[00:00:01]
I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION.
HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER UNDERGROUND INVIS WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS.
ONE STATE UNDER ONE AND INVISIBLY.
ALL RIGHT, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL.
CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF MA'AM? COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN.
UH, WE'VE GOT 11 MEMBERS SEATED TODAY.
UH, SO BEFORE WE BEGIN, UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, REMIND EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.
AND, UH, JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL, SOME INSTRUCTIONS.
THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS IN SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND 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 CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRETEND 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, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUEST OF RELEASE CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW.
BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S.
DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF.
STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL.
AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT, UH, SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPELLED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL, YOU'LL BE CALLED AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED 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 A SPEAKER.
THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF
[00:05:01]
NINE MINUTES.THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE LIMIT TIME LIMIT, THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
SIGN OF THE AGENDA IS THE, UH, BOARD APPOINTEES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO, UH, TURN IT OVER TO, UH, LOGAN SPARROW FOR A BRIEF, UH, PRESENTATION.
YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
LOGAN SPARROW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY IS A, UH, APPOINTMENT FOR A PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE MEMBER FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
UH, THAT IS THE GROUP THAT HELPS CITY STAFF WITH REVIEWING UPDATES TO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, AS WELL AS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
UM, FULL DISCLOSURE, UNLIKE SOME OF THE PRIOR APPOINTMENTS, WE ARE EXPECTING THIS, UH, THIS ROUND OF APPOINTMENTS, UH, TO HAVE A PRETTY HEAVY WORKLOAD.
SO FOLKS APPOINTED TODAY WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE 2027 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CYCLE.
UH, AGAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL TRANSPARENCY, THAT IS GOING TO MEAN, UH, WEEKLY MEETINGS FOR, I WANNA SAY WE DID IT FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS, UM, WHEN WE UPDATED THE CODE IN 2022.
SO IT IS A FAIRLY HEFTY COMMITMENT FOR THOSE THAT ARE ABLE, UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I CAN POINT OUT THAT CURRENTLY THE BOARD'S PRIMARY MEMBER IS COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN AND COMMISSIONER CRUZ IS THE ALTERNATE MEMBER CURRENTLY.
SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL BE TAKING NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
UM, I WILL BE NOMINATING COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN WHO, UH, EXPRESSED AN INTEREST TO CONTINUE ON AS PRIMARY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR PRIMARY MANNA? YES.
UH, I LIKE TO NOMINATE, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ AS THE ALTERNATE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE COMMISSIONERS TO CONFIRM THAT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE.
WOULD YOU, COMMISSIONER CRUZ WAS HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN FIRST? YES, I WILL CONTINUE.
UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ YOU SAID? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, JUST NEED A, THEY JUST BE APPROVED BY, UH, ACCLIMATION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN IS PRIMARY AND COMMISSIONER CRUZ IS SECONDARY.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON.
HEARING NONE, UH, THE AYES HAVE IT.
MY NAME IS JOEL VELA, SENIOR ZONING PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BOA CASE, UH, BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 4.
ADDRESS IS 1 3 3 WEST CRAIG PLACE, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
THE APPLICANT IS THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E DILLEY, UH, FOR REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD.
TWO, A 15 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT SIX INCH CORNER CLEAR VISION AND THREE A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
AND, AND JUST TO NOTE, UH, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS CASE, WE ALSO HAVE A RELATED CASE, UM, WHICH IS AN APPEAL TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE.
UH, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES REGARDING THE FINITE, IF WE APPROVE, UM, AS REQUESTED OR ANYTHING BELOW DOWN TO WHAT, UH, IS REQUIRED OR MAX ALLOWED, THAT ALSO AFFECTS WHATEVER WE DO ON THE SECOND ONE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, UH, ULTIMATELY THE VARIANCE WILL BE, NEED TO BE HEARD FOR THIS CASE FIRST BEFORE THE APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED TO THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY THE OHP ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
AND JUST SO EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT THE, THE SECOND ISSUE IS SOLELY WHETHER OR NOT THE THE MAXIMUM CAN BE EXCEEDED.
CORRECT? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THE, THE SECOND CASE THAT WE'RE GONNA HEAR, THE APPEAL RELATES SOLELY TO WHETHER OR NOT THE MAX CAN BE EXCEEDED.
IT DOESN'T GET INTO HEIGHT, CORRECT? IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF IT BEING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE.
UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? MANANA.
COMMISSIONER MANANA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MEANS? BECAUSE YEAH, THAT, THAT KIND OF CONFUSED ME A LITTLE BIT AND, UM, SO SURE.
[00:10:01]
ABSOLUTELY.I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD? YEAH.
EDWARD HALL FROM THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, IS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE.
UH, THE COMMISSION, HISTORIC AND DESIGNER REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVED THE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE WITH THE HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET.
UH, OUR HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES RECOMMEND THAT FRONT YARD FENCES WHEN APPROVED IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET.
UH, SO, UH, PER THE H DRCS ACTION, UM, THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE APPROVAL TO INSTALL A FENCE AT FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT.
UM, HOWEVER YOU ALL ARE GONNA CONSIDER A, A VARIANCE TO THAT.
AND THEN, UH, THEY ARE APPEALING THE H DRCS OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS, UH, DECISION FOR OFFENSE NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT.
DOES THE, UH, HDRC HAVE A PREFERENCE WHETHER THE FOUR FEET IS LIMITED TO, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR NOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN? UH, THE GO, IT WOULD NEED TO BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
UM, THE FENCE THAT WAS THAT, UH, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PHOTO OF THE FENCE THAT CAN BE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE JUST RIGHT NOW.
UH, BUT THE INTENT WAS THAT THE FENCE THAT IS INSTALLED, THE ROD IRON FENCE WOULD, THAT FENCE WOULD BE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
AND WE'LL GET A PICTURE UP HERE SHORTLY.
UM, WE'LL JUST CONTINUE WITH THE QUICK SUMMARY FOR THIS CASE.
UM, WHICH IS THE ZONING VARIANCE.
UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST CRAIG PLACE IN HOWARD STREET, WEST OF NORTH MAIN AVENUE.
NO, LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD.
DUE TO SECURITY AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
UH, THE FENCE HAS BEEN BUILT WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DRIVEWAY AND CORNER CLEAR VISION AREAS, AND THE ISSUANCE OF A FENCE PERMIT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROVAL.
IF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THIS CASE IS APPROVED.
UH, THE ISSUANCE OF OFFENSE PERMIT IS PENDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OUTCOME.
SO HERE'S A QUICK SITE PLAN OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE IS THAT REQUEST FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT ALL AROUND, UH, PARTIC, WELL SPECIFICALLY IN THE FRONT YARD.
UM, ITEMS TWO AND THREE ARE RELATED TO CORNER CLEAR VISION AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
AND HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT FENCE.
AND HERE'S THE SURROUNDING AREA.
LOOKING TO THE EAST, LOOKING TO THE SOUTH, LOOKING WEST, AND LOOKING TO THE NORTH STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 4.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE SIMILAR FENCING, UH, AND TO THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CLEAR VISION AREA VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 7 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE SIMILAR FENCING.
AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL IMPEDE VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY APPROACH.
ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE WAS RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND.
SHOWN HERE YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE IN FAVOR AND THE IN OPPOSITION NOTICE, UH, NOTATED BY THE CHECK.
AND THE X ON THE SCREEN SHOWN HERE IS THE RESPONSE THAT WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND SHOWN HERE IS THE RESPONSE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANA, MR. MANNA.
SO, UM, I DIDN'T SEE A NOTE THERE FROM MONTE VISTA.
SO DID THEY PROVIDE A, A LETTER OR THEY PROVIDED A VOICEMAIL CAN LISTEN TO.
AND THEN, UM, AND THEN THE QUESTION FOR THE FENCING.
UM, SO, SO THE HEIGHT, UM, YOU STATED THAT IT'S SURROUND THIS PERIMETER FENCE AND SO IS A EIGHT FOOT PERMITTED ANYWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY, OR IS IT IS A DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, UH,
[00:15:01]
JUST ABOUT THE FRONT YARD.SO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
UM, AT ANY POINT AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, SO IS THERE, IS THERE A, UH, A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT WAS MEASURED? I KNOW EIGHT FEET PROBABLY COVERS EVERYTHING, BUT DOES IT GO FROM SIX FEET TO EIGHT FEET? FROM THE LOWEST HEIGHT TO THE HIGHEST HEIGHT? I BELIEVE IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT UNIFORM ALL THE WAY AROUND.
UH, DURING OUR SITE VISITS, WE FOUND IT WAS EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT.
ALRIGHT, ANNA, SO REAL, REAL QUICK.
UM, I WANNA CLARIFY THE SIDE AND REAR, BECAUSE IT'S MULTI-FAMILY AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY, IT IS PERMITTED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE AND REAR.
UM, COMMISSIONER IS COMMISSIONER MANEZ? I'M SORRY.
NO, YOU STILL HAVE, UM, SO, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE CITY'S POSITION, UM, SO, UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IN DIALOGUE, THE FOREFOOT IS WHAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED OR I GUESS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FROM HDRC.
IF DEFENSE WAS FOREFOOT ON THE FRONT WITH REGARDS TO THE CLEAR VISION, WOULD THE CITY HAVE A DIFFERENT POSITION? UM, I GUESS IN ESSENCE IS, IS A CLEAR VISION CHALLENGE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHTS OF THE CURRENT FENCE? OR WOULD IT BE A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE IF IT WAS ACTUALLY RESTRICTED TO THE FOREFOOT? OUR DIALOGUE WOULD BE THE SAME IF IT'S OVER THREE FEET.
FOR THE CLEAR VISION COMMISSIONER ZUNA, IS THE, THE FENCE AS CONSTRUCTED, WAS IT REPLACING EX AN EXISTING FENCE OR IS IT A TOTALLY NEW, UH, CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE PERIMETER? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKELY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
AND WOULD, WOULD OHP LIKE TO ALSO ADD, UH, YEAH, I WOULD JUST ADD TO IT.
UM, ANY CHANGE IN HEIGHT THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT FOUR FEET WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE HDRC OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
UH, SO, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I, FOR THE, THE QUESTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ASKED, UM, NOT EXCEEDING THAT FOUR FEET WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST AS THAT WOULD BE WITHIN WHAT THE EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, CONFIRMS. SO ON THAT TOPIC, TYPICALLY A A FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, IF THIS WAS AN HISTORIC, UH, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE A FENCE PRIMARILY IS A, IS A STABLE HIGH, BUT IT DOES HAVE VARYING CHANGES.
UM, IF THE PEAK WAS SET AT FIVE FEET, DOES THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON WHAT YOUR DEPARTMENT WOULD? YES, SIR, IT WOULD.
UM, THE, THE GUIDELINES NOTE, FOUR FEET AT THE, THE MAX HEIGHT, UH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE ACTION BY THE, UH, HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD TO APPROVE ANYTHING OVER FOUR FEET.
AND IF, AND BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, COMMENTARY THAT AFFECTS CORNER LOTS RE INSIGHTS? UM, IT, THERE, THERE IS AT SOME POINT ON A CORNER LOT, UM, THERE'S CONSIDERATION ABOUT WHERE A SIDE OR A REAR YARD STARTS.
UM, EACH, EACH CORNER LOT'S UNIQUE IN ITSELF.
UM, IN THE GUIDELINES, UH, THE GUIDELINES NOTE THAT, UM, IN THE CASE OF, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, PRIVACY FENCES, THAT THEY SHOULDN'T OBSCURE OR BLOCK ANY PREDOMINANT, UH, ELEVATIONS OR FACADES.
AND SO, UM, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO COMMENT ON, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY WHERE A, A TALLER PRIVACY FENCE MAY START WITHOUT HAVING A SITE PLAN TO IDENTIFY, UH, WHERE EXACT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE AND WHERE, UH, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN CONSIDERATION OF ALLEYWAYS OR DRIVEWAYS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ.
UM, FOR THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S JUST LEAVING THE POLL PODIUM HIM, UH, SIR, SO IF WE BRING THE FENCE DOWN TO FOUR PIECES, JUST THE FRONT OR ALL THE WAY AROUND? ALL THE WAY AROUND.
THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE WAY AROUND.
WELL, THE FRONT AND THE SIDE BE ALL THE WAY AROUND FRONT AND THE SIDE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK.
ANYWHERE THE FENCE IS INSTALLED CURRENTLY WOULD NEED TO BE REDUCED TO FOUR FEET.
COM COMMISSIONER CRUZ IS DOWN, IT'S, IT'S ALONG THE STREET.
FRONTAGES IS WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
BUT JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IF IT'S JUST THE FRONT OR IT HAS TO BE THE WHOLE FENCE LINE.
LIKE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT REFERRING TO THE REAR OR THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, THE FENCE THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET, UM, AND THEN THE FENCE THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED ON THE SIDE STREET.
THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE SUCCEEDS IN HEIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
MY NAME IS DAVID DILLEY, UH, AND I REPRESENT, UH, THE OSA GROUP WHO, UH, WHO OWNS THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
UH, SO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PICTURE, IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY GOOD ONE.
UM, MONTEVISTA HAS CLEARLY VERY DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE DIFFERENT, UH, PROPERTIES.
UH, BUT THIS ONE CERTAINLY STICKS OUT COMPARED TO MANY OTHERS.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT STICKS OUT IS BECAUSE IT'S LIKE TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
IT HAS, UH, A SPI AT THE TOP, ARCHITECTURALLY IT'S VERY UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT.
SO TO PUT A THREE FOOT FENCE, EVEN A FOUR FOOT OR FIVE FOOT FENCE VERSUS THE HEIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY, I,
[00:20:01]
I THINK WOULD DO A DIS JUSTICE TO THE, THE APPEARANCE OF IT.AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS WROUGHT IRON.
IT, IT HAS SOME NICE, UH, ORNAMENTATION WITH IT.
SO IT'S DONE IN TASTE, IT'S DONE IN AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
SO I BELIEVE THAT, THAT, UH, WE'VE MET THAT REQUIREMENT.
BUT I, I DO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND THE FACT THAT IT IS ALSO A MULTI RESIDENT PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S A TOTAL OF 10 UNITS THAT ARE, UH, OCCUPYING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
WE BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE, UH, IMPORTANT FACETS AND POSITIVE FACETS ABOUT THIS HEIGHT OF THIS FENCE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS CLOSER TO SEVEN THAN IT IS EIGHT ACCORDING TO MY CLIENT, BUT IT WOULD BETTER SEPARATE THIS 10 UNIT PROPERTY FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES IN THE AREA.
SO I THINK IT PROVIDES SOME MUTUAL SECURITY AND SAFETY, UH, AS FAR AS DIVISION WITH OTHER PROPERTIES.
NOW, AS STAFF HAS ALREADY INDICATED, THIS IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION WITH ALL DUE RESPECT FOR THAT.
UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY VEGETATION GROWING ON, ON, ON THIS FENCE.
SO I HAVE LISTED ALL THE SALIENT REASONS ON A THROUGH E AS FAR AS WHY IT WOULD BE IN HARMONY.
I'VE ALREADY STATED SOME OF THOSE.
UH, AS FAR AS THE MATERIAL, UM, THE, THE UNIQUENESS OF THE, OF THE ARCHITECTURE, IT STILL PROMOTES A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
UM, IT DOESN'T STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, THAT I POINTED OUT AND I PROVIDED IN MY PACKET, AND I, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL THAT, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIRMAN HAVE THAT AVAILABLE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SHOW SOME PHOTOS OF SOME OTHER PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A TOTAL OF EIGHT ALTOGETHER THAT I DID A LITTLE BIT OF A SURVEY OF SOME PROPERTIES IN MONTE VISTA.
AND THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT IT IS, AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP A LITTLE WHILE AGO, THESE PROPERTIES ARE APART FROM EACH OTHER.
MEANING THEY'RE ALL INDIVIDUAL AND UNIQUE IN THEIR OWN WAY.
AND, AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HIGH FENCES DO NOT FALL INTO CONFORMITY WITH PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT.
AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT ARGUMENT SHOULD FAIL IN THE SENSE THAT THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE OTHERS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT HAVE THE SAME FENCE HEIGHT.
AND THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO DENY THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO PROPERTIES AROUND THERE THAT ARE SINGLE RESIDENTS PREDOMINANTLY, AND ALSO DON'T HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT OF THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE.
UM, I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PICTURES.
THERE SHOULD BE SOME PICTURES OF THAT.
SO THIS GIVES YOU A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE STOP SIGN OF HOW IT LOOKS TO THE LEFT, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND LIKE STEPH SAYS, IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SO YOU CAN SEE TRAFFIC COMING, COMING FROM.
UH, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER PHOTO, THIS IS LEADING UP TO THE STOP SIGN THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT, COMING UP TO CRAIG OFF OF HOWARD.
IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, SO YOU CAN SEE THE COLOR OF THE CARS, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE PRESENCE OF CARS.
AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, THE, THE NORMAL REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE, THE 25 FOOT REQUIRED CLEAR VISION, I THINK THIS SHOULD GARNER SOME EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF, OF, OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE FENCE AND THE OPENNESS OF IT.
UM, I HAD THE PICTURES, UH, THAT'S I SUBMITTED WITH MY PACKET.
UM, IF YOU GIMME A SECOND, I CAN TRY TO SURE.
IN THE MEANWHILE, WHILE THOSE PICTURES ARE, ARE BEING LOCATED, UM, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND, AND, UM, AND PROVIDE YOU WITH, UH, SOME PHOTOS OF SOME ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
UH, AND THESE WERE ALL, UM, INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
UM, I'M GONNA LIST A, A FEW OF THEM.
AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL, UH, FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, SO THEY'RE NOT NEXT TO, TO EACH OTHER WHERE WE COULD SAY THAT THERE'S SOME CONGRUITY, SOME LIKENESS IN, IN THESE PROPERTIES.
IT'S 1 0 2 EAST CRAIG, THREE 15 WEST LINWOOD, ONE 14 EAST KINGS HIGHWAY 1 35 WEST GRAMERCY 1 0 4, BUSHNELL 1 55 BUSHNELL.
THAT'S THE CLOSEST ONE TO THE OTHER ONE.
3 0 7 BUSHNELL AND 2251 HOWARD.
IF I MAY APPROACH AND SHOW SOME PHOTOS, THEY COULD, UH, PROJECT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN IF YOU, UH, HAND THAT TO STAFF.
THERE'S THESE HERE THAT I WAS GONNA PASS AROUND.
THIS IS ALL PART OF THE PACKET.
SO THAT'S, UH, 1 0 2 EAST CRAIG, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN.
UM, UH, FROM MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, UH, WE'RE AT 1 33.
YOU SEE THE FENCE HEIGHT THERE.
UH, THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, THREE 15 WEST LINWOOD.
[00:25:02]
UH, THE FOLLOWING IS ONE 14 EAST KINGS HIGHWAY.THE NEXT ONE IS 1 35 WEST GRAMERCY.
THIS IS, UH, 1 0 4 BUSHNELL, AND THAT APPEARS TO BE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE.
AND THEN I HAVE, UH, TWO MORE PROPERTIES.
THIS IS, UH, 3 0 7, UH, BUSHNELL.
AND I BELIEVE THIS ONE'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT AND IT DOES HAVE A STOP SIGN.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE LACK OF CLEAR VISION ON THIS PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY HAS CYCLONE FENCING, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE REALLY GOES WITH, UH, UH, THE INTENT OF THE MONTE VISTA, UH, RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS WITH REGARDS TO FENCING.
I BELIEVE, UH, MY CLIENT'S FENCE IS MUCH MORE, UH, AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.
SO THERE'S TWO PHOTOS FOR 3 0 7 BUSHNELL, AND THAT IS NOT, UH, PREDOMINANTLY CLEAR.
AND LASTLY, UH, 2251 HOWARD, UH, THIS ONE IS A WOOD FENCE.
THAT'S, UH, WHAT APPEARS TO BE LIKE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AS WELL.
SO IT'S A DIFFERENT MATERIAL ALTOGETHER.
IS THIS THE, UH, SIDE OR THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
'CAUSE IT'S AC IT ACTUALLY BUTTS UP TO, TO HOWARD.
AND THAT, THAT'S A GATED ENTRANCE ON THE LEFT WITH THE STEPS UP IS, UH, SO FOR STAFF IS ALL OF MONTE VISTA, UH, CONSIDERED HISTORIC? SO ALL THESE ADDRESSES THAT HE'S PROVIDING, WOULD THEY ALSO, UH, BE HISTORIC IF THERE? I BELIEVE SO.
UM, I DIDN'T HAVE THESE ADDRESSES BEFOREHAND, SO WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CHECK.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UH, STAFF CHIME IN FOR A SECOND IF WE COULD.
YEAH, I, UH, LIKEWISE DIDN'T HAVE THESE ADDRESSES, BUT, UM, JUST FROM FAMILIARITY, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF THOSE ADDRESSES WERE, UM, BECAUSE, BECAUSE ONE THING IS, IS, UH, WE USUALLY DON'T INCLUDE ANY FENCING THAT'S USED, USED AS A RETAINING WALL PORTION IN THE FENCE HEIGHT.
DOES HISTORIC DO THAT AS WELL? YES.
AND THEN ANY, IS THERE A DATE ON THE FENCE WHERE HISTORIC WOULDN'T HAVE KICKED IN, LIKE IF THE FENCE IS FROM THE SIXTIES OR SOMETHING, OR THE SEVENTIES? UM, SO OUR HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, I BELIEVE THOSE WERE ADOPTED IN 2010 BY CITY COUNCIL.
UM, SO, UM, THERE ARE, ARE ARE A HANDFUL OF, OF, UM, WAYS THAT A FENCE COULD BE, UH, CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OR EXCEEDING THAT FOUR FOOT HEIGHT.
UH, NUMBER ONE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A HISTORIC FENCE.
UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE FENCES COULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED OR CONSTRUCTED ORIGINALLY WITH THOSE HOUSES IN THE LATE TWENTIES OR 30 THIRTIES, UM, OR THEY COULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AT ANY TIME UP TO THE GUIDELINES.
THE SECOND IS, UM, THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION COULD APPROVE A HEIGHT THAT EXCEEDS FOUR FEET IF THEY CHOSE TO, OR IF THEY FOUND THE CONDITION TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR IT.
UM, IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE, THE MOTION AND THE APPROVAL WAS FOR A FENCE NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT.
AND OUTTA CURIOSITY, IF YOU HAVE A FENCE THAT, UH, DOESN'T CONFORM TO WHAT YOUR GUIDELINES WOULD STATE, LIKE A REALLY OLD FENCE, DOES A 25% RULE STILL APPLY IN HISTORIC, WHERE AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT, UH, MAINTAINING OR REPAIRING AN EXCESS EXCESS OF 25%, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT OR GO THROUGH THE HCRC PROCESS? UM, UH, ANY WORK ON AN EXISTING FENCE WOULD STILL NEED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, HOWEVER, OUR GUIDELINES WOULD SAY TO REPAIR HISTORIC FENCES TO MATCH THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION OR, OR DESIGN.
SO, UM, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS A HISTORIC WALL OR A FENCE IN FRONT OF A HOUSE THAT'S, LET'S SAY WAS SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, AN APPLICANT CAME TO US, UM, THE GUIDELINES WOULD SUPPORT ITS INKIND REPAIR.
YEAH, I WAS ASKING BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOES PROVIDE A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES.
I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT FOR EVERYBODY.
SO, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE CLEAR VISION, SO ONE OF THE, SO, SO I DID LOOK WITH THE WOODEN FENCE, AND THAT'S A SIDE YARD.
AND SO SIDE YARDS AREN'T COVERED IN, IN THIS DIALOGUE WITH, UH, THAT'S PERMITTED.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS CLEAR VISION, SO, SO ONE OF THE PICTURES, UH, THAT THE, UH, COULD HEAR, UH, PRESENTED, SHOWED A FENCE THAT WAS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN BUT HAD BUSH'S MASKED, WHAT IS A DISTANCE FROM THE CURB TO THE FENCE
[00:30:01]
THAT THE CLEAR VISION BASICALLY PLAYS A ROLE HERE BECAUSE THAT LOOKED FURTHER PUSHED OUT LIKE IT WAS 15 FEET IN, UH, VERSUS THIS FENCE APPEARS TO BE LIKE SIX FEET, FOUR, FOUR CORNER.ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NO, HEARING NONE.
IS THERE ANY, UH, JUST, JUST A COMMENTARY, UH, CHAIRMAN? UH, SO, SO THE, THE STAFF DID HAVE THESE PICTURES.
I PROVIDED THAT WITH MY ORIGINAL PACKET.
I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION CONCERNING THAT, BUT IT, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE WITHIN ALSO MY ARGUMENTS, UH, THAT I MADE UNDER, UH, PARAGRAPH C AND I LIST THE ADDRESSES, BUT I PROVIDED PHOTOS.
SUBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE OF ME.
SO, SO I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS A PRIOR FENCE HERE.
AND SO WAS THERE A FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY BEFOREHAND? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
MY CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR, AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO, TO ACQUIRE A FENCE, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND, AND, AND THAT IS MY, MY CLIENT'S FAULT AND, AND NOT MAKING ANY EXCUSES.
