* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] ALL RIGHT, IT IS ONE O'CLOCK. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, STAFF IF YOU CAN PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON HERE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, PRESENT CHAIR WILLIAMS. AND I'M PRESENT. UH, DID BEN NAVIUS REPLY? NOT YET. SO WE'RE AT 10 FOR THE MOMENT. ALL. UM, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE. FOR ALL HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT, 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 MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF 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 RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER 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 IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY 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 AND 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 IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH A REQUESTED RELEASE CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. 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. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND A PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION FOR THOSE I 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 ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. YES, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TWO UH, CASES THAT ARE REQUESTING CONTINUANCES. ITEM THREE IS REQUESTING [00:05:01] TO DECEMBER 16TH. UH, AND ITEM NUMBER NINE IS REQUESTING TO NOVEMBER 4TH. ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS, UH, SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THOSE TWO ITEMS OR VOICEMAILS? NOT SIGN UP TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT, IF STAFF COULD DO A, UH, BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. UH, WE'LL MOVE, SEE IF WE HAVE A, A MEMBER WHO WILL MOVE FOR CONTINUANCE. ALRIGHT. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO OA 1 74. THIS IS, UH, LOCATED AT 30 50 AND 30 30 30 54 MACARTHUR, UM, AVENUE, UH, APPLICANT BEING ONE-STOP CODING CONSULTANTS LLC VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOUR SEPARATE UNITS ON TWO ABUTTING RN FOUR LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE AND THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR DECEMBER 16TH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT IN? SURE. IS THERE A MEMBER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? ITEM THREE TO THE 16TH OZUNA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO DECEMBER 16TH. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. IS THERE ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. UH, THE ITEMS BEEN CONT IS NOW CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 16TH. MS. BE IS NEXT ONE IS ITEM NUMBER NINE? YES. UH, STAFF, CAN YOU REFLECT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BEES IS, UH, IN THE MEETING? YEAH. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER BEDA DID JOIN US, UH, PRIOR TO US TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE. MM-HMM, . ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA 180 6 REQUEST BY CHIO DEVELOPMENT LLC TO ALLOW SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON RN FOUR LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, LOCATED 1410 MONTANA STREET, AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING FOR THE NOVEMBER 4TH BOA MEETING. ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR NOVEMBER 4TH UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA CONTINUANCE? UH, FOR TWO, UH, FOR CASE NUMBER, UH, BO OA 24, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 6 2 NOVEMBER 4TH. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AND THE OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. CASES CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 4TH. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS LOCATED AT 2 3 0 LUCAS STREET, UNIT 2 0 2. IT'S IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT BEING MARY ANN MCCARTNEY. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO STR PERMIT ON THE BLOCK PHASE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS MF 33 FOR MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2 3 0 LUCAS STREET, UNIT 2 0 2. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021. THE BO OA GRANTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO STR FOR 2 3 0 LUCAS STREET UNIT 2 0 2, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RENEW A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO STR ON THE BLOCK FACE. AND PER SECTION 35 DASH 3 7 4 0.01 OF THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO ST R SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEXES ON THE BLOCK PHASE. SO THIS IS THE, UH, BLOCK PHASE. THERE ARE CURRENTLY NINE UNITS ON THE BLOCK PHASE. UH, ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO IS CURRENTLY THERE BEING 2 3 0 LUCAS STREET UNIT 2 0 1. UH, THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 11% AND IF THIS TYPE TWO SCR IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 22%, WHICH EXCEEDS THAT 12.5% DENSITY FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS AND LISTINGS. UH, NO CODE VIOLATIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS WERE FOUND AS WELL AS NO ACTIVE LISTINGS. AND THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN. AND THEN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES ARE THE SITE VISIT PHOTOS. SO THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE EAST, NEIGHBORING VIEW TO THE WEST AND THEN TO THE NORTH. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL. AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 31 NOTICES. WE RECEIVE ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, [00:10:01] AND THERE WAS NO, UH, NO RESPONSE FROM MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. UH, CAN YOU, UH, SPEAK AS TO THEIR STATUS WITH ANY HOT TAXES OR ANY COMPLAINTS? SO THEY ARE CURRENT ON THEIR HOT TAXES AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO, UM, COMPLAINTS EITHER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARYANNE. MY NAME IS MARYANNE MCCARTNEY. UM, THIS INVOLVES A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I, WE, WE LIVE MOST OF THE TIME IN MEXICO. MY HUSBAND HAD AN EMERGENCY SURGERY IN MEXICO THAT WAS VERY SCARY AND THAT MADE US VERY MUCH AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MEDICARE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. TOWARDS THAT END, WE RETURNED TO SAN ANTONIO, WHERE MY HUSBAND IS FROM, AND WE SOUGHT TO PURCHASE A HOME THAT COULD BE OUR HOME WHEN WE NEED MEDICAL TREATMENT AND COULD ALSO PROVIDE US WITH INCOME TO MAKE ALL OF THAT POSSIBLE. WE CAME HERE THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, IDENTIFIED A PROPERTY. UH, WE CONTACTED KYLA LEAL WITH THIS HOUSING, WHATEVER THIS IS CALLED, AND WENT THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOOPS WITH HER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, WOULD BE COMPLIANT. THAT THERE WE, WE WERE UNDER THE CITY REQUIREMENTS OF, IN TERMS OF THE BLOCK FACE. SHE ASSURED US THAT WE WERE, THERE WAS SOME COMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT WAS BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE CITY HAD NOT YET GOTTEN ITS BUILDING NUMBERS CORRECT TO, FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FILL OUT THE FORM ONLINE. THAT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE FOR THE CITY'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO, TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT. WE WERE ASSURED EVERYTHING WAS FINE. AND WHEN WE FINALLY CLOSED ON OUR PROPERTY, OUR PROPERTY, THERE WERE, THERE WERE FOUR UNITS IN OUR TOWN HOME COMPLEX. THREE OF THEM CLOSED ON THE SAME DAY. WE WERE ALL KINDA LINED UP. I HAD NO IDEA THAT MY NEIGHBOR ALSO INTENDED TO DO A SHORT TERM RENTAL. THAT DID NOT BECOME APPARENT UNTIL MS. LEAL SENT ME A LETTER SAYING THAT I HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL. WHICH CAME AS A HUGE SHOCK BECAUSE WE HAD AT THIS POINT PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY FOR ABOUT 347,000 AND PUT IN ANOTHER $30,000 IN FURNISHINGS, WHICH TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING AS A SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UM, THIS WAS A HUGE SHOCK AND BURDEN ON US. UM, IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MIX UP BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR, WHO BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST, SHE'S A LOVELY WOMAN. SHE RUNS A VERY NICE AIRBNB AS WELL. WE, AND WE, WE, WE COOPERATE WITH EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME. HER NAME IS ALSO MARYANNE. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WHEN I WAS COMMUNICATING OR DAVID BIRDIE WHO WAS MY, MY REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME WAS COMMUNICATING WITH MS. LEAL, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE BOTH APPLICANTS ARE AT TWO 30 LUCAS STREET AND BOTH OF US ARE MARYANNE. I DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENED. AND BECAUSE OF THESE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I APPEALED TO THE BOARD BECAUSE IT SEEMED A BIT ARBITRARY TO FLIP A COIN AND SAY THIS MARYANNE GETS IT, THIS MARYANNE DOESN'T. THE BOARD, I GUESS AGREED WITH ME AND THEY ALLOWED ME TO GET MY SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. SINCE THEN, I'M A SUPERHOST ON AIRBNB. I HAVE A GUEST RATING OF 4.88. UM, I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS. I PAY MY TAXES. ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAS MADE THAT DIFFICULT IN SOME CASES BECAUSE UNTIL YOU ALL INTRODUCED AVENUE, IT WAS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO PAY THOSE TAXES BECAUSE I WASN'T SHOWING UP FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THE CITY SYSTEM AND EVEN, BUT I DID MANAGE TO PAY MY TAXES AND I HAVE PAID BOTH MY PROPERTY TAXES, MY HOT TAXES. I'VE BEEN A VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE DO NOT ALLOW PARTIES. WE ALMOST ALL OF OUR GUESTS ARE FAMILIES COMING TO SAN ANTONIO FOR FAMILY CELEBRATIONS, BE IT WEDDINGS OR GRADUATIONS OR SPORTING EVENTS FOR THEIR KIDS. UM, WE GET ALONG WITH OUR NEIGHBORS VERY WELL AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONTINUE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING. IT'S PARTICULARLY CRITICAL FOR US RIGHT NOW. I'VE BEEN HERE ALL SUMMER LONG BECAUSE MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN DI HE'S OLDER THAN ME, HE'S BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH LUNG CANCER AND HE'S UNDERGOING CHEMOTHERAPY, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE BEEN HERE ALL SUMMER LONG AND FORTUNATELY GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. BUT, UM, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE INCOME STREAM TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE SHORT TERM RENTAL, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS ALL VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR US. AND, AND WE HAVE DONE, DONE OUR VERY BEST TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS HAS, WHICH I THINK ARE REASONABLE. I'VE BEEN A SHORT TERM LANDLORD IN BOTH MEXICO AND FLORIDA AND NOW HERE. SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CHALLENGES OF SHORT TERM RENTAL AND WHAT THEY CAN, HOW THEY CAN CHALLENGE A [00:15:01] NEIGHBORHOOD. I SAW IT HAPPEN IN FLORIDA AND I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO MANKEY PARK. UM, WE REALLY ENJOY OUR HOME AND WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU ALL RULE AGAINST ME, WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO SELL OUR HOME. SO STAFF, UH, THE APPLICANT'S HERE FOR UNIT 2 0 2, YOU HAD MENTIONED 2 0 1. WAS THE EXISTING ON THE BLOCK FACE? IS THAT YOUR PROPERTY? 2 0 1 IS MY NEIGHBOR, MARYANNE RODRIGUEZ. OKAY. SO THERE'S, SO WHEN YOU HAD MENTIONED THERE WAS FOUR IN THE BUILDING, THE OTHER TWO WERE JUST HOMES. OKAY. ONE IS UP FOR SALE AND THE OTHER IS JUST MY NEIGHBOR. OKAY. SO YOU DON'T, THIS IS, THIS IS, UH, YOU OWN YOUR UNIT LIKE A CONDO REGIME SORT OF THING? YES. OKAY. IT'S A TOWN HOME. ANY OTHER STAFF QUESTIONS? CITY OR PHILIP? UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. UM, SO AS FAR AS THE, UM, IN 2021, UH, WHEN WE MOVED THIS THROUGH, UH, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER PER BLOCK FACE AND HOW MUCH DID THAT CHANGE OR HOW DID THAT CHANGE? WE CAN JUST DIALOGUE. I DON'T THINK IT HAS CHANGED. YEAH, I IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT HAS CHANGED SINCE. NO. AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS THE OVERALL CITY POSITION AS FAR AS, 'CAUSE WE DID A UDC CHANGE, DID WE? NOT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I THINK IF YOU GO BACK THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE DO NOT GENERALLY SUPPORT REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE 12.5% BLOCK FACE DENSITY. OKAY. UM, BUT AGAIN, SO AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICE, OTHERWISE. UM, AND THE PROPERTY IS COMPLIANT ON TAXES. OKAY. THANK YOU ZUNA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, IN REGARDS, AGAIN, QUESTION FOR THE CITY, THIS IS A RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING, I GUESS THEIR, THEIR TERMINAL THAT CAME UP FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, UM, FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IS IT CITI'S POSITION? THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO RECOMMEND A DENIAL, UM, WHEN THESE RENEWALS KEEP COMING UP, JUST BY VIRTUE OF AGAINST THE 12.5%? YEAH. STAFF, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT REQUESTS. SO YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT EXCEED, EXCEED THE 12.5%, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE HOT TAXES PAID OR COMPLAINTS OF THE NEIGHBORS OR ANY OTHER CRITERIA OTHER THAN IT'S AGAINST THE 12.5% BLOCK FACE? CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, FOLLOW UP QUESTION. SO I JUST WAS JUST DOWN GOOGLE OR A STREET VIEW AND STREET VIEW IS SHOWING, UM, I'M COUNTING 17 UNITS ON THIS STREET, ON THIS BLOCK FACE. UH, TWO 16 LUCAS APPEARS TO HAVE EIGHT UNITS THERE AND THIS APPLICANT HAS FOUR AT THEIRS. AND EVEN IF YOU JUST DO ONE FOR ALL THE REMAINING BUILDINGS THAT 17, WHICH AT 12.5% WOULD ALLOW TWO ON THE BLOCK FACE. IS THAT, UH, CAN STAFF COMMENT ON THAT? UM, CHAIR? SO FOR THE BLOCK FACE DENSITY, IT'S BASED OFF, IF IT'S FIVE OR EIGHT UNITS, IT'S CONSIDERED ITS OWN BLOCK FACE AND IT'S OUT SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF THE BLOCK FACE. SO FOR 2 16 16 LUCAS THAT'S CONSIDERED ITS OWN BLOCK FACE AND, AND IT DOES NOT CALCULATE FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK PHASE. WAS THAT, WAS THAT ONE OF, THAT WAS THAT INTERPRETATION IN, UH, IN PLACE IN TWO, UH, 2021? UH, THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE ORDINANCE IN 2018. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THE BOARD WAS AWARE OF BACK IN 2021. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UH, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS. WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGN UP TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE 'EM COME FORWARD. AM I DONE? YES MA'AM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IT IS MR. KEVIN WYNN. HELLO. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. UH, NAME'S KEVIN WYNN. I AM A RESIDENT OF 7 35 ELEANOR AVENUE. I ALSO REPRESENT THE MAKING PORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD OF MAR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. OKAY. YOU HAVE TO GET, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GET CLOSER. YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT ALL THAT PLEASE? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KEVIN WYNN. I RESIDE AT 7 35 ELEANOR AVENUE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK, I ALSO REPRESENT THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M ONE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. UM, WE ARE AGAINST THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SEEN THEIR PLENTY OF FAIR SHARE OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWOS. WE DON'T WANT THEM ANYMORE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I HAVE THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER Z HAVE QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE. IS THE BOARD'S POSITION AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OR ANY PROPERTY ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, DISTRICT WE ARE AGAINST EXCEPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY. WE WE'RE NOT EVEN, ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD IN THIS MATTER OF THIS SENTENCE, BUT WE, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK 12.5 IS A GOOD NUMBER TO RESIDE BY. UM, IT'S ALSO AT LEAST ONE PER BLOCK FACE. SO ON THIS BLOCK FACE, IF YOU LOOK ON GOOGLE MAPS, THERE ARE I THINK ABOUT 12 BLOCKS. EACH SIDE OF THAT BLOCK IS ALLOWED. ONE STR TYPE TWO. I THINK IT'S A RIDICULOUS RULE. SO, SO THE POSITION IS IN GENERAL, THERE'S [00:20:01] NOT THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY BUT THE RULE IN GENERAL IS THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE. UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 24 103 0 0 180 7 I, EXCUSE ME, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT TWO 30 LUCAS STREET, UNIT 2 0 2, APPLICANT BEING MARY ANN MCCARTHY. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OF WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DI DISTINGUISH A SHORT TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN, IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS, ROADS, DRAIN, STORM, DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES ALL STREET PARKING AND 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 WITH CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES. CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WHERE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORY OF REVOCATION, CITATIONS, OR CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16. IF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR, FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING ALL STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. COMMISSIONER COZ UM, I AM KIND OF IN LIMBO ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT, UM, WE DO TRY TO LIMIT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT IN THIS CASE, SINCE SHE IS APPLYING FOR RENEWAL, UH, AND SHE HAS HAD IT FOR QUITE A WHILE AND NO VIOLATIONS AGAINST IT, I WILL, UH, AGREE TO CONCUR WITH THIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YEAH, UM, I TEND TO APPROACH CASES LIKE THIS WITH SOME DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM, BUT IN THIS CASE, UM, I WASN'T ON THE BOARD IN 2021, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE MADE A GOOD ENOUGH CASE BACK THEN TO GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND I THINK WE HAVE A, A, A COMPELLING CASE HERE THAT JUSTIFIES ALLOWING HER TO CONTINUE THAT USE. RIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT. I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL BECAUSE IT IS A RENEWAL BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMPLAINTS, NO HOT TEXT VIOLATIONS AND, AND THIS APPLICANT HAS, HAS SUNK MONEY AND, AND A AND A TIME INVESTMENT, UH, INTO THE PROPERTY AND IT DOES SERVE, UH, A PUR A DUAL PURPOSE FOR THE MEDICAL NEEDS OF THEIR FAMILY. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER SUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. [00:25:01] CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . UH, NEXT CASE, ITEM TWO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS REQUESTED BY SHERLY NORTON AND IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK PHASE LOCATED AT 16 1 0 6 NOBLE NINTH STREET IN CONTRA DISTRICT STATE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 16 1 0 6 NOBLE NINTH STREET. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK. PHASE ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY RIGHT ON THE BLOCK FACE AND IS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT PER THE 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. AND ON FEBRUARY 28TH, 2024 STAFFED APPROVED A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AT THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. HOWEVER, AFTER AN INTERNAL STAFF AUDIT, THIS TYPE TWO SHORT TERM PERMIT WAS CANCELED ON JULY 12TH, 2024 AS IT WAS ISSUED AN ERROR FOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM 12.5% BLOCK PHASE DENSITY. ON THIS BLOCK PHASE, THERE ARE 13 UNITS ON THE BLOCK. PHASE ONE ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO IS ALREADY ON THE BLOCK PHASE BEING 16 1 22 NOBLE NINTH STREET ISSUED ON MARCH 6TH, 2019. THE BLOCK PHASE IS CURRENTLY AT 8% AND IF AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 15% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO STR. THE PROPERTY HAS A CODE INVESTIGATION THAT OPENED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024 FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. AND AS OF THIS MORNING, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LISTING. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES OF THE NAME RING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THERE WERE 33 MAILED NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE GRAND VIEW HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR THE RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. MAY I HAND THESE UP? SURE. IN FACT YOU CAN JUST LEAVE HIM UP HERE. WE'LL PASS HIM DOWN. WE KEEP THIS ROLLING. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THERE YOU GO. THANKS. THANKS, MIRACLE. AWESOME. YEAH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS GARRETT HOLDEN. UM, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY, SHERLY NORTON. THAT IS MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. UM, NOW I HAVE BEEN, UH, MANAGING THE OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THIS BLOCK PHASE SINCE 2019. ME AND MY WIFE, WE STARTED THAT 2019, TRIED TO WITH THE WATER, SEE , IF WE COULD GET OUR HAND IN DOING THAT STRAIGHT OUT OF, UH, COLLEGE. WHEN WE STARTED THAT, UM, WE ACQUIRED I THINK TWO OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS SINCE THEN THAT WE RUN SEPARATELY OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE ON THIS BLOCK BASED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. CURRENT ON ALL HOTEL TAXES. UM, NEVER HAD ANY VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. PARTIES NONE, NOTHING OF THAT SORT. UH, WE'RE SMALL. WE'RE NOT A HUGE, YOU KNOW, OPERATION ANY, ANY MEANS. BUT, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, SHE, YOU KNOW, HAS THIS PROPERTY, SHE'S RETIRED 63 YEARS OLD THAT SHE WANTED TO TRY RENTING AS WELL ON A SHORT TERM RENTAL BASIS. SHE, UH, WE WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS, IT GOT APPROVED. SHE, BASED ON THAT, SHE INVESTED SIGNIFICANT MONEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MODELING THE HOME, FURNISHING IT, YOU KNOW, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO, TO DO THAT. AND IT'S BEEN RENTING IT SINCE FEBRUARY SINCE THEN, YOU KNOW, NO ISSUES, NO, YOU KNOW, HOTEL TAXES, CURRENT EVERYTHING, UM, ACCORDING TO CODE. UM, BUT THEN IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, THE, UH, THE CITY SAID THAT THERE WAS I GUESS SOME GLITCH IN THE SYSTEM THAT THEY ACCIDENTALLY APPROVED THIS PERMIT. AND LONG STORY SHORT, THE PERMIT WAS NOW REVOKED SURPRISE TO US, OF COURSE, AFTER WE'D ALREADY BEEN OPERATING FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THE BELIEF THAT WE WOULD HAVE THIS PERMIT FOR THREE YEARS AND FOR IT TO BE REVOKED WITHOUT ANY, I GUESS ILL INTENT ON OUR PART OR ANY PARTY OR ANY CODE VIOLATIONS, PARTIES, ANYTHING OF THAT SORTS. SO, UM, LONG STORY SHORT, I WON'T BORE YOU WITH ALL THE DETAILS OF THIS, UH, [00:30:01] SEQUENCE OF EVENTS HERE. UM, THE ONLY OTHER PIECE THAT I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE IS, AS YOU SEE ON THE BLOCK FACE HERE, THERE'S, UH, 13 PROPERTIES NOW DIRECTLY TO THE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT THERE ALSO, OH, IS THERE? OH, APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. OH YEAH. SO HERE'S, UH, 13 PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE BLOCK FACE, UH, I SUPPOSE, BUT DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THIS. I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE HERE, BUT OFF TO THE RIGHT HERE, THERE'S ABOUT SEVEN MORE PROPERTIES ON THIS STREET. AND THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET KIND OF CURVES AROUND THIS WAY. SO I MEAN, IF YOU'RE COUNTING ALL THESE PROPERTIES AND THESE OTHER SIX OR SEVEN ON THIS SIDE, THAT'S ABOUT 22 PROPERTIES. AND YOU KNOW, WE COUNT THOSE THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY ON THE SAME BLOCK BASE. IT'S JUST TINY LITTLE CROSS STREET THAT JUST STOPS RIGHT HERE. I MEAN THAT, THAT WOULD PUT US UNDER THAT DENSITY LIMIT AS WELL. UM, THAT'S ALL REALLY I HAVE TO SAY. I'M, LIKE I SAID, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT SHORT AND SWEET LIKE THAT. ANY QUESTIONS? HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE INITIAL PROPERTY? THE INITIAL 2019, AND THEN WE RENEWED IT SINCE THEN. OKAY. SO IN, IN YOUR, IN THE PERMIT YOU RECEIVED ON THE SECOND PROPERTY WAS THIS YEAR IN FEBRUARY, CORRECT? YES, SIR. IN 2024. FEBRUARY, 2024. AND, AND, UH, OKAY. 'CAUSE WHAT'S, ONE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO, UH, POINT OUT IS THAT IF YOU'VE HAD THE INITIAL ONE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, YOU'VE RENEWED IT, SHOULDN'T YOU BE AWARE THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN, THAN 12.5% OF THE BLOCK FACE? I MEAN, EVEN IF STAFF MADE AN ERROR, SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THAT AND, AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE COME AS A MYSTERY THAT, SO I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BLOCK FACE RULES, I, I'M NOT SUPER WELL VERSED IN THEM. I I WOULD'VE ASSUMED THAT THESE OTHER SEVEN PROPERTIES HERE WOULD'VE COUNTED TOWARDS, IT'S ALL ON THE SAME STREET, RIGHT? IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. THERE'S JUST THIS TINY LITTLE CROSS STREET THAT STOPS RIGHT HERE THAT SPLITS, SPLITS THE STREET. SO, YOU KNOW, IN, IN MY KNOWLEDGE, I WOULD'VE ASSUMED THAT WOULD'VE COUNTED, WE WOULD'VE BEEN UNDER THE BLOCK FACE LIMIT. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SUBMITTED THE PERMIT APPLICATION, MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS, UM, UM, I GUESS VERIFIED IN THAT SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, I ASSUMED THE CITY CHECKED ALL THAT AND WAS LIKE, OH NO, THEY'RE ALL GOOD. WE'RE YOU CAN PROCEED WHEN THEY GRANTED THE PERMIT TO ME. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, SO JUST, JUST ONE COMMENT. SO THERE'S SEVEN HOMES THERE, 12 ON THIS BLOCK SAYS 19, WHICH IS LESS THAN 25. SO, SO THE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS JUST GOING THROUGH THE MATH HERE, SO IT, IT WOULD STILL, I GUESS, VIOLATE THE CURRENT POSITION WITH REGARDS TO THE NUMBER ON, ON A BLOCK FACE, EVEN IF YOU KIND OF DOES, YOU KNOW, IF I DID MY MATH RIGHT, EVEN WITH THOSE, YES. UH, SO SO IS IT NOT ONE, SORRY, EXCUSE ME. SO ONE IN EVERY EIGHT CAN BE A IS IS THAT HOW THE MATH WORKS OUT? YES. SO, SO, OKAY. SO, OKAY, SO MY MATH IS BAD. UM, THEN WHAT YEAR WAS, WAS THAT HOME PURCHASED? UM, SO WAS IT, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? SUBJECT PROPERTY? UH, I, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU TO BE HONEST. THAT'S MY MOTHER-IN-LAW'S HOME. SHE, UM, I MEAN SHE'S, SHE'S OWNED IT FOR AS LONG AS I CAN KNOW. IT'S, SHE'S HAD TO HAVE OWNED IT FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS AT THIS POINT. SO IT WASN'T PURCHASE, IT WASN'T PURCHASED WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING IT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IT'S BEEN A HOME FOR A LONG TIME. IT, IT WAS A LONG-TERM RENTAL. YES, SIR. AND, UM, OKAY. LONG-TERM RENTAL, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THEN SHE, YOU KNOW, SHE'S HAD SOME BAD EXPERIENCE WITH LONG-TERM RENTALS AT HOME BEING DAMAGED AND WHATNOT. UM, SO SHE DECIDED TO DO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SHE HAD A LITTLE MORE, UM, CONTROL I GUESS OVER IT. UM, YOU KNOW, SHE'D BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE REGULARLY, CLEAN IT HERSELF, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, BUT YES, SIR, SHE, AFTER SHE GOT THOSE, AFTER THOSE RENTERS, UM, THEY MOVED TO ANOTHER PROPERTY, SHE DECIDED TO RENOVATE THE HOME, UH, AND FURNISH IT AND ALL THOSE THINGS TO MAKE IT A SHORT TERM RENTAL. JUST TO ANSWER THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION, THE BCA RECORD SHOWS THE DEED DATE IS BEING JULY OF 2011. OKAY. THANK YOU. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO AT WHAT POINT DID YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW DECIDE TO RENOVATE THE, THE PROPERTY BEFORE OR AFTER SHE GOT THE APPROVAL FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL? UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA ASSUME, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I, I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER SHE GOT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT, BUT I, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY FOR CERTAIN, I DON'T WANNA GIVE YOU A FALSE ANSWER THERE. I DON'T THINK SHE WOULD'VE, UH, GONE THROUGH ALL THAT BEFORE GETTING THE PERMIT. OKAY. UH, IT ALSO SHOWS ON BC AD THAT IT, THE CURRENT OWNER IS A TRUST. YES. BUT IN 2009 [00:35:01] WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, UM, A MS. NORTON PURCHASED IT AS A BRAND NEW HOME. YES. SO THEY, THEY BOUGHT IT WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT. UM, HER AND HER HUSBAND, I BELIEVE HER HUSBAND HAS SINCE PASSED AWAY. HE PUT THE PROPERTY INTO TRUST, UM, AND NOW IT'S OWNED BY THE TRUST, I SUPPOSE. SO THE IT DID, DID SHE EVER LIVE THERE AS HER HOME? UH, NO. I BELIEVE SHE, SHE BOUGHT IT AS A RENTAL BECAUSE SHE LIVES ACTUALLY AT 1 6, 1 1 8, UH, A FEW HOUSES DOWN THERE. THAT'S, YEAH, I'LL SHOW YOU THERE. THAT'S ACTUALLY HER PRIMARY RESIDENCE. SHERLY NORTON. OKAY. SHE WAS RIGHT THERE. AND, UM, THEY HAVE THIS OTHER HOME AS WELL. SO SHE OWNS THREE HOMES ON THE BLOCK FACE? UH, NO, THE, THAT 1 6 1 1 8 AND THE 1 6 1 0 6, THE 1 6 1 2 2, THAT IS ME AND MY WIFE'S PROPERTY. OH, OKAY. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UM, QUESTION FOR CITI. YOU ALL SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, UH, TWO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION, BUT I DON'T SEE 'EM ANYWHERE. CAN YOU SHOW ME THAT, PLEASE? ARE YOU ASKING TO SEE THE ACTUAL NOTE, THE NOTICES OPPOSED OR THE LOCATION? WELL, BOTH IF POSSIBLE. OKAY. OKAY. THERE THEY ARE. ALL RIGHT. STAFF. IS THERE ANY, UH, ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? UH, ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR IT. HI, GOOD MORNING. THIS IS MELISSA WALLACE. I AM AT ADDRESS 8 3 3 4 SETTING MOON 7 8 2 5 5 IN SAN ANTONIO. I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER BOA (241) 030-0191. MY PHONE NUMBER IS AREA CODE (608) 738-2229. THIS IS ABOUT A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS AT 1 6 1 0 6 NOBLE NIGHT. I'M VOTING, I'M, I'M CALLING TO EXPRESS A NEGATIVE VOTE FOR THIS CONSIDERATION. I THINK THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOTMENT OF 12 PEOPLE IN A SHORT TERM RENTAL IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD, AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS A NO THANKS FOR CONSIDERING OUR INPUT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? HEARING NONE, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THIS CASE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 91. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL SITUATED 1 6 1 0 6 NOBLE KNIGHT STREET, APPLICANT BEING CHERYL NORTON. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM RENTAL, UNLIKELY TO MATERIAL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A SHORT TYPE TWO RENTAL D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROVI PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF [00:40:01] STREET PARKING AND 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, CONFIRMS CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSE OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. UM, E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUS, SORRY, I READ THAT ALREADY. UM, F THE SPECIAL EXCEPT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES WITH A PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARE TO THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND OF MOTION. SO, SECOND. A SECOND. OKAY, I'LL SECOND IT. UM, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I FEEL FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A LONG-TERM RENTAL, UH, OWNER, LANDLORD AS WELL, AND IT'S NOT FUN. UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO HAVE TO RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO IT. UM, THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE SHORT TERM RENTAL, SO, UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UH, I WILL ALSO NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. UM, I I DIDN'T HEAR ANY, ANY REAL HARDSHIPS. THE APPLICANT, UM, ALREADY HAS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THIS, UH, WELL EXCEEDING THREE YEARS AND, AND, UH, I CAN'T, I CAN'T, UH, BE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, FOR SOMEBODY WHO I, I SUSPECT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY KNOWN ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD IN HEARING NONE US HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. CHAIR ORION? NO. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA WITH STATUS RECOMMENDATION? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. ALRIGHT. UH, MOTION FAILS ZERO TO 11 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BACK TO LUCAS STREET. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 5. ADDRESS BEING TWO 15 LUCAS STREET COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT ARTURO RA UM, REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF TWO STRUCTURES ON AN MF 33 LOT THAT IS ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS. THE ZONING ZONING IS MF 33. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF INTERSTATE 35, EAST OF NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE ON LUCAS STREET. THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS WITHIN TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON MF 33 LOT, THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD ACRE PERMIT IS PENDING. OUTCOME OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THIS IS A SITE PLAN. THIS IS WITH THE, UH, PARKING SPACES, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON AN MF 33, LESS THAN ONE THIRD ACRE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 180 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE CONCENTRATING THE UNITS INTO A SINGLE STRUCTURE CAN PREVENT A OVERCROWDING ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR SMALLER. TWO, THE REQUESTS WILL ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED 38 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. [00:45:11] AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. YES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE AND I THINK THE LAST TIME YOU'RE HERE GONNA MEET WITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD I DID WITH MR. KEVIN GWYNN AND THE WHOLE BOARD, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, THE TWO OPPOSITIONS, UM, WERE FROM KEVIN, MR. KEVIN GWYNN, AND SINCE THEN I MET WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD AND THEY ARE UNOPPOSED. THEY, I EXPLAINED THE PROJECT. AND DID YOU GET ANYTHING IN WRITING AN EMAIL? SOMETHING I CAN'T, I, UH, HE SAID, UM, HE WAS GONNA CALL, HE, I CAN GET A LETTER FROM HIM, BUT NO, I, UM, UH, THE CITY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING IN WRITING SAYING THAT THEY ARE FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL ANYTHING. I'M SURPRISED YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED, UH, THE GENTLEMAN TO, AND HE, HE WAS HERE AND HE JUST WENT TO TALK TO ME AND HE WAS, HE TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE GONNA OPPOSE AND HE LEFT. YOU WANNA TRY TO GO CATCH HIM? WE CAN TABLE THIS. SURE. ALL RIGHT. GIMME CALL. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO SEE IF MR. WOMEN CAN COME BACK IN HERE REAL QUICK. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. WE'LL BE BACK. DON'T BE TOO LONG. ITEM FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO OA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 0 1 3 0. ADDRESS IS FOUR 19 SOUTH HACKBERRY STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO. APPLICANT IS AQUA VERDE PROCESS INCORPORATED A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK. SONY IS IDZ TWO. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF I 30 OR IH 37, AND THE ALAMO DOME ON THE CORNER INTERSECTION OF DASHELL STREET AND SOUTH HACKBERRY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS REZONED TO IDZ TWO IN 2019 BY ORDINANCE 20 19 0 6 2 0 0 5 7 5. IN ADDITION, WAS ADDED TO THE PRO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN 2024 WITHOUT A PLAN, A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT EXPANDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING TO THE REAR INSIDE SETBACKS A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024. AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR EXTERIOR MATERIALS WILL BE REQUIRED AMONG APPROVAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN IN 2019. AND THIS IS THE 2024 MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, SUBJECT, PROPERTY REAR SETBACK, HISTORICAL VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM 2017 AND 2019 AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SITE AND SETBACK. