I DID GET THE APPROVAL, UM, 'CAUSE THEY DON'T, YOU'VE NEVER TALKED TO ANYBODY AND THEY JUST SENT THE EMAIL BACK SAYING APPROVED.
AND THEN, SO WE STARTED BUILDING AND THEN LATER ON, LIKE ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO IT, THE, A LADY CALLED ME FROM THE H O A AND SHE SAID, THEY'RE SAYING YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT.
SO I TOLD HER, NO, I DO HAVE Y'ALL GAVE ME APPROVAL.
AND SO SHE WENT BACK AND SHE FOUND IT AND SHE SAID, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
SHE GOES, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO IT AND THEY JUST APPROVED IT AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO BACK OUT.
AND I SAID, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE PAID SO MUCH FOR IT, BECAUSE THE H O A RESTRICTED US.
THEY, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THE SAME COLOR SIDING AS A HOUSE.
THE ROOFING WAS THE SAME, THE 30 YEAR SHINGLES.
SO EVERYTHING HAD TO COINCIDE WITH THE HOUSE, SO MAKE IT LOOK PART OF THE HOUSE.
AND IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE WHATSOEVER.
IS IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? SO IS IT MORE LIKE A GAZEBO? IT'S GOT THREE, THREE SIDES AND A ROOF.
IT HAS TWO SIDES, JUST THE BACK FOR THE BACK NEIGHBORS AND THEN THE SIDE OF THE STREET.
AND THEN THE POOL'S IN THE, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT PICTURES OF IT, BUT THE POOL FACES.
SO WE DON'T HAVE PROPERTIES ON THE SIDE WHERE THE WALL IS.
SO IT'S A CONCRETE PATIO WITH TWO SIDES AND A ROOF.
COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, THE ATTORNEY CLAIMS THAT YOU REQUESTED IN, IN YOUR APPLICATION JUST TO BUILD A PATIO.
UM, IS THAT TRUE? YES, IT IS A PATIO.
IT'S A COVERED PATIO, SPECIFICALLY A COVERED PATIO.
AND THAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION? MM-HMM.
WE PUT THE PRIVACY WALL, THAT SIDE RIGHT THERE AND THEN THE BACK.
UH, HAS YOUR, HAS YOUR, UH, H O A BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE RESIDENTS OR IS IT STILL MANAGED BY THE DEVELOPER? THE H O A RIGHT NOW, AS A MATTER OF FACT, GOT SOLD OFF TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHO IT'S GOING TO.
SO THE ONE THAT APPROVED THIS ONE IS NO LONGER AS OF AUGUST 1ST.
THEY HAVEN'T SENT US THE LETTERS.
THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA NOTIFY US WITH THE LETTERS OF THE NEW H O A COMPANY.
WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION, BUT, BUT THE MANAGEMENT, BUT THE DIRECTORS ARE THE RESIDENTS? OR IS IT THE DEVELOPER? IT'S THE RESIDENTS I THINK.
COMMISSIONER THIS QUESTION FOR THE CHAIR.
SO, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS, UH, GUIDELINES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO SETBACKS, UM, AND THEN AN H O A MAY HAVE ITS OWN, BUT, UM, WE WOULDN'T BE REALLY RULING ON THE H O A PERSPECTIVE.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN H O A AND THE, THE APPLICANT.
SO, SO IF WE APPROVE IT, IT, IT MAY STILL BE THAT THE H O A COMES BACK AND HAS DIALOGUE, CORRECT? YEAH.
THE, THE H O A MAY HAVE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, THAT'S FOR THEM TO, UH, GO FORWARD WITH.
UM, THE PLATT HAS A SETBACK, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T ENFORCE THAT SETBACK.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY MAKES YOU PUT ON THERE.
UH, AND THEY JUST CITY JUST LOOKS AT ZONING.
AND RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE YOUR ZONING SETBACK.
IT'S FIVE FEET FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SUCH AS THIS.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST HERE TO LOOK AT WHETHER THEY CAN HAVE A SMALL ENCROACHMENT, UH, AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MINCHA? UH, SIR, UH, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT, SO WE'RE NOT STEPPING ON ANY TOES BY OUR NO.
