* 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. [00:00:07] OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF NINE PEOPLE. SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, GET THIS MEETING STARTED. IT IS 1:10 PM I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER. LET'S HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER PLEASE COME OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, BEFORE WE START, UH, WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER TODAY THAT NEEDS TO BE, UH, SWORN IN. UM, LET'S SEE. ALRIGHT. AND, UH, BY ZOOM, I UNDER, UH, WEBEX. I UNDERSTAND. WHERE'S THE, UH, IS THE NEW MEMBER PRESENT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SIR, UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. CAN YOU HEAR US? I, OH, THE VOLUME? YEAH. UH, CAN Y'ALL HEAR US? NOPE. NOPE. UH, CAN Y'ALL HEAR US ON WEBEX? YEAH, FINALLY. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER TODAY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. I'LL, I'LL ADMINISTER THE OATH OFFICE. OKAY. UH, AND THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I STATE YOUR NAME. I VAUGHN CODDLE. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES. I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF, UH, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE OFFICE, OF THE BOARD OF, UH, ADJUSTMENT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND WILL DO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND WILL DO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, PRESERVE, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND WALLS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE. SO HELP ME, GOD AND OF THIS STATE. SO HELP ME GOD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, SO, ALRIGHT. OKAY. WITH THAT STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL MR. SPIELMAN. I I'M MOVING AROUND. PRESENT MR. MENCHACA. PRESENT. MR. CODDLE? HERE. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. MANNA PRESENT. MS. KAPLAN PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ A PRESENT RESIDENT, MS. BRAGMAN, RESIDENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M ALSO PRESENT IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE YOUR RISE AND JOIN US WITH IN THE PLEDGE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY. LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE. ONE GOD. ONE. ONE. INDIVISIBLE. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT IS STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'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 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 EXAM, EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS [00:05:01] HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE 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 RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR 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 LET ME YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF. ALRIGHT, UH, REAL QUICK CHAIR. UM, JUST TO CONFIRM, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE GONNA BE LIMITED TO ONE AND A HALF MINUTES. YEAH. SO FOR EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE, UH, DUE TO THE VAST AMOUNT OF VOICEMAILS AND PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, WE'RE LIMITING PUBLIC COMMENT TO A MINUTE AND A HALF. UH, YOU CAN SEE YOUR TIME UP TO TWO PEOPLE. CONCEDE YOUR TIME TO SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES TOTAL. SO, UM, IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO HAS ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK TO TALK TO STAFF, BUT JUST WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW. AND THAT GOES FOR EVERYBODY TODAY, NOT JUST FOR ANY ONE PARTICULAR CASE. ALL CASES STAFF. STAFF WILL BE BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION AND A REQUEST. PRIOR PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS AND PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CHECK MARK INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS. YOU'LL BE CALLED AN ORDER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF ONE AND A HALF MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER MUST CAN BE ALLOWED UP TO TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD QUESTIONS. AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CHAIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, SO DA SO AS MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THERE ARE NINE MEMBERS. SO THAT MEANS YOU NEED ALL NINE VOTES FOR, UH, A CASE TO PASS. UH, THERE ARE SOME CASES ON OUR AGENDA WHERE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL, UH, FOR ANY APPLICANT, UH, FOR ONE OF THOSE CASES. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF. YOU CAN REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE BOARD WILL GRANT YOU ONE. UH, BUT UH, WE WILL BE OPEN TO HEARING, UH, SUCH REQUESTS IF YOU WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MORE THAN NINE PEOPLE IF THAT IS YOUR CASE. UH, BUT AGAIN, THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TO GRANT ONE. UH, SO THE FIRST CASE ITEM NUMBER ONE, HAS UH, REQUESTED A CONTINUOUS TO MAY 15TH STAFF IF YOU CAN GIVE US A BRIEF PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, BO O A 52 IS LOCATED 1817 SOUTH PRESA. REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND A FIVE FOOT VARI FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT BUFFER TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUFFER ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS HJ PROPERTY, THIS IS CONTINUED FROM A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, UH, LOCATED ALONG SOUTH PRESA IN SOUTH TOWN. THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A SOLID SEWER LINE RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTY LINE LOCATED IN THE RIO. FOUR. UM, ANY, UH, EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS MUST GO THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROVED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND TO DATE, NO APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OR WORK AT THIS ADDRESS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO THE HISTORIC. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH [00:10:01] SURROUNDING AREA STILL SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT DENIAL, UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING OF FACT THE REDUCED SITE SETBACK WOULD ENCROACH ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THERE DOES NOT, UH, APPEAR TO BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE PREVENTING THE APPLICANT FROM BUILDING WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS. NEXT SLIDE. NOTIFICATION PLAN 49. NOTICES ZERO IN FAVOR. ONE. OPPOSED LOOC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, SUPPORTS A CONTINUOUS AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. NEXT SLIDE. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. UM, IS THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE SIR COME, UH, COME ON UP. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL THE BOARD BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE? UH, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM 'EM, BUT NOT EVERYBODY HAS RESPONDED. UH, WE, SIR, WE NEED YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. OH, SORRY. SO THE COMMISSIONERS CAN HEAR, UH, WE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE NEIGHBORS THAT BACK UP TO US. UH, WE GOT RESPONSES FROM THREE OF SEVEN AND WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED WITH THEM THIS COMING WEEK, UH, EITHER TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY. THAT'S UP TO THEM. UH, IT'S OPEN-ENDED ON OUR PART WHENEVER THEY SHOW UP, IT'S GREAT. UM, AND SO WE HAVE PERSPECTIVES THAT WE'RE GIVEN OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS. UM, AND THEY, THEY HAVE RENDERINGS OF PROPOSED WHAT WE PROPOSED AND WHAT COULD, BASED UPON CURRENT SETBACK LIMITATIONS 30 FOOT AND HOW HIGH WE CAN BUILD SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, SO THAT'S, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR FEEDBACK. GREAT. I REMEMBER THIS FROM LAST TIME. SO . SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO MAY 15TH. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE B O A CASE TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 5 2 TO MAY 15TH. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY MANNA. UH, SEVERAL CALL VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I APPROVE MR. MANNA. I APPROVE MR. SPILLMAN. I APPROVE MR. MENCHACA. I APPROVE MR. CODDLE APPROVE. MS. CRUZ. I APPROVE MS. KAPLAN. I APPROVE MR. VASQUEZ. I APPROVE CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO APPROVE. ITEM IS CONTINUED ON MAY 15TH. UH, NEXT ITEM ITEM TWO, UH, LOCATED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD, LOGAN SPARROW, POLICY ADMINISTRATOR. UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BO O A 23, UH, 1 0 3 72. UH, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF, UH, MY DECISION TO REVOKE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE IN COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS, UH, SANDRA GUERRA. UH, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R FIVE H. THAT'S RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY MONTE VISTA, HISTORIC AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAID DISTRICT. UH, VERY BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON EAST ROSEWOOD, UH, VERY NEAR TRINITY UNIVERSITY. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SOUGHT INITIALLY, UH, SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON JANUARY 5TH OF THIS YEAR. THAT WAS REVIEWED, UH, FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND APPROVED ON JANUARY 9TH, SO JUST FOUR DAYS LATER. UH, SUBSEQUENTLY STAFF, UH, MY TEAM HERE AT D S D, WE WERE INFORMED, UH, THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS BEING ADVERTISED, UH, SPECIFICALLY AS A WEDDING VENUE. IF WE WERE TO CLASSIFY THAT IN OUR USE MATRIX, THAT WOULD FALL INTO A PARTY HOUSE RECEPTION HALL OR A MEETING FACILITY, UH, WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 35374.01. THAT'S THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SECTION OF THE U D C. UH, AS A RESULT OF A SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION, UH, DURING WHICH WE HAD A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER VISIT, THE PROPERTY OBSERVED THE VIOLATION. I REVOKED THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UH, THE APPLICANT, AGAIN IS APPEALING MY DECISION TO REVOKE THAT PERMIT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, AS PART OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AS YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL FIND THAT NOTHING ABOUT THIS SITE PLAN SUGGESTS THAT THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED AS A WEDDING VENUE AND THAT IS IN LARGE PART, UH, WHY THE REQUEST FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. UH, JUST A COUPLE OF PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY YOU SEE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND [00:15:01] CORNER, THE TIMESTAMP FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT. UH, NEXT PICTURE, I THINK WE'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE TO GO THROUGH. THIS IS THE STREET SCAPE ON ROSEWOOD LOOKING THE OTHER DIRECTION. AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THAT STREET AS WELL. UH, WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AS A FLYER THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AROUND, UH, THE COMMUNITY BY THE APPLICANT SEEKING SUPPORT, UH, FOR THE APPEAL TODAY. AND IF WE GO TO, I THINK IT'S THE NEXT SLIDE. YEAH, THAT ONE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, I WANNA HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE ITEMS THAT THE APPLICANT IS CALLING OUT. KIND OF, UH, RIGHT AT THE TOP. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REINSTATE OUR PERMIT. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THEY WILL ABIDE BY ALL PARKING. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PARKING SPACES FOR BULLET TWO UP TO 100 GUESTS. UH, THAT HIRED SECURITY IS A REQUIREMENT THAT VENDORS AND GUESTS MUST DEPART THE FACILITY BY MIDNIGHT. THAT ALCOHOL CAN ONLY BE SERVED BY A BARTENDER AND THAT THERE WILL BE BOOKINGS FOR NO MORE THAN 22 WEEKENDS PER YEAR. I REMIND THE BOARD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR NOT ONLY THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE S T R PERMIT, BUT THE PERMISSION TO DO THIS IS FRANKLY NOT A POWER GRANTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO BEGIN WITH. IF, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO ENTERTAIN THIS SORT OF A REQUEST, THE APPROPRIATE METHOD WOULD BE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY'S ZONING COMMISSION, GO THROUGH THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS, AND ULTIMATELY HAVE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOME SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE USED AS A WEDDING VENUE MORE THAN JUST A HOME OR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. UH, NEXT SLIDE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPEAL. UH, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON, THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY REQUIRES THAT WE REVOKE THE PERMIT. UH, THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT VIOLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE S T R ORDINANCE SHALL RESULT IN PERMIT REVOCATION. THAT'S A SHALL, THAT'S NOT MAY WE HAVE TO, UH, AND THEN SECOND, THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, VIOLATED THE S T R ORDINANCE BY ADVERTISING THIS PROPERTY AS A WEDDING VENUE. UM, WE ARE NOT UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ACTUALLY HELD EVENTS AT THE PROPERTY, BUT IT WAS CONVEYED TO US VERBALLY THAT SHE DID, UH, END UP HAVING TO CANCEL SEVERAL BOOKINGS. SO WE DO KNOW PER THE APPLICANT THAT SHE WENT SO FAR AS TO ACCEPT FUNDS AND HOLD THE WEEKEND FOR THOSE EVENTS. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL, CERTAINLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. UH, I ALSO WANNA SHARE THAT, UH, 10 MINUTES INTO TODAY'S MEETING, WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT THAT SHE WILL NOT BE HERE TODAY. UH, SO OF COURSE THE BOARD HAS THE DECISION TO CONTINUE THE CASE OR TO PROCEED, UH, IN HER ABSENCE. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANON. SO, UM, SO BY RIGHT, THIS TYPE OF VENUE WOULD REQUIRE WHAT KIND OF ZONING? UH, IF YOU WERE TO GO WITH JUST A, A GENERAL BASE ZONING DISTRICT, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT A C TWO OR A C THREE BASED ZONING DISTRICT. THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION TO CONDITION CERTAIN USES INTO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, BUT THOSE GO THROUGH A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THOROUGH REVIEW PROCESS, A MUCH MORE DETAILED SITE PLAN THAT CONDITIONS CAN BE PLACED ON AS, UH, DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY CITY COUNCIL. AND UH, IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTS, UH, THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT MAYBE YOU COULD, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PACKAGE? JUST SO THAT THIS BOARD'S AWARE, I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF COMMENTARY TODAY, UM MM-HMM. , BUT, UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD SEE OR THEY WANTED US TO SEE, JUST LET, IF YOU COULD PUT YEAH, I, I CERTAINLY, I'LL, I'LL, I HAVE ONE COPY HERE. I CAN HAND IT AND YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN. BUT THIS IS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE THE FLYER THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. YEAH, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT. SO WE'RE GONNA START, UH, WITH VOICE QUESTION. ONE MORE QUESTION, I'M SORRY. AND SO, UM, IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE HEARD A CASE, UH, IT WAS PRESENTED WE'LL SAY TAX RECORDS FOR FOR HOT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS THING WAS RENTED AND, AND THERE WAS FEES PAID, YOU KNOW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOT. WAS THAT THE CASE FOR THIS AT ALL? SO I, I THINK THAT WE CAUGHT THIS ONE EARLY ENOUGH THAT, AGAIN, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS WE CAUGHT IT BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO HAVE EVENT NUMBER ONE. UH, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S BEEN HOT REVENUE, YOU KNOW, DEFICIENCIES REPORTING THE ZEROS ACCURATELY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, SO LET'S START WITH VOICEMAILS, UH, MINUTE AND A HALF. UH, I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, WAS THIS, UH, GOING BEFORE THE CITY AND THE REZONING WAS, WAS IT BROUGHT UP TO THE APPLICANT AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE? SO AT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL. SO OBVIOUSLY BASED UPON THE DECISION MADE HERE TODAY, WE WOULD SIT DOWN AND MEET WITH THE APPLICANT AND ADVISE ON FUTURE STEPS. UM, I I WILL SAY THAT [00:20:01] IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION, UH, FOR THE APPEAL THERE WAS NOT THIS LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT'LL MAKE ITS WAY DOWN THAT LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. IT WAS REALLY AN APPEAL OF MY DECISION TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. NOT NECESSARILY WE WANT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO AUTHORIZE A WEDDING EVENT SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND THAT'S ONLY, ONLY ASKING THIS 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE. OUTTA CURIOSITY, UH, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO HOLD A WEDDING FOR FAMILY AT YOUR HOUSE IN SAN ANTONIO? UH, I SUSPECT THE ANSWER IS YES. OKAY. BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT'D HAVE TO, NO, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST HOW MANY? YEAH, I JUST WANTED WITHOUT THE APPLICANT PERSON TO BRING THERE, THERE, THERE ARE POTENTIALLY ISSUES WITH OCCUPANCY WITH OCCUPANCY LIMITS. YOU KNOW, A HOUSE IS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD 150 PEOPLE GENERALLY SPEAKING, SO I'D HAVE TO DO A LITTLE MORE DETAILED DIGGING INTO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODES AND ALL THAT. OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. UH, SO LET'S START WITH THESE VOICEMAILS A MINUTE AND A HALF EACH PLEASE. AND YOU'VE ALREADY VETTED OUT, I UNDERSTAND 10 'CAUSE THERE'S UH, THEY'VE, THEY'RE HERE IN PERSON TO TALK, SO GREAT. I'M REFERRING TO CASE NUMBER B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. MY NAME IS ANNABELLE TEMAN AND I LIVE AT 1 2 6 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 1977 AND I WAS MUST VERY DISMAYED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION, A REQUEST TO CREATE 1 4 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AS AN EVENT CENTER RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM ME. I'M REQUESTING THAT THAT NOT HAPPEN, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT GIVE THE REQUESTER A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THIS IS NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. GOODBYE CASE NUMBER B O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. MY NAME IS ANN KIMER. I LIVE AT ONE 10 WEST ROSEWOOD IN MONTE VISTA. I OPPOSE THE OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT REINSTATE THE FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY POSITION AND NOT REINSTATING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. MY NAME IS ANN VAN PELT, I LIVE AT ONE ONE NINE WEST ATCH. MY TELEPHONE IS (210) 844-7001. I'M CALLING WITH REGARD TO CASE ENDING IN 0 0 7 2. WITH REGARDING, UH, THE PROPERTY AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD, UM, THIS IS A MAGNIFICENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UH, IT IS OPERATING ON A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WOULD BE, UH, IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN ON THAT BEAUTIFUL BLOCK THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO TRINITY UNIVERSITY WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PARKING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET. UH, IT'S A PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSAL AND I CANNOT IMAGINE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN. WE ARE NOT RUNNING, UH, HOTELS IN MONTE VISTA. WE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, SOME MULTI-FAMILY IN A VERY CHARMING, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE CANNOT LET THESE KINDS OF THINGS CREEP INTO WHAT IS ONE OF OUR MOST SIGNIFICANT STREETS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THANKS. HELLO, MY NAME IS CHRIS CAMPOS AND I LIVE AT 2 55 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, APARTMENT FOUR. UM, I'M CALLING INTO CON VOICE. MY CONCERNS REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. I'M OPPOSED TO REOPENING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE BECAUSE I HAVE CONCERNS WITH NOISE, PARKING ISSUES AND POSSIBLE SAFETY CONCERNS. UM, ALSO MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 825-5774. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CHRIS SCRUGGS. I LIVE AT 1 3 9 EAST ATCH IN SAN ANTONIO. I AM A MEMBER OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I AM CALLING WITH [00:25:01] REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH OH 3 0 0 0 7 2. I'M OPPOSING THIS APPLICATION AS IT IS IN IMPROPER USE FOR A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. IT SITS IN ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF MONTE VISTA ADJACENT TO TRINITY UNIVERSITY AND IT WOULD BE A GREAT MISTAKE TO GRANT THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS. UH, UH, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO SPAWN ANY TIME. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 320-3203. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CLIFF HERBERG. I LIVE AT 3 2 0 WEST OF LULL WOOD AVENUE IN MONTE VISTA. AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO BO A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. UH, THE REQUEST FOR A PERMIT FOR A EVENT CENTER AT FOURTH. HI, MY NAME IS GEORGE L. NELSON. MY ADDRESS IS 2 3 1 LAUREL HEIGHTS PLACE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 363-8007. THIS IS IN REGARD TO BO A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2 CONCERNING FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. THIS IS TO VOICE COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO ANYTHING TO BE PERMITTED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. THAT IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DEFINITE CONSIDERATION FOR ZONING AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN MOST PLACES, MOST, UH, ADDRESSES. SO, UM, IT IS TIME FOR PERSONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN ORGANIZING POP-UP BUSINESSES IN THEIR BACKYARD TO STOP DOING THIS. WE'VE HAD OTHER INSTANCES OF THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR. UH, MY NAME IS, UH, GEORGE SPENCER AND I LIVE AT 2 0 2 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE IN MONTE VISTA. AND I'M CALLING TO OPPOSE THE, UH, OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER AT, UH, 4 1 0 EAST ROSEWOOD. UH, AND, AND I'M ASKING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT REINSTATE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT, UH, FOR THAT ADDRESS. 4 1 0 EAST ROSEWOOD. I BELIEVE THAT THE CASE NUMBER IS BO A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 3 3. I APOLOGIZE, BO O A TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 7 2. UH, IN ANY EVENT, IT INVOLVES THE, UH, PROPERTY AT 4 1 0 EAST ROSEWOOD. THE UM, UH, UH, VENUE, UH, THAT UH, UH, USE THERE OF A PRIVATE PARTY HOUSE, UH, UH, IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THAT, UH, BLOCK AND, UH, WOULD, UH, CAUSE A DETERIORATION, UH, OF THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF, OF THE ENTIRE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY, UH, OPPOSITION. BYE. IRA HAMPTON 700 EAST HILDEBRAND 2 1 0 2 80 80. CASE NUMBER IS 0 7 2. I OPPOSE IT. I OPPOSE CASE NUMBER 0 7 2. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS JUDY WARREN. I LIVE AT 2 1 8 WESTWOOD AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 1 2 IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (979) 324-1184. I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. CASE NUMBER 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 72 I I SUPPORT THE CITY'S REVOCATION OF THIS SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. UM, OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT IS DESIGNATED AS A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [00:30:01] AREA AND AN EVENT CENTER IS CLEARLY A BUSINESS ALLOWING THIS EVENT CENTER TO OPERATE IN A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA WOULD BRING SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE DENY THE FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD OWNERS REQUEST TO OPERATE A BUSINESS IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL AREA OF EAST ROSEWOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, THIS IS JULIE BRYAN AND I LIVE AT 1 1 1 EAST LOW WOOD AVENUE. I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. AND I EXTREMELY OPPOSE THIS EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. IT IS A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DEVALUES PROPERTY PARKING AND THERE ARE SO MANY WRONGS ON THIS AND IT'S A ZONING ISSUE. PLEASE TAKE THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AWAY. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KAREN HICKSON. I LIVE AT 1 1 1 WEST LINWOOD AVENUE IN MONTE VISTA. MY NUMBER'S 2 1 0 8 2 7 0 2 0 5. I AM CALLING TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL S T R TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD, ALSO IN MONTE VISTA BECAUSE OF PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES AND IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE WANT IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS KAY LAD AND I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. AND WE OWN THE PROPERTY AT 3 23 EAST ROSEWOOD AND THREE 19 EAST ROSEWOOD. AND WE'RE CALLING TO SAY THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO, UM, TYPE TWO ROSEWOOD FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. IF YOU NEED FURTHER INFORMATION, YOU CAN REACH ME AT 2 1 0 8 6 2 2 4 5 9. THANK YOU. BYE-BYE. HI, I GOT CUT OFF. THIS IS KELLY RUSSELL, FOUR 11 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, SANTA TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. I'M CALLING ABOUT K 0 7 2. I AM OPPOSED TO REOPENING THE S T R TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD BECAUSE OF PARKING ISSUES. HI, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LISA WEISLER. I LIVE IN MONTE VISTA ON ELLWOOD AND I RECEIVED, UM, INFORMATION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE HOME AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD TRYING TO CHANGE ZONING INTO AN EVENT CENTERED TYPE OF ZONING. UM, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD SUCH AS OURS. AND I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MY HUSBAND JOHN AND I OPPOSE IT. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL OPPOSE IT AND LEAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THE WONDERFUL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT IS. UM, THAT STREET IS SO BEAUTIFUL. IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO ALL THOSE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE SO MANY CARS AND MUSIC AND LOUD NOISE AROUND AN EVENT CENTER. UM, JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE. SO THE CASE NUMBER IS B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 72. AND AGAIN, OUR NAMES ARE JOHN AND LISA WEISER AND WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL FIND THAT THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA FOR THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BYE-BYE. THIS IS LUCY FROST AND I AM AT TWO 40 WEST ELLWOOD SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 1 2 AND MONTE VISTA CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER B O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. UM, AND I AM CALLING TO ABOUT THE PROPERTY. IT'S FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. UM, AND, UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S REVOCATION OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PROGRAM, I'M SORRY, PERMIT. UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT MONTE VISTA IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THAT HAVING SUCH, UM, EVENTS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, UM, WOULD [00:35:01] HARM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAUSE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND JUST RUN THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL SPACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LYNN A BOYD THE THIRD I RESIDE AT 1 4 3 EAST AGARITA AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 863-5758. I AM CALLING WITH REGARD TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UM, CASE NUMBER TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 7 2. UH, I AM CALLING TO, UH, REGISTER MY OPPOSITION TO THIS, UH, REQUEST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT FOUR 10. UM, EAST ROSEWOOD IS LOCATED IN A RES ON A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK THAT DOES NOT ALLOW PARKING AND THAT AREA IS CONGESTED, UH, AND HAS VERY LITTLE PARKING, UH, IN THE AREA AROUND IT. SO IT, IT'S BASED ON THAT, THAT I AM, UH, REQUESTING THAT, UH, THIS, UH, REQUEST BE DENIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, UH, CONSIDERATION. CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 72. MY NAME IS MICHAEL MEL. I LIVE AT ONE 10 WEST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. I OPPOSE THE OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT REINSTATE THE FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY POSITION AND NOT REINSTATING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD NANCY AND JAMIE BILLUPS 3 0 7 BUSHNELL AVENUE IS UH, 4 1 6 0 0 9 9. WE'RE CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER 0 7 2 AND ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THAT RESIDENCE. WE DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE A, UH, BE GIVEN A PRE UH, PERMIT FOR, UM, A SHORT TERM. THIS IS PAMELA EDISON. I LIVE AT 2 3 8 WEST HOLLYWOOD AVENUE. I OPPOSE THE OPERATION OF EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AND REQUEST TO BE OF A OA NOT OF ADJUSTMENT. THE B O A NOT REINSTATE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. CASE NUMBER ZERO. HI, MY NAME IS PATRICIA NICHOLSON. I LIVE AT TWO 14 WEST LOWELL WOOD AVENUE, UH, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (202) 246-5044 AND I AM CALLING TO OPPOSE, UM, I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 7 2. AND, UM, I OPPOSED HER APPLICATION TO HER APPEAL. THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING TO APPEAL REVOCATION OF HER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND I'M CALLING BECAUSE SHE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE AN EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I OPPOSE HER REQUEST. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS PAUL KENON. I LIVE AT FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL DISTRICT. I AM CALLING IN REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE B O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 7 2. THE SUBJECT PRO PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL DISTRICT AS A RESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL DIS DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE EAST ROSEWOOD RESIDENCE AND REQUEST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE [00:40:01] THEIR S T R PERMIT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN EVENT CENTER AS ADVERTISED BY THE OWNER IS NOT ALLOWED. ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED AS FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 18 AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD WOULD BRING SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THIS REQUEST FOR APPEAL AND ANY REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE RELATED TO AN EVENT CENTER. HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS PETER HUGILL. I LIVE AT 2 1 8 WEST ELLWOOD AVENUE, UH, IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL DISTRICT. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS AREA CODE (979) 777-6509. UH, I WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UM, ITEM NUMBER 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2, UH, WHICH IS ABOUT 4 1 0 EAST ROSEWOOD. UH, I SUPPORT THE CITY'S REVOCATION OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT THERE. UH, OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT IS DESIGNATED AS FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AN EVENT CENTER IS CLEARLY A BUSINESS. UH, IF THE CITY WERE TO ALLOW THIS SORT OF, UM, BREAK IN ZONING, IT WOULD BE A MAJOR ERROR AS FAR AS I CAN SEE. UM, PLEASE DENY THE FOURTH AND EAST ROSEWOOD OWNERS, UH, REQUEST TO OPERATE A BUSINESS. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS RACHEL PORTILLO AND I AM CALLING FOR CASE NUMBER B O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. UH, MY ADDRESS IS 3 1 5 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE SEVEN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. AND I OPPOSE TO HAVING, UH, THE REOPENING, UH, OF THE S T R TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD BECAUSE OF PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. UH, YOU CAN ALWAYS FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AT AREA CODE (210) 274-8129 AND AGAIN, I AM OPPOSED TO HAVING, UM, THAT ADDRESS, UH, 4 4 10 EAST ROSEWOOD TO BECOME, UH, LIKE A RENTAL PROPERTY. THANK YOU. BYE-BYE. HELLO, THIS IS REGINA CAMPBELL AND SPEAKING FOR, UH, HUSBAND AS WELL RUFUSS CAMPBELL. WE LIVE AT 1 0 5 WEST BELWOOD AVENUE AND WE ARE REMARKING ABOUT YOUR B O A CASE 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 72, ABOUT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD TEMPORARY RENTAL EVENT CENTER THAT THEY WANT TO ALLOW UP TO A HUNDRED PEOPLE TO DO. AND WE JUST WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALL WOULD VOTE NO ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE, UM, IT, IT, IT'S ALREADY GETTING VERY, VERY CROWDED ON MCCULLOUGH AND I JUST KNOW THAT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC AND ALSO FOR THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS ON THAT STREET, UH, I'M SURE IT WOULD NOT BE PLEASANT FOR THEM. AND SO WE ARE ASKING AGAIN, PLEASE VOTE NO FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT APPEAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOODBYE. HI, THIS IS BOB HOBSON, TWO OH FIVE WEST LONGWOOD, PHONE NUMBER TWO ONE ZERO THREE ONE SIX SIX THREE. UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IS APPEALING FOR A B O A APPROVAL FOR A, UH, RENTAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AS AN EVENT CENTER. I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT WANT A RENTAL EVENT CENTER THAT WOULD HOLD APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED PEOPLE NEXT TO MY HOUSE. THE CENTER WOULD NOT ONLY CAUSE PROBLEMS, UH, WITH MY PROPERTY BY DEVALUING IT, BUT WOULD ALSO, UM, PRESENT PROBLEMS WITH UH, NOISE, PARKING, TRAFFIC AND CHILD SAFETY. UH, APPROVING THIS APPEAL WOULD SET PRECEDENTS FOR OTHER RESIDENTS TO CONSIDER REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THEIR HOME, UH, TO GET SIMILAR PERMITS AND THEREFORE APPEAL TO THE UH, B O O A TO DENY CASE. TWO THREE DASH 3 0 0 7 2. THANK YOU. HI, THIS IS RYAN REED AT 2 4 2 [00:45:01] WEST LINWOOD AVENUE IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT. I AM CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE WITH THE LAST THREE DIGITS 0 7 2, LOCATED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. UM, I'M ALSO CURRENTLY CHAIR OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND I'M ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS COMMISSIONERS TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO RESTORE THEIR S T R PERMIT. UH, THE OWNERS ARE USING THEIR S T R PERMIT TO RENT THIS HOME AS AN EVENT VENUE AND HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE FORM OF A FLYER TO CONTINUE DOING SO. THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE S T R PERMIT AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A HOME ZONE RESIDENTIAL IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO I STAND WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IN MY REQUEST FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU. HELLO, THIS IS SALLY SAEED AND I LIVE AT 1 22 EAST ROSEWOOD AND I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER D O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. I OPPOSE THE OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD AND REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT REINSTATE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY POSITION AND NOT REINSTATING THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. HI, THIS IS DR. SUZANNE DEBO, D A B B O U S. MY UM, PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 422-4088. MY ADDRESS IS 1 3 1 WEST LINWOOD AVENUE 7 8 2 1 2. UH, THE CASE NUMBER IS B O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE REOPENING OF THE S T R TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD BECAUSE OF PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. THE BOARD, UM, SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO PASS. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS TRUDY JOE KENON. I LIVE AT FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 857-7289. MY CELL PHONE. I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE B A 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FOUR ONE OH EAST ROSEWOOD IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT AS A RESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE EAST ROSEWOOD RESIDENCE AND THE BOARD OF ENTRUSTMENT DENY THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN EVENT CENTER AS ADVERTISED BY THIS OWNER IS NOT ALLOWED. ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY ARE ZONED AS FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE OPERATION OF EVENT CENTER AT FOUR ONE OH EAST ROSEWOOD WOULD BRING SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THIS REQUEST FOR APPEAL AND ANY REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE RELATED TO AN EVENT CENTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY OPINION. MY NAME IS WENDELL FUQUA. THAT'S F AS IN FOXTROT, U Q U A. I LIVE AT 2 24 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO. UH, MY E UH, MY MA UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 373-0748 AND I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2 WHICH REGARDS A HOUSE AT UH, FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD, WHICH IS APPEALING THE CITY'S REVOCATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. I AM, UH, IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING TO REVOKE THAT PERMIT. THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH A, UM, EVENT CENTER UNDER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND UH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA, A BEAUTIFUL RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND IT WOULD INDEED BRING, UH, SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I AM OPPOSED TO GRANTING THEM THAT SHORT RENTAL TERM, UH, RENTAL PERMIT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE. UM, YES, MY NAME IS YOLANDA GARCIA. MY ADDRESS IS 3 1 3 EAST ROSEWOOD AND UH, ZIP CODE SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 639-5639 AND I'M CALLING [00:50:01] REFERENCE BO O A NUMBER BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. AND IT IS ABOUT THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL TYPE TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR THAT PROPERTY TO HAVE THE, UH, OPTION TO HAVE THAT GET GRANTED. THANK YOU. THERE IS TOO MUCH NOISE AND PARKING IN THE STREET AND THE SUCH MAKES IT DIFFICULT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE. THIS CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAILS. ALRIGHT, UH, SO LET'S SEE, UH, UH, CITIZENS, UH, WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. LET'S START GOING THROUGH THE LIST. ALL RIGHT, MRS. UH, CECILIA RO AND IF, UH, STAFF COULD PLEASE, UH, UH, LIST THE NEXT PERSON SO THEY'LL KNOW THEY'RE ON DECK NEXT. THAT'D BE GREAT. NEXT IS RANDY RO. I'M CECILIA RO AND I'M GONNA GIVE MY TIME TO RANDY RO PLEASE, PLEASE SPEAK. YEAH, IT'S I'M, HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, JIM. GOOD AFTERNOON, RANDY. I'M ACTUALLY THE NEIGHBOR. I'M THE GUY WHO'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO HER AND OBVIOUSLY I OPPOSED THE, UH, REINSTATEMENT. UH, SHE DID ACTUALLY HAVE A, UH, RUN THROUGH EVENT, UH, WITH, UH, WHATABURGER THERE, SO SHE DID ACTUALLY TRY IT. THAT'S WHAT KIND OF GOT ME EXCITED AND INVOLVED AND ENGAGED AND UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY I'M REALLY PROUD OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT CARE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MANNA. I, EXCUSE ME, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SURE. SO YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A RUN FOR YOU EVENT, A RUN THROUGH EVENT. SO THEY ACTUALLY DID OH YEAH, FEBRUARY 23RD. OKAY. YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, AND SO FOR THOSE WHO COME UP TO SPEAK, UH, GIVE US A LITTLE PAUSE. THERE MIGHT BE A QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP IS PATRICIA WAGNER. AFTER THAT IS CHARLES CASTRO. MY NAME IS PATRICIA WAGNER. I LIVE AT FOUR 30 EAST ROSEWOOD RIGHT NEXT TO STAND, UH, RANDY AND SASSY. UM, I'VE LIVED IN THAT HOUSE FOR 35 YEARS WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, WE BOUGHT IT BECAUSE OF THE SERENITY AND BEAUTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT STILL IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. I OPPOSE ANYONE OPENING AN EVENT CENTER, FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD IS A BIG HOUSE ON THE CORNER, AND IF THEY WERE TO HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE COME AND STAY THERE FOR AN EVENT, I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THEY WOULD PARK. WE ARE A NO PARKING AREA. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL AND YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHARLES CASTRO'S NEXT AND AFTER THAT IS MR. JAMES LAWSON EVENING. MY GUESS IS I'M THE OLDEST ONE HERE AT 90, SO I'VE BEEN IN, UH, I HAVE MY YOU SPEAKING SORT OF MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY. YEAH, IT'S VERY SENSITIVE. OH, I, I'VE, I'VE BEEN IN SAN ANTONIO'S THE SIXTIES. I BOUGHT MY HOUSE THEN AND I'VE STAYED THERE AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO BE. AND I EVERY, I COULDN'T CARE WITH ANY, EVERYBODY THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB THERE AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. JAMES LAWSON. AND AFTER THAT IS, UH, CLE MCKEAN RUSSELL. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. SHELBY JAMES LAWSON. 3 3 6 EAST ROSEWOOD DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 4 1 0. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TIME TO MR. TONY GARCIA. HE IS GONNA DOUBLE THAT UP FOR US. ALL RIGHTY. CHEERS. YEP. MR. MCLEAN RUSSELL. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. I, UM, I WAS REARED ON THAT STREET, SAME HOUSE THAT I'M IN RIGHT NOW, FOUR 11 EAST ROSEWOOD AND IT'S ONE OF THE PRETTIEST STREETS IN THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. THE CHRISTMAS LIGHTS, EVERYTHING. THE REASON WHY THERE'S NO PARKING SIGNS EVERYWHERE IS TO PREVENT TRINITY STUDENTS FROM PARKING ALL OVER THE PLACE, LEAVING TRASH AND BASICALLY RUINING OUR STREET. NOW WE HAVE THIS OTHER GROUP COMING IN TRYING TO HOLD EVENTS UNTIL 10 [00:55:01] MIDNIGHT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I GOT YOUNG KIDS, THEY'RE GOING TO BED AT SEVEN O'CLOCK. THE LAST THING I WANT IS A BUNCH OF DRUNK PEOPLE WALKING AROUND, LEAVING TRASH EVERYWHERE. BEING ABLE TO LOOK IN THE WINDOWS WHERE MY KIDS ARE. IT'S A PEACEFUL, QUIET, BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY. SO FOR THESE REASONS I OPPOSE 0 7 2. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS ESTHER CASTILLO. AFTER THAT IS MR. AND MRS. BEACH BECK. I'LL WAIT MY TIME. YES SIR. AND WHO'S THAT? THAT WAS WAIVING THEIR TIME. MY HUSBAND . YEAH, HE, HE, HE'S HE'S SEATING IT TO HIS WIFE. THAT'S RIGHT. UH, MY NAME IS LISA BECK AND, UH, I WANNA THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONCERN. UM, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US. CAN I ASK YOU TO SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC? IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US. WE LIVE ON THE SAME BLOCK AS THIS HOUSE, SO WE PASS IT EVERY TIME WE WALK. WE, WHEN WE COME HOME FROM WORK, OKAY. WE PASS THIS HOUSE. UH, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE AND IT SHOULD RETAIN ITS BEAUTY JUST LIKE ALL THE HOUSES. SO, UH, WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR THIS STAND THAT I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE. THERE SEEMS TO BE AN OUTPOURING OF EVERYBODY FROM MONTE VISTA. UH, AN OUTPOURING OF GRATITUDE FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND EVERY EFFORT TO PRESERVE IT. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. WAS THERE ESTHER CASTILLO? OKAY. UM, JASON REYES. HELLO, JASON REYES. I LIVE AT 4 3 1 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. UH, I AM IN THE OPPOSITION OF THIS, UH, PERMIT. UM, YOU KNOW, WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE BACK ON THIS STREET IN 2012 AND WE CHOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STREET AND WE CHOSE IT TO, UH, START AND RAISE A FAMILY. AND WE NOW HAVE TWO CHILDREN THAT ARE SEVEN AND NINE AND THEY'VE ENJOY, ENJOYED THE STREET EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES, WALKING AND PLAYING. AND TO SEE, UH, AN EVENT CENTER COME IN THAT COULD CAUSE THAT STREET TO CHANGE, TO CAUSE THE, YOU KNOW, SAFETY, THEY'RE RIDING THEIR BIKES UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND ON THE SIDEWALKS AND PLAYING. I JUST CAN'T SEE HOW THAT MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR STREET ANY BETTER. AND SO, UH, ONCE AGAIN, I'M GONNA PRO POSITION TO THIS AND SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THIS, UH, MRS. BLANCHARD LYN BLANCHARD. GIVE MY TIME TO MY DAUGHTER. OKAY. SHE SPEAKING. YOU CAN COME ON UP. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, MA'AM. PERFECT. HELLO, MY NAME IS JALYN BLANCHARD AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE OPERATION OF AN EVENT CENTER OF FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. I WAS BORN AT FOUR THIRTY SEVEN EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE WHERE MY FAMILY BUILT OUR HOME. SHORTLY BEFORE I WAS BORN, I SPENT MY ENTIRE CHILDHOOD ON ROSEWOOD, SURROUNDED BY MANY OF THE WONDERFUL NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HERE IN THIS ROOM. AS AN ADULT, I HAVE RETURNED TO MONTE VISTA. IN THIS SPRING, MY HUSBAND AND I BECAME FULL-TIME RESIDENTS ON ROSEWOOD, WHERE WE PLAN TO REMAIN FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES. A COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTER IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE CHARACTER OF MONTE VISTA OR A QUIET RESIDENTIAL STREET. AS OF MARCH 5TH, FOUR 10, EAST ROSEWOOD WAS STILL APPEARING IN GOOGLE SEARCHES, ADVERTISED AS BOTH CASA ROSEWOOD AND IN CANTO EVENT HEADQUARTERS AT ELLA'S MEXICAN MANSION TO QUOTE THE GRAPHIC. STILL ACTIVE IN SEARCHES TO THIS DAY. ENCANTO EVENT HEADQUARTERS AT ELLA'S MEXICAN MANSION IS A COLORFUL ART FILLED HISTORIC VILLA WHERE INSTA WORTHY PHOTOS AND MEMORIES CAN BE MADE. SLEEPS 18 ACCOMMODATES A HUNDRED GUESTS AND IS PERFECT FOR WEDDINGS, QUINCEANERAS, CORPORATE EVENTS AND MORE. ADDITIONALLY, THIS APPEARS ON PEER SPACE, A BOOKING SITE FOR EVENTS, PHOTOS, AND FILM SHOOTS, NOT ON A TYPICAL S T R RENTAL SITE LIKE AIRBNB. THIS IS A SITE FOR BOOKING SPACES, FOR EVENTS, MEETINGS, FILM PRODUCTIONS, AND PHOTO SHOOTS. I'VE LIVED IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS FOR A MAJORITY OF MY ADULT LIFE PRIOR TO THIS AND HAVING SS T R RENTALS AND EVENT SPACES RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOME FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED WHERE WE LIVE. I STAND WITH MY NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION OF REISSUING THE S T R PERMIT AND SUPPORT THE STAFF'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. RICK WILSON. AFTER THAT IS [01:00:01] RITA RED UP PEARSON. MY NAME IS RICK WILSON. I LIVE AT ONE 10 WEST ELSMERE PLACE IN THE MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM OPPOSED TO THE, UM, ISSUANCE OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT TO THIS, UH, APPLICANT OR, AND I SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THAT PERMIT. I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY HELD AN EVENT WITH WHATABURGER, I'VE REACHED OUT TO MEGAN SKIDMORE AT WHATABURGER TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION SHE WAS PROVIDED. THERE MAY BE OTHER LEGAL RECOURSES, UH, IN REGARD TO THAT, BUT REGARDLESS, THE CITY HAS PUT AN INTENSE AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO TRYING TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF S T R PERMITS IN OUR CITY AND GIVEN GREAT THOUGHT TO HOW THOSE SHOULD BE PLAYED OUT AND HOW MANY THERE SHOULD BE AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE USED. AND I THINK A FLAGRANT VIOLATION LIKE THIS IS A INSULT TO YOU AS A BOARD. IT'S AN INSULT TO THE STAFF THAT PUT ALL THEIR TIME AGAINST THIS PROCESS. IT'S AN INSULT TO THE CITY AND OF COURSE IT'S AN INSULT TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS. SO I THINK THAT TO NOT DENY THIS WOULD GIVE A GREEN LIGHT AND WOULD RESOUND ACROSS THE CITY TO ALL OF THE OTHER STR THAT THEY THEMSELVES CAN DO WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO AT ANY TIME. SO AGAIN, I'M OBVIOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF DENYING ANY FURTHER PERMITS TO THIS APPLICANT. THANKS. THANK YOU MS. LORETTA PEARSON. ALL RIGHT. TONY GARCIA. MR. GARCIA, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND AFTER THAT IS MRS. BIANCA MALDONADO. I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE A COPY OF THIS. I'D LIKE TO AND WE CAN PUT THIS ON SCREEN. I, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO. I CHAIR THE ZONING AND CO COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTH OF VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. THIS STATEMENT IS FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. THE MONTH OF VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD. YOU HAVE HEARD THE CONCERNS AND OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FROM RESIDENTS LIVING IN MONTE VISTA. THE ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS ITS RESIDENTS OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION. I WAS ON THE CITY'S TASK FORCE IN DEVELOPING THE STANDARDS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ARE WELL BALANCED BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS AND COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS MADE GREAT STRIDES IN GETTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC. SINCE THIS PASSAGE BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018, WE SUPPORT THE CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, PERMIT. WHAT IS STILL A MAJOR CONCERN, PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN. WHAT IS STILL A MAJOR CONCERN TO US IS THAT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD CONTINUES TO BE PROMOTED AS AN EVENT CENTER EVEN AFTER THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON FEBRUARY THE 27TH. THIS RECENT FLYER DATED APRIL 1ST SHOWS A CONCERTED AND CONTINUED EFFORT TO CIRCUMVENT THE CURRENT SHORT-TERM RENTAL CODE REGARDING EVENT SPACE. THIS IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A BUSINESS OPERATION WITH PAID EVENTS BRINGING HARM TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO BRING RELIEF TO OUR RESIDENTS CONCERNS, PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SUPPORT CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY SENDING A CLEAR STATEMENT OF DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU MRS. BIANCA MALDONADO AND AFTER THAT IS MR. JASON REYES. I GET A MINUTE 30. RIGHT. THANK YOU. BIANCA MALDONADO RESIDE AT 4 57 CLUB DRIVE 7 8 2 0 1 IN DISTRICT SEVEN. AND I'M COMING HERE TO SUPPORT THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION AND ALSO THE DIRECTOR'S OPPOSITION TO REVOKE THIS PERMIT. UM, I HOPE THAT YOU REVOKE IT PERMANENTLY TODAY. YOU HAVE A SITUATION BEFORE YOU WERE AN APPLICANT, UM, MISLED THE CITY. IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR SITE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED FOR THEIR SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT, IT INDICATED NOTHING FOR EVACUATION OF A HUNDRED PEOPLE. IT INDICATED NOTHING FOR PARKING OF A HUNDRED PEOPLE. THOSE ARE LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT ARE ADDRESSED THROUGH OUR ZONING CODE. WHAT [01:05:01] YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ACTUALLY A TWO VIOLATIONS. YOU HAVE A VIOLATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE AND YOU HAVE A ZONING VIOLATION. SO I REALLY HOPE THAT THE CITY, UM, CONTINUES TO GO AFTER THIS PROPERTY FOR THE ZONING, UH, VIOLATION THAT IS BEING DESCRIBED TODAY BASED ON THEIR CONTINUED ADVERTISEMENT OF THIS LOCATION AS AN EVENT VENUE. THIS IS NOWHERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SAT ON THE TASK FORCE, WHO CREATED THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE, THIS WAS OUR WORST FEAR THAT PROPERTIES WOULD TURN INTO PARTY VENUES. AND WE'VE SEEN PLATFORMS CREATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS SO NEIGHBORS COULD CALL AND REPORT 'EM BECAUSE THEY WANNA BE GOOD OPERATORS. THIS DOES NOT HELP THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT RIGHT. THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS WHO ARE OUT THERE DOING IT BY THE BOOK. THIS IS AN, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY VIOLATING EVERY ESSENCE OF THE INTENT BEHIND THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. AND THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. THEY SHOULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A ZONING APPLICATION WHICH WOULD LIKELY GET DENIED. AND SO THAT'S WHY I COME TODAY BEFORE YOU, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS WORKED VERY, VERY HARD TO EXECUTE THE ORDINANCE AND TO GET COMPLIANCE. AND THANK YOU. WE HOPE YOU VOTE IN DENIAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. JASON REYES. AFTER THAT I ALREADY SPOKE. DAN DIAZ. MR. DIAZ, BELINDA? NOPE. BELINDA? NOPE. THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, SO WITHOUT THE APPLICANT HERE, UM, I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, UH, STAFF A FEW QUESTIONS JUST TO KIND OF PUT SOME, SOME INFO AND SOME, UH, STATEMENTS OUT THERE. SO WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT, UH, THAT IT, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT THIS IS BEING USED, UH, WITH FULL INTENT TO BE AN EVENT CENTER. UM, AND I EVEN FOUND, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME STUFF ON THE INTERNET WHERE IT ALSO WAS BEING ADVERTISED AS AN EVENT CENTER. UM, IF, IF, UH, BECAUSE IT'S A TYPE ONE, UH, ON FEBRUARY 27TH, 2024, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME THEY CAN REAPPLY, IS IT, IS THERE AN AUTOMATIC REISSUANCE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THIS IN CONSIDERATION UPON FURTHER REQUESTS? SO WITH ANY REVOCATION ACTION, WHAT THE U D C REQUIRES IS THAT IT INSTITUTES A 12 MONTH PENALTY PERIOD. MM-HMM. WHERE THEY ARE INELIGIBLE TO SEEK A PERMIT OR OPERATE AN S T R FOR 12 MONTHS. AT THE END OF 12 MONTHS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A NEW PERMIT. IT WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY TAKE EFFECT AGAIN. SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION. AND COULD STAFF DENY IT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED TODAY? IF IT'S THE SAME APPLICANT, WE COULD OKAY. WITHIN THAT 12 MONTH WINDOW. NOW AFTER 12 MONTHS, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IN THE APPLICATION AND IF IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT. BUT WITHIN THAT 12 MONTH WINDOW, WE WOULD DENY IT. OKAY. AND IT, AND I REALLY WANTED TO HAVE 'EM STATE THAT FOR ALL THE MEMBERS, UH, IN THE GALLERY BECAUSE ON FEBRUARY 27TH, 2024, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN. AND SO YOU, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO MAYBE MAKE AN INQUIRY TO SEE IF THAT'S HAPPENING. SO, UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, COULD YOU BRING UP THE CODE THAT SHOWS, UH, THE SPECIFIC, I GUESS, NOTICE OF WHAT WAS VIOLATED? UM, YOU HAD IT FOR A SECOND THERE. I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN, PLEASE. YEAH, YOU GO TO THE UUD C UH, GO TO, I MEAN, TO BE FRANK, IT'S QUITE A FEW SECTIONS THAT WEREN'T VIOLATION. I THINK THE MAIN ONE IS 35 3 7 4 0.01. UH, B THAT'S, YEP. UH, WE ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 16, WHICH IS LICENSES, UH, PERMITS, UH, YOU KNOW, SO 16 DASH 1 1 0 4 A SIX SAYS THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, THERE IS A SWORN SELF-CERTIFICATION THAT THE OWNER UNDERSTANDS THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 16 11 0 8 F 10 UH, SAYS THAT FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS A, IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE AND THE, THE OPERATOR CAN BE CITED. 16 1 1 1 0 C SAYS THAT VIOLATION OF ANY SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL, SHALL CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE RESULTING IN PERMIT REVOCATION. UH, YOU GO ON TO SAY, UH, IN 3 5 3 74 0.01 OPERATOR SHALL NOT PROVIDE FOOD, INCLUDING THROUGH A CATERING SERVICE, UH, THAT, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE VENUES FOR WEDDINGS, EVENTS, RESTAURANTS, MEETING HALLS. I MEAN, THE, I KNOW A COUPLE FOLKS SPOKE TO IT, BUT THE TASK FORCE MET FOR A YEAR AND A HALF TO COME UP WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND THEY, THEY DID FOR FORESEE THIS, UH, POTENTIAL ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD. ANYONE ELSE? AND, AND, AND ON THAT POINT, I HAD ASKED WHEN YOU FIRST CAME UP, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A WEDDING AT YOUR HOUSE. THE REASON WHY I DID THAT IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON WAS VERY, APPLICANT WAS VERY BLATANT. [01:10:01] I MEAN, THEY'RE ADVERTISING IT. I MEAN, THERE'S NO QUESTION. SURE. UH, BUT WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS, IS THAT, HAS ANYBODY TRIED TO, UH, CONDUCT AN S T R AND JUST, UH, MAYBE NOT BE SO BLATANT AND MAYBE THESE SORT OF THINGS MAY HAVE HAPPENED AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING A RED COULD GO OUT ON OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S, I JUST SEE PEOPLE GETTING A LITTLE SNEAKIER IN THE SURE, SURE. IN THE FUTURE. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE 5,500 SHORT-TERM RENTAL LISTINGS IN SAN ANTONIO. I, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST, UH, THIS IS CERTAINLY THE MOST BLATANT, UH, THIS IS CERTAINLY THE MOST, UH, CLEAR CUT VIOLATION THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH ALONG THESE LINES. YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF A RED, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THE ORDINANCE IS PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE, RIGHT? THAT THESE ARE NOT ALLOWED AS PART OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL. MAY MAYBE MORE FOR THE APPLICANTS THAN MM-HMM. THAN FOR, FOR OTHER STAFF MEMBERS OR US. BECAUSE THEY, I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK, HEY, YOU KNOW, COME HERE. WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS OF PEOPLE HAVING PARTIES AND I'M JUST, AND THE AREA IS SO BEAUTIFUL, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. SO, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BACKMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT FOUR 10 EAST ROSEWOOD, APPLICANT BEING SANDRA RA, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN REVOKING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. SECOND. SECOND, UH, MOTION, UH, BY BRAGMAN, SECOND BY MANNA. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I'D LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION. YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT TO, TO TALK ABOUT. REALLY. I'M, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, SO, SO JUST AS A NOTE, SO I WOULD BE IN OPPOSITION OF AN EVENT, VENUE LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DIALOGUE'S BEEN ABOUT IS REALLY THAT PART OF IT. AND, AND THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE READY FOR THAT DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE. UM, AND THEN, BUT I WILL SUPPORT MY, UH, COLLEAGUE HERE WITH REGARDS TO, UH, NOT GRANTING THE APPEAL AS WELL. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD KAPLAN? COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? YEAH, I, I DON'T EVEN SEE THAT THERE'S A CHANCE THAT, UH, I WOULD VOTE FOR IT GIVEN THE COMMUNITY OPPOSITION AND IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND, UH, HAVING AN EVENT SPACE, UH, NEXT DOOR TO YOUR HOUSE IS VERY DISTURBING. SO I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COMMUNITY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? AND I WILL ALSO BE A, UH, OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL. I, I I, OVER THE YEARS, I'VE HEARD MANY COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE USING SDRS, UH, TO THROW PARTIES. AND EVEN A PARTY WITH 10 OR 12 PEOPLE CAN GET OUTTA HAND AND, AND A COMPLETE NUISANCE TO EVERYONE AROUND YOU. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT IT'S LIKE WITH A HUNDRED. UH, SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPILLMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. CODDLE. DO NOT CONCUR. CONCUR, MS. CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. UH, ZERO TO NINE, UH, APPEAL IS, UH, FAILS. THANK YOU FOR COMING, SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS WITH US. UM, YOU'LL HAVE A WONDERFUL AFTERNOON. IT'S REALLY PRETTY OUT. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. AGENDA ITEM THREE, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 3. ADDRESS IS 96 14 BRENTON DRIVE COUNCIL. DISTRICT FOUR APPLICANT IS ESTHER CASTILLO. A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. HEY, HOLD ON A SECOND. STOP FOR A SECOND. YEAH, JUST LET'S LET THE GALLERY DISPERSE A LITTLE . OKAY, VINCE, THANKS. THANK YOU. YOU WANT ME TO START AGAIN? I'LL GO THROUGH IT AGAIN, PLEASE, PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM THREE, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 3. ADDRESS IS 96 14 BRATTON DRIVE COUNCIL. DISTRICT FOUR APPLICANT IS ESTHER CASTILLO. A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE ZONING IS RM FOUR. CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BRATTON DRIVE JUST NORTH OF MARBACH BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF INGRAM [01:15:01] AND SOUTH ELLISON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED THE CARPORT AND WILL NEED TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DRIVEWAY DEPTH IS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET WIDE UPON SITE. BUSINESS STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE CARPORTS OTHER CARPORTS IN THE AREA. THIS A SITE PLAN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMME RECOMMENDATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BAIL O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 7 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK IN JURORS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND TWO, IT WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOTIFICATION PLAN. MA UH, STAFF MAILED OUT 42 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOODS ASSOCIATIONS. THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. WE'LL NEED A SPANISH INTERPRETER. OKAY. HELLO? UM, CARPORT CIRCA PER, THERE ARE, THERE ARE A FEW CARPETS IN NEARBY, BUT THEY ALL ABOVE THE LIMIT. UH, I ONLY HAVE 20 FEET AND THAT'S WHY I CANNOT PUT 10 FEET. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE, IN THE RENDERING, I NEED TO PUT IN MY VAN. I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT MY MINIVAN. IF I DO THE PART, UM, ONLY 10 FEET, HALF OF THE BAND WOULD BE OUTSIDE. IT IS BECAUSE, UH, THERE'S THE WALL OF MY HOUSE. AND THEN THE 20 FEET, EXACTLY. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE FROM CODES OF 1973. BUT THAT'S ALL THE SPACE THAT I HAVE. I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE STORMS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS YEAR. WE ONLY HAD THREE WITHHELD AND THIS IS WHY I WANNA PROTECT MY VEHICLES. SO I SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY I CAME UP TO THEM. THEY SEEM NOT TO HAVE A PROBLEM. I HAVE THREE, UH, FEET FOR INCHES. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE I HAVE, UH, 14 FEET. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, STAFF, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. I WANTED TO START ON THIS. UH, CAN YOU ASK THE APPLICANT, SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE IS 20 FEET, UH, FROM HER GARAGE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE APPLICATION LOOKS LIKE SHE'S ASKING FOR A 18 FOOT CARPORT. IS THAT TRUE? 20, BECAUSE I WAS SPEAKING WITH A PERSON WHO WAS GONNA DO THE CONSTRUCTION, AND HE SAID THAT IF FOR ANY REASON THE PERSONAL, UH, THE STAFF FROM THE CITY NEEDS TO WORK ON THE OUTSIDE ON THE DRAINAGE OR ON THE, UM, ON THE SIDEWALK, THEY WOULD AT LEAST HAVE TWO FEET OF SPACE SO THEY CAN WORK ON IT. SO THE APPLICATION IS FOR A ONE INCH VARIANCE, I'M SORRY, A NINE FOOT, UH, [01:20:01] 11 INCH VARIANCE FOR A, FOR A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS ADEQUATE. IS THAT TRUE? 20 HERE? MM-HMM. , I'M RESPECTING THE, THE LINE, THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT THE PERSON WHO'S GONNA BUILD THE, THE PORT, UM, THE PORCH AND SAID, UH, TWO FEET INSIDE SO HE CAN PUT THE FIRST POST, OH, AND THEN IT WOULD OVERHANG THE OTHER TWO FEET. EXCUSE ME. THE, THE POST WOULD BE 18 FEET AWAY. UHHUH , UH, FROM THE GARAGE, BUT THEN THERE'D BE A TWO FOOT OVERHANG. IS THAT WHAT UHHUH OKAY. YES. TAKE THE 20 FEET, BUT THE PO THE, THE PULSE WOULD BE TWO FEET INSIDE. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THE, THE VAN GETS COVERED. MY LA MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS WHAT IS THE MINIMUM COVER DEPTH THAT SHE CAN LIVE WITH? IF YOU CAN PUT THE PICTURE WITH THE VAN ON IT? UH, THAT'S EXACTLY THE, THE, THE SPACE THAT IT'S NEEDED. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ? SO, UM, MA'AM, ARE YOU, CAN YOU, UH, ON THE PICTURE HERE, WHICH IS HER PROPERTY, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WITH THE GREEN OR THE ONE ON THE LEFT? THE ONE ON THE GREEN. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT CAN STILL GET DONE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MINKA. SO CAN YOU ASK HER IF THE BUILDER OFFERED HER AN OPTION OF THREE FEET BACK OR FOUR FOOT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO? THE POST MOVING BACK? I DON'T KNOW HOW STRONG THAT WOULD BE. SO IT COULD BE, UH, EVEN UP. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH. I DON'T HAVE A, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT IF, IF IT'S STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE, THE ROOF, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE FINE FOR ME. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL, UM, IS THE CARPORT COULD BE MADE OUT OF THE QUE METAL AND THEN AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE DESIGN, IS IT GONNA BE A FLAT ROOF ACROSS THE WHOLE THING, OR IS IT GONNA BE PITCHED FLAT AND THEN IT'LL BE, UH, FLAT AND FACING TOWARDS THE STREET THEN? AS FAR AS ANGLED A LITTLE BIT MAYBE YEAH. TOWARDS THE STREET. SO THE WATER CAN DRAIN. PERFECT. AND THEN SO, SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE ON THE POST THAT, UH, THE COMMISSIONER HERE WAS TALKING ABOUT IS, UM, YOU CAN HAVE OVERHANG THAT'S REALLY NOT INCLUDED WITH REGARDS TO THE, UM, UM, THE SETBACK. AND SO, SO IF WE WERE TO GRANT YOU A TWO FOOT, UM, VARIANCE, THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR YOU TO PUT IN, UH, A TWO FOOT OVERHANG AND STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT WE'RE SAYING? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LAST PART? I'M SORRY. SO BY GRANTING A, UM, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE AND THE APPLICANT STATED THAT SHE'S LOOKING FOR A TWO FOOT OVERHANG, SHE WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE, SO WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. UH, SO, SO, SO IT, IT JUST HAS TO KIND OF LEAN THE ANGLE HAS TO BE TOWARDS THE FRONT SO SHE WON'T, UH, BOTHER ANY NEIGHBOR. AND, AND MORE, IT'S MORE ABOUT WHERE THE POSTS ARE PLACED, SO WHERE THE POST ARE. AND SO, SO, SO SINCE SHE TALKED ABOUT A TWO FOOT OVERHANG, [01:25:01] IF WE GIVE HER A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, SHE'LL BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT SHE'S LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH. UHHUH. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? UH, QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 3. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS REQUEST FOR A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 9 6 1 4 BRATTON DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING ESTHER CASTILLO 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 E D C AS EMITTED WOULD RESULT IN THE NECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE FRONT SETBACK CANNOT BE MET DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND LOCATION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, AND SO DOES NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT COULD NOT BUILD A CARPORT CONFORMING TO THE CODE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCES DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW, REDUCING THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD REQUIRE, WOULD NOT INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN PROPERTY SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT, UH, THE HOMES BEING SIMILAR TO TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS, UH, VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK WOULD NOT INJURE NEIGHBOR PROPERTIES DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND LOCATION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SIX PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, UH, THE, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA. YES. I'LL BE SUPPORTED. THIS, UM, AS AMENDED WITH THE TWO FOOT. I THINK THAT, UH, PER THE APPLICANT'S DIALOGUE HERE, IT WILL MEET, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT, UH, SHE'S LOOKING FOR AND ALSO DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE COMMUNITY. SO, UM, THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH, UH, THAT AND THEN ALSO, UM, WITH THE RUNOFF AS DEFINED, IT WON'T IMPACT ANY THE NEIGHBOR. SO I'LL BE VOTING FAVOR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I AGREE WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK THAT, UH, THE TWO FOOT, EXCUSE ME, SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD COMMISSIONER MINCHA? I'M HAVING A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE HERE. I'M MORE OF, UH, INCLINED FOR THREE FEET TO MOVE IT FURTHER BACK. JUST THE POST. UH, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR THREE FOOT VARIANCE? YES. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR THREE FOOT. I'LL ACCEPT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, DO YOU ACCEPT THIS A SECOND? YES, SIR. ALL. SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO BE A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A POST TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER, OTHER FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. LET'S, UH, KAPLAN? I, YES. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. THREE I I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE THREE FEET TOO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. MANO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. S SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN? MS. KAPLAN, I AGREE WITH, I AGREE WITH THE AMENDED, UH, UM, AGREEMENT. MR. VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, UH, TELL THE APPLICANT THAT THE MOTION WAS AMENDED TO A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE TO, SO THE POST CAN'T BE ANY CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. RIGHT. AND YOU CAN STILL HAVE A SLIGHT OVERHANG. NO. OKAY. I THINK, I THINK YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ME. UM, [01:30:02] I'M SORRY. ? YEAH. STAFF WILL EXPLAIN TO HER. OKAY. UH, ITEM FOUR. AGENDA ITEM FOUR. BO O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 5. ADDRESS IS 5 7 3 0 BROKEN LANCE COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. APPLICANT IS AVIANO A REQUEST FOR A 700 SQUARE FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FEET. LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 5,300 SQUARE FEET. ZONING IS R SIX. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BROKEN LAND SOUTHEAST OF OLD PEARSALL ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 FOOT SQUARE FOOT. LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR A 5,300 SQUARE FOOT. UH, LOT. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE MOSTLY 5,300 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. SITE PLAN. THE SURROUNDING AREAS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B L A 23 1 0 3 0 0 7 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA ARE BUILT ON SIMILAR SIZED LOTS AND TWO, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 40 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, THIS LOOKS LIKE A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW DID, HOW DID THIS GET BELOW THE, UH, THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR R SIX? I BELIEVE IT, IT WAS A PART OF A LARGE AREA REZONING, BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK FOR YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM. . UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HI, UH, COMING UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. BELINDA CARD, UM, IS MY HUSBAND AND, UM, THANK YOU . I'M HAPPY. UM, THERE'S NO PROBLEM. I'M OKAY. SO WE CAN MAKE IT BECAUSE WE, WE'VE GONE OUT THERE. I JUST WENT YESTERDAY TO CUT THE GRASS AND EVERY TIME WE GO, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE SAW, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S AN EMPTY LOT. PEOPLE THROW MATTRESSES, THEY START DRINKING. SO THAT'S WHY I PUT THAT ORANGE CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE FRONT. BUT WE'RE HAPPY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. UM, IS, IS, UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? CRUZ, MR. CRUZ? I'M SORRY. UM, MA'AM, THE CEMENT BLANC IS THERE NOW, IS THAT, WILL YOU BE USING THAT OR WILL YOU BE YES. USING A DIFFERENT ONE? YES. WE HAD THE CEMENT, UM, SCALED AND, UH, WE BROUGHT IN, UM, CERTIFIED BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE REQUISITE, UM, , RIGHT? THAT IT HAD TO HAVE, UH, I HAD TO TAKE SOMEBODY OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CEMENT WILL STILL HOLD THE HOUSE. AND, UH, AND WE TURNED IN THAT CERTIFICATION WITH A PERMIT. I'M SORRY, SPANISH AND ENGLISH . OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. YES, MA'AM. NOW THE ONLY THING, OTHER THING IS I AM ASSUMING THERE USED TO BE A HOME THERE AND IT WAS TORN DOWN. YES. I BELIEVE, UH, LIKE 10 YEARS AGO, I THINK THE HOUSE WAS BURNED AND, UM, SO THEY HAD TO TEAR IT DOWN. I PER, WELL ME AND MY HUSBAND PURCHASED IT ABOUT MAYBE TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO. SO, YOU KNOW, THE LIGHT, I GUESS NOBODY HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING TO IT. IT'S BEEN EMPTY THIS WHOLE TIME. AND, UM, SO WE, WE, WE PURCHASED IT WITH A PLAN TO BUILD A THREE BEDROOM HOME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YES MA'AM. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NO. NOPE. THAT SHOULD DO IT. OKAY. WELL, I HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY. . SO I, I'M LOOKING AT THE SUBDIVISION PLATT, I JUST LOOKED IT UP AND I, I JUST COMPLETELY DON'T UNDERSTAND. UH, DOES THIS, IF IT'S A PLATTED LAW, IS THIS EVEN NECESSARY? WHAT IS A MECHANISM THAT'S REQUIRING HER TO COME BEFORE THE B O A TODAY? I KNOW SHE MAY JUST WANT TO REMOVE ANY SORT OF TITLE ISSUES, BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S A PLATTED LOT, CAN'T SHE MOVE FORTH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT? UH, SO BEFORE THESE COME UP, WE USUALLY CHECK WITH PLATTING TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR A C O D, AN EXEMPTION TO A PLATT. UH, THEY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY COULD NOT GET ONE. UM, REAL QUICKLY, THE OTHER QUESTION, SO THE WAY THIS WAS INTRODUCED TO THE CITY AS A R ONE, IT JUST CONVERTED OVER. EVEN THE R ONE, UH, REQUIRED AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET BACK IN THE OLD, UH, STANDARD. UH, BECAUSE, SO THIS ONE JUST WHEN IT WAS ANNEX TO THE CITY, IT JUST DID NOT, WAS NOT ADD, UH, ADEQUATE SIZE. I MEAN, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS THIS, THE PLATT WAS RECORDED IN 1971, VOLUME 6,600, PAGE 50, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN ANTONIO. AND I DON'T EVEN SEE A COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT, UM, SIGNATURE. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WAS, WHEN [01:35:01] THIS WAS PLATTED, IT WAS ONLY IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO IF IT'S A PLATTED LOT THAT, THAT WAS PLATTED AFTER IT WAS ANNEX AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SHE EVEN HAS TO COME HERE. SHE WOULDN'T NEED A C O D. SHE'S A PLATTED LOT. IT, IT'S LIKELY THAT THE SURVEY THAT SHE SUBMITTED NOW IS SUBSTANDARD. AND SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PLATTED LOT, WHEN SHE WENT TO THE PLATTING SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THEY SAID THAT SHE WASN'T ELIGIBLE FOR A C O D. WELL, SHE WOULD NEED ONE. IT'S A RECORDED PLATT ALREADY. WELL, WELL, BUT THAT'S THE THING. THAT WOULD BE THE MECHANISM THAT SAYS, OKAY. NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PLATTED, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. YOU DON'T NEED A C O D. SO DOES SHE NEED TO BE HERE KNOWING THAT IT'S A RECORDED PLATT ALREADY? I'M JUST CURIOUS. I MEAN, I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE THIS WAS DONE. THE PLATT WAS DONE AFTER IT WAS ANNEX. IT'S RECORDED IN 1971. IT ISN'T ANTIQUATED. SHE DOESN'T NEED A C O D. IT'S ALREADY A PLATTED LOT. I I'M JUST CONFUSED WHY IT'S EVEN HERE. I I BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE SURVEY SHE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSED PLANS. AND SO IT'S, UH, ON THERE, IT ONLY SAYS THE 5,000, WHATEVER IT WAS. OKAY, WELL, UM, UH, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 7 5. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANITE REQUEST FOR A 700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 5,300 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT 57 30 BROKEN LANCE STREET, APPLICANT BEING AVIANO CARDENA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 700 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT. UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OTHER LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN HAVING TO REZONE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. IT'S A REQUIREMENT THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE ARE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON SIMILAR LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. 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. NO OTHER USES, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS MANY OTHER LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. IT'S DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YES. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. UM, AGAIN, IT SEEMS ODD THAT SHE EVEN NEEDS TO BE HERE. UM, THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE SAME FOOTPRINT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. UH, CRUZ? UH, YES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. I THINK, UH, IT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MR. MANNA I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, IF STAFF COULD PLEASE GET WITH DISTRICT FOUR AND LET 'EM KNOW THAT THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF LOTS IN THIS PLATT VOLUME 6,600, PAGE 50 THAT THEY PROBABLY SHOULDN'T, UH, PURSUE. UM, UM, UM, MULTI LOTS REZONING TO GET THIS INTO AN R FIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT NONE, NONE OF THEM ARE 6,000. SO. ALRIGHT, UH, NEXT CASE. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM FIVE BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6. ADDRESS [01:40:01] IS 4 4 2 R TIAGO COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT IS LETICIA ROBO. A REQUEST FOR ONE A 15 FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG TO BE FOUR FOOT TWO INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE 11 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG ART ALONG TIAGO NORTH OF US, HIGHWAY 90. BETWEEN WESTCOTT AND ALLEN, THE APPLICANT HAS A STRUCTURE THAT IS LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE PER TO U D C. THE STRUCTURE IS REQUIRED TO, TO BE SET BACK 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND IS CURRENTLY PLACED AT FOUR FOOT TWO WITH A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG. THE R FOUR BAY ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS AN APPROXIMATE FRONT SETBACK OF 60 FEET. UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. SITE PLAN IS SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE REAR SETBACK, THE OVERHANG, AND THE CLEAR VISION. THE SURROUNDING AREAS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 7 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY FOUR FOOT TWO INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS NOT OBSERVED AS SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PREVENTING SPACE FROM THE NAME PROPERTY. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR A CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL M B O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 7 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE DOES NOT IMPEDE VEHICLES FROM ENTERING OR EXITING PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED OUT 37 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM WESTWOOD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, AND THIS IS THE, THE PRI THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, RIGHT? CORRECT, YES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU'S. CORRECT. UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA? WE HAVE, THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT OR IF HE HAD A PERMIT, DID HE CHANGE THE THEY HAVE SEVERAL PERMITS. THEY HAVE A, UH, FRONT HOME ADDITION AND INTERIOR WORK. UM, BUT AS FAR AS, UM, ANY OTHER PERMITS? NO. THEY DO HAVE SEVERAL PLUMBING AND A FOUNDATION PERMIT AS WELL. MANNA COMMISSIONER, MAYOR KAPLAN. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, I, I LOOK ON GOOGLE AND I SEE THAT THE STRUCTURE A STRUCTURE'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2007. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES EXISTING OR WORK THAT'S BEING DONE ON A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING FOUNDATION, WOULD THAT BE TRUE? CORRECT. YES. ACCORDING TO I GOT A FOUNDATION PERMIT FROM 2022, BUT, UM, AS FAR AS ANYTHING EARLIER THAN THAT, I, I DID NOT SEE. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE HANSON SYSTEM? I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE TO CHECK. YEAH. IF, IF Y'ALL COULD LOOK AT THAT WHILE WE'RE QUESTIONING, IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW IF THERE WAS, IF THIS WAS EVER PERMITTED. WHEN ORIGINALLY BUILT. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I, I THINK COMMISSIONER MANNA. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? MM-HMM. ? YES. OKAY, GOOD. I THINK COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, TOUCHED ON WHAT I WAS ASKING. IF THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION OR A BRAND NEW PRO, UH, BRAND NEW BUILDING. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THIS. RIGHT. UH, I MEAN THE PICTURES THAT AND, AND THE STAFF, UH, PACKAGE SHOWS PRETTY MUCH ALL NEW WALLS. UM, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN, WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT APPEARS LIKE IT WAS BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP. UM, MAY PERHAPS ON THE SAME FOUNDATION. UH, BUT WITH, WITH THAT, WE'LL FIND OUT. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. LETICIA ROBLEDO. OKAY. AND MY HUSBAND. OKAY. UM, WE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE ON APRIL 5TH, 22. MM-HMM. , AND THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, UM, BUT IT WAS SITTING ON THE GROUND. NO POSTERS, NO, NO CEMENT, CONCRETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM, WE PULLED THE FIRST PERMIT TO BUILD THE POSTERS AND THE ADDITION IN THE FRONT. UM, THEN WE PULLED ANOTHER PERMIT TO CLOSE THE LAUNDRY BECAUSE THE LAUNDRY WAS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, BUT IT WAS IN THE BACK. SO THAT WAS THE SECOND PERMIT WHERE WE PULLED AND, UH, THE PLUMBER PULLED A PERMIT TO, TO DO THE PLUMBING BECAUSE THIS HOUSE WAS NO PLUMBING, NO WATER, UH, ONLY ELECTRICITY. BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THE OWNERS ON THE BACK, THEY BUILD THE, [01:45:01] THEY BUILD THE HOUSE AND CONNECT THE UTILITIES TO THE HOUSE IN THE BACK. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. MM-HMM. . SO WE ARE PRETTY MUCH DID THE ADDITION IN THE FRONT AND CLOSED THE LAUNDRY IN THE BACK, BUT IT WAS LIKE THAT. YEAH. WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A MULTITUDE OF TRADE PERMITS MM-HMM. , THESE ARE CALLED TRADE PERMITS. THE, THE, THE SOMETIMES, UM, A SITE REVIEW ISN'T, ISN'T PERFORMED. AND SO, UM, IT WA I GUESS STAFF FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, UM, BY COMPLAINT? OR WAS THIS THE FOUNDATION PERMIT THAT BROUGHT THIS UP? IT'S THE PERMITTING HER, HER PERMITTING TRIGGERED THE LOOK AT THE SETBACK. OKAY. ALRIGHT. YEAH. BUT THEY NOTICED THAT AFTER WE CAME TO TURN THE ENGINEER LETTER MM-HMM. , THAT'S WHEN THEY NOTICED THERE WAS LIKE WAY TOO CLOSE TO THE BACK. RIGHT. UM, SO IF, IF WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, THEN MENCHACA, KAPLAN, AND THEN KAPLAN. OKAY. UM, THE PICTURE THEY'RE SHOWING YOU WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. YES. DO WE HAVE ANY PICTURES OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? SINCE THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT'S IN QUESTION. MM-HMM. DO. I DON'T, UH, CAN YOU DO THE GOOGLE EARTH MAP SO THEY CAN SEE IT? IT LOOKS LIKE FROM IMAGERY ON, ON GOOGLE EARTH THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THERE AROUND 2001, 2002. AND THEN IN 2003 IT DOES SHOW A STRUCTURE THAT WAS PROBABLY BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT WAS SMALLER THAN WHAT THE FOOTPRINT THEY HAVE NOW. OKAY. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING, THAT THAT'S WHEN THEY ADDED ONTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM. IS THAT CORRECT MA'AM? WE NO, WE DIDN'T ADD THE LAUNDRY ROOM. THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS THERE, BUT IT WAS OUTSIDE. NO, BUT YOU DIDN'T CLOSED IT, RIGHT? YES, JUST CLOSED IT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA LOOK AT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OF. WHY IS IT SO CLOSE TO THE BACKYARD? IT APPEARS IT WAS BUILT NOT ON A FOUNDATION, IT WAS JUST KIND OF JUST BUILT. RIGHT. AND THIS APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO, GET PERMITS AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA? YES. SO, UH, I THINK WE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY IT, THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE ALREADY IN THE FOUNDATION. YOU JUST BUILT OVER IT. YOU DIDN'T EXTEND THE HOUSE ANYMORE TO THE BACK? NO. OKAY. NOR TO THE SIDE. NO. BUT YOU CAME TO THE FRONT AND JUST FOR THE LAUNDRY ROOM, CORRECT? YES, CORRECT. NOW I GOT IT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . YOU'RE WELCOME. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. SORRY. YES, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. SO IS IT THAT, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS A ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND IT? LIKE MAYBE IT WAS A WORKSHOP SINCE IT HAD ELECTRICITY AND THE PLUMBING AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BUILT SO CLOSE TO THE FENCE LINE? I DON'T KNOW. I JUST, I HAVE QUESTION. IS THAT, IS THAT WHY IT'S THERE? I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE IT WAS KITCHEN, BATHROOM AND THREE BEDROOMS BUILT. I HAVE THE, THE SURVEY MAY, MAY I ASK OR ACTUALLY, CAN YOU HAND IT TO OH, TO HIM, GENTLEMAN OVER HERE. HE'LL PROJECT IT ONTO THE SCREEN FOR ALL OF US TO SEE, DID SOMEBODY LIVE IN THIS HOUSE WITH NO PLUMBING OR WATER? THE NEIGHBOR SAYS NOBODY HAVE LIVE IN THE HOUSE. NEVER. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE TALK ABOUT ARE HARDSHIPS. AND SO, UM, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE DO YOU THINK, TO ACTUALLY MOVE THE STRUCTURE FORWARD BY, UM, BY, BY 15 FEET? I WOULD SAY IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S THE WHOLE HOUSE. WELL, I KNOW WE, WE HAVE MOVED HOUSES BEFORE, SO, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, YES. IT, IT IS CERTAINLY A LOT OF WORK THAT'S FOR SURE. MM-HMM. AND A LOT OF MONEY. I'M SORRY? AND A LOT OF MONEY. YES. THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORS, WE TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY SAY, REALLY? NO, IT DOESN'T BOTHER ANYBODY, YOU KNOW? UM, THE WAY IT IS SITUATED RIGHT NOW. WELL, PART OF THE, UM, PART OF THE REASON WHY, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A KIND OF A HEALTH AND SAFETY KIND OF, UM, DIALOGUE. MM-HMM. . AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE HOUSES CLOSE TO OTHER STRUCTURES, UM, IT ALLOWS FOR LIKE FIRE SPREAD AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY IT IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE DIALOGUES. MM-HMM. IS JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S SAFE. AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE'RE REALLY HAVING A LOT OF DIALOGUE HERE. MM-HMM. . YEAH. AND WE ARE WILLING TO, TO DO FIRE, FIRE BLOCKS OR, I DON'T KNOW, FIRE BLOCK SIDING. FIRE BLOCK DRYWALL ON THE BACKSIDE. OKAY. UH, STAFF, UH, [01:50:01] YOU HAD IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION, THE, THE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A, UM, UH, FOUR FOOT, FOUR FOOT, TWO INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. NOW ON THE SURVEY, IT SHOWS THAT IN THE VERY BACK IN THE CENTER, THERE'S A SMALL COVERED AREA. IS THAT WHERE THE FOUR FOOT TWO IS MEASURED TO? UH, WE SHOULD HAVE A PICTURE OF EXACTLY WHERE WE MEASURED FROM. WE'LL PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW. SO THIS IS THE STRUCTURE THAT WE MEASURE TO. OKAY. UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU HAVING, UH, ALONG THE REAR, ARE YOU MAKING IT THE ENTIRE WALL ALONG THE REAR OR ARE YOU, ARE YOU HAVING THAT LITTLE POP OUT THAT CURRENTLY SHOWS ON YOUR SURVEY? IT WAS A, UH, THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS POP OUT. MM-HMM. , SO WE JUST ENCLOSED IT WITH THE HOUSE SO THE LAUNDRY ROOM DOESN'T OUTSIDE, SO IT'S GONNA BE A COMPLETE FULL RECTANGLE IN THE BACK. MM-HMM. . OKAY. SO BECAUSE YOU'RE ENCLOSING THE LAUNDRY ROOM, IF YOU WERE TO GET RID OF THAT LAUNDRY AREA AND LET'S SAY HAVE YOUR HOUSE BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR. OH, NO. WELL, I MEAN, WE COULD DENY IT OUTRIGHT. IT WOULD NOT RIGHT. BE 10 FEET IF TO TAKE OUT THE LAUNDRY ROOM. MM-HMM. , I DON'T THINK, NO, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE 10 FEET. NO, BECAUSE IT'S VERY SMALL. THE REASON WHY IS THIS, YOU, YOU NEED ALL NINE OF US TO VOTE FOR THIS, UH, FOR IT TO PASS. BUT YOU KNOW, IF THE REQUIREMENT IS IS, UH, 20 FEET AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET FOUR FOOT TWO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A LOT. MM-HMM. , UH, WE'RE WONDERING WHAT YOU COULD, WHAT YOU COULD DO THAT IS FINANCIAL, UH, FINANCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, BUT YET STILL GIVE AS MUCH ROOM AS POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONSIDER. IS THERE ANY AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN, UH, KNOCK IT BACK? I, I BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T SEE LIKE, I MEAN OKAY. WHEN I COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO ONE QUESTION I GUESS I WOULD HAVE IS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SWING THE LAUNDRY ROOM TO THE SIDE OF THE FACILITY, UM, AND DO A BUILD OUT ON THE SIDE? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME, THERE IS SPACE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SO RATHER THAN HAVE IT ON THE BACKSIDE, HAVE IT ALONG THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. UM, AND SO THAT WAY YOU'D BE ABLE TO STILL HAVE YOUR LAUNDRY ROOM THERE. BUT, UM, YOU JUST HAVE IT ON THE SIDE. THERE IS 16 FEET ON THE ONE SIDE AND IT'S EIGHT AND A HALF ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT IN THERE. MANCHACA, BECAUSE REALLY IT'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE THE WHOLE BACK OF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, UM, I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. LIKE, IF THE LAUNDRY ROOMS JUST BECOMES LIKE A LITTLE PORCH MM-HMM. OR PLANTS OR WHATEVER. AND YOU SAID YOU HAD NO PLUMBING YET, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, IT IS. UH, WE HIRED A PLUMBER TO DO THE PLUMBING, SO HE PULLED THE PERMITS AND HE DID IT ALREADY. I SEE. BUT HE CAN STILL, UH, GET UNDER THE HOUSE IF IT'S ON, IT'S ON PIERS, RIGHT? YES. P AND BEAM. MM-HMM. . I SEE. SO THE LAUNDRY ROOM ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, MOVE IT TOWARD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE SIDE OF THE KITCHEN OR BEDROOM, WHATEVER YOU THINK. THAT'S STILL TOO HARD TO DO. UM, MAYBE WE CAN, MAYBE WE CAN PUT THE, JUST UH, WATCH IT AND DRYER IN THE KITCHEN CLOSET. OKAY. IN THE KITCHEN. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, ONE MORE SO, YES. UH, BASICALLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT THE ROOM THAT YOU ALLOWED ON THE BACK UHHUH WITH A LITTLE PORCH WHERE THE WASHER AND DRYER ARE GONNA GO, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN MOVE IT TO THE SIDE, TO THE LEFT OR TO THE, MAYBE WE CAN GO INSIDE THOSE. UH, HOW MANY FEET YOU SAY? YEAH, MAYBE FOUR FEET. FOUR FEET. 'CAUSE THINK MOST THINGS FEET ARE APPLIANCE ARE ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ABOUT FOUR FEET. ABOUT FOUR, YEAH. 36 FEET. IT'S AN OPTION. I'M, I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO. I MEAN, IF WE DON'T HAVE NO CHOICE AND WE HAVE TO DO IT, WE DO IT. AND, ALRIGHT. IS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, WE, SO I'M LOOKING FOR, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME 'CAUSE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY, CORRECT? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A CLEAR VISION AND WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A REAR SETBACK. UH, IF A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO BREAK IT INTO TWO, THAT'S FINE. OR IF SOMEBODY, UH, WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A MOTION AT, AT EITHER WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED, WE CAN AMEND IT. WE'LL LEAVE IT UP TO WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT. I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, YES MA'AM. I, I'M JUST LIKE, I'M ASKING MYSELF WHY WHEN WE PULL THE PERMITS, THEY DIDN'T NOTICE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE LAW. WELL, I, I, [01:55:01] I BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THAT. SOMETIMES WHEN A PLUMBER PULLS A PERMIT MM-HMM. , HE'S ASKING TO DO SOME PLUMBING WORK AND STAFF DOESN'T DO SITE PLAN ANALYSIS OR SITE PLAN REQUESTS FOR TRADE PERMITS LIKE THAT. BUT WHEN YOU START PULLING FOUNDATION PERMITS AND START TURNING IN ENGINEER'S LETTERS, THEN THOSE SORT OF ISSUES ARE APPROPRIATE AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE, THEY'RE CAUGHT, UH, A LITTLE LATER. UH, BUT, UM, IF YOU WOULD'VE APPLIED FOR A FULL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT INSTEAD OF A, A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT TRADE PERMITS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LOOKED AT IMMEDIATELY. WELL, I DID ASK, I DID ASK, UH, IF, UH, IT'S GOING TO BE ONLY ONE PERMIT AND THEY SAY NO, IT HAS TO BE INDIVIDUAL. EVERY SINGLE ONE. WELL, IT, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON HOW IT WAS SUBMITTED, HOW IT WAS THE WORK WAS POSED TO THEM. THAT'S TRUE. THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE THINGS THAT, THAT MAKE IT GO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS, UH, WE'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, FOR, FOR WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE, UM, ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG WITH A 10 FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY AND B 10 FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE 11 FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, SITUATED AT 4 4 2 ORTEGO. APPLICANT BEING LETICIA ROBLEDO 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, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THEIR POST STRUCTURE WITH A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG WOULD ONLY BE 10 FOOT FROM THE REAR SETBACK LINE IS, IS EXISTING AND WOULD NEED TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT REAR CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE 11 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. IN THIS CASE, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE DOES NOT IMPEDE VEHICLES FROM ENTERING OR EXITING THE PROPERTY. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY AS THIS DISTANCE DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY SAFETY ISSUES. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE U D C OR THE OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RELOCATE THE STRUCTURE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONALLY, ALTERING THE FENCE TO MEET THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AS THIS WOULD CREATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A FENCE IS EXISTING. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. REDUCING THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT ENTER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THERE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE REAR OF OTHER, UM, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE FENCE IS CURRENTLY 11 FEET, FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS REQUIRED VARIANCE AS ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE IS PRESENTED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALL THREE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCED REAR SETBACK WOULD NOT INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, THE DISTANCE WILL MAINTAIN 11 FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, WHICH NOT ALTER THE AL ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. UPON SITE VISITS, STAFF OBSERVED OTHER FRONT YARDS, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE IMMEDIATE FACILITY. SIX, APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH HIS 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 A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLIED OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS NOT, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BACK. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, I DID ADJUST THIS BACK TO THE 10 FOOT LINES SIMPLY BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU WITH REGARDS TO WHERE TO PLACE, UM, UM, THE UTILITIES ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE MM-HMM. . AND SO I THINK THAT DOES GIVE YOU ADEQUATE SPACING, PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE SPACING FOR, UM, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, AND I, AND I THINK THAT YOU DO HAVE A FEW OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND SO, SO HOPEFULLY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING ACCOMPLISH. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? WELL, I WAS, I WAS THINKING WHAT HAPPENED IF WE JUST MA'AM, WE'RE MOVE THE WALL. IF WE HAVE A QUESTION WE'LL ASK YOU, BUT, WELL, I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I CONCUR WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUE WITH THE AMENDED MOTION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'M [02:00:01] GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT, UH, I'M IN FAVOR OF, OF THE, UH, AMENDMENT TO 10 FEET. UH, THE REASON WHY IS, UH, THE HOUSES TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT OF YOU ARE BUILT PRETTY CLOSE TO THE, TO THE FENCE COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA. AND HAVING YOUR HOME SET A LITTLE FURTHER BACK DOES CREATE MORE SPACE. UH, SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BEING SET A LITTLE FURTHER BACK, BUT, BUT FOUR FOOT, TWO INCHES IS, IS JUST TOO CLOSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND YOU HAS, HAS DEVELOPMENT VERY CLOSE TO THE FENCE ALREADY. UH, IT'S, IT'S FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS, FOR DRAINAGE, UH, AND IT'S, I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A HAPPY MEDIUM. SO I CAN LIVE WITH 10 FEET, UM, BUT IN THE CLEAR VISION, I, I FIND ACCEPTABLE. SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MIN CHACO, I CONCUR. MR. CADDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, THEY'LL EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED. BUT WHAT WE DID WAS WE'RE ALLOWING YOU TO BUILD UP TO 10 FEET TO THE REAR. SO WE'RE MEETING THE 20 FOOT SETBACK HALFWAY FOR YOU IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. UM, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, STAFF CAN FURTHER EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. OH, YEAH. AND YOU, THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, IT'S THREE 11. DOES ANYBODY LIKE A BREAK? YEAH. SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BRIEF, UH, BREAK, ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES OR SO. WE'LL CONVENE IN ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES. IT'S, UH, 3 22. I'M GONNA BRING US BACK INTO SESSION. SO AFTER THIS, JUST SEE IF WE, ITEM SIX. UH, WHAT WAS THAT? DO WE NEED TO START WITH SEVEN? YES. ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WITH ITEM SEVEN. OKAY. BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 0. ADDRESS IS 2 0 2 AND 2 0 6 SAN PEDRO AVENUE IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS AMERICAN GI FORUM NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. AND THREE, A NINE FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS D FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG, UH, SAN PEDRO AVENUE, LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 35 IN DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARDS. THE FENCE IS ANTICIPATING ON BEING LOCATED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PAR OF THE PROPERTY. FENCES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD ARE ALLOWED TO BE FIVE FEET, IF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, AND SIX FEET IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS PER THE SITE PLAN. THE FENCE IS ANTICIPATING ENCROACHING INTO THE CLEAR VISION AREA FOR THE TWO FRONT DRIVEWAYS. FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 15 FEET WHEN LOCATED NEAR A DRIVEWAY. AND LASTLY, THE DRIVEWAY IS A ONE-WAY AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL EXIT ON THE ALLEY. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THE, UM, FENCE IS GONNA BE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN THIS IS, UM, A VIEW FROM THIS SIDE OF WHERE THE PROPOSED FENCE IS GONNA BE. AND THEN THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE. AND THEN THIS IS, UH, ANOTHER SIDE OF WHERE THE FENCE IS GONNA BE AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA. OKAY. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, THIS IS GONNA BE FOR THE FENCE SITE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UH, ONE, THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND TWO, THE CURRENT DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THUS MAKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOT OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE ASSIGNED BASED SOUNDING DISTRICT. [02:05:03] AND FOR THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE DRIVEWAY WILL NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLES BACKING OUT. AND TWO, THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, ALLOWING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. UH, STAFF MELT OUT 16 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND, UH, DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTS. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED LESS THAN 200 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. AND THEY'RE ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTS. AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION EXPRESSING THEIR, UM, THEIR STANCE ON THE VARIANCES. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS FOR TOBIN HILL, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, BRING THE AERIAL UP AND THEN POINT OUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S MORE THAN A COUPLE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE AWARE. OKAY. THOSE TWO RED DOTS ARE WHAT? SO THIS IS SAN PEDRO, AND THIS IS ONE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN THIS IS THE OTHER DRIVEWAY. YOU CAN'T, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO OTHER DRIVEWAYS ARE FOR THIS PROPERTY. JUST THOSE TWO. YES, SIR. AND THEN ONE OF THE PICTURES YOU HAD UP THERE, IT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD BARBED WIRE. IS THAT, AM I LOOKING, SEEING THAT RIGHT? THAT ONE? UH, LET ME SEE. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THAT? YEAH. WELL, BARBED WIRE'S NOT ALLOWED. MM-HMM. , SO IT'S WONDER , IS THAT, IS THAT ON THIS PROPERTY OR IS THAT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, YES, IT'S ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. DOES THAT, DOES THAT NEED TO BE PART OF THIS APPLICATION? OR, OR THIS WOULD BE A ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE C UH, C WIRE. OKAY. GREAT. LET'S, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS ANY OF THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, DEAR, ON, ON THE SLIDES THAT YOU WERE JUST SHOWING MM-HMM. , TWO OF 'EM SHOW THAT IT'S, UH, NUMBER 0 8 2 AND YOU'RE SAYING 0 8 0. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE MM-HMM. ? YEAH, WE'RE DISCUSSING 0 8 0, WHICH THIS IS NOT THE SLIDE. THIS IS, THESE ARE, THIS IS THE PICTURE FOR 0 8 0. SO IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE ARE, WE'RE DOING 8 0 0 RIGHT NOW. MM-HMM. , MY BAD. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. I DO WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WHERE IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT SHOWS, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 2, UM, ON WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT IS COMING OUT RIGHT THERE. SEE, THAT ONE SHOWS IT, BUT, UM, MINE IS SHOWING 82. SO AM I YEAH. LOOKING AT THE WRONG ONE. AT POWERPOINT, IT SHOWS 82. IT'S THE SAME. IT'S THE SAME THING. YEAH. IT'S, SO WE HAVE THREE APPLICATIONS FOR, UM, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR FENCE HIGH AND VARIANCES AT, UH, THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTY LOCATIONS. I THINK COMMISSIONER CRUZ IS JUST SAYING THAT IS, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE POWERPOINT MM-HMM. , UH, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 82 IS IN, IS IN THE LOCATION OF WHERE IT ENDS IN 80 IN THAT CASE FILE. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL. OH, I SEE. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THE RIGHT ONES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I'M SEARCH DICKERSON FROM THE AMERICAN GI FORUM. UM, SO JUST TO ADD TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, WE HAD AN INSPECTION LAST MARCH OF 2022, UH, BY D H S HOMELAND SECURITY. THEY LOOKED AT OUR FACILITIES AND FOUND OUT THAT WE NEEDED TO PUT A PERIMETER FENCING AROUND THE FACILITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE VETERANS BECAUSE THEY ARE A CATEGORY OF, YOU KNOW, FOLKS THAT COULD BE THREATENED BY, YOU KNOW, HEINOUS ACTIVITY. WE WENT AHEAD AND, UH, TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY. WE LOOKED AT THE FENCE. PART OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCE IS IT NEEDS TO BE A NON-SCALABLE FENCE, WHICH WE HAVE. AND THEN THE ALTITUDE REALLY REFERS TO THAT SCALABILITY OF THE FENCE. THAT'S WHY WE ASK FOR THE EXCEPTION. AND NOT ONLY FOR THIS FACILITY, BUT THE OTHER FACILITY ALSO. UH, THE LAST THING IS, UH, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO ALL THE LOCAL HOUSING COMMUNITIES, AS YOU'VE SEEN ALREADY, AND THE BUSINESSES, LOCAL BUSINESSES, THE LAST OF WHICH WAS ENDEAVORS, OR EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS A HAVEN FOR HOPE. UH, AND WE AGREED THAT THAT'S NOT GONNA LIMIT THEIR TRAFFIC OR ANY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, PENDING YOUR QUESTIONS. SO I, I HAVE A, A QUESTION. IS THIS A A [02:10:01] 24 HOUR FACILITY? IS IT OPEN? THIS ONE IS, UH, JUST DURING BUSINESS HOURS. THE NEXT ONE I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT 82, UH, WHICH MS. CRUZ WAS TALKING ABOUT. THAT ONE IS A 24 HOUR FACILITY, AND THEN, UH, DURING THE DAY IS THE FENCE, UH, THE GATES WHERE YOU ACCESS THE DRIVEWAYS, ARE THOSE OPEN DURING THE DAY OR ARE THEY YES, THEY'LL BE OPEN DURING THE DAY, BUT THEY'LL BE MONITORED WITH CAMERAS AND SECURITY GUARDS, ET CETERA, AT NIGHTTIME IS REALLY WHERE WE NEED THEM CLOSED. OKAY, FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. YES SIR. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MINKA COMMISSIONER MINKA? UH, SIR, YOU SAID NON-SCALABLE FENCE FENCE. UH, IT'S NOT CHAIN LINK, IT'S THE OTHER TYPE, LIKE, UH, INCH AND A HALF BY FOUR. YES, SIR. I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. PLEASE. UH, THIS IS RIGHT HERE. THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE FENCES THAT ARE IN OUR FACILITY. IT'S ALREADY A SEVEN FOOT FENCE IN ONE OF THE FACILITIES. IT'S NOT THE FACILITY THAT WE HAVE NOW. IF YOU SEE THE SCENT ON THE SIDE THERE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. WE JUST WANT TO KEEP IT SO THAT IT'S ALL THE SAME FENCE LINE RATHER THAN HAVE DIFFERENT FENCES LOOK DIFFERENTLY. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. SO YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT, BUT IT'S HARD TO SCALE BECAUSE THE FENCE COMES INWARD WHEN YOU TRY TO SCALE IT. ALRIGHT, I SEE. THANK YOU. UH, HAD A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION OF THE FENCE. YES, SIR. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DECOR. YES, SIR. IT LOOKS GOOD. IT LOOKS GOOD. THAT'S WHY TOBIN AND ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS HAVE APPROVED IT. MANON COMMISSIONER MANON, FOLLOW UP ON THE EARLIER QUESTION. SO THERE'S, THERE'S CONSTANTINE WIRE ON THE BACKSIDE, SO IS THAT GONNA BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME TYPE OF FENCING OR THE FENCING IS GONNA BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, CORRECT? ACROSS THE BACK OFFICE? YEAH, ACROSS THE BACK. SO WE COULD ACTUALLY RE REMOVE THAT CONCERTINA. OKAY. UH, THE CONCERTINAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, RIGHT? IT WAS THERE. WE PUT THE METAL, A METAL FENCE, UH, ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP. 'CAUSE WE WERE GETTING THE HOMELESS, THEY WERE CLIMBING IN THERE AND LIVING IN THAT FACILITY AT NIGHTTIME, SO WE HAD TO, UH, SEAL IT UP COMPLETELY. LIKE I DON'T THINK THE CONCERTINA DOES ANY GOOD ANYMORE, SO WE CAN TAKE IT OFF. OKAY. I LIKE THAT IDEA. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? UH, HEARING NONE, LET'S, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MANO, THIS IS NUMBER 82, UH, 80, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 0. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST 4 1 8 2 FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY SEVEN FOOT OPEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SITUATED AT 2 0 2 AND 2 0 6 IN PEDRO AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORM NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. DEFENSE HEIGHTS BEING REQUESTED IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN FOOT IN HEIGHT. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS 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 PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE REQUESTED, WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, AND IS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BY TWO FOOT AND ONE FOOT. THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, WHICH WILL SERVE, WHICH STILL SERVES THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FURTHERMORE, IH 35 IS A BUDDING THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, WHICH THE FENCE CAN ACT AS A BARRIER. ADDITIONALLY, OTHER SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR OF THE CENTRAL PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. AND AS A BUDDING BASE, ZONING DISTRICTS ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES, THEN WOULD, THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ADD A SEVEN FOOT FENCE. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISH FOR SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCING CENTER IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE IN ORDER TO ADD SECURITY FOR THE OWNER. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. AND A MOTION. SECOND, SECOND, KAPLAN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. YES. I THINK, UM, GETTING, UM, YOU KNOW, STRONG COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO I, I DO LIKE THAT. AND THEN, UH, THE NOTION THAT, UH, THE EXISTING BARBED WIRE WILL BE REMOVED AND, AND THIS FENCE ACTUALLY DOES LOOK TO BE A LOT MORE SECURE AND, UH, I THINK WILL BE BENEFIT FOR THE COMMUNITY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. MAN, UH, KAPLAN. [02:15:08] OH. OH, THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MANNA AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT TOO. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, NOW LET'S HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CLEAR VISION. MR. MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 0. MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTER REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, SUCH AT 2 0 2 AND 2 0 6 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORUM, NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CLEAR VISION VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE TWO FRONT DRIVEWAYS. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE DISTANCE FOR SIGHT. UH, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ALTERING THE PLAN TO MEET THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT OF THEIR FRONT SIDE DRIVEWAYS. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PARKING LOT AND OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE THE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO DECREASE IN SIZE TO ABIDE BY THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SOME SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE FIVE FEET THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY WILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS, ALLOWING VEHICLE TRAFFIC TO, UH, NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CURRENTLY ONE WAY MEANING NO VEHICLES, UH, WOULD BE REVERSING INTO SAN PEDRO AVENUE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE CLEAR VISION DISTANCE WILL BE FIVE FEET, THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR AS OTHER FENCES ARE SEEN, UH, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITH SIMILAR CLEAR VISION DISTANCES SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE CLEAR VISION DISTANCE WILL BE FIVE FEET, THREE INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS NOT LIKELY TO, UH, ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS OTHER FENCES WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITH SIMILAR CLEAR VISION, DISTANCES AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. UM, I'LL BE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, THE ONLY THING I DID, YOU KNOW, ADD THERE WAS THE, THE NOTION OF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING AND JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT. AND SO I THINK BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEM, UH, PROVING THIS. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NINE? WILL SEVEN ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA? I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CADDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. UM, ARE WE GONNA GO TO ITEM SEVEN SIX OR ARE WE GOING TO EIGHT? NO, WE'RE GONNA GO TO ITEM SIX. UH, NO, ORIGINALLY WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT DOWN. HOWEVER, UH, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE HEARD. SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO ITEM NUMBER SIX. OKAY. UH, THAT IS, UH, CASE ENDING IN 79. AND SINCE, UH, IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE JUST HEARD. IF, LET'S KEEP IT AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE CHALLENGE WITH IT OR THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S [02:20:01] GOING ON. BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 9 ADDRESS IS 6 1 1 NORTH FLORIST STREET AND CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE APPLICANT IS AMERICAN GI FORUM NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. A REQUEST FOUR, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT, FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. AND THREE, A SIX FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH FLORIST STREET, NORTH OF WEST MARTIN STREET IN DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT REAR END SIDE YARDS. THE FENCE IS ANTICIPATED BEING LOCATED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. FENCES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD ARE ALLOWED TO BE FIVE FEET IF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, AND SIX FEET IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS PER THE SITE PLAN, THE FENCE IS ANTICIPATING ENCROACHING INTO THE CLEAR VISION AREA FOR THE TWO FRONT DRIVEWAYS FOR, UM, FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 15 FEET WHEN LOCATED NEAR A DRIVEWAY. OKAY, AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN THIS IS AN ALTERNATE VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THIS IS A LOCATION OF WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND THEN THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH ANOTHER EIGHT FOOT FENCE ABUTTING THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY FOR STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE. DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND TWO, THE CURRENT DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IF THAT'S MAKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOT OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE ASSIGNED BASED ZONING DISTRICT. FOR THE CLEAR VISION, VARI STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 7 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE DRIVEWAY WILL NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLES BACKING OUT OF IT. AND TWO, THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, ALLOWING VEHICLE TRAFFIC TO NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. AND THEN THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MOUNTED OUT 17 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. UH, IS APPLICANT COME FORWARD? LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE, SIR. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO ADD TO IT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SAME, SAME CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY? YES, SIR. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO, UH, QUESTION THE APPLICANT? UH, HEARING NONE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 79? I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GRANTED A REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE SITE AND REAR YARD. SITUATED AT SIX 11 NORTH FLORA STREET. APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORUM, NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH WITH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. DEFENSE HEIGHT BEING RE REQUESTED IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN FOOT IN HEIGHT. IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE DEFENSE IS INTENDED TO, UH, PROTECT THE PROPERTY. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE REQUE, BE REQUESTED, WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, AND IS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BY TWO FOOT AND ONE FOOT. THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, WHICH STILL SERVES THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. [02:25:01] THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ADDITIONALLY, OTHER FENCES EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT EXCEEDING THE IMMEDIATE AREA D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARE TO THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARDS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE ABUTTING BASED ZONING DISTRICTS ARE, ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY ZONED FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ADD A SEVEN FOOT FENCE. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCING STANDARDS IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE AND TO ADD SECURITY FOR THE OWNER. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YES. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, AS STATED BEFORE, THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES, UH, WE'RE IN SUPPORT AS WELL AS THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, UH, HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MRS. SPILLMAN I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CADO CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR THE, THE CLEAR VISION COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. YEP. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 9. A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT IS SIX FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS SITUATED AT SIX 10 NORTH FLORES STREET. APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORUM, NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CLEAR VISION VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCH FROM THE TWO FRONT DRIVEWAYS. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THIS IN AN ACCEPTABLE DISTANCE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ALTERING THE PLANS TO MEET THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE DRIVEWAYS. THIS WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PARKING LOT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD DECREASE IN SIZE THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST TO PROV TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS, ALLOWING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CURRENTLY ONE WAY MEANING NO VEHICLES WILL BE REVERSING INTO NORTH FLORA STREET FOUR. THE ORDINANCE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DON ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE CLEAR VISION DISTANCE WILL BE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT STICKS. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MAINLY FINANCIAL OWNER ON DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED WITHIN DOWNTOWN. DISTRICT. DEVELOPMENT. WITH THIS WITHIN THIS AREA CAUSES FOR MORE D DENSE DEVELOPMENT RESULTING IN THE APPLICANT TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO MAXIMIZE PARKING. THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY [02:30:01] COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, YES, AS IN THE LAST ONE. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE AS WELL. AGAIN, UH, THE COMMUNITY IS, UH, HAS BUY-IN FOR IT AS WELL AS THE, UH, DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, SLIGHT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS JUST TO ALLOW A, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UH, JUST TO CALL IT OUT. OH, I DID SAY THAT. OH, YOU DID TWICE. OKAY. OKAY, THEN I GUESS I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, BUT YES. THEN I COMPLY WITH, OR I AGREE WITH MY, UH, COMPADRE THERE. GREAT. THERE'S, UH, NO OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. AND THEN, WHICH BRINGS US NOW TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 82. ADDRESS IS 7 2 2 MORALES STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS AMERICAN GI FORUM NATIONAL VETERANS OUT OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. AND THREE, A SIX FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C THREE N A S, UM, GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC CELLS WITH A SPECIFIC USE OF AUTHORIZATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES CAMPUS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MORALE STREET AND HAVEN FOR HOPE WAY. ON THE INNER WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. FENCES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD ARE REQUIRED TO BE FIVE FEET, A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND SIX FEET IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. PER THE SITE PLAN, THE FENCE IS ANTICIPATING ENCROACHING INTO THE CLEAR VISION AREA. FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 15 FEET WHEN LOCATED NEAR A DRIVEWAY AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EIGHT FOOT EIGHT INCHES. FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED, UM, PORTIONS INDICATING WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE. AND THEN THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE. AND THEN THIS IS THE SECOND LOCATION AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA IN THE NEXT COUPLE PICTURES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 23 DASH 3 0 8 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE, THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND TWO, THE CURRENT DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THUS MAKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOT OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE ASSIGNED BASE ZONING. DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND BO O EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE DRIVEWAY WILL NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLES BACKING OUT. AND TWO, THE CLEAR VISION REQUESTS TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO BE EIGHT EIGHT INCHES IN THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. WE'LL OBSERVE THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, ALLOWING TRAFFIC NOT TO BE OBSTRUCTED. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED EIGHT NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND WE HAD NO RESPONSE FROM GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT. BEFORE YOU GO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT, THAT ON MORALES STREET THERE, THE ONLY DRIVEWAY IS FOR THE, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY, CORRECT? CORRECT, YES. AND IT'LL BE RIGHT HERE ON OUR SIDE. THERE'S SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE ON FOR THE COUNTY, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, DRUG TREATMENT CENTER. BUT, BUT ON THIS SIDE OF THE BLOCK, THIS IS THE ONLY DRIVEWAY. AND THEN IS THAT RAILROAD RIGHT WAY TO THE LEFT? UH, YES SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. UM, ON THIS, I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU, THIS IS A 24 HOUR FACILITY AND THERE IS ALREADY A FENCE LINE THERE, AS YOU'VE SAW, SEEN BEFORE. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO COMPLETE THAT. CLOSURE IS ONE OF THE DISCREPANCIES THAT THE, UH, HOMELAND SECURITY PERSON FOUND. THEY DO NOT WANT ANY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO PARK THERE AT NIGHT AND CAUSE A V BED EXPLOSION NEXT TO THE BUILDING. SO THEY TELL US WE HAVE TO CLOSE THAT OFF AT NIGHT. BUT WE, AGAIN, WE HAVE A CAMERA [02:35:01] THERE. WE HAVE 24 HOUR GUARDS THERE, SO FOR WHATEVER REASON WE NEED TO OPEN IT, BRING FOLKS IN. IT WOULD BE A CONTROLLED ACCESS AND NOT, YOU KNOW, AN UNCONTROLLED ACCESS AND PARKING A VEHICLES IN THAT AREA. WE DO HAVE VETERANS LIVING IN THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE WHERE THE FENCE IS, UH, 24 7. SO THAT IS A CONCERN. UH, OUTTA CURIOSITY, DOES THE COUNTY OFFICES, UH, DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF YOU, DO THEY SHARE ACCESS OUT YOUR DRIVEWAY INTO THE ONLY ONE THAT SHARES ACCESS IS HAVEN FOR HOPE. AND WE HAVE ALREADY, WE, WE HAD A MEETING WITH HAVEN FOR HOPE LAST WEEK, BROUGHT IN ALL THEIR FORCE PROTECTION FOLKS. WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD GIVE THEM A KEY FOB, UH, SO THAT THEY CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THE GATE, THEIR SECURITY CAN. UH, BUT ALL OF THEIR FOLKS, IF THEY'RE IN THE FACILITY, THAT TREATMENT FACILITY, IF THEY'RE ALREADY IN THERE AFTER HOURS, THEY CAN ALL LEAVE. THEY JUST CAN'T COME BACK. OKAY. UH, SO WE'VE ALREADY WORKED THAT OUT AND THEY SEEM VERY AMENABLE TO THOSE STANDARDS. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. YES, SIR. THERE ANY OF THE COMMISSION QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANANA. COMMISSIONER MANANA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0. UH, EIGHT TWO. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FRONT FENCE HEIGHTS REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO A ONE FOOT SPECIAL ACCESSION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHTS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND FRONT YARDS. SITUATED AT 7 2 2 MORALES STREET. APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORUM, NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND 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 AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY OF THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE FENCE HEIGHT BEING REQUESTED IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. IT DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN FOOT IN HEIGHT. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS 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 FINITE TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE PROPOSED FENCE, UH, WILL BE REQUESTED, UH, WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND IS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BY TWO FOOT AND ONE FOOT. THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND WILL STILL SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE. UH, SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FURTHERMORE, A RAILROAD IS ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH THE FENCE WILL ACT AS A BARRIER. ADDITIONALLY, OTHER FENCES EXCEEDING THE MIN MINIMUM HEIGHTS REQUIREMENTS WERE SEEN IN THE MEDIATED AREA. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS IN THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARDS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS A BUDDING BASIS. ZONING DISTRICTS ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ADD A SEVEN FOOT FENCE. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THESE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE STANDARDS IS TO PROMOTE, IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST TO IS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE TO ADD SECURITY FOR THE OWNER. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED EXCEPTION, UH, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT. END THE MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANON. UM, YES, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, I, I THINK THAT, UH, UM, EVERYTHING PRESENTED AND WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AGAIN, UH, IS APPROPRIATE AND, UH, WILL BE AT, UH, ADDED, I GUESS, UM, NICENESS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO I'LL BE PUT IN FAVOR. GREAT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, YES, I AGREE WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK THIS WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET THE, UH, SECURITY THAT THEY NEED. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE SEVERAL CALL VOTE. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ANNA COMMISSIONER MANUS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 8 2 AMUD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR A SIX FOUR INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, SITUATED AT 7 2 2 MORALE STREET. APPLICANT BEING AMERICAN GI FORUM NATIONALS, UH, FORUM NATIONAL VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US [02:40:01] IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CLEAR VISION VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE, UH, FRONT DRIVEWAY. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE DISTANCE FOR SIGHT TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN APPLICANT ALTERING THE PLANS TO MEET THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT OF THE, FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE DRIVEWAYS. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AT THE PARKING LOT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO DECREASE IN SIZE TO ABIDE BY THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE RESERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOTS FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS, ALLOWING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO BE UNOBSTRUCTED OR TO BE OBSTRUCTED. ADDITIONALLY, NO VEHICLES WILL BE IN REVERSING INTO MARLA STREET. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT, UM, SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE CLEAR VISION DISTANCE WILL BE EIGHT FOOT INCHES FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, WHICH WILL NOT LIKELY ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS OTHER FENCES WERE SEEN, IMMEDIATE AREA WITH SIMILAR CLEAR VISION ENTRANCES SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE UTIS OR IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING LOT AND STRUCTURES, UH, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PREVENTING THE APPLICANT FROM ABIDING BY CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YES. AGAIN, I I THINK THIS IS, UH, FINE AND I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. I'M IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HEARING UNANIM? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YEP. Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD DAY. UM, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 3. ADDRESS IS 2 3 4 FERRIS STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SIX, APPLICANT IS BRENDA BORREGO. A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG FERRIS STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WEST COMMERCE STREET AND HISTORIC OLD HIGHWAY 90. UPON PERMITTING OR UPON PERMITTING, I'M SORRY, THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, THE GARAGE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE 40 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND 54 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UPON SITE VISITS, STAFF OBSERVED CARPORTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA BUT DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER GARAGES IMPOSING INTO THE SETBACKS. UM, GARAGES CONSTRUCTED IN SAN ANTONIO ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FIVE FEET TO THE SIDE AND 20 TO THE FRONT. THE GARAGE CANNOT HAVE ANY OVERHANG PAST A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK IF THE VARIANT IS APPROVED. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN THIS IS THE THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, DENIAL AND BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANT WILL RESULT IN INCONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AS NO OTHER GARAGES WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. AND TWO, A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK WILL AMPLIFY THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND STORM WATER RUNOFF CAN IMPOSE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. [02:45:03] AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAIL 33 NOTICES ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. UH, BEFORE YOU GO. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE LOCATION OR THE, UH, GARAGE IS BEING PROPOSED, IT USED TO BE A COVERED PATIO. UH, YES, SIR. DID THE COVER, DO YOU RECALL IF THE COVER PATIO WENT OUT TO THREE FEET? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE AWARE OF OR I DO NOT KNOW. MAYBE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU. ALL RIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? HEARING NONE. THIS THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS BRENDA REGO AND I'M THE OWNER, THE NEW OWNER. UM, MY MOM RECENTLY PASSED, SO I'M KIND OF TRYING TO CHANGE THE HOUSE UP FOR MYSELF. UM, THERE'S THREE REASONS ACTUALLY WHY I WANT TO GET A, A GARAGE AS OPPOSED TO A CARPORT. NUMBER ONE, AS YOU CAN TELL, I'M GETTING OLDER MYSELF AND I WANT IT FOR SECURITY SO I CAN ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DRIVE IN, CLOSE THE DOOR BEFORE I GO IN MY HOUSE. UH, ALSO, UH, FOR PROPERTY, ANYTIME WE LEAVE SOMETHING OUTSIDE, IT ENDS UP WALKING AWAY. SO I, I JUST DON'T WANNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ANYMORE. AND IT IS TO CHANGE THE, THE LOOK OF THE HOUSE. SO NO, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER GARAGES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT I SHOULD BE PENALIZED OR DENIED TO MAKE MY HOUSE LOOK BETTER THAN I WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING AROUND THE AREA. OKAY. UM, REAL QUICKLY, HAS ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO, UM, I'M JUST GONNA START THIS OFF REAL QUICK. SO IT, DO YOU HAVE, WERE YOU THE HOMEOWNER WHEN THE COVERED, UH, PATIO WAS THERE? IT WAS THERE. I JUST HAD IT REMOVED. OKAY. DID IT, DID IT EXTEND TO WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE FENCE, TO YOUR RECOLLECTION? IT WAS RIGHT. THE OVERHANG WAS RIGHT WHERE THE CONCRETE IS NOW STOPPED. OKAY. WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW WITH THE THREE FEET. AND IT'S ONLY BECAUSE I WOULDN'T BE, IT WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET UP IN THERE. AND HOW, HOW, UM, HOW ARE YOU GONNA DO THE ROOF PITCH ON, ON THE GARAGE IF APPROVED? IT'S GONNA BE A PITCHED, SO THE HOUSE PITCH IS THIS WAY. I'M, IT'LL BE, BE A GABLE WANTING IT TO COME THIS WAY. AS A GABLE? YES. AND, AND DID YOUR APPLICATION INCLUDE GUTTERS? IT DIDN'T INCLUDE IT, BUT THAT'S, I DEFINITELY WANNA PUT ALL OF THAT IN THERE. I'M TRYING TO UPGRADE THE WHOLE HOUSE BECAUSE YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, WHILE YOU'RE HERE ON THE PODIUM AND AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, MANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO, I WANT TO PUT GUTTERS ON THERE. OKAY. SO THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THEIR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS. UH, AND THEN, UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS HOW DEEP IS THE GARAGE GONNA BE? WE KNOW IT'S, IT'S 40 FROM THE FRONT, 54 FROM THE REAR, BUT HOW LONG? SO IF YOU, THE, THE, THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE IS 30 MM-HMM. , IT GOES PROBABLY TO ABOUT, I THINK THERE'S TWO FEET IN THE BACK AND THEN ABOUT THREE FEET ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO I GUESS 27. OKAY. YEAH. AND, AND I'M ONLY BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE WHEN WE GRANT VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS, UH, WE, WE WILL SOMETIMES READ A MOTION SO THAT IT'S IT'S FOR WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO AND NOT, NOT FOR THE ENTIRE SIDE. SO, UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT IS, WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE GARAGE GOING TO BE? UH, GEEZ, I, I, I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE NUMBERS WITH ME RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE IS 30 AND I KNOW THERE'S TWO FEET IN THE BACK AND THERE, THERE'S TWO FEET IN THE BACK BEFORE YOU GET TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. AND THEY'RE ABOUT THREE FEET BEFORE YOU GET TO THE FRONT. SO I GUESS MINUS FIVE, ABOUT 25 IN LENGTH. AND THEN THE OUT, UH, COMING OUT, I THINK IT'S LIKE 13 FEET. OKAY. ABOUT 13. WELL, SO IT'S ABOUT 13 FEET WIDE. YES. AND THAT'S INCLUDING THE WALLS, THAT'S THE EXTREMITY OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL? THAT, THAT, WELL, THAT'S THE SIZE OF THE, UM, THE CONCRETE THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO IMPOSE. OKAY. SO THAT, THAT, THAT WOULDN'T BE CLEAR. THAT WOULD JUST, THAT WOULDN'T BE CLEAR INTERIOR WIDTH. THAT WOULD BE OUT, OUT OUTSIDE WITH. OKAY. RIGHT. SO IT'S A ONE CAR GARAGE? YES. YEAH. IT'S JUST 30 SECONDS. YEAH. WHAT, AND AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY WANTED, UH, THAT SHE HAD WANTED TO GO INTO THE GARAGE, GET OUT AND ENTER THE HOME. SO SHE WOULD NEED ABILITY TO OPEN THE DOOR, HAVE ROOM FOR A THREE FOOT PATH, AND SO THAT, THAT ABOUT SEEMS ABOUT RIGHT. AND THEN YOU WOULD DEDUCT LIKE EIGHT INCHES FOR THE WALL. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MINKA, COMMISSIONER MINKA, UM, THE, THE ROOF ON THIS THING, IT'S GONNA SLOPE FROM THE ORIGINAL PITCH THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. IT'S GONNA CONTINUE LIKE THAT. SO THE ROOF WILL BE ON TOP OF THE OTHER. SO YOU'VE GOT YES. 'CAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE GABLE THAT'S COMING THIS WAY FROM THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE GARAGE GABLE WILL COME THIS WAY MEASURING FROM THE TOP ALSO. OKAY. UH, THE, THE, THE CONCERN I HAD HERE, OR QUESTION, LET ME ASK IT THAT WAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE AN UNEVEN ELEVATION. IT'S WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT [02:50:01] THE ROOF. SO THE ROOF MAY BE HIGHER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SLIDE THAT I'M LOOKING HERE, WHERE THAT WHITE VEHICLE IS AT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT GOES LIKE THIS. I, I DON'T KNOW, JUST MY PERCEPTION. CAN YOU BRING UP THE PICTURE? YEAH. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A RAMP OR SOMETHING. UH, GO BACK ONE. THAT ONE IS THERE, THERE IS A RAMP. THAT'S WHERE THE VEHICLE'S AT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME. SO THAT'LL BE WHEN YOU GO INTO THE GARAGE, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO UP THAT RAMP. YES. BUT THAT'LL BE ON, BUT IT'S GONNA STOP. THE, THE WALL'S GONNA STOP RIGHT BEFORE THE, SO THE RAMP COMES LIKE THIS AND THEN RIGHT WHERE THE WALL IS AT, THAT, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING TO THE TOP OF IT. THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING INTO THE, I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ? OKAY. UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, IT'S, I'M HOPING FOR APPROVAL, THAT'S ALL. IF NOBODY WOULD MIND, I'D LIKE TO READ THIS ONE. IT'S BEEN SO LONG. OKAY. . UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH HUNDRED 3 0 0 83, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A, UH, TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK COMMENCING 39 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING 30 FEET TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO, WITH GUTTERS TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 34 FARRIS STREET, APPLICANT BEING BRENDA BORREGO. BECAUSE A TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS A LITERAL 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. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY RESTRICTED SETBACKS. TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND STRUCTURES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH GUTTERS TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINES STAFF FINDS ITS DISTANCE IS SUITABLE AS IT DOES NOT IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. STAFF FOUND THAT WATER RUNOFF WILL NOT IMPOSE AND RISK, UH, WILL NOT IMPOSE. AND RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS NOT A THREAT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING THE STRUCTURE WITH GUTTERS FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IT WILL PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM CONSTRUCTING A SIZABLE STRUCTURE TO FIT THEIR VEHICLE BY GRANITE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER, LETTER OF THE LAW. THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND IT'S ABIDING BY ALL THEIR BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURAL, THE STRUCTURE WITH GUTTERS WILL BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THIS DISTANCE PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING, WHICH IS NOT LIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CI CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS IT THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHTS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS LIMITED SPACING AND THE SIDE YARD AND OVERALL NARROWNESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPEAR TO BE THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN MOTION, SECOND AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. SO, UH, I READ THE MOTION, UM, TO BE THREE FEET WITH GUTTERS AS THE APPLICANT AMENDED TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO STIPULATE THE DEPTH. I DIDN'T WANT TO GRANT, UH, CARTE BLANCHE, UM, UM, UH, SETBACK ALLOWANCE FOR THE WHOLE WIDTH LENGTH OF PROPERTY. SO I, I COMMENCED ONE FOOT PRIOR, I ADDED 30 FEET. SO SHE, SO SHE WILL HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A FOOT OR TWO BUFFER DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH THAT SHE BUILDS, BUT I WANTED TO PUT THAT RESTRICTION IN THERE SO IT WOULDN'T BE ALL THE WAY BACK. YEAH. SO, UH, MACHACA, UH, WELL LET ME, LET ME SEE IF COMMISSIONER KAPLAN HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. YEAH, YEAH, I, I'M FOR IT. UH, WE, WE GIVE A NUMBER OF VARIANCES AT THE THREE FOOT LEVEL, THREE FOOT WIDE. ALSO, SHE'S, UH, WHAT I LIKE IS THAT SHE'S COME FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ACTUALLY DOING THE CONSTRUCTION. SO I GIVE HER CREDIT FOR THAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MINCHA, I JUST WANT TO ASK STAFF THIS QUESTION, UH, WAS SUCH A NEW ENCLOSURE. IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT EGRESS A REAR DOOR OR A WINDOW THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A RENDERING, A REAR DOOR OR A WINDOW? IS ANYTHING [02:55:01] REQUIRED OUTTA THIS? NO BIG RISK? NO. UM, I MEAN SHE MIGHT HAVE TO DO IT, UM, WORK WITH PLAN REVIEW ON THE FIRE RATING FOR THE GARAGE, THE ONE WALL ON THE SIDE, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR THE OPENINGS TO THE FRONT OR THE BACK. MM-HMM. , MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, ALSO JUST A NOTE, UH, YOU WON'T BE THE FIRST ONE IN THE BLOCK. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE IS A NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET THAT DID SOMETHING SIMILAR. SO AT TWO, UH, TWO 11 FERRIS. AND SO THEY HAVE A SIMILAR STRUCTURE, ALTHOUGH THEIRS LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE CLOSED IN AND MAYBE NOW A BEDROOM. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, SO ROLL CALL VOTE MS. KAPLAN. OH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. OKAY, MR. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA, I CONCUR. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, TALK TO STAFF AND, AND JUST BEFORE YOU, YOU, YOU UNDERSTOOD IT'S 39 FROM THE FRONT MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET. SO THAT SHOULD COVER WHAT YOUR INTENT WAS. YES SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UH, LAST CASE ITEM 10. AND WHEN YOU READ THIS, UH, JUST SO YOU KNOW, ON THE THREE ITEMS ON THIS THING, THEY ALL TALK ABOUT BEING IN THE FRONT, BUT THEY ALL SEEM TO BE VERY SIMILAR. MM-HMM. , IF YOU COULD PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE OF THANK YOU. OF COURSE. SO ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 4. ADDRESS IS 1 6 3 1 6 3 RUMAN ROAD CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING MELANY CONTRACTING AND CONSULTING. A REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FEND TIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD, EASTERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINES. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C THREE, UH, I'M SORRY, C TWO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE INTERSECTION OF, OF VITAMIN ROAD AND AUSTIN HIGHWAY. CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE THAT WOULD BE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. THE FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LAW FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE A COMBINATION FENCE WITH THE FIRST FOUR FEET BEING SOLID SCREENED AND THE PROCEEDING TWO FEET BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY LAND PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE ANTICIPATED STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THE FENCE WILL HAVE A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND WILL MEET THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD. UM, THE MC THREE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE THE CORRIDOR. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, AS YOU CAN SEE INDICATED IN THE YELLOW THAT'S ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S WHERE THE COMBINATION FENCE IS GONNA BE, WHERE THE FIRST TWO REQUESTS ARE GOING TO BE. UM, THE REASON WHY WE GOT TO WRITE 'EM OUT AS TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE, UM, UM, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, THE MAX HEIGHT IS FIVE FEET, AND FOR SOLID SCREEN, THE MAX HEIGHT IS THREE FEET. UM, INSTEAD OF JUST WRITING IT AS ONE SINGLE, UM, COMBINATION FENCE, WE HAD TO DO TWO SEPARATE ONES. UM, AND THEN THE BLUE LINES ON THE SIDE, PROPERTY LINES ARE INDICATED AS THESE SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. UM, THE MAX HEIGHT FOR THESE TWO UM, AREAS ARE FIVE FEET FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. AND THEN THIS IS AN ELEVATION OF HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK. AND THEN THIS IS CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 84 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE ADDITIONAL PHITE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. AND THEN THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAIL OUT 10 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A REGISTERED [03:00:01] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THE, THE REASON WHY I WANTED THE CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE ON, ON THE SUGGESTED TEMPLATE, ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT JUST SAYS, UM, ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE. I MEAN, IF IT, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE WORD PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IN THERE OR WOULDN'T THAT ALSO GIVE THEM POSSIBLY SOLID FENCE UP TO SIX FEET? OH, I, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED. OKAY. AND SO WHOEVER READS THIS MOTION, JUST BE AWARE THAT FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, YOU HAVE TO MENTION PREDOMINANTLY OPEN PLEASE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. UH, THANK YOU. APOLOGIES FOR THAT. NO, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? I I ASSUME IT'S HERE, SIR. HERE, HATS OFF TO YOU GUYS, MAN. HEY, YOU HAD TO SIT OUT THERE. WE HAD SNACKS. OH, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. MY NAME'S CHARLIE MULLANEY AND UH, ACTUALLY I VOLUNTEERED TO HELP MR. O'CONNOR WITH THE PROPERTY. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AND I SAID, AH, THIS IS NO PROBLEM. I HAVE NO PROBLEM HELPING HIM WITH IT. BUT, UH, BASICALLY HE IS, UH, AN AVID CAR OWNER AND HE'S BUILDING A COMMERCIAL LITTLE COMMERCIAL GARAGE JUST FOR STORAGE AREA ONCE WE GET READY TO DO THE SECURITY FENCING. SO, UH, TO HAVE THE SIX FOOT BARRIER JUST MAKES IT MORE SECURE FOR THE KIND OF THINGS HE WAS GONNA HAVE BEHIND THE CHAIN LINK, OR IT'S NOT EVEN CHAIN LINK. IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY NICE, UH, UH, PRE MANUFACTURED FENCE COMING FROM HOUSTON. SO, UH, THAT'S BASICALLY IT. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S JUST A SMALL FOUR FOOT C M U WALL WILL BE IN THE FRONT WITH THE LARGER FENCE BEHIND IT FROM THE FRONT. BUT IT IS OPEN WHERE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE WHEN IT'S ALL FINISHED. AWESOME. IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THIS, UH, APPLICANT? HEARING NONE. STAFF ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I'LL TAKE IT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 84, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SOLID FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD, EASTERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 1 6 3 RUDDIMAN ROAD. APPLICANT BEING MALANEY CONTRACTING AND CONSULTING BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED. SO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH TO LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE BEING REQUESTED IS COMBINED WITH THE FIRST FOUR FOOT SOLID AND SCREEN AND THE PROCEEDING TWO FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE WESTERN EASTERN PROPERTY LINES PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IF GRANTED THE REQUEST WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AND PROVIDE PRIVACY FROM THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY, WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FURTHERMORE, THE FENCING WILL NOT VIOLATE THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SAW. THE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL OFFENSE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE ABUTTING BASE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO EXCEED MINIMUM FENCE HEIGHT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PERMITS THE CURRENT USE. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. I, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THESE SLIGHT VARIANCES, UH, WILL NOT, AS I SAID, ALTER THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE AREA [03:05:01] AND IT'LL ALSO ALLOW FOR CLEAR VISION. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CAN CREW, UH, WITH MY COLLEAGUE. AND I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UM, THEY CAME FOR APPROVAL BEFORE IT WAS BILLED, SO THAT'S EVEN BETTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MRS. SPILLMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MRS. MR. CODDLE CONCUR. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. NEXT [ Approval of Minutes  ] IS THE MINUTES. HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO READ? I'VE MADE SOME AMENDMENTS. I KNOW STAFF CHANGED THEM ALREADY. IS THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? HEARING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. SO VOTE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. UH, LET'S, LET'S TRY A ROLL CALL. VOTE MAY SEE IF THIS WORKS OUT. ALL IN FAVOR? UH, VOICE VOTE. I'M SORRY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, MOTION PASSES. MINUTES ARE APPROVED. IS THERE ANY, [ Director’s Report  ] ANY STAFF, UH, REPORT? UH, WELL WELCOME TO OUR NEW, WE DO HAVE TWO NEW BOARD MEMBERS, SO THANK YOU MR. IV DILL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND THEN, UM, WE DO HAVE FOUR MORE ALTERNATES BEING APPOINTED ON THURSDAY. SO WE SHALL, SHALL NO LONGER HOPEFULLY HAVE ANY QUORUM ISSUES AND WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE AN EXTRA IN THE, IN THE GALLERY LIKE WE USED TWO YEARS AGO. YES SIR. ALRIGHT. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR BEING HERE. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK Y'ALL. ALL RIGHT. I'M GONNA ADJOURN THE MEETING. IT IS 4 27. * 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.