Oct 07, 2019 Board of Adjustment on 2019-10-07 1:00 PM

ALRIGHT, MONICA, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL CALL? MR. TEAL? PRESENT.

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES

ELLI? PRESENT.

MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT.

MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT NOW DO WE HAVE A, UH, QUORUM CO PRESENT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WILL YOU PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN AND TEXAS FLAGS? THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT THE TABLE, TABLE OUT JUST OUTSIDE, UH, THE BOARDROOM.

THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAMES OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESSES.

FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.

I'LL ASK THAT BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME IN ADVANCE AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING.

THE BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY, ZONING'S CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.

THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.

WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.

THE SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.

THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35, THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.

WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED ON CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REG REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.

WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO 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 IN ANY OTHER MATTER AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.

THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ANY OPPOSITION TO THE RES REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.

EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

IN ORDER TO, FOR A MOTION TO CARRY, IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS NINE VOTES.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING RELIEF SOUGHT RESIST REST IN THE APPLICANT.

THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AND REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

[00:05:01]

ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURTS OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING.

APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.

ARE YOU ANYONE ELSE GIVING A FEEDBACK BUT ME? THERE'S A LOT OF US.

BUT IS IT INTERFERING THE COMMUNICATION? OKAY.

WE'RE NOW GONNA TAKE A ROLL CALL OF THE, OF THE APPLICANTS FOR TODAY.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST TWO CASES HAVE BEEN POSTPONED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THEY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED TODAY.

SO IF ANYONE IS HERE FOR THOSE CASES, UH, LOCATED AT ASHBY PLACE OR MILLROCK PASS, UH, THESE CASES WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD AND YOU WILL RECEIVE NEW NOTICE IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THOSE TWO CASES.

NOW, THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, BO EIGHT DASH 19 DASH OH 3 9 7.

LAURIE CASSIDY, ARE YOU PRESENT? THEY HERE.

OKAY, GOOD.

UH, CASE NUMBER 1 0 5.

UH, CURTIS MO MUELLER.

CASE NUMBER 1 0 7.

PAMELA THE CARPENTER.

UH, CASE NUMBER 1 1 4.

ALBERT ANTHONY FUQUA? YES, THANK YOU.

CASE NUMBER 1 0 8 DANIEL MORENO MORENO.

THAT'S FOR THE ADDRESS.

UH, 63 58 HAZEL VALLEY DRIVE.

NO ONE HERE.

IT BE ACCESS? YES.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT WHEN IT COMES UP.

UH, CASE NUMBER 1 1 3.

JOSE OR JOE? UH, GUTIERREZ.

UH, CASE NUMBER, UM, 1 0 9 ELLA CASTILLO.

AND CASE NUMBER 1 1 5 DANIEL GARCIA.

HELLO, BOARD FIRST CASE IS BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 7 IS A REQUEST FOR A 22 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT TYPE E LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE EIGHT FEET ALONG THE REAR YARD.

AND WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE SPANISH INTERPRETATION AND STAFF WILL GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON INSTRUCTIONS ON SPEAKING TIME BEFORE THE BOARD 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 EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN EX INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION.

IN ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.

YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU WILL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.

FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.

THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.

THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.

ALRIGHT, NOW STAFF, ARE WE READY TO BEGIN WITH CASE PRESENTATION?

[3. 19-7464 BOA-19-10300097: A request by Laurie Cassidy for a 22’ variance from the 30’ Type E landscape bufferyard requirement to allow a bufferyard to be 8’ along the rear yard property line located at 11722 Jones Maltsberger Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT LARRY CASSIDY.

ADDRESS, 11 7 2 2 JONES BERG ROAD ZONING I ONE AH H O D.

HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT TYPE E BUFFER YARD TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD TO EIGHT FEET ALONG THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE.

AND TO ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AND THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT ABUSE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING WHICH TRIGGERS THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS.

THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

HERE IS DESIGN PLAN AND THIS IS THE PORTION THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO REDUCE THAT IT'S ABUSING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

[00:10:05]

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOR IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT.

AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WILL INCREASE THE, UM, BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING MAIL.

50 NOTICES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITH THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

ZERO IN FAVOR, NO OPPOSITION QUESTIONS.

MANNA URBANA, UH, PREVIOUS SCREEN.

UM, I I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE SECOND POINT.

IT SAID IT WOULD INCREASE THE BUFFER YARD.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS SECOND POINT OR YES.

THE SECOND POINT THERE, IT SAYS INCREASE THE BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING.

HE'S REMARKING.

POINT NUMBER TWO ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION UNDER THE PROPERTY, WE'LL INCREASE THE BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING, BUT WE'RE CUTTING IT DOWN BY 22 FEET.

SO HOW IS IT INCREASING? IF WE'RE CUTTING IT DOWN BY 22 FEET? IT'S A TYPO.

IT SHOULD BE DECREASED.

IT BASICALLY, IT'S THE REAR PROPERTY LINE THAT'S BEING DECREASED.

THEY'RE MAINTAINING THEIR BUFFER YARD ALONG THE REST OF THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU OREN.

MR. DOEN, GO AHEAD.

SO THIS IS, THIS PROPERTY IS REALLY CLOSE TO THE AIRPORT AND FROM THE AERIAL, UH, I'M, I'M SEEING IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, IS WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY? UH, THE ONE, UH, UM, ADJACENT OR YEAH, THE R FIVE.

THE REASON WHY I ASK IS THAT I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SURROUNDING AN AIRPORT THERE WAS BUFFER ZONES THAT THE AIRPORT HAD TO HAVE SO THAT PLANES TAKING OFF AND LANDING WOULDN'T BE IN CONFLICT WITH DEVELOPMENT.

IS THIS ONE OF THOSE SUCH AREAS WHERE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE OTHERWISE RESTRICTED? THAT PROPERTY IS THE AIRPORT BEHIND IT.

UM, AS FAR AS THE BUFFY YARD LANDSCAPING REVIEWED IT AS WELL AND WE HAD NO ISSUE AT THIS POINT.

AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS A LIMITATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S ALL THE, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS LIKE IF YOU GO WHERE THE NORTH SIDE FORD IS AT NAMA IN 2 81, THERE'S A BIG DIRT FIELD THERE.

AND YEARS AGO IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT NO ONE COULD BUILD THERE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TOO CLOSE TO WHERE THE AIRPLANES LAND AND TAKE OFF SO THAT NOTHING COULD EVER BE BUILT THERE.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THIS IS THE SAME THING.

'CAUSE IT'S ON THE AERIAL, IT'S SHOWN RIGHT NEAR, UH, RUNWAYS.

SO IT'S NOT A, UM, NON DEVELOP, NON DEVELOPABLE, UH, EASEMENT OR, UH, BUFFER YARD REQUIRED.

IT IS JUST A SIMPLE INCREASED LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AIRPORT USE.

UH, SO THE BUFFER YARD CREATES SORT OF THIS NON DEVELOPABLE AREA, IF YOU WILL, AND RESTRICTS THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT YOU CAN STILL, UH, PROCEED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ASK FOR A DECREASE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES.

I'M I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE R FIVE THAT'S NEXT TO IT.

I'M WONDERING COULD SOMEBODY EVER BUILD SOMETHING THERE? IF IT'S SOLD TO SOMEBODY ELSE? IT WOULD DEPEND ON THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S THE AIRPORT.

THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING LIKE, I DON'T, I ALWAYS THOUGHT WITHIN 500 FEET OR WHATEVER OF THE ACTUAL AIRPORT THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION.

BUT I'M, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.

AND THERE'S NOTHING ON OUR ZONING MAP THAT INDICATES ANY OVERLAY OF NON DEVELOPABLE AREA WITHIN THE, UH, FLIGHT PAN FLIGHT PATH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DONE? ALRIGHT, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.

I HAVE A QUESTION HERE ON THIS ONLY COMES AS A RESULT OF THE 2030 AIRPORT EXPANSION PLAN.

MY UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING WITH AIRPORT AUTHORITIES, THEY'RE GONNA BE PURCHASING ALL THE LAND ALMOST UP TO, TO THE, UH, UM, SACH PARKWAY FOR THE ADDITION OF ADDITIONAL PARALLEL AIRPORT RUNWAY, WHICH COULD IN VERY MUCH IN AFFECT ALL THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE DUMP.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS, THIS IS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION AND WHAT IS GONNA BE DEALT WITH HERE.

BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO THOSE PROP, BUT THOSE, UH, CONDITIONS, I KNOW THIS IS, HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED AND IS NOT SOLID, BUT IS PART OF THE 2030 PLAN.

WE NOTIFIED THEM, UM, AS THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION, BUT WE DIDN'T HEAR, WE DIDN'T GET ANY FEEDBACK RELATED TO THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT.

I I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD, YOU, THE AIRPORT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, FOR THE AIRPORT IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONTACTED BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS A, A NACOMA COULD BE SACRIFICED.

ANY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, FUTURE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WOULD GO THROUGH, UH, TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

BUT THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT IS NOTIFIED OF, OF THE CASES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET.

BUT THEY DIDN'T INDICATE ANY ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OR THIS VARIANCE.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[00:15:03]

HI, I AM THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE MYSELF.

UH, I'M KEVIN, LOVE WITH K L ENGINEERING 2 2 6 1 OH U S HIGHWAY 2 81 SAN ANTONIO.

AND I HAVE WITH ME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ANGELA PFEIFFER.

SO I GUESS FIRST OFF, WITH THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP, ANGELA HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED BY THE AIRPORT TO PURCHASE HER LAND OR TALK? NO ONE HAS, NO ONE HAS BEEN CONTACTED REGARDING THIS.

THIS IS ALL IN THE PLANNING STAGES.

SO THEY DON'T MAKE ANY SPECULATIONS AT THIS TIME, BUT IT IS PART, IT, IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE, UH, THROUGH THE AIRPORT.

SO THE, THE REASON FOR OUR VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, IT'S ALL ZONED R FIVE.

SO FOR YEARS AND YEARS, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THAT WAY, MAYBE FOREVER OR MAYBE SINCE THE 2001 U D C CAME INTO EFFECT.

BUT WITH THAT PROPERTY BEING R FIVE, UH, I GUESS ANY, ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CITY AND ALSO THE CITY, CITY SHOULD BE HELD TO, UH, THE ZONING STANDARDS AND THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF ANY, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, ANY AIRPORT PROJECTS REALLY, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ANY PERMITS.

UM, SO I'M, WE'RE SITTING HERE, COMING HERE TODAY AND SAYING THAT IF THIS, IF THE CITY HAD CORRECTLY ZONED THE AIRPORT, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING TO GIVE UP A 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

IF THE CITY WAS PROPERLY ZONED, IT WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY BE I ONE, UM, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THE, THE U D C, IT ADDRESSES THE CURRENT U D C IN ZONING.

IT ADDRESSES, UM, NOT MUNICIPAL, NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED, UH, AIRPORTS, BUT PRIVATE OWNED AIRPORTS.

IT CLASSIFIES THEM AS I ONE.

SO IN AS FAR AS, I MEAN WE'RE NEXT TO NORTH SIDE STADIUM.

I, I CAN'T, I, I MEAN I CAN'T, I I HAVEN'T SEEN THE AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS, BUT WE'RE NEXT TO AND ALL AROUND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES.

SO, UH, WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT CENSUS CITY HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE RULES THAT WE NOT HAVE TO BE HINDERED BY THAT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT ABLE, I MEAN, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER ANYBODY THINKS IT'S A HARDSHIP OR NOT, SHE LOSES A WHOLE ROW OF BOAT AND RV STORAGE AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE HER LAND TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL.

SO I THINK HAVING, BEING HELD TO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR SOMETHING THAT THE INTENT WAS TO BUFFER INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS FROM A RESIDENTIAL, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST HERE.

IF, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THE AERIALS, IT WOULD LOOK TO ME LIKE WE WOULD GET MORE, I GUESS, UH, COMPANIES LIKE MAYBE CESSNA COMING IN AND THINGS LIKE THINGS OF THAT NATURE IS WHAT I, YOU KNOW, AND I, I GUESS A AIRPORT GROUND LEASES BECAUSE THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY HOLD ON TO ALL THAT LAND FROM WHAT I COULD TELL.

UH, THE AIRPORT OWNS ALL OF THAT LAND.

SO.

AND I HAVE ANGELA HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER.

DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF US? OKAY.

FIRST OF ALL, THE STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY WHEN THEY EXPAND AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT WAS AT ONE TIME OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

MOST EVERYTHING WAS.

ONCE THAT AREA HAS BEEN ANNEXED, IT BECOMES OUR DESIGNATION.

AND THEN AS IT'S UTILIZED, THEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT OWN THAT PROPERTY GENERALLY GO BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD TO GET A ZONING CHANGE FOR THEIR PROPERTY SO THAT IT WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER REGULATIONS OR OR ORDINANCES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DEVELOPED OR ARE IN, IN EFFECT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

BUT THE FACT THAT YOUR PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED R FIVE, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS IS MORE OF A ZONING ISSUE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REALLY PERTAINS TO WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING HERE.

SO HIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY INDUSTRIAL.

THE AIRPORT PROPERTY IS OWNED RESIDENTIAL.

UH, KEEP IN MIND THE CITY, I MEAN THE PROPERTY'S BEEN ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINCE THE AIRPORT IS ESTABLISHED.

SO IT'S NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM OTHER THAN A SCENARIO LIKE HIS ALRIGHT.

AND, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE FAIRLY CLOSE TO SATO CREEK RIGHT THERE, OR, OR SOME OTHER DRAINAGE PROGRAM.

YEAH, WE HAVE THE, UH, WE HAVE FLOODPLAIN RIGHT BEHIND OUR SITE, SO IT ACTUALLY RUNS THROUGH OUR SITE OKAY.

ON THE EDGE OF IT, WHICH WE'RE RESPECTING.

ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT?

[00:20:04]

NOW THE, WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS TO ABOLISH THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUFFER YARD TO AGAINST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE PROPERTY, UH, ADJACENT TO YOU FOR THE AIRPORT, CORRECT? YES, IT'S AIRPORT PROPERTY.