AND, AND, AND I, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S I FIND INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, WHEN I PLAT LAND IN THE COUNTY, THEY SAY, PUT IT, PUT A SETBACK ON THERE.
AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT GONNA ENFORCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT MAY OR MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, BE WHAT I WANT TO DO.
I I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE WHAT'S ON THE PLA.
AND, AND FOR THIS, I'M GONNA LOOK AT THE ZONING SETBACKS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO LOOK AT CURRENTLY FOR AN ACCESSORY USE, IT'S FIVE FEET AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN, UM, A SMALL VARIANCE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE.
SO THERE'S AN, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOTHING.
WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 5.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 7 9 0 3 DEEP WELL DRIVE APPLICANT BEING A OH A CELI, UH, PEREZ, UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST, UH, IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FOR THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT AND
[01:35:01]
THE STRUCTURE REQUIRING GUTTERS, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THERE, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
IT WOULD BE, UH, IT WOULD RESULT FOR THE STRUCTURE TO CONFORM TO THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SIT BACK REQUIREMENT AND WOULD REQUIRE A POSSIBLE DEMOLITION.
THIS PRESENTS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS LIMITED SPACE IN THE REAR YARD.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE BEING, UH, BEING EXISTING.
THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
FOUR, 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 AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED.
AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE, UH, THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THIS WOULD ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AS NOT LIKELY TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT NAMING PROPERTY AS A STRUCTURES, UH, AS A STRUCTURED NEIGHBOR'S.
A LOCAL STREET, UH, SIXTH 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.
IT APPEARS APPLIED TO 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.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL.
UM, YES, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UM, I, I, UH, I CONCUR BECAUSE IT IS ON A CORNER LOT, UH, AND IT IS, UH, KIND OF ADJACENT TO THE STREET THAT THE STRUCTURE IS, UH, IS, IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE.
UM, AND SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS A CORNER LOT AND NOBODY REALLY CAN NOTICE IT UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UM, I AGREE WITH BOTH MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THEY WENT TO THE GREAT EXTENT OF MAKING SURE THAT THE STRUCTURE MATCHED THE EXISTING HOME WITH THE ROOF, THE SIDING, THE PAINT COLORS, AND SO THAT IT'S A GREAT EXPENSE TO DO THAT.
AND OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, UH, YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THEY APPROVED IT.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
ANYONE ELSE? I, I, COMMISSIONER CATHOLIC.
YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT YOU MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND YOU WERE NOT, WHAT'S THE WORD, UH, ACCURATE IN TERMS OF THE ENCLOSURE AND THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION IS, UH, IF YOU GET AN ATTORNEY CALLING, UM, TO SAY THEY'RE IN FAVOR, UH, I DO FEEL IT WILL, UH, AFFECT THE COMMUNITY.
ANYONE ELSE? SO, UH, YES, GO AHEAD.
YES, MY PROBLEM IS HERE WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WERE STATING SOMETHING, UH, TO THAT EFFECT WHEN ONE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DROPS ANOTHER ONE NOW TO WHO IS THIS ATTORNEY SPEAKING TO? FOR ONE THING.
SO TO ME, IF IT'S NOT A REGISTER, IT'S NOT AT THE HOMEOWNERS, THEN YOU KNOW THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.
SO I'M GOING TO VOTE YES FOR IT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. KAPLAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN.
UH, I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF, BUT I I DID WANT TO JUST LET YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE AN APPROVAL LETTER FROM YOUR H O A DO NOT LOSE IT.
BECAUSE WHEN THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY CHANGES, THINGS GET LOST.
UM, I'VE BEEN ON MY BOARD 16 YEARS AND WE'VE CHANGED MANY TIMES AND STUFF JUST GETS LOST.
NO I HAVEN'T, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE SAFE.
DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK? ARE WE GONNA MR. CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SHORT BREAK.