SO MY CLIENT IS FROM HOUSTON AND HAS BEEN IN INVESTING IN SOME REAL ESTATE, PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
AND I THINK, UH, THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE THINKING THAT, WELL, IT'S MULTI RESIDENT, AND SO THERE'S A FENCE HEIGHT, UH, PERMITTED UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
AND, UM, THE, THE OWNERSHIP GROUP IS FROM HOUSTON.
AND, UM, AND SO LESSON LEARNED, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH.
AND SO, SO I GUESS, UM, WAS THERE CITATIONS ISSUED FOR THIS WITH REGARDS TO THE START? AND WAS IT, WAS IT APPLICANT MADE AWARE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WERE NOT IN, IN COMPLIANCE, I GUESS WITH REGARDS TO PERMITTING? SO CODE OF ENFORCEMENT HAD A, UM, BUILDING WITHOUT PERMIT, UM, ISSUED TO THEM.
AND THAT'S WHEN THEY, UH, HAD TO APPLY FOR AND START THE PROCESS FOR THE PERMITTING, WHICH LED TO THE OHP SENT TO HERE, WAS THAT, UM, UH, NOTE SENT, NOTICE SENT BEFORE THE FENCE WAS COMPLETED.
UH, SO ACTUALLY, UM, OUR OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECEIVED A REPORT ON MARCH THE FIRST OF THE FENCE BEING CONSTRUCTED.
UH, AND AT THAT TIME WE EMAILED THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ADVISE THEM OF THE NEED TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, WORK CONTINUED, UM, ON MARCH THE THIRD, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER, UH, WORK CONTINUED.
UH, WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ON MARCH THE FOURTH.
UM, ON MARCH THE SEVENTH, WE RECEIVED ANOTHER REPORT THAT WORK WAS STILL TAKING PLACE.
UH, AND THEN, UH, FINALLY, UM, THE REQUEST WAS HEARD BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW, UH, COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD ON MARCH THE 20, ON MARCH THE 21ST.
UM, UH, ALSO, UH, NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THIS, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT HAD BEEN ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THIS PROPERTY, UH, PRIOR TO THE FENCE CONSTRUCTION STARTING.
UM, SO, UM, THERE, THERE WAS, UM, UM, THE KNOWLEDGE THERE, UM, THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE OR THAT THIS WAS LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO, STAFF, BEFORE WE, UH, HAVE YOU, UH, CLOSE OUT YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE SIGNED THE SPEAK? YES, WE DO HAVE SOME VOICEMAILS WE NEED TO PLAY.
WE'RE GONNA HEAR SOME VOICEMAILS AND THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A REBUTTAL.
I LIVE AT 1 1 9 WEST ATCH SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO.
MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 844-7001.
CALLING ON CASE NUMBER BO A 25 ENDING IN SEVEN FOUR BO A CASE 25 ENDING IN SIX SEVEN WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID E DLY AND THE ENORMOUS FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY.
UH, THANK YOU TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR REALIZING THIS IS A FLAGRANT, UM, UNPLEASANT SITE IN MONTE VISTA, OUR LOVELY, UH, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR STANDING BEHIND THE FACT THAT A, A COMPROMISE OF A FOUR FOOT FENCE IN FRONT IS REALLY, REALLY A COMPROMISE.
IT GIVES MY HEART, MAKES MY HEART HAPPY THAT YOU ARE STANDING, UH, TALL WITH THE MONITOR HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
MY NAME IS BARBARA STEVENS, AND I LIVE AT TWO 11 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE IN MONTE VISTA.
AND I'M CALLING ABOUT, UH, THE B OH A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 4 AND SIX SEVEN.
AND I'M CALLING TO APPRECIATE THAT YOU WILL DENY THIS REQUEST OF THE OWNERS
[00:35:01]
OF THIS HOME IN MONTE VISTA AS THEY LIVE OUT OF TOWN AND THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE BUILDING, AND THEY DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED A HOME IN, UM, A HISTORIC DISTRICT.UM, SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DENY THIS.
HI, THIS MESSAGE IS FROM TOM ARCHER.
UH, I AM THE, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA, UH, HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I'M CALLING TODAY ABOUT AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER THREE, UH, BOA 0 7 4 AND 0 6 7.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR LETTING US PROVIDE INPUT.
I'M CALLING TODAY TO, UH, STATE THAT I'M FIRMLY AGAINST BOTH OF THESE REQUESTS, AND I SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY BOTH REQUESTS.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE JUST ONE LAST COMMENT, WHICH IS I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT HAS BEEN, UM, PUT FORTH BY THE STAFF TO WORK WITH THIS APPLICANT AND TO DO SO IN GOOD FAITH, AND THAT THE GOOD FAITH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE APPLICANT, AND IT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING.
SO MY REQUEST IS TO PLEASE DENY BOTH REQUESTS.
I LIVE AT FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO THE CASE AT 1 33 WEST CRAIG PLACE, CASE NUMBERS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 7, AND BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 4.
I AGREE WITH THE STAFF AND THEIR POSITION TO DENY THE REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT TO THIS PROPERTY AND RE RETAIN DEFENSE HEIGHT AT THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 852-9831.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE LAST FOUR VOICEMAILS THAT WERE PLAYED, WERE IN REFERENCE TO BOTH CASE 0 7 4 AND CASE 0 6 7.
AND WE HAVE TWO MORE VOICEMAILS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO CASE 0 7 4 ONLY.
HI, CECILIA AND RANDY OTRO AT 4 2 2 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2.
WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NUMBER TWO OF THE DOA DASH 0 7 4, AND THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW, MONDAY, JUNE 2ND.
CECILIA AND RANDY OSTRO, PLEASE DENY IT.
ITEM NUMBER 2D OA DASH 0 7 4 TOMORROW.
THIS COMMENT IS IN REGARD TO CASE NUMBER 0 7 4.
MY ADDRESS IS 2 0 1 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APARTMENT S SAN ANTONIO, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO ONE ZERO SEVEN.
CORRECTION 2 1 0 8 3 1 0 9 0 8.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH MY NEIGHBOR'S FENCE.
IF HE WANTS IT FOR SECURITY VALUE OR COSMETIC VALUE, THAT'S OKAY WITH ME.
I THINK THE DESIGN FITS THE CHARACTER OF OUR OLD, UH, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE MY GARAGE IS ON THE BACK OF OUR BUILDING AND 2 0 1 WEST CRAIG, I ENTER TRAFFIC WHERE OUR ALLEY MEET TOWER AND SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK I DRIVE SOUTH TO THE STOP SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOWARD AND CRAIG.
THE FENCE IN QUESTION SITS FAR ENOUGH BACK FROM THE CURB THAT IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT MY SIGHT LINES AT ALL.
I HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF WESTBOUND TRAFFIC ON CRAIG, BUT MY VIEW IN THAT DIRECTION IS OFTEN BLOCKED BY VEHICLES WHENEVER THEY'RE PARKED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CRAIG NEAR THAT INTERSECTION.
AT THOSE TIMES, I HAVE TO CREEP OUT INTO THE INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING COMING.
AND TOO OFTEN I'VE HAD TO STEP ON THEIR BRAKES QUICKLY TO KEEP FROM GOING ANY FURTHER INTO THE INTERSECTION.
THE PARKED VEHICLES ARE CAUSING THE VIEW PROBLEM, NOT THE FENCE.
[00:40:02]
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAILS RECEIVED BEFORE THIS CASE.ALL RIGHT, IS THAT THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS.
I RESIDE AT 2 4 2 WEST LYNNWOOD AVENUE IN MONTE VISTA, AND I CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
SO I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION IN GENERAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF FRONT YARD FENCES OR WALLS IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHILE A FEW SUCH FENCES EXIST MOST PREDATE THE AREAS AS A NATION, AS A PROTECTED HISTORIC DISTRICT.
FOR REFERENCE, THE CITY GRANTED HISTORIC DISTRICT OR STATUS TO MONTE VISTA IN 1975.
AND IN 1998, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDED MONTE VISTA, HISTORIC DISTRICT TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
SO AT 1 33 WEST CRAIG, UM, THERE'S A HOME LOCATED CADDY CORNER WITH A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND ANOTHER WITH A FOUR FOOT WALL ACROSS THE STREET.
SO GIVEN THIS CONTEXT, WE DO SUPPORT THE STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDATION THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
UH, WE FEEL THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT CONSULT WITH THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, NOR TO MY KNOWLEDGE WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, SEVERAL NEIGHBORS REACHED OUT TO ME AS A FENCE WAS BEING INSTALLED, AND I IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED THE OHP ON BOTH OHP AND CO COMPLIANCE, AS YOU HEARD, UM, RESPONDED BY ISSUING STOP WORK ORDERS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE WERE BOTH DISREGARDED, UM, BY BOTH THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT AND THE, UH, CONTRACTOR.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT HEIGHT AND AGREE WITH THE CITY'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.
AND LIKEWISE, WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY VARIANCE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME CONSIDERATION.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MANA COMMISSIONER MANA.
SO, EXCUSE ME, QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR.
SO, UM, SO THERE'S TWO, TWO TOPICS ON THE AGENDA, CORRECT? SO ONE IS THE HEIGHT AND ONE IS THE CLEAR VISION.
AND SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IF THE FENCE WAS AT THE FOREFOOT, WOULD THE CLEAR VISION AS BE BE AS, UM, MUCH OF AN ISSUE FOR YOU? NO, I, I I THINK IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AT FOREFOOT CLEAR VISION ACROSS THAT INTERSECTION.
I SAID THE APPLICANT COME BACK.
SO YOU'VE HEARD A BUNCH OF, UM, UH, SOME VOICEMAILS AND COMMENTS, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC.
UH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW AS WE, BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? UH, BRIEFLY.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO BE REPETITIVE OVER WHAT I'VE COVERED BEFORE, 'CAUSE I THINK PART OF MY PRESENTATION ALREADY COVERED THAT.
BUT AGAIN, TO REITERATE, THIS IS A 10 UNIT, UH, UH, PROPERTY WITH UNIQUE FEATURES.
NOW, UH, THE OWNERSHIP GROUP AND THE PREDOMINANT OWNER OF THAT LLC ACTUALLY LIVES IN ONE OF THE UNITS.
SO HE ACTUALLY CONSIDERS THIS AS RESIDENCE AS WELL.
AND SO THIS IS A, A SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUE, NOT ONLY FOR HIMSELF, BUT ALSO WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER, UH, RESIDENTS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.
AS FAR AS THE STOP WORK ORDER, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CLIENT, UH, THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FENCE THAT WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND.
AND SO THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK THAT THAT CONTINUED WAS REALLY JUST SIMPLY PAINTING.
IT WASN'T, UH, THE CONCRETE HAD ALREADY BEEN SET.
UH, THE WELDING HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE.
IT, IT WAS REALLY PREDOMINANTLY PAINTING IS WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS.
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
UH, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE THEY HAD, UH, FENCE STRUCTURES THAT EXISTED, UH, BEFORE THAT.
HOWEVER, IT CAN'T BE IGNORED THAT THEY DO EXIST AND THAT THIS DOESN'T, THIS PROPERTY AND, AND ITS UNIQUE FEATURES, UH, DOES NOT REPRESENT SOMETHING COUNTER TO WHAT EXISTS WITHIN, UH, THE MONTE VISTA, UH, COMMUNITY.
AND SO I, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MAYBE SOME OF THE FENCES THAT I PROVIDED AS FAR AS EXAMPLES, UM, MAY HAVE HAD THAT, UH, DONE, UH, AHEAD OF TIME.
BUT I THINK IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT WE SEE AROUND, UH, THE DISTRICT, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THIS FENCE HEIGHT, UH, THE MATERIAL AND THE ORNATENESS OF IT GOES WITH NOT ONLY THIS PROPERTY, BUT ALSO WITH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT FEATURES.
WITH THAT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND WE'VE GOT, UM, UH, A COUPLE ITEMS. THE FENCE HEIGHT IS A, UH, SEPARATE MOTION AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UH, BUT, UM, WE WILL, I'D LIKE TO START WITH THAT ONE.
AS SOMEONE WOULD LIKE, LIKE TO VOLUNTEER OBJECT, WE COULD, WE, COULD WE READ THE CLEAR VISION MOTION FIRST WITH THAT? SURE.
I'LL TAKE THE MOTION THEN FOR CLEAR VISION.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 7 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS A REQUEST FOR A ONE, A 15 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER CLEARANCE VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT SIX CORNER CLEAR VISION AND TO A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED
[00:45:01]
AT ONE THROUGH THREE TAKE PLACE.APPLICANT BEING THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E DILLEY, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DID DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SETS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECI, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD REMAIN TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE FENCE AND YARD AREA WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, REDUCE BY STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE OVERALL ECSTATIC AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY.
THREE, BY GRINDING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS ADEQUATE CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD BE MAINTAINED TO AVOID THE CREATION OF ANY TRAFFIC HAZARD OR PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS AS A STOP SIGN IS LOCATED AT HOWARD STREET FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES WOULD BE AUTHORIZED BY THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE EXPERIENCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS AREA WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED BY THE GRANTING OF ITS VARIANCE.
AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SAW AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED THAT APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES.
DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NARROW SIDEWALK ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH HAS CREATED A SITUATION WHERE FENCE CANNOT BE BUILT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT IMPEDING THE CLEAR VISION AREA.
AND OF MOTION, ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, SO ON THE CLEAR VISION, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
UM, WE PROVIDE A TESTIMONY, UH, BY, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WHICH WHO MENTIONED THAT THE, THE VISION IS NOT OBSTRUCTED, UH, BY, BY THE, BY THE FENCE.
IT IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE AND IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, EASIER TO, TO SEE AROUND.
AND WE HAD A TESTIMONY FROM THE, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WOULD SUPPORT IT AS WELL.
SO, UM, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT.
UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
IF, IF ANYONE ELSE LETS LIKES TO ADD, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACTS.
SO THE CLEAR VISION, UH, ISSUE, UH, HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I'LL MOVE ON TO THE FENCE HEIGHT.
UM, I WOULD, UM, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS MOTION, I'LL JUST, I'M JUST GONNA PUT IT OUT THERE THAT I'M, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF EIGHT FEET, SO I WOULD APPRECIATE SOMEONE MAYBE MOVING FOR SOMETHING MUCH LESS.
I I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND JUST SEE WHERE IT RELIES WITHIN THE BOARD.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 74, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM FOR FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FEET HEIGHT TO ALLOW A A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG, I'M SORRY, IT WOULD BE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 1 3 3 WEST CRAIG PLACE.
APPLICANT BEING THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E DLY, PLLC.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY, THUS A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND ITS PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER AS THE FIFTH HEIGHTS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR REDUCE THE OPENNESS AND VISIBILITY THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CURB APPEAL AND OVERALL SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EXCUSE ME, BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
IT WOULD NOT IMPEDE, UH, SIGHTLINES VISIBILITY.
OUR CURB APPEAL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WOULD NOT IMPEDE ON THE PROPERTY USE OF THOSE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
NO ADVERSE, NO ADVER, NO ADVERSE EFFECTS WOULD BE IMPOSED TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THEIR OWNERS OR RESIDENTS THAT WOULD DIMINISH THE UTILITY AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION OF WHAT'S THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT BECAUSE THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AT THE FRONT YARD.
FENCING IS NOT UNCHARACTERISTIC OF, OF MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS AND E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WOULD
[00:50:01]
ONLY ALLOW FOR INCREASED SECURITY AND THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED IN A MOTION.AND, UM, REAL QUICK, SO THE MOTION YEAH, I I'M, I I ALREADY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
SO, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS THAT THE TWO ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US, UM, IS THAT THE CODE ALLOWS 'EM THEN TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
THE HCRC IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT OVER FOUR FEET.
SO IF, IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE IT A FIVE FOOT FENCE, WE DON'T EVEN NEED A, A MOTION FOR THIS AT ALL UNLESS SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE, UNLESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN FIVE FEET.
NO FIVE FEET IS WHAT MY, MY INTENT WAS.
AND THAT WE WOULD NEED TO AT LEAST ADDRESS IT WITHIN THE, UM, UH, THE, THE, UH, OTHER APPEAL, RIGHT? OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I MEAN, I, I, I THINK THAT SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY READ THE MOTION, I'D FRIENDLY AMEND IT TO BE A SIX INCH VARIANCE TO GET IT AT FIVE AND A HALF.
SO WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON IT OR SOMETHING, BUT
BE FOUR AND A HALF FEET? NO, NO, FIVE AND A HALF.
FIVE AND A HALF JUST TO, JUST TO VOTE ON SOMETHING.
JUST TO SEND WHATEVER MESSAGE WE WANTED TO, OR WE CAN JUST SEND THE MOTION AND TAKE NO ACTION.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO ASK HOW YOU JUSTIFY THAT INCREASE ABOVE THE FOUR FEET IN THE GUIDELINE.
WELL, THE, THE CODE ALLOWS FIVE, SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO NEED FOR A MOTION IF IT'S FIVE FEET OR LESS.
THE SECOND CASE IS WHAT DEALS WITH IT BEING OVER FOUR FEET.
SO, UM, WELL FRIENDLY, UM, AMENDMENT ACCEPTED.
AND SO NOW THE VOTE WOULD BE FOR THE, SO IT'S, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A SIX INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE AND A HALF FOOT FENCE SITE.
IF THERE'S AS A, THE SECOND, SO THE SECOND IS ACCEPTED, IT, UH, THAT'S COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON A SIX INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE AND A HALF INCH, UH, CHAIR.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, MS. IVANEZ? UM, SO, UM, INITIALLY THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN EIGHT, FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO BE RIGHT.
SO IN THE SECOND VOTE, WILL WE APPLY THAT OR, YEAH, IF THIS PASSES, BUT THE SECOND VOTE FAILS AND HE STILL HAS, IS LIMITED TO A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
IF THIS VOTE FAILS, THERE'S NO, UH, IF IT FAILS, THEN HE CAN DO A FIVE FOOT FENCE AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE SECOND CASE SO HE CAN, SO HE CAN GO, HE CAN'T GO BELOW FIVE FEET WITHOUT THE SECOND CASE BEING APPROVED.
THE FIRST CASE DOESN'T AS TAKES NO ISSUE UNLESS WE WANT TO APPROVE IT OVER FIVE FEET.
I WAS JUST SUGGESTING A SIX INCH VARIANCE TO FIVE AND A HALF FEET JUST TO FORCE A VOTE, JUST TO FORCE A VOTE.
THAT'S ALL TO WHAT? TO, TO, UH, FORCE A VOTE OF THE BOARD.
AND JUST TO KEEP IT CLEAN, IT'S A SIX INCH SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
SO THE FORCE IS FOR A FIVE AND A HALF FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE.
IF YOU, IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO A FENCE HEIGHT OVER FOUR FEET, UH, THAT YOU SHOULD VOTE NO IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO A FENCE HEIGHT OVER.
UM, SO AGAIN, DOES THIS MEAN THAT, UH, IF THIS PASSES AT FIVE AND A HALF FEET AND THIS SECOND VOTE COMES FOR THE, THE SECOND APPLICATION MM-HMM
UM, WILL THAT APPLICANT BE ABLE TO GO WITH THE EIGHT FEET? NO, HE WOULD HAVE TO STAY WITH A FIVE AND A HALF.
IF WE, IF WE APPROVE FIVE AND A A HALF AND THEN THE SECOND VOTE GETS APPROVED, HE CAN DO FIVE AND A HALF.
IF THE SECOND VOTE FAILS, HE'S STILL STUCK AT FOUR FEET.
MAY, MAY I ASK, UM, THE APPLICANT SOMETHING BEFORE WE VOTE? SURE.
MS. BANES, SIR, WOULD THIS BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR YOUR CLIENT? UH, IT WOULD, I I, I MEAN TO CUT THAT FENCE DOWN TO FIVE AND A HALF FEET FROM EIGHT FEET? YES MA'AM.
IT, IT, IT WOULD BECAUSE TO MAKE IT AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO CHOP IT DOWN AND THEN REAPPLY WOULD REQUIRE WELDING ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
UM, AND SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IT, IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK.
MAY I ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION? YES, MA'AM.
UM, WOULD YOUR CLIENT APPROVE OF THE FIVE AND A HALF FEET? UH, I MEAN IF IT PASSES, IF WE PASS THIS, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD HAVE TO CUT THAT, CUT THAT DOWN AND RE REDO IT.
UM, HE'LL ABIDE BY, BY THE BOARD'S DECISION, UH, CLEARLY.
SO JUST TO RE-CLARIFY, WE'RE VOTING ON A FIVE AND A HALF FOOT FENCE.
IF YOU VOTE NO, THEN HE'S ALLOWED TO DO A FIVE FOOT FENCE BY RIGHT.
ONLY IF WE VOTE YES ON THE SECOND CASE.
UM, SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
[00:55:01]
UNA.I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
UH, THE VOTE IS SEVEN SEVEN TO FOUR AGAINST, CORRECT.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE APPLICANT, UH, CAN DO A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IF THIS NEXT CASE, UH, GETS APPROVED.
SO LET'S HAVE, UM, STAFF PRESENT THE NEXT CASE.
I'M EDWARD HALL FROM THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UH, THIS REQUEST IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD FENCE TO NOT EXCEED A TOTAL HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT, UH, HERE AT THE PROPERTY AT 1 33 WEST CRAIG PLACE.
UM, I'VE GIVEN A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THIS, BUT I'LL DO IT AGAIN JUST TO KEEP EVERYTHING FRESH.
UH, ON MARCH THE FIRST 2025, OHP STAFF RECEIVED A REPORT OF THE INSTALLATION OF A FRONT YARD.
A FRONT YARD FENCING STAFF PROCEEDED TO ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER VIA EMAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON MARCH THE FIRST, MARCH THE THIRD, A SECOND STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF ON MARCH THE FOURTH.
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE IN THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO OHP, UH, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE.
ON MARCH THE SEVENTH, OHP STAFF RECEIVED A REPORT THAT WORK WAS CONTINUING ON THE, ON THE FENCE.
AT THAT TIME, STAFF REMINDED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED STOP WORK ORDERS AND THE CURRENT VIOLATION.
AND THEN ON MARCH THE 21ST, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD APPROVED THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE LOWER TO FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
CHAPTER FIVE, GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS.
UM, AND AS A RECAP, THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS ARE THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
CHAPTER FIVE, GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS.
UH, A FEW FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE MARCH 21ST, 2025 HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW, COMPLE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD HEARING, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A FRONT YARD FENCE FEATURING AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET AT 1 33 WEST CRAIG PLACE, LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES STATE THAT NEW FRONT YARD FENCES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT WHEN APPROPRIATE.
BASED ON THIS GUIDELINE, THE H-D-R-C-C TAB APPROVE THE FENCE WITH THE STIPULATION AT THE HEIGHT NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET.
CONSISTENT WITH OHP STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING, OHP STAFF ISSUED A COMMISSION ACTION LETTER CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION.
AND THIS TIME THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR OFFENSE OVER FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT.
OHP STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION BE UPHELD TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT YARD FENCE NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET AND HEIGHT.
UH, AND, UM, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFY ANYTHING, UM, IN STAFF'S REPORT OR, OR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION IF NEEDED.
NO, I THINK I'VE, I'VE HEARD ENOUGH.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT ON OUR ACTION WE TOOK EARLIER ON, CLEAN V CLEAR VISION WOULD NOT IMPACT ANY OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE TODAY ON THIS MOTION, RIGHT? I, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
HOWEVER, OHB STAFF DOESN'T ADMINISTER THE PART OF THE CODE THAT, THAT, UM, INVOLVES CLEAR VISION.
SO I'D, I'D FEEL BEST NOT TO COMMENT ON THAT.
SO MY TAKEAWAY IS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO LEAVE HERE TODAY WITH THE CLEAR VISION.
APPROVED MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO, SO QUESTION, UM, IS, I GUESS, WHO, WHO IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING THE, THE PARAMETERS FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, OVERALL FOR THAT AREA, FOR THE MONTE VISTA.
SO, SO I KNOW IT'S BEEN DESIGNATED HISTORIC AREA.
ARE THOSE, UH, GUIDELINES DEFINED JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S HISTORIC? OR DOES THE COMMUNITY AND, YOU KNOW, THE, EVERYBODY AT LARGE COME BACK TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS EXPECT WHAT IS EXPECTED IN THAT COMMUNITY WITH REGARDS TO MAINTAINING THAT HISTORIC? UH, YOU GO AHEAD.
UM, SO WE HAVE A SET OF GUIDELINES, UM, THAT APPLY TO, UH, PRETTY MUCH ALL ASPECTS OF EXTERIOR ELEMENTS AT, AT A
[01:00:01]
PROPERTY.AND SO, UM, THERE ARE, UH, YOU'VE HEARD IT HERE, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS, UH, VERY ACTIVE.
UM, WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MAJORITY OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT GUIDE, UM, OUR GENERAL POLICY.
UH, SO THE FOREFOOT HEIGHT, UM, FOR FRONT YARD FENCES IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTED BY, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS SUPPORTED BY PROPERTY OWNERS.
UH, AND IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S GENERALLY BEEN CONSISTENTLY, UH, UPHELD, UH, AT THE HDRC LEVEL.
