[00:00:06]
I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION.
CAN WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE WHEN I START THIS AT.
STAFF, IF YOU COULD TAKE ROLE.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES PRESENT.
I'M HERE PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN AND I'M PRESENT.
SO WE'VE GOT 10, UH, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, UH, WITH ONE EXPECTED, UH, MOMENTARILY.
ALL RIGHT, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE JOIN IN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH HISPANIC ONE NATION UNDERGONE INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY.
REGINA JUSTICE FOR ALL HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE.
AND, ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES,
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
I LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMMANDANT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY, ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITIES OF 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 FIGHTING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL 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 WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRE, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS AND WHICH THE REQUEST OF RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF.
STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
CHECK MARK INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND NEXT INDICATES OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION, YOU'LL BE ALLOWED, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
UH, THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO
[00:05:01]
ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD OF QUESTIONS.SO THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER ONE.
ITEM NUMBER ONE IS BO A DASH 24 DASH 3 20 44.
ADDRESS IS 2100 NORTH MAIN AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
APPLICANT IS WGA CONSULTING ENGINEERS REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE SEVEN FEET FROM THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL AREA ON THE CORNER OF NORTH MAIN AVENUE AND EAST ASHBY PLACE ON JANUARY 27TH, 2025.
THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AS A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE EIGHT FOOT FROM THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT FRONT SETBACK, UH, AND WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY A VOTE 10 TO ZERO.
HOWEVER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE VARIANCE WAS ERRONEOUSLY ADVERTISED.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BUILT IN 1935 AND TO BE WITHIN SEVEN FEET OF MAIN AVENUE AND MCCULLOUGH AVENUE URBAN CORRIDOR.
A PORTION OF DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR SETBACK, HOWEVER IT APPEARS IT HAS BEEN BUILT PRIOR TO 1987 URBAN CORRIDOR STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH THE EASEMENT OWNER TO HAVE A 10 FOOT, UH, EASEMENT START AT THE HEIGHT OF 15 FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE AND IS INDICATED ON THE PLAT.
AND AN APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS, HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PERMITS ARE PENDING THE RESULT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SITE PLAN AND SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 24 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 44 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL LEAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN PROPERTY AND URBAN CORRIDOR AND TWO, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS IRREGULAR, LOT, SHAPED, LOT AND EXISTING STRUCTURES.
STAFF MAILED 22 NOTICES ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
NO RESPONSE FROM TO TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS ON THIS? UH, ONE VOICEMAIL.
LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL FIRST PLEASE.
THIS STATEMENT IS FOR BO OA CASE 0 2 4 4 AT 2100 NORTH MAIN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA AT 2 43 EAST WEST EDGE AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
THE ZONING AND CO COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE'RE ALL PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, LET US KNOW? NO SIR.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MANNA? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S, LET'S HEAR IT.
UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 4, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE SEVEN FOOT FROM THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT, UH, FRONT SETBACK SITUATED AT 2100 NORTH MAIN AVENUE, APPLICANT B AND WGA CONSULTING ENGINEERS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REDUCED SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER STRUCTURES AND ALONG THE CORRIDOR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACKS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE SPACE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT.
THREE, BY GROWING THE VARIANCE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUESTED URBAN CORRIDOR VARIANCE APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT PRESERVES THE URBAN CORRIDOR WHILE PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN PROPERTIES.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARI IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING
[00:10:01]
PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.IF GRANTED, THE URBAN CORRIDOR SETBACK VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES.
THE PROPOSED AVE WILL LEAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE URBAN CORRIDOR AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SIX APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS 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 AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THIS PROPERTY OWNER, SUCH AS THE LOCATION SIZE OF THE LOT.
UM, FOR THE SAME REASONS I VOTED FOR THIS LAST TIME.
I THINK I ALSO READ THE MOTION THE FIRST TIME.
UM, THERE'S, UM, ABUTTING OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT, UH, HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF SETBACK AND I DON'T SEE THIS BEING ANY DIFFERENT.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS.
ANY COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NOW LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY.
ALRIGHT, READY? GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM NUMBER ONE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS REQUESTED BY WEATHER LAKE PROPERTIES LLC AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT 2 0 3 PASCAL UNIT 1 0 6.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2 0 3 PASCAL, UNIT 1 0 6.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL OB EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK PHASE.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS ON THE BLOCK LOCATED AT 2 0 3 PASCAL UNIT 1 0 1 AND UNIT 1 0 3.
BOTH HAVING BEEN APPROVED ON MAY 20TH, 2022.
A PROPERTY WITH FIVE OR MORE UNITS IS A MULTI-FAMILY LIMIT IS 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A TOTAL OF SEVEN UNITS ON THE BLOCK.
PHASE TWO ACTIVE TYPE TWOS ALREADY BEING 1 0 1 UNIT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 ISSUED ON MAY 20TH, 2022.
THE BLOCK PHASE IS CURRENTLY AT 28% AND IF AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK PHASE WILL BE AT 42%.
THIS EXCEEDS THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST.
THE PROPERTY HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY OR ACTIVE LISTINGS.
THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 58 MALE NOTICES.
THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THERE WAS ONE IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET AND ONE IN FAVOR.
OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET, WE HAVE NO RESPONSE FROM TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION.
FOUR CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED AND WE GOT NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THEM.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO REGARDING THE, THE, UM, UH, THOSE THAT WERE IN FAVOR, UM, WERE THEY ALL FROM THE SAME APPLICANT? UH, NO.
THEY WERE, UH, DIFFERENT FROM NEIGHBORS BECAUSE IT, IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE ALL TEXAS PN INVESTMENTS FROM WHAT I SAW.
DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE THE, UH, PAPERWORK OR DID THEY RESPOND BY EMAIL? UM, WE HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO ON THE EMAIL ATTACHED, SO SCROLL DOWN.
SO, SO IS THAT THE ONLY, I THINK THERE WAS BEYOND THAT AT, SO KEEP GOING DOWN, KEEP GOING DOWN, KEEP GOING DOWN, KEEP GOING DOWN.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHO THE, WHO THE SENDER WAS ON THAT FIRST ONE, THE, THE FIRST, THE EMAIL JUST ABOVE THAT ONE.
THEN ALL, ALL THOSE SHOW THE SAME NAME.
[00:15:01]
HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
YOU COULD JUST, YOU CAN HAND 'EM ALL TO ME.
OH, I THINK HE'S GONNA PULL IT UP.
YEAH, PRINTER, NOT JUST, OKAY, I WILL DO.
UM, SO THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, WE'RE SEEKING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR UNIT 1 0 6 AT 2 0 3 PASCAL.
UM, WE WANT THE BOARD TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, WHICH IS THAT THIS UNIT HAS ALREADY BEEN OPERATING AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FROM MARCH, 2023 UNTIL DECEMBER, 2024.
UM, UNDER THE PRIOR OWNERSHIP, WE ACQUIRED THIS UNIT ON DECEMBER 24TH, 2024.
AND ON DECEMBER 25TH, UH, SORRY, DECEMBER 31ST, LITERALLY ONE WEEK AFTER THE, WE PURCHASED IT AND AFTER THE HOLIDAY WE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY FOR A NEW PERMIT SO THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE IT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
UM, SINCE THE CITY STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT WE NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION DUE TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, NOT MEETING THE 12.5% BLOCK FACE LIMITATION, WE'RE HERE BEFORE THE BOARD.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THANK YOU.
UM, TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT HERE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNIT 1 0 6 AND EVERGREEN CONDOS.
EVERGREEN'S CONDOS CONSISTS OF SEVEN EXISTING TOWN HOME STYLE CONDOS BUILT IN 2019, AND THERE IS SPACE BEHIND FOR SIX ADDITIONAL PLANNED UNITS THAT ARE NOT YET BUILT.
IT OCCUPIES HALF OF THE BLOCK FACE BETWEEN EVERGREEN AND PARK.
THE CITY STAFF DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY.
THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THREE OTHER UNRELATED BUILDINGS IN THE BLOCK FACE.
SO THERE ARE SEVEN OF OUR UNITS AND THERE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS.
ALL THREE OF THOSE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS ARE ALSO MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS CONTAINING BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE UNITS.
THE STAFF KEEPS OVERLOOKING THE FACT WHEN THEY'RE CALCULATING THE 12.5% RATIO AND SAYING WE'RE AT 42%.
YOU SHOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND THE BLOCK PHASE IS FAIRLY SHORT BECAUSE IT'S THE SIDE YARD OF THE HOMES THAT ARE BETWEEN EVERGREEN AND PARK.
THE ENTIRE BLOCK, WHICH IS BOUNDED BY MCCULLOUGH PARK, EVERGREEN AND PASCAL IS MULTIFAMILY AND IT CONTAINS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CONDO DEVELOPMENTS.
THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PASCAL.
AS I MENTIONED, THE THREE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE BLOCK FACE ARE ALSO MULTIFAMILY.
SO I THINK THAT THE, WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE UNITS PER BLOCK FACE, THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.
SO, AND ANOTHER THING I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT WHILE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ON THE EDGE OF THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS ARE MIXED USES, INCLUDING THE OTHER CONDO DEVELOPMENTS THAT I MENTIONED AND A PARKING GARAGE FOR METHODIST HOSPITAL.
THERE'S ALSO RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS ON THE BLOCK.
IT'S A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING AREA, AS WE ALL KNOW, AND IT'S A VERY SORT OUT PART OF TOWN FOR LOCALS AND VISITORS ALIKE.
CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? UM, YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IN FEBRUARY, 2023, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR THIS SPECIFIC UNIT.
IT HAD AN EXPIRATION DATE OF FEBRUARY 15TH.
SORRY, YOU WENT, YOU WENT ONE TOO FAR.
UM, YOU HAD AN EXPIRATION DATE OF FEBRUARY 15TH, 2026 THAT PERMIT'S ON YOUR SCREEN UNDER THE UDC OR UNDER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
IN THE PAST, THIS EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED AND THIS PERMIT WAS EITHER ISSUED AS OF RIGHT OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED FOR IT TO NOT BE IN THE 12.5%, UH, BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT.
UM, COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? IN JUNE OF 2023, ANOTHER STR PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR AN ADJACENT UNIT 1 0 3.
AND THEN IN JULY, 2023, ANOTHER PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR UNIT 1 0 1, WHICH IS ANOTHER.
SO THREE WERE GRANTED WITHIN, YOU KNOW, A SIX MONTH SPAN.
TWO OF THE THREE MUST HAVE REQUIRED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN WHICH WAS GRANTED FIRST THE CITY STAFF BELIEVES THAT OURS WAS GRANTED LATER, BUT YOUR CITY RECORDS THAT I PULLED UP SUGGEST THAT OURS WAS GRANTED FIRST AND THE OTHER TWO WERE GRANTED LATER.
THE STAFF HAS SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME ERROR IN HOW THOSE WERE INPUTTED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S ERROR SHOULD NECESSARILY BE MY PROBLEM NOW.
UM, WE ACQUIRED THE UNIT ON DECEMBER 24TH, 2024, AND WE IMMEDIATELY CONVEYED IT INTO A SINGLE PURPOSE ENTITY, WESTERLY PROPERTIES, WHICH WE WHOLLY OWN, UM, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO RUN THIS PROFESSIONALLY.
UH, THE UNIT WAS MARKETED TO US BY OUR SELLER STALLION GROWTH FUND AS AN EXISTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL,
[00:20:01]
AND IT HAD AN EXCELLENT RENTAL HISTORY AND IT WAS A GOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTY.WE'VE GOT A SON WHO IS GOING OFF TO COLLEGE PRETTY SOON, AND WE FIGURED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR MY HUSBAND AND I TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME, WHICH WOULD HELP OFFSET THOSE COLLEGE EXPENSES.
WE DID INQUIRE WITH THE CITY BEFORE WE CLOSED OUR BROKER SPOKE TO A LADY NAMED VICTORIA THOMAS AT THE CITY AND SPOKE TO HER ABOUT HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO RENEW THAT STR PERMIT.
AND WE WERE TOLD ONE, NOTHING COULD BE DONE BEFORE WE CLOSED.
AND TWO, IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM TO GET THE NEW PERMIT BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAD A PERMIT.
AND SO, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE A NEW PERMIT, BECAUSE THE UNIT ALREADY HAD BEEN OPERATING AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THEY DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
THE SELLER ALSO WASN'T COMFORTABLE WITH HIS APPLYING WITH US ACTUALLY FILING AN APPLICATION BEFORE WE CLOSED, JUST IN CASE WE DIDN'T CLOSE.
SO IMMEDIATELY UPON CLOSING, WE FILED AN APPLICATION ON DECEMBER 30TH FOR THE NEW PERMIT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE EXISTING PERMIT WASN'T TRANSFERRABLE TO US.