[01:40:01]
BACK HERE IN SEVEN MINUTES.ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GET THIS MEETING BACK ON TRACK.
OUR NEXT CASE IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
LOCATED 3 0 6 EAST BAYLOR COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE, THE APPLICANT BEING ANTONIO.
ANTONIO LYAL AND REQUESTS FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE.
PROPERTY LINE, UH, ZONING IS R SIX WITH INTERESTING FAMILY.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON EAST BAYLOR, AND A REQUEST IS FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A CARPORT ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CARPORT THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
AS IT STANDS, THE CARPORT DOES NOT APPEAR TO IMPEDE ANY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, AND NO IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD VOICED ANY CONCERNS.
UM, OTHER CARPORTS SIMILAR IN DESIGN WERE OBSERVED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THAT IS THE CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED.
UM, PICTURE OF THE CARPORT ITSELF.
THE OVERHANG WITH THE GUTTERS INCLUDED A MEASUREMENT PICTURE AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BO O A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, OUR CARPORT IS THE CARPORT IS REQUIRED AND CURRENTLY HAS GUTTER INSTALLED TO MITIGATE ANY ISSUES FOR WATER RUNOFF.
THE STRUCTURE IS CONSTRUCTED OF METAL MATERIAL, WHICH REDUCES THE RISK OF FIRE HAZARDS AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THE DRIVER IS RESTRICTED AND WILL NOT ALLOW FOR A FUNCTIONAL CARPORT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.
UM, THERE WERE 33 NOTICES MAILED OUT.
THERE WAS ONE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE LONE STAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND WE'RE GONNA NEED A TRANSLATOR.
IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD,
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANTONIO LEAL.
I'M HERE BECAUSE I PUT UP THIS, UH, CARPORT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED A PERMIT FOR THIS.
BUT THEN WHEN I WAS TOLD THAT I NEEDED TO PULL OUT A PERMIT AND I PRESENTED MYSELF TO ASK FOR THAT, THEY SAID THAT I HAD TO COME TO THIS COMMISSION TO ASK FOR A RESOLUTION.
AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HAVE THIS CARPORT IN PLACE DUE TO THE, UH, CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE HEAT GO, UM, THE SUN AL ALWAYS IS ALWAYS HITTING THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THE HEAT COMES IN THROUGH THAT WINDOW.
SO IT'S TO PROTECT THAT AND ALSO FOR HAIL, UH, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY HAD TO PUT INTO, UH, CLAIMS INTO MY INSURANCE DUE TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY HAIL TO MY VEHICLE.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HAVE IT.
HAS, UH, ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP FOR QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MIN CHAKA, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA? UH, JUST A SIMPLE ONE.
UH, I CAN SEE THE CARPORT HAS A GUTTER AND IT RUNS BACKWARDS AND THE ELEVATION IS UPWARDS TOWARD THE BACK.
NO, THE GUTTER IS RUNNING FORWARD.
IT DRAINS FORWARD TOWARD THE STREET, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, IT DRINKS TOWARDS THE STREET.
HOW, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT? HOW WIDE AND, AND DEEP IS?
[01:45:03]
ITS, SO IT'S ABOUT 11 FEET AND FIVE INCHES WIDE.AND THEN THE LENGTH IS ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE.
I'M NOT TOO SURE IF IT'S 30, 40 FEET.
UH, COMMISSIONER BASQUEZ? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, CONCERNING YES.
UH, SO THEN THAT AIR CONDITIONER, MR. VASQUEZ, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE?
THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DID AIR CONDITIONER, UH, DOES THAT, UH, ANY, CAN THE CARS CLEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER? UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, THE, THE MIC DOESN'T SEEM TO BE PICKING UP, PICKING YOU UP.
IT, IT, IT'S, UH, IT, IT LIGHTS UP UHHUH
MAYBE YOU'RE NOT CLOSE ENOUGH.
THE, THE QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, UM, UH, THE AIR CONDITIONER.
DOES THE CARS CLEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER? OKAY.