IT, UH, I MEAN A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IS NOT GONNA GO IN THERE AT THIS LOCATION.

UM, BUT YES, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

WE'RE ASKING THAT IF IT WERE, IF THE AIRPORT WERE PROPERLY ZONED, UH, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW.

AND, AND TO ASK AND TO HAVE TO GIVE UP 30 FEET FOR A CONDITION LIKE THIS, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, TAKEN CARE OF, THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, DUE TO ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE'RE CAUSING OTHER THAN THE WANTING TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, HER LAND.

SO YES SIR.

AND WHAT WE ARE GIVING IS, IS EIGHT FEET.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ZERO, WHICH IS WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE IF WE WERE I ONE AND I ONE OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND I ONE.

SO, BUT WE WILL BE LEAVING EIGHT FEET, BUT, UH, YEAH, BUT MUCH MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE OF A RETAINING WALL.

UH, I THINK WE'VE GOT A 10 FOOT SEPARATION, BUT WE'LL HAVE A WALL IN THERE.

SO WE'VE ASKED FOR EIGHT FEET AND STAFF CONCURS, SO VERY GOOD.

THEN, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING HERE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT, UH, AFFECTING THESE, THE ROADSIDE, UH, BUFFER.

NO, SIR.

ALL, ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS ON THAT SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE.

A BUFFER OF EIGHT FEET.

SO NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE ANY, UH, WITNESSES? NOBODY SIGNED UP.

OKAY, THEN I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION.

BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, GO AHEAD.

REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A 22 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT TYPE E LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE AS NARROW AS EIGHT FEET ALONG THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 1 7 2 2 JONES MALTSBERGER ROAD, APPLICANT BEING LAURIE CASSIDY.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE EIGHT FOOT BUFFER YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AS OF NOW, THE PROPERTY HAS NO BUFFER YARDS ESTABLISHED.

SO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BENEFICIAL AND A NET IMPROVEMENT TO THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NOW VACANT PROPERTY IS PROPOSED DUE TO THE ESTABLISHED BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT.

BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED BUFFER YARD WILL ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY IMPLEMENTING AN EIGHT FOOT BUFFER YARD WHERE NONE EXIST CURRENTLY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

SUCH VARIANTS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE, INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED.

THE INTRODUCTION OF AN EIGHT FOOT BUFFER YARD WOULD ONLY ENHANCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY STREET SCAPE AND DISTRICT.

THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE OWNER BUYING IT INTO A VACANT PROPERTY THAT HAD NON-EXISTENT ABOVE YARDS TO BEGIN WITH.

FEET OF LANDSCAPING DUE TO A FLOOD PLAIN ON THE SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN SIDE.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

UM, AND MS. BRAMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? YES, THANK YOU.

UM, I AGREE THERE'S NO PUBLIC HOUSING THAT'S GONNA BE BUILT IN THAT AREA.

UM, AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH, UM, MAKING AN EIGHT FOOT BUFFER YARD AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 30.

SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.

O OKAY, SURE.

UM, I MEAN THEY'RE HONORING THE FULL BUFFER ON WARBUCK PARKWAY AND THEY HAVE 60 TO A HUNDRED

[00:25:01]

SO THEY'RE ALSO PROVIDING EIGHT FEET WHERE I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER GONNA HAVE ANYTHING BUILT NEXT TO 'EM.

SO I THINK IT'S FINE.

ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS? I MEAN, IN THE CASE THEN, MONICA, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE? I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MS. DORIAN.

ELLI CONCUR.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.

I CONCUR.

MR. VINNO.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO PUT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

YOU'RE, UH, VARIANCES IS ALLOWED AND PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE PHILLIPS.

LET'S NOW

[4. 19-7465 BOA-19-10300105: A request by Curtis Muller for an appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness, located at 534 Mission Street. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Stephanie Phillips, Senior Historic Preservation Specialist, Office of Historic Preservation, (210) 207-7902) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

GO TO THE NEXT CASE.

CASE BO.

A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 IS A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DECISION TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF ANESS APPLICANT CURTIS MUELLER ADDRESS 5 34 MISSION STREET, SUNNING R M FOUR A H A H.

UM, HISTORIC IS GOING TO BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CASE, BUT THE NOTIFICATION PLAN RETURNS.

WE MAIL 33 NOTICES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

WE RECEIVED THREE IN FAVOR, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UH, TO OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ZERO IN OFFICE OPPOSITION AND THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS SUPPOSED, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE H D R C DECISION.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M A SENIOR SPECIALIST WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

THIS WAS JUST PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

SO THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN KING WILLIAM.

IT IS ON A CORNER LOT ALONG MISSION STREET AND BARBIE STREET.

THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3 5 34 MISSION IS A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1928 IN THE CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW STYLE.

UM, THE STRUCTURE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY ALSO FEATURES A NON-CONTRIBUTING ONE-STORY REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED APPROXIMATELY IN THE 1980S.

AND LIKE I MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MISSION STREET AND BARBIE STREET.

AND UM, ON THE LEFT YOU'LL SEE THE FRONT FACADE AND ON THE RIGHT YOU'LL SEE THE VIEW FROM BARBIE STREET.

SO THESE WERE THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS, UM, FOR THE SONO SOLAR PANEL REQUEST.

AND THIS WAS THE EXHIBIT THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH WAS HELD ON JULY 17TH, 2019.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE REQUEST WAS TO CONCENTRATE SOLAR PANELS ON THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS, UM, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH SOME BACKGROUND.

UM, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDED 16 SOLAR PANELS ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, 10 SOLAR PANELS ON THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND THAT SOLAR PANELS BE PROPOSED IN A MANNER THAT LIMITS THEIR VISIBILITY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

UH, DUE TO THE CORNER LOT LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE PANELS PROPOSED ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WERE VISIBLE FROM BARBIE STREET.

THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ADVOCATED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PANELS ON THAT REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UM, WHICH THE GUIDELINES ALSO ENCOURAGE.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE COMMISSION ACTION LETTER DATED JULY 17TH, 2019 BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO DENY THE REQUEST ITEMS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN ANSWER THEM.

ORIAN.

ALRIGHT, MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD.

OKAY, SO I HAVE A HANDFUL OF QUESTIONS.

SURE.

I THINK THE ISSUE AT BAY HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SOLAR PANELS, UM, ARE IN CONTRAST TO THE GUIDELINES MM-HMM.

AND SO, UM, IN, IN YOUR REPORT IT USES TERMS LIKE RECOMMEND.

AND SO I'D LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOUR, YOUR FLEXIBILITY IN THAT TERM.

'CAUSE IT DOESN'T USE THE TERM REQUIRED, IT USES THE TERM RECOMMEND.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT.

NUMBER TWO, THERE WAS A, IN THE, IN THE, UM, REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, HE STATES THAT THERE'S A LARGE TREE THAT IS KEEPING THE EFFICIENCY.

SO WHAT IS

[00:30:01]

MORE IMPORTANT TO HISTORIC? THE, THE KEEPING A LARGE TREE OR NOT HAVING THE SOLAR PANELS? AND, AND AGAIN, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW WHERE Y'ALL STAND ON THAT.

, UH, SO GO AHEAD.

I'LL ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION.

SO THE, UM, HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN SAN ANTONIO ARE GOVERNED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.

THEY'RE NOT STANDARDS.

SO WE ALWAYS USE THE TERM RECOMMEND BECAUSE WE CAN'T TECHNICALLY REQUIRE ANYTHING.

SO THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND THESE FOR SOLAR PANELS, THESE WERE THE CITATIONS THAT WERE TAKEN.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE TERM RECOMMEND COMES FROM.

AND ON THAT BEFORE YOU GO TO THE NEXT ON THAT SUBJECT MM-HMM.

, UH, I'M, I'M, I WAS PRESIDENT OF MY H O A 10 YEARS AND I KNOW ABOUT THIS P O A LAW THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT IS CI MM-HMM.

, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF MOVEMENT TO PROMOTING SOLAR.

AND SO DID THESE GUIDELINES, WERE THEY ADOPTED PRIOR TO, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS ACTION BY THE STATE OR OTHER SOLAR PANEL, UH, ENDEAVORS THAT MAY BE OCCURRING IN THE CITY? THAT MIGHT BE IN CONTRAST WITH THE GUIDELINES THEY WERE ADOPTED IN 2012.

THE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THE TREE VERSUS THE EFFICIENCY OF SURE.

SO THE TREE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DISCUSSION BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION.

ULTIMATELY, THEY DECIDED TO DENY THE REQUEST DUE TO THE VISIBILITY THAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN, THAN THE CONTEMPLATING REMOVING A TREE BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.

THANK YOU THI MR. THI, JUST TO CONFIRM, THESE PANELS HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED, IT WAS JUST A DENIAL OF THE C O A, CORRECT? YEAH.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE UH, H D R C ORIAN? ONE MORE, GO AHEAD.

UH, AT THE MEETING WAS THE, UH, UM, ANY OF THE NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, PRESENT AND WHAT WAS THE COMMENTARY OR THE THOUGHTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS? GREAT QUESTION.

SO AT THAT MEETING, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION DID SEND A REPRESENTATIVE.

THEY ALSO PROVIDED A LETTER, WHICH THEY DO FOR ALL CASES AT THE H D R C.

AND THEY WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.

UM, THEY CONCURRED WITH THE HD'S DECISION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ALRIGHT, LET'S BRING, UH, THE OTHER WITNESS WHO'S NEXT? HI, I'M CURTIS MUELLER.

I WORK FOR THE SOLAR COMPANY, UH, REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER.

JOSHUA THOMAS.

UH, YEAH.

SO ESSENTIALLY, UH, THE ISSUE IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TRY, WE TRY TO DO THE BEST TO COMPROMISE WITH EVERYTHING.

UH, WE WANT TO PUT ALL THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE BEST PRODUCTION.

IT'S SOUTH FACING, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

UH, BUT THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF EVEN SAID WE DIDN'T WANT TO, UH, PUSH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT TOO MUCH.

SO WE DECIDED TO PUT IT ON THE GARAGE.

WHEN WE PUT ALL THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE GARAGE, THERE WAS A HUGE TREE THAT COVERED THE, ABOUT HALF THE GARAGE THAT KIND OF COUNTERACTED THE WHOLE SOLAR PANELS AND WENT GIVE THE HOMEOWNER HIS, UH, MONEY'S WORTH.

SO WE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND DISCUSSED IT AND WE FINALLY DECIDED, WELL, LET'S DO, LET'S COMPROMISE WITH BOTH.

LET'S PUT SOME OF THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF AND LET'S FIT AS MUCH AS WE CAN ON THE GARAGE SO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF.

AND WE'RE KIND OF COUNT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING SO MUCH, I GUESS, UM, AND WE WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT SHADOW LINE.

SO THAT'S WHY ONLY HALF THE GARAGE IS FILLED UP.

AND WE HONESTLY THINK IT'S THE BEST OPTION.

IF WE WERE TO PUT ALL THE SOLAR PANELS IN THE GARAGE, CUSTOMER'S NOT GONNA GET AS MONEY'S WORTH.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANT THE BEST FOR THE CUSTOMER.

UH, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S KIND OF JUST STEPPING ON TOES OF THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE ON THE BOARD? ORIAN HISTORIAN.

SO THE, UH, THIS, THIS ACT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, I KNOW IT APPLIES TO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS.

IT'S NOT THE SAME AS HISTORIC GUIDELINES.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THIS AND YOUR, IN THE CONDUCTION OF YOUR BUSINESS THAT YOU SEE THAT PROMOTES SOLAR OVER OTHER ASPECTS OF, OF DESIGN GUIDE? UM, CAN YOU KIND OF PHRASE THAT ? WELL, I MEAN, IF THIS WAS A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND NOT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO YEAH.

H C R C WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THE NEIGHBORS? OR WAS THERE ANY SORT OF NEGOTIATIONS THAT YOU COULD ACCOMPLISH, UH, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING? UH, NOT PARTICULARLY.

IS THERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS IN THE, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR BUSINESS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE, UH, SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THIS DECISION? UM, I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

I GUESS, UH, IT'S JUST, IT FEELS LIKE THAT IT'S ACTING LIKE A HISTORICAL DISTRICT IF IT WAS A, OR NOT HISTORICAL.

IT'S ACTING LIKE A H O A, UM, AND UNDER THE TEXAS GUIDELINES, WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS, WITHIN OUR LAW.

WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING, UH, BAD.

BUT YEAH, THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, YOU KNOW.

AND WHEN YOU WENT, WHEN YOU WENT TO GET YOUR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, DID YOU HAVE ANY, UM, MEETINGS WITH, UH, WHAT I THINK IT WERE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND, AND HAVE, UH, SOME DUE DILIGENCE TO SEE HOW THIS WILL BE RECEIVED OR MEET WITH

[00:35:01]

SO I DISCUSSED WITH, UM, KATIE TOLMAN, I THINK THAT'S HER NAME, UH, WITH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.

SHE ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH IT AND SHE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO GO FORWARD.

AND THEN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT DENIED IT.

UH, AND THEN I DID NOT GO TO ANY NEIGHBORS.

I DIDN'T DISCUSS WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF IT.

AND, AND FINALLY THEY, THEY, WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO INSTALL, HOW ARE THEY, UH, IN COLOR CONTRAST TO THE ROOF COLOR? THEY'RE BLACK.

SO, UM, THE ROOF IS, YOU KNOW, A BROWNISH TAN COLOR.

BUT OUR SOLAR PANELS ARE BLACK ON BLACK.

WE GET 'EM AS TIGHT AS WE CAN TO THE ROOF.

UH, I PERSONALLY THINK THEY'RE PRETTY .

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY THAT IS LIGHTER IN COLOR PERHAPS THAT WOULD MAYBE MATCH THE COLOR OF THE ROOF OR ANYTHING TO THAT EXTENT? NOT PARTICULARLY.

I COULD LOOK INTO IT.

UH, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL ARE RECOMMENDING, UH, I COULD TRY TO GO FORWARD PROCESS.