SO WE IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE STEPS NECESSARY TO GET A PERMIT AND BE GOOD CITIZENS.
UM, WE'RE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY BECAUSE GRANTING OUR NEW PERMIT WOULD EXCEED THE 12.5% BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE TWO OTHER PERMITS ARE ALSO OUTSTANDING IN THAT CONDO UNIT.
WE UNDERSTAND THE BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT, BUT WE'RE PUZZLED WHY IT'S A PROBLEM NOW.
AND IT WASN'T A PROBLEM WHEN THREE PERMITS WERE GRANTED IN THE PAST.
AND AS I SAID, I ALSO THINK THE STAFF IS OVERLOOKING THE NATURE OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 42% OF THE BLOCK FACE, BUT I THINK THAT'S INCORRECT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT THESE SEVEN CONDOS ARE THE ONLY CONDOS IN THE BLOCK FACE.
THEY'RE NOT, THERE ARE THREE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE BLOCK PHASE.
ALL THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS, IF YOU INCLUDE ALL OF THE UNITS, THE VARIANCE IS ACTUALLY MUCH, MUCH CLOSER TO 15 OR 16% IF YOU COUNT THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE BLOCK PHASE.
UM, THE, THE MATTER WAS ORIGINALLY SET FOR THE FEBRUARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, THE CITY REQUESTED THAT WE OBTAIN A CONTINUANCE AT THAT TIME TO ALLOW FOR MORE NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT, AND WE DID THAT AND THE CITY REACHED OUT TO NEIGHBORS IN THE CIRCLED AREA THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN.
UM, THREE NEIGHBORS CAME OUT IN SUPPORT SHOWN WITH STARS ONE NEIGHBOR WAS AGAINST, BUT I THINK HIS REASONS WERE MORE RELATED TO HIM BEING UNHAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN CHANGES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND, YOU KNOW, GENTRIFICATION, THOSE KINDS OF CONCERNS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY HERE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY OR THE BOARD TODAY.
UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS REMOVED FROM HISTORIC DISTRICT AND GOT PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVAL AND WAS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY A RELEVANT ISSUE HERE.
AS FOR OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT, AS I SAID, THREE NEIGHBORS DID COME OUT AND SUPPORT, AND MY EXPERIENCE IS GENERALLY NEIGHBORS ONLY SPEAK UP IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM, AREN'T GONNA TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY TO COME, COME, COME SUPPORT IT UNLESS THEY'RE, AND THEY'RE SO NOT HAPPY.
UM, I WANT YOU TO REALIZE THAT EVERY DAY WE DON'T HAVE THE PERMIT, WE'RE UNABLE TO RENT THE UNIT, AND WE'RE TURNING AWAY RESERVATIONS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE PREDATED OUR OWNERSHIP AND WE'RE EFFECTIVELY LOSING MONEY ON THE UNIT.
WE WASTED NO TIME AT ALL IN APPLYING FOR THE PERMIT AND WITH THE CITY'S CONTINUANCE REQUEST LAST MONTH, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY, WE'VE ALREADY LOST TWO MONTHS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO RENT THE UNIT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS TECHNICALLY, COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE.
WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS EXCEEDS THE BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT AND THAT WE NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
WE'RE SAYING GIVE US A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE FIRST, I DON'T THINK GIVING US THE PERMIT CHANGES THE STATUS QUO.
AS OF DECEMBER, 2024, THERE WERE THREE SHORT-TERM RENTALS OPERATING IN THIS BLOCK.
AND UPON GRANTING OUR PERMIT, THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE THREE SHORT TERM RENTALS OPERATING IN THIS BLOCK.
SECOND, I STILL THINK BASED ON THE CITY RECORDS, OURS WAS THE FIRST IN TIME.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THESE PERMITS WERE ENTERED INTO YOUR ELECTRONIC SYSTEM, BUT THE FACT REMAINS, IF THE CITY HAD AN OVERSIGHT AND GRANTED MORE PERMITS THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THE PAST, THAT AGAIN, SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE MY CONCERN.
UM, ALSO THE, THIS UNIT HAD A PERMIT THAT WAS VALID IN UNTIL 2026.
SO HAD THE SALE TO US NEVER OCCURRED.
THAT UNIT TODAY WOULD BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
IT THE ONLY REASON IT'S NOT IS BECAUSE WE IN GOOD FAITH ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THIRD, I THINK SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WERE GRANTED FOR TWO OF THE THREE UNITS.
YES, THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHICH, WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT WAS GRANTED BY RIGHT? AND WHICH WERE THE TWO THAT GOT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
AND I GET THAT THERE'S SOME CITY ERROR IN THERE, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SHOULD BE MY PROBLEM.
I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO 42%.
I THINK WE'RE CLOSER TO, AS I SAID, 15 OR 16%.
I THINK GRANT NOT GRANTING THE PERMIT WOULD VERY MUCH ADVERSELY IMPACT US.
WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF OPERATING IN THIS MANNER.
WE, WE PURCHASED IT FULLY FURNISHED.
[00:25:01]
WE PAID FOR FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT, EVERYTHING THAT CAME WITH THIS UNIT SO THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THIS WAY.WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BREAK EVEN LET ALONE PROFIT IF WE USE IT FOR A LONG-TERM RENTAL, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUR ONLY OPTION OTHERWISE.
UM, SO I THINK EFFECTIVELY YOU ARE NOT RENEWING OR NOT GRINDING A NEW PERMIT, WHICH EFFECTIVELY WOULD JUST BE KIND OF A RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING PERMIT, ALMOST AMOUNTS TO A REGULATORY TAKING OF OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THE CITY'S ERROR SHOULD BE OUR PROBLEM.
I KNOW THAT THE BOARD IS HUGELY CONCERNED WITH THE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND I WENT THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY THE UDC AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY BECAUSE AGAIN, IT SIMPLY MAINTAINS THE STATUS QUO FROM THE LAST TWO YEARS.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THANK YOU AGAIN.
I KNOW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU THAT IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY.
SO I WANNA DELVE INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE.
AND MAYBE SOME OF THIS IS GONNA BE REPETITIVE, BUT I I WANT YOU TO FIRST OF ALL UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A PARTY HOUSE.
THIS UNIT IS A HIGH-END LUXURY CONDO.
IT HAS AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING.
IT'S BEING OFFERED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS VISITING OUR CITY.
IT'S INTENDED TO GENERATE INCOME FOR US, REVENUE FOR THE CITY, AND THE MEANING FOR OUR GUESTS.
IT ALREADY HAS A RENTAL HISTORY FROM THE PAST TWO YEARS, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GUESTS OVER THOSE TWO YEARS WERE IN THE UNIT FOR OVER A WEEK.
THEY WERE MOSTLY FAMILIES, BUSINESS TRAVELERS.
IN FACT, EVEN THE RENTAL REQUESTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR AND HAVE HAD TO TURN AWAY OR TOLD, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD CAN'T, WE CAN'T DECIDE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
WE HAD A REQUEST FOR A THREE MONTH RENTAL BY A MARKETING PROFESSIONAL WHO'S HERE ON A BUS ON BUSINESS TRAVEL.
THEN WE HAD A 35 DAY RENTAL REQUEST FROM A TOBIN HILL RESIDENT WHOSE HOUSE HAS FIRE DAMAGE.
AND SHE, HER AND HER DAUGHTER NEED A PLACE TO STAY WHILE THEIR HOUSE IS BEING REPAIRED.
WE PERSONALLY HAVE NO DESIRE OR INTEREST IN RUNNING A PARTY HOUSE.
WE'RE NOT EVEN OFFERING IT FOR LESS THAN A THREE NIGHTS DAY.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? AND I KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS, ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT NEEDS TO BE MET TO, TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH EACH ONE.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
UM, THE PROPERTY'S ALREADY BEEN OPERATED AS A PERMITTED SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITH IT HAS ADEQUATE FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, EXITS, CONTROL DEVICES, LOCKS, DECIBEL SENSORS, OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
WE HAVE RULES IN PLACE FOR ALL OF OUR GUESTS.
THESE MATTERS WILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY WHEN THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THE EXCEPTION WILL CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS ALREADY OPERATED AS A PERMITTED SHORT TERM RENTAL WITH STRICT GUIDELINES IN PLACE FOR NOISE AND OTHER DISTURBANCES.
IT HAS AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING AND A TWO CAR GARAGE HAS OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
IT HAS RULES IN PLACE FOR GUESTS.
NO NOISE OR THE VIOLATIONS HAVE EVER BEEN REPORTED.
UM, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WON'T BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN OPERATED THAT WAY AND THERE WAS NO INJURY.
THE PROPERTIES GOT ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS OFF STREET PARKING BALCONY ROOF DECK.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THANK YOU.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT TERM LICENSES OR ANY OTHER OFFENSES.
IN FACT, AS NEW OWNERS, WE WERE GOOD CITIZENS AND WE IMMEDIATELY APPLIED FOR A NEW PERMIT.
UM, THE EXCEPTION DOESN'T ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS ALREADY BEING OPERATED THAT WAY.
IT'S IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
I I UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE THESE LIMITATIONS, BUT AGAIN, THE CALCULATIONS ARE NOT ACCURATE AT 42%.
AND IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE BLOCK, I THINK THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, A MARGINAL VARIANCE OF 4% OR LESS THAN 4% OVER THE MANDATED AMOUNT FOR A VERY ATYPICAL SITUATION WHERE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN OPERATED AGAIN.
AND THREE PERMITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED AGAIN BY THIS CITY FOR THIS TO, TO, TO EXIST IN THAT WAY.
UM, WE THINK THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER IN THAT SENSE, BECAUSE THAT'S, I MEAN, WE DON'T WANNA HAVE TOO MANY OF THESE UNITS, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS, IS IN SPIRIT, IN HARMONY WITH IT.
UM, WE DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR THE CONVENIENCE IS WE, WE THINK THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
AS I SAID, THE THE UNIT IS A HIGH-END PROPERTY.
IT'S BEING, BEING OFFERED TO FAMILIES, BUSINESS TRAVELERS.
IT'S, IT'S AN AMENITY FOR OUR CITY TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES AVAILABLE.
UM, WE DON'T THINK THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S BEEN OPERATING AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
UM, SO IN CONCLUSION, I THINK THAT OUR SPECIAL
[00:30:01]
EXCEPTION FOR THE PERMIT SHOULD BE GRANTED, AS I'VE DISCUSSED, THE APPLICATION DOESN'T CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.AS OF DECEMBER, 2024, THERE WERE THREE SHORT-TERM RENTALS OPERATING AND GRANTING OUR PERMIT.
THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE SAME NUMBER.
AGAIN, THERE'S CONFUSION OVER HOW THE ORDER OF THESE PERMITS WERE GRANTED, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THREE PERMITS WERE GRANTED AND TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WERE GRANTED.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY IS CORRECTLY CALCULATING HOW THAT RATIO, UM, WORKS.
AND I THINK NOT GRANTING THE PERMIT WOULD MATERIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECT US BECAUSE WE PURCHASED THIS UNIT FOR THIS PURPOSE AND WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BREAK EVEN WITHOUT IT.
UM, WE DON'T THINK IT ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S BEEN OPERATING THIS WAY.
AND I, IF ANYTHING, I THINK IT'S AN IMMUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY.
UM, WE DON'T THINK GRANTING THE PERMIT MATERIALLY ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, BUT WE THINK NOT GRANTING IT DOES MATERIALLY IMPACT US AND ESSENTIALLY AMOUNTS TO REGULATORY TAKING.
SO ON THAT BASIS, WE REQUEST THAT YOU UPHOLD THE STATUS QUO AND YOU GRANT OUR APPLICATION, UH, FOR THE SHORT TERM PERMIT RENTAL.
UH, SO I HAVE A SLEW OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE HEARING.
UM, IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS THAT THE FIRST PERMIT, UH, WAS ISSUED IN, I THINK IT WAS MARCH OR MAY OF 2022.
ALL THE STR UM, UH, BILL IC NUMBERS HAVE A 23 PREFIX.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WHICH ONE ACTUALLY DID COME FIRST.
UH, THE OTHER THING THAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO HEAR IS, UH, THE, THE DIDN'T THE RULES CHANGE ABOUT HOW Y'ALL LOOKED AT MULTIFAMILY? UH, AND IF SO, DID THAT AFFECT, UM, HOW PERMITS WERE GRANTED, YOU KNOW, PRIOR THAN A COUPLE YEARS AGO? AND, UM, YEAH, AND JUST LOOKING FOR COMMENT TO SEE WHO CAME FIRST ON THESE UNITS, IF Y'ALL COULD, UH, ENLIGHTEN THIS
SO TO CLARIFY, THE CURRENT PERMITS ON THE BLOCK FACE WERE ISSUED IN 2022.
AT THE TIME THE SYSTEM WAS DOWN, SO STAFF ISSUED A LIKE CERTIFICATE IN PERSON, BUT THEY FAILED TO UPLOAD IT INTO THE SYSTEM.
