* 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. [00:00:02] ALL RIGHT. ARE WE RECORDING? SAID YES. OKAY. SO ONE OH ONE. I HEREBY UH, CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. CAN WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE? SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF IF YOU COULD CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON HERE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. COMMISSIONER DEAN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? HERE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. UNMUTE YOUR MIC SIR. HERE. COMMISSIONER EZ. HERE. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M HERE. SO WE'RE SEATED WITH NINE TODAY. UH, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE UH, STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. 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 DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY IS CHAIR WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I'LL ALSO LET THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT THE COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE ON AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION, A DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZED 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'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED. INSUBORDINATE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM 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 TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF. THANK YOU. STAFF WILL BE BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS. INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. ANY B QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED OUT IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALL ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE YOUR MAXIMUM TIME [00:05:01] LIMITATION. FOR THOSE I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALL ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM 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 LIMIT THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ALRIGHT, SO THE FIRST ITEM UP [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] TODAY IS UM, 3 3 3 3 5 EAST PARK. SO ITEM ONE PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS LOCATED AT 3 3 5 EAST PARK IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS KALIN GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT PLLC. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3 3 5 EAST PARK. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. UH, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK PHASE PER SECTION 35 DASH 37 4 0.01 OF THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO ST SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLE PLEX OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK PHASE. SO THIS IS THE TYPE TWO DENSITY COUNT. UM, CURRENTLY THERE ARE 33 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE. THERE ARE FIVE ACTIVE TYPE TWO STRS CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK FACE BEING LOCATED AT 3 2 5 EAST PARK AVENUE AND 3 2 7 EAST PARK AVENUE UNITS ONE THROUGH FOUR. BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES UM, CONTAIN THE FIVE GRANDFATHERED PERMITS. SO CURRENTLY THE BLOCK PHASE IS AT 15.1% AND IF THIS ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK PHASE WILL BE AT 18% WHICH EXCEEDS THAT 12.5% DENSITY FOR TYPE TWO S TR. AND THERE ARE NO CODE VIOLATIONS INVESTIGATIONS AND THERE ARE ALSO NO ACTIVE LISTINGS. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMEND A DENIAL AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MOUNTED OUT 39 NOTICES. WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR WITH THREE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET, FIVE IN OPPOSITION. AND THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE OR RESIDENT ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. SURE. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. ASHLEY FAIRMONT, KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE. UH, I'M HERE WITH CHRIS COKER WITH BLUE LINE HOUSING. CHRIS IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. UM, WE DIDN'T PLAN ON DOING THIS TODAY, BUT WE'D ACTUALLY, WE DO HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION PREPARED. UM, BUT WITH NINE MEMBERS HERE, UM, AND BASED ON WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION PRESENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 27TH, JAN, JANUARY 27TH. OKAY, WELL LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND HEAR THEIR THOUGHTS. OKAY, THANK YOU STAFF. IF WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP OR VOICEMAILS, UH, THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. FIRST ONE IS MR. RICK, SHE, HI. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. SURE. SO, UH, BEFORE I DO, YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A LETTER, UH, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU. UM, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE COMING RIGHT THERE. MY NAME IS RICK SHELL, I'M THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR TOWING HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FOUR 30 MISSILE EAST MISSILE TOW. UM, I HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT BECAUSE I'M NOT REAL GOOD WITH OFF THE CUFF STUFF, SO I HOPE YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME. UM, INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOOD. MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IS ALSO GOOD. UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS IS HOW THIS APPLICANT WISHES TO MAKE MONEY WITH HIS PROPERTY. UM, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WITH THE PROPERTY AND GETTING A RETURN ON AN INVESTMENT SHOULDN'T BE A BURDEN FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR TODAY. UH, THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS IS AN IMPORTANT PROCESS TO ALLOW CITY STAFF AND COMMISSIONS LIKE YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM NEARBY COMMUNITY ABOUT DECISIONS [00:10:01] THAT WILL AFFECT THEM BEFORE YOU IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTS BETWEEN DECEMBER 3RD, THE DAY AFTER THE LAST BOA AND THIS CASE BEING CONTINUED AND DECEMBER 8TH DELIVERED TO DOORS ON AT LEAST PARK AND MYRTLE. ON THE DOCUMENT YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR SUPPORT OF THEIR BOA CASE AND OFFERS TO COMPENSATE EACH PERSON $50 FOR THEIR TIME PER LETTER. HAVING THAT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS CORRUPTED LIKE THIS, IT'S FRANKLY PRETTY DISGUSTING. UM, IT CALLS INTO QUESTION WHETHER ANY SUPPORT RECEIVED FOR THIS REQUEST AND WHETHER ANY SUPPORT RECEIVED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE REQUEST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. STATE THAT ALLOWING THIS STR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE 12.5% RIGHT THAT WAS CREATED WITH A ROBUST PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. THE STR STUFF WAS, UH, EVALUATED EARLIER THIS YEAR THROUGH TASK FORCE AND THAT ALSO HAD STR OPERATORS ON THAT TASK FORCE. WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ABOUT SUPPORTING THE ORDINANCE AND SUPPORTING THAT BLOCK FACE DENSITY AND REQUIREMENT. FURTHER STAFF'S OWN RECOMMENDATIONS. STATE THE APPLICANT HAS HAD TWO SDR PERMITS REVOKED IN THE LAST YEAR AT OTHER PROPERTIES. THIS IS NOT ITEMS THAT WERE APPLIED FOR AND THEN DENIED. THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WERE ISSUED AND THEN PULLED BACK BY THE CITY OR REVOKED FOR SOME REASON. UM, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ACCORDING TO BILL SA, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY HAD A DENIAL FOR AN STR PERMIT AT THIS ADDRESS TWICE ON 7 27 23 AND AGAIN ON 12 20 23. WE SIMPLY CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. SO WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION NOT CONTINUE THIS CASE AGAIN, BUT THAT YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, VOTE ON IT AND DENY IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. SURE. SO DID THEY, DID THE APPLICANT MEET WITH, UH, YOUR, YOUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? NO. OKAY. NOT PRIOR TO THE CASE COMING TO YOU ALL AFTER IT WAS CONTINUED. THE FIRST TIME THEY DID REACH OUT, WE TOLD THEM WE WEREN'T IN SUPPORT. THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. FEDERICA KUSHNER. UM, MY NAME IS FEDERICA KUSHNER AND I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST BERNAL STREET IN TOKEN HILL 7 8 2 1 2. I'M HERE CONCERNING ITEM NUMBER ONE ON YOUR AGENDA. 3 35 EAST PARK AVENUE. A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. FOUR STR UNITS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS BLOCK FACE. PER THE ORDINANCE THERE ARE AT PRESENT FIVE SCR UNITS. THIS REQUEST WOULD BE UP THE NUMBER TO SIX. THIS MEANS THAT THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ON EAST PARK AVENUE ALREADY DOWN FIVE WILL BE DIMINISHED BY SIX NEIGHBORS. WHERE DOES IT STOP WHEN THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY NEIGHBORS LIVING ON THAT STREET? THE TOBIN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT IS NOT A HOTEL DISTRICT. I'M ASKING THAT YOU STOP THIS TAKING AWAY OF OUR COMMUNITY. ALSO WHETHER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, WHATEVER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THE OWNER MIGHT CLAIM IS OF HIS OWN DOING. IN ADDITION, YOU MAY BE AWARE OF A FLYER DISTRIBUTED BY THE OWNER OFFERING $50 FOR EACH LETTER OF APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, IF NOT ILLEGAL, IT IS UNETHICAL. I'M HOPING THAT YOU WILL INCLUDE THIS UNETHICAL PRACTICE IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. UM, LAST ONE IS MR. MARTIN KUSHNER. GOOD AFTERNOON. SOME OF THIS WILL SOUND VERY FAMILIAR TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER. MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT OUR 1915 SEARS BUNGALOW IN, I'M SORRY, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME. MARTIN KUSHNER. 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE IN, UH, 1915. IT'S A SEARS BUNGALOW. AND IN, UH, IT WAS, I'M SORRY, IN 1915 IS WHEN IT WAS BUILT. AND THEN WE BOUGHT IT IN 1998. SO I'M NOT THAT OLD. REALTORS ADVISED US, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH NOT TO BUY THE HOUSE. IT WAS IN JUST A REALLY BAD NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK GOODNESS FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE RIVERWALK AND THE PEARL. 'CAUSE WE CERTAINLY ARE NOW LIVING IN A VERY DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE NOT FOR PROFIT. WE BOUGHT IT TO HAVE NEIGHBORS AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS. NOT SOMEONE THAT COMES IN ONE DAY AND LEAVES [00:15:01] TOMORROW. THE BLOCK IN QUESTION ALREADY HAS MORE ST. THAN'S CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR THE STREET. IT APPEARS THAT THE CURRENT OWNER'S BUSINESS IS BUYING AND SELLING REAL ESTATE. SO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT IF YOU'RE IN A BUSINESS, THERE ARE RISKS. AND IF IT DOESN'T GO YOUR WAY, YOU DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. SO MOST IMPORTANTLY, IN MY OPINION, IT IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE OWNER TO OFFER WHAT, IN MY OPINION, IS A $50 BRIBE TO PEOPLE TO WRITE JUST A LETTER. AS A CITIZEN, I SHOULD CARE ENOUGH ABOUT MY PROPERTY THAT I DON'T NEED MONEY. AND I THINK THAT IS A BIG FLAW. AND FOR JUST THAT REASON ALONE, IT SHOULD BE TURNED DOWN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALRIGHT, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK FORWARD. ANY ANY REBUTTAL REMARKS TO WHAT WE JUST HEARD? YEAH, I'LL LET CHRIS TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LETTER HE DELIVERED. UM, AND, AND HAPPY TO TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORS. HAPPY TO TALK WITH RICK. MY OFFICE DID TALK WITH RICK BEFORE THE LAST VOA MEETING WAS SCHEDULED, SO, UM, WE CAN CHAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ABOUT THAT. UM, BUT, BUT YEAH, THERE, I MEAN, WE CAN GIVE THE FULL PRESENTATION ON THE REQUEST. UM, IF YOU, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE, OR WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO REQUEST THE CONTINUANCE, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. AND TALK ABOUT THE OTHER STR ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE ARE FOUR IN ONE HOUSE NEXT DOOR. IF I, UM, I, SORRY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. IF I MIGHT ADD IT, JUST I WOULD, I DON'T MIND GIVING A REBUTTAL ON, UH, WHAT THE, THE NEIGHBORS HAD SAID. UM, BUT IT IS SUCH A MONUMENTAL TASK COMING IN HERE TO THE BOA TO GET, I MEAN, THERE'S SO MANY THAT WANT TO VOTE NO RIGHT OFF THE BAT, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT HAVING ONLY NINE HERE INSTEAD OF 11, IT BASICALLY PUTS MY CHANCES AT ZERO. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE REQUESTING, UH, THE CONTINUANCE TILL TILL WE GET A FULL, UH, COMMISSIONER ON BOARD. BUT IF, IF YOU WANT ME TO REBUT, UH, OR DISCUSS ANY OF THE THINGS THAT OUR NEIGHBORS HAD TALKED ABOUT PRIOR TO HOPING THAT YOU WOULD GIVE US THE CONTINUANCE, I REALLY DON'T MIND DOING THAT AS WELL. WELL, ONE THING I'LL, I'LL ADD IS THAT WHEN WE ARE DOWN TO NINE AND THERE IS OPPOSITION, WE USUALLY, WE, THIS BOARD HAS USUALLY BEEN A LITTLE MORE, UH, UH, NICE ABOUT CONTINUANCES, BUT BECAUSE OF IT STILL HAS TO BE, IT STILL HAS TO BE MOTION AND SECONDED. AND SO, UM, IF, IF, UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO, TO ADD, WHAT, WHAT I WOULD WANT TO HEAR, AND AND PROBABLY ME PERSONALLY IS, IS THAT WHAT WOULD CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND, AND AND JANUARY? LIKE, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO HEAR THAT'S MAYBE NEW OR MAYBE BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION OR THE NEIGHBORS? UM, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S A REALLY BIG PART OF, OF A CONTINUANCE AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY. AND I, I THINK THE BIG REASON FOR THE CONTINUANCE, LIKE I SAID, IS, UH, HAVING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERS, UM, WITH US. I DID NOT PERSONALLY GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BECAUSE ASHLEY HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED TO THEM. THEY, THEY GAVE HER, UM, THE STIFF ARM AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. UM, I, IT WOULD NOW IN RETROSPECT, HAVE BEEN NICE IF I WOULD'VE REACHED OUT TO THEM PERSONALLY AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY I AM ASKING FOR, UM, FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. OKAY. UM, THERE, SO THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS, UM, SOMETHING THAT, UH, I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS IF Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO HEAR ALL THIS, BUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID ABOUT REVOKED PERMITS. I HAVE NOT HAD A REVOKED PERMIT IN THE PAST YEAR. THAT'S INCORRECT. UM, AND ASHLEY MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. UH, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE YEARS SINCE, UH, PERMITS WERE REVOKED. ONE OF THEM WAS REINSTATED AS WELL. UH, AND IT WAS AN ISSUE WITH HOT TAXES. UH, THEY WERE PAID AND EVERYTHING IS CURRENT ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES, UM, HAS BEEN, UH, FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UM, ONE THING THAT I DID WANT TO SAY ALSO IS THAT, UM, IN THAT LETTER YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT, WELL, FIRST AND FOREMOST TO ADDRESS THEIR MAIN CONCERN OF THE, THE $50. IT'S NOT A BRIBE WHATSOEVER. UM, I UNDERSTAND THE APPEARANCE OF IT. HOWEVER, I AM, UH, VERY AWARE OF PEOPLE'S TIME. I'M AWARE OF Y'ALL'S TIME. MY TIME HERE TODAY COSTS MONEY AS WELL TO GET SOMEONE, TO GET OUR NEIGHBORS WHO I HAVE ACTIVELY ENGAGED AND SPOKE WITH MANY OF THEM, UM, AND HAVE A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION. I CAN SHOW TEXT MESSAGES TO MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS AROUND ME OVER, SINCE I HAVE OWNED THE HOUSE WHERE WE COMMUNICATE ALL THE TIME. THEY ASK ME, UH, LIKE ROY NEXT DOOR, KNOCKED OVER SOME WOOD ON MY FENCE AND HE SAYS, HEY CHRIS, I'M SORRY ABOUT IT. WHATEVER I GOTTA DO TO, TO FIX IT, LET ME KNOW. COOL. IT'S FINE. NOT A BIG DEAL. UH, NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, MARISSA, I'VE BEEN IN HER HOUSE LAST CHRISTMAS, SHE SHOWS ME ALL [00:20:01] OF HER CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS, WHICH IS VERY ELABORATE. SO IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE NEIGHBORS, I DO. THEY'RE ON THE, UH, ONE OF THEM'S NOT EVEN WITHIN THE 200 FEET, THE TOBIN HILL, UM, REPRESENTATIVE, BUT THE OTHERS ARE ON THE STREET BEHIND ME. SO I HAVEN'T NECESSARILY HAD A REASON, NOR HAVE I, UH, HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THEM, UM, TO, TO START TO DEVELOP THAT RELATIONSHIP. OKAY. UH, BUT ALL MY OTHER PROPERTIES, I HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL. I AM ESSENTIALLY A NEIGHBOR. I AM FROM SAN ANTONIO. I'M BORN AND RAISED. I'VE LIVED HERE MY ENTIRE 44 YEARS. SO I DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN, UH, THESE PROPERTIES. I'M A HISTORICAL, UH, NUT. I ONLY TOUCH HISTORICAL PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE HUGE, UH, HUGE FINANCIAL LIABILITIES, WHICH I WOULD BRING UP IN MY, UM, MY PRESENTATION IS THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY ORDINANCE AND CODE, UH, FROM THE CITY AND THE UDC THAT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL EXCEPTION FOR MAJOR RENOVATIONS. I HAVE BEEN GRANTED MY, UH, HISTORIC TAX EXEMPTION, UM, FOR, UH, BY DSD SAYING THAT THIS HOUSE HAS UNDERGONE A MAJOR, UH, HISTORICAL RENOVATION. I'VE, I'VE PURCHASED IT FOR OVER A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, PUT ANOTHER OVER 200 GRAND INTO IT TO FIX IT UP AND MAKE IT WHAT IT IS TODAY. ONE COULD ARGUE THAT IT IS ONE OF THE NICEST HOUSES ON THE STREET IN, IN THAT AREA. UH, AND THAT'S INTENTIONAL. UM, I DIDN'T SKIRT ANYTHING TO DO THAT. UM, I TOOK A LOT OF PRIDE IN DOING THAT. UH, THERE'S A LOT OF DESIGN ALL DONE BY ME. UM, AND SO I OVERSEE THE PROJECT FROM START TO FINISH AND AS WELL AS ALL THE FURNISHINGS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S INSIDE OF IT. SO, UH, IT'S A PASSION OF MINE. I HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES IN SAN ANTONIO. UM, THEY MAY THINK THAT I'M SCUM FOR BEING A PROPERTY INVESTOR. I'M NOT. UM, MY REVIEWS WILL, UM, AFFIRM TO THAT. ALSO, MY REVIEWS FROM ALL OF MY OTHER BUSINESSES THAT I'M VERY WELL VESTED IN, IN THE COMMUNITY IN SAN ANTONIO HAVING FIVE STAR REVIEWS, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF REVIEWS WOULD ALSO ATTEST TO THAT. SO. WELL, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WHO, WHO AFTER HEARING ALL THIS AND KNOWING THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A OPPOSITION AND, AND STAFF RECOMMENDING DENIAL, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE. I WILL. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN TO CONTINUE TO, TO JANUARY 27TH. