* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] YES, WE ARE LIVE. ALRIGHT, SO ONE 10. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. LET'S HAVE THIS SPANISH INTERPRETER. UH, GIVE THE PRESENTATION PLEASE. ENO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE UH, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC UNDER GOD. LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR ALL. UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD. ONE INDI. ALL RIGHT, UH, STAFF IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL. MR. BARRINGTON HERE. SORRY. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M ALSO PRESENT. POOR MS. PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO BEFORE [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, YES, CHERYL WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMMON AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE, MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHECK FOR 28. ARTICLE ONE SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESIDENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUEST OF RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF. GOOD AFTERNOON. STAFF WILL BE BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION AS A REQUEST PRIOR TO PRESENTATION. INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS HERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE DIRECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARYING SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED ON IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE [00:05:01] ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ALRIGHT, UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA CASE ENDING IN NUMBER 61. OKAY. MELANIE CLARK FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT. THIS WILL BE ITEM NUMBER ONE BO OA TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 0 0 6 1 7 23 WEST MEYER PLACE. UM, DISTRICT COUNSEL ONE APPLICANT BEING PHILLIP KRAMER. A REQUEST FOR ONE A FENCING MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CORRUGATED METAL, UH, ON THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. TWO. A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A ONE INCH SET SIDE SETBACK. THREE. A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT PRI PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. FOUR. A VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT CARPORT, UH, VERTICAL SUPPORT OR STRUCTURE ELEMENTS TO MATCH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE MATERIALS AND FIVE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FIVE CARPORT RECESS STANDARD TO ALLOW A ONE INCH CARPORT RECESS FROM THE FRONT FACADE ZONING IS R SIX NCD FIVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 10 WEST OF HIGHWAY 2 81 WITH APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF UH, 50 FEET FROM NORTH FULTON COURT AND WEST S MEYER PLACE INTERSECTION ON OCTOBER 7TH, 2023. THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR BUILDING A FENCE AND CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT BEING THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT ON MARCH 7TH, 2024 FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE CARPORT SIDE SETBACK USED USE OF CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCE HEIGHT ON MARCH 26TH, 2024 THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A SIDE SETBACK, CORRUGATED CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCE HEIGHT, EXCEPTION VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE FENCE AND CARPORT TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO BCA FILES, THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 5TH, 2023 WITH GOOGLE IMAGES REFLECTING. THE CARPORT AND FENCE WERE CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9TH, 2019 AND MARCH OF 22. THE APPLICANT STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE PROPERTY BEING NON-COMPLIANT AS CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY OCCURRED, UH, WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER. FURTHERMORE, ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLY AS THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. ACCORDING TO THE NC D FIVES DESIGN STANDARDS OF 2017, THE CARPORT GATE IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE AS IT LIES ALIGNS WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, CARPORT STANDARDS WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE NCD 2 20 17 AS THE MATERIALS DO NOT MATCH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND THE ATTACHED MATERIALS ARE NOT RECESSED FIVE FEET BEHIND THE FACADE. AND THIS IS A SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, GOOGLE IMAGES OF THE PROPERTY FROM 2019 TO 2022. SUBJECT PROPERTY, A VIEW ACROSS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN THE EAST VIEW AND WEST VIEW. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE. HIGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 DASH 0 3 6 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE FENCES EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE U UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND HYEN PRIVACY. TWO. THE REQUEST WILL ENDURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK NCD FIVE STANDARDS AND CORRUGATED MINERAL VARIANCES. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBO OA 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 61 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE. THE SIDE AND REAR CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ALONG WITH UN UNAUTHORIZED CARPORT MATERIAL APPEARS TO ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE FENCE IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROHIBITED FENCE MATERIALS AND DOES NOT MATCH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO THE DISTANCE OF THE CARPORT FROM THE SIDE SETBACK IS NOT SUITABLE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE OR ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY CAUSING INCREASED RISK FOR FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF. STAFF MAILED 35 NOTICES ZERO IN FAVOR TO IN OPPOSITION, OPPOSITION AND BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF SOME BUT NOT ALL REQUESTED VARIANCES. UH, A MEMORANDUM WILL BE PROVIDED. I'LL HAND A HANDOUT TO YOU GUYS. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, UM, WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THE CONTINUANCE SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE A VOTE, UM, THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 10TH, 2024 AND THIS WAS THE LETTER THAT PROVIDED THE VOTE INFORMATION [00:10:05] AND THEN JUST CONTINUES THE NEXT PAGE AND THEN THE IN, UH, IN OPPOSITION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, UH, WHAT BEACON HILL DID SUPPORT? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHILE YOU'RE PASSING THAT OUT, I'M JUST GONNA, IT APPEARS THAT THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE SIDE SETBACK, UH, THE FRONT FACADE. UH, AND, AND, UM, YEAH, WELL, SOME OF THE ITEMS ON HERE AREN'T PART OF THE APP, AREN'T PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SO THE RECESS FROM THE FRONT SPO, UH, FRONT FACADE AND, UM, THE METAL ROOF, WHICH IS NOT PART OF OURS, UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HEIGHT WAS NOT SUPPORTED. UH, THE SETBACK WAS HEIGHT SETBACK WAS. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S TWO OUT OF, OUT OF THE FIVE REQUESTS OR SUPPORTED BY THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. OH, YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE BULLET POINT ON THE CASE SUMMARY. THE LAST POINT WHERE IT SAYS THE CARPORT GATE IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE, ARE YOU SAYING THE PHYSICAL GATE IS COMPLIANCE, BUT THE BUT THE MATERIALS DO NOT COMPLY? THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT, SO THE GATE, THE GATE IS ALIGNED WITH THE FRONT FACADE. SO WHERE IT'S PLACED IS FINE. IT'S THE MATERIAL THAT'S MADE OUTTA IT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED, BUT THE THE LOCATION IS FINE. THAT'S CORRECT. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. PHILIP KRAMER, PLEASURE TO MEET ALL OF YOU. UM, THE THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU IS, UM, NUMBER ONE, I'M HERE IN HOPES OF GETTING AN APPROVAL FOR ALL VARIANCES OBVIOUSLY, BUT ALSO TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH YOU IN ANY WAY IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT WE CAN COME TO, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT VARIANCES WOULD BE APPROVED. UM, ONE THING I WANNA MAKE CLEAR IS I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE CODE UNTIL I BOUGHT THIS HOME. I HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THIS HOME FOR A YEAR. SO IT WASN'T UNTIL THE DATE MENTIONED THAT, UH, CODE OFFICERS SHOWED UP AND I BECAME AWARE OF THE ISSUE. UM, UNFORTUNATELY THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER DIDN'T MAKE ME AWARE. THE REALTOR DIDN'T MAKE ME AWARE, THE INSPECTOR DIDN'T MAKE ME AWARE. SO NOW I'M TRYING TO FIND A LAWYER AS WELL. UM, SO, UH, IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION. UH, MY WIFE AND I WERE HOPING TO START A FAMILY CLOSER TO THE CITY, POURED ALL OUR MONEY INTO THIS HOME. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE TO GET HIT WITH THE, THE CODE VIOLATIONS, UM, WAS A LITTLE BIT SCARY 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GONNA HANDLE WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT. UM, BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID, I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS WERE AWARE, UM, THAT I HAD NO HAND IN THIS CONSTRUCTION AT ALL. IN FACT, I HAVEN'T MADE ANY CHANGES TO THE HOME ASIDES FROM FURNISHING IT SINCE WE MOVED IN. AND, UM, I DID MEET WITH THE BEACON HILL, HOA, I WANTED TO SHOW THEM A WILLINGNESS TO DO ANYTHING I COULD TO WORK WITH THEM AS WELL. UM, SOMETHING, UH, ARE WE ABLE TO LOOK AT SLIDES? SO THERE IS SOMETHING I WANNA MENTION THE SIDE VIEW HOME RIGHT THERE. SO I, UH, THE HOA MADE ME THINK SOMETHING THROUGH THAT I HAD NOT THOUGHT THROUGH PREVIOUSLY. AND THAT'S, UM, HOW THAT COULD BE A RISK. SIR, THERE'S A, UH, LASER POINTER. OH, THANK YOU. SO I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS SIDING RIGHT HERE. UM, MORE THAN WILLING TO TAKE THIS DOWN. THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEACON HILLS HOA RECOMMENDATION SO THAT IT'S NOT ANY KIND OF FIRE HAZARD SHOULD ANYBODY HAVE TO GET THROUGH OR DO MAINTENANCE IN THERE. SO, UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE, THE AREAS WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'M HAPPY TO DO, UM, AND THEY MENTIONED THAT WATER RUNOFF CAN ALSO BE A POTENTIAL ISSUE. I WAS OUT THERE WITH THE RECENT STORMS THAT CAME THROUGH AND IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WAS ANY KIND OF REAL ISSUE, BUT HAPPY TO INSTALL GUTTERS IF, IF THAT HELPS US, UM, MOVE TOWARDS AN APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE AS WELL. OKAY. WITH ALL THAT SAID, THE, UM, THE OTHER BIG ITEM ON HERE IS THE FENCING NOT BEING THE, THE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. UM, I'M HAPPY TO CUT IT DOWN TO THE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS SIX FEET. UM, THE MATERIAL ITSELF, UH, THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT IS WITH THE INCREASE IN CRIME RATE, I, I, UH, WOULD APPRECIATE A VARIANCE THERE FOR THE PRIVACY AND BECAUSE THOSE FENCES ARE HARD TO CLIMB, UH, STARTING A FAMILY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US, BUT AGAIN, WILLING TO DO WHATEVER I CAN TO, TO TRY TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS AS WELL. OKAY. SO COUPLE QUESTIONS, UH, TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF, UH, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH, UH, THE FENCE HEIGHT, UH, AND CORRUGATED METAL, BUT THE CARPORT ITSELF, UM, ON THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT, IS THAT CONSIDERED FENCING OR IS THAT CONSIDERED A CARPORT STRUCTURE? THAT'S CONSIDERED PART OF CARPORT. OKAY. SO, SO THAT, [00:15:01] SO FOR, FOR THE COMMISSION, WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION AS WE MOVE FORWARD, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THE FENCING WOULD NOT INCLUDE, UH, WHAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT, WHICH MEANS THAT IF THE, IF THE BEACON HILL IS SUGGESTING OR RECOMMENDING THE REMOVAL OF THAT MATERIAL ON THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT, THE ONLY WAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF A FENCING ISSUE, WOULD EITHER BE A SIDE SETBACK ISSUE WITH US IF WE HAPPEN TO APPROVE, OR THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION TO SAY THAT HE'S REQUESTING A CARPORT WITHOUT A, AN ENCLOSED SIDE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. IF WE WANTED TO APPROVE A SIDE SETBACK, UH, BUT YET REMOVE THE SIDING. IS, IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? UH, GIMME ONE SECOND. OKAY. MANNA? YES, COMMISSIONER. SO, SO IT IS IT THAT YOU'RE ASKING THAT THE APPLICANT AMEND HIS, HIS REQUEST TO, UH, STATE THAT IT IT WILL NOT HAVE A SIDE ON IT? WELL, WELL, BEACON HILL IS, IS IN FAVOR OF THE SIDE SETBACK, BUT THEY WANT THE, THE SIDING REMOVED IF WE APPROVE A SIDE SETBACK. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, SINCE THE SIDING'S PART OF THE STRUCTURE, HE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION TO RE TO SAY IT'S ONLY FOR A COVER AND NOTHING FOR A SIDE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. SO, SO BASICALLY ASKING THAT HE CAN INCLUDE THAT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND IT WOULD BE BINDING. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLEAR WITH STAFF. SO CARPORT'S DEFINED AS, UH, ENCLOSURE WITH NO MORE THAN TWO SIDE WALLS, AS LONG AS HE IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS HERE, AS LONG AS HE'S ABIDING BY THAT AND AS LONG AS THAT, UM, IS CONNECTED TO THE CARPORT, WHICH I BELIEVE THIS IS, THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE, HE CAN STILL HAVE THAT. SO THERE'S, UM, THE BOARD CANNOT TAKE AWAY SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S THAT SITUATION. THE BOARD CANNOT RESTRICT THAT WHEN IT SAYS CONFINED BY AT LEAST TWO SIDES, IS IT DOES THE, THE HOME PART AND THEN THE REAR COUNT AS THE TWO SIDES? I BELIEVE THE REAR IS OPEN, BUT YES, IT WOULD'VE COUNT AS TWO SIDES. SO COULD WE, COULD WE APPROVE A CARPORT LIMITED TO TWO SIDES BEING ONE SEC. IS IT'S OPEN. OH, IT'S OPEN IN THE REAR. SORRY. IS THERE A WAY FOR, FOR THIS TO BE READ TO WHERE WE COULD, WE COULD, WHOEVER DECIDES TO MAKE A MOTION COULD HONOR WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS RECOMMENDING IN THE REMOVAL? OR WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO MAKE SUCH A SUGGESTION? I'M NOT SURE. CAN THEY PUT A RESTRICTION, UH, LIMITED TO OPENINGS? I DON'T THINK THEY CAN, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THAT MAN COMMISSIONER. MAN. SO ON THE BACK, SO IT IS A HALF WALL THERE. SO DOES THAT COUNT AS, WHEN DOES IT COUNT AS A FULL, AS A HALF WALL? UM, YOU KNOW, SO, 'CAUSE THERE IS A WALL KIND OF PARTIALLY ON THE BACKSIDE. SO WOULD THAT COUNT AS A, A SECOND WALL? I WOULD SAY NO. SO WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY NEEDING, SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS JUST TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, UH, IS SAYING WE DON'T, THEY DON'T MIND THE SIDE SETBACK, UH, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE ENCLOSURE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. WE CAN'T PUT A CONDITION IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SUCH A REQUEST. BUT YOU AS THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE THAT REVISION AT THE PODIUM SAYING THAT YOU'RE, IF YOU SO DESIRE YOUR APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENCLOSURE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT MIGHT, THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME SWAY WITH THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION. 'CAUSE WE DO NEED NINE VOTES TO PASS SOMETHING. I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. OKAY. SO WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO SUCH A THING OR NOT. IT'S UP TO YOU. I, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. WHAT'S THE, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE PROPER WORDING TO DELIVER THAT . UH, WELL IF YOU'D LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION SO THAT YOUR CARPORT IS NOT ENCLOSED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY APPLICATION. SO THE CARPORT IS NOT ENCLOSED ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO, NOTED. OKAY, MR. CHAIR, CAN I ALSO COERCE HIM TO SOME ADDITIONAL MOLD COMMISSIONERS? YEAH, GO AHEAD. SO THE, UH, THE MATERIAL OF THE FENCING, TYPICALLY WE LIKE TO SEE A CAPPED ON THE TOP SO AS TO NOT PROVIDE, UH, PROVIDE KIND OF A OUT OF A HAZARD WITH THE SHARP EDGES. WE CAN'T, AGAIN, REQUIRE YOU TO DO THAT, BUT IF YOU VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO CAP THE TOP, SO THERE MAY BE SOMETHING WE CONSIDER AS YOU CUT DOWN THE HEIGHT OF THAT FENCE AS WELL. YEAH, I, I WAS HOPING THAT THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. SO, UM, YES, HAPPY TO DO SO. CUT IT DOWN TO THE CORRECT HEIGHT, SIX FEET AND THEN CAP IT AS WELL. OKAY. SO YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A CAP AFTER IT'S AT THE TOP OF THE, OF THE FENCE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE NO LONGER NEED AUTO NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE FENCE HEIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO ON THE, THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS CITED, UH, FOR BUILDING A FENCE AND A CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. UM, DID THEY COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR WAS IT ANYTHING BEYOND JUST, UM, A CITATION? THEY DID NOT BE, UH, THEY DID NOT COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I'M NOT SURE IF THE HOUSE WAS SOLD [00:20:02] A LITTLE BIT AFTER THAT OR, BUT DID NOT COME TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT IT APPEARS THAT SOMETIME AFTER 2019 ALL THESE INFRACTIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN THIS, THIS APPLICANT, UH, PURCHASED THE HOUSE IN OCTOBER, UH, LATE OCTOBER. YES, 2023. SO HE PURCHASED IT AS IS RIGHT NOW. I I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IN THE PROCESS THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS, IF IT WAS JUST A CITATION AND, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT HOLDS NO WEIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS SOLD WITH THAT. SO, AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IF, IF A PREVIOUS OWNER CITED IS, IS THAT, UH, INFRINGEMENT CARRIE WOULD FOLLOW THE NEW OWNER? THE CODE? I'M SORRY. UM, THIS IS RACHEL PARRISH. THE CODE, UH, CITATION STAYS ON THE PROPERTY. ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, NOT THE OWNER. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. I BELIEVE WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. YEP. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OH, THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY. LET'S HEAR IT. RESIDE AT TEN TWENTY FIVE WEST ATCH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 287-9025. REGARDING CASE NUMBER POA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 1 OR 7 23 WEST ELSEWHERE. DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, IL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BAHANA MET ON JUNE 10TH, 2024 AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED AND ADVERTISED MEETING DURING WHICH MR. KRAMER AND HIS COMMITTEE PRESENTED THE ASSEMBLY VOTED ON THE FOLLOWING, REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES. ONE, A FENCING MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL ON THE SIDE OF YOUR YARD. HANA DOES NOT SUPPORT TWO. A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK WILL ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK. BAHANA WILL SUPPORT IF THE OWNER WILL MOVE THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURE THAT FACES THE ADJACENT HOUSE WHICH HE HAS AGREED TO DO. THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR SITS ON THE LOT LINE, CREATING A HAZARD IF THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT IS REMOVED, MAKING IT MORE OPEN THAN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR BECOMES MORE ACCESSIBLE IN CASE OF THE MORGAN THREE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FEET HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SIDE IN THEIR YARD. BAHANA DOES NOT SUPPORT FOUR A VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT CARPORT, VERTICAL SUPPORT OR STRUCTURE ELEMENTS TO MATCH PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE MATERIALS. BAHANA WILL SUPPORT THE METAL ROOF BECAUSE THE ADJACENT HOUSE NEXT DOOR SITS ON THE LOT LINE AND A WOOD ROOF ON THE CARPORT WOULD BE A FIRE HARRISON. WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE METAL OVER THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE NCD FIVE STANDARD, WHICH STATES CORRUGATED METAL CORRUGATED COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND CORRUGATED FIBERGLASS ARE NOT ALLOWED AS ROOFING MATERIAL. THIS ISSUE MAY REQUIRE ANOTHER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. FIVE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FIVE FOOT CARPORT RESET STANDARD TO ALLOW A ONE INCH CARPORT RECESS FROM THE FRONT FACADE. THE HONDA SUPPORTS THIS REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE CARPORT CANNOT BE PUSHED BACK AS THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE SHUTS OUT INTO THE SPACE IF THERE IS TO BE ANY CARPORT. THIS FOOTPRINT IS THE ONLY OPTION THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO REMOVE THE CHAIN OF THE GATE ACROSS THE FRONT. MOHAN SEEKS TO UPHOLD ITS TD FIVE LEGAL STANDARDS, BUT WE ALSO TRY AND WORK WITH RESIDENTS WHEN POSSIBLE. RESPECTFULLY. DANIEL HING, BEACON HILL ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. OH, ZINA, MAKE SURE ZUNA. UH, SO WE HAVE UH, TWO, WE HAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN FRONT OF US TODAY. AND THE GRANT, THE VARIANCE, UH, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT BE NEEDED. WE JUST GOT ONE. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WAS REMOVED. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION THE APPLICANT, UH, IS GONNA COMPLY WITH GIVEN THE LIMITING THE FENCE HEIGHT TO SIX FEET AND THEN ALSO AGREEING TO, UH, CAP THE TOP. SO DON'T NEED THAT ONE. SO THE VARIANCES WE'RE GONNA BE READING TODAY ARE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 24 DASH 0 360 1. I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A FENCING MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED MATERIAL ON THE SIDE IN REAR YARD. WELL, UM, YES, SIDE REAR YARD, A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH ONE INCH SITE SETBACK AND THREE, UH, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL AREA. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT CARPORT, VERTICAL SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE ELEMENTS TO MATCH PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE MATERIALS AND FOUR FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FIVE FOOT CARPORT, UH, RECESS STANDARD TO ALLOW A ONE INCH, UH, CARPORT RECESS FROM THE FRONT FACADE SITUATED AT 7 2 3 WEST EL SMS PLACE. APPLICANT BEING PHILIP KREMER KRAMER. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY AS SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY [00:25:01] TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY ALLOWING THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE AND THE CARPORT STRUCTURE. MATERIAL VARIANCE WILL ENSURE SUSTAINED DURABILITY FOR CONTINUOUS USE OF THE FENCE AND CARPORT, AS WELL AS PROVIDE PRIVACY BETWEEN NEIGHBORING LOTS. THE CARPORT AS CONSTRUCTED AND CURRENT LOCATION ALLOWS FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REDUCED, UH, BY ING PARKING AND SUITABLE OFFENSIVE MATERIAL. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE FENCING MATERIAL PROVIDES PROPER SEPARATION BETWEEN LOTS AND THE CARPORT WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVER FOR VEHICLES FOR THE VARIANCE, WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED. AND THERE ONLY DISTRICT WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER. THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE, UH, ALLOWED WITHIN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE SUBSTANTIAL OR SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STAFF FINDS THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR THE VARIANCES ARE LOCATED INSIDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCES SAW DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE ADDITIONS, UH, TO THE PROPERTY, UH, WERE INHA WERE INHERITED BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER AND AN AIR OF THE LOT REDUCES THIS AREA OF SPACE. IS THE AREA OF SPACE NEEDED FOR CO COVERED PARKING AND A MOTION? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNI. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA BE LOOKING, UM, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCES AS RAD. UM, MY CONCLUSION IS BASED ON LIKE THE BEACON HILL, UH, LETTER SUPPORT, UH, THEY WERE RECOMMENDING THE REMOVAL OF THAT SIDE CORRUGATED, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT TESTIMONY THAT HE'S GONNA BE REMOVING. AND THEN MY OTHER CONCERN AGAIN WAS THE FENCING, UH, HAZARD AND WHICH THE APPLICANT AGREED TO, TO, UH, CAP THE TOPS OF THOSE, UH, OF THE FENCING STRUCTURE. UH, SO GIVEN THAT AND THE O UH, NO OTHER REAL, UH, OPPOSITION, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE VARIANCES. COMMISSIONER BAGMAN, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I'LL ALSO ADD THAT, UM, WE APPRECIATE HIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, AND TO AMEND, UH, HIS APPLICATION, UH, HERE. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO MAYBE POTENTIALLY FRIENDLY, UH, MOTION OR DISCUSSION IS TO REMOVE THE FIRST DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE CORRUGATED METAL VARIANCE. UM, BECAUSE BEACON HILL DID NOT SUPPORT THAT PART OF THE MOTION. UM, AND SO IF WE SEPARATE THAT OUT OF IT, MAYBE A SECOND DIALOGUE. OKAY. UM, THERE'S A FINAL AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO, UH, REMOVE ITEM. THE FIRST ITEM REGARDED CORRUGATED METAL, WHICH COULD BE READ SEPARATELY. UH, SO WE WILL SEE HOW THAT PANS OUT. UH, WHAT DO Y'ALL WHAT DO YOU THINK COMMISSIONER ZUNA? UH, MY INTENT IS LET'S TAKE A VOTE, SEE HOW IT GOES, AND THEN COME BACK IF WE NEED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. OKAY. UM, HOW ABOUT THIS, UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FORMALLY AMEND TO REMOVE THE FIRST ITEM? SO BE IT. OKAY. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT JUST TO SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. CAN WE HAVE A, UM, UM, A ROLL CALL VOTE TO SEE, UH, WHERE THE COMMISSION STANDS ON REMOVING ITEM NUMBER ONE? SO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, A NON CONCURRENCE IS MATERIAL STAYS. YES. IF YOU VOTE NO, THEN WE'RE GOING TO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING TO KEEP THE MOTION AS MADE IF YOU'RE VOTING YES. YOU'RE SAYING REMOVE CORRUGATED METAL, WHICH COULD BE TAKEN UP SEPARATELY. COMMISSIONER MANNA? NO. WHAT? WELL, YOU, YOU VOTED OKAY THEN. YES, I VOTED. I VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT. SORRY, , I GOT CONFUSED THERE FOR A SECOND. SO, I'M SORRY. YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. CHAIR. ORIAN? UH, NO. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UH, BAR? YES. BARTON. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENINA? NO. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? NO. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? NO. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE IS EIGHT TO THREE, UH, NAYS. AND THEREFORE, UM, IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE NEED A SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR AN AMENDMENT. UH, IT IS TO STAY, [00:30:02] UH, AS READ, UH, I WOULD CAUTION THE, THE MAKER, UH, THAT THERE ARE THREE AGAINST. MM-HMM. . AND SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, MODIFY YOUR MOTION OR WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY. OH, CHANCE. CAN I TALK TO THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THE, THE APPLICANT, IF YOU WANNA COME BEFORE THE MIC, I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK FORWARD. SO, SO THE, THE, UM, CONSENSUS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN JUST ON THE MATERIALS THAT THEY'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, THE CORRUGATED METAL STAIN, IF YOU WANNA PLEAD A HARDSHIP OR TELL US WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THAT CORRUGATED METAL TO STAY, UH, VERSUS ALL THE OTHER VARIANCES THAT WE'RE SEEKING, WHICH IS GONNA BE MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU. THE MATERIALS ARE KEEPING ALL THE OTHER VARIANCES THAT ARE ALSO IN PLAY. UH, 'CAUSE THEY'RE ALL KIND OF BASICALLY THE PACKAGE. SO, UM, AS FAR AS THE CORRUGATED METAL, UM, THE HARDSHIP INVOLVED WOULD BE IN THE, UM, IN THE TAKE DOWN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF IT. I ACTUALLY HAD THE CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH ALL MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND NOT ONE OF THEM SAID THEY HAD ANY KIND OF ISSUE WITH IT. THEY ACTUALLY APPRECIATED THE PRIVACY. THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD THING BECAUSE I'M SURE SOME OF YOU'RE AWARE, BUT THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE CRIME RATE IN BEACON HILL. THERE'S BEEN ARSENY, THERE'S BEEN THEFTS, THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE SQUATTING IN INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES, BUT GETTING INTO THEIR BACKYARDS. SO MY NEIGHBORS, UM, HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING THAT MATERIAL, UM, ECONOMICALLY WISE. UH, THE, THAT TYPE OF MATERIAL LAST MUCH LONGER THEN THE WOOD MATERIAL THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY REPLACE IT. UM, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT SURROUNDING HOMES, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WOOD'S DETERIORATING, FALLING APART. UM, AND I THINK, UH, THE ONLY OTHER REASON, UM, THAT I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW IS WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT, UM, FOR, UM, THE LOT NEXT DOOR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AWARE, BUT THE LOT NEXT DOOR. UM, THE HOA ALSO CONFIRMED THIS. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. UM, I THINK THEY'RE IN BUILDING SOMETHING, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MOTION IN AND OUT OF THERE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT, THAT KIND OF HELPED US STAY, UM, SEPARATE FROM THAT LOT AND KEEP THE PRIVACY FROM THAT LOT. AND WHEN I SAY THERE'S A LOT OF MOTION, I MEAN, THERE'S CARS THAT COME AND GO PRETTY OFTEN. I DON'T THINK IT'S MALICIOUS PER SE, IT'S JUST, UH, A LOT OF, UH, TRAFFIC, LOT OF STRANGERS ON, ON OUR END. OKAY. ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION BEFORE WE GO BACK TO A CLOSE HEARING? BENES? COMMISSIONER BEN? UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE COST ALSO OF TAKING THE ECONOMIC COST OF TAKING THAT DOWN AND REPLACING IT WITH A, WITH A WOOD FENCE OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL? I, UM, I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA AT ALL. I DID, I DID A GOOGLE SEARCH AND I SAW NUMBERS ANYWHERE BETWEEN EIGHT TO $10,000, UM, TO REPLACE THAT FENCE. YEAH. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING. UM, PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE BACK TO THE MOTION AS READ. UM, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO, COMMISSIONER ZUNA? I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE VOTE AS READ. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PASS, UH, THAT ALL OF THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT PASS. I MEAN THAT WOULD RIGHT. SO RIGHT. THEN WE'D HAVE TO RECONSIDER AND WE CONSIDER, RIGHT. SO RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECONSIDER IF THE VARIANCE HAS NOT PASSED. SO, OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS APPLICANT, UM, INHERITED THIS ISSUE. HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T BUILD THIS. AND I'M SURE AS A SINCE HE'S BEEN IN THE HOME IN LESS, LESS THAN A YEAR. I KNOW WHEN I WAS IN MY FIRST HOME, LESS THAN A YEAR, I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A BUNCH OF MONEY LAYING AROUND FOR A LITTLE WHILE. SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS READ. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER ANA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. AYE. CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION FAILS. SEVEN TO FOUR. UH, IS THERE A, A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? SO MOVED. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. RECONSIDER. UH, ANYBODY CAN SAY SECOND. RECONSIDER BY MANNA . UM, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, WE NOW HAVE A [00:35:01] RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION. UH, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? THE, THE MOTION WOULD BE THE SAME AS READ, EXCEPT WE'RE GONNA STRIKE THE NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS A FENCING MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CORRUGATED METAL ON THE REAR, UH, SIDE AND REAR. OKAY. SECOND. AND THERE'S A SECOND FOR THAT. UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, ANY DISCUSSION? CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY, SO MAYBE IT'S ME, BUT I'M TOTALLY LOST NOW. SO WE'RE GONNA SAY THE, HE CAN KEEP THE CORRUGATED NO METAL. NO, THE NEW MOTION IS THE SAME AS BEFORE, BUT EXCLUDING THE CORRUGATED METAL. SO IT'S, IT DOESN'T, IT, IT IS NO, NO VARIANCE FOR CORRUGATED METAL INCLUDED IN THIS NEW MOTION. OKAY. THAT'S HOW, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. UH, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CORRUGATED MEDAL, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE CORRUGATED MEDAL. I KNOW IT, IT, IT DIDN'T PASS LAST TIME. BUT IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS IN OPPOSITION, WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY DEVIATION? LIKE MAYBE ONLY IN THE REAR OR ONLY ON ONE SIDE? IS THERE ANY, ANYBODY WHO VOTED AGAINST THAT THAT WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A THING? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. COULD, COULD WE SEE THE, UM, THE OVERHEAD VIEW AGAIN OF THE PERIMETER OF WHERE THE CORRUGATED METAL FUNDS IS PROPOSED OR PRESENTED? PLEASE? THERE YOU GO. I MEAN, ME PERSONALLY IN THE REAR OR ON THE, OR ON THE WEST SIDE DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. 'CAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE WEST SIDE. IT LOOKS LIKE SOME SORT OF A PARKING LOT, BUT CRUISE COMMISSION. SO THAT, SO THEN WE WOULD, UH, JUST SAY FOR TWO SIDES OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE, THE REAR YARD AND EVERYTHING ELSE HE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. YES. THAT WOULD BE A, THAT WAS SOMETHING I WOULD SUGGEST. OR THE TOTAL REAR. RIGHT. SO IT COULD BE ANYTHING BESIDE THE BACK OF THE BACK LINE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT WOULD BE TRULY THE SIDE. SO THAT THE SIDE WOULD, IN ESSENCE, UH, FROM THE STREET PERSPECTIVE WOULD STILL BE, OH, SO YOU'RE SAYING ONLY FROM THE, THE REAR OF THE HOME? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO I'LL START THIS OFF. I HEREBY, UH, I MAKE A MOTION FOR, LEMME PULL THAT UP ONE SECOND HERE. SO I, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD BOARDROOM ADJUSTMENT GRANDER REQUEST, UH, FOR FENCING MATERIAL TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL, UH, WITH THE CAP, UH, ONLY ON THE, IN THE REAR BACKYARD REAR OF THE, OF THE HOME, LIMITED TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. UM, WITH ALL THE OTHER FINDINGS KEPT THE SAME. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ARE YOU, ARE WE, DID WE, ARE WE JUST SAYING IT'S IN THE REAR AND NOT ON THE WEST SIDE? YES, IT, IT IS, IT IS ONLY IN THE REAR OF THE PHYSICAL HOME. BECAUSE WHEN WE SAY SIDE, IT ALSO CAN INCLUDE THE SIDE OF THE PHYSICAL HOME. BUT WE'RE ONLY SAYING IT'S LIMITED FOR TO JUST FROM THE BACK WALL OF THE HOME AND TO THE BACK. SO ARE WE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE WEST SIDE AND WHAT'S GOING ON ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOME? I MEAN, CAN WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT? SURE. ABSOLUTELY. WHY ANYONE IS OPPOSED TO THE LEFT SIDE? I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE WEST SIDE, BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO PASS. UH, SO, UH, , MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE IS THE FRONT COMPONENT, UM, THAT FACES THE STREET IS METAL. AND SO THAT'S WOULD BE CONTRARY TO, UH, BEACON HILL'S DESIRES FOR, UH, AS FAR AS THEIR UH, DISTRICT. UM, SECOND THING IS THAT IT APPEARS THAT ONLY PARTIAL, ONLY THE, THE FENCE ON THE FRONT SIDE, UM, IS ONLY PARTIALLY METAL AND THE BACKSIDE IS NOT. AND SO BY LOOKING AT THIS, IT'S LIKE THE MATERIAL COULD BE REUSED AND PUSHED TO THE BACK WHILE LEAVING THE [00:40:01] BACK, YOU KNOW, SO, SO TO BE ABLE TO REUSE THE FENCE. SO WE AREN'T REALLY LOSING, UH, UM, THAT FENCE FENCING. AND THEN I ALSO THINK FROM A STREET VIEW, UM, IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, THE CONSERVATION'S DISTRICT'S DESIRES. SO I THINK IT PRESERVES THAT, WHICH IS WHY I KIND OF WAS PUSHING THAT. OKAY. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO MY QUESTION IS, SO FROM THE POINT OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, MEANING THE FRONT CORNER OF, OF THE YEAH. SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A SIX FOOT WOODEN FENCE? YEAH, WHAT, WHAT THE MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE IS ANY FENCING THAT RUNS ALONG PHYSICALLY ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOME OR FACING THE STREET. SO THAT'S THE MOTION AS READ THAT IT, IT'S FOR CORRUGATED METAL SOLELY ON THE SIDE AND REAR, UM, NORTH OF THE PHYSICAL HOME. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, COULD, COULD YOU CLARIFY THE REASON WHY YOU SUPPORT THAT? UH, I, I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OF, OF THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE IN SUPPORT. IT'S ALREADY THERE. HE DIDN'T PAY FOR IT. HE DIDN'T DO IT. AND, AND IT'S, IT'S NOT, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS THEY DON'T WANT IT SEEN FROM THE STREET. AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY IT'D BE IN SUPPORT. SO. ALRIGHT. I, I NEED COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ CLARIFICATION. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IT'S GONNA RUN UP UNTIL THE HOUSE WHERE THE HOUSE, YEAH. SO IF I'M, IT RUNS ALONG THE BACK FENCE. MM-HMM AND THEN IT RUNS UP THE SIDES UNTIL IT ENCOUNTERS THE HOME. OKAY. THEN IT STOPS. SO THE FRONT CORNER OF THE HOME IT WILL STOP? NO, THE BACK CORNER. THE BACK CORNER. BACK CORNER. OKAY. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINANCE OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO THE APPLICANT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH THERE, BUT STAFF WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN WHAT EXACTLY IT IS WE JUST DID. YES, YOU GOT IT. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER BEN, UH, BRIEFLY LEFT THE MEETING. UH, ITEM TWO, ITEM TWO IS BO A 24 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 2. ADDRESS IS 12 1 0 2 HENER ROAD COUNCIL. DISTRICT EIGHT LITTLE APPLICANT IS LAW OFFICE OF E-A-R-P-L-L-C-A REQUEST FOR ONE 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK. TWO, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT BUFFER TO ALLOW AN ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ON THE FRONT YARD. THREE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM AND 20 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACK. ZONING IS O2 HIGH RISE OFFICE CASE SUMMARY IS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON HEMAN ROAD NORTH OF VAN JACKSON ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES BEFORE APPLYING FOR PERMITS AND STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS 10 SUITE SPACES LOCATED ON A CORNER, LOT OF EBNER ROAD AND SANDSTONE DRIVE. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED SHOWS ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK OF THE SIDE, NOT ABUTTING SANDSTONE DRIVE, AS WELL AS THE REAR SETBACK WHERE UTILITY EASEMENTS EXIST. FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ELIMINATION OF THE FRONT BUFFY YARD ALONG HINA ROAD. HENA ROAD IS CLASSIFIED AS A PRIMARY MATERIAL AND SUCH. REQUIRES A 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD FROM FOR AN O2 DISTRICT. THIS IS YOUR SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SURROUNDING AREA, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SITE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 6 2. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD ENCROACH OFFICE USES NEAR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO THE VARIANCES WERE ALTERED ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE LAW POSSESSES ADEQUATE SPACE FOR REDUCED BUFFER [00:45:01] AND TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WILL NOT ALLOW SCREENING ALONG HEAT IN THE ROAD. NOTIFICATION PLAN, STAFF NOTE OUT 21 NOTICES THREE. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION. NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND ONE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET. AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT. LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH RUSSELL. UM, I AM A LAWYER HERE IN SAN ANTONIO AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO WE ARE REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES. INITIALLY WE ONLY STARTED WITH ONE REQUEST AND IT'S NUMBER ONE A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT SETBACK. SO IN THE 1980S, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO APPROACHED, UM, THE PRIOR OWNERS AND, UM, REQUESTED A PURCHASE OF PART OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO EXPAND HUEBNER. UM, AFTER THAT TIME, MY CLIENTS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO AND HAVE SAT ON THE PROPERTY SINCE THAT TIME BECAUSE THE, UM, THE DECREASE IN THE PROPERTY SIZE HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP THAT SIZE PROPERTY. AND UM, THEY HAVE DECIDED TO ATTEMPT TO MOVE FORWARD AND ARE INITIALLY STARTING WITH THIS, UM, REQUEST NUMBER ONE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE OFFICE SPACE AND TO DECREASE THE SETBACK THAT WAS REQUIRED. UM, ON THE FRONT. ONCE WE PUT IN THE APPLICATION, UM, THE STAFF FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CAME BACK WITH THESE THREE, I'M SORRY, TWO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS WE HAVE ACTUALLY, UM, AND I DON'T THINK IT MADE IT INTO THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO, UM, A SECOND PROPOSAL BY TREES FOR THE BUFFER. SO, UM, TREES CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD, UM, REQUEST THAT WE COMPLY WITH A BUFFER AT LEAST AT 50%. AND WE PROPOSED A TREE PLAN THAT NOT ONLY, UM, COVERS IT LOOKS LIKE A 50% OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREES, BUT THEN ADDITIONAL, UM, PRESERVATION OF TREES IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LOT. SO I, I SENT IT OFF THIS MORNING. IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT MADE INTO THE PRESENTATION. I'M NOT SURE HOW I CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS THIS. WE CAN, WE CAN PUT IT UP. WE CAN. PERFECT. PERFECT. AND SO, UM, IF YOU SEE ALONG THE FRONT, ALONG THE HENER ACCESS, UM, THE REASON WHY THE TREE BUFFER CANNOT GO ALONG THE ENTIRE, UM, STRETCH OF THE EBNER FRONTAGE IS BECAUSE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THIS LOT 'CAUSE IT IS A SMALL AREA, UM, WOULD GET IN THE WAY OF THAT. AND SO, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE'S BEEN LANDSCAPE PROVIDED WITH, IS THE POINTER, APOLOGIES. OH, IT'S RIGHT HERE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE THE LANDSCAPE IN THIS CORNER WITH A SPACE FOR DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPE HERE. THIS IS PARKING SPOTS AND THE LANDSCAPE ALL ALONG HERE ALONG ALL BASICALLY ALONG THE EDGE. UM, AND SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE 50% BUFFER AS PROPOSED BY TREES, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A SMALL PORTION AND THEN THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE IS, UM, A QUESTION AS TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OF THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA. SO THERE'S A MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THIS WAY. THERE'S ANOTHER, UM, OFFICE SPACE CADDY CORNER INTO THE LEFT. THERE'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTION OF ON A PROPOSED BUILDING. SO QUITE A LOT OF THE, THE BUSINESSES ALONG EBNER ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTERISTIC TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. UM, LET'S MAKE SURE I ADDRESSED EVERYTHING. SO AGAIN, THE FIRST REQUEST IS FOR, UM, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURES FROM THE BACK, THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT BUFFER ON THE, UM, LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, UM, MINIMUM 20 FOOT SETBACK. SORRY, MY, I'M CUT OFF HERE TO ALLOW FOR A 15 [00:50:01] FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SIDE SETBACK IS ALONG HERE IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM, THE BUILDING IS SOMETHING THAT IS COMMERCIALLY SUITABLE FOR THE CLIENT AS WELL AS ENOUGH, UM, PARKING SPOTS. THIS, UM, LOT RIGHT NOW IS AN UNDEVELOPED LOT. THIS WHOLE STRETCH IS AN UNDEVELOPED LOT, UM, WITH TREES AND UM, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET RIGHT HERE. ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS STREET IS A DAYCARE FACILITY. UM, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL ON THE BACKSIDE. THERE IS A FIELD HERE RIGHT NOW AND, UM, ACCORDING TO THE NEIGHBORS A PROPOSAL TO MAYBE BUILD SOMETHING RIGHT HERE. UM, WE HAVE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE, UM, AT LEAST FOUR IN SUPPORT. AND AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN NO OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M GONNA LEAD OFF SOME QUESTIONS HERE. SO THERE IS, UM, HENER ROAD IN THIS AREA IS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL SUPPOSED TO BE 120 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IN THE BUFFER, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT SAY THAT WHEN YOU'RE ABUTTING A PRIMARY ARTERIAL AND YOU HAVE A UTILITY REASON THAT PRECLUDES THE PROVISION OF SUCH A BUFFER THAT YOU CAN REDUCE TO FIVE FEET PAST THE 14 FOOT PLATTED CPS. UH, WHAT DID, WHAT DID Y'ALL DO TO, UH, LOOK INTO PURSUING THAT? UM, I'M SORRY, YOUR QUESTION WAS KINDA LONG. CAN YOU REPEAT IT AGAIN? SURE, SURE. YEAH. SO, UH, YOU HAVE A 14 FOOT PLATTED CPS EASEMENT, UH, ALONG EBNER. YES. UH, BECAUSE HUEBNER'S A PRIME ARTERIAL, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN THE BUFFER IN THE CODE THAT ACTUALLY THIS BOARD ADDED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AS A RECOMMENDATION DURING THE UDC CHANGE, THAT, THAT WOULD REDUCE THE BUFFER DOWN TO FIVE FEET. OKAY. SO WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK ABOUT, WHAT DID Y'ALL DO TO, UH, LOOK INTO THAT? SO, UM, I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT. UM, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE THAT I CONSULTED ON THIS PROJECT, UM, THEY NEEDED TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFER IN TOTALITY. AND NOT JUST, EVEN THE REDUCEMENT TO THE FIVE FOOT WASN'T ENOUGH IN ORDER TO BUILD A PROPERTY THAT WAS ABLE TO BE RENTED OUT AND HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES. IT'S A SMALL LOT. UM, OKAY. IT'S A SMALL STRETCH AND IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL BEHIND. YEAH. AND THEN, UH, WELL THE, THE ISSUE ABOUT THE 15 FOOT IN THE REAR AND THE SIDE, I GET IT. YOU KNOW. YES. BUT QUESTION FOR STAFF, I MEAN, BECAUSE THIS WAS PLATTED IN 2023, I JUST LOOKED THE PLAT UP. UH, HOW COME THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THE, UM, 17 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO? LET ME LOOK. OKAY. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU BECAUSE IT, IT, AND I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE PLATTING, IT CAME TO ME AFTERWARDS. SO I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. WELL, I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH ALL THIS IS, IS THAT HENER ROAD'S MAJOR, I MEAN IT'S A PRIMARY ART ONTARIO FOR A REASON. AND WHEN YOU DRIVE UP AND DOWN, ESPECIALLY THAT PART OF HE MIRROR, YOU CAN SEE ON GOOGLE MAPS THAT THERE'S CPS POLES, EVERYTHING'S KIND OF CRAMMED IN THERE. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A 12 FOOT SIDEWALK. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF DEVIATIONS FROM WHAT IS WHAT THE CODE WANTS. AND, AND SINCE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE UP THIS REALLY LARGE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 'CAUSE YOU'RE, YOUR SHORTFALL IS 17 FEET. YES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THESE BUFFERS, SOME OF THESE EASEMENTS WITH THE CITY EVER WANTED TO WIDEN. HE THE ROAD, THEY'RE RELYING ON THESE THINGS SO THAT THERE'S ACTUAL SPACE THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING AWAY FROM. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE REDUCE THE BUFFER AND YOU ALREADY GOT AWAY FROM THE 17 FEET, YOU KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN THEY REALLY NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO HE THE ROAD. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS PARKING THERE AND THERE, ALL THE UTILITIES ARE CRAMMED IN THERE. IT JUST KIND OF MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS. I'M JUST, I MEAN, DID ANY OF THIS COME UP AT ALL DURING PLANNING? NONE AT ALL. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT, UM, IT'S AN AREA WITH NOT A LOT OF LEEWAY AND WIGGLE ROOM AND THE WAY MY CLIENTS HAVE OWNED A LOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT DEVELOPMENT. WE WANT TO CONTINUE PROGRESSING THE CITY AND THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION WHICH THEY BELIEVE WAS HOW THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED AND THE, THE LEAST IMPACTFUL, UM, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD SOME, YOU KNOW, BIG HIGH RISE, UM, OFFICE BUILDING. THIS WAS THE SMALLEST THING THEY COULD BUILD. BUT THEY DO WANNA USE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY PURCHASED AND THEY PAY TAXES FOR. AND THIS IS THE SMALLEST THING THEY COULD FIND TO DO UNLESS THEY MADE THE BUILDING SMALLER. RIGHT. I THINK EVEN IF THEY MADE THE BUILDING SMALLER, THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF PARKING SPOTS, THIS IS LIKE PRETTY MUCH AS SMALL AS THEY CAN GET. YEAH. AT 11,000, YOU MEAN YOU, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA NEED AT A MINIMUM, I THINK IT'S ONE TO 300. SO YOU MIGHT NEED, YOU KNOW, 35 OR WHATEVER THAT IS. UH, AND YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT THERE, BUT YOU ALSO CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T PARK IN HEMAN ROAD. AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, I'M A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ONLY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE PUSHING THE EDGE OF THE ENVELOPE AND YOU'VE ALREADY GOT NOT HAVING TO DO THAT RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION WAS REALLY THE [00:55:01] BIG, UH, GIMME, UH, ON, ON OUR END. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IF, IF THERE'S ANY MORE THAT I CAN, I CAN SEE, SEE GETTING BEHIND. BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I'M KIND OF TAKING UP ALL THE TIME HERE. COMMISSIONER AMANDA. SO I JUST CONCUR WITH THE SIZE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING. SO, SO IT IS THAT THE BUILDING'S BEEN MAXED OUT TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY, WHICH IS AFFECTING THE PRO UH, PARKING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DRIVERS FOR WHY IT IS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SO MUCH OF IT. SO I THINK BY SHRINKING A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING SOME PARKING AROUND TO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND, AND MAYBE, UM, MAYBE ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT. SO YEAH. BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, HOW MANY STORIES IS THIS, UM, PROPOSED RIGHT NOW? ONE SINGLE STORY WITH OFFICE SUITES? IS THERE AN OPTION TO GO HIGHER TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT ON THE, THE LOT? SO WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE HAD NO RESIDENTS SPEAKING OPPOSITION TO OUR OFFICE BUILDING. I DO BELIEVE IF WE WENT HIGHER THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. UM, THERE ARE, UM, SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS BEHIND US. UM, AND BY SUBSTANTIAL I DON'T MEAN A LOT, I MEAN LARGER LOTS. AND SO THESE ARE LARGER HOMES. PEOPLE THAT DON'T, I THINK WENT OFFICE SPACE LOOKING DOWN INTO THEIR BACKYARDS. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON ANYONE SIGNING TO SPEAK? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. IF THERE'S, UH, NO OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. I MEAN I'M, I'M, I'M READY TO, UH, WERE WE WAITING FOR THE CITY? OH, THAT'S RIGHT. APOLOGIZE. . WE'RE STILL CONFIRMING. AND SO I GUESS, UM, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WHICH IF WE CAME BACK WITH A SMALLER BUILDING, WE WOULD BE, HAVE MORE SUPPORT? WELL, WE, WE CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS ON YOUR BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A CONDITION. I'M ASKING FOR IF THE SUPPORT LEVEL WOULD INCREASE. UM, OR IF IT WOULD BE, BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE TO CONTINUANCES ALREADY TO TRY AND WORK THROUGH THE TREE BUFFER SITUATION AND TRY AND, YOU KNOW, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS HAD. UM, SO IF WE NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE BUILDING SMALLER, MY CLIENTS WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY. THEY PAID QUITE A BIT OF MONEY FOR IT. THEY PAY TAXES ON EVERY YEAR. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD TO PAY FOR MY TIME AS WELL. OKAY. SO THIS, THIS BOARD HAS A CREDIT CONTINUANCE. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS. UH, WE GRANTED A CONTINUANCE, UH, LAST MEETING. I BELIEVE THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN TWO REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE ON THIS YES. ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. YEAH. UM, BECAUSE THE TREES ISSUE CAME UP LAST MINUTE, UM, ON OUR FIRST SETTING. AND THEN, UM, WE HAD SOME THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH. YEAH. WELL I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'LL JUST, I'LL REITERATE, I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE REAR VARIANCE AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE SIDE, UH, ISSUE. IT'S JUST THE FRONT BUFFER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HYPNO ROAD IS JUST, IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A 12 A SIDEWALK. IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE ROOM FOR UTILITIES. IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE MORE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. I THINK THAT, BUT, BUT THE PROVISION OF A BUFFER IS THE ONE THING THAT GOING TO THE CITY MAY ACTUALLY REALLY RELY ON SO THEY CAN, THEY COULD DO SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THE, WHEN THE TIME COMES ABOUT. SO YOU'RE REALLY CLOSE TO I 10 IN THIS AREA TOO. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT FAR FROM HEMAN OAKS. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF CARS GOING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. SO, UM, I DID FIND THAT THERE WAS, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION WITH THE PLAT. OKAY. SO THIS APPLICANT'S ALREADY BENEFITED FROM 17 FEET. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE UP TO THE CITY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE SIDEWALK? HAS, HAVE Y'ALL APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDEWALK REDUCTION? I HAVE NOT. UM, I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS DONE THROUGH PLATING AT THAT TIME. CORRECT. SORRY. YEAH, IT'LL BE DONE WITH THE PERMIT. UM, I CAN LOOK THAT ONE UP TOO. YEAH. IT'S, IT'S JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A 12 FOOT SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT, YOU KNOW, YOU START ADDING ALL THESE NUMBERS UP, AND NOW, NOW YOU'RE LOSING PRECIOUS WIDTH. SO YEAH, I'M, THEN I, I THINK ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO ADDRESS BOTH THE SIDEWALK ISSUE AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THE BUILDING SMALLER AND STILL, UM, THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON THOUGH, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO DO A FIVE FOOT A SIDE OUTSIDE OF THE 14TH FOOT THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THIS BOARD DID TO GIVE PEOPLE IN YOUR POSITION THAT ARE ABUTTING A PRIMARY TARIAL, SOME SORT OF RELIEF. AND I THINK THAT'S ALREADY ALL IN THERE. AND SO I GUESS THE REASON WHY WE WOULD REQUEST A SMALLER BUILDING IS WITH A SMALLER BUILDING WOULD BE, UM, LESS PARKING. AND SO MAYBE WE COULD GIVE BACK SOME OF THAT AREA THAT WE'RE REQUESTING THE BUFFER ON IN THE FRONT. UM, A LOT OF THE ISSUE IS BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. RIGHT. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A SITE PLANNING ISSUE, NOT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ISSUE. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND SO, UM, WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF A CONTINUANCE, WE COULD GO BACK AND DO A NEW SITE PLAN WITH A SMALLER BUILDING AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A REQUEST FOR SOME OF THESE SAME OFFERS. [01:00:01] OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE'LL LEAVE THIS UP TO THE COMMISSION. I'M NOT A, I'M NOT FOR A CONTINUANCE. I'M READY TO VOTE ON THIS NOW. UM, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE WHIMS OF THE COMMISSION. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO I, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT NEGATIVE IMPACT WOULD PERHAPS A NO VOTE ON THIS, UH, PROPOSAL MEAN FOR THE, THE APPLICANT? WELL, I, I THINK WE, THE, THE 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK AND THE FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK I'M IN, I THINK WE CAN VOTE ON THAT RIGHT NOW. I JUST NOT, I'M IN NO WAY IN SUPPORT OF A, ANYTHING OF A BUFFER REDUCTION. SO ARE YOU, I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR TWO OUT OF THE THREE RIGHT NOW. YEP. I DON'T WANNA BE, BUT, BUT MR. CHAIR, SO, BUT THE, THE REASON SHE'S LOOKING FOR CONTINUANCE IS THAT FRONT BUFFER, RIGHT? IT MAY NOT BE, IT MAY NOT BE A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT AS THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF. IT MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT SHE CAN ALREADY, IF WE DENY, WELL CAN, IF WE DENY ALL THREE VARIANCES. UH, SO IF WE READ THE TWO AND THEY PASS, AND THEN THE ONE THAT'S NOT READ COULD ESSENTIALLY BE A CONTINUANCE ON THAT ONE, OR THAT ONE COMES FOR THE BOARD. MY THING IS STAFF IS, UH, RECOMMENDING DOWN TO SEVEN AND A HALF. SHE CAN ALREADY GO DOWN TO FIVE RIGHT NOW. GOTCHA. OKAY. BECAUSE WE, THIS BOARD VOTED TO PUSH THAT CHANGE THROUGH THE UDC AMENDMENTS TO GIVE PEOPLE A BUDDING OF PRIMARY TARIAL RELIEF SO THAT SHE, SHE ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY TO PUT A FIVE FOOT BUFFER BEHIND THAT CPS EASEMENT. I, I DON'T. SO IF WE TAKE THE, THE VOTE ON THE TWO ITEMS, SHE GOES BACK AND WITH HER, UH, PLANNERS AND DECIDE THAT THAT IS WITHIN WHAT THEY CAN, THEY DON'T NEED, THEY CAN JUST MOVE FORWARD. I MEAN, THEY, THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A FREE, THEY ALREADY GOT THE 17 FEET CONSIDERATION DURING PLATTING. MM-HMM. , THEY'RE GONNA BE PURSUING A REDUCTION OF THE 12 FOOT SIDEWALK. MM-HMM. . AND SO THAT'S ALREADY, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY IF, IF THEY GET HALF THE SIDEWALK THAT'S ALREADY 23 FEET THEY'RE GETTING AND I JUST CAN'T GIVE UP ANYMORE. I'M SORRY. SO DOES THAT THAT MAKE SENSE? IT ABSOLUTELY DOES MAKE SENSE. UM, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT, UM, THE BOARD THAT OUR INITIAL REQUEST WAS FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. AND SO I'M HESITANT TO NOT FIGHT FOR THAT FRONT SETBACK AND GO BACK TO THE PLANNERS TO BE ABLE TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD VOTE ON MAYBE ITEMS TWO AND THREE AND REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. UM, YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT I THINK, BUT I'M ONLY ONE VOTE HERE, SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO. I GOT RIGHT. YOU GOT IT. OH, THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 62, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR, UM, ONE, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE IN THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK, UH, AND A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 1 2 1 0 2 HE ROAD APPLICANT BEING LAW OFFICE OF E-R-P-L-L-C, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY YOU PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THE VARIANCES WILL LEAVE SUFFICIENT SPACE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THEY, UH, AND WILL NOT CAUSE PUBLIC HARM. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AS A PROPERTY DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE, THE VARIANCES WOULD OBSERVE THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADEQUATE SPACE REMAINS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOT AND THE LANDSCAPE ELIMINATION AND, AND WILL ALLOW, UH, PROPER PARKING AREA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS SUFFICIENT DISTANCE REMAINS IN THE REAR INSIDE SIX, APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. THE VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND THE STREET CLASSIFICATION, STREET CLASSIFICATION THAT PREVENT ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICE USE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. UM, I DID NOT READ THE MOTION REGARDING THE, REGARDING ANYTHING TO THE FRONT BUFFER. UH, COMMISSIONER MANON, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM [01:05:01] THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONES HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. AYE, CONCUR. MOTION PASSES. MOTION PASSES. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ITEM THREE, DO I JUST START? OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, I'M CORY EDWARDS, DEPUTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITH THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. UM, I WILL BE GIVING THE STAFF INTRO FOR ITEM THREE. UM, THEN WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO IS, UM, REQUESTING THE APPEAL COME UP AND GIVE THEIR THEIR TESTIMONY. UM, SO FIRST, UM, SLIDE PLEASE. UM, TODAY IS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION. UM, VERY OFTEN YOU SEE THINGS THAT ARE VARIANCES OR, UM, AN APPEAL OF A A DENIAL. UM, SO THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST DEMOLITION THAT WAS DENIED AT THE H HT RC. UM, AND THEN IT'S NOW BEING APPEALED SO THEY CAN SEEK THE APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION. UM, IT INCLUDES TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THERE'S THE RICH BOOK BUILDING, WHICH WE'LL HEAR, UM, REFERRED TO QUITE FREQUENTLY IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS BUILT IN 1923. UM, AND THE SA D WORKS BUILDING, WHICH BUILT IN 1915. BOTH BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNATED IN 1988 AND ARE PART OF THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE YOU CAN SEE A MAP OF WHERE THAT DISTRICT IS IN GOLD. UM, AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE THERE IN RED. AND SO THE NEXT SLIDE WILL ACTUALLY GIVE YOU A BETTER VIEW OF THIS. UM, THIS IS FACING SOUTHWEST ACROSS VIA MULTIMODAL PLAZA. UM, SO YOU CAN SEE THE TWO BUILDINGS THERE IN QUESTION. THE RICH BOOK BUILDING WAS 900 WEST HOUSTON. UM, THE D WORKS 9 0 8 WEST HOUSTON. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COA OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS. UM, THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMITTING. UM, WHILE MOST COA REQUESTS ARE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY BY STAFF, ANY DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK REQUEST, WHICH IS THESE ARE, THEY REQUIRE, UH, REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. UM, AND THEN CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY, UM, THE HISTORIC PARTICIPATION OFFICER ROUTINELY ISSUES THOSE DECISIONS TO MIRROR THE ACTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE HTRC. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO THIS IS ALL THIS PROCESS AND ALSO LIKE THE GUIDING CRITERIA, UH, UNDER WHICH THE REQUESTS ARE REVIEWED ARE ALL ESTABLISHED IN UDC 35 6 1 4. UM, GENERALLY THAT CODE SAYS THAT DEMOLITION OF LANDMARK SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT. UM, I WILL ALSO NOTE, UM, THAT THE FULL HCRC PACKET, WHICH IS THIS WAS, IS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL. UM, IT'S PART ONE AND PART TWO JUST BECAUSE OF THE FILE SIZE. SO IF YOU WANT TO REFERENCE THE FULL SECTION OF CODE THAT'S IN PART ONE HERE AT THE BEGINNING, UM, THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE HCRC AND INCLUDES THAT CITATION. UM, THE CODE SAYS THAT THE HDRC CAN CONSIDER AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IN, IN REVIEWING THE DEMOLITION REQUEST. UM, THE UDC SUGGESTS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE SUBMITTED. UM, THERE'S DIFFERENT 14 DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT ARE, UM, THAT ARE SUGGESTED AS BEING SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE, BUT ULTIMATELY YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD A BURDEN OF PROOF, UM, THAT THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE PROPERTY SPECIFIC. IT CAN'T BE GENERAL. YOU CAN'T BLAME THE PANDEMIC, YOU CAN'T SAY THERE'S A RECESSION AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO DEVELOP RIGHT NOW. IT HAS TO BE WHY IS THIS PROPERTY DIFFICULT? WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS TIED TO THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY? UM, AND THEN THIS IS A 60 DAY REVIEW PROCESS THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO GATHER LOTS OF INFORMATION DURING THAT 60 DAYS. UM, DURING THAT TIME, WE HAD TWO SITE VISITS WITH OUR COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL VIRTUAL WORK SESSION. THOSE ARE REALLY MEANT TO, UH, ALLOW THE COMMISSIONERS TO GAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE, SEE THE CONDITION THEMSELVES, ASK QUESTIONS, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THEY CAN REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL MATERIALS BE FURNISHED SO THAT D-H-C-R-C CAN COMPLETE ITS REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO THE KIND OF THREE BUCKETS THAT ARE TRYING TO BE SATISFIED BY THE UDC ARE THESE, UM, THAT RETENTION OF THE BUILDING DISALLOWS ANY REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN, UM, UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMOLISHED, UM, THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE REASONABLY ADAPTED FOR ANY TYPE OF REUSE. AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP IT THE SAME IF IT WAS A HOTEL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A HOTEL IF IT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN OFFICE BUILDING. THE CODE IS REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER REASONABLE USES, UM, CAN ACCOMMODATE THE PROLONGED LIFE OF THAT STRUCTURE. UM, [01:10:01] THE OWNER MUST ALSO HAVE MARKETED THE PROPERTY FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS. UM, SO EVERY NOW AND THEN WE HAVE A NEW PROPERTY OWNER WHO JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WANTS TO DEMOLISH IT. THEY DON'T HAVE A CASE. YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST HAVE THE PROPERTY FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS AND AT LEAST TRY TO MARKET THAT PROPERTY FOR SALE OR LEASE DURING THAT PERIOD. YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL THREE OF THOSE. IT'S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER. THE CODE ALSO INSTRUCTS THAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ESTIMATES MAY ALSO INFORM THE REVIEW. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. A LOT OF TIMES WE GET ENGINEER REPORTS ONLY, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COST ISSUES ARE. WITH THAT WE KNOW WHATEVER THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT ARE OR THE ADAPTATION FOR REUSE OR FOR REHABILITATION. NEXT SLIDE. UM, IF THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED, THE HCRC CAN ALSO CONSIDER A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE. UM, THIS IS REALLY KIND OF THE NEXT STEP. UM, USUALLY RESULTING IN CATA CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF ORIGINAL BUILDING MATERIALS. THIS COULD BE LIKE A FIRE OR STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE OR CHANGES OVER TIME, WHICH RESULTED IN A LOSS OF THAT PHYSICAL MATERIAL THAT MADE IT SIGNIFICANT TO BEGIN WITH. UM, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT AS A CASE HERE. THE HCRC DID NOT FIND THAT AS WELL. UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS AS REFERENCE 'CAUSE THAT IS IN THE CODE LANGUAGE. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO ANOTHER THING TO CLARIFY IS DEMOLITIONS ARE USUALLY REVIEWED ALONGSIDE A REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UM, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AT THE HEARING WITH THE HCRC THAT THEY WEREN'T SEEING REPLACEMENT PLANS YET. AND SO THAT WAS PART OF THE REASONING FOR NOT FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH THE DEMOLITION APPROVAL AT THAT TIME. UM, THIS IS COMMONLY WHAT HAPPENS, AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE CODE INSTRUCTS THAT DEMOLITION PERMITS CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL REPLACEMENT PLANS ARE ALSO PERMITTED FOR THE PROPERTY. SO THE PROPERTY STAYS HISTORIC, EVEN IF A DEMOLITION OCCURS, AND WHATEVER GOES IN ITS PLACE IS ALSO REVIEWED BY THE HCRC. AND SO THOSE TWO THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO GO HAND IN HAND. AND THE RESULT IS THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY DO SORT OF SPEC DEMOLITION. YOU CAN'T DEMOLITION A PROPERTY AND THEN HAVE IT SIT VACANT. THERE HAS TO BE A PROJECT MOVING THE DEMOLITION DEMOLITION FORWARD. UM, SO THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS, AND I'LL I'LL READ IT HERE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT THE PERMIT TO RECEIVE A DEMOLITION, SORRY, FA APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION WITH A CERTIFICATE, UM, THE PERMIT, UH, TO RECEIVE A DEMOLITION PERMIT, OR SORRY, THEY SHALL BE PERMITTED TO RECEIVE A DEMOLITION PERMIT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMMISSION ACTION. UM, FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UM, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO HCRC ONCE DEMOLITION HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT THEY DO HAVE TO RETURN WITH THE PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND IF THERE ARE ANY STIPULATIONS OR CONDITIONS SO THAT DEMOLITION APPROVAL, THOSE WOULD DE BE DEMONSTRATED AT THAT TIME. NOW, THE PERMIT ITSELF IS NOT ISSUED UNTIL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO PERMITTED. I'M GONNA SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. UM, AN APPROVAL WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER, UH, OR SORRY, THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP THEIR PLANS. UM, AND WITH RETURN FOR REVIEW OF REPLACEMENT PLANS, THOSE PLANS MUST BE APPROVED AND PERMITTED BEFORE DEMOLITION CAN OCCUR. NEXT. UM, SO IN OUR FINDINGS, SO OHP STAFF DID A REVIEW, PROVIDED THAT REPORT TO THE HDRC, UM, WE FOUND THAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED, WHICH A WHICH, UH, BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH SATISFIED THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE CODE. UM, THIS INCLUDES ESTIMATES FOR REPAIR. UM, THERE WAS A COST ESTIMATE BY A, UH, CONTRACTOR, $6 MILLION FOR THE RICHBURG BUILDING, 1.2 MILLION FOR THE DYE WORKS, UM, BUILDING. UM, AND THAT WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH A CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR BOTH BUILDINGS. UM, THE IMPORTANT THING THAT THOSE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS NOTED WAS INFORMATION, UH, NOTING, NOTING THE STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES WITH, WITH ADAPTING THE SPACE FOR NEW, NEW USE, EXCUSE ME. UM, AND THEN ALSO THE THIRD THING ABOUT MARKETING THE PROPERTY, UM, FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS, THAT WAS DONE FOR THREE YEARS FOR THIS PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. UM, THE HCRC CONDUCTED THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, WHICH INCLUDED PUBLIC TESTIMONY AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. THE HCRC WAS NOT PERSUADED THAT THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UDC, UM, AND A MOTION FOR DENIAL RECEIVED THE MAJORITY VOTE. SO THE, SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR DENIAL, UM, CONSISTENT WITH OUR POLICY, WE ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE, THE COMMISSION ACTION LETTER TO DENY THE REQUESTED DEMOLITION BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO BEFORE YOU TODAY, UM, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO UPHOLD THAT DENIAL FOR DEMOLITION, UM, UDC 35 6 0 8 STATES THAT YOU SHOULD REVIEW, UH, THE REQUEST USING, USING THE SAME FACTORS AS THE COMMISSION, THE HCRC, UM, AND THE REPORT OF THE HCRC. SO AGAIN, THAT IS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET. UM, THAT TWO PART IS THE ENTIRE PACKAGE THAT THE HCRC UH, REVIEWED. UM, THAT INCLUDES THE PHOTOS, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LETTERS, AS WELL AS THE, UM, THE COST ESTIMATES. UM, AND THEN ALSO IN THAT PACKET, PART ONE IS STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE HCRC FOR REFERENCE. UM, IF THIS DOES GET TO A POINT TODAY WHERE YOU FIND THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPEAL, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THERE WERE SOME STIPULATIONS PERTAINING TO BUILDING SALVAGE AS WELL AS THE WAY THAT THE BUILDING DESIGN SHOULD PROGRESS, UM, IF THAT STARTS TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, OR INCLUDED IN THAT RECOMMENDATION. AND SO WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT THOSE BE UPHELD IN WHATEVER THE ACTION IS TODAY. UH, NEXT SLIDE. SO AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME TODAY, IF THE APPEAL IS APPROVED, IT WILL NOT RESULT IN A DEMOTION PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO THE HCRC, [01:15:01] VET THOSE REPLACEMENT PLANS AND MEET ANY OUTSTANDING STIPULATIONS THAT WERE PART OF THAT PREVIOUS ACTION. UM, I'VE ALREADY SET THE SECOND BULLET, SO, UH, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. UM, SO I'M GONNA LET THE APPLICANT COME UP AND, UH, PRESENT THE REST OF THE, THE APPEAL. UM, AND THEN I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. BUT BEFORE YOU GO, YEAH. UM, JUST A COUPLE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS. SO WHEN WE, THIS APPEAL IS, IS A YAY OR NAY, SO WE CAN'T PUT STIPULATIONS, IT'S REALLY, I GUESS IT'S FOR EITHER WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THIS, WE CAN'T PUT STIPULATIONS THAT THEY FOLLOW, WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS, WE JUST SEND IT, KICK IT BACK TO Y'ALL. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES, THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. AND THEN, AND SO IF IT GOES BECAUSE YOU GUYS WERE INITIALLY LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVELY BEFORE IT WENT TO THE BOARD UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THEY SALVAGE, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE STILL BE THE CASE, LIKE IF WE WERE TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS, IT WOULD GO BACK IN THAT GUISE TO Y'ALL BACK, BACK TO YOUR DEPARTMENT? YES. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE HCRC WAS FOR APPROVAL WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL SALVAGE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF, UM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SALVAGE OF MANY ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, UH, SUCH AS FACADE, BRICK, CASTSTONE, AND FACADE LETTERS. AND THAT THE REPLACEMENT PLANS BE DEVELOPED WITH RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL BLOCK PHASES IN MIND. SO ANY ACTION THAT THIS COMMISSION TAKES TODAY IN NO WAY OVERRIDES THAT, CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. OKAY. AWESOME. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A QUESTION. YES. SO THERE'S A LOT BEING THROWN AT ME REAL QUICK THERE. AND SO, AND UM, THERE YOU ALL BASED YOUR DECISION AND YOU HAD A BULLET, I THINK THREE ITEMS LISTED OF, OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT WERE THE ISSUE. COULD YOU RE REITERATE THAT FOR ME PLEASE? SO THAT WAY, UH, I KNOW I SHOULD BE LISTENING TO IT AS I HEAR THE APPLICANT. YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE FORWARD. KEEP GOING. THIS ONE. SO THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT RESPONDS TO THOSE THREE KIND OF BUCKETS THAT I TALKED ABOUT. UM, SO IT INCLUDES THE ESTIMATES FOR REPAIR. UM, SO IN REGARDS TO THE OWNER NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE OR REALIZE A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN, UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THESE ESTIMATES, UM, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED A, UM, SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS CONDITION LETTER AS WELL, WHICH NOTES THE EXTENT OF REINFORCEMENT REPAIR REQUIRED TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SURFACEABLE AND CODE COMPLIANT. UM, AND THOSE ISSUES MAKE THE REHABILITATION IMPRACTICAL. UM, AND THEN STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUIREMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED. UM, SO I, I'M CONFUSED HERE. 