AND BY THE TIME STAFF CAUGHT, IT WAS UNTIL 2023 WHERE WE DID CREATE THE RECORD IN THE SYSTEM IN 2023.
BUT THE CERTIFICATE MATCHES THE THREE YEARS FROM THAT MAR MAY 22ND, 2022 DATE IS BECAUSE THE, UH, THE, THE PERMIT NUMBER FOR I, UM, SUITE NUMBER 1 0 6, THE ONE IN QUESTION HAS THE LOWEST NUMBER.
WAS THAT THE FIRST ONE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME? NO, THAT WAS THE THIRD ONE.
THE ONE AT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 WERE BOTH ISSUED IN 2022.
WHICH ONE WAS THE VERY FIRST ONE? THAT WAS ONE, UH, 1 0 1.
AND THEN WHAT IS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 OWNED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? YES.
AND THEN, UH, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, UM, WHENEVER AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE OCCURS, THE PERMIT INSTANTLY GOES AWAY.
AND SO, UH, SUITE NUMBER 1 0 1 WAS THE VERY, VERY FIRST ONE STAFF, UH, IN THE STAFF REPORT IT STATES THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR, UH, ONE OF THE OTHER ONES WAS ISSUED.
I GUESS BOTH OF THEM WERE ISSUED AN ERROR AT THE TIME.
AND WE DID EMAIL BOTH THE SECOND TYPE TWO AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT UPON IT WAS A STAFF ERROR.
THEY CAN LIVE OUT THE REMAINDER OF THEIR PERMIT, BUT UPON RENEWAL THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BOA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THEN, UH, DID, DID, WHEN DID THE RULE CHANGE ABOUT ROUNDING OR HOW MULTIFAMILY OR DID THE RULE CHANGE? UH, REGARDING HOW MULTIFAMILIES LOOKED AT AS FAR AS PERCENTAGES? SO THE ROUNDING CHANGED IN BEGINNING OF 2023, HOWEVER, THE DENSITY COUNT HAS REMAINED THE SAME FOR MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS.
SO THE, THE FACT THAT THIS IS A MULTI-UNIT, IT WAS ALWAYS INDEPENDENTLY CALCULATED.
THEY'RE NOT TOWN HOMES, THEY'RE NOT INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY A CONDO REGIME.
AND ALSO TOO, WE ONLY COUNTED SEVEN BECAUSE WE DON'T COUNT VACANT PROPERTIES.
SO EVEN THOUGH THE SEVEN BEHIND ARE ON THE ARE ARE ON THAT SITE PLAN, THEY'RE STILL NOT BUILT OUT YET.
SO I WANTED TO UH, BRING ALL THIS UP BECAUSE WE ARE HEARING A LOT OF, UH, ISSUES WITH TIMING AND WHO CAME FIRST, WHO CAME SECOND.
SO JUST SO THE COMMISSION IS AWARE, UNIT NUMBER 1 0 1 WAS THE SOLE LEGITIMATE STR ONE THAT WAS ISSUED.
ANY UNIT 1 0 3 OR 1 0 6, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP ARE, WERE AT SOME POINT GONNA COME BACK TO THIS BOARD 'CAUSE MM-HMM
UNIT 1 0 3 WHEN THEIR PERMITS UP, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET AN AUTO RENEWAL DUE TO A STAFF ERROR, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UPON RENEWAL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT UNIT 1 0 6 WAS ALWAYS, UH, NOT ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AND WAS ALWAYS GONNA HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO THIS, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA? SO, AND YOU KNOW, JUST CONTINUE TO
[00:35:01]
CONTINUE ALONG THE CLARIFYING ROUTE.SO, SO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT, IN BCA, YOU KNOW, IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S UH, 15 ADDRESSES HERE AT 2 0 3.
AND SO, SO BECAUSE THERE'S 15 ADDRESSES, UM, YOU AREN'T COUNTING UH, ADDRESSES, YOU'RE ONLY COUNTING THOSE THAT ARE UH, HAVE THE OCCUPANCY.
SO ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE OCCUPANCY.
AND ALSO TO THAT ROUNDING RULE WOULD APPLY NOW 'CAUSE AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2023, IT WOULD BE, IF WE DON'T ROUND UP, SO THERE'S 15 UNITS ON THERE, IT WOULD STILL BE LESS THAN TWO.
SO WE WOULD STILL NEED 16 UNITS TO ALLOW TWO TYPE TWOS BY.
AND THEN MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS THAT WE'VE HAD, SO BECAUSE THIS IS BECAUSE THESE ARE TOWN HOMES, UM, THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND IT, WHICH ARE EIGHT, UH, 13 OTHERS, THOSE WOULD NOT BE COUNTED.
UM, BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION THAT IS MULTIFAMILY.
IS THAT CORRECT? CLARIFY THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, THEIR ADDRESS OFF EVERGREEN.
SO IT'S A SEPARATE BLOCK FACE ENTIRELY.
THIS IS, THIS PROPERTY'S IS ADDRESS OFF OF PASCAL, SO THEY'RE SEPARATE AND ALSO TWO BOLT UNITS PROPERTIES, EIGHT OR MORE UNITS.
AND SO, UM, I GUESS IN B AD IT SHOWS I WENT TO BCA COUNTED, UM, 13 OTHER PROPERTIES, UM, ON BCA ON PASCAL FOR THIS BLOCK, SO MM-HMM
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE HOMES THAT ARE BEHIND IT WERE PART OF THAT.
YEAH, I JUST WENT TO BECA, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM.
YEAH, THE, THE, TO THE WEST, UH, THOSE, THOSE, UH, IDG DEVELOPMENT, THOSE ARE PLOTTED AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS OR PERCEIVED AS SINGLE FAMILY, I ASSUME? CORRECT.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A, ON THE, ON THE ACCESS DRIVE THAT COMES OFF OF EVERGREEN, ARE YOU LOOKING AT IT AS TWO SEPARATE BLOCK FACES? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THERE'S, SO THERE'S ALREADY ONE STR THERE, SO POTENTIALLY THERE COULD BE TWO TO THE WEST AND THEN THIS ONE HAS ONE LEGITIMATE ONE.
I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD, YOU KNOW, THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE GUIDELINES.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
YES, MR. BEVI, I'M JUST CURIOUS, I, UM, SO I KNOW BEFORE PURCHASING YOU DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BY CONTACTING OR HAVING YOUR BROKER CONTACT THE CITY.
MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THAT YOU COULD NOT GET THE SER, WOULD YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY? NO, WE WOULD NOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY, ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO, SO, UM, I'D LIKE FOR THE CITY TO CLARIFY AGAIN, SO, SO THAT, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UH, THE DATES AND THE TIMINGS.
AND SO, SO THE DATE WAS CORRECTED PRIOR TO THEM, UH, PLACING THE APPLICATION FOR THE NO, IT WAS NOT FOR THE REQUEST.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE UNIT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 WERE ISSUED A PERMIT IN 2022.
THEY WERE NOT UPLOADED TO OUR ONLINE SYSTEM TILL 2023.
BUT THEIR CERTIFICATE AND EXPIRATION DATE IS THREE YEARS FROM THAT MAY, 2022 DATE, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE SET TO EXPIRE THIS YEAR.
AND THE APPLICANT, UH, SUBMITTED FOR THEIR REQUEST, UM, AFTER THE UPDATE WAS MADE AND THE DATES CORRECTED OR BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED.
THE, THE MOMENT THEY, THEY BOUGHT THIS, THEY IMMEDIATELY, I KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT'S COULD I, THAT'S A PROBLEM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
UH, YES, AS PART OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE DID CONTACT THE CITY.
I ALSO DID GO ON THE, THE PORTAL, THE WEBSITE, AND I LOOKED UP THE EXISTING PERMITS AND I I GAVE YOU A SCREENSHOT OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.
BASED ON WHAT I SAW, IT DEFINITELY LOOKED LIKE OURS WAS FIRST.
WELL, I, I, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE HOW THAT HAPPENS.
I MEAN, IT, THIS IS, WE DO, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD, UH, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION FROM APPLICANTS LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, MOVE FORWARD AND DELIBERATE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
SO I'M CURIOUS, UM, IN 2025, THE FIRST TWO WOULD'VE EXPIRED, BUT THIS UNIT, UM, WOULD STILL BE, UM, VALID.
HOW WOULD YOU HAVE HANDLED THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR RENEWAL? IF THIS ONE WAS STILL IN PLACE AND YOU HAVE THE 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 UNIT, UM, THEIR PERMITS WOULD'VE EXPIRED.
SO IF THE 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3 PERMITS EXPIRED AND AND THIS ONE LIKE THE, THIS CONTINUED YES.
SO THEY, THAT THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE THE TYPE TWO BY, RIGHT.
IT WOULD NOT NEED TO GO TO BOA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT THE OTHER TWO WOULD, IF THEIR PERMITS EXPIRED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A BRAND NEW APPLICATION AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE BASED ON WHAT THE CURRENT BLOCK FACE WOULD'VE BEEN, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE THAT 1 0 6.
[00:40:01]
SO IF IT HAD NOT BEEN SOLD, THIS PERMIT WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE.AND WE DID REALLY LET TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER UPON HIS RENEWAL, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN NEXT YEAR, HE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND ON THAT, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON UNITS 1 0 1 OR 1 0 3? ARE THEY ACTIVELY RENTING? YES.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE, THE PROPERTIES HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THE RENEWAL APPLICATION.
SO 1 0 1 UNIT 1 0 1 IS, COULD STAY A TYPE TWO IN TUDE IF IF THEY JUST KEEP REAPPLYING.
COULD I ADD SOMETHING THERE ON THE OTHER SURE.
1 0 1 IS ACTIVELY MARKETING THEIRS AND YOU CAN GO ON AIRBNB AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE MM-HMM
THEY'RE, THE UNITS ACTUALLY BEING OCCUPIED.
1 0 3 IS NOT, 1 0 3 HAS NOT HAD AN ACTIVE LISTING OR RESERVATION EVER.
SO, SO JUST 1 0 1 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
THEY CAN, IF THEY RENEW, THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'LL GET IT EVERY TIME.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, YOU ARE, THIS, THIS UNIT 1 0 3 AND 1 0 6 WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO COME HERE, UM, LIKE FOREVER.
AND, AND THERE'S, THE ONLY TWO WAYS TO STOP THAT IS, IS THE HOPE THAT ONE OF THE OTHER UNITS, YOU KNOW, EITHER DOESN'T FILE THEIR HOT HOT TAXES LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO OR THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, RELEASE IT.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL, WE'VE ALL HEARD WHAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR AS FAR AS WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY.
UH, BUT WE, BUT IT IS NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY CITATIONS.
STAFF, THIS APPLICANT IS, DOESN'T HAVE ANY CITATIONS.
THIS IS THE NEW OWNER, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN, BUT OH, THIS IS YOUR FIRST STR? CORRECT.
PREVIOUS OWNER DID NOT HAVE ANY, BUT THIS IS THE, THE PREVIOUS OWNER SOLD HIS PROPERTY TO THE NEW OWNERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY.
AND YOU ARE ALLOWED TO RENT FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE WITHOUT IT BEING AN STR.
SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GET YOU FOR TH 35 DAYS, I DEFINITELY WOULD DO IT.
AND JUST TO ADD, I'M ACTUALLY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY.
I OWN A HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE STATE YOUR NAME? SORRY, I, MY NAME'S VIN BTA.
UM, I'M ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE, 'CAUSE I'M IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS, SO IT'S NOT A PARTY HOME.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS TOWN HOME WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BRING IN QUALITY FOLKS THE HOSPITAL, BE IT NEXT DOOR, DISPLACED FAMILIES OR FAMILIES TRAVELING.
WE, YOU KNOW, DENIED THE ONE OR TWO NIGHTERS FOR A REASON AND WE BOUGHT IT BASED ON THE CITY TELLING US THAT THIS SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.
BEEZ COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT, SITUATING AT TWO, SITUATED AT 2 0 3 PASCAL UNIT 1 0 6, APPLICANT BEING WESTERLY PROPERTY LLC.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL 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 NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIAL ENDANGER, ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SA HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE.
THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY.
BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD, WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
D ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DAMAGE, I'M SORRY, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND OTHER NECESSARY, UH, FACULTIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED.
THE SPECIAL, THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE.
E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES, CONVICTIONS OR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT PREVIOUSLY, DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTIONS FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.
F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE
[00:45:01]
DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A MOTION.
UM, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR, UM, OF THIS.