I'M JUST WONDERING PROCESS ABOUT THE OPTIONS FOR THE MOST RIGHT HERE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

'CAUSE WE'RE NOT IN NEGOTIATION WITH ANYBODY DETERMINING WHETHER THE, UH, H D R C UH, UH, APPROPRIATELY HANDLED THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS, IS THERE ANY OTHER WITNESS IN THIS CASE BESIDES, UM, H D R C? JUST THE OWNER, UH, JOSHUA THOMAS.

SO, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU'RE DISPUTING, WE'RE ACTUALLY ONLY DEALING NOT WITH THE AESTHETICS.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT H G R C RECOMMENDS BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ENTITY AND THEY HAVE AUTHORITY.

YEP.

AND THEY CAN SAY NO.

NOW WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THEIR CASE AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ACTED APPROPRIATELY OR NOT.

AND THE, THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, IS ACTUALLY A PROCEDURAL ISSUE.

SO, UM, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THIS, THIS WAS THE PLAN TO GET THEM THE MAXIMUM UTILIZATION FOR THE MONEY THEY WERE WILLING TO SPEND, CORRECT? YES.

AND, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, YOU LOOKED AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT'S GOING TO GIVE THEM THE MA MAXIMUM WATTAGE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT? YES, SIR.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS THING INITIALLY WAS, UH, YOU MENTIONED THE SOUTH SIDE AND, UH, OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, UH, LEAVE THAT THE, THE PANELS THAT YOU HAVE DESIGNED TO GO ON THE HOUSE ARE SOUTHEAST.

UM, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, CAN WE PUT IT ON THE, UH, YEP.

SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UH, STRAIGHT UP ON THE PAGES NORTH, SO YEAH, THAT'S FACING A LITTLE BIT SOUTHEAST.

UH, WE, UH, WE COULD PUT 'EM ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SO THEY'RE FACING SOUTHWEST TOO, BUT, UH, BUT WE COULD PUT 'EM RIGHT HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

BUT THE HOMEOWNER REQUESTS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO KEEP THE PANELS AS FAR AWAY FROM THOSE STREET VIEWS TOO.

UM, YOU KNOW, HE'D GET A LITTLE BIT MORE PRODUCTION RIGHT THERE.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LESS TREE COVERAGE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, AESTHETICS LOOKING, WE DO TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.

WE DO TAKE AESTHETICS FAIRLY FLAT ON THE ROOFING SURFACE.

IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU, YOU, UH, TOOK THEM AWAY FROM THE VIEW OF THE STREET AND PLACED THEM ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE, UH, UH, PITCH.

WITH A SLIGHTLY RAISED, UH, TO ONE SIDE TILTED TO ONE SIDE TO MAXIMIZE THEIR EXPOSURE TO THE SOUTH.

TO DO IT ON A REVERSE TILT.

SO THAT, AND SOUTHWEST, WHICH OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, NOT OBVIOUSLY, BUT I, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS MIGHT GENERATE EVEN MORE ELECTRICITY.

BUT, UM, YOU THAT, THAT YOU WON'T, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TO DISGUISE THE PANELS FROM THE STREET, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BARBIE STREET, THAT'S THE STREET, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING, I BELIEVE THE H D R C IS MAKING THE POINT YEP.

IS THAT ALTHOUGH IT'S DISGUISED FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME, IT'S NOT DISGUISED FROM THE STREET AND THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOT JUST A RESIDENCE, BUT AN AREA IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, OR AT LEAST WHAT THE H D R C IS TALKING ABOUT.

SO THEIR IDEA HERE IS TO MAXIMIZE THE AESTHETICS THAT IS NATURAL TO THE AREA.

AND ANYTHING THAT IS NEW, UH, AND UNUSUAL BE HIDDEN SOME WAY.

SO, I MEAN, HAD THAT DISCUSSION OR THOUGHT BEEN DEALT WITH HERE? IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED WITH, UH, PEOPLE WITHIN OUR OWN COMPANY, UH, PROJECT MANAGER AND THE OWNERS, UH, THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY ITSELF.

UH, THE ONLY ISSUE WITH IT IS, UH, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS LIKE ANOTHER DORMER RIGHT HERE, UH, SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT AS MANY PANELS ON THE BACK AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A REVERSE TILT.

SO THEY'D HAVE TO BE ON TILT LEGS, UH, BECAUSE IF IT'S ON THE NORTH, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY PRODUCTION.

UH, THE BEST PLACE FOR SOLAR IS FACING THE EQUATOR GETS THE MOST SUN FACING NORTH IS GETTING LESS.

SO YOU HAVE TO DO IT ON A REVERSE TILT, UH,

[00:40:01]

UH, THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS, ONE, WE COULDN'T FIT AS MANY PANELS BACK THERE.

AND TWO, UH, I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT, UH, WE'D HAVE TO GET THE HOMEOWNER'S AGREEMENT WITH THAT AND WE'D JUST HAVE TO DO MORE OF A PROCESS ON IT, WHICH IS VERY DOABLE.

WE JUST HAVE TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE HOMEOWNER.

'CAUSE THAT ALSO, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AESTHETICALLY PLEASING FOR THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT AND THE, AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE ROAD VIEW IN REALITY FOR THE HOMEOWNER, KNOWING THAT HE IS GOT REVERSAL PANELS, MOST, MOST HOMEOWNERS, MOST HOMEOWNERS JUST DON'T AGREE WITH IT.

BUT HE'S RIGHT HERE.

I CAN ASK HIM PRETTY EASILY.

, UM, THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A DILEMMA FOR HOMEOWNERS.

THEY BUY INTO A HISTORICAL AREA, YET THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THAT HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

AND THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH, WITH REVIEWING THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM WHETHER THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB APPROPRIATELY.

AND JUST AS TO SAY NO WOULD BE BASICALLY, UH, DENYING OURSELVES OUR OWN PROCESS.

SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT, THAT I ASKED WAS DID YOU CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PANELS TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET NOT NECESSARILY AS MUCH PRODUCTION, BUT THE MOST OF PRODUCTION THEY CAN GET FOR THEIR MONEY? YES.

WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.

UM, AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS WAS THE BEST ONE THAT WE CAME UP WITH.

UH, WE DID NOT DISCUSS WITH THE HOMEOWNER, HOMEOWNER ABOUT DOING A REVERSE STILT ON THE BACK, UH, JUST BECAUSE 90% OF THE TIME, MOST HOMEOWNERS SAY NO AND THEY USUALLY CANCEL.

SO I GUESS THAT WAS A FEAR WITHIN MY MIND.

UH, BUT WITH ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS YEP.

WE'VE, WE LOOKED AT PUTTING ALL THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE GARAGE.

WE TOOK, WE LOOKED AT UPGRADING THE SOLAR PANELS AND PUTTING LESS ON THE ROOF THE MAIN HOUSE AND PUT 'EM MORE ON THE GARAGE.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING A GROUND MOUNT, BUT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH SPACE AND ROOM AROUND.

AND FOR THE MOST PART, STILL HAD TO BE, UH, FACING TOWARDS THE STREET AND HAD TO BE ABOVE THE, WELL, WE WANTED TO PUT ABOVE THE FENCE LINE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE UP HALF HIS PROPERTY JUST FOR A GROUND MOUNT.

DID, UM, RONNIE, UH, CAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROJECTS IN THAT, IN THAT DISTRICT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY GET THROUGH H D R C? UH, NOT MY PROJECTS PERSONALLY.

NO, SIR.

UH, THIS IS THE FIRST PROJECT I'VE EVER HAD TO DEAL WITH A HISTORICAL DISTRICT.

UH, I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR SOLAR FOR ABOUT A YEAR.

BEEN WORKING WITH ELECTRICITY FOR THREE YEARS.

BUT YEAH, THIS IS FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING.

UH, IT TOOK THIS LONG, CUSTOMERS SIGNED UP IN DECEMBER 22ND, 2018.

SO IT'S BEEN ABOUT ALMOST, YEAH, IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THIS APPROVED.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF AGAIN.

I WAS GONNA SAY YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL, NOT CASE, I'M GONNA REQUEST THAT ONE OF SOMEBODY FROM THIS, FROM THE H J C RETURN.

PLEASE HAVE A SEAT.

JORDAN, YOU MAY ASK THE QUESTION.

IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, THERE'S OTHER HOMES, AT LEAST ONE I CAN TELL THAT HAS SOLAR.

UH, AND THAT MIGHT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

AND I'M LOOKING AT 6 0 3 MISSION.

I DUNNO IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

I KNOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT HOW DID THAT, WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE DECIDING OR WHEN THAT THING WAS INSTALLED, THAT, THAT SOLAR ON THAT HOME, HOW DID THAT DISCUSSION GO AS FAR AS YOUR EVALUATION OF THESE GUIDELINES? SO I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE APPROVALS ON RECORD FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN FRONT OF ME.

I'M GONNA WAIT TILL SHE PULLS IT UP TO SEE IF I RECOGNIZE IT.

WELL, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, IT'S A GUIDELINE MM-HMM.

AND SINCE SOLAR IS, I'M STARTING TO SEE MORE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE REQUESTS, UH, BEING ON THE A C AND DOING THOSE REVIEWS.

BUT AS THEY'RE STARTING TO GET MORE REQUESTS IN HISTORIC AREAS, IS THE CITY DOING ANY SORT OF INTERNAL POLICIES AS HOW THEY APPLY THOSE GUIDELINES THAT COULD BE IN CHANGE, THAT COULD BE CHANGING OR, OR WHAT? RIGHT.

SO I I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE AS A STAFF, WE ACTUALLY ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS FOR SOLAR PANELS FAIRLY REGULARLY.

UM, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THE VISIBILITY ON THIS CROSS STREET IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE FOR THIS PROPERTY, UM, FOR THAT MISSION STREET PROPERTY.

PART OF THE REASON WHY THAT GOT APPROVED, NOW THAT I'M SEEING IT, IS BECAUSE IT'S FACING THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR VERSUS THE CROSS STREET.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THERE.

THAT'S A PROCEDURAL EXPLANATION.

YEAH, I MEAN, I'M, I'M, IF I WAS GOING UP THE STREET I'D, THEY'D POP RIGHT IN MY, 'CAUSE THE ROOF LOOKS BLUE AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A DARKER, UH, COLORED SOLAR ON TOP.

SO, SO, BUT IS THAT A RALLY AS A, OH, EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND.

, UNLESS YOU ARE SIGNED UP ON THE LIST TO SPEAK, RAISING YOUR HAND WILL NOT GET OUR ATTENTION.

[00:45:01]

SO PLEASE BE, BEAR IN MIND THAT IF ANYONE HAS ANY INPUT, IF YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP TO BE A WITNESS HERE, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN ON THAT LIST.

OTHERWISE, WE ARE NOT ENTERTAINING RESPONSES FROM ANYONE ELSE.

PLEASE NOTE, UH, JOSHUA THOMAS IS THE OWNER.

HE WAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK HIS, HIS, UH, CONTRACTOR WAS ONE SPEAKING A SECOND AGO.

WELL, THEN, THEN HE HAS SIGNED UP TO THEN, ALRIGHT.

HE SHOULD BE COMING UP.

ALRIGHT, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT WHEN WE ALLOW THE, UH, RETURN.

SO MY QUESTION AND, AND AFTER HE ASKED THIS QUESTION, ARE YOU THROUGH, I I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO WHAT MR. ORIAN JUST ASKED.

RIGHT? GO AHEAD, DOCTOR.

AND, AND BASICALLY IT'S, I, WHEN, UH, MR. ORIAN WAS ASKING ABOUT A LOCATION, I THOUGHT HE WAS REFERRING TO THE CORNER OF MISSION AND EAGLE AND DRIVE WHERE THERE ARE SOLAR PANELS FACING EAGLE LAND DRIVE.

CAN WE MOVE DOWN THE STREET? EXCUSE ME, MOVE DOWN THE STREET TO THE OTHER WAY AND THEN, OKAY.

CAN YOU BASICALLY ADDRESS THE SAME QUESTION THAT DR, I MEAN MR. ORIAN POSED TO YOU, BUT WITH REGARDS TO THIS LOCATION WHERE THE SOLAR PANELS ARE IN FACT FACING A STREET, THAT WAS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION.

TE RIGHT, MR. TEEL, THERE'S ALSO AN EXAMPLE IN THE CORNER OF STAFF AND DELAWARE, OR EXCUSE ME, YEAH, DELAWARE, WHERE THEY ARE FACING THE SIDE STREET.

THAT WAS ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAME TO THIS CASE OR TO THIS BOARD, DELAWARE STREET AT THE CORNER OF STAFF.

OH, THERE WE GO.

THE 200 BLOCK OF DELAWARE.

I BELIEVE, I, I BELIEVE THE REASON FOR BRINGING THIS UP IS BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE SOME SORT OF CONSISTENCY RIGHT.

IN DEALING WITH THESE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS. AND NOW THAT WE, WE, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM IN ANY INFORMATION THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD IS CONSISTENCY.

IF THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, OR FOR SOME REASON SPECIAL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE US, IF IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS RATIONAL CAUSE FOR, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE OR NOT.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, WE'VE GOT, WE'VE CITED WHAT THREE ALREADY IN THAT PARTICULAR, ARE THOSE ALL IN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT? THIS ONE IS IN THE LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT.

UM, SO THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS APPROVED BY US.

THE LAST TWO WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW THE APPLICANT MAY RETURN, UH, IF HE WANTS TO COME WITH YOU, HE'S THE ONE WHO SIGNED UP.

HE, HE HAD, UM, SOME INFORMATION TO GIVE.

HE WAS THE, TO TALK ABOUT 6 3 9 MISSION STREET, WHICH IS ANOTHER NOW IT'S NOW IT'S IN THE FILE.

YES, EXACTLY.

I UNDERSTAND .

ALRIGHT, SO I GOT NOTHING ELSE ELSE TO SAY.

UH, JUST, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT WITH Y'ALL'S PERMISSION.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I'M GONNA AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ORIAN.

MR. DOREEN, GO AHEAD.

REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH OH 3 0 0 1 0 5, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SITUATED AT FIVE THROUGH FOUR MISSION STREET, APPLICANT BEING CURTIS MUELLER.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT IN ASSERTING THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER INCORRECTLY DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS AND A MOTION.

NEIL SECOND.

OKAY, MS. JILL, YOU'VE MADE THE SECOND.