'CAUSE YOU'RE SHOWING BURDEN OF PROOF AND I'M HEARING SATISFIED, BUT YOU ARE VOTING IN, OR YOU, YOU VOTED TO NOT APPROVE IT. SO WHAT IS THE THING THAT'S NOT BEING APPROVED? UM, SO THAT WAY I UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT YOU'RE NOT APPROVING IT. RIGHT. SO I'M PROVIDING THE BACKGROUND OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE HCRC. THE HCRC FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOT COMPELLED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO STAFF WAS DENIAL. AND SO STAFF HAS ISSUED THAT DENIAL CONSISTENT WITH OUR POLICY. SO SHOULD, SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AS THIS COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD, ARE YOU STILL RECOMMENDING DENIAL? OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE, THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION BE UPHELD TO YOU, BUT YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED INTERNALLY. YOU STILL, YOUR DEPARTMENT STILL ADMINISTRATIVELY FEELS THAT, THAT IT'S, THAT THEY'VE MET THEIR BURDEN, THAT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S PART OF THE RECORD, JESS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, SO JUST, SO, SO IF THE APPEAL IS GRANTED HERE, I HEARD, I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE SALVAGE REQUIREMENTS AND THE CAST. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, I GUESS THAT'S A CONDITION THEN THAT I HEARD A YES FROM THE ATTORNEY ON THE LAST ONE. SO YOU WOULD GRANT THE, THE APPEAL, ANYTHING, UM, OTHER PROCESSES, PROCEDURES THAT APPLY WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. DAVID DELMAN, UM, ONE OF THE TWO PARTNERS IN THE PROJECT. MY OTHER PARTNER, BARKLEY ANTHONY IS HERE IN, IN THE BUILDING WITH ME. UM, YEAH, YOU DEFINITELY HIT ON IT. AND WE'RE FULLY AWARE OF THE UDC, WE UNDERSTAND THE UDC, WE UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE MADE AND WE AGREE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS FROM CITY STAFF. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO PROGRESS DOWN, MOVE THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ALONG TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT IF WE CAN. BUT I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND JUST KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY BECAUSE YOU'LL HEAR PROBABLY PUBLIC TESTIMONY AFTER I'M SITTING DOWN AND I'LL BE WILLING TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP OR STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE. SO WE BOUGHT THE RICH BOOK BUILDING BACK IN MAY OF 2014. WE BOUGHT IT WITH THE FULL INTENTION OF JUST OPERATING THE BUILDING AS IT WAS. [01:20:01] UM, IT WAS LEASED OUT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD BAR, IT WAS CALLED CATTLEMAN SQUARE BAR, AND THEN IT HAD A SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANT UPSTAIRS ON THE SECOND FLOOR WAS SORT OF, IT HAD ABOUT 24 ROOMS THAT WERE RENTED OUT. AND THAT WENT ALONG FOR A COUPLE YEARS. PRETTY GOOD. AND PART OF THE REASON THAT WE HAD BOUGHT THE BUILDING WAS VIA, HAD PLANNED THAT CENTRAL PLAZA THERE, UH, ACROSS THE STREET AT THE TIME. IT WAS AN OLD PARKING LOT. AND SO THEN IT, WE HAD ASPIRATIONS AND HOPES FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRANSFORM AND IMPROVE. AND THAT'S WHY WE STARTED MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND PLANNING TO DO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M DATING BACK TO 2014 HERE, AND WE, I'LL SPARE YOU SOME OF THE, UH, PRESENTATION THAT WE MADE TO HDRC, BUT WE HAVE, UH, MOVED ON THIS PROJECT FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND STAYED WITH IT AND TRIED TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN. AND WE'VE BEEN FAIRLY UNSUCCESSFUL IN ALL THESE YEARS. AND SO, UM, THE BUILDINGS, UH, DO I HAVE MY PRESENTATION THAT'S, UH, IS, IS MY PRESENTATION AVAILABLE? NOT THAT I SEE THE ORTIZ MCKNIGHT, BUT YEAH, IF YOU GO THE NEXT WAY, IT'S YOURS. IT COMES UP NEXT, THE ORIGINAL. SO I KIND OF WANNA MOVE YOU FORWARD TO THE VERY LAST SLIDE. UM, IF YOU SEE THE, UH, UH, ONE MORE FORWARD, UH OH, THIS IS YOURS, JAMES. I'M SORRY, . UM, OKAY, WELL I'M GONNA JUST KIND OF AD-LIB IT HERE. UH, WE HAD A PRESENTATION AT HRCI SUSPECT IT'S IN, IN YOUR PACKET OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A VERY TOUGH, UH, BUILDING IN NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN. SO WE ALSO INCLUDED FULL PROFORMAS IN OUR PRESENTATION. SO IT SHOWED WHAT THE PO POTENTIAL RENTS WERE AND WHAT THE COST OF, OF RE RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE TO BRING THEM BACK INTO CONFORMITY. UM, AS CITY STAFF SAID, THEY EVALUATED ALL THAT, THEY DO THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THEY CONCURRED WITH, WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS. WE WERE VERY OPEN ABOUT THAT. IN FACT, THERE'S THE PRO FORMA RIGHT THERE. AND I WOULD, UH, ARGUE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WE TALKED TO HAWTHORNE CONSTRUCTION AND WE ASKED THEM, WE DID THIS BACK IN 2023. UH, CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE DONE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING BUT GO UP SINCE THEN. SO I SUSPECT THAT IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TODAY. SO YOU SEE THE RETURN ON COST AT 1.1% IS NOT, UH, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. SO WE AGAIN, MADE OUR, OUR VERY SPECIFIC CASE. AND IF WE CAN SCROLL TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE, UH, WE DID SHOW POTENTIAL PLANS FOR 120 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A PARKING STRUCTURE. SO WHILE THOSE AREN'T FORMAL LEGAL PLANS FOR, UM, PERMITTING, THOSE ARE THE PLANS. THAT'S OUR INTENTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE YOU GO. SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE STIPULATIONS, UH, THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS FOR BUILDING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT NEITHER BUILDING WAS DESIGNATED AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK. THEY'RE LANDMARKS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO IN 1988 WHEN THE CITY OVERLAID A HISTORIC DISTRICT ON CATTLEMAN SQUARE, THAT'S WHEN ALL BUILDINGS INSIDE THE SQUARE OR INSIDE THE DISTRICT ARE DEEMED HISTORIC. SO THE CITY ALSO HAS A CITY LANDMARKS LIST IF THE BUILDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE LANDMARKS LIST, BUT THEY'RE NOT. AND THE OTHER POINT THAT THAT WAS MADE IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS WE COULD USE HISTORIC TAX CREDITS BECAUSE WE'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IN ORDER TO USE HISTORIC TAX TAX CREDITS BEYOND BEING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE YOUR BUILDING DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK, TYPICALLY BY THE, THE, UH, BY THE FED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO THAT'S ALSO NOT THE CASE. AND I THINK THAT CITY STAFF FELT, AND I'LL LEAVE IT FOR THEM TO SAY, BUT THEY FELT LIKE THAT THAT DESIGNATION, THOSE DESIGNATIONS ARE UNLIKELY FOR THESE TWO BUILDINGS. THEY'RE NOT EVEN ON THE CITY LANDMARKS LIST. SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA JUST STEP BACK AND, AND, UM, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BREMAN, UM, IS THIS IN A OPPORTUNITY ZONE BY ANY CHANCE? YES. YES. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S, LET'S, WE'RE JUST ASKING THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT, BUT STAFF, DO YOU KNOW IF THIS ISN'T AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE, WE CAN LOOK IT UP. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL LOOK IT UP. I DON'T THINK SO. AND IT, IT, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD APPLY TO US 'CAUSE WE OWNED IT BEFORE, ACTUALLY. I'M NOT SURE. I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU WITH AN ANSWER. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YEAH. UM, IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT YOU'RE REALLY ASKING THIS BOARD TO DO IS TO SECOND GUESS THE JUDGMENT OF [01:25:01] THE COMMISSION ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE YOU SUBMITTED WAS SUFFICIENT. IS THAT, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SECOND GUESSING THE BOARD ON A DECISION THAT'S THEIRS TO MAKE. SO EXPLAIN TO, WE CAN ONLY REVERSE THEIR DECISION IF THEY MADE AN ERROR, SOME KIND OF ERROR, UH, PROCEDURAL ERROR OR, UH, LEGAL ERROR THAT THEY MISINTERPRETED OR RIGHT. MISAPPLIED SOMETHING IN THE UDC OR SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO TELL ME, HOW DID THEY MAKE AN ERROR RATHER THAN JUST THAT THEY WERE WRONG? SURE. SO THERE WAS ZERO EVIDENCE, AND WHEN I SAY ZERO, ZERO EVIDENCE PRESENTED COUNTERING ANY OF OUR EVIDENCE, SO WE PRESENTED ACTUAL ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. THE CITY STAFF, THEIR OWN RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE HAD MET THE BURDEN. THERE WAS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE CLAIMED TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE SUGGESTING THAT ANYTHING WE PRESENTED WAS NOT CORRECT. SO THERE WAS NO OTHER ENGINEERING REPORTS, THERE WERE NO OTHER COST ESTIMATES, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROFORMAS. SO THEY COMPLETELY, 100% DID NOT ADDRESS IT. SO THE STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR, SO OUR PROCESS IS WE APPLY, WE FOLLOW THE RULES, WE DID THAT STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR THIS APPEAL PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE HERE FOR ON THIS MATTER. I THINK COREY MADE THE POINT, THIS ISN'T THE NORMAL MATTER THAT YOU MIGHT SEE, BUT THIS IS OUR STEP IN THE APPEAL PROCESS. AND FROM HERE IT WOULD GO TO DISTRICT COURT IF, IF YOU WANT TO. SO QUESTION FOR STAFF ON, ON THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. SO IF, IF STAFF ORIGINALLY SAYS THAT THE BURDEN WAS MET, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT DOES GET IN THE DOOR FOR A DECISION? OR DOES THAT MEAN AND IT BECOMES COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE AND DISCRETIONARY OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT STAFF MET STATES THAT THE BURDEN IS MET? IT'S JUST LIKE ANY REVIEW THAT WOULD GO TO THE HCRC, WE'RE GONNA REVIEW IT AGAINST WHATEVER THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ARE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. SO IT WAS JUST A STAFF'S EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. THEY CAN CONSIDER, UM, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. DID, DID THE COMMISSION STATE ANY, ANY, UH, TANGIBLE ITEMS THAT WENT AGAINST YOUR RECOMMENDATION? OR WAS IT JUST, WE JUST DON'T AGREE WITH YOU? UM, THERE WERE DEFINITELY MORE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AT THE HEARING. UM, THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION. UM, I THINK THERE WAS A LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT WHAT DEMOLITION WOULD DO TO THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. UM, THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER KIND OF, UM, SORRY, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER INCENTIVES AND CREDITS AVAILABLE, UH, FOR EITHER, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS. AND SO I THINK THAT THEY WERE JUST LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TO BUILD THAT CASE. ALL RIGHT. AND, AND ON THAT SUBJECT, WE, WHEN WE APPLIED ABOUT THREE YEARS PRIOR FOR DEMOLITION, WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE HDRC AT THAT TIME SAID WAS, WE DON'T THINK YOU'VE DONE ENOUGH TO MARKET AND, AND PURSUE OPTIONS WITH THE BUILDINGS. SO WE SAID, OKAY, SO ANYBODY THAT THAT KNOWS OUR COMPANY AND OUR OUR PROCESSES, WE RESPECTED THAT. AND WE WENT BACK AND WE HIRED, WE WENT THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT BROKERS, BOTH THE OUR IN THE PACKAGE AND THE DATES AND SO FORTH THAT WE MARKETED THE BUILDINGS, WE MARKETED 'EM FOR SALE, WE MARKETED 'EM FOR LEASE, WE MARKETED 'EM FOR REDEVELOPMENT. AND WE HAD NOT ONLY NO TAKERS, BUT WE ACTUALLY PROVIDED LETTERS TO THE HDRC IN OUR PACKET. AND YOU, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE FROM POTENTIAL, UH, I'LL CALL 'EM LOOKERS OR POTENTIAL PROSPECTS AND WHY THEY PASSED ON THE BUILDINGS. THERE. THERE ARE INSTANCES ON THIS BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE, UH, UH, OUTREACH, MAYBE SOMETHING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, WHICH THE HDRC, I MEAN WHEN HE'S, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YEARS, WAS A MEMBERSHIP OF THE HDRC TWO YEARS AGO VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY? OR IS IT PREDOMINANTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF SAME PEOPLE? IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 50%. SIMILAR. 50%. OKAY. SO, SO THE, SO TWO YEARS AGO THEY, THIS APPLICANT WAS GIVEN DIRECTION BY THE HDRC? NO, WE DIDN'T GO TO HDRC, NO, WE DIDN'T YEARS, NO, WE, WE APPLIED AND WENT TO THE DRC YES, BUT WE NEVER CAME FRONT TO THE COMMISSION. RIGHT, RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY ASKED US TO DO THAT. WAS THAT THE PRE-MEETING THAT Y'ALL HAD? OH, OKAY. SO DURING A PRE-MEETING, WHICH IT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS, RIGHT. USUALLY WE HAVE, UM, BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR COMMISSIONERS ON A SITE VISIT LIKE THIS. AND OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I FEEL LIKE WE HAD AT LEAST THREE OF THE SAME COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS MOST RECENT APPLICATION. OKAY. AND, AND THE REASON WHY I BRING THAT UP IS THAT IF, WHEN THEY HAVE A MINORITY OF THE COMMISSION DOING THESE PRE-MEETINGS AND GIVING DIRECTION, AND WHEN THEY COME BACK TO THE FULL COMMISSION, IF THOSE THREE MEMBERS ARE THERE, I'M WONDERING, DID THEY BRING UP ANY [01:30:01] OF THE DISCUSSION FROM TWO YEARS AGO AND POSSIBLY SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO AND THEY DID IT? OR DID ANY OF THAT COME UP? THERE WERE DEFINITELY COMMISSIONERS THAT REMEMBERED THAT PREVIOUS CONVERSATION. AND DID THEY VOTE, I MEAN, I'M, WAS IT UNANIMOUS OR DID THEY VOTE ON WITH THE APPLICANT OR WITH OR AGAINST? UM, IT WAS, UM, UNANIMOUS SAY FOR TWO VOTES, I BELIEVE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY YOU LOOKING FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTARY, VOICEMAILS I, AS PART OF THE APPLICANT? I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE LEGAL PART. GO AHEAD, IF YOU MAY. MY NAME'S JAMES MCKNIGHT FROM MORTIZ MCKNIGHT HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. AND I'M GLAD, COMMISSIONER, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE, THE THE LEGAL ISSUES. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT. IF YOU COULD, UM, CAN YOU SCROLL TO SCROLL DOWN PLEASE? YEAH, RIGHT. KEEP GOING. AND RIGHT THERE, THAT'S WHERE I'M STARTING. SO I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS, THE APPEAL PROCESS ITSELF AND YOU KNOW, APPROVING THIS, UH, APPROVING THIS APPEAL, REVERSING H DRCS DECISION. AND IT'S BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY MADE AN IMPERMISSIBLE DETERMINATION. SO YOU ASKED ABOUT WHAT ERROR DID THEY MAKE? I THINK THEY DID MAKE AN ERROR. I THINK IT WAS AN IMPER IMPERMISSIBLE DETERMINATION. THEY BASED THEIR CRITERIA THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED AND THAT WAS REPLACEMENT PLANS. THEY GAVE LITTLE OR NO WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED AND THAT WAS THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP EVIDENCE. AND THEY ESSENTIALLY IGNORED STAFF FINDINGS THAT OUR CRITERIA WAS MET. SO THAT'S THEIR AREA. SO WHAT, SO WHY WAS THIS IMPERMISSIBLE IN THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE A LARGER LOOK AT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PURPOSE OF IT, THIS IS A TOUGH QUESTION. IT'S A REALLY TOUGH QUESTION FOR SAN ANTONIO. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC OBJECT, IT'S A BIG DEAL IN SAN ANTONIO. SO YOU HAVE TO BALANCE INTERESTS. AND THE WAY WHAT IT SAYS AT THE TOP OF THIS, OF THE ORDINANCE IS YOU BALANCE PREVENTING UNNECESSARY DAMAGE TO HISTORIC DISTRICT VERSUS PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNER. SO THIS BALANCE IS WHAT WE'RE, I THINK SHOULD BE THE BACKDROP OF EVERYTHING THAT WE VIEW WHEN LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND HOW IT'S STRUCTURED, PROTECTING HISTORIC CHARACTER VERSUS PROTECTING THE OWNER. BOTH OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO PROTECTING THE HISTORIC CHARACTER, THERE'S A 60 DAY COOLING OFF PERIOD THAT, UH, CORY REFERENCED AND OHP AND THE APPLICANT DISCUSSES ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION. THEY DISCUSS IT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, GARDENDALE, WHICH WE SCROLL PAST THEIR LETTER, BUT THEY ISSUED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEMOLITION IN SUPPORT OF OUR APPEAL PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS, CONSERVATION SOCIETY, WESTSIDE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, ESPERAN, THAT THEY WERE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. THEY'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE, BUT THEY WERE PART OF THE DISCUSSION. OTHER CITY OFFICIALS, HGRC MEMBERS, ALL OF THIS IS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE. THAT'S THE PART FOR PROTECTING THE HISTORIC CHARACTER. HOW DO YOU PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS? YOU GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO SHOW ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. SO WE DID THAT. STAFF TAKES ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, THEY PROCESS ALL OF THAT, AND THEY RECOMMENDED DEMOLITION BASED ON THIS ECONOMIC UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO SOME OF THE CHARACTERS ON COMMISSIONER MANNA, YOU WERE REFERENCING SOME OF THE, THE PROVISIONS, THE ELEMENTS THAT GO INTO THAT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. YOU HAVE TO SHOW WE CAN'T MAKE THAT REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN. YOU'VE GOTTA SHOW THAT IT'S CANNOT BE REASONABLY ADAPTED AND THAT YOU'VE BEEN MARKETING IT FOR LONG ENOUGH. YEAH, WE TOOK THOSE EXTRA YEARS AFTER 2020, I BELIEVE WHEN WE FIRST DID IT AND SPENT THE EXTRA TIME. UH, NEVER WENT TO HDRC. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE KNEW THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO TRY TO GET IT INTO OTHER HANDS. TRY TO LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES, GET THAT BALANCE. BUT ONE THING YOU DON'T SEE ON THERE IS A REPLACEMENT PLAN. IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT AS PART OF AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. IT PLAYS A PART IN THE PROCESS. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THOSE ARE THE STAFF FINDINGS RIGHT THERE, THERE ARE IN THE PACKET AS WELL THAT THEY FOUND THAT THE BURDEN WAS SATISFIED THAT WE HAD MET AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. AND ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS THAT YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS THAT A DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL REPLACEMENT PLANS ARE APPROVED. COREY'S TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS SHOWS YOU IT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. THEY'VE MET THE BURDEN OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORIC CHARACTER IS PART OF THE SEPARATE PROCESS, WHICH IS GETTING IT APPROVED FOR THE NEXT TIME. THEY'RE NOT ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT. THEY'RE SAYING, DID YOU MEET THE BURDEN OF AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP? YES WE DID. SEPARATE PROCESS. ARE YOU GOING TO MEET THE HISTORIC CHARACTER? IT'S A DIFFERENT, IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS. IT'S A HIGH BURDEN. AND WE MET IT. SO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SOME OF THE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. TWO OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT LEAST SAW THAT WE MET THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP MOTION FOR APPROVAL. BUT IT DID, BUT IT FAILED. OTHER COMMISSIONERS NOT FOCUSED ON THE EVIDENCE OR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ALMOST SOLELY ON THE REPLACEMENT PLANS, WHICH AGAIN, NOT REQUIRED. ONE COMMISSIONER EVEN, UH, MADE A MOTION TO REQUIRE IT THAT WE COME BACK WITH THOSE REPLACEMENT PLANS. THAT MOTION FAILED. BUT ONE THING THAT I REALLY WANNA NOTE HERE IS THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO SEE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PLANS TO DETERMINE WHETHER [01:35:01] OR NOT THIS WAS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. COST OF OF COST IS PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT IT'S COST OF REHABILITATION, RESTORATION AND REPAIR, NOT COST OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPLACEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, WHICH WE PROVED. THEY WILL LOOK AT THE PLANS IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S THE BALANCE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PREVENTING THAT UNNECESSARY DAMAGE. THAT'S THE HDRC REVIEW OF THE, OF THE FUTURE PLA UH, FUTURE REPLACEMENT PLANS, PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER. THAT'S PROVING UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, WHICH WE DID. SO THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY LAYS OUT THE FRAMEWORK AND WE MET IT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HCRC IN THIS CASE MADE AN IMPER IMPERMISSIBLE DETERMINATION BASED ON A CRITERIA THAT WASN'T THERE. AS WE SAID BEFORE, THE APPROVAL HERE DOES NOT RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION. THEY STILL HAVE TO RENEW OR REVIEW THOSE NEW PLANS. STAFF AGREED WITH OUR APPLICATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SUP IS SUPPORTIVE, STILL THE GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO WE'RE HERE TO SAY WE MET THE BURDEN. UM, AND WE WANT YOU TO OVERTURN H C'S DECISION BASED ON BASED ON THAT. ALRIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS? YES, WE GOT BOTH. OKAY, LET'S DO THE VOICEMAILS FIRST, PLEASE. AND MR. CHAIR, WHILE THEY'RE PULLING THAT UP, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE EMPOWERMENT ZONE. DOES THAT NEAR, NEAR WEST SIDE OPPORTUNITY ZONE, WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW FOR? WHAT, UH, THERE ARE FEDERAL INCENTIVES THAT THEY CAN APPLY FOR, BUT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE PROGRAM. SO THE DETAILS, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO GET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HERE TO HELP ANSWER SOME OF THOSE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. MM-HMM, EIGHT FROM 3 0 3 SOUTH PINTO STREET. MY NUMBER IS 3 4 6 7 1 4 8 2 6 7. AND I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM THREE. I OPPOSE THE DEMOLITION OF THE RICH. I OPPOSE THE DEMOLITION OF THE RICH BOOK BUILDING AND BUILDING AND THE BUILDING ADJACENT. AS SAN ANTONIO CONTINUES TO GROW, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT PRESERVES ITS HISTORY INSTEAD OF GENTRIFYING AND DESTROYING IT, ONLY ADDING TO THIS GROWING TREND OF FAT GRAPE ONLY ADDING TO THIS TR GROWING TREND OF FAT GRAPE BUILDINGS THAT ONLY FEW CAN AFFORD. HELLO, MY NAME IS BERNARD SANCHEZ. I LIVE AT 4 2 2 DRESDEN DRIVE, 7 8 2 1 3. UM, I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO AGENDA NUMBER THREE FOR THE MEETING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY THE 17TH OF JUNE. UM, I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UPHOLD HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION VOTE TO DENY DEMOL THE BUILDINGS AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON ALONG. UM, AND ALONG WITH THAT, UH, CATTLEMAN SQUARE, ALL OF THAT AREA HAS BEEN DESIGNATED HISTORICAL AT THE TOP OF 900 WEST HOUSTON ON THE FRONT AND TOP OF THE BUILDING. THE YEAR 1923. IS THERE SO I CAN, I'LL CONCEIVE. WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, THAT'S OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD, UM, MR. EDELMAN SAID IN A MEETING OPEN TO ARCHITECTS, LAWYERS, CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS ALONG WITH CITIZENS THAT WHAT HAD BEEN PLANNED FOR, UH, TO DO A WALK, WALK INSIDE THE BUILDING NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE KEYS. UH, HOW CONVENIENT AT THAT POINT. UM, AND ANYWAY, THIS MAN HAS BEEN, HE SAYS HE HAS NO MONEY, BUT APPARENTLY HE WANTS TO, UM, TEAR DOWN THIS BUIL, THESE TWO BUILDINGS RIGHT NOW AND BUILD SOMETHING NEW. AND IN THE WEBPAGE OF, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS TO DELIVER QUALITY SITTING SERVICES AND COMMIT TO ACHIEVING SAN ANTONIO'S VISION OF PROSPERITY FOR ITS DIVERSE, VIBRANT, AND HISTORIC COMMUNITY. PLEASE UPHOLD THIS THAT'S ON YOUR WEBPAGE. THANK YOU. GOOD DAY. THIS IS KAMALA PLATT, UM, FROM 39 10 WEST MARTIN STREET. UM, AND I'M CALLING ABOUT ITEM THREE, THE BUILDINGS AT, UM, ON KAMAN SQUARE AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT [01:40:01] HOUSTON STREET. UM, ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES I WAS TAKEN AS A YOUNG VISITING PROFESSOR WAS THE CANTINA AND DANCE HALL FLOOR, UM, IN CATTLEMAN SQUARE. I MET COMMUNITY OUTSIDE OF MY UNIVERSITY COLLEAGUES THERE. MY MEMORY IS ONLY ONE AMONG MANY THAT PROVIDE A PUBLIC LIVING LEGACY AND CULTURAL SENSE OF IDENTITY, UM, AND A SENSE OF PLACE, A GIFT TO OUR TOWN. PLEASE RESPECT AND PRESERVE RESPECT THE HDRC DECISION TO PRESERVE AND RESPECT THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE INNER WEST SIDE OF THE CITY BY PRESERVING THESE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED BUILDINGS, THE RICH BOOK BUILDING AND ITS NEIGHBOR, AND DENY THE APPEAL, UM, FOR DEMOLITION THESE BUILDINGS HOLD A PUBLIC HERITAGE, A PART OF THE HEART OF THIS CITY, INCORPORATE OUR CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE INTO OUR PLACES, UH, OUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE, UM, OF OUR CITY MOVING FORWARD. AGAIN, PLEASE RESPECT AND UPHOLD THE HDRC DECISION. THIS IS KAMALA PLATT, AND IF YOU NEED MY PHONE NUMBER, (210) 617-8613. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CHRISTEL AND I LIVE AT 4 31 FUR. I'M CALLING REGARDING ITEM NUMBER THREE ABOUT RICH BOOK BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON, THE DEVELOPER, UM, DAVID DELMAN PURCHASED THE BUILDINGS IN 2014 AND THEY WERE ALREADY HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED AND, UH, SHOULD BE PROTECTED. I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE HCR C'S DECISION AND THAT THEY DENY THE ALMAN APPEAL. PLEASE STOP DEVELOPERS FROM DESTROYING HISTORICAL BUILDINGS THAT CARRY CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS FREDERICA KUSHNER. I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO. PHONE NUMBER (210) 223-2814. AND I'M CALLING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER THREE 900 WEST HOUSTON STREET. I'M ASKING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION BY DENYING THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THAT DECISION, THE WEST SIDE DESERVES TO RETAIN ITS HISTORY. THANK YOU. UH, YES, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS FERNANDO CENTENO, UH, 3 36 ROSEMARY CALLING WITH REGARD TO TODAY'S ITEM NUMBER THREE INVOLVING BOA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 7 5 INVOLVING ADDRESSES 900 WEST HOUSTON STREET AND ONE 18 NORTH MEDINA STREET. AND, AND CALLING IN SUPPORT OF DENYING THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. SO I AM AGAINST THE APPEAL APPLICANT'S APPEAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE-BYE. OKAY, GOOD MORNING. UM, I AM CALLING, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO UPHOLD THE HDRC UH, DECISION, UM, ON ITEM THREE AND A DENIAL TO APPRO, UH, THE APPEAL. MY NAME IS GRACE ROSE GONZALEZ AND I'M IN DISTRICT ONE. UM, UH, MY EX IS 1800 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. UM, AND I AM A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND I'VE WORKED ON, UM, HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED BUILDINGS AND ADAPTIVE USE BUILDINGS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, UM, EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO REUSE THE BUILDINGS THEY ARE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED. AND WHEN, UM, THE DEVELOPER BOUGHT THEM, HE KNEW THAT. AND, UM, THERE IS NO EXPIRATION DATE ON HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED BUILDINGS. I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T GO AWAY. SO HE KNEW THAT THAT WAS THE CASE AND THERE IS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO REUSE THESE BUILDINGS. UM, SO I HOPE THAT YOU HONOR THE DESIGNATION, UH, AND, UM, AND UPHOLD, UH, WHAT THE HDRC UM, UH, SAID. AND UM, AND IF HE DOESN'T [01:45:01] WANT TO DO THIS, HE HAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SELL THE, THE, THE, UH, THE PROPERTIES AND THERE WOULD BE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WOULD, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE AND WORK THROUGH, UM, THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION. THERE ARE, UM, MONIES TO HELP ON THAT. AND SO IT'S A CREATIVE PROCESS AND YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING. SO, UM, HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BOUGHT THE BUILDINGS HAD HE NOT HAD THE INTENTION TO DO, UM, HISTORICALLY A HISTORIC RENOVATION AND AN ADAPTIVE USE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, UH, MY NAME IS JUDI VEGA AND MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 3 86 PROSPECT STREET, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. ZIP CODE ZERO SIX FIVE ONE ONE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 968-5099. AND I'M CALLING, UH, TO LEAVE A MESSAGE REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UPHOLD THE H DRCS DECISION, UM, AND DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF, UH, 900 AND 908 WEST HOUSTON STREET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. MY NAME IS JAN OLSON AND MY ADDRESS IS FOUR OH NINE SOUTH PREA. PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 861-2786. THIS CALL IS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE REQUEST, UM, TO, UM, UH, CHALLENGE THE UH, HR DC DECISION TO ALLOW THIS DEVELOPER TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. HE PURCHASED THIS BUILD THESE BUILDINGS KNOWING THAT THEY HAD HISTORICAL DESIGNATION. HISTORICAL DESIGNATION HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING IN OUR CITY. WE CANNOT SELL OUR SOULS TO DEVELOPERS FOR THE SAKE OF GREED. WE PASSIONATELY REQUEST THAT THE BOH UPHOLD THE H DRCS DECISION TO DENY THIS APPLICANT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JAVIER SANZ. MY ADDRESS IS 30 11 WEST HOUSTON STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. THE ITEM NUMBER I AM CALLING ABOUT IS ITEM NUMBER THREE REGARDING THE RICH BOOK BUILDING, LOCATED AT 9 0 0 WEST HOUSTON STREET AND 1 1 8 NORTH MEDINA STREET. THE REASON I'M CALLING IS TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION AND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL WE NEED TO SAVE THE RICH BOOK BUILDING. WHEN WE TEAR DOWN STRUCTURES AND HAVE A MEANING TO A PEOPLE WHO STRUGGLE TO BUILD THEM, WE ERASE THE STORIES, THE MEMORIES, THE HISTORY OF A PEOPLE, OF A COMMUNITY, OF A CITY. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SIX PRACTICAL REASONS TO SAVE OLD BUILDINGS. NUMBER ONE, ALL BUILDINGS HAVE INTRINSIC VALUE. NUMBER TWO, WHEN YOU TEAR DOWN AN OLD BUILDING, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S BEING DESTROYED. NUMBER THREE, NEW BUSINESSES PREFER OLD BUILDINGS. NUMBER FOUR, OLD BUILDINGS ATTRACT PEOPLE. NUMBER FIVE, OLD BUILDINGS ARE REMINDERS OF A CITY'S CULTURE AND COMPLEXITY. AND NUMBER SIX, REGRET. REGRET ONLY GOES ONE WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YES. NAME, JR ADDRESS, 800 BLOCK OF OW STREET SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO SEVEN. UH, PHONE NUMBER (210) 723-4334. LAST THREE DIGITS OF CASE NUMBER R 0 7 5. THIS IS FOR THE APPEAL, UH, CITIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE RICH BOOK BUILDING. UH, I BELIEVE IT'S 900 WEST HOUSTON STREET AND ONE 18 NORTH MEDINA STREET. UM, THEY'RE LOOKING TO BASICALLY OVERTURN SOMETHING THE HISTORIC BOARD DENIED THAT WOULD'VE ALLOWED THEM TO TAKE CARE OF, UH, DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY USE WITHIN ITS CURRENT STATE AND WON'T HAVE ANY USE AND IS, OR JUST A BLIGHT ON THE CITY AND ON THE AREA, HOW IT AFFECTS THE AREA CRIME, STRAIGHT UP CRIME. UM, IT'S A LACK OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING THAT WAS A CLOTHING STORE. WHERE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT KEEPING THE MONTGOMERY AWARDS AROUND? [01:50:01] IT'S NOT THAT, BUT IT'S A LITTLE SILLY. THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLING IS NOTHING RARE. IT'S BRICK FACADE. BRICK WAS COMMON DURING THE TIME IT WAS CHEAP, WHATEVER THAT WAS, WHAT WAS USED. IT'S VERY NORMAL WITH ARCHITECTURE TO USE THAT KIND OF THING. UM, THERE'S NO REAL GOOD ARGUMENT TO KEEP THIS THING AROUND. IT'S NOT THE ALAMO WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE HERE. UM, AND I GUARANTEE THAT JUST ABOUT ANY OF THOSE UTSA STUDENTS THAT ARE DOWN THERE REALLY WOULD LIKE HOUSING NEARBY, BUT, UH, THEY AREN'T GONNA GET IT BECAUSE THE HISTORIC BOARD HAS A STRANGLEHOLD ON THE AREA AND WON'T ALLOW ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, UH, THESE DECISIONS WHEN THEY WANT TO STOP DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS STOPPING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND SPECIFICALLY OUR AREA HERE IN GARDENDALE. I'M PART OF LEADERSHIP FOR GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WE HAVE PUT A LOT OF PIECES TOGETHER AND WE CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT BELONG TO PUBLIC HOUSING, THE PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER AND THE HISTORIC BOARD AND WHO THEY APPROVE AND WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS THEY APPROVE, WHICH ARE PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS. IT'S A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IT SHOULD STOP. IT NEEDS TO STOP AND IT'S GONNA COME OUT IN THE OPEN. AND ALL OF THE STUFF NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT REALLY THOROUGHLY ON WHY CERTAIN DEVELOPERS ARE BLOCKED FROM THINGS AND OTHER ONES ARE ALLOWED JUST BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE COMPASSIONATE PROJECTS. THE REALITY IS WE NEED TO STOP, UH, HAMPERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PART OF THE CITY. IT'S SHAMEFUL, IT'S DISGRACEFUL, AND WE NEED TO HELP THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT THERE AND NOT JUST SHOVEL THEM UNDERNEATH THE CARPET OVER HERE. AND PRETEND LIKE CATTLEMAN SQUARE DOESN'T BELONG TO ANY PART OF DOWNTOWN ANYMORE OR, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE DEVELOPED, UH, SIMILAR TO SOMETHING LIKE THE PEARL. BASICALLY. JUST TELL ME I GOTTA SHUT UP. FINE. UM, WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS. HI, THIS IS KAYLA MIRANDA. MY ADDRESS IS 10 13 SOUTH ON CETO STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 18 0 7. UM, UH, COMMENTING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. UM, THE BUILDING IS LOCATED AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE DECISION, UM, NOT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THESE PROPERTIES. THESE ARE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS. UM, THE OWNER WAS COMPLETELY AWARE OF THAT FACT WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES. HE FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTIES AND THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANCE TO OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S NEVER A GOOD THING WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAWS, THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT US AND PROTECTING OUR CULTURE, PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WEST SIDE. THESE BUILDINGS CAN BE REPAIRED, THEY CAN BE MADE INTO SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL, BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FINANCE FINANCIALLY DRIVEN, THEN HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO WHAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE PROPERTIES. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AND IF THE OWNER FEELS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES AS THE OWNER, THEN LET SOMEONE ELSE. BUT THE OPTIONS ARE NOT TO DESTROY THE PROPERTY AND IT'LL BE LOST FOREVER. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS MARIELLA GARZA. I AM PRESIDENT OF GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I AM CALLING REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE BOA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 7 5. GARDENDALE STANDS WITH COMMUNITY IN FAVOR OF THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST. THE COMMUNITY WITHIN 200 FEET AND BEYOND THE LIMITED COVERAGE AREA ARE PLEADING FOR SOMETHING NEW TO COME TO OUR DISTRICT AREA. ALL OTHER DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SOMEHOW OVERCOME SIMILAR REQUESTS WITH NO OPPOSITION BECAUSE THE IMPROVEMENT IS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. WE IN DISTRICT FIVE ARE ASKING, WE NEED CHANGE. EMPTY BUILDINGS ONLY DOWNGRADE THE AREA, MAKING IT AN EYESORE FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTS, BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, AND ALL THE PASS THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR AREA. WE STAND TOGETHER WITH OUR COMMUNITY. THE GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD [01:55:01] ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST. HELLO, MY NAME IS MARY CABRAL, C-A-B-R-A-L. I'M A RETIRED TEACHER AND I LIVE AT 2 2 7 BELLA VISTA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 8. AND I'M CALLING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER THREE, RAY RIDGE BOOK BUILDING, WHICH IS AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. AND I'M ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE, PLEASE UPHOLD THE HDR C'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPLICANT'S, UH, APPEAL. THIS BUILDING, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC BUILDING AND GROWING UP IN SAN ANTONIO, I FEEL THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT IT REMAINED THERE AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US TO PRESERVE THIS BUILDING. THANK YOU. BYE. HI, MY NAME IS MIRANDA LARSON. I, UH, LIVE AND WORK IN OM 1601 GUADALUPE STREET. UM, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (469) 570-0209 AND I'M CALLING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. THE PROPERTIES AT HOUSTON AND MEDINA. UM, I'M CALLING TO OPPOSE THE DEMOLITION OF THESE BUILDINGS. AS A FELLOW OWNER OF A HISTORIC BUILDING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU PURCHASE A PROPERTY LIKE THIS, YOU'RE NOT ONLY INVESTING IN MAKING YOURSELF A PROFIT, BUT REALLY WHAT YOU'RE INVESTING IN IS PRESERVING THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING. UM, EVERYONE IS MADE AWARE OF, UM, A HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON A PROPERTY, UM, BEFORE THEY PURCHASE IT. UM, SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. UM, I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANCE, THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE THAT, UM, THESE BUILDINGS ARE A PART OF. UM, IT'S BEEN HISTORICALLY A PLACE WHERE IMMIGRANTS CAN COME TO GATHER AND WORK, AND ALSO AS A HUB FOR, UM, PUBLICATIONS THAT WERE IN SPANISH, ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOSS OF OUR HISTORY FOR THE FINANCIAL GAINS OF SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY WEALTHY. THANK YOU. HELLO, THIS IS NAOMI NYE. MY TELEPHONE (210) 838-2638. I LIVE AT 8 0 6 SOUTH MAINE AVENUE, DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO FOR 44 YEARS. AND I REQUEST, I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION RULING DECISION ABOUT THE PROPERTIES AT CATTLEMAN SQUARE, THE RICH BOOK BUILDING AND THE BUILDING NEXT TO IT. AT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON, WE ARE IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING SO MANY TREASURES DOWNTOWN. RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN SHOCK ABOUT THE INSTITUTE OF TEXAN CULTURES BUILDING. AND THIS IS ANOTHER BLOW. PLEASE UPHOLD THE RULING AND DO NOT ALLOW THESE BUILDINGS TO BE LOST. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS RACHEL DEDO. I LIVE AT 45 37 MONTEREY STREET IN DISTRICT FIVE, AND I AM CALLING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON STREET, TWO BUILDINGS IN CATTLEMAN SQUARE. UH, I'M ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION MADE BY THE HDRC. THIS BUILDINGS ARE BUILDINGS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND WE NEED TO REFIN, UH, REUSE THEM, NOT TEAR 'EM DOWN. MY NUMBER IS TWO TEN SIX NINE THREE NINE FIVE SIX SEVEN. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS RENEE GONZALEZ. I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE ESPERANZA [02:00:01] COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, LOCATED AT 9 22 SAN PEDRO. THIS IS REGARDING ITEM NUMBER THREE, A REQUEST BY DAVID EDELMAN TO DEMOLISH NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. I AM REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECONSIDER AND DENY THAT REQUEST. THE BUILDING SHOULD BE USED FOR PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW RESIDENTS OF THE WEST SIDE. I BELIEVE THE BUILDING SHOULD BE EXPLORED TO DEVELOP A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, HOUSING OR APARTMENTS. IT IS AN ASSET FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO TRY AND MEET THE NEEDS OF ONE OF THE MOST NEEDY PARTS OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. IF MY NAME IS STELLA BUSTO, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 445-5891. AND I AM, UH, CALLING TO, OH, MY ADDRESS IS 3 2 3 1 TAVERN OAK STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 7. I'M CALLING RELATIVE TO, UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. AND I REQUESTED THE DOA UPHOLD THE HDRC DECISION AND THAT THE DOA DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL. I APPRECIATE THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS STATEMENT IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE AT 900 WEST HOUSTON AND 118TH NORTH MEDINA. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST WEST EDGE HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PRIDES ITSELF IN ITS RICH CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE HISTORIC CATTLEMAN SQUARE DISTRICT, THE H-D-R-C-C-D FIT SAME 900 WEST HOUSTON AND 118TH NORTH MEDINA FROM DEMOLITION. DUE TO ITS SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL HISTORY TO THE CITY AND THE ADJOINING WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS AND APPROVAL FOR THIS APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. A SELF-CREATED FINANCIAL DECISION THAT HAS FAILED. THE APPLICANT HAS CREATED A, A PRESERVATION THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR TO THE CITY AND THE ADJOINING WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS. I RESPECTFULLY ASKED THE COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HDRC AND DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO SEEK A REMEDY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAILS. ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE, UH, UH, THOSE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. UH, ALL RIGHT. FIRST SPEAKER IS LETICIA VELA, FOLLOWED BY LETICIA STANLEY. YES. AND, AND STAFF. DID YOU CHECK AGAINST THE VOICEMAIL NAMES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT HEARING DUTIES, SIR? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. HI. HOW MANY, OH, ONE SECOND PLEASE. HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? WE HAVE 18, ACTUALLY. 17. ONE LEFT. 17. SO I'M GONNA READ, I LIKE TO REDUCE THE TIME DOWN TO TWO MINUTES. YES, SIR. SIR, THANK YOU. JUST A REMINDER, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GO WITH THEIR TIME, MAKE SURE YOU DO SO BEFORE THEY START SPEAKING. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. MY NAME'S LETICIA VELA. I'M OUT HERE FOR, TO ASKING FOR YOU TO DENY THE APPEAL TO DEMO TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS GOES AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, PREVENTING HARM TO THE, A HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT SERVES AS A GATEWAY TO THE MEXICAN AMERICAN WEST SIDE IS IMPERATIVE. WE'VE LOST EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU NEED TO SAVE THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE. AS YOU GO OVER THE, THE, THE OVERPASS FROM CATTLEMAN SQUARE, YOU'LL HIT THE WEST SIDE. THE WEST SIDE IS THE WEST OF DOWNTOWN. THERE WAS NO WEST SIDE WHEN WEST SIDE STARTED, THE WEST SIDE WAS IMMEDIATELY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DOWNTOWN. I GREW UP IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE REASON THIS WOULD NOT BE THE REASON ALL THESE PEOPLE COME OUT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. IF IT WERE, UM, THE PEARL OR IF IT WERE, UH, THE, THE EAST SIDE, THE SQUARE OVER THERE, THE PAUL ST. PAUL SQUARE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME IN HERE, BUT WE ALL HAVE TO SHOW UP BECAUSE YOU, THE CITY HAS TAKEN EVERYTHING FROM US. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. THIS GROUP OF DEVELOPERS KNOWS THAT THERE'S WIND, THERE'S MONEY COMING INTO THE BEXAR COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT JU UH, RECENTLY APPROVED THOUSANDS, [02:05:01] MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4 21 MEDINA. THAT'S THREE BLOCKS AWAY FROM THEM. IT WENT BEFORE H THAT PROPERTY WENT BEFORE HDRC ON THE 27TH OF APRIL. THEY KNOW THE WIND OF MONEY IS COMING TO THAT AREA, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING IN HERE TODAY, GIVING YOU A SAD STORY ABOUT HOW THEY CAN'T SELL IT. JUST WAIT. JUST WAIT. DO NOT SELL OUR HISTORY AWAY. LET US HAVE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT ON THE WEST SIDE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE IS LETICIA SANCHEZ, FOLLOWED BY SHERRY CAMPOS. HI, MY NAME IS LETICIA SANCHEZ. MY ADDRESS IS 1710 VERA CRUZ, ZIP CODE 7 8 2 0 7. I'M THE CO-CHAIR PERSON OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, WHICH REPRESENTS RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN DISTRICT FIVE IN THE NEAR WEST SIDE. I'M SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM THREE. OUR ASSOCIATION REQUESTS THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HRCS DECISION AND THAT YOU WOULD DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL. OUR ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THESE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURES, WHICH ARE PART OF SAN ANTONIO'S HISTORIC CATTLEMAN SQUARE, AND ARE LOCATED ONE STREET NORTH OF OUR ASSOCIATION'S BOUNDARIES. THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD HT C'S DECISION. ONE, THESE BUILDINGS ARE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT TO OUR RESIDENTS. TWO, THE CITY SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS JUST BECAUSE OWNER BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE IS UNABLE TO DEVELOP OR SELL, SELL OFF THE PROPERTIES AT A PROFIT MARGIN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO HIM OR HER, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE OWNER KNOWS HE OR SHE IS PURCHASING A HISTORIC OR HISTORIC LANDMARK. ANY PROPERTY INVESTOR SHOULD DO HIS OR HER DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE PURCHASING AN HISTORIC PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN USE OR REHABILITATE, UM, AND HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO. UM, THREE. THE OWNER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALL OPTIONS IN FINDING FUNDING TO REHABILITATE THE STRUCTURES. WE OPPOSE THE DEMOLITION OF THESE STRUCTURES BECAUSE WE WANT THE CITY TO SAVE THE FEW REMAINING HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT HELP TO TELL THE STORY OF OUR PEOPLE AND OUR CULTURE. CATTLEMAN SQUARE HAS ALREADY LOST 50% OF THE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. IF EACH NEW REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN HISTORIC BUILDING IS APPROVED, THE ENTIRE HISTORIC DISTRICT WILL DISAPPEAR. AND ALONG WITH IT, THE HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELPED TO BUILD OUR CITY. OUR ASSOCIATION IS COMPRISED OF RESIDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE LIVED IN THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE FOR MANY GENERATIONS, AND WHOSE HISTORY IS TIED TO THESE BUILDINGS. THESE ARE FAMILIES WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR LABOR TO MAKE THE CITY WHAT IT IS. UNFORTUNATELY, EACH YEAR WE LOSE MORE AND MORE OF OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO DEMO. YOUR TIME IS UP. YOUR TIME IS UP, PLEASE. ALRIGHT, WELL, NEXT ONE IS, UH, SHERRY CAMPO, FOLLOWED BY GU SANCHEZ. YOU WANNA CLOSE THE, YEAH. HELLO, MY NAME IS SHERRY CAMPO, AND I LIVE AT 3 0 3 SOUTH PINTO SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO SEVEN DISTRICT FIVE. BORN ON APRIL 15TH. IN 1818, JOSE ROMANIA, MORRIS RICH BOOK SET OUT TO JOIN A JOURNEY TO AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE. HE MADE SAN ANTONIO HIS HOME AND QUICKLY BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY. HE FULFILLED HIS DREAMS AND OPENED UP MORRIS RICH BOOK, RICH BOOKS DEPARTMENT STORE. HE IS A MEMBER OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY. THEY ALSO DO HAVE HIM IN THE HISTORICAL JEWISH COMMUNITY SOCIETY BOOK. HE OPENED UP THE STORE AND HIM AND THE HISPANIC CULTURE, THE MEXICAN COMMUNITY, GOT TOGETHER JUST AWESOME. I WOULD REALLY LOVE FOR Y'ALL TO NOT GIVE THEM THE PERMISSION TO DEMOLISH THEIR BUILDING, BECAUSE THEN IT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. ALSO, FROM MY HOME ON SAN PINTO, I CAN SEE DIRECTLY TO SAN ANTONIO BUILDING MORE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS IS GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY. I WOULD, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF COMING IN FRONT OF Y'ALL TO SPEAK WOULD DO ANY MEANING, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS FROM BEING DEMOLISHED. HISTORICAL BUILDINGS MEAN A LOT TO OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR PEOPLE, AND, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM THE PERMISSION TO TAKE IT DOWN, TAKE AWAY, JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M COMING TO SPEAK AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEANING. WE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH EDELMAN AND THEM NOW, BUT APPARENTLY Y'ALL HAVE TO GO DO WHAT Y'ALL HAVE TO DO. SO I'M STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF Y'ALL TO PLEASE ASK Y'ALL TO UPHOLD. I'M REQUESTING THE BOA UPHOLD, THE RG C'S DECISION, AND THAT THE BOA DENY THE [02:10:01] APPLICANT'S APPEAL. AND I'M SORRY FOR CRYING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ISDA SANCHEZ, FOLLOWED BY AMY CASTELLI. UM, I'M GONNA, UH, JAVIER REYES IS GONNA GIVE TO HIS MINUTES UP AS WELL FOR ME. WHO WAS THAT? I'M SORRY. I'M GIVING TO, I'M GIVING MY TIME TO GRACIE SANCHEZ. AND YOUR NAME IS JAVIER? YES, RES. ALRIGHT. MY NAME IS GRACIELA ISABEL SANCHEZ, AND I LIVE AT 27 18 MONTEREY IN DISTRICT FIVE. MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THE SAME AREA OF DISTRICT FIVE FOR MORE THAN 130 YEARS, COMING TO THE CORNER OF VERA GRU SAN S IN THE 1890S. I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALTHOUGH IS POOR, THIS COMMUNITY IS RICH IN FAMILY, IN HISTORY, IN TRADITIONS, IN THE, WITH CULTURAL VIBRANCY. , SADLY, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE MOST AREAS THAT SURROUND DOWNTOWN, ARE THREATENED WITH GENTRIFICATION, EVICTIONS, AND DISPLACEMENT. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALSO HEADQUARTERS. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF CATTLEMEN TO THE BEXAR COUNTY JAILS, PROBATION OFFICES, MUNICIPAL COURT, POLICE STATIONS, AND LOTS OF NONPROFITS THAT WORK TO CARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNHOUSED, WHO NEED SUPPORT TO ESCAPE FAMILY VIOLENCE, WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, WHO NEED JOBS AND MORE. WHEN YOU PLACE HAVEN FOR HOPE, THE JAILS AND MANY MORE NONPROFIT SERVICES BLOCKS AWAY FROM CATTLEMAN SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU WILL FIND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO HANG OUT DAY AND NIGHT IN THE SAME AREA TRYING TO SURVIVE. HOWEVER, THIS REALITY DOES NOT GIVE ANY DEVELOPER THE RIGHT TO DEMOLISH TWO MAJOR, MAJOR SIZED AND HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AT 900 AND 908 WEST HOUSTON. THESE TWO BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH THE OLD AVANZA HEADQUARTERS AND TWO OTHER STRUCTURES COMPRISE THE SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE SURVIVED OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS OR MORE. THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING THREATENED FOR DEMOLITION WERE DECLARED HISTORIC IN 19 88, 36 YEARS AGO. LET ME REPEAT, 36 YEARS AGO, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION, WE CAN PROVIDE THE PAPERWORK. SHANNON SHAY MILLER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, SUBMITTED THIS AND VERIFICATION OF ALL THESE BUILDINGS AND NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON ARE ON PAGE 34. AND AGAIN, I'M WILLING TO PROVIDE IT SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE THE OWNER DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE DESIGNATED HISTORIC, INDIVIDUALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC IS HIS QUES IS HIS CONCERN. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE DAVID EDELMAN BY TAIN YEARS AGO, KNOWING IT WAS DESIGNATED HISTORIC, DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEIR INTENTION WAS ALWAYS TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING FROM THE ONSET. THEY WANT TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS TO REPLACE THEM WITH A FIVE STORY, 121 APARTMENTS IN A PARKING LOT WITH 260 PLUS PARKING SPACES. THEY STATED AT THE HDRC MEETING THAT IT WOULD COST THEM OVER 50 MILLION TO BUILD THESE NEW STRUCTURES. SO HOW CAN THEY RAISE $50 MILLION FOR A NEW PROJECT, BUT THEY CAN'T RAISE $7.7 MILLION TO PRESERVE THE CURRENT BUILDINGS. WHERE'S THE ECONOMIC, UH, UH, PROBLEMS WITH THEM? RIGHT? WE KNOW THAT THE PROF, WELL, AND AS WE SAID IT, THEY, THEY ARE IN THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE. AND I MENTIONED THIS ON MARCH 20TH, CENSUS BLOCK 1106 VERY SPECIFICALLY, AND IT'S GOOD TILL 2025 FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, BECAUSE IT'S HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED, THEY CAN GET 20%. SO 20% OF 7.7 IS WHAT? 1.5 MILLION. THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STILL REQUEST FUNDING FROM THE HOUSING BOND 'CAUSE. SO SAY ADD ANOTHER MILLION. AND SINCE DAVID HIMSELF HAS RAISED A LOT OF MONEY, UM, HE KNOWS HOW TO RAISE MONIES FROM THE CITY. UM, ALMAN IS THE DEVELOPER FOR MANY PROJECTS IN TOWN, INCLUDING THE 68 APARTMENTS AT HEMISPHERE, THE MAVERICK APARTMENTS, THE BURNS BUILDING, THE BROADWAY LOFTS, AND SO, SO MANY MORE. HE'S, HE'S, I JUST LOOKED AT FIVE BUILDINGS THAT HE'S RECEIVED OVER $5.4 MILLION FROM TURS. YOUR TIME IS UP. NEXT ONE IS AMY KESSLEY, FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE SEGURA. WHAT? WELL, YEAH, SOMEBODY ELSE WAS GIVING ME THEIR TIME. WHO IS THAT MARIA? STANDBY. MARIA, WHAT? APPLE. [02:15:03] OKAY, YOU GOOD, MA'AM? FOR TWO MORE MINUTES. GO AHEAD. WE, AS COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE TIRED OF HAVING TO DEFEND OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT, OUR CASITAS, OUR PUBLIC HOUSING, OUR PEOPLE, AND TO HAVE THESE TWO LARGE, PRECIOUS AND HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, THEY'RE NOT LITTLE CASITAS EITHER. LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'LL TAKE DOWN THE WHOLE HALF BLOCK AND IT'S A HUGE BLOCK THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IN DISTRICT FIVE OR ANY PART OF THE CITY IN OVER, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE 1960S WHEN THEY TO TORE DOWN ALL OF LATO. SO IF YOU'RE GONNA COME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND DEVELOP, YOU MUST RESPECT OUR HISTORY, OUR PEOPLE, OUR HERITAGE, AND OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT. DEVELOPERS MUST RESPECT US AND THINK OF WAYS TO COLLABORATE WITH US AND DO SOMETHING SPECIAL, DIFFERENT AND IN A LOVING MANNER. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. HE DID SAY HE RECEIVED LETTERS FROM A COUPLE OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT DIDN'T WANT TO HELP FIX IT UP, BUT HE DIDN'T COME TO THE ESPERANZA, HE DIDN'T COME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF THE WEST SIDE HISTORIC BUILDING. HE DIDN'T COME TO THE WEST SIDE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE. THAT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE 2009. HE DIDN'T COME TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO PRESERVE. SO IF HE REALLY WANTED TO, HE SHOULD HAVE COME TO OUR ORGANIZATIONS. SO PLEASE RESPECT THE NAPOLE, THE HDRC DECISION, AND PLEASE DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS. THE HDRC CONVERSATION WAS MORE DETAILED AND HAD MANY MORE HOURS OF CONVERSATION, AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFICS THAT AREN'T BEING TOLD HERE IS FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND ENERGY BRAGMAN. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. SPEAKER AMY. HOLD, HOLD ON. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN HAS A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER. MS, COME BACK UP. SO THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED, UM, ARE THEY IN A POSITION TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES SO THAT THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES WOULDN'T BE IN THIS ECONOMIC PLIGHT? SURE. I, I MEAN, IN 2021, HE WAS, UH, I, I DID SEE THAT IT WAS UP FOR $4 MILLION FOR SALE. SO THAT'S A LITTLE OUTTA REACH. BUT THEN WHEN I LOOKED AT THE BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, UH, FOR LAST YEAR'S, THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING WAS A HUNDRED DOLLARS. AND SO I SAID TO ALMAN AND TO MR. BARKLEY, IF IT COSTS A HUNDRED DOLLARS, WE'LL PAY YOU TWICE AS MUCH, WE'LL PAY YOU $200. AND MR. BARKLEY, UH, DIDN'T SAY NO. SO SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT CONSIDER THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY? SO AT THAT PRICE, AND THE ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER DID SAVE LIMA'S NIGHTCLUB, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON SARA SAMRA THAT THE CITY WAS GONNA DEMOLISH. WE RAISED $2 MILLION AND NOW WE HAVE THE BEXAR COUNTY ALSO BUILDING A BIBLIOTECH ON ONE SIDE OF IT. SO THE HAS BEEN PRESERVED AND OPENED IN JULY, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT, UM, SPACES. SO WE'VE GOT TWO THIRDS OF THE SPACE ALREADY FILLED, BUT WE DID DO THAT. AND THAT'S UNDER THE ESPER PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER. THE ESPERANZA JUST CREATED A COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, WHICH ITS OWNED 5 0 1 C3. AND RENEE GONZALEZ, WHO SPOKE, ALSO TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY, UH, HELPING TO DO THAT. AND WE JUST GOT A MILLION DOLLARS FROM GREG CA OFFICE FOR HOUSING OF A COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. SO THERE'S POSSIBILITIES. OKAY. BUT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ON THE MARKET FOR WHATEVER THEY WERE ASKING, THERE WAS NO INTEREST. WE COULDN'T AFFORD $4 MILLION FOR SURE. THANK YOU. BUT AGAIN, WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THAT BUILDING SEEMS TO CHANGE AROUND A LOT. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. ALRIGHT, NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. AMY CASTLEY, FOLLOWED BY SUSANNA SEGURA. HI, MY NAME IS AMY CASTLEY. I'M A PRO BONO ATTORNEY FOR THE ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER AND FOR THE WEST SIDE, UM, PRESERVATION ALLIANCE. I WANTED TO BE CLEAR AND I, AND I THANK, UH, MEMBER BRETON. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, YOUR COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING, AND THAT IS YOU, YOUR TASK IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE HDRC CORRECTLY APPLIED THE GOVERNING LAW WHEN THEY DECIDED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT, UH, SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. THE, UM, THE H DRCS DECISION WAS MISCHARACTERIZED BY THE APPLICANT AND HIS ATTORNEY. THE HDRC [02:20:01] DECISION WAS VERY CLEAR THAT IT FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAD ESTABLISHED UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. OKAY. MOREOVER, THE UDC IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. AND THAT IS IN SECTION 35 6 14 E ONE B. OKAY. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT. AND THE BUR THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE COMMISSION OF THE FIRST THING IS THAT THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE REASONABLE BENEFIT, UM, OR USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF THE HDRC WAS CORRECT, IT WAS CORRECT AND CORRECTLY APPLIED. THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS FIRST POINT, THE, THE, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED, SHOWING THAT THE OWNER COULD NOT MAKE A REASONABLE, UM, BENEFICIAL USE. AND THIS SAYS IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE MOST PROFITABLE. UM, I'M SORRY. GILBERT HERRA HAS A, WHO CAN YIELD, WHAT WAS HER NAME, SORRY, GILBERT, I'M SORRY. AND ANNA, YOU CAN CONTINUE SPEAKING AND WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEIR TIME, YOU CAN GO SEE, UH, UM, STAFF AND, AND MAKE SURE THEY, THEY GET THE PAPERWORK, UH, DONE CORRECTLY. THANK, PLEASE. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T CLARIFY THAT AT THE BEGINNING, SIR. UM, SO WHAT THEY SHOWED, RIGHT, WHAT THEY SHOWED WITH RESPECT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE HIGHEST PROFITABLE USE, IS THAT THEY, UH, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2014. SOON THEREAFTER, THEY EVICTED THE ONGOING RESIDENT, UH, RESTAURANT AND BAR THAT WAS THERE. THEY EVICTED THEM AND THEY EVICTED ALL OF THE TENANTS OF THE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THEY ALLOWED THE BUILDING TO BE VACANT, AND IT WAS APPARENTLY NOT PROPERLY SECURED. AND SO, UH, PEOPLE WHO DID NOT, WHO ARE NOT, DID NOT WHO WERE NOT TENANTS ENTERED THE BUILDING AND EVENTUALLY THE POLICE HAD TO CLEAR IT OUT. THERE WERE SOME ARRESTS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT DURING THAT WHOLE PERIOD, THE OWNER HAS, HAS MADE, HAS KEPT THE BUILDING VACANT, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS ONGOING ENTERPRISE THERE BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE TENANTS WHO WERE PAYING RENT BEFORE, HE WOULDN'T, HE DIDN'T, UM, TRY IN ANY WAY TO MAKE A REASONABLE PROFIT AT THAT POINT. UM, AND AS YOU, AS, UH, ELLA SAN JUST MENTIONED, UM, DURING THAT PERIOD, HE DID, HE DID, UH, MANAGE TO KEEP HIS COSTS DOWN BECAUSE HE CONVINCED THE, UH, BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT THE BUILDING WAS WORTH A HUNDRED DOLLARS. UM, THE SECOND PIECE THAT THE OWNER HAS TO PROVE, OKAY, THE OWNER HAS TO PROVE THAT HE HAS OFFERED, UH, MADE EFFORTS, SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS TO SELL THE BUILDING. OKAY? AS YOU'VE HEARD AND AS CLEAR IN THE EVIDENCE, THE OWNER NEVER OFFERED TO SELL THESE TWO BUILDINGS. THE OWNER ONLY OFFERED TO SELL A GROUP OF BUILDINGS THAT INCLUDES OTHER BUILDINGS THAT HAVE, UH, MUCH MORE VALUE THAN THIS BUILDING. AND SO HE SAID, WELL, NOBODY WAS WILLING TO PAY $4 MILLION. SO I TRIED TO SELL IT, BUT NOBODY WAS WILLING, HE NEVER TRIED TO SELL THE TWO BUILDINGS IN QUESTION. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. AND, AND AS YOU ASKED, AND, UH, YOU GONNA SEE SANCHEZ, THERE CERTAINLY WERE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE INTERESTED IN THE BUILDING AND WOULD WANT TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDING AS A LOW INCOME RESIDENCE. UM, OKAY, THE THIRD POINT THAT THE OWNER HAS TO SHOW TO THE, UH, HDRC IS THE CONSTRUCTION CR COST FOR REHABILITATION RESTORATION OR REPAIR. THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION SHOULD REVIEW THAT ESTIMATE. THIS IS THE 7.5 MILLION ESTIMATE THAT THE ONLY ESTIMATE OF FOR THE COST OF REHABILITATION IN THE RECORD. AND, UM, THE OHP SHALL RETAIN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSIS OF THESE COSTS. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. ALL THEY DID WAS ACCEPT THE ESTIMATE OF, OF 7.5 MILLION, WHICH WAS COUPLED WITH THE OWNER'S DESIRE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS AND THEREFORE AT LEAST WORTHY OF SCRUTINY. UH, BUT THEY, THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP ANY EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT. SO, SO THERE [02:25:01] ARE THREE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE OWNER AND THE, UM, RECORD IS INADEQUATE ON EACH OF THOSE POINTS. SO THE BOARD, THE HTRC DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER THE LAW. IT WAS SAYING THE OWNER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. RIGHT. UM, I, I DID WANNA REITERATE, UM, THAT THE, UM, LET'S SEE, I'M SORRY. OH, JUST THE POINT. THE KEVAN SQUARE IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THESE BUILDINGS ARE CENTRAL TO THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND TO ALLOW DEMOLITION OF THEM WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WOULD BE, UH, UNDERMINED THE PUR THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS SUZANNE SEGURA, FOLLOWED BY ANTONIO DEN. UH, SUSANNA SEGURA. YEAH. MY NAME IS SUSANA. I LIVE AT TWO 18 SOUTH COLORADO. UH, VERY CLOSE TO THE JAIL. UH, I ALSO WANNA MENTION THAT I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH YOUR DECISION TO GIVE US TWO MINUTES INSTEAD OF THREE. WE CAME PREPARED WITH THREE MINUTE SPEECHES, AND EVERYBODY'S HEAVILY EDITING WHAT THEY WROTE, SO IT'S NOT FAIR. UM, I'M AGAINST THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING. I AM FOR PRESERVATION. I SPENT 13 YEARS HELPING TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING, UM, WITH THE ESPERANZA CENTER HAND IN HAND. I'M GONNA READ A STATEMENT FROM ARTUR MADRID. HE'S FROM 24 20 MCCULLOUGH AVENUE NUMBER 3 0 2, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2. HE'S WRITING ABOUT ITEM 2023 DASH FOUR OH EIGHT NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON STREET AS A PERSON, MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE PRESERVATION OF THE MEXICAN AND MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL LEGACY OF SAN ANTONIO. I WRITE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE RICH BOOK BUILDING AND THE ESSAY DIE WORKS, WHICH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO LANDMARKED IN 1988 IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT KNOWN AS CATTLEMAN SQUARE. MY OPPOSITION IS INFORMED BY THE FACT THAT ITS CURRENT OWNERS KNEW THESE PROPERTIES WERE LANDMARKS PIVOTAL TO THE HISTORIC FABRIC AND LEGACY OF SAN ANTONIO. WHEN THEY PURCHASED THEM, THEY WERE ALSO VERY MUCH AWARE THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO AND RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING AND PROTECTING THOSE DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. TO DEMOLISH THESE LANDMARKS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IRREPLACEABLE LOSS TO SAN ANTONIO, SINCE IT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERASURE OF THE LARGER HISTORIC CONTEXT AND INTEGRAL FABRIC OF CATTLEMAN SQUARE, WHICH UNTIL 20 20, 20 21 WAS THE ONLY HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE WEST SIDE. THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS TWICE DENIED THIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION. AND THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FURTHER RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION. THE HDRC BIDS THAT COMMUNITY ADVOCATES AND OWNERS OF THE BUILDING WORK TOGETHER TO PRESERVE BUILDINGS. ALRIGHT, NEXT SPEAKER IS, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER. UH, MISS, SO, SO THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD TWICE DENIED. SO, SO, UM, SO THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH HDRC, FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING? FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT. AND, AND SO FOR THE SAME, FOR THE SAME BUILDING, THE SAME, THE, THE SAME BUILDINGS WERE IN THE PRIOR DIALOGUE TOO? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. QUESTION FOR STAFF. HAS THIS CASE, UH, COME BEFORE THE HDRC MORE THAN ONCE? THERE WAS A PRI PREVIOUS APPLICATION IN 2020 THAT WENT TO A SUBCOMMITTEE HERE, UH, NOT A HEARING, BUT A SITE VISIT NEVER WENT TO A PUBLIC HEARING. AND SO IT WAS WITHDRAWN AT THAT TIME. SO THE ONLY TIME THE HDRC HAS TAKEN ACTION ON THIS WAS THIS YEAR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT SPEAKER IS ANTONIO CASTELLA, FOLLOWED BY LOUISIANA SANTI EZ. AND IF, AGAIN, IF ANYBODY'S GIVING UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, PLEASE DO SO NOW, NUN. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, MA'AM. I'M BUENA STARVE. I AM ANTONIO CASTANEDA, 24 20 MCCULLOUGH AVENUE, APARTMENT 3 0 2 7 8 2 1 2. SPEAKING TO ITEM THREE, UH, 2023 DASH 0 4 0 8 900 908 WEST HOUSTON. AS A PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED HISTORIAN AND MEMBER OF THE WEST SIDE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE RICH BROOK BUILDING ON [02:30:01] 900 WEST HOUSTON AND THE SA DIE WORKS, 908 WEST HOUSTON, WHICH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DESIGNATED LANDMARK IN 1988 IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF CATTLEMAN SQUARE. THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, AND THE OFFICE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FURTHER RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION. THE HDRC RECOMMENDS, UH, THAT COMMUNITY ADVOCATES IN THE OWNERS OF NINE HUNDRED EIGHT NINE NINE HUNDRED, NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHT WEST HOUSTON WORK TOGETHER TO PRESERVE THE BUILDINGS, THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION ISSUES, GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO EXPLORE AND TO APPLY FOR EX AND TO APPLY FOR EXISTING SOURCES OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO REHABILITATE AND REPURPOSE 900, 908 WEST HOUSTON TO BARGAIN AWAY, TO DEMOLISH, TO OBLITERATE THESE STRUCTURES WOULD FURTHER LEAVE THE WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES WITH THE WEST SIDE, AS WELL AS SAN ANTONIO WRIT LARGE, WITH STILL ONE LESS CRUCIAL FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO KNOW WHO WE ARE AND ON WHICH TO BUILD WHO WE WILL BE. I URGE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DE TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION. I THANK YOU. AND I ALSO WANT TO OBJECT TO THE, UH, ELIMINATION OF ONE MINUTE FROM, UH, OUR COMMENTS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TO EDIT THEM, AND THAT HAS CHOPPED UP WHAT WE WANT TO SAY AND HAS, UH, NOT FACILITATED OUR COMMUNICATION. SO I URGE YOU, PLEASE DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN TO THE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE TO, TO, TO SPEAK WITH YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS LUCIANA SANTI BARNES, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINA FRASER FRAZIER. YES, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M HERE. UM, ALSO TO ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO DENY THE APPLICANTS. I'M, START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. OH, YES. UM, MY NAME IS LUISA SANZ, AND I LIVE AT 1750 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE, 7 8 2 0 1. AND, UM, AGAIN, I'M ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL, UH, TO DEMOLISH THIS, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARK. UM, I WANNA MENTION IT. IT WAS NOT THAT IT WAS JUST LIKE A, A CLOTHING STORE. THIS, THIS, UH, DISTRICT MEANS MORE THAN THAT. IT WAS A PLACE WHERE, UM, THAT TELLS LIKE THE LONG HISTORY OF MIGRATION OF THE MEXICAN, UM, AMERICAN COMMUNITY. UH, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF INTELLECTUALS, OF POLITICALLY ENGAGED, UM, LEADERS, A RESILIENT COMMUNITY, UH, ENTREPRENEURS THAT, THAT, UM, LIVED AND MADE THAT MADE SAN ANTONIO WHAT IT WAS, UM, IN THE 19 HUNDREDS. AND, AND THESE BUILDINGS, UM, KEEP THESE MEMORIES ALIVE. AND SO IT MEANS A LOT TO OUR COMMUNITY. BEYOND THAT, IT WAS JUST A, A, A CLOTHING STORE. UM, SO WE FIND IT REALLY OFFENSIVE WHEN PEOPLE MAKE THOSE KIND OF COMMENTS AND, AND DENIGRATE, UH, THE HISTORY OF, OF OUR COMMUNITY. UM, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT COMPASSIONATE, UM, UH, PROJECTS. WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, PRESERVING AND BUILDING, UH, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAS LONG BEEN DISINVESTED IN. AND RIGHT NOW, UM, IT IS A FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO EARN, UM, ABOVE, YOU KNOW, $40,000 A, UH, UH, YEAR, UM, THAN THERE ARE, UM, FOR FAMILIES WHO ARE, UM, IN EXTREME POVERTY. AND, AND THE, UM, PUBLIC HOUSING WAIT LIST OF OVER 200,000 FAMILIES DEMONSTRATES THAT. AND SO, UM, JUST TO QUOTE, UM, MAYOR NUREMBERG, UH, HE SAID THAT HE, UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND HE APPLAUDS HOW HE, UM, HAS CREATED LIKE THE, UH, HOUSING, UM, UH, HOW HE'S BEEN A CHAMPION FOR HOUSING. AND SO HE WAS JUST QUOTED RECENTLY, UM, SORRY, I HAD IT RIGHT HERE WITH THE SAN ANTONIO REPORT, UH, JUNE 12TH, UM, THAT HE, UM, REMAINS COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENTING THE CITY CITY'S STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH WAS A, UH, MULTIMILLION DOLLAR, UH, CITY BOND. AND, AND THAT ENSURES THAT EVERY SAN ANTONIO RESIDENT, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE, HAS ACCESS TO SAFE, QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THIS IS APRIORITY. ALL RIGHT. THANK OF THE CITY, MA'AM. THAT TO, UM, CHRISTINA FRAZIER, FOLLOWED BY RAY MORALES, CHRISTINA FRAZIER. . [02:35:01] OKAY. ALRIGHT. RAY MORALES, FOLLOWED BY RACHEL JENNINGS. EXCUSE ME, BRENDA. I'M RAY MORALES, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 10, MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION AND THE WEST SIDE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE. I'M A RETIRED ARCHITECT SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, AND STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF NINE HUNDRED AND NINE NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON. THE DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED 121 HOUSING UNITS AND TO DEMOLISH TWO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURES. WE ALL NEED MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY HOUSING FOR THE WEST SIDE, BUT THIS IS NOT HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO US AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS NOT TO THE COMMUNITY'S BENEFIT. IF WE DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS, WE ALL LOSE TO DEMOLISH IS AGAINST THE COMMITMENT THE BOA SHARES AS PART OF ITS MISSION. THIS WOULD BE AN IRREPLACEABLE LOSS TO THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF SAN ANTONIO. AND WE'LL LOSE A VITAL LINK TO SAN ANTONIO'S RICH AND DIVERSE HISTORY. WE'LL LOSE ANOTHER LINK TO THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHERE MANY NEW ARRIVALS TO SAN ANTONIO STARTED THEIR NEW LIFE IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS. THESE STRUCTURES WERE CLEARLY DESIGNATED INDIVIDUAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS BACK IN 1988, AND THEY HAVE NOT LOST THEIR HISTORIC CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE NOW, OR WHEN THEY WERE PURCHASED BY THE DEVELOPER IN 2014. IMAGINE THE OUTCOME, IF WE SEND OUT THE MESSAGE TO ANYONE LOOKING TO PURCHASE A CURRENTLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THAT THEY CAN WAIT LONG ENOUGH THAT NO REPLACEMENT PLAN IS NEEDED ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURES. THE DEMOLITION IS JUSTIFIED DUE TO THE ECONOMIC DECLINE OR JUSTIFIED DUE TO THE GENERAL CLAIM OF UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, UH, THAT WAS SELF-INFLICTED BY THE DEVELOPER. THERE WAS NO DUE DILIGENCE AT WHEN THEY PURCHASED THIS BUILDING. AS AN ARCHITECT, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH MANY REHABBING AND, AND MANY DUE DILIGENCE, DILIGENCE REPORTS. UM, IMAGINE SAN, THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER PAVED OVER AS ONCE PROPOSED BECAUSE IT PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE, A HEALTH ISSUE, OR HAD NO RETURN ON INVESTMENT. AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO THINK BEYOND RATE OF RETURN. YOUR TIME IS, YOUR TIME IS UP, SIR, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER. YES, COMMISSIONER. SO, AS AN ARCHITECT, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS A VIABLE USE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AS IN ITS CONDITION? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS, AS THE USE FOR THE PROPERTY? I THINK AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, IS ADEQUATE FOR, FOR THE AREA. APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA, AND, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE, UH, TO, UH, LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS. AND HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN THE, THE PROPERTY NOW AS VERSUS WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE REPLACED WITH? I MEAN, UM, THE, THE, UM, UH, RICH BOOK BUILDING, UH, WAS REALLY A, A DAY, UH, RENTAL HOTEL PRIOR TO THIS, UH, AFTER IT WAS A, A RETAIL STORE, IT BECAME A, A, A RENTAL SPACE. IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE VISION A, A DAILY USE? UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT. UH, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS, BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE IT CLEAR THEY, THEY WANT DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDINGS. WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT, UH, NO IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION AND, AND DEMOLITION PERMITS, THEY'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING IT AT ALL TO SAVE THE REST OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. I SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. DEAN, COMMISSIONER, DEAN. SO EARLIER WE TALKED ABOUT A FIGURE 7.5 MILLION TO, I BELIEVE, TO RETROFIT THE BUILDING FOR TO CODE. DO YOU THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE COST? WELL, UH, IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH PROFIT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO MAKE ON THIS. AND THEN WHAT, LIKE THE BOOK VALUE, HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK 4 MILLION? UH, IF IT'S VALUED AT BCA FOR A HUNDRED DOLLARS, I THINK THE COMMUNITY CAN AFFORD THAT, YOU KNOW, TWICE, MAYBE FOUR TIMES I'D BE WILLING TO PITCH IN A THOUSAND DOLLARS. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN JUST AN ANSWER TO THAT. ACTUALLY, BCA HAS THEM LISTED AT 2.1 MILLION AND 677,000. THAT'S UNDER PROTEST NOW. IF YOU CAN JUST KEEP IT DOWN FRONT THE AUDIENCE PLEASE. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH, AND I'D LIKE TO, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THIS, SIR, COME BACK. COME BACK UP. . I THOUGHT IT WAS GENERAL. NO, NO. SO, AND BECA ALSO LISTS THAT, THAT THE LIVING AREA IS, UH, 14,300 SQUARE FEET. SO IT'S TWO STORY RIGHT NOW. IT IS TWO, TWO STORY. AND, AND BY THE WAY, THE STRUCTURE, UH, IT IS CONCRETE BLOCK, UH, UH, UH, MAIN STREET CONSTRUCTION AND, AND IT IS PRETTY STABLE. [02:40:01] THE EXTERIOR WALLS, UH, YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT, UH, IT, THERE'S THE STRUCTURE'S QUESTIONABLE, BUT IT'S NOT, I I GET IT. AND, AND STAFF, THIS IS IN THE D DISTRICT, CORRECT? LET ME VERIFY THAT. I, I WANNA SAY IT IS. AND SO IF YOU'RE DOING, LET'S SAY THIS THING WAS TO BE RENOVATED AND THEY, AND THEY PUT AS MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS THEY COULD IN THERE, IF IT'S IN THE D DISTRICT, DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING? UM, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. UM, AND THEN, OKAY, SO, SO THIS IS, SO PART OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THINGS THAT WE DO LOOK AT AND THERE'S THINGS THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VIABILITY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU KNOW, IF I HAVE 14,000 SQUARE FEET AND I'M GONNA PUT 30 UNITS IN THERE, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING AFFORDABLE, WHERE'S EVERYBODY GONNA PARK? THIS SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE TOD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HEARD OF THAT. UH, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. IT IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE VS. YEAH, I SEE THAT. AND, AND, AND SO, UH, UH, TO, TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL, WILL NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING. IT IS WITHIN DOWNTOWN. IT IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO A LOT OF AMENITIES. SO THERE'S PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE. OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION, SO THIS USED TO BE A STORE, A RESTAURANT? CORRECT. AND SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH IT BEING, WITH PRESERVING THE HISTORIC, UM, UM, THE, THE HISTORY OF THE AREA BY TURNING IT INTO HOUSING. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. UM, I DON'T SEE ANY, ANY, UH, REAL NEED TO MAINTAIN THE USE. THE ORIGINAL USE FOR THE, UH, UH, RICH BOOK BUILDING WAS A RETAIL STORE. MM-HMM. , THE, THE, UH, UH, SAN ANTONIO DIE WORKS. UH, IT, IT WAS USED AS A HOTEL AS WELL. AND ARE YOU'RE, AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA? YES, I AM. AND SO CATTLEMAN SQUARE, WHEN YOU SAY CATTLEMAN SQUARE, HOW MANY BLOCKS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? UH, FIVE OR SIX. FIVE OR SIX. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I USED TO LIVE JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THERE. SO OUT OF STREET, OUT OF CATTLEMAN SQUARE. SO YOU'VE, WAS V WAS THE VIA PART OF CALVIN SQUARE? UH, NOT ORIGINALLY. UH, YOU MEAN THE CENTRAL STATION? YES. IT WASN'T PART OF IT. THAT'S WHAT CAUSED A LOT OF DEMOLITION FOR THAT AREA. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT MAPS. AND SO I SEE THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST REMNANTS. IT'S A VACANT BUILDING. IT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT BEING USED RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S SURROUNDED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M WONDERING, WE HEARD, WE HEARD, UH, SOMEBODY MENTION THAT 50% OF WHAT'S CALLED THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE HAS BEEN RE HAS BEEN, UH, RENOVATED OR CHANGED OR, OR WHATNOT. UH, IT'S BEEN RAISED, YEAH. AND SO IT'S, IF, IF THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST BUILDINGS LEFT, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT EXACTLY, UH, IS, IS BEING PRESERVED? I MEAN, ONCE YOU GO TO A, ONCE YOU GO TO HOUSING AND YOU DON'T HAVE PLACES TO PARK, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU ENVISIONING THAT LOOK TO BE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE CHANGED AROUND IT? WHAT, WHAT YOU LOOK AT IS THE WHOLE COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS, HOW THEY RELATE TO THE IG AND N UH, TRAIN STATION THAT'S THERE, THAT IS BEING RENOVATED BY VIA. AND, AND SO THIS, UH, THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE PART OF THAT COMPLEX. AND, AND WHEN YOU LOSE THAT DISTRICT, YOU LOSE ALL THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. AND THEN STAFF, WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY, UM, FROM A LOT OF THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK. WE KEEP HEARING THE TERMS DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARK. IS, ARE THESE BUILDINGS A DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARK, OR ARE THEY DESIGNATED HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, OR IS IT JUST BUILDINGS IN A HISTORIC AREA? YES, TO BOTH. I MEAN, SO THEY ARE THEY BOTH OKAY. INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS, BUT THEN BUILDINGS CAN ALSO BE DESIGNATED THROUGH HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION. IS THERE ANY STATE DESIGNATIONS ON THIS? NO. OKAY. NATIONAL HISTORIC? NO. NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'M, ANY QUESTIONS? YES. CAN I SHARE E UM, RAY? SO HAS THE DEVELOPER MET WITH, UM, I, I NOTICED THE GROUPS THAT, THAT MS. SANCHEZ HAD MENTIONED. HAS HE, HAVE THEY EVER MET TO TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES OF WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE WITHOUT DEMOLISHING THE BUILDINGS, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR MIXED USE? UM, CONSTRUCTION. DAVID HAS MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD PREFER SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE, BUT TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS WOULD JUST NEGATE ANY NEGOTIATIONS. THE COMMUNITY'S REALLY BEHIND, UH, PRESERVING THE, THE, UH, THE BUILDINGS, BOTH STRUCTURES. NO, BUT MY QUESTION WAS HAD IN THE PAST, HAVE THEY MET WITH YOU TO SIT DOWN? BECAUSE I, I KNOW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, 'CAUSE I LIVE IN THE, IN, IN THE MISSION IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEY SPEND ALMOST TWO YEARS TALKING TO US ABOUT PROJECTS AND KNOWING THAT IF, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD TOO CLOSE TO THE MISSIONS. HAVE THEY MET LIKE THAT WITH YOU GUYS? NO, THEY HAVE NOT. UH, WE MET WITH THEM, UH, AFTER THE, THE LAST HDRC MEETING BECAUSE THEY LOST THAT CASE. AND, AND SO THEY FELT THEY, THEY NEEDED TO MEET WITH US. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE EXPLORING OPTIONS. WE HAVE ANOTHER, UH, ARCHITECT, [02:45:01] UH, THAT IS LOOKING AT OPTIONS, IS HOW TO DEVELOP THE BUILDING, UH, TRYING TO PRESERVE THE TWO STRUCTURES AND, AND, UH, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT. UM, SO, UH, RIGHT NOW, UM, UH, ESPERANZA CENTER, UM, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE BUILDING IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD SELL IT TO US AT, AT REASONABLE COST. UH, BUT IT, IT'S UP TO THEM. UH, I'VE LOOKED AT THEIR STRUCTURAL REPORTS, I'VE LOOKED AT THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT, AND, UH, IT, IT, IT TELLS ME THAT, UH, THE, THE BUILDINGS ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN BE REHABBED. IN OTHER WORDS, BE REUSED. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. ALL RIGHTY. UM, RACHEL JENNINGS, FOLLOWED BY BARBARA HOWELL, AFTER BARBARA IS LETICIA SANCHEZ. HI, UM, MY NAME IS RACHEL JENNINGS. I LIVE AT 27 29 PEREZ STREET. UM, ZIP CODE 7 8 2 0 7. UM, I WISH TO SPEAK TO UPHOLD THE HDRC, UH, DECISION, UM, WHICH, UM, IS AGAINST DEMOLITION OF THE, UH, TWO BUILDINGS. UM, I HAVE LIVED ON THE WEST SIDE FOR THE PAST 21 YEARS. UM, I AM, I PASS THOSE STRUCTURES, THE SAN ANTONIO DIE WORKS AND THE RICH BOOK BUILDING, UH, ON FREO STREET ALMOST EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. UM, I'VE PASSED THEM ON THE WAY TO WORK. UM, OFTEN WHEN I GO TO THE, THE POST OFFICE, UH, WHEN I, UM, GO TO THE ELECTION CENTER, WHEN I, UM, GO TO THE POST OFFICE, UH, I, I'M ALWAYS GOING DOWN THAT STREET. AND SO IT'S, THOSE BUILDINGS ARE INTEGRAL TO MY LIFE. THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, ARE PART OF THE, THE TEXTURE OF MY LIFE, AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, A NUMBER OF THOSE STRUCTURES IN CATTLEMAN SQUARE HAVE BEEN, UM, UH, TORN DOWN. UM, EVEN, UH, IN MY 21 YEARS THAT I'VE LIVED IN THAT AREA. UM, UM, AND, AND I DID, UH, VISIT THE, THE CANTINA AND THE RESTAURANT IN THAT AREA. UM, I, UM, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF THESE, UM, OF THIS AREA OF CATTLEMAN SQUARE, BUT ALSO THAT, I MEAN, THAT ENTIRE DISTRICT GOING DOWN RIO STREET, UM, UH, IS SO IMPORTANT, UH, TO THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. UH, SO MUCH HAS HAPPENED THERE. AND TO PRESERVE ANY PART OF IT IS IMPORTANT. AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND THE IDEA OF THE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE, THE CLOTHING STORES AND SO ON. THEY ARE HISTORIC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. UM, JUST WANNA CONFIRM, BARBARA HOWELL IS NO LONGER HERE. GONE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANOTHER LETICIA SANCHEZ OR YOU SIGN UP TWICE? HE WAS SUPPOSED TO ERASE HER. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO LAST ONE IS HERRARA. WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TEAR DOWN A TREE, YOU TURN DOWN, YOU UH, YOU TEAR DOWN THE, UH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYTHING IN ITS SURROUNDINGS. WHEN YOU TEAR DOWN A BUILDING, YOU TEAR DOWN THE HISTORY AND THE, UM, AND THE COMMUNITY SAYS ANTONIO, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE COME AS TOURISTS TO SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE THEY'RE INTERESTED IN OUR CULTURE AND OUR HISTORY. THE MEXICAN AMERICANS, [02:50:06] WE, IT CAN COME FOR OUR FOOD, FOR OUR STREETS, FOR OUR, UM, VEST BAR CLOTHING. AND, AND THEN YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE GONNA DESTROY OUR HISTORY AND OUR CULTURE IN THIS CITY, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE TOURISTS BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING FOR, WHAT WILL THEY COME HERE FOR? WILL THEY, THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING TO THESE COLD, UM, MODERN BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NO HISTORY. ANTONIO, MANY OTHER CITIES IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE HISTORY THAT SAN ANTONIO HAS. THAT'S WHY SAN ANTONIO IS SO IMPORTANT AND SO INTERESTING TO THE TOURISTS BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE OF OUR FOOD, OUR HISTORY, AND OUR CULTURE. SO DON'T DESTROY OUR CULTURE. DON'T DESTROY OUR HISTORY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE. THEY'RE HERE BECAUSE OF US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS CASE. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT. WHY DON'T YOU COME BACK UP, UH, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT MANNA YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO ACTUALLY BEFORE THE APPLICANT, CAN WE HAVE THE CITY COME UP? UM, YES. YEAH, SURE. SO, AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED WITH REGARDS TO THE THREE BULLET POINTS AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO EACH OF THOSE? YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I GUESS, UM, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, IT WAS KIND OF THE DIALOGUE OF, OF THE ERROR AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ERROR OF THAT OCCURRED. AND, UM, AND SO I WANNA GET THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED SO THAT WAY, UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SLIDE, THAT'S THE SLIDE, NOT THE ONE, IT'S THE ONE. AND MAYBE DETAILS ON THE FIRST BULLET POINT. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS AROUND THAT ONE. I THINK, YEAH, I THINK WE CLARIFIED THAT THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE REPLACEMENT PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED ALONGSIDE A DEMOLITION REQUEST. CERTAINLY HELPS THE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PROMPTING THE REQUEST. AND, UM, THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE MERITS, BUT THERE'S ALSO PRETTY STRONG LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT, UM, THE COA, THE QUESTION ABOUT DEMOLITION IS A SEPARATE ACTION ON ITS OWN, IN ADDITION TO THE SEPARATE ACTION FOR REPLACEMENT PLANS. UM, YEAH, I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW ELSE TO RESPOND TO THAT. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DECISION TO DENY WAS BASED SPECIFICALLY ON NOT HAVING REPLACEMENT PLANS, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP. AND THEN, UM, AS FAR AS A SECOND BULLET POINT WITH REGARDS TO, UM, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, SO, SO SAY I BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME, AND IT'S, THE MARKET'S THE HIGHEST AND I JUST OVERSPENT, AND THEN THE MARKET CRASHES. OKAY. AND THEN I WANNA TRY TO SELL A PROPERTY AND I CAN'T, YOU'LL RECOUP MY MONEY. CAN I NOW APPLY TO HAVE THE BILLING DEMOLISHED? 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN OPTION HERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I JUST SAID? YEAH, IF YOU DUG YOUR OWN HOLE. YEAH. UM, NO, IT DOES SAY, AND I'M GONNA TRY TO FIND THE RIGHT LANGUAGE HERE SO THAT I CAN, UM, QUOTE THE CODE AND NOT JUST MAKE SOMETHING UP. UM, I THINK IT SHOULD IN IT'S JUST THERE IS LANGUAGE. I SAID IT SHOULD INCLUDE PROOF THAT THE OWNER'S AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE OF PROPERTY MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OWNER TO REALIZE A RE REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN. UM, SO THERE'S AN IMPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE TO TRY. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, DEMONSTRATING THAT BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS A NECESSITY. UM, BUT IT ALSO SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO REALIZE THE MOST, THE HIGHEST RATE OF RETURN, JUST A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN. AND SO THAT'S PRETTY COMMON IN, IN A LOT OF KIND OF ZONING LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO, JUST BECAUSE HAVING THE BUILDING IN PLACE DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST AND GREATEST USE DOESN'T MEAN THAT, UM, YOU AUTOMATICALLY HAVE A HARDSHIP AND COULD BE A LOSS. YOU KNOW? SO RATE OF RETURN COULD BE A LOSS AND JUST HAPPENS TO BE NOT AS BAD OF A LOSS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST UNDERSTANDING, WANTING TO GET TO THE POINT OF, YOU KNOW, THAT THE WHOLE NOTION OF BUYING A PROPERTY IS SPECULATIVE AND, YOU KNOW, AND ACCORDINGLY. AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON THAT RATE, YOU KNOW, A POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN IF THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS GONNA BE THE CASE, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S REALLY ABOUT PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, RESPONDING TO THE CODE, UM, PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO THE, TO THE COMMISSIONERS SO THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. UM, ULTIMATELY I THINK THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT SAYS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVIDED. SO THEY DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION ON WHAT THEY CONSIDER BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S SUFFICIENT. [02:55:01] UM, BUT YES, IT DOES HAPPEN WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER SOMETIMES PURCHASES A PROPERTY, THINKS THAT THEY CAN DEMOLISH IT, REALIZE THEY CAN'T, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY START SPENDING MONEY AND KIND OF DIGGING THAT HOLE. AND SO WE DO HAVE THOSE THAT COME TO THE COMMISSION. UM, IT, YOU KNOW, THE RESULTS VARY. AND IS THERE CODE FOR, I, I APOLOGIZE, I'M TAKING UP SOME, SOME NOTES HERE. UH, DERELICTION OF OR, OR, UM, DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DERELICTION. SO, SO IS THERE CODE THAT PREVENTS THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY FROM OCCURRING? THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT IT IS NOT LIKE THE, THE CONDITION OR BASICALLY THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO, UM, RECTIFY THE CONDITION CAN'T BE BECAUSE YOU CAUSED IT DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP. SO, UM, LIKE RELATED TO DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT, YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, YOUR NEGLECT OF THE PROPERTY CAN'T RESULT IN THE NECESSITY, THE NECESSITY TO NOW DEMOLISH IT. THAT WAS MY, OKAY. SORRY, , I APOLOGIZE. SO LIKE, SO MY, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, UM, SOMEBODY TURNS IN AN APPLICATION TO YOU GUYS MM-HMM, DO YOU, DO YOU DO A LOT OF RELIANCE ON THE, ON THE INFORMATION THEY GIVE? DO YOU DO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF SOME OF THIS? I MEAN, WHAT, HOW FAR DO Y'ALL TAKE THIS? BECAUSE, BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL YOUR DEPARTMENT ISSUING A WHOLE BUNCH OF, OF DEMO, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. YEP. SO WHEN YOU GUYS CAME IN AND SAID, OKAY, WELL WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND THAT IT'S OKAY TO DEMO IF YOU DO THE SALVAGE AND YOU DO THESE CONDITIONS, UH, I MEAN, DID, DID THAT, DID THAT RESULT IN A, IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME ON YOUR DEPARTMENT'S BEHALF AND REALLY REVIEWING AND PICKING APART THE APPLICANT'S, UH, INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU CAN REALLY STAND BEHIND AT AN HDRC MEETING? YES. THESE ARE NOT LIGHT REVIEWS. UM, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN ATTEST THAT WE WENT BACK AND FORTH QUITE A BIT AND WE SAID, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH. AND HE SAID, LET ME TRY AGAIN. AND SO I THINK THERE WERE TWO OR THREE SUBMISSIONS TO KIND OF BUILD THAT EVIDENCE PACKET BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, DID THEY HAVE 30 TO 50 PEOPLE SHOW UP AT THE HCRC MEETING ABOUT THIS SIMILAR, SIMILAR, UH, NUMBER OF SPEAKERS? YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN, I MEAN, IT'S, IT, I, WHEN I HEAR A LOT OF OPPOSITION, IT, IT CAN, IT, IT CAN CAUSE SWAY WITH ME AND I, I CAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH, BUT, BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER OF FACTS HERE, I MEAN, KNOWING THE THOROUGHNESS OF REVIEW THAT YOU'RE DOING, I, I JUST, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE PAST THAT. AND, AND, UM, SO YEAH, I MEAN, I WILL ADD STAFF. WE'RE NOT ENGINEERS. UM, SO WE DO RELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S SUBMITTED. OH, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY, UM, THE CODE ALLOWS US TO BRING IN LIKE A THIRD PARTY ENGINEER, BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'VE ALREADY HAD A COUPLE THAT HAD LOOKED AT IT AND WE'RE FELT PRETTY CONFIDENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES. AND LASTLY, AS FAR AS SALVAGING GOES, MM-HMM, , SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO DO TO ADD A COUPLE MORE LEVELS AND, AND REALLY GET SOME MORE DWELLING UNITS IN THERE, IT APPEARS LIKE, LIKE, LIKE THEIR RENDERING IS TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE LOOK OF THE FIRST TWO STORIES. AND DO THEY, DO THEY, UH, DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL THE REUSE AND SALVAGING OF ANY OF THE MATERIALS TO TRY TO ATTAIN THAT? NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE PLANS? UM, AGAIN, SO THIS IS JUST A RENDERING, IT'S NOT REALLY PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN OF SEEING RIGHT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. BUT, BUT IF, BUT THIS IS A THING, SO IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE HCRC DOES NOT REVIEW INTERIORS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF IS ANY, EVEN THE PURVIEW OF THE HCRC, THEY ONLY HAVE PURVIEW OVER THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND WHAT THE OUTSIDE LOOKS LIKE. BUT AS IT MOVES FORWARD, LET'S SAY THAT THEY, LET'S SAY THAT THIS GETS APPROVED, THEY DEMO THE BUILDING AND THEY, THEY SALVAGE A LOT OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE. UH, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD THEN WORK WITH YOU ALLALL TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT LOOK USING EXISTING MATERIALS? PERHAPS? YES. UM, I WILL, I WILL JUST BE CLEAR. LIKE THE THING THAT PROMPTS A DEMOLITION REVIEW IS THE IDEA THAT THE BUILDING'S GONNA GO AWAY COMPLETELY. THIS KIND OF THING YOU SEE ON THE RENDERING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WHERE ONLY MAYBE TWO OR THREE WALLS ARE, ARE RESERVED AND REINCORPORATED INTO THE NEW BUILDING THAT DOESN'T TRIGGER THE SAME WELL OF, OF REVIEW. AND SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S TRIGGERING THIS DEMOLITION REVIEW IS THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE IS COMPLETELY GOING AWAY. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT MIGHT NOT COME BACK IN SOME FORM AND THAT THE APPEARANCE MIGHT BE SIMILAR, BUT AGAIN, THAT ALL HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE HT CI MEAN, BECAUSE I, I'M JUST GONNA PUT MY 2 CENTS OUT THERE. I KNOW THAT IN THIS TODAY'S DAY AND AGE, IT'S THE WORLD HAS GOTTEN EXPENSIVE AND, AND GOING FROM TWO STORIES TO, TO EVEN FOUR OR FIVE STORIES MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SOMETHING VIABLE NOWADAYS. AND WHEN YOU START GOING UP THAT HIGH, THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO DEMO IT TO MAKE IT WORK. AND I'M JUST, I JUST WANT TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS APPLICANT WENT THROUGH A, A LARGE AMOUNT OF DUE DILIGENCE. YOU'VE GOT TO SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT SUPPORTED THIS, THAT YOUR DECISION WASN'T MADE, YOU KNOW, LIGHTLY. UH, AND THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF THAT I WANT TO HEAR WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AN ERROR WAS MADE BY THE HDRC. SO, COMMISSIONER, CORRECT. CHAIR YVAN? YES. IVAN, I WANNA, OH, YES. OH YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. SO I, I, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, UM, BELIEVE THAT [03:00:01] THE HDRC AND, UM, THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, UH, DOES, IS LOOK AT THESE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT SEEING THIS CATTLEMEN SQUARE WHERE SO MANY OF ITS BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED, THEY ARE NO MORE. UM, BUT THE DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPERS, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE DONE DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE TO ME, THE DUE DILIGENCE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TALKING TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS OF THAT COMMUNITY, WHICH IS THE WEST SIDE. AND THE WEST SIDE HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY AND ESPECIALLY RECENTLY, UM, A NEIGHBORHOOD OF COMMUNITIES, OF COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE HAD MANY HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WERE NOT IN HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, DEMOLISHED. UM, I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE HEARD THAT THE DEVELOPER SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME TALKING TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS, GOING OUT EVEN TO THOSE WHO WERE OPPOSING THE, THEIR DEMOLITION, TALKING TO THEM AND, AND LOOKING AND SEEING WHAT ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE. UM, MAYBE SAVING THOSE, SAVING THOSE TWO BUILDINGS AND BUILDING MORE APARTMENTS ON THEM, UH, COMING UP WITH SOME MORE CREATIVE IDEAS OTHER THAN DEMOLITION AND THEN BUILDING A BRAND NEW BUILDING, UM, WHERE MAYBE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN. SO, UM, I WANTED, YOU KNOW, SEE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THE, THE DEVELOPER MEETS WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND HAS CONVERSATIONS AND, UM, TO SAVE THOSE BUILDINGS. NOT TO DEMOLISH THEM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY MORE BUILDINGS THERE ABOUT MAYBE FIVE OR SIX LEFT IN THE CATTLEMEN SQUARE THAT, UM, ARE STILL STANDING. AND, UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT PRESERVATION OF THESE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY. I ALSO THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER, UH, KNEW WHAT HE WAS GETTING INTO. UH, I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN DITY. I GOT IN A GOOD DEAL AND I, I KNEW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO ENTAIL FOR ME WHEN I HAD TO GO THROUGH OHP EVEN FOR THE COLOR OF MY HOUSE. AND, UM, AND SO I THINK THAT WHEN WE HAVE DEVELOPERS COMING AND THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING INTO A HISTORIC AREA, THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE TOLL OF THE COST OF WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF, UH, THE FUTURE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT, UH, AND GIVE MY OPINION ON THAT. THANK YOU. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, JUST CLARIFICATION. WE'VE HEARD DIFFERENT ADDRESSES BEING THROWN AROUND AND SO WE'RE SEEING NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO HEARING 1 1 8, UH, NORTH MEDINA. I'M NOT SEEING 9 0 8 ON B AD. SO CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON YEAH. THE ADDRESSES, IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE. SO IT'S, WE POSTED 909 0 6 9 0 4, 9 0 8, AND ONE 11 NORTH RIO, ONE 11 NORTH RIO. UM, NOW STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP GOOGLE MAPS PLEASE? EXACTLY. WHAT PROPERTIES ARE INVOLVED AND WHAT WE OWN? WELL, YEAH, SO THE MEDINA IS THE OTHER OF KIM, CORRECT. SO THE DEVELOPER OWNS THE WHOLE BLOCK, AND SO THERE IS ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT'S NOT PART OF THE DEMOLITION REQUEST, THAT IS PART OF THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. SO WHAT ARE THE ADDRESSES THAT WE, THAT HDR CONSIDERED HDRC CONSIDERED? THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE 900 WEST HOUSTON AND 9 0 8 WAS HOUSTON. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP A, THE GOOGLE STREET MAP VIEW AT THE INTERSECTION? YEAH. AND THEN TURN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GRAZE THE AREA THERE. TURN AROUND, SPINNING AROUND. I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THIS. DO YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE STREET? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF STREETS WITH LARGE COMPASSES IN THE MIDDLE, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WAS DOES HISTORIC LOOK AT THAT SORT OF THING WHEN THE CITY DECIDES TO YEAH, WHEN THERE'S, UM, IT'S ACTUALLY REVIEWED AS A PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT. AND SO WHEN THERE'S A SPECIAL DESIGN LIKE THAT, IT GOES TO THE HCRC AS WELL. S STA CAN YOU KIND OF PAN AROUND AND SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? LIKE LOOK DOWN IF YOU CAN TURN YEAH. TURN AROUND 180 DEGREES. [03:05:01] SO IN THE, KEEP GOING A LITTLE MORE TO THE LEFT. YEAH. 180 DEGREES AT THE INTER DEAD. DEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. THERE. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. SO I'M, I, I'M, WHEN I HEAR, YOU KNOW, PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND I SEE WHAT THE, WHAT THE V OF BUILDING LOOKS LIKE, AND I SEE THIS THING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. I, I JUST, I, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, TO HOLD BACK ONE MORE IF THEY'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, JUST MY THOUGHT, ALRIGHT, LET'S SET THE APPLICANT, COME BACK UP. SO WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF STUFF. MM-HMM. AND, YOU KNOW, THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD TO SEE IF, IF THE HRC MADE AN ERROR. AND SO I WOULD PLEASE STAY ON THAT TOPIC. YOU KNOW, YOU PRES, THERE WAS INFORMATION SUBMITTED, STAFF DID A REVIEW, WENT TO THE HDRC. IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT OR MAYBE ANYTHING YOU'VE HEARD TODAY THAT YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO? UH, JUST KNOWING THAT WE'RE HERE TO, TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS ANY SORT OF ERROR. A COUPLE THINGS I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO MS. IVANA IF I COULD. SURE. TO START WITH, THAT'S KIND OF TOP OF MIND, BUT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE SAID THAT WERE SIMPLY NOT TRUE. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST AT LEAST LET YOU HEAR FROM ME PERSONALLY. SO, NUMBER ONE, WE DID EXTENSIVE OUTREACH. SO GRACIELA WAS THERE IN 2020 WHEN WE DID THE WALK AND THE DRC, WHICH IS CALLED THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A SUBCOMMITTEE, SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NOT BEHIND THIS. WE, YOU NEED TO DO MORE. I GAVE THEM ALL MY CELL PHONE NUMBER. IT'S ON MY WEBSITE, I'M EASY TO GET AHOLD OF. WE'VE DONE OUTREACH, WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHICH IS NOW CALLED PROSPER WEST. SPENT TIME, SAN ANTONIO HOUSING TRUST, SPENT TIME WITH US, A NUMBER OF PUBLIC NONPROFITS, WORKED DIRECTLY WITH US. GRACIE RUNS THE ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER. SHE'S BEEN AWARE OF THIS BUILDING AND ITS AVAILABILITY THE ENTIRE TIME. AND WHEN SHE SAYS IT'S $4 MILLION, THAT INCLUDED THE AVANSE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING ON MEDINA STREET, BUT THAT'S HOW YOU SELL IT. AND SO WE'VE SAID, IF, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN JUST THE TWO BUILDINGS, WE'D BE ALL EARS AND WE WOULD MAKE IT UNBELIEVABLY EASY FOR YOU. WE WILL CONTRIBUTE IT TO A VENTURE, WE'LL SELL IT TO YOU. WE'LL LOOK AT ANY NUMBER OF CREATIVE OPTIONS TO DO IT, BUT WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT THERE'S CERTAINTY OF EXECUTION BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING TAXES ON $4 MILLION WORTH OF PROPERTY IN THAT BLOCK, THAT ONE SUPER BLIGHTED BLOCK AT THIS POINT. AND IT'S BLIGHTED IN PART. AND, AND THAT'S WHERE HE SAID, WE, SOMEBODY SAID WE EVICTED SOMEBODY. WE DIDN'T EVICT ANYBODY. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO WE HAD AN OPERATOR OF THE BUILDING AND IN THE SINGLE ROOM, OCCUPANTS, SOME CRIMINALS MOVED IN, AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND THE VICE SQUAD AND THE, UH, COLLECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT DID ALL RIGHT AND SAID, YOU HAVE TO EMPTY THE BUILDING TO MEET, TO, TO CLEAN UP THIS PROBLEM. AND SO THAT THEY DID THAT, WE COMPLIED COMPLETELY WITH, WITH THE CITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT WAS PAINFUL FOR US BECAUSE IT WAS EMBARRASSING. IT WAS DIFFICULT. IT LEFT THE BUILDING EMPTY. BUT TO SAY THAT WE DIDN'T MAINTAIN IT IS NOT TRUE. AND THE OTHER POINTS THAT I WANNA MAKE IS THAT, UM, I MEAN, THOSE ARE MY MAIN POINTS AND BEYOND, WHICH I WOULD, I WOULD SAY I HAVE RE BEEN REMODELED MANY HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN SAN ANTONIO. SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS OF LATE OUR FIRM HAS DONE. SO WE KNOW WHAT IT COSTS. AND WHEN WE PROVIDED THOSE COST ESTIMATES AND THAT ENGINEERING AND THAT DETAIL TO THE CITY, IT IS WITH GREAT INTEGRITY. BECAUSE IF, IF THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BELIEVES THAT OUR FIRM, MYSELF IN PARTICULAR BRINGING THEM FALSE INFORMATION, THEN THAT'S GONNA DAMAGE MY REPUTATION FOR THE FUTURE. SO I WOULDN'T ALLOW, I, I WOULDN'T DO THAT. AND ANYBODY THAT KNOWS ME OR BARKLEY, MY PARTNER WOULD KNOW THAT. SO WE'VE BEEN OPEN FOR DIALOGUE. WE'VE MET WITH THEM SINCE THAT HEARING. WE'VE SAT DOWN, WE SAID, LOOK, IT'S GONNA BE A MINIMUM OF 18 MONTHS BEFORE WE CAN GET A COMPLETED SET OF PLANS TO GO FORWARD THAT WOULD EVEN BEGIN TO GET THAT DEMOLITION PERMIT IN PLACE DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS. WE ARE WIDE OPEN TO CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SAVE THESE BUILDINGS. IF THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN BE RAISED, WHICH I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE IT CAN OR NOR SHOULD, BUT LET'S JUST SAY IT CAN AND COULD, WE ARE OPEN TO THAT. WE, WE'VE GIVEN THEM OUR WORD THAT WE WILL MEET WITH THEM REGULARLY. WE'VE PROVIDED, AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT WE DIDN'T PROVIDE ACCESS. YEAH. THE DAY THAT SHE SAID, DO YOU HAVE THE KEYS? AND I [03:10:01] SAID, I DON'T HAVE THE KEYS, BUT WE CAN GET SOMEBODY DOWN HERE RIGHT AWAY TO OPEN UP THE BUILDING. WE HAVE MADE IT AVAILABLE ANYTIME THEY WANT TO COME SEE IT. IT IS AVAILABLE FOR SALE, FOR LEASE, FOR CONTRIBUTION, . I MEAN, WE'RE SUPER OPEN TO IT. WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR, WE DON'T HAVE MANY OPTIONS AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DRIVE DOWN THERE AND LOOK AT IT, BUT I KNOW THIS RULING IS GONNA BE ISSUED TODAY, BUT WE'RE AT, WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO TRY TO SEE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GO FORWARD. AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THE GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEY WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT. THEY WANNA SEE WHAT WE'VE SUGGESTED. SO JAMES, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF, OF REBUTTAL POINTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PROCESS ITSELF BECAUSE I MEAN, IT HAS BEEN COMING UP, BUT, UM, DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER HAS HAPPENED A LOT WITH A LOT OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE BEEN IN OPPOSITION AND, AND DISCUSSION. HISTORIC CHARACTER IS ACTUALLY NOT IN QUESTION. IT'S KIND OF A GIVEN AS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT THE, THAT THE BUILDING IS HISTORIC. THAT'S IN THE CODE ITSELF. IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. IT'S A, GIVEN THAT THERE IS HISTORIC CHARACTER. WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT THERE ISN'T HISTORIC CHARACTER. WHAT WE'RE ARGUING IS THAT THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS UNREASONABLE AND SOMEONE EVEN SPOKE THAT HISTORIC DESIGNATION WAS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING. WELL, IF HISTORIC DESIGNATION IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING, SO, SO SHOULD THE CODE, THERE'S A CODE PROVISION WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS THAT SAYS WHEN YOU HAVE A A, A HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT IS CAUSING THIS UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, THERE IS A WAY TO GET OUT OF IT. THAT'S THE BALANCE THAT I TALKED ABOUT. AND AS FAR AS THE DECISION, HOW IT WAS MADE, IT'S TOUGH TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT'S IN ALL OF THE HEADS OF THE HDRC COMMISSIONER'S HEADS WHEN THEY SAY, WHEN THEY MAKE A MOTION OR WHEN THEY VOTE FOR IT. BUT MANY OF THEM STATED ON THE RECORD, AND I PUT THE TIMESTAMPS IN THERE THAT IT, THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF THE REPLACEMENT PLANS. COMMISSIONER, CERVANTES COMMISSIONER, UH, FETZER, THEY SAID, BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING THE REPLACEMENT PLANS, I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS. THAT WAS THE REASON THEY GAVE, WHICH IS NOT A REASON TO, TO VOTE ON ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. SO IT'S NOT A GUESS. THEY SAID IT BEFORE THEY MADE THE MOTION OR BEFORE THEY VOTED ON IT. SO THOSE ARE THE THE POINTS THAT I WANNA MAKE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, SO ONE OF, SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ABOUT THE, THE VIABILITY OF THE BUILDING AND THE EXPENSE OF, OF REHABBING IT. UM, AND THERE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT HAVE YOU EXPLORED ANY OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE TAX INCENTIVES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER TAX INCENTIVES, UM, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES LIKE THIS? I I, I'M FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE PROGRAMS. WE'VE, AS OLA WAS POINTING OUT IN HER TALK, THAT I HAVE BEEN THE RECIPIENT IN MANY OF THOSE AND VARIOUS PROJECTS OF THE INCENTIVES. SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE INCENTIVE POTENTIAL IS. YES. BUT DID YOU FACTOR THAT IN YES. TO YOUR COSTS? YES. AND IF WE COULD GO FORWARD ON IT, WE WOULD. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT THOSE TAX INCENTIVES JUST STILL DON'T MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN A LOT OF CRIME ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BUILDINGS BEING VACANT? I SAW IN GOOGLE MAPS THAT WERE A LOT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE, UM, WHEN GOOGLE, GOOGLE MAPS TOOK PICTURES OF, OF, OF THE PROPERTIES. SO WE'VE MANAGED TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING INSIDE THE BUILDING. SO THERE'S PEOPLE JUST BASICALLY LIVING AND SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALKS ALL AROUND THE BUILDING, WHICH I, I, IT'S ACTUALLY AGAINST CITY ORDINANCE TO SLEEP ON THE SIDEWALK. SO IF THAT'S HOW YOU DEFINE A CRIME, THEN YES, THERE'S CRIME GOING ON, BUT IT, AND I'M TOLD THERE'S DRUG DEALING AND OTHER THINGS HAPPENING THERE, BUT I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE OF THAT. OKAY. AND SO IN, IN, IN, IF THE BUILDINGS WERE REPURPOSED OR BECAME HOUSING, THE LIKELIHOOD OF PEOPLE SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALK WOULD PROBABLY BE DIMINISHED? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S BASICALLY THE PART OF THE CHALLENGE DOWNTOWN OR IN ANY PART OF THE CITY IS WHEN YOU HAVE VACANCY IS WHERE THE HOMELESS ARE GONNA CONGREGATE. IT'S JUST TYP. I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE THERE IF IT'S, IF IT'S BUSY AND ACTIVE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, FOR BARRINGTON, A QUESTION PRINCIPALLY FOR STAFF. UM, THE STAFF OF THE OHP DID FIND UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. WHAT, IF ANY, UH, OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY EXPERTISE WAS INVOLVED IN MAKING THAT FINDING? WE DID NOT PULL IN A THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR. USUALLY THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE US HAVING A, UM, LIKE AN ON-CALL CONTRACTOR OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COME OUT AND DO A THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENT. WE DID NOT FEEL THAT WAS NECESSARY FOR THIS ONE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 24 103 0 0 0 7 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL [03:15:01] FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED ON 900 WEST HOUSTON STREET AND ONE 18 NORTH MEDINA STREET. APPLICANT BEING MASTER PROPERTY PARTNERS, LTD, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT CHOSE THE CITY STAFF, MADE AN ERROR IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND OF MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, WHAT ADDRESS DID YOU READ? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. THE, IT'S GRANTING AN APPEAL? NO, THAT OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. I'M SORRY. JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THE ADDRESS. 9 0 8. YEAH. SHOULD IT BE 9 0 8? WELL, 900 STREET. YEAH, IT WAS LISTED AS 900 WEST HOUSTON, AND I KNOW THAT BOTH PROPERTIES ARE SHOWING AS NINE HUNDRED AND NINE OH EIGHT WEST HOUSTON AND NOT THE NORTH MEDINA STREET. SO, SO JUST CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. SHOULD IT, WHAT, WHAT SPECIFIC ADDRESS SHOULD BE STATED? THE 900, UH, WEST HOUSTON AND ONE 18 NORTH MEDINA WERE THE BEXAR COUNTY ADDRESSES THAT WERE APPLIED FOR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I MADE THE MOTION POSITIVE. I KNOW, BUT I JUST, I DON'T SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE BY THE STAFF AND I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION COM. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. AND I'M, I'M SUPPORTING THE APPEAL RECOMMENDATION. I'M STANDING BY THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THERE WAS SOUND EVIDENCE THAT WAS, UH, PROVIDED AND I THINK THAT, UH, THE ERRORS WERE BASICALLY THE KIND OF THE REPLACEMENT PLANS THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED, UH, THAT, UH, WAS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING WITHIN HDRC. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NONE. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MANNA. YES. COMMISSIONER, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO VOTE ON SO THAT WAY EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT? PLEASE. SO IF YOU, IF YOU VOTE YAY, THEN YOU'RE, UH, VOTING TO APPROVE THE APPEAL INSIDE WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR A, A, A DEMO PERMIT. BASICALLY, IF YOU VOTE NO, THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, CITING, UH, AGAINST THE APPLICANT AND AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF A DEMO PERMIT. AND SO I, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, UM, ONLY BECAUSE I RARELY HEAR STAFF, ESPECIALLY ON A, A, A PROJECT LIKE THIS, UM, UH, UH, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, THEY HAD STIPULATIONS. I THINK THAT COVERS THE BASIS WITH THE SALVAGE AND, UM, AND I THINK THE HCRC WAS BEING A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE, UH, IN, IN THE FACE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THAT STAFF THOROUGHLY REVIEWED AND, AND ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR. SO WITH THAT, I'M, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THE MOTION FAILS SIX TO FIVE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. UH, WE'RE GONNA CALL FOR A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK, 4 38. WE'RE CALLING THIS BACK INTO THE SESSION AND WE ARE GOING TO JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE, ITEM NUMBER NINE, BO 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2. ADDRESS IS 29 14 EISENHOWER ROAD COUNSEL, DISTRICT 10. APPLICANT IS BROWN AND MCDONALD, P-L-L-C-A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT SIX INCH FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE ZONING IS RM FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG EISENHOWER ROAD, NORTH OF AUSTIN HIGHWAY, LOCATED WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY OF OAK PARK, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING COMBINED FENCE WITH IT, WHICH IN THE APPLICATION AND CONFIRMED ON SITE VISITS IS EXHIBITING DETERIORATION AND AT RISK OF FALLING OVER IN SOME PORTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO [03:20:01] REPLACE THE FRONT YARD FENCE, ONLY THE PORTION BOARDING EISENHOWER ROAD WITH A SIX FOOT SIX INCH PRIVACY FENCE. THE PROPERTY IS OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND HAS OVER 100 FEET OF SQUARE STREET FOOTAGE PER BEXAR COUNTY RECORDS, WHICH PERMITS A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, EXISTING FENCE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS YOUR SURROUNDING AREA. SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION, FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 23 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST TO THE ESTATE. THE NEED FOR A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LARGE LOT PERMITS A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF, NO DOUBT, 41 NOTICES TO RETURN IN FAVOR? ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN OAK PARK. NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. AND HERE'S A LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION. THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT, AND, UH, ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI, MR. CHAIR. UH, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN AND MCDONALD. UH, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE 1385. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS, I DO HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION THAT THEY ARE PULLING UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO A STAFF INDICATED WE ARE IN DISTRICT 10 ON EISENHOWER ROAD, JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, VANDIVER AND EISENHOWER. YES. HERE'S A, A ZOOMED OUT PORTION. HERE'S VANDIVER. HERE'S HARRY WARS, BACH, EISENHOWER ROAD. HERE'S THE RESIDENCE. UM, HAVING LIT, I ACTUALLY LIVE IN OAK PARK NORTHWOOD. UM, I HAVE, I HAVE NOTICED THAT INSTEAD OF CONNECTING FROM FOUR 10 TO AUSTIN HIGHWAY USING HARRY WARS, BACH, THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING FROM FOUR 10 TO AUSTIN HIGHWAY USING VANDIVER. SO VANDIVER IS A HEAVILY, HEAVILY TRAFFICKED STREET. NEXT, NEXT SLIDE. ZOOMED IN AGAIN. UH, THERE'S A, UH, VARIOUS USES HERE ON EISENHOWER. PREDOMINANTLY IF YOU GO TO THE WEST, UM, HOMES HAVE THEIR, THE BACK OF THEIR, THEIR HOMES TO EISENHOWER. AND THERE ARE, UH, SCREENED, UH, PREDOMINANTLY WOODEN HIGH FENCES. UM, BUT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE DYER LOCATION, YOU DO HAVE, UH, HOMES FACING EISENHOWER ROAD. AND SO THERE'S HOMES, THERE'S DUPLEXES, THERE IS A, A PLACE OF WORSHIP. UM, AND THEN THERE IS A, A MEDICAL FACILITY HERE WITH OVERNIGHT STAYS, I BELIEVE. NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S THE ZONING MAP. YOU CAN SEE PREDOMINANTLY R FOUR AND R FIVE, BUT A COUPLE OF RM FOUR AND F 30 THREES. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPERTY. UH, THE ACREAGE WE'RE IN DISTRICT 10, AND THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO ALLOW FOR A THREE FOOT SIX VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX, UH, SIX INCH, UH, PREDOMINANTLY SOLID FENCE. AND YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE CURRENT FENCING. AND THE PROPOSED FENCING WOULD JUST BE ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE THAT, THAT ABUTS EISENHOWER ROAD. UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE STONE, PREDOMINANTLY STONE FENCE IS DETERIORATING. UM, IT, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE. IT PREDATES, UH, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND IT, IT IS FALLING APART. UH, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THEIR HOME SITS, UH, ON THE, UH, ON A SLOPE. SO IT DOES SLOPE DOWN TOWARDS EISENHOWER. AND SO THIS FENCE HERE, UM, REALLY DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY PRIVACY, UM, FOR THEIR, THEIR HOME AND THEIR, THEIR CHILDREN, UH, FOR WHEN THEY'RE PLAYING IN THE FRONT YARD. HERE'S SHOWS, UH, MORE OF THE FENCING AND HOW IT'S DETERIORATING. YOU CAN ALSO SEE A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING ON EISENHOWER ROAD. NEXT SLIDE. MORE PICTURES UP CLOSE, SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY. AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A, A, A DESIGN PROPOSAL, BUT ACTUALLY A PICTURE OF A, A FENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO, UM, A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH PAINTED CAP STUCCO PILLARS WITH THIS SIX FOOT HIGH STAINED, CAPPED, OVERLAPPED CEDAR FENCING. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A PICTURE OF A HOME THAT I BELIEVE IS LESS THAN [03:25:01] A MILE AWAY FROM, FROM THE CURRENT HOUSE OR THEIR HOUSE ON EISENHOWER ROAD. NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S THE ENTRY GATE FOR THEIR HOME. THIS GATE WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THEY ARE JUST CHANGING THE FENCE, UH, THAT ABUTS EISENHOWER ROAD. SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS, I DISAGREE WITH STAFF RESPECTFULLY. UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A, THERE IS A NEED FOR, FOR THIS FENCE, FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, IT WILL BRING NEW, ATTRACTIVE FENCING TO THE AREA, BUT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH, WITH THE HOMES AND WHAT'S EXISTING THERE. NOW, UM, IT WILL PROTECT AND ASSIST THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE, BECAUSE OF THE, THE CHILDREN THAT DO COME OVER AND PLAY, AS WELL AS THEIR FA FOUR SMALL, UH, CHILDREN. AND THEN OF COURSE, IT WILL PROVIDE BLOCKAGE FOR, FOR THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT IS HAPPENING ON EISENHOWER ROAD. UM, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT YOU SAW AND THE CURRENT POSITIONING OF THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND, AND THE SECURITY THAT IS NEEDED. NEXT SLIDE. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE, UH, HERE'S THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THEIR HOME. THEIR BACKYARD IS, IS VERY SMALL. SO THEIR, THEIR FOUR CHILDREN DO PLAY A LOT IN THE FRONT YARD. AND AGAIN, THE PROPERTY DOES SLOPE. SO THE, THE, THE HOME IS, IS UP AND THEN IT GOES DOWN TOWARDS EISENHOWER ROAD. AND SO THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE FRONT YARD WITH THE CURRENT FENCE AND WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES, ANYONE COULD SEE THAT'S WALKING BY OR DRIVING BY. SO HERE AGAIN, ARE THE, THE TWO BUSIEST INTERSECTIONS, UM, IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA. AND THAT'S EISENHOWER AND VANDIVER. AND THEN, UM, EISENHOWER AND RAINBOW, WHICH TURNS INTO PIKE. THESE ARE THE POLICE REPORTS FOR THE INTERSECTION AT EISENHOWER AND VANDIVER. UM, THERE ARE NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION. UM, THESE ARE JUST FROM THE PAST, I BELIEVE, YEAR OR SO, AND IT GOES BACK TO 2021. UM, BUT THERE IS A FOUR-WAY STOP AT VANDIVER AND EISENHOWER THAT IS JUST MISSED. I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TOO FAST. THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. AGAIN, IT'S A CUT THROUGH BETWEEN FOUR 10 AND AUSTIN HIGHWAY. AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPEN AT THAT INTERSECTION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NEXT TO THE, THE APP, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY. AND SO THIS FENCE WOULD HELP SHIELD FROM SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC SHIELD FROM THE ACCIDENTS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, UM, SOME OF THE, THE PEDESTRIANS THAT WALK BY AS WELL. HERE'S JUST AN UP CLOSE OF THE MAJOR, UH, ROADS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. YOU CAN SEE THAT'S EISENHOWER VANDI OR, AND YES, VANDIVER. NEXT SLIDE. UM, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. UH, THE FENCE IS, IT'LL BE A GOOD LOOKING FENCE. IT'LL BEAUTIFY THE PROPERTY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THAT IS WHY THE OAK PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID SEND IN THEIR LETTER OF SUPPORT, WE SHOWED THEM PICTURES OF THE FENCE, PRESENTED IT TO THEM, AND, UH, THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD NOT ONLY HELP THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN, UM, BUT ALSO HELP, UH, EISENHOWER ROAD AND, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER USE AUTHORIZED, UH, BY ALLOWING THIS FENCE. VARIANCE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, THERE IS COMMON FENCING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AGAIN, EISENHOWER, MOST OF THE FENCES ARE BACKYARD FENCES. AND SO, UM, THEY ARE SIX FOOT WOODEN SOLID FENCE. AND THERE ARE, IS SOME MASONRY ALSO ASSOCIATED, AND BOTH ARE VERY NEARBY. AGAIN, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FENCING ON EISENHOWER. AND SO THE, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD ONLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT'S PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN IT WOULD INTEGRATE THE STYLES. UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, IS NOT DUE TO, UH, IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ITS UNIQUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, THE WAY THAT IT'S SHAPED ITS FRONTAGE ON EISENHOWER. AND THEN OF COURSE, THE SLOPE, UH, CAUSING IT, YOU KNOW, THEIR KIDS TO PLAY RIGHT THERE IN THE FRONT YARD NEXT TO EISENHOWER ROAD. HERE'S OUR LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM OAK PARK NORTHWOOD. AND THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, UH, YOUR APPROVAL OF OUR VARIANCE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND OF COURSE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE. UM, THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, UH, SITE PLANNING AND GETTING BIDS, AND SO I'M SURE I COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT BRAGMAN THANK YOU MR. BREGMAN. UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE NEED OF HAVING A SOLID SIX FOOT, SIX INCH FENCE AS OPPOSED TO A PREDOMINANTLY SIX [03:30:01] FOOT, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SIX FOOT, UH, FENCE. WHAT, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OR HARDSHIP BETWEEN THOSE TWO? SAFETY, MA'AM? UM, SO AS I SAID, EISENHOWER IS A HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROAD, NOT JUST BY CARS, BUT BY PEDESTRIANS AS WELL. AND THEY DO HAVE FOUR VERY SMALL CHILDREN THAT PLAY IN THAT FRONT YARD. AND SO BY HAVING AN OPEN FENCE, THEY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COULD SEE IN CARS, COULD SEE IN, UM, YOU KNOW, ITEMS COULD BE THROWN THROUGH THE FENCE, THE KIDS COULD GET OUT OF THE FENCE. SO HAVING A PREDOMINANTLY SCREENED FENCE, I THINK WOULD ALLOT THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE PRIVACY AND A LITTLE BIT MORE SAFETY IN THEIR, IN THEIR HOME. AND THAT WASN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. I DO NOT BELIEVE. SO. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY, THEY SAW A GREAT PROPERTY AND THEY, THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE IT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS TIME EVOLVES, SO DO THEIR PLANS. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WANNA BUILD SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR THEIR FAMILY THAN WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THERE WHEN THEY GOT IT. DEAN, COMMISSIONER, DEAN, WHAT'S THE SPEED LIMIT ON EISENHOWER? I BELIEVE IT IS 30. IT'S A SECONDARY ARTERIAL, BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, I THINK PEOPLE PROBABLY GO CLOSER TO 35 OR 40. OKAY, SO YOU THINK MORE, IS IT 35? OKAY. 35. SO YOU THINK, THINK ABOUT 90% OF THE TRAFFIC IS OVER THAT, UH, THRESHOLD. MOST LIKELY, YES. I THINK THAT'S WHY THERE'S SO MANY ACCIDENTS, UM, AT, AT THAT INTERSECTION AS WELL. PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, WOULDN'T DID THEY PURCHASE THE HOME? I'M GONNA LET KENNY, DO YOU WANNA COME UP AND ANSWER THAT? ALL RIGHT. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND, UM, ANSWER MY QUESTION. SURE, YEAH. UH, KENNY HARTMAN, 29 14 EISENHOWER, UH, WE BOUGHT THE HOME IN 2015. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DID WE NOT TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOME? WE DID. UM, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THE HOME, THERE WAS VINES COVERING THE TOP FENCE, UH, A LOT MORE FOLIAGE. AND THEN BETWEEN ALL OF THE FREEZES AND SUMMERS THAT WE'VE HAD, ALL THOSE PLANTS DIED. OH, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. ALL THE, I WAS JUST THE YELLING BACK HERE BEFORE, UM, ALL THE PLANTS DIED THAT WERE COVERING THE, THE METAL PART OF THE FENCE. SO IT'S THREE FEET WITH ABOUT TWO FEET OF METAL ON TOP. SO IT DID PROVIDE MORE PRIVACY FOR US AT THE TIME, SINCE THOSE HAVE ALL DIED OFF. IT WAS, UM, UH, JASMINE THAT WAS ON TOP OF IT. SO IT DID PROVIDE SOME, UH, COVERAGE FOR US. UM, IF WE WERE TO HAVE TO DO AN OPEN FENCE, ONE, WE'D HAVE TO DO MORE FOLIAGE, MORE WATER USE, ALL THAT KIND OF THING. BUT ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE, PEOPLE DRIVE, TURN THEIR HEADS LOOK AT THE HOUSE AS THEY'RE GOING TO A STOP SIGN AT VANDIVER AND IT'S DANGEROUS FOR THEM. UH, THERE IS A WARNING SIGN IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, IT HAS BLINKING RED LIGHTS AT THE STOP SIGN'S COMING UP, AND YOU CAN STAND OUT THERE AND SEE PEOPLE'S HEADS LOOKING TOWARDS THE TRAMPOLINE OR WHATEVER IS OUT THERE, OR JUST THE HOUSE IN GENERAL. BUT, UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, EISENHOWER ITSELF FROM NORTH NEAR BRAUNFELS TO VAN DIVES ABOUT 86%, SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCES IN VARYING STATE OF REPAIRS. SO IF WE CAME IN AND INSTALLED A SIX FOOT, SEE-THROUGH NO CLIMB FENCE OR WHATEVER, CHAIN LINK, WHATEVER YOU'D WANNA CALL IT, THAT WOULD BE A SIX FOOT SEE-THROUGH FENCED, IT WOULD NOT MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC. AND THAT'S, I THINK ANOTHER REASON WHY OAK PARK WAS SUPPORTING US IS BECAUSE WHAT IS IN THE CODE WOULD NOT MATCH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT WE'RE PRO PROPOSING WOULD MATCH MORE WHAT IS LONG EISENHOWER. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO YEAH, SO I GUESS I QUESTION THAT POSITION A LITTLE BIT. AND SO, SO YES, I AGREE THAT ALL OF THE SIDE FACING YARDS, UM, THE SIDES ARE SIX OR YEAH, ARE THE SIX FOOT, UH, UM, BY PERMIT, BY RIGHT. BUT LOOKING DOWN THE STREET AND LOOKING FROM THE EARLY VIEW, ALL OF THE HOMES THAT FACE, UM, UM, EISENHOWER ARE ALL THREE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING. AND SO THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE BASICALLY THAT I SEE IN MY DRIVE ACROSS THAT WOULD BE A FRONT YARD THAT GOES THAT HEIGHT. AND SO ALL THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU ARE, UH, FRONT FACING WITH NO FENCING REALLY. AND SO, SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PERMITTING THE WALLING OFF ESSENTIALLY BY GRANTING YOU THE ENTIRE STREET TO BE THAT SIX FOOT HEIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST, IT'S A JUST SO OBSERVATION. THE ONLY HOMES THAT FACE EISENHOWER, THEIR FRONT FACING HOMES ARE OUR HOME ARE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. AND THEN THERE'S SIX, I GUESS SIX TOTAL RESIDENCES THAT ARE A COMBINATION OF DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. TWO OF THOSE ARE ACTUAL HOMESTEADS. THE REST ARE RENTAL HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE ARE KIND OF TRANSIENT IN AND OUT OF. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMEONE'S HOME, HOME, LIKE THE HOUSE ACROSS FROM US HAS BEEN VACANT FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS WITH THE LADY NOT PUTTING WORK INTO IT. SO I WOULDN'T ARGUE THEY CARE TOO MUCH, BUT I DIGRESS ON THAT. I'M SORRY. UM, AND THEN ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF EISENHOWER, FURTHER TOWARDS NORTH NEAR BRAUNFELS, [03:35:01] THOSE ARE ALL REAR FENCES. SO IT'S NOT SIDE YARD FENCES, IT'S REAR FENCES FACING THAT. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ZINA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA KIND FOR STAFF, WOULD THERE BE ANY CLEAR VISION ISSUES WITH THE SIX FOOT SIX FENCE HERE OR HAS THAT BEEN REVIEWED? NO, THEY'RE PAST THE, UH, 15 FOOT FOR THE DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. AND THE GATE WOULD BE PREDO, IT WOULD BE SEE-THROUGH THE GATE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE A FIRST RESPONDER OR ANYBODY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH TO THE HOME. IT'S NOT A SOLID FENCE, IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW. AND WAS, WAS YOUR INTENT TO DO, UH, SIX AND A HALF FOOT PILLARS AND THEN HAVE THE ACTUAL FENCING BE SIX FEET? CORRECT. SO THE, THE PI, THE CAP ON TOP OF THE PILLAR WAS YOUR SIX FOOT SIX NUMBER. THE SIX FEET IS THE WOODEN SLATS. OKAY. SO WE COULD MAKE A MOTION FOR, UM, A PREDOMINANT, YOU KNOW, A SIX FOOT FENCE WITH SIX AND A HALF FOOT FOR PILLARS. IS THAT POSSIBLE? UH, YOU CAN DESCRIBE THE FENCE THAT WAY? YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN. ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH ZERO THREE, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF JUSTIN GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE AND A HALF FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A FENCE WITH A A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY, UM, UH, SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY HEIGHT, UH, FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE WITH THE PILLARS BEING SIX FEET, SIX INCHES, SITUATED AT 29 14 EISENHOWER, APPLICANT BEING BROWN AND MCDONALD, PLLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT THAT AID THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. THE FENCE HEIGHTS DOES NOT EXCEED PREDOMINANTLY SIX FEET IN HEIGHT WITH THE PILLARS BEING SIX FOOT SIX INCHES AND PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND IS LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD. IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. INCREASED HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHTS WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PROVIDING THE NEEDED SECURITY AND SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN INJURED BY THE, BY THE PROPOSED USE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THE FENCE HEIGHTS WILL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS AS IT IS LOCATED A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT STEP BACK AND CREATES ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY. A DEED, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ALL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT AND THE LO AND THE LOCATION. SO, WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT, THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HIDES IN THE FRONT YARD WOULD NOT ALTER THE LO LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS FENCE HEIGHTS WOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PRIVACY FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND ACCESS E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DIS OF THIS DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPEC SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE IS ADEQUATELY, IS FENCE IS ADEQUATELY BACK FOR THE FRONT SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION AREA. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YES. SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, UH, EXCEPT SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS READ. UM, I SEE THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET IN EISENHOWER, UH, FOR THAT SECTION DOWN IS PREDOMINANTLY, YOU KNOW, THE BACK OF THE HOUSES, WHICH IS A SIX FOOT, UH, UH, SCREENED FENCE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE SECURITY THEY'RE SEEKING, THE TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FRONT AND THE STREET AND THE SAFETY ISSUE AND, AND, UH, THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC DOWN EISENHOWER. SO FOR THOSE IN OTHER REASONS, I'LL BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE PARTIALLY, UM, BUT, BUT I THINK MY PRIMARY SALE IS THAT THE, UH, OAK PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S IN FAVOR OF IT AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I'M GONNA ABIDE BY THEIR PERSPECTIVE OF, OF HOW THEY WANT TO SEE THEIR COMMUNITY DEVELOPED. SO I'LL BE IN PAPER. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NONE HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, IF YOU HAPPEN, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ITEM NUMBER 4 8 59 CANTON STREET. [03:40:09] ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 2. ADDRESS IS 8 59 CANNON STREET DISTRICT TWO. APPLICANT IS LORRAINE RETE. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CANTON STREET, SOUTH OF EAST HOUSTON STREET, LOCATED WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARIES OF JEFFERSON HEIGHTS AND HARVARD PLACE. EAST LAWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ALONG NORTH MILL WALTERS WAITER WAY WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND WAS GIVEN NOTICE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT OF THE VIOLATION ON APRIL, 2024 UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF NOTED NOTICE THE FENCE WAS ADDITIONALLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CORONER, CLEAR VISION RULES FOR FENCES AND THE VARIANCES WAS ADDED TO THE REQUEST AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE APPLICANT. THIS IS YOUR SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY MEASUREMENT OF THE FENCE CORNER, CLEAR VISION MEASUREMENT, AND ADDITIONAL PICTURES OF THE FENCE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FENCE SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. NO SIMILAR FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT WERE SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. STAFF, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CORNER CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFFER RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBOA 23 1 0 3 0 0 82 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE FENCE OBSTRUCTS THE VISION OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC AT THE MEL WAITER'S WAY AND CANTON STREET INTERSECTION. THE VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER FENCES ENCROACHED INTO THE CLEAR VISION AND IMMEDIATE VICINITY. NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 34 NOTICES, ZERO RETURN IN FAIR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS AND HARVARD PLACE. EAST LAW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DID NOT RESPOND AND THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO, UH, TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME'S LORRAINE RETE AND UM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 34 NOTICES , BUT THAT SAME WEEK THAT I HAD THE FENCE, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE I ALREADY HAD AN EXISTING FENCE, SO I WAS SUPPOSED TO COME, I DIDN'T KNOW. AND UM, SO I ADDED, UM, LEMME SEE, THIS IS SIX FOOT FENCE. SO I ADDED THREE MORE INCHES TO IT, UM, IN THE CORNER OF MY HOME, WHICH YOU, YOU CAN SEE IN THE, IN THE BACK THERE'S A GAS STATION AND I HAVE, I HAVE EIGHT GRANDKIDS, SIX GIRLS THAT PLAY IN THE FRONT YARD. I HAVE A PHOTO, YOU SEE THAT GAS STATION BACK THERE? OKAY. WHEN THEY COME TO THAT GAS STATION, YOU KNOW, THERE PEOPLE ARE WALKING AND PEOPLE ARE DRIVING THROUGH HEAVY TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE. THEY'RE GAWKING AT MY GRAND, AT MY GRANDKIDS, YOU KNOW, SO I DID IT FOR, TO PROTECT THEM, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT, PROTECT THEM FROM THE PUBLIC. I ALSO HAVE A PRINTOUT OF ALL THE SEX OFFENDERS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA OF MY CORNER HOME. AND THERE'S ABOUT, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ABOUT OVER A HUNDRED. THIS IS A HUNDRED A LIST OF A HUNDRED SEX OFFENDERS. SO, I MEAN, YOU CAN GIVE THAT TO STAFF, THEY CAN PROJECT IT UP. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU PRINT THAT LIST OUT? I PRINT A CURRENT ONE TODAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. OKAY, SO THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE REASON I HAD THE FENCE EXTENDED THAT WAY, THE WAY I HAVE IT. AND JUST TO PROTECT THE VIEW FROM THE PUBLIC OF LOOKING AT MY GRANDKIDS. I MEAN, I GOT SIX GIRLS FROM AGES ONE TO 20, SO EVEN THOUGH MY 20-YEAR-OLD IS OUT THERE, I HAVE TO BE SITTING OUT THERE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHO'S OUT THERE BECAUSE, UM, MY GRANDDAUGHTERS, THEY HAVE CALLED ME OUTSIDE THAT SOMEBODY'S AT THE FENCE BEFORE I PUT THAT FENCE UP. SOMEBODY'S AT THE FENCE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE THAT LIVES THERE AND I HAVE TO COME OUT AND TELL 'EM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE, YOU KNOW, UM, NOBODY'S HERE BY THAT NAME. SO THEY'RE JUST MAKING UP STUFF TO TALK TO MY GIRLS, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WALK BY [03:45:01] AND DRIVE BY VERY SLOWLY. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, I'M AT A BAD, BAD INTERSECTION AND I MEAN, I, UH, I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO IT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND I'M JUST LOOKING OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE GIRLS. UM, I CA THAT SAME WEEK THAT HE INSTALLED THE FENCE, I CAME AND I PAID FOR THE PERMIT THAT SAME WEEK THAT IT WAS INSTALLED. IT WASN'T EVEN UP THE WHOLE ENTIRE WEEK. IT WAS, UH, THREE DAYS, THREE, FOUR DAYS, AND SEE THAT GAS STATION RIGHT THERE. SO THE, THE FENCE ON THE SIDE, THE BACKSIDE THAT WAS DONE TWO YEARS AGO. WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT HAPPENED WAS THREE YEARS AGO I LOST MY HUSBAND AND I LOST MY SON. SO THERE'S NO MAN THERE, YOU KNOW, AT HOME. SO I'M THE MOM, I'M THE DAD, AND YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, SO I PUT UP THE FENCE. OKAY. OKAY. UH, SO LET ME JUST ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION. UH, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. MM-HMM, , WHY YOU DID THAT? MM-HMM. SO THERE'S TWO ISSUES BEFORE US. ONE IS CLEAR VISION AND ONE IS FE, ONE IS FENCE SITE. SO, UM, THE, IF THIS BOARD, UM, DID NOT APPROVE THE CLEAR VISION, BUT DID APPROVE THE FENCE SITE MM-HMM, , YOU COULD BASICALLY KEEP YOUR FENCE BUT HAVE TO STOP IT 15 FEET SHORT OF THE INTERSECTION TO THE CURB. IS THAT CORRECT? 25 FEET. 25 FEET. HOW MUCH, HOW, HOW CLOSE IS THE FENCE? UH, CAN YOU, CAN STAFF, CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHERE 25 FEET IS? IS IT, DOES IT GO TO THAT LITTLE, UH, UM, WHAT IS THAT? UH, I ALSO DROVE CONTROL BOX OR SOMETHING. YEAH, SHE'S GONNA HAVE TO PUSH IT BACK APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET APPROXIMATELY TO THAT SIGN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE SIGN, I BELIEVE. OKAY. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE CONTROL BOX AND THAT FAULT THAT'S, THAT'S THERE, THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT ADDRESS. I HAVE A, I HAVE A PHOTO FROM THE STOP SIGN WHEN YOU'RE COMING TO THE STOP SIGN. I HAVE A, I TOOK, UH, PICTURES AND IT'S NOT AN OBSTRUCTION OF THE STREET VIEW AT ALL. WELL, THE, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S COMMISSIONER MANNING. SO, SO, UH, GOING BACK ON, YEAH, GREAT VIEW THERE. UM, SO LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE HERE, SO LOOKING LIKE THE HOUSE EXTENDS OUT BY 10 FEET, UM, PAST THE, UH, I GUESS FROM THAT SIDEWALK OUT THERE. SO IS THAT, IS THAT FRONT SECTION ALSO CONSIDERED THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? YES. EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FACADE IS CONSIDERED FRONT. SO ON THIS PICTURE HERE, SO, SO, UM, THE FENCE COULD BE, UH, EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THAT DOORWAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO, SO, SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING HERE WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCING. SO, SO BY PERMIT, BY BY, RIGHT, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO MOVE THAT HOUSE OUT TO THAT SPOT, UH, WHERE IT'S EVEN WITH THE FRONT, THE MOST FRONT FORWARD PART OF YOUR YARD, I GUESS ARE THE HOUSE. AND SO THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS, DOES THAT PROVIDE YOU, UM, BEING THE DEATH PERMIT BY RIGHT. UM, WHY WOULD, DID YOU NEED, WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO BE FURTHER THAN THAT? WHAT IS IT? I GUESS THE HARDSHIP, YOU KNOW, THE GIRLS, THE GO BEYOND THAT, THE KIDS PLAY IN THE FRONT, SO, SO YOU HAVE SPACE THERE. SO, SO THIS MOVING, SO YOU HAD THE BUILDING TO MOVE IT OUT 10 FEET FURTHER I GUESS. AND SO YOU HAVE SPACE THERE AS WELL AS THE BACKYARD. SO, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS PERMITTED VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EXTRA REQUIREMENT THERE. OKAY. UM, ALL I CAN, THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT, UM, MY KIDS PLAY, MY GIRLS PLAY IN THE FRONT YARD AND UM, WE USE THE FRONT. OKAY, I DO HAVE A DOG IN THE BACK. I HAVE A DOG IN THE BACK AND WELL, THE DOG TAKES PLACE OF THE BACKYARD, . SO WE KEEP THE KIDS IN THE FRONT AND UM, THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. THANK YOU. I DON'T LET THE DOG COME TO THE FRONT. OKAY. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, CHAIR, YES, COMMISSIONER OR STAFF? IF, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE FENCE AND, UH, AND THEN MAKE AN AMENDMENT FOR THE, UM, CLEAR VISION WHERE, 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN OTHER FENCES WHERE THEY, THEY SHORTEN THE FRONT BY THREE FEET AND IT GOES IN A, IN A GRADE UP TO THE BACK TO SIX FEET. UM, IT WOULD THAT BE A SOLUTION? SO THE, THE THREE FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED THREE FOOT PRIVACY FENCES PERMITTED BY RIGHT, EVEN IN THE CLEAR VISION, NO VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTS ARE REQUIRED. SO COULD, COULD SHE, COULD MS UM, RETE AMEND IT TO CUT DOWN THE FENCE CLOSER TO THE CORNER AND THEN GRADED UP TO WHERE SHE NEEDED IT? THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING NOT, NOT, UH, IF WE [03:50:01] DON'T APPROVE THE CLEAR VISION, SHE, SHE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXTEND THE SIX FOOT FENCE AND THEN ONCE IT HIT 25 FEET FROM THE, THE CURB LINE ON THE STREET, THEN IT COULD GO DOWN TO THREE FEET. SO THAT IN EFFECT DOES THAT YEAH, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT, THAT'S WHY I WAS, I WAS ASKING STAFF FOR 25 FEET. IT'S FROM THE CURB LINE. SO 25 FEET WOULD PROBABLY TAKE YOU, YES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT ENDS RIGHT AT THAT, UH, BOX. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT WHERE THAT, THAT, UH, COMMUNICATION BOX IS UTILITY BOX SO THAT IT IS JUST A SUGGESTION FOR WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY, VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, WE'LL DELIBERATE AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU STEVENS. UH, COMMISSIONER STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 82. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 8 59 CANTON STREET, APPLICANT BEING LORRAINE NEGRETE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNI UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED FENCE WOULD PROVIDE AN ELEMENT OF SECURITY AND PRI PRIVACY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND, AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PRO PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE AS THE FENCE PROVIDES AN ELEMENT OF SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE VARIANCE WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER LOCATION OF, FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK AND COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UH, I I THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO THIS, UM, THE GAS STATION AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S NEED TO PROTECT HER FAMILY AND HER LOVED ONES. SO I, I WILL BE IN FAVOR FOR THE, THE VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANON. SO, UM, POTENTIALLY JUST A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, WITH REGARDS TO JUST THE, UM, EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, 'CAUSE OTHERWISE AS IT'S READ THEY COULD WRAP IT ESSENTIALLY THIS FENCE, FULL HEIGHT ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY. UH, THEY UM, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT? I COULD ACCEPT THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S BEEN AMENDED TO O TO BE LIMITED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NONE HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CON CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSES. UM, THAT LEAVES US WITH THE CLEAR VISION. UM, IF ANYONE WANTS TO TOUCH THAT ONE, THEY CERTAINLY AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO THE CLEAR VISION DIES FOR LACK OF MOTION. SO IF YOU HAVE, WHAT HAPPENED IS WE APPROVED YOU HAVING A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THAT SIDE. UH, BUT WE DID NOT APPROVE THE CLEAR VISION. SO THE FENCE CAN'T BE ANY CLOSER TO 25 FEET. THAT SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE CANNOT BE, UH, ANY CLOSER THAN 25 FEET FROM THE FACE OF CURB. AND STAFF WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLAIN [03:55:01] MORE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THAT MEANS. SO BASICALLY YOU CAN KEEP MOST OF YOUR FENCE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS. YOU'RE WELCOME. MM-HMM. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. OKAY. UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO OA UH, DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 8 3 2 0 3. THIS, UH, ADDRESS WILL BE 2 0 3 TOLEDO STREET DISTRICT COUNCIL OR COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. APPLICANT IS GONNA BE ALBERT FUQUA. UH, A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORIES TO ALLOW A TWO, TWO DETACHED STRUCTURES TO BE THREE STORIES TO A 15% VARIANCE FROM THE A E TWO 25%. UH, TO ALLOW A FIRST FLOOR NON-REFLECTIVE GLASS WINDOWS AT THE, AT 10% TOTAL AREA THREE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE FOUR, A 19 FOOT, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION. FIVE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VARI CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY TO BE THE BOTH DRIVEWAYS TO BE NINE FOOT, UH, CLEAR VISION. SIX, A 15 FOOT AND 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT SEVEN, A FIVE FOOT, SEVEN FOOT SETBACK FOR GARAGE ENTRANCE. SEVEN. A VARIANCE FOR THE, TO ALLOW US PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO NOT, UH, BE ON THE STREET. FRONTAGE, UH, SORRY. PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE NOT ON THE STREET. FRONTAGE. EIGHT. A THREE FOOT, UH, THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON THE FRONT YARD. ZONING IS AE TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST EAST OF DOWNTOWN, SOUTH OF EAST COMMERCE STREET IN THE CORNER OF MONTANA STREET AND TOLE STREET INTERSECTION. THE APPLICANT ALSO BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON AN AE TWO CORNER LOT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL ALLOW A THREE STORY, UH, ALLOW A THREE STORY STRUCTURES, 10% FIRST FLOOR, NON-REFLECTIVE GLASS WINDOWS, A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, A SIX FOOT CORNER, CLEAR VISION, A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY, CLEAR VISION, AND A FIVE FOOT SEVEN FOOT GARAGE ENTRANCE SETBACK. PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE, NO, UH, NOT ON THE STREET FRONTAGE AND A SIX FOOT PRIVACY, UH, FRONT YARD FENCE. UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE TWO SINGLE STORY DWELLING UNITS. UM, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, EXCUSE ME. MOST OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE UNIQUE TO THE ART AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT STANDARD. AND A PERMIT, UH, IS PENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY OR SITE PLAN. UH, VACANT LOT. THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM TOLEDO STREET AND THIS IS FROM MONTANA STREET. AND THEN THIS IS A VIEW ACROSS FROM TOLEDO AND WEST OF, UH, TOLEDO. TOLEDO. THIS DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE INTERSECTION AND THEN THIS IS THE VIEW ACROSS FROM MONTANA STREET AND THEN VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. THIS IS OFF OF TOLEDO STREET AND THEN MONTANA STREET. AND THESE ARE MULTI-STORY STRUCTURES THAT WERE, UH, LOCATED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FCI SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 8 3. UH, ONE. THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE FENCES EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED, UH, DEVELOPMENT CODE IN HEIGHT AND PRIVACY. TWO, THE REQUEST WILL DECREASE, UH, STREET SCAPES AND EMPHASIZE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE HALF STORY FIRST FLOOR NON-REFLECTIVE GLASS PERCENTAGE PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE AND GARAGE SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 8 3. THE REQUEST VARIANCES WILL [04:00:01] ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DIS DISTRICT AS IT WILL, UH, ESTABLISH AND CREATE CERTAINTY, UH, CREATE CERTAINTY ABOUT THE FORM AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE, TO THE CRETE AND IDENTITY. THE CORNER, CLEAR VISION AND GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCES WOULD NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES REQUIRING THE DISTRICT, UH, AND THE, UH, EXITS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR THE SIDE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BOA 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 8 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE, UH, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED WITH A REDUCED CLEAR VISION. TWO, THE SIDE SETBACK WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND THREE, THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AND SIDE SETBACK ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAY MAILED OUT 24 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE WAS MADE BY THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. SO, UH, I THOUGHT A A E TWO ISN'T IT ONLY ALLOW 11 UNITS AN ACRE? THAT IS CORRECT. IT ALSO HAS A VERY SPECIFIC TO A CORNER LOT OF AN AE TWO. AND SO WHAT THIS THING'S ONLY LIKE 0.08 ACRES? YES. IT'S, DOESN'T IT ONLY ALLOW ONE UNIT? SO THE, THE LANGUAGE ON THE TABLE, UM, AND THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR A COUPLE YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY STATES, UH, ONE, I BELIEVE ONE UNIT, TWO UNITS, FOUR UNITS THEN IS PERMITTED REGARDLESS OF THAT UNITS PER ACRE BECAUSE IT'S SPELLED OUT THE FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. UM, WHICH IS SAME DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE ON THAT PROPERTY ON COMMERCE, I BELIEVE. UM, OKAY. I JUST, UH, OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. UH, LET'S SEE IF THE APPLICANT'S APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND TELL US ABOUT THE PROJECT. APPLICANT'S NOT HERE. APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT IF THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED ANY DESIRE FOR A CONTINUANCE. THEY DID NOT. ALL RIGHT. SINCE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE, HAS ANYBODY LIKE TO OFFER A CONTINUANCE? O ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA, DO WE, DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OR, UH, WE HAVE JULY 1ST. NEXT ONE REGARDING, UH, CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 8 3. I MOVE FOR A CONTINUANCE TO JULY 1ST. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. THAT'S THE MOST AFFIRMATIVE I'VE EVER HEARD AS WELL, . OKAY, SO THAT'S CONTINUE. JULY 1ST. ITEM NUMBER SIX, APPLICANT FOR MULBERRY PRESENT. OKAY, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 8. ADDRESS IS 1330 WEST MULBERRY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS CLOVER BUILDING LLCA REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW FOR A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE. TWO. A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND THREE, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE SITE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. ZONING. A C ONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST MULBERRY AVENUE, WEST OF IH 10 AND NORTH OF FREDERICKSBURG ROAD LOCATED WITHIN THE KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT HAS HAD TWO PRIOR BOA CASES FOR THE PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCES WERE GRANTED IN 2020 AND 2022. THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY APPLIED THE TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CORRUGATED METAL FENCE THEY'RE REQUESTING TO INSTALL TO ASSIST AGAINST REPEAT GRAFFITI TAGS AGAINST THE BUILDING AND A MATERIAL THAT THE APPLICANT STATED WOULD NOT, UH, MARK COST EFFECTIVE IN CLEANING UP AGAINST THE REPEAT GRAFFITI ATTACKS ON THE PROPERTY UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF IDENTIFIED TWO OTHER VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MOVE FORWARD AND ADDED THEM AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE A. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WHERE WOULD BE, AND THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND A CLEAR VISION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS A FENCE HEIGHT ON THIS SUBJECT. PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY, ADDITIONAL PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. SURROUNDING AREA SHOWING THE I A 10 AND ACCESS ROAD RIGHT HERE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CORRUGATED METAL FENCE MATERIAL AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBOA 23 1 0 3 0 0 9 8 [04:05:01] BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WILL HINDER THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL LOT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXEMPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 9 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TWO, NO OTHER SIMILAR FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WAS SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. NOTIFICATION PLAN, STAFF MAILED OUT 14 NOTICES. ZERO. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION. AND KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. UH, YOU HAD, UH, JUST GO QUICKLY. YOU HAD MENTIONED IN 2020 AND 2022 THEY RECEIVED A VARIANCE FOR CORRUGATED METAL AND CLEAR VISION FROM US. THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEY JUST DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD IN THE 12 MONTHS AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BACK, I BELIEVE SO I'LL VERIFY FOR YOU. YEAH. ALL RIGHTY. IS THAT THE APPLICANT? COME FORWARD. HELLO, MY NAME IS SAI GARZA AND I'M THE OWNER OF 1330 WEST MULBERRY. THE MAIN REASON WHY WE WANT THE CORRUGATED METAL INSTEAD OF A, A GOOD FENCE, AS YOU COULD SEE ON THE PICTURES, WE HAD A LOT OF INCIDENTS WITH GRAFFITI. WE ALREADY CONTACT POLICE, NOTHING HAPPENS AND WE ALREADY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT TO DO THIS AND TO MAKE IT TO, TO MAKE I 10 COMMERCIAL AND GOOD LOOKING. SO THE WOOD FENCE WOULDN'T HELP WITH THE GRAFFITI. THE OTHER ONE WE FOUND THE SPECIAL CO COATING LIKE THAT GOES ON TOP OF THE, OF THE PAINT. SO IT'S ANTI GRAFFITI. SO IF SOMEBODY WOULD, WOULD COME IN AND GRAFFITI US, THEY WOULD, WE COULD, UM, REMOVE IT WITH, UM, POWER WASH. SO IT WOULD BE, MOST, OF COURSE IT'S MORE, UM, IT'S HIGHER PRICE THAN THE WOOD FENCE, BUT WE'D RATHER SPEND THAT MONEY THAT WAY WE CAN GET THAT CLEAR CODE ON, ON THE FENCE. AS FAR AS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, TO HAVE LIKE A HIGHER, UM, FENCE THAN THE, I THINK WE'RE PROPOSING A SIX FOOT FENCE, UM, THAT WAY IT CAN LOOK CLEANER AND MORE LIKE COMMERCIAL LOOKING INSTEAD OF ALL THOSE KIND OF, NOT TO COVER, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAN. LOOKING FOR I 10, BUT THAT'S IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, TO CLARIFY, UM, THE CORRUGATED METAL FUNDS WAS NOT APPLIED FOR PREVIOUSLY. THE, IT WAS FOR THE SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BUFFER, REDUCED PARKING SPACES, DRIVEWAY STANDARDS, AND BUILDING FRONT SETBACK. UH, THE CORRUGATED METAL IS A NEAR REQUEST. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, AND, UH, IS THERE ANYONE, SENATOR, TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? UH, WE HAVE NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO THE QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, ARE WE AWARE OF ANY CORRUGATED METAL ON 10, FROM FOUR 10 TO DOWNTOWN ALONG THERE IS, UM, THERE IS CORRUGATED METAL ALONG, UH, 10, UM, NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, BUT WE DID SEE SOME, I THINK FURTHER, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. OKAY. AND MY BIG QUESTION IS, I I I, I LIKE CLEAR VISION COMPLIANCE, UH, SO YOU'RE ASKING TO GO UP TO SIX FEET ALL THE WAY UP TO WEST MULBERRY, AND THAT'S, AND ESPECIALLY YOU'RE, YOU'RE APPROACHING THE ACCESS ROAD KIND OF MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS. UM, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHY THAT'S SO NECESSARY? UH, I KNOW YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, THAT YOU, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO FOR SECURITY, BUT IT, IT, IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK ON WHY YOU NEED IT TO BE SIX FEET ALL THE WAY UP? PROBABLY, BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT, ON OUR BUILDING, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT NICE AND ON NOT TO BE MEAN, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S NOT AS NICE. AND YEAH, , I I WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS PROJECT THAT, I MEAN, I CAN SEE FROM YOUR AREA OF MULBERRY THAT THERE IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THERE. THERE'S APPARENTLY, WHAT, FOUR HOMES ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN FOUR TO THE WEST OF YOU, AND THEN YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY STREET. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S, IT'S ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE, OR ACTUALLY GOING DOWN MULBERRY THERE, BUT STILL MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS HITTING A FRONTAGE ROAD LIKE THAT. UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAD. UH, I, I'M [04:10:01] NOT OPPOSED TO THE, TO THE CORRUGATED METAL. UM, BUT THE CLEAR VISION IS KIND OF BOTHERS ME A LITTLE. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT, UM, CAPPING ON THE METAL FENCE? YEAH, SO OUR COMMISSION ROUTINELY HEARS REQUESTS FOR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. MM-HMM. . AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, WE RETU ROUTINELY, UM, GET, HAVE QUESTIONS ON IS EXPOSE PIECES OF METAL ON THE CORRUGATED, UH, FENCE. SO, UH, WE CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS MM-HMM, . BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A CAP OH YES'. HAVE THAT CAN CERTAINLY DO SO. ABSOLUTELY. YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A, THE APPLICANT HAS AMEND THEIR APPLICATION THAT THE CORRUGATED METAL WILL INCLUDE A CAP. YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE COVERED. MM-HMM, . OKAY. AND MORE QUESTIONS? NOPE. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. UM, THANK YOU. ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MOTION? YES. COMMISSIONER, UM, EES REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW AND SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 2 0 3 TOLEDO STREET. I, I THINK YOU'RE IN THE WRONG, UM, AGENDA ITEM, MA'AM, WE'RE ON CASE 98. ITEM NUMBER SIX, I'M SORRY. REGARDING CASE BO A 24 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 8. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW FOR A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT, 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 1330 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING CLOVER BUILDING LLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED OF THE UNI UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, THE FENCE MATERIAL IS NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE LOT AND CLEAN AGAINST FREQUENT GRAFFITI TAGS AGAINST THE PROPERTY. FURTHERMORE, STAFF FINDS THAT ADEQUATE CLEAR VISION WILL REMAIN AGAINST THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY FOR TRANSVERSING ON AND OFF THE LOCAL ROAD. DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIAL CONDITION FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE SECURITY NEEDS WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WILL PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM DEVELOPING THIS SLOT. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CORRUGATED METAL PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SIDE AND REAR, REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL PROVIDE THE DURABILITY, SECURITY, AND SAFETY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT, ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROP CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL FENCING PROVIDES PRIVACY AND SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT LOT. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES [04:15:01] EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS PROXIMITY TO A HIGH TRAFFIC EXPRESSWAY AND NEED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SAFETY AND PRIVACY SCREENING. SECOND. SECOND. GOODBYE. COMMISSIONER MANOR. COMMISSIONER EZ. UM, SINCE THIS PROPERTY IS BY THE HIGHWAY AND SEEING THE, UM, DAMAGE THAT'S BEING DONE TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, UH, I'M, UH, CONCURRING WITH, UH, THEIR REQUESTS FOR THE FENCING AND THE CLEAR VISION COMMISSIONER MANON S SO, UM, I GUESS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, WE HAD, UM, SOMEONE SPEAK TO, UH, THE CLEAR VISION PERSPECTIVE. I WAS WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO PULL THAT OUT AS A SECOND DIALOGUE MAYBE, UM, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THIS AND THEN, UM, ALSO WITH REGARDS TO THE CORRUGATED METAL, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD TO DEFINE THIS FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, BUT JUST ALONG WHAT WAS PRESENTED WITH REGARDS TO THE, UM, UM, WEST AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES, IF THAT HAS TO BE DEFINED OR IF IT'S ASSUMED, UH, AS PRESENTED. YOU CAN, YOU CAN DEFINITELY CLARIFY THAT ON, UH, THE MOTION. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT AS CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. SO, SO JUST THOSE TWO SIDES AS DRAWN UP THERE TO BE, UH, THE METAL FENCING. UM, AND THEN, AND THEN MAYBE HAVE A SECOND ONE, A SECOND MOTION FOR THE CLEAR VISION, JUST SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THERE. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO THE MOTION'S BEEN AMEND TO FOR THE MOMENT, REMOVE, UH, CLEAR VISION TO BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY AND THEN TO, UM, CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE CORRUGATED METAL BEING ON THE, THE WEST AND SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS AND FACTS. COMMISSIONER MONA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSES REGARDING THE CORRUGATED MIDDLE. UM, NOW FOR AS FAR AS THE CLEAR VISION, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GET THIS BACK ON THE CONSIDERATION TABLE? I MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, CONSIDER THE CLEAR VISION. OKAY. WITH THE SAME, UM, UH, DISCUSSION AND, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A, I'LL SECOND THAT. SO WE HAVE A, A, A MOTION AND A SECOND SOLELY REGARDING THE CLEAR VISION. UH, IT WAS, IT WAS ORIGINALLY READ, UH, AS A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, RECOMMEND AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT? OKAY. HEARING NOW, CHAIR, CHAIR, WHAT KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD, WOULD BE RECOMMENDED? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT ADJUSTMENT. WELL, UH, IT, IT'S, UM, IT'S JUST IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO REDUCE IT, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT MORE SO LIKE A SET OF A, A SET OF A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, MAYBE THEY WANTED LESS OR MAYBE IF NOBODY'S ASKING FOR ANYTHING, THEN WE CAN JUST VOTE ON AND SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT. ALL RIGHT, SO WITH THAT, HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. GO AHEAD, MR. MANN. SO IT IS, UM, I DO HAVE CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT IS NEXT TO THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY, SO IT IS NEXT TO, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND SO, SO THAT'S REALLY WHO'S KIND OF BEING IMPACTED WITH REGARDS TO THE HEIGHTS OF THIS FENCE. AND SO, UM, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR EITHER NOT, OR, OR SEND IT BACK FURTHER TO ALLOW THE NEIGHBOR TO HAVE AS MUCH CLEAR VISION AS POSSIBLE. SO CURRENTLY THE REQUEST, UH, IS, WOULD, WOULD RE THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE FENCE, UH, NO HIGHER THAN THREE FEET. UH, FOR THE FIRST 10 FEET, UH, THE, WE HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10 AND 15. SO, UM, I'LL THROW A NUMBER OUT THERE. LET'S MAKE IT A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 12 FOOT. MM-HMM, . ALL RIGHT. SO I, I MOVE TO AMEND TO MAKE IT A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT CLEAR VISION. IS THAT ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER? UH, YES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. SORRY. YOU SAID A THREE FOOT VARIANCE. A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT CLEAR VISION. OKAY, GOT IT. MM-HMM. . [04:20:04] COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I CONCUR WITH CHAIR ORIAN. YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINEST OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. UH, THERE YOU HAVE A, WHERE'S THE APPLICANT AT? OKAY, SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE APPROVED, UH, THE CORRUGATE METAL AND WE ALSO APPROVED A, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE CLEAR VISION. SO YOU'D HAVE, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 12 FEET. THERE'S ONE MORE ISSUE ON THE TABLE, AND THAT IS THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. BEES COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 8. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HIGH TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY, PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 1 3 3 0 WEST MULBERRY, APPLICANT BEING CLOVER BUILDING LLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER, THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN THE, IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE FENCE HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH PROVIDES SECURITY FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND IS LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD. IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S PROXIMITY TO AN EXPRESSWAY AND CONTINUOUS GRAFFITI ACTIVITY OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY. AND INCREASE FENCE HEIGHT WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC'S, THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PROVIDING THE NEEDED SECURITY AND SUB AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPT EXCEPTION WILL BE, WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THE FENCE HEIGHT WILL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS AS IT IS LOCATED A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND CREATES ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WILL NOT ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE FENCE HEIGHT WOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PRIVACY FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND ACCESS E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DIS DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS A PLACEMENT OF THE FENCES ADEQUATELY, ADEQUATELY BACK FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION AREA. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANON. COMMISSIONER MENEZ, I'M IN FAVOR OF, UH, THE APPLICANT ON THIS. I, UH, SHE DEMONSTRATED THE, UM, THE GRAFFITI ON THE BUILDING AND, UH, FOR THE SAFETY I I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MANON AND I, I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T ASK THIS QUESTION EARLIER, BUT I COULD PROBABLY GET SOME CLARIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO THE DISTANCE OF THE FENCE TO THE STREET. UM, IS, IS THAT DEFINED ALREADY AS FAR AS HOW CLOSE THE FRONT FENCE CAN BE FROM THE STREET? UM, SO AS FAR AS THE, THE FENCE HEIGHT, VARI, UH, SPECIAL EXEMPTION, SO YES. SO, SO, SO HOW CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK, I GUESS CAN, CAN THE FENCE BE BECAUSE SO NORMALLY YEAH, NORMALLY IT WOULD BE TO A SIDEWALK, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A CLEAR VISION ISSUE THERE, THEY'RE LIMITED TO THAT CLEAR VISION. UH, 12 FEET, I THINK THAT WAS APPROVED. YEAH. SO WE'RE, WE'RE WHAT'S THEY CAN ONLY DO UP TO 12 FEET BECAUSE THE CLEAR VISION WAS IS LIMITING THAT HEIGHT. PERFECT. OKAY. SO, SO, SO IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THEN THE 12 FOOT BACK IS WHERE WE'RE SAYING THAT SIX FOOT FENCE FENCE IS ALLOWED, CORRECT? YEAH. BUT NO CLOSER. BUT NO CLOSER. UM, YES. SO, ALRIGHT, SO IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION HEARING NOW, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. [04:25:01] HOLD ON A SECOND HERE. CITY'S HAVING DIALOGUE HERE. I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, THERE'S YEAH, IS THERE, I'M SORRY, WAS THERE A QUESTION? OH, OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE HAVING A DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE QUESTION THAT, OH NO, IT'S OKAY. SO AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE, THE FENCE RIGHT NOW BEING CONSIDERED IS ON THE SIDE PLAN ONLY ON THE LEFT SIDE, UH, WEST, I THINK. IS THAT CORRECT? ON THE SIDE FACING WEST MULBERRY, CORRECT. YES. FOR IT'S FOR A PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AND THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE IS IT IS A CONCERN WHETHER OR NOT THAT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS ALLOWING A FENCE TO BE ALONG THE HIGHWAY THAT TALL. SO IF THAT IS APPROVED, THEN THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO, IF THERE'S ANY, UM, SITE VISION ISSUES WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMERCIAL LAW, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT. BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANNA LIMIT IT TO THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS ON, WELL THEY'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CORRUGATED METAL AND THE SITE PLAN. SO IF YOU WANNA LIMIT IT TO THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING, YOU CAN DO THAT ALSO. OKAY. SO HERE'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. UH, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A VOTE OR PROCLAIMED THE RESULTS, SO I JUST, I'M GONNA ASK THE, UH, THE MAKER COMMISSIONER, UH, BENAVIDES TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO LIMIT IT TO THE SITE PLAN AS APPLIED. I AGREE. COMMISSIONER MANUS. SO STAFF WAS THAT WAS, WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO STATE? YEAH, BECAUSE ON THE, ON THE SIDE PLAN IT SHOWS A FENCE SIZE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION ONLY ON THAT LEFT, UM, WESTERN PORTION. CONCUR. ALRIGHT, CONTINUE WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF EX MOTION PASSES. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, UH, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT ALL WORKED OUT AND WITH THAT ITEM SEVEN. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 9 9. ADDRESS IS 1 2 6 0 6 MIDDLE LANE COUNCIL DISTRICT 10. APPLICANT IS ILEANA CORTEZ AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT ATTACHED CARPORT SETBACK. TWO A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE FRONT SETBACK. THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VARI CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. UH, FOR A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE AND FIVE, A THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW SIX FOOT PRIVACY. UH, FRONT YARD FENCE ZONING IS FI IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE NORTH NORTHEAST OF THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE NORTHWEST OF NACODOCHES ROAD WEST OF RONALD DRIVE ON MIDDLE LANE ON APRIL 29TH, 2024. THE APPLICANT ALSO BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR BUILDING AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A NINE FOOT FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW DETACH CAR OR ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM BOTH THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHILE CONDUCTING A SITE VISIT. UM, ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF FOUND THAT THE FRONT YARD FENCE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ONE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FROM A, FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, AS WELL AS A THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTION FOR PRIVACY FENCE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IN THE FRONT YARD. ADDITIONALLY, THE DISTANCE OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT AND THE FRONT YARD FENCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION PERMIT APPROVAL IS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SORRY. IT'S OKAY. THIS IS A SITE PLAN IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEWS OF THE CARPORT. AND [04:30:01] YOU CAN SEE, UM, UNDER THIS ANGLE YOU CAN SEE THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND THEN THE PRIVACY IS ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE YARD. AND THIS IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN, UH, OF THE CARPORT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VIEWS OF THE FRONT YARD, UH, FENCE AND CLEAR VISION. AND THIS IS, UH, HISTORICAL VIEWS FROM 2016 TO 2022 AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPTION, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 DASH 0 3 9 9 UH, ONE, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE FENCES EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND HEIGHT AND PRIVACY. TWO, THE REQUEST WILL ENDURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FOR THE FRONT, UH, FRONT SETBACK AND THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBOA 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 9 9. THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE ATTACHED CARPORTS. EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE DISTANCE OF THE CARPORT FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK IS NOT SUITABLE AS IT DOES NOT PROVIDE SEPARATION BETWEEN RIGHT OF WAY OR AN ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY CAUSING INCREASED INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CLEAR VISION VARIANT STAFF ACTUALLY REPRIMAND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 9 9. UH, ONE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED WITH THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION. AND TWO, THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED 24 NOTICES. TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE. UH, WAS IN FAVOR. AND THESE ARE IN FAVOR. IN FAVOR. OKAY. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION, IF, IF THIS BOARD FOLLOWED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND ONLY APPROVED CLEAR VISION, ALL THAT REALLY DOES IS GET, IS ALLOW THAT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ON THE SIDE. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, PUT THAT OUT THERE. SO LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS ELIANA CORTEZ. I'M THE OWNER ON 1 26 0 6 MIDDLE LANE ON SAN ANTONIO. 7 8 2 1 7. AND I HAVE MY INTERPRETER WITH ME . SHE IS MY OLDER DAUGHTER, SAMANTHA. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, WELL, I'LL START OFF WITH A, WITH A FEW QUESTIONS. I SO YOU'VE GOT, I SAW ONE OTHER HOME DOWN THE STREET THAT HAS A CARPORT. UM, IS THERE A, IS THERE, UH, CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU, YOU NEED A CARPORT OF THIS SIZE? OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO SHE LACKS THE EXPERIENCE IN LIKE SHE LACKS TO EXPERIENCE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT. , YOU HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE CLOSER. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT A PICTURE AND I SEE A TRUCK THAT'S PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE CARPORT EXTENDS A GOOD DISTANCE PAST THE TRUCK. AND SO ONE OF THE ITEMS IS HOW CLOSE YOUR CARPORT IS TO THE STREET. IS THERE A REASON WHY IT NEEDS TO BE THAT LONG? OKAY. YEAH. SO SHE WASN'T AWARE OF THE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE CARPORT. UM, SO LIKE THAT'S WHY SHE EXTENDED IT LIKE CLOSER TO THE STREET. 'CAUSE SHE WASN'T AWARE OF THE MEASUREMENTS FOR THAT. DO YOU KNOW HOW, HOW DEEP IT IS RIGHT NOW? IS THAT UHHUH? NO, SHE DOESN'T. OKAY. AND, UH, YEAH, SO, RIGHT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NO. MANNA COMMISSIONER. MANNA. S SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, UM, ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT IS, IS DANGERS TO NEIGHBORS. MM-HMM. . AND WHEN WE SEE TWO STRUCTURES THAT APPEAR TO BE THAT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, THERE'S, THERE IS CONCERN THAT, UM, FIRE OR SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN AND COULD SPREAD TO THE NEXT HOME. SO THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS, IS THERE ANY WAY TO SEPARATE THE DISTANCE OF YOUR CARPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? UM, OR, OR HOW THAT, HOW THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. [04:35:14] OKAY. UM, SHE SAID THAT RIGHT THERE, THAT'S A OPEN, YOU CAN OPEN THAT GATE AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT WHERE, UM, THAT'S AT, THERE'S A FIRE THINGY SO THEY CAN CONNECT THEIR HOSE. SO THERE'S LIKE, YOU CAN OPEN IT AND THERE'S ACCESS TO, TO THAT, UM, SIDE IN CASE OF A FIRE. YEAH. UM, I, BUT THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU BUILD TWO STRUCTURES REALLY CLOSELY WITH EACH OTHER, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT CONSIDERED SAFE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD, FIRE SPREAD COULD HAPPEN. UH, ALSO WITH THE OVERHANG, THERE'S WATER THAT IS COMING FROM THE ROOF. MM-HMM. AND DRAINING ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS GONNA, UM, ADD THE GUTTERS TO THAT FOR THE, UM, WATER REASON, BUT SINCE THE WHOLE, UM, BUILDING PROCESS WAS STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE PERMIT AND STUFF, SHE HASN'T, UM, BEEN ABLE TO GET TO THAT. BUT SHE WAS GONNA INSTALL GUTTERS FOR THAT. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF HERE. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE, UH, THE ABUTTING PROPERTY AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY BUILT A STRUCTURE ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, UNLESS I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE WRONG, YOU KNOW, IS THAT, IS THAT TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT? UM, POTENTIALLY. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF IN THIS DIALOGUE HERE FOR THE SAFETY FACTOR. UH, YOU TALK ABOUT THE GARAGE THAT'S NEXT TO THEM, WHATEVER I, I TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT THAT STRUCTURE IS. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A GARAGE CARPORT, WHATEVER, IT'S, IT'S IN PLASTIC THAT I CAN SEE. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN THERE. UM, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE, UM, THE AERIAL PICTURES SHOW THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, BUT IF NOT, WE'LL MAKE SURE CO COMPLIANCE STARTS THAT INVESTIGATION. WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND IF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS BUILT ONTO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S GOING TO INFLUENCE THE DIALOGUE HERE FOR THIS PROPERTY. RIGHT. AND SO YEAH, IF THEY'RE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S, THAT'S DEFINITELY GONNA AFFECT THEM. UM, BUT WE, WE DON'T KNOW, I GUESS WHAT THE HISTORY OF THAT IS RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR THEY BUILT IT, UH, WITHOUT PERMITS. WELL, IT DIDN'T EXIST IN 2019 AND IS AND IS THERE IN 2022. SO THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD INDICATION THAT THE APPLY COMES SEE YOU. YEAH. OKAY. UH, I'LL PUT OUT THAT, THAT WHAT I'M SEEING FROM THE SURVEY IS THAT IT'S ABOUT 33 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF A CAR, IF YOU ASSUME A CAR'S 20 FEET LONG, THERE'S, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE FRONT SETBACK PORTION OF THIS IN, IN MY OPINION. UM, AND, AND IT IS PRETTY DARN WIDE. SO I MEAN, I, I, I MEAN, I I CAN SEE MAYBE A, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO GET 'EM TO THREE FEET, BUT I I WOULDN'T BE MUCH, UH, CLOSER THAN THAT. UM, IS THERE ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE INTERPRETER. SAMANTHA? YES. IS THAT YOU? OKAY, SO NO PUBLIC. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS, UH, WE'RE GOING TO, WE'VE GOT FIVE ITEMS, UH, BEFORE US. WE'RE GONNA SEE HOW THIS, UH, TURNS OUT. ALL RIGHT, SO IF Y'ALL WERE WELCOME TO TAKE A SEAT AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE, A COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION AND I DON'T MIND DOING IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA START THIS THING OFF. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 99, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, GRANTED REQUEST, UH, FOR ONE, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT HIGH TO HIGHWAY SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED WEST OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, LIMITED TO WEST OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. AND TWO, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT. UH, I'M NOT GONNA READ THAT ONE, UH, SITUATED AT 1 2 6 0 6 MIDDLE LANE APPLICANT BEING ILEANA CORTEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS EMITTED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFIC, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION [04:40:01] WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPARE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER, THE FRONT YARD, UM, WITH THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE LIMITED, UH, TO THE WEST OF THE FRONT YARD, AND THE, OH, WAIT A MINUTE, UH, I'LL START OVER ON THAT. UH, A THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. UM, THE SIX FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN LOCATED WEST OF THE DRIVEWAY, STAFF FINDS A REQUEST TO BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. AS A, AS THE RESIDENCE IS LOCATED ON A ROAD WITH NO THROUGH TRA NO THROUGH TRAFFIC FENCE HEIGHT DOES NOT IMPEDE CLEAR VISION ON NOT INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE STANDS SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PROPOSED FENCE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE. DEFENSE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY, THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS FENCE VARIANCE WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. UH, THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE WILL NOT ALTER A LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL FENCE IS SPECIAL. EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE FENCE SITE PROVIDES PRIVACY AND SECURITY FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISH FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUEST OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS A PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE WILL NOT CLEAR, UH, CREATE ANY CLEAR VISION ISSUES ON THE LOT WILL NOT ISSUE THE ADDITIONING UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. UM, AND I'M GONNA CHANGE THIS, UH, TO SAY, UM, UH, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT HIGH TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HIGH TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. SO IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA? UH, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE MOTION AS I READ IT. UH, KEEPING EVERYTHING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. UH, I THINK IT'S A, I THINK I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER MANNA KER WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD HEARING NUN HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE ON THE FENCE. SITE CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. UH, NEXT MOTION IS GONNA BE FOR THE REMAINING, UH, ITEMS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 3 99. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT ATTACHED CARPORT. SETBACK. TWO, NOT, I'M NOT READING. ITEM TWO. UH, AND THEN ITEM THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 1 2 6 0 6 MIDDLE LANE APPLICANT BEING ANA CORTEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. UH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE, UH, ATTACHED CARPORT, UH, BEING AS CLOSE AS UH, THREE FEET TO THE SIDE IS, UH, IS, IS ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN A ABUTTING PROPERTY AND TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE, UH, ATTACHED CARPORT, UM, LOCATED AS CLOSE AS THREE FEET TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UH, WILL NEED TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE UDC, UH, AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION REGULATIONS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DIVIDED, IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. UH, THE REDUCED SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVE AWAY CLEAR VISION OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE A AS THE VARIANCE PROVIDED, PROVIDED AN ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE [04:45:01] APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORM ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THAT THE REDUCED SIDE SETBACKS AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION ARE NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY RESIDES ALONG THE DEAD END STREET WITH NO THROUGH TRAFFIC. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO WHAT I DID WAS I'M, I READ THE MOTION TO NOT INCLUDE THE FRONT BECAUSE, UH, THIS APPLICANT HAS 33 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. PLENTY OF ROOM FOR A CARPORT TO COVER A CAR AND STILL LEAVE THE 10 FOOT REQUIREMENT. UH, THE SIDE STEP BACK WAS REDUCED SO THAT IT WOULD BE NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THE SIDE BECAUSE THE BUDDING PROPERTY ALREADY HAS A STRUCTURE VERY, VERY CLOSE. UH, AND, UH, I READ THE CLEAR VISION ONE SO THAT THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN EVENTS COULD EXIST ON THE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO THAT'S WHERE I WENT WITH THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE YDI. I WOULD'VE BEEN AMENABLE TO A FIVE FOOT ON THE FRONT, BUT I'LL, I WILL CERTAINLY AGREE WITH HOW YOU READ IT. I'M OPEN TO THAT AS WELL, IF ANY OF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS OF, OF, IF ONE MORE PERSON SAYS THAT THEY'RE FOUR, I I SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO I WILL AMEND MY APPLICATION TO INCLUDE, UH, THE VARIANCE OF, TO BE AS CLOSE AS FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT. WELL, UH, FOR THE CARPORT, WELL, FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ON THE, SO FIVE FOOT FROM THE VARIANCE WOULD BE, UM, I GUESS FIVE. OH YEAH, FIVE BY FIVE. SO IT'D BE FIVE AND FIVE. SO, SO THEY'D HAVE TO RING IT IN FIVE FEET OR FOUR FEET, I GUESS. YEAH, RIGHT NOW, THE, RIGHT NOW THE, UH, SETBACK, I READ IT FOR A, A, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SIDE TO BE THREE FEET. I'M, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE, I'M ABOUT THE FRONT. OH, OKAY. UH, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE IN THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT. SO, OKAY. YEAH, I, I WILL READ, UM, AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CAR CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT. YEAH. ALRIGHT. AS AND I, IT'S ACCEPTED BY THE SECOND ACCEPTED ALL. SO IT'S SO AMENDED. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO COMMENT? WHAT, WHAT WAS THE SIDE? UM, SIDE. THE SIDE WAS, UH, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW, UH, THE CARPORT TO BE AS CLOSE AS THREE FEET. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES AS AMENDED. SO FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, SO TO LET YOU KNOW, UM, THE MOTION, THE MOTION WAS APPROVED TO ALLOW YOUR CARPORT TO BE AS CLOSE AS FIVE FEET TO THE FRONT. OKAY? THREE FEET TO THE SIDE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT OUTSIDE. UH, THEY CAN TALK TO YOU OUTSIDE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM EIGHT PLEASE. ITEM EIGHT IS BOA UH, 24 1 0 3 0 0 100. ADDRESS IS 1 26 UTAH STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT IS PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ. A REQUEST FOR ONE AND NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINERAL AND 10 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH CARPORT SETBACK TO A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE. FRONT YARD FENCE THREE A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% AND PREVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. AND FOUR, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION ZONING IS RM FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG UTAH STREET, NORTH OF ZA AVENUE AND EAST OF SOUTH PINE STREET. LOCATED WITHIN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE STRUCTURE ON THE LOT IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION HAVING BEEN BUILT IN 2018 AND PREVIOUSLY VACANT IN THE YEARS BEFORE. THE APPLICANT INITIALLY SOUGHT THE BOA FOR A CARPORT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONE INCH FROM THE SETBACK. UPON SITE VISITS AND AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE APPLICANT. VARIANCES REGARDING FENCE, HEIGHT AND PREVIOUS COVER AND CLEAR VISION WERE ADDED. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOOKING AT THE FENCE AND THE FENCE HEIGHT, THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY [04:50:02] DRIVEWAY FENCE HEIGHT, AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND YOUR SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CARPORT, SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 100 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE REQUEST WILL AGGRAVATE. I TAKE WATER RUNOFF AND ABSORPTION ISSUES FOR THE PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND RIGHT OF WAY AND TO THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXEMPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 100 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TWO, NO OTHER FAMILIAR FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WAS SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 100 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. ONE SUITABLE CLEAR VISION SPACE WILL REMAIN TO SAFELY BACK UP INTO A RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET. AND TWO, THE FENCE LINE IS LOCATED IN THE ESTABLISHED DISTANCE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF, NO DOUBT. 33 NOTICES. SEVEN. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THAT THE MR I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION. ON, ON A BILL THAT'S A 2018, UM, CONSTRUCTION IN REGARDS TO LIKE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE, THE, UH, FENCE HEIGHT THAT THEY PROVIDED A PERMIT OR, UH, WE'LL WE'LL CHECK FOR YOU. YEAH, SO THEY JUST NEVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THEIR PERMIT, UH, CLOSED OUT. ALRIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, MY NAME IS PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ. I LIVE AT 1 26 UTAH STREET. I'VE LIVED THERE THE PAST FIVE YEARS. UM, I CAN ADDRESS THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE LATER IN MY PRESENTATION. UM, THIS IS MY FIRST HOME AND I PLAN TO LIVE THERE. I KNOW A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING ME IF I WAS PLANNING TO SELL AND IF THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THIS CARPORT. BUT I PLAN TO LIVE THERE. UM, I WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT IN MARCH BY THE ALMO DOME AND SO I WAS T-BONED AND MY CAR WAS TOTALED. I HAD TO GET A NEW CAR AND THAT'S WHY, UM, WHAT PROMPTED ME TO GET THIS OR REQUEST FOR A CARPORT? I HAD ALREADY, UM, HAD THE FOUNDATION THERE OR THE, THE DRIVEWAY, UM, INSTALLED RIGHT WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE. UM, WITHIN THE SECOND DAY OF OWNING MY CAR, IT WAS HELENE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT KIND OF PROMPTED ME TO AS WELL, TO GET THIS DONE. UM, TWO CARS DON'T FIT BACK TO BACK IN MY DRIVEWAY. IT ONLY FITS SIDE TO SIDE. IF A CAR PARKS DIRECTLY BEHIND, UM, ANOTHER CAR THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE, IT BLOCKS THE, THE SIDEWALK. UM, THE PATIO OR THE CARPORT WOULD ALSO HELP LESSEN THE TIME THAT MY CAR HAS TO BE IDLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER. RIGHT. UM, AND WOULD HELP WITH AIR POLLUTION. I WOULDN'T HAVE TO LEAVE THE CAR RUNNING IDLE. UM, REGARDING, OH, AND I DID WANNA ADD THAT I DID WANNA PUT GUTTERS IF MY, UM, REQUEST IS APPROVED, THAT IS A MUST FOR ME. UM, REGARDING THE SIX INCH PRIVACY FENCE, I HAVE IMAGES AND SO MY NEIGHBOR OR MY PREVIOUS NEIGHBOR, HE HAD A DOG THAT ALWAYS WAS ALWAYS JUMPING THE FENCE. SO RIGHT THERE IS WHERE HE, HE INSTALLED THIS, HE ASKED ME IF HE COULD MOVE, IF HE COULD ADD THIS PART, UM, MAKE IT SIX, SIX FEET HIGH SO HE COULD INCLU, ENCLOSE ALL OF THAT SO THAT THE DOG WOULDN'T BE JUMPING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN MY, UM, FRONT YARD. NEXT IMAGE PLEASE. UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THIS TOO, BECAUSE IN DECEMBER OF 2020, UM, A CAR A A TWO JUVENILES STOLE A VEHICLE. UM, AND IT CRASHED INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND THEN INTO MY YARD. AND SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE, UM, FENCE WAS DAMAGED. UM, THAT LOWER IMAGE OVER HERE IS THE RING CAMERA WHERE IT SHOWS WHERE THE CAR ALMOST, YOU KNOW, WENT INTO MY YARD, BUT IT DID ALL THIS DAMAGE OVER HERE AND SO I HAD TO GET THAT [04:55:01] REPLACED. RIGHT. UM, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW, UM, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AND WHY THEY DON'T HAVE THAT FENCE ANYMORE. RIGHT. UM, NEXT IMAGE PLEASE. AND SO THIS IS WHAT IT WAS WHEN HE SEWED IT. HE DIDN'T GET, I REPAIRED THE FENCE AFTER THAT ACCIDENT AND SHORTLY AFTER HE ENDED UP SELLING THE PROPERTY TO AN INVESTOR. AND SO, UM, I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS A LARGER GAP RIGHT HERE IN THIS, UM, CARPORT. A NEXT IMAGE PLEASE. LIKE FROM THE, FROM MY, UM, PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS AT SOME POINT FROM THEN THEY MOVED IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. SO I BELIEVE THAT'S ABOUT, UM, 16 INCHES FROM WHAT I MEASURED. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. UM, I'M ALSO OPEN TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD. MY MAIN PRIORITY OF BEING HERE IS I WANT IT TO COVER TWO CARS BECAUSE THIS IS MY, WHAT I CONSIDER MY FOREVER HOME. SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO COVER, UM, TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE. IF THAT MEANS SHORTENING THE DISTANCE FROM THE, THE SIDEWALK, UM, I'M OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS. OKAY. WELL YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A GATE THAT SLIDES ACROSS YOUR DRIVEWAY? CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UM, HAVING, IF, IF YOUR GATE IS CLOSED, USUALLY CORRECT. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CONCERNS SOMETIMES A BOARD HAS IS HOW CLOSE YOUR CORE BOARD IS TO A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, BUT IF YOU HAVE A GATE, NO ONE'S GONNA VENTURE OFF AND BUMP IT OR ANYTHING. UM, BUT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT UH, YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DOG WAS JUMPING OVER THAT EXISTING FENCE, WHICH IS THREE FEET TALL. THAT SHORTER ONE? UM, NO. SO RIGHT HERE THERE'S ABOUT 10 PANELS, OR MAYBE LIKE 13. I'M NOT TOO SURE OF THE NUMBER. THERE WERE, IT, THIS WAS THREE FEET RIGHT THERE. SO IT SLIGHTLY WENT UP. UM, IT, IT MATCHED THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND THEN THEY, HE, HE ENCLOSED IT. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE, WITH THE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR THE, FOR THAT SHORTER PORTION OF THE FENCE YOU'RE TALKING? NO, NO, I'M NOT AT ANY FENCE. IT'S JUST, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A PERMIT WAS NEVER TAKEN OUT. I DIDN'T KNOW I NEEDED A PERMIT. I THOUGHT WE SHARED, HE CAME OVER AND ASKED ME. SO JUST TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF, IF THE NEIGHBOR WERE TO BUILD THE FENCE, THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO PAST THE FRONT OF THEIR HOME, BUT IF SHE BUILDS IT, IT'S, IT ISN'T. OKAY, BECAUSE IT DOES GO PAST THE FRONT OF HER HOME. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THAT, THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION FOR ME. UH, AND DO YOU KNOW HOW DEEP YOUR DRIVEWAY IS, UH, TO THE GATE? NO, BUT SO IF YOU, IF IF YOU PARK A, A FULL-SIZED CAR THERE WILL IT FIT AND YOUR GATE WILL CLOSE. OH, CORRECT. UM, SO WHEN I PARK, I STILL HAVE, UM, SPACE FROM WHERE MY GATE CLOSES. UM, SO IT'S PART, PART OF OUR GOAL IS TO FIND OUT WHAT YOUR MINIMUM NEED IS. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO BE, UM, A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH, UH, FROM THE, TO THE FRONT. AND, AND YOU KNOW, IS THAT SEEMS KIND OF CLOSE. I MEAN, COULD IT BE REDUCED ANY IN YOUR OPINION? I, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT IT WAS ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE OR IS IT FROM THE FRONT? UH, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE INCH. YEAH, IT SAYS A NINE FOOT 11, UH, VARIANCE INCH FROM THE FRONT. IT'S ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT. OKAY. UM, WELL I'M SORRY. IT'S 'CAUSE I, MY BUILDER, UM, DRAFTED ALL THE MEASUREMENTS AND I SUBMITTED IT AS WAS, AS IS. BUT, UM, I, MY CONCERN IS JUST TO BE ABLE TO FIT TWO CARS AND COVER THEM FROM SIDE TO SIDE. UM, IF I HAVE TO SHORTEN THE DISTANCE, NO. WELL, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, THERE, THERE, THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK FOR A CARPORT CORRECT. STAFF, UH, FOR THE SIDE, NO. SO, SO THAT MEANS IT WOULD BE A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE ADEQUATE FOR YOU TO PARK TWO CAR. I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE YOUR DRIVEWAY IS, DO YOU IT BARELY FITS ON THE TWO CARS. OKAY. SO YOU MIGHT, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY VOTE ON WHAT'S BEFORE US AND WHAT'S BEEN ADVERTISED AND SINCE THE SIDE SETBACK PORTION WAS NOT ADVERTISED, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN JUST, UH, SO IF AGAIN, UM, SHE CAN UH, DO A CARPORT THREE FOOT WITH NO OVERHANG, UM, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THE SIDE SETBACK ISSUES. UM, SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO, THEN YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE. YOU WANNA BE CLOSER TO THE THREE FEET. YOU CAN GO DOWN TO THREE FEET, BUT NO OVERHANG. SO IF YOU'RE ANYTHING CLOSER THAN THAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE READVERTISED AND GO FORWARD FROM THERE. SO RIGHT NOW I HAVE TO BE AT THREE FEET FROM MY NEIGHBOR'S FENCE. IS THAT WHAT IT IS? SO WHEN YOU PUT TWO CARS NEXT TO EACH OTHER MM-HMM. THE POSTS AND EVERYTHING THAT COMPRISE YOUR CARPORT. IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE NO OVERHANG, THEN YOU CAN'T BE ANY CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THAT SIDE FENCE. SO WHEN YOU PARK TWO CARS IN THERE, CAN, WILL THEY FIT WITH AT LEAST THREE FEET [05:00:01] BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THAT CONCRETE AND THE, AND THE WHEEL OF THE CAR? IS THERE NO WAY TO VIEW, I'M SORRY. UH, THE IMAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WHEN I APPLIED FOR THIS, 'CAUSE MY BUILDER GRAFTED ALL OUT. SO, SO THE BUILDER PUT DOWN 4.9 FEET OF THE SIDE PROPERTY OR FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. OKAY. UM, THAT'S WHAT WAS ON THE APPLICATION. UM, OKAY. SO MEASURE AHEAD. SO THEN IT SHOULD BE FINE. OKAY, WELL THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? MANANA COMMISSIONER MAN. SO, UH, PART OF THE DIALOGUE HERE IS ALSO THE, UM, UM, IN PREVIOUS COVER I BELIEVE. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND SO, SO UM, LOOKING AT IT, UM, KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE WIDTH VERSUS HOW MUCH OF THE YARD. SO IF WE LIMIT IT TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT COULD BE SPECIFIED FOR AS CURRENTLY POURED OR, UM, YOU KNOW, A PERCENTAGE. LAST TIME WE DID PERCENTAGE, SO RIGHT. UH, THIS TIME WE DO, LIKE LAST TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE PICTURES, IT WAS GONNA BE A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A DEVELOPED, UM, DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW, PLUS A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO YOU CAN LIMIT IT TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE PICTURES PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. AND ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SO IS THERE ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER. UM, FRANCISCO MORALES. OH, THAT WAS MY BUILDER. HE LEFT ALREADY. OH. JUST NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, WELL THEN I'M, UH, YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'M LOOKING FOR MOTION. YEAH. OH, DID YOU WANNA READ IT? NO. OKAY. MAN COMMISSIONER MANNA, I, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA JUMP IN THERE. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE A. LET'S SEE, AM I READING THE RIGHT ONE HERE? YES. UM, NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH CARPORT SETBACK. TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, THE MINIMUM 15 CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. UM, AND REGARDING NUMBER TWO, UH, AS PER, UH, SUBMITTED ON THE, UM, APPLICATION, UM, UH, SITUATED AT 1 2 6 UTAH STREET, APPLICANT BEING PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS PRESENTED, IS REPRESENTED BY IMPERVIOUS COVER REGULATIONS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORM WATER RUNOFF AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS. THE REQUESTED DISTANCES PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING AND WATER RUNOFF WILL NOT IMPOSE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT SIZABLE CARPORT. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A CARPORT IS AN ALLOWABLE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE PURPOSE COVER PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY DOES NOT POSE A RISK TO WATER RUNOFF FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ENSURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTIES OR OTHER CARPORT. UM, OTHER, AS OTHER CARPORTS IMPOSED IN SETBACK WERE FOUND IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. THE REQUEST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DISTRICT AND IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SIX APPLIED IN THE OWNER OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VARIANCE ISAD IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS LIMITED SPACING, THE FRONT YARD TO ABIDE BY THE CARPORT, SETBACK, AND IMPERVIOUS COVER REGULATIONS. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANN. UM, I I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE, UH, PROPERTY, UH, THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED, UM, I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS, UH, AN ISSUE AS, UM, UM, AS PRESENTED. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR MR. MAN. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS [05:05:01] WITH IT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT? HEARING ANNOUNCED HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER I BONNI, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UH, WHAT'S REMAINS IS THE FENCE SITE MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE SITE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT PRIVACY, UH, YARD FENCE. UM, NOT TO EXTEND, UH, FORWARD OF THE NEIGHBORING FRONT PROPERTY, UH, OF THE FRONT LINE OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORING HOUSE, IF I CAN SAY SO. UM, UM, SITUATED AT 1 2 6 UTAH STREET, APPLICANT BEING PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT, UH, THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. DEFENSE HEIGHTS DOES NOT EXCEED SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT. UH, UH, DOES NOT EXCEED SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT. PROVIDES SECURITY FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND IS LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD AT LEAST UP TO, UM, THE FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UM, IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS A REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, THE, UH, B THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AND INCREASED FENCE HEIGHTS WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND SCREENING AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH APPROPRIATE USE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THE FENCE HEIGHTS WILL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS AS IS LOCATED A SAFETY DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT SET BACK AND CREATES ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHTS IN THE FRONT YARD WILL NOT ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE FENCE HEIGHTS WOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PRIVACY, UH, FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND ACCESS. UH, E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS THIS PLACEMENT OF THIS FENCE IS ADEQUATELY BACK FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION AREA AND A MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT AND I'D LIKE TO OFFER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE, NOT TO EXTEND PAST THE HOUSE AT 1 2 4, UTAH. THANK, UH, SO, SO ACCEPTED. SO THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. YEAH, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE DIALOGUE WAS THAT, UH, POINT ALL MADE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE'RE, UH, ALIGNING WITH THE, UH, UH, BUDDING PROPERTY. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'D BUILT IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT. SO WILL I, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE JUST, UH, UH, DID, UH, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WE HAVE LAST ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 10. YEAH. UH, HI. YOU GUYS DON'T USUALLY GET TO HEAR FROM ME. YOU'RE WELCOME. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, , I MADE SURE THE ROOM WAS CLEAR. UM, THIS ONE'S A LITTLE UNIQUE. UM, AND I KNOW THAT Y'ALL DON'T HEAR THESE VERY OFTEN, IF EVER. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY ACTUALLY REMEMBERS HAVING HEARD THIS. AND SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE CODE THAT, THAT, UH, IS INVOLVED IN THIS. SO, IN NOVEMBER, UH, 20TH, 2023, YOU GUYS HEARD A CASE FOR THE RECORD, UH, 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 64 ON ONE 15, MILTON. IT WAS, UH, AMONG OTHER THINGS FOR A 24 FOOT DRIVEWAY IN AN NCD SIX AND A, UM, A WAIVER FOR THE FOUR PARKING SPACES TO GO DOWN TO TWO. SO THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE THERE, UM, WAS CONVERSATION DURING THIS, [05:10:01] UH, REGARDING TWO 15 FOOT DRIVEWAYS THAT Y'ALL, UM, ENDED UP NOT BEING ABLE TO DISCUSS BECAUSE IT WASN'T ACTUALLY PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO, UH, WHAT THE CODE ACTUALLY SAYS IS IF WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR AN APPEAL WAS RECEIVED, CONSIDERED AND DENIED ON THE SAME LOT, LOTS OR BLOCKS OF LAND, THEY CAN'T COME BACK TO YOU GUYS TO BE HEARD. SO, BECAUSE THIS IS A SEPARATE ONE THAT YOU GUYS HAD DISCUSSED, UM, AND WELL WEREN'T ABLE TO DISCUSS, THAT'S WHY THE WAIVER FOR THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMITATION IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU. NOW, UM, ATTORNEYS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSPEAK SPEAKING ON ANY OF THIS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHUT ME DOWN, JOSEPH. UM, NINE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS WAIVER OF THE TIME LIMITATION. SO I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU GUYS HAVE IT. SO, SO I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THESE. COMMISSIONER CRUZ HAS TOO. USUALLY WHEN WE GET THE WAIVER, IT'S IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE ACTUAL REQUEST. UH, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS PUZZLED TO ONLY SEE THE WAIVER. IT IS. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE WANTED TIME TO RE ADVERTISE FOR THE NEW EXCEPTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WAS VOCAL ON THIS ONE. I BELIEVE PART OF THE ISSUE WAS, UM, THE LOOK OF THE DRIVEWAY. UM, AND SO WE DID WANT TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME BACK, UH, AS PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO JUST BASICALLY TO COVER OUR BASES. IT WILL BE OUR BASES. IT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA IF THIS IS APPROVED AND, AND THIS AND THIS ITEM. IT WAS, IT WAS ADVERTISED AND, AND IT WAS PRESENTED AND WE DENIED IT. YOU DENIED IT BY LACK OF MOTION. FOR LACK OF MOTION. OKAY. ONE OF THE CASE. OKAY. WE DON'T DO THAT OFTEN EITHER. NO. NO. SO, AND DO YOU RECALL, BECAUSE U USUALLY WHEN WE SEE THESE, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S CHANGED, SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SOMETHING THAT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD SAY, HEY, LET, LET ME TRY THIS AGAIN. RIGHT? IS THERE ANYTHING NEW AT ALL THAT RIGHT NOW ALL IT IS, IS THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS WERE NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS OPTION. WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT BACK SO THAT YOU COULD DISCUSS IT AT THIS POINT. OKAY, SO THERE IS SOMETHING NEW. YES. ALRIGHT. SO QUESTION, UH, IS THERE, USUALLY WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF. DO WE TYPICALLY HAVE, DO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE NOTHING? YEAH. WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? YEAH, THIS IS, UM, NOT REALLY AN, LIKE A THIS'S NOT AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WE BROUGHT, THAT WE ADVERTISED, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BRING TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ADVERTISE IT TO THE PUBLIC. WE DON'T FEEL IT'S RIGHT FOR US TO MAKE IT A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T ADVERTISED. WE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON IT. SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO, UM, IT'S, IT WAS, IT'S PART OF THE AGENDA. IT'S JUST NOT, IT DOESN'T, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IT'S A PROCEDURAL THING, NOT NECESSARILY LIKE THE VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND ALL THAT. SO THERE WASN'T A NOTICE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THERE WILL, IF IT GETS PASSED, THERE WILL BE ONE 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA COME BACK. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. SO WAIT, DEAN, DEAN, COMMISSIONER, DEAN. SO WHAT'S BEFORE US IS LIKE, KIND OF LIKE A WAIVER TO THE ONE YEAR, CORRECT? THAT'S ALL IT IS. YEAH. AND WE, WE RARELY HEAR THESE, UH, NORMALLY, UH, THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION WOULD BE THAT THERE'D BE SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T, WAS WE DIDN'T ENTERTAIN THAT WOULD CHANGE HOW WE WOULD CONSIDER IT POSSIBLY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY, IT IN ESSENCE. AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME? HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THE ONE YEAR? UH, NOVEMBER 20TH WOULD BE WHEN THE ONE YEAR IS UP FIVE MONTHS. SO THERE FIVE MONTHS. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SO, SO WE'RE JUST, UH, SAYING THAT WE HAVE AN OPTION TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT TIME. SO BASICALLY YES, WE CAN HEAR IT AGAIN, CORRECT? YES. SAY ONE THING I WOULD STATE IS THAT ANYTIME SOMETHING FAILS FOR LACK OF MOTION, UH, THE APPLICANT REALLY HAS THEIR WORK CUT OUT FOR THEM. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THOROUGHLY IMPRESS THIS BOARD TO GET NINE VOTES WHEN THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION LAST TIME. SO I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO THERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE CASES. CORRECT. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE IN, IN THE GALLERY. IS THERE ANYBODY SENDING TO SPEAK THERE? THERE IS TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. SO, OKAY. SO LET'S HEAR, UH, NO VOICEMAILS, RIGHT? NO VOICEMAILS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MR. GRIMES CALL THE SPEAKER. HOW WERE THEY NOTIFIED? YEAH, UH, UH, SO HOW, HOW WERE, HOW WAS THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED? LIKE HOW DID THEY KNOW TO BE, BE HERE IF, IF IT WASN'T ADVERTISED? ? SO I BELIEVE THIS IS WITH THE APPLICANTS THAT WE COMMUNICATED WITH. OKAY. UM, SO IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. MY NAME IS, UH, GEORGE GRIMES. I LIVE AT FOUR 15 PARLIN IN THE MANKE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT TWO. UM, THE VARIANCES THAT WERE REQUESTED IN NOVEMBER WERE VARIANCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT ESTABLISHED THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT [05:15:01] IN 2008, AND ON THE COMMITTEE THAT REVISED IT IN 2019. SO, UH, ON NOVEMBER 20TH, THE BOARD HELD A, UH, HEARING ON THE, ON THE SUBJECT, THE, THE VARIANCES THAT WERE REQUESTED INCLUDE A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM CURB CUT OF 15 FEET, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 12 FEET, AND A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PARKING SPACES FOR ANY UNIT. THIS, THE, THE BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY IS A DUPLEX TWO UNITS. UM, SO AFTER, AFTER THERE WAS NO MOTION, UH, THERE WASN'T MUCH ACTIVITY ON THIS PROPERTY UNTIL, UH, MAY. AND ON MAY THE 31ST, SOME OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED, UH, UH, NOTICED THAT THERE WAS FORM WORK BEING PLACED IN THE FRONT YARD AND THAT IT APPEARED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF, UH, THE, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. SO, UM, I CALLED, UH, CRYSTAL GONZALEZ'S HERE AT DSD AND ALSO THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER, UH, ABOUT THIS FORM MARK BEING, UH, PLACED. AND ON, UH, JUNE THE FOURTH, I RECEIVED A, A PHONE CALL FROM STAFF HERE, UH, RETURNING MY CALL TO MS. GONZALEZ. AND HE SENT ME A COPY OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH, UH, UH, HEARING, UH, MINUTES, WHICH I HAD ATTENDED. SO I KNEW WHAT THE, WHAT THE RESULT WAS. UM, AND I, I PLACED SEVERAL PHONE CALLS TO, TO DSD STAFF TO TRY TO GET THIS STOPPED BECAUSE IT, THEY, THEY PLACED FORM WORK AND THEY PLACED REINFORCING IN IT. AND I FINALLY GOT, UH, UH, A CALL FRIDAY, UH, AND WAS TOLD, WELL, YES, WE HAVE, I I, I HAD ASKED IN AN EMAIL, ARE YOU GONNA STOP THIS WORK TO THE STAFF? AND, AND I GOT A PHONE CALL FRIDAY FROM THE STAFF THAT SAID, OKAY, YEAH, WE'VE, WE'VE ORDERED A STOP TO THE WORK AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A HEARING ON THIS, UH, 12 MONTH REQUIREMENT ON MONDAY TODAY. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RECEIVE A WRITTEN NOTICE OF THIS HEARING. UM, BUT, UH, SO WHAT I'M ASKING TO, IN, IN THE, IN THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT PERMITS A WAIVER OF, UH, THE, THIS 12 MONTH LIMITATION SAYS, UH, THE FOUR MINUTES TIME LIMITATIONS, MAY WE WAIVE FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IF NEW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS PRESIDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ONLY AFTER RECEIVING NINE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. OKAY. AND SO WHAT I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO DO IS, UH, UH, DENY THIS WAIVER OF THE 12 MONTH REQUIREMENT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. SCOTT DAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS SCOTT DAY. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT DOES EXIST WHERE THE TWO CAR GARAGE IS. THERE'S NOW A TWO STORY DUPLEX SO THAT THAT IS THERE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S AT AT STAKE HERE IS THAT HOW DO YOU GET PARKING ENOUGH ENOUGH PARKING FOR A DUPLEX. THIS LOT WAS, UH, RE PLATTED. AND WHEN THEY DID THAT, THE FRONT HOUSE IS NOW UNDER PARKED AND NOW THE BACK HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, UH, EITHER. SO THAT'S, UH, WHAT WE'VE BEEN WRESTLING WITH AND HOW THAT MEETS THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. UH, I JUST WANNA REITERATE WHAT MR. GRIMES SAID. WE'D RECEIVED NO NOTIFICATION OF THE VARIANCE AND WE WOULD, UH, NOT WANT TO SEE, UH, THE FORM WORK THAT'S IN PLACE, UH, CONTINUE. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IF WE GET QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, IS THERE, CAN YOU ALLUDE TO WHAT THE NEW INFORMATION IS PERHAPS? YES. SO WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING? UM, THERE WAS A MISINTERPRETATION, UH, BY STAFF AFTER THE BOA CASE. UM, TO CUT A LONG STORY SHORT, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH THIS PERMIT. AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS THAT DRAWINGS WITH THE 24 FOOT DRIVEWAY WERE APPROVED. HE DID FORM UP. AND WHEN WE FOUND OUT, UM, WHEN MR. GRIMES CALLED ABOUT IT, WE INVESTIGATED, WHICH IS WHAT BROUGHT THIS BACK TO OUR ATTENTION, WE IMMEDIATELY TOLD HIM, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP WORK AT THIS POINT, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT YOU TO POUR CONCRETE AND THEN HAVE TO RIP IT UP. UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW WHAT IT IS, IS WE ARE TRYING TO BRING THIS BACK TO CONSIDERATION DUE TO, UM, THE ORIGINAL [05:20:01] GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DELIBERATED. SO AFTER, UM, ALL OF THIS, I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE BOA AND SAW THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I, I, I WANNA SAY MR. MANNA BROUGHT UP, BUT I MAY BE LYING ON THIS. YOU CANNOT RECALL. AND, UH, AND, UH, I, I JUST, LIKE I SAID, THE ONE YEAR WAIVER, UM, HE COULD BRING THIS BACK, UH, IN NOVEMBER, UM, TO HEAR AGAIN. ANYWAY, THIS IS MORE SO THAT THE BOARD CAN GO AND DEBATE AMONG THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IN NOVEMBER THERE WAS NO MOTION, BUT IT WAS STILL A REQUEST FOR A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND THEN A PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR, AND HE WAS GIVEN PERMISSION FOR A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. YES. IS THIS A REASON FOR US TO TAKE A VOTE INSTEAD OF NOT DOING INSTEAD OF DOING LACK OF MOTION STUFF? UM, UM, MAYBE. OKAY. SO IF , IF, UH, WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT INSIGHT. UM, IF, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? I, I'M INTERESTED IN WAITING OUT THE, I MEAN, PERSONALLY WAITING OUT THE YEAR AND THEN YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE, IF WE DIDN'T MESS UP, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK, OKAY. WELL, I THINK, UH, I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION. WE'LL JUST SEE HOW THE VOTE TURNS OUT. AND SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON SO THAT WE YEAH, SO HERE I'LL EVEN, I'LL EVEN DO THIS, UM, I MOVE TO CON TO WAIVE THE 12 MONTH TIME LIMITATION, UH, FOR A SUB SUB ENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION LOCATED AT ONE 15 MILTON STREET. END OF MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. SO WHAT, SO THIS IS A, SO THERE'S A, UM, AT ONE 15 MILTON STREET, THAT PROPERTY, IF THIS GETS PASSED, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO COME BACK TO THE BOA INSTEAD OF WAITING TILL NOVEMBER. IF IT FAILS, I'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL NOVEMBER. AND TO ME, THIS IS A WHEN HEAR THE CASE, RIGHT? ANYWAY, WHETHER IT'S NOW OR NOVEMBER, IT HELPS THE CITY AT LEAST KIND OF ADVANCE, AT LEAST DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE OF SOME ISSUES WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THERE WITH THE CITY. SO I, I THINK THIS IS AT LEAST TRYING TO MAKE SOME LIMIT OUTTA ELIMINATES HERE. SURE. ELIMINATE OUTTA LIMIT HERE AND TRY TO MOVE IT FORWARD. RIGHT. AND, AND THIS PROJECT IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD UNTIL, UNTIL A MOTION OR SOMETHING IS APPROVED, UH, WITHIN THE TENTATIVE AGENDA, WHICH WON'T BE TILL ONE JULY IF THIS IS APPROVED. RIGHT. BRAGMAN WAIT, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, AND THEN COMMISSIONER DEAN, HOW FAR ALONG IS THIS PROJECT? I MEAN, THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE'RE SEEING ON GOOGLE MAP LOOKS LIKE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION. SO IS THIS, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE SAME, UM, FROM LAST TIME IN NOVEMBER, EXCEPT THEY POURED, UM, THEY MADE THE SHAPE OF THE, SO, SO THE BUILDING IS ALMOST COMPLETE AT THIS POINT. UM, THE DRIVEWAY IS ONLY FORMED BUT NOT POURED. COMMISSIONER, DEAN, UH, SO IF WE CONDUCT A VOTE SINCE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE, IT'S BEEN SECONDED, WILL IT BE A MAJORITY OR HOW IS THAT GONNA WORK WITH THE NUMBERS? NUMBERS HERE WE NEED 9 9 9 9 MUST APPROVE IT FOR IT TO PROCEED. RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. AND, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE DID, HOW DID, HOW DID HE GET A PERMIT JUST TO DO THE DUPLEX IF THE PARKING WASN'T COMPLIANT? THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS, IS ISSUED WITH PARKING IN THE BACK, UM, UPON, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS WITH THE SIP PERMIT TO REVIEW THE ALLEY, THEY REALIZED THAT THE TURN RADIUS COULDN'T WORK. OH YEAH. AND SO THEY HAD TO COME IN FOR THE POST PERMIT. GOTCHA. NOW I'M STARTING TO REMEMBER THIS MORE AND MORE. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. AND WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS IN, IN JULY OR INEVITABLY IN NOVEMBER. YES. IT'S FOR, UH, YEAH, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE, IF YOU VOTE YAY OR YES, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UM, APPROVING THE WAIVER OF THE 12 MONTHS. SO GO AHEAD. BUT, UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, SO, SO THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT BEFORE US, AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, REALLY NOTHING'S CHANGED OR POTENTIALLY NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND WE'RE RECONSIDERING WITH MAYBE NEW ADDITIONAL DETAILS PROVIDED, BUT FOR THE MOST PART WE'RE, WE'RE VOTING ON THE SAME? NO. SO IT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ONE. UM, SO INSTEAD OF THE 24 FOOT, UM, WHAT WE WOULD BE COMING ADVERTISING FOR AND COMING BACK FOR IS TWO 15 FOOT DRIVEWAYS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO ROLL CALL VOTE [05:25:02] CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MANA? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? NO. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? NO. ALL RIGHT. MOTION FAILS. UH, SEVEN, UH, SIX TO FIVE. SO I GUESS WE'LL SEE THIS IN NOVEMBER. LAST ITEM I'M ON [ Approval of Minutes  ] THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 3RD. I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS, BUT THEY OTHERWISE LOOKED OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO HAVE ANY, UH, YEAH, I THOUGHT THEY WERE, UM, THEY'VE BEEN IMPROVED CONSIDERABLY FROM OVER THE LAST RIGHT? THEY HAVE. I I DID SUBMIT ONE CHANGE IN THE, THAT'S BEEN CORRECTED, SO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. I'LL GIVE THAT TO BEN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. AND, UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A CRAZY SET OF MINUTES FOR NEXT TIME. A LOT OF BOUNCING AROUND ON THIS ONE. SO, UH, WITH THAT IT IS SIX. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? [ Director’s Report  ] NO, BUT PLEASE, UH, TAKE, UH, SO CHICK-FIL-A WITH YOU ORDER. DIDN'T SEE I GET UP THERE. ALL RIGHT. 6 48 WE'RE ADJOURNED. * 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.