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING THOUGHTS AND ROADWAY. AND TWO, THE VARIANCE WILL INJURE THE NE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF MAILED 29 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS IS A COMMENT FROM, UM, OHP AND THIS JUST STATES THAT ANY THEY WOULD NEED [00:50:01] STILL NEEDS TO SEE THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. GREAT. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. EXCUSE ME. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS COURT BRO, AND I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, AQUA VERDE AND, UH, THE COMPANY THAT I WORK FOR, WEST STAR ALAMO, LAND SURVEYORS. UM, I'M A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS. I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE OF THESE BEFORE, SO PLEASE, PLEASE PARDON ME. IT'S NO BIG DEAL. UM, IF I MAY, I, I JUST A QUICK BACKSTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. UH, MY, MY COMPANY WAS HIRED, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 2019, TO DO A LAND SURVEY ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE COMPLETED OUR, OUR SURVEY. EVERYTHING, UH, APPEARED TO CHECK OUT JUST FINE WITH WHAT WE DID AND OUR FINDINGS AND THE BOUNDARY RECREATION OF THIS PROPERTY. UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEIGHBOR ON LOT 26 ON DASH HILL STREET HAD A SURVEY CONDUCTED FROM ANOTHER SURVEYING COMPANY. AND THEY PRESENTED THEIR, THEIR FINDINGS OF THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER. OUR CLIENT OF THE, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WE DID THE SURVEY FOR. UM, AND THE SURVEYS HAD SOME DIFFERENCES. SO IN DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE WENT BACK TO THE PROPERTY. UM, WE FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY CORNER, THE, THE MAIN PROPERTY CORNER THAT WE USED TO RECONSTRUCT THIS BOUNDARY ON WAS NO LONGER THERE. UH, SO WE HAD TO DO WHAT WE CALL A BLOCK SURVEY WHERE WE'RE SURVEYING JUST AS FAR OUT AS WE NEED TO GO. UM, AND WITH THOSE NEW FINDINGS, IT WAS THE DECISION OF OUR RPLS, OUR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LICENSE SURVEYOR TO, UH, CHANGE THE, THE BOUNDARY THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED TO, UH, CONFORM WITH THE SURVEY OF THE ADJACENT, UH, LANDOWNER. SO BY, BY DOING THAT, OUR WEST PROPERTY LINE MOVED CLOSER TO THE BUILDING, UH, THAT, UH, IS THERE ON 4 1 9 SOUTH HACKBERRY. UM, OUR COMPANY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPANSION OF THAT BUILDING. UH, WE WERE JUST SIMPLY HIRED TO DO A LAND SURVEY. UH, WE DID THAT AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, IT WAS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT SOMETHING MIGHT BE OFF ABOUT IT. WE WENT BACK, DID SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, FIELD WORK AND, UH, THEN A ADJUSTED OUR BOUNDARY AS SUCH. OKAY. UH, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IN 2019, THE IDZ ZONING WENT THROUGH AN IDZ ZONING, CARRIES WITH A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK. UH, DID Y'ALL, AT THAT TIME, DID YOU FEEL THAT THE BUILDING WAS VIOLATING THAT PERIMETER SETBACK? NO, SIR, WE DID NOT. AND, BUT TODAY, UM, IT DOES MO IS IT PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF AN EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND SOME POTENTIAL MOVING OF THE PROPERTY LINE, OR WAS IT SOLELY DUE TO THE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING? I, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT, IT HAS M MORE TO DO WITH THE MOVING OF THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. UH, THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THAT DID NOT CHANGE WHEN WE, YEAH, I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU UP WHILE THE, WHILE THE SITE PLAN'S UP. SO THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FROM 2019 THAT SHOWED THE BUILDING TO BE, UH, 10 FEET AWAY ON, ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE. UH, AND THE STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP THE, UH, RECENT SITE, MAJOR AMENDMENT? SO ON THE MAJOR AMENDMENT, AND YOU HAVE TO ROTATE THIS 90 DEGREES TO KIND OF SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING ON, BUT THE BUILDING GREW BIGGER AND, AND, AND SO ON THAT WEST SIDE, IT LIKE EVERYTHING MOVED FORWARD. AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO LOOK AT THE, THE SETBACK ISSUE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME IN, AND THIS WHERE I'M LOOKING FOR, FOR, FOR YOUR, UH, INPUT ON THIS IS, UH, IS WHEN THE DEVELOP, WHEN THIS PERSON WENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE IDEA OF THIS, THEY EVEN, THEY PUT ON THERE, THEY HAD TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. BUT WHEN THEY APPROVED THE IDEA OF A BUILDING LAID OUT SOMEWHAT LIKE THIS, HOW FAR OFF IS IT FROM THIS PLAN THAT'S UP THERE FROM WHAT YOU, FROM WHERE YOU THINK THE BOUNDARY IS TODAY? ARE YOU ASKING ME HOW FAR DID THAT BOUNDARY MOVE? YEAH, LIKE, UM, ON, ON DASHELL YOU'RE SHOWING IT TO BE 46.3 FEET. WHAT, WHAT SHOULD IT BE? UM, AS IT AS IT SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW, UM, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS THE, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S THE 46.3, UH, THAT IS WHAT IT SHOULD BE. HOW WE HAD IT ORIGINALLY. I, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT EXACT DIMENSION, BUT I, I THINK IT'S [00:55:01] A, A CHANGE OF MAYBE THREE TO FOUR FEET, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN ON THAT PARTICULAR LINE. BECAUSE WHEN I, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ONE FROM 2019, THAT ONE SHOWS TO BE 46.29. AND SO I WAS, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE HOW MUCH IT MOVED. YOU SEE HOW IT SAYS 46.29 ON THAT, ON THAT WEST SIDE? OH, I'M SORRY. UM, SOUTH. NO, IT'S BEEN ROTATED. YOU GOTTA ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT TO LOOK AT THE YEAH, THERE'S A NORTH ARROW ON THE BOTTOM LEFT. SO ON THE WEST SIDE THAT ALONG DASHEL IT'S, IT'S 46.29. AND ON THE NEW SITE PLAN ALONG DASHELL, IT SAYS, UH, 46.3. UH, AND I JUST, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE WITHIN ONE INCH. IS THAT A GOOD NUMBER? YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAYING IT MAY HAVE MOVED THREE FEET, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT ONLY MOVED 0.01 FEET. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, AND AND EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE ON THIS COMMISSIONER, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, THE BOUNDARY AS A WHOLE MADE A SHIFT, UH, ON THE BLOCK. OH, OKAY. DOWN DASHELL, UH, DOWN DASHELL TOWARDS SOUTH HACKBERRY. OKAY. THAT, OKAY. I I DON'T BELIEVE THE, THE ACTUAL, UH, DISTANCE, UH, CHANGED. THAT LINE CHANGED, I THINK SHIFT. SO THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR PROPERTY IS THE SAME. IT JUST SHIFTED DOWN THE BLOCK WHEN YOU DID THE BLOCK SURVEY, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND, AND FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, UH, I, I DID HAVE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE, UM, FIRE MARSHAL, UH, AND WE, WE, IT WAS A VERBAL CONVERSATION. UH, AND I, I DON'T HAVE HIS NAME IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I, I WROTE ALL HIS INFORMATION DOWN AND HE SAID, YOU'RE FINE, YOU'RE WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF OKAY. WHAT YOU NEED TO BE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BRAMAN, BRAMAN. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, SO, UM, THE NEW PROPERTY LINE BASED UPON THE NEW SURVEY IS HOW MUCH DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS IN 2019 ON THE WEST SIDE? UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT DIMENSION, BUT IT, IT, IT WASN'T THAT BIG OF A CHANGE, IT WAS JUST THE, THE BOUNDARY SHIFTED AS A WHOLE. UM, AND I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION. I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE IT WITH ME. ROUGHLY HOW FAR DID IT SHIFT? I, I DO BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT A THREE FOOT SHIFT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND AGAIN, I, I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE THAT, THAT NUMBER WITH ME. AND, AND THAT THREE FOOT SHIFT WENT INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, THAT'S WHY THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT OF THE BUILDING? YES. OKAY. YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. SO ON THE NEW SIDE PLAN STAFF, YOU CAN BRING UP THE, THE CURRENT, OKAY. SO YOU SEE HOW THE NEIGHBORING BUILDING IS LOOKS WELL? ARE YOU, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE, UH, SOUTH BOUNDARY? YEAH, IT'S BEEN ROTATED, SO IT'S, AND IF YOU, OH, OKAY. YES, THANK YOU. YEAH. ARE YOU, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT THERE? NO, NO, THERE'S NO STRUCTURE ON, ON THE WEST SIDE. WELL, THIS IS, THAT'S THE WEST SIDE RIGHT THERE. YEAH. BUT, BUT IS THAT, IS THAT WHERE THERE'S A STRUCTURE ENCROACHMENT INTO YOUR, IN, INTO OUR PROPERTY? UH, THERE'S, THERE IS, THERE IS NO ENCROACHMENT? NO, SIR. OKAY. NO SIR. THERE'S A, THERE IS A, UH, A HOUSE. I'M NOT SURE THE, IF, IF, IF IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL ON THAT, I'M NOT SURE. BUT THERE IS A HOUSE RIGHT THERE ON LOT 26, I BELIEVE IT IS LAST LOT 26. OKAY. AND THIS, UH, THIS LOT RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS OUR SOUTH PROPERTY, I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, THIS ENTITY AND THIS ENTITY SHARE THIS COMMON GREEN SPACE. UH, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL ALSO ADD, JUST TO HELP CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, THIS WAS AN OLD GAS STATION THOUGH. SO THE FOOTPRINT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW BASED ON THE 2019, UM, SITE PLAN, IT WAS MISSED BY STAFF AT THAT TIME THAT THEY NEEDED A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND SO IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, NOW, THEY'VE RECENTLY GONE THROUGH THE REZONING TO, TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. SO THEY DID GET THEIR MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. OKAY. MY, MY LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS, WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN SHOWED, UH, THE BUILDING TO BE MUCH SMALLER. YES, SIR. AND THEN THEY WENT THROUGH AN ADJUSTMENT, THE SITE, EASY TO GET IT DOWN TO FIVE WITH THE, AND THEY WERE SHOWING A SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FIVE FEET, WHICH IS NOW AS CLOSE AS ONE INCH. CORRECT. SO WHEN, WHEN CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC REVIEWED THIS, UH, THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS GONNA GO THAT MUCH INTO THE FIVE FEET, RIGHT? I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN THE SURVEY AND ALL OF THAT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS. I MEAN, THEY DON'T DISCUSS IN, IN DETAIL WHAT THE, THE SETBACKS ARE. THAT'S, IF THEY HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT, THEY HAVE TO COME TO YOU GUYS TO GET THAT RESOLVED. SO IT WAS OVERALL THE MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS HERE'S THE FOOTPRINT OF THE [01:00:01] BUILDING, HERE'S WHAT WAS ADDED ON. ARE WE GOOD WITH THIS? AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY YEAH. WHAT DOES IT FOR ME IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS GOES THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S NOT SHOWING AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A VERY MINOR ENCROACHMENT WITH A PORCH ENCROACHING. YOU KNOW, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I, WHAT I THINK IS BEING REQUESTED TODAY. AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. WHAT DID THE PUBLIC LOOK AT? WHAT DID CITY COUNCIL LOOK AT? WHAT WAS, WHAT WERE THEY LOOKING AT DOING WHEN THEY WERE GONNA APPROVE THIS? IF, IF, YOU KNOW, IF I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD'VE BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL IF IT WAS GOING TO BE ONE INCH AWAY, THAT'S ALL THEY LOOKED AT THE SITE PLAN AND IT'S ACTUALLY EXISTING CONDITIONS, SO. OH, OKAY. OH, WELL THEN THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. YEAH, THE, THE SAME SITE PLAN BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY WAS INCLUDED IN THE REZONING PROCESS AS WELL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. MANA. COMMISSIONER MANA. SO SITE PLAN INDICATING, SO THE, I GUESS THE PAGE TWO, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, RIGHT. AND THEN, UH, COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR? I'M, YOU KNOW, WITH THE MAPS TURNED SIDEWAYS AND EVERYTHING, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FRONT AND BACK AND SIDE, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE, UM, APPROVING OR LOOKING TO APPROVE HERE WITH REGARDS TO THE SIDE AND, AND BACK, UM, SETBACKS. AND IF YOU COULD POINT IT ON THE, ON THE SCREEN, THAT'D BE GREAT IF YOU USED IT, GO AHEAD AND GO BACK. IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE, THE, THE, THE PLAN. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. COMMISSIONER. IT'S, IT'S THIS PORTION IN PARTICULAR THAT I AM, I AM HERE FOR TODAY. UM, UH, WHILE, WHILE I'M HERE, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ALSO HAVING A CONVERSATION MAYBE ABOUT THIS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. UM, BUT THE, THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, UH, OUR SURVEY. THAT'S JUST WHILE WE'RE HERE TYPE OF SITUATION. AND SO, SO THE VARIANCE IS, AND MAYBE YOU WERE SPEAKING TO, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE INCH VARIANT OR, OR A ONE INCH LOOKING TO ALLOW FOR A, A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH ON BOTH. AND SO FROM THE, FROM BOTH PICTURES, IT DOESN'T APPEAR. YEAH. SO IF THE PICTURE THAT'S, THAT NEEDS TO BE ROTATED TO BE IN LINE WITH WHAT STAFF IS PRESENTING TO US JUST TO MAKE SURE NORTH IS UP, IT, IT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO KIND OF SEE IT AND COULD, BUT, UM, YEAH, THE ONE, THE ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE, I I HAVE VISIT THIS IF THAT HELPS. BUT YEAH, IF YOU WANT TO PROJECT IT, THAT'D BE GREAT WITH, WITH IT BEING ROTATED WITH NORTH BEING UP. UH, ITEM NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER ONE ALONG DASHEL I DON'T THINK IS, IS IN DISPUTE THE EXISTING BUILDING AND EVERYTHING. I THINK THE ITEM OF CONCERN IS NUMBER TWO ON THE WEST SIDE. THE, THE SITE PLAN IS, IS ARE WE HERE ON ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR THE PORCH OR THE FOR, OR THE, IS THAT PART OF THE STRUCTURE? THE WOOD DECK PORCH. SO WE'RE HERE FOR THE NORTH AND THE WEST. UM, I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, THEY DON'T NEED IT FOR THE SOUTH BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE . YEAH, NO, KEEP IT WHERE NORTH IS UP. PLEASE LIKE, ROTATE THAT THE OTHER WAY, WAY. YEAH. SO NORTH IS FACING UP. THERE YOU GO. SO YOU SEE WHERE THE, IF YOU SEE, LOOK WHERE THE, THE SMALL, UH, STAIRS IS ON THE WEST SIDE. THE STRUCTURE IS SHOWN TO GO PAST, UH, THE LITTLE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING ARE SHOWN TO GO PAST THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. WHAT'S REALLY IN QUESTION IS THE STAIRS AND THE WOOD DECK. THAT SMALL PIECE RIGHT THERE, I THINK IS THE MAIN CRUX OF THE REQUEST TO GET IT DOWN TO ONE INCH. AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM, ON THE, ON THE SOUTH PART, THE BUILDING ITSELF DOESN'T APPEAR TO BREAK THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO DO YOU FEEL THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS NOT, UH, CROSSING FIVE FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE? LIKE IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IN OUR DISCUSSION TODAY? I, I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. WELL GUESS YOU'RE THE SURVEYORS. SO WE RARELY HAVE THE SURVEYOR PRESENT TO PROVIDE INSIGHT. SURE. YES SIR. OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE IS NO, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK, I THINK ON THE SOUTH COULD JUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MOTION. THE SOUTH COULD BE EXCLUDED. WE KIND OF JUST, UM, PUT IT ON THERE. 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT CITY COUNCIL WAS GONNA APPROVE. THIS WAS JUST APPROVED LAST WEEK, THURSDAY. OKAY. BUT ACCORDING TO THE SIDE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, THEY DON'T NEED IT FOR THE SOUTH SIDE. ALRIGHT. THINKING BACK . YEAH. ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY SENATOR TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UM, ON THE, THE MOTION REGARDING ITEM NUMBER ONE. UH, IT COULD JUST BE LIMITED TO THE NORTH SIDE. UH, AND ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO, TO STRESS THAT IT'S PRIMARILY [01:05:01] FOR A, A WOOD DECK, BUT THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANON, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 0, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF JUSTIN GRANT REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A, UM, ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK, UH, SITUATED AT FOUR 19 SOUTH HACKBERRY. APPLICANT BEING AQUA VER THE ENTERPRISES, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE FROM NEIGHBORING LOTS AND ROADWAY TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE CON RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE OF OUR GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE PROVIDES A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, ADHERES TO REMAINING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS 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 AND WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT DIRECTLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE AS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED THE SIDE, UH, UM, VARIANCE ARE DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED ON THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I LEFT OFF, UH, NUMBER, UH, THE SECOND PORTION, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE, UM, REAR SETBACK BECAUSE, UM, I DO NOT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A, A SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR A WOOD DECK STRUCTURE. AND SO I BELIEVE THEY CAN BUILD THAT ALL THE WAY TO PROPERTY LINE. AND I THINK THAT THE DIALOGUE THAT PROVIDED CORRECT, THE BUILDING'S CROSSING THE FIVE FOOT LINE CORNER. UH, SO THREE, YEAH. SO THREE SIX THEN. OKAY, SO I'M ACTUALLY ADD TO THAT THEN I APOLOGIZE. UM, SO, SO PER THE, PER THE BUILDING PLANS, UM, I'M GOING TO ALLOW FOR A, UH, ONE FOOT FOUR OR ONE FOOT SIX INCH, UM, UH, VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SIDE SETBACK TO BE THREE FOOT SIX INCHES. AND I BELIEVE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE BUILDING AS IT'S CURRENTLY, UH, DRAWN ON THE PLAN, RIGHT? THE REAR SETBACK, REAR SPECIFIC TO THE REAR SETBACK FOR NUMBER TWO. UM, AND SO THEREFORE THE ONLY THING WOULD MODIFY IS ON NUMBER SIX, THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES ARE DUE TO, UH, STAFF BECAUSE THE DECK IS ATTACHED TO THE HOME. IS THAT PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS FAR AS SETBACKS ARE CONCERNED, OR IS THAT CORRECT? IT IS. AND ALSO DID YOU, FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, WERE YOU LIMITED THAT TO JUST A NORTH, UH, SWEAT SETBACK? NO. YEAH, THAT'S WHY THIS THING HAS TO BE ROTATED. YEAH. SO YEAH, THE ADDRESS IS OFF OF, RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE. YEAH. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE BEGINNING PART OF THE MOTION AGAIN, . SO, UM, A FOUR FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK LIMITED TO THE NORTH SIDE, LIMITED TO THE NORTH SIDE, AND THEN A, SO, OKAY, SO WOOD DECK COUNTS THEN? YES. IT, IT COUNTS. UH, YOU COULD SAY THE I'M GO AHEAD AND WITHOUT, WITHOUT THE DECK. AND SO, SO IT'LL BE, AS I STATED EARLIER, WHICH IS A, UM, A ONE FOOT, UM, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SIT BACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO HAVE A THREE FOOT, SIX INCH, UM, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT, UH, REAR SET, UH, REAR SETBACK. AND THEN ALL THE REST OF IT'LL BE READ AS, AS STATED PREVIOUSLY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I JUST SAID? SO I DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE WOOD DECK IS WHAT I'M EXCLUDING AND JUST THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. ONLY IF THE, IF THE STRUCTURE IS ELEVATED AND THEY NEED THE STAIRS FOR PURPOSES OF EGRESS, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PORTION OF IT THAT HAS TO BE IN THE SETBACK. WOULD STAIRS BE INCLUDED [01:10:01] IN, UM, UM, I GUESS NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED IN A SETBACK? IF THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE, IT, IT'S ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND SO IT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK. WHY DON'T YOU READ IT AS A, AS A ONE FOOT SIX WITH A, WITH A SEPARATE, WITH A SEPARATE, UH, REAR SETBACK. LIMITED SOLELY TO THE WOOD DECK. YEAH. YEAH. SO, OKAY. SO, UM, I'M GOING TO ALSO AMEND IT SO THAT, UH, THERE IS FOR THE SPECIFIC WOOD DECK AREA, UH, WHATEVER THE SIZE THAT IS, UH, TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO, UH, HAVE A, UM, FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE, UH, WITH A ONE INCH TO ALLOW FOR A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK, SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED TO THAT, UM, UM, WOOD DECK SURFACE. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? YES. ALRIGHT. UM, I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, I NEED TO ASK YOU TO REREAD THE ENTIRE FIRST PARAGRAPH. SO SHOULD, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 0, I MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE. AND TWO, A UM, FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK, UH, TO ALLOW A DECK STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK AND THE REMAINDER OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE, OR A ONE FOOT, UM, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW THAT STRUCTURE TO HAVE A THREE FOOT SIX INCH REAR SETBACK. I, I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR WITH THE BOARD THAT WE CAN'T CONDITION SETBACK RELIEF ON DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE ALONG THE SAME PROPERTY LINE. SO IF YOU REDUCE IT TO ONE INCH FOR THE STAIRS, IT'S REDUCED TO ONE INCH FOR EVERYTHING ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. WE CAN LIMIT IT BY DISTANCE. SO LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO SAY THE, UM, THE SETBACK IS, IS A ONE FOOT SIX VARIANCE, UH, WITH EXCLUSION OF A 15 FOOT SECTION THAT GOES DOWN TO ONE INCH. NO, WE CANNOT DO THAT. WE CANNOT CONDITION THE RELIEF. CAN WE, CAN WE SAY THAT? UM, 'CAUSE WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE WHERE WE'VE LIMITED SETBACKS TO BE FOR A PORTION OF THE, NOT FOR THE ENTIRE SIDE. THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, WE, WHEN WE'VE HAD A CARPORT THAT WAS 40 FEET LONG, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE LIMITED IT TO THAT 40 FOOT SECTION. WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM CAR BLANCHE ON THE ENTIRE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THIS BOARD NUMEROUS TIMES. SO WHAT, HOW CAN WE POSE THIS MOTION TO HAVE IT HAVE SOME LIMITATION SO THEY CAN'T HAVE CARTE BLANCHE ONE INCH ON THE ENTIRE SOUTH SIDE? SO MY, MY ENTIRE TIME WORKING WITH THE BOARD, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN ADVISED THAT RELIEF IS RELIEF FOR ANYTHING ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. YOU CAN, YOU CAN SAY IN, UH, ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND WE CAN CHECK IN. UM, I DON'T WANNA PUT OUR CITY ATTORNEYS ON THE SPOT, BUT I'VE NEVER KNOWN THAT YOU CAN GRANT RELIEF ONLY FOR A PORTION OF A SETBACK. WE, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. IF IT'S, IF THEY DELINEATE ON A, A, A DISTANCE, UM, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. Y'ALL HAVE DONE IT BASED ON DISTANCE OR BASED ON SITE PLAN. OKAY. SO I WOULD I WOULD SAY THAT DIS THE DISTANCE. YEAH, THE, THE, UM, YEAH, YOU COULD MENTION AS REFERENCE IN THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED, THE SECOND SITE PLAN, BECAUSE IT HAS THE DETAILS, IT JUST DOES NOT ALSO THAT THAT PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE WEST SIDE IS 45 AND A HALF FEET LONG. SO YOU COULD LIMIT IT TO, UH, THE 20 FEET IN THE DEAD MIDDLE OF THAT AND THAT COVER IT IF YOU WANT. I MEAN, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. SO I, I THINK I'M GONNA USE THE SITE PLAN AS, AS THE OPTION AND IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE BOARD BECAUSE, UH, THAT APPEARED TO BE ACCURATE. SO THEN I WILL, UM, SO REREAD NUMBER ONE AGAIN. UM, SAY THE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING CASE? NO, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE THAT HE, HE PRESENTED. NO, THIS IS, THIS WAS DONE TWO MONTHS AGO. THIS WAS APPROVED LAST WEEK. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED HERE. THAT IS IT. I HAD STUFF AT IT. I THOUGHT HE SHOWED SOMETHING, SHOWED THIS STRUCTURE THAT WAS HERE. THE DECK STRUCTURE. NO, THAT'S IT. IS THIS, IS THIS SURVEY GOOD SIR? IT'S YES SIR. IT'S WHAT I HAVE IN HERE MINUS THE, UH, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ON Y'ALL'S Y'ALL'S TOP LIST. AND THAT SITE [01:15:01] PLAN YOU'RE SEEING IS THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK. OKAY. I WE JUST REFERENCE. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO, UH, CASE, SORRY, THIS IS TAKING A LONG HERE. SORRY. ARDING CASE BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 0. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARI, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE. AND, UH, TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK AS DEFINED. UM, WITHIN THE PLAN SUBMITTED, UM, SITUATED AT FOUR 19 SOUTH HACKBERRY, APPLICANT BEING AQUA VERDE ENTERPRISES INC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROVISIONS THAT UDC ESTIMATED WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THEN EVERYTHING WOULD BE READ AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. RIGHT? I WOULD ALSO, IF YOU COULD PLEASE ADD AS THE SAME BEING THE SAME SITE PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 7TH, THAT'D BE GREAT. SO IT'S OCTOBER 17TH. 17TH, SORRY. SO WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED, UH, Z 2 0 2 4 1 0 7 2 2 5. UM, YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN ACCEPTED. ALRIGHT, ANY COMMISSIONER QUE UH, COMMENTS? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? JUDGE STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT DAY. THANK YOU. YOU TOO. ALRIGHT, FOR THE APPLICANT FROM ITEM FOUR, CAN YOU STEP BACK UP? I'M GONNA BRING ITEM FOUR BACK UP ONTO THE TABLE. IT IS TWO 17. WHERE'D YOU FIND OUT? UM, WE GOT AN EMAIL, UH, WITH THE MANKEY PARK BEING UNOPPOSED. ALL RIGHT, STAFF, YOU CONCUR? OKAY, CAN THEY'RE PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW. THAT'S QUICK WORK. SO WHILE, WHILE WE'RE UP HERE, LET'S CONTINUE THE, THE HEARING. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT, WELL, TWO 15 LUCAS IS, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO, I WAS JUST VERIFYING, UH, THAT'S THE CORRECT REPRESENTATIVE. JUST ONE SECOND. OKAY. UM, FOR MANKEY PARK WE HAVE RUTH RODRIGUEZ AS THE PRIMARY CONTACT NAME. OKAY, LET ME SEE IF THEY HAVE A WEBSITE. YEAH, SO JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE BOARD, WHAT WE'RE CHECKING TO SEE RIGHT NOW IS IF IF THE EMAIL THAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU THAT WAS RECEIVED CAME FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT RE IS REGISTERED WITH THE CITY FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ELSE FROM THEIR BOARD COULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SENDING IT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONFIRM IF THAT'S THE PERSON THAT'S FORMALLY NOMINATED BY THAT GROUP TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS. [01:20:11] SO THIS EMAIL, UM, IS NOT THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION FROM THE, THAT'S REGISTERED WITH THE CITY. UM, I CAN NOTE THAT THEY INCLUDED, UM, INFO@MAHANEYPARK.ORG. UM, THAT ITSELF IS NOT THE OFFICIAL EMAIL EITHER THAT THEY REGISTERED WITH THE CITY, BUT, UM, JUST SO THE BOARD IS AWARE AND I JUST SENT, UH, WELL FORWARDED ANOTHER EMAIL WITH THAT SAYS THE SAME THING. THAT'S, UH, MR. SCOTT DAY. YEAH, KEVIN AND, AND KEVIN NEN IS ACTUALLY THEIR TREASURER ACCORDING TO THEIR NEW RECENT NEWSLETTER FROM OCTOBER. AGAIN, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS, THE STAFF IS NOT ASCERTAINING THAT THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE. JUST WANT TO PUT IN RECORD WITH THE BOARD THAT IT'S JUST NOT THE REGISTERED NAME OR CONTACT ON FILE WITH THE CITY. OKAY. WELL, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO FOR THE, IT APPEARS THAT PER THE PRIOR CASE THAT THE MF 33 LOT ACROSS THE WAY, UM, HAS THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS. IF, IF, IF, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, AND THIS IS A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE'RE PUTTING BASICALLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PROPERTY. SO, SO IT ACTUALLY IS, UM, THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS ON A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY IF I GATHER CORRECTLY. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? YES, SIR. YEP. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, I WILL DO IT. MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER, UM, BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 180 5, I'M WITH THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO STRUCTURES MF THREE THREE LOT, THAT IS ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS SITUATED AT 2 1 5 LUCAS STREET, APPLICANT BEING ARTO RIVERA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS ADEQUATE SPACING EXISTS ON A LOT TO PERMIT TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES, WHICH WILL NOT IMPACT THE COMMUNITY FIELD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOUND IN THIS REGULAR LOT SHAPE, UH, AS IT RELATES TO DEPTH COMPARED TO SIMILAR NEARBY LOTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES WILL BE OBSERVING THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND NOT OPPOSING ON THE PHYSICAL, ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCES LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM OF PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT INJURE THE ADJACENT USE OF PERFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE LOT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, SECOND. I'LL GIVE THIS ONE TO COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER MANA. SO, SO WHENEVER WE ASK SOMEBODY TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, THEY DO, UH, THOSE THAT ARE FEATHERS, UH, IN THEIR CAP FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR DOING SO AND THEN HAVING, UM, UM, THEN CONCUR WITH, WITH THE DESIGN OF YOUR PROPERTY. UM, I'LL BE AGREEING WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY COMMISSIONER BEES. I AGREE WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA, ALL OF THE POINTS. UM, I APPLAUD YOUR TENACIOUSNESS TO GO OUT AND GET WHAT WE ASKED YOU TO DO, UH, AT OUR LAST MEETING. SO I WILL ALSO BE, UM, UM, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE, WITH THE STAFF. ALL RIGHT? ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE THAT. UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT. I I, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT, UH, AMPLE PARKING, WHICH IS ALWAYS, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A, UH, ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. COMMISSIONER. YES, I CONCUR. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. [01:25:01] 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. 11 ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO STAND. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX, BO A DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 42. ADDRESS BEING 2 0 7 STARDUST STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT OSCAR EZ. A REQUEST FOR A 31% VARIANCE FROM THE NCD THREE, MAXIMUM 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW 66% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD. TWO, AN NCD THREE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THREE, A 60 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 65 DRIVEWAY, 60 FOOT FIVE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION ZONING IS MP 10. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF BANDERA ROAD, NORTH OF INGRAM ROAD ON STARDUST STREET. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER EXPANDED THE DRIVEWAY ON THE PROPERTY FOR DUAL APPROACH ON JUNE 10TH, 2024. THE APPLICANT WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR NOT OBTAINING A CURB, DRIVEWAY OR CURB CUT APPROACH. PERMIT REMOVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS BAFFLE BLOCKS AND EXCEEDING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PERCENTAGE FOR THE FRONT YARD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A 31% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND A 60 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 61% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND FIVE FOOT DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN NCD THREE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE IN THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS FROM PREVIOUS. THIS, THE NEXT IS GONNA BE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ADDED SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS FROM 2023. AND IN THE CURRENT SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE, UH, FENCE. IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE FRONT YARD AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR N CD THREE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN CD THREE, FRONT YARD FENCE AND THE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 42. UH, ONE. THE IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE WILL SEVERELY REDUCE THE PROPERTIES PERMEABLE SURFACE AREA, INCREASING RISK OF EXCESSIVE WATER RUNOFF ON AND TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. TWO, THE VARIANCES MAY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS THERE'S NO SIMILARLY DESIGNED YARDS OBSERVED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF MAILED 16 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND, UH, NO RESPONSE FROM THE INGRAM OR ACTUALLY INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN FAVOR THAT CAME AFTERWARDS. AND THIS IS THEIR RESPONSE. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. UH, CAN YOU STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP THE, UH, STREET VIEW OF THIS? YES. AND REAL QUICK, UM, VERIFY WITH THE APPLICANT. UH, THIS IS A 55 FOOT ITEM NUMBER THREE. IT'S GONNA BE A 55 FOOT VARIANCE, NOT A 60. SO THEY HAVE A 10 FOOT SEPARATION INSTEAD OF THE FIVE FOOT SEPARATION. UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REMAINS THE SAME. OKAY. COME FOR AN AREA LIKE THE, THE REASON WHY I'VE ASKED FOR YOU TO BRING UP THE STREET VIEW IS, UH, THE STAFF REPORT MAKES MENTION OF THE BAFFLE BLOCKS THAT WERE REMOVED. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO SEE WHAT WAS THERE PRIOR. AND, AND ONE THING I I WILL ALSO NOTE IS THAT, UM, THE, THE RECORDED PLAT FOR THIS PROPERTY, UM, [01:30:01] DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS A NATURAL LOW THAT RUNS, UH, RIGHT DOWN THE SIDE OF THIS HOME, UH, WHERE THOSE BAFFLE BLOCKS WERE. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN? UM, WELL, SORRY, CAN YOU ACTUALLY GO TO GOOGLE AND PUT IN THE ADDRESS? THEY SURE DO. IT'S ALSO PROVIDE THE SAME PHOTO BECAUSE LAST TIME, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO THE RIGHT A LITTLE BIT. GO UP ONE MORE. THERE WE GO. SO WHAT HAPPENS WAS THIS WAS A NATURAL LOW OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHEN THE CITY, UH, INSTALLED THESE, THESE BLOCKS, THEY, THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAINTAIN THE CURVE. THEY PUT UP THESE BAFFLE BLOCKS. THE WATER IS SUPPOSED TO NATURALLY DRAIN THROUGH THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE TREE, DOWN BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES AND, AND THEN BEYOND. SO THIS IS COLLECTING, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE FROM, FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND WHATNOT. AND SO, UM, MY CONCERN WAS, AND, AND I'M LOOKING FOR HOPEFULLY FOR THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER SOME OF THIS, OR EVEN IF STAFF WANTS TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT, HOW DID THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS DRIVEWAY, UH, CONFLICT WITH DRAINAGE PATTERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED? WHAT I, WHAT I COULD TELL FROM THE PICTURES, UH, IS IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THE DRAINAGE, UH, MAY GO INTO THE PROPERTY AND THEN IT IS BEING DIVERTED MORE INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY INSTEAD OF RUNNING DOWN BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE FENCE OF THE NEIGHBORS LIKE IT NATURALLY DOES NOW. AND SO THAT DIVERSION OF WATER IS SOMETHING THAT WAS OF CONCERN TO ME. SO I'M LOOKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT OR, OR A STAFF WOULD LIKE TO. THAT'D BE GREAT. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME. TELL US ABOUT YOUR M SORRY. MY NAME IS CINDY MUNOZ AND I'M OSCAR'S WIFE. HE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. UM, I WILL SAY THAT WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS ALL JUST A WOODED AREA. THERE WAS NOTHING AT ALL. IT'S COMPLETELY NEW CONSTRUCTION. WE HAD TO REBUILD EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND UP. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE DID REMOVE THE BAFFLE BLOCKS AND THEN WE MADE IT INTO A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY. WHEN I HAD CAME TO THE CITY, THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THOSE BEING PUT IN AT ALL. SO THERE WAS NO ZONING. THE MAN SAID, WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU REMOVING THEM BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY ISSUES, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS 'CAUSE WE THREW OUR CEMENT IN AND MADE IT A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY. SO WHEN THEY CALLED CODE COMPLIANCE, UM, SHE SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE A PERMIT. AND I SAID, OKAY, WELL WE DIDN'T BUILD THE PERMIT 'CAUSE ALL WE DID WAS BUILD THE CEMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVEWAY, I DUNNO IF YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE PICTURES, THAT APPROACHMENT WAS ALREADY THERE. WE JUST REUTILIZED IT. SO WHEN I CAME TO THE CITY, WE HAD MR. JESSE REESE GO OUT. HE WENT OUT THERE RIGHT AWAY, HE LOOKED AT IT, HE SAID THAT IT WAS FINE. SO I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS GOOD. I CALLED COM CODE COMPLIANCE, GLORIA BACK, THIS WAS IN JUNE. SO THEN, UM, SHE TOLD ME THAT NO HE WAS WRONG. UM, AND NOW THEY GAVE ME A SECOND VIOLATION, WHICH WAS HAVING TOO MUCH CEMENT, WHICH AT FIRST THEY TOLD ME IT WAS 50%. WELL, I'VE SIT, WE'VE SINCE FOUND OUT THAT IT'S NOT EITHER OF THOSE. IT SHOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN 35% BECAUSE WE'RE IN A CONSERVATIVE, UM, DISTRICT AREA, WHICH WE WERE NOT AWARE OF. UM, SO THEN THEY SAID, OKAY, WELL IF YOU WANNA MAKE IT A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY, GET THE PERMIT. SO WE CAME BACK TO THE CITY AGAIN, WE HAD TO FIND SOMEBODY 'CAUSE NO CONTRACTOR REALLY WANTED TO TOUCH IT ANYMORE. UM, THEY WERE LIKE, YOU CAN CALL ONE OF THESE PEOPLE AND SEE IF THEY'LL BE ABLE TO JUST REDO THE WHOLE THING. WHICH OF COURSE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY RIGHT NOW TO REDO THE WHOLE THING. MY HUSBAND IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH BACK SURGERY WITH SOME HERNIATED DISC. SO IT WAS LIKE, I CAN'T REALLY DO THAT. WHAT ARE OUR OTHER OPTIONS? YOU KNOW? SO THAT'S WHERE THE VARIANCE CAME TO PLAY. UM, BUT BECAUSE WE HAD ALREADY PUT THE DRIVEWAY IN, WE HAD, UH, MR. RAMOS FROM HERE, COLTON CAME A LOT OF TIMES. I KNOW A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. AND SO THEY HAD STORM WATER LOOK AT IT. AND SO SABRINA FROM STONE, UH, SABRINA FROM FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT DI DIVISION, UM, SHE SAID HER MAIN CONCERN WAS THE POSSIBLE DRAINAGE ISSUES INTO OUR OWN, INTO OUR OWN HOME THAT COULD BE, UH, BE EXPERIENCED AS A RESULT OF THE WAY THAT THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED, AS WELL AS THE NEW DRIVEWAY. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT SLOPE ACROSS THE LOTS [01:35:01] ACROSS FROM WHERE YOU RUN OFF, WHICH WILL ACCUMULATE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE LOW RIGHT IN YOUR FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE AND MAKE ITS WAY THROUGH YOUR DRIVEWAY AND RIGHT INTO YOUR HOME. SO THEN I PICKED UP THE PHONE AND I CALLED HER AND I SAID, WELL, IF THE ONLY IS TO MY DRIVEWAY. AND SHE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE BAFFLE BLOCKS BEING PUT IN, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD BEEN TELLING THEM. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE TRANSPARENT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE JUST MOVED IN. I HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN LIVING IN THAT HOUSE A YEAR. I JUST MOVED IN, UH, NOVEMBER. EVEN THOUGH WE HAD GOTTEN IT BEFORE, UM, WE HAD A TWO BEDROOM HOUSE, BUT BECAUSE OUR KIDS WERE NO LONGER WITH US, WE WANTED SOMETHING SMALLER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO RETIRING. THAT WAS MORE LOCAL. 'CAUSE WE USED TO LIVE BY SEAWORLD. UM, SO THAT'S REALLY ALL THE INFORMATION I HAVE. CODE COMPLIANCE HAS GONE OUT. THEY DID GIVE ME, UH, A NOTICE TO APPEAR. UM, SO I WENT TO COURT, UH, LAST WEEK AND THEN THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO WAIT TILL AFTER THE VARIANCE, SO I GOTTA GO BACK TO COURT NEXT WEEK. SO I'M TRYING TO BE AS COMPLIANT AS WE CAN. UM, AND SO WHEN I WENT TO THE ASSOCIATION BOARD, UM, I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT HAPPENED AND HE WAS LIKE, YEAH, IT'S REALLY ODD. 'CAUSE THERE'S, HE SHOWED ME LIKE A MAP AND IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE THAT THERE'S CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT. BUT HE UNDERSTANDS THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE BECAUSE WE'RE SO NEW. AND THIS HOUSE, I MEAN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE LIKE, OH, IT'S SO NICE, YOU KNOW, WE GET TO MEET YOU BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONLY NEW CONSTRUCTED HOUSES IN THAT WHOLE AREA. AND THEN THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND IF WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO IT. BUT THE REASON THAT WE PUT IT THERE IS BECAUSE THERE IS A SLOPE WHEN YOU'RE COMING DOWN, YOU COULD SEE THE BACKYARD. AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL THEFTS AND I WORK FROM HOME, SO I KIND OF GOT SCARED. SO IT KIND OF BLOCKS. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT THE WHOLE THING. UM, BUT WE'VE SEEN SOME FENCES LIKE THAT IN OUR AREA AND ALSO SOME OF THE, UM, DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS WHERE WE GOT THE IDEAS. AND I HAD SENT THOSE INTO MELANIE, BUT THEY'RE NOT SHOWING HERE. BUT, UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE IDEA FROM TO MAKE IT A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WE HAD SEEN SOME MORE EVEN DOWN THE STREET FROM US. AND THEIR AREAS ARE NOT SMALLER. BUT AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE IN AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THERE'S PROBABLY DIFFERENT RULES BACK THEN. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. AND UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS MUCH AS I CAN. . OKAY. UM, ONE THING I NOTICED WHEN I WAS ON STREET VIEW, HOW, HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THE HOME? THE PROPERTY? UM, WE BUILT IT, UM, SINCE WE GOT THE OCCUPANCY IN 2022, BUT WE JUST MOVED IN IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. OKAY. UH, ALRIGHT. 'CAUSE IT SHOWS THAT THE, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 2020. WE STARTED THE HOUSE, BUT WE USED OUR OWN MONEY. WE DIDN'T GET ANY FINANCING, SO IT TOOK US A LONG TIME TO BUILD IT. WE LITERALLY PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS HOUSE AND, UH, WE WANTED IT TO, TO LOOK NICE AND, YOU KNOW. YEAH. ON THE, ON THE STREET VIEW FROM JUST THE, THE APPEARANCE OF THE SIDEWALK ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU, IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY WENT IN AND REPLACED A LOT OF THAT. IT LOOKS PRETTY NEW. UH, AND WHEN THAT, WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY MOST LIKELY SAID OBSERVE THE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND POP THOSE BAFFLE BLOCKS IN. UH, UH, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THAT CAME FROM. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, SOMETIMES THAT STUFF, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THE, UM, THE STORMWATER MANAGER, UH, DID CHIME IN, UM, PRIOR AND HER MAIN CONCERN WAS THE DRAINAGE OR THE FLOODING OF THEIR OWN HOME AND THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY. I HAVE THAT EMAIL. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S, I'M, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE, THE DIVERSION OF THE DRAINAGE PATTERNS MORE ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS NATURALLY GOING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S CONCERNING ME. WELL, WE ALL LIVE ON A SLOPE. SO EVEN OUR BACKYARD, IT'S, THERE'S NOBODY BEHIND US. IT'S A SCHOOL. SO ALL OF OUR UM, ALL OF OUR YARDS GO STRAIGHT DOWN. IT'S NOT EVEN AT ALL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, STAFF? IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? SO MAN, UH, MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I, I KIND OF, UM, MISSED, I GUESS MAYBE YOUR PRIMARY POINT WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCE HEIGHT ON THE FRONT SIDE. MM-HMM. . AND SO, SO, SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE THAT FORWARD OF YOUR HOUSE WITH REGARDS TO THE EIGHT FOOT SIDE FENCING? UM, THAT'S JUST HOW MY HUSBAND BUILT IT SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE COMING DOWN THE STREET, YOU CAN'T LOOK TO THE BACKYARD. 'CAUSE WE HAD THEFTS AND WE HAD A CAMERA AND YOU COULD SEE, AND OUR NEIGHBOR WAS FINE WITH IT, SO, SO I, I DID NOT SEE, UM, ANY, SO, UM, ANY OTHER FENCES LIKE THAT IN THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW? AND MAYBE I JUST MISSED IT, [01:40:01] BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE. THERE'S, I HAVE A PICTURE OF ONE THAT'S LIKE DOWN MAYBE FOUR HOUSES DOWN FROM US ACROSS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT THAT HIGH AND IT'S IN THE FRONT, THAT ONE. SO, BUT AGAIN, THAT ONE IS ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND SO, BUT DOESN'T MOVE TOWARDS THE STREET. OKAY. AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S A DELTA. AND SO, SO THINGS, SO THERE'S DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO HAVING EIGHT FOOT AND UM, AND THE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THAT. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE ALIGNED WITH WHAT IT IS THAT THE CITY DOES, BUT HAVE IT MOVE FORWARD TO THE HOUSES WHERE THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES. OKAY. AND THAT'S ALSO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS CONCERNED WITH AS WELL. HAD YOU HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUT IT AT ALL? YEAH, THEY HAD PUT ON THE LETTER THAT THEY WOULD LEAVE THAT PART UP TO YOU ALL. I THINK FOR THEM IT WOULD'VE BEEN MORE OF A CONCERN IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN THE WHOLE HOUSE. UH, BUT IT WAS JUST A SECTION AND THAT'S WHY THEY WERE LIKE, UH, WE'LL LET THEM DECIDE. STAFF. CAN YOU BRING THAT PICTURE THAT YOU HAD UP FROM THE STREET VIEW ON, FROM YOUR PRESENTATION OF THE FENCE? YEAH, THAT ONE. SO THE, THE FENCE SETS MORE STAIN THAT DARKER COLOR. WOULDN'T THAT STOP PEOPLE FROM LOOKING IN YOUR BACKYARD? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU NEEDED TO EXTEND THAT MUCH FAR FORWARD. WELL, JUST THE WAY THAT THEY'RE COMING DOWN THE HILL, YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE IT AND SO THAT'S WHY HE BUILT IT THAT WAY. I MEAN, IF WE HAD TO TAKE IT OFF, THEN I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IT THERE FOR SAFETY REASONS. OKAY. AND WE HAVE THE CAMERAS LIKE RIGHT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT FENCE THAT WAS THERE, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T REALLY, IT'S NOT GONNA STOP PEOPLE FROM JUMPING IN ANYWAYS. BUT WE HAD SOMEBODY DRIVE IN OUR FRONT YARD AND TAKE OUR, OUR TRAILER. THEY JUST BACKED IN AND, AND TOOK IT . SO. WELL, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE FENCE FORWARD OF THE STAIN PORTION? MM-HMM, . OKAY. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT FENCE IS GONNA SERVE MORE OF A PURPOSE THAN THE STAIN FENCE. AND THEN THE, THE, THE MUCH HIGHER HOMES ON EITHER SIDE, WOULDN'T THAT BE BETTER BLOCKING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN EVEN SEE IN THE BACKYARD, YOU KNOW, WHETHER I'M DRIVING DOWN THE STREET THAT'S ON A SLIGHT SLOPE. THOSE HOME, THE HOMES, YOUR HOME AND YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOMES ARE HIGHER THAN THAT FENCE. WOULDN'T THAT STOP PEOPLE FROM LOOKING IN THE NO, I THINK THEIRS IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. OURS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE SLOPE. SO WHEN YOU WOULD COME THIS WAY, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT. AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY. AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS ONLY DONE ON THAT SIDE. NOT, I'M, I'M, I'M, I APOLOGIZE. I'M VERY NO, WELL THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, I, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHY THEY DID YOU KNOW WHY MY HUSBAND DID IT? I WISH HE WAS HERE TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT MORE. I'M, I MEAN IF I, IF I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, I THINK THE, THE, THE, UH, SEVEN FOOT TALLER HOME IS GOING TO STOP ME FROM LOOKING IN YOUR BACKYARD THAN, THAN A, A MUCH SHORTER FENCE. SO, OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, UH, THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER MANN. SO I, SO ANOTHER QUESTION HERE. AND SO, UM, SO IT SHOWS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE. AND, UM, AND SO IS THAT, UM, THE FENCE THAT THAT'S BEING MEASURED IS THE ONE THAT'S FORWARD OF THE HOUSE, IS IT ALSO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE FRONT SIDE OF THE HOUSE OR, OR, OR PERIMETER AROUND THE HOUSE? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A TALL FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. AND IS THAT UP FOR DIALOGUE OR IS THAT GONNA BE NO, IT'S JUST A FRONT YARD PORTION. SO, SO THE ONLY THING, SO, SO THEY HAVE THE PART THAT'S FORWARD TO THE HOUSE AND THEN ALSO GOING, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT FACADE TO THE SIDE. THAT'S ALSO EIGHT FOOT THEN, AND THAT'S PART OF THIS DIALOGUE. SO THE ONLY, THE ONLY DI UM, THING IN CONSIDERATION IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE, UM, I GUESS THE COVER, I DUNNO WHAT YOU CALL THAT. NOT THE FRONT FACADE, BUT THIS FORWARD OF THE FRONT FACADE, THE PATIO, UH, WHERE THE PATIO STOPS IS WHERE THE STRUCTURE STOPS. SO THAT'S WHERE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE HAS TO STOP. BUT IS EIGHT FOOT, I'M SORRY, EIGHT FOOT FENCE PERMITTED IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ON FRONT OF THE, YOU SAID FRONT, WELL, OR ON THE SIDE PROPERTY? YEAH, ON THE SIDE. AND REAR IT'S PERMITTED NOT FORWARDED THE HOME THOUGH, CORRECT. NOT FORWARDED, UH, THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. IT'S LET THE RECORD SHOW 2 44. COMMISSIONER EVEN HAS, UH, LEFT THE MEET, UM, DEAN, COMMISSIONER, DEAN, UH, THE DRIVEWAY. DID, DID YOU CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL WITH THE DRIVEWAY? 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE GEOMETRY OF IT AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE JOINTS AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YES, THERE WAS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE, IT HAS THE METAL THAT IT NEEDED. ALL OF THAT WAS PUT IN AND EVERYTHING. THEY JUST DIDN'T DO THE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST THROWING [01:45:01] THE CEMENT INSIDE. AND WE WERE TOLD THAT IF IT WAS INSIDE A PROPERTY, WE DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT AND THE APPROACHMENT WAS ALREADY THERE. BUT I GUESS YOU NEED A PERMIT WHEN IT'S GONNA BE DOUBLE. YEAH. IS IS THERE PERMIT REQUIRED WHEN, WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE BAFFLES, THEY CAN'T DO WORK ON THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT A PERMIT? RIGHT. SO, AND, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, THE MAILBOX, THE BRICK MAILBOX IS ALSO REDUCING THE, UH, ACCESSIBLE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK. IT'S A THREE FEET. WHEN MR. RE WENT OUT THERE, HE CHECKED IT. I HAVE HIS NUMBER. THERE'S, THERE'S THREE FEET BEHIND THERE. YEAH, HE MEASURED IT AND HE SAID THEY MIGHT PING YOU FOR THIS TOO, SO CHECK IT. SO HOW, HOW, HOW, WHY IS THE SIDEWALK? UM, I DON'T HAVE NO IDEA. THE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK'S FOUR FEET, THAT MAILBOX SURE. LOOKS WIDER THAN HE MEASURED IT WITH THE MEASURING. AND SO YOU DID CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL YES. FOR THE CEMENT? YES. OKAY. WITHOUT, AND THEY DIDN'T SAY YOU NEEDED A PERMIT OR NO. OKAY. THEY CAME AND DID IT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT ON OUR OWN. OKAY. UH, STAFF DOES, DOES YOU OR YOUR NEIGHBOR HAVE A POOL? NO. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF MY NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBOR ON THAT SIDE, WE DON'T TALK TO THEM. UM, WELL A TREE FELL AND MY HUSBAND TALKED TO THE HUSBAND, BUT I GUESS THE WIFE MOVED IN AND THEN THE PEOPLE ON THIS SIDE, THEY DON'T HAVE A POOL. I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ONE. THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, UH, SO OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE FORWARD OF THE HOME, BUT ON THE REAR OF THE HOME OR ON THE SIDE OF THE HOME, UH, THERE'S AN ALLOWANCE. IF YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL, YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A SWIMMING POOL? NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE. FOOT FENCE. OKAY. YEAH, BECAUSE THE FENCE THAT RUNS, UH, THE, THE, THE PRIMARILY STAIN, THE, THE DARKER STAIN PORTION THAT RUNS LEFT OR RIGHT, THAT'S BEHIND THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THAT CAN'T BE EIGHT FEET AS WELL BECAUSE THERE'S NO POOL IN PLACE. IS THAT PART OF THE REQUEST OR IS IT ONLY THE PART THAT RUNS PARALLEL WITH THE PROPERTY LINE ONLY? THE REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE FRONT YARD. IS THAT, IS THAT FENCE THAT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IT'S LOOKS LIKE IT'S EIGHT FEET AS WELL. DOES THAT YEAH, THEY HAVE A SCHOOL IN THE REAR. UM, I BELIEVE YES. THAT'S THE, THE SCHOOL KIND OF LIKE WHAT THEY CAN HAVE THAT, THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GO UP. CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. ALRIGHT. A LOT, A LOT OF STUFF GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN GOING SINCE JUNE AND WE WEREN'T REALLY SURE, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF GUIDANCE TO OKAY. GET. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION AND NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA, UH, HAVE A MOTION AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. OKAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO STAND UP OR SIT DOWN? UH, YOU CAN SIT DOWN. SOMETIMES I TAKE A WHILE TO READ. I'M LOOKING FOR A VOLUNTEER TO READ A, A MOTION ON THIS CASE. I'LL, I'LL TAKE IT. I'LL, I'LL ATTEMPT TO ADD IT IF I NEED SOME HELP FROM. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 0 3 42, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A 31% VARIANT FROM THE ND C3 MAXIMUM 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW A 66% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, AN NCD THREE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AND THREE, A 55 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM, A 65 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT, UH, DRIVEWAY SEPARATION SITUATED AT 2 0 7 STARDUST STREET. APPLICANT BEING OSCAR MUNOZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC HAS SUBMITTED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRACTED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THOUGH AS THEY WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PERMEABLE SURFACE AREA WILL NOT DETER FROM ESTABLISHED DRIVEWAY AND FRONT YARD FENCING STANDARDS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, TWO TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE DRIVEWAY AND PRIVACY DEFENSE WOULD NEED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED OR REMOVED TO MEET NC D THREE STANDARDS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT NOT INJURE, UH, UNIFORMED APPEARANCES IN THE AREA ADHERES TO, UH, TO THE REMAINING NC NCD THREE REQUIREMENTS AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF, OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OF THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SIX VARIANCE WOULD 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 CREDIT STAFF FINDS THAT VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES [01:50:01] AND WILL NOT DIRECTLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE, OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT DUE, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCES ARE DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AS THE PROPERTY WERE MAINTAINED AT 31% PERMEABLE SURFACE AREA PROVIDED, PROVIDE PRIVACY BETWEEN NEIGHBORED LOTS AND WILL NOT INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. ALRIGHT, SO, SO LOTS TO UNPACK HERE. UM, SO WE SAW A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT HER, UM, YOU KNOW, PERMITTING, UH, REQUEST FROM THE CITY, UH, HER CONVERSATIONS SHE HAD WITH CITY STAFF, WHICH GAVE HER, UM, THE OPINION THAT SHE COULD COMPLETE THE DRIVEWAYS THAT SHE CONSTRUCTED. UH, AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE SITE OF THE SITE FENCING, UM, YOU KNOW, SHE PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT DOES PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF HER, HER PROPERTY. AND, UM, BY RIGHT, SHE'S ALLOWED THE HEIGHT TO THE BACK AND SIDE. IT IS JUST THAT SECTION OF THE FRONT THAT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE 55 FOOT VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE MINIMUM 65 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW THE 10 FOOT, UH, DRIVEWAY SEPARATION THAT'S NEEDED JUST BECAUSE OF THE, UH, NATURE OF THE DRIVEWAY, UH, CONFIGURATION. SO, AND OF MOTION COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO MAYBE SOME DIALOGUE ON SOME FRIENDLY MOTIONS HERE OR POTENTIAL. SO, SO THE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE FRONT YARD FENCE, YEAH, I, I DO HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THAT. AND SO, UM, SO I THINK THAT WAS READ AS NUMBER TWO AND WHETHER THAT'S NEEDED AT ALL. UM, YOU KNOW, AND SO, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU'D CONSIDER STRIKING THAT? I WOULD CONSIDER THAT, YES. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, THE SECOND QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH REGARDS TO THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AS A WHOLE HAS A 50% COVERAGE. YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD REALLY THAT, THAT I BASED ALL OF THE CITY STRUCTURES ON THIS IS EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE GOING TO THE 50%, YOU KNOW, EASILY OR, OR NOT AS EASILY, BUT I COULD GO TO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU IF WHAT YOU WANNA TRY FOR THE WHAT IS THAT YOU READ. BUT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE 50%. HONESTLY. I WOULD LIKE PROBABLY JUST AS READ AND LET'S SEE, WE'LL MAKE A STRIKE ON THE, UH, NNC D THREE VARIANCE. WE ALLOW THE FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPINION OF THE BOARD ON, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE TO SEE IF THE, THE, UH, 66% IMPERVIOUS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD. SHOULD WE SEPARATE THIS IN TWO MOTIONS THEN? SO THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF GET THROUGH ONE AND, AND THEN, AND THEN GO FOR THE DRIVEWAY OR, YOU KNOW, GO FOR IT ALL. WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU, YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD SEPARATE, UH, NUMBER ONE FOR SURE. YEAH, LET'S, LET'S PULL NUMBER ONE AS A SEPARATE ITEM. UH, NUMBER TWO WE'RE STRIKING. SO IT'D JUST BE NUMBER THREE. SO, SO THE MOTION IS, UH, UNDER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, HAVING ITEMS TWO AND THREE REMOVED AND ONLY CONSIDERING ITEM ONE AS READ AT THIS TIME. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? ACCEPTABLE? YES. YES. OKAY. SO LET'S, LET'S SEE WHAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION THINKS ABOUT THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER PERCENTAGE. UH, ANYONE LIKE TO ADD THEIR THOUGHTS? I I KIND OF AGREE WITH, UH, MR. MANNA. YEAH, I DO AS WELL. UM, AND WITH THE THREE OF US THERE, I DON'T, IT'S NOT GONNA PASS UNLESS, UH, UM, IT, IT GETS CHANGED TO 50% UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS ANY OTHER IDEAS. OKAY. I'LL OFFER A FRIENDLY MANNER TO DROP IT TO 50% ACCEPTED. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, MAN, IS THAT ACCEPTED? ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR A, FOR A VARIANCE, A 50%, UM, UM, I'M SORRY, A 15% VARIANCE TO THE 35% OF PREVIOUS COVER LIMIT TO ALLOW A 50% OF PER COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. SEVERAL ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER OONA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SIR? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. A MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY FOR A 50% LIMIT ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. UH, NOW WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER, UM, TWO AND THREE. UH, WITH, WITH, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ ON ITEM NUMBER TWO OR THREE? I KNOW TWO WAS TALKED ABOUT BEING STRUCK, BUT SINCE IT WASN'T INCLUDED AT ALL, THAT'S OPEN GAME. IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE THOSE ALSO. OKAY. SEPARATE MOTIONS. SO [01:55:01] IS IS, UH, UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT. UM, I MOVE TO, I JUST FOR PURPOSES OF A VOTE, UM, FOR A VARIANCE, LET ME READ THIS FROM THE THING. I MOVE THAT THE, UH, REGARDING CASE BO OA 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 42, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GRANTED REQUEST, UH, UH, TO A VARIANCE TO THE NC THREE STANDARD, UH, TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITH ALL OTHER FINDINGS THE SAME CRUZ SECOND BY CRUZ. NO, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. SORRY. YES, GO AHEAD. SO THAT MEANS, UH, LEAVING IT AT EIGHT FEET OR DROPPING IT DOWN AT SIX. WELL, THAT IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, THE, THE NCD DOESN'T ALLOW THE FENCE, BUT IF THE FENCE WERE TO APPROVE, DOES IT, DOES IT ALSO NEED ANOTHER VARIANCE? IT WOULD ONLY, IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR WHAT IS PERMITTED. SO UP TO A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN THE FENCE FOR THREE FOOT BECAUSE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAS AN ADVERTISED SHE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IF IT PASSED. CORRECT. OKAY, SO THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT, SO IF, UH, ANYONE WANT A SECOND? OR IS THIS GONNA DIE DUE TO LACK OF SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UM, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE FENCE. I DON'T THINK IT SERVES A PURPOSE, AND SO I'M NOT GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF IT. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE ON ITEM TWO REGARDING THE FENCE CHAIR. ORIAN? NO. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. WELL, MOTION FAILS. UH, ZERO TO 10 ON THE FENCE. ITEM NUMBER THREE, REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION. UM, WE, WE HEARD IT'S A MOTION ON THE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THAT ONE AS WELL. REGARDING CASE BO A 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 42 MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF JUDGMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 55 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 65 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION. ALL OF THE FINDINGS THE SAME, UH, AS THERE SEC SECOND BY COMMISSIONER UNA. UM, I DON'T HAVE A, I DON'T HAVE A TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS NOW THAT WE HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, REDUCTION. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. SHE'LL HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, THE REDUCED, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DRIVEWAY TO MAKE IT WORK. ALSO, YOU KNOW, IN REGARDS TO THE, THE ACCESS OF THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY CUT, I MEAN THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED THAT THE WATER IS GONNA MOSTLY FLOW INTO HER PROPERTY, SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO I'LL SUPPORT IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NONE I'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. SO TO THE APPLICANT, THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON THERE. I'M SURE IF YOU MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS, IF YOU DO, STAFF IS BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE WE ONLY APPROVED ONE OF THESE THREE, THE FINDINGS ARE GONNA REQUIRE SOME SIGNIFICANT EDITING. UH, THE FINDINGS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AMENDED. THAT'S JUST TO FIND THE OFFICIAL, UM, VARIANCE IS WHAT WAS READ IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. OKAY, WELL THERE ARE FINDINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE, RIGHT? BUT THE OFFICIAL WORDING IS FOR THE ACTUAL VARIANCE. ALRIGHT? YEP. YEAH. AND, AND JUST, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THIS BOARD WILL DO THAT WHEN WE BREAK THINGS APART JUST FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING A SEPARATE VOTE, BUT THE FINDINGS ARE SOMETIMES READ IN THE, IN THE GUISE THAT IT WAS, THOSE ASPECTS ARE REVIEWED AT THE SAME TIME. NOT SP THE ONLY THING THAT'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT IS A VOTE COUNT, WHETHER IT FAILS OR PASSES OR BY HOW MUCH. BUT THE, BUT IT'S LIKE IF WE READ IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME, UNLESS LEGAL WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN AND SAY THAT WE NEED TO READ THE FINDINGS AGAIN, DID FISH BALL, IF IT'S, IF IT'S DISCERNIBLE, UM, THEN I YOU'RE GOOD. THE, THE FINDINGS WERE, WERE MADE AND THEN YOU JUST TOOK A VOTE INDEPENDENTLY OF OKAY. HOW [02:00:01] THEY, I PROBABLY IN THE MINUTES WHAT MIGHT, MIGHT HAPPEN, OR WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST DOING IS, UH, YOU, YOU MAYBE YOU, YOU READ THE, UM, THE FINDINGS WITH THE FIRST AND THEN YOU JUST GO STRAIGHT INTO THE MOTIONS ON THE, THE TWO THAT WE READ AFTERWARDS AND JUST MAKE REFERENCE THAT THEY WERE REFERENCING THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS. OKAY? UH, IT'S THREE O'CLOCK. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL SEE Y'ALL SOON. THREE OH EIGHT. I'M GONNA CALL THIS, UH, BACK INTO SESSION 1 58. OKAY. UM, I, I'M GOING TO, UH, QUICKLY MOVE TO RECONSIDER BO OA 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 2. UM, TO ADDRESS SOME HOUSEKEEPING ON THE FINDINGS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. HEARING NONE. SO, UH, COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON, TAKE IT AWAY. OKAY. UM, YEAH, THE, WE NEED TO CLEAN OUT, CLEAN UP THE, UH, REFERENCES IN THE MOTION THAT NO LONGER MAKES SENSE. WELL, SINCE, SINCE WE'RE RECONSIDERING IT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE JUST READ THE WHOLE THING? WHAT IS THAT? SO THIS IS, UM, YOU GUYS ARE AMENDING THE FINDINGS OF THE FACTS. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'RE TECHNICALLY RECONSIDERING THE CASE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE DECISION THAT WE PREVIOUSLY MADE IS NO LONGER VALID? YOU CAN TO, YEAH. TECHNICALLY YOU'RE RECONSIDERING, YOU'RE YOU'RE OPENING IT, IT BACK UP. SO, UM, YEAH, I WOULD BASICALLY JUST, JUST GO THROUGH THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE JUST READ THE WHOLE THING FROM SCRATCH. YEAH. YES. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 24 3 2, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 55 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 65 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW IT 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION. I'M SORRY, DID WE, WE NEED A QUICK VOTE ON THAT. OH, YOU DID A, YOU DID A, BUT YEAH, THEY DID RE RECONSIDERED. SO I, I WOULD JUST READ, REREAD THE WHOLE MOTION WITH ITEMS ONE AND THREE, UH, AS READ AND THEN JUST GO THROUGH THE FINDINGS AND JUST HAVE ONE MOTION. OKAY. UH, STARTING OVER. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT, UH, DASH 24 DASH 3 42, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 15% VARIANCE FROM THE NCD THREE, MAXIMUM 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW A 50% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD AND TWO, A 55 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 65 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION SITUATED AT 2 0 7 STARDUST STREET, THE APPLICANT BEING OSCAR MUNOZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PERMEABLE SURFACE AREA AND WILL NOT, UH, DETTER IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD. UM, WHAT IS WILL NOT, UH, DETRACT FROM THE ESTABLISHED DRIVEWAY. UM, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE DRIVEWAY WOULD NEED TO BE RECON RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE NC D THREE STANDARDS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT INJURE THE UNIFORM, UNIFORM, NOT UNIFORMED, UH, APPEARANCE IN THE AREA. THEY ADHERE TO THE REMAINING NCD THREE REQUIREMENTS AND WE'LL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY [02:05:01] INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT DIRECTLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THOSE 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 VARIANCES DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AS THE PROPERTY WILL MAINTAIN A 50% PERMEABLE SURFACE AREA AND THEY WILL NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALRIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AMANDA? UH, WE'RE JUST GONNA DO A VOICE VOTE ON THIS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. UH, ALL RIGHT. UH, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SEVEN I. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 5 8. ADDRESS IS 2 0 3 AND 2 0 5 TOLEDO STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING ALBERT A FUQUA. A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE SETBACK. TWO. A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND THREE A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORIES TO ALLOW TWO DETACHED STRUCTURES TO BE THREE STORIES. ZONING IS A E TWO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST EAST OF DOWNTOWN AND SOUTH OF EAST COMMERCE STREET ON THE CORNER OF MONTANA STREET AND TOLEDO STREET INTERSECTION. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON AN A E TWO CORNER LOT, WHICH WILL BE SEPARATED INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALLOW ONE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE SETBACK, AND THE OTHER STRUCTURE WILL BE FOUR FOOT FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A HALF STORY VARIANCE TO ALLOW BOTH STRUCTURES TO BE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT. BUILDING PERMITS ARE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT AND THIS IS VIEWS, UH, FROM MONTANA STREET AND SURROUNDING AREA. THIS ARE VIEWS FROM, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM TOLEDO AND MONTANA STREET VIEWS ACROSS FROM TOLEDO IN MONTANA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 3 58 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT INSURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND TWO, THE SIDE SETBACKS WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE HALF STORY VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH 24 0 58. UH, ONE OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA CONFORM, UH, TO THE TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUMS. AND TWO, THE INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED 20 NOTICES. THREE WERE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. THESE ARE IN FAVOR, AND THIS WAS ORIGINAL RESPONSE FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND THEY HAVE NOT UPDATED ANYTHING SINCE THIS ONE. OKAY. [02:10:03] THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE, IS THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME. TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UM, ALBERT FUQUA, UM, 2 0 3 AND 2 0 5 TOLEDO STREET. UM, MY PROJECT THERE, UM, I BROUGHT BEFORE YOU GUYS A LITTLE WHILE BACK. UM, THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT WAS ONE SINGLE LOT. UM, ESSENTIALLY, UM, YOU PROBABLY CAN SEE IT ON THE, UM, SITE UP THERE. UM, THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION WAS OBVIOUSLY THE FOUR CORNERS. UM, THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO WHOM I PURCHASED IT FROM, SAID THAT THE PROPERTY WAS READY TO GO, BUT IT WASN'T, IT HAD TO BE RE PLATTED. SO DURING THE REPL PROCESS OF JUST THE FOUR CORNERS, UM, CPS CAME IN AND PRETTY MUCH CHEWED UP ALL THE LOT. TOOK ALL THE LOTS. SO I HAD TO ESSENTIALLY DIVIDED DOWN A MIDDLE TO MAKE SEPARATE LOTS. UM, PRIOR TO, I HAD NOT REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OR I DIDN'T GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM ABOUT THE PROJECT, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, I BELIEVE. UM, I CAME BACK UP TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHERE I ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE AND THEN I REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND GAVE, UM, REACHED BACK OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WELL. UM, WE DID A, UM, A RESENDING OF LETTERS OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, UM, AT WHICH POINT I GOT THE SIGNATURES FROM MY NEIGHBORS. UM, I DID NOT HEAR WORD BACK FROM MR. LEWIS, UM, OR THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT WE, I DID REACH OUT TO THEM AS WELL AS THE CITY, UM, VIA THE, THE, THE RESENDING OF LETTERS. UM, THE SETBACK VARIANCES IS JUST ESSENTIALLY, UM, TO ALLOW FOR, UM, THE EASEMENTS TO WHICH CPS IS KIND OF PUT ON THE PROPERTY. UM, AND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT, PRETTY MUCH IT ALSO THAT THE THREE STORY HEIGHT VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED DUE TO THE, UM, THE NON-CONFORMING LOT. ORIGINALLY, THE LOT WAS A LOT DEEPER, BUT AT SOME POINT THEY CHOPPED IT UP AND MADE IT SMALLER. SO, UM, THE THREE STORIES WOULD BE NECESSARY, UM, FOR THE PROJECT TO WHICH, UM, I WILL BE DOING THERE. UM, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT AND READY FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA. YOU OKAY. UM, SO, SO I GUESS THE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S NOT SUPPORTING THE, THE THREE STORY PERSPECTIVE OF IT. AND, AND SO JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE TO YOUR PROJECT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THAT WASN'T APPROVED AND WHETHER OR NOT A HALF STORY WOULD GET YOU CLOSE TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO ON THAT PROPERTY AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE THERE. UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. UM, HONESTLY, UM, BECAUSE IT ALREADY IS SMALL, THE LIGHT IS ONLY 71 FEET, UH, DEEP RIGHT NOW. SO OBVIOUSLY WITH PARKING, UM, IT LEAVES PRETTY MUCH A VERY, VERY NARROW BOX TO DO ANYTHING FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A DESIGN FOR, YOU KNOW, LIVING KITCHEN, BATHROOM TO STANDARD STUFF TO WHICH YOU HAVE INSIDE A HOUSEHOLD. TO SQUEEZE ALL THAT IN INTO, UH, TWO STORIES WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. UM, HONESTLY, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE AND MENTION OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE AREA, I KNOW THEY MENTIONED THAT IT'S KIND OF OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT, BUT, UM, WITHIN, I WANNA SAY MAYBE TWO OR THREE BLOCK RADIUS, THERE ARE PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 16 THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES. SO I, I DO UNDERSTAND THE TRADITIONAL, AND, EXCUSE ME, THE HISTORICAL STANDPOINT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT HAS CHANGED QUITE GREATLY WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. UM, IF YOU GO UP MONTANA, RIGHT AT MONTANA TOWARDS, UM, WEST TOWARDS DOWNTOWN, THERE'S FIVE, THREE STORIES ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. THEN I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER FOUR ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. UM, GO DOWN ONE MORE BLOCK, MAKE A LEFT. AT PINE, THERE'S AT LEAST 1, 2, 3, 4, THERE'S FOUR ON PINE RIGHT BEFORE WYOMING, AS WELL AS A BIG ONE ON THE CORNER OF PINE IN MONTANA. THEN ON WYOMING, IN TOLEDO, WHICH IS ON THE BACK END OF MY LOT THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER 1, 2, 3, THERE'S ANOTHER THREE, THREE STORIES. I'M OVER THERE AS WELL. SO I, IT IS ABOUT 15, 16, KIND OF WITHIN A 2, 2, 3 BLOCK RADIUS, UM, OF MY PROPERTY THERE. UM, SO, UM, BUT YES, IT WOULD BE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR, I'M SORRY. UM, IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY, UM, VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. UM, VERY DIFFICULT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, SO DID YOU WANTED THREE STORIES, THE THIRD STORY WOULD JUST BE BEDROOMS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? UH, NO MA'AM. THE, THE, THE THIRD STORY WOULD BE LIVING AS WELL. IT'S JUST, UM, THE LOTS ARE, I TEND TO BUILD A LOT OF TOWNHOUSES AND MAJORITY OF 'EM ARE, UM, 16, 18 FEET WIDE. SO WITHIN 16 TO 18 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR, YOU'RE GETTING KITCHEN LIVING, EXCUSE ME, YOUR KITCHEN, LIVING IN YOUR DINING WITH A, A POWER BATHROOM. THAT'S AT THE FIRST FLOOR ALONE. SO THEN ON YOUR SECOND FLOOR, UM, IT'S GONNA, IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY TIGHT TO MAKE IT A ACTUAL HOME, A THREE BEDROOM HOME, UH, WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND, AND TWO BATHROOMS ON THAT FLOOR, [02:15:01] UM, ALONG WITH LAUNDRY AND SOME OTHER STUFF, LAUNDRY ROOMS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO, UM, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE THIRD STORY, MA'AM. OKAY. SO THE MASTER BEDROOM WOULD BE THE SECOND FLOOR, AND THEN THE THIRD FLOOR WOULD BE TWO MORE BEDROOMS? WELL, I, I WOULD THINK, HONESTLY, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE, HONESTLY, I THINK THE MASTER SHOULD BE UP TOP AND PROBABLY TWO KIDS' BEDROOM WITH THE BATHROOM IN THE MIDDLE, WITH THE LAUNDRY, IS WHAT I'M THINKING WOULD WORK ON THE SECOND FLOOR. UM, AND THEN SOME VARIATION OF A MASTER SUITE ON THE THIRD FLOOR BEING SEPARATE. THE REASON FOR THE THIRD STORE, UM, EXCUSE ME, THE THIRD STORY IS BECAUSE AS THE TWO AND A HALF STORY VARIANCE IS BEING EXPLAINED IN THE CODE, IT'S REALLY ODD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT WITHIN THE ATTIC OR THE ROOF, SO TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE TO MAKE LIKE DORMER STYLE AND, UM, IT'S NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE WITH 16 FEET WIDE TO PUT DORMERS AND THEN HA, IT'LL BE A BOWLING ALLEY ESSENTIALLY UPSTAIRS I'M ON THAT THIRD FLOOR. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY, WELL, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO FLAT ROOF. UH, THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED THAT DEFINITION, I THINK IN A E TWO FLAT ROOFS. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I BELIEVE AE TWO DISTRICT DON'T ALLOW FLAT ROOFS. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I COULD BE WRONG. OKAY. YEAH, MY, MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS REALLY ABOUT THE THIRD STORY. I, I JUST, UH, THE, THE THIRD STORY DOESN'T BOTHER ME AS MUCH, BUT I HAVE PERSONALLY GONE BEFORE DENVER HEIGHTS. MM-HMM. , AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN FANS OF THE THIRD STORY. I MEAN, THEY WERE PRETTY ADAMANT ABOUT THAT. THEY HAD, THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD THE ONES THAT WENT THROUGH, THEY'VE BEEN GETTING COMPLAINTS AND SO THEY JUST, THEY WEREN'T HAPPY WITH THOSE. THE OTHER THING THAT A ABOUT IT IS, UM, WHETHER OR NOT YOUR SETBACK, SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH YOUR SETBACKS AND GETTING THOSE REDUCTIONS, BUT WHEN YOU GO UP THAT HIGH AND YOU ONLY HAVE THREE FEET ON ONE SIDE, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOOD FOR WHOEVER'S GONNA EVENTUALLY OWN IT. AND I, I THAT'S, I I KIND OF HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT THREE FEET. I'M SORRY, SIR, THREE FEET ON WHICH SIDE IS STAT? UH, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE. YOU HAVE TWO IN THE REAR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, AND THEN YOU'RE, LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A, UH, YOU'LL HAVE A THREE FOOT SETBACK ON THE, UM, SOUTHERN SIDE. SOUTHERN SIDE, THAT'S CORRECT. FOR THE, FOR THE UNIT RIGHT AT THE CORNER. YES, SIR. AND SO THEY JUST, THAT'S JUST SO CLOSE FOR, FOR A STRUCTURE TO BE THAT HIGH. HOW WOULD YOU, HOW WOULD YOU ENVISION A FUTURE OWNER MAINTAINING THAT? UM, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. MAJORITY OF SIDING TO WHICH I USE IS, UM, LIKE A HARDY SIDING OF TYPES. SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, UM, MAINTAINING IT, I MEAN THERE'S STILL ACCESS AS FAR AS INGRES EGRESS ON THE SIDES, UM, UH, I CAN'T SEE WHAT MAINTENANCE MIGHT NECESSARILY BE NEEDED ON THE SIDE, HONESTLY, SIR, OTHER THAN MAYBE PAINTING SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE THAT IS NOT EASTERN, IT'S NOT ANY EXPOSURE ARE, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. ARE YOU WANTING TO DO IT? 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THREE FEET, YOUR ROOF OVER HANGS CAN'T GO PAST THE THREE FEET? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT, THAT WHOLE SIDE WILL HAVE TO BE FIRE RATED. SO I WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE, UM, PER THE COAT, I WOULD HAVE TO FIRE IT FOR SURE. THE, THE WALL AS WELL AS ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE SOFFIT. UM, AND THE ROOF, NO OVERHANGS OR, UH, VENTED, SOFFITS WILL BE ALLOWED AT ALL. OKAY. STAFF, UM, ON THE THREE FOOT HEIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT, THAT WOULD, THAT'S CERTAINLY TRIGGER THAT'S KEEPING YOU FROM APPROVING THE HEIGHT? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH SETBACKS OR IS IT JUST BECAUSE THREE STORIES IS JUST NOT SOMETHING STAFF IS BEHIND? UH, IT IS JUST SOMETHING, UH, SPECIFIC, NOT SPECIFIC TO THE REQUESTED SETBACK. IT'S JUST, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL THAT, UH, DOESN'T CONFORM ANY AREA CURRENTLY. OKAY. WITHOUT A BOA APPROVAL. ALRIGHT. UM, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST GOING TO, UH, MAKE A COMMENT. SO THE TWO NEIGHBORS THAT'D BE MOST AFFECTED WERE IN SUPPORT OF YOU, RIGHT? SO IF THERE'S ANY WINDOWS ON THE THIRD FLOOR, THEY'D BE LOOKING DOWN TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. THEY ALL PROVIDED LETTERS OF SUPPORT, RIGHT? FOR YOUR PROJECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AND PLUS PER THE DESIGN THAT THAT SIDE ON THE LEFT SIDE, IF YOU'RE FACING A LOT, THAT LEFT SIDE IS ACTUALLY A STAIRCASE. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY LITERALLY ON THAT WHOLE SIDE IS JUST ONE EYEBROW WINDOW TO WHICH IS UP HIGH JUST FOR LIGHT. UM, THERE'S NO, UM, UM, ACCESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A SINGLE HUNG WINDOW OR ANY WINDOWS AT, I CAN SEE IT, BUT THE AVERAGE PERSON WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE OUT OF IT. I SEE. SO, UM, OUT OF, ON, ON EITHER UNIT SO THAT THE UNIT, THE CORNER, UH, CAN'T SEE THE OTHER UNIT AND THEN THE, THE, THE INTERIOR UNIT CAN'T LOOK DOWN. I SEE. ON THE HOUSE. HOUSE. I SEE. SO IT'S KIND OF DESIGNED SO IT'S JUST NOT GONNA THAT'S CORRECT, YES SIR. IMPOSE ON THE OTHER NEIGHBORS. CORRECT. AS FAR AS PRIVACY. 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S THE, THE MAIN ISSUE BEHIND THE THREE STORIES, RIGHT? AND NO BALCONY ON THE THIRD FLOOR, RIGHT? NO, THERE'S NO BALCONIES AT ALL, SIR. YEAH. IMPORTANT. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANOR. SO, SO, AND JUST AS A REMINDER FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE UDC DID DO DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE HALF STORY AND DEFINED IT AS A SLOPE ROOF. SO FOR THIS, FOR THE, UH, KIND OF WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, BUT THEN ALSO, UM, A HALF STORY IS, UH, A 25, A 20% [02:20:01] SETBACK IN THE PERIMETER, SO WEDDING CAKE DESIGN, AND SO THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO, SO IS SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, A VIABLE OPTION FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT 20? WELL, SO THAT, I THINK IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, WHEN YOU SAY THE 20% SETBACK AS FAR AS THE, IN THE, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, UH, IN THE CONSTRUCTION PORTION OF IT, SIR. SO I HAVE THE CITY PROVIDE, SO THE A WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS. FIRST OF ALL, THE A AND E DISTRICT IS SPECIFIC TO, UH, IT SAYS THAT BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO AND A HALF STORIES. SO THAT IS ONE THING. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER WAS ABOUT ACCENT FEATURES AND POTENTIALLY HAVING A PITCHED ROOF VERSUS A FLAT ROOF. ALL IT DOES IS IT SAYS IT ENCOURAGES ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT OVERHANGS, PLASTERS, CORNICE, UH, WINDOW SILLS, ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A, A FLAT ROOF. NOW GOING TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, UM, AS THAT ONE APPLIES ONLY IF IT IS ABUTTING, UM, OTHER SINGLE FAMILY. AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK YOU DON'T SEE THIS IN THE, UM, IN THE AREA IS BECAUSE IT IS ALL A E TWO AND THEY ARE ALL LIMITED TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES. OKAY. UH, WITH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN, AND IF, AND IF, IF THE READER WANTED TO BREAK OUT, UH, THE THIRD STORY ELEMENT OF THIS, I WOULD SUGGEST IT MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. YOU DO. I'LL LET YOU DO NUMBER THREE THEN. REGARDING CASE 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 8, I MOVED THE TO PORT ADJUSTMENT GRANDE REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE SETBACK. AND TWO, UH, A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 2 0 3 AND 2 0 5 TOLEDO STREET. APPLICANT BEING ALBERT A, UH, FUQUA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRACTED PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY'LL BE PROVIDING SUFFICIENT DISTANCE, UH, FROM EACH OF THE D DUALING UNITS AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PRO, AS THE, UH, PROPOSED STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO BE RECONFIGURED TO ABIDE BY THE A E TWO SETBACK REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A LIMITED SIZE LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPARE, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTS VARIANCE FOR, UH, TO ALLOW BOTH A THREE FOOT AND FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK, UM, FOR TWO PROPOSED DWELLINGS, MADE A SAFE DISTANCE, UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. VIA AND VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED THREE FOOT AND FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK, UH, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES AS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YEAH, SO, UM, SO I EXCLUDED, UH, THE, THE THIRD OPTION FOR RIGHT NOW. UM, BECAUSE THE CITY PROVIDED THEIR FEEDBACK ON, UM, ONE AND TWO THAT, UH, THEY FELT AS APPROPRIATE WITH REGARDS TO THE COMMUNITY AND ALSO LOOKING AROUND THAT AREA. THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT DO APPEAR TO, TO, UM, TO HAVE THIS ALREADY SIDE SETBACK ALLOWANCE. AND THEN, UM, AND SO BECAUSE THAT I'LL BE SUPPORTING MOTION COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING? KNOWS I HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. [02:25:01] COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, ABSTAIN CHAIR ORIAN. AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. 10 TO ZERO WITH ONE EXTENSION. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE, UH, ITEM THREE REGARDING THE THIRD STORY? SURE. I'LL TAKE IT. YOU DON'T WANT TO ME? NO, NO, IT'S ALL RIGHT. I GOT IT. THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 24 DASH 0 3 0 58, I MOVE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW TWO DETACHED STRUCTURES TO BE THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 2 0 3 AND 2 0 5 TOLEDO STREET, APPLICANT BEING ALBERT A FUQUA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF 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 VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY'LL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE AND HEIGHT, PROVIDE SUFFICIENT HEIGHT FROM WILL PROVIDE HEIGHT FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT, PERIOD. TWO TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO BE RECONFIGURED TO ABIDE BY THE AE TWO REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. BY GRANTING THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT FOR TWO PROPOSED DWELLINGS PROVIDE A SAFE HEIGHT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. 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, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED HALF STORY VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR THE VARIANCES 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. THE HALF STORY VARIANCE IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA AND DEMOTION. SEC SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BRALEY. UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, UM, UH, MOTION AS READ. UM, I THINK IT'S INCONGRUENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ESPECIALLY THE AE TWO DISTRICT. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. I WILL BE, UH, IN SUPPORT OF IT. I THINK THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED GAVE THEIR SUPPORT, UH, THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE SUCH THAT THERE'S NO WINDOWS THAT, UM, KIND OF IMPOSE THEMSELVES ONTO THE NEIGHBORS. SO I THINK THE DESIGN WAS VERY THOUGHTFUL AND NO, UM, WE HAVE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS MOST AFFECTED, UH, ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS MANNA, MR. MANNA. SO I'LL BE, UH, VOTING IN OPPOSITION AS WELL. UM, UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE, UH, DENVER HEIGHTS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHO'S REPRESENTING THIS COMMUNITY HAS VOICED THEIR, UM, THEIR CONCERNS IN THE PAST. AND, AND I THINK THEY'VE, UM, VOICED THE SAMES THIS TIME. ANYONE ELSE? UH, I WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, I'LL ALSO NOT BE IN SUPPORT. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE PRIMARY ELECTRIC RUNNING ALONG MAN MONTANA THAT IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND YOU GO UP TO THREE STORIES NOW YOU'RE RIGHT NEAR WHERE THE ELECTRIC LINES ARE AND THE, AND THEY'RE GONNA BE WITHIN 10 FEET, AND THAT'S AGAINST CODE. SO I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF IT, MAINLY FOR THAT REASON. UM, I HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? [02:30:02] I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, ABSTAIN CHAIR ORIAN. UH, AND I DO NOT CONCUR. A MOTION FAILS, UH, SEVEN TO THREE, UH, WITH ONE ABSTENTION. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF, THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM EIGHT. OOH, ITEM EIGHT, BUICK 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 9. ADDRESS, 3 4 4 2 WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT JOHN GABRIEL. A REQUEST A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FEET FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH FRONT CARPORT SETBACK TO A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A SIX INCH SIDE CARPORT SETBACK. AND THREE, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE, EAST OF NORTHWEST 36TH STREET, LOCATED WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR A CARPORT IN VIOLATION OF SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK, AS WELL AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE CARPORT DOES NOT MAINTAIN GUTTERS FOR WATER RUNOFF BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER DECEMBER, 2022. ACCORDING TO STREET AND SATELLITE IMAGERY AND THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE CARPORT HAS OVERHANG AND THEN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT, SIDE SETBACK, CARPORT, REAR SETBACK AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. UH, FRONT SETBACK AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 79 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, NO OTHER CARPORTS OR CARPORTS WITHIN SETBACKS WERE SEEN ON THE BLOCK AND SURROUNDING AREA. BOTH THE CARPORT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN AGGRAVATE WATER RUNOFF ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THE VARIANCES REQUESTED WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE, THE DISTRICT STAFF MAILED 23 NOTICES RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, AND THEN THREE IN OPPOSITION. THE UNIVERSITY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND, AND THOSE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN AN EMAIL SUBMISSION ALSO WITH THEIR ADDRESS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT'S AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, COME RIGHT OVER. I'M GONNA COME RIGHT HERE. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. AND THEN LET'S, AND THEN JUST HOLD THIS DOWN TO TALK. YOU HOLD. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. MY NAME IS ARCHBISHOP JOHN GABRIEL FROM THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. AND, UM, I [02:35:01] BELIEVE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME. THE ONLY THING I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY IS THAT WALL WOOD, UH, WEST WOODLAWN WAS MADE WIDER. OUR CARPORT WAS FINE LENGTHWISE, BUT THEN WOODLAWN WAS MADE WIDER. IT CUT OFF ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN FEET OF OUR FRONT YARD, THEREFORE ALSO COMING CLOSER TO THE, TO THE CARPORT WITHOUT TOUCHING IT. AND THEN THE CITY REPAIRED ALL THIS, ALL THE CONCRETE, UH, UH, SIDEWALKS AND THINGS THAT THEY WANTED TO, THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT IN THERE. SO OUR SIDE, SO OUR DRIVEWAY IS UP TO OUR FENCE LINE, FRONT FENCE LINE, NOT PAST IT, FRONT FENCE LINE. AND UH, YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE IT SHOWS IT'S RIGHT, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE FENCE LINE. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S A TWO, TWO CAR CARPORT. THERE'S ALSO A WALL BEHIND THERE, THERE. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT MAKE THE CARPORT ANY LONGER OR DO ANYTHING WITH IT, EXCEPT BELIEVE WITH WHAT WE HAVE. IT'S A CHURCH, BY THE WAY. THIS IS A ONE, THIS IS A CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT'S A RECTORY WHERE THE PRIEST LIVE, AND IT'S A CHURCH. AND, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS FEDERAL RULES THAT APPLY TO US THAT CANNOT BE MESSED WITH BY THE CITY OR BY THE STATE, OR BY THE COUNTY. AND IT STARTS OFF WITH A FE, WITH A, WITH, UH, WITH THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE CONSTITUTION. WHERE, WHERE THE, WHERE CHURCHES WILL NOT BE, WILL NOT, OR CONGRESS WILL NOT MAKE, MAKE LAWS FOR CHURCHES. AND IT GOES DOWN THE LINE, DOWN THE LINE THOUGH. SO WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT QUOTE COMPLIANCE HAS DONE HERE AND HAS DONE FOR THE LAST YEAR, THEY WENT AHEAD. DO YOU SEE THIS THING RIGHT THERE? THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A, A BELL TOWER THAT WERE DONATED TO US BY IN OHIO. IT WAS SENT DOWN HERE. IT WAS PUT UP. AND THE BELL, THAT'S A CHURCH. THAT'S THE BELL TOWER CODE COMPLIANCE TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE ONE NEIGHBOR, TWO HOUSES DOWN DIDN'T LIKE CHURCH BELLS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEM. BUT THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE TOLD ME IF THE CHURCH BILLS CANNOT, IF THE CHURCH BILLS ARE HEARD MORE THAN TWO HOUSES AWAY, IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE. WE GAINED ABOUT $6,000 IN FINES. NOW THIS IS THE STUFF WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH, A NEIGHBOR THAT MOVED IN SIX, PROBABLY ABOUT SIX, SEVEN YEARS AGO. AND WE'VE BEEN THERE WAY OVER 40, 41, 42 YEARS OLD, 42 YEARS. AND, UH, THOSE BELLS WERE DONATED TO US BECAUSE OF THAT ONE NEIGHBOR, TWO HOUSES DOWN OUR BELLS ARE GONE BY THE CITY. THEY'RE CONFISCATED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND I MEAN, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY OUR, OUR VIOLATIONS, WELL, WHY OUR FEDERAL VIOLATIONS ARE BEING VIOLATED. WHY OUR CONSTITUTION IS BEING VIOLATED. FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND EXPRESSION OF RELIGION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE NO DIFFERENT. WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CHURCH IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT HAS BEEN BUILT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY, THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT BETWEEN US AND OTHER. AND THEN ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY OR ANY OTHER CHURCH, WE'RE ALL UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A PURPOSE, FOR A REASON. BUT THE CITY DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PART, NOR DOES THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE. SO THEREFORE, HERE WE ARE. NO MORE CHURCH BELLS, NO MORE, UH, NO MORE, UH, WE CAN NO LONGER CALL OUR PARISHIONERS TO SERVICE. WE CANNOT DO ANY OF THIS. WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN, IN SAN ANTONIO HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. BUT WE ARE, WE ARE AN ACCEPTANCE. SO WE ARE AN EXEMPTION, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE CITY HAS MADE US AN EXEMPTION. YOU CAN DO IT. YOU CAN, YOUR, YOUR CHURCH HOUSE CANNOT BE HEARD MORE THAN TWO HOUSES AWAY. NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CARPORT THERE. NO. YOU CAN'T TEACH KIDS UNDER THE CARPORT WHEN IT'S HOT OUTSIDE DURING THE SUMMERTIME. AND NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WE PUT UP THAT FLAG POLE RIGHT THERE. VOTE COMPLIANCE CAME OVER AND WANTED TO FIND US FOR PUTTING UP A FLAG POLE. SINCE WHEN IS AN AMERICAN FLAG UNJUST WITHIN THE UNITED STATES? THIS IS THE [02:40:01] THINGS WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH. AND THIS IS WHAT I'M ARGUING TODAY. THIS CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE HAVE DONE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO HURT US. THEY EVEN CLOSED OUR CHURCH, BY THE WAY, FOR A FULL YEAR. WE'VE BEEN CLOSED BECAUSE CODE COMPLIANCE TOOK AWAY OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THAT'S RIGHT. IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR? IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE THE AMERICAN WAY? NO, BUT THEY DID, THEY TOOK AWAY ON MAY THE THIRD, ON MAY THE THIRD OF LAST YEAR, THEY TOOK AWAY OUR CODE, OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THEREFORE THE POLICE CAME OVER AND SAID, YOU CANNOT BE HERE. YOU CANNOT CELEBRATE SOME MASS. YOU CANNOT CELEBRATE ANY KIND OF SERVICE. YOU CANNOT CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS, YOU CANNOT CELEBRATE THANKSGIVING OR HOLY DAYS OF OBLIGATION OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS TAKEN AWAY BY THE OFFICERS OF THE CO COMPLIANCE FOR A FULL YEAR. WE'VE BEEN PAYING AND PAYING AND PAYING MONEY TO GET OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY EVERY, EVERY TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS, WE GET CALLED TO COURT, WE GET CALLED TO COURT AND WE GOTTA GO PAY A FINE TO GET OUR CERTIFICATE ANYWAY. THEY WILL NOT GIVE IT TO US. ALL OF A SUDDEN, A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, NO, A COUPLE OF MONTHS, I'M SORRY, NOT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I FIND OUT OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS NEVER REMOVED. IT WAS NEVER TAKEN AWAY FROM US. BUT THE CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE SAID THEY DID. AND THE COMPLIANCE CODE, COMPLIANCE PEOPLE SAID, WE DON'T HAVE US. SO YOU GOTTA BE PAYING. SO WE'VE BEEN PAYING MONEY, WE'VE BEEN PAYING MONEY EVERY MONTH, TWO OR THREE, $400, A THOUSAND DOLLARS BECAUSE JUST TO GET OUR, OUR CODE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE BACK. AND WE NEVER HAD IT REMOVED. IT WAS NEVER REMOVED. A MAN BY THE NAME OF SHARON, UH, MR. SHARON, MIKE, SHARON, HE EVEN TOLD US BACK IN JANUARY, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THEN WHY ARE WE PAYING FINES? WHY HAVE MR. CHAIR? I THINK THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY OTHER ISSUES GOING ON. YEAH. BUT THE MATTERS, UH, IN FRONT OF US HERE ARE SETBACKS, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND YES, I WILL, IT IS CONFIRMED THAT CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN ALL DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE EXISTING R FOUR. HOWEVER, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE IN AN R FOUR DISTRICT, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW SETBACK GUIDELINES. AND SO THEY HAVE SOME ENCROACHMENTS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS HERE TODAY. YES. SO I I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO ASK SOMETHING REALLY QUICK. UM, THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS, OF THIS BUILDING IS LISTED, UH, AS BEING THE INFANT JESUS OF PRAGUE. INFANT JESUS OF PRAGUE, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL. OKAY. SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU AS I AM THE ARCHBISHOP OF SEVERAL PARISHES. NOT ONLY HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT SIR, YOU NEED TO TALKING INTO THE MICROPHONE. NO, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS THAT, IS THIS, IS THIS A PROPERTY THAT'S, THAT'S UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO WITH OKAY. IT IS NOT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION, BUT MANY PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO IS NOT THE NUMBER ONE CHURCH THAT RULES EVERYBODY. NO, I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE NO, NO, NO. I'M ASKING, I'M SELLING YOUR, YOUR QUESTION. THIS IS JUST YOUR QUESTION. ARE WE PART OF IT? NO, WE'RE NOT. NEITHER IS, UH, ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY. WELL, I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE I I DO CONSULTATIONS FOR THEM AND I JUST DIDN'T WANTED TO KNOW IF I NEEDED TO RECUSE. THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT. NO, NO. WE ARE A RELIGIOUS ORDER. WE ARE FRANCISCAN MISSIONARY SERVICE OF JESUS. AND THEREFORE WE HAVE OUR OWN MOTHER HOUSE, NOT A DIOCESE. WE HAVE OUR OWN PROVINCIAL, NOT THE ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO. AND WE HAVE OUR OWN PROVIDENCE. THAT MEANS AN AREA. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THAT, SO THAT APPLIES TO ALL RELIGIOUS ORDERS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I I, I I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF I HAD TO LEAVE THE ROOM. THAT'S ALL CHAIR. YES. UH, THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL YOU THEY CAN'T HEAR HIM, SO THEY CAN'T, UH, TRANSLATE, EXCUSE ME. THAT HE, YOU'VE GOTTA SPEAK CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE AND BE SURE THE BUTTON IS PUSHED DOWN. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, SO WE HEAR ABOUT THE SETBACKS. UH, NOW THE SETBACKS, WHAT YOU SAW THERE IN THE PICTURE. THAT'S IT. THAT IS THE DRIVEWAY. CAL APPLIANCE WANTS US TO GO INTO OUR PROPERTY. FIVE FEET. RIGHT. STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, BRING UP THE STREET VIEW, UH, MORE, SOME OF THE MORE HISTORIC, UH, PICTURES. LET'S SAY GO BACK 10 YEARS. THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT IN 1954. [02:45:03] AND EACH, EACH HOUSE HAS A DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN. AND THERE IS NO MORE, THERE'S NO A LOT OF ROOM. IT'S EITHER JUST THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT'S IT. SO WHEN, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT IS, UH, IS YOUR CARPORT, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS BEEN THERE QUITE A WHILE. YES, IT HAS BEEN THE FRONT OF IT. AND DID THEY GET ANY CLOSER TO, TO THE STREET? IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH IN THE SAME PLACE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE, THE CARPORT WAS BUILT. IT WAS FIXED THERE. IT ERECTED THERE BEFORE WOODLAWN WAS TORN. WAS TORN UP AND MADE WIDER. OKAY. ONCE WOODLAWN WAS MADE WIDER, THEY WENT IN, I BELIEVE, 'CAUSE THE FRONT OF OUR YARD USED TO MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. DID YOU, THEY MUST HAVE GONE AT LEAST ABOUT SEVEN FEET IN AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, IT WASN'T REBUILT. IS IT THE SAME CARPORT? NOPE. OH NO, IT WAS THE SAME CARPORT. SO STAFF, IF WOODLAWN GOT WIDENED AND THE CARPORT HAS BEEN THERE AT SOME OF THESE PICTURES I'M SHOW SINCE, AS FAR AS BACK AS 2007, DOES THIS EVEN NEED TO COME BEFORE US? NO. NO. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UM, WAS IT, UM, SHOWING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM THE FRONT? UM, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THE WIDENING OF WOODLAWN TOOK AWAY ANY OF THE PROPERTY IN THE FRONT. OBVIOUSLY THE SIDE STEP BACK IS STILL ISSUED, ISSUED EITHER WAY. CODE COMPLIANCE IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THIS UP. AS FAR AS IT BEING A NEW, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS, UM, IMPROVEMENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT DONE TO IT. THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING. UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. WOODLAWN, WOODLAWN LOCATION, THE STREET WAS MADE WIDER IN ORDER TO MAKE SIDEWALKS, IN ORDER TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN IT HAD TO TAKE A LOT OF OUR PROPERTY. AND IT DID JUST TO PUT IN THE SIDEWALKS. IT DID NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS. YEAH, I I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT, UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, IF THIS, LIKE, THIS COMMISSION DOES LIKE TO KNOW IF SOMETHING IS ALTERED OR IF IT'S BEEN THERE A VERY LONG TIME, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THE CARPORT WAS BUILT BEFORE, WAY BEFORE THEY STARTED, UM, MAKING WHITENING THE STREET, WHICH WAS BACK IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS. I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE A PICTURE FROM GOOGLE EARTH FROM 2007 THAT SHOWS IT TO BE IN PLACE. SO THAT'S MANNA. YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, IF YOU GO TO THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE AFFILIATE ITSELF, UM, SO ON GOOGLE MAPS, SEE ALL I JUST KNEW, SORRY. AND SO, UM, SO YEAH, IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN, I'LL ZOOM IN ON STRUCTURE. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, SO, UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE FRONT STRUCTURE OF THE CARPORT BEING THERE IN 2007. 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE POLES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, ET CETERA. SO I DO CONCUR THERE. THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK, IS IT, THERE IS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE KIND OF THE PICTURE, I SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A SEAM AND THERE'S A STRUCTURE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK NOW. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT A NEW STRUCTURE? AND YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE IN THE DIALOGUE HERE. SO, SO THE STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING FROM, FROM THAT FRONT, UM, UH, CARPORT ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, IS THAT A NEWER ADDITION THAT WAS ADDED THAT NO, THAT'S NOT A NEW ADDITION. THAT USED TO BE, AND, AND IF YOU'LL KNOW, MY NEIGHBOR HAD THE SAME THING. THEY HAVE A LONG, WHEN WE HAD THESE, THESE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT IN 54, ALL 'EM HAD A LONG, LONG UH, UH, CAR, I MEAN, UH, GARAGE AND IN BACK OF ONE OF THOSE OLD FASHIONED GARAGES WHERE THE BACK, THEY HAD A STORE ROOM AND THEY LET, THAT'S WHAT THEY, THAT'S THE WAY THEY WERE. OURS ON THE OTHER HAND WAS FAST, WAS RAT INFESTED. SO WE HAD IT REMOVED AND WHEN WE HAD IT REMOVED, WE JUST FOLLOWED THE CONCRETE UNDER THERE. WE NEED THE CONCRETE. SO WE PUT THE CARPORT ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE. SO, SO THE POINT, I GUESS THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS THE CARPORT, UM, THAT WAS, SO IT USED TO STOP AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING? CORRECT. AND THEN, AND THEN YOU ADDED THE CARPORT, THE CARPORT, THE, THE CONCRETE STARTS FROM THE BACK BECAUSE THERE WAS A GARAGE ON TOP OF IT AFTER THAT WAS REMOVED. THE, THE CONCRETE KEPT ON GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT. OKAY. THE CONCRETE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE THE, THE, BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS PROBABLY, I MEAN, AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. SO, SO I GUESS SO I'M SEEING, SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO SETS OF CARPORT OR THERE'S UH, THERE'S UM, UM, A METAL CARPORT THAT EXTENDS FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, FROM THE BACK TO THE BACK, FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT. OKAY. TO THE, TO WHERE THE BIGGER PART IS. RIGHT. THAT'S A DOUBLE CARPORT. AND SO, AND SO THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING IS THAT NARROW PART OF THE CARPORT THAT GOES ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, UM, HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN THERE? THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE MY TIME. IT HAD BEEN BECAUSE WHEN THE CHURCH WAS BUILT, THAT WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN I CAME INTO THE CITY. [02:50:01] I UNDER IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS BUILT BECAUSE THE CHURCH WAS BUILT IN 84 AND THEY STARTED BUILDING, THEY STARTED DOING THE BUILDING. SO IT MUST BE THERE SINCE BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, EVEN BEFORE THE NINETIES. THANK YOU STAFF. IS THERE A TIME WHERE THIS IS CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING? UM, WELL THE THING IS, IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT I'M READING IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE INVESTIGATIONS FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT SAY THAT AN ADDITION WAS OCCURRING. AND SO I THINK THAT WAS THE, UM, WHERE MR. MANNA WAS GOING. IT, IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS MODIFIED AND THAT IS WHAT HAS TRIGGERED THIS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. MANANA, COMMISSIONER MANANA. AND THEN, UM, SO THE OTHER DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS REGARDING THE SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND SO, SO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? UM, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO, TRYING TO IDENTIFY THAT. SO IS IT THE FOOTPRINT ON THE GROUND AND ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD CONSTITUTE, UH, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? ANYTHING ABOVE 30 INCHES FROM THE GROUND WOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND IS IT BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS, IS INDEPENDENT OF THE HOME? IS THAT WHY IT'S, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR, UH, CHURCH STEEPLES OR BELL TOWERS OR WHATNOT. IS THERE SOMETHING IS BECAUSE IT'S DETACHED MORE SEPARATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT? YEAH, THERE IS A EXEMPTION FOR BELL TOWERS ON THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, THAT KIND OF STUFF. UM, SO IF, IF, YEAH. SO IF THIS WAS PART OF THE HOUSE AND NOT A SEPARATE FREESTANDING STRUCTURE, THIS WOULDN'T BE OF ISSUE RIGHT NOW? UH, CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS NOW FOR, JUST FOR THE, YOUR INFORMATION? THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH BELL TOWER IS IN THE GROUND FIVE FEET AND FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND IT'S ALL WELDED. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE ENGINEER WANTED DONE, AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS DONE. HOWEVER, THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE TO THE ENGINEER CAME FROM OHIO. I DID NOT SPEAK TO THEM. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SPOKE ABOUT OR WHAT THEIR CRITERIA WAS FOR DOING THAT. HOWEVER. AND THEN ALSO, SO THEREFORE THEY DID IT. THEY, THEY PUT IT THERE. THEY DONATED IT DIDN'T CAUSE US A CENT, BUT THE CITY TOOK IT DOWN OR WANTS TO TAKE IT DOWN. YEAH. SO, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT PART OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, IT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT IT'S A BELL TOWER. IT'S, WELL, I HATE TO DIFFER WITH YOU, BUT THERE ARE MANY CHURCHES THAT ARE BUILT THIS WAY. THERE ARE CHURCHES THAT ARE, THERE ARE BELL TOWERS IN THE BACK. YOU CAN GO AROUND TOWN LOOKING AND YOU'RE GONNA FIND THEM THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT THE, YEAH. AND I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS TO THE BE TOWER IS JUST, THE ISSUE IS HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S, IT'S ALL THE, THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, TO THE TOWER. YES. YES. THERE'S ABOUT THREE FEET. YES. YEAH, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST FIVE, FIVE FEET. YOU CAN'T GO FIVE, YOU'LL HIT THE CHURCH. THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE EXEMPTION. HMM. THAT'S WHY YOU NEED, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FOR, THAT'S WHY YOU HERE FOR THE EXEMPTION. OKAY. SO IS THERE, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? ANY, UH, ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MR. GALLEGOS, COME UP. NOPE. , IF YOU WANNA STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. YES. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, COMMISSIONERS, HONORABLE CHAIRMAN, UH, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOSE GALLEGOS. MY RESIDENCE ADDRESS IS TWO 14 WEST ACADEMY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 7 8 2 2 6. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, UH, AS STATED, AND I'D LIKE TO FOR THE PURPOSE OF, UH, TRANSPARENCY AND CLARIFICATION, UH, I NEED TO STATE THAT I, INFANT JESUS OF FROG CAME IN APPROXIMATELY 1984 AND BEGAN, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING CHAPEL, UH, AND CHURCH. UH, HOWEVER THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN 1979 HAS BEEN STATED BY ARCHBISHOP GABRIEL. UH, MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS UNIVERSITY PARK, AS YOU WELL KNOW, [02:55:01] RIGHT NORTH OF ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY. UH, THIS WAS BUILT IN 1954. NOW, I'D LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT ACCORDING TO, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU'VE INDICATED, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE INFANT JESUS OF FROG. ARCHBISHOP JOHN GABRIEL, UH, SERVES AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THAT, UH, UH, ORDER. IT IS A RELIGIOUS ORDER, UH, NOT UNLIKE CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN CORN WARD HIGH SCHOOL, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE UNIVERSITY, ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY, ALL OR RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND NOT PART OF THE ARCHDIOCESE. SO IT WOULD NOT BE, UH, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR PARTS, SIR. NOW, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S CARPORT ALONG WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE CARPORT BECAUSE IT'S SEPARATED BY THAT STRUCTURE. THAT WALL CEMENT WALL DIVIDING THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO HIM COMING IN 1984 TO RESIDE AND SERVE AS A CHURCH SINCE 1984. UH, AS HE INDICATED THE GARAGE, EXISTING GARAGE AT THE TIME WAS RAS INFESTED AND WAS FALLING DOWN AND THE, THE ARCH BISHOP AND THE INFANT JESUS OF FROG CONTINUED THE SAME LINE OF STRUCTURE. THE CONCRETE OR THE WAS NOT ALTERED AND ITS CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING PROPERTY. UH, ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. THE TIME, SIR. THIS WOULD NOT BE, IT'S, I CAN KEEP, GIVE HIM ANOTHER MINUTE. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. UH, THIS IS OF COURSE A VERY COMPELLING CASE, AS YOU WELL KNOW. UH, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS. HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I HAVE GONE AROUND AND CANVASED THE NEIGHBORHOOD SOLICITING INPUT. UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, NO OPPOSITION WAS SENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY PARK, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE NEIGHBORS THAT I SPOKE WITH, UH, WERE NOT IN OPPOSITION. HOWEVER, THEY WERE RELUCTANT AND HESITANT TO SEND IN A LETTER IN FAVOR. THERE WAS ONE LETTER IN FAVOR, INCIDENTALLY, THAT WAS NOT RECORDED, UH, AND REPORTED FOR THE RECORD. UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, SO IT'S THE GRANTING, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE, I BELIEVE IN MY, UH, HUMBLE OPINION ADVERSE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO WHAT YOUR TIME'S UP. BUT I WANTED TO ASK YOU, DO YOU HAVE A DOCUMENTED LETTER OF SUPPORT TO, TO SHOW US? YES. I'VE ALREADY TURNED IT IN TO, I DON'T SEE 'EM HERE, BUT HAD TURNED IT IN. WE'LL SHOW IT HERE IN A SECOND. YEAH. 'CAUSE WE, THE, THE, THERE WERE TWO, THE PEOPLE WHO, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, AN OPPOSITION. I'M, I'M REALLY WAS CURIOUS TO SEE IF YOU GOT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING NEIGHBOR, LIKE THE ACTUAL BUDDING NEIGHBOR TO CHIME IN AGAINST SIR. UH, THE, THE UPSIDE DOWN AND THE APPROVAL IS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S THE, THE, OKAY, OKAY. YES SIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OF THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HUMAN MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, OKAY, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I, I LOOK AT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR, UH, THE CASE, UH, DOCUMENTS HERE, AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT SHOWS GOING DOWN THE CARPORT SIDE AND WE'RE MEASURING THE CARPORT SIDE, UM, THERE YOU THEY'RE PERFECT. UM, SO WE'RE MEASURING THE CARPORT SIDE TO THE FENCE, BUT AS I LOOK TOWARDS THE BACK, THERE'S A WALL THERE, UM, THAT IS A WALL OR SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE LINE. AND SO, UM, IS THAT ALSO PART OF THIS DIALOGUE HERE? IS THAT, THAT BACK WALL AS WELL? [03:00:01] NOT PART OF THE DIALOGUE, THE FENCE. OKAY. SO, SO IF WE SET, SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UM, THE BACK OF THE FENCE IS DOUBLE, IT'S A DOUBLE FENCE. WE HAVE A REGULAR CHAIN LINK FENCE, WHICH IS ORIGINAL FENCE, AND THEN TWO FEET IN, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A, UH, HARDWOOD FENCE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT, AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S OKAY. SO, SO BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, IF YOU'LL SEE THE FRONT, UM, IF YOU SEE RIGHT THERE WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS. SIR, SIR, LET LET THE COMMISSION SPEAK PLEASE. SO, SO YEAH, I'M ASKING A CITY QUESTION HERE. SO, SO IT SAYS YOU OWE, UM, FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE, FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR SIX INCH CARPORT. AND IS IT THAT THE OTHER WALL IS, IS NOT, THAT WAS NOT PART OF ANY, UM, UM, CITATION BY CO COMPLIANCE, WHICH THEY DETERMINED WAS DONE, UM, AT A TIME PERIOD WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABIDING BY THE CODE? YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THE SIDE VARIANCE IS FOR THE CARPORT IN THE FRONT AND THEN BEHIND THAT WALL EXTENDING ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SIDE, ALMOST FOUR. IS THAT THE INTENT? THERE IT IS. OKAY. OKAY. SO, SO THE WALL IS NOT PART OF OR THAT WHATEVER THAT FACADE IS THAT IT'S EXISTING NONCONFORMING THAT DOES NOT, YEAH, IT'S NOT INCLUDED. SO EXISTING NONCONFORMING. AND WHAT DEFINES EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DATE IN THIS CASE? UM, THEY WERE PRESENTED TO THIS BY CO COMPLIANCE. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO CONVINCE CO COMPLIANCE THAT THIS WAS BUILT PRIOR TO, UM, WHATEVER NON-CONFORMING STANDARD THAT WE GAVE THEM. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A DATE DEFINING, I'M SORRY, THERE'S NO DEFINED DATE, THERE'S NO DEFINED DATE FOR NON-CONFORMING? CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS IT'S, UH, I GUESS IT WOULD BE BEFORE THE ZONING CHANGED. 1965 OR SOMETHING. HUH? USUALLY ANNEXATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US. IF THERE'S NO VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE ELSE UNDER TO SPEAK, NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE'S NO MORE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. UH, VASQUEZ, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I THINK THIS ONE IS, IS, IS FOR STAFF. UH, IT IS MY, UH, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT BELL TOWER WAS, UM, WAS, UH, ER ERECTED BACK ALSO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE FIFTIES OR SIXTIES, SOMETIMES LIKE THAT. BUT IT ALSO WAS, WAS PUT DOWN AT A, AT A SIGNIFICANT DEPTH WITH A LOT OF CEMENT. UH, AND YET, UM, UH, IT, IT HAD NOT BEEN AN ISSUE UNTIL RECENTLY. AND I WAS WONDERING WHY, UH, IN OTHER CASES WE HAVE SEEN, UH, UH, INVESTIGATING O OFFICERS, UH, FROM CODE COMPLIANCE COME IN TO, UH, APPEAR BEFORE US TO SUPPORT THEIR FINDINGS. AND I WAS WONDERING IF, UH, IF, IF, UH, THE, WE COULD HEAR MORE FROM, FROM CODE COMPLIANCE AS TO WHY THIS, UH, BECAME A MATTER OF INTEREST. UH, SO RECENTLY QUESTION MANANA COMMISSIONER, MAY I SO HOLD ON ONE AT A, ONE AT A TIME, SIR. SO MANNA, I WON'T, SO, OKAY. 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA HAVE HIM GO BACK TO, AND SO THERE MAY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING. 'CAUSE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN DECEMBER, 2022, THAT TOWER IS NOT THERE. AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PICTURE, IT'S THERE. SO THE TOWER'S ONLY BEEN UP FOR, FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. YEAH, WE HEAR, WE HEAR TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS DONATED AND THEN INSTALLED, UH, PRETTY RECENTLY. RIGHT. AND THE PLATFORM, IT SAYS, UH, WAS INVESTIGATED IN MAY OF 2024. AND IT, IT, IT'S A PLATFORM THAT HAD A SPEAKER ON IT. UH, A LOUD SPEAKER. OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO WE'VE GOT, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE'VE GOT THREE ITEMS BEFORE US. UH, ONE IS DEALING WITH THE FRONT SETBACK, UH, THE CARPORT. ANOTHER ONE IS, UH, THE SIDE SETBACK THAT EXTENDS FROM THE FRONT AND THEN ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR OF THE, OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE. AND THEN, UH, THE ACCESSORY BELL TOWER, UH, THAT'S FREESTANDING AND NEXT TO THE HOME. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO SIR, IS UM, WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION, SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MANNA MR. MANNA. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH FRONT CARPORT SETBACK TO, UM, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, I'M SORRY, TO A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW [03:05:01] A SIX INCH SIDE CARDBOARD SETBACK SITUATED AT 3 4 4 2 WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING ARCHBISHOP JOHN GABRIEL. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE AT THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE CARPORT SETBACKS, UH, ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL EXIST BETWEEN N NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND STRUCTURES. AND, UH, THE DEVELOP IS, IS, UM, NOT UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CARPORT SETBACK, UH, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO DEMOLISH OR LARGELY REMOVE LARGE PORTIONS OF THE CARPORT. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL EXIST FOR THE PROPOSED PURPOSES OF FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF CONCERNS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT THE VARIANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO DIRECTLY IMPACT ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH WATER RUNOFF OR FIRE SAFETY ISSUES. SIX. APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY LOCATED STAFF FINDS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON A PROPERTY IS A SMALLER LOT AND SIZE OF THE HOME RELATIVE TO THE LOT, LEAVING LESS ROOM FOR A CARPORT AND A MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER ZU, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO AS I LOOK AT THIS STRUCTURE IN 2007 AND SEE THAT IT'S THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED, UM, YOU KNOW, TO ME, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE DATE STARTS FOR WHEN IT IS THAT WE CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, NON-CONFORMING, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE QUITE SOME TIME. AND SO, UM, AND SO BASICALLY WHAT I READ THIS MOTION FOR WAS TO ADDRESS THAT. I STILL DID. THERE'S A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THAT WALL. AND SO, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS DIALOGUE, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS AS I READ. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I CONCUR AS WELL. I THINK THE, UH, INSTRUCTION WAS ZERO BEFORE THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OF THE FRONTAGE, WHICH MAKES IT AN NONCONFORMING IN MY, IN MY MIND. SO REASONS WHY I SUPPORT THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER, MAN, THAT YOU READ ITEM THREE, I DID NOT READ ITEM THREE. OKAY. SO PUT THAT OUT THERE. SO ONLY ITEM ONE AND TWO IS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NOW LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE. UH, THE MOTION IS FOR ITEM ONE AND TWO AS REQUESTED. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. MR. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM THREE? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. UH, UH, DIES TO LACK OF MOTION. SO, SIR, UM, ITEMS ONE AND TWO WITH THE CARPORT, UH, DID PASS, UH, THE, THE BELL TOWER ACCESSORY DID NOT. UH, SO THAT'S, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TO DO MOVING FORWARD, STAFF CAN CERTAINLY ASSIST YOU WITH THAT. OKAY. WHEN THE BELL TOWER WAS PUT IN THERE, WE WERE TOLD TO GET, WE NEEDED TO GET A, A, UM, CERTIFICATE, WHICH WE DID AND GAVE IT TO CODE COMPLIANCE. WELL, WE'RE JUST HERE. WE TALK TO OUTSIDE. YEAH, HE, HE CAN EXPLAIN THAT. BUT WE, WE ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW WHETHER IT CAN EXIST IN THAT PLACE. IT DOESN'T EXIST OR IT HAS TO BE MOVED OVER, BUT, UM HMM. SO THE BE HOWARD HAS TO GO DOWN OR WHAT? UH, STAFF CAN EXPLAIN THAT. YOU EXPLAIN THE STAFF. YEAH. OUTSIDE. OKAY. SO IT'S FOUR 17. COMMISSIONER ZUNA IS, UH, LEAVING THE MEETING. WE ARE DOWN TO 10. THANK. ALL RIGHT. UH, WE ALREADY DID ITEM NINE. WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 10. THERE'S [03:10:01] SANDWICHES OVER THERE. IF Y'ALL WANT TO GO GRAB ONE ITEM 10 88. IT'S 88. ITEM NUMBER 10, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 180 8. ADDRESS IS 1 23 LANINE LANE COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE, APPLICANT. PRAX, UH, GASPER, UH, ITEM ONE, A THREE FOOT TWO OR THREE FOOT TWO INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT 10 INCHES FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SET FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. LINE. THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE PROHIBITED FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE YARD. AND FOUR, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION ZONING IS R FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF INTERSTATE 90, WEST OF SOUTH ZAZA MORRIS STREET ON LANSING LANE. ON MAY 3RD, 2024, CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A CITIZENS CALL FOR A BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED CARPORT CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A THREE FOOT, TWO INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A NINE FOOT 11 INCH FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH, ONE FOOT 10 INCHES FROM THE WEST SIDE AND ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINES. THE CARPORT WITH DWELLING AREA ON TOP IS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND NOT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE, UH, SITE VISIT, STAFF NOTED A CORRUGATED MIDDLE FENCE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SLIDING GATE FRONT, UH, SLIDING GATE FENCE WITHIN 10 FEET OF CLEAR VISION AREA. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS A MEASUREMENTS, UM, FROM THE SIDE SETBACK AND MEASUREMENT FROM THE FRONT SETBACK. A DISTANCE FROM THE, FOR THE CLEAR VISION, CORRUGATED MIDDLE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE HOME, AND THEN FENCING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. JUST TO SHOW THE THE FENCE LINE, UH, CLEAR VISION IS, UH, COMMON IN THE AREA SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, FRONT SETBACK AND PROHIBITED FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 8 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING LOTS AND ROADWAY. AND TWO, THE VARIANCE WILL INJURE THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 88 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THERE IS A SUITABLE CLEAR VISION SPACE THAT WILL REMAIN TO SAFELY BACK UP INTO THE RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET. AND TWO, THE FENCE LINE IS IN ESTABLISHED DIS DISTANCE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF MAILED 33 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE EL CHARO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ALRIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. SO THE IS COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, THIS WAS LISTED AS, UM, LET'S [03:15:01] SEE, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. YES. THIS IS AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AND IT CANNOT BE VIEWED AS AN, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A SECONDARY, UH, WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SECONDARY BUILDING. THIS WOULD BE AN ATTACHED CARPORT. OKAY. AND IT WOULD JUST BE AN EXTENSION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS ALL OTHER PROGRAM. WELL, YEAH. I GOT, I'M TRYING TO CALL OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN, WHEN IS A STRUCTURE BASICALLY MOVING A HOUSE FORWARD VERSUS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, SUNLIGHT'S LINE. 'CAUSE THERE'S CERTAINLY A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. AND THAT'S, WE ADVERTISE IT AS A STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE, THE USE OF IT IS A CARPORT BECAUSE IT HAS A SECOND STORY ESSENTIALLY. IT IS PART OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH HAS THE SAME SETBACKS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A STRUCTURE AND A CARPORT. CORRECT. WE, WE WE'RE LEAVING IT AS A STRUCTURE THOUGH. AND THIS IS ZONED R FOUR. WHAT IS THE FRONT SETBACK? UH, BECAUSE I KNOW ON CARPORTS YOU CAN HAVE THE SUPPORT BEAM UP OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. IT'S ON AN R FOUR WAS A 10 FEET, CORRECT? 10 FEET. ALL GREAT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. OKAY. APPLICANT. CAN I SPEAK SPANISH? UH, I CAN GET YOU TRANSL. AND THE REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE CARPOOL. MM-HMM. . SO WHAT IT HAPPENED IS THAT THIS CAR HAS BEEN THE SAME, BUT WE, THE PASS OF THE TIME AND THE WEATHER, ALL THE POSTS WERE ROTTEN ON THE BASE. WHAT WE WERE DOING IS THAT WE, NOT, NOT LIKE WE REMODEL EVERYTHING, WHAT WE DID IS TO PUT LIKE A LEVELING, LIKE A, HAVING LIKE A, A LITTLE BIT OF STEEP. SO WE'LL HAVE KIND OF, UH, GOING DOWN A, A LITTLE BIT, THE WATER NOW IN THIS AREA OF THE NEIGHBOR, WE HAVEN'T FINISHED YET. SO WE WILL ADD THE GUTTERS THERE. NOW I HAVE THE ENGINEER'S LETTER AND I GAVE IT TO YOU GUYS AND MY NEIGHBOR, UH, YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBOR, UH, ACCEPTED. MY NEIGHBOR IS NOT IN OPPOSITION, IS IN FAVOR. NOW, IN REGARDS OF THE FENCE, ORIGINALLY 19 YEARS AGO, IT WAS MADE OF WOOD, BUT IT WAS ROTTEN ALSO. ALL THE BOTTOM WAS ROTTEN. SO THAT WAS REASON WE SWITCH IT TO METAL. OKAY. AND I WONDERING BECAUSE BEFORE I DID ALL THAT JOB, I REQUESTED THE PERMITS AND I GOT THEM. AND NOW THEY ARE TELLING ME IN THE CITY THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE. SO THAT IS MY QUESTION HERE AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE ALL. ALRIGHT. UH, SO DID THE APPLICANT AMEND HIS, AMEND HIS A HIS APPLICATION TO NOW INCLUDE GUTTERS? NO. ONLY ONE SIDE. UH, WHICH SIDE IS THAT? [03:20:01] THE WEST SIDE WITH THE NEIGHBOR. NEXT NEIGHBOR. DO YOU HAVE THE POINTER? OH, YOU ALREADY HAVE GUTTERS. SO ON THE BACKSIDE, CAN YOU PUT THE, THE FULL PICTURE AND IS THIS HOW YOU USE IT HERE? YES. RIGHT THERE. YEAH, ON THAT SIDE. OKAY. SO THE APPLICANT IS ADMITTED AS HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. JUST EVERYONE KNOWS MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. OKAY. UH, CAN YOU GO TO STREET VIEW? UM, FROM 2019, I GUESS IS THE LAST TIME I GOOGLE LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY. AND THE QUESTION THAT, THAT I'M GONNA ASK IS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN PLACE THAT YOU SAID YOU REMOVED THE POLES ON, UM, THE, UH, ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IF YOU GO, UH, TO THE EAST A LITTLE BIT OR YEAH, YEAH. NOPE. OTHER DIRECTION? OTHER DIRECTION. ONE MORE, UH, NOW LOOK AT THE PROPERTY. OKAY. SO IF YOU LOOK THERE, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE CORRUGATED METAL, UH, USED TO GO FORWARD AND BACK AND IT APPEARS THAT IT'S ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING ROOF OF THE STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY, THEY MOVE IT TO THE INSIDE. SO THE, SO THE STRUCTURE OF THAT WAS REPLACED WHILE THE POLES WERE STILL THERE. THE, THE OVERHEAD STRUCTURE DID MOVE OVER TOWARDS YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY BY THREE FOOT OR MORE, CORRECT? NO, NO. IT MOVED TOWARDS THE INSIDE HOME, NOT TO THE NEIGHBOR. MR. MANA, WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT IS AN OLD PICTURE, THAT IS NOT THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT. SO, OKAY, SO 'CAUSE IT APPEARS, WELL MAYBE I'M JUST NOT SEEING IT CORRECTLY, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE NEW ROOF LINE FOLLOWS THE SIDE PROPERTY WHERE BEFORE IT LOOKED LIKE THE ROOF LINE WAS OFFSET BY A COUPLE FEET FROM THE SIDE. PROPERTY ON THE OLD STRUCTURE CURRENTLY IS TOWARDS INSIDE CURRENTLY. OKAY. SO BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR A, IT LOOKS EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE THERE, MR. MANA, IT DOESN'T EXIST CURRENTLY. YEAH. YEAH, I THINK HE WAS, WHAT HE'S TRYING TO FIND OUT IS, IS ON THE WEST SIDE, PARTICULARLY THE ACTUAL POST, IS THAT IN THE SAME PLACE OR HAS IT BEEN MOVED OVER? ANYWHERE HAS MOVED TOWARDS MY PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO MY PROPERTY BECAUSE THE COVER IS, IS PUSHED TO THE, IS PUSHED TO THE RIGHT. THERE IS A, THERE IS A PICTURE. THERE IS A PICTURE AND THERE IS A PICTURE THAT YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER. SO THE POST THAT'S HOLDING UP THAT STRUCTURE, IS THAT, THAT'S IN THE GROUND? IS THAT GOING? YEAH, THAT POST, IS IT GOING IN THE GROUND IN THE SAME PLACE AS BEFORE? NO, THOSE THAT POST IT WAS MOVED TOWARDS MY PROPERTY. SIX INCHES. OKAY. SIX INCHES. SIX INCHES. ALRIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND AND YOU HAVE THE MEASURES THERE? YES. UH, SO IS, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SO MOVE MUCH? YEAH. IF I COULD NOTE REAL QUICK, YES. COMMISSIONER RHI, UH, DID JOIN THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHO? COMMISSIONER RHI. OH, GOOD. COMMISSIONER? YES. HELLO? AM I AUDIBLE BACK TO 11. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, UH, AT THIS TIME IS TIME, IS THERE ANYONE SENATOR TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION. SO QUESTION, UH, MANANA, IT'S A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. SO REGARDING, UM, A STRUCTURE ON [03:25:01] TOP OF A CARPORT. UM, SO, SO ARE THERE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AT ALL OR IS IT, CAN IT BE A TWO AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE? COMPLETELY IN FRONT? THE SAME HIGH LIMIT, THE SAME, THE SAME HIGH LIMITATION AS THE ZONING DISTRICT. TWO AND A HALF STORIES, THREE, FIVE FEET. OKAY. OKAY. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SO CITY, SO THAT MEANS RIGHT NOW IT'S IN COMPLIANCE. THE, THE TWO STORIES, OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES? UH, THERE'S NO, UM, UH, BECAUSE FOUR VARIANCE. SO WE, SO ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS IT'S NOT VIOLATING THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, BUT A CARPORT POST, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN. THE CARPORT POST COULD BE SET BACK WITH A SLIGHT OVERHANG, BUT THEN THE DWELLING PART CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER TO 10 FEET BECAUSE THEN THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE. AND, AND BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL HOOKED TOGETHER, WHAT'S BEFORE TODAY IS A STRUCTURE THAT'S AN INCH AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S LIKE A HYBRID KIND OF THING. SO ONE THING I WOULD RECOMMEND IS FOR WHOEVER MAKES THIS MOTION, I THINK ITEMS ONE AND TWO AND POSSIBLY FOUR COULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH ITEM THREE SEPARATED PERHAPS, OR BETTER YET, I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING ITEM NUMBER ONE AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND THEN LEAVING TWO AND THREE TO BE READ POTENTIALLY SEPARATELY. JUST MY 2 CENTS. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 8, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR 180 3 2 INCH SITE SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE, ONE FOOT 10 INCH FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 1 4 3 LANSING LANE. APPLICANT BEING PEDRO GAS BAR. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INSERTS. THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY AND IMPOSE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE ATTACHED CARPORT AND SIDE PRIVACY FENCE. IS THAT RIGHT? WOULD NEED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED OR REMOVED TO MEET UDC STANDARDS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE CARPORT IS APPROPRIATE, DISTANCE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND RIGHT AWAY AND THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD MAINTAINS A SAFE DISTANCE FROM AND ONTO THE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROAD, FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE DIS 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 VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTERED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY LOCATED, IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT DIRECTLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCES SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCES ARE DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AS THE SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS LIMITED LOT SIZE AND THE ESTABLISHED DIS DISTANCE OF FRONT YARD FACING AND GATES IN THE COMMUNITY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER. BUT I HAVE AN, UH, REQUEST. UM, HE DID SAY HE WAS GONNA PUT IN, UM, GUTTER. SO DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO THAT FIRST TWO? IT [03:30:01] DIDN'T EXTEND ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE FRONT. HE, HE AGREED TO, UH, WELL, HE DIDN'T AGREE. HE, HE AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE, OF THE TRUCTURE IN QUESTION. THEY THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE, OH, I'LL AMEND IT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CARPORT THEN WE NOT SECOND. HE'S, HE'LL HAVE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. WE CAN'T GO ANY LOWER. WE CAN'T GO ANY LOWER. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. UM, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CLEAR VISION AND I THINK THAT WITH THE GUTTERS, THE ADDITION OF THE GUTTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CARPORT, IT'LL, UH, SUFFICIENTLY DRAIN WATER AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MS. BRAGMAN. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH, WITH THAT. UM, UPDATE WITH, UH, HIM INSTALLING THE GUTTERS. THANK YOU. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, AND I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY WITH REGARDS TO THE MEASUREMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED. SO THE THREE FOOT, TWO INCH, UM, UH, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE WAS THAT TO THE POLL ITSELF? UM, AND DID THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UH, THE OVERHANG THAT WAS TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE OVERHANG? OKAY, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BEFORE US. IT WAS, UH, IT WAS, UH, ITEMS ONE IN FOUR AS ADVERTISED. UH, WHICH, WHICH INCLUDED THE, UH, AMENDMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE LETTERS ON THE WEST SIDE. UH, LET ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN . I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER AHI. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN SEEING AS I WASN'T HERE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SPECIFIC CASE. AND CHAIR ORIAN? UH, I DO NOT CONCUR. MOTION FAILS. UM, FIVE TO FIVE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. SO IS THERE, IS THERE A, UH, COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE OTHER TWO OR GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE? UH, DI SELECT A MOTION SO NOTHING GOT PASSED. SO THE, NONE OF THE FOUR. SO YOU HAVE TO GET WITH STAFF AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL EXPLAIN WHAT TO DO AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11, ITEM NINE. BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 9. ADDRESS, 1 4 6 LOS AR COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT MIGUEL RIVERA REQUESTS ONE A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A PORCH. A SIX FOOT TWO, A SIX FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK. THREE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A FOUR FOOT FOUR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW 11 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. FIVE. A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT REAR FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REAR YARD. ZONING IS R FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG LOS AUS STREET, EAST OF SOUTH FLORES STREET. LOCATED WITHIN THE ST. LEO'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT HAD HOME AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS DONE BY A CONTRACTOR THAT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERMITS FOR THE WORK COMPLETED. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT APPLICATION, A HOME EXPANSION WAS ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AS WELL AS PATIOS TO THE FRONT AND REAR, AS WELL AS ADDING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE REAR AND THE SITE PLAN [03:35:05] FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE WAS A STRAIGHT ADDITION TO THE HOME ON THAT FRONT WITH THE PORCH AND PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE. LENGTH AND WIDTH OF THE FRONT PORCH AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR. THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ALSO IN THE REAR WITH THE FENCE AND GATE, THE HIGHEST 0.7 FEET SURROUNDING AREA. SA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REDUCED SETBACKS WILL AGGRAVATE WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY ISSUES FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THEY'RE LOCATED. AND THE REDUCED, UH, CLEAR VISION CLOSELY LOCATED TO A RESIDENTIAL INTERSECTION CREATES A PUBLIC HAZARD. AND FOR THE FIN HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS SIT NOW ON BO OA 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 180 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REQUESTED FENCE HEIGHT WILL NOT ADD TO THE PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY BEYOND WHAT IS AFFORDED BY FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES OF THE UDC AND TWO. THE REQUESTED FENCE HEIGHT WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE FENCE IS LOCATED. STAFF MAILED 30 NOTICES RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN ST. LEO'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, YES. MY NAME IS, UH, MIGUEL RIVERA. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. UH, WE, I BROUGHT THE PROPERTY IN, UH, JULY OF 23. UH, I WAS WORKING IN THE OIL FIELDS FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, SAVING UP MONEY TO BUY A PROPERTY AND, AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF MOVE IN AND, UM, SAVE SOME MONEY INSTEAD OF PAYING A BIG MORTGAGE. AND SO I HIRED A CONTRACTOR IN, UM, AUGUST. HE'S BEEN WORKING ON IT TILL, UH, HE STOPPED IN MAY. THERE WAS SOME ISSUES WITH MONEY AND HE SAID I DIDN'T PAY HIM ENOUGH. HE DID ALL THE WORK, DID A GOOD JOB. HE HAD A PAPER ON THE WINDOW WITH A PERMIT ON THERE. NEVER BOTHERED TO LOOK AT THE ADDRESS. IT WAS NOT EVEN MY ADDRESS. SO HE WAS DOING ALL THE WORK. HE HIRED ALL HIS ELECTRICIANS, ALL HIS PLUMBERS. I PAID HIM OVER $80,000, UM, YOU KNOW, AND CHECKS, CASH, EVERYTHING. HIS NAME WAS, UM, MR. REESE. AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE HE GOT AN ISSUE WITH AN ELECTRICIAN IN JULY AND I THINK THAT ELECTRICIAN KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO PERMIT, SO HE CALLED THE STRIKE TEAM AND THIS GUY JUST DISAPPEARED AND RAN OFF 'CAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS SO EVER SINCE, UH, JULY I'VE BEEN HIRING PEOPLE 'CAUSE STRIKE TEAM STOPPED. SO I HAD TO PAY ANOTHER PLUMBER, UH, SIX TO $800 ON TOP OF WHAT I ALREADY PAID. HIRE, HIRE ANOTHER ELECTRICIAN TO USE THIS PERMIT TO GET EVERYTHING, UH, SITUATED. AND IT'S JUST BEEN A NIGHTMARE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER Y'ALL CAN APPROVE. I MEAN, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I JUST, YOU KNOW, NEED TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I'LL START OFF. UH, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A STREET ON EITHER SIDE. MM-HMM. . UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR'S LOTS ACROSS THE WAY ARE VACANT AND YOU HAVE, IS THERE ANY ACTIVITY THERE? YOU DON'T SEE ANYBODY ATTEMPTING TO BUILD ANYTHING ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU? UH, ON SIERRA STREET? I THINK IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. UM, SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BUILD, IT SOUNDS RESIDENTIAL, BUT, UM, THE ONE ON SIERRA, YOU'RE TALKING THE BIG LOT. I MEAN, I CALLED, I THINK THEY WANTED LIKE 650,000. THEY SAID IT WAS A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT GOES TO THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER. OKAY. UM, I ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE GUTTERS, UH, ON THE SIDE. YEAH, I PUT GUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES, YES. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S ON A DOWNHILL, I GUESS. 'CAUSE THAT AREA GOES DOWN INTO SAN ANTONIO RIVER, SO IT'S ALL DOWNHILL. SO I PUT GUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES AND, UH, SO YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING. AND SO I HAD TO GET AN EQUITY LOAN JUST TO GET STUFF MOVING FORWARD AND REPAY THE PLUMBERS AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S JUST LYING AND TAKING MONEY. SO IT'S JUST BEEN A HEADACHE. I CAN, AND THE APPLICATION IS SAYING IT'S FOR, THERE'S A, A VARIANCE FOR A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A PORCH. IT [03:40:01] LIKE THE WHOLE, IS THAT ONE IN THE FRONT? YEAH, SO IN THE FRONT THAT MY MOM LIVES WITH ME, SO I MADE THAT ROOM FOR HER. BUT THE GENTLEMAN, WHEN HE CONSTRUCTED THAT, THERE WAS NO PORCH IN THE FRONT. IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, NO, IT, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE YOUR WHOLE HOME CONTINUES DOWN THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. BUT WE'RE ONLY HERE FOR A PORCH. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT WAS A HISTORIC, UH, SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, OH, OKAY. SO ONLY THE PORCH THAT WAS ADDED IS WHAT IS, UM, NEEDING THE VARIANCE. OH, SO THE REST OF THE HOME WAS COMPLETELY EXISTING? CORRECT. OKAY. I, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ENTAILED WITH, WITH THE WORK THAT YOU DID AND WHAT WAS NEW, WHAT ISN'T OR WHAT WAS THE DISH. SO THAT WHEN I, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE THAT SAYS THE WORD FRONT. MM-HMM, THAT WALL THAT THE WORD FRONT APPEARS ON WAS EXISTING? NO, IT WAS ABOUT 20 FEET BACK IS WHAT THE EXISTING WAS. SO THE SETBACK WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE FIRST 20 FEET OF THE HOME, PLUS THE PORCH. CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? I'M SORRY. WHICH YOU SAID, SIR. I BELIEVE, WELL, WE ADDED AN ADDITION, WELL, THE GENTLEMAN ADDED AN ADDITION TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. UM, AND, UH, I THINK HE GOT A PLAID AND ALL THAT STUFF AND HE FIGURED IT OUT, I'M ASSUMING, BUT I, I, I DON'T, I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW. UH, I JUST KNOW THAT HE BUILT THAT AND THERE WAS NO PORCH THERE IN THE FRONT. IT JUST LOOKED KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKED, KIND OF DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT. SO I WAS LIKE, MAN, WHEN IT RAINS, IS THE WATER GONNA GET IN? AND SO I'M PRIORITIZING THAT ROOM FOR MY MOM 'CAUSE SHE'S, UH, ELDERLY AND SHE HAS A LOT OF DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS SO SHE CAN GET OUT THERE TO THE FRONT. YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T OBSERVE THAT THROUGH HISTORICAL PICTURES, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING, YES, IT WOULD BE THE ISSUE IS THAT, THAT BECAUSE IT'S ADVERTISED ONLY FOR A PORCHES, IT HAVE TO BE RE NO, THE PORCH IS JUST FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. THE SIDE STEPBACK IS STILL ADVERTISED. THE ONE FOOT. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THE STEPBACK IS STILL THE 10 FEET IS WHAT THEY HAD TOLD ME. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE STEPBACK. YEAH. SO THE NEXT THING YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS A FRONT SETBACK. UM, BECAUSE YOUR STRUCTURE'S A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE FRONT OFF OF LOS AR AR I BELIEVE IT'S JUST THE PORCH. I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN, SO STAFF IS, IS THE ISSUE ON THE FRONT SETBACK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, IS IT SOLELY CONTAINED FOR THE PORCH IN YOUR OPINION? I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE LIKE ONE OF THE FEW PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PARKING IN THE FRONT. EVERYTHING IS THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE BACKYARD. RIGHT. AND SO IT WAS NO POINT. AND THEN THE, THE THIRD ISSUE, UH, THE FOUR 11 SIDE TO SIDE BACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OKAY. SO LET'S, IS THAT, IS THAT THAT GARAGE AND STORAGE BUILDING? YES. OKAY. 'CAUSE IT, THAT, THAT REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FOR, IS SAYING IT'S ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S THAT CLOSE. YEAH, I MEAN THAT WHOLE LINE ON THIS, IT FOLLOWS THE SAME HOUSE. I THINK, UH, THE GENTLEMAN MARKED IT OUT AND I MEAN, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE EXISTING KIND OF JUST FOLLOWED IT THROUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK. AND ONE CORRECTION, THE FRONT SETBACK TO THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT SEVEN AND A HALF TO ABOUT EIGHT FEET. OKAY. NOT COUNTING THE PORCH. SO ON THIS PICTURE, ON THE REAR YARD, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PICTURE THAT'S BEING DISPLAYED RIGHT NOW, WHERE IT SAYS REAR YARD, THAT PORTION OF THAT PARKING STRUCTURE IS ABOUT AN INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE, THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT. OH, THERE'S A FENCE. OKAY. I CAN SEE IT NOW. OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST VARIANCE BEFORE US IS THE, UM, WELL THE NUMBER FOUR IS FROM THE CLEAR VISION AND THEN THERE'S A VARIANCE FOR THE, THE REAR FENCE, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. WHY DO YOU NEED TO HIRE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD? WHAT DO I NEED? A WHAT? I'M SORRY. HIGHER FENCE. OH, IT WAS ALREADY EXISTING. I DIDN'T PUT THAT THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN, UM, IN JULY, THAT BACK FENCE WAS ALREADY THERE WITH THE SEVEN FOOT ONE. I DIDN'T INSTALL IT. YEAH, THAT ONE WAS ALREADY THERE. EVEN THE FRONT ONE WAS ALREADY THERE. I DIDN'T INSTALL THAT. AND, AND STAFF, THE SEVEN FOOT THAT'S MEASURED ONLY TO THE, TO THE ARCH, THE HIGHEST PART OF THE ARCH ON THE GATE, THE REST OF THE FENCE IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE, CORRECT? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE, THE GATE THAT SWINGS OPEN OKAY. IS WHAT'S OVER. YEAH, JUST, I MEAN, THIS HOUSE IS FOR ME AND MY FAMILY, IT'S NOT TO SELL. I INVESTED TO, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LOWER OUR MORTGAGE AND, YOU KNOW, KEEP OUR COSTS DOWN AS EVERYTHING IS GOING UP. JUST DIDN'T EXPECT, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THIS CRAZY STUFF TO HAPPEN. I UNDERSTAND. UH, STAFF HAS, UH, ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM A, FROM THE COMMISSION, WE JUST NEED TO GET THIS THING STARTED, UH, WITH A MOTION. SO [03:45:02] THERE'S FIVE THINGS BEFORE US. UM, I WOULD SUGGEST DOING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONE FIRST, SEEING HOW THAT ONE'S SEPARATE AND PROBABLY GOING TO BE EASIER. AND I DON'T MIND READING ANY OF THESE, BY THE WAY, . OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH OH 3 0 180 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUIDE REQUESTS FOR A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT REAR FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FENCE HEIGHT FOR A SLIDING GATE IN THE REAR YARD, SITUATED AT 1 4 6 LOS ABO ARLES APPLICANT BEING MIGUEL RIVERA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. IF GRANTED, STAFF FINDS A REQUEST WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, AS, AS A REQUEST IS LIMITED TO THE REAR YARD AND EXCEEDS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR OFFENSE BY ONE FOOT. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE FENCE DOES APPEAR TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE AS ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE. WE'LL ADD ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE, THE DEFENSE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPEARS TO HAVE CREATED ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES BEING WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FENCE GUIDELINES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS, UH, HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUEST, UH, REQUEST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON HOW WEAKENED THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS IS WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PERMITTED HEIGHT WILL INCREASE SECURITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THE FENCE. UH, AS READ, IT'S ONE FOOT ONLY ON THE GATE AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. CONCUR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I WILL SUPPORT THAT. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S IN THE BACKYARD AND THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING IS FOR THE, FOR THE HOME. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THE FENCE CHAIR OR YES, COMMISSIONER? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RAHI. I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO NOW FOR THE DIFFICULT ONE. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUST READ THIS AS REQUESTED AND I'LL BE LOOKING FOR ANY, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. ALSO, JUST ONE COMMENT. I'M STILL DEALING WITH THE WHOLE STRIKE TEAM AND I UNDERSTAND, AND SO IT'S STILL, I I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT'S STILL NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING DONE. YES, SIR. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 180 9, MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A PORCH. TWO, A SIX FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK. UH, NUMBER THREE, A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND FOUR, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW 11 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT ONE FOOT SIX LOS AERUS. APPLICANT BEING MIGUEL RIVERA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCES NOT THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL EXIST BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF. ADDITIONALLY, THE GATE AND FENCING ARE ON AN ESTABLISHED FENCE LINE AND SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFELY TO FIRST THING TO AND FROM THE LOCAL ROAD AND DRIVEWAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION ORDINANCES RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO DEMOLISH SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONS TO THE HOME, AS WELL AS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO RELOCATE THE FENCING AND GATE AWAY FROM AN ESTABLISH LINE, ALSO AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. [03:50:01] THE REQUESTED VARIANCES APPEAR TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL EXIST BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF. FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOT UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFIC AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USE 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 AND WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL EXIST BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE 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 OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND IS IS THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRY AND PARKING IN THE REAR, WHICH LEAVES ONLY THE FRONT AND SIDES AS AREAS FOR ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOR, UH, MANNA. SO I, SO I'M, I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON SOME OF THESE. I DO HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THE, UH, UH, ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK. I'M NOT A BIG FAN. WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THAT ONE INCH? WHAT IS THAT? THIS IS FOR THE ACCESSORY IN THE BACK, BUT YOU NEED TO, IT'S ONE INCH, SIR. THE PUBLIC MEETING IS CLOSED IF YOU, YOU CAN'T CHIME IN ANYMORE. SO, UM, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS. THE SIDE SETBACK IS A LITTLE ROUGH FOR ME ON THE ONE INCH, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE IN THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS, MAYBE RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT, MAYBE REMOVE SOMETHING AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT. I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I AM ACTUALLY FINE LIKE IT IS. ALRIGHT. I TOOK A LOOK THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES, THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG THIS STREET. UM, AND SPECIFICALLY THIS SIDE DOES APPEAR TO HAVE, UH, THE HOMES MUCH CLOSER TO EACH OTHER. ON, ON, ON NEARBY STREETS. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE, BUT THIS STREET, UH, DOES APPEAR TO BE CROWDED. SO TO ME IT DIDN'T LOOK THAT, UM, INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON HERE. ALRIGHT, WELL THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. IS THERE ANYONE THAT'S LIKE TO ADD THEIR THOUGHTS? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE CHAIR. ORIAN. UH, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RHI? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 12. ITEM NUMBER 12 BO A DASH TWO FOUR DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 0. ADDRESS BEING 2 6 3 1 1 MARSH POND. UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT V NA UH, APPLICANT BEING NEIL, NEITHER, NEITHER. UH, A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ZONING IS, UH, OUT OF UM, OCL. UM, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE, OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY LIMITS AND WITHIN THE ETJ WEST OF INTERSTATE 2 81 AND EAST OF CANYON GULF ROAD. OUTSIDE OF CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. CITY LIMITS ON MARSH POND ROAD, THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PROPOSED ATTACHED PATIO TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR SETBACK. THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS ABUTTED IN THE REAR BY A LOT DESCRIBED AS GREEN SPACE, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IF THE ABUTTING REAR PROPERTY WAS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, APPLICANT WOULD REDUCE THEIR REAR SETBACK AND NOT REQUIRE PROPOSED VARIANCE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE REAR VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, [03:55:07] AND THIS IS A FULL ARROW VIEW OF THE LOCATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 1 0 3 0 0 9 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE AND WILL ADHERE ALL THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TWO. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF MAILED 17 NOTICES TWO, OR IN FAVOR OF ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH 200 FEET. HOWEVER, LAKESIDE AT CANYON SPRINGS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR, IN FAVOR FROM THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IN FAVOR OF THE REMAINING TWO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. GREAT. LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. UH, REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER STEVENS HAD TO DROP OFF. OKAY, SO WE'RE DOWN AT 10 COMMISSIONERS. HE'S GONNA BE HOPEFULLY COMING BACK. MAYBE? NO. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER STEVENS ABOUT WHAT? FIVE O'CLOCK? 5 0 3. 5 0 3. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, I'M NEIL NETHERY. I'M THE BUILDER HERE. UH, THIS IS, UH, FOR BECKY AND MIKE PORTER. UM, THEY ARE A, UH, SAN ANTONIO NATIVES SCHOOL TEACHER AND, UH, ACCOUNTANT WHOSE KIDS JUST LEFT FOR COLLEGE A COUPLE YEARS AGO. EMPTY NEST, DOWNSIZED. DOWNSIZED WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD BUILD SOMETHING IN BACK TO GIVE 'EM SOME MORE SPACE. THEY GOT THE OLD, UH, EIGHT BY 10, UH, BUILDER GRADE PATIO, SO THEY WANT MORE SPACE THAN THAT, OBVIOUSLY. UM, SO WE'D LIKE TO BUILD IT. UM, AND, UH, UH, I DON'T THINK, UH, IT'S GONNA BE, UH, ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA BE A PROBLEM FOR ANYBODY BEHIND THEM AS, UH, UH, THIS IS THE DESIGN OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BUILD. IT'S 16 FEET OUT FROM THE FURTHEST BACK HOUSE WALL. UM, AND, UH, WE'LL, I'M SORRY, IT'S 14 FEET. IT'LL ENCROACH INTO THAT, UH, SETBACK BY FOUR FEET. SO, UM, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BUILD. UH, SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SHOWN. THERE'S THE VIEW OUT THE BACK, UH, A WIDER VIEW FROM ABOVE. UH, THE TWO NEIGHBORS ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT HAVE, UH, BEEN SUPPORTIVE. UM, AND THIS IS ONE THAT Y'ALL WERE KIND ENOUGH TO LET US BUILD RECENTLY. THAT WAS MY RENDERING, THAT'S WHAT I BUILT. AND, UH, OTHER SIDE, THAT WAS THE RENDERING I SHOWED HERE. AND THIS IS WHAT WE BUILT. SO I'M THE SALESMAN, THE BUILDER, AND THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE. SO I CAN ASSURE YOU IT'LL GET DONE HOW, HOW WE'RE REQUESTING. SO WOULD APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR, UH, CONSIDERATION FOR A VARIANCE ON IT. OKAY. UM, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THE, THE AREA BEHIND THEM IS A, IS A, IS A SEPARATE PLATTED LOT, BUT ITS PURPOSE IS TO BE A, A GREEN BELT ON THE PLAT, WHICH IS DEDICATED AS EASEMENTS. DOES THAT COUNT TOWARDS A SETBACK REDUCTION? UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T. OKAY. WE STILL HAVEN'T BRING 'EM FORWARD YET. IT HAS TO BE, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S SURE. SEEMS CLOSE ENOUGH TO ME. OKAY. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS? NO. NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 9. MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 6 3 1 1 MARSH POND. APPLICANT BEING DEALING BECAUSE OF THE TEST, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS, WE, WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMIT AND ABUTS A VACANT LOT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECONFIGURE [04:00:01] THE PLANS TWO, ADHERE TO THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUEST WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL STILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND ADHERE TO ALL OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH 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. STAFF DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED REAR SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SIX PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH VARIANCE TO STOP HIS DUTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE RISK SETBACK VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. IT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE PRO PROPOSED STRUCTURE NEEDING MORE SPACE DUE TO LOCK CONFIGURATION. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, UM, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A BIG GREEN BELT LOT BEHIND IT AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE ARE, UH, IN SUPPORT. UH, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, POTENTIALLY, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS TO, UH, LIMIT THE, UM, UM, SIZE OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE PLAT AS, AS, UH, SUBMITTED. SO IT'S JUST THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE, NOT THE WHOLE BACK PROPERTY OR BACK OF THE STRUCTURE? UH, FOR THE LIMITED TO THE PORCH, YEAH. LIMITED. LIMITED TO THE SIZE THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUESTING AS FAR AS THE, THE SETBACK. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH THAT. THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. WITH THAT , AGAIN, A REFERENCE TO THE, UH, SITE PLAN B. YES, THAT'S RIGHT. YES. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'M FINE. GREAT. UH, WELL THEN LET'S HAVE, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTARY, HEARING NOTICE? HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. UH, REAL QUICK. UH, COMMISSIONER JE, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? YES. YES I AM. OKAY. WE CAN'T TURN YOUR CAMERA ON ON. WE CAN'T SEE. YOU SHOULD BE ON. LEMME JUST A MOMENT. UH, I MEAN, I, I THINK WE'RE GONNA TAKE HIS VOTE. UH, WE JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE'S STILL HERE. I ALL HIM. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RHI, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THAT TAKES US 10, 10 TO ZERO. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY. MM-HMM, . ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 13. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS BO OA DASH 24 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 93. ADDRESS IS 1 0 9 OMAHA STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT. RPGA DESIGN GROUP INCORPORATED A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 15 FOOT SIX INCH DRIVEWAY WIDTH TO ALLOW FOR A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND TO A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT FOR A THREE STORY STRUCTURE. UH, ZONING IS A E TWO SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 37, SOUTH OF EAST COMMERCE STREET BETWEEN SOUTH MARK, MARK MEKE, MESQUITE STREET, AND SOUTH HACKBERRY STREET ON OMAHA STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN AE TWO ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. THE AE TWO RE RESTRICTS THE DRIVEWAY TO 30% OF THE FRONT YARD AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE 52 FOOT LONG WIDTH ALLOWS A MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY OF 15 FEET SIX INCHES. THE AE DRIVEWAY STANDARD CALCULATE CALCULATES DRIVEWAY WIDTH TOGETHER WITH THE CALCULATING THE MAXIMUM 30%. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND A HALF STORY VARIANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE PER THE APPLICATION. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS FOR [04:05:01] A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. HOWEVER, A DUPLEX IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT APPLICATION. IT ALSO SHOWS PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS WILL BE TWO INDEPENDENT DRIVEWAYS. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY VACANT LOT, THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW FROM 2022. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A E TWO DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND HALF STORY VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 3 1 9 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE 20 FOOT DRIVE DRIVEWAY WIDTH, AN INCREASED HALF STORY HEIGHT WILL IN ENDURE. AND THE USE OF THE APPROPRIATE INRE, THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CONFORMING PROPERTIES AND TWO REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED 35 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR OF ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND SIR, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. OKAY. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS MICHAEL WILHELM. AND, UM, WE LOVE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT, IT'S OUR GOAL TO BUILD A DREAM HOME SIMILAR TO A HOME THAT WE HAVE NOW. SO, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE DRIVEWAY THERE, UH, OUR CURRENT HOME, WE HAVE TWO GARAGES AND IT JUST MADE IT EASY. SO THAT IS A, THAT'S A SIMPLE ONE, A SIMPLE FIX. BUT WHAT WE PROPOSE IS TO BUILD A SPANISH STYLE HOME AND A TWO AND A HALF JUST WOULDN'T BE OF COMPLIMENT TO THE QUALITY OF HOME THAT WE WANT TO BUILD THERE. AND, UH, SO WE HAD SOME PICTURES OF HOMES I THINK THE ARCHITECT SENT AS WELL OF HOMES THAT ARE IN THE AREA THAT ARE, UH, THREE STORY. DID YOU EMAIL THEM? AND DO WE HAVE THOSE? DID WE'RE LOOKING OKAY, THANKS. SO WE LOVE THE AREA AND WE CAN'T WAIT TO BUILD HERE. AND SO, UH, BUT, BUT YOU ARE BUILDING A DUPLEX. NO, NO, YOU'RE NOT. OH, NO. IT, IT'D BE OUR HOME. SO THE STAFF, YOU MAY HAVE TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT DO Y'ALL CONSIDER THIS TWO DRIVEWAYS OR ONE DRIVEWAY? UH, THIS IS TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS. THE CALCULATION IS THE OVERALL BOTH ONE PUT TOGETHER THOUGH, SO, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE, BECAUSE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT DRIVEWAYS, WHETHER IT WAS INDEPENDENTLY, INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED FOR THE WIDTH OR, OR WHAT. SO, ALL RIGHT. SO THE GOAL IS TO BUILD, TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY AT THE BOTTOM, A DRIVEWAY AND A GARAGE AT THE BOTTOM. AND, UH, UH, WE'LL HAVE, UH, STORAGE AND A WORKOUT ROOM DOWNSTAIRS. OKAY. UH, I NEED, I WORK OUT QUITE A BIT BECAUSE I'VE HAD A LOT OF HEALTH CHALLENGES AND THAT, THAT KEEPS ME GOING. I'M 75 GOING ON 76, SO I JUST, IT'S, IT'S A PART OF MY LIFE. THEN WE HAVE AN ELEVATOR THAT, UH, I'M NEEDED MANY TIMES, UH, WITH THE CHALLENGES THAT I'VE HAD. AND SO THE NEXT STORY WOULD BE THE FIRST FLOOR THAT WOULD HAVE OUR, UH, UH, LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, UH, MASTER BEDROOM PATIO OFF THE BACK. AND THEN THE THIRD STORY WOULD HAVE TWO BEDROOMS AND AN OFFICE. AND THEN THE MAGNIFICENCE OF THE VIEW FROM THIS PROPERTY OF DOWNTOWN IS JUST AMAZING. AND IT'S JUST A PERFECT PLACE FOR FAMILY, FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, UH, TO ENTERTAIN AND TO ENJOY. AND WITH, WITHOUT THAT THIRD STORY, IT REALLY KIND OF, UH, WILL TAKE AWAY FROM IT. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA NOT COMPLIMENT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HOMES THAT YOU JUST SAW IN THE PICTURE. THEY'VE BEEN REDONE. THEY'RE NICE. BUT WE DO SEE NEWER HOMES BEING BUILT INTO THE AREA, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SET [04:10:01] A STANDARD FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA SEE DIFFERENT PEOPLE KEEP COMING INTO THE AREA THERE. AND, AND, UH, WANTING HAD THE ULTIMATE THREE STORY HOME WITH AN AMAZING VIEW AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO WALK TO ALL THE VENUES OF THE, THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT. SO WE SEE AS IT AS A GREAT AREA, A GREAT AREA THAT, UH, IS JUST GONNA CONTINUE TO INCREASE IN VALUE. SO IS YOUR, HOW, HOW, HOW FAR IS YOUR HOME GONNA BE SUNKEN INTO THE GROUND? I I MEAN THE, I DIDN'T SEE ANY ELEVATIONS. THEY SHOWED SOME OF YOUR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, BUT IT, I I'M GETTING THE IMPRESSION THAT, THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, YOU'LL GO DOWN INTO THE, INTO THE GARAGE. UH, NO SIR. EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE FROM THE GROUND UP. GROUND UP. YES, SIR. WAS YOU, YOU'RE NOT ATTEMPTING TO PUT IN ANY KIND OF A ROOF PATIO OR ANYTHING? UH, NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SO, MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH AND TAKE A LOOK AT THREE STORY, UH, BUILDINGS THERE. AND SO, UM, A LOT, A LOT OF THEM, A LOT OF THE HOMES THAT LOOKED LIKE THREE STORY, YOU KNOW, MAY ACTUALLY BE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, JUST DEPENDING ON HOW WE USED TO MEASURE, UM, THE SECOND, THE SECOND STORY. AND SO IT LOOKED, SOME OF THEM LOOKED LIKE THREE STORIES, BUT THEY ACTUALLY WERE TWO AND A HALF BECAUSE THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL KIND OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND THE LAST UDC, WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO TRY TO CLARIFY AND MAKE IT EASIER TO IDENTIFY THAT THAT TWO AND A HALF STORY VERSUS A THREE STORY. AND SO, UM, SO, SO, AND I THINK IF I HEARD CORRECTLY FROM THE, UH, A AND E UM, TWO DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE THAT AREA WITH A CAP OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT FOR CITY STAFF RIGHT THERE? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU, SO, SO FOR A AND E, THE, THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE THAT AREA AT TWO AND A HALF STORIES, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO I THINK WE JUST FOUND, OKAY. AND SO, SO, SO ONE OF THE QUESTION I ASKED SOMEONE EARLIER IS, YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE HALF STORY, YES. WE HAVE THE ROOF LINE AS DEFINING ONE OF THEM AS WELL AS THE, UM, UM, THE ABILITY OF THE, THE, THE WEDDING CAKE DESIGN. AND SO THE WHERE THE CENTER, THERE'S A CENTER, UH, CENTER SECTION WHICH IS, CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A HALF STORY, WHERE IT ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REACHES UP TO THAT THIRD STORY. SO, AND SO THERE'S AN EXAMPLE RIGHT THERE OF, OF THAT'S A TWO AND A HALF STORY THERE, AND THAT'S TWO AND A HALF STORY THERE. I LOOKED AT THAT ONE JUST A SECOND. BOTH THOSE ARE TWO AND A HALF STORY ACTUALLY. 'CAUSE THEY HAVE CUTOUTS IN THE CENTER. IF YOU GO TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE ACTUALLY ARE, UM, CUT. AND SO THEY USE THE CUTOUTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO DEFINE THAT. AND SO THEY CHANGED IT BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT HARD FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE TO BE ABLE TO, TO, UM, WORK IN THE COMMUNITIES TO SAY, OKAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS TWO AND A HALF STORY DIALOGUE. SO, SO I, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE ARE, UM, WERE APPROVED AS TWO AND A HALF STORIES. SO THIS ONE IS A THREE STORY RIGHT HERE. SO, UM, SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT TO BE A TRUE STATEMENT, I GUESS IS WHERE I WAS GOING. 'CAUSE BEFORE WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, UM, STAIRWELLS AND CLOSETS AND ALL KIND OF THINGS THAT, THAT WE HAD DIALOGUE ON. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT IS THAT SOMETIMES A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT THAT WE SAID LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE THREE STORIES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WHEN WE KINDA WENT THROUGH THE DIALOGUE AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DIALOGUES THAT WE SPENT ON CLOSET SPACE AND, AND OPEN STAIRWELLS AND ALL KIND OF THINGS AND THAT THE BUILDERS WOULD KIND OF GO THROUGH IN THAT. SO I, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT WORD OUT THERE WITH REGARDS TO, AS WE THINK ABOUT THREE STORIES OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO, AND SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ZONE IDZ, SO THEY, YEAH. THAT'S DIFFERENT TOO. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. UM, ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE'S ON TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE WITH, SIR? OR, OR, WELL, WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE AREA. WE'D LOVE TO BUILD A SPANISH STYLE HOME WITH THE TILE ROOF AND, UH, JUST REALLY ADD, UH, A COMPLIMENT AND ELEGANCE TO A GREAT AREA AND WE'RE GONNA BE PROUD TO BE, UH, LIVING HERE. OKAY? AND SO WE'RE JUST WANNA BUILD THE HOME OF OUR DREAMS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MM-HMM. SAVANNAH. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SORRY. SO I AM GONNA SEPARATE THIS INTO TWO SO WE CAN HAVE, UH, MAYBE ADDITIONAL DIALOGUE IN THE SECOND HALF. SO, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 3, I MOVE TO THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST ONE A FOUR SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 15 FOOT SIX INCH DRIVEWAY WITH TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT OF DRIVEWAY WIDTH. [04:15:01] UH, LET'S SEE HERE. SITUATED, SITUATED AT 1 0 9, UH, UH, OMAHA, UH, APPLICANT BEING RPGA DESIGN GROUP, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, THE DRIVEWAY WITH VARIANCES WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY MEET ALL REMAINING UDC REQUIREMENTS AND WILL NOT INJURE THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PROPOSED, UM, RE, UM, AS A PROPOSED DESIGN ABIDES BY THE E TWO REGULATIONS AND RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF A LIMITED SIZE LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL OBSERVE THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, UM, AND AS THE DRIVEWAY WITH, UH, PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE FOR ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS 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 CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE 20 FOOT WIDTH DRIVEWAY WIDTH, UM, WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF A CON, UM, CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING. THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THIS IS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCES ARE DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, SUCH AS UNIQUE CONFIGURATION AND SIZE OF THE LOT. AND A MOTION SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I THINK THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE DESIGN OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE INTENT WITH REGARDS TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPANISH STYLE, UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES COMPLIMENT REALLY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO OVERALL. SO, SO I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. AND YOU HAVE THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. UH, CHAIR. YES, FOR THE RECORD, WE JUST LOST VIDEO WITH MR. YAYA AND WE NEED HIM FOR, WE NEED HIS VIDEO FOR TO RECORD THE VOTE. SO WE'RE OKAY. TRYING TO GET HIM TO, WHEN DID HE DROP OFF? WAS HE IN LONGER WEEKS AGO? IT WAS A FEW MINUTES AGO. YEAH. WE, WE HAD HIM DROP OFF 'CAUSE WE WERE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS VIDEO. SO HE'S LOGGING BACK IN NOW. OKAY. I, I'M BACK IN THE MEETING. I DON'T KNOW WHY MY VIDEO'S STILL NOT WORKING. SHOULD BE. BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER RHI, DID YOU, DID YOU HEAR THE MOTION AS READ THAT IT WAS JUST FOR, UH, UH, THE, REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY WITH YES, YES I DID. OKAY, SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE THEN WE SPECIFICALLY VIDEO FOR HIS VOTE. OH, WE DO? YEAH. TO RECORD HIS VOTE. OKAY. WE CAN GO THROUGH EVERYONE ELSE WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM. YES. LET, LET'S DO THAT. WHO WAS SECOND? I'M SORRY. UH, SECOND. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR. AND AVITA WASN'T, WASN'T CALLED. YEAH, YOU, YOU MI YOU MISSED SOME NAMES THERE. I COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I CONCUR. WAS THAT THAT WAS, UH, NINE. OKAY, WE'LL JUST COUNT, UH, RAHI AS AN ABSTENTION THEN. ALRIGHT, UM, WE HAVE NINE. IS THERE ANY REMAINING CASES THAT HAVE APPROVALS? NO. WAS THERE ANY CASES THAT HAVE OPPOSITION? OH, THAT'S RIGHT. WE HAVE THE MOTION REGARDING THE, UH, HEIGHT. APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER MANNA? NO, I WAS JUST GONNA, JUST MENTIONING, OKAY. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE HEIGHT FOR THE STORIES GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. DOES DO, DO LACK OF MOTION. SO, SIR, YOU GOT THE, UH, DRIVEWAY WITH, BUT, UH, THERE WASN'T A COMMISSIONER WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE, THE HEIGHT. OKAY. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, STAFF CAN ANSWER THEM FOR YOU. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, FOR THE REMAINING CASES, IS THERE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OR, OR NO, OPPOSITION [04:20:02] CHAIR. WHILE THEY'RE DOUBLE CHECKING, CAN WE HAVE A TWO MINUTE BREAK? OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SEE EVERYBODY BACK IN THREE MINUTES. 5 34. CALLING THE MEETING BACK INTO SESSION. WE ARE ON ITEM 14 17 0 7 WESTLEY. OKAY. BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 4. ADDRESS 1707 WESTLEY BOULEVARD COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, APPLICANT. HUMBERTO LEO. REQUEST FOR ONE A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN A TWO FOOT 10 INCH, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT, TWO INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW FOR CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ON THE PROPERTY. ZONING IS R FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST MALLE BOULEVARD, WEST OF SOUTH SARZA MORRIS STREET. NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR TWO RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE REAR, ONE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND ONE ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING THAT IS PRESENT ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE YARD. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS A QUALIFY FOLLOWING POOL, THEY'RE ALLOWED UP TO EIGHT FEET IN LENGTH ON THEIR SIDE AND REAR FENCES. ASIDE FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THE REAR YARD CONTAINS SEVERAL TREES IN AN UNDERGROUND POOL. UH, THE UNDERGROUND POOL IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND WOULD, UH, WOULD BE IMPACT THE 50% MAXIMUM REAR SIDE YARD COVERAGE. PROPERTY OWNER CURRENTLY HAS A PRELIMINARY PLA TO COMBINE BOTH LOTS INTO ONE. AND THERE IS THE SITE PLAN SUB PROPERTY, AND THAT'S THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. I BELIEVE THAT ONE'S ON THE EAST. YEAH. AND SURROUNDING AREA. LET'S JUMP ON RIC GRADATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK ON THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY. LINES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND CORRUGATED METAL FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCES. STAFF COMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A 24 1 0 3 0 0 9 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REAR FENCE PROVIDES AMPLE SPACE TO MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. NO CORRUGATED METAL FENCING MATERIAL WAS SEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND THE VARIANCES WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED OUT 24 NOTICES RECEIVED, UH, EIGHT WERE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200 FEET. AND THEN THERE WAS THREE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET. AND THEN WE HAD ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THEN THESE ARE ALL THE LETTERS THAT WERE COLLECTED. ALL RIGHT, GO . THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT'S AVAILABLE, UH, BEFORE YOU GO, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE POOL NOT IMPACTING THE MINIMUM 50% REAR INSIDE COVERAGE. MM-HMM. , UH, IS I, IT WAS JUST THE, THERE WAS SOME TEXT THAT WAS ODD ON THE BULLET POINTS. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE CASE. IT HAD NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER. AND THEN THEM COMBINING THE TWO LOT, DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION? WE ADVERTISED IT CORRECTLY TO INCLUDE BOTH OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND EVERYTHING. UM, SO UNLESS ANYTHING ELSE THAT IT SHOULD BE GOOD. YEP. ALRIGHT. OBVIOUSLY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL CHANGE ONCE THE PLAT IS COMPLETED AND THE POOL, THE UNDERGROUND PORTION? I DO, I I KNOW THERE'S SOME OF IT THAT'S ABOVE GROUND, BUT THE MAIN UNDERGROUND PORTION DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE 50%. SO THE ADDRESS IS OFF OF MALLY. SO ON THE PICTURE THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN NOW, WHERE THE TWO ONES ARE, WHAT, WHAT IS THAT CONSIDERED? ARE, ARE THEY BOTH CONSIDERED SIDES EVEN THOUGH ONE IS PARALLEL? THE, THE, THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S PARALLEL WITH MALLY, THAT'S, THAT'S VIEWED AS A SIDE SETBACK. EAC, THE HIGHER NUMBER ONE THERE. YEAH. THAT THING IS THAT, IS THAT CONSIDERED A SIDE SETBACK OR A REAR SETBACK? THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART AS SIDE SETBACK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS FACING, UM, OR A FRONT SET MALLY. 'CAUSE IT WOULDN'T [04:25:01] BE THE FRONT SETBACK BECAUSE, SO THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK APPLIED ON THAT LINE THAT'S PARALLEL. CORRECT. OKAY. I HAVEN'T, I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN ONE WHERE IT'S, IT'S VERY UNIQUE. JUST WANTED TO ASK. IT'S VERY UNIQUE. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS BERTO CHAIRMAN. UM, I'LL BEGIN WITH THE FENCE. UM, THE FENCE MATERIAL AND WHY WE CHOSE THAT FENCE. ALSO, FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE EIGHT IN FAVOR. WE RECEIVED THE LAST LETTER, I THINK AROUND 10 O'CLOCK. AND WE DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT WITH COLTON. HE WASN'T IN A GOOD MOOD TODAY. HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE. SO, BUT YES, JUST FOR THE RECORD. UH, ALL THE ONES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, EVERYBODY WAS IN FAVOR. UM, WE CHOSE THE CORRUGATED METAL AGAIN FOR DURABILITY. UM, LOW MAINTENANCE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, UH, BEING FIRE RESISTANT. DO WE HAVE THAT POWERPOINT? OH YEAH. AND YOU CAN USE THE, YES SIR. LEMME JUMP HERE. WE OBVIOUSLY SUSTAINABILITY ALSO, ALSO WE HAVE A, A BIG GRAFFITI PROBLEM IN THE AREA. UM, AND THAT IS A NEIGHBOR'S FENCE TO OUR LEFT. AND SO WE FOUND THAT USING CORRUGATED METAL IS, IT'S EASIER TO CLEAN, UM, AS OPPOSED TO STUCCO AND, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IN THE AREA. UH, IT, IT PRESERVES A NEAT, UM, AND ORDERLY FEEL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO GRAFFITI'S BEEN AN ISSUE PREDOMINANTLY LATELY AND IN THE PAST. ALSO, THE AESTHETIC CONSISTENCY. THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND US ON CLAUDE VISTA DOES HAVE A, A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE, YOU SEE TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT. UM, AND THAT IS RIGHT BEHIND, UM, ON CLAUDE VISTA THAT RUNS BEHIND ON THE BACKYARD. SO, UM, IT IS PRESENT AND IT IS PREVALENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS WHITE. OURS IS GRAY AGAIN. IT, IT'S, IT'S RESISTANT. CORTAL METAL IS RESISTANT. YOU'LL SEE THE, THE, THESE OTHER FENCES IN THE AREA, THE WOOD FENCE, THE STUCCO FENCE BEGINS TO CRACK, MOVE AND SHIFT. UM, SO WE'VE SEEN THAT CORRUGATED METAL, IF WE SEE THE NEIGHBORS AND CLA DE VISTA, THEIRS IS, HAS NOT SHIFTED, HAS NOT MOVED. IT'S, IT CAN BE CLEANED EASILY. UM, AND WE FIGURED WE FOLLOW THAT SAME AESTHETIC. UH, IN THE AREA. AGAIN, IT'S FIRE RESISTANT, NON-COMBUSTIBLE, UH, IT ENHANCES THE OVERALL FIRE SAFETY AND IT TALKS ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY ALSO. UM, MOVING ON TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UM, BOTH STRUCTURES, AND YOU'LL SEE AT THE TOP I I REFERENCED CODE, UH, UDC SECTION 35 3 70. BOTH STRUCTURES WILL HAVE NO SILLS BELT COURSES. UH, CORNICES, BUTTRESSES EAVES OR SIMILAR PROJECTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS PER UDC 35 3 70 ACCESSORY USE AND STRUCTURE REGULATIONS. THIS SECTION ALLOWS US AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND YOU'LL SEE AS I REFERENCED, UH, STRUCTURE ONE AND TWO. UH, STRUCTURE ONE WILL BE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN WITH RESTROOMS. UM, THERE'LL BE NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS USED. IT'LL BE STEEL WITH A FIRE RATED WALL AND METAL STUDS. UM, UH, IT'LL BE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND THERE'S THE DIMENSIONS AND SQUARE FEET. IF YOU LOOK OVER TO SECTION, IT'S A STRUCTURE TWO, IT'LL BE A TV LOUNGE, UH, NON-COMBUSTIBLE. SAME MATERIAL AS A STRUCTURE ONE WITH 384 SQUARE FEET. SO IF WE, IF WE GOING BY THE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, STRUCTURE ONE WILL BE SIX INCHES AWAY. UH, AND STRUCTURE TWO WILL BE 10. AND THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I'LL START ON THE, UM, STRUCTURE SINCE THEY'RE SO CLOSE TO THE FENCE LINE. EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE GOT A COORDINATED FENCE, UH, I'M ASSUMING EVEN WITH THAT THE NEIGHBORS CANNOT SEE THE STRUCTURES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THEY CANNOT SEE IT. MM-HMM, . OKAY. AND, AND THE COORDINATED FENCE IS ONLY IN THE BACKYARD, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, IT APPEARS THAT THE CORRUGATED MENTAL FENCE IS CAPPED ON TOP, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER MATT? SO COULD, COULD STAFF BRING UP THE, UH, I GUESS THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAD, UH, VOTED OR, OR LESS NEIGHBORS. THERE YOU GO. SO, UM, SO DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE, LET'S SEE, ONE IMMEDIATE. THE ONE SAID MY LEFT 17. YEAH. 1711. THAT ONE CAME IN AT 10 O'CLOCK. SO THAT'S WHEN IT CAME IN. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS THAT CORNER WRAP AROUND. THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONE AND I HAVE ALL THE RIGHT HERE, IF WE WILL. OKAY. SO YEAH, IF YOU COULD SHOW THAT TO, TO THEM. SO THAT'D BE GOOD. YEAH, THEY'RE ALL, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO HEAR. ALL RIGHT. SO STAFF, UH, THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT, UH, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY, ANY OF THOSE EAVES OR CORNICES OR, [04:30:01] BUT BUTTRESSES THAT HE ONLY HAS A THREE FOOT SETBACK. UM, HAS THAT BEEN VERIFIED? UM, SO IF IT'S LESS RESTRICTIVE FROM WHAT WE'RE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE WEST SIDE? UH, IS IT, IS IT JUST THE, UH, THE RESTROOM? IT WOULD BE BOTH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. BOTH OF THEM. MM-HMM. . SO IF YOU HAVE THREE FEET WITH NO OVERHANG PAST THAT, THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW ON THE COMMISSION. WELL, IT'S, IT JUST, SHOULD THE MOTION BE READ IN THAT MANNER TO WHERE IT'S A, INSTEAD OF A TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE, IT'S, IT'S MORE OF A SIX INCH VARIANCE. SO HE WON'T NEED, SO IF HE IS ONLY, IF HE HAS A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK WITH NO OVERHANG, HE DOES NOT NEED THE VARIANCE, UM, FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS LONG AS THERE'S NO OVERHANG. SO THAT'S WHAT HE'S STATING. NO, NO, HE'S, HE'S JUST SAYING THAT HIS REQUIREMENT IS, IS THREE FEET, NOT FIVE FEET. BUT I THINK WE, WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OF IS THE OVERHANG. YES. NO, I KNOW, I, I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHOEVER READS A MOTION, SHOULD THEY STATE IT, THAT IT'S A, A CERTAIN VARIANCE FROM A THREE FOOT SETBACK DUE TO THE LACK OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND UDC 35 5 70, WE USUALLY DON'T GO IN. I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, WE DO, WE USUALLY DON'T GO INTO THAT DETAILED. UM, I THINK YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO BECAUSE IT'S IN THE UDC. WELL, I, I'M ONLY SAYING THAT 'CAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S NO WAY THAT IF SOMEBODY WERE TO READ IT AS STATED AND THEY GET A TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE AND IT TURNS OUT THAT HE ONLY NEEDS TO BE THREE FEET AWAY, CAN HE BE SIX INCHES AWAY? 'CAUSE WE SAID TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE. THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. SO THE TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE COMBINED WITH THE THREE FOOT, UM, REDUCED WITH THE EXTRA TWO FOOT BONUS REDUCED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU ON YOUR, ON YOUR APPLICATION IS STAFF IS REMARKING, UH, THAT THEY'RE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR SITE IS PRETTY LARGE AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU CAN'T BE THREE FEET AWAY OR FIVE FEET AWAY. CAN YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHY YOU'RE SO CLOSE? NO, SIR. I MEAN, IT, IT, THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED THAT WAY. WE WERE ALSO DOING SOME PATIOS ON IMPROVEMENTS BY THE POOL, TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE, THE DISTANCE. I MEAN, SOMETIMES WE SEE CASES WHERE THEY, THEY HAVE SPATIAL LIMITATIONS. MM-HMM. , YOU, YOU HAVE NONE. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS. UH, ALSO YOUR SURVEY IS CALLING OUT A RETAINING WALL ON THE, ON THE LEFT SIDE. UH, CAN YOU COMMENT ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT? IS IT TALL? NOT TALL, RETAINING WALL. THE OWNERS ARE HERE, SIR, AS WELL. I WANNA COMMENT ON THAT AGAIN. THE OWNER APPROACH. HOW YOU DOING NOW? MY NAME'S RAUL MENDEZ. I'M THE OWNER OF 1707 WEST VALLEY. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL? YES. OH GOSH. OKAY. WELL, MY WIFE AND I, MY WIFE'S HERE, WE HAVE FOUR DAUGHTERS. WE'RE BUILDING A, A BIGGER POOL AND WE JUST LOOKING FOR PRIVACY. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHY WE MADE IT THAT HEIGHT. WE'VE BEEN THERE 24 YEARS, SO, NO, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. LIKE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WHAT, HOW, WHAT IS IT EXACTLY? WHERE IS IT? HOW TALL IT IS, WHAT IT, WHAT IT'S RETAINING EXACTLY. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S JUST A HEIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE QUESTIONING IS A HEIGHT. IT IS JUST A WALL THAT EXPOSED ON BOTH SIDES. THERE'S, WE DON'T, MR. UH, FERNANDO DE LEONA WITH ONE STOP CODE CONSULTING. UM, I THINK THAT RETAINING WALL IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. THAT THE RETAINING WALL. YEAH, WE'VE BEEN THERE TO THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES AND WE'VE NEVER SEEN THEIR RETAINING WALL, SO, OKAY. YES, . ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. UM, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS? ANY NO PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAK. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WITH THAT THEN, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. JUST READ STRAIGHT UP. OKAY, MAN. IT, REGARDING CASE BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 4, I MOVED AT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. UH, AND TO A TWO FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT, TWO INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, UM, A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1 7 0 7 WEST MOLLY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT BEING ROBERTO AL, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE, UH, FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, YOU'LL FIND THAT ONE, THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS [04:35:01] SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY ALONG ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING WILL ALLOW EASIER REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND ADD SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS LIMITED ROOM EXISTS ON THE REAR PROPERTY OR REAR YARD THAT CONTAIN A POOL AND SEVERAL TREES. AND THE NEED FOR SECURITY FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE MATERIAL. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SETBACK AND FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCES APPEAR TO BE IN THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY ALONG THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND DEFENSE MATERIAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN SONY DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY 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. THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS LOCATED STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE, UH, USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY ALONG THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THE FENCE MATERIAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SIX PLIGHT TO THE PROPERTY, THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND 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 DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UH, STAFF FINDS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, WARRANTED, WARRANTING THE NEED TO HAVE REDUCED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SETBACKS OR THE PREEXISTING STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE BACKYARD, ALONG WITH THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, SECURITY THROUGH THE FENCE MATERIAL AND THE MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, I'LL BE APPROVING THIS, UH, UM, AS READ, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT GETTING ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, UH, TO COME IN AND, AND KIND OF STATE WHAT THEY THINK THEIR COMMUNITY SHOULD LOOK LIKE. UM, I CAN'T GO AGAINST THAT, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS LIKE TO ADD COMMISSIONER, DEAN, I'LL, UH, CONCUR WITH MY, UH, COLLEAGUES HERE. YEAH, THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT DID HELP IN THIS, UH, CASE OVER ALL RIGHT. AND I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ITEM TWO BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE, TO THE AERIAL, THERE'S NOTHING OVER THERE NEXT TO CLAUDIA VISTA. I DO HAVE AN I, UH, ISSUE WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. THEY JUST HAVE SO MUCH ROOM AND ON THAT INSET ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THERE'S A STRUCTURE LOCATED THERE. AND I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH STRUCTURES BEING CLO TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER STRUCTURE WHEN THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ROOM. IT JUST KIND OF BOTHERS ME. AND SO, UH, I I'M NOT GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF ITEM ONE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO BREAK THAT OUT. SO, ONE QUESTION I GUESS WOULD BE, UM, IS THERE A DISTANCE THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE MORE PERMISSIBLE OR MORE, UH, WELL, I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING FROM THE FIVE FOOT OUT, WHICH I THINK IS A, IS A REASONABLE DOWN TO THREE. AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING TO GO DOWN TO TWO AND A HALF. I JUST, I JUST, I CAN'T GET BEHIND THESE THINGS. OKAY. SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND I'M GONNA STRIKE ONE FROM, FROM THE READ, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES, UM, ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF JUST, UH, THE STRUCTURE, UH, UM, THE FINDINGS. AND SO IT'LL BE STRIKING NUMBER ONE FOR RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ACCEPTED? YEP. IS THAT ACCEPTED? ACCEPTED. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THE MOTION AS READ, UH, WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM ONE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VESQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RHI? CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. UH, THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN? THERE'S A THUMBS UP ON THE SCREEN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THE CHAIR OR, AND I'M IN FAVOR. SO, BUT THERE'S ONLY EIGHT, CORRECT? WE ONLY HAVE 10 PRESENTS SO THAT THE MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO TWO. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE THAT WANT, THAT COULD LIVE WITH ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS, UH, APPLICATION? [04:40:01] I'M LOOKING TO COMMISSIONER TON. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? NOTHING. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? NO. OKAY. UM, HEY, THEY, THEY HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT. SUPPORT. I, I KNOW. I MEAN, I, I MEAN, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN, UH, GET REALLY RECONSIDER. OKAY. UM, WE ONLY KAPLAN OR, OR, UM, AT THIS TIME ONLY CAPTAIN OR, OR, OR KAPLAN OR COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON COULD, COULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. AND IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO DO SO, THEN, THEN THIS IS IT. UH, CAN I CHANGE MY VOTE TO NO. AND RECONSIDER NO, IT'S ALREADY BEEN READ. I'M SORRY. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 15. CHAIR FOR, I'M SORRY FOR THE RECORD. I, SO ITEM ONE WAS, IT WAS NOT RIGHT. GONNA BE ADDRESSED. PERFECT. OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. WELL, YEAH, THERE'S STILL AN ITEM WE CAN READ ITEM ONE. ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT? I MEAN, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT, SO I DON'T I DUNNO IF THAT'S GONNA PAN OUT. ARE WE, ARE WE VISITING SORT OF THE, THE MATERIAL FENCE? NO, NO. THIS IS THE, A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A, THE SIDE TWO FOOT SIX INCH ON THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WEST SIDE. RIGHT. SO IF NO ONE'S WILLING TO READ A MOTION FOR IT, UM, I'LL MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TILL WE GET MORE PEOPLE. HOW DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, WE COULD THEORETICALLY CONTINUE THIS ONE ITEM, BUT WE CAN'T BRING THE OTHER TWO UP WITHOUT, WITHOUT THEM, UM, HAVING A, HAVING A REQUEST TO FOR THIS TO, TO BYPASS THE 12 MONTH WAITING. CORRECT. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE? I WILL MOTION FOR A, UH, CONTINUANCE. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT. CONTINUANCE. TO WHAT DATE? TO WHAT DATE? HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED? WE HAVE ALL, I MEAN, I DID KNOCK AND TALKS TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, I, I'M, I GUESS SO NOVEMBER, THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE WHEN? THE 4TH OF NOVEMBER. I JUST, UH, ALSO TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS ONLY FOR THE, UH, SIX FOOT OR A SIX INCH, I'M SORRY, TWO FOOT, SIX INCH, UH, ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. SO TECHNICALLY IF THEY HAVE THE THREE FOOT, THEY CAN DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THIS ONE. JUST FYI, I THINK I WANT TO, I, I'M, I'M, I THINK WHERE COMMISSIONER DEAN IS GOING IS HE'S GONNA REQUEST A CONTINUANCE AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK AND, AND ASK FOR A 12 FOOT MONTH WAIVER, PERHAPS. YES. WE WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENTED WITH NEW INFORMATION. YEAH. THAT THAT'S A, THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S A SEPARATE APPLICATION, THE NEW INFORMATION THERE, THERE WASN'T A FULL BOARD. YEAH, THE MINIMUM IS NINE COMMISSIONERS. SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM THAT WE, SO WE MET THE MINIMUM. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT A REASON. YEAH. THE THING IS THAT I THOUGHT THERE WAS 11, WE CAN SEAT UP TO 11. NINE VOTES IS THE MINIMUM, BUT MINIMUM SEAT IS NINE TO PASS. WE CAN HAVE UP TO, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS GOING, BUT THE THING, THE, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT, THAT I'VE EXPRESSED MY, I I WAS OPPOSED TO, UH, THIS ITEM WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM TWO OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WAS OPPOSED THAT WOULD HIT YOU THREE. I I JUST THINK IT'S A MOOT POINT AT THIS TIME. UM, SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT. AND DID YOU SECOND THE CONTINUANCE, RIGHT? YES, I DID. SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I MEAN, I HOPE THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN TAKE THIS ON. WHAT DATE DID YOU WANT TO TAKE IT TO? HOW MUCH TIME? NOVEMBER 4TH. WE'RE READY? YES. ALRIGHT, I WILL, UH, MOTION, UH, NOVEMBER 4TH. ALRIGHT, SO THERE'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON NOVEMBER 4TH. ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, SUB ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS CASE. UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. IT'S A, IT IS A, UH, CONTINUANCE IS TAKES NINE, DOESN'T IT? NO, IT IS MAJORITY SIMPLE. MAJORITY SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR CONTINUANCE. ALL RIGHT. SIMPLE MAJORITY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. SURE. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES. [04:45:02] COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? NO. COMMISSIONER RHI? YES. ALL MOTION PASSES. EIGHT TO TWO. MOTION PASSES. WE'LL SEE ON THE FOURTH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 5. ADDRESS? 300 JOHN ADAMS DRIVE COUNCIL, DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT. MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS. LLCA REQUEST FOR A WINDOW CONFIGURATION VARIANCE FROM THE NCD SEVEN WINDOW CONFIGURATION STANDARDS. ZONING IS R SIX. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF DOWNTOWN, JUST SOUTH OF BALCONES HEIGHTS AND THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT ALSO BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER RECENTLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASING THE PROPERTY RENOVATION STARTED TO REPLACE WINDOWS AMONG OTHER ITEMS. THE JEFFERSON NCD STANDARDS FOR NEW AND RENOVATED WINDOWS IS A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RA DIMENSION RATIO OF 2.1 OR TWO TO ONE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 52 INCH HEIGHT BY 32 INCH HEIGHT WINDOWS ON THE FRONT FACADE, WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE NCD STANDARD IN THE SITE PLAN. AND THERE'S THE WINDOWS AND THE NCD GUIDELINE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE WINDOW CONFIGURATION VARIANT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 5 BASED ON FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE WINDOW RATIO IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NCD STANDARDS AND WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. WE MAILED OUT 24 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT'S AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE APPLICANT? COME FORWARD. I WAS GONNA SAY GOOD MORNING THIS MORNING, BUT I'LL SAY GOOD EVENING. GOOD NIGHT. UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAMINA. UH, MY NAME IS RAY GONZALEZ AND I REPRESENT THE HOMEOWNER. UM, MY NAME, UM, UH, THE, THE HOMEOWNER'S MRG TEXAS HOLDING A COMPANY WHICH MADE STRIDES IN THE PAST, UH, FEW YEARS, TAKING NOT ONLY DISTRESSED PROPERTIES AND TURNING THEM INTO BEAUTIFUL HOMES, BUT IN SO DOING ELEVATING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM AREAS IN SAN ANTONIO THAT CONTAINED AN EYESORE AND ENHANCING THEIR COLLECTIVE VALUE AND APPEAL BY TURNING, UM, AN EYESORE INTO A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT FITS, THAT FITS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER AND HISTORY. IN THE CASE OF 300, JOHN ADAMS, UM, DRIVE, MRG TEXAS HOLDING HAS UNDERTAKEN A TASK OF NOT ONLY ENHANCING AN EYESORE, BUT A TOTAL REHAB OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SAFETY AND SECURITY. WHY AM I SAYING SAFETY AND SECURITY? BECAUSE MRG HOLDINGS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY. THIS HOUSE SAT IN DISREPAIR FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS. IT HAD BECOME A NEST OF VAGRANCY, ATTRACTING DRUG USERS TO BREAK IN AND TO USE IT AS A HIDEOUT. MARKINGS WERE MADE TO THE OUTSIDE WINDOWS BROKE IN A TOTAL DISASTER. IMAGINE LIVING NEXT TO THIS PLACE. IMAGINE HAVING A FRIENDS OVER TO YOUR HOUSE AND HAVING TO PASS BY THIS PROPERTY. THAT WAS THE REALITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 300. JOHN ADAMS DRIVE. THE FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE HANDOUT THAT I HAVE GIVEN, UM, HOPEFULLY ALL OF YOU IF, FOR THOSE THAT ARE ONLINE, JOINING US ONLINE, UM, I DIDN'T REALIZE SOME OF YOU WOULD BE ONLINE. SO WE HAVE NOW PLACED SOME OF THESE, UM, ON THE OVERHEAD, AND I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THEM. UH, WE WILL STOP RIGHT THERE WITH THE PICTURE BEFORE. SORRY. MOVING BACK TO THE PICTURE [04:50:01] BEFORE THE, THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THUS FAR ARE THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE SOME OF THE, UM, REPAIRS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. UM, IT KIND OF GIVES YOU A, A GLIMPSE OF WHAT, WHAT IT WAS JUST TO DRIVE BY, LET ALONE LIVE NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. I'M SURE THAT THE CITY CAN COME UP WITH SOME, MAYBE EVEN BETTER, PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY FROM BEFORE MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS EVER GOT INVOLVED. AND THE REASON I KNOW THAT THE CITY KNEW ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND THE DANGER IT POSED TO THE AREA IS THAT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ST. PAUL'S CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SCHOOL, AS SUCH, IT POSED NOT JUST AN INCONVENIENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT A REAL DANGER TO THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHY IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, THE CITY REFERRED THIS PROPERTY TO THE DANGEROUS PREMISES BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD, WHICH ISSUED A REPAIR ORDER, UM, TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER, GIVING THEM 180 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER OR FACE ABATEMENT. WHEN MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS PURCHASED THE DISTRESSED PROPERTY, WE DIDN'T KNOW JUST HOW BAD THE SITUATION WAS, TO BE HONEST, BUT OUR EXPERIENCE IN TAKING BAD SITUATIONS AND TURNING THEM INTO BEAUTIFUL PROPERTIES WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS NEEDED. THE PICTURES AT THE END OF THE PACKET, WE CAN START TURNING THOSE, UH, ON THE OVERHEAD THERE. THE PICTURES AT THE END OF THE PACKET ARE SOME RECENT PICTURES TAKEN AFTER SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS AND REMODELING HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE PURPOSE OF OUR MEETING TODAY, YES, I DID WAIT SINCE ONE O'CLOCK TO, WHAT ARE WE, ALMOST SIX O'CLOCK TO TALK ABOUT WINDOWS. THE ONLY VARIANCE, THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW. UM, WHY? WELL, BECAUSE, UM, IT TURNS OUT THAT IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH ZONING RULES, THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO IN A, IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. WE ACTUALLY LOVE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS WHO WANTS TO DEVELOPER TO COME INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILD A 21ST CENTURY LOOKING DWELLING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALL 2020 EARLY 20TH CENTURY CHARM. WELL, NOBODY DOES. I, I DON'T BELIEVE MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS CERTAINLY DOESN'T. UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS EXPLAINED IN THE NC D SEVEN, IS TO PERPETUATE HISTORICAL ARRANGEMENTS OF BUILDINGS. WE AGREE TO CELEBRATE AND PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVE THE VISUAL AS APPEAL OF THE ENTIRE AREA. WE AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. THE VARIANCE WE SEEK IS ONE FOR WINDOWS. WE BELIEVE THE VARIANCE IS SO SLIGHT THAT IT DOES NOT DISRUPT THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, AND IT ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE VISUAL APPEAL OF THE HOUSE BY EXTENSION THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MATTER OF FACT, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE. I'M GLAD HE DIDN'T SHOW UP, BECAUSE IF HE HAD BEEN HERE AT ONE O'CLOCK, HE'D BE PRETTY UPSET WITH US, UH, JUST STARTING NOW. HE TAKES CARE OF HIS BROTHER, BUT HE WAS VERY HAPPY TO KNOW THAT WE HAD TAKE COME IN AND BASICALLY TURNED THIS, THIS PLACE INTO AN ACTUAL LIVABLE, BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. BECAUSE WE TOOK THE PROPERTY UNDER SUCH DISREPAIR WITH DEMOLITION HAPHAZARDLY BEGUN, BUT NOT COMPLETED. IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE WINDOWS. SO THE ZONING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED WE USE THE MEASUREMENTS OF A WINDOWS THAT WOULD BE APPROVED IF IT WERE A NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA. NOW, MIND YOU, THIS IS BY, BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, A NEW CONSTRUCTION. NOW THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SAYS, OH, WE'LL JUST USE TWO TO ONE A A WINDOW. THAT'S TWO TO ONE. BUT THIS IS, THAT'S FOR, THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONSTRUCTION, AN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. WE WOULD NEED, UM, TO KNOW THE, THE EXISTING MEASUREMENTS. BUT THERE WAS NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW THOSE BECAUSE OF ALL THE DISREPAIR, UM, AND THE CONDITION THAT THE HOUSE WAS IN, BASICALLY. AND SOME OF THE, THE, THE ATTEMPTS AT REMODELING THAT PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD TRIED AND JUST GIVEN UP. UH, SO THERE WAS NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS WERE. UM, MIND YOU, THE THE VARIANCE IS ONLY FOR FOUR WINDOWS. TWO THAT FACE THE FRONT AND TWO THAT FACE THE SIDE STREET. UM, INSTEAD OF USING A TWO TO ONE RATIO IN THE MEASUREMENTS, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDED RATIO FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH THIS IS NOT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SAME, THAT THE SIZE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO USE STANDARD WINDOW SIZES OF 32 BY 52. THESE ARE THE SIZES THAT YOU COULD GO TO THE HOME DEPOT AND JUST GET OFF THE RACK. THEY'RE STANDARD SIZES BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE USED IN EVERY HOUSE. AND IN MANY HOMES, THE MASTER BATH BATHROOM WINDOW IS SMALLER, OF COURSE, FOR PRIVACY. AND IN MEASURES 36 BY 36, IT'S A SQUARE, UH, WINDOW. UH, THIS APPROACH TO KEEPING THINGS SIMILAR TO OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA HAS BEEN TAKEN, AND THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, OF COURSE, PRIOR TO SEEKING THE VARIANCE. AND WE COULDN'T WAIT UNTIL THE DATE OF THIS VARIANCE MEETING BECAUSE THE HOUSE NEEDED TO BE SECURE TO KEEP PASSERSBY OUT. SO FOR THAT REASON, WE NEEDED TO PUT THE SIDING UP. THAT LAST PICTURE THAT YOU'RE SEEING, [04:55:01] THAT YOU'VE SEEN, UM, AT LEAST PROJECTED ONCE, UM, IS A PICTURE OF THE MOST, UH, RECENT, UH, STATE OF THE HOUSE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WINDOWS ARE BEAUTIFUL. THEY'RE A BEAUTIFUL UPGRADE TO THE DISASTER DISASTER THAT WAS THERE BEFORE. AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU PUT A SIDE BY SIDE. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED TO ALLOW THE FINAL TOUCHES TO BE DONE TO THIS HOME WITHOUT HAVING TO RIP THESE WINDOWS IN THAT ARE THERE NOW HAVE TO RIP THOSE WINDOWS OUT, WHICH OF COURSE REPRESENTS, UH, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AND HAVING THEN TO INSTALL WINDOWS THAT WOULD BE ONLY INCHES, INCHES DIFFERENT IN ALL DIRECTIONS, WE CAN HAVE THIS PROPERTY PAINTED LANDSCAPING COMPLETED AND FINISHING TOUCHES DONE IN TWO WEEKS. IF THIS HONORABLE BOARD APPROVES OUR REQUEST, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE HOME OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD SOME GAUDY BUILDING THAT WILL STICK LIKE A SORE OUT, LIKE A SORE THUMB. WE'RE ASKING TO KEEP 32 BY 52 INCH WINDOWS INSTEAD OF 32 BY 30 BY 64 INCH WINDOWS, A DIFFERENCE OF EIGHT INCHES. MR. MIGUEL GONZALEZ, WHO'S THE OWNER OF MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS, HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH MR. GARY BLE BLEDSO. HE'S THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OF THE DANGEROUS, UH, PREMISES, BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS BOARD WHO JUST, UH, A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO, UH, EXPRESSED HOW MUCH OF A HEADACHE THIS PROPERTY WAS FOR HIM UNTIL WE CAME ON BOARD AND HOW HAPPY HE IS THAT SOMEONE TOOK ON THIS PROJECT. IT HAD, REMEMBER IT HAD GONE THROUGH SEVERAL OWNERS AND THEY JUST STARTED AND GAVE UP. WE'RE WE'RE DETERMINED TO FINISH THIS OUT AND MAKE THIS A BEAUTIFUL PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. MRG TEXAS HOLDINGS WILL HAVE ACCOMPLISHED WHAT SEEMED TO BE AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK, TAKING A STRUCTURE WHICH WAS WEEKS FROM ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION INTO A BEAUTIFUL HOME THAT ENHANCES THIS JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOPEFULLY INSPIRES OTHER NEIGHBORS TO UNDERTAKE LONG OVERDUE ENHANCEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, CAN YOU, UH, CAN YOU GIVE HIM A LASER POINTER? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE PICTURE'S ON THE SCREEN, CAN YOU, IS IT THE OUTER TWO WINDOWS OF THE QUESTION? YES. SO IT'S, IT'S THIS WINDOW HERE, AND THEN IF YOU MOVE UP TO THE OTHER ONE, SORRY. HERE, HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. HERE'S ANOTHER, THIS ONE FACES, THAT'S ANOTHER. AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S 32 BY 50. CORRECT. AND THIS ONE'S SQUARE BECAUSE THERE'S A, THERE'S A RESTROOM, I MEAN A BATHROOM RIGHT BEHIND THERE. OKAY. THE ONE, THE OTHER, THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE, UM, ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE OVER THE AC ON THE SIDE. YES, SIR. YEAH. AND THOSE ARE ALSO STANDARD OFF THE RACK WINDOWS. UH, AND THERE WAS ACTUALLY THESE, THESE TWO RIGHT HERE. OKAY. UH, THERE'S THIS, THIS STREET KIND OF CURVES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, THE MAP, THE OVERLAY, UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE STREET CURVES. AND SO TECHNICALLY THERE'S, THERE'S, UH, THE FRONT AND THE SIDE ARE, ARE BOTH FACING THE STREET. IS THAT, IS THAT SINGULAR WINDOW THAT'S INSIDE, IS THAT UNDER, IS THAT PART OF THIS AS WELL? THIS IS NOT PART OF IT, NO. BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S FACING, IT'S NOT REALLY THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND THAT'S A 32 BY 52. UH, THESE HERE, 32 BY 50 TWOS. 32 BY 50 TWOS. HOW BIG IS THAT ONE ON THE LEFT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR CONVERSATION HERE. WELL, I DON'T, IT, IT'S, OH, I'M SO SORRY. YEAH. I, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE. BECAUSE ONE, ONE THING IS THAT THIS IS WHAT'S ODD ABOUT THIS IS THE CURVE. YOU HAVE ALL THESE D AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. I, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I DROVE BY A, A, A TWO TO ONE, A TWO TO ONE, AND THEN ONE THAT WAS A STANDARD SIZE. WOULDN'T I WANT ALL THREE TO BE THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THAT ONE'S NOT IN CONSIDERATION, THAT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO ME IF I WAS JUST OUT OF REVIEW. AND THEN FOR THE ATTORNEY, A, WE ALLOWED TO, ARE WE ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE THE WINDOWS OR IS IT ALL OR NOTHING ON THIS THING? NO, FOR, SORRY, I'M NOT, I'M NOT THE ATTORNEY, BUT I DO KNOW THE NCD VERY WELL. OKAY. . AND, UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST A TWO TO ONE RATIO. AND SO YOU, YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT. THAT'S WHAT THE NCD, UM, REQUIRES. WHEN THEY REVIEWED THIS AREA, THE NEIGHBORS, UH, WANTED A, THE SAME UNIFORM LOOK. YEAH. SO IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE SIDE, WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THAT ACTUALLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT ONE SIDE BECAUSE THE, THE WINDOWS MATCH THEIR TWO TO ONE. THE PROBLEM IS THE FRONT FACADE HAS THE TWO TO ONE ON ONE END, AND THEN IT HAS A RECTANGLE ON THE OTHER. IT DOESN'T MATCH, IT DOESN'T GIVE THE UNIFORM LOOK. AND THAT IS WHAT THE NCD, THE GOAL OF THE NCD WAS. BUT HE'S WAS TO HAVE THE UNIFORM LOOK AND YES, HE COME, YOU COME AROUND THE CURB. BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER HIS FRONT, HIS FRONT YARD. CAN YOU BRING UP THE, THE MAP THAT WHERE IT HAS LIKE THE SURVEY LOOKING MAP WHERE YOU PUT THE LITTLE ONE IN THE CIRCLE, THAT ONE. AND SO IF I'M DRIVING DOWN JOHN ADAMS, SEE WHERE THE PORCH IS, THAT FACADE IS OPEN, BUT THE, THE FACADE ON THE LEFT THAT HAD THE TWO WINDOWS BY THE AC UNIT, THAT ISN'T REALLY FRONTING THE [05:00:01] STREET, BUT IS IT FRONTING IT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO CARE ABOUT IT? NO, NOT THAT PART. OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO THEN ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE FRONT, IT'S JUST TWO OUTER WINDOWS. IT'S JUST TWO WINDOWS. WE WE'RE ALL ABOUT THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, THIS WHOLE CASE IS, IS A, HE'S, HE'S APPEALING THE DECISION OF JUST THE TWO WINDOWS, THE ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PORCH. CORRECT. OKAY, GREAT. WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. WHY? BECAUSE, UM, WE HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY, UH, TO RESTORE THIS PLACE FROM A, A SNAKE'S DEN INTO A BEAUTIFUL, UH, HOME IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM A, FROM A SCHOOL. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, IT WOULD, IT WOULD COST US JUST SO MUCH MONEY TO GO IN THERE AND RIP THROUGH WHAT'S THERE NOW. UM, BECAUSE OF COURSE, RIPPING THAT OUT TO CONFORM TO THIS TWO TO ONE, BY THE WAY, TWO TO ONE IS NOT THE NCD FOR ALL HOUSES. IT'S, IT'S A NEW, IT'S A, THE RULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS. THE, THE RULE SAYS THAT IF IT'S A REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME, AND THIS IS CLEARLY AN EXISTING HOME, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. BUT OF COURSE THERE WE COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THAT YOU'RE SPENDING MORE THAN THE 50%. SO YOU HAVE TO APPLY WITH THE NCD AS IF IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT WHERE, WHERE THIS, THE DISCONNECT HERE IS? WELL, THE NCD IS FOR ADDITIONS OR RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES, BUT HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S, THEY'RE TREATING HIM AS NEW CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT BECAUSE HE'S SPENDING MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE? THERE'S NO MENTION OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, YOUR HONOR. NO, NO. I THINK HE WAS SAYING THAT BECAUSE HE'S NEW, HE SHOULD BE EXEMPT IT FROM IT. BUT THE WAY IT READS, IT SAYS THAT IT'S FOUR ADDITIONS OR REMODELS. BUT, SO IF IT, OKAY, THERE'S TWO STANDARD. IF IT WAS, IF THIS WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, WOULD HE NEED TO COME HERE? YES. FOR WHAT HE'S DOING? YES. YEAH. BECAUSE IF IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, SIR, SIR, ON UNTIL ASK YOUR QUESTIONS, YES. HE WOULD'VE TO COME HERE JUST AS NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO THE TWO TO ONE IS WHETHER IT'S A REMODEL OR IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION. YES. THAT THAT CORRECT. SORRY, THAT'S NOT HOW IT READS. THERE'S TWO STANDARDS. SIR, SIR, A SECOND, SIR. UNTIL I ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR, WAIT TILL I ASK YOU A QUESTION. YEAH. IF WE, IF WE, IF WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, WE'LL ASK YOU. BUT I'M, I'M, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. AND, AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE A HOME THAT WAS IT VOTED ON BY THE BUILDING CENTER BOARD TO BE DEMOLISHED? WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT WAS IT? I I, I KIND OF GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM, FROM THE, UH, APPLICANT THAT THE HOUSE WAS IN SUCH A STATE OF DISARRAY THAT THE, THAT THE CITY HAD CONDEMNED IT TO BE DEMOLISHED IN MY, THERE WAS A PENDING, UH, BUILDING DEMOLITION OR, UH, SORRY, BUT IT'S NO MORE BECAUSE HE'S UNDERGOING THESE RENOVATION WORKS, IT STILL HAS IT AS THE, UM, PENDING RESOLUTION. SO I'M PRETTY SURE ONCE HE'S COMPLETED. UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THAT APP, THAT CODE COMPLIANCE FOR A DANGEROUS PREMISES IS UNDER, UM, PENDING AND RESOLUTION. OKAY. AND THERE'S, AND, AND THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THERE'S NO DECISION THEY COULD MAKE OR ANYTHING THAT COULD AFFECT ANYTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS OR THE APPLICATION OF THE NCD OR ANYTHING, RIGHT? LIKE THERE'S NO, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BUILDING STANDARD ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IF SOMEONE TAKES A HOME AND INVESTS MONEY INTO IT, THAT THEY GET ANY BENNY'S OUT OF IT THAT COULD ASSOCIATE ITSELF WITH WINDOW COMPLIANCE. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY DON'T GET THAT. OKAY. I'M JUST WONDERING. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? MAD. SO IF YOU BRING UP THE STREET VIEW, UH, FROM 2022 AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND JUST, JUST, JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION HERE, AND I LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE THERE AND IT SHOWS, UM, WHAT APPEARS TO BE THREE WINDOWS. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. SO IF YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT THERE, SO GOOD. UM, SO, SO TWO LARGE WINDOWS AND ONE SMALL WINDOW AND THEN THE DOOR, UM, UM, BASICALLY ON THAT FRONT PORCH. AND THEN NOW IF YOU TOGGLE OVER TO HIS VIEW, OR I GUESS THE, THE LAST VIEW THAT HE PROVIDED IN HIS SLIDE. UM, AND, AND I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING IS, SO, SO IF YOU GO TO HIS PRESENTATION AND THE LAST, I GUESS YEAH, THE LAST PICTURE IN HIS, THERE YOU GO. OKAY. SO, UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE SAME FRONT OF THE HOUSE THERE. AND SO, SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE DOOR, THE WINDOWS, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THERE. SO DOES THAT, DOES, IS THAT PART OF THE DIALOGUE THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE AS WELL? BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, CAN I PULL OUT ALL OF THE WINDOWS ON THE FRONT OF A HOUSE AND AS LONG AS I GO WITH THAT, THAT STANDARD RATIO, THEN WE'RE GOOD IN THE NCD? CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UM, AND THESE WINDOWS HERE, THE, THE SIZES THAT ARE OF THOSE WINDOWS THERE IN 2022, THOSE WERE THE, THE CORRECT, UH, OR, OR THE CORRECT, UM, RATIOS FOR THE SIZES OF THOSE WINDOWS THERE? THE PREVIOUS ONE? UH, MOST LIKELY. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE OLD ONE. YEAH, THE OLD PICTURE. SO, SO, SO THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT [05:05:01] OF WHAT THE OLD RATIOS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE? NO, PROBABLY BUILT BEFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. OKAY. YEAH. AND A FOLLOW UP ON THIS, ON HIS, UH, QUESTION. I MEAN, THE PREVIOUS WINDOWS LOOKED MORE BOXY IN NATURE. UM, AND, AND THEN EVEN THE HOUSE NOW THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT HAS TWO WINDOWS NEXT TO EACH OTHER THAT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT SEPARATED. UH, COULD THOSE BE CONSIDERED A A BOX WINDOW OR ARE THOSE CONSIDERED TWO TWO BY ONE WINDOWS? WELL, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT IN THE CORRECT ASPECT 'CAUSE THAT'S THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SO WE CAN GO AROUND THERE. WELL, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE EXISTING HOME RIGHT NOW, THAT LARGER WINDOW, IS THAT CONSIDERED ONE BIG BOX WINDOW? OR IS THAT TWO WINDOWS? THAT COULD BE TWO. A TWO TO ONE RATIO. THOSE, THOSE ARE LIKE, COULD I TAKE A BUNCH OF TWO TO ONE WINDOWS AND PUT 'EM NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND MAKE A BOX OUT OF IT? YES. OKAY. AS LONG AS THEY'RE SEPARATE WINDOWS. OKAY. THAT'S ACTUALLY, WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD THAT HAPPEN BEFORE IN AN NCD WHERE IT'S A BIG, BIG SQUARE AND REALLY ALL THAT WAS MISSING WAS THE MARKING. YEAH. TO SHOW THE DELINEATION OF THE TWO TO ONE. AND I THINK THEY USED TAPE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH THE WINDOW WAS TWO PARTS. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, I'M, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE? UM, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION VOICEMAIL. OH, ARE THERE ANY VOICEMAILS? WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. OH, NO, THAT'S VERY, THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. LET'S HEAR IT. HELLO, MY NAME IS TED GTA. I'M THE PRESIDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, 2352 WEST MULBERRY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 1. THE AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER 15, 300 JOHN ADAMS DRIVE, 7 8 2 2 8. THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. THE REQUESTED WINDOW RATIO IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE JEFFERSON NCD STANDARD AND WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, THE JEFFERSON NCD. PLEASE DENY ANY OF THIS. PLEASE DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. PLEASE NOTE THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RECEIVED THE NOTICE FOR THIS CASE ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, 2024. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHERS? THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. AND ALAN LOOK THAT FOR MOTION. SO QUESTION HERE, UM, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, SHOULD WE, UM, POSSIBLY ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK TO THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO HAVE DIALOGUE WITH HIM BEFORE WE VOTE? THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? OKAY. SO HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED? WE, WE'D BE READY BY THIS TIME NEXT WEEK. NOVEMBER 4TH IT IS. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 4TH. MOVE TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 2ND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DEAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES THE CASE CONTINUED. NOVEMBER 4TH. THANK YOU. LET'S GET SOME, UH, UH, GOOD INTERACTION, UH, WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM? . MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DRAFT, UH, MOTION BEFORE US. OKAY. ONE MORE CASE, UH, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, WE NEED, I MAY NEED TO CORRECT BY NOVEMBER 4TH. UH, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH REALLY FA AS I READ IT, FAILS TO SPECIFY THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE WE'RE GRANTING. THANK YOU. GRANT. THE REQUEST FOR WINDOW CONFIGURATION VARIANCE, WELL, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE. IT GOES BACK TO THE HDRC, RIGHT? DO WE NOT, DO WE NOT NEED TO SPECIFY BLOCK, OH, THIS DOESN'T GO TO HDRC, THIS YOU'RE THE FINAL SAY ON IT. IT COULD JUST, WE CAN, UM, REDO THE LANGUAGE TO READ THE TWO TO ONE RATIO FOR THE JEFFERSON. I THINK WE NEED TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. SURE. YEP. OKAY. IS THERE ANY WAY TO REQUEST TO BE, UH, HIGH ON THE DOCKET NUMBER FOR LOWER NOVEMBER 1ST? UH, SINCE YOU WAITED THE ENTIRE MEETING? IF I'M, IF I'M HERE AND I SEE YOU, I WILL PROBABLY ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. OKAY. I TRY. I HAVE A, A SOFT SPOT IN MY, UH, HEART FOR PEOPLE WHO SIT HERE PAST SIX O'CLOCK. CONTINUANCE ARE USUALLY PUT IN THE FRONT, INCLUDING, INCLUDING ALL OF US. . OKAY. NEXT. ITEM 16, ITEM NUMBER 16, BOA DASH 24 DASH 3 96. ADDRESS IS 36 14. LISA DRIVE COUNCIL, DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT IS CAROL RODRIGUEZ. A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION [05:10:01] FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PREDOMINANTLY SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ZONING IS R FIVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF BABCOCK ROAD, SOUTH OF SUNSHINE RANCH ROAD SITUATED BETWEEN BAY DRIVE AND DONNA DRIVE. ON LISA DRIVE ON AUGUST 29TH, UH, 2024, CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS CALLED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO INVESTIGATE A FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE EXCEEDING THE MAX MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE. RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT. SOMETIME BETWEEN JUNE OF 2022 AND AUGUST 24. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SEEKING A FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. PERMITS ARE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE FENCE, FENCE MEASUREMENTS, HISTORICAL VIEW FROM 2022. AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFENSE HIGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 96 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. TWO, NO SIMILAR FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS WE'RE SEEN IN IMMEDIATE VICINITY. STAFF MAIL 28 NOTICES ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE SUNSHINE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. THIS IS THE ONE IN FAVOR, UH, SUNSHINE ESTATES HAS A VOICE MESSAGE. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, IS THERE A, A POTENTIALLY A BETTER PHOTO OF THE FENCE FROM A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY SO THAT I CAN KIND OF GET A PERSPECTIVE OF THE FENCE ITSELF? THERE SHOULD BE ONE, YES. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE IF THAT SEVEN FOOT IS RIGHT ON THE TOP OF THAT BRICK OF THE RETAINING WALL. YEAH, IF THE APPLICANT'S GONNA BRING SOME PICTURES, THAT'S FINE. SO I DID, I JUST, YEP. YEAH, SHE HAS PICTURES. AND MAYBE JUST COMMENT FOR FUTURE, UM, CASES JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A, A STEP BACK PICTURE OF IT. 'CAUSE IT'S KIND OF DEFINITELY HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. THANK YOU. YES. WHY DON'T YOU PLAY THE VOICEMAIL. OKAY. WHILE WE'RE SPREADING OUT SOME PICTURES. OH, THAT FENCE LOOKS A LOT DIFFERENT THAT PERSPECTIVE. GRACE H REEL 37 15 SUNSHINE RANCH. UH, AND CASE NUMBER 1 9 6 IN FAVOR. SUNSHINE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. 2 1 0 8 3 4 4 9 6 0 IS MY NUMBER. THANK YOU. YES. MY NAME IS PAUL HERNANDEZ. I LIVE ON THIRTY SIX TEN LISA DRIVE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 639-6826. UH, MY DIRECT CONCERN WITH THE FENCE THAT SHE HAD BUILT, UH, SHE HAS ALREADY DONE SO BEFORE GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR A REQUEST. SO THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WOULD IMPACT AS FAR AS PROPERTY VALUES GO, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I DO KNOW THAT IT IS A ZONING CODE VIOLATION. UM, THE WATER DOES DRAIN DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN OUR PROPERTIES. UM, SHE DID BUILD A RETAINING WALL THAT COMES OUT PRETTY FAR INTO, UM, THE STREET THAT IS PRETTY HIGH. SO IT OBSTRUCTS, UH, YOU KNOW, MY, UH, VIEW, UM, BEING ABLE TO COME OUT TO MY FRONT YARD AND BEING ABLE TO SEE MY KIDS GO DOWN THE STREET AND PLAY, RIDE THEIR BIKES, UH, DEFINITELY OBSTRUCTS IT, UH, CAUSES A SAFETY CONCERN, NOT ONLY FOR ME, BUT FOR ANYBODY WHO MAY COME OUT, UM, POTENTIALLY, UH, CAN CAUSE SOMEBODY TO HIDE BACK THERE OR, UM, CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT BEING A ZONING CODE VIOLATION, I BELIEVE THAT IF IT HAD TO DO WITH ZONING, UM, SHE SHOULD HAVE GOT, UH, THIS BOARD ADJUSTMENT FIRST VERSUS GOING AHEAD AND BUILDING IT AND THEN HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE STEPS. UM, UM, THE LAW ALREADY HAS BEEN BROKEN BY HER, SO NOW, UH, RESOURCES HAVE TO BE MADE FOR HER, UM, BEING, UM, [05:15:01] NOT, UH, UH, GOING TO THE ACTUAL BOARD FIRST. UM, AND THEN ALSO TOO, UH, TALKING WITH MY COMMUNITY THERE, THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE WALL. UH, NONE OF 'EM, UH, DON'T KNOW THAT IT COULD CAUSE, UH, POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, FOUNDATION ISSUES WITH IT BEING A RETAINING WALL THAT SHE'S BUILT UP THERE. UH, I WASN'T AWARE OF THE, THE LAW OF THE FENCE HEIGHT HAD TO BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT. UH, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT ON MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER PROPERTY, SHE HAS NOW STARTED BUILDING A FENCE. UH, SHE PUT SOME FENCE PICKETS UP THAT ARE SIX FEET, UH, WHICH I GUESS NOW, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS AGAINST, UM, UH, ZONING OR CODE FOR HER TO DO THAT AS WELL. SO, UM, I BELIEVE THESE THINGS ARE PUT IN PLACE, UH, SO WE CAN FOLLOW, WHEN WE DO BUILD, UM, SURVEYS ARE SUPPOSED TO GET, UH, UH, RECEIVED AND, YOU KNOW, GET A PERMIT FOR THAT STUFF BEFORE YOU START DOING IT. UM, BECAUSE I GUESS SHE DID IT ON THAT SIDE, LEFT SIDE OF HER PROPERTY, AND NOW SHE'S DOING IT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH I'M AGAINST. UM, ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, I BELIEVE, UM, THAT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN AND IT SHOULD BE ZONED THE RIGHT WAY, UH, LIKE THE CITY INTENDED. THANK YOU. YES. HI, UH, MELANIE. I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE NUMBER A 24 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 6 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 36 14. LISA, LISA DRIVE LOT NINE NEW CITY BLOCK 13 0 0 1. I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THROUGH TO DO AN EMAIL RESPONSE, SO I'M RESPONDING ON TELEPHONE. UH, MY INPUT FOR OUR HOME, WHICH IS 36 0 3, LISA IS IN OPPOSITION, SO WE'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THE, UH, REQUEST. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME. (210) 275-3302. THANK YOU. IS THAT IT? THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC ON. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, LET'S HAVE THE, UH, APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND WHILE SHE'S WALKING UP THERE, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THE SEVEN FOOT WIDTHS MEASURED TO THE BASE OF THE RETAINING WALL TO THE TOP OF FENCE, OR DOES IT INCLUDE THE, IT INCLUDES, IT INCLUDES THE, SO IT IS NOT A RETAINING WALL. UH, IT'S JUST A REGULAR, THERE'S NO EARTH BEING HELD ON THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY. IT'S JUST A REGULAR PART FENCE. ALL RIGHT. NO, NO ACTIVE OR PASSIVE PRESSURE. RIGHT. WELL, I, I WAS ASKING BECAUSE THE SIDE PRO, WHEN I, WHEN I'M ON GOOGLE EARTH, THAT THE NEIGHBORING HOME DOES HAVE A, A PRETTY SHARP SLOPED DOWN, SO IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF, YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S A PICTURE THERE OF THE WATER. SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CAROL RODRIGUEZ. GREAT. AND, AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, YOUR FENCE. OKAY. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. MY, I'M GLAD IT'S THE LAST ONE. . UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 12 YEARS AND, UH, THE LAST FEW YEARS, MY NEIGHBOR, THE WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS AT IS ABOVE ME. AND SO WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF DROUGHTS RIGHT NOW, SO I CAN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T REALLY EXPERIENCED WHAT I WAS EXPERIENCED WHEN WE WERE GETTING REGULAR RAIN, BUT MY WHOLE SIDE WOULD GET FLOODED AND IT WOULD DRAIN INTO MY GARAGE. THAT'S WHY I NEEDED THE RETAINING WALL. OKAY. NOW, NOBODY SEES THIS BUT ME. OKAY. I HA I PUT MY GUTTERS. I WENT AND CALLED SYSTEM PAVERS, AND THEY PUT GUTTERS UNDER THE GROUND AND THEY GO OUT TO THE, TO THE, TOWARDS THE STREET, BECAUSE I WAS HAVING A FLOODING ISSUE AT, IN THAT POINT. NOW, THE WOOD PART TO MAKE PRIVACY, THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE, UH, THE NEIGHBOR KEEPS GETTING ROBBED. SHE KEEPS GETTING HER TRUCK BROKEN INTO. SHE KEEPS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT AT, UH, THERE WAS A TIME WHERE SHE, UH, SHE HAD SOMEBODY MAKE THE STORY. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER HOW THE STORY WENT. IT WAS AT THREE IN THE MORNING. I LET MY DOG OUT AND MY DOG RAN OVER THERE BARKING AT HER HOUSE, AND MY DOG'S ACTING LIKE SOMEBODY IS BY HER BEDROOM WINDOW. SO I KIND OF LIKE, CALL THE POLICE, MAKE THE REPORT, WHATEVER, AND THEY'D COME, I GUESS THEY PASS BY AND CHECK IT OUT. EVERYTHING WENT OUT. CAME OUT OKAY, I GUESS. AND THEN THE NEXT DAY I TELL HER SON THAT SOMEONE WAS LOOKING THROUGH HER BEDROOM WINDOW BECAUSE MY DOG KIND OF DUCKED, LIKE THEY THREW SOMETHING AT IT. AND, UH, SHE CAME OVER AND STARTED POUNDING ON MY DOOR AND TELLING ME THAT TO MIND MY OWN BUSINESS AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND, UH, SO I, SHE GOT UPSET. SO I DECIDED, OKAY, I'LL PUT A PRIVACY [05:20:01] FENCE. YOU KNOW, I ADDED TO THE RETAINING WALL BECAUSE I THOUGHT, OKAY, YOU DON'T WANT ME TO HELP YOU. I'M, I THOUGHT I WASN'T DOING, I, I WAS HELPING HER OUT BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN ROBBED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE FROM HER VEHICLES. AND I PUT MY RETAINING WALL SO I CAN MIND MY OWN BUSINESS AND I WON'T GET INTO HERS. AND THERE'S A PICTURE THERE WHERE SHE IS CONTINUOUSLY PASSING THROUGH, TRYING TO PASS THROUGH MY YARD. AND SHE HAS HER FRIENDS PARK IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THE PEACE AND SHE JUST FINDING SOME WAY TO JUST IRRITATE ME. LET SEE, THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THAT'S NOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE OR NEAR MY HOUSE. THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY STEPS WHERE YOU CAN SEE MY STEPS WHERE THEY'RE AT. AND SHE CROSSES RIGHT IN FRONT. IS THERE A, NO, NOT THAT ONE. THERE'S A PICTURE WHERE SHE'S CROSSING RIGHT THROUGH THE FENCE. AND, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHY I DID THE FENCE THAT HIGH. I DIDN'T CARE FOR IT THAT HIGH, SO I KIND OF SLOPED IT SO IT WOULDN'T BE SO, YOU KNOW, SO HIGH. 'CAUSE I REALLY DIDN'T WANT IT THAT HIGH. BUT WHEN SHE CUTS THE GRASS, I CAN STILL SEE THE TOP OF HER HEAD. AND SHE'S A SHORT LADY. SHE'S A VERY SMALL LADY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE MEASURING THE TOP P TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE. MM-HMM. . UM, I'LL LET YOU CONTINUE. MM-HMM. . BUT STEPH, CAN YOU BRING UP THE STREET, GOOGLE STREET VIEW. THERE, THERE, THERE'S A REALLY GREAT VIEW THAT KIND OF SHOWS THAT PERSPECTIVE. MM-HMM. . WHILE, WHILE WE'RE HEARING, UH, MORE FROM THE APPLICANT. MM-HMM, . OH YEAH. MOVE, MOVE DOWN TO THE RIGHT ONE NOTCH. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. THAT'S BEFORE THE FENCE. THAT'S BEFORE THE FENCE WAS BUILT. I THINK I BUILT IT IN JUNE OF 23. YEAH, I'M, I'M SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, THE PICTURE SHOWS THE WATER WHERE IT, WHERE IT, I HAVE A PICTURE OF THE DRAINAGE OF THE WATER. CAN YOU SCOOT TO THE LEFT? ONE CLICK, ONE SMALL CLICK. UH, ON MY COMPUTER. IT, THE PERSPECTIVE IS WAY DIFFERENT. THERE IT IS A LITTLE BETTER. SO WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR WALLS PUT IN, YOU'RE RETAINING, ARE YOU ACTUALLY RETAINING THE EARTH FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? OH YEAH. IF YOU LOOK AT PIC, A PICTURE AT HER, AT HER, UM, FOUNDATION, ALL HER DIRT WAS ALREADY SHOWING THE BOTTOM PART OF IT. I'M ACTUALLY DOING HER A FAVOR BY HOLDING DIRT TO HER HOUSE. BUT, AND THEN YOUR, YOUR, THE WOOD FENCE IS GOING DOWN HER SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL? NO, THE WOOD FENCE IS ABOVE THE RETAINING WALL. SO IT, IT'S DOESN'T GO BELOW THE TOP CAP OF THE RETAINING WALL? NO. OKAY. THAT'S IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DID IT. I NEVER REALLY PAID ATTENTION. OKAY. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH YOUR, OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. UH, THE RETAINING WALL, I WAS, I HAD READ THAT IT COULDN'T BE MORE THAN THREE FEET HIGH, JUST THE RETAINING WALL. AND I MEASURED IT FROM THE GROUND, FROM THE GRASS UP, AND IT'S UNDER THREE FEET HIGH. AND THAT'S FROM THE HIGHEST POINT, UH, ALL THE WAY TOWARDS THE STREET. IT'S ABOUT MAYBE A, NOT EVEN TWO FEET HIGH. SO, SO ESTABLISH IF SHE'S RETAINING EARTH AND THEN SHE HAS A WOOD FENCE ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL, CAN'T SHE GO THREE FEET ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL? CORRECT. IF THIS IS A RETAINING WALL AND ALL SHE HAS IS THREE FEET, SHE DOES NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, AGAIN, WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY EARTH ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT IF SHE'S SAYING IT'S A RETAINING WALL AND THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY ENGINEER, THAT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM HER FENCE HEIGHT. YEAH. I PUT, I MEAN, I SPENT OUT HOW OF MONEY TO PUT DRAINAGE ON MY SIDE OF MY HOUSE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES ON OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL? YEAH, I THINK I MIGHT HAVE IT ON MY PHONE. WE CAN PROJECT IT RIGHT UP ON THE, I DUNNO WHAT YOU HAVE. AND ALSO THE RETAINING WALL CAN BE AS TALL AS IT'S BEING RETAINED. UM, YEAH. SO IT COULD BE 10 FOOT TALL AS LONG AS IT'S ACTUALLY RETAINING EARTH. THE, THE HEIGHT OF A RETAINING WALL IS, DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU NEED AN ENGINEER OR A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS. FOUR, THAT ACTIVE PRESSURE. RIGHT. OR IF YOU HAVE A FOUR FEET FENCE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, YES. YEAH. WE ALWAYS KEEP OURS AT THREE, THREE FOOT 11. I DO HAVE THEM. I JUST, MY PHONE WOULDN'T DIE DOWN. OH, THIS LITTLE THING. WELL, [05:25:01] THAT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. THEY COULD BE FIVE FEET. AND MA'AM, YOU SAID YOU GOT A, YOU SAID YOU GOT A, UM, AN ENGINEER TO DO YOUR RETAINING WALL. DID YOU, DID THEY SUBMIT? NO, I, I, UH, HIRED, UH, SYSTEM PAVERS AND THEY DID NOT, I TOLD, WELL, THEY WANTED TO GO HIGHER AND I TOLD THEM NO. I HEARD THAT THREE FEET WAS A MAXIMUM. YOU CANNOT GO, YOU CAN AS HIGH AS YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU GO ABOVE FOUR FEET, THEN IT HAS TO HAVE AN ENGINEER REVIEW A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS. ALSO IF, IF THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS THAT TRIGGER THAT. BUT YEAH. DID YOU FIND A PICTURE? BUT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE, UM, . YEAH, WE WERE LOOKING FOR PERMITTING. WE DON'T SEE ANY PERMITTING FOR THE WALL. RIGHT. I HAD ASKED HIM ABOUT THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS, I WAS ASKING, DO I NEED A PERMIT? DO I NEED A PERMIT? AND THEY KEPT TELLING ME, NO, YOU DON'T NEED ONE BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THREE FEET TALL. AND I, AND I'M LIKE, OKAY. SO I, THAT WAS MY MISTAKE BY NOT BY LISTENING TO THEM, I STILL THINK YOU NEED A PERMIT, DON'T YOU? YOU ALWAYS NEED A PERMIT. IT'D BE DONE THROUGH FENCING. MM-HMM. . YES. THAT'S WHY WE WERE LOOKING FOR A PERMIT. 'CAUSE YOU GENERALLY GET PERMITTING FOR IT. YEAH. AND BECAUSE I HAD MY REAR FENCE, I'M RETAINING TWO FEET AND I DID IT THROUGH THE FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION WITH A SEPARATE RETAINING WALL. MM-HMM. CHILD PERMIT. OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, I, WELL GO, KEEP GOING. WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? WELL, I WANNA KEEP THE, THE RETAINING WALL OF ANYTHING BECAUSE I REALLY NEED IT. 'CAUSE IT GOES, THE WATER LEAKS INTO MY GARAGE. IF I DON'T HAVE A RETAINING WALL, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE AN ACTIVE FENCE PERMIT ON FILE? SO DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME, SHE'D HAVE TO GO GET ONE. I PAID WHAT, IT WASN'T THAT I PAID. THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A PENDING FOR, UH, PENDING RESOLUTION. OKAY. ON THIS BOA. AND WOULD THAT, SO IF, IF THERE IS A RETAINING WALL THERE, WHICH APPARENTLY THERE, SHE'S SAYING THERE IS, WOULD SHE HAVE TO AMEND HER APPLICATION TO INCLUDE THAT CHILD PERMIT FOR THE RETAINING WALL PORTION? CORRECT. YEAH. SHE WOULD'VE TO INCLUDE, EVEN THOUGH IT WON'T COUNT AGAINST HER HEIGHT, SHE WOULD'VE TO INCLUDE THAT ON HER APPLICATION. SO DO YOU KNOW HOW TALL THE WOOD FENCE IS ABOVE THE TOP OF THAT RETAINING WALL? WELL, THEY, I THINK THEY MEASURED SEVEN FEET. I DON'T KNOW. AND YEAH, THAT'S NOT SEVEN FEET. BUT, UM, REAL QUICK, SORRY. I THOUGHT IT WAS A FENCE PERMIT. IT WAS, THERE WAS NO, I DON'T SEE A FENCE PERMIT OVER HERE. UM, SO YEAH, SHE WOULD JUST NEED A WHOLE NEW FENCE PERMIT. I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU'RE STAFF IS SAYING THAT CURRENTLY IT'S SEVEN FEET TALL, SO THAT MEANS THE WOOD MUST BE FOUR FEET ON TOP OF A THREE FOOT RETAINING WALL. LIKE ASSUME YEAH. THE THREE FEET ISN'T EVEN THREE FEET. IT'S UNDER THREE FEET. OKAY. IT'S LIKE TWO, ALMOST THREE FEET. AND THEN THEY ADD IT, WHATEVER. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHAT, SO WHAT HAPPENS WITH, WITH THIS, YOU'VE, YOU'VE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE FOR A, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO, OF, TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE. MM-HMM. , YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SEVEN FOOT TALL, BUT YOU DON'T NEED A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE BECAUSE YOU DON'T COUNT THE RETAINING WALL PART OF IT. SO IF YOUR FENCE IS FOUR FEET ABOVE, THEN THEORETICALLY YOU ONLY NEED A ONE FOOT VARIANCE. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, AND I APOLOGIZE. I'M LIKE, I'M GETTING CONFUSED 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD THE MESSAGES FIRST AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS I LOOKING FOR HERE. SO, UM, SO OUTSIDE OF RETAINING MM-HMM. , UM, IS THERE, IS THERE A REASON WHY IT IS THAT YOU NEED A, UM, A SOLID FENCE? UH, THE PRIVACY. SO PRIVACY, YEAH. SHE'S ALWAYS HAVING PARTIES AND SHE HAS LOUD MUSIC AND THAT'S, I HAD A VIDEO WHERE YOU CAN HEAR THE MUSIC. I, I THINK I SENT IT THROUGH EMAIL. YOUR EMAIL. ARE YOU MELANIE? YES. YES. AND SO, UM, AND THE FENCE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY? OR, UH, WELL, OR DOES, ACTUALLY, THE OFFICER THAT GAVE ME THE CITATION, SHE TOLD ME I WAS GOOD WITH THE DISTANCE FROM THE STREET TO THE END OF THE FENCE. SHE GOES, YOU'RE GOOD THERE. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. AND SO, I I NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. AFTER THE CLEAR VISION DIALOGUE THEN, IS THERE A CLEAR VISION COMPONENT TO THIS? NO, THERE'S NO, UH, CLEAR VISION REQUIRED. WELL, WHY NOT? WHY NOT? I HAVE ONE PUT MY PHONE'S ON, HOLD ON HOLD, HOLD ON. UH, I BELIEVE THEY HAD THE 15 FEET FROM THE, FROM THE EDGE OF THE FENCE TO THEIR EDGE OF THE DRIVE. SO IT IS 15 FEET AWAY. SO IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE, BECAUSE YEAH, WE DIDN'T OBSERVE THAT THEY NEEDED A YEAH, THE YELLOW LINE ON THE, UH, SIDE PLAN SHOWS IT GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE ASPHALT. SO YEAH, WE'RE TRACKING. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, SO IN THEORY YOU NEED AT LEAST A ONE FOOT VARIANCE. MM-HMM. . UM, IS THERE ANY, ANY OTHER, ANY NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I WOULD JUST REMIND THAT THE, UH, RETENTION WALL IN FIVE AND FIVE 14 SAYS WHEN A BARRIER IS REQUIRED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE TO BE LOCATED ON TOP OF THE RETAINING [05:30:01] WALL, SUCH BARRIER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A FENCE. SO IT HAS TO BE AN ACTUAL RETAINING WALL. UM, FOR IT NOT TO COUNT AGAINST HER IS YEAH, REMINDING. SO IF, IF, SO IF I'M STANDING IN THE, IN THE STREET AND I'M LOOKING RIGHT DOWN TO YOUR FENCE. MM-HMM. THE DIRT COMES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THE CAP. AND THEN WHEN, AND THEN YOU HAVE A, A DROP ON YOUR PART THAT I HAD TO TALK TO THE, TO SYSTEM PAVERS ABOUT THAT. AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO EVEN OUT THE DIRT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO COVER UP THE BACK OF IT. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. I CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA WORK WITH ME ON THAT. BUT FROM THE TOP, FROM THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL, THE CAT. MM-HMM MM-HMM. TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SIDE, DOES IT DROP, DROP MORE THAN SIX INCHES? GOSH, I DIDN'T MEASURE HER SIDE. I DON'T KNOW. DOES IT DROP MORE THAN THAT MUCH? SOME TOWARDS THE END, YES, BECAUSE IT GOES DOWN. OKAY. SO MY RECOMMENDATION TO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION IS, UH, IS IS SHE'S ASKING FOR A, UM, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE. I DON'T THINK SHE NEEDS A FOUR FOOT. I THINK SHE NEEDS BETWEEN ONE FOOT AND TWO FEET PERSONALLY. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE NOTIFICATION PLAN, COULD YOU PULL THAT UP AGAIN PLEASE? SO WE HEARD A VOICE MESSAGE FROM SOMEBODY LIVING AT 36 0 3. UM, WHICH LISA? 6 0 3. THAT'S NOT ON, IS IT THE CUL-DE-SAC? RIGHT. BUT IT'S WITHIN THE 200 FEET, ISN'T IT? YES. YES. AND IT WAS A, IT WAS IN OPPOSITION. RIGHT? AND IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE PLAN. THIS IS ONLY FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. AH, OKAY. OKAY, SO I'M SORRY. SO THERE WAS TWO VOICEMAILS, VOICE MESSAGES IN OPPOSITION. ONE WAS AT THE, UH, THERE WAS ONE IN, DON'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE. ONE IN APPROVAL, ONE AND TO AN OPPOSITION. OKAY. SO ONE OF THE OPPOSITION I HEARD, WAS IT 6 0 3? OH, YES, YES, YES. I HEARD. WHERE WAS THE OTHER, WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS OF THE OTHER OPPOSITION? 36 10 LISA AND 36 0 3 LISA WERE IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN THE SUNSHINE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN FAVOR. OKAY, SO ONE NEIGHBOR IMMEDIATE AND THEN ONE IN THE CUL-DE-SAC OR IN OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMPLAINING ARE THE PEOPLE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. AND AT WHICH ADDRESS? 36 18 OR 36? 10. WELL, THE, I DON'T KNOW, ADDRESS. 36. 10 36 10. OH, I'M SORRY. 36. 10 IS RIGHT NEXT TO, UH, THE PROPERTY. 36. BUT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL. YES. OKAY. THAT, NOW THAT GENTLEMAN HAS A PERSONAL, ANOTHER ISSUE WITH ME THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FENCE. I'VE BEEN REPORTING HIM RE NEGLECTING HIS DOG AND NOW HE'S JUST BEING OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO JUST AS A, SO THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS CONFUSED IS BECAUSE THEY CALLED IN WITH REGARDS TO THE CHALLENGE. 'CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A FENCE AND RETAINING WALL ON THAT LINE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE I GOT CONFUSED. AND SO, SO IS THERE A RETAINING WALL ON THAT ALONG, UM, YOUR NEIGHBOR ON 36 10 AS WELL, OR IS THERE NO. SO, SO DO SEE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE THAT'S THERE ? UM, IS THAT YOUR FENCE OR IS THAT HIS FENCE? THAT'S FINE. THAT'S YOUR FENCE. OKAY. SO, OKAY. I HAVE, I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION. IF NOTHING ELSE, I WOULD RECOMMEND IT. I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND IT BEING 18 INCHES, A VARIANCE OF 18 INCHES ABOVE THE, ABOVE THE, WELL YOU CAN GO THREE FEET ABOVE THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. OKAY. WHICH MEANS THAT IT GETS YOU TO FIVE, FOUR AND A HALF FEET. OKAY. WHICH IS, YOU'RE ONLY ASKING, YOU'RE, I MEAN, I DIDN'T WANT IT THAT HIGH ANYWAY. THAT'S WHY I KIND OF SLOPED IT. I'M TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CURVES IN ANY SORT OF SLIGHT REDUCTION OF THE LOSS OF, OF EARTH ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT NOW FOR PRIVACY, COULD I PLANT A BUSHES? YOU CAN PLANT ALL THE BUSHES YOU WANT. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. 20 FOOT BUSHES. OKAY. . BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO GO AND GET A FENCE PERMIT WITH A RETAINING WALL, CHILD PERMIT, UM, TO, TO LEGITIMIZE ALL THIS. OKAY. I PAID $430 WHEN I, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WHEN I GOT EVERYTHING READY. WHAT WAS THAT? IT HAD, I HAVE NO IDEA. YEAH, THEY TOLD ME THAT WAS A PERMIT OF SOME KIND OF BY THIS APPLICATION. YEAH, THIS IS FOR YOUR APPLICATION HERE. DEFENSE PERMIT'S MUCH CHEAPER. OKAY. OKAY. THOSE ARE LIKE 30 BUCKS OR SOMETHING. 40 BUCKS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE? ? YES. MANNA. OH, I SAID I WOULD DO. OH, YOU, YEAH. AWESOME. UH, SURE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 96, THE MOVE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A, UH, 18 18 18 18 INCH [05:35:01] FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A FOUR, FIVE AND A HALF, FOUR AND A HALF, FOUR AND A HALF, FOUR AND A HALF FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SITUATED AT 36 14 LISA DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, CAROL RODRIGUEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE DEFENSE HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED FOUR AND A HALF FEET IN HEIGHT AND PROVIDE SECURITY FOR POVERTY IN THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. AN INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PROVIDING THE NEEDED SECURITY AND SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS DEFENSE HEIGHT WILL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS AS IT IS LOCATED AT SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT STEP. SECURITY AND PRIVACY. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WOULD NOT ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE FENCE HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, WE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT, THE REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISH FOR THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC DISTRICT WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE IS ADEQUATELY BACK FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION AREA AND OF MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER AMANDA. COMMISSIONER BRAD? UH, I THINK GIVEN THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, IF IT TRULY IS A RETAINING WALL, UM, AND IT WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE, THE FLOODING IN THE AREA THAT SHE SHOWED US THE PICTURES, UM, AND THE, UM, AMENDED FENCE HEIGHT, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. MR. MANN? I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. YES. ANYONE LIKE TO ADD ON THIS ONE HERE? I DON'T EVEN CAN SEE. WE'RE ALREADY PAST THAT. I'M SORRY. UH, LET'S HAVE 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 DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RHI? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. ARE WE, UH, WE STILL AT 10 OR ARE WE AT NINE? NINE. OH, OKAY. MOTION PASSES. UH, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO GET A FENCE PERMIT. YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PERMIT INCLUDE A RETAINING WALL COMPONENT SO THAT IT LEGITIMIZES EVERYTHING THAT JUST HAPPENED HERE TODAY. OKAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. OKAY. NEXT ITEM IS THE MINUTES. I HAD SOME COMMENTS. I, I BELIEVE MAYBE SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS DID AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING'S BEEN, UH, UPDATED. YES. ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN, UM, UPDATED, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT SAYS, UH, THE MEETING WAS CALLED THE ORDER BY CHAIR. ORIAN. . . I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD HEARD, HEARD, BUT, UM, , I'M TRYING TO SET 'EM UP. YEAH. ON JULY 15TH, WHEN, WHEN A ZUNA RAN THE MEETING, Y'ALL TABLED THE CASE, BUT THE MINUTES DIDN'T CHANGE. AT THE NEXT CASE, IT STILL SAID THAT HE WAS A CHAIR AND CALLED IT TO ORDER. SO HE GOT, WHEN HE CUT THE SIDES . OH BOY. [ Approval of Minutes  ] OKAY. SO , IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY A. ANY OPPOSED A AYE ALL MOTION PASSES [ Director’s Report  ] NINE TO ZERO. UH, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? UH, JUST A REMINDER FOR THOSE, WHATEVER WE HAVE SPANISH TRANSLATION, THEY GET DOUBLE THE TIME. UM, THE SPEAKER GETS DOUBLE THE TIME BECAUSE OF THE SPANISH TRANSLATION SURFACES. SO IF WE HAVE A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT LIMIT, THEN THEY GET FOUR MINUTES. UH, IF IT'S A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, THEY GET SIX MINUTES. OH, OKAY. MM-HMM, , THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. I, I JUST, I, I GUESS WE, I DON'T REMEMBER EVER ENFORCING THAT IF SOMEONE WAS HAVING, WELL, WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE HERE. WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE HERE. UM, OKAY. SO, BUT IT COME, IT CAME UP AT A RECENT MEETING, SO YES, IT DID. YEAH. SO, AND, AND TODAY WE HAD 17 CASES. ARE WE GONNA BE SEEING A, A LARGE SLATE FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR, DO YOU THINK? NO, IT'S, UM, BETWEEN 10 AND 12 CASES. FINALLY [05:40:01] SLOWING DOWN APRIL. ALRIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UH, HEREBY ADJOURN THE MEETING. 6 53. GOOD. * 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.