WELL, THE QUESTION WAS, YEAH, I GUESS ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL.
BASICALLY, EACH COMMUNITY GETS TOGETHER, SAYS, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK AND HOW THAT APPLIES TO OUR COMMUNITY.
AND SO THE COMMUNITY IS ENGAGED IN THAT DIALOGUE.
UH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY.
UH, WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT THAT, UH, EVEN THOUGH A STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED, UH, THAT THE EXTENT OF THE WORK BEING, UH, DONE WAS, UH, MERELY PAINTING.
IS THERE ANY VERIFICATION OF THAT? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM, UH, THE COMMUNITY, UH, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY, UM, A VERIFICATION AS TO, UH, WHEN THE, THE PHYSICAL WORK OF INSTALLING THE, THE FENCE BEING THE WELDING OR ANY OF THAT, IF THAT WAS TRULY STOPPED AND OR IF IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF PAINTING.
DO WE HAVE ANY VERIFICATION? UM, I, I WAS THE, THE INDIVIDUAL FROM OHP THAT, UM, INITIALLY RESPONDED TO THIS.
AND, UM, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS FABRICATION TAKING PLACE ON THE FIRST AND THE THIRD, UH, THE PAINTING INCIDENT WAS, I BELIEVE, MARCH THE SEVENTH.
SO MY QUESTION, UH, TO FOLLOW UP WITH MY, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, SO YOUR HISTORIC GUIDELINES, YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC SET OF GUIDELINES FROM MONTE VISTA? THERE'S JUST GUIDELINES CITYWIDE.
'CAUSE MONTE VISTA, THEIR HOMES ARE PREDOMINANTLY LARGER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN OTHER HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, IN THE, IN THE CITY.
IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT OR NOT? GENERALLY, SO, YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, WERE THOSE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED BY THE HDRC OR WERE THEY EVER APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR WHAT? UH, YES, SIR.
SO, UM, FOR OUR GUIDELINES AND, AND PO POLICY DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE, UH, WE DEVELOPED THOSE WITH INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.
WE HAVE A HISTORIC DISTRICT COALITION THAT FEATURES, THAT'S MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS FROM NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, THEN OUR HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVED THO PROVES THOSE, AND THEN THE GUIDELINES, THEY WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
AND, UM, TO CLARIFY, THE CO COMPLIANCE PICTURES SHOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF FENCE WAS UP.
IT LOOKS LIKE A PORTION WAS STILL BEING FINISHED WHENEVER CO COMPLIANCE WENT OUT THERE.
AND, AND THESE GUIDELINES ARE ARTICLE SIX OF THE UDC, LIKE THEY'RE IN THE UDC, THEY'RE NOT HARD TO FIND, UH, THE, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU READ THE QUESTION? YEAH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN THE UDC, THEY'RE NOT HIDDEN SOMEWHERE.
THEY'RE ARTICLE SIX OF THE UDC IS WHERE ALL THESE GUIDELINES ARE.
AND THEN AS WELL, WE HAVE, UH, INDIVIDUAL, UH, GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS THAT ARE ON OUR WEBSITE.
AND THEN WE HAVE ACTUALLY A POLICY GUIDE FOR FENCING THAT, UH, BREAKS IT DOWN EVEN FURTHER.
LET'S LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
SO YOU, UH, WHAT'S AT, WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE AS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN GO TO FIVE FEET? SO TELL US ABOUT YES, CHAIRMAN, YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMISSIONER.
SO, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.
DAVID DLY ON BEHALF OF, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, WHICH IS, UM, UH, OSA GROUP.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY OWN THE, THE PROPERTY AND, UH, THE, THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER THAT, UH, ENTITY, UH, LIVES ON PREMISES.
JUST TO QUICKLY REH, UH, REHASH, UH, AND, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE DUPLICITOUS, BUT THIS IS A, A 10, UH, UNIT, UH, PROPERTY.
UH, IT HAS UNIQUE FEATURES ABOUT IT THAT YOU DON'T SEE IN OTHER PARTS OF MONTE VISTA.
AND YES, UH, MONTE VISTA STRUCTURES PREDOMINANTLY ARE TWO STORY.
THERE ARE MANY THAT ARE ONE STORY, BUT VERY FEW THAT I EVER RECALL SEEING THAT ARE ACTUALLY, UH, CLOSE TO THE THREE STORY, UH, WITH ASPIRE.
AND SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE CORRECT VIEW, UH, SHOULD BE TOWARDS, UH, THE, UH, APPROVING A FIVE FOOT, UM, UH, VARIANCE.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT THAT GOES INHERENTLY WITH THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE.
UM, THE, UH, MY CLIENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE SAME MATERIAL, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, AND ALSO, UH, WOULD KEEP, UH, THE, UH, ORNAMENTATION ON, ON THE TOP OF THE, OF THE FENCE AS WELL.
UM, TO GO LOWER THAN THAT, UM, COMMISSION AND, AND, AND CHAIRMAN, I, I BELIEVE THAT IT,
[01:05:01]
IT ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE THE REVERSE EFFECT BECAUSE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN YOU HAVE A VERY SHORT FENCE.IT, IT REALLY ALMOST, IT, IT, IT MAKES IT A NULLITY TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
AND IF YOU SEE THERE'S ALSO A STEP UP OF THE PROPERTY, UH, BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE LIVED IN, IN PORTION ON THE, UH, ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, UH, YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT, BUT IT'S THERE, THERE'S ABOUT A, A FOUR STEP, UH, STEP UP.
AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ADDS TO THE HEIGHT AS WELL.
AND SO THE, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WOULD BE CLEAR VISION, BUT I THINK THE, THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE BETTER, UH, SUITED WITH A FIVE FOOT FENCE, UH, AND FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVES WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.
AND WITH REGARDS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, FEATURES OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, UM, THE, UH, PERMISSION TO KEEP A FIVE FOOT FENCE.
SO, SO THE QUESTION THAT'S BEING ASKED IS, UM, THE, UH, WHAT, WHAT ERROR SPECIFICALLY IS IT THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE, I GUESS IN THEIR DETERMINATION OR I GUESS THROUGH THE PROCESS, SO IN THEIR DECISION? SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S, WHAT IS THAT WE'RE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH HERE.
SO COMMISSIONER, SO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I WAS A NEWBIE TO THIS, BUT I DID TAKE A VERY THOROUGH LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND ALSO RELIED ON STAFF TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THIS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REQUEST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I HAD TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.
UM, OTHERWISE THE EXCEPTION COULDN'T BE HEARD.
THAT'S MY, MY UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION.
AND SO AS FAR AS THE ERROR GOES, IT, IT, IT WAS MORE, UM, UH, REQUESTING BEYOND THE FOREFOOT TO ALLOW UP TO THE FIVE FOOT.
UH, IT WAS JUST A, A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, BUT THE, THE APPEAL I UNDERSTOOD HAD TO OCCUR IN ORDER TO PERMIT, UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
OTHERWISE, UM, I WOULD LOSE IT BY, BY DEFAULT IN SOME WAY.
I, I'M, I'M GONNA, CAN WE HAVE STAFF COME BACK UP FROM OHP? I'M GONNA POSE A QUESTION.
LET ME, THE, THE, THE, THE WAY I'M GONNA POSE A QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THAT THE HCRC IS ALLOWED TO APPROVE OFFENSE OVER FOUR FEET BECAUSE A FOREFOOT IS A GUIDELINE.
WHEN WOULD THEY APPROVE SOMETHING OVER FOUR FEET? UH, THE COMMISSION REVIEWS APPLICATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
UH, SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE A SPECIFIC OR UNIQUE PROPERTY SITUATION THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER WITH INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE IN THE APPLICATION.
AND, AND THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, UM, BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES APPLY TO ALL HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES HAVE A HIGHER NUMBER OF LARGER LOT LARGER HOME TALLER HOMES.
IF ANYBODY WOULD GET A TALLER FENCE, WOULDN'T IT BE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A TWO AND A HALF FOOT, UH, A TWO AND A HALF STORY HOME WITH A, THAT'S LIKE 5,500 SQUARE FEET? UM, NO, NOT, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
THE GUIDELINES DO NOT DIRECT STAFF NOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE LOT, UH, IN CONSIDERATION WITH THE FENCE HEIGHT.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, UH, DESIGN NEW FENCES AND WALLS SHOULD APPEAR SIMILAR TO THOSE USED HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEIR SCALE TRANSPARENCY AND CHARACTER.
UH, THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE SHOULD RESPOND TO THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS OF THE HOUSE OR MAIN STRUCTURE.
UH, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY, IT DOESN'T GIVE, THAT PARTICULARLY IS IN RESPONSE TO, UM, UH, CATTLE PANEL FENCE MAY RESPOND A LITTLE BIT BETTER TO A CRAFTSMAN HOME, WHEREAS A RODAR FENCE MAY RESPOND BETTER TO A TUTOR OR TO, UM, TO AN ECLECTIC HOME OR A QUEEN ANN OR, OR SOMETHING THAT'S A BIT MORE OF THE VICTORIAN AGE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT OUR, THAT'S WHAT'S STAFF AND THE COMMISSION LOOKS AT.
UM, THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, UM, THAT, THAT THEY CONSIDERED FOR AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCREASE.
SO, SO JUST KIND OF FOLLOWING THROUGH ON THE, UM, SO I'M THINKING ABOUT DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, YOU KNOW, SO I'M READING THE READING, WHAT IT SAID I'M VOTING ON IS THE ERROR IN THE DECISION.
AND SO DECISION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOME WORKFLOW THAT FAILED.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT I THINK ABOUT IS SOMETHING THAT SOME PROCESS THAT WAS GOING THROUGH, UH, WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD COME THROUGH AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT I DID AND, AND SOMETHING WENT WRONG WITH REGARDS TO THAT WORKFLOW.
AND I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE CAUSE FOR AN ERROR FOR A DECISION VERSUS A DIS A, A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION'S BEEN MADE.
DOES THAT, SO AM I DELINEATE THAT CORRECTLY, OR, OR WOULD THE SECOND BE ALSO PART OF THAT DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UM, AN ERROR IN, IN THE DECISION? NO, UM, THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE HDRC, UH, COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD WAS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES.
THE FOUR FEET RECOMMENDATION CAME FROM THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GUIDELINES.
ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ZUNE.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. REED WITH THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, GIVEN THAT THEY'VE
[01:10:01]
HAD INPUT ON THE INITIAL, SO BEFORE US AS A REQUEST FOR THE FIVE FEET, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEED TO TAKE BACK OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN OPINE TO NOW? WELL, I, I THINK WE WOULD STAND BY, UH, THE FOREFOOT HEIGHT.UM, THE ARGUMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD ARE SAFETY AND SECURITY.
THIS IS NOT A HIGH CRIME AREA.
UM, NEIGHBORS DON'T EXPERIENCE, UM, HIGH CRIME.
UM, THE AMOUNT OF WORK REQUIRED TO LOWER IT TO FIVE FOOT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS LOWERING IT TO FOUR FOOT.
UM, AND TRANSPARENT FENCES ARE GENERALLY RECOMMENDED, THEY EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEAR.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY GOING WITH FOUR FOOT VERSUS SOMETHING TALLER THAN THAT IS THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE, OF THE HOME, OF THE MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE OR THE NEIGHBORING, UH, STRUCTURES.
AND ANY COMMISS YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND JUST TO EXPAND ON WHAT THE CHAIR SAID, UH, WE DO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT, UM, FENCE WHEN A LOT IS LARGE SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
THIS LOT IS A LITTLE BIT OVER 16,000.
SO IF IT WASN'T IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT WOULDN'T MEET THAT STANDARD.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY.
IT, IT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD NOT, UM, IT, IT WOULD NEED 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS ONE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOVE 16,000.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID 60 FOR SOME REASON.
AND SO, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND LEMME JUST VERIFY THERE'S NO MORE VOICEMAILS THAT WORK.
THERE IS ONE VOICEMAIL MAIL THAT WE NEED TO PLAY.
HI, CECILIA AND RANDY OSTRO AT 4 2 2 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2.
WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO AGENDA NUMBER THREE VOA DASH 0 6 7, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW JUNE 2ND.
ALL RIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
MANNA MRNA, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 7.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1 3 3 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APPLICANT BEING THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E DILI, UH, PLLC, BECAUSE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN A DECISION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
AND A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
AND BEFORE I START, UH, UM, UH, CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU GIVE AN, UM, AN A, UH, EXPLANATION OF HOW THE VOTING IS GOING TO OCCUR WITH REGARDS TO OUR MOTION? SO IF YOU, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU ARE VOTING, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, AND THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE.
IF YOU VOTE NO, UH, YOU'LL BE VOTING, UH, TO LIMIT THE FENCE TO A FOUR FOOT TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE.
SO WITH THAT COMMISSIONER MADAM, SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING, UM, NO, UM, I I DO NOT SEE THAT THE CITY MADE AN ERROR IN THE DECISION AS PROVIDED, UM, UH, BY THE APPLICANT, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YEAH, AND I, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE IS UNIQUE TO KING WILLIAMS EITHER IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM OR ITS FUNCTION AS A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING.
SO I SEE NO REASON TO USURP OHP, SO I'LL BE, UH, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, MR. GRANTED, UM, I'M A LITTLE TROUBLED BY THE LANGUAGE IN THE GUIDELINES ABOUT WHEN APPROPRIATE, WITHOUT FURTHER DEFINITION, THAT LEAVES AN AWFUL LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM.
BUT I'M ALSO RELUCTANT TO, UH, SECOND GUESS THE HDRC AND THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, I'M JUST GONNA CHIME IN ON THIS ONE.
UH, YOU KNOW, I I, I, UH, BECAUSE IT'S A MULTIFAMILY AND THEY CAN HAVE A TALLER FENCE IN THE REAR, THE GIVING THEM WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE ALLOWED AT FIVE FEET DOESN'T SEEM TO BOTHER ME, ONLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS SO TALL AND THE LOT IS PRETTY BIG.
IT MAY NOT BE 20,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT'S STILL PRETTY BIG.
SO WITH FIVE FEET AND THE FACT THAT IT'S MOST LIKELY GONNA BE DECK DECORATIVE AND HAVE LITTLE ARCHES AND WHATNOT, AS LONG AS THE HIGHEST PART OF THE FENCE DOESN'T EXCEED FIVE FEET, I THINK IT'LL PROBABLY END UP BEING FOUR AND A HALF FEET BY THE TIME FOR THE, FOR THE SURPLUS OF IT.
SO I'D, I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
UH, BUT, BUT NORMALLY I WOULD SIDE WITH THE, WITH THE HDRC.
COMMISSIONER MANNA, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL.
[01:15:01]
YES.COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, MOTION DOES FAIL SEVEN TO FOUR, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE USED TO ACTUALLY SLIDE THE, ALRIGHT, I THINK WE HAVE A HANDOUT FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH THE PRESENTATION.
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS AN APPEAL OF, UH, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY ISSUANCE OF A TYPE ONE.
THAT IS TO SAY AN OWNER OCCUPIED STR PERMIT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 25 GLASS AVENUE.
IT IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS OWNED R FOUR WITH A COUPLE OVERLAYS, BUT, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, I GOT IT.
UM, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 25 GLASS AVENUE.
IT IS KIND OF AT THE NORTH END OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THEY ARE SEEKING TO APPEAL MY DECISION TO DENY AN STR PERMIT, SPECIFICALLY A TYPE ONE.
UH, WHILE I COPIED AND PASTED THE WHOLE SECTION OF CODE THERE ON WHAT A TYPE ONE IS.
I UNDERLINED WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE MOST RELEVANT OR PERTINENT TO TODAY'S DISCUSSION.
ONE THAT THE PROPERTY, UH, IS OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER OR THE OPERATOR AND IN CONDITION TWO.
BELOW THAT THE OWNER IS GENERALLY PRESENT AT THE PROPERTY.
I DO WANNA START OFF WITH A LITTLE BIT OF TIMELINE BACKGROUND TO GIVE YOU A FULL APPRECIATION, UH, FOR THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY.
I WILL START BY SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST HABITUAL VIOLATORS OF THE CITY'S STR ORDINANCE SINCE WE ADOPTED THAT ORDINANCE IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.
UH, I CHECKED THIS MORNING, THE PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN A DOZEN INVESTIGATIONS FOR LICENSING.
UM, SO AGAIN, JUST WANT THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A, A PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE QUITE A HEADACHE DEALING WITH OVER TIME.
ALTHOUGH, UH, WE ARE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TODAY THAN WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.
UH, LAST SUMMER, NOT ON, WELL, LET'S SEE.
JULY 20, 24 DSD RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, PROPERTY.
UH, FINALLY ABLE TO GET AN APPLICATION IN AFTER YEARS OF TRYING TO GET THAT TO HAPPEN.
UM, WHEN WE ENGAGED WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AS THE PROPERTY HAS SINCE BEEN SOLD, WE SAID THAT BEFORE WE CAN ISSUE THAT PERMIT, THERE IS A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLETED.
UH, BUILDING PERMITS HAD NOT BEEN CLOSED OUT, INSPECTIONS HADN'T BEEN COMPLETED.
THERE WERE OVER $22,000 WORTH OF OUTSTANDING HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES THAT WERE OWED.
AND I'M, I PERSONALLY MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER IN THE LOBBY OF THIS VERY BUILDING THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE A PERMIT ISSUED UNTIL THOSE ISSUES WERE RECTIFIED.
UM, UPON HEARING ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAD TO HAPPEN TO GET THE PROPERTY IN A POSITION FOR A PERMIT TO BE ISSUED, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THAT PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR A TYPE TWO PERMIT.
UM, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD.
UH, I MET WITH THE OWNER AT THE TIME AND A PROSPECTIVE BUYER IN THIS PARKING OR IN THIS LOBBY, AND AGAIN, EXPLAINED ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR THIS PROPERTY TO OBTAIN A TYPE TWO PERMIT.
AGAIN, THE PERMITS WOULD HAVE TO BE CLOSED OUT, THE OUTSTANDING HOT WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID, UM, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD HAVE TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A TYPE TWO PERMIT.
UH, THAT PROPERTY WAS EVENTUALLY SOLD.
THE SUBSEQUENT OWNER DID PAY OFF THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES THAT WERE OUTSTANDING.
THE PROPERTY OWNER DID CLOSE OUT THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT.
SO AGAIN, I MENTIONED WE'RE IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE TODAY THAN WE WERE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
UM, THE ISSUE, UH, THAT WE HAVE IS
[01:20:01]
THE APPLICATION THAT WE RECEIVED.UM, STARTED OFF WHEN THE APPLICANT WHO WILL TESTIFY AFTER ME CAME INTO THE BUSINESS TO, OR CAME INTO DSD TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE PROCESS, TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.
MY STAFF EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TYPE ONE AND A TYPE TWO AND MY STAFF WAS TOLD THAT THE, UH, BY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WOULD NOT ACTUALLY BE LIVING AT THE PROPERTY.
SO WE WERE A LITTLE SURPRISED A WEEK LATER TO SEE AN APPLICATION FOR A TYPE ONE PERMIT CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE LIVING AT THE PROPERTY.
BEFORE I MOVE ON FROM THIS SLIDE, I WANNA REDACT, UH, THAT VERY BOTTOM BULLET THAT SAYS THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO OUTSTANDING CODE VIOLATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY, AND I'M GONNA GET TO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE ONE KIND OF FAR, UH, WEST, IT'S GOT THE STAR ON IT.
1 25 GLASS TWO PROPERTIES TO THE EAST.
THEY HAVE REPORTED ALL OF THEIR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS AT THAT PROPERTY.
UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE TYPE ONE PERMIT.
UM, SHOWS IT SLEEPS A TOTAL OF 21 GUESTS.
THERE'S A COUPLE BEDROOMS, 11 FOLKS SLEEPING, AND WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE FAMILY ROOM, UM, NOTICEABLY ABSENT FROM THIS SITE PLAN IS WHERE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR LIVES AT THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ANOTHER RED FLAG FOR STAFF WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION.
UH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, AGAIN, 1 25 GLASS AVENUE.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST OF NO GTOS.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK MY STAFF IF WE CAN PULL UP THE WEBSITE THAT I FOUND SHORTLY BEFORE THIS MEETING.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE VERY TOP, JOSEPH.
UM, THIS IS THE UTOPIA ESTATES.
THIS IS THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT PURCHASED IT FROM THE PRIOR OWNER A FEW MONTHS AGO.
UH, THIS IS A PRIVATE ONLINE LISTING PLATFORM AND IF WE SCROLL TO THE VERY BOTTOM, WE SEE THAT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.
CAN WE CLICK ON IT AND ZOOM IN ON SOME OF THOSE PICTURES? KIND OF CLICK ON THAT ONE.
SO IF YOU KIND OF LOOK OVER HERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THE TWO WINDOWS, IT SAYS 1, 2, 5, AND THOSE KIND OF DISTINCTIVE, UH, LETTERINGS, CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT RIGHT OVER, RIGHT OVER THERE? UH, AND THEN IF WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE, JUST TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PROPERTY IN OUR POWERPOINT.
SO THAT IS THE PROPERTY TODAY THAT IS BEING LISTED ON A WEBSITE FOR RENT.
UH, IF WE WANT, WE CAN GO BACK TO THE WEBSITE.
I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE YOU CAN BOOK IT THIS VERY MONTH.
UM, I ALSO WILL SAY THAT THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT APPEAR ON THAT WEBSITE FOR UTOPIA ESTATES WE'RE ALSO PURCHASED AT THE SAME TIME FROM THE SAME PRIOR OWNER.
AND ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THAT WEBSITE TODAY HAVE TYPE TWO PERMITS AND ARE OPERATING AS TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION.
SO JUST CLICKING THROUGH THE REST OF MY SLIDES HERE.
UH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY I BELIEVE THAT'S LOOKING TO THE EAST DOWN GLASS AVENUE.
UH, THAT'S LOOKING TO THE WEST AT THE FAR END OF THAT ROAD IS NO GTOS STREET.
UH, AND THAT WOULD BE LOOKING, UH, SOUTH FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, IN SUMMARY, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL.
UH, WE FIND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO OBTAIN A TYPE ONE STR PERMIT HAVE NOT BEEN MET, AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AS A TYPE TWO APPLICATION AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION, LOGAN? MM-HMM
UH, I KNOW THAT TR ONES ONE OF THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE ANTR.
ONE IS THAT THE, UM, OWNER MUST LIVE ON THE PROPERTY, THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE THEIR HOMESTEAD.
SO THERE'S, IN MOST CASES THAT IS TRUE, BUT WHAT THE CODE SAYS IS THAT AN OWNER OR THE OPERATOR CAN LIVE ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY YOU RENTED THE HOME, UH, AND THE TENANT WANTED TO SUBLET A BEDROOM ON AIRBNB, THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A TYPE ONE.
SO WHAT STAFF'S POSITION IS, IS WE DON'T BELIEVE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF, UH, THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BEING USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FULL ON A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STRUCTURE RENTAL AS EVIDENCED BY, UH, THE WEBSITE.
BECAUSE NOWHERE IN THAT LISTING DOES IT SAY, IT ACTUALLY SAYS THERE'S NO HOUSE RULES.
UH, IT DOESN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, ONE BEDROOM OR TWO BEDROOMS. IT'S PICTURES OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
WHERE DOES THE OPERATOR LIVE? SORRY, MADAM BRAGMAN.
[01:25:01]
COMMISSIONER.UM, BRAGMAN, UH, SO, UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF.
HAS, UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED ANY SORT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS EITHER THAT THERE'S A TENANT IN THE PROPERTY OR THAT THERE'S A MANAGER LIVING AT THE PROPERTY? WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF A LEASE AND SHE HAS A COPY OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE WITH THAT ADDRESS LISTED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BACHMAN? CRUZ, CRUZ.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? NO, THAT WAS IT.
UH, MANNA HAD ACTUALLY ASKED A SECOND AND WE'LL GO TO CRUZ.
SO, SO YEAH, SO KIND OF HITTING ON THE WORDS.
SO, UM, GENERALLY PRESENT MM-HMM
AND SO, UM, SO YOU KIND OF INDICATED SOME MATERIALS THAT PROVIDED POTENTIAL ADDRESSES THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE GENERALLY PRESENT VERSUS MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, THAT ADDRESS AND DOES THAT QUALIFY OR WHERE IS, WHERE, WHERE DO WE DRAW THOSE LINES? YEAH, SO I MEAN, GENERALLY PRESENT IS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE CODE.
UH, I, I THINK MOST PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU GO HOME, I, I PRETTY MUCH STAY IN THE SAME PLACE SEVEN NIGHTS A WEEK.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT WHERE SHE SAYS, YOU KNOW, I'M USUALLY THERE FOUR TO FIVE, OR MAYBE IT SAYS FOUR TO SIX NIGHTS PER WEEK.
UM, AGAIN, I, I THINK THE, THE MAIN CONCERN FOR STAFF IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, WE, REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTY HISTORY, BECAUSE I, I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR, I WANT TO CONVEY TO THE BOARD THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE DEALT WITH WITH THIS PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CONVEY THAT PROBLEMS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ARE THIS APPLICANT'S FAULT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, EVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE TYPE ONE PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SUPPLIED A DIFFERENT MAILING ADDRESS THAN THIS PROPERTY.
