* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ, ARE YOU OKAY? I REALLY WANTED THERE BE AT LEAST 10, BUT, UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THE BEGINNING STUFF NOW. ALL RIGHT, SO IT IS ONE O'CLOCK. I'M CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER IF WE COULD HAVE THE SPANISH TRANSLATOR COME OUT AND DO THEIR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLE DR. BURTON. HERE. MS. KAPLAN? PRESENT. MR. BHI? ALRIGHT, PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MS. MANNA PRESENT. MS. AVI? MS. BRAGMAN PRESENT. MR. OZUNA? PRESENT. MS. BROWN. HERE. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M HERE. SO WE HAVE NINE. UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THE, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, INTRO STUFF, UH, WHILE WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THE, UH, OTHER MEMBERS IN THROUGH, UH, ZOOM OR WEBEX OR WHATEVER FORMAT YOU'RE USING THIS WEEK. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE, UH, UH, STAND AND JOIN ME AT THE PLEDGE, PLEASE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STAND AS ONE NATION UNDER INVIS LIBERTY JUSTICE LAW. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE INDIVIDUAL. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY. STAFF COMMENTED IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR IN SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION, A DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESIDENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELEASE OUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH A REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PRUDENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION AT A REQUEST. PART OF PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CHECK MARK INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTIES IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY [00:05:01] THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER DO YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM TO HE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR. ALRIGHT, UH, SO, UH, LET'S BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, CASE ENDING IN 2 6 3. COMMISSIONER BEEZ, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? YOU AS A QUICK SOUND CHECK HO HOLD ON A SECOND. UM, CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK SOUND CHECK? COMMISSIONER, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR, I'D LIKE TO SKIP TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT HAS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD. UH, CAN YOU GIVE US A SOUND CHECK, COMMISSIONER? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE'RE GONNA GO WITH ITEM NUMBER NINE FIRST. OKAY. 3, 2, 8 3. YEAH. CASE HEADING AT 2 83 WITH AN ADDRESS OF ONE 50 WEST SUNSET ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 8 3. ADDRESS IS 1 5 0 WEST SUNSET ROAD IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE, UH, APPLICANT BEING CREO ARCHITECTS. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C ONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST SUNSET ROAD, WEST OF BROADWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BEAT 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UH, CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT AND IT'S COMPOSED OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE SMALLER EXISTING STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW STRUCTURE ENTIRELY IN THE REAR SETBACK. THE NEW STRUCTURE HAS THE CLOSEST DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MEASURING 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE REAR YARD FACING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND THIS IS THE FUTURE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING. NUMBER TWO ADDITION. AND THIS IS THE FUTURE LOCATION OF BUILDING NUMBER THREE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 83 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE REQUEST IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ABUTS A DRIVEWAY ON A DEVELOPED MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE NOTE, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF MAILED OUT 13 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. IF YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S SUITE 2,700. TODAY I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HEB FOUNDATION. THEY BASICALLY USE THIS FACILITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING AND THEY WOULD LIKE, DO WE HAVE THE LITTLE POINTER? OH, RIGHT HERE. THANK YOU. THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THE FACILITY INTO A COUPLE OF SMALLER BUILDING OFFICES, IF YOU WILL. SO THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND THE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED. WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS, THE FIRST THING THAT, UM, I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD, GOOD FOR US IS THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A, A DEDICATED FIRE LANE BEHIND US WITH THE, THE, THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH IS A, UM, ASSISTED, AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH, AND WE'VE GOT 38 FEET BETWEEN US AND [00:10:01] THE, THE NEAR BETWEEN OUR FENCE LINE AND THE NEAREST BUILDING. SO THAT WITH THE, THE ADDITIONAL 12 FEET TO OUR NEW BUILDING. DO YOU KNOW THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? RIGHT HERE GIVES US, I MEAN, ALMOST 50 FEET OF SEPARATION BETWEEN OUR STRUCTURE AND THE NEAREST APARTMENT BUILDING. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE, FOR THE VARIANCE. THE, THE, THE PROPERTY IS VERY NARROW. WE JUST MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SO WE REALLY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. SO WE WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR A SLIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. OKAY. UH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, IS, UH, THIS BUILDING, UM, SPRINKLED THE, THE NEW BUILDING? YEAH, I'M JUST, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, UH, I DON'T SEE ANY DRIVE ACCESS FOR A FIRETRUCK TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR THAT THING. IS IT? I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN 150 FEET WITH THE FIRE HOSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SPRINKLED. SO I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS, BUT I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF IT'S SPRINKLED OR NOT. WELL, CAN, CAN YOU, UH, WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF THE LOT? THE DEPTH OF THE LOT? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S A HUNDRED FEET OR MAYBE 150 FEET. I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT THAT, IT'S NOT THAT DEEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I, I JUST HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE, THE STAFF. UM, IS THIS IN DENVER HEIGHTS? NO, BECAUSE ON YOUR PRESENTATION IT SAYS NO RESPONSE FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO I'M WONDERING WHY THAT'S THERE. WAS THAT A MISTAKE? I THINK THAT'S A TYPO. UH, YES, IT'S A TYPO. THIS IS NOT WITHIN DENVER HEIGHTS, RIGHT? THIS IS NEAR BROADWAY AND SUNSET. THAT'S WHY I QUESTIONED BECAUSE IT SAYS ON OUR PRESENTATION, OKAY, THAT DENVER HEIGHTS. OKAY. ALRIGHTYY, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY YOU WANNA SEND HER TO SPEAK? NO. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 83 2 8 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT ONE 50 WEST SUNSET ROAD. APPLICANT BEING CREO ARCHITECTS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH, THERE ARE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. STAFF FINDS VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOUND IS THE LENGTH AND THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ABIDING BY THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE INTENT OF THE 30 FOOT REAR STEPBACK REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND ESTABLISHED SPACE FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FEET FOUR INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WOULD ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. OTHER NO USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. 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 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 SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED UPON SIDE VISITS. STAFFS OBSERVED THE BLOCK, UH, THE WAS PRIMARILY COMPOSED OF COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE REQUEST IS NOT OUTTA CHARACTER. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT, WHICH OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED STAFF FINDS APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SALT, IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LENGTH IN WHICH OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT WOULD, WOULD LOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE USE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER ZUMA. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. I CONCUR WITH THE CITY'S, UM, UH, SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY ABOUT, UH, THE FIRE LANE, UH, IN THE BACK, WHICH COULD PROVIDE SOME FIRE SERVICE AND ALSO, UH, UH, WITHIN THAT A HUNDRED FOOT DISTANCE FOR, UH, SO A HYDRANT FOR FIRE, UH, FIRE SERVICE AS WELL. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? YES, I I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, RESISTANCE TO THIS EITHER, AND IT IS IN THERE A LOT, SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM. ALRIGHT. HAS ANY LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOTICE? HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN, DR. BURTON I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. MAMMA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF [00:15:01] FACT. MS. EZ, MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, ARE WE GETTING ANY SORT OF RESPONSE FROM COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? NO, SHE WASN'T ABLE TO LISTEN. OKAY, SO IT'S THE NINE WELL MOTION PASSES, UH, NINE TO ZERO. UM, AND, UH, IS, DO WE HAVE A CELL PHONE NUMBER FOR HER? WE CAN MAYBE GIVE HER A CALL. WE DO. WE BELIEVE WE HAVE TO JUST RESET THIS SYSTEM FROM WHAT OUR COMMUNICATIONS GUY'S SAYING. IF WE CAN TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. YEAH. SO WE WILL RECONVENE AT ONE 20. HMM. SO TO THOSE IN THE GALLERY, WHAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE HAVE, WE NEED NINE COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE A MEETING. UM, BUT WE ALSO NEED NINE VOTES FOR SOMETHING TO PASS. UH, THE OTHER NINE CASES ON TODAY'S AGENDA HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, OF DENIAL IN SOME WAY, UH, FROM STAFF. AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, UM, THIS COMMISSION TYPICALLY WILL, WE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR CASES, UH, WITHOUT A FULL PANEL WHEN THERE'S DENIALS OR PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A 10TH MEMBER, UH, AND DIGITALLY AND WE'LL HOPE FOR THE BEST. WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER WHO COULD POTENTIALLY JOIN IN THE, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO WE'RE HOPING FOR THAT AS WELL. WE'LL TRY TO GET THIS DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BEEZ, ARE YOU OKAY? I REALLY WANTED THERE BE AT LEAST 10, BUT, UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THE BEGINNING STUFF NOW. ALL RIGHT. SO IT IS ONE O'CLOCK. I'M CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER IF WE COULD HAVE THE SPANISH TRANSLATOR COME OUT AND DO THEIR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL DR. TON. MS. KAPLAN? PRESENT. MS. BHI? ALL RIGHT, PRESENT. MS. CHRIS? HERE. MR. MANNA PRESENT. MS. BENAVIDES. MS. BRAGMAN PRESENT. MR. OZUNA PRESENT. MS. BROWN HERE. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M HERE. SO WE HAVE NINE. UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THE, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, INTRO STUFF, UH, WHILE WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THE, UH, OTHER MEMBERS IN THROUGH, UH, ZOOM OR WEBEX OR WHATEVER FORMAT YOU'RE USING THIS WEEK. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE, UH, UH, STAND AND JOIN ME AT THE PLEDGE, PLEASE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH EXPAND ONE NATION UNDER, UM, INVIS WITH LIBERTY JUSTICE. FOR HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE INDIVIDUAL. ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF ED IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR IN SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION TO DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER [00:20:01] CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH A REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PRUDENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION AT A REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION, OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CHECK MARK INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTIES IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM TO HE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. ALRIGHT, UH, SO, UH, LET'S BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, CASE ENDING IN 2 6 3. COMMISSIONER BEEZ, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? YOU AS A QUICK SOUND CHECK? HO HOLD ON A SECOND. UM, CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK SOUND CHECK? COMMISSIONER, IF SHE CAN'T HEAR, I'D LIKE TO SKIP TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT HAS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD. UH, CAN YOU GIVE US A SOUND CHECK, COMMISSIONER? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE'RE GONNA GO WITH ITEM NUMBER NINE FIRST. OKAY. 83. 2 83. YEAH. CASE HEADING AT 2 83 WITH AN ADDRESS OF ONE 50 WEST SUNSET ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 83. ADDRESS IS 1 5 0 WEST SUNSET ROAD IN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE, UH, APPLICANT BEING CREO ARCHITECTS. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C ONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST SUNSET ROAD, WEST OF BROADWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UH, CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT AND IS COMPOSED OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE SMALLER EXISTING STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW STRUCTURE ENTIRELY IN THE REAR SETBACK. THE NEW STRUCTURE HAS THE CLOSEST DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MEASURING 12 FOOT FOUR INCHES. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE REAR YARD FACING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND THIS IS THE FUTURE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING NUMBER TWO EDITION. [00:25:02] AND THIS IS THE FUTURE LOCATION OF BUILDING NUMBER THREE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 A THREE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE REQUEST IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ABUTS A DRIVEWAY ON A DEVELOPED MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 13 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. IF YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY, SUITE 2,700. TODAY I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HEB FOUNDATION. THEY BASICALLY USE THIS FACILITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING AND THEY WOULD LIKE, DO WE HAVE THE LITTLE POINTER? OH, RIGHT HERE. THANK YOU. THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THE FACILITY INTO A COUPLE OF SMALLER BUILDING OFFICES, IF YOU WILL. THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND THE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED. WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS, THE FIRST THING THAT, UM, I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD, GOOD FOR US IS THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A, A DEDICATED FIRE LANE BEHIND US WITH THE, THE, THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH IS A, UM, ASSISTED, UH, AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH, AND WE'VE GOT 38 FEET BETWEEN US AND THE, THE NEAR BETWEEN OUR FENCE LINE AND THE NEAREST BUILDING. SO THAT WITH THE, THE ADDITIONAL 12 FEET TO OUR NEW BUILDING. DO YOU KNOW THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? RIGHT HERE GIVES US, I MEAN, ALMOST 50 FEET OF SEPARATION BETWEEN OUR STRUCTURE AND THE NEAREST APARTMENT BUILDING. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE, FOR THE VARIANCE. THE, THE, THE PROPERTY IS VERY NARROW. WE JUST MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SO WE REALLY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. SO WE WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR A SLIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. OKAY. UH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, IS, UH, THIS BUILDING, UM, SPRINKLED THE, THE NEW BUILDING? YEAH, I'M JUST, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, UH, I DON'T SEE ANY DRIVE ACCESS FOR A FIRETRUCK TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR THAT THING. IS IT? I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN 150 FEET WITH THE FIRE HOSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SPRINKLED. SO I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS, BUT I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF IT'S SPRINKLED OR NOT. WELL, CAN, CAN YOU, UH, WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF THE LOT? THE DEPTH OF THE LOT? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S A HUNDRED FEET OR MAYBE 150 FEET. I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT THAT, IT'S NOT THAT DEEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I, I JUST HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE STAFF. UM, IS THIS IN DENVER HEIGHTS? NO, BECAUSE ON YOUR PRESENTATION IT SAYS NO RESPONSE FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO I'M WONDERING WHY THAT'S THERE. WAS THAT A MISTAKE? THINK THAT'S A TYPO. UH, YES, IT'S A TYPO. THIS IS NOT WITHIN DENVER HEIGHTS, RIGHT? THIS IS NEAR BROADWAY AND SUNSET. THAT'S WHY I QUESTION, BECAUSE IT SAYS ON OUR PRESENTATION, OKAY. THAT DENVER HEIGHTS ALRIGHTYY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY YOU WANNA SEND IT TO SPEAK? NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 83 2 8 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FEET FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT ONE 50 WEST SUNSET ROAD. APPLICANT BEING CREO ARCHITECTS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT. CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, STAFF FINDS VARIANCE DOES NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNEC UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOUND IS THE LENGTH AND THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ABIDING BY THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE INTENT OF THE 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND ESTABLISHED SPACE FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. A 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 12 FEET FOUR INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WOULD ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. OTHER NO USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, 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 VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER [00:30:01] OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS REQUEST WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED UPON SIDE VISITS. STAFFS OBSERVED THE BLOCK, UH, THE WAS PRIMARILY COMPOSED OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE REQUEST IS NOT OUTTA CHARACTER. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT, WHICH OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED STAFF FINDS APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SALT, IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LENGTH IN WHICH OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT WOULD, WOULD LOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE USE AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. I CONCUR WITH THE CITY'S, UM, UH, SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY ABOUT, UH, THE FIRE LANE IN THE BACK, WHICH COULD PROVIDE SOME FIRE SERVICE AND ALSO, UH, UH, WITHIN THAT A HUNDRED FOOT DISTANCE FOR, UH, TO A HYDRANT FOR FIRE, UH, FIRE SERVICE AS WELL. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? YES, I I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, RESISTANCE TO THIS EITHER, AND IT IS IN THERE A LOT, SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. IS ANY LIKE TO ADD HEARING US? HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN, DR. BARTON I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MAMMA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MANES. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, ARE WE GETTING ANY SORT OF RESPONSE FROM COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? NO, SHE WASN'T ABLE TO LISTEN. OKAY, SO IT'S THE NINE WELL MOTION PASSES, UH, NINE TO ZERO. UM, AND, UH, IS, DO WE HAVE A CELL PHONE NUMBER FOR HER? WE CAN MAYBE GIVE HER A CALL. WE DO. WE BELIEVE WE HAVE TO JUST RESET THIS SYSTEM FROM WHAT OUR COMMUNICATIONS GUYS NAME. IF WE CAN TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. YEAH. SO WE WILL RECONVENE AT ONE 20. I KNOW . SO FAR SO GOOD. SO TO THOSE IN THE GALLERY, WHAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE HA WE NEED NINE COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE A MEETING. UM, BUT WE ALSO NEED NINE VOTES FOR SOMETHING TO PASS. UH, THE OTHER NINE CASES ON TODAY'S AGENDA HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, OF DENIAL IN SOME WAY, UH, FROM STAFF. AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, UM, THIS COMMISSION TYPICALLY WILL, WE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR CASES, UH, WITHOUT A FULL PANEL WHEN THERE'S DENIALS OR PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A 10TH MEMBER, UH, IN DIGITALLY AND WE'LL HOPE FOR THE BEST. WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER WHO COULD POTENTIALLY JOIN IN THE, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO WE'RE HOPING FOR THAT AS WELL. WE'LL TRY TO GET THIS DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. [00:38:34] YEP, I CAN HEAR YOU. I THINK WE CORRECTED THE ISSUES. GREAT. AWESOME. IT'S 1 22. I'M CALLING IT BACK TO ORDER ITEM ONE, PLEASE. OKAY. HELLO, THIS IS BOA DASH 23 DASH OH 3 2 63 6 20 SOUTH PRESA. I'M RACHEL RDO WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE HDRC CASE MANAGER FOR SIX 20 SOUTH PRESA. LET'S SEE HERE. THE REQUEST IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DENIAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF RIGID FOAM ON THE EXISTING STUCCO CLADDING AND THE APPLICATION OF NEW STUCCO ON THE FOAM. A TREATMENT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE AND ALTERATIONS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIR THE EXISTING STUCCO CLADDING WITH STUCCO THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING AND COMPOSITION TEXTURE, APPLICATION TECHNIQUE, COLOR AND DETAIL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. WE HAVE A DETAILED CASE HISTORY HERE, AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THE FIRST [00:40:01] FEW BULLETS HERE. UM, THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORK, UH, SITE WORK AND FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS. IN JULY, UM, JULY 6TH, 2023, STAFF RECEIVED A RESIDENT REPORT THAT, UH, MODIFICATIONS WERE OCCURRING THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE APPROVED SCOPE OF WORK, AND THAT INCLUDED, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO THE ROOF FORM AND PARAPETS AND COLUMNS. AND SO BETWEEN JULY 6TH, 2023 AND JULY 21ST, 2023, UM, THREE STOP WORK ORDERS WERE ISSUED. THREE STOP WORK ORDERS WERE ISSUED BY STAFF TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT. UM, THE APPLICANT DID GO TO THE HDRC FOR REVIEW OF THESE SCOPES OF WORK AND THE HDRC DID ULTIMATELY APPROVE THESE SCOPES OF WORK. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER WERE AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF, OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALL EXTERIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY. SO MOVE FORWARD TO THIS REQUEST. IN AUGUST, 2023, STAFF RECEIVED A FOURTH RESIDENT REPORT WITH PHOTOS THAT WORK WAS TAKING PLACE ON THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. STAFF NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE REPORT AND THE OWNER CONFIRMED THAT SCOPES OF WORK WERE TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE OF APPROVALS. SO STAFF ISSUED A FOURTH STOP WORK ORDER BY EMAIL ON AUGUST 22ND, 2023. THE OWNER CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF THE STOP WORK ORDER ON AUGUST 2ND, AND STAFF SCHEDULED A SITE VISIT WITH THE OWNER FOR AUGUST 23RD. ON AUGUST 23RD, STAFF CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT TO THE PROPERTY AND ISSUED A PHYSICAL STOP WORK ORDER. THE OWNER, APPLICANT AND CONTRACTORS WERE PRESENT FOR THE SITE VISIT. STAFF OBSERVED THAT RIGID FOAM INSTALLATION RIGID FOAM WAS INSTALLED OVER THE EXISTING STUCCO AND THE MAJORITY OF THE STRUCTURE, A MOISTURE BARRIER WAS INSTALLED OVER THE RIGID FOAM. AND THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW STUCCO HAD BEEN STARTED ON AT LEAST TWO OF THE ELEVATIONS. AND I APOLOGIZE, I BELIEVE THAT'S, UH, SWITCHED AROUND. IT WAS THE MOISTURE BARRIER AND THEN THE, UH, RIGID FOAM ON TOP OF THAT. UM, AND THEN THE NEW STUCCO ON TOP OF THE RIGID FOAM AND THE OWNER AND THE ARCHITECT DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE HDRC HEARING, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2023 ON AUGUST 31ST. UM, OHP STAFF OBSERVED THAT WORK ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE WAS ONGOING. DESPITE THE ISSUANCE OF A STOP WORK ORDER, STAFF ISSUED A FIFTH STOP WORK ORDER BY EMAIL ON AUGUST 31ST, 2023, AND ASSESSED A $500 POST WORK APPLICATION FEE ON THE PROPERTY. THAT $500 POST-WORK APPLICATION FEE WAS PAID ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, SEPTEMBER 6TH, UH, WAS THE HDRC HEARING THE REQUEST TO INSTALL RIGID FOAM INSTALLATION ON THE EXISTING STUCCO CLADDING. UM, AND THE APPLICATION OF NEW STUCCO ON THE FOAM WAS DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT THE REQUEST WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND DUE TO THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE ADDED EX EXTERIOR WALL THICKNESS ON THE EXISTING WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS AND THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND STAFF RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT REPAIR THE EXISTING STUCCO WITH STUCCO THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING AND COMPOSITION TEXTURE, APPLICATION TECHNIQUE, COLOR AND DETAIL. AND YOU'LL SEE THE APPLIC APPLICABLE CITATIONS LISTED HERE. AND THEN YOU CAN NOTE IN FINDINGS C THAT, UH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE INSTALLATION OF RIGID FOAM INSTALLATION INCREASES THE EXISTING WALL THICKNESS BY APPROXIMATELY TWO INCHES OR MORE. AND ALSO THE INSTALLATION OF EXTERIOR RIGID FOAM INSULATION OVER THE EXISTING STUCCO MAY PROMOTE ACCELERATED DETERIORATION OF THE EXISTING CLADDING AND WATER RETENTION ON THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE OHP STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THAT THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DENIAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR INSTALLATION OF RIGID FOAM ON THE EXISTING STUCCO CLADDING AND THE APPLICATION OF NEW STUCCO ON THE FOAM. A TREATMENT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND STAFF AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THE APPLICANT REPAIR THE EXISTING STUCCO CLADDING WITH STUCCO THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING AND COMPOSITION TEXTURE APPLICATION TECHNIQUE AND DETAIL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. PLEASE. YEAH, I'M, I'M, SO I'M GONNA START OFF WITH SOME QUESTIONS. UH, SO THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS, WELL, A FEW ISSUES. ONE IS TWO AT LEAST TWO INCHES THICKER. YES. UH, AND IS THE CORRECT WAY TO DO THIS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING STUCCO AND PUT IT ON, OR IS THERE A PROCESS THAT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO OHP WHERE THEY CAN MAIN KEEP THE EXISTING STUCCO AND PUT NEW STUCCO ON TOP OF IT? SO THE BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE TO REPAIR THE EXISTING STUCCO, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE THE ORIGINAL STUCCO THAT WAS THERE BEFORE THEY INSTALLED THE RIGID FOAM INSTALLATION AND NEW, UM, STUCCO. AND SO THAT COULD BE REMOVING THE ORIGINAL STUCCO AND THEN REPLACING THAT WITH STUCCO THAT MATCHES THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING. OKAY. UM, SO THAT IS THE BEST PRACTICE. AND IS THERE, AND IS THERE ANY, UM, PROCEDURES THAT, THAT I HEARD, I HEARD, UM, UH, A PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT'S BEING PUT ON 'CAUSE OF THE MEANS THAT THEY'RE [00:45:01] DOING IT BY PUTTING THE FOAM BARRIER ON. UH, IS THERE ANY SORT OF PRACTICE THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE USING A FOAM BARRIER THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT ALL, OR IS IT JUST NO, UH, YOU KNOW, WATER ALWAYS FINDS A WAY. SO THE CONCERN IS THAT WATER WILL FIND A WAY TO GET INSIDE OF THAT ORIGINAL STUCCO THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED, AND THAT COULD LEAD TO FURTHER DETERIORATION OF THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT? MADAM COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO ON AUGUST 22ND, IT SHOWS THAT, UM, THEY WERE WORKING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORK AND THAT, THAT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS SPECIFICALLY THIS CLADDING THAT WAS BEING PUT ON. IS IS, IS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT WE, THAT THE CITY, UH, SAW THAT THAT WAS OCCURRING WAS ON AUGUST 22ND? THAT'S CORRECT. SO, UM, THIS SCOPE OF WORK WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS TO STAFF. UM, SO WE WENT BACK AND CHECKED THE WALL SECTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE REPAIR WORK, AND THIS WAS NOT INDICATED. SO IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS A, UM, SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS DECIDED ON SITE AND THEY MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN AND MCDONALD 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, UH, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT. UM, FOR THIS APPEAL TO H DRCS DECISION FROM SEPTEMBER 6TH TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, I KNOW THESE CASES BEFORE YOU ARE RARE. UM, THE AN HD HDRC APPEAL, UM, I, I KNOW MOST OF YOU PROBABLY READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THAT MEETING AND, AND ARE AWARE OF WHAT OCCURRED. A LOT OF THE FOCUS WAS ON THE STOP WORK ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED. THERE WAS MINIMAL CONVERSATION ON, ON WHAT WAS ACTUALLY OCCURRING TO THE BUILDING AND THE LENGTHS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS GONE THROUGH TO PRESERVE THIS HISTORIC BUILDING AND, UM, PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF, OF THE STUCCO AND, AND THE MATERIALS FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING. SO I'D, I'D LIKE TO CENTER BACK ON ONTO THOSE TOPICS AND, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL AS HIS ARCHITECT, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE BUILDING AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT. UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL START MY PRESENTATION. UM, SO YOU'RE AWARE OF, OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY. THIS IS SIX 20 SOUTH PRESA. UM, IT'S THE OLD URA VEGGIE, UM, HERE IN SOUTH TOWN, SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, WE HAVE HAD PAST CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LA LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, UM, HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT'S OUTLINED IN BLUE, RED, AND, UH, GREEN. UM, IT WAS BUILT AS A RESIDENCE AT FIRST AND IT BECAME A FILLING STATION WITH A BATTERY SHOP, AND THEN IT WAS A WORKS BUILDING AND THEN SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD EATERIES UNTIL IT WAS, UH, THE SENIOR VEGGIE RE RESTAURANT. UM, SO EACH TIME THE, THE BUILDING WAS ADDED TO USING DIFFERENT MATERIALS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES, UH, COMPROMISING MATERIALS SPECIFICALLY ON THE ROOF. UM, AND SO THE LENGTHS THAT, THAT MY CLIENT HAS GONE THROUGH, UH, TO TRY AND BRING THIS, THIS BUILDING UP TO CODE WHILE, UM, RECOGNIZING THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, UH, HAS BEEN ONEROUS. UM, HERE'S A CASE HISTORY TIMELINE, SORT OF CONDENSED AND BROKEN DOWN. UM, YOU KNOW, UH, OHP DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING EVERYTHING, UM, SINCE THE BEGINNING IN, UH, IN APRIL. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PLANS WERE APPROVED OF WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE TODAY, AND IT, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT WAS APPROVED. UM, THERE WAS A, A MISSTEP WITH THE, UM, THE ETHOS, A THERMO FOAM. UM, BUT EXCEPT FOR THE EXTRA TWO INCHES, THE BUILDING LOOKS, HOW IT WAS APPROVED. UM, SO FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AND, AND NOT THE PREVIOUS STOP WORK ORDERS. UM, AUGUST 22ND, UH, THERE WAS A REPORT FROM A RESIDENT IN AN ONSITE MEETING. UH, MY CLIENT DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THERE WAS IMPENDING RAIN AND THAT, UH, WOULD'VE LEFT THE BUILDING EXPOSED AND SUBJECT TO THAT REIGN AND, AND POTENTIAL MOLD. UM, HERE ARE THE RECORD INCHES OF RAIN ON THOSE DATES AFTER THE STOP WORK ORDER. UM, AND THEN AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL STOP WORK ORDER AND FINE. AND THEN IT CAME BEFORE HDRC, UM, WHERE THE, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND REQUEST TO INSTALL THAT FOAM WAS DENIED. UM, AS I STATED, A LARGE PART OF THE FOCUS OF THAT MEETING WAS ON THE STOP WORK ORDERS. UM, THIS KIND OF GOES INTO MORE OF [00:50:01] THE, THE REIGN AND THE RECENT EVENTS AND HOW MY CLIENT WAS TRYING TO, UM, PROTECT THE BUILDING AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. UM, THIS SHOWS SOME OF THE WORK THAT WAS HAD TO BE DONE TO BRING THE BUILDING BACK TO BACK TO LIFE. UM, THERE'S A TOTAL LOSS OF THE BOND OF STUCCO ON OVER 40% OF THE BUILDING DUE TO PREVIOUS STRUCTURAL ISSUES. UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRED TO REFURBISH THE FOUNDATION AND THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING. AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, AND WE ACTUALLY BROUGHT A SAMPLE OF THE BUILDING THAT MY CLIENT CAN SHOW TO EVERYONE. UM, IT'S BACK THERE. AND, UM, THE EFIS, THE FOAM WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE STUCCO. IT WAS APPLIED TO THE MASONRY, THE BRICK, UM, THE ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE OR NOT SUBSTANCE MATERIAL OF THE BUILDING. SO NONE OF THE ORIGINAL STUCCO WAS HARMED, AND HE DID SIGN UP TO SPEAK, SO HE'S GONNA GO IN, IN AFTER ME. UM, BUT HERE IS, UH, A PICTURE OF WHAT SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE STUCCO LOOKED LIKE, SOME OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS. UM, HE TOOK GREAT CARE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT COULD BE PRESERVED WAS PRESERVED AND THEN WHAT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED WAS ALSO REPLACED. UM, YOU KNOW, GOING TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT YES, THEY DID MOVE FORWARD, UM, WITH THEIR APPROVED PLANS, UM, AND DID NOT, UH, RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL FOR THE FOAM. BUT, UM, THE FOCUS WAS ON PRESERVING THE BUILDING AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE APPROVED PLANS THAT THEY HAD HAD. OVERALL, THE STRUCTURE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN IMPROVED. UM, AND THE STUCCO WAS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE, IT WAS APPLIED OVER THE FOAM AND THEN PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS. UH, REMOVING IT NOW, UH, IT WILL BE COUNTERINTUITIVE AND WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL HAZARDS FOR, FOR THE BUILDING. UM, AGAIN, NOT TO HARP ON IT, BUT, UH, THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT WAS APPROVED AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS WERE, WERE MORE FOCUSED ON THE STOP WORK ORDER. UM, SO THE FOAM, WHILE IS NOT APPROVED BY OHP OR HDRC, IT WILL PROVIDE WEATHERIZATION, UM, SANITATION FROM RODENTS AND BUGS AND CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE STREET OR FROM THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS MORE ON THE THERMO FOAM. UM, IT REDUCES ENERGY USE AND BUILDINGS PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT. IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT RECYCLABLE AND, UH, COULD MEET ARGUABLY SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE. UM, HERE IS SOME EVIDENCE OF OTHER CITIES THAT ALLOW THIS SORT OF FOAM. UM, IT DOES REQUIRE A SPECIAL INTENTION AND SPECIAL INSPECTION, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THE CITY OF HOUSTON, UM, DOES ALLOW IT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT AND IN SUPPORT OF WHAT SUPPORT OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY, INCLUDING THE TWO EXTRA INCHES THAT WERE ADDED. UM, SPECIFICALLY THEY'RE ALL EXCITED FOR THIS BUILDING TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE. AND HERE ARE THE, THE LETTERS OF, UH, SUPPORT THAT WERE SENT IN FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. UM, THERE ARE TWO WITHIN 200 FEET THAT ARE NOT IN SUPPORT. UM, SO BY APPROVING THIS APPEAL TODAY, YOU WILL, YOU'LL SEE THE BUILDING AS IT IS PORTRAYED HERE ON THIS SLIDE. UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND CLIENT CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS BUSINESS BY OPENING THIS RESTAURANT AND BRING, UH, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO DOWNTOWN. SO WITH THAT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY SITE SPECIFIC, UM, TIMELINE CAN BE ANSWERED BY, BY MY CLIENT AND THE ARCHITECT. BUT WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. CAPTAIN KAPLAN COMM, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, UM, FOR MS. MCDONALD? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WAY THAT YOU ARE APPROACHING PUTTING THIS NEW FOAM ON IS THAT YOU ARE NOT TAKING DOWN THE OLD, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BASICALLY KEEPING THE OLD STUCCO EXTERIOR, PUTTING A FOAM BAY AREA AND THEN THE NEW STUCCO ON TOP. I, I'M GONNA LET, IS THAT THE ARCHITECT ANSWER THAT? BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO, HI, I'M PABLO TO MEET YOU ALL, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PABLO RIOS. OKAY. I AM THE, UH, OWNER OF BARRIO DOG. AND, UM, I'M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXPLANATION. I THINK THAT'S, PLEASE SPEAK IT INTO THE MIC. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE, WE LOST TRACK OF THE COMMUNICATION WITH HDRC AT THE STOP ORDER. UM, HER CONCERN REGARDING OUR WORK BEING DONE ON PREVIOUS STUCCO MM-HMM. [00:55:01] THAT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID. SO THAT BUILDING HAD TO BE SHAVED OF ALL OF ITS ORIGINAL STUCCO DOWN TO THE MASONRY. THE MASONRY IS MADE OF BRICK OR CONCRETE FROM THREE DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS. THE MASONRY IS WHAT YOU SAW THOSE CRACKS. SO YOU, IN ORDER TO ATTACH THIS NEW SYSTEM, STUCCO HAS TO BE REMOVED. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T. SO YOU DID NOT BUILD, 'CAUSE IT WAS SAID THAT BY THE, BY THE CITY THAT YOU DID BUILD ON TOP OF STUCCO. NO. AND YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU BUILT ON TOP OF STUCCO. NO, BUT YOU'RE TELLING IT'S NOT, YOU CAN SEE HERE IN OUR SAMPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO FIRST COME DOWN, YOU HAVE TO FIRST COME DOWN TO THE MASONRY IN ORDER FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK. BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO APPLY ON PREVIOUS PAINT OR STUCCO, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A PEELING EFFECT OVER TIME. SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UH, THE BUILDING IS TAKEN DOWN TO ITS ORIGINAL BRICK OR CONCRETE BLOCK WITHOUT DAMAGING IT. THEN THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS COATED WITH A SEAL COAT. IT'S A LEXION SEAL COAT THAT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR PRESERVING WATER PENETRATION AND AIR PENETRATION PRIOR TO THE THERMO FOAM BEING ATTACHED. SO THE THERMO FOAM IN ITS THICKEST IS TWO INCHES, BUT IT'S ONE INCH THERMO FOAM. OKAY. THEN FROM THERE IT HAS A THERMO FOAM BOND, A FIBERGLASS REINFORCEMENT. IT HAS LEXAN SEALANT BEFORE IT GETS THE ORIGINAL STUCCO REPLACEMENT. OKAY. THEN YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL STUCCO, AND THEN WE GO INTO SEAL AND PAINT. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS WHAT WAS APPROVED ON OUR HDRC AS FAR AS VISUAL. IT DOESN'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT IF WE ALL DROVE THERE TODAY. WHAT IS ON MY HDRC APPROVAL IS WHAT WE BUILT. I COMPLETELY APOLOGIZED FOR, FOR THE, FOR NOT ABIDING BY THE STOP WORK ORDER, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO PRESERVE THIS BUILDING FROM ANY FURTHER DAMAGE. HOLD A SECOND. YEAH, YOU LIFT THAT. NOW HOW IS THIS TWO INCHES THICKER THAN THE ORIGINAL STUCCO? HOW THICK WAS THE ORIGINAL STUCCO? SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THICK THE ORIGINAL STUCCO, BECAUSE IT WAS LAYERS AND LAYERS OVER TIME. THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS FROM 1896. THE FILL STATION CAME IN 1931 AND THEN BY 1935 THEY HAD AN ARMATURE FACILITY. SO IT WAS ADAPTED TO OVER TIME AND EVEN AF AFTER THAT. UM, EVEN AFTER THAT, UH, EVERY OWNER SUBSEQUENT TO THAT FOR THE LAST ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS, HAS ADDED THINGS TO THE BUILDING. THE ENTIRE STOREFRONT OF THE BUILDING WAS MADE OF PARTICLE BOARD AND YOU CAN LITERALLY SHAPE THE BUILDING. CAN YOU TURN THAT TO, CAN YOU SAY HOW, HOW THICK? IT LOOKS LIKE FOUR INCHES. SO, SO THIS IS, THIS IS REPRESENTING THE BRICK, THE WALL. THIS IS ACTUALLY, YEAH. SEE THAT'S BRICK. WE TURN IT AROUND. YOU CAN SEE THE STUCCO. SO LET, LET'S, LET'S JUST BREAK THIS DOWN REAL QUICK. YOU TAKE IT DOWN TO THE ORIGINAL CONCRETE, CONCRETE, BRICK, CONCRETE OR BRICK INCH OVER HERE. YEAH. SO WE GOT ONE INCH OF FOAM. YEAH. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DIFFERENT STUCCO APPLICATIONS. WELL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. AND THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE HDRC IS REPRESENTING THAT YOU'RE ADDING TWO INCHES TO THE HDRC IS SAYING THAT IF WITH THE STUCCO IS REMOVED AND THEN THEY ADD NEW STUCCO, THAT WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS, IS THE FOAM. AND THE FOAM IS BETWEEN ONE TO TWO INCHES THICK AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GETTING THAT TWO INCH NUMBER FROM. BUT THE, BUT THE HG RC IS ALSO SAYING THAT YOU'RE BUILDING OVER THE EXISTING STUCCO, WHICH IS GONNA CAUSE A MOISTURE ISSUE. SO WE NEED TO HAVE THE HC BACK UP. RIGHT, EXACTLY. BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M GETTING TWO DIFFERENT, SO HERE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. COMMISSIONER KA, PLEASE, UH, FINISH YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONINGS FOR THE ARCHITECT AND THEN WE'LL BRING THE HDRC UP AS A REBUTTAL. OKAY. NOW THE OTHER THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I'VE DONE SOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE PAST, IS WHEN YOU DO CONSTRUCTION AND YOU'RE STRIPPING YOUR ROOF OR WHATEVER, YOU PUT A TARP OVER IT, WHY DID YOU FEEL YOU COULDN'T PUT A TARP OVER THE BUILDING BECAUSE OF THE RAIN INSTEAD OF GOING AHEAD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION? YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THAT TARPING THE WHOLE BUILDING. IT'S A 2,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. I DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT. I, I APOLOGIZE. WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS JUST GET THE BUILDING COVERED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO PREVENT ANY LONG TERM, NOT NOT JUST SURFACE WET, BUT IF ANYTHING GETS THROUGH THESE LAYERS BEFORE WE FINISH THE WHOLE PROJECT. SO LET'S GET, LET'S GET THE, UH, STAFF BACK UP TO RESPOND ABOUT THE, UH, THE EXISTING STUCCO. SO WHERE DID THAT, UH, UM, COME FROM? FROM YES, THAT WAS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING FROM THE SITE VISIT THAT THE MOISTURE BARRIER AND THE FOAM HAD BEEN INSTALLED OVER THE EXISTING STUCCO. SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE EXISTING STUCCO WAS [01:00:01] REMOVED. UM, HOWEVER, STAFF WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF THAT EXTERIOR FOAM AND THE ADDITIONAL DEPTH. OKAY. UM, MR. KAPLAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP? UH, AND SO, OKAY, SO YOU CLAIM THAT YOU DID STRIP OFF ALL OF THE OLD STUCCO. IT WAS MANDATORY. WE COULDN'T, WAS THERE ANY PROOF? I MEAN HDRC CITY, CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? YOU MUST USE A MICROPHONE. WE'RE LIVE Y'ALL, WHOEVER YOU'RE QUESTIONING. OKAY. SO WE, WAS THERE ANY PROOF THAT YOU'D STRIPPED IT DOWN? WHEN WE WERE IN COMMUNICATION WITH HDRC, PRIOR TO THE STOP ORDER, THEY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND THEY REQUESTED ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS OF WHAT WE WERE ADDING. I SENT THAT TO HER. AND IN THAT, AND IN THOSE PHOTOS, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT ALL, ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE WERE DOING WAS TO THE, TO THE MASONRY, NOT THE STUCCO. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER MANNA AND THEN COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. SO COMMISSIONER MANDA. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR THIS, FOR CITY STAFF, UM, REGARDING, I GUESS THE USE OF THE FOAM ITSELF. AND SO FROM A, FROM AN H HR H-R-D-H-H-R-C-C-R-C PERSPECTIVE, SO, SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO USING FOAM FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE? UM, IN, IN THIS AREA OR, OR REALLY IN, IN ANY HISTORICAL HOME. SO IS IT JUST NOT PERMITTED ANYWHERE OR, OR WHAT ARE THESES WHERE IT WOULD BE PERMITTED? SURE. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, UM, WHAT YOU'RE ADDING IS DEPTH TO THE EXTERIOR AND THAT'S INCREASING WINDOW AND DOOR OPENING DEPTHS AS WELL. SO THAT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE. THE VIS IT VISUALLY IMPACTS THE STRUCTURE. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, OUR HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE USE OF E FS IS, UM, IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES. UM, I WILL ALSO STATE THAT I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE STOP WORK ORDER PHOTOS FROM OUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF THE FOAM AND THE MOISTURE BARRIER ON TOP OF THE EXISTING STUCCO. SO THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN OUR PRESENTATION IN THE, IN THE INVESTIGATION REPORT, BUT IF WE CAN, WE CAN PULL THOSE UP. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FROM AN OR EARLIER STOP ORDER ORDER. AND, AND AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, SO, SO, SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S GREAT. THE GUIDELINE FROM HCRC IS THAT, THAT WOULD APPLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WITH REGARDS TO LAYING FOAM. AND, AND IS IT ON TOP OF ANY, UM, ANY RE CLADDING OF ANY WALL OR IS IT SPECIFICALLY STUCCO THAT THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING STUCCO SHOULD NOT BE WITH S FUSS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. OKAY. UH, MY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YES. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP, PLEASE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THIS BOARD TO DO IS TO SECOND GUESS WHAT'S THE DECISION OF THE HDRC. AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE. YOU HAD TO, TO, TO, FOR THIS BOARD TO GIVE YOU THE KIND OF RELIEF YOU'RE ASKING FOR. AS I SEE IT, YOU HAVE TO PROVE TO US THAT THE HDRC MADE SOME KIND OF MIS UH, OF ERROR, PROCEDURAL ERROR, LEGAL ERROR. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT FROM YOU. WELL, SIR, UM, THE, IN HER PRESENTATION, UH, SHE, HER, HER PREMISE WAS THAT WE ADDED WHAT WE DID TO EXISTING STUCCO, WHICH CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN WHICH WOULD CAUSE IT TO DETERIORATE OVER TIME AND CAUSED WATER PENETRATION. SO WHAT SHE SAID IN HER, IN HER PRESENTATION IS A CONCERN, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID. AND WE NEVER GOT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE HDRC MEETING 'CAUSE THEY WERE STUCK ON THE STOP WORK ORDER. SO WHAT I'M HERE FOR IS FOR EARS TO LISTEN IN CLARITY OF WHAT ACTUALLY WAS DONE TO THE BUILDING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WE'RE HERE TO PROVE WHAT WE ACTUALLY DID TO THE BUILDING, NOT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY SAW. 'CAUSE WHAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY SAW, OBVIOUSLY IS INCORRECT. WELL, I'M, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OKAY. BRAMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, I'M JUST WONDERING, COULD YOU NOT HAVE REPLACED THE OLD STUCCO WITH NEW STUCCO, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE BY HDRC GUIDELINES? SO IN OUR REPORT, YOU CAN SEE, THE AMOUNT OF DETERIORATION TO THE BUILDING WAS CA ACTUALLY CAUSED FOUNDATION AND ROOF ISSUES. SO WE HAD TO REPLACE THE FOUNDATION AND THE ROOF BEFORE EVEN ADDRESSING THE WALLS. NOW, IF WE WERE TO DO PATCHWORK ON THAT STUCCO, LIKE EVERY PREVIOUS OWNER FOR THE LAST A HUNDRED YEARS, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO LOOK LIKE AN EYESORE WITHIN THE NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS. SO THIS IS GOING TO, UH, MAKE THE BUILDING LOOK LIKE IT SHOULD COHESIVELY ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS APPROVED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU AND OUR APPROVAL, AND IF YOU DRIVE BY THE RESTAURANT RIGHT NOW, IT'S IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS APPROVED. SHE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING SHAPE OF WINDOWS AND ELEVATIONS THAT [01:05:01] WAS APPROVED. WE DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. IF ANYTHING, THE ONLY THING THAT WAS CHANGED WAS A FOUR INCH ROOF HEIGHT, WHICH THEY APPROVED BACK IN JULY. AND THAT ROOF HEIGHT WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE TRUSS SYSTEM THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. THE PREVIOUS ROOF SYSTEM WAS TWO BY FOURS LAYING DOWN WITH CORRUGATED METAL. IT COULD HAVE FALLEN ON SOMEBODY. IT WAS A, IT WAS A SAFETY HAZARD. SO ALL WE'VE BEEN DOING IS WHAT IS TO CODE TO THE CITY ALWAYS MAINTAINING THE PRESERVATION OF THIS BUILDING. WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE WE'RE NOT HERE TO CREATE PROBLEMS. I DID NOT WANT TO START, UH, MY RESTAURANT CAREER IN SAN ANTONIO. THIS WAY. I'M APOLOGETIC SINCERELY FOR EVEN TAKING THIS MUCH TIME FROM Y'ALL. BUT, UH, WHAT WE DID WAS THE BEST FOR THE BUILDING FROM THE MOMENT THAT WE CAME IN. IT WAS TO PRESERVE THIS BUILDING. SO MY QUESTION REALLY WAS IS IF YOU WERE, IF YOU STRIPPED OFF THE, THE STUCCO MM-HMM. . AND YOU WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE MASONRY. YEAH. WHY COULD YOU NOT USE STUCCO? IT WOULD BANKRUPT MY PROJECT. OH. I MORTGAGED MY HOME TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND INTO SAN ANTONIO. SO THIS ETHOS IS LESS EXPENSIVE? NO, IT'S NOT LESS EXPENSIVE. THEN WHY COULD YOU NOT HAVE USED STUCCO? REAL STUCCO INSTEAD OF STUCCO WOULD'VE BEEN A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM. THERE'S NO WATER BARRIER IF YOU CONTINUE. OKAY, I'M GONNA STEP IN. YEAH. WHAT SHE HAS BEEN ASKING UHHUH MULTIPLE TIMES WAS IF YOU REMOVE THE STUCCO DOWN TO THE MASONRY AND YOU PUT NEW STUCCO ON TOP OF THE FOAM, WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST PUT THE STUCCO ON TOP OF THE EXPOSED MASONRY? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A, THAT WOULDN'T BE A PERMANENT SOLUTION. IT'S, IT'S, IT CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE, THE CONDITION OF THE MASONRY. YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITION OF THE MASONRY. SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE, THE USE OF STUCCO ON THAT MASONRY WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BUILDING? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN HAS A FLOOR STILL. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROWN. THAT WOULD BE MS. BROWN. OH, SORRY. LISTEN, I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO REPRIMAND YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, BUT YOU DIDN'T, YOU BOUGHT A BUILDING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WE HAVE GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. AND YOU FAILED TO, TO, TO, TO LIVE BY THEM. YOU WANTED TO DO THINGS YOUR WAY AND YOU DID 'EM WRONG. NO, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT FOAM THAT YOU PUT IN THERE IS OVER THE TIME IT'S GOING TO CRUMBLE INTO NOTHING. THAT'S NOT, NO, IT'S NOT A MOISTURE BARRIER. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT WAS EVEN DESIGNED TO DO. IT. IT ACTUALLY IS. IF YOU LOOK IN THE REPORT, I HAVE THE, ALL OF THE INFORMATION REGARDING THERMO FOAM, IF ANYBODY READ THE REPORT, THERE'S ABOUT 150 PAGES ABOUT MATERIAL. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY USED FOR BUILDING MATERIAL. SO IT'S NOT JUST SOME FOAM FROM WHAT MICHAEL, WHATEVER WAS, SIR, YOU DIDN'T GO BY THE GUIDELINES AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE AND YOU GOT FIVE CITATIONS TO STOP WORK AND YOU FAILED TO EVEN DO THAT. SO I, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SUPPORT YOU. I'M SORRY. OKAY. I, I HAVE IT. SO I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO A LOT OF THIS QUESTIONS. AND SO ONE OF THE, WHERE I, WHERE I'D LIKE TO HEAR IS, UM, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOUR PLANS INCLUDED THE USE OF FOAM WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY GOT YOUR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS. SO MY CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN APRIL WAS TO DO COMPLETE REPAIR OF STUCCO AND COMPLETE PAINT. THE RENDERINGS THAT WE SUBMITTED WERE AS WHAT WE BUILT. I NEVER, WELL, NOT THE RENDERINGS. THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT IMPLANTS WELL, THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT THE OUTSIDE LOOKS VERY SIMILAR. SO STAFF IS SAYING THAT THE, THE PREMISE OF WHERE THEY'RE AGAINST THE FOAM IS THAT THERE IS A INCREASED THICKNESS, WHICH CHANGES A LOOK IN RELATION BETWEEN THE BUILDING WALL AND THE WINDOWS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE BIG PROBLEM IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. YOU'RE, AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS THAT YOU, YOU PURPOSELY DID THIS TO MAKE THE BUILDING STRONGER AND, AND, AND BETTER. BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, LIKE, THERE'S GOTTA BE A WAY TO INSTALL STUCCO WHEN YOU STRIPPED OFF THE OLD STUCCO. THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME WAY TO DO IT TO WHERE IT WOULD BE HDRC. DID YOU DISCUSS, DID YOU DISCUSS AT ALL, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU COULD DO OR HOW YOU COULD INSTALL THE STUCCO TO WHERE IT WOULD MAKE THEM HAPPY, BUT YET STILL BE FUNCTIONAL AS A MOISTURE BARRIER AND STRUCTURALLY SOUND? WHEN HDRC GOT INVOLVED, WE WERE 75% DONE WITH THE PROJECT. IT WAS, IT, IT'S NOT LIKE, UM, WE WERE JUST STARTING OFF. IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A PROBLEM TO EVEN PULL THAT OFF AT THAT POINT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? NO. WHO'S THIS? COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OH, OKAY. NO, I DON'T. I ALSO HAVE, UH, OUR NEIGHBOR, UH, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, WHO, WHO WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, AND HE CAN SPEAK TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO, UM, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE IMPORTANT IF YOU GO BACK UP. YEAH. WHILE WE'RE WAITING, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. OKAY. [01:10:02] CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. I WILL ASK A QUESTION LATER. OKAY. SO STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP FOR A SECOND? SO, I, I, I, I JUST, MY ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, IF THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL WAS THE SAME, WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT? I THINK THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE. UM, AT THE MOMENT. I THINK THAT IT'S NOT COMMON TO HAVE EXTERIOR INSULATION UNDERNEATH STUCCO. UM, BUT YES, THE CHANGE IN THE DEPTH FOR THE WINDOW OPENINGS AND THE DOOR OPENING. 'CAUSE BECAUSE WE'RE, BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT DOES, WHAT'S DOING THIS FOR ME IS, IS THAT WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT HE REVIEWED LAYER REMOVED LAYER UPON LAYER UPON LAYER STUCCO. MM-HMM. IF HE REMOVED ENOUGH STUCCO AND REPLACED IT WITH ONE ONE INCH FOAM, IF IT WAS WITHIN AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH OF WHAT THE PREVIOUS THICKNESS WAS, WOULD THAT BE A PROBLEM WITH HDRC? AND IF IT MATCHED THE PREVIOUS THICKNESS, UM, THE THICKNESS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE FOAM ON THE OUTSIDE. UM, HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT OUR UNDERSTANDING. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTO HERE. FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING, UM, THESE LAYERS WERE ADDED ON TOP OF THE EXISTING STUCCO AS I PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE, HOLD ON, SIR. SO DO YOU HAVE A, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF THE FOAM IF THE THICKNESS WAS THE SAME AND IT HAD STUCCO ON THE OUTSIDE? NO, I'M SAY THE THICKNESS. YEAH. IF THE THICKNESS WAS COMPARABLE, THAT'S THE SAME. IF IT WAS STUCCO REPLACING STUCCO, THAT WOULD BE FINE. WELL, EFIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT FOR STUCCO. WELL, I KNOW, BUT HE, HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE PUT STUCCO ON TOP OF THE EFIS. UM, I HEARD THAT. SO WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS THAT IF HE REMOVED, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LAYERS OF STUCCO AND IT, AND IF THAT WAS THE SAME THICKNESS AS THIS ONE INCH EFIS, THEN IF IT HAS STUCCO ON THE OUTSIDE, IS THAT A PROBLEM? IF IT'S THE SAME THICK, IF HE COULD PROVE TO US THAT IT WAS THE SAME THICKNESS, WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IF IT WAS A STUCCO EXTERIOR? THE FOAM INSTALLATION, THE FOAM INSTALLATION INSTALLATION IS NOT CONSIDERED A BEST PRACTICE. UM, SO I, I THINK THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD STAND THAT IT SHOULD BE, THE STUCCO SHOULD REPLACE THE EXISTING STUCCO TO MASS. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I'M HEARING THE BIG ISSUE WITH THICKNESS, AND WHEN I HEAR THAT HE REMOVED MULTIPLE LAYERS OF STUCCO WITH ONE INCH OF, OF THIS FOAM, IF THE THICKNESS WAS COMPARABLE AND IT STILL HAS STUCCO ON THE OUTSIDE, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE ISSUE IS. SURE. THIS INFORMATION ALSO WAS NOT PRESENTED TO HDRC, SO THIS IS NEW INFORMATION. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. HOLD, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. SO QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO, SO, UM, SO DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, SO I, SO I HEAR THERE'S TWO, TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE, THAT I GUESS THE WORD ADDRESSING. ONE IS THE ACTUAL, UM, UM, THICKNESS, UH, OF THE, OF WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE. AND THE SECOND PIECE IS THE ACTUAL USE OF FOAM. SO ON, WE'LL SAY HISTORICAL BUILT. WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE STANDARD GUIDELINE FOR HOW IT IS THAT YOU WOULD INSULATE A BUILDING? UM, SO, SO, SO THE EXAMPLE BEING PROVIDED HERE IS PUT IT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL. SO, SO IS, SO, SO IF I WAS GONNA INSULATE A BUILDING, WHAT WOULD BE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROVIDING THAT INSULATION? YEAH, SO WE DO HAVE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR, UM, THERMAL EFFICIENCY AND, UH, INTERIOR INSULATION WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE. SO WE DO CONSIDER DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREATMENTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO REVIEW ANY OTHER TYPES OF PROPOSALS. UM, THIS IS NOT HOW THIS WAS PRESENTED TO STAFF, AND THAT'S NOT HOW STAFF REVIEWED THIS REQUEST. AND IT'S NOT WHAT THE HDRC SAW EITHER. SO THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE WIDTH THAT THE, THE THICKNESS GOING BACK FOR THICKNESS DIALOGUE FOR A SECOND IS ABOUT THE EXTERIOR THICKNESS BEING INCREASED. BUT IF WE PUT THE INSULATION ON THE INSIDE WALL, WE WOULD STILL BE INCREASING THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL. AND SO WOULD THE, WOULD STAFF HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF THE WALL THICKNESS INCREASED BY THE TWO INCHES OR WHATEVER IT IS? OH, INSIDE HP DOES NOT HAVE ANY PURVIEW OVER INTERIOR SCOPES OF WORK. THANK YOU. YES. HEY, KAPLAN BRAGMAN, SHE WAS NEXT. AND THEN KAPLAN, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO I'M GOING BACK TO WHY YOU WOULD NOT REPLACE THE STUCCO IF YOU REMOVE THE STUCCO AND PUT NEW STUCCO. WHY THAT THAT WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT THIS ETHOS IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE STUCCO. AND STUCCO HAS BEEN USED FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG TIME. AND YOU CAN PUT MOISTURE BARRIERS ON IT. YOU CAN PUT ELASTOMER PAINT ON IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN DO WITH STUCCO THAT MAKES IT, YOU KNOW. ABSOLUTELY. UM, IF WE CAN JUST GO UP A COUPLE OF PAGES ON HERE. YOU CAN GO BACK. SO STOP RIGHT THERE. SO YOU CAN TELL THIS IS THE CONDITION OF THE MASONRY. SO IT WAS ALL STRIPPED DOWN. YOU SEE THAT ALL OF THIS WAS BRICK. AND IF YOU LOOK, THIS IS THE BACK PART OF THE BUILDING, THE MASONRY. SIR, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SO SORRY THAT [01:15:01] IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK PART OF THE BUILDING, THIS WAS THE ARMATURE REPAIR FACILITY BEFORE IT WAS THE, UM, THE, THE RESTAURANT IN THE CENTER, THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF MASONRY, BUT ALL OF THE STUCCO WAS TAKEN OFF, YOU SEE, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT OVER DETERIORATION OF TIME PERIODS, THERE'S EVEN HOLES IN SOME OF THE BRICK. YOU CAN TELL, UH, HOW A DETERIORATED AND ROTTED OUT IT HAS ALREADY HAD BEEN BECAUSE OF WATER DAMAGE, BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS STUCCO REPLACEMENT AND REPLACEMENT. THERE'S NO TRUE WATER BARRIER THAT WAS IN THAT BUILDING. SO IF WE WANTED TO SEE A BUILDING HERE IN THE FUTURE, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT IT FROM CONTINUING TO FALL APART. THERE WERE MAJOR CRACKS THAT I INCLUDED IN, IN, UM, IN OUR PRESENTATION. IF YOU WANT TO, CAN YOU SCROLL SO YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE DETERIORATION. LOOK, THIS IS A CRACK HERE. YEAH. THIS IS MY ARCHITECT. HELLO. MY NAME'S, UH, L TENORIO 67 0 7 WEST HOUSEMAN, UH, ARCHITECT OF RECORD. UH, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO, UH, SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, UH, TO THE, THE CRACKS AND THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS, UH, ON THE BUILDING. SO ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT THE, THAT THE FOAM INSTALLATION HELPED WITH WAS, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF MATERIALS. UH, WE HAD, YOU CAN SEE THEIR BRICK, THEIR CMU WALLS. THERE'S CONCRETE WALLS. UH, WERE, I BELIEVE THE THREE PRIMARY BUILDINGS FROM THE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT WERE BUILT, THEY WEREN'T ALL ALIGNED EITHER. SO SOME OF 'EM, THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS HAVE DIFFERENT THICKNESSES FROM THE INSIDES OF THE OUTSIDE. SO ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT THE FOAM DID WAS IT, WE, WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF STRAIGHTEN THE WALLS OUT. A LOT OF 'EM BOAT OUT, THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE CRACKS THAT YOU SEE THERE, UH, THE OFFSET. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PABLO DID AND HIS TEAM WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE ABLE TO SHAVE SOME OF THE STUCK ON THE INSIDE, PUT IT ON THE WALL, KIND OF FLATTENED THE, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING. WHICH IN REALITY, IF YOU CAME BACK WITH, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL TALKING ABOUT THE REAL STUCCO, THE MASONRY, UH, YOU PROBABLY COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT AGAIN, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE A, A THICKNESS TO IT. THE PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT WITH, WITH THE REAL STUCCO IS YOU CAN ONLY DO CERTAIN THICKNESS WITH CONCRETE BEFORE YOU GET TOO THICK WITH IT. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU GET, LIKE HE SAID, UM, SIX, 12 MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, THERE HE IS AGAIN, UH, TRYING TO REPAIR THE, THE ACTUAL CONCRETE AS A FO AS OPPOSED TO FIXING IT WITH THE, UH, WITH THE, IF THIS WAS ONE THING, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CURRENT CODE, THE IECC CURRENTLY REQUIRES ALL MASONRY BUILDINGS TO HAVE CONTINUOUS INSULATION PUT ON THEM ON THE OUTSIDE. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A HISTORIC BUILDING, BUT ANY NEW BUILDING GOING UP RIGHT NOW REQUIRES PER THE IECC THAT YOU HAVE CONTINUOUS INSULATION ON YOUR EXTERIOR OF YOUR BUILDING TO GET THE R VALUE THAT'S REQUIRED PER THE NEW CODE. OKAY. SO TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. NUMBER ONE, UH, WHEN YOU FIRST REALIZED THAT YOU HAD A, YOU WERE USING THIS FOAM, WHY WASN'T IT PART OF YOUR PLANS WHEN YOU FIRST SUBMITTED? WELL, MY, AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, UH, AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR STAFF, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER IT IF YOU'VE, IF YOU'VE, UH, DID ENOUGH WORK TO THIS BUILDING WHERE YOU, YOU WENT OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD MM-HMM. , DOES, DOES THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRE YOU TO FOLLOW THAT NEW ICC STANDARD WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXTERIOR INSULATION? UM, THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. OKAY. BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE FIRST ONE. WHEN DID YOU REALIZE THAT YOU WERE USING THIS FOAM IN RELATION TO YOUR APPROVED? SO MY, MY DRAWINGS WERE A LITTLE VAGUE, JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, AND I HADN'T REALLY STUDIED HOW DAMAGED THE, UH, STUCCO WAS AT THE TIME I WAS HIRED. ORIGINALLY STARTED OFF AS AN INTERIOR REMODEL TO THE PROJECT. AND IT JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE ENGINEERS GOT IN THERE, IT JUST BECAME LARGER, LARGER, LARGER PROJECT. AND SO MY ORIGINAL DRAWINGS HAD, YOU KNOW, REPAIR, YOU KNOW, HAD KIND OF A GENERIC NODE ON THE EXTERIOR, UH, WHICH SAID, YOU KNOW, REPAIR, FIX THE, THE CRACKS OR, YOU KNOW, TO THE, UH, TO THE STUCCO. WHEN PABLO GOT IT WITH HIS TEAM, THAT'S WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE FOAM SOLUTION, UH, AROSE. SO THIS QUESTION THEN GOES TO STAFF, IF THEY DID ENOUGH, UH, WORK ON THE BUILDING WHERE THEY WENT BEYOND THAT 50% VALUE THRESHOLD, DID HE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE ICC AND HAVE EXTERIOR, UM, INSULATION ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE MASONRY? AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK ON AN HISTORIC BUILDING STAFF. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR PERMITTING STAFF. UM, MANY TIMES IT WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS DESIGNATED HISTORIC. OKAY. I, I, I, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT WORKS. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. AND I, IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT FROM, UH, MAYBE IS THERE SOMEONE THAT YOU CAN GRAB FROM THE, UH, BUILDING AND REVIEW DEPARTMENT AND WE CAN GO GO ON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING? YES, SIR. WE CAN FIND SOMEBODY TO COME DOWN. AWESOME. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. CAPTAIN. LEMME ASK THIS. OKAY. SO IT SAYS HERE THAT JULY 21ST, UM, YOU MET THE APPLICANT, [01:20:01] MET WITH HDRC STIPULATION, MET THE H-D-R-C-H-D-R-C STIPULATIONS, AND RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE APPROVED SCOPE OF WORK. SO THE QUESTION IS, AND I MAY BE FOR BOTH OF YOU THE ARCHITECT, WHAT, HOW DID WHAT THEY WERE DOING DIFFER FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED? SURE. THAT INITIAL SCOPE OF WORK IN JULY, THAT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED AS WORK, THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF APPROVAL WAS FOR THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO THE PARAPET WALL AND THE COLUMNS. SO THEY WERE INCREASING THE WALL AND COLUMN HEIGHT, UM, I THINK TO, UH, MAKE SPACE FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND THE INTERIOR ROOF SPACE. YEAH, STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS. UM, SO THAT'S A SEPARATE SCOPE OF WORK FROM, BUT FROM WHAT'S BEING REVIEWED TODAY. SO AT THAT TIME, UH, THEY WERE NOT THEN CLADDING THE EXTERIOR AND FOAM. THAT WAS A LATER SCOPE OF WORK FOLLOWING THE JULY SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS LATER APPROVED BY THE HGRC. OKAY. SO YOU, BUT IT SAYS HERE, MS. KAPLAN, YOUR, I'M SORRY, MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. IT'S HERE THAT THEY WERE APPROVED THEN FOR THE INCREASED HEIGHT IN THE PARAPET AND WALL. CORRECT. BUT THEN THEY PROCEEDED TO DO MORE CONSTRUCTION AND THAT WAS, WHAT WERE THEY DOING THAT, THAT DID? IS THAT WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY PUT ON THE FOAM AND CORRECT. SO THEN IT WAS, I SEE, OKAY. FROM THE TIME THAT THEY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE INCREASE IN, UH, PARAPET HEIGHT AND COLUMN HEIGHT IN JULY, AT THE END OF AUGUST IS WHEN WE RECEIVED THE REPORT THAT WORK WAS TAKING PLACE THAT SEEMED TO ALSO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF APPROVAL. GOT IT. THE SCOPE OF APPROVED WORK, AND THAT WAS THE EXTERIOR CLADDING. GOT IT. SO THIS WAS NEVER APPROVED THE EXTERIOR, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DOING THE EXTERIOR EXTERIOR CLADDING. CORRECT, YES. THAT WAS NOT PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS PREVIOUSLY. OKAY. SO MR. RIO, SO WHY DID YOU DO IT? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? OKAY. YOU WERE NEVER GIVEN PERMISSION TO PUT ON THIS FOAM AND THE WAY, AND THE CLADDING YOU DID. WHY DID YOU DO IT? YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD NO PERMISSION TO DO IT. SO OUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR HAD COMPLETE STUCCO REPAIR AND REFINISH OF THE EXTERIOR, INCLUDING COLORS, INCLUDING RENDERINGS. I NEVER THOUGHT, WE NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAD TO GO BACK AND SPECIFY MATERIALS THAT ARE UNDER THE STUCCO, BECAUSE OOHP IS LOOKING AT WHAT VISUALLY IS, UH, PRESENTED COMPARED TO WHAT WE, UH, BUILT OUT. AND SO WHAT WE BUILT OUT IS WHAT WAS ON THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN APRIL. IT WAS, UH, A MISTAKE TO NOT COME TO THEM FOR, UH, FOR ADVICE. UM, BUT WE DID WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE BUILDING ALWAYS AS AN INTENT. OKAY. UH, MADAM, THAT ANSWER YOUR, HOLD ON, ON COMMISSIONER, HE WAS IN LINE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SIR. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR A CONTRACTOR. I DON'T WORK IN CONSTRUCTION. I'M LITERALLY LEARNING ABOUT THIS STUFF JUST NOW. BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU USE EITHER, UH, WELL, FOR, FOR ONE THING, ARE YOU GUYS USING THE, WHAT IS IT EFIS OR ARE YOU HAVING A THERMAL INSULATED FOAM WITH STUCCO OVER IT? SO, UH, THE MATERIAL IS CALLED THERMO FOAM, AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR, UH, CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR NORMAL FOAM. UM, I'VE INCLUDED ALL OF THE MATERIAL DETAILS IN OUR REPORT, SO YES, IT WAS, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, UM, A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED MATERIAL. OKAY. WELL, IN THAT CASE, WHAT, WHAT, THIS MATERIAL WASN'T SPECIFIED ON ANY PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, RIGHT? AM I, AM I CORRECT ON THAT? IT WAS SPECIFIED WHEN, UM, WE ORIGINALLY HEARD FROM RACHEL. UH, WHEN SHE CONTACTED US, SHE ASKED US FOR MATERIAL INFORMATION, UH, UPDATED RENDERING, SHOWING, UH, WALL ELEVATIONS, UM, AND ADDITIONAL PHOTOS. SO THAT'S, UH, RIGHT AROUND THE AUGUST 22ND, 23RD TIME PERIOD. AND I DO HAVE AN EMAIL LOG FOR THAT. ALRIGHT. AND I GUESS MY FINAL QUESTION IS, IS IT REALLY, WAS IT REALLY LIKE THAT MUCH CHEAPER THEN OR THAT MUCH EASIER TO INSTALL WITH THIS, WITH THERMO FOAM THAN JUST TAKING THE STUCCO COMPLETELY DOWN AND THEN REPLACING IT? BECAUSE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE HISTORICAL GUIDELINES DO ALLOW FOR FULL REPLACEMENT, SO LONG AS THE MATERIALS COMPOSITION, TEXTURE AND GENERAL APPEARANCE MATCH WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE. AND IT DOES LIST E ETHOS, WELL, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS EFIS OR NOT, BUT IT LISTS THAT SPECIFICALLY AS, AS NOT ALLOWED. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO GET TO THE POINT IS WHY NOT JUST TAKE ALL THE STUCCO DOWN AND REPLACE IT WITH, WITH NEW STUCCO? UM, SO THE, UH, CHOICE TO USE THE THERMO FOAM, UM, WAS BECAUSE OF THE TER THE DETERIORATION OF THE STUCCO. ONCE WE GOT IT TO THAT POINT, [01:25:01] RIGHT, TO LEVEL OUT THE FACADE WAS TO LE BECAUSE ONCE YOU START TO TAKE AWAY THOSE LAYERS, YOU START TO SEE THE IMPERFECTIONS IN THE ENTIRE WALL BECAUSE THERE'S MOVEMENT OVER THE LAST A HUNDRED YEARS. OKAY. UM, SO FOR US, UH, THE DETERMINATION TO KEEP THE BUILDING, UH, STRUCTURALLY SOUND AS WELL AS PRESERVING THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS IS THE REASON THAT WE DECIDED TO USE THAT MATERIAL. OKAY. BUT WE DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER. THIS WAS NOT A CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE. THIS IS A, AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL LAST A HUNDRED YEARS VERSUS SIX TO 12 MONTHS. UM, ANOTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS, UH, THE PICTURES THAT THEY, UH, CONTINUE TO SHOW ARE FROM BACK IN AUGUST. UM, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. ALL OF THE STUCCO WORK IS, AS YOU SEE HERE, IF WE WERE NOT APPROVED OR GIVEN A VARIANCE, THIS BUILDING WOULD NEVER GET OPENED UP BECAUSE I WOULDN'T BE IN A BANKRUPT SITUATION. I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S NO SOLUTION THAT THEY'VE PRESENTED TO US. E EVEN IF WE REMOVED ALL THIS EFIS TOMORROW, THE BUILDING WOULD STILL BE A DILAPIDATED RUNDOWN, BROKEN BRICK BUILDING. AND NO ONE HAS A SOLUTION FOR THAT. SHE STILL HAS NOT PRESENTED A SOLUTION. ALL THEY SAY IS YOU CAN JUST PATCH IT UP AND PUT SOME STUCCO. BUT THAT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE. OKAY. SO ON, ON THAT NOTE, SO YOU TAKE IT DOWN TO THE BRICK, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE PUTTING THE FOAM IN. SO CAN YOU CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS? DID YOU LOOK AT PUTTING A MASONRY GROUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STONE TO, TO USE THAT TO MAKE, TO FLATTEN IT OUT BEFORE YOU PUT A STUCCO APPLICATION? IT WAS THAT AN OPTION. AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS WHAT IS THE ACTUAL INCREASE IN THICKNESS? OKAY. FROM THE FACE OF THE MA, UH, WHEN YOU WENT DOWN TO THE BRICK WALL TO YOUR FINISHED PRODUCT, WHAT WAS THE LOSS OF THE STUCCO THAT YOU TOOK, TOOK OUT COMPARED TO THE FOAM THAT YOU PUT IN? IS IT TWO INCHES? IS IT ONE INCH? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I I WOULD SAY THAT IN, IN THE DEEPEST PARTS OF THE STRIPPING AWAY OF THE STUCCO, YOU COULD GET ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OF MORTAR THAT WAS KIND OF GA GOUGED IN THERE OVER THE YEARS. AND THE FOAM'S ONE INCH. SO THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN A HALF INCH TO AN INCH OF INCREASED THICKNESS. IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IS WHEN THEY APPROVE THE HEIGHT, RIGHT, IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS BUILDING TO SCALE AND ACTUALLY PRESERVE THE HISTORIC LOOK, THE THE OVERALL THICKNESS MATCHES TO SCALE AND, AND, AND THE, AND IS THERE A, UH, MASONRY PRODUCT THAT YOU CAN PUT ON THE OUTSIDE TO LEVEL IT AS OPPOSED TO USING THE FOAM? IS THERE SUCH A THING? I, I'M, I'M SURE I DON'T KNOW OF ONE. I'M SURE THAT A PRODUCT WOULD EXIST, BUT THE OTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IS THE WEIGHT. SO USING CONCRETE AND CONCRETE AND CONCRETE RIGHT OVER, OVER FOUND OVER DILAPIDATING FOUNDATION AND WALLS, THAT WOULD'VE CAUSED A BIGGER, IS THAT, HOW, IS THAT A STANDARD FOUNDATION? OR IS IT PEER AND BEAM? PIER AND BEAM, WE HAD TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION. YEAH, YOU HAD TO REPE THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE STRUCTURE. FORGET THE NUMBER OF APPEARS YOU HAD TO PUT IN. OKAY. COMPLETE FOUNDATION REPLACEMENT AND COMPLETE ROOF REPLACEMENT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUE COMMISSIONER MANANA AND THEN UNA? OKAY. YEAH, SO THIS QUESTION'S FOR CITY STAFF. SO, UM, SO CITY STAFF, AND SO THE QUESTION I HAD WAS REGARDING, UM, SO THE, THE SHEATHING ITSELF IS KIND OF THE SECOND PART OF THE DIALOGUE. AND SO THEY CHOSE TO USE THE FOAM SHEATHING AS THEIR SOLUTION. AND, AND THE QUESTION I HAVE IS GOING ON AND LOOKING FOR, UH, STUCCO WALL LAYERS OR SUCKLE WALL COMPOSITIONS. THERE ARE LOTS OF SHEATHING AVAILABLE THAT YOU COULD APPLY TO A WALL. AND SOME OF THEM BEING, I THINK WAS MENTIONED, A CONCRETE, UM, A, UH, YOU KNOW, A CONCRETE WALL OR, OR A CONCRETE THIN LAYER, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL THAT. UM, I SEE PAPER, I SEE GLASS, UM, UM, DENSE GLASS LAYERS. IS THERE ANY OF THOSE OTHERS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROVED TO PUT UNDERNEATH FROM A, FROM A SHEATHING PERSPECTIVE TO PUT THE, UM, UM, TO, TO PUT THE STUCCO ON TO SMOOTH OUT THAT WALL? SO WHERE THERE OTHER OPTIONS, I GUESS IS WHERE I'M GOING? SURE. WE COULD CERTAINLY REVIEW ALL OF THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY REPLACING THE STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE SOLUTION HERE. UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM WHAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE HDRC AND STAFF, IT APPEARS TO US THAT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WERE, UM, WHERE THIS TREATMENT WAS APPLIED DIRECTLY TO THAT EXISTING STUCCO. SO, BUT I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MY POINT IS JUST THAT THERE ARE OTHER SHEATHING OPTIONS THAT THE CITY WOULD'VE APPROVED. UM, AND FOAM IS JUST NOT A, AN APPROVED, UH, PRODUCT. AND SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING ALSO AT THAT DEPTH THAT WE WERE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTING. CERTAINLY, CORRECT. CERTAINLY SO THAT THE APPEARANCE REMAINS THE SAME. I MEAN, ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS PAPER THAT IT TALKS ABOUT. SO, SO THERE'S ALL KIND OF OPTIONS THAT PEOPLE DO USE TO PUT STUCK ON WALLS. SO ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH. SO IS IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HDRC WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE TESTIMONY [01:30:01] THAT THE A THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING TODAY IN REGARDING TO ALL THESE DIFFERENT ISSUES. THERE'S A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TODAY. SO IN THE CASE FILE, THE WALL SECTION THAT THEY, THAT THEY PROVIDED WAS PRESENTED TO THE HDRC AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. SO THAT WAS AVAILABLE. UM, BUT THERE, WE DIDN'T HAVE A WALL SECTION. UM, AND THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXISTING STUCCO BEING REMOVED DOWN TO BRICK, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY. AND THOSE ARE FINDINGS, I THINK TO ME WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HDRC TO MAKE SOME KIND OF JUDGMENT ON BEFORE WE SEE THE CASE. CERTAINLY, YEAH. YEAH. SO I'M WONDERING, IS THEIR ABILITY FOR US TO ALMOST, ALMOST LIKE REMAINING THE CASE BACK TO THE HDRC FOR THEM TO CONSIDER THIS ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRESENTED AND THEN WE CAN, AND NOT THAT'S JUST MY YEAH, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. SO FOR STAFF, ARE WE ALLOWED TO TABLE THIS? YES, YOU CAN. YOU CERTAINLY. OKAY. AND THEN I NOTICED WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM UH, PLAN REVIEW. YES. PLAN REVIEW HERE. COME ON UP AND LET'S, UH, WE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU. A BIG QUESTION FOR YOU, AND THE PLAN REVIEW IS IN REGARDS TO THE 50%, UM, REPLACEMENT. SO, SO JUST TO BRING YOU IN, WHAT THE LINE OF QUESTIONING IS, IS THAT THANK YOU . IF, IF YOU DO, IF YOU DO ENOUGH WORK TO A BUILDING TO WHERE IT, IT, YOU'RE PAST THAT 50% THRESHOLD, CORRECT? WE HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THE CURRENT ADOPTED ICC REQUIRES AND BE USED SOME SORT OF A EX, UH, SOMETHING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STONE, UM, A SHEATHING OR SOME CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS INSULATION. DO THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT IF THEY'RE PAST A 50% THRESHOLD? OR IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS HISTORIC, GET THEM OUT OF THAT REQUIREMENT? SO WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, IT SPLITS IT APART INTO WHAT YOUR WORK AREA IS. SO WE'RE JUST NOW LOOKING AT THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO IF THEY ARE, IF THEIR WORK AREA INCLUDES THAT SPACE, THEY NOW HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO CODE, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE. BUT IF IT'S WITHOUT IT IS OUTSIDE OF THAT WORKSPACE, THEN UM, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO. AND AS FAR AS THE HISTORICAL DE DESIGNATION, THERE IS, UM, SOME LIMITING FACTORS IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE THAT SAYS THAT CERTAIN HISTORICAL STRUCTURES, UM, DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY, BUT GENERALLY THAT'S ON A NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTRY, NOT ON OUR LOCAL LEVEL. SO, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED, WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THEY, THEY REMOVED LAYERS UPON LAYERS OF STUCCO. THEY GOT IT DOWN TO STONE BRICK, AND IT WAS DILAPIDATED. WE SAW PICTURES OF IT BEING DILAPIDATED AND THEY WERE USING THIS FOAM AND THEN A STUCCO APPLICATION TO ACHIEVE AN INTEGRITY OF THE WALL. MM-HMM. . AND SO, SO ANOTHER QUESTION WOULD GO IS, IS WHERE DOES H-H-C-R-C IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE THICKNESS, HOW IT AFFECTS ANY RECESS OF ANY WINDOWS AND THE LOOK FROM THE STREET, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR PURVIEW NECESSARILY INCLUDES STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS THAT ISN'T THE FACADE. AND SO I'M WONDERING HOW YOUR DEPARTMENT KICKS IN ON THIS. RIGHT. SO IF THERE ARE, IF THEY UNCOVER STRUCTURAL ISSUES, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO REPAIR THEM AND MAKE THEM STRUCTURALLY SOUND AGAIN. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU UNCOVER A WALL, IT'S TERMITE RIDDEN, UM, YES, YOU HAVE TO GO AND REPAIR ALL OF THAT AND MAKE IT STRUCTURALLY SOUND AGAIN. OKAY. SO AGAIN, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE PLANS, CAN YOU, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, I, I, I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I, AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU DON'T WANT TO, BUT YOU'RE ABOUT TO , I'M ABOUT TO, CAN YOU BRING THAT PICTURE UP WHERE THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN? I DUNNO IF THAT'S PART OF THE, UH, YEAH, SO YOU WITH THE HOLES IN THE WALL AND WHATNOT, AND COULD BE THAT ONE, I MEAN, SO I KNOW YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PICTURE, BUT IF, IF THE WALL IS COMPROMISED AND THEIR SOLUTION WAS TO, WAS TO PUT, UM, CERTAIN APPLICATIONS DOWN AND THEN THIS, THIS ONE INCH THICK FOAM THAT ACTS AS AN INSULATOR IN A LEVELING EFFECT OF THE WALL AND THEN PUT STUCCO ON TOP OF IT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT DO THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SUCH A THING UNDER THE CODE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S BEING DONE? AND WHAT, AND, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OR, OR WHAT, SO THE, THE FOAM AND THE STUCCO ITSELF WOULD NOT BE UNDER OUR PURVIEW AS FAR AS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S NOT PART OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF IT, BECAUSE WE, THAT'S JUST THE FACADE. YEAH. WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE ARCHITECT THAT IT WAS DONE FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE WALL. IT WASN'T A LOOK THING. IT WAS DONE BECAUSE THE WALL WAS IN SUCH BAD SHAPE THAT IF THEY WERE TO PUT STUCCO ON TOP OF IT, THE STUCCO WOULD BE DAMAGED BECAUSE THE, THE WALL IS NOT LEVEL FLAT AND IT'S DILAPIDATED. SO THE STUCCO WOULD BE DAMAGED, BUT NOT THE BUILDING TO US, THAT, THAT'S NOT A STRUCTURAL ISSUE. RIGHT. THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THE STUCCO, IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK PRETTY. THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT WE LOOK AT. AND HISTORIC, HISTORIC MAY WANT IT, THE STUCCO TO LOOK ALL JACKED UP. I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, , BUT, UH, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST, UH, BUT, BUT IF, BUT WOULD THE ICC REQUIRE THEM TO DO BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW ICC WITH THE LEVEL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING? YES, THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODES IN THEIR WORK AREA. AND THAT'S, THAT'S BY THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. SO THEY'RE [01:35:01] NOW UNDER THE EXISTING BUILDING CODES WOULD, SO YES, THEY DO. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT STUCCO LOOKS LIKE, THE ICC DOES NOT COVER THAT. OKAY. , , I'M TRYING TO PUT A LOT OF STUFF OUT THERE SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR SOME OF THESE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S IF THEY HAD AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE BUILDING CODE TO SOMEHOW PUT SOMETHING ON THE OUTSIDE, WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS, THEY DIDN'T GET APPROVED BY ANYBODY. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M AT THE POINT WHERE I, MAYBE WE SHOULD, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M, I'M GEARING TOWARDS MAYBE TABLING THIS AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY CHIMES IN FORMALLY ABOUT WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I, I STILL FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT WHAT THE APPEAL ACTUALLY IS. I MEAN, I, WE'VE HEARD HD RRC, I DIDN'T HEAR THE WHOLE STORY. YOU'RE HEARING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME. SORRY, SURPRISE. UM, BUT WE CAN LOOK, I THINK TOO, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD TABLE THIS AND WE GO BACK TO THE HDRC SO THEY CAN EXPLAIN THAT THEY DID, UM, WHAT THEY DID, THAT THEY DID TAKE DOWN ALL OF THE EXISTING STUCCO. THEY'RE NOT, I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT JUST TAKING THE OLD STUCCO AND CREATING A MOISTURE ISSUE. UM, AND PERHAPS THEY COULD WORK IT OUT THERE. SO LET'S, IT SAID IF, IF, UM, ANYBODY WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS, WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO MAKE SURE CHAIR? YES, I'M GETTING SOME WRINKLED BROWS FROM LEGAL OVER THERE. OKAY. IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND IT BACK TO HDRC? WELL, IF WE, IF WE DENY IT, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO HDRC, BUT I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS IS ONE YEAR OR IS IT, IT'S IF, IF THEY GET, IF WE TABLE THIS AND THEY GO BACK ELECTIVELY TO STAFF IN THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THEY GET ALL THIS APPROVED, THEY CAN JUST CANCEL THIS CASE, COULDN'T THEY? YEAH, YOU, YOU CAN, YOU CAN CONTINUE THIS. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY GUARANTEE HDRC WILL, WILL REHEAR ANYTHING, BUT YOU CAN CONTINUE IT AND, AND, AND ESSENTIALLY SEE WHAT, I GUESS I'M, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IF, IF THE LEVEL OF WORK THEY'RE DOING WARRANTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ICC, I'D REALLY LIKE FOR, FOR, UH, UH, BUILDING REVIEW STAFF TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE ROUTE. THEY MAY, THEY MAY LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, WELL, THEY NEED TO DO THIS 'CAUSE THE ICC REQUIRES SUCH A THING. SO, AND THEN THAT WOULD THEN COULD BE REVIEWED BY OHP. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, MR. CHAIR. CAN WE DO, WHAT YOU INITIALLY RECOMMENDED WAS TABLE THE ITEM, THAT WAY THE STAFF AND UH, OHP STAFF CAN GO OUT AND THE LOBBY AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THEN MAYBE WE HAVE SOME TIME TO ENSURE WE HAVE ALL THE PUZZLE PIECES TOGETHER AND WE CAN COME BACK. YOU, YOU GOT IT. I I, I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND WE'RE, WE'RE HEARING EVERYTHING. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS. UH, I'VE GOT Y'ALL. YES. A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT REAL QUICK. UM, ONE OF THEM IS IF A FULL FOUNDATION REPLACEMENT WAS BEING DONE AND YOU DID, UM, STRIP THE STUCCO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE MASONRY, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO REPLACE THE MASONRY ENTIRELY? BECAUSE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE GUIDELINES DO ALLOW FOR REPLACEMENT WITH SIMILAR MATERIALS IF PATCHING ISN'T POSSIBLE. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MASONRY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRICK AND CONCRETE BLOCK, WHICH ARE THE FOUR WALLS OF THE BUILDING. SO REPLACING THAT IS, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN INTRUSIVE REPLACEMENT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT CAUSED ANY MORE DAMAGE. ANY CUTTING OR ANY DRILLING, UM, WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE INTEGRITY OF THE WALL. LET'S, LET'S, LET'S JUST, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS. UH, I, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SORRY. I'M SO SORRY. WITH REGARDS TO THE TABLING HOLD, UM, WOULD WORK AS IT WOULD WORK BASICALLY NEED TO CONTINUE FOR TABLE. OH, NO, NO. LIKE WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS TODAY. THEY'RE GOING OUTSIDE AND TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, . OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WOULDN'T TAKE SO LONG. YEAH, WE'RE STRUCTURAL. YEAH, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DOING A CONTINUANCE. SO WE'RE GONNA, I'M TABLING THIS ITEM. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, PLEASE GO OUT TO THE HALLWAY AND HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER TWO. YOUR QUESTION, YOUR QUESTION TO ME WASN'T RELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S IF YOU PUT ANOTHER MATERIAL ON WHAT MATERIAL? THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. WELL, THERE'S NO MATERIAL SAY THAT. AND SHE SAID THAT. WELL, THEY, SHE, HER CONCERN THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY, THEY HAD AN INCH OF STUCCO, BUT IT WAS FOAM. THEY SAID IT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO THICK AND, BUT IT WASN'T TOO THICK. IT WAS AN INCH THICK AND THEY REMOVED AN INCH OF STUCCO FOAM. NO. SO, OKAY, ITEM NUMBER TWO. AGENDA ITEM TWO IS BO OA 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 4. ADDRESS IS 5 5 2 NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN. APPLICANT ASSIGNED REMEDY A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 60 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 70 FOOT HEIGHT SIGN. AND ZONING IS I ONE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. [01:40:05] THE CASE SUMMARY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD SOUTHWEST, NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 ABUTTING LEON VALLEY TO THE SOUTH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR SIGN HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ALONG AN EXPRESSWAY WHILE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED IS 50 FEET. THE PROPERTY HAS AN ALLOWANCE OF 50 10 FOOT ADJACENT GRADE ALLOWANCE. THE PROPOSED USE IS FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT, AND THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY GRANTED A REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON MARCH 6TH, 2023 AT THE BOA MEETING. MAXIMUM SIGN SIGN SIZE IS 375 SQUARE FEET AND THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT IT WILL BE ON OR BELOW THAT STANDARD. THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RE RECOMMENDATIONS, SITE HEIGHT VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 5 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE NEW PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT IS EXCEEDING THE UDC AND TWO. THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WILL NOT CAUSE THE CESSATION OF LEGISLATE LONGSTANDING AFTER COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF, NO DOUBT. TWO NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. UH, QUICK QUESTION. ONE OF YOUR PICTURES SHOWED A BILL AN APPARENT BILLBOARD, UH, IN IT. UH, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. WHERE IS THAT IN RELATION TO THE SIGN IN QUESTION? THAT'S IN THE CITY OF LEON VALLEY. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE OF OF WHAT? OF DORY. DORY? YES. OKAY. DOES THAT CAUSE DID YOU FEEL THAT, THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE, RIGHT? DID YOU, DID YOU FEEL THAT THAT BILLBOARD SIGN CAUSE ANY CONFLICT WITH SEEING THE SIGN IN QUESTION DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BILLBOARD SIGN AND POTENTIAL HEIGHT A CONFLICT WITH, OH, IF I'M DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, I GOT A BIG BILLBOARD, RIGHT? YEAH. I WANNA PUT A SIGN. IS THAT, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT, THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR REVIEW? NO, NO, NO, NO. NOT IN, NO. ALL RIGHT. THAT THOUSAND CITY IN LEON VALLEY. ALL THANK YOU. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE WAS HEAR FROM, UH, STAFF. SO WE DO. SO YOUR MAN, SO THIS, WE HEARD A REPORT LAST WEEK, A SIMILAR PROPERTY, BUT THE SIGN WASN'T THE SIGN IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT THE DIALOGUE, CORRECT? IT WAS, WE DID THE SIGN ON THE, ON DAURY, BUT THEY WANTED, THEY WERE INTENDING TO DO THIS ONE ON FORTE ON THE ACCESS ROAD. SO, SO, SO THE FIRST SIGN WENT, KINDA WENT THROUGH AND WE ALREADY HAD THAT DIALOGUE. THIS IS THE SECOND SIGN BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR FROM, UM, THE APPLICANT. PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. STEPHANIE STEWART WITH SIGN REMEDY. UM, ACTUALLY IT'S 60 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT, NOT 50 ON FOUR 10. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE EXTRA 10 FEET BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF THAT OVERPASS. SO YOU CAN'T SEE OUR SIGN AT ALL. CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EXISTING OLD STRUCTURE THAT OVERHANGS INTO THE ELECTRICAL EASEMENT AND ALSO YOUR SIDEWALK EASEMENT THAT, UM, WE COULD REFACE, BUT AGAIN, UH, OSHA REGULATIONS, ANYTHING HAPPENS WE'RE IN YOUR EASEMENTS. THE SIGN WHERE WE'RE PUTTING IT IS ACTUALLY 10 TO 15 FEET FURTHER BACK AND DOES NOT OVERHANG ANY ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS OR THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT. AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST ASKING SINCE WE'RE FURTHER BACK TO HAVE THAT EXTRA 10 FEET OF HEIGHT SINCE WE ARE AT THAT FOUR 10 OVERPASS. AND THE HEIGHT IS, I MEAN, 60 FEET. WE'RE BELOW THAT OVERPASS RIGHT THERE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HOW KAPLAN, HOW HIGH IS THE HIGHWAY AT THAT POINT? HOW, HOW SO IF I HAD SENT SOME OTHER THINGS WHEN I DID THIS APPLICATION, THERE WAS A BALLOON TEST. SO AT SEVEN IT'S AT 65 FEET. SO AT 70 FEET COMING AND I'M SORRY THE OTHER WAY, LIKE IF YOU WERE COMING TO THE TURN U-TURN, I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE U-TURNS HERE LIKE WE DO IN HOUSTON, BUT, UM, WHERE YOU TURN TO LIKE DAUGHTRY AND GO BACK TOWARDS FOUR 10 AND ALSO GOING INTO THE TOWN, UM, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE VISIBILITY NOW COMING FROM THE D TREE GOING IN THE DIRECTION OF OUR PROPERTY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE VISIBILITY. RIGHT? BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SEEK THE OTHER SIDE OF FOUR TEN'S VISIBILITY, BUT IT IS AT 65 FEET IS WHAT THAT OVERPASSES FROM. WHEN WE DID A, UM, DRONE AND BALLOON TEST IS WHAT WE FOUND THAT TO BE HIKED. SO YOU NEEDED 70 FEET IN ORDER TO BE SEEN FROM THE TOP OF THE HIGHWAY. CORRECT. GOING THE OTHER WAY. IT'S ONLY GONNA BE SEEN ONE WAY. THIS IS A MCDONALD'S, RIGHT? NO, IT'S NOT. MCDONALD'S IS ON THE ACTUAL OTHER SIDE OF FOUR 10 DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM US. AND THAT SET 90 FEET. SO I MEAN, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF FOUR 10, LITERALLY A STONE'S THROW ACROSS FROM US. YOU HAVE SIGNS THAT ARE 90, 75, 80 FEET TALL. MM-HMM . AND HERE WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THAT 70 FEET. GRANTED THOSE WERE OLDER SIGNS, THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THAT SAME CONSIDERATION. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [01:45:02] MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I, SO, SO CITY OF SARY WORK, YOU KNOW, TO DEVELOP THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND WORK WITH CITIES, CITIZENS AS WELL AS BUSINESSES TO TRY TO COME UP WITH COMPROMISES AND TRY TO FIND OUT GOOD DISTANCES AND GOOD HEIGHTS AND EVERYTHING. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS THERE ARE SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES ALONG HERE THAT DO HAVE SHORTER SIGN HEIGHTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE ALSO WE'LL SAY CHALLENGED BY THE, THE, TO THE HIGHWAY. SO, SO WHAT IS IT SPECIFIC ABOUT YOUR LOCATION, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD WARRANT, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, UH, I GUESS THOSE VARIANCE CLIENT SAYS IF WE DON'T GET THIS 70 FEET, THEY'RE GONNA USE THE OLD SIGN. WHICH AGAIN, IT'S WHAT'S THERE, IT'S 60 FEET. UM, AND IT'S AN EYESORE. IT'S UGLY, IT'S DILAPIDATED, IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE LOWER POINT BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN. WE'RE MOVING OURS TO GET AWAY FROM THOSE OVERHANGING POWER LINES AND ALSO BACK. SO WE'RE NOT IN THAT 10 FOOT, UM, STREET EDGE THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT. SO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE WHOLE THING THAT'S 'CAUSE IT'S THE ONLY OTHER PLACE WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY LOCATE THAT PYLON ON THAT PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE POWER LINES. SO THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. UM, SO, SO I GUESS DID YOU HAVE THAT DIALOGUE WITH THEM WITH REGARDS TO WHY WAS, I GUESS, YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY WERE YOU REMOVING IT AND YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE THEIR RESPONSE? UH, WE HAVE NOT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE SIGN INSPECTIONS ONE, DON'T YOU COME ON UP AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR YOU. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE. ARTUR . CHIEF INSPECTOR. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? WELL, WE, WE UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIP THEY HAVE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH FLYOVER THAT'S, THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM GOING FROM FORTE TO BANDERA. SO UNFORTUNATELY AS A SCIENCE THAT WE CANNOT ARBITRARILY JUST GIVE THE, JUST GIVE THEM THE ADDITIONAL 10 FEET. SO THAT'S WHY WE BRING IT TO THE BOARD. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE BILLBOARD THAT'S BEFORE, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE IN THE AREA, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE THE BILLBOARD BLOCKING? DEFINITELY, YES SIR. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S WHEN I SEE A HUGE BILLBOARD THERE. I'M JUST, AND WHAT THE CUSTOMER IS PROPOSING, IF, IF THEY'RE SAYING THEY WOULD USE THE EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE, IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN TELL THEIR LOGO IS DIFFERENT, IT'S MORE OF A SQUARE. MM-HMM, THE SIGN IS THERE RIGHT NOW IT'S A RECTANGULAR. SO THEY HAVE TO CONFIGURE THEIR SIGN TO FIT THEIR RECTANGULAR SPACE ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. THE MCDONALD'S ORIGINALLY WAS A KENTUCKY, SO IN ORDER FOR THEM NOT, NOT TO BRING THE SIGN DOWN TO COMPLIANCE, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO REASE. SO THAT'S WHY IT LOOKS LIKE A BUCKET BY ITSELF. , BUT IT'S A MCDONALD'S. YEAH, THEY DID THE FRIES, CORRECT. . GOT IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NINE. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, IS THERE ANY I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, GO AHEAD. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T PUT THE SIGN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY? 'CAUSE I KNOW SOME, SOME BUSINESSES ON THE 35 NORTH, THEY HAVE, THEY'RE ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, BUT THEY HAVE SIGN THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, BUT ON THE OTHER THEY HAVE A SIGN POINTING TO THE BUSINESS OFF-PREMISE SIGN. IT'S AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN. AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED. IT'S OFF-PREMISE SIGN. I'M SORRY, WHAT? YEAH, OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED. IT'S NOT ALLOWED WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONER. OUR CODES DO NOT ALLOW FOR OFF-PREMISE SIGNS. SORRY, COMMISSIONER. THAT'S RIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER KA, THIS, THIS PICTURE THAT WE'RE SEEING PROPOSED RENDERINGS, 60 FOOT PYLON. UM, THE 60 FOOT IS THE THIRD ONE, THE 60 IS THE THIRD. AND WHAT'S THE FIRST ONE? THE FIRST ONE IS AT, I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE A, WHICH IS 50. I'M SORRY. THEY'RE ALL SAY A YEAH, I'M SORRY. . SO YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST ONE, WHICH IS 50. THEN YOU HAVE, I'M SORRY, 60, 50, 70 AND 90. I'VE GOT 60 IS THE HIGHEST. SO 50, WHICH IS YOUR 50 60. YEAH. OKAY. SO 60 IS THE, THE ONE TOTALLY ON THE RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO, RIGHT? CORRECT. EVERYBODY CAN SEE CHICK-FIL-A WELL, NO, THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT. YOU SAID IT WAS 90. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, A IS 90. WE'RE ASKING FOR, HERE'S A POINTER, THERE'S A LASER POINTER. I'M SORRY. OKAY. YEAH, WHICH, RIGHT. YEAH, LET'S DO THIS. OKAY, THIS IS 90 RIGHT HERE. OKAY. 70, I'M SORRY. 80, 70, 60. OKAY. O ZUNA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, I WAS JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE, IF THIS VARIANCE WAS TO BE APPROVED, THAT THE EXISTING SIGN WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PREMISE. 100%, YES. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WITH IT YET, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THERE AND IT'S, IT'S CLOSER TO THE FEEDER AND ALSO CLOSER TO HOW YOU SEE THOSE BILLBOARDS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT I MEAN, WE DON'T WANNA LOSE THAT REAL ESTATE UNTIL, AGAIN, ONCE WE REMOVE THAT HEAD, WE'VE LOST THAT REAL ESTATE. YEP. UNDERSTOOD. GOT IT. SO, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING [01:50:01] FOR A MOTION ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 54. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 60 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 70 FOOT SIGN SITUATED AT 5 5 5 2 NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10, APPLICANT BEING SIGNED. REMEDY, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT, ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURE OF THE SITE AS ITS, UH, DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING OR TOPOGRAPHY, OR TWO, A DENIAL, THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY QUALIFIES FOR A SIGN 60 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH 375 SQUARE FEET FOR A SINGLE TENANT SIGN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ERECT A NEW SIGN AT 70 FOOT AND HEIGHT. AND, UH, IN WHICH CASE, I WOULD MENTION THAT THE EXISTING SIGN WOULD BE, UH, REMOVED IF THE, IF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROVED TODAY. UM, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN THESE PARAGRAPHS, ONE OR TWO, THE BOARD FINDS THAT ONE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AS, AS THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS OF THIS HEIGHT, OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, B, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATE OF PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE. A SIGN EXCEEDING THE 60 FEET IN HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE SIGN REGULATION STANDARDS. UH, AND A MOTION SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AMANDA? COMMISSIONER UNA? YES. SO I'LL, I'LL SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. I MEAN, I THINK THE, UH, THE SOLUTION HERE, UH, IS, IS, IS THE 10 FOOT AND HIVE. THERE'S, UH, SIGNS THAT ARE, UH, WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA THAT FAR EXCEED THE, THE REQUIREMENT OR THAT THAT HEIGHT, UH, THE HEIGHT IS NECESSARY FOR SAFETY FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THE SIGN SO THEY CAN EXIT WITH ENOUGH TIME TO GET TO THE SITE. UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDE TESTIMONY THAT THIS MORE HAZARD SIGN THAT EXISTS TODAY WILL BE REMOVED, UH, AND PROVIDES FOR, I THINK FOR A MORE, UM, UH, EFFICIENT AND BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THAT SIGNAGE. COMMISSIONER, MANNA, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE A LITTLE BIT. AND SO, SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I DO MY GOOGLE DRIVE ON FOUR 10, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE THE PROPERTY PRETTY WELL AS I'M HEADING, HEADING EAST, UM, WITHOUT ISSUE. AND SO THE DIALOGUE LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE ALONG THE, THE WESTBOUND, UH, DIALOGUE. AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS, THE PICTURES WERE WONDERFUL HERE. AND SO I CAN START TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, I GUESS AS I'M LOOKING FOR BUSINESSES, I, I, I THINK I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE CITY'S POSITION AND NOT APPROVE THIS. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION? UH, I'LL CLOSE IT OUT BY SAYING I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT, UM, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE BILLBOARD THAT'S PRIOR TO THE SIGN THAT WE HEAR TESTIMONY THAT, UH, IS VISUALLY BLOCKING IN THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WOULD REMEDY THAT. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. FACT, DR. BURTON, I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. RHI CONCUR. MS. CRUZ, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MS. AVIVE, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, VOTE WAS EIGHT TO THREE. MOTION, UH, FAILS. UH, THE APPLICANT YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. UH, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS. SO, UH, NEXT CASE, ITEM THREE. OH. AND, UH, BEFORE WE DO THAT, DID Y'ALL COME UP TO A RESOLUTION ON, ON ONE OR DO YOU NEED MORE TIME? I BELIEVE THE, THEY'RE STILL DISCUSSING IT OUTSIDE. OKAY, JUST WONDERING. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 8. ADDRESS IS 1 3 0 2 CAMERON STREET IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS RONALD CARRILLO, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A 214 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE ALLOWABLE 369 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A WALL SAW TO BE 583 SQUARE FEET. THE CURRENT ZONING IS I ONE, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CAMERON STREET, NEAR THE INTERCHANGE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS 10 AND 35, NEAR DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO, CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR A SIGN INSTALLATION WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE WALL FACADE ALLOWANCE. THE WALL FACADE IS THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING AND IS ALLOWED A 25% ALLOWANCE. CURRENTLY [01:55:01] THE ALLOWABLE WALL FACADE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 369 SQUARE FEET, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IT TO BE 583 SQUARE FEET. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE PHOTO OF THE WALL FACADE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIGNED SQUARE FOOTAGE, MAXIMUM VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL AND BO OA DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 0 2 78 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE CURRENT SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE IS EXCEEDING THE UDC AND TWO, THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, WILL NOT CAUSED A SUCCESSION OF LEGITIMATE LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 17 NOTICES. UH, ONE RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC RESPONSE RECEIVED. AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. ONE QUICK QUESTION. UH, AS FAR AS YOUR CALCULATION OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, DO YOU DRAW A RECTANGLE AND MAKE IT GET SMALLER AND SMALLER UNTIL IT ACTUALLY TOUCHES INFORMATION RELATED TO THE BUSINESS? OR ARE YOU DOING IT FROM THE COLOR OF THE OR? I DUNNO IF YOU, MAYBE YOU CAN CHIME IN THERE, SIR. YES, SIR. AGAIN, I THREW THIS ON NOTE. UH, CHIEF SITE INSPECTOR, THE WAY WE CALCULATE THE SQUARE FEET ALLOWANCE IS THE HIGHEST OF THE BUILDING BY THE LENGTH IN THIS CASE. UH, THIS BUILDING IS 18 BY 82, SO THAT'LL GIVE US 1,476 SQUARE FEET. OUT OF THAT. YOU'RE ALLOWED 25%, WHICH WOULD BE 360 9. THE PROPOSED GRAPHICS ARE 11 BY 53, WHICH IS AT 5 83. THEREFORE THE TWO 14 DIFFERENCE. BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE COUNTING, ARE YOU COUNTING UP TO THE GUY'S ELBOW OR ARE YOU GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE, THE DOOR? NO, NO, WE'RE GOING JUST THE, THE LOGO AREA. THE GUY'S ELBOW TO THE EDGE OF THE, OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO, YES, SIR. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. HEY, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, THAT WAS, THAT WAS OKAY. YES, MA'AM. SO MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, SO, SO, SO REPRESENTING THIS PICTURE HERE, SO IT WOULD NEED TO COME IN ANOTHER 25% THEN I GUESS, SO QUARTER, QUARTER OF THAT SIZE PUSHED IN TO, TO BE COMPLIANT PROBABLY SO, YEAH. SO ROUGHLY THOUGH. BUT YES, SO, SO BASICALLY THEY HAD SOME SPACE TO BOOT, PUSH IT, PUSH IT FURTHER, I GUESS EAST THERE. SO THAT WOULD BE FINE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. AND SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION. THEY COULD PAINT OVER THE GENTLEMAN HOLDING THE WRENCH MAYBE AND GET THERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO, SOME OF THAT YELLOW ON THE OTHER SIDE. YEAH, THE, THE, THE WHOLE THING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF MY OPINION IS, UH, IF THEY WOULD'VE COME IN RIGHT AWAY WITH A PERMIT PRIOR TO DOING THE WORK. AT THAT POINT, WE COULD DO THE CALCULATIONS AND TELL, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT YOUR ALLOWANCE IS. AS FOR NOW, WE'RE THE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TELL 'EM TO CUT IT BACK OR, OKAY. WELL, ONE MORE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. SO, SO, SO, AND JUST MAYBE JUST ASIDE, SO, SO YOU, I DRIVE THROUGH TOWN AND I SEE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAINTED A WHOLE SIDE WITH LIKE THE SPURS, YOU KNOW, SO SOME ALONG THAT LINE, YOU KNOW, IT ISN'T NECESSARILY RELATED TO A BUSINESS. SO THAT, SO IS THAT CONSIDERED ART THEN AT THAT POINT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, A BILLBOARD? IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE? THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ON-PREMISE AND ON-PREMISE. THE ON-PREMISE WOULD BE, UH, THE COPY THAT PERTAINS TO THE PRODUCT OR SERVICES OFFERED AT THAT LOCATION. SO THIS IS ON-PREMISE, SO THE ELEMENT IS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ART. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. PLEASE. YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S, UH, RONALD CARRIO, AND I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. UH, THIS IS, UH, MY TENANTS THAT THEY PUT THIS, UH, THE LOGO ON. UH, THEY WEREN'T AWARE ABOUT A, A PERMIT. OKAY. THEY, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT DID THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL LOGO DIDN'T, UH, ADVISE THEM, OR THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEMSELVES THAT THEY NEEDED A PERMIT OR THE SIZE, UH, THE MATERIAL ON THAT WALL. IT'S, UH, BECAUSE, UH, IT'S GRAFFITI PROOF. SO IF SOMETHING EVER HAPPENED TO THAT WALL, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD GO WITH SOAP AND WATER AND WASH IT OFF. IF YOU, YOU KNOW, I'M PRETTY SURE MANY TIMES YOU SEE NEW GRAFFITI JUST BLOCKS AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VACANT BUILDINGS AND UH, UH, THE HIGHWAY. YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BUSINESS AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT AS MUCH, UH, GRAFF PROOF AS POSSIBLE. AND THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THERE IS A MATERIAL, A PAINT. UH, THE ONLY THING IS, UH, IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THAT LOGO, THAT PAINT WOULD NOT, UH, PERMIT A NEW LOGO ON [02:00:01] THAT WALL SINCE IT'S ALREADY TREATED WITH THAT ANTI GRAFFITI PAINT. YOU KNOW? SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU, THERE'S NO WAY TO PAINT OVER THIS, OR YOU CAN, THERE'S GOTTA BE A PRIMER THAT YOU COULD PURCHASE IT, IT IT, WHAT IT IS, IT'S, UH, LIKE A BIG STICKER ON IT, UH, LIKE A WRAP. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND I WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, TELLING THE, YOU KNOW, CO COMPLIANCE, I SAID, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THESE LOGOS ON THIS WALL, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE ENTIRE WALL, THESE, UH, BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING. I SAID, I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT. IT'S NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S, IT'S IT'S VINYL THAT YOU HEAT UP AND MELT IN. IS THAT WHAT, UH, YI DON'T KNOW HOW THEY APPLY IT, BUT YEAH, IT, IT IS, UH, BASICALLY YES. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO THE QUESTION I'D ASK THEN, SO, SO WE'LL SAY THAT, LET'S ASSUME IT IS VINYL. YEAH. UM, AND SO, SO, UM, I THINK YOU'RE STATING THAT YOU CAN'T APPLY ANOTHER VINYL ON TOP OF VINYL. IS, IS, IS, IS, THAT'S BEING SAID. 'CAUSE 'CAUSE THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH WAS WRAP, I GUESS IS REALLY ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS. AND SO IS IT, I I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T PURCHASE IT, YOU KNOW, I'M PRETTY SURE IT COST PRETTY PENNY, YOU KNOW, THAT. YEAH. YOU KNOW. YEAH. 'CAUSE TO ME, YOU KNOW, SO THE GRAFFITI PART, YOU KNOW, SO TO ME THE WHOLE VINYL PIECE IS THE WRAP. AND SO IF YOU HAD THE SOLID BLUE ON THE SIDE, THAT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE WRAP. AND SO IF THE BLUE IS EXTENDED FURTHER RIGHT, THEN YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE, ANY GRAFFITI STUFF, BUT, BUT STILL HAVE A LOT FOR THOSE SMALLER LOGOS. SO, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER THING I'M HEARING WITH THIS IS THAT IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT TENANT LEAVES OR YOU'RE STUCK WITH NO, NO. THEIR ADVERTISING? NO, I COULD PEEL IT OFF. I'M PRETTY SURE I COULD PEEL IT OFF, YOU KNOW. OKAY. I MEAN, THERE IS PROBABLY, THERE'S ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, IF I WANTED TO PEEL IT OFF, I'M PRETTY SURE I COULD, YOU KNOW. OKAY. . ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY, I'M SORRY, THAT'S, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, YOU KNOW, THE THING IS JUST BY COVERING SAY LIKE THAT MAN WITH A WRENCH, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE, IT, UH, IT'S NOT A LOGO ANYMORE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I, I, NO, I, I GET IT. SO, YOU KNOW, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UM, FOR THE CITY STAFFER? UM, MY ONLY, MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR THIS TO COME UP AND WHEN DID IT BRING, GET BROUGHT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION? WELL, ACTUALLY IT WAS CREATED FROM A CASE, WE, WE'VE APPROACHED THIS THROUGH OUR CASE PROCESS, SO WE'VE ISSUED VIOLATION NOTICES AND WE'RE UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE GONNA GO TO COURT. UH, BUT AT THAT POINT, UH, THIS GENTLEMAN CAME INTO THE OFFICE AND WE SAT DOWN AND TALKED ABOUT OPTIONS. SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA, AND THEN UNA. SO SORRY. UM, AND SO CAN YOU BRING UP GOOGLE MAPS ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION? AND SO LOOKING AT IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE PRIOR TENANT MAYBE, UM, OH WOW. ALSO HAD THE FULL WALL PAINTED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION I GUESS FOR THE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IS IT, IS IT COMMON IN THE CITY TO HAVE FULL WALLS PAINTED? YOU KNOW, I, I, I COULD SEE IT IN THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, BUT, UM, IS THAT OUR, IS THAT OUR GOAL OR STANDARD? IS IS, IS THAT, IS THAT MARK THAT WE, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR IS IT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE BY CODE, YOU'RE ALLOWED, THE PERCENTAGE THAT 25 DEPENDS ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION IN THIS CASE IS 25% OF YOUR WALL FACADE. SO, SO THEY'RE GONNA SHOW THE PREVIOUS ONE IF THAT ONE'S IN VIOLATION AS WELL. SO IF YOU GO AND SIR, IF YOU HAVE A PICTURE, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO STAFF, HE CAN PROJECT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER THE GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE? YEAH, HE CAN, HE I DO, HE CAN, HE CAN TAKE IT AND PROJECT IT UP. OKAY. I DO WANNA SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES THAT WHEN THE, UH, THE, THE PLACE WAS VACANT HOW, UH, OVER THE YEARS. SURE. YOU KNOW? OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, MAN. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, RIGHT? UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, I'M SORRY, HERE ANOTHER ONE. IF, IF YOU KNEW THE, THE NAME OF THE PROVIDER OF THE GRAPHIC IS CLEARLY THEY'RE OPERATING WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT NOT KNOWING THAT THEY NEED PERMITS. AND SO TO PRE TO PREVENT THIS SITUATION FROM HAPPENING, IT'D PROBABLY BE ADVISABLE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU NEED A PERMIT YES. UH, TO BE ABLE TO PUT THESE GRAPHICS IN OTHER BUILDINGS. YEAH. UH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE. YOU KNOW, UH, I I, I ADVISE MY, UH, TENANTS ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONTACT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THEY KNOW NOW THAT THEY DO NEED A PERMIT, YOU KNOW? UH, OKAY. I'M PRETTY SURE IT WORKS FOR ME. YEAH. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS CASE IS ALL ABOUT. OKAY. LOOK, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT THERE, RIGHT BEFORE THAT. THAT WAS IN JANUARY. OKAY. THAT'S CRAZY. YEAH. SO WE UNDERSTAND, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE JUST HERE ABOUT WHAT'S ON. NO, I UNDERSTAND. STAFF. IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE, WE'RE [02:05:01] GONNA, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU NEED A BIGGER SIGN OTHER THAN IF IT'S THERE AND, RIGHT. I MEAN, I MEAN, JUST THINK ABOUT THE COST, YOU KNOW, OF OKAY. OF, YOU KNOW, 214 FEET. IT'S NOTHING. I MEAN, TO ME IT'S NOT THAT BAD. OKAY. BUT, UH, JUST ON THE, THE PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW, NEED TO, IF, IF IT IS, UH, SMALLER, I'M PRETTY SURE IS GONNA ATTRACT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW. OKAY. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE, WAIT A MINUTE. THIS IS 2 73, RIGHT? AM I IN THE WRONG? 2 78. 2 78. 2 78. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 214 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE ALLOWABLE 369 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A WALL FACADE SIGNED TO BE 583 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT 1302 CAMERON STREET, APPLICANT BEING RONALD M. CARRILLO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF A SITE SUCH AS ITS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING, OR TOPOGRAPHY, OR TO A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE, WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY QUALIFIES FOR A WALL FACADE SIGN OF 369 SQUARE FEET. THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL NOT CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. VARIANCE IS NECESSARY IN THIS CASE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN SUB PARAGRAPHS ONE AND TWO. THE BOARD FINDS THAT A, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS. SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. THE PROPOSED WALL FACADE APPEARS TO NOT PROVIDE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AS THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND APPEARS SIMILAR TO THE SIGN REGULATION STANDARDS. C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. A SIGN EXCEEDING THE 369 SQUARE FEET WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH ASSIGNED REGULATION STANDARDS AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. OKAY. UH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS. UM, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S NOT A HUGE, AM I HEARING SOME ? OH, THAT'S THE BABY. UM, UH, IT'S NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE. YEAH. ACTUALLY, I FIND THIS SIGN TO BE LIKE A WORK OF ART. IT'S, IT'S UNIQUE. IT'S INTERESTING. UM, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IT, PRIOR TO THIS, THE LAST SIGN ALSO COVERED THE SAME BUILDING. HOPEFULLY THE, UH, OWNER KNOWS, AND YOUR TENANT NOW KNOWS THAT YOU DO NEED A PERMIT, WHICH WE REALLY DO, UH, LIKE PEOPLE TO GET PERMITS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THIS IS, UM, A PROBLEM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE A LITTLE BIT. UH, ART, CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE ART PERSPECTIVE, . UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS MY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, I, I, SO I DO LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN ORDINANCES AND, AND SO I DO RESPECT THOSE QUITE A BIT. AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT YOU DO HAVE OPPORTUNITY MAYBE TO ADD ADDITIONAL ART TO THIS THAT IS OFF-PREMISE TYPE ART, UH, TO THE SIGN TO THE BUSINESS SIDE OF THE ART. AND SO, SO I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A DIFFERENTIATION OR DELINEATION THERE. AND SO, UM, SO, SO YOU, SO I, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. KAPLAN. OH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. ARMANA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. BARTON. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. RHI. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. AVIVE. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. IT COMES DOWN TO ME. I WILL CONCUR. UH, SO MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. CONGRAT NINE TO TWO. CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, PLEASE BE CAREFUL NEXT TIME. AND I ONLY CONCURRED BECAUSE THIS IS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER ONE, AND IT'S NOT AS HYPNOTIZING. SO YEAH. , ALRIGHTYY, [02:10:01] I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ITEM FOUR, MR. CHAIR. THE, UH, TABLED ITEM IS READY TO BE RECONSIDERED. IF, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. WELL, I'M RIGHT. SO I'M BRINGING UP ITEM ONE BACK FROM THE TABLE, AND I'D LOVE SOMEONE FROM STAFF TO TELL THIS BOARD HOW IT TURNED OUT. UM, KIND OF, UH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER ON THE FEDERAL REGISTRY, I WAS MISTAKEN IF IT'S ON THE FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL REGISTRY, IT DOES, UH, COME UNDER THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. HOWEVER, WHAT IT DOES IS ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF HISTORIC MATERIALS. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BEFORE WE GO ON. OKAY. AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL CAN APPROACH THE PODIUM. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, HONORABLE MEMBERS, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO THE DECEMBER 18TH TO ALLOW US TO GO BACK TO WORK WITH OHP AND HDRC WITH THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TODAY IN HOPES THAT WE CAN COME OUT WITH THIS SOLUTION. ALL RIGHT, LOVE IT. WHEN HEAR, WHEN I HEAR APPLICANTS WANNA WORK THINGS OUT. SO, UH, SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DECEMBER 18TH. SO MOVE. I SO MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE, UM, BO OA 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 3 TO DECEMBER 18TH. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. A SECOND. I GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, HAVE A, UH, VOICE VOTE IS PROBABLY ADEQUATE FOR THIS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. ITEM IS CONTINUED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR HOW IT TURNS OUT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BO OA DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 7 3. ADDRESS IS 1 0 3 9 WEST TOYOTA BRENTON AVENUE AND CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT BEING AUDREY TRINIDAD. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRE FENCE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS C TWO. THESE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 0 3 9 WEST HILDERBRAND, AND IT IS A CORNER LOT. UH, THE APPLICANT ADDED AN EIGHT FOOT TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND BARBED WIRE ALONG THE EASTERN FENCE. FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD ARE PERMITTED UP TO FIVE FEET. UH, FURTHERMORE, ANYTIME A FENCE IS PROPOSED WITH BARBED WIRE, IT MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND THE MINIMUM SETBACK LINE. UH, THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE AND THE REAR AS IT ABUTS AN ALLEY IN THE REAR AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE SITE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 7 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET IN HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY DUE TO IT BEING LOCATED ALONG A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE B UH, TWO. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THREE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT TRADE A CLEAR VISION ISSUE. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BARBED WIRE SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 73. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, STAFF IS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO WARRANT THE NEED FOR FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT CAN INFLICT SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 26 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM THE CENTRAL NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM BEACON HILL, UH, WHICH IS LOCATED LESS THAN 200 FEET. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUICK, UH, CLARIFICATION, UH, QUESTION REGARDING THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. SO, UM, UH, WHEN I READ THE UDC SAYS THAT YOU CAN GIVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION IF YOU MEET, IF YOU MEET, UH, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. AND ONE OF THEM BEING IS THAT THE BARBED WIRE IS, UM, LOCATED BEHIND A MINIMUM SETBACK. UM, EXCEPT WE'RE SURROUNDED BY ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL USES. SO DO THEY, DO THEY TRY TO GET AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION? AND DID, I MEAN, DID Y'ALL APPROVE IT? IF, WOULD YOU APPROVE IT IF IT WAS 10 FEET BACK, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING. UM, SO THAT'S PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. UM, I CAN'T REALLY SAY WHETHER WE WOULD APPROVE THAT OR NOT. UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, I I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS THAT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT KIND OF IMPLIES THAT THEY'RE ASK THEY'RE, WELL, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A NINE FOOT, 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIZE SETBACK, BUT IT'S NOT, [02:15:01] THE SITE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. IT'S ONLY A TEST THAT YOU USE FOR AN AVR. AND SO I'M RIGHT. SO THEY HAVE TO GET THIS APPROVED BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER THEIR AEVR ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S WHY THIS HAS TO BE APPROVED. SO EVEN AFTER WE, IF WE VOTE TO APPROVE THIS, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO TO AN AVR PROCESS. CORRECT. AND WE MADE THAT CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, DID WE HEAR THIS CASE BEFORE? OR SOME, SOME SET OF IT. AND THIS WAS CONTINUED. OKAY. SO IT WAS A CONTINUED STRIKE. IT WASN'T HEARD, YES. OKAY. WHAT, OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, AND JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. IF WE APPROVE THIS AND THEN IT GOES TO AN AVR AND YOU DISAPPROVE AVR, WOULD THAT BE A, AN APPEAL? UH, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABOA APPEAL? YES. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET, MAKE SURE I GET ALL THIS STRAIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE, UH, SIDE, UH, SETBACK, WOULD IT CHANGE IF, UH, BARBED WIRE WAS FACING INSIDE THE PROPERTY MARKER? YEAH. IS A BARBED WIRE ANGLED IN OR OUT? SO IF, IF THE BARBED WIRE IS APPROVED, IT HAS TO, THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT CONFIGURATION TO BE FACING IN. THAT'S THE STANDARD. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO. WHETHER THIS, WHETHER IT'S HERE OR WHETHER IT'S WITHIN THE 10 FEET INSIDE MANNA. OKAY. MANNA. SO, SO MR. ZUKE, YOU SAYS GO, MR. ZUKE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION MORE? YEAH, WELL GO AHEAD MR. MANNA. SO, SO, YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, THIS, THE CASE WAS CONTINUED CERTAINLY, BUT THERE WERE CERTAINLY LOTS OF DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PROJECT. AND SO, SO ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WAS IF YOU USE GOOGLE DRIVE AND TAKE A LOOK, THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT SITS, UM, THAT BUTTS THIS PROPERTY WHERE THE, WHERE THE, UM, BARBED WIRE IS FACING OUT INTO THAT PROPERTY. AND I, I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE DIALOGUE THAT WE HAD AT THE TIME. UM, AND SO, SO IF YOU GO AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CORNER, SO, UH, ALONG, THERE YOU GO. PERFECT. SO, SO THAT PICTURE THERE, I KNOW THAT CAME UP FOR DIALOGUE, THERE WAS, WAS THAT PROPERTY THERE AND, AND THE DISTANCE WITH IT. SO, SO JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PIECE. OKAY. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. GO HO. HOLD ON, COMMISSIONER, YOU GONNA GO? HOLD ON. GO AHEAD. I, IS THIS A BUSINESS? AND, AND WHY DO YOU NEED BARB WIRE? I BELIEVE THE WE'LL HAVE, WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? COME ON UP. WE GOT YOUR FIRST QUESTION. WE, AND THEN AFTER THIS QUESTION, WE, WE, WE, WE DO WANT TO HEAR YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION, BUT LET'S JUST KNOCK THIS QUESTION OUT FIRST. GOOD TO GO. CAN I ASK A QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? OH, HOLD ON. WE HAVE ONE IN, WE HAVE ONE IN PLAY ALREADY. UH, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND OH, SURE. MY NAME'S RAFAEL TRINIDAD AND I'M THE OWNER ALONG WITH MY WIFE. UH, I NEED TO SAY THAT, OR I'M IN TROUBLE. UH, UH, BIOTECH'S CRIME AND TRAUMA SCENE CLEANING IS OUR BUSINESS. WHAT'S THE NAME OF YOUR BUSINESS? BIOTECHS. YES, MA'AM. IT'S A CRIME AND TRAUMA SCENE CLEANING COMPANY. OKAY. SO WHY DO YOU NEED BARB WIRE? OH, YEAH. AND SO THE LAST TIME, AND I, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT YOU WERE HERE, SO I DID WANT TO KIND OF EMPHASIZE WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, BUT WE ARE A 24 HOUR RESPONSE AND A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITHIN OUR BUSINESS ARE FEMALE. AND SO THE IMPORTANCE AND EMPHASIS OF WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THIS VARIANCE IS FOR THE SAFETY ASPECT OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHO SHOW UP AT ALL HOURS, UH, OF THE NIGHT TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE, UH, THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY'RE IN NEED OF OUR SERVICE. BUT DON'T YOU HAVE JUST AN ELECTRONIC GATE THAT THEY COME IN AND OUT? YES, MA'AM. BUT AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE PICTURES THAT I'LL, I'LL BE SHOWING ALONG WITH REVISITING WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED THE FIRST TIME, WHICH I KNOW YOU WEREN'T PRIVY TO. UM, I'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH, OR AT LEAST I THINK I'LL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THOROUGHLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE DO AND WHY IT IS THAT WE, THAT WE'RE NEED IN, IN OUR OPINION, IN NEED OF THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE. OKAY, THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. SOGA. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA, QUICKLY 'CAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR HIS PRESENTATION. YEAH, YEAH, I WANT TO HEAR IT TOO. BUT I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION. UH, WHEN STAFF WENT OVER THERE, SIR, MR. TRINIDAD, WHEN STAFF WENT OVER THERE, DID UH, YOU, UH, EXPLAIN TO 'EM WHAT WAS IN THAT BUILDING? ARE YOU GONNA EXPLAIN IT WITH, UH, THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE OR WHAT, WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING, WHAT KIND OF CHEMICALS, ET CETERA? ALSO, I KNOW IT'S A 24 HOUR BUSINESS, BUT WHAT KIND OF, UH, CHEMICALS DO YOU HAVE IN THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE HOMELESS OR THE LIKES WOULD JUMP INTO THERE? OH, OKAY. PEOPLE WITH, I KNOW YOU'RE [02:20:01] A POLICE OFFICER, RIGHT? I RETIRED, YES, SIR. OKAY, SO YOU ON SECURITY, YOU KNOW THAT. SO HOPEFULLY YOU, UH, AS A CHAIRMAN SAYS, HOPEFULLY LET YOU PRESENT AND SEE WHAT YOU BRING IN SO WE ALL CAN SEE WHAT'S IN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. UM, I, DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW? UH, OR YOU WANT ME TO WEAVE? JUST INCLUDE IT IN PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION. NO PROBLEM, PLEASE. YEAH, HOPEFULLY, IF I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, YOU PLEASE REMIND ME. OKAY. OKAY. AM I GOOD? OKAY. SO MY NAME IS RAPHAEL TRINIDAD. UH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO WHO I AM AS A PERSON. 'CAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT. AH, THERE WE GO. I DO BELIEVE IT GENUINELY MATTERS. I WILL SAY ONE THING REAL QUICKLY IS LAST TIME WE WERE NUMBER 15, THIS TIME WE'RE NUMBER FOUR, AND I FELT LIKE I WON THE LOTTERY BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT WAS CRAZY THAT LAST TIME. SO I FEEL FOR YOU GUYS OUT HERE. UM, WHAT I'LL SAY IS, IS THAT, UH, I DO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME THROUGH AND, AND TO GIVE, UH, UH, SOME FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE. I AM BORN AND RAISED HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, SERVED MY COUNTRY PROUDLY IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. GOT OUT, BECAME A POLICE OFFICER, RETIRED FROM THAT FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND I ALSO, UM, I ALSO HAVE A NONPROFIT IN THIS CITY CALLED SHIELDS FOR KIDS. UM, THAT'S HOUSED OUT OF THIS BUILDING. MY SERVICE TO MY COMMUNITY WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME. UH, WHAT I FELT WAS THAT A RESPONSIBILITY, BOTH AS A MILITARY MEMBER, FROM MY PARTNERS, AS A POLICE OFFICER, FROM MY CITIZENS, WHEN I WAS THERE TO HANDLE A CASE, UM, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE THAT I WAS THERE TO COMMUNICATE WITH AND ULTIMATELY PROVIDE THAT SERVICE, WERE UNDER MY CARE. WE UNDER MY RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S THE SAME THING I FEEL WHEN IT COMES TO OUR BUSINESS. I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY WHEN IT COMES TO WHY I AM HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE HERE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE HERE TO GOVERN. AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE VARIANCES THE SAME WAY THAT I HAD, UH, AN ABILITY TO USE DISCRETION. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M HERE TO ASK FOR THAT DISCRETION IN THIS SITUATION. SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS, IS I'M GOING TO, WELL EXPLAIN TO YOU FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THAT WITH BIOTECHS BEING A CRIME AND TRAUMA SCENE CLEANING COMPANY, AND I'LL, I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT REAL QUICKLY, IS THAT I, I WON'T MENTION ANY NAMES AS FAR AS HERE ON THE BOARD, BUT THERE, THERE IS A BOARD MEMBER THAT HAS UTILIZED OUR SERVICES TWICE. AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT WITH OUR INDUSTRY AND WHAT WE DO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE THERE ON CALL WHENEVER THESE CRITICAL INCIDENTS COME UP. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE A CRIME AND TRAUMA SCENE CLEANING COMPANY. SO WHEN OUR CLIENTS NEED US, WHEN WE HAVE TO BE THERE, AND WE HAVE, WE HAVE A ONE HOUR RESPONSE TIME, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE DO HAVE CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY THAT WE PROVIDE THIS SERVICE. SO THE RESPONSE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. UM, IT, IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT IN OUR INDUSTRY AND OUR BUSINESS, A MAJORITY ARE FEMALE. SO FOR ME, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY I'M HERE. AS A BUSINESS OWNER, IT CAN APPEAR AS IF, OKAY, THIS IS ABOUT MONEY BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT. WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, WE, WE WENT WITH A CREDIBLE FENCE COMPANY. THEY'RE HERE IN TOWN. THEY, THEY HAVE A LONG HISTORY. WE WEREN'T ADVISED OF THIS SITUATION. SO BELIEVE ME, AS A BUSINESS OWNER, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A LOT MORE, IT'D MADE A LOT MORE SENSE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. I WOULDN'T BE HERE DOING THIS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M IN A FORTUNATE SITUATION THAT I, THE, THE MONEY ISN'T THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS MORE ABOUT WHAT I FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR TO EVERYBODY THAT WORKS WITHIN MY ORGANIZATION. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TO REQUEST THIS VARIANCE AND THESE PICTURES, I'M HOPING, WHICH ALL OF THEM ARE NEW, AND I'LL EMPHASIZE THEY'RE ALL IN BETWEEN THE TIME THAT WE LEFT THIS BOARD MEETING TO TODAY. SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL EMPHASIZE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY I AM HERE TO REQUEST THIS VARIANCE. I WILL SAY THAT THERE IS A COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE I'VE GOT IT RIGHT, WE'VE GOT THE STAFF MANAGERS, COMMISSIONERS, AND CHAIR. SO THERE IS A COMMISSIONER THAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS ABOUT IF I WAS A NEIGHBOR AND IF I LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONCERNS I WOULD HAVE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF BARBED WIRE FENCE OR THE, OR THE HEIGHT OF THIS FENCE AND HOW IT, HOW IT WOULD COME ACROSS. AND I DO RESPECTFULLY APPRECIATE THAT. I, I GET THAT THAT'S WHY I CARED FOR THE CITIZENS, BUT ALSO THE HISTORICAL LOOK OF OUR [02:25:01] CITY AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH IT. I LOVE MY TOWN. SO THIS IS KIND OF WHY I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT FROM THE TIME WE LEFT THIS LAST BOARD MEETING TO TODAY, WHAT TAKES PLACE IN OUR VICINITY, WHICH LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, THE POINTS FOR APPROVAL, WHICH WAS SEVEN TO TWO, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. WE TALKED ABOUT A CHURCH THAT'S NEXT DOOR WHO PROVIDES SERVICES FOR THE HOUSELESS INDIVIDUALS OR SOME OF THE HOUSELESS INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY. AND THESE HOUSELESS PEOPLE DO CONGREGATE WAITING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE SERVICES OF THIS CHURCH. WHAT I'M, WHICH IS WHAT I'M ALL FOR. I WOULDN'T HAVE A NONPROFIT. BUT THE WHAT COMES WITH THAT IS A LOT OF SPILLOVER ONTO OUR PARTICULAR LOCATION. I'LL GET INTO THAT LATER. UH, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE APPROVALS, SOME OF THAT APPROVAL IS FOR THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF A 24 7 EMERGENCY SERVICES. IT WAS NO CLEAR VISION IS ISSUES AND DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. AND THE DETERRENCE WHEN IT CAME TO THE ACTIVITY THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED BEFORE THE FENCE WAS, WAS THERE, BECAUSE I DO HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING. WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 21 YEARS. I DO HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING ABOUT THREE BUILDINGS DOWN THAT WE OFFICED OUT OF BEFORE WE PURCHASED THIS, THIS BUILDING. AND IN THAT BUILDING WE HAD BLANKETS OVER THE FENCE WHERE PEOPLE WOULD CLIMB OVER AND CAMP OUT IN THE BACK OF OUR BUILDING. I MEAN, WE HAD, I BROUGHT THIS UP ALL THE LAST TIME. BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF, OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY EXPERIENCED WITHIN OUR PARTICULAR AREA, WHICH WE'RE ONLY THREE, THREE BUILDINGS DOWN FROM WHERE WE WE HOUSED BEFORE. SO, UM, IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ROLL THROUGH THE PICTURES UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING. WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL ROLL THROUGH THE PICTURES. I'LL GIVE KIND OF MY FINAL OPENING STATEMENT, IF YOU WILL, FINAL PART OF IT. AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO AGAIN, IF YOU NOTICE THE DATES, THIS IS OCTOBER THE 11TH OF 2020. THEY'RE NOT IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER EITHER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHAT I WANNA EXPLAIN. THIS IS ON THE FRONT SIDE OF OUR BUILDING, THERE'S QUITE OFTEN A POLICE PRESENCE AT THIS LOCATION THAT'S NOT FOR TRAFFIC DIRECTION OR ANYTHING ELSE IN PARTICULAR. IT'S FOR THE RESIDENT THAT IS JUST EAST OF OUR LOCATION. SO WE'LL KEEP GOING TO THE NEXT ONE. IF YOU DON'T MIND. THIS IS A POLICE PRESENCE. AGAIN, AN EXAMPLE OF IT. NOW, IF YOU'LL NOTICE, THIS IS RIGHT THERE OFF OF HILDEBRAND. WHAT WE HAVE THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM, IS HOW MANY PEOPLE, BECAUSE OF THAT NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST THAT COME IN AND PARK, YOU'LL SEE THIS AS AN OFFICER'S VEHICLE 'CAUSE HE IS DEALING WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS THERE. BUT YOU'LL SEE IN THE NEXT PICTURE, GO AHEAD, UH, THIS INDIVIDUAL, AND THESE ARE, THIS IS AT 8 28. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE MAJORITY OF THESE PICTURES ARE DURING THE DAYTIME. ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE FOR A VARIANCE IS BECAUSE WE RESPOND 24 7. SO IF IT WOULD BE ONE THING, IF ALL WE DEALT WITH WAS DURING THE DAYTIME AS OPPOSED TO WHEN YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF HERE GOING IN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO TRY TO RESPOND TO THESE SITUATIONS. AND THIS ACTIVITY, AS WE ALL KNOW, GETS MORE INTENSE AS THE SUN GOES DOWN. SO WE'LL KEEP GOING. HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THEY PARK INTO THAT AREA IN BETWEEN WHERE THE FENCE IS CURRENTLY AND THE CURB TO HILDEBRAND. AND THAT IS WHAT WE SEE CONSTANTLY. I, UM, THAT FOOT TRAFFIC GOING TO THAT HOME TO THE EAST, YOU'LL, UH, YOU'LL SEE HERE SHORTLY WHY, THAT'S WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT. KEEP GOING AGAIN, A DIFFERENT DATE. MIND YOU, THESE AREN'T THE SAME PICTURES, THESE ARE DIFFERENT DATES. YOU'LL NOTICE THE DATES UP THERE ON TOP. WE'LL KEEP GOING ONE, THIS IS ANOTHER INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE THAT, UH, THERE, THERE ARE OFF UNIFORMED OFFICERS, BUT, AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE'S ONE OFFICER THAT'S, THAT'S IN PLAIN CLOTHES AND I WORKED IN A PLAIN CLOTHES UNIT TOWARDS THE END OF MY CAREER. AND, UH, HE'S THERE, WHICH USUALLY HAS TO DO WITH SOME SORT OF A FOLLOW-UP UNIT, WHETHER IT BE A ROBBERY, NARCOTICS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ANYWAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING. THIS IS ON THAT SAME DATE WITH THE OFFICER THAT WENT AROUND TO THE BACK OF, THIS IS THE BACK OF MY BUILDING, JUST SO YOU KNOW. AND THIS IS ANOTHER OFFICER, THIS IS AN OFFICER THAT WENT AROUND BACK. UH, I WILL EMPHASIZE THE, UH, THE BARBED WIRE IN THE, IN JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IS WE HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC TO INCLUDE VEHICLES BACK THERE THAT WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT THE BUILDING, PEOPLE HAD CLIMBED UP ON TOP OF THAT ROOF, POKED HOLES IN THE CEILING, GRAFFITI INSIDE THE CEILING. UH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A BUNCH OF STUFF THAT HAPPENED AND THIS IS THE WAY THAT THEY GAINED ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. WE'LL KEEP GOING. [02:30:03] ANOTHER, ANOTHER EXAMPLE ON A DIFFERENT DAY. SAME THING. UH, A MORE ARREST. NOW THIS IS GONNA BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THE CHURCH THAT'S NEXT DOOR. THE CARS THAT YOU SEE A LINE THERE, THEY, THEY TYPICALLY PILE UP THERE. AND I, I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE VIDEOS, BUT I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S WEIRD HOW THE CARS SHOW UP. THEY'RE THERE FOR LIKE 15, 20 MINUTES. THEY WALK DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, COME BACK AND HEAD OUT. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THOSE, BUT WE'LL KEEP GOING. YOU SEE THE OFFICER DEALING WITH SOMEBODY THERE. THIS IS THAT SAME SITUATION. THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE, THEY EITHER LIVE OR HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT HOUSE TO THE EAST OF US. THESE ARE ALL OUR SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS THAT WE PUT UP. WE'LL KEEP GOING AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON A DIFFERENT DATE COMING FROM THAT HOUSE THROUGH THE BACK OF OUR BUILDING. AND AGAIN, I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. WE'LL KEEP GOING. WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE HERE THAT I'M GONNA ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON IS, UH, IF WE, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE. I'M SORRY. ALRIGHT, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER. THIS IS THE GRAFFITI ON THAT SAME SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS INDIVIDUAL ON THAT DATE, UH, IS, IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HE HAD A SNICKERS BAR IN HIS MOUTH. HE HAD, UM, SOME ITEMS THERE ON THE, ON THE, UH, LEDGE. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE. HE'S PRETTY MUCH PASSED OUT. WE'LL KEEP GOING. IT SAYS THROUGH THE, BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE, THEY END UP BUSTING OUR PIPES THAT GO BACK THERE. THAT'S, THAT'S HERE RECENTLY. WE'LL KEEP GOING. SO SOMEBODY'S DEFECATING BACK THERE. THAT WAS TODAY BY THE WAY. I WENT BACK THERE AND, AND YOU'LL NOTICE THE DATES AND, AND IF YOU ARE CURIOUS AND IF, I WOULD HOPE THE INTEGRITY IS IS THERE WITH YOU, BUT I HAVE IT ON MY PHONE WITH THE TIMESTAMP. I TOOK THAT TODAY. WE'LL KEEP GOING. THIS IS A VIEW OF THAT BACK PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE. AND, AND, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT I DO UNDERSTAND THE ONE COMMISSIONER'S PERSPECTIVE ON IF YOU KNOW A NEIGHBOR, IF I WAS A NEIGHBOR AND IF AND IF YOU HAD BUILT THIS FENCE, WHAT IT WOULD DO. AND I, AND I TRULY DO GET THAT. BUT AS YOU'LL SEE IN THIS NEXT PICTURE, WHICH I TOOK TODAY, I SAW THAT THE LADY WAS WALKING BEHIND OR WALKING AWAY. SO I FOUND IT. AND BY THE WAY, I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN, UH, IN, UH, PLAIN CLOTHES DETECTIVE WORK. SO I WAS ABLE TO SNEAK AROUND AND SAW 'EM. OKAY, COOL. PUT MY CAMERA OUT AND SNAPPED THIS PICTURE. THIS IS WHAT IT IS. IF YOU WENT THERE TODAY, THIS IS WHAT'S NEXT DOOR TO ME. AND THIS IS WHERE ALL THAT FOOT TRAFFIC IS COMING INTO PLAY. KEEP GOING PLEASE. THANK YOU. THIS IS WHAT THEIR BACKYARD LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE IT IS OUR BELIEF AND THROUGH MY VISUAL OBSERVATION THAT WHOEVER IS LIVING INSIDE THIS HOME IS, IS NOT ALLOWING THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE BACK TO BE ABLE TO ENTER THE PROPERTY. THEY DO ALL THEIR FOOT TRAFFIC AROUND THE BACK AND AROUND THE SIDE. SO WE'LL KEEP GOING. PLEASE. THAT'S WHAT THEIR FRONT YARD LOOKED LIKE ON MAY 11TH. OKAY. HERE'S WHERE WE'RE STARTING TO TRANSITION INTO, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO KEEP, NOT WANTING OUR CITY TO LOOK LIKE A BARBED WIRE. UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? WHAT'S THE TOP PART THAT WE'RE TALKING? UH, YEAH, THE WIRE. YEAH, LIKE, AND I, I DO TRULY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS MY CITY ALSO. AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST I DO TRULY APPRECIATE OUR CITY AND I TAKE PRIDE IN IT. SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE POINT. IT'S JUST WHEN YOU COME OFF I 10 AND HILDEBRAND, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT AS HIGH AS THE FENCE THAT WE HAVE, IT STILL IS A PART OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE, IT'S ANOTHER FENCE. AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO NOTICE, THIS IS RIGHT, RIGHT NEXT TO MY BUILDING. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS, IS THAT WE, WE, WE TOOK THE TIME AND EFFORT TO HAVE THIS PROFESSIONALLY CONSTRUCTED AND FOR IT TO LOOK CLEAN. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WITHIN CODE, I'LL SAY CODE. I, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS QUALIFIES. BUT LOOK AT THE CONDITION OF IT AND, AND IT'S JUST SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WE DON'T WANT OUR CITY TO LOOK A CERTAIN WAY, I DO APPRECIATE IT AGAIN. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S LIKE, AND YOU'LL SEE A PICTURE OF OUR FENCE HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. I FEEL LIKE THAT DOES KIND OF THE SAME THING IF IT'S NOT PROFESSIONALLY KEPT UP. [02:35:01] AND THAT'S RIGHT THERE NEXT TO MY BUILDING. WE'LL KEEP GOING. THAT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF IT WITH, ALONG WITH THE, THE BARBED WIRE THAT'S ON TOP BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY'VE HAD THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD. KEEP GOING. THAT'S A NURSERY THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. THAT, AGAIN, NOT TO HARP ON THE BARBED WIRE, THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS. IT, IT'S MORE ABOUT JUST THAT IT IS STILL WITHIN THAT SAME LOOK OF WHERE WE HAVE INSTALLED OUR FENCE. WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT YOU JUST YES, SIR. A SECOND HERE. WE'RE, SO WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT, UM, THE BARBED WIRE AND WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE SETBACK AND, AND, AND THE HEIGHTS. AND SO WE, WE, WE JUST, IF YOU CAN JUST KIND OF STAY ON THAT AND, AND YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY SHOWN THAT YOU HAVE SECURITY ISSUES. YES. SOME REAL ISSUES. NO PROBLEM. I CAN HAVE, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO START GETTING INTO SOME QUESTIONING. NO PROBLEM. SO COMMISSIONER KA. OKAY, SO IT SAYS THAT IT'S ONE INCH, THE, THE SIDE, UM, WELL BARBED WIRE'S ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. UH, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I NEED TO ASK YOU OR THE CITY, IS IT, YOU HAVE IT ANGLED TO YOUR NEIGHBOR? SO IS THAT ONE INCH, UM, FROM WHERE THE POLES ARE OR ONE INCH FROM WHEN ANGLED PART? YES MA'AM. ANGLE PART. SO THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, IT WAS TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE FENCE LINE GOING PAST THE FRONT PART OF OUR BUILDING. THAT WAS THE, THE ISSUE AT THE TIME. AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAME TO, TO DISCUSS. THIS HAS BEEN A NEW THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND I DON'T, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYTHING, ANY ANSWERS I SHOULD ASK. SO STAFF, DOES IT HAVE TO ANGLE IN OR OUT? JUST I KNOW YOU, IT HAS TO ANGLE INSIDE THE PROPERTY, SO IT DOES HAVE TO BE, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU CONSIDER ANGLING IT INSIDE THE PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. NO, NO. HE'LL HAVE TO, IF HE GETS THE PERMISSION TO KEEP IT, HE'LL HAVE TO FIX IT. AND I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I, THAT I WILL EMPHASIZE I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE ANGLE AT ALL. IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST HAVING THE SECURITY FOR, FOR MY TROOPS AND THEN IT'S, IT'S JUST FOR THOSE THAT I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IS YOUR YES. COMMISSIONER, IS THERE SOME WAY THAT THAT PLEDGE TO REVERSE THE ANGLE? YES, SIR. OF THE BARBED WIRE? UM, CAN WE GET THAT IN THE RECORD SOMEHOW? WELL, WHAT'LL HAPPEN IS IF IT GETS APPROVED TODAY, HE HAS TO GO BACK TO GET A PERMIT AND THE PERMIT'S GONNA REQUIRE HIM TO DO THAT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S, AND IN FACT, HE HAS TO GO BACK FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION. HE HAS TO GET A VARIANCE FROM STAFF. AND IF HE DOESN'T GET THAT, HE MIGHT EVEN COME BACK TO US MAYBE, UH, CHAIR, CORRECT? YES. CHAIR. UM, I THINK WE HAVE IT. IF IT'S OKAY, IF SHE, IF SHE, I I DON'T KNOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO TELL IT'S THE, UM, WE DID GO A WHILE BACK. CAN YOU, CAN YOU, THEY'LL PROJECT IT UP THERE. YOU CAN HAND IT TO, IT WAS APPROVED. MY NAME'S LINDA GARCIA AND WE DID SHOW IT LAST TIME. OKAY. IT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOMETHING VARIANCE. I FORGOT WHAT IT'S CALLED. AEVR. OKAY. SO THERE WAS PERMISSION. YES. SO LONG AS YOU MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. AND THE ONE CRITERIA WE GOT THAT APPROVED. WELL, I KNOW, BUT THE ONE, THEY CAN'T APPROVE IT IF IT'S YOU DON'T HAVE THE 10 FEET. SO YOU HAVEN'T ABSOLUTELY COME TO US FOR THE 10 FEET. YES, WE DID HEIGHT COME HEIGHT, YES. OKAY. THAT'S WHY WE WERE HERE. WHEN I, WHEN I GOT THE, UM, APPROVAL FOR THAT, THAT'S WHEN SHE TOLD ME YOU NEED SOMETHING FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME HERE. SO THAT MEANS THAT, SO FOR STAFF, IF THEY HAVE THE, IF THEY ALREADY HAVE THE AVR AND WE APPROVE IT TODAY, HAVE THEY ALREADY APPLIED FOR A, LIKE A PERMIT? IS THE AVR TIED TO A PERMIT APPLICATION OR IS, UH, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, UH, FROM LAST YEAR, BUT THEY CAN, THEY CAN BUILD WHAT THE SETBACK STANDARD IS OF 10 FEET. THEY CAN'T BUILD ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT DID OKAY. BUT, BUT THEY DID ALREADY GET THE A-V-R-A-V-E-V-R-A-E-V-R APPROVED, RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT IF, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT WILL BE, UM, THEN THEY'LL HAVE THIS HAS TOLD WEONE IS THERE AN AP NUMBER FOR THE FENCE IN PLACE ALREADY OR NOT? I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE WE, WE HEARD, WE, WE HAD A, A COMMISSIONER QUESTION ABOUT ENSURING THAT IT'S GONNA BE ANGLED IN AND SO THE PER THE PERMITTING PROCESS WILL DO THAT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY HAD ALREADY APPLIED FOR THAT. SO THIS THE AVR STANDARD LANGUAGE, UH, UH, MENTIONED SECTION SIX DASH TWO, WHICH, WHICH IS ON THIS LETTER ON ITEM FOUR. SO WHICH IS THE ANGLE OF INSIDE. SO THAT IS DOCUMENTED ALREADY. CORRECT. OKAY. MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE, I THINK MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME AND UM, IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THE, YOU POINTED OUT SOME EXAMPLES WHERE IT DID HAVE, UH, SOME OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THERE DID HAVE THE BARB WIRE FENCE, UNFORTUNATELY. AND UH, BUT THOSE FENCES WERE A LITTLE BIT LOWER IN HEIGHT. AND SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING FOR, FOR THE EIGHT FOOT PLUS THE TWO FOOT, I GUESS, OR, YOU KNOW, SO, SO YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE, UM, I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFICULTY OF, OF BEING AT SIX FOOT WITH THE TWO FOOT OR, [02:40:01] OR YOU KNOW, I SEE FOUR FOOT AND TWO FOOT AND I SEE A SIX FOOT AND TWO FOOT. SO, SO IS THAT AN OPTION AS WELL? THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE PART THAT I, IT WAS THE REASON WHY INITIALLY THAT I WENT, I WAS VERY WELL AWARE OF, OF OF WHAT THE, WHAT THE SURROUNDING AREAS WERE. I HAVE SEEN SOME THAT ARE HIGHER, BUT THEY'RE NOT ON THE FRONT. AND I THINK THAT WAS WHERE WE HAD HAD OUR ISSUES. UM, BUT FOR ME IT WAS JUST, I'M ALL ABOUT THE DETERRENCE. UH, I DON'T LIKE TO BE REACTIVE. I LIKE TO BE PROACTIVE BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE REACTIVE. THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. THE EXAMPLE IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUMPED THOSE WITH THE BLANKETS. I MEAN, PRISONERS ESCAPE LIKE THAT. I MEAN THAT THEY, THEY HAVE, AND ESPECIALLY NEXT DOOR, THEY, I'VE SEEN SOMEBODY ON THE TREE, I JUST COULDN'T GET A PICTURE OF IT, BUT THEY WERE ON A TREE THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS OVER OUR, OUR FENCE. AND I'M LIKE, I, THERE'S, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, WHY DO THAT? YOU'RE, YOU'RE GAINING INTEL FOR SOME REASON. I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THAT DEFINITELY PUT A STRAIN ON ME AS FAR AS LIKE WITH, WITH EVERYONE THAT WORKS THERE, I'M A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NEED THE HEIGHT BECAUSE OF, OF THE, IS IMMEDIATE ISSUE NEXT DOOR TO YOU? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND, AND I ONLY HAD TWO MORE PICTURES THAT YOU CAN FLIP THROUGH REAL QUICKLY AND I'LL BE DONE ONLY SO THAT I CAN KIND OF ADDRESS. YEAH, GO AHEAD. ONE LAST THING, YOU CAN JUST FLIP TO THAT ONE AND WE'LL WE'LL BE DONE AND I'LL MAKE IT QUICK, I PROMISE. OKAY. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? UH, I MEAN THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENT COLORED FENCES, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT OUR BUILDING LOOKS LIKE TODAY FROM THAT ANGLE. AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, I MADE SURE I DIDN'T ADD ANY COLOR I MADE, I WANTED IT TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE, WHILE STILL BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A DETERRENCE. BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE THAT THAT LITTLE CURB THERE, WHICH THERE'S ALWAYS BACKPACKS, BEER BOTTLES, EVERYTHING'S ALWAYS RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER. AND WHEN BEFORE WE MOVED IN, THERE WAS A TENT OUT THE FRONT, OUT THE FRONT DOOR. SO IT'S, THE CHURCH IS JUST TO THE LEFT. AND THAT'S WHY THE EMPHASIS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WAS WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS, WHEN WE FIRST GOT THERE, IT WAS JUST, IT WAS JUST EVERYWHERE THERE. AND SO FOR ME, WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT'S MY WEAK POINT, YES, IT'S GONNA BE THE BACK, BUT THE FRONT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS ACTIVITY. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I DO, YES. THE, THE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS THE, UM, YELLOW BUILDING. THAT'S YOU, THE YELLOW BUILDING IS YOU? YES MA'AM. OKAY, SO THE GRAY BUILDING TO THE RIGHT, IS THAT THE DRUG HOUSE? UH, YOU, YOU MEAN, UH, THAT WAY ON THAT SIDE, UH, TO THE RIGHT? YEAH. UH, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BUILDING LIKE THIS AND THE ONE TO THE RIGHT, YES MA'AM. THAT IS THE HOUSE THAT, THAT I WAS SHOWING PICTURES OF. AND THEN THE ONE TO THE LEFT IS ACTUALLY THE CHURCH. OKAY. THE ONE OVER HERE, THE GRAY, THE GRAY HOUSE TO THE LEFT ACROSS THE STREET. LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT. I KNOW HOW TO USE A GUN, BUT THIS THING , IS THIS THE GRAY HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET? OKAY, GOTCHA. YEAH, HE'S GONNA USE THE POINTER. ALRIGHT, SO THIS HERE IS THE HOUSE THAT I'VE BEEN SHOWING YOU PICTURES OF THE NEXT, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE ACTIVITY WAS THAT I INITIALLY STARTED WITH. IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE NEXT TO OUR BUILDING. OKAY. IS THAT THE GRAY HOUSE THAT'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, A HUNDRED FEET FROM YOUR PLACE? I'M SORRY, THE GRAY, THE GRAY HOUSE TO THE RIGHT. UHHUH. . THIS ONE I CAN'T SEE THE CORNER. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. GRAY HOUSE TO THE RIGHT. THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE GRAY HOUSE TO THE RIGHT. THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE DART HOUSE OR THE, THE DRUG HOUSE. THAT'S THE HOUSE THAT, YES MA'AM. ALL THAT ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE AND THAT I'VE, UH, WAS SHOWING TODAY, HIGHLIGHTING TODAY. HEY, NOW I DON'T WANNA HEAR TOO MUCH. OKAY. YES MA'AM. THIS ONE BASIC INFORMATION. AND THE GREENHOUSE RIGHT HERE OR THE GRAY HOUSE RIGHT HERE, THAT'S TO THE LEFT. IS THAT THE CHURCH? THAT'S THE CHURCH, YES MA'AM. OKAY. SO, SO THEY COME TO THE CHURCH AND THEN THEY GO TO THIS GRAY HOUSE. IS THAT CORRECT? NO MA'AM. ALL ALL I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT THAT'S WHERE THEY COME TO, TO GET SERVICES THAT THE CHURCH PROVIDES FOR HOUSELESS PEOPLE. AND THEY CAMP OUT WAITING FOR THE SERVICES FOR THEM TO OPEN OR PROVIDE THE SERVICES. AND THAT HOUSE HAS TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR THAT GET UP ON THE TREE AND HAVE ALL THE FOOT TRAFFIC GOING AROUND ALONG WITH THE POLICE PRESENCE. THAT'S THE GRAY HOUSE ON THE RIGHT? YES MA'AM. OKAY. SO I SAW THE DART OFFICERS THERE. SO IT MUST BE, IT MUST BE A DRUG HOUSE OR A, YOU KNOW, PROSTITUTION WITH SOMETHING GOING ON THERE. AND EVENTUALLY THAT HOUSE WILL PROBABLY GET DEMOLISHED BECAUSE THE DART, BUT THE DART CASES TAKE TWO YEARS. MA'AM, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE SO EVERYONE CAN, CAN HEAR? I'M SORRY. THE DARK CASES TAKE ABOUT TWO YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DART CASES ARE GONNA, THE DART OFFICERS ARE GONNA HAVE TO CONTINUOUSLY COME THERE. SO THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU SOME PROTECTION. UM, AND, BUT THE PEOPLE ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO COME IN AND OUT AS LONG AS YOU, YOU, YOU CAN CALL THE POLICE AND YOU CAN CALL CODE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS [02:45:01] A DART CASE. I CAN'T SPEAK ON WHAT IT WAS. I ALSO CAN'T LIVE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION BEING HERE IN THIS LIT ROOM WITH SECURITY. BUT WHEN WE LEAVE HERE, WE HAVE TO LIVE THIS EVERY DAY. I HAVE TO SUBJECT EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR ME. I SHOULD SAY WITH ME, THAT'S NOT CORRECT, JUST COMING FROM A STANCE OF BEING AN OWNER. I'M SAYING FOR ME, BUT THEY WORK WITH ME. I LOVE THESE PEOPLE. I CAN'T TAKE A CHANCE THAT DART'S GONNA, YOU ASKED ME MA'AM, AND I'M, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT I THINK THIS IS. OKAY. IT'S A DARK CASE. IT'S GOING TO BE A DARK CASE. OKAY. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY. OKAY. AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THE, IS THAT A 10 FOOT FENCE AROUND YOUR PLACE? WHAT IS THE HEIGHT? EIGHT FOOT FENCE. OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE A 10 FOOT FENCE AND UH, IF YOU CAN DO THAT AND UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA KEEP THE BARBED WIRE, I, I DON'T CARE. I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE BARBED WIRE IN A CITY, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR BUSINESS AND IF YOU THINK THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE GOING IN AND OUTTA YOUR BUSINESS, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO KEEP IT SAFE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENTARY, TIME TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. SO ONE QUESTION I HAD, COMMISSIONER, MAYOR, UM, AND JUST ON THE FRONT YOU SHOWED CARS PARKING IN THE FRONT AND SO, SO CURBS AND STUFF ALONG THERE TO HIGHLIGHT YOUR DRIVEWAY TO PREVENT PARKING MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL OPTION TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE. SO, BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. ALL READY? OKAY. REGARDING NUMBER BO O 8 23 0 3 0 0 2 7 3, A MOVE ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR THREE, WAIT A MINUTE. YEAH, THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE SITE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 10 39 WEST TILAND AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING AUDREY TRINIDAD BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE REQUEST IS IN HARMONIOUS, IS IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE APPLICANT IS MERELY SEEKING TO ESTABLISH SECURITY WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY, BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA REPRESENTED BY FENCE SITES TO PROTECT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS' PRIVACY AND SECURITY, WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH TALL FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PORTION OF THE YARD DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FRONT YARD FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF OBSERVED OTHER PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCES EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE REQUEST FOR THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IS DUE TO PRIVACY AND SECURITY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH VOLUME OF FOOT TRAFFIC ALONG WEST HILDEBRAND AVENUE E. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING OF C DASH TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF COMMERCIAL USES. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN OR DETRACT FROM THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. WELL, I'M FOR IT. I BELIEVE THAT, UM, YOU'VE MADE A VERY GOOD CASE ABOUT WHY YOU NEED, UM, A, A EXTRA HIGH FENCE AND THE BARBED WIRE, UH, AS LONG OF COURSE AS IT JUDGE PUTS IN INSTEAD OF OUT. UM, SO THAT'S IT. COMMISSIONER MANON. UM, YES. SO I ACTUALLY JUST WANNA GET A POINT OF CLARIFICATION WITH THE CITY, UM, WITH REGARD, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE RECOMMENDED, UH, THE, THE, THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED, THE BARBED WIRE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE INCLUDED IN THIS DIALOGUE. CORRECT. AND SO THEY WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AN EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE. AND THEN THE BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF THAT. SO THIS IS FOR THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS JUST FOR FENCE HEIGHT. THE NEXT MOTION WILL BE FOR THE SETBACK, BUT THE, BUT THE BARB WIRE SITS ON TOP OF THE FENCE HEIGHT, CORRECT? BUT IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE BUILDING SETBACK, WHICH IS THE NEXT MOTION. UH, I THINK HE'S ASKING IS IT A, IS IT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH BARB WIRE ON TOP OR IS IT A SIX FOOT FENCE WITH BARB WIRE ON DOT? SO IF HE GETS APPROVED FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, IT'LL BE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH THE BARBED WIRE ON TOP AND THE BARBED WIRE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 18 INCHES OR 16 INCHES OR 18, I THINK IT'S 18 INCHES. UH, 18. YEAH, 18 INCHES. OKAY. YES SIR. SO, SO JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR. SO, UM, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR FOR THIS. SO JUST, BUT JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT SIR. EVERYONE KNEW, [02:50:01] UM, WHAT IT WAS THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY VOTING ON. SO THANK. ALRIGHT, SO ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION? YEAH, I'LL JUST A YES, VERY MINOR FRIENDLY EDITORIAL AMENDMENT. SURE. I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, UNDER ITEM A, THE REQUEST IS IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER RATHER THAN IN HARMONIOUS HARMONIOUS. I THINK I SAID THAT BECAUSE I CAUGHT THAT HARMONIOUS. DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. OKAY. OKAY. SO LET IT, LET IT SHOW THAT IT WAS IN HARMONY. OKAY, . ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE ON THE FENCE HEIGHT. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. BURTON. I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ES I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA. YES, I CONCUR. MS. BROWN, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE MORE TO GO THOUGH, WHO'D LIKE TO READ THAT. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 73, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MA MINIMUM 10 FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRE FENCE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 10 39 WEST HILLEBRAND, APPLICANT BEING AUDREY TRINIDAD. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT WILL NOT INFLICT SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE SPACING WITHIN THE PROPERTY FOR RELOCATION. IF ABIDING BY THE ORDINANCE, THE PARKING LOT WILL BE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE TO BE CLOSER TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUEST WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, AS IT WILL NOT INFLICT SIGNIFICANT INJURY TO THE PUBLIC. FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE 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. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES. THE ABUTTING PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IF GRANTED, WILL NOT IMPOSE NEGATIVELY ONTO THIS USE. 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, UH, ALL THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE SAW IT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE BIG ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR THE FENCE TO BE PUSHED BACK 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNOR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN FOR, I'M GONNA BE FOR THIS TOO. UM, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR SECURITY AND YOU DO HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING NEXT TO A CHURCH THAT SERVICES THE NEED OF THE HOMELESS AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAVING SOMETHING GOING ON THERE THAT SEEMS TO BE EXTRA LEGAL COMMISSIONER MAN, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, UH, STATE THAT IT'D BE THE EAST SIDE, UH, THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UH, SO, SO MAKE IT SPECIFIC. I AGREE WITH THAT. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S, UH, UNDER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IT'S LIMITED TO THE, UH, THE BARBED WIRE SETBACK IS LIMITED TO THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THE FENCE IS. THE, THAT'S, THAT'S IN QUESTION. SO IT'S ON, I DON'T THINK WE'RE CHANGING ANYTHING THERE. SO, AND, AND SO I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. BARTON. I CONCUR WITH THOSE FINDINGS. MR. RHI? I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ES I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, [02:55:01] I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. UH, AND ONE OTHER THING I MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT IS MAYBE GETTING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND SEE IF YOU CAN CLOSE THAT ALLEY IF YOU'RE NOT USING IT FOR ANYTHING. AND I, I INTEND TO MAKE THAT CONTACT, BUT I REALLY WANTED TO FINISH THIS ASPECT FIRST IN CASE THERE'S ANY KIND OF ISSUE. AND THEN AT LEAST THE FENCE IS STILL THERE, YOU KNOW. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF? UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SIX TO EIGHT MINUTE BREAK CHAIR REAL QUICKLY. YOU GUYS, UH, LAST TIME WHEN I LEFT, IT WAS NOT APPROVED AND I STILL SAID THAT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO. THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. THIS TIME I GOT APPROVED. I'M STILL SAYING THE SAME THING. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITHOUT ANY COOPERATION. ALL RIGHT. IT'S 3 48. WE'RE CALLING THIS BACK INTO SESSION. I BELIEVE WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, BO OA 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 5 LOCATED AT 1 2 6 BLUFF SIDE DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR, APPLICANT BEING FTA. A REQUEST FOR A ONE, A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT, UM, NOT CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK TO A NINE FOOT 11 VARI INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT. FRONT, FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK AND THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT CLEAR VISION. UM, THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ALONG BLUFF SIDE DRIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. THE APPLICANT REMOVED TWO SMALLER CARPORTS AND BEGAN CONSTRUCTION A LARGER DETACHED CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A CARPORT, PORT CARPORT PERMIT, AND IT SHOWED A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK. IN ADDITION, WITH A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK UPON INSPECTIONS, IT WAS FOUND TO BE ENCROACHED INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. ADDITIONALLY, A NEW FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IS ENCROACHING TO THE CLEAR VISION MEASURING AT 10 FEET FROM THE CURVE. UM, THE SITE PLAN KIND OF SHOWING WHERE THE, UM, NOW THE NEW CARPORT IS NOW AT, UM, WITH THE NUMBERS ONE, TWO, AND THREE, INCLUDING THE CLEAR VISION AS WELL. AND THE NEXT PICTURE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE CARPORT ITSELF, THE SIDE SETBACK, UM, WHERE THE POST IS AT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE GUTTERS ALREADY, UH, ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND WATER BEING POURED DOWN TO ONE OF THE POLES. OOPS. THE FRONT SETBACK WHERE THE POLES ARE SHOWN AND THE OVERHANG OF WHERE THE CARPORT IS CURRENTLY AT NOW THE CUR VISION DISTANCE OF WHERE THE FENCE IS FROM THE CURVE TO THE FENCE NOW, AND A SURROUNDING AREA CARPORT THAT WAS SEEN IN THE VICINITY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA 2 3 1 0 0 2 6 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT REDUCED SET SETBACKS WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERS OF THE DISTRICT. THE CARPORT WILL BE TWO CLOSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NEIGHBOR AND NEIGHBORING CAUSING POSSIBLE ISSUES WITH WATER RUNOFF. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO A 23 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, NUMBER ONE, VICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED WITH THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION. TWO, THE CARPORT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THERE WERE 27 NOTICES, UH, MAILED OUT. THERE WERE ZERO RESPONSES AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA. UM, THAT IS STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. AND, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, ON THE LAST PICTURE, ON THE, UH, IN THE STAFF IN THE PACKAGE, THERE'S A, THERE'S AN EXISTING, THERE WAS TWO CARPORTS BEFORE YES. AND NOW THEY'RE REPLACING IT WITH ONE CENTRALLY LOCATED CARPORT. THAT ONE? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. MY NAME IS FRANCISCO. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. I ASK THE HONORABLE PANEL IF THEY CAN ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION. [03:00:14] AT FIRST, I DIDN'T HAVE THE PERMIT, THEN THE INSPECTORS CAME BY AND THEN TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO GET THE PERMITS. I CAME AND GOT IT, THE PERMITS, AND I CAME WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AT, AT FIRST, UM, THAT PART OF THE ROOF WAS, UH, INVADING THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, LIKE TOWARDS THE PROPERTY. BUT THEN THE INSPECTORS CAME BY, THEY TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO TAKE SOME OF IT OUT AND I DID. OKAY. WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IS SHE STATING THAT THE CARPORT IS COMPLETELY DONE ALREADY OR IT STILL NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED? I THINK THAT IT'S STILL SOME WORK STILL NEED TO BE DONE. OKAY. AND SHE'S SAYING SHE CUTS SOME OF IT OFF ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. SO EVEN WITH THE GUTTERS IS THERE'S STILL, UH, MORE ROOM WHERE IT CAN BE CUT BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE? OR I'M ASSUMING THE NEIGHBOR DIDN'T COMPLAIN. I JUST WANNA DOUBLE CHECK. IT'S BEEN, UM, CUT BACK AND INCLUDING THE, THE GUTTER. UH, IT'S INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO A QUICK QUESTION, UM, IS, IS SHE SAYING THAT THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT IS, IS NOT AS FAR AS THE PREVIOUS CARPORT? OR DID SHE CUT BACK THE NEW CARPORT? MM-HMM. . THE, THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS RIGHT ON THE LINE OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS ONE WAS CUT ABOUT THREE FEET. THREE FEET. OKAY. 'CAUSE SO THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT ACCURATE THEN. IS IS THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE'RE SEEING, WHICH LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, IS THAT NOT ACCURATE? NOW STEPH, CAN YOU BRING IT WITH A PICTURE WITH SOMEONE HOLDING THE MEASURING TAPE? IT'S A LITTLE CLOSER VIEW. YEAH. THE NEXT PICTURE WHERE, WHERE YOU SEE THE BEAM RIGHT THERE, THAT IS STICKING OUT, THAT'S HOW FAR OUT IT WAS. SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN CUT. SO THAT PICTURE IS NOT ACCURATE THEN. THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS RIGHT NOW. IT IS LIKE THAT IS HOW IT LOOKS. OKAY. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THE CARPORT RIGHT NOW, SO YOUR ORIGINAL CARPORT THAT YOU REPLACED THE ROOF LINE APPEARED TO BE EVEN WITH THE ROOF LINE FOR THE HOUSE. AND, AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE NOW DUPLICATED THAT AGAIN WITH THE EXISTING ROOF LINE AS IT IS, EXCEPT FOR THAT, THAT PIECE THAT'S STICKING OUT. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE SAME ROOF LINE ALONG YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, THAT'S THE SAME ROOF LINE NOW, UH, WITH YOUR OLD CARPORT AND YOUR CURRENT CARPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? [03:05:17] STAFF RINGS UP A OVERHEAD PICTURE. PICTURE, YES. THE, THE ROOF OF THE PORCH IS ALIGNED WITH THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE AND THE ONE PIECE THAT'S STICKING OUT, THAT'S GONNA BE REMOVED AS WELL. SO THAT, THAT FINAL PIECE. SO, UH, SECOND QUESTION IS THE FRONT OF THE, THE, UM, YOU HAVE AN OVERHANG THAT'S REALLY CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK, AND AS I DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER CARPORTS THAT ARE THAT CLOSE. AND SO HOW BIG OF AN EFFORT WOULD IT BE TO MOVE THE FRONT END AS WELL? A LITTLE BIT. AND THE TRUTH IS THAT I LIKE HOW IT LOOKS LIKE THAT. OKAY. AND TO EXPAND ON THAT QUESTION, THERE IS A POST INSIDE OF A, UH, WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT GOES ACROSS THE FRONT AND THEN THE CARPORT STICKS PAST THE POST CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK. AND SO IT, IT, SINCE YOU HAVE A, UM, WROUGHT IRON FENCE, IS IT EVEN NECESSARY TO STICK PAST THE FENCE? BECAUSE THE, THE CARS CAN'T STICK THROUGH THE GATE, YOU KNOW, SO YES. GERMAN, THAT NECESSARY? I'M SORRY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ROOF? SO ONE OF THE ISSUES, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHAT I'M GETTING AT UHHUH , ONE OF OUR ISSUES IS, IS HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE FRONT SIDEWALK. MM-HMM, . SO SHE HAS, SHE HAS SUPPORT BEAMS THAT ARE JUST INSIDE OF HER FENCING. MM-HMM. IN THE FRONT AND THEN THE CARPORT STICKS OUT. MM-HMM. . SO IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE IT STICK OUT PAST THOSE POSTS IF THERE'S A FENCE THERE? IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT FUNCTIONAL IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. I JUST REALLY LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, GO AHEAD. WHY, WHY DID YOU MAKE THE CARWOOD SO LARGE? MA'AM? IT'S, IT'S LIKE THREE QUARTERS OF YOUR HOUSE. SO I CAN FIT IN THREE CARS. SO YOU CAN FIT IN THREE CARS. OH, THREE CARS. WELL, MOST, MOST CARPORTS FIT TWO, SO YOU HAD TO DO THREE FOR YOUR CARPORT, BUT IT, IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THEN THE FRONT PART EXTENDS LIKE OUT SO FAR BEFORE THEY ASKED HER, SHE COULD CUT IT BACK. SEE, JUST SAY YES. SORRY. I'M SORRY. YES. UH, THE ROOF OF THE PORCH IS RIGHT ON TOP OF THE LINE OF THE FENCE. [03:10:04] I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE, THE FRONT PART OF THE CARPORT. THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE LIKE THIS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S TOO FAR OUT. I DID, I MADE IT TOO FAR OUT LIKE THAT. SO WHEN IT'S RAINING AND I NEED TO CLOSE THE GATE, I DON'T GET WET IF IT'S RAINING. OKAY. UH, IS THERE COMMISSIONER ARMANA? SO IT'S A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. AND TWO WEEKS AGO WE HAD A CASE WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING POST DISTANCES FROM THE PROP FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH REGARDS TO OVERHANG. AND COULD YOU REMIND ME PLEASE, WHAT, WHAT THE, UH, I GUESS UDC IS WITH REGARDS TO POST DIFFERENCES AND WHEN THERE'S, UH, WHEN WE COUNT THE, UM, UM, THE FENCE OR THE POST DISTANCE VERSUS THE EVE DISTANCE? ALRIGHT, SO THE POST HAS TO BE, UM, 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT. HOWEVER, IT CAN EXTEND OUT TO FIVE FEET. IF YOU, IF THE BOARD APPROVES A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, SHE CAN HAVE WITHOUT JUST WITH THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE POST, SHE CAN HAVE A TWO FOOT OVERHANG ONCE SHE GOES INSIDE OF THAT THREE FEET. THE VARIANCE HAS TO BE WHAT THAT MEASUREMENT IS. YEP. SO HOW FAR WAS THE POST FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE? DO WE KNOW THAT? I BELIEVE THAT LAST ONE WAS A FOOT AND A HALF. IF I, WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE ON, ON THE FRONT SETBACK PICTURE. UH, I'M SORRY. NO, NO. YEAH, YEAH. THAT ONE, THAT POST LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE FIVE FEET FROM THE, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH, IT'S ACTUALLY, IT SAYS IT'S CLOSER PROBABLY TO SIX FEET, BUT YES. SO IF WE GRANTED A FIVE FOOT, SO JUST TO PUT THIS OUT THERE, IF WE WERE TO GRANT A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT AND SHE TRIMMED IT RIGHT TO THE POST, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. UM, SO IF YOU, IF YOU APPROVE A, YOU SAID A FIVE FOOT YES. SHE COULD TRIM IT TO WHERE SHE ONLY HAS TWO MORE FEET OF OVERHANG PAST THAT, PAST THE POST. OKAY. SO YES, SIR. JUST, JUST SO EVERYONE ON THE BOARD KNOWS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN OR ENTAIL. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARIES ON ANYONE VOICEMAILS, ANYTHING? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER. MANNA. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER, UM, BOA 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 5, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A, UM, FIVE, FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM, OR I'M SORRY, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK WITH THE GUTTERS. AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM, UH, 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. UM, AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 1 2 6 BLUFF SIDE DRIVE APPLICANT BEING FRANCISCO AORTA. 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 UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST REPRESENTED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT WATER RUNOFF AND ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND RIGHT OF WAY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK AND SIDE TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH WITH GUTTERS FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND, UH, A, UH, 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, THIS APPEARS TO BE ADEQUATE AS THE GUTTERS MAY MITIGATE THE WATER, UH, PREVENTING RUNOFF WATER RUNOFF AND SUITABLE CLEAR VISION WILL REMAIN. TWO. DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ADJUSTING THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT TO WHICH MAY CAUSE A DEMOLITION OF THE CARPORT AND FENCE TO CONFORM. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE GRANTING OF THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCES MAY OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THERE ARE SIMILAR DESIGNED CARPORTS AND FENCES [03:15:01] LOCATED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE PROPERTY USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THAT CARPORT AND FENCE AT HIS CURRENT POSITIONS, UM, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL NOT DETTER THE USES, UH, FROM ADJACENT CORRUM PROPERTY. UM, AMENDMENT TO THAT WOULD BE, UM, AT ITS AT ITS PROPOSED POSITIONS, UH, PER THIS, UH, AT HOW I'M READING IT, UH, SIXTH PLIGHT OF THE OR OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE HAS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON PROPERTY SUCH AS LIMITED SPACING ON THE PROPERTY. UPON STAFF SITE VISIT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE SIMILAR CARPORTS AND FENCES IN THE AREA. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I DID AMEND IT A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO THAT I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN OF THE CARPORT, UH, IT CAN BE ADJUSTED, UH, BY, BY REMOVING A LITTLE BIT OF THE FRONT OF IT. SO I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR ANYTHING COMPELLING OUTSIDE OF THE, THE WAY IT LOOKS. UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME, SOME WATER, I GUESS PROTECTION, BUT AS I DRIVE THROUGH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, I DIDN'T SEE REALLY ANY OTHER CARPORTS THAT WERE THAT CLOSE. AND SO I DID SEE SOME IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WERE, UH, CLOSER TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO, UH, WITH IT ADJUSTED AS I AMENDED, I'LL BE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER ZUNI? YEAH, I'M SUPPORTING WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS WELL TO REQUIRE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK, UM, FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT ON THE FRONT, UH, WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? OKAY. HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. DR. TON. I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. AVIVE. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSES. UH, SO WE APPROVED TWO OF WHAT SHE WAS ASKING, BUT ON THE FRONT SETBACK, IT'S NOT ONE INCH, IT'S FIVE FEET. SO SHE HAS TO MAKE SOME, UH, CHANGES TO THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT AND, AND SHE CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL TALK TO HER ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. THANK YOU. ITEM SIX MM-HMM. . AGENDA ITEM SIX, BO 8 2 0 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 0. ADDRESS IS 5 5 7 8 MOUNT MCKINLEY DRIVE COUNCIL. DISTRICT SIX. APPLICANT IS JUAN A ALONZO. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, A 19 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FROM THE BACK OF A PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW A GARAGE ENTRY TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE FRONT SETBACK. ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON MOUNT MCKINLEY DRIVE JUST SOUTH OF COLLIBRA ROAD. AND THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IN 1996. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ENTRY TO BE ONE FEET FROM THE FRONT SETBACK FOR THE REMODELING OF A STRUCTURE INTO A GARAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE WILL ALLOW FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, UM, JUST THE FIRST, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ASKING FOR CONTINUANCE, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANTED TO HANDLE THIS MOVING FORWARD. UM, THEY WANTED MORE TIME TO DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT. OKAY. UH, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. SO YOU HEARD THAT THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WANTS TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THIS, UH, CASE A LITTLE BIT MORE. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU, YOU'RE INTERESTED IN DOING AT THIS TIME? YES. I, UM, THEIR VOTE IS VERY [03:20:01] IMPORTANT TO ME. UM, OKAY. YOU KNOW, THEY KIND OF RECEIVED, I WORK IN THE OIL FIELD. I COULDN'T COME IN ANY SOONER TO SIT DOWN AND, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE. UM, THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT THEY HAD WAS THE, UM, THEY DON'T, THEY HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS ASKING FOR VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL, UM, LENGTH OR WIDTH FROM THE HOUSE FROM ONE CORNER TO THE OTHER. AND THEY HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT, UH, I WAS GONNA PUT A FENCE ACROSS THE WHOLE HOUSE. OKAY. SO WE SAT AND WE DISCUSSED THAT AND I TOLD THEM THAT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT THE, UH, CASE WHATSOEVER. IT'S JUST FROM OUR PORT, UH, TO THE, UH, LOT NEXT TO THE HOUSE. AND SO THEY WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY FURTHER. RIGHT. SO THEY ASKING ME TO, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. UH, AND, AND, UH, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM AND GET THEM YES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE, YEAH. SO WHAT, WHAT DATE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? UM, LIKE HAVE YOU SET UP A MEETING WITH THEM AND WHAT, WHAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER . OKAY. YEAH. I GOT A CALL ON IT FROM THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE TODAY THAT THEY WERE OUT, WANTED TO BE REASSIGNED OR ANOTHER DATE, BUT THAT, I THINK WHAT THEY HAD, UH, THIS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THEY HAD PUT, UH, PUT IN THERE AS A RESPONSE WAS ALL WRONG OR WHATEVER. THEY WELL, WE'RE GONNA TALKING, THEY'RE GONNA GET THAT ALL CLEARED UP WITH EVERYBODY. WELL, SO, WELL, I MEAN, UH, OKAY, GO AHEAD. AND WHAT, WHAT DATE ARE, WHAT DATE DID YOU, UH, COORDINATE WITH THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION? UM, WE WERE FIGURING THE DECEMBER 7TH. UM, THEY JUST BASICALLY WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO SHARE WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, BASICALLY THE FENCE, YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO DECEMBER 7TH. SO WHEN'S OUR NEXT MEETING? THE 18TH. 18TH? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO DOES THE 18TH GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME? UM, I'M SORRY. UH, DECEMBER 4TH. UM, SO USUALLY I'LL WORK LIKE TWO, THREE WEEKS SOMETIMES. YEAH. WE, WE, WE'LL WE'RE MEETING ON THE FOURTH AND THE 18TH, SO WE WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE, UM, UM, WE COULDN'T MEET AND HEAR YOUR CASE ON THE FOURTH IF YOU'RE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE OH, OKAY. I WANTED, I WANTED TO CLEAR UP. HI, I'M JUAN JUNIOR. I LIVE AT THIS PROPERTY ALSO. UH, NO, HE'S TALKING ABOUT WE WANTED TO TRY TO PUSH THIS TO THE DECEMBER 4TH, UM, HEARING HERE. SURE. OKAY. AND WE, WE ARE, UH, IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM, UM, REGARDING THIS. OKAY. AND WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE, GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PITCH IT TO ALL OF THE, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE A PART OF THE HOA 'CAUSE WE ARE NOT. UM, BUT THEY WANTED TO GIVE, WE WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE CORRECT TIME TO, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. NO, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. THIS IS THE FOURTH OPEN. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, SO, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONTINUE. WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE FOURTH. I I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE BO OA 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 70 UNTIL DECEMBER 4TH. SECOND. YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, YOU'VE BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FOURTH, BUT, UH, I'M GOING TO LET YOU KNOW, UM, AND, AND FOR STAFF AS WELL. SO IN THE, IN THIS, IN THIS SKETCH ON THESE, IN THE PACKAGE, IT, I, I SEE SIX FOOT FENCE WRITTEN. I'M SHOWING A CAR FOR IT. THAT'S DIMENSION. 22 FEET FROM THE STREET. YES. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT WITH WHAT WE'RE ADVERTISING BECAUSE IT, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS A SEVEN FOOT FENCE. AND AS I WAS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THAT CLEARED UP AND A REALLY GOOD SITE PLAN THAT WE KNOW WHERE EXACTLY WHERE EVERYTHING'S GOING IS HELPFUL. UH, LET ME CHIME IN, MR. PRESIDENT, WELL, QUICKLY PLEASE. OKAY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. THAT FOR THEM TO MEET WITH STAFF RIGHT NOW AND TO, UH, ANY ERROR THAT WILL MAKE OR THEY, WELL, THEY'RE, SO THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YEAH. THEY'RE GONNA MEET WITH THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND WITH STAFF AND WE'LL GET IT ALL CLEANED UP FOR NEXT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT COME BACK AND THEY HAVE THE SAME CHARGE. OKAY. SO WE, YEAH, IT'S BEEN CONTINUED AND WE'LL HEAR THIS ON THE FOURTH AND MANNA. YES. COMMISSIONER. SO DID WE HAVE A CASE ALSO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ON A SIMILAR LOT RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER? SO I SEEM TO RECALL, YEAH. SO YES. SO, SO JUST TO, TO HIGHLIGHT THAT TOO, JUST TO MAKE US AWARE OF THAT TOO. YEAH, IF, IF YOU COULD BRING UP WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED IN THE NEARBY AREA, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. ALL RIGHT. GOOD LUCK GUYS. MM-HMM. , UH, ITEM SEVEN. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN IS BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 8 1. ADDRESS IS 2 1 0 9 VIRGINIA BOULEVARD COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT IS IRVIN REGEL. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RM FOUR THAT IS LESS THAN [03:25:01] ONE AC THIRD OF AN ACRE ZONING IS RM FOUR CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG VIRGINIA BOULEVARD. CURRENTLY THE LOT IS VACANT WITH THE APPLICANT PROPOSING TWO DUPLEXES ON THE LOT, WHILE THE NUMBER OF UNITS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE RM FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON RM FOUR LOT. THAT IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE. PROPERTY IS 11,178 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON THE RM FOUR THAT IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE. VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 81 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. MAINTAINING DENSITY REQUIREMENTS CAN PREVENT OVERCROWDING ON SMALLER LOTS, PROVIDES OPEN SPACES AND CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE COMFORTABLE AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ENVIRONMENT AND ESTABLISHED SINGLE STRUCTURED NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION PLAN. 34 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT TO RECEIVE IN FAVOR TO OPPOSITION AND HARLANDALE MCCOLLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. YEAH. UH, THE SKETCH ON THIS ONE IS COMPLETELY NOT TO SCALE. I MEAN, IN THE PICTURE SHOWING THIS LONG, RECTANGULAR LOT. AND CAN YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT AS, AS FAR AS, IS THIS THING JUST SUPPOSED TO BE THINNED UP AND, AND SCALED IN ONE DIRECTION? I MEAN, I MEAN IT, THIS IS LIKE A SQUARE, BUT IT'S TWICE AS TALL. OH, AS FAR AS THE LAYOUT OF THE, THE, YEAH. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF REGARDING THAT AT ALL? NO, THIS IS ALL THAT WE'VE, IT'LL WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. IT'LL HAVE TO MEET AND IT'LL HAVE TO MEET BUILDING CODE AND SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT. THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES. OKAY. SO LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME EVER. NO, IT'S OKAY. SO WHAT, WHAT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON. YEAH. SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. OKAY. I MEAN, SO I'VE NEVER DONE TWO SEPARATE DUPLEXES. I DO THIS. OH YEAH. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? OH, IRVING REGAL. UM, I BUILT SINGLE FAMILY RE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND, UH, I'VE NEVER DONE THE DUPLEXES, SO I JUST CAME AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THE VARIANCE THING WORKS. SO SHE JUST SAID, DRAW OUT A SKETCH. BUT THERE IS SOME FLOOR PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED ALREADY TO I BELIEVE, THE SAME, UH, APPLICATION. UM, THERE'S, THERE'S TRULY A LOT OF SINGLE DUPLEX. THERE'S DUPLEXES IN THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A LOT OF 'EM. UM, THERE'S ONE RIGHT NEXT TO ME OFF OF IOWA AND VER AND, SORRY, UH, WALTERS. THERE'S ONE ON WALTERS RIGHT NEXT TO, UM, THOSE SAME DUPLEXES. THERE'S SOME ON, UH, MARTIN LUTHER KING, I THINK FERGUSON. AND THEN THERE'S ONE BETWEEN FERGUSON AND NORTH MITTMAN. THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF 'EM. THERE'S JUST ALL, AND THAT'S JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT LIKE THAT. UH, THE SAME AS IN SEPARATE BUILDING STRUCTURES. UM, IT'S NOTHING DIFFERENT. I'M BRINGING THEM UP TO CODE WITH EVERYTHING THAT SHE JUST SAID. IT'S DOING. I'M DOING EVERYTHING I'M SUPPOSED TO. I'M JUST THE VARIANCE, OBVIOUSLY. IT'S TO SEPARATE THEM. SO HOW WIDE IS YOUR LOT? IT'S A 65, SORRY, 69. 69 FEET WIDE AND IN 165 IN LENGTH. AND HOW BIG ARE THE HOMES ARE YOU TRYING TO BUILD? THEY'RE 3000 SQUARE FEET, BUT WIDTH WISE, WIDTH WISE, SEE WHAT I'M TRYING TO, SO IT'S A, I BELIEVE IT'S A WHATEVER EQUALS, UM, HOLD ON. 30 BY 30, I THINK. 30 BY 30. YEAH. WHATEVER EQUALS TO 1500 SI HAVE TO, IT'S TWO STORIES, BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. YEAH. THE, THE, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU'VE GOT A, IF YOU'VE GOT A SIX, YOU SAID IT WAS 60 FOOT WIDE LOT. 60, 69, 69 FEET. YES SIR. SO YOU HAVE A REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. YEAH. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE HOME. YES, SIR. AND THEN YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY. AND BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING TWO DUPLEXES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SIX PARKING SPACES OFF, YOU KNOW, IN THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. AND SO IT ALL FIT. SORRY. OKAY. NO, THAT'S, THAT'S OKAY. BUT ONE, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE LIKE TO HAVE A COMPLETE SKETCH, 'CAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE AMONG MANY THINGS, IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON YOUR NEIGHBORS? HOW'S THIS GONNA AFFECT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC. YEAH. LIKE I SAID, KNOW AND THERE MIGHT BE OTHER CONCERNS THAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. YES, SIR. AND SO I'M, I'M, I'M, I AM JUST, WHEN I SEE A SKETCH IT THAT DOESN'T THAT ISN'T EVEN DRAWN TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LINE. YEAH. I DON'T, I GET VERY CONFUSED. I DON'T, SHE JUST ASKED ME TO DRAW A SKETCH. LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH IT. OKAY. SO WHEN SHE TOLD ME MAKE A SKETCH, I WAS LIKE, OKAY, I CAN MAKE A SKETCH. BUT IT WAS JUST, BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE'S, THERE'S FLOOR PLANS THAT ARE UPLOADED. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED TO LIKE, TELL ME THAT THIS MAY NOT WORK, BUT I THINK IT'S LIKE 3000 SQUARE, 3000 SQUARE FEET LESS OUT OF THE THIRD OF AN ACRE. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IT'S TWO CRUZ D COMMISSIONER CRUZ. [03:30:01] UM, THE CITY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT THERE WAS TWO NEIGHBORS, UH, IN FAVOR AND TWO OPPOSED. BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE MAP. CAN YOU SHOW IT SOMEWHERE? IT'S NOT ON OUR, NOT ON THE ONE WE HAVE ON OUR PRESENTATION. THEY'RE ON THE BOTTOMS LOOK BEHIND YOU. RIGHT. THE ONES THAT WE SENT YOU LAST WEEK. UM, THIS IS THE MOST UPTODATE ONE BECAUSE THE CUTOFF IS AT 10 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING. THAT'S WHY THIS ONE'S THE MOST UP TO DATE ONE. I ALL THE PICTURES TO THE ONES THAT ARE CLOSE TO ME. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS TO Y'ALL. I, I THINK THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, I WANT TO SAY EIGHT 14 ON, ON WALTERS IN IOWA, EIGHT 14. EIGHT 10. AND I BELIEVE 8 0 8, THOSE ARE ALL DUPLEXES. WHAT DID YOU SAY WAS A HUNDRED? IT WAS 65 FEET. FIVE WHAT? NO, 69 BY ONE. 65. 65. THIS IS A VERY NARROW LOT. NO, IT'S NOT. THAT'S ACTUALLY WIDE PRETTY. HELLO? IT'S REALLY WIDE. OH, IT'S, IT'S WIDER THAN THE ONES THAT HAVE DUPLEXES ON 'EM ALREADY. HE HEARD YOU ASK HIM A QUESTION. OH. IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST LOTS. I'M SORRY. I I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE TALKING TO SOMEONE OR TO ME. OH, I'M SORRY MA'AM. I APOLOGIZE. I'M SORRY. I I IF YOU WERE TALKING TO SOMEBODY, GO AHEAD. NO, I WAS JUST SAYING 'CAUSE UH, I DON'T, I I THINK IT WAS YOU WHO JUST HEADED THAT IT'S A SMALL LOT, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST THOUGHTS. IT'S A NARROW LOT, BUT IT'S LONG. IT'S A QUARTER. IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER ACRE. IT, IT'S, IT'S A BIG ONE. IT'S A BIG LOT. THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT IF YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS, ARE THESE GONNA BE RENTAL HOUSES OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE NO. TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES? NO. NO. BUT ARE YOU GONNA BE RENTING THEM BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TWO SET OR, OR ARE YOU GONNA BE SELLING THEM BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE? UM, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, 'CAUSE I'M, I'M, I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SO THEY'RE HIRING ME AND THEY'RE GONNA, I BELIEVE THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO SELL 'EM SEPARATELY AND THAT'S ON THEIR PART. SO OH, OKAY. SO YOUR LOT IS OVER 11,000 SQUARE FEET. YEAH. 11,001 SEVEN AT MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR AN R FOUR LOT IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET. MM-HMM. . AND SO IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO, TO THEORETICALLY SUBDIVIDE THIS AND, AND, AND HAVE A DUPLEX ON ONE LOT, A DUPLEX ON THE OTHER AND NOT EVEN HAVE TO COME HERE. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST, I'M KNOW HOW TO APPROACH IT, BUT IT'S, OH YEAH. HE CAN SUBDIVIDE, HE CAN CREATE TWO LOTS OUT OF THIS PIECE OF LAND. MM-HMM. AND THEN ON EACH LOT HE COULD PUT UP TO FOUR UNITS OF COULD. YEAH. BECAUSE IF IT WAS 900 SQUARE FEET MORE, IT'D PROBABLY BE THREE LOTS. OR YOU COULD DO TWO. YEAH. LIKE YOU HAD NO, NO, I WANT DO TWO AND, 'CAUSE I WANT TWO STRUCTURE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES. BUT THE PLOT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COST, AS IN, I DIDN'T, UH, APPROACH IT. IF YOU, IF YOU SELL TWO, IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL THE TWO SEPARATE LOTS, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SUBDIVIDED ANYWAY. MM-HMM. . YES, MA'AM. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SELL A BUILDING WITHOUT A LOT. OKAY. CAN YOU, UH, WHAT IF I WANTED TO LIKE AS CONDOS, SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD DO A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK ON THIS BEFORE COMING TO US, BECAUSE YOU SHOULD FIGURE OUT ARE YOU SELLING THEM, ARE YOU RENTING THEM? UM, IF IT SELLS, YOU'VE GOT A SUBDIVIDE. OKAY. NO, YOU CAN MAKE A CONDO THAT'S, YOU CAN CONIUM YOU CAN CONDU IT, YOU CAN CONDU IT OUT. WELL, IT'S, YOU HOLD CONDOMINIUM WHERE YOU EITHER LAND UNDERNEATH IT OR YES, YOU COULD DO THAT. BUT THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE BECAUSE YOU MAY, YOU'LL HAVE TO USE YOUR MIC, MA'AM. YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT YOUR OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE SO THAT YOU, YOU MAY NOT NEED TO DO A VARIANCE. WELL, I DIDN'T, YOU MAY BE COMING HERE. I DIDN'T THINK I NEED TO. 'CAUSE A LOT WAS SO HUGE, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT, WELL, IT'S LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE. YEAH. SO IT'S LIKE, SO YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THEM ALL ATTACHED. MM-HMM. , UH, UH, BUT I, I'M JUST, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, MY, MY HESITATION IS, IS THAT I DON'T, I DON'T SEE TREES IN RELATION TO THIS. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU SEE TREES TO THOSE TREES ON THE SIDE? WELL, YOU'RE SHOWING THREE TREES THAT, OH, THERE'S TREES. YEAH. THOSE ARE ONE, THOSE ARE GONNA STAY. I'M NOT A THREE. SO, YOU KNOW, USUALLY WHEN PEOPLE COME FORTH WITH A VARIANCE, THERE'S A HARDSHIP. OKAY. YOU KNOW, LIKE, I'M TRYING TO SAVE A HERITAGE TREE, SO I, I NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE I CAN'T MAKE IT ONE BIG UNIT BECAUSE I WANNA SAVE THIS BIG TREE. OR MAYBE YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'VE GOT AN ISSUE, UH, WITH DRAINAGE OR SOMETHING AND, OR THERE'S SOME TANGIBLE REASON WHY YOU WANT THESE SEPARATE. UM, BUT IN THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE THE, THE SKETCH IS SO, WELL, IT'S WEAK. IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ENVISION A HARDSHIP. UH, AND SECONDLY, UM, YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE THIS RIGHT NOW, NOT EVEN HAVE TO COME HERE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ANYWAY. AND SO I WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND SEND YOU THE SITE PLAN FROM THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. OH, THERE'S, THERE'S A BETTER SITE PLAN. I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT , I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE, YOU SHOULD HAVE STARTED WITH THAT, WITH YOUR PRESENTATION . OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE THE CONTRACTOR, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE OWNER. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, I'M ON THE DEEDED. I'M SORRY, I'M ON THE DEEDED. SO [03:35:01] TO PROTECT MYSELF. YOU ARE ON THE WHAT? I'M ON THE DEEDED. I'M ON THE DEEDED. OH, ON THE DEED. SO YOU ARE ON THE OWNER. I'M, I'M A PARTIAL OWNER, BUT I'M ONLY ON THERE TO PROTECT MYSELF. IT WAS PART OF A CONTRACT. THE DEAL, HOW WE, HOW WE DREW IT UP. YEAH. I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. OKAY. I, I MEAN, I'M, I'M JUST YES, MA'AM. BEING HONEST WITH YOU. YOU KNOW, YOU, UM, ANYWAY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WASN'T, WAS AGAINST IT. UH, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE, I CAN COUNT 'EM ON MY HANDS. THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY LIKE 1, 1, 2, 3, THERE'S LIKE SIX WITHIN A LESS LIKE TWO MINUTES IN WALKING DISTANCE FOR ME. AND THEY'RE ALL SEPARATE DUPLEXES. IN FACT, YOU DON'T HAVE THE SIX PARKING SPACES, BUT IF YOU SUBDIVIDED, YOU WOULD ONLY NEED THE FOUR MM-HMM. . I HAVE AN UPDATED ONE AS WELL FOR THE SIX PARKING SPACES. OH. SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO, UH, INTERIOR GARAGE ON THESE UNITS. THERE'S NO, UH, LIKE A GARAGE. IT'S INSIDE THE BUILDING. THESE ARE OUTSIDE PARKING SPACES ONLY. YES, MA'AM. YEAH. IT'S, IT'S A 3000 SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ALL LIVING 1500 SQUARE. YEAH. THIS, THIS PAINTS A MUCH BETTER PICTURE. MAKES MORE SENSE. YEAH. SO, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU'RE SAYING THEY NEED SIX. OKAY. YEAH. YOU'RE SAYING THEY NEED SIX TO DO, TO BUILD LIKE THIS? MM-HMM. YOU NEED SIX SPACES. IF YOU HAVE TWO UNITS OR LESS, IT'S ONE PER UNIT. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNITS, IT'S ONE AND A HALF PER UNIT. SO IF HE PUTS FOUR UNITS ON ONE LOT, HE NEEDS SIX PARKING SPACES. MM-HMM. , IF HE DOES, IF HE SUBDIVIDES IT AND THE TWO LOTS, HE ONLY NEEDS FOUR PARKING SPACES, TWO ON EACH LOT. IT, IT'S, IT'S HONESTLY LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE SIX SPACES. YEAH. I CAN SEE IT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. I, I, NOW THAT I SEE THAT IT'S PLAUSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO SOMETHING, I'VE, I'VE OTHER QUESTIONS. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? I'VE GOT A QUESTION. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO, AND THIS IS MORE FOR STAFF AND MAYBE FOR, I CAN'T HEAR YOU. SORRY. THIS IS REALLY MORE FOR STAFF THAN ANYBODY. IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED, IT WOULD NOT PREVENT HIM FROM RE PLATTING. IF HE WANTED TO SEPARATE THIS INTO TWO, HE COULD REPL ABSOLUTELY REPL. BUT THE REPLANTING IS GONNA COST A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY. YES, MA'AM. OH YEAH. IT'S LIKE 20,000. YEAH, NO, I KNOW IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT IT COULDN'T SELL 'EM INDIVIDUALLY. PLUS, YEAH, BUT ALL THAT CAN BE WRITTEN THROUGHOUT LIKE AN ATTORNEY AND BROKEN UP DIFFERENTLY. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT, WELL, THE THING, I MEAN, WITHOUT GETTING INTO SPECIFICS, I MEAN, IF HE, BECAUSE HE'S DOING MORE THAN TWO UNITS. HIS BUILDING PERMIT'S GONNA INCLUDE A STORMWATER REVIEW, WHICH IS EXPENSIVE. AND THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE PART OF PLATTING ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLAT IS ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'D BE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, 12, $1,500 IN GOVERNMENT FEES, MAYBE 8,000 IN PLATTING FEES, AND THEN A $5,000 DRAINAGE REPORT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, SO IT'S EXPENSIVE, BUT YOU KNOW, HE'S DOING SOME OF THAT ANYWAY. SO, BUT THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY TO GO WOULD BE ACTUALLY JUST RENTING. YES. YEAH. BUT, AND JUST TO RECENTER THE DISCUSSION. SO IT'S ABOUT HAVING THE, THE TWO SEPARATE UNITS. UM, OTHERWISE IF HE WAS JUST PUTTING ALL OF THE UNITS IN ONE STRUCTURE, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH PERMITTING TODAY. SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION IS. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE TWO UNITS SEPARATED? UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCES. YES. I WANT TWO SEPARATE UNITS IF Y'ALL ALLOW IT. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, BRAGMAN MR. BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA TWO ZERO BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 81, MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, SITUATED AT 2109 VIRGINIA BOULEVARD. APPLICANT BEING IRVIN RIEGEL BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED. SO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AT 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, IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED BY DENSITY REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING ON SMALLER LOTS. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS ABIDING BY ALL OF THEIR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WILL NOT INFRINGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY [03:40:01] HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN APPLICANT ALTERED THEIR PLANS TO ABIDE BY THE RECENT CHANGE UDC REQUIREMENT. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND HAS NOT BEGUN CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALLY, THIS WILL ALLOW FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT OF A VACANT LOT. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS THIS TYPE OF A DEVELOPMENT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING. DISTRICT SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OR OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCES SOUGHT HIS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOT BEING LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. UM, IF I COULD INTERRUPT. YES. SORRY. WE FORGOT TO PLAY THE VOICEMAIL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. OKAY. UH, SO WE'LL WE'RE GONNA REOPEN THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL. THIS IS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. MY NAME IS RENEE SANCHEZ AND I'M ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE LINDA. WE OWN TWO PROPERTIES ON WALTER STREET. WE REFER TO CASE NUMBER A DASH TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 8 1 REGARDING YOUR REQUEST TO BUILD TWO DUPLEX DWELLINGS ON THE VIRGINIA STREET PARCEL. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE SPOKE STRONGLY OPPOSE YOUR PLAN TO BUILD TWO DUPLEX DWELLINGS ON THE SAME PARCEL BECAUSE IT ALTERS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF SINGLE ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE UNTIMELY DELIVERY OF TWO YOUR TWO NOTIFICATION LETTERS. WE WERE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESEARCH AND RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST. AS A RESULT, I EMAILED TWO SIGNED OPPOSITION LETTERS TO VINCENT VINNO AND MERKEL RAVI OF YOUR AGENCY. I ALSO MAILED THE TWO ORIGINAL SIGN OPPOSITION LETTERS THIS SUNDAY, SATURDAY, I'M SORRY. UH, THE UNTIMELY SENT NOTIFICATION SUGGESTS YOUR BOARD HAS ALREADY MADE THE DECISION TO, TO APPROVE YOUR PLAN TO BUILD TWO DUPLEXES. WE BELIEVE AS A BETTER SOLUTION, WE SUGGEST YOUR AGENCY BILL ONLY A ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PARCEL, OR EVEN PERHAPS BUILD A POLICE SUBSTATION ON THE PARCEL TO HELP STOP CRIME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS WOULD BETTER ADDRESS THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST. PLEASE CONTACT US TO CONFIRM OUR RECORDED OPPOSITION COMMENTS WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD DURING YOUR MEETING. I WANT TO THANK YOU ON MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS NINE ZERO SEVEN FIVE ONE THREE. UH, 5 5 1 9 5 3 9 3. THAT'S 9 0 7 5 1 9 5 3 9 3. THANK YOU FOR, UH, FOR MYSELF AND MY WIFE, LINDA. THOSE ARE ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S OKAY. LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE MOTION. SECOND. YOU HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANANA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. AND THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER DUPLEXES AROUND IN THAT AREA. AND THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOT. I KNOW IT'S BEEN SAID THAT IT'S A SMALL LOT, BUT I'M A REALTOR. I DEAL IN LOT SIZES ALL THE TIME. A SMALL LOT IS 40 INCHES, 40 FEET WIDE. THIS IS 69 FEET WIDE BY 165 FEET. THAT'S A HUGE LOT. AND SO TO PUT TWO STRUCTURES ON THIS, IT'S NOT GONNA BE OVERBURDENSOME TO THE SI FOR THE SIZE OF THIS LOT. AND WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE SAN ANTONIO HAS VERY FEW HOUSING OPTIONS AVAILABLE, AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS SORT OF PRICE RANGE THAT I ENVISION THIS TO BE. SO THE FACT THAT, THAT HE'S WILLING TO GO IN AND, YOU KNOW, DO ADJUSTMENTS TO GET FOUR FAMILIES, THIS WOULD BE FOUR FAMILIES WOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE ON THIS ONE SINGLE LOT. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO, SO INITIALLY AS I WAS LISTENING TO THIS DIALOGUE, I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED, [03:45:01] UH, WITH REGARDS TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE INTENSITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS PROPERTY. BUT AFTER LISTENING TO THE CITY TALK ABOUT, UH, HAD IT NOT BEEN DIVIDED, IT WOULD'VE BEEN PERMITTED. AND SO THE DISTINCTION IS SIMPLY THAT THE BUILDING BE DIVIDED. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEN, THEN I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. AS I LOOK THROUGH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, I DO SEE SINGLE OR I DO SEE DUPLEXES ON LOTS. AND SO, SO TWO, BUT THIS IS NOT MANY. DO I SEE FOUR? BUT, BUT I THINK AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AS COMMISSIONER RAGMAN BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, I, I'M, I'M IN AGREEMENT, SO I WILL BE VOTING IN PAPER. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? OKAY, HEARING NONE, UM, I'M JUST GONNA CHIME IN AND SAY I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, ONLY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE'S MEETING ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CODE AND YOU KNOW, THE AT A WORSE HE COULD SPEND SOME MONEY AND, AND DO THIS. ANYWAY. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. MS. KAPLAN, I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MS. AVIVE. I CONCUR. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BROWN. I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UM, MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. YES SIR. ITEM. THANK YOU. EVERYBODY HAVE A LOVELY DAY. MM-HMM. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 82. ADDRESS IS 5 1 6 ARANTA AVENUE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. THE APPLICANT IS OUR NOFO MONTALVO AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR THAT'S LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. TWO A FOUR PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIX TO ALLOW TWO PARKING SPACES. UH, THREE A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FOOT TWO INCHES FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES. AND FOUR, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. UH, THE CURRENTS ZONING IS RMM FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG ARANTA AVENUE WITHIN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD. UPON PERMIT REVIEW BY DSD, IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR A MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR LOT THAT'S LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TOTAL OF FOUR UNITS. TWO IN EACH OF THE SEPARATED STRUCTURES, BOTH TWO STORIES. UPON REVIEW BY ZONING STAFF, THE APPLICANT NEEDED ADDITIONAL VARIANCES THAT WAS INCLUDED. A FOUR PARKING SPACE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO PARKING SPACES, A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FOOT TWO INCHES FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES. AND LASTLY, THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50%. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RMM FOUR, UH, PARKING AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMEND A DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 82 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE VARIANCES ARE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTERESTS AND TWO, NO OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA APPEAR TO DEVIATE FROM THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 82 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE IRREGULAR SHAPED LAW REDUCES BIDDABLE AREA AND TWO, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF NOTE OUT 26 NOTICES, UH, ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, ZERO IN FAVOR. AND THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUESTS. AND THIS IS THE LETTER FROM DENVER HEIGHTS EXPRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HELLO, MY NAME IS CHRISTINA LENISE. I WORK FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OUR NOFO MONTALVO. UM, WE HADN'T RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM DENVER HEIGHTS THAT THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION. UM, I DID, WE DID DO SOME BLOCK WALKING. I DO HAVE, UM, FIVE NEIGHBORS, UM, IN FAVOR OF OUR CHANGES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. AND THEN I CAN PROVIDE A UPDATED SITE PLAN AS WELL, UH, FOR SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HE'S REQUESTING. UM, [03:50:01] I DIDN'T EVEN SNAP TO DO MORE PHOTOS AND STUFF. THE MAJORITY OF EVERYTHING THERE DURING BLOCK WALK, DURING BLOCK WALKING, UM, EVERY HOME IN THAT AREA IS KIND OF, EVERY OTHER HOME IS SERVING AS A DUPLEX, TRIPLEX OR QUADPLEX, WHICH IS WHY, UH, MY CLIENT IS DEVELOPING THE VACANT LOT INTO, UM, UH, INTO A FOUR UNIT PROPERTY WITH THE TWO DUPLEXES. UM, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RMM FOUR. HE HAS ALREADY, UM, REPLANTED GONE THROUGH STORM WATER REVIEW, THAT TYPE OF STUFF. UM, WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE PERMIT, THE BUILDING PERMITS PRIOR TO THE UDC CODE CHANGE BACK IN, UM, TO BE UNDER OLD CODES DECEMBER 31ST. SO IT'S KIND OF A MUTE POINT EITHER WAY. HE JUST DOESN'T REALLY WANNA REARRANGE HIS SITE PLAN HOW HE CURRENTLY HAS IT RIGHT NOW. SO, OKAY. SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN THE, THAT'S IN THE FILE. THAT'S A OLD ONE. WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED AN UPDATED ONE. I CAN ACTUALLY GIVE YOU PROBABLY THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT WAS DONE. SO, AND THIS ONE ACTUALLY SHOWS THE PARKING SO THAT WAY HE, IT DOES SHOW FOR FOUR PARKING WITH APPROVED RIBBON DRIVEWAY. UM, HIS BIGGEST ARGUMENT, OF COURSE, THAT SITE PLAN IS SHOWING EVERYTHING THAT'S AVAILABLE ON SITE. UM, I KNOW IF Y'ALL, LIKE, IF Y'ALL WERE TO GO TO THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, EVERY HOUSE ALONG THAT BLOCK WITHIN HIS 200 FOOT RADIUS, UM, EVERYBODY UTILIZES THAT FRONT RIGHT OF WAY PORTION THAT THE CITY HAS FOR PARKING ANYWAYS, WHICH IS HIS ARGUMENT. TECHNICALLY THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING IF THAT RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS ISN'T UTILIZED. BUT THAT IS SHOWING, UM, WHAT'S WITHIN HIS LOT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN, I MEAN, YOU CAN ALSO SCOOT THE BUILDING BACK. YOU GOT A 12 FOOT ALLEY BACK THERE, YOU GET SIX FEET OF CREDIT FOR THAT. SO YOU CAN GET SOME MORE PARKING FRONTAGE THAT WAY AS WELL. HE DOESN'T WANNA MOVE THE BUILDINGS HOW HE OKAY. CONSTRUCTED 'EM. THAT'S KIND OF HIS, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO THIS IS AIP PLAN THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY IN PERMIT REVIEW WITH FOUR PARKING SPACES? YES. YES. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, WAS THERE ANY CHANGE TO THE 50% IMPERVIOUS FRONT? SO THE ONE, THE FRONT, SO THE CHANGE TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AS YOU SEE THERE, HE HAS THE RIBBON DRIVEWAYS. SO STAFF, IF YOU APPLIED FOR A PERMIT ON DECEMBER 31ST, UM, AND DO WE EVEN NEED TO VOTE ON THE TWO SEPARATE UNITS ON THE LOT? AND IF THE PERMIT IS NOT, SO IT WAS PREVIOUSLY TWO LOTS. THAT'S WHY THE SITE PLAN IS SHOWING HOW IT WAS. THEY WERE, HE WAS DOING ONE DUPLEX ON EACH LOT, BUT FOR OTHER ISSUES THAT OCCURRED, HE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH RELOTTING IT, UM, IN BACK INTO, INTO ONE LOT AS OPPOSED TO TWO LOTS. SO HE HAD A, SO HE HAD A PERMIT IN PLACE DECEMBER 31ST? YES. AFTER IN THE YEAR 2023, HE, HE APPLIED FOR A SUBDIVISION PLATT, CORRECT? NO, WE DID ALL OF A YES, SORRY. YES, WE DID APPLY FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IN FEBRUARY OF 2023. OKAY. SO DOES IT, DOES THAT AFFECT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY THEN? YEAH, SO BILLING REVIEW, UH, STOPPED THIS BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE OF THEY PLATTED. SO THE PLATT HAS TO BE, UM, SO WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW FOR THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE PLATT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED AND THE PLATT HASN'T BEEN DONE. SO WE'RE, WE WERE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING CONCURRENTLY, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF THE, BECAUSE IT WAS TWO LOTS. THEY COULDN'T, UM, WHATEVER PLANS THEY TURNED IN PRIOR, UH, WE COULDN'T GRANDFATHER IN. UM, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN EXAMPLES OF STUFF THAT WAS APPROVED, BUT BECAUSE THIS THE WAY THIS LOT WAS CONFIGURED, WE COULDN'T DO THAT FOR THIS ONE ON IN OUR, IN FOUR ZONE LOT. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE THEY HAD? DO THEY EVEN, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO WELL, THEY PLA WELL THEY'RE PLATING IS ONE LOT, RIGHT? RM FOUR, MINIMUM FRONTAGE IS 15 FEET. OKAY. AND THE 50% IS NO LONGER WARRANTED BECAUSE THEY, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THIS RIBBON PARKING THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE THAT GO AWAY AS WELL AS THEY'RE DESCRIBING IT. YES, SIR. THAT WOULD GO AWAY. OKAY. SO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS, IS THAT IT, THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS TWO DIFFERENT UNITS, UH, AND THEN THE PARKING. SO WE'RE STRIKING, OKAY, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE'RE STRIKING NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE ANYMORE. NOT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY ANYMORE IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT SORT OF PARKING. AND WHAT ELSE IS BEING STRIKED? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S, I DON'T IS THAT THE PARKING, THE FOUR THAT, NO, THE REST OF IT. THE REST OF IT STAYS, BUT, BUT THEY HAVE FOUR PARKING SPACES. SIX, IT'S A TWO PARKING SPACE, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE VARIANCE, BE VARIANCE FOR SIX, UH, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE, A TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCE, TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCES INSTEAD OF FOUR. UNLESS [03:55:01] YOU KEPT IT AS SEPARATE LOTS, WHICH CURRENTLY IT IS THE WAY CODE FELL, WHICH IS WHY MY CLIENT DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD. UH, HE KIND OF WENT BOTH WAYS FOR FINANCIAL PURPOSES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GONNA BE MOST COST EFFECTIVE FOR HIM. SO HE DID DECIDE TO REPL. HE DOESN'T WANT TO RECONFIGURE THE BUILDINGS. HE WANTS TO KEEP THE BUILDINGS AS IS AND KEEP 'EM THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN FOR THE, BECAUSE IF YOU KEPT THEM AS TWO SEPARATE LOTS, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD ONLY NEED FOUR PARKING SPACES. THEN HE RUNS INTO ISSUES WITH TREES. WITH TREES, AND THEN THERE'S OTHER ISSUES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR TREES. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING RE PLATTED INTO ONE THAT WAY. SO IT WAS KIND OF A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. HE EITHER RELAS THAT WAY. HE HAS, HE CAN GO WITH LESS TREES AND FIX THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF GET WITH A REVIEWER TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THE DRIVEWAYS WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. AND YOU HAVE INTERIORS, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS KIND OF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE, WHERE WE'VE LANDED AND, AND HE, MIND YOU, HE'S BEEN IN BUILDING REVIEW SINCE DECEMBER 31ST AND HE STILL DOESN'T HAVE APPROVED PERMITS BECAUSE EVERY REVIEWER KIND OF HAS BEEN NITPICKING AT STUFF. SO WE, AND THEN YOU'VE ALSO HAVE INTERIORS SETBACK ISSUES 'CAUSE THE BUILDINGS ARE SIX FEET APART. RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. AND IT WAS, THE VARIANCE TODAY WE THOUGHT WAS FOR THE SIX FOOT IN BETWEEN MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THIS, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IN THE PREVIOUS CASE WHEN I HAD LOOKED AT THE OVERHEAD VIEW AND LOOKED AT ALL THE ADDRESSING I SAW DOWN THE STREET MULTIPLE ADDRESSES PROVIDED PER UNIT. AND SO, SO SAW THAT IT TRULY WAS DUPLEXES THAT WERE THERE. WHEN I LOOKED DOWN THIS STREET, I DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT IN THE AREA. SO, SO, SO, SO THERE SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE INFORMAL. UM, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WOULD BE, I KIND OF, IF Y'ALL WANT, IF, I MEAN I HAVE THE COPY OF THE MAP WHERE I JUST KIND OF MADE MY NOTES. UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT IN THERE AND IT'S NOT PERMITTED. MY CLIENT'S TRYING TO DO, GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHECKS AND BALANCES WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE ALL HIS STUFF IS PERMITTED. UM, I KNOW FOR A FACT AT LEAST THE, ALL THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIS, PROBABLY ABOUT EVERY OTHER, ONE OF EVERY OTHER ONE OF THOSE HOMES WERE RENTERS WHO EITHER DIDN'T WANNA SIGN ANYTHING OR THEY DID HAVE MULTIPLE MAILBOXES OUTSIDE THAT HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR MORE, UH, MAILBOXES SHOWING THEY HAVE SEVERAL UNITS AT EACH SPOT. I THINK PART OF HIS THING TOO IS THAT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE, THAT THAT STREET ISN'T LABELED, BUT UM, ON THIS LOWER PORTION OF THE CIRCLE HERE, THIS STREET ON PORTER IS ONE OF A, IT'S HEAVILY REDEVELOPED WITH DUPLEXES AND SHOTGUN HOMES. AND I THINK HE'S THERE, HE'S JUST ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS THAT'S GETTING IN THERE EARLY BEFORE THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY IS KIND OF BEING REVITALIZED. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, I MEAN I, I'M NOT SEEING THIS AT ALL IN THE CURRENT GOOGLE ADDRESSING. SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT CUT UP YET OR IS IT THAT THEY'RE RUNNING KIND OF, I GUESS MULTIPLE DUPLEX OR DUPLEXES THAT ARE NOT TRULY DUPLEXES ARE IN THIS AREA? SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE DELTA FOR WHAT IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S TALKING ABOUT VERSUS WHAT I'M SEEING ON GOOGLE MAPS. SO THERE MIGHT BE NON-CONFORMING, UM, UNITS. MOST LIKELY THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THEY'VE NEVER HAD TO APPLY FOR NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T, THEY'RE ALL ZONE GETTING ANY PERMITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO THIS WOULD BE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE FIRST HOUSE WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING THIS THEN ON A LOT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, SO TO MAKE IT CONFORMING WELL, YEAH, I MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE CREATING IT AT THE POINT OF RIGHT DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. E EVERY, I MEAN THE ENTIRE AREA IS ZONED RMM FOUR. SO I MEAN, I THINK TECHNICALLY EVERYBODY THEY CAN HAVE UP TO THE FOUR UNITS, WHICH IS HIS ARGUMENT. UM, AND LIKE I SAID, EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IS KIND OF OPERATING OFF OF A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX KIND OF STYLE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I MEAN, HOLD ON. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD, YOU KNOW, MY, MY BIG THING IS ALWAYS LIKE PARKING FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THESE NARROW LOTS AND YOU HAVE THESE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAY APRONS. IS THERE, IS IT EVEN, DO YOU EVEN HAVE ON STREET PARKING? I SEE SOME AREA HERE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE JUST A, A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS. I MEAN, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PARK OFF STREET IN THIS AREA? THERE IS, THERE IS, UM, PARKING AVAILABLE OFF THE STREET, VERY LITTLE. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST HOW EVERYBODY'S UTILIZING, LIKE I SAID, AT LEAST ON HIS PORTION OF THE STREET. UM, EVERYBODY'S UTILIZING THAT RIGHT OF WAY IN THERE FOR PARKING JUST BECAUSE OF ALL THE IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS ON THAT AREA. BUT THERE IS TECHNICALLY STREET PARKING MAYBE, UM, ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE. OKAY. PER UNIT, UM, PER EVERY OTHER UNIT, NOT HIS, UM, ALONG THAT STREET. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, GO AHEAD MS. KAPLAN. OKAY, REGARD NUMBER BO A DASH [04:00:01] 23 DASH OH 3 0 0 2 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A ONE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR, UH, THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. TWO, A TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIX TO ALLOW, UM, FOUR PARKING SPACES. THREE, A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES SITUATED AT FIVE 16 ARANSAS AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING AR NOFO MONTALVO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THESE ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS SEPARATE STRUCTURE IN AN RM FOUR DISTRICT, LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE WILL NOT CAUSE OVERCROWDING ON THE LOT NOT ABIDING BY THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC. AND THE APPLICANT HAS A SUITABLE AMOUNT OF, OH, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT. THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT WILL LEAVE OVER FOUR INCHES ON EACH SIDE. I'M SORRY, FOUR FEET ON EACH SIDE, WHICH WILL NOT DETER FROM THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IN THIS CASE, A SPECIAL CONDITION FOUND WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE LOT SIZE. WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WILL ARISE. AS THE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE AREA WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LIMITED, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO ATTAIN DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. IF GRANTED, THE STRUCTURE WILL MAINTAIN THE DEVIATED BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN THIS CASE AS THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. 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. UM, I JUST LOST MYSELF, UH, OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE TRUCTURE WILL NOT BE CONTAINED INTO A SINGLE STRUCTURE, UH, HAVE FOUR PARKING SPACES WILL MAINTAIN A SETBACK OF OVER FOUR FEET, THE GRANTING OF THESE VARIANCES WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES. 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 NEARLY FINANCIAL ALERT, 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 THE LENGTH AND WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT WOULD LOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROPOSED USE. END OF MOTION MANNA. YEAH, I HAVE A, I'M GONNA SECOND IT, BUT OKAY. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER AMANDA, I ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. I I DON'T AGREE WITH THE, UM, COMPLETE TWO OR THE FOUR EXEMPTION FOR PARKING. I WOULD GO, I WOULD GO TWO. UM, BEING THAT THERE'S FOUR UNITS HERE, SO, SO IT'S LIKE THAT'S FOUR CARS. SO SINGLE CARS. SO, SO DID YOU READ IT WITH YEAH, SHE READ IT. SHE CHANGED IT. OH, DID YOU? OKAY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BECAUSE I WAS READING IT HERE. I READ THIS. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU THEN. OKAY, THEN, THEN I WILL AGREE WITH IT. SO COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. OKAY. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU THINK? OH, YEAH, YEAH. UH, I I'M GONNA GO, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS BASICALLY BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY, YOU COULD BUILD THIS EITHER WAY. UM, THIS WAY YOU GET FOUR CARS, PARKING AND YOU KEEP SOME TREES. SO, UM, YEAH, I'M FOR IT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I'M OKAY WITH THE PARKING. OKAY. ANY ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. KAPLAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. MS. RHI I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ZUNA. I CONCUR. MS. BROWN. I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. I'M OUTTA HERE. YES. UH, UH, LET THE RECORD SHOW, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER BROWN LEFT A MEETING AT 4 57. COMMISSIONER, DEAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA? OH, [04:05:01] AM I COMING IN? YOU ARE IN. NO, UNLESS YOU'RE, UH, THERE WE GO. SORRY. I'M IN MY CAR. . PRETEND WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT. . LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT A STORM CLOUD ABOVE YOU THERE. . UH, LET'S, UH, ITEM NUMBER 10 BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 9. ADDRESS IS 5 7 0 7 SOUTH AZAR ZAMAR STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT IS JOE RIOS. A REQUEST FOR ONE 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER UNDER WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK. ZONING IS C ONE CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SOUTH ZAMORE STREET BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF FIT STREET AND MILLVILLE AVENUE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE DEMOLISHING EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION. A NEW STRUCTURE ON THE SAME FOUNDATION, HOWEVER, FACING TOWARDS FITCH STREET DUE TO LOCATION EXISTING FOUNDATION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING BUFFERY YARD AND SITE SETBACK VARIANCES. THIS IS YOUR SITE PLAN AND YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE BACK VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS EXISTING BUSINESS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUFFER AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF SEVEN FOOT SIX INCHES SIDE SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN BO O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 8 7 9. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE DISTANCE IS NOT SUITABLE AS IT IMPOSES ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED RESIDENTIAL LINE AND TO THE SPIRIT ORDINANCE IS NOT BEING OBSERVED AS IT INCREASES COMMERCIAL USES CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A SEVEN FOOT SIX SIDE SETBACK BUFFER YARD WILL LEAVE SUITABLE ROOM BETWEEN USES AND NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 30 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR. WHEN IN OPPOSITION INTERIOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO I THOUGHT I SAW LINE THAT AN EMAIL THAT IN THE EMAIL THAT WENT OUT, THAT THEY DID RESPOND IN AN OPPOSITION DID NEIGHBORHOOD. SO DID THAT I'LL DOUBLE, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK. YEAH, THAT'S FROM, THAT'S FROM THE, THAT'S FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER NEXT DOOR. I MEAN, 'CAUSE I, I WROTE DOWN ON MY NOTES SO I YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE EMAIL AND IT DOES SAY RA LINDA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OP IN OPPOSITION. YES. IT WAS JUST ONE IN OPPOSITION, NOT TIERRA LINDA. YEAH, THAT WAS MY TYPE OF, SO THERE IS ONE IN OPPOSITION, BUT IT WAS NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. THAT WAS A TYPO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION. RIGHT, JUST THE NEIGHBOR. THE ONE NEXT DOOR? YES MA'AM. AND THEN, UH, ON THE, ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET, UH, IS IT, IS IS, UH, DID, WAS THAT COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHETHER THEY COULD STILL BUILD THEIR BUILDING? YES. RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE BUFFER? ABOUT STILL CONSTRUCTION? OH YES. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. WE DO HAVE LUNCH. THE CHIEF PERSON HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OH YEAH. . JACOB SANCHEZ. HOW YOU DOING? ALL RIGHT. YEP. YES SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S JOE RIOS. UH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THAT LETTER. I SPOKE WITH THAT NEIGHBOR VERBALLY, BUT, UM, HE BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY NEXT TO, IT'S BEEN IN MY FAMILY SINCE THE MID SEVENTIES. THAT NEW NEIGHBOR JUST BUILT, UM, OR HE JUST MOVED IN A COUPLE YEARS AGO. WE'VE BEEN AT THAT PROPERTY. UH, I STARTED WORKING THERE WHEN I WAS LIKE EIGHT YEARS OLD, COUNTING TORTILLAS. UH, I'VE BEEN THERE ALL MY LIFE. UH, MY GRANDFATHER AND MY FATHER PASSED AWAY WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. UH, WHERE WE COOK IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE STRUCTURE YOU SEE THERE. UH, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS AT FIVE FEET, UH, RIGHT THERE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO I'M JUST ASKING TO BUILD THE NEW BUILDING DIRECTLY WHERE THAT HOUSE IS SITTING RIGHT NOW. UH, THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME, THE NEIGHBOR, HIS HOUSE IS, IS WELL WITHIN. HE DOESN'T HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THAT HOUSE. UM, HE'S ACTUALLY CLOSER TO MY PROPERTY LINE THAN, THAN HE SHOULD BE. UH, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER, WE'RE GOING ON 45 YEARS IN BUSINESS. UM, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS WERE, WERE FRIENDS OF OUR FAMILY. UM, I'M PRETTY SURE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, HE DIDN'T [04:10:01] THINK HE WAS GONNA BE NEXT TO, UM, A BARBACOA. BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE THE YEAR, UH, MID SEVENTIES. UH, THE, THE BUILDING WE'RE GONNA PUT ON THERE, UH, IS GONNA REPLACE THE STRUCTURE DIRECTLY BEHIND IT. THAT STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN THE MID TO LATE SEVENTIES AND I WANT TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA LAST FOR, FOR MY KIDS AND MY GRANDKIDS. UM, OVER THE NEXT A HUNDRED YEARS. UH, LIKE I SAID, RIOS BARBACOA HAS BEEN ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN SINCE THE SEVENTIES. WE'RE AT 19 BRICK AND MORTAR LOCATIONS IN SAN ANTONIO. UM, OUR FAMILY IS WELL KNOWN TO THE AREA. WE EMPLOY A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBOR, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, MY GRANDFATHER, WHICH YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE IN THE PICTURE OF MY GRANDMOTHER AND MY FATHER, UM, LIKE I SAID, THEY, THEY, THEY STARTED THERE IN THE, IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES. SO THE ONLY THING WE'RE ASKING IS JUST TO BUILD ON THE CURRENT, UH, FOOTPRINT OF THE, OF, OF THE HOUSE. THAT'S, IT'S NOT A HOUSE, IT'S AN OFFICE, UH, OFFICE, APARTMENT. THE WHOLE CORNER IS, UM, FROM FITCH TO MILLVILLE IS A COMPLETE COMMERCIAL. SO PROPERTY. SO A QUICK QUESTION. SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A BUILDING WITH A RED ROOF ON IT THAT'S IN THE AERIAL THAT'S AT THE HARD CORNER OF SARZA MOORE AND FITCH. AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO, YOUR PLAN IS TO DEMO THAT BUILDING AND RECONSTRUCT IN THE SAME PLACE? YES. SO THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE, IT'S AN APARTMENT. IT'S, IT'S AN OFFICE CITY. BRING UP AN AERIAL VIEW, PLEASE. YES. THE, THE FRONT OF THAT BUILDING, THAT'S 32 FEET. THE NEW BUILDING IS GONNA BE 30 FEET WIDE. SO IT'S NARROWER. IT'S GONNA BE TWO FEET NARROWER. SO WE COULD, I GUESS DEPENDING ON, UH, I'D, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK ONLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE HOUSE, THAT'S WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY AND IT'S BEEN THERE, UM, SINCE I'VE BEEN ALIVE. SO ON THIS, ON THE AERIAL THAT WE SEE THE RED, THE RED ROOF BUILDING, YOU'RE YES SIR. HARD CORNER. YOU'RE GONNA DEMO THAT RECONSTRUCT ONE THAT'S TWO FOOT NARROWER. YES SIR. AND THEN THE BUILDING THAT'S DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THAT, THE BUILDING THAT'S DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO DEMO IT ONCE THE BUILDING IS UP AND RUNNING. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE COOK THE BARBACOA. RIGHT NOW, ONCE WE'RE COMPLETELY UP AND RUNNING IN BUSINESS ABOUT TWO TO FOUR WEEKS, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THE KITCHEN. WE'RE GONNA START THE PROCESS OF DEMOING THAT BUILDING TO CREATE, UH, MORE OF A PARKING LOT. SO, SO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THREE BUILDINGS ON YOUR PROPERTY? YES SIR. AND YOU, AND AT THE END OF ALL THIS, YOU'LL HAVE TWO? YES SIR. OKAY. AND THEN STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SETBACK? YES SIR. UM, IF YOUR BUILDING'S TWO FOOT NARROW OR THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUES WITH IT FITTING, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT, UH, SUGGESTION BY STAFF? UM, I MEAN, IF WE COULD KIND OF MEET IN THE MIDDLE AT SEVEN FEET, I KNOW IT'S NOT SIX INCHES ISN'T A BIG ISSUE. UH, OKAY. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE TOO CLOSE. THERE IS A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA AND THE CLOSER I AM TO ZAMORA, THE MORE INCLINED THE UM, NO, I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WOULD LIKE TO, WE BRING UP ALL THESE LITTLE ISSUES. SO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION IS AWARE OF WHAT, OF WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU THINK IS AND WHAT STAFF THINKS AND EVERYTHING. SO. YES SIR. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, MR. SANCHEZ, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD WHILE YOU'RE HERE? NO. ALL AND, UH, LOOK FOR A MOTION THEN. OH, SORRY. REALLY QUICK, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. YEAH. UH, I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM MR. , HIS, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM, UH, THE, THE ASSOCIATION. UH, THEY SAID THAT, THAT THEY WERE GONNA PUT, PUT THEIR, UH, PUT A WORD IN FOR SUPPORT, BUT I GUESS THAT DIDN'T COME THROUGH. BUT, UM, HE DID. ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES CALLED ME. OKAY. AND, UM, JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. ALRIGHT. SO WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO READ THE MOTION, WE HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING FIVE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SEVEN AND A HALF AND THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT HE COULD LIVE WITH SEVEN, WOULD LIKE COMMISSIONER CRUZ. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 3 103 0 0 2 79, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR ONE, A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A MINIMUM, MINIMUM 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE WESTERN SIDE, ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. AND A TWO A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE WITH A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 57 0 7 SOUTH SOUTHMORE STREET, APPLICANT BEING JOEL RIOS. 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 LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC 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 [04:15:01] BY RESTRICTED SITES HEAD, BACK, AND BUFFER YARD TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USE LOT AND THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL LOT STAFF FINDS THIS DISTANCE IS SUITABLE AS THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IN QUESTION TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FIND, EXCUSE ME, STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE BEING AN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE STRUCTURE CANNOT MEET THE 10 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK. AND THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEW ADDITION FOR THE VARIANCE WOULD 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. IF GRANTED THE STRUCTURE WILL BE FIVE FEET FROM THE SITE AND HAVE A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SIX 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 RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITION IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BECAUSE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE, MAINTAINING A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. THE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND OF MOTION. MANNA. MANNA HAS A SECOND. UH, DO YOU WANNA OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? COULD I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES. PER, SO, UM, SO COULD WE, COULD YOU THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEN, UM, AND THEN CHANGE IT TO A, UM, A UM, THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED, UM, UH, 10 FOOT TO, TO MAKE IT SEVEN FOOT SIDE BUFFER. SO SEVEN, SEVEN FOOT INSTEAD OF FIVE FOOT, ESSENTIALLY ON THE SIDE THERE. THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IT'S, UH, THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED SO THAT THE SIDE, UH, SETBACK AND THE SIDE BUFFER WILL BOTH BE SEVEN FEET. UM, AND IF, UH, THERE'S ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT AMENDMENT, HEARING NONE. COMMISSIONER UH, CRUZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING YOUR MOTION? UH, NO. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT, UH, EXTRA, UH, ESSENTIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, AND I KNOW THE AREA REAL GOOD AND I KNOW THAT, UH, THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR MORE YEARS THAN I CAN COUNT. AND I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MADAM. GREAT PUBLIC COLA . OKAY. I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. IF THAT'S, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. BURTON. I CONCUR. MS. KAPLAN I CONCUR. MR. RHI I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MS. VEES I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF? BUT, BUT THE SETBACK AND THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS BOTH SEVEN FEET. I APPRECIATE IT AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL HANGING IN THERE, UM, ALL DAY. BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. [ Approval of Minutes  ] ALRIGHT, LAST IS THE MINUTES. UM, WE HAD SOME REVISIONS SUBMITTED TODAY. UM, IS IS, I DON'T, THIS HASN'T HAPPENED IN A WHILE. SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET TYPED UP AND THEN PUBLISHED AND THEN VOTE ON NEXT TIME? OR CAN WE VOTE AS AMENDED WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE? QUESTION. OH, IF YOU HAD AMENDMENTS YOU CAN JUST, UH, APPROVE AS AMENDED. I MEAN, I READ THROUGH 'EM THERE. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY OF THEM. CONCUR. OKAY. SECOND. SO IF WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES RIGHT NOW BY COMMISSIONER A SECOND MANNA AND A SECOND BY KAPLAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MINUTES PASS. UM, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NOPE. YOU HAVE SOME, [04:20:01] UH, FRESH FOOD THERE FOR YOU, SO ENJOY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, WE'RE ADJOURNED AT FIVE 13. YES SIR. * 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.