* 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. [00:00:03] IT'S ONE O'CLOCK. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. CAN WE HAVE THE, UH, SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? HERE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I AM PRESENT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE 11 AND A QUORUM. ALL RIGHT, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE RISE AS UH, JOIN ME WITH THE PLEDGE. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D 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 THE STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE 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 IN THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED AT 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 BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS, UH, FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. UM, IN ADDITION, WE ALSO HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE 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 TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. STAFF WILL BE BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE I SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN IN THE ORDER YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. THOSE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO [00:05:01] ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR. YES, I UNDERSTAND. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] ITEM NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE IS THE APPLICANT FOR 9 3 9 WALLACE STREET PRESENT STAFF. WHO DO YOU, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE DATE THAT THE REQUEST THERE IS SEPTEMBER 23RD AND WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY. OKAY, LET'S UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ITEM NINE UP TO THE AGENDA. UH, SO IF WE CAN, UH, DO THAT CASE PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 46 LOCATED AT 9 3 9 UH WALLACE STREET. UH, REQUEST BY YOLANDA ALVARADO FOR 19 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A CORNER CLEAR VISION OF SIX FEET STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 23RD TO ENGAGE WITH THE UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ALRIGHT, LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL. THIS IS GLORIA HERNANDEZ. MY ADDRESS IS THIRTY SEVEN TWENTY THREE EL PASO STREET. PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 840-4810. AND UH, I'M PRESIDENT OF THE LOS PALMAS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE NUMBER, UH, THE LAST THREE DIGITS ARE 1 4 6. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, SO, UM, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UH, TO SEPTEMBER 23RD, MOVE FOR CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 23RD. SECOND AS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, MOTION PASSES. UH, RIGHT, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE PLEASE AND COMMISSIONER BONILLA. UM, IF YOU CAN, UM, TURN OFF YOUR, UH, VIDEO, UH, WE'RE GONNA NEED YOU FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO AND ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE NINE BOARD MEMBERS, OR I'M SORRY, 11 BOARD MEMBERS, SOMEBODY CUS STEVENS FROM NINE IT WRONG. SO BRUCE CUS THANK YOU RILEY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS LOCATED AT 2 6 3 9 EAST COMMERCE STREET, UNIT 2 0 1 AND IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE PER SECTION OF THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK LOCATED AT 2 6 3 9 EAST COMMERCE STREET UNIT 1 0 1 AND WAS ISSUED ON MAY 2ND, 2023. THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 10% AND IF AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 20%. THIS EXCEEDS THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS. THERE IS NO CODE VIOLATIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, OR ACTIVE LISTINGS FOUND FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND THE FOLLOWING PICTURES ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. AND THERE WERE 41 NOTICES SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED AND STAFF RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FOR JEFFERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. HI, UH, MY NAME IS RICHARD DAL. UH, MY WIFE AND I OWN [00:10:01] THE DUPLEX AT 26 39 EAST COMMERCE STREET. AND UH, YEAH, WE ARE APPLYING FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL EXEMPTION. UM, THE REASON WE WE APPLIED WAS BASICALLY WE LOOKED AT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL EXEMPTIONS IN THE AREA THAT WERE, UH, EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE GRANTED. AND IF YOU LOOK AT BELMONT STREET, SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS THE MATERIAL THAT WE SENT. YEAH, RIGHT THERE. SO BELMONT STREET IS RIGHT BEHIND, UH, OUR, OUR DUPLEX AND THERE WERE TWO EXEMPTIONS OR TWO, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, APPROVALS GRANTED AT FIVE 11 AND FIVE 15, WHICH ARE TWO HOUSES NEXT TO EACH OTHER. UH, AND IF YOU SEE OTHER, UH, APPROVALS ON BELMONT STREET, THERE ARE UH, QUITE A FEW, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL EXEMPTIONS GRANTED. UH, BUT ON COMMERCE STREET, I MEAN OTHER THAN THE, UH, THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL, UH, APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR UNIT DOWNSTAIRS, THERE IS NO, UH, STR UH, UP TO I 10 AND THEN ONLY ONE ACTIVE PERMIT, UH, ALL THE WAY TO I 37 AT 1120 COMMERCE STREET. SO WE FEEL THAT, UH, THE DENSITY IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE MUCH. PLUS, UH, THIS IS A DUPLEX, IT'S NOT TWO SEPARATE UNITS. WE HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACE, UH, FOR FOUR VEHICLES, UH, ON OUR PROPERTY. UH, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE ISSUES OF PARKING ON THE STREET. AND THEN WE LOOKED AT LIKE SURROUNDING AREAS LIKE WITHIN LIKE A MILE, A MILE AND A HALF, UH, RADIUS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, PERMITS ISSUED ON MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS ON WYOMING STREET ON MONTANA. UM, YEAH, SO, UM, I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE CLAIM THAT IT'S GOING TO LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, GREATLY CHANGE THE DENSITY, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD GIVEN THAT OTHER STREETS, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO US ARE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA HAVE A MUCH HIGHER DENSITY OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. AND THEN I WASN'T SURE UH, OF THE SAFETY THING OF THAT CLAIM THAT IT'S GOING TO BE UNSAFE FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TENANTS. I MEAN, UH, WE ARE GONNA HAVE A TENANT THERE EITHER A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OR A LONG-TERM TENANT. SO I REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SAFETY CONCERNS WERE. UM, SO, UH, YEAH, THAT, THAT'S OKAY. UH, I MANNA GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. CAN YOU BRING UP ONE STOP AND SHOW SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE AREA? 'CAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, UM, UM, NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS BEING PROVIDED WITH REGARDS TO THE AREA AROUND HERE. UM, ON THE ONE THAT HE DID IDENTIFY, IT DOES APPEAR, IT'S A TYPE ONE AND A TYPE TWO AND A TYPE ONE CERTAINLY IS PERMITTED ON ANY PROPERTY. UM, SO IT'S NOT SIDE BY SIDE ON MONTANA OR BELMONT STREET. AND THEN WITHIN 1500 FEET, YOU KNOW, I DO SEE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, UH, NINE OTHER SHORT TERM RENTALS. BUT UM, YOU KNOW, SO I GUESS I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO, UH, QUANTIFY OR QUALIFY THE STATEMENT BEING PROVIDED. THANK YOU. SO FOR, FOR THE, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON SCREEN IS WHAT, UH, IS ON OUR SAN OFFICIAL GIS DATA. THAT'S REF, THAT'S SHOWING ALL THE CURRENT SHORT TERM RENTALS. UH, WHICH IT SEEMS TO CONTRAST WITH THE MAP THAT YOU HAD HAD SHOWN WITH ALL THE RED DOTS ON IT. JUST SO, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'LL BE, UH, I GUESS MAYBE WE DIDN'T REALIZE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, THE RED AND THE BLUE THAT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER. IS THAT, UH, THE, THE, THE ORANGE, UH, ARE TYPE TWO AND THE BLUE IS A TYPE ONE. OKAY. UH, RIGHT. SO THAT EXPLAINS HOW THE TWO ARE ON WELLMONT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER. YES. UH, TYPE ONES ARE ALLOWED, UH, HOWEVER TYPE TWO, UH, ALL THE TIME TYPE TWOS ARE, ARE LIMITED TO THE 12 POINT A HALF PERCENT. UH, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHEN DID THE FIRST TYPE TWO TYPE ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AT YOUR ADDRESS GET GRANTED? UM, I THINK IT SHOWED HERE. I DON'T REMEMBER. IT SHOWED IN YOUR PRESENTATION. WHEN WAS IT? MAY 2ND. MAY, MAY 2ND OF THIS YEAR. LAST YEAR. LAST YEAR. LAST YEAR, YES. OKAY. STAFF IS ARE, UM, THIS MAP IS IS CURRENT. YOU, UH, YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY CURRENT ABOUT SHOWING THE GRANDFATHER TYPE TWOS. SO, 'CAUSE WHAT I'M SEEING IS JUST A BUNCH OF ORANGES. UM, YES, THE MAP IS CURRENT WITH THE GRANDFATHER PERMITS AS BLUE AND GREEN. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? THE ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT. SO SIR, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND [00:15:01] WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. THERE'S NO VOICEMAIL FOR THIS ONE. OH, OKAY. SO YOU'VE HEARD SOME, UH, COMMENTARY REGARDING THE THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. AND IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, UH, THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT? RIGHT, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, I MEAN, IT'S, IT, IT IS A DUPLEX, SO IT'S, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S A SINGLE WATER METER, WHICH IS HOW THE CITY, UH, DID THE CONNECTION. ALTHOUGH, YEAH, ON THE MAILING FOR THE USPS, IT'S TWO UNITS. SO YEAH, I MEAN I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN EXCEPTION THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE, I MEAN, ALTHOUGH IT'S TWO, UH, SDRS THAT TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE DENSITY OF THE SDRS ON THE BLOCK. UH, IT'S NOT TWO SEPARATE, UH, BUILDINGS. AND I, I MEAN, I STILL DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY CONCERN THAT WAS GIVEN AS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF. OKAY. AND, UH, I I I'M GONNA ASK ANOTHER QUESTION THAT, THAT WE TYPICALLY HEAR ON THESE. IF IS THIS APPLICANT ON HIS EXISTING SDR RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS SINCE MAY OF LAST YEAR? UM, WE HAVE NO RECORDS OF ANY COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND ALSO YOU, YOU HAVE A DUPLEX, IS ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BLOCK FACE? ARE THEY, ARE THERE DUPLEXES? 'CAUSE THEY'RE, A LOT OF THESE CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE IS NO DUPLEX, THERE'S NO OTHER DUPLEX, UH, ON THAT BLOCK. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, I MEAN, JUST TO ADD TO THE COMPLAINTS, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINT FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. OKAY. UH, FOR THE LAST YEAR OR WHATEVER. ALL RIGHT. BRAGMAN, WELL, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, HAVE YOU TRIED RENTING OUT THE OTHER UNIT LONG TERM? WE, THE LAST OUT OF THE LAST THREE LONG-TERM TENANTS, WE HAVE HAD TWO OF THEM HAVE DISAPPEARED IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR LEASE. AND THE LAST ONE WE HAD TO ASK HER TO LEAVE BECAUSE ON HER LEASE APPLICATION, SHE, SHE SAID SHE HAD NO PETS. AND THEN AFTER A MONTH WE REALIZED SHE HAD FOUR DOGS IN A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT. SO, SO YES, WE HAVE TRIED LONG TERM RENTALS WITH NOT MUCH SUCCESS. I FEEL YOUR PAIN. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A, UM, ONE TYPE TURN, TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 2 6 3 9 EAST COMMERCE STREET, UNIT 2 0 1. APPLICANT BEING, UH, IVANNI BE, UM, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE ADDITIONAL RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THE FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. UH, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT'LL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL D ADEQUATE, UH, UTILITIES ACCESS, ROAD ACCESS, UH, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING, APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJU ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE, UH, 12 OR 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR, UH, TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORY OF REVOCATION, CITATIONS, OR CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR OTHER PROPERTIES. F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING ALL STREET PARKING AND MAINTAIN IT FOR THE, UM, FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION [00:20:01] AND A MOTION. SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO WHILE I DO READ THIS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I WILL, UH, UNFORTUNATELY NOT BE SUPPORTING IT. AND UM, ONE IS THAT I, I DO AGREE WITH THE, UH, ONE NOTE THAT WAS SAID IN, UH, IN OPPOSITION WITH REGARDS TO HOW THEY LOOK AT THAT BLOCK FACE. AND UM, AND SO I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, BEING THAT THERE ARE NINE OTHER SHORT TERM RENTALS WITHIN FAIRLY CLOSE PROXIMITY, YOU KNOW, THIS AREA SEEMS TO BE WELL SUPPORTED BY THAT AND ADDING MORE, UH, DOES CHANGE THE FLAVOR OF THIS FROM BEING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, SO I'M TAKING THE OPPOSITE. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. UM, I SEE NO OPPOSITION FROM THE ADJOIN, UH, ADJACENT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE MOST AFFECTED. ARE THE HOMEOWNERS OR THE OWNER ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE IT CHANGES THE STR DENSITY IN THE AREA. WE HAVE NO COMPLAINT. HE APPEARS TO BE A GOOD OPERATOR AND I DO BELIEVE IT, UH, PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, NEEDS FOR THE COMMUNITY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD? UH, HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT, UH, MOTION FAILS. UH, SIX TO FIVE. WE DO NEED NINE VOTES OR SOMETHING TO PASS. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, MOVING FORWARD, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. ALRIGHT, THANKS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER TWO. ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 5. ADDRESS BEING 32 40 LEBLANC STREET COUNCIL, DISTRICT 10 APPLICANT MARTIN HAGAN. UH, A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. AND THEN A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE REAR SETBACK. ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, SOUTH OF LOOP 1604 NORTHEAST OF THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE ON THE CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROAD DRIVE AND LE LEBLANC STREET ON MAY 16TH, 2024. THE APPLICANT ALSO BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR BUILDING A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO REMAIN ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE SETBACK AND ONE FOOT FROM THE REAR SETBACK. UH, PERMIT APPROVAL IS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IT'S VIEW OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT THIS IS A CONTINUANCE. UM, WE, WE DID TALK, WE DID HAVE THIS, UM, PRESENTED, UM, A COUPLE WEEKS BACK. UM, SO THIS IS JUST A CONTINUANCE AND IT'LL HAVE SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AFTERWARDS, BUT THIS IS THE REAR SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, AND THEN A VIEW ACROSS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO [00:25:01] OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE DISTANCE IS NOT SUITABLE AS IT IMPOSES ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. UH, BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, TWO LIMITS ACCESS FOR GENERAL UPKEEP OF THE STRUCTURE AND WILL CREATE WATER RUNOFF ON NEIGHBORING LOT STAFF MAILED 32 NOTICES. ONE WAS IN FAVOR, ZERO IS ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE EDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. NO CHANGE. THIS WAS THE IN FAVOR. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, UH, BEFORE YOU GO. YES SIR. DID THE APPLICANT TURN IN AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FROM CPSA? THEY DID. I'M GONNA PULL THAT UP NEXT. FANTASTIC. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND DISCUSS OUR EASEMENT, ENCROACHMENT WITH YOU. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR, I'M SORRY. I'M MARTIN HAGAN. THANK YOU. PROPERTY OWNER? YEAH. YEAH, MY WIFE KIM IS BEHIND ME. YEAH. AND THIS IS, UM, JONATHAN. HE'S THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION BUILDER. UM, LAST MEETING WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE DETAILS ON THIS AND THE ASK WAS THAT WE, UH, PROVIDE YOU WITH AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AND WE'VE DONE SO, UM, JUST TO SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIONS FROM EITHER ANYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANY OF THE UTILITY COMPANIES. UH, THE CPS AGREEMENT THAT THEY ARE SHOWING COVERS NOT ONLY THE THE NEW STRUCTURE, BUT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION REGARDING A STORAGE SHED THAT WAS ADJACENT TO THIS NEW STRUCTURE. UM, CPS ENERGY WENT AHEAD AND PUT THAT INTO THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL. UM, AT AND T PROVIDED US A LETTER OF NO OBJECTIONS. UM, DR. BREMERTON, YOU HAD A QUESTION REGARDING MAINTENANCE. ON THE, ON THE, UH, STRUCTURE, THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT ENTIRELY ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S BUILT IN IN A MANNER THAT SHOULD IT NEED TO BE REPAIRED, IT COULD BE REPAIRED 100% FROM OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S, UH, PARTITIONS WHICH CAN BE REMOVED AND EXTRACTED TO BE WORKED ON IF THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED ON OR IF THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED AND EXTRACTED TO WORK ABOVE THOSE. SO THERE'S AN ABILITY TO FULLY REPAIR AND REPLACE ANY PART OR ANY ASPECT OF THAT STRUCTURE AS NEEDED. WHOLLY FROM MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, THE FENCE LINE THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS IS ACTUALLY ABOUT, UH, MAYBE A FOOT OFF BECAUSE THAT FENCE IS OUR OWN INTERNAL FENCE. THERE WAS ANOTHER FENCE THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME, AND I'M JUST IN CASE ANYBODY FOR IS FORGETTING. UM, UH, THE NEIGHBORS HAD DOGS AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO TAKE THE FENCE DOWN. SO WE BUILT OUR OWN. THEY HAVE, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THEIR ADJOINING FENCE LATER, BUT, SO I REALLY HAVE MORE CLEARANCE THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS. UM, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL RAINSTORMS, UM, A COUPLE WERE RATHER HARD AND THERE'S BEEN NO RAIN DAMAGE. BUT WE STILL INTEND ON INSTALLING THE GUTTER AND FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO DAMAGE GOING FORWARD TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 'CAUSE WE'RE CLOSE TO THE FENCE LINE. UM, PENDING ANY QUESTIONS, SIR? I'M, I'M VERY HAPPY THAT YOU GOT AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT, SO THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT STAFF. IS THERE ANY, UM, VOICEMAILS OR ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT. UM, I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR THE REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK INTO A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM AND FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A ONE FOOT REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 32 40 LELONG STREET. APPLICANT BEING MARTIN HAGEN BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY AS SUCH THAT ARE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UDC HAS AMENDED, WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC STAFF FINDS A ONE FOOT SIX SIDE STEPBACK AND ONE FOOT REAR STEPBACK IS SUITABLE DISTANCE FROM THE, UH, SHARED PROPERTY LINE AND WILL NOT LIMIT ACCESS AROUND THE STRUCTURE. FOR UPKEEP, UPKEEP OUR INJURED NEIGHBORING LOT, UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT, UH, PANELS BEING ABLE TO REMOVED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY MAINTENANCE. UH, AND THE GUTTERS THAT HE, UH, STATED WOULD BE, WOULD BE, UM, A PART OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. [00:30:01] A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A REAR YARD HAS A LIMITED AVAILABLE SPACE TO A, UH, TO ADJUST ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO MEET THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE THREE FOOT SIX INCH SITE SETBACK AND FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANCE APPEAR TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE AREA FOR THE VARIANCE WITHOUT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED AS THE ZONING DISTRICT. BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES UNDER THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SAWS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO ARE THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED, UH, STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AS THE CURRENT LOT SIZE RESTRICTS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S OPTIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, PLACEMENT AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING, UH, THE VARIANCES READ. UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, BROUGHT, UH, BROUGHT US THE, UM, EASEMENT, UM, UH, NECESSARY TO, UH, ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURE, PROVIDED THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BEING ABLE TO BE MAINTAINED FROM HIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WE SAW NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT'D BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE PROPERTY AND NO OPPOSITION FROM THE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HE, UH, IS GOING TO ADD THE GUTTERS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FROM WATER. UH, SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMERS LIKE TO ADD? UH, I WILL SAY THAT I AM A, AGAIN, SUPER HAPPY THAT YOU GOT THAT FROM CPS AND FROM AT AND T THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, SO I'LL BE IN TOTAL SUPPORT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF THE FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. UH, I WILL BE RECUSING FROM ITEM NUMBER THREE. NUMBER THREE, I, I TURN THE, UH, GAVEL OVER TO, UH, VICE CHAIRMAN OZUNA ALL AND, UH, COMMISSIONER BONNI. CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY? THE TIME IS 1 33 AND, UM, I IS STEPPING ASIDE AND WE'LL HAVE 11 AND RIGHT FOR THE BOARD. MR. BON, MR. IF YOU CAN TURN YOUR CAMERA BACK ON. COMMISSIONER BEEZ, UH, DO WE SEE HIM AS MR. EZ? CAN YOU? OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHTY. UH, 11 AND, UH, STAFF, CAN YOU BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE? THANK YOU. IT'S BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 1. ADDRESSES ARE 1301 AND 1311 EAST ALMIRA STREET, EIGHT 13 EAST MYRTLE STREET, EIGHT 18 EAST LOCUST STREET, AND 1212 THROUGH 1218 EAST EUCLID STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT OXBOW DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTS A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS TO ALLOW A ONE INCH SIDE AND REAR SETBACK. ZONING IS IDZ THREE CASE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE INCH SETBACKS FOR THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY REZONED IN JUNE, 2024, UH, ENTIRELY TO IDZ THREE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE FRONT SETBACK. THE PROPOSED USE PER APPROVED REZONING IS A VARIETY OF MIXED COMMERCIAL AND UP TO 325 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. BOA STAFF ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL. HOWEVER, AFTER THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH THE TRAFFIC SECTION, THEY CONCLUDED THAT NO SITE DISTANCE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS STATED FOLLOWING FOR THIS REQUEST, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY. DISTRICT TWO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ON MAY 15TH, 2024 WITH STIPULATIONS FINAL APPROVAL BY THE HDRC IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW OUTLINE IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY [00:35:22] AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON ITS OWN BLOCK AND WILL NOT CREATE A SITE VISION ISSUE. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ALLOWS THE AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED SETBACKS. WE MAILED OUT 36 NOTICES, UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. UM, AND THE, SO JOE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AS WELL. AND HERE WAS THE ONE IN OPPOSITION. COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE, WHERE THAT OPPOSITION IS? WHERE, UM, LET'S SEE WHERE IT, IT'S A, IT'S KIND OF TINY TO SEE, UM, BUT IT WAS, UH, IS THAT KINDA THE MID, MID CENTER OF THE BLOCK? RIGHT. PROPERTY. RIGHT. OKAY. CAN YOU SEE THAT? OH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, I SEE IT. OKAY. AWESOME. AND THAT'S THE ONLY OPPOSITION WE HAD ON YES, THAT'S THE ONLY OPPOSITION. AND THEN I WILL PULL UP BOTH OF THE, UM, THE TOBIN HILL. OKAY. THERE'S, RIGHT AFTER THE , THIS IS SOJO HOMEOWNERS APPROVAL, AND I DON'T THINK TOBIN HILL IS IN THIS SLIDE, BUT WE'LL PULL IT UP RIGHT AFTER. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. AND LET'S PULL UP THAT FOR, FOR CONTEXT. FOR CONTEXT, COULD YOU SHOW US THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE PEARL AND OVERALL PEARL DEVELOPMENT? RIGHT. UM, IT'S DIRECTLY WEST PAST THAT RIVER AND WE CAN PULL UP THE, UH, ONE STOP MAP AS WELL. LET'S PULL UP, AND THIS IS TOBIN HILLS, UM, SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE. AND THEN WE CAN BRING UP THE MAP TO SHOW THE PROXIMITY TO THE PEARL. WELL, HE'S DOING THAT. UH, LET'S SEE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? MANNA MR. MANNA? SO, UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S PERMITTED IN IDZ THREE, IT TALKS ABOUT NOT NEEDING SETBACKS OR, OR BEING EXCUSED. CAN YOU, CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OR, OR BETTER CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS WITH REGARDS TO, UM, DISTANCE FROM THE STREET TO THE, UH, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE STREET TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IMPLYING THAT BASICALLY IS BUILT RIGHT ON THE STREET. SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS. ALRIGHT, SO THE, UH, IDZ ALLOWS FOUR OR FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK. UM, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO DO A MAJOR, UH, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THIS TO GO TO BOARD OF. IT STILL HAS TO GET APPROVED BY Y'ALL, BUT DID NOT HAVE TO GO, UM, TO GET A SITE PLAN, A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, AND THE TRAFFIC TEAM DETERMINED IF IT'S UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, IT WAS NOT GONNA CREATE A, UH, SITE DISTANCE ISSUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR, UH, EITHER VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENT? A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET'S HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UM, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS OMAR GONZALEZ, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT FOR OXBOW DEVELOPMENT GROUP, UH, WHO'S PART OF THE OWNERSHIP GROUP ON THIS PARCEL. AND I'LL, I THINK I'LL GET, BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS WITH SOME OF THESE MAPS AS WELL. SO IF YOU CAN FORWARD TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO HERE, UH, IT IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO PEARL. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S JUST WEST [00:40:01] OF THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER. UH, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ADDITIONS THAT, UH, IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW ARE TWO MORE BRIDGES THAT WILL FURTHER LINK THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PEARL. AND WE IMAGINE THAT, UM, ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE FREQUENTLY GET IS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING AT PEARL. SO THE, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS SITE, THE FIRST THING WE THOUGHT WAS HOW DO WE PARK A BUNCH OF CARS HERE? BECAUSE WE THINK THAT, UH, PEARL AND IT'S CONTINUED, UM, AMENITIES AND EVEN MORE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE, UH, WILL CONTINUE TO BE A POPULAR PLACE FOR SAN ANTONIANS TO, TO GATHER. SO, UH, SO ONE OF THE, KIND OF THE GEOGRAPHIC, UM, YOU KNOW, GEOMETRY EQUATIONS THAT GOES IN WHEN YOU LOOK AT A SITE LIKE THIS IS HOW DO YOU FIT PARKING? AND, YOU KNOW, PARKING COMES IN BAYS. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY ARE ABLE TO FIT A THREE BAY PARKING GARAGE, WHICH IS A SUPER EFFICIENT WAY, UH, TO PUT CARS AND TO DO IT IN A REALLY, UH, EASY TO USE FASHION. SO IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, I'LL GO ONE MORE. YEAH, SO YOU CAN SEE THERE, UH, ANGLED PARKING. UM, AND SO IT'S EASY TO GET A PICKUP TRUCK OR A LARGE SUV IN AND OUTTA THE PARKING GARAGE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO WAS EXPOSE THAT PARKING GARAGE TO THE NEIGHBORS. SO WE WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY WRAP THAT GARAGE ON THREE SIDES. UM, OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU DID, WHEN WE DID THAT, IT KIND OF TOOK AWAY THE GEOMETRY THAT, THAT WE HAD REMAINING FOR SETBACKS. BUT I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET IS EIGHT FOOT FOUR INCHES. SO IN MOST CASES YOU'VE GOT, UH, YOU KNOW, 12, UH, ABOUT 12 FEET OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE BACK OF CURB. UH, WE DO INTEND TO PUT SIDEWALKS THERE. UH, WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS, UH, AND THEN WITH THE REST OF IT WOULD BE KIND OF A LANDSCAPING BARRIER. SO WE DO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE EXTENDING THE SIDEWALKS AND MAKING BRAND NEW SIDEWALKS AND THEN BRINGING AS MUCH SHADE AS WE CAN, UH, THROUGH THE USE OF TREES IN, IN CANOPIES IN THIS AREA. SO IF YOU'LL GO, JUST KIND OF SCROLL THROUGH THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE ARCHITECTURE. THIS IS, THESE ARE THE IMAGES THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE, UH, HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION. UH, ONE OF THEIR ASPECTS WAS RIGHT HERE ON THAT CORNER WAS, UH, KIND OF BRINGING THAT BRICK LEVEL DOWN, TWO STORIES, UM, TO BE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET. SO, UH, SO REALLY TO SUMMARIZE, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS MEETS ALL OF THE CONDITIONS, UH, THAT ARE REQUIRED. UM, WE DON'T THINK WE, WE THINK THAT ONE OF THE MOST UNUSUAL ASPECTS OF THIS AND IS KIND OF WHAT WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER IS WITHIN THE IDZ, THE INFILL, UM, DESIGN. I'M NOT SURE IT CONTEMPLATES WHEN YOU HAVE STREETS ON ALL FOUR SIDES. UH, I GET WHERE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER, UH, BUILDING THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT, BUT WHERE YOU HAVE STREETS, AND A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T WANT TO DISTINGUISH IN AN URBAN SETTING, WHICH IS YOUR FRONT STREET AND WHICH IS YOUR BACK STREET, YOU REALLY WANT TO TREAT ALL THE STREETS SO THAT PEOPLE FEEL, UM, SAFE AND SECURE WALKING ALONG THEM. AND SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS OF IDZ UH, THREE THAT, UM, THAT I THINK THEY, THEY SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN IT'S ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AS LONG AS YOU'RE RESPECTING THAT AREA THAT COULD BE USED FOR SIDEWALKS AND TREES, UM, I THINK YOU'LL GET, UH, BETTER RESULTS WITHOUT THAT SETBACK. SO, UH, IN CONCLUSION, WE'RE MAKING THIS REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET TO FOUR FOOT 11 ON THE REAR INSIDES. THANK YOU MR. GONZALEZ. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, UM, SO THE PARKING GARAGE, IS THAT STREET LEVEL WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ABOVE IT OR IS THE PARKING UNDERGROUND? UH, PARKING IS ON GRADE AND THEN IT'S, IT'S WRAPPED. SO THE, WHAT YOU'LL SEE FROM THE STREET WOULD BE, UH, RES RESIDENTIAL, SOME RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. THERE'S ONLY ONE FACADE IN WHICH YOU'LL SEE THE GARAGE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT PICTURE. UM, BUT UH, FROM THE STREET PERSPECTIVE YOU'LL SEE PORCHES, UM, YOU'LL SEE SOME RETAIL FACADE, UM, LIKE AROUND THAT CORNER. AND THEN EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL USE. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, YOU, YOU ARE STILL GONNA HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND HOW WIDE IS THAT GONNA BE? UH, IT VARIES, UM, BUT I THINK THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS THREE FEET AND THEN IT CAN GET AS WIDE AS, UH, SIX TO EIGHT FEET. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA MR. MANNA? SO, UM, ONE OF THE, UM, NOTES I CAME UP WITH FROM HTRC AND IT TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE PROVISIONS THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR, AND SO, SO, UM, DOES YOUR CURRENT PLAN MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE TALKING THROUGH AND AND GONNA SATISFY ALL THEIR, ALL THEIR NEEDS AS WELL? YES SIR, IT DOES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MANON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, HEARING NONE, I NORMALLY ASK FOR A REBUTTAL, BUT WE HAVE NO, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT OR VOICEMAIL, SO, UM, THAT WOULD END THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN [00:45:05] REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 1. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS TO ALLOW ONE INCH SIDE AND REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 1301 AND 1311 EAST ELMIRA STREET, 8 1 3 EAST MYRTLE STREET, 8 1 8 EAST LOCUST STREET AND 2 12 12 12 THROUGH 1218 EAST EUCLID STREET. APPLICANT BEING OXBOW DEVELOPMENT GROUP, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THROUGH LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST GIVEN THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM ALL OTHER STRUCTURES BY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON ALL SIDES, ENOUGH SPACING IS PRESENT FOR FIRE SAFETY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF IS FOUND SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXISTING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WOULD WARRANT THE NEED FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTED SUCH AS NOT HAVING ABUTTED PROPERTIES ONLY RIGHT OF WAYS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE ENTIRE BLOCK IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND THERE ARE NO ABUTTING USES. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. UH, FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS THERE ARE NONE. STAFF RECOGNIZES A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE CONTAINING THE PROPERTY ON ALL SIDES AND THE IMMEDIATE USES AROUND THE VARIANCE ARE DIRECTLY OFF THE PUBLIC. RIGHT. UH, SIXTH, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE ENTIRE BLOCK BEING, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MR. MANN? A SECOND. MS. BREEN? UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN WELL THOUGHT OUT AND AS, UH, DETERMINED IN THE, UM, UH, THE REQUEST. IT IS A, UH, SINGLE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO IT NO OTHER PROPERTIES, UH, ARE ADJACENT THAT WOULD BE HARMED. UM, AND THEY'RE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY ON ALL SIDES PLUS THE, UM, THE LANDSCAPE BARRIER. UM, SO, AND YOU ADDRESS THE PARKING SITUATION. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS FITS NICELY WITHIN THAT WHOLE COMMUNITY AND, AND LOOKS LIKE IT'LL BE AN ASSET AND UH, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY PUTTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA JUST ADD TOO, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. I THINK IT'S, THIS PROJECT IS KIND OF A CONTINUANCE OF THE PEARL AND THE PEARL OBVIOUSLY HAS BROUGHT TREMENDOUS VALUE TO THE CITY. UH, ALSO GIVEN THE ROADS ON FOUR, FOUR SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE, UM, THE SETBACKS ARE REALLY GONNA BE THAT MUCH OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE THAT THE ROADS CREATE. SO, AND OF COURSE IT WENT THROUGH HDRC AND WE HAVE THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT AND, UM, MAJORITY OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORT. SO I THINK, UH, UH, WELL I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER AMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI, CAN WE GET A THUMBS, THUMBS UP OR HE NODDED. CAN WE GET A THUMBS UP? OKAY. CHAIR ZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. SO IN 10 IN FAVOR? ZERO. UH, ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE PASSES AS READ. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE. I'LL WAIT. UH, LET'S SEE IF DONALD, I AM HESITANT TO GIVE UP THE POWER . [00:50:03] ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR BOA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 2 8. ADDRESS IS 29 18 LYNN ROAD. UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE APPLICANT GUADALUPE IBARRA, UH, REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT FRONT CARPORT SETBACK TO A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT CAR CARPORT, SETBACK, AND A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, UH, ZONING IS R FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 30, INTERSTATE 87 SITUATED BETWEEN PECAN VALLEY DRIVE AND SOUTHEAST MILITARY DRIVE. APPROXIMATELY 265 FEET OF QUIG ROAD AND LYNN ROAD INTERSECTION. ON AUGUST 30TH, 2022, CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A CITIZEN CALL REGARDING A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. DURING INVESTIGATION CODE ENFORCEMENT DETERMINED THAT THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE INVESTIGATION FURTHER DETERMINED THAT THE CARPORT DID NOT COMPLY WITH UDC SETBACK REGULATIONS. THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2022. HOWEVER, OFFICER NOTES FROM FEBRUARY 15TH, 2023 REFLECT THAT THE PERMIT DEPARTMENT DEEMED THE PERMIT INVALID DUE TO THE CARPORT NOT BEING BUILT TO THE SITE. PLAN SPECIFICATIONS RECORDS INDICATE THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT ROUTINELY RE UH, REINSPECTED AND ISSUED MULTIPLE CITATIONS REGARDING THE CARPORT ON THE PROPERTY SINCE OCTOBER OF 2022 UNTIL JUNE OF 28 OF 2024 WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A SEVEN FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO REMAIN THREE FEET FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF FOUND THAT THE FRONT YARD FENCE LIGHTING GATE HAD ALSO BEEN INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION PERMIT IS PENDING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, A HISTORICAL VIEW PRIOR TO THE 20 19 20 19 FRONT SETBACK MEASUREMENTS AND THEN SIDE SETBACK MEASUREMENTS AND CLEAR VISION VIEW ACROSS FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. AND THEN THESE ARE SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCE, A STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 24 DASH THREE EIGHT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS SIMILAR PROPERTIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE AREA. THE FENCE LO TWO, THE FENCES LOCATED LOCATION LEAVES SIGNIFICANT ROOM OR SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND SAFETY. UM, BACKING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL STREET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 8. UH, ONE, THE CARPORT FRONT SETBACK WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND DOES NOT LEAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND TWO, THE CARPORT REDUCED SITE SETBACK DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE ESTABLISHED PROPERTY LINE CAUSING INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. STAFF MAILED 34 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED BY THE HIGHLAND HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. CAN YOU, UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING UP THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS, UM, IT'S A PHOTO DOWN THE SIDE. UM, I'M THAT ONE RIGHT HERE. THE VARIANCE ON THE AGENDA IS FOR A CARPORT TO BE AS CLOSE AS THREE FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE IT, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE POST AND WHERE THE FENCE IS, THE, THE GATE AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT'S FAR MORE THAN THREE FEET. IF Y'ALL COULD KIND OF LOOK INTO THAT, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT AS [00:55:01] WELL. YEAH. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IF YOU KNOW FROM OTHER PEOPLE DOWN THE STREET, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE FENCING OR GATES THAT ARE RIGHT BEHIND THE SIDEWALK. THE SAME ABOUT, ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISTANCE. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY. THIS IS WHAT'S BEFORE IS, IS THE NUMBERS ARE AT, UM, CORRECT. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. YES, SIR. OKAY. ONE, ONE SECOND. HERE SHE COMES. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, UH, FOR THE RECORD. GUADALUPE. AND CAN YOU, CAN YOU ASK THE, UH, THE MICROPHONE TO? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH GU. ALL RIGHT. UH, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOUR, UH, YOUR PROJECT. UM, SO ORIGINALLY WE WERE MARRIED AND WE SEPARATED. NOW WE ARE DIVORCED AND HE GAVE ME THE HOME SO I CAN SAY THAT I INHERITED EVERYTHING, THE ISSUES AND THE HOME. SO HE WAS THE PERSON THAT REQUESTED THE PERMIT, BUT HE NEVER CALLED FOR INSPECTION. SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION. I, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. AND NOW WE HAVE THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. UM, I HAD A, A QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER. UM, SHE HAS A FENCE IN A GATE THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THE SIDEWALK. IS, UH, TO HER KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT WHERE HER PROPERTY LINE IS? YEAH, MY BOYFRIEND KNOWS BETTER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. I'M SORRY. OKAY. IF YOU COULD STATE HIS NAME. UH, YEAH, THAT IS INSIDE OUR PROPERTY. OKAY. AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW FAR THAT, UH, FIRST POST IS FROM THE FENCE? YEAH, 13, 13 FEET. OKAY. AND, AND YES, DOWN. SO IF I CAN CLARIFY, WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THE, UH, FENCE WAS OUTSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE. UM, BUT AFTER, SO WE ADVERTISED 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE FOUND OUT THE FENCE IS ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE. SO THEIR FRONT SETBACK FOR THE FENCE FOR THE CARPORT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THE REQUIRED DISTANCE. THIS IS ONLY FOR THE SIDE AND CLEAR VISION. OKAY. SO SOME GOOD NEWS. YOU NO LONGER NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. AND THEN REGARDING THE SIDE SETBACK, UH, DO YOU, DOES YOUR CARPORT HAVE GUTTERS? NO. AND WHICH DIRECTION IS IT PITCHED? DOES IT DRAIN TOWARDS THE FRONT? IT GOES TO THE, IT GOES TO THE FRONT. YOU KNOW, THE, THE WATER GOES DOWN TO THE FRONT OF THE HOME. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE CORRUGATION OF THE, UH, YEAH. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NOPE. ALRIGHT. STAFF, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DELIBERATE [01:00:12] QUESTION? DO WE NEED TO MOVE SOMETHING OR WE JUST LEAVE IT? WE'RE GONNA FIND OUT. OKAY. SO, ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE'RE, WE WILL, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MAD COMMISSIONER MADAM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8. I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH CARPORT SIDE SETBACK AND TO A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 2 9 1 8 LYNN ROAD. APPLICANT BEING GUADALUPE IDA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT LEAVES SUFFICIENT ROOM ON THE SIDE AND FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR ANY REQUIRED MAINTENANCE AND NO SEPARATION, UH, BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THE REDUCED 10 FOOT, UH, DRIVEWAY, CLEAR VISION LEAVES, AND A SPACE FOR SITE DISTANCES TO ENSURE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROTECTION. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE STRUCTURE, UM, UM, WOULD NEED TO BE MOVED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. ALSO, THE ENTIRE FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE RECONFIGURED TO ABIDE BY THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE, WILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A MAINTAINABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND RIGHT OF WAY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE USES ALLOWED WITHIN DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE REDUCED SETBACKS AND CLEAR VISION WILL NOT INJURE THE ADJACENT USE CONFORMING PROPERTIES NOR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE, UH, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULTING GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE STAFF FINDS P APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN PROPERTY SUCH AS A LIMITED SPACE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE COVERED PARKING AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER MANANA. UM, SO, SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. IF YOU GOOGLE DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH MANY OF THE HOMES ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, ALSO, UH, WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, CORRUGATED METAL, SLOPED ROOF, UH, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE RUNOFF IS, UH, THE MAJORITY OR ALMOST ALL THE RUNOFF IS DIRECTED, UH, TOWARDS THE STREET. AND SO, SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. ALSO, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS DOESN'T REALLY, UM, UH, UM, PROVIDE ANY PROBLEMS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO, UM, THEREFORE I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON ALL OF THE POINTS. UH, FOR THAT REASON, I WILL ALSO BE IN FAVOR. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD A HEARING? NONE US. HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER VANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? 