* 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] ALRIGHT, GOOD MORNING. PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES. UH, THE TIME IS, UH, ONE O'CLOCK AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL COME TO ORDER. UH, CAN I START OUT WITH THE SPANISH INTERPRETER? IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD TO MAKE A, A PRESENTATION OR MESSAGE. SPANISH INTERPRETER. MA'AM, CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE? 'CAUSE WE'RE ALSO DOING THIS LIVE ON ONLINE. THANK YOU. YES. TURN IT ON. THERE WE GO. . THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE ROLL? DR. BURTON? HERE. MS. PICASSO, PRESENT. MS. KAPLAN? PRESENT. MR. DEAN? PRESENT. MR. ZUNIGA? PRESENT. MR. MANNA? PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ? PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? HERE. MS. MR. OZUNA PRESENT. MR. RHI? WE'RE EXPECTING A QUORUM IS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES. OH, MS. BENAVIDEZ IS HERE AS WELL. UH, MS. BE MS. BEES IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. A PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL TEXAS. FLAG. UH, REGI, TEXAS UNDER GOD. ONE INDIVISIBLE. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM TO THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE, SOUGHT TO DO NOT, NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION ARE 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 AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FOR REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY UNDER UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED ON, ON A FINDING OF FACT IN THE EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT'LL 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 THE MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF THOUGHT 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 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. UH, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION FIRST AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR, UH, WITNESSES. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUESTS. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET [00:05:01] OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHEMAR INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTS AND X INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER A 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 TWO SPEAKERS GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. 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 CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'M GONNA READ THE, THE ADDRESSES TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EACH CASE. UH, THIS IS A CASE, UH, THIS IS, UH, THREE 30. ALEXANDER HAMILTON, DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE? THAT ONE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, WITHDRAWN, JUST NOW. OKAY. AND THIS IS, UH, THE, THE CASE AT, UH, 10 12, UH, DRIVE STREET. DO WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE? OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS A CASE AT 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, CASE AT 1602 AND 1604 SANTIAGO STREET. THANK YOU. UH, 41 0 5 SUNRISE COVE. THANK YOU. 6 27 VIEN VIENDO STREET. THANK YOU. UH, 1 24 ADAMS STREET. THANK YOU. BACK OVER HERE. 64 64 BABCOCK ROAD, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. UH, 25 22 TO PICO STREET PRESENT. THANK YOU SIR. AND THAT'S IT. OKAY, STAFF, LET'S PROCEED WITH THE FIRST CASE, MARIA . OKAY. UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, UH, THE TIME IS, UH, 1 0 6 AND WE HAVE, UH, MS. MARIA CRUZ JOINED THE BOARD. SO WE HAVE HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW IN PANELED ON THE, WE HAVE 11 PRESENT. OKAY. UH, WE JUST NOTIFIED A COMMISSIONER ROSIN. UH, WE'RE GOOD NOW. UH, COMMISSIONER. SO WE'RE GOOD BEING, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THEM AS RESERVE. HE'S FROZEN SO HE'LL BE AN ALTERNATE. I BELIEVE HE JUST DROPPED OFF. OKAY. ALRIGHT, STAFF, PLEASE PROCEED. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BO O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 3. ADDRESS IS 1 0 1 2 DRY STREET IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO. THE APPLICANT IS CARLOS BURNOW AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 15 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 3,985 SQUARE FOOT LOT. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R M FOUR. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG DRY STREET EAST OF DOWNTOWN. UH, THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 15 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 3,985 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT HAS INDICATED THAT THIS LAW IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AN ALTERNATE VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL FOR BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, ONE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA ARE BUILT ON SIMILARLY SIZED LOTS AND TWO, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 39 NOTICES, UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NO QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT. THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET'S, UH, BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION. SO MY PRESENTATION IS, I WANTED TO BUILD A ONE SECOND. COULD YOU PUT THE MICROPHONE AND UH, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AS WE BEGIN? UH, CARLOS BERNAL. OH, THANK YOU SIR. UM, MY PRESENTATION IS, UM, I JUST WANTED TO BUILD A, A HOUSE, UM, A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. UM, IT'S GONNA ADD TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MAKE IT BETTER. THAT'S ABOUT BASICALLY IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. CRUZ. MS. CRUZ, UM, HOW LONG HAVE THE PROPERTY BEEN VACANT? DO YOU KNOW, SIR? I BOUGHT IT LAST YEAR, SO BEFORE THAT I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR ABOUT A YEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. CRUZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS TO [00:10:01] READ INTO THE RECORD? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY, WOULD ANY CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UM, UM, NO, NOT REALLY. . OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU SIR. LET'S SEE IF, UH, SOMEONE FROM THE BOARD COULD PLEASE MAKE A MOTION BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 5 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A 15 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 3,985 SQUARE FOOT LOT SITUATED AT 1 0 1 2 DRIVE STREET. APPLICANT BEING CARLOS BURNELL BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS GRANTED. THE VARIANCE WOULD BE LINED WITH OTHER LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. 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 HAVING TO REZONE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE ARE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON SIMILAR LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS MANY OTHER LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR 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 AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. KAPLAN, MS. KAPLAN? MS. BREGMAN? YES. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, THIS IS A VERY MINOR, MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST AND I, I I FEEL BADLY THAT HE HAS TO COME DOWN FOR SUCH A SMALL, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST. UH, SO, BUT I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA THAT ARE, ARE ON SIMILAR SIZE. LOTS. MS. KAPLAN AND I TOO WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. UH, WE GENERALLY, UM, DO SUPPORT THINGS LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S 15 SQUARE FOOT DIFFERENCE. IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR THAT YOU REALLY HAVE TO COME DOWN FOR THIS, BUT, UM, I DON'T SEE THAT WE SHOULDN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OF THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, MS. VAN? THIS, I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL. UM, I I DO. UM, I AM HAPPY THAT, UH, YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A HOME ON IT. I MEAN, IT'S AN EMPTY LOT. IT'S AN EYESORE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS BECOME A SLIGHT, UM, DUMPING GROUND. YEAH, I'VE HAD TO PAY TO GET IT CLEANED UP A FEW TIMES. YEP. I WILL, I WILL SUPPORT THE, THE MOTION. THANK YOU STAFF. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BARTON. I CONCUR WITH THOSE FINDINGS. MS. PICASSO? YES, MS. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. AVIVA I CONCUR. MR. O ZUNA, I CONCUR WITH THE UNANIMOUS 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO AGAINST THE MOTION PASSES. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU ALL. ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 4. ADDRESS IS 5 5 5 2 NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. COUNSEL DISTRICT SEVEN. APPLICANT ASSIGNED REMEDY A REQUEST FOR ONE A 24 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 16 FOOT HEIGHT SIGN HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 40 FOOT SIGN ALONG A LOCAL ROAD AND TWO, 102 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 75 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW 177 FEET SQUARE FEET SIGN ALONG A LOCAL ROAD. THE ZONING IS I ONE CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD SOUTH, SOUTH OF NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ALONG A LOCAL ROAD WHILE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED IS 24 FEET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 40 FOOT TALL SINGLE TENANT SIGN. THE APPLICANT [00:15:01] IS ALSO REQUESTING A SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE FROM THE MAXIMUM SINGLE TENANT SIGN. THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE 177 SQUARE FEET WHILE THE MAXIMUM OF 75 SQUARE FEET UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF OBSERVE OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA, HOWEVER THESE SIGNS ARE NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SITE SIGN, HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. MAXIMUM VARIANCE SIGN RECOMMENDS DENIAL. AND BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 4. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE NEW PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ARE EXCEEDING THE U D C AND TO THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND SIZE WILL NOT CAUSE THE CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE LONG STANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF? NO DOUBT. TWO NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE SIGN? YES, WE DO. UH, WE'LL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? DID YOU WANT HIM TO COME FORWARD? OBJECTION. COME FORWARD, MR. OKAY. AND GOES, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ART RO. I'M THE CHIEF SITE INSPECTOR. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY ALTERNATE SUGGEST, UH, SUBJECTIONS FOR THIS? WELL, CURRENTLY THEY'RE ALLOWED, UH, INCIDENTAL WAY FINDING SIGNS, WHICH WITH THE SAME PROPERTY THEY CAN COME UP WITH. UH, COUPLE OF SIGNS WOULD BE NO TALLER THAN 12 FEET AT 32 SQUARE FEET. OVERALL HEIGHT, THOSE THERE ARE NON ILLUMINATED. THEY DO NOT NEED A PERMIT. HOWEVER, IF THEY'RE ILLUMINATED, THEN IT'LL REQUIRE A PERMIT. AND THAT IS, UH, IN THE CITY YOU WANT? YES, SIR. PRIOR PROPERTY? I'M, I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT. SO THERE'S OTHER SIGNS THERE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM. THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS IN THE CITY OF LEON VALLEY. IT'S OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, STAFF OF THE CITY INSPECTOR? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. WE MIGHT THANK YOU. WE MIGHT CALL YOU UP AS NEEDED AT THIS TIME. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO SIGNS HERE. CAN I GET YOUR NAME FIRST BEFORE IT'S, I'M SORRY. STEPHANIE STEWART. SIGN REMEDY. UM, WE HAD TWO PYLONS IN QUESTION. IF YOU CAN GO BACK. SO YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE FOUR 10 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A ONE. HOW DO I DO THAT? OKAY, SO RIGHT HERE YOU HAVE A ONE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE A 70. WE ASKED FOR 70 FOOT BECAUSE THAT'S AN ACTUAL 65 FOOT OVERPASS. AND THEN A TWO WE REDUCED TO MEET, WHAT WE WERE TOLD WAS THE CURRENT CODE WITH THE SMALLER, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HEIGHT. SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE. THIS IS THE MAIN SIGN THAT THEY'RE WANTING BECAUSE EVERYTHING ON THIS OVERPASS IS MUCH TALLER THAN 35. YOU KNOW, OVERALL HEIGHT. SO THIS IS THE SIGN THAT WE REALLY WANT THE VARIANCE ON THIS ONE. WE ALREADY SAID THAT WE WOULD DO WHATEVER WE NEEDED TO MEET CURRENT CODE. SO, REAL QUICK, UM, AS DESCRIBED, YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO THE NORTH, IT'S ALREADY WITHIN CODE. SO IT DID NOT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ONLY. CORRECT? ONLY THE SIGN TO THE SOUTH THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED. UM, WE DID NOT GET WORD THAT YOU GUYS WERE GONNA ALTERNATE THAT SIGN. UM, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. SO THAT WOULD THEN BE THE NUMBER ONE, UH, ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IT'S THE ONLY SIGN THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED TODAY. THE NORTHERN SIGN NEXT TO FOUR 10 DID NOT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN CODE ALREADY. OKAY. THE REQUEST THAT THEY PUT IN MEETS CODE, IT'S REFLECT THAT'S NUMBER TWO ON THIS RIGHT? THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S ONLY THE HIGHLIGHTED THE SIGN THAT IS NOT YES, CODE EIGHT. AND WE ACTUALLY, WE WERE TOLD, I'M SORRY, 20 FEET, BUT 75 SQUARE FOOT. SO WE DID A 20 FOOT, BUT I MEAN, IF WE HAVE TO DROP IT TO 16, THEN WE'LL DROP IT TO 16. BUT WE ARE ACTUALLY AT THAT 75 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. SO WE'RE THE HIGHLIGHT. SO WE'RE WE STRIKING NUMBER TWO WITH THE NUMBER? OKAY. SO YEAH, IF, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE WITHIN CODE, MA'AM, WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE. WE DID NOT GET THAT WORD FROM Y'ALL. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WELL, WE EMAILED EVERYTHING, SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, OKAY, STAFF, PLEASE. UH, COULD YOU GIVE US A RECAST OF WHAT WE'RE GOOD TO GO NEXT? SO THEY DIDN'T NEED, OKAY, SO THE VARIANCE IS NOT NEEDED. [00:20:01] SO THAT KIND OF TOOK CARE OF THAT CASE. SO, OKAY, SO THE MOTION, RIGHT? SO WE MET WITH THE, WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY EXPLAINED AT ALL. WHAT YOU WERE SEEING. IT'S WHAT, WHAT THEY NEEDED WAS WHAT WE WERE BRINGING TO YOU. BUT APPARENTLY THEY CHANGED THAT SINCE WE ORIGINALLY SPOKE TO THEM. SO WE'RE GOOD TO GO TO THE NEXT CASE. I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE GONNA SEE IT AGAIN, BUT OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE. COME BACK IN. I FEEL THEY'RE GONNA BE BACK. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS B A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 5. UM, ADDRESSES ARE 1602 AND 1604 SANTIAGO STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A NINE FOOT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN 11 FOOT REAR SETBACK ON TWO LOTS. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR. UM, THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR A, UH, FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE 11 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINES. UM, UPON SITE VISITS CONDUCTED BY STAFF, STAFF OBSERVED VARIOUS VARIATIONS OF LOSS SIZES IN THE AREA. UM, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE NUMEROUS, THAT NUMEROUS PROPERTIES IN THE AREA WERE VACANT. UM, AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS AN ALTERNATE VIEW. AND THEN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES ARE THE SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL IN BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA AS THERE ARE SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE AND OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MODE OUT 41 NOTICES, UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DID NOT RESPOND. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE, CRUZ. MS. CRUZ, UM, ON YOUR VIEWING THING, IT SHOWS THAT THEY DID RESPOND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT. YEAH, THERE'S A LETTER, THERE'S A LETTER ATTACHED TO THE SLIDES. WHAT'S MINE? MINE DOESN'T HAVE MINE. WHICH CASE NUMBER ARE YOU ON NOW? TWO FIVE. 2 5 5. IT'S THE LAST SLIDE ON THE PRESENTATION. THE ONE THAT SHOWING ON, ON OUR, UH, ON OUR COMPUTER. I CAN CONCUR. I HAVE IT ON MINE AS WELL. GIMME ONE SECOND. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. WE'RE, CAN YOU PUT IT UP ON THE, UH, DISPLAY? FOR THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE IT IN THEIR PACKAGE, IT SHOULD BE ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOLDER. ALRIGHT. THAT'S IT. YEAH. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE SMALL, BUT I'LL READ IT OUT. UH, I AM SUBMITTING THIS EMAIL ON BEHALF OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY AS 1602 SANTIAGO B O A CASE 2 55. WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF A NINE FOOT VARIANT FOR THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW 11 FOOT REAR SETBACK. AND IT'S GOT THE CO-CHAIRMAN, UH, POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION ON THERE. THANK YOU. UH, MR. ZUNIGA? YES. UH, LS ARE THESE, UH, TWO LOTS, UH, TOGETHER OR HAVE THEY BEEN RE PLOTTED? UH, I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF PLOTTING IT TOGETHER. UH, THAT'D BE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. DO, UH, THAT'S MY QUESTION, THEN WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION EVEN IF THEY HAVEN'T A REPOTTED IT, CORRECT. IT. THIS INCLUDES BOTH, UH, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. OKAY. SO FOR BOTH. LOTS FOR BOTH. SO THANK YOU. ANY THANK YOU FOR STAFF BEFORE I BRING THE APPLICANT? OKAY. HEARING NONE WOULD PLEASE, UH, THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MICHAEL TAYLOR WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN ANTONIO THREE 11 PROBAND. UM, AND WE ARE THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR THIS REQUEST. WE'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE SO THAT WE CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, IT IS CURRENTLY, UM, [00:25:01] UH, TWO LOTS, BUT WE'VE REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION SO WE CAN BUILD ACROSS THE COMMON LOT LINE. UM, THE, THE ONLY, IT ACTUALLY IS A VACANT LOT. THE PICTURES THAT WERE SHOWN ARE OF THE LOT NEXT DOOR WHERE A HOUSE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SO, UM, THE LOT THAT, THAT, UH, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT EVERYTHING WAS CORRECT EXCEPT FOR JUST THE, JUST THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN. UM, BUT BASICALLY THIS IS A 75 FOOT DEEP LOT. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT AS DEEP AS YOUR STANDARD A HUNDRED FOOT LOT. UH, SO THAT DOES PRESENT A BIT OF A CHALLENGE. UH, IT'S BUILD OUR HOME. WE DO BUILD A MODESTLY SIZED HOME, UH, BUT WE DO A ONE STORY HOME SO THAT IT'S ACCESSIBLE FOR, UM, ANYONE WHO HAS ANY SORT OF MOBILITY IMPAIRMENT OR, UM, ALSO JUST FOR, FOR AGING IN PLACE. UH, SO THIS, UH, VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THAT. UM, WE DID LOOK ON THE BLOCK AND, UH, BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL 75 FOOT DEEP LOTS, IT'S VERY COMMON THAT THAT REAR SETBACK IS, UM, NOT FULLY, UM, ADHERED TO. SO WE FOUND EIGHT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAD LESS THAN A 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK. UM, AND THE B O A DID GRANT, UH, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ANOTHER LOT ON THIS BLOCK IN, UH, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. TAYLOR. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. KAPLAN, MR. KAPLAN, THAT THERE'S SOME ACCESSORY BUILDINGS STRUCTURES. ARE YOU GONNA BE TAKING THOSE DOWN? UM, SO YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THERE IS A SMALL BUILDING IN THE FRONT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE. STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN? WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. HI, MY NAME IS LETICIA SANCHEZ. MY ADDRESS IS 1710 ADA CRUZ, ZIP CODE SEVEN EIGHT TWO OH SEVEN AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 363-5895. I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION REGARDING CASE B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 5 5 FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, LOCATED AT 1602 SANTIAGO STREET. UM, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN OUR ASSOCIATION'S BOUNDARY AND OUR ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN 11 FOOT REAR SETBACK BACK. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT BY HABIT HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS APPROVED AND IT WILL PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED HOUSING WITHIN OUR ASSOCIATION'S BOUNDARIES, WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. GOODBYE. BYE. AND THAT'S IT, RIGHT? FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YES, SIR. AT THIS TIME I'D ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A FINAL REBUTTAL BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. OKAY? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. UM, ANY BOARD MEMBER OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MS. CRUZ. OKAY, I SEE, I SEE YOU. THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 5, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 11 FOOT REAR SETBACK ON TWO LOTS SITUATED AT 1602 AND 1604 SANTIAGO STREET. APPLICANT BEING HABITANT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST INTEREST. THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD HAVE SIMILAR AR REAR SETBACKS AND ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE DUE TO DUE TO THE DEPTH OF THE LOT. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE DOES NOT HAVE AMPLE SPACE TO EXTEND TO THE REAR, THEREFORE REQUIRES THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO BE BUILT ON THE SIDE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED REAR SETBACK VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUEST WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL STILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT [00:30:01] IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ON SANTIAGO STREET WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE SIMILAR STRUCTURES WITH SIMILAR REAR SETBACKS. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER 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 CIRC CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER. THE ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REAR SETBACK BEARINGS IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. SUCH PROPOSED STRUCTURE NEEDING MORE SPACE DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL. END OF MOTION. SECOND. A SECOND. MS. KAPLAN, MS. CRUZ? UM, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS AND SINCE THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU MR. KAPLAN. I'M IN FAVOR OF IT TOO. A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS A KNOWN, UM, GOOD, AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDER AND CERTAINLY OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSES, ESPECIALLY SINGLE FAMILY. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT TOO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, UH, ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. CRUZ. I I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR. MS. PICASSO? YES, MR. DEAN? I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. MR. UNA. I CONCUR. UH, UNANIMOUS WITH 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE DOES PASS. UH, GOOD LUCK. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECTS, SIR. THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 6. UM, ADDRESS IS 4 1 0 5 SUNRISE COVE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. UM, APPLICANT IS, UH, ROSE AND GLEN KNAPP. UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10. THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SUNRISE COVE NEAR NORTH FOSTER ROAD. UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTING A CARPORT WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND WITHOUT A PERMIT. UH, SOON AFTER THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A CARPORT PERMIT AND UPON REINSPECTION WAS CITED FOR BUILDING OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT. UM, INITIALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED FOR BUILDING WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK. HOWEVER, UPON REVIEW, UM, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A ZERO LOT LINE AND ALLOW US FOR A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK. UH, DURING SITE VISITS, STAFF OBSERVED THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK, UH, MEASURING ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THIS IS THE, UM, SITE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE, UM, OVERHANG AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL AND BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE THE CARPORT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR SUITABLE, SUITABLE SPACING AND STORM WATER MITIGATION. UM, AND TWO, THE CARPORT IS LOCATED TOO CLOSE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED 41 NOTICES, UH, FOR RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND WE HAD NO RESPONSE FROM THE SUNRISE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THEN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES ARE, UH, THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. ON THE OVERHANG, UH, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM THREE? CORRECT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, SO THE, THE, THE SIDE SETBACK, THERE IS NO SIDE SETBACK, RIGHT? BECAUSE OF THE ZERO LOCK CONFIGURATION, CORRECT? YES, SIR. IS THERE A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT, UH, BUILT IN THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR HOW WOULD THEY MAINTAIN ANY, ANY STRUCTURE THAT BE BUILT ON THE ZERO? WE, WE DIDN'T SEE ONE ON THE PLAT, UM, . YEAH, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T FIND A, A MAINTENANCE [00:35:01] EASEMENT. OKAY. AND SO WHAT ABOUT LIKE GUTTERS IF THEY WERE NEED TO HAVE, WELL, WELL FIND OUT WHICH WAY THAT WATER FLOWS ON THAT, RIGHT. SO I'LL RESERVE THAT QUESTION TILL WE YEAH. UM, UM, OBVIOUSLY THE SIDE SETBACK IS NOT PART OF THE VARIANCE, BUT YEAH, IT'S ONLY THE FRONT. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. LET'S SEE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, CRUZ, WHERE IS, OH WAIT, I THINK I WANT HEAR THE, OKAY. OKAY. UH, MS. CRUZ, UM, JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION. IN THE PICTURES YOU'RE SHOWING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER CARPORTS. IS THERE ANYTHING CLOSE BY TO HIM? UH, WE DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER CARPORTS, UH, DURING SITE VISITS, NO. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. KALET. YOU RESERVING YOUR COMMENTS AND, OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. HI. HI, I'M GLENN KNAPP. UH, SIR, I'M THE APPLICANT. UM, PLEAD MY CASE HERE. UM, WELL THE PROPERTY LINE, I'M FINDING OUT JUST NOW THAT HE'S SAYING IT'S JUST ONE INCH, BUT HE'S, THAT WOULD MAKE FROM THE SIDEWALK LIKE SEVEN FOOT BACK WHERE OUR PROPERTY LINE STARTS. WHICH THAT BLOWS ME AWAY RIGHT THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. BECAUSE IF YOU MEASURE IT AND IT SHOWS ON THERE FROM NOW, THIS IS THE, THE CURB ON ONE SIDE, IT'S 10 FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE CURB. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S NINE FOOT, NINE INCHES FROM THE CURB. SO WHEN YOU TALK, IT'S ONLY ONE INCH. THAT KIND OF MISLEADING. WHEN YOU SEE THE PICTURES OF THE CARPORT, IT'S, YOU CAN LOOK RIGHT THERE AND SEE. UH, AND THAT'S MY CAR STICKING OUT THE FRONT. UM, UH, NO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS OR NOT, I CAN'T TELL. BUT ANYWAY. WOW. I MEAN THAT'S ONE INCH. AND AS FAR AS THE GUTTERING GOES, WE WERE MORE THAN WILLING TO PUT IN GUTTERS IF WE CAN GET THIS VARIANCE FIXED. AND THE OTHER THING WOULD BE IF HE'S SAYING THAT WE NEED TO DROP IT BACK NINE FEET, 11 INCHES, THE CARPORT WOULDN'T EVEN FUNCTION ANYMORE. THAT WOULD BE IN NON-FUNCTIONING CARPORT. IT WOULD, IT WOULDN'T EVEN WORK. WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UH, ANY QUESTIONS? UH, WHAT MS. KAPLAN AND THEN MS. BRAMAN, COUPLE THINGS, UH, RUNOFF, WHERE IS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOME SLOPE, UM, TO YOUR PROPERTY THERE. SO WHERE DOES THE WATER RUN OFF TO? IT'S GONNA COME, IT COMES DOWN, IT COMES DOWN, BUT IT DOESN'T COME, IT COMES DOWN WHERE? ON WHICH SIDE? IT COMES STRAIGHT DOWN. IT COMES DOWN TOWARDS THE FRONT. SO TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS THE STREET, TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. YEAH, QUESTION. YEAH. 'CAUSE THERE'S A GUTTER ACTUALLY ON THE HOUSE THAT I HAD, AND IT'S, IT GOES ON TO THERE TOO NOW, BUT, UH, WHEN IT WAS RAINED SO FAR, AND IT HASN'T BEEN MUCH RAIN, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN FLYING OFF THERE AND HITTING PEOPLE WOULD HIT PEOPLE ON THE SIDEWALK. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO THROW UP A, A GUTTER SYSTEM AND THEN THROW UP A, A BLOCKER THAT PREVENT ANYTHING FROM FLYING OFF THERE IN CASE OF A SUPER HARD RAIN. BUT, UH, OH, OKAY. MS. BRAGMAN, UM, AND THEN MR. ZUNIGA, WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF YOUR DRIVEWAY? AND I'M, I'M, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, UH, I'M GONNA REFER BACK TO BASICALLY, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE DISCOVERED THAT THE CURB ISN'T YOUR PROPERTY LINE. YEAH, I KNOW. AND I, I KNOW THAT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS AT LEAST THE SIDEWALK. NO, AND AGAIN, WE ALSO HAD A CONTRACTOR DO THIS. WE DID NOT DO ANY OF THIS. THE CONTRACTOR DID ALL THIS. AND I KNOW THE CARPORT'S 24 FOOT BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S 24 FOOT, EVEN THE ROOFING PIECES ARE 24 FOOT LONG. SO, OKAY, SO YOUR DRIVEWAY ESSENTIALLY IS 24 FEET LONG? UH, YEAH. 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY THAT CLOSE. I MEAN, IT, IT, YEAH, THERE, THERE IT WAS. I DON'T, I I DON'T REMEMBER. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. ZUNIGA. OKAY. ON THAT GARAGE, THE ROOF, THE COURT PORT, IT WILL SLOW DOWN. YES. IS THERE A SLIGHT, YOU KNOW, SLOPE COMING TO THE FRONT OF IT? YES. OKAY. THERE'S A SLIGHT SLOPE ALL THE WAY. THERE'S NO FLAT SPOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, AND UH, IT'S NATURALLY GONNA DRAIN OFF THE FIRE. YEAH. SO THE GUT AND, AND ON, UH, JUST FOR INFORMATION ON A ZERO LOT LINE, UH, YOU DON'T, UH, IF YOU HAVE A, IF THERE WAS SOME FIRE RETT TARTAN MATERIAL, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BUILT BY THE BUILDER AT THAT TIME BECAUSE ON THE ZERO LOT LINE, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS. BUT ON THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD, WHICH WOULD BE THE, YOUR YARD ON ONE SIDE AND THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD ON THE OTHER ONE. AND THAT'S WHERE THE LOT LINE IS. YEAH, WELL THAT'S THE SIDE LOT LINE. YEAH. AND THIS ORIGINALLY WHY WE FILED THE VARIANCE, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO FILE THE VARIANCE FOR. WE LITERALLY HAD THE LADY THAT STOPPED WORK ON THE CARPORT. SHE WAS OUT THERE WITH THE MEASURING TAPE AND THEY WERE MEASURING FROM THE CURB FROM [00:40:01] 10 FOOTS ON MEASUREMENTS WHERE THE, IT GOES WITH THE, THE HOUSE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT? YEAH, ON, ON A ZERO LOT LINE. YEAH. OR THE HOUSE. YEAH. YEAH. WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY OVER THERE? THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THANK YOU MR. ABOUT ANYMORE. YEAH. MR. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE, SO, SO THE EARLIER IS ASKED WITH REGARDS TO, UM, OVERHANGS. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU, YOU, I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT, THE WAY THAT THIS IS CONSTRUCTED IS YOU HAVE FRONT POST THERE, UM, CLOSE TO THIS, CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK. UM, WELL, THEY'RE NOT THAT CLOSE ACTUALLY. I MEAN, WELL CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK. SO, OKAY, SO THE QUESTION STANDING IS 10 FOOT, UH, 10 FOOT SIX INCHES, RIGHT? AND THEN THIS ONE OVER HERE, THAT POST, SO THE QUESTION I'M ASKING ABOUT THE OVERHANG, RIGHT? THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS THAT, UM, HOW IS THAT SECURED AT THE TOP? IS IT WELDED? IS IT BOLTED, UM, TO THE CARPORT ROOF ITSELF? 'CAUSE 'CAUSE ONE QUESTION WE, UH, CAN TALK ABOUT IS MAYBE MOVING THOSE FRONT POSTS BACK LIKE TWO FEET OR THREE FEET. AND SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO THREE FOOT, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT TOO. YEAH. THERE'S A THREE FOOT OVERHANG, YOU KNOW, IS KIND OF STILL COMFORTABLE AND CAN BE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT. AND IF YOU PUSH THE POST BACK A LITTLE BIT, THEN THAT BRINGS YOU A LOT MORE IN COMPLIANCE. THAT'S POSSIBLE. 'CAUSE I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT, AND, YOU KNOW, DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO SEE ONE OR TWO THAT KIND OF LOOK LIKE THAT AS WELL. AND THERE'S SOME EVEN CLOSER, THERE'S SOME BUILT ON IT AND WELL, THEY MAY BE COMING BACK TO US. WELL, THE SAME KIND OF DIALOGUE. I'M NOT, I'M HEARING TURN ANYBODY IN, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO TALK ABOUT IS THAT THREE FOOT SPACE AND, AND WE FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE OR I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS THREE FOOT AWAY FROM THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING OVER TWO FOOT OR SO WOULD ALMOST NEGLECT HAVING THE CARPORT IN THE FIRST PLACE. WELL, THAT SHORT SIDE MOVE, THE POST ON SIDE ON MY SIDE WHERE THAT CAR'S PARKED AT RIGHT THERE, UH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH, BUT I, I, I DO HAVE LIKE A, MAYBE A THREE FOOT WHERE I WOULD, 'CAUSE OUR, OUR PORCH IS RIGHT BEHIND THAT CAR, SO THAT PORCH STICKS OUT A LITTLE BIT TOO. UH, SO, AND I MADE A A, I MADE THAT SIDE, UH, THAT DRIVEWAY MYSELF, BUT I PUT A LITTLE BUMPER IN THERE SO WHEN I KNEW WHEN I BACKED UP, I COULD FEEL IT WHEN I THE STOP NOT TO GO ANY FURTHER AND HIT THE PORCH. UM, BUT YEAH, ANY MORE THING THAN TWO FOOT, IT WOULD REALLY NEGLECT THE CARPORT. RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. MANA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? ? DO WE HAVE A SEAT FOR HIM? , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? ALRIGHTY, UM, UH, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN, SAY, HOLD ON, COMMISSIONER, UH, VASQUEZ, YOU CAN STATE TILL THE END OF THIS CASE. SURE. IT'S, CAN YOU COME OVER THIS WAY WITH US FOR A BIT AND THEN, YEAH, THANK YOU. SORRY, I MANNA, MR. MANNA CHRISTIAN FOR CITY, UH, STAFF HERE. UM, SO, SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO READ THIS, AND IF I WAS GOING TO BE READING IT AND TALKING ABOUT THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE, UM, WOULD IT BE, UH, WOULD JUST THREE FOOT VARIANCE BE ENOUGH OR DO I HAVE TO SAY, UH, NOT TO INCLUDE THE OVERHANG? SO ANYTHING INSIDE THE THREE FOOT HAS TO BE VARIANCE. TWO WORD ENDS, WHETHER YOU HAVE THE OVERHANG OR NOT. THE, THE OVERHANG CAN GO FIVE FEET PAST THE SETBACK AS LONG AS THE OVERHANG DOES IS NOT WITHIN THOSE THREE FEET. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INSIDE THOSE THREE FEET, YOU, WE HAVE TO END THE VARIANCE WHERE THE OVERHANG ENDS. SO IN THIS CASE, SO IF I MADE IT THREE FOOT, ONE INCH, UH, FOR THE VARIANCE, THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE THREE FOOT. THEN IF YOU DO A THREE FOOT, ONE INCH VARIANCE, HE CAN HAVE A ONE INCH OVERHANG BECAUSE THE, THE, ONCE YOU'RE INSIDE THAT THREE FEET, THE VARIANCE HAS TO BE TO THE END OF THE OVERHANG. OKAY. I'M CONFUSED. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, UM, WE'VE GONE THROUGH CASES BEFORE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MOVING THE, MOVING THE POST BACK, UM, AND ALLOWING IT TO REMAIN. BUT YOU KNOW, WE WERE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ROOF MORE OR LESS REMAINED THE SAME. SO, SO HOW WOULD THIS BE READ IF WE WANTED RIGHT. JUST SO RIGHT NOW THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, UM, STATES THAT YOU CAN BE THE, THE PROJECTION SHALL EXTEND NO MORE THAN FIVE FEET, UH, INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD NOR CLOSER TO THREE FEET OF ANY PROPERTY LINE. SO WITH THAT LANGUAGE, THE VARIANCE HAS TO, IF IT'S, IF YOU'RE INSIDE THAT THREE FEET, THE VARIANCE HAS TO END WHERE THE OVERHANG ENDS. SO HOW WOULD I MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE THE POST BUT NOT WORRY ABOUT THE OVERHANG? IT'D BE A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE. IF YOU DO A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE, THEN THEY CAN HAVE A, UH, FOUR FOOT OVERHANG. 