* 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. [00:00:01] SUPPORT OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL COME, UH, COME [Call to Order] INTO OPERATION. WE WILL NEED SOME, UH, MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS SOUNDS, THEIR MOBILE DEVICES, THAT'S CELL PHONES, PAGERS IF YOU STILL HAVE THEM. AND, UH, OTHER DEVICES THAT MAY TEMPORARILY RING. UH, REMINDER OF SOME SORT. UM, THE BEFORE WE CAN COME TO ORDER. HECTOR, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL FOR YOUR MR. TEAL PRESENT ORDER? UH, MS. ELLI PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? HERE. MS. CRUZ. OH, SHE JUST STEPPED OUT. SHE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. MR. ORIAN? HERE. MR. BRIGHTEN? HERE. MR. RODRIGUEZ? HERE. MR. NEFF. PRESENT. MR. MANO PRESENT. MS. FISHER PRESENT AND MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT, DO HAVE A QUORUM? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, PLEASE WILL YOU JOIN US AND STAND TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAGS AND TEXAS FLAG. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THE BOARDROOM. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT'S STREET ADDRESSES. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, I AS CHAIR WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY, UH, CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AT THE MEETING. THE BOARD ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING CODE AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS DETERMINATIONS MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FORCED DECISIONS AND APPEALS. 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 A PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WILL TAKE, WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THAT IS NINE VOTES BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITHIN THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR COUNTY COURTS OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORDS OF THESE [00:05:01] PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTAINING FACTS OF YOUR CASE. NOW WE'RE GONNA DETERMINE, UH, IF ALL OUR APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT TODAY, OUR FIRST CASE. UM, MELINDA DE LA FUENTE. ARE YOU PRESENT? THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UH, MIA GRARD. ARMANDO. THANK YOU. RO HERNANDEZ. THANK YOU. AND, UH, JOE SALINAS. EXCELLENT. NOW THE STAFF WILL GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON INSTRUCTIONS ON SPEAKING TIME FOR ALL WITNESSES. BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF, UH, THOSE SIGNING IN, UH, THERE WILL BE A RESTRICTION ON TIME, UH, WHICH WILL BE TWO MINUTES FOR YOUR REBUTTALS. SO, UH, BE PREPARED. THANK, UH, CATHERINE, YOU WANNA TAKE OVER? ALL RIGHT. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION IN ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU WILL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES. THOSE GIVING THEIR TI GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. GROUPS CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOTTED A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE ITEM. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. VERY GOOD. NOW, UH, I GUESS WE SHOULD [1. 19-5659 (Continued from 07/15/19) BOA 19-10300079: A request by Melinda DeLaFuente for a 4’11” variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow a carport to be 1” away from the side property line, located at 7122 Woodgate Drive. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 6) (Mercedes Rivas, Planner, (210) 207-0215, Mercedes.Rivas2@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] GO AHEAD AND START WITH OUR FIRST CASE. CAN YOU PLEASE B O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 79 A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FEET 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS MELINDA DE LA ENTENTE AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7 1 2 2 WOOD GATE DRIVE. THE ZONING IS R SIX M L O D TWO MLR, TWO A H O D AND HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DECREASE OF THE SIDE BUILDING SETBACK LINE TO ALLOW A PROPOSED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO ENCROACH IN THE SIDE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BUILDING. INSIDE THE BUILDING SIDE SETBACK LINE WOULD NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLE OR WHEELCHAIR. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT NEEDS THE CARPORT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE VEHICLE WHILE BEING SHELTERED FROM THE ELEMENTS. HERE'S A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF AND HERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. JEFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, FACT THE PROPOSED ATTACHED CARPORT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT DETRACTS FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. WE SENT OUT 20 NOTICES AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MEADOW VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED ZERO MAIL OUTS IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND HERE IS A NOTIFICATION MAP OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOTIFIED. [00:10:02] AND THERE NONE. ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN THIS REGARD? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, JUDGING, UH, UPON THE STATEMENT OF, OF DENIAL REQUESTS AND ALTERNATIVE, UM, HOW MUCH ROOM ARE WE? DID YOU GO OUT THERE AND MEASURE THIS LAB OR DID ANYONE FROM STAFF MEASURE THIS LAB? WE DID NOT MEASURE THIS LAB. IT'S ONLY JUST SHOWN IN THIS PHOTO HERE OF THE PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. DEONTE, WE NEED YOU TO, UH, GIVE YOUR COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS JUST FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. AND YOU MAY PROCEED AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. MELINDA DELA FUENTE. AND THIS HOUSE IS, UM, MY PARENTS, THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS AND HE'S A HUNDRED PERCENT DISABLED VET. HE BEEN ACCOMMODATED EM. MY ADDRESS, I LIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 1, 1 0 2, 1 MIRAMAR PLACE, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7 8 4 1 1. AND THIS HOUSE, LIKE I SAID, IT'S MY PARENTS' HOUSE AND AFTER HE RETIRED FROM THE AIR FORCE, THEY BOUGHT THIS AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS. AND AS TIME HAS GONE BY, HE'S GOTTEN VERY ILL. AND HE'S BEEN ALLOCATED A HUNDRED PERCENT DISABLED VET WITH H AND ORANGE. SO TRYING TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE. AND WE HAVE A NEW VAN, IT'S A HANDICAP VAN AND THE RAMP OPENS ON THE SIDE. SO IN ORDER TO GET IN AND OUT, YOU, IT NEEDS TO BE THE A D A RECOMMENDED WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE AWNING. SO THE, THE SLAB IS THERE ALREADY. IT'S JUST I, YOU HAVE TO GO WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SET SETBACK THAT IS BETWEEN THE HOUSE. SO I DON'T SEE IT BEING A PROBLEM DOING THAT. BUT I WANTED TO AT THIS BROUGHT UP, BROUGHT UP, EXCUSE ME, YOU BROUGHT UP THE A D A REQUIREMENTS. MM-HMM. , CAN YOU LIST THAT FOR THE BOARD PLEASE? UH, 14 FEET. 14 FEET IN WIDTH AND WIDTH FOR THIS MAN. AND THE, AND THE APPROACH OR TO GET INTO THE VAN, UH, GET INTO THE VAN THAT THE, UH, EXTENT OF YOUR PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME? NO OTHER. NO OTHER. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE A QUESTION THAT THEY'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT? MR. NAFF? FUENTE. HI. UM, LOOKS LIKE NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT YET. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR REQUESTING APPROVAL TO BUILD IT. RIGHT, BUT I I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THE DRAWING. YOU KNOW HOW LARGE THE ACTUAL CARPORT WOULD BE. IS IT INTENDED TO JUST COVER THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY COMPLETELY? UM, I THINK IT'S, YES. IT'S, THE DRAWING IS ON THERE. UM, THE FULL WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. YEAH. AND THEN WOULD IT BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE BACK FROM YES. SIDEWALK, I SUPPOSE MEETING THE CODE, WHICH IS 10 FEET. IS THAT RIGHT? I ACTUALLY HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT THAT VERY, UH, ISSUE BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW IF THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE A REDUCTION OF THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE. AND HE SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA BUILD A CAR PART WITHIN THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINES. IT WAS JUST A SIDE THAT THEY NEEDED A REDUCTION ON. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THEN. THANK YOU. OH, AND I GUESS I SEE, SO THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IS 24 FEET WIDE FROM EDGE TO EDGE RIGHT NOW, AND YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A CARPORT THAT IS AS WIDE AS THAT, RIGHT? RIGHT. I NEED IT THAT WIDE. YEAH. THANK YOU. ORIAN. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO THE, THE SKETCH YOU PROVIDED SHOWS THAT YOUR CURRENT, UH, DRIVEWAY, UH, CONCRETE IS 24 FEET WIDE. UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU, YOU HAD STATED THAT YOU NEEDED 14 FOOT MINIMUM, BUT, UH, WERE YOU, UH, GOING TO PUT THE POSTS, I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY FROM THE STREET VIEW AND IT APPEARS THAT ARE, ARE, ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO PUT THE POSTS IN THE GRASS? ARE YOU GONNA PUT THEM ON THE CONCRETE? I'M TRYING, TRYING TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE WIDTH IS GONNA BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE 24 FEET. WELL, I NEEDED THE PERMIT FIRST IN ORDER TO TRY TO KEEP THE POSTS WITHIN THE, WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T WANNA MAKE THREE DRIVEWAYS. I'M TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE TO WHAT WE HAVE THERE. SO IN THE CONTRACTOR SAYS THE A D A IS 14 FEET IN WIDTH, SO WE NEED BOTH DRIVEWAYS COVERED. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN AWNING OF BOTH CARPORTS. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UH, I'M A, I'M ACTUALLY AN ACCESSIBILITY INSPECTOR FOR THE STATE AND THAT IT'S, YOU WOULD NEED 16 FEET. UH, BUT WITH A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY, UM, IT, IT SEEMS PERFECTLY [00:15:01] ACCEPTABLE TO FIT 16 FEET IN THERE. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WIDE OF A POST YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN. YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH CREDIT WE DO A LOT FOR THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND FOR OVERHANG FROM THE ROOF. UH, JUST TO KIND OF SEE HOW THIS WOULD FIT WITHIN YOUR, YOUR 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. UM, WELL I KNOW IT WOULD BE GOING INTO THE FIVE FOOT, UH, SETBACK. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. SO IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE AND USE WHAT'S ALREADY THERE AND NOW AS FAR AS EXACT MEASUREMENTS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY, I'M NOT THE CONTRACTOR, BUT THE, HE SAID THEY WOULD BE TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH DRIVEWAYS. 'CAUSE WE HAVE NURSES AND CNAS, THREE DIFFERENT CNAS AND A NURSE EVERY, EVERY WEEK AND PRIVATE PAY PROVIDERS AND JUST A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT. SO WE DO NEED A IN AND OUT ON BOTH DRIVEWAYS AND HAVING THE POST ON THERE. SO WE, IT WOULD BE HOPEFULLY ON THE SLAB. THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING FOR BECAUSE IT, IT WOULD BE RIGHT THERE WHERE I NEED IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I, 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY NUMBERS WRITTEN ON HERE. YOU MAKE MENTION OF A CONTRACTOR, WHICH IS UNUSUAL BECAUSE NORMALLY THEY PROVIDE NUMBERS ON THEIR DIAGRAMS. SO I DON'T SEE THIS. HOW FAR IS YOUR HOUSE FROM THE STREET? UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. WELL, I'M NOT GONNA, THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE THE STREET IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY LINE. RIGHT. AND, UH, PROPERTY LINE GENERALLY IS, IS SOMEWHERE BEYOND THE SIDEWALK AND IT APPEARS FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND DIAGRAMS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LONG ENOUGH SPACE THAT, UH, TO BUILD THIS CARPORT AND COMPLY WITH THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. THAT'S NOW, THIS IS A PERCEPTUAL ISSUE. THERE'S NO NUMBERS HERE TO VERIFY THAT YOU MENTIONED A CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY DIDN'T SHOW UP OR, UH, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. BUT, UM, NEVERTHELESS, UH, I JUST POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE YOU MAY BE COMING BACK TO US AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ASKED DID WE MEASURE ANYTHING, UM, ANYWAY. YEAH, WELL, SO THAT'S WHY I HAD REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND THE CONTRACTOR TO SEE IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO, IF THEY HAD A SURVEY OR IF THEY PLANNED ON GETTING ONE DONE AND THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ME ONE, BUT HE ALSO ASSURED ME THAT WOULD, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES OF THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE. BUT THERE IS NO OFFICIAL SURVEY. WOW. LIKE I SAID, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THEM, IF WE CAN GIVE THEM ANYTHING, WE GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT OR WHAT THEY NEED. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. NO, NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. OKAY. DO WE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANYBODY SIGNED UP AS A WITNESS TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PRESENTING YOUR CASE. THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS, BUT WE'LL DEAL WITH THOSE. UH, PLEASE. UH, LET, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN FROM THE BOARD A MOTION. NOW UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATION OF THE MOTION MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE THE MOTION? ORIAN? OKAY, MS. DORIAN, GO AHEAD. UH, REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 19 DASH 3 79, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 71 22 WOODGATE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING BELINDA DE LA FUENTE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES FIRE SEPARATION NEEDS AND PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS. 2, 2, 2 SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES WOULD LIMIT POTENTIAL HARDSHIPS ON ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD PROVIDE FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT WHILE PROVIDING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE SEPARATION AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. 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 BOARD FINDS THAT A THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD ALLEVIATE CONCERNS OF INJURING THE APPROPRIATE USES USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS [00:20:01] DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE CARPORT PLACEMENT WITH A THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD ALLEVIATE CONCERNS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, FIRE SPREAD AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND BILL, YOU MAKE A SECOND. CORRECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, UH, SURE. UH, WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US WITH THE 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND THE, AND THE, AND THE NEED FOR AN, AN ACCESSIBILITY, UH, ACCESS, WHICH IS 16 FEET, UH, FOR THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS AND THE A D A, UM, THERE'S STILL ADEQUATE ROOM EVEN WITH A, UH, UM, THE VARIANCE THAT I I ALLOTTED FOR JUST TO LET THEM HAVE IT WITHIN THREE FEET. UM, FURTHER, IT, IT STILL ACCOUNTS FOR THE WIDTHS OF ANY POSTS AND STAYS AN ADEQUATE, UH, DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE RAMP THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE, UH, STREET PHOTO. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, MR. THIEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MR. ORIAN. UM, ALSO I'D LIKE TO COMMEND YOU FOR COMING HERE FIRST BEFORE JUST BUILDING IT. WE REALLY APPRECIATE WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? UH, UM, HECTOR, I DON'T KNOW HER NAME, BUT I'M SURE SHE'S GONNA ASK FOR THE VOTE. GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. MS. MONICA. MONICA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MONICA, PLEASE PROCEED. MR. ORIAN? YES. MR. TEAL? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. TERELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAMAN? YES, I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRIGHTON. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. AND MR. MARTINEZ, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION, UH, PASSES, UH, THE VARIANCE IS TO BE ALLOWED. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO GET FURTHER DETAILS. THERE'S A LOT MORE INVOLVED THAN, THAN THIS. SO, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND LET'S [2. 19-5652 BOA-19-10300085: A request by Neesa Broussard for a 7' variance from the 15' rear setback requirement to allow an attached patio cover to remain 8' from the rear property line, located at 271 Red Hawk Ridge. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Mercedes Rivas, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0215, Mercedes.Rivas2@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] PROCEED TO THE NEXT CASE. B O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 8 5. REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT REAR REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ATTACHED PATIO COVER TO BE EIGHT FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS ISSA BRUSARD AND THE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2 7 1 REDHAWK RIDGE. THE ZONING IS PUD R SIX M O L D ONE MLR ONE. HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO KEEP AN EXISTING ATTACHED PATIO LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE HOME OVER A PREEXISTING CONCRETE SLAB. THE PATIO COVERS A PREEXISTING 392 SQUARE FOOT CONCRETE CONCRETE SLAB, OR A 19 BY 24 FEET AND SIX INCHES THAT WAS POURED BEFORE THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE HOME. THE APPLICANT NEEDS THE ATTACHED PATIO COVER TO SHIELD THE HOMEOWNERS FROM THE SUN AND INCLEMENT WEATHER. FURTHER, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON A CUL-DE-SAC AND THE ODD, THE LOT IS ODDLY SHAPED, MEANING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS LIMITED CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. HERE IS A SITE PLAN AND HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. AND HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE EXISTING PATIO. AND HERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. DAF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN BO O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT. THE VARIANCE IS UNLIKELY TO HARM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PATIO COVER WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, WITH REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION CODES. WE SENT OUT 21 NOTICES AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED ONE MAIL OUT IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WAS IN APPROVAL. [00:25:02] ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR OKAY, MR. DORIAN, GO AHEAD. DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO GO IN THE BACKYARD? WE DID NOT, BUT THIS PHOTO KIND OF SHOWS THE PATIO. WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A, UM, ELECTRIC RUN IN THE REAR YARD. OH, THERE WE GO. BE ANY TRANSFORMERS FROM THE AERIAL PHOTO. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS. MM-HMM. , I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, UH, AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. MS. BEARD. WE'RE GONNA NEED YOUR COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. MY NAME IS ISSA BROSSARD. I LIVE AT 2 7 1 RED HAWK RIDGE, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 5 8. NOW PLEASE PRESENT YOUR CASE. OH YES. SO, UM, THIS IS, THIS IS OUR HOUSE. WE'RE ON A CUL-DE-SAC. WE ARE THE FIRST HOUSE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. SO OUR HOUSE IS NOT ONLY PUSHED BACK FROM THE, FROM, UM, THE ROAD, BUT IT IS ALSO TURNED JUST A LITTLE BIT. SO WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT, UM, WE HAVE A STRIP ON THE, AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE, THERE'S A STRIP OF LAND ON THE LEFT SIDE, WHICH IS THIS NEIGHBOR'S SIDE. THERE'S A STRIP THIS WAY AND THEN THAT WE HAVE THE NINE FEET ACROSS THE BACK, AND MOST OF THE YARD IS TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. UM, AND SO OUR PATIO, THE PA THE CONCRETE WAS POURED BEFORE WE GOT THERE. UM, AND IT'S INCREDIBLY HOT BECAUSE THE SUN SETS, ACTUALLY, AS YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE, IT SETS IN THE BACK LEFT CORNER. UM, IT, THAT'S THE WEST. SO IT'S INCREDIBLY HOT OUTSIDE AS THE SUN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER. AND SO WE WANTED TO DO THIS PATIO COVER SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY USE OUR BACKYARD MORE. UM, WE HAVE TWO LITTLE BOYS, SO WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA. AND SO WE HIRED A COMPANY TO DO THIS FOR US AND THEY SAID, OH YES, WE'RE ALL NAVY VETS, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU. AND THEN THEY NEVER PULLED THE BUILDING PERMIT. SO WE ACTUALLY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THIS UNTIL WE GOT THE CITATION IN THE MAIL. AND THEN WE'RE BACKTRACKING OBVIOUSLY HEAVILY, WE'VE LEARNED QUITE A BIT ABOUT ZONING LAWS. UM, BUT, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THAT EVEN THE HOUSE NEXT TO US, UM, THERE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TURNED AND PUSHED BACK, BUT THEIR YARDS ARE SO EXTENSIVE THAT, UM, WE'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM IN THIS, UM, BECAUSE THEY, THEY EXTEND QUITE A BIT BACK. IF YOU SEE THE 2, 7, 5 AND THE, UM, 2, 7, 9 HOUSE, EXCUSE ME, I'M NERVOUS, . UM, AND THEN THE ONE THAT'S NEXT TO US, THE 2, 6 7, THEY HAVE LIKE A NORMAL LOT. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, LIKE OURS, THE 2 7 1 STARTS TO TURN. SO WE'RE THE ONLY HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS THIS ISSUE. OKAY, I SEE. SO, SO THIS, THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMIT, WITHOUT, UM, YES. MEETING THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR THE CITY. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. QUITE A LIST OF, UM, PROBLEMS. OKAY. AND, UH, UH, WELL, WE'RE GONNA LET THAT LIE WHERE, WHERE IT STAY IN THE STANDS. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO OFFER US THAT WOULD, UH, YOU BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE WORK IN YOUR FAVOR? WANT THE PATIO GO? I, I WOULD LOVE TO KEEP THE PATIO COVER. YES, I WOULD . OKAY. VERY GOOD. STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I, I THANK YOU FOR ACTUALLY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. EXCUSE ME. OH, ORIAN. OH, MR. ORIAN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY. SO, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE, DO YOU HAVE AN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN ELECTRIC RUN THAT RUNS OFF THE CUL-DE-SAC DOWN THE SIDE PROPERTY AND NOT NECESSARILY ALONG THE REAR. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M JUST USING PICTURES. DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE ELECTRIC, UH, ELECTRIC O ELECTRIC OVERHEAD LINES THAT RUN FROM YOUR CUL-DE-SAC? OH, THEY'RE AT THE FENCE LINE. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT RUNNING BEHIND YOUR, IT'S, IT'S RIGHT BETWEEN, LIKE, IT'S ALMOST MORE ON THE, THE, THE BACK, THAT REALLY LARGE YARD BEHIND US. IT'S MORE ON THAT SIDE OF, OKAY. AND I NOTICED THAT YOU'RE WITHIN A POD. DO YOU HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT MAY NOT BE REGISTERED? YOU, DID THEY RUN THIS BY THEM? UH, THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING, SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF. SO, BUT THE H O A DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU DO? AND, UM, THEY NEVER TOLD US. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO CALLED. I DON'T KNOW. I'M ACTUALLY NOT, NOT SURE. OKAY. YEAH. AND, AND, UH, I CAN SEE THE WAY YOUR HOUSE IS POSITIONED THAT YOU WOULD DEFINITELY GET A LOT OF SUNLIGHT IN YOUR BACK PORCH. SO OVEN BACK THERE IN THE AFTERNOON. I GET IT. UH, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF, CORY? OKAY. UM, SINCE WE DIDN'T GET ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE DISTANCE, APPROXIMATELY HOW FAR IS THIS PATIO COVER FROM THE BACK FENCE? OH, IT'S, IT'S EIGHT FEET. IT'S NINE FEET FROM THE CONCRETE SLAB. WE MEASURED THAT IT'S NINE FEET FROM THE CONCRETE SLAB, AND THEN WHERE THE PATIO OVERHANGS, UM, IT'S EIGHT FEET TO THE FENCE. [00:30:01] SO IT, IT WOULD BE A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE. I DOUBT IF IT'S REALLY INVOLVED IN ANY UTILITIES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION. REMAN BREMAN, GO AHEAD. JOINING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A DASH ONE NINE DASH 0 3 8 5, I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING ATTACHED PATIO COVER TO BE EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 7 1 REDHAWK RIDGE. APPLICANT BEING NISA BROUSSARD BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 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 THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY THE MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN HOMES TO ALLOW QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUTDOOR SPACE. THE ATTACHED PATIO WILL BE ON TOP OF EXISTING, UH, IN THE REAR OF THE YARD. THE ATTACHED PATIO WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT PERMIT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED PATIO AND THE REAR OF THE HOME AS PROPOSED THE STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE REDESIGNED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE INTENT OF REAR SETBACKS IS TO CREATE AN OPEN AREA WITHOUT CROWDING OF STRUCTURES AND TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS. THE REDUCTION OF THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK LINE WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT UNIFORMITY AND WILL NOT INJURE THE RIGHTS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. 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 REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE REDUCTION OF THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK LINE WILL NOT PRODUCE WATER RUNOFF ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT REQUIRE TRESPASS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE PRESENT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE LOT IS CUL-DE-SAC AND IS ODDLY SHAPED. FURTHER. THE SETBACK ISSUE IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE AS A LOT HAS SHAPED ODDLY AND ON A CUL-DE-SAC AND END OF MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UH, MS. BRIGHTMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? YES. I LATELY SYMPATHIZE WITH YOUR PREDICAMENT IN THAT, UM, IT DOES GET VERY HOT IN BACKYARDS AND IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY YOUR PROPERTY AS YOU, UM, THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING WHEN YOU PURCHASED IT. SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. ALRIGHT. YEAH. UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T NORMALLY I WOULDN'T, THIS WOULDN'T BOTHER ME, BUT, UH, UPON REVIEW OF THE FILE, THERE IS A 12 FOOT, UH, ELECTRIC AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG YOUR BACK PROPERTY LINE. UH, ALSO THE, THIS IS REFLECTED WITHIN THE, UH, EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE AND A LOT OF THESE PUDS WERE USING THOSE SETBACKS TO MEET THE, UH, TO MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN THE CERTAIN, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS OF THE LOTS AS, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THEIR W P A P APPROVAL BY THE T C Q. SO WITHOUT SEEING THAT, HOW THAT INFORMATION IS BEING ADDRESSED, UH, OR WITHOUT AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FROM C P S, I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AT THIS TIME. ALRIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY RODRIGUEZ, MR. RODRIGUEZ? I THINK THIS IS A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST AND THAT THE APPLICANT JUST WANTS TO TAKE CARE OF THE FAMILY FROM THE ELEMENTS AND, UH, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THINGS THAT ARE, UM, PRESSING, SOMEBODY'S GONNA MAKE A A, THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND GO AGAINST IT, THEN UH, I'M SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL TAKE CARE OF IT, BUT, UH, I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. IT'S A VERY, VERY REASONABLE REQUEST. [00:35:01] TEAL MR. TEAL, GO AHEAD. JUST RELATIVE TO THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT HASN'T CHANGED, UH, THAT CONCRETE SLAB HAS BEEN THERE. UM, I DON'T SEE THAT THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF CONCERNS. UM, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? NO. YES OR NO? YEAH, I AGREE WITH MR. THIEL'S COMMENT. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THAT SLAB HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUS TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. SO BY PUTTING THE MOVEMENT OF WATER ON THE LAND, OTHER THAN MAYBE ALLOWING IT TO BE CAPTURED, UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE PURVIEW TO DETERMINE WHAT IS ALLOWABLE BY A C P S OR UTILITY EASEMENTS. THAT'S REALLY A PROCESS THAT SHOULD STILL OCCUR THROUGHOUT GOING TO SATISFYING ALL THE PERMITS AND REGULATORY APPROVALS. OUR DETERMINATION TODAY DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THAT UTILITY AGENCY WILL APPROVE OR DENY THIS LATER THROUGH A SEPARATE REVIEW. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, APPLICANT'S REQUEST TODAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ORIAN. OKAY, MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, UH, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THE SEALED SURVEY THAT'S IN THE FILE. THE SLAB DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE 12 FOOT EASEMENT. THANK YOU. UM, I DID SEE THAT SURVEY AND IT SHOWS A SMALLER SLAB PROBABLY FROM WHEN THE HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT AND IT DID NOT ENCOMPASS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY OR THE HOUSE. SO LIKELY THAT SLAB HAD BEEN INCREASED AT SOME POINT IN HISTORY. I WOULD HAVE TO SPECULATE, UH, FROM WHAT WAS ON THAT SURVEY. SO THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY OF WHAT WAS THERE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU TWO. UM, MY CONCERN IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS PRIMARILY THE FACT THAT, UM, INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED IN FILE IS, IS, IS CONTRADICTORY. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS SEEKING RELIEF ON A PARTICULAR PROBLEM THAT, UH, IS COMMON IN SAN ANTONIO WITH UNSCRUPULOUS CONTRACTORS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, WE ALL SHOULD BE VIGILANT IN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THESE PROJECTS COMPLETED, AT LEAST TO THE STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION. UM, WITHOUT A PROPER PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IT, I FIND IT VERY DOUBTFUL THAT IT DOES. BUT THIS IS STILL GONNA GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS AND HOPEFULLY, UH, THE CITY WILL DETERMINE IF THE ANY ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENT IS GONNA BE NEEDED FOR THE STRUCTURE. UM, BUT BECAUSE RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT, I AM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE. UM, GO AHEAD, UH, MONICA, AND I GUESS TAKE THE VOTE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ORIAN? NO. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. TERELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. AND MR. RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ, THANK YOU. UH, I DO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION DOES PASS. THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT UH, ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR PROJECT ARE, ARE, UH, LEGITIMIZED AND MEET THE STANDARDS. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, I'M GOING TO ALLOW A FIVE MINUTE BREAK FOR THE STAFF, I MEAN FOR THE BOARD. UH, AND WE'LL COME BACK IN FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. OUR BREAK [3. 19-5653 BOA-19-10300087: A request by Armando E. Quiñones for a 1'6" variance from the 5' side setback to allow a home to be 3'6" from both side property lines, located at 210 Holland Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Mercedes Rivas, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0215, Mercedes.Rivas2@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] IS NOW COMPLETED. UH, WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT CASE. CAN YOU, UH, GET THINGS ROLLING FOR US? B O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 8 7. A REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE THREE FEET SIX INCHES FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES. THE APPLICANT IS ARMANDO QUINONE AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT TWO 10 HOLLAND AVENUE. THE ZONING IS R FOUR A H O D. HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD A NEW HOME, THREE FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES ON A VACANT LOT. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT [00:40:01] THE 50 FOOT WIDTH OF THE LOT LIMITS THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED HOME. THIS AREA HAS LOTS OF DIFFERENT SIZES. SOME LOTS HAVE A NARROW FRONTAGE AND OTHERS HAVE A LENGTHY FRONTAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. HERE IS A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY AND HERE IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. AND HERE'S SOME NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE IN BO O A CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 8 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE HOME IS PROPOSED AS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT IT DETRACTS FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. WE SENT OUT 27 NOTICES AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED ZERO MAIL-OUTS IN FAVOR, FIVE IN OPPOSITION AND NO COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOTIFIED IN ADDITION TO SHOWING THOSE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. UM, YES, THE 2 23 IS, I BELIEVE, IN THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY. IT'S LIKE A LITTLE APARTMENT BECAUSE I RECEIVED TWO NOTICES FOR THAT PARCEL. 25. MM-HMM. ALSO, UH, ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THAT YOU SAID, UH, THE REASON FOR DENIAL WAS, UH, SAID THAT IN THE DENIAL STATEMENT IT SAYS THAT THE, THE BUILDING WAS OR CONSTRUCTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PARTICULAR AREA, NOT MEET THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. MOST OF THE HOMES ARE BUILT, UH, PER THE SETBACKS AND THIS ONCE MORE RELAXED SETBACK. AND SO THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR, UM, RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT JUST ADHERED TO THE CITY CODE SETBACKS 'CAUSE THERE'S NO UNIQUE, UM, UNIQUENESS TO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD REQUIRE LESS OF A SETBACK. ALRIGHT, THAT'S VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT. IS THAT, UM, ORIAN? OH, OKAY. THAT WAS MY NEXT AND YOU READY FOR SOME QUESTIONS? OKAY. YES, MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. ON THE SITE PLAN, UH, PROVIDED IT CALLS OUT AN EIGHT FOOT STUCCO VENEER WALL. IS, IS THAT WALL ENCROACHING INTO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND WOULD HAVE POTENTIAL AN EFFECTIVE DECREASE IN THE THREE AND A HALF FEET BEING REQUESTED? NO, AT MOST THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FOOT AND A HALF OF REDUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT YOU CAN ALSO ASK THE APPLICANT JUST TO VERIFY. AND THEN, UH, CAN YOU JUST STATE, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT THE, IF SWIMMING POOLS ARE CONSIDERED STRUCTURES WITH REGARDS TO, UH, BUILDING SETBACK LINES, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR AND SIDE BUILDING SETBACK LINE. BUT I WAS SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT JUST LAST WEEK AND HE WAS ACTUALLY SCRATCHING THE PLANS FOR THE SWIMMING POOL. BUT HE CAN ELABORATE MORE ON THAT. YEAH, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS IF, IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THIS REQUEST, IS THERE, UH, ANY WAY THAT THE POOL WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE, WITH THE, AS APPLIED FOR IT? IT WOULD BE, BUT IT'S ONLY RELATED TO THE WATER LINE. SO IF, IF YOU HAVE, UH, DECORATIVE FEATURES FROM THE POOL, THAT CAN BE INTO THE SETBACK, BUT IT'S THE WATER LINE THAT CAN'T BE IN WITH WITHIN THE SETBACK. SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING, OR THERE'S NO PART OF THIS REQUEST THAT IS TRYING TO INCLUDE THE SWIMMING POOL WITH THE REDUCTION IT IS INCLUDED. IT'S SO, BECAUSE THE SIDE SETBACK RUNS THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THAT BRINGS AN INTERESTING QUESTION UP. YOU MENTIONED THE WATER LINE, WHICH IS A VERY GENERAL STATEMENT. UH, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PLUMBING THAT TAKES THE WATER TO THE POOL? NO, IT'S JUST THE WATER LINE OF THE POOL. THE, UH, PLUMBING UNDERNEATH CAN ACTUALLY GO BEYOND THE SETBACKS AND UH, GO INTO UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITIES, CORRECT? MM-HMM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? NO, MR. NEFF. GO AHEAD. KATIE'S ALSO, DONALD JUST POINTED OUT ON THE SITE PLAN IT SHOWS AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WALL AS A FENCE. MM-HMM. SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. IS THAT NOT WITHIN OUR REVIEW TODAY, SINCE IT'S NOT ADVERTISED? IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR REVIEW TODAY, BUT WE SPIDER ON THE MICRO. YOU'RE THE SPIDER ON THE MICROPHONE. UM, [00:45:01] IT'S TV. I DON'T WANNA KILL IT. I JUST OKAY. I WOULD YIELD TO THE APPLICANT FOR THAT QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, UM, ABUTTING AN ALLEY, BUT NOT ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES OR THE RETURNS TO THE ONLY IF IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL AND WELL, OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IF SO, THANK YOU FOR VERY MUCH. LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. AND MR. QUINONE? I'M, UH, MICHAEL ANGELO CARMONA AND I'M REPRESENTING MR. QUINONE. VERY GOOD. I NEED YOUR, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YES. FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MICHAELANGELO CARMONA AND I RESIDE AT, UH, 10 45 SHOOK NUMBER 1 66 Q UH, ALMOST PARK TEXAS. OKAY, GO AHEAD AND PRESENT AGAIN. OKAY. UM, I ACTUALLY AM COMING IN WITH A, A DESIGN OF A SPANISH COLONIAL HOME THAT REFLECTS MONTE VISTA AND ALMOST PARK. AND THIS IS THE DESIGN OF THE HOME THAT I, I HAVE PUT TOGETHER. UH, IT'S BEEN A, A PLAN GOING FOR 11 YEARS. UH, THIS LOT CAME UP FOR SALE AND I HAD TO TWEAK THE DESIGN SO THAT THE HOUSE FIT 'CAUSE IT'S SUCH A NARROW LOT, VERY, VERY NARROW. UM, WE'VE HAD TO ACTUALLY BRING IN, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN, SOME OF THE, UH, THE CENTER OF IT IS REALLY PULLED IN AWAY. THERE'S AN INNER COURTYARD. UM, SINCE THE HOUSE IS GONNA BE PRETTY MUCH SPREAD OUT ON, ON THE PROPERTY, UM, IT'S PULLED AWAY FROM THE, FROM BOTH SIDES. SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY, AND THE LIVING ROOM AS WELL, I, I WAS ABLE TO REDUCE THAT. SO IT'S ALMOST ABOUT A FOUR FOOT AWAY FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE. THE BACK IS, UH, SITTING THE, THE 20 FEET FROM THE ALLEY, WHICH IS THE, UH, REQUIRED FROM THE CITY. THE SWIMMING POOL IS, UH, ACTUALLY IT, THAT'S PART OF THE DESIGN, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE PUT IN LATER. THAT'S NOT FOR RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW THE IMPORTANCE IS JUST TO GET THE HOUSE BUILT AND THE POOL MAY BE LATER, MANY YEARS FROM NOW, BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING CITY SETBACKS. THE PROPERTY HAS, UH, SOME AREAS THAT ARE CRUSHED GRANITE, BUT THAT'S FOR WATER ABSORPTION. I'VE BEEN BY TO SEE RUNOFF, UH, Y'ALL HAVE MENTIONED RUNOFF AND, UH, THIS LOT IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT, WE'VE HAD SOME OF THE HEAVY STORMS, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RUNOFF WHATSOEVER. UH, THE WATER TENDS TO RUN AROUND THE PROPERTY AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S A DRAIN. SO I DO SEE IT GOING THROUGH THE STREET AND DOWN THE DRAIN. UM, I DO PLAN TO PUT A SORT OF WATER CAPTURING TANK IN THE BACK BECAUSE I JUST MOVED FROM STONE OAK, SO I KNOW WHEN IT GETS REALLY HOT, THERE'S NO WATER AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE WATERING. WE'RE UNDER RESTRICTIONS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GUTTER SYSTEM AND COLLECT WATER AND USE THAT TO IRRIGATE THE PROPERTY DURING THE SUMMER. THE PROPERTY ITSELF, I DO KNOW ON ONE SIDE HAS A DRIVEWAY, AND THE OTHER SIDE, AS YOU COULD SEE BY THE PHOTOS, HAS A GARDEN. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY UP AGAINST ANY OTHER DWELLING THAT IS THERE. THE, UM, THE, THE WALL, I HAD ALREADY SPOKE TO SOMEBODY HERE AND IT'S, UH, SIX FEET, NOT EIGHT. SO THEY, THEY TOLD US THAT WE COULD ONLY HAVE, UH, SIX FEET, BUT THE ONE LOT THAT IS NEXT TO US IS COMMERCIAL. BUT IF, IF WILLING, IF APPROVED, THEN I WOULD PROBABLY GO UP EIGHT IF, IF THAT, YOU KNOW, BEING THAT IT'S COMMERCIAL RIGHT NEXT DOOR. SO, UM, BUT THIS HOUSE VERY MUCH IS IN STYLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, YOU KNOW, RESPECTING BOTH MONTE VISTA AND OLMO PARK, UH, WITH A WHITE STUCCO IN THE FRONT, ALL ALL AROUND, AND THEN A RED TILE ROOF WITH A LOT OF THESE SPANISH DESIGNS TO REFLECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, UM, I'M HOPING I HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, MY REQUEST APPROVED SO THAT I CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT THE COMPLETE, UH, PRESENTATION YOU HAVE SO FAR? YES. UH, I ALSO INCLUDED SOME HOMES THAT ARE IN THE AREA, UH, THAT ARE MODERN CONSTRUCTION. AND YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE ABOUT, UH, THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. THOSE TWO HOMES ARE ABOUT SIX FEET, YOU KNOW, THREE, THREE FEET EACH. THOSE ARE ON NORWOOD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, UH, MCCULLOUGH. SO, UH, I WOULDN'T BE ENCROACHING ANY, ANY, UH, HOME OR STRUCTURE THAT WAY. THERE'S, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY ON ONE SIDE AND THEN THERE'S A GARDEN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. [00:50:01] SO, BUT I'D INCLUDE THESE PICTURES TO SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE HOMES HAVE GONE UP AND THEY'RE NOT OLDER HOMES. THESE ARE PRETTY MUCH MODERN HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE AREA. OKAY. CORIAN VICTORIAN. OKAY. SO, UM, I'M, I'M SURE THE HOUSE IS GONNA BE BEAUTIFUL. UM, UH, BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS, IS THE, THE WALL, IS THAT WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY OR IS YES, IT IS, YES. AND HOW THICK IS THE WALL? UH, DEPENDING, UH, CINDER BLOCK SIZE, SEE THE, THE, THE THREE FOOT, UH, UH, THREE FOOT SETBACK IN THESE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS IS SOMETHING THAT IS, WE SEE SOMETIMES MM-HMM. , BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT THE WALL IS DOING OR WHAT EFFECT THAT WALL HAS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF THE, OF THE HOME THAT YOU'RE CONSTRUCT ATTEMPTING TO CONSTRUCT TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS REQUEST, THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AT LEAST THREE FEET CLEAR MM-HMM. BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE PROPERTY LINE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WALL VARIES UP TO A FOOT DEPENDING ON THE, THE COLUMNS? WELL, I GUESS A CINDER BLOCK IS LESS THAN A FOOT, THE WIDTH OF A CINDER BLOCK AND IT, IT CALLS, IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A STUCCO VENEER ON THE OUTSIDE. SO IF THAT'S ON BOTH SIDES, RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SORT OF YEAH, THAT WOULDN'T BE LESS THAN HALF AN INCH. I'VE SEEN REALLY THICK ONE. I'M JUST WONDERING. YEAH. OKAY. THE SECOND ISSUE IS, IS, UM, THE STAFF HAD ALLUDED THAT, THAT IF WE MAKE THIS, UH, APPROVE YOUR REQUEST TODAY, IT, IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE SWIMMING POOL TO BE WITHIN FIVE FOOT AS WELL. AND IF, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT ENSURING THAT THE POOL DOES NOT ENCROACH? THE WATER LINE DOES NOT ENCROACH WITHIN FIVE FEET. THE SWIMMING POOL THAT IS PICTURED, THERE WAS, UH, THE ARCHITECT JUST THREW IN THERE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THAT'S GONNA BE A PROJECT LATER ON. SO I, I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE IT OUT AND STILL PRESENT IT. YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WILL BE ONE, BUT NOT THAT SIZE AND IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PLANNING SOMETHING THAT'S A SLIVER. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE CONSIDERING TODAY. RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING THE VARIANCE. RIGHT. ASPECTS FROM BOTH SIDES. UH, YOU'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT AS, AS TIME GOES BY. RIGHT. UH, THE, THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS, IS, UH, I GUESS THE, UH, MY QUESTION, DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A QUESTION? NO, MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS THIS HOUSE DESIGNED SO LARGE? WAS IT NOT DESIGNED FOR THE LOT OR WAS THIS HOUSE DESIGNED AND THEN TRIED TO BE PLACED ON THIS LOT? NO, IT, IT, LIKE I SAID, THE DESIGN WAS CHANGED BECAUSE IT, IT'S VERY NARROW AND I WANTED AN INNER COURTYARD. UM, AND I JUST BROKE IT UP AMONG, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE YARD. UH, I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY. IF, IF I WERE TO BRING, IF I WERE TO MAKE IT A SINGLE STORY, IT WOULD REALLY SWALLOW UP THE YARD. UM, EACH OF THE BEDROOMS, ALL THE, MOST OF THE ROOMS IN THE HOUSE WERE SIZES THAT I WAS ALREADY LIVING IN AND STONE OAK. SO, UM, I'VE GOT FURNITURE AND STUFF LIKE THAT THAT FITS THAT SPACE AND I HAVE HAD TO CUT IT BACK, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHY I'VE LEFT LITTLE PATIOS ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. OKAY. IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ELLI? MR. ZA? DR. ZARE, YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A CONTINUATION OF YOUR QUESTION, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS HARDSHIP. AND SO I'M REALLY STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIP YOU FACE IN TRYING TO MEET THE SETBACKS SINCE YOU'RE DESIGNING A HOME THAT COULD, I MEAN, YOU COULD DESIGN ONE THAT MET THE SETBACK. SO WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER? WELL, LIKE I STATED, UH, THE SIZE OF THE BEDROOMS AND THE FURNITURE THAT'S ALREADY WITHIN, LIKE THE FRONT HAS A LIVING ROOM, HALLWAY, A BATHROOM. AND THEN MY STUDY, I'M A REALTOR AND I WORK FROM HOME. SO MY STUDY'S VERY IMPORTANT AND I HAVE IT IN THE FRONT. THAT WAY WHENEVER I HAVE CLIENTS COME OVER, THEY COME IN AND THEY GO DIRECTLY INTO MY OFFICE AND I HAVE A BATHROOM IN THE FRONT INSTEAD OF HAVING MY CLIENTS GO THROUGH THE WHOLE HOUSE TO GET TO A BATHROOM HIDDEN SOMEWHERE. SO I DESIGNED IT THAT WAY SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. AND THEN MY LIVING ROOM AS WELL FOR MORE MEETING SPACE IF NEED BE. I'M ALSO, JUST NEED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. WHEN YOU CAME UP, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, BUT YOU ARE IN FACT THE HOMEOWNER. I'M THE HOMEOWNER AS WELL, YEAH. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? YES, QUITE A FEW. UM, MARY JOHNSON, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK TO REGARD. THANK YOU. MARY JOHNSON, CAN YOU PLEASE STEP FORWARD? WE'LL NEED YOUR COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, THEN YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR EXPLANATION. UM, I'M MARY JOHNSON. I LIVE AT 1 25 WEST RIDGEWOOD COURT. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO I'M HERE TO [00:55:01] OFFER OUR COMMENTS. WE, WE GOT THE NOTICE SO SHORT THAT I BARELY HAD ENOUGH TIME TO GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOGETHER SO WE COULD SEE WHAT MICHAEL AND ARMANDO WERE WANTING TO, TO BUILD. SO WE MET FRIDAY AND BY THAT TIME IT WAS TOO LATE FOR ME TO SEND IN THE NOTICE IN OUR SUPPORT OF WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN WAS THE FRONT SETBACK. I WASN'T AS MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE SIDE, BUT THE FRONT SETBACK I FELT LIKE WASN'T ENOUGH AND MICHAEL ARMANDO DID AGREE TO MOVE THAT BACK AND THEY'RE ALSO GONNA, UH, IMPLEMENT, UH, LANDSCAPING TECHNIQUES TO HELP SLOW WATER FLOW DOWN. AND HE'S ALSO GOING TO DO, UH, RAIN CATCHMENT, WHICH WE WERE EXCITED ABOUT AND WE WERE ALL EXCITED ABOUT, UH, THE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME GOING IN ON THAT LOT. AND THERE IS ANOTHER STUCCO HOME AROUND THE CORNER THAT IS PRETTY MUCH RIGHT UP ON THE LOT LINES AS WELL. AND IT ALSO HAS A LARGE STUCCO, UH, FENCE AROUND IT. AND IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL HOME AND I THINK THAT THIS HOME THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO BUILD WILL BE AN ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU SUPPORT HIS REQUEST. THANK YOU. OH, HOLD ON A SECOND. WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE, UH, REGARDING HER TESTIMONY? OKAY, WELL I HAVE ONE, UM, ON THAT, UH, YOU ARE AWARE THAT AS, AS AN ASSOCIATION, THEY DO HAVE, WHEN THEY SEND THOSE LETTERS OUT, THEY HAVE A PHONE NUMBER THERE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY CALL AND SAY, I DID CALL AND THERE WAS NO, I HAD TO GO THROUGH THE, UH, THERE WAS NO NAME OF THE APPLICANT ON THE NOTICE, SO I CALLED THE CASE MANAGER AND SHE TOLD ME WHAT DATE IT WAS. I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE DATE ON THERE. AND, UM, I FOUND THE ARCHITECT THAT WAS STAMPED ON THE NOTICE, SO I CALLED THE ARCHITECT AND IT WAS THE ARCHITECT THAT ACTUALLY GAVE ME THE CONTACT INFORMATION. VERY GOOD. OKAY. SO YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT? YES. WE'RE REALLY HAPPY AS DESCRIBED. YES. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING. ANY NO OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. OH, EXCUSE ME. MRS. FISHER WANTS TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. SO FISHER, SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL AS WE HAVE STATED. AND DO YOU THO YOU HAVE THOSE IN WRITING OR IT WAS JUST A VERBAL OR, UM, HE AMENDED THE PLAN. HE OR THE ORIGINAL FRONT SETBACK WAS 10 FEET AND HE, HE NOTICED THAT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BACK FURTHER AND HE AND ARMANDO ALSO WENT OUT AND, AND WATCHED DURING HEAVY STORMS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE RAINFALL ON THAT LOT BECAUSE IT IS A AREA WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE DRAINAGE. SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY RESPONSIBLE THAT HE WENT OUT AND ACTUALLY STUDIED WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE, THE STORM WATER RUNOFF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. FISHER. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY IN TAKING CONSIDERATION TO FRONT SET BACK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT IT'S NOTED THAT, UH, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND THE, AND THE BUILD OR THE, UH, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MANNA. MR. MANNA, YOU WANNA LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? YEAH, SO ONE QUESTION. SO YOU SAID YOU MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR, OR THE GROUP THERE. UM, WAS ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE, UH, YOU KNOW, OPPOSED IN THAT, IN THOSE DIALOGUES UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR PERSPECTIVES WERE? INTERESTING. YOU SHOULD ASK THAT. SO I REACHED OUT TO THAT SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOLD THEM THAT THEY WANTED ME TO, UH, TO SEND IN A LETTER OF OPPOSITION AND I SAID I CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. AND I SAID, COULD Y'ALL PLEASE SET UP A TIME TO MEET WITH HIM? AND THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME. SO THEY IN ESSENCE DID NOT WANT TO MEET WITH HIM. AND I SAID, WELL, WE, WE NEED TO MEET WITH HIM AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO THEY JUST DIDN'T WANNA MEET. ALRIGHT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MAN? DID, DID THEY VOICE ANY CONCERN TO YOU DIRECTLY THEN AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNS WERE? THEIR NUMBER ONE CONCERN WAS, UH, THAT IT WAS TWO STORY AND I TOLD THEM, WELL, IT'S AN R FOUR SO HE CAN DO A TWO STORY. I SAID, MY CONCERN WAS THE FRONT SETBACK. AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT, UH, AS SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT SENT IN A LETTER OF OPPOSITION, UH, I THINK ONE OF 'EM WAS THE STUCCO HOUSE THAT PRETTY MUCH IS RIGHT UP ON THE STREET AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME. IF THEY WERE WANTING TO BUILD THAT TODAY, I WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO IT. YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH IT HAVING NO FRONT SETBACK AT ALL, THE, THE HOUSE IS GORGEOUS AND IT FITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S [01:00:01] A REALLY UNIQUE LITTLE AREA THAT THESE HOMES ARE IN OVER THERE. AND I THINK THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY BE SUCH AN ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. AND ARE THE QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD? THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT. UH, NEXT WITNESS. EDWINA CINTA. AND THERE WEREN'T QUITE A FEW. THERE'S ONLY TWO MORE. ALRIGHT, EXCELLENT. EDWINA, I NEED YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN PROCEED WITH EDWINA CINTA 1 1 3 EAST NORWOOD COURT. OKAY. I WAS, I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ACTUALLY THREE OF THE MEMBERS DID COME AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE, THE OWNERS, AND YES, THEY WERE CONCERNED AT THE BEGINNING, BUT AT THE END THEY SAW THAT THE MEN ARE REALLY DEDICATED TO PUTTING A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DEFINITELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DRAINAGE. THERE IS A, UH, A GARDEN ON THAT SIDE. THE, THE, UM, WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT BELONG, USED TO BELONG TO A CHURCH. NOW IT BELONGS TO A MEDITATION CENTER ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S A GARDEN FOR WHICH A LOT OF THIS WATER FLOWS AT TIMES. AND SO WE WERE REALLY HAPPY THAT THOSE THREE NEIGHBORS ONE, I BELIEVE WAS IT. WAS SHE NEXT DOOR? YEAH. AND THEN, SO I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. AND ANY EXTRA TIME I'D LIKE TO GIVE TO THE NEXT PERSON. WELL, THERE'S, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. OH, BUT THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT. OH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS? THE SPEAKER ? NONE. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO SURRENDER THAT BEFORE YOU SPEAK, NOT, OH, I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT NOW. THE NEXT WITNESS, LAST SPEAKER IS HARLAN CRAFT. HELLO. THANK YOU, THE BOARD FOR TAKING YOUR TIME. UM, HARLAN CRAFT 2 2 6 MELROSE PLACE. AND I'M ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I AM ALSO IN FAVOR. UM, I THINK THEY'VE DONE QUITE A JOB OF ADJUSTING TO THE LOT. NOT ALL OF THE SIDES SETBACKS ARE ENCROACHING MUCH OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, OR THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS BEYOND THE SETBACK. UH, IT'S JUST THERE'S DIFFERENT AREAS ALONG THERE THAT ARE ENCROACHING. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY'VE ALREADY, UH, AGREED TO MOVE THE FRONT SETBACK TO CONFORM. SO WE APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS. AND ALSO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, ON THAT BLOCK, THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE VERY NARROW SETBACKS THAT, UH, I, I, I THINK THEY'RE EVEN CLOSER THAN WHAT THIS IS ON MAYBE THREE OR FOUR OF THE PROPERTIES IN THAT BLOCK. THEN THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES. THERE'S A CHURCH NEXT DOOR WITH THE GARDEN, AND OF COURSE, THERE'S LOTS OF ROOM THERE. BUT, UM, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I SAW WAS THE ONE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S A DRAINAGE, UH, DITCH THAT GOES RIGHT BESIDE IT. AND THAT HOMEOWNER, UH, SAID THAT HE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH FLOODING IN HIS BACKYARD. NOT SO MUCH THAT WATER THAT'S COMING IN IS CAUSING THE FLOODING, BUT THE CITY'S, UH, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THEY HAVE AN ALLEY THAT'S BEEN BUILT UP AND IT'S CAUSING THE WATER TO BACK UP. AND SO I THINK THE CITY JUST NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR ALLEY THERE. 30 SECONDS, GET THAT DRAINAGE STRAIGHTENED OUT ON THAT. BUT, UH, I AM IN, I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS HERE FROM THE BOARD. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. UM, NEXT WITNESS. THAT WAS IT. THAT'S IT. NOW, MR. ORIAN HAS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO, UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE, UH, UH, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE REQUIRES A THREE FOOT SEPARATION TO ALLOW WINDOWS ON THE SIDE OF A HOME. IF THEY HAVE A MASONRY STUCCO WALL THAT EXTENDS, DOES IT HAVE TO BE THREE FOOT CLEAR FROM THE, FROM THAT OB OBJECT OR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FENCE? IT'S MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FENCE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. NUMBER OUR WITNESSES YOU'RE ALLOWED TO RETURN TO IN QUESTION. UH, WITH THE WINDOWS, THE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE, THE PROPERTY LINE, THOSE ARE ACTUAL, UM, ONE FOOT BY ONE FOOT SQUARE WINDOWS THAT SIT AT THE TOP OF, OF THE, UH, [01:05:01] OF THE ROOM. AND THEY DON'T OPEN. THAT'S JUST TO LET LIGHT IN. SO THEY WON'T BE OPENING, UH, THE KITCHEN, WHICH IS PUSHED BACK. WE'LL HAVE WINDOWS THAT OPEN, UH, AS WELL AS THE COURTYARD. BUT, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER WINDOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE, EAST AND WEST WILL HAVE WINDOWS LIKE THAT SET REALLY HIGH, YOU KNOW, TO ADDRESS THE SUN IN THE MORNING AND IN THE AFTERNOON. BRAMAN, ANY MS MS. BRAMAN YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE? I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPOSAL FROM THAT WAS PART OF THE AGENDA, AND THEN I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THIS PLOT PLAN AND THE SETBACKS. THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE DIFFERENT ON THE ONES, ONE OF THEM I SEE IS 10 FOOT THREE INCHES. THE OTHER I SEE IS 17 FOOT NINE INCHES. YES. UH, OKAY, HOLD ON. WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FRONT SETBACK ON THIS PARTICULAR ME, UH, QUESTION. UH, EITHER ONE OF 'EM WOULD COMPLY UNDER CITY CODE. SO IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD DID COME TO AN ADJUSTMENT WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, BUT THAT'S NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE'RE ONLY ADDRESSING THE SIDE SETBACKS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING. SO, BUT THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING, UH, THOSE QUESTIONS. AND SO I'M GOING TO, UH, CHAIR, UH, MR. OREN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. UH, THE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. IF A BOARD MEMBER WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESTRICT HOW MUCH OF A SETBACK, UH, VARIANCE THEY COULD HAVE, LIKE, LET'S SAY LIMITED TO 87 FEET, 17 NINE OFF THE FRONT OFF OF HOLLAND STREET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN IT MIGHT MATTER. WELL, THAT'S NOT EVEN UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE AGENDA. SECONDLY IS THAT THE CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR 10 FEET, NOT 17 FEET, NOT 10 FEET, THREE INCHES. THAT'S IMMATERIAL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. NOW, WE CAN'T EVEN CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEFORE US. SO, UM, AND I UNDERSTAND IF, IF, IF, IF THAT HAS A, UH, EFFECT ON WHAT YOU'RE GONNA REQUIRE FOR THE SIDE, THAT'S FINE. BUT, UH, IN, IN REGARDS TO AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION, IT'S NOT. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT AND I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION RODRIGUEZ. MR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, REGARDING AN APPEAL CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 103 87. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 16 FEET VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE 3.3 FEET, SIX INCHES FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES SITUATED AT TWO 10 HOLLAND AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ARMANDO E QUINONE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS, UH, 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 THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE THREE FEET, SIX INCH SETBACK FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES FIRE SEPARATION NEEDS, AND PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACES TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS. NUMBER TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE THREE FOOT SIX INCH SETBACK FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES WOULD LIMIT POTENTIAL HARDSHIPS ON ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THAT THREE FEET, SIX INCH SETBACK FROM BOTH SIDE LINES WOULD PROVIDE FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT, WHILE PROVIDING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE SEPARATION AND STORM WATER CONTROLS. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE, OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE SEPARATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE THREE FEET, SIX INCH SETBACK FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES WOULD ALLEVIATE CONCERNS OF INJURING THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES. 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 FINANCIALLY AND NOT DUE, AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS [01:10:01] IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE COURT, UH, THAT THE CARPORT PLACEMENT WITH A THREE FEET, SIX INCH SETBACK FROM BOTH SIDES, PROPERTY LINES WOULD ALLEVIATE CONCERNS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, FIRE SPREAD, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND A MOTION. SECOND. WHO MADE THE SECOND? OH, DOC. ALL RIGHT, HENRY, WE WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. UM, WELL, ALL INDICATIONS SEEM TO SHOW THAT, UM, THIS IS, THIS, THIS PROJECT IS VERY WELL CRAFTED, MAKING USE OF VERY LIMITED SPACE, BUT MAKE IT INTO A, A BEAUTIFUL, UH, STRUCTURE THAT, UH, THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS HAPPY WITH. THEY AGREE THAT, UH, AND, AND, AND IT SHOWS, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES WHEN THE LEADERS COME AND, AND, AND SAY THINGS. NORMALLY WHEN THE ASSOCIATION COMES OVER, WE KIND OF CRINGE 'CAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE GONNA BE IN OPPOSITION. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT THERE, THERE IS GOOD COMMUNICATION AND, AND I AM ALL IN FAVOR AND I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. UH, DR. ZA WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. YEAH, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THIS HAS DEMONSTRATED THE IMPORTANCE OF WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A CONTINUED RESPECT FOR THE, UM, ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THIS MOVES FORWARD. UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU, UM, REALLY DID TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE ASKED OF YOU AND TO ADDRESS THEM, UM, DIRECTLY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD? MR. ORIAN? YES. I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION THAT, UH, AS READ IS THIS IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO BE THREE AND A HALF FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE FUTURE. ACTUALLY, I WOULD BELIEVE THAT ONCE WE, UH, EXTEND THE, UH, THE VARIANCE ALLOWS FOR THAT ONE AND A HALF FOOT, THAT IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF A STRUCTURE THAT THEY DO ALONG THAT. HOWEVER, BEING THAT A SWIMMING POOL IS A DETACHED STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BY CODE ALLOW FOR THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. WOULD THAT NOT BE THE CASE? NO. CODE IS FIVE FEET TO THE WATER. THAT'S A SEPARATE ENTRY. FIVE FEET ON THE FIVE FEET FOR SWIMMING POOL, SWIMMING POOLS. OKAY. IT'S A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE. WELL, I, I GUESS THEN, UH, HOW WOULD WE DEAL WITH THIS FOR THE FUTURE? OF COURSE, HE'S NOT BUILDING ONE RIGHT NOW, BUT THE POINT IS, IF YOU COULD, YOU, COULD YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT? COULD THE MOTION BE READ THAT IT'S ONLY FOR A HABITABLE STRUCTURE FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE? YOU CAN'T CONDITION A VARIANCE. IT'S JUST, IT'S TIED TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF. SO IT'S A SIDE SETBACK FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO BACK, BACK PROPERTY LINE AT THE SETBACK TO, TO COMMENCE 27 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE ALLEY. I, I WOULDN'T DO ANY CONDITIONS BECAUSE THE CONCERN IS THAT, THAT YOU CAN GET CREDIT FOR HALF THE ALLEY. AND SO WE WOULDN'T WANT, UM, ANY NOT FROM THE SIDE THOUGH, OR HOW ABOUT 20 FEET FROM THE ALLEY, FROM THE REAR STEP BACK? I, I MEAN, I, I, AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE WATERLINE. YEAH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN A HOME. THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT'S WHY IT'S IN A, IN A SEPARATE PART OF THE U D C IT'S COM IT'S, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT A SWIMMING POOL IS NOT GONNA BE BUILT WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. SO IF SOMEONE CAN HELP MAKE A SUGGESTION TO GET US THERE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I GUESS WE'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE RESEARCH. I MEAN, MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE U D C THAT THIS WOULDN'T, RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS OUR, THAT'S WHAT I WAS MAKING SURE. SO IT IS PART OF THE SEPARATE SECTION OF THE CODE IN 35 5 16. SINCE THAT WAS AN ADVERTISED, THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FIVE FEET. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO, ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE MOTION WE CAN'T, DOES NOT, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. THIS MOTION IS THIS THING WORKING? OKAY. IT'S ON ALL THE TIME. SO, UH, SO THIS MOTION DOES NOT AFFECT ANY STRUCK SWIMMING POOL BUILT IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, IF THE, IF THAT'S, UH, THE, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. MONICA, PLEASE. MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT DRER. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF [01:15:01] FACT. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. YES, I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? YES. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. NEFF? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. RUY MARTINEZ. I I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. THE MOTION CARRIES, UH, THE, IS ALLOWED. UH, OF COURSE YOU'LL HAVE TO GET, YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS, GET WITH THE STAFF AND THEY'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE REST OF IT. ALRIGHT, UH, I GUESS IT'S TIME FOR THE FUN ONES. FIRST WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL INTRODUCE THE CASE AND TALK ABOUT THE NOTICES THAT WE'LL, UH, HAND IT OFF TO OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. ALRIGHT, [4. 19-5651 BOA-19-10300086: A request by Rufino Hernandez for an appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness, located at 2218 West Magnolia Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 7) (Huy Pham, Historic Preservation Specialist, Office of Historic Preservation, (210) 207-5464) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE, UH, BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 6. IT'S AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICANT RNO HERNANDEZ ADDRESS, 2218 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, SONY R SIX H A HHO. HERE IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. UH, WE HAD SIX IN FAVOR, ZERO IN A POSITION, AND NO COMMENT FROM MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, COMMENTS AND LETTERS ARE ATTACHED AS PART OF THE CASE FILE. UH, FOR FURTHER DETAIL OF THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR, COMMENTS AND O H P IS HERE TO DO THE FULL PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M EDWARD HALL WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1901 SOUTH ALAMO, AN I'M EMPLOYEE WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. UM, I'LL JUST GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE H D R C CASE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. UH, 22 1 8 WEST MAGNOLIA, UM, ON, UH, MARCH, EXCUSE ME, IN MARCH, 2019, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF ARRE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STARTED PRIOR TO RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, STAFF WAS NOTIFIED BY A CITIZEN REPORT. THAT'S HOW WE, UM, MAJORITY OF OUR, UH, UNAPPROVED WORK OR WORK BEYOND APPROVAL IS REPORTED TO US. UH, WE WENT OUT AND MADE A SITE VISIT AND AT THAT TIME DETERMINED THAT A TWO STORY REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPRO, A APPROPRIATENESS, UM, AND THE, THE ADEQUATE PERMITTING FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UH, AT THAT TIME, WE ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, A LITTLE BIT THEREAFTER ON APRIL THE 29TH, SUBMITTED AN H D R C APPLICATION TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW. O H P STAFF, UH, REVIEWED THAT APPLICATION AND THEN DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THAT APPLICANT TO ATTEND THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A, UH, NON-ACTING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE FULL COMMISSION. UH, THAT COMMITTEE OFTEN MAKES SUGGESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN THEN INCORPORATE INTO THE DESIGN. PRIOR TO THAT, COMING BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION ON JUNE THE FIFTH, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION ALONG WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AT THAT TIME, STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AS WAS A, AS IT WAS DESIGNED. UM, I WILL NOTE ONE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, JUST NOT AS IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. UM, THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN REGARDS TO THE MASSING IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. UM, AT THAT JUNE 5TH, 2019 H D R C HEARING, THE COMMISSION DE DENIED THE APPLICATION AS IT WAS SUBMITTED. UM, AND THEN THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO APPEAL THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION. UM, IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, UH, ABOUT THE CASE HISTORY, UM, I CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION. UM, IF NOT, I CAN TOUCH ON WHAT OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES STATE FOR REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THAT. UH, IF NOT, UM, I CAN CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. MATT, GO AHEAD. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND WHAT WAS FOUND TO BE INAPPROPRIATE WITHIN THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING ACCORDING TO THOSE GUIDELINES, PLEASE? YES, SIR. SO, UM, CHAPTER FOUR OF OUR GUIDELINES, UM, IT'S IN REGARDS TO NEW [01:20:01] CONSTRUCTION. SECTION FIVE IS IN RE RELATIONSHIP TO GARAGES AND OUTBUILDINGS. IF YOU ALL, UM, ARE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, YOU MAY SEE US REFER TO A GARAGE OR AN OUTBUILDING AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. UM, IN, IN ANY REGARDS, UH, OUR GUIDELINES STATE THAT NEW GARAGES AND OUTBUILDINGS SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO BE VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF THEIR HEIGHT, MASSING AND FORM SHOULD BE NO LARGER THAN 40% OF THE PRINCIPAL HISTORIC STRUCTURES. FOOTPRINT SHOULD RELATE TO GARAGES AND OUTBUILDINGS, OR SHOULD RELATE TO THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. UM, SHOULD FEATURE SETBACKS THAT ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ALSO THAT, THAT ARE IN, IN RELATIONSHIP, OR THAT ARE IN, UH, THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S REQUIRED BY ZONING, UM, AND SHOULD MATCH THE PREDOMINANT GARAGE ORIENTATION. UM, IN REGARDS TO CONTEXT AND OVERALL DESIGN CHARACTER, THE GUIDELINES NOTE THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE THAT ARE FOUND HISTORICALLY IN THE DISTRICT IN RELATIONSHIP TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, IN MONTICELLO PARK SPECIFICALLY, UM, ON THIS STREET, REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE VERY COMMON. REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE FOUND OFTENTIMES IN THE REAR CORNERS OF PROPERTIES. REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ONE STORY AND HEIGHT. UM, THIS STRUCTURE BEING TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT IN THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT ARE WHAT MAKES IT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR GUIDELINES. UH, PRIMARILY, UH, AS EDWARD MENTIONED, THE STRUCTURE IS INCONSISTENT REGARDING FORM, UH, AND MASSING. HOWEVER, UH, STAFF ALSO FOUND THAT THE FENESTRATION PATTERN AND MATERIALS IS ALSO, UM, A, A, UH, CHARACTERISTIC THAT WE WOULD NOT, UH, USUALLY SUPPORT FOR APPROVAL OF A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, PRIMARILY FEATURING HARDY PLANK AND VINYL WINDOWS WITH, UM, UH, WINDOW SIZES AND FENESTRATION PATTERNS THAT ARE, THAT ARE NOT RELATING TO THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. MR. NAFF, WAS THAT OKAY? THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOTH OF YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. UH, I GUESS THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. NEXT IS THE, UH, APPLICANT TEAL. UM, MR. TEAL, YOU HAVE A QUESTION NOW? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, THE UNDERLYING ZONING ON THIS WAS R SIX, I BELIEVE, WHICH DOESN'T ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING STRUCTURE. IT DOES, YES. AS LONG AS IT'S OWNER OCCUPIED AND ACCESSORY, UH, DETACHED DWELLING OR ATTACHED DWELLING IS ALLOWED. PERFECT. THANK YOU. WELCOME. AND OF COURSE, WE'RE GONNA NEED YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU PROCEED. YES. MY NAME IS RINO HERNANDEZ AND I, THE OWNER, THE RESIDENT OF, UH, 2218 WEST MAGNOLIA COMMISSIONERS. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. UH, PLEASE FORGIVE MY STUTTERING. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. UM, IT'S BEEN A VERY ENLIGHTENING EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CITY OFFICIALS. UM, I'VE, UH, OWNED A HOUSE EXACTLY ONE YEAR. I MOVED THERE. I WAS IGNORANT OF RULES, A LOT OF, A LOT OF THINGS. AND, YOU KNOW, I IMMEDIATELY STARTED WORK AND I AIRED IN PROPER PROCEDURE. DUE TO MY IGNORANCE. I'VE PAID ALL MY FINES, I'VE GONE TO COURT, I'VE PAID ALL MY FINES, AND I CONTINUE TO SEEK GUIDANCE. UM, I DID MY BEST BEFORE I STARTED WORK TO TAKE STAY SUBORDINATE TO THE DESIGN OF MY HOME. I'VE BROUGHT SOME PHOTOS, UM, THAT I SUBMITTED. AND, UH, AS FAR AS THE ROOF DESIGN AND, AND THAT I'VE GIVEN THEM TO MS. GONZALEZ HERE, UH, PERHAPS, UH, SHE CAN SHOW THESE TO YOU, THE ONE THAT HAS THE ROOF DESIGN PICTURES THAT SHE WILL, THE PICTURES SHE WILL SHOW NOW, UH, SHOW THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS I'VE DONE TO THAT, WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC, UH, OFFICE AND THE ROOF DESIGNS THERE THAT YOU SEE, THAT'S THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND, AND THEN, UH, SHE'S GOT SOME OTHER ROOF DESIGN PHOTOS HERE [01:25:04] THAT SHOW THE, THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK AND ALSO THE HARDY PLANK. IT MATCHES VERY MUCH LIKE THE, UM, THE MAIN HOUSE. UNLESS YOU REALLY SCRUTINIZE IT UP CLOSE, YOU, YOU, UH, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO NOTICE A DIFFERENCE. UM, THE PICTURES SHOW THAT, AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF NEIGHBORS CONCUR. UH, UH, THE WINDOWS THAT I'VE PLACED ON THERE, THEY'RE NOT VINYL, THEY ARE ALUMINUM, THEY'RE PAINTED WHITE. UH, I'M GONNA BE PAINTING THOSE BLUE TO, UH, MATCH THE HOUSE. AND ALL THE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROVING AND DURABLE MATERIALS. I'VE STUDIED THEM BEFORE I, I PUT 'EM UP. UH, YOU CAN SEE THE DESIGN OF THE WINDOWS THERE. THAT'S THE TRIM ON THOSE WINDOWS WILL BE PAINTED BLUE, LIKE THE HOUSE, THEIR PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THEY EITHER MATCH OR THEY HAVE A VERY, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM VISUAL IMPACT. UH, I DON'T AGREE WITH, WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. I CAN, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO PAINT THOSE. UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK IS BARELY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AS PER SOME PHOTOS THAT I HAVE THERE. ALSO, YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS VERY, VERY MINIMALLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF DOES NOT OVERPOWER THE HOME OR THE LOT ITSELF. I BUILT THAT WITH A SEVEN FOOT CEILING TO KEEP IT MINIMAL HEIGHT SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE BACK. I MEAN, FROM THE FRONT. AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE, THE BUILDING DOES NOT OBSTRUCT, CRAMP, OR DEGRADE OR OTHERWISE INFRINGE ON ANY, ON ANY OF MY NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBORS ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE THERE, AND SOME OF 'EM ARE HERE TO SUPPORT, UH, MY BUILDING. THIS ACCOMMODATION THAT I BUILT FOR MY 20 YEAR OLD DISABLED GRANDSON, MATTHEW, UM, HE'S IN STAGE RENAL FAILURE AND I CAN PROVE THAT HE DOES LIVE WITH ME. I, UH, SEEK YOUR APPROVAL TO, TO FINISH THIS, AND I CONTINUE TO SEEK THE PROPER GUIDANCE. MY GRANDSON, MY WIFE AND I ARE THE ONLY RESIDENTS OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, RESULTED IN MUTUAL AGREEMENTS. I, UH, CONCEDED SOME ITEMS. I HAD BUILT A ROCK SKIRTING AROUND THE HOUSE THAT I SUBSEQUENTLY TORE DOWN. COST ME SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT I LOST. BUT I WANTED THEIR APPROVAL. AND LIKE I SAID, I'LL CONTINUE TO SEEK PROPER GUIDANCE. I, I CAME TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE THE REST OF MY DAYS OUT, AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ME BY A FRIEND OF MINE, A RESPECTED ARCHITECT AS ECLECTIC. THAT WAS A WORD I DID NOT KNOW. BUT, UH, ECLECTIC TO MEANS IT'S DERIVING OF IDEAS, STYLES, OR TASTES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, YET MAINTAINING MULTIDISCIPLINARY FORMS. I FEEL THAT THIS IS WHAT MAKES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL. RESIDENTS LOVE THEIR HOMES AND VOLUNTARY DO UPKEEP AND IMPROVEMENTS. AND I LOOK TO YOUR INSIGHT AND DISCERNMENT AND HOPE AND JUDGE YOU HOPE YOU'RE JUDGE IN MY FAVOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? ORIAN. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. SO, UH, YOU, YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT'S ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR HOME WHEN FACING? YES. UH, AND THAT'S GONNA BE THE DRIVE THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USES ARE NOT USING THE ALLEY? NO, NO, IT, IT, NO, JUST A DRIVEWAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF BOARD, FROM THE BOARD HERE? DONE. ALRIGHT. THERE, THERE'S SOME OTHER TWO STORY STRUCTURES THERE AS WELL THAT I'VE HAD. I TOOK PICTURES, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, UH, ARE WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK AND I'VE PROVIDED THE PICTURES THERE AND THE SETBACKS. I, I'VE PROVIDED SOME PICTURES WITH SETBACKS THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE [01:30:01] ALLEY AND I'VE GOT, AND JUST, JUST, THAT'S JUST WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK. SO I DON'T, I DON'T, UH, THE HISTORIC SETBACKS ARE EVEN CLOSER. THE FOOTPRINT OF MY, UH, STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR, A LITTLE OVER 400 SQUARE FEET. THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 528. IT'S NOT A LARGE STRUCTURE, IT'S JUST VERY SMALL, 528 SQUARE FEET. ALRIGHT. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES, SIR. I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU BUILT THIS BASICALLY FOR YOUR SON? MY GRANDSON, YES. GRANDSON RATHER? YES. OKAY. YOUR GRANDSON AND HE'S A SPECIAL NEEDS. YES, HE IS. SO YOU'RE PROVIDING THE SPECIAL NEEDS, UH, FOR, FOR YOUR GRANDSON IN PERPETUITY? UH, HE'S, UH, HE'S OUT ON THE PROCESS OF GETTING ON A TRANSPLANT LIST. ONCE HE HAS HIS GOD WILLING, IF HE GETS HIS TRANSPLANT, YOU KNOW, HE'LL BE FUNCTIONAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, HOLD ON. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES THAT ARE GONNA BE SPEAKING ON THIS CASE? YES, WE HAVE TWO SIGNED UP. FIRST, UH, IS CARLOS DELAROSA. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. HANNAN, JUST HAVE A SEAT. WE MAY CALL YOU BACK. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ALRIGHT. UH, WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF YOUR POSITION. CARLOS DE LA ROSA. 2215 WEST MAGNOLIA. I RESIDE ACROSS THE STREET FROM MR. HERNANDEZ. UH, WHEN MR. HERNANDEZ, UH, FIRST MOVED IN A YEAR AGO AND HE STARTED WORKING ON HIS HOUSE, I REALLY GOT EXCITED BECAUSE FINALLY SOMEBODY WAS GOING IN THERE AND IMPROVING THE, OR ENHANCING THE, THE, UH, THE HOUSE. WHAT HAPPENED IN YEARS PAST, AND I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER, OVER 40 YEARS NOW. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST WAS WITH THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE, THAT IT WAS ONLY PAINTED ONCE IN THE 40 YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN THERE. AND THEY PAINTED THE SAME AVOCADO COLOR THAT IT WAS BEFORE. IT HAD A DE LIQUIDATING LITTLE PORCH IN THE FRONT. IT WAS JUST MORE LIKE A, LIKE, LIKE A LANDING. SO MR. HERANDEZ WENT IN AND HE BUILT THE, UH, THE PORCH THAT IT, THAT HE HAS NOW, WHICH REALLY GAVE THE HOUSE A DIFFERENT LOOK. AND THEN HE PAINTED THE HOUSE AND IT LOOKS REALLY NICE. AND JUST THIS WEEKEND, UH, HE FINISHED STARTING IN THE WHOLE FRONT YARD. HE'S BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR OVER A YEAR, AND HE'S HAVE, AND IN THIS PAST YEAR, THE WHOLE YEAR, HE'S BEEN HAVING TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO GET THINGS DONE TO THE HOUSE. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN PERMISSION TO DO WHAT THE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HE WANTED TO DO, BUT HE, HE EVENTUALLY GOT THAT AND HE PAID THE FINES. THE STRUCTURE THAT, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET UNLESS YOU'RE SNOOPING AROUND. SO I DON'T SEE WHY HE CAN'T KEEP THAT STRUCTURE. IT'S, UH, IT LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE THE HOUSE, THE SAME COLOR. HE PAINTED EVERYTHING TO MATCH THE HOUSE, AND I THINK IT'S VERY WELL DONE AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF HE JUST LET HIM KEEP THE, UH, THE STRUCTURE THAT HE HAS THERE NOW. AND I, I, I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN WHAT HE HAS DONE. AND I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR OVER 40 YEARS AND EVERYBODY SEEMS TO APPROVE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE. NOT EVERYBODY GOT A, A LETTER, UH, ASKING FOR THEIR OPINION BECAUSE THEY LIVE FURTHER IN 200 FEET FROM THERE. BUT, UH, EVERYBODY SEEMS TO APPROVE OF WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU, UH, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT HE HAS DONE. I THINK MOST OF US ARE HAPPY WITH WHAT HE, WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING. THANK YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? UM, FOR THE BOARD, ANYONE? I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR STEPPING FORWARD AND GIVING YOUR OPINION. IT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED. WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. JOHN DEAN. JOHN DEAN, UH, WRONG ONE. I WE'LL NEED, WE'LL NEED YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. BEFORE, MY NAME IS JOHN EMERY DEAN. VERY GOOD. AND I LIVE AT 2 2 1 0 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO. ZIPS CODE IS, ZIP CODE IS 7 8 2 0 1. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO [01:35:01] RUFFINO'S HOUSE ON THE LEFT SIDE. UH, MR. OYEN, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY ON THE LEFT SIDE. THAT'S MY DRIVEWAY. AND I DON'T SEE, I KNOW THAT WE'RE, YOU'RE TALKING A LOT OF, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK OF HIS HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE SAME CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS ANY DIFFERENT UNTIL TODAY. SOMEONE MENTIONED FROM THE HOUSE ITSELF, IT LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE, THE SHAPE. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THE SECOND STRUCTURE FROM MY BACKYARD. AND I AM CLOSEST TO THE SECOND. I'M THE HOUSE THAT'S CLOSEST TO THAT STRUCTURE AGAIN, 'CAUSE I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, MY HOUSE. I ALSO CAN BARELY SEE THAT STRUCTURE UNLESS, WELL, I GUESS I COULD IF I REALLY WANTED TO, BUT IT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NOTICEABLE FROM THE STREET, FROM MY HOUSE OR EVEN FROM MY BACKYARD, WHICH IS AGAIN, THE YARD THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE, TO THAT STRUCTURE. UH, BEFORE RUO MOVED INTO THAT HOUSE, UH, I, AS CARLOS HAD SAID, THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY, WELL, HE DIDN'T SAY THIS DILAPIDATED AND HELD TOGETHER WITH SOME KIND OF ORANGE FOAM, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WHATEVER THOSE, UH, SIDING THINGS ARE WAS AWFUL. AND SO YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE HERE, SOME OF THAT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION. AND I'M HAPPY THAT THE HOUSE LOOKS TENABLE NOW AND IT LOOKS A LOT NICER THAN WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, UH, BEFORE RINO MOVED IN FROM, UH, AGAIN, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT FROM OUR BACKYARD AND FROM OUR FRONT YARD, THAT STRUCTURE IS NOT NOTICEABLE AND I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT SOMEONE WOULD NOTICE EXCEPT ME. AND I STILL DON'T NOTICE IT ME BECAUSE OF MY LOCATION. SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL ALLOW RUO TO KEEP HIS SECONDARY BUILDING AS IS. ALRIGHT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? ANYONE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME COMING FORWARD AND, UH, ASSISTING US ANYMORE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. FERNANDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU FEEL IS NECESSARY TO GIVE US CONCERNING THIS? THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, ON THE JUNE 5TH REPORT, 2019 FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ON THE SECOND PAGE, UH, I HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT INDICATE THAT THEY FAVOR AND THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT IT IS MINIMALLY VISIBLE AND ALSO THAT THE SETBACKS WERE HISTORIC AS WELL. SO THAT'S WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. SO THIS, THIS, YES. WHAT, WHAT DATE WAS THAT? JUNE 5TH. ONE. ONE MORE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. UM, THE MAIN HOUSE IS 1,338 SQUARE FEET, AND THEY SAID THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 40%. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS EXACTLY 528 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS LESS THAN 40%. SO I, I STAYED WITHIN THAT ONE BY LUCK. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE NO, NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? UH, ORIAN. ORIAN, YEAH. SO, UH, THIS, THIS LETTER FROM JUNE 5TH IS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE. UH, WAS THERE ANYTHING [01:40:01] IN HERE THAT, THAT YOU ARE DOING, UH, TO COMPLY WITH, UH, H C R C RECOMMENDATIONS? JUST ONLY WHAT I'VE PRESENTED HERE TODAY. OKAY. NO FU NOTHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD NO, NO OTHER CONSTRUCTION. I, I STOPPED IT ALL COMPLETELY AT ZERO FROM THE TIME YOU GAVE THE STOP WORK ORDER. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HERE AT THIS TIME, YOU WANNA CALL UP THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR THEIR REBUTTAL. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S JUST ABOUT TO DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE YOU HAVE, YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HE'S PROVIDED AND, UH, HIS EXPLANATION PLUS THE SUPPORT FROM HIS NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, SIR. SO, UH, AND, AND PLEASE ADDRESS THE, THE, UH, THE INFORMATION THAT YOU BELIEVE IS GONNA SUPPORT YOUR DECISION. YES, SIR. UH, EDWARD HALL, AGAIN. UM, OH, O H P STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION LOOKS AT OUR GUIDELINES HOLISTICALLY. UM, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, UM, THERE MAY BE OTHER TWO STORY STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE THAT ARE HISTORIC TWO STORY STRUCTURES IS EXTREMELY LOW, IF THERE ARE ANY AT ALL. UM, EXISTING TWO STORY STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT ARE PROBABLY GRANDFATHERED IN. UM, O H P STAFF TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S FOUND HISTORICALLY IN THE DISTRICT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONTEXT THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING. UM, WE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE PER OUR GUIDELINES IN THE U D C, THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND EXAMPLES THAT ARE FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UM, WHILE O H P STAFF MAY HAVE SAID THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS MINIMALLY VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, UM, IT'S STILL INCONSISTENT WITH OUR GUIDELINES IN REGARDS TO ITS HEIGHT, IN REGARDS TO ITS FOOTPRINT, IN REGARDS TO ITS OVERALL MASSING, AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS THAT WERE USED. UM, IN REGARDS TO MATERIALS, THE APPLICANTS NOTED THE ALUMINUM OR VINYL WINDOWS, UH, AS WELL AS THE HARDY SIDING. UM, O H P STAFF HAS SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS, UM, THAT WE RECOMMEND TO APPLICANTS, MANY OF WHOM AGREE TO THOSE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE THAT IF, UH, MATERIALS THAT ARE CONTEMPORARY IN NATURE ARE USED, THAT THOSE HAVE A CERTAIN PROFILE THAT BETTER RELATES THEM TO HISTORIC MATERIALS THAT ARE FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UM, THAT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE THERE. UM, THE, UM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER IS THE CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE. UM, O H P STAFF MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, WHO THEN MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO OUR DIRECTOR WHO ACTS AS THE CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE. UM, O H P STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR GUIDELINES, UM, THE COMMISSION FOUND OR UPHOLD STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, UM, AS WELL AS OUR DIRECTOR. UH, IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE, UM, WE, AND I WILL TRY OUR BEST TO ANSWER THOSE. ALL RIGHT. BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS ORIAN? DID, UH, DID THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CHIME IN AT ANY OF THE H D R C MEETINGS? UM, NOT THAT I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER. UM, WE TYPICALLY DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT DO ATTEND. UM, WITH THIS BEING A VIOLATION CASE, IT WAS MORE OR LESS PROBABLY LISTED FAIRLY LATE ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH WOULD'VE HAD IT BEING HEARD AT SEVEN 30 OR EIGHT O'CLOCK. UM, I DON'T REMEMBER IF THERE WERE ANY LETTERS. TYPICALLY, WE INCLUDE THAT IN OUR REPORT. YES, I BELIEVE THAT THE TWO LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED WERE SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME PEOPLE THAT YOU HEARD TODAY AS WITNESSES. OKAY. YEAH. SOMETIMES WE SEE, UM, UH, A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT. THERE MIGHT BE CERTAIN BIG TICKET TICKET ITEMS THAT THEY'RE OPPOSED TO AND OTHERS THAT THEY'RE NOT. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW IF, 'CAUSE YOUR, YOUR LETTER'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ASPECTS OF IT THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY LIVE WITH OR NOT. YEAH, SO, UH, A COUPLE OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. UH, PER OUR GUIDELINES, WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF THAT SETBACK OR LOCATION. BUT THE MAIN, UH, INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE GUIDELINES THAT WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT TO NOT CONFUSE, UM, YOUR BOARD IS THE ROOF FORM IN ITS ONE AND A HALF AND, AND SEGMENTED FROM A TWO STORY TOWER ELEMENT DOWN TO ONE STORY, THE L PLAN, AND THEN THE FENESTRATION DETAILS. WHILE I UNDERSTAND A CITIZEN MIGHT VIEW THOSE AS SIMILAR, UH, PER OUR INTERPRETATION OF RELATING TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WE FIND THAT THE FENESTRATION PATTERN, THE SIZE OF THE WINDOWS AND HOW IT'S LAID OUT IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT AND ROOF FORM, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SEE IN THE DISTRICT AND THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT A FUTURE, UM, RESIDENT TO REFERENCE AS FOR THEIR PROJECT. AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION. IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE FIFTIES. I DID, I READ THAT RIGHT. DOES THAT, [01:45:01] UH, WHEN YOU'RE USING YOUR ANALYSIS, ARE YOU USING A CERTAIN DECADE AND FROM THE 19 HUNDREDS FOR THIS, OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT OTHER HOMES FROM THE FIFTIES AS, UH, TO, TO MAKE THAT COMPARISON? WE FIRST REFER TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE BLOCK AND THEN STRUCTURES OF SIMILAR STYLES AND, UM, TIME OF, UH, A PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE. SO OTHER, UH, SE MID-CENTURY OR UH, 1940S, UH, ROOF ONE STORY AND RANCH STYLE STRUCTURES OR MINIMAL TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES. OKAY. THANK YOU QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. YES SIR. THANK YOU. I'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME. I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON THAT THERE WERE, UH, LETTERS IN SUPPORT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD JUST SUBMITTED RIGHT NOW, THAT THEY WERE NOT READ INTO THE RECORD OR NOT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SIX IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, SINCE YOU BRING THAT UP, UH, JUST CITE THE, UH, NAMES THAT YOU ALREADY TOLD US THERE IN SUPPORT NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE, UH, OF THOSE LETTERS ON ILA ROSA FLORES, 2219 WEST MAGNOLIA IS IN FAVOR OF THE HOME WITH IMPROVEMENTS. ANA RODRIGUEZ 2223 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. UH, ALSO IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE, UH, PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION ON REGARDS TO THE APPEAL. ANNA. EXCUSE ME MR. MANDA. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. MANDA. REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 6. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION SITUATED AT 2 2 1 8 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING RINO HERNANDEZ. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THE DECISION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WAS FLAWED IN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT IN ASSERTING THAT THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION INCORRECTLY DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND A MOTION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MR. MANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? UM, YES. I, I WILL BE VOTING, UH, IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, MOTION. AND I THINK THAT, UM, LOOKING AT, UM, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THE PICTURES AND THEN ALSO FROM INPUT FROM THE, UH, THE NEIGHBOR THAT, UH, IT DOES APPEAR THAT AS MUCH EFFORT WAS TAKEN TO TRY TO KEEP IT AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND SO, UM, AND I DO, UM, DO LIKE THAT, UH, WE'LL SAY MORE PERMANENT MATERIALS ARE PUT IN PLACE 'CAUSE THAT DOES, UH, HELP IN THE LONG RUN. SO, SO I DO LIKE BOTH THOSE ACTIVITIES, SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, MR. ORAN? UH, I WILL ALSO BE VOTING IN FAVOR. UM, I'M NOT SEEING ANY, UM, COMMUNITY, UH, UH, ANTAGONIST TO THIS. SO, UM, AND WITH ALL THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY FROM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, I, I, I SEE NO ISSUE WITH, UM, SIDING WITH THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT THEY'D LIKE TO OFFER? ALL AS WELCOME. OTHER INPUT? OKAY. OKAY. MR. NEFF WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING? GO AHEAD. UM, I'M TORN ON THIS CASE, TO BE HONEST. UM, I THINK O H P STAFF HAS PRESENTED A SOLID EXPLANATION OF HOW THE PROCESS HAPPENED AND HOW THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE, THE STANDARDS THAT THEY REVIEW FROM AND GIVE APPROVAL OR DENIAL BASED UPON. APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT FORWARD HIS NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY THAT SHOW A GOOD DEAL OF SUPPORT FOR WHAT HE HAS BUILT, AND THAT'S COMMENDABLE AS WELL. UM, I THINK IN THE END THOUGH, WHAT I SEE IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS KIND OF OUT OF SORTS WITH THE CONTEXT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE STORY, KIND OF MID-CENTURY LOW STRUCTURES. UM, THAT'S MY LAYMAN'S TERMS EXPLANATION OF THAT. UM, THE DESIGN OF THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS KIND OF CLUNKY AND AWKWARD AND LOOKS KIND OF HOME DESIGNED, NOT DESIGNED WITH INTENT OF THE STYLE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN OR THE TIME PERIOD OF THE STRUCTURES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE STRUCTURE ON THAT SITE. UM, THE PROPORTIONS ARE OFF AND I CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW H D R C OR THE H P O WOULD SEE THAT AS INAPPROPRIATE. UM, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REQUEST [01:50:01] TO APPEAL THE H P'S DECISION, UH, ALTHOUGH I HAVE, UH, ALTHOUGH I CAN FEEL THE PLIGHT OF THIS APPLICANT AND I CAN SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHO FIND IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, JUST FINE FOR THEM NEAR THEIR STRUCTURES, UH, I CAN'T SEE HOW THE H P O MADE ANY KIND OF FLAWED INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE. SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE REQUEST TO REQUEST AN APPEAL. RODRIGUEZ, MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES, I WOULD, UH, TEND TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE, BUT THEN AGAIN, UM, HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE DAY IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE NA NEIGHBORS IN CROSS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY AND IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA LIVE WITH THIS. AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH THEM, I MEAN THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WRESTLE WITH, BUT UH, I HAVE TO GO WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE COMMUNITY, AND I'M ALL FOR IT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU MR. RODRIGUEZ. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD SOME INPUT? MS. FISHER? YES. FISHER. UM, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. I KNOW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN, WHICH IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT AS WELL, WE HAVE NUMEROUS, UH, RECENTLY BUILT SECOND STORY OR THAT IS MINIMALLY, MINIMALLY OBSERVABLE FROM THE STREET. AND I FEEL LIKE IN THIS INSTANCE AND WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S SUPPORT. OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE IN SUPPORT OF IT. ANY OTHER PERSON LIKE TO, TO ADD TO THE INPUT? I'M GONNA MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT. UM, I AGREE THAT THE, THE, UH, H D R C DID AN ADEQUATE JOB IN EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION. I BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING THEY SAID WAS VERY VALID. HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE OF THE H D R C IS TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARDS FOR A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPENS TO BE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, JUDGING BY THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT THAT THEY HAD IN THIS PARTICULAR INDIVID FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UH, I DO KNOW THAT YES, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF DOES NOT MATCH THE STRUCTURE ORIGINALLY, BUT AS I SCANNED THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, I NOTICED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PITCHES ANYWAY. UM, BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE ACCEPTABILITY OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT IN A PARTICULAR AREA, I'M GOING TO GO TO, I'M GONNA PERSONALLY LEAN TOWARD THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT IN THIS REGARD. SO I'M GONNA LEAVE IT AT THAT. AND MONICA, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE? MR. MANNA? I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES. MR. THIEL? YES. DR. ELLI? YES. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MS. CRUZ? YES. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES. MR. NEFF? NO. MS. FISHER? YES. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR THAT, UH, IN THE, THE, UH, THEFT, UH, THE APPEAL IS TO BE APPROVED. SO, UH, THEREFORE WE DO OVERTURN THE H D R C ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AND ONLY THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. AND, UH, WANT TO, WELL THANK YOU FOR ALL STEPPING FORWARD AND, AND PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR CASE VERY STRICTLY. HOWEVER, THERE'S MORE TO THAT THAN JUST WHAT WE'VE DONE TODAY. SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. NEXT [5. 19-5654 BOA-19-10300084: A request by Joe Salinas for an appeal of the Director’s decision to issue a building permit for a detached accessory with an accessory dwelling unit, located at 225 East Mistletoe. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 7) (Crystal Gonzales, Development Services Engineer; Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE PLEASE. THE NEXT CASE WE'LL HAVE DEBORAH INTRODUCE THE CASE INTO THE RECORD WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THEN WE WILL HAND IT OVER TO CRYSTAL GONZALEZ FROM OUR PLAN REVIEW TEAM, UH, TO, UM, TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE STAFF'S, UM, DETERMINATION. AND THEN AFTER THAT WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT THEIR CASE. CASE BO, A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 4 IS AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICANT. JOE SALINAS ADDRESS, 2 25 EAST MISS ALTO ZONING, R SIX. AH JODY, HERE'S THE NOTIFICATION PLAN SIX IN FAVOR. THREE OF THOSE WERE OUTSIDE [01:55:01] OF THE 200 FEET BOUNDARY. 15 IN A POSITION 11 ARE OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET BOUNDARY. TUBING HILL AND BEACON HILL AREA ARE IN A POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME'S CRYSTAL GONZALEZ, I'M THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER AND I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY IN CAPACITY AS THE MANAGER THAT OVERSEES OUR RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW TEAM. SO I WON'T, UM, GO THROUGH THIS. DEBORAH JUST WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE APPLIC APPLICANT INFORMATION AND TODAY WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE APPEAL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION OR APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, UM, AND HIS INTERPRET INTERPRETATION OF SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE U D C. SO THE FIRST SECTION OF THE U D C AND THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT REFERENCES U D C 35 3 10. UM, THIS REFERENCES TABLE THREE 10 THAT HAS A SET GUIDELINES RELATED TO SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS. AND I JUST WANNA NOTE HERE THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR, UH, PROPERTY ZONE R SIX IS 35 FEET OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES. THE NEXT SECTION THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL IS THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY. SO THIS IS THE DEFINITION VERBATIM FROM THE U D C THAT AN UPPERMOST A HALF STORY IS THE UPPERMOST STORY USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS IN WHICH A SLOPING ROOF REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. AND HABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED A FLOOR AREA DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING THE FLOOR AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR BY 50%. SO IN SHORT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE HABITABLE AREA OF THE HALF STORY, MAKING SURE IT DOESN'T EXCEED HALF OF THE GROUND FLOOR AREA. SO I WANNA NOTE HERE THAT THE DEFINITION TALKS ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT AREAS, THE HABITABLE AREA AND THE FLOOR AREA. SO FIRST WE WOULD CALCULATE THE AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR. SO IN THESE, UM, THESE ARE SNAPSHOTS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, UH, 27 BY 18 FOOT GROUND FLOOR AREA. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT HALF OF THAT WOULD BE 243 FEET. SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE HABITABLE AREA OF THE HALF STORY DOES NOT EXCEED 243 SQUARE FEET. SO THEN WE DETERMINE WHAT THE HABITABLE AREA IS. SO WE TAKE THE FLOOR AREA AND SUBTRACT OUT THE SPACES THAT ARE NOT HABITABLE. YOU'LL SEE AT THE VERY TOP IT'S IN, UH, OPEN TWO VERTICAL, UH, TWO STORY OPENING. SO WE TAKE OUT THAT AREA, WE TOOK OUT THE AREA OF THE CLOSET, THE BATHROOM AND THE STAIRS. SO ALL OF THAT, UH, THE REMAINING AREA, THE HABITABLE AREA IS 174 SQUARE FEET. SO YOU SEE THAT'S WELL BELOW THE ALLOWED 243 SQUARE FEET. THE NEXT DEFINITION THAT WAS REFERENCED IS THE HEIGHT. SO VERBATIM, THE HEIGHT IS THE VERTICAL DIMENSION MEASURED FROM THE AVERAGE ELEVATION OF THE FINISH LOT GRADE AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE CEILING OF THE TOP OF THE STORY. IN THE CASE OF A FLAT ROOF TO THE DECK LINE OF A MANED ROOF AND TO THE AVERAGE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE PLATE AND RIDGE OF A GABLE HIP OR GA ROOF. SO THAT HEIGHT CANNOT EXCEED 35 FEET. SO IF YOU LOOK HERE, THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHOW, UH, HEIGHTS THAT WE TAKE ALL OF THOSE IDENTIFIED HEIGHTS. AND AGAIN, I TOOK MEASUREMENTS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, UH, SCALE DOCUMENTS, SCALE DRAWINGS. SO THE TOTAL HEIGHT, IF YOU MEASURED IT PER THE DEFINITION, THIS IS UH, GABLE ROOF. SO THE 26 FOOT THREE INCHES PLUS HALF OF UH, SO THE AVERAGE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE PLATE AND THE RIDGE OF THE GABLE ROOF. SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL TWO AND A HALF FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 28 FEET, NINE INCHES. EVEN IF YOU TOOK A MEASUREMENT TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE, YOU WOULD BE AT 31 FEET, THREE INCHES, WELL BELOW THE 35 ALLOWABLE FEET. THE NEXT SECTION REFERENCED IN THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL WAS U D C 35 3 71 FOR ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. SO THE, THE SPECIFIC SECTION THAT'S REFERENCED STATES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL [02:00:01] DESIGN, STYLE, APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE MAIN BUILDING AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, THE A D D U SHALL HAVE A ROOF PITCH, SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. SO SOME OF THE PICTURES YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ROOF HAS THE SAME COVERING, THE SAME COMPOSITION SHINGLES. IT'S NOT METAL, IT'S NOT METAL SHINGLES, IT'S NOT CLAY OR CONCRETE TILES. IT'S NOT WOOD SHINGLES OR SHAKES. IT HAS THE SAME PITCH AS THE GABLE PORTION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IT'S NOT FLAT. UM, IT'S NOT A GIMPLE ROOF OR A MANSFORD ROOF. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SIDING IS THE SAME. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HAS THE SAME SIDING AS THE MAIN STRUCTURE, THE SAME FIBERBOARD, HORIZONTAL LAPSE SIDING. IT'S NOT STUCCO OR BRICK STONE VINYL. AND THE WINDOWS HAVE THE SAME PROPORTION, THE TWO TO ONE WINDOWS. THOSE SHOULD THE BOARD OVERTURN THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION THAT WOULD UH, IMMEDIATELY IMPACT HOW WE, UM, MEASURE STRUCTURES IN THE CITY LIMITS AND MAKE HOMES ALL OVER THE CITY. NON-CONFORMING THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UPHOLD THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION BASED ON THE, UH, DEFINITIONS OF HEIGHTENED AREA AND HOW THOSE WERE MEASURED. THOSE WERE CLEARLY DEFINED METHODS OF MEASUREMENT THAT WERE FOLLOWED. AND PER SECTION 35 3 71, THE A D D U MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE REGARDING THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, STYLE APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. QUESTIONS ORIAN HEY MR. DURRAN, GO AHEAD. UH, WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT IS THE PREMISE OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS, THAT THEY'RE MEASURING IT FROM A POINT AROUND THE BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO THE FRONT TO GET IN IN EXCESS OF THE 35 FEET? THAT'S NOT WHAT I GATHERED FROM THE APPEAL. UM, THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY THAT IT, UH, IS TO BE MEASURED. BUT FROM YOUR OWN PRESENTATION, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S MULTIPLE FEET BELOW THE MAX? YES. SO IT'S, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU, DID YOU, DID YOU FIND ANY WAY THAT THEY COULD GET TO IN SOME WAY JUSTIFYING THEIR, THEIR ARGUMENT THAT IT'S EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT? I DID NOT HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. HEY MR. NEFF, GO AHEAD. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS WHOLE THING YET, BUT I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS JUST ABOUT THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE. UM, ONE ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGES EVERY TIME I'VE DONE A HALF STORY KIND OF ON A TOP FLOOR AS AN ARCHITECT GOING THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, I HAD ALWAYS INCLUDED IN MY CALCULATIONS AND THOUGHT WAS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS, BUT I WOULD OMIT AN OPENED A BELOW SPACE OR A STAIRWELL. IS THAT PARTICULARLY DELINEATED IN THE CODE THAT YOU COULD SHOW US TODAY THAT HABITABLE SPACE WOULD ONLY BE THAT BEDROOM AREA EXCLUDING ALL THE OTHER SPACES? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DID INCLUDE IT IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT THE DEFINITION OF HABITABLE SPACE FROM THE I R C IS A SPACE IN A BUILDING FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING OR COOKING BATHROOMS, TOILET ROOMS, CLOSET HALLS, STORAGE OR UTILITY SPACES IN SIMILAR AREAS ARE NOT CONSIDERED HABITABLE SPACES. THAT'S DIRECTLY FROM THE 2018 I R C. OKAY. AND THE OTHER PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION WAS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OR FORM AND YOU MENTIONED HOW THE ROOF FORM OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS SAME ROOF FORM AS THE MAIN HOUSE. AND I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MAIN HOUSE IS THE GRAY AND WHITE ONE STORY, NOT THE BIG STRUCTURES TO THE LEFT, RIGHT? CORRECT. WHEN I SEE THAT, THAT IS A HIP ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES WITH SOME GABLE DORMERS PROJECTING FROM IT. BUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAS A GABLE ROOF, GABLE ROOF ONLY WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT ROOF FORM AND STYLE THAN THE HOUSE. SO HOW ARE THOSE THE SAME? BY DEFINITION WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PORTIONS OF THE GABLE ROOF FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THAT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MATCHES THE GABLE PORTION OF THE MAIN BUILDING THE ATTIC VENTILATION DORMERS ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE. WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING CALLING THE SAME AS THE ENTIRE ROOF OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? YES. OKAY. [02:05:02] OKAY. AND MY LAST QUESTION WAS GOING BACK TO THE HALF STORY YOU DESCRIBE OR READ FROM THE CODE THAT THE TOP FLOOR BEING A HALF STORY IS COMPRISED OF ATTIC SPACES WITH DORMER WINDOW PROJECTIONS WITH LOWER WALLS, THINGS THAT SEEM TO DWARF THE HEIGHT BY INTENT. THIS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THAT. WE'RE EXTRACTING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO GET TO THE HALF. BUT DOES THAT IN DEFINITION OF CODE MEET THIS DEFINITION AND WHAT THEY DID BY NOT HAVING THOSE LOWER ROOF PLATES WITH DORMER PROJECTIONS AND THINGS THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT IT'S KIND OF LIKE A FINISHED OUT ATTIC? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S DESCRIBED IN THIS DEFINITION? WELL THE DEFINITION SAYS USUALLY LIGHTED. SO THESE DEFINITIONS HAVE BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE THE 1960S. SO ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES HAVE CHANGED A LOT OVER TIME. SO THE DEFINITION HASN'T CHANGED AND IT'S TRYING TO PAINT A PICTURE OF WHAT YOU WOULD USUALLY SEE AS A HALF STORY. IT DOESN'T SAY SHALL BE LIGHTED, SO IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THOSE DORMER WINDOWS OR THE SLOPING ROOF, UM, THAT YOU WOULD, UH, TYPICALLY THINK OF AS A HALF STORY. SO THE CODE DOES LEAVE THAT ROOM FOR UM, UM, OPTIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. THOSE WERE MY POINTS OF CONFUSION OR QUESTIONS FOR YOU BEFORE WE FIND OUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, WHAT, WHAT UH, ORIAN, SO, UH, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM UH, HEAD SPACE, UH, FOR AN OCCUPIABLE SPACE? IS IT 80 INCHES? YES, SEVEN. THE SEVEN FEET. THAT'S ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DO TAKE OUT THE AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN THE SEVEN FEET CEILING HEIGHT. AND THEY ALSO CAME UP WITH A SQUARE FOOTAGE LESS THAN HALF OF THE GROUND FLOOR AREA EITHER. SO EITHER WAY IT'S STILL LESS THAN HALF? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND UH, I GUESS THIS TIME NOW YOU WOULD CALL UP THE APPLICANT AFTER THE APPLICANT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER ALRIGHT. AND HAND THEM TO STAFF AND THEY'LL DELIVER THEM UH, ALL SPEAKER'S NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. OF COURSE. THAT'S INTERESTING. SHE'S CARRYING THE WEIGHT AND HE'S PASSING THEM OUT. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. YEAH. BY CHANCE IF YOU TIME THIS, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? 