I HAVE MY MAIL SENT TO WHERE I LIVE.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE TELLING STAFF, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA LIVE THERE IS A, IS A CONCERN.
SO CURRENTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY RENT THE WHOLE HOUSE? SO IS IT ONLY 5, 6, 8? I, THAT'S MY PROBLEM OF WHAT ARE THEY SAYING THEY CAN RENT IT OUT FOR? YEAH, IT A LITTLE BIT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION THERE BECAUSE THE INITIAL SITE PLAN SAID 21, THE LISTING ONLINE, IT ACTUALLY SAYS IN ONE PLACE IT SAYS EIGHT IN ANOTHER PLACE IT SAYS 16, YOU KNOW, STAFF AS PART OF OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW, IF WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AN ALLOWED SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THEN WE'LL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BUILDING CODES WILL ALLOW, YOU KNOW, BEDROOM SIZE, THAT ALL YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO INFORM THE NUMBER OF GUESTS THAT CAN LEGALLY OCCUPY A STRUCTURE.
BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT IN OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW JUST YET.
UM, SO IS THE, IF YOU OPERATE A TYPE ONE SHORT TERM RENTAL, ARE YOU REQUIRED THAT THE MAIL GO TO THAT ADDRESS OR CAN IT GO TO A SEPARATE ADDRESS? I MEAN, ASSUMING THAT THE TENANT APPLICATION IS, UH, VALID, THEN DOES THE MAIL NEED TO GO TO THAT PROPERTY OR CAN IT GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ASSUMING THERE'S A TENANT LIVING IN THE PROPERTY? YEAH, THE, OUR REGULATIONS DON'T DICTATE WHERE MAIL HAS TO BE DELIVERED TO THAT FOR STAFF.
IT WAS JUST ANOTHER ITEM THAT SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS THIS IS NOT A TYPE ONE.
AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, DOES THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY, SAY ENTIRE HOUSE OR ENTIRE PROPERTY, DOES IT LIMIT, IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN THE ADVERTISING THAT IT LIMITS THE, UM, EXTENT OF THE USE OF, OF THE PROPERTY? SO THE, UM, ADVERTISEMENT ONLINE DOES NOT SAY THE ENTIRE HOME, BUT IN MATCHING UP THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, I COUNTED AN EQUAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS THAT HAD PHOTOGRAPHS AS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN THE LISTING ALSO SAYS THAT IT CAN ACCOMMODATE STAYS UP TO 28 DAYS LONG.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, UH, WITH UTOPIA STATE'S LLC DID THIS, DOES THE CITY DO ANY RESEARCH? LIKE WHERE THE RIGHT, WHO OWNS THE LLC? LIKE MAYBE WHERE THEY LIVE? I MEAN, WE, WE CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT JUST WHEN WE'RE VERIFYING THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE GO AS FAR AS TO DIGGING INTO WHERE IT'S LOCATED.
[01:30:01]
CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT.I WANNA SAY IT'S HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT I WOULD NEED TO VERIFY THAT BEFORE I COMMITTED TO IT.
LET'S HAVE, HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR SHORT TERM RENTAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
MY NAME IS ALYSSA THOMAS AND I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY APPEAL THE DENY FOR MY TYPE ONE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR 1 2 5 GLASS AVENUE.
HEY, CAN YOU MOVE THE, UH, MIC? OH, SORRY.
THIS IS, THIS IS MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND I SUBMITTED A COMPLETE APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH.
I'VE DONE MY BEST TO FOLLOW EVERY DOCUMENTED REQUIREMENT IN THE ORDINANCE.
AT NO POINT DURING THE MONTH LONG REVIEW DID STAFF NOTIFY ME.
I'M GONNA, CAN YOU SLOW DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT?
AT NO POINT DURING THE MONTH LONG REVIEW DID STAFF NOTIFY ME OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT RESIDENCY OR MY ADDRESS.
AND I'VE EVEN EMAILED SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS ASKING IF I WAS DOING THINGS CORRECTLY, IF I WAS MISSING ANY INFORMATION, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.
I'VE DONE A TYPE TWO BEFORE, MEANING THAT I WORK FOR UTOPIA STATES AND I HELP MANAGE THE OTHER AIRBNBS.
I'M USED TO DOING THE TYPE TWO PROCESS.
I'M NOT USED TO DOING THE TYPE ONE PROCESS.
WHEN IT CAME TO THE FLOOR PLAN, I SUBMITTED JUST A GENERAL FLOOR PLAN.
I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO SPECIFICALLY PUT WHERE I AM STAYING IN THAT HOME.
I DID PREVIOUSLY SAY I WASN'T GONNA LIVE THERE, BUT IN BETWEEN THAT TIME I HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH HIM TO THE TIME I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UM, EDUARDO FROM UTOPIA ESTATES.
WE CREATED A BUS, A BUSINESS DECISION TOGETHER AND I INVESTED SOME OF MYSELF INTO THIS PROPERTY TO STAY THERE TO NOW RENT IT BECAUSE MY LEASE WAS COMING UP.
NOW, ME STAYING AT THE HOME FOR ONLY FOUR TO SIX DAYS TIMES A WEEK, UM, THAT IS ACCURATE BECAUSE I DO HAVE A BOYFRIEND, I'M IN A RELATIONSHIP AND SOMETIMES I WANNA SPEND TIME WITH HIM BECAUSE HE WORKS OVER THE ROAD.
SO WHEN HE'S BACK, LIKE I WANT TO BE WITH HIM.
SO I'M NOT ALWAYS GENUINELY THERE 24 7 AS THEY'RE REQUESTING.
BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN ABLE TO SHOW 12 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE LISTED ON AIRBNB, WHO ARE TYPE ONES AND SAY THAT THE WHOLE HOME IS AVAILABLE, WHICH IS PART OF MY PACKET.
UM, I DO FEEL LIKE BECAUSE OF THE PAST OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, A LOT OF IT IS COMING DOWN ON ME AND IT'S NOT LIKE REALLY IN GOOD FAITH OR LIKE, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE IT VIOLATES PRINCIPAL AFFAIR, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER EVER APPLIED FOR AN APPLICATION UNDER MY OWN PERSONAL NAME.
AND I'VE COME INTO THIS OFFICE MANY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE WEEKS, LIKE ASKING FOR HELP ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMITS TO APPLY FOR HOW TO DO THINGS, HOW TO, HOW TO SUBMIT THINGS.
I ALWAYS WANNA FOLLOW BY, YOU KNOW, THE RULES AND THE, I GO OFF THE, THE, THE CODE AS TO WHAT I WANNA PUT IN.
AND THEN FOR THE OCCUPANCY IT WOULD, I READ HOW IT'S, UH, 50 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON.
SO I JUST DID THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME, KIND OF GIVING MY MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY, OCCUPANCY.
NOT SAYING I WANT THAT MAXIMUM NUMBER, BUT JUST TO SAY THAT I'M JUST FOLLOWING WHAT THE HOUSE ALLOWS.
SO I'M GOING TO, UM, ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS MM-HMM
BECAUSE I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER YOU LIVE THERE OR NOT.
AND, AND YOU HAVE TO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.
AND STAFF HAS, HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN PRETTY CAUTIOUS.
AND, AND BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED AN APPEAL TO DO A TYPE TWO AND TYPE ONES ARE ALWAYS ALLOWED, THEY HAVE TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU LIVE THERE AND YOU MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF A TYPE ONE.
SO YOU CHANGED YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE? MM-HMM
WHEN, WHEN DID, WHEN DID YOU DO THAT? I DID THAT BACK IN, UH, I WANNA SAY APRIL OR MARCH.
WHEN DID YOU SIGN A LEASE TO LIVE AT THIS AS YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE? AT THE BEGINNING OF APRIL.
SO THE BE SO YOU CHANGED YOUR LICENSE PRIOR TO HAVING A SIGNED LEASE? N NO, AROUND THE SAME TIME I DID THE LEASE IS WHEN I CHANGED MY OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE UTILITY BILLS IN YOUR NAME? NO, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF MY, UH, DEPARTMENT OF MY LEASE.
LIKE THEY, THE PART OF MY RENT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER THINGS, UM, THAT SHOW THAT YOU RECEIVE MAIL THERE THAT THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WELL NO, BECAUSE, BECAUSE ADDITIONAL PROOF, IT'S, THE PLAN WAS JUST TO HAVE THIS AS AIRBNB.
I DIDN'T WANT MY PERSONAL MAIL GOING THERE, SO I DON'T HAVE MY PERSONAL MAIL MAIL GOING THERE.
MY PERSONAL MAIL GOES TO MY BOYFRIEND'S HOUSE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT SOME RANDOM PERSON TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND OPEN MY MAIL AND MAKE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT IT.
BUT NOW, SINCE NOW THERE IS A LOCKBOX AS A MAILBOX THERE.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE, I I JUST CAN'T, I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH THAT I THINK THE ISSUE IS IS THAT, AND IN ONE WAY STAFF COULD SEE, COULD SEE THAT YOU COULD SAY YOU LIVE THERE SO YOU CAN GET A TYPE ONE AND BYPASS YOU NOT NEEDING THIS TYPE TWO THAT WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE ALLOWED.
AND SO ANYBODY CAN CHANGE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE.
AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU ACTUALLY LIVE THERE? A LEASE? DID YOU TURN A LEASE? I DID TURN A LEASE, A LEASE FOR WASTE MY APPLICATION FOR A WHOLE YEAR.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE, OTHER THAN YOUR, AT YOUR BOYFRIEND'S RESIDENCE, ARE YOU ON
[01:35:01]
ANY OF THOSE UTILITY BILLS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THAT WAS A PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD PRIMARILY RESIDE? WHERE I LIVED BEFORE, UM, ON ESSEX STREET, I HAD A CPS BILL THERE, BUT I DON'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE.BUT YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR NAME ON ANY PERMANENT BILLS AT YOUR BOYFRIEND'S HOUSE.
I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S, IT, IT'S JUST SO YOU HAVE TO PUT YOURSELF IN STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE.
THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO ACHIEVE TYPE TWO RENTALS, THESE ST THAT IF YOU CAN'T GET ONE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE JUST TO GO DOWN THIS PATH AND GET A TYPE ONE AND THEY'RE JUST BEING CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT.
AND SO OUR, I JUST FEEL LIKE A LOT OF IT'S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS TENANT OR THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHICH WE LIKE, I HAVE NO TIES TO ANY LONGER.
WE DID WHEN WE WERE DOING THE TRANSFER JUST TO MAKE SURE THE SALES WERE GOING THROUGH AND I NOW WORK FOR EDUARDO AND UTOPIA ESTATES.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER, THE PREVIOUS ISSUES HE HAD BEFORE, LIKE, THIS IS ME WANTING TO COME IN AND APPLY IN GOOD FAITH AND DO SOMETHING BECAUSE I PUT MY INVESTMENT INTO UTOPIA STATES WITH EDUARDO.
DID UTOPIA STATES, DID THEY HAVE ANY SORT OF A LINK TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS? NO, THEY DIDN'T JUST STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS DID UTOPIA STATES ASK YOU TO LIVE AT THIS HOUSE.
SO THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT I HAD WITH MY BOSS.
BECAUSE MILE LEASE, THEY INITIATED IT.
UM, STR ONES WERE, WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE U DS U-D-C-U-D-C
MY, MY PROBLEM WITH YOUR APPLICATION IS THAT YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF AN LLC OF A COMPANY THAT OWNS ALL THESE PROPERTIES.
AND FOR ME IT, IT'S REALLY NOT AN STR ONE.
IT IS, UH, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE ANS STR TWO WITH AN EMPLOYEE LIVING SOMETIMES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
IT SAYS YOU COULD HAVE A DESIGNATED OPERATOR, WHICH IS WHAT I AM, I'M NOT THE HOMEOWNER, BUT I'M THE DESIGNATED OPERATOR.
IT'S HOMEOWNER OR DESIGNATED OPERATOR.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU HAVE ANY OWNERSHIP IN THE LLC AT ALL? NO.
SO, UM, SO WHAT, SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT LIVING IN A PLACE MM-HMM
I HAVE MY, MY, AND I STORE MY STUFF THERE, YOU KNOW, AND I HAVE MY BEDROOM.
AND NO ONE CAN GO IN MY BEDROOM BECAUSE THAT'S MY SPACE.
SO DO YOU HAVE A SPACE IN THIS HOME THAT IS YOURS? THAT BASICALLY IS SO, CAN, CAN YOU RUN OUT YOUR ROOM? UH, FOR TO A SO, SO I HAVE TWO CLOSETS IN THE HOUSE AND A PERSONAL BEDROOM THAT HAVE ACTUAL KEYPADS ON THEM WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CODE TO GET IN.
SO THE, THE CLOSETS, TWO CLOSETS AND A BEDROOM.
SO THE, SO YOU HAVE A BEDROOM THAT'S SECURED, THAT'S YOUR BEDROOM.
AND THEN, UM, AND THEN TWO CLOSETS THAT ARE YOURS AS WELL.
BUT THE THING IS, I DIDN'T, UH, I DIDN'T PUT MY BEDROOM ON THE FLOOR PLAN.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT WASN'T FULLY EXPLAINED TO ME HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE.
SO I JUST SUBMITTED, LIKE I WOULD DID A TYPE TWO FLOOR PLAN WHERE I JUST DID THE ENTIRE FLOOR PLAN, NOT ADDRESSING MY ROOM SPECIFICALLY.
AND THAT'S MY FAULT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY DO IT.
WELL YOU CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH STUFF.
SO, SO YOU'VE NEVER RENTED OUT YOUR BEDROOM 'CAUSE THAT'S YOUR PRIVATE SPACE.
UH, WAS IT COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH.
SO MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU EVER TRY TO MAKE A SHORT, UH, STR TWO TYPE APPLICATION ON THE PROPERTY? FOR THIS ONE, NO, BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS ALREADY A TYPE TWO ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE BLOCK AND I KNEW, UM, IT, IT WASN'T GONNA WORK OUT.
SO THEN THAT'S WHY I HAD PARTNERED WITH, OR MY BOSS PARTNERED WITH ME ASKING ME, 'CAUSE HE KNEW MY SITUATION, MY LEASE COMING UP, THAT I COULD LIVE IN HIS HOME AT A DISCOUNTED RATE OF RENT.
BUT I'D ALSO BE, UM, INVESTING IN THE PROPERTY AS WELL AND HELPING RUN IT AS THE AIRBNB.
UM, I'M, I'M GONNA GO ON A LIMB HERE.
AND IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, YOU HAVE A SECURED ROOM, YOU HAVE A SECURED CLOSET, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY LIVE, I THINK COMMUNICATING THAT AND PROVING THAT TO STAFF IS A, IS MAKE, WOULD MAKE ALL THIS GO AWAY.
I FEEL LIKE I TRIED AND STAFF DIDN'T REALLY GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO, WELL, I'M SUGGESTING MAYBE A CONTINUANCE JUST TO GIVE, UH, YOU AND STAFF ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS MAYBE BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE WHOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER YOU LIVE THERE OR NOT, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING RELATIVELY SIMPLE TO FIGURE OUT.
I THINK A CONTINUANCE MIGHT MAKE SENSE, BUT I WILL SAY, YOU
[01:40:01]
KNOW, I, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO YOU.I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY IN THIS DEAL WITH YOUR EMPLOYER WHO SHOULD BE THE PERSON THAT'S THE APPLICANT AND STANDING UP HERE AND YOU'VE PROBABLY GOT A GOOD DEAL ON RENT AND YOU KIND OF CLEAR OUT OF THERE WHEN PEOPLE ARE AROUND.
BUT THIS GUY'S USING YOU AS A PAWN TO FURTHER HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS.
SO I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST THE WAY THAT I, I SEE IT BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN HAD HERE.
I THINK A CONTINUANCE MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW I'M SEEING.
AND I, I JUST, I, I THINK AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY TRY TO PROVE YOUR CASE TO STAFF BEFORE I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON IT.
BUT WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? ALL RIGHT.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, CONTINUE THIS CASE UNTIL JUNE 16TH.
ANY OPPOSED? UH, HEARING NONE.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU GOT TWO WEEKS TO JUST KIND OF TALK TO STAFF AND TRY TO GET THIS WORKED OUT.
UM, THEY MAY ASK FOR SOME EVIDENCE, BUT Y'ALL WILL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND THEN WE WILL HEAR IT AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS.
WAS UM, WE DO HAVE SOMEBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK HERE.
LET'S HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL A CALL THERE.
A CALL? NO, I'M A SEPARATE SDR APPLICATION.
AND WE'RE GOING TO, UH, DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK? HUH? OKAY, THE NEXT CASE ITEM FIVE.
NO, I THINK WE INDICATED WE'D LIKE A BREAK.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK SIR.
I BELIEVE WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS REQUESTED BY KEISHA HARPER AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORTTERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT FIVE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT FIVE.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK PHASE.
THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK LOCATED AT THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT ONE HAVING BEEN APPROVED ON JUNE 15TH, 2022.
PER THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL 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, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 10 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
ONE ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO IS ALREADY LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BEING THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT ONE ISSUED ON JUNE 15TH, 2022.
THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 10%.
AND IF THE SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK BASE WILL BE AT 20% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST.
THE PROPERTY HAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE OPEN.
IT IS CURRENTLY ON PENDING RESOLUTION FOR OPERATING WITHOUT AN ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
AND THERE IS CURRENTLY NO ACTIVE LISTINGS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT ONE AND UNIT FIVE ARE BOTH CURRENT UNDER THEIR HOT TAXES.
THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A TOTAL OF 38 MAIL NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.
ONE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION AND THREE CITY Y GROUPS ARE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
HAR HARPER IS THE ONE THAT DOES OUR PERMITTING AND I'M
[01:45:01]
REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER WHO OWNS THE HOME.HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY YEARS AGO.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS WITH THESE STR YOU KNOW THE, I WORK FOR VAC CASA, WE'RE A MAJOR COMPANY.
SO BASICALLY WE HAVE A WHOLE, LIKE I DON'T HANDLE THE PERMITS.
I'M THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR MULTIPLE UNITS AND THEY'LL REACH OUT TO ME WHEN A PERMIT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, RENEWED.
AND THE PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR VACS FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS.
THE PERMITTING PROCESS CHANGES A LOT.
SO WHEN THEY FIRST PROBABLY DID THE PERMIT, 'CAUSE THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN PERMITTED, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS TO WHY YOU HAVE A NUMBER ONE, THEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER, WHATEVER.
THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN AN OPERATING AIRBNB, WHICH I HAVE SOME, UM, EVIDENCE THAT I GAVE, UH, JUAN TO SHOW, WHICH OUR PERMIT WAS JUST RECENTLY.
UM, IT EXPIRED BECAUSE THE NEW PROCESS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR COMPANY HAS A LARGE TURNOVER.
WHEN WE FIRST STARTED OUR UM, ONBOARDING PROFESSIONALS WOULD PERMIT THE PROPERTY.
WE WOULD HAVE A CERTAIN ONBOARDING PER, AND IT WOULD GO IN THAT PERSON'S NAME.
AND OF COURSE THE TURNOVER, THAT PERSON MIGHT HAVE BEEN GONE THEN IT, YOU KNOW, WOULD FALL ONTO KEISHA HARPER.
BUT THEY TOLD KEISHA RECENTLY THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT IN THE HOMEOWNER'S NAME SO IT HAD TO EXPIRE TO GET PUT IN HIS NAME SOMEHOW.
SO WHEN IT EXPIRED, THAT'S WHEN WE, WE REAPPLIED AND THEY SAID, WELL IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT ABLE, IT'S, THERE'S OTHER PRE-EXISTING AIRBNBS.
SO I HAVE THE GRID HERE AS WELL.
THAT DOWN, IF YOU GO DOWN WOULD SHOW THAT THERE'S AN OPERATING AIRBNB.
AND WE'RE NOT A FLY BY NIGHT COMPANY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING TO, YOU KNOW, NOT PAY OUR TAXES, DO EVERYTHING.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE A MAJOR COMPANY, WE RELY ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND THE HOMEOWNER CAME TO US BECAUSE BASICALLY THE HOMEOWNER LIVES IN DALLAS.
HIM AND HIS FAMILY BOUGHT THAT.
THEY COME 10 TIMES A YEAR, MAYBE 12.
SOMETIMES WE'LL GO AND TAKE 'EM OUT TO DINNER JUST TO, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE WE GOTTA TAKE CARE OF OUR HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY KNOW THE SHORT TERM GAME, IT'S A LITTLE SKETCHY, RIGHT? HOUSES COME AND GO, PEOPLE RENT, BUT THAT'S THEIR LIVELIHOOD FOR THIS HOME.
SO I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THEM JUST TO PROVE THAT, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE'RE JUST ASKING LIKE, AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY, YOU KNOW, OUR COMPANY ABIDES BY ALL NEIGHBORHOOD RULES.
WE HAVE RULES OF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WORK WITH AIRBNB, VRBO, ANY, ANY PLATFORM AS WELL AS VAC CASA WHO JUST, UH, WE JUST WENT A MERGER WITH A CASA GO.
O KEISHA HARPER INDIVIDUALLY OWNS THIS UNIT? NO, SHE IS, UM, THE LIKE, I GUESS YOU'D BE A COMPLIANCE TEAM OR THE PERMITTING TEAM FOR PCAA.
SO WHO, WHO OWNS THE ACTUAL NAME? THE HOMEOWNER'S NAME IS IS ROBIT CHAR.
IS THAT AND THAT'S A PERSON, NOT A COMPANY? YES, HE'S AN ACTUAL HOMEOWNER.
SO YOU REPRESENT THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT OPERATES IT ON IT? YEAH, AND I'M REPRESENTING HIM.
LET'S, AND WHEN, WHEN DID, WHEN DID HE PURCHASE THE UNIT? UM, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY IN 20, MAYBE 20, 21.
I DON'T REALLY WAS IT OPERATING AS AN SDR TYPE TO HE, WHEN HE PURCHASED IT, HE PURCHASED IT BRAND NEW.
AND WHEN THEY WERE PURCHASING IT, WHAT I DO IS I'M THE PROPERTY MANAGER.
SO I MET WITH HIM AND HIS MOM AND HIS SISTER AND THE, WHAT WE HAVE IS LIKE A, UM, SALES EXECUTIVE.
SO BASICALLY IF YOU WANT TO COME WITH OUR COMPANY, WE HAVE A SALES EXECUTIVE COME AND WE, WE GO OVER WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO FOR YOU BECAUSE WE'RE A PROPERTY MANAGER SO THE HOMEOWNER CAN LIVE IN DALLAS AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE RENTAL, NOT HAVE TO HAVE TO WORRY.
SO HE BOUGHT IT BRAND NEW AND WHEN I MET WITH HIM, I JUST WENT OVER LIKE DESIGN ISSUES AS WELL BECAUSE, AND THEN WE GOT THE PERMIT.
SO YOU ACHIEVED AN SDR TYPE TWO PERMIT? YES.
AND IT'S BEEN OPERATING FOR YEAR.
I'M GONNA, I'M GOING GO AHEAD, GO ON PAUSE FOR A SECOND.
SO STAFF, DID THEY EVER HAVE A, A TYPE TWO PERMIT AT ONE TIME? WELL THAT'S THE ONE, THE ONE FORM HE JUST SHOWED UP SHOWED, UM, MR. CHAIR ON HOLD ON MR. CHAIR.
YEAH, THEY, THEY WERE ISSUED A TYPE TWO PERMIT BACK IN 2022 AND IT JUST EXPIRED ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 2025.
AND THEY DIDN'T RENEW IT IN TIME AND SOMEONE ELSE GOT THE OPENING? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND ALSO I CHECKED ON FILE THE HOME, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EMAIL ADDRESS WAS ON FILE AS WELL.
SO I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
SO YOU, YEAH, AND THAT'S KIND OF SPARK FINDING RIP UP, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE WERE AT BECAUSE I HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE TOO BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE GET A BIG TURNOVER.
SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THE PERMITTING AND NOW THEY SAID THEY WANTED THE HOMEOWNER'S NAME.
SO KEISHA SAID, WELL SHE HAD TO LET IT EXPIRE AND THEN NOW IT'S IN.
I THINK IT'S, IF SHE CAN ASK, I THINK IT'S IN ROB AS AN IT'S, YEAH.
AND THEN THEY SAID THERE'S, IT EXPIRED IN FEBRUARY AND AS SOON AS IT EXPIRED SOMEBODY UP, UP THE WAY FROM ME.
SO MAYBE MR. MANA, SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF HERE.
[01:50:01]
SO I, I'M LOOKING AT BA AND I SHOW, UH, 2022 HOMES OR 23 HOMES WITH THE ADDRESS OF THREE 11, UH, EAST EVERGREEN.AND IT APPEARS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, AN ALLEY BETWEEN, WE'LL SAY BETWEEN THE RIGHT SIDE AND THE LEFT SIDE, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE DRESSED OFF OF THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN.
SO WHY IS IT THAT WE ONLY COUNTED HALF OF THE STRUCTURES I GUESS AS WE'RE DOING THE COUNT HERE? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BOTH SIDES.
