* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] ALL RIGHT. IT IS, UH, 1 0 1. I'M CALLING THIS, UH, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE, UH, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION THROUGH GOD, INDIVISIBLE, JUSTICE, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG BY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE ONE STATE THROUGH GOD, INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, IF WE COULD PLEASE TAKE ROLL TODAY. MS. LIND. HERE. MR. ALBERT? PRESENT. MR. MANCHACA PRESENT. MR. SPIELMAN? PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. MANNA PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT. MS. KAPLAN? PRESENT. MR. THIEL PRESENT. MR. OZUNA PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M ALSO PRESENT. UM, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, CAN THE SPANISH INTERPRETER PLEASE COME OUT AND MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION? THE, THE INTERPRETER HAS NOT SHOWN UP YET. UH, I'M SORRY. WHAT IS THAT, SIR? THE INTERPRETER HAS NOT SHOWN UP YET. OH, OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THEN I GUESS I WILL READ THROUGH MY, UH, LONG ENTRY AND THEN WE WILL GET, GET MOVING WHEN THEY DO SHOW UP. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY A NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS, THE BOARD. UH, FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT, AND WE DO DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE OUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELEASE CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. SO STAFF, IF YOU COULD, UH, GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT'D BE GREAT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, IF BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF YOU COULD PUT YOUR PHONES ON SILENT AND OR TURN 'EM OFF. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OR REQUESTS. PART OF PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. ANY OTHER 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 EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED ON IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME [00:05:01] LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM TWO PEOPLE GIVEN THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP, THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. GROUPS OF THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED NINE MINUTES TOTAL TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH THREE MINUTES TIME LIMIT, ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. THANK YOU. UM, SO WE, WE, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE FIRST CASE, UH, WHICH IS ITEM TWO ON THE AGENDA, UH, CASE ENDING IN NUMBER 1 0 7. UH, BEFORE WE DO THAT, ARE THE SCREENS WORKING TODAY? THEY ARE NOT. WE'RE PRESENTLY TRYING TO GET THOSE WORKING. WE CAN, UM, BE A LITTLE ADAPTABLE. WE ARE HAVING THE TABLE SCREEN THAT WORKS. OKAY. SO WE CAN THROW SOME, UH, IMAGES UP ON THE TABLE SCREEN IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ALONG. AND IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS IT IS THE FIRST CASE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY MEDIA THAT THEY NEED TO, TO PROJECT ONTO A SCREEN OR ARE WE OKAY WITH I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. MANNA UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, THE ONLINE VIEWING, IS THAT CAMERA WORKING FOR IT? OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER TWO. WE'RE PULLING OUT THE PRESENTATION REAL QUICK. I THINK EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS A POWERPOINT, UH, AVAILABLE ON THEIR, ON THEIR COMPUTER IF THEY, UH, WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW ALONG. NO, I'M NOT SURE I'M WORKING ON GETTING IT. DO WE, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A SMALL BREAK? YES, SIR. UH, SO WE'RE, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE SMALL DELAY, BUT WE'RE GONNA TAKE ABOUT A FIVE OR 10 MINUTE BREAK UNTIL WE CAN GET THE, UH, UM, COMPUTERS WORKING CORRECTLY. [00:12:12] MR. OREN, WE CAN PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT, MS. THE SPANISH TRANSLATION SERVICES ARE STILL DELAYED. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF STAFF MEMBERS WHO SPEAK SPANISH, SO WE CAN ASSIST WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT, FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, BO 8 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 LOCATED AT 1 3 1 3 2 4 WEST MISTO COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE. UM, THE APPLICANT BEING DIEGO. UM, ZONING IS CURRENTLY R SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, IT'S A REQUEST FOR A, UM, THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SITES. THAT BACK VARIANCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A, A STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG FROM TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON 1 3 2 4 WEST. MISS TOTAL SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, UH, IS, IS A CORNER LOT AND IT HAS A UNIQUE CONFIGURATION. THE APPLICANT, APPLICANT HAS RECENTLY REMODELED THE HOME AND ADDED IT IN ADDITION, UM, TO THE HOME ENCROACHING THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK LEAVING BY THREE FEET, LEAVING TWO FEET OF SPACE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN. UM, ON THE PRESENTATION I HAVE, INCLUDING WHERE THE STREET IS AT AND THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY IN THE REAR. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ADDITION WOULD BE AT. SO THAT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. THAT IS THE AREA LEADING TO IT, IF YOU GO TOWARDS THE BACK ON THAT DRIVEWAY. UM, RIGHT THERE IS THE ADDITION ITSELF. YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE AND THEN THE, WHERE THE ADDITION IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AND FROM THE REAR, UM, THAT IS WHERE IT IS AT WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE ADDITION ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SLIDE. THAT IS CURRENTLY THE MEASUREMENT RIGHT NOW THAT IS ON THE ADDITION AND IN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS. AND IT IS A CORNER LOT. UM, SO SIDE PROPERTY, SIDE BACK VARIANCE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A THREE THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN BO 8 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS IN THE SIDE OF THE YARD OF THE PROPERTY AND IT'S NOT EASILY SEEN FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY ISSUES WITH WATER RUNOFF AND THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, THERE WERE 19 NOTICES HELD, UH, MAILED OUT. UM, THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. AND CAN YOU, UH, DISCUSS THE PERMITTING STATUS OF THIS? [00:15:01] SO LEMME PULL UP, PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK. THIS WAS, UH, BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS. UH, SO THEY'RE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS BO O A TO FINALIZE THE NOW TURNED IN PERMIT. OKAY. AND, UH, SECONDLY, UM, ON THE SIDE, THERE'S SOME, UM, LOOKS LIKE EITHER BURGLAR BARS OR A WINDOW TREATMENT FEATURE, SOME IRON THAT PROJECTS OFF THE SIDE OF THE HOME. IS THAT, UM, SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN, IN THE SETBACK REQUEST? NO. OR IS THAT TREATED LIKE AN OVERHANG WHERE IT'S, IT'S NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE, OF ENCROACHMENT? IS IT BUILT THE PICTURES? THAT'S ALL FOUNDATION. I WAS LOOKING AT THAT, SO YEAH, I KNOW IT'LL BE MEASURED FROM THE POST OR IS THE ADDITION ALREADY BUILT? YEAH. WHAT WAS THAT? IT'D BE MED BE MEASURED FROM THE POST. SO IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VARIANCE. OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY, UM, ONE OF THE PICTURES SHOWS, UH, ONE OF THE ADDITIONS TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT, IS, IS THAT ON THE BACK END OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR IS THAT ALREADY CONSTRUCTED? UM, THAT PICTURE WASN'T A PICTURE PROVIDED FROM, FROM THE APPLICANT. OKAY. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. SENIOR MANIA. OKAY. MY NAME IS DIEGO CIA. MY ADDRESS IS 1324 WEST MISTLETOE. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY, , UM, HE'S BUILDING THE ADDITION BECAUSE HE HAS FOUR CHILDREN AND HE DIDN'T WANT THE ADDITION TO LOOK, UM, LOOK BAD. SO THAT'S WHY HE STARTED, UH, HE CONNECTED IT TO THE HOME. HE RE HE, WHEN HE WAS FIRST LOOKING AT IT, IT WAS, IT WAS TOO FAR OVER AND SO HE DID REDUCE IT DOWN TO TWO FEET. OKAY. CAN YOU, UM, ASK THE APPLICANT IF, IF THE ADDITION IS IN LINE WITH ANY EXISTING PART OF THE STRUCTURE OR IS IT COMPLETELY INCREASED TOWARDS THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? NO, IT'S IN LINE WITH THE HOUSE. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? THERE IS A HERMINA WATKINS, GO AHEAD MA'AM, COME ON UP. DO YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT? I HAVE NO COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. NO COMMENT. UM, SO JOSEPHINE VAL DIVA, I HAVE NO COMMENT. ALRIGHT, NO COMMENT. UH, THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, WE WILL UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR A MOTION. THI COMMISSIONER THIEL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH THREE SEVEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH OVERHANG TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 3 2 4 WEST MISSILE TOE. APPLICANT BEING DIEGO. CIA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER [00:20:01] 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 VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE WITH TWO FOOT OVERHANG FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE STRUCTURE IS EXISTING AND APPEARS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE ALONG THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINE TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE REMOVED TO MEET THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR THE HOME ADDITION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME, IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R SIX AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 THE NEW ADDITION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE ADDITION MATCHES THE SURROUNDING AREA'S. APPEARANCE. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE HAS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THIEL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER THIEL. UH, YES. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, IT APPEARS THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH THE, THE EXISTING, UH, HOME ITSELF. IT'S A SMALL ADDITION. PRIMARILY THE OVERHANG IS WHAT FALLS INTO THE SETBACK AND SINCE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AS WILL I THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? OH YES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THE NEIGHBORS ARE, ARE, ARE SATISFIED WITH THE ISSUE. I SEE. NO, NO, UH, ISSUES EITHER. THANK YOU. OH, ZUNA, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING ANY THE MIC. THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND PERMITS. TRY TOUCHING THE BUTTON THEY'RE NOT GOING THROUGH. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? TAP THE LIGHTS. IT'S KIND OF AWKWARD, BUT, OKAY. SO THE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, IS, WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND, UH, WOULD GO THROUGH THE FULL CITY PERMITTING PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN CONCURRENCE BECAUSE IT'LL BRING A, A, A PROJECT WHICH WASN'T PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED INTO PERMIT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING ALL SAFETY AND UH, FIRE CODE. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UH, WE'RE READY FOR A ROLL CALL. VOTE YOU MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. WHO'S MS. CRUZ? UH, I CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN? I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. 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. AONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. UM, BO EIGHT ON 22. 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 1, UM, ADDRESS AT 2 2 2 5 10. ANA COUNSEL NUMBER ONE, UM, APPLICANT BEING, UM, ZONING IS OUR FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UM, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT ON SANTA ANN STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF COULD NOT SEE ANY, CAN, COULD SEE THE FENCE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. UM, STAFF DID NOT FIND ANY OTHER SIMILAR FENCES IN THE AREA. UM, SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SITE PLAN ON THE HIGHLIGHTED PART IN PRESENTATIONS CURRENTLY WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED. UM, THAT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF WITH THE, UM, SHORT VIEW OF THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. UM, AND THAT [00:25:01] IS THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE FENCE. UM, SO THAT FENCE GOES THROUGHOUT THE SIDE. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, IT DOESN'T, DOES NOT GO PAST THE F FACADE. AND IT DOES GO TOWARDS THE REAR, BUT NOT THE, THE ACTUAL REAR. UM, THAT IS ANOTHER ALTERNATE PICTURE OF THE FENCE THAT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO FENCE. THEY'RE LOCATED. UH, AND IN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS, PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE'S NO OTHER FENCES IN THE AREA. UM, SO FOR THE FENCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE OF PROPERTY LINE IN BO 8 2 22 1 0 3 0 1 21 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. UM, SO STAFF DID NOT FIND ANY OTHER FENCES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE REQUEST APPEARS TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THERE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY UNIQUE, UM, FEATURES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UM, IN THE NOTIFICATION PLAN, UM, THERE WERE 32 NOTICES MAILED OUT. THERE WERE TWO IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200 FEET. UM, THERE WERE ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU JUST TOUCH ON, DOES THIS FENCE GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS AND TOUCH THE NEIGHBORING HOME ON THE EAST SIDE OR DOES IT, DOES IT TURN BACK AND RUN DOWN THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? UM, IT JUST RUNS DOWN THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HELLO? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND UH, YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. UH, MY NAME IS LEONARD ESCOBAR. I LIVE AT, UH, 2225 SANTA ANA. MY ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO PULL OUT A PERMIT, UM, UM, PULL OUT A PERMIT TO, UH, FOR A SIX FOOT PICKET FENCE DURING COVID. DURING COVID WORK. GOT SLOW AND MATERIAL AT LOWE'S AND HOME DEPOT WERE VERY LIMITED. I ENDED UP PUTTING POSTS READY TO GO THAT I BOUGHT FROM A FRIEND HALF THE PRICE. I WANTED A, I WAITED A WHILE TO SAVE UP AGAIN TO BUY A PALLET OF SIX FOOT PICKETS. THROUGH THAT TIME, I EXCEEDED THE TIME WITH THE CITY. WHEN I SAW THE EMAIL, MY PERMITS WAS ABOUT TO EXPIRE. I WENT DOWN TO THE CITY FOR AN EXTENSION. AT THAT TIME, I STILL COULDN'T FIND PALLETS OF SIX FOOT PICKETS SUPPLY HOUSES AND PLENTY OF SUPPLY HOUSES. HAD PLENTY OF EIGHT FOOT, BUT NOT SIX FOOT. SO I ENDED UP GOING WITH A EIGHT FOOT PALLET. BEING THAT I LIVE IN A CORNER, THE FENCE IS NOT OBSTRUCTION EITHER SIDE OF THE STREETS. I'M WELL OVER 20 FEET INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THAT IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTING ANYTHING. BUT THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I GOT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? KAPLAN COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. UM, WHAT WAS THE URGENCY OF BUILDING THIS FENCE? WELL, I DIDN'T REPORT THIS TO, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE, UM, I DIDN'T HAVE PROOF THAT, UH, THEY BROKE INTO MY HOUSE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I THINK 2014. AND I'M ASSUMING THEY WENT THROUGH THAT SIDE. AND, UH, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO PUT IT UP, PUT UP A FENCE. 'CAUSE THE FENCE THAT I HAD WASN'T, THAT WASN'T REALLY, REALLY GOOD. MANNA COMM, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, I DID A GOOGLE DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER, UM, EIGHT FOOT FENCES. ARE, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE COMMUNITY OR IS YOURS THE FIRST? NOT CLOSE BY THERE, BUT I THINK ON THE, ON THE BA COUNTY SIDE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF FREDERICKSBURG, THERE'S A, A HIGHER FENCE. BUT I'M, I WASN'T TOO SURE IF IT WAS EXACTLY A, AN EIGHT FOOT OR A SEVEN. AND THE SECOND QUESTION, UM, SO, UM, IF, I GUESS, HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO TAKE A, A BUZZ SAW TO IT AND LOWER, UH, TWO FOOT? I MEAN, NOT TOO, TOO BAD, BUT I HAD TO TALKED TO ONE OF THE CODED COMPLIANCE AND BEING THAT MY HOUSE, HOW IT'S, UH, THE CORNER. 'CAUSE I DO PLAN TO PUT ANOTHER FENCE SO MY KIDS WON'T COME OUT. BUT BEING THAT SHE SAID THAT, UH, SHE HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT IF EVERY FOOT, UM, SOMETHING LIKE THIS, UH, DON'T, DON'T QUOTE ME OR I MEAN, UH, I CAN'T QUOTE HER EXACTLY, BUT SHE HAD MENTIONED TO ME IF I GO FURTHER INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT I COULD GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. BUT SHE DIDN'T, SHE DIDN'T SAY, UH, SHE DIDN'T SAY HOW HIGH. SHE JUST SAID A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. SHE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL EIGHT FOOT THAT I WAS HOPING TO GET OR CAN HOPE TO GET. BUT, UH, SHE HAD MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT, UH, UM, YEAH. UH, THANK YOU. YES, CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I'M SORRY. ON THE PICTURE THAT'S SHOWING NOW, THE HOME THAT'S SHOWING BEHIND [00:30:01] THE FENCE, IS THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME? UH, THAT WAS THE TWO STORY. THAT WAS A, A TWO STORY WE HAD PULLED OUT A PERMIT FOR AND GOT, GOT THINGS GOING FOR THAT. BUT THAT ONE'S, YES. THAT'S, THAT'S MY PROPERTY. OH, OKAY. SO BOTH, SORRY, YOURS? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IS THAT HOUSE OF PERMITTED A D D U? UM, ESSENTIALLY DWELLING UNIT? WELL, I DID PULL OUT A PERMIT. I'M NOT COMPLETELY DONE WITH THAT, BUT YEAH, IT'S JUST A LITTLE SLOW PROCESS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, IS THERE ANY TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE? JUST LIKE THE FRONT ELEVATION HIGHER THAN THE BACK ELEVATION OR KIND OF REASONING FOR, UH, IT'S PRETTY, PRETTY FLAT. PRETTY FLAT? YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN FOR STAFF, HOW WAS THIS CASE ORIGINATED? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE, OF THE, UH, VIOLATION, UH, THIS WAS A TOKEN. THERE IS A CODE CASE OPEN ON IT. YES, THERE'S A CODE CASE THAT WAS OPENED IN APRIL OF 2022. OKAY. BUT THE APPLICANT DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AT SOME POINT BEFORE? YES. FENCE PERMIT? YES. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS BEFORE RIGHT? HE INSTALLED THE SIX FOOT, I'M SORRY, THE EIGHT FOOT PICKETS. OKAY. AND FOR THE APPLICANT DOES, DO YOU OR ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE A POOL OR A HOT TUB IN THEIR BACKYARD? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. YEAH. UH, WITH THAT I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I CAN DO THEM ALL DAY. COMMISSIONER DEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 1 21, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL ALONG THE SIGNED PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 2 2 2 5 SANTA ANA, APPLICANT BEING, UH, LEONARD ESCOBAR. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WAS OBSERVED UPON THE SITE VISIT. AND IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS A REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF SIDE YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND, I'M GONNA GIVE IT TO, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER TEAL. UH, YEAH, I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK OF THE FENCE. IT'S WAY OFF OF THE STREET, AS WELL AS BOTH THE, THE NEIGHBOR FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. WE'RE IN FAVOR OF IT. I DON'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE. THERE'S, UH, ADEQUATE ROOM FOR, UH, UH, FOR LIVING AND, AND BREATHABILITY AND AND VIEW. SO AGAIN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. AND MR. KAPLAN AND I AM NOT IN SUPPORT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP HERE. I THINK, UH, HE CAN EASILY TAKE IT DOWN TWO FEET. UH, THE THEFT OCCURRED IN 2014 AND THE FENCE WENT UP 2021. UH, NO, I WAS REFERRING THAT THE 2014, UH, I HAD A ROBBERY. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. AND YEAH, THEY, SO IT WAS, IT WAS A LONG TIME. OH, YES. AFTER, SO THERE WAS NO URGENCY IN IT. IT WAS AN EMERGENCY. SIR, I'M SORRY, CAN I, NO. YEAH, HOLD ON A SECOND. I, I'M JUST, I JUST, I'M SORRY. SO, UM, THAT FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT. OKAY. GREAT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE SAY THAT, UH, IT SETS A REALLY UGLY PRECEDENT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE, UH, A HISTORY OF EIGHT FOOT FENCES ANYWHERE. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP AT ALL. UH, I'M HAVING A LOT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THIS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE LUMBER WAS EASIER TO GET. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A REALLY GOOD REASON FOR HAVING, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF A, A, AN EYESORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. MINKA? UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA. I CONCUR. ONE, ONE OF MY OPPOSING COLLEAGUES. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? I'M JUST GONNA ADD THAT, UH, [00:35:01] YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS ONE BECAUSE IT, UM, FROM THE, FROM THE MAP PROVIDED IN THE FILE, THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGER LOTS IN THE N IN THIS BLOCK AND IN THE NEIGHBORING BLOCKS. UH, IT ALSO IS, IS A BUDDING, A STRIP MALL ACROSS FROM RENA DRIVE, AND THEN WITH THE A D D U IN THE BACK. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF, OF, OF FUNCTIONAL SPACE IN THEIR YARD. HAVING A SMALL LITTLE EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT ISN'T OPPOSED BY THE NEIGHBOR AT THIS CORNER LOT DOESN'T, DOESN'T, UH, BOTHER ME. SO, UH, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MANNA. NOPE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. ONE QUESTION. I WONDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WHERE WE WOULD JUST RESTRICT, UH, THE HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT TO THE, UH, NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT THAT WAY IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, COME BACK SOMETIME AND WRAP ALL THE WAY AROUND. COMMISSIONER THIEL, WOULD THAT BE THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY? YEAH, SO I THINK THAT'S CONSIDERED THE, YEAH, THAT NORTHWEST SIDE. SO THE FRONT SLASH UH, THAT ONE SIDE, I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT. THAT WAY IT LOOKS MORE CONFORMING WITH OTHER USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THE SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMO UH, UH, AMENDMENT TO WHERE THE MOTION IS NOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE SOLELY ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE THE TRADITIONAL SIDE OF THE LOT LINE. AND, UH, WITH THAT ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR A MOTION PASSES, UH, TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SIDE LOT LINE AND, AND NOT ALONG THE FENCE. THE, THE, THE CONSTRUCTIVE FENCE AT PARALLEL SANTA ANA STREET. ALL RIGHT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, WE'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS. OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. GOOD AFTERNOON, BO O A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. ADDRESS IS 1427 WESTWOOD COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS JUAN ROMERO. A REQUEST FOR 1 8 2 FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH ROD IRON FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH ROD IRON FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THREE A NINE FEET, 10 AND A HALF INCH FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A WR IRON FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT, ONE HALF INCH FROM THE CURB. ZONING IS R FOUR. PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON WEST LOW WOOD IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. A WR IRON FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND THERE IS AN OPEN CODE INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE PICTURE OF THE FENCE HEIGHT, THIS IS ONE OF THE SUPPORTS, UH, FOR THE GATE AND THE CLEAR VISION. AND THEN THE FENCE FROM THE SIDEWALK CURB AND THE, UH, SURROUNDING AREAS. RECOMMENDATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND B O A 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE APPEAR TO BE NO OTHER FENCES OF THIS TYPE IN THE AREA. RECOMMENDATION FOR A CLEAR VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND B O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE AND GATE IS FIVE FEET, ONE AND A HALF INCH FROM THE CURB, AND THE FENCE DOES NOT MEET THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT. A NOTIFICATION PLAN, 40 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR TO LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES, THAT'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, WAS THE, UH, OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FEET? YES, IT WAS? YES. OKAY. AND, UH, WAS IT ONE OF THE ABUTTING, UH, ADJACENT NEIGHBORS? YES, IT WAS. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ON THIS UPDATED. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I'LL GET YOU THAT INFORMATION, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, UM, LASTLY, DID NORMALLY WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT CLEAR VISION, UM, STREETS OR PUBLIC WORKS WILL CHIME IN. DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THIS? NO, SIR, THEY DID. I, I REACHED OUT TO THEM AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE NO, NO FEEDBACK FOR US. OKAY. SO, FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? QUESTION? OH, WAIT, WE HAVE ONE MORE, UH, TECHNICAL QUESTION. UH, COMMISSIONER TEAL? YES, SIR. IS, IS IT LOCATED IN THE KEYSTONE HISTORIC DISTRICT? UH, NOT THAT, [00:40:02] NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. OKAY. JUST 'CAUSE THAT WOULD ALSO MAKE THEM HAVE TO GO THROUGH H D R C H J, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IF THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. MA'AM. UM, I'M STAN BEFORE YOU TODAY TO JUSTIFY THE FENCE. WHY IT WAS BILLED. THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY FOR, UM, SAFETY REASONS. IN THE PAST, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF BREAK-INS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THERE WAS THREE BREAK-INS. AND ON THE THIRD ONE, UM, ONE THAT MY, MY NEIGHBOR'S SON, HE WAS, UM, HE WAS AN 18, 17 OR 18 YEARS OLD. HE ALMOST DIED. HE GOT HURT PRETTY BADLY. AND THEN ON THE SIDE, ON THE OTHER SIDE, AT MY HOUSE, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, HE HAD JUST BOUGHT A TRUCK AND THEY STOLE THE, THEY WERE, THEY WERE, THEY TRIED. THEY, THEY TRIED TO STOLE THE TRUCK AS WELL, BUT THEY WERE JUST ABLE TO REMOVE SOME PARTS OUT OF THAT TRUCK. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE WAS ALSO, THERE WAS BREAK-INS ON MY END. BEFORE THE GATE, MY SON WOULD LEAVE TOYS, A BIKE OR ANYTHING, LIKE FOR CHRISTMAS ARRANGEMENTS, I WOULD PUT OUTSIDE AND THEY WOULD DISAPPEAR. SO, AND EVEN SO, RIGHT NOW, I GET A LOT OF NOTIFICATIONS. I HAD TO PUT THE RING, THE CAMERA. SO I GET A LOT OF NOTIFICATIONS. I BREAK INS AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS IS BASICALLY JUST FOR, UM, SAFETY PURPOSE FOR MY SON. 'CAUSE SOMETIMES MY HUSBAND WORKS OUT OF TOWN AND I STAY HOME ALONE WITH MY EIGHT YEAR OLD. OKAY. UH, DO YOU HAPPEN TO PROVIDE ANY POLICE REPORTS TO STAFF JUST AS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION? NO, SIR. UH, WE WOULD CALL THE POLICE AND THEY WOULDN'T CALL. I MEAN, THEY WOULD, THEY, THEY WOULD NEVER SHOWED UP. AND I HAVE A NEIGHBOR SHE CALLED EVEN, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE CALLED. UH, I HAD THIS PAST WEEKEND. I, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE HAD RECEIVED SOME LETTERS, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR. I WAS NOTIFIED BY SIX OF MY NEIGHBORS, UM, ABOUT THIS, ABOUT LETTERS THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED. MM-HMM. AND OTHER COMMENTS WERE LIKE, OH, WE'LL HOPE, I MEAN, JUST LET THEM KNOW THIS IS JUST FOR A SAFETY PURPOSE AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO US. AND, BUT I MEAN, THE LADY WHO GOT HER SON REALLY BAD HURT, I MEAN, HURT PRETTY BADLY. UH, SHE WAS GONNA COME WITH ME, BUT SHE WAS JUST DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER, SO SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. UM, BUT OVERALL, THIS IS JUST FOR MY SAFETY, MY SON'S SAFETY OVERALL. AND I HAVE TWO DOGS AS WELL. I HAD TO PURCHASE TWO AMERICAN BULLY DOGS. SO, ? YES. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO READ IN. IS THERE ANY ONE CENTER TO SPEAK? AND HE VOICEMAILS? UH, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL, AND HIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT ONE BLOCK NORTH OF THE KEYSTONE, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, WE'LL HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OKAY. YOU PAUSE REAL QUICK TO QUICKLY TRANSLATE THAT PORTION. UH, HER NAME IS GLORIA AZAR. HER ADDRESS IS 1431 WEST LOW WOOD. UH, SHE'S SPEAKING IN FAVOR. AND IN THE PAST SHE SAID THERE HAS BEEN SOME CRIME AND CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. SHE SAYS IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A, UH, FENCE, UH, FOR SAFETY REASONS THEY WISH TO HAVE A FENCE ONE DAY IN THE NEAR FUTURE. UM, AND CONTINUE. [00:45:22] ALL RIGHT. UH, SO THEY TALKED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, ABOUT SAFETY. THEY'VE CALLED THE COPS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, UM, AND THEY NEVER SHOWED UP. AND THEY EXPRESSING HOW THEY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR SAFETY AND CONTINUE. THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF MY, UH, CALL AND MY, UH, IN FAVOR AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANANA, COMMISSIONER MANANA, THIS QUESTION'S FOR STAFF. SO THERE'S DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE VIEW. UM, AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU, I GUESS, WHAT WAS THE OBJECTION THERE? BECAUSE IT IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, UH, I GUESS THAT POSITION ON OUR POSITION FOR DENIAL. YES. UH, SO THE, WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE, UM, THE FENCE BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE STREET WOULD GIVE THE, WHO'S EVER, UH, PULLING OUT, UM, AMPLE VISION TO SEE, UH, WHAT'S COMING. UM, WE KIND OF THINK THAT'S CREATING A DANGER, UM, AS FAR AS CLEAR VISION, PULLING OUT THAT DRIVEWAY TO YOU. BUT AT FOUR FOOT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR CLEAR VISION. SO THE CLEAR VISION, IT CAN GO UP TO THREE FEET. UM, UH, PREDOMINANTLY, UH, OR, UH, SORRY, PRIVACY. UM, EVERYTHING, ANYTHING ABOVE THREE FEET WOULD BE IN THE, UH, CLEAR VISION. SO WHETHER IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR NOT. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA? YES. UH, WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. UH, I CAN SEE IN YOUR HOUSE NOW THAT YOU HAD TWO FENCES ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT. ARE THOSE METAL FENCES THAT YOU PUT UP? YES, SIR. ARE BOTH NEIGHBORS THE FIRST TIME, THAT'S THE WAY THEY BREAK IN. THERE'S LIKE A, AN EMPTY LOT BEHIND MY, BEHIND MY YARD. AND, UH, MY HUSBAND HAD A TOOLBOX AND HE HAD, HE WORKS IN CONSTRUCTION. HE HAS, HE STARTED HIS SMALL BUSINESS IN CONSTRUCTION. SO HE HAD LIKE, UM, EQUIPMENT TOOLS. AND ONE DAY WE, I MEAN, WE WERE, WE WENT TO WORK, WE CAME BACK AND THEY WERE GONE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE BUILT THAT FENCE. SO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS A METAL FENCE? ALL YES. IT'S METAL FENCE. ALL THREE SIDES IN THE BACK. YES, SIR. IT'S A METAL FENCE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, STAFF, I NOTICED THAT AT LEAST FROM THE GOOGLE, UH, SEARCH THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE NO OTHER FENCES ON THIS BLOCK. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. UH, I BELIEVE THE ONLY ONE WE SAW WAS A FEW BLOCKS TO THE WEST. THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE THAT COMMERCIAL, UH, AREA STARTS. BUT WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE MEDIA AREA FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT. WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO DO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE INSTEAD OF ONE THAT CONFORMED TO THE ZONING? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND IT'S NOT EIGHT, IT WAS MEASURED FROM THE APPROACH. SO IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, IT'S A SIX, SIX FOOT UHHUH . YES MA'AM. AND, UM, IT SAYS THERE'S FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. MM-HMM. . SO WHY DIDN'T YOU CHOOSE TO DO FIVE FEET INSTEAD? OR WHY I SHOULD SAY, WHY DIDN'T YOU GET A PERMIT? WHY DID I GET A PERMIT? I, I GUESS I WAS SO DESPERATE. LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, THERE'S TIMES THAT I, YOU KNOW, MY, I'M BY MYSELF WITH MY SON AND I, I JUST COULDN'T SLEEP BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT WAS HAPPENING. IT'S, AND IT'S STILL GOING ON AND IT JUST, UM, IT JUST FOR MY, UM, MY SAFETY, MY SON'S FA OVERALL, MY SON'S NOT MY, YES. AND I THINK THE FIVE OR THE FOUR IS TOO SHORT. ANYBODY CAN JUST JUMP OVER 'CAUSE THEY'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA. UM, SO, UM, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS IN YOUR COMMUNITY AT ALL? SO I GOOGLE NOT EVEN SEE ANY SIDEWALKS. SO ARE THERE ANY PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT AT ALL? NO, SIR. OKAY. NO. UM, SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR FOR YOU. SO LOOKING AT THE SIDE, UM, IT, IT, SO IS THE EIGHT FOOT [00:50:01] JUST THE CENTER OF THAT GATE WHERE IT'S EIGHT FOOT AND IS THE REST OF THE FENCE AT SIX FOOT OR, OR IS ALL THE FENCE? EIGHT FOOT? JUST I GUESS THE MAIN ENTRANCE WHERE YOU'RE GONNA PARK, THAT'S THE ONE THAT LOOKS EIGHT, BUT, UM, IT, TO ME IT'S A SIX. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD FROM THE PERSON WHO, UH, THAT I HIRED TO BUILD THAT, UM, THAT GATE, THAT FENCE. SO STAFF DID. IS THERE ANY CONFIRMATION OF THAT? THAT THE REST REMAINING PART OF THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY SIX FOOT AND THE ONLY THING THAT IS EIGHT FOOT IS THE GATE? IS THAT TRUE STATEMENT? YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. SO, UM, FROM YOUR, FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE, UH, IS THE REST OF THE GATE SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT AND THE ONLY PART THAT IS EIGHT FOOT IS THE ACTUAL GATE ITSELF, AND THEN WE'LL SAY THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE THAT BRINGS THE GATE IN AND OUT. IS THAT TRUE? UM, WHEN WE CONDUCT THE SITE VISITS THAT DAY, UM, YES, MAJORITY OF THE FENCE IS SIX FEET. UM, WHEN WE MEASURE THE EIGHT, THE, UM, THE GATE PART THAT MOVES AROUND, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE RIGHT THERE, IT ALMOST REACHES THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. BUT, BUT AS WITH ZONING, WE MEASURE FROM THE POST. SO WE MEASURE FROM THE, THAT LOWEST POINT OF THE POST THAT IS ALREADY ON THERE TO THE HIGHEST POINT, WHICH IS EIGHT FEET. SO TO POINT, SAY WE INCLUDE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE TOTAL, BUT LOOKING AT THE FENCE OR LOOKING AT THE GATE, THE POST ON THE LEFT SIDE LOOKS LIKE IT'S PROBABLY SIX FOOT, BUT THE POST ON THE RIGHT SIDE WHERE THE GATE GOES IN AND OUT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S EIGHT FOOT TO SUPPORT THE GATE. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND ONE LAST QUESTION. IF, UH, FOR STAFF, IF, WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OF A SIX FOOT FENCE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IN THE FRONT? THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION AND WE STILL DON'T SEE ANY FENCES EVEN AT SIX FEET IN THIS AREA, UM, OR DOWN THIS BLOCK. OKAY. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SAME, BUT WE'D HAVE TO REEVALUATE THAT. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, ITEM NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR, FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE, UH, IS CALLING FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, NINE INCH TALL WROUGHT IRON ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UH, IF IS A SIDE FENCE ALSO PREDOMINANTLY SIX FEET, THERE JUST MAY BE ONE OR TWO POSTS THAT MAY HIT SEVEN FOOT NINE. OR IS IS, IS IT SIMILAR TO THE FRONT? UM, IT'S SIMILAR TO THE FRONT, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS, UH, MA'AM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A MOTION AND WE'LL DELIBERATE. SO, UH, JUST GIVE US A MOMENT FOR THAT. UH, WHAT I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT, UH, IF ANYBODY WHO'S MAKING THIS MOTION WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFY OR, OR CLARIFY THE HEIGHT, UH, WITH EXCEPTION TO ANY SUPPORT POSTS OR THE GATE ITSELF, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO, UH, TO READ INTO THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? JUST, UH, REAL QUICK, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASK IF THERE WAS ANY PLANS ON SIDEWALK. ACCORDING TO THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS MAP, THERE IS NO PLAN RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU UNA. COMMISSIONER UNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 1 24, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A PREDOMINANTLY SIX FOOT FENCE WITH THE POST AND UM, TOP P PART OF THE GATE BEING NINE FOOT 10 AND A HALF FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION. I'M SORRY, . OKAY. UH, I GUESS CLEAR VISION IS SEPARATE FROM THE HEIGHT, RIGHT? SO, OKAY. THE FIRST PART WOULD BE THE CLEAR VISION. THE GRANTOR REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 10 AND A HALF OF FEET FROM THE 15 MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY OF FIVE FEET, ONE AND A HALF INCHES FROM THE CURB SITUATED AT 1427 WEST LULL AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING JUANITA ROMERO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS A MATTERED WOULD RESULT ON AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UM, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE ONE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE SEVEN FEET NINE INCHES FROM THE FRONT INSIDE PROPERTY LINES. IN ADDITION, THE FENCE WOULD BE LIMITED TO A CLEAR VISION OF FIVE FEET, ONE AND A HALF, AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE FENCE HAVING TO BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT TO MEET A MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HEIGHT ALONG THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH THE GATE AND THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT. THE FENCE WOULD ALSO NEED TO MOVE TO MEET THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT. THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT IN LIMITED SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD. THREE, BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE FENCE WILL ALSO ASSIST WITH ADDING ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE F FIVE FOOT ONE AND A HALF INCH TO THE CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT OF 15 FEET OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND AS THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND THE GATE IS ON A ROLLING TRACK, IT WILL [00:55:01] NOT FURTHER IMPEDE INTO THE CLEAR VISION FIELD FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DONNY 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 UNIT WILL NOT CHANGE. 