35 MINUTES. I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT AND CUT IT DOWN FOR YOU. . ALRIGHT. I'M JOE SALINAS AT ONE 11 HOME AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. I'M ANISA SHELL, I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE TOVAN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND I LIVE AT FOUR 30 EAST MISTLETOE AVENUE. RACHEL LO HEARN 5 0 3 EAST MYRTLE, REPRESENTING TOBIN HILL ZONING COMMITTEE. I'M THE NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY. THE, UH, THE CRAFTSMAN DIRECTLY BEHIND IT, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING. ALRIGHT, SO ON YOUR RIGHT SIDE IS AN INTER ABOUT ME. I'VE BEEN IN CONSTRUCTION SINCE I WAS BORN. MY FAMILY OWNS NIXON ROOFING OUT OF FREDERICKSBURG SINCE 1946. UH, ALSO GOT A DEGREE IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND DO REAL ESTATE WITH COOPER SOTHEBY'S OUT OF THE DOMINION FOR, OH, ON 14 YEARS NOW. AND BROKER ASSOCIATE CURRENTLY, SO YOU'LL HAVE A 12 POINT PRESENTATION IN FRONT OF YOU. FIRST ONE IS AN OVERVIEW IN TODAY'S HONORABLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I BROUGHT THIS APPEAL TO THE BOARD TODAY, AUGUST THE FIFTH TO DISCUSS THE A D D U OF A 1905 VICTORIAN HOME ON 2005 EAST MISSILE TOW, WHICH I DID AT ONE POINT ACTUALLY HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SELLING FOR MY SELLER AND LOVED [02:10:01] NEIGHBOR. THE APPEAL ASKED AND STATES WHAT C D U D C CODES VERBATIM WERE APPLIED INCORRECTLY. HENCE THE APPEAL PROCESS I HAVE FOR YOU. THE PERMIT INFORMATION ISSUED TO THE CONTRACT AND OWNER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BETWEEN CONTRACT OWNER AND TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PHOTOS OF A D D U AND THE PRIMARY HOME DEFINITIONS AND THE U D C CODES AS FOUND VERBATIM IN THE U D C AND APP DEPENDENCIES. TECHNICAL DATA REPORT BY A CONSULTED LICENSED ARCHITECT FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR REVIEW AND GENERAL ASSESSMENT, A POSSIBLE REMEDY AND THEN CURRENT EXAMPLES OF THE A D U THROUGHOUT TOBIN HILL CURRENTLY. SO YOU HAVE, AGAIN, THE PICTURES ARE ON THE OVERHEAD, THE A D D U OF 2 25 EAST MISSILE TOW. THEN IN SECTION TWO, BEHIND PAGE ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, THE CONTRACTOR MENTIONED THEY WOULD USE CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND THE NUMBER OF STORIES WOULD BE TWO AND A HALF. THE NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE 4 86 AND THE PROJECT VALIDATION WOULD BE ABOUT $70,000 FOR THIS PROJECT. THEN STATED, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO NOTIFIED THE OWNER ON APRIL 1ST AFTER, UH, THE APPROVAL THAT OF WHAT THIS U D C CODES MUST MEET SECTION 35 3 71. THEN YOU WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF DRAWINGS AND SITE MAPS AGAIN OF THE FIRST ONE IS OF THE OLD GARAGE THAT USED TO BE THERE. IT WAS A, YOU WOULD CALL IT A ONE AND A HALF CAR GARAGE. IT WAS AGAIN, BUILT AT THE SAME AGE OF THE HOME. PRETTY MUCH HAD THE LAP SIDING AND A METAL ROOF THAT WAS TORN DOWN IN PLACEMENT OF THE A D D U, WHICH YOU'LL FIND ON THE TWO SURVEYS, THE OLD SURVEY BEING THE GARAGE AND THEN THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE ON THE OTHER PAGE. AND THEN THE ENGINEERING REPORT BEHIND THAT. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO SECTION THREE. AGAIN, MY APPEAL AS PREVIOUSLY READ AND STATED AGAIN, THE APPEAL STATES FROM WHAT SECTION 35 OF THE U D C WAS APPLIED INCORRECTLY AND AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED. UH, THE RULES OF INTERPRETATION STATE THAT A HALF STORY IS THE UPPERMOST STORY USUALLY LIGHTED BY DOMERS OR WINDOWS IN A SLOPING ROOF THAT REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. INHABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED THE DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING THE FLOOR AREA BY THE GROUND FLOOR BY 50%. AGAIN, THERE'S THE WORD AND IT IS THE DEFINITION, WHICH AGAIN IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLINGS SHALL ALSO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, STYLE APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE MAIN BUILDING AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE A D D U SHALL HAVE A ROOF PITCH, SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. I ALSO DID PULL FROM YOUR APPENDIX THAT STATES ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. THESE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE EXTERIOR DETAILS OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURES SUCH AS THE TYPE, STYLE OR ROOF COLOR OF ROOFS, WINDOWS, DOORS. APPEARANCES ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WILL INCLUDE INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WHERE THE INTERIOR IS AUTHORIZED FOR REVIEW. AGAIN, THIS HOME IS A 1905 SINGLE STORY VICTORIAN WITH ORIGINAL DETAIL. THE ACCESSORY, THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING DOES NOT HAVE THE SIDING, THE WINDOWS, THE ROOF LINE THAT MATCHES THE PRINCIPLE RESIDENCE. AND IT STATES AGAIN, IN YOUR APPENDIX THAT THAT IS PER CODE. AGAIN, THE PERMIT DETAILS CHANGED FROM FOUR, I BELIEVE IT WAS 4 86 TO SEVEN 20 SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THERE WAS A REVISION ON THE PERMIT. AND AGAIN, TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE STATING THAT IT IS 35 FEET OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES. IF WE WERE TO GO JUST OFF OF HEIGHT ALONE, IN ESSENCE, YOU COULD HAVE A THREE FULL STORIES AND STILL MEET A 30 FOOT FOOT REQUIREMENT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, OR FOUR STORIES, OR ACTUALLY EVEN FIVE IF YOU DID IT AT SEVEN FEET. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S 35 AND TWO AND A HALF STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. AGAIN, JUST MORE DEFINITIONS VERBATIM FROM [02:15:01] THE U D C SECTION FOUR. AGAIN, FROM WHAT THE CITY HAD MENTIONED, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THEY CALLED US DISTRICT SEVEN. WE ARE DISTRICT ONE. THE HOUSE STORY AGAIN IN IN SECTION FOUR STATES THAT IT'S USUALLY LIGHTED BY A DORMER WINDOW. I GREW UP IN FREDERICKSBURG. THERE ARE MANY HAVE STORIES THAT HAVE NO WINDOWS AT ALL. WE CALL THEM SUNDAY HOUSES. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ON THE DRAWING, WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PRINT COPY PICTURE ANY OF THE DRAWINGS FROM THE D S D. SO WE WERE ALLOWED TO SIT IN A ROOM AND EVALUATE THE PLANS, BUT NOT TAKE THEM OUTTA THE ROOM. THEY WERE TO STAY THERE. WE WERE NOT TO MAKE A COPY OF ANY SORT. SO THIS IS THE ONLY DRAWING I DO HAVE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE CITY REPORT. THE A D U HAS HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING SIMILAR TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND A SHINGLED GABLED ROOF THAT GENERALLY MATCHES THE ROOF PITCH OF THE MAIN BUILDING AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. AND THEN RIGHT ABOVE IT SAYS CEMENT FIBER BOARD. I'M STILL IN SECTION FOUR ALSO. SO IN CONCLUSION, FROM THE CITY ASSESSMENT THAT IT DOES RECOGNIZE THE HEIGHT, BUT MAKES NO MENTION TO THE STORIES OF THE ALLOWABLE HOUSE STORY AND ALSO STATES THAT IT DOES FOLLOW THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, WHICH IT DOES NOT IN THE CITY PICTURES. AND ONTO SECTION FIVE, I CREATED A TABLE FOR QUICK REFERENCE. ACCORDING TO CODE REQUIREMENTS, IT SHOULD BE 800 SQUARE FEET'S MAX WITH A TWO AND A HALF STORY. ON THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS, IT WAS 720 FEET ACCORDING TO THE NEW PROPOSED SET OF PLANS AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES. AND FOR WHAT WE CAN TELL, IT'S GOT BETWEEN 8 0 4 TO EIGHT 12 SQUARE FEET AND A TOTAL OF THREE STORIES. THE ROOF PITCH IS A SIX ON 12, WHICH IS AGAIN PROPOSED IF IT'S ON THE HIP ROOF, NOT THE GABLE ROOF. THE GABLE ROOF IS A NINE ON 12. THE SIDING SHOULD BE LAPSED SIDING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE DOES HAVE. VICTORIA ERA, SOLID WOOD DOORS WITH WINDOW INSETS AND VICTORIAN ERA WINDOWS, WHICH ARE ONE TO 2.7. EVAN. THE WINDOWS ON THE PROPOSED SPECS STATE THAT THEY'RE ABOUT ONE TO 1.8, WHICH IS A 60% DIFFERENCE. BEHIND THAT. YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THE THIRD PARTY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FROM THE ARCHITECT THAT STATES WHAT I'VE JUST BASICALLY TOLD YOU. SECTION SIX SHOWS THE FIRST STORY, SECOND 32ND STORY, AND THIRD STORY. ALSO NEIGHBORHOOD PICTURES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING. AND THEN ACCESSORY AND PRINCIPLE DRILLINGS, AGAIN, THE DIRECT DEFINITION AND TABLES PULLED FROM THE U D C HALF STORY AND HEIGHT. THE BACKSIDE IS THREE STORIES, SECOND STORY AND THE FIRST STORY. AND WE TRIED TO MARK WHERE THE STORY SHOWING YOU THE STORY SIZES AND IN RELATION TO SCALE. AND THAT PICTURE IS TAKEN FROM MY BACKYARD. SECTION SEVEN COVERS THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. AGAIN, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS PER THE DEFINITION IN SECTION B, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INTENDED FOR USE AS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35 DASH 3 71. AND THAT'S SUBSECTION B. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STYLE AND APPEARANCE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE MAIN BUILDING AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, THE A D U SHALL HAVE A ROOF PITCH, SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. THE FOLLOWING PAGE SHOWS YOU THE GABLE ROOF, THE HIP ROOF, AND THEN THE GABLE ROOF, THE NINE ON 12, THE FIVE ON 12 AND SIX ON 12, AND THEN PICTURES OF WHAT LAPSE SIDING ACTUALLY IS AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. SO THEN WE HAD THE CITY [02:20:01] BASICALLY INVOLVED AROUND, UH, IT STARTED ON JUNE 21ST, WAS WHEN WE CONTACTED COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S OFFICE ON THIS MATTER. SO WE FOUND OUT THE CONTRACTOR HAD APPLIED FOR THREE BUILDING PERMITS ON THIS HOME AND IT WAS DENIED TWICE AND FINALLY APPROVED. WE DID HAVE AN AN INSPECTOR SHOW UP, BUT AGAIN, ON 7 10 19, NO INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED, ONLY A COURTESY WALKTHROUGH WITH CONTRACTOR AS PER THE PLANS. AND HE ALSO DID FIND THAT THE HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE APPEARS TO BE A FOOT TALLER THAN WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND THAT'S DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY INSPECTOR. THEN DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS INSPECTION IS A FULL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S OFFICE AND D S D IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. I HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT HAS PRECIPITATED SINCE THIS PROJECT HAS COMMENCED. AND, UH, I WON'T READ THEM ALOUD. I'LL LET THE NEIGHBORHOOD COME UP AND, AND DO THEIR SPEAKING FOR THEM AGAIN AS A REMEDY. TAKING THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE SECTION 10, TAKING THE 10, THE 10 AND THE SIX TO SIX ON THREE, BRINGING DOWN THE ROOF AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, TO MATCH EITHER THE HIP OR THAT PROMINENT GABLE WITH THE VENT OR MY OWN RENDITION OF A SUGGESTED ELEVATION OF AGAIN, LOWERING IT TO MATCH THE DOMER WINDOWS AND TO MATCH IT TWO AND A HALF STORY STILL UNDER 35 FEET WITH THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THEN ON SECTION SEVEN, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SUBMIT ALSO SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF CURRENT HOMES THAT ARE ONE BLOCK AWAY. IT MEANS 11, OH, I'M SORRY, YES. SECTION 11, I APOLOGIZE. SECTION 11 ARE THREE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THE PRINCIPAL OR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS ONE IS TWO 19 EAST MISSILE TOE AND THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT ONE. THIS ONE IS TWO 20 EAST MISSILE TOW MAGNO. OH, MAGNOLIA. THESE ARE MAGNOLIAS, I APOLOGIZE. THIS ONE'S TWO 20 EAST MAGNOLIA AND THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING. THEN WE HAVE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS TWO 19 EAST MISSILE TOW. AND THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING MATCHES THEIR EXACT SPECS AS WELL TOO. SO IN CONCLUSION AND IN SUMMARY, AS I'VE TRIED TO NARROW THIS DOWN FOR Y'ALL, I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO ANISA SHELL AND, UH, RACHEL O'HARE TO, UH, TALK ABOUT THE SUMMARY IN CLOSING. SO, UM, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PHOTOS PROVIDED BY STAFF PREDOMINANTLY INCLUDE THAT NEIGHBORING TWO STORY HOUSE AT TWO 19 EAST MISTLETOE, AND THEY'RE FRAMED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BELONGS TO THAT HOUSE, AND IT DOES NOT. IT IS THIS 1905 VICTORIAN ON THE CORNER. UM, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE PROMINENTLY IN THE PHOTOS. THE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED BASED ON THE CODES SECTION 35 3 71 OF THE U D U D C. WE'VE HEARD IT A FEW TIMES ALREADY THAT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STYLE APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE MAIN BUILDING, THE A D U SHALL HAVE A ROOF PITCH SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. THE INTENT OF THIS IS CLEAR IN NO PLACE IS THE DESIGN OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES MENTIONED. THE ROOF PITCH SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THIS A D U AND AT THE SITE IS NOTED AS FIVE OVER 12. UM, I'M SORRY, IT'S NOTED AS SIX OVER 12, BUT WHEN ACTUALLY MEASURED WITH A SCALE ON THE DRAWINGS, IT IS FIVE OVER 12. THE ROOF PITCH ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE IS SIX OVER 12, AND THE GABLE IS NINE OVER 12, QUOTE, GENERALLY MATCHING THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AS STAFF NOTED IS NOT PART OF THE U D C STAFF NOTES THAT THE WINDOWS ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND APPEARANCE, HOWEVER, THEY'RE NOT IDENTICAL. UM, THE WINDOWS ON THE ACCESSORY [02:25:01] STRUCTURE ARE ONE TO 1.18, WHILE THE WINDOWS ON THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ARE A TYPICAL VICTORIAN PROPORTION OF ONE TO 2.7, WHICH IS A 66% DIFFERENCE. THE SIDING AND TRIM BOARDS ON THE TWO STRUCTURES DO NOT MATCH. THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HAS A DISTINCTIVE VICTORIAN ERA SIDING WITH A CARVED REVEAL. THE A D U HAS CEMENT FIBER, FIBER BOARDS THAT ARE A DIFFERENT WIDTH AND A FLAT PROFILE WHILE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS UNDER 35 FEET. SECTION 35 3 10 OF THE U D C ALSO SPECIFIES A MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES. THE U D C DEFINES A HALF STORY AS AN UPPERMOST STORY, USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS IN WHICH A SLOPING ROOF REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. AND HABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED A FLOOR AREA DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING THE FLOOR AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR BY 50%. THERE ARE NO DORMERS IN THESE DRAWINGS, AND THE UPPERMOST WINDOWS ON THE FRONT ELEVATION ARE IDENTICAL IN SIZE TO THOSE. ON THE SECOND STORY, THE ROOF WALL RELATIONSHIP DESCRIBED IN THE U D C IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. FOR THE HALF STORY TO MEET CODE, THE ROOF SHOULD SIT ON THE TOP PLATE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. INSTEAD, THE DRAWINGS SHOW THE ROOF SITTING ON AN ADDITIONAL SIX FOOT THREE INCH WALL PLATE. FURTHER, WHEN THE COURTESY WALKTHROUGH WAS DONE BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON JULY 10TH, THEY NOTED THAT THE HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE APPEARS TO BE A FOOT TALLER THAN SHOWN, MAKING THE TOP STORY SEVEN FEET, THREE INCHES, OR IN OTHER WORDS A THIRD STORY. THE LOFT AREA OF THE THIRD STORY DOES EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A HALF STORY, THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE A D U IS SHOWN AS 486 SQUARE FEET. EVEN WITH THE STAIR REMOVED, THE LOFT MEASURES 260 SQUARE FEET, WHICH EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 243 SQUARE FEET BY 17. WHILE STAFF NOTES THAT THE I R C DEFINES HABITABLE SPACE AS EXCLUDING CLOSETS AND BATHROOMS, THE U D C HAS NO SUCH DEFINITION. UH, TYPICALLY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT USE THE I R C AS A GUIDE, AND YOU BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON THE U D C. OUR U D C DOES NOT CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE, I'M SORRY, OF HABITABLE SPACE, BUT IT DOES DEFINE HABITABLE STRUCTURE, WHICH DIRECTS TO OCCUPIABLE. OCCUPIABLE IS DE DEFINED AS A LAND USE STRUCTURE ROOM OR IN CLOSE SPACE DESIGNED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS CONGREGATE FOR AMUSEMENT EDUCATIONAL OR SIMILAR PURPOSES ENGAGED IN LABOR OR A SPACE IN A BUILDING FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING, OR COOKING, AND WHICH IS EQUIPPED WITH A MEANS OF EGRESS AND LIGHT AND PROVIDES FOR MECHANICAL OR NON MECHANICAL VENTILATION FACILITIES. IN THIS DEFINITION, GARAGES ARE NOT EXCLUDED, NOR ARE CLOSETS, STAIRS, OR BATHROOMS. LIKEWISE, THE U D C DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA DOES NOT EXCLUDE GARAGES, CLOSETS, BATHROOMS, OR STAIRS. WHILE STAIRWELLS ARE EXCLUDED, STAIRWELLS REQUIRE FIREWALLS, VENTING AND EGRESS. AND THESE FEATURES ARE NOT DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS. THE UD C'S DEFINITION IS CLEAR. THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 800 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICATION NOTES THE STRUCTURE AS 720 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, WHEN MEASURED, THE DRAWINGS ACTUALLY SHOW 486 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND 326 SQUARE FEET IN THE LOFT. THIS IS A TOTAL OF 812 SQUARE FEET BEFORE FACTORING IN THE ADDITIONAL 486 SQUARE FEET OF THE GROUND FLOOR, BRINGING THE TOTAL TO 1298. THE SIZE OF THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, THE A D U DETRACTS FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, ITS SIZE AND LACK OF DESIGN, CONFORMITY, INFRINGES ON MR. SALINAS PROPERTY. HIS PRIVACY IS BEING INFRINGED UPON WITH THE HEIGHT OF THIS A D U, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES WITH THE BACKYARD VIEW. IF I CAN FIND THEM, THIS TOWER'S OVER HIS HOME. SORRY FOR GOING QUICKLY THROUGH THESE PICTURES. THERE WE GO. SPEAKING TO PUBLIC INTEREST, I SERVED ON THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR THE MAYOR'S HOUSING POLICY TASK FORCE, AND I'M CURRENTLY SITTING ON THE REMOVING BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE, WHICH IS CREATING POLICY AND U D C RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE BUILT IN OUR CITY. ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN SAN ANTONIO IS ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS BY RIGHT AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. AND AS A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, I CAN SAY THAT GENERALLY THIS IS SUPPORTED BY NEIGHBORHOODS. HOWEVER, [02:30:02] WHEN THE U D C IS INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED, OR IF D S D NEG IS NEGLIGENT, OR WHEN STRUCTURES THAT CLEARLY DO NOT MEET THE CODE ARE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT, IT ERODES THE TRUST AND FAITH THAT NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IF THESE ARE ALLOWED TO STAND, NEIGHBORHOODS WILL NO LONGER WISH TO ACCOMMODATE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. BY NO DEFINITION DOES THIS THREE STORY STRUCTURE MEET THE LETTER OR THE INTENT OF A GRANNY FLAT. IF YOU WISH TO KEEP NEIGHBORHOODS SUPPORTIVE OF ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, YOU MUST ENSURE THAT WHAT IS BEING BUILT HERE IS IN LINE WITH OUR U D C. I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS PERMIT AND REQUIRE THE BUILDER TO COMPLY WITH NOT ONLY THE INTENT, BUT ALSO THE LETTER OF THE U D C WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, JUST TO REVIEW RACHEL O'HERN REPRESENTING THE TOBAN HILLS ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, AND I'M GONNA READ FROM A PREPARED STATEMENT FROM OUR CHAIR, UH, REGARDING THE B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 4. THE PERMIT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 2 25 EAST MISSILE TOW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AND ENCOURAGED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND NOT ISSUING ANY VARIANCES TO THE ANY VARIANCES TO THE PROPOSED A D U. OPEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WELCOMES THOUGHTFUL CONTRIBUTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVE A GOOD RECORD OF WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN A CONTRACTOR FAILS TO FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES IN THE U D C, THE COMMUNITY CANNOT SUPPORT THAT PROJECT. THE EXPECTATION TO ALL WHO BUILD IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WHETHER INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER OR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PROJECT, IS TO FOLLOW THE U D C. A SIMPLE ONLINE SEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS CONTRACTOR HAS PULLED AT LEAST 36 PERMITS IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS WITH 30 OF THEM BEING IN TOBIN HILL. AS AN EXPERIENCED BUILDER WHO HAS COMPLETED SEVERAL PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE OF THE MINE THAT THIS CONTRACTOR HAS REASONABLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE U D C AND THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN IT. THIS PROJECT FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARDS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS. ALL DEFICIENCIES SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT U D C AND NO VARIANCES TO THESE DEFICIENCIES SHOULD BE MADE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION STATEMENT WRITTEN BY RICK SHELL, TOBAN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MEMBER TOBAN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR PRESENTATION PORTION. PRESENTATION IS COMPLETE. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, MR. DORIAN. OKAY, SO A LARGE PART OF THIS IS WHAT YOU DEFINE AS OCCUPIABLE. SO THE TERM OCCUPIABLE SPACE, HABITABLE HABITABLE AREA. I MEAN, THEY'RE DEFINED IN MANY DIFFERENT CODES THAT ARE ADOPTED AND USED IN THE CITY AND AND OTHER COMMUNITIES. SO GOING THROUGH THE U D C, IT, IT LOOKS FOR HABITABLE, UH, YOU, THERE'S A HABITABLE STRUCTURED DEFINITION. IT REFERENCES YOU TO OCCUPIABLE, BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS HABITABLE, I THINK IT SAYS A HABITABLE AREA. SO WHAT IS, I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET TO WHERE, HOW YOU TRACKED IT TO WHERE YOU, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. CAN YOU GO UP TO THE MIC PLEASE? SO WE CAN GET IN ON THE RECORD? HABITAL SPACE IS NOT DEFINED IN THE U D C. WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, IN THE IN APPENDIX A AND THE DEFINITIONS, UH, WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO. I'M TRYING TO WORK MY WAY BACK INTO THE TOP HERE. OKAY. SO THE, IT'S 35 A 1 0 1 A U D C WORDS AND PHRASES IN TERMS DEFINED IN THIS APPENDIX, THEY'LL BE GIVEN THE DEFINED MEETING IS SET FORTH BELOW WORDS, PHRASES, AND TERMS NOT DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, BUT DEFINED IN THE BUILDING CODE ADOPTED BY CHAPTER SIX OF THE CITY CODE SHALL BE GIVEN THEIR USUAL AND CUSTOMARY MEETINGS. SO IT'S THE STANCE OF THE CITY THAT THEY'RE GRABBING THIS DEFINITION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, WHICH IS AN ADOPTED CODE. SINCE IT'S NOT DEFINED IN THE U D C, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ABOUT IT? NOT DEFERRING TO THE I R C DEFINITION? ACCORDING TO THE APPEAL IT STATES FROM THE U D C, THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE APPEAL IS BASED ON. OKAY. BUT, BUT WE JUST HEARD TESTIMONY THAT YEAH, THE DEFINITION IS NOT IN THE UUD C AND PER THE UDC. RIGHT? YOU ARE TO REFERENCE THE I R C, THE I R C. IS THAT AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION AS WELL? OKAY. UH, IT IS AVAILABLE. UH, I KNOW, I KNOW PERSONALLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD TO GO LOOK IT UP. MM-HMM. , YOU CAN GO TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND OKAY. AND LOOK THROUGH THAT CODE. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE IT. RIGHT? THEN WHY IS IT NOT ON THE APPEAL PAPERWORK? UH, THE CITY IS PROVIDING THE, THE CITY'S DEFINING THE, THE PROVIDING THE DEFINITION AND THEIR RESPONSE. UH, BUT REGARDLESS, IT IS AN ADOPTED CODE THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR VIEW. WE'RE, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR OFF HERE, BUT OKAY. WHAT I'M TRYING TO STATE IS YOUR, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE U D C, HOWEVER, THE U D C SAYS IN THOSE INSTANCES [02:35:01] TO DEFER TO THE ADOPTED BUILDING CODE, IF THERE IS ONE, AND THEN ASIDE FROM THAT CODE TO GENERALLY ADOPTED DEFINITION, SO I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY I SHOULD BE USING YOUR DEFINITION OF A HABITABLE AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF HABITABLE AS, UM, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED. WHAT'S TYPICAL IS AN ARCHITECT NOW DOES INCLUDE CLOSETS AND BATHROOMS AS HABITABLE SPACE. AND WHERE IS THAT FROM? THAT WAS FROM, UM, MR. NEFF'S MOUTH EARLIER, BUT ALSO MOST ARCHITECTS DO CONSIDER BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS HABITABLE. IT'S ALSO TYPICAL IN REAL ESTATE. OKAY. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT'S IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE A D A USES REFERENCES FOR THAT AS WELL. THEY ALSO USES REFERENCES FOR, FOR WHAT YOU WOULD PERCEIVE AS A LOFT, AND THEY'RE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE VARIOUS BUILDING CODES. SO WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY IS TO LOOK THROUGH THE U D C AND WHERE DOES THAT TAKE US? AND FROM WHAT I'M SEEING IS, I'M, I'M HEARING YOU TELL ME THAT IT'S NOT DEFINED IN THE UUD C AND IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE TO DEFER TO THE I R C, WHICH WAS WHAT STAFF DID IN THEIR PRESENTATION. SO I'M TRYING TO, I I CAN'T JUST, WE DID NOT DEFER TO THE I R C STAFF IS DEFERRING TO THE I R C, BUT WE ARE NOT, WE ARE SAYING THAT THE U D C DOES NOT DEFINE THAT. AND WE'RE ALSO SAYING THAT THE U D C DOES SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION, IT SAYS THAT THERE SHOULD BE DORMERS AND SLIPPED WALLS. IT DOESN'T USE THE WORD SHALL, IT USES THE WORD AND OKAY. BUT I JUST, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE WITH YOU. I MEAN, I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M GIVING YOU EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR CASE. UH, THE FIRST ITEM WAS DEALING WITH HOW WE LOOK AT THOSE DEFINITIONS. AND SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT. UH, AS FAR AS WHAT, AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE ROOF ISSUE, UM, YOU'RE SAYING IT USES THE WORD AND IN THE BEGINNING OF A SENTENCE CORRECTLY. IS THAT CORRECT? WHERE WHERE DOES IT USE THE WORD? AND IT DOESN'T USE IT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE. IT'S ONE CONTIGUOUS SENTENCE. AN UPPERMOST STORY, USUALLY LIGHTED BY DOMER WINDOWS IN WHICH A SLOPING ROOF REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. AND HABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED A FLOOR AREA DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING THE FLOOR AREA BY THE GROUND FLOOR BY 50%. OKAY. I'M GONNA LET ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER ASK A QUESTION. I'M GONNA SOAK THAT IN REAL QUICK. SO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSS DISCUSSION? I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FROM, HAD STATED SOMETHING ABOUT, UH, CODE, UH, THAT I WAS A BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHEN YOU REFERENCED THAT PRACTICE. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC? I'M SORRY. PRACTICES WERE, UM, MY ARCHITECTS DID NOT INCLUDE CERTAIN ASPECTS, AND I KIND OF WANTED TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU MEANT. EXACTLY. WHAT I STATED WAS IN THE PROBABLY DESIGNED 10 BUILDINGS THAT INCORPORATED THIS HALF STORY IN THEM FROM LARGE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT WERE MIXED USE WITH RESIDENTIAL TO, OR APARTMENT STYLES, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TYPES AND DEVELOPERS BUILDING, ALWAYS WANNA MAXIMIZE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND ONE OF THE WAYS IS TO WORK THROUGH THE DESIGN WITH THAT HALF STORY CLAUSE. UM, AND WHAT I SAID WAS THAT IN THOSE DESIGNS IN MY ARCHITECTURAL CAREER, I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT HALF STORY CALCULATION OF THE FLOOR AREA INCLUDED BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE AIR OR AN OPEN TO BELOW KIND OF TWO STORY SPACE THAT WAS INCORPORATED WITHIN THAT HALF FLOOR. UM, I DIDN'T SAY THAT ALL ARCHITECTS OR OTHER ARCHITECTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I JUST SAID IN MY OWN CAREER, THAT'S HOW I HAVE HANDLED IT. AND THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT. SO I WAS SURPRISED, UH, WHEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF SHOWED A CODE THAT SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT. ALL RIGHT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS IS AN AREA YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH, UH, THEY'RE UTILIZING AS PART OF THEIR DEFINITION, NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFINITION BEING LISTED WITH THOSE EXCLUSIONS. OKAY. PERHAPS WE CAN GET STAFF TO EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE FURTHER AFTER WE'VE COMPLETED WITH THIS MR. INDIVIDUAL. BUT I ALSO DON'T HAVE SOME VERBATIM CODE THAT I'M ABOUT TO READ YOU THAT STATES THAT WHAT I DID FOR 20 YEARS WAS CORRECT. IT'S JUST WHAT I DID AS AN ARCHITECT, AND THAT IS HOW I GOT MANY BUILDINGS TO HAVE A HALF STORY THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CODE REVIEW. VERY GOOD. [02:40:01] ALRIGHT, MR. OREN, DID YOU FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT THE TABLE THAT THOUGHT FOR A WHILE? YEAH. AND, AND I, I REALLY WANNA LET OTHER, OTHER, UH, MEMBERS BE GUYS. WELL, I THINK WE'VE PRETTY MUCH, UNLESS WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO ASK A QUESTION, I THINK WE'VE EXHAUSTED THAT AVENUE. SO THE MANANA, I, I, I HAVE ONE. OKAY. MR. MAN, PLEASE. SO AS FAR AS, UM, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF I, THIS TWO AND A HALF FLOORS, TWO HALF STORIES. AND SO, SO WHAT DEFINES IT BEING THE THIRD STORY? SO THE, IS IT THE SEVEN FOOT AND FOOT FOOT, THE SEVEN FOOT? YES, SIR. THE WALL PLATE ALSO SITS ON THE SIX FOOT THREE INSTEAD OF THE SECOND STORY WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO. OKAY. I GUESS THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. UM, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK THAT? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I JUST WANTED TO, I, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE HALF STORY. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE 80 INCH, UH, HEAD HEIGHT BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PROVIDING, UH, A LOFT TO GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOWN TO TRY TO COUNT IT AS A HALF STORY PERHAPS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT USING A PITCH, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I THINK, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THIS ARGUMENT? THAT'S WHAT TO OUR INTERPRETATION, YES. THEY, THEY, I, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE FIRST SET OF PLANS. WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO SEE THE REVISED SET OF PLANS THAT THE D S D HAD ON FILE. AND AGAIN, WITH THE ARCHITECT THAT WE HAD, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THOSE PLANS. SO SHE, WE WERE JUST ABLE TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAD. OKAY. UH, BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, UH, YOU, YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A HOME THAT HAS A HIP ROOF, BUT THERE'S A, A PIECE ON THE SIDE THAT HAS A ROOF SIMILAR TO THIS ON, AND PERHAPS THE CITY WAS USING THAT AS THEIR ARGUMENT. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE NEIGHBOR? NO. UH, I'M LOOKING AT A STREET VIEW OF THE HOME. IT, IT'S NOT THE MAIN PORTION OF THE ROOF, BUT IT IS A SMALL PIECE OF ROOF THAT APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR. THE VENTED GABLE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? BEHIND THE TREE? IT HAS A PITCH. IT MAY NOT BE THE SAME EXACT PITCH AS WHAT'S ON THE ACCESSORY UNIT, BUT I, I'M SEEING IT IN A FORM THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT SHAPE, JUST ROTATED 90 DEGREES. UH, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THE CITY IS BASICALLY ON. IT COULD ALSO BE THE, THE VENT THAT'S COMING OFF THE, AT THE FRONT THERE, THEY COULD SAY, HEY, WELL THIS IS A SIMILAR STYLE AND PITCH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN ACTS AND PIECE. BASICALLY BELIEVE, I BELIEVE MR. NEFF HAD ASKED THAT EXACT SAME QUESTION TO THE CITY. I MEAN, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON, ON THAT ANGLE. UH, BUT AS FAR AS THE HALF STORY ASPECT OF THIS, I MEAN, THE CODE USES, OPENS A DOOR FOR INTERPRETATION TO THE CITY, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, USING TERMS SH THE WORD SHALL AS OPPOSED TO MAY CAN, OR, OR THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE DEFINITION IT STATES AND, AND IDENTICAL, IF I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE ALSO SAYING THAT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS GREATER THAN THE 40% ALLOWABLE AS COMPARED TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED 800 SQUARE FEET ACCORDING TO SECTION 35, 3 71 SAYING THAT THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, OR THEY'RE TWO AND A HALF OR THEY'RE THREE STORIES, THEY ADD UP TO MORE THAN THAT. AND IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE INCLUDING THE GROUND FLOOR GARAGE AND STAIRWELL IN THAT CALCULATION. UM, UM, WE HAD AN ARCHITECT COME LOOK AT THE PLANS WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE LAY PEOPLE. UM, AND IN THAT ANALYSIS THEY INCLUDED, UM, THE STAIRS BECAUSE IT IS NOT A STAIRWELL AND ONLY STAIRWELLS ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED. UM, THERE ARE NO DOORS DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS. SO ALL OF THAT WOULD BE CONDITION SPACE. UM, THE GARAGE, IF YOU COUNT THE GARAGE, IT PUSHES IT OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET. UM, I THINK 1290, IF YOU ARE NOT COUNTING IN THE GARAGE, IT'S ABOUT 812 SQUARE FEET, AS LONG AS YOU'RE COUNTING CLOSETS AND BATHROOMS. AND IN YOUR INTERPRETATION, SHOULD GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE BE INCLUDED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING? YES. WHEN WE SELL HOMES, WE INCLUDE THE FIRST STORY, SECOND STORY, TWO AND A HALF GARAGES WITH STAIRWELLS. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ALWAYS THAT REAL ESTATE CALCULATION VERSUS [02:45:01] CODE CALCULATION VERSUS ARCHITECT'S CALCULATION FOR WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD SOMETHING. UM, SO TO STAFF, WHAT IS CALCULATED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING DOES, IS THE GARAGE INCLUDED? WHO'S GONNA RESPOND, WHO ARE YOU DIRECTING THIS TO SPECIFICALLY DIRECT THAT TO CATHERINE TO THE CITY, I GUESS WHO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? CRYSTAL, COULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION CRYSTAL? YES. OKAY. SINCE YOU PRESENTED, AND I THINK YOU'LL HAVE TO RESTATE THE QUESTION. YES, THANK YOU. WE'LL, WE'LL BRING YOU BACK RELATIVE TO THE 40% ALLOWANCE OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING TO BE COMPARED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, CALCULATING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IS THE GARAGE COUNTED AS BUILDING CODE SQUARE FOOTAGE? NO, THE GARAGE IS EXCLUDED. WE ARE JUST CONFERENCING ON WHAT SECTION THAT FALLS UNDER. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT EXPLICITLY EXCLUDES THE GARAGE. SO I CAN HELP WITH THIS. IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, WE HAVE, UM, DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES VERSUS ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS AND ACCESSORY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS. AND SO, UH, FOR, TO DETERMINE IF YOU EXCEED OR MEET THE 800 SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR AN ACCESSORY DETACHED, UH, DWELLING UNIT, GARAGES ARE NOT FACTORED INTO THAT. AND YOU'LL SEE STRUCTURES ALL OVER THE CITY WHERE YOU WILL HAVE TWO STRUCTURES. ONE IS THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT HAS ITS OWN, UH, SET OF REQUIREMENTS AND ONE IS, UH, MAYBE, UH, A GRANNY FLAT, A D U, UH, THAT IS SEPARATED FROM THAT. THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGES ARE NOT COUNTED TOGETHER. THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY'RE COUNTED TOGETHER. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT TOTAL REAR YARD COVERAGE FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT IT'S INCLUDED TOGETHER. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT RELATES THAT GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT'S NOT CALCULATED, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT RELATES IT TO OVERALL MASSING OF A STRUCTURE, NOT IN RELATION TO AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE ANY, YEAH, ONE MORE ITEM. SO IN THE U D C, THE DEFINITION OF HAS STORY, UH, AND IT'S IMPORTANT HOW TO READ THIS WITH COMMAS IN THE WORD ANN AND UPPERMOST STORY, USUALLY LIGHT USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS IN WHICH A SLOPING ROOF REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. AND, AND HABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED A FOY AREA DERIVED BY MULTIPLE FOYER BY 50%. SO WHAT, WHEN I READ THAT, I'M SEEING USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS IS SOMETHING THE CITY CAN, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT UNENFORCEABLE 'CAUSE THE WORD USUALLY IS THERE, BUT WHAT MIGHT BE ENFORCEABLE OR SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE IS A TERM IN WHICH A SLOPING ROOF REPLACES THE UPPER PART OF THE FRONT WALL. AND I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN, IS THAT OCCURRING ON THIS UPPERMOST FLOOR? I DON'T THINK IT APPLIES. NO, WE DON'T SEE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT. UM, THAT IS JUST DESCRIBING WHAT A DORMER WINDOW WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THAT SLOPING ROOF. AGAIN, IT'S A UPPERMOST STORY, USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS. THEN YOU COULD EXCLUDE THAT PHRASE RIGHT THERE. AND HABITABLE AREAS ON THE UPPERMOST STORY DO NOT EXCEED A FLOOR AREA DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING THE FLOOR AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR. SO IT'S, SO IT'S JUST DESCRIBING WHAT A DORMER WINDOW WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S, SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A CRUX OF ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE'RE HAVING TO DELIBERATE IS, IS YOU SEE IT ONE WAY THEY SEE IT ANOTHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, THE DEFINITION THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC. DOES THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PROVIDE ANYTHING ELSE RELATED TO WHAT A HALF STORY IS? BRISTOL CAN HELP, UM, ANSWER THAT. UM, YOU ANSWER THAT ONE, I BELIEVE. NO, THE I R C DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT HALF STORY. THEY'RE LOOKING AT HABITABLE SPACE, WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS HABITABLE SPACE. UM, BUT NOTHING RELATED TO A HALF STORY. OKAY. SO IN THAT LOGIC, IF WE, IF WE LOOKED AT IT THE WAY THE CITY'S LOOKING AT IT, IT'S IRRELEVANT. IF WE LOOK AT THE WAY THE APPLICANT'S LOOKING AT IT, WE WOULD THEN DEFER THE I R C, WHICH ALSO DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING. AND THEN IT BECOMES, AND KEEPING ON THEIR GUISE, IT WOULD BECOME COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE TO, TO USE OUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF OTHER, UH, CODES THAT MIGHT APPLY SOMEWHERE. UH, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ELSE SPECIFIC, UH, TO, TO BASE THAT ON. IT WOULD JUST BE VERY OPINIONATED. I GUESS WE'RE JUST BEING ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT, OF THAT SENTENCE IS, IS, IS APPROPRIATE. SO, OKAY. AND PLUS, IF I COULD ALSO CHIME IN, IF THIS DEFINITION WAS, UH, INTERPRETED TO BE THAT IT WAS REQUIRED, THEN EVERY SINGLE HALF STORY THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT DORMER WINDOW EFFECT. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT [02:50:01] THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON EVERY SINGLE HALF STORY STRUCTURE. SO WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE A D A CODE, THEY ALLOW THESE SORT OF SPACES, BUT THEY DEFINE IT TO BE A THIRD. BUT YOU, WHEN PEOPLE INVOKE THAT, RIGHT, THEY AL THEY'RE LIMITING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN RELATION TO THE FLOOR BELOW, WHICH I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS IN LINE WITH WHAT OTHER CODES DO AS WELL. IT'S JUST THAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON, ON THAT. SO, SO IF WE WERE TO STRICTLY GO BY THIS DEFINITION, THE DORMER WINDOWS OR SLOPING ROOF, WOULD WE BE ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF A HALF STORY ON A FLAT ROOF? WELL, PART OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH IS, IS IS A SHOULD A HALF STORY ENCOMPASS THE, THE, THE FLOOR SPACE OF THE FLOORS BELOW, OR SHOULD IT BE REDUCED? 'CAUSE THEY'RE SHOWING A, LIKE A LOFT ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE'S A DROP OFF. SO THEY MEET THE DEFINITION, I THINK OF THE U D C. BUT I THINK THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT THE, THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR IS, IS EXTRUDED UP IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT IT BEING, UM, REDUCED ON THAT, ON THAT TOP MOST LEVEL. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE OR SHOULD NOT BE. AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I'M SEEING IT. I'M JUST TRYING TO EVALUATE WHAT EVERYONE'S POINT IS HERE. SO, OKAY. RAGMAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, OKAY, GO AHEAD. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CHIME IN ON, UM, THE DEFINITION OF HABITABLE SPACE WHEN IT COMES TO REAL ESTATE PURPOSES. THERE'S TWO REALTORS AND AN APPRAISER ON THIS BOARD. I'VE NEVER USED GARAGE SPACE. NOT AS CONSIDERED, NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE WHEN IT'S CONSIDERED NO, THE A HVAC WOULD BE HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE WERE ASKED IF THE GARAGE WAS THE FIRST STORY AND YES, WE CONSIDER IT TO BE A FIRST STORY. NO, BUT YOU HAD SAID IN TERMS OF REAL ESTATE TERMS, IN REAL ESTATE TERMS, GARAGE SPACE IS CONSIDERED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT'S NOT. NO, NO, IT'S NOT. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH. F I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. ALRIGHT, MR. MATH, ANOTHER MAJOR ASPECT OF WHAT WE JUST HEARD WAS ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND STYLE. AND THE SECTION 35 37 1 IS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, STYLE, APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE MAIN BUILDING, THE A D U SHALL HAVE A PITCH SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS FOR CRYSTAL. UM, THAT WASN'T IN YOUR, OR I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PRESSING THE WORD IDENTICAL IN YOUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION. UM, BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE SIMILAR, UH, IN THE ROOF FORMS, IS REALLY WHAT I REMEMBER YOU SPEAKING ABOUT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, HOW THE CITY INTERPRETS THAT? BECAUSE THE WORD IDENTICAL IS PRETTY CHARACTERIZING ITSELF. HOW DOES THE CITY TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN REVIEWING A PROJECT LIKE THIS? SO WE'RE NOT ASK, WE, WE DON'T ASK FOR ALL THE SPECS ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE MAIN BUILDING. UM, WE DON'T REQUIRE, UM, IF THERE'S ASBESTOS SIDING AS ON THE MAIN BUILDING THAT, THAT THE NEW ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT HAVE ASBESTOS SIDING. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SIMILAR AS MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CODE TO AN, AN APPEARANCE. UH, I'M AN ENGINEER AND I COULDN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FIVE ON 12 AND A SIX ON 12, IF I'M STANDING ON THE STREET RIGHT THERE. UH, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS MATCHING THE GENERAL, UM, THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE MAIN BUILDING, UM, IN AN EFFORT TO, UH, PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING TO MAKE SURE TO ATT THAT THOSE, UM, THOSE FEATURES ARE IDENTICAL. THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS NOT REVIEWING PROJECTS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH IDENTICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN STYLE WHEN TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, NOT IDENTICAL, BUT MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS BEING SIMILAR, UH, IN APPEARANCE. WE, IF THIS WAS, UM, AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT WAS BEING CONVERTED TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WE WOULDN'T MAKE THEM REMOVE THE ROOF TO HAVE AN IDENTICAL ROOF TO THE MAIN BUILDING. UM, YOU KNOW, IN AN EFFORT TO PROMOTE THAT DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A GARAGE BEING REMODELED IN THIS CASE. IT'S A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS BEING DESIGNED TO LOOK A CERTAIN WAY. SO YOU DON'T REQUIRE THAT THE SIDING BE IDENTICAL TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. WE REQUIRE THAT IT BE IN THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE. AGAIN, IF THERE WAS EXISTING ASBESTOS SIDING, WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT SAME, THERE ISN'T EXISTING ASBESTOS SIDING. SO LET'S JUST STICK TO LIKE WHAT THIS PROJECT IS. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHY WE'RE [02:55:01] HERE TODAY REQUIRE THAT THE WINDOWS BE IDENTICAL IN CHARACTER OR STYLE, THAT THEY BE SIMILAR. WE REQUIRE THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR, YES, BUT NOT IDENTICAL. NOT IDENTICAL. OKAY. AND THEN ON THE ROOF FORM, DO YOU REQUIRE THAT THE ROOF FORM BE IDENTICAL, GENERALLY MATCHING THE SAME, UH, ROOF STYLE, ROOF PITCH AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? NOT IDENTICAL. IDENTICAL, YES. THANK YOU. OR THE INTENT OF THE CODE BY MATCHING THE, THE SAME STYLE. AND IF I COULD ALSO CHIME IN, THERE WERE SOME EXAMPLES THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BROUGHT FORWARD ABOUT SOME EXISTING ADUS AND SOME PRINCIPAL, UH, PRINCIPAL IN RELATION TO THOSE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES. AND THOSE DID NOT HAVE ROOF PITCHES THAT WERE IDENTICAL. SOME OF THOSE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME ROOF COVERING. THERE WERE COMPOSITE SHINGLES, UM, COMPOSITION SHINGLES AND, UH, METAL ROOF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS ADDRESS, RIGHT? YES, WE ARE, HOWEVER, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN CONTEXT AS A BIG PICTURE BECAUSE WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE DECISION HERE AFFECTS EVERYTHING. IT DOESN'T JUST AFFECT THIS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, IT'S IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO YES, WE DON'T REQUIRE ASBESTOS SITING IF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HAD ASBESTOS SIGHTING, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT EXISTENT HERE, IT STILL RELATES TO THE SAME ARGUMENT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD DON'T LOOK AT ANY CASE BEFORE US AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENCE OR AS BASED UPON A FUTURE CASE OR AN OUTCOME THAT WOULD AFFECT ANOTHER PROPERTY. IT'S ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. ON A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT IS REQUEST, THAT IS CORRECT ON A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST. BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN APPEAL RELATED TO HOW DEFINITIONS ARE INTERPRETED, IT AFFECTS EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WHICH IS WHY WE, WE PUT IT INTO THE STAFF REPORT AND IN THE PRESENTATION THAT APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL CHANGES HOW AND ALTERS HOW WE DEFINE THESE THINGS NOW, WHICH WOULD CHANGE HOW THE U D C IS DEFINED AND THEREFORE BRING INTO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS BEEN, THAT HAS BEEN MEASURED IN THAT WAY SINCE THE 1960S WHEN THE DEFINITION WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ALL INTO NON NON-CONFORMANCE, BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT CITYWIDE. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. ORIAN. ORIAN, OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, AS, AS, UH, MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED THE WORD IDENTICAL, DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY, UH, DOCUMENTED STANDARD THAT, UH, OF ALLOWABLE DEVIATIONS FROM CERTAIN TERMS, LIKE 10% OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE IDENTICAL? I GUESS THERE ARE SOME CODE REFERENCES THAT WOULD HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION VARIANCES. UM, HOWEVER IDENTICAL IS, I MEAN, SOME, SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IDENTICAL HAS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME. IT'S IDENTICAL. MAY NOT ALWAYS BE EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENTIFICALLY. NO, I KNOW, BUT THERE'S MANY CODES HAVE PROVISIONS OUTSIDE OF THESE SECTIONS THAT SAY ANYTIME YOU'RE EXPECTED TO DO SOMETHING, IT IT, THERE MIGHT BE, UH, UM, AN WHAT BE CONSIDERED, UH, NOMINAL TOLERANCE. SOMETIMES IT'S 5% OF THE REQUIREMENT, LIKE SOME WE HAVE HEARD CASES WHERE THE CITY IS ALLOWED TO VENTURE OFF 10% FROM A CERTAIN REQUIREMENT AND NOT HAVE TO MAKE IT A VARIANCE CASE. SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS THAT SINCE IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING IDENTICAL BECAUSE IDENTICAL, YOU COULD TAKE THAT TO 10 DECIMAL PLACES. I MEAN, WHERE DOES IT STOP? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING. NOW IN THIS CASE, THE WINDOWS ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING, I I WHAT I PERCEIVE AS IDENTICAL. 1.7, 1.8 TO 2.7 IS, IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT IN, IN THE REVIEW OF THIS, IS THERE SOME SORT OF, UM, CODE INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO APPLY SOME SORT OF A DEVIATION OUTRIGHT, UH, FOR US TO USE IN OUR EVALUATION? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CRYSTAL, BUT WE DO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A CODE MODIFICATION REQUEST. UH, THAT'S TYPICALLY DONE FOR OUR BUILDING CODES, OUR OUR FIRE CODES WHERE IF A CODE IS, IF A STANDARD IS REQUIRED, YOU CAN DO A CODE MODIFICATION REQUEST TO GET TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE, UH, WHICH IS WHAT THE DIRECTOR HAS THE ABILITY TO DO IN THE INTERPRETATION. SO YES, THERE, THERE IS THAT FLEXIBILITY WITH ALL OF OUR CODES. AND IS THERE ANY CASE LAW THAT WE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT WOULD ALLOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE, LET'S SAY FOR DECADES ON END TO APPLY WITH OUR INTERPRETATION TODAY? LIKE IF YOU'VE BEEN APPLYING IDENTICAL TO MEAN SIMILAR FOR DECADES, DOES THAT, IS THERE ANY, UM, CASE LAW THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WE SHOULD, THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT FOR US TO USE IN OUR EVALUATION TODAY? I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THERE IS, WHEN YOU HAVE LEGISLATION THERE, THERE IS USUALLY SOME INTERPRETIVE LEEWAY, UM, GIVEN THAT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, DEFINITIONS ARE, UH, SUBJECT TO, UM, HUMAN INTERPRETATION. [03:00:02] SO, BUT I, AS FAR AS IMMEDIATE, UH, CASE LAW, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING. OKAY. ELLI, SO THIS IS FOLLOWING UP. OBVIOUSLY IDENTICAL COULD BE TAKEN OUT TO 10 DECIMAL POINTS. SO I UNDERSTAND THE NEED THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE IDENTICAL, BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES SIMILAR CEASE TO BE SIMILAR? SO YOU'VE GOT WINDOWS THAT VISUALLY FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AN ARCHITECT, NOT A REALTOR, NOT A DESIGNER. I LOOK AT THE ARTICLES ON THE PRIMARY DWELLING AND I LOOK, I MEAN, LOOK AT THE WINDOWS ON THE, UM, ON THE PRIMARY DWELLING. AND I LOOK AT THE WINDOWS ON THE ACCESSORY DWELLING, AND I AS A LAY PERSON DO NOT SEE SIMILAR, AT WHAT POINT DOES SIMILAR BY THE CITY'S DEFINITION, START AND STOP. IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE INTERPRETATION OF EACH, EACH PLAN THAT WE SEE. SO THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A HARD POINT WHERE I COULD SAY IT STARTS AND STOPS BEING SIMILAR. WHAT ABOUT THE ROOF PITCH? SO SOMEONE I'M DRIVING BY, I MEAN, I LOOK AT THIS AND I AM STRUGGLING TO SEE WHERE THAT ROOF MATCHES ANYTHING ON THAT OTHER ROOF, EXCEPT THAT IT'S, THEY'RE BOTH ROOFS. I MEAN, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING AND I SEE THE POINT AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE I'VE BEEN DIRECTED TO LOOK, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, I SEE ANGLES THAT DO NOT MATCH UP WITH THE KIND OF ERROR THAT AN EYEBALLING WOULD, WOULD, WOULD ALLOW FOR. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE FRONT, IT IS, I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF BEING A SIMILAR ROOF PITCH. I MEAN, ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE A WRAPAROUND FRONT PORCH THAT, THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THE HIP ROOF. BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, THOSE SAME FEATURES ON THE, THE DWELLING UNIT. I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT IT, I DON'T NECESSAR I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GATHER WHERE DOES SIMILAR END, BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THESE TWO TOGETHER, AND I'M DIRECTED TO LOOK AT VARIOUS ANGLES PRESENT IN THIS VID IN THIS, IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, I SEE THE, I, IF I WERE CIRCLING MARK THE DIFFERENCES, I'D BE CIRCLING THESE AS DIFFERENT. SO GO AHEAD. I WAS GONNA, I WAS GONNA SAY LIKE, SO ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE ANGLE DOWN THE SIDE COMPARED TO THE ANGLE OF THE NEW ROOF IS, IS, IS YOU'RE SAYING, IS SIMILAR. SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE GABLE PORTION, OKAY. OF THE EXISTING ROOF. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PRECEDENCE AT WHATEVER OUR DECISION DOES TODAY, IF WE'RE, IF ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE APPEALS LET'S, IF WE SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS, UH, ARE WE SIDING WITH WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE SIMILAR OR ARE WE SIDING WITH THAT? YOU HAVE TO BE IDENTICAL. IF YOU APPROVE, THEN IT BECOMES THE, THE USE OF THE WORD IDENTICAL MEANS THAT IT HAS TO BE, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IDENTICAL. OKAY. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LAYMAN'S EXPLANATION TO WHAT I BELIEVE IDENTICAL MEANS, . RIGHT? BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE USING SPECIFIC WORDS AND YOU TALK ABOUT WINDOWS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TRIM? NO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS. OKAY. THESE ARE FULL LIGHT WINDOWS AND THE ADDITION, THEY'RE FULL LIGHT WINDOWS. THEY'RE NOT TRIMMED THE SAME, THEY DON'T LOOK THE SAME, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SIMILAR WINDOWS. WHEN I LOOK AT THE PITCH ON THIS HOUSE, I SEE MULTIPLE PITCHES. I SEE A, A FAIRLY FLAT ROOF FOR THE PORCH. I SEE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT PITCHES ON THE EXTENT OF THE HOUSE ITSELF. AND OF COURSE, IF I LOOKED IN THE BACK, I'D PROBABLY SEE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PITCH BECAUSE THEIR ADDITION BACK THERE. SO WHEN YOU'RE TRY TO SAY WHAT'S IDENTICAL, WHAT ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY COMPARING NOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY THIS IS LINE OF SIGHT, WELL, THAT'S ONE THING THAT'S TRUE. BUT SIMILAR IS, IS, UH, IS IS MORE CAPABLE OF BEING ACCOMPLISHED THAN IDENTICAL. AND I, I THINK WE'RE NITPICKING IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEAN. UH, DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS ARE HERE. AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S THE COMP COMPLEXITY OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT WE'RE SAYING, WELL, THIS IS OFF AN INCH, SO IT'S NOT IDENTICAL. UM, THE PROBLEM REALLY COMES DOWN TO IS THAT THERE ARE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF RULES AND CODES FOR ALL, ALL DIFFERENT THINGS. AND I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF 'EM. I DON'T AGREE WITH A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I ALSO HAVE TO SIT ON A BOARD THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS BASED UPON I, UH, REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF COMPLIANCE. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I MEAN, I I SEE OF A DIFFERENCE IN PITCH DOESN'T MEAN YOU'D HAVE TO BE BLIND [03:05:01] NOT TO SEE THAT THERE'S, IT'S A LOWER PITCH ON THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE VERSUS THE REGULAR STRUCTURE. BUT THEN AGAIN, WHICH PITCH AM I TALKING ABOUT? SO THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THERE. AND YOU KNOW, I SAID WHEN I DEAL WITH, UH, PARTICULAR ASPECTS IN CONSTRUCTION, WHEN THEY TELL ME I HAVE TO USE A PARTICULAR STYLE OF WINDOW, WELL, ARE THEY TELLING ME THE TRIM OR ARE THEY TELLING ME THE WINDOW? THEY'RE ACTUALLY TELLING ME THE WINDOW ITSELF. NOW, I CAN'T GET THESE WOODEN WINDOWS THAT WERE ON THIS ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. YOU CAN GET SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS OUT THERE LIKE THAT. AND APPARENTLY THE WINDOWS THAT ARE STUCK ON THIS ADDITION ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN, IN STYLE, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY IDENTICAL IN, IN ACTUAL IN FRAME STYLE, WHICH IS FULL GLASS WINDOWS. THERE'S NO MUTTONS, THERE'S NO DIVIDING LIGHTS, THERE'S NOTHING, THEY APPEAR TO BE THE SAME WINDOW TYPE OF WINDOWS. SO HOW FAR ARE WE GONNA PUSH THIS, UH, TO THE POINT TO WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA START CLIPPING OUR FINGERNAILS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE RIGHT LENGTH AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LENGTH. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN OUR, UH, CODES TODAY, ALLOWING FOR THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T MATCH EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE WHATSOEVER. I DO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT H D R C AND YOU START TALKING ABOUT CONFORMING A ADDITIONS TO A HISTORICAL STRUCTURE, THEY ASK, THEY DO NOT, THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR. THEY'RE COMPLETELY DI OPPOSING TO THE, SO IN, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE GONNA FIND ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, I, I PERSONALLY, I DON'T LIKE THE STRUCTURE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HERE FOR. I'M HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE, THE, UH, THE BOARD OF, UH, THE BOARD HAS THE, SHOULD BE OVERRULING THE DECISION BY THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ON WHETHER THIS COMPLIES WITH THE CODE AND COMPLIES WITH THE METHOD THAT THEY DETERMINED THAT IT SHOULD COMPLY. SO THAT'S THE DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE HERE. AND LET'S NOT TRY TO NITPICK IT TO THE PARTICULAR POINT TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY A PARTICULAR ACTION. WE'RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY, WE'RE TRYING TO EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION MADE BY DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO THE DECISION BY A A, A SECONDARY PARTY. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF THE OWN OWNER YET, HAVE WE NOT? THEY'RE NEXT AND THEY'RE NEXT. AND WE'RE HAVING THIS GREAT BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT LEFT AND RIGHT AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. BUT THE REALITY HERE IS THAT, UH, THAT, UH, WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS COMPLYING WITH THE U D C AS DETERMINED BY, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE INTERPRETED AS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE STAFF. SO I'M GONNA GOING TO GO AHEAD AND STOP THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION HERE UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE HOMEOWNER. SO I'M GONNA, UM, HOLD THIS HERE AND I'M ASKING THE HOMEOWNER TO STEP FORWARD. WE HAVE THE HOMEOWNER AND CONTRACTOR, AND THEN WE STILL HAVE CITIZENS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. I UNDERSTAND. LET'S BRING THE HOMEOWNER FOR UP, PLEASE. YES, I, UH, HOMEOWNER AND CONTRACTOR, SINCE Y'ALL ARE FROM THE SAME PROPERTY, I RULE FULL NAME AND ADDRESS . MY NAME IS, UH, VANCE MEAD. I LIVE AT 2 0 2 WEST WOODLAWN. UH, MY MOTHER AND MY, UH, CELL OWN THIS HOUSE, SHE LIVES IN THIS HOUSE. DAVID HUNKLER, 6 5 6 SHADY WOOD LANE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I'M THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE HOUSE VERY MUCH. NOW, PLEASE WORK WITH US AND GIVE US, UH, HOW YOU FEEL EACH OF THESE CASES DOES OR DOES NOT WORK IN YOUR FAVOR. WELL, I MEAN, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, I, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CODE AND, AND THIS CODE OBVIOUSLY ISN'T VERY OBVIOUS. THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT HERE. SO I, I HAD A CONTRACTOR, BUT MY FAITH IN HIM AND SAID, DIRECTED HIM DO EVERYTHING BY, YOU KNOW, CODE, YOU KNOW, GET ALL THE PERMITS, TALK TO WHOEVER YOU NEED TO DO EVERYTHING ON THE UP AND UP. NO PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA DO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF, GOT EVERYTHING APPROVED, WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, WE PUT OUR TRUST IN THOSE DECISIONS THAT THIS WAS CORRECT, AND WE COULD MOVE FORWARD IN GOOD FAITH. WE DID. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY FAIRLY, VERY WELL ALONG IN THE, IN THE BUILDING OF THIS. UM, AND NOW WE'RE STOPPED. AND SO, UM, THIS WOULD BE QUITE A HARDSHIP, UH, FOR US TO CHANGE THAT FOR, YOU KNOW, MY MOTHER, THIS IS HER PLACE. WE, SHE MOVED FROM, UH, SOLD SOME LAND AND BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS, DECIDED TO MOVE INTO TOWN, WANTED TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR ME, START A NEW CHAPTER FOR OUR FAMILY HERE. AND, UM, SHE'S, YOU KNOW, RETIRED TEACHER THAT HAS VERY MODEST MEANS, DIDN'T EVEN START WORKING UNTIL SHE WAS IN HER FORTIES AS FAR AS A TEACHER BECAUSE SHE'S TAKEN CARE OF US BEFORE [03:10:01] THEN. SO THIS IS WHERE EVERYTHING THAT SHE'S GOT IS PUT INTO THIS. AND TO STOP AT THIS POINT WOULD BE QUITE A HARDSHIP. AND, AND IN MY VISION, NOT FAIR, IN A LOT OF WAYS WE DID WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE FOLLOWED THE RULES. WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO TALK TO? WE TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO SIGN OFF ON IT, THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. WE CHANGE THIS OVER HERE, NO PROBLEM. TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO BEFORE WE START. DID EVERYTHING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, WE MOVE FORWARD. AND SO I, I THINK WE, WE DID, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING AND JUST AS MUCH DISAGREEMENT YOU SEE HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORS IN THE HOUSE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE THAT COME BY. IT'S PROBABLY 50 50 PEOPLE THAT LIKE IT. PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE IT, PEOPLE THINK IT'S PRO PEOPLE NOT, I THINK YOU SAW HERE THAT IT'S NOT ALL RED XS UP THERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT HALF AND HALF OF PEOPLE THAT ARE FOR IT AND PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST IT. THE PEOPLE THAT RIGHT THERE ON THAT STREET AS FAR AS THE ONES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US AND RIGHT ACROSS, YOU KNOW, ALL AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M LOOKING AT IT. I, WE, WE WANTED TO DO THIS AS, AS BEST WE COULD. WE WANT TO BE PART OF THE COM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IN RETROSPECT, THE ONLY THING I WISH I WOULD'VE DONE DIFFERENT IS TO TALK TO THE TWO DIRECT ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND GOT THEIR INPUT. MAYBE I WOULD'VE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW. I WISH I WOULD'VE, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY I EVERYTHING RIGHT? LEGALLY I THINK I DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I WISH IN THE SPIRIT OF, OF NEIGHBORHOOD COHESIVENESS, MAYBE I WOULD'VE HAD A FEW MORE CONVERSATIONS AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. WE PUT OUR FAITH AND OUR, OUR TRUST IN, IN THE CITY AND MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. SO VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOMEOWNER ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? ALL RIGHT, NOW, NOW FOR THE CONTRACTOR, AGAIN, DAVID HUNKLER. I'M THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY BUILT THE PROPERTY, SO I KNOW ALL THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS, UM, PRETTY MUCH BY HEART. UM, ONE, ONE QUESTION RELATING TO SOMETHING THAT MR. NEFF SAID AS FAR AS THE HABITABLE SPACE AND THE HALF STORY. UM, AND YOU'LL SEE ON, ON THE CITY DIAGRAM OF THE LAYOUT, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, LIKE I'M SURE YOU DID, IDENTIFIED THE HABITABLE SPACE BY WHERE YOU HAVE A, A, A CEILING HEIGHT THAT MEETS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF CODE. AND THAT'S NOT UNTIL YOU GET INTO THE STRUCTURE SOMEWHAT BECAUSE THE EXTERIOR WALLS DO NOT ACHIEVE THAT HEIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TO GO UP THE ROOF LINE BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO THAT SEVEN FOOT MINIMUM HEADROOM THAT'S REQUIRED AS, AS HEAD SPACE FOR IT. AND THAT IS DENOTED ON, ON THOSE DRAWINGS THERE, UM, WHERE THE SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT IS. SO THAT'S PART OF THE DEFINITION. AND, AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AS WELL, LIKE MR. NEFA CALCULATED, HAD CALCULATED THE HABITABLE SPACE AS THAT HE INCLUDED THE BATHROOM. UM, AND IT STILL MET THAT, THAT MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THE LOFT, THE THE HALF STORY IS A MUCH SMALLER SPACE THAN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. AND MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO ON THE 800 SQUARE FOOT RULE WAS THAT IT CANNOT EXCEED A, THE FOOTPRINT CANNOT EXCEED 800 SQUARE FEET, NOT THE, UM, COMBINED LIVING SPACE OF IT IF IT'S A TWO STORY STRUCTURE. UM, AND THE, THE, UH, DIMENSIONS ON IT, THE, THE UPPER STORY IS NOT SEVEN FEET TALL. UH, IT IS, AND I I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH HERE ACTUALLY IF YOU WANTED TO SEE IT, OF THE DIMENSIONS OF EACH, EACH FLOOR, EACH STORY. THE FIRST FLOOR IS ACTUALLY NINE FEET IN HEIGHT. UM, THE SECOND ONE IS 10 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND THE TOP ONE IS, IS SIX FEET, SIX AND A HALF, SIX FEET, THREE INCHES IN HEIGHT. UM, SO WE, WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, WE SUBMITTED THE DRAWINGS. UM, THERE'S BEEN MENTION THAT IT WAS REJECTED TWICE BY, UM, PLAN REVIEW. UH, THE FIRST TIME THEY REJECTED IT, UM, CALLING IT A, A, A THREE STORY STRUCTURE. UM, HOWEVER, THEY HAD LOOKED AT THE ZONING FOR, UM, UH, A BUILDING ON WEST MISSILES, WEST MISSILE TO NOT EAST MISSILE TOW. AND WHEN WE BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION, UM, WHICH IS SOMETHING I ALSO GOT FROM THE COUNCILMAN'S OFFICE, WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY WAS THAT WAS THEN APPROVED. THE SECOND ONE WAS THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAD FORGOT TO SUBMIT THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE, THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS, THE, THE J REGS OR WHATEVER FOR IT. AND AS SOON AS THEY WERE SUBMITTED, THE, THE PLANS WERE APPROVED. SO WE APPROVED, WE WENT THROUGH EVERY STEP, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE PLAN REVIEW, UM, IT WAS LOOKED AT IT, WE CONSTRUCTED IT. UM, [03:15:01] AND NOW HERE WE ARE IN A SITUATION THAT IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE AND, UM, IN AN AREA WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE FINITES OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS. UM, AND WHICH WAY SHOULD IT BE INTERPRETED AND WHICH WAY SHOULD IT NOT BE INTERPRETED? AND I JUST WANT TO BRING ONE THING TO YOUR ATTENTION IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT HOW CODE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. AND THIS IS FROM SECTION 35 8 0 1, UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. AND IN THAT SECTION 8 0 1 PARAGRAPH G, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE POWERS OF THE BOARD, IT SAYS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS AND DUTIES, WHICH MUCH MUST BE EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER. AND THE FIRST ONE IS TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS WHERE IT IS ALLEGED. THERE IS ERROR IN ANY ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. THERE'S NO COMMAS, NO ANDS, NO ANYTHING ELSE. IT CONTINUES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER. THERE HAS BEEN NO, HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS OF THE CHAPTER. THERE HAS BEEN NO NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. THERE HAS BEEN NO ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER. UM, YOU'RE HEARING SOMETHING ON, IN A DECISION THAT WAS MADE IN THE CONFORMANCE OF THE CHAPTER, THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION EVEN, UM, TO CONSIDER. SO I, MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE HEARD IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY COMPLETELY TO WHAT IS STATED CLEARLY IN PARAGRAPH G, THAT YOU CAN ONLY HEAR THINGS. A DECISION THAT WAS DONE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHAPTER, OR HAS BEEN NO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHAPTER, I HAVE RECEIVED, UM, CONFIRMATION OF A BUILDING FRAME INSPECTION THAT WAS PASSED. EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE IS PASSED. THE SETBACKS ARE CORRECT, THE HEIGHT IS CORRECT. THE HALF STORY DEFINITION IS CORRECT. THE HABIT SPACE IS CORRECT. EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE CODE IS CORRECT. THERE'S BEEN NO ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO VIOLATIONS. WE ARE NOT IN A VIOLATION. NOBODY HAS SAID HERE THAT WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING. THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AFTER ONE OF THE INSPECTIONS, AND CRYSTAL WAS PRESENT AT THAT CONVERSATION WHERE I RECEIVED A NOTICE SAYING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER, UM, ON THE PROPERTY. AND I WENT DOWN TO SPEAK WITH THEM. AND THE QUESTION AT THAT POINT WAS THE AMOUNT OF HABITABLE OR THE, THE SIZE OF THE HALF STORY. AND IN THAT CONVERSATION, UM, WE WENT OVER WHAT I THOUGHT THE DEFINITION WAS VERSUS WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS. AND THEY WERE INCLUDING, UM, THE STAIRWELLS, THEY WERE INCLUDING THE CLOSETS AND THE BATHROOMS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND THEY WERE INCLUDING THE ENTIRE FORCE BASE. UM, BUT THEIR METHOD OF CALCULATIONS WE DISAGREED WITH AT THAT MEETING. UM, I WAS KIND OF FORCED A LITTLE BIT AT THAT POINT TO MAKE A CONCESSION AND REMOVING ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF OF THE LOFT SPACE TO CONFORM WITH THEIR DEFINITION OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE MEASURED. UM, IN WHICH CASE THEY RESCINDED THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS ACTUALLY NEVER ISSUED. UM, AND THEN THE NEXT DAY, OR A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER IN A CONVERSATION, AND DUE TO SOME INFORMATION I HAD SENT OVER, UM, AND I THINK CRYSTAL CAN ATTEST TO THIS, THAT MY DEFINITION OF THE HABITABLE SPACE IN THE, THE HALF STORE WAS CORRECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. SO WE PROCEEDED WITH, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING AS, AS PER PLAN. UM, THE CITY HAS BEEN OUT THERE AND INSPECTED IT THREE DIFFERENT TIMES, UNANNOUNCED, HAVEN'T SCHEDULED ANY INSPECTIONS. UM, CURRENTLY THE PROJECT IS PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR, FOUR DAYS AWAY FROM DRYWALL. UM, SO TO TRY TO GO BACK TO MAKE ANY OF THE CHANGES, WHICH I DON'T FEEL ARE EVEN JUSTIFIED BY THE RULE OF CODE WOULD BE, UH, EXTREME HARDSHIP AND EXTREMELY COSTLY, UH, TO THE HOMEOWNER. NOW, THE NEIGHBORS MAY NOT, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, I DON'T THINK, FOR A DECISION, UM, TO REJECT A BUILDING PERMIT THAT HAD GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROPER PROCEDURES. UM, WE DID, THE HOMEOWNERS DID, I DID EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE EXPECTED TO DO, AND THEY WERE CORRECT. I HAD DONE A LOT OF PROJECTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK I'VE DONE 18 ON THESE TWO STREETS ALONE. UM, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THE CODES ARE AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND WE MET THEM AND WE WEREN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. WE SUBMITTED IT FOR PLAN REVIEW. UH, IT WAS [03:20:01] REVIEWED, IT CAME BACK, UH, APPROVED. SO I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS APPEAL. UM, AND ACTUALLY WITH, UH, WITHIN, IF YOU READ SECTION PARAGRAPH G I WOULDN'T EVEN ADVISE YOU TAKE A DECISION ON IT BECAUSE IT ISN'T, IT ISN'T VIOLATION OF CODE. QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN. BRAGMAN, GO AHEAD. SO SOME, I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUE UP HERE HAS BEEN THAT BUILDING MAY NOT LOOK AS SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT, HOW MUCH MORE IS GONNA BE DONE? BECAUSE THE WINDOWS, THE WINDOWS MAY BE SIMILAR, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING TRIM AROUND IT, AROUND THE WINDOWS, WE'RE NOT SEEING THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WOULD MAKE THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE LOOK MORE LIKE THE ORIGINAL. HOW MUCH MORE ON THE EXTERIOR HAS TO BE DONE THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UN UNFORTUNATELY, THE PICTURES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARE OF AN UNFINISHED STRUCTURE. THE TRIM BOARDS ARE THERE, THE TRIM BOARDS ARE ON THE WINDOW, YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. IT HAS BEEN PAINTED YET. SO ONCE IT'S PAINTED IN, THE DECORATIVE ELEMENTS, UM, ARE PUT ON IT, YOU KNOW, THE, ANY SORT OF WINDOW BOXES OR, OR THINGS THAT WE'LL PUT AROUND IT TO BRING THAT CHARACTER OF THAT, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO THE HOUSE, THE SIMILARITIES WILL START TO MAGNIFY. UM, THE, THE COLOR OF, OF THE, THE, THE, THE PAINT COLOR IS GONNA BE THE SAME. THE TRIM COLOR IS GONNA BE THE SAME. THE CORNER BOARDS ON THE HOUSE WILL BE PAINTED, SO IT'LL BE PAINTED IN IDENTICAL MANNER TO, TO THE HOUSE ITSELF. UM, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S, THE COLOR OF IT IS UGLY. IT'S JUST A PRIMER THAT COMES, UM, STRAIGHT FROM THE FACTORY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAINT IT YET. SO ONCE THE, IT'S COMPLETED AND FINISHED, I THINK THE, UM, I THINK IT WILL FIT IN MUCH BETTER. AND, AND I ADHERE TO WHAT THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE, AND I I DO AGREE IT, IT IS A TALL BUILDING, BUT IT'S A TALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED. QUESTIONS ORIAN ORIAN. YEAH. SO ONE OF THE ISSUES AT BAY IS AS A PROVISION OF THE U D C, THAT THAT REQUIRES THE A D D U TO HAVE A PITCH SIDING AND WINDOW PROPORTIONS IDENTICAL TO PRINCIPLE RESIDENCE. SO AS FAR AS THE WINDOW PROPORTIONS OF GLASS ITSELF, LENGTH TO WIDTH PROPORTION, HOW DOES THAT SCALE MATCH WITH THE, WITH THE PREDOMINANT WINDOW ON THE EXISTING HOME? I DIDN'T, DIDN'T, UH, DO DO THE PLANS ON THIS. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. I WOULDN'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. UM, IF IT CAME DOWN TO PUTTING IN A LARGER WINDOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT'S POSSIBLE TO DO. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE VERY COSTLY TO THE HOMEOWNER, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED AFTER IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. AND, AND, AND THAT, AND HERE, HERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING HOME RIGHT ON THE MIDDLE OF THE PORCH, IT'S SHOWN YOU HAVE A WINDOW IN THE MIDDLE AND A WINDOW ON THE SIDE. THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT PROPORTION. AND SO WHICH ONE IS THE CITY SUPPOSED TO USE IN, IN PURSUIT OF FOLLOWING THAT SECTION OF THE CODE? I MEAN, THAT'S, I THINK A QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE, HOW, I MEAN, WHAT IS OUR EXTENT OF DECISION ON THAT? I MEAN, I THINK CRYSTAL ALLUDED TO THAT EARLIER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, IT'S GOT WHAT, UM, WHAT WE SEE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, A PROPORTION OF TWO TO ONE, AND THAT IS WHAT THE WINDOWS PROPORTIONS ARE FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OKAY. THAT'S THE SIMILARITY, THE TWO TO ONE. OKAY. AND, AND I KNOW THAT ON THE, I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES THE BACKYARD, THE WINDOWS ARE PURPOSELY ELIMINATED. THEY'RE JUST FOR THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS, UM, ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROJECT. AND ALSO THE, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE MAIN HOUSE FROM THE HOME AVENUE SIDE, IT IS A CORNER LOT. IT HAS ANOTHER GABLE ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AS WELL. SO IT'S A GABLE BASICALLY ON, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, YOU, YOU SEE MORE OF THE GABLE THAN YOU DO THE, THE HIP ROOF ON THE HOUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I THINK THIS, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND START WITH SOME OF THE WITNESSES. I'VE GOT BEN FAIRBANK FAIRBANK. PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND, AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS BENJAMIN FAIRBANK AND I LIVE AT 2 0 8 EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. [03:25:02] I'M A MEMBER OF THE TOBIN HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, BUT TODAY I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, NOT THE T H C A, EXCUSE ME. I HAVE LIVED AT 2 0 8 EAST MAGNOLIA FOR 12 YEARS IN A HOUSE ON A PROPERTY THAT IS WITHIN APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED YARDS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT OF TODAY'S, UH, HEARING. THE STRUCTURE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN QUESTION IS EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE DECK ON THE UPPER STORY OF MY HOUSE, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN MISSILE TOE AND MAGNOLIA AVENUES. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PERMIT FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING AT 2 2 5 EAST LIA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, UH, EXCUSE ME, EAST MISSILE TOE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THE SIZE AND HEIGHT. THREE STORIES BEYOND WHAT IS PERMITTED OF THIS UNIT AND ITS GENERAL DESIGN ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISTRACT FROM THE APPEARANCE AND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS OPINION, AND I HOPE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO AGREE THAT THIS IS THE WRONG BUILDING IN THE WRONG PLACE. THANK YOU. ONE SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? I MEAN, THE CASE, THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO SIT THROUGH THIS MEETING, TO, TO TESTIFY. THANK YOU. TESTIFY. I HAVE A COPY OF MY STATEMENT. TO WHOM SHOULD I GIVE THAT? IF YOU CAN HAND IT TO THE STAFF, THEY'LL, THEY'LL TAKE IT FROM ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NEXT WITNESS. WE'VE GOT LYNN NAIC, FOLLOWED BY SCOTT ALVARADO ON DECK. ALRIGHT, LYNN, FULL NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. I'M LYNN KNAPE. I LIVE AT THREE 12 PEARL PARKWAY, NUMBER 24 0 1. UH, I'M IN TOBIN HILL. UH, PEARL IS PART OF TOBIN HILL. I'M, I'M ON THE, UH, BELONG TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AND I'M ON THE HISTORIC REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISN'T A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, A HISTORIC PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S GOT HISTORIC ALL AROUND IT. UH, SABOR SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH H D R C TO BETTER EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THAT WAY WE CAN GUIDE OUR BUYERS IN UNDERSTANDING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEN THEY COME IN AND THEY WANNA MAKE CHANGES. UH, A LOT OF AGENTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AND THEY TELL PEOPLE, OH YEAH, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. THIS KIND OF CONSTRUCTION IS GONNA MAKE PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. UH, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE OLDER, THE LOVELY OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT IF THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED, HOW ARE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS TO MAINTAIN THEIR INTEGRITY? AND IF THE RULES CAN BE WAIVED AFTER THE FACT, WHEN SOMEONE BREAKS THEM AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, I I'M LOOKING AT THAT HALF STORY, WHAT'D THEY DO? THEY MOVED THE FLOOR OVER A LITTLE BIT TO GET RID OF SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SO THAT THEY COULD SAY IT'S THIS MANY SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THIS MANY SQUARE FEET. AND WE DO INCLUDE BATHROOMS AS HABITABLE SPACE IN EVERYTHING WE SELL AS REALTORS. UH, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS NOT HABITABLE SPACE. BUT, UH, IF WE, IF WE DO THIS, IF WE LET THESE RULES, UH, BE WAIVED AFTER THE FACT WHEN SOMEONE BREAKS THEM, THEN WHAT'S TO, UH, KEEP THAT FROM BECOMING THE METHOD USED WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T WANNA LI 30 SECONDS LIKE THE RULES. IT SEEMS TO BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN IF THIS APPEAL IS NOT GRANTED. THANK YOU. HOLD ON. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ? OKAY. FINALLY, I HEARD SOMETHING HERE. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? HABITABLE SPACE. SO IF YOU'RE IN THE RESTROOM OR IN THE CLOSET, YOU'RE STILL HABITATING? IS THAT WHAT YOU WELL, YOU'RE IN THE RESTROOM. YOU'RE SURELY HABITATING . I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? GO TO THE OUTHOUSE, . OH, WELL, UM, OKAY. YEAH, I WANNA HEAR SOME MORE DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? UH, SO HOLD ON A SECOND. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I WAS JUST CHECKING WITH THE BASE HERE. OKAY. TO FIND OUT, UH, YOU, YOU BROUGHT UP, UH, SOME, SOME POINTS AND I THOUGHT THEY WERE VERY INTERESTING. BUT ONE THING THAT I'VE BEEN FAILED TO FIND OUT ON HERE IS THAT, IS THIS PART OF A, UH, NEGOTIATION OR IS THIS A MANDATORY AREA? NO, THERE'S NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OBSERVATION AREA OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ANYTHING THAT, UH, COULD OFFER ANY EXPLANATION OF WHY THEY DID NOT SEEK A GUIDANCE FROM THE ASSOCIATION THAT'S BRINGING FORTH THIS APPEAL? WELL, WELL, IT'S NOT IN A HISTORIC PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BUT THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOST OF THESE, UH, INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE PASSIONATE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEM. AND THAT'S WHY I LOVE WORKING IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS SO THAT I CAN HELP BRING THOSE PEOPLE IN, THAT CAN UNDER, CAN COME TO BE PART OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND PEOPLE WATCH, THEY SEE, AND I THINK AS THIS BUILDING KEPT GOING UP AND UP AND UP, THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING, WHOA, WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING IS NOW A THREE STORY BUILDING. AND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TECHNICALLY AND HALFWAY, TECHNICALLY IT'S A TWO AND A HALF STORY WITHOUT THAT WALL COMING DOWN ON THAT, UH, SECOND [03:30:01] FLOOR PLATE, IT REALLY, IT'S NOT, IT'S ONLY RE REACHING HALF OF THAT DEFINITION. BUT, UH, WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT THEY DON'T SEE A TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING, THEY SEE A THREE STORY BUILDING AND THEN THEY'RE WONDERING WHAT IN THE WORLD IS HAPPENING AROUND HERE? SO THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M HAPPY TO BE PART OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIVE IN A HISTORIC HOUSE, BUT I'M PART OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, I APPRECIATE THESE PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY HAVE. VERY GOOD. AND I'D LOVE TO HELP PROTECT IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO COME OUT TODAY. CARE. IF I COULD FAIR, IF I COULD ALSO, UM, THE, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT IF IT'S NOT A HISTORIC, UM, AREA, HOWEVER, THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE WITHIN A PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD, UH, PROPOSE SOME ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, RELATED TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ROOFING MAT, UH, ACTUALLY NOT MATERIALS, UH, ROOF PITCHES THAT ARE REQUIRED. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT IN CREATION OF THE N C D AND THE RESOLUTION IS GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL THIS WEEK TO ACTUALLY INITIATE THAT PROCESS. SO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DEVELOP WHAT THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE, WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, IN RELATION TO CONSTRUCTION. AND THEN THOSE WOULD BE REVIEWED, UH, BY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT N C D OVERLAY. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT HISTORIC, IT IS GOING TO BE A FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FUTURE, BUT IS IT, IS IT, UH, HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE AT THIS TIME? NOT RIGHT NOW, NO. OKAY. BUT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY. I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. 