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. SO LET'S SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. UH, CONVERSATION. YEAH, WE, UM, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER BRECKMAN. YEAH, I JUST WANNA MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES HERE, BUT GOING INTO IT, I THINK WE ALL REALIZE THAT, UH, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT WITH JUST NINE COMMISSIONERS. UM, AND, AND ON A REGULAR BASIS, WE ALLOW CONTINUANCES WHEN WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION. SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE NORMALLY DO. COMMISSIONER BEES? I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I THINK, I THINK IT'S, UM, ONLY FAIR TO ALLOW YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, TO, FOR US TO REVIEW YOUR CASE BEFORE MORE COMMISSIONERS AND EVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, HOW MANY, HOW MANY $50 CHECKS DID YOU WRITE? THREE. ANYONE ELSE? I'M PREPARED TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY, AND IF I CAN, I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM VOTING. AND IF I CAN JUST SAY, UM, THE TWO DIRECTLY NEXT TO ME, WHO I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP IN CONTACT WITH. WELL, WE, WELL, OKAY. WE'RE, WE'RE BACK. SO MY, MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS THAT BECAUSE I I I ALWAYS SUPPORT CONTINGENCIES WHEN THERE'S PEOPLE AGAINST, UH, AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL. AND WE HAVE NINE MEMBERS ON THAT FACT ALONE. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT, BUT I'LL, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT, UH, THIS IS AN UPHILL BATTLE AND WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN YOUR DIRECT NEIGHBORS, IT'S A REALLY UPHILL BATTLE FOR ME PERSONALLY. JUST, SO, JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UH, WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR, UH, THE MOTION TO PASS WITH REGARDS TO CONTINUANCE? IS IT A MAJORITY OR? YEAH, IT'S A MAJORITY. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES, I APPROVE. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA? NO. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M GONNA VOTE YES. SO MOTION IS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 27TH. AND AS MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, USE THIS TIME, PLEASE GET WITH THE HOA GET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. YOU GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE YOU NEED TO MAKE HAPPY, EVEN WITH 11 PEOPLE ON THE BOARD. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE CONTINUANCE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER TWO WITH WAS WITHDRAWN DRAWN. BRINGING US TO ITEM NUMBER 3 7 7 [00:25:15] ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER THREE, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 1 98. THIS IS CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18TH, UH, ADDRESS BEING 10 10 STEVES AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE APPLICANT BEING LETICIA MARTINEZ PEREZ. AND THE REQUEST IS FOUR ONE A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK, A FRONT SETBACK TO A SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT SETBACK, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE TO REMAIN ONE INCH FROM THE EAST SIDE SETBACK, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN ONE INCH FROM THE EAST SIDE SETBACK OR WEST SIDE SETBACK. UM, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE REAR SETBACK. A 90 OR 49% IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW 99% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD. A 20% LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW 70% TOTAL COVERAGE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIDE AND REAR YARD. A 600 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 202,500 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA TO ALLOW A 3,100 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE, UH, IN THE SIDE. AND REAR YARD ZONING IS, UH, R FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, WEST OF INTERSTATE 37, APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET FROM SOUTH PRESTA STREET AND STEVE'S AVENUE INTERSECTION. ON JULY 31ST, 2023, CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS CONTACTED TO INVESTIGATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DUE TO A CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST INITIATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AUGUST 17TH, 2023. THE CHANGE OF ZONING ZONING REVIEW, AS WELL AS HISTORICAL VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY INDICATED THAT MULTIPLE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY SOMETIME AFTER MARCH OF 2019 WITHOUT OBTAINING PERMITS. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER INHERITED THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE IN 2022 AND IS REQUESTING MULTIPLE VARIANCES TO ALLOW A ATTACHED FRONT CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT SETBACK, A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN ONE INCH FROM THIS EAST SETBACK, SIX INCHES FROM THE WEST SETBACK, THREE FEET FROM THE REAR, A 70% TOTAL COVERAGE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIDE AND REAR YARD, AS WELL AS TO ALLOW THE, THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO MAINTAIN A THREE 3,100 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA. ADDITIONALLY, WHILE CONDUCTING A SITE VISIT, THE PROPERTY ON THE PROPERTY STAFF DEC CO DISCOVERED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE A 49% IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 99% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD. PERMITS ARE PENDING THE RESULT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS A SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY AERIAL VIEW, AND THEN HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY IN MARCH OF 2019. AND THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE. THIS IS THE EAST AND WEST SIDE REAR, UH, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA VARIANCES. AND THEN PREVIOUS COVER, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND SURROUNDING AREA, NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL [00:30:01] PROPERTY, NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK, IMPERVIOUS COVER LOT COVERAGE AND SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 98. UH, ONE REDUCED FRONT SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS WILL INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY CREATING AN UNSAFE AND DISPROPORTIONATE, UH, DISTANCE BETWEEN PROPERTIES. TWO, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF VARIANCE WOULD SEVERELY REDUCE THE PROPERTIES PERMITABLE SERVICE AREA, INCREASING A RISK OF EXCESS WATER RUNOFF ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND RIGHT AWAY. AND THREE, THE SIDE SIZE AND SETBACKS OF THE REAR AND SIDE YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH COMMERCIAL USES THAN RESIDENTIAL ONES. STAFF MAILED 26 NOTICES. THE APPLICANT DID BRING, UM, PHYSICAL COPIES OF, UM, IN FAVOR THAT WE CAN PROJECT AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE ROOSEVELT, UH, PARK. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS A LOT OF OVERHANGS AND SO WANTED TO GET SOME CLARITY ON, UM, UM, WHERE IT IS, UH, A POSTER SET VERSUS THE OVERHANG. AND SO WE HAVE A CANTILEVER FRONT POSITION HERE WITH A, WITH A TOP OVER THE FRONT OF IT. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S PERMITTED, UH, IN THAT TYPE OF SCENARIO. AND THEN THE SAME WITH IF THE CANTILEVER WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IF IT'S INSIDE OF THREE FEET, IT'S WHERE ANY OVERHANG ENDS, UM, WHICH IS THE FRONT PART YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S NO POSTS, UM, TOWARDS THE FRONT. BUT BECAUSE THE OVERHANG IS PAST THAT THREE FEET, THEN THAT'S WHERE WE MEASURE IT OFF. AND WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDE? SORRY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT, SO IF IT WAS FIVE FOOT, THEN IT WOULD BE PERMITTED, UM, ON THE FRONT, CORRECT. SO, CORRECT. YEAH. IF IT ENDED, IF IT ENDED AT THAT FIVE FOOT, YES, IT WOULD BE PERMITTED. AND THEN SAME QUESTION FOR THE SIDE. SO IF THE CANTILEVERED WAS ON THE SIDE WITH THE POLES BEING AGAINST THE HOUSE AND CANTILEVERED OVER TOWARDS THE, UH, REST OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED WITH REGARDS TO OVERHANG THERE? UM, SO AS LONG AS THE POST DOESN'T GO PAST THE FIVE FEET, UM, WELL ACTUALLY ON THE SIDE YEAH, THE FIVE FEET AND THEN THE OVERHANG CAN GO ANOTHER, UH, TWO FEET PAST THAT. SO IT'D BE SO, SO THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. UM, IF IT WAS CANTILEVERED AGAINST THE, UM, UH, WALL THERE OF THE HOUSE? THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND, AND, AND I NEED A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. SO THE, THE POSTS ARE AGAINST THE HOUSE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CANTILEVER PORTION IS ABOUT AN INCH AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE IT'S ALL CANTILEVER. COULD YOU COUNT THE WHOLE THING AS AN OVERHANG? SO IT COULD BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE BY RIGHT. UH, FOR THE FRONT, UM, THAT THE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S ALL OVERHANG, YES, AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THAT THREE FEET, UM, UH, IT CAN'T BE CLOSER TO THE THREE FEET, BUT THE OVERHANG ITSELF CANNOT BE MORE THAN FIVE FEET. UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WOULD STOP IT FROM BEING THAT FAR UP. UM, THE OVERHANG CAN GO AS MUCH AS FIVE FEET, BUT IT CANNOT BE WITHIN THREE FEET. UM, SO I GUESS I DIDN'T CLARIFY THAT PART. OKAY. SO, AND THEN I HAVE A A ON A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE FRONT. SO ON A HISTORICAL PHOTO, IT SHOWS A DRIVEWAY AND THEN A GRASS AREA WITH A LITTLE TREE. UM, THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE IS, IS WAS THAT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE 50% MAX COVER? OR, OR WAS IT ALWAYS IN VIOLATION OF THE 50%? I, I KNOW IT'S HARD TO, NO, IT APPEARS THAT IT IS ALWAYS BEEN IN VIOLATION, DEFINITELY. BUT IN 2019 IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THAT 50%. OKAY. I DIDN'T, AND WHEN YOU DO THAT CALCULATION, IS THE ACTUAL, UH, LE IS THE LEGAL DRIVEWAY EXCLUDED OR IS THAT PART OF THE 50%? THAT'S PART OF THE 50%. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER QUE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. OKAY. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO ALL THE IMPIOUS COVER. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. LETICIA MARTINEZ PEREZ. UM, I INHERITED THE PROPERTY IN 2022. THE, UH, PROJECTS THAT HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED WERE, UM, CONSTRUCTED BY MY LATE HUSBAND. AND, UM, AS I'M HERE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT, UM, I WAS HERE PREVIOUSLY AND, UM, [00:35:01] DID NOT HAVE THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT THAT, UM, WAS NEEDED. SO WHAT MY FAMILY AND I HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE GONE TO AND OUR NEIGHBORS AROUND THE AREA TO ALSO THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES TO SPEAK WITH THEM ABOUT THE STRUCTURES TO GET THEIR, UM, FEEDBACK ON THEIR OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT ON IT. AND, UM, WE HAD ALL 27 NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. UM, THEY ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT IT BROUGHT A NICE LOOK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL IN THE PICTURES, BUT THE LIQUOR STORE THAT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN AND ABANDONED IS NORMALLY, UM, FILLED WITH HOME, UH, HOMELESS POPULATION. AND THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF DRUG USE, THERE'S A LOT OF, AND SO WE'RE, WE'VE CONSTANTLY BEEN CALLING THE, WE DO CALL THE AUTHORITIES QUITE A BIT, THE POLICE TO COME IN AND CLEAR IT OUT. THEY DO TRY TO, THEY HAVE TRIED TO, UM, GET INTO OUR HOUSE WHILE WE'RE IN THERE. UM, AND THEN ALSO IN THE BACK, THE BACK, WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THAT CARPORT IS WE'VE HAD IT VERY WELL LIT BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, UM, WHENEVER IT'S NOT AS LIT, THEY JUMP OVER THE FENCE AND THEN THEY, THEY GO IN TO THAT BACK STORAGE ROOM AREA AND THEY PRETTY MUCH, UM, START TO HANG OUT THERE AND BRING STUFF WITH THEM. UM, SO HAVING THESE STRUCTURES, I WANT, I WANNA GO BACK AND SAY WHEN THE HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT, UM, MY FATHER IN 1998 FILLED THE, FILLED THE WHOLE AREA WITH CONCRETE. ALL OF THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. UM, HIS REASON FOR DOING THAT WAS BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN WERE YOUNG AND THERE'S NOT REALLY ANYWHERE FOR THEM TO RIDE BIKES. AND, UM, HE WANTED THE WHOLE AREA FILLED WITH CONCRETE. AND SO THAT, THAT HE DID, UM, THE FRONT AND THE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THAT WASN'T THERE. THAT WAS THE GRASS AREA THAT WAS THERE. UM, AND LIKE I SAID, I HAD, I KNOWN I WOULD'VE STOPPED IT TO MAKE, TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THE CORRECT, UM, PERMITS IN PLACE TO GET THAT DONE AND, AND SEEK APPROVAL BEFORE THAT. BUT AS FAR AS ALL OF THE CONCRETE, AND THERE HAD ALWAYS BEEN A CARPORT IN THE BACK, UM, NOT AS, NOT AS HIGH. THAT WAS ALSO DONE WITH THE FRONT CARPORT AS WELL. UH, MY FATHER, MY FATHER, MY MOM, AND MY SISTER AND I, WE ALL LIVED AT THAT HOUSE. AND SO, UH, WE NORMALLY USED THE BACK FOR PARKING AND THEN ALSO THE FRONT, UH, WE NEVER PARKED ON THE SIDE DRIVEWAY. MY FATHER WAS ALWAYS, ONE OF THE REASONS WAS BECAUSE HE ALWAYS SAID IF THERE WAS ANYTHING GOING ON IN THE BACK IN EMERGENCY OF FIRE, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT PASSAGE CLEARED. SO WE GREW UP JUST DON'T PARK ON THE SIDE. AND, UM, I MEAN, I THINKING BACK NOW, MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE SILLY, BUT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THAT'S BEEN OUR FRAME OF MIND OF THINKING. AND SO, UM, I'M HERE SEEKING, YOU KNOW, TO, FOR THIS VARIANCE SO THAT I CAN KEEP THAT STRUCTURE, THOSE STRUCTURES IN PLACE. I DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET TO GET IT TORN DOWN. UM, IF I HAVE TO DO THAT, I UNDERSTAND IF I DO. BUT, UM, I'M JUST REALLY JUST ASKING IF I COULD, UM, DEFINITELY KEEP IT. I'LL DO WHATEVER ELSE I NEED TO DO TO, UM, TRY TO KEEP IT IN PLACE. BUT BASICALLY, I GUESS THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. WELL, ONE, ONE QUESTION I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO, TO CLARIFY. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE CONCRETE IN THE BACK WAS THERE AS FAR BACK AS 1988. 98 98. MM-HMM . OKAY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHICH OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE, LET'S SAY MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD? OR, OR, I KNOW THE CARPORT ISN'T, BUT, UM, WELL THE, THE ONE, THE CANTILEVERED ONE IS NOT IN THE FRONT CORRECT. BUT, BUT WHAT, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE, IN THAT REAR YARD THAT HAS BEEN THERE A SUBSTANTIALLY LONG TIME? OTHER THAN THE CONCRETE COVER? THE, SO THE CARPORT WAS THERE, THE POST AND ALL OF THAT FOR THE CARPORT THAT THE CARPORT COVERING WAS THERE, IT WAS EXTENDED. IT WAS EXTENDED ALL THE WAY TO THE, TO THE EDGE. ABOUT ABOUT HOW MUCH, HOW, HOW, LIKE FIVE FEET, 10 FEET. THE, UM, IT WAS EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. TO GO TO THE REAR LIKE THAT. UH, NOT, UM, I'M SORRY, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND THE, AND THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, DID YOU HAVE ROSE, UH, THE, THE ROOSEVELT NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION'S APPROVAL? OR IS THAT PART OF, THAT'S NEW IN THAT SINCE THE LAST TIME THEY CALLED AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL AND THEN WE MET WITH THEM AGAIN LAST WEEK. OKAY. AND, UM, THEY WERE HAVING A, A BOARD MEETING AND WE MET WITH THE, UM, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WERE ALSO AT THE BOARD MEETING AND SPOKE WITH THEM AND THEY WERE ALSO IN SUPPORT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES. THE ONLY THING I DON'T SEE IN, MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE, THE PICTURES ARE COMING OUT, DOES IT HAVE, UH, GUTTERS ANYWHERE AROUND THERE? 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE 'EM. NO. UM, NO, BUT I AM GOING TO GET THOSE IN, PUT IN. ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION AT THE PODIUM TO INCLUDE GUTTERS AT YOUR CARPORT? I'M SORRY? ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE, UH, I DON'T REAR YARD CARPORT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I AM. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WRITE IT OUT, YOU JUST SAY YES. OH. OH, [00:40:01] OKAY. YES, I AM. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED THEIR, UH, APPLICATION SO THAT THE REAR, UH, CARPORT IN THE REAR YARD WILL INCLUDE GUTTERS. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, ONE MORE? YES. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES MA'AM. UM, BY CHANCE, IS THE CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOME OR IS IT JUST ONE OR TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE, FROM THE ROOF OF THE HOME? IT'S AWAY. IT'S NOT ATTACHED. NEITHER ONE IS ATTACHED. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. JUST IN THE PICTURES, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, SO I DON'T WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? SO THE QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, UH, YEAH. SO, SO, UH, THIS IS A VERY LARGE CONCRETE, UM, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I MEAN, THIS SEEMS LIKE A REALLY BIG ONE-OFF AND JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IS IT MORE COMMON THAN I'M AWARE OF? UM, OR IS THIS REALLY, YOU KNOW, AN ANOMALY HERE? YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT OR THE REAR? I'M TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF IT. I MEAN, ALMOST, ALMOST A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THIS PROPERTY IS CONCRETE. AND SO I I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT MANY, YOU KNOW, HERE AT THE BOARD WITH THAT. AND SO JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, HOW, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL'S KNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A REALLY BIG ANOMALY OR, OR WHAT? I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE MANY PROPERTIES THIS WAY, BUT THEY DO EXIST OUT THERE. AND TO DETERMINE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO GET WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OR, AND THE THING IS, IS THAT SINCE THEY, A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN THIS WAY, UM, THEY MAY HAVE PREDATED CODE OR THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT AND THEN ARE NOW NONCONFORMING AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD GO BACK AND MAKE THEM DO. SO IT, IT'S KIND OF A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S, I MEAN, THE CITY'S 3 MILLION PEOPLE , I, UH, WITH A LOT OF PROPERTY, I WOULD SAY MAYBE 5% IF I WERE GUESSING. SO. AND ON THAT POINT, UM, SO SHE HAD MENTIONED 1998 FOR THE CONCRETE COVER IS, IS IT PRE 2001 WHERE Y'ALL DON'T REALLY MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT? THAT THERE, WHAT'S, WHAT IS THE YEAR THAT, IS IT THE MAY, 2001 UDC? IT'S THE, USUALLY THE FOR ZONING? YEAH, WE DO THE UDC, BUT, UM, MERCK WAS GONNA DOUBLE CHECK THE DATE REAL QUICK JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE SAME FOR BOA. AND, AND CAN STAFF SPEAK ON, UH, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY SOMETHING WAS IMPERVIOUS BACK IN 1998. IS IS OUT OF THESE SEVEN ITEMS, UM, I ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE FRONT CANOPY AND THE 50% FRONT OF THE COVER, BUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE REAR YARD, THAT'S AN INCREASE TO IMPERVIOUS COVER. UH, UH, JUST TO, TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION. SO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE PUT ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE REAR OR SIDE IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE'RE TALKING, UH, FOR THE REAR AND SIDE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE NO, I MEAN, BUT, BUT IF SOMEBODY PUTS A CARPORT OVER SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY CONCRETE, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. IS THERE, IS THERE ANY FURTHER REDUCTION IN, IN AN AND WHAT WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM THE SKY KIND OF THING, WHETHER IT BE CONCRETE OR, OR COVER OR BUILDING OR WHATEVER? NO, I MEAN, TO MARCO'S POINT, IT IT'S, WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING THE FRONT AND THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS, WELL, I'M NOT, NOT, NOT A PERCENTAGE THING, BUT, BUT IF I HAVE, IF I HAVE A LARGE CONCRETE SLAB IN MY BACKYARD AND THEN I PUT A COVER ON TOP OF IT, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. THERE'S, THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN, IN, IN GRASS AREA WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT. THAT'S, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE, IN THE OVER ALL CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. CORRECT? YOU'RE CORRECT. YEAH. SO WHAT, SO OUT OF THESE SEVEN ITEMS, SO LET'S LOOK AT THE FIRST, THE FIRST ONE IS IN THE FRONT, SO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE. ITEM NUMBER TWO OF A FOUR 11 VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE TO ALLOW AN EXCESSIVE STRUCTURE FROM THE EAST SIDE SETBACK. IS THAT IN THE FRONT OR THE REAR YARD? , MELANIE, YOU CAN ANSWER THAT. YEAH. YES. I THINK IT'S THE REAR. WHICH ONE? OKAY. AND AND IS THAT, IS THAT COVER, WAS IT COVERING THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY CONCRETE? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S THE REAR, UM, CARPORT. YEAH. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A 20% LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. IS THAT, IS THAT SOLELY DUE TO WHAT THEY DID IN THE FRONT YARD OR DID THEY, DID THEY INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF THE REAR YARD TO HIT THAT 70%? I BELIEVE THAT'S STILL THE REAR STRUCTURE. THE [00:45:01] REAR STRUCTURE EXCEED, CONTRIBUTED TO THAT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. MANNA. SO I GUESS MAYBE JUST FOLLOW UP ON YOUR QUESTION. SO IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COVERAGE VERSUS IMPERVIOUS COVER? AND SO, 'CAUSE 'CAUSE I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, I I, I HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A HOME ON IT AND CAN I COMPLETELY COVER THE ENTIRE YARD WITH A CANOPY? UH, EXCEPT, AND, AND IF I WAS WITHIN, UH, THE, THE SETBACKS BE PERMITTED AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER CAVEAT TO IT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION FOR THE FRONT YARD. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT, THAT I'M TRYING TO VIEW AS A, AS A TRUE INCREASE. SO LIKE THE FRONT CANOPY AND THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE FROM THE, FROM THE PHOTO, THE STREET, GOOGLE STREET REVIEW PHOTO IS A COMPLETE INCREASE, BUT IF THE REAR YARD WAS COMPLETELY COVERED WITH CONCRETE AND THEY'RE JUST PUTTING A COVER OVER THAT CONCRETE THAT I, I DON'T PUT AS MUCH WEIGHT ON THAT AS I, AS I DO IN THE FRONT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. AND UH, PRIOR TO 2001, I'M, I'M NOT FINDING THE SAME, UH, 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARD THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, TODAY. OKAY. AND JUST ADDITIONALLY WITH THE, UM, THE SUPPORT LETTERS, WE DID FIND THREE THAT ARE WITHIN 200 FEET. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UM, HEARING NONE, UM, IS THERE ANYBODY TIME TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? UH, THERE'S NO VOICEMAILS. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE THREE I MET WAS FROM THE APPLICANT THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF HER REQUEST. OKAY. AS LONG AS SHE GAVE US. ALL RIGHT. WELL, UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO A, TO A MOTION. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD? I YOU STATE YOUR NAME. YEP. SARAH MARTINEZ TENTEN. STEVES, UH, JUST WANNA SAY WHEN I WAS GETTING THE SIGNATURES, I WAS IMPRESSED WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY WERE JUST LIKE, ABOUT THE CARPORT. THEY WERE JUST VERY LIKE, WOW, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CARPORT. THERE'S NOTHING, THEY JUST DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT. OKAY. AND, UM, THEY WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE. THEY WERE. AND THEN, AND THEN LASTLY WITH SEVEN THINGS, SOMETIMES UH, THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WHO MAY OR MAY NOT LIKE ONE OR TWO THINGS. RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ON THIS LIST, UH, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ALTER OR POSSIBLY BE OPEN TO REMOVING IN THE HOPES OF, OF PROVIDING SWAY TO SOMEBODY? I DUNNO WHETHER IT BE SOMETHING NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF AT THE MOMENT. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UM, CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? SURE. UM, THERE IS A FIRE DEPARTMENT ACROSS FROM THE OLD LIQUOR STORE AND WE DID GO TO THE FIRE TO THE FIREFIGHTERS AND SPEAK WITH THEM AS WELL. AND UM, THEY WERE COM ALSO, YOU KNOW, THEY LOVED IN FULL SUPPORT. THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T PROVIDE ANY SIGNATURES BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS LEGAL TO, FOR THEM TO PROVIDE ANYTHING, BUT THAT IF YOU GUYS NEEDED THEM TO PROVIDE ANYTHING, THAT THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHOW THEIR SUPPORT. JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT ALL. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND IF ANYBODY, ANY COMMISSIONER FEELS, UH, THAT THEY MAYBE WANT TO BREAK SOME OF THIS UP? YEAH, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. EITHER FIVE AND SIX. OKAY. IF, UH, SO QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF ITEM NUMBER SIX WAS NOT READ IN, WHAT SORT OF A, A DOMINO EFFECT DOES THAT HAVE ON THE OTHER ITEMS, IF ANY? SO ITEM NUMBER SIX AND ITEM NUMBER SEVEN KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU APPROVE ONE, THEN THERE'S STILL IN VIOLATION OF THE OTHER. UM, BECAUSE IT'S, IT HAS THE, UH, IT, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SATURN REAR YARD. SO IF YOU APPROVE SIX OR SEVEN BUT DON'T APPROVE THE OTHER, TECHNICALLY IT KIND OF VOIDS IT OUT. IF ONE THROUGH FOUR GET APPROVED, BUT FIVE THROUGH SEVEN DO NOT, IS THAT GONNA, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS ONE THROUGH FOUR? SO ONE THROUGH FOUR? UM, NOTHING, NOTHING ELSE WOULD BE AFFECTED. UM, IF YOU APPROVE ONE THROUGH FOUR, I'M SORRY, WAS THAT THE QUESTION? IF ONE THROUGH FOUR GET, UH, APPROVED? YEAH, SO, SO IF FIVE DOESN'T GET APPROVED, THE FACT THAT THERE'S A CANOPY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S IRRELEVANT. 'CAUSE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ON THE GROUND, NOT IN THE AIR, CORRECT. BUT SIX IS FOR THE, THE, THE SIDE AND REAR YARD, NOT THE FRONT. NO, TOTAL SIX. SO, SO NUMBER SIX, OVERALL COVERAGE [00:50:01] OF THE LOT. UM, AND THEN THE FRONT SETBACK. OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT'S TECHNICALLY IF YOU APPROVE ONE OF 'EM AND SHE DOES HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO RECONFIGURE THE CARPORT, UM, AT THAT TIME. OKAY. SO LET'S HAVE A COMMISSIONER TAKE A STAB AT THIS PLEASE. SO IF YOU DO ONE THROUGH FOUR, THAT'S CLEAR, DOESN'T AFFECT FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN, RIGHT? YOU DO ONE THROUGH FOUR AND FIVE. WELL, WHAT YOU COULD, WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS WE COULD, WE COULD DO ONE THROUGH FOUR AND THEN MAKE SIX AT 10% OR SOMETHING AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP MANA COMMISSIONER MANA. SO THIS ALSO COULD BE READ AS TWO MOTIONS, RIGHT? SO, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND I'M GONNA READ ONE THROUGH FOUR, UM, AS IT IS. UM, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 8, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE FRONT SETBACK. TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN ONE INCH FROM THE EAST SIDE SETBACK. THREE, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN SIX INCHES FROM THE WEST SIDE SETBACK. AND FOUR, A TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE REAR SETBACK, UH, WITH APPROPRIATE GUTTERS AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, LET'S SEE, UH, SITUATED AT 10 10 STEVE'S AVENUE APPLICANT BEING LETICIA MARTINEZ PEREZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACT TO THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDCS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS ADEQUATE SPACE PROVIDES A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF FIRE SAFETY, WATER RUNOFF DRAINAGE AND SAFE ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY ONTO THE ROADWAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP AS FRONT CARPORT, REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND PREVIOUS COVER WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED OR RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE UDC REQUIREMENTS AND ENHANCE SAFETY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND TENANTS. UM, THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES APPEAR TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADEQUATE SPACE REMAINS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF DRAINAGE FOR THE VARIANCE NOT AUTHORIZED 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 JANE SIG PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENTS PROPERTIES AS A SETBACKS PROVIDE A SAFE DISTANCE AND WATER RUNOFF FOR THE PROPERTY WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THIS PROPERTY, WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PROVIDE PRIVACY, PROTECTION AND SAFETY FOR, UH, PROPERTY AND TENANTS. AND A MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO, SO I THINK LEAVING OFF, UH, THE, THE BACK THREE, UM, MOTIONS, UH, MAKES THIS A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR ME TO PROVE THIS ONE. UM, I THINK THAT THE MATERIALS USED ALSO ARE, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY FIRE RATED. UM, AND SO, SO, SO THAT'S NOT REALLY A CONCERN AND I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION, IF THERE IS ONE, UM, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS FOR THE APPLICANT TO HAVE PLENTY OF COVERAGE, UM, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GONNA ADD, UH, GUTTERS, UM, ALSO MAKES ME WANT TO SUPPORT IT AS WELL. ALRIGHT, HAS ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MANAM? ONE MORE. AND ALSO THE, THEY DID HAVE A LOT OF APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATION. SO, UM, ANYWAYS, ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BECKMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER BONNI. [00:55:02] I CONCUR CHAIR OR, AND I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, SO MOTION PASSES FOR ITEMS ONE THROUGH FOUR, UH, FOR ITEMS FIVE THROUGH SEVEN. UH, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? I, I PERSONALLY, UM, DON'T MIND ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BUT HAVING IT BE REDUCED, I JUST, IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO HAVE A CARPORT AND OVER GRASS. I MEAN, EVEN IF WE MET 'EM HALFWAY, IF, IF ANYBODY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SUCH A THING. WELL, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND READ ONE JUST TO SEE HOW IT GOES. OKAY. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH OH 3 0 1 98, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF JUDGMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A, UH, 24 AND A HALF PERCENT, 24 20 5% VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW 75% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. UM, SITUATED AT 10 10 STEVE'S AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING LETICIA, UH, MARTINEZ PEREZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CON, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS ADEQUATE SPACES PROVIDED A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RUN, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES, UH, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A FRONT CARPORT. UM, YOU KNOW, NOT COVERING, UH, A STRUCTURE A VEHICLE COULD PARK ON, UH, UH, WOULD, WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THIS APPLICANT. 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 ORDINANCES. ADEQUATE SPACE REMAINS FOR THE PURPOSES OF, UH, WATER RUNOFF DRAINAGE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCES LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE ENOUGH SUBSTANTIALLY NEW TO THE APPROPRIATE USE OF AJO AND CONFORMING PROPERTY, OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS, AS, AS THE, UH, SLIGHT RED, THE SLIGHT INCREASE IN, IN, IN THE FRONT YARD. IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR VARIANCE SOCIETALS 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, NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AS THE, UH, SLIGHT INCREASE IN, IN IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD AND IS NOT A SAFETY CONCERN FOR THE PROPERTY AND TENANTS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. I HAD A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, I I READ THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THIS NICE CARPORT AND NOWHERE TO PARK UNDER IT IF YOU DON'T GIVE HIM SOMETHING. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE HIM ENOUGH FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO PARKING SPACES, SO I JUST CUT IT IN HALF. SO WE'LL JUST, I JUST WANNA SEE HOW THAT WOULD TURN OUT. UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK, HOW DO YOU ENVISION REMOVING 25% OF THE, UH, CONCRETE IN FRONT? UM, I, WELL RIGHT NOW THEY'D HAVE TO REMOVE, UM, EVERYTHING UNDER THE CARPORT THAT THEY ADDED. UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, I JUST, THAT'S THE POINT OF THE CARPORT. YOU'RE JUST COVERING GRASS AND THAT DOESN'T HELP IT GROW IN ANY WAY. RIGHT. YEAH. SO I, I SEE A, A BLACK TRUCK AND A WHITE VAN ON THE HISTORIC STREET VIEW AND MY ATTEMPT WAS TO MAKE IT TO WHERE ONE CAR COULD BE THERE AND NOT THE OTHER. THAT, THAT'S ALL I WAS SHOOTING FOR. SO DOES THAT AFFECT NUMBER SIX, THAT AS WELL, UM, STAFF? UH, DOES NUMBER SIX HAVE TO BE AUGMENTED AS WELL FOR THIS TO EVEN WORK? NUMBER SIX, UM, IS DIFFERENT FROM NUMBER FIVE. IT'S THE NUMBER FIVE IS ONLY WITH THE, UH, FRONT YARD NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN SIDE REAR. IT WAS FOR THE SIDE REAR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTARY? UH, NO, I, I AGREE THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE IN FRONT IS APPROPRIATE. SO I THINK THOSE NUMBERS WORK FOR ME. OKAY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE AND SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT, MAN. OH BY THE WAY, MANNA. YEAH. SO THEN AS A NOTE, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER. UM, SO THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT ARE CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, THAT CAN BE PLACED IN THIS AREA SO THAT IT'S NOT PURE CONCRETE IF IT SHOULD GO THE ONE WAY. AND SO, [01:00:01] UM, YOU KNOW, PAVERS AND ALL KIND OF NICE SOLUTIONS, GRAVE GRAVEL. SO YES. OKAY. CHAIR IAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BEDA? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION FAILED, UH, EIGHT TO ONE. UH, BUT SHE, OH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. IS THERE, IS THERE A POSITION THAT, UH, OF ANY LENIENCY ON THAT OR, WELL, I WOULD SAY IF IT, UM, HAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT I'M NOT SURE OF IF THAT CAN EVEN BE ACCOMPLISHED UNLESS WE GO AHEAD AND SAY, LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS OR THE WAY YOU READ THE MOTION. WELL, SO, SO BEFORE I FINISH READING THE RESULTS, THE REASON WHY I, I FELT THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE, IT'S NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S TWO CARS I'M TRYING TO PAVE IF THE HISTORICAL PHOTO SHOWS MORE THAN 50% OF THE FRONT YARD, BECAUSE ALL THE DRIVEWAYS COUNT, AND AT A MINIMUM, I JUST SHOT A NUMBER, 75% BECAUSE I WAS AT A MINIMUM AT ATTEMPTING TO TRY TO GET IT TO, TO BE WHAT IT HISTORICALLY WAS. WHETHER IT, IT ALLOWS THEM TO, TO ADD ANOTHER CAR, THEN THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IT MAY NOT. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO UP TO 99%, SO SHE WAS ABLE TO SEE THE MARCH. HAVE YOU SEEN THE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU SEE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN OF WHAT I WAS SHOOTING FOR THERE? NO, SIR. MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER. SO, UM, SO MAYBE CITY STAFF CAN BRING THAT, OH, THERE IS A PICTURE UP THERE ON SCREEN. AND SO ONE QUESTION IS, CAN THE MOTION BE READ SO THAT IT'S, UH, THE ADDITION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE LAST, THE LAST PIECE OF CONCRETE, CAN, IT MATCHED HISTORICALLY WHAT IT WAS VERSUS TRYING TO GIVE A PERCENTAGE, UH, WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE IS. AND SO IS THAT A, IS THAT AN OPTION FOR US STAFF? RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS, TO JUST MAKE IT GO BACK TO WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS, THE, THE SITE CONDITIONS FROM 2019, THE SURVEY SHOWS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO BE 55 FEET WIDE. IF YOU, IF YOU TAKE AWAY 18 FEET FOR TWO CARS, UM, OR NOT EVEN THAT IS 16 FEET. SO IF I, IF I DO, UH, 16 DIVIDED BY 55, IT COMES OUT TO 70%. I WAS, I WAS DOING 75 JUST AS A GUESS. SO COMMISSIONER CRUZ, SO WHAT I WAS SHOOTING FOR IS, IS AT LEAST THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO HAVE WHAT THEY ALWAYS HAD. CAN YOU SEE THE PICTURE FROM WHAT THEY HAD, WHAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY IS WHAT HE MEANS, MA'AM? YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM. I, I SEE IT. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CHANGE MY VOTE TO, YES. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION PASSES, UH, NINE TO ZERO. NOW WHAT THAT MEANS IS, UH, YOU'LL NEED TO GET WITH STAFF AND TALK TO 'EM ABOUT IT, BUT YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, YOU MAY HAVE TO REDUCE THAT BACK TO WHAT IT USED TO BE, AND THEN EITHER USE PAVERS OR GRAVEL OR SOME OTHER MEANS. OKAY. BUT STAFF CAN HELP, UH, TALK YOU THROUGH THAT. OKAY? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, WE HAVE ITEM FOUR AND ITEM NINE ARE BOTH REQUESTING CONTINUANCES TO JANUARY 6TH. UH, IF, UH, IF THIS, IF THAT'S NOT OF ISSUE TO ANY COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO READ THOSE BOTH IN AND LOOK FOR A MOTION ON THAT AND NO PUBLIC COMMENT FROM EITHER ONE. OKAY. SO I'LL READ THOSE, UH, IN REAL QUICK. UM, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 186. REQUEST BY CAR DEVELOPERS DEVELOPMENTS LLC FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON RM FOUR, THAT'S LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, LOCATED AT 1410 MONTANA STAFF, RECOMMENDED DENIAL. AND ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO O 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 23. REQUEST BY JANELLE CHASE FOR A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, [01:05:01] AND 80 17 FOOT REAR SETBACK. VARIANCE OUT FOR THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT REAR SETBACK LOCATED AT 2127 WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE SIDE SETBACK DENIAL ON THE REAR SETBACK. ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH, BRAGMAN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SECOND. I'M GONNA GIVE THAT ONE TO CRUZ. WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. ALL, LET'S HAVE A, UH, UH, VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH. UH, WHAT ITEM? NINE I ALL RIGHT. DID WE DO BOTH OR JUST ONE? JUST ONE. JUST ONE. OKAY. YEP. DID Y'ALL NEED ME TO READ THE NUMBER NINE AGAIN? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 23. REQUEST BY JANELLE CHASE FOR TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND A 17 FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANT FOR THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT REAR SETBACK LOCATED AT 2127 WEST WOODLAWN AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE SIDE SETBACK AND DENIAL FOR THE REAR SETBACK. ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH, UND SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. CASES CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH. WE ARE BACK ON FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 5. ADDRESS IS 5 3 3 1 LOCK HILL ROAD COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. APPLICANT IS NANCY CADE. REQUEST A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ON THE FRONT YARD. AND TWO, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ON THE SIDE. AND REAR YARD ZONING IS RE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG LOCK HILL ROAD, NORTH OF EBNER ROAD, LOCATED WITHIN THE OAK LAND ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT RECORD A FENCE WITHOUT PERMIT AT 10 FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT STATED A DESIRE TO PREVENT DEER FROM ENTERING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE UNDER SECTION 35 5 14 B TWO, THE LOT IS PERMITTED, SIX FOOT IN THE FRONT AS A LARGE LOT AND EIGHT FOOT IN THE SIDE AND REAR WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE SWIMMING POOL. THIS IS YOUR SITE PLAN AND, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOW THE FENCE, HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FIN HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL MBO 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 5. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING LARGE LOTS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED ON ENHANCED SIX FOOT HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD, AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET TO THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS IS PERMITTED FOR A SWIMMING POOL. AND THREE TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT ON WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. NOTIFICATION PLAN STAFF MAILED OUT EIGHT NOTICES. THREE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND OAKLAND ESTATE'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS NO OBJECTION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAIL. OH, I APOLOGIZE HERE. OKAY. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, UM, SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US, UH, THERE, I, I RECALL THERE BEING SOME OPPOSITION. HAS THAT ALL BEEN CHANGED? NO, SIR. EVERYTHING STAYED THE SAME. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL. NO, BUT I WILL VERIFY WHAT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN OPPOSITION. NOW THEY, THEY'RE IN FAVOR. OKAY. YEAH. NOT OPPOSED, NOT OPPOSED. AND THEN, UH, SECONDLY THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN FAVOR. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN WE ALSO HEARD THAT, UH, THE SECOND ITEM REGARDING THE SIDE AND REAR YARD WAS UNNECESSARY [01:10:01] BECAUSE THE FENCE WAS ACTUALLY WITHIN SIX INCHES OF THE EIGHT FOOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE SWIMMING POOL. IS THAT STILL THE CASE? I BELIEVE SO. YEAH. SO THE HIGHEST POINT WE FOUND, UM, LOOKING THROUGH THE PICTURES ON THE SIDE OF REAR IS EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES. UM, AGAIN, THAT CAN BE FIXED BY ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, BUT THE WAY THE VER THE, UH, FENCES ARE MEASURED, IT'S THE VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM THE LOWEST GREATER GROUND, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OPEN AREA IN THE BOTTOM. OKAY. SO EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES IS ACTUALLY WHAT SHE NEEDS. UM, SHE WOULD AVOID HAVING TO PAY AGAIN FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IF IT GETS APPROVED TO EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES ON THE SIDE OF THE RIB. AND, AND SO IS THAT THE SAME FOR THE FRONT EIGHT FOOT SIX? BECAUSE ONE OF THE DIMENSIONS THAT, THAT, THAT FLASHED WAS 102 INCHES, WHICH IS LIKE 8, 8 6. UH, I DON'T BELIEVE SHE HAS THAT ISSUE IN THE FRONT. I THINK IT'S JUST MORE IN THE REAR WHERE THEY HAD THAT KIND OF OPEN AREAS ON THE BOTTOM, UH, FLUCTUATING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, SO, UH, EXPLAIN WHAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED. I'M SORRY. YEAH, SO WHAT I, SO THEY CAN, THE STAFF CAN ISSUE AN, UH, SIX UP TO SIX INCH ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE REAR FENCE, OR WE COULD GRANT A SIX INCH VARIANCE AND MAKE IT EIGHT AND A HALF NOW, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE ACTION, UH, ON THE FRONT YARD. THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE FENCE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10 FEET. BUT I RECALL HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THE INTENT WAS TO BE FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND IF THERE WAS ANY DEVIATIONS IN THE GROUND THAT CAUSED IT TO BE HIGHER, THAT WAS REALLY THE REASON. I JUST DON'T, I JUST DON'T RECALL IT BEING 10 FEET, THAT'S ALL. BUT WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. CORRECT? WE'RE IT IS EIGHT FEET IN THE FRONT. EIGHT FEET IN THE FRONT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT SHE'S, I SAID THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD 10 AND IT'S EIGHT AND A HALF THAT THE, YEAH, THAT'S INCORRECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M NANCY CADE. I'M AT 5 3 3 1 LOCK HILL ROAD. UM, AFTER DECEMBER 2ND, I WENT TO THE BOARD, THE, UM, HOMEOWNERS MEETING ON DECEMBER 5TH. AND THEY, UM, THE, AND PRESENTED THAT I HAD BUILT A, UH, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. IT IS TWO PANELS OF FOUR FEET AND WITH THE BEAM ACROSS AND THE BEAM ACROSS THE BOTTOM AS WELL. AND THERE IS VERY SLIGHT VARIANCE IN THE BOTTOM, UH, WHERE THE, THERE WERE SOME OLD HOLES, BUT IT'S ALSO VARIES A LITTLE BIT. AS YOU CAN SEE, I'LL HAVE, I'LL BE PUTTING ROCKS ACROSS THERE TO KEEP THE FURTHER WASHING AND TO KEEP THE LITTLE DOG IN. UH, THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS JUST, UM, ASSOCIATION HEARD WHAT I'D BUILT MANY OF WHOM HAD SEEN. AND, UH, THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPROVED, UH, THAT THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO THE FENCE. IT WAS PRI THE PRIMARY DISCUSSION AROUND WAS AROUND MY SAFETY, UH, FOR THE DEER COME FROM ACROSS THE STREET, OVER THAT DIRECT TOWARDS MY HOUSE. UM, AND I, THE, MY HOUSE IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY WOODS. SO THERE ARE AT LEAST NINE BUCK, UM, THAT I'VE PHOTOGRAPHED IN THE BACK. SO, UM, ABOUT 75% OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE IN ATTENDANCE VOTED FOR, UM, TO LEAVE THE FENCE AS IS. I WENT SPENT, UM, THE DAY, THE, UH, A DAY PRIOR TO THAT COL UH, ASKING NEIGHBORS, UH, WHAT THEY THOUGHT, UM, HAD THEY SEEN MY FENCE AND WERE THEY OPPOSED TO MY FENCE. AND I HAVE 13 PHYSICAL SIGNATURES AND SEVERAL EMAILS, UM, SOME OF WHICH ARE EMAILS TO ME WHEN THEY WEREN'T AT HOME, BUT THEY TOOK THE TIME THAT EVENING TO, UH, REPLY. UM, UM, IT'S, THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE FENCE IS TO KEEP THE DEER OUT, TO KEEP ME, MY GRANDCHILDREN, MY DOGS, AND MY PLANTING SAFE. AND, AND WE HEARD THAT, UH, SO YOU HAVE AT SOME POINT UP TO EIGHT AND A HALF, DEPENDING ON THE, THE GROUND OPENINGS AND IN THE FRONT, IS THAT THE SAME CASE? YOUR INTENT WAS TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE? BUT IT MEASURES UP TO EIGHT AND A HALF INCHES, DEPEND EIGHT AND A HALF FEET, DEPENDING ON HOW THE GROUND IS DEVIATING. I WALK IT, IT'S ALONG THE FRONT AND WHERE THE OLD POSTS WERE IS THE ONLY PLACE I COULD FIND THAT IT GOT TO EIGHT AND A HALF FEET. OKAY. AND THAT'S, UH, IN FACT, ONE OF THE POSTS IS THE, UH, GATE POST, UH, WHERE THERE'S A, A DIP AND THEN THE REST ALONG THE WAY. I, IT IS IT FROM THE GROUND UP THERE ARE LIKE THREE OR FOUR INCHES IN CERTAIN PLACES. ALRIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THERE ANY ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK OF VOICEMAILS? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. [01:15:01] ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S LOOK, LET'S SEE. LOOK FOR A MOTION, UH, KNOWING THAT IN THE, IN THE REAR STAFF MEASURED, UH, AT A COUPLE PLACES, A EIGHT AND A HALF, AND IN THE FRONT THE APPLICANT IS, IS SAYING, UH, EIGHT FOOT THREE INCHES EXCUSE. AND I'M NOT APPLYING FOR ANY CHANGES ALONG THE SIDE NOR THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY. THAT NUMBER TWO WAS TO BE STRUCK. YEAH. OKAY. SO WHAT, SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UH, SO NUMBER TWO, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE INTENT WAS TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. OKAY. BUT STAFF JUST MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A FEW PLACES THAT GOT SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THAT. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PUT IT IN WRITING THAT, THAT'S OKAY. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT RIGHT NOW FOR THE SIDES IN THE REAR. YES. I DON'T BETTER SAFE THAN SIDE. I DON'T WANNA RISK THE FRONT . I HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER SPENDING THE MONEY TO BUILD EIGHT FOOT FENCES AROUND IT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. YEAH. WELL, I COULD SUPPORT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN FRONT, BUT I REALLY CAN'T SEE MY WAY TO SUPPORTING 10 FEET ANYWHERE. NO, SHE DOESN'T. YEAH, NO, SHE'S, SHE'S ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE REAR 'CAUSE OF THE SWIMMING POOL. YEAH. BUT, BUT STAFF SAID THEY MEASURED A COUPLE PLACES THAT GOT UP TO EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES. SO, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING HER GO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, WE CAN FIX IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION. WELL, YOU KNOW, CRUZ. OH, IT'S A, IT'S A FIGHT NOW. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY, I THEN, I'M, NOW I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED. OKAY. THE EIGHT AND A HALF, I KNOW IT'S FOR SIDE AND BACK AND REAR, BUT I THOUGHT THE FRONT FENCE WAS, WAS MEASURED AT 10 FEET. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. NO, AND I THINK THAT RIGHT THERE, ALL OF THE FENCING THAT WAS INSTALLED WAS INTENDED TO BE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE STAFF MEASURED A HANDFUL OF PLACES IN THE REAR YARD THAT WERE UP TO EIGHT AND A HALF IN THE FRONT YARD. THE APPLICANT IS SAYING SHE HAS A FEW PLACES THAT GET UP TO EIGHT THREE INCHES. SO IF WE, IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING IN THE REAR, SHE CAN PURSUE AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THAT SIX INCH DEVIATION. IF WE GRANT HER THE FRONT, SHE CAN ALSO PURSUE AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE THREE INCH DEVIATION, OR WE CAN FIX IT ALL RIGHT NOW, SO SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. OKAY. WELL, BECAUSE THE WAY I HAD UNDERSTOOD IT, THEY HAD MEASURED IT AT 10 PEAK. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE QUESTIONING THAT. THE ONE IN FRONT ONLY. YEAH, THAT THE REAR AND SIDE, I, I CAN SEE IT AT EIGHT AND A HALF. NO PROBLEM. BUT THE FRONT IS STILL THE BIGGEST QUESTION. YEAH, BECAUSE IT SAYING IT WAS, WELL, I WOULDN'T, I, I PERSONALLY WOULDN'T SUPPORT A 10 FOOT FENCE EITHER, BUT I'LL, BUT THE EIGHT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, SINCE IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO THERE, THERE AREN'T, SO IN THIS AREA, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY EIGHT FOOT FENCES IF AT ALL. SEVEN FOOT FENCES. YES, THERE ARE A FEW OF THOSE. UM, AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO, GIVEN THE VARIANCE FOR THE, FOR THE EXTRA SIX INCHES, SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT PUTS IT ON RECORD OF, THAT'S WHAT IS, THAT THIS BOARD SAID WAS OKAY, AND RATHER THEM GO THROUGH THE EFFORT PERSONALLY TO, TO GET THE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I I, I, I CAN'T SEE MY NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WHAT I SEE IS ALL MY NEIGHBORS NOW PUTTING UP EIGHT FOOT FENCES, YOU KNOW, UM, OKAY. AND, AND I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT. SO, SO THEN WE ONLY NEED TO READ THE FRONT, THE FRONT ONE. WE DON'T NEED TO READ THE REAR OF YOU THEN. WELL, WELL, SHE CAN DO AN EIGHT FOOT ALREADY IN THE REAR. YES, BUT YOU ARE, BUT SHE GETS, UH, THE PART OF THE DIALOGUE WAS SHE NEEDED A SIX INCH VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE SWELLS GOING ON IN THE BACKYARD AS WELL. STAFF CAN. YEAH. SO, SO ALL OF IT CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVELY HANDLED IS, IS MY POINT, I GUESS. RIGHT? SO, SO FOR THE, UH, FOR THE FIRST POINT, WOULD IT BE READ AS TWO FOOT THREE INCHES BECAUSE YOU NO, NO, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST READ IT AS A TWO FOOT VARIANCE. OKAY. SO EIGHT FOOT. YEAH. OKAY. THIS FENCE THAT'S BEING MEASURED IS THE FRONT FENCE, THE, THEY DON'T HAVE, THAT'S THE DEVIATION. OKAY. AND THEN QUESTION FOR CITY, JUST JUST FOR MY EDIFICATION HERE. SO, SO IF I BROUGHT IN SIX INCHES OF MULCH, UH, AND A THREE FOOT BED ALONG THE ENTIRE FENCE, UM, IS THAT, IS THAT MULCH NOW? MY, MY MEASURE OF MY, I GUESS THE HEIGHT OF MY FENCE, CORRECT? YEAH. AND WE'RE JUST COVERING THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU ACTUALLY JUST PUT A BUNCH OF MULCH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE, IS PUT MULCH AROUND EVERYTHING. WELL, I NEED TO KNOW HOW TALL MY FENCE IS GONNA BE BEFORE I MULCH, CORRECT? YES. SO JUST MULCH TO THE BOTTOM. YEAH. SO THIS, UH, LET'S, LET'S GO FOR, UM, A MOTION, PLEASE. OKAY. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 15, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF [01:20:01] ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ON THE FRONT YARD, UM, SITUATED AT 5 3 3 1 LOCK HILL ROAD, APPLICANT BEING NANCY CADE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, AS THE REQUEST IS FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT SURROUNDING AREAS. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE AS THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND SCREENING PROVIDED WILL ADD TO THE SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPEARS TO CREATE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NOT WILL, AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE SAID PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARE TO THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WILL NOT ALTER THE LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. AS THE LOT MAINTAINS SIGNIFICANT GREENERY AND LARGE LOT CONFIGURATIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADEQUATELY SCREEN THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DI DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE PROPERTY WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS IT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, I THINK THAT, UH, SINCE THE FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, UM, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AND IT'S, UM, IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE FENCING AND THE, THE PROPERTY, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER MANNA, WHILE I WOULD NOT NORMALLY SUPPORT THIS, WE DID GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DO SO, SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. 'CAUSE OTHERWISE, UH, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. AND AS A NOTE, THIS, THIS WHOLE AREA, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE DIALOGUE AND SO, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, THE OPENNESS AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FOUR FOOT FENCES ON OUR PROPERTY. SO IT'S, WE'RE WELCOMING I GUESS, THAT ALL THE DEER TO COME INTO OUR PROPERTY. AND SO WE DEAL WITH IT OTHER WAYS, BUT, BUT I GUESS WE WANNA BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HELP EVERYBODY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE. 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 STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. COMMISSIONER BONILLA. YES. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF? I'VE GOT THE MULCH OF THE YARD. CHAIR. A QUICK, UH, QUICK BATHROOM BREAK. YEAH, SURE. LET'S TAKE A BREAK. WE WILL RECONVENE IN ABOUT SEVEN, EIGHT MINUTES. ON THIS BACK INTO SESSION, WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, BO O 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 9. ADDRESS IS 1638 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 COUNCIL DISTRICT 10. APPLICANT IS KATHY SONG REQUEST FOR ONE, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY HARRY WBA METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT. MAXIMUM 35 FEET SIGN HEIGHT TO INCLUDE A 10 FEET FOR ADJACENT GRADE TO ALLOW A 50 FEET SIGN HEIGHT TO A 101 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY HARRY WARLOCK METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR DISTRICTS. MAXIMUM 65, UH, SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ALLOW 166 SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE. ZONING IS C TWO CD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTHEAST ROUTE FOUR 10 ACCESS ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIGN HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCE. THE SIGN IS NOT CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AND WILL BE PLACED ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE ALONG NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 ACCESS ROAD. THE AUSTIN HIGHWAY HARRY WBA METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM 35 UH, FEET HEIGHT TO INCLUDE 10 FEET ADDITIONAL GRADE AND UP TO 65 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 50 FEET HEIGHT AND 166 SQUARE [01:25:01] FEET MULTIPLE TENANT SIGN THESE, HERE'S YOUR SITE PLAN, YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE, UH, SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. HE HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND A SIGN CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE AUSTIN HIGHWAY. HARRY ACH METRO PORT METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR STANDARDS WILL NOT CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 14 NOTICES. ZERO. RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN OAK PARK. NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. UM, NEXT SLIDE IS THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION. AND ALSO IT'S, UH, JUST TO MAKE A CORRECTION, IT'S A SINGLE TENANTS THAT A MULTIPLE TENANT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, IS THAT THE APPLICANT? MANNA MANNA. SO, UM, SO THE OAK PARK NE UH, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WERE THEY PART OF THE, UM, THE WBA HARRY WBA, UM, NCD UH, PROCESS? I'D HAVE TO VERIFY. YEAH, IT WASN'T A, IT'S NOT AN NCD, IT'S A METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR. I I IMAGINE THAT IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD PRACTICE THAT THEY INVITE ANY OF THE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT THE MINUTES OF THOSE, UM, MEETINGS TO FIND OUT FOR SURE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. HI. HELLO. UH, MY NAME IS KATHY THONG AND, UM, THE LOCATION ADDRESS IS 1638 NORTHEAST INTERSTATE FOUR 10 LOOP, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 9. AND THEN, UH, WE SUBMITTED A PRESENTATION. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S AVAILABLE? THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION WANTED TO BE HERE, BUT, UM, THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT. SO, BUT THEY'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE SIGNAGE, THE POWERPOINT. SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A HISTORY OF THIS LOCATION. UM, IT'S HTO. THEY ARE ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING FRANCHISES. UM, THEY PROVIDED OVER 2,600 JOBS SO FAR, AND THEY HAVE 15 50 MILLION ENGAGEMENTS, UM, IN SOCIAL MEDIA. SO, UM, THERE ARE OTHER HTS IN THE, UH, SAN ANTONIO AREA, BUT THE FIRST ONE ON, UM, ON FOUR 10 HIGHWAY. UM, AND IF YOU LOOK, UM, I KNOW THAT THE CITY IS, UH, RECOMMENDING DENIAL BECAUSE OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE. SO I'LL NEED TO GO TO PAGE THREE IF YOU CAN. SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE THREE, UM, IT'S IN THE CORNER OF THE WAR SPOT LOCATION AS WELL AS THE FOUR 10 LOCATION. AND ALL OF THE, UH, AREA ON HIGHWAY FOUR 10 HAS, UH, THEY DON'T HAVE THE M MC THREE, UM, I GUESS OVERLAY. AND SO THEY CAN GET A SIGN THAT'S UP TO 65 FEET AT 250 SQUARE FEET. AND SO THIS LOCATION IS IN THE CORNER SPACE. AND IT, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED, UH, THAT'S WHY, UM, IT'S ACTUALLY SAYING THAT IT'S A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT IT'S, BUT, BUT THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY FACING THE FOUR 10 HIGHWAY AND NOT THE WOCK LOCATION. SO IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S NO, UM, THE MC THREE DOESN'T APPLY ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. IT DOESN'T APPLY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, AND IT DOESN'T APPLY DOWN HIGHWAY FOUR 10. SO, UH, SO IT'S JUST THIS ONE CORNER AREA. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. AND SO THIS IS WHERE IT APPLIES. THIS IS THE MC THREE THAT APPLIES RIGHT THERE. SO IT'S, IT GOES DOWN ALL THE WAY DOWNWARDS BLOCK AND JUST THAT CORNER OF FOUR 10. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE, UM, SO THAT'S THE LOCATION. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK, UH, THERE'S [01:30:01] OTHER SIGNAGE IN THAT AREA, UM, BARBECUE, UM, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S ABOUT 250, UH, FEET FROM THEIR LOCATION. AND THEN, AND THEN IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE EIGHT, THAT'S THE VISIBILITY FROM, UM, FROM THE HIGHWAY RIGHT ABOVE THE TREES. AND I THINK THERE IS ONE SIGN, SORRY. OKAY. UH, SO IF YOU GO TO THE, UH, NEXT PAGE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE SIGNS THAT IS, UH, NEXT DOOR, UM, UH, LET'S SAY BARBECUE AND THE OTHER ONE THAT THE BARBECUE SIGN IS 60 FEET TALL AND 50 FEET. SO IF, IF, UH, ANOTHER BUSINESS THAT SELLS COFFEE OR TEA COMES NEXT DOOR, THEY CAN BUILD A SIGN THAT'S 65 FEET AT 250 FEET. SO IT'S ACTUALLY OPPOSITE OF THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP BECAUSE THEIR SIGN IS NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE FROM THE, UM, FROM THE HIGHWAY. OKAY. SO I THINK THERE WAS ONE, ONE PRESENTATION, UM, ONE PAGE THAT'S MISSING, BUT OKAY. SO, SO I'M ASKING THAT, UM, UM, THAT IF WE, IF WE PUT A SIGN THAT IS ONLY 35 FEET, UH, TALL, IT'S NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY, A LOT OF, UH, CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO MISS THAT, UM, LOCATION. UM, SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE LESS BUSINESS IN THAT AREA. UM, AND THEN FROM THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE HIGHWAY, THEY CAN BARELY SEE THE SIGN. AND SO WE'RE ASKING TO, FOR THE VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A 50 FOOT SIGN AT, AT, UM, 166 SQUARE FEET. AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 250 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR 166 ONLY. UM, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR FAIR TREATMENT, UM, FOR THAT, FOR THIS LOCATION. SO I'M GONNA START OFF STAFF. CAN YOU, UH, I'VE SEEN A CONFLICT ON THE ONE STOP MAP OF WHERE THE MC THREE, WHAT PROPERTIES IT INCLUDES VERSUS WHAT'S IN THE PRESENTATION. THE, THE ZONING MAP ON THE PRESENTATION JUST SHOWS THE APPLICANT'S HARD CORNER THERE BEING MC THREE, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY REPLICATE THAT ON, ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES LIKE SHE IS MENTIONING. BUT ON THE ONE STOP MAP, IT'S SHOWING THAT THERE'S, UH, MC THREE, UH, COUPLE PROPERTIES OVER TO THE WEST AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH. CAN YOU VERIFY WHERE, WHERE THE MC THREE LIES AT THIS AREA PLEASE? UH, YES. GIMME ONE SECOND. OKAY. AND WHILE HE'S DOING THAT MIKE QUESTION TO GET, GET IT READY FOR YOU, UH, SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UH, A VARIANCE, BUT YOU HAVE A LARGER SIGN ON TOP AND THEN LIKE A SMALLER INFORMATIONAL SIGN ON THE BOTTOM MM-HMM . COLLECTIVELY, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THE 1 66, RIGHT? UM, IT'S MOSTLY FROM THE TOP. THE BOTTOM ONE IS ONLY ABOUT 24 SQUARE FOOT. OKAY. MM-HMM . BUT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE BOTTOM ONE, IS THAT GONNA HURT, HURT THE, UH, THE BUSINESS OR? IT IS BECAUSE, UH, THE WHOLE SIGNAGE IS PART OF THEIR BRAND. AND, UM, SO THE MARQUES SIGN IS KIND OF LIKE, THEY, THEY CREATED THE WHOLE BRANDING BASED ON KIND OF LIKE THE OLD TIMES WHERE THEY USED MARQUES SIGN SIGNAGE. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THEIR INFORMATIONAL BRAND THAT THEY HAVE. STAFF IS BROUGHT UP, UH, THE ONE STOP MAP VIEW. AND YOU CAN SEE YOUR PROPERTY IS ON THAT HARD CORNER. YES. PRELIMINARY PLAT. BUT THEN IT, YOU HAVE MC THREE TO THE LEFT OF YOU ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN BELOW YOU. YEP. YEAH, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND THAT AREA. SO ONE OF THEM, I THINK IT'S A, UM, IT'S AN EMPTY LOT. AND THE OTHER ONE, I THINK IT'S A DENTAL CLINIC. BUT IF YOU LOOK ALL ALONG FOUR 10, I MEAN FROM WAY TO WHERE, UH, 35 IS GOING DOWN THAT ROAD, THAT SIDE IS THE ONLY SIDE THAT HAS, UH, RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. AND SO, SO IF THEY GO TO, LET'S SAY ANOTHER HTO IN SAN ANTONIO, OR THEY'LL PASS RIGHT BY THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE. OKAY. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? CAN WE HAVE THE, UH, SIGN SPECTER UP? AND SO, UH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS JUST STRAIGHT C TWO, UH, AND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD THAN WHAT THE, SO THERE WAS DEBRIS DOES, SO THERE, THERE, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE THERE. I MEAN, NO, NO ORDIN, NO, UH, CORE DOOR OR ANYTHING ELSE THERE THAT, THAT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE A LOT OF PROBABLY A 50 FOOTER, FOUR AT 375 SQUARE FEET. WOW. THIS IS, THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. YEAH. BUT, BUT IT IS IN THIS COURT, THIS, UH, AUSTIN HIGHWAY COURT. [01:35:01] OKAY. MAN. ALSO, THERE'S A PRIMARY SIGN THERE ALREADY. UM, HISTORICALLY THERE'S BEEN TWO SIGNS THERE, THERE'S BEEN TWO SIGNS ON THIS PROPERTY, SO IT MAY BE A SECONDARY SIGN 'CAUSE THERE'S STILL AN EXISTING SIGN RIGHT NOW, A HIGHRISE SIGN IN, IN THIS CORRIDOR ON THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MAD. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING THAT SHOWS ME DIFFERENT THAT IT'S NOT ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. WHEN DID THIS CORRIDOR, UM, DISTRICT, UH, WHEN WAS IT ESTABLISHED? 20 LEFT? MARCH 15TH, 2012. OKAY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, UM, WE ARE FORTUNATE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 'CAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAD THE FIRST HTO, UM, PUT RIGHT NEXT TO US. AND IT IS A MUCH, UH, SMALLER SIGN. UM, AND IT IS VERY POPULAR, SO PEOPLE DO ENJOY IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DO GET OVER THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I, UM, I GUESS A QUESTION I WOULDN'T HAVE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE MAY WANNA WAIT FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SHOW UP BECAUSE I, I, YOU KNOW, I PREDOMINANTLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNS, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF LEAN HARD ON THEM UNLESS THERE'S REALLY A GOOD CASE FOR IT FOR IT. AND SO, UM, YOU, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT MAYBE AN OPTION HERE IF I CAN, UH, ALSO CLARIFY, UM, ON THE MINUTES, OAK PARK, UM, WAS IN FAVOR, UM, ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES. AND THEN MELANIE HAS THE MAP UP THAT WE HAVE STRAIGHT FROM THE CORRIDOR PLAN. IT SEEMS TO MATCH, UM, WHAT'S ON THE ONE-STOP MAP, HER PROPERTY, AND THEN THE TWO SMALL, UH, VERTICAL FACING PROPERTIES TO HER, UM, WEST. YEAH. AND I, I HAVE THE PLAN PULLED UP AND IT, IT DOESN'T SAY IT BY NAME, BUT IT SAYS THAT THEY DID INVOLVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. OKAY. . I KNOW. YEAH. THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM IN THE, IN THE ACTUAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING EVENT AT, UH, BELMEAD OAK PARK, TOWER HILLS WERE IN FAVOR AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE VILLAGE NORTH ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL, UH, YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE OPPOSITION, BUT THERE ARE ONLY NINE MEMBERS HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE A, UH, THE, FOR US TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE? CONSIDER IT OR CONTINUE IT? YOU MEAN, BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL NINE PEOPLE VOTE YOUR WAY. BUT IF THERE'S 11 PEOPLE HERE TOO CAN BE DISSENT. CAN I CONSIDER IT AFTER THE VOTE? NOPE. , , UH, ONCE, CAN YOU GUYS LIKE WINK GIVE A YES. , GIMME SOME CLUES? I HAVE PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK. YES. YOU OKAY THEN STEVENS? MAYBE I'LL SAY, MR. STEVENS, I AM, I, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR LARGER SIGNS BECAUSE SOMEONE'S GONNA MISS A DRIVING BY. EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT GPS ON THEIR PHONE. SO I JUST CAN'T, I DON'T SEE A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW FOR A LARGER SIGN THAN, THAN IS WHAT, THAN WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED ALREADY. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, UM, ONE THING, I I I, WHEN YOU'RE AT THE VERY END OF A CORRIDOR AND YOU'RE COMPETING WITH PEOPLE TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM MM-HMM . BUT YOUR SITE ISN'T ENORMOUS. UH, AND I JUST, I I, I, I PERSONALLY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE IN SOMETHING, YOU KNOW? UM, BUT, UM, THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. WELL, I GUESS 'CAUSE, UM, THE OTHER LOCATIONS GET A 375 FROM WHAT THESE, I I COMPLETELY GET IT. I, YEAH, SO IT'S ACTUALLY JUST LESS THAN HALF. I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND I THINK HAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS, UH, IN YOUR FAVOR IS GREAT. NOT HAVING ANYBODY HERE UPSET AT YOU IS GREAT. MM-HMM. MM-HMM . UH, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS QUITE A DEVIATION FROM WHAT'S ALLOWED, EVEN THOUGH A FEW HOPS UP THE WAY, EVERYONE ELSE COULD BE GROSSLY MORE THAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. UH, BUT I WOULDN'T, I WOULD RECOMMEND A CONTINUANCE. AND, AND I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND YOU REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR AND SEEING IF YOU COULD TRIM IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF A COMMISSIONER WHO MAY NOT BE, WHO MAY BE ON THE FENCE. I SEE. OKAY. SO IS THERE SOMEONE'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? UM, I'M SORRY, ONE SECOND. UH, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. OH, OKAY. LET'S HEAR IT. THIS IS COLLEEN TAYLOR, 1603 TARTAN LANE, SAN ANTONIO, SEVEN EIGHT TWO THREE ONE. UH, PHONE NUMBER (210) 259-7067. I'M CALLING REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE ENDING IN 2 2 9. REQUEST FOR A TIME HEIGHT, VARI AND SIZE VARIANCE. UM, THIS SIGN IS LOCATED ALONG, UH, METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR. UM, STANDARDS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO KEEP UNIFORMITY IN THE AREA. THE SIGN ALREADY HA IS ALLOWED A 10 FOOT, UH, ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ADJACENT [01:40:01] ROADWAY AND, UM, DOES NOT NEED TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT. IT ALSO DOES NOT NEED A LARGER SIZE. UH, CHANGES TO EXEMPTIONS TO THIS ERODE THE, THE EFFECT OF OUR METROPOLITAN CORRIDORS. UM, AND UDC CODE REQUIRES THAT WHEN A SIGN THAT IS NON-CONFORMING, UM, IS ADJUSTED OR, OR, UM, REPLACED THAT IT BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS. ONCE AGAIN, I ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS VARIANCE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UM, I'LL CONTINUE REQUEST MINUTES JANUARY 6TH. MM-HMM . THE NEXT MEETING. YEP. AND, AND, UH, WE'LL WE HAVE TO SEE IF THAT EVEN PASSES. SO, OKAY. IS THERE COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BIDEN SECOND. UH, LET'S HAVE A, UH, ROLL CALL PLEASE. OR, OKAY. ALL ALL IN FAVOR TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 6TH. SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. WE HAVE ONE IN OPPOSITION AND, UH, BUT MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ONE. UH, WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, JUST REMEMBER WHAT YOU HEARD, UH, FROM US, OUR DISCUSSIONS TODAY. REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW YOU CAN TRIM THINGS DOWN. SEE IF YOU CAN GET ANY MORE GARNER ANY MORE SUPPORT. OKAY. UH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD, HAD, HAD, HAD SOME APPLICANTS IN THE PAST MAYBE PURSUE THE BIGGER SIGN, BUT MAYBE NOT AS HIGH. OR MAYBE THEY WANT IT HIGHER, BUT NOT AS BIG. OKAY. YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT SOMEONE'S GONNA ACCEPT. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN BOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 5. ADDRESS IS 1 53 ST. STRIBLING COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE APPLICANT IS DAVID RODRIGUEZ. A REQUEST FOR A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 37 FEET. ZONING IS R SIX. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG STREAMING STREET EAST OF NATO STREET, LOCATED WITHIN THE COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH VARIANCE IN AN R SIX TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE LOT IS FLANKED BY MULTIPLE LOTS. ALSO ZONED R SIX AT THE SAME LOT WIDTH SIZE WITH ALREADY DEVELOPED DWELLING UNITS. IS YOUR SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MINIMUM LOT WITH SIZE VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL MBOA 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA ARE BUILT ON SIMILARLY LOT WIDTH SIZES. AND TWO, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. NOTIFICATION PLANS STAFF MAILED OUT 18 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND AND NO RESPONSES FROM THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? FERNANDO DE LEON 1650 WEST ATCH AND I'M THE APPLICANT FOR, FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ALREADY FOR REVIEW. WE WERE HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, MAYBE A MONTH OR SO FOR A SUBSTANDARD LOT ALREADY. AND IT WAS APPROVED. THE ONLY THING, UM, THAT UM, THE LOT WITH WAS NOT INCLUDED OR I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WAS GONNA BE INCLUDED WITH A SUBSTANDARD. UH, CITY HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN BRINGING THIS ITEM BACK TO, TO YOU ALL FOR PRESENTATION. UM, OUR HOUSE IS GONNA BE ABOUT 20 FEET IN WIDTH. WE STILL HAVE 12, 12 FOOT ON ONE SIDE AND FIVE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO WE'RE GONNA MEET ALL THOSE SETBACKS AND WE'RE SAVING THE TWO TREES THAT ARE ON THE SITE. WE'RE NOT GONNA CUT 'EM DOWN, THEY'RE STAYING THE WAY THEY ARE. SO WE DO FIT THIS HOUSE IN THERE. IT'S GONNA BE A TWO STORY HOUSE. UH, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO WE, WE HEARD A VARIANCE ON THE LOT SIZE, BUT THE LOT WIDTH JUST KIND OF JUST SLIPPED THROUGH. UM, YEAH, IT, IT WASN'T APPLIED FOR, BUT THAT'S USUALLY SOMETHING STAFF CATCHES, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, DOES ANYONE UH, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I'M SORRY YOU HAD TO COME BACK A SECOND TIME. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. . ALRIGHT. UM, APPROVED. COMMISSIONER [01:45:01] CRUZ, I JUST GOT ONE QUESTION. HE DID SAY IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME EVEN THOUGH IT'S TWO STORY, CORRECT? IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY, YES. TWO STORIES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. AND IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 2 3 5. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WITH LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW A LOT WIDTH TO BE 37 FEET SITUATED AT 1 5 3 ST. STRIBLING APPLICANT BEING DAVID RODRIGUEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED, PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE DID NOT. CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OTHER LOT WIDTHS IN 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 NOT BEING ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WOULD, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS REQUIREMENTS. AS THE REQUIREMENTS IS THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON SIMILAR LOT WITH SIDES IN THE AREA. 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 VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS MANY OTHER LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WITH SIZE REQUIREMENTS. SIX. THE P TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE P TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR DISAPPEARANCE. ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER BEES. COMMISSIONER BRAMAN. YEAH, I I AGAIN, WE APOLOGIZE THAT THIS WASN'T CAUGHT ON YOUR FIRST GO ROUND. UM, BUT GIVEN THAT, UM, THERE ARE MANY OTHER LOTS WITHIN THAT SAME AREA THAT HAVE A NARROW, UH, WIDTH TO THEM AND THAT WE ARE FACING A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER BEES. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZ? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM. ITEM EIGHT. AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, UH, FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BO A 2 2 2 IS THE APPLICANT HERE. OKAY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. ALRIGHT, GREAT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 2 2. ADDRESS BEING SEVEN 15 AND SEVEN 19 PIEDMONT AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT BEING ADDISON MARTINEZ. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON OUR ARM. FOUR AS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE TO A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK REGULATION TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE REAR SETBACK. THREE. A 10 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE CAR, THREE ONE CAR GARAGES TO BE 10, 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND FOUR, A REQUEST FOR A TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW THREE PARKING SPACES. ZONING IS RM FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 37 SOUTH OF IOWA STREET ON THE CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF SANDERS A UH, STREET AND PIEDMONT AVENUE. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON OUR [01:50:01] ARMED FOUR LOT LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. TWO FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT. NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN 1921 EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED THIRD UNIT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND WILL INCORPORATE A THREE CAR GARAGE TO BE UTILIZED AS DESIGNATED OFF STREET PARKING FOR ALL THREE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. A PART AS PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE ONE AND A HALF SPACES PER UNIT. THE APPLICANT REQUIRES A PARKING VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE SPACES TO THREE SPACES. ADDITIONALLY DUE TO THE EXISTING UNIT AND LIMITED LOT SIZE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL REQUIRE A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT REAR SETBACK. A 10 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED THREE CAR GARAGE TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE. PROPERTY LINE PERMITS ARE PENDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN IN WHERE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE LOCATED. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT IS GONNA BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGES. THEY'LL HAVE A LOWER LEVEL OF THE GARAGES AND THE UPPER LEVEL WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND THIS INCLUDES THE, UH, ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED. THE HISTORICAL VIEW. AND THIS IS THE, UH, ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE REAR. IT IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT AND THIS IS ABUTTING THE SIDE. IT IS ALSO A VACANT LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MULTIUNIT CONSTRUCTION ON ARM FOUR, LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE REAR SETBACK, GARAGE SETBACK AND PARKING SPACE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 2 2 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, CONCENTRATING THE THREE UNITS ON A LOT, ONE THIRD ACRE OR SMALLER WILL PROMOTE OVERCROWDING ON A SMALLER LOTS. TWO THAT REDUCED SETBACKS DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND RIGHT OF WAY. AND WATER RUNOFF MAY IMPOSE ONTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THREE, TWO PARKING SPACE VARIANCE WILL CONTRIBUTE TO OVERFLOW PARKING ON THE STREET. STAFF MAIL 27 NOTICES. ONE WAS IN FAVOR, UH, OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET WAS ONE AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. AND THIS IS IN FAVOR. AND THIS IS THE DENVER HEIGHTS OPPOSITION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE YOU GO, I HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION. SO WE HEARD FROM STAFF, UH, IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS THAT WHEN, WHEN YOU HAVE SEPARATE BUILDINGS ON AN RM, FOUR STAFF LOOKS AT 'EM AS SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEREFORE THEY'RE NOT APPLYING THE ONE AND A HALF. HAS THAT BEEN REMEDIED? YEAH, SORRY, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT. UM, THE VARIANCE FOR THE, UM, ONE AND A HALF SPOTS, IT SHOULD BE THREE TOTAL SPOTS. THEY SHOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THIS ONE. SO THIS WAS, THIS WAS, UH, I, YOU KNOW, THE CODE STARTS TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE UNITS. YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO. IT'S SUPPOSEDLY ONE AND A HALF. BUT THEN WE HEARD THAT IF THEY'RE SEPARATE, THEY'RE VIEWED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. OKAY. RIGHT. BUT BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THE ONE HOME TO GET THE PARKING FOR THE OTHER TWO. DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? I, I DON'T KNOW. I I THINK THIS IS SO HARD. SO THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME LOT. IT IS ALLOWING FOR CLUSTER PARKING. SO WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DETACHED ONE PARKING SPOT PER UNIT INCLUDING CLUSTER PARKING. SO THEY CAN USE CLUSTER PARKING IF THEY'RE ALL ON THE SAME LOT AND THEY ONLY REQUIRE ONE SPOT EACH. AND WHEN THEY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND WHEN THEY DO THIS, IS THE CITY GONNA ASK FOR THEM TO BUILD A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK AGAINST THE EDGE OF ASPHALT? 'CAUSE THEN THAT IF THERE'S NO ONE THERE, PROBABLY YEAH. YEAH, THERE'S, THERE, THERE'S [01:55:01] ONE ON, ON PIEDMONT, BUT I'M, I'M LOOKING AT BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT DOWN SANDERS AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE SETBACK. BUT THAT'S MEASURED TO EITHER THE BACK OF SIDEWALK OR THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT. OR AM I OFF ON THAT? IT'S EITHER THE SIDEWALK OR THE PROPERTY LINE IN THIS CASE. SO RIGHT. AND AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE FOR THAT IS, IS THE SIDEWALK IS NOT GONNA BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S A GOOD RULE OF THUMB WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A SURVEYOR AVAILABLE. BUT UM, IT REALLY IS UP INTO THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT YOU CAN GET YOUR CAR ALL THE WAY ONTO YOUR PROPERTY. YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. 'CAUSE IF THEY, IF THEY WENT AHEAD AND BUILT THE FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK, UH, THEY MIGHT GET A FEW EXTRA FEET THERE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE LIKE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF ASPHALT, ISN'T IT ABOUT NINE FEET OR SO? I GUESS I'M NOT FOLLOWING HOW THEY WOULD GET EXTRA SPACE BY PUTTING IT IN THE SIDEWALK. IT, IT SHOULD BE TO THE PROPERTY LINE REGARDLESS. IT'S, IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK, WHICHEVER IS BIGGER. AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING 'CAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10 FEET. BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA ASK 'EM TO BUILD A SIDEWALK AND THEY BUILD A SIDEWALK, 'CAUSE THEY'RE ON A CORNER LOT, THEY MAY NOT NEED THE 10 FEET. JUST WONDERING. , LET ME LOOK AGAIN. I WANT TO READ IT AGAIN BEFORE I CHIME IN ON IT. IT JUST, THIS, THIS COMMISSION TRADITIONALLY LIKES TO OFFER THE, THE, I UNDERSTAND THE SMALLEST VARIANCE THAT WE, WE, YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. SO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK EXISTING, YOU'RE CORRECT. SO IF THEY BUILD A SIDEWALK AND THAT SIDEWALK ENDS AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET PAST THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THEY GAIN THAT TWO FEET. IF THAT'S THE, THE SITUATION I HAVE IS IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION OVER STAFF. YES. COMMISSIONER P. SO IT APPEARS FROM, UM, THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE BACK LOT. THERE'S APPEARS TO BE RIBBON PARKING WITH, UH, TWO CARS PARKED ON IT. SO IF THE TWO HOUSES IN THE FRONT DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE GARAGES, ARE THEY REQUIRED TO HAVE PARKING ON THE LOT AND IS THAT WHAT THE STRIP PARKING IS FOR? OR WOULD THEY THEN BE FORCED TO PARK ON THE STREET? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE NEW STRUCTURE IS GONNA GO. THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL INCORPORATE ALL THE PARKING FOR ALL THREE SPOTS. EPOS, SO IT'S THREE CAR, IT'S THREE CAR GARAGES. MM-HMM . AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S ONE GARAGE PER STRUCTURE. OKAY. SO THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK IS ONLY GONNA BE FOUR ONE SINGLE RESIDENCE. THAT'S NOT MULTI, THAT'S COR WELL, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT'S GONNA HAVE THE TWO PRE EXISTING STRUCTURES. GOT IT. AND THEN IT'S GONNA HAVE A STRUCTURE ABOVE IT. OKAY. THAT'S GONNA BE A UNIT. AND THEN EACH OF THOSE STRUCTURES WILL THEN HAVE THREE CAR GARAGES INCORPORATED INTO THIS SINGLE STRUCTURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, GO AHEAD. UH, OKAY, SO NOW I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED. SO THE TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE NOW ARE GONNA STAY, THEY'RE JUST ADDING A NEW ONE THAT WILL HAVE A CARPORT FOR ALL THREE STRUCTURES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. THREE CAR GARAGE SO THAT EACH HOME WILL HAVE A GARAGE PARKING. UH, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE AIMING FOR. OKAY. SO HOW BIG IS THE HOME? OR IS IT A TWO STORY HOME? SINCE IT'S A SINGLE STORY, IT'S TWO AND A HALF STORIES. TWO AND A HALF STORIES? YES. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. I DON'T WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, AND, AND MAYBE THIS IS THE POINT YOU'RE GOING FOR AND I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT. SO, SO WE HAVE TWO STRUCTURES THERE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE ADDING A THIRD ONE, UM, WITH PARKING. AND SO, SO SO THAT'S PERMITTED BY CITY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A, A STRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA SUPPORT ALL OF THE OTHER PARKING, UM, IN WELL, THEY'RE ALL ON ONE LOT, SO YES, THAT MEANS THAT THEY, THE SAME OWNER HAS TO OWN THESE STRUCTURES BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL ON ONE LOT SO THEY CAN SHARE PARKING. YOU'RE NOT TAKING PARKING AWAY FROM SOMEBODY BY SELLING THE PARKING OUT FROM UNDER 'EM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE LOT'S, 6,000 SOME ODD SQUARE FEET, SO THEY COULDN'T SPLIT IT AND STILL BE WITHIN THE 4,000 MINIMUM FOR THE RM FOR ZONING. SO, SO, SO IT HAS TO REMAIN A SINGLE OWNER FOR ALL THE PROPERTY, FOR THEM TO LEVERAGE THE GARAGE FOR ALL THE HOMES ON THAT LOT. IT HAS TO BE A SINGLE LOT, YES, BUT NOT A SINGLE OWNER. THEY COULD, THEY COULD, COULD THEY DO IT? YOU CAN'T HAVE MULTIPLE OWNERS FOR THE SAME LOT? WELL, THEY, YEAH, YOU CAN HAVE ONE OWNER FOR THE LOT, BUT THEN A CAN YOU CON HE'S ASKING IF, CAN YOU CONDO REGIME OUT THE THREE BUILDINGS, DOES THAT AFFECT HOW THE PARK, I'M, I THINK THAT'S WHERE HE IS GOING. NO, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER OWNS THAT LOT WHERE ALL OF THE PARKING IS CONTAINED. OKAY. AND SO YOU HAVE THAT ONE OWNER SAYING, YES, THIS PARKING IS USED FOR THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THIS LOT. SO LIKE YOU COULD DO A LEASEHOLDER OR A CONDO WHERE YOU [02:00:01] HAVE AN ENTITY, ONE ENTITY OWNS A LOT, BUT THEN YOU COULD BREAK OUT THE, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDINGS. AND IS THAT TAKING THIS TOO FAR OR DO YOU HAVE TO WELL, YEAH, I MEAN IT IS, BUT IT'S A LOT LIKE HAVING TOWN HOMES. I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE A TOWN HOMES WITH CLUSTER PARKING. I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CLUSTER PARKING IS FOR LIKE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT THAT PARKING LOT IS USED FOR ALL OF THE TENANTS, REGARDLESS OF IF YOU RENTED OUT YOUR FLOOR OR YOU BOUGHT OUT A FLOOR IN A CONDO. AND, AND SO FOR, FOR, SO WITH THE ADDRESS ON PIEDMONT, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE, UH, THEY ONLY HAVE A FIVE FOOT, I'M GONNA CALL IT A REAR SETBACK, UH, FACING SANDERS. IS, IS, UH, WAS THERE ANY TALK ABOUT THEM MOVING THE BUILDING OVER WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING THIS WITH STAFF ABOUT TRYING TO GET A LITTLE MORE ROOM? THEY SAID THEY WERE LIMITED ON THEIR SPACE BASED ON THE, WHERE THE POSITION OF THE CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURES WERE AND WHERE THE PLACEMENT WAS. WELL, I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, THAT WHAT, WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW, IF THEIR SETBACKS ONLY FIVE FEET, THE, THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT. SO IT'S FACING PIEDMONT AND THEN THIS MAKES THIS THE REAR SETBACK. SO THEY ONLY HAVE THREE FEET. YEAH, THREE THERE. BUT YOU COULD TAKE THAT STRUCTURE AND MOVE IT TO THE LEFT POSSIBLY. LIKE YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS 36 INCH P WALK. YES. THAT AREA ONLY NEEDS TO BE FIVE FEET, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY COULD, IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY CAN MOVE THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT AND NOT NEED THE GARAGE SETBACK. POSSIBLY. AGAIN, THAT MIGHT BE UP TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW TALKING TO THEM, THIS IS KIND OF THE PLACEMENT AND IT WAS DUE TO LIMITED SPACE. SO IT MAY BE THAT THEY CAN EXPLAIN IF THERE'S LIMITS OR IF THEY'RE WILLING TO MOVE THAT OVER. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, ITEM FOUR, THE REQUEST IS NO LONGER PERTINENT. AND OKAY, IT'S TIME TO HEAR FROM THE VA, UH, FROM THE, UH, IF YOU GIMME A SECOND, I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ON THE BACK OF SIDEWALK. I DID CONFIRM. SO, UM, BACK OF SIDEWALK SHOULD GENERALLY BE THE PROPERTY LINE. GENERALLY THEY PUT THAT SIDEWALK UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT STILL WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S WHY THEY ALLOW THEM TO MEASURE FROM IT. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO GET THE SURVEYOR. IT SHOULDN'T CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL MEASURING IN THEORY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IF YOU HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION, IT SHOULD BE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY'RE JUST GIVING THEM THE OPTION TO GO TO BACK OF SIDEWALK BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE ARE WALKING. AND WE DON'T WANT THE CARS BLOCKING IT. BECAUSE WHERE, WHERE, WHERE I'M ULTIMATELY GOING WITH THIS IS, UM, I, I PERSONALLY SEE A, WHEN I SEE A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF A GARAGE, I USUALLY SEE CARS TRYING TO PARK THERE. AND, AND SO THE ISSUE BECOMES IF THERE IS NO SIDEWALK, THEY'RE NOT BLOCKING A SIDEWALK, BUT IF THEY BUILD THE SIDEWALK, I WANNA MAKE SURE THEY HAVE AT LEAST LIKE 16 OR 18 FEET, MAYBE NOT 20, BUT 16 OR 18. AND IF THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE THIS THING OVER TO ATTAIN AT LEAST 16 FEET, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT. BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. RIGHT. AND THAT IS THE POINT OF THE 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE GARAGE IS THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DO PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR GARAGES IN THEIR LEAVING ROOM. OKAY. WELL, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. SO, STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YOU'VE HEARD A BUNCH OF DISCUSSION ALREADY AND YOU COULD THROW SOME OF, UH, YOUR THOUGHTS IN REGARDING THAT AS WELL. SO, MY NAME IS ADDISON MARTINEZ. I'M A FORMER CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, EMPLOYEE OF SIX YEARS. IN FACT, I WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER THAT LAUNCHED BUILD SA, THE VERY SYSTEM I USE TO SUBMIT THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT I'M HERE TO DISCUSS. ALL THAT TO SAY I RESPECT THIS PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY. I BELIEVE THE ESSENCE OF THIS REQUEST IS GETTING LOST IN THE TECHNICAL DETAILS. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE TO DESCRIBE IN PLAIN ENGLISH WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. I OWNER OCCUPY ONE OF THE DWELLINGS ON THIS PROPERTY. THESE TWO SMALL HOUSES WERE BUILT IN 1921, MAKING THEM 103 YEARS OLD TODAY, OR IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE ONE THIRD THE AGE OF THE CITY. SINCE ITS FOUNDING, THE HOUSES ARE ON RM FOUR ZONE LAND, WHICH IN THEORY SHOULD ALLOW UP TO FOUR DWELLINGS. HOWEVER, UNDER MODERN ORDINANCES, THE ONLY WAY THIS PROPERTY CAN EVER LIVE UP TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL AS RM FOUR ZONE LAND AS TO KNOCK DOWN THE EXISTING DWELLINGS TO BUILD A NEW FOURPLEX UNDER ONE ROOF. THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS MY ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE HISTORIC SAN ANTONIO ARCHITECTURE WHILE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS THAT SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER ZONING. I'M HERE TODAY SEEKING AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT COMPROMISES CAN BE MADE TO BALANCE CONTEMPORARY BUILDING CODE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, COMMISSIONER BARR, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THE, UH, RESIDENCE TO BE ABOVE THE, UH, GARAGE? THE NEW ONE? IT'S, UH, NINE 50 ISH AND SOME CHANGE SOMEWHERE IN NINE 50. OKAY. MANON COMMISSIONER MANON. SO, UM, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE, I I THINK THAT THEY HAD SOME CHALLENGES HERE OR SOME QUESTIONS I DID NOT, AND THAT WAS SURPRISING TO ME. I DID SPEAK TO SOME NEIGHBORS, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T GET ANY WRITTEN RECORD OF IT, BUT, [02:05:01] UH, TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, WHICH IF THERE IS EXTENUATION, I CAN GO BACK AND GET THAT DOCUMENTED. OKAY. YEAH. GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, IS IS USUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO, TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GONNA BE IN OPPOSITION, AND SO THAT, THAT DOES PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES. SO RIGHT. BON COMMISSIONER STEVENS, OH, COMMISSIONER BERNICE, UH, UM, HOW MANY, UH, DO YOU LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF OCCUPANTS IN EACH EACH ONE OF THESE, UH, STRUCTURES? YES. SO CURRENTLY, UM, IT'S RENT OUT JUST ONE TENANT. I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I MEAN, I KNOW THE PARKING'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE, BUT THERE, THESE AREN'T MADE FOR LIKE A FAMILY OF FOUR. IT'S A SINGLE OCCUPANCY DWELLING. I LIVE IN ONE, ONE PERSON LIVES IN THE NEXT ONE, AND EVEN IN THE PRIOR LEASE, THERE'S ONLY EVER ONE PERSON LIVING THERE. RIGHT. AND THE NEW STRUCTURE IS WHAT? UH, ONE BED? ONE BATH. ONE BED, ONE BATH. SO IT'LL KIND OF BE THE SAME THING THERE AS WELL. UH, YES, THE KITCHEN IS THE SAME. I MEAN, LARGEST SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT YES, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPANTS. SORRY, ONE PERSONAL OCCUPANCY. DO YOU STILL WILL, WILL YOU CAP THEM TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OCCUPANTS, LIKE SAY TWO OR IS THREE OR, I'LL BE HONEST, IF THAT'S LEGAL AND I COULD DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY. IT'S NEVER MY INTENTION TO CRAM IT LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN HERE, IF I'M LEGALLY ABLE TO DO THAT, I WILL ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. . OKAY. THANK YOU. STEVENS. UM, CAN I JUST GET A CLARIFICATION ON NUMBER TWO, THAT'S CONSIDERED THE REAR SETBACK, BUT WITH THE WAY THAT THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS FRONTING THE STREET, IT'S EFFECTIVELY A SIDE SETBACK AND WITH THEIR SIDE SETBACKS, THEY'D BE ALLOWED THREE FEET WITH NO OVERHANG. IS THAT CORRECT? FIVE FEET IF IT WAS THE, WELL, NO, THAT, THAT IS ONLY FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THAT'S NOT FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING. SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED FIVE FEET? CORRECT. OKAY. WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG IF THEY WISH. BUT, BUT IF THERE WAS NO OVERHANG, THAT WALL COULD BE AT THREE FEET. NO, THAT, NO, THAT'S ONLY FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. JUST ACCESSORY. OKAY. SO THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME. THIS IS THE THING THAT I'M GETTING HUNG UP IS JUST THE THREE FEET, IT'S, I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD TO MAINTAIN A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH THOSE THREE FEET, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'LL ALSO COMMEND YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. YOU'RE MAINTAINING TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES WHEN MOST DEVELOPERS OR PEOPLE LOOKING TO DO THIS WOULD PROBABLY RAISE THESE BUILDINGS AND PUT FOUR COOKIE CUTTER TERRIBLE UNITS ON THIS LOT. SO I'LL POINT THAT OUT TO EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD THAT THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT TRUE INFILL DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S REASON TO BE FLEXIBLE WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. YEAH, AND I, I AGREE. IS THERE, IS THERE A DISTANCE THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE MORE USABLE? LIKE IT'S FOUR FEET? I I MEAN I COULD, FOUR FEET I THINK IS A, A FAIR COMPROMISE. OKAY. I'M TOTALLY OPEN TO IT. COMPROMISE, I MEAN, UM, AS YOU SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE DEFINITELY IS SOME WIGGLE ROOM IN TERMS OF WHERE THIS STRUCTURE CAN BE PLACED. THIS WAS SIMPLY WHENEVER I WAS TALKING TO MY ARCHITECT, JUST GAVE HIM A WISHLIST OF, YOU KNOW, THOUGHTS AND I MEAN, I WASN'T AWARE OF SOME OF THESE VARIANCES THAT CAME UP, BUT YEAH, I MEAN THERE'S ABSOLUTELY ROOM FOR COMPROMISE HERE. SO FOUR FEET IS TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME. IF IT NEEDS TO BE MOVED BACK SOME, THAT'S TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME, SO I'M TOTALLY OPEN. OKAY. AND, UH, FOR QUESTION FOR TRAFFIC, IS SAUNDERS, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE, UH, 50, UM, 52 OR 51 FOOT STREETS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, THE OLD 20 VARA KIND OF THING AND THEN YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE WHAT, 30 FEET OF PAVEMENT ON IT? YEAH, SAUNDERS IS SMALL. OKAY. UM, I HAVE LIKE 34 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. WOW. YEAH. AND THE PAVEMENT IS PROBABLY NOT A 30, NOT EVEN. OKAY. YEAH. THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS, IS THAT, UM, SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF OF HAVING A SIDEWALK THERE IS SLIM TO NONE? PROBABLY NOT. OKAY. OKAY. I JUST, I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE I I, I PERSONALLY CAN JUST SEE SOMEBODY TRYING TO PARK THERE, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVEN WITHOUT A SIDEWALK THAT I HAVE SEEN CARS STICK OUT INTO THE ROAD AND THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO A, TO AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE INSTEAD OF A 10 OR SOMETHING JUST TO GIVE THEM 12 FEET PLUS THE FOUR OR FIVE FEET THAT THEY HAVE BETWEEN THE ASPHALT AND THE PROPERTY LINE JUST TO HELP A CAR NOT OVERHEAD. ITEM THREE. UH, THAT WOULD BE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE FOR CLARIFICATION. MAYBE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CAR PARKING BEHIND, YOU MEAN LIKE IN LINE WITH IT NOT PERPENDICULAR TO IT. LIKE IN LINE WITH THE GARAGE. YEAH. SO SOMEONE'S PARKED IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE. YES. YES. UM, OKAY. AND YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, THERE'S AMPLE ROOM TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE BACK IF NEEDED. YEAH, JUST, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF, OF, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FOR ANYBODY TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, BUT [02:10:01] I'M THINKING, YOU KNOW, EVEN THREE FEET WOULD, WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA. SO, SO THE QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF DID, DID YOU ALL HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THEIR OBJECTION WAS? OUTSIDE OF THE, THE NOTE THAT JUST SAYS WE OBJECT, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INPUT. SO, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SOME GREAT POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE DONE ON THIS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, BY RIGHT. AND WHAT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE IS OF WHY THEY WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, KNOWING WHAT POTENTIALLY IS, UH, COULD HAPPEN THERE, YOU KNOW? AND, UM, AND, AND I DO AGREE WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, A GOOD INFILL SOLUTION, BUT I STILL WONDER WHAT, WHY IT IS THAT THEY'RE OBJECTING, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL. SO, SO YOU HAVE NOT, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM? I DID NOT. SO WHAT, THEY JUST PROBABLY DID A BLANKET, UH, DID NOT, THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHIME IN. UM, I, I, I DON'T, I DON'T MIND, UH, PURSUING A CONTINUANCE TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME, SOME SLIGHT DEVIATIONS FROM WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE ME HAPPY AS WELL. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING HEARD WHAT WAS SAID HERE, AND YOU BRING THOSE POINTS UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I'M WILLING TO BET THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, YOU KNOW, AND, AND MAYBE PROVIDE SOME INPUT TO WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, EVERYONE, EVERYONE AGREES THIS IS A REALLY A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THAT WOULD BE MY PERSPECTIVE. SO, YEAH. UH, DOES, DOES, UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, AGREE WITH A, A CONTINUANCE? MM-HMM. ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH TIME? SO, I'VE, I, I'LL HAVE TO TELL YOU, I'VE DEALT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BEFORE. THEY USUALLY MEET AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH. OKAY. AND THEY USUALLY NEED A LITTLE BIT OF NOTICE. SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK JANUARY 6TH IS GONNA BE WAY TOO SOON. MM-HMM . IT'S THE ONE AFTER JANUARY 6TH. JANUARY 20TH, 27TH. 27TH, 27TH. THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU PLENTY OF TIME. UH, AND, AND I DON'T LIKE TO GIVE OUT POINTERS, BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT THEY'RE, THEY'VE NEVER RID BEEN A BIG FAN OF SUPER TALL BUILDINGS. GOTCHA. SO, THANK YOU. YOU JUST REITERATE THAT IT'S NOT THREE STORIES, THINKING AND, AND THE PARKING IS NOT AN ISSUE. WE'VE RESOLVED THE PARKING, THE PARKING IS NOT AN ISSUE. OKAY. SO IS IS, IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE, UM, THE STAFF CHANGE THAT ON THE, UH, ON WHAT'S ADVERTISED? WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE IT, UM, IF IT'S CONTINUED. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? JANUARY 20TH. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 27TH OF JANUARY. IT WAS JANUARY 27TH. RIGHT. OKAY. UH, WE'LL SEE YOU BACK THEN. I HOPE YOU HAVE SOME GOOD INFO FOR US. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 10. ITEM NUMBER 10, BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 24. ADDRESS BEING 37 26 ELECTRA DRIVE COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING JOSE DOMINGUEZ. REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A, AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, A FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, LIMITED TO 10 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE AND THREE A EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITH A SIX FOOT THREE INCH CLEAR VISION. ZONING IS R FIVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF EISENHOWER ROAD, EAST OF CORION DRIVE AND ELECTRIC DRIVE. ON JANUARY 16TH, 2024, CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATED A CITIZEN CALL FOR A CARPORT BEING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER BETWEEN JANUARY 17TH THROUGH THE 26TH OF 2024. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED FOR A RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT AND CARPORT PERMITS, BUT FOUND THAT THE CARPORT DID NOT MEET SETBACK REGULATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ATTACHED CARPORT TO REMAIN ONE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONALLY, DURING SITE VISITS, STAFF FOUND THAT THE PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE REQUIRED A FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE, THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE IS THREE INCHES OR THREE FEET IN HEIGHT. THAT REQUIRES AN EIGHT EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT THREE INCH DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION [02:15:01] PERMITS ARE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS A SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS WILL BE THE SIDE SETBACK, THE SEVEN FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE THAT'S 10 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE AND THE RE VIEW OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND CLEAR VISION SURROUNDING AREA AND CARPORTS IN THE GENERAL AREA OR SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO A TWO FOUR DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 24 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE DISTANCE OF THE CARPORT SIDE STEP ACT IS NOT SUITABLE AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES CAUSING IN INCREASED FIRE RISK SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. TWO. THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WILL DECREASE SAFETY MITIGATIONS ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREET. AND THREE, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHEN WILL ENDURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF A, UH, ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES FOR FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, FINDINGS OF FACT THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE OFFENSES EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IN HEIGHT AND PRIVACY. AND TO THE REQUEST WILL INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF MAILED 29 NOTICES ONE IN FAVOR OF ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND IT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS IS IN FAVOR. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT YOU SHOWED, UM, SHOWED A CARPORT THAT HAD TWO PANELS ON THE SIDE OF IT. AND THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS, UM, IF THE PANEL IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE CARPORT, IS THAT CONSIDERED, UM, UM, PART OF FENCING, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPACTING CLEAR VISION AND, AND, AND WHAT HAVE YOU? AND SO IF THEY, THE QUESTION BASICALLY COMING, IF I, IF I PANEL THE ENTIRE SIDE, IS THAT STILL THE SAME? UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE CLEAR VISION COMPONENT? IS THAT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR THE, THE, ANY OF THEM, BUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR? SO, UM, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY ATTACH, HE CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE PANEL ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE TOP OF IT MM-HMM . AND IF HE BROUGHT THREE MORE DOWN, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN IS IT, IS IT STILL CONSIDERED A CARPORT? UM, IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A CARPORT. OBVIOUSLY, THEY, THEY COULDN'T BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, BUT THE CLEAR VISION IS ONLY, UM, FOR FENCES. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A MISS FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU, . IT IS, YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S SERVING A DIFFERENT PURPOSE FOR THE SAME RULE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. OKAY. I ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, SO JOSE DOU. I'M, I'M JOSE. I'M JOSE DOMINGUEZ, AND I LIVE IN 1726 ELECTRA, 36 37. 26 RA DRIVE. UM, WELL, FIRST THING I NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR, FOR THIS THING, FOR WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF MY IGNORANCE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO GET ALL THESE PERMITS AND THEN ALL THESE HAPPENED. OH, [02:20:01] SEE, UM, WAS NO SICK. I WONDER WHAT I NEED TO DO BECAUSE I I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN FIXING ALL THESE ISSUES. OKAY. SO THERE'S THREE ITEMS, UH, THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. AND THE FIRST ONE IS A SETBACK, WHICH IS WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT, WHAT'S WHAT THAT IS. BUT THE FENCE, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN, UH, WHY YOU NEED A TALLER FENCE FOR THAT 10 FOOT PORTION, PLEASE? NO, UH, WELL I DON'T NEED TO DO A HIGHER FENCE. IT IS ALREADY THERE. WELL, THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE. IS THAT YOU'RE NOT, THERE'S A COMPLIANCE, I GUESS, UH, CITATION REGARDING THE FENCE, UH, FOR STAFF, CORRECT? UH, SHE'S MY NEIGHBOR AND THE FENCE IS MORE INTO MY LAND AND, UH MM-HMM. SO SHE HAS, THERE'S TWO, TWO FEET INSIDE MY LOT AND THEN FIVE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE. YEAH. IF I NEED TO DO IT, IF I NEED TO CUT IT SHORT, I CAN DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T NEED IT THAT HIGH. OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, THE FENCE, UM, AT THE HEIGHT THAT IT IS, DOES IT ALIGN WITH THE FRONT OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE? IN OTHER WORDS, UM, YOUR HOUSE IS SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE STREET THAN YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. AND DOES THAT FENCE COME ALL THE WAY UP TO, UH, THE FRONT OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND NOT FURTHER? NO, IT'S, MY HOUSE IS, IT'S WHERE, WHERE HER HOUSE IS AT. OKAY. THE FINISH SIDE'S ON THIS SIDE. OH, WELL, SHE'S MY NEIGHBOR. UM, MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, UH, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH HER. SHE AGREES WITH, WITH EVERYTHING. SO THE, THE ISSUE IS THE FENCE SITE DRAMATICALLY REDUCES ONCE YOU GO IN FRONT OF A HOME. IF HIS HOUSE IS FURTHER BACK THAN THE NEIGHBORS, HE CAN PUT A FENCE ONLY SO FAR, SHE CAN GO UP FURTHER. SEE, I DON'T HAVE A FENCE IN THE FRONT. UM, HE'S, HE'S SAYING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FENCE IN THE FRONT. NO, NO, I KNOW. BUT SHE COULD IF SHE WANTED TO. BUT SHE COULD BUILD A FENCE IN THE SAME PLACE HIS FENCE IS NOW, BUT HE CANNOT. AND SO THAT THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBOR COULD DO ONE AND THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE A FENCE THERE REGARDLESS, IS JUST SOMETHING THAT THE, THIS COMMISSION, UH, JUST WANTED TO KNOW, THAT'S [02:25:01] ALL. UM, AND THEN THE, THE NEXT ISSUE HAS TO DEAL DEALS WITH, UM, THE CLEAR VISION NOW FOR STAFF. UM, IF THE NEIGHBOR BUILT A FENCE TO THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, BUT THAT CONFLICTED WITH THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S CLEAR VISION, IS IT A CLEAR VISION FOR HIM AT THAT? YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD THAT SHE CAN BUILD THE FENCE 10 FEET FORWARD IF HE, IF, IF SHE DOES THAT, BUT HE, HE DOESN'T, IS IT A CLEAR VISION ON HIS LOT? IT WOULD STILL BE THE, THE PERSON BUILDING THE FENCES RESPONSIBILITY. EVEN THOUGH THE CLEAR VISION IS COMING FROM HIS LOT, IT'S STILL THE NEIGHBOR WHO WAS EVER BUILDING THE FENCES RESPONSIBILITY TO BE WITHIN THAT CLEAR VISION. OKAY. . SO LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. IF THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE AT ALL AND THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR BUILT A FENCE UP TO THE FRONT PLANE OF THEIR HOME, WOULD THERE BE A CLEAR VISION ISSUE? SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SIX FOOT FENCE? THERE'S NO CLEAR VISION WITH THE SIX FOOT FENCE. OH, YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SHORTER? CORRECT. I THOUGHT THE SHORTER FENCE YOU WERE ALLOWED TO BE UP TO THREE FEET. THREE FEET. THIS ONE IS FOUR FEET, I BELIEVE. AH, OKAY. WAS THAT PART OF THE APPLICATION? IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH NO, BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE UP TO THE, THE FENCE HEIGHT IS FINE. IT'S JUST A CLEAR VISION DRIVEWAY WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE. I THOUGHT THAT THE LIMIT WAS THREE FEET ON THE FRONT. UH, FIVE FOOT LY OPEN. YOU HAVE TO OH, OKAY. YOU CAN. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT MET THE 70% OR WHATEVER. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, UH, THE COMMISSION? I THINK, UM, UM, THE NEIGHBOR WANTS TO TALK. OKAY. UM, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. MY NAME IS ANGELITA BUSMAN. I LIVE AT 37 22 RA DRIVE. MM-HMM. 7 8 2 1 8. I AM THE NEIGHBOR TO THEM. MY, OUR PROPERTIES ARE ADJACENT. MM-HMM . UH, THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE, WITH THE FENCE BECAUSE MY DRIVEWAY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY PROPERTY. YEAH. AND IT, IT'S, SOMETIMES IT'S THE WAY THE CODE'S WRITTEN. SOME PEOPLE CAN DO THINGS THAT THEIR NEIGHBORS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, BUT THE FACT THAT THERE CAN BE A FENCE THERE ANYWAY IS, IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT. THAT'S ALL. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH I DO NOT. I DO NOT. OKAY. IT'S VERY WELL KEPT AND EVERYTHING PAINTED AND EVERYTHING, SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM. MY PROBLEM IS WITH ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE'S A JUNKYARD, THAT'S MY PROBLEM. YEAH, THAT'S, WE CAN'T HELP YOU WITH THAT, BUT NO, I DON'T THINK YOU COULD. I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH WHAT'S BEING ASKED? WHAT SHE SAYING? CLEAR VISION. CLEAR VISION, DRIVEWAYS ON THE OTHER SIDE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HOUSE IT'S A DRAINAGE DITCH. DRAINAGE DITCH. RIGHT. . YEAH. UM, SO IS IF, IF, SO, SO ONE QUESTION FOR THE CLEAR VISION DIALOGUE. SO, SO THE FENCE IS FOUR FOOT? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? SO THE CURRENT, CURRENT FENCE, FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. UM, THE FRONT YARD FENCE, THE THE WHITE PICKET FENCE THING, UH, WE MEASURED THAT ABOUT FOUR FEET. SO YEAH, IT'D BE, IT, IT'S OKAY. 'CAUSE IT COULD BE UP TO FIVE, BUT BECAUSE IT'S OVER THREE, IT'S A POTENTIAL CLEAR VISION ISSUE. RIGHT. AND SO, SO WE CAN LIMIT IT WITH REGARDS TO THE EXISTING FENCE HEIGHT. SO IT CAN'T BE ANY HIGHER. WELL, DOES, WE CAN'T IMPOSE WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T READ THE MOTION ON THE CLEAR VISION DEALING WITH THE HEIGHT. IS THERE A WAY TO DO THAT, TO INCORPORATE THE FACT THAT IT'S A FOUR FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OF THE OPEN FENCE AS PART OF THE MOTION? OR DOES IT, OR DO WE HAVE TO JUST SAY CLEAR VISION IS SIMPLY ABOUT THAT? THAT LENGTH. RIGHT. IT'S JUST ABOUT THE LENGTH. I MEAN, 'CAUSE I, I THINK, I THINK WHERE COMMISSIONER MANAGER'S GOING IS, IS THAT IT'S, IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT THAT TALL. THE FACT THAT IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN MIGHT BE THE REASON WHY IT WILL MOST IT IT COULD, IT COULD BE APPROVED, RIGHT? YEAH. IF A CLEAR VISION IS APPROVED, TECHNICALLY HE CAN BUILD A FIVE FOOT FENCE, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO REPLACE IT. RIGHT. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T LIMIT THE HIGH RATE. WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T SAY PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. IS THERE ANY COMPONENT OF THE EXISTING FENCE THAT WE CAN READ INTO AS A, I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT. THE EXISTING FENCE. THE EXISTING FENCE. ALRIGHT. THE EXISTING FENCE HEIGHT. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ A MOTION ON THIS? IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. THE WHOLE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE IS A CREEK, SO THERE'S NO PROBLEM ON EITHER SIDE. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COMMISSIONER MANNA MANNA? SO, UM, [02:30:01] SO THIS IS TWO READINGS HERE. UM, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, LIMITED TO BE THE FRONT FACADE OF THE, UH, ABUTTING PROPERTY. UM, TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT SOLID FENCE YARD SITUATED AT SEVEN, UH, 3 7 2 6 ELECTRIC DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING AND JOSE DOMINGUEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIFIC EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTS WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS A SEVEN FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE IS LIMITED, UH, TO, UH, AT MOST 10 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE, BUT, BUT NO MORE THAN THE ADJACENT, UH, PROPERTY, UM, AND WILL NOT INJURE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR IMPEDE THE RIGHT OF WAY. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PROPOSED FENCE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE AS THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT PROVIDES PRIVACY, INITIAL SECURITY TO THE, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED, UH, BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPEARS TO BE, UH, CREATE AN ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES LIMITED TO THE LENGTH, UH, TO THE, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE FRONT OF THE, THE SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UH, WILL BE WITHIN FOUR FEET. THE UDC CODE FENCE GUIDELINES THREE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE SITE DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. UH, E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS IS LIMITED, UH, TO 10 FEET AT MOST. UH, AND, UM, AND NO MORE THAN THE FRONT FACADE OF THE, UH, UH, BUDDING PROPERTY AND WILL, UH, PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT. A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER MANNA? SURE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPECIFY THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS ADDRESS? IT'S, IT'S 3 7 2 2 ADDRESS, SO THAT WE'RE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH, SO, UH, THE REQUEST WAS TO ADD 3 7 2 2 AS THE, UH, PROPERTY THAT I WAS SPEAKING TO FOR EACH OF THE DIALOGUE AND, AND I CONCUR. SO, SO AND SO AS A CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU SAYING IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER OR THEY HAVE TO MEET BOTH TESTS? IT CAN'T GO FURTHER THAN THE FRONT FACADE OF THE, UH, BUDDING PROPERTY. 3 7 2, UH, 3 7 2 2. SO, SO, UM, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, SO, SO, UM, OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. AND SO, SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING. SO AS I SAID, WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST. YOU KNOW, WHEN IT IS THAT A NEIGHBOR CAN HAVE A FENCE FORWARD, UH, SOMETIMES WE HAVE ALIGNED WITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY WHEN A NEIGHBOR, UH, HAS COME FORWARD AND SAID THAT THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. SO, SO I THINK IT, IT, UH, SATISFIES THAT, THAT NEED HERE. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR, UH, WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADDITION OF THE HOUSE NUMBER. UH, SO WE SPECIFY WHAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NONE 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 CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I THE ADVISE OF FACT, UH, DEFENSE MOTION PASSES. UH, NEXT MOTION. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 4, I MOVED TO THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANTER REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A EIGHT FOOT NINE FOOT, EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITH A SIX FOOT THREE INCH CLEAR VISION, UH, UM, AS DESIGNED PER THE EXISTING FENCE SITUATED AT 3 7 2 6 ELECTRIC DRIVE. APPLICANT B AND JOSE DOMINGUEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE ONE FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT PROVIDES A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND SEPARATION TO OCCUR. THE LOCATION OF THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE WILL NOT IMPEDE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION OR RIGHT OF WAY. 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 CARPORT AND A PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD [02:35:01] FENCE WOULD NEED, UH, BE RECONSTRUCTED TO ABIDE THE SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION UDC STANDARDS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE ONE FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK ALLOWS A PROPER SEPARATION BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND THE CLEAR VISION PROVIDES ENOUGH ROOM ONTO STREET ACCESS AND OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USE IS OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. THREE SUCH VARIANCE OR FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCED SIDE SETBACK WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT. THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT SAFETY, UH, ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOR DUE TO THE RESULT, UH, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT OF WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND A MOTION. OKAY. UM, BEFORE WE ASK FOR A SECOND, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. UH, THIS IS A, UH, THE VARIANCE IS FOR AN 18 INCH, UH, THE CARPORT POST IS EIGHT IS MEASURED 18 INCHES OFF THE, OFF FROM THE, THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A CARPORT. OVERHANG. IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH IT'S 18 INCHES ADEQUATE? UM, SO THE 18 INCHES SHOULD BE AT THE EDGE OF THE OVERHANG. UM, THAT'S WHERE WE, UM, ARE MEASURING FROM. YEAH, SEE, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON THE, THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW AND THAT THAT'S SHOWING 18 INCHES FROM THE EDGE OF POST TO THAT, THAT FENCE. RIGHT? LIKE 18 OR EIGHT INCH OVER. YEAH. AND THE THING IS THAT EVEN IF WE WANTED TO GO DOWN THREE OR FOUR INCHES, WE WE CAN'T BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY GO TO WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND ADVERTISED. OH YEAH. UM, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I MEAN, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S ABOUT ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES. UM, SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD ADMINISTRATIVELY SOLVE THAT, UM, BECAUSE THAT DOES SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE RIGHT THERE. OKAY. BECAUSE, BECAUSE REALLY IF YOU, IF THE, IF THE PICKETS OR THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU THAT EXTRA BOOST WITH YOUR SIX INCH THAT YOU CAN HANDLE. OKAY? SO IT SHOULD, SO MOTION AS READ, UH, WITH THE CITY ALLOWING FOR THE SIX INCH, UM, THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE VIEW FOR THE OVERHANG. SO IS WHAT BASICALLY THE CITY WILL DO THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY AS WE READ IT, YEAH. SO IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, DID EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT, WHAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED? OKAY. OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YEAH, SO AGAIN, SINCE WE HAVE THE NEIGHBOR HERE, UM, WHO'S, UM, I GUESS MOST IMPACTED BY THE DESIGN OF THIS, UM, UM, CARPORT AND THERE IS, THERE IS TO ME AN AN ADEQUATE OVERHANG TO ALLOW FOR, UH, I GUESS THE, THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RUNOFF. UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? 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 CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF . ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11, MR. CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, UNFORTUNATELY I HAD TOLD, UH, MARCO THAT I NEED TO GET OFF BY FOUR O'CLOCK AND SINCE WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE CASE TO GO TWO MORE, TWO MORE. WELL, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVER FOUND ANYBODY TO TAKE MY PLACE SINCE, SINCE WE'RE ONLY NINE. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO I'M GONNA DO THIS. UM, IS THERE ANY OF THESE TWO CASES THAT YOU THINK WE CAN, WE CAN KNOCK THROUGH IN 10 MINUTES? IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? BECAUSE [02:40:01] YOU'RE RECOMMENDED NILE ON BOTH OF THEM. UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS ON ON THEM. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA GO IN ORDER. LET'S, LET'S TRY TO, LET'S TRY TO HIT 11. WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN GET THROUGH. BO. 8 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 5. ADDRESS IS 3 54 BABCOCK COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT IS LETICIA RAMIREZ. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION VARIANCE FROM THE NCD SEVEN DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. AND TWO, A DRIVEWAY VARIANCE FROM THE DRIVEWAY. REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW TWO DRIVEWAYS ON A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT IS FRONTING A COLLECTOR OR MAJOR THOROUGH FIRE ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BABCOCK ROAD, WEST OF FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, LOCATED WITHIN THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND AS WELL AS THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY OF MAVERICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY FOR THE STATED PURPOSES OF HAVING ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND GETTING OFF AND ON BABCOCK ROAD FROM THEIR PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY IS CURRENTLY UNBUILT AND PENDING OUTCOME FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS THE NCD LANGUAGE, TALKING ABOUT CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS WITH INGRESS AND, UH, EGRESS ONTO ONE OR MORE STREETS ARE PROHIBITED. A SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS SURROUNDING AREA, THIS IS THE LEFT NEIGHBOR, IF YOU'RE FACING THE PROPERTY. LEFT NEIGHBOR HAS A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY THAT'S CURRENTLY, UH, THERE. THE RIGHT NEIGHBOR IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT. SAME THING. CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY ALREADY, UH, BUILT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. OKAY. SO REALLY QUICK, LET'S WHIP THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK. SO IS, ARE BOTH OF THESE RELATED TO THE NCD? SIR? ARE BOTH OF THESE RELATED TO THE NCD? YES, CORRECT. RIGHT? YES. BECAUSE I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THE CODE REQUIRED HAD A LIMIT OF TWO DRIVEWAYS UNLESS YOU HAD A CERTAIN WIDTH OF FRONTAGE. UH, THE CODE MIGHT, BUT THESE ARE RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. OKAY. 'CAUSE THE OTHER TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT, THAT WERE ALREADY CIRCULAR, DID WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVE THOSE? 'CAUSE ONE OF THEM LOOKED PRETTY NEW. THAT WAS THE, UH, WHAT MERKO AND I WERE JUST DISCUSSING. SO HE HE'S GONNA EXPLAIN. OKAY. SO THERE WAS ONE APPROVED A COUPLE YEARS AGO. UM, HOWEVER, THEY, WE DID DISCOVER THERE, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THEIR PERMIT. IT SEEMS LIKE SOME, SOMETHING WITH THEIR SITE PLAN CHANGED AFTER IT WAS APPROVED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE DID NOTICE THAT WHILE WE WERE DOING OUR, UH, BACKGROUND FOR THIS CASE. SO THAT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED, UH, TO THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT. OKAY. LETS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND AS A NOTE, THERE ARE LIKE FOUR IN A ROW THAT ARE THIS WAY. I KNOW. AND SO THERE'S A MIDDLE, MIDDLE OR FIVE IN A ROW WITH THIS ONE BEING THE ANOMALY. SO, UH, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME. UH, THE WORST THING THAT'LL HAPPEN IS YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK, UH, BECAUSE ONCE WE LOSE SOMEBODY, WE HAVE TO STOP. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. SO REALLY QUICKLY, WHAT KIND OF FRONTAGE DO YOU HAVE? HOW, HOW WIDE IS YOUR LOT? OUR, OUR LOT IS HUNDRED. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE? OH, YES. MY NAME'S RAUL RAMIREZ JR. AND I'M PROPERTY OWNER. MY WIFE, OH, SORRY. MY NAME'S RAUL RAMIREZ JR. AND I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH MY WIFE AT 3 54 BABCOCK ROAD. DO YOU KNOW HOW YOU KNOW HOW MUCH FRONTAGE YOU HAVE? YEAH. UH, THE WIDTH OF THE HOUSE IS A HUNDRED FEET. OH YEAH. A HUNDRED FOOT LOT. YEAH. OKAY. AND IT'S 200 FEET. UH, DEPTH. GOT IT. DEPTH. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ANY VOICEMAILS? NO. NOTHING RIGHT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, IF IS THERE ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? NAH. COMMISSIONER MADA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 5 AND MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT, PLEASE GRANT THE REQUEST FOR ONE A DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION VARIANCE FROM THE NCD SEVEN DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AND TWO, A DRIVEWAY VARIANCE FROM THE DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW TWO DRIVEWAYS IN A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT IS FRONTING A COLLECTOR OR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SITUATED 3 5 4 BABCOCK ROAD. APPLICANT BEING LETICIA RAMIREZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY SUCH AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS NUMEROUS OTHER CIRCULAR AND TWO DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONS ARE SEEN IN THIS AREA, AND IT WILL ALLOW GREATER SAFETY IN GOING TO AND FROM BABCOCK ROAD TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCES WOULD RESO WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE FLANKED ON EITHER SIDE BY CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS IN PROVIDING SAFETY, BUT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY CONDUCIVE TO THEIR SAFETY NEEDS. THREE. BROUGHT GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE APPEARS TO BE IN [02:45:01] THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS NUMEROUS OTHER PROPERTIES WITH FRONTAGE ON BABCOCK ALSO MAINTAIN CIRCULAR TWO DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONS TO EASE TRAVERSING ONTO, UH, AND FROM THE BUSY ROAD. UH, 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. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERMIT PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS A PRESENCE OF CIRCULAR AND TWO, TWO DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONS ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SIX. APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE AS ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS PROPERTY, IS IS PRESENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY LOT ON AN ARTERIAL ROAD. DEIT SPECIFIC NEED TO ENSURE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BEES. UH, ANY DISCUSSION THIS HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. UH, ITEM NUMBER 12. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. THANKS GUYS. A NUMBER 12 BO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 8 AT 28 0 6 HOPETON DRIVE REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARI FOR A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK OR FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK FOR A ONE AND A HALF FOOT SIZE, UH, SETBACK IS ON R FIVE. UM, THIS, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT IN JUNE. UH, DURING THE INVESTIGATION, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS AND WE ARE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS BOARD FOR THE, UH, PERMITS. THE SITE PLAN, IT'S ALREADY BUILT ON THE, UH, REAR LEFT OF THE PROPERTY AS YOU SEE THERE, BE ON THE REAR YARD, THE FRONT OF THE HOME DATED PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT'S TO WHAT THE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE. CLOSER. LOOK AT THE SIDE SETBACK UP, CLOSE PICTURE FROM THE SIDE. OKAY. STAFF RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. AND NEXT ONE IS TWO THREE OPPOSED, UH, WITHIN THE AREA. NO RESPONSE FROM THERE. AND NO RESPONSE IS THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. SO, UM, PLEASE, UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. UH, CESAR PUENTE. OKAY. CESAR PUENTE. SO WE HAVE NINE MEMBERS. YOU NEED ALL NINE TO VOTE YOUR WAY FOR THIS TO PASS. UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. AND YOU HAVE THREE IN OPPOSITION. AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED? I DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, WE HAVE A A, A VOLUNTARY ONE. I'D LIKE, YES. OKAY. BUT WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THOSE OKAY. OKAY. FROM THEM. UH, WOULD YOU LIKE A CONTINUANCE OR WOULD YOU LIKE US? UH, YEAH, I, I CAN DO THAT. OKAY. JANUARY 20TH. JANUARY 20TH. JANUARY 6TH OR JANUARY 27TH. UH, WHICHEVER. OKAY. UH, MOVE TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 27TH. SO MOVED. OKAY. UH, A MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER MAN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. SECOND. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE HIM, UH, WHATEVER DATE HE IS, GO FIRST SINCE HE WAITED ALL? YES. ABSOLUTELY. SO THERE'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 27TH. UM, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, WE'LL SEE ON THE 27TH. VERY IMPORTANT. YOU'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THAT THEY'RE AGAINST WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED 'CAUSE I'VE HELPED THEM LOT. WELL, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GET WITH THEM AND GET WITH THE NEIGHBOR. THE, UH, I'M EMBARRASSED TO ACTUALLY. COLONIAL HILLS NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. UH, BECAUSE WE LOVE TO HEAR PEOPLE IN SUPPORT. YEAH. ALRIGHT, SO SIGNATURES. YEAH. SIGNATURES, EMAILS. WE LOVE IT ALL. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. WE'LL SEE YOU IN A BIT. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT [ Approval of Minutes  ] LAST ITEM IS THE MINUTES. DOES THERE ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADJUSTMENTS? NONE. ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BARTON. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. A UH, ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MINUTES PASS. AND, UH, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT OTHER THAN HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY SEASON AND WINTER BREAK. YEAH. AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN THE NEW YEAR. WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE NEW YEAR. 2025. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, UM, IT IS 3 59. WE'RE HEREBY ADJOURN. * 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.