AND MR. ORIAN, PLEASE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.

UH, I WILL BE, UH, IN APPROVAL OF THIS, OF THIS REQUEST.

UH, AND THE, AND THE REASONING IS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES, UH, WHERE, WHERE THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE AREA.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, UM, WHAT'S DIFFERENT WITH THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE VERSUS OTHER ISSUES IS THAT IT'S DEPENDENT ON THE ROOF PITCH WHERE THE ROOF IS LOCATED WITH THE SUN

[00:50:01]

RISING AND SETTING.

UH, THERE'S AN EFFICIENCY, UH, ISSUE AT BAY HERE.

UH, AND STATE LAW AND OTHER, UM, ENDEAVORS BY, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO PROMOTE THE USE OF, OF ALTERNATE MEANS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION.

I KNOW IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT, UH, STATE LAW THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE, IN THE FILE REGARDING POAS, UH, WHEN WE DO OUR A C C REVIEWS.

UH, AND WHILE THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE H D R C, IT IS SIMILAR NONETHELESS.

SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

ALRIGHT, MR. THIEL, WE'D LIKE TO SUBMIT, I TOO WILL BE IN SUPPORT.

UM, I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF, UH, INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS THROUGHOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN SAN ANTONIO.

UM, THERE IS, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR KEEPING A, UH, COMMON AESTHETIC AMONGST THESE AREAS, BUT THERE'S ALSO NO NEED TO BE REGRESSIVE IN OUR ENERGY POLICY.

UM, FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT.

ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE WANNA SAY ANYTHING? MR. NEFF? YES, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

UM, I ALSO HAVE A CORNER HOME BUILT BEFORE 1900 THAT I INSTALLED SOLAR PANELS ON YEARS AGO.

AND THE ONLY OPTIONS WERE EAST FACING AND SOUTH FACING, AND THOSE WERE MY TWO STREETS.

UM, YOU SEE THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT UNATTRACTIVE.

THEY DON'T DETRACT FROM THE BEAUTY OF WHAT MY HOME IS.

UH, AND THE OTHER OPTIONS WOULD'VE BEEN TO NOT HAVE THEM AT ALL AND NOT PARTICIPATE IN POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR THE REST OF THE PANEL'S LIFE FOR MY LIFE IN THAT HOUSE.

AND THAT'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT TO ME.

UH, THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES THAT I'M SEEING THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS, LIKE AT ADAMS IN PARDA, WHICH PANELS FACE THE STREET AND THAT'S A VERY MAJESTIC HOME.

UH, VERY BEAUTIFUL.

NO SLIGHT TO THE APPLICANT'S HOME OF COURSE, BUT IT'S ON A VERY MAIN STREET.

UM, AS WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NEWER ELECTRONIC APPURTENANCES BEING PLACED ON HISTORIC HOMES.

YOU KNOW, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? DO YOU SAY THAT NO SERVICE METERS CAN BE MOUNTED ON THE SIDE OF A HOME FACING A SIDE STREET? DO YOU SAY THAT? NO.

DIGITAL SATELLITES CAN BE PUT ON ROOF EAVES FACING A CERTAIN DIRECTION BECAUSE THERE'S A STREET THERE.

I SEE THE H D R C AND H P O CHOOSING SOLAR PANELS AS SOMETHING TO LIMIT WHILE NOT LIMITING EVERYTHING.

AND I CAN DRIVE THROUGH THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEE MANY EXAMPLES OF MODERN CONVENIENCES ADDED TO HOMES THAT DID NOT EXIST IN 1920 OR 1895 OR WHENEVER A HOME WAS BUILT.

UM, SO IN MY OPINION, IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SOLAR PANELS TO BE INSTALLED ON THIS HOUSE AS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED.

ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

UM, I WANNA MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT ON THIS.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THE H D R C UH, MADE THEIR DECISION THE WAY THEY DID BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THEIR MANDATE TO CONSIDER THESE POINTS.

AND I DO, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT TECHNOLOGY AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW FOR CERTAIN INCONVENIENCES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.

WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN, UH, GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL, UH, ORGANIZATIONS LIKE H D R C AND C P S C P S IS NOW OFFERING SOLAR PANELS ON HOMES FREE OF CHARGE, UH, UNDER A PROGRAM.

SO, UH, THAT, UH, IS AVAILABLE TO MOST EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.

AND THAT'S, TO ME IS, IS DIRECT IN THE, UH, IS DIRECTLY CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITY OF THE H D R C.

SO IT'S A VERY, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE ON A LITTLE BIT OF A TEETER-TOTTER HERE, HOW TO WHICH WAY WE GO? WELL, WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE PROGRESS.

WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS IN THE PAST.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD, SINCE IT'S NOT FACING THE FRONT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL.

BUT I KEEP IN MIND THAT, UH, WE SHOULD ALWAYS, WHEN WE, WE FIGHT FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW DISTRICTS, WE DO IT FOR A REASON.

WE DO IT BECAUSE THERE IS A UNIQUENESS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER MOVING INTO A U UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY RE MOVE THERE FOR A REASON, I ASSUME ONE OF THOSE BEING HIS, IT'S HISTORIC, IS THAT WE TRY TO COMPLY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH THE GUIDELINES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST DEALING WITH WHAT OUR RESIDENCE IS.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMUNITY.

AND THAT COMMUNITY IS REPRESENTED BY, IN THIS CASE THE H D R Z.

BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAINTAIN THE REASON WHY YOU BOUGHT INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

OKAY? SO, UH, IF ANYONE ELSE WILL MAKE, MAKE A STATEMENT, IF NOT, THEN I'M GOING AHEAD AND LET, UM, MONICA

[00:55:01]

TAKE THE ROLL CALL.

MR. ORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MR. THIEL.

MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR.

UM, UH, CONTINUE ON WITH OUR NEXT CASE.

UH, THE MOTION CARRIES.

PLEASE GET WITH STAFF FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

[5. 19-7466 BOA-19-10300107: A request by Pamela Carpenter for a 4’ variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit to be 1’ from the west property line, located at 314 West Elsmere Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

CASE BO.

A 19 1 0 3 0 0 IS 1 0 7.

A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT CLAY AND KIM COHOR.

UM, ADDRESS THREE 14 WEST ELSMERE PLACE, SONY R FIVE H A H O D.

HERE'S THE ALLOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A ONE FOOT FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE TO REHABILITATE AN EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THE EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS A SINGLE CAR GARAGE AND A STORAGE ROOM THAT WILL BE MODIFIED TO AN ACCESSORY TO DETACHED DWELLING UNIT ON AUGUST 7TH.

THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REBUKE COMMISSION APPROVED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH STIPULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SITE SETBACK.

HERE IS THE SIDE PLAN, UM, THAT'S WHERE THE ONE FOOT REDUCTION IS THERE, WHICH IS WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT DETACHED DRILLING UNIT.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WE HAVE MEASURED TWO FEET FROM THE WALL TO THE FENCE.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ALLEY VIEW.

OTHER SIMILAR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN V O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.

AND THE SECOND ADEQUATE SPACE WILL BE UTILIZED TO PREVENT STORMWATER RUNOFF.

MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRACTOR WITHOUT TRESPASSING MAIL.

25 NOTICES.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO POSITION, AND NO COMMENT FROM MONTE VISTA.

QUESTIONS WERE IN AHEAD, MR. RYAN.

SO THE REAR ACCESSORY SETBACK IS NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE ALLEY, CORRECT? UH, YES.

HALF OF THE ALLEY COUNT TOWARDS THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

AND WITH THE ADDITION, I, I DON'T SEE, YOU KNOW, LIKE ELEVATIONS.

BUT WITH THE ADDITION, IS THERE GONNA BE A, UM, ANY SORT OF OVERHANGS THAT'S GONNA PROJECT PAST THE CURRENT FACE OR CURRENT OVERHANGS OF THE STRUCTURE? UM, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ELABORATE ON THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S GOING TO BE A SECOND AC TWO STORY DWELLING UNIT, UH, REHABILITATION THAT THEY'RE DOING.

THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS NOT BEING EXPANDED.

UM, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING THE SECOND STORY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE MEETING THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.

SO THEY JUST WANT THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN ASSIST.

AND LASTLY, JUST DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY, UH, GARBAGE PICKUP IN THIS REAR ALLEY AT ALL OR ANY USE WHERE A LARGE VEHICLE MIGHT HAVE TO DRIVE BACK THERE TO CITY TO FOR CITY PURPOSES? UM, NO, I WOULD YIELD TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

HELLO, PAM CARPENTER, SCOTT CARPENTER, SEVENTH GENERATION DESIGN.

UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, THE UH, ADDITION WILL BE CONFORMING TO THE CURRENT BUILDING CODES, APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES.

THE WALL WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE, FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF OVERHANG FOR THE EAVES, UM, BUT THAT WILL BE JUST 12 INCHES OR 18 INCHES.

THE TYPICAL OVERHANG OF THE BUILDING WITHIN CLEAR THREE FEET WILL BE CLEAR TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THERE IS NO, UH, TRASH PICKUP OR UTILITY PICKUP IN THE ALLEY.

IT'S

[01:00:01]

ALL IN THE FRONT.

ON ELSMERE.

WE DID MEET WITH THE MONTEVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AN OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND ON THE SCREEN, UM, WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROVED BY THOSE TWO STAKEHOLDERS.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE WALLS OF THE UPPER STORY ARE INSET TO RESPECT, UM, THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE, THE ORIGINAL CARRIAGE HOUSE.

AND THAT UPPER PORTION WILL BE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OR WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, UH, U D C.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ORIAN, ORIAN, GO AHEAD.

SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE COMPLETELY STAYING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SMALLER THAN THE CORRECT.

THE FIRST FLOOR.

WE ARE CAUGHT IN A TECHNICALITY WITH THIS REQUEST BECAUSE OUR ADDITION WILL EXCEED, UM, OR, OR IS EXPECTED TO EXCEED THE, UM, VALUE OF THE FIRST FLOOR 50% FLOOR.

RIGHT? SO WE HAVE TO, WE'RE REQUIRED TO GET THE VARIANCE FOR THAT LOWER PORTION, THE EXISTING PORTION.

AND, UM, WITH THE HOME OFFICE EDITION AND GUEST SUITE DOES, HOW DOES THIS PLAY IN WITH THE 20 FOOTWARE SETBACK? IS THAT JUST APPLY IT SETBACK OR A DEEDED RESTRICTED SETBACK? IT'S A, THE, THE PRIMARY USE DOWN THERE IS THE, UM, THERE'S THE DETACHED, UH, DWELLING UNIT ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

AND SO THE DETACHED DWELLING UNIT ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THERE'S THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK OR FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT BE THE CASE? IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES? NOBODY SIGNED UP.

NOBODY SIGNED UP, ACTUALLY.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION.

SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND, UH, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT AND I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7.

I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY DRILLING UNIT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE WEST PROPERTY TIME SITUATED AT THREE 14 WEST ELMER ELSMORE PLACE, APPLICANT BEING CLAY AND KIM HAWTHORNE.

UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C, UH, AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

IN THIS CASE, THE ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ONLY BEING REHABILITATED AND THE FOOTPRINT IS NOT EXPANDING.

THE BOARD FINDS THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE STRUCTURE EXISTING AS DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY REQUIRING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE BE MOVED TO MEET THE SETBACK.

THREE.

BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW.

THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK LIMITATION IS TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE, AND ENCOURAGE PROPER STORM WATER DRAINAGE.

ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED.

FOUR.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN ZONING.

DISTRICT 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.

THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.

SPECIFICALLY, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PLACE THE STRUCTURE OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

SIX.

THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE.

THE CHARACTERS OF SIDE YARDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT ARE PREDOMINANTLY COMPACT, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR PROPER PROPER BUILDING.

SETBACKS AND A MOTION.

ALRIGHT, MR. UH, PLEASE, UH, START THE, UH, DISCUSSION.

[01:05:01]

YES, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS, UH, I THINK A GOOD DESIGN WITH REGARDS TO THE ROOF LAYOUT.

SO, SO IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL WATER.

UH, I GUESS MOVING TO THE SIDE PROPERTIES, UM, LOOKING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE ARE OTHER, UM, UM, ACCESSORY ING UNITS, UH, ESTABLISHED.

AND THEN ALSO BECAUSE OF THE PARTICIPATION, UH, WITH THE, UM, THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND, AND THEIR CONCURRENCE HERE IN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPERTY.

SO, AGAIN, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.

NOW, DR.

ZARAY, UM, I AGREE WITH MR. MANNA AND I JUST WANNA ADD THAT, UM, THE FOOTPRINT'S NOT EXPANDING.

THEY'RE SIMPLY KIND OF USING WHAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND, UM, AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO COME BACK THROUGH OUR, OUR BOARD BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING, JUST WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, THE RENOVATION AND THE, AND THE NEW, SOME OF THE NEW BUILDING, THE MOVING UP.

THE SECOND STORY, I'M JUST GONNA BE IN, IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS.

ANYONE ELSE? THAT BEING THE CASE? MONICA, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE CAP.

VOTE, VOTE PLEASE.

MR. THIEL.

MS. BRAGMAN.

DORIAN, YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

YES, MR. NEFF, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MR. VINO.

CASE B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4.

I DO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT BEING AN UNANIMOUS VOTE IN FAVOR.

UH, YOUR VARIANCE IS APPROVED.

PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS.

I'M GOING TO ALLOW A FIVE MINUTE BREAK RIGHT NOW FOR STAFF AND THE, UH, BOARD.

WE'RE BACK IN BUSINESS FOLKS.

LET'S CONTINUE.

[6. 19-7468 BOA-19-10300114: A request by Elbert Anthony Fuqua for a 4’11" variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow two new structures to be 1” from the east and west property line, located at 400 Montana Street. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 2) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW TWO NEW STRUCTURES TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT ALBERT ANTHONY FUCO.

ADDRESS, 400 MONTANA STREET ZONING I D C TWO A HHO.

HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD TWO NEW HOUSES ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINE.

THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND LOCATED ON A 2,300 SQUARE FEET LOT ON JUNE 6TH, UH, 2019, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TO I D C TWO A H O D INFIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH USES PERMITTED FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THE SITE PLAN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL REFLECTS A FIVE FOOT PARAMETERS SET BACK TO THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ADJACENT TO THE EAST TO UNDEVELOPED LOTS.

HERE IS A SIDE PLAN.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH, UM, ADJACENT VACANT LOTS.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING LOTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF ONE FOOT OF THE ONE OF THE FOUR FEET.

11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW TWO NEW STRUCTURES TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO, FOR THE TWO NEW STRUCTURES TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ONLY IN BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4.

BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE REQUEST CREATES UNSAFE FIRE PROTECTION DISTANCES.

A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ALLOW, ALLOWS DESTRUCTS TO BE EASILY FIRE RATED AND SAFE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS.

AND THREE, A ONE INCH SITE SETBACK ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE PROVIDES REASONABLE SPACE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURES DUE TO THE CORNER WITH ONE SITE ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

MALE 32 NOTICES.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALAMODOME GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO POSITION, AND NO COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

QUESTIONS ORIAN? GO AHEAD MR. ORIAN.

OKAY, SO

[01:10:01]

ON YOUR SITE PHOTOS, UH, THEY, THEY SHOW TWO OR THREE OR MAYBE MORE SIZABLE TREES THERE RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.

DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S WITHIN THIS PROPERTY OR WITHIN THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? UM, I WILL YIELD TO THE APPLICANT 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR THE PROPERTY LINE SIX EXPAND.

AND UH, SECONDLY, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED ON JUNE 19TH, UH, COUNSEL APPROVED AN I E Z TWO, UH, ZONING.

I I LOOKED THAT UP AND YOU'RE CORRECT.

THE SIDE PLAN DOES CALL FOR FIVE FEET AND ALSO CALLS FOR IT TO BE ADHERED TO THE SITE PLAN TO BE ADHERED TO.

BUT IT SEEMS FAIRLY RECENT.

UH, JUNE 19TH, IT, IT CALLED FOR TWO 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES.

DID THE APPLICATION TO STAFF FOR THIS CASE AND UH, PROVIDE THE SIZE OF HOMES BEING PROPOSED TO WHERE THEY THEY CAN ONLY ACHIEVE A ONE INCH SETBACK? UH, NO.

I WOULD TO THE APPLICANT ON THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE.

F WHAT IS THE PROCESS WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR I D Z IS ABANDONED OR MODIFIED LATER AS THIS IS BEING DONE? UM, IT IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS BASED ON HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

UM, SO THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE I D Z BASE ZONE, WHICH IS FIVE, FIVE AND FIVE.

IF THEY WANT TO LESSEN IT, THEY WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER, UH, RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

IF THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, BASE ZONING DISTRICT HAS A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, THEY WANNA ENCROACH INTO THAT SETBACK.

THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING AGAIN BECAUSE THAT IS A, A PART OF WHAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE PROJECT TO BE AS IT GOES THROUGH ZONING.

SO IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THAT'S KIND OF GETTING AN APPROVAL OFF OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE OR NO LONGER ADHERED TO.

THE ORDINANCE HAS, UH, CERTAIN MAJOR AMENDMENTS AND MINOR AMENDMENTS, UH, BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS STILL A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IN WHICH THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOTIFIED, UM, WHICH WERE NOTIFIED OF THE REZONING.

SO THAT WAY THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT.

REMEMBER, A UH, SITE PLAN THAT GOES TO ZONING IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.

UM, SOMETIMES THEY, AS THEY GET THROUGH, UH, TO THE ACTUAL BUILDING PROCESS, THINGS MAY CHANGE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY, SOME INDIVIDUALS HAVE TO PLAT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN OR IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

IF IT FITS WITHIN A MINOR AMENDMENT AND NOT A MAJOR AMENDMENT, MAJOR AMENDMENTS WOULD, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL.

BUT THIS IS NOT A MAJOR AMENDMENT, I GUESS BECAUSE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT I'M SEEING ARE A LOT OF PROJECTS GETTING I D Z AND THEN COMPLETELY CHANGING AFTER THEY RECEIVE THAT I D Z EVEN TO THE POINT OF SELLING THE PROPERTY FOR PROFIT BECAUSE IT NOW IS I D Z OR CHANGING THE TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN AS THIS ONE IS.

THE PREVIOUS I D Z UH, ZONING ORDINANCE WAS A LOT LOOSER.

THE NEW I D Z WITH THE, WITH THE THREE CATEGORIES IS A LOT MORE TIGHTER.

UH, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WHERE, UM, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THEY CAN ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACKS.

I'M GETTING OFF TRACK, BUT THESE HAVE ALL BEEN WITHIN THE NEW I D Z.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

MR, GO AHEAD AND ASK A QUESTION.

UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, MY COLLEAGUES, UH, PREVIOUS QUESTION, IS IT POSSIBLE DURING, FOR AN I ID Z TWO TO REQUEST ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE FEET AT CITY COUNCIL OR HERE, UH, AT CITY COUNCIL? BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I ASK IS IT IT APPEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, I GOT THE IMPRESSION HE WAS ASKING WHY IS HE COMING HERE INSTEAD OF GOING AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN.

BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO REQUEST LESS THAN FIVE FEET DURING AN ID.

COUNSEL ONLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO MORE RESTRICTIVE, NOT LESS RESTRICTIVE.

ONLY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO LESS RESTRICTIVE.

OKAY, THANK YOU MANNA.

SO, OKAY, MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD.

SO ON THE APPLICATION, IT, IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL ZONING ALLOWING FOR ZERO LOT LINE PER MUNI CODE, A E TWO CORNER LOT.

SO DOES THAT APPLY OR WEIGH INTO THE DIALOGUE, UM, THROUGH THE I D Z OR DOES THAT STILL HOLD OR IS THAT THE ZONING IS REALLY WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS THE LEGAL USES FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE SITE PLAN HELPS TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHERE THOSE USES GOING TO BE LOCATED.

BUT IF THEY SHOWED A SITE, IF THEY SHOWED A, A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE BASE DISTRICT, IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL.

THERE STILL IS THE SECOND STEP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT INDEPENDENTLY AN APPROVAL OF THE USES DOES NOT GUARANTEE AN APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.

[01:15:10]

ROLLING.

YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS, UH, FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.

WE'RE ANTHONY FUQUA, 8 1 7 POTOMAC THAT YOUR CASE, UM, AS HE, UM, MRNA HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID THE PROPERTY WAS, UM, ORIGINALLY ZONED AE TWO, UH, UPON ME ACQUIRING A PROPERTY.

AND DURING THE PLAN, UM, I REZONED IT TO I D Z TWO FOR, UH, UNIT COUNT ESSENTIALLY.

UM, UPON REZONING I WAS NOT AWARE THAT I HAD TO SPECIFY, UM, THE SETBACKS OR I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE I D Z WOULD WIPE OUT THE A E TWO USE.

SO PRE E TWO I ALREADY HAD THE ORIGINAL ESSENTIALLY ZERO LOT LINE TO WHICH WAS ALLOWED GOING TO I D Z TOOK THAT AWAY AND WENT TO FIVE FEET.

UM, I HAD ALREADY KIND OF DID THE PROJECT AND PLAN.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY OTHER OPTION TO WHICH I HAD AT THE TIME WAS TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UM, FOR I GUESS TO REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UM, SETBACKS, UM, TO WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOWED.

UM, I DON'T THINK, WELL NO, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE THAT.

THE, THE SITE WAS KIND OF, WHEN WE ARE DOING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

UM, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT, UM, WILL NOT BE ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINES.

UM, IN, IN REFERENCE TO THE NAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE AREA, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A HINDRANCE TO ANYONE OVER THERE OR ENCUMBRANCE IN ANY WAY.

THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, EAST OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT TO BE UM, PARKING FOR UM, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COMING IN THE AREA, WHICH WILL BE ON THE BACK THREE CORNER LOTS.

SO, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE IT AS IT BEING UM, UM, A HINDRANCE OR HURTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, AND OBVIOUSLY ON THE WEST SIDE THERE'S A STREET RIGHT THERE, SO THERE'S NO FIRE, FIRE ISSUE.

I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WITH THE SETBACK RULES GOING INSIDE THEM, UH, FIRE IS THE BIG ISSUE.

UM, BUT ON THE WEST SIDE, UM, AS STAFF RECOMMENDED, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO FUTURE HOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD SO IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE THERE.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD.

YES, UH, I WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW ABOUT THE TWO SIZABLE TREES THAT ARE APPARENTLY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.

OH YEAH.

UM, ACTUALLY IT'S JUST REALLY JUST ONE.

THOSE ARE ALL UNDERBRUSH, WHICH WILL STAY.

I KIND OF LIKE IT 'CAUSE IT KIND OF GIVES A BUFFER FROM WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND THE BIG ONE IN THE FRONT.

AND JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, EVERYTHING IS KIND OF LIKE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S KIND OF DEPENDENT UPON THE OWNERS, BUT THOSE ARE UNDERBRUSH, NOTHING BIGGER THAN PROBABLY FOUR INCHES.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE HUGE PEON IS PROTECTED AND THAT'LL STAY THERE.

SO THAT CAN'T BE TOUCHED AT ALL.

AND THEN YOU HAD MADE A STATEMENT THAT IN THE A E TWO THAT YOU HAD A ZERO LOT LINE, BUT I'M IN THE U D C AND IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT FRONT BUILDING SETBACK AND I'M TRYING TO FIND, UH, WHERE IT SAYS THERE'S NO SIDE SETBACK.

YEAH, IT'S, IT'S LIKE A LITTLE MATRIX DIAGRAM THAT THEY HAVE ON, UM, UNDER THE U D C AND UNDER IT SAYS ZERO OUTLINE AND THEN IT SAYS P FOR PERMITTED.

'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT SECTION THREE A TWO WHERE IT SAYS A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR BUILDING SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN THE A E TWO DISTRICT.

OH, I DON'T, I IS IS THERE, IS THAT THE DONALD, THE A AND E IS NO LONGER RELEVANT.

IT WAS REZONED TO I D Z TWO.

OH, I KNOW.

UH, BUT THE, THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING UP THAT THE AREA WAS, UH, PREDOMINANT FOR A ZERO LOT LINE.

I'M JUST INQUIRING AS WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A TRUE CONDITION OR NOT, ESPECIALLY IF THE NEIGHBOR IS STILL A E TWO.

DOES HE HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN.

IF IT'S PLATTED, IT STILL HAS TO BE PLATTED AS SUCH, UH, FOR A ZERO LOT LINE, BUT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THESE ARE PLATTED FOUR ZERO LOT LINE.

IT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S JUST A USE THAT'S A, IT'S AVAILABLE IN THE OLD, IN THE AE TWO.

YEAH, I'M, I'M REALLY TRYING TO FIND OUT ABOUT POTENTIAL FOR THE NEIGHBOR DEVELOPMENT TO SEE WHAT SORT OF CONFLICTS WOULD ARISE ANYONE ELSE.

UH, AND IN FACT THAT WAS ONE OF MY, UH, INTERESTS IN THIS BECAUSE, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE BASICALLY GOING FROM SIDE TO SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITH VERY, YOU CALL IT AN INCH, I CALL IT NOTHING.

AND WHAT IS, WHAT WOULD BE, IF THE NEXT NEIGHBOR WOULD TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING? WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE TO ROLL UH, UH, TOWN HALL, TOWN RULES OR WHATEVER THEY CALL THAT TOWN HOMES, UM, BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU'D HAVE AT LEAST A FIRE BREAK BETWEEN THE TWO.

UM, BUT, UM, TOWN HOMES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN, UH, ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENTS.

UH, TOWN, TOWN HOMES ARE ATTACHED ON BOTH SIDES TYPICALLY, AND

[01:20:01]

UH, BUT THE ZERO LOT LINE, AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A, A REPL PROCESS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE ZERO LOT LINE AND THE LOT ON THE, ON THE ADJACENT SIDE WOULD HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE STEPBACK, THERE'D BE A 10 FOOT SEPARATION.

UM, ON THE DRIVEWAY BEING ON MESQUITE STREET, WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEPTH OF THAT DRIVEWAY FOR THE CAR? SO IT DOES NOT BLOCK PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT COMES UP A LOT ON OUR BOARD IN DIFFERENT CASES.

AND I'M WONDERING DOES IT APPLY HERE? UH, THE, I THINK THE CODE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT, UH, GARAGE SETBACK FROM THE CURB, I BELIEVE IT IS.

OH NO.

FROM PROPERTY LINE.

FROM PROPERTY LINE TO THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE OVERRIDDEN BY THE I D C OR IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S, ACCORDING TO THIS DRAWING, I I D D DOESN'T HAVE THE SETBACK.

SO IT, IT OVERRIDES THAT GARAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE 20 FEET.

THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WAS A 2015 CODE AMENDMENT.

THESE STRUCTURES DO NOT COMPLY WITH OFF STREET PARKING.

THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FULL REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF STREET PARKING.

IDZ TWO ALLOWS A WAIVER OF 50%, WHICH MEANS THEY ONLY NEED ONE PARKING SPACE.

JUDGING BY THE, THE AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY, AND THIS IS ASSUMING THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY THAT A VEHICLE CAN PARK UNLESS IT MAY BE A SMART CAR.

UH, THERE'S NO PHYSICAL WAY ANY VEHICLE COULD BE ABLE TO PARK IN THAT PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY WITHOUT BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IN VIOLATION OF ANOTHER ORDINANCE.

I I I MEAN IS IT LEADING TO YOUR GARAGE'S? THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT A DRIVEWAY, THAT'S AN APPROACH THAT LEADS TO A GARAGE.

THERE'S OFF, THERE'S TWO THAT'S A TWO CAR GARAGE PARKING TO, WHICH WOULD BE IN EACH UNIT.

MY QUESTION WAS MORE ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE BECAUSE SO MANY TIMES PEOPLE DON'T PARK IN THE GARAGE OR THEY HAVE MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT THEY HAVE GARAGE SPACES AND THEY END UP BLOCKING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALKS.

AND THAT, THAT HAPPENS A LOT WITH THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT UP ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THAT WAS THE BASIS OF MY QUESTION.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE I D Z TWO? THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU FISHER.