I FEEL THAT THE, THE APPLICANTS HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY GAVE, UH, THE CITY GAVE THEM, UM, THE WRONG INFORMATION, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S AN EXISTING, IT, IT'S ALREADY THERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BEYOND THE, UM, DENSITY, BUT I FEEL, UM, IN THIS CASE WE SHOULD GRANT THE TYPE TWO PERMIT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY NEEDS TO BETTER WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT AS PEOPLE MAKE BUSINESS DECISIONS, THAT THE DATA IN THE SYSTEMS THAT THEY'RE USING TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS IS, IS VALID.
AND SO, UM, I I I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN PENALIZE THIS, THIS GROUP HERE FOR DOING THAT.
UM, SECOND THING YOU KNOW IS, YOU KNOW, I I LOOK AT OVERALL DENSITY IN THE AREA AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TREATING THIS PROPERTY DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS THE MULTI-FAMILY LOOKING AT THE DENSITY AROUND THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS THERE, YOU KNOW, I I'M, I I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO BREATHE WITH REGARDS TO THE NUMBER THAT ARE IN THIS BLOCK FACE.
AND THEN, UM, FINALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO, I ASSUME BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXCEPTION, THAT IT'S GONNA REQUIRE THAT THEY COME BACK IN THREE YEARS TIME, UM, AND FILE AGAIN AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET TO RENEW OR REVIEW, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RECORD IS FOR REALLY EVERYBODY AROUND THIS AREA.
SO, SO FOR THOSE REASONS I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
DOES ANY OTHER COMMISSION LIKE TO ADD, BUT IT'S ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS YES, COMMISSIONER BE THAT I DID, UM, FORGET TO MENTION THEY DO HAVE THREE OUT OF THE SEVEN PROPERTIES.
THEY HAVE THREE THAT ARE, UM, THAT ARE FOR IT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S SIGNIFICANT.
UM, I DO TEND TO APPROACH, UM, THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITH SOME INITIAL DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM, BUT YOU'VE GOT SUCH A UNIQUE SET OF FACTS HERE AND YOU'VE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO YOU TO, TO APPROVE THAT EXCEPTION.
COMMISSIONER MANNA, I FORGOT TO MENTION TOBIN HILL, WHICH IS VERY VOCAL IN THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS, SO, RIGHT.
THAT SAYS SOMETHING IN AND OF ITSELF.
AND I WILL, I WILL ADD THAT I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT.
UH, WHAT WHAT DOES IT FOR ME IS, IS THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, TWO OUTTA THE THREE YEARS, THESE, THESE EXTRA ONES ARE GONNA COME UP FOR US TO LOOK AT.
IT'S NOT JUST THIS ONE, EVERY THREE, UH, AND IT'S TEMPORARY AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, LIMITED TO THREE YEARS.
BUT THERE'S ALSO PARKING, THERE'S A TWO CAR GARAGE.
AND, AND, AND IF, IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD SIX MORE UNITS, THERE'S STILL GONNA BE EVEN MORE DENSITY TO MAKE ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER ABOUT IT.
SO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I ABSTAIN.
I WASN'T HERE FOR THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION.
ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, WE, IT WAS AN EIGHT TO TWO VOTE SO IT DOESN'T PASS.
OKAY, SO CAN WE, CAN WE RE GET A VOTE INSTEAD?
WELL, I CAN, I CAN GIVE SOME EXPLANATION FOR MY VOTE IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I THINK REGARDLESS, EVEN IF THIS SITE WAS FULLY BUILT OUT, YOU'D BE OVER THE, THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF UNITS AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITHIN THIS BLOCK FACE WHAT'S CONSIDERED A BLOCK FACE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING MY VOTE.
HOW DO WE GET A VOTE FROM THE ENTIRE BOARD THAT THIS, SHE WAS ONLY HERE FOR PART OF IT AND SOMEBODY ELSE MISSING.
I KNOW, BUT WE'VE THE CHAIR MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD.
YEAH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ONE.
UM, IF ONE OF THE PERSONS THAT, UH, ONE OF THE TWO, UH, UH, COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE, WHO WERE DEC IN ON THE PREVAILING SIDE WANTED TO RE ENTERTAIN THIS, THEY
[00:50:01]
COULD, UH, BUT ONLY THEY, THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN DO IT.HOW DOES THAT WORK? THEY WOULD'VE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RE ENTERTAIN AND IT'S LIMITED TO THE TWO THAT VOTED NO.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8.
THE ADDRESS IS 3 2 0 BALTIMORE STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
UM, APPLICANT IS STUART PORTER AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO ON THE BLOCK FACE.
AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS FBZ FOR FORM-BASED ZONING.
UH, AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3 2 0 BALTIMORE STREET.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK PHASE.
THE BOA GRANTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL FOR, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, HOWEVER, ON FEBRUARY 17TH, 2022, THIS TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL WAS RENEWED BY STAFF WHO MADE AN ERROR BY NOT PROCESSING THE REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE BO OA FOR ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UM, PER SECTION 35 DASH 37 4 0.01.
ON CITY CODE TYPE TWO STR SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE.
UM, AND THEN PER SECTION 35 DASH 3 9 9 0.03 F GRANTING OF THE PERMIT OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO IS TO BE DEFINITE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS.
AND THIS IS THE TYPE TWO DENSITY COUNT.
UH, THERE ARE SEVEN UNITS ON THIS BLOCK.
PHASE ONE ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO LOCATED AT 3 1 8 BALTIMORE STREET.
UM, THAT ONE'S ALSO OWNED BY THE, UH, APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE.
THE BLOCK PHASE IS CURRENTLY AT 14.29% AND IF THIS ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 28%, WHICH EXCEEDS THAT 12.5% FOR TYPE TWOS.
UM, AND THERE ARE NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FOUND FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ACTIVE LISTINGS.
THE SITE PLAN AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH OH 3 0 0 0 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING.
UH, ONE STAFF FINDS THE APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE IN TYPE TWO SHORTTERM RENTAL.
PERMITT DENSITY WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL AS THE REQUEST MEETS THE SIX CONDITIONS.
UH, TWO, THE OPERATOR MANAGING STR FOR SIX YEARS AND THREE, THE HOT TAX HAS BEEN REMITTED ON TIME FOR SIX YEARS AND REMAINS UP TO DATE.
AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN.
STAFF NOTE OUT 23 NOTICES WE RECEIVE ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
UH, NO RESPONSE FROM THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE THREE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT, SAID THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
I, I PURCHASED THIS BUILDING IN 2017 AND RENOVATED IT, CLEANED UP THE AREA AND WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IN AN AIRBNB.
WE'VE BEEN OPERATING AN AIRBNB SINCE 2000 18, 3 18 AND THREE 20.
THAT NUMBER, THE BUILDING IS A DUPLEX, THEY'RE TWO TOWN HOMES, SO THE ENTIRE BUILDING ITSELF IS THREE 18 ON CITY RECORDS.
SO GOT A DUPLEX THERE AND THAT WE'VE BEEN LICENSED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 2018 WITH NO VIOLATIONS, UH, NO INCIDENCES.
I'D JUST LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THE AIRBNB.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS PURCHASED FOR THE BUILDING TO RUN AS AN AIRBNB AND HAS SINCE AND SINCE THE CHANGE IN RULING TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
BUT WE WERE LICENSED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 2018.
STAFF HAS ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE SOUNDED TO SPEAK? UH, ONE VOICEMAIL.
HELLO, MY NAME IS CALLING DUREN, LAST NAME SPELLED D-U-R-E-N.
I HAVE THE PROPERTY AT 3 22 AND THREE TWENTY FOUR BALTIMORE.
MY PHONE NUMBER'S (210) 854-5785 AND THIS IS REGARDING CASE NUMBER 0 0 0 8.
[00:55:03]
AND, UM, GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS PAULING DURIN SENIOR AND I HAVE OWNED MY PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO, UH, THREE 20 BALTIMORE SINCE 1995.
AND WHEN I PURCHASED IT, I USED AN EXISTING GARAGE ON MY LAND PRIMARILY FOR PARKING TO ACCESS IT ACROSS WHAT MY DEED DEFINED AS AN EASEMENT OWNED BY THE NEIGHBOR WHO IS NOW THE PORTERS.
HOWEVER, DUE TO A JUDGE RULING THAT EASEMENT WAS REDEFINED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR AS THEIR LAND LEAVING ME WITHOUT LEGAL ACCESS TO MY OWN PARKING SPACE.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS DECISION WAS SIGNIFICANTLY, HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED MY PROPERTY VALUE AND USABILITY.
WHILE I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT ACCEPT THE LEGAL OUTCOME, I DO HOPE THIS BOARD'S DECISION DOES NOT ALLOW FURTHER ENCROACHMENT ONTO THE PORTION OF LAND THAT I STILL OWN, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY MY GARAGE AREA.
IF SUCH ISSUE ARISE, I SINCERELY HOPE THAT THEY CAN BE RESOLVED THROUGH CITY OFFICIALS RATHER THAN ANOTHER COSTLY LEGAL BATTLE, WHICH WE JUST WENT THROUGH.
THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO SUPPORT APPROVING THE PORTER SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATION.
DESPITE PAST CHALLENGES, THEIR TENANTS HAVE BEEN EXEMPLARY AND I BELIEVE GRANTING THIS REQUEST IS REASONABLE.
I ONLY ASK THAT MY CONCERNS REGARDING POTENTIAL PARKING OVERREACH BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND IF NECESSARY ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE THROUGH APPROPRIATE CHANNELS.
IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PARKING AT THE THING? BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
I OWN THE PARKING ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
MR. DURAN OWNS 10 FEET AT THE END OF MY PARKING LOT AND IN A 1938 DOCUMENT IT, IT DIDN'T DEFINE WHERE THE EASEMENT WAS, BUT HE, SINCE THAT'S THE END OF HIS PARKING.
HE THOUGHT THE EASEMENT SHOULD BE THROUGH MY PARKING.
AND HE TOOK ME TO COURT AND ENSUED ME FOR BLOCKING HIS PARKING, WHICH HE'S NEVER PARKED ON BEFORE, BECAUSE HE CAN'T FIT A CAR ON IT.
IT'S ONLY 10 FEET, 10, MAYBE 12 FEET DEEP.
BUT, UH, HE ENDED UP LOSING BECAUSE THERE IS NO EASEMENT ON ON THAT PROPERTY.
HE DOESN'T USE IT AS A GARAGE.
HIS CONTENTION WAS, I SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARK IN MY PARKING SPOT IN THE EVENT HE WANTED TO GET INTO HIS AREA.
BUT HE DID A REHAB ON HIS PLACE.
HE COULD HAVE, HE ENTERED FROM ANOTHER AREA.
HE COULD HAVE ENTERED FROM DALLAS STREET.
HE COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S NO EASEMENT THERE.
AND SO, SO IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, UM, SO, SO IT LOOKED LIKE THERE'S LIKE A THREE FOOT EASEMENT ON HIS SIDE THAT, THAT HAS GRAVEL IN.
AND THE REST OF IT IS A DRIVEWAY, WHICH YOU STATE IS YOURS, IS MINE.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS ANOTHER DRIVEWAY, WHICH YOU ALSO STATE IS YOURS.
AND, AND THAT HOUSE REALLY HAS ZERO LOT LINE, RIGHT? THERE'S ZERO LOT.
SO YOU HAVE, IT LOOKS LIKE PLENTY OF PARKING HERE.
SO, UH, CITY, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UH, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION HERE AS WELL WITH REGARDS TO THE PERMITTING AND I, I GUESS I GOT CONFUSED ALONG THE LINE.
TO CLARIFY, WHEN HE RENEWED THE FIRST TIME BACK IN 2022, PREVIOUS STAFF DID NOT, UM, FAIL TO TAKE THE, FAILED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION TO THE BOARD JUST FOR ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION BEFORE APPROVING THE RENEWAL APPLICATION.
I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.
AND SO, SO THERE WAS ALREADY AN APPLICANT THAT WAS ON THE PROP OR ON THAT BLOCK FACE AND THEN THIS WAS A SECOND REQUEST.
SO WHEN THE FIRST I TYPE TWO ON THE PERMIT WAS THREE 18 BALTIMORE, WHICH THE OWNER OWNS IN 2019, HE WINS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THE FIRST TIME FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE ADDRESS ON THREE 20 BALTIMORE, WHICH THE BOARD DID APPROVE AND HE WAS APPROVED FOR A SECOND TYPE TWO STR OFF THE PROPERTY.
IN 20 22 3 18, BALTIMORE WAS RENEWED BY WRIGHT, UH, THREE 20.
BALTIMORE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO BE AWAY FOR ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS THEIR ONLY VALID FOR THREE YEARS.
HOWEVER, PREVIOUS STAFF DID NOT DO THAT AND THEY APPROVED IT WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD.
IN 2024, UH, THE THREE 18 BALTIMORE CAME IN FOR A SECOND RENEWAL.
IT WAS APPROVED BY WRIGHT SINCE THE FIRST IN THE BLOCK PHASE.