1, 2, 3, 4. YES. FOUR FOOT OVERHANG. WE CAN CUT SOME OF THAT OFF IF WE HAVE TO. I MEAN, SO I, I I GUESS I WAS MESSED LEFT. I WAS THINKING YOU WERE WANTING US CUT IT OFF ALREADY. YEAH, I MEAN, I CAN CUT UP TO TWO FEET OFF THE FRONT IF THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. YEAH. THAT WOULD REQUIRE HIM MOVING IT BACK THREE FOOT THOUGH, CUTTING IT OFF THREE FOOT. I'VE ACTUALLY GOT AN [00:45:01] EXTRA POLE BUILT IN THERE TOO ON THE SIDES THAT I HAD THE CONTRACTOR PUT IN THAT HE WASN'T GONNA PUT IN. SO MY PRIMARY CONCERN, CONCERN MOVING THE POLES BACK IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD DI AGAIN, I'M GONNA REPEAT THE QUESTION, I GUESS, OR, OR RESTATE IT AGAIN. SO IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD DIALOGUE WHERE WE JUST WENT TO POST, MOVE BACK AND WE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE OVERHANG BEING INTO THAT, INTO THAT SPACE. SO RIGHT. ANY, ANY LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROJECTED LIKE THAT, WE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S PROJECT IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE. BUT THE WAY THE CODE READS, IF YOU ARE WITHIN THOSE THREE FEET, WE HAVE TO END THE VARIANCE INSIDE OF WHATEVER THAT INSIDE OF THREE FEET IS. NOW, IF YOU GIVE HIM A, UM, A SEVEN OR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, SO HE CAN HAVE THE POLES AT THE FIVE FEET, HE CAN HAVE ANOTHER TWO FEET OF OVERHANG. BUT ONCE THAT THREE FOOT HITS, THAT'S WHEN IT STOPS. THAT WOULD MAKE THE OVERHANG 21 FEET. YEAH. WELL, NOT AN OVERHANG, BUT JUST THE, THE LENGTH OF THE, THE LENGTH OF THE CLIPBOARD. YEAH. OKAY. SO IF YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM A TWO FOOT FROM HIS PROPERTY LINE, THAT VARIANCE HAS TO BE FOR A, UM, THE EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE TWO FOOT STEPBACK. IT'S CLEAR, MR. NO, IT'S NOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE, I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WENT THROUGH THIS, BUT THIS ONE'S BEING CHANGED A LITTLE BIT OR, OR DIVERTED IN A LITTLE BIT WITH REGARDS TO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN AND WHAT WE'VE HAD HAPPEN IN THE PAST. SO I'M, I'M JUST CONFUSED, I GUESS. AND SO NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT HAPPENED. YEAH, AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CASES IN THE PAST THAT WE HAD TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ON OUR END BASED ON THE, UH, THE B O A APPROVAL TO MATCH THIS CODE. UM, BUT THAT'S WHY, UM, THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR THAT ONCE YOU, ONCE YOU'RE WITHIN THOSE THREE FEET OF ANY PROPERTY LINE, THE VARIANCE HAS TO END WHEREVER YOU'RE GIVING IT TO THEM WITHOUT. SO I HAVE A, OKAY, SO MS. KAPLAN, UM, YOU'RE SAYING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE WITH A THREE FOOT OVERHANG WOULD BE HOW WE WOULD DO IT? NO, NO, NO. WOULD THAT, IF YOU, IF YOU GIVE HIM A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE, UM, HE CAN TECHNICALLY PUT HIS POLE RIGHT AT THAT TWO FOOT LINE. OKAY. SO YOU, BUT IF YOU GIVE HIM A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, HE CAN HAVE A TWO FOOT OVERHANG BY RIGHT. IT JUST HAS TO STOP AT THAT THREE FOOT UNLESS YOU ARE GIVING HIM A VARIANCE INSIDE THAT THREE FOOT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER, SO DID WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN? NOPE. NO. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UM, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING A MOTION? YEAH. SO SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION. MS. KAPLAN. OKAY. REGARDING CASE, TELL ME IF I THINK I, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 56, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SIDE SET, FRONT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET, UH, FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 41 0 5 SUNRISE SUNRISE COVE, APPLICANT BEING GLENN KNAPP BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHAT OH AS AMENDED, UH, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS THE REQUESTED DISTANCE PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING AND WATER RUNOFF WILL NOT IMPOSE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT SIZABLE CARPORT. 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 GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE CARPORT IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS OTHER CARPORTS IMPOSING INTO THE SETBACK OR FOUND IN THE IMMEDIATE VIC VICINITY. THE REQUEST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH [00:50:01] THE DISTRICT AND IS HARMONIOUS WITH 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 FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS LIMITED SPACING IN THE FRONT YARD TO ABIDE BY THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND, UH, SECOND FOR MS. PICASSO. MS. KAPLAN. AYE. I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, THE NEIGHBORS ARE FINE WITH IT. OH YEAH. UM, WE, WE NOW WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SETBACK FROM THE SIDEWALK, SO THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM MS. PICASSO. OKAY, GO AHEAD. I AGREE. I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS ADDITIONALLY BECAUSE YOUR, UH, ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. ADDITIONALLY, WHEN LOOKING INTO, UH, DIFFERENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME AREA ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ROAD AT 4 35 SUNRISE COVE, THERE'S ANOTHER, UH, UH, CARPORT THAT IS VERY SIMILAR IN, UM, IN LOOK AND AS, AS WELL AS LIKE EXTENSION TO THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO I HAVE NO, NO, UM, NO CONCERN WITH THIS ONE AS ALL. THANK YOU MS. PICASSO. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? A NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. PICASSO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MS. BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO. OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION. THAT THE MOTION AS READ PASSES. I THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I'M KIND OF A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? SO PLEASE STAFF WOULD, UH, MERKEL WILL HELP YOU EXPLAIN TO WHAT YOU DO DO. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE EXTRA TIME WITH IT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. OH, OH, WELL HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS, UH, 1 52. UH, MR. ORIAN IS SUBSTITUTING OUT FOR MR. VASQUEZ WHO WILL BE TAKE A BREAK. ARE YOU GONNA BE AN ALTERNATE MR. VASQUEZ? YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, TAKE A BREAK. DO YOU HAVE A DO WE NEED A BREAK? OKAY. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A FIVE, UH, SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. THE TIME IS 1 52 7 MINUTE BREAK DOWN. ALRIGHT, IT'S TWO O'CLOCK. UM, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK FROM BREAK. UH, WE'RE GONNA, NEXT CASE IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, ENDING IN 2 5 7. GOOD AFTERNOON. B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 7. ADDRESS IS 6 2 7 VIDO STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS JUAN JUAN SOLIS. A RE A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT, THREE INCH SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT THREE INCH PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. THE ZONING IS R FOUR CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF DOWNTOWN, WEST OF I 10 WEST, BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS OF WEST AVENUE AND BUCKEYE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION FOR A SIX FOOT THREE INCH FENCE ALREADY BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD. A BUILDING WITHOUT PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER, UH, IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 BY CO COMPLIANCE. A COUPLE OFFENSES THAT APPEARED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WERE OBSERVED IN THE MEDIA AREA. NO PROOF VARIANCES WERE FOUND IN CO COMPLIANCE. WAS INFORMED TO INVESTIGATE. THIS IS A SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE FENCE HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND THIS IS JUST AN ALTERNATE VIEW LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE HOUSE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FINITE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL M B O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THERE ARE NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE SIX SIX FOOT THREE INCH FENCE WOULD NOT PROVIDE UNIFORMLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION PLAN. 35 NOTICES OR NO DOUBT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. AND HERE IS THE LETTER FROM, UH, LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS. GO BACK. REAL. AND THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE AND WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER. ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OH, ZUNA ZUNA. UH, IS THERE ANY CLEAR VISION ISSUES WITH THE REQUEST? NO, SIR. WE DIDN'T. WE CHECKED, BUT THERE WAS NO, IT'S ALL GOOD. THEY'RE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT HERE? NONE. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. [00:55:12] UH, MY NAME IS JUAN SOLI AND I LIVE IN ION 6 27. OKAY. I'M HERE BECAUSE I, I INSTALLED A FENCE THAT WAS HIGHER THAN, UH, I WAS SUPPOSED TO OR THAT OKAY. I DID IT FOR MY OWN PROTECTION. I HAVE THE VIDEO HERE OF A NEIGHBOR WHO'S, UH, STALKING ME. SHE, UM, ASSAULTS ME AND WITH STONES, ROCKS, ES, PIECES OF IRON. AND I BROUGHT THE, I BROUGHT THE PROOF SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY I DID IT IS JUST BASICALLY TO PROTECT MYSELF. UM, SO, UH, THE LADY, THE POLICE HAS BEEN THERE. THE POLICE TOOK HER, UH, TOOK HER AWAY. UH, THERE WAS ACTUALLY BLOOD THE DAY THAT I WAS INSTALLING THE FENCE. UM, BASICALLY, AND I'M DOING IT BEC AND I DID IT BECAUSE IT'S FOR MY OWN PROTECTION. UH, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, SHE'S CONSTANTLY, UM, UH, UH, DOING AGGRESSIVE THINGS TOWARDS ME. I'LL BE JUST SITTING IN MY TABLE. SHE'S LOOKING AT THE WINDOW AND SHE HAS THESE EXPRESSIONS. LIKE SHE'S CHALLENGING ME. AND, UM, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY TOOK HER, BUT THEY TOOK HER AWAY FOR 12 DAYS. SO IT'S JUST FOR MY OWN PROTECTION. ANOTHER, AND I THINK IF YOU SEE THE VIDEO, YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. CAN YOU PROJECT IT ON THE SCREENS THAT ARE AT OUR DESKS? DON'T TELL HIM ANYTHING. DON'T TELL HER ANYTHING. YEAH, I'M RECORDING IT. YEAH, GO AHEAD AND DO IT. THE LADY THAT, UH, WHOM, UH, WAS WITH ME AND, UH, TO WHOM SHE THREW THE ROCK AT, SHE'S RIGHT HERE WITH ME TODAY. I DON'T KNOW. HE'S THROWING THE ROCKS. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU JUST SO SAID THAT. THROWING THE ROCKS . [01:00:08] THAT'S NOT RIGHT, MA'AM. WHAT ARE YOU DOING THAT PLEASE JUST GIVE IT TO HER. DON'T, DON'T FIGHT HER. AND SHE, SHE HAD LIKE A HAMMER IN HER HAND. LADY, LADY. THAT'S, THAT'S HIS TOOLS. SO BASICALLY THE, UH, SO BASICALLY SHE WENT AND PULL ON HER BRAIDS. AND THAT'S WHY SHE'S PUSHING. I MEAN, SHE GOT BACK BECAUSE SHE WAS PUSHING HER BRAIDS FROM BEHIND. SO THE NEIGHBORS CAME OUT TO TRY TO CALM HER DOWN. YEAH, WE, WE, WE'VE SEEN THAT POLICE REPORT. SO THE, THE HARDEST PART IS HERE. SHE'S GONNA GO GRAB THE, WHEN SHE COMES TO GRAB THE MACHETE TO TRY AND COME GET ME. DO YOU HAVE A POLICE REPORT? YES. THERE'S ALSO, UH, SOME, WHEN, WHEN THE POLICE CAME, SHE WANTED TO COME IN THE FED ACHE. THIS IS WHAT SHE GRABBED THE MACHETE. SHE CUT THE GUY. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? AND EVEN WHEN MY HUSBAND'S OUTSIDE HAVING A CIGARETTE, HE, SHE'LL GET UPSET WITH HIM. YOU CAN PAUSE THE VIDEO. WE, WE, WE GET THE IDEA. YEAH, YOU CAN STOP IT, JOSEPH. SO LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, IN THE VIDEO, JUST THIS IS THE, ACROSS THE STREET, IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A OFFENSE ALSO. EXCUSE ME. SO THEY'RE ALSO PUTTING A FENCE AND I WAS TELLING, UH, THE INSPECTOR THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MY FENCE WAS GONNA BE AS HIGH AS THEIR FENCE, BUT HE SAID IT WAS 50 50 BECAUSE THEIRS HAS MORE LIKE HOLES IN IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF AND MINE IS JUST A SOLID WOOD PANELS. OH, I SEE. BUT THAT DOESN'T, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. NO, I'M JUST, I'M SURE STAFF WILL LOOK INTO THAT. I MEAN, IT HAS TO BE 70% CHAIRMAN AND THEY ALSO HAVE THAT WHITE THING. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE, LET, LET'S, LET'S, NOW I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. LET'S STICK WITH OUR, IS IT IT POSSIBLE FOR HER TO NOT EXTEND THE SIX FOOT FENCE ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET, WHICH SHE, I KNOW THE ISSUE IS PRIVACY FROM THIS NEIGHBOR. UH, IF SHE DIDN'T EXTEND IT ALL THE WAY, BUT PART OF THE WAY, LIKE JUST TO THE HOUSE LINE, WOULD THAT WORK FOR HER AND SOME PRIVACY? MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANNA HEAR HER ANSWER. SHE'S STILL LIKE HAVING IT NEXT TO ME RIGHT THERE. LEAVING A, A SPACE OPEN OR NOT COVERED WOULD STILL BE HAVING HER RIGHT THERE NEXT TO ME. OKAY. SO IT'S, YEAH, THAT'S NOT A CLEAR VISION ISSUE. SO COMMISSIONER, UH, PICASSO. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION. I KNOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE HEIGHT AS, AS THE ISSUE OF CONCERN. I WANTED TO, I I, ONE OF THE, UH, PHOTOS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE DOES GET IS SLOPES. SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, ARE [01:05:01] WE LOOKING AT THE SLOPED PART AS BEING AT THE SIX FOOT OR IS IT THE MOST HIGHEST POINT OF THIS FENCE? THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCE IS WHAT WE BASE THE VARIANCE ON, MA'AM. OKAY. SO, BUT IT DOES SLOPE AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FENCE DOES SLOPE. YES, MA'AM. AND DO WE HAVE A RECORD OF WHAT THAT HEIGHT IS? UH, WE DO NOT. SO DO WE KNOW IF THAT IS ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLEAR VISION OR IS THAT ALL, IS IT THAT OUT OF ACCORDANCE? NO, THE UM, WELL CLEAR VISION IS ABOUT THREE FEET. SO NONE OF IT, UH, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR'S, UH, DRIVEWAY'S KIND OF OFFSET IT'S RIGHT NOT NEXT TO THE A, UM, PROPERTY LINE. MM-HMM. . SO EITHER WAY THEY, THE CLEAR VISION'S NOT AN ISSUE. OKAY. SO THEN WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE VERY BACK, BUT WE'RE, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS NOTED THAT IT DOES SLOPE AND WE ARE, WE ARE SEEING THE SLOPE OF THAT AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE FRONT, CORRECT? YEAH. THERE IS A SLIGHT, UH, SLOPE. YES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO, UH, I ALSO NOTICE ON THE PICTURE THAT THERE IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE EXISTING ON THE SIDE. IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S FENCE OR THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE AND STAFF? DID, UH, WHEN DOES A WROUGHT IRON FENCE STILL PRESENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WOOD FENCE IN QUESTION? I BELIEVE IT WAS STILL PRESENT. UM, AND DID YOU, DID YOU THINK THAT THAT WAS, UH, ACCEPTABLE? THAT IT EXCEED FIVE FEET? THAT APPEARED TO BE THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING COMMISSIONER, MAN. I PUT IT AS PROTECTION BACK THEN. HOLD ON. COMMISSIONER MANNA QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. UM, WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE DEFINITION OF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND WHAT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD, UM, UH, THREE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE OR FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. UM, SO COMBINATION OF THE TWO, SO IT COULD BE THREE FOOT AND THEN, UH, THE CORRECT SOLID AND THEN TOP TWO PREDOMINANT. RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE CALLED A COMBINED FENCE, RIGHT? YEAH. THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN 70%. SO IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THE, THE LATTICE EXAMPLE ACROSS THE STREET MET THE 70% RULE, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I OBSERVED. CORRECT? CORRECT. I AGREE. THINK CO COMPLIANCE IS ALREADY TALKED, LOOKING INTO IT. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT, UH, AN EXISTING FENCE, ATS SIX THREE. THAT'S PRIVACY. THERE'S A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. UH, AND THERE'S NO CLEAR VISION ISSUE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HEARING COMMISSIONER? I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, JUST NOTICE HERE THAT WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT A SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE, ON THE FRONT YARD, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, YOU KNOW, UH, SHE CAN HAVE THE SIX FOOT FENCE FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT UP TO THE FACADE. THAT'S RIGHT UP TO A FACADE. AND I DON'T, I THINK WE'RE ESCAPING ESCAP THAT MR. CHAIRMAN, THE SIX FOOT FENCE, DOES IT BECOME FRONT YARD AT THE EDGE OF THE PORCH OR THE EDGE OF THE FACE? OF THE WALL OF THE HOUSE. EDGE OF THE PORCH. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, SO JUST SO EVERYONE'S, WE WERE MISSING THIS IN THE DISCUSSION ONE, OR THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS, UH, WE HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THE, YOUR NEIGHBOR IS ON HER PORCH AND SHE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, AGITATING YOU. WHERE IS HER PORCH IN, IN REFERENCE TO YOUR PORCH? IS IT CLOSER TO THE STREET OR THE SAME? JOSEPH, CAN YOU DO THE STREET VIEW? A 6 31 NEXT ONE TO THE LEFT? YEAH, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO GO LEFT A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IF SHE HAS A SIX FOOT FENCE TO THE EDGE OF HER PORCH, IT'S GONNA EXCEED, UH, THE, THE VIEW, THE VIEW LINE OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PORCH. IT DOES APPEAR THAT WAY, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW IS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A MOTION AND DELIBERATE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HEARD, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER PICASA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A TWO DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 5 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTOR REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT, THREE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FEET FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX, SIX FOOT, THREE INCH PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 6 27 VIENDO STREET, APPLICANT'S BEING JUAN SOLIS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PROPERTY IS, IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT [01:10:01] OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE FENCE HEIGHT BEING REQUESTED IS A SIX FOOT THREE INCH PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY THE FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, THE FENCE WILL STILL SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITION, THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT. E THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. THE MOTION, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER PICASSO. I, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS. I THINK THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF, UH, EXTRA SECURITY AND SAFETY, I AM IN SUPPORT OF, UM, OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UH, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FENCE THREE FEET WITH, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN PAST THE PORCH FOR THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT BEING THAT THE NEIGHBOR WHEN SHE SITS ON THE PORCH WOULD HAVE A SIX FEET FENCE FACING HER, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE EXTRA SCREENING FROM THE PORCH TO THE FRONT YARD. UM, I THINK IT IS KIND OF AN EYESORE TO PUT A SIX FOOT FENCE, UH, IN THE FRONT YARD. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? A, UH, COMMISSIONER EZ? UM, I, UM, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. I DO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AND I THINK IF WE LOWER TO THREE FEET, UM, I THINK IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE, UM, FOR THE SAFETY OF, OF THE HOMEOWNER. SO I'M, I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. ANYONE ELSE? O ZUNA? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS READ. I THINK IF WE TRY TO LOWER THE FENCE, IT JUST DOESN'T SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE SCREENING. I MEAN, THIS IS, OF ALL THE CASES WE'VE HEARD BEFORE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IF THERE'S ANY CASE THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE THERE'S NECESSITATES THE SIX FOOT, UM, UH, SCREENING, THIS IS THE CASE. I MEAN, I, I DON'T RECALL IN MY FIVE PLUS YEARS ON THE BOARD THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN, IN SUCH A CASE. SO COMMISSIONER MANNA SAW NO, UM, OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR ANY OF THE ASSOCIATION TO THAT EFFECT, COMMISSIONER MANON. UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST RECOMMEND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE THE WEST, UH, FENCE ONLY. UM, SO, SO THAT IT'S, UM, JUST THAT FENCE AND NOT THE WHOLE FRONT YARD. UM, SO MODIFY THE AMENDMENT FOR THAT. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT COMMISSIONER PICASSO, IS THIS JUST SAYING THAT IF IN FUTURE REFERENCE THEY WERE TO DO THE OTHER SIDE THAT WE WOULD NOT BE? YEAH. YEAH. 'CAUSE WHEN, WHEN WE READ A MOTION, UH, IN THE FRONT YARD, IT IMPLIES, UH, UH, EAST AND WEST, AND SO WE OKAY. AND FRONT . AND FRONT , OKAY. AND, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? OH, YES, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. SO THE MOTION IS AMENDED TO, UH, SPECIFY THE WEST SIDE OF THE FRONT PROPERTY ONLY. OKAY. WITH THAT, UH, I'M JUST GONNA CHIME IN REAL QUICK. UM, I, I SEE, SEE THIS TWO WAYS, AND THIS IS WHERE I'M A LITTLE TORN, IS THAT YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS MADE, HAD POLICE REPORTS. HE'S APPARENTLY BEEN ARRESTED OR SOMETHING, AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S WORSE TO NOT SEE HER COMING FOR YOU OR, OR TO NOT, OR TO, TO BE BLOCKED. SHE APPARENTLY HAS NO QUALMS WALKING ALL THE WAY AROUND AND STILL DOING SOMETHING. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH GOOD THIS IS GONNA DO. UM, SO THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M NOTICING ON THIS. UM, I, I CAN SEE MAYBE FIVE FEET PAST THE PORCH, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS, THIS LADY'S GOING TO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA STOP HER, SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS VOTE TURNS OUT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. PICASSO? YES, MS. KAPLAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. DR. BARTON. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. OH, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. AVIDA, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN, UH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO THREE. MR. CHAIR, WOULD WE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDER ON THE PREVAILING SIDE IF THERE'S SOMETHING? YES. IS THERE ANYONE THAT, UH, UM, MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD? YEAH, SO [01:15:01] WE HAD, WE HAD, UH, COMMISSIONER UNA IS, IS, UH, ASKING IF ANY OF THE THREE MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST WILL BE WILLING TO ACCEPT ANYTHING ELSE, AND IF, UM, MOTION MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S, THAT'S A, I'VE BEEN CALLING A POINT OF ORDER, BUT WE STILL HAVE TWO OTHER COMMISSIONERS. IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO CHIME IN, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE TO CHANGE. JUST TO RECONSIDER. YEAH, RECONSIDER. ARE YOU GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NAY. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAYYY, WE HAVE, UH, MOTION PASSES TO RECONSIDER. OKAY, SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE POSSIBLE? IT'S REAL. THIS IS A VERY HARD, UH, BECAUSE GIVEN HOW CRAZY YOUR NEIGHBOR APPEARS IN THE, AND SHE DOES APPEAR QUITE DANGER, UM, IT'S HARD TO SAY. THE ONE THING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, OF COURSE, IS ONCE YOU GIVE A VARIANCE, UH, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN THERE'S A VARIANCE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER ROY, UH, ROYAN BROUGHT OUT TOO, IS THE FACT THAT THE LADY WAS SHOWN TO GO INTO THE FRONT FENCE. SHE WOULD GO ALL OVER TO MAKE HER POINT. SO THE POINT OF HAVING THIS, UH, FENCE, UH, AT SIX FEET PAST THE FRONT PORCH MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I'M TORN, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THAT, WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST, UM, IF ONE OF THE THREE HAD ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WAS IN CONTRAST, UH, OTHERWISE, UH, THERE'S NO, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S GONNA PASS, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST READING IT AGAIN. SO UNLESS YOU WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO FIVE FEET PAST THE PORCH OR SOMETHING LIKE IT TO LIKE THAT, TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT, UM, I DON'T SEE ANY POINT. WHAT IS THE, UM, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT, THE, THE NUMBER OF FEET IF YOU THREE FEET, IF YOU GO FROM THE, WELL, FROM THE, BECAUSE SHE CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT UP TO THE PORCH, RIGHT? YES. AND THEN THERE, AND THEY'RE TOWARDS THE STREET, IT'S THEN SHE COULD KEEP THE WR IRON FENCE SHE CURRENTLY HAS. SO WHAT, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY A COUPLE FEET THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE RIGHT? TO, TO LOWER. WHAT ABOUT A COMBINATION FENCE IN THAT, THAT AREA? YEAH, YOU COULD DO A COMBINATION FENCE TOO. SO COULD WE COMMISSIONER MANNA? SORRY. DID MEAN, SO ONE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND WROUGHT IRON FENCE IS TALLER THAN, UM, UH, THAT, UM, HEIGHT. SO IT'S FIVE FEET. IF WE GIVE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN YES. ALONG THE FRONT, THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THAT FENCE CAN STAY WITHOUT BEING ADJUSTED. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT MINIMALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. UM, YOU KNOW, TO RECONSIDER, WELL, YOU COULD DO FIVE FEET PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. NOW YOU DON'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT. OKAY? SO, OKAY, THEN NEVERMIND. SO, SO I MEAN, UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING TO OFFER, I WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE TO THE, THOSE THAT WERE OPPOSED. I MEAN, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOMEBODY WHO CAME IN HERE AND WAS PHYSICALLY YEAH, I MEAN, YOU CAN READ A MOTION, BUT THE MOTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY READ IS GOING TO FAIL AGAIN, THE NCE, I MADE THE SUGGESTION OF THE COMBINATION FENCE. WELL, SHE CAN DO THAT NOW. SHE ATION. SHE COULD DO, YEAH. SO, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA, CAN WE POST THE PERSONS THAT VOTED? NO? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NO, BUT POST 'EM. NO, NO. I MEAN, THE, THE MOTION FAILED. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO OFFER A DIFFERENT MOTION, THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S ONE THING. OTHERWISE THERE'S CHAIR. WE'RE WASTING TIME. THIS? YEAH, I CHAIR, WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST, JUST MOVE ON. IT'S, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE YES IS ANYBODY RIGHT NOW THE, WE HAD A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A DIFFERENT MOTION? SPEAK UP. MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY, SO THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE TABLE. WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A MOTION. SO IT DIES BY LACK OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT, UH, ITEM NINE. YEAH. SO THE, SO HER REQUEST WAS, HER REQUEST DID NOT PASS. SHE CAN GET WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT SHE CAN DO NOW. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NINE. OH, UH, AND, AND BEFORE WE MOVE ON, UM, I KNOW THAT WE SEE A LOT OF THESE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, UH, AND, AND I, AND I, AND I LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO TRY TO WORK THIS STUFF OUT BEFORE WE, WE [01:20:01] GET PAST THE MAIN MOTION. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I READ A MOTION, WE CAN SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. DO, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO. YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. MR. ZUNIGA, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE, SIR? YOU KNOW WE'RE HERE? YEAH. MR. ZUNIGA, YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR MICROPHONE MIC, PLEASE USE YOUR MIC, YOUR MICROPHONE. WE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. OH, NO, THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. SO, SO IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU, THAT YOU THINK THAT THIS, UH, EMOTION'S NOT GONNA MAKE IT, PLEASE OFFER SOMETHING DIFFERENT SO WE CAN KNOCK IT OUT, UH, AT THE GET GO. ALRIGHT, ITEM NINE. OKAY. UM, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 2 5 8. UM, ADDRESS IS 1 2 4 ADAMS STREET IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS NATHAN MANFRED, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS RMM FOUR. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG ADAMS STREET, NEAR PURITA STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ENCLOSING AN EXISTING PATIO TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. UH, THE ADDITION WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE SETBACK WITH THE ANTICIPATED DISTANCE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED IS FIVE, UH, CURRENTLY, OR THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACK PRIOR TO THE ADDITION IS THREE FEET, UH, IN WHICH A THREE FOOT INLINE ADDITION IS PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT PATIO ENCLOSURE. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACK AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IN BO O A DASH TWO 30 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 5 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, ONE, A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND TWO, UH, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS REDUCED SETBACKS WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN ON STAFF MODE OUT 32 NOTICES. UH, WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. I HAVE A, UH, A CLARIFICATION QUESTION. DO THE, DOES THE ADDITION INCLUDE AN OVERHANG? UM, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN, UM, ELABORATE MORE ON THAT ONE FOR THE OVERHANG. WELL, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS YOU A THREE FOOT INLINE ADDITION IS ALLOWED. MM-HMM. IS CURRENT. IS THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THREE FEET OR IS THE OVERHANG THREE FEET? UH, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS THREE FEET WITH, AND THEN AN OVERHANG, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE. THE, IT, IT DOES IT, THE, THE FURTHEST PART BACK IS THE THREE FEET. AND IT DOES HAVE LIKE A, A, LOOKS LIKE A MAYBE SIX INCH OVERHANG. SO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE WALL IS THREE FEET, AND THEN IT HAS A MINOR OVERHANG. CORRECT. AND THE NEW STRUCTURE IS LESS THAN THREE FEET OR AT THREE FEET WITH AN OVERHANG AT, I BELIEVE IT'S AT THREE FEET. THAT'S THE WAY WE UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT WE CAN CLARIFY WITH THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE THE APPLICANT? OKAY, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME ON. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I'M NATHAN MANFORD WITH FRENCH AND MICHIGAN, AND WE ARE THE, UH, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS THE DESIGNERS FOR THE PROJECT. UM, SO I CAN ADDRESS THAT ONE ISSUE REALLY QUICKLY. THE ADDITION, THE WALL OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE ADDITION WILL BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A PROPOSED ONE FOOT ADDITION. OKAY. I, I'M SORRY. I PROPOSED ONE FOOT OVERHANG OF THE ROOF ON THAT SIDE. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THE REQUEST IS FOR THE TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK. GOT IT. AND I ALSO DID BRING SOME LETTERS OF, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT WILL STATE THAT THEY'RE APPROVING OF OUR REQUEST. SO I'LL HAND THEM OVER TO MR. LEOS. ARE THESE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS? YES. IMMEDIATE TO LEE TO THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO JUST WHAT, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY WITH THE OVERHANG LESS THAN THREE FEET TO THE WALL, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. HOW FAR FROM THE WALL IS IT? IN OTHER WORDS, WITH THE, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? YEAH, FROM THE, WITH THE OVERHANG, THE, IT WOULD BE TWO FEET. TWO FEET. WHEN WE FIRST SUBMITTED, WE REQUESTED THREE FEET WITH A, A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. SO THEN WE WERE BROUGHT BACK WITH LANGUAGE FROM STAFF SAYING, THIS IS HOW YOU HAVE TO PRESENT IT. YEAH. BECAUSE OF THE OVERHANG. SO, AND THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, SO, OKAY. SO, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S CLEAR, OVERHANGS, UH, ONCE THEY PENETRATE THREE FEET TO THE [01:25:01] PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED AN OVERHANG EXEMPTION ANYMORE. THEY'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND, AND PART OF THE SETBACK. SO, UM, AND ONE CLARIFICATION FOR LEGAL, IS IT POSSIBLE TO READ THE MOTION TO SAY A STRUCTURE THREE FEET WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG TO ATTAIN TO THE TWO FEET OFFSET, JUST SO THAT THE WORD OVERHANG IS IN THE MOTION? IS THAT APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE? A LITTLE, YEAH, WE THINK THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASK IS, UM, THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMMISSIONERS WHO AREN'T OPPOSED TO THE STRUCTURE BEING THREE WITH A 12 INCH OVERHANG, BUT THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T, THEY MAY NOT WANT A STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET WITH NO OVERHANG. AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S JUST, UM, THAT'S AT LEAST IT'S A CONCERN OF MINE. IF YOU DIFFERENTIATE TO KIND OF SET IT OUT THAT WAY, THEN OKAY. I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. IF ANYBODY WHO READS A MOTION THAT I'D APPRECIATE THAT IF THEY CAN INCORPORATE IT, SEE THE, YEAH. PAGE CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, AND I THINK I AM NOT SEEING THE PICTURE COMPLETELY CLEAR RIGHT NOW ON THE CURRENT, UH, ENCLOSURE, UH, SLIDE, WHICH IS NUMBER 72 ON YOUR PRESENTATION. UM, WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOU ADDING ON? BECAUSE I, ACCORDING TO THAT AND TO THE DRAWING, I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. YEAH. STAFF COULD JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN IT SECTION. IT'S THAT SECTION RIGHT ABOVE WHERE THE ONE, NUMBER ONE IS. IT'S A SECTION RIGHT UNDER IT. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. OH, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S AN, THERE'S AN EXISTING SCREEN PORCH THERE, IF I MAY. UHHUH . AND SO THE GOAL IS TO REFRAME THAT SCREEN PORCH AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT WIDER. OKAY. WE, WE TOOK THIS TO OFFICE OF HISTORIC TO H D R C O, HP. THEY APPROVED IT. PART OF THE REASON IS THE EXISTING SCREEN PORCH IS NOT, UM, AND NOT CONSIDERED, UH, ATTRIBUTING STRUCTURE FOR THE HISTORIC QUALITY OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT SCREEN PORCH IS PROBABLY BUILT IN THE EIGHTIES. SO WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO, WE WANTED TO USE THAT SPACE TO EXTEND AN ADDITIONAL FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM, WHICH THEY DO NOT HAVE. AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AGING IN PLACE. OH, OKAY. SO AND THE TREE THAT'S THERE WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM? NO, NO. THE TREE. 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT BUILDING OUT TOWARDS THE TREE. WE'RE BUILDING TOWARDS THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THERE ARE NO ACTUALLY NO TREES IN THAT AREA. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA AFFECT TREES. AND THEN THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YEAH. AND JUST TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE, WILL THAT ADHERE TO THE INTEGRITY AND AESTHETIC OF THE RE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS, IN THE HOME? OH YEAH. WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN PRESENTED IT TO HISTORIC H G R C AND WE GOT APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN. I MEAN, WE DO A LOT OF PROJECTS IN KING WILLIAMS, SO WE'RE VERY LIKE CONSCIENTIOUS, FAMILIAR WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. SURE. SO, YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANYTHING ELSE? AND HERE WE KNOW IS LOOKING FOR A MOTION, OZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 58. I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SETBACK OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, FROM THREE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH INCLUDES A 12 INCH GUTTER OVERHANG, UM, FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE STEPBACK REQUIREMENT, UH, SITUATED AT 1 2 4 ADAMS STREET. APPLICANT BEING NATHAN MANFRED. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED TO SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, A VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORM WATER RUNOFF AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT A TRESPASS. THE REQUESTED DISTANCE PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING AND WATER RUNOFF WILL NOT IMPOSE IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT. UH, BUILDING THE STRUCTURE OF FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WILL BE PRESENTED BY HAVING THE APPLICANT ALTER CONSTRUCTION PLANS, WHICH WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THIS CASE. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO PROVIDE SUITABLE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEGUN YET. FOUR, 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 OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. [01:30:01] UPON SITE VISIT A STAFF STAFF OBSERVED THE BLOCK FACE WAS COMPOSED OF ONE STORY AND TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ALL CONSTRUCTED ON SIMILAR LOT SIZES AND SETBACKS. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOT DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YES. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SUPPORT OF NOT ONLY THE, UH, UH, THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, BUT THEN THE NEIGHBORS MOST AFFECTED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE AND ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RENOVATION OF THE PROJECT. AND I AM SUPPORTING IT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I JUST WANNA CHECK WITH THE CITY STAFF. SO, SO THE WAY THAT THE MOTION WAS READ, UM, DOES THAT, UM, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT WAS THAT CHAIRMAN OREN HAD TALKED ABOUT, UH, EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE HOUSE AND THE SETBACK WITH THE, UH, ROOF? SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IS READ ACCORDINGLY OR READ APPROPRIATELY. I WAS GONNA ASK IF THAT CLARIFICATION WAS MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MOTION. RIGHT. SO I CAN READ IT AGAIN. SO I'M LOOKING FOR THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FOOT SETBACK. UM, AND THEN THREE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH INCLUDES THE 12 INCH GUTTER OVERHANG. SO THE TOTAL WOULD STILL BE TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE OVERHANG, INCLUDING THE GUTTERS. OKAY. GOTCHA. YES. THAT, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU. OKAY, . OKAY. SO, UH, STILL SQUISHY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. OKAY. SO TO ME THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE THREE FOOT BACK AND ALLOW FOR ONE FOOT OVERHANG. I'LL, I'LL MAKE A, LET ME SEE IF I CAN OFFER A SUGGESTION FOR THE, FOR THE MAKER MAYBE, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, I REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SACK BACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE BACK THAT WILL CONSIST OF A STRUCTURE BEING THREE FEET AND THEN AN OVERHANG UP TO 12 INCHES. I I ACCEPT THAT. UH, PARDON ME. AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER. BRAGMAN. SO DO I. ALRIGHT, SO THERE YOU ALL WE'RE GOOD. ALRIGHT. SORRY. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR. MS. PICASSO? YES, MS. KAPLAN? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MANEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ITEM 10 BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 9. ADDRESS IS 64 64 BABCOCK ROAD COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. APPLICANT IS PAID DOCENT ENGINEERS INCORPORATED A REQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT PARKING AREA TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN TWO FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE ZONING IS MF 18. CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BABCOCK ROAD BETWEEN SPRINGTIME DRIVE AND PRU ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FRONT PARKING AREA SPACE WITHIN THE 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR PARKING WITHIN THE FIRST 20 FEET, WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO INGRESS, EGRESS ONLY. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE PARKING SPACES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, FRONT PARKING AREA VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND B O A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 9. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS CAN BE ALTERED INTO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, WILL ALTER THEIR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 30 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. TANGLEWOOD RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, IT LOOKS, HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND JOSEPH, IF YOU PUT THE SITE PLAN BACK UP, PLEASE BE SURE TO ZOOM IN ON IT QUITE A BIT. YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE SKEWED. HI, I'M ADAM MAKER. UH, JUST WANTED TO JUST NOTE THAT, UH, WHEN WE WENT IN WITH THIS, UH, PLAN, WE WENT IN AND GOT APPROVAL FOR A SITE PERMIT AND THAT'S KINDA WHAT WE BUILT. UM, WE WERE NOT INTENDING TO, TO BUILD SOMETHING [01:35:01] THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED PER CODE. UH, WHEN WE GOT APPROVAL, WE THOUGHT THE SITE WAS GOOD, UH, WENT AND BUILT IT. IT WAS WHEN SOME OF THE, THE HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS WENT IN THAT A ZONING REVIEWER SAW THE, THE ISSUE AND POINTED OUT. SO WE'RE HERE TRYING TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. UM, KIND OF WISH WE WOULD'VE, YOU KNOW, EARLIER ON, CAUGHT IT. 'CAUSE WE COULD'VE EASILY ADJUSTED THE SITE PLAN, UH, BEFORE EVERYTHING WAS CONSTRUCTED. ALL THE, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ROADWAYS. UM, SO WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING TO, TO GET A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING THAT'S RIGHT HERE ALONG THIS FRONTAGE. UM, WHICH IS THE VARIANCE IS TO THE MAXIMUM SETBACK LINE, WHICH THESE HOUSES HERE ARE PAST THE, THE MAXIMUM SETBACK LINE. UM, AND WHICH THERE IS A VARIANCE THAT'S ALLOWS US TO, TO DO IT, BUT IT, IT SAYS, UM, THAT WE CANNOT PUT PARKING AND WE HAVE SOME PARALLEL PARKING ALONG THAT FRONT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT. UM, WE'RE HOPING TO KEEP THE PARKING BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS AND THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, IT IS KIND OF CRUCIAL ON PAST DEVELOPMENTS TO, TO GET, UM, ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR WHEN THERE'S GUESTS TO COME IN AND, AND PARK. UH, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DEVELOPED JUST LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY, UM, DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE HAVE TO, UH, DO IT ON A MULTIFAMILY JUST BECAUSE OF THE, THE YES. YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE, THESE RIGHT HERE, THESE PARKING ALONG THIS FRONTAGE. UM, IT'S DEVELOPED LIKE A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL HOME WHERE THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE STREETS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, PLOTTING, UM, THEY'RE NOT A, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UM, SO WE HAVE TO DO THESE AS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO WE HAVE A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, 18 ZONING, WHICH DOES HAVE THAT MAXIMUM SETBACK LINE. OKAY. SO LET ME GET SOME, SOME QUESTIONS OUTTA THE WAY. SO THIS IS GONNA BE UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP. ARE YOU CONING THIS THING OR WHAT DO YOU CONING. OKAY. AND ARE YOU GONNA HAVE ZERO LOT LINE, IS THAT WHAT I'M SEEING? CORRECT. ZERO LOT LINES ON THE LITTLE TRIANGLES. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE HOW MANY POINTS OF ENTRY? TWO. AND WHY, WHY DOES THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, UH, JOG LIKE THAT? I NOTICED A THREE FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, BUT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE IN BABCOCK? THAT IT YEAH. COMES IN AND OUT? SO, SO THE, THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE, LET'S, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? YEAH. THIS LITTLE BUMP. SO THIS SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY PLOTTED AND WHEN THEY PLOTTED IT PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO, THEY DID A RIGHTAWAY DE, UH, DEDICATION, WHICH WAS A LOT MORE THAN THAT'S NEEDED TODAY. WE WENT AND DID A DEDICATION FOR THE OTHER PORTIONS, WHICH IS ONLY THREE FEET. SO THERE'S, UM, JUST EXTRA DEDICATED RIGHT AWAY THAT WAS NEVER, NEVER USED. AND WAS THIS, I I I GREW UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OH, YOU DID? I USED TO BE THE PAPER BOY THAT THESE ARE THE HOUSES ON SPRINGTIME OF C**K AND YEAH, I RE COMPLETELY KNOW THIS AREA AND I'M, I, I DON'T RECALL SEEING A, A CHUNK OF LAND THAT LARGE BEING USED FOR THE, THAT AVAILABLE MM-HMM. . UH, SO THIS IS KIND OF INTERESTING, BUT IT WAS A SHOPPING CENTER RIGHT BEFORE, MAN. I KNOW IT'S THE GOAT FARM, SO IT'S WHERE THE GOAT GOATS, THERE WAS A DONKEY ON THE PROPERTY, OUR PET CEMETERY. RIGHT. WAS THAT THIS IS OPPOSITE SIDE. OH, YOU'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE? YES, OPPOSITE SIDE. YOU'RE NOT IN TANGLEWOOD, YOU'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. CORRECT. OKAY. I GREW UP IN TANGLEWOOD. OKAY. YEAH. YOU'RE, YOU'RE BABCOCK NORTH, RIGHT? THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET? YEAH. OKAY. I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REMEMBER THIS BEING THERE. OKAY. SO YOU, I REMEMBER ALL THAT. AND, AND THERE'S ALSO SOME QUADPLEXES ON NORTHEAST, RIGHT? BY THAT OLD CAR WASH? CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU GOT, UM, SO IT'S MULTIFAMILY. YOU'RE DOING ALL PRIVATE ROADS AND, AND YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO DO PARALLEL PARKING IN ADDITION TO THE 25 FOOT ROAD OR AS PART OF THE 25 FOOT? IN ADDITION, IT'S OUTSIDE THE 25. OKAY. SO WE CAN GET, UH, THE 25 FOOT'S THE FIRE LANE, SO NO PARKING IS PERMITTED IN THAT AREA. ARE YOU GONNA HAVE A FENCE OR IS IT GONNA BE OPEN TO BABCOCK? IT'S GONNA BE LANDSCAPE, UH, NO FENCE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA, BRAGMAN. I'M SORRY. AND THEN BRAGMAN. SORRY, THERE WAS A FENCE. I, OKAY, SO I'M SORRY. SO THERE IS GONNA BE A FENCE THERE. YES. YES. ALONG, UH, C**K. RIGHT? SO, YEAH, 'CAUSE YOUR FENCE ALONG, UH, SPRINGTIME RIGHT NOW IS TOO HIGH. SO IT'S OUT, OUT, IT'S SEVEN FOOT. SO YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT MAYBE FIXING THAT BEFORE ZONING COMES OUT. OKAY. UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S, YOU'RE STARTING TO BUILD IT. SO I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR OR RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, SO I SEE THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. UM, SO THE FENCE IS GOOD. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A FENCE THERE. WHAT KIND OF FENCE IS IT GONNA BE? UH, UH, SOLID OR, OR WOOD FENCE. DO YOU KNOW? I, LET ME ASK REAL QUICK. ALTERNATING IRON AND WOOD PANELS. ALTERNATING IRON AND WOOD. SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE CARS THEN. SO, SO IT'LL BE PREDOMINANTLY OR PARTIALLY OPEN. SO YOU SEE THE CARS THERE THEN, OR NO? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. RIGHT. [01:40:04] UM, SO YEAH, WE'LL HAVE THE, THE IRON WALLS WITH LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING. UM, HOW MANY GARAGE SPACES PER UNIT? UH, TWO. THAT'S RIGHT. OH, ZDA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, COULD YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE HARDSHIP? IF THIS VARIANCE WAS TO BE DENIED? I MEAN, I, I IMAGINE THIS PEOPLE TRYING TO PARK ALONG BABCOCK OR SOMETHING, OR, UH, NOT LEADING, BUT COULD YOU, UH, JUST NO, IT, IT, IT'S, UH, WHY WE'RE KIND OF, OF OUR, ONE OF OUR, UH, POINTS THAT WE MADE IS THE, THE PARKING IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. IT DOESN'T ALLOW PARKING IN STREETS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE FIRE LANE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN THE DRIVEWAYS THAT CAN PUT SOME IN THE DRIVEWAYS. BUT IF YOU EVER HAVE A GUEST, IT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, PROBLEMATIC WITH PARKING. PEOPLE TRY TO FIND OTHER, OTHER PLACES TO PARK. SO WE TRY TO PROVIDE, UH, ADEQUATE PARKING FOR GUEST PARKING. BECKMAN AND COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. UM, SO ARE ALL THE UNITS GONNA BE THE SAME SIZE, AND IF SO, HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PER UNIT? UM, I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT DO YOU KNOW, UH, TWO TO FOUR, UM, UNITS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GINORMOUS, UM, AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO I THINK THEY RANGE FROM AROUND PROBABLY 18 TO 2024. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? ABOUT, SO MOST LIKELY THEY WOULD HAVE TWO VEHICLES PER AT LEAST. YEAH. AND THEN HOW LONG ARE THE DRIVEWAYS? UH, THEY'RE 20 FEET MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING, SO THIS PICTURE HERE, UM, SO YOU HAVE A STREET BASICALLY PARALLELING BABCOCK AND THE, AND THE, UM, THE COMPLEXES OR THE, THE UNITS ARE GONNA BE ON, ON THIS PICTURE HERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. AND SO THE PARKING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS ALSO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE? OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE FIRE LANE OR THE, THE PARKING IS ON THIS SIDE, AND THEN THE, THE UNITS ARE GONNA BE OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE UNIT. SO THE PARKING IS CLOSE TO BABCOCK OR ON THE BABCOCK SIDE. SO, SO, UM, SO IS THE FIRE LANE, WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, CAN THE FIRE LANE BE SWAPPED WITH THE PROPOSED PARKING? SO DOES THE PARK, DOES THE FIRE LANE HAVE TO BE AGAINST THE EXISTING HOMES? IT, IT DOES NOT. UH, WE WERE JUST HELPING THE WAY IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, UM, TO PREVENT LIKE A NICE SMOOTH DRIVEWAY. HE, HE'S, HE'S DOING THAT BECAUSE WITH ALL THE DRIVEWAYS THERE, THERE'S MORE ROOM FOR PARALLEL PARKING BACK TO BACK TO BACK THAT IS, AS OPPOSED TO LOSING THE DRIVEWAY POINTS. SO YOU CAN'T PARK AND BLOCK SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY. SO HE GETS, HE GETS MORE PARKING OUT OF IT THAT WAY? YES. SO DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PARKING, LESS PARKING SPACES YOU WOULD GET OUTTA THAT? YEAH. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? HOW MANY, HOW MANY WOULD WE GET? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS, BUT PROBABLY CUT IT BY AT LEAST HALF OR MORE. WELL, IT'S JUST ON THAT ONE LENGTH. I MEAN, ARE YOU, YEAH, LIKE HOW LONG IS THAT RUN? LIKE TWO, 300 FEET? IT IS, OH, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE SOME DIMENSIONS ON THIS. AND TO CONFIRM, AND TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON THAT, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARALLEL PARKING AS ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR LIKE VISITORS AND GUESTS TO THOSE, TO THOSE RESIDENTS, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IS THAT TO WITHSTAND VISITORS, GUESTS FOR ALL UNITS IN THAT, IN THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA, UH, PROPERTY, OR IS THAT JUST FOR LIKE THE FRONT UNITS? FOR THE FRONT? WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING ALONG SOME OF THE SIDES. IF YOU, UH, SCROLL TO THE, THE BOTTOM, THERE'S SOME PARKING OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE. UM, AND, AND ALONG THE FRONT, THERE'S, THAT'S REALLY ABOUT ALL WE HAVE AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL PARKING. SO IF THIS WERE, IF WE WERE TO HAVE TO MOVE OR YOU ALL WERE, WERE TO HAVE TO MOVE THE FIRE LANE, WOULD HAVE YOU GUYS ALSO IDENTIFIED WHERE THAT ZONE WOULD BE RELOCATED TO, TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A DESIGNATED AREA FOR THAT? FOR THE FIRE LANE? MM-HMM. , UH, WE COULD LOOK AT IT. I'M, I'M NOT WANTING FOR THE, THE PURPOSE OF BLOCKING PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS. THESE AREN'T REALLY LARGE FRONTAGE. WE HAVE ABOUT 20 OR 32, I THINK, FEET FOR FRONTAGE. AND THEN MOST OF THAT'S THE DRIVEWAY. UM, WE CAN PROBABLY PUT ONE PARKING SPOT IN FRONT OF EACH OF THESE HOMES. UM, EVENTUALLY IF YOU MAKE THE DRIVEWAYS OPPOSITE EACH OTHER, THAT'LL GET YOU 22 FOOT FOR A SINGLE PARALLEL PARKING SPACE AS OPPOSED TO GETTING AT LEAST TWO IF YOU DID 'EM ACROSS THE, THE DRIVE LANE. YEAH. OKAY. DID I, I'M NOT SURE I ANSWERED DEAN, COMMISSIONER DEAN. SO IF I WAS TO PARK IN THAT SPOT AND I WAS TO WALK ACROSS, UH, THERE WOULDN'T BE A CROSSWALK, I WOULD JUST BE KIND OF WALKING ACROSS KIND OF THE MAIN ENTRANCEWAY, RIGHT? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE ROADWAY? YES, CORRECT. YEAH, YOU'D BE WALKING ACROSS THE DRIVE. DO YOU THINK THAT'S A SAFETY CONCERN? IT'S LIKE, UM, [01:45:01] I MEAN, DO YOU THINK IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN MORE THAN A, LIKE FIRE OR, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY A SAFETY CONCERN. WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE PARKING ON STREETS, UM, AND WHAT'S THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE STREET? IT'S, IT'S A NON POSTAGE. IT'S PRIVATE, SO IT'S 30, 30 MILES AN HOUR OR LESS, I WOULDN'T THINK. TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU ASKING WHAT, LIKE ON THE MAIN ROAD, LIKE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS ON BABCOCK ITSELF OR WITHIN THE PROPERTY? NO, WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO SPEED LIMIT. IT'S PROBABLY, NO. YEAH, THERE'S NO SPEED LIMIT. DO YOU EXPECT A LOT OF PEOPLE CROSSING LIKE TRIP WIDE, LIKE TRIPS GENERATED FROM THIS PARKING? NO, I DON'T. NOTHING GENERATED FROM THE PARKING, BUT THE RESIDENCE, YES. AND I DON'T EXPECT A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THIS ROADWAY. THERE'S NOT TOO MANY HOMES, UH, FOR THE, THE MOST, MOST PART THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE DOWN THIS STREET, UH, THE STREET WILL DRIVE DOWN IT, BUT, UM, THE OTHER RESIDENTS WILL BE GOING DOWN THE OTHER STREETS. SO THERE'S A, LET'S SEE, THERE'S EIGHT, EIGHT HOMES ON THIS STREET. OH, SORRY, I MISCOUNTED. THERE'S, UH, 18 HOMES ON THIS STREET. SO, UM, THAT'S ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ONE PEAK HOUR TRIP. ACTUALLY IT'S 0.6 ABOUT, UM, PER HOUR, FOR PEAK HOUR. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT TOO MANY. OKAY. UH, THE CITY PUT OUT RECENTLY A BULLETIN, UH, THAT AFFECTS, UH, MULTI-UNIT PARKING WHEN YOU EXCEED 30 UNITS, I BELIEVE. MM-HMM. , UH, WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN INTERNAL, YOU KNOW, TWO WAYS OUT. YES. INTERNAL DRIVES. UH, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT IN ANY DANGER OF HAVING TO, TO TO HAVE A 26 FOOT WIDE FIRE LANE. RIGHT. THE 25 IS, IS THERE, HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY FIRE YEAR? YEAH, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED WHEN WE GOT THE SITE PERMIT FOR THIS. SO WE'RE, WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. SO NONE OF YOUR BUILDINGS ARE OVER TWO STORIES AND THAT'S RIGHT. NONE OF 'EM OVER 30. ALL RIGHT. BUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? ANYONE SIGN UP TO THE SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOTIONS. YEAH. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 59, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT PARKING AREA TO ALLOW PARKING PAST TWO FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 64 64 BABCOCK ROAD, APPLICANT BEING P DAWSON ENGINEERS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS, THE PARKING, UH, WITHIN THE 20 FOOT OF AN EXTENDED MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS HARDSHIP ON THE PROPERTY AS THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE SPACE TO MEET THE 20 FOOT FRONT PARKING AREA REQUIREMENT THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THIS PAR PARKING CANNOT BE OUTSIDE. THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT 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 THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE STAFF FINDS EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR, FOR PLACING PARKING WITHIN THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIXTH PLIGHT OF 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 OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT OF PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS PROPOSAL OF PARKING WITHIN THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. UH, THIS REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PICASSO. COMMISSIONER A UNA. RIGHT. UH, SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT, UM, THE PLAN REVIEW KIND OF MISSED THIS, UM, INTENDED, UH, DESIGN OF HAVING THE PARKING SPACES THERE FOR THE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY. I THINK THAT IT'S A, IT'S A, A, YOU KNOW, A GOOD SOLUTION TO PROVIDE PARKING. 'CAUSE YOU WILL HAVE PARKING NEEDS FOR THOSE, UH, OWNERS OF THE UNITS. AND THE, THE ALTERNATIVE IS POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, CROSS PARKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S LOTS OR DOWN THE STREET AND JUST CREATING MORE OF A PARKING ISSUE. THEN, THEN WHAT'S CURED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND PROVIDING FOR THE NEEDED PARKING SPACES. SO I'M SUPPORTING IT. COMMISSIONER PICASSO. I ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED. I THINK IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL, UH, REQUEST. SO I HAVE NO, UH, NOTHING TO, TO PUSH BACK ON. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, YEAH, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT. UM, AND PRIMARILY THE REASON IS, UM, IF I LOOK AT THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, YEAH, I DON'T SEE [01:50:01] THIS RE THIS, UM, ABILITY ELSEWHERE ON THE, IN THE, IN THE PROPERTY. SO IT WAS JUST ALONG THIS ONE STREET, UM, BEING THAT IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF AN OPEN FENCE, BASICALLY THAT'S THE VIEW THAT YOU'LL HAVE OF THE COMMUNITY IS BASICALLY PARALLEL PARKING ALONG BABCOCK. AND SO I THINK, UM, BEING THAT YOU CAN MAKE, YOU KNOW, PUT THE, PUT IT LIKE THE REST OF THE STREETS ARE WITH REGARDS TO HAVING PARKING IN FRONT OF THE HOMES, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE OTHER THREE STREETS, UM, I THINK, UH, SWAPPING THE FIRE LINE WITH THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHERE THEY'RE PARKING. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER CIO. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER, UM, UM, MULTIFAMILY USE OF PROPERTIES LIKE THIS ALONG BABCOCK. UH, I THINK IT'S LIKE MAYBE A SCO A A HOP SKIP AND A JUMP FROM THIS LOCATION AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE POINT OF PARALLEL PARKING BEING AESTHETIC, IF YOU GO DOWN TANGLEWOOD, THERE IS MORE PARALLEL PARKING THAN THERE ARE PARKING IN THE GARAGES. SO I, I DON'T SEE ANY TYPE OF DISREGARD TO THAT. OKAY. UM, I, UH, DEAN, MR. DEAN, I THINK IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN WHEN WE HAVE PARKING ACROSS THE UNITS AND WE HAVE PEOPLE TRAFFICKING, LIKE WALKING FROM THEIR CAR ACROSS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE MAJOR EGRESSES. SO I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING THERE. OKAY. UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE MY 2 CENTS. UM, I, THIS DOESN'T BOTHER ME, UH, MOSTLY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT LACK OF PARKING CAN BE WORSE THAN NOT HAVING ENOUGH PARKING. AND I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY YOU'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY LOCATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DRIVE. SO IF YOU WERE TO PUT THIS SORT OF THING ANYWHERE ELSE, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA GET THE SAME COUNT. UH, AND AS, AND AS FAR AS, UM, THE, THE SAFETY ISSUES WITH IT BEING TO ONLY TWO STORY, THE 25 FOOT FIR LANE IS PERFECTLY ADEQUATE. IT'S GOT ADEQUATE TURNS AND THE ONLY TRAFFIC THAT APPARENTLY WOULD BE GENERATED WOULD BE FROM THE HOMES FROM THE MIDDLE OF THIS SECTION DOWN TO EACH DRIVE ON EITHER SIDE. SO IT, IT, I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING THAT BAD. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AND MOSTLY BECAUSE I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF AS MUCH PARKING AS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING IN TWO STORY UNITS LIKE THIS. SO AS THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. PICASSO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. DR. BARTON? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BEAVIS, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ITEM 11, MOVING WRITE ALONG. THIS ONE HAS A PRESENTATION. I'M TIME BOA 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 1. ADDRESS IS 25 22 TAMPA PECO STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT IS KEL GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT. P L L C A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 17 FOOT SIX INCH REAR SETBACK ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED LONG AMP PICO STREET ON THE WEST SIDE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH PCOA STREET. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY EMPTY AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IS YOUR SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND TWO, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 44 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND ODO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS VARIANCE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. I APOLOGIZE. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST STAFF. SO ON THE PRESENTATION IT SAYS THAT THEY DID NOT RESPOND, BUT YOU DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE SINCE THE PRESENTATION? YES, IT'S THE LETTER RIGHT HERE. I'M GONNA POINT TO IT. UM, WHERE THEY RESPONDED OR EMAIL. IT SAYS THE, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ELTO DOES NOT SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCE. SO IT WAS IN THE EMAIL CHAIN FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. [01:55:05] GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, UH, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ROB KILLEN. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF KILLING GRIFFIN FAIRMONT. OUR ADDRESS IS 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE, SUITE TWO 50. REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME. I KNOW IN ONE OF YOUR LAST CASES YOU'VE BEEN MOVING AT A VERY GOOD CLIP CONCERNING THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA. AND I'M SORRY IF MY PRESENTATION RUNS A LITTLE BIT LONG, BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE SEEN ME BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I TEND TO TALK A LOT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S VERY SIMPLE. I'M ASKING FOR TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE AND YOU'RE GRANTED A NINE FOOT VARIANCE EARLIER HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. SO, UH, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION, THEIR RECOMMENDATION, AND I WANNA THANK THE CHARRO NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ANY REPRESENTATIVES HERE TODAY, BUT I THANK THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF OUR PRESENTATION. I'M GONNA SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, BUT WE'RE HERE FROM ON BEHALF OF SUSAN BABINSKI. SUSAN WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE, UH, ON TAMPICO. THIS IS WEST OF DOWNTOWN. IT'S A SMALL LOT. IT'S PLOTTED ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. IT'S ONLY ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S WHY WE NEED THIS MINOR, MINOR VARIANCE FROM THE REAR, UH, SETBACK. SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES. SO HERE WE GO. WE'RE ASKING FOR 20 FOOT SETBACK. THE PROPERTY ZONED R FOUR WITH A 20 FOOT, UH, REAR SETBACK. UH, HERE IT IS, IT IS THERE ON THE SOUTHEAST, UH, CORNER. YOU CAN SEE IT. THERE, IT IS VACANT. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN VACANT, BUT I USED GOOGLE EARTH WENT BACK AT LEAST 20 YEARS OF, OF FAIRLY DECENT AERIAL PHOTOS. IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. AND EVEN IN THE 1980S, UH, AERIAL FROM GOOGLE EARTH, WHICH IS REALLY HARD TO READ, BUT, UH, LOOKED LIKE IT WAS VACANT EVEN BACK THEN. UH, THIS IS WHAT, WHAT, UH, SUSAN WANTS TO BUILD THERE. IT'S A SINGLE STORY HOME. UH, IT'S REALLY NICE, UH, LOOKING HOME. UH, THERE'S NOT ROOM ON THE LOT FOR A GARAGE. I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A DRIVEWAY. THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE, UH, HOME. AND SO YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT, UH, TWO BATHROOMS, UH, THREE BEDROOMS. THE KITCHEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LAYOUT AND THE DISTANCING BETWEEN YOUR TUBS AND YOUR TOILETS AND, AND YOUR VARIOUS KITCHEN APPLIANCES. THAT'S DICTATED BY PLUMBING CODE, FIRE CODE, UH, BUILDING CODE. SO, UH, WE HAVE SQUEEZED IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN IN THE HOME TO MAKE IT A A MODERN LIVABLE HOME. YOU'LL GET TO SEE THESE PICTURES AGAIN. THERE'S, THERE'S LOTS OF REPEATS. UH, THIS IS THE LOT, UH, STAFF ALREADY COVERED THIS IN THEIR PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S A VACANT LOT. UH, ZONED R FOUR AS I NOTED. UH, SO MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN R FOUR IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET. WE'VE GOT 2,490 SQUARE, 96 SQUARE FEET. SO, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN WAS REQUIRED UNDER, UH, THE ZONING CODE. UM, HOWEVER, IT WAS PLOTTED IN 19 24, 19 24. WE DIDN'T HAVE ZONING. AND SO THERE WERE NO SETBACKS. THERE WERE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZES. UH, YOU CAN SEE, I'LL COME BACK TO THIS R TWO REFERENCE IN IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, BUT IN OUR FOUR, WE GOT 4,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, MINIMUM AND 20 FOOT, UH, REAR SETBACK, UH, PARKING. I WANNA TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE, UH, PART OF WHY WE'RE HERE IS TO PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT PARKING. YOU'VE TOUCHED ON THAT IN A COUPLE OF YOUR OTHER CASES, INCLUDING THE, UH, MOST RECENT CASE THAT YOU APPROVED. SO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE. SO WE DO, WE HAVE ROOM FOR IT ON OUR SITE, AND IT'S REQUIRED TO BE ALL YOUR PARKING LOTS AS PARKING SPACES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NINE FEET WIDTH, 18 FEET AND LENGTH. SO WITH THE SETBACK, IF WE GET THE VARIANCE APPROVED TODAY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR A 19 FOOT LONG, UH, DRIVEWAY. WITHOUT THAT, WE'D BE AT 16 AND A HALF FEET. SO YOU'D HAVE THEORETICALLY A CAR. I REMEMBER IN TEXAS, EVERYONE DRIVES FORD F ONE FIFTIES, RIGHT? UH, THEORETICALLY STICKING OUT ON THE STREET. SO WE WANT TO, WE WANNA MAKE THE DRIVEWAY AS LONG AS WE CAN. AND WITH THE VARIANCE WE CAN GET TO A 19 FOOT, UH, DRIVEWAY LENGTH. UH, THIS IS THE SAME EMAIL THAT YOU SAW EARLIER. WE'D REACHED OUT TO CHARRO. THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION. UM, YOU'RE GONNA DO YOUR FINDING AND FACTS. I'M GONNA TOUCH ON THESE FINDINGS AND FACTS REAL QUICK. UH, I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS. UH, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. ACTUALLY, UH, WE HAVE AN INTEREST, WE HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY ABOUT INFILL RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL INFILL RESIDENTIAL BY BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE NEAR WEST SIDE. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT. UH, I'M NOT GONNA SPEND MUCH TIME ON THE CASE LAW, BUT I THINK AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU KNOW, THE GREAT WEIGHT OF CASE LAW IN TEXAS ON VARIANCE IS, IS TO FAVOR THE MAXIMUM USE OF YOUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO FAVOR HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR USE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WILL RESULT IN A HARDSHIP. YES. BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIT IN, UH, THAT DRIVEWAY WITHOUT THE SETBACK VARIANCE. AGAIN, JUST A VIEW OF THE HOME. I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE R TWO THAT I MENTIONED. THIS IS THE CRITERIA YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND SO IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE HAVE A ZONING CATEGORY CALLED R TWO FOR LOTS. BETWEEN TWO THOUSAND TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY NINE SQUARE FEET. AND SO, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THROUGH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE'VE SAID THAT FOR SMALLER LOTS, THE APPROPRIATE REAR SETBACK IS FIVE FEET. [02:00:01] AND SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EQUIVALENT SIZE. LOT SIZE. AGAIN, THIS WAS PLATTED BEFORE WE HAD ZONING, BUT IF IT WERE BEING PLATTED TODAY, IT WOULD THEORETICALLY BE AN R TWO LOT, WHICH WOULD BE A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK. UH, AUTHORIZE THE USE, UH, IT'S R TWO R FOUR. UH, WE'RE DOING SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH IS PERMITTED IN R FOUR, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORM PROPERTIES. NOW, UH, STAFF NOTED THAT IN THE REPORT WE'RE PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SEE. YOU'VE GOT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE REAR YARD AND YOU'VE GOT OTHER HOUSES OUT THERE. AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, SO OTHER HOUSES THAT ENCROACH INTO THAT REAR 20 FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE AGAIN, DIDN'T APPLY WHEN THEY WERE FIRST BUILT. AND THEN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS PLAID IN 1924, WASN'T ZONED UNTIL 1938. NO ONE WAS ZONED UNTIL 1938. SO AGAIN, NO SETBACKS, NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE. HERE IS THE, UH, 1924 PLAT I ZOOM IN. YOU CAN SEE THE DATE, UH, NOVEMBER 19TH, 1924. SO AGAIN, IT'S A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION. UH, NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM ARE AROUND IN 1924. SO AS FAR AS I CAN TELL LOOKING AROUND. SO, UH, THIS WAS NOT DUE TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. UH, THERE WAS, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY R SEVEN IN, UH, ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2002. ALL OF THE OLD ZONING DISTRICTS CONVERTED TO NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AND WE WERE ZONED R FOUR. AND THEN AGAIN, UH, CASE LAW CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT CREATED THE HARDSHIP. CERTAINLY THAT IS OUR SITUATION HERE. SO AGAIN, UH, ONE LAST LOOK AT, UH, BOTH THE LOT AND THEN THE INTERIOR LAYOUT. AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE MY COMMENTS AND OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE UNLESS SOMEONE IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I HAVE A, A QUICK QUESTION. YES, SIR. HOW ARE, UM, I THOUGHT FOR YOU TO QUALIFY FOR A C O D 'CAUSE YOU'RE AN ANTI WAY TO APPLY, DON'T YOU HAVE TO MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE ZONING? SO THAT'S BEEN GOING, IN FACT, WE WALKED THROUGH THAT WITH STAFF AND I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO, UH, MERCK OR VINCENT, BUT WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE TODAY IF WE DIDN'T THINK WE'D GET THE C O D. SO, I DUNNO, MARCO, IF YOU WANNA WEIGH IN, OR CHRIS, I BELIEVE YOUR, YOUR C O D WAS ALREADY APPROVED, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN APPROVED YET. UH, SUSAN , IT'S, IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT IT'S NOT BEEN APPROVED YET. I MEAN, BUT ISN'T THAT, ISN'T THAT A PART OF, UH, SUBSECTION 6 35, 40 OF THE EXCEPTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE TO MEET THE ZONING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO IF THEY GET APPROVED FOR A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD THROUGH A C O D, THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOSS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE. YEAH. SO YOU'RE THINKING OF ARTICLE FOUR IN ARTICLE SIX, TALKS ABOUT NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD. SO IT'S THE ARTIST ARTICLE SIX PROVISION. ALL RIGHT. FOR NONCONFORMING OR THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I APPRECIATE IT. MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, UM, LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY SIZE IN 19 FEET, IT'S 19 FEET LONG ENOUGH FOR A VEHICLE, AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS R FOUR OR R TWO, THEN IT'D BE FIVE FOOT. AND WAS THERE CONSIDERATION FOR PUSHING IT BACK? ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD REQUIRE RE-ADVERTISING, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IS THAT GONNA BE LONG ENOUGH IN GENERAL? I I, I'VE GOT, UH, MS. BABINSKI HERE WHO'S, WHO'S GOING TO BE BUILDING THE HOME. THE QUESTION, MS. BABINSKI WAS, UH, REAL SIMPLE. DID YOU CONSIDER PUSHING IT FURTHER BACK? NOW THEY CAN'T DO THAT THIS HEARING TODAY, BUT THE 19 FEET WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PURPOSES. YES. 'CAUSE WE WERE JUST WANTED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIT IN ONE VEHICLE. AND WE TALKED ABOUT, AGAIN, HAVING THE MOST STANDARD , I'M SORRY, MA'AM, COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC? I'M SORRY. I CAN JUST STATE HER NAME PLEASE. UM, WE WERE JUST, UH, SUSAN BOBINSKI, UH, 95 11 FRENCH CIRCLE, AND HE LOTUS, UM, AND REPRESENTING FOR 22 5 2 2 TAMPICO. THE GOAL IS TO BE ABLE TO, AT A MINIMUM, FIT IN ONE VEHICLE. AS WE WERE THINKING, AS ATTORNEY KILLEN SAID, THAT THE STANDARD VEHICLE IN TEXAS IS A FORD F ONE 50. SO THAT WOULD GIVE US SUFFICIENT ROOM TO BE ABLE TO PUT THAT VEHICLE IN. AND ALSO UNDERSTANDING IF THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE, IT COULD BE PARKED ON THE STREET. SO JUST WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT IT, IT CAN'T BLOCK THE SIDEWALK. RIGHT. AND SO, SO JUST THAT REALIZATION, THAT'S WHY, WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION. 'CAUSE THERE IS A SIDEWALK THERE. SO YES, SIR. AND, AND, AND THE PROPERTY'S NOT DEAL. THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LARGE ENOUGH VARIANCE THAT YOU COULD GRANT THAT WE COULD DO TWO BACK-TO-BACK VEHICLES, RIGHT? YEP. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET'S HAVE COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 61, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR THE TWO FOOT SIX VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 17 FOOT SIX REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 2 5 2 2 T PICO STREET, APPLICANT BEING KILLEN GRIFFITH AND FERRIMAN, P L L C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THERE WILL BE [02:05:01] ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORING HOUSES. AND SO 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 LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AS THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH SPACE TO CONSTRUCT THE DWELLING. 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 REDUCED REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, AS THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCED REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER, UH, OF THE PROPERTY FOR 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 AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO WHAT RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITION DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS 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, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND, THIRD BY COMMISSIONER PICASSO. UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? YEAH, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR. UH, ONE THING I WANNA SAY. VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EVEN NECESSARY GIVEN THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS, UH, THIS LOT HAS BEEN PLOTTED WAY BEFORE ZONING AND, UM, NOTHING COULD BE BUILT ON THIS IF, WELL, MAYBE SOMETHING COULD BE BUILT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A VERY REASONABLE TO GO TWO AND A HALF FEET INTO THE REAR SETBACK. SO I AM DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER PICASSO. THANK YOU. UM, MY GRANDFATHER WAS AN ATTORNEY, SO IT ALWAYS, UH, TICKLES ME TO SEE A CHARISMATIC PRESENTATION AND OPENING OF YOUR CASE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO AGREE THAT YOUR PRESENTATION WAS VERY THOROUGH, BUT I EXPECTED NOTHING LESS FROM AN ATTORNEY. UM, I AGREE. I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A LOGICAL, UH, REQUEST TO MAKE GIVEN THAT THE, UH, THE AREA WAS PLOTTED WAY BEFORE ALL OF OUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE ALL FELT YOUTHFUL TODAY AS WELL ON A MONDAY. WE ALL, WE ALL DESERVE IT. UM, AND SO THIS, THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL THING TO ENSURE THAT THE HOMEOWNER HAS A PRACTICAL USE OF THEIR SPACE. MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YEAH, AND ALSO LOOKING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE MANY HOMES THAT ARE PUSHED FURTHER BACK, UM, TO THE BACK PROPERTY LINE. AND SO, SO ACTUALLY I THINK THIS IS BEING VERY CONSERVATIVE. UH, AND SO, SO WITH THAT, I WON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AT ALL. ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. PICASSO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. BARTON. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINANCES OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. BEES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM 12. ITEM NUMBER 12 IS BO O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 2. UH, THE ADDRESS IS 3 9 3 9,000 OAKS DRIVE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10. UH, THE APPLICANT IS BRIGHT KID DAYCARE TWO L L C, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT BUFFER TO ALLOW THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C THREE. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE NEAR WETMORE ROAD. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER YARD TO ELIMINATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. UM, THE OWNER WISHES TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFER YARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING INTERNAL PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. AND A BUFFER YARD IS THE REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING MATERIALS BETWEEN ZONING DISTRICTS AND CERTAIN USES. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE LOCATION OF THE BUFFER ELIMINATION. AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUFFER YARD VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL IN BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 62 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. UH, ONE, THE REQUEST WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT. [02:10:02] AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT EIGHT NOTICES. UM, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HEAR? NO. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS STEVEN MARTIN. I AM REPRESENTING 1718 ARCHITECTURE, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS, UH, THIS SUBMITTAL. UM, ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TOUCH ON WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT UPLOADED ACTUALLY WAS A, UH, POWERPOINT PRESENTATION BY, UM, MS. MITSUKO RAMOS FROM GOVERNMENT RELATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS. UM, BUT I'LL START EXPLAINING IT VERY QUICKLY WHILE WE BRING THIS UP HERE. OH, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. UM, AS MENTIONED IN OUR APPLICATION, UH, THESE ARE AS IS CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW. THIS WAS A STRUCTURE THAT, UH, BURNED DOWN BACK IN 2017. THIS PARKING LOT THAT YOU SEE THAT IS A LONG THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE IS THE ORIGINAL PARKING LOT, UH, ORIGINAL CURBS. UH, YOU ALSO SEE THE SLAB RIGHT THERE. SO, UM, OUR FIRM 1718 ARCHITECTURE IS CONSTRUCTING, UM, A OR HAS PROPOSED THE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THIS STRUCTURE TO FIT ON THIS, UH, CURRENT CONCRETE FOOTPRINT THAT YOU SEE HERE. UH, RIGHT NOW, THE, UM, APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED A PARTIAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM, UH, CSA STAFF. NOW, SOME HISTORY REGARDING THIS PROPERTY, AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF HISTORY HERE. SO AS MENTIONED, THE STRUCTURE WAS DESTROYED IN A FIRE BACK IN 2017. UH, THIS IS A DAYCARE CENTER. UH, THERE ARE A, UM, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF, OF, UH, CHILDREN THAT OUR, UH, CLIENT IS LOOKING TO SERVE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. UM, NOW THERE WAS A VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN 2019, UH, WITH CONDITIONS TO RECONSTRUCT THE DAYCARE CENTER AS IS, UH, WAS PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED. SO AGAIN, WITH MAINTAINING THE SAME PARKING LOT FOOTPRINT, SAME FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. UM, NOW THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THREE YEARS, UM, DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS BY THE, BY OUR CLIENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, THE LOT THAT IS TO THE WEST, UH, ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED, UM, FOR THE PROPOSAL OF PERHAPS A FUTURE, UH, PARKING LOT TO THE WEST. HOWEVER, DUE TO SOME CONDITIONS, UM, THAT ARE BOTH IN AND OUT OF HIS CONTROL, WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, WOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN, UM, A, UH, WITHIN A, UH, THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. SO THERE WAS, UH, A TSE AGREEMENT THAT WAS, UM, TSE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF $98,500 THAT WERE, UH, GRANTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. NOW, PART OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS THAT IN ADDITION TO THESE ITEMS THAT YOU SEE HERE, THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE BUILT AS IS AGAIN, THAT THE PARKING LOT MAINTAINED. ITS, UH, CURRENT POSITION, ALL CURBS SIDEWALK CONCRETE FOUNDATION. AND AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WE DO HAVE A CONDITIONAL PERMIT, UH, FOR THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS GRANTED JUST, UH, SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. UM, WE, THE REASON FOR THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING ITEM THAT STANDS IN OUR WAY, UH, FROM GAINING, GETTING A FULL BUILDING PERMIT. UM, LANDSCAPE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF OUR BUILDING PERMIT. THE SITE WORK PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED BACK IN 2021, DECEMBER OF 2021 WAS APPROVED BACK IN MAY OF 2023. UM, SO AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY A REQUEST THAT OUR CLIENT MAINTAIN HIS AS IS CONDITIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY, UM, GIVEN THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED, THE FUNDS THAT WERE RELEASED, UH, THROUGH THE TOURS PROGRAM, STATING THAT THIS BE BUILT AS IS. UM, UNFORTUNATELY, AGAIN, DUE TO THE THE ELONGATED TIMELINE OF CONSTRUCTION, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE PURCHASE OF THAT WEST PROPERTY CAN BE USED AS A PARKING LOT FOR THIS STRUCTURE. [02:15:02] NOW, UM, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT HIS CONSTRUCTION, UH, DEADLINE WILL BE EXTENDED. THAT IS A REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANY FINAL WORD FROM CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF, UH, OF THAT CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE. AND I OPEN, UH, MY TIME TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? DO YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? DO HAVE A, A, UM, WHAT DO YOU CALL A PLAN, UM, TO SHOW US WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE PLANNING TO DO? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I BELIEVE WE, WE HAD THAT AS PART OF THE SUBMITTAL HERE. THAT WAS PART OF THE STAFF, UH, PRESENTATION. IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO PULL THAT BACK UP, WE DO HAVE A, UM, UH, A SIDE PLAN SHOWN. IS THAT, YEAH, WHERE IS IT? HERE WE GO. OH, YEP, THERE IT IS. SEE, THAT COULD, COULD YOU USE A POINTER TO SHOW WHERE IT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPE EFFORTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THE, THE BUFFER IN QUESTION IS RIGHT HERE. SO THIS IS AN EXISTING CONCRETE APPROACH, EXISTING PARKING LOT. SO THIS BUFFER THAT WE HAVE, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED LONG BEFORE, UH, U D C REQUIREMENTS WERE ADOPTED BY THE CITY, UH, NOTING THAT ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO LIE ALONG AN ARTERY SUCH AS THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE, WOULD NEED A TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER. SO WE REALLY HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER CURRENTLY. SO YOU'RE PLANNING ON, YOU'RE PLANNING ON A TWO AND A HALF FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT IS CORRECT. SO THIS IS A ROUGHLY TWO AND A HALF FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS EXISTING. THIS IS THIS PARKING LOT AS SHOWN IN PLAN IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. THAT WAS SHOWN IN, UH, THE AERIAL, UH, PHOTO OF THE SITE PLAN ITSELF. WHAT, WHAT IS THAT AREA WITH THE HAT? THE CROSS CROSS? WHAT IS THAT? SO RIGHT HERE, WHERE IS THAT? THIS IS A, UH, HANDICAP CROSSWALK, UH, WITH ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SIDEWALK RUNNING ALONG THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ON THIS SITE, HOWEVER, TO MEET CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THIS WAS GOING TO, THIS WAS A NECESSITY AND WAS PART OF THE SIDEWALK, UH, APPLICATION OR THE, I'M SORRY, THE SITE WORK PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021 AND APPROVED IN, UM, MAY OF THIS YEAR. YOU STATED THAT YOU HAVE A, A TWO FOOT BUFFER. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT HERE. YOU'RE REQUESTING FOR 15. WELL, WE'RE REQUESTING A, UM, A VARIANCE BECAUSE, UH, CITY STAFF, UH, ORIGINALLY WAS TELLING US, NO, YOU NEED TO HAVE A 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER RIGHT HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE FACING THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE. UM, THROUGH NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS, UH, BETWEEN, UH, MS. RAMOS AND THE CITY ARBORIST, UH, THEY HAD, THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH ELIMINATING THAT 15 FOOT BUFFER. OF COURSE, UM, THAT CONVERSATION WAS NOT GOING TO SUFFICE FOR BUILDING PERMIT PURPOSES. WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THIS COMMISSION AND, AND, AND, AND GLADLY GO THROUGH THIS, THIS ENTIRE PROCESS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE QUITE UNDERSTAND. OKAY. SO IS THAT OTHER DOTTED LINE WHERE THE 15 FEET SHOULD BE ABOVE? YEAH. OKAY. YOU SEE WHICH SAYS THE NUMBER ONE, IS THAT WHERE IT SHOULD BE? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. AND WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING THAT? WHY? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A, THE, UM, VARIANCE? WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY RECONSTRUCT THIS PARKING LOT. WE WOULD HAVE TO PUSH THIS PARKING LOT BACK. SO LET ME, LET ME POP IN ON THIS. SO WHEN YOU HAVE 90 DEGREE PARKING, YOU HAVE TO, IT'S, IT'S NINE BY 18 FOR THE PARKING CORRECT. AND THEN 25 FEET BEHIND IT. THAT'S WHY IT'S, IT'S DONE THAT WAY. UH, IT'S ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER BRAMAN. THANK YOU. SO ARE YOU, YOU'RE SAYING EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BUILT AS IS, AS PER, UH, AS PER THE TOURS AGREEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? OR, OR, HI, THIS IS MITSUKO RAMOS WITH GOVERNMENT RELATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VARIANCE, SINCE WE NEEDED THAT, SINCE IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN AND WE CAN'T ELEVATE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PARKING LOT TO MEET THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WE DID RECEIVE A VARIANCE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION. HOWEVER, [02:20:01] THAT VARIANCE REQUIRES US TO JUST BUILD THE STRUCTURE EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS AND NOT MAKE ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING LOT IS GONNA REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME, AND IF WE DEVIATE FROM THAT, THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S VARIANCE WILL BE VOIDED. SO WE MET WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SABRINA SANTIAGO, AS WELL AS JACOBS, UH, SANCHEZ, THE CITY ARBORIST, OR ASSISTANT CITY ARBORIST. AND THEY DID AGREE THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT A, A VARIANCE, UM, ONLY BECAUSE, UH, IF WE DO DO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, THEN THE WHOLE VARIANCE WILL BE, UM, VOIDED. SO WHAT WE PLAN ON DOING IS WITH THIS BUILDING PERMIT, JUST BUILDING THE STRUCTURE EXACTLY THE WAY, WAY IT WAS BEFORE, UM, NOT TOUCHING THE PARKING LOT, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE PARKING LOT AT ALL. UM, THE CLIENT HAD PURCHASED A VERY SMALL SLIVER OF, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DAYCARE CENTER, UM, WITH HIS OWN FUNDS, WITH HOPES OF REPLACING THE FRONT PARKING LOT AND PUTTING IT, UM, ON THE WEST SIDE SINCE IT'S MORE ELEVATED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL IN THE FLOOD, FLOOD PLAIN, IT'S ELEVATED, SO IT'S SAFER. UM, THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. SO HE WENT AHEAD AND DID THAT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING HE DID TO TRY TO MAKE IT SAFER. ORIGINALLY WE WERE GOING TO DO THE WHOLE PROJECT WHERE THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE. WE'D ELIMINATE THE PARKING LOT ON THE FRONTAGE, AND THEN WE COULD DO THE BUFFER. BUT SINCE THE SITE PLAN HAS TO BE EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS FIRST, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE TS BOARDS THAT WE CAN EXTEND THE CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE SINCE HE MISSED THE CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE, WHICH PUTS HIS 98,500 IN JEOPARDY. ONCE THAT'S APPROVED, AND HE KNOWS HE'S GONNA GET THAT TO REIMBURSE HIM FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, HE'LL BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO THEN APPLY FOR A SECOND BUILDING PERMIT THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO ELIMINATE THAT FRONT PARKING LOT AND PUT THE PARKING LOT ON THE WEST SIDE. AND AT THAT TIME, WE'LL BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE 15 FOOT BUFFER. OKAY. SO MY QUESTION, I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ASKED MY QUESTION YET, , SORRY. SO THAT'S OKAY. SO MY QUESTION IS, UM, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT BUFFER, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO YOU'RE PLANNING ON KEEPING THAT, OR YOU'RE PLANNING ON ELIMINATING THAT ENTIRELY? KEEPING IT COMPLETELY. SO THE, OUR, OUR REQUEST INTO THE MIC, OUR, OUR REQUEST IS TO KEEP ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THIS PARKING LOT. SO THAT INCLUDES THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ALL EXISTING CURBS, THE EXISTING APPROACH, THE EXISTING ASPHALT. THAT WHAT YOU SEE HERE, THIS THE EXTENT OF THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY NOT TOUCHING THAT WE KEEP IT AS IS. SO, SO THE WAY IT'S ADVERTISED IS ADVERTISED THAT YOU'RE ELIMINATING ALL 15 FEET OF THE 15 FOOT BUFFER, BUT IS THAT ACCURATE? IF YOU'RE KEEPING THE TWO AND A HALF? THAT IS NOT ACCURATE, ACTUALLY. AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I DID WANT TO CLEAR UP WITH YOU ALL BECAUSE I KNOW THAT AS PART OF IN OUR APPLICATION, THAT WAS CLEAR. SO YEAH, LET, LET ME CHIME IN ON THAT. YEAH. SO YOU'VE GOT A, THAT DASH LINE IS A 14 FOOT C P S EASEMENT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IF YOU WERE TO HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT BUFFER STAFF WOULD, WOULD RE WOULD WANT YOU TO PLANT SOMETHING THERE? ABSOLUTELY. AND THERE'S, YOU HAVE EXISTING UTILITY POLES RIGHT THERE OFF A THOUSAND OAKS. SO ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE FULL ELIMINATION, WAS THAT SUGGESTED BY STAFF JUST BECAUSE OF THE IMPRACTICALITY OF PLANTING IN A TWO AND A HALF FOOT STRIP? OH, WAS THAT PART OF THAT CONVERSATION THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I CONFIGURE WHY THEY WOULD WANT THE WHOLE BUFFER AS A RECOMMENDATION. MAY I ANSWER THAT? NO, I MEAN, I THINK ALSO PART OF IT IS THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED AS PART OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, WAS TO ALLOW NOW IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS, WHERE THEY HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE FLOODPLAIN AND UTILITIES AND TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFER IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO. THE OTHER ISSUE WITH ALL THIS IS, IS THAT IF WE ELIMINATE THE BUFFER AND YOU END UP BUILDING THIS PARKING YOU'RE IN, YOU DON'T HAVE A BUFFER REQUIREMENT ANYMORE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLAN ANYTHING. SO THAT'S JUST I, WELL, UM, HOLD ON. UH, COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, UH, STILL HAS A, THE, THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS DO YOU NEED THE 15 FEET OR SHOULD IT BE REWORDED TO BE 12 AND A HALF FEET? I THINK WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION, UH, WOULDN'T HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING, GETTING, UH, EVERYBODY TO AGREE WITH, UH, TWO AND A HALF FOOT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY, JUST, JUST CLARIFY, HOLD ON. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UH, WAS, UH, HAD A, WAS NEXT IN LINE AND THEN WE'LL HIT YOU NEXT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. UM, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR. SO THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOU ALL IS, IS GONNA BE PART OF THE PARKING AREA OR NOT, NOT INCLUDED AS OF RIGHT NOW. SO THE PRO, IT'S ON THE, [02:25:01] IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT IN PLAN HERE, UH MM-HMM. , BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF THE SLIDE, IT'S THE PROPERTY THAT'S GONNA BE TO THE LEFT. SO THAT IS THE PROPERTY THAT OUR CLIENT, UH, HAS RECENTLY PURCHASED. JOSEPH, CAN YOU GIVE HIM THE C PROPOSED FUTURE PARKING LOT? OKAY. SO THE PROPERTY TO YOUR RIGHT THEN WILL STILL STAY EMPTY, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. WELL, THAT'S THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, AS IN NOW, YES. THERE ARE NO, NO PLANS FOR ANYTHING TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT ALL. OH, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU MR. BARON. SOMETHING, UH, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, IF YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THE TWO AND A HALF FOOT BUFFER IN FRONT RIGHT SIDEWALK FOR THET AND GONNA, OKAY, I'M SORRY. UM, I, I JUST WANTED OFFER ANOTHER CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE HAVE T FUNDING. THEY WANTED US TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK. SO IF WE DO THAT, THAT WILL TAKE OVER THE TWO AND A HALF LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WE'RE DOING. THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE, UH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT WOULD BE REIMBURSED BY THET FUNDS. UM, HOWEVER, WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE ARBORISTS, WHAT THEY WERE SAYING IS WHATEVER BUFFER, UM, WE CAN DO NOW, UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT WHERE IT'S 15 FOOT ALL THE WAY ACROSS, OR TWO AND A HALF FEET ALL THE WAY ACROSS, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT AREA. UM, AND WE CAN MOVE IT OVER TO THE LEFT, LET'S SAY, UM, THEN WE CAN DO THAT FOR NOW. UM, AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT ABOUT THAT, BUT, UH, IF THERE'S A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEY SAY 15 FEET, IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE, LET'S SAY ONE FEET IN ONE AREA AND THEN IT MERGED TO BE A MUCH LARGER AREA TO THE WEST OR TO THE, TO THE EAST AS LONG AS THE TOTAL AREA OF THE REQUIREMENT IS MET. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THAT TWO AND A HALF FEET IN THE VERY FRONT RIGHT IN THAT SPOT IS GONNA REMAIN IF WE EXPAND OR EXTEND THE, UM, WIDEN THE SIDEWALKS. BUT WE DO PLAN ON HAVING EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING, UM, FOR NOW ON THE, UM, ON THE NEW PROPERTY AS WELL AS, UH, HAVING THE 15 FOOT BUFFER ONCE WE APPLY FOR THE SECOND BUILDING PERMIT. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I, I, HOLD ON. I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED. IF YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE SOME LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN FRONT, WE'RE DOING THE LANDSCAPING JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA DO TO BEAUTIFY THE AREA. UM, THE PROPERTY THAT'S ON LOCATED ON THE LEFT SIDE WHERE YOU SEE THE NEW PARKING LOT, THAT MIGHT BE, THAT'S A SEPARATE LOT. SO THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS PERMIT. SO, UH, THE NEW LANDSCAPE WE, THAT WE WILL DO RIGHT NOW, UM, IS, IS NOT PART OF THIS, THIS PERMIT. SO FOR THIS PERMIT, UH, ORIGINALLY 1718 APPLIED FOR I THINK, UH, UH, UH, TO HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT BUFFER. BUT THEN AFTER SPEAKING WITH, UH, STAFF AND, AND JACOB SANCHEZ ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TURS, UM, SINCE THAT LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BUILDING PERMIT, WE WOULD NEED A 15 FOOT BUFFER, UM, SO THAT WE CAN PUT THE, THE WIDENED SIDEWALK THERE. OKAY. I'M, I, I NEED TO, I NEED TO STEP IN FOR A SECOND. SO THIS THOUSAND OAKS IS, IS A, UH, THOROUGH FERIAL THAT MEANS CODE REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK. THAT'S WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES. WHEN YOU PULL A BUILDING PERMIT, THEY DON'T HAVE 10 FEET OF LAND FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THEY HAVE TWO AND A HALF FEET OF EXISTING GRASS THAT COULD EITHER BE AN EXISTING BUFFER MM-HMM. , UH, IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY GET A VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDEWALK, IF THEY DON'T GET A VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDEWALK, THEY'RE GONNA NEED THAT LAND TO PROVIDE A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK AND THEN DEDICATE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT ONTO THEIR PROPERTY DURING BUILDING PERMIT. AND THERE'S A SHORT FORM FOR THAT. RIGHT. UH, SO THEY, THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH ROUTE THEY'RE GONNA TAKE, AND THAT WOULD BE A REASON WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE REDUCTION TO ZERO BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GONNA TURN OUT YET. THEY'RE JUST STARTING WITH US. UM, WE, WE WILL THOUGH, UM, IT IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE TS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO PUT THE, THE, UH, EXTEND EXPANDED SIDEWALK. SO WE HAVE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO GET THE TSS FUNDS. SO, OKAY. SO, UM, THIS IS THE ONLY ROUTE TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S VARIANCE, AND STILL, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY WANT THE VAR THE BUFFER LIMIT. RIGHT NOW, IF WE HAD THAT LEFT SIDE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY THAT HE BOUGHT IS THAT, IF THAT WAS PART OF THIS BUILDING PERMIT, THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO MEET BECAUSE WE COULD JUST LANDSCAPE FAR BACK. AND SO, SO FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, AND IF, BECAUSE THAT PARKING ON THE SIDE IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE, LOT, COMPLETELY SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY, ANYTHING THEY WOULD DO WOULD BE OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEART IF THEY WANTED TO ELIMINATE THIS PARKING OR ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. UH, BUT THEY, THEY'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ONCE WE PASS THIS. SO, AND IF WE DON'T PASS IT, THEY'VE GOT OTHER PROBLEMS. THEY'VE [02:30:01] GOT OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND, AND APPLICATIONS COMMISSIONER, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU HE, HE'S SPENT, OH, HOLD ON. HOLD ON A SECOND. COMMISSIONER, DEAN. OKAY. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE BUILDING THAT'S GONNA BE THERE? THE FACILITY, IT'S A DAYCARE CENTER. UM, AND, UH, MOST OF THE CHILDREN THERE HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS AND THEY GET FUNDING FROM THE STATE AND FROM THE CITY. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY. ONE IS THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT IT BACK IN THE SAME PLACES THAT AT THE HIGH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY? YES. THEY HAVE TO ELEVATE THE FOUNDATION BY SIX INCHES TO ONE FEET. BUT YOUR, YOUR LOT DOES CASCADE TOWARDS THE EAST THEN. PARDON ME? YOUR LOT NATURALLY DRAINS TO THE EAST. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN THE, IN THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, MR. CHAIR. I'M SORRY, REAL QUICK. MM-HMM. , I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA JUST LEFT AT 3:38 PM LIKE HE LEFT FOR GOOD? YES. OH, HE, YEAH, HE IS GONE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, HE WASN'T PRESENT IN THE ROOM AT THE WHOLE TIME. THAT'S CORRECT. SO HE IS SITTING IN AS A VOTING MEMBER FOR THIS CASE. THANK YOU. I'M SO SORRY. NO, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. SOMETIMES COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA GOES GET SOME WATER OR SOMETHING AND HE POPS RIGHT BACK IN. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, YOU JUST JOINED? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR ARE YOU READY TO GO TO A MOTION? NO, I'M, I'M, I'M READY. I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO, CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? YES, I'M SORRY. UM, MY CLIENT, SINCE HE DID SPEND HIS OWN PERSONAL FUNDS ON THAT PROPERTY TO THE WEST, UM, HE WOULDN'T BE DOING THAT IF HE DIDN'T INTEND ON, YOU KNOW, MOVING OVER THE PARKING LOT AND HAVING THE LAND. AND THEN AT THAT TIME, ANOTHER REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD SET IN AGAIN GOT IT. WITH THE SECOND BUILDING PERMIT. SO, AND WE DID PROMISE THE T BOARD, UM, THAT WE WOULD BEAUTIFY THE, THE AREA WITH LANDSCAPING ALONG THOUSAND OAKS. SO WE DO PLAN ON, ON DOING THAT. HE, I DON'T THINK HE WOULD'VE PURCHASED IT IF HE PLANNED ON JUST LEAVING IT THE WAY IT WAS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HE'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION STILL. OH, I'M SORRY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 62, I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT BUFFER TO ALLOW THE ELIMINATION OF A BUFFER ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 39 30 9,000 OAKS DRIVE APPLICANT BEING 1718 PARTNERS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE SEPARATION BETWEEN USES. THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE PUBLIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A SPECIAL CONDITION FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB FOR PARKING. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN APPLICANT INCORPORATING THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO RECONFIGURE THE PARKING PLAN. 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. IN THIS CASE, THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER YARD WILL ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, AS THE OWNER WILL NOT BE DEMOLISHING OR RECONSTRUCTING THE EXISTING PARKING LOT. 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 USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE APPEARANCE OF STREET SCAPE WILL NOT BE ALTERED IF APPROVED. SIX. THE PLATY, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE MERIT SOCIETY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF 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 SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE TO SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS UTILIZING THE EXISTING PARKING IN, IN PLACE OF THE BUFFER YARD EXIST. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL. END OF MOTION MANNA. SECOND. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA HAS A SECOND. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, THERE'S A LACK OF AFFORDABLE, UH, CHILDCARE, UM, IN A LOT OF AREAS OF OUR TOWN, AND SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT SINCE, UH, CITY COUNCIL HAS APPROVED, UH, FUNDING TO HELP, UH, ELIMINATE SOME OF THAT. UM, [02:35:01] LACKING. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER MANNA? UM, I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD A, A, A LOT OF DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO AGREEMENTS OF, WE'LL SAY, MOVING THE BUFFER. I'M GENERALLY NOT IN FA A FAN OF THE ELIMINATION OF BUFFER AREAS, UH, LANDSCAPING, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMITMENTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH THE ARBORISTS TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IT A LOT OF WE'LL SAY, UH, MAKEUP, UH, UM, LANDSCAPING ELSEWHERE. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD A HEARING ON THIS ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN? I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. BURTON. I CONCUR WITH THOSE FINDINGS. MS. PICASSO? YES. MS. KAPLAN? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. AVIVE? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 11 ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GET WITH STAFF. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, [ Approval of Minutes  ] NEXT ITEM IS THE MINUTES. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO, WHICH ISN'T NORMAL FOR US, BUT, UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PLANNING ON ABSTAINING? DO WE NEED TO BREAK THIS UP INTO TWO VOTES? UM, WHAT WERE THE DATES OF THE, UH, IT WAS FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH AND SEPTEMBER 25TH ON THE 18TH. SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'LL DO IT AS TWO MOTIONS. UH, COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH. UH, I I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF THOSE. YES, PLEASE. UM, THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18TH, I, I SKIMMING THROUGH IT. SOMETHING TRIPPED ME UP. UM, ON PAGE 13 OF THOSE MINUTES, IF YOU CAN FIND WHAT I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT. UH, WHAT, WHAT WAS THAT PAGE SIR? JOSEPH, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE MINUTES? IT'S EPTEMBER. 18TH, 13, 13TH. PAGE 13. OKAY. ON, UH, PAGE 13 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, UH, UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT, IN PERSON IT SAYS, KELLY WALFORD SPOKE IN SUPPORT, AND THEN IT SAYS THREE 17. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. UH, STAFF, I THINK THEY'RE PULLING UP THE MINUTES THAT THE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS. UH, I MEAN, YEAH, WE USUALLY DON'T PUT TIME UNLESS THAT'S THAT IS IT WENT OVER TIME. MAYBE I WASN'T PRESENT AT THE, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE THERE. IT, IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO DELETE IT. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO DELETE? UM, SO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT, UH, FOR THE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION, UH, ON THE CONDITION THAT THAT'S DELETED? PARDON ME? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION AND THE CONDITION THAT, THAT THAT PORTION'S DELETED? YES. SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND THAT. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ALL IN SUPPORT. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY WITH ONE? UH, WE HAVE 10 AYES WITH ONE, UH, ONE ABSTAINED COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS FOR THE 18TH, UH, SEPTEMBER 25TH. ANY, UH, COMMENTS ON THAT? THOSE MOTIONS? UH, MINUTES. ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 25TH? MOTION TO APPROVE? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA AS A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. WHO SAID THAT FOR SECOND? COMMISSIONER PICASSO. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. AND WE HAVE AN ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. OKAY. IS THERE ONLY ONE ABSTENTION ON THAT ONE? OKAY, SO THE MOTION PASSES, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT. NO SIR. NOTHING TO REPORT. WELL, IT'S 3 46. UH, IT'S PRETTY EXCITING. NO DINNER FOR Y'ALL TONIGHT. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. STAFF, UH, ON THE NEXT MEETING, ARE WE GONNA GO BACK TO, UH, 16 OR MORE? ARE WE GONNA KEEP IT PRETTY LOW? UH, WE'RE AVERAGE, WE'RE GONNA BE AROUND 11, MAYBE 12. AWESOME. ALRIGHT, WELL, WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY AND HAVE A GOOD REST OF THE AFTERNOON. WE'RE ADJOURNED. 3 46. * 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.