* 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. [00:00:02] IT'S ONE OH TWO. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER. UM, CAN WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE ROLL CALL. MR. SPIELMAN. PRESENT. MR. MANCHACA? PRESENT. MR. DEAN? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. ZUNIGA? HERE. MR. MANA? PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ? PRESENT. MR. MS. BRAGMAN PRESENT. MR. OZUNA? PRESENT. MR. BOEZ? HERE. MR. CODDLE. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I AM PRESENT. SO WE HAVE 11 SEATED AT THIS TIME, AND MR. CODDLE IS, UH, OUR 12TH IF WE NEED, IF WE NEED A SUBSTITUTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE SILENCE THEIR PHONES. IF YOU COULD STAND, STAND AND JOIN ME WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES, STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FORAND ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY. LIBERTY. I JUSTICE, ALL HONOR THIS TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE TO ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD. ONE AN INDIVISIBLE. SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT'S 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 MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION 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 WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD 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 IN GRANTING THE RELEASE OUGHT 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 OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THIS BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. AND BEFORE I TURN THIS OVER TO STAFF, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY THAT THIS, UH, AGENDA HAS TODAY, WE'LL BE LIMITING SPEAKERS TO ONE MINUTE. THAT'S FOR ALL SPEAKERS, UH, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE DAY. THANK YOU STAFF. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST PRIOR TO PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY 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 OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR CASE. FOR THOSE THAT ARE [00:05:01] SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES OR ONE MINUTE PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TO TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, THE FIRST CASE WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA TODAY, 1722 NORTH OLIVE STREET. UM, LET'S PROCEED. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANNA NOTE FOR THE RECORD FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE IN THE AUDIENCE WAITING, ITEM NUMBER 14, ENDING IN 1 2 7, WHICH IS 3,700 NORTH ST. MARY'S STREET. THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD ANY EARLIER THAN 3:00 PM TODAY. SO IF YOU'RE WAITING ON THAT, UM, AND, AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A BITE TO EAT OR SOMETHING, UH, WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THAT ITEM UNTIL 3:00 PM TODAY OR AFTER. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] ITEM NUMBER ONE IS BO EIGHT DASH TWO 30 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 1. ADDRESS IS 1 7 2 2 NORTH OLIVE STREET IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT BEING JOSE SEPULVEDA. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 3,231 SQUARE FOOT VARIANT FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ALLOT TO BE 2,769 SQUARE FEET AND TWO AND 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 39 FEET. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH OLIVE STREET, NEAR EAST CARSON STREET IN THE GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD OF SAN ANTONIO. CURRENTLY, THE, THE LOT IS VACANT AND IS APPROXIMATELY 2,769 SQUARE FEET WITH A LOT WITH OF 39 FEET. UPON DENIAL FOR A C O D, THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. ADDITIONALLY, A LOT WITH VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDERWENT A LARGE AREA REZONING IN 2010, WHICH LED TO THE PROPERTY NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE CURRENT BASE ZONING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REGULATIONS AND THE USE IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED WITHIN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT. UPON SITE VISIT STAFF OBSERVED SMALLER AND NARROW LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LOT SIZE AND WITH VARIANCE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, DENIAL AND BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, ONE, THE INCREASEMENT OF DENSITY FOR THE ASSIGNED ZONING DISTRICT CAN INFRINGE ON THESE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS BY THE LOBBY IN SMALLER IN SIZE. AND TWO, THE APPLICANT CAN REZONE TO A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. AND THIS WAS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED 34 NOTICES, UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND WE HAD NO RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT HAIL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, STAFF, THE, UH, THE MOTION TEMPLATE FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. IF, IS THAT SOMETHING Y'ALL COULD, UH, DISTRIBUTE? WE'LL SEND THAT RIGHT NOW. THIS WAS A CONTINUED ITEM. SO THAT'S, AND THE PRESENTATION ISN'T IN THE, WE'LL PUT IT ON THERE EITHER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, THE AND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ALSO DIDN'T INCLUDE IT. SO, UM, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF YOU GO TO THE, UH, THE MEETING, UH, LINK THAT'S ON YOUR, UH, COMPUTERS, YOU CAN BRING UP THE ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT FROM THERE. IT'S NOT THE SAME, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE POWERPOINT, BUT IT'S VERY CLOSE. STAFF IS, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING UP, OKAY. YOU HAVE THAT UP ALREADY? ALL RIGHT, GREAT. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. UH, PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND, UM, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS JOSE SEPULVEDA. UM, I'M LOOKING TO GET A VARIANCE ON THIS LOT, UH, CURRENTLY, AS YOU HEARD, UH, ZONED R SIX, UH, WHICH HAS A MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND A MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH. UM, REASON I'M ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE REZONING PROCESS. UM, ONE, OBVIOUSLY THAT PROCESS IS VERY, VERY LENGTHY. UM, UH, TWO, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS WELL. AND UH, LASTLY, UM, I'M NOT NECESSARILY ASKING FOR ANY, UH, VARIANCE IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S ALREADY CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR AN R SIX AS FAR AS LIKE SETBACKS, UM, BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY KIND OF VARIANCE AS TO WHAT WOULD ALREADY BE ALLOWED, UH, FOR AN R SIX AS IT STANDS NOW. UM, THE ONLY THING, UH, [00:10:01] KIND OF HOLDING ME BACK FROM BUILDING AT THIS POINT IS THE, THE LOT SIZE. THAT'S IT. I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY OTHER KIND OF VARIANCE IS, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SHOW THE SITE PLAN, BUT AS YOU SEE, I'M STILL MAINTAINING A 20 FOOT SETBACK. YOU KNOW, THAT'S, UH, IN PLACE FOR AN R SIX. UM, I HAVE MORE THAN THE FIVE FOOT, UH, SIDE SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE, UH, FOR AN R SIX AND, UH, THE 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONT REQUIRED BY AN R SIX, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT AS WELL IS, UM, UNDER, OR I'M SORRY, THE BUILDING, UH, THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, IT'S UNDER THAT OR YOU KNOW, IT MEETS THAT AS WELL. UM, SO I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY ASKING FOR ANY OTHER VARIANCE OTHER THAN, AGAIN, THE LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, STAFF, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. SURE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THIS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA JUST ASK A COUPLE, UM, QUESTIONS OF YOU. OF, OF YOU. DID YOU PURCHASE THIS LOT, UH, OR PARCEL AS IS OR? YES. OKAY. YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE I D Z ZONING TO THE NORTH AND THE NO CREATION OF THIS ISSUE? NO. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, SO RECENTLY IN U D C WE CHANGED THE DESIGNATION OR THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A HALF STORY IS. UM, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT CHANGE WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT, WHAT IT ENTAILS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'LL BE COMPLIANT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. OKAY. SO, SO DO WE HAVE AN ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH REGARDS TO THE DESIGN? YEAH, I ACTUALLY BROUGHT THAT, WELL I BROUGHT THAT IN TODAY. OKAY. UM, JUST TO KIND OF SHOW, UM, OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS, IS, UH, IT'S A TWO STORY EXCEPT WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO UTILIZE, UH, WHAT WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN LIKE A LARGER ATTIC SPACE. UM, YEAH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ACTUALLY QUALIFIES. SO YOU MAY NEED TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK TO, TO UNDERSTAND TRULY WHAT THE, WHAT THE NEW HALF STORY IS. 'CAUSE BASICALLY IT SAYS THAT, UM, ESSENTIALLY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A CENTER, A CENTER ABUTMENT ON THE INSIDE WITH A FLAT ROOF TO ALLOW FOR THE TWO NAF STORY AND BASICALLY ALLOWING FOR PERIMETER ROUND THAT FACILITY AS WELL. UM, THAT'S NOT, I GUESS, A, UM, PATIO. SO, SO THERE ARE SOME MIXER DEFINITIONS. MAYBE THE CITY CAN WEIGH IN ON SOME OF THAT DIALOGUE. UH, YEAH, SO THIS IS, HE MAY HAVE TO RECONFIGURE THAT THIRD STORY, UM, WE'D HAVE TO REVIEW, BUT YES, UH, THE COMMISSIONER IS, THERE IS A NEW U D C UPDATE AS OF ONE JANUARY. UM, BUT ALL WE ARE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW IS YOUR LOT SIZE. SO IF THIS GETS APPROVED AND YOU WANT TO BUILD A TWO AND A HALF STORIES, THIS ONE MIGHT BE JUST TO GIVE A A HEADS UP THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE MIGHT BE NEED TO BE RECONFIGURED A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT. I WASN'T AWARE. YEAH, TYPICALLY THOSE ITEMS ARE BROUGHT UP BECAUSE, UH, YOU WEREN'T ASKING FOR ANY SETBACK, UH, REQUIREMENTS AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT ON HERE IS, IS CONTINGENT OF THE THIRD FLOOR OR THE HALF STORY BEING AT, YOU KNOW, AS PER YOUR ELEVATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY IS GONNA BE ADEQUATE FOR YOU TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR PROJECT. SURE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CRUZ, MR. CRUZ? UM, AND I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WHAT MR. MANNA ASKED ON THE THIRD FLOOR. YOU SAID IT WAS GONNA BE ATTIC SPACE OR IT'S GONNA BE AN EXTRA BEDROOM? UH, NO, IT'S ESSENTIALLY KIND OF LIKE A SMALL LOFT. IT'S WHAT IT WOULD'VE NORMALLY BEEN LIKE A ATTIC SPACE. YOU KNOW, WE JUST BASICALLY ADDED STAIRS AND YEAH, THERE, THERE MADE IT USABLE. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A, I JUST WANNA GET THE, UM, SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE TODAY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE HALF STORY. HE'S NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCE, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S TYPICAL WHEN YOU HAVE A REDUCED SIZE LOT, RIGHT. THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS BEING, UH, ASKED FOR. OKAY. ASKED FOR, YOU KNOW. GOT IT. JUST TO MAKE SURE IF YOU APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. NO, UM, I NEEDED A C O D FOR THAT, UM, THAT, UH, GOT DENIED BECAUSE, UH, THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO DO, UH, UH, EITHER GO THROUGH REZONING OR GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF DISTRICT. WELL, I'M SURE YOU'LL HEAR ALL ABOUT, UH, WHAT TO DO WITH THIS THIRD LEVEL . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MINKA? COMMISSIONER MINKA? MM-HMM. , UH, COULD YOU PUT THAT, UH, RENDERING AGAIN OF THE LOT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN EASEMENT OR AN ALLEY. UH, A FLASH BY SO QUICK. NO, THE, THE, UM, UM, THE GOOGLE, THE GOOGLE ONE, GOOGLE MAPS ONE, PLEASE. IT, IT DOES A BUTT TO, UH, ON THE REAR TO ANOTHER LOT AND THERE'S NO, UH, ALLEYWAY. THANK YOU. WILL, THAT DIDN'T CATCH UP AT FIRST. OH YEAH, NO PROBLEM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. WHAT ABOUT, WE'RE DIRECTING OURSELVES TO HERE IS THAT IT'S A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOT LOT AND UH, [00:15:01] THE APPLICANT WANTS THE SIZE ALLOWED TO BE 2007 SIX NINE. WELL, THE, THE ZONING, THE ZONING WAS CHANGED TO AN R SIX, WHICH REQUIRES A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM. BUT HIS, HIS CURRENT, UM, ISOLATED PARCEL, LANDLOCKED PARCEL, UH, PARCEL IS, UH, 27 69. SO THE PARCEL IS 27? YES, IT'S 27 69 SQUARE FEET. OH, THAT'S WORSE ONE. OH, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND I K I JUST LAST WORD I, I KINDA UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S A QUITE A LARGE OF A VARIANCE FROM THE 6,000, UM, SQUARE FOOT. UM, I GUESS THE WAY I KIND OF SAW IT WAS THERE'S NOT, UM, SINCE I'M NOT REALLY ASKING FOR REDUCED, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, SETBACKS OR ANY OF THAT OTHER KIND OF STUFF THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY ASK FOR REZONING. I KNOW IF I GO TO LIKE AN R TWO, YOU KNOW, NOW I'M ALLOWED JUST A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE REAR. I'M NOT ASKING, I'M NOT NEEDING ANY OF THAT I GUESS. UM, RIGHT. SO MY THING WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T, WE COULD BUILD EXACTLY THIS AND BE OKAY WITH THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO IT WASN'T, I GUESS THAT WAS MY LOGIC. I UNDERSTAND. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BRAGMAN? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, DID YOU TEAR ANYTHING DOWN OR WERE THIS LOT VACANT? IT WAS ALREADY VACANT. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN VACANT? UH, NO, I DO NOT. I'M SORRY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BUT WE ARE, WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE, UH, YOU SHOULD HAVE IT IN YOUR EMAILS AS A SEPARATE ITEM THAT WAS JUST SENT. ALRIGHT. RECEIVED LOOKING FOR A COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION AVAILABLE. MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 1. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A 3,230 FOOT 31 FOOT SQUARE FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 2,769 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 39 FEET SITUATED AT 1 7 2 2 NORTH OLIVE STREET. APPLICANT BEING SEPULVEDA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTIES SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AT THIS AS THE GENERAL HEALTH OF SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND WIDTH TO PREVENT THE OVERCROWDING OF DEVELOPMENT INTO SMALLER LOTS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE, ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE INCREASEMENT OF DENSITY FOR THIS ASSIGNED ZONING DISTRICT WILL NOT INFRINGE ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS BY THE LOT BEING SMALLER IN SIZE 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 REZONING THE PROPERTY TO R THREE TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PROPERTY LOT SIZE AND WIDTHS ARE NONCONFORMING. 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 EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW FOR PROVE THE LOT WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH IN THE ZONE ASSIGNED ZONING. DISTRICT STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATIONAL USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED THE LOT SIZE GRANTED WOULD BE 3,251 SQUARE FEET AND WIDTH WILL BE 39 FEET WITHIN AN R SIX ZONED DISTRICT. STAFF FINDS THESE REQUESTS WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ARE NOT ABIDING BY THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS 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, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. AS THE PROPERTY IS SMALLER IN SIZE, THE CIRCUM THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANON. UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IS THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY, UM, BY LOTS THAT THIS BASICALLY MAKES THIS PROPERTY USELESS, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT, UH, DON THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON IT. UH, SECOND IS THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE, YOU KNOW, HE IS GONNA COMPLY WITH REGARDS TO THE SETBACKS, WHICH WOULD BE IN ANY ZONE, ANY, WHICH WOULD BE NORMAL [00:20:01] IN THE ZONING ANYWAYS. AND SO, BECAUSE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE. AND THIRD IS THAT THE, UH, COMMUNITY, UM, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DIDN'T OBJECT AND THEY HAVE OBJECTED TO THESE KIND OF THINGS IN THE PAST. SO, UH, I WOULD THINK THAT DAY BEFORE THIS. SO, UM, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I'LL JUST ADD IT APPEARS BY GOOGLE MAPS THAT THE PROPERTY'S BEEN, UH, VACANT SINCE SOMETIME IN 2018, POSSIBLY EVEN AS LATE AS WELL, I'D SAY 2018. SO, UM, THIS WILL MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF THAT PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NONE? UM, 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 WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. EZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, GET WITH STAFF. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU GOT IT. ITEM TWO, GOOD AFTERNOON. AGENDA ITEM TWO, BO O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4. ADDRESS IS 63 0 2 BIRCH VALLEY DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR APPLICANT IS SLI A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINE AND FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK, EXCUSE ME. AND THREE A 19 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINE AND 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK. ZONING IS R FOUR CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BIRCH VALLEY DRIVE EAST OF SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 RESULTING FROM A ZONING U D C INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPERTY SETBACK VIOLATION. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK. THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MEASURING ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN SAN ANTONIO REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN FIVE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND MUST OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM THIS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE AREA TOWARDS THE SIDE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A PATIO COVER ON THE SIDE AND REAR UP TO SIX INCHES SIDE SETBACK AND ONE INCH REAR SETBACK. A SITE PLAN AND YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION STACK FOR REPRIMANDS DENIAL. AND BILL O 8 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE DISTANCE IS NOT SUITABLE AS IT IMPOSES ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, WARNER RUDOLPH MAY IMPOSE AND RISK THE FIRE SPREAD AS GREATER. AND TWO, THE APPLICANT RELO COULD RELOCATE THE STRUCTURE. NOTIFICATION PLANS, 35 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT TO IN FAVOR WHEN AN OPPOSITION AND REACHED ON ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND HERE ARE THE PUBLIC RESPONSES AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU BRING UP THE SITE PLAN PLEASE? AS PART OF THE PACKAGE? UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A LITTLE CONFUSION. WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU FIRST READ THIS, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PATIO COVERS. THE ONE IN THE REAR IS ONE INCH, THERE'S ONE ON THE SIDE THAT'S SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE, BUT THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE COVERS. IS THAT WHAT YOU OBSERVED? CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. AND YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MANUS? YES. COMMISSIONER MANUS? YES, SIR. SO COULD YOU BRING UP THE GOOGLE LOWER HEAD PLEASE? BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I'M CONFUSED ON THE BACK PATIO PIECE 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE BACK AS WELL. JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT. 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE DIAGRAM'S A LITTLE BIT. I'M BRINGING IT UP. S SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT BACK PIECE OR THE, THE AWNING COVER, CORRECT? UM, CORRECT. UH, YOU CAN GO TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UH, IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THAT PATIO COVER IS THERE YET, WHENEVER THIS WAS TAKEN. AND THAT BACK PIECE IS FLUSHED WITH THE SIDEWALL OF THE HOUSE AND GOES ALL THE WAY BACK FENCE, RIGHT? MM-HMM. AND SO YOU HAVE THE ONE FOOT OFF OR THE, I GUESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE AND IT'S ONE FOOT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES ONE FOOT ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK WITH THAT ONE, THE, WITH THAT STRUCTURE, RIGHT? MM-HMM. OR DO YOU WANT WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS THERE IN THAT CORNER? THE, UH, LEFT CORNER THERE? THAT CORNER THERE? [00:25:03] UH, WE MAXED IT OUT AT ONE INCH. UH, 'CAUSE WE COULD NOT GET BACK THERE. UM, THE APPLICANT PROBABLY CAN, UH, TELL YOU A MORE ACCURATE READING. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GET THE APPLICANT UP. HELLO. UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US. HELLO, MY NAME IS ALISA AND I, UH, RESIDE AT 6 3 0 2 BIRCH VALLEY DRIVE. AND LIKE YOU, IT IS, UH, UH, FOR THE SHED AND THE PORCH THAT WE HAVE ON THE SIDE. UH, STEPH, CAN YOU BRING UP THE GOOGLE, UM, OR GOOGLE MAP PLEASE? AND KIND OF, AND, AND FOR THE APPLICANT, THERE'S A LASER POINTER UP THERE. I'M SURE WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING YOU ABOUT WHAT IS A COVER WHERE YOUR HOUSE BEGINS AND ENDS, THAT SORT OF STUFF. SO IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY THAT NOW, THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. WELL, UM, WE DO ONE ZOOMED OUT WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN PLEASE. SO HERE, UH, OKAY, SO HERE'S WHERE THE SHED IS. RIGHT HERE IS THE SHED AND THEN THE, THE PORCH THAT WE DID ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE. OKAY. AND WHAT IS THAT BLUE ITEM IN? THAT WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE SHED. IS IS THAT SOMETHING? OH NO, THAT WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LIKE, IT WAS LIKE OUR TOOLS AND STUFF. SO WE PUT LIKE A, A MANTLE ON THERE SO WE DON'T GET WET OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. BUT THAT'S WHY WE BUILT THE, THE SHED TO PUT OUR, OUR TOOLS AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS. AND SO THERE'S ALSO A PATIO COVER ON THE SIDE THAT'S ON THE RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE? YES. THERE'S A, UH, A, UM, A PORCH THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON, ON THERE. IS IT JUST A COVER? IS IT AN AWNING OR IS THERE ALSO CONCRETE FLOORING? IT'S A, A CONCRETE AS WELL. OKAY. I SENT IN PICTURES OF THE, OF THE INSIDE. 'CAUSE WHEN THEY WENT, WE WEREN'T THERE. SO THEN I SENT, UH, THEM PICTURES, UPDATED PICTURES OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE INSIDE THE, DO YOU HAVE THOSE WITH YOU? UH, ON MY PHONE, YES. OKAY. BUT I SENT THEM TO THEM AS WELL IN THE EMAILS STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THAT? YOU CAN BRING UP WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING AND THEN AT THE REAR, CAN YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT WHERE THE HOUSE ENDS AND WHERE THE REAR COVER IS? UH, THE HOUSE ENDS RIGHT THERE AND IT'S COVERED RIGHT THERE. OKAY. SO THAT ENTIRE REAR PART IS A COVER? UH, YES, BUT WAY IT'S NOT LIKE A ONE INCH FROM THE FENCE, BUT THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY PUT, LIKE, ON THE, ON THE PAPERWORK THEY SENT ME, THEY PUT LIKE ONE INCH AND, BUT THE, THE REAR COVER AND THE REAR EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO THE POOL SIDE. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY LARGE. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? MM, CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. AND IS IT WALLED IN OR IS IT OPEN? NO, IT'S OPEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S JUST PART OF THAT. ALRIGHT, SO I'M, I FEEL LIKE I'M ASKING ALL THE QUESTIONS HERE. . I'M SORRY, I JUST NEEDED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE ADDITIONAL PICTURES? MANNA, COMMISSIONER, MANNA. SO, SO I GUESS, UM, SO, SO IT GOES BACK, UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW, SO ONE OF THE THINGS I ALWAYS ASK ABOUT IS WE REALLY DON'T WANT WATERFALL GOING ON TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND SO THE ROOF THERE ON THE BACK PORTION SLOPES TOWARDS YOUR NEIGHBOR. AND SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE DOING TO MITIGATE ANY WATER RUNOFF GOING? WELL, WE PUT THOSE, THOSE GUTTERS. BUT THE ONE, THE, THE, THE BIG, THE THE BIGGEST GUTTERS THAT THERE'S LIKE THE, I DON'T DUNNO, SIX INCHES. SO THAT'S PHYSICALLY ON THE CARP OR THE CANOPY? UH, ON THE BACK, YEAH. MM-HMM. . OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT'S KINDA HARD TO SEE FROM THAT PICTURE. YEAH. AND THEN, UM, AND THEN ON THE, UM, IT, THE STAFF WILL GO TO THE, UM, PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE FRONT VIEW OF THE SHED. THERE. THERE YOU GO. SO, SO WHAT'S THE DISTANCE THERE BETWEEN YOUR HOUSE AND THE SHED? AND THEN, UM, AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THE ONE INCH THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, FOR THE CITY, UM, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE GUTTER FOR THE ONE INCH THERE? UH, THE GUTTER IS ONE IS IS GONNA BE ONE INCH. UM, WE DIDN'T MENTION SPECIFICALLY THE GUTTER, BUT THE GUTTER IS INCLUDED IN THE MEASUREMENT. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT IS THE DISTANCE THERE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SHED? SIX FEET. IT'S SIX, SIX FEET. SIX WHAT? SIX FEET? SIX FEET. UH, OKAY. THAT LOOKS, YEAH, THAT, THAT LOOKS CLOSER TO THREE FOOT. BUT, BUT OKAY. , UM, SIMPLY 'CAUSE THE WIDTH, 'CAUSE IT'S THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK THERE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN FOUR FOOT, YOU KNOW, TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SHE'S MEASURING TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS. SO HOW MUCH EGRESS DO YOU HAVE THERE TO GET INTO YOUR BACKYARD? AND SO, SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING IS LIKE RIGHT HERE YOU MEAN? YES. YES. FROM HERE TO HERE IT'S LIKE FIVE. 'CAUSE THE, THE WALL [00:30:01] IS RIGHT HERE AND THEN IT GOES LIKE THE SHED IS RIGHT THERE. IT'S BECAUSE THE, THE LAND IS LIKE SLA SLANTED, SO IT'S LIKE, UM, SMALL THROUGH THE BACK AND THEN IT GOES TO THE FRONT LIKE LARGE. WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE OTHER PICTURES. SO WE'LL PULL THOSE UP. IT MIGHT GIVE SOME PERSPECTIVE. OH, THAT REALLY HELPS. THANK YOU. OH YEAH, THERE YOU GO. CAN YOU BACK UP A LITTLE BIT PLEASE? SO I WANTED TO, UM, SEE THE, ONE OF THE FIRST PICTURES BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A, THE NEIGHBOR'S WINDOW IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HIS FENCE. YEAH. THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FOR STAFF? YES. COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE SHED CAN BE MOVED, RIGHT? CAN BE RELOCATED IN ANOTHER PLACE. NO. NO, SHE'S SAYING IT CANNOT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE, UH, I HAVE, UH, LAST FROM MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL, THE ONES THAT ARE AROUND ME. OKAY. CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE THOSE A STAT? THEY CAN PUT 'EM ON THE PROJECTION SCREEN. MM-HMM. BY CHANCE, DOES IT INCLUDE THE NEIGHBORING THAT BUTTS YOUR PROPERTY? SO THE ONE THAT HAS THAT WINDOW RIGHT THERE. SO DID THEY ALSO PROVIDE FEEDBACK? YOUR NEIGHBOR? OH, MY NEIGHBOR NEXT? NO, 'CAUSE HE, HE WASN'T THERE AT THE TIME. SO STAFF, I KNOW YOU'RE SEEING THESE FOR THE FIRST TIME. CAN YOU QUICKLY VERIFY IF THEY'RE DUPLICATES OF ANY OTHER RESPONSES WE MAY HAVE GOTTEN ON THAT ONE? AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL THANK YOU. UH, I STAFF. STAFF, YEAH. UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE IS THAT THE, SHE CAN'T BE, UH, THE STRUCTURES CAN'T BE RELOCATED. AND YOU SAID NO, THAT'S THE, SHE'S SAYING THAT IT CANNOT BE RELOCATED. SHE'S SAYING IT CANNOT BE RELOCATED. THAT THE APPLICANT IS TELLING US THAT IT CANNOT BE RELOCATED. OH, OKAY. NO, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. IF IT COULD BE LOCATED AND THEN NO, BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. IT CAN BE LOCATED RIGHT TO STAFF. YEAH. THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IT CANNOT BE RELOCATED. AND EVIDENTLY THEN WITH, UH, THE PORCH, THE S**T HERE, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT EVEN GUTTERS AIN'T DOING ANY GOOD TO IT. WELL, WE GET INTO THAT DURING DELIBERATION. UH, SO IF, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A COMMISSIONER TO START THIS OFF WITH A MOTION. WE HAVE THREE REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US. UM, THERE'S, UH, AND THEY CAN BE HEARD SEPARATELY OR ALTOGETHER, BUT I THINK IF IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE CAN JUST HAVE ONE MOTION AND THEN DURING DELIBERATION WE CAN SEE IF, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE WHITTLED DOWN OR, OR NOT. AND REAL QUICK, NONE OF THOSE, UH, RESPONSES WAS ANY OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT, UM, THE, THEY ARE ACROSS THE STREET. TWO OF THEM ARE ACROSS THE STREET, UM, TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. ONE IS ACROSS THE STREET TO THE SIDE OFF OF SABINE PASS. UM, THERE WAS NO LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE REAR PROPERTY OWNER OR FROM THE, THE IMMEDIATE ABUTTING NEIGHBOR. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? O ZUNA. I'LL TAKE THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 HUNDRED FOUR. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SET SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK AND THREE AND 19 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 6 3 0 2 BIRCH VALLEY DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING ALI ALI, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LITERAL [00:35:01] ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS RE, UH, REPRESENTED BY RE UM, BY RESTRICTED SITE SETBACKS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE SITE SETBACK TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO HAVE AN ATTACHED PATIO WITH A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND ONE INCH SET SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS DISTANCE IS SUITABLE, DOES NOT IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR BY HAVING APPROPRIATE DISTANCE FROM THE SHARED PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A SIDE SETBACKS. AND THE SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IS LIMITED IN ROOM WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. IN THIS CASE, THE INTENT IS FOR THE SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ATTACHED PATIO COVER WILL BE SIX INCH FROM THE SIDE SIDE, BACK AND ONE INCH STEP BACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS IT WILL HAVE ADEQUATE DISTANCES OF SHARED PROPERTY LINE AND, AND NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES FOR THE VARIANCE. IT WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DONNY DISTRICT, AND WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DIS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURALLY MAINTAIN ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE PATIO COVER WILL MAINTAIN SIX INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND ONE INCH SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH NOT LIKELY TO INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, UH, STAFF. STAFF OBSERVED OTHER SIMILAR PLACEMENT IN THE AREA. UH, SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FOUND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WOULD WARRANT THE NEED FOR THE REDUCED SETBACKS TO THE SIDE. AND WE SETBACK TO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE TO PUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR PATIO COVER WITHOUT INTRUDING INTO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK. END OF MOTION. SECOND, UH, WE HAVE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO, UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS IS READ. UM, THE UNIQUE SITUATION HERE IS THE, IS THE ALLOT CONFIGURATION. IT'S MORE LIKE A PIE, UH, CONFIGURATION. AND, UM, NO REAL ROOM TO PUT THE, THAT STORAGE FACILITY. UM, THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THAT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE IT, TO NOT PROVIDE ANY, UH, SO THE, AND SHE PROVIDED SUPPORT OF HER VARIANCES FROM THE NEIGHBORS. AND SO WITH NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AGAINST IT, AND IT, YOU KNOW, MOST OF IT'S OUT OF THE WAY AND INVISIBLE, UH, NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. UM, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT, UM, THE VARIANCE WHICH THE, THE SHED VARIANCE, I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE BACK VARIANCE, I DON'T WANT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE BACK FENCE NOR THE SIDE FENCE. AND SO IT SHOULD BE THREE FOOT OR WHAT IS THE DISTANCE THAT YOU SAID IS THREE FOOT RIGHT NOW? UH, AS FAR AS THE FROM WHAT? THE, THE, THE BACK YOU MEAN? THE BACK, THE BACK STORAGE AREA. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REAL QUICK SO WE CAN, UH, A QUICK CLARIFICATION. THE BACK CORNER OF THE REAR COVERED PATIO, HOW FAR FROM THE, I MEAN, IT WAS ONE, IT'S NOT ONE INCH. FIVE FEET. WELL, HOW FAR? IT'S FIVE FEET. IT IS FIVE FEET. YES. IT'S OKAY. ALL ONE. IT IS BACK. SO I'D LIKE TO ADMIT IT TO FIVE FEET. UM, OKAY ON THE SIDE, SO THE SIDE WE WOULDN'T NEED, SO NO AMENDMENT FOR THE SIDE, BUT THE BACK TO BE FIVE FEET COMMISSIONERS. ZUNI, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT? I DO ACCEPT IT. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE, UH, AN AMENDED MOTION WHERE ITEM NUMBER, UH, THREE OF THE MOTION IS READ IS, IS CHANGED FROM A, UH, 19 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE TO A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO, TO ALLOW, UH, THE SETBACK TO GO AS LOW AS FIVE FEET. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. AND, AND THEN NUMBER ONE WOULD BE, UM, FOR THE FIRST, UH, 10 FEET OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT WAY, UM, THAT WOULD JUST COVER THE SIZE OF THE STORAGE SHED AND THEY COULDN'T GO BACK FURTHER THAN THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ITEM ONE OF THE MOTION OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SIDE COVERED PATIO OR THE SHED? I'M TALKING ABOUT NUMBER ONE. SO THAT, THAT WAY THE SIDE IS ONLY RESTRICTED TO WHERE THE SHED IS RIGHT NOW. YEP. OKAY. SO, SO WE HAVE AN A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, TO ALTER ITEM NUMBER ONE TO SET IT SO SUCH THAT THE VARIANCE, UH, TO ALLOW A ONE INCH, UM, SIDE SETBACK COMMENCES 10 FEET FROM THE FENCE LINE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, FROM, YEAH, FROM THE FENCE LINE. SO FROM THE FRONT OF FACADE TO THE, BECAUSE THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. YEAH. I SEE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO ACCEPTED. ALRIGHT, SO THAT WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, TO SET A, UH, COMMENCEMENT LIMIT ON THAT. SO, GREAT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER MANNA? UM, THAT, THAT WAS IT FOR RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PROVIDE THEIR, UH, COMMENTARY [00:40:01] OR REQUESTS? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS AMENDED. OKAY. UH, ANYONE ELSE? UH, HEARING NOTHING ELSE? UM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. OONA? UH, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA CONCUR. MR. DEAN? I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA? I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. EZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, AND THE MOTION AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE. ALRIGHT, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I KNOW WE HAD SOME LITTLE CHANGES THERE. UH, THE, THE ONE THAT PROBABLY, UH, AFFECTS YOU THE MOST IS STARTING 10 FEET BACK ON THE SHED. SO, SO FROM THE FENCE LINE, YOU DON'T GET THE VARIANCE UNTIL YOU HIT 10 FEET FROM THE FENCE. AND SO STAFF CAN FURTHER EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS, UH, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS YOU. OKAY? MM-HMM. , SO IT DIDN'T PASS IT PASSED. UH, YOU CAN GO DOWN TO, TO ONE INCH, BUT IT HAS TO START AT LEAST 10 FEET AWAY FROM THAT FENCE THAT, UH, IS FRONTING THE STREET FROM THE FRONT. YES. AND STAFF, IF YOU COULD, UH, SORRY. SHE MIGHT NEED TO, YOU MIGHT NEED TO SHOW HER ON SIDE PLAN SECOND. OKAY. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER THREE. OKAY. UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 3. ADDRESS IS 9 3 3 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE. UM, APPLICANT IS JASON BARON AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CAR REPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. UH, TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE STANDARD FOR A CARPORT NOT TO MATCH THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, UH, AND SCALE PLACEMENT PROFILE. AND THREE, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD. FIVE, MINIMUM FIVE FOOT RECESS TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT RECESS FROM THE FRONT FACADE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9 3 3 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE NEAR BLANCO ROAD, UH, STEMMING FROM A ZONING U D C INVESTIGATION FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT VISITED THE PROPER, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY TO DISCOVER A DETACHED CARPORT CONTRACT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE PROPER PERMITS. UH, THE APPLICANT STATED THE CARPORT WAS EXISTING PRIOR TO HIM MOVING INTO THE HOME. UH, SOON AFTER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATIONS TO D S D, HOWEVER, THEY, THEY FOUND OUT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR THESE SIDE SETBACK BEING LESS THAN BEING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET. UH, THE CARPORT WITH GUTTERS WAS MEASURED TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, UPON PERMIT REVIEW, IT WAS DOCUMENTED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED, UH, TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL VARIANCES FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE BUILDING MATERIALS NOT MATCHING THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND THE CARPORT NOT BEING RECESSED AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN THIS IS THE DETACHED CARPORT. AND THEN THIS IS AN ALTERNATE VIEW OF THE CARPORT FROM THE REAR YARD AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, CARPORT, MATERIALS, AND RECESS LESS THAN FIVE FEET. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL IN BO O A DASH 23 DASH ZERO THREE, UH, 0 0 1 2 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE, THE CARPORT IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITH ITS CLOSENESS TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS GREATER. UH, AND TWO, THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, UH, DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY AND PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. UH, STAFF MAILED OUT 15 NOTICES. ONE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND, UH, BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTS. AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE ONE NOTICE WE RECEIVED FROM, UH, THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. UH, ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE, UM, THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. I THOUGHT I READ A, A LITTLE SNIPPET ABOUT THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT AS LONG AS, UH, THE APPLICANT COMPLIED WITH, WITH SOMETHING. CAN, CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER 'CAUSE HE HAD MET WITH THE ASSOCIATION. OKAY. UM, AND THEY AGREED WITH [00:45:01] CONDITIONS. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. HI, I'M, UH, JASON BARON. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, FIRST WANNA THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, I WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF, I GUESS, BACKGROUND. I THINK MR. LAOS GAVE A GOOD BREAKOUT AND I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS GONNA PRESENT, BUT OUR YOUNG FAMILY DID JUST MOVE INTO THE HOME. UH, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY AN INVESTOR WHO HAD IT AS A AIRBNB. UH, SHORTLY AFTER MOVING IN, WE RECEIVED A PUBLIC NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY NEW TO US, THAT STATING THAT WE, IT WAS A, A PUBLIC NUISANCE, UM, FOR THE EXISTING CARPORT. UH, SO WE IMMEDIATELY, UH, ENGAGED WITH THE CODE OFFICER, FIGURED OUT WHAT DID WE NEED TO DO TO TRY TO COMPLY AND RECTIFY WHATEVER THE SITUATION WAS. UM, PROVIDED APPLICATIONS FOR THE PERMIT AS WELL AS ZONING VARIANCE, UH, WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, ENGAGED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR NEIGHBOR, OUR DIRECT NEIGHBOR, UM, THAT IT'S BOARDING ALONG THE PROPERTY, HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT AND EVEN WILLING TO PROVIDE A LETTER, UH, IF REQUESTED. UM, WE ALSO IMMEDIATELY ENGAGED WITH THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AND THE ZD COMMITTEE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT, UM, EXACTLY WHAT NEEDED TO OCCUR FOR US TO COMPLY WITH, UM, WHATEVER THE RULES WERE THAT WE WERE VERY NEW TO US. UM, WE EXPLAINED THE SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND AGREED TO KIND OF WORK TOGETHER ON A COMPROMISE. UH, ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE DISCUSSED, WAS TO THE, THE VERTICAL POSTS WERE METAL. SO EITHER PAINTING THEM A COLOR TO MATCH THE TRIM OF THE HOME ITSELF OR POSSIBLY WRAPPING THEM IN WOOD SO THAT IT WOULD MEET AND LOOK SIMILAR TO THE STYLE OF THE HOME. UH, THAT WAS, UH, A FEW OF THE IDEAS THAT WE HAD TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMPLY WITH, UM, THE STYLE OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UM, THE LOT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR RECONFIGURATION OR, OR MOVEMENT. UM, THE, THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO MOVE THE CARPORT IN ANY WAY AND RECONFIGURATION WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, HIGH-END COST. UM, REGARDING THE FIRE HAZARD, UM, THERE'S NO SOLID BARRIER. IT'S FOUR METAL POSTS, METAL ROOF AND DOESN'T POSE A SIGNIFICANT FIRE HAZARD. UM, REGARDING THE, THE WATER, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES, UM, THERE IS, UH, GUTTERS ALONG THE, UM, SIDE OF THE CARPORT WITH, UH, PROPER DRAINAGE. WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR NEIGHBOR. ANY MAINTENANCE NECESSARY WOULD BE COORDINATED TO ALLEVIATE ANY TRESPASS CONCERNS. AND AGAIN, OUR NE OUR DIRECT NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE. UM, AND, AND SENT AN EMAIL AS WELL TO THE, TO THE STAFF. UM, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, UM, CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES. AGAIN, WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THEM AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM TO TRY TO, UH, COME TO A SOLUTION THAT MEETS, UM, A COMPROMISE. UM, AND OUR HOUSE, AGAIN IS ODDLY SITS ON OUR LOT. IN FACT, OUR, OUR HOME, UH, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOME DOESN'T MEET THE SIDE SETBACKS FOR THE LOT ITSELF. IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE, UM, ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE. UM, WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE ISSUES UNKNOWN TO US. UM, THE NEIGHBOR HOOD ASSOCIATIONS WORKED WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST TO CLOSE PERMITS WITH AN INSPECTION, UM, AND NCDS BECAUSE OF THIS AND OTHER BECAUSE OF FLIPPERS AND INVESTORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO WE KIND OF WERE HOPING THAT, UM, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROVED BASED ON SOME OF THOSE, UM, PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS. AND, UH, THE CARPORT IS BEHIND THE FENCE AND SETBACK NOT REALLY NOTICEABLE FROM THE STREET. WITH THAT SAID, UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT. SO A COUPLE QUICK, UH, UH, QUESTIONS. HOW, WHAT IS A CLEAR WIDTH OF THE CARPORT BETWEEN THE POSTS? UH, I'M SORRY, A CLEAR WIDTH OF THE, OF THE PASSAGE THROUGH THE CARPORT PASSAGE THROUGH THE CARPORTS, I BELIEVE IT'S 12 FEET. 12 FEET CLEAR. 12 FEET? I BELIEVE SO, YES SIR. OKAY. 12 OR 13 FEET. AND STAFF WE HEARD, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THROUGH COORDINATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, IF THEY WOULD'VE WRAPPED THE POST WITH WOOD, THAT WOULD BE, UH, SOMETHING. BUT ARE YOU, WOULD THAT HAVE, WOULD THAT ADDRESS THE MATERIAL, UH, ISSUE UNDER, UNDER ITEM ONE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST? YOU MEAN FOR THE N C D STANDARDS? NO, IT'S FINE. IT WOULD NOT BECAUSE OF THE ROOF IS STILL METAL. I RIGHT. SO THERE THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE, UM, I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MATERIALS. CORRECT. AND SO THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SAYING TO MATCH THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS AS IT'S COVERED AS PART OF THE, THE REQUEST. NO, I KNOW, BUT IF, IF YOU WERE TO WRAP THE POST AND WOOD, DOES THAT MAKE THAT REQUEST? NO. YEAH, HE, HE WOULD STILL NEED THE ROOF OBVIOUSLY, SO HE'S TAKING CARE OF ONE PART OF IT. UM OKAY. WHICH SEEMS WHAT THE, UH, NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS MORE INTERESTED IN, BUT HE STILL DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES. EVEN IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THAT WOULD OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS REGARD COMMISSIONER Z? YEAH, I WAS JUST CONFIRM THE, THE, UH, GARAGE WAS THERE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE. YES [00:50:01] SIR. SO IT WASN'T A CONDITION THAT YOU CREATED? CORRECT. RIGHT. AND IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY TO PROVIDE COVER FOR YOUR CAR OTHER THAN THIS CARPORT? THERE IS NOT. OKAY. NO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SPEEDMAN. UH, READING THE LETTER FROM SIR, IS YOUR MIC ON? 'CAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. YEAH. PUSH THE WRONG PLACE. I NOTICED IN THE LETTER FROM BEACON HILL THAT IT SAYS THAT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO OPPOSE IT, NOT THAT THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT, COR CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT SIR. THEY'RE NOT OPPOSING. IT IS BASED ON YOUR DOING CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU HAD, UH, SPOKEN TO THEM WITH AND YOU MADE THE EFFORT TO MEET WITH THEM. CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO THEN? YOU SAID TAKING CARE OF THE POST? YES, SIR. AND THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THAT WAS, UH, SOME OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TOO WAS TAKING CARE OF THE POST. OKAY. I KNOW I'VE, AS WE SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT, UM, THEY HAD SAID THEY WEREN'T GOING TO OPPOSE IT WITH JUST US WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SOME MINOR COSMETIC CHANGES. YEAH. AND SO I I'VE GONE BY THERE AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF OPTIONS. . YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? THIS QUESTION IS MORE FOR THE CITY. SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT A FLIPPER HERE COMING THROUGH AND THEY DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESSES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, I GUESS HOW DO WE KEEP UP WITH THESE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THEY OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A YEAR, MADE SOME CHANGES THAT WHICH WERE NOT PERMITTED AND THEN FLEW THE COOP. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW CAN THE CITY KEEP UP WITH THESE SO THAT YOU KNOW, THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN IN OUR THIS IS, YEAH, THIS IS, UM, ONE OF THE ONES THAT CO COMPLIANCE IS TRYING TO GET A HOLD, UM, A GOOD GRASP ON, OBVIOUSLY THEY TRY TO CATCH 'EM WHILE THEY'RE BUILDING IT. IF THEY DON'T APPLY FOR A PERMIT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PREVIOUS SELLER HAS TO DISCLOSE TO THE NEW SELLER AND THAT BECOMES A CIVIL ISSUE AT THAT POINT. BUT WE DO, I KNOW CODE COMPLIANCE IS BEING MORE PROACTIVE. UH, OUR, OUR S C D TEAM IS MORE PROACTIVE WHEN THEY GO OUT THERE TO SEE WHEN THERE'S DECONSTRUCTION AND WE DON'T HAVE PERMITS. UH, THIS IS JUST ONE THAT WE DIDN'T CATCH AND THIS QUESTION'S FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, BUT DID, WHEN THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO YOU, DID THEY LEAVE YOU ANY OF THE NAMES FOR THE, WHO CONSTRUCTED THE CARPORT SO THAT, NO. OKAY. NO, AND IN FACT, AS WE'RE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING FOUNDATION WORK DONE NOW ALSO AND WE'RE STARTING TO UNCOVER, YOU KNOW, MORE CHALLENGES WITH THE PROPERTY UNKNOWN IF THE PERMIT INTERIOR, ET CETERA, AS WE'RE STARTING TO, UM, TRY TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT NO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, NO ONE SIR. YEAH, IF YOU, SO, YOU KNOW, MY SUGGESTION TO THE CITY IS THAT WE START KEEPING A, A, WE'LL SAY A WHITE LIST AND A BLACKLIST AND A BLACKLIST FOR THOSE THAT, UH, CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION OCCURS BY, BY VENDORS THAT BASICALLY ARE NOT CODE COMPLIANT. SO THAT WAY WE CAN IDENTIFY FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE AND, AND BASICALLY KNOW THAT. SO THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIALS. UH, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO PUT, UH, ANY SORT OF A, A CONDITION OR READ THE MOTION A CERTAIN WAY TO HAVE IT INCLUDE, UH, THE POSTS AND PUTTING EITHER A WOOD OR A SPECIAL PAINT ON IT AS PER DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION OR, OR IS IT JUST A YES OR NO? IT, I, IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS ON, ON VARIANCES. SO IT, IT SEEMS TO BE A GENTLEMAN'S UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? I HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. ALRIGHT, LET'S HEAR IT. ONE VOICEMAIL REGARDING BO O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 23 AT 9 33 WEST MAGNOLIA. THIS IS DANIEL HUBING, CHAIR OF THE BEACON HILLS ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE. I RESIDE AT TEN TWENTY FIVE WEST ATCH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 287-9025. DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 9 3 3 WEST MAGNOLIA. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY MET WITH THE ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE SAID ON JUNE 20TH. USUALLY THE APPLICANT ALSO PRESENTS TO THE S ASSOCIATION AT WHICH TIME ZD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION AFTER WHICH A DISCUSSION OCCURS AND A VOTE IS TAKEN, WHICH IS PREVENTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL NOT MEET AGAIN UNTIL AUGUST 19TH. IN INSTEAD, ZD AND THE HANAH BOARD DO NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. WE DO NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE FOR THE CARDBOARD TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE EACH AND PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT POSE A FIRE HAZARD AS AN OPEN STRUCTURE. AND THE NEXT OR NEIGHBOR SHOWS SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE. THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT CHART CHANGE. THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE INTENT. THE NCD FIVE. WE [00:55:01] DO NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE STANDARDS OR CARPORT NOT TO MATCH EXTERIOR MATERIALS AS A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN SCALE PLACEMENT AND PROFILE WITH OWNER COMPLIANT. YOUR HONOR, HAVE SUGGESTED AT OR COMMITTEE MEETING CHANGES TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE MORE COMPATIBLE. WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL DO. SO THE MATERIALS, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT THE STRUCTURES BEHIND THE WOODEN FINS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY NOTICEABLE FROM THE STREET, ARE NOT VISIBLE ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE RESOURCES TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE. THE OWNERS BOUGHT THE HOME WITH THE CARPORT IN PLACE. ANOTHER INSTANCE OF FLIPPERS NOT PULLING PERMITS, BUT ADHERING TO THE PERMITS, CONSTRAINTS WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SEEKING TO ADDRESS. WHILE Z AND BAHAMA GENERALLY DEFAULT TO THE NCD FIVE STANDARDS AND THE LETTER OF THAT LAW, THE HOMEOWNER'S WILLINGNESS TO MITIGATE THE VIOLATIONS OF THE NCD FIVE STANDARD IN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW HAS GATHERED OUR SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE CARPORT TO BE SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SPECIFICALLY THE MCD FIVE STANDARD WAS BASED ON A HUMAN SLASH PORCH SYNERGY, NOT A CAR CENTER VIEW. IT APPEARS THAT THE CARPORT IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET FROM THE FACADE, BUT MORE THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE LARGE PORCH AND BEHIND A COMPLIANT FENCE. THIS APPROXIMATELY TWO FOOT? YEAH. EXCEEDED ONE MINUTE THERE. YEAH, THAT'S ONE MORE THAN, OKAY. SO IF THERE'S, UH, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? NO THANKS. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 23. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCH FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY. LINE TWO. A VARIANCE FROM THE N C D FIVE STANDARD FOR A CARPORT NOT TO MATCH EXTERIOR MATERIALS AS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND SCALE PLACEMENT AND PROFILE IN THREE A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE N C D FIVE. MINIMUM FIVE FOOT RECESS TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH ONE FOOT RECESS FROM THE FRONT FACADE SITUATED AT 9 3 3 WEST MAGNOLIA. APPLICANT BEING JASON BARON. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE CARPORT IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITH ITS CLOSENESS TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE ALLOWS FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS MITIGATED. FURTHER, THE N C D FIVE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS PASSED THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD CONTRIBUTION. SO HISTORICALLY, COMMON SITE BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS ARE PER PERPETUATED IN THE FUTURE. THE CARPORT DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THOSE WHO WANT TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC TO DUE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN APPLICANT ALTERING THE CARPORT TO ABIDE BY THE MINIMUMS, SET THE REQUIREMENTS AND AND STANDARDS. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE CARPORT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIZABLE CARPORT WOULD BE CHALLENGING BECAUSE OF THE NARROW LOT SIZE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES APPEAR TO ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE CARPORT CAN BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT TRESPASS AND FIRE SPREAD IS MITIGATED. MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT OF THE CARPORT PROVIDE CONSISTENCY IN AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD AT OTHER SIMILAR CARPORTS WERE SEEN IN THE VICINITY. 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 VARIANCES WILL NOT SUB, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCTION OF THE SITE SETBACK WILL NOT IMPOSE ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, WHICH WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEIGHBORING CONFORMING PROPERTY. THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ENFORCES BUILDING MATERIALS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. THE METAL FROM THE CARPORT WILL NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE HOME, AND THE CURRENT PLACEMENT DOES NOT PERPETUATE THE HISTORICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS. FURTHERMORE, THE CARPORT DOES NOT APPEAR TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 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 AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. FORTUNATELY, THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE APPLICANT PURCHASING OF THE HOME WHEN THE ASSISTING CARPORT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL. [01:00:01] END OF MOTION. SECOND. COMMISSIONER CRUZ AS A SECOND. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. I'M PLEASED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED SO CLOSELY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ASSOCIATION, THE ZD, UM, AND THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE, UM, UM, BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PARTIES, UM, AND THAT IT DOES NOT CREATE A NORMAL, UH, INSUFFICIENT CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, YOU HAVE SECOND CREW WITH MS. BERGMAN. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE, IT WAS THERE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE HOME, SO, UM, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT, SIR. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, TO THE WEST, HE HAS A CHURCH TO THE, TO THE, THERE'S ONE HOME TO THE EAST AND THEN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, ANOTHER CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET AT THE PARKING LOT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE HE'S SUBMERGED IN THE SEA OF RESIDENTIAL. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT, UH, WITH THAT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA I CONCUR. MR. EZ I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 11 ZERO. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN, UH, GET WITH STAFF. OKAY? THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ITEM FOUR, PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM FOUR IS BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. ADDRESS IS 1915 WEST LAUREL STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS MERRICK SOLUTIONS. L L C A REQUEST FOR ONE A 10 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH A 30 FEET SEVEN INCH HEIGHT. AND TWO, A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORY TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES. ZONING IS ID I D Z. CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON WEST LAUREL STREET BETWEEN NORTH ZAMO AND NORTH ALMANOR STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A BUILDING TO BE THREE STORIES. THE MAXIMUM HIGH PERMITTED FOR THE BUILDING IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES. THE PROPERTY RE WAS REZONED BY ORDINANCE 2016 DASH 10 DASH SIX DASH 7 72 DATED OCTOBER 6TH, 2016 TO I D C INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE, UH, DISTRICT WITH USES PERMITTED IN C ONE LIKE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE ANY ABNORMAL PHYSICAL FEATURES SUCH AS SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN AND YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B L A 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE INCREASED BILLING HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND TO THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW ENOUGH ROOM FOR ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL USE. NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF MAILED OUT 32 NOTICES. THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND WEST 10 HOPE IN ACTION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THE LAST SLIDE IS PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. OKAY. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, THIS WAS A PRE 2018 I D Z ZONING CHANGE AND I JUST PULLED UP THE UH, I D Z MAP AND CAN YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT, UM, HOW THE I D Z MAP PRE 2018 AND, AND THE I D Z ZONING CHANGE AFFECTS HOW WE'RE DOING THESE VARIANCES? 'CAUSE THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, BUT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A HEIGHT THAT IT'S LIMITED TO. SO ARE, ARE YOU, WHERE DO WE GET, HOW DO WE GET TO THE 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT AND THE TWO AND A HALF STORY? UM, PER THE DISTRICT, PER THE C ONE DISTRICT. OKAY. SO IT'S TIED TO THE C ONE. OKAY. GOT IT. YES SIR. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. UM, ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ALRIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? COME ON UP. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. LUCINDA RODRIGUEZ ON BEHALF OF MERRICK SOLUTIONS, UM, SORRY MR. ZINSKY HAD A CANCELED FLIGHT IN, STUCK IN NEW YORK. UM, I DO WANNA BRING TO THE ATTENTION THAT WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE A, UM, APPROVAL AND LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM WESTIN HOPE IN ACTION IN ADDITION TO THE HARPER'S CHAPEL, WHICH IS A, UH, STRONG COMMUNITY PROVIDER IN THAT AREA. UM, THEY HAVE AND ARE WORKING WITH US ALONG WITH SAM MINISTRIES, UH, CITY OF [01:05:01] SAN ANTONIO, D SS D AS LONG AS WELL AS I WANNA SAY, IT'S LIKE THE HOMELESS BASICALLY HELPING THE HOMELESS AREAS AND WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM ALL OF THESE, UM, ORGANIZATIONS. ALRIGHT. RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, BEFORE YOU, UH, WE OPEN UP THIS, OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY OR VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, UH, SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER CRUZ . SORRY, WAS TRYING TO EAT A SNACK. UM, NOW WHAT KIND OF HOME IS THIS GONNA BE? UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE CONSIDERED A ROOMING HOME, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON THE COMMUNITY AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE FROM 18 TO 24. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. YES. OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. UM, I STILL, UH, I'M JUST STILL STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE HEIGHT, UH, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SAYS IT, IT'S, IT'S I D Z WITH USES PERMITTED IN C ONE, BUT BACK THEN THEY ATTACHED ALL THE SETBACKS AND IT'S ALL THE USES IN C ONE. YEAH. AND, AND SO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE C ONE, UM, HEIGHT RESTRICTION EVEN. OKAY. I, I JUST, 'CAUSE IT SAYS TWO STORIES IN THE SIDE PLAN, IT JUST MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO ME. RIGHT. BUT THEY DO WANT THE THREE STORIES. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, MS. UNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A 10 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE ON THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH 30 FOOT SEVEN INCH HEIGHT AND TO A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORY TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT NINE 15 WEST LAUREL STREET, APPLICANT BEING MERRICK SOLUTIONS L L C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PREVENTED PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE THREE STORY BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE SPACE FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE. IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT, WE WOULD'VE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE ONLY TWO AND A HALF STORIES AND 20 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. 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 THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHTS WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A THREE STORY BUILDING WOULD ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE SPACE FOR OCCU OCCUPATION. FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CONFORMING PROPERTIES WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AS COMMERCIAL USES EXIST TO THE NORTH AND EAST SIXTH, 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, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STAFF FINDS THAT APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES IS VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT, IS NOT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LAW TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, UH, COMMERCIAL SPACE AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER UNA. YEAH. SO I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, VARIANCE. UH, FIRST WE HAVE STACK RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UH, SECOND, WE HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE, UH, THE, UM, NEIGHBORING ASSOCIATIONS AND, UH, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED. UH, THREE, WE HAD NO ADVERSE, UH, COMMENTS OR OPPOSITION FROM ANY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THREE AND THREE OR FOUR. IT'S, UH, I THINK THE USE, UH, IS, IS, UH, IS, UH, COMMENDABLE FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, YES. SECOND CURVE. MR. UNA, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS. THIS WILL BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MACHACA COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, UH, JUST 180 BEATTY QUESTION. HMM. THE PARKING. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PARKING? UM, AT THIS POINT, THE PARKING IS A PART OF THE I D Z. SO WE O ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO, I BELIEVE WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY PARKING. UM, OTHER THAN FOR ADMIN, WHICH THERE'S ONLY ONE OFFICE ON SITE, UM, CASE MANAGERS AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE, UH, ON A AS NEEDED BASIS. SO THERE'S REALLY NOT AN ISSUE WITH PARKING. MOST PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE RESIDENTS THERE DON'T HAVE VEHICLES. THAT'S JUST ABOUT TO ASK THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, NO, THEY, I MEAN, AGAIN, THESE ARE CHILDREN AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE. SO THEY'RE BASICALLY COMING WITH NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE, UM, WITH THEM. A VEHICLE MOST LIKELY IS NOT ON THAT LIST. [01:10:01] OKAY. UH, STAFF, THE PLAN SHOWS SEVEN ON SITE PARKING SPACES AND THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT. YES, THEY WILL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE YOU GO. UH, ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL THOUGH. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. BOEZ CONCUR, CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. ITEM FIVE. SO ITEM FIVE WAS, UH, WITHDRAWN RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO ITEM NUMBER SIX. ALRIGHT, MOVING ALONG TO ITEM SIX I B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3. ADDRESS IS TWO 18 WEST SATCH AVENUE COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS BOB WEISS. A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. WHAT THEY WANT INSIDE SETBACK ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST ATCH AVENUE BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS OF HOWARD STREET AND BELT NET PLACE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT A SECOND STORY TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT ANCE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R FOUR AND PER U D C A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS FIVE FEET. UPON SITE VISITS. IT APPEARS THAT OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE GARAGES AND STRUCTURES PLACED WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT. ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. ON MARCH 15TH, 2023, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUED APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY EDITION ON A DETACHED GARAGE. O H A P FIND STAFF FINDS THE REAR GARAGE ORIGINAL TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND APPEARS ON THE 1935 SANBORN. THE EXISTING SETBACKS MATCH THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT ALTER THE EXISTING OR THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SITE SETBACK AND THE VIEW OF THE REAR, UH, SETBACK WITH THE ALLEY AND THE VIEW FROM THE SITE. SO IT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT. THE DOORS ARE ON THE SIDE VERSUS, UH, SO IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THIS IS THE FRONT, BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON BILL O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THIS DISTANCE IS NOT SUITABLE AS IT IMPOSES ON A PUBLIC INTEREST TO ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. BY BEING TOO CLOSE IN THE SHARED PROPERTY LINES AS WATER RUNOFF MAY BE IMPOSED AND TO THE APPLICANT RE COULD RELOCATE THE STRUCTURE NOTIFICATION PLAN. EXCUSE ME. STAB MILL DOUBT. 13. NOTICES ZERO IN FAVOR. ZERO. AND OFF PHYSICIAN. AND WE DO, WE DID RECEIVE A LATE RESPONSE FROM THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT HE RECEIVED BACK IN 2021. UM, THAT SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, JOSEPH. THERE IT IS FOR, UH, THEIR APPROVAL AND THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOU, AND YOU DID SAY THAT THIS WAS ON THE OLD SAND BOARD MAP, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI, PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US. YES SIR. MY NAME IS BOB WISE. I'M THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS A, UH, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ON THE, UH, ALLEY PROPERTY LINE THERE, THERE'S A GARAGE STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITH THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. IT'S THE TASK GARAGE AND IT HAS A SMALL MAZE QUARTERS THAT WERE, WAS INCLUDED IN THAT BUILDING. UH, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR, MAKE, UM, MORE LIVABLE SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR OUTSIDE THE GARAGE AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT FOR MY ADULT SON WHO IS, UH, IMPAIRED TO, UH, LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. OUR HOUSE IS ACTUALLY A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TOLD IT WAS A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, IT REALLY ONLY HAS ONE BEDROOM AND, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR ANOTHER BEDROOM IN THE HOUSE CURRENTLY. SO WE WANNA ADD THAT ROOM, THAT BEDROOM, UH, IN THE GARAGE STRUCTURE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. WE'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE THE ROOF CONFIGURATION. SO ANY RUNOFF THAT OCCURS CURRENTLY, THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE RUNOFF IN THE FUTURE. UH, IF YOU ADD THE SECOND FLOOR, THE ROOF FORM, THE SHAPE CONFIGURATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR ROOF WILL BE IDENTICAL TO WHAT'S THERE NOW, UH, CURRENTLY ON THAT END OF THE, UM, GARAGE IS A [01:15:01] RIDGE ROOF ANYWAY, SO IT DOES NOT DRAIN DIRECTLY ONTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM AS FAR AS RELOCATING, RELOCATING THAT GARAGE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. UM, WE COULD BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE IN THE BACKYARD, BUT THE BACKYARD IS VERY SMALL ANYWAY, AND ADDING ANOTHER STRUCTURE IN THE BACK OF IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I'M A RETIRED ARCHITECT AND I WOULDN'T DO THAT TO ANYBODY. PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE IN THE BACKYARD. YOU HAVE ALMOST NO GROUND AT ALL. NO, NO LANDSCAPE AREA. SO, UH, THAT'S OUR DE UH, DESIRE TO DO THAT AND THAT'S OUR APPLICATION AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. I'M, I'M JUST GONNA TAKE A QUICK, UH, START OF THIS. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE PITCH ROOF IS GOING TO REMAIN CURRENTLY THE ROOF PITCHES AND DRAINS WATER ONTO THE ALLEY SIDE. WELL, IT, IT, IT'S A RIDGE AND IT POINTS EAST. THE RIDGE DOES. SO IT DRAINS TO THE YARD SIDE ON ONE SIDE AND TO THE ALLEY ON THE BACKSIDE. ALRIGHT, THAT'S, I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MINCHA, COMMISSIONER MINKA, AND THEN MANA. I HAVE A QUESTION, SIR. UM, YES SIR. IT LOOKS LIKE HERE ON GOOGLE THAT, HAVE YOU DONE CONSTRUCTION ON THAT? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A DUMPSTER IN THE BACK. WE STARTED, WE STARTED, WE, WE HAD A CONTRACTOR TWO YEARS AGO THAT SAID HE GOT A BUILDING PERMIT AND HE STARTED CONSTRUCTION. HE THEN DEMOLISHED THE INTERIOR PARTITIONS ON THAT STRUCTURE. IT'S THE OLD APARTMENT, I MEAN, UM, MID QUARTER AND LITTLE STORAGE NEXT TO THE GARAGE. THEY DEMOLISHED ALL THE INTERIOR IONS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT THEY DID THAT. AND THEN WE, THROUGH, UM, TWO YEARS OF NEGLECT WE FIRED HIM. AND NOW, SO THERE WAS SOME CONSTRUCTION ON THAT A LONG TIME AGO, BUT, UH, THERE HADN'T BEEN ANYTHING DONE IN A YEAR, COUPLE OF YEARS, REALLY. I SEE. THANK YOU. SO IT'S BASICALLY INTERIOR WAS RECONFIGURED? WELL, IT HADN'T BEEN RECONFIGURED. IT WOULD BE RECONFIGURED UNDER THIS PROPOSAL. I SEE. THANK YOU. YES, YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER MANON. YEAH. COULD, UH, STAFF BRING UP, UH, GOOGLE, UM, OVERHEAD VIEW AND, OR ACTUALLY STREET DRIVE IN THE VALLEY? SO, AND YEAH, GO TO THE OTHER SIDE. YEAH, GO DOWN THEN TURN. OKAY. SO THAT'S YOUR PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. AND SO, SO RIGHT THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALMOST A TWO CAR WIDTH ALLEYWAY RIGHT THERE. CORRECT. SO, SO BEHIND THE HOUSE, SO, SO PRETTY WIDE. UM, AND THEN IF, UH, GO AHEAD AND STAFF DRIVE DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. KEEP GOING. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT BREAKS DOWN TO A ONE LANE THEN AT THAT POINT. SO IS THERE ONE LANE, UH, TRAFFIC, UH, I GUESS IN THE BACK OR, WELL, PEOPLE GO BOTH WAYS, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC OTHER THAN THE GARAGE, I MEAN THE GARBAGE COLLECTORS. UM, SO IT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM. AND SO IF YOU GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, AND SO I JUST WANNA CALL OUT SOME, AN OBSERVATION HERE. SO, SO RIGHT HERE. SO ONE MORE, ONE MORE. SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO STORY, UM, UM, PLACES ALREADY ALONG THE STREET WITHIN THAT VERY NARROW PIECE, SIR. SO, SO THREE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CALLED OUT. OKAY. YEAH. IN, IN FACT THE TWO, THREE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF US, UH, TO BEL NET STREET HAVE PROPERTIES, UM, TWO STORY GARAGE UNITS WITH APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE ALL THE WAY AROUND. SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING DIFFERENT. AND THE EXISTING GARAGE WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND WE'RE NOT ACCEPT ASKING FOR ANYTHING UNREASONABLE CONSIDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I MEAN, WE, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I'VE DONE HISTORIC RESTORATION. I WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO AFFECT THE ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, SIR. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HEARING? NONE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, STAFF. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 1 43. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW DETACHED STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 2 1 8 WEST ATCH AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING BOB WEISS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH FOR 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 VARIANCE TO THE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW ITS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO DID THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN APPLICANT BUILDING THE STRUCTURE FIVE [01:20:01] FEET FROM THE SIDE SETBACK, WHICH RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARD HARDSHIP OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE REDUCED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REDUCED TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH ABSORBS OBSERVES THIS PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION 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 PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT DUE. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, THOUGHT THIS OUT VERY WELL, ESPECIALLY GIVEN HIS TRAINING AND BACKGROUND. UM, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T SEEM TO BE OPPOSED TO IT. AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE SIMILAR AS WELL AS THE RUNOFF IN THE WATER. IT WOULD BE TO THE ALLEYWAY AND TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER MAYER, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE ALSO. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AGREED WITH THIS. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR AS WELL. 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. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA I CONCUR. MR. EZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS BO EIGHT DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 4. UM, ADDRESSES ARE 1 1 9 THROUGH 1 3 1 EAST FE STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. UH, THE APPLICANT BEING MP TWO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW, UH, ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS I D Z. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ALONG EAST FE STREET NEAR SOUTH FLORES. UH, IT RECENTLY UNDERWENT A REZONING TO I D Z INFO DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT WITH USES PERMITTED FOR FOUR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. UH, AN ID Z ZONE DISTRICT PROVIDES FOR FLEXIBLE, UM, STANDARDS IN DEVELOPMENT AND THE REUSE OF UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED FOUR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON FOUR SEPARATE PARCELS. EACH OF THESE STRUCTURES CONTAINED AN ATTACHED CARPORT, WHICH ARE ALL CURRENTLY ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINE STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET AND MUST OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. AND THESE ARE THE SITE PLANS FOR EACH OF THEM. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS AN ALTERNATE VIEW. AND THIS IS THE, UH, SIDE SETBACK WITH THE ATTACHED CARPORT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, A DENIAL AND BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 44 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE STRUCTURES IMPOSED ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, WATER RUNOFF MAY IMPOSE AND, UH, RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS GREATER. AND TWO, BUILDING REQUIREMENTS ARE ENFORCED TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASSIGNED BASE. SO DISTRICT AND SURROUNDING AREAS. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. UH, STAFF MAILED OUT 32 NOTICES, UM, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. HAVE, UH, APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. [01:25:06] PRESENTATION. IT'S A P D POWERPOINT. DO YOU HAVE THAT LASER? OH YES. SHOULD BE ON THERE. OH, HERE. RIGHT. IF YOU COULD, UH, TELL US YOUR NAME. YES. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MICHAEL BEES. MICHAEL AEDES, THREE 30 MISSION STREET. UM, I'M GONNA PULL UP A QUICK PRESENTATION. I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH IT. ANOTHER CARPORT CASE. OKAY. REAL QUICK. YES, THEY'RE FOR CARPORT. UM, IT'S JUST RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. UM, FEST STREET ON, ON, UM, SOUTH FLORES. AND YES, UH, A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT AWNING OVERHEAD PROJECTION. NEXT ONE OVER. SO I REZONED IT. I D Z WAY BACK WHEN THERE WAS I D Z 1, 2, 3. IT WAS I D Z BACK IN 2018. THERE'S MY FOOTPRINT. UM, I GUESS IT'S A 14 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, FIVE FOOT SIDE, 10 FOOT REAR. AND YOU ALREADY SAW THE SITE PLANS. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE FOR THE FIRST TWO. THESE ARE THE, ON THE KIND OF DIRECT LOOK AT THE CARPORTS THAT WE DESIGNED. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE CANTILEVERED. SO THERE'S NO POSTS. THEY'RE ALL METAL AND ENGINEERED. WE CAN GET GOING AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. THE SUBSEQUENT TWO SITE PLANS, YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THOSE ARE STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION, OBVIOUSLY. HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE DONE WITH THOSE AT THE END OF THE MONTH. SO, UM, WHEN WE HAD THE PLANS, WE FOUND OUT THE CARPORT THAT WE DESIGNED WERE A LITTLE TOO NARROW. SO WE ENDED UP, UH, PUTTING ON, UH, OR DESIGNING A STEEL FIRE RATED ALL STEEL AWNING. SO WE WELDED AND BOLTED IT, YOU KNOW, FOUR FOOT, IT'S ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE BY, I THINK IT'S 19 FOOT. SO THERE ARE THE ENGINEERED PLANS TO SHOW THAT IT'S FIRE RATED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HERE'S A, A CLOSER LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE, UM, AT THE FIRE RATED STEEL AWNING. YOU KNOW, UM, LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT'S COMING OUT TO ONE FOOT. THERE'S STILL SIX FEET FROM THE NEXT HOUSE BECAUSE THEY'RE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. SO 10 FOOT, UH, SEPARATION FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS. I LOOKED AT SOME OTHER, UH, SEE IF THERE WAS ANY PRECEDENCE OR DESIGN, UH, UH, EXAMPLES. AND YOU CAN SEE AT 1 1 2 7 SOUTH PRESA, YOU CAN SEE A, A CAN OF NEXT ONE. THIS IS ON CLAY STREET, WHICH IS LIKE A COUPLE BLOCKS FROM HERE. YOU CAN SEE THIS AWNING. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE POST OR THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THAT'S ONE RIGHT THERE. AND THESE ARE ALL I D Z, MIND YOU, I D Z NEW DEVELOPMENTS. NEXT ONE. UM, THAT'S JUST AN OVERHEAD SHOT SHOWING, YOU KNOW, FIVE FOOT, FIVE FOOT, SO 10 FOOT BETWEEN THE WALLS. AND YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE AWNING RIGHT HERE WITH STILL SIX FOOT SEPARATION. UH, TO THE NEXT HOUSE. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS AGAIN ON CLAY STREET, NOT AWNINGS, BUT TO SHOW HOW CLOSE, UM, ACTUAL EXTERIOR WALLS WERE. THAT'S ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF, TWO FEET. NEXT ONE. THIS IS, UH, ON L CHAPPELLE RIGHT NEXT TO KUNSTLER. THEY'RE BUILDING, UM, THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE, PRETTY TIGHT, PRETTY HARD TO MAINTAIN THOSE WALLS. GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS OVER IN DIGGY HILL. UM, YOU CAN SEE A CARPORT, METAL AWNING, PRETTY CLOSE. AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL I D Z, UM, NEW DEVELOPMENTS. UM, OKAY, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE, ANOTHER ONE IN GOVERNMENT HILL. I GUESS THE, THE TOP IS A PROJECTION. I GUESS IT'S A SOFFIT, UH, OVERHANG. THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER WHERE, WELL, I, I MAINTAIN SIX FEET. NEXT ONE PLEASE. AND THEN AGAIN, JUST TO KIND OF RE REITERATE, HEY, I'M SIX FEET FROM THE NEXT ONE. UM, 10 FOOT EXTERIOR WALLS. NEXT ONE, PLEASE. AND THEN THESE LAST ONES ARE JUST, UH, EXISTING HOMES. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. I KNOW IT'S METAL. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ENGINEERED. NOT SURE IF PERMIT WAS PULLED. NEXT ONE, THESE ARE DOWN THE STREET AGAIN. YOU CAN SEE CARPORTS COMING RIGHT DOWN UNDER WOOD. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE POSTS, MINE'S CANTILEVERED, THERE'S THE CHAPPELLE NEXT ONE AND SOME MORE EXISTING. AND YOU CAN THOSE, THOSE WERE THOSE HOMES I WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, BEFORE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT THESE, YOU KNOW, THE SAME CARPORTS, I WANTED TO KEEP A CARPORT, YOU KNOW, FRONTLOADING GARAGES IN THESE CENTER CITY, YOU KNOW, UM, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU KEEP THE CHARACTER WITH CARPORT, NOT FRONTLOADING GARAGES LIKE IN, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, UM, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. AND, UM, HE, THAT'S KIND OF AN AERIAL VIEW, UM, OF THE WHOLE PROJECT TOGETHER. UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER. YEAH. SO LET'S, I I WANNA ASK A CLARIFICATION. UH, NO OFFENSE MS. P. YEAH. BUT, SO YOU HAVE, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THE, THE SIZE OF [01:30:01] THE OVERHANG? THEY COMMENCE ABOUT FOUR FOOT WIDE BY 19 LONG. 19 LONGING ABOUT 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT. YEAH, THAT'S TYPICAL. 1918. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, DID YOU GET PERMITS FOR BUILDING THESE STRUCTURES? 100%, YEAH, I GUESS. OKAY. DID IT INCLUDE THE CANTILEVER, CARPORTS? IT, IT, IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CANTILEVER CARPORT, BUT IT DID HAVE THE CARPORT IN MY PLANS ON THERE. SO WHEN THE CANTILEVERED CARPORTS CAME IN, LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE DESIGNED IT, THE CAR COULD BARELY FIT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU OPEN THE DOORS, IT'S, IT'S HALFWAY COVERED. SO I WANTED THE WHOLE CAR, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, WHEN WE FOR OFF STREET PARKING. SO, SO AS YOU DRIVE IN, YOU HAVE FULL COVERAGE AS YOU GET, GET OUT OF THE CAR. OKAY. UH, SECOND QUESTION. UM, ARE THERE GUTTERS ON THE SIDE OF, ON THE ENDS OF THE CANTILEVER AND CARPORT THAT FACE THE NECK STRUCTURE OF, NO, THERE AREN'T. THE WHOLE HOUSE, AS YOU CAN SEE, HAS GUTTERS, BUT IT'S SO SMALL, IT'S 76 SQUARE FEET WITH A 2% SLOPE. I CAN ADD GUTTERS TO 'EM. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE KIND, WE KIND OF PUT FRENCH DRAINS IN WHERE THE FENCE GOES. I DON'T SEE ANY FLOODING, BUT NO, I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE METAL GUTTERS OFF THERE. OKAY. AND THE LAST QUESTION IS, IS THE CANTILEVER, IS IT LEVEL OR DOES IT SLOPE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? CANTILEVERED IS A 2% GRADE. 2% GRADE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THIS IS I D Z, IT'S OLD I D Z. CORRECT. AND THEY STILL HAD A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IF YOU WANTED TO PURSUE, UM, A, UH, AN INTERIOR SETBACK DOWN TO ONE FOOT FOR THESE, WOULD THAT BE A MINOR OR A MAJOR, UH, ZONING CHANGE? IT WOULD BE A MA A MAJOR AMENDMENT. OKAY. WOULD IT BE A MAJOR? YEAH. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU, WHEN THE I D C WAS APPLIED FOR, YOU ONLY HAVE TO HAVE FIVE FEET ON THE OUTSIDE. YOU COULD HAVE DONE ONE FOOT, ONE FOOT IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT. IF IT WAS REQUESTED THAT WAY. BUT IF YOU WERE TO PURSUE IT, LIKE IF THIS DOESN'T WORK OUT FOR YOU TODAY, YEAH, IT WOULD BE IN MAJOR ZONING. RIGHT. AND CAN YOU GO BACK UP TO THE SECOND, THE, ALMOST THE TOP SLIDE, THE SECOND SLIDE. I I D ZED IT WAY BACK IN 2000. THE SECOND. RIGHT? IN 2018. 18, YEAH. IN 2018. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE DESIGN IS, BUT I KNEW THAT I DON'T, I DIDN'T WANNA BUILD HOMES SO CLOSE, SO CLOSE, SO CLOSE. SO I WAS LIKE, WELL, I'M GONNA PUT FIVE FOOT AND THE CANTILEVERED. I MEAN, THAT'S THE ACTUAL CONCRETE, RIGHT? THE, I GUESS THE FOOTPRINT. SO WHAT, SO FLOATING, WHAT'S FORCE TODAY IS, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR OVERHANG, UHHUH IS THAT, UM, I WANTED, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF A, WHEN A COMMISSIONER MAKES A MOTION, THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEY COULD DO A REDUCTION AND NOT GRANT THE FIVE, THE DOWN TO ONE FOOT FOR THE ENTIRE SIDE, BUT JUST FOR THE LIMIT OF JUST THE SPECIFIC OVERHANG. UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE SIZE. OKAY. BUT ISN'T A MAJOR REQUIRING 10% OR MORE TO THE SITE PLAN? YOU'D HAVE TO, NO. IF YOU DO A MAJOR AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING COMMISSION BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. MINE COULD BE DONE WITH STAFF, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, I JUST WANTED TO PUT OUT THAT I D Z ZONING DOES ALLOW AND ONLY REQUIRES FIVE FEET ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR FOUR LOTS. MM-HMM. , THE INTERIORS COULD HAVE BEEN WHATEVER YOU WANTED. YEAH, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. THEY COULD. I DON'T WANNA, I'M TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION? MANNA COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO, UM, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK OVERHEAD AND TRYING TO, THIS IS AN I D C DISTRICT, BUT I AM SHOWING DIFFERENT ZONINGS. UM, AND SO IF YOU BRING UP A ZONING MAP WITHOUT THE I D C REFERENCE, UM, 'CAUSE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS, IS RESIDENTIAL. CORRECT. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY AT ALL? AND SO THE ONLY ONE DO, SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS 1 31 BUTTS TO, TO A RIGHT. THE, THE, THE LADY THERE PASSED, I BELIEVE PASSED AWAY MAYBE LIKE THREE MONTHS AGO. UM, SHE'S AN OLDER LADY. IT'S NOBODY'S THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, AND THOSE OTHER PICTURES YOU SHOWED WERE HOREN BY THE WAY. SO, SO I'M, I'M GLAD TO SEE THE SIX FOOT, BUT YEAH, THOSE, YEAH, EXACTLY. AND HER, HER HOUSE IS PUSHED OVER, SO, I MEAN, AND THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE AS WELL. HER DRIVEWAY'S RIGHT THERE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE. UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND WHOEVER MAKES ONE THAT THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, UH, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PURSUED, THEY COULD HAVE VERY WELL ASKED TO DO THIS AT THE VERY BEGINNING WITH EXCEPTION OF, UH, 1 31 EAST FEST. THAT ONE IS, IS WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK. UH, AND ALSO THE ONE LAST THING THAT THE APPLICANT DID SAY THAT HIS AWNINGS WERE 19 FEET LONG, IF ANYBODY WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR MOTION, ANYBODY THAT WAS COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 44. [01:35:03] I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, UM, ALONG THE, UM, PERIMETER, I GUESS IT IT'D BE THE EASTERN PERIMETER OF THE, OF THE, EACH LOT FROM ONE 19 TO 1 31 EAST FEST ALONG A 19 FEET. UM, AS DETAILED, I GUESS AN SITE PLAN, UH, THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE, UH, TO THE BOARD, UM, THE ADDRESS BEING ONE 19 TO 1 31 EAST FEST APPLICANT BEING MP TWO URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENT PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO 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 A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACTED PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS PRESENTED, REPRESENTED BY RESTRICTED SETBACKS, PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINES AND STRUCTURE. STAFF FINDS OF THE ANTICIP ANTICIPATED SETBACK, UH, DISTANCES ARE SUITABLE AS, AS IT DOES NOT IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, WATER RUNOFF MAY IMPOSE AND RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS MITIGATED. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE OF RESULT RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A NARROWNESS OF THE LOT. IN THIS CASE, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PRESENTED WILL, UH, PRESENTED WILL PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM CON FROM, UH, CONSTRUCTING A SIZABLE CARPORT FOR THE STRUCTURE. THREE, BUT GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THIS CASE. THE INTENTION IS FOR THE SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY LINES. THE STRUCTURE IN THEIR CURRENT FORM OBSERVED THE SPREAD OF THE ORDINANCE OR INTENT OF THE CODE, AS IT WILL, AS IT WILL NOT, UH, BE CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE. AND NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES, 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, ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURE WILL STAY AT THEIR CURRENT DISTANCES, UH, WHICH ARE NOT LIKELY TO INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. UH, REDUCED SETBACKS, UH, WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE DUE TO THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE STAFF FINDS THAT APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, UH, SUCH AS THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOTS AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER UNIT. YES. SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. A AS, UM, UH, THE CHAIR MENTIONED, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. UH, IF HE HAD PLOTTED IT, UH, WITH THE I D Z AS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY VERSUS THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS CREATING THE HARDSHIP. UH, APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE 2% GRADE OF THE CAR PORTS, WHICH WOULD DRAIN THE WATER BACK AND FORTH, UH, AND NOT ON THE, ON THE ADJOINING SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND FURTHER, HE INDICATED A FRENCH DRAINS THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR THE, FOR THE WATER, UM, COMING OFF OF THAT LITTLE CARPORT. UM, THREE, I THINK IT PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, A, A A, YOU KNOW, THE SHIELDING OF THE, OF THE CARS. AND THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A GOOD, A GOOD REMEDY TO PROVIDE THE GARAGE THAT HE NEEDS FOR THE PROJECT. SO I SUPPORT THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MANOR, UH, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. AND, UH, I'D LIKE TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, WERE YOU PROVIDING FOR A, A LIMIT OF 19 FEET? I, I DID STATE THAT AND IT, AND IT WAS IT ON THE, THE ONLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IT'D BE ONLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINES. OKAY. RIGHT. THAT WOULD CONCUR SATISFIED. RIGHT, RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY HEARING NOW? IS THAT ROLL CALL VOTE MR. OZUNA? I CONCUR. MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CON I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. EZ CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. UH, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM EIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ WAS GOING TO RECUSE FOR THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER, UH, CUDDLE, ARE YOU ABLE TO JUMP ON THIS CASE? LET THE MINUTES SHOW. COMMISSIONER CRUZ LEFT THE, UH, MEETING ROOM AT 2:42 PM THERE HE IS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. LET, UH, LET THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT MR. CODDLE IS ON SCREEN AT 2:42 PM ALL RIGHT, LET'S ITEM EIGHT. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. ITEM EIGHT, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 5. [01:40:02] ADDRESS IS 1672 RIGSBY AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE APPLICANT IS ALAN NEFF. A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORY HEIGHT TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES. ZONING IS R M FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT CASE NUMBER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON RIGSBY AVENUE, JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROLAND STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A BUILDING TO BE THREE STORIES. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR RM FOUR IS THREE STORIES. HOWEVER, SINCE A BUTT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES. THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LOT TO THE EAST APPEARS TO HAVE COMMERCIAL USE. THERE IN NO RECORD EXISTS OF A NON-CONFORMING USE. CITY CO COMPLIANCE IS CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING, HOWEVER, FOR NONCONFORMING WAS APPROVED. THE HEIGHT, THE LIMITED HEIGHT WOULD REMAIN UNLESS THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED. STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE ANY ABNORMAL PHYSICAL FEATURES SUCH AS SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS, WAS REZONED PRIOR TO THE 2023 U D C AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRED RN FOUR DEVELOPMENT UNDER A THIRD OF AN ACRE TO BE UNDER ONE STRUCTURE AND PRESENTED SAME SITE PLAN TO THE JULY 19TH, 2022 ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN AND YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE 80 FOOT COLLECTOR STREET NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 23 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND PASADENA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES UP, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY, ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN COME UP AND TELL US YOUR NAME FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW IT, AND, UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ALAN NEFF. UH, MY COMPANY IS 36 SQUARE. I'M AN ARCHITECT FOR MY CLIENT. UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE HERE AND TAKING THE TIME TO REVIEW ALL OF OUR CASES. I APPRECIATE IT. UM, YES, SO THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT MY CLIENT HAS. UH, THEY HAVE, THEY'RE A FAMILY SMALL BUSINESS IN THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF TOWN. UH, THEY OWN A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES AND THEY DO RENTAL HOUSING. SO THIS IS ONE THEY WANT TO CONSTRUCT, UH, FOUR NEW HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY FOR BASICALLY FAMILIES, THREE, FOUR BEDROOM HOUSES, UM, AT AFFORDABLE RATES. THEY REALLY WANT IT TO BE FOR FAMILIES. THEY DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE LOFTS OR SMALL STUDIOS OR ANYTHING THOSE COULD EASILY FIT. UH, BUT WE DO NEED THE THREE STORIES IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM PLANS. UM, COULD YOU SWITCH OVER TO MY PRESENTATION PLEASE? SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS ON RIGSBY AVENUE. UM, THEY ARE PROBABLY ALL FORMERLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, BUT THEY'VE BEEN CONVERTED OVER THE YEARS, OVER THE DECADES. UM, IT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND JUST RIGHT OFF THE SCREEN WOULD BE A MAJOR INTERSECTION WITH, YOU KNOW, CHURCHES, CHICKEN DOLLAR STORES, A REALLY GOOD BARBECUE PLACE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ONE OF THOSE. UM, SO I NUMBERED THEM. IF YOU CAN JUST GO TO THE NUMBER ONE AND THEN THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A LITTLE WIDER VIEW HIGHLIGHTED 1672 RIGSBY. UM, AS I WAS EXPLAINING, THIS IS NOT, NOT KIND OF WITHIN YOUR COMMON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, BUT HISTORICALLY FROM, I DON'T KNOW, TWENTIES TO FORTIES, THESE HOMES WERE PROBABLY BUILT. UH, THEY'VE CONVERTED MANY OF THEM OVER TO C ONE TYPE USES OVER THE YEARS. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE, AS I WAS SAYING OVER AT ROLAND, THERE ARE SOME MAJOR BUSINESSES. UM, SOME OF THE LOTS SURROUNDING THIS ONE ARE QUITE LARGE. YOU CAN SEE THEY GO BACK, I'M NOT EVEN SURE THE SIZE. THEY'RE PROBABLY HALF ACRE LOTS OR MORE. UM, TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS TO THE IT EAST, UM, IT APPEARS TO BE KIND OF AUTO REPAIR AND SALVAGE. THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT IS A SMALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, KIND OF, IT LOOKS LIKE A COTTAGE BOUTIQUE BAKERY KIND OF BUSINESS. UM, BOTH OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE OPERATING AS COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, BUT THE ZONING IS STILL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. UM, MY CLIENT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I JUST BRING IT UP BECAUSE THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE CASE FOR WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NUMBER TWO. SO THIS IS JUST [01:45:01] STREET VIEW. UM, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO IT IS THE GOURMET KIND OF GROCERY RETAIL. AND THEN THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE NEXT TO THAT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE KIND OF FACING WEST. NOW HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RIGHT IN FRONT OF US IS THE, THE AUTO REPAIR SALVAGE KIND OF BUSINESS. THERE'S A SMALL, UM, I GUESS IT'S LIKE A SINGLE WIDE TRAILER RIGHT THERE IN THE FRONT NEXT TO THAT CANOPY. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE SHADE TREE MECHANIC KIND OF CANOPY. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET ONE DIRECTION. YOU SEE SOME LARGE VACANT LAND AND SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. MAYBE THERE'S A FEW APARTMENTS IN SOME OF THOSE. IT LOOKS LIKE SOME ACCESSORY DWELLINGS BEHIND THEM AS WELL. UH, NEXT SLIDE. UH, LOOKING THE OTHER WAY TOWARDS ROLAND, YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE STREET SOME MORE OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND YOU CAN SEE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS WITH THE KIND OF RED AWNING AND THE WHITE ROOF. UM, NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN. UH, LOOK INTO BUILD FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THREE STORIES TALL. UM, I'M NOT REQUESTING ANY OTHER VARIANCES TODAY, ALTHOUGH SOME WOULD BE GREAT. UM, WE'RE COMPLYING WITH ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS. UH, WE'RE EXCEEDING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON THE SITE FOR EACH UNIT. WE'RE COMPLYING WITH RECENT REVISIONS TO THE RM FOUR WHERE WE HAVE A FRONT DOOR FACING THE STREET. UM, AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE THREE BEDROOM, FOUR BEDROOM, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT UNIT MIXES. SO IN RECAP, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. SO WE DON'T GET OUT OF SCALE DEVELOPMENTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THEM. IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. WITHIN THE LETTER OF THIS CODE, IT STATES THAT THIS SHOULD NOT APPLY WHEN THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY, EVEN IF THE ZONING IS, I WENT BACK AND FORTH UP TO MR. SHANNON AND I WAS TOLD, GO GET A VARIANCE. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. I I DON'T AGREE THOUGH THAT THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN. UM, I ACTUALLY MADE THE MOTION AT PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS CODE ENTERED IN BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A PROBLEM IN NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT NEVER DID I EXPECT IT WOULD BE APPLIED IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE IT SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. UM, YOU KNOW, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BASICALLY RESTRICT THIS TO TWO STORIES, TWO AND A HALF. BUT THAT HALF STORY IS, YOU KNOW, BARELY USABLE WITH THE CURRENT CODE. UH, THAT WOULD LIMIT MY CLIENT WHERE THEY COULD NOT BUILD THE THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM UNITS. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE FAMILIES LIVING IN THERE THAT THEY DESIRE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR. UH, AND IT WOULD JUST, IT WOULD REALLY RUIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THEM. UH, I WON'T GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ITEM. YOU KNOW, IN THE END WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE NEW QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOES NOT EXIST. IT'S MY CLIENT'S DESIRE TO REPEAT THIS THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST SIDE AT ALL OF THEIR PROPERTIES. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THEY'RE DOING. BY BUILDING THESE, WE'LL BE PROVIDING PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN SHOP AT THESE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES NEXT DOOR THAT WE'RE GONNA BE SUPPOSEDLY PROTECTING BY LIMITING THE HEIGHT. I REQUEST THAT YOU AS BOARD MEMBERS LOOK AT THIS AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT VERSUS THE RISK. WE'RE LOOKING AT PROVIDING GREAT QUALITY HOUSING. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT'S DRAMATICALLY OUT OF SCALE WITH WHAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS. THERE'S A LOT OF DIVERSITY IN WHAT THIS LITTLE SECTION IS. UM, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. UH, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS, PLEASE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MINKA? UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA? YES. THE RENDERING YOU'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW, SO AT THE BOTTOM IS THAT'S RIGSBY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. I SEE. SO THE GATE THAT YOU SEE RIGHT NOW THAT I SEE ON GOOGLE IS GONNA BE MOVED OR YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A GATE OPENING? CURRENTLY THERE'S JUST A CHAIN LINK FENCE UP, I THINK TO JUST ENCLOSE THE SITE TEMPORARILY. UM, I DON'T, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE FENCING TO ENCLOSE THE ENTIRE SITE OR NOT. UM, IT WOULD COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE STANDARDS IF IT WAS TO BE PUT IN. I SEE. I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION IF YOU WERE GONNA GO AHEAD AND REPLACE IT. AND [01:50:01] THE OTHER, UH, RELATED TO THAT IS THAT I WAS CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE BACKING UP INTO RIGSBY TO GET OUT. YES, I'VE DESIGNED THE SITE SO THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT SPACE THAT WHEN THEY'RE PARKING INSIDE THE BUILDING, THERE'S ENCLOSED GARAGES, THEN THEY CAN BACK OUT IN THE DRIVEWAY AND EXIT. SO, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY CONFLICT WOULD BE WHEN ONE PERSON IS LEAVING AND THE OTHER IS ARRIVING. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PARK ON RIGSBY OR BACK OUT ONTO RIGSBY AT ANY TIME. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YES. WHAT I SEEN YOU TODAY, MR. D I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA COME BACK ON THE BOARD. , SORRY. NOT YET. THANK YOU FOR ALL THEM 11 YEARS. I'M ASKING, I THINK MY CHOCOLATE, UH, TOOK MY QUESTION AWAY WITH THE INGRESS. EGRESS. OKAY. BUT HAS THIS, UH, SO THE ANSWER WAS IT, HAS THIS CASE COME BEFORE HERE WITH THE SAME SUBJECT, THE SAME AREA? NO, THIS HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. WE HAD IT, WE DID GO BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION LAST YEAR AND RECEIVED APPROVAL TO CHANGE TO RMM FOUR. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I I HAVE A QUESTION. STAFF FOR STAFF. SO THIS ISN'T SUBJECT TO THE, UH, THE, THE 50 FOOT SEPARATION RULE AND THE, AND THE HEIGHT LIMITATION BECAUSE OF THE USES ON EITHER SIDE ARE NOT SINGLE FAMILY. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THIS IS WHY HE HAS TO COME HERE. UM, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, UM, DEFINITELY DOES NOT LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT WAY. UM, AND THAT'S WHY HE HAS TO, UH, COME HERE BEFORE. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, ARE YOU PUTTING IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM OR, OR HAVE YOU LOOKED AT FIRE PREVENTION FOR GOING UP THAT HIGH? UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE FIRE PREVENT FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE SEPARATION AND KEEPING IT AS KIND OF TWO DUPLEXES. OKAY. BUT IF IT COMES UP THAT, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL DEAL WITH IN THE BUDGET. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS YOU MENTIONED IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO PUT MORE OF THESE IN THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND SO THE THREE STORY MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, ON OTHER CASES, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SURROUNDING AREAS THAT, BUT I THINK THIS LOOKS APPROPRIATE WITH THIS SURROUNDING AREA. SO, SO JUST, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, AS YOU COME BEFORE FOR OTHER ONES. NO, ABSOLUTELY. AND I HOPE YOU KNOW ME, I'M CAUTIOUS ON THINGS I DO. UM, EVERY CASE IS UNIQUE. THIS ONE IS SPECIAL TO THIS LOCATION. UH, A DESIGN I DO HERE WOULD NOT BE REPEATED IN ANOTHER PLACE, AND CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. SO, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WELL WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THIS IS THE ONLY DUPLEX I'LL BE OUT THERE. MR. DEAN, I'M SORRY. WILL THIS BE THE ONLY DUPLEX THAT'S OUT THERE? UH, I HAVE A SUSPICION THAT THERE'S ONE OF THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A DUPLEX, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOME. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU GET OFF OF RIGSBY INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, IF THERE HAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, NEW DEVELOPMENT IS CREEPING EAST FROM DOWNTOWN RAPIDLY, AND THEY'RE STARTING TO HAPPEN AS YOU YOU SEE ON THIS BOARD ALL THE TIME. I'M SURE. UM, I CAN'T COMMENT SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE'S A NEW CONSTRUCTION DUPLEX WITHIN AN IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS, THOUGH. COMMISSIONER MINKA. ONE MORE, UH, STAFF. THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH A CURB CUT HERE. UH, THERE'S NO ZONING ISSUE WITH THE CURB CUT. NO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT HERE. QUESTION FOR, YES, COMMISSIONER BEESE, UM, WITH THE, UH, LOOKS GREAT BY THE WAY, BUT, BUT, UH, WITH THE LAND IN THE BACK BEHIND THAT, IS THERE ANY, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY PROPOSED USE FOR THAT IN THE FUTURE, OR IS THAT JUST GONNA REMAIN VACANT? IT'S THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT HAS THE LITTLE, I'LL CALL IT BAKERY SHOP, THAT IS A FLAG LOT AND IT OWNS ALL THE PROPERTY BEHIND THIS ONE. AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LONG-TERM INTENDED USE IS. IT'S REALLY AN UNDERUTILIZED HOUSE BUSINESS OR BUSINESS IN A HOUSE. THANK YOU. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, CAN YOU, UH, CAN CITY STAFF BRING UP ONE STOP? SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS, IS IS AN EYE ZONE NOW, OR, OR IF I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY. SO, SO, SO BASICALLY YOURS IS A DOWN ZONE FROM, FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE ACROSS THE STREET NOW. SO, SO, UM, SO THE STREET MAY GET A LITTLE BIT BUSY WITH REGARDS TO THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT OF IT, BUT, UM, YEAH, AND THIS DOES CALL IT THE FLAG PIECE, SO, SO THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 5. I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORY [01:55:01] HEIGHT TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 1672 RIGSBY AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ALLEN NEFF BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE 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. THREE STORY, A THREE STORY BUILDING WOULD ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE SPACE FOR OCCUPATION AND SO IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 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 UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE. ONLY TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, PREVENTING, UH, ENOUGH, PREVENTING ENOUGH SPACE TO PROVIDE PARKING. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE THREE STORY BUILDING WOULD ALLOW THE, UH, FOR ADEQUATE SPACE FOR OCCUPATION. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THIS 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. THE ADDITIONAL HALF STORY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, AS IS ABUTTING A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND LOCATED ON AN 80 FOOT COLLECTOR STREET. SIX APPLIED. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING THEIR PROPERTY. 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 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, UH, NOT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UM, AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YES, I'LL BE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, ONE IS, UM, TAKE A LOOK. UM, I ASK TO BRING UP THE, THE, UM, ONE STOP SIMPLY BECAUSE IT KIND OF CALLS OUT THE AREA AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, TO ME WHAT THE INTENDED AREA IS GONNA LOOK LIKE. UM, IT IS WRAPPED BY THAT C TWO LOT. AND SO I THINK THAT KIND OF PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF SPACE THERE. AND THEN AS BEN MENTIONED, UH, THERE IS DIALOGUE WITH THE NON-CONFORMING, UH, PROPERTY R SIX NEXT TO IT, BUT IT IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE A, UH, A COMMUNITY PROJECT. UM, AND THEN FINALLY, I THINK FROM A THREE STORY PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, I, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT LONG TERM, BUT HERE ON THIS PROPERTY, I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE, UH, AND, UH, IN THIS AREA. AND SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE IN THE PAST APPROVED THREE STORIES 'CAUSE WE CHANGED THE RULES, KIND OF, KIND OF CALL OUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AND, BUT THIS ONE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. ALRIGHT, GIVEN THE, UH, STAFF APPROVAL, NO OPPOSITION, THE, THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED OUR ZONE COMMERCIAL SPECIFICALLY C TWO. SO THE CONFLICT I DON'T SEE EXISTING BETWEEN, UH, RESIDENTIAL USES IN THIS AND, AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD TO THE, UH, DEBATE? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. BONNI. I CONCUR. MR. CLAUDE CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF ABOUT IT. YEAH. THANK YOU ALL. MM-HMM. . ALRIGHT. DO, UH, WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO TAKE A BREAK OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED AND DO, TRY TO DO ONE MORE? OKAY. FIVE MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY BACK HERE AT 3 0 6. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IT'S THREE 10. I'M CALLING IT BACK, UH, TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER CRUZ HAS REENTERED THE MEETING. THREE 10 MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I, I WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UM, CASE ENDING 1 1 4 AND, UM, YEAH, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR RECONSIDERATION. SO IF A MOTION IS SECOND TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER TWO. UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS THAT THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION IN THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR ITEM ONE OF THIS, OF THIS CASE, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, UH, REGARDING, UH, AS, AS READ, IT WAS LIMITED TO 10 FEET FROM THE FENCE FOR THE SHED, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 15 FEET BASED ON THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED, UH, BY THE APPLICANT, UH, SO THAT THE SHED WOULD STAY IN PLACE AS IS. [02:00:01] SO Y SO YES, THE SHED WOULD STAY AS IT IS AND THEY COULD ONLY, THEY ONLY ALLOW FOR THE, THE, UM, VARIANCE FOR THE FIRST 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE FACADE, RIGHT? YES. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AS THERE. UM, LET'S, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. HEARING NONE THAT WE CAN BE RECONSIDERED. SO COMMISSIONER MANOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, OR WHOEVER IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLARIFY. SO I MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND I'LL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO LIMIT THE DISTANCE OF THE, UH, SETBACK, UH, SITE SETBACK TO THE FIRST 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BACK SO THAT THE EXISTING SHED WOULD REMAIN AS IS BUT COULD NOT BE LOCATED ANY FURTHER FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE OR YOU, YOU WERE USING THE, THE, THE, THE SAME, UH, YEAH, THE SAME, THE SAME. UM, RATIONALE FOR THE MOTION I READ EARLIER WOULD APPLY TO THE, UH, VARIANCE MODIFICATION. OKAY. SO THERE'S A MODIFICATION ONLY TO ITEM NUMBER ONE OF, OF THE MOTION TO, UH, LIMIT IT TO NO LONGER THAN NO FURTHER THAN 15 FEET FROM THE FENCE AS PER THIS SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. UH, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? THE SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM HAS BEEN CLARIFIED. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO A DASH TWO THREE DASH 3 0 1 64. UM, ADDRESS IS 1 1 5 MILTON STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT TWO, APPLICANT BEING RAUL GARZA AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 29 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 15 FOOT NC D SIX CURB CUT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CURB CUTS WITH LENGTHS OF 22 FEET, FIVE INCHES AND 22 FEET, SIX INCHES AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NNC D SIX CURB CUT STANDARDS TO ALLOW TWO CURB CUTS ON A 50 FOOT LOT. UH, THREE A TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FOUR PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW TWO UNITS IN THE NCD. SIX TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES AND FOUR, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT NCD, SIX FRONT WALKWAY STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF A FRONT WALKWAY AND A DRIVEWAY TO BE ONE INCH. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS MF 33. OKAY, THANKS. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 1 5 MOTON STREET NEAR NATAL AVENUE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UH, UPON PERMIT REVIEW, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN MULTIPLE VARIANCES TO DEVIATE FROM THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE N C D SIX MAXIMUM CURB CUT OF 15 FEET TO ALLOW CURB CUTS WITH A LENGTH OF 22 FEET, FIVE INCHES AND 22 FEET SIX INCHES. UH, BOTH CURB CUTS ADD UP TO 44 FEET, 11 INCHES. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO CURB CUTS ON A 50 FOOT LOT WHEN THE NCD SIX REQUIREMENT IS LIMITED TO ONE. UH, FURTHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE IN ENFORCED FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. IT STATES THAT A PARKING MINIMUM OF TWO VEHICLES PER DWELLING IS REQUIRED AND THE APPLICANT IS ANTICIPATING HAVING ONE PER UNIT. UH, LASTLY, THE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF FRONT SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS ARE ENFORCED. THE APPLICANT IS ANTICIPATING TO HAVE A ONE INCH SEPARATION WHILE THE MANDATORY SEPARATION IS FOUR FEET, UM, WHILE THE MF 33 IS PERMITTED 45 FEET AND HEIGHT, IT'S LIMITED TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES AS IT ABUTS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING USE. AND THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS 30 FEET. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE, UM, CURB CUT PARKING SPACE AND THE FRONT WALKWAY VARIANCES, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 16 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, WON THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, ARCHITECTURE, INTEGRITY, AND THE PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEN THESE ARE SOME SNAPSHOTS FROM THE MANKEY PARK, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND THIS IS FOR THE, UM, THE CURB CUT WITH AN AMOUNT HIGHLIGHTED. AND THIS IS FOR THE, UH, FRONT WALKWAYS, THE SEPARATION. AND THIS IS FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. UM, STAFF MAILED OUT 31 NOTICES, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND MANKEY UH, PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUESTS. AND THIS WAS THE NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE PRESIDENT OF MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. [02:05:02] OKAY. UH, DID THIS APPLICANT APPLY FOR A PERMIT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION? UH, CORRECT. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, JUST CHECKING. ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE PLEASE. RAUL GARZA, UH, ONE 15 MILTON. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ADD, UH, PARKING SPOTS. THE ORIGINAL PLAN'S CALLED FOR PARKING IN THE BACK OF THE PARKING AREA THROUGH THE ALLEY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE 90 DEGREE TURN THAT'S THERE WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. SO AS A RESULT, WE'RE REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE. OKAY. WE GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO, SO DID SOMETHING CHANGE WITH REGARDS TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN THEN? YEAH, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THEY WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE ALLEY AREA AND THAT ALLEY AREA HAD A 90 DEGREE TURN. IT WAS ACTUALLY A UTILITY POLE IN THERE AND SO IT WOULD NOT WORK. I DUNNO IF YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE IT'S SHOWING THE BACK PART RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER. CAN YOU USE A LASER POINTER? NO, I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING. I GUESS HOW YOU GOT TO WHERE YOU ARE. SO RIGHT THERE WOULD BE AN EXISTING ALLEY AND THAT TURN RIGHT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN WHERE THEY WERE PARKING. SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? EXCUSE ME. SO YOU'VE BEEN COMING OFF OF MILTON STREET GOING THROUGH THE ALLEY AND PARKING BACK HERE. SO IS THERE PARKING UNDER THE, UNDER THE BUILDINGS? THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED RIGHT NOW. OKAY. AND SO THE, SO THE PARKING GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE TURN, I GUESS? WELL, SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, IT ORIGINALLY CALLED FOR ONE PARKING SPOT IN THE FRONT, WHICH WOULD BE THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. AND THAT ONE GOT APPROVED, THE ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE BACK. OKAY. SO THIS, TO MAKE SURE I'M, I'M GETTING THIS. SO YOU'RE, YOU, YOU SUBMITTED FOR A PERMIT TO PROVIDE THE SECOND PARKING OFF THE ALLEY? WELL, IT ACT ACTUALLY ALLOWED FOR TWO, FOR FOUR PARKING SPOTS. OKAY. BUT, BUT YOU WERE USING THE ALLEY. CORRECT. BUT BECAUSE THERE'S UTILITIES IN THE WAY CORRECT, YOU CANNOT USE THE ALLEY. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THAT'S WHY YOU'VE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS, BUT YOU STILL CAN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. YOU'RE STILL SHORT A COUPLE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO HE WAS, HE HAS TO HAVE SO MANY PARKINGS PER UNIT AND HE WAS RELYING ON HAVING TO TURN DOWN AN ALLEY TO GET TO SOME PARKING IN THE BACK OF THE FACILITY, BUT THERE'S UTILITY POLES IN THE WAY THAT CORRECT. AND, AND THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON A SURVEY AND WELL, IT DID, BUT THE WAY THAT THE UTILITY POLES IN THE 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO GET IN THERE DID NOT, IT JUST, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN MAKE A TURN THERE. OKAY. DOES THAT HELP? I GUESS IT DOES. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS, WELL, I GUESS THE DESIGN OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY, I, I GUESS I WOULD'VE THOUGHT ABOUT TAKING THAT BEFORE INTO THE SPOT. SO, WELL, WE WENT THROUGH TRAFFIC AND THEY HAD TO APPROVED THE ORIGINAL PLANS AND WHEN WE TRIED TO GET THE ALLEY, THEY WANTED TO PAVE THE ALLEY, WE COULDN'T GET IT DONE BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY POLES THAT WERE IN THE WAY. OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE YOU WERE USING THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS, CORRECT? IT WASN'T PAVED, IT WAS A GRASS ALLEY. CORRECT. HOW WIDE IS THE ALLEY? UH, I'M GONNA SAY PROBABLY ABOUT 18 FEET OR SO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANNA, CAN THOSE POLES BE MOVED BY CHANCE? IT WOULD TAKE A ACT OF CONGRESS TO GET THAT MOVED? WELL, YOU, IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO DO STUFF IF YOU SPEND ENOUGH MONEY. YEAH. BUT, UH, STAFF, WAS THIS ORIGINALLY GRANTED A PERMIT, UH, WITH, WITH A, A CAVEAT TO PAY PAVE THE ALLEY? IS THERE, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE ISSUED A PERMIT? YES, SIR. OKAY. ANNA, COMMISSIONER. SO, SO QUESTION I HAVE IS, SO, SO MICKEY PARK IS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THEM? WE ACTUALLY CALLED 'EM THE DAY BEFORE THEY GOT THE NOTICES. SO THEY, THEY HAD NOT ADDRESSED IT, SO WE WANTED TO TALK TO 'EM. WE ACTUALLY MADE A PHONE CALL TO 'EM AND THEY WEREN'T RETURNED. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, UM, MANCHACA. SO BASICALLY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT JUST SAID, IT'S A RECONFIGURATION THAT YOU CANNOT, YOU HAVE TO PUT TWO IN THE BACK BOTTOM. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL BOTTOM LINE. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN. RIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT WORKING. IT'S NOT GONNA WORK. GOT IT. AND SO, SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS, UM, OF THE FOUR DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS, IS ARE THEY ALL LINKED TOGETHER? YES. IS THERE ANY OF THEM THAT COULD GO AWAY? NO. THEY'RE ALL LINKED TOGETHER. AND, AND, UH, SO WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF IF NONE OF THIS PASSES? I MEAN, WHAT IS THE RESOLUTION? BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS IN THE AIR, CORRECT? CORRECT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED FOR, UM, DOES, DOES HE HAVE A PATH TO, TO DO SOMETHING IF THIS FAILS? UH, IF HE CHANGES IT TO ONE UNIT, THEN THAT WILL ELIMINATE THE PARKING ONE. UM, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE DRIVEWAY, HE WOULD HAVE ROOM TO DO THE SEPARATION OF THE FIVE FEET FROM THE WALKWAY. [02:10:01] AND THAT WOULD ALSO TAKE CARE OF THE CARB CUT WARRANT. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SOLUTION. UNLESS, UNLESS THIS IS APPROVED. AND DID YOU TRY TO GO TO C P S AND SEE AND JUST INQUIRE IF THE WE WE'VE TALKED TO THEM, IT, IT WOULD TAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS. THERE'S UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THERE'S A FIBER OPTICS UNDERNEATH THERE ALSO. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANN. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK WITH MANKEY PARK? WE, WE WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS GONNA BE COMPLIMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY HAVE RIBBON DRIVEWAYS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. SO, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, AND AN OPTION THAT WE COULD CONSIDER IS A CONTINUANCE, YOU KNOW, SO WE GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY, GET THEIR BUY-IN AND THEN I WOULD FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, IN THIS WHOLE DIALOGUE. HONESTLY. I, I AGREE WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? GIMME TWO WEEKS. AND, UH, STAFF, WHEN'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO, IS IT THE FIRST ONE IN AUGUST, JULY? UH, 24TH IS THE NEXT MEETING. IT'S TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? GIVE ME TILL THE NEXT HEARING. OKAY. WHEN'S THE, WHEN'S THE NEXT ONE? IN AUGUST. AUGUST 7TH. ALL RIGHT. SO AUGUST 7TH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 7TH. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. UH, WE HAVE ONE NAY. AND LET'S DO ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA. AYE. MS. CRUZ? AYE. MR. SPIELMAN? AYE. MR. MANCHACA? AYE. MR. DEAN NAY. MR. ZUNIGA NAY. MR. VASQUEZ? AYE. MS. BRAGMAN AYE. MR. OZUNA AYE. MR. EZ AYE. CHAIR ORIAN AND YES, UH, MO A MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. UH, ITEM IS CONTINUED FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST, ALL CASE NUMBER 10. ALL RIGHT. UH, CASE NUMBER 10 IS BO A 1 65 LOCATED AT 44 0 1 STATEMENT DRIVE DISTRICT THREE, APPLICANT BEING MR. COPE. UH, REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARI FOR THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK ZONING BEING R FIVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT A CORNER OF A STATEMENT DRIVE IN THE FAR EAST SOUTHEAST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. TO DATE, NO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD. ON FILE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UPON SITE, UH, STATUS SITE VISITS THAT OBSERVED A FEW CARPORTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITH A SIMILAR SETBACK AND THE CARPORT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED. SLIDE, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREAS. AND WE DID OBSERVE THIS CARPORT, UH, COUPLE LOTS DOWN, UM, THAT CO COMPLIANCE IS CURRENTLY ENGAGED WITH. SO THIS ONE YOU SHOULD SEE SHORTLY. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL N B O A 1 65 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. FINAL OF FACT, THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE OUTTA CHARACTER OF THE, THE AREA AND THE STRUCTURE IS ONLY TWO FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT OF PROPERTY LINE AND MAY NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH WATER RUNOFF. NEXT SLIDE. 37 NOTICES WERE MAILED. ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE PECAN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. HERE IS THE TWO RESPONSES THAT WE RECEIVED. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALRIGHT, COME ON UP. TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS RONALD RONALD KEPP. UH, I'M HERE TO REQUEST GETTING A CARPORT INSTALLED IN MY DRIVEWAY SINCE RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF HAILSTORMS. MY VEHICLE, IT'S A TACOMA FOUR DOOR PRE-RUNNER. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 18 FEET LONG, AND THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF IS 20 FOOT FROM THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I DID, I DID WORK WITH THE STAFF AS FAR AS CHANGING. ORIGINALLY I HAD ASKED THE POST BE TWO AND A HALF [02:15:01] FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG. WE'VE CHANGED IT TO FOUR FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A THREE AND A HALF, WHICH IS GONNA GIVE THE SAME DISTANCE FOR THE, THE EDGE OF THE CARPORT. IT'S JUST GONNA MOVE THE POST BACK. UM, THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD. THEY'RE ALL IN AN 16 FOOT EASEMENT IN THE BACK. SO NOTHING WILL BE A, THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS A WATERLINE, WHICH I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR. UM, I DON'T SEE ANY TYPE OF, UH, HARDSHIP FOR THE NEIGHBORS. UH, LIKE I SAID, UH, THERE ARE OTHER, UH, RESIDENCES WITH SIMILAR IN THAT SUBDIVISION. FIVE YEARS AGO I WANTED TO DO THIS. I TOOK PICTURES. THERE WERE MAYBE SIX, SEVEN DRIVEWAYS THAT WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. WHEN I WENT THIS TIME I FOUND 28 THAT WERE EITHER NOT IN COMPLIANCE OR VERY QUESTIONABLE. THERE'S BEEN A LONG, UH, A BIG CHANGE. I DID TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE I WAS A MEMBER OF. I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 86. AND NO ONE EVER CON AND I TALKED TO MY NEIGHBORS, NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT SHE SAID SHE HAD NO PROBLEM. I TALKED TO HER THIS MORNING. SHE WAS ON A FLIGHT SOMEWHERE, UH, TO SEE HER GRANDKIDS. UM, BUT IT IS A BASIC DETACHED, SLANTED FLAT ROOF. AND LIKE I SAID, I JUST WANTED TO PROTECT MY VEHICLES. UM, OKAY. THAT'S IT. UH, WAS THIS, WAS THIS PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY WHEN IT WAS BUILT ORIGINALLY? YES. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO ASK 'CAUSE I, I NOTICED THAT YOUR STREET DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIDEWALKS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET AND, AND, BUT THEY'RE PRESENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THE REASON FOR THAT, UH, THE CONTRACTOR DISAPPEARED WHILE THEY WERE , UH, PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARED. UM, SO THESE HOUSES WERE IN ALL STAGES OF COMPLETION. MINE, UH, IT WAS MAYBE 60, 70% COMPLETED. IT DID NOT HAVE A DRIVEWAY. OKAY. AND TO VERIFY THAT YOU'RE AS, AS REQUESTED, IT'S FOR A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT COULD GO DOWN TO A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH VARIANCE BECAUSE YOU COULD BE THREE AND A HALF. IS THAT WHAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH STAFF? IF, IF I CAN BRING IT BACK AND, AND WHEN WE'RE REFERENCING THE PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY FLAG. WELL, THAT LINE FROM THE APRON, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THREE INCHES PAST THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT, UH, I'M, I'M ASKING IF I CAN PUT MAYBE F FOUR FOOT FROM THAT LINE AND THEN A THREE AND A HALF OVERHANG SO IT WILL ACTUALLY COVER MY TRUCK. SO YOU'RE, YOU WOULD PUT THE EDGE OF POST THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM THAT LINE. THE, THE POST WOULD BE FOUR FOOT FOUR, THE EDGE, THE FACE OF POST ON THE STREET. CORRECT. OKAY. SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS A, IS A SIX FOOT VARIANCE. UH, AND THEN, YEAH. OKAY. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. AND AS FAR AS ON THE EVERYTHING'S IN COMPLIANCE, IT'S A FIVE FOOT. ALRIGHT. UM, YES. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING NONE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTARY, ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO CLAR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND. SO THE POST IS GONNA BE FOUR FEET AND HOW MUCH OF A OVERHANG? THREE AND A HALF. I DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE STAFF MEMBER. NO, THAT'S FINE. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO OVER FIVE. RIGHT? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 1 65, I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT OR REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK SITUATED AT 4 4 0 1 STATEMENT DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING RONALD CAP, CAP, CAP, NO RELATION TO CHEVROLET. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCED, SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUESTED FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT AND WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREAS. 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 CONSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY TO MEET THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. SUBJECT IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO [02:20:01] MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPREAD OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE BEING PROPOSED. THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. OTHER OF 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 VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE DISTANCE OF THE CARPORT IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THERE CARPORT, SIMILAR SETBACKS AROUND THE AREA AS THERE ARE, UM, SIXTH PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS NOT SOUGHT. VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS NOT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT WOULD LIMIT THE CARPORT AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED, UM, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE CHANGE IN, UM, THE, THE SETBACK INSTEAD OF, UH, UH, SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH, THAT HE'S GONNA GO TO HIS SIX FOOT. AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS, UH, ALONG THERE, UM, AND HE'S GOING TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, NOT TO THE CURB. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS, BUT OF COURSE, UH, YOU MIGHT LOSE IT IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO MAKE YOUR SIDEWALK, SIR. SO GOOD LUCK. CAN I, CAN I ADD ONE THING? UH, NO. WELL, I'M SORRY SIR, WE HAVE TO. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA? NO, JUST IN RESPONSE. SO, UM, GOOGLE DRIVING AROUND, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES ARE KIND OF ABIDING BY THE SAME DISTANCE HERE. THERE'S ONE OR TWO THAT PROBABLY WE WILL BE SEEING, UH, WILL, WHICH WILL HAVE A LOT HARDER DIALOGUE. BUT, BUT THIS ONE I THINK I AGREE. YEAH. AND ANYONE ELSE, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE THIS ONE PORTION OF THIS ONE BLOCK DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. BUT ALSO IT ALSO HAS A SHORTER DRIVEWAY LENGTH THAN A LOT OF THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK IT'S A HARDSHIP ON THAT, THAT CASE, UH, TOO. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. STEELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. MAAM. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. EZ I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? TALK TO STAFF. NO, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD WITH THAT SIDEWALK ONE CODE COMPLIANCE SAID I NEEDED IT. THE OTHER ONE SAID IF THEY WANT A SIDEWALK, THEY CAN WALK ACROSS THE STREET. ? YES SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 11? YEP. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11, BO O A 1 66 LOCATED AT 88 34 THAT DRIVE DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT BRIANNA JOSEPHA VALEZ REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT FIVE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SEVEN INCH FRONT SETBACK. ZONING BEING R SIX. SUBJECT LOCATED, UH, FAST DRIVE, THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A NEW CARPORT WITH TWO FOOT SEVEN INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE CARPORT DOES, DOES MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. THERE'S CURRENTLY A CODE OF ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS AS INITIATED JANUARY, 2023. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY INSIDE THE CARPORT AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO O A 1 66 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACT THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE OUTTA CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF THE CARPORT AT 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 25 NOTICES MAILED OUT ONE IN FAVOR, NO OPPOSED. AND WILDWOOD NEVER ASSOCIATION, NOT RESPOND. THAT IS THE ONE, UH, RESPONSE THAT WE RECEIVED. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HI, UH, PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE PLEASE. YES, [02:25:01] SO MY NAME IS JOSEFINA VELES AND I RESIDE AT, UH, 8 8 3 4. THAT DRIVE WITH MY HUSBAND. I DO HAVE, UM, UM, I TOOK A LITTLE SURVEY FROM MY NEIGHBORS AND NONE OF THEM HAD CONCERNS AND I HAVE 'EM HERE. UM, WE DID, UH, CONSTRUCT THAT CARPORT WITHOUT, UM, OBTAINING A PERMIT AND THAT WE, UH, DID NOT REALIZE THAT, UH, WE WOULD BE OUT OF CODE. UM, WE, UM, MAINLY CONSTRUCTED IT FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR VEHICLES AND FOR THE ELEMENTS. UM, WE DID CHECK WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AS I SAID, AND NONE OF THEM SEEM TO HAVE A, A, A CONCERN. UM, AND, UM, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I'M SORRY, , WE, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, JUST QUICKLY, UH, STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO HAVE A, UM, A FUNCTIONING CARPORT AND STILL BE 10 FEET AWAY. MM-HMM. , HOW DEEP IS IT FROM THE FACE OF YOUR GARAGE, UH, TO THE PROPERTY LINE? UM, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE A PLAN. UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CERTAIN, SIR. I DON'T KNOW. OH, WELL, HOW, HOW LONG IS YOUR CARPORT NOW? IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 26, UH, FEET, I BELIEVE. OKAY. 26 FEET. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER, MANNA? SO, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, SO, SO WE HAVE LOTS OF DIALOGUES WITH REGARD. WELL, SO I LIVE CLOSE BY MM-HMM. . AND SO IN THIS COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T VERY MANY CARPORTS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND, AND THOSE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WERE, UM, WE'LL SAY ATTACHED AND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM, FROM THE SIDEWALK ITSELF. SO YOURS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT I SAW. RIGHT. UM, SO, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS, COULD THE FRONT BE SHORTENED A LITTLE BIT SO THAT IT WASN'T SO, SO FAR CLOSE? IT WASN'T SO CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK. REALLY HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED THAT IT IS A METAL BUILDING. UH, IT IS, UH, BOLTED TO THE CONCRETE. UM, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE. I HAVE, I DON'T KNOW, SIR. UM, BY THE WAY, I DID ALSO TAKE PICTURES OF THE, UM, CARPORTS IN THE AREA AND I, I DO BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN HAS SOME THAT WE COULD, UH, SHOW THAT I FELT THERE WERE SOME THAT, UH, ARE ALSO, UH, IN THE SAME KIND OF CONSTRUCTION AS AS, UM, CAN YOU PUT 'EM INDIVIDUALIZED OR NOT? UH, YEAH, IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME SEVERAL OF THEM WERE LIKE FOUR FOOT OFF FROM THE SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, SO, SO THEY WERE KIND OF SPACED BACK A LITTLE BIT AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT MANY THAT WERE RIGHT AGAINST THE SIDEWALK. AND THAT'S REALLY KINDA THAT LINE. BUT THAT PARTICULAR ONE IS LIKE, OH MA'AM, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? OH, I'M SORRY. I SAID THAT PARTICULAR ONE, UH, IS KIND OF IN, IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND THAT'S THE OTHER ONE I SAW THAT YEAH, WE PROBABLY HAVE DIALOGUE WITH. YEAH. SO, UH, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT, UM, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THAT MY HUSBAND IS, UH, A VETERAN AND HE'S, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT DISABLED. UH, AND I DO HAVE, UM, UH, A CHILD THAT HAS DOWN SYNDROME. SO WHEN I SAY, UH, WE, UH, WANTED TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE ELEMENTS, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THE RAIN AND WHEN IT'S COLD AND, AND WHAT HAVE YOU. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO IS THAT A TWO CAR GARAGE THAT YOU HAVE? YES MA'AM. YES MA'AM. IS IT MA'AM ENCLOSED OR IT IS ENCLOSED, YES. OKAY. SO MEANING THAT YOU CAN'T PARK CARS IN THERE? NOT AT THE MOMENT, NO. WE, IT'S, UH, WE DO HAVE, UM, A LOT OF, UH, PERSONAL STUFF IN THE GARAGE. OKAY. BUT, UM, BUT YOU DON'T USE IT FOR LIKE LIVING SPACE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO. NO. OKAY. THERE'S JUST LOTS OF STUFF. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO, UH, MY QUESTION IS IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACTOR, I MEAN, YOU, YOU BUILT THIS WITHOUT PERMITS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND WHO WAS THE CONTRACTOR? DID YOU, SO WE ORDERED THIS FROM OUTTA STATE AND THEY HAD A DISTRIBUTOR THAT I GUESS THEY CONTACTED TO ACTUALLY COME IN AND, AND INSTALL IT. UM, WE DIDN'T CONSIDER IT, IT WASN'T MENTIONED FOR US TO GET A, UM, A PERMIT. SO WHO WAS THE CONTRACTOR THAT THE NAME OF THE, UM, IT'S EAGLE CARPORTS IS THE NAME OF THE, THE, THE COMPANY WE PURCHASED IT FROM. AND MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WE TYPICALLY LIKE TO SEE GUTTERS ON THE SIDES SPECIFICALLY 'CAUSE IT SLOPES TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBOR, UM, THAT'S MOST AFFECTED BY THAT RUNOFF ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? BOTH, BOTH OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE [02:30:01] HAD NO CONCERNS WHATSOEVER. THE ONE ON THE, UH, THE WEST SIDE, UM, IS ONE OF THE NOTICES THAT SHE GAVE US JUST NOW. YEAH, BOTH OF THEM. THANK YOU. BOTH SIDES. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY, NO ONE'S UNDER THE SPEAK. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SORRY. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 6, I MOVE AT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 10 FOOT FRONT HEAD BACK TO ALLOW CAR CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET SEVEN INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 88 34 ATTACHED DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING JOSEFINA VALEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT IT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUESTED FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT AND WILL NOT NEG NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREAS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE AUDIENCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTING THE, CONSTRUCTING THE STRUCTURE TO MEET THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE BEING PROPOSED. THIS WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE DISTANCE OF THE CARPORT IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THEIR CARPORT DESIGN IS SIMILAR TO THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS NOT SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF, WOULD LIMIT THE CARPORT AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, I THINK THE, THE CARPORT THE WAY IT LOOKS IS GREAT. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS SINCE, SINCE THE NEIGHBORS ARE, ARE AGREEABLE WITH THIS SITUATION. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, UH, TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE COMMUNITY KIND OF CONSISTENT AND SO I WOULDN'T MIND PUSHING THIS BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND SO MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT, WOULD BE TO GRANT SOMETHING SIMILAR TO LAST THING, WHICH IS, UH, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE OF MOVE IT FOUR FOOT BACK. AND SO THEY MOVE THE POST, I THINK, AND STILL KEEP THE SAME STRUCTURE ESSENTIALLY, BUT JUST MOVE THE POST BACK. I AGREE WITH THAT. CHA. SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN, UH, REQUESTED, AMENDED AND, AND CHANGED. UH, SO IT'S CHANGING FROM A, UH, TWO AND A HALF FOOT OF, I'M SORRY, SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE TO A SIX SIX FOOT VARIANCE. FOOT VARIANCE. UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, UH, I CONCUR WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUE. RIGHT? THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD TO, TO THE DEBATE? HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. UH, THE MOTION HAS HAS, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO BE A, UM, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORPORAL TO STAND UP TO FOUR FOOT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I'LL CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. [02:35:01] VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. RAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. BONILLA. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF THOUGH IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. NO, NO QUESTIONS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 12. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 12 IS BO O A 1 69 APPLICANT BEING MR. SANDS COUNSEL, OBJECT FIVE. LOCATED AT 10 11 STONEWALL AVENUE. ZONE R FOUR. REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANT FROM THE MINERAL 10 FOOT FRONT. STEP BACK NEXT SLIDE. C PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHWEST AT THE INTERSECTION OF IH 37 WEST SOUTH CROSS BOULEVARD. PROPERTY OWNER REBUILT A CARPORT THAT APPEARED TO BE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND DID NOT APPLY FOR A PERMIT. THE NEW ATTACHED CARPORT POST IS SIX FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. THE OVERHANG DOES NOT REQUIRE VARIANCE SINCE IT IS NOT WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE. PARKING DEPTH OF THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING STRUCTURE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET. IT IS THE SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE NEW CARPORT AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 1 69 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACT THE REQUEST WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CARPORT OVERHANG DOES NOT GO BEYOND FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 37 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSED, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE LINA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. UH, A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE AGENDA. IT LISTS THAT YOU WERE ORIGINALLY IN DENIAL, RECOMMENDING DENIAL, CORRECT? UM, WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS AND IT WASN'T UPDATED AT THE LAST MINUTE. OKAY, THANK YOU. IT WAS APPROVAL THOUGH. SORRY. ALRIGHT, NO PROBLEM. I'LL SEND THE APPLICANT. COME FORWARD PLEASE. WE NEED A TRANSLATOR. HELLO SIR, IF YOU COULD TELL US YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR C UM, SO I'M TRYING TO HAVE A, A, UM, CARPORT MADE TO PROTECT MY CAR. I DIDN'T HIRE NOBODY. I'M TRYING TO FIX A CLASSIC CAR FOR MY SON THAT IS GONNA GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE. SO I WANTED TO PROTECT THE CAR BECAUSE OF THE HAILSTORMS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING LAST TIME. IT DESTROYED THE, THE, THE ROOF. UH, MY FAMILY WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE CARPENTRY, THEY'RE HELPING ME WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORCH. I DIDN'T HIRE NOBODY. AND SINCE I WORK IN CONSTRUCTIONS AND I KNOW ABOUT FOUNDATIONS, I DID THE PART, UM, THERE WAS AN EXISTING PORCH ALREADY, BUT IT WAS, UH, VERY DETERIORATED FROM THE, UH, THE ROOF. SO I TOOK IT DOWN AND I STARTED DOING MY OWN PORCH. I WORK, UM, IN CONSTRUCTION, LIKE I SAID. SO FROM THE, FROM THE SIDES, THE, UM, FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB, FROM FROM THE SIDES OF THE, [02:40:01] THE, THE GATES, YOU KNOW, ON THE SIDES TO THE HOUSE, THERE'S FIVE FEET. AND THEN FROM THE FOUR FROM THE STREET TOWARDS THE HOUSE, UH, THERE'S A DISTANCE OF MM-HMM FROM THE CURB, FROM THE FACE OF THE ON 10 FEET, THERE'S ALWAYS 10 FEET. UHHUH. THE CITY PROPERTY FROM CITY PROPERTY, FROM THE FACE OF THE, I HAVE FROM THE, FROM, FROM THE POST PORCH OF THE PORCH. IT'S 10 FEET. THE NEW ROOF IS FROM THE PROPERLY LINE. PS THERE SHOULD BE 10 FEET. BUT IF I DO IT, BUT IF I DO IT LIKE THAT, THEN IT'S NOT GONNA GET TO COVER MY CAR. AND I DIDN'T. HOW WAS THE, THE OLD, UM, CARPORT? I HAVE A, A PICTURE HERE. IF YOU, IF YOU CAN LOOK FOR IT ON GOOGLE, IF YOU CAN CAN PUT THE, UH, YOU CAN PUT THE GOOGLE PICTURE FROM THE TIME LAPSE TO SHOW THE OLD CARPORT. YEAH. I ACTUALLY SAW IT ON GOOGLE. IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEW CARPORT MIGHT BE THREE OR FOUR FEET FURTHER TOWARDS THE STREET. THERE WAS A OLD PORT, THE OLD CARPORT, AND I DID IT THE SAME SIZE THAT THE OLD ONE WAS FROM THE, FROM THE GATE I HAVE FIVE FEET TO, TO THE POLE. BUT FROM THE, FROM THE STREET CAR, IT'S 10 FEET MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS, SO IT HAS THIS OLD ONE HERE HAS THREE POSTS. DID HE BASICALLY REPLACE THOSE POSTS AND USE THAT AS THE STRUCTURE FOR HIS NEW, UM, CAR? TWO FEET BY TWO FEET BY TWO FEET DEEP. AND, AND, AND I PUT A NEW POST VIE. I WORK ON CONCRETE. SO I DIG IN THE TWO FEET BY TWO FEET BY TWO FEET WITH REBAR AND EVERYTHING. YEAH, GO AHEAD. UM, WHAT HE'S SAYING THAT IS THAT IT WAS FOUR POSTS HE MEANT, OR FOUR INCHES AND THEN HE DID THE REST. BUT UM, HE DID IT HIMSELF. HE TOOK ALL THE OLD ONE. YEAH, BUT DID HE REPLACE THE, IN THE SAME PLACE? 'CAUSE THE NEW THE NEW CARPORT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK. NO, THEY'RE THE SAME WAY. SAME WAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER MANCHACA. UH, I JUST HAVE ONE UH, LITTLE CONCERN HERE. UH, THE OLD CAR PORT WAS SMALL. IT WAS FLAT AND HE WENT UP TO THE HOUSE. AND THEN THE NEW ONE THAT HE PUT A GABLE IS A LOT MORE WEIGHT. SO HE PUT MORE WEIGHT ON THE PLATE ON THE HOUSE, ON TOP OF THE HOUSE. HE, DID HE CONSIDER THAT? UH, YES. THEY, THEY CUT PART OF THE ROOF TO PUT THE NEW, UH, CARPORT ON TOP. AND THEY PUT MORE VINS TO SUPPORT THE NEW, THE MORE WEIGHT. YES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. PUTTING MORE LOAD. IF YOU PUT MORE LOAD, YOU CHANGE THE STRUCTURE, YOU NEED A PERMIT OR ENGINEERING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. SO QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, HAS THERE BEEN A PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON THIS? NO. THE PERMIT, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT. THAT IF HE GETS APPROVED BY THIS AND IF HE DOES NEED AN ENGINEER LETTER, THAT WOULD BE PART OF A PERMANENT PROCESS. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU TIE INTO A ROOF, THERE WOULD BE A SUPER STRUCTURE LETTER FROM THE, FROM AN ENGINEER. YES. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [02:45:01] HEARING NONE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? ANY ANYONE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. LET'S SEE HERE. UM, I MOVED THAT, UH, LET'S SEE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 9, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE SIX FOOT FRONT, UH, FRONT SETBACK LOCATED AT 1 0 1 1 STONEWALL AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING JOSE'S, UH, SIGNS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE E D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE REQUESTED CARPORT WOULD HAVE A SIX FOOT FRONT SETBACK, WHICH WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS A SIMILAR CARPORT IS ABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A POST MOVE FOUR FEET FROM THE REAR AND THE OVERHANG ENDING IN THE SAME LOCATION. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT HAVING TO MAINTAIN A CARPORT 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET, WHICH WOULD NOT COVER THE, AN ENTIRE VEHICLE WITH THE CURRENT REQUIRED SETBACK. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AS A PERMITTED CARPORT. OVERHANG CAN GO UP TO FIVE FEET. FRONT PROPERTY LINE. UM, FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCES 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. STAFF FINDS REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE OVERHANG WILL STOP AT THE SAME LOCATION WITH POST MOVE BACK TO THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. SIX. THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT NEARLY MY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH, UH, THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS NOT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SPACE IN FRONT OF THE DWELLING DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR A FULL 10 FOOT SETBACK AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT VEHICLES. AND THE MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO I WILL BE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, ONE IS, YOU KNOW, I'D ASKED A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS REGARDING WHERE THE CURRENT FOOTINGS WERE AND, AND, AND TO ME IT LOOKED LIKE IT DID, UH, WAS MATCHING IT AND, AND, UH, THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED THAT. UM, AND THEN SECOND, I THINK, UM, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE BROUGHT UP THE POINT ABOUT, UM, THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WE'LL ENSURE THAT, UH, THAT EVERYTHING IS BUILT, UH, FOR, FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY. AND SO THAT, SO THAT WILL BE VALIDATED AS WELL. AND THEN I THINK, YOU KNOW, OVERALL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LOOKING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN ELSEWHERE. SO, UH, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK WITH THE APPROVAL THAT HE'S GONNA GET IN WITH, UH, THE ADDITIONAL, UH, PERMITS, UH, HE SHOULD BE APPLYING WITH THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE UNLESS OF ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. GER I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS, . THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 13. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS BO A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 5. ADDRESS IS 8 1 8 VIRGINIA BOULEVARD IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. UM, APPLICANT IS MIKASA DESIGN ARCHITECTURE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR AN 826 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT. LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 3,174 SQUARE FOOT LOT. AND TWO, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM AND 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM, THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR. [02:50:02] THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG VIRGINIA BOULEVARD NEAR SOUTH PINE STREET. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH THE APPLICANT ANTICIPATING ON CONSTRUCTING A DUPLEX. A C C O D WAS UH, ISSUED AND IS QUALIFIED FOR A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM MOD SIZE TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE 3,174 SQUARE FEET. UM, UPON REVIEW BY STAFF, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE REAR SETBACK TO BE FIVE FEET AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MINIMUM OF LOT SIZE REAR SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS, UH, COVERAGE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A DASH UH, TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 7 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE STAFF FINDS THESE REQUESTS ARE NOT CONTRARY AS DEVIATING FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WILL NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY FOR THE ASSIGNED ZONING DISTRICT, UH, TO THE ANTICIPATED REAR SETBACK DISTANCE ALLOWS AN ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF SPACING AND THREE WATER, UH, WILL STILL BE ALLOWED TO PENETRATE THE SURFACE AS THE PLANNED FRONT YARD IMPERVIOUS COVER IS REQUIRED FOR, UH, THE PARKING DRIVEWAYS. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. UH, STAFF MAILED OUT 40 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUESTS. AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE FROM DENVER HEIGHTS. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. SO THIS IS ON RMM FOUR, NOT R FOUR, RIGHT? UH, CORRECT. R RMM FOUR. AND THEY'RE GOING FOR THREE STORIES ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, CORRECT? YES SIR. AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. LEMME CHECK ON THAT REAL QUICK. OKAY? YEAH. 'CAUSE IT'S STILL CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY, RIGHT? IF THEY BUILD A DUPLEX OR, OR NOT. NO, MULTIFAMILY IS FIVE OR MORE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CHECK. 'CAUSE WE HEARD ON THAT PREVIOUS CASE WE HEARD WE HAD A, A, UH, SOMEBODY WHO WAS HERE FOR A HEIGHT REDUCTION BECAUSE, UH, THEY WERE IN A, UM, RMM FOUR I THOUGHT, OR WAS I INCORRECT ON THAT? NO, IT WAS I D Z. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS DIFFERENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON FOR YOUR TIME. NAME IS ROLANDO CASTRO. I'M WITH THE, UH, MCCASTLE DESIGN. UM, WE'RE REPRESENTING MR. ADRIAN ORTIZ. HE WAS HERE EARLIER, YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO WORK. UM, AS STATED, WE'RE, UH, HE'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE OF THE LOT AS WELL AS THE REAR SETBACKS AND THE 50% IMPERIOUS COVERAGE. UM, THE, UH, PROPERTY SURROUNDING IN THIS, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALL R M FOUR AS WELL AS Y'ALL LOOK AT THE, UM, ZONING, UH, MAPS. UM, IT WILL BE A THREE STORE DUPLEX. THAT'S THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN RIGHT NOW. UM, OVERHANGS AND, UM, ANY, UM, UM, DRAINAGE WOULD BE WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SET BACKS, UM, GUTTERS AND SO AND SO FORTH. UM, IT WOULD BE, UM, AGAIN, A THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH TYPE OF DUPLEX ON THAT PART. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO WE SAW THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM DENVER HEIGHTS. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND DISCUSS THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT OR WHAT DO WHAT IS THE I DIDN'T REALLY SEE WHAT THE, THE ISSUE WAS. NO, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO, UM, TO SPEAK WITH THEM. BUT THERE ARE OTHER, UM, PROJECTS WITHIN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE ALSO WITHIN THE SAME LIMITS AS FAR AS SETBACKS, THREE STORIES AND SO FORTH. WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS GONNA BE AN OPPOSITION BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY, UM, SURROUNDING AREAS WITH THAT TYPE OF PROJECTS. YEAH. THANK YOU CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT HOMES ALREADY SET UP THIS WAY? YES. BUILT IN THE AREA. YES. SO WHY ARE THEY OPPOSING THIS ONE? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. GOOD QUESTION FOR THEM. YEAH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO ACTUALLY IT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU, FOR THEM, YOU KNOW, SO TO GET BACK WITH THEM. SO, UM, YOU, I GUESS A QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS THE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND SO, SO THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, I, I, YOU KNOW, SAN ANTONIO, YOU KNOW, HAS CERTAINLY LOTS OF WATER CHALLENGES AND, AND YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M NOT NECESSARILY PROPONENT FOR BASICALLY PAVING IN THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD HERE. UM, AND THEN THE SECOND, YOU KNOW, IS THIS THE ONLY DESIGN THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THIS PROPERTY TO PROVIDE FOR, UM, AN RMM STRUCTURE? AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER HOMES AROUND YOU. YOU KNOW, WHILE THEY MAY BE ZONED R RMM FOUR ARE NOT, THEY'RE STILL BEING USED AS SINGLE FAMILY [02:55:01] RESIDENTS. SO, SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE INSERTING, YOU KNOW, IN THERE. AND SO I, SO I DO HAVE SOME CHALLENGES THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT, PLEASE. OKAY. AND, AND I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. UH, SO HOW WIDE ARE YOUR DRIVEWAYS BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW? UH, THE DRIVEWAYS ARE GONNA BE APPROXIMATELY AROUND, UM, I BELIEVE LIKE 12 FOOT. THEY'RE 12 FOOT WIDE EACH. 12 FOOT, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. AND, AND AS COMMISSIONER MANON MAY HAVE MENTIONED, UM, YOU COULDN'T JUST PUT ONE DRIVEWAY 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE 11 FOOT SEVEN TO THE EDGE OF YOUR CARPORT. WE COULD JUST DRIVEWAY TO A SINGLE, JUST DO A SINGLE AND HAVE 'EM ALL SPAN INTO THE, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, UH, CARPORT FOR TWO CARS ON, HONESTLY. SO WE CAN REDUCE THAT DOWN TO A SINGLE DRIVE. I'LL SEE. SO IF EVERYONE HEARD THAT THEY, THE ISSUE REGARDING THE 50% COULD BE ADDRESSED BY THEM REDUCING THE, INSTEAD OF PUTTING TWO SEPARATE 12 FOOT DRIVEWAYS, JUST PUTTING IN ONE AND THAT, SO THAT, THAT'S ONE ITEM. UM, WHERE ARE THE AC UNITS GOING ON THESE? 'CAUSE WITH A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER, ARE YOU GONNA BE PUTTING YOUR AC UNITS LIKE IN THE BACK? IT POSSIBLY TOWARDS THE BACK, YEAH. ON THAT PART. SO YOU'LL HAVE THE HOUSE AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE AC UNIT AND THEN A FENCE IN THE FENCE? YES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THAT DOES IT FOR ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. MINKA? SO, UH, THE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS THE ONE I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. SO A RIBBON DRIVEWAY'S NOT AN OPTION? UH, YEAH, IT'S AN OPTION. IT'S NOT OUT OF, OUT OF QUESTION. UM, THEY'VE, UM, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO NEIGHBORING, UM, NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE A SINGLE DRIVE, BUT WE CAN DO A, A BAN, UH, FOR THEIR DRIVE THERE. SO, YEAH. THANK YOU, SIR. MM-HMM. ? YEAH. THE, THE APPLICANT IS, AND HE CAN GO DOWN TO ONE DRIVEWAY AND THEN THE, THAT 50% CAN JUST GO AWAY. MM-HMM. . SURE. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE STILL YEAH. SINGLE DRIVEWAY ON EACH ONE. YEAH. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE OF, UH, UM, VARIANCES THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED THROUGH REDESIGNING AND THEN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE DENVER HEIGHTS. AND GIVEN THAT, I THINK, AM I READING WHERE WE'D LIKE TO GET SOME COMMUNICATION BACK FROM THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S INPUT WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU MIGHT BE PROPOSING? IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERING HERE ANOTHER CONTINUANCE TO GET SOME OTHER FEEDBACK. AM I KIND OF GETTING THAT DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD HERE? I SECOND THAT. OKAY. UM, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS THAT WE, IT, IT'S VERY COMMON FOR US TO, TO, TO ASK FOR PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO A NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION OR THEIR NEIGHBORS TO TRY TO GET MORE SUPPORT FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTAIN. UH, AND SO IF, IF, UH, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH A TASK WE CAN DO TO THE NEXT HEARING, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE START THE NEXT HEARING'S, UH, TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY? IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TIME. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE JULY 24TH IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. WELL, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. WOULD THAT BRAGMAN, WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE, UM, CHANGING THE PLAN SO WE CAN JUST SEE THE ONE MM-HMM. DRIVEWAY. I I THINK THAT, UM, UM, WHEN HE COMES BACK TO US, HE'S, HE'S HEARING THAT THERE'S, THE 50% IS NOT, UH, REALLY SUPPORTED BY THE, BY THIS COMMISSION. AND SO HOPEFULLY WHEN HE COMES BACK, HE'LL HAVE THAT, UH, ACCOUNTED FOR. SO, SO, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. WELL, THERE'LL BE A, NOT A CORRECTION, BUT A, AN AMENDMENT ON THAT 50%. WELL, I THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS, UH, IF THIS WERE TO BE VOTED ON TODAY, UM, I, YOU KNOW, IT, THAT MOTION COULD BE EXCLUDED IF A COMMISSIONER FELT, UH, LIKE DOING SO BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING, UM, OR, UH, BUT SINCE RIGHT NOW THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS, IS NOT IN SUPPORT, UH, AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A CONTINUANCE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO GAIN SOME SUPPORT. OKAY. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT, RIGHT? NO, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONSENSUS THAT I'M HEARING AS WELL. SO, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SECOND, SHE YES. SHOULD WE TO DO IT , I MOVE THAT WE, UH, THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT MOVE CASE BOA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 75 TO JULY, JULY 24TH IS THE NEXT ONE. AND THEN APRIL 7TH, 24TH. AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. SURE. OKAY. UH, SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 24TH. UH, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY HI, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS. PLEASE, UH, BRING US SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SOUND GOOD? UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA, UH, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST SOMETHING ELSE ON ANOTHER CASE. [03:00:01] OKAY. UH, WELL, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, UH, THE NEXT, UH, ITEM MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE WHILE, SO WE'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE FIVE MINUTE BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY IN FIVE MINUTES, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT. IT'S FOUR 30. I'M CALLING THIS BACK TO ORDER. UH, LET'S START WITH, UH, ITEM NUMBER 15, PLEASE. ALL RIGHTY. ITEM NUMBER 15, B O A 1 73. APPLICANT BEING AN ATTORNEY, ELAS, UH, DISTRICT TWO LOCATION 3,700 NORTH ST. MARY'S ZONE R FIVE. THIS IS APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW AN APPEAL DUE TO PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE 200 FEET. IT WAS A TIMELINE OF EVENTS. APRIL 27TH, UH, C O A WAS ISSUED, UH, O H P APRIL 16TH, MRS. MOORE APPLIED FOR AN APPEAL. UH, TWO DAYS LATER, D S D INFORMED APPLICANT THAT SHE DID NOT MEET THE TIER TWO STANDARDS AND APPEAL FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DECISION, UH, WAS SUBMITTED. AND THEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPLY WITH THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. APPEALS TO B O A ARE SEPARATED BY TIER, UH, TWO TIERS. UM, TIER ONE EXPLAINED AS THE APPEAL RELATED TO A DECISION BETA BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL THAT IS NOT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC APPLICATION ADDRESS OR PROJECT. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND ADDRESS. THIS CASE WOULD REQUIRE TIER TWO APPEAL, UM, AS IT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC APPLICATION ADDRESS. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF EAST MARBLE MULBERRY AVENUE AND INCLUDES THE ENTIRE BEXAR COUNTY PARCEL. ALTHOUGH THE LAMBER BEACH AREA CONSISTS ONLY OF THIS, UH, PORTION OF THE LOT, PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LOT WILL BE PERMITTED TO APPLY AS TIER TWO. APPLICANT'S, MS. MOORE IS NOT A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET, AND THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE CODE, UM, WHICH I JUST, UH, EXPLAINED. UH, SO THIS SHOWS THE DISTANCE OF THE 200 FEET PLUS, UH, THE ADDITIONAL DISTANCE OF MRS. UH, THE APPLICANT'S HOME. UH, THE LEFT IS THE MAP OF THE AREA THAT WE CONSIDER FOR THE 200 FOOT BUFFER FOR THE APPEAL. AND TO THE RIGHT IS THE O HPS, UM, MAP FOR THE LAMBERT BEACH. UM, C O A. THIS IS JUST THEN PUT TOGETHER, UH, SHOWING OUR, UH, OUR 200 FOOT BUFFER IS A LOT LARGER THAN O H P USED BECAUSE WE GO BY THE BEXAR COUNTY PARCEL. AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT NOT PERMITTING. MS. MOORE TO APPLY FOR AN APPEAL IS CORRECT. COURSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACT THE CASE IS RELATED TO AN APPLICATION AND SPECIFIC ADDRESS, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A TIER TWO, AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT OWN A PROPERTY WITHIN THAN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATIONS. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HELLO? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US ABOUT, UH, YOUR APPEAL. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARISA PERALES. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM OF PERALES ALMOND AND ICE. AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MS. MOORE. UM, WE SUBMITTED THE APPEAL ON HER BEHALF. MS. MOORE RESIDES AT 6 0 3 RIVER ROAD. AND, UM, AND THE, THE, THE APPEAL HERE PRESENTS A A VERY NARROW ISSUE. UH, WE'VE PREPARED A, A HARD COPY OF A HANDOUT THAT'S BEING DISTRIBUTED TO YOU NOW. AND THIS HANDOUT BOTH DESCRIBES THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE APPEAL, AND IT PRESENTS A FEW, UM, FIGURES THAT HELP ILLUSTRATE THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL. SO THIS, THE APPEAL, AS I SAID, MEANT, UH, PRESENTS A VERY NARROW ISSUE. AND THAT ISSUE IS WHETHER IS REGARDING, UH, A, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT, WHICH YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT WITH, UM, ITEM 14 WHEN IT COMES UP ON YOUR AGENDA. UH, BUT THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT, UM, AND A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DECISION BY THE H R D C ONE THAT GENERATED AND CONTINUES TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, UM, BY THIS APPEAL. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER MS. MOORE HAS SATISFIED THE CRITERIA FOR PURSUING AN APPEAL OF THE H R D DECISION. AND THE CRITERIA, AS YOU JUST HEARD, IS UNDER U D C 35 DASH 4 81, WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL BY A PERSON WHO OWNS PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION PROPERTY THAT [03:05:01] IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION. THAT'S WHAT THIS APPEAL TURNS ON. THAT'S THE PHRASE THAT IT TURNS ON. AND AS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN, UM, HANDOUT AND THE ILLUSTRATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY THAT HANDOUT, THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION CAN REASONABLY BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE BRACKEN RIDGE PARK, THE ENTIRE PARK. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE PARK'S BOUNDARY IS UNDERSTOOD TO EXTEND DOWN TO HIGHWAY 2 81, INCLUDING THE GOLF COURSE. IT WAS REPRESENTED THIS WAY IN, UH, THE REPRESENTATION IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE H R D C AND SOME OF THE SLIDE, UM, AND SOME OF THE SLIDES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE H R D C. AND WE'VE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE OF THAT ALONG WITH THE, THE LETTER THAT, UM, WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU. UM, IT'S BEEN PRESENTED THIS WAY IN THE MASTER PLAN, UH, THAT INCLUDES THE, THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE H H R D C COMMISSION'S DECISION, UH, WAS NECESSARY. AND IT'S PRESENTED. BRACKENRIDGE PARK IS PRESENTED THIS WAY ALSO IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND THAT'S ALSO ILLUSTRATED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THAT LETTER THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. UM, AND INDEED THE, THE TREE REMOVALS, THE TREE REMOVALS THAT WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE H R D DECISION IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE A LARGER PROJECT. AND THE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND WILL EXTEND BEYOND JUST, UH, THAT ONE, UM, SMALL AREA, UH, OF THE, OF THE BEACH. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BRACKEN RIDGE PARK, WHEN WE, UM, CONSIDER, UH, WHAT THE NATURE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS, THE WAY IT'S BEEN REPRESENTED IN THE MASTER PLAN, UM, IT'S, IT'S A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, A COMMON SENSE, UM, INTERPRETATION TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE PARK, INCLUDING THE GOLF COURSE. IT'S ONLY WHEN MS. MOORE ATTEMPTED TO APPEAL THE H R D C DECISION THAT A, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY A HYPER-TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION WAS APPLIED TO THE PHRASE THE PROJECT THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE DECISION. IT APPEARS THAT THIS HYPER-TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO INAPPROPRIATELY SEGMENT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT AND OF THE PARK IN ORDER TO LIMIT WHO CAN QUALIFY TO APPEAL THE H R D DECISION. I, I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THIS, THIS IS A CASE THAT IS GENERATED SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO RESIDE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WHO IS CLOSE TO THE PARK. AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND, THAT PARK TO BE DEFINED. UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL IS TO PROVIDE A SORT OF CHECK ON THE HR DC'S DECISION, UM, TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, TO ALLOW DUE PROCESS, TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO ONCE AGAIN VOICE THEIR CONCERNS TO YOU. AND SO THE PUBLIC, UM, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO RESIDE NEAR THE PARK, SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN CASES SUCH AS THIS. AND IN FACT, I HEARD YOU, SOME OF YOU COMMENT EARLIER ON ANOTHER ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA, THAT APPLICANTS ARE OFTEN ENCOURAGED TO, TO GET SUPPORT FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS SHOULD, UH, INCLUDE NEIGHBORS WHO RESIDE NEAR THE PARK. AND BY DENYING, UM, MS. MOORE'S ATTEMPT TO APPEAL THE H R D DECISION, I THINK THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DISCOURAGING PARTICIPATION FROM THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORS. SO I URGE YOU TO REJECT, UH, THE, UH, THE, THIS ATTEMPT TO CUT OFF THE PROPERTY OWNERS MORE, PARTICULARLY MS. MOORE'S, UM, ATTEMPT TO, UH, PURSUE HER RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE H R D C. I URGE YOU TO, UM, INTERPRET THE TERM PROJECT OR THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF, OF THE DECISION, INTERPRET IT IN A REASONABLE COMMON SENSE WAY, RATHER THAN A HYPER-TECHNICAL MANNER. UH, TO INCLUDE WHAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS TO BE BRACKENRIDGE PARK. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, STAFF, UH, WAS ANYBODY ELSE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? I THINK, I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ON THIS, ON ITEM 15. UM, SO ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO, WELL, TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR THIS ONE. OKAY. UH, MRS. WHITE, SHOULD WE HOLD OUR QUESTIONS OR, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HOLD, I WANT TO HEAR THE, THOSE TWO SPEAKERS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND OR SPEAKERS. YOU KNOW, WHITE, MY SISTER AND SHE'S DEAF. I'M GOING BLIND. AND SHE HAD A CRISIS AT HER HOUSE THAT COULDN'T COME. I, OKAY. UH, MRS. MOORE, I HAVE HER SPEECH. GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT, YOU CAN COME UP. UM, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES. GO AHEAD. OH, THAT IS VERY KIND. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M VERY GRATEFUL. I'M GONNA TELL YOU HER SPEECH FIRST. AND SHE'S A DEAF LADY AND SHE TALKS LIKE THIS AND THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD [03:10:01] SOUND LIKE, BUT I WON'T DO THAT. , I AM TOLEDO WHITE TOTA DRIVE WAS NAMED FOR ME AND FOR MY MOTHER AND MY GRANDMOTHER. PLEASE PROTECT ALL THE TREES. DO NOT CHOP ANY OF THEM DOWN. YOU CAN FIX THE WALLS WITHOUT HURTING ANY TREES. THANK YOU, . THANK YOU. MY SPEECH MIGHTY MOORE'S SPEECH. OH LORD, DON'T TELL ME I DID IT. THERE IT IS. I AM MIGHTY WHITE MOORE AND MY SISTER TOLEDO CHITTA WHITE IS WHO THE, THE STREET WAS NAMED AFTER THE MAIN ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH THE ENTIRE PARK IS NAMED AFTER MY SISTER AND FOR HER MOTHER. OUR MOTHER DELA TOLEDO WHITE AND FOR OUR GRANDMOTHER, TOLEDO MA CHITUM, ALL OF BRECKENRIDGE PARK IS PRECIOUS TO US. AND WE THOUGHT IT ALL BELONGED TO THE PEOPLE OF SAN ANTONIO UNTIL OUR APPEAL WAS REFUSED ON AN ODD CALLED BUFFER, SOMETHING THAT WE WERE NOT EVEN INFORMED ABOUT. TOLEDO. AND I LEARNED TO RIDE HORSES IN BRACKENRIDGE PARK WITH INA OLD SMITH TOLEDO. AND I GREW UP ONE BLOCK FROM TRINITY AND WE BIKED AND RODE AND WALKED THROUGH THE PARK ALL OF OUR LIVES. WE ARE 78 AND 79 YEARS OLD. I NOW LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM BRACKENRIDGE PARK AND I WALK MY DOGS THERE EVERY DAY. I USED TO DRIVE AS A TEENAGER ACROSS THE WOODLAWN RIVER CROSSING IN OUR OLD FORD STATION WAGON HENRY, WHERE I NOW WALK MY DOGS EVERY DAY. WE RANCH IN NORTH BEAR COUNTY ON WHAT OUR GRANDFATHER PUT TOGETHER IN 1924 AS A 10 10,000 ACRE RANCH, UPON WHICH HE BUILT 27 CONCRETE DAMS. WE HAVE RESPECTED DAM ENGINEERS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THE RIVER WALLS, WHICH WERE PROBABLY BUILT WITH THE SAME 1920S CONCRETE AS OUR LAKE DAMS IN NORTH BEAR COUNTY. THEY'VE ALL SEEN OUR, OUR ENGINEERS HAVE SEEN THE BRACKENRIDGE WALLS AND THEY'VE ALL SAID THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO CHOP DOWN OR REMOVE THE SINGLE TREE TO REPAIR THE RIVER WALLS. IN ADDITION, THREE CIV CIVIL ENGINEERS IN THE SAN ANTONIO AREA. I'M SORRY MA'AM TOLD THE CITY THE VERY SAME THING. MISS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHOP DOWN A SINGLE TREE UP. OKAY. YOUR TWO MINUTES REPAIR THE WALLS. YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY TWO MINUTES ARE UP. MM-HMM. , THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH 115 HEAT FACTOR, MA'AM. TEMPERATURES, THERE'S NO EXCUSE YES MA'AM, FOR DOING DAMAGE. PLEASE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT. I HOPE YOU DO RIGHT. ACTION TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN TO AN APPEAL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, UM, A RESIDENT IS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT REQUIREMENT. UH, I WANT TO KEEP ALL QUESTIONS TO THAT, UH, SPECIFIC ISSUE. UH, THE, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY WAS AN ERROR REJECTING, UH, THIS APPLICANT AND APPLYING, UH, THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR AN APPEAL, UH, BASED ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF, UM, THE PROPERTY IS THAT IS SUBJECT TO A DECISION. AND SO IF, IF THERE'S ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS REGARDING, UH, THAT AND, UM, PLEASE LEMME KNOW DR. MIN CHAKA WELL, I WANT TO ASK, UH, THE, THE BOARD HERE, IS IT PROPER TO ASK THE ATTORNEY TO GIVE THEIR INTERPRETATION AGAIN? UH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. SO, UM, IF WE HAVE ANY, UH, IF THE LEGAL ADVISOR CAN, CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT, UH, MAYBE ANY CASE, UH, SEPARATE OTHER CASES OR OTHER INSTANCES WHERE PARTS OF A, OF A WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A LARGER PROPERTY WERE, WERE LOOKED AT IN, IN A SIMILAR TENSE, THAT'D BE GREAT. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THAT MR. CHAIR, IS THAT THE U D C DOES AS REFERENCED UNDER SECTION 35 4 81, TALK ABOUT THE APPEAL MUST BE OR MUST PERTAIN TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PROPERTY. AND WHEN YOU REFER BACK TO THE H D R C APPLICATION, THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL, THEY SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THE LAMBERT BEACH AREA. SO THAT WOULD BE THE AREA THAT IS LIMITED WITHIN THIS APPEAL. AND THAT IS THE BORDER FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS THE BORDER FOR THE AREA THAT YOU WOULD BE USING TO DETERMINE THE 200 FEET. THAT'S WHAT D S D USED TO DETERMINE THE 200 FEET. SO WE'RE GOING BY THE ACTUAL RECORDS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE H D R C AT THAT TIME. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UH, YEAH, SO, UM, THERE WAS SOME DIALOGUE PUT UP AT THE BEGINNING WITH REGARDS TO TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE. AND I, I COULDN'T PUT MY P BRAIN SIZE AROUND IT. AND SO I WAS WONDERING IF SOMEONE COULD PUT UP THE MAP AND MAYBE SHOW BOUNDARIES, UM, OF WHAT THAT IMPLIED OR WHY TYPE ONE DIDN'T APPLY VERSUS TYPE TWO VERSUS JUST WORDS. 'CAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'D BE THE FIRST QUESTION. SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM A APPEAL PERSPECTIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR WHEN AN APPEAL CAN OCCUR? AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THERE'S DIALOGUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS WITHIN THAT AN AREA AND YOU HAD A SPECIFIC [03:15:01] SPACE THAT YOU IDENTIFIED THAT YOU CALLED OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AND THEY SHOWED A PICTURE WHERE IT INCLUDED OTHER SPACE THAT, THAT THEY WERE WITHIN THE 200 FEET. SO TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE WHY, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED THERE BE IN THAT TIMELINE. AND THEN, UH, GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO, UH, OR WITH REGARDS TO THE APPEAL AND THE TIMELINE QUESTION IS THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE WITHIN THE 200 FEET. ARE ARE THOSE PEOPLE QUALIFIED TO PUT IN THE APPEAL AS WELL, UH, WOULD BE THE QUESTION. SO THOSE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE. UM, SO THE FIRST QUESTION, UH, THIS SLIDE IS UP HERE. UM, I BELIEVE YOU ASKED SPECIFICALLY FOR TIER ONE. UM, AND THE REASON WHY THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR THE TIER ONE IS BECAUSE THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC, UM, ADDRESS AND A SPECIFIC APPLICATION. UM, THE WAY TIER ONE READS IS EITHER OR, UM, BUT THIS ONE APPLIES TO TWO OF THEM. SO, SO IF YOU ALSO REFER TO SECTION 35 4 81, THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, THE TIER ONE APPEAL IS SPECIFIC TO A PERSON AGREED BY THE DECISION AND ANY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, BOARD, OR BUREAU. SO IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO THAT. NOW, ON TIER TWO IS WHERE IT OPENS IT UP AND IT TELLS YOU A TIER TWO APPEAL MAY BE FILED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. AND THEN THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO USE THE CRITERIA 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IT'S CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, WHICH SAYS A PERSON WHO IS AGREED BY THE DECISION AND IS THE OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO, UH, BASED ON THAT AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT WITHIN 200 FEET OF LAMBERT BEACH, UH, THEY DID NOT QUALIFY. AND IF I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT, UM, SO UNDERNEATH THE CODE, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN TIER ONE THAT A TIER ONE APPEAL MUST NOT BE OR SHOULD NOT BE RELATED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PROPERTY. SO TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, A TIER ONE KIND OF APPEAL WOULD BE, UM, IF MR. SHANNON, AS THE DIRECTOR ISSUED A R INTERPRETING A CERTAIN PART OF THE CODE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO ANY PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THAT HAS TO DO WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF HOW THE CODE IS GOING TO BE APPLIED IN THE FUTURE. THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD CONSIDER APPROPRIATE FOR A TIER ONE, UH, APPEAL. TIER TWO SPECIFICALLY SAYS, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT, AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL BASED NOT ONLY ON LOCAL LAW, BUT ALSO STATE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SO OUR CODE MIRRORS THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SO IF IT'S ABOUT A SPECIFIC PROPERTY PROJECT OR AREA, THEN THAT IS TIER TWO APPEAL. SO, SO I DID HAVE THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE DELINEATION BETWEEN, UM, THE PARK SPACE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VERSUS THE, THE WHOLE SPACE. AND SO HOW IS THAT DIFFERENTIATED HERE IN THE DIALOGUE OR, OR HOW IS THERE A DIFFERENCE THERE? WELL, WE DID SHOW A DIFFERENCE. UH, WE SHOWED WHERE LAMBERT PARK IS, IF YOU COULD, OR BEACH IS, BUT WE ALSO SHOWED, UH, THE BOUNDARIES OF BRACKEN RIDGE PARK. AND SO FOR US USING B C A DATA, WHICH IS WHAT WE USUALLY DO WHEN WE'RE, UM, LOCATING A 200 BUFFER FOR CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CASES, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES, ANY CASES. UM, AND SO OUR AREA IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THE LAMBERT BEACH AREA. AND EVEN WITH THAT LARGER SCOPE, UM, MRS. MOORE'S PROPERTY WAS NOT WITHIN THE 200 FEET BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO COULD STAFF, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DISCERNING WHAT ON THAT MAP ON THE RIGHT IS LAMBERT BEACH. IS IT EVERYTHING IN PURPLE? WHAT, WHAT IS IT? OR IS IT EVERYTHING IN BLUE OUTLINED IN BLUE? IT'S, UH, THE ORANGE. SO THIS AREA RIGHT HERE IS LAMBERT PARK, LAMB BEACH, LAMBERT BEACH. AND WHAT DOES IT CONSIST OF? WHAT IS THE PROJECT ABOUT? UH, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE. THE NEXT CASE IS TO CONSIDER THAT THIS CASE IS ONLY FOR THE APPEAL. I'LL TRY IT. OKAY. YES. SO, SO, SO GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER ROB . SO THEN MY THIRD QUESTION, YOU KNOW, OR MAY IN THE FOURTH ONE TO TIMELINE FOR APPEAL. AND SO, SO YO, SO WE HAVE, SO MS. MOORE I GUESS, OR, OR, UH, SOMEONE PUT IN THIS APPEAL AND APPARENTLY THEY WERE OUTSIDE OF THIS 200 FOOT, COULDN'T SOMEBODY RIGHT NEXT TO THE 200 FOOT ACTUALLY PUT IN THE SAME APPEAL AND START THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN. UM, SO THE 20 DAYS HAS PASSED, BUT HOWEVER, THERE IS A CASE COMING UP NEXT WITH THAT SAME EXACT SAME SCENARIO. S SO, OKAY, NOW I'M CONFUSED. SO, SO 20 DAYS HAS PASSED AGAIN, 20 DAYS HAS PASSED, SO THERE'S A 20 DAY LIMIT. UM, AND I, I ASSUME THIS DIALOGUE'S BEEN ONGOING FOR MORE THAN 20 DAYS. UM, AND SO, SO UM, YOU KNOW, SO COULD THE COMMUNITY HAVE GONE BACK OUT AND WITHIN THAT 20 DAYS AND, AND SOUGHT SOMEONE WHO WAS ALSO [03:20:01] IMPACTED WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT THAT WOULD'VE QUALIFIED? YES, THEY COULD HAVE. AND THAT'S WHAT, UM, MARCO'S REFERRING TO. SO THERE, ON THE NEXT CASE THAT YOU WILL SEE THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT WAS WITHIN THAT 200 FEET, OZUNA, COMMISSIONER UNA, AND TO FOLLOW UP, WOULD MS. MOORE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE HER INPUT AND DIALOGUE WITHIN THAT CASE? THAT WOULD BE COMING UP IF THEY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YES. IF SHE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK MM-HMM. . SO SHE, HER OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD ON HER ON WHATEVER ISSUE SHE HAS WITH THAT CASE? CORRECT. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, MA, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MAY GO AHEAD. SO, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, WE HAVE TWO APPEALS HERE FOR THE SAME EXACT THING. THE FIRST ONE, SHE'S OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT, BUT THE NEXT ONE IS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT. IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? NO, WE HAVE TWO APPEALS. UH, THE ONE WE'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT, UH, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY. THAT'S ALL THIS IS. SO IT'S BRACKEN RIDGE PARK, EVERYTHING THAT YOU COULD SAY AS A PART OF BRACKEN RIDGE PARK OR IS THERE THE DIFFERENT PIECES OF IT? SO IS THE WITTY MUSEUM SEPARATE FROM THE GOLF COURSE, IS A GOLF COURSE SEPARATE FROM THE BEACH? AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. SO IF, IF THERE'S A PROPERTY, IF THERE'S A PROJECT AT THE WITTY MUSEUM DOES, THAT MEANS SOMEBODY 200 FEET AWAY FROM THE GOLF COURSE HAS STANDING TO A, TO A SUBMIT AN APPEAL, IT'S, AND THAT, AND THAT'S REALLY THE, THE CRUX OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO, AND, AND SIR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY WHETHER STAFF'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT, UM, BASED ON THE TIER TWO LEVEL, WHETHER THAT WAS CORRECT OR NOT, THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING. YEAH. SO THE, THE STATE CODE, AND THIS I'M READING FROM 2 11, 0 10 OF THE, OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IT SAYS, UM, YOU HAVE STANDING IF YOU ARE AGREE, IF YOU'RE, UH, AGREED BY THE DECISION AND IS THE OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE DECISION. SO WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY? THAT IS A SUBJECT. IT DOESN'T SAY LOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY MASTER PLAN, YOU KNOW, PROJECT, YOU KNOW, MASTER PLAN ELEMENT. IT, IT, IT JUST SAYS PROPERTY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ACCESS TO US TODAY, WE HAVE HISTORIC MAPS THAT CREATED BRACKEN RIDGE. WE HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT BECAME OUT OF BRACKEN RIDGE, AND WE ALSO HAVE TAX AND, UH, TAXING ACCOUNT NUMBERS. UH, THE, THE CITY HAS ALREADY STATED THAT THE BEACH AREA IS SMALL, BUT THEY ACTUALLY USE THE ACCOUNTING, UH, THE TAX, UH, ACCOUNT TO APPLY THE 200 FOOT, WHICH IS MUCH MORE GENEROUS THAN WHAT THEY COULD DEFINE AS, AS WHERE THIS PROJECT IS OCCURRING. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK, TO, DISCUSS AND TALK ABOUT. YEAH, AND, AND REASON WHY I KEEP BRINGING UP THE QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO TIMELINES IN THAT IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS A COMMUNITY LEADER, YOU KNOW, I'M STRUGGLING, I STRUGGLE ALL THE TIME TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THE RULES AND THE NUANCES. AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS FOR ME LIKE FINDING SOMEBODY ELSE WITHIN THE A HUNDRED FOOT OR 200 FOOT, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION. YEAH. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BEEN REMEDIED. AND SO, UM, SO I'D LIKE TO ASK A LAWYER TO COME UP HERE FOR A SECOND HERE JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK A QUESTION. UM, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING SOMETHING WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S BEING SAID IN MY, IN MY LINE OF QUESTIONS HERE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO, AM I MISSING SOMETHING FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? UM, I THINK, I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE, UM, DESCRIBED THE PROCESS IS ACCURATE IN THAT THE ITEM 14 IS AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION THAT MS. MOORE SEEKS TO APPEAL. THE DIFFERENCE I THINK, IS THAT MS. MOORE IS, UM, UM, A HOMEOWNER WITH, AND SHE RESIDES NEAR THE PARK, AND, UM, SHE HAS CONCERNS THAT ARE, ARE A BIT DIFFERENT THAN, UH, THAN A BUSINESS OWNER, FOR INSTANCE. AND WITH, UM, ONLY ONE MINUTE TO PRESENT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 14, THERE IS CONCERN OF WHETHER SHE WILL BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY REPRESENT HER INTEREST AND CONVEY HOW SHE WILL BE IMPACTED, UH, WITH THE LIMITS IMPOSED ON JUST BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NUMBER 14. WELL, I'M GONNA, I I'M GONNA JUST, UH, INTERVENE ON THAT. UM, OKAY. YOU KNOW, ITEM NUMBER 14, WHICH WE'LL HEAR AT A LA YOU KNOW, LATER, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY WHO STANDS AT THAT PODIUM AND IS, IS PROVIDING POINTS THAT ARE GERMANE TO THE TOPIC BEFORE THE BOARD WILL BE, WILL CERTAINLY, UH, ARE OPEN TO QUESTIONS. AND YOU'LL BE SURPRISED HOW OFTEN POINTS CAN BE MADE DURING THAT LINE OF, DURING LINES OF QUESTIONING. SO, OKAY. I THINK STICKING GERMANE TO A POINT WAS JUST SOME ADVICE. I, I WOULD, I WOULD GIVE YOU. SO, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MANNA? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NOW THAT WE'VE HAD A LINE OF QUESTIONS AND EVERYONE'S SIGNED TO SPEAK IT FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, MS. MSES, MS. PERES, UH, YEAH. OH YEAH. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE ANY, UH, SORT OF, UM, LAST STATEMENTS OH, THANK YOU. CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO DELIBERATE, THAT'D BE GREAT. SURE. THANK YOU. I THINK, UH, PARTICULARLY AS, UM, AS IT CONCERNS THE, THE LAST QUESTION THAT I WAS [03:25:01] ASKED, I THINK THERE'S AGAIN, A, A BIGGER ISSUE TO CONSIDER. AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS, THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT. THIS ISN'T, UH, THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE, UM, A PROJECT THAT IS INTENDED TO KINDA RESTORE SOME ASPECTS OF THE PARK, THE BRACKEN RIDGE PARK, WHAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS TO BE BRACKEN RIDGE PARK. UM, THE HOMEOWNERS WHO RESIDE NEAR THE PARK, UH, ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED, UM, BY WHATEVER DECISION IS MADE. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL IF THEY RESIDE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PARK. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PROCESS HERE THAT WILL ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO SUBMIT THEIR ONE MINUTE'S WORTH OF COMMENT. BUT, UM, THE, I I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE, THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS ABOUT ENCOURAGING FOLKS AND FACILITATING AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL A DECISION, UH, THAT AFFECTS THEIR, THEIR RIGHTS AS RESIDENTS, AS HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS SUBJECT, THE SUBJECT OF THE, OF THE DECISION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SO HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT? 'CAUSE WE KNOW WE DO HAVE AN APPEAL THAT WE'RE GONNA, SO WHAT IS THE DUPLICATION OF APPEALS? I MEAN, HOW MANY APPEALS ARE WE GONNA BE HEARING? IF, WELL, LET'S, LET'S STICK WITH, LET'S STICK WITH THIS ONE, UH, RIGHT FOR NOW AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT NEXT, NEXT ITEM, I'M SURE. UM, IS THERE A MOTION ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 3, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 3 7 0 0 NORTH STREET, NORTH ST. MARY STREET APPLICANT BEING MARISSA PERALES BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW AN APPEAL DUE TO PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE 200 FOOT AND OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. MR. CHAIR, IS THIS A, IS THIS A MAJORITY VOTE OR IS THIS A NINE VOTE? IT'S A, IT HAS TO HAVE NINE TO PASS. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA CHAIR. MAYBE JUST EXPLAIN. OH, YES. UH, SO BEFORE, BEFORE COMMISSIONER MANNA LEADS OUR DISCUSSION, IF YOU VOTE, IF YOU VOTE, UH, YES ON THIS ITEM YOU ARE SIDING WITH THE APPLICANT. IF YOU VOTE NO, UH, YOU ARE, YOU ARE AGREEING THAT THE CITY DID NOT MAKE AN ERROR. S SO HUMANA, UH, I, AND THE REASON I'LL BE IS BECAUSE OF THE, UM, I, I GUESS THE, THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THE APPEAL OR, OR WHAT THE READS ARE FOR THE TYPE TWO, UH, TYPE DIALOGUE. UM, HOWEVER, I DO FIND THE CITY ERRED IN NOT LETTING THE APPLICANT KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT THEY WEREN'T QUALIFIED AND SUGGEST THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE AT THAT POINT. AND SO, SO I THINK THE PROCESS COULD HAVE STARTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY CAN'T DO THAT. UM, BUT, BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY GET SOMEBODY WITHIN 200 FOOT TO DO THAT WITH YOU AND WHICH MAY BE THE NEXT CASE, BUT BE, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT LINE, I'LL BE VOTING NO FOR THIS ONE. MM-HMM. , COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DEFINITION OF LAMBERT BEACH, WHICH WAS PART OF THE INITIAL PROCESS, UM, IS CLEARLY DEFINED. UM, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION EITHER. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADD MY REMARKS. I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL. AND, AND MY BIG REASON IS, IS THAT THE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND, AND THE PROPERTY THEY OWN IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER PEOPLE'S WHERE THE, THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM PLATTING. SO AS TIME GOES ON, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION FOR THEM TO SEPARATE DIFFERENT PARTS OF ANYTHING. LIKE, UH, OTHER ENTITIES MAY HAVE TO, AND SO SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, SOME ITEMS THAT THEY OWN, LIKE BRACKEN RIDGE PARK PROPER MIGHT GET, UH, VERY, VERY LARGE AND, AND MOVE BEYOND THE DIFFERENT, IT, THE, IT'S DIFFERENT PARTS. SO I'M, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT, UH, OF THIS APPEAL FOR THOSE REASONS. THANK YOU. UM, REAL QUICK, ONE OF OUR ATTACHED ITEMS TO THIS AGENDA WAS A LETTER FROM THE CITY TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED OF 48 HOURS TO NOTIFY THEM THAT THEY DID NOT QUALIFY, UH, FOR THIS APPEAL. SO YOU DO, YOU DO HAVE A 48 HOUR TIME LIMIT TO GIVE THEM A OFFICIAL RESPONSE. CORRECT. THEN THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. THANK YOU. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. MANNA, UM, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MS. BRAGMAN, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. SPIELMAN. I DO NOT SUPPORT MR. MANCHACA. DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. DEAN? I SUPPORT MS. CRUZ. I SUPPORT MR. ZUNIGA. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. VASQUEZ. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. OZUNA. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. EZ, [03:30:01] I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL CHAIR. ORIAN AND I ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL MOTION, UH, FAILS NINE TO TWO, UH, OR 2, 4, 9 9 AGAINST. ALRIGHT. UH, SO THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS ITEM NUMBER 14. UM, THIS ONE, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE I AM VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS. UM, SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CITY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ON, ON PUBLIC COMMENTARY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO SIGN UP TO SPEAK CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. BUT, BUT ROBERT'S RULES DO REQUIRE, UM, COMMENTS TO BE GERMANE TO THE ITEM BEFORE US. UM, THE ITEM BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY AIRED, UH, IN MAKING A DECISION. AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS CONSCIOUS OF THAT. UM, ALSO TIME, JUST A REMINDER, EVERYONE HAS A ONE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE IN THE GALLERY. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF, IF Y'ALL WOULD BE MINDFUL OF WHO'S NEXT UP. STAFF WILL BE, UM, TALKING ABOUT WHO MIGHT BE NEXT UP TO THE PODIUM. SO WE CAN HAVE THIS RUN IN A, IN A, AN EFFICIENT MANNER. AND ALSO, IF YOU'RE WANTED TO SEED YOUR TIME TO SOMEONE ELSE, PLEASE TELL STAFF SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE PROPER NOTATIONS. UM, THERE'S, THERE'S GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA BE ORCHESTRATING WHO COMES AND GOES TO THE PODIUM SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS RUN VERY EFFICIENTLY. AND WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY LIKE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS REGARDING, UH, THIS CASE OR GIVE ANY INSTRUCTIONS? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. AS A GENERAL REMINDER FOR THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS SUBJECT TO BOTH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OUTLINES REGULATIONS RELATED TO AN APPEAL OF AN APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 35 6 0 8 STATES A DECISION BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO APPROVE ORDEN DENY CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE APPEAL, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS AS THE COMMISSION AND THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION NEW EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GET THIS GOING AS YES. MENTION THE EMAIL, THE PRESENTATION. OH, YEAH. STAFF DID EMAIL THEIR PRESENTATION TO EVERYBODY. UH, SO IF YOU WANTED TO, IF YOU HAVE A WAY TO GET THAT THROUGH YOUR MOBILE DEVICES, UH, IT MIGHT BE, UM, UM, SOMETHING THAT FOR YOU TO HAVE AS AT 4:18 PM THAT WAS SENT OUT IN CASE THERE'S, IN CASE YOU WANTED TO REFERENCE WHAT IS GONNA BE PRESENTED TO US. SO STAFF, PLEASE. UH, LET'S, LET'S HEAR THE CASE PRESENTATION. DR. READ IT, RIGHT. DID Y'ALL READ THIS INTO THE RECORD FIRST? YES. Y'ALL CAN START WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, WE'RE READY, . OKAY. WE'LL GO TO AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. UM, I'M COREY EDWARDS, DEPUTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. UM, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW FOLKS ON CITY STAFF HERE WITH US. UM, WE'LL BE AVAILABLE DURING, UM, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. UM, I'M GONNA GIVE A BRIEF KIND OF OVERVIEW ABOUT, UM, THE ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. UM, AND THEN, UH, VIRTUALLY ONLINE WE HAVE KINDER, UM, BAUMGARTNER, WHO IS, UM, WITH THE DESIGN TEAM WHO HELPED, UH, WHO'S THE CITY'S CONSULTANT, UM, ON THE DESIGN FOR LAMBERT BEACH. OH, CAN YOU DO THAT SLIDE? OKAY. UM, SO THE ITEM TODAY IS AN APPEAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFF PRESERVATION OFFICER. AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. UM, THE APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, TOMMY LOU MOORELAND, WHO OWNS PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET, FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE, AND I HAVE A MAP THAT WILL SHOW ON THE NEXT SLIDE THAT KIND OF EXPLAINS THAT. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BRACKENRIDGE PARK, SPECIFICALLY THE LAMBERT BEACH AREA WITHIN THE PARK. ALL OF THAT HAS THE ADDRESS OF 3,700 NORTH ST. MARY'S. UM, THE GOLF COURSE BELOW, UH, MUL MULBERRY IS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS. AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL. UM, IT IS AGAIN, AS YOU MENTIONED, MR. CHAIR, UM, AN APPEAL OF A CITY OFFICIAL DETERMINATION. AND SO THAT WAS CITY STAFF'S DECISION TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, THE C O A, I'M GONNA START USING THAT FOR SHORT, UM, WAS FOLLOWED, UM, FOLLOWS THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE H C R C. UH, NEXT SLIDE. SO HERE'S THAT. UM, IN RED YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT'S THE LAMBER BEACH AREA, THAT, THAT GREATER PARCEL IS 37 700 NORTH ST. MARY'S. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT KIND OF, I DON'T THINK I HAVE A , THIS 200 FOOT BUFFER KIND OF FOLLOWS UP BROADWAY. AND SO THERE IS, UH, A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPLICANT AT 36 0 1 BROADWAY. AND SO THEY ARE ABLE TO SUBMIT A TIER TWO APPEAL. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE C O A PROCESS. UM, IT'S REQUIRED BY THE U D C, UM, BEFORE ANY SORT OF PERMITTING FOR A PROJECT. UM, THE C O A IS TRIGGERED, UM, FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE HISTORIC OR LOCATED WITHIN A RIO DISTRICT OR ARE PUBLIC OWNED FACILITIES OR PARKS. BRACKENRIDGE PARK IS ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS. SO DEFINITELY A C O A IS REQUIRED [03:35:01] HERE. UM, MOST PROJECTS ARE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY STAFF, SO IT IS A STAFF DECISION. UM, ROUGHLY, UM, TWO THIRDS OF ACTUALLY ALL THE COAS, UH, ARE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH STAFF AND DO NOT TRIGGER AN H D R C HEARING. THE H D R C REVIEWS ITEMS THAT ARE LARGER IN SCOPE. UM, THIS, THIS ITEM IN PARTICULAR THAT WE WILL EXPLAIN. THIS PROJECT AT BRECKENRIDGE PARK, UM, TRIGGERED A HEARING. AND SO THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE H D R C TO STAFF THAT WE CONSIDER IN OUR DECISION TO ISSUE THE C O A, UM, CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY. WE ROUTINELY ISSUE THE COAS TO MIRROR WHAT THE HT C'S RECOMMENDATION IS. UM, VERY OFTEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HT R C ARE, UM, UH, VERY DETAILED. THERE'S USUALLY STIPULATIONS OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED. AND SO WHEN WE ISSUE OUR C O A LETTER, IT USUALLY MIRRORS OR ALWAYS MIRRORS THOSE STIPULATIONS, UM, AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO AGAIN, I KINDA MENTIONED THIS. BRECKENRIDGE, BRECKENRIDGE PARK HAS MULTIPLE DESIGNATIONS IN PLACE. IT IS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. IT IS WITHIN THE RIO ONE DISTRICT. RIO IS A, UM, DESIGN OVERLAY ZONING OVERLAY THAT HAS ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS IN THE U D C. ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS 35 6 80, WHICH YOU'LL HEAR REFERRED TO TODAY. UM, AND THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL BY THE H C R C TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVER. AND SO THE ITEM OF TREE REMOVAL WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT RIO SECTION, UM, ON THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL, IT'S ALSO A STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK AND ALSO LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ALSO BRINGS IN THESE OTHER REVIEW LAYERS. AND SO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAS ALSO BEEN IN THE REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, UM, AS WELL AS THE, UM, THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR ANOTHER REASON. BUT ALL THAT TO SAY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATIONS IN PLACE, THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE REVIEW REQUIREMENT, THE MOST IMPORTANT BEING THE STATE, STATE AND TY'S PERMIT. UM, THAT IS KIND OF THE HIGHEST HURDLE FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, THAT IS A PERMIT WHERE THE STATE REVIEWERS CAN SAY YES OR NO TO A PROJECT. AND SO WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE DETERMINATIONS. AND IN THIS CASE, THAT PERMIT WAS REFERRED TO THEIR H C R C. UM, THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, THEIR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, UH, VOTED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. UM, IT WILL, THIS HASN'T HAPPENED YET. IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SECTION 1 0 6 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT. THAT'S A SECOND REVIEW BY THE T H C STAFF, UM, REALLY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACTS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES ARE. UH, NEXT SLIDE. I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO THE PROJECT. SO JUST KIND OF HIGH LEVEL. UM, AND, UM, OUR CONSULTANT, WHO'S ON THE CALL WILL EXPLAIN THIS. THIS BOND PROJECT IS SEPARATED IN TWO PHASES. THE ITEM TODAY, UM, IS JUST THE FIRST PHASE, UM, FOR SPECIFIC TO LAMBERT BEACH. UM, IT INCLUDES THE RESTORATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF WALLS THAT HAVE FAILED IN THIS AREA. AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE PIC, IN THE, IN THE PHOTOS OF THE SITE, UM, THAT, UH, QUITE A BIT OF DETERIORATION HAS OCCURRED AT THIS, UM, LOCATION, UM, STABILIZATION, STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY. UM, CURRENTLY THE SITE IS NOT ABLE TO BE ACCESSED BY THE PUBLIC BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION. AND SO THIS WILL, THIS PROJECT WILL RESTORE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SITE, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND EXCITING. UM, WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS, WE'RE GOING TO DO, UM, UNDERPINNING OF THE PUMP HOUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1877. UM, THAT'S GONNA SET IT UP FOR PHASE TWO, WHICH IS GONNA BE THE COMPLETE KIND OF RESTORATION OF THAT, THAT STRUCTURE. UM, AND THEN SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF THE TREES, AS I MENTIONED, UM, WAS REQUIRED BY THE H C R C, UH, TO APPROVE, IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE U D C IN TERMS OF THE RIO REQUIREMENT. AND SO THAT'S SPECIFIC FOR MATURE TREES LOCATED IN THE BANKS OF THE RIVER. UM, WITH THE FUTURE PHASES OF THE PROJECT, THERE WILL BE OTHER TREES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL THAT DON'T REQUIRE H C R C APPROVAL. IT'S JUST THESE ONES BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE RIVER. UM, AND WITH THAT, UM, IF KINDER, YOU CAN TAKE OVER. UM, WE HAVE YOUR SLIDES THAT WE CAN PULL UP AND YOU'LL JUST SAY WHEN YOU WANT US TO ADVANCE. OKAY. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT. SO, SO YOU'RE RUNNING THE SLIDES THERE? YES. CAN YOU SEE THAT? HANG ON, I CAN NOW. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. UH, YEAH. THANK YOU, UH, EVERYONE FOR, UM, ONE LETTING ME DO THIS BY VIDEO TODAY. SO, UM, UH, BUT YEAH, DEFINITELY LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE HEARING ME OR IF YOU NEED TO, TO REPEAT ANYTHING. UH, OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO, UH, ACTUALLY YOU CAN, SO KENDER, WE'VE, WE'VE LEARNED THAT WHEN YOU TALK, WE SEE YOU AND WE DON'T SEE OUR SCREEN ANYMORE. IS THERE A WAY WAY WE CAN REACH SHARE? IS THERE A WAY WE CAN EITHER PIN THIS SCREEN OR MAYBE YOU SHARE DIRECTLY? YEAH, LET'S JUST TRY THIS. LET ME, UM, SHARE AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. PERFECT, THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY NOW? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO ADVANCE TO, UH, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THERE'S HOW THE LAGS ARE WORKING THERE. SO I'M ON THE THIRD SLIDE, WHICH HAS, UH, THE DEFINITION OF, UH, LAMBER BEACH ON IT. ARE YOU GUYS SEEING THAT SLIDE? [03:40:01] UM, WE ARE SEEING YOUR SCREEN, BUT IT'S JUST THE, THE TITLE SLIDE. OKAY. AND THINGS NOT FULLY COOPERATING. LET'S SEE. I, 'CAUSE I, I I'M ON THE THIRD SLIDE. UH, AT LEAST HERE IT SAYS I'M SHARING. OKAY, I THINK WE'VE DONE SOMETHING ELSE. SO IF YOU KEEP TALKING, WE'RE, WE'VE GOT THE THIRD SLIDE PULLED UP. OKAY. UH, SO DO I NEED TO TELL YOU WHEN I'M ADVANCING OR YOU'RE GONNA SEE MINE? YOU, YOU NEED TO TELL US. RIGHT? OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO, UH, THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING ALL OF BRACKENRIDGE PARK AND THE AREA THAT, UH, IS DEFINED AS LAMBERT BEACH. YOU SEE AN ORANGE AT THE VERY TOP. SO SUBJECT OF THIS PROJECT IS, IT'S ALL PIECE OF THE OVERALL, UH, PART, UM, NEXT SLIDE. THERE WE GO. OKAY. UH, AND THEN THAT IS FURTHER DIVIDED INTO A PHASE ONE AND A PHASE TWO PROJECT. SO IN BLUE IS THE PHASE ONE PROJECT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT TODAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO FIRST WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT EXISTING CONDITIONS. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE IT UP. SO, OKAY. SO, UM, THIS IS THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT. ALL, EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE IS PART OF THE PROJECT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OLD BATHHOUSE, WHICH IS THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT IN THE BACKGROUND. THE WALLS THAT YOU SEE IN THE FOREGROUND, THAT IS ALL WHAT WE'RE, UM, MAJOR PART OF WHAT WE'RE ABOUT HERE WITH THIS PROJECT. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT THE WALLS THAT ARE STANDING. THERE ARE AN OKAY CONDITION. UH, AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS THE RIGHT, THERE'S SOME, A STAIRCASE COMING DOWN, SOME BROKEN PIECES ON EACH SIDE. AS YOU MOVE FURTHER TO THE RIGHT, ANOTHER AREA THAT'S CRACKED, BUT IN STANDING, THEN YOU GET TO AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE, UH, THE WALL IS BASICALLY NOT THERE AT ALL ANYMORE. AND THEN AS YOU GO FURTHER, RIGHT, IF YOU DROP DOWN, SAY BELOW WIDER LEVEL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE STARTING TO COME APART THERE. A LOT OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE THAT HAS, UH, OCCURRED ON THE PARK. AND SOME OF THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO LARGE TREES THAT HAVE GROWN UP OVER THE YEARS, UH, AND HAVE PUSHED THOSE WALLS OVER. UH, SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND NOW YOU SEE, THIS IS WHEN WE ACTUALLY DRAINED THE RIVER, UH, TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS BELOW GRADE, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING ON THE RIVER BOTTOM. AND GOING BACK IN TIME, REMEMBER THIS WAS THE PUBLIC BEACH. IT WAS LIKE THE BARTON SPRINGS OF, UM, UH, SAN ANTONIO. SO IT WAS A CONCRETE BOTTOM. IT WAS LIKE A SWIMMING POOL FILLED WITH NATURAL RIVER WATER. THE BATHHOUSE ON THE TOP THERE IS WHERE PEOPLE CAME AND, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT CHANGED AND THEY WOULD COME DOWN HERE AND THEN USED THIS. THEY HAD PADDLE BOATS, HAD SWIMMING, DIVING BOARDS, ALL THE THINGS, RIGHT? UH, TODAY YOU CANNOT ACCESS IT. AND THAT IS A BIG PART OF THE FUTURE. RECOMMENDATIONS HERE ARE THAT ONE, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO USE THIS IN SIMILAR WAYS THAN THEY DID HISTORICALLY. UH, AND THERE'LL BE NO FURTHER DEGRADATION OF THESE CULTURAL RESOURCES. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SHOWS ANOTHER PIECE OF IT. AGAIN, THE RIVER'S BEEN DRAINED. THIS IS THE LARGE STEPS NEAR THE PUMP HOUSE THAT COME DOWN TO THE RIVERSIDE IN THIS LOCATION. THERE WERE ORIGINALLY STAIRS THERE, OR STEPS, THEY WERE REBUILT 20 PLUS YEARS AGO. UH, AND THE FOUNDATION, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME WE THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST PUT IT BACK TOGETHER AS BEST WE CAN. YOU CAN SEE THAT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF A FOUNDATION AND THIS BEING WITHIN THE KIND OF RIVER, UH, ACTIVE RIVER BANKS, THAT HAS FURTHER ERODED. SO THIS IS ANOTHER BIG PART OF THE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE. UH, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LOWER, UH, UH, RIVER WALLS THAT ARE, AGAIN, USUALLY THERE'S WATER, THERE'S WATERMARKS. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WHEN IT'S BEEN, UM, DRAINED. BUT THERE ARE TREES THAT HAVE VOLUNTEERED AND GROWN IN BETWEEN THE, UH, LOWER WALL, THE RIVER WALL, AND THE UPPER WALLS THAT KIND OF HOLD THAT, UH, BANK IN PLACE. AND THOSE ARE CONTINUING TO UNDERMINE AND, UH, CREATE ISSUES FOR THE CULTURAL RESOURCE OF THE, OF THE WALLS. NEXT SLIDE. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT UNDERPINNING THE PUMP HOUSE. AND THE ACTUAL PUMP HOUSE ITSELF IS THE FU IS WILL BE A FUTURE PROJECT. BUT RIGHT NOW FOR THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE WE ARE DEWATERING, UH, THE IDEA IS TO COME IN AND SHORE IT UP TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOUNDATIONS ARE, UM, SECURE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, SO, UH, NEXT SLIDE. SO, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE [03:45:01] SPECIFICALLY, UH, UH, ABOUT THE PHASE ONE PROJECT. UH, WHEN WE STARTED THE PROJECT, WE THOUGHT THERE WERE GOING TO BE THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND AFTER THE FIRST ONE, IT BECAME CLEAR, UH, THAT, UH, THE PUBLIC REALLY WANTED TO ENGAGE WITH THIS IN A MUCH BIGGER WAY. AND SO WE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO THE, UH, TO THE PROCESS. IN THE FIRST MEETING, UH, THE, I, THE, THE PROJECT AND THE ISSUES AND THE SITE ANALYSIS WERE PRESENTED, AND THEN THE PUBLIC HAD A CHANCE TO INTERACT WITH THE SPECIALISTS THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT. SECOND ONE, SOME DESIGN SOLUTIONS WERE THEN PUT FORWARD. UH, AND THEN THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN SORT OF A, UH, UH, YEAH, OPEN MIC CHANCE TO, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE CITY AND TO THE CONSULTANTS. WE COULD HEAR THEIR ISSUES. UH, WE DID A SIMILAR THING WITH THE THIRD MEETING, HOWEVER, THAT ALSO INCLUDED A PANEL Q AND A PANEL WITH THE, UH, CONSULTANT TEAM. AND AT THE LAST MEETING, BASED ON ALL OF THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED, UH, DURING THIS PROCESS, WE PRESENTED THE RESULTS OF THAT AND, AND THE FINAL PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. UH, SO WE GOT ONE MORE SLIDE. OKAY. SO COMING OUT OF THAT, PRESENT THOSE, UM, THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, A NUMBER OF SOLUTIONS WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE PUBLIC. IT WAS A JOB OF THE CONSULTANT TEAM AND THE CITY TO ENGAGE WITH THOSE AND FIGURE OUT, OKAY, ARE THESE VIABLE SOLUTIONS OR NOT? HOW SHOULD WE LOOK AT THESE? THE FIRST, UM, SOLUTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD TO US TO STUDY WAS WHAT IF WE TOOK, LET ME BACK UP JUST A MOMENT. THAT UPPER WALL THAT YOU SEE IN BLUE, THAT'S THE UPPER WALL. THERE'S A LOWER WALL BELOW IT THAT ACTUALLY DEFINES THE EDGE OF THE WATER, RIGHT? SO, AND THAT UPPER WALL IS ONE THAT WE SAW WITH MOST OF THE DAMAGE IN THE PREVIOUS, UM, UM, UH, SLIDES. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES BEHIND THAT WALL THAT ARE PUSHING IT OVER. UH, IN SOME CASES THE WALL ISN'T THERE OTHER CASES, IT'S JUST, IT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, CONTINUES TO CRACK. ONE IDEA. UH, WELL, THE ORIGINAL IDEA THAT WE HAD WAS WE NEED TO REMOVE THESE TREES SO THAT WE CAN RESTORE THIS WALL. AN IDEA PUT FORWARD BY THE PUBLIC WAS, WHAT IF WE TOOK THE WALL AND WE PUSHED IT FORWARD? NEXT SLIDE. UH, YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITION HERE. SO THERE'S SOME SCAFFOLDING THERE, HOLDING UP THE WALL IN SOME PLACES, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THAT UPPER WALL WOULD GET REBUILT, PUSHED FORWARD, AND THEN THEREFORE WE COULD SAVE SOME OF THE LARGER TREES THAT ARE BEHIND IT BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO AS MUCH EXCAVATION. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS HOW THAT MIGHT WORK. THE TOP GRAPHIC RIGHT HAND SIDE, IT SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITION, LARGE TREE, THE UPPER WALL, A WALKWAY, AND THEN THE RIVER WALL. THE LOWER ONE, YOU GO BELOW THAT, THE PROPOSED CONDITION WOULD BE TO TAKE THAT WALL AND PUSH IT FORWARD. OR TWO. THERE ARE A FEW, UH, SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THIS. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE LOWER WALL IS NOT STRUCTURALLY BUILT TO HANDLE THE PLACEMENT OF A NEW WALL ABOVE IT. IT'S A HISTORIC WALL. IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT, UH, THAT KIND OF INTEGRITY BUILT INTO IT. UH, THE SECOND THING IS THAT WHEN YOU MOVE THAT WALL, WHILE IT MAY NOT LOOK LIKE A LOT, IT DOES NARROW THE FLOODPLAIN, IT NARROWS THE RIVER. UH, AND WHEN YOU NARROW THE RIVER, THAT, UH, CREATES A LOT, OPENS THE DOOR FOR A LOT OF NEW PERMITS. AND IT ALSO MEANS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN, UM, DECISIONS AND AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS, UH, THAT GUIDE WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO. THESE DECISIONS AND AGREEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THIS PROJECT STARTED, THIS WOULD, UH, BREAK ONE OF THOSE AGREEMENTS, AND THEN IT STARTS A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. NEXT SLIDE. UH, IF YOU DID THAT, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE, AS WE STUDIED, WE HAD OUR, UH, HYDROLOGIST AND WE WORKED WITH SARAH, UH, THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY WOULD THE EFFECTS OF THIS BE. UH, THE BIGGEST ONE IS THAT WHILE WE WOULD SAVE SOME TREES, UH, WITHIN THE LAMBERT BEACH ZONE, THAT THE PROJECT WOULD THEN HAVE TO GET BIGGER, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN GO IN AND MITIGATE FOR THE NARROWING OF THE RIVER. UH, AND THAT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO WIDEN THE RIVER IN SOME OTHER LOCATION. THESE SECTIONS SHOW THAT IN SOME CASES WE'D HAVE TO CUT DOWN TREES, UH, AND BUILD NEW WALLS SO THAT THAT RIVER BANK COULD GET WIDER IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM, PROBABLY SO THAT NO, UH, FLOODING, UH, WOULD BE CREATED BY THE NARROWING OF THE RIVER IN THAT LOCATION. HERE, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, SO WE ASSEMBLED, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF PROS AND CONS. YOU DEFINITELY SAVE SOME TREES IF YOU DO THIS. THAT'S KIND OF THE MAJOR ONE. BUT ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE IS THAT, UH, IT REQUIRES THIS MITIGATION. A LOT OF OTHER TREES GET CUT DOWN INSTEAD OF THESE, UM, A LOT OF EARTH WORK HAPPENS, UH, AND IT VOIDS THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT WITH U S A C E. AND [03:50:01] THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIG ONE. THAT'S THESE AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UH, THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY SORT OF SET THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT CAN AND CANNOT HAPPEN WITHIN THE PARK, UH, AND, AND THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE AGREED TO. THE LAST ONE TOO IS THAT IT DRAMATICALLY ALTERS THE APPEARANCE AND FUNCTION OF THE, OF THAT WALL SYSTEM. UH, SO AS, UH, WE HAVE TO APPLY, WE HAVE TO, THE WORK WE DO HAS TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC, UH, RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION PROJECTS. THIS WOULD NOT MEET THAT BECAUSE WE'RE, UH, SEVERELY ALTERING THAT, UH, CONDITION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, AND THIS JUST, YOU KNOW, A KIND OF A RECAP OF WHAT IS IN THAT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT. UH, YOU KNOW, IT D WE, I BELIEVE THE CONSERVANCY, THE CITY, THE, HIS TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UH, LOCAL NATIVE AMERICAN BANDS HAVE ALL KIND OF PARTICIPATED AS STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN CRAFTING THIS AGREEMENT. UH, THIS, UM, PARTICULAR SOLUTION DOES NOT, UM, MEET THE LETTER OF THAT AGREEMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. UH, SO THEN AT, UH, FURTHER PUBLIC MEETING WE THEN HAD SOME OTHER IDEAS THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE PUBLIC. SO WE WENT AND LOOKED AT THOSE. THIS PARTICULAR IDEA WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST, I WAS OUR ORIGINAL IDEA OF HOW TO RE, UH, CONSTRUCT THESE WALLS. UH, BUT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE, UH, T H C, WE LEARNED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO APPROVE THIS PROCESS. BUT LET, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT IT, WHAT IT INVOLVED. UH, HERE YOU SEE FOUR SLOT, FOUR SLIDES, THE TOP ONE, TOP LEFT, THAT'S A HISTORIC WALL, UH, WITH A TREE BEHIND IT. AND THE ROOTS ARE BE, YOU KNOW, BEGINNING TO UNDERMINE THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENS FOR A, YOU KNOW, A DECENT PERCENTAGE OF OUR CURRENT PROJECT. WE NEED TO SHORE UP THAT WALL SO THAT IT WILL NOT CONTINUE TO DEGRADE. UH, AND THAT MEANS A COUPLE THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. EXCUSE ME. UH, MR. KINDER. SURE. I, I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, THIS IS, THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S TURNING INTO MORE OF A PROJECT SPECIFIC PRESENTATION. MM-HMM. , AND WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY HERE TO, TO, TO, TO SEE IF THE CITY MADE AN ERROR IN DECISION. UH, I JUST, I, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE PRESENTATION YOU WOULD MAKE TO THE H D R C. IT, IT IS EXACTLY THAT. OKAY. SO, YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. OKAY. YEAH. SO, UH, I WOULD ASK THEN CITY STAFF MAYBE TO DIRECT ME AS TO WHICH ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE. SO LET'S, BECAUSE, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR AND WHAT WE'RE HERE TO, TO DISCUSS. SO, I'M JUST GONNA ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. IS THE, IS THE I IS THE, UM, IS THE SECTION OF THE U D C THAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS, IS IT 35 6 80 A, UH, WHERE THE CITY IS, UH, THIS PROJECT IS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE, UM, UH, TREE HERITAGE TREES AT THE TOP OF A BANK OR ALONG THE RIVERWALK? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? PARTIALLY, YES. I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE, UH, YOU COULD, WELL, THE, YOU COULD STILL THAT SAY THAT'S MAYBE THE BIGGEST, UM, WELL, CONFLICT, I GUESS THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANNA, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE KEEPING ON POINT. MM-HMM. , UM, I'M ASKING C YOU CAN DECIDE WHO TO RESPOND, WHO, WHO RESPONDS, BUT, SO, MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN JUMP IN, AND I THINK I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION PLEASE. WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD RIGHT NOW IS AN APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PHASE ONE OF THE CITY PROJECT. SO SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO LAMBERT BEACH. AND THERE ARE FIVE SUB SUB COMPONENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD RIGHT NOW. SO WE'RE HEARING AN APPEAL ON THE ENTIRE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE. IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC PART TO IT. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. AND, AND AS FAR AS WHERE THE, WHERE THE ARGUMENT IS, WHERE THE CITY IS, IS BEING ARGUED THAT THEY MADE AN ERROR, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE PREMISE OF THE ERROR IS SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT WAS CONSIDERED GERMANE TO OUR CASE? I THINK THAT THAT IS BEST LEFT TO THE APPLICANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE CITY'S ERROR. BUT IN REFERENCE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THERE ARE FIVE SUBPARTS. AND SO IT SEEMS THAT THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE APPEAL, UH, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT WAS RELATED TO TREE REMOVAL. BUT I, I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WAS. OKAY. AND, AND WHO, WHO WAS THE, WHO MADE THE SAY ON WHETHER THE C THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE IS ISSUED, IS THE HT R C DO IT AND THEN THE, THE DIRECTOR THEN ISSUES IT, OR BECAUSE THE H R C APPROVES IT? OR CAN THE DIRECTOR YES. DO, UH, TAKE UNDER RECOMMENDATION WHAT THE H C R C SAYS AND ISSUE IT REGARDLESS? YES. THE CODE REQUIRES THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. TYPICALLY, IT'S THE CITY MANAGER THROUGH THE DESIGNEE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS SHANNON MILLER, WHO IS THE OFFICE OF, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE [03:55:01] CITY, IS THE ONE THAT ISSUED THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. NOW, SHE GETS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC COMMISSION, BUT THEY DON'T MAKE A DECISION. SO ANYTHING THAT THEY HEARD OR SAID IS MERELY A RECOMMENDATION TO HER. OKAY. SHE MAKES THE DECISION AND YOU WOULD BE EITHER AFFIRMING OR OVERTURNING HER DECISION AND ANYTHING THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR, UM, IN THE CITY'S OPINION, DID IT OCCUR, SO THERE WAS AN H C R C MEETING. YOU, YOU THERE PROBABLY HAD TO GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY ARBORIST THAT DID EVERYTHING THAT THE U D C REQUIRES TO HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE THAT DECISION WAS MADE. DID IT HAPPEN? IT, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THE CITY DID NOT HAVE ANY ERROR IN APPROVING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, EVEN IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND THE TIMELINES AND THE CONDUCT, I MEAN, YEAH. YES, IT IS OUR, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE PROCESS. OKAY. AND, AND THAT DECISION THAT IS COMPLETELY SUB IS, IS COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTOR. I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT TO MAKE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? CORRECT. THEY, THEY COULD CHOOSE TO NOT AGREE WITH THE, UH, HISTORIC COMMISSION AND HAVE A DIFFERENT DECISION. UM, BUT AS MR. EDWARDS REFERRED TO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THAT IS VERY, VERY RARE BECAUSE THEY UTILIZE THE EXPERTISE OF THE HISTORIC COMMISSION. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN TASKED TO DO, IS TO, TO USE THAT EXPERTISE TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A RECOMMENDATION. AND SO TECHNICALLY THEY COULD, BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T. IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS DECISION, UH, DECISION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THAT IS WHAT, UH, MS. MILLER AS THE DIRECTOR DID. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT, THAT, THAT THIS, THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER SOMEBODY LIKED WHAT THE CITY DID OR NOT. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR CONDUCT. AND, UH, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE HEAR IS, IS DEALING JUST WITH THAT. IS THERE AN A, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE WHAT THE CITY DOES, DO THEY, IS THERE AN AVENUE FOR THEM TO, UH, ASIDE FROM THIS BOARD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? I MEAN, IS IT JUST BECOME A LAWSUIT OR SOMETHING? OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. SO IF, IF, IF SOMEBODY, IF, IF, IF A PARTY DOESN'T LIKE AN ACTION MADE BY THE CITY, UH, AND THERE WASN'T AN, AN ERROR IN THEIR CONDUCT, IS IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO GO YES. THE DISTRICT COURT OR SOMETHING? YES. IF ANYBODY DID NOT LIKE THE DECISION THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE TODAY, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT, WELL, NOT THIS BOARD. I MEAN, IF THIS, I'M SAYING THAT, I'M SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT HERE TO, TO, TO, IF THE CITY WANTS TO GRANT A SEE A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATE IS WHICH, WHICH RESULTS IN THE REMOVAL OF SOME TREES THAT, THAT, UM, THAT CITIZENS MAY NOT LIKE. THIS BOARD IS NOT HERE TO OVERTURN IT, BE FOR THOSE REASONS. IT'S ONLY FOR WHETHER THERE WAS A CONDUCT OF A CONDUCT ERROR. SO, IS, IS THERE ANOTHER AVENUE ASIDE FROM THIS BOARD THAT, THAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT CITY, UH, THAT, WITH THAT DECISION, I WOULD RECOMMEND GIVING THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE ASKING, THAT YOU CONSIDER GOING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO GO TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, PLEASE. SO THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD. YEAH. THE TIME IS 5 28, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDING TO SECTION 5 51 DASH OH SEVEN, ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL NOW GO IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO, UH, UH, TO AGENDA, TO AGENDA ITEM, UH, BO O A 23 DASH 1 0 3 27 IN REGARD TO THE LEGALITIES OF THE REQUEST. AFTER SUCH DELIBERATION, THE COMMISSION WILL CON RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. MR. CHAIR, BEFORE YOU DO GO INTO, NO, WE'RE GOING TO EXEC, WE'LL BE BACK. OKAY. THE TIME IS NOW 5:45 PM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MET IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW RECONVENING AN OPEN SESSION. THANK YOU. AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE'RE GONNA WRAP UP OUR PRESENTATION HERE SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. UM, SO JUST TO RECAP, UM, THE H C R C DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THREE, WITH THREE STIPULATIONS. UM, THESE WERE ACTUALLY SUGGESTIONS FROM THE RIVER HOOD NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THEY WERE MODIFIED A LITTLE BIT IN THE ACTION, BUT THEY WERE THAT NOTE WORK ACCC OCCURRED UNTIL THE SECTION 1 0 6 PROCESS IS COMPLETE. THAT'S THAT, UH, REVIEW BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THAT ANY ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS WILL COME BACK TO THE H C R C. UM, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THE SCOPE MIGHT EXPAND, AND SO THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WERE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY. AND THE CITY, OF COURSE, AGREED TO DO THAT. UM, AND IF THE CITY WOULD CONTINUE TO MONITOR AND MAINTAIN, UM, ANY OF THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANT TREES DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS OF COURSE PART OF THE PLAN AS WELL. UM, UH, IN THE MOTION, UM, THERE WAS A FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT ASSESSMENT OF EACH TREE, UM, TO BE REMOVED BY THE PROJECT HAD BEEN PROVIDED AND THAT [04:00:01] THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE U D C HAD BEEN SATISFIED. UM, AND AGAIN, THAT VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS AT THE H D R C. NEXT SLIDE. UM, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT U D C 35 6 80, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO THE TREE REMOVAL. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS IT'S ASKING THE H D R C TO DO IS CONSIDER, UM, UNUSUAL AND, UH, COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT'S WHETHER OR NOT, UM, ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN EXPLORED AND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AN ASSESSMENT, A THOROUGH OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF EACH TREE HAD BEEN PERFORMED. UM, SO THE COMMISSION DID CONSIDER WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS, WHICH WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE PACKET HAD BEEN CONSIDERED, AND THE MOTION, UM, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION NOTED THAT SUFFICIENT ASSESSMENT OF EACH TREE TO BE REMOVED IN THE PROJECT HAD, UH, BEEN PROVIDED TO DATE, THUS SATISFYING 35 6 80, THAT ANY FUTURE REMOVALS AND ADDITIONAL SCOPES WOULD REQUIRE SIMILAR ASSESSMENT. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THAT STIPULATION THAT, UM, FUTURE TREE REMOVAL ALSO RETURNED TO THE H C R C WITH ANY ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. UM, SO HERE WE ARE TODAY. UH, THIS IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO A REMINDER, UM, THE U D C STATES THAT THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER, UM, THE SAME FACTORS AS THE COMMISSION AS THE H C R C RATHER, UM, AND THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. UM, THIS IS PARTLY WHY WE MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE, UM, THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE PROJECT THAT WE CUT SHORT, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS THE EXACT SAME PRESENTATION THAT THE H C R C SAW WHEN, UH, REVIEWING THE PROJECT. UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THE B O A MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE DECISION. AND SO IN SOME WAYS, IT'S NOT REOPENING THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT AND EVALUATING, UH, PER THE REVIEW CRITERIA, BUT IT'S, UM, ESTABLISHING WHETHER OR NOT AN ERROR IN THE DECISION MAKING OCCURRED. AND SO WHETHER OR NOT STAFF WAS CORRECT TO ISSUE A C O A CONSISTENT WITH THE H C R C RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. SO TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THIS, UH, THERE WAS A PROJECT INITIATED IT, AND, AND THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS THAT IT WENT THROUGH THE H D R C. THE H D R C APPROVED IT, THE CITY ARBOR ALSO PROVIDED, UH, PROVIDED THEIR RECOMMENDATION AS REQUIRED BY, BY SECTION SIX 80 IN THE CITY FORESTER. IN THE CITY FORESTER. OKAY. AND THEN, AND THEN THE, THE, UH, OFFICE OF THE, THE DIRECTOR OF O H P THEN ISSUED THE, AT THE C O A BASED ON, UM, FOLLOWING THE U D C? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. AND, UM, CAN YOU SPEAK, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IN THIS THAT, THAT, UM, POINTED TO ANY SPECIFIC ERROR THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON? UM, NOT SPECIFICALLY. THERE'S, AS YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN THE APPLICATION. UM, THERE'S MANY RESPONSES TO SAS FINDINGS IN THIS, IN THE H ORIGINAL H C R C REPORT. UM, SO I THINK WE'LL RESERVE THOSE FOR REBUTTAL, UM, IF NECESSARY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR THE CITY BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT. WE, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. MR. CHAIR. I'M SORRY. JUST REALLY QUICK TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU, UH, MAKE THE STATEMENT ABOUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? OH, YES. UM, THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'M SORRY. I HAD A, I HAVE A LITTLE SKE SPEECH HERE. I DIDN'T, UH, MAY HAVE NOT, I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT, BUT YEAH, THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , HI. PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US HOW THE CITY MADE IT. SO, EVERYTHING ABOUT ME? NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING, PERHAPS IS, UH, MORE TO THE POINT. UH, MY NAME IS SUSAN STR AND I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, UH, TOMMY RIFKIN. AND SHE IS A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET, AS YOU SAW IN THE, UM, IN THE, UH, CITY'S REPORT. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCEDURE JUST TO START. UM, NORMALLY I THINK WE WOULD, THE APPLICANT WOULD GO FIRST AND THEN THE CITY WOULD MAKE THEIR RESPONSE, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A REBUTTAL. SO I WANNA RESERVE THAT WE HAVE A SIR REBUTTAL IF THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE A REBUTTAL. SURE. WE'LL, I WILL ALWAYS GIVE THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE A REBUTTAL. OKAY. AS LONG AS IT'S GERMANE THOUGH. 'CAUSE REMEMBER WE'RE HERE ABOUT HOW THE CITY MADE AN ERROR. EXACTLY. OKAY. AND, UH, AND I WILL ADDRESS THAT. UM, I, FIRST, I DO WANNA ADDRESS THOUGH, UM, SOMETHING THAT MR. EDWARDS JUST SAID. UH, HE SAID BOTH THAT THE H D R C RELIED ON THE INDEPENDENT ARBORIST, UM, REPORT FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 35 6 80. AND THEN HE SAID ALSO THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY ARBORIST AND THE FORESTER. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATING ANY RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY ARBORIST OR THE CITY FORESTER. THAT IS NOT IN THE RECORD. I WILL DEFINITELY ASK ABOUT THAT. OH, AND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOLD ON. LET'S POINT OF ORDER, GIVE HER, UH, UH, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF ORDER COMMISSIONERS? MY POINT OF ORDER IS THAT SHE'S DOING A REBUTTAL NOW. WE WANT THE PRESENTATION. WELL, YEAH, THIS, THAT'S, SHE'S DOING HER PRESENTATION AND, AND SHE'S, AND THEN THE REBUTTAL LATER ON. OKAY. WELL, SHE, SHE, I THINK, I THINK I'M GONNA GIVE HER A LITTLE LEEWAY. UH, BUT PLEASE CONTINUE. OKAY. SO MY NAME IS, AGAIN, IS SUSAN STRON, AND MY ADDRESS IS 6 0 7 RIVER ROAD, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF [04:05:01] OF THE APPLICANT, MS. RIPKIN, UH, WHO SHE, MS. RIPKIN IS OWNED PROPERTY NEAR THE PARK, UH, FOR DECADES AND SPENDS HER TIME WALKING IN THE PARK. UM, SHE'S AGAINST THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE TREES, AND THAT IS THE CRUX OF OUR APPEAL HERE TODAY IS SOLELY THE SECTION ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL, PARTICULARLY THE HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT WE CONTEND IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 35 6 80 AND SOME OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN OUR PAPERS. UM, SO THAT IS THE FOCUS OF OUR APPEAL HERE TODAY. UM, THE REMOVAL OF THOSE TREES WILL DESTROY IMPORTANT SHADE CAN CANOPY OVER THE RIVER AND THE RIVERBANK, AS WELL AS IN ICONIC VIEW SHED THAT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE STATE INEQUITIES ACT. THE, UH, NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. LAMBERT BEACH IS RECOGNIZED AS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE THAT IS PROTECTED AND THEREFORE PROTECTED ALSO IN THE U D C. UM, MS. RIFKIN JOINS A LONG LINE OF COURAGEOUS ADVOCATES THAT WE'VE HAD IN THIS PROCEEDING OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS. UM, PEOPLE WHO HAVE PUT THEIR INVESTED CONSIDERABLE TIME PUT THEIR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATIONS ON THE LINE, WE ARE TRYING TO HELP THE CITY DO A BETTER JOB. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE WALLS REPAIRED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PUMPHOUSE REPAIRED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN A WAY THAT COMPORTS WITH THE HISTORIC, UH, ASPECT OF LAMBERT BEACH, WHICH WAS AS A SHADED WOODED BANK IN A SWIMMING BEACH. CAN I, MAY I HAVE MY POWER CLEAN UP? NOT THAT ONE, THE OTHER ONE. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. SORRY. THERE WE GO. SO, UM, SO AS I MENTIONED, UM, WE HAVE HAVE THE VOLUNTEER ENGINEERS WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME, MR. CRUZ AND TIROS, BOTH NATIVES OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, WE'VE HAD A VOLUNTEER CONSULTING ARBORIST, MR. GERSON. UM, THE CITY'S OWN PANEL OF INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS MADE CLEAR THAT, UH, CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND DESIGN COULD AND SHOULD SAVE MORE TREES. AND THEY REJECTED THE IDEA OF TRANSPLANTING THE BIGGEST OAK, WHICH THE CITY PLANS TO DO. UM, AND WE'VE HAD MANY, MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE DEDICATED TIME TO REQUEST DOCUMENTS AND POUR OVER THE HISTORICAL RECORDS. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SAVE OUR HISTORIC LANDSCAPE AS IT'S REPRESENTED IN THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT. THAT IS A PICTURE FROM THE 1930S OR TWENTIES EVEN. UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WALLS ARE BUILT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WALLS ARE THERE, UM, AND THERE ARE MATURE TREES. SO THOSE TREES CLEARLY EXISTED BEFORE THOSE WALLS WERE BUILT IN THE TWENTIES, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY THERE, THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY TOO BIG TO HAVE BEEN NOT THERE WHEN THOSE WALLS WERE PUT UP. SO THOSE WALLS WERE PUT UP TO SAVE THE TREES, PROTECT THE TREES FROM THE EROSION OF THE BANKS, AND THAT'S THE HISTORIC, ICONIC LOOK OF THE BEACH. LIKE BARTON SPRINGS, LIKE LAND TO PARK. UM, IT WAS AN OLD SWIMMING HOLE ON THE RIGHT, YOU SEE THE CONCEPT DRAWING NO TREES, NO WALLS THAT CAN SUPPORT TREES. UM, A VERY HOT, BARREN, STERILE LANDSCAPE HAS NO, UH, NOT ONE SINGLE THING THAT, UH, MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE OLD SWIMMING HOLE. UM, AND THE WOODED NA NATURAL AREA THAT, THAT WE HAD BEFORE, THAT WE HAVE NOW. SO WE HAVE A HOST OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE HELPED US, AND WE'RE HERE, HERE, AND WE WANT TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFORMING A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE HERE. YOU ARE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN US AND THE CITY IN THIS, IN THIS REGARD. WE'RE THANKFUL THAT YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO CORRECT ERRORS AND ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT. UM, WE REALIZE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENTIONED, AND WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING, WE ALL WANT A GOOD PROJECT HERE. WE WANT THE WALLS, WE WANT THE TREES. WE WANT A BEAUTIFUL SPACE IN OUR PARK. UM, BUT ANY GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENTIONED CAN MAKE MISTAKES. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE MADE THE MISTAKES HERE, AND THAT THEY'VE FAILED TO SEE ALTERNATIVES PLACED IN FRONT OF THEM, AND THEY FAILED TO SEEK OUTSIDE OPINIONS EVEN WHEN THEY'VE BEEN ENCOURAGED, LIKE BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO DO THAT. UM, BUT [04:10:01] THE REASON WHY WE HAVE YOU, AND WE'RE PLACING OUR FAITH IN YOU, IS THAT WE HAVE CITIZEN CHECKS ON GOVERNMENT. AND THAT'S THE WAY OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS. AND UNLIKE H D R C, YOU'RE NOT AN ADVISORY BO BODY. YOU ARE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY. SO, LIKE A JUDGE OR A JURY, YOU HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO APPLY THE LAW AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER ERRORS HAVE BEEN MADE. IN THIS CASE, THE CITY STANDS BEFORE YOU LIKE ANY OTHER APPLICANT. IT HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS. THE CITY MUST COMPLY WITH THE LAW, AND IT MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS FACTUAL ASSERTIONS. AND WE'RE THANKFUL AND CONFIDENT THAT YOU'LL PERFORM YOUR ROLE AS A NEUTRAL ARBITER AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE RECORD, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HEAR THE LACK OF A RECORD THAT THE CITY HAS MADE. IN THAT RESPECT, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THE C O A, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO ANYTHING UNUSUAL. WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT ROLE THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN AS YOU WOULD DO IN ANY CASE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS CASE IS UNUSUAL, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE IT IS SO UNCOMMON TO RES TO REQUEST TO DESTROY HEALTHY HERITAGE TREES ALONG THE BANKS OF THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER, THESE ARE TREES THAT DEFINE OUR CITY, AND ACCORDINGLY ARE PROVIDED THE HIGHEST PROTECTION IN THE U D C. IT IS RARE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO CUT ONE DOWN, MUCH LESS DOZENS. FOR THAT REASON ALONE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE RIGHT, AS THIS CASE WILL BE A PRECEDENT FOR TREES ALL ALONG THE RIVER, INCLUDING THE RIVERWALK. SO WE ARE ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT MS. RIFKIN'S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE TREE PROTECTIONS IN THE CODE. I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH THE ERRORS NOW THROUGH THE SIDESHOW. SO AS, AS I SAID, THE MOST CLEAR VIOLATIONS COME WITHIN SECTION 35 6 80. UM, ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE THE CODE PROVISION THAT'S QUOTED IN THE CITY'S PAPERS. HERITAGE TREES, REMOVAL OR DAMAGE TO HERITAGE TREES SUCH AS LARGE CYPRESS TREES AND OTHER OLD SIGNIFICANT TREES AT THE TOP OF THE BANKER ALONG THE RIVERWALK IS PROHIBITED. SO WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT WHERE THE TREE IS DAMAGED DUE TO DISEASE, AGE OR PHYSICAL CONDITION, AND MUST BE REMOVED FOR THE SAFETY REASONS. THEN WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY ARBOR OR OFFICIALS, URBAN FORESTER, THE H D R C MAY GRANT APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION. ON THE RIGHT IS THE O H P FINDING. O H P FINDING SAYS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, FREE REMOVAL, REMOVAL MAY BE APPROVED BY THE H D R C WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY ARBORIST AND FORESTER IN INSTANCES OF DISEASE, AGE OR PHYSICAL CONDITION, OR IF THEY MUST BE REMOVED FOR THE SAFETY REASONS. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A MIS QUOTATION OF THE STANDARD. THE STANDARD IN THE CODE IS, AND IT MUST, THE TREE MUST BE DAMAGED AND MUST BE REMOVED FOR SAFETY REASONS. THAT MEANS THAT IT MUST BE BOTH THE TREE MUST BE DAMAGED. THERE MUST BE A FINDING FROM THE ARBORIST THAT THE TREE IS DAMAGED AND THE TREE MUST BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY REASONS THE CITY HAS, HAS CHANGED THAT. AND TO ORE AND THEN COMPOUNDED THAT ERROR BY SAYING THAT THE CONDITIONS AT THE SITE PRESENT A SAFETY CONCERN, NOT THE TREE, THE CONDITIONS AT THE SITE. NOTHING ABOUT THESE TREES IS CAUSING A SAFETY CONDITION. IT'S THE WALLS THAT ARE CAUSING THE SAFETY CONDITION. SO THIS IS COMPLETELY MISREAD THE CODE. THERE IS, IT'S NOT AN OR, IT'S AN AND AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE TREES IN QUESTION ARE DAMAGE DUE TO DISEASE, AGE, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION. AND THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ARBORIST OR THE CITY FORESTER. SO WE, THE CITY HAS SIMPLY NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CODE. SO THE PLATE ERROR, THE CODE SAYS, AND NOT, OR THERE'S NO FINDING THAT THESE TREES ARE DAMAGED. AND IN FACT, THERE'S A PLAN TO TRY TO TRANSPLANT ONE, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY IF THE CITY BELIEVED THAT THAT TREE WERE DAMAGED AND DISEASED, IT WOULDN'T SPEND $400,000 PLUS TO TRY TO DRAG IT BACK 15 FEET FROM THE RIVER. THEY THINK THAT TREE IS HEALTHY. SO THERE'S JUST BEEN NO FINDING AT ALL THAT THESE TREES MEET THE STANDARD FOR REMOVAL UNDER THE CODE. THE, THE CODE GOES ON TO SAY THEN WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY, ARBORIST OR FORESTER. THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION OF THAT IN THIS RECORD. WE HEARD TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, THAT THE CITY [04:15:01] IS RELYING ON THE INDEPENDENT ARBORIST. HOWEVER, THE INDEPENDENT ARBORIST REPORT, WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKET, DOES NOT CONSIDER, DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY OF THESE TREES ARE UNHEALTHY OR DAMAGED. THERE'S NO FINDING OF THAT. IT DOES FIND THAT THESE TREES WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION METHOD CHOSEN BY THE CITY. BUT THE ARBORISTS, THE INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS, WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS OR ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS. AND WHETHER THE TREES WOULD SURVIVE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE CITY'S CHOSEN CONSTRUCTION METHOD. WE'LL GET INTO THAT LATER. BUT THE POINT FOR THIS, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ERROR, THE POINT IS, IS THAT THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION, THERE IS NO ARBORIST FINDING IN THE RECORD THAT ANY OF THESE TREES ARE DAMAGED OR CAUSING THEMSELVES A SAFETY HAZARD. SO, AND AGAIN, THE CITY'S FINDING IS BASED ON A CONTENTION THAT THE SITE CONDITIONS ARE THE SOURCE OF THE SAFETY CONCERN, NOT THE TREES. SO THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD JUST SIMPLY GUT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE CODE, BECAUSE ANYONE COULD FIND THAT CONDITIONS AT A SITE CAUSE A SAFETY CONDITION OR CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD. AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO REMEDY THAT SAFETY HAZARD IF YOU CAN CUT DOWN ALL THE TREES, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS WOULD GUT THE WHOLE PROTECTION. THE WHOLE PROTECTION OF THIS PROVISION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE TREES TAKE PRIORITY, THE TREES ON THE RIVER BANK IN THE CITY, WHICH IS ONLY FROM THE BLUE HOLE, YOU KNOW, DOWN TO THE MISSION REACH, THEY RECEIVE THE HIGHEST PROTECTION IN THE CODE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TREES THAT DEFINE THE CITY. THE CYPRESS IS DOWNTOWN ON THE RIVER WALK. THE LIVE OAKS THROUGH BACKEN RIDGE PARK, THOSE ARE THE TREES THAT DEFINE OUR CITY. THEY RECEIVE THE HIGHEST PROTECTION. SO, AS I SAID, THE U D C BASICALLY PROVIDES A HIERARCHY, UM, UNDER SECTION 35, 523. HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREES ARE GENERALLY PROTECTED BOTH ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. UM, I'VE LISTED SOME THINGS THERE. IT'S THE PUBLIC POLICY TO MAINTAIN THOSE TREES. UM, CITY DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SHALL MAXIMIZE THE PRESERVATION OF TREES, PARKS, AND RECS SHALL MAXIMIZE THE PRESERVATION OF TREES DURING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. UH, THAT IS UNDER THE LOWEST TIER OF PRESERVATION FOR TREES. THEN WE HAVE TREES IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. UM, THOSE REQUIRE A VARIANCE. UM, BUT THEN WE HAVE THE TREES ON THE RIO. THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST PROTECTION. SO TO READ THE CODE, AS THE CITY HAS DONE TO SAY THAT WHENEVER THERE'S A SAFETY CONCERN AT A SITE, YOU CAN CHOP DOWN THE TREES ON THE RIO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE TREES HAVE LESS PROTECTION THAN A STANDARD UNDER THE STANDARD, UH, 5 23. SO THAT READING IS JUST CLEARLY INCORRECT AND IS AN ERROR. UM, SECTION 35 6 80 DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION FOR MITIGATION THAT IS FOUND IN THESE OTHER SECTIONS. AND IT HAS NO PROVISION FOR TRANSPLANTING HEALTHY TREES AWAY FROM THE RIVERBANK. SO SIX 80 IS CLEAR. IT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY CHOP DOWN TREES IF THEY ARE A SAFETY HAZARD AND BECAUSE OF THEIR CONDITION THAT THEY'RE DAMAGED. AND THERE MUST BE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ARBORIST TO DO THAT. OKAY? SO THAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE POINT OF ERROR. NOW, SECTION SIX 80 DOES HAVE A PROVISION THAT FOR UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU CAN REMOVE TREES. BUT THERE'S BEEN NO ANALYSIS OR FINDING IN THE RECORD THAT THESE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES. UM, WE HAVE PRESENTED THE OPINIONS OF ENGINEERS AND ARBORISTS AND THE REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES THAT IN AND OF THEMSELVES NEGATE ANY FINDING OF UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. UM, THERE IS A LIST OF FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CODE, AND I GO THROUGH THAT IN OUR PETITION. I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THAT HERE. IT'S LENGTHY. BUT, UM, SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE CITY HAS NOT ATTEMPTED IN, IN THE RECORD, TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS, APPLY THOSE STANDARDS OR MAKE FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE STANDARDS. THE DESTRUCTION HERE IS SIMPLY CAUSED BY THE CITY'S CHOICE OF CONSTRUCTION METHOD. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THE CITY, FOR SOME REASON, HAS DECIDED TO USE WHAT'S CALLED A CANTILEVER SHADOW SHADOW WALL, WHICH IS THE, UM, DRAWING ON THE RIGHT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DRAWING, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, THERE'S A FOUR FOOT DEEP FOOTER. SO BOTH, BOTH OF BOTH US AND THE CITY, WE ALL AGREE THAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE HERE IS THESE WALLS NEED TO BE BRACED UP BY SOME SORT OF MODERN SHADOW WALL BEHIND THEM. THEY EITHER NEED TO BE REBUILT [04:20:01] IF THEY'RE NON-EXISTENT AGAINST THE SHADOW WALL, OR THEY NEED TO BE BRACED UP BY, BY THAT SHADOW WALL. THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU BUILD THE SHADOW WALL TO HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON THE TREES? AND THE CITY HAS DECIDED TO BUILD A CANTILEVER WALL. SO THEY COME IN WITH A FOOTER AT THE BASE AND THEN FILL THAT IN WITH DIRT. SO THE FOOTER IS FOUR FEET DEEP, SO IT'S GONNA REQUIRE A HOLE AT LEAST FIVE FEET WIDE BEHIND THE WALL INTO THE BANK, THAT MUCH EXCAVATION INTO THE BANK. SO OF COURSE, NO TREE THAT'S WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE WALL CAN SURVIVE THAT. THERE'S NO WAY. RIGHT? AND, AND, AND WHAT THE ARBORISTS HAVE, WHAT THE INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS HAVE SAID IS, YEAH, CITY, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION METHOD, YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WILL BE IMPACTS ON THE TREES. THAT'S ALL THAT OPINION SAYS. UM, WHAT OUR ENGINEERS SAY IS THERE'S A LOTS OF WASTE TO, TO DO THIS, RIGHT? BUT ONE VERY SIMPLE WAY THAT'S BEEN USED IN THE PARK BEFORE ON THE WITTY, UH, CANAL, IS TO USE APPEARANCE. SPANEL SYSTEM AND APPEARANCE SPAN SYSTEM MEANS YOU DRILL PIERS AND THEN YOU PUT A, A, A WALL OF VARYING THICKNESS. IT COULD, DEPENDING ON HOW FAR APART YOUR PIERS ARE, AND THEN YOU PUT THE WALL BACK UP AGAINST THAT SHADOW WALL. SO IT REQUIRES VERY LITTLE EXCAVATION. OR, UM, OUR ENGINEER, CARLOS GUTIERREZ, OUT OF HOUSTON, UM, E ESTIMATED BETWEEN EIGHT AND 12 INCHES OF EXCAVATION INTO THE BANK. AND NOW OF COURSE, WHERE THE PIERS ARE, IT'S MORE THE PIERS HAVE TO BE 18 TO 24 INCHES. BUT THOSE PIERS CAN BE AS MUCH AS 12 FEET APART ON CENTER. AND YOU CAN CHOOSE WHERE YOU PUT THOSE PIERS. SO YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TAKE THE WALL DOWN OR YOU DO YOUR AIR SPADING, FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE ROOTS ARE, AND THEN DECIDE WHERE YOU'RE GONNA PUT THOSE PIERS TO AVOID THE ROOTS. AND WITH THE HELICAL SYSTEM, WHICH AGAIN, OUR ENGINEERS, UH, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDED THE HELICAL SYSTEM, WHICH IS A, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO THE DEPTHS OF MY ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE HERE, BUT THE HELICAL SYSTEM, IT'S EXPLAINED IN YOUR PACKET, BUT BASICALLY IT, IT'S A DRILL. IT'S LIKE A WOOD WORKS LIKE A WOOD SCREW, AND IT COMPRESSES THE DIRT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE DIRT OUT. IT COMPRESSES THE DIRT. IT PERFORATES THE, THE ROOTS IF THE ROOTS ARE THERE OR IT PUSHES THEM OUT OF THE WAY. AND IT CAN BE DONE WITH LIGHTWEIGHT EQUIPMENT AND BOOMS THAT, THAT REACH IN. SO DRILLING THE PIERS IS NOT, NOT A PROBLEM. AND, UM, AND THEY CAN BE SPACED TO AVOID THE ROOTS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. NOW, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT ON THE TREES, AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME TREES MIGHT DIE. UM, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT OUR ARBORISTS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR ENGINEER HAS SAID THAT IF YOU DO THIS PROPERLY AND YOU GO IN, YOU SEAL THE, CUT, THE ROOT ROOTS, SEAL THE ROOTS, AND THEN PUT THE WALL UP, UM, THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CHANCE THAT EVEN THE MOST, EVEN THE TREES THAT ARE MOST IMPACTED BY THE WALLS THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE WALLS HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT YOU HAVE IS, YOU HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN YES, POINT OF ORDER. WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF ORDER? WE'RE GOING INTO ENGINEERING HERE. WE JUST WANT TO KNOW THE DETERMINATION THAT YOU HAVE. WE DON'T WANT THE SOLUTION HERE. THEY BID THROUGH IT ALREADY, ENGINEERS, ET CETERA. YOU KNOW, GET TO THE POINT, IN OTHER WORDS. YEAH. AND, AND, AND I, I, I DO AGREE. I MEAN, WE, WE, UH, WE PLEASE KEEP IT. DON'T BE SO SPECIFIC OKAY. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS, JUST, YOU KNOW, OKAY. YOU'RE DO, YOU'RE DOING WELL WITH, WITH ON PM ON TRACK WITH ERRORS. SO LET'S, OKAY, I WILL GET BACK TO THE ERRORS. SO, UH, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THIS IS A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS NOT EXPLORED FULLY BY THE CITY. AND, UH, AND THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, WITH A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS TO SAVE THE TREES, THE PRIORITY IS TO SAVE THE TREES. SO THE CITY HAS, HAS MR. KINDER BEGAN TO GO INTO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE PUBLIC. UM, THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE CITY'S BURDEN TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. UM, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE STATEMENT OF OUR ENGINEER SAID, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY WANTED TO SAVE THE TREE TREES, IT COULD, THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT AN ENGINEERING ONE IN A NORMAL PROJECT. REQUIREMENTS ARE GIVEN AND SOLUTIONS ARE FOUND. SO WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED HERE IS THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SAID, THE CODE REQUIRES US TO PRIORITIZE THE TREES DESIGN TEAM. YOU GO OUT AND FIND A SOLUTION TO REPAIR THESE WALLS AND SAVE THESE TREES. AND THEN IF YOU COME BACK AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT COST EFFECTIVE OR IT CAN'T BE DONE, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT YOU DON'T COME UP WITH YOUR SOLUTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE TREES. THAT'S THE DECISION OF THE H G R C. THAT'S NOT FOR THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER, THOUGH. WE, WE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS, PROCEDURAL [04:25:01] ERRORS, WHETHER THEY, THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT ANOTHER WAY THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE ALL BEEN DONE AT THE H D R C MEETING. WELL, IT IS ERROR THOUGH TO, UH, THE CITY. IT IS ERROR, BUT NOT FOR US TO CONSIDER. IT'S NOT FOR US. NO, BECAUSE IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CODE NOT TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE. WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE, WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE IS THAT? IT'S A IT, I'LL COME TO THAT, BUT IT'S, WELL, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE GOING TO ARGUE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN THEY HAVE TO, WELL, OKAY. SAY THAT THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE THAT. WELL, THE H D C HAS THE, THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT'S UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES IF THEY SAY IT'S UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AT THE H D R C MEETING. I THINK THAT, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THEY DID NOT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT, THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THEY FOUND THAT, UM, SO, OR DID THE PROPER ANALYSIS. BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO LOOK BEYOND, UH, BOLD ASSERTIONS OF FACT AND LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THERE'S ANY SUPPORT FOR THOSE ASSERTIONS OF FACT. OKAY. BUT, UM, I'M JUST AS A REMINDER, RIGHT, YOU KNOW, PLEASE STICK WITH SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS, ERRORS, THAT SORT OF THING. OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO THERE'S, AGAIN, THIS GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES, UM, THAT WERE EXPLORED. AND THE CITY HAS, HAS PUT FORTH THEIR V VERSION OF THIS. SO I DO THINK THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE, THE CITY HAS CLAIMED THAT THE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS, UH, THAT THE T H C WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO REBUILD THE WALLS AND USE APPEARANCE VANDAL, UH, SYSTEM. AND BASICALLY THAT IS JUST, IT'S REBUTTED BY THE THCS OWN WORDS. UM, THEY'VE SAID THAT THEY NEVER TOLD THE CITY THAT, UM, THAT THEY NEVER WERE GIVEN AN ALTERNATIVE TO OPINE ON. AND, UH, AND AT THE HEARING WHERE THEY DID, UH, GRANT THE ANTIQUITIES PERMIT, UM, THEY SAID, WE WOULD WISH THAT THE CITY WOULD GO AND CONSULT PROFESSIONALS AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION THAT WE FEEL LIKE OUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY BEEN GIVEN ONE ALTERNATIVE. SO, AGAIN, NO, THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY ARBORISTS FOUND THAT IMPACTS FROM THE TREES FROM APPEARANCE PANEL SYSTEM SUCH AS WE PRO, UH, PROPOSED WOULD BE FATAL TO THE TREES. UM, THE CITY HAMSTRUNG ITS INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS BY TELLING THEM THEY COULDN'T CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES IN A TWO PAGE REPORT, THOUGHT IT WAS FOUR PAGES. BUT WHEN I WAS GOING BACK TO PREPARE FOR THIS, I FOUND IT WAS ONLY TWO PAGES. IN TWO PAGES. THEY MANAGED TO SAY FOUR TIMES THAT WE WERE TASKED WITH EVALUATING THE TREES BASED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES, AND THAT THERE WERE OTHER TREES THAT COULD BE PRESERVED WITH CHANGES TO THOSE CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES. SO THESE ARE NOT INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS THAT CAN BE RELIED ON TO SAY THAT THESE WERE DAMAGED TREES AS THE CITY'S CLAIMING NOW, UM, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE GRANTING OF THE C O A FOR TREE 1 0 1, THE TREE CITY'S OWN INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS SAID THAT THEY THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE KILLED, THAT THE TREE WOULD DIE, UM, EVEN WITH THESE INVASIVE CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES, AND THEY DON'T EXPECT IT TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE RESTORED WALLS IN THE FUTURE. SO THE CITY'S DECISION TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO TRANSPLANT THAT TREE VIOLATES SIX 35,680 BY REMOVING A PERFECTLY HEALTHY TREE, UM, FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AND SPENDING $400,000 TO DO IT. UM, THE CITY'S ANALYSIS OF THE PIER AND SPAN SYSTEM, UM, THIS IS, THIS IS THEIR ARGUMENTS FOR WHY, UM, THIS WOULDN'T WORK. UM, THEY SAY THE ROOT SYSTEM WOULD STILL BE DESTROYED DUE TO EXCAVATION. UM, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FROM ANY ARBORIST TO SUPPORT THIS. UM, THE ONLY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IS FROM OUR ARBORIST, UH, MR. GERSON, WHO SAID THAT THE TREES WOULD HAVE A, A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SURVIVAL. UM, THE CITY HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE'S TWO, THAT THEY CAN'T ACCESS THE SITES TOO HEAVY EQUIPMENT. AGAIN, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THIS. UM, THE CITY SAYS THAT THE HISTORICAL IMPACTS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. AGAIN, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY EVER SOUGHT PERMISSION TO USE ANY OTHER, UH, METHODS. UH, AND SO, [04:30:01] SORRY. SO AGAIN, I'M, YOU KNOW, I GOT MY P BRAIN HERE. AND SO I'M TRYING TO GO BACK TO UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ERRORS AND THE WAYS AND, AND I, AND I'M, I, I DON'T WANNA GET INVOLVED IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION. AND, AND REALLY IT'S, IT'S JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE ERRORS ARE. 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT I NEED TO FOCUS ON. AND I, AND I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW, I KNOW. AND IT'S HARD. IT'S HARD BECAUSE IT IS VERY INVOLVED, BUT I WILL TRY TO DO BETTER. UM, BUT I THINK MY, EXCUSE ME, MY, MY POINT, MY FROG IN THE THROAT, MY POINT IS THAT WE NEED YOU TO LOOK BEYOND THESE BALD ASSERTIONS. UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY CANNOT RELY ON SAYING THAT ONE COST MORE THAN THE OTHER. IF THERE'S NO COST ANALYSIS IN THE RECORD, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THAT'S NOT PART OF, IS AN ERROR. THAT'S NOT, THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN ERROR THOUGH, THOUGH. IT IS AN ERROR. IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY AN ERROR. IT'S, IT IS A DECISION BY THE H D R C THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE, AND THEY MADE ONE SO THAT, THAT ALL THESE, A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP, ASIDE FROM, FROM SOME A FEW FACTS HERE ARE, ARE REALLY IN THE REALM OF, OF, OF A DETERMINATION BY THE HDRC. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT FOR THIS COMMISSION TO, TO, TO, TO, TO OVERRULE THEM ON THAT. THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT AN ERROR FOR US TO CONSIDER IT. NOW, YOU, YOU, I, I THINK IT, I THINK IT, WELL, I THINK, I, I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO DISAGREE ON THAT. I MEAN, YOU, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S AN ERROR TO ACCEPT A CONCLUSION WHERE THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS. WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS, UM, UM, YOU BROUGHT UP A POINT ON 35 6 80, UM, AND THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO START ASKING SOME QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. SURE. OKAY. SO YOU HAD MADE A, YOU, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP A, UH, THE ISSUE UNDER THE, REMOVING A HERITAGE TREE IN THE RIO WHERE IT, IT HAS TO BE, UH, DAMAGED DUE TO DISEASE, AGE OR PHYSICAL CONDITION, AND MUST BE REMOVED FOR THE SAFETY RE REASONS. SO IT IS, IS, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOUR ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT, THAT THAT SECTION'S NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE REMOVING A TREE FOR A REASON DIFFERENT THAN ONE BEING DAMAGED DUE TO DISEASE, AGE, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING THAT, UH, AND THEN THE NEXT PREMISE IS UNDER ARTICLE B UNDER SIX 80, IT DOES GIVE THE H C R C THE ABILITY TO, UM, UH, VOTE TO ALLOW ISSUE A C O A C O A TO REMOVE A TREE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY, THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINE MAYBE AND CONSIDER UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING. UM, THERE'S NOTHING IN, UH, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE MEETING GOES, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE TERMS UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING DIDN'T COME UP AT THE MEETING. IS THAT, AND SO THEREFORE THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, THEY'RE, THEY DIDN'T USE SECTION B AS THERE JUSTIFICATION. THEY ONLY USE SECTION A. IS THAT, IS THAT WHERE I'M HEARING YOU'RE GOING THAT'S CORRECT. WITH THIS LINE? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO COME BACK UP, BUT I WANT TO, I, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO LOST IN THESE DIFFERENT ASPECTS. SO I'M GONNA GO TO THE CITY AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE H D R C, WHETHER THERE WAS AN ERROR BECAUSE THE H D R C DIDN'T USE OUR 68 35 6 80 B, UM, YOU KNOW, AS BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT. AND IF THE CITY NEEDS SOME TIME, WE DO THAT, WE CAN, WE CAN LISTEN TO SOME PUBLIC COMMENTARY OR SOMETHING, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, THAT IS A POINT THAT WAS, THAT THE APPLICANT'S MAKING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY HAS A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT. WELL, THERE, IS THERE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ERRORS WHILE THE CITY IS LIKE A REAL SPECIFIC OKAY. WOULD THE CITY LIKE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES AND LET THE APPLICANT SEE IF THEY GIVE US, GIVE US ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WE'RE JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THIS ONE NOW, IF, IF SURE, YEAH, SURE. PIECE BY PIECE. YEAH, GO AHEAD. UM, YES. SO THE, THE H D R C WHEN THEY MADE THEIR ACTION, THEY REFERENCED SIX 80, ALL OF SIX 80, WHICH INCLUDES A AND B. AND THEY REFERENCED BOTH IN THEIR DECISION IS, IS CAN YOU TALK, I, I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUE. I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER. I'M SORRY. I WAS HARD TO HEAR. CAN CAN YOU COME UP THROUGH THE FRONT TO THE PODIUM? THAT'S THE PODIUM OVER THERE. YEAH. YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE BUTTON DOWN IF YOU, I'M SORRY. . THE, THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES, THE H D R C REFERENCED SIX 80 IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH A AND B D AND THE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC, UM, BASED ON WHICH OF WHAT YOU JUST HEARD, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, I WOULD SAY THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO FINDING IN THE RECORD. THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS A, THERE WAS NO FINDING OF UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THERE WAS NO ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT ARE IN THE CODE [04:35:01] UNDER SIX 80 B. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO FOR CITY STAFF, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION TO LIST FINDINGS LIKE WE HAVE TO IN OUR MOTIONS LIST FINDINGS? DOES THE H D R C HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LIST SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON WHEN THEY AND WHEN THEY MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS? NO, THERE'S NO, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR THE H D R C. OKAY. 'CAUSE WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU USE THE TERM FINDINGS IN THIS, BEFORE THIS BOARD, WE HAVE TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS. SO IT MEANS CERTAIN THINGS TO DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, BECAUSE, UH, SECTION B SAYS THAT THAT HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO PROVE A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS. UH, SO IT'S, IT, I, I DON'T SEE AN OBLIGATION OF FINDINGS. I, I SEE SOME GUIDELINES ON HERE THAT, AND, AND CERTAIN THINGS THEY CAN USE IN TO AID THEM IN CONSIDERATION, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THIS BOARD THAT IN, IN UNDER STATE CODE WHERE WE HAVE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT ARE DOCUMENTED THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SO. RIGHT. THEY'VE JUST ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. DID YOU, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, UM, BRING UP? WELL, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO REVIEW, THEN THE H D R C CAN BASICALLY APPROVE ANYTHING UNDER THAT SECTION AND CUT DOWN ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY CAN JUST CALL ANYTHING UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT, AND THERE'S NOTHING TO REVIEW. AND THAT, AND THAT'S, AND I MAY, AND I MAY OR MAY NOT LIKE THAT, AND I, I'M SURE THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT PROBABLY DON'T LIKE THAT, BUT IT, IT, BUT THIS IS HOW IT READS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE LAW. I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW IT READS. I THINK THERE HAS TO BE FINDINGS IN THE RECORD. THERE HAS TO BE SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION. OKAY. SO WITH THE, WITH WITH THAT, HOW LONG WAS THAT MEETING? DOES ANYBODY RECOLLECT HOW LONG THE H D R C MEETING WAS? IT WAS FOUR AND A HALF HOURS. FOUR AND A HALF HOURS. AND THERE WAS, AND THERE WAS, I'M ASSUMING A LOT OF, A LOT OF DISCUSSION, A LOT OF, WAS THERE, WAS THERE DIFFERENT, UM, POINTS BEING MADE BY CITY OFFICIALS? WAS THERE A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT? THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF COMMUNITY INPUT, ABOUT TWO HOURS WORTH OF TESTIMONY. UM, AND I WILL SAY THE H C R C ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS AT TWO OPPORTUNITIES. UM, SO EARLIER, UM, JUST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TREES IN EARLY 2022, AFTER THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, THEN THEY TOOK ACTION, UM, THE SECOND TIME, UM, JUST THIS PAST APRIL. AND THEY ALSO CONDUCTED SITE VISITS. SO THE COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY TOWARD THE SITE, LOOKED AT THE ALTERNATIVES, LOOKED AT THE TREES, STOOD WHERE THEY ARE, UM, AND ALL OF THAT INFORMED THE DECISION MAKING. OKAY. SO, AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME IS, IS THAT THERE, THERE WAS SOME THOROUGHNESS TO THIS DECISION AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DOCUMENTED, AS, AS, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE LIKED IT TO BE, I JUST, I JUST, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE PAST WHETHER OR NOT THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER A WHOLE MY OF ITEMS, WHICH COULD HAVE EASILY INCLUDED UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT BE, BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER, THERE'S OTHER POINTS I'M SURE YOU WANNA MAKE, BUT I JUST WANNA HIT THESE ONE BY ONE, RIGHT? I MEAN, SO, RIGHT. NO, I DO THINK THAT IT IS ERROR TO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN THE RECORD AS TO WHAT YOU ARE RELYING ON TO GRANT YOUR APPROVAL. AND IT IS NOT THE H D R C, THEY'RE SIMPLY AN ADVISORY BODY. IT'S THE O H B THAT NEEDS TO, THAT HAS TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS. OKAY. SO THAT IS, THAT IS AN ASPECT OF, OF OUR DELIBERATION WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT MM-HMM. THAT WE'RE CERTAINLY GONNA MAKE. 'CAUSE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE FINDINGS HAVE TO BE THERE BASED ON THE CODE, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S IN THE U GC RIGHT NOW. UM, BUT, UH, WITH THAT MANNA YES, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, SINCE WE'RE GONNA STOP A LITTLE ALONG THE WAY HERE, SO I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TRY TO KEEP MY ATTENTION, UM, ON LIKE TWO SLIDES EARLIER, THERE WAS A DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE THREE LEVELS OF CODE FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TREES. SO THERE'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY IS, IS THIS NOT ADDITIVE WHERE I'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FIRST ONE WOULD APPLY AND THE SECOND ONE, AND THEN THE THIRD ONE. AND SO, SO THE VARIANCE PIECE WOULD BE THE EXAMPLE. SO THE VARIANCE WOULD, WOULD IMPLY GOING BEFORE A GROUP TO KIND OF OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO SAY, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO DO THIS. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE, STEPPING IN. SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A, A SE SEQUENTIAL THING VERSUS GO STRAIGHT TO THE TOP. THE SECTIONS OF CODE THAT START WITH FIVE, THAT 5 23, UM, THAT'S THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT ADOPTED AS REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE H C R C. YEAH. SO ONLY SIX 80. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IF, IF, IF AN APP, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO INCLUDE IN THE CITY, REMOVE TREES IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THAT THAT GOES THROUGH A REGULAR PROCESS, UH, IT GOES THROUGH THE CITY ARBORISTS, AND, AND THEN YOU HAVE TREES THAT ARE, THAT ARE WITHIN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS LIKE FLOODPLAIN, BUFFERS, FLOODPLAINS, UH, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND THAT, AND THAT IS A, A SEPARATE CATEGORY. AND THEN YOU HAVE TREES THAT ARE IN THE RIO, LIKE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THAT IS, AND THE REMOVAL OF THOSE TREES IS NOT THE CITY ARBOR'S DECISION. IT'S THE HD C'S DECISION. AND, AND THEN IF THEY DENY IT, IT'S APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IF I'M MISSING ANY OF THAT, PLEASE CORRECT ME. YEAH, JUST TO ADD [04:40:01] ONTO THAT, MR. CHAIR, IT, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THERE IS NO HIERARCHY RELATED TO THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF TREES AND THE VARIOUS PROTECTIONS OR RULES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THEM. YEAH. THE WAY I'VE READ IT IS THERE'S THREE INSTANCES OF PUBLIC TREES AND IT, AND IT, AND THEY DETERMINE THE ROUTE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE IF YOU'RE, IF THERE WAS A REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE JUST REGULAR OLD PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS OR THE RIO. AND, AND, AND PLEASE SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF SO, SO THEN, SO 'CAUSE I GUESS, SO IS IT NOT THE RIO WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE? I GUESS SO MY NO LY SENSITIVE IF YOU WANT, WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN OR FLOODPLAIN. YES, I GOT THAT PART. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN, THE RIO IS PART OF THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. SO, SO TO ME, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. YEAH. THE U D C SAYS THAT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A TREE IN THE RIO DISTRICT, IT IS A PURVIEW OF THE H D R C. YEAH. AND IS AGAIN, WELL, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE IT DOES REQUIRE ALL, IS IT, IS THAT, IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? THAT, THAT IT'S A RE THAT THAT'S THE CODE THAT WE FOLLOW. IF IT'S IN THE RIO, IT'S, IT'S AN H D R C ISSUE, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, LIKE A, A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN OR A VARIANCE IF REQUIRED, THAT STAYS WITH D S D, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT SENT TO H D R C FOR A RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. THE H D R C MAKES A DECISION AND WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THEN IF THEY'RE, IF, IF, IF IT'S DENIED THE APPLICANT, EVEN IF IT'S THE CITY, CAN THEN APPEAL TO THE PLAINTIFF. BUT I'M SAYING THE H C R C DOES NOT REVIEW TREE PRESERVATION PLANS. THEY DON'T RE THEY'RE NOT A RECOMMENDING BODY TO D S D. THEY'RE ONLY, ONLY TO REMOVE ONLY FOR TRUE REMOVALS IN THE RIO. IN THE RIO, RIGHT? YES. THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION RELATED TO TREES IS TOP OF THE BANK. AND AS FAR AS RIO IS CONCERNED, AND THOSE THAT ARE ON THE, THE RIVERWALK RIVERWALK, RIGHT. MY POINT ABOUT THE HIERARCHY IS THAT UNLIKE UNDER 5 23 AND TREES THAT ARE ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, IF TREES ON THE RIO, THERE'S NO PROVISION THAT YOU CAN MITIGATE OR PAY TO A TREE FUND. THERE'S NO OUTLET FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SICK AND DYING TREE THAT'S A SAFETY HAZARD. OR THESE, YOU KNOW, NEFARIOUS, UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO MITIGATION. THERE'S NO PAYMENT. SO THEY'RE HIGH, THEY ARE PROTECTED IN A HIGHER WAY THAN THESE OTHER TREES ELSEWHERE. OKAY. WELL THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A POINT THAT YOU'RE MAKING TO US, AND WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE SEE FIT. BUT LET'S MOVE ON TO, IS THERE ANY OTHER ERRORS, UH, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, BRING FORTH? YES, I, SO, UH, ERROR, SECOND POINT OF ERROR BESIDES THE SECTION, UH, SIX 80 AND ALSO THE, ALL THE FACTUAL ERRORS IS THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 35 55. UM, A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT MUST BE DELAYED FOR 60 DAYS AFTER APPLICATION. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS SHALL PREPARE AS PART OF THE SUBMISSION, A REPORT TO THE HISTORIC H C R C, ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEMOLITION AND REQUEST FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. INFORMATION FOR THE NE NECESSARY FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT. SORRY. UM, SO THIS, THIS WAS NOT DONE. SO THIS, THIS SECTION APPLIES, THIS, THIS REPORT WAS NOT DONE. IF IT HAD BEEN DONE, THEN I THINK WE WOULD'VE HAD A MO MORE ROBUST, UH, ANALYSIS OF THE, OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEMOLITION. AND, UH, WE MIGHT NOT BE HERE TODAY. OKAY. ARE, ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE TREES IN QUESTION ARE, ARE HISTORIC TREES? I'M ARGUING THAT IT'S A HISTORIC LANDMARK. UM, AND YES, THE TREES ARE PART OF THE PROTECTED LANDMARK. OKAY. SO STAFF, SHE MAY, SHE BROUGHT UP A POINT WHAT I REMEMBER READING ABOUT WHAT TREES AND THE WORD HISTORIC IS THAT A HISTORIC TREE HAS TO BE SO, UH, OFFICIALLY DECLARED BY CITY COUNCIL HISTORIC TREE. I'M ARGUING THAT LAMBERT BEACH IS PROTECTED AS A, UNDER THE NATIONAL REGISTER AS A HISTORIC SITE. OKAY. THE ENTIRE SITE, THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE. BUT, AND THE TREES ARE PART OF THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, THAT THE CITY CODE LOOKS AT TREES DIFFERENTLY THAN IT LOOKS AT STRUCTURES AND THEY LOOK AT TREES THAT ARE, THAT ARE DEEMED HISTORIC DIFFERENTLY THAN IT LOOKS AT STRUCTURE. 'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE, THERE'S A PART OF THE U D C THAT SAYS, FOR TREE TO BE DEEMED AN HISTORIC TREE, IT HAS TO BE OFFICIALLY DECLARED. SO BY CITY COUNCIL, BY ORDINANCE, YEAH. I'M NOT, AND I'M NOT ARGUING THAT IT IS, COMES UNDER THE FLAGS OF A HISTORIC TREE. I'M SAYING IT'S PART OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK AND IT'S A DEMOLITION OF A TREE THAT IS PART OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK. OKAY. SO, SO FOR STAFF, I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE, TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT. FIRST OF ALL, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THE CITY COUNCIL DE OFFICIALLY DECLARE ANY OF THE TREES IN QUESTION AS BEING AN HISTORIC TREE. WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY HISTORIC TREES THAT HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY COUNCIL. [04:45:01] OKAY. THOSE PROVISIONS DO EXIST THOUGH. YEAH. AND IF IT HAD BEEN DECLARED, IT WOULD STILL GO TO THE H D R C IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REQUEST ITS REMOVAL. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK BRACKENRIDGE PARK, IT BEING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK. YEAH. THE SHORT ANSWER IS THIS SECTION APPLIES TO BUILDINGS. IT'S VERY CLEAR. RIGHT? UM, UH, JUST LIKE SIX 80 INCLUDES KIND OF CRITERIA FOR UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS SECTION LISTS A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY COULD SUPPORT TO SUPPORT DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK. AND IT'S ALL REAL ESTATE SPECIFIC, SO IT'S VERY CLEARLY ABOUT BUILDINGS. OKAY. SO THERE'S A REBUTTAL. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER UNION. WHY DON'T WE, UH, LET THE SPEAKER GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE ERRORS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT TO US. JUST GO THROUGH THE ERRORS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND, AND REALLY, YOU KNOW, COME DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU SAY, THIS IS THE ERRORS, THIS IS ERROR. AND, AND THAT'S, WELL, WE'RE DOING THEM ONE BY ONE, AND THEN, THEN WE WILL GIVE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY THE RESPONSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, BACK AND FORTH, WELL, WE'RE DOING IT THIS WAY BECAUSE IT CAN GET CONFUSING IF JUST CONTINUE AND, ALL RIGHT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT. WE'RE READING IT AS YOU PUT IT IN THERE. OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I READ IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE ERROR NUMBER I, THIRD ERROR IS THAT, UH, IS A VIOLATION OF U D C SECTION 45 6 6 43, UH, WHICH IS THE FAILURE TO APPLY THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR GUIDELINES. UM, IT IS MANDATORY UNDER THE THAT U D C SECTION TO APPLY THE S O I GUIDELINES. UM, AND THAT PROVIDES THAT, UH, EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT SHALL BE MADE TO ADAPT THE PROPERTY IN A MANAGE, WHICH REQUIRES MINIMAL ALTERATION OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OBJECTS OR SITE IN ITS ENVIRONMENT. SO THERE'S NOT MINIMAL ALTERATION, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ORIGINAL EARLY PICTURE. THERE'S QUITE EXTENSIVE ALTERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE SITE. THE SITE IS PROTECTED UNDER THE SECRETARY OF ANTERIOR GUIDELINES. UM, BASICALLY THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE CITY NEVER DID A STUDY FOR THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS REQUIRED BY THE SS Y I GUIDELINES. THEY ONLY CARED ABOUT, AND THEY ONLY DID A STUDY FOR THE BUILT STRUCTURES, UM, THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, THAT STUDY, UM, THAT IS ERROR BY THE CITY. UM, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FIRE, FOLLOW THE S O I GUIDELINES. THEY NEED TO DO THEIR STUDY TREATMENT PLAN. THEY HAVE TO BALANCE THE NATURAL AND BUILT FEATURES, AND THEY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT MODERN ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS OKAY, ARE ACCEPTABLE. SO 35,643 AND CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE TO ALTER, RESTORE, REHABILITATE, OR ADD TO A BUILDING OBJECT SITE OR STRUCTURE, THE, THE H D R C SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING GENERAL STANDARDS OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION IN ADDITION TO ANY SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE. SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT THE WORD SITE IMPLIES TREES AND IMPLIES AND INCLUDES TREES? YES, IT DOES. ACCORDING TO THE S O I GUIDELINES, THAT'S THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE. WELL, THAT'S, BUT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT THE CITY DEFINES THAT AS NOT WHAT THE GUIDELINES DEFINE IT. THE CITY HAS A, HAS PUT OUT A SET OF CODE SAYING THAT BUILDINGS OBJECT SITES OR STRUCTURES IS UNDER THE, IS UNDER A CERTAIN PURVIEW UNDER 6 35 6 4 3. SO IN REBUTTAL, THIS FOR, FOR THE CITY, DO YOU CONSIDER, DOES THE TERM SITE INCLUDE TREES? IT DOES, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ON THE SCREEN. SO YOU CITED THE REVIEW CRITERIA THAT ARE ADOPTED BY THE U D C, THAT INCLUDES THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. UH, MS STR IS REFERENCING THE SECRETARY CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, WHICH IS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT AND SEPARATE GUIDANCE FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED FOR CONSIDERATION. SO IT'S NOT APPLICABLE. NOT APPLICABLE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO PLEASE CONTINUE. I WOULD DISAGREE THAT THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE, THE GUIDELINES ARE THE GUIDELINES, THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES ARE ALSO PART OF THE S O I GUIDELINES. UH, BRACKENRIDGE PARK IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER. LAMBERT BEACH IN PARTICULAR IS LISTED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AS A SITE, NOT AS A BUILDING, AS A SITE. AND THAT'S A DEFINED TERM. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE OUR THREE ERRORS. UM, I SIMPLY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCESS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ARGUED THAT THIS HAS BEEN A ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT HAS RESULTED IN GREAT ADVANTAGES TO THE PLAN. AND I WANT TO SAY THAT, THAT THE LENGTH OF THE PROCESS DOES NOT EQUAL [04:50:01] THE QUALITY OF THE PROCESS. PUBLIC MEETINGS DOES NOT EQUAL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. UM, AFTER 18 MONTHS, H D R C BASICALLY CAVED. I MEAN THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE PLANS. THE SECOND TIME IT CAME AROUND FROM THE FIRST TIME IT CAME AROUND, THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL TREE THAT WAS SAVED AS A RESULT OF THE INDEPENDENT ARBORIST REPORT, AN EIGHT INCH PECAN. OTHERWISE, WE ARE LOSING THE SAME NUMBER OF TREES NOW AS WE WERE BEFORE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE ATTEMPT TO TRANSPLANT THE BIGGEST OAK AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARBORISTS AND THE TRANSPLANTATION OF A BUNCH 21 OR SO SMALL UNDERSTORY TREES, ALL OF WHICH WERE PLANTED, UH, DURING THE 2000 BOND PROCESS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST TAKE A BUNCH OF SMALL TREES, TRANSPLANT THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND CALL IT VICTORY. WE ARE STILL LOSING THE HERITAGE TREES. WE'RE STILL LOSING THE SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT ARE ON THE BANKS, AND THAT IS AFTER 18 MONTHS. UM, THE CITY DID NOT DO ITS DUE DILIGENCE. IT DID NOT TASK ITS DESIGN TEAM TO SAVE THE TREES AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE. AND THAT IS WHAT SECTION 35 6 80 REQUIRES. THE CITY TO DO IS TO PRESERVE THE TREES, PRIORITIZE THE TREES ON THE RIVERBANK. THOSE ARE OUR CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES IN THE PARK, AND THAT IS ERROR TO NOT LOOK AT THOSE TREES AS PART OF THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE AND PRIORITIZE THEIR PRESERVATION. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO TAKE ONE LOOK AT THE PICTURE. UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA LOSE. THAT ICONIC VISTA. PEOPLE PAY A LOT OF MONEY TO GO DO ZIP LINES WHEN YOU CAN STAND ON THE BRIDGE IN BRACKENRIDGE PARK AND LOOK AT THAT TREE AND LOOK AT THE PUMP HOUSE, AND THAT'S THE VIEW SHED THAT'S GONNA GO. AND THE TREE ON THE RIGHT IS ANOTHER ONE THAT'S GONNA GO. SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. OUR ENGINEERS, OUR ARBORISTS HAVE SAID THERE'S ALTERNATIVES. UM, IT IS SOLELY DUE TO THE CITY'S CHOICE OF A CONSTRUCTION METHOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE USED, AND THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE, IT'S VIOLATION OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. UM, THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION OF ARBORISTS OR CITY FORESTER TO DO THIS. UH, THEY'RE RATHER CONSPICUOUS IN THEIR SILENCE, ACTUALLY, I THINK, ON THIS MATTER. UM, AND AS I SAID, THE INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CITY ARBORISTS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE AND ALSO BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THESE TREES WOULD SURVIVE USING ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS OR CONSTRUCTION METHODS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. SO WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW IS WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM, UM, PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. ARE THERE VOICEMAILS AS WELL? YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE VOICEMAILS FIRST, UM, AND LIMITED AND CHECK FOR DUPLICATES AND LIMIT TO A MINUTE. THANK YOU. YOU SAID TWO MINUTES ONE, ONE MINUTE. OKAY. MY NAME IS RALPH CARAWAY. MY ADDRESS IS 1 27 ARMOR PLACE IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14, AND I'M CALLING TO, UH, SUPPORT THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE C O A GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION TO TEAR DOWN SEVERAL TREES IN, UH, THE PARK AT A TIME OF GLOBAL WARMING. WHEN, UH, EXCESSIVE HEAT IS AN WORLDWIDE ISSUE, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BE CUTTING DOWN TREES. SO I VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE TREES AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS DR. JUDITH NORMAN. MY ADDRESS IS 4 0 7 EAST PARK AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO AREA CODE SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 223-8832. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. UM, AM CONCERNED, UM, I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT POSES THE C O A GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION IN ERROR LAST APRIL. UM, I AM CONCERNED BY THE CITY'S PLANS TO GO AHEAD, UM, AND DESTROY SOME OF THE BRECKENRIDGE TREES. UH, I WANT TO, UM, UH, SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OLD GROWTH TREES. I THINK THE CITY HAS [04:55:01] A DUTY OF STEWARDSHIP AND CARE TO THESE TREES AND TO THE HISTORIC VISION OF BRECKENRIDGE PARK. IT HAS A DUTY TO, UM, MAINTAIN THE SHADE COVER, UM, IN LIGHT OF THE CLIMATE CONDITIONS. IT HAS A DUTY TO CARE FOR SOME OF THE OLDEST, UM, UH, WILDLIFE AND, UM, AND PLANTS IN. HELLO, THIS IS RICHARD REED. I LIVE AT 6 1 5 RIVER ROAD. MY LAND ABUTS THAT OF THE PARK, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE RURAL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HAVE BEEN FOR SOME 30 YEARS. BUT MORE THAN THAT, I'VE WORKED WITH SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS ON ISSUES OF WATER QUALITY AS BOTH THE CHAIR AND A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND THE CLEAN RIVERS PROGRAM. I KNOW THIS RIVER WELL, LIVING NEXT TO IT, WATCHING IT, AND I VOTE, I I REALLY CALL TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL OF CASE NUMBER 14, AND I REALLY OPPOSED A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION, COMMISSION IN ERROR ON APRIL 26TH, 2013. ALICIA GARLOCK, 30 10 WOOD CIRCLE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 5 1 2 1 0 2 8 7 5 8 5 3. I AM CALLING IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AGAINST, UH, IN SUPPORT, SORRY, THE APPEAL, UH, FOR AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14, ASKING THE BOARD TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF H C R C TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROJECT 20 22 0 9 1 AT LAMBERT BEACH BRACKENRIDGE PARK. THIS GOES AGAINST U D C SECTION 35 DASH SIX 80. THE LANDSCAPE IS PART OF OUR CULTURAL RESOURCE TO ALONG THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. UH, IT IS A CULTURAL RESOURCE TO THE PUBLIC, UH, PART OF OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE AND NATIONAL NATURAL HERITAGE AND MUST BE PRESERVED. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. HI, IT'S KAMALA PLATT, 39 10 WEST MARTIN STREET, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 0 7, CALLING ON ITEM 14 IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES C H G R C C O A GRANTED IN APRIL. I SUPPORT PRESERVING THE LAMBERT BEACH TREES FOR THE REASONS LAID OUT IN THE APPEAL, AND I'M IMPRESSED BY THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS OFFERED AS BOTH THE STUDENT AND TEACHER OF CULTURAL POETICS OF ECHO JUSTICE. I LOOK TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE APPROPRIATENESS IS BEING DETERMINED HERE. AS POINTED OUT, NATURAL FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE MUST BE CONSIDERED ALONGSIDE HISTORICAL STRUCTURES. THESE TREES HOST ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT SUSTAIN AND ARE SUSTAINED BY THEM IN LEAGUE WITH WATER CYCLES AND SOILS THAT NURTURE LIFE. WE REMEMBER GOOD TIMES UNDER THESE TREES WITH 10 WHO HAVE PASSED, KNOWING THE TREES WILL OUTLIVE US. MY NAME IS MIMI QUINTANILLA. I LIVE AT 1 5 0 OSTROM DRIVE IN THE HISTORIC RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M COMMENTING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2022 DASH 0 9 1. I'M CALLING TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE APPEAL FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT H D R C GRANTED FOR THE LAMBERT BEACH PROJECT IN BRACKENRIDGE PARK. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL TO RESCIND THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THERE ARE INDEN INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS PLANS THAT HAVE PRESENTED, HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THAT LAY OUT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL PRESERVE HEALTHY TREES IN PLACE AND STABILIZE THE RETAINING WALLS. THE CURRENT CITY PLAN VIOLATES CITY CODES REGARDING PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TREES WITH THE APPEAL. GRANTED, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE TREES AND TO SHOW THAT CITY CODES CANNOT BE IGNORED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA NUMBER 14 AND I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. MY NAME IS ANTHONY COSTELLO, 55 58 ASPEN VALLEY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 2. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS MOY WARREN. I LIVE AT 1826 POPPY PEAK STREET HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. [05:00:01] I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. UH, I'M CALLING BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE MY OPINION REGISTERED THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION IN ERROR ON APRIL 26TH, 2023. UM, THIS ISSUE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. UM, I FEEL THAT THE CITY'S PLAN WILL NEEDLESSLY DESTROY SIX HERITAGE, UM, TREES AND RENEW 54 SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, AND HAS NO PLAN TO PLANT REPLACEMENT CANOPY TREES. I WANT US TO SEE US PRESERVE OUR PARK'S, NATURAL BEAUTY, OUR HISTORIC LANDSCAPE PRESERVE ICONIC AND IRREPLACEABLE VIEW SHEDS, AND MOST OF ALL UPHOLD THE LAW BECAUSE THE CITY CODE PROHIBITS REMOVAL OF HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREES UNLESS THEY'RE DAMAGED DUE TO DISEASE, AGE, OR PHYSICAL. MY NAME IS DAVID SAMAS. I'M A NATIVE INHABITANT OF THE CITY. MY CHILDHOOD HOME IS 1539 WEST FRENCH FOOTSTEPS AWAY FROM MARTINEZ CREEK IN THE GREENWAY IN THE NEAR WEST SIDE OF SANTO. CASE NUMBER 14, HERITAGE TREES, BIRDS, WATER, MEMORY, ECO PLUNDER, R ONE $9 MILLION BUDGET IN THIS BRACKET, RIDGE PARK PROJECT, SEEK TO PRESERVE HISTORY WHILE DISPLACING MIGRATORY BIRDS WITH LOUD EXPLOSIVES NOISES AND DESTROYING THEIR NEST. I ASK ALL INVOLVED TO CONJURE INTELLECTUAL INTROSPECTION OF HISTORY AND PLACE. PLEASE MAKE COMPASSIONATE CHOICES. TREES HAVE BEEN TRANSFORMING CARBON MONOXIDE INTO OXYGEN FOR 4 MILLION YEARS. HELLO, MY NAME IS DEBORAH CENT. MY ADDRESS IS 5 9 1 8 STONY BROOK. THAT'S ONE WORD, S T O N Y B R O O K, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 2. AND THE AGENDA ITEM I AM SPEAKING ON IS 14. UM, I AM SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UM, REGARDING LAMBERT BEACH. UM, THE REASON THAT I AM, UM, ASKING FOR THIS DESIGNATION IS BECAUSE I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING OR RESURRECTING A BEACH THAT SEGREGATED PEOPLE BY COLOR IN THE CENTER OF OUR CITY, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE FAMOUS PARK, BRACKEN RIDGE PARK. WE HAVE HISTORY THAT PREDATES THIS AND IT IS THE HISTORY OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO CREATED SAN ANTONIO. WE WOULD, JIM MCKEN, 5 0 9 RIVER ROAD, 2 1 0 4 1 6 2 1 3 9. AGENDA CASE ITEM NUMBER 14. I AM THE PLANNING COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR FOR THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I SUPPORT THIS APPEAL THAT OPPOSES A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION. THE RIVER ROAD ASSOCIATION WORKS SINCE ITS FOUNDING IN 1976, HAS BEEN TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BRACKENRIDGE PARK, AN ECOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS THAT GIVE ITS AREA IT'S PRESENT CHARACTER. IN THE 47 YEARS SINCE RIVER ROADS FOUNDING, THE ASSOCIATION HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO FULFILL THIS PURPOSE. RIVER ROAD IS THE ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO THE PARK. THE PARK IS IN A PLACE WE VISIT. IT'S WHERE WE LIVE. OUR ORIGIN AND IDENTITY IS INSEPARABLE TO THE RIVER AND THE PARK THAT SHAPES IT. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS WITHIN 200 FOOT. HELLO, THIS IS TTA SULLIVAN, ONE 20 ANASTASIA PLACE, AND I'M CALLING FOR AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE H C R C IN ERROR ON APRIL 26, UH, 2023. THE, UM, THE LAMBERT BEACH, UH, IS A RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED HISTORIC LANDSCAPE. THE TREES ARE HERITAGE, THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT, AND THEY'RE IRREPLACEABLE. AND I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPEAL. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. UM, THIS IS GRACE ROSE GONZALEZ. I'M CALLING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14. I LIVE AT 1442 WEST [05:05:01] LINWOOD AVENUE. UM, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 2 1 2 5 5 8 5. UM, I'M PAST ZONING COMMISSIONER AND, UM, I'M SPEAKING ON THIS, UH, ITEM BECAUSE, UM, OF THE VIOLATIONS OF, OF THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UM, HAS AGAINST, UM, BRACKENRIDGE PARK AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. THE CITY IS WANTING TO, UH, DESTROY BRACKENRIDGE PARK AND ITS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES BY VIOLATING THE V D C SECTION 35 6 8 0 THAT ONLY, YOU KNOW, SAYS THAT DAMAGED TREES SHOULD BE REMOVED. THESE ARE HERITAGE TREES AND, UM, THEY ARE PROTECTED. IN ADDITION, THE DESIGN SUBMITTED IS IN A ALSO VIOLATION OF 35 6 43. HELLO, MY NAME IS GARCIA SANCHEZ. I LIVE AT 27 18 MONTEREY IN DISTRICT FIVE. I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14, AND I'M CALLING TO, UH, IN SUPPORT OF, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION IN ERROR ON APRIL 26TH OF THIS YEAR. UH, FOR THE LAST 18 MONTHS, SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN GOING TO THE WITTY MUSEUM WHERE THEY'RE HOSTING COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS, THE GRAVE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE OF, OF, OF THIS CURRENT PROJECT. AS IT STANDS, I'VE BEEN A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF SAN ANTONIO, UH, GREW UP IN DISTRICT FIVE, UM, AND CURRENTLY LIVE IN DISTRICT FIVE, BUT THE BRACKENRIDGE PARK WAS MY PARK AND WAS EVERYBODY'S PARK. IT'S THE PARK THAT ALL OF US HAVE. HI, MY NAME IS LETICIA SANCHEZ OSA AND MY ADDRESS IS 1710 VEDA CRUZ. ZIP CODE SEVEN EIGHT TWO OH SEVEN. PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 363-5895. I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14. OUR MEMBERS SUPPORT THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. OUR MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY ACTIONS THAT THE CITY HAS TAKEN TO FORCIBLY REMOVE NATURAL WILDLIFE AT THE ELMENDORF PARK. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE AN EVEN MORE DRASTIC AND HARMFUL IMPACT TO OUR BEAUTIFUL BRECKENRIDGE PARK AND CITY BY THE REMOVAL OF VERY OLD TREES WHICH ARE INHABITED BY WILDLIFE AND WHICH HELP TO PROTECT OUR ENTIRE CITY FROM THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. WE ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PLEASE. HI, MY NAME IS JULIAN VIAL. MY ADDRESS IS 3 1 0 EAST LOW AVENUE. UM, I'M SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14, AND I'M CALLING, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL. AND SO I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO PLEASE APPROVE, UH, THE APPEAL FOR, UH, THIS ITEM NUMBER FOR ROCKRIDGE PARK. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS MATT COOPER. I LIVE AT 1 21 MAGNOLIA DRIVE IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'M AN ARCHITECT HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. UM, WHILE IN GENERAL I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SPACES, THIS PROJECT WILL DAMAGE OR REMOVE 60 HEALTHY TREES, SIX OF WHICH ARE HERITAGE TREES AND THE REMAINDER OF WHICH ARE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT TREES. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CITY HAS MADE SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO EXPLORE WAYS TO CONSTRUCT THE LAMBERT BEACH IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO DESTROY DECADES WORTH OF TREE GROWTH IN THE PROCESS. EXCAVATION INTO A ROOT ZONE IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO TREES, AND THE IDEA THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO DO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT IMPINGING ON THAT ZONE IS NOT BELIEVABLE. AS WE ALL KNOW, ANY PUBLIC SPACE IS MADE BETTER WITH LARGE SHADE TREES. AND SINCE THESE ARE HERE ALREADY, TAKING THEM OUT IN FAVOR OF A RISKY AND EXPENSIVE PLAN, REPLACE THEM WITH NEW TREES IS MISGUIDED. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JORDAN GOOEY AND I RESIDE AT 9 0 3 WEST SATCH. AND I'M CALLING TODAY TO VOICE MY SUPPORT OF THE H D R C DECISION TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ON ITEM NUMBER 14. YES, THIS IS ROBERT BUCHANAN. I LIVE AT 1 3 3 ARMOR PLACE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. AND I'M CALLING IN THE REPO IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FOR, UH, [05:10:01] THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, C O A, GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, IN ERROR ON, UH, APRIL 26TH, 2023. UH, THIS IS CONCERNING THE LAMBERT BEACH, UH, THING. UH, THANK YOU. BYE FOR NOW. YES, MY NAME IS ROSE MAURICIO. UH, PROPERTY ADDRESS 2107 NORTH INTERSTATE 35 7 20, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO OH EIGHT. UM, MY PHONE NUMBER'S (210) 420-4320 AND THIS IS FOR CASE ITEM NUMBER 14 ON THE AGENDA TODAY. UM, THE LAST THREE DIGS IS 1 27 IS THE CASE NUMBER. I AM REQUESTING AND ASKING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PLEASE GRANT, UM, THE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, THEIR REQUEST TODAY. WE FEEL THAT THE, THE, THE COMMUNITY HAS REALLY NOT BEEN HEARD AND THAT THIS, UH, THE C C R, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THE U D C CODE FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS NOT, IS NOT PROPERLY FOLLOWING ITS OWN PROPER PROCEDURES. AND THIS SHOULD BE TAKING CONSIDERATION AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE, THEIR REQUEST SHOULD NOT BE DENIED. THEIR APPEAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY SHOULD NOT BE, UH, DENIED. SO PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE, UH, INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED. AND, UH, HELLO, MY NAME IS JENNIFER LANE HOLLANDER. I LIVE AT 1103. HOW TOWN DRIVE IN SAN ANTONIO, DISTRICT ONE, AND I'M CALLING REGARDING AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE C O A GRANTED BY THE H D R C. PREVIOUSLY, I'VE ATTENDED MOST OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS FOR THE PAST 18 MONTHS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN TO REMOVE SEVEN HERITAGE TREES AND 23 SIGNIFICANT TREES FROM LAMBERT BEACH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE U D C SECTION 35 DASH SIX EIGHT OH THAT SAYS ONLY DAMAGED TREES MAY BE REMOVED. THE TREES SLATED FOR DESTRUCTION AREN'T DAMAGED. THEY'RE ONLY INCONVENIENT TO THE CITY'S SQUAD DESIGN AND PLANS, WHICH FAVORS EXPEDIENCY OVER HISTORY. REMOVING THE TREES FOR THE NEW PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ISN'T ENGINEERED THE NEW ENGINE, THE NEW RETAINING WALL ISN'T TO FACILITATE REPLANTING NEW CANOPY TREES, WHICH IS ANOTHER YES, I'M, I'M CALLING TO SAY THAT I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE APPEAL OF THE, THAT POSES THE C O A GRANTED BY THE H D R C IN ERROR ON 4 26 20 23. AND THIS IS CASE NUMBER 14. MY NAME IS MINNIE JARDINE AND I LIVE AT 1 2 1 MAGNOLIA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO. 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2, SORRY. OKAY, THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS LISA AND UM, I LIVE AT 1750 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8 2 0 1. I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO AGENDA CASE NUMBER 14. I'M CALLING BECAUSE I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL THAT OPPOSES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION. I'M CALLING BECAUSE I HAVE, UM, HEARD THE DEMANDS OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN ELDERS, UM, AND FAMILIES WHO ARE, UM, DEEPLY TIED TO THE, TO THE LAND AND THE WATERS THERE. UM, AND WHOSE CREATION STORIES, UM, SPEAK TO THE WATERBIRD THAT, UM, SURVIVED THERE AND THEY LIVED THERE. AND, UM, WE WANNA, THIS IS BILL KINGMAN, K I N G M A N. MY ADDRESS IS THIRTY FIVE ELEVEN BROADWAY. PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 829-1199. I'M CALLING REGARDING AGENDA NUMBER 14. LAST THREE DIGITS OF THE CASE NUMBER. TODAY IS 1 2 7. I WAS CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS. UM, I HAVE AN OFFICE CONTINUOUS TO THE BRECKENRIDGE PARK AND I BELIEVE IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE, UH, [05:15:01] BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY MS. TOMMY RICHLAND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. HELLO, UH, THIS IS RAY MORALES AT 2 0 3 MEDFORD DRIVE, DISTRICT NINE. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER'S (210) 727-9215 AND I'M CALLING REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14, UH, LAMBERT BEACH. UH, I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT FOR THE APPEAL FOR PRESERVATION OF SEVEN HERITAGE IN SIGNIFICANT TREES ALONG THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT LAMBERT BEACH. ONLY DAMAGED TREES SHOULD BE REMOVED AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE HISTORIC AND RECREATIONAL APPEAL TO THIS SITE, ESPECIALLY NOW WITH THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. REMOVING THESE TREES IS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF UT C SESSION NUMBER 3 5 3 8 0 AND A FAILURE TO APPLY TO APPLY U D C SESSION 3 5 6 4 3 AS THE CODE REQUIRES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. MY NAME IS JOHN GRALE. I WORK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW ADDRESS, 7 2 7 EAST DEAN KEATON STREET IN AUSTIN. I'M CALLING WITH RESPECT TO NUMBER AGENDA NUMBER 14. SO, LIKE I SAID, I'M JOHN GRALE, A CLINICAL PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. TOGETHER WITH A TEAM OF LAWYERS FROM THE LAW FIRM JONES DAY. I REPRESENT GARY PEREZ AND MATILDA DE TORRES, TWO MEMBERS OF THE LEPON APACHE NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH AND RESIDENTS OF SAN ANTONIO LA PLAN APPROVED BY THE H D R C VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION, THE TEXAS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, AND THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THIS BOARD SHOULD REVERSE THE APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY DESTROYING THOSE TREES ALONG THE HOLY BEND IN THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER, WHICH ARE THE HOME OF THE SACRED DOUBLE CRESTED CORAN BIRDS. THE CITY SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISE OF NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH MEMBERS WHO PRAY AND HOLD SACRED CEREMONIES AT THAT LOCATION, THE CITY HAS YET TO PROVE A COMPELLING INTEREST. GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS RALEIGH WOOD. MY ADDRESS IS 1 0 9 GLENDALE PLACE. I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO AGENDA ITEM 14, THE LAMBERT BEACH PROJECT IN BRACKENRIDGE PARK. I'M REQUESTING YOU DENY CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THIS PROJECT. I DO NOT SEE WHY PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE THE SIX HAIR THAT MARKS THE END OF THE VOICEMAILS. OKAY. UH, SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE LIST OF THOSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UM, PLEASE, UH, HAS, HAS ANY OF THE, UM, MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY, UH, VOICE EXPRESSED, UH, TO, UH, GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANO TO SOMEONE ELSE? I BELIEVE SO. UM, OKAY. SO IF, IF ANYBODY HERE IS WANTING TO SEE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE GALLERY, JUST ALL YOU TO DO IS, UH, TALK TO MIKO OVER THERE AND HE'LL MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S, UH, ALL SET UP. SO WHO'S FIRST? OKAY. UH, CAN YOU PUT UP THE, UH, PRESENTATION JOSEPH, REAL QUICK FOR THE SPEAKERS? ANA BANA. OH YEAH. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I, SO JUST LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD THERE, YO, WE DID HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE PROVIDING FEEDBACK AND INPUT ON HOW MUCH THEY LOVE TREES, WHICH I DO TOO, BUT THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE TO DIALOGUE. AND SO, SO I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD REMINDER HERE FOR EVERYBODY JUST TO KIND OF REMIND THEM THAT, YEAH. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT HERE IN ANY WAY TO, TO, UM, MAKE A DECISION FOR THE H D R C THAT THAT WOULD, THAT WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY. WE'RE HERE TO ONLY DISCUSS IF THERE WAS AN ERROR. SO WHEN YOU COME UP TO TALK, UM, WE ONLY WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHY YOU THINK THERE WAS AN ERROR, WHAT YOU THINK THE ERROR IS. UM, IF, IF ANYONE'S, UH, ANYONE'S TESTIMONY, IF IT'S JUST GONNA REVOLVE AROUND NOT LIKING WHAT THE H C R C DECIDED OR THE, IT'S, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU TO, TO, TO LEAVE THE PODIUM AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT MEMBER. BUT WE'RE HERE ONLY TO DISCUSS, THIS BOARD CAN ONLY DECIDE, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAD, UH, DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAD MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR DECISION. THAT'S WHAT'S GERMANE TO THIS TOPIC BEFORE US TODAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. THE FIRST SPEAKER'S GONNA BE MS. DEB, BECKY GALVIN. I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHO'S KEEPING THE TIME. THE LAUGH IS . I JUST WANT IT'S ONE MINUTE, RIGHT? ONE MINUTE. YEAH. I'M JUST GONNA TAKE ONE MINUTE YOU GUYS. UM, YEAH, LET'S, I'M SORRY. THE SPEAKERS. YEAH, GO. MS. DARVIN GOT SEATED ANOTHER MINUTE. SO SHE HAS TWO MINUTES. SOMETIMES I, SOMETIMES I SOUND BETTER WITHOUT A MICROPHONE BECAUSE , YOU, [05:20:01] YOU HEAR MY BETTER SIDE. SO SORRY YOU GUYS, UM, AND FORGIVE ME PLEASE FOR STANDING UP AN OBJECTION, OBJECTING. I'M SO USED TO BEING IN A COURTROOM AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO. AND SO I MEANT NO DISRESPECT AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT, MAN, 'CAUSE I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE HERE AT THE END OF YOUR DAY AND I KNOW YOU GOTTA BE EXHAUSTED. AND SO, UM, ALL WE CAN DO IS APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT'S TALKING TO THE MICROPHONE, SUSAN. AS, AS SUSAN SAID, THANK YOU. AS, AS SUSAN SAID, UH, SUSAN STR SAID, YOU ARE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN US AND THE CITY AND AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU MORE THAN YOU KNOW. UM, I'M NOT GONNA TALK LONG. YOU'VE HEARD MOST OF THE LEGAL, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS HERE. THE, THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THE CITY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ITS CODE REC, ITS, ITS CODE, UM, MANDATORY SECTIONS OF THE CODE. UH, WHAT I HAVE HEARD HERE TODAY, AND I HAVE BEEN SO IMPRESSED WITH THE DETAIL THAT YOU ALL HAVE FOLLOWED, IS THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE RULES ARE AND YOU, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RULES ARE. AND THAT'S, UM, PRETTY EXCITING. UM, 'CAUSE WE DON'T ALWAYS EVEN HEAR THAT FROM A JUDGE. FRANKLY. THAT'S A LOT OF 'EM ARE NOT AS EXPERIENCED AS YOU ARE. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY TO YOU IS THAT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE, THE CODE STRICTLY PROHIBITS THE REMOVAL OF HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREES ON THE RIVER UNLESS DAMAGED OR DUE TO DISEASE. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT EVIDENCE. AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT, I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THERE HAVE TO BE FINDINGS OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST HEARING SOMEBODY MAKING BALD ASSERTS OF WHAT THEY SAY ARE FACTS. THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE FACTS. THERE ARE THE FACTS IN THE RECORD THAT I KNOW YOU WILL LOOK AT BECAUSE I'VE JUST BEEN LISTENING TO YOU AND IT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE THE TIME AND THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. THE NEXT NEXT ONE IS ROY SCHWEERS, FOLLOWED BY ARLENE FISHER. MR. ROY, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES IN ADDITION TO THE SLIDES. I'LL LET YOU, CAN YOU ADVANCE IT TO NEXT ONE? ALRIGHT, SO IT'S A LONG DAY. I'LL BE QUICK. I'M ROY SWEARERS. I LIVE AT 1 0 2 ARMOR PLACE. FIRST, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE LETTERS IF ANY OF 'EM WERE RETURNED. SO AT SOME POINT IN THIS PROCEEDING, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTIONS, I THINK WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HEAR, UM, HOW MANY LAYERS WERE RETURNED AND WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT TALLY IS. UM, SECOND, AS YOU SEE UP HERE, SUSAN DID A GOOD JOB, BUT I WOULD IMPRESS UPON YOU THE ERRORS IN SIX 80. AND THERE'S THREE ERRORS WITHIN THAT. UM, THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE U D C IN TERMS OF YOU CANNOT REMOVE THESE TREES, IT IS PROHIBITED UNLESS IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF DAMAGED OR SAFETY, THE INCORRECT PREMISE OF SAFETY HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE FAILING WALLS. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, AS SUSAN SAID. UM, AND THEN THE LACK OF THE ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION IS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. YOU MUST HAVE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THESE TREES. AND THE ARBORIST OR THE CITY FORESTER HAS NOT GIVEN THAT THERE'S NO RECORD OF THAT. UM, AND 4 55 WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE TREES, THEY ARE A NATURAL HISTORIC FEATURE, THEREFORE THEY HAVE DEMOLITION STATUS. IF YOU COULD BRING UP THAT, UH, FROM THE MASTER PLAN, SHANNON, THE, THE O H P OFFICER SAID, UM, THAT THE TREES, UH, ARE ENTITLED TO REVIEW CHA, UH, THAT ARE NORMALLY ATTRIBUTED TO BUILT ELEMENTS, WALLS, SCULPTURES, BUILDINGS, ET CETERA. THEREFORE, THEY DO APPLY TO THE DEMOLITION SECTION THAT SAYS THAT YOU MUST HAVE THE 60 DAY REVIEW. THEY ARE EQUAL TO BUILT FEATURES, TREES AND NATURAL PLACES BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IS RECOGNIZED AND THEREFORE THEY DO HAVE STANDING, THEY ARE HISTORIC FEATURES. UM, AND THEN I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ERROR BECAUSE THE DESIGN, UH, IS BAY. I MEAN, THE DECISION FOR THE CERTIFIC PROGRAMS WAS BASED ON, UM, FALSE FINDINGS. IF IT'S BASED ON FALSE FINDINGS, THAT'S AN ERROR. UM, AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF FALSE FINDINGS IN THE PETITION, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON. UH, BUT LONGEVITY IS ONE OF THEM IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, THE PROPOSED ENGINEERING, [05:25:02] UM, SECTIONS THAT WE, WE'VE DONE WITH THE PIER AND STAND ARE STRONGER THAN WHAT THE CITY'S PROPOSING. THEREFORE, NO NEW TREES CAN BE PLANTED HERE. IF WE USE THE ALTERNATIVE, NEW TREES COULD BE PLANTED. THEREFORE, THIS LANDSCAPE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DESTROYED FROM ITS HISTORIC AND, UH, SETTING OF HAVING SHADE TREES. AND THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, IT, IT IS PART OF THE, UM, SECRETARY OF TEARS STANDARDS, GUIDELINES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I'M SORRY, THE WHAT'S POSTED UP THERE ON THE BOARD, THAT'S FROM THE 2017 MASTER PLAN WHERE SHANNON SAID THAT THE TREES HAVE EQUAL STANDING TO BUILT, UM, FEATURES IN BRACKRIDGE PARK BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT. YEAH. SO MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS THAT THE HIGHLIGHTED PART IMPLIES THAT THAT, THAT, THAT SHOULD GO TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE H D R C HERE IN SAN ANTONIO? BECAUSE THE, UM, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT DEMOLITION OF, OF BUILT FEATURES, UM, IN THE 4 55, UM, IT, I, I'M CONTENDING AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CODE WOULD AS WELL SAY THIS, IS THAT IT IS A DEMOLITION OF A FEATURE, WHETHER IT'S A BUILT FEATURE OR A TREE FEATURE. BECAUSE, UH, WHEN YOU LOOK, UM, AT, UH, AT THAT CODE, IT SAYS THAT THE, THAT THE SITES WITHIN, UM, UH, NATIONAL DISTRICTS, UM, WOULD APPLY HERE AND SITES WITHIN NATIONAL DISTRICTS, UM, UH, WOULD INCLUDE THE TREES. OKAY. SO A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. DID THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, UM, REVIEW THIS, UH, PROJECT, AND IF SO, DID IT INCLUDE, UH, TREES OR VEGETATION? YES, THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES WAS INCLUDED IN THE STATE ANTIQUITIES PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED IN MARCH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FOR STAFF? YES. COMMISSIONER BON, UM, WHEN LOOKING AT, UH, SECTION 3 5 6 80 HERE, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT B, WHICH IS UNUSUAL IN, IN COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DEMOLITION, UH, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PART, UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, DOES THIS NEED THE ARBORIST OR THE, OR THE, UM, NO, I MEAN THE CODE, THE CODE SAYS YOU MUST HAVE HAVE, THAT'S THE ARBS FOR STAFF. OH, I'M SORRY. YEAH, BUT, BUT, UH, FOR B, FOR B, SO I KNOW IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, UNDER A YES, WE CAN REMOVE THE HERITAGE TREES THEN WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY ARBORIST OR THE OFFICIAL URBAN FORESTER. BUT THEN UNDER B, WHERE YOU SEE THOSE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, DO YOU STILL NEED THAT ARBORIST? THE NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE ARBORIST UNDER SUBSECTION B. OKAY. SO THEN IN THIS CASE, IS THAT WHAT H H D R UH, R C WAS USING WAS UNUSUAL IN, IN COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME TO THE, THE H D R C WAS USING THE ENTIRETY OF SIX 80. SO THEY WERE USING BOTH A AND B IN THEIR ANALYSIS. OKAY. SO, SO FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE WERE GONNA USE LIKE, LET YOU KNOW WE'RE USING BOTH A AND B, DO WE REALLY NEED THE ARBORIST OR THE, UM, I KEEP LOSING THAT WORD. DO WE NEED THAT IN THERE, FORESTER? DO, DO WE NEED THAT IF WE'RE GONNA GO BY UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES? NO. IF THE, IF THE, IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH SUBSECTION B AND THE FINDINGS OF THE H D R C AND THE, UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATIONS OFFICER'S ISSUANCE BASED ON SUBSECTION B, THEN NO, YOU WOULDN'T NEED ANY. OKAY. 'CAUSE 'CAUSE I KNOW THE APPLICANT KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT IF WE GO BY B, THAT'S NOT NEEDED. RIGHT. OKAY. CORRECT. AND THEN WHEN, WHEN I READ B FURTHER AND JUST, JUST, THIS IS FOR ME, WHEN WE'RE TALKING OBJECT, OBJECT CAN MEAN TREE, IS THAT RIGHT? WHEN WE'RE READING LIKE SUBSECTION B, UM, AND I'M, I'M READING THE HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OBJECT SITE OR STRUCTURE, IS OBJECT SYNONYMOUS WITH TREE OR WOULD THAT WORK? IS THAT, IS THAT TREE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE? IT'S NOT DEFINED OBJECT IS NOT NECESSARILY DEFINED IN THE U D C AND AS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE H D R C AND O H P ONLY HAVE REVIEW OVER TREES IN VERY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE U D C, WHERE THE U D C WILL SAY IT MUST GO TO THE H D R C OR IT MUST GO TO O H P FOR THEIR REVIEW. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF AN OBJECT IN THIS SUBSECTION B? OKAY, SO THE U D C DOES, I JUST WANNA INTERJECT THE U D C UH, DEFINITION FOR OBJECT. AN OBJECT IS A MATERIAL THING OF FUNCTIONAL AESTHETIC, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC VALUE THAT MAY BE BY NATURE OR DESIGN MOVABLE YET RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SETTING OR ENVIRONMENT. SO IF IT COULD INCLUDE TREES, UM, [05:30:01] OKAY, SO, SO THEN, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'M JUST SAYING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS, YOU KNOW, AND THEN I'M, I'M READING B SO THEN IF I READ B AND I SAY, AND I SUBSTITUTE TREE FOR OBJECT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M READING THE HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORIC OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TREE SITE OR STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, THEN IF I READ THE NEXT ONE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TREE SITE OR STRUCTURE, UH, TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE CHARACTER OF THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OR OVERLAY DISTRICT. IF I READ C THE DIFFICULTY OR THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REPRODUCING SUCH OBJECT, WHICH HOW TO REPRODUCE A TREE, UM, D WHETHER THE OBJECT OR WHETHER THE TREE, IF WE USE THAT SITE OR STRUCTURE IS ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING EXAMPLES OF ITS KIND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CITY, COUNTRY, REGION, STATE OR NATION. UH, THEN IF I READ E WHETHER REASONABLE MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN TO SAVE THE OBJECT OR TREE, UM, SITE STRUCTURE OR CLUSTER FROM THE FURTHER DETERIORATION, COLLAPSE, ARSON, VANDALISM, OR NEGLECT. SO I THINK IF I READ OBJECT THAT'S TREE IN THAT I, I, I SIDE MORE WITH THE APPLICANT IN THERE BEING AN ERROR, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I THAT'S, THAT'S JUST ME READING IT THAT WAY IS OBJECT BEING TREE. UM, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THIS SECTION OF CODE INCLUDES THE TREE LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT HAGMAN FEATURES ON THE RIVERWALK. AND SO OBJECTS, USUALLY IT'S GONNA REFER TO THINGS LIKE BENCHES AND THINGS THAT ARE ORIGINAL TO THE RIVERWALK. UM, BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES APPLIES TO BOTH REMOVAL OF OBJECTS ON THE RIVERWALK AND THE TREES. AND I, AND I WANTED TO ADD THAT UNDER B IT SAYS UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DEMOLITION OF THE ABOVE PERIOD. AND SO IT IMPLIES THAT ANYTHING THAT'S WRITTEN ABOVE THAT SECTION COULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN SECTION B. IT JUST GETS INTO A LITTLE MORE THE NITTY GRITTY, WHICH COULD BE EVALUATED AS YOU SEE FIT. SO, UM, I, BUT, BUT IT, IT, I'M GONNA GO OFF ON A QUICK LITTLE TANGENT HERE. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE HEAR, WE SEE THINGS IN THE CODE THAT MAYBE COULD BE CLARIFIED BETTER, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BE MORE SPECIFIC AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE U D C AMENDMENTS ONCE IN A WHILE. BUT, UM, UM, I ALSO WANTED TO TO TO JUST HAVE STAFF CLARIFY THAT WE'RE HERE TO APPEAL A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THAT IS, THAT COVERS THE ENTIRE PROJECT, NOT JUST THE TREES. CORRECT. SO THERE, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A, A SPECIFIC, THE C O A ISN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHETHER IT'S SIX, UH, SIX 80 A OR B. IT'S BECAUSE THE WHOLE, IT'S ENCOMPASSING THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE SECTION. AND I GUESS IT'S FOR US TO BREAK IT DOWN, I MEAN, AS WE SEE A FIT. SO, AM I MISSING SOMETHING THERE? NO, YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THIS, THE APPEAL REFERENCES THE ENTIRETY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH HAS FIVE SUBPARTS. ONLY ONE, ONE PORTION OF IT RELATES TO THE TREE, BUT THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THE TREES. COMMISSIONER BENE STILL HAS A FULL YEAH. DOES WHAT? SO THEN IF THERE'S FIVE SUB PORTIONS OF IT, DOES ONLY ONE OF THOSE SUB PORTIONS NEED TO BE AN ERROR FOR IT TO ALL BE APPEALED? THE BOARD CAN FIND A PORTION OF THE DECISION TO BE IN ERROR. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN ITS ENTIRETY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, MOVING ON. READY? UH, NEXT SPEAKER IS ARLENE FISHER, FOLLOWED BY HILLARY SAUNDERS. ARLENE, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. HELLO, MS. FISHER. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, . IT'S, IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. UM, UH, I'M GOING TO, UH, MY NAME IS ARLENE FISHER. I'M A 7 1 7 EAST WOODLAWN AVENUE. I'M A MEMBER OF THE RIVER ROAD, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR THE INTEREST OF BREVITY AND, AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW EVERYBODY'S TIRED BY THIS TIME I'M NOT GONNA REVIEW THE ENGINEERING PORTION. UH, BUT, UH, MS. STRONG WAS, WAS VERY THOROUGH WITH THAT. UM, ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND, AND REVIVE THAT AREA AND PRESERVE THE TREES AND, AND WE'VE BEEN QUITE DILIGENT IN OUR RESEARCH WITH THAT. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE CITY HAS HAS NOT COM COMPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE U D C CODE IN THAT A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED DUE TO THE SCOPE SENSITIVITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND THE COST OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT THIS DOCUMENTATION BE COMPLETED AND RELEASED AS PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS. AND I THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MRS. HILLARY SAUNDERS AND FOLLOWED BY MRS. LIZ SCHWEERS. MRS. SAUNDERS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU. AND I'M AFRAID I'M [05:35:01] GOING TO PROBABLY TAKE THEM . UM, I'VE BEEN HESITATING, BUT I'M GOING TO JUST CARRY ON AND PLOW ON BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO JUST STAND BACK AND JUST GIVE YOU SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS ISSUED. MY NAME IS HILLARY SAUNDERS AND I LIVE IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD AS A PRESENTER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TODAY. I'LL TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO ESTABLISH FIRST MY AUTHORITY TO MAKE THESE COMMENTS. SECOND, TO ARTICULATE MY GOAL IN BEING HERE TODAY. AND THIRDLY, TO MAKE A PLEA FOR THE APPLICATION OF RIGOR IN MAKING DECISIONS THAT IMPACT OUR PUBLIC SPACES IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH OUR VALUES THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN OUR LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE GUIDELINES AND ORDINANCES. I SPEAK TODAY AS AN ARCHITECT WITH 35 YEARS EXPERIENCING WORKING IN THE AREA OF HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PLANNING. IN MY FORMER PRACTICE IN SAN ANTONIO, MY CLIENTS INCLUDED THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VIA SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY. AND I HAVE EVEN SERVED ON THE RIVER WALK COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH A LONG TIME AGO, THE CITY, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ADDRESSES A DESIGN THAT IS WAY BROADER THAN ONLY THE TREE PROPOSAL. MY GOAL TODAY IS TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT IS INVOLVED WHEN WORKING WITHIN A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SUCH AS, UH, BRACKEN RIDGE PARK. WE WORK WITH THE INHERENT VALUES EMBEDDED IN THE HUMAN RESPONSE TO THE PARK'S, NATURAL FEATURES AND SYSTEM SYSTEMS SIMULTANEOUSLY. ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE NATURAL SYSTEMS RESPONSE TO THREATS SUCH AS CLIMATE IMPACTS AND ENCROACHING HUMAN SETTLEMENTS. THERE ARE TWO SETS OF VALUES INTERTWINED. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE UNDERLYING VALUES REPRESENTED BY BRACKENRIDGE PARK'S, SOCIAL AND NATURAL HISTORY PROVIDE THE FRAMEWORK FOR INTERVENTIONS IN THE FUTURE. IT IS A PLACE OF WATER AND HAS HAD VARIOUS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PATTERNS OVER ITS HISTORY. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES DO NOT PERMIT THE SO-CALLED FREEZE FRAME APPROACH TO CULTURE, BUT RATHER A MORE EVOLVING AND NUANCED STORYLINE. UH, I WILL ILLUSTRATE MY APPROACH TO THIS PROJECT THROUGH BRIEFLY THROUGH AN EXAMPLE. IN THE 1990S, I DESIGNED THE MASTER PLAN FOR AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE, THE MODIFICATION OF THE SAN ANTONIO RIVERWALK TO COMPLY WITH A D A LAWS. THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLEX, POTENTIALLY CONTENTIOUS, REQUIRING INTERVENTIONS INTO HAGMAN'S HISTORICAL FABRIC WHILE PROVIDING ACCESS TO HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SITES ALONG THE WAY, THUS ENABLING ACCESS TO THE FULL STORY OF SAN ANTONIO'S RIVER WALK. AS AMERICANS, OUR UNDERLYING VALUES HAD EVOLVED AND WERE ENSHRINED IN THE A D A LEGISLATION. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE INCORPORATED MANY WAYS TO TELL THE RIVER WALK STORY THROUGH INTERPRETIVE DISPLAYS AND OTHER TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE HERITAGE OPPORTUNITIES. I SUGGEST THAT THIS HERITAGE PLANNING APPROACH CAN BE USED IN THE CASE OF LAMBERT BEACH, UH, REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION DESIGN. I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY HAS FAILED TO INTERROGATE WHETHER THE PREVAILING VALUE DRIVING THE PROJECT SHOULD SOLELY BE TO RETURN ALL OF THE HISTORIC WALLS TO CONDITION. THANK YOU GUYS. YOUR TIME. IS THAT MY THREE MINUTES? I'LL GIVE YOU 10 SECONDS TO WRAP IT UP IF YOU RIGHT. OKAY. THE THREE OBJECTIONS. OH, MY SLIDE IS NOT UP. I THINK SUSAN HAS COVERED THEM. IN CONCLUSION, THIS IS, THIS PROJECT SHOULD SET THE GOLD STANDARD FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PARK PLANNING AND DESIGN SUCH THAT SAN ANTONIO CAN HOLD UP ITS LONG REPUTATION. AS A NATIONAL LEADER IN PRESERVATION, THIS IS A MOMENT NOT TO BE SQUANDERED, AND WE AS SAN ANTONIO'S HERITAGE PLANNING COMMUNITY KNOW HOW TO DO IT. I THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AND MRS. LIZ, UH, SCHWEERS FOLLOWED BY ELISE SULLIVAN. COULD YOU ADVANCE TO THE LAST LINE? THANK YOU. HELLO. UM, ELIZABETH HAD TO LEAVE, BUT, UM, I'M ELOISE SULLIVAN. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF RIVER ROAD ALL MY LIFE. UM, TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE FINDINGS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REGARDING THE LGE LONGEVITY OF THE PROJECT, WHICH I BELIEVE ARE INACCURATE. I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE CITY'S CONCLUSION AND WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CITY'S TREE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT, WHICH CONTRADICTS THE CITY STATEMENT, PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF TREE 1 0 1. INSTEAD OF RECOMMENDING RELOCATION OF THE TREE COMMITTEE FOUND THE OPPOSITE, IT RECOMMENDED PRESERVING THE LARGE OAK TREE 1 0 1 IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AND SAID THE TREE IS UNLIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE RESTORED WALL IN THE FUTURE. FURTHERMORE, ENGINEER'S ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR A PIER AND SPANDREL WALL EXCEEDS THE DURABILITY AND LONGEVITY OF THE CITY'S CAVALIER SYSTEM AND PROPOSED DESIGN. THIS ALTERNATIVE WALL SOLUTION IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING BOTH THE EXISTING TREES AND THE NEW [05:40:01] CANOPY TREES IN THE FUTURE. PRESERVING FUTURE CANOPY TREES IN THIS LANDSCAPE IS VITAL AS IT IS PART OF THE NATURAL SUCCESSION OF TREES THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF LAMBER BEACH. GO AHEAD AND JUST FINISH YOUR POINT. OKAY. WITHOUT THE TREES, THE LANDSCAPE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED AND UNRECOGNIZABLE. NOTHING LIKE THE SHADED WALK ALONG THE RIVER THAT I CHERISH. GROWING UP. CONSIDERING THE STRONGER ALTERNATIVE DESIGN PROPOSED BY THE ENGINEERS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD TO REEVALUATE THE DECISION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. UM, AND YOU WERE MS. SULLIVAN, RIGHT? YES. IS THIS HER? IS THERE A MRS. UH, SCHWEERS HERE? NO, SHE HAD TO. OKAY. THERE WAS A , UH, MR. JEROME MARTIN FOLLOWED BY MR. NICK HOLLIS. JEROME IS NOT HERE EITHER. ALL RIGHT. MR. NICK HOLLIS, FOLLOWED BY JOE CALVERT. MR. HOLLIS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU AND APPRECIATE, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. UM, I'M THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE BRACKENRIDGE CONSERVANCY, UM, WHO HAS BEEN HARD AT WORK, UH, IN BRACKENRIDGE PARK TO TRY AND RESHAPE, UH, THIS PARTICULAR ASSET, UH, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY THROUGH THE USE OF A HUN 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR IS FALLING INTO DISREPAIR. UH, IT REQUIRES EFFORT, IT'S GONNA REQUIRE PLANNING, BUT THE ONE THING THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE IS COMPROMISE. AND WE DON'T WANNA SEE ONE TREE CUT DOWN, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANNA SEE LAMBERT BEACH AND THE PUMPHOUSE FALL INTO THE RIVER. SO WE'VE WATCHED, AND I'VE BEEN TO EVERY ONE OF THE MEETINGS, H D R C MEETINGS TO ALL OF THE OTHER MEETINGS, AND WE'VE LISTENED TO EVERYBODY. THEY HAVE BEEN LISTENED TO BY THE CITY. THEY HAVE BEEN LISTENED TO BY SS W A AND A COMPROMISE NEEDED TO BE REACHED. AND, AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMPROMISES. HOWEVER, AT SOME STAGE, YOU'VE GOT TO STOP AND SAY, WE HAVE COME TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE MADE A DECISION AND WE ARE MOVING FORWARD. IT'S NOT PERFECT. NOT EVERYONE'S GONNA GET ALL THE TREES AND NOT EVERYONE'S GONNA GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT IN TERMS OF ROCK WALLS, BUT WE AT THE B P C NEED TO GET MOVING. THIS PARK NEEDS TO GET MOVING. IF WE CAN'T GET THROUGH JUST THIS ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF A FEW HUNDRED FEET OF RIVER, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE OTHER 300 ACRES OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? THERE ARE 102 SEPARATE PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE IN THE SPARK. SO WE HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE USING EVERY OPPORTUNITY THEY CAN, AND THEY'VE ALL BEEN HEARD, I'VE HEARD ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS BEFORE, AND NOW THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO OVERTURN THE H D R SEATS JUDGMENT BY SHOEHORNING IN I IDEAS AND, YOU KNOW, TWEAKS TO CODES OR INTERPRETATIONS OF CODES IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE A HUNDRED PERCENT, LET'S NOT GO FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT. LET'S GO FOR THE COMPROMISE. LET'S MOVE THIS THING FORWARD AND LET'S GET OUR PARK FIXED. THAT'S WHERE WE STAND, THAT'S WHERE B P C STANDS, AND WE SUPPORT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. MR. JOE CALVERT, FOLLOWED BY TERRY BLANC. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MY NAME IS TERRY BREL AND I'M SERVING AS THE INTERIM C E O OF THE BRACKENRIDGE PARK CONSERVANCY. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPEAL FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT TOMMY RICHLAND, AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AFTER A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. I WANNA JUST MAKE ONE POINT. THE BRACKENRIDGE PARK CONSERVANCY, UH, DEFINITELY HAS RECOGNIZED THE STATE OF DISREPAIR, AND THEY'RE THE CONSERVANCY THAT COMMISSIONED THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT THAT WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER, AND IT WAS ALSO DONE IN COMP TO COMPLEMENT THE CITY'S, UH, BRACKENRIDGE PARK MASTER PLAN AND FURTHER DOCUMENT, EXPLORE AND UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PARK, NOT ONLY LOCALLY, BUT AT THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL AS WE'VE TALKED NATIONAL LEVEL AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY. THE C L R SUGGESTS A BALANCED MIX OF TREATMENT THAT INCLUDES REHABILITATION, PRESERVATION, RESTORATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION. THIS PROJECT'S MORE THAN ABOUT REMOVING SOME TREES. IT'S ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM THAT TELLS THE UNCOMFORTABLE STORIES AND MANY LAYERS OF HISTORY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. IT'S ABOUT FINDING THE BEST MIX OF TREATMENT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY IN SUPPORTING THE CITY'S DECISION TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, IS THERE A JOE CALVERT HERE? YES. I DON'T NEED TO SPEAK. ALRIGHTY. UM, LYNN BOBBIT, FOLLOWED BY IDA AALA. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M LYNN BOBBIT [05:45:01] AND I'M THE FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BRACKRIDGE PARK CONSERVANCY. WE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, STAKEHOLDERS OF THE PARK TO GET THE BOND. MONEY BEGAN WORKING IN 20 17, 20 16, AND THEN THE BOND PASSED IN 17. UM, THE PARK I HAVE LEARNED IS MORE UNIQUE THAN US SAN ANTONIONS HAVE EVER KNOWN. I'VE LEARNED FROM THE NATIONAL PARK WORLD THAT THERE IS NO OTHER PARK IN THE UNITED STATES LIKE BRACKENRIDGE. THAT'S ONLY 'CAUSE OF THE RIVER, ITS CULTURE AND DOCUMENTED HUMAN HABITATION, BUT IT IS DETERIORATING AND WE NEED TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS NOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PHASE ONE OF THIS PROJECT. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AS A COMMUNITY TOGETHER. THERE HAVE BEEN COMPROMISES AND THERE ARE PERHAPS ADDITIONAL COMPROMISES THAT COULD BE MADE IN THE FUTURE, BUT TODAY I ASK YOU TO STAND BY THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD AND DENY THE APPEAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IDA AYALA, FOLLOWED BY MARCO AYALA. UH, HE GAVE UP THIS TIME. IDA, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. MY NAME IS I AYALA AND I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. AND I WANNA START BY SAYING THE CONSERVANCY HAS HAD THE PARK SINCE 2009. SO 14 YEARS OF DETERIORATION IS ON THE HANDS OF THE CONSERVANCY. UM, O H P STATES THAT THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. HOWEVER, WHEN I RESEARCHED HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES ON THE CSA WEBSITES, WHAT CAME UP AS THEIR POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ARE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. AND IT STATES IN CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE H D R C AND O H P STAFF ARE GUIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, MOST COMMONLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE U D C, THESE HISTORIC DECI DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ANY ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES ADOPTED. SO THEY DO IN FACT GO BY THE DEFINITIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. THE, UM, GUIDELINE THAT THE CITY IGNORED IN IMPROVING THE C O A WAS THAT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF A PROPERTY WILL BE RETAINED AND PRESERVED THE REMOVAL OF DISTINCTIVE MATERIALS. AND IF, IF OBJECTS ARE TREES, THEN SO WOULD MATERIALS, UM, BE TREES OR ALTERATION OF FEATURES, SPACES AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHARACTERIZE A PROPERTY WILL BE AVOIDED. AND THAT'S WHEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WHICH THE CITY SAYS IS THE, ARE THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY USE. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CANNOT DENY THAT THEIR PLANS FOR BRACKENRIDGE PARK GO AGAINST THEIR OWN TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. U D C, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 35 TO PRESERVE TREES IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC RESOURCE, ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THIS CITY, AND ENHANCING ITS UNIQUE CHARACTER AND PHYSICAL, HISTORICAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT TO ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS ENTERING STREAMS, AND TO PROVIDE THE ELEMENTS CRUCIAL TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOCAL ECOSYSTEM. TO ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS THAT PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE WATER QUALITY ECOSYSTEM AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT. AND ITS SUBSECTION H. IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS SUCH AS BRACKENRIDGE PARK, SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 80%. HERITAGE TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT A HUNDRED PERCENT. A VARIANCE CAN ONLY BE GRANTED IF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. AND IT HAS DEFINITELY BEEN CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR THESE REASONS, THE APPROVAL FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD BE REVERSED. THE CITY SHOULD FOLLOW ITS OWN TREE PRESERVATION CODE, A CODE ENFORCED ON HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IF THIS IS TRULY OUR PARK AND THERE ARE FENCES ALL OVER, GRAB ROCK, ANDRIDGE PARK WITH GREEN MESH THAT SAYS YOUR PARK. IF IT'S TRULY OUR PARK, THEN PLEASE LET YOUR DECISION REFLECT THE REAL STAKEHOLDERS, THE PEOPLE OF SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTYY. MARCO AALA. HE'S NOT HERE. ALRIGHT. UM, MATILDA TORRES. NO, I WAS GONNA GIVE HIM, SHE GAVE ALL READY. UM, MY FEE MORE WHEN WE WENT, WHEN WE WENT BEFORE THE H D R C, THERE WERE 75 OF US SPEAKING ABOUT NOT CHOPPING DOWN TREES. SEVEN OF US SAID THAT, THAT YOU COULD CHOP DOWN THE TREES AND THE H D R C VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ALLOW THE CHOPPING DOWN OF TREES. I HOPE YOU [05:50:01] GUYS ARE TUNED IN TO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE HAD 36, 37 WITH ME. PEOPLE SAYING PLEASE PROTECT THE TREES. AND YOU'VE HAD THREE PEOPLE SPEAK UP TO CHOP DOWN THE TREES. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, NOT THE H D R C. AND THE CITY MADE ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF U D C REQUIREMENTS. THEY FAILED TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE. THEY MADE INACCURATE AND UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS. THEY REJECTED REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS, VIOLATED THE CITY'S LETTER OF TREE PROTECTIONS IN THE RIO AREA, IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PARK AND ITS CLIMATE. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE FEDERAL VIOLATIONS THEY'RE DOING DESTROYING ALL THOSE BIRDS. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. NOPE, THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, SO IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH. MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I THINK WERE THERE LETTERS TO BE READ? OH, WERE THERE ANY, YEAH, CAN YOU PULL UP THE, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION AND GO TO THE LAST SLIDE OR NICE LAST SLIDE. ALL RIGHT. UH, SORRY. THE PRESENTATION WAS CUT OFF. UH, WE DIDN'T GET TO THIS ONE. SO IT WAS 76 NOTICES SENT OUT. UM, THERE WAS ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION FROM OUTSIDE 200 FEET. NO OTHER ONES WERE RECEIVED. AND IT IS, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, WE EMAILED BACK TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN ADDRESS, BUT WE DID NOT GET AN ADDRESS FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL. IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. YEAH. SO THIS LETTER'S IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL. OKAY. YEP. SO WE USUALLY, UH, WE TYPICALLY LET THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDE A REBUTTAL AT THE END. SO WE'RE GONNA LET THE CITY GO AT THIS POINT. UH, IS THERE ANYTHING THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE, UM, TURN OVER BACK TO THE APPLICANT FOR A BRIEF REBUTTAL? UM, THANK YOU. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE ALL OF THIS BY SAYING THAT I, AS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, MADE THE DECISION TO ISSUE THEIR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS AFTER CONSIDERING, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE FACTS AND THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE H D R C FOR APPROVAL, THE PUBLIC, THE PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED WITH INPUT FROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FROM MULTIPLE CITY DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THIS INCLUDES THE CITY ARBORIST AND THE ENTIRE URBAN FORESTRY TEAM, UM, LED BY ROSS HOSEA, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT. AND FROM THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAM AND INDEPENDENT ARBORISTS, THE H T R C THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED THE REQUEST AFTER MULTIPLE SITE VISITS AND A FOUR AND A HALF HOUR PUBLIC HEARING. THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION APPROVED THE PROJECT BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS. AND UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS, JUSTIFY APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. THE DECISION WAS MADE CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY AND CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C. OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SURE. MINKA. UH, SO, UH, GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONER MINKA. UH, WELL, WELL, I'LL JUST DO ASK MINE REAL QUICK. SO, DURING THE, THE, UH, THE MYTA TESTIMONY, UH, WE DID HEAR, UM, SOMETHING, UH, I THOUGHT WAS, WAS NEWER, WAS UNDER, UH, SIX 80 B UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY ITEM NUMBER E, WHETHER REASONABLE MEASURES COULD BE, UH, CAN BE TAKEN TO [05:55:01] SAVE THE, UH, OBJECT FROM FURTHER DETERIORATION COLLAPSE, HARSH AND VANDALISM OR NEGLECT. AND SO THE IMPLICATION WAS, IS THAT, THAT UNDER SECTION B, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO RETAINER WALLS. IT COULD POTENTIALLY SAVE TREES. UH, THIS, THIS SECTION OF CODE SAYS THAT THE H C R C, UM, USING THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER UNUSUAL COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND SHALL BE GUIDED IN ITS RECOMMENDATION. UH, SO DID, DID THE ISSUE OF AN ALTERNATE WAY OF DOING RETAINABLE COME UP AT THE H C R C MEETING? UM, YES IT DID. SO THEY DID HEAR THAT? YES. AND THEY STILL MADE A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CO C O? CORRECT. AND, UM, THE, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ALTERNATIVE METHODS WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND IT WAS REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF WITH, UM, THE CONSULTING, THE DESIGN TEAM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. COMMISSIONER SHANKA? YES. UM, THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS CLEARED UP FOR ME, I WAS, I WAS SORT OF ON THE FRINGE UNDERSTANDING, BUT THE S O I, IT'S BEEN CLEARED UP BY YOU AND THE PREVIOUS PERSON BEFORE YOU. THE ONE I THAT WAS IN REFERENCE TO 45 DASH 6 43, THE ONE I'M STILL A BIT CLEAR ON, NOT CLEAR ON, IS 35 DASH 4 55. OKAY. THAT HAS TO DO WITH PREPARING A REPORT TO H O C, ANALYZING BLAH, BLAH AND ALL THAT. OH, THE RE THE REPORT ANALYZING. YES. WAS THAT DONE? YES. UM, AND THAT IS THE, THAT IS WHAT STAFF PRESENT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO H D R C LAYS OUT, UM, THE ANALYSIS DONE BY STAFF AND ALL OF THE FINDINGS. AND THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. ZUNA, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO THERE WAS TESTIMONY PRESENTED ABOUT THE CITY ARBORIST NOT HAVING ANY INPUT. I KNOW THE CITY ARBORIST IS HERE TODAY. IS THERE AN ABILITY FOR HIM TO PROVIDE HIS REVIEW OF THE, UH, TREES AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK THE CITY, THE CITY ARBORIST IS NOT HERE, BUT, UM, ROSS HOSEA IS HERE, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE URBAN FORESTRY TEAM AND LEADS THAT TEAM IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. SO HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION IF YOU'D LIKE. I WOULD JUST TO HEAR THAT THERE WAS SOME, BECAUSE WE HEARD TESTIMONY AS, AS YOU HEARD, THAT THERE WAS NO INPUT FROM THE URBAN FORESTRY. SURE. AND THE CITY ARBORIST IS A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EMPLOYEE, AND OBVIOUSLY MIKE SHANNON IS HERE, SO HE COULD SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE FOR HIM TO, BUT BOTH, BOTH TEAMS WERE INVOLVED. I, I THINK THAT'D BE HELPFUL, OBVIOUSLY, 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND HERE SURE. REVOLVES AROUND THAT, SO. OKAY. HEY EVERYONE. UH, MIKE SHANNON, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I'M NOT THE CITY ARBORIST. UM, HOWEVER, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE CITY ARBORIST HAS BEEN INVOLVED, UH, IN REVIEWING, UM, BOTH THE TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AND THOSE FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT. UH, SO I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT, UH, WE ARE VERY INVOLVED WITH IT, UH, FOR THE PAST, UH, YEAR AND A HALF, COUPLE YEARS, SO. ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, QUESTION MR. QUESTION. BONNI, MR. IS, IS THERE RECENT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, PRECEDENT OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE REMOVING SO MANY TREES IN, IN THE RIVER AREA? WELL, THIS IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE PROJECT, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. UM, BUT WE REVIEW PROJECTS ALL OVER THE CITY. UH, WE REVIEWED RIVER PROJECTS AS WELL. SO, UM, WE'RE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S TREE CODE AND OTHERS AS A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED HERE. SO, UH, WE CERTAINLY WORK WITH, UM, OFFICE OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, UH, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THOSE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE, UH, UH, OR NOT APPROVE PROJECTS IN THESE AREAS. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE ONE, UM, AS YOU, AS YOU'VE HEARD, BUT, UH, WE HAVE OTHERS. YEP. SO THAT'S NO RE I I'M NOT GONNA, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING LIKE THIS PARTICULAR ONE. THIS IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE PROJECT. YEAH. AT LEAST NONE THAT I CAN REMEMBER. IF MY ARBORIST WAS HERE, WHO'S BEEN IN THE GAME A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN ME, UH, THEN MAYBE, MAYBE HE COULD GIVE YOU THAT. BUT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BRING UP THAT. UH, I WAS AT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAYBE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WHERE THERE WAS AT BRACKENRIDGE PARK, UH, A, A VARIANCE TO REMOVE SOME TREES AND I THINK IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE HEARD A LOT OF, OF, OF TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATIONS BY STAFF AND IT PASSED. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, IT WAS VERY INTERESTING TO SEE THAT, THAT THE CITY HAD, WHEN I, I RECALL BEING AT THAT MEETING THAT THEY DID ATTEMPT TO DO A LOT OF THINGS. UH, AND THERE WAS JUST A HANDFUL OF TREES THAT, THAT JUST NEEDED TO BE REMOVED TO MAKE THE PROJECT MOVE FORWARD IN A SAFE MANNER. I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT A COUPLE YEARS AGO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN. I MEAN, BECAUSE, YEAH, SO THIS PROJECT DID GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN SOME FORM, UH, 18 MONTHS AGO. THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO. SO, UM, SAME PROJECT, BUT YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I REMEMBER. DO YOU WANNA ADD THAT MOMENT SOONER? PARKING BUDGET? NO, THIS WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. MY NAME'S HARMER GARCIA, PARKS DIRECTOR. REALLY WANTED TO REINFORCE WHAT SHANNON HIGHLIGHTED. [06:00:01] UH, AND THEN MIKE SHANNON, OF COURSE, WE ALSO HAVE LEADERSHIP HERE WITH US THIS EVENING FROM PUBLIC WORKS. SO THAT WHAT THAT DEMONSTRATES IS THIS HAS BEEN A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS ACROSS ALL THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT I MENTIONED. UH, THE, UM, ITEM YOU'RE MENTIONING ACTUALLY IS THIS ONE. IT STARTED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, MAYBE JANUARY OR SO OF LAST YEAR. AND, UM, SO THE WAY WE'RE STRUCTURED IN PARKS AND RECREATION, WE DO HAVE AN URBAN FORESTRY TEAM. THE CITY FORESTER IS, UH, IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. THE CITY ARBORIST OF COURSE IS IN D S D ROSS JOSE IS A FORMER CITY FORESTER. HE IS IN AN ELEVATED ROLE WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT LEADING THAT EFFORT. SO HE AND HIS TEAM WERE WORKING WITH THE ARBORIST COMMUNITY, WORKING WITH SS W A, YOU HEARD KINDER HERE EARLIER THIS EVENING. WE HAD A MULTITUDE OF MEETINGS, UH, OVER THE PAST LAST SPRING AND SUMMER SEVEN TO BE EXACT, AT THE WITTY MUSEUM. IN ADVANCE OF THAT, WE PARTICIPATED IN THE TOWN HALL, UH, THAT WAS VIRTUAL. WE DID A WALK IN THE PARK. THE COMMUNITY CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THAT. SO THAT TEAM HAS BEEN CONNECTED TOGETHER FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, JUST NAVIGATING AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BEING RESPONSIVE TO REALLY HAS BEEN A CALL TO ACTION BY THE COMMUNITY. THROUGH THAT TIME, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM WHERE THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER IMPROVED PLAN BECAUSE OF THIS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. WE ARE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. OF COURSE, WE WILL BE REPLANTING SEVERAL TREES. AND SO OVER THAT 18 MONTH, UH, TIME PERIOD, UH, AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS CONTRIBUTING SPECIFICALLY TO THE TREES. I THINK IT'S, UM, IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT INDEPENDENT ARBORIST COMMUNITY THAT WAS PRO BONO, THAT WAS FREE OF, UM, REALLY ANY CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY, THEY DID LOOK AT IT THROUGH VARIOUS MEANS, NOT ONLY FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT THE CITY HAD SET FORWARD AS PART OF DESIGN, BUT ALSO THESE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN METHODS THAT WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING. AND IT WAS ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME QUESTION, ARE WE MAXIMIZING THE ABILITY TO SAVE, UH, OR MAXIMIZE EM TREES THAT CAN BE SAVED? AND THE ANSWER IS YES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING, BRAGMAN. ANY QUESTION? QUESTION? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN QUESTION. HANG ON A SECOND. I WAS FIRST. UM, SO THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, UM, PROPOSALS, CAN YOU GIMME AN IDEA OF WHY THE ONE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED NOW IS SUPERIOR OVER THE OTHERS WITHOUT GETTING INTO ENGINEERING, DETAILING AND THINGS LIKE THAT? A BRIEF SUMMARY? YES. HIGH LEVEL. UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AREA WHERE THIS PROJECT IS OCCURRING, UH, A LOT OF THE TREES IN THAT, WE SAW IMAGES WHERE THEY'RE GROWING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WALL. YOU SAW PARTS WHERE AN ENTIRE PORTION OF THE RIVER WALL HAS FAILED AND IS BEING HELD UP BY PLYWOOD SUPPORT. AND WHEN OUR TEAM, NOT ONLY THE PROJECT TEAM, BUT THE ARBORIST COMMUNITY, WE LOOKED AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR WHERE THOSE TREES ARE AT GROWING AGAINST THESE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT THE ROOT SYSTEM WAS NOT FULLY GROWN. UH, IN SOME CASES YOU HAVE ROOTS THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WALL, SO THERE MAY BE 60% AT BEST. ADDITIONALLY, SOME OF THESE ULTERIOR, UH, DESIGN METHODS WOULD REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT MACHINERY TO ENTER THE PROJECT AREA, WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF THE CROWN THAT'S THERE TODAY. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE VISTAS, THE, THE, IN THE INSUFFICIENT, I WOULD SAY ROOT SYSTEM THAT'S THERE COUPLED WITH THE CLEARING OF THE CANOPY AND THE CROWN, JUST TO GET TO THE SPOT TO EFFECTIVELY CONSTRUCT THESE, UM, THROUGH THIS AL AL ALTERNATIVE METHODS WAS NOT GONNA BODE WELL FOR THE TREE. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHAT THE TEAM COLLECTIVELY LOOKED AT, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY ARBORIST. AND AGAIN, ARRIVING AT THE SAME POINT THAT FOR THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED TODAY IS, UH, SAVING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TREES. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. WE THEN COMMISSIONER MANCHACA AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. UM, MY QUESTION, UM, YOU SORT OF ADDRESSED IT ALREADY, BUT IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE TREES THAT CANNOT BE SAVED, LIKE THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE WATER, THERE'S NO WAY THOSE ARE CANDIDATES FOR TRANSPLANT SOMEPLACE ELSE? YES. UH, THE SHORT ANSWER, AND I DON'T HAVE EXACT TREE NUMBERS, UH, BUT WE ARE RELOCATING SEVERAL TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, AGAIN, UH, IF I CAN GO GRAB MY NOTES AND TRY TO GET YOU SOME NUMBERS, BUT I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR, UH, THIS BODY TO KNOW IS FROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION VARIANCE, WELL MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, WE HAVE REDUCED THAT NUMBER AND IT IS, UH, IN PART DUE TO RELOCATING SEVERAL TREES. SO THAT WOULD BE RELOCATION RATHER THAN DESTRUCTION IS HIGHER PROBABILITY. THAT'S CORRECT. AND, UH, THANK YOU. YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YES. MY QUESTION IS ON THIS PROJECT HERE, UH, IS IT HOLDING UP MORE PROJECTS, UH, [06:05:01] UH, ON THE RIVER? OR IS THIS IS THE ONLY PROJECT YOU HAVE ON THE, ON THE RIVER AND THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STUCK? LET ME ANSWER IT. FROM A PURE PARKS PERSPECTIVE, UH, AND BRACKENRIDGE PARK, EFFECTIVELY BEING JUST SOUTH OF THE HEADWATERS, THERE IS A PHASE TWO TO THIS PROJECT THAT, UM, IS NOT BEING HEARD THIS EVENING. AND WE, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, HAD, UH, GONE THROUGH FOCUS SOLELY ON PHASE ONE. SO PHASE TWO OF THIS 2017 BOND PROJECT, IT IS PENDING US MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? YEAH, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. BUT ON THE BOND PROJECT, UH, WHAT, WHAT YEAR, UH, WAS IT APPROVED AND ABOUT WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE TO EXIT? IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROJECT HERE OR THIS ELEMENT RIGHT HERE ON THE TREES ON THE WALL IS HOLDING UP OTHER PROJECTS ON THE RIVER, OR NO, WE, WE TAKE ANOTHER, UH, CRACK AT IT. SO RIGHT NOW, AND WE HAVE, UH, LUIS MALTO HERE WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DOES DELIVER THE BOND ON BEHALF OF ALL OF OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE OTHER PROJECTS YOU CAN POINT TO BEYOND THIS ONE. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, LUIS MATOS. I'M AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH PUBLIC WORKS GOING BACK TO THE 2017 BO UH, BOMB PROGRAM. SO YEAH, SO PHASE ONE WAS A 2017 BOMB PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN, IN, BACK IN 2017. SO WHAT OUR PROMISE IS TO THE PUBLIC IS TO DELIVER THOSE PROJECTS WITHIN FIVE YEARS. SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THIS IS ONE PROJECT HAS GONE BEYOND THE, THE ORIGINAL TIMEFRAME. SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO DELIVER THOSE PROJECTS WITHIN FIVE YEARS. NOT ONLY IS THE 2017 PROJECT LATE, IT IS HOLDING BACK THE 2022 BOND PROJECT, WHICH IS PHASE TWO. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ LEFT AT 7 52. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE CITY BEFORE WE GO FOR AN APPLICANT REBUTTAL HEARING ON, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORTH AND YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND SUM UP SOME OF YOUR THOUGHTS FROM WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, SO, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO A MOTION. YES, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. OBVIOUSLY, FROM THE PHONE CALLS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN THE LETTERS, IT IS STILL A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC CONCERN. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE STILL HAVE NO OPINION, NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ARBORIST OR THE FORESTER. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING TO HAVE THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SAY WE DISCUSSED IT. THE CODE REQUIRES A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ARBORIST OR THE FORESTER. THEY ARE NOT HERE. THEY HAVE NOT MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE. UM, THE COMMUNITY ARBORISTS CERTAINLY HAVE NOT MADE ANY WR WRITTEN OR ORAL STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT. UH, THE COMMUNITY ARBORIST THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY ARBORIST SAID THAT WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE INTRUSIVE CONSTRUCTION METHOD CHOSEN BY THE CITY. AND THAT BASED ON THAT, MANY OF THE TREES WOULD NOT SURVIVE. BUT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER DESIGN CHANGES. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS. THAT'S WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. THE REPORT IS IN YOUR PACKET. YOU CAN READ IT. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND TRANSPLANTING TREE 1 0 1. IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE FUTURE WALLS. AND IT WAS RISKY TO TRANSPLANT THAT TREE AND IT WOULD SURVIVE EVEN THE CON INVASIVE CONSTRUCTION. UM, THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE ENTIRE SUMMER, THE CITY REFUSED TO RE RE UH, TO TELL US WHAT THEIR CONSTRUCTION METHOD WAS. THEY WERE ASKED AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING. AND SO THOSE MEETINGS WERE BY AND LARGE FRUITLESS. UH, AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY RESULTED SOLELY IN THE PRESERVATION OF ONE ADDITIONAL TREE FROM THE START OF THE PROJECT TO THE END OF THE PROJECT. WE GOT ONE OAK, ONE, UH, EIGHT INCH PECAN CHANGED FROM BEING, UH, CUT DOWN TO BEING PRESERVED IN PLACE. ALL OF THE OTHER TREES THAT ARE PRESERVED. YEAH, I'M, I'M ON. ALL OF THE OTHER TREES ARE TREES THAT ARE, UM, GOING TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT AREA. AS WE'VE SAID, UH, BEFORE, THE CURRENT WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT SUPPORT NEW CANOPY TREES. SO ALL OF THE TREES, WHATEVER TREES ARE GOING TO BE REPLANTED, ARE GOING TO BE REPLANTED AT LEAST 15 FEET AWAY FROM THE RIVER BANK, PROVIDING NO SHADE TO THE PEOPLE WALKING ALONG THE RIVER, PROVIDING NO SHADE TO THE RIVER ITSELF, AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CANOPY OVERLOOKING THE ENTIRE RIVER. UM, TO THE CONSERVANCY'S POINT ABOUT COMPROMISE, WE HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COMPROMISE. THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPROMISE FROM THE CITY. THE CITY HAS REFUSED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS. UM, THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING A REAR GUARD ACTION SINCE DAY ONE TO DEFEND THE CONSTRUCTION METHOD [06:10:01] THAT THEY'VE CHOSEN, WHICH IS THE ABSOLUTE MOST INTRUSIVE METHOD THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY CHOOSE. AND ALSO THE WEAKEST WALL THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY CHOOSE, UM, TO COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. UM, ZUNIGA, UM, YOUR QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER THIS IS HOLDING UP OTHER PROJECTS. UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE, AS AS, UM, MR. HOLLIS SAID THERE ARE 302 PROJECTS IN THE PARK. THIS IS NOT HOLDING UP ANYTHING BUT ONE. UM, AND THEY COULD GO FORWARD WITH MANY, MANY OTHER PROJECTS. THEY COULD FIX THE WATER FOUNTAINS, THEY COULD FIX THE MUD HOLES, THEY COULD, UH, CONNECT THE PATHS. THEY COULD START ON PROJECT TWO. UM, THIS IS NOT HOLDING ANYTHING UP. AND FURTHERMORE, I JUST WANNA MAKE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, OUR ENGINEERS HAVE SAID THAT THIS WOULD TAKE CHANGING THE WALL DESIGN TO PERMIT THE PRESERVATION OF THE TREES WOULD TAKE, UH, ONE TO TWO MONTHS. THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION HAS BEGGED THE CITY TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES. THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THE HISTORIC COMMISSION WOULD NOT ACCEPT A REDESIGN. AND IN FACT, THE SECTION 1 0 6 PROCESSES WITH THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION IS ONGOING. IT'S BARELY STARTED. THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE THESE CHANGES WITHOUT CAUSING ANY FURTHER DELAY. AND FURTHER, YOU HEARD FROM PROFESSOR GRL ON THE VOICEMAIL THAT THERE'S THREATENED LITIGATION OVER THIS PROJECT. SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A WORLD OF TIME TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. OUR ENGINEERS SAID ONE TO TWO MONTHS TO MAKE THESE DESIGN CHANGES. THERE'S NO REASON TO NOT SEND THIS BACK TO THE H G R C WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 35 6 80. IT WILL NOT CAUSE DELAYS IN THIS PROJECT TO REQUIRE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE THE TREES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, SO ANY LAST QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? YOUR HONOR, MR. CHAIR, COULD YOU GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS AGAIN ON THE VOTING? YES, SURE. YEAH. SO IF COMMISSIONER ORIAN, YES. UH, JUST REALLY QUICK, UH, WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT YOU'VE HAD ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER JOIN THE MEETING. OH, THAT IS RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CODDLE. AND WAS HE PRESENT DURING THE, DURING THE PRESENTATION? HE WAS. OKAY, SO HE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MR. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO THE INSTRUCTIONS IS THAT, UH, THE MOTION IS READ, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IF YOU VOTE YES OR YAY, UH, YOU ARE VOTING TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND HAVE THE, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, BE REVOKED. UH, AND AT THAT POINT, IT'LL GO BACK TO THE H D R C. IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU'RE CITING, UH, WITH THE, THAT THE, YOU'RE, UH, CITING THAT THE CITY DID NOT, UH, MAKE AN ERROR. AND THE C O OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, IS, IS PERFECTLY FINE. SO WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER UGA, OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A POSITIVE MOTION HERE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OH 8 23 1 3 0 0 1 27. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, GRAND APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 3,700 NORTH ST. MARY STREET, APPLICANT B ATOMIC WRINKLING. BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS SHOW THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF THANK YOU OF APPROPRIATENESS, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA, I HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE, THE PRINTED ELECTRONIC AND IN PERSON, AND IT HASN'T SHOWED ME THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THAT SARAH, ON THEIR DECISION. SO, TO, TO, UH, I'M DENYING THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I WILL AGREE WITH MR. ZUNIGA. UM, I DON'T, I HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND I'VE SEEN EVERYTHING AND I JUST CAN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR, UM, THAT SHOWED MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? I WILL BE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE. UM, I THINK THAT I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH. UM, AND I THINK, UH, THE READING ABOUT TREES BEING INCLUDED AS FAR AS OBJECTS, I THINK WAS COMPELLING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. UM, THE SECOND THING IS, UM, THE WHOLE NOTION WITHIN 35 6 80, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM, THE DIALOGUE ABOUT, [06:15:01] UH, THE TREE BEING DAMAGED, UM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I, I TAKE A LOOK ALONG, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PICTURES THAT I PROVIDED, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT DIDN'T SEEM RELEVANT AND IT SEEM MORE WALL DAMAGE. UM, AND WHILE, YES, I COULD SAY THAT THE, THE, THE WALL IS PROVIDING THE DAMAGE, I THINK THE WAY THAT U D C AS IT'S WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, SEEMS TO BE KIND OF VAGUE THERE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO I'M GONNA SIDE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANTS ON THAT PART. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST A, YOU KNOW, MY THIRD REMINDER IS AS I WALK ALONG THE RIVER WALK, I SEE, YOU KNOW, TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIVER, YOU KNOW, AND THEY BUILT THINGS AROUND IT. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF THINGS WHERE TREES HAVEN'T BEEN REMOVED, BASICALLY BASED ON THE DESIGN. AND SO, SO PLACES WHERE TREES COULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED, THEY WEREN'T. AND THEY'RE SAVED. AND SO, UM, SO, UM, OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UNA, COMMISSIONER UNA? SO IN LISTENING TO ALL THE TESTIMONY, BOTH ON BOTH SIDES, UM, I SEE I DID NOT SEE, OR THE CITY HAD AN ERROR HERE. H D R C HAD FOUR AND A HALF HOURS OF THEIR COMMITTEE TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY. WE OUTSIDE HEARD TESTIMONY. SEVEN, FIVE PEOPLE SHOWED UP. UM, AND DURING THAT TIME WAS THE TIME FOR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TREES AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TREES. OUR PRO OUR TASK HERE IS TO DETERMINE THE ERROR OF THE CITY'S DECISION. AND HERE IN THE TESTIMONY, I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING THAT GAVE ME BELIEF THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE CITY'S DECISION. THERE WAS STILL AN AVENUE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, UM, UH, OPPOSING PARTY TO GO THROUGH LITIGATION OR WHATEVER, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANY ERRORS WITHIN THE CITY'S, UM, DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. COMMISSIONER, DEAN? UH, YES. I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED, UH, TO LOOK INTO THE COST BENEFITS, UM, TO SUPPORT AS MANY TREES AS THERE IS, YOU KNOW, SAVING. UM, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? YES. UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA. OH, I'M SORRY. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BEEZ? YEAH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT, UH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE APPLICANT. UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A WALL AND TREES AND, AND I FEEL LIKE WE CAN SAVE BOTH. I, OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? UH, I'M GONNA ADD CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. UH, I'LL BE AGAINST THE APPLICATION. AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT I REALLY THINK THAT THIS HINGES AROUND 68, UM, SIX 80 B, AND THAT, UH, IT, IT'S, WHICH REQUIRES, UH, UH, THAT WHICH ALLOWS THE H R C TO USE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THE ONLY ISSUE AT BAY HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS REA WHETHER REASONABLE MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN TO SAVE THE OBJECT, UM, FROM FURTHER DESTRUCTION AND NEGLECT. AND, AND WHAT I HEARD WAS, IS THAT, UH, ALTERNATE, UH, MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING, RETAINING STRUCTURES WERE BROUGHT UP AT THE H C R C. THEY DID HEAR ALTERNATE METHODS AND THEY, AND THEY DIDN'T FIND IT COMPELLING ENOUGH, UH, TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ALLOWING THE, THE REMOVAL OF TREES. I THINK THIS WAS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION. H C R C MADE IT, AND, AND THEY, AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ERROR IN, IN PLACE. UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. ZUNIGA? NO. ON THE APPEAL. MS. CRUZ? NO. MR. SPIELMAN? YES. MR. MENCHACA? YES. MR. DEAN? I CONCUR. MR. MANNA, I GRANT THE APPEAL. MS. BRAGMAN? NO. MR. OZUNA, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. BONILLA? YES, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. CODDLE? YES, I SUPPORT CHAIR ORIAN. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL. UH, THE MOTION FAILS. THE VOTE WAS 65. ALL. [ Approval of Minutes  ] UM, NEXT ITEM IS THE MINUTES. ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, UH, I VOTE THAT WE APPROVE MINUTES, UH, THAT WAS SENT TO EVERYONE AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY ERRORS UNLESS SOMEONE, UH, SAW SOMETHING AND I DIDN'T. ALL RIGHT, I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. AND ONE ABSTENTION. ALL RIGHT, SO THE MINISTER APPROVED. SO BEFORE EVERYONE LEAVES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I KNOW THIS IS A LONG PROCESS, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY LONG PROCESS, BUT THANK YOU. NO [06:20:01] APPEAL. THE NOT GRANTED. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO, SIR. OKAY. UH, WE ARE HEREBY ADJOURN 8 0 6. * 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.