UM, AND SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT MR. COMMISSIONER FOR CHAIR.
SO WHAT DEVICE OUT AN ALLEYWAY? IT'S A EGRESS AND INGRESS.
SO THAT'S LIKE A DRIVEWAY, UM, FOR, FOR TENANTS TO PARK THEIR CARS AT THEIR UNIT.
IT'S, THAT'S WHY IT'S ONE SIDE IS 10 UNITS AND THE OTHER SIDE'S ITS OWN UNIT.
IT'S, IT'S AN IRREVOCABLE INGRESS.
AND THEN THE STAFF SAYING ONCE THAT'S CONSIDERING THAT A BLOCK FACE.
AND I GUESS ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY ALREADY ACHIEVED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO ON THAT SIDE THAT, THAT BLOCK FACE IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
THE OPPOSITE SIDE, WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THE SIDE THAT THE UNIT IS ON.
WELL I KNOW, BUT THIS BOARD HAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AN ADDITIONAL ONE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
SO FOR CLARITY WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
BUT IF IT WAS ISSUED AN ERROR THEN UPON RENEWAL THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS SEEMS FAMILIAR.
ANY OTHER COM UH, QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED.
YEAH, AND LIKE I SAID, LIKE I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE, WE GATHERED BECAUSE WITH THE PROCESS THAT IT HAD TO BE SWITCHED OVER TO THE HOMEOWNER'S NAME BECAUSE IT WASN'T UNDER KEISHA HARPER'S NAME, IT WAS PROBABLY UNDER ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS, UH, ONBOARDING SPECIALISTS THAT THAT'S, THAT WAS THEIR SPECIALTY WAS DEALING WITH YOU GUYS OR WHOEVER THE, THE CITY TO PUT THE PERMITS IN.
SO LIKE YOU SAID, WE WE'RE MAYBE CONFUSED TOO, LIKE ONCE IT, I DON'T KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW THE FULL PROCESS, BUT ONCE IT WAS PROBABLY EXPIRED, WOULD IT, WOULD IT HAVE IMMEDIATELY TURNED OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE? NO, IT BECAME AVAILABLE FOR SOMEONE AND SOMEONE ELSE KNEW OR SOMETHING AND THEN THAT'S, I'M SURE THEY DID AND THAT'S HOW YEAH.
SO QUESTION, SO STAFF TYPICALLY, SO STAFF WOULD TYPICALLY SEND OUT A NOTIFICATION LIKE 30 OR 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION, RIGHT? OF THE SHORT TERM LICENSE.
IN THIS CASE, THEY WENT TO AN EMAIL THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT CHECKING.
AND SO I GUESS THAT BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE UPDATED, THE SYSTEM DOES SEND NOTIFICATION OUT AND WE SEND IT TO THE EMAIL THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
SO IT WOULD'VE SENT IT OUT I WANNA SAY THREE MONTHS BEFORE AND THEN AT THE, AND ONE MONTH BEFORE AND THEN AT THE EXPIRATION.
SO THE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE, OF THE PERSON BEFORE US, CAN THEY LIST MULTIPLE EMAIL? UH, CAN YOU LIST MULTIPLE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND HAVE EVERYBODY GET NOTIFIED OR DO THEY JUST NOTIFY THE OWNER? SO IT DEPENDS WHO SOME, WHO'S ON THE CONTACT LIST.
SO SOMETIMES THE PROPERTY WILL PUT HIS INFORMATION AND THEN IF THERE ARE OP APPLICANT OR OPERATOR OR SOMEONE ELSE, THEY'LL PUT THEIR INFORMATION.
BUT WITH THE NEW ORDINANCE CHANGED IN 2020 LAST YEAR, OWNERS CAN REACH OUT TO STAFF TO UPDATE ANY RECORDS THEY HAVE.
I BELIEVE STAFF DID RECEIVE EMAIL FROM KEISHA HARPER TO UPDATE MULTIPLE CONTACTS FROM PICASA.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S ONLY APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE NAMES GET NOTIFIED? YOU CAN ADD MULTIPLE PEOPLE AS YOU WANT YOUR, ON YOUR CONTACTS FOR A RECORD.
YEAH, LIKE I SAID, 'CAUSE SHE'S, SHE'S REACHING OUT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE MULTIPLE U UNITS HERE.
WE MANAGE A LOT OF PROPERTIES IN SAN ANTONIO'S WITH NO ISSUES.
UM, WEIRD CASE SCENARIO WAS THE GLASS MR. CHAIR IF I MAY? YES.
JUST ONE OTHER RECOMMENDATION IS, UM, IF THESE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES HAVE A DISTRIBUTION EMAIL THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO USE, THEN WE COULD BE SENDING THOSE NOTIFICATIONS AND IT WOULD GO TO FIVE PEOPLE VERSUS JUST ONE.
'CAUSE WE DO THAT WITH THE, UH, PROACTIVE APARTMENT PROGRAM.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE, UH, DISTRIBUTION EMAILS OURSELF.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY REPRESENTING MULTIPLE PLACES YOU MIGHT WANNA HAVE IT CAN MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
LIKE I DON'T, I'VE NEVER EVEN MET KEISHA HARPER IN PERSON, SO, OKAY.
SO, UM, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS? NO, BUT, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR THE EXCEPTION BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT, IT HAS BEEN AN OPERATING AIRBNB WITH NO ISSUES.
YOU KNOW, OUR COMPANY PAYS THESE TAXES.
AS WEIRD AS IT SOUNDS WHEN Y'ALL PULLED THE GLASS AVENUE UP, I MANAGE THAT AIRBNB THAT'S RUNNING LEGIT.
AND I'VE SEEN THOSE AIRBNBS OVER THERE AND I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED LIKE, I, I DON'T WANT TO BE NOT A POLICEMAN OR WHATEVER, BUT I'M LIKE, HOW ARE THESE AIRBNBS EXISTING ON THE SAME LOT? LIKE THERE'S ONE ON THE SAME STREET OVER AND I'M LIKE, HOW CAN, AND I KNOW THERE'S LIKE OLD SCHOOL GRANDFATHERING RULES AND EVERYTHING, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, AN EXCEPTION ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE TURNOVER
[01:55:01]
AND THAT IT'S THESE HOMEOWNERS, YOU KNOW, LIVE OUTTA STATE AND THEY, THEY IS HUH? DID THE TOWN HOMES HAVE AN HAVE A, A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION? YES.AND THEY TRIED REACHING OUT, BUT I THINK HE MENTIONED, JUAN MENTIONED THEY, THEY HAVEN'T ANSWERED, SO THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES AND THEY SENT A, THEY, I GUESS THEY GOT TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THIS AIRBNB TO EXIST.
YOU KNOW, WE KEEP UP A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, LIKE WE COMMUNICATE WITH NEIGHBORS AND HAVE SIGNAGE AND THE, THE GUESTS ARE ALLOWED TO PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY.
YOU KNOW, WE GIVE 'EM ALL THE EGRESS INFORMATION.
I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE WITH THE, WITH THE DENSITY OF PEOPLE WITHIN 200 FEET, I'M SURPRISED NOBODY MAILED ANYTHING IN THAT'S ALL.
AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS ARE REAL NICE.
LIKE, I'M A PROPERTY MANAGER, SO I, ANY PROPERTY I HAVE, I TRY TO CHECK ROUTINELY, MAKE SURE THE TRASH IS OUT.
NO TRASH IS LEFT OVER FOR SOME OF THESE OTHERS.
AND EVERY TIME I'VE GONE BY YEARS AGO, THEY ALL WAVE AND YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE TIGHT BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE PARKED AND A LOT BACK UP, BUT THEY'LL BE REALLY NICE, SO.
WELL, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? OH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
CAN YOU TELL WHETHER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS ON THE EMAIL, UH, LIST OR IS IT JUST THE, UM, UH, VIC CASEA OR VAC CASA? JUST, UH, THE MANAGEMENT TEAM.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED DIRECTLY.
UM, MS. CHAIR, SO WE, ON THE APPLICATION, IT DOES LIST THE PROPERTY OWNER AS A CONTACT AND HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, UM, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT'S HIS, IT'S AN ACTIVE EMAIL, BUT HE IS LISTED ON THE CONTACT LIST AND DID RECEIVE REMINDER NOTIFICATION AND EXPIRATION NOTICES OF THIS PERMIT.
IS THERE ANYONE SENDING TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? ONE VOICE.
WE'RE GONNA HEAR HER VOICEMAILS.
SEE HOW, SEE WHAT, SEE WHAT THAT SAYS.
HI, THIS IS MOLLY CLARK AND I OWN THE PROPERTY AT THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN BUILDING NUMBER SIX.
I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 9.
UM, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY THAT I'M CALLING ABOUT IS BUILDING NUMBER FIVE.
IT IS THE EXACT SAME FLOOR PLAN AS MY FLOOR PLAN, AND IT'S A THREE STORY.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED, UM, IS NOT, UH, THE SAME AS THE, UH, FLOOR PLAN OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY.
UM, I THINK THERE MUST BE A MISTAKE IN EITHER THE ADDRESS OR THE FLOOR PLAN WAS SUBMITTED INCORRECTLY BECAUSE, UM, MINE IS BUILDING NUMBER FIVE.
I MEAN, MY BUILDING IS BUILDING NUMBER SIX.
IT IS THE EXACT SAME FLOOR PLAN AS BUILDING NUMBER FIVE, UM, AS WELL AS BUILDING TWO AND FOUR AND SEVEN AND EIGHT.
I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME FLOOR PLANS.
AND, UH, THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THIS ADDRESS, THREE 11 EAST EVERGREEN UNIT FIVE IS INCORRECT.
IT'S NOT THE RIGHT FLOOR PLAN FOR THAT ADDRESS.
THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, ONE LAST QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WHEN WAS THE, UM, NEW PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE, UM, STR OF THIS COUPLE HOUSES OVER, UH, FOR EAST EVERGREEN UNIT ONE? IT WAS ISSUED A PERMIT ON JUNE 15TH, 2022.
WELL, NO, I, I, NO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE, BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT THE, THE APPLICANT'S, THE UNIT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THAT THEIR APPLICATION EXPIRED OR THEIR PERMIT EXPIRED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
AND SO THE OTHER STR THAT'S A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN, WHEN WAS THAT APPROVED? ON JUNE 15TH, 2022.
DID THE UNIT FIVE PREDATE THIS OTHER UNIT? WHO, WHO GOT THE SDR WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE TO GET AN SDR? OUR RECORDS, OUR RECORDS SHOW UNIT FIVE WAS ISSUED, UM, THEIR PERMIT ON FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 11TH, 2022.
OKAY, SO THEY, THEY WERE THE FIRST ONE AND THEN THE CITY ISSUED ONE IN ERROR, I GUESS FOR THE SECOND ONE? UM, I BELIEVE SO, YES.
BUT THE, AGAIN, THIS PERMIT EXPIRED IN FEBRUARY 12TH, 2025.
SO THAT UNIT ONE IS NOW THE ONE BY, RIGHT.
THAT'S, EVEN THOUGH THAT, THAT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE RIGHT EVEN
[02:00:01]
THOUGH THE SECOND ONE WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE ONE THAT WAS VALID.
SO IF A PERMIT EXPIRES, THE PERMITS ARE VALID FOR EVERY THREE YEARS.
IF A PERMIT EXPIRES AND THE FLOCK FACE IS NOW OPEN FOR ANYONE TO COME IN AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT, IF, IF THE CITY ISSUES ONE AN ERROR, THEY STILL HONOR THE THREE YEAR PERMIT ON THE SGR OR DO THEY TAKE IT AWAY? IF THEY FIND OUT ABOUT IT, THEY HONOR IT AND THEN UPON RENEWAL THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BE OA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? IS THERE ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? NO, I'M JUST ASKING LIKE YOU SAID, HOPEFULLY THIS BOA GOES THROUGH BECAUSE THIS STR IS PRE-EXISTING AND WILL HOPEFULLY STAY PRE-EXISTING.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 9.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT THREE 11 REEN UNIT UNIFIED, UH, APPLICANT BEING, UH, KEISHA HARPER BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT, THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY.
B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THERE DOES, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF A, IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED.
SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES.
THE SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE A REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS TYPE TWO, SHORT TERM RENTAL, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR BEING PRO PROVIDED 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 LICENSE.
UH, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR.
UH, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES ARE CONVICTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY AS THEY ONLY RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR VIOLATIONS FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT AND SUBMITTED A BOA APPLICATION SHORTLY AFTERWARDS OR OTHER PROVISION OR OTHER PROPERTIES.
F THIS BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ALLOW THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT, THE LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ENCLOSED PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE SPECIALIST EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND DEVOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
SO I'M GONNA RE I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UH, SPECIFICALLY THE OPERATOR HAS BEEN OPERATING IN GOOD STANDING.
WE SAW NO, UM, EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS.
THERE WAS NOBODY IN OPPOSITION.
UH, THE PROPERTY, UH, OPERATOR, UH, YOU KNOW, PROVIDES THE TAXES CURRENT WITH HOT, UH, WITH HOTEL MOTEL, WITH THE HOT TAXES.
UH, THEY'RE UP TO DATE CURRENT ON EVERYTHING.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY IT DOESN'T SIT WELL THAT THE EXISTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT WOULD, THAT IS, UM, ALLOWED IS THERE BECAUSE OF AN ERROR ON THE CITY'S, UH, ON THE CITY'S PART.
AND THIS APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE THAT OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL, UM, TO ME THAT, THAT IT JUST REALLY WOULD BE EGREGIOUS IF NOT, UH, FOR THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO GO FORWARD IN A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YEAH, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, ESPECIALLY ON THE LAST POINT.
THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM QUITE FAIR THAT THE, THIS, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN GOOD STANDING YET THE SECOND APPLICATION THAT WAS, UM, APPROVED IN ERROR, UH, SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE NOW THAT THE, THE OTHER ONE EXPIRED.
SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE, THE MOTION.
I DON'T THINK TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT, SO I THINK IT'S UM, ONLY FAIR THAT WE GRANT THE APPLICANT.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
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 CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
[02:05:02]
I CONCUR.COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS REQUESTED BY MCCALL MCPHERSON AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT 2152 HAY STREET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2152 HAY STREET.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE.
THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK BEING 2122 HAY STREET, HAVING EVEN BEEN APPROVED ON JANUARY 5TH, 2023 PER THE CITY CODE.
TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL 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, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 12 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE.
ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO BEING 2122 HAY STREET ISSUED ON JANUARY 5TH, 2023.
THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 8%.
IF THE SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 17% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST.
THE PROPERTY HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY OR ACTIVE LISTINGS.
AND 2122 HAY STREET IS CURRENTLY MISSING.
APRIL, 2025 ON THEIR HOT TAXES AND 2152 HAY STREET IS CURRENT ON THEIR HOT TAXES.
THIS, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 30 MILE NOTICES.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
HARVARD PLACE, EASTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NEUTRAL.
AND THERE WERE THREE CITYWIDE GROUPS NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I HAVE LIKE A VERY BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, SO CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME? OH, I'M SORRY.
MY HUSBAND AND I ACTUALLY OWN THIS HOUSE.
SO WE STARTED THIS SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
WE ACTUALLY DROPPED THE BALL AT A RENEWAL, WHICH I'LL GO INTO IN A MINUTE.
FOR WE, WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION ON OUR FIRST ROUND OF STR APPLICATIONS IN 2021.
AND WE HAVE OPERATED IN GOOD STANDING SINCE THEN WITH NO COMPLAINTS.
WHEN WE SET OUT TO CREATE THIS STR, IT WAS ACTUALLY FOR OUR OWN FAMILY AND FAMILIES LIKE OURS.
WE HAVE SIX KIDS, SO WE OFTEN COME TO SAN ANTONIO AND HAVE NOWHERE TO STAY.
SO, UM, WE WERE RENTING OUT FOUR HOTEL ROOMS. UH, AIRBNBS WERE EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE.
UH, SO WE SET OUT ON THIS TO FACILITATE OUR OWN FAMILY AS WELL AS OTHER LARGER FAMILIES.
UM, AND ALSO FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER, ROSIE, WHO IS SPECIAL NEEDS AND WILL REQUIRE CARE FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.
AND ONE OF OUR WAYS OF FACILITATING THAT IS AIRBNBS, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
UM, THIS IS MY HUSBAND AND I AND OUR OLDEST.
AGAIN, WE BUILT HAYES HIDEAWAY TO HOST LARGE FAMILIES AND BUSINESS GROUPS AFFORDABLY AND TO SUPPORT OUR FINANCIAL PLAN FOR OUR DAUGHTER.
WE HAVE THREE YEARS OF GOOD STANDING.
WE'VE HAD NO NEIGHBOR COMPLAINTS.
WE HAVE A NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM.
WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO PARTY POLICY.
WE'VE NEVER EVEN HAD A SINGLE DISRUPTION.
WE EMPLOYED OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE HE MOVED AWAY, AS WELL AS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR TO KIND OF MANAGE AND SUPPORT CLEANING.
UM, AND WE REALLY ARE GRATEFUL TO BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY AND TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE COMMUNITY TO ENJOY ALL THAT SAN ANTONIO HAS TO OFFER IN WHAT I CONSIDER A UNIQUE WAY WE SLEEP 10 PEOPLE, BY THE WAY.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S KIND OF UNIQUE.
UM, WE VIEW THIS AS AN UNDERSERVED AREA IN AN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE WHO GENERALLY
[02:10:01]
DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS SORT OF PROPERTY IN SAN ANTONIO.WE VALUE MAKING THIS AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE COMING IN AND VIEW IT AS AN ABILITY TO INCREASE TOURISM ON THE EAST SIDE.
SO AGAIN, WE OPERATED IN GOOD STANDING FOR MANY YEARS.
WE DID, WE APPLIED, AND UNFORTUNATELY I SET UP AN EMAIL, NOT TO GIVE YOU TOO MANY DETAILS, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS REASON.
AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO RESPONDED AND ASKED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL THINGS, THE PARKING AND THE FLOOR PLAN, WHICH HADN'T CHANGED SINCE OUR INITIAL APPLICATION, BUT MY HUSBAND MISSED THE EMAIL AND MISSED THE DEADLINE.
AND SO IT GOT DROPPED BECAUSE OF FAULT OF OUR OWN.
SO WE'RE ASKING TODAY THAT WE COULD, AGAIN, GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, WE TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ERROR, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT CERTAINLY HAS PUT US IN A HARD SPOT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE IS NOW THAT EMAIL FORWARDS TO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT EMAILS, SO WE DON'T MISS THAT.
AND OF COURSE, WE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED STAFF AND REMOVED OUR LISTING, UH, THE MOMENT WE FIGURED THIS OUT.
UM, AND WE'RE HERE TODAY NOT ONLY TO APPEAL, BUT TO SHOW OUR ONGOING COMMITMENT TO OUR PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, YES, SO THAT IS OUR REQUEST AND I INCLUDED A FEW FIVE STAR REVIEWS AT THE END.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR, UH, ANYONE SIGNING UP TO SPEAK? WE DO HAVE A AVA A CALL.
WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APPROVAL AND I HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE FROM HER THAT CAME THROUGH THIS MORNING IF YOU GUYS WANNA SEE IT.
UM, I MEAN, I GUESS YOU CAN PROJECT IT UP IF, UM, YOU JUST PUT THE BONE DOWN THERE.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ZIN.
UM, SO, UH, WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
WE HARDLY EVER SEE THAT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
CAN YOU TELL US THE BASIS FOR YOUR RECOMMENDED APPROVAL? UM, THE REASON FOR STAFF'S APPROVAL IS THAT THEY DID SUBMIT A RENEW APPLICATION BEFORE THEIR PERMIT EXPIRED.
AND ALTHOUGH THEY DID FAIL TO RESPOND AFTER 45 DAYS TO THOSE TWO, TO THOSE TWO APPLICATIONS, THEY SUBMITTED A RENEWAL.
I MEAN, A NEW APPLICATION SHORTLY AFTER THAT PERMIT WAS DENIED.
UM, AND WE DO WANNA WORK WITH APPLICANTS IN THAT REGARD THAT THEY HAVE.
AGAIN, NO, UM, CODE OF VIOLATIONS ARE CURRENT ON THEIR HOT ACCOUNT AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THEY'VE BEEN ACTIVELY OPERATING, UM, AS A SHORT TERM RUN OF THE LAST THREE YEARS.
UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION? I CAN'T SPEAK.
ALRIGHT, BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 75, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 2152 HAY STREET.
APPLICANT BEING MCCALL MCPHERSON BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS, WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, UH, IN THAT THIS IS A RENEWAL A APPLICANT AND STAFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AT THIS LOCATION IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM RENTAL 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 STR IS LOCATED WITHIN DOES NOT POSE A HAZARD TO LIFE, HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED OVER THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS THAT THE OPERATION OF THE S OF THIS STR DOES NOT CAUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
STAFF FINDS THAT THIS TREND IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO CONTINUE WITH ZERO COMPLAINTS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OR OPERATOR.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE ESSENTIALLY SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE DENSITY CAPS ARE ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT INUNDATED BY
[02:15:01]
THE PRESENCE OF TYPE TWO SDRS.ALLOWING THIS ADDITIONAL STR ON THIS BLOCK BASE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS IT HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 2022, AND IT HAS NOT IMPACTED THE SURROUNDING AREAS SINCE THEN.
D ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED.
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.
CONFIRM CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE PRIOR YEAR, ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY OR OTHER PROPERTIES.
F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS STOPPED.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED.
R SIX, WHICH ALLOWS FOR LAND USE OF AN SCR AND GENERAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USES THE DENSITY LIMITS, UH, ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL EXIST TO ENSURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD REMAIN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL STAFF FINDS THAT EXCEEDING THE 12 POINT, UH, FIVE BLOCK BASE DENSITY IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
UH, YEAH, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THIS MOTION.
UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, STAFF IS ALREADY, UH, UH, UH, SIGNAL THEIR APPROVAL ON THIS.
UH, AND AGAIN, FOR A MINOR REASON, THEIR PERMIT EXPIRED.
UH, THEY HAVE NO, UH, OUTSTANDING, UH, CONVENTIONS OR DEFENSES.
UH, AND SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION FOR ALL OF THE REASONS, UM, THAT MY COLLEAGUE STATED.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? LET HAVE A ROLL CALL.
I, IT DOESN'T SAY THIS SAYS COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN THREE YEARS.
MY NAME IS JOEL PALUS AND I'LL BE PRESENTING BOA CASE DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 5.
THE ADDRESS IS 9 4 1 9 T JORDAN CONS DISTRICT FOUR AND THE APPLICANT IS BRANDON WES.
HE'S REQUESTING A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AND TO A VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE MATERIALS TO ALLOW FOR A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF PALO ALTO COLLEGE.
THE CURRENT USE IS AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AND A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
THE PROPERTY IS FRONT IN PETITE JORDAN 10 FREEWAY AND BACKS UP TO PALO ALTO ROAD.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A CORRUGATED METAL GATE AND FENCE ON THE LOT BUILT AFTER 2008, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A FENCE, MATERIAL VARIANCE.
THE APPLICATION WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL CORRUGATED METAL FENCE IN AROUND THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE FRONT YARD WITH A FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE BLUE OUTLINE LOCATES WHERE, UM, THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT FOR THE FENCES WOULD BE USED
[02:20:01]
IN ALUMINUM R PANELS.AND THIS IS A SAMPLE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO, UM, INSTALL.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND AN AERIAL OF THOSE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW FROM THE FRONT AND WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
YOU COULD SEE THE SERVICE BASE AS WELL AS THE, UM, METAL, UM, FENCE THERE.
THIS IS TO THE REAR AND THAT I BELIEVE IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND THIS VIEWS LOOKING DIRECTLY ACROSS STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR THE FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE, A DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 55 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY.
AND APPROVED USE OF CORRUGATED FENCE IN WAS NOT OBSERVED IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND TWO, THE REQUEST WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS A FENCE IS A BUT IN LOTS THAT ARE UTILIZING ALLOWED FENCE MATERIALS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE SITE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 5 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE WOULD REDUCE SECURITY MONITORING THROUGH VISIBILITY AND ELIMINATE AN APPROACHABLE APPEARANCE.
AND TWO, THE REQUEST WOULD INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY OBSTRUCTING VIEWS AND CREATING AN INCONSISTENT APPEARANCE.
ONE, ONE WAS IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS THE SUPPORT RECEIVED.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
MY NAME IS BRANDON WES, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HERE IN QUESTION.
THE OUTLINE IN RED, UM, HERE IS ACTUALLY JUST OUR MECHANIC SHOP, UM, TO THE, UH, TO THE LOWER LEFT CADDY CORNER.
UM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT IS THE ACTUAL HOUSE THERE ON SEPARATE PRO? THEY'RE ON SEPARATE LOTS.
THE, UH, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TODAY IS ONLY THE AUTO SHOP.
THEY'RE ON SEPARATE, SEPARATE DEEDS.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, IN THE PICTURES WHERE THE, UH, WHERE THE SIGNAGE, UM, GOES ACROSS THE FRONT, IT IS ALREADY, UM, SINCE PRIOR TO, UH, US PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, UM, THERE WAS ALREADY A SIX FOOT R PANEL CORRUGATED FENCE WITH BLOCKING, UM, YOU KNOW, MANUAL ACCESS FENCE.