AND NOW THREE 20 IS COMING IN FOR A SECOND RENEWAL AND IS NOW BEING PRESIDENT AT THE BOARD AS THE FISCAL EXCEPTION IS ONLY VALID FOR THREE YEARS.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
[01:00:01]
IS THIS IS, DOES THIS APPLICANT HAVE ANY, UH, VIOLATIONS OR HOT TAX ISSUES? THE OWNER HAS NO VIOLATIONS AND HE'S BEEN CURRENT ON HIS HOT SINCE HE'S BEEN OPERATING SINCE 2018.IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? SURE, GO AHEAD.
THERE ARE ONLY THREE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THAT BLOCK.
ONE SINGLE FAMILY AND THREE MULTI-FAMILIES.
UH, SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT AND NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A DOG PARK AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, SO.
COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 8.
I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR, TO ALLOW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 3 2 0 BALTIMORE, APPLICANT BEING STEWART PORTER BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
UH, IT IS IN THIS, UH, IT, UH, IN THAT THIS IS THE SECOND RENEWAL AND STAFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY TO LOCATION THE PAST SIX YEARS.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, BEYOND THE 12.5% DENSITY CAP IS NOT LIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND OR SAFETY IF APPROVED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH THE S ST R IS LOCATED WITHIN DOES NOT POSE A HAZARD TO LIFE, HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
B THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED OVER THE PREVIOUS SIX YEARS THAT THE OPERATION OF THIS STR DOES NOT CAUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
STAFF FINDS THAT THIS TREND IS MORE LIKELY TO CONTINUE WITH ZERO COMPLAINTS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND OPERATOR SEE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY PROPOSED USE.
UM, THE DENSITY CAPS WERE ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORS ARE NOT INUNDATED BY THE PRESENCE OF TYPE TWO SDRS.
ALLOWING THIS ADDITIONAL SDR IN THIS BLACK FACE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS IT HAS BEEN OPERATED SINCE 2019 AND HAS NOT IMPACTED THE SURROUNDING AREAS SINCE THEN.
D ADEQUATE, UM, UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN AND, UH, HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING, APPEARS TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE.
E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUS REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UM, LICENSES.
CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITH ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTIONS.
F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED FBZT FIVE DASH ONE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE LAND USE OF AN STR AND GENERAL RESIDENCE LAND USES THE DENSITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL, EXISTS TO ENSURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD REMAINS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL STAFF FINDS THAT EXCEEDING THE 12.5% BLOCK FACE DENSITY IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ, COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO, UM, SO GO BACK THROUGH SOME OF THE NORMAL DIALOGUE.
SO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS.
SO THAT KIND OF STARTS OFF THAT, THAT POINT.
UM, SECOND IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS.
AND, UM, AND THEN THREE, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE CITY, YOU KNOW, I WANT THE CITY TO DO BETTER.
AND SO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS 'CAUSE UH, WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING ANY DIALOGUES.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ, I AGREE WITH MR. MANNA.
I THINK WITH THE, THE CITY APPROVAL ALREADY, I THINK THAT WILL HELP HIM.
AND SINCE HE HAS NO VIOLATIONS ON RECORD, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
[01:05:01]
APPLICANT IS, UH, AT JURY DUTY RIGHT NOW AND IS ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE.UH, AND, UH, WE HAVE 13 CASES AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT MARCH 24TH, WE ONLY HAVE FOUR SO FAR AND THE DEADLINE HAS ALREADY PASSED.
SO I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE CONTINUE IT TO THE 24TH.
IS IT NECESSARY TO MOTION? IS IT, IS IT NECESSARY TO HEAR A, A STAFF PRESENTATION BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? NO.
UM, LEMME GIVE A QUICK BACKGROUND.
UM, DO OA 24 1 0 3 0 0 2 19 A REQUEST FOR FOUR FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION OF AN EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW THREE FOOT VARI OR THREE FOOT REAR SETBACK LOCATED AT 10 11 WISEMAN STREET.
UH, SO I COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON AS THE SECOND, ARE YOU COUNTING ME AS THE MAKER? SO I THINK CRUZ.
SO COMMISSIONER CRUZ IS THE MAKER.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON AS A SECOND.
ADDRESS, 3 0 6 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN AND 45 38 MONTEREY STREET COUNCIL, DISTRICT FIVE.
APPLICANT, UH, OLI, UH, ARE MENEZ, UH, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN AND MONTEREY STREET, SOUTH OF WEST COMMERCE STREET.
LOCATED WITHIN THE LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, APPLICANT HAD A FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND RECEIPT, A VIOLATION NOTICE OF FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT IN DECEMBER, 2024.
THE FENCE IS, UH, LET'S SEE, FENCES, CORRUGATED METAL FENCING SURROUNDING THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS MEASURING SEVEN FEET.
THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A CONCRETE LOT AND A GARAGE STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED EIGHT FEET, A FENCE HEIGHT ON THE SIDE AND REAR YARD AS COMMERCIAL.
UH, BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY USE IS PERMITTED.
AND THERE'S A SITE PLAN JUST SHOWING WHERE THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IS AT.
NONE OF IT IS ON, UH, GENERAL MCMULLEN AND SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE ONE STRUCTURE ON THE LOT SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA 25 1 0 3 0 0 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, SECURITY CAN BE PROVIDED ON THE LOT BY A NON PROHIBITED FENCE MATERIAL, AND THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE ANY ADDED SECURITY.
TWO, THE PROPERTY IS ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH, AND THE INDUSTRIAL LIKE FENCE MATERIAL WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK AND CHARACTER.
AND THREE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AND JUST AS A NOTE, WE DETERMINED THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED THE FENCE, UH, MATERIAL, UH, OR THE FENCE HEIGHT, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA, BUT THEY DID NOT NEED THAT.
AND THEN MOVING ON, UH, WE MAILED OUT 36 NOTICES.
THREE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THEN HERE WERE THE ONES RECEIVED IN FAVOR.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE AND MIGHT NEED A TRANSLATOR AS WELL.
UH, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, IS THERE VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE CENTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO.
SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE.
I'M HERE WITH MR. ANO DIVA MENARI.
HE IS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY 3 0 6 SOUTH JOHN MCMULLEN THAT HE PURCHASED.
UM, HE WORKS AT A TIRE SHOP, UM, 43 45 ON SAN LUIS.
UM, SO WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS AVAILABLE TO BE PURCHASED, HE DID PURCHASE IT.
THAT PROPERTY HAD A HOUSE AND A SHED.
[01:10:01]
PROPERTY ENDED UP GETTING BURNED BY THE HOMELESS.THAT GOT BURNED, AND THEN THE HOUSE GOT BURNED ON THE SECOND TIME.
WHEN THE SECOND TIME GOT BURNED, IT BURNED THE HOUSE ON THE BACK, UM, OF 3 0 6, WHICH WAS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE.
UM, SO MR. OLIVAS HAS BEEN, UM, LITTLE BY LITTLE PUTTING INTO THAT, UM, PROPERTY.
'CAUSE EVENTUALLY HE WANTS TO MOVE HIS BUSINESS FROM 43 45 SAN LUIS TO 3 0 6.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ONE, UM, BUILDING JUST STANDING THERE.
UM, IN PARTS WE DO, UM, DO THE CEMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, PIECES HERE AND THERE 'CAUSE WE'RE DOING IT OUT OF POCKET, LIKE, YOU KNOW.
UM, SO THE, THERE'S A GATE BEHIND THE STRUCTURE THAT BELONGS, UM, RIGHT IN BETWEEN CESAR CHAVEZ AND, UM, MONTEREY.
AND THERE IS VACANT LOTS IN BETWEEN THERE.
AND THERE'S HOMELESS THAT LIVE IN THOSE VACANT LOTS.
AND THEY STARTED CUTTING THE GATES THROUGH, UM, SO THEY CAN PASS THROUGH.
UM, SO THEY'RE LEAVING LIKE TRASH.
UM, THEY DO DO DRUGS, SO WE ALWAYS FINDING IN CONSISTENTLY NEEDLES, UM, LEFTOVER THINGS THAT THEY USE.
UM, SO THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT NEXT TO HIM STARTED, UM, TELLING MR. OLIVAS, HEY, THE, I I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THESE HOMELESS ANYMORE.
UM, WHEN ARE YOU PLANNING TO CLOSE DOWN? UM, THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ALWAYS, LIKE, THEY KNOW WHERE MR. OLIVAS LIVES.
SO THEY ALWAYS GO AND, AND, YOU KNOW, LET 'EM KNOW.
LIKE, HEY, THERE'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TRESPASSING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, DAY AND NIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL, HOW FAMILIAR Y'ALL ARE WITH GENTLEMEN MULLEN, THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING DAY AND NIGHT.
UM, THEY UNDRESS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THEY DO DRUGS IN FRONT OF YOU, THEY DON'T CARE.
SO, UM, MR. OLIVAS JUST SAID, OKAY, WELL I'M GONNA CLOSE OUT THIS SIDE.
'CAUSE THE NEIGHBOR DID PUT A PIECE, IF YOU NOTICE THAT SOME, THE, SOME OF IT IS A DIFFERENT COLOR FROM WHAT WE PUT.
UM, SO THE NEIGHBOR, HE, UM, PUT A PIECE AND SO WE JUST ENDED UP PUTTING THE REST OF IT JUST TO TRY TO KEEP THESE HOMELESS FROM COMING IN THERE.
UM, DON'T THINK THAT MS. OLIVAS IS TRYING TO DO STUFF AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, BREAKING THE, UM, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY THE LAW, RIGHT? UM, BECAUSE WHEN HE DID HIS WHOLE ENGINEERING PLANNING THINGS, HE TOLD THE ENGINEER, I WANT ALL PERMITS PAID.
I DON'T WANT NO PROBLEMS. AND WE STILL ENDED UP HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCRETE GUY.
WE STILL ENDED UP GETTING A VIOLATION FOR THE CONCRETE GUY.
SO MR. LEVIS IS NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING, UM, YOU KNOW, BENDING THE RULES OR ANYTHING.
HIS THING WAS, OKAY, LET ME JUST PUT THE GATE, TRY TO GET THESE HOMELESS, YOU KNOW, OUT OF OUR, OUR, YOU KNOW, AREA.
UM, A LOT OF NEIGHBORS DO, UM, DO COME TO MR. OLIVAS AND LET 'EM KNOW, LIKE I SAID BEFORE.
UM, BUT IT WAS JUST THE MATTER OF FACT OF TRYING TO, TO REDUCE THEM FROM ENTERING THAT AREA.
A LOT OF THAT AREA IS A LOT OF OLDER PEOPLE, WHICH DO FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T WANNA COME OUT AT NIGHT BECAUSE OF THESE PEOPLE.
UM, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WAS SCARED AT FIRST TO EVEN SAY ANYTHING WHEN THEY DID BURN THE FIRST TIME.
THEY HAD THEM ON VIDEOS AND NOTHING GOT DONE TO THESE HOMELESS, OF COURSE.
UM, SO MR. EVAS WAS JUST TRYING TO PUT THE FENCE TO CLEAR UP MORE OF THOSE HOMELESS WALKING AROUND.
WE DID GO TRY PAYING THE, THE VIOLATION THAT WE DID.
THAT FENCE WAS, UM, PUT UP IN DECEMBER 18TH.
THAT DAY WAS, UM, THE DAY THAT THEY ENDED UP, UM, PUTTING IT UP.
AND THAT DAY WHEN WE WENT TO GO CHECK ON THE WORK, UH, WE SAW THE CITATION ON THE BUILDING.
UM, SO WHEN I WENT TO GO, UM, TRY PAYING IT, THEY TOLD US THAT IT WASN'T IN THE SYSTEM YET.
I'VE GONE TWICE, UM, TO TRY TO PAY IT.
AND THEY TOLD ME IT'S STILL NOT IN THE SYSTEM.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING NOT TO PAY.
WE'VE TRIED PAYING THE VIOLATION.
UM, AND THEN THEY STARTED GRAFFING ALL OUR GATE INSIDE AND OUT.
AND THEN IN ONE OF THE PICTURES YOU CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S A BRANCH HANGING, UM, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET TO THAT PART TO GRAFFITI.
AND THEN ONCE WE CLEARED UP THE BRANCH, THEY WENT AND GRAFFITIED MORE, UM, THE BUILDING.
WE HAVE PICTURES WHERE OUR BUILDING'S STILL NICE AND, UM, WITHOUT GRAFFITI, AND NOW IT HAS GRAFFITI IN THE FRONT ON THE SIDE.
[01:15:01]
PUT, UM, THE ROLLUP DOOR.IT MAINTAINED GOOD FOR A WHILE, BUT EVER SINCE, UH, WE LET THE, THE GRAFFITI STAND, NOW OUR ROLLUP DOOR IS GRAFFITI, LIKE BIG LETTERS.