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 WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN PLEASE GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 9. ADDRESS, 1420 NORTH MAIN AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT. RANDY KIF I REQUEST A 14 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT. FRONT SETBACK ZONING IS C3. [01:05:01] THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH MAIN AVENUE, SOUTH OF WEST EVERGREEN STREET. LOCATED WITHIN THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO INSTALL STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE STRAY SHADE OVER AN OUTSIDE AREA WITHIN THE MAIN AVENUE MCCULLOUGH AVENUE, UH, URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT, UC, FIVE. THE URBAN CORRIDOR PRESCRIBES A SETBACK OF 15 FEET FOR THE ROAD CLASSIFICATION OF NORTH MAIN AVENUE. A PARKING AGREEMENT EXISTS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT ALLOWS UTILIZATION OF PARKING SPACES OF SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE TO COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THE SITE PLAN. AND HERE IS THE PARKING AGREEMENT WE HAVE ON FILE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY ALSO WITHIN THE OR URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT HAVE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SETBACK PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 28 69 D, AND IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED OUT SEVEN NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. AND HERE'S THE EMAIL RECEIVED FROM TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH REGARDS TO TOPI HILL? AND, UM, SO ONE I'D LIKE THE CITY TO, UH, TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED WITH REGARDS TO WHAT IS BEING CALLED OUT AND, UM, IS THAT AN ISSUE OR NOT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THEIR POSITION VERSUS CITY'S POSITION WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING. UH, WE TALKED WITH, UH, THE TRAFFIC SECTION TO PULL UP THAT PARKING AGREEMENT. UM, AND THEN I'LL SAY, SEE IF VINCE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT, I THINK THEIR ONE OTHER CONCERN WAS WITH, UH, NOTICES GETTING SENT TO THE CONDOS. UH, WE ONLY HAD THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, UM, SO IT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON IF THEY WERE OWNERS OR IF THEY WERE JUST RENTALS. AND WE CAN PULL UP THE, WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, UH, PRIMARILY THE, THE DIALOGUE ABOUT PARKING. SO THEY TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF ILLEGAL PARKING ALREADY OCCURRING. AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, JUST A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO, UM, I GUESS THE AGREEMENT WITH THE, UM, SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE LEVERAGING THIS PARKING LOT, YOU KNOW, THAT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT THEN, IS THAT NOT THE CASE, OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THAT, HMM. PARKING, CAN YOU ASK THAT ONE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? SORRY. SO, SO THERE IS, SO THERE IS ONE NOTE THAT SAYS THE PARKING LOT IS TO BE SHARED WITH SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE, IF I SAW CORRECTLY. AND SO IS THIS PER DESIGN STILL MEETING THAT OBLIGATION? AND THEN THE SECOND IS, UM, THIS DISCUSSES A LOT OF CURRENT ILLEGAL PARKING THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING. AND IS THIS GONNA EXASPERATE THAT PROBLEM? SO IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT THE PROPERTY OR THE, UM, THE PARKING ON THIS PROPERTY? UM, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY PARKING AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER ONES, BUT I KNOW THE PARKING AGREEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT'S NOT GONNA BE AFFECTED. SPECIFICALLY, IT TALKS ABOUT STREET PARKING. SO STREET PARKING WOULD NOT BE PART OF THIS PARKING, CORRECT? OR IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THEY HAVE A, THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT IS NOT GONNA, IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT THEIR PARKING FOR THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL ASK THE OTHER QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT THEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THE PARKING AGREEMENT BACK UP? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS ALLOWING PARKING ON, UH, UH, THE, THE [01:10:01] COLLEGE CAMPUS TO, FOR THESE PRIVATE BUSINESSES. IS THAT WHAT THE CRUX OF THIS AGREEMENT IS? THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS GETTING OUT OF IT. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT, UM, I CAN PULL UP ADDITIONAL PAGES FROM IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. YEAH, AND BECAUSE THE OTHER THING IS I ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, UH, THAT THIS WAS DATED IN 2009 AND NOT TOO LONG AGO, UM, SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE BUILT A VERY LARGE PARKING GARAGE AND NO LONGER CHARGES PARKING FEES ON CAMPUS. FOUND THAT OUT AS MY SON IS STARTING TO GO THERE NOW, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY INTERESTING. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S, UH, A, APPEARS TO BE A SURPLUS OF BARKING ON, ON THE SAC CAMPUS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SINCE THIS AGREEMENT WAS PROBABLY MADE. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. AND THEN TO CLARIFY THE OTHER POINT, UM, THE BEXAR COUNTY IS NOT SHOWING THOSE ACROSS THE STREET AS CONDOS. THEY'RE JUST SHOWING THEM AS CORPORATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO SIR. MY NAME IS RANDY EFF, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE BOARD. ALRIGHT, TELL US ABOUT YOUR, I CAN CLARIFY A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE THERE. I'VE, UH, I'VE, I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY, UM, AND THESE BUSINESSES FOR 23 YEARS. SO, UM, I'VE BEEN OPERATING THE NIGHTCLUB NEXT TO IT, HEAT NIGHTCLUB 23 YEARS, AND THEN THIS BUILDING SINCE 2007. AND THE NIGHTCLUBS THAT ARE IN INVOLVED IN IT, UM, I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M NOT SURE I'VE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO THEM THREE TIMES BECAUSE I'M A, I WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF THEM. THEY'RE COMMERCIAL BOARD MEMBER RECENTLY, AND I STILL AM A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND VERY GOOD STANDING WITH 'EM. VERY GOOD. UM, ON THIS AGREEMENT OR ON THEIR APPLICATION OR ON THEIR, IF YOU WOULD LEAVE IT WHERE IT WAS ON THEIR CONCERNS? UM, THE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE RESIDENCE, THEY ARE APARTMENTS. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT CONDOS. SO TO CLARIFY THAT THEY'RE STUDENT, UM, WELL, THEY WERE STUDENT, NOW THEY'RE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. UM, THIRD APPLICANT IS, UH, REQUIRED, OKAY, FIRST OF ALL, IN THAT DISTRICT WE ARE REQUIRED ZERO PARKING, ZERO. MANY OTHER CLUBS HAVE OPENED, UH, DOWN THE STREET FROM ME IN THE PAST YEAR, AND THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY PARKING. AND THERE IS SOME PROBLEMS DOWN A LITTLE BIT FARTHER DOWN MAIN AVENUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING AND THEY'RE PARKING ON THE STREETS A LOT DOWN THERE. BUT OURS IS VERY, VERY CLEAR. ALL OF OUR STREETS AROUND US HAVE NO PARKING SIGNS AND THERE'S NO CONGESTION ON OUR STREETS AROUND MY PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK, UH, ON THE, UM, SITE MAP, SO THERE'S ZERO PARKING REQUIRED, AND I HAVE ON MY PROPERTY FOR THIS PROPERTY, 67 SPACES. AND THEN MY ADJACENT PROPERTY HEAT NIGHTCLUB HAS ANOTHER 110. SO THESE ON MY OWN PROPERTY, I HAVE ABOUT 170 PARKING SPACES FOR MY BUSINESSES. AND THEN THIS, THE CURRENT PARKING AGREEMENT WITH SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE COLLEGE'S GARAGE NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS LOCATED INSIDE THE WRAPAROUND OF THOSE CONDOS ACROSS THE STREET. AND I HAVE 500 SPACES WITH THEM. SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF ABOUT 670 PARKING SPACES FOR MY BUSINESS. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THE OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES, UH, MY EMPLOYEES PARK IN MY OWN PARKING SPACES, UM, AND NONE OF MINE, THAT'S, THAT'S MY, MY POINT TO IS THAT NONE OF MY PARKING IS THE ONES THAT ARE PARKING ON THE STREET. IT'S NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES THAT JUST, JUST OPENED UP WITHIN A BLOCK OR TWO OF ME, UH, SMALLER CLUBS, GRANTED, BUT THEY STILL HAVE OCCUPANCY OF 120, AND THAT'S A LOT OF CARS, YOU KNOW, SO, AND CLIFF, YOU'RE JUST PUTTING IN A, A COVER, IT'S AN OPEN YES, SIR. SO MY PARKING LOT THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE COV THAT WE'RE COVERING, WE HAVEN'T USED THAT AS A PARKING LOT FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS. UM, WAY BEFORE COVID AND SINCE COVID, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY ENCOURAGED US TO MOVE OUTSIDE. WE'VE GOTTEN SEVERAL GRANTS FROM THE CITY TO BUILD SOME OF THE STUFF THAT'S OUTSIDE ALREADY, INCLUDING THE MOST RECENT, UM, FACADE GRANT, UM, ON THAT STREET FOR THAT. WE ALSO HAVE ONE, UH, IN APPLICATION RIGHT NOW FOR $50,000 TO HELP US WITH THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE DOING. SO THE STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO COVER SOME OF THE AREA THAT YOU SEE THERE, UM, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN USED FOR OUTSIDE ENTERTAINMENT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UH, IF ANYTHING, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA HELP WITH THE BEAUTIFICATION AND THE NOISE AND STUFF LIKE THAT FOR THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, IT WOULD, IT, IT, IT, IT'S BASICALLY GONNA KIND OF KEEP EVERYTHING UNDERNEATH. UM, WE DO PLAN ON GETTING, WE'VE WORKED ALSO [01:15:01] WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, AS YOU'RE AWARE MAYBE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UH, FIRE, FIRE PERMITS FOR ALL NIGHTCLUBS NOW. SO WE JUST WORKED WITH THEM RECENTLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND WE HAVE, IF YOU NOTICE, IF THERE WAS AN AERIAL, YOU SEE RIGHT THERE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER, THE RED, UH, THE, THE PARKING. OH, YOU SEE A RED LINE? THAT'S THE FIRE, THAT'S THE FIRE LINE, YEAH. WHEN IT USED TO BE PARKING, THAT WAS THE FIRE LINE WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULDN'T PARK IN WITHIN THAT FIRE LINE. SO WE AGREED THAT WHEN THIS PROJECT IS DONE, WE'RE GONNA SLURRY COAT THE WHOLE PARKING LOT, SO THERE WON'T BE SHOWING ANY PARKING SPACES. AND THEY, UH, APPROVE THAT THE GATES BEING CLOSED IS NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY. AND THIS BUILDING ALSO IS SPRINKLED, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL FOR NIGHTCLUB, BUT WE DID THAT YEARS AGO. WHEN YOU PUT THE OUTDOOR, UH, DINING AREA IN, DID YOU GET A PERMIT FOR THAT? UM, WELL, THERE'S NOTHING STRUCTURALLY READY, UH, THAT NEEDS IT AT THIS TIME. I WAS ASKING THE, THE, THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION IS THAT WHEN, WHENEVER THERE'S A FIRE LANE MARKED, IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE IT WAS REQUIRED AT SOME TIME. YES. I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A FIRE LANE. DID, DID CITY STAFF HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO DETERMINE HOW YOU'RE MEETING COMPLIANCE WITH FIRETRUCK ACCESS? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE FINE. I MEAN, HOW, HOW, YEAH, HOW, HOW LONG IS THAT BUILDING DO YOU THINK? UH, 110 FEET. OKAY. UH, THE LONG, THE LONG SIDE, THE LONG SIDE'S. 110. AND THE PARKING LOT IS ABOUT 42, I THINK, OR 32. THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, OKAY. THAT'S, AND SO AGAIN, HE SAID THAT THE, THE FIRE MARSHAL SAID THAT WITH, THAT'S A GATE RIGHT THERE THAT WILL CLOSE WHEN THAT GATE IS CLOSED. HE HAS NO PROBLEM, UM, WITH FIRE ACCESS, UH, FROM EVERGREEN. FROM EVERGREEN STREET, YES. BECAUSE YOU GOT YOUR HUNDRED 50 SIR EVERGREEN OR MAIN, THERE'S A FIRE HYDRANT ON THE CORNER. YEAH. AND SO ONCE IT'S CLOSED, HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE ACCESS FOR FIRE, BUT WE AGREED TO SLURRY COAT IT TO GET RID OF THE, THE RED LINE. JUST FOR LIKE VISUAL OPTICS. VISUAL, YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, GREAT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, HEARING NONE, UM, I, I'VE GOT SO MANY OTHER THINGS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT I CAN SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, LIKE, WELL, WE'LL SEE. JUST, JUST ANYTHING. IT'S COVERING AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY BEEN USED FOR EVERYTHING AND IT'S JUST A VISUAL TYPE THING TO ACTUALLY BEAUTIFY THE, WELL, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW, SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY TIME TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS OR ON VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND IF THEY BRING UP ANY ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS, WE'LL SEE. OKAY. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY ONE MORE THING THAT, THAT, UH, EVERYTHING ALONG MAIN AVENUE IS ZERO PROPERTY LAND SETBACK, AND THIS ORDINANCE IS A FAIRLY NEW ORDINANCE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RICK. SHE, I'M THE ZONING MEDIC. GOOD MOR. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RICK SHELL. I'M THE ZONING INDI. GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR STATEMENT. FELLOW COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. FOUR 30 EAST MISSILE TO AVENUE 7 8 2 1 2 OH, IT'S OKAY. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT I, I'M, I'VE BEEN THERE MANY YEARS, LIKE I SAID, AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT, THAT THERE WAS THIS SETBACK TO BEGIN WITH AT ALL, BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS. SO AS THE CITY LOOKS IT UP, THAT'S WHY THEY REQUIRED, OR THEY, THEY SUGGESTED THAT WE PASS IT BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE WAS ADDED IN 2017. YES. UM, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU READ IT, THAT IT'S FOR A SIGN PERMIT. NOT REALLY FOR WHAT I'M DOING, BUT IT COULD SAY THAT IT COULD BE FOR WHAT I'M DOING. WELL FOR CORRIDOR, UH, OVERLAYS HAVE USUALLY A WHOLE SERIES OF, OF OBLIGATIONS AND YEAH. SETBACKS IS ONE OF THEM SOMETIMES. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE WHAT THE, MY OWN PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE OF THAT IS ZERO PROPERTY LINE BACK. THE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. AND IF YOU GO DOWN THE STREET FROM 35 TO DEWEY STREET, THEY'RE ALL ON THE STREET. EVERYBODY, YES. INCLUDING TWO NEW BUSINESSES THAT JUST GOT PERMITTED AND THEIR SHADE STRUCTURES ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND BY THE WAY, MINUS NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PALM TREES AND THE BUSHES, UH, I PUT THOSE IN IN 2008 AND THEY'RE ON MY PROPERTY. SO IT'S ACTUALLY SIX FOOT. OKAY. UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE STARTING. NOT, NOT ONE FOOT, IT'S SIX FOOT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE WHAT THE, UH, VOICEMAIL, UH, BRINGS UP. SHOULD I BE SEATED? OR YOU CAN STAND THERE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RICK SHELL. I'M THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FOUR 30 EAST MISSILE TO AVENUE 7 8 2 1 2. CALLING ABOUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 1 3 9 AT 1420 NORTH MAINE. UM, I JUST WANTED TO LEAVE A VOICE MESSAGE AND LET, UH, YOU ALL KNOW THAT TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE REQUESTED CHANGE. UH, AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE REQUEST. WE DO KNOW THAT THE, UH, STRUCTURE HAS ALREADY STARTED CONSTRUCTION. UH, HENCE THE DISCUSSION WITH YOU ALL. UM, OUR CONCERNS BASICALLY ARE, ARE TWOFOLD. FIRST, THE STRUCTURES WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE. [01:20:01] THERE ARE CONDOS AND APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET. HOWEVER, THE NOTIFICATION LIKELY ONLY WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND NOT THE DOZENS OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE OUT THE PROPERTY AND SO ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A VOICE IN THIS DISCUSSION AND THIS CHANGE. UH, THE SECOND THING THAT IS, UH, I GUESS THE MAIN CONCERN FOR US IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TAKE UP THEIR REQUIRED PARKING, UH, TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE. AND THAT'S CAUSING AND CONTRIBUTING TO CARS PARKING ILLEGALLY ON NORTH MAIN STREET, UH, IN A DESIGNATED LANE OF TRAVEL. AND SO THIS CREATES A SAFETY ISSUE, AND IT'S NOT JUST ON THE WEEKEND EVENINGS WHEN THEY'RE HAVING THEIR, THEIR EVENTS OR DIFFERENT THINGS. UH, THE ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES CREATE A SAFETY ISSUE FOR CROSS TRAFFIC WHEN THEY PARKED THERE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY NEAR MISSES DUE TO LINE OF SIGHT BLOCKAGE ALONG THIS ROAD. UM, ALONG WITH THAT, THE OPERATORS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS PARK ILLEGALLY ON NORTH MAINE DURING THE DAY STARTING AROUND NOON. THIS AGAIN, CAUSES TRAFFIC ISSUES AND SAFETY ISSUES AS THEIR VEHICLES ARE PARKED IN THE LANE OF TRAVEL WITH NO EMERGENCY SIGNALS AND FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. FURTHER REMOVING PARKING HAS CAUSED THIS ISSUE AND MAKING MORE ISSUES BY TAKING OUT MORE PARKING IS GONNA MAKE IT EVEN WORSE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE STAFF'S ATTACHMENTS, PAGE ONE AND THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE PICTURE THAT WAS MAILED OUT WITH THE NOTICE, UM, FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE JUST A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH FROM THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE ARE CARS PARKED ILLEGALLY IN FRONT OF THE BAR THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THERE. AND IF YOU LOOK JUST NORTH, UH, THERE ARE, UH, MULTIPLE CARS THAT ARE PARKED ILLEGALLY IN A LANE OF TRAVEL ON NORTH MAIN. FOR THESE REASONS, WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT. UH, MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF HERE. UM, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIG POINTS THAT'S BEING BROUGHT UP BY TOBIN HILL IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE ILLEGAL PARKING THAT IS OCCURRING. AND IF I LOOK AT GOOGLE MAP, I DO SEE CARS PARKED, UM, AS WAS IDENTIFIED, UM, I GUESS, UM, WEST OF THIS PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, AND IT APPEARS NORTH THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. AND SO, UM, IS IT ILLEGAL TO PARK ACTUALLY ON THAT STREET, UH, FROM A STREET PARKING PERSPECTIVE? NO, THERE'S THE PARKING, THE NO PARKING SIGNS ARE, UH, FARTHER DOWN. THERE'S NONE IN THE, IN THE, IN THE BLOCKS FOR US. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA SEE WHAT WE, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM STALIN. YEAH. CITY STAFF. I'M SORRY. UH, GIMME JUST A SECOND. I WANNA CONFIRM BEFORE I GIVE YOU AN ANSWER. OKAY? OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE UM, YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD SHARE THE SAME CONCERN AS, AS, UM, BEING EN LISTED BY TOBIN HILL WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING, BUT IT DOES, AND IT DOES APPEAR THAT PEOPLE ARE PARKING THERE. UM, SO, SO JUST WANT TO CONFIRM AND, AND CERTAINLY THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED VIA ANOTHER MEANS TOO. SO, BUT, UH, UM, JUST LOOKING FOR THAT ANSWER PLEASE. AND, AND, AND ON THAT, UH, WHILE STAFF'S LOOKING THAT UP, IF THERE'S A A, A PERMIT BEING GRANTED FOR THIS, UH, ENDEAVOR STAFF IS LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PARKING THAT'S LEFT OVER IN THE REAR OF THE IS IS ADEQUATE FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND WHAT THE USE IS, CORRECT? YES. AND RIGHT BY THE WAY, THERE, THERE IS A PERMIT ALREADY. YEAH. ALREADY ISSUE. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING A LITTLE BIT. SO I DID SEE, AND SO IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THE PARKING IS OUTTA CONVENIENCE AND THERE IS A GREEN STICKER ON ONE OF THE CARS THAT'S POSTED HERE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ILLEGALLY PARKED AND SIGHTED OR, OR WHATEVER. AND SO JUST, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THE REMEDY FOR THIS IS MAYBE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION. 'CAUSE I DO AGREE THAT THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE LOTS OF PARKING AVAILABLE. OKAY. AND WHEN, AND, AND WHILE STAFF, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, UH, WHEN A MOTION IS MADE ON THIS, CAN THEY PUT A LIMIT OF THE HEIGHT TO THE 21 FOOT OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE? IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN TACK ON THERE FOR THE SETBACK? LIKE A SETBACK NOT TO EXCEED 21 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE SETBACK WITH, WITHIN, WITHIN THE, UH, VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING? UH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN LIMIT TO WHAT ZONING IS ALLOWING THEM THE HEIGHT? NO. WELL, 'CAUSE THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, UH, THERE'S OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE SIDEWALK RELATIVELY CLOSE TO WHERE THIS WOULD BE. AND THOSE POLES, THOSE, THE OVERHEAD PRIMARY IS, IS OVER 30 FEET TALL. SO IF THE STRUCTURE HE'S WANTING TO PUT IN IS 21, THEY'LL, THEY, THEY'LL BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL POWER LINE. AND THAT, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME. AND I WAS WONDERING IF, BECAUSE IT'S A SETBACK BASED ON A, ON, ON AN OVERLAY, I WOULD, I WOULDN'T, IT WOULD, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TACK ON A 21 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION TO THE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. THAT'S JUST CURIOUS. YEAH. IF IT GOES UNDER SOME SORT OF REVIEW PROCESS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE, THE PROTOCOLS ARE, UM, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, UM, HESITANT TO, UM, SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, A RESTRICTION THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ALLOWABLE. YEAH, AND I, AND AGAIN, I I BRING IT UP BECAUSE ANYTIME YOU SEE POWER LINES THAT ARE IN THE SIDEWALK THAT MUCH, IT USUALLY MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE AN EASEMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY PUSH [01:25:01] 'EM OVER AS FAR AS THEY CAN INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO I WOULD JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF EXTRA, EXTRA CUSHION WE COULD PUT IN A MOTION JUST TO, JUST ASKING. YEAH. SO THE BASE DISTRICT ALLOWS 35 FEET. UM, BUT AS, UM, OUR CAO MENTIONED, JOSEPH MENTIONED, UM, THEY WILL LOOK AT THAT WHEN IT GETS REVIEWED FOR PERMITING. YEAH. OKAY. I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW IF, BECAUSE IT'S AN OVERLAY SETBACK UNDER THE UC, IF THAT CHANGED ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO HEIGHTS OR IF THAT SETBACK HAD ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT MAYBE WE COULD MODIFY, PERHAPS THINK THE UC HAS A HEIGHT, UM, REQUIREMENT, BUT I'LL LOOK AT IT ONCE. SO IF THEY DON'T HAVE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THEN IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TOT THAT ONTO THE MOTION. 