UM, THE BLUE LINE, I'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN, SIR.
THIS WILL BE THE FRONT OF THE LINE OF THE FENCE.
THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THIS AND THIS TO THE, THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
NONE OF THIS, NONE OF THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED.
IT'S ALREADY, IT'S THE PLOT LINE.
I CAN'T TOUCH THE FENCE REGARDLESS.
THIS FENCE AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE GATE.
IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE WE BOUGHT IT.
UM, NO REASON FOR US TO TAKE IT.
THIS IS A SIX FOOT FENCE WITH, UH, EXCUSE ME, IT'S SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK WITH ANOTHER FOOT OF BARBED WIRE ACROSS THE TOP.
UM, PROTECTING OUR SHOP FROM THE HOUSE IS A LITTLE BIT, UH, A LITTLE FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
THERE IS A, CALL IT A HUNDRED POUND, SOME KIND OF BULL MASTIFF, LARGE AGGRESSIVE DOG THAT SITS IN THAT, UH, BACKYARD AND CONSTANTLY HARASSES MY EMPLOYEES.
UM, THERE'S A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, SHED THAT'S HERE, UM, THAT I'M POINTING AT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A NON-PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO, UM, ANY OF THE OTHER, UM, THE OTHER FISCAL BUILDINGS.
WE ARE AT SOME POINT GOING TO TEAR THAT DOWN, UM, AS A PART OF THIS PROCESS.
UM, AND WE MIGHT HAVE MADE AN ERROR AND NOT INCLUDING THAT IN THE, IN THIS REQUEST, BUT THE INTENTION IS ROUGHLY FOR THIS BLUE LINE TO BE SIX FOOT R PANEL, UH, CORRUGATED FENCING, WHICH
[02:25:01]
MATCHES WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, UM, ON THE PROPERTY.THE NEW LINE THAT'S IN THE FRONT YES, MA'AM.
IS, IS, ARE YOU INCLUDING THAT AS A FENCING TOO OR ARE YOU JUST INCLUDING WHAT YOU SHOWED US? UM, I, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE BLUE LINES CAME FROM, BUT THIS GOING ACROSS HERE WOULD BE THE FRONT OF MY FENCE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO THAT BOTTOM SECTION OF THE BLUE LINES, THAT'S, THERE'S NO FENCE THERE? NO MA'AM.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE, THE BLUE LINE THAT RUNS DOWN AND KIND OF SPLITS THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
APRON, IS THAT APRON USED BY THE NEIGHBOR? IT'S, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE BLUE LINE, BUT, SO THERE IS ALREADY A FENCE HERE THAT WAS IN THE, UM, SET OF PICTURES.
UM, IT STOPS RIGHT ABOUT WHERE MY POINTER IS.
UM, IT TIES TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PLOT LINE.
UM, OTHER THAN JUST OCCASIONALLY PUTTING A VEHICLE IN THERE TO, TO KINDA MOVE AROUND THE YARD.
AND I ALSO NOTICED THAT, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THERE WAS GOING THE OFFENSE WAS TO BE CAPPED.
IS THAT, IS THAT, THAT'S FROM YOU, CORRECT? YES SIR.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, UM, OFF THE LEFT SIDE HERE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, A CLEAN EDGE GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND.
IT'S LIKE AN L-SHAPED CAP, SAME MATERIAL, SAME EVERYTHING, JUST TO PROVIDE A CLEAN, SAFE, FINISHED EDGE.
UM, SO, SO IF I UNDERSTOOD, UH, I GUESS SOME OF THE POINTS YOU'RE MAKING IS THAT, UH, THE CURRENT GATE THAT IS A, I GUESS A MANUAL GATE THAT GOES ACROSS THE FRONT, UM, UM, THAT'S THE MOST FORWARD OF YOUR FENCING THAT YOU ARE SEEKING? YES.
AND SO ESSENTIALLY BEHIND THE FACADE OF THE, A BUDDING PROPERTY, SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE IN FRONT OF IT.
SO BASICALLY THE EXISTING FENCE LINE.
AND THEN, UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE, THE FENCE TO THE BACK, IT, IT WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE, I GUESS THE BACK OF YOUR, UM, THE GARAGE THERE ON THE SIDE THERE, RIGHT? YES.
SO I CONNECT TO THIS RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS A PERMANENT, THIS IS LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A SHED OR WHATEVER YOU LEAN TO WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.
IT DOES HAVE ELECTRICITY, UTILITIES, EVERYTHING.
UM, I DO, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF STORAGE IN HERE AND IT DOES HAVE, UH, I CAN PULL VEHICLES UP INTO IT, BUT THIS IS A CLOSET.
UM, RIGHT HERE WILL BE THE START OF MY FENCE GOING UP OVER, AROUND DOWN AND THEN TIE RIGHT BACK INTO THE BUILDING.
STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THE FIRST REQUEST FOR THE, THE, THE FENCE SITE TO BE INCREASED TO SIX FEET AT THE FRONT YARD, IS THAT REQUIRED? IF HE'S NOT, YEAH.
SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, UM, I COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT WITH, SO IF HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S NOT GONNA HAVE ANYTHING BESIDE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING GATE, THEN THE FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS NOT REQUIRED.
THAT MY FAULT IF I MADE THAT NOT CLEAR.
BUT WE ARE, WE'RE GONNA STOP AT THE, AT THE EXISTING GATE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH ANYTHING, UM, PAST THAT.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS THAT ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? THERE IS, UH, ONE SPEAKER.
ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S ANY CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S, UH, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I DON'T MIND READING ONE STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
LEMME JUST FIND IT REAL QUICK.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE LAST COUPLE DIGITS? NUMBER SEVEN.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 5, I'VE MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE DEFENSE MATERIALS TO ALLOW FOR A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE SITUATED 9 4 1 9 POTT JORDAN 10 FREEWAY AND 2 3 1 4 PALO ALTO ROAD.
APPLICANT BEING BRANDON WES, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRADICT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS DEFENSE MATERIAL WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE PROPERTY.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD LOSE THE, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY AFFORDED BY THE FENCE.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT, SPIRIT
[02:30:01]
OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED FENCE MATERIAL WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY.THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZES NOT UNCHARACTERISTIC OF PROPERTIES AND DISTRICT DESIGNATED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT, ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE NEED FOR ENHANCED SECURITY AND OF MOTION.
SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK, COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING PAST THAT EXISTING FENCE LINE.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO CONTINUE THE SAME FENCE AROUND YOUR PROPERTY AND PROTECT THE, THE VEHICLES YOU'RE WORKING ON AND, UH, YOU'RE ABUTTING, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE MOST PART.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS REQUIRES A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT THE APPLICANT DID STATE IT WAS GONNA BE CAPPED, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO ADD THAT INTO THE DIALOGUE.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
AND THEN, UM, ALSO JUST AN OBSERVATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER FENCES, UM, THAT ARE CORRUGATED METAL ALONG THIS WAY THAT ARE KIND OF IN THE BACK.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER FENCING THAT IS THERE IN THAT COMMUNITY.
SO, SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE, UH, AGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUE VOTING FOR IT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? SO WE, IF A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WITH A CAP.
UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, UM, GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE ON SEPARATE PLOTS.
9 4 1 9 PETITE, UM, AND THEN THE 2 3 1 4 IS THE ACTUAL HOUSE.
WILL THIS, UH, WELL, I NEED TO FILE A SEPARATE, UH, NO, WE, THE MOTION WAS READ, UH, TO INCLUDE BOTH ADDRESSES.
SO, AND THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY READ AS A 94 19 POTE IN 2314.
PALOALTO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE JUST, WE JUST PASSED THE, UH, FENCE MATERIALS.
WHAT ABOUT THE FENCE HEIGHT? OH, THE, UH, APPLICANT EXPRESSED THAT HE WAS NOT BUILDING A FENCE FORWARD OF THE, OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE, SO IT WAS UN UNNEEDED.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT A BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 5 6.
UH, ADDRESS IS 5 0 7 EAST WHITTIER STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
THE APPLICANT IS ALICE ESTRADA AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT SIX VARIANCE WHEN FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT WITH A SIX INCH SETBACK, UH, SIDE SETBACK AND TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A FRONT ADDITION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF THE THOMAS NELSON PAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL ALONG EAST WHITTIER STREET AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT AFTER CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUED A VIOLATION.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION IS PENDING THE RESULTS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CARPORT AND A PATIO COVER.
AND HERE'S THE APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN.
UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE YOU SEE THERE ON THE RIGHT FOR THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THE PATIO.
UM, AND ITEM NUMBER TWO, YOU SEE THERE ON THE LEFT, THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THE ADDITION IN THE FRONT YARD.
EXCUSE ME, THAT'S A CARPORT THERE ON THIS SIDE, NOT A PATIO ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THE CARPORT THERE ON THIS RIGHT SIDE.
[02:35:07]
SHOWN HERE IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT AND THAT NEW CARPORT THERE ON THE LEFT.THIS IS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION CARPORT.
AND ON THE LEFT SIDE, THAT IS A NEW ADDITION THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOME, YOU CAN SEE THAT NEW POST ON THE LEFT.
HERE'S THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THAT NEW ADDITION ON THE LEFT SHOWN HERE IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 5 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROXIMITY OF THE ADDED CARPORT AND PATIO COVER TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT LEAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR NEITHER FIRE PREVENTION NOR PROPER WATER RUNOFF.
AND TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, WE'LL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE WAS RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION SHOWN HERE ARE THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR.
UM, ON THE LEFT, THERE IS SOME SIGNATURES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
JUST A NOTE ON THE SECOND ONE THERE, UH, THAT IS A NOTE OF APPROVAL FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ADDRESS AT FIVE 10 EAST WHITTIER.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE DO HAVE A NOTICE SENT IN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM THE SAME ADDRESS BUT IN OPPOSITION.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE OPPOSITION FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER AT FIVE 10 EAST WHITTIER AGAIN SHOWING IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I QUICK QUESTION ON THE, UM, ADDITION ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IT, IT'S NOT GOING PAST THE EXISTING PLANE OF THE HOME OR THE ROOF OVERHANG, CORRECT? UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS.
IF WE CAN PULL UP THAT, THAT PHOTO AGAIN FROM THE SIDE.
YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF THE PORCH.
THIS IS THE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, SITE PLAN, UH, TO SHOW THAT IT IS, UH, KIND OF IN LINE WITH CONSTRUCTION THERE.
AND SO DOES, IS IT, IS IT, UH, YOU NEEDING TWO FEET BECAUSE OF THE ROOF OVERHANG? OR IS IT 39 INCHES, IS 39 INCHES TO THE ACTUAL STONE.
SO 39 INCHES IS WHAT'S SHOWN HERE ON THE APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN.
I THINK OUR, UM, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENT, UH, IS WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE, UM, YEAH, IT'S A TWO FOOT, UM, AT THE END OF THE OVERHANG IT'S TWO FEET, SO THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE HERE.
AND UP THERE IS THE UPDATED SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT TURNED IN, UM, WHICH IS, UH, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE DISCUSSED, UH, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.
IS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
HI, I'M ALICE ESTRADA AND THANK YOU FOR THE CONTINUANCE.
UM, WE STARTED A PROJECT, WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE HOUSE.
I HAD RENTED IT OUT TO MY NEPHEW AND HE DESTROYED IT, SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT FIXED UP.
WE STARTED BEFORE COVID AND WE HAD TO STOP AFTER COVD.
UH, WE STARTED UP AGAIN, WE ADDED THE PATIO, UH, COVER ACROSS SO I CAN TAKE DOWN OUR BANANA TREES.
AND ON THE CARPORT SIDE, LAST TIME I WAS HERE, THE MEASUREMENTS WERE OFF.
THEY WERE 15 FEET, WHICH MR. MANNA POINTED OUT.
AND I WAS LIKE, THAT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT.
SO I HAD MY HUSBAND REDO THE DRAWING.
WE MEASURED IT WITH THE CITY EMPLOYEE AND IT WAS AT NINE FEET, FIVE INCHES, NOT 15 FEET.
UH, THE POSTS ARE COMPLETELY UP AGAINST THE DRIVEWAY.
THEY, WE CAN'T REALLY MOVE 'EM UNLESS WE TEAR OUT SOME OF THAT CEMENT, BUT THEN THAT DEFEATS A PURPOSE.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT A CAR IN THERE, SO IT'S VERY LIMITED ON THE SPACE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SO, UM, CAN YOU BRING UP PAGE SIX? SO I JUST, UM, THAT
[02:40:01]
PICTURE FREAKS ME OUT STILLAND SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PICTURE, THE FIRST SITE PLAN, IT WAS INCORRECT.
SO THEN WE HAD, WE HAD TO REDO THE WHOLE SITE PLAN.
THAT RIGHT THERE, UM, THAT PICTURE ACTUALLY IS, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE MY NEIGHBOR HERE WITH ME.
SHE'S LITERALLY NEXT DOOR TO ME.
UM, IT STARTS OFF MY, MY, UH, NEW CARPORT IS ON MY PROPERTY AND INSIDE MY FENCE LINE, HER HOUSE IS ACTUALLY KIND OF AT AN ANGLE.
SO IT STARTS OFF WITH A, A PRETTY GOOD SPACE IN THE BACK AND THEN IT JUST STARTS GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER.
SO, SO THIS CORNER THAT I'M LOOKING AT MM-HMM
UM, WHAT CORNER OF YOUR HOUSE IS THAT? THAT IS UP IN THE FRONT.
AND SO THAT'S THE FRONT PART OF THE, SO YOUR, YOUR HOUSE IS THE BLUE TINT OR IS IT THE WHITE? THE BLUE IS MY NEIGHBOR'S.
SO, SO IS THIS PIECE HERE THEN? UM, SO IT'S PART OF YOUR CARPORT, CORRECT? ON THE LEFT SIDE? YES.
SO, SO IN THE NEW PRINT THAT YOU PROVIDED, IT SAYS 11 INCHES, UM, FROM THE, FROM THE CARPENTRY PROPERTY LINE.
SO IS THIS PICTURE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR 11 INCHES
SO IT'S FROM THE POST TO THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S FROM THAT.
SO THE OVERHANG IS SIX INCHES, SO IT'S PROBABLY FIVE INCHES.
I KNOW, BUT I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT THIS ROOF LINE HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BUDDING OVER EACH OTHER.
WE DO BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORS, UH, OVERHANG IS, UM, FLOODING OVER TO HER PROPERTY.
UH, SO WE OBSERVED DURING SITE VISITS.
SO, WELL, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, FIRE SPREAD AND YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE THINGS.
AND SO, UM, BEING 11 INCHES ON YOUR PROPERTY IS WONDERFUL
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT I WOULD HAVE A CONCERN, YOU KNOW.
UM, AND SO IF THERE IS, UM, IF THE HOUSE ABUTTING THIS PROPERTY IS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE THEY'RE SHARING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OVERLAPPING EACH OTHER.
DOES THAT, IS THAT A CITY THING TO GO BACK TO? OR WHO, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR I GUESS RESOLVING? UM, THAT, UM, SO WE DID NOTIFY, I THINK THERE WAS A PROGRAM THAT THE NEIGHBOR, UM, UM, WENT TO WITH THE CITY.
UM, BUT OVERALL THAT'S A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, AND JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, AMENDED A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, UM, AND THEN LATER ON THE BOARD REVERSED IT TO A CONTINUANCE.
AND I THINK IT'S THIS PICTURE THAT'S, THAT IS WHY, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF WENT OFF, YOU KNOW, UM, WITH REGARDS TO TRYING TO, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A GAP THERE.
AND SO, SO, UM, AND SO, SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE FROM A, UM, PROPERTY LINE PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS PACKAGE THAT THEY'RE 11 INCHES OFF, BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO RESOLVE WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THAT PROPERTY LINE ITSELF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BASICALLY APPROVING IF WE GO THROUGH THAT, THE 11 INCHES AND THAT HAS TO BE MOVED OR APPROVED AT A DIFFERENT POINT OUTSIDE OF THIS, OUTSIDE OF OUR DIALOGUE.
OUR DIALOGUE IS ONLY FOR ON HER SIDE, BUT AS FAR AS IF WE STATE 11 INCHES, UM, WHICH IS WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.
YEAH, THIS IS A BETTER PICTURE.
UH, WHAT WELL, DOES SHE HAVE AN ACTIVE PERMIT? LIKE SHE, HER PERMIT STATUS IS WAITING FOR US, BUT IS FIRE CHIMED IN ON THIS THING? NOT YET.
WELL, WE DID TALK TO THE APPLICANT, MAKE SURE, UM, SHE WAS AWARE THAT SHE NEEDS TO ABIDE BY THE FIRE CODE AND I BELIEVE WE SENT HER TO TALK TO, UM, THE FOLKS THAT HANDLED THE FIRE CODE TO GIVE HER MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.
AND IT WOULD JUST MAKE ME FEEL BETTER KNOWING THAT A A C OF O ON THE, ON THE PORT ON THE CARPORT IS NOT GONNA BE ISSUED UNTIL FIRE INSPECTION.
I'M GONNA, IS A HUNDRED PERCENT AWARE THAT SHE NEEDS TO MEET ANY FIRE, UM, CODE THAT'S NEEDED.
AND I DID TALK TO A FIRE CHIEF, I USED TO BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, SO I SPOKE WITH A FIRE CHIEF AND HE SAID THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO MAKE IT, UH, FIRE RETARDANT AS POSSIBLE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ANYWAY.
NOTHING REALLY IS FIRE, UH, RETARDANT SO I CAN, THERE ARE SO MANY OPTIONS AS FAR AS MAYBE EITHER THE SPRAY OF FOAM OR WALLS.
SO WE HAVE NO ISSUE DOING THAT.
IT'S JUST, RIGHT NOW IT'S A MATTER OF MONEY.
EVERYTHING IS STOPPED AS OF A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, TWO MONTHS AGO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STEVENS? COMMISSIONER STEVENS? UM, I'LL JUST SAY, JUST TO TRY AND CLEAR THE FIELD A LITTLE BIT, YOUR PURPLE, UH, LITTLE ADDITION ON LIKE THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY MM-HMM
[02:45:01]
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO CONTINUE YOUR ROOF LINES.
UM, BUT THE CARPORT IS SO CLOSE TO THE ROOF, RIGHT? YEAH.
LIKE IT'S, IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THAT ROOF LINE.
SO LIKE HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE FIX THIS AND MAKE IT A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY? I ISN'T A FIRE HAZARD.
I, THAT'S A MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
UM, SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO BE P PRAGMATIC HERE AND I'M THINKING MOVING THE POSTS WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST TIME, MOVING THOSE POSTS SOUNDED LIKE A MAJOR UNDERTAKING, RIGHT? YES.
AND MOVING THOSE FEES PLUS, I MEAN, AT 15 FEET IT WASN'T A BIG DEAL.
IT WAS GONNA BE EXPENSIVE, BUT YEAH, IT WAS, WE CAN'T REALLY, WE'RE LITERALLY UP AGAINST THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I MEAN, COULD, WE COULD PROBABLY TAKE OFF, COULD YOU CUT IT BACK TO THE, THE FACE OF THAT BEAM SO THAT YOU'RE 11 INCHES, LIKE THAT, 11 INCHES THAT YOU'VE GOT ON PAPER IS, YOU KNOW, CUTTING THE ROOF BACK TO THE, TO THE FACE OF THOSE COLUMNS POSSIBLE.
BUT IF I DO IT TO THE COLUMNS, THEN THE WATER'S GONNA COME STRAIGHT DOWN AND MESS UP THE, THE BEAMS. I THINK, I MEAN YOU, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE GONNA DO A FRENCH DRAIN TOGETHER SO IT DOESN'T MESS UP HER HOUSE AND IT DOESN'T MESS UP MINE.
WE'RE DOING A FRENCH DRAIN ALL THE WAY OUT AND MY HUSBAND WANTS TO PUT ON A, WHAT ARE THEY CALLED, UM, GUTTERS, WATER GUTTERS, SPRINKLERS AND GUTTERS.
NO, HE WANTS SPRINKLERS IN THERE JUST IN CASE.
SO HE WANTS TO PUT UP A SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND THEN, UH, WHERE WE'D PROBABLY DO SHARED GUTTERS AND THE, THE, UH, FRENCH DRAIN.
YEAH, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO YEAH.
I MEAN, TO, TO FIT A GUTTER ON THERE, YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO CUT THE ROOF BACK TO THE FACE OF THOSE COLUMNS ANYWAYS.
THAT'S WHY HE WANTS TO DO THE SPRINKLERS BECAUSE IF WE CUT IT BACK, WE'RE GONNA BE RIGHT BACK WITH THE GUTTERS.
SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE THAT PART OUT.
I KNOW IT'S JUST MY STUFF BEFORE WAS ACTUALLY ON THE FENCE LINE.
SO, AND TOWARDS THE FRONT WAS ACTUALLY IN HER PROPERTY.
LIKE YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO GET INTO A CIVIL DISPUTE OVER YOUR, WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS.
NO, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT GUTTERS ARE REALLY AN ISSUE IF THEY HAVE A FRENCH DRAIN.
SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A GUTTER? IF THE FRENCH DRAIN IS SERVING THAT PURPOSE? IN MY MIND, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION THAT THAT JUST CUTS, THAT JUST TRIMS BACK YOUR ROOF TO WHERE? THE, TO THE FACE OF THOSE COLUMNS.
AND IF Y'ALL ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO PUT IN A FRENCH DRAIN? I DON'T THINK A GUTTER IS AS CRITICAL FROM A WATER MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT.
I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T BREAK THE BANK AND THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE.
SO, OKAY, SO THE, SO THE NEIGHBOR THAT'S WITH YOU, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE BLUE WHITE HOUSE? YES.
OKAY, BECAUSE I THOUGHT LAST TIME WE HAD SOME CHALLENGES OR SOME DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO WATER RUNOFF COMING OFF OF THEIR HOUSE UNTO THAT'S THE OTHER NEIGHBOR.
THE OTHER NEIGHBOR HAS HIS GUTTERS.
LITERALLY THE WATER'S COMING STRAIGHT TO MY HOUSE AND UNDER THE, UNDER MY HOUSE.
SO THAT'S STILL, WE'RE DOING, WE'RE DOING FRENCH DRAINS ON BOTH SIDES.
YOUR PITCH IS FRONT TO BACK SO YOU'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE SIDES? NO.
OKAY, SO THE FACING YOUR HOUSE, THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT WAS IS HERS.
SO THE BLUE PART, IF YOUR, IF I'M FACING MY HOUSE, IT'S THE, TO THE RIGHT IS MY NEIGHBOR THAT'S HERE WITH ME TO THE LEFT.
HIS STUFF IS COMING INTO MY YARD.
WE'RE DOING A FRENCH DRAIN ON THAT SIDE AS WELL.
I PROBABLY HAVE MISTAKEN THE CASE.
SO, UM, IS THERE ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ANY, UH, VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOK FOR A MOTION, SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS HAS, HAS, HAS MENTIONED, UH, CUTTING IT BACK TO THE, TO THE POST, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT, UH, 11 INCHES.
IS THAT A SAFE NUMBER OR IS, OR IS 10 A SAFE NUMBER? I THINK, UH, JUST AN EVEN FOOT PROBABLY WOULD MAKE IT SAFE.
THEN WE CAN OFFER SIX INCH VARIANCE.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU OFFER A SIX INCH ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IF WE DO A ONE FOOT? UH, IT, IT WOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC, IT WOULD BE CASE BY CASE.
UM, I DEFINITELY CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THIS ONE WOULD BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SO CLOSE, BUT SHE CAN DEFINITELY APPLY FOR THAT.
BECAUSE THE CARPORT WAS GIVEN SIX INCHES, SO IF YOU TAKE ANOTHER SIX OFF, IT'D BE ONE FOOT, UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO DO 11 INCHES JUST TO BE SAFE.
I WAS, I WAS ANTICIPATING A FOUR FOOT, A FOUR FOOT, ONE VARIANCE.
SO THEN, UM, LET'S, LET'S, I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE MOTION? STEVENS
[02:50:01]
COMMISSIONER STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH OH 3 0 0 5 6.I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A FOUR FOOT, ONE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CAR FOR WITH A AN 11 INCH SIDE SETBACK AND TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A FRONT ADDITION SITUATED AT 5 0 7 EAST WHITTIER STREET, APPLICANT BEING ALICE ESTRADA.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRADICT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN.
AND THE PURPOSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING, OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ON THIS BLOCK FACE LIMITS THE DEVELOPABLE SPACE, DEVELOPABLE SPACE ON THE SIDES OF THE HOME.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS FIRE SAFETY AND PROPER WATER RUNNER OFF CAN BE MAINTAINED WITH THE PROPER PERMITTING AND ADHERENCE TO BUILDING CODE STANDARDS.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS A SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN HOMES.
THAT IS, THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS BLOCK FACE WILL BE ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED.
SIX, THE P PLATE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE LIMITED, IS THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE SPACE AND OF MOTION.
AND SECOND COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
I THINK JUST BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
I I THINK HOPEFULLY THIS IS A, A GOOD ENOUGH COMPROMISE FOR YOU.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S, I'M JUST CUTTING TO 11 INCHES.