MY PLAN IS TO REMOVE THAT AC UNIT FROM THERE.
THE THING IS THAT I DIDN'T PROCEED TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL I RECEIVED YOUR APPROVAL AND THEN GO AHEAD AND REMOVE IT.
IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COMMISSIONER UHHUH, REGARDING BO O A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 0 9 7.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH OVERHANGING GUTTERS TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 3 0 6 EAST BAYLOR, APPLICANT BEING, UH, MARIO, UH, UA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH OVERHANGING GUTTERS TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AS A CARPORT STANDS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO MOVE THE POST THE, OF THE STRUCTURE FIVE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE POSSIBLE DEMOLITION OF THE CARPORT TO BUILD.
ADDITIONALLY, LOCATING THE CARPORT FIVE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT ALLOW A WIDTH GRADE ENOUGH FOR A VEHICLE.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES THEN NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THAT REQUESTS FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK IS ENOUGH SPACE AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE AND IS NOT LIKELY TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WITH A SMALL AVAILABLE DRIVEWAY WIDTH WIDTH FOR PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA.
MANY CARPORTS WERE OBSERVED ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, SO IT WOULD NOT ALL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF A GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PLATTER, THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SUCH AS A SMALL AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACE.
AND, AND JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION THAT THE, UM, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, MR. ANTONIO AL, IT WAS INCORRECT ON THE TEMPLATE.
PLEASE AMEND THAT FOR THE APPLICANT'S NAME.
[01:50:01]
ALL RIGHT.UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, TEAL, UH, YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UH, THE, THE GUTTER DOES RUN ONTO THE INDIVIDUAL'S PROPERTY.
UH, IT IS, UH, A FIRE SAFE TYPE OF MATERIAL AND THERE IS PLENTY OF OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. TE.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS.
THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR, FOR THE NEIGHBOR, AND THE NEIGHBOR DIDN'T COMPLAIN, SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? YEAH.
THREE OF THE FOUR HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER HAVE THE SAME SETUP, SO THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT STREET.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? NO, UH, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
I LIKE THAT IT DOESN'T GO PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME, THAT IT'S QUITE LIGHTLY BUILT, SO IT'S NOT A, A BIG VISUAL IMPACT.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO PUT ON GUTTERS WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED, WHICH IS FANTASTIC.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. KAPLAN.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MOTION PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY 11 TO ZERO.
LOCATED AT 38 30 EAST PARKWAY STREET.
DISTRICT NUMBER THREE, APPLICANT BEING JOSE GALEZ.
UM, REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON EAST PAR AND THE APPLICANT IS ACCEPTED A CARPORT ENCROACHING THE FRONT STEPBACK.
THE CARPORT DOES NOT APPEAR TO IMPEDE ANY OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREAS AS, AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS MET.
UM, STAFF AS WELL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE OTHER STIM CARPETS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, THAT IS THE PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY OF THE CARPORT LOCATED TOWARDS THE BOTTOM.
UM, THE, UH, THE SETBACK IS ASKED FOR THE FRONT.
UM, THE SIDE SETBACK RIGHT THERE IS MET RIGHT THERE.
MEASUREMENT OF THE FRONT AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH A ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SET REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 9.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CARPORTS AND SURROUND THE AREA THAT EXTENDED PAST ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE DWELLING.
SO THE REQUEST IS NOT ALTERED CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
UM, THE CARPORT MEETS THE MINIMUM FIVE SECOND REQUIREMENT, AND THERE'S ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE SPACE TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF THE CARPORT TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND STILL PROVIDE COVERED PARKING.
UM, THERE WERE 32 NOTICES SENT.
UM, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE HIGHLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PRESENT.
IF THE APPLICANT CAN PLEASE COME FORWARD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS, UH, ZA AND I LIVE AT 38 30 EAST PAL FREE.
UM, JUST, UH, WANTING TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE.
UH, WE BUILT IT, UH, THE VARIANCE, UH, WAS BUILT BASED ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THAT STREET.
UH, DID NOT EXCEED THE OTHER PROPERTIES.