'CAUSE NOTHING WAS ADDRESSED TO THAT. AND I WAS BEGINNING TO GET CONCERNED THAT WE WERE NOT GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION TEAL, UH, MR. TEAL, UM, RELATIVE TO THAT, WASN'T THERE A HISTORY OF AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THIS STREET, THIS AREA TO BE HISTORIC, AND THE NEIGHBORS, WAS THAT DROPPED OR DID THEY VOTE AGAINST IT? UH, SO YES, THERE WAS PROBABLY ABOUT CLOSE TO TWO YEARS AGO, ANISA WILL BE, BE ABLE TO, UM, GIVE SOME WORD OF, OF A BETTER TIMEFRAME. BUT YES, THERE WAS AN INITIATION FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, CALLED THE TOBIN HILL NORTH HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND IT WAS NOT PASSED AT COUNCIL. SO THAT'S NOT IN HISTORIC DISTRICT TODAY. SO THE NEXT PERSON WE HAVE IS P SCOTT ALVARADO, FOLLOWED BY PAULA ST. STARNES. MY NAME IS, UH, PHIL SCOTTY ALVARADO, LEGAL NAME. UH, MY ADDRESS IS 1 1 0 HOME AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. UH, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT THERE FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS NOW. I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TO CONVEY WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, MAYBE IN DEPTH, BUT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE TWO MINUTES IS MY TIME. SO WHAT I WANT TO FIRST SAY IS, I AM FOR THE APPEAL. UH, I DON'T, UH, CHOOSE TO BE, UH, WITH THE APPEAL JUST AS ANY MALICIOUS INTENT OR THOUGHT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER THEMSELVES. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO, UH, SAY I'M FOR THE APPEAL FOR THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE LOOK OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE. UM, IF WALKING BY, I DIDN'T LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULD AN I WERE TO NOTICE THAT STRUCTURE, I WOULD THINK, OKAY, IT'S A THREE STORY HOME. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, WALKS LIKE A DUCK, QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT, IT'S IN FACT A DUCK, RIGHT? JUST BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE IT AND TEACH IT, MAYBE TO BARK OR DO SOMETHING ELSE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANYTHING LESS A DUCK, RIGHT? BUT, UM, THE REASON WHY I, UH, FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IF WE ALLOW STRUCTURES LIKE THIS TO CONTINUE AND IT MAKES IT FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ON TOP OF HOMES, ON TOP OF NEIGHBORS, IT LEAVES, UH, DOORS OPENED, UH, UP FOR OTHER INVESTORS, DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND CHANGE THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A BEGINNING OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO, TO HAPPEN. UM, ANOTHER REASON WHY IS IN MY MIND YOU SEE A TWO STORY ON TOP OF A GARAGE, RIGHT? IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS YOU'VE SEEN HOMES WITH A GARAGE 30 SECONDS AND AT SOME POINT THEY DEVELOP IT OR RENOVATE THE HOME AND ADD THAT AS AN ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE HOME. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT A TWO CAR GARAGE. I MEAN A CAR GARAGE, UH, A GARAGE UNDERNEATH A TWO AND A HALF, A ONE AND A HALF, OR TWO AND A HALF, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY IT LATER ON, IT'S GONNA END UP BEING THREE STORIES. THAT'S HOW I FEEL AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M ENTIRELY AGAINST THAT LOOK RIGHT NOW. ALRIGHT, HOLD ON A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? NO. BEING IN CASE. THANK YOU. VERY, THANK FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO COME OUT HERE. ALRIGHT. PAULA STARNS FOLLOWED BY CYNTHIA SPIELMAN. HELLO, MY NAME IS PAULA STARNES AND I LIVE AT TWO 19 EAST MAGNOLIA. I'M A MEMBER OF THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND I SERVE ON THE ZONING COMMITTEE, AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE APPEAL OF THE PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 2 25 EAST MISSILE TOW [03:35:01] AND REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH THE U D C WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES. UM, ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT WAS SHOWN EARLIER IS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT I HAVE BEHIND MY HOUSE. WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 29 YEARS AGO, IT WAS ALREADY THERE. IT WAS A TWO STORY APARTMENT WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, BUT OVER THE YEARS IT WAS A GARAGE ORIGINALLY, THEN THEY BUILT AN APARTMENT ABOVE IT, AND THEN OVER THE YEARS THEY TURNED THE GARAGE INTO AN APARTMENT AS WELL. SO THAT DOES HAPPEN. I ALSO HAD NEIGHBORS WHO TOOK OUT CLOSETS IN THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE THEY WANTED MORE SPACIOUS ROOMS. IT WAS A SMALL HOUSE AND PUT IN WARDROBES SO PEOPLE TAKE CLOSETS OUT TOO. AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE MORE SQUARE FOOT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THE SQUARE FOOT ON THIS PLACE. I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S 812 SQUARE FOOT. I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION AN OPEN RECORDS EMAIL THAT'S TO CRYSTAL GONZALEZ. AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT BEING CAREFUL ABOUT TALKING, UH, TAKING THE I R C DEFINITION. IT SAYS THE U D C STATES THAT WE REGULATE FLOOR SPACE FROM THE FIRST TO THE SECOND FLOOR AND MAKE NO REFERENCE TO HABITAL SPACE. AND THIS IS SOMETHING I GOT THROUGH THE OPEN RECORDS. SO I DON'T THINK WHEN THEY PUT THESE PLANS TOGETHER AND BROUGHT 'EM TO APPROVAL AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THAT THEY HAD ANY IDEA WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS OR HOW THEY WERE GONNA CONVERT IT TO OUR I R C BY THE TIME WE GOT HERE TODAY. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. UM, BEFORE I PURCHASED MY SON, MY HOME, I RENTED IN TOBIN HILL FOR SEVEN YEARS AND I WANTED TO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE SAN ANTONIO IS KNOWN FOR ITS HISTORICAL HOMES AS WELL AS THE HISTORY. AND IF WE DON'T, IF WE TAKE, WE LOSE OUR HOUSES, THAT WAS TWO MINUTES, THEN WE LOSE EVERYTHING. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY TO TAKE TO, TO CATCH OUR BACKS, WHO'S GONNA DO IT? ALL RIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. HOLD ON A SECOND. UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ISSUING A VARIANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WE DID BRING THAT UP. SECONDLY, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE DECISION TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF THIS PROPERTY. UM, I'M GONNA ASK MY BOARD MEMBERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS LADY? WOULD YOU LIKE THE MEMO THAT I HAVE? NO, WE HAVE IT IN FILE. I'VE ALREADY READ THAT. UM, NO ONE HAS A QUESTION. WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING UP AND, AND VOICING YOUR OPINION. ANY OTHERS? CYNTHIA SPIELMAN, FOLLOWED BY MARILYN CHESNEY. CYNTHIA, YOU KNOW, THIS ROUTINE. BOY, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL GET THROUGH THIS. UM, SO I'D LIKE TO READ OUR PREPARED STATEMENT FROM CYNTHIA. I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IT'S CYNTHIA SPIELMAN. I LIVE AT 900 WEST WOODLAWN. GO AHEAD. DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD HAS VOTED TO SUPPORT THE TOBAN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IN REGARDS TO THE APPEAL 2 25 EAST MISSILE TOE. OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS EMPOWERED THE BOARD THROUGH A VOTE TO SUPPORT OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WHO STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE THEIR HOUSING STOCK AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS WE HAVE IN BEACON HILL. WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECTS ALL OF US, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AS BEACON HILL IS TO TOBIN HILL. LEGACY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE SO FEW TOOLS TO HELP THEM ENCOURAGE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE TOOLS OF THE U D C AND APPLICABLE, THE N C D AND THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS IN BEACON HILL, WE'VE HAD TWO PAINFUL AND SIMILAR EXPERIENCES WITH WHAT WE FELT WERE VIOLATIONS OF OUR U D C AND OUR N C D WHEREBY BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES WE BELIEVED WERE NON-COMPLIANT. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES APPROVAL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS RUN COUNTER TO THE WRITTEN STATED INTENT OF THE CODE OR N C D WITH DISASTROUS RESULTS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, AND NOW THEY'RE DOING IT IN TOBIN HILL. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS TOOL OF LAST RESORT BE SUPPORTED AND RESPECTED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AND THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAS THE FREEDOM AND LATITUDE TO REVIEW AND DELIBERATE THESE CASES FAIRLY. WE BELIEVE THERE'S COMPELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THESE PERMITS, AND WE ASK THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SUPPORT THE APPEAL AGAINST THESE PERMITS AND REQUIRE THE BUILDER TO COMPLY WITH NOT ONLY THE LETTER OF THE U D C BUT ALSO THE INTENT WITHOUT 30 SECONDS. UM, I WOULD MAKE THE CASE THAT IT SEEMS THAT THE CITY IS, UM, ASKING YOU TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY WILL DEAL WITH. HOWEVER, WHATEVER ISSUES COME UP, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO IS TO MAKE THIS DECISION ON THE FUTURE THAT, THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE EXPLOITED IN ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE'RE VULNERABLE AND WE DON'T WANT THAT MISTAKE TO CONTINUE ON. THANK YOU. HOLD ON. WE HAVE ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? OKAY. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING FORWARD. ANY ANYMORE? MARILYN CHESNEY FOLLOWED BY, I THINK IT'S [03:40:01] LINDA HERNANDEZ. OKAY. LAST PERSON I HAVE IS MARY JOHNSON. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. ALRIGHT, WELL IT'S UNFORTUNATE THEY COULDN'T STAY, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND, UM, I GUESS THIS IS THE TIME I CAN BRING BACK THE, UH, APPLICANT SO THAT YOU HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN TESTIFIED. YES. AND, UH, PLEASE, UH, MADE A FEW NOTES AS WELL. YES, YES. FIRST I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH, I KNOW THE MENTIONING OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, LET'S SEE HERE. THE CONTRACTOR STATED THAT THERE WERE NO WINDOWS LOOKING OVER THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. OH, SORRY. THEY LOOKED LIKE WINDOWS GOING INTO MY BACKYARD. SO THE SECOND POINT ALSO IS THE APPEAL THAT WAS MAILED TO THE 200 FOOT AROUND EVERYBODY. I WANT TO ALSO PUT ON RECORD THAT PART OF THE APPEAL WAS CUT OFF. THERE WAS ABOUT OH FOUR OR FIVE WORDS FOR THE FINISHING OF THAT APPEAL THAT WAS MAILED. SO, AND THAT MADE IT A LITTLE COMPLICATED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WERE AND THE PHONE NUMBERS. YEP. SO THAT'S, SO WE HAD, I, I DID SOME INVESTIGATING TO CALL IN TO FIND OUT IF WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING YOU. YOU NEED TO SPEAK ON MIC, MIC HOLD, NOT ON THE MICROPHONE. OH, SORRY. UM, THE, I THINK THE POINT IS, IS THAT THE, UM, NOTICES WERE CONFUSING. I RECEIVED THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NOTICE. UH, MINE WAS CUT OFF AS WELL AND THE PHONE NUMBER WAS CUT OFF. SO I HAD TO DO SOME LEGWORK TO ACTUALLY FIND THE CONTACT INFORMATION, UM, FOR MS. GONZALEZ. AND THEN, UM, IT WAS, WE NEEDED CLARIFICATION ON, UH, WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE OPPOSING OR SUPPORTING BECAUSE IT, IT'S CONFUSING, OH, DO YOU SUPPORT THIS BUILDING OR DO YOU SUPPORT THE APPEAL FOR THE BUILDING? UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, UH, BECAUSE IN SOME OF THE, UM, IN THE MAP THAT WAS SHOWN IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION, I KNOW SOME OF THE ADDRESSES WERE MARKED WITH XS, BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE HERE TODAY SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. DOES IT MAKE SENSE? OH, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. OKAY. , IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. IN FACT, IT'S SO CONFUSING BEFORE WE VOTE. AND I'LL BE DOING A, A VERY IN-DEPTH EXPLANATION OF WHAT ALL THIS MEANS BECAUSE IT IS COMPLICATED AND BECAUSE IT IS CONFUSING BECAUSE WE RARELY DO SEE THESE CASES BEFORE US AND THEY ARE A VERY, VERY GOOD, UH, CASE. THIS IS A VERY GOOD CASE, BUT IT DOES SET A PRECEDENCE FOR THE PAST AND THE FUTURE. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE. AND THAT'S WHERE MY NEXT TECH TALKING POINT WAS. MR. NEFF HAD MENTIONED THAT I THOUGHT THIS WAS ONLY TO PERTAIN TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, AS IT SAYS, AS THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS JUST MENTIONED THAT ONE TIME FOR THAT TO OVERRULE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION. NOW I KNOW WE ARE NOT A HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR ARE WE, UM, A PRESERVATION CONSERVATION DISTRICT YET, I KNOW THAT'S IN THE WORKS, BUT THE U D C CODE STATES AGAIN, VERY CLEARLY IN SUBSECTION B FOUR A, A D D U EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE. AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE U D C CODES ARE REVISED EVERY FIVE YEARS TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DEFINITION OF IDENTICAL HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 1960. OKAY. ALSO WANTED TO MENTION AS WELL, UH, KNOW THE COMMENT OF ASBESTOS SIGHTING WAS BROUGHT UP. YES, THAT IS THE CASE. NOBODY WANTS ASBESTOS SIDING ON THEIR HOMES. HOWEVER, AS A REALTOR TOO, WE DO INFORM OUR BUYERS THAT IT DOES HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT. SO THEY ARE WELL KNOWING AND GOING INTO THAT PURCHASE WITH A DISCLOSURE OF, OF THE ASBESTOS SIDING THAT ALSO STATES THAT SIMILAR, AGAIN, CAN'T BE IDENTICAL TO THAT. UM, THERE WERE A FEW EMAIL CHAINS ALSO FROM MIKE SHANNON LETTING THE CONTRACTOR KNOW THAT, UH, THE CONTRACTOR WAS ALLOWED TO FINISH THE ROOFING PER THE SECTION 8 0 1, BUT IT WAS TO BE DONE AT HIS OWN PERIL DE DEPENDENT UPON THE BOARD'S DECISION. SO AGAIN, THE HARDSHIP, THEY CONTINUED TO WORK ON IT PER PERMISSION FROM D S D, BUT THEY WERE INFORMED [03:45:01] THAT IT WAS AT THEIR OWN PERIL, DEPENDING YOUR DECISION. IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR, IS THAT THE EXTENT, UH, IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR REBUTTAL? ? THERE WERE A FEW MORE THINGS, BUT I KNOW ACROSS THE STREET WAS ALSO MENTIONED. ACROSS THE STREET IS A THREE STORY CONDO UNIT. UM, THE DEFINITION OF R SIX ZONING, AGAIN, THE TABLE A CONNECT, UH, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. NEFF, BUT CAN YOU PUT FIVE STORIES IN 35 FEET OR FOUR STORIES IN 35 FEET? OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY THE TABLE STATES TO MY UNDERSTANDING, 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO REMAIN CONTINGENT UPON EVERYTHING ELSE. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP BY HERNANDEZ THAT THE PICTURES THAT I SENT YOU IN THE AS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD EXAMPLES, THOSE WERE ALSO BUILT BEFORE 1940. SO, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, AT THIS POINT I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS. ACTUALLY, WE STILL HAVE THE REBUTTAL FROM, UM, STAFF. OH, OH, SORRY, I THOUGHT SHE HER, HER THIRD TIME UP. , ARE YOU HAPPY TO SEE ME AGAIN? I'M SURE HE'S HAPPY TO SEE THAT. ALL RIGHT, UH, WELL I WON'T TAKE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS STRUCTURE, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, UH, DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, UM, ALL OF THOSE ARE REVIEWED SIMILAR TO THE WAY THIS WAS REVIEWED, UH, AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE OF THE U D C AND THE I R S C AS IT WAS REVIEWED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW THAT'S IT. I'M CLOSING THIS TO THE PUBLIC NOW I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION. NOW, BEFORE WE DO THIS, I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE'RE ONLY WORKING ON A CASE TO THAT WE'RE, UH, THERE HAS BEEN APPEAL OF THE DECISION MADE BY DEVELOPMENTAL STAFF. THEREFORE THE MOTION WILL BE IN, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE EITHER TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL, CHALLENGING THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAFF, SO A VOTE. SO THE MOTION SHOULD BE WORDED AS SUCH AND IN, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT, UH, YOU, IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, IT WOULD BE TO, UH, GRANT THE APPEAL. IF YOU VOTE IN, IN A NEGATIVE, YOU WOULD BE, UH, IN VOTE AGAINST THE APPEAL. SO, AND IT'S VERY EASY. IT'S GONNA BE A VERY BRIEF EXPLANATION. I SHOULD, I SHOULD THINK ON THE APPEAL NOW, WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THE MOTION? ORIAN HISTORIAN REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH OH 3 0 0 0 84. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SITUATED AT 2 2 5 EAST MISSILE TOE, APPLICANT BEING JOE SALINAS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE DECISION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WAS FLAWED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT AND ASSERTING THAT THE DIRECTOR'S IN CORRECTLY ISSUED THAT THE DIRECTORS INCORRECTLY ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. END OF MOTION. SECOND APPEAL. IS THAT YOU? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MR. IAN, PLEASE, UH, BEGIN THE DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT THIS IS, UH, THE CRUX OF THIS, UH, APPEAL, UH, WHICH I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF, IS BASED ON THE, UH, THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE TERM IDENTICAL TO THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTS. UM, CURRENTLY THE U D C DOES NOT HAVE ADDITION DEFINITION FOR THE WORD IDENTICAL AND LOOKING IT UP IN WEBSTER'S DEFINITION. UH, IT USES TERM, IT USES THE TERM SIMILAR IN EVERY DETAIL, AND THEN AS A SYNONYM IT USES THE WORD SIMILAR. AND SO I DON'T THINK THE CITY AIRED IN APPLYING THE, THE TERM SIMILAR, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN DOING FOR DECADES. IDENTICAL OF IDENTICAL, YES. UH, SECONDLY, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT TWO AND A HALF STORIES IS AND THE APPLICATION OF, OF THE 50% RULE, UM, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE U D C THAT RESTRICTS YOU FROM HAVING A LOFT TYPE ENVIRONMENT TO MEET THE 50%. THIS IS EX WHEN PEOPLE PUSH THE LIMITS OF WHAT THE U D C UH, TEXT HAS, THIS IS WHERE U D C CHANGES COME FROM. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY CITIZEN OR EVEN THIS BOARD CAN APPLY DURING THE FIVE YEAR, UH, RE UH, LOOK AT THE U D C TO POSSIBLY HONE [03:50:01] THAT DEFINITION IN A LITTLE BETTER. BUT FOR NOW, THE U D C DOESN'T RESTRICT, UM, THE FACT THAT, THAT THIS, WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE HALF STORY IS AN EXTRUSION OF THIS FLOOR BELOW IT JUST THAT OPENING MEETS THE DEFINITION. SO I HAVE, I TAKE NO ISSUE WITH IT. UH, AND AS FAR AS ISSUES OF WINDOWS AND ROOF PITCH, A WINDOW TWO WINDOW IS SIMILAR TO THE SAME ONE TO TWO WINDOW. THE EXISTING PRESIDENTS HAVE, THE EXISTING RESIDENTS HAS A, A NUMBER OF ROOF PITCHES, AND IF YOU PICK ONE, I'M SURE IT IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT'S PROVIDED. AND SO I DON'T THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE A CITY AIRED, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT, UH, UH, DURING THE FIVE YEAR, UH, U D UH, U D C APPLICATION FOR CHANGES. SO, THI MR. THIEL, CAN YOU CONTINUE THIS, THIS DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. UH, I'M NOT IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL. UM, AS READ IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I THINK BOTH THE CONTRACTOR AND THE, UH, HOMEOWNER WENT TO EVERY, UH, THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE WITHIN THE CODE. WHILE I DO BELIEVE THEY FOUND SOME UNIQUE WAYS TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE, UM, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CODE HACKING. UM, IT, IT STILL IS, IT STILL MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE. IT STILL MEETS THE CODE AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT. IF YOU CAN COME TO A CREATIVE WAY TO GET SOMETHING DONE AND DO IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF WHAT THE CITY, THE STATE, OR ANYTHING ELSE REQUIRES, THEN I'M GONNA HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT ELLI. ALRIGHT, DR. ZARE? OKAY, WELL, UM, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL, BUT I ALSO WANNA TALK TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY CAME OUT AND THEY CAME OUT IN FORCE TO REALLY SHARE THEIR CONCERNS. AND I THINK MANY OF THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE REALLY NEED TO BE DIRECTED AT THE U D C REVISIONS. WE'VE HEARD, I THINK A FEW CASES OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT DEALT WITH THIS TWO AND A HALF STORY, 35 FEET ISSUE. YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT IS IN THE U D C REVISIONS AND NOT WITHIN THIS APPEAL, UNFORTUNATELY. UM, I AGREE WITH SOME ABILITY TO READ THE CODE AND WORK THE, UM, WORK THE PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THINGS WERE WITHIN THE, UM, INTENT THE CITY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. UM, I UNDERSTAND LIVING IN TOBIN HILL MYSELF, AND I DO LIVE IN THE HISTORIC AREA, BUT I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE WELL AS IT EXTENDS BEYOND MY, MY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD, MY LITTLE SUB NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I GET WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR OWN, UM, N C D THAT'S COMING FORWARD, CONTINUE TO WORK ON THOSE AREAS. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE WITH MR. MR. NEFF? THANK YOU. SO IN REALLY TRYING TO, SO I GUESS THE APPLICANT IN APPEAL OF THE DECISION HAS PUT SEVERAL THINGS FORWARD AS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS WAS REVIEWED AND HOW THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED. AND I THINK THEY'RE ALL A LITTLE VAGUE AND HARD TO PIN DOWN FOR GOOD REASON BECAUSE THERE'S COMPLEXITIES IN IT AND DESIGNERS, ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS DO FIND WAYS TO SQUEEZE EVERY INCH THEY CAN TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT'S WITHIN CODE. AND SO THEN WE GET INTO REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE NUTS AND BOLTS AND WHAT COMES OUT A LOT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE. WELL, IT, IT'S THE INTENT OF THE CODE TO DO THIS EVEN THOUGH THE WORD IS IDENTICAL. WELL, THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS THAT IT'S SIMILAR, SIMILAR IS SIMILAR TO IDENTICAL AND IT BECOMES A VERY MUCH OF A GRAY AREA. UM, AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN DESIGNING AND APPLYING TO CODE. AND WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE? CLEARLY IT'S UNDER 35 FEET. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN QUESTION THAT. IS IT TWO AND A HALF STORIES? LIKE HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WILL SAY YES. HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM MIGHT SAY NO. I THINK IT'S A GRAY AREA REALLY TRYING TO SQUEEZE IT TO MEET THAT CODE. LOOK AT IT, IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S INTENDING TO BE TWO AND A HALF STORIES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S INTENDING TO BE THREE STORIES, BUT CAN YOU ANALYZE EVERY INCH OF THAT FLOOR PLATE AND DETERMINE THAT? YEAH, WHEN I CALCULATE IT THIS WAY, IT'S TWO AND A HALF. AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO THAT INTENT. THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE OTHER ISSUE OF IDENTICAL THAT THE A D U [03:55:01] BE IDENTICAL AND CHARACTER STYLE TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THAT'S WHERE I CANNOT FIND A WAY TO SAY THAT IT INTENDS TO BE IDENTICAL OR EVEN INTENDS TO BE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER OR STYLE. BECAUSE IF I LOOK AT THAT AS MY LAYMAN HOMEOWNER OWNER CHARACTER, IT DOESN'T LOOK SIMILAR TO ME. IF I LOOK AT IT AS AN ARCHITECT, DEFINITELY DOESN'T LOOK SIMILAR AT ALL. TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TRYING TO BE AS SIMPLISTIC AS POSSIBLE AS A THREE STORY BOX WITH A GABLE ROOF ON IT. AND SOME FINAL WINDOWS HAS SIDING, JUST LIKE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS SIDING, BUT THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR. IT HAS WINDOWS, JUST LIKE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS WINDOWS, BUT THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR. IT HAS A ROOF, JUST LIKE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS A ROOF, BUT IT'S A GABLE. THIS ONE'S A HIP WITH CLIPPED DORMERS. EVEN THE DORMER ON THE HOME STREET IS NOT A PURE GABLE, IT'S, IT'S A CLIPPED GABLE WITH THE HIP BOTTOM TO IT. SO I BELIEVE THAT REVIEWING THIS, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THAT CLAUSE RELATED TO THE CHARACTER AND STYLE BEING IDENTICAL BETWEEN THE PROPOSED A D U AND THE EXISTING HOME. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT SOMETHING WAS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT FOR THIS LEVEL OF COMPLETION, BUT I STILL FIND THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN REVIEWING THAT. AND THERE ARE TOO MANY DISSIMILARITIES IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE A D U TO THE RESIDENTS TO WHERE IT CANNOT BE MY MIND SAID TO BE IDENTICAL OR EVEN CLOSELY SIMILAR. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR INPUT? HENRY? NO. ANYONE ELSE? UM, NO, I DO NOT WANNA BELABOR THIS ONE, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS AND THAT IS THAT TOBAN HILL AND BEACON HILL ARE THE TIPPING SCALES FOR ME. THANK YOU ANNA. SO, UH, JUST TO NOTE TO EVERYBODY HERE, I DO SIT ON, UH, WILL BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO ACTUALLY HELP REWRITE THE U D C. SO I AM LISTENING CLOSELY TO A LOT OF DIALOGUE AND I CERTAINLY WILL, UH, TRY TO STEER SOME OF THE DIALOGUE HERE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO BETTER CLARIFY SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT? ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT. OKAY, SO MONICA, LET'S DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE PLEASE. MR. ORIAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. SODER. I I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ. MR. NEFF? YES. MR. MANNA? YES. MS. FISHER? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. AND MR. MARTINEZ? YES, I DO AGREE WITH THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE BOARD HAS, UH, SELECTED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THE APPEAL IS OVER OVERRULED. SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE WE STAND ON THIS AND, UH, THIS IS THE WAY IT GOES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IN CASE THAT WAS CONFUSING, IT, HE MEANS THAT THE MOTION FAILED, SO THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT GRANTED. ALRIGHT, TURN ON YOUR MIC, SIR. IT'S ON. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING. THIS WAS A VERY, UH, TRYING, IS A LOT OF INFORMATION BEING TRANSFORMED? I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES. IN FACT, IN THIS LAST CASE IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. IT WAS DOWN TO THE SECOND, UH, UH, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE SOME INPUT, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU TRY TO, WELL OF COURSE YOU'RE WORKING ON TO CHANGE THAT AND ONCE THAT'S DONE, YOU'LL [04:00:01] HAVE MORE INPUT. SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING. UH, WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY TAKING THE TIME TO STAY HERE THIS LATE. UH, WE NORMALLY DON'T STAY PAST FIVE IF WE CAN AVOID IT. SO HAVE A GOOD DAY. NOW WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE. IS THIS STILL WORKING? ? UH, WE'RE NOW [6. 19-5674 Consideration and approval of the July 15, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes] WE HAVE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. DID EVERYONE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY ON THE BOARD TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES? DID EVERYONE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? YES. ALL RIGHT. ANY, ANY ADDITIONS? ANY ALTERATIONS? THE JURY. OKAY THEN THE MINUTES STAND AS PRESENTED AND APPROVED. UM, ANY ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP BY ANY DEVELOPMENTS? YES, WE DO HAVE [Director's Report: Worksession for next BOA meeting.] A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. UH, JUST WANNA LET THE BOARD KNOW WE ARE SCHEDULING A LUNCH WORK SESSION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UH, SO THAT WAY WE CAN, UH, DISCUSS WITH YOU SOME OF THE, UM, ITEMS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE STATE LEGISLATION AND HOW THAT AFFECTS OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND SOME OF OUR, UM, CATHERINE, PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSIONS OUT IF YOU CAN. ALRIGHT, SO WE ARE SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION, A LUNCH WORK SESSION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UM, SO WE'LL START THAT AT ABOUT 11 O'CLOCK. WE'LL SEND YOU MORE DETAILS. WE WILL BE FEEDING YOU, THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT CAME OUT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT WE NEED TO GO OVER WITH YOU, UM, AS IT AFFECTS SOME OF OUR ZONING PROCEDURES. AND SO WE JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT WE COVER THOSE WITH YOU. OKAY? EVERYONE GUESS WHAT, I'M OUTTA HERE. YAY. * 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.