UM, I HAVE A PICTURE OF IT AND IT'S LIKE THE CITY HAS CAME AND TOLD US THAT THEY'LL PAINT OVER IT, BUT IT'S LIKE, DO WE DO ANYTHING ELSE NOW? 'CAUSE NOW WE'RE, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE STUCK THAT WE DON'T WANNA DO SOMETHING, AND THEN IT COMES AND FALLS BACK ON US.
AND NOW WE'RE STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF Y'ALL ASKING LIKE, WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? BECAUSE I MEAN, NOW WE'RE, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A, ON A STOP.
AND AT THIS MOMENT IT'S LIKE, HOW DO WE PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL THESE HOMELESS THAT ARE DOING WRONG? AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BUILD A, A BUILDING FOR OUR BUSINESS.
CAN YOU BRING UP THE, UH, THE IMAGE WHERE IT SHOWS THAT ORANGE OUTLINE WHERE THE, THE FENCE IS INTENDED TO GO? YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
SO I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THE, THE, THE, THE LINE WORK IN ORANGE IS WHERE THE, UH, CORRUGATED METAL FENCE IS, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? YES.
UH, CAN YOU THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
THAT LINE, THAT'S NOT WHERE IT IS.
SIGNALING WHERE, WHERE THE, YEAH.
ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ISSUES, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE OF IS THAT WHEN AN ITEM COMES BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, HOW IT GETS ADVERTISED AND WHERE IT IS, UH, MATTERS AS TO WHETHER WE CAN VOTE ON IT.
SO IF HE'S SAYING, AND, AND THIS IS SOMETHING STAFF CAN, TO, TO, CAN YOU VERIFY THIS? BECAUSE IF IT'S, IF IT IS ON THAT OUTER PART MM-HMM
THIS MIGHT NEED TO BE READVERTISED.
BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT ADDRESS.
AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF CONFUSION EXACTLY AS TO THE, THE EDGE OF THE, UH, PROPERTY.
WHEN WE CAME IN TO DO THE APPLICATION, SIR, UM, THE, THE LADY HERE, 'CAUSE WE CAME IN, WE ASKED RIGHT FOR THE VARIANCE, UM, BECAUSE WE GOT THE CITATION.
UM, AND WE CAME IN RIGHT AWAY TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON, RIGHT.
AND HOW DO WE CAN LIKE FI FIX IT, RIGHT.
AND, UM, SHE TOLD ME, OKAY, THE APPLICATION HERE SHOWS YOUR, UM, YOUR, YOUR LOCATION.
AND THEN SHE GOES, DRAW OUT WHERE, WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO AND SEE.
SO WE DREW THAT OUT AND THEN THEY TOLD US TWO WEEKS LATER THAT SOMEBODY WOULD CALL HIM.
SO WHEN I DREW IT OUT, I DID DRAW IT AND THEN I EVEN TOLD HER, I SAID, RIGHT HERE THERE'S A, A LINE FROM THE, UM, WIRES FROM THE LIGHTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, COME IN AND IT'S, UH, IT'S DRAWN OUT.
[01:20:03]
NO, HE, HE, ON HIS, ON HIS PLANS, HIS PLANS SAY THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A WOODEN FENCE RIGHT THERE.THE REASON WHY HE ALSO PUT A METAL FENCE WAS BECAUSE THEY, THE HOMELESS BURNED ALREADY WOOD, A WOOD HOUSE.
SO IN HIS, LIKE, IN ON HIS BEHALF, HE WAS LIKE, LET ME PUT A METAL, BECAUSE IF THEY BURNED DOWN THE WOOD FENCE, IT WAS, IT WAS GONNA BE, NO.
SO HE'S PUTTING DOWN A METAL FENCE ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, RIGHT? OH, YEAH.
SO, OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER INVOLVED IN THIS THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF, WHICH IS THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK.
SO, UM, DO WE NEED TO DO A, THIS NEEDS TO BE READVERTISED, SO THERE'S REALLY OKAY.
WE'LL EXPLAIN SO THEY CAN, THEY CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
THIS WILL, YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK, OKAY, SIR.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO ITEM SIX.
I WILL BE RE RECUSING AS COMMISSIONER BONNI, UH, ON WEBEX? I DON'T THINK NO, NO.
OH, YEAH, I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN.
AND JUST, UH, ALSO ONE, UH, 33 IS WHEN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN CAME IN.
IF, IF, UH, THAT WASN'T NOT JOTTED ON, IS COMMISSIONER UNI IN ON WEBEX? WE'RE CHECKING ON HIM RIGHT NOW.
MR. BOEZ, CAN YOU JUST CHECK IN WITH US REAL QUICK? PLEASE? TURN YOUR CAMERA ON, SIR.
WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR VERIFICATION, MR. SO AS SOON AS YOU'RE ABLE TO SHOW US, UH, YOUR CAMERA AND A VERBAL OKAY, YOU WANNA GO TO THE NEXT CASE WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT? OR HE'S GOT OH,
[01:25:02]
GOOD JOB,[ Approval of Minutes ]
ISSUES WITH THE MINUTES? I HAD SOME, THEY ALREADY FIXED THEM.IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? I MOVED THE MINUTES, UH, ARE APPROVED AS, UH, WRITTEN SECOND THAT, ALRIGHT, IT'S UPDATED.
I WILL BE LEAVING AND TURNING THE GAVEL OVER TO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 1 1.
ADDRESS IS 1250 AUSTIN HIGHWAY COUNCIL.
APPLICANT IS ADA CONSULTING GROUP INCORPORATED.
AND THIS IS GONNA BE A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE 57 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY.
LINE TWO, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE.
UH, THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE, A THREE FOOT AND 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELIMINATION ALONG THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE APPLICATION FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
A REQUEST FOR A SIX PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SEVEN REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW ONE PARKING SPACE.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, A 2% IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW 82% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD.
SEVEN, A VARIANCE FROM HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR TO ALLOW A DUMPSTER TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND ITEM NUMBER EIGHT WILL BE 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A DUMPSTER TO BE 51 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF NORTH VANDIVER ROAD ON THE CORNER INTERSECTION OF AUSTIN HIGHWAY AND SOUTHERN PORTION OF SIDELL ROAD.
THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMATIC CAR WASH FOR DEVELOPMENT, A NEW AUTOMATIC CAR WASH FACILITY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SEVEN FOOT, A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40 FOOT METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK, UM, ALONG WITH, UH, ALLOW PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE 5 57 FROM 57 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND A THREE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELIMINATION ALONG THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE ALONG, UM, TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING VARIANCES FROM THE MC THREE HIGHWAY AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND DUMPSTER DESIGN STANDARD REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A 2% IMPERVIOUS COVER INCREASE TO ALLOW TO ALLOW 82% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD, A DUMPSTER TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 40 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK TO BE 51 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
LASTLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW FOR ONE PARKING SPACE, ALLOW FOR ONE PARKING SPACE.
PERMITS ARE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THIS IS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING AUTOMATIC CAR WASH FACILITY.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OR THE, UM, SURVEY OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PROPOSED, UH, STRUCTURE AND IT'S THE TOP PORTION IS THE EXISTING AND THE SOUTHERN, UH, ONE IS GONNA BE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND THEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT,
[01:30:02]
PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK, AND THEN PROPOSED DUMPSTER ORIENTATION I AND PROPOSED PARKING CONFIGURATION, SUBJECT PROPERTY EXISTING, UH, AUTOMATIC STRUCTURE CAR WASH.THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE CURRENTLY.
THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, UH, FACING AUSTIN HIGHWAY AND THE REAR VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS, DUMPSTER ORIENTATION, LANDSCAPE BUFFER PARKING SPACE, AND IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT RELIEF FROM THE METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS.
TWO, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SANDWICHED BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPERVIOUS COVERED WHILE THE PROPOSED CAR WASH PROMOTES STREETS SCAPE AND LANDSCAPING, WHICH SUPPORTS THE INTENT OF THE METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR.
STAFF MAILED SEVEN NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT MANNA.
SO, UM, IN PRIOR, UM, PRESENTATIONS BY CITY STAFF WHEN IT WAS SO MANY ITEMS THAT WERE INCLUDED, THE CITY INCLUDED A NUMERICAL KIND OF CHART TO SHOW HOW EACH OF THE THINGS OR WHERE THEY WERE, THEY WERE BEING APPLIED.
AND DO YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE FOR THIS ONE BECAUSE I, I DIDN'T SEE IT BY CHANCE.
UM, SO WE SPLIT 'EM UP INTO DIFFERENT ONES BECAUSE PUTTING THEM IN ONE SLIDE WOULD CAUSE MORE CONFUSION.
UM, SO IF YOU SAW A BREAKDOWN THAT MELANIE DID, UM, SOME SLIDES HAD ONE OR TWO PER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE SHEET THAT SHOWS ALL OF 'EM THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD'VE MADE IT TOO CONGESTED.
SO THIS IS KIND OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CURRENT CAR WASH.
SO YOU CAN TELL THE DUMPSTER IS IN THE REAR OF THIS CONFIGURATION.
THIS IS ALSO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HERE.
I GUESS I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR THE MIRACLE, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFIERS OF THIS WAS NUMBER ONE, THIS IS THE AREA FOR NUMBER ONE.
THIS IS THE AREA FOR NUMBER TWO.
BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST AND IT WAS ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONES WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND SO, OKAY.
SO, AND IN, IN YOUR, IN THE PACKET ONLINE, IN THE ATTACHMENTS, YOU'LL FIND THAT THERE'S NUMBER ONE AND IT SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN.
CAN WE POSSIBLY BRING THAT UP? WAITING ON THAT? ARE THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO THIS, ALL OF THIS IS BECAUSE THE NEW FACILITY WILL BE BIGGER THAN THE CURRENT ONE, IS THAT CORRECT? SO NOT NECESSARILY BIGGER, BUT IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THE CORRIDOR STANDARDS, WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WE BELIEVE THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS BUILT.
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ONE'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SIZE OF, IT'LL BE ABOUT THE SAME OR A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
B SINCE THEY'RE ONLY SAYING ONE PARKING SPACE.
KIND OF DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE PEOPLE PARK IN THERE TO GO DO THE, THE VACUUM FIRST AND THEN WASH.
AND THE VACUUM SPACES DON'T COUNT AS PARKING SPACES, EVEN THOUGH SOME EMPLOYEES DO PARK THAT, BUT THEY DO EXIST.
ALL SEE THAT, THAT DOES TELL ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE JUST USING THE, THE SAME BUILDING, UM, AND IT'S ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THAT PROPERTY, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA REMODEL IT, SO IT'LL LOOK DIFFERENT AND IT MAY LOOK BIGGER WITH THE FACADES AND STUFF THAT THEY'RE GONNA PUT ON IT, BUT OVERALL THEY'RE JUST USING YEAH, BECAUSE, WELL, THE WAY THE PICTURES ARE DRAWN, IT DOES LOOK BIGGER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY HAVE.
[01:35:01]
I WAS GONNA SAY, IF I COULD ANSWER THEIR QUESTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO.WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY GO AHEAD AND START YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT QUESTIONS COME UP.
MY NAME IS CHARLES POPE AND I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT, THIS CLIENT PURCHASED THIS BUILDING, UH, AFTER 1998.
AT SOME POINT, UH, IN 2004, THEY RENOVATED IT.
IT HAD HAD A FIRE FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THEY RENOVATED THIS THING ON AN EXISTING SLAB AND DID THE BEST THEY COULD GET UP AND RUNNING.
NOW THEY WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A WASH TUNNEL, UH, WHICH IS KIND OF THE TREND.
AND IT'S, I'M CONCERNED AS AN ARCHITECT, THIS IS 107 FOOT WIDE SITE, 107 FOOT SURROUNDED BY THIS BIG METAL BUILDING.
SO WE FIT THIS IN WITH, UH, SAFETY IN MIND, VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
AND THAT'S THE REASON ALL THOSE SETBACKS COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE JUST KIND OF GETTING THE, THE CUSTOMER TURN RADIUSES AND ALL THE THINGS TO FLOW AND, UH, THE, THE, THE BUILDING IS RELATIVELY THE SAME SIZE.
UH, THAT'S WHY I GOT UP HERE TO, TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION.
UM, THERE ARE EIGHT VARIANCES THAT KIND OF OVERFLOW BETWEEN, AND WHEN YOU SAY MAXIMUM SETBACK TO AN ARCHITECT, THAT MEANS YOU WANT ME TO MOVE REAL FORWARD.
AND IF I'M TRYING TO PULL OUT OF A BUILDING, I GOTTA MANEUVER THAT TURN.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I PUSHED IT BACK AS MUCH AS I COULD.
SO ALL OF THOSE ARE TRAFFIC DRIVEN, SAFETY DRIVEN, AND THAT'S THE SAME REASON FOR THE DUMPSTER WHERE I HAVE IT.