MS. FISHER, GO AHEAD.

IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A, UM, ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY FOR BOTH UNITS? YES.

THERE'S GARAGES IN BOTH CASES? THAT'S CORRECT MA'AM.

OR YEAH, SO THE, THE I D Z SITE PLAN ALSO CALLS FOR EACH UNIT TO BE 1500 SQUARE FOOT, BUT WITH A 92 BY 25 FOOT LOT, THAT'S 2300 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE LOT.

ARE YOU DOING THREE STORIES ON THESE? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO YOU WANT ONE INCH OFF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FOR THREE STORIES? NO, I MEAN, REALLY HONESTLY, I DON'T TECHNICALLY NEED THE ONE INCH.

REALLY, THAT'S JUST ME GOING BACK TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.

UM, SO I'M JUST ESSENTIALLY REVERTING BACK TO THAT.

UM, I DON'T TECHNICALLY NEED ONE INCH, IT WON'T BE BUILT ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR SURE.

UM, I WAS JUST, I JUST ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS THERE BEFORE THEN, I MEAN IT GIVES ME WIGGLE ROOM IN THE SENSE OF THE, UM, THE FINAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

'CAUSE THESE ARE NOT, THIS IS JUST CONCEPTUAL.

SO, SO BASED ON WHAT, WHAT YOU, YOU WOULD, YOU COULD LIVE WITH, WHAT COULD YOU LIVE WITH AS FAR AS A SETBACK FROM THE SIDE? UM, I BELIEVE HONESTLY PROBABLY TWO FEET.

UM, TWO FEET WOULD WORK.

UM, ALSO STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED THE, UM, UH, ONE, ONE FOOT, ONE INCH OR GIVE ME THE, I APOLOGIZE, THE, THE VARIANCE TO THE FRONT STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER BUILDINGS THERE.

I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I MAJORITY OF THE TIMES IN THESE SETBACK SITUATIONS FIRES THE MAJOR ISSUE REALLY.

AND WITH NO OBVIOUSLY FUTURE CONSTRUCTION BEING DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF MESQUITE, UM, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE THERE, BUT, SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU COULD LIVE WITH TWO FEET ON EACH OF THESE SIDELINES? ACTUALLY I WOULD IF, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, IF I WOULD RATHER CHOOSE, I WOULD RATHER GO THE ROUTE OF, UM, STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THAT I COULD WORK WITH THAT.

UM, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? UM, I'M, I'M ASSUMING THIS, UM, ONE INCH VARIANCE WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ALL HO OVERHANGS, CORRECT? ON YOUR PARTICULAR STRUCTURE? UH, YES.

UH, YOU, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN BUILD OVER THE, UM, THE, YOU CAN'T BUILD OVERHANGS CANNOT GO.

NO, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY YES SIR, THAT THAT'S, NO.

SO YOUR TWO FOOT IS BASICALLY WHERE THE STRUCTURE SETS, NOT NECESSARILY WHERE THE OVERHANG ENDS.

SO THAT'S WHY THE ONE INCH IS BEING RECOMMENDED HERE.

YES, BECAUSE, AND ALSO IT'S ADJACENT TO THE STREET.

I'M JUST ASKING STAFF.

IS THAT THE REASON WHY THE ONE INCH WAS RECOMMENDED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OVERHANG?

[01:25:01]

I MEAN NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH SIDES STILL.

SO TO CLARIFY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ONE INCH ON THE STREET SIDE AND NO VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT ON THE INTERIOR? THAT'S CORRECT.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE MORE QUESTION.

YOU'RE PROPOSING THE BUILDINGS TO BE BASICALLY RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON MESQUITE STREET.

IS THERE ANY OTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT AROUND IN THIS AREA? 'CAUSE WHAT I SEE IN THE AERIAL MAPS WE HAVE IS THERE'S TYPICALLY 10 FOOT OR MORE SET BACK ON MANY OF THESE HOUSES ALL ALONG ALL THE STREETS, CORRECT? AS OF TO DATE, UM, THERE IS NONE, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT, PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE TO NINE.

UM, PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE AREA OF, OF DENVER HEIGHTS, UM, AREA ON PINE.

AND THAT WOULD BE RIGHT AT PINE AND MONTANA.

BETWEEN, EXCUSE ME, ON PINE, BETWEEN MONTANA AND WYOMING, THERE'S A PROJECT THERE.

RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY THREE STORE FOUR, THREE STORIES HIGH AND UM, THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINES THERE, BUT AN ALLEY BY MY HOUSE.

THEY'RE SET BACK 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT, FROM THE FRONT END, THE SIDE, THE SIDE WHERE THE ALLEY IS AT PINE FROM PINE.

AH, OKAY.

WELL THEN NO, UM, IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN NO, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF AS OF RIGHT NOW THAT'S VERY SIMILAR.

MAYBE NOT AS CLOSE, BUT VERY SIMILAR.

BUT THAT LOT ALSO IS NOT 20 FEET, 25 FEET WIDE, YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST ASKING BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY AND THIS IS MY COMMUNITY AND THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT RIGHT UP ON THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE STREETS.

UM, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT THERE ARE NO OTHER HOUSES ESSENTIALLY ON THAT, ON THAT STRETCH.

UM, RIGHT THERE.

I THINK IT'S THE ONE ACROSS ALL THE OTHER HOMES DO HAVE A LITTLE SETBACK, BUT IN THE SENSE OF THE BLOCK FACE RIGHT THERE, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE FIRST HOUSES THERE.

UM, IT WOULD, I THINK MORE SO THE, THE 25 FEET IS KIND OF WHAT KIND OF PUSHED THAT DI DIRECTION IN THE SENSE OF THE DESIGN.

, UH, WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? WE HAVE ONE SIGNED UP.

MELLEY, WE'LL NEED YOUR COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY.

LOTS AT 3 21 AND 3 23 MONTANA TO BUILD MORE RESTAURANTS AND THEN THE ALAMO DOME AGREEMENT WILL BE PARKING AND THE STUFF IN THE 400 BLOCK WILL BE PARKING.

DAVID MALLEY 3 0 2 MONTANA.

UM, A LOT OF WHAT TONY IS SAYING I THINK IS PERFECT FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S NOT THE SAME AS WHERE YOU LIVE ON DAKOTA.

UM, BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF MY FUTURE PLAN IS TO HAVE THE FIRST 300 BLOCK OF MONTANA BE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS.

AND IN THE 400 BLOCK OF MONTANA WHERE I HAVE MY LOTS TO EVENTUALLY BE PARKING LOTS, WHICH I HAVEN'T HIRED SOMEBODY TO COME DOWN AND REZONE 'EM YET BECAUSE I'M LOSING MONEY AT CHARITY BAR.

AND IT'S THE PROJECT THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD.

SO THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THIS ON MONTANA, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 4 0 2 MONTANA IS OWNED BY MAYBERRY.

HE'S OUT OF ST.

LOUIS AND CURRENTLY HIS NEPHEW USES IT FOR PARKING LOT.

AND I HAVE NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON TO EITHER BUY HIM OR DO A LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE TO MAKE THAT A PARKING LOT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REZONE IT.

THERE'S ONE LOT IN BETWEEN THAT, THAT I'M TRYING TO BUY.

AND THEN I OWN FOUR 14 MONTANA, WHICH WILL BE A PARKING LOT AND THEN SKIP TWO HOUSES, TWO MORE PARKING LOTS ACROSS THE STREET ON MONTANA AND HACKBERRY ANOTHER PARKING LOT.

THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON MESQUITE WHERE HE WANTS TO DO THIS.

HE IS THE ONLY HOUSE EXCEPT FOR COTTON WHO OWNS THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF HIM.

THAT FRONTS MESQUITE.

ALL THE OTHER ONES FACE MONTANA OR FACE KANSAS.

EVEN WHEN YOU GO DOWN, YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN ANOTHER HALF BLOCK AND THEN THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

SO HE STILL IS PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF A SETBACK FROM MONTANA WITH HIS 10 FEET BUFFER.

THE HOUSES NEXT TO MY LOTS AT 3 21 AND 3 23 MONTANA I BELIEVE ACTUALLY HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE ALREADY ON THE WEST SIDE.

UM, THE HOUSE ADJACENT TO CHARITY BAR, WHICH IS 3 0 2 MONTANA, 3 0 4 AND THREE 10.

THE NEXT ONE UP TO THE EAST MAYBE HAS A FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN US.

SO THE EXISTENCE OF THIS FIVE FOOT BETWEEN HOUSES DOESN'T REALLY EXIST OVER THERE.

I JUST HAD MY 3 22 MONTANA HOUSE, WHICH IS ONLY TWO AWAY FROM HIM RESURVEYED, AND IT MIGHT BE ABOUT A THREE AND A HALF FOOT, UM, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR'S LOT.

SO THERE'S NO CONSISTENCY THERE, BUT THE HOUSES BEHIND HIM OR THE LOTS BEHIND HIM WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY A THREE STORY HOUSE ON THE ONE INCH BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE PARKING LOTS.

IF I HAVE MY WAY AND I'M, I'M GONNA GIVE UP MY PARKING

[01:30:01]

EVERYTHING ACROSS THE STREET IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING THERE EXCEPT THE LAST LOT TO THE EAST AT HACKBERRY.

SO I THINK THAT IT'S A SPECIAL SITUATION HERE BECAUSE HE'S PART OF 30 SECONDS.

THE MONTANA STREET DINING DISTRICT, THIS IS NOT SOMEBODY THAT'S PLOPPING SOMETHING DOWN AND MOVING ON.

HE'S ACTUALLY IS PROBABLY GONNA BE LIVING IN ONE OF THESE TWO HOUSES ALSO.

HE'S DONE STUFF NEXT TO MY 1739 EAST CROCKETT HOUSE.

BEAUTIFUL PROJECTS.

GOOD DEVELOPER.

I WANT HIM IN THAT AREA.

UH, THAT'S IT FOR WITNESSES.

THAT'S IT.

NOW YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT OR JUST ENJOY WHAT HE JUST EXPLAINED.

UH, AND I THAT NOT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS, UH, TO THE PUBLIC AND I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THIS PROJECT.

WANT TO READ IT? ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD.

REGARDING, AND I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA SWITCH THIS UP A LITTLE BIT, SO JUST KIND OF CHECK THIS OUT.

REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 104, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THIS, FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND GRANT A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW TWO NEW STRUCTURES TO BE AS CLOSE AS ONE INCH FROM THE WEST SIDE AND THREE FEET ON THE EAST SIDE.

PROPERTY LINES SITUATED AT 400 MONTANA STREET, APPLICANT BEING ALBERT ANTHONY FUQUA.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE MAINTAINING AND ADDING RESIDENTIAL USES.

TWO DUE DO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

THE SPECIAL CONDITION PRESENT IN THIS CASE IS THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS EFFICIENTLY, LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THAT THE NE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY MAINTAINING AND ADDING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY.

FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR, FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS LOCATED.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING.

DISTRICT.

SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.

SIX.

THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR OF THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF THAT GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED.

THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE APPLICANT PLANS TO REDUCE THE SIDE SET MAX ON BOTH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS MORE THAN ENOUGH SPACE FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND A MOTION.

THAT WAS YOU, MR. TEO.

MS. DOER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? SURE.

UH, I READ THE MOTION IN THAT MANNER BECAUSE, UH, IT APPEARS THAT MESQUITE IS NOT GOING TO BE, UH, A STREET THAT IS TO BE ENLARGED.

THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM BETWEEN HIS PROPERTY LINE AND THE CURB FACE TO GO DOWN TO ONE OF STAFF.

UH, UH, PART OF THEIR ALTERNATE RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION.

ON THE EAST SIDE, I WENT TO THREE FEET BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WALL THICKNESSES AND ADEQUATELY HAVE A VEHICLE EXIST WITHIN THE GARAGE.

AND I FELT SINCE A LOT OF, UH, THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN, A THREE FOOT SETBACK WAS NORMAL.

AND THE TESTIMONY FROM, UM, UH, THE, THE WI THE SECOND WITNESS, UH, TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE A LOT OF PARKING LOTS NEXT DOOR, I FELT COMFORTABLE GOING DOWN TO THREE FEET.

UM, AND AS HE GOES THROUGH CONSTRUCTION, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, HE'D HAVE TO FIRE RATE THE WALL ANYWAY.

SO THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, MR. THIEL, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, ALTERNATIVE MOTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE MADE.

UM, I'M ALSO VERY FAMILIAR WITH MR. FUQUAS WORK.

I KNOW HE'S A, A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPER AND, UH, THE INCREASE IN DENSITY I, I THINK IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO GIVE THEIR INPUT ON BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.

MONICA.

MR. ORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS

[01:35:01]

OF FACT.

MR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.

MR. BRITTON? YES.

MR. NEFF? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR.

MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR.

MR. VINA? YES, I CONCUR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, BO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 8.

I ALSO DO NOT CONCUR.

UH, HOWEVER THE MOTION DOES PASS.

UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND, UH, CONTINUE YOUR PROCESS.

GOOD LUCK WITH IT.

GET ON THE NEXT ONE.

[7. 19-7470 BOA-19-10300108: A request by Daniel Moreno for 1) a 6’ variance from the 20’ rear setback requirement to allow a new house to be 14’ away from the rear property line, 2) a 4” variance from the 20’ garage setback requirement to allow a garage to be 19’6” from the property line, located at 6358 Hazel Valley Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 4) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207-5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

A REQUEST FOR ONE, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A NEW HOUSE TO BE 14 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

AND TWO, A FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 19 FEET, EIGHT INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THE APPLICANT IS DANIEL MORENO.

THE PROPERTY ADDRESS 63 58 HAZEL VALLEY DRIVE, ZONING R FIVE M L L D TWO M L R ONE A H O T.

THE AERIAL MAP, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TWO VARIANCES, THE REAR SETBACK AND THE REQUIRED GARAGE SETBACK AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE PROPERTY DOES BACK TO RAY ELLISON BOULEVARD AND HAS A STEEP INCLINE AT THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE PEOPLE ACTIVE IN COMMUNITY EFFORT, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND A NEW SUBDIVISION.