YOU'VE GOT 11 INCHES UP TO, WHICH IS TO THE FACE OF YOUR COLUMN.
AND, AND SO NOT HAVING TO MOVE YOUR COLUMNS AND, AND REWORKING THE STRUCTURE OKAY.
TO THAT EXTENT I THINK IS A GOOD COMPROMISE FOR BOTH THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY YOU AS THE HOMEOWNER.
THIS TIME I UNDERSTAND
UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
UH, CAN I ASK THAT THE MAKER AND SECOND AGREE TO LIST THE DIRECTION OF EACH OF THESE LIKE SO THAT THE CARPORT IS ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE ADDITION IS ON THE WEST SIDE? YEAH.
JUST AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST TO MAKE IT PART OF THE ACTUAL MOTION? DISAGREE.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, UM, UH, FOUR FOOT ONE ON THE EAST SIDE, UH, FOR A CARPORT AND A, UH, THREE FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST SIDE FOR A SMALL ADDITION.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF F*G.
AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, I WILL.
WE'RE GONNA BE ON A SHORT BREAK FOR ONE OR TWO MINUTES CHAIR.
UM, I HAD TOLD, UH, TOLD HIM THAT I NEED TO LEAVE BY FOUR 15 SINCE IT'S A LITTLE AFTER FOUR ALREADY.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BOW OUT.
UH, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UH, HAS LEFT THE MEETING AT 4 0 3.
[02:55:05]
ITEM NINE, BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6.THE ADDRESS IS 1118 DAWSON STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
THE APPLICANT IS STEVE HAZARD, A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE LIMITED TO 17 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE.
AND ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, THE ZONING IS R FOUR.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG DAWSON STREET, WEST OF NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE AND IS WITHIN THE DITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONDED TO A CITIZEN'S CALL FOR A FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
FURTHER, THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT THE AS-BUILT FENCE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PRIVACY HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE FRONT YARD.
A PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE SIDE AND REAR FENCE AND A NEW PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FRONT YARD PORTION IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION MADE CLEAR THE FENCE WAS ONLY FOR THE SIDE AND REAR YARD AND SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
THE CIRCULAR AREA IS, UM, INDICATIVE OF WHERE THE FRONT FACADE IS AND THAT BLUE LINE IS WHERE THE F THE FENCE STARTS FROM WHERE ONE IS AND GOES BACK SO IT EXCEEDS THE FRONT FACADE.
THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW AND SOME HISTORICAL VIEWS SHOWING THAT THE PREVIOUS, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS THERE.
AND THIS IS THE NEW CONSTRUCTED PRIVACY FENCE AND THIS IS SHOWING THE DISTANCE INTO THE FRONT FACADE AND THE FENCE HEIGHT EXCEED IN THREE FEET.
FOR PRIVACY FENCE, THIS IS THE VIEW ACROSS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND DOWN THE STREET ON THE WEST AND TO THE EAST.
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT SPEC SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE SIX FOOT FRONT FENCE DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE LINE OF SIGHT FOR ONCOMING AND EX EXITING VEHICLES.
AND TWO, THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
25 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT AND TWO WERE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
UM, DI NORTY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND THIS IS TO SHOW SUPPORT AND THIS IS OPPOSITION RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND BRING THE SITE PLAN UP AND, UH, JUST KINDA EXPLAIN ABOUT THE 17 FEET? SO ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE, THE FRONT FACADE IS, IS FURTHER UP THAN IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT THEY CAN GO TO SIX FEET TO THE MOST EXTREME EXTENT OF THE FRONT FACADE ACROSS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT HOW THE RULES APPLIED? THE SIX FEET WOULD HAVE TO BE BELOW THE BLUE LINE.
AND SO THEY WENT 17 FEET TO THE NORTH? YES.
UP, I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS BECAUSE, UH, THE, THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS FENCE STOPS 18 FEET FROM CURB AND THEN IT GOES 17 FEET AT THAT HEIGHT.
WELL, WHAT WE MEASURE, THE 17 FEET WAS GO TO THE PICTURE, JOEL, I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH ROOM AS, YEAH, WE MEASURED FROM THE FRONT OF THAT FENCE, THE BEGINNING WHERE THE BLUE SHIRT IS TO WHERE PINK IS THE 17TH FEET.
[03:00:01]
FEET? YES.THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, MAYOR.
SO ON THE PHOTO HERE, SO TRY TO TRY TO ASSOCIATE WITH THE PHOTO VERSUS THE, THE, THE SITE MAP.
UM, AND SO, SO THE 17 FEET IS FORWARD OF, OF THE, THE PICTURED CAR OR THE PA, UM, PATIO COVER OR THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE.
SO IS THAT THE GARAGE ON THE LEFT WHERE IT SAYS PARK WHERE IT EXTENDS THE FARTHEST ON THE LEFT.
THAT'S WHERE WE GOT AN ESTIMATE FROM.
AND IS IT THAT THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING TO PUT THIS ON THE FENCE ON THE, UM, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS YES.
HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE.
UM, IF WE CAN BRING UP THE SIDE VIEW OF THAT.
THERE'S A ONE THAT I SENT TO JOEL.
UM, BASICALLY THE FENCE GOES TO WHERE THE OLD CHAIN LINK FENCE STOPPED AND IT IS 18 FEET FROM THE CURB, 17 FEET IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FASCIA OF THE HOUSE.
SO THE HOUSE SETBACK IS 35 FEET.
UH, WE DID THAT SO THAT WE COULD BASICALLY BLOCK A LITTLE BIT THAT'S LOOKING AT IT FROM THE, THE SIDEWALK AND THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE, BEFORE THEY PUT THE FENCE IN.
SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO BLOCK THAT OFF.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SO YEAH, MANNA AGAIN, SORRY.
SO, UM, SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO, SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE HERE MM-HMM
UM, OF THE, UH, THE, UM, PLAID OF THE PROPERTY MM-HMM
CAN YOU BACK UP A COUPLE PAGES HERE? GO BACK TO THE SIDE PLAN? YEAH, BACK UP.
SO, UM, SO THE LINE, THE, THE BLUE LINE THAT YOU SEE IS WHAT THEY DETERMINED AS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
AND SO, SO THAT CIRCLED AREA TO WHERE YOUR FENCE ENDS IS, IS ACTUALLY 17 FEET.
THEN THAT'S FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO WHERE THIS FENCE ENDS.
AND THEN 18 FEET FROM WHERE THE FENCE ENDS TO THE CURB.
SO THE PICTURE, I GUESS IT'S JUST A LITTLE WONKY FOR TRYING TO GET THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PICTURE.
THAT WAS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM.
IT WAS 35 FEET FROM THAT BLUE LINE TO THE CURB.
BUT YEAH, IT'S, IT, IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T LOOK, IT DIDN'T LOOK, IT DOESN'T LOOK PROPORTIONAL.
AND SO THEN, UM, SO THE PROPERTY, UH, THE NEIGHBOR THAT IS ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE OF HIS PICTURE, UM, DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THEM AS I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM.
WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, UH, LANGUAGE BARRIER PROBLEM.
SO, AND THEN, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THEM BECAUSE YES, I DID.
IN FACT, UH, THE PRESIDENT CAME BY THIS MORNING ABOUT 11 O'CLOCK TO SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
THE ORIGINAL MAILING WENT OUT, DID NOT HAVE THE LIMITED TO 17 FOOT PAST THE FRONT FACADE.
IT WAS ONLY A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE.
AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE ACROSS THE, SORRY, ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD, NOT JUST ON THE EAST SIDE BY THE DRIVEWAY.
SO, SO THEN, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, SO SO WITH THE NEW DIALOGUE, THEY APPARENTLY MAYBE HAD A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
THE, THE, THE PRESIDENT LIKED WHAT SHE SAW.
BECAUSE YEAH, I, I LIKE LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SO I ALWAYS HAVE A CHALLENGE WHENEVER IT'S THAT THEY AREN'T SUPPORTING IT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE, DID YOU GET ANYTHING IN WRITING OR ANY KINDA MIS OR ANYTHING? NO, NO.
SHE, SHE JUST CAME BY AND, AND SHE WAS, I, I CONTACTED THEM BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THEY OBJECTED TO IT AND SHE CAME BY TO SEE IT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS GOING TO BE ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD.
SO YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST LOOKS LIKE THEY OWNED TWO LOTS, LIKE THEIR HOUSE IS ON ONE LOT AND THEN THIS LOT THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE, THEIR HOUSE IS LIKE THEIR PSEUDO BACKYARD KIND OF? YEAH, IT'S THEIR, YEAH, I MEAN IT, I MEAN, JUST FROM PICTURES IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE USING IT AS AN EXTENSION.
ONE, ONE OF THE KIDS THAT, UH, LIVES THERE WORKS FOR, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR MAINTENANCE SECTION AND THEY DO A LOT OF, UH, MAINTENANCE ON THEIR VEHICLES AND OVER THERE.
[03:05:01]
QUESTIONS? AND JUST, UH, TO CLARIFY THE SITE PLAN, UM, YOU SEE THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS A LITTLE BIT PAST THE SIDEWALK, THAT'S WHY THE, IT LOOKS A LITTLE WEIRD.STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE THE, THE HOUSES ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF YOU, IF THE, THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSES ARE ABOUT THE SAME AS YOURS OR THEY'RE CLOSER? YEAH, WE'RE FARTHER BACK MAYBE FIVE FEET.
UH, FARTHER BACK FROM THE, FROM THE STREET.
IN FACT, MY NEIGHBORS FROM THE WEST ARE HERE TO, TO TALK TO YOU GUYS SO THEY CAN VERIFY THAT.
I MEAN, JUST, JUST ME PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THIS FENCE MAKES SENSE AND THAT IT WENT BACK INTO THE SAME PLACE THAT IT, THE PREVIOUS FENCE WAS, AND IT'S SET BACK FAR FROM THE FAR ENOUGH FROM THE STREETS.
SO I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE THAT I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE AT THIS FENCE.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE'S UNDER THE SPEAK? WE GOT ONE VOICEMAIL AND ONE SPEAKER.
OKAY, LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL FIRST PLEASE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS LULU FRANCOIS, CHAIRPERSON OF THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW COMMITTEE CALLING IN ON CASE 1118 DAWSON, BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6.
THE DIGNITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW COMMITTEE DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE THAT WILL EXTEND 17 FEET PAST THE FRONT YARD FACADE AND ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.
SO THIS PROPERTY FALLS JUST OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES.
IT IS STILL WITHIN DIGNITY HILL AND WOULD SET A NEGATIVE PRECEDENCE IF ALLOWED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
SINGLE FAMILY OR MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 35 5 14 OF THE UDC ARTICLE FIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
FOR THIS REASON, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED.
ALRIGHT, AND WE HAVE A SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, BOARD MEMBERS JAMES CRUZ.
UH, I LIVE AT 1112 DAWSON STREET, RIGHT TO THE WEST OF, UH, MR. HAZARD.
SO IF THERE'S ANYONE, UH, WHO WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS FENCE, IT'D BE ME WITH CLEAR VISION AND LEAVING THE HOUSE, DRIVING UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
THERE'S, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WORRY ABOUT CLEAR VISION AT ALL.
ALSO, THE FENCE, THE NEW FENCE CONSTRUCTED, UH, THE, THE OLD FENCE WAS DECREPIT, BEATEN UP DOWN.
AND THIS ONE IS CLEARLY, IF, IF THIS IS A MATTER OF, UH, HOW IT LOOKS, WHICH IT SEEMS TO SOUND FROM, UH, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMENTING, IT'S PROFESSIONALLY MADE.
YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURES, UH, IT'S WOOD.
UM, IF IT'S A MATTER OF AESTHETICS, IT'S NOT AESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING AS FAR AS SETTING A PRECEDENT IN THE CITY, UM, I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A NEGATIVE WITH THE FENCE.
SO I DON'T SEE A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT, JUST THE RECREATION OF A NEW FENCE OVER A CLEARLY HORRIBLE FENCE.
ALSO WITH, UH, A YARD THAT HAS, UH, PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE PIT BULLS RUNNING AROUND IN IT.
I, I DON'T SEE A BAD PRECEDENCE WITH THIS AND THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH CLEAR VISION.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS MYSELF? I DON'T HAVE ANY.
PERMISS PERMISS TO ADD COMMENT, PLEASE COME ON UP.
JUST STATE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS.
I'M AT 1 1 1 2 DAWSON STREET, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO THE HAZARD FAMILY.
AND I REQUEST YOU PLEASE SUPPORT, UH, THEIR REQUEST FOR THE FENCE.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT SECTION 35 DASH 504 IS TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND TO PRESERVE THE CLEAR VISION AREA.
SO TO MAINTAIN VISIBILITY FOR DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS.
SO, MR. HAZARD'S FENCE IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 18 FEET FROM THE CURB.
IT DOES NOT OBSTRUCT ANY SIGHT LINES, IMPEDE VISIBILITY OR PRESENT A HAZARD TO VEHICLES OR PEDESTRIANS.
AND AS HIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR, I DO WALK IN DRIVE BY THAT BY HIS ADDRESS DAILY.
AND I CAN ATTEST THAT THE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY HAVE NOT BEEN COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY.
UM, MOREOVER, THE FENCE PROVIDES PRIVACY, UH, FOR THE HAZARDS AND FOR US, UM, AS THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST, IT ACTS AS A, AS A BARRIER FOR LOOSE DOGS FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE.
AND THESE DOGS UNFORTUNATELY HAVE A KNOWN HISTORY OF ESCAPING AND ATTACKING NEIGHBORHOOD CATS AND PEOPLE.
THIS, UH, FENCE PROTECTS CHILDREN, PEDESTRIANS, AND PETS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
[03:10:01]
AREA EXPERIENCES REGULAR, REGULAR TRAFFIC AND AMBIENT NOISE.AND THIS FENCE DOES REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY FOR MR. HAZARD AND ALSO FOR US AS THOSE OTHER NEIGHBORS IMPROVING OUR OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE.
IT'S PROFESSIONALLY BUILT, IT'S, UH, AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT'S NOT VIOLATION OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, IN MY OPINION.
IT'S A SOLUTION THAT REFLECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIRE FOR SAFETY, PEACE, AND PRIDE IN OUR HOMES.
AND, UM, UH, IN SUMMARY, I JUST THINK IT'S SAFE AND IT'S SENSIBLE AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE THAT.
ALRIGHT, WELL THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6.
I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE LIMITED TO 17 FEET PAST FRONT FACADE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, LINE SITUATED AT 1 1 1 8 DAWSON STREET, APPLICANT BEING STEVE HOWARD BECAUSE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER AS A PRIVACY OFFENSE DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE LIMITED TO 17 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE ALONG THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THIS LIMITATION WOULD NOT WOULD, I'M SORRY, THIS LIMITATION WOULD WORK TO MAINTAIN THE CURB APPEAL AND RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USES AS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
HAS SUBSTANTIAL OPEN YARD SPACE THAT ENSURES THAT THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF LIGHT, AIRFLOW, OR VISIBILITY TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IS LIMITED IN SCOPE AND SPECIFICALLY SITUATED IN A LOCATION THAT MINIMIZES ITS IMPACT ON THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT AND ITS PLACEMENT ENSURES THAT THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE AREA REMAINS INTACT.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS THEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
AS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERTAINS ONLY TO A SMALL SECTION OF THE FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE STANDARDS, THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE COMPLIES WITH THE DRIVEWAY, CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS, ENSURING SAFETY AND MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
SO, UM, I'LL BE, UM, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
SO, SO I'LL BE TAKING THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, WITH REGARDS TO APPROVING IT AS WELL AS THE, THE COMMUNITY, UH, ENGAGEMENT HERE AS WELL AS, UH, REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND EVEN THOUGH, UH, WHAT WAS READ WAS, UM, IN THE NEGATIVE, I BELIEVE, UH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CONVERSATION THAT JUST CAME UP WITH REGARDS TO TESTIMONY.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT AND THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S SET BACK PRETTY FAR AND THE, THE FENCE MAKES GOOD SENSE TO ME.
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES AND FACT.
IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
THAT'S A ITEM NUMBER 10, BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 7 8.
LOCATED AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN CONSUL DISTRICT SIX.
THE APPLICANT IS JOVANNA CANAL.
[03:15:01]
A REQUEST FOR ONE, A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK TO A FOUR, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK.THREE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND FOUR A 10% VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD WITH 60% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1 51 GATEWAY CORRIDOR AND EAST OF PIN ROAD WITHIN THE BROWN LEAF SUBDIVISION.
CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONDED TO A CITIZEN COMPLAINT REGARDING A CARPORT UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
UPON INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO PERMITS HAD BEEN OBTAINED FOR THE STRUCTURE LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A STOP WORK ORDER.
STAFF OBSERVED THAT THE ATTACHED CARPORT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS.
THE FRONT YARD FENCE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER DATED PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS EXPANDED SOMETIME AFTER FEBRUARY, 2020.
AND THE FENCE HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN PLACE SINCE JANUARY, 2008.
THE CARPORT SUPPORT POLES ARE JUST OVER THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE IF IT WERE DETACHED AND HAD NO OVERHANG.
A PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR A CARPORT ON APRIL 21ST, 2025.
HOWEVER, THE SETBACKS PROPOSED AND ACCOMP ACCOMPANYING SITE PLAN DO NOT MATCH THE SETBACKS IN THE FIELD.
INSPECTIONS ARE YET TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THIS PERMIT.
AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF EACH VARIANCE REQUESTED AND AN AERIAL VIEW.
THIS HISTORICAL VIEW, UM, SHOWS THE ESTABLISHED VISION FOR CLEAR, UM, THE DRIVEWAY AS EARLY AS JANUARY, 2008 FROM 2020 IN FEBRUARY.
THE HISTORICAL VIEW SHOWS THAT THEY WERE WITHIN THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS.
NOVEMBER, 2022, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER INCREASED AND FEBRUARY, 2025, THE CARPORT WASN'T CONSTRUCTED AS YET.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS THERE.
AND THEN CURRENT, THIS IS THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CARPORT.
THIS IS SHOWING THE CAR CARPORT, FRONT SETBACK, AND THE SIDE SETBACK WITH OVERHANG THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
AND THIS IS THE VIEW TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE STREET AND WEST STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION FOR SITE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANTS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO A DASH 25 DASH 3 78 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE INSUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTEN MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
TWO, THE CARPORT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 7 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION DUE TO THE FENCE BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
AND TWO, THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OE DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT CAN POTENTIALLY CREATE EXCESS WATER RUNOFF.
AND TWO, THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARDS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PARKING AREA FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LOT STAFF.
SIX WERE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
[03:20:01]
AND THERE WAS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.AND THE LAST IS THE OPPOSITION RECEIVED.
THIS NEIGHBOR IS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, PLEASE, UH, HAVE HER STATE HER NAME PLEASE.
WANNA START THIS? JOANNA CAN MM-HMM
MY NAME IS JOANNA CANAL AND I AM THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO, YES, WHAT WE'VE, UH, TRYING TO DO, IT'S, UH, JUST TO BUILD A CAR, UH, TO PROTECT OUR VEHICLES FROM THE HILL THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING.
UH, BUT, UH, CITY IT'S REQUESTING US A SETBACK OF 10 FEET.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DON'T COUNT WITH THAT, UH, KIND OF SPACE.
IF WE FOLLOW THAT, UH, THE, THE CORPORATE WON'T COVER OUR VEHICLES.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SO, SO, UM, THE, I'LL DEAL WITH THE, UM, FRONT YARD PERVY COVER FIRST.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF CEMENT IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND SO, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THREE, AT LEAST THREE CARS WIDE OR FOUR CARS WIDE.
WHY IS IT THAT YOU NEED SUCH A FRONT, SUCH A LARGE PIECE OF CONCRETE IN THE FRONT YARD? OH, WHAT WE PARK THERE IS JUST TWO CARS.
THAT'S WHAT WE ONLY PUT THERE, TWO CARS.
SO IF, SO THE CITY GUIDELINE IS 50, ONLY 50% OF THE FRONT YARD CAN BE PAVED.
AND SO, UM, WOULD YOU BE, UM, WHAT WOULD BE THE HARDSHIP OF ACTUALLY MEETING THAT 50%? YOU WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE EVERYTHING ABOVE 50%.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE HARDSHIP OF THAT?
WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? UM, UM, ACTUALLY I'LL GO ONTO A SECOND QUESTION, SO I'LL SKIP THAT QUESTION.
SO, UH, SO ON THE, ON THE, UM, PICTURE THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH REGARDS TO THE METAL FRAME, UM, THE METAL FRAME ROOFING APPEARS TO GO FURTHER THAN THE EDGE OF YOUR, UH, THE ROOF LINE OF YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW.
UM, WHY IS IT THAT YOU NEED TO GO FURTHER OR COULD YOU CUT IT OFF THERE AT THE EXISTING ROOF LINE?
[03:25:03]
THERE YOU GO.SO THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA CUT IT.
WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO LIKE IN LINE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE GONNA CUT THE ACCIDENT, LIKE MM-HMM.
SO THE QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF THEN WOULD BE IF THEY ARE IN LINE WITH IT, UM, AND SO THAT LINE IS BACK THEN IS, IS THE SIDE SETBACK STILL AN ISSUE? IT'S STILL AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED.
UM, OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A LOT BETTER IF THEY HAD THE THREE FEET, BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY WHERE SHE'S TALKING ABOUT
SO SHE'S INDICATING THAT SHE WILL HAVE A THREE FOOT, UM, SIDE SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED.
THEY STILL NEED THE VARIANCE THOUGH, RIGHT? BUT YOU CAN, BUT THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS AN OVERHANG.
THAT CAN GO AS CLOSE AS THREE FEET.
SO IF, IF IT WAS DETACHED, THEN THE, THE, UM, EVERYTHING NEEDS TO STOP AT THE THREE FEET, THE OVERHANG AND EVERYTHING.
SO THE POLE IS AT THE THREE FOOT, UM, SIDE SETBACK, WHICH STILL REQUIRES A, A VARIANCE.
UM, BECAUSE IT, SINCE IT'S ATTACHED, THE POLE NEEDS TO BE AT THE FIVE FOOT, THE OVERHANG CAN BE TWO MORE FEET.
SEE, I'M LOOKING, WHEN I, WHEN I SEE THE ABSOLUTE CORNER OF THE HOME, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DRIVEWAY, I CAN'T TELL 'CAUSE THERE'S A FENCE, UH, PART OF THE FENCE IN THE WAY.
BUT DOES IT, DOES THE HOUSE GO, DOES THE DRIVEWAY GO PAST THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE POST IS A BUDDING THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
SO THE POST MIGHT BE, LET'S SAY FOUR OR FIVE INCHES INTO THE FIVE FOOT.
THE DRIVEWAY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS IN LINE WITH THE, UH, THE HOUSE.
SO IF THE POST IS, IS, IS ON, IS PRESSED AGAINST THE DRIVEWAY, THAT MEANS THE, THE FACE OF THE POST IS ABOUT FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES, LET'S SAY, OR FOUR FOOT SEVEN INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE NORMALLY, BUT WE MEASURE THE, THE POST TO THE FENCE AT RIGHT AT THREE FEET WHEN WE DID OUR SIDE VISITS.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD MEAN, UM, IT WOULD JUST, IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE HOUSE IS LESS THAN FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE.
YES, THAT'S WHAT THAT STATEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE BACK FENCE ISN'T, BUT WE COULD READ THIS TO BE AN, UM, IT COULD BE READ TO BE A THREE FOOT TO THE POST WITH A, WITH A UP TO 12 INCH OVERHANG.
COULD IT BE TO OR TO MATCH THE EXISTING ROOF LINE OR TO NOT TO EXCEED THE EXISTING ROOF LINE? YEAH.
COULD, COULD THAT BE READ AS PART OF THE MOTION? UH, I BELIEVE SO.
AND THAT'S JUST, I THINK WHAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER WITH THE THREE FOOT SITES, THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK IN ADDITION TO A ONE, ONE FOOT, UM, OVERHANG.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY BUILT.
WELL, I, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, UM, I WOULD LIKE, MY PREFERENCE IS ALWAYS TO MAKE IT AS, YOU KNOW, AS CLOSE TO WHAT IS NEEDED AS POSSIBLE.
AND SO, AND IT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOUR MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG,
I GUESS WHAT I'M MEASURING AGAINST.
BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UM, SO REGARDING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IF WE COULD GO TO THE SLIDE THAT'S, UH, LABELED CURRENT VIEW AND IT SHOWS THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS SERVICE AND THE FRAME OF THE, UH, PROPOSED CARPORT.
I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE THE FRAME OF THE CARPORT SEEMS TO BE BEHIND THE FENCE SO THAT, THAT THERE'S NO THE USAGE FOR THAT MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN TERMS OF PARKING BECAUSE IT'S BEHIND THE FENCE.
UNLESS THEY'RE PLANNING ON CUTTING THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COULD BE YEAH.
REDUCED? ARE I, I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, ARE YOU PROVIDING A COVER THAT EXTENDS ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THE HOME? NO.