WE, WE HAVE SOME, IF YOU, IF YOU SEE THE WE LANDSCAPE AND TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN WHERE WE CAN, BUT THE DUMPSTER, EMPTIES AND LEAVES AND DOESN'T MANEUVER AND BACK UP THAT WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT PROPERTY.
SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS FOR THAT.
AND I'LL, I'LL PAUSE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO.
IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD WITH YOUR WHOLE PRESENTATION, THEN WE CAN HAVE THE, UM, COMMISSIONER, SEE IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SO MANNA, SO, SO, UM, THE BACKSIDE, SO IT LOOKS BARE WITH REGARDS TO LANDSCAPING.
SO IS THAT, ARE WE CONCRETED IN, IS THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING THERE OR JUST TRYING? SO, SO I, I, I LIKE LANDSCAPING, SO, SO JUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ALL THE LANDSCAPING'S GOING.
JUST PUSH IT WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT.
SO YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? YES, SIR.
THOSE ARE TWO PAY STATIONS WHERE THE CUSTOMERS COME ONLINE AND THEY, THEY GO INTO THIS, THERE'S A, UM, A LITTLE COVER AND A PAY WINDOW WHERE THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR WASH AND THEN THEY GET IT IN LINE AND STACK UP.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF, AGAIN, THE, THAT METAL BUILDING IS KIND OF RIGHT UP AGAINST US.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM FOR THAT.
BUT WE HIRED, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW MR. LOCHTE, BUT I FOUND THE BEST LANDSCAPER I COULD FIND TO MAKE THE MOST I COULD OUT OF THIS PLACE.
AND SO, SO CURRENTLY THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING, SO, SO, UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT IT, THAT'S LIKELY ALL BEING REPLACED AND THEN NEW LANDSCAPING PUT IT IN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WAS THE CITY ABLE TO GET THAT PICTURE? I, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.
SO I WAS FOCUSED ALSO, AND THAT'S OKAY IF NOT.
SO JUST A REQUEST FOR FUTURE PRESENTATIONS.
I'M SORRY, I DID, I DIDN'T WHICH PICTURE DID YOU WERE ABLE TO, THE ONE WITH THE NUMBERS ON IT? YEAH, THE ONES ON THE PRESENTATION ONLINE.
SO THAT, THAT ONE HAS NUMBER FIVE AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT IT IS.
THE MINIMUM SEVEN FEET REQUIRED.
UH, THAT ONE'S FOR THE PARKING.
SO THAT SHOWS YOU THAT THE PARKING DOESN'T COUNT IN RED BECAUSE OF, THAT'S FOR THE, UH, ACTUAL CUSTOMERS.
I CAN EXPLAIN THAT TOO IF I COULD.
SO WHEN YOU'RE A CUSTOMER OF THE WASH, YOU GO THROUGH THE WASH AND VACUUM OR VACUUM FIRST AND GO THROUGH THE WASH.
YOU NEVER NEED TO PARK IN A SPACE.
THOSE VACUUMS COUNT FOR THAT PURPOSE FOR PUBLIC USE.
THE SINGLE SPACE IS FOR, UH, ONE EMPLOYEE TO BE ABLE TO PARK AND GO IN.
AND THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR ONE SPACE INSTEAD OF SEVEN, OF COURSE THAT WOULD LOSE A LOT OF VACUUMS. BUT, UM, A SINGLE SPACE FOR A DA DOESN'T REQUIRE ALL THE HATCHING AND SIGNAGE.
WE'RE MAKING THAT SPACE ACCESSIBLE, BUT ALSO THE MANAGER, IF THEY'RE NOT HANDICAPPED, CAN USE IT WHILE THEY GO IN TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES FOR A HANDICAPPED CUSTOMER TO WORK, UH, SO TO VACUUM, YOU KNOW, WORK THIS THE, UH, VACUUM AREAS, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS BUSINESS TO HAVE PARKING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, BON COMMISSIONER BEEZ.
UH, AND I'M SORRY, UH, I KNOW YOU SAID THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO NEED FOR, UH, STAFF PARKING.
IS THIS KIND OF JUST SOMETHING THAT THAT'S, THAT'S RAN, UH, WITHOUT, WITHOUT STAFF YOU NEED TO ADDRESS? YEAH, THAT'S,
[01:40:01]
HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON.IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE.
UH, GARY SNET WITH THE WASHTUB CAR WASHES.
SO LIKE STATED, YEAH, WE PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED THIS FACILITY BACK IN 2004, HAD GONE THROUGH AN ARSON FIRE AND THEN WE'RE HERE TODAY, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS LATER WANTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY REINVEST IN THIS PROPERTY AND, AND, UH, AND, AND MAKE, AND MAKE IT A LOT BETTER.
SO YEAH, THIS BUS, THIS NEXT BUSINESS MODEL THAT WE'RE WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, INVOLVES VERY FEW STAFF.
SO THERE'S REALLY NOT A NEED FOR, FOR THOSE SIX TO SEVEN EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES.
LIKE, LIKE OUR ARCHITECT MENTIONED.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD BE RUN WITH, WITH JUST VERY FEW PEOPLE, UH, THERE ON SITE.
IF, IF IN, IF IN THE FUTURE PO IF IN THE FUTURE YOU WERE DECIDE, YOU DECIDED TO MAYBE HIRE SOMEBODY WHO'S, UH, WHO'S A DA WHO IS A DA NEEDS THOSE, THOSE THINGS, UH, IS IS THAT GONNA BE AN ISSUE SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THAT SPACE NOW? NO, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE 'CAUSE WE COULD EASILY JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY OF THOSE, UH, PARKING SPOTS SLASH VACUUM SPACES.
I MEAN, IF WE NEEDED TO, TO, HEY, UTILIZE TWO OF THE, I THINK THERE'S A PROPOSED 13 SPACES, I BELIEVE.
UM, YEAH, I MEAN THAT WE, WE WOULD HAVE A FLEXIBILITY TO USE ANY OF THOSE IF WE NEEDED TO.
SO IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU DID HIRE SOMEBODY THAT WAS, THAT NEEDED AN A DA SPACE, YOU COULD, YOU COULD TRANSITION AND, AND TURN A SPACE INTO AN A DA SPACE? UH, ABSOLUTELY.
DO YOU WANT ME TO SHARE AMANDA? I WAS JUST GOING TO JUST YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANNA VERIFY.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD BEFORE WE LOOK FOR A MOTION? NO, THAT'S GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION PLEASE.
UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1, I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE, A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 40 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 57 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY.
LINE TWO, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE THREE, A THREE FOOT AND 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, WITH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELIMINATION ALONG THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICANT.
APPLICATION FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
FIVE ARE REQUESTS FOR A SIX PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SEVEN REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW ONE PARKING SPACE, SIX EIGHT 2% IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE MINIMUM OR FROM THE MAXIMUM 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW FOR 82% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD.
A VARIANCE FROM THE MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR TO ALLOW A DUMPSTER BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND EIGHT 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40 FOOT MC THREE AUSTIN HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A DUMPSTER TO BE 51 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1250 AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
APPLICANT BEING ADA CONSULTING GROUP, UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT AS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS SETBACKS.
LANDSCAPE BUFFER PARKING, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND DUMPSTER ORIENTATION VARIANCES WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR STRUCTURES ALONG THE QUARTER AND IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND NOT OUTTA CHARACTER FOR THE METROPOLITAN QUARTER DISTRICT TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
IN THIS CASE, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IT RESTRICTS THE APPLICANT FROM DEVELOPING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF LOT THREE.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED, THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ALTER THE OVERALL AESTHETIC OF THE COURT, THE METROPOLITAN CORRIDOR, OR INJURED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED, UH, IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IS, UH, VARIANCES LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE LOCATED OR ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER THE DISTRICT WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IF GRANTED, THE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE AS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE, UH, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS
[01:45:01]
AND DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND DO NOT ALTER, DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTIONS.UH, COMMISSIONER AMANDA, ANY COMMENTS? SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO HAVE THE CITY APPROVAL FOR THIS AND YOU KNOW, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD'VE LOOKED AT THE CORRIDOR, UH, AND THE QUARTER PLANS AND UNDERSTOOD, I GUESS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS LEVERAGING AN EXISTING FACILITY, UH, AND, AND, AND BRING IT BACK TO LIFE.
SO, SO I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL.
AND I, AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER MANUS SAID, AND THEN, UH, JUST THE ASSURANCE THAT IF THEY EVER DID HIRE SOMEBODY WHO HAS SPECIAL NEEDS, THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TRANSITION PARKING INTO A DA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DEAN? COMMISSIONER DEAN? YEAH, THIS SITE PLAN IS VERY AGGRESSIVE.
I DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR HOW MANY VARIANCES IT'S, UH, HAS TO OCCUR TO, UH, RETROFIT THIS.
AND, UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, IT'S, IT WOULD BE OKAY IF IT WAS A FEW, BUT THIS IS, UH, WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE FOR ME.
UM, SO I WILL BE IN OPPOSITION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, PLEASE TAKE, UM, ROLL CALL, VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR.
CHAIR BRAGMAN AND I'D ALSO CONCUR.
UM, SO NINE TO TWO, THE MOTION PASSES.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF CAN HELP YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT, TODAY.
AND IF WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT CASE.
ITEM SEVEN BUICK 25 1 0 3 0 0 0 12.
ADDRESS, 1331 AUSTIN HIGHWAY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 10 APPLICANT.
THE THORN GROUP, THE REQUESTS A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT, UH, 25 FEET HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 40 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG AUSTIN HIGHWAY WEST OF RAINBOW DRIVE, LOCATED WITHIN THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUESTING A NEW 40 FOOT TALL STRUCTURE AND WILL BE USED FOR, UH, A NEW USE FOR THE LOT WHILE THE PROPERTY ABUTTING.
UH, THE COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE RIGHT IS FLANKED BY A MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
UM, UH, WHILE THE RIGHT IS, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONING, UH, THE LEFT IS MULTIFAMILY ZONING DUE TO THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING ABUTTING THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK BEFORE A HEIGHT INCREASE.
ALLOTMENTS CAN START PER SECTION 35 5 17 D SINCE THE PROPERTY IS ONLY PROVIDING AN EXACT 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK, NO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCREASE ALLOTMENTS WOULD BE GRANTED.
THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY OVERLAY ITSELF ALLOWS UP TO A 40 FOOT, UH, IN BUILDING HEIGHT AND THEN THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE STRUCTURE WILL BE AND THEN THE SETBACKS.
AND THIS IS WHAT IT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE I SURROUNDING AREA.
AND THEN THERE'S, UH, IDZ TWO MULTIFAMILY IN THE REAR.
AND THEN THE REGULAR, UH, MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS, UH, TO THE LEFT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 12 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STRUCTURE WILL, WILL BE SIMILAR TO OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE CORRIDOR AND THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE ARE MET BY ALLOWING THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE AND THE
[01:50:01]
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER STAFF BAIL OUT 12 NOTICES WE RECEIVED.ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, THEY DID, UH, RESPOND DURING THE MEETING, UM, AND THE APPLICANT CAN, UH, BRING UP, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S RESPONSE, UH, WITH HIS PRESENTATION.
AND THEN THIS WAS THE ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION, UH, CLARIFICATION.
SO ON YOUR PRESENTATION IT SAYS, CITY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, BUT ON OUR PRESENTATION IT SAYS DENIAL.
IS THAT A TYPO OR IS THERE SOME REASON FOR THE CHANGE? POSSIBLY.
UM, YEAH, I BELIEVE YOU HAD THE OLD PRESENTATION.
THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
ARE THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE, START WITH YOUR NAME PLEASE.
YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD LINDSAY THORN, THORN ARCHITECTS.
UH, THANKS FOR WRITING US TODAY.
UM, YEAH, SO IT'S AN UNUSUAL SITE BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY DEEP.
I'VE BEEN GOING THERE FOR 20, 20 ODD YEARS.
SO, UM, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS IT, WE'VE LOOKED AT A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN TERMS OF FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, BUT REALLY IT'S TOO NARROW AND THE FRONT IS JUST SO SHORT ON US.
AND HIGHWAY FOUR, ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT'S LIKE A RETAIL STORE OR ANY TYPE.
AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING STORAGE FACILITY.
THERE'S ONE ADJACENT TO IT ON THE CORNER THERE OF, UM, A RAINBOW ON THE OTHER CORNER AND A LARGE URBAN STORAGE ONE.
IT'S A UNIQUE SITE BECAUSE BEING NARROW AND DEEP, UH, WE HAVE TO TAKE, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, IF YOU COULD FOR ME, THE ONE THAT WE INDICATED, A LARGE PORTION OF THE SITE, AS YOU SEE IS TAKEN UP BECAUSE IT'S A DEAD END PROPERTY BY THE DRIVEWAY AND THE HAMMERHEAD FOR THE FIRETRUCK AT THE END.