IT'S THE SAME, UH, AT THE SAME DISTANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
ANY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? UH, HOW MANY CARS DO YOU HAVE TO PARK? I HAVE, UH, ACTUALLY FOUR CARS.
AND WHAT KIND OF CARS ARE THEY? WELL, I HAVE AN OLD ONE.
IT'S A 68 MUSTANG THAT I WANT IT COVERED.
SO THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE FIVE FOOT BACK, FIVE FOOT, WOULD YOUR CARS FIT IN THE FRONT? THE TWO, THE CADILLAC AND THE 68? COULD YOU, COULD YOU GET THIS TO WORK GOING UP? I LIVE ON A, LIKE A HILL LIKE THIS.
SO ACTUALLY IT FITS TO WHERE IT COVERS THE BACK OF THE
[01:55:01]
TRUCK.THE LENGTH FROM THE HOUSE TO THE BACK OF THE TRUCK IS WHERE IT, IT ENDS.
SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU PARKING YOUR TWO TRUCKS ON THE VERY SIDE, THE VERY LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE? YEAH.
IS THAT WHERE THE TRUCKS GO? YEAH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
THE TRUCKS ARE IN THE RIGHT HAND SIDE? YEAH.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU WANTED THEM SO LONG.
YOU WANTED THAT OVERHANG THAT LONG TO FIT THE TRUCKS IN, IN THE FRONT? YEAH.
RIGHT HERE IN THE, AS YOU COME UP TO THE DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
SO YOU TWO, YOUR TWO CAT, THE CADILLAC AND THE OTHER CAR ARE ON THE SIDE? THE CADILLAC IS ON THE SIDE AND I HAVE MY TWO TRUCKS ON THE FRONT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE, THE CITY'S RESPONSE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO MOVE IT BACK.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE HARDSHIP THAT, WOULD THAT CAUSE YOU, YOU KNOW, TO ACTUALLY HAVE TO SHAVE OFF SOME OF THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT? YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE HARD.
SO, SO EXPLAIN PLEASE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE? UH, WELL, IT'S, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT.
UH, I GUESS THE, FROM THE CURVE ALL THE WAY TO THE POLE IS LIKE ABOUT 12, 13 FEET FROM THE STREET.
SO LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR SET, MINE WAS SET AT THE SAME, AT THE SAME LEVEL.
SO, SO QUESTION TO THE CHAIR HERE.
SO WE HAD PRE PRIOR DIALOGUE HERE WITH REGARDS TO THE FIVE FOOT MOVING, YOU KNOW, SOME AND STUFF.
AND SO, SO IS THIS, DO WE HAVE SIMILAR DIALOGUE HERE AS WELL? SO WHAT HAPPENS IS YOUR CARPORT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT A POST AT 10 FEET AND THEN HAVE A FIVE FOOT CANTILEVERED OVERHANG.
UH, SO THAT, AND, AND SO IN SOME CASES THAT THAT'S A, THAT'S A FUNCTIONAL SOLUTION, UH, WHERE YOU CAN ATTAIN SOME DEPTH OF THE CARPORT.
CAN YOU, UH, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT OF, FROM THOSE WINDOWS IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE TO THE CURRENT EDGE OF THE CARPORT? FRONT OF THE CARPORT? UH, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN.
UH, WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY THE LENGTH OF A FULL SIZE, UH, G M C PICKUP TRUCK FULL SIZE.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S 25 OR 26 FEET.
IT'S PROBABLY 18 TO 20 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, BUT I DID MEASURE FROM THE CURB TO THE POLE IS 12 FEET AND, UH, THERE'S REALLY NO OVERHANG ON THERE.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE ASKING A FEW QUESTIONS.
YOU, SO I'VE NOTICED THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIDEWALKS.
UM, HAS, HAVE YOU HEARD ANY CHATTER ABOUT THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS OR THE CITY PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS? MM-HMM.
AND, UH, WHAT IS THE, UM, IS THIS A, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS A LARGE LOT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD? YEAH.