[03:30:07]
WHAT WE WANT, IT'S JUST LEAVE THE POLES THREE FEET AWAY OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THEY ARE.RIGHT NOW, I'M LOOKING AT, WHEN I'M FACING THE HOME ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THERE'S SOME POLES THAT ARE IN THE GRASS AND IT GIVES ME THE IMPRESSION THEY'RE COVERING BEYOND THE EXISTING CONCRETE.
SO IS THAT MY HUSBAND BUILD THAT ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE FOLLOWING, LIKE THE PEAK OF THE HOUSE AND ALL THAT? NO, NO.
THE, THE, THE, SO THE CARPORT HAS A PITCH, BUT THEN IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE IT GOES OVER TO THE SIDE.
COULD STEP, CAN YOU GET A POINTER AND, AND HE'S JUST FOLLOWING THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.
HE, HE'S GONNA POINT OUT WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
IF YOU COULD GET, GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE WITH NOT THERE.
IT, IT APPEARS THAT YOU'RE HERE.
SO LOOK AT THE FAR RIGHT? YEAH.
OR IS THAT YOUR INTENT IS TO COVER ALL THAT TOO? YES, IT'S GONNA BE COVERED.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD STOP SUCH A THING IS, IS UM, NOT APPROVING THE 60%.
'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAKING IT SO THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE MOST IMPACTFUL FOR THIS BECAUSE, UM, THEY NEED THE, UH, SO WE COULD, COULD WE LIMIT THE FRONT SET BACK TO, TO JUST THE, THE PITCH PORTION OF THE CARPORT? YOU CAN.
THIS IS GONNA BE A COMPLICATED MOTION MAN.
JUST, UM, REAL QUICK, THE ANGLE OF THE HOUSE COMPARED TO THE SIDE SETBACK, IT LOOKS LIKE IT CLOSES IN.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE HOW YOU DESCRIBED IT, THE SIDE SETBACK IS GONNA STAY IN LINE, BUT IF IT STAYS IN LINE BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE OF THE HOUSE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA GO INSIDE THE CARPORT.
SO WE'LL MAKE HER AWARE OF THAT IF THAT'S HOW YOU'RE GONNA KEEP YOUR MOTION.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO, AND THEN ON THE SITE PLAN PICTURE, UH, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS, UM, COVERAGE IN THE BACKYARD AS WELL.
TO ASSUME THAT THERE ARE NO SETBACK ISSUES WITH THAT BACK PORTION, WE DIDN'T, WE, WE DIDN'T OBSERVE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED A VARIANCE IN THE BACK.
SO IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO READ A MOTION ON THIS ONE.
S COVERED THE ONLY THING, OKAY, SO I'M GONNA, WELL I'M GONNA READ A MOTION, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
UM, I, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 3 7 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE A SEVEN FOOT SIX VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A, A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK LIMITED TO THE PITCHED PORTION OF THE CARPORT, UH, PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION TO A FOUR FOOT, TO A TWO TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A, OH GEEZ, A, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA READ NUMBER TWO AGAIN.
A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SITE SETBACK, WHICH INCLUDES AN OVERHANG NOT TO EXCEED THE EXISTING WEST SIDE NORTH, I'M SORRY, NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME.
THREE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND FOR A 10% VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW
[03:35:01]
A FRONT YARD WITH 60% IMPERVIOUS COVER SITUATED AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE APPLICANT BEING JOVANNA CANAL.BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
TYPICALLY, YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONJURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND NOT REDUCE THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT ENCROACHING UPON THE ADJACENT LOT.
WHILE OTHER CARPORT WITH THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK EXISTS IN THE AREA, NO VARIANCES WERE HISTORICALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
FURTHER, THERE IS NO, THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION TO SAFELY OBSERVE UNCOMMON TRAFFIC AND EXIT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO, UH, THE LOCAL STREET.
AND IT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE VOLUME AND SPEED OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, WHICH CAN LEAD TO FLOODING EROSION AND STRAIN ON DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE CARPORT CANNOT BE RELOCATED TO MEET THE SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF VEHICLES.
THERE ARE SIMILARLY POSITION FENCES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THROUGHOUT THIS AREA.
AND WITH REGARD TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, BY FOLLOWING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION, A DRIVEWAY OF ADEQUATE SIZE CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE REQUESTED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THERE SUFFICIENT SPACE, AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS AS WELL AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE CLEAR VISION AREA OF NINE FEET LEAVES SUFFICIENT ROOM TO THE BACK TO BACK INTO THE STREET AND THE FRONT YARD RUNOUT LARGELY CONSISTS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT CAN CREATE EXCESS WATER OVERFLOW AND REDUCE GREEN SPACE ON THE LOT.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE UNAUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE SHALL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CARPORT AND PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERN.
AND IT APPEARS THAT TO BE THE ESTABLISHED FENCE DIS IT APPEARS TO BE THE ESTABLISHED FENCE DISTANCE IN THE AREA WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS SHARING THE SIDE FENCE AT THE SAME DISTANCE AND IT WOULD NOT CREATE POOLING WATER FOUNDATION ISSUES AND LANDSCAPE DAMAGE.
THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE P TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE CARDBOARD CANNOT BE ALTERED TO FIT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS WHILE STILL PROTECTING VEHICLES AND HAVING A SMALL FRONT YARD TO PARK VEHICLES.
WITH REGARD TO DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND WITH REGARD TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO MY INTENT WAS TO, UH, READ THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE CARPORT FOR THE, FOR THE PITCH PORTION, UH, NOT TO EXCEED THE NORTH PART OF THE SIDE OF THE HOME AND NOT TO HAVE THE, THE FRONT, UH, SETBACK EXCEED BEYOND THE PITCH PORTION AS A WAY TO LIMIT IT, UH, WITH OVER THE EXISTING SIDE AND INTO THE, THE CENTER OF THE HOME.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 60% 'CAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE HOMES THAT ACTUALLY HAS A TRANSFORMER AND TRANSFORMER PAD IN THEIR FRONT YARD, WHICH INCREASES IMPERVIOUS COVER ON UNNECESSARILY COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
SO I, YOU KNOW, THAT EXTRA 10% I THINK WOULD BE WARRANTED.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS READ COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, YEAH, I WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND SO, UM, BECAUSE OF TRANSFORMER BOXES THERE, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE EVEN NEED TO BE MORE CONCERNED WITH REGARDS TO PROVIDING EVEN MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THIS LOT.
UM, AND THEN, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY'S AWARE, BUT
AND, UM, BY THE, BY THE, BY HAVING LESS RUNOFF, WE GET MONEY.
AND IF WE START TO EXCEED THAT, WE ACTUALLY WILL START LOSING MONEY AS A CITY.
AND SO, SO I'M TRYING TO BE MORE CONSCIENTIOUS WITH REGARDS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE OF THE, THE STORMWATER RUNOFF.
SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO STRIKE THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, UM, RUN IT AS A SECOND ONE OR, YOU KNOW, SEE HOW IT GOES.
'CAUSE I WON'T BE SUBORDINATE SIMPLY BEFORE THAT.
UH, I WILL REMOVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UH, SO NOW THE MOTION IS FOR ITEMS, UH, ONE, TWO, AND THREE AS MODIFIED.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS? YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE
[03:40:01]
THE, UH, MATERIAL IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.UH, ANYTHING RELATED TO IMPERVIOUS COVER SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
SO I HAD, UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW I READ THE MOTION? WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ATTAIN STAFF? OKAY.
SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE THEN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCURRED COMMISSIONER BREGMAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
ALRIGHT, THAT MO PORTION OF THE MOTION PASSES.
IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE IMPERVIOUS COVER? I'LL DO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YEAH, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER B 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 7 8, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF JUSTICE GRANT A UM, THIS WAS GONNA BE FOR A 10% VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD WITH 60% IMPERVIOUS COVER SITUATED AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE APPLICANT BEING JOVANNA CONNELL.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS THE UDC HAS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AND I'M GONNA ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT MY COLLEAGUE READ IN FOR THE PREVIOUS, UH, MOTIONS AND A MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA AND I WILL SUPPORT IT JUST BASED UPON THE FACT, UH, THE EARLY TESTIMONY ABOUT THE TRANSFORMER PAD BEING IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WOULD CONSUME A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THAT ADDITIONAL 10% THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YEAH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORTIVE.
IT, I I DON'T THINK THAT 10% IS EGREGIOUS ENOUGH TO ASK THE HOMEOWNER REMOVE, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
I JUST DON'T THINK THE THE JUICE IS WORTH THE SQUEEZE.
MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA THOUGH THE JUICE IS WELL WORTH THE SQUEEZE WITH THIS WHOLE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO LOSES THEIR FUNDING FIRST.
SECOND THING IS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY CAN, THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING TO PARK TWO CARS AND THIS IS A THREE CARD SPOT.
UM, AND UM, THE CONCRETE IS GOING PAST, UH, SOME OF IT'S IN THE GRASS.
SO, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST SEE A LOT OF MISALIGNMENT HERE AND SO I THINK IT'S, UM, A LITTLE, LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FRONT YARD CONCRETE.
SO, AND I HAVE A, UM, I I'M GONNA ASK STAFF SOMETHING REAL QUICK.
THAT THE 10% VARIANCE, WAS THAT INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR THE ROOF, FOR THE CARPORT OVERHANG ONTO THE GRASS OR WERE YOU ONLY COUNTING THE CONCRETE? SO THE FRONT FACADE IS IN FRONT OF THE WALL.
SO WHETHER THE CARPORT'S THERE OR NOT, IT'S STILL THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, UNDER, NO, I MEAN, BUT THE CARPORT AS THEY WERE ASKING FOR, WAS ACTUALLY GOING OVER THE GRASS IN, IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH, SO IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THE CARPORT AS THEY DESIRE TO, IT WOULD INCREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER BEYOND THE CONCRETE.
SO YEAH, IF THEY STAY WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, THEY COULD BUILD A BIGGER CARPORT, UH, JUST FROM SIDE TO SIDE OR LIKE A PORCH I GUESS.
UM, THAT WOULD'VE NO, I KNOW, BUT WAS YOUR 10% SOLELY, WERE YOU JUST CALCULATING THE CONCRETE OR WERE YOU USING THE ROOF FOR THE CONCRETE ONLY CONCRETE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, SO SO THE ROOF DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATION.
CORRECT? ONLY THE CONCRETE WAS CALCULATED.
SO THAT, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND FOR A 10% INCREASE IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO THAT BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE? ALRIGHT, HEARING NOW, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER MENA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES.
IN FACT, UH, MOTION FAILS, UH, SEVEN TO THREE.
IT DID NOT ATTAIN, UH, NINE VOTES.
SO THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SOME, UH, AUGMENTATION DUE TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM ONE OF THE THREE THAT VOTED NO.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO, UH, UH, BECAUSE REALLY, AND I JUST WANTED, I'M JUST REACHING OUT TO ONE OF THE THREE THAT, THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION, WHETHER YOU BE OPPOSED TO A 55%
[03:45:01]
INSTEAD OF 60, BECAUSE REALLY IT'S NOT LIKE STAFF WENT OUT THERE AND AND DID A HEAVY CALCULATION.I DUNNO, BRAMAN COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN.
SO JUST LOOKING AT THE CURRENT VIEW THERE, AND SO WE'VE MOVED THE POST OVER TO JUST THE PITCH AREA, HOW MUCH OF THAT CONCRETE THAT'S NOW EXPOSED WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED? WOULD, COULD IT BE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE APRON OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN IT FLARES OUT TO THE RIGHT TOWARDS THE, THE POST ON, ON, ON THE RIGHT, IF IT WAS JUST A STRAIGHT LINE BACK FROM THE, THE APRON AND, AND THE, AND THE END OF THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WOULD THAT, UH, WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WOULD, UM, YOU THAT ADDITIONAL 10%? THIS IS THE THING ABOUT IT IS THAT IF YOU TAKE, IF YOU ACTUALLY GO OUT THERE AND MEASURE IT, IT MAY, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE REMEMBER YOU GET TO COUNT ALL THE GRAPHS THAT'S GOING TO END UP BEING ON THE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
AND I MEAN, WHO KNOWS? AND, AND MS. BRAGMAN, WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT LINE, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS LOOKING AT, WAS A STRAIGHT CUT STRAIGHT FROM WHERE THE, UH, I GUESS THE UN FLARED SECTION AND ESSENTIALLY REMOVING THAT FLARED SECTION, WHICH BASICALLY DIDN'T GO TO THE FRONT DOOR OR ANYTHING AND JUST SEEMED A LOT OF EXTRA SPACE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT COULD BE EASILY REMOVED AND NOT REALLY IMPACT.
I MEAN MY, I I WILL SAY THAT THE, THE, THE SKETCH THAT WE'RE SEEING UP THERE, THE BLACK LINE ON THE LEFT SIDE, THAT'S NOT THE PROPERTY LINE.
I MEAN IT, IT, I THINK THAT BECAUSE IT'S SHOWING THE TRANSFORMER NOT TO BE IN THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THERE, THERE'S A FENCE LINE THERE.
I MEAN I, THERE MIGHT BE SOME AUGMENTATION WITH THIS AERIAL, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE LINES GOT SHIFTED OVER.
I CAN VOTE TO RECONSIDER IF IT COULD BE STRUCTURED JUST THE WAY THE COMMISSIONER ONNA AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT, SO THAT IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT LINE BACK FROM THE, THE APRON ESSENTIALLY THE END OF THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE GOING STRAIGHT BACK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE SO THAT I, I KNOW THAT MAY BE SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT, UM, IT WOULD GET US CLOSER, I THINK TO THE 50%.
I MEAN MY, I I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, TO ADD THAT, UM, IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND ACTUALLY MEASURE THIS, LIKE WITH DETAIL, THEY MIGHT, IT MAY ACTUALLY BE AT THE 50.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHY I WAS ONLY SUGGESTING 55 JUST TO GIVE HIM A, GIVE HIM SOMETHING.
BUT IF NECESS, UH, I, I MEAN I'D WILLING, I'D BE WILLING TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER IF WE COULD WORD IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT GIVES SOME LEEWAY BUT ALSO GIVES SOME DEFINITION AS TO OKAY, IF IT IS BEYOND THE 50%, THIS WOULD BE, UH, A RESOLUTION.
BUT WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T TIE THAT TO AN IMPERVIOUS COVER THOUGH.
I MEAN, WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
SHE'LL HAVE TO, SHE MIGHT HAVE TO CUT OUT SOME CONCRETE AND IF SHE DOES IT MIGHT, IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT MUCH.
UM, I JUST THINK IT SHOULD, I THINK 55%, I THINK THAT SHE'D BE FINE.
BUT MRS. CANAL WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, THE TRANSFORMER IS INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
NO, I KNOW, I KNOW THAT THAT'S AR THIS, THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN THAT AERIAL ARE NOT CORRECT.
YEAH, THAT'S NOT THE PROPERTY LINE.
I KNOW THE, THE, THE BLACK ONE IS NOT.
UM, DO YOU KNOW, UH, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING UP THE STORMWATER DIALOGUE.
UM, YOU KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT, WHAT THE RULING IS OR WHAT, WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS? AND UM, WELL A HOME, A HOUSE CAN BE 65% SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
WELL, I'M GOING FOR THE LARGER PICTURE OF SAN ANTONIO AND THAT'S WHERE, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND WE KEEP NIPPING AWAY AT IT.
AND SO, AND SO HERE WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CODE THERE FOR 50% AND I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT'S AT STAKE AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE STORMWATER POSITION.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S A DIALOGUE THAT'S, THAT'S HAPPENING AND, AND WE'RE NIPPING AT THE NUMBER THAT'S GONNA REMOVE THE GOVERNMENT FUNDING THAT WE GET FROM STORMWATER IF WE GO OVER A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE CALCULATING IT OR ANY OF THAT.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN, I'VE BEEN KIND OF TOLD IN THE BACKGROUND THAT THERE'S A STORMWATER CONCERN HERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FEMA THAT'S PROVIDING THE MONEY OR WHO'S PROVIDING THE MONEY, BUT, UH, I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE AND IT MAY BE PRETTY BIG, YOU KNOW, THAT COMES IN THIS CONVERSATION, BUT SHE'S, THIS WOMAN'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
NO, BUT WE ARE WITH REGARDS TO THE CONSTANT NIPPING, I GUESS THAT'S,
[03:50:01]
THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS.WELL, THE, THE, THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE, UM, C VALUES OF 65% ON A HOUSE, NOT 50.
50% IS JUST FOR THE FRONT FACADE.
SO AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT EXCEEDING 65, THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING ANY CODES AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MEASURE THAT ANYWAY.
SO THIS IS HOW WE MEASURED IT, UM, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.
THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, UM, 3, 836 SQUARE FEET OF THE FRONT YARD AND THEN TO THE LEFT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF JUST THE CONCRETE PART, WHICH MATHEMATICALLY COMES OUT TO RIGHT AT 57%.
BUT YOU'RE NOT GIVING, YOU'RE NOT GIVING THEM THE THREE FEET ON THE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE WIGGLE ROOM THERE THAT MIGHT PUT 'EM ON 55%.
UM, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE, UH, FEMA STANDARD.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, UH, DISCUSSION IS WHEN IT, WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
WOULD SOMEBODY BE WILLING? SO I, I'M WILLING TO RECONSIDER FOR THE, I'M MAYBE THE DIALOGUE FOR 55, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE THE CITY TO DO THE RESEARCH AND GET THE NOTE BACK TO ALL OF US SO THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THESE DIALOGUES, WE ARE FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE WHEN WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE, UH, SOMEONE FROM STORMWATER GIVE US A LITTLE FIVE MINUTE SNIPPET ON THAT OR SOMETHING.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT IS KIND OF INTERESTING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSION MANOR TO RECONSIDER FOR 55%.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO RECONSIDER THE, THE ISSUE REGARDING IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ A MOTION TO? WELL, I'LL JUST READ IT.
I, I HEAR MOVE, UH, TO, TO, UH, FOR A 10% VARIANCE, UM, I'M SORRY, A 45% VARIANCE TO THE 55% TO THE, TO THE 50% PREVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOW, UH, UM, 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, UM, SO IT'S A FIVE FOOT, IT'S A 5% VARIANCE.
OKAY, LET ME JUST PULL THE MOTION OUT.
CAN I GET THE SECOND THIS TIME? YES.
ANY OPPOSED? SO WE, YOU HAVE 55% I HIGHLY RE RECOMMEND A DETAILED MEASUREMENT TO, TO MAKE, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
UH, CHAIR, I DID TELL, UH, STAFF THAT I HAD TO LEAVE AT SIX O'CLOCK, SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO, TO BUG OUT.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN HAS LEFT THE MEETING AT 5 0 6.
ITEM NUMBER 11, WHERE CAN YOU, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.
ITEM 11 IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 0.
THE ADDRESS IS 25 12 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10.
CONS, DISTRICT FOUR, THE APPLICANT IS IN IDA FLORES.
A REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH SUPPORT BEAMS. AND TWO, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED EAST OF SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
COMMERCIAL AREAS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
HISTORICALLY, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING AUTO SALES AND APPLIANCE CENTER, A SPORTS BAR, AND A CONTAINER.
THE EXISTING FENCING CONSISTS OF A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH SUPPORT BEAMS AT THE FRONT AND CORRUGATED METAL FENCING AT THE REAR SIDES, BOTH OF WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT HEIGHT AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED OF ZONING RELATED ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY THAT MUST BE
[03:55:01]
RESOLVED.THESE INCLUDE THE NEED FOR REZONING TO PERMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A LUMBER YARD AND BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER, AS WELL AS ADDRESSING MATTERS RELATED TO OUTSIDE STORAGE.
CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE ON THE LOT.
THE CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS FOR A HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER, HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE USE OBSERVED BY STAFF IN THIS SITE PLAN.
THE RED OUTLINES THE, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE THAT'S SIX FEET WITH THE EIGHT FOOT, SIX INCH SUPPORT BEAMS AND THE CORRUGATED FENCES OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT'S BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES.
THE HISTORICAL VIEWS, UM, IN THE TOP PICTURE SHOW THE FRONT, UM, THERE'S NO FENCE ESTABLISHED AND AS WELL AS IN THE REAR IN MAY, 2019, YOU CAN SEE NO FENCE ESTABLISHED AS WELL.
BUT IN 2022, THE PROPERTY WAS GRADED IN 2023, NO FENCE STILL.
AND IN 2024, UM, THE FENCE IS THERE AND YOU COULD SEE THE HEIGHT INCLUDING THE SUPPORT BEAMS. THIS IS CURRENTLY, UH, THE PROPERTY IS, AND THE SIDE VIEW, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE MEASUREMENTS THAT IT EXCEEDS FIVE FEET FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE AND THE CORRUGATED METAL TOWARDS THE REAR.
AND THEN THE SIDE, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS BASICALLY THE FRONTAGE ROAD AND SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10.
THIS LAST PICK OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS ADJACENT TO IT.
UM, JUST SHOWING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, BUT THERE'S SOME BARBED WIRE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BOE DASH 25 DASH 3 0 0 8 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY.
UNDER APPROVED USE OF CORRU CORRUGATED FENCING WAS NOT OBSERVED IN IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND TWO, THERE ARE NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE PROPERTY THAT MERIT DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIRED FENCE MATERIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE HEIGHT VARIANT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OE DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN IMMEDIATE AREA, HOT FENCES EXCEEDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND HEIGHT AND PRIVACY.
AND TWO, THE REQUEST WOULD INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY OBSTRUCTING THE FRONT YARD VIEW AND BY CREATING AN INCONSISTENT APPEARANCE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM LACKLAND TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, QUICK QUESTION, BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
UH, CAN'T THEY DO, UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE YOU CAN HAVE? IS IT, ISN'T IT SIX FEET EXCEPT FOR THE FRONTED FRONT FACADE? THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT THIS FENCE HAS THOSE EIGHT FOOT SIX SUPPORT BEAMS, AND THAT'S THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCE THAT WE'RE MEASURING HERE FOR, TO CONSIDER FOR THE VARIANCE.
OKAY, SO IF WE, IF THIS, IF THE VARIANCE GOT DENIED, THE, AND THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO CUT THE BEAMS DOWN TO THE SIX FEET, CORRECT? BECAUSE BUT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S COMMERCIAL.
SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANITA FLORES AND I, I HAVE TO POINT OUT SOMETHING.
THERE'S ONLY, THERE'S NINE OF US SITTING RIGHT NOW.
IF ONE PERSON VOTES, NO, THIS THING FAILS AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
DO YOU WANT TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE? UM, I'M KIND OF WHAT DO YOU MEAN
UH, WHY WOULD IT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY.
NO, BUT WHY WOULD IT, UM, LIKE WHAT'S WRONG? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU.
YOU NEED NINE VOTES FOR AN APPROVAL IF ONE PERSON VOTES NO,
[04:00:02]
IT'S DENIED.DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK WHEN THERE'S 11 PEOPLE HERE? SURE.
BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT WE'LL PUT YOU TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA.
I'M SO SORRY THAT YOU WERE HERE ALL DAY.
I KNOW I'M THE LAST ONE, BUT, UM, OKAY.
WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT.
NO, IT'S JUST MY CONCERN IS BASICALLY WE'RE TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET APPROVED FOR THE FRONT RIGHT.
WHAT ABOUT THE CORRUGATED METAL AND THE CORRUGATED METAL ON THE BACK? WELL, THAT'S YOUR WHOLE, THAT'S YOUR WHOLE REQUEST.
AND SO BASICALLY IF IT GETS DENIED, IT'LL BE FOR THE CURRENT IN MIDDLE? NO, WE HAVE TO, IF WE HEAR IT, WE HEAR THE WHOLE THING.
IF YOU CONTINUE IT, WE CONTINUE THE WHOLE THING.
AND YOU'LL BE IN THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA.
YOU WON'T HAVE TO WAIT LIKE YOU DID TODAY.
THAT THE JUNE 16TH COULD MA'AM? YEAH.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? I MOVE TO CONTINUE TO THE TWO WEEKS TO THE NEXT MEETING.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
THE MINUTES.ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I, UM, I REVIEWED IT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ARM, MANEZ.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON.
STAFF, DOES YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT? NO.
HAS EVERYBODY REAPPLIED? MM-HMM.
EVERYBODY HAS TO REAPPLY EVEN IN YOUR, IN YOUR TIME.
WELL, EVERY, EVERYBODY'S, EVERYBODY'S TERM IS, UM, UM, UM, MAY 31ST AND I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO YEARS AFTER.
NO, IF YOU GOT, IF YOU, IF YOU GOT, UM, UM, APPOINTED MIDWAYS, EVERYBODY, IT, IT ALWAYS EXPIRES EVERY MAY 31ST.
SO YOU HAVE TO YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO GET REAPPOINTED OR, OR BEYOND CARRY OVER.
WE'VE HAD SOME PEOPLE BE ON CARRYOVER FOREVER.
BUT, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT STILL OPEN TO, TO DO IT OR DID IT DID.
UH, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST DO IT.
SO THERE WAS NOT A DATE LISTED.
YEAH, THERE'S NO DATE LISTED WHENEVER, RIGHT? YEAH.
I MEAN I REMEMBER GETTING THE EMAIL SAYING THAT THE DEADLINE WAS MAY 31ST, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT REALLY DREW.
ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.