THE SITE PLAN AND ON THE VERY TOP OF THAT SITE PLAN IS THE REAR, AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT IS THE FRONT SETBACK.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCES IN BO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 8.

BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE VARIANCE WILL STILL ALLOW APPROPRIATE SPACE FOR WATER RUNOFF MAINTENANCE AND FIRE SAFETY.

THE GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE WILL NOT AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

WE MAILED 24 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI ASSOCIATION AS STATED BEFORE.

ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I WILL OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS.

IAN.

SO, UM, RAY ELLISON BOULEVARD ON THE AERIAL, IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS MORE DISTANCE FROM THIS SUBJECT PROPERTIES, UH, THE NORTH SIDE OF RAY ELLISON FROM THE CURB TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE THAN IT IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET.

UH, WAS THAT A, UH, WOULD THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REQUEST? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE OFFSET SIMILAR TO WHAT IT WOULD BE IF THEY HONOR THE SETBACK ON THE REAR.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE FACT THAT THE YEAH, I GO TO THE AERIAL PLEASE.

IT DOES SKEW.

I MEAN, IT APPEARS THAT WITH THE, WITH THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN IN YELLOW THAT IT'S SKEWED FIVE FEET.

THE STREET IS NOT TRULY IN THE CENTER OF THE A HUNDRED FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S FIVE FEET IN THE FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THE HOUSE DOES NOT SIT SQUARE WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.

IT SITS A LITTLE ASKEW.

ARE THERE UTILITY LINES ON THAT SIDE OF RAY ELLISON OVERHEAD LINES THAT YOU OBSERVED? YES, THEY WERE.

AND YOU WERE THEY, WERE THEY WERE THE POLES IN RELATION TO THE SIDEWALK OR ARE THEY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE? UM, I BELIEVE THEY WERE CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK, BUT LET ME, YEAH.

THERE YOU CAN SEE.

OF, AND ALSO THE BUILDER.

ANYONE ELSE FOR STAFF? NONE BEING THE CASE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME'S DANIEL MORENO.

THANK YOU FOR MEETING ME TODAY.

UM, LIKE IT WAS EXPLAINED, UM, I'M THE DESIGNER

[01:40:01]

I HELPED THE BUILDER ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

SO WE DID THE VERY BEST.

WE, FIRST OF ALL, WE RESPECTED THE, THE ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS, UH, FRONT A REAR.

AND, UH, WE WORKED, UH, DUE DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO WORK WITH THE SLOPE AND THE WAY THE, UH, PROPERTY IS OBSCURED.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I HAD A BUNCH OF, UH, A TASK TO COMPLETE THAT THIS IS THE VERY BEST THAT WE CAME OUT WITH.

UM, AND I ALSO PAID RESPECT WITH ALL THE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ALL THE, THE REAR FACE OF THE PROPERTIES, UM, SINCE IT'S A BUSY STREET.

AND I WENT WITH THAT, UH, THAT I KNEW I COULD SEEK A VARIANCE.

IT WAS, WOULD BE TO THE OWNER'S FAVOR.

UM, SO IT DOES, WHEN YOU SEE IT, WHEN YOU PHOTOGRAPH AND YOU'RE DRIVING, IT IS IN ALL ALIGNMENT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, SINCE IT'S AT AN AN ANGLE, IT, IT, IT, IT, IT IS, AS WEIRD AS IT SOUNDS, IT'S NOT AN ILLUSION, BUT IT IS LINED UP WITH THE REAR OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, AND THAT HAVING BEEN ALSO ONE STORY.

SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S SINCE IT'S THE, THE RESIDENCE HAS DROPPED DOWN BECAUSE IT'S ONE STORY.

UM, SO IT'S STILL MAINTAINING THE SPIRIT AND THE FEEL OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL, THAT WILL BE UPCOMING.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER FOUR LOTS OR SO ADJACENT TO US.

AND SAME GOES AS FAR AS THE FRONT FACADE OR THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE.

IT JUST DUE TO THE WAY THE ANGLE IS THE, THOSE SIX INCHES.

I MEAN, YOU REALLY CAN'T, UNLESS YOU TAKE A LASER BEAM, YOU'LL KNOW.

BUT I'VE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS AND, YOU KNOW, UH, THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY, UH, ISSUES WITH THAT AT ALL, YOU KNOW, AND I LEAVE IT AT THAT.

ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I BELIEVE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.

GOOD DEAL.

DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? NOBODY SIGNED UP.

UM, SINCE THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, YOU MAY HAVE IT BE SEATED.

AND WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PO.

THANK YOU MARIA.

I WAS GONNA DO THE MOTION.

APPLICANT BEING DANIEL MORENO.

REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A NEW HOUSE TO BE 14 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND A FOUR INCH YEAH.

FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE 19 FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 6 3 5 8 HAZEL VALLEY DRIVE.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT INJURE THE, THE RIGHTS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED GARAGE AND REAR PORTION OF THE HOME, WHICH WOULD BE AN EXTREME HARDSHIP.

THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE PRE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE, THE ORDINANCE.

THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRESPASS OR ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY AND INSURED PROPERTY OR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.

ALL OF THESE INTENTS WILL STILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.

FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS LOCATED.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY ZONING.

DISTRICT 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.

THESE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.

SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT

[01:45:01]

DUE TO OR RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE UNIQUE SITUATION EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE ODD SHAPE OF THE LOT, WHICH LIMITS THE HOUSE DESIGN AND A MOTION.

SECOND? SECOND.

A SECOND.

A QUESTION ON THE MOTION ALSO.

OH.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

LET'S, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? JUST THAT, UH, ON THE GARAGE SETBACK ISSUE, THE MOTION IS 19 SIX WITH A FOUR INCH VARIANCE, WHICH DOESN'T ADD UP.

AND ON THE SCREEN IT'S 19 EIGHT WITH A FOUR INCH VARIANCE, WHICH DOES ADD UP.

BUT THE SITE PLAN SHOWS 19 SIX.

SO WE NEED TO CLARIFY.

WELL, THE VARIANCE IS GONNA ALLOW THE DISTANCE MAXIMUM FABLE BENEATH THAT.

THAT'S NOT MUCH OF AN ISSUE.

UH, SO, BUT IF THE VARIANCE IS FOR FOUR INCHES AND THEY NEED SIX INCHES, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE STATED CORRECTLY.

IT SHOULD READ FOUR INCHES.

IT'S, UM, FORGIVE ME, IT SHOULD BE EIGHT, NOT SIX.

THERE'S A TYPE ONE, THE, THE MOTION, BUT THE SITE PLAN SHOWS 19 FOOT SIX TO THE GARAGE.

WHAT WAS IT? WHAT WAS ADVERTISED? 19 SIX WAS ADVERTISED.

OKAY, LET'S MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE ADVERTISED NUMBER.

WOULD THAT COMPLY WITH THE ISSUE? SO I'D MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT A SIX FOOT, OR SORRY, A SIX INCH VARIANCE FOR A 19 FOOT SIX DISTANCE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

I BELIEVE MS. CRUZ WILL, WILL ACCEPT THAT.

YES, THEY WILL.

ALRIGHT, SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE TAKEN A VOTE ON THAT.

SO, UH, THAT IS THE NEW MOTION THAT WAS ADVERTISED.

IT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.

SO YOUR, YOU SECOND CORRECT OF THAT? I SECOND MY OWN FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, YES.

I WILL APPROVE THIS, UH, VARIANCE, UH, BECAUSE I THINK WITH THE, THE HOME, THE WAY IT'S BEING BUILT AND BECAUSE OF THE ODD SHAPE, THIS WILL BE A PERFECTLY GOOD SITUATION FOR THAT.

NOW, MR. NEFF? I, I AGREE.

I THINK IT'S AN ODD SHAPED LOT AND THERE'S STILL SOME SPACE AROUND THE EDGES.

IT'S NOT RIGHT UP ON PROPERTY LINES, SO I CAN APPROVE IT.

ANY OTHER INPUT ON BEING THE CASE? THIS MONICA, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE ROLL COUNT ON THE VOTE.

MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.

MR. NEFF.

MR. ORIAN.

MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. MANNA.

MS. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

PLEASE GET WITH STAFF FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT.

LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT CASE.

IS UH, ANY REQUESTS FROM THE BENCH FOR ANY TIME? NONE.

OKAY,

[8. 19-7473 BOA-19-10300113: A request by Joe Gutierrez for a 4’ variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow an attached addition to be 1’ from the side property line, located at 10111 Cedarvale Drive. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 4) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207-5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

CASE BO A 1 9 103 0 0 1 1 3.

A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

THE APPLICANT IS JOE GUTIERREZ.

THE PROPERTY IS TEN ONE ONE ONE CEDAR VALE DRIVE AND ZONING IS R FIVE M L O D TWO MLR ONE A H O D LOCATION MAP.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING ATTACHED STRUCTURE.

THE APPLICANT STATES THE STRUCTURE IS 616 SQUARE FEET, THE SECOND AND IS THE SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALONG WITH A SMALLER SHED IN THE REAR YARD, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BACKS TO A CREEK.

THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDED ON ALL OTHER SIDES BY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING FIGHT.

PLAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SIDE YARD

[01:50:05]

ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

FAF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE BO A 1 9 103 0 0 1 1 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE EASILY MAINTAINED WITHOUT TRESPASSING ON THE NEIGHBORING PROP NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

THE EXISTING ADDITION IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT DETRACTS FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE MAILED 25 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

QUESTIONS ORIAN OREN, GO AHEAD.

SO, UM, I, I KNOW WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT A SETBACK, BUT THE AERIAL PHOTOS SHOW AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF STRUCTURES.

IS THERE A SQUARE FOOTAGE VIOLATION IN, IN ANY OF THIS? UH, AND SECONDLY, IF, IF FOR, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, DOES THIS, DOES THE CITY HAVE A PROCESS TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO USE, UH, A CREEK AREA TO ACCESS THE RIVER OF THEIR YARD FOR MAINTENANCE? THE, WELL, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE SIDE YARD, SO THE CREEK WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE FOR THIS.

WELL, I'M, WELL I'M ASKING BECAUSE IF THIS WAS APPROVED, IT'S BLOCKING, UH, THAT SHED IS BLOCKING ALL ACCESS TO THE REAR YARD TO THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BACK THERE.

AND SO, UM, IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW ANY SORT OF MAINTENANCE COULD, COULD EVER GET TO THE REAR YARD SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE CHOKING OFF THAT ACCESS.

THERE'D BE NO ACCESS FROM THE CREEK FOR SURE.

IT'S NOT A ALLEYWAY OR ANY KIND OF PUBLIC ACCESS.

AND IS, AND IS THERE A SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION ON THE PROPERTY THAT THIS SHED IS CONTRIBUTING TO OF IMPERVIOUS COVER? WELL, THE U D C ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT NOT MORE THAN 50% OF SID AND REAR YARD BE COVERED WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT AN AERIAL.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ROOFTOPS ON, ON THIS PROPERTY.

THAT'S ALL.

THE FIRST ROOFTOP BEHIND THE STRUCTURE IS THEIR CARPORT TO THE HOUSE AND THEN THAT SHED TO THE BACK ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THEN THE SHED ON THE FRONT.

BUT THAT BACK ONE IS, UH, IS THE PORCH, UH, OVERHANG FOR THE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE HOUSE.

COMPLIMENTED BY THE ENTIRE STREET AND UH, THERE IS ACCESS TO THE CREEK.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD PLEASE.

MY NAME'S JOE GUTIERREZ AND THIS IS MY SPOUSE, ADE GUTIERREZ.

WE'VE BEEN MARRIED 35 YEARS, HAVE GOT FOUR, FOUR GIRLS THROUGH COLLEGE.

I GO OVER ALL AIRCRAFT FOR 32 YEARS AND I'M 100% DISABLED VA, AND 100% DISABLED.

SOCIAL SECURITY.

I BUILT THE STRUCTURE WITH A BROTHER-IN-LAW, UH, 10 PUT BY 44 TO REHABILITATE, UM, IN THE PROCESS AND MAYBE AMPUTATING BOTH LEGS.

UM, MY BOTH ANKLES, KNEE RECONSTRUCTION, BOTH KNEES NEED REPLACING L THREE, FOUR AND FIVE KNEE SURGERY AND BOTH SHOULDERS ARE RUPTURED.

I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING BUT EARNED MONEY TO PUT MY FOUR GIRLS THROUGH COLLEGE AND NOW I NEED THAT SHED TO REHABILITATE.

UH, THERE IS ACCESS FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK.

UH, THERE'S 2020, I THINK 20 FEET FROM THAT END OF MY SHED TO THE NEXT HOME.

UH, NORMALLY SOMETIMES THERE'S VEHICLES GOING BACK THERE.

UH, I BUILT THAT ENTIRE FENCE AND THE OTHER DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE FRONT, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY.

UM, UH, I REQUEST IF I CAN GET THAT DONE, UH, APPROVED.

I GOT 21 RESIDENT RESIDENTS ALL AROUND THE STREET.

UM, I WOULD SAY WITHIN 300 FEET.

UH, THE REASON WHY DIDN'T, NOBODY RESPONDED TO IT BECAUSE THEY ONLY THOUGHT IF IT, IF THEY HAD TO OPPOSE IT, THEY GOTTA RESPOND TO IT.

SO NOBODY SENT IT IN.

THE ONLY ONE RESIDENT IS 1 1 8 1 0 1 1 8.

AND I TALKED TO MIKE AND MIKE WOULD NOT SIGN MY, MY BOOK AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HIS WIFE DIED JUST HERE.

AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONDOLENCES WITH AND TRY TO HELP HIM IN ANY WAY.

BUT HE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, UM, I'M REQUESTING IF I CAN GET, KEEP THAT, THAT SHED UP IT, IT'S ALREADY BUILT, UM, ALREADY BOARD AND ALL FRONT AND BACK.

UM, MY HOUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN

[01:55:01]

THE ALSO IS A WALK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND IT IS THIS TWO STORY HOME.

I HAVE ALL APPROPRIATE LETTERS THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED TO FIND OR RETURN INTO THE BOARD IF NECESSARY.

YOU, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. ORIAN? YOU KIND OF BROUGHT ONE UP I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

NO.