I THINK THE LOT IS 70, 70 FEET.
YEAH, BECAUSE THERE, THERE, THERE'S SOME PROVISIONS IN IT ON THE LARGER LOT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ALBERT? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WITH THE CARPORT OF THIS SIZE THAT RUNS DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, A LARGE HOME, AND THEN THE LARGE STRUCTURE IN THE BACKYARD, UH, DO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE? NO, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.
THE, AND JUST A REMARK THAT THE EXISTING PICTURE SHOWED THAT THE DRIVEWAY WAS ALREADY THERE, SO HE'S JUST COVERING A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
SO I HAVE THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION REALLY.
SO LOOKED LIKE, UM, IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO THE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
SO, SO I ASSUME THAT THAT WAS LOOKED AT AS THEY WERE GOING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT IN VIOLATION AS WELL.
AND IF HE WERE TO COME IN AND, UM, APPLY TO ADD MORE, MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW AGAIN AT THAT TIME.
COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, IN RESPONSE, WHAT DID, WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO ABOUT CANTILEVERING, THE POSTS IN THE FRONT? WERE YOU AMENABLE TO DOING THAT OR YOU COULDN'T DO IT? TO MOVING IT BACK? YEAH, MOVING THE, MOVING THE POST, MOVING THE POSTS INSTEAD OF, UM, SHORTENING LIKE NOT TO SHORTEN MM-HMM.
[02:00:01]
FROM THE PROPERTY, ALMOST THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE BACK FIVE FEET.COULD YOU DO THAT? WELL, RIGHT NOW HE HAS, UM, HE, HE'S TWO FOOT EIGHT INCHES AWAY.
SO IF HE WERE TO MOVE THE POST BACK AND THEN HAVE THE FIVE FOOT OVERHANG, HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SHORTEN THE EDGE BY ABOUT TWO AND A HALF FEET, TWO FOOT EIGHT INCHES.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING HOW, HOW DEEP IT WAS IF HE'S CAN AND NOT COVER A TRUCK OR A FULL-SIZE TRUCK.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING WITH THAT.
IF HE DOESN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, 18 TO 20 FEET, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM THE FACE OF THE WINDOW, THEN IT'S NOT GONNA BE AS, AS FUNCTIONAL AS IN OTHER CASES BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT THE
ONCE, ONCE I ASK A QUESTION, I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED WHY I WAS ASKING THAT.
SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S A PICTURE THAT HAS THE YELLOW DOTS.
SO, SO, SO THIS PICTURE HERE, YOU KNOW, SO IT SHOWS THE FORWARD POST, I GUESS THOSE ARE THE POSTS DOWN BELOW.
THEN YOU HAVE THREE POSTS THAT ARE, I GUESS WHAT'S THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT FRONT POST AND THAT POST THERE? SO WHAT IS THAT DISTANCE THERE? THAT WOULD BE, UM, FOUR OR FIVE FEET MAYBE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, SIR BEFORE WE UH, OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION? NO.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 9.
I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 10 FEET FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 3 8 3 0 EAST PAR FREIGHT STREET, APPLICANT BEING JOSE ZALES.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET, FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THE STRUCTURE IS, IS EXISTING AND APPEARS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT WAY FRONT RIGHT OF WAY TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO MOVE THE POST OF THE STRUCTURE TO 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINES, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE POSSIBLE DEMOLITION OF THE CARPORT.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE BEING BEING EXISTING.
THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES.
USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AS A PROPERTY ZONE.
AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
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.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG EAST PAUL FREIGHT WITH SIMILAR CARPORTS WITH SIMILAR SETBACK ATTACHMENTS.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES 16 ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT APPEARS APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE RESULT IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN.
UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, YES, I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH
[02:05:01]
THIS.I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, OF COURSE HE MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM LATER ON IF THE CITY DECIDES TO GIVE HIM SIDEWALKS, BUT WE'LL WAIT AND SEE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KAPLAN.
I ALSO DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE THE FOUR CARS AND I UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
ANYONE ELSE? I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, CHIME IN AND SAY THAT I'M IN SUPPORT.