'CAUSE WE'RE ONLY DOING A VARIANCE TO THE UC SETBACK. CORRECT. WHAT I MEAN IS THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS, IF IT HAS ONE AT ALL. SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA LOOK, BUT QUESTION MANNA. YES, COMMISSIONER. SO, SO, BUT YOU'LL FOLLOW IT UP ON YOUR QUESTION. SO, BUT IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, C WOULD IN, UH, OR CPS AND OR WHOEVER WOULD REVIEW THIS, THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT SAFETY DISTANCE IS MET, CORRECT? UH, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AS, AS OFTEN AS YOU THINK IT DOES. USUALLY THE TRIGGER IS IF YOU SEE AN EASEMENT, THAT'S WHEN THEY START LOOKING AT STUFF, BUT, SO OKAY. THANKS. THANKS FOR THE SCARY WARNING . YEAH, A A COUPLE OF ANSWERS ON THAT. OKAY. SO YES, PARKING IS A ALLOWED ON THE STREET UNLESS THERE'S A NO PARKING SIGN ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE. AND NO, THERE'S GENERALLY NOT A CPS REVIEW ON A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS. UM, AND YES, IT'S USUALLY AERIAL EASEMENTS IS HOW WE ARE DOUBLE CHECKING THESE. YEP. OKAY. UH, WELL YOU'VE CHAIR, MAY I JUST GET SOME CLARIFICATION PLEASE? YES. UM, SO CHAIR, THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING FOR THIS VARIANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE ON THE CURRENT FRONT PARKING LOT, RIGHT? YEAH. HE, HE, HE WANTS TO PUT A COVERAGE STRUCTURE WITHIN A URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENT, UM, ON THAT OVERLAY, NOT NECESSARILY THE, THE HEIGHT OR THE SETBACKS TIED TO THE ACTUAL ZONING. SO THIS, SO CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE QUESTION FOR TOBIN HILL WITH PARKING YES. THE ISSUE OF PARKING. IT IS NOT YEAH, HE PRO THE ISSUE. THIS BUSINESS OWNER WITH THIS APPLICATION THOUGH, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THIS BUSINESS OWNER PROVIDES, UH, ADEQUATE PARKING FOR WHAT HIS BUILDING SIZE AND USE IS, AND, AND PARKING ON THE STREET IS ALLOWED. AND EVEN IF IT WASN'T ALLOWED, HE HAS ADEQUATE PARKING. SO I DON'T, SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT, UM, I UNDERSTAND TOBIN HILL'S CONCERN WITH PARKING, BUT THIS, THIS AREA HAS ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WITH PARKING. UH, FIRST WAS WITH SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE PARKING, STUDENTS PARKING ON THE STREET, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT ONLY SO THAT TOBIN HILL UNDERSTANDS MY REASONING FOR QUESTIONING THIS. YEAH. UM, THAT IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN WHAT'S AT HAND. IT IS. AND, AND I'D LIKE TO ADD ON THAT, THAT IN THE LATE NINETIES, UH, I WENT TO SAC FOR A SUMMER AND THE PARKING WAS ATROCIOUS. AND GOING BACK THERE THIS SUMMER WITH MY SON, IT, IT IS LIKE NIGHT AND DAY WITH THE PARKING GARAGE. I MEAN, THREE, THREE GARAGES NOW. IT'S, IT'S REALLY, REALLY NEAT. I MEAN, I JUST, I REMEMBER THOSE DAYS DRIVING AROUND AIMLESSLY LOOKING FOR A FACE. IT WAS HORRIBLE. ALRIGHT, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, ANYTHING FROM STAFF THAT Y'ALL WERE LOOKING UP? RIGHT, SO ON THE CORRIDOR STANDARDS, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING PERTAINING TO HEIGHT FOR ACTUAL, LIKE A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS, LIKE A CANOPY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT THERE ARE FOR SIGNS. UM, SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO DEFER BACK TO THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS THE 35 FEET UP TO 35 FEET. OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'RE GOING, UH, ASK FOR A MOTION. SEE, THIS TURNS OUT MAY I ADD SOMETHING? YES, YES, YOU MAY. UM, WE ARE AT 21 FEET, BY THE WAY. WE, WE ARE, THAT'S THE FRONT SIDE. THE MAIN AVENUE SIDE IS 21. IT'S GOES FROM 23 OVER ON MY PROPERTY TO 21 TO, TO DRAIN FORWARD ONTO MY PROPERTY. YES, I SAW IT IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE ONE. SO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION, UH, WHILE YOU CAN'T RESTRICT ANYTHING, IT SHOULD BE NICE TO AT LEAST MENTION IT. JUST MY 2 CENTS. OKAY. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? COMMISSIONER ZUNI, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 9. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 14 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT FRONT SETBACK, SITUATED AT 1420 NORTH MAIN AVENUE APPLICANT BEING RANDY, WAS THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE FISCAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY AS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. I WOULD MENTION THAT THE APPLICANT'S LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 21 [01:30:01] FEET, WHICH IS THE HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE CANOPIES THAT HE'S PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ON THE EXISTING PARKING LOT, UH, SHOULDN'T CALL IT PARKING LOT MORE SURFACE AREA. SO I SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED. IT'S A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS PRESENTED, IS REPRESENTED BY THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR. STAFF FINDS THE REDUCED SETBACKS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER STRUCTURES IN ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND NOT OUT OF CHARACTER OF THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS, UH, STAFF FOUND A SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY WHERE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, UH, OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT LEAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR TO DEVELOP THE LAW. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT THE URBAN CORRIDOR. AND THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES ALONG THE CORRIDOR ALSO WITHIN THE URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACK IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. SO THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT GOING OF THE VARIANCES LOCATED, NO YEASTS ON THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH ITS VARIANCE. FIVE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE URBAN CORRIDOR OR SETBACK VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL LEAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM FROM THE PROPERTY AND NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WHICH WOULD ADHERE TO OTHER STEP REQUIREMENTS. AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULTING OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE VARIANCES READ. UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT ALTHOUGH HE'S REQUESTING, ALTHOUGH HE'S REQUESTING THAT ONE FOOT, UH, VARIANCE, UM, MORE THAN LIKELY IT IS A MUCH GREATER VARIANCE THAN THAT. UH, LESS OF A VARIANCE THAN THAT BECAUSE OF THE PALM TREES AND SUCH THAT HE PLANTED. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A, A, IT'S IN, IN, IN PRACTICALITY LESS THAN THAT. ALSO, HE'S LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 21 FEET, WHICH BY RIGHT, HE COULD, UH, BUILD UP TO 35 FEET, UH, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE THE BASE ZONING THEREOF. UM, AND I THINK THAT THE, UM, THE ADDITION OF THE, OF THE, UH, THE CANOPIES WILL BE AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OPPOSITION, UH, SPOKE ABOUT THE PARKING. I THINK THE PARKING IS A, IS A LARGER ISSUE THAN JUST THIS SPECIFIC. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT HE PROVIDES FOR HIS USES AND ALSO, UM, HAS ACCESS TO THE OVER, WELL, I THINK HE MENTIONED SIX 500 SPACES WAS IN THE PARKING GARAGE. AND CLEARLY HE'S PROVIDING A SOLUTION FOR PARKING FOR HIS PROPERTY. MAJORITY OF THE, UH, OF THE OPPOSITION WAS IN REGARDS TO GENERAL PARKING, WHICH I DON'T THINK WAS SPECIFIC TO THIS APPLICANT AS HE'S TRYING TO PROVIDE THE PARKING OR DOES PROVIDE THE PARKING FOR HIS, UH, USES, UH, WITHIN THE RETAIL CENTER. AND FOR THAT AND MANY OTHERS, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION OF THREAT COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COULD I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT SAID MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 23 FEET, NOT 21 FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? AND IT GOES 23 IN THE BACK OF ABOUT 47 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN IT SLOPES FOR THE OKAY. FOR THE RAINFALL TO 21 ON THE PROPERTY OR SO WHAT THE VARIANCE SAW, IT'S 21, BUT I'M OPEN TO WHATEVER. WOULD YOU, UH, YEAH, I'LL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO HEIGHT LIMIT. OKAY. 23 FEET. OKAY. UM, SO I'LL SECOND THAT AS WELL. UM, SO I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT HE MENTIONED. AND THEN I'D ALSO, YOU TURN YOUR MIC IS ON MA'AM. IT IS. UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION THAT YOU SEE, UM, HAS BEEN THIS WAY WHERE THE PARKING SPACES IN, ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAVE THE, UM, BISTRO TABLES AND AND UMBRELLAS HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR SIX YEARS ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT. AND SO THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPACT ON, ON PARKING OBVIOUSLY FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS BECAUSE THIS CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN THAT WAY. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, THERE ARE OVER 500 PARKING SPACES THAT, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS UH, ACCESS TO. SO I THINK THAT THE CALLER, UM, MAY HAVE NOT BEEN ACCURATE. UM, IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UH, YES, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LARGER ISSUE IN THE AREA, BUT NOT JUST THIS PROPERTY, NOT, NOT BASED ON THIS PROPERTY 'CAUSE THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ADD? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, PAUL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE WASN'T MORE DIALOGUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THAT, BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, WAS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THEY HAD, UH, TURNED ILLEGAL PARKING, [01:35:01] UH, WHICH WE FOUND OUT WASN'T NECESSARILY ILLEGAL. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH WORKING WITH THEIR DISTRICT REPS CAN CHANGE THAT SO THAT THERE ARE SIGNS PUBLISHED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED WITHIN THEIR MOTION. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER ROSANO? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER HECKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF? THANK YOU, SIR. YOU GOT IT. UH, ITEM SIX. ITEM SIX, BO A 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 ADDRESS, 6 2 1 IOWA STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT ERNEST ROMERO. A 1,838 SQUARE FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 2,162 SQUARE FEET. LOT ZONING IS RM FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG IOWA STREET SOUTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE. LOCATED WITHIN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN R FOUR LOT. THAT IS 2,162 SQUARE FEET. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR AN R FOUR IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET. LOTS TO THE WEST AND EAST ARE SIMILARLY SIZED. THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA ARE BUILT UN SIMILARLY SIZED LOTS AND IT WILL NOT ALTER THE SECOND OR WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. WE MAILED OUT 36 NOTICES. RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THE ONE IN FAVOR. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. GREAT. LET HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. MY NAME IS ERNEST ROMERO AND I'M WANTING TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE IN THAT LITTLE LOT. UM, WHEN I FIRST WENT TO THE LOT, UM, IT'S REALLY OVERGROWN AND THERE'S TWO LOTS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. NEXT ONE NEXT TO MINE AND MINE. AND ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT LOT THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE, UH OH, I'M SORRY. OH, UM, TO THE TOP LEFT CORNER, UH, THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE BEDDING AREA FOR WHERE THE HOMELESS HAVE BEEN SLEEPING THERE AND IT'S LITERALLY FEET FROM THAT WINDOW THERE, WHICH IS BEHIND MY LOT AND THE WINDOW TO THE LEFT. UM, SO BUILDING A HOUSE THERE WILL DEFINITELY HELP THEM. UH, I DID GET, UH, SIGNATURES FROM MY NEIGHBORS. UM, ONLY DO YOU HAVE THAT STAFF CAN PROJECT IT ON THE SCREEN FOR US. UH, I ONLY HAVE 'EM HERE ON PAPER. YEAH, THEY, THEY CAN, THERE'S A LITTLE CAMERA UP THERE THEY CAN. AND UM, EVERYBODY SEEMED TO BE ON BOARD WITH THE PROJECT AND UM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY USED TO BE. AND THERE'S STAIRS, UH, TO THE RIGHT OF THAT. UH, SO THERE OBVIOUSLY WAS A HOUSE THERE AT SOME, SOME POINT. UH, ALSO THE LOT TO THE RIGHT OF THAT HAS THE SAME THING, DRIVEWAY AND STAIRS. SO ASIDE FROM MY HOUSE BEING THERE, I DON'T SEE WHAT ELSE COULD BE. SO YOU'RE REUSING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND THE STAIRS? YES. AND ACCORDING TO YOUR PLAN ON AN RM FOUR, YOU HAVE A 10 FOOT REAR AND A 10 FOOT FRONT AND FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS. SO YOU'RE MEETING ALL THAT? YES SIR. ALRIGHT, I'M, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION AND IS THERE ANYONE HE SIGNED WITH TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, WELL WE'RE GONNA SEE ALL THIS. TURNS OUT I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. APPRECIATE IT. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 41, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR AN 1,838 SQUARE FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM [01:40:01] LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. HE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON 2,162 SQUARE FOOT LOTS SITUATED AT 6 2 1 IOWA STREET, APPLICANT BEING EARNEST ROMERO BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SET THROUGH LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 1,838 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OTHER LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN HAVING TO REZONE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. BY GRANTING THE, THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE ARE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON SIMILAR LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONINGS DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS MANY OTHER LAWS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LIMITED SPACE ON THE LOT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A STRUCTURE THERE BEFORE, UH, THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO FIT INTO THIS, UH, SMALL SIZE LOT. THERE ARE OTHER, UH, PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE SIMILAR SIZE LOTS. AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THERE IS A HOUSING CRISIS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INVENTORY FOR PEOPLE, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BEEZ, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON ALL OF THOSE POINTS AND THE FACT THAT YOU BROUGHT IN SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL, APPRECI. FANTASTIC. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE THIS HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, BUT CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN. ITEM SEVEN BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3. ADDRESS, 1204 DELAWARE STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT JUAN DELLA YADA. UH, REQUESTS, UH, FOR 1,333 SQUARE FEET. FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 2,670 SQUARE FEET. LOT. AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO HAVE ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS AND THREE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FEET REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK. ZONING IS RM FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG DELAWARE STREET NORTH OF ARANSAS AVENUE, LOCATED WITHIN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. APPLICANT'S SEEKING TO REMODEL AND EXPANDED EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND FOUR FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONALLY, THE LOT SITS AT 2,670 SQUARE FEET BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR AN R FOUR. NUMEROUS LOTS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST AND SOUTH ARE ALSO BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR AN RM FOUR. THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY [01:45:17] SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 43 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, NUMEROUS ADJACENT LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALSO MAINTAIN LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRESCRIBED IN THE ZONING FOR THE AREA AND THE REQUEST WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, OTHER STRUCTURES ON NEARBY LOTS DO NOT MAINTAIN SIMILAR, UH, MAINTAIN SETBACKS AS CLOSE AND THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED OUT. 34 NOTICES RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND DENVER HEIGHTS DID NOT RESPOND. AND HERE WAS THE ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. THE EMAIL AND THEN THE ATTACHED, UM, RESPONSE FORM. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET THE APPLICANT, UH, TO COME FORWARD PLEASE. AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YES SIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS WANDA LATA. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF, UH, 1204. YOU HAVE TO DELAWARE. SORRY. YEAH, I'M SORRY. CLOSE. YEAH. MY NAME IS JUAN LATA AND I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1204 DELAWARE. UM, EVERYTHING, UH, THE GENTLEMAN SAID IS CORRECT. UM, THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THE 1208 DELAWARE WAS ENCROACHING ON MY, I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, SO, SO BASICALLY THE SURVEY, RIGHT? MY PROPERTY IS BASICALLY, THIS IS MY PROPERTY LINE AND THE PICTURES THAT SHOWED YOU, HERE'S THE STRUCTURE AND YOU SAW THE SETBACK AS BEING ONE FOOT AWAY. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THIS NEIGHBOR WAS ENCROACHING IN MY PROPERTY BY EIGHT FEET. SO I HAD TO GO WITH HIM AND, UH, WE CAME INTO AN AGREEMENT AND, UH, TOLD HIM HE HAD TO REMOVE IT AND HE JUST RECENTLY BUILT A NEW FENCE ON THE RIGHT PROPERTY LINE. SO, OH, SORRY. HOW DO YOU, UH, GO BACK? YEAH, YEAH. SO NOW THE SETBACK ON THIS SIDE IS NO LONGER ONE FOOT. WE'RE AT EIGHT FEET AWAY. UM, THE, THE REAL ISSUE IS I JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND I WANTED TO GET GOING BASICALLY AND START, UM, SEEING WHAT I CAN DO REMODELING AND ADDING TO IT. BUT, UH, THEY, THEY WERE DENYING ME A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. SO THEY TOLD ME TO JUST, AND, AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S NEXT, RIGHT. SO, SO I, UM, MY INTENTION IS TO BUILD, KEEP ON BUILDING. I WILL ABIDE BY ALL. I I DON'T CARE FOR THE, UH, MIXED COMMERCIAL, UH, ZONING PART OF IT. I JUST WANT A, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, ONE STORY, UH, BUILDING. UM, BASICALLY MY INTENTION IS TO FOLLOW FROM HERE ON OUT, UM, ALL THE SETBACKS THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, I'M THINKING ABOUT MAYBE ADDING 700 SQUARE FEET. SO I WOULD ABIDE BY THE SETBACKS AND JUST BASICALLY, UH, GO FORWARD AS MUCH AS I CAN, UH, TO, UH, JUST MAKE IT A TOTAL OF 1100 SQUARE FEET, UM, OR 10 50. 'CAUSE THAT STRUCTURE'S THE 16 BY 20. SO, UM, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE NEXT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HOPEFULLY WITH THIS VARIANCE WHEN I DO TRY TO PULL THE PERMIT OR TRY TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT I DON'T HAVE TO WASTE YOUR GENTLEMAN'S TIME AGAIN OR THE BOARD'S TIME AGAIN. UM, ACTUALLY THERE YOU GO. THAT'S THE NEW FENCE RIGHT THERE. UM, SO THAT HELPED THE SETBACK AS FAR AS THE SIDES, I THINK THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SOMEWHAT, BUT THE BACK ONE IS, IS, IS ITS WAY BACK THERE. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS ON A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOT SIZE THAT MEETS THE ZONING. SO THAT PORTION OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTED WOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CODI WOULD IMAGINE. UM, AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS GO, YOU'RE SAYING YOU NO LONGER NEED ONE, UH, ON THAT, ON THAT, UH, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE. YES, SIR. LET'S SEE THE ARROW ON THERE. AND ON THE WEST SIDE YOU HAVE A DIMENSION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF 4.6 FEET. OKAY. SO IF WE CAN GO DOWN TO A FOREFOOT, IF ANYBODY, WHOEVER WOULD [01:50:01] MAKE THAT MOTION, THAT WOULD PROVIDE HIM SOME RELIEF JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. OKAY. UH, AND THEN THE REAR, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT IS, IT IS FOUR FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE? UH, YES SIR. OKAY. MM-HMM, . ALRIGHT. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANYBODY CENTERED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. AND I'LL JUST CLARIFY, UM, A STATEMENT YOU MADE, SIR, YOU SAID YOU HAD COMMERCIAL USE ON THIS PROPERTY, YOU DON'T, IT'S JUST A RESIDENTIAL MIX. YES. DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. AND SO THE, THE ISSUE IS WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT YOU WANT TO CONVERT INTO A, A DWELLING UNIT. I SEE. YEAH. SO, UH, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NO, LIKE, I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS ON MY CASE, HE MENTIONED BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU WOULD JUST SOME, SOME TYPE OF NOTATION SAYING THAT BASICALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MIX SIDE. I JUST WANT TO BUILD A, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, YOU KNOW, SO YOUR ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON EACH SIDE AND A 10 FOOT IN THE REAR. MM-HMM. . SO ON THE EAST SIDE, YOU EASILY WOULD MEET THAT AS YOU HAD EXPLAINED. OKAY. IN THE REAR, YOU NEED A SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO GET IT DOWN TO THE FOUR FOOT WHERE THE HOME CURRENTLY EXISTS. OKAY. AND ON THE WEST SIDE, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD NEED, YOU KNOW, AT A MINIMUM, LIKE A SIX INCH VARIANCE, BUT USUALLY WE MIGHT GO REQUEST TO A FOOT JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME RELIEF FROM THAT. OKAY. BUT, UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER MANNA? WELL, SO THE, I'M SORRY. WELL, THE ONLY THING I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IS, UM, SO BECAUSE I GOT STOPPED WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF, OF DETERMINATION. SO BASICALLY LIKE, WELL ONE OF THE, THAT'S WHAT I'M, SIR, ONE OF THE TESTS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IN YOUR SCENARIO IS THAT YOUR LOT HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. IN YOUR CASE IT'S A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. MM-HMM. . AND SO SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT PARCEL, YOU COULDN'T GET A COD. SO BY THAT ASPECT OF YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST, UM, WOULD ALLOW YOU TO MOVE FORWARD IF THAT'S CORRECT, WITH, UH, WITH THE COD. OKAY? OKAY. YES SIR. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER, MAN. THANK YOU. SO, UM, SO WE GENERALLY DON'T SEE PROPERTIES PUSHED ALL THE WAY TO THE VERY BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO, UM, AND I WAS TRYING TO LOOK TO SEE WHEN THIS WAS, UH, THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT. UM, AND, AND SO IS THIS ON P AND BEAM OR IS THIS ON A SLAB? YEAH, IT'S ON, IT'S ON P AND BEAM, SIR. SO, SO DO YOU THINK IT COULD BE MOVED FORWARD AT ALL ANY AMOUNT OF DISTANCE WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, ON THE PYRAMID AND BEAM WHERE YOU JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, MOVE IT FORWARD? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO, LIKE, I WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, ALL FRAMING A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT COSTLY CHANGES. BUT I MEAN, COULD IT BE DONE? IT CAN, BUT UH, IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE. SO I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE, UM, SO, SO WHEN I WAS, UM, HAVING A HOUSE BUILT NEXT TO MY HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE TRYING TO PUSH IT BACK FURTHER AND I'D ASK, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THE BACK OF MY HOUSE FROM A PRIVACY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO THE QUESTION I'M ASKING YOU, I GUESS IS, UM, FROM THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE AS IT CURRENTLY SITS, CAN YOU SEE THE BACK OF YOUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? NO, ACTUALLY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UH, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. UM, IT'S ABOUT MAYBE 20, 30 FEET, THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE OF MY BACK NEIGHBOR OF THE NEIGHBOR IN THE BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR A MOTION, SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. UH, SO WHOEVER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE ON THE EAST SIDE. UM, AND ON THE WEST SIDE, UM, YOU KNOW, SIX INCHES TO A FOOT VARIANCE IS WHAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. AND JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, UM, UH, BC SHOWS THE SHED WAS BUILT IN 2010. OKAY, SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? OKAY, UM, I'LL MAKE IT IF NO ONE WANTS TO , UH, LET'S STEVENS, UH, COMMISSIONER STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 4 3. I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A ONE A 1,330 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 2,670 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE FOUR FOOT SETBACKS AND THREE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 1204 DELAWARE STREET OF APPLICANT BEING JUAN DETA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTIES SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT [01:55:01] CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS THE SPACE ENSURES THAT BUILDINGS DRIVES AND PARKING IS POSITIONED IN SAFE AND SUITABLE DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINES. STAFF FINDS THE REDUCED SETBACKS WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES PROVIDE A SUITABLE DISTANCE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS GRANTED GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OTHER LOT SIZES IN THE AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS A SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCES AS THIS LOT AND MANY OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM. LOT SIZE FOR THEIR ZONING AND REZONING WILL PRODUCE EQUAL RESULTS IN ONE DWELLING UNIT FOUR, ONE DWELLING UNIT THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCES WILL, WILL BE FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCES. MANY LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALREADY BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OR ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS AND IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE LOT IS LOCATED. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS NUMEROUS OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OR INFRINGE INTO THE SETBACKS PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF, 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 THAT THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS, AS MANY OTHER LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OR INFRINGEMENT ON THE SETBACKS PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF, OF ALL OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS. UM, I CAN APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO, TO DEVELOP ON THIS LOT. WE'RE IN A DISTRICT WHERE WE NEED A LOT MORE HOUSING, SO, OKAY. THAT'S, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND IN ADDITION I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SO TO PENALIZE HIM BY NOT ALLOWING THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE UNFAIR. HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS, SO IT DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT TO DENY HIM, ESPECIALLY THAT VARIANCE REQUEST. AND THEN AS MENTIONED, THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SMALL, UH, LOT SIZE, THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THIS. AND AGAIN, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING CRI CRISIS WHERE WE NEED MORE, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE LIVABLE. UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR, SHE'S VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO A NICE LOOKING PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, THANK ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, LIKE TO ADD HEARING AM YES, MR. BARTON? I'M, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO, UH, THIS ARGUMENT, BUT I STILL CAN'T SUPPORT THE REAR SETBACK, UH, VARIANCE. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, , I GUESS THE ALTERNATIVES ARE TO EITHER DELETE THAT FROM THE MOTION OR I'LL JUST HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST IT. OKAY. UH, TELL YOU WHAT, UM, WHY DON'T YOU, UM, THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO REQUEST A FORMAL AMENDMENT, UH, JUST TO, TO, TO DELETE THAT FROM THE REQUEST, AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT VOTE TURNS OUT. SO DON'T, JUST SO WE CAN GET THIS OVER, I, I'LL MOVE THAT AMENDMENT TO DELETE THAT THIRD VARIANCE, THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT JUST TO GET A VOTE. UH, CAN THERE BE SOME DISCUSSION? YES. UM, SO THERE'S A FORMAL AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE TO REMOVE THE REAR SETBACK COMPONENT FROM THIS, UM, FROM THE MOTION ALTOGETHER. SO IT'S THE IMPACT. YEAH. IMPACT, IF THAT PASSES IS WHAT THEN THE MOTION ON THE TABLE WILL NO LONGER INCLUDE THE REAR SETBACK. SO THAT MEANS THAT HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THAT IS CORRECT. ALTHOUGH A SECOND MOTION CAN BE READ TO ADJUST FOR THAT. AND SO THE FIRST ONE WOULD JUST BE THE SIDE SETBACKS, AND THEN THERE COULD BE A SUBSEQUENT DIALOGUE FOR ANOTHER MOTION THAT'S CORRECT. UH, WITH DEALING WITH THE REAR. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THIS? UH, YES, CHAIR, THE SEA? [02:00:01] YES. UM, I, I DISAGREE WITH THE, THE, THE CHANGING THE REAR SETBACK, UH, FOR, FOR THESE REASONS. UH, FIRST, UM, AS CHAIR BRANDON SAID, UH, THIS IS AN INHERITED PROBLEM AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO INCORPORATE, HE'S WANTING TO INCORPORATE THIS STRUCTURE INTO A NEW STRUCTURE. UH, I ALSO THINK THAT BEING THAT THE PROPERTY BEHIND, UM, ISN'T EVEN TO THE PROPERTY, UH, VARIANCE, UM, THAT IT ALLOWS THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BACK NEIGHBOR AND HIS PROPERTY. AND LASTLY, I, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT SMALLER PROPERTIES IS WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH BUILDING HOUSES. AND THAT THE WAY PROPERTIES ARE, ARE BUILT, ESPECIALLY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS WHERE LAND IS, UM, I DON'T KNOW, PRIZED, UH, THE LARGER THE LAND YOU HAVE AND THE LARGER HOUSE YOU HAVE, AND IT, IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY FOR ME, UH, SEEM, UM, ENVIRONMENTALLY OR ECONOMICALLY SOUND FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK WHAT, WHAT HIS STRUCTURE MIGHT DO IS INFLUENCE A LOT OF THAT. AND I SEE A LOT OF PROPERTIES, NEWER PROPERTIES, TOWN HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THIS NARROW SPACE WITH LESS PROPERTY IN THE BACK. UH, SO I, I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO EVEN DEAL WITH CHANGING THAT VARIANCE. OKAY. UH, AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT, UM, IF THIS, IF THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS A PREVIOUSLY A SHED AND NOT THE ACTUAL HOME, IT WOULD ONLY HAVE A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK INSTEAD OF A 10. UH, WHICH MAY BE WHY IT'S SO CLOSE, UH, BACK THERE, BUT, UH, BUT I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF KEEPING IT ON THE MOTION. UH, SO IT, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IF YOU'RE VOTING YES, YOU ARE VOTING TO REMOVE, UH, THE REAR SETBACK COMPONENT OF THE MOTION, IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU'RE VOTING TO KEEP IT ON THE MOTION. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. CAN YOU CLARIFY PLEASE? UH, YEAH. SO IF YOU IF, UM, WHEN THEY TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT. IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE VOTING TO REMOVE THE REAR SETBACK, UH, FROM THE MOTION. IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU'RE VOTING TO KEEP THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. SO, SO, SO THE EFFECT OF VOTING IN FAVOR OF MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO RETAIN THE, UM, ORDINANCE 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK IF YOU VOTE, IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU'RE VOTING TO KEEP THE REAR SETBACK ON THE, ON THE MOTION AS READ. WE'RE ONLY VOTING TO AMEND THE MOTION AS READ. KEEP THE, THE AMENDMENT TO THE BACK TO THE REAR SETBACK. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE, IF YOU WANT, UH, THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK, VOTE NO. IF YOU, OKAY. POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MA. I'M SORRY, VANNA. YES. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS HOW IT'S BEING READ IS ONLY FOR THE SIDE SETBACK. IF IT IS THAT WE VOTE YES, WE'RE ONLY VOTING TO AMEND THE MOTION. WE'RE NOT VOTING TO APPROVE. CORRECT. BUT, BUT BY AMENDING IT, THE, THE MOTION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE US WOULD THEN TURN TO ONLY A SIDE SETBACK, A ONE FOOT WEST SIDE SETBACK. AND THEN A LOT SIZE. AND THE LOT SIZE, YES. RIGHT. SO, SO HAS, AND SO WHILE IT IS REMOVING THE DIALOGUE, IT REMOVES DIALOGUE ABOUT THE 10 FOOT FROM THE ORIGINAL MOTION. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE OF FOUR FEET VOTE NO. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? NO. COMMISSIONER UNA? NO. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? NO. CHAIR. ORIAN? NO. SO, MOTION, UH, FAILS. UH, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE DOES INCLUDE A REAR SETBACK. NOW, WHAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO KNOW BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT IS THAT WE HAD THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED, UM, TO REMOVE THE REAR SETBACK. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, PERHAPS FROM ONE OF THOSE THREE WHO MIGHT BE WILLING, WHAT THEY COULD BE WILLING TO LIVE WITH. IS THERE ANY SORT OF A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE THAT WHAT, THAT WHOEVER WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS MIGHT FIND ACCEPTABLE? SO, MANNA, [02:05:01] COMMISSIONER, MANNA. SO, SO HERE'S, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE, THE QUESTION OR WHERE IT STARTED MY QUESTIONING IS THE DIALOGUE IS THIS IS ABOUT A SHED AND NOT ABOUT A STRUCTURE OF A DWELLING, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. AND SO WHAT, UM, AND SO NORMALLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE DIALOGUES, IT'S ABOUT A DETACHED, UH, OR YEAH, DETACHED STRUCTURE. SO, SO AN ACCESSORY DWELL, OR NOT A DWELLING, BUT JUST A, THE DWELLING. AND THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY DIALOGUE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON THAT. BUT NOW THAT IT'S BECOME A LIVING QUARTER, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IT'S KIND OF THE, THE STRUCTURE GOING IN FRONT AND THEN AFTER THE FACT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M STRUGGLING THAT NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE THE DIALOGUE IN REVERSE AND SO AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT'S WHERE, WHERE IT IS THAT I, THAT I AM. SO, SO LET ME PUT THIS OUT HERE THEN. UH, CURRENTLY IT'S A SHED. AND SO THEN CURRENTLY IT HAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. IS THERE A WAY TO POSE THIS TO WHERE IT WOULD, COULD POTENTIALLY GRANT A ONE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR A SHED AND AND NOT INCLUDE IT TO BE A DWELLING AT ALL? NO, BECAUSE HE'S CHANGING THE USE TO A DWELLING. SO THAT'S GONNA BE IRRELEVANT IF THAT'S APPROVED. UNLESS HE WANTS TO NOT USE IT AS A DWELLING. CORRECT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE A WAY FOR, FOR US TO AMEND THE MOTION WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK? SO IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, COULD WE POSSIBLY SAY IT'S A, A, A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? I THINK SO. THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. 'CAUSE AT THE WORST IT WOULD BE JUST A NON-CON PERFORMANCE STRUCTURE IF HE'S GONNA USE IT FOR AN ACCESSORY INSTRUCTION. OKAY. OKAY. CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER. DEAN, THAT PROPOSAL IS A LITTLE TRIVIAL. UH, I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE COVERING EVERYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY. BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT HE FEELS ABOUT THE NEXT USE OF THAT STRUCTURE IS GONNA BE AND IF HE CAN LIVE WITH IT BEING A SHED AS OPPOSED TO ENTIRELY BEING RESIDENTIAL? THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. MRS. BERGMAN. UM, THAT'S EXACTLY THE, THE POINT WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF YOU SEE THOSE PICTURES, I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M GONNA KNOCK THAT DOWN. OKAY. AND JUST BUILD. BUT, BUT, BUT AS SOON AS I OPENED, BECAUSE YOU GOTTA, THE, THE PROPERTY ALSO, UM, WAS SOLD AS A UNDEVELOPED LAND. BASICALLY. THERE'S NO ADDRESS. I'M TRYING TO GET, UH, BUT BASICALLY BE THE WAY I WAS GONNA KNOCK IT DOWN. BUT WHEN I OPENED THE DOOR, WHEN I FINALLY DIDN'T HAVE NO KEYS OR NOTHING, WHEN I FINALLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY OPEN, IT HAS ELECTRICITY, IT HAS CARPET, IT HAS WALL PANELS, IT'S FULLY, LIKE, IN OTHER OTHER WORDS, IT'S A, IT'S A HOUSE. IT WAS RENTED ILLEGALLY OR WHATEVER IN THE PAST. I CAN'T ACCOUNT, I CAN'T SAY NOTHING ABOUT THAT. BUT, UH, BASICALLY IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT, I WOULD'VE KNOCKED IT DOWN. 'CAUSE WHO WANTS TO KEEP THAT? BUT IT'S, IT'S A FULL STRUCTURE. OKAY. IT'S LITERALLY, BECAUSE I KNOW A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTRUCTION, THE P BEAM IS GONNA PASS INSPECTION, STUFF LIKE THAT. SO DOES IT HAVE A MEANS IT HAS A RESTROOM IN IT? YES, IT DOES. OKAY. SO QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN. IF HE, IF HE HAS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, UH, AND IT IS, IF IT GETS LOOKED AT AS A DWELLING, COULD HE ADD TO IT MOVING TO THE FRONT? IS THAT A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING ON CONFRONTING STRUCTURE? ARE YOU, IS HE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT LARGER? NO, HE'S, ONCE HE CHANGES THE USE FROM AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A PRINCIPAL DWELLING, THEN COMPARABLE. WELL, HE'S, HE'S ARGUING THAT IT, IT WAS RENTED OUT AS A PRINCIPAL DWELLING, CORRECT? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. WHAT I MEANT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M GUESSING WHEN WE BASICALLY YOU COULD SEE CONDUIT RUNNING TO ANOTHER PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE ILLEGAL. OKAY. ILLEGAL WAY OF DOING THINGS. OKAY. BASICALLY, I JUST WANNA, HONESTLY, I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S JUST GONNA BE PROBABLY ALL DESTROYED INSIDE. I'M GONNA TAKE IT DOWN. I'M GONNA ASK YOU GUYS, BUT HONESTLY, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST WORTH TOO MUCH MONEY FOR IT TO JUST BE TAKEN DOWN. THAT'S OKAY. SO I UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN NOW IS WE HAVE THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WHO HAS, WHO THIS IS, UH, THE ROOF SETBACK IS STILL INCLUDED. WOULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, UH, LIKE TO REMOVE THAT TO, TO LOOK AT IT SEPARATELY, JUST SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS? UM, I HAD COMMISSIONER, OH, STEVENS. UM, YEAH. YEAH, I CAN YOU WANNA REMOVE THE REAR SET? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE THE REAR SETBACK REMOVED. UM, 'CAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA PASS THOUGH. WE DID IT. IT FAILED AMENDMENT. YEAH, IT'LL STAY ON. BUT IF THREE PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE MOTION, THEN THE WHOLE THING DIES. SO I'D JUST LIKE TO READ IT SEPARATELY. SO I'D, I'D LIKE TO OFFER, UH, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE IT. TO RE SO, SO THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. I, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. AND HOW ABOUT COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? BECAU, BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS, IF THIS HAVE THE WHOLE THING DYING. IF THIS DOESN'T PASS, THEN HE DOESN'T GET ANY, HE DOESN'T, ANY OF HIS VARIANCES. THE LOT SIZE. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. [02:10:01] SO, UH, IT'S, THE MOTION'S BEEN AMEND TO REMOVE THE RESET BACK. LET HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE, THE WEST SIDE. UH, ONE FOOT REDUCTION IN SITE SETBACK, AND THEN THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE. WAIT, THAT WANNA REWIND THINGS A LITTLE BIT? WE VOTED TO KEEP IT AND THE VOTE WAS EIGHT TO THREE. WE NEEDED A MAJORITY VOTE ON A, ON AN AMENDMENT. YEAH, BUT IT WANTED TO KEEP IN, RIGHT? YES. BUT NOW THAT IT'S, NOW THAT THAT PROCESS IS OVER, I AM NOW ASKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH THE MAKER AND THE SECOND CAN THEN ELECTIVELY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE. DO WE VOTE ON THAT? NO. AND NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IF THE MAKER AND THE SECOND ACCEPT, THEN THAT'S THE MOTION. AND BECAUSE IT ISN'T CONSIDERED, WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE REAR SETBACK AND DEAL WITH THAT SEPARATELY. SO, CORRECT. SO WE'RE HAVING A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR SOLELY THE WEST SIDE, ONE FOOT VARIANCE AND THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE REVERSE SIDE BACK, AND THEN WE'LL SEE HOW THAT TURNS OUT. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. MISS 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. THE MOTION PASSES ON THE LOT SIZE AND THE ONE FOOT WEST SIDE REAR SETBACK. UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT A I'M GONNA MAKE ANOTHER MOTION REGARDING BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT REAR, UM, VARIANCE, I'M SORRY, SIX FOOT, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE REAR, TEN FIVE FOOT, 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE SIX FEET FROM, TO BE FOUR FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. ALL, ALL OTHER, UH, ITEMS PREVIOUSLY READ IN, UH, REMAIN. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR THE REAR SETBACK. UH, A MOTION FOR A SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET. UM, I WILL BE IN, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YES, I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL. IS THERE NOW, NOW THAT WE GOT THAT OUTTA THE WAY, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE ISSUE BEFORE VOTE IS TAKEN? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS HEADING DOWN, I'M STILL NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT I THINK THAT, UM, BEING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING A STRUCTURE ON THIS, I THINK THAT A STRUCTURE CAN STILL BE BUILT ON THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY AND ACCEPT THIS AS, UM, A DETACHED STRUCTURE, UM, WHICH I WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF. AND SO I THINK THAT SINCE WE ARE ADDING TO THE BUILDING, I THINK THAT HE HAS THE BUILDING, THE ABILITY TO ADD TO THE FRONT OF IT AND STILL PROVIDE THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? DEAN, COMMISSIONER, DEAN? I CONCUR WITH THAT ANALYSIS. IF YOU'RE GONNA DO IT RIGHT, YOU GET, I THINK 10 FEET IS IMPORTANT. THAT SETBACK IS IMPORTANT. ALRIGHT. UH, IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALLED. I'VE BEEN COMMISSIONER BEEZ. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT, SO IF YOU'RE SAYING 10 FEET, THAT MEANS THAT AT A MINIMUM HE'S GONNA HAVE TO MOVE, PULL THE HOUSE, PULL THE HOUSE SIX FEET FORWARD, OR CHOP IT IN THE BACK. CAN WE, THE APPLICANT, UM, IS THAT LEGAL? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, IF IT REMAINS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SO NOT A DWELLING. OKAY. SO FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE, UM, DOES IT, WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IN AT THAT POINT? AT THAT POINT, IT'S A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ZONING ISSUES. SO, SO THE POINT BEING MADE THAT IF HE PUTS A HOME IN FRONT OF THIS, THERE IS NO, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU KEEP THIS AS A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SO YOU BUILD A HOME, YOU DON'T CONNECT IT TO THIS EXISTING SHED, THE SHED CAN STAY. IF YOU TRY TO INCORPORATE THE SHED AS PART OF YOUR, UM, LIVING QUARTERS OR YOUR DWELLING, THEN IT WILL BE IN VIOLATION. IT WILL REMOVE ITS NON-CONFORMING. YE SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT, THERE'S THREE ISSUES AT BAY HERE. ONE, A HOME HAS TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR. A DWELLING, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ONLY HAS TO BE FIVE A SHED A GARAGE, ATTACHED GARAGE. BUT THEN THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE IS A CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING. SO, SO AS LONG AS YOU DON'T USE IT FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT IT IS NOW, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BIGGER. YOU CAN'T CHANGE ITS USE FROM IT BEING A SHED TO A HOUSE. YOU KNOW, IT CAN STAY, BUT ONCE YOU START ALTERING IT IN SOME WAY, IT ALL OF A SUDDEN HAS TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR. [02:15:01] SO YOU IN THEORY, COULD BUILD A HOME SEPARATED FROM THIS THING AND JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. BUT WHAT I DO WITH IT, I DON'T KNOW, TO BE A EYESORE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH, I MEAN, SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE MIX NOW. I COULD USE THE RM FOUR BECAUSE I HAVE TWO, 2D TWO TWO DIFFERENT DWELLINGS. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, IF THIS LOT SIZE GETS APPROVED, UH, WELL THIS LOT SIZE ALREADY GOT APPROVED. UM, YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE UNIT ON THIS RM FOUR. YOU CANNOT DO FOUR UNITS. UM, SO WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING, THAT NEEDS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT ACCESSORY DWELLING, THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON A PROPERTY AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF IS WHAT YOU, I'M JUST, YOU, YOU CAN'T USE THIS AS A DWELLING IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION. I MEAN, UM, IT'S, I BOUGHT IT AND IT'S ALREADY THERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT I, I I MEAN, I'M NOT GIVING AN OPTION, BASICALLY. OKAY. WELL, I DON'T WANNA GET INTO A PERMITTING, UH, UH, EVALUATION. BUT, AND, AND THAT'S THE REASON. LIKE, I, I WAITED, YOU'RE GONNA VOTE AND, AND I GET IT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS GOOD. IT'S JUST, I ALREADY KNOW THAT. AS SOON AS THAT DOESN'T GO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE, HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY, SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WILL NEED ME TO, TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THAT LOT AND ONLY, SO IF THEY DON'T APPROVE YOUR ARREAR SETBACK, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY A 10 FOOT SETBACK, SIR. YES, BUT, AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON THAT NOW. NO, I UNDERSTAND. BUT IT'S ALREADY THERE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. SIR. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO WITH IT? SO I REMODEL IT OR I, I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT, IT WILL AFTER, AFTER THE VOTE, WE STAFF CAN TALK YEAH, THROUGH YOUR OPTIONS. IF THE VOTE FAILS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GET IT 10 FEET AWAY IF YOU WANT, IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT, OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. BUT THAT'S, BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION BETWEEN STAFF. YEAH. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMISSION, LET'S HAVE A VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I'M REALLY, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE VOTING TO GRANT THE VARIANCE DOWN TO FOUR FEET, I WANNA MAKE SURE, RIGHT? YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES. COMMISSIONER EV VASQUEZ? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION FAIL. SEVEN TO FOUR STAFF WILL HAVE, I WILL. A LOT OF IT. I'LL YOU AGAIN. THEY'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS. ALRIGHT, IT'S 3 7 3 18. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. SEE EVERYBODY AT 3 25 25. I'M CALLING, UH, BOA BACK INTO SESSION. UH, UH, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT IT'S THREE, UH, 25 AND COMMISSIONER STEVENS WILL BE RECUSING FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER EZ WILL BE, UH, UH, BEING SEATED TO MAKE AN 11 PA UH, MEMBER PANEL. AND COMMISSIONER EZ, CAN YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA BACK ON? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO JUST GIMME A SECOND. IT'S NOT, I THINK HE IS LOGGING BACK IN. THERE. HE IS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, IT'S BO 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 4. [02:20:04] ADDRESS IS 27 11 WEST AVENUE COUNCIL. DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS WG INCORPORATED. A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL FOR, FROM AN ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION FOR A SIDEWALK ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE ZONING. THE C TWO AND THE CODE REFERENCE FOR THIS SECTION IS, UH, SECTION 35 5 0 6 A1C TWO. IT BRIEFLY TALKS ABOUT, UM, ADDITIONS AND, UH, RENOVATIONS, UH, FOR, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURES OR FOR THE PROPERTIES. A SUMMARY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE WAS DENIED REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 35 5 0 6 A1C TWO STAFFS. DENIAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE WAS BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, NEAR RESIDENCES, OTHER SIDEWALKS AND BUS STOPS, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THAT THE COST OF REHABILITATION SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS THE COST OF THE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. VALUE OF RENOVATION IS 900,000. VALUE OF BUILDING IS $653,680 AND THE COST RENOVATION IS 138% OF THE COST OF THE BUILDING. ADDITIONALLY, THE SIDEWALKS WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE UPGRADED TO A DA COMPLIANCE. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SIDEWALKS FROM EL MONTE STREET, UH, EL MONTE STREET AS WELL. SIDEWALKS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OUR STAFF CONCLUSION STAFF CONCLUDES THAT ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING SIDEWALK RENTING A MONTE BOULEVARD BASED ON SECTION 35 5 0 6 A1C TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. STAFF DENIAL FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE WAS BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, NEAR RESIDENCES, OTHER SIDEWALKS, BUS STOPS, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING IN SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS THE COST OF THE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE SIDEWALKS, THE SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE UPGRADED TO COMPLY WITH A DA STANDARDS NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF NOTE THAT 14 NOTICES ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ALSO. WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC TEAM HERE AS WELL. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR, THE APPLICATION IS FOR A VARIANCE ON WEST AND EL MONTE. IT'S JUST ON EL MONTE. JUST ON EL MONTE? YES. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YES, IS GOOD AFTERNOON GUYS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, SO THIS IS ERIN NOW, CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. UH, I'M ERIN SANDAL WITH WGI, I KNOW THAT I KIND OF GETS LOST. AND THEN WE HAVE MISS KATHY, UM, IN REPRESENTATION FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS. SO I'M GONNA LET HER KICK OFF AND THEN I'LL GO INTO THE WHOLE SIDEWALK PORTION OF IT. GOOD. A GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M KATHY BUSO, PRESIDENT OF SSIS LEAGUE OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, THE SSIS LEAGUE OF SAN ANTONIO IS A 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFIT FORMED IN 1984. AND WE'RE THE 76 CHAPTER OF 120 NATIONWIDE. OUR, UH, WE HAVE SIX PROGRAMS. OUR CLOTHING PROGRAMS INCLUDE OUR OPERATION SCHOOL BILL, WHERE WE SERVE TITLE ONE K, TITLE ONE SCHOOLS, UH, K PRE-K THROUGH FIFTH GRADE. AND THEY ARE PROVIDED NEW CLOTHES, BOOKS, JACKETS, UNDERWEAR, HYGIENE KITS, SHOES AND SNEAKERS. THEY COME TO OUR FACILITY VIA A SCHOOL BUS AND THEY COME IN AND THEY GET TO HAVE A SHOPPING EXPERIENCE IN OUR, OUR, UM, RETAIL SHOP. WE ALSO HAVE TOS FOR TOTS WHERE WE, UH, THESE ARE SERVICED THROUGH OUR LOCAL AGENCIES SUCH AS A BABY CAN. UM, WELL WE HAVE ABOUT 43 AGENCIES. UM, AND SO THIS IS WHERE THE AGENCIES CALL IN ORDERS AND WE PUT TOGETHER THE PACKAGES OF THE SAME THING, EXCEPT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHOES. THE KIDS GET ALL THE SAME, UH, CLOTHES AND THE, AND THE AGENCIES COME AND PICK THOSE UP. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS SUCH AS I'M IN CHARGE. WE HAVE ENHANCED LEARNING, WE HAVE, UH, SCHOLARSHIPS. AND, UM, JUST WANTED LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE 99.1% VOLUNTEERS. AND UM, IN THE, OUR LAST FISCAL YEAR, WHICH ENDED 31 MAY, WE PUT IN OVER 67,000 HOURS OF, OF VOLUNTEER HOURS. AND WE, WE SERVED APPROXIMATELY 35,000 CHILDREN AND ADULTS IN BEXAR COUNTY. SO, UM, SINCE OUR, SINCE 1984, WE HAVE SERVED [02:25:01] OVER 1.4 MILLION INDIVIDUALS. WE HAVE PUT, WE HAVE RETURNED $14.1 MILLION BACK TO BEXAR COUNTY. WE HAVE A THRIFT HOUSE LOCATED AT 26 11 WEST AVENUE. AND, UH, WE RECEIVE OUR FUNDING THROUGH GRANTS, OUR THRIFT HOUSE, UH, AND WE HAVE A FUNDRAISING ANNUAL CLOTH CHILD. SO DUE TO THE GENEROUS, UM, DON, OUR GENEROUS DONORS, WE WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING THAT IN, IN QUESTION. AND WE HAVE SINCE THEN, UH, RENOVATED IT TO, UH, HOUSE OUR PROGRAMS, WHICH ARE GROWING MORE AND MORE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE THE, UH, TRAFFIC TEAM HERE. I UNDERSTAND. ONE SECOND. SIT DOWN. YEAH. OH, WAIT, WHAT'S THAT? SHE'S GONNA BE ENGINEER NOW. OH, I'M SORRY. I HAVE A LITTLE SLIDE POINT. UH, THE PICTURES THAT STAFF PROVIDED WERE SOME NEW, SOME OLD. SO THESE ARE JUST KIND OF GIVING Y'ALL A VISUAL VISUALIZATION OF WHAT WAS AND NOW WHAT IS TODAY. UM, AND A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS PROJECT BEFORE GOING INTO THE SLIDES. SO THIS A VR GOT BROUGHT UP AFTER CONSTRUCTION, UM, AFTER EVERYTHING WAS BUILT, AFTER OUR SITE WORK PERMIT WAS APPROVED, UM, IS WHEN WE GOT, OR WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT GOT DINGED WITH THE SIDEWALK, UH, IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ELMONTE, NOT WEST AVENUE. UM, SO WE'LL GO IN TOWARDS THE END, YOU'LL SEE AGAIN SIDEWALKS AND THE RUNNING AND CROSS SLOPES THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. BUT DURING, I GUESS IN THE ESSENCE OF THIS, THIS WAS REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF BEFORE AND WAS APPROVED. UM, EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE WAS ALL WITHIN THE BUILDING AS, UH, WAS PREVIOUSLY, PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED BY KATHY. YES, THERE'S SOME SITE WORK IMPROVEMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. THERE WAS A NEW, UH, ISLAND INSTALLED WITH A STREET LAMP FOR, YOU KNOW, SAFETY CONCERNS. BUT REALLY THAT PARKING LOT WAS ONLY REPAVED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR, UH, FUTURE CHILDREN. COMING ON. AGAIN, LIKE SHE SAID, THE COMPANY'S, UH, BUSES COMING ON WITH HOARDS OF CHILDREN, JUST READY TO GET SOME, UH, CLOTHES FOR SCHOOL. AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN MOVE HIM OUT OF THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER REAL QUICK. . UH, SO IF YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE IS ALSO, UM, A DA ASSESSIBLE SPOT AND STRIPING IS REALLY WHAT HAPPENED THERE. AGAIN, JUST MAKING THIS BUILDING REALLY PERFECT AND PRISTINE, UM, FROM THE INSIDE TO THE VERY OUTSIDE OF IT AND NOT EXTENDING ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY LINES. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING NEXT. YEAH. AND THEN, SO THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE STARTING OFF WITH THE CORNER OF EL MONTE AND WEST AVENUE INTERSECTION. SO AGAIN, ON THE LEFT WILL BE EXIST OR, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS EX CONDITIONS. AND THEN THE RIGHT IS WHAT IS OUT THERE TODAY. YOU CAN GO AND THEN THAT IS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT IS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYTHING, NOTHING FROM THE BUILDING WAS TOUCHED. ALL THE, UH, RENOVATION WAS FROM THE INSIDE, UM, EXCEPT FOR THE NICE PAINTING AND MURAL ON THE OUTSIDE. AND THEY MAINTAINED. SO ORIGINALLY THE SITE HAD FOUR ACCESS POINTS, TWO OFF WEST AVENUE AND TWO OFF ELMONTE. BUT UH, THAT WAS NOT GONNA SLIDE. WE WEREN'T GONNA KEEP FOUR ACCESS POINTS. SO WE CLOSED THE ONES OFF WEST AVENUE AND KEPT THE TWO OFF ELMONT ELMONTE AS EXISTING. NO RAPPORT OF THOSE CON UH, CONCRETE DRIVES OR ANYTHING. AGAIN, ALL OF THAT ASPHALT REPAIR WAS FROM PROPERTY LINE INWARDS. UM, SO NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA KIND OF SEE MORE SIDEWALK, UH, JUST TO COME PUT Y'ALL IN Y'ALL'S VISUAL PERSPECTIVE OF HERE. SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF AT, I THINK YOU HAD THE LITTLE, SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF AT THIS BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF SALEM DRIVE AND EL MONTE BOULEVARD. AND AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THAT SIDEWALK DEAD ENDS. IT DOES NOT CONTINUE OFF INTO SALEM WHERE THERE IS SOME CHURCH AND HOMESCHOOLING OR SOME SORT OF DAYCARE OVER THERE, BUT THERE IS NO SIDEWALK THAT CAN CONTINUES IT DEAD ENDS HERE. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SIDEWALK TO CONTINUE. UM, WE DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS, UH, COMMERCIAL SPACE IS FULLY OPERATIONAL, UM, AS OF RIGHT NOW. AND RECENTLY WENT THROUGH THEIR OWN SORT OF INTERNAL, UH, RENOVATIONS AND WITH THEIR COMMUNICATION WITH OUR CLIENTS, THERE WAS NO SORT OF ASK ABOUT SIDEWALK ALONG ELMONTE. SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF HERE AND WE'RE JUST GONNA WALK ELMONTE BOULEVARD , [02:30:12] AND THEN WE WILL END OFF AT THE INTERSECTION, OOPS, SORRY, ONE BACK, UM, AT ALMONTE AND WEST AVENUE AGAIN, THERE WERE TWO CONCRETE DRIVES YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE. UM, AND IN ORDER TO NOT GIVE ANY SORT OF VISUALIZATION, NOT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT SELLING THIS SITE ANY TIME SOON, BUT JUST SO IT'S CLEAR AND, YOU KNOW, VEGETATION CAN GROW BACK THERE. UH, DRIVEWAYS WERE, UH, YOU KNOW, REMOVED AND SIDEWALK WAS REPORTED TO MAINTAIN THAT MOBILITY AND CONCRETE CURB ALONG THOSE AREAS AS WELL. UM, THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE GOING TO BE, UH, RUNNING AND CROSS SLOPES OF SAID SIDEWALK ALONG ELMONTE, UH, TO SEE WHAT THOSE PERCENTAGES LOOK LIKE IN REGARD TO A DA COMPLIANCE. SO AGAIN, UH, CROSS SLOPE CANNOT EXCEED TWO AND RUNNING SLOPE CANNOT EXCEED FIVE. AND SO THAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR RUNNING SLOPE AND THEN YOUR CROSS SLOPE. AND THEN THOSE SLIDES DID PERTAIN TO LIKE, IF YOU WANTED TO GO BACK INTO WALKING VIEW, WE CAN KIND OF SHOW YOU IN PERSPECTIVE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT 2%, 2.4% IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY. UM, AND THIS IS AN OLDER PART OF SAN ANTONIO, SO, YOU KNOW, CLAY THINGS SETTLE. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS SOME DEBRIS AND SO IT ALSO KIND OF TOOK OFF. OUR RUNNING SLOPES SEEM TO BE ALL ADEQUATE, BUT THOSE CROSS SLOPES AND THERE'S NOT MUCH DISTANCE FROM THAT SIDEWALK TO THAT EL MONTE BOULEVARD. SO, OKAY. SO I'M GONNA LEAD OFF ON SOME QUESTIONS HERE. SO YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOT SOME RUNNING SLOPE ISSUES. ALL THESE PICTURES ARE FROM EL MONTE? YES. OKAY. AND HOW WIDE DOES, SO LET'S LOOK AT WEST AVENUE. MM-HMM. , YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING WEST AVENUE COMPLIANT. SO WE REALLY, THE ONLY PART OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG EL UH, WEST AVENUE THAT WAS TOUCHED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT AGAIN WAS THE DRIVEWAY PORTIONS THAT WERE, UH, REMOVED. WELL, HOW, HOW WIDE IS THAT SIDEWALK? UH, ALONG EL MONTE AND WEST, UH, AVENUE? IT'S THREE FEET, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. AND IT, YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, IT'S VERY THIN, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH RIGHT OF AWAY. DOES IT? ISN'T CITY CODE REQUIRE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK? CORRECT. AND THE PLANS DID SHOW SIX FEET ALONG WEST AVENUE. AND WHERE ARE THE BUS STOPS LOCATED? ON WEST AVENUE OR EL MONTE? WHILE WE'RE LOOKING THAT UP, A QUESTION FOR YOU THEN. IS THIS SITE, UH, PARKING LOT'S COMPLETELY ENCAPSULATED BY A FENCE? YES. SO YOU'RE NOT OFFERING ANY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE FRONT? SO THIS IS ALL FRONT DOOR OR THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK? SO THIS IS ALL, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE PRIVATE. UM, OKAY. I GUESS KATHY SHOULD HAVE TOUCHED A LITTLE BIT. SO NO, YOU CAN DO THAT IF YOUR ONLY ACCESS YOU'RE HAVING IS, IS FROM VEHICULAR, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DRIVE IN, PARK IN HANDICAP SPACE AND GO UP. UH, SO, BUT I, BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THERE'S A FEW. ONE THE SIDEWALK LOOKS LIKE IT'S A TOUGH THREE FEET. I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S A TRUE THREE FEET THE WHOLE WAY. YOU ALSO HAD PICTURES OF SOME ABRUPT DEVIATIONS IN THE, IN THE SIDEWALK, WHICH, WHICH ALSO AREN'T ALLOWED. YOU CAN'T GO OVER A QUARTER INCH MM-HMM. . UH, AND ALSO IF YOU HAVE A RUN MORE THAN 200 FEET, YOU GOTTA HAVE A FIVE BY FIVE LANDING. UH, SO I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT EITHER. UH, WERE THERE ANY GUY WIRES IN ANY UTILITY POLES THAT MAY HAVE CONFLICT, MAY CONFLICT WITH THE UH, 80 INCH TALL PATH ON THOSE SIDEWALKS? UH, NO SIR. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, FINALLY CITY STAFFED. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU COULD LIVE WITH? COULD YOU LIVE WITH A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK? DID ANY DISCUSSIONS ON MODIFICATIONS TO OTHER THAN A SIX FOOT COME UP? YEAH, WE ARE ACTUALLY ONLY ASKING FOR THE FOUR FOOT. WE JUST WANT IT RE REHABILITATED. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IS DID THE CITY MAKE AN ERROR? RIGHT? AND, AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'D HAVE TO WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT ERROR IT IS THAT THE CITY MADE. UM, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARDS TO THE POSITION. 'CAUSE I GOT CONFUSED THERE 'CAUSE LOTS OF DIALOGUE ABOUT THE WONDERFUL THING THAT YOU HAVE GOING ON. BUT WHAT IS THE ERROR THAT THE CITY MADE? 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS I'M SUPPOSED TO BE PUT IN ON. AND THE SECOND THING WAS FOR THE CITY, UM, YOU KNOW, SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THIS EXISTED BEFORE THEY, BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, I'LL SAY. AND SO, SO IF YOU, IF I BUY A PROPERTY, DO I HAVE TO MAKE ALL THESE ADJUSTMENTS WHEN I BUY A PROPERTY? SO THE CODE SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPROVE A BUILDING BEYOND 25% [02:35:01] OF ITS VALUE, WHICH WAS WHY PART OF THE STAFF PRESENTATION BROUGHT UP THE VALUE WAS 136%. IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THE SITE MORE THAN 25% OF THAT BUILDING, THEN YOU DO HAVE TO GO AND BRING THE SITE UP TO COMPLIANCE. WE DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE EXISTING, UM, THE INSPECTOR WHENEVER HE WENT OUT THERE IS JUST ASKING FOR A REBUILD OF THE EXISTING FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG EL MONTE ALONG WEST. IT DID SHOW THAT THEY HAD THE SIX FOOT SIDEWAYS, THEY WERE SIDEWALK THEY WERE PLANNING ON PUTTING AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH THE TCO UNTIL THE REST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE CAN BE MADE. I DO ALSO WANNA SAY THAT AS FAR AS UM, THEM KNOWING ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME, THAT IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE NOTES ON THE DRAWING THAT SAY IF IT IS NOT A DA COMPLIANT, YOU ARE AWARE THAT YOU DO NEED TO REPLACE IT. AND THESE NOTES I DID CONFIRM MORE ON THIS PLAN SET. AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FOREFOOT SIDE ON ELMONT, UM, BUT THAT WAS IN THE PLAN 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT'S CERTAINLY THERE LESS, IT'S LESS THAN THREE FOOT THERE CURRENTLY. UM, AND SO, SO SO THEIR PLAN IS WHERE THEY HAD THE FOREFOOT, THAT WAS THE PLAN DOES NOT, THE PLAN SHOWS THE EXISTING SIDEWALK THERE. BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE IT ENDS UP BEING QUITE THE HASSLE TO GO AND JUST DRAW A WIDER SIDEWALK, WE ASK FOR THAT NOTE SO THEY ARE AWARE IT NEEDS TO BE. SO LET ME, LET ME CHIME IN ON THIS 'CAUSE I DO THIS ALL THE TIME. SO YOU HAVE A SET OF PLANS, UH, IT'S, IT'S A KNOWN THAT YOU HAVE TO REHAB SIDEWALKS AND YOU HAVE THREE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO GET YOUR PERMIT. ONE, YOU CAN GO OUT THERE AND SHOW A SIX FOOT A DA COMPLIANT SIDEWALK ON YOUR PLANS AND GET IT OVER WITH. OR YOU CAN ASK FOR A, UM, PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS, UM, INSPECTION WITH A TRAFFIC AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S, UH, WHAT IS ISN'T TO CODE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. OR YOU CAN PUT A NOTE ON YOUR PLANS THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA DO ALL THIS STUFF AS A PART OF MY PERMIT. I'M NOT SHOWING IT, I'M NOT EVALUATING NOW, BUT I'M NOT GONNA GET MY C OF O AND GET MY PERMIT CLOSURES UNTIL ME AND THE INSPECTOR HAMMER ALL THIS OUT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AND SO THE CITY DIDN'T MAKE AN ERROR, THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. UH, SO THAT'S, IT'S JUST THAT NOW THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE FINAL STAGES OF THIS, THAT INSPECTION FAILED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MEETING WHAT THE NOTE REQUIRES FOR IT TO BE A DA COMPLIANT. AND THEN THEY APPLIED FOR AN A VER. THE CITY PROBABLY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITH A FOUR FOOT HERE INSTEAD OF THE SIX FOOT THAT WE WOULD MAKE YOU NORMALLY DO. AND SO IF WE DECLINE THIS, IS THAT STILL OFFER ON THE TABLE ON AN A VER TO OFFER 'EM A FOUR FOOT ON EL MONTE? YES, THE FOUR FOOT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF. SO WITH THE DISABILITY EQUITY INCLUSION AND ACCESSIBILITY OFFICE, SORRY, THAT'S A MOUTHFUL. UM, BUT WE DID COORDINATE WITH THEM ON THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ONE. AND ON WEST AVENUE, IS THAT A COLLECTOR CLASS STREET OR BIGGER? I BELIEVE SO. SO THEY NEED ACTUALLY NEED A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK, DON'T THEY? THEY DO ALREADY HAVE THE APPROVED VARIANCE FOR THE BIKE FACILITIES. OKAY. SO THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING SOME RELIEF FROM WHAT THE CODE WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE? UM, I THINK THAT, UH, MY, MY THING IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ESTABLISHED ROUTES IN THEIR SIDEWALKS ON EITHER SIDE, ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THAT BLOCK IN EL MONTE. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS BUS STOP ROUTES ON EL MONTE? IS THAT SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT? AND THE VIA BUS STOPS, UM, SOUTH OF EL MONTE, THEY DO HAVE 'EM ON THE EAST AND WEST AND THEN A CORNER OF LAMONT AND WEST AVENUE, THEY HAVE 'EM ON BOTH SIDES WOULD BE BOTH STOPS. SO, SO I GUESS I STILL HAVE A QUESTION 'CAUSE YOU, YOU ANSWERED THAT THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE BY THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. AND CERTAINLY THERE'S A LOT OF DESIGN STRUCTURES THAT HAS TO OCCUR. THAT'S PART OF ANOTHER DIALOGUE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OR FROM WHAT I'M HEARING? YEAH. WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, SO THEY APPLY, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR AN A VR, THE CITY OFFERED THEM SOME RELIEF. UM, THEY'RE ASKING FOR FULL BLOWN RELIEF TO DO NOTHING. AND BECAUSE WE CAN OVERRIDE AN AN, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, THEY CAN COME TO US FOR THE FORMAL ONE. BUT IF WE DENY IT, IT GOES BACK TO THE CITY'S A VR AND WHATEVER THEY CAN NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONER. DEAN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I THOUGHT I HEARD NO. NO. OKAY. WAS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WANTED TO CHIME IN? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION. UM, MERKO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BUS STOPS ALONG EL MONTE. WHEREABOUTS ARE THEY? 'CAUSE AS, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, UM, THE SIDEWALK ON EL MONTE ENDS, UM, NOT VERY FAR FROM THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEN IT BECOMES RESIDENTIAL AND THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS AT LEAST IN THE, IN THE PICTURE. SO WHEREABOUTS ARE THE, UH, BUS STOPS ON EL MONTE? ARE THEY ACROSS WEST AVENUE OR ACROSS? NO, IT'S SOUTH OF EL MONTE. I'M SORRY. YEAH, I SOUTH OF EL MONTE STILL ON WEST AVENUE. OH, ON WEST AVENUE. YES, MA MA'AM. SO THERE ARE NO BUS STOPS ON EL MONTE ON NO, NOT ON EL MONTE. OKAY, THANK YOU. I MEANT TO SAY SOUTH OF ELMONT. UH, EL MONTE. SORRY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS, ANY CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT. UH, KATHY. OH, OKAY. [02:40:01] DISREGARD. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'VE HEARD SOME THINGS GO BACK AND FORTH. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS BOARD CAN ENTERTAIN SOME RELIEF. MM-HMM. . BUT THE CITY HAS AN OFFER IN BAY THAT THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK GONE WEST AND A SIX FOOT ON EL MONTE. THEY'RE OFFERING YOU A SIX FOOT ON WES AND A FOUR FOOT ON AL IN EL MONTE. AND, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT OR, OR REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER BEYOND THAT? YES. UM, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. I I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, UM, I'M KINDA LOOKING FOR YOUR, UM, INSIGHT INTO THE ERROR THAT YOU BELIEVE THE CITY MADE AND, AND, UM, ENFORCING THE, SO AGAIN, WE HAD A FULL SITE WORK APPROVAL ON THIS. UM, DURING THAT TIME, THERE AGAIN, COORDINATION WAS LAPSED, BUT IT WAS STATED THAT SIDEWALKS WERE GOOD IN THIS AREA. SO WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT. IT WASN'T CALLED OUT ON OUR PLANS. YES, THE NOTE WAS ADDED, BUT IT DIDN'T CALL OUT THAT THESE SIDEWALKS NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED. SO THAT WAS MISSED DURING, UM, ASSISTANCE LEAGUES, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TIME COST. AND AS SHE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THEY WORK ON GRANTS, VERY LIMITED BUDGETS SINCE THEY ALL ARE ALL ARE VOLUNTEER STAFF AND YOU KNOW, THE CLOSE THAT THEY PROVIDE TO CHILDREN IN THIS COMMUNITY. SO BEING LIMITED ON TIME AND MONEY, UNFORTUNATELY THEY WERE JUST GOING THROUGH AND THEY GOT CAUGHT AT THE VERY END OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE THIS CAME ABOUT. THE INSPECTOR TOLD ANOTHER WGI REPRESENTATIVE, LIKE, HEY, SUBMIT AN A VR, WE CAN WORK THIS THROUGH. WE SUBMITTED AN A VR, WE GOT DENIED THEIR OPENING DAYS ON MONDAY. UM, SO THEY'RE TRYING TO WRAP UP SO THEY CAN GET THEIR COO SO THEY CAN KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH HELPING THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND THIS WAS THAT LAST LEG. UM, SO WITH THAT, IF THE BOARD IS IN ON IT AND THE STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS ON THOSE FEW PARTS, IF THEY HAVE TO DO, IF THEY HAVE TO REENGAGE CONSTRUCTION AGAIN, REMOBILIZE, WHICH AGAIN IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FOR THEM, BUT LIMITING THAT SCOPE OF WORK OF REALLY ONLY DOING THE SIDEWALK PANELS THAT ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE DONE AND NOT THE WHOLE FRONTAGE OF ELMONTE. 'CAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO MEET THAT CFO, THEY'RE TRYING TO HAVE THEIR OPENING DATE. UM, AND I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE LEFT OF THAT. OKAY. SO WOULD THAT BE DISCUSSION THEN WITH THE CITY? SO PART OF THE ISSUE, THIS IS PROCESSED AS AN APPEAL, NOT AS A VARIANCE. SO WHAT IF THIS WAS PROCESSED AS AN VARIANCE? AND THERE'S THINGS THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, PUT IN THERE, TALK ABOUT AS AN APPEAL. SHE'S, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY MADE AN ERROR, BUT THERE IS NO ERROR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THE NOTE WAS ON THE PLAN, THERE'S NOT AN ERROR. THERE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE AN APPEAL. AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S, THERE'S TWO THINGS WE CAN DO. WE CAN VOTE ON THIS NOW AND JUST, AND, AND IT'S EITHER IS YOU, NO, WE ARE WE KICKING IT BACK OR WE, OR NOT, OR, UM, PERHAPS THIS APPLICANT SHOULD PROCESS IT AS A TRUE VARIANCE AND GIVE US SOME, GIVE US SOME MORE LEEWAY ON THIS THING. UM, THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE TO HAPPEN? UM, I'M LOOKING UP TO SEE IF THAT'S ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE BO OA ONE SECOND. BECAUSE ON AN APPEAL WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE CAN'T, AND I, I DO ALSO WANNA CLARIFY, THEY ARE, THEY DO HAVE A TCO RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN'T OPEN. OKAY, SO YOU'RE GIVING 'EM SO THEY NO, THEY ARE OPEN AND RUNNING. IT'S JUST TO CLOSE OUT. BUT YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE THAT THIS BOARD HAS IS THAT WHEN YOU PUT THAT NOTE ON THAT PLAN, THAT IS A REMEDY TO GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. MM-HMM. IF YOUR CONTRACTOR WAITED TO THE LAST MINUTE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. THAT'S, THAT'S JUST SOMEBODY NOT PAYING ATTENTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. MM-HMM. . OKAY. SO THAT'S, AND THE STAFF LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY GIVING YOU SOME, SOME LEEWAY HERE. SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M, I'M WILLING, I'M COMPLETELY CONTENT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS TODAY. AND THAT SECTION OF CODE 5 0 6 DOES ALLOW SOME AREAS IN 35 5 0 6. BUT 5 0 6 A IS NOT ONE OF THE ONES THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOA 5 0 6 A. IS THAT DEALING WITH THE 25% RULE? YES. OKAY. SO THE, SO IN IN REALITY THIS IS, THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR THE, FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE 25% RULE, WOULD ESSENTIALLY THEORETICAL ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO BE, BECAUSE YOU, WE CANNOT ISSUE THE VARIANCE ON THE A DA COMPLIANCE ITSELF. THAT'S A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT. STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENT. YEAH. AND THE, AND THE FEDERAL A D YOU DON'T EVEN MEETING THAT ANYWAY, BUT YOU, BUT AS FAR AS YOUR CODE CONCERNS, IT WOULD, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSECTION O DEALING WITH SIDEWALKS. Q BUT YES. OR Q APOLOGIZE. WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS BY HEART. IT'S AMAZING. ANA. YES, COMMISSIONER MAN. AND SO, SO WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO OPEN, SO THAT'S NOT GONNA IMPACT IT. CORRECT. IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR WHEN IT, WHEN THE SOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO BE REMEDIED? SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE OPERATING ON A 30 DAY TCO. UM, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY LENIENT AS FAR AS HOW LONG YOU CAN OPERATE WITH THE TCO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH IT. SO THE, THE [02:45:01] VOTE WE HAVE TODAY IS NOT WHETHER IT'S, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE 25%, THIS IS SIMPLY WHETHER IT IT HAS TO DO SOMETHING AT ALL. CORRECT. I MEAN THAT'S, AM I READING THIS RIGHT ON THE, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE DOING ANOTHER SUBSECTION A, IT'S, IT'S, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THE SEAT AIRED AND THE APPLICATION OF THE 25%, RIGHT? THIS IS A, AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION ABOUT THE SIDEWALK, ABOUT, UM, BUT NOT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, LIKE THERE'S THE 25% RULE IS IF THE CITY ERRED ON THAT, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL IF THE CITY WAS CORRECT ON THAT, THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND THEN WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS COULD BE A DIFFERENT VARIANCE OR IT COULD BE AN A VER. I'M JUST TRYING TO, TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY VOTING ON? IS IT SIMPLY THE, THE APPEAL OF THE CITY'S DECISION THAT THEY CORRECT. MET THE 25% BURDEN, WAS THERE OR NOT? THIS DOESN'T, WELL, YES. SO, UM, AS RACHEL EXPLAINED, IT'S THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE THAT THEY NEED TO FOLLOW, UM, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION. AND SO THEY GOT DENIED ON THAT AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE APPEALING TO YOU. SO I JUST, SO, SO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THERE, THERE'S THE STEP THAT SAYS I HAVE TO DO THIS IS WHAT IS, IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY. ALL RIGHT, CHAIR, YES, COMMISSIONER, DEAN, ARE YOU SURE WE HAVE THIS TYPE OF POWER TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRETTY POWERFUL TO, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO CHANGE WHAT'S ON THE PLANS MAKING. THEY'RE THE YEAH, THEY'RE JUST APPEALING THAT IF, IF THE 25% RULE DOESN'T KICK IN THE NOTE IS IRRELEVANT ON THE PLAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY. THE NOTE IS JUST SOMETHING EVERY, IT'S THE SAME NOTE EVERYONE WOULD USE. SO THE THING IS IS THAT DID THEY, DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT EXCEED 25% OF THEIR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH COULD BE DONE BY A PRIVATE APPRAISER OR USE BCA RECORDS. AND THE CITY IS SAYING THEY'RE AT 136%. SO THIS IS, THIS ISN'T CLOSE. THIS IS WAY, WAY DIFFERENT. SO, SO POINT OF VOTER MR. CHAIR. SO IF WE, IF WE GRANT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND FIND IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOR, ALL FAVOR, THEN THERE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO THE SIDEWALK. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IN THEORY, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MET THE BURDEN TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH IT'S KIND OF AN IN RUN. BUT THAT'S, UM, YEAH, THIS REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROCESSED AS A SIDEWALK VARIANCE UNDER SUB, UH, UNDER SUBSECTION R OR Q. RIGHT. Q IT'S NOT . AND, AND SO IT, IT GETS A LITTLE, UM, A LITTLE CONFUSING. AND THIS IS, THIS IS, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, TO DROP THE SIDEWALK WIDTH THAT IS REQUIRED DOWN TO A CERTAIN POINT. MM-HMM. , UM, RIGHT UP UNTIL IT HITS A DA REQUIREMENTS. AND RIGHT NOW WHAT IS BEING CALLED OUT IS THE FACT IT DOES NOT MEET A DA, WHICH WE CANNOT. RIGHT. AND, AND I CAN TELL THAT EXCEPT TOO, SO THE ONLY WAY RESPECT OF WHETHER WE GRANT OR NOT GRANT THE APPEAL, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE A DA REQUIREMENT EX, UNLESS IT FLAT DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS WHATSOEVER. BUT THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE A DA REVIEW OF PURVIEW, WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED YET. SO THE WAY, AND JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, UH, WHAT YEAH, WHEN A, WHEN A WHEN THEY DO WORK, THEY HAVE TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS TO HAVE AN A DA REVIEW. BUT THE A DA REVIEW CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY PERTAIN TO PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. IT DOESN'T EXCEED TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S THE CITY'S BURDEN TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE. SO EVEN IF THEY REBUILT THE WHOLE SIDEWALK, ANDRA WENT OUT THERE, INSPECTED THIS PROJECT AS PART OF THE, THE, THE STANDARD A DA SUBMITTAL, IT SHOULDN'T BLEED INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE THIS, THEY DON'T OWN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO LIKE WHEN OUR OFFICE INSPECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THESE SORT OF THINGS, WE DON'T LOOK AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S THE CITY'S MUNICIPALITY'S BURDEN. UM, SO THE MUNICIPALITY HAS CODE THAT SAYS WORK HAS TO FOLLOW THE A DA, THE AADA A SAYS IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST THREE FEET WIDE. YOU EXCEED 200 FEET AND RUN. YOU GOTTA HAVE A FIVE BY FIVE LANDING BREAK, WHICH YOU CAN USE THE DRIVEWAY APRON TO DO. YOU ALSO CAN'T HAVE ABRUPT DEVIATIONS MORE THAN A QUARTER INCH. AND, AND THAT TWO FOOT LEVEL THAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE, IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE IN SOME PLACES THEY HAVE THREE FEET. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE LIKE TWO FOOT 10, TWO FOOT 11. SO THERE'S A MY OF ISSUES ON THIS, PLUS WHEN YOU HAVE BUS STOPS, YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED PEDESTRIAN ROUTES. IT'S REALLY TOUGH, UM, FOR THIS TO BE, TO MEET A DA ANYWAY, YEAH, BUS STOPS. BUT THEY, BUT THEY, BUT THEY SHOW A CONTINUITY OF, OF, OF THE POTENTIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL DOWN THIS SECTION OF THE BLOCK. AND THAT'S, SOME OF THAT COMES IN NOW THE, WHAT I MENTIONED ABOUT THE GATE. SO THERE'S A PART OF THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A ROUTE FROM YOUR FRONT DOOR TO YOUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK, UNLESS THE ONLY ROUTES PROVIDED ARE VEHICULAR ROUTES. SO WHEN YOU GET YOUR WHOLE PROPERTY, YOU'RE ONLY OFFERING VEHICULAR ROUTES. SO SOMEONE WOULD THEN DRIVE IN, PARK IN A HANDICAP SPACE AND THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD ACCESS THE PROPERTY. AND THAT IS, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO, ALL RIGHT. ANYWAY, AGAIN, AND JUST TO ADD REAL QUICK, UH, SINCE YOU MENTIONED, UM, PARAGRAPH O, THAT'S ALSO NOT ONE OF THE ONES THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOA ONLY THE, UH, D SITE DISTANCE AND THEN R FOR DRIVEWAY [02:50:01] THROUGH AND VEHICLE STORAGE LAND. OKAY, THERE YOU GO. SO WITH THAT, UM, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ANYONE WANTS TO ADD, UM, ANY OTHER CHAIRMAN? YEAH. YES. COMMISSIONER, UH, VASQUEZ. YEAH, I, I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR, FOR STAFF. UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE, UH, UH, THIS ORGANIZATION BECAME EVEN INTERESTED IN THAT SIDEWALK, UH, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND, AND IT, LOOK AT IT WHERE IT IS, IT'S ALMOST AT THE END OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, OF THAT, UH, SIDEWALK GOES AND ENDS ON THAT, UH, OTHER, UH, INTERSECTIONS. AND THERE'S A, PEOPLE DON'T NORMALLY WALK THERE, SO, YOU KNOW, UH, THE BUS STOPS ARE FARTHER AS, AS, UH, MR. MI MIKO, UH, POINTED OUT. THERE'S THE, THE CHANCES THAT PEOPLE WALK IN THERE, AND, AND I'M GONNA JUST TURN BACK THE CLOCK FOR THE SAME OF ARGUMENT. UH, LET'S SAY, UM, UH, UH, THREE YEARS AGO, NOBODY CARED ABOUT THE CONDITION OF, OF THE SIDEWALK ON MONTE. BUT NOW BECAUSE THIS ORGANIZATION HAS BOUGHT IT, NOW, IT LIKE, LIKE IS THE INTEREST OF THE A DA, UH, RISKS, UH, HAVE BEEN, UH, LIKE, UH, UH, BROUGHT TO, TO, INTO TODAY'S CRITERIA WHEN TWO YEARS AGO NOBODY WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT? OR, OR WERE THEY, WE WERE, THIS, YOU JUST DON'T GENERALLY HAVE A LOT OF APPEALS TO THE VARIANCES OF THESE. WE DO THESE QUITE A BIT AND EVALUATE, UM, WITH THE, UH, FORMER DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE NOW THE DEIA, UM, AND WE COORDINATE INTERNALLY WITH THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT THIS IS A SIDEWALK THAT NOT ONLY IS USED NOW, UM, MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BUT COULD BE USED IN THE FUTURE. AND SO WHENEVER DEVELOPMENTS COME IN, BECAUSE, UM, PART OF, PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS DOING, UM, IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC REALM IF NECESSARY, THAT IS WHAT OUR CODE IS BASED ON. AND SO IN THIS CASE, IF YOU DO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT, WHICH THIS DEVELOPMENT DID, IT DOES TRIGGER SOME PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, YEAH, I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE. YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. UH, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS AN APPEAL FROM A ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO BE COMPLETELY EXCLUDED FROM, FROM THIS BEING IN THEIR PURVIEW. YEAH. YEAH. SO THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS, WAS THAT DECISION IN ERROR OR NOT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, THIS WAS JUST A QUICK LITTLE SNIP OF, UM, WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY BEING DISCUSSED OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST LACK OF SIDEWALK ALL ALONG THAT RIGHT OF WAY. UM, EVEN WITH VIA BUS STOPS, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDABLY CAN IMPROVE OF THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE, UH, WITHIN THE NEXT BOND OR SO WHEN THE CITY GETS TO IT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. UM, IF THERE'S, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA HIT THE BOND ONE REAL QUICK. IF THERE IS A BOND WITHIN A YEAR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA, THEN WE DO NOT REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THE CITY IS PLANNING ON COMING IN AND IMPROVING THEM ANYWAY, SO THAT, UM, IF THERE IS NO BOND IN THE AREA WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, IT, UM, IT IS STILL TRIGGERED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER ZUNA, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 44, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 27 11 WEST AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING WWGI IN INCORPORATE INCORPORATED BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 A1C TWO, AND A MOTION SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, UH, THIS IS A LOT OF, A LOT OF ISSUES. I I'M JUST TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH ALL THE ISSUES, UH, UH, THAT WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH HERE. UM, I AM ACTUALLY GONNA GRANT, UH, UH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE, THE GRANTING OF, OF THE APPEAL, UH, JUST BASED ON, UH, YOU KNOW, MY, UM, READINGS OF THE, UH, ORIGINAL CY WORK APPROVED BY THE CITY, UH, BASED ON THE MISSION OF THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY'RE HAVING TO DO WITH LIMITED FUNDS. UH, AND UH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I USUALLY DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE , BUT I'M AFRAID I'M GONNA HAVE TO, 'CAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE, UH, IN THE DECISION, UH, JUST BASED UPON THE GUIDELINES IN SECTION 35, 5 0 6, A1C TWO, [02:55:01] I DON'T SEE THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE. AND SO I'M GONNA, UH, HAVE TO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPEAL. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA AND I'M GONNA AGREE WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUE, UH, BRAGMAN HERE. UM, AND THEN ALSO I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST HEARING THAT, UM, THE BUSINESS WON'T, THERE WON'T BE A CESSATION OF BUSINESS AND THE CITY'S GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME HERE. SO I THINK THAT IT CAN BE REMEDIED. 'CAUSE I THINK OVERALL THAT, THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS, UM, PARAMOUNT FOR WHAT IS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE HERE. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UH, THE END RESULT WILL BE THAT. AND SO, SO I WILL NOT BE GRANTING THE APPEAL. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? I'M GONNA CHIME IN. I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL, UM, BECAUSE, UM, THIS SITE, UM, IS, IS EASILY WITHIN THE REALM OF HAVING TO UPGRADE THE SIDEWALK. STAFF HAS ALREADY HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THEY'VE, THEY'VE NEGOTIATED A POTENTIAL FOR AN AV YARD FOR MAJOR REDUCTION IN THE REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY ALONG WEST, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE, I THINK NOW IT'S A 12 FOOT SIDEWALK. AND, AND THEY'RE ONLY REQUESTING A SIX FOR THIS, FOR THIS CLASS OF, OF STREET, ESPECIALLY WITH ESTABLISHED BUS STOPS AND PEDESTRIANS. SO I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT. HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I DO NOT CONCUR. MOTION FAILS. NINE, UH, TWO TO NINE. UM, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND I WOULD REACH OUT TO, UH, RACHEL OVER THERE UNTIL MS. PARISH WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT, WHAT THEY CAN LIVE WITH. ALL RIGHT, LAST ITEM WE GET. COMMISSIONER STEVENS BACK IN. WHAT'S YOUR LAST, WE DID NINE ALREADY. SO WE'RE GONNA DO 10. ITEM NUMBER 10. UH, IT'S 4 0 5. COMMISSIONER, UH, STEVENS HAS ENTERED AND COMMISSIONER UNI IS, UH, STEP DOWN FROM THE MEETING. OKAY. OUR PACKET MAY NOT HAVE AN ITEM 10, BUT I'M SURE STAFF WILL, UM, HAVE SOMETHING TO PRESENT. UM, SO THIS IS, UH, THE SECOND TIME. THIS IS, UH, A 12 MONTH APPEAL HAS COME UP. UM, IT'S NOT AN, UH, ITEM THAT'S IN A THE, UH, THAT WAS PUBLISHED, BUT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT'S IN THE AGENDA FOR Y'ALL TO CONSIDER WAIVING THE 12 MONTH, UM, WAITING PERIOD FOR A VARIANCE THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, JUST FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS THE SLIDE SHOW THAT WE PRESENTED BACK IN JUNE 3RD. UM, THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BO OA, IT WAS FOR A CARPORT, UH, SETBACK. AND, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT THE, THE APPLICANT HAS TO SHOW THAT HE, THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL, UM, INFORMATION, UM, THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED, UM, THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AT THE TIME. UM, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO, WELL, ITEM NUMBER ONE AND THREE DID PASS THOUGH MOUNT, RIGHT? YEAH. MOUNT JOY. OH, THAT'S THE ONE. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S WRONG ADDRESS. IT HAS THE WRONG ADDRESS ON THERE. IT'S THE WRONG PRESENTATION. BUT, UM, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THE CODE SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT 12 MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION TO NOT HAVE TO WAIT THOSE 12 MONTHS, UM, AND, AND BE ABLE TO, FOR YOU GUYS TO BE ABLE TO RECONSIDER THEIR CASE AGAIN AT AN EARLIER TIME. MAY 2 63. THERE WE GO. TWO, THREE, YEAH. OH, THAT'S THE, THE PRESENTATION ITSELF IS KIND OF IRRELEVANT, BUT JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, IT IS MOUNT JOY DRIVE AND IT WAS, UH, REGARDING SOME CARPORTS THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED. AND THIS IS FROM JUNE? FROM MAY 30TH. MAY 30TH, YES. ALL RIGHT THEN LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND I'M SURE HE'LL, UH, EE EXPLAIN WHAT'S NEW. [03:00:01] WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, ROB KILLEN. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH LAW FIRM OF KILLEN GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT. OUR ADDRESS IS 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MR. ERNIE FLORES AND HIS MOTHER, WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT MOUNT JOY AND SUMMER WOOD. HELLO? HI, ERNIE FLORES. YOU DIDN'T COME OWNER. THE PROPERTY DIDN'T COME. . NO, BUT THANK YOU . NO, PLEASE, PLEASE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN ME. I MEANT SIT. YEAH, YOU'RE GOOD. . THAT'S ERNIE. YOU SAW HIM BACK IN MAY. SO, UH, WE'VE GOT A PRESENTATION HERE. UH, THIS CAME TO YOU IN LATE MAY. UH, MR. FLORES WAS ASKING FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR TWO CARPORTS HAD HAD BEEN BUILT IN 2020. UH, STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING SUPPORT. UH, THE VOTE AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS EIGHT TO THREE IN FAVOR. AND I'LL BE HONEST, I'VE NEVER PRESENTED A REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER OF THE 12 MONTHS. HE'S PRESENTING JUST A VARIANCE. UH, SO I WON'T BE PRESENTING THE VARIANCE TODAY. WHAT I'LL BE PRESENTING TO YOU ARE THE FOUR ITEMS OF INFORMATION THAT WE THINK WERE RELEVANT THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD BACK IN MAY, WE'RE ASKING TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS TO ACTUALLY PRESENT THE VARIANCE. SO WITH THAT, DO I HAVE CONTROL? OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IT'S THE PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT A DANCING. THERE WE GO. PROPERTY IS, UH, ON MOUNT JOY. IT'S AT THE CORNER OF MOUNT JOY AND SUMMER WOOD. UH, THE PROPERTY FRONTS, THE HOUSE FRONTS ON MOUNT JOY, BUT ON THE SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THE CARPORTS ARE, THAT'S SUMMER WOOD. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE CARPORTS. THERE ARE TWO CARPORTS HERE. UH, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT LOOKING AT MOUNT JOY. LOTS OF DEER. IN FACT, I WAS, UH, MR. FLORES CALLED US AND SAID, HEY, I WENT TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY, THEY DENIED IT. UH, WENT OUT, VISITED THE PROPERTY, MET WITH MR. FLORES AND HIS MOTHER, UH, WATCHED THE HEARING. WATCHED THE HEARING A COUPLE TIMES. AND, UH, THEN WHEN I WENT OUT AND VISITED THE PROPERTY, THERE WERE ALL THESE DEER OUT THERE, JUST BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS. SOMETIMES THEY CONGREGATE UNDER THE CARPORT. UH, SOMETIMES THEY'RE OUT THERE IN THE FRONT YARD. SO THIS PICTURE HAPPENED TO CATCH SOME OF THE DEER OUT FRONT. UH, SO AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR A WAVE OVER THE 12 MONTHS, WHICH YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO. SO, UH, THE REQUEST, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS A NINE 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT CARPORT SETBACK. AGAIN, THIS IS A SIDE SETBACK BECAUSE HOUSE FACES MONCHO SIDE IS, UH, SUMMER WOOD, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. AND AGAIN, THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. BUT THERE WERE THREE VOTES AGAINST, UH, STAFF, OF COURSE. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS IF YOU LET ME COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS. WE'LL TALK THROUGH THE ACTUAL VARIANCE CRITERIA. UH, BUT STAFF DID LOOK AT THIS, UH, PRETTY WELL. SO THE, THE CARPORTS WERE BUILT IN, UH, 2020. UH, MR. FLORES, OF COURSE, CAME TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND HE'S NOT A LAWYER. HE IS NOT AN ENGINEER. HE'S NEVER BEEN TO BOARD ADJUSTMENT. HE PROBABLY NEVER WANTS TO COME BACK TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT, UH, HOPEFULLY, UH, WE CAN HAVE ONE MORE MEETING AND GET DONE WITH US. UH, SO HE BILL IN 2020, UM, STAFF ACTUALLY, UM, GAVE HIM A PERMIT TO ENCROACH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE, AND THIS WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT Y'ALL HAD, AND I'LL SHOW SOME PICTURES IN JUST A MINUTE, IS SUMMER WOOD IS A FAIRLY NARROW STREET, BUT IT'S GOT A VERY WIDE, A 60 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. AND AS YOU'LL SEEING SOME OF THESE PICTURES, UH, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TREATED AS PART OF THE LOT IS REALLY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. I'LL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES OF THAT. AND SO, UH, FOUR YEARS BEFORE ANYONE REALLY NOTICED THAT HE WAS, UH, ENCROACHING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THESE CARPORTS. AND OF COURSE VIOLATING THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. 'CAUSE IT GOES ALL, ALL THE WAY FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING, UH, OUT TO, UM, NOT QUITE OUT TO THE STREET. BUT AS YOU'LL SEE, UM, THERE WE GO. THAT'S A GOOD PICTURE OF IT. UH, SO WE'VE GOT TWO CARPORTS. UH, ONE, THE ONE IN THE BACKGROUND IS, IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE STREET. THE OTHER ONE'S AT LEAST 10 FEET BACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE STREET. BUT AS WE DISCOVERED, THE EDGE OF THE STREET IS NOT THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S ACTUALLY RIGHT OF WAY. IN FACT, IF YOU SEE THAT TREE IN THAT ROCK PLANTER THAT'S IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UH, HERE'S, UH, THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN TREATED. UH, THIS IS A GOOGLE STREET VIEW FROM 2011. YOU CAN SEE THE, THE STONE PLANTER. YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY. YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS HAS ALL REALLY BEEN TREATED AS PART OF THE YARD, BUT THAT'S ALL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, UH, THIS IS COMING, UH, FORWARD TO 2014. YOU CAN SEE, UH, IT'S BEEN MAINTAINED AND IMPROVED AS PART OF THE YARD. UM, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THIS HAS BEEN THE YARD FOR THE PROPERTY ALL THESE YEARS. AND HERE WE ARE, UH, WITH THE CARPORTS, UH, FROM JANUARY OF, UH, LAST YEAR. SO, UM, STAFF DISCOVER, AND HERE'S A, THIS IS FROM THE PLAID SHOWS. YOU SEE THAT BLACK LINE THAT IS [03:05:01] THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PLANTERS, THE DRIVEWAY. MOST OF THAT IS IN WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUMMER WOOD. UH, SUMMER WOOD DRIVES RIGHT OF WAY. SO VERY CONFUSING. UH, NO AVERAGE PERSON WILL LOOK AT THAT AND THINK, OH, THIS IS PART OF MY STREET. THIS IS, UH, PART OF MY PROPERTY AS IT'S BEEN TREATED FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. UH, SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT PRESENTING THE VARIANCE AGAIN TODAY IF WE CAN COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS LATER TO DO IT. BUT I DO WANNA TALK ABOUT FOUR POINTS OF INFORMATION THAT WEREN'T BEFORE THE BOARD OR WERE NOT ADDRESSED PROPERLY WHEN THIS CAME IN. MAY. UH, ONE IS WE'VE GOT TWO CARPORTS, AND THEY'RE TREATED REALLY AS ONE VARIANCE. THEY WEREN'T SEPARATED OUT INTO TWO VARIANCES. THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. UH, TWO. THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD HEARING ABOUT POSSIBLY AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND CARPORT. I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. THREE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A CASE IN 2018 CASE LAW IN TEXAS ON A CARPORT VARIANCE FROM A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, SETBACK. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION IN MAY. AND THEN FINALLY, UH, MR. FLORES HAD MENTIONED, UH, WHEN HE CAME IN MAY, THAT HIS NEIGHBORS WERE IN SUPPORT. HE DIDN'T BRING ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THAT SUPPORT. SO LEMME WALK THROUGH EACH OF THESE. SO HE GOT TWO CAR PORTS. BUT AS I LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD HAD, YOU REALLY WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AS ONE VARIANCE. THAT'S HOW IT WAS PRESENTED AS ONE VARIANCE. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, THE, ON THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, THE DR THE CARPORT ON THE LEFT IS SET FURTHER BACK. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS SET CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF SUMMER WOOD. SO HONESTLY, IF, IF I'D BEEN PRESENTING AT THE TIME, I WOULD'VE ASKED IF YOU COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THEM SEPARATELY. I HAVE TWO SEPARATE VARIANCE REQUESTS, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT IN TWO WEEKS. IN FACT, WE'LL ONLY BE PRESENTING ONE VARIANCE BECAUSE, UH, MR. FLORES HAS ALREADY FILED A DEMO PERMIT FOR THAT SECOND CARPORT. SO THE ONE THAT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE ON THE LEFT WITH LOWER ARROW, THE ONE THAT IS CLOSER TO SUMMER WOOD, HE IS GOING TO REMOVE THAT CARPORT. AND SO THAT WOULD NOT BE BEFORE YOU IN TWO WEEKS. AND AGAIN, IF WE WERE STANDING HERE IN MAY, I WOULD'VE ASKED YOU TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO ISSUES OUT AND ASK FOR TWO SEPARATE BOATS ON THE VARIANCE. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU, YOU'LL ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN THE ONE CARPORT. AND THAT'S THE ONE ON THE LEFT, THE ONE THAT IS SET FURTHER BACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE STREET. AND AGAIN, UH, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS TO DEMOLISH THAT CARPORT THAT IS CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF SOMER WOOD, UH, ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR DRIVEWAY. THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MAYBE JUST PUT IT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UH, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. IT WOULDN'T BE VERY ATTRACTIVE. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE BASIS FOR OUR ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH IT WOULDN'T BE VERY ATTRACTIVE. UH, BUT THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED ERZD. IT'S IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, WHICH UNDER THE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE LIMITS YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVERED AT 30%. AND SO, UM, AGAIN, WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE, UH, CATEGORY TWO PROPERTY, WHICH IS PROPERTY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, YOU'RE LIMITED 30% UNLESS YOU'RE GRANDFATHERED FROM THAT. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION HERE. UH, WE DID THE MATH, WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT AT ABOUT 30% DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DO THE MATH. ABOUT 30%, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS, A LITTLE, UH, GREATER. BUT IF A NEW DRIVEWAY WE'RE BUILT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH A CARPORT, THERE WOULD CERTAINLY EXCEED THAT 30% IMPERVIOUS COVER. I KNOW THAT THE ZONING WAS MENTIONED AS PART OF STAFF'S PRESENTATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE RECHARGE ZONE AND THE DISCUSSION OF AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. AND HERE YOU GO. THIS IS ZONED ERZD. UH, THE OTHER PIECE IS, IF WE WERE TO PUT A CARPORT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE HE'S GOT THIS GREAT LONG PORCH. HE'S GOT THAT SWING THERE. WOULDN'T LOOK VERY ATTRACTIVE. BUT, UH, IF YOU SEE ON THE LEFT, YOU'VE GOT A UTILITY POLE AND YOU'VE GOT SOME UTILITIES THAT ACTUALLY RUN UNDERGROUND. SO THE CARPORT COULDN'T BE PUSHED OVER TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. HAVE TO COME OVER TO THE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT, TO THE RIGHT, WHICH WOULD CAUSE A REMOVAL OF AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT TWO TREES. NOW, UNDER THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IT'S OCCUPIED, UH, IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE TREE ORDINANCE. SO LEGALLY HE CAN REMOVE THOSE TREES, UNLIKE THE RECHARGE ZONE, WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED BY LAW TO FOLLOW. HE CAN REMOVE THOSE TREES. BUT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, WE TRY TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN. AND GRANTING THIS VARIANCE ALLOWS US TO SAVE SOME TREES. WE THINK IT'S A GOOD THING. UH, LEGAL PRECEDENT, AGAIN, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS MORE HOPEFULLY IN TWO WEEKS IF YOU ALLOW US TO COME BACK. BUT THIS IS A, UH, 20, UH, 18 CASE, UH, ER ESSA. AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, A VARIANCE FROM A SETBACK TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO BUILD A CARPORT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME TO PROTECT IT. UH, WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IS TESTIMONY SHOWED, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE HARM THAT THE NEVADAS, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD SUFFER. THE VARIANCE WAS NOT GRANTED. THEY PARKED THEIR PICKUP AND ENVOY OUTSIDE IN THE DRIVEWAY. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THAT WITHOUT THESE VARIANCES, THE VEHICLES WOULD BE OUT THE WEATHER AND SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE. THAT'S OUR SITUATION HERE. WITHOUT THE DRIVEWAY AND WITH THE CARPORT OVER IT, WE HAVE VEHICLES THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO [03:10:01] DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION, PROBABLY NOT DESTRUCTION, BUT SIGNIFICANT, UH, DAMAGE. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE, IS THEY UPHELD THE, UH, VARIANCE AND THEN FINALLY DOCUMENTED, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. UM, MR. FLORES HAD THE SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORS. HE, AGAIN, THIS IS HIS FIRST TIME AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. HE DIDN'T REALIZE, HEY, THEY SUPPORT ME, BUT I PROBABLY SHOULD BRING SOMETHING THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT. MM-HMM, . SO, UH, WHAT WE DID WAS, UH, TOLD MR. FLORES GET SOMETHING TO DOCUMENT THAT. SO THIS IS THE LANGUAGE. I'VE BLOWN IT UP. YOU CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PUT IN THE PETITION. HE WALKED AROUND DOOR TO DOOR AND SAID, HEY, LOOK, I NEED A VARIANCE. I WANNA KEEP MY CARPORT HERE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR FOUR YEARS ALREADY. AND WE DISCOVERED THAT BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, DEPTH, UH, WE'RE IN VIOLATION. WE NEEDED THIS VARIANCE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE FOLKS, UH, SO FAR WHO HAVE SIGNED IN SUPPORT OF HIS VARIANCE REQUEST. SO WITH THAT, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE FULL PRESENTATION. WE'D LIKE TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND GIVE YOU A FULL PRESENTATION. AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE STAFF SUPPORT, WE APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THIS, BUT THOSE WERE PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE, UH, BACK IN MAY. SO WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THOSE. OKAY. WELL, UM, I JUST HAVE, UM, A, A QUESTION. SO, AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR STAFF, THEY'RE ASKING FOR TO GO DOWN TO ONE INCH, BUT IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE, DO THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ROOM TO BUILD THE CARPORT UP TO AN INCH? OR IS IT GOING TO CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT TO CITY RIGHT OF WAY TO WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE THIS LITTLE ONE INCH STRIP ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GREATER A VARIANCE TO? IS THAT OF, OF AN ISSUE HERE? WELL, NO, NOT FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. TODAY WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT WELL, I KNOW, BUT I JUST, RIGHT. NO, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT, UM, FOR, IF THIS COMES BACK, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION, WE COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU. AND THEN, AND THEN QUESTION FOR YOU IS ON, ON THE EDWARDS AFER STUFF, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PLATTED IN THE FIFTIES, ISN'T IT? CATEGORY ONE? IT SHOULD BE. IT SHOULD BE. BUT THIS IS, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT EVEN IF, EVEN IF WE WERE GOING GOING GET A CATEGORY DETERMINATION FOR THIS AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, WE DON'T WANT TO ADD MORE IMPERIOUS COVER FOR THE RECHARGE ZONE. YEAH, ESPECIALLY IF YOU, AND IT'S, AND I THINK IT'S, IF YOU KEEP IT AT 30, EVEN IF YOU'RE CATEGORY ONE, YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM DOING THE WPAP, THERE'S A WP EXEMPTION FOR FILTRATION. YES. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. BUT WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THAT DURING EXERCISE. WELL, I, THAT'S JUST, YEAH, IT'S NEW INFORMATION AS FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED. SO THAT'S PERTINENT. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ZUNA, IS THIS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OR IS THIS A NINE? UH, THEY REQUIRE NINE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. THANK YOU. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, THAT I SEEMED TO RECALL IN THIS CASE WAS THAT THE, UM, THERE IS A, UM, UM, INFORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND I BELIEVE THEY SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, MY POSITION WOULD BE THAT IF THEIR POSITION IS THE SAME, THEN THEN IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULTY, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTING SOME OF THE DIALOGUE. SO, SO I GUESS THE IMPORTANCE OF REACHING OUT TO THEM AND HAVING THEM PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONVERSATION WOULD BE RELEVANT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SAY. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE DEMOLISHING A PORTION OF IT, SO IT'S NOT THE SAME REQUEST THAT WOULD'VE BROUGHT IN. RIGHT. SO THEY MAY BE, SO, THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, I GUESS IS WHERE I WAS GOING. BUT IF THEY HAD THE SAME OPINION, THEN I'M GONNA HAVE PROBABLY THE SAME OPINION AS WELL. AND, AND I WOULD SAY THANK YOU MR. MANNA. IF, IF YOU'LL ALLOW US TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS, WE'LL SPEND THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, UH, VISITING WITH HIM. AS, AS YOU KNOW, MR. FLORES HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH HIS NEIGHBORS AND I DO BELIEVE ONE INDIVIDUAL DID SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, AND I THINK SHE WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M NOT SURE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UM, SO I RECALL THIS CASE VERY WELL 'CAUSE IT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND I PASS BY THIS PROPERTY EVERY DAY. UM, BUT AS I RECALL, UM, AND I DO KNOW THAT, THAT THERE IS NO FORMAL, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE, OF THE COMMUNITY. UH, IT WAS IN THE COUNTY BEFORE IT WAS IN THE CITY. UM, I ALSO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON WITHIN THE 200 FEET RADIUS, UM, THAT SPOKE. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY SPOKE ON BE ON, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. AND I RECALL THAT OF THE, UM, I'M GONNA REPHRASE THAT. THERE WAS ONE PERSON WHO WAS OUTSIDE OF THE 200 RADIUS THAT SPOKE AGAINST IT, AND THERE WAS PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN NEIGHBORS WHO, UM, ON THE LITTLE CHART THAT WE HAVE THAT THEY'RE IN SUPPORT, THERE WAS SIX OR SEVEN IN THE IMMEDIATE 200 SQUARE FEET THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE VARIANCE. SO, UH, I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT IS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, BUT I THINK IT GOT DROWNED OUT, UH, BY THE NON-EXISTENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER BEN AND I, AND I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. THE ONE THING THAT STUCK IN MY MIND ABOUT THIS IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE ONE THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION, [03:15:01] IT'S AN UNOFFICIAL YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT MERITS THE SAME WEIGHT AS, UH, HOA OR A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BECAUSE IT'S UNOFFICIAL. SO I'LL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? UM, I'M GONNA CHIME IN AND, AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE THING WITH THIS 12 MONTH THING IS THAT THEY WERE, WERE BEING PRE PRESENTED WITH SOME NEW INFORMATION, SPECIFICALLY ONE CARPORT AND THEY'RE DEMOING THE ONE THAT, THAT WAS THE MOST EGREGIOUS. UM, AND THEN SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, HEARING MORE DISCUSSION ON A RECENT LAWSUIT AS WELL AS EDWARD'S AQUIFER IS DOING IT FOR ME. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND JUST FYI THE MEETING IS IN THREE WEEKS, NOT TWO WEEKS 'CAUSE OF LABOR DAY. OKAY. YOU DON'T WANNA MEET ON LABOR DAY . UM, AND I THINK LAST TIME WE HAD ONE OF THESE, UM, I KNOW THIS IS THE SECOND TIME WE'VE HAD ONE OF THESE, BUT, UH, NEW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I BELIEVE LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT CAME UP NEW, I GUESS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, MADE DURING THE MEETING. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS LAST. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS AN OPINION ON THAT. THERE, THERE'S DISCRETION FOR THE BOARD. UH, BUT, BUT THAT WAS, UH, PART OF THE PRIOR DISCUSSION. YEAH. I MEAN, AND I'M A LONG TIME AGO, WE USED TO SEE THESE BACK TO BACK. THEY WOULD ASK FOR THE 12 MONTH AND THEN WE WOULD HEAR THE CASE RIGHT AFTER. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO, AND I KNOW IT'S, Y'ALL HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN A LONG TIME, BUT I JUST, YEAH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THE BOARD APPROVES IT BEFORE WE PUT IT OFFICIALLY, UM, ON NOTICE. OKAY. WELL, UM, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. WELL, I, I WOULD, BUT I DON'T HAVE A MOTION IN FRONT OF US, SO I MOVE FOR THE MOTION. WELL, I MEAN, I'LL, I'LL, UH, LET ME TAKE A STAB AT THIS THING. OKAY. . OKAY, LET ME SEE HERE. OKAY, I'M LOOKING FOR THIS ONE REGARDING CASE NUMBER. OH YEAH, JUST CALL ITEM NUMBER 10. YEAH. REGARDING ITEM NUMBER 10 ON THE AGENDA OF THE CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT TO WAIVE THE 12 MONTH TIME LIMITATION UNDER UDC SECTION 35 DASH FOUR 80 F, UH, FOR A SUBSEQUENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION LOCATED AT 7 18 0 2 MOUNT JOY DRIVE. UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, GRANT A, A WAIVER TO THE 12 MONTH TIME LIMITATION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ONLY BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THERE'S, UH, THE REMOVAL OF THE OTHER CARPORT AND THE, AND THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER AND THEN THE LAWSUIT FROM 2018 IS ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR ME, UH, TO, FOR RECONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, I ECHO THAT. IN ADDITION TO THE, UM, SURVEY POLL THAT THE APPLICANT GOT OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THAT WAS NOT EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED LAST TIME. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I'LL SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CONSIDERED LAST TIME AND THEREFORE WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER IT. SURE. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA AND AGAIN, REITERATING MY, UH, POINT WITH REGARDS TO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PERSPECTIVE AND ENSURING THAT THEY PARTICIPATE IN THIS DIALOGUE. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN. AYE. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BEDA? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES. ALL RIGHT. 11 TO ZERO MOTION PASSES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN THREE WEEKS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I DO RECOMMEND GETTING SOME INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION THOUGH, BUT ABSOLUTELY HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR. THANK YOU. OKAY. , UM, MINUTES. [ Approval of Minutes  ] I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CHANGES AT ALL. WE HAD TWO CHANGES THAT WERE BOTH UPDATED. OKAY. UM, AND I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOVE AS APPROVED APPROVAL. OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PERRINGTON. SECOND BY BRAGMAN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. UM, DIRECTOR'S REPORT. NOTHING TO REPORT. I'M HAPPY TO BE BACK. I WAS GONNA SAY NICE TO SEE YOU. YEAH. GETTING STRONGER EACH DAY. STILL HAVE SOME HEALING TO DO AS YOU, I'M SURE YOU CAN TELL. SO, SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE WHAT DAY? EPTEMBER NINTH SEEMS LIKE AN ETERNITY AWAY. SO WITH IT'S 4 27, [03:20:01] I HEREBY, UH, ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE BOA. * 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.