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'S LOCATED. THE REQUEST FOR A FIVE FEET, ONE AND A HALF INCH VARIANCE OF THE CLEAR VISION FIELD WILL NOT, UH, INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE FENCE LINE IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT. WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED, IT APPEARS TO APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT, UH, MERELY FINANCIAL AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS OBVIOUSLY IT, IT IT'S CONCURRENT WITH, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FENCE HEIGHT AS PART OF THE OTHER MOTION THAT WE'RE GONNA SECOND. UH, COULD, COULD, IS IT POSSIBLE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS? BECAUSE I I DON'T MIND THE HEIGHT. YEAH, THE HEIGHT. CLEAR VISION. YEAH. THE HEIGHT'S DONE BY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION MOTION. YEAH. UH OH. WE JUST READ THE, THIS IS JUST CLEAR VISION, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE POWER AND PARCEL. THEY'RE BOTH ONE OF THE SAME. GOT IT. OKAY. WELL, I I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT PART OF IT. THAT'S THE ONE PART I DON'T SUPPORT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH COMMISSIONER STEEL BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY, AGAIN, UH, REALLY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PROPERTY HAS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S A A, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF FENCE THAN YOU FIND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I CAN'T SEE THAT, UH, A FIVE FOOT FENCE AS OPPOSED TO A FENCE. THIS THOUGHT IS GONNA MAKE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE TO SOMEBODY WHO'S SERIOUSLY TRYING TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UH, IF I GOOGLE DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND I GO TO THE, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT THE FAR END CLOSER TO THE H E B, THERE ARE, UM, OTHER FENCES THAT DO APPEAR TO BE, UM, UH, IN THE SAME CLEAR VISION DISTANCE. UM, THEY'RE MUCH LOWER IN HEIGHT. UM, BUT, BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THAT, UH, IT APPEARS TO BE CLOSE TO THAT SAME DISTANCE. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE HOMES IN THAT COMMUNITY, BUT CERTAINLY THE HEIGHT DOES NOT. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'M GONNA CHIME IN. UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CLEAR VISION BECAUSE IF THIS FENCE OR WERE TO BE MOVED BACK TO MEET THE 15 FEET, IT WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK A CAR IN THE UH, DRIVEWAY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLEAR VISION. UH, WITH THAT. TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. LIND. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION FAILS. SEVEN TO FOUR. UM, IS THERE ANY, UH, DEVIATION OR REDUCTION THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO SOMEONE IN THE OPPOSING SIDE? I, I'D LIKE TO SEE FACT FOR CLEAR VISION. UH, WELL, WHAT IS THE, WHATEVER THE CITY IS RENDED. YEAH, RIGHT. TOTAL THEY WANT 15 AND, AND IT'S, IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT FIVE FOOT, ONE INCH. UH, THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU MOVE IT BACK ANOTHER 10, IT, IT CUTS INTO WHERE A CARPET PARK, UH, UM, MAYBE FIVE FEET BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FIVE FEET BETWEEN THE TRUCK. SO MOVE FURTHER BACK FIVE FEET. MOVE IT BACK FIVE FEET, I THINK. OKAY. THEY'LL STILL BE ABLE TO GET THAT. IS IT? CAN YOU MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? YEAH, I, I WOULD MAKE A, A MOTION THAT THE FENCE BE MOVED BACK FIVE FEET. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, REGARDING THE, UM, UH, CLEAR VISION SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE A FIVE FOOT, UH, LET'S SEE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. ANY COMMENTARY? COULD WE JUST CHECK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THAT WOULD, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? UM, HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE ? [01:00:01] WELL, RIGHT NOW THE MO I MEAN I WAS SAVING, I MEAN TO HAVE THAT. YES. OKAY, SO THAT'S A YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT FOR A MOTION TO, FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, SUCH THAT OFFENSE COULD, WOULD BE UP TO NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. MS. KAPLAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND, I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MR. OONA. YES, I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, UH, FOR VARIANCE FOR, UM, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE CLEAR VISION. LET IS LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGARDING THE FENCE SITE. UNA COMMISSIONER UNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 24. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND A REQUEST FOR ONE A TWO FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL ACCESSION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAX MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A, UH, PREDOMINANTLY SIX FOOT FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF THE RAIL, THE FENCE GATE, AND THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE TO BE SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH, A WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE INTO A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE SIX FOOT MAX MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH PREDOMINANTLY SIX FEET AS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE SITUATED AT 1427 WEST ELLWOOD AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING JUANITA ROMEO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT ARE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPECIAL WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. THE UD U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT IT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF OF COMMUNITY. SEE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY NOT, WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH A PROPOSED USE DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO, TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. DE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THIS CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH LOOK AND AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE ACT FOR THE SECTION OF SIDE YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISH FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMIT, UH, PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO REQUEST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER KAMAN HAS A SECOND. COMMISSIONER ZU. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UH, IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, CLEAR VISION, WE REQUIRED THE SETBACK OF THE FENCE FIVE FEET. UM, AND SO, UH, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MITIGATES THAT, THAT HEIGHT IF YOU WILL. 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE SET BACK ALSO. UH, I WAS LOOKING DOWN LOWELL AVENUE WHERE THERE, THERE APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR FENCES TOWARDS THE H E B. SO IT IS IN CONTINUITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT PROVIDES THE, UM, THE SECURITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING WITH THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BREAK-INS AND SUCH. AND, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE FENCE HEIGHT IS SIX FEET WITH ONLY SUPPORT STRUCTURE AND THE TOP OF THE GATE WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. I I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT, UM, THAT WOULD ALTER THE COMMUNITY THAT MUCH. AND YOU DO HAVE SOME SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. DOES ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. AONA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO THREE. UM, AS WITH THE CLEAR VISION, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, UH, LIKE TO HAVE, OFFER ANY SORT OF A WIGGLE ROOM ON THAT? UM, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION, SO, UM, YOU, I GUESS I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE, WITH THE HEIGHT BEING ABOVE THE SIX FOOT AND SO I THINK I COULD LIVE WITH THE SIX FOOT AND SO I JUST DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WOULD GET THERE. BUT, BUT I THINK, WELL THE FENCE, THE MOTION WAS READ FOR SIX FEET EXCEPT FOR THE POST, RIGHT? [01:05:01] WE HAVE TO HAVE A SUPPORT STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IT'S, WELL, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE POSTS AT THE GATE AND THEN THE GATE ITSELF. UH, BUT WOULD YOU SUPPORT SIX FEET? YES. WHAT ABOUT JUST THE GATE BEING HIGHER? SO I GUESS THE QUESTION, YES, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. OKAY. SO, UH, WE NEED SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE TO READ THAT IN, PLEASE. SO, UM, LET'S SEE HERE. UH, CHAIR, UH, SIR, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS A TWO STEP PROCESS. AND I WAS GONNA BRING IT UP TO THE LAST ONE, BUT DO YOU NEED THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST AND THEN THE, UH, SECOND, SIR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO RECONSIDER, PLEASE. I'LL SECOND. SO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UM, THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IF YOU COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. MS. MR. MANNA? YES. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. MS. LIND? YES. MR. ALBERT? YES. MR. MENCHACA KER. MR. SPILLMAN? NO. MS. CRUZ CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MS. KAPLAN? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES. AND MR. AO? YES. I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, CAN ANYONE MAKE THAT NOW THERE'S BEEN MOTION TO RECONSIDER. DOES IT STILL HAVE TO BE SOMEONE FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE? PREVAILING SIDE, YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA. OKAY. UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SEE REGARDING CASE NUMBER, UH, B O A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A, UH, SOME FOOT NINE INCH WROUGHT IRON GATE ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AND, UM, AND I GUESS THEN HIS SIX FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHTS REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE, UH, ALONG THE FRONT AND PROPERTY SIDELINE, UH, SITUATED AT 1 4 2 7 WEST LITTLEWOOD AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, JUANITO ROMERO. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. DO I NEED TO READ THE REST OF IT, UH, AS READ IT, OR, UH, WE DON'T NEED TO READ THE REST OF THE, UM, THE FIVE, FIVE POINTS. DO WE? UH, YOU CAN JUST REFER TO THE, I'LL REFER TO THE PREVIOUS READINGS. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST SET IT UP SO THAT, UH, JUST SO THAT THE REST OF THE DEFENSE IS MAX SIX FOOT, UH, UH, MAKES ME MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AND THEN ALLOWS FOR THE DECORATIVE GATE AT THE FRONT. COMMISSIONER ZUMA, I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL, ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OONA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. LIND, I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. TE YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE . OKAY, MR. CHAIR, WE'LL GET YOU A NEW MICROPHONE. WE CAN GO TO THE, UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. CAN YOU STAND THERE? GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS FOR CASE BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 1 3 5. LOCATED AT 87 22 BIG CREEK DRIVE WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE APPLICANT BEING JOSE MADRIGAL IS A REQUEST FOR A 1000 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, OUR SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, AND THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND HAS BEEN VACANT FOR SOME TIME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 1000 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT [01:10:01] SIZE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED IN 1972 AS A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. WHEN ANNEX, THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN A TEMPORARY R ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION. THIS CONVERTED OVER TO THE CURRENT R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET. THE CONVERSION HAPPENED IN 2001 WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CURRENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE VARIANCE WAS PROMPTED AFTER PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. A PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR NON-CONFORMING LAW OF RECORD WAS COMPLETED, HOWEVER, THE PLATT EXCEPTION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL SHOW A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE LOT SIZE IS CURRENTLY 5,000 SQUARE FEET. TWO, THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT. THREE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO NE NEGATIVELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. WE MAILED OUT 37 NOTICES. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN, UM, FAVOR IN ZERO OPPOSED, UH, WE ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION. THIS DOES CONCLUDE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. REBECCA, CAN YOU STAY UP THERE SO YOU CAN TRANSLATE FOR HIM, PLEASE? YES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSE MADRIGAL. I LIVE AT 24 0 0 3, UH, THREE VERDE RIVER, SORRY, , UM, RIVER. AND HE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY A YEAR AGO WITH THE INTENTION TO DEVELOP A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. YEAH, SO THE INTENTION IS TO BUILD A, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND HE DOESN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. THERE DOES APPEAR THAT THERE'S A FOUNDATION THERE PRESENTLY. UM, THERE IS CONNECTIONS TO UTILITIES AND SEWERS. SO, SO HE, UH, JUST WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE IS ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION? BRAGMAN? COMMISSIONER AMANDA. SO, IS THE INTENTION TO USE THE EXISTING FOUNDATION AND BUILD STRAIGHT UP FROM THERE, OR ARE YOU GONNA EXPAND IT AT ALL? UH, TO USE THE, THE INTENTION IS TO CONTINUE TO USE THE FOUNDATION THAT'S THERE. HE DID HAVE AN ENGINEER CHECK ON IT AND SAY THAT IT'S OKAY TO BUILD ON IT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, AND I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. THIS, THIS IS, UH, LISTED AS LOT 29 WITH A FIVE DIGIT N C B. UH, SO WAS THIS, THIS, SO THIS HAD TO BEEN CREATED BY A PLATT POST 1927. IS, IS THERE, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY HE WAS, HE, HE HE'S BEFORE US. ISN'T THERE AN EXCEPTION? THERE WAS NO, UH, UH, CERTIFICATE OF, UM, C O D UH, TURNED IN FOR THIS. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THE PROCESS IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH IT. UM, BUT THERE WAS NO, UH, NOT PERFORMING A LOT OF RECORD APPROVED FOR THIS YET. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, CONFIRM CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. UM, DOES HE KNOW IF THERE WAS A PROPERTY HERE BEFOREHAND? BECAUSE HE SAYS THAT HE JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. WAS THERE SOMETHING THERE AND THEY, AND THEY TORE IT DOWN OR DOES HE KNOW? SO HE JUST BOUGHT IT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THE CURRENT, UM, STATE OF IT, HE DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S A HOUSE THERE. AND HE'S ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A FOUND FOUNDATION THERE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. [01:15:01] MIN CHAKA. THANK YOU. MR. MIN CHAKA. AND THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT, IT'S GOING TO DILAPIDATED. WILL HE BE REPLACING THAT FENCE WITH A BIGGER FENCE OR A PRIVACY FENCE? YES. HIS INTENTION IS TO, UH, FIX IT OR AT LEAST PUT UP A NEW ONE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? I HEAR NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND REQUEST FOR A 1000 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT 8 7 2 2 BIG CREEK DRIVE APPLICANT BEING JOSE AL BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST 'CAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP 'CAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN AN INABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. 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 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND WILL MEET ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SETBACKS. FOUR. 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 AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED. R SIX. AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALSO DO NEED NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE TO 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 THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION SINCE IT WAS PLATTED. THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN A ZONING DESIGNATION WHEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY THAT WILL NOT MATCH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. AS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF PROPERTIES IN, UH, THE SAN ANTONIO AREA AND, AND BEXAR COUNTY IN GENERAL. SO THE FACT THAT THIS IS GONNA BE INFILLED, UM, IN SUPPORT OF, AND THEN AS IS NOTED, THERE APPEARS TO BE QUITE A NUMBER OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA WITH THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. I ALSO AGREE WITH RAGMAN. UH, AND ALSO I FEEL THIS HAD BEEN PLOTTED ORIGINALLY AS A BUILDING LOT. SO, UM, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT FOR IT TO BE A BUILDING LOT. NO PROBLEMS WITH IT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, IT LOOKS FROM THE LOOKS OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, WHEN THESE CONVERSIONS HAPPEN, HALF THESE LOTS, THIS ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED. R FIVE. UH, MAYBE SOMETHING TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL'S OFFICES FOR, FOR A LARGE SCALE ZONING CHANGE TO MAKE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA MIGHT BE IN ORDER. UH, WITH THAT, UH, UH, PLEASE CALL ROLL MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND, I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TE YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UM, SIR, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALL RIGHT, NEXT CASE PLEASE. UM, BO O 8 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 6 LOCATED AT 1 3 9 BERKELEY AVENUE. AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT BEING JESSICA ANA. UM, A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SET BY REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, A NINE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CAR WITH THE OVERHANG WITH OF TO BE FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THREE, A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. [01:20:01] UH, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON ALONG BERKELEY AVENUE NEAR SOUTHWEST MORRIS STREET, AND IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED CARPORT IN FRONT, WHICH WILL ONLY MAINTAIN TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THREE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IN LINE IN LIEU OF REQUIREMENT OF THE 10 FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE REQUIREMENT AND FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE REQUIREMENT. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. UM, THAT WILL ONLY MAINTAIN ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF, OF REQUIRED FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THAT'S CURRENTLY A PICTURE OF THE SIDE PLAN. THE BLUE LINE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM IS THE PROPOSED CARPORT. AND, UM, THE LIGHTER BLUE SHADE IS GONNA BE TOWARDS GOING TOWARDS THE SIDE OF THE HOME. IT'S GONNA BE WHERE THE ATTACHED, UM, SHADED STRUCTURE'S GOING TO BE. UM, SO IT IS PROPOSED, UM, THERE'S NOTHING THERE RIGHT NOW. SO THE CARPORT WILL, THAT'S THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT AND THE SHADED STRUCTURE WILL BE EXTENDING ALL THE WAY TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THAT'S THE LOCATION WHERE IT'S GONNA BE, UH, THAT IS WHERE THE SHADED STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE, UM, LOCATED AT. AND, UH, THE FRONT SETBACK MEASUREMENT, UH, AND THEN SURROUNDING AREA, KIND OF A SIMILAR STYLE, UM, CARPORT IS NOTED HERE IN THE PICTURE. UM, FRONT AND SIDE ATTACHED CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL BO 8 22 103 1 3 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, THE STRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THE CARPORT WILL HAVE GUTTERS, UH, UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS, UH, EXISTS ON A PROPERTY THAT PREVENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT FOR ADEQUATE VEHICLE SPACING. UM, CARPORTS ARE OBSERVED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, THEREFORE THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS NILE, UM, AND BO O 8 22 103 0 0 1 3 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, THE ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE WOULD BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE DISTANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UM, THERE DO NOT APPEAR TO NEED ANY, ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, NOT JUSTIFY ADDING IN STAT SHADE STRUCTURE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN, THERE WERE 32 NOTICES MAILED OUT. UH, THERE WERE NONE RETURN IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION. UH, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE IN THE QUINTANA COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, ONE SMALL TINY ERROR. IT'S IN DISTRICT FIVE, NOT TWO. AND I SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE IT'S THREE BLOCKS FROM MY HOUSE. LEMME SEE. DOES THAT ANY, UM, NON STAFF REPORT? THE LEGAL SHIP SHOULD BE CORRECT, CORRECT? WELL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES. IT DOES HAVE TWO ANA AND PALM HEIGHTS, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, . OH, AND THE SIDEWALKS HAVE JUST RECENTLY BEEN ADDED TO THE YES. NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT MIGHT ADD SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO IT. OKAY. YEAH. UM, , THE PLANNER IS ON THE CRUISE, SO I KIND OF TOOK ON THIS ONE , SO, BUT NOTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. WE DID CONFIRM IT IS, UH, DISTRICT FIVE AND WE ARE GOOD TO GO. UH, THE LEGAL IS, IS GOOD, AND THE ADDRESS IS GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? UH, NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS, HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. CAN YOU JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION? MY NAME IS ALIA HERANDEZ. THIS IS MY WIFE JESSICA ALDONA. WE RESIDE AT 1 39 BURKE AVENUE. THE REASON FOR OUR REQUESTS, UH, FOR THE VARIANCES, LET ME BEGIN WITH THE CARPORT. UM, WE HAVE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY. WE WANNA PUT A CARPORT OVER IT. THAT DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE, THE WAY IT STANDS, THE SIZE AND SO FORTH FOR 52 YEARS. THAT'S THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF MY WIFE'S FAMILY IN ORDER TO BUILD OVER IT. AND IF WE LOOK AT WHAT, UH, THE ORDINANCES ARE, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD A ROOF OVER THE EXISTING CARPORT BECAUSE OF THE FIVE FOOT, UM, PARAMETER THAT WE HAVE NEXT TO OUR NEIGHBOR, THE GRASSY AREA NEXT TO OUR CARPORT BOUND, UH, THAT, THAT BORDERS OUR, UH, NEIGHBOR IS TWO FEET, THEN OUR DRIVEWAY STARTS. IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE FIVE FOOT [01:25:01] SETBACK, THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE CUTTING INTO THREE FEET FROM OUR DRIVEWAY. THERE IS NO WAY THAT A CAR WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN FIT IN UNDER THAT COVERED AREA. LOOKING AT, AND THAT'S WIDTHWISE, LOOKING AT IT LENGTHWISE, IF WE HAVE TWO VEHICLES BACK TO BACK WITH THE ORDINANCES, IS THE WAY THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. HALF, ALMOST HALF OF THE SECOND CAR CLOSEST TO THE STREET WOULD BE EXPOSED. AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT EXPOSURE. IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE HAD HAIL DAMAGE TO OUR VEHICLES TWO TIMES ALREADY. WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT THAT FROM OCCURRING BECAUSE IT, UH, THEY'LL START BECOMING EXPENSIVE EVEN IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE. ADDITIONALLY, AT THIS TIME OF YEAR, THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE PECAN TREES OR HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE PECAN TREES, KNOW THAT THE SAP, IN ESSENCE, IT'S REALLY CALLED HONEYDEW FROM THE INSECT CALLED APHIDS. AROUND THIS TIME OF YEAR UNTIL THE FIRST FREEZE, THAT IS A PROBLEM. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. COUPLE OF SUNDAYS AGO, I WASHED BOTH CARS, PUT'EM IN THE DRIVEWAY IN A COUPLE OF HOURS. OUR CARS WERE COMPLETELY COVERED WITH, AND I'M GONNA CALL IT SAP. AND THAT THING, IF THE SUN HITS IT AND IT HARDENS, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO REMOVE. VERY DIFFICULT, IT DOES DAMAGE TO THE CLEAR COAT. WE WANT TO AVOID THAT. SO ALSO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE, UH, SOME PROTECTION WHILE WE'RE MOVING IN AND OUT OF OUR VEHICLES. DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER, DURING RAINY DAYS. UH, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR, UH, THE, UH, THE VARIANCES. WITHOUT THE VARIANCES, WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO EXTEND OUR CAR, OUR, OUR DRIVEWAY WITH WISE, SO THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PARK TWO VEHICLES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER, NOT BACK TO BACK. SO THE CARPORT THEN WOULD HAVE TO MOVE TO TOWARDS THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE COVERING THE ENTRYWAY OF OUR PORCH INTO OUR FRONT DOORWAY. THEREFORE, OUR SIDEWALK WOULD BECOME PART OF A PARKING LOT. OUR PARKING LOT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. THE REASON FOR REQUESTING A SITE STRUCTURE IS WE DO HAVE A WINDOW, UH, THAT FACES THE WEST SIDE OF A HOUSE. AS THE SUN MOVES FROM EAST TO WEST AND IT HITS THAT PORTION OF THE HOUSE WITH A WINDOW BEING THERE, IT DOES GET VERY HOT. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT PROTECTION TO PROVIDE SOME, SOME SHADE. UH, ALSO, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE IT TO STORE SOME ITEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW IN OUR FRONT PORCH, WE HAVE AN EXERCISE BIKE. IT'S COVERED, BUT I REALLY DON'T, WE DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN EXERCISE BIKE IN OUR FRONT PORCH. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEWHERE ELSE TO MOVE IT. IF WE HAD THAT SIDE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD PROVIDE SHADE AND PROTECTION, THEN WE COULD LOCATE IT THERE. ALSO, THAT SIDE SHAPE WOULD ALSO PROVIDE PROTECTION AS WE'RE MOVING FROM THE PORCH TO THE SIDE SITE TO THE VEHICLES. AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR OUR, OUR REQUEST. AND AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THE EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE CONCRETE, IF HAPPEN, WE ARE LOOKING AT DOUBLING THE COSTS OF WHAT, UH, A CARPORT WOULD, WOULD COST WITHOUT, IF WE HAD THE VARIANCES, IT WOULD BE A, IT WOULD BE A CERTAIN PRICE WITHOUT THE VARIANCES, THEN IT'S DOUBLED THE COST BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE. THE ADDITIONAL METAL, AND I DO WANNA MENTION THEY'RE BOTH WOULD BE METAL STRUCTURES BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'RE GONNA BE CLOSE TO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IF THERE ARE METAL, WE ARE LIMIT, WE'RE LIMITING THE CHANCES, THE POSSIBILITY OF FIRE TRANSFERRING OVER TO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. AND, UH, THE GUTTERS WOULD ALSO BE IN PLACE TO PREVENT THE RAIN FROM FALLING OVER AND MESSING UP OUR, OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD. SO THE GUTTERS WOULD PROVIDE THAT PROTECTION FROM THEM. OKAY. AND IF YOU'RE WONDERING, WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR IT? NOW? YOU'VE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. OUR NEIGHBOR, UH, NOT THE ONE WITH THE PECAN TREES BECAUSE THE OTHER TO THE OTHER SIDE. UH, SHE RECENTLY PASSED AWAY AT 102 YEARS OLD. SHE DIDN'T HAVE A VEHICLE [01:30:01] DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. DURING TIMES THAT WE WERE EXPECTING HAIL. SHE LET US USE HER GARAGE. IT WAS A ONE CAR GARAGE. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IT, UH, THE, UH, ONE OF OUR VEHICLES IN THERE DURING THIS TIME OF YEAR, INSTEAD OF PARKING IN OUR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE OF THE SAP, WE WOULD USE HER DRIVEWAY. SHE, I GUESS SHE PASSED AWAY RECENTLY IN NOVEMBER. UH, AND NOW THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD AND THEY'RE FIXING IT UP, THAT THAT, UH, OPPORTUNITY WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO US ANYMORE. WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WE LIKE THE WAY OUR HOUSE LOOKS. I TAKE CARE OF THE YARD AS MUCH AS WE CAN. IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT WITH THESE TEMPERATURES OF A HUNDRED DEGREES THAT WE HAD OVER THE SUMMER, BUT WE, LIKE I SAID, WE TAKE PRIDE IN OUR YARD. WE, IT MAY NOT BE A MANSION, BUT IT IS A, IT IS OUR CASTLE. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE LOOK THAT IT HAS. WE WANT, WE, WE LOVE TO DECORATE EVERY HOLIDAY. WE DO PUT OUT DECORATIONS, ESPECIALLY DURING HALLOWEEN AND CHRISTMAS. I KNOW, AND THAT'S NOT, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS, IS A CRITICAL NEED, IS A CRITICAL, UH, ITEM. BUT IT DOES ENHANCE THE APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY. SO BY ASKING FOR THESE VARIANCES AND HOPEFULLY BEING GRANTED THESE VARIANCES, NOT ONLY WILL WE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE AESTHETIC LOOK OF OUR HOUSE, BUT ALSO WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PROTECTION THAT THE STRUCTURES WOULD PROVIDE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP FOR QUESTIONS. AND UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START ON THIS NOT TO OFFEND ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT WE HEARD THAT THERE WAS SIDEWALKS RECENTLY ADDED. IS THERE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF YOUR HOME? YES, SIR. IS IT ABUTTING THE CURB OR IS IT SEPARATED FROM THE CURB? IT'S SEPARATED FROM THE CURB ABOUT TWO OR THREE FEET. I HAVEN'T MEASURED ABOUT, I WANNA SAY IT'S WITHIN THAT. OKAY. AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE I WANTED TO GET OUTTA THE WAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UH, YEAH, PERFECT PICTURE. SO RIGHT THERE IT SHOWS, UM, I GUESS A DRIVEWAY. AND SO, UM, THE POSTS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING FOR THE CARPORT, WOULD THEY BE ALIGNED WITH THAT DRIVEWAY RIGHT THERE? OR THEY COULD EXTEND OUT FURTHER THAN, UH, I GUESS INTO THE YARD? WHERE DO YOU PUSH IT? OKAY. OKAY. THE POST WILL BE IN THIS AREA, SIR, IT IS ONLY GONNA BE ON ONE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY OF THE POSTS OVER HERE. OH. THE DESIGN IS GONNA BE SET UP HERE IN OUR PROPERTY SO THAT WE WILL LIMIT THE INTERFERENCE OF, UH, MESSING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. OKAY. INTERESTING. SO, SECOND QUESTION. UM, SO, SO THE REQUEST HERE AND THE CITY IS, IS KIND OF AGREED THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK. AND A QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HARDSHIP WOULD THAT PRESENT IF IT WAS THAT YOU WENT THREE FOOT DOWN OR HAD THAT THREE FOOT EXCEPTION ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SIDE TO ALLOW YOUR STRUCTURE TO BE, UH, KIND OF ALIGNED WITH THE REST OF, UH, WHAT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, YOUR CURRENT CARPORT. SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CARPORT EDGE IS GONNA BE THREE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND COULD IT BE THE SAME CASE FOR, UM, THE REST OF YOUR, THE COVERING THERE TO ALSO BE THREE FOOT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? NO, COULD YOU, COULD YOU PLEASE SAY IT AGAIN? SO WE TALKED ABOUT, SO THE, SO, SO RIGHT NOW THE REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE FIVE FOOT, UM, SETBACK. FOR THE CARPORT, RIGHT? SO THE CARPORT IS NOT GONNA BE AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE. CORRECT. IT'S GONNA BE THREE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, TWO FEET AWAY. THAT, THAT, I'M SORRY, TWO FEET AWAY. SORRY. TWO FEET AWAY. THAT, THAT GRASSY AREA RIGHT THERE IS TWO FEET. SO THE QUESTION THEN IS COULD YOUR, UH, FOR THE SECOND HALF THE REQUEST, UM, SO COULD YOUR AWN OR YOUR COVER ALIGNED WITH THAT CUTOUT AS WELL? SO IT ALIGNS WITH THE CARPORT. SO IT'S A STRAIGHT LINE ALL THE WAY BACK ALONG THAT EDGE. AND SO YOU STILL HAVE, SO YOU HAVE THAT TWO FOOT EXCEPTION THERE, UH, UH, FOR THAT SIDE COVERING, WOULD THAT BE, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT PRESENT ANY HARDSHIP OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED? I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR REQUEST THAT, UM, ACTUALLY IT'S LISTED AS ONE INCH AWAY. OH, NO, THAT, THAT'S ON THE SITE STRUCTURE. THAT'S BACK THERE. YES. OKAY. SORRY. SO THE QUESTION IS, COULD THAT BE TWO FOOT AWAY, YOU KNOW, AND STILL GET YOU THE, WHAT IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH REGARDS TO COVERING THAT SIDE PROPERTY? UH, NOW I, NOW I, NOW I GET YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, IT COULD BE TWO FEET AWAY. WE WERE, WE, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS GET AS MUCH COVER AS POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE ASKING FOR IT. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO BACK WITH WHAT [01:35:01] IS ALLOWED WITH A FIVE FOOT, IT WOULD ONLY GIVE US A COVERING OF A YARD LIKE THREE FEET. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING IF WE GO WITH THE TWO FEET JUST TO BE IN LINE WITH THIS, THEN THAT WOULD GIVE US, UM, IT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE PREFERRED. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS, WHAT IS OKAY, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE. THANK YOU. THE SUN, RIGHT. COMMISSIONER ALBERT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GIVEN THIS DESIGN A LOT OF CONSIDERATION, SIR. AND I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. UH, A FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM YOUR HOUSE, IF YOU'RE FACING YOUR HOUSE, A FEW HOUSES TO THE RIGHT, THERE'S A CARPORT, UH, AND NOT THE DESIGN NECESSARILY OR THE, THE LOCATION AND THE SIZE OF IT, BUT THE, THE SIMPLE DESIGN OF IT, THE SIMPLE FLAT ROOF, A COUPLE OF POSTS, UH, ALMOST DON'T EVEN NOTICE THAT IT'S THERE. IT'S A VERY LIGHTWEIGHT, SIMPLE STRUCTURE. IS THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING, OR ARE YOU GONNA CONSIDER LIKE A GABLE END, A LARGER, MORE BOLD STRUCTURE? IT, IT, IT'LL BE LARGER. UH, UH, TWO GABLES, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THE, BECAUSE BEING METAL, IT'S GOING TO BE A STRONGER STRUCTURE. SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF THE MAKEUP, NOT NECESSARILY THE DESIGN, BUT IN TERMS OF THE MAKEUP, IT'LL BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT'S TWO HOUSES, UM, ON THE, ON, ON OUR SIDE, TWO HOUSES UP THE STREET. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE A, UM, SOME QUESTIONS. UH, SO GOOGLE EARTH SHOWS A SIZABLE TREE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING SHED. UH, ON YOUR, ON YOUR, WHERE YOU LIKE TO PUT YOUR SHADE STRUCTURE. WAS, WAS THAT TREE RECENTLY REMOVED THAT THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED? THE REASON, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT TREE RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? UH, NO, THERE WAS, UH, IT'S IT'S ALREADY GONE. IT'S ALREADY GONE GOOGLE OR, OH, THAT, THAT ONE, YES. UH, THERE WAS A TREE THERE AND THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. THE REASON FOR THE REMOVAL IS WE ARE LOOKING AT, UH, WELL WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOLAR PANELS, UH, PUT, UH, AGAIN, FOR PURPOSES OF, UH, BEING GREEN, YOU'RE TRYING TO BE GREEN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR THE, THE SUN, UH, HITTING THE PANELS. SO THAT WAS REMOVED MAYBE LIKE TWO WEEKS AGO. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR YARD SHOWS AN, AN EXISTING SHED. IS THAT USED FOR STORAGE? YES, SIR. THAT USED FOR STORAGE AND LAWN MOWER, THINGS OF THAT SORT. IT'S, IT'S NOT SIZABLE TO, TO HANDLE THE STORAGE THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT IN THE SHADE STRUCTURE. THE REASON IT WOULD NOT BE IS BECAUSE THE EXERCISE BIKE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE COVER THERE. I USE THAT DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER, WEATHER WHEN I CANNOT TAKE MY, WHEN I CANNOT GO OUT RIDING MY, MY, MY BICYCLE. SO IF IT WOULD BE IN THE SHED FOR STORAGE, IF IT WASN'T USED, IT WOULD BE PERFECT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S USED, THEN I NEED NEEDED TO, TO, I NEED TO HAVE IT I SOMEWHERE WHERE IT'S READILY AVAILABLE. OKAY. AND IS THERE A, UM, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A, A, A STORAGE THAT EXTENDS ACROSS THE ENTIRE SIDE OF YOUR HOME, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE MINIMUM DISTANCE YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET YOUR STORAGE NEEDS? HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE ISSUE. IF WE CUT BACK, WHAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS, UH, THAT I MENTIONED WAS FOR SHAPE PURPOSES. THAT WINDOW THAT'S BACK THERE, WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE, UM, STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE SHAPE. SO WHEN THE SUN HITS IT, IT DOESN'T HEAT UP THE INSIDE OF OUR HOUSE THAT MUCH. SO WE WANT A STRUCTURE THAT WILL START HERE TO PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION FOR THAT AREA THERE TOO, AS WE'RE MOVING FROM THE PORCH TO THAT SIDE STRUCTURE TO THE CARPORT. AND IF WE WERE TO MINIMIZE THE SIZE, THEN WE'RE EITHER GOING TO AFFECT THAT AREA THERE OR THE WINDOW, OR THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GO I, I, I WAS JUST WONDERING 'CAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 45 FOOT LONG SHADE STRUCTURE, THIS SEEMS, UM, A LOT. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT THE MINIMUM TO MEET YOUR NEED WAS OR IF, BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU NEED THE WHOLE 45 FEET, THEN I GUESS THAT'S YOUR ANSWER. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, WOULDN'T IT JUST BE CHEAPER TO GET A BLIND FOR THAT WINDOW? IT, IT WOULD, BUT WE ALSO, LIKE I SAID, WE WANNA BE ABLE TO PUT SOME THINGS UNDER THE, THE, THE, UH, THE STRUCTURE. BUT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT A, UH, TWO FEET FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE YOU A STRUCTURE. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. IF, IF, [01:40:01] UH, IF THAT IS WHAT WE ARE BEING OFFERED, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. YES. OKAY. UM, SO IS THERE NOTHING ELSE? I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND I, I'M JUST WOULD PUTTING THIS OUT THERE, I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, THAT THE, UH, SIDE SHADE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION BE DONE SEPARATELY. JUST A SUGGESTION. OKAY. SO DOES ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 22 DASH 3 3 6? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE TWO FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A NINE FOOT EIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CAR, EXCUSE ME, TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH AN OVERHANG TO BE FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1 3 9 BURKE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING JESSICA ALDANA. 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 LITERAL ENFORCEMENT 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. IT WILL ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT AND THE SIDE SHADE STRUCTURE WILL ALLOW THE STRUCTURE, EXCUSE ME, IT WILL ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OF THE CARPORT TO BE STRUCTURE BE ONE FOOT TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO MAINTAIN A FIVE FOOT TO THE SIDE AND 10 FOOT TO THE FRONT. THE STAFF FINDS THAT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND PLACEMENT OF THE RESIDENCE RESULTING IN NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A PRACTICAL CARPORT AND ATTACHED THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ATTACHED REPORT, THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE ADEQUATE SPACING FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WILL MEET THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING THE REAR SETBACKS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE AN OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE, THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED TO R SIX AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTH, 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. NUMEROUS CARPORTS MADE OF SIMILAR MATERIALS AND SIZE WERE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE AREA, AND THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED CARPORT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR THE, THE CARPORT WOULD NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NARROW AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND, WHO'S THE SECOND MANNA? UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA HAS THE SECOND COMMISSIONER. TEAL? UH, YES. I REMOVED, UH, ITEM THREE FROM THIS MOTION SO THAT WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE CLEANER. UM, BUT EXACTLY, UH, BASICALLY IT'S, IT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IN THE VARIANCE. AND I AM SUPPORT. I THINK, UH, YOU GUYS HAVE MORE THAN MAJOR CASE AND I I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE, UH, STRUCTURE THAT YOU'LL BE BUILDING AND, UH, WILL SERVE YOUR PURPOSES. COMMISSIONER MANO, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE CARPORT BEING 40. IT'S A 45 FOOT LONG CARPORT, AND I WANTED TO, UH, THANK COMMISSIONER THIEL FOR NOT, NOT READING ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH I WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF. SO, UM, HAVE VOICEMAIL VOTE PLEASE. SORRY. VOICE VOTE. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO INCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE ITEM NUMBER THREE TO BE, UH, MOVED? I CAN READ IT IN. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER TEAL TEAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 36, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR [01:45:02] A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ATTACHED SAGE STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1 3 9 BURKE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING JESSICA ALDONA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE, UH, THE SHADE STRUCTURE WILL BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UH, STAFF FINDS UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT, AND PLACEMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A PRACTICAL ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND A SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS REQUESTED. VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE. THIS STRUCTURE WILL HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WE'LL MEET ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SET REAR SETBACKS. FOUR. 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 AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED. R SIX. AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCES 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 NUMEROUS CARPORTS AND SHADE STRUCTURES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED SHADE STRUCTURE DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE, OF, OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OR GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NARROW AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER THIEL. I'LL GO AHEAD AND BE IN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. UH, THE, THE APPLICANT SAID THEY WERE AMENABLE TO A TWO FOOT VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE. I G BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL GIVE THEM, UH, SOME ADEQUATE COVER FROM BOTH THE INCLEMENT WEATHER AND TO PROVIDE SOME SHADE FOR THAT REAR WINDOW AND WHEN THEY'LL BE RIDING THEIR BICYCLE. SO I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION AS READ. COMMISSIONER MAYON. UM, YEAH, SO, SO THE ONLY QUESTION, UH, AND I APOLOGIZE, UH, DIDN'T GET TO ASK THIS QUESTION EARLIER. SO IT TALKS ABOUT GUTTERS BEING ON THE CARPORT, BUT THE GUTTERS ALSO BE INCLUDED ON THE SIDE PIECE HERE AS WELL. SO, SO DOES THAT NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE MOTION THEN THAT IT INCLUDES THAT? YES. THAT'D AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE STAGE, SHADE STRUCTURE AS WELL. THEN? UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE IMMENSELY. OKAY. ALSO, AS A NOTE, UH, AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE SIMILAR LENGTH STRUCTURES ON MULTIPLE HOMES, INCLUDING THE TWO TO THE WEST AS WELL AS ON NEIGHBORING STREETS. SO IT DOES SEEM CONSISTENT THAT THE LENGTH OF THE CARPORT DOES OFTEN MATCH THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE OR DEPTH OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. AND I'M GONNA OPEN THIS BACK UP. UH, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK UP REAL QUICK, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP, SIR. UH, WE HEARD, UH, FROM THE COMMISSIONER WHO MADE THE MOTION ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF, OF GUTTERS, DID YOUR APPLICATION INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE SIDE, SHADE STRUCTURE? IT DIDN'T, BUT IT WAS REVISED. AND I KNOW WE INCLUDED IT FOR THE CARPORT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS FOR THE CARPORT AND THE SITE. OKAY. STAFF. IS THAT ADEQUATE ENOUGH, UH, FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION? YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK AGAIN. UH, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE FOR A, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FOR A THREE-FOOT SHADE STRUCTURE EXTENDING, UH, 45 FEET DOWN THE SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, UH, WITH THE, WITH GUTTERS. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS I'D LIKE TO ADD? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A VOICE VOTE. UH, VOICE VOTE PLEASE. OR ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MANO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN? I CONCUR. MR. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MR. AONA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF ABOUT, UH, WHAT TO DO AT THIS POINT MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. YES, SIR. UH, ALL RIGHT. NEXT CASE. ITEM SEVEN. ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE DO, IT'S 2 51, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK TILL THREE O'CLOCK. YES, SIR. AND FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS A HARD STOP, THIS IS THE TIME. WE DO HAVE TWO ALTERNATES WAITING TO FILL. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT, UM, HAVE AN OBLIGATION? COMMISSIONER [01:50:01] CRUZ. YOU DO ALL RIGHT? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO IF I CAN LEAVE NOW, THAT'D BE GREAT. THAT'D BE GREAT. SO COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UH, WILL BE LEAVING THE MEETING AT 2 51. AND, UH, WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATES. COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ WILL WILL BE SEATED ON THE, ON THE DICE. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. I I I COULD BE TALKED INTO IT . I COULD BE TUCKED INTO A HARD STOP. [02:00:40] YEAH, [02:00:40] RIGHT THERE THOUGH. ALL RIGHT. IT'S 3 0 2. WE'RE GOING TO, UH, CALL THIS BACK TO ORDER FROM BREAK. UH, WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UM, BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. I'M LOCATED AT, UH, 9 3 0 MAGNUS LANE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX, UM, APPLICANT BEING RUBEN ORTEGA AND APPLICANT. UH, A REQUEST FOR A FOR ONE, A FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH OVERHANG ANGLE TO BE EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH AN, WITH AN OVERHANG TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE. THREE A NINE INCH VARI FROM THE, FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS TO BE FOUR FEET, THREE INCHES FROM THE SITE PROPERTY. AND CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UM, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ALONG MAGNUS LANE, NEAR GENUS STREET, AND CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH ENCROACHERS INTO THE SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK. UPON SITE VISIT. STAFF OBSERVED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS ON THE, HAS THE ONLY CARPORT THAT VIOLATES THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE SETBACK, UM, AND SITE PLAN WITH THE 800 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT. UH, A PICTURE OF THE CARPORT ITSELF, SOME OF THE MEASUREMENTS, UM, SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS THAT HAVE SIMILAR STYLE, UM, CARPORTS. UM, SO FRONT AND SIDE SET SETBACK VARIANCE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS AND THE STAFF DID NOT FIND ANY OTHERS, ANY OTHER CARPORTS IN THE SURROUNDING WITH ANY ENCROACH ON THE SIDE AND FRONT SETBACKS. UH, THERE WERE 36 NOTICES MAILED. UM, THERE WERE ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CABLE WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A, A SIDE ENCROACHMENT ON EACH SIDE. EACH SIDE? YES, SIR. YES. OKAY. AND, AND, AND I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THIS IS, IF IT'S A CARPORT'S 32 FEET WIDE, IT MEAN THE LOT'S, LIKE 30, THE LOT'S, LIKE 35 FEET WIDE OR SOMETHING. I LOOK AT GOOGLE. IT SHOWS ACTUALLY, THEY HAVE LIKE A SECOND CARPORT STYLE ACROSS THE FRONT. OH, YEAH. THE, UH, FRONT DOOR. IT'S A, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S, UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. I'M, UH, RUBEN ORTEGA, JR. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY FATHER. UM, SO THE CARPORT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 2011, IS THE LATEST GOOGLE PICTURE WE COULD FIND ON GOOGLE, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT IN AROUND OH SEVEN OR OH EIGHT, UM, BECAUSE OF MY GRANDMOTHER LIVING WITH MY PARENTS SO THEY COULD TAKE CARE OF HER. THEY WANTED TO PROVIDE, UH, COVER SO THAT SHE WAS WHEELCHAIR BOUND, AND SO THAT SHE WOULDN'T, UH, WHEN SHE WOULD HAVE TO GO VIA TRANCE TO GET HER TREATMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SHE WOULD HAVE COVER FROM THE WEATHER. UH, THAT'S THE REASON WHY, UH, THE CARPET WAS BUILT. UM, NOW SINCE THEN, SHE HAS PASSED. UH, MY PARENTS ALSO, [02:05:01] UH, ALLOWED HER TO SIT ON THE PORCH ON THE SIDE. I DUNNO IF YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE PICTURES. SO THEY PROVIDED THE COVER THERE AS WELL. SO SHE WOULD HAVE A, A PLACE TO SIT OUTSIDE NOW, UM, NOW THAT MY PARENTS ARE IN THEIR SEVENTIES, UM, THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN UP SINCE ABOUT OH EIGHT. AND, UM, THERE WERE NO, NO PROBLEMS FROM THE NEIGHBORS IN REGARDS TO THE STRUCTURE BEING THERE. UM, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, IT WAS BUILT AS A DETACHED STRUCTURE. AND, UM, SO WHEN THE CITATION WAS ISSUED, UH, IT WAS ISSUED DUE TO A VERY, UM, DUE TO THE SIDE OF 59, 34 MAGNUS LANE, THAT SIDE, UM, UM, EASEMENT BEING, UH, BROKEN. AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CITATION. AND SO AFTER LOOKING AT THAT, UM, WE, MY FATHER, UH, HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE NEIGHBOR, WHO WAS THE PICTURE YOU SAW THERE, WHO ALSO HIRED THE SAME PERSON TO BUILD HIS STRUCTURE. UH, MY FATHER HAS A PETITION OF 22 NEIGHBORS THERE, UH, SURROUNDING HIM, MOST OF THEM WITHIN THE 200 FEET, WHO HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CARPORT BEING THERE. UM, IF I DRIVE DOWN MAGNUS STREET, THERE ARE ABOUT 11 OTHER STRUCTURES, UM, THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE VARIANCE, AND IF NOT BREAKING THEM. UM, AND I DIDN'T TAKE A, A RULER MEASURE OR PICTURES. I JUST DROVE DOWN BECAUSE THAT PERSON HAD, UH, DESIGN STRUCTURES UP AND DOWN THAT STREET. AND SO I, THE REASON I DID THAT IS I DIDN'T SEE WHY I FELT MY FATHER WAS BEING TARGETED. AND, UH, BECAUSE YES, IT'S A, IT'S SEEMS TO BE A BIG CARPORT, AND IT WAS BUILT FOR THE SAFETY OF MY GRANDMOTHER, AND NOW FOR THE SAFETY OF MY PARENTS, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH DISABLED AND ESPECIALLY MY MOTHER, UH, WHO HAD KNEE REPLACEMENTS, BUT STILL, SHE, UH, CANNOT AFFORD TO BE FALLING. AND SO THE STRUCTURE IS SERVING ITS PURPOSE. IT'S VERY WELL BUILT. IT WITHHELD THE FREEZE. WE HAD A COUPLE, UH, YEARS AGO, THE SNOW, ALL THE SNOW THAT WOOD, THE WEIGHT, AND SO IT'S A VERY WELL BUILT STRUCTURE. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS, NONE OF THEM SEEM TO, UH, THEY ALL APPROVE WITH THE STRUCTURE. THEY'VE, THEY LIKE THAT THEY HAVE THAT THERE. IT'S NOT TAKING, UH, A VALUE AWAY FROM ANY OF THEIR NA OF THEIR NEIGHBORS. UM, AGAIN, UH, THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN THERE, UH, IN THE TAXES I LOOKED, IT'S BEEN THERE NOTED, UH, SINCE 2014 THAT IT WAS A DETACHED STRUCTURE. AND SO HE'S BEEN BEING TAXED ON THAT AS A DETACHED STRUCTURE, SO FORTH. SO WE'RE NOT CONTESTING THAT. BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 2014, UM, AND THEN EIGHT YEARS LATER TO GET A CITATION, NOW WE UNDERSTAND THE EASEMENTS ON THE SIDES. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SPOKE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE STRUCTURE BEING SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND WE HAVE A PETITION WITH THEIR SIGNATURES, UH, INDICATING THAT. AND SO THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IS, UH, TO RECONSTRUCT THIS BECAUSE OF THE GABLE, THE GABLE WAS DONE TO MATCH THE HOUSE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE GABLE TO RECONSTRUCT THE FRONT OR SIDES. IT, IT'S GOING TO, UH, HAVE TO BE BROUGHT DOWN AND THEN RECONSTRUCT IT. AND MY FATHER CANNOT AFFORD THAT ON HIS RETIRED DISABLED INCOME. AND SO THAT'S WHY, UH, WE'RE PURSUING TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE SO THAT HE CAN ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AND SERVE ITS PURPOSE THE WAY IT HAS BEEN OVER THE SINCE OH SEVEN. UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, UH, FIRST, UH, WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO, UM, WELL, I ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION, SO SURE. 2008, YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS BUILT AND, AND IT WASN'T PERMITTED AT THAT TIME? IT WAS NOT PERMITTED. UH, MY FATHER WAS TOLD BY THE BUILDER, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE, HE DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. UM, AND STAFF UP AND DOWN THE STREET, THERE'S A NUMBER OF CARPORTS OR, OR DID WE HEAR ANY OF THESE? OR IS THIS A, A, A NEW LOCATION? UH, IT, IT APPEARS CODE COMPLIANCE IS MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH. WE DO HAVE ONE ACROSS OR NEARBY THAT, UH, HAS A VARIANCE TURNED IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT YOU SHOULD BE HERE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, SO COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, IS THAT HOW THIS WAS INITIATED? THIS COMPLAINT WAS INITIATED WITH YOUR CO COMPLIANCE GOING, I BELIEVE, UH, YOU WERE APPROACHED BY CO COMPLIANCE, RIGHT, SIR? THAT'S HOW, YES. CO CO COMPLIANCE CAME TO MY FATHER'S RESIDENCE AND LET HIM KNOW THAT THE SIDE WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS THE PROBLEM AT THE TIME. BUT THEN THIS BECAME, YOU KNOW, FRONT EASEMENT, SIDE EASEMENT, IT BECAME BIGGER. UM, FOR SOME REASON, I HAVE, [02:10:01] WELL, I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHY THESE ARE BEING, UH, AND I CAN RELAY THAT I DON'T HAVE FACTS, BUT, UM, AS MY DAD WAS GOING AROUND GETTING THIS PETITION SIGNED, HE WAS FINDING OUT THAT, UM, UM, THE BUILDER OF THESE, UH, DOES LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BUILDERS OF THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MOST OF THEM. AND HE DID FIND OUT THAT THERE'S SOME PERSONAL IN, UH, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. AND SO THE NEIGHBOR'S STARTING TO REPORT THE STRUCTURES HE HAS BUILT BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT HE SHOULD HAVE PULLED PERMITS ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY THINK. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE IT WAS AN ATTACHED STRUCTURE AT THE TIME, IT WAS A DETACHED STRUCTURE. IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. NOW, IF WE WERE WRONG, THEN MY FATHER WAS, UH, DECEIVED, UM, INTO THINKING THAT, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE OH EIGHT AND IT'S NOT CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND, UH, HIS VALUE OF THE HOUSE HAS ACTUALLY GONE UP CONSIDERABLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. SO I DON'T SEE HOW, UM, THE, UM, UNDERSTAND IF THE EASEMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, WHATEVER HE, HE NEEDS TO KNOCK STUFF DOWN NOW HE UNDERSTANDS. BUT, UH, TO HAVE TO DECONSTRUCT IT IS GONNA BE TOO COSTLY AND TO HAVE TO REARRANGE THE STRUCTURE, IT'S GONNA BE TOO COSTLY FOR HIM. CAN, CAN YOU SHOW US ALSO, OR HAVE, UH, THE PETITION? YES. OKAY. THAT'S THE FIRST PAGE. AND THEN ON THE SECOND PAGE, IT CONTINUES WITH THE, UH, OTHER NEIGHBORS SIGNING. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MINKA, COMMISSIONER MINKA? UH, SIR, I JUST, UH, I JUST WANNA ASK, UM, THE WAY THIS THING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE PERSON WHO BUILT IT, IN YOUR OPINION, DID, DID YOU GET SOME SORT OF A ENGINEER, UH, RESPONSE THAT SAYS TO YOU HAVE TO COLLAPSE THE WHOLE THING TO MOVE IT OVER 10 INCHES? OR IS THIS SOMEBODY ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION GUY? UH, WE, MY FATHER'S TALKED TO THAT PERSON SINCE HE GOT THE CITATION, OF COURSE, BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO SAY, HEY, YOU SAID WE DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. SO HE CAME AND TOLD HIM ON THE SIDE ONLY, UH, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY THING IN QUESTION AT THE TIME, THE SIDE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS. AND ON THAT SIDE, HE DID TELL HIM, UH, HE'D HAVE TO MOVE THE POSTS TO WITHIN THE VARIANCE. AND TO DO THAT, BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT OF THAT STRUCTURE, IT WOULD REC, IT WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN DOWN. IT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN KIND OF JUST PROP CUT AND HE'D LITERALLY HAVE TO MOVE THE BEAM, UH, THE POST SUPPORT POSTS OVER. SO HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, HE'S JUST THE LOCAL CONSTRUCTION GUY. HE'S THE GUY THAT CONSTRUCTED IT. AND HE WOULD BE THE PERSON WE WOULD GO TO GET THE ENGINEER. IS HE AN ENGINEER DAD? NO, NO, NO. HE'S NOT. HE'S THE PERSON THAT CONSTRUCTED IT. YEAH. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. RIGHT. UH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. SO IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDED DENIAL FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. DO Y'ALL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE SIDE SETBACKS AS WELL AS PART OF THE VARIANCES? UH, THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL THE, UH, ALL THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. UM, I DON'T THINK WE WERE, UM, YEAH, WE TALK ABOUT THE, UH, SIGNS ALSO, BUT YEAH, THIS WOULD BE, UH, A RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, THE DENIAL FOR ALL THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. CORRECT. AND THIS QUESTION'S FOR APPLICANT, UH, IS THERE, DO YOU HAVE WATER, UH, GUTTERS ON THE, ON THE ROOF STRUCTURE OR HOW, HOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE WATER? WHERE DOES IT FLOW? UH, THE WATER THAT'S ON THE HOUSE, THE MAIN HOUSE THAT HAS THE HOUSE HAS GUTTERS. SO WE DON'T GET ANY TALKING ABOUT THE, BUT THE STRUCTURE CARPORT HAS NO GUTTERS. HAS NO GUTTERS. AND WHERE DOES THE WATER GO? RIGHT NOW? THE WATER FALLS ON MY DAD'S NEIGHBOR. I'M SORRY, ON MY DAD'S. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT, THE, THE STRUCTURE YOU WANNA POINT OUT, UH, YES, I HAVE YOUR LASER POINTER. THANK YOU. SO ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AS YOU SEE HERE, THIS FALLS TO THE FRONT YARD ON, ON MY DAD'S, ON MY DAD'S FRONT YARD. AND THEN THE WATER THAT COMES FROM HERE FALLS ON MY DAD'S FRONT YARD. OOPS. THIS IS THE ONLY SIDE THAT WILL FALL ON MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE ASKING HIM [02:15:01] IF HE HAD ANY CONCERN. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER PICTURES, YOU PROBABLY SEE THERE'S NO DEGRADING OF THE PROPERTY AT ALL. UM, AND OUR NEIGHBOR IS ON THE PETITION, UM, SAYING HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THIS IS BUILT WITH THE WATER FLOWING INTO HIS YARD. THERE'S, THERE'S NO EROSION, IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, OF HIS YARD. AND THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, TOPO OF THE, I GUESS A TOPO KIND OF SHEETS TOWARDS YOUR DAD'S. RIGHT. SO IF YOU NOTICE THE WINDOW HERE FROM HERE TO THE STREET, THIS, THE, THE, THE, UH, INCLINE IS, IS PRETTY STEEP. IT'S A PRETTY STEEP GRADE. YEAH. NOW YOU CAN SEE THE GRADE, IT'S PRETTY STEEP. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UH, SO ON THE, UM, PATIO COVER, THE PORCH COVER MM-HMM. , UM, AND SO THEY'RE, SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT, I GUESS, THE SETBACK THERE ON UM, UM, THE SIDE. YES. SO IS IT BECAUSE THE POLES ARE IN THAT SPACE THERE, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE ROOF LINES UP WITH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE ROOF, IS THAT CORRECT? MM-HMM. . SO THE ROOF ALIGNS WITH THE CURRENT ROOFING, BUT IS REALLY JUST THE POLES THAT ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT. IS, IS THAT TRUE? THE POLLS, IF I MAY ANSWER THE POLLS, ARE THE POLLS ARE, UM, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE FOUNDATION, IT COMES OUT ABOUT 12 INCHES DEAD OR 10 INCHES, EIGHT, HOW MANY? 10 INCHES. SO FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE, IT COMES OUT ABOUT 10 INCHES, AND THAT'S WHERE THE POLES ARE. SO IT IS NOT ON THE ACTUAL, THE POLES ARE NOT ON THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEIGHBOR OR THE FENCE LINE. RIGHT. BUT, SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHEN I LOOK DOWN THE SIDE, I LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A ROOF LINED UP WITH THE EXISTING ROOF MM-HMM. THEN, AND WHICH IS THE CASE HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE REALLY THE ONLY THING'S OFF IS THE POLES. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? CITY, THAT THE POLES IS REALLY WHAT'S WE'RE MEASURING THERE. THAT'S, THAT'S INTO THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING THAT FROM. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, UM, IF WE WERE TO ASK TO MOVE JUST THE POLES IN BY, UM, THE 10 INCHES, IF IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THE, THE, THE OVERHANG WAS, UM, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF HARDSHIP WOULD YOU HAVE FOR MOVING THOSE POLES IN? UM, 'CAUSE THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T REQUIRE A MAJOR OR, OR UNDERTAKING, BUT MM-HMM. , YOU KNOW, SLIGHT MOVEMENT THERE WITH REGARDS TO POLES. SO THE, THE PROBLEM THERE IS THE POLES ARE SET WITHIN THE CONCRETE. THEY'RE NOT BOLTED ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE. AND, UM, SO YOU'D HAVE TO BREAK UP THE CONCRETE BASICALLY TO MOVE THE POLES IN. AND, UM, THE PICTURE I HAVE, YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY, SEE THAT. AND THEN ON THE, SO, UM, ON THE CARPORT, UH, SO ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT I ALWAYS HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, I, I ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK OUT FOR THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARDS TO WATER RUNOFF, AND I'M A FAN OF GUTTERS AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, UM, AND WHILE IT DOESN'T SHOW MUCH EROSION, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S SPACE TO PUT GUTTERS THERE. MM-HMM. , YOU KNOW, IF, IF, YOU KNOW, JUST TO PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING. YEAH. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, IF YOU WERE TO AMEND YOUR, UM, YOUR REQUEST TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, THEN THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY OR NOT OTHER COUNCIL, BUT OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY HERE CONSIDER. YEAH, MY, MY FATHER, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM INSTALLING A GUTTER TO GET IT TO DRAIN OUT INTO THE SIDEWALK THAT CAN BE DONE. UM, UH, HE'S WILLING TO DO THAT. IT WOULD REQUIRE TRIMMING A LITTLE BIT OF THE TIN BACK SO THAT THE GUTTER WOULD WORK PROPERLY, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION, UH, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THESE, UH, ON THESE COVERED STRUCTURES? UM, I, I'D LIKE TO AMEND TO INCLUDE GUTTER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE STRUCTURE THAT, THAT MR. MANNA MENTIONED. 'CAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY PLACE THE WATER'S DRAINING OUT OF OUR PROPERTY, OUT OF MY DAD'S PROPERTY IS ONTO THE YARD. SO COMMISSIONER MANNA, THE WEST SIDE WOULD BE THE SMALLER STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A PORCH EXTENSION. THAT THAT'S, I THINK HE'S SPEAKING TO THE, UM, CARPORT ON THE, UM, ON THE WHOLE, THE, THE, THAT RIGHT. YEAH. IF YOU COULD GO BACK A, A COUPLE OF PICTURES BETWEEN THE RIGHT THERE. YEAH, THAT'S THE EAST SIDE. UH, I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S THE WEST SIDE. I'M GONNA FIND DOWN ON MY MAP. YEAH. OKAY. I GOT TURNED AROUND TO LOOKING AT IT. OKAY. YEAH. RODRIGUEZ PARK IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF US. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO ADD GUTTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE, UH, CARPORT. UH, JUST REAL QUICK, WAS YOUR OR ORIGINAL REQUEST WITH GUTTERS, SIR, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ADVERTISED FOR. I'M NOT SURE. I NOTICED THAT THE VARIANCE WERE REQUESTING SAID CARPORT WITH GUTTERS, BUT WAS [02:20:01] YOUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WITH GUTTERS? NO, I THINK THAT WAS JUST INSERTED IN THERE. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY MORE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MENCHACA, COMMISSIONER ALBERT, AND THEN MENCHACA, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND LOOKING AT A AERIAL PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S QUITE A FEW STRUCTURES IN THE REAR OF THE YARD AS WELL. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE FAR EXCEEDED THE, THE PERMEABLE TO PERMEABLE TO IMPERMEABLE RATIO. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER WITH THIS STAFF? IS THERE A, A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ZONING OR LOCATION THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF? LIKE A 50% MAX IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT AND THE REAR, THERE'S NO IMPERVIOUS COVER. IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ONLY TO THE FRONT. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CAN'T BE MORE THAN 50% OF THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. WOULD THESE TWO STRUCTURES BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BEING EITHER ATTACHED OR DETACHED OUT OF THAT PLAY IN DETACHED? ALRIGHT. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRETCHER, I BELIEVE. UM, GIMME ONE SEC. YOU ASKING ABOUT THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD? WELL, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BREAK IT UP TO THE FRONT AND THE BACK, THEN YES. THE FRONT, YEAH. AND WHILE, AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP, I MEAN, IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THIS BEING CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND IF SO, IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE 50% RULE? SO I BELIEVE WHEN WE DID THE RESEARCH FOR THIS, UM, THE PROPERTY, UM, IT DID NOT LOOK LIKE IT WAS A NEW, UH, DRIVEWAY. UH, WE SAW, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, UM, BACK IN NINE, BACK IN THE SIXTIES. UM, SO THAT'S, AND THE, I BELIEVE THE, UM, CASE MANAGER REACHED OUT TO SEE IF THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT. I DON'T THINK, UH, THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT OF THAT YARD. SO BECAUSE THE IMPERVIOUS ROOF COVERS THE IMPERVIOUS DRIVE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE HOUSE, THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE CORRECT. WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANY CHANGE. THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. SO WHAT ABOUT THE, WHAT ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATION OF IT BEING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IS, IS A CARPORT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO THE 50% RULED FOR THE MAIN DWELLING? SO FOR THE, FOR THE MAIN DWELLING? YEAH, LIKE, SO IF ACCORDING TO BCAT, IT'S SHOWING, UM, APPROXIMATELY TOTAL 1500 SQUARE FEET FOR THE, WHAT'S CONSIDERED THE MAIN DWELLING AS THEY ARE, THEY, IF THIS CARPORT IS SUBJECT TO THE 50% RULE, ONCE YOU BREAK 750 FEET, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S SUBJECT, IS THIS CONSIDERED AN, AN ACCESSORY? SO AN ACCESS, THE, THE CARPORT IS CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. UM, IT'S NOT THAT, THAT, THAT RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO, JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, I BELIEVE YOU'RE NEXT. YES. UH, YEAH, I THINK YOU ADDRESSED IT PRETTY WELL, SIR. IN TERMS OF THE 50% IN THE FRONT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THE CONCRETE ON THE FRONT. 'CAUSE THE OTHER HOUSES THAT I'M COMPARING, I'M SEEING THAT THEY ONLY HAVE A SIMPLE DRIVEWAY OR TWO, A RIBBON DRIVEWAY, AND THEY FILLED IN IN BETWEEN TOWARD THE NEIGHBOR AND IN BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE WALKWAY TO THE HOUSE. SO YOU SAY EVEN THOUGH THEY PUT THAT IN, THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS 50% REGARDLESS? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. THEY PUT THAT IN RECENTLY. IT JUST, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WAS JUST THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION OF THE YARD. THAT'S WHY IS THE RULE HAS TO BE RECENT. WHAT IS RECENT DEFINE RECENT TO ME. UH, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS PUT IN THERE. WE KNOW IT WAS ATEX IN THE 1966. UM, LET ME ASK THIS A DIFFERENT, LET ME ASK THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. UH, THE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER RULE IN THE FRONT DID, WAS THAT A PART OF THE 2001 U D C, THE 95 U D C? DOES IT, DID IT START IN 1965 WHEN THE, WHEN THE ZONING CONVERSIONS HAPPENED? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE YEAR WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD'VE KICKED IN? AND WHILE HE'S LOOKING THAT UP, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ANY FOR THE APPLICANT PERHAPS TE COMMISSIONER TEAL, DOES THE IMPERVIOUS COVER HAVE ANY BEARING ON THIS CURRENT APPLICATION? NO. OKAY. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT I RESCIND MY QUESTION. I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER ON THAT SINCE IT HAS NO BEARING. BUT IT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE, THE, THE, JUST [02:25:01] THE SHEER SIZE OF THIS THING BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. SO, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? UM, SIR, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE GO ON TO A MOTION? NO. ALRIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT HEARING A MOTION. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANANA REGARDING REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CAR PORT WITH OVERHANG AND GUTTERS, UH, TO BE EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH AN OVERHANG TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE FRONT SIDE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND THREE, A FOUR FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH OVERHANG GUTTERS TO BE 10 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 59 30 MAGNUS LANE. APPLICANT BEING RUBEN ORTEGA, 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, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT WILL NOT, IT, I'M SORRY. IT WILL ALLOW THE EXISTING CARPORT TO BE EIGHT INCHES AND 10 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT, UH, HAVING TO ALTER THE CARPORT TO BE 10 FOOT AND FIVE, UH, 10 FEET AND FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES, OR REMOVING THE STRUCTURE ENTIRELY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPARE, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE EIGHT INCHES AND FOUR FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES AND THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHILE STILL PROVIDING AMPLE SPACING BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. FOR 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 A PROPERTY IS ZONED. R SIX. AND THE USE OF PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALSO HAVE CARPORTS AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCES DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS A UNIQUE HEALTH CONDITION AND SLIPPERY DRIVEWAY DUE TO SLANTED LAND ON THIS PROPERTY. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. UM, SO ONE IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE, THE, THE, UM, THE, THE, UM, THE COVERING OVER ON THE, UM, THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FACING, FACING THE HOUSE IS LINED UP WITH THE ROOF LINE. AND SO I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT ALSO WITH THE, UM, SLANT OF THE ROOF THERE, IT IS MOVING THE WATER APPROPRIATELY, UH, TOWARDS THE FRONT AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE CARPORT ITSELF. UM, I THINK BECAUSE, UH, UM, IT DOES SPECIFY THAT THERE ARE GUTTERS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE, UM, ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO WATER ON OFF. AND I THINK FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT ALSO, BECAUSE YOU'VE PROVIDED SO MANY. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. WAIT, WELL, I'M DISTURBED THAT IT WAS BILLED WITHOUT A PERMIT, UM, AND THAT IT WAS BUILT TO COVER SO MUCH OF THE FRONT YARD. THE FACT IS THAT IT WAS BUILT, WELL YOU SAID BETWEEN 2007 AND YOU ALSO HAD SOMETHING 2011, SO 10 TO 15 YEARS AGO MM-HMM. MEANS THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE, UM, THIS HAS BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. I DON'T THINK IT WAS DONE TO DECEIVE PEOPLE. UM, ANYWAY, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. AND THE FACT ALSO YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD TE YOU COMMISSIONER TEAL? I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, AS MENTIONED BY A PREVIOUS COLLEAGUE, UH, THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE A WHILE. UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF, UH, THESE ORDINANCES ARE TO BE PUNITIVE AND COME BACK 15 YEARS LATER, UH, TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOMETHING. UH, SO I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT AND WILL BE IN SUPPORT AS A RESULT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, THIS HAS A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND. [02:30:01] I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. ADDRESS IS 24 21 54 STEVE AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT IS THREE. APPLICANT IS LUIS LOPEZ. A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE WHEN THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FOOT 10 INCHES FROM THE SITE PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS R FOUR, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON, UH, STEVE'S AVENUE. THE MAIN POST AND PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WERE REPLACED DUE TO DETERIORATION AS A SITE PLAN LAND AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, IN THE, OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SIDE SETBACK. THIS IS THE SIDE SETBACK BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND THIS IS THE VIEW DETACHED STRUCTURE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE YARD. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. RECOMMENDATION AND SITE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 BASED ON THE FINDING. FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, A SITE SETBACK OF TWO FOOT 10 INCHES WERE PROVIDING NO SPACING BETWEEN OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE MAIN POST FOR THE STRUCTURE HAD TO BE REPLACED DUE TO DETERIORATION. OTHER STRUCTURES WERE OBSERVED IN THE MEDIA AREA. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT NOTIFICATION PLAN. UM, WE HAD 33 NOTICES. TWO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE HIGHLAND PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE. YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS LUIS LOPEZ. I AM THE CONSULTANT, UH, WITH THE OWNER, MR. JIM DOUGHTY, SITTING BEHIND ME, A RETIRED AIR FORCE VETERAN. I'M AN ARMY VETERAN, RETIRED. AND, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW, UH, A CONTINUATION WAS DONE WHEN WE WERE DOING THE ROOF ON THIS PROJECT. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE WERE, UH, ALSO GOING FORWARD ON THE CARPORT AREA. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS ALL THAT AREA WAS ALL DETERIORATED. SO WHEN, UH, CONSULTING WITH THE, UH, UM, UH, THE CONTRACTORS WITH THE, UH, UH, PERMITS PROCESS, UH, THEY SAID ONCE YOU CHANGE THAT, THE DETERIORATION, IT'S LIKE YOU REALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TAKING OFF THE STRUCTURE NOW YOU NEED TO MOVE THE SETBACK TO THE FIVE FEET. OF COURSE, THAT WOULD LITERALLY JUST SHIFT THE WHOLE BUILDING AFTER WE HAD ALREADY PUT THE ROOF ON AND EVERYTHING. SO, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE AND TO CONTINUE ON ON, UH, WITH THE PERMIT PROCESS TO CLOSE IN THIS GARAGE. ALL RIGHT. UM, IF YOU COULD HOLD ON ONE SECOND. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? UH, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE EIGHT, UH, VOICEMAIL. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA HEAR VOICEMAIL, THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RACHEL VINKY. R A C H E L C Y W I N S K I. I LIVE AT 2 1 5 8 STEVES AVENUE, AND I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO CASE B O A (221) 030-0141. MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 388-3048 REGARDING 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. I AM OPPOSED. THE SUBJECT OF THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS A STRUCTURE WHICH DEMOLITION WORKERS AT 2 1 5 4. STEVES USED TO SLIDE HUNDREDS OF POUNDS OF DEBRIS OVER THE FENCE INTO MY YARD BY PLACING IT ON THE ROOF, AND THEN STOOD ON ITS ROOF TO URINATE OVER MY PRIVACY FENCE INTO MY YARD. IN JANUARY, 2022, WHEN I PURCHASED THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO BE MY HOMESTEAD IN 2001, THE PROPERTY AT 2 1 5 4 STEVES AVENUE WAS VACANT AND THE WALL OF A DETACHED GARAGE HAD COLLAPSED BECAUSE WITH EVERY STORM, RAINWATER FLOWS FROM THE STREET DOWN THE DRIVEWAY UP TO ONE FIVE 14TH AVENUE. AS YOU WOULD SEE, IF YOU HAD A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, WHICH I [02:35:01] DID NOT SEE ON HERE, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. UM, THIS IS THE ONLY PROPERTY IN OUR IMMEDIATE AREA WHERE A DWELLING WAS BUILT ON THE DOWN SLOPE OF A HILL SO THAT STORMWATER FLOWS DIRECTLY INTO THE BUIL. THE BUILDING OTHER PROPERTIES WITH A SUBSTAN SUBSTANTIAL SLOPE, INCLUDING MY OWN, HAVE DETACHED GARAGE BEHIND THE HOUSE TO ALLOW STORMWATER TO FLOW PAST THOSE STRUCTURES WITHOUT FLOODING EITHER. FOLLOWING THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN 2021. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN ONGOING SINCE JULY 16TH, 2021. COMPARISON PHOTOS FROM BOTH YEARS 2021 AND 2022 ARE INCLUDED WITH THE EMAIL I SEND TO VINCENT TRAVINO. ALL OF THE WORK IN 2021, INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF REMAINS OF THE PREEXISTING ATTACHED STRUCTURE AND THE CHIMNEY OF THE HOUSE, WE'RE DONE WITHOUT ANY PERMIT WHEN I OKAY. AND, UH, WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION? QUESTION? COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, WILL YOU BE PUTTING, UH, GUTTERS ON THE SIDE? UH, NO MA'AM. WHAT WE DID, WE, THE OVERHANG, IF YOU CAN SEE THERE, WE CUT BACK, UH, FROM WHAT THE LADY WAS SAYING, THE NEIGHBOR, UH, SO WE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT. UH, SO WE DID CUT BACK TO WHERE ANY KIND OF RUNOFF WOULD BE, RIGHT THERE. YOU SEE, SO WE DID CUT OFF THERE. SO ANY RAIN WATER WOULD JUST DROP THERE AND THE FLOW IS TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. AND WOULD YOU CONSIDER GUTTERS PUT ADDING GUTTERS TO THAT AT, AT THIS MOMENT, MA'AM? I, I, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THEM, BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO NEED, WE'LL I CAN COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER FOR THAT. OKAY. UH, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. KEEP, IF YOU CAN KEEP THIS PICTURE, KEEP THIS PICTURE UP PLEASE. IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ROOF IS BARELY HIGHER, UH, THAN THE NEIGHBORING FENCE. HOW TALL IS THIS ROOF? IT'S YOUR STANDARD EIGHT FOOT SO THAT THE SOFFIT OF, OF THAT OVERHANGS EIGHT FEET TALL? YEAH, THE, THE WAY THE GABLE IS KIND OF COMING STRAIGHT DOWN, UH, IT'S UH, IT LOOKS KIND OF LOW, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE LIKE EIGHT FEET, UH, FENCES, FENCE POSTS TOO. STAFF, DID YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THE SIZE OF THAT FENCE? IT, IT MAY JUST BE AN OPTICAL ILLUSION ON THE PICTURE, BUT OKAY. IT COULD BE TWO FEET TALLER THAN THAT FENCE. ALRIGHT. HAS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, THE, UM, THE NEIGHBOR THAT CALLED IN, UM, TALKED ABOUT, I GUESS THE, UH, WATER RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AND SO, SO I GUESS IT JUST A QUESTION IN GENERAL, IS THERE ANYTHING BEING DONE FOR WATER MITIGATION, I GUESS FLOWING THROUGH THE PROPERTY, UM, WITH THE STRUCTURE THERE? UM, IS IT GONNA PUSH ANY WATER TO ONTO, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR, UH, I GUESS HOW'S THAT BEING MANAGED ITSELF? YEAH, AT THIS MOMENT THERE IS NO WATER RUN EDGE OR FLOW INTO THE OWNER'S NEXT DOOR OWNER'S, UH, HOUSE. I'M SURE THE, THE, THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE THERE. I MEAN, THE, UH, THE CITY WORKERS OVER THERE COULD OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT THERE, THE RUNOFF IS TO THE FRONT OR TO THE BACK. AND SO, SO AS WAS MENTIONED IN PRIOR CASES, YOU KNOW, I, I DO, UM, CARE A LOT WITH REGARDS TO THE WATER RUNOFF. AND SO, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I GUESS SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER, UM, IS AMENDING THE APPLICATION FOR INCLUDING GUTTERS BECAUSE IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE PROPERTIES ARE PRETTY CLOSE THERE, UH, FROM A, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT RELATIVELY. AND SO I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, I GUESS. OKAY. AND, AND I HAVE ANOTHER TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. SO ON YOU'RE ASKING FOR A, UM, THE WALL, THE WALL IS TWO FOOT 10 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE, IT'S TWO FOOT TWO FROM THE, FROM THE EDGE OF THE OVERHANG. IS THAT AFTER YOU CUT IT OR BEFORE THAT? TWO FOOT TWO IS, IS WHAT IT IS NOW. IT'S EIGHT INCHES, I BELIEVE. THE, WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE STRUCTURE'S AT THE, THE BACK STRUCTURE, SO IT'S A CONTINUATION OF WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO WE RE WE MAINTAIN THAT 2.8. UH, ON THE, ON THE, WELL THE, THE VARIANCE IS STATING TWO FOOT TWO WITH THE OVERHANG. YEAH, WITH THE, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT OVER, YOU CUT THE OVERHANG, THAT'S WHAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHERE WE CUT WITH IT BEING CUT, YES. OKAY. AND THEN IN THE S YOU COULD BRING UP ONE OF THOSE PREVIOUS PICTURES YOU HAD, UM, ON THE SCREEN. THAT ONE. SO THERE'S A STRUCTURE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FENCE. IS THAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LIKE YOURS? IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, STORAGE [02:40:01] FOR THE LADY IN THE BACK. ALL RIGHT. HER HOUSES IN THE FRONT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BEFORE YOU MAKE THE MOTION COMMISSIONER, UM, WE, WE WERE, THERE WAS TALK ABOUT GUTTERS, THERE'S SOME COMMISSIONERS THAT LIGHT GUTTERS AND, AND, UH, WE'RE WONDERING IF YOU WERE, IF YOU WERE, WOULD LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THAT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE? CAN I SPEAK TO THE OWNER REAL QUICK? SURE. PREFER NOT. THE WATER RUNS FROM THAT, FROM THAT SIDE. THE WATER RUNS DOWNHILL TO MY PROPERTY. OKAY. NOT AT THIS MOMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 1 4 1. I MOVE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET 10 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 1 5 4 STEVES AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING LUIS LOPEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE VID 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 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FOOT 10 INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP 'CAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO STRUCTURE BEING EXISTING. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. DUE TO THE STRUCTURE BEING EXI 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. R FOUR. AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT, AND WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IT APPEARS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST, THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS EXISTED AS EXISTED DETACHED STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? TE SECOND BY TEAL COMMISSIONER BRADLEY? YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BECAUSE THE, THE STRUCTURE WAS EXISTING, UM, AND IS JUST BEING REBUILT, UH, DUE TO POOR CONDITION AND THEY'VE ALREADY CUT BACK THE, UM, EAVES, UH, SO THAT THE WATER RUNS OFF INTO THE, UH, SUBJECT, UM, PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER DEAL? YES, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE, ALTHOUGH I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN IT AMENDED TO, TO HAVE THE GUTTERS. UH, I BELIEVE THAT IN GOOD FAITH THEY'VE GONE AHEAD AND CUT BACK THAT, UH, EVE, AND THAT DOES RETAIN THE WATER ON THE PROPERTY EITHER MOVING FORWARD OR BACKWARD, BUT NOT ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? WELL, THE NEIGHBOR IS KAPLAN IS KAPLAN. THE, THE NEIGHBOR IS COMPLAINING ABOUT WATER RUNOFF, SO I WOULD DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF IT RUNS OR NOT. UM, SO I WOULD NOT IN SUPPORT UNLESS THERE IS GUTTERS. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER ALBERT? I THINK THE BUILDING HAS EARNED ITS PLACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. UH, HOWEVER, PERHAPS THE NEIGHBORS COULD GET ALONG A LITTLE BETTER. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, UH, WITH THIS CASE, IF IT'S APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED, THAT UH, NEIGHBOR REACH OUT TO NEIGHBOR AND TRY TO MEND SOME FENCES AS IT WERE. OKAY? AND I'M GONNA ADD THAT, UH, I'M IN SUPPORT BE HAD RECORDS SHOW THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 1940 AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE OVERHANG FROM WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THERE. SO THIS IS SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN WHAT WAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL A VO, A VO VOICE VOTE PLEASE. A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. I'M SORRY, [02:45:02] MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN? I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ASUNA. I DO NOT CONCUR AND CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO THREE. YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, UH, AND, AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS. MR. CHAIR, COULD I YES. ASK FOR A, UM, AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS IF THE APPLICANT WAS SO ENTITLED? UM, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, UM, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, FIRST WE NEED A, A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. MOTION TO RECONSIDER WHO MADE THAT MANNA MANANA. OKAY. WERE YOU ON? WERE YOU IN? UM, YOU WERE OKAY. I WAS. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. IS THERE SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE TO RECONSIDER MR. MANO? YES. MS. KAPLAN? YES. MS. LIN? YES. MR. ALBERT? YES. MR. MANCHACA? YES. MR. VASQUEZ? YES. MR. SPIELMAN? YES. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MR. THIEL? YES. MR. OZUNA? YES. CHAIR. OREN, I ALSO VOTE YES. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES. I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO SIR, THERE IS, UM, WE JUST HAD A MOTION FOR WHAT YOU REQUESTED. IT FAILED. UH, IS THERE ANY OF AMENDMENTS TO YOUR APPLICATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FOR US BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? YES, UH, OF COURSE. UH, JUST FOR THE FACT THAT I, I THINK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, THE CITY, UH, APPROVAL AND THE FACT THAT WE WERE STILL WITHIN THE, THE RANGE OF THE, UH, OVERHANG AND BECAUSE I GUESS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE JUST NEED GUTTERS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT GUTTERS IN. SO YOU'RE OFFICIALLY, UH, AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF STRUCTURE, THAT LITTLE STRUCTURE. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A, UH, COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT 10 OR TWO FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FOOT 10 INCHES, UM, UH, FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. UM, AND, UH, I GUESS WITH THE ADDITION OF GUTTERS, UH, SITUATED AT 2 1 5 4 STEVE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, LOUIS, UH, LOPEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND LIKE TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUS RED, UH, MOTIONS. SO NOTED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. A ZUNA, I CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF. NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR RECONSIDERATION AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER NINE, BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 2. ADDRESS IS 7 25 EAST WOODLAWN COUNSEL, DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS AT WATER GARCIA. A REQUEST FOR ONE A ONE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACH STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET. TWO FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONE IS R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON EAST WOOD LAWN AND IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS REMODELING AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BE USED AS A OFFICE YOGA STUDIO, A SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE, THE EXISTING GARAGE, AND THE EXISTING GARAGE WITH THE PROPOSED. THIS IS THE SIDE SETBACK, THE SIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND THIS IS THE REAR SETBACK AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. [02:50:01] STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 42 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, A SITE SETBACK A THREE TWO INCH WHILE PROVIDING ENOUGH SPACING BETWEEN OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, A REAR SETBACK OF THREE SIX INCHES. WERE PROVIDING ENOUGH SPACING BETWEEN OTHER STRUCTURES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WERE OBSERVED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 37 NOTICES WERE MAILED, ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON. OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT MR. GARCIA. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. MY NAME'S HILLARY SAUNDERS. NICE TO, UM, HAVE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, MY COULD YOU, COULD YOU MOVE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? YES. IS THAT BETTER? YEAH. THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN. UM, I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION. I DO, I COULD TELL YOU THAT THE PROJECT AT IN HAND HAS BEEN DONE UNDER TWO PERMIT REQUESTS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS GRANTED AND, UH, HAS CONCERNED THE INTERIOR RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE, AND IT IS ALMOST COMPLETE. THE SECOND PERMIT REQUEST IS SO THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE RENOVATION OF THE ART BUILDING. THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE, UH, RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HAS BEEN BEFORE THE HERITAGE DESIGN COMMITTEE WITH NO OBJECTIONS. THE PLAN TO, UM, THE REASON WHY THIS BUILDING HAS COME BEFORE YOU IS BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN USE. THE EXISTING GARAGE WAS A VERY LARGE DOUBLE GARAGE, TWO 20 VOLT. I THINK ONE OF THE PRIOR OWNERS HAD USED IT EXTENSIVELY AS A WORKSHOP. WE ARE GOING TO, UH, PUT A STUDY UNDER A YOGA STUDIO AND MY LAUNDRY BACK THERE IN ORDER TO DO THAT. BUILDING INSPECTIONS BROUGHT FOUR ISSUES TO OUR ATTENTION, WHICH WE HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY DEALT WITH, AND IT INCLUDES A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE RE SHEET ROCKING, UH, DRIP BOARD INSIDE AND OUT TO FIREPROOF THE TWO, UH, WALLS THAT ARE AFFECTING, UH, UH, THESE TWO SIDE YARD SPACES. UM, AND THAT WILL BE DONE. UM, YES. SO, UH, THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING IS OUR LAST HURDLE BEFORE WE CAN, UH, CONCLUDE THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. OUTTA CURIOSITY, UH, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE SITE PLAN PLEASE. SO YOU HAVE THE CIRCLED IN GREEN, UH, THAT BUILDING, BUT IS THE GREENHOUSE PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UH, ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER? NO, THE GREENHOUSE WAS THERE AND WE, UH, HAVE LEFT IT IN PLACE. IT DID GO TO, UM, WELL, IT DID HAVE A PERMIT, UH, UH, IT WAS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO TO REPLACE WINDOWS, UH, CONSENT AGENDA TO WHOM? FOR HRC? FOR H D RRC, H D R C. OKAY. STAFF. UM, BUT MY, MY QUESTION WAS TO STAFF, BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS ARE, THE STRUCTURES APPEAR TO BE TOUCHING EACH OTHER ON THE SURVEY. IS THERE ANY, UM, ISSUES WITH THIS VARIANCE? NOT INCLUDING THE GREEN BELT. THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT. OKAY. AND, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A SMALL ADDITION ON ANOTHER PERMIT. UM, IT, IT, IT'S, IS IT, AM I LOOKING AT THIS? CORRECT. IT'S A VERY, VERY SMALL SQUARE STRUCTURE THAT IS 10 FOOT FOUR FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S LIKE A BAY WINDOW. OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A BAY WINDOW THEN. IT'S A, IT'S AN, IT'S AN ALCOVE INSIDE OF THE BATHROOM. WELL, I WAS, I WAS ASKING BECAUSE, UH, WHEN WE GET APPLICATIONS BEFORE US, SOMETIMES WE'RE, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED CORRECTLY OR THERE MAY HAVE OR NOT BEEN INCLUDED CORRECTLY IN THE ADVERTISEMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THIS WAS INCLUDED ON THE SITE PLAN IF IT WAS NOT, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT OR, THAT'S ALL I WAS REALLY JUST ASKING. SORRY. I I, IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE, UH, FIRST PERMIT. OKAY. NOW I WAS JUST ASKING STAFF JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICATION IS, IS, UH, TECHNICALLY, UH, FULLY INCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, WE DIDN'T, UH, UM, DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES IS JUST A, THE REAR SETBACK. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? [02:55:01] MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO, UH, DOWN THE ROAD, LIKE THREE HOMES AWAY, UH, SOMEONE, UM, I GUESS, UH, FILED AN OPPOSITION. DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN IN OPPOSITION TO HIS REQUEST? I HAVEN'T, UH, BEEN PRIVY TO ANY OF THE, UH, EITHER THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT OR THE RESPONSES. SO I'M AFRAID I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. SO QUESTION FOR CITY, WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DIALOGUE OR ANY OUTSIDE OF DUTY OBJECTION WITH ER LETTER OTHER THAN JUST BEING UPSET? NO. THERE NO, THERE WAS NOT. NO, THERE WAS NOT. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT DID NOTICE ON THE AERIAL VIEW DID LOOK LIKE THAT HOUSE ALSO HAD A, A BACK STRUCTURE THAT WAS SIMILARLY PLACED, SO IT WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSING. SO, BUT OKAY. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TEAL. MR. TEAL. THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O EIGHT DASH TWO TWO DASH 0 3 0 1 42, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A ONE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT ZERO INCH MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 7 2 5 EAST WOODLAWN. APPLICANT BEING EDUARDO GARCIA, 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 ONE, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE VARIANCE TWO ALLOW A DETACHED STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR SIDE AND SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE RESULT WOULD BE A DETACHED STRUCTURE HAVING TO BE MOVED TO MAINTAIN THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THIS WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE STRUCTURE BEING EXISTING. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES DUE TO THE STRUCTURE BEING EXISTING. THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE AN OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE OF 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 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT MERELY CREATED BY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OR GEN OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS FOUND IS DUE TO UNIQUE CRC CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER THIEL. UH, YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE BECAUSE IT WAS A EXISTING STRUCTURE. UH, TWO, I LIVE ABOUT A HALF BLOCK AWAY FROM HERE AND I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTENSIVE PROJECT AND, UH, WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT COMPLETED. UM, AND ALSO FOUND VERY SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THESE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE REAR THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN AND I ALSO AM IN SUPPORT OF IT, BASICALLY BECAUSE IT IS AN EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE AND YOU'RE ONLY ALTERING THE USE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA ALSO IS VETTED BY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE. UM, THAT, UM, SO I'LL BE IN VOTING FOR ALL WITH THAT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. AL. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ASK STAFF. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS FOR CASE BO A DASH 22 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 3 LOCATED AT 1538 SANTIAGO STREET WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE, THE APPLICANT BEING HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS [03:00:01] A REQUEST FOR A ONE A 250 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW LOT SIZE OF 3,750 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS TO BE 11 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEAR WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. THE LOT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR SOME TIME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 250 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 3,750 SQUARE FEET IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE R FOUR BASE ZONING DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO MAINTAIN 11 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. ALL OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET. A PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR A PLAT EXCEPTION WAS COMPLETED WITH A POSSIBLE APPROVAL, HOWEVER, THE PLAT EXCEPTION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ANOTHER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, THIS IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ALSO VACANT, AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE LOT SIZE IS CURRENTLY 37, UH, EXCUSE ME, 3,750 SQUARE FEET. TWO, THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT. AND THREE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE, STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. ONE, THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE PROPOSED DWELLING WILL WILL BE NEW CONSTRUCTION. TWO, THE SMALL SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT PRESENTS HARDSHIPS TO NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH THE U D C SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE. AND THREE, THE VARIANCE REQUESTS DO NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. WE MAILED OUT 62 NOTICES. WE RECEIVE ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO POST, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM EITHER EL CHADRO NA OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, AND WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE PLATT EXCEPTION HAS IT BEEN APPLIED FOR, SO IT HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR. AND WE, UM, WE DID REACH OUT TO OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEY SAID THAT IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE AN APPROVAL, BUT WE DIDN'T, SINCE IT'S ALREADY COMING HERE FOR THE OKAY. SETBACK, WE ADDED IT TO THE CASE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? GOOD AFTERNOON. MICHAEL TAYLOR WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. UM, SO WE'RE REQUESTING THESE TWO VARIANCES SO THAT WE CAN BUILD A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER. UM, AND, UH, THIS LOT, AS I UNDERSTAND WAS PLOTTED IN, IN 19 24 50 BY 75. UM, IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR, FOR SEVERAL DECADES, UM, AS FAR AS WE KNOW. UH, SO THIS VARIANCE, IF, IF GRANTED THESE TWO VARIANCES, UH, WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD A NEW HOME, UM, SELL IT TO A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER. OUR HOMES DO HAVE A VERY TRADITIONAL DESIGN, SO THEY DO FIT IN WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE DO A ONE STORY HOME. SO THAT IS IT TO MAXIMIZE ACCESSIBILITY, UH, FOR THOSE WITH, UH, MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS. UH, AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, A NEW HOME, IT'LL BE A, OBVIOUSLY A BLESSING TO THE FAMILY, UH, WHO'S ABLE TO PURCHASE IT, BUT IT'LL ALSO ADD TO THE TAX BASE, UH, WHICH HELPS THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND JUST YOUR, UM, SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. AWESOME. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA, SORRY. AND SO, SO I LOOKED AT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND LOOKS LIKE, UH, 1620, WHICH IS A, A FAIRLY REASONABLE SIZE HOME THERE, I GUESS. AND SO IS THAT GONNA INCLUDE A GARAGE UNDERNEATH IT IS, UM, OR IS IT GONNA GARAGE OR WHERE'S THE PARKING GONNA BE? UM, PARKING WILL BE ON A, A DRIVEWAY PARKING PAD THAT'S, UM, NEXT TO THE RESIDENCE. PERFECT. THAT'S ALL I NEED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION O ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 180 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A 250 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 3,750 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THEIR MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE 11 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1538 SANTIAGO APPLICANT [03:05:01] BEING HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE THE PRO TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITERAL, 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 DOES NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE, ONE, IT WILL ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONALLY, HAVING AN 11 FOOT SETBACK TO THE REAR IS MAINTAINING ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE ONE, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN INABILITY TO DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY AND A SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE. THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ABILITY TO DEVELOP A SIZABLE RESIDENCE WITH A REAR SETBACK REDUCTION WHILE STILL PROVIDING AMPLE SPACING BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR 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 R FOUR AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILE OF SAN ANTONIO, WHERE SMALLER LOTS ARE COMMONLY FOUND, ADJACENT PROPERTIES WERE OBSERVED TO ALSO HAVE REDUCED SETBACKS. SIX, APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. DUE TO THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, IT CANNOT, UH, MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM LIGHT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. THE SETBACK REDUCTION TO THE REAR WOULD HELP ACCOMMODATE A REASONABLE SIZE RESIDENCE ON THE LOT AND A MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER. SO OBVIOUSLY I'M, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ. I MEAN, THIS PROVIDES AN ECONOMIC, UH, USE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY FOR A VERY GOOD CAUSE WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. UM, IT PUTS THE, THE, THE LOTS INTO COMMERCIALLY USE PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THAT PART OF THE CITY. AND OBVIOUSLY IF, IF, UH, IF THE LOTS I THINK COULD ONLY BE DEVELOPED WITH THE VARIANCES BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINT, OTHERWISE IT WOULD'VE BEEN PROBABLY A MARKETABILITY OF THESE LOTS PRIOR. SO, UM, FOR THAT I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AND URGE MY COLLEAGUES THE SAME SUPPORT. GREAT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT AT 37 50, THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LARGEST LOTS ON THE ENTIRE BLOCK, WHICH I FIND VERY INTERESTING. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY? UH, HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. UNA. I CONCUR. MS. BRACKMAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. LIND. I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN I CONCUR. MR. MANO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MR. TILL TEO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, ITEM NUMBER 11. UH, AND WHEN, WHEN THE PRESENTATION FOR LEVIN'S MADE, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS THE EXACT SAME LOT SIZE EXACT LAYOUT. SO THIS IS, THIS HAS TO BE READVERTISED. UM, THERE WAS SOMETHING MISSING OFF OF IT. SO IT'S GONNA GO ON THE OCTOBER 24TH, UH, AGENDA. THIS WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. OH, OKAY. DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR IS IT AUTOMATIC? IT'S NOT GONNA BE HEARD, SO IT'S, IT'S TECHNICALLY POSTPONED. ALL RIGHT, NO PROBLEM. SO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. SO ITEM NUMBER 12, UH, BO O A 22 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 5. ADDRESS IS 62 0 2 NORTH IH 35 COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT MS. CLAYMORE ENGINEERING A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE STREET. FRONTAGES TO A 29 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF IH 35 AND REDMOND ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REDUCED BUFFERS FOR FIVE FEET ON IH 35 1 FOOT ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE FEET ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THE BUFFER IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE ABUTTING INDUSTRIAL USE AND FRONTAGE ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL TREE. LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TREE DIVISION DEPARTMENT. HERE'S A SITE PLAN, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND RECOMMENDATION AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE, A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW [03:10:01] A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE STREET. FRONTAGES TWO, A 29 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A 22 AND FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND B O A 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 5 BASED ON THE FACTS FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, EXCUSE ME. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS NEED OF MORE GREEN SPACE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE SITUATED CLOSE TO THE STREET INSIDE PROPERTY LINES. NOTIFICATION PLAN EIGHT NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS AREA. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE AND THE, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, UH, MR. CHAIR, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. UH, I JUST HAVE, UH, A QUICK QUESTION ON THE FRONTAGE BUFFER. SO THIS IS, THIS IS FRONTING, UH, I 35 AND, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ON THE, ON THE BUFFER TABLE REQUIREMENT, IT, IT HAS MAJOR ARTERIAL, MINOR TEAR ON COLLECTOR, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE FREEWAY USE. HOW, HOW IS THAT EVALUATED BY STAFF? THIS WAS, UH, WAS SENT TO THE TREE TEAM JUST TO TAKE A PRELIMINARY LOOK AND, UM, THEY RECOMMENDED THE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET FOR THE FRONT AND FOR THAT ONE SIDE. AND THEN WHERE, NO, I'M ASKING IF IF THERE'S EVEN A FRONT BUFFER APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MAJOR ARTERIAL OR A COLLECTOR. IT'S A, IT'S A FREEWAY, WHICH IS A SEPARATE STREET CLASSIFICATION IN SECTION 5 0 6. RIGHT. WE GOT WITH THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, THEY INDICATED THAT THAT'S HOW THEY SEE THE FREEWAYS, UM, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A BUFFER YARD. ALRIGHT. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW THIS, WE WENT THROUGH THIS ON SIDEWALKS WHERE FREEWAY WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE TABLE, AND THAT IS GOING, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WENT THROUGH A U D C CHANGE, BUT WITH BUFFERS, IT'S, IT JUST, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT WAS, UH, EVALUATED. SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK. YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL CLARIFY WITH, UH, NO, WE, WE ASKED THAT DIRECT QUESTION TO OUR TRAFFIC TEAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, AND DID YOU HEAR, DID T NOT CHIME IN AT ALL ON ANY OF THIS? NO, SIR. OKAY. 'CAUSE I WANNA SAY YEARS AGO, THE LAST TIME WE HAD ONE, UH, THAT THE ABUTTING RIGHT OF WAY, UH, PURVEYOR HAD TO HAVE SOME SORT OF AGREEANCE TO A REDUCTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, IF I'M REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY. UM, WE JUST EVALUATED IT ON THE MINIMUMS, BUT WE'LL, DEFINITELY IT'LL GET ALL OF THOSE REVIEWS. UM, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T NEED IT OR IF THERE'S SOME OTHER REQUIREMENT FROM TXDOT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE APPLICABLE TO THIS, BUT THAT WAY IT, THEY CAN PROCEED FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECT, UM, WITH THE MINIMUMS THAT ARE APPLICABLE VIA, UH, THE TREAT TEAM AND THE TRAFFIC DIVISION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. MY NAME IS STROUD ARTHUR FROM DALLAS, TEXAS. AND, UM, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS A, UH, SEVEN BREW COFFEE STAND, WHICH IS A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE, UM, COMPANY THAT WE REPRESENT. AND THEY'RE GONNA BRING 42 JOBS TO THE STAND AND PAY, UM, LIVING WAGES. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY HIGH, UM, STANDARD OF WAGES AND, AND WITH TIPS. OUR EMPLOYEES ARE STARTING OUT AT $18 AN HOUR. UM, AND TODAY IT'S A DILAPIDATED, UM, OLD GAS STATION AND IT'S GONNA BE A NICE THING TO BRING TO SAN ANTONIO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ONE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, HANNAH COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 2 1 0 3 0 1 9 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT. UM, I'M USE THE CITY'S, UH, ALTERNATIVE THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO. UM, UM, WITH REGARDS TO A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE STREET, FRONTAGES TO A 29 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE THREE, A 22 FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM THE LANDS FROM THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. UM, LET'S SEE, UH, WHOEVER IT SITUATED, SITUATED AT 6 2 0 2 NORTH, UH, IH 35, APPLICANT BEING CLAYMORE ENGINEERING, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD 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 [03:15:01] IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT, ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ON THE STREET FRONTAGES, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE TO BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN HAVING TO MEET THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGES, NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE SITUATED CLOSE TO THE STREET AND SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO THE LESS THAN MINIMUM, TO BE CLOSER TO THE STREET FRINGES, NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. DUE TO THE STRUCTURE BEING, UH, 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 OUR PROPERTY IS ZONED C TWO. AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF A ZONING, UH, OR ADJACENT CON UH, CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WILL BE SUBJECTED, UH, TO MAINTAIN A, I GUESS I GET THAT RIGHT. UM, YEAH. FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE STREET FRONTS. LET'S SEE, UH, NO, I GOTTA READ THIS. UH, THE SEVEN FOOT , SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UM, ALONG THE STREET, AND THEN A SEVEN FOOT FIVE ALONG THE STREET, FRONTAGES. AND THEN, UH, LET'S SEE, UM, YEAH, AND THEN 22 FOOT FIVE INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE FROM 30 FOOT, UH, FOR THE SEVEN FOOT FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, UM, AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. 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 TO APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE LOT WHICH CONTAINS AN EXISTING BUILDING. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN THAT MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. UH, COMMISSIONER MANOCK? YES. I, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE CITY POSITION HERE, SO I'LL BE PUT IN FAVOR OF IT. MOTION COMMISSIONER CAP. I AGREE TOO. OKAY. UM, IS ANY OF THE COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'LL, I'LL SAY I'M IN FULL SUPPORT, ALTHOUGH I, I DON'T EVEN THINK BUFFER SHOULD EVEN BE APPLICABLE AGAINST A HIGHWAY. I DON'T THINK THE TABLE SHOULD INCLUDE IT. UH, AT SOME, FOR THOSE WHO ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE U D C AMENDMENTS WHERE THE FREEWAY CLASSIFICATION WAS ADDED, I JUST, I WOULD JUST GIVE THE APPLICANT WHAT HE WANTS ON THE HIGHWAY ONE PERSONALLY, BUT I'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION AS READ. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MS. LIND I CONCUR. MR. ALBERT. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. TILL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. UNA. YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF? I WANNA SAY ONE THING. UM, I'VE BEEN DOING REAL ESTATE IN DALLAS FOR 25 YEARS, AND YOU GUYS ARE DOING REALLY GOOD THINGS FOR YOUR CITIZENS IN SAN ANTONIO. OUR CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS DON'T OPERATE THIS EFFICIENTLY. AND, AND, AND IT'S, AND, AND, AND WITH COMMON SENSE. SO WE, WELL, IT'S, I APPLAUD YOU ALL. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN UP HERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, SO IT'S, UH, WE'RE NOT NEW AT THIS EITHER, SO IT'S PRETTY, UH, . IT'S A PROCESS. THANK YOU. STAFF'S GREAT TOO. UM, WE [ Approval of Minutes  ] GOT THE NEXT ONE AS A MINUTES. I MADE SOME, I I MADE SOME A AMEND AMENDMENTS OVER THE LAST WEEK OR TWO. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ONES THAT YOU WERE EMAILED OUT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS INCLUDED THOSE AMENDMENTS I HAD. UM, SO THEY DID. THEY DID. OKAY. SO, SO WITH THAT, UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MENCHACA. LET'S HAVE A, UH, VOICE VOTE PLEASE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THEN, UH, WE'LL JUST HAVE THAT HABIT OF, UM, AROUND THREE O'CLOCK. THAT'S GONNA BE THE SWITCH OUT FOR ANY ALTERNATES. SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T STAY THIS LATE OR YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE LATE, MOST AGENDAS ARE PROBABLY GONNA BE LATER THAN TODAY. UM, YOU'LL DEFINITELY WANNA DO THAT SWITCH OUT AT THREE. OKAY. AND I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT GIVE US A HEADS UP IF YOU DO PLEASE. . YEAH. SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE FIRST ONE WHO ASK IS TO LEAVE AT THREE, [03:20:01] BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, SO FOR THAT, HABITAT HAD ON, ON HUMANITY, THE ONE WHERE THEY WERE BOTH EXACTLY THE SAME, WITH THE SAME SITE. IS IT EVER POSSIBLE TO HEAR THOSE TOGETHER IF THEY'RE THE SAME? LIKE THAT, LIKE THAT SIMILAR, JUST CURIOUS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SIMILAR, BUT THEY WEREN'T EXACTLY THE SAME. AND THEN ON TOP OF IT, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO REDUCE THE CASELOAD. , THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. I HEREBY ADJOURN. IT IS 4 22. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.