UH, THE REASONING IS BECAUSE IT'S A RELATIVELY LARGE LOT AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE IS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN SOME OF THE OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE CARPORTS.
AND SO THE, THE, THE EXTRA DISTANCE CLOSER TO THE STREET IS NOT, UH, AS IMPOSING TO ME, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NO SIDEWALKS OR ANY APPARENT PLANS TO HAVE SIDEWALKS.
SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
MS. CRUZ, DID YOU? YES, I CONCUR.
MR. MANO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF.
ADDRESS IS 7 0 7 REYNOLDS COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT IS ANDREW HERNANDEZ.
A REQUEST FOR FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT STREET FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE 45 FEET WIDE.
THE ZONING IS MF 33 MULTI-FAMILY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT SEVEN, SO 7 0 7 RENTALS AND IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT.
AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX ON A LOT.
HOWEVER, DURING THE PLENARY PROCESS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE LOT WIDTH, SIZE VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE CURRENT WIDTH OF THE LOT.
THE PROPERTY ZONE MF 33 REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 50 FEET AND WIDTH.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW A DUPLEX TO BE DEVELOPED ON A LOT THAT IS 45 FEET.
SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREAS RECOMMENDATION, MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE WIDTH VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE THE SAME IN SIZE AND WIDTH.
SO IN VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE, WIDTH VARIANCE APPEARS TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
UH, 22 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
AND NO RESPONSE FROM NO RESPONSE FROM GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND UH, LET US KNOW YOUR, YOUR CASE PLEASE.
HI, MY NAME IS JENNY HERNANDEZ.
I'M WITH MY DAD, ANDREW HERNANDEZ.
HE'S THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND WE, UH, APPLIED, LIKE HE SAID, UH, SUBMITTED AN APPLICANT, AN APPLICATION TO BUILD A DUPLEX.
UM, ALSO I SUBMITTED TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE PLATTED.
THIS WAS BEFORE WE KNEW ABOUT THE 50 FOOT WIDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
SO INSTEAD OF THE C O D, WE HIRED AN ENGINEER AND HAD THE PROPERTY PLATTED.
SO THIS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, A FEW MONTHS BACK AND THEN WE WERE ONE STEP AWAY FROM GETTING THE PERMIT AND THEN IT WENT INTO THE, UM, THIS, THIS REQUIREMENT WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT NEEDED TO BE 50 FEET WIDE.
WE'VE BUILT DUPLEXES ON UM, MF FOUR LOTS BEFORE.
UM, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE BILLED ON MF 33 THINKING THAT IT WOULD HAVE MORE LENIENT RESTRICTIONS, BUT, UM, DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE SENT TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO.
SO I, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS APPLICATION.
YOU SAID THAT YOU FILED FOR A PLATT? NO, I FILED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
WAS IT GRANTED IT WAS NOT GRANTED, THEY SAID THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE PLATTED.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR, YOU, YOUR PROPERTY POSES ALL OF LOT 10.
CAN, CAN STAFF PLEASE WEIGH IN ABOUT, IS THIS IN THE ORIGINAL 32 SQUARE MILES? IS THIS PREDATE PLATTING OR IS THIS A, HOW DID, HOW DID IT GET THE LOT 10 DESIGNATION? I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S WITHIN THE ORIGINAL.
UM, IT, BUT IT WAS NOT PLATTED.
UM, THE PLATTING TEAM DID LOOK AT IT.
I KNOW IT HAS A LOT BLOCK AND N
[02:10:01]
C B DESIGNATION, BUT IT'S NOT FROM A RECORDED PLOT.WELL, I KNOW BUT DOESN'T THE C O D APPLY DOES? I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE, JUST TO ENSURE THAT THEY NEED TO BE HERE.
'CAUSE IT, I MEAN IF, IF IF IT'S BEEN GIVEN A LOT DESIGNATION, I THOUGHT THERE WAS UM, AN EXCEPTION FOR THAT.