SO IT REALLY CUTS THE DEVELOPMENT IN HALF TOWARDS THE, ALMOST HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BACK HALF.
SO, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND WERE ABOUT 30 FOOT SETBACK, WE'RE PLACING IT OFF THE REAR.
YOU'VE GOT THOSE NEW APARTMENTS, THREE STORY AT THE REAR.
THE LEFT HAND SIDE PROPERTY IS BASICALLY THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES IN AND THE ADJACENT APARTMENTS TO THE LEFT, TO THE RIGHT, IT'S NONISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT SINGLE STORY, SORT OF 1950S RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TO THE RIGHT.
AND THEN THE FRONT OBVIOUSLY HAS AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
SO IT'S REALLY THE LEFT SIDE WE'RE LOOKING AT BECAUSE IT'S LONG AND NARROW, WHICH IS BASICALLY ALL WE CAN BASICALLY DO ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, GAINING THE EXTRA, UH, DISTANCE TO THE 10 FEET THERE.
UM, BY, BY ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT THIS VARIANCE, IF WE HAVE TO COME ANOTHER 10 FEET IN, WE COULD, WE COULD GO UP TO 40 FEET FOR THE, UH, CURRENT AUSTIN HIGHWAY OVERLAY.
UH, THE PROBLEM IS WE'D LOSE, UM, A LARGE PORTION OF THE DEVELOPABLE AREA ALL ALONG THAT PLAN.
SO, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT TALL THREE STORY STRUCTURES TO THE REAR, THE BUILDING FOR MULTI-STORY THREE TO THE REAR, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO SIDES.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT REQUESTING, IF WE CAN GET THE VARIANCE FOR THAT.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, SIR, SINCE IT'S GONNA BE, UH, THREE STORY BUILDING, IS THIS GONNA BE A BUSINESS CENTER OR IS IT IN THE APARTMENT? NO, IT, IT'S A STORAGE FACILITY.
OH, IT'S A STORAGE FACILITY? YEAH.
AND THERE'S TWO OR THREE ALONG, THERE'S TWO OR THREE ALONG THAT STREET.
YEAH, I KNOW IT'S JUST THREE, 300 YARDS.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OF WHAT YOU WERE GONNA MAKE THERE.
SO, SO IF WE GO BACK TO THE, UM, THE, UH, I GUESS DESIGN.
SO COULD CITY STAFF IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE OVERHEAD MAP AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE OR, OR MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN IDENTIFY USING A LASER WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE.
AND THEN THE, UM, SECOND QUESTION THEN IS WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY WRIGHT WITH REGARDS TO THE, UM, THE SETBACK FROM THOSE, UH, FROM THOSE SET APARTMENTS? UM, YOU KNOW, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO THE, THERE IS APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST.
UM, NORTH IS NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENOUGH SETBACK FROM IT.
UM, THE ISSUES COMING FROM THE APARTMENT FROM THE WEST, THEY HAVE THE 10 FOOT SETBACK.
THEY CAN INCREASE IT BY THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK, I BELIEVE IT'S EIGHT MORE FEET.
UM, AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT NEED THIS VARIANCE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIVE SHAPE OF THE LOT, THAT'S WHY, UM, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THIS.
SO, SO 18 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AGAINST THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE C TWO FACILITY.
A 10 FOOT IS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT USING THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.
[01:55:01]
FROM THE WESTERN.SO IF THEY HAD A WEDDING CAKE APPROACH, THEN, THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED THIS VARIANCE THEN, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE HERE BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID.
IT, IT, THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH HERE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THE, OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, THE WAY THE LOT IS ALREADY CONFIGURED, IT'S, IT'S UNUSUAL.
IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, A RECTANGLE OR STRAIGHT, YOU KNOW.
WELL, OKAY, SO I'M LOOKING HERE AT THIS PICTURE AND THE WEST SIDE IS A SOLID LINE AND A WEDDING CAKE WOULD BE EIGHT FEET IN, SO BASICALLY LOSE ONE SET OF STORAGE UNITS ON THE TOP STORY.
AND SO IT'D JUST BE A DESIGN DECISION VERSUS A STRAIGHT WALL IF, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY.
SO IF THIS WAS A REGULAR RECTANGLE THAT CHRISSY SAID THEY, IT, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THEM TO PUSH IT TO THE RIGHT.
UH, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S DEFINITELY ALSO A DESIGN DECISION THAT THEY'RE MAKING TO, WELL I, WELL I GUESS I'M, I'M JUST GOING DOWN THE PATH OF, UM, OF A DESIGN DECISION IS TO HAVE A SOLID WALL ALONG THIS WALL AGAINST THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AS WELL ON BOTH THE NORTH AND THE WEST AND A DIFFERENT DESIGN DECISION, WHICH WOULD BE MORE ALONG THE WEDDING CAKE DESIGN, WHICH WOULD LEAVE OFF EIGHT FOOT OFF OF BOTH, BOTH THOSE PERIMETERS THEN WOULD BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEY WOULDN'T NEED THE NEED, THE, UM, THE VARIANCE.
UM, YEAH, SO WHATEVER DESIGN, THIS DESIGN DECISION THEY MAKE, IF THEY WENT TO THE, UH, EAST EIGHT MORE FEET, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE OR, OR CHANGE THE CONFIGURATION ON THE SECOND, ON THE THIRD FLOOR TO BE, UH, TO BRING THAT IN BY EIGHT FEET.
SO JUST THE TOP FLOOR WOULD BE IMPACTED THEN.
UM, SO THE, SO THE, YOU YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING ABOVE, UH, 25 FEET TO PUSH IT OVER.
OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THAT'S ALSO SO THE DESIGN, SO A DESIGN AT THIS POINT COULD CHANGE IT SO THAT IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT.
AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, AND THEN, UM, AND THEN REGARDING THE, THE RESIDENT OR THE BUSINESS TO THE RIGHT, THEY WERE AN OBJECTION IF I SAW CORRECTLY.
UM, AND SO, SO FROM FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THERE ISN'T REALLY ANYTHING FROM A HEIGHT AND OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WE'RE HAVING DIALOGUE ON.
SO FROM A COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY ISSUE THEY HAVE IS MAYBE THE, THE FACILITY GOING IN PLACE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, YOU'VE HEARD THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP? YEAH, UM, YEAH, SO I WANNA CLARIFY BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE, WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 30 YEARS AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT HELP FROM STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE COULD DO WITH SETBACKS ON ONE THING ANOTHER.
UM, SO BASICALLY YOU COULD DO TWO STORY THAT WE WANT THAT YOU STEP BACK THE EIGHT FEET TO GO THE THIRD STORY.
SO WE BASICALLY LOSE THE ENTIRE LENGTH ON THE THIRD STORY ONLY.
AND IT PART OF, WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BUILDERS AS WELL, WE'RE UNUSUAL ARCHITECTS, WE ACTUALLY BUILD AS WELL.
SO PART OF THE FIGURATION OF BUILDING IS GONNA BE, UH, INTERESTING TRYING TO DO THAT WITH STEP SETBACKS AND WORRYING ABOUT FLASHING.
BUT, UM, BECAUSE THE, WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY ASK FOR A, A VARIANCES LIKE THIS, BUT IT'S QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT OF LOSS WE WOULD DEVELOP WHEN WE WOULD GET ALONG THAT ENTIRE, UM, WESTERN SIDE.
UM, IT IT BECAUSE THE NATURE OF, OF THE, OF THE SITE BEING SO NARROW.
SO, UM, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S REALLY WHY WE'RE, SO I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THE QUESTION OF ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES GENERALLY ALWAYS ASK, HE'S NOT HERE TODAY, SO, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE BUSINESS IMPACT DO YOU THINK, FOR LO LOSING THAT WHOLE STRIP OF, OF UNITS OUT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY UNITS WOULD, WOULD YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE AND WHAT WOULD BE THE BUSINESS IMPACT OF THAT LOSS? UM, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA LOSE AT LEAST, UM, PROBABLY 50 50 UH, RELEASABLE UNITS ALONG THAT TOP FLOOR, WHICH IS, WE'VE GOT ABOUT 300, CURRENTLY WE ARE ABOUT 340, SO WE'D LOSE PROBABLY 45 TO 50 ALONG THAT TOP SECTION.
'CAUSE THE WAY THE CONFIGURATION WORKS WITH HALLWAYS AND WIDTH OF HALLWAYS AND DEPTH OF UNITS, IT, IT, IT'S BIT LIKE WITH PARKING LOTS WHEN WE HAVE TO SOLVE PARKING LOT ISSUES WHERE IT'S JUST NOT QUITE DEEP ENOUGH TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY OR DEPTH OF A PARKING SPACE.
IT'S A SIMILAR TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT THERE IN PERCENT ISH.
AT LEAST IT'S QUITE, IT'S QUITE CONSIDERABLE AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE COST OF THE PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS, UM, IT'S JUST A REAL, AND I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING ON THAT SITE, BUT THAT'S ABOUT THE SIMPLEST WE CAN, WE CAN GO WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE, IT TAKES NINE OUT OF THE BODY OF 11 MM-HMM
SO, UM, UNLESS THERE'S QUESTIONS OR ANY CHANGES THAT YOU WANNA MAKE, I'LL
[02:00:01]
LOOKING FOR A MOTION.REGARDING CASE BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 2.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 25 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 40 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT SITUATED AT 1 3 3 1 AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
APPLICANT BE IN THE THORN GROUP BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER THIS PROPERTY, SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE HEIGHT VARIANCE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE, SUFFICIENT DISTANCE WILL BE MAINTAINED FROM THE SURROUNDING MULTIFAMILY USE AND THE BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED THE QUARTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE UNABLE TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATELY SIZED BUILDING FOR THE PROPOSED USE DUE TO THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE ON THE LOT.
THREE, BY GROWING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE APPEARS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE REMAINS FOR THE BUFFERING FROM THE NEARBY FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY USES AND THE BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED THE CORRIDOR HEIGHT.
MAXIMUM FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
UM, SUCH, UH, VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTIES OR ECCENTRIC CHARACTER LOGISTIC IN WHICH IS PROPERTY LOCATED STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN AS BUFFERING FROM THE NEARBY MULTI-FAMILY USES.
FURTHERMORE, STAFF NOTED THAT, UH, SIMILAR USES IN THE AREA HAVE SIMILAR BUILDING HEIGHTS AND ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL NOT EXCEED THE QUARTER HEIGHT MAXIMUMS. SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND, UM, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPED END OF MOTION DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEEZ.
UH, COMMISSIONER MANANA, IF YOU'D LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION.
SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AND FOR, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF I LOOK DOWN, UH, AUSTIN HIGHWAY, IT, THIS DOESN'T, THIS IS SIMILAR IN DESIGN TO A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON, GOING ON ALONG AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
UM, THE, UH, SECOND COMPONENT IS THAT THERE IS, UH, UH, BUFFERING BEING PROVIDED BY, UH, BY THE, UM, ABUTTING A, UH, APARTMENTS OR, OR THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
AND SO I THINK THAT THEY HAVE, UH, HAVE PROVIDED THEIR OWN BUFFERING.
SO, SO IT WON'T BE DIRECTLY AGAINST THEM.
IF IT HAD BEEN DIRECTLY AGAINST 'EM, I WOULD'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
BUT BECAUSE THERE IS THAT SPACE, UM, I'LL BE, UM, UH, KIND OF WORKING OR USING THE, UH, CITY'S PROPOSAL FOR, UM, ACCEPTANCE.
COMMISSIONER BEN VITI, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND ALSO THEY HAVE COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS CARE TO COMMENT? SEEING NONE, TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I'LL CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR BREGMAN AND I ALSO CONCUR.
AND IF WE CAN GET COMMISSIONER ORIAN BACK IN, PLEASE NOTE IT'S 3 0 8 AND COMMISSIONER ORIAN HAS REJOINED THE MEETING.
ALRIGHT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE ALL WE HAVE LEFT IS A DIRECTOR'S REPORT,
[ Director’s Report ]
NOTHING TO REPORT.AND I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, FINANCIAL PAPERWORK'S DUE FRIDAY, RIGHT? THE FINANCIAL, THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
BECAUSE IT'S THE END OF THE MONTH.
[02:05:01]
UH, ANYBODY STILL NEED TO DO IT? BECAUSE IF IT VERY IMPORTANT THEY'RE, THEY'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, PLEASE, BECAUSE THAT'S AN AUTOMATIC, UH, KICK, YOU KNOW, KICK YOU OFF IF YOU MISS THAT, UH, GET WITH THE, GET WITH MONICA AND SHE WILL DIRECT YOU WHAT TO DO.WE'LL SEND OUT SOME INSTRUCTIONS.
I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU CAN, UH, THE MINUTES WE DID THE MINUTES RIGHT.
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S ONLY 3 0 8, BUT WE'RE ADJOURNED.