IS IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO A DUPLEX OR, OR SOMETHING OR WHAT? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S ZONED MF 33.
I'LL SAY THE, UM, NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS FOR THE C O D WERE MET.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT SINGLE FAMILY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? UH, DO YOU HAVE A PLAN YET? UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF LIKE A, A DRAWING OF THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE PLANNING? YES.
EVERYTHING WAS SUBMITTED AND EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED WITH SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT.
THE ONLY THING WHERE IT WAS THAT WAS PENDING WAS WE NEEDED A VARIANCE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BUILD A DUPLEX ON A MF 33 LOT, THE FRONTAGE NEEDS TO BE 50 AND WE ONLY HAD 45.
SO EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN DONE AND APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NO.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 22 DASH ZERO THREE, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT STREET FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE 45 FEET WIDE SITUATED AT 7 0 7 RENOLDS.
APPLICANT BEING ANDREW HERNANDEZ, EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE LOT WIDTH VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW.
AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR DUPLEX TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE PROPOSED DUPLEX STRUCTURE NOT BEING ABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED DUE TO THE WIDTH OF THE LOT.
THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, SIZE OF THE LOT.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW A DUPLEX STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
THE LOT WIDTH WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DUPLEX.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF 33 AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS MULTIFAMILY.
DISTRICT FIVE, SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE OTHER RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE THE SAME LOT WITH AS OBSERVED, THE PROPOSED DUPLEX ON THE LOT WILL NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN, IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT APPEARS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE LOT WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY WHO SECONDED THAT? MR. MR. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? UH, UH, SO COMMISSIONER THIEL? UH, YES.
UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UH, IT SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF SEMANTICS.
UH, NONE OF THOSE LOTS ON THAT STREET HAVE THE WIDTH FOR MF 33, SO IT SEEMS SILLY THAT THE CITY WOULD'VE ZONED IT TO SUCH.
COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YES, I'LL BE SUPPORTED.
UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, THE COMMISSIONS TO ADD IN COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? WELL, IT'S THE, THE, IT IS A MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU DO HAVE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, BASICALLY.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO, UM, GET VACANT LOTS BUILT ON BECAUSE THERE'S DESPERATE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANYONE ELSE? I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS, UH, ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THE LOT WAS CREATED BY THE, PROBABLY THE CITY ENGINEERS RECORDS PRIOR TO 1890.
AND IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
IT PREDATES ZONING AND IT SURE SEEMS LIKE A HARDSHIP TO ME, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
MR. TEAL? YES, 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.
[02:15:01]
CONGRATULATIONS.[ Approval of Minutes ]
ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS THE MINUTES.UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY, UH, CORRECTIONS OR REVISIONS? HEARING NONE IS I'M ASKING FOR A MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ AND WHO'S THE SECOND? I I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN.
COMMISSIONER THI HAS THIS ABSTAINED.
[ Director’s Report ]
NOW WE'RE FOR, UH, UH, STAFF OR DIRECTORS REPORT.KAYLA IS MOVING ON, SO WE WANNA CONGRATULATE HER.
SHE GOT, SHE'S GONNA GO WORK NEAR THE WATER IN BETWEEN HOUSTON AND GALVESTON.
SO AT LEAGUE CITY, AND THIS IS HER LAST MEETING WITH US.
SHE'S A I'M LIKE, SHANNON, WHAT'S GOING ON, MIKE? YEAH.
WHAT'S THIS IS WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A, A SOMETHING TO KEEP PEOPLE HERE.
LIKE A FREE T-SHIRT, SOMETHING.
WELL, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CONGRAT.
YOU KNOW, THANK, THANKS FOR BEING HERE AND YOU'VE REALLY DONE A GREAT JOB.
IT'S REALLY SORRY TO SEE YOU GO.
UM, I JUST, UH, GOD, IT WAS JUST, WE'RE JUST LOSING TOO MANY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TOO MANY GOOD PEOPLE.
IT'S REALLY ROUGH, BUT THAT'S, UH, LIFE SOMETIMES.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I HEREBY ADJOURN THE MEETING.