YEAH, SO, UM, THERE'S LIMITATIONS OF HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CAN HAVE.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT AN AERIAL, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF ROOFTOP COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR SHED, AND ITS FOUR FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, IS CONTRIBUTING TO AN, TO AN, UM, AN AUTHORIZED EXCESS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND SO I'VE, I'M, AND THERE'S A CONCERN FOR, WITH, WITH ME REGARDING FIRE UH, PROTECTION AND ACCESS TO THE REAR STRUCTURES IN THE BACK.

SO THIS SEEMS TO BE CLOSING IT OFF.

SO YOU HAD JUST MENTIONED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS A WAY TO GET TO THE BACKYARD AND CAN YOU, UH, EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THIS, IF ONE OF YOUR STRUCTURES WAS ON FIRE OR SOMETHING IN THE REAR, HOW WOULD, UH, AN EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL ACTUALLY ACCESS THE REAR YARD WITH THE SHED BEING PRESENT? THERE'S A ON THE, WELL, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY YOU SAW ON THE LEFT SIDE, THERE IS A SIDEWALK THAT, SO LIKE WHERE THE RED TRUCK IS AT, AT FROM THE, UH OH, OKAY.

YEAH, THERE'S A, THERE WAS A GREEN VEHICLE ON MY STREET VIEW.

OH, IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, BUT THERE YOU GO.

SO LIKE, YEAH, SO THE, SO THE HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND THE HOUSE, THAT'S THE CARPORT.

I MEAN, NOT A CARPORT, A PATIO DRIVEWAY THAT WE GAVE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE BEING THE CASE.

ARE THERE WITNESSES ON THIS PARTICULAR? NOBODY SIGNED UP.

NO ONE SIGNED UP.

THAT'S A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION.

UM, ONE MORE, ONE MORE THING I HAD TO SAY WAS THAT AS FAR AS FIRE, UM, FROM WHERE OUR SHED IS AT ONE FOOT FROM OUR PROPERTY, BUT THE NEXT HOUSE IS AT LEAST ABOUT TWO, LIKE THAT HOUSE NEXT TO US, OTHER TWO STORY HOUSE ALSO RECOMMENDING OF A, OF SECTION 35 42 ZONING VARIANCES.

IT, IT COULD GO TO SECTION H FOR, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR FIVE QUESTIONS.

AND ALL NEIGHBORS HAD NO PROBLEM.

EVERYBODY KNOWS ME.

THERE ARE, ARE YOU SUBMITTING THIS AS DOCUMENTATION FOR YOUR REQUEST? YES.

I HAD ALREADY ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU PRESENT TO THE BOARD MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF FOR DUPLICATION OR TO BE ADDED TO THE FILE.

ARE YOU SURRENDERING THAT DOCUMENTATION NOW? YES.

'CAUSE WE WENT, WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT, WELL, WHEN WE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, UH, WE WENT SATURDAY AND SUNDAY TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS AND UM, THEY THOUGHT THAT IF THEY DIDN'T ANSWER THAT THEY WERE NOT OPPOSE YOU.

HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE NO CHECKS AS IN ONLY A NEGATIVE.

THE OTHER NEGATIVE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE IS, IS THE POSITION OF THE STAFF IN, IN REQUEST FOR DENIAL AND THOSE PARTICULAR POINTS OR SOMETHING THAT I, I DON'T THINK HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED YET.

UM, COULD THE STAFF RE UH, RESTATE THOSE REASONS FOR DENIAL? IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITION, IT CANNOT BE EASILY MAINTAINED WITHOUT TRESPASSING ON NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT? WELL, ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE ADDITION IS AT, WE HAVE, UH, PUT ROCK SO THAT NO GRASS IS GONNA GROW THERE, ISN'T IT? I MEAN HOW FAR, HOW MUCH DISTANCE IS GOING BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE? A FOOT AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE WALL ON THAT PARTICULAR SIDE ADJACENT TO THAT ROCK? WHAT IS THAT MATERIAL? ONE FOOT OF PARTY BOARD GOING ALL THE WAY.

ON 40 FOOT FEET.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.

AND, AND FROM THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S STRUCTURES? OKAY, SO IF YOU COULD GET PERMISSION, OF COURSE ONE FOOT MIGHT BE ADEQUATE, BUT IF YOU COULD GET PERMISSION, THEY WOULDN'T BE ANY, UH, IN, UH, HAZARDS THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS.

OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT'S A VERY PRETTY GOOD RESPONSE.

NOW THE OTHER REASON WAS, UM, THE EXISTING ADDITION IS IN CONTRARY IN THAT IT DISTRACTS FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.

UM,

[02:00:03]

HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT IT MAY BE THAT, UH, UM, THE ISSUE OF LARGE STRUCTURE AND, AND YOU SAY YOU'RE GONNA USE THIS FOR WHAT PURPOSE? REHABILITATION, SIR.

UH, FOR MY PROB MY ISSUES THAT I HAVE GOING ON.

I ALSO WAS A AIRCRAFT MECHANIC OF COURSE.

AND I GOT LIKE FIVE HUMONGOUS TOOLBOX ANCA AS WELL.

OKAY, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

DOES ANY, SINCE I HAVE BROUGHT UP THESE ISSUES, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE UH, UH, THING THAT SEEMS TO BE COVERING THE BOAT, THE ADD-ON.

UH, DID WE GET A PERMIT FOR THAT? UM, UH, FOR THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY, SIR? YES.

THE DRIVEWAY, WE HAVE A PERMIT AND THE FENCE STAFF.

HOW ABOUT THE ADDITION THAT WE DON'T WHAT APPEAR TO BE A CARPORT? YEAH, YEAH.

NO, THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PERMIT.

THE BUILDING 44 BY 10.

I'M REQUESTING A PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING TALK TO THEM UP FRONT AND YES SIR, I DID, I DID JUMP THE GUN AND MAKE THIS BUILDING BEFORE I REQUEST A PERMITS.

THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, THERE WERE PERMITS PULLED IN 2003 FOR THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THAT FRONT YARD FOR 1200 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET.

SO IT WAS PULLED APPROPRIATELY IN, IN 2003.

UM, IT WAS ALSO INSPECTED AND IT ALL PASSED BACK THEN.

AND I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE BLUE STRUCTURE ON TOP OF THE BOAT IS PART OF THE BOAT.

IT'S NOT A SEPARATE STRUCTURE.

THE STRUCTURE ON TOP OF THE BOAT, THAT'S THE BLUE METAL STRUCTURE IS PART OF THE BOAT.

IT'S NOT A, A STANDING STRUCTURE CANVAS IN THE UH, ORIAN.

SO, UH, YOU, YOU HAD SAID IT'S ALSO A MAN CAVE IN ADDITION TO BEING A SHED.

DOES THAT MAKE IT SOMETHING MORE THAN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR DOES THAT MAKE IT AN ADDITION TO THE HOME? NO, IT WAS BASICALLY IT WAS BEING USED AS A STORAGE.

THERE WAS NO RESTROOMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

UM, BUT IT WAS CONNECTED TO THE HOME ITSELF.

AND IS THERE A GARAGE STYLE DOOR ON THE FRONT OF IT FACING THE STREET OR JUST A REGULAR DOOR ON THE FRONT? THERE'S NO GARAGE DOOR.

NO, NO, THERE'S, UH, TWO DOORS IN THE BACK OF THAT, OF THAT BUILDING.

AND IS THERE A A DO YOU, I CAN'T TELL, BUT IS THERE A GUTTER ON ON THAT SIDE FOR, FOR DRAINAGE FIRED? I'LL PUT A GUTTER AS WELL.

YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT HAS A SLIGHT PITCH TO IT AND I WAS, I WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW IF ANY WATER WOULD FALL INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.

NO, IT DRAINS PROPERLY WITHOUT A GUTTER RIGHT NOW DOWN AND THEN, AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE ROCK, IT'S ACTUALLY AN ISSUE WITH THAT DITCH.

ALL THE WATER COMES FROM THE STREET ART AND INTO THAT DITCH.

WHEN WE PUT THE SECOND DRIVEWAY, WE DID PUT A PIPE UNDERNEATH IT TO HELP THE DRIVEWAY.

THERE IS A PIPE UNDERNEATH THERE TO HELP IT GO.

CAN YOU SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC SO WE CAN PICK UP THE AUDIO? I'M SORRY.

UM, ON WHEN WE DID THE SECOND DRIVEWAY, WE DID PUT A PIPE UNDERNEATH THE DRIVEWAY TO HELP IT FROM OUR FRONT YARD TO GO TO THAT LITTLE, UH, ONE FOOT WHERE WE HAVE THE ROCK.

SO YOU, THIS, UH, PIPE RUNS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH THE FENCE AND THEN IT DISCHARGES INTO THE ONE FOOT AREA BETWEEN THE SHED AND THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEN IT TRAVELS OVER ROCK TO GET TO THE REAR CREEK, CORRECT? YEAH.

'CAUSE OUR FRONT YARD WILL FLOOD WHEN IT RAINS AND IT'S ONLY OUR FRONT YARD.

SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT THAT PIPE UNDERNEATH THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM THE FRONT DOOR.

THE WATER LINE WILL BE THERE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE, THE OTHER CURB ON JUST TO HELP IT FROM MAKING OUR FRONT YARD FLOOD.

OTHER QUESTIONS? NO WITNESSES.

I'M GONNA CLO NOBODY SIGNED UP.

ALRIGHT THEN I'M CLOSING THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

PLEASE HAVE A SEAT AND, UM, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

ANYONE WISH, WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ORIAN? MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD.

REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 0 1 1 1 CEDAR VALE DRIVE.

APPLICANT BEING JOE GUTIERREZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE ADDITION DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

THE ADDITION IS ABUTTED BY A PRIVACY FENCE THAT SCREENS THE ADDITION FROM VIEW TWO.

DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT

[02:05:01]

IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE ADDITION, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW.

THE ADDITION IS NOT OVERWHELMING IN SIZE COMPARED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND IS HIDDEN FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY VIEW DUE TO THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.

FOUR.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.

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.

THE VARIANCE TO THE ADDITION IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES.

THE ADDITION IS LOCATED BEHIND A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND THERE IS SPACE FOR WATER RUNOFF AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE WITHOUT INTRUDING ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

SIX.

THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH, IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THAT THE ADDITION IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

THANK YOU, MR. MANNA.

MR. ORIENT, CAN YOU PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION? SURE.

UM, OOH, THIS ONE'S TOUGH BECAUSE THERE, THERE'S, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY STRUCTURE IS 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE FENCE.

UH, I'M SORRY.

FROM THE, FROM THIS, THE SHED IN QUESTION, WHICH IS GREAT.

UH, THERE'S ALSO, UH, A CREEK IN THE REAR, SO THERE'S NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE REAR TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

UM, IT IS DONE WITH HARDY PLANK AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND HAPPY WITH HIM, WITH ONE BEING OPPOSED, BEING ACROSS THE STREET.

SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE UNLESS I GET, UM, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES TO, UH, STATE SOMETHING THAT CHANGES MY MIND.

MR. MANO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE.

I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AS WELL.

THAT I THINK THAT, UH, THIS SPACE THERE IS, IS ADEQUATE.

UM, YES, THEY'RE VERY GOOD.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD SOME INPUT TO THIS PARTICULAR ONE APPLICATION THEN BEING THE CASE THEN? MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE.

MR. ORIAN.

MR. TEAL.

I DO NOT CONCUR.

OKAY, LET'S GO ON CASE B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 9.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.

THE MOTION DOES PASS NINE TO TWO.

UH, YOU PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, UH, FOR THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REST OF THE CODES AND, UH, THE PROCESS OF, OF PERMITTING APPROPRIATELY.

OKAY? SO, UH, UM, AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK DOES ANYONE NEED A, A SHORT BREAK OR NOT? NONE.

[9. 19-7471 BOA-19-10300109: A request by Florabella Castillo for 1) a 4’11” variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 1” from the east property line, 2) a 2’ variance from the 10’ front setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 8’ from the north property line, and 3) a special exception to allow a wrought iron fence to be 6’ tall in the front yard, located at 1544 West Agarita Avenue. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 4) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207-5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE EAST PROPERTY.

LINE TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE EIGHT FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

AND THREE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A ROT IRON FENCE TO BE SIX FEET TALL ON THE FRONT YARD.

THE APPLICANT IS FLO BELLA CASTILLO, 1544 WEST AGARITA AVENUE.

THE ZONING IS R SIX UC, THREE A H O D.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO KEEP A CARPORT AND FRONT FENCE AS CONSTRUCTED.

THE CARPORT IS BUILT ENTIRELY OF METAL AND THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IS MADE OF WRT IRON.

DURING THE FIELD VISIT, THERE WAS NO GUTTER BUT THE NEIGHBOR DID STATE

[02:10:01]

THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A STREET WITH OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE CARPORT, UM, MEASURING FROM THE CARPORT POST, WHICH IS NOT WHAT'S PICTURED TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHAT'S PICTURED THAT POST IS THE FENCE POST ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THE STREET VIEW F RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF ONE OF FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE VARIANCE IN B A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS PRESENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF REQUESTED VARIANCE OF A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE OF THE CARPORT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO MITIGATE STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ADEQUATELY PREVENT FIRE SPREAD.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF TWO A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE EIGHT FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

AND THREE IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW WR IRON FENCE TO BE SIX TALL ON THE FRONT YARD IN B O A 19 103 0 0 1 0 9.

BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING OF FACT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS UNLIKELY TO HARM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND CLEAR VISION STANDARDS ARE NOT IN VIOLATION.

WE MAILED 20 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE JSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, WHICH WAS ALSO A LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY UH, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION BOARD? ORIAN MS. CORIAN, GO ON.

I MEAN, THE PICTURE SHOWS THIS, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS PRETTY MUCH SPLIT UP THE MIDDLE AND PITCHED ONE HALF OF IT IS RIGHT TO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.

UM, ANYONE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS THAT, UM, OBVIOUSLY THE FENCE IS ALREADY THERE.

IS THAT THE REASON WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE? YES.

I THINK, UH, IT VARIES IN HEIGHT.

SO IT WAS, IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.

GO.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

WE ARE HERE.

MY MOTHER AND I, MY MOM IS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO, 1544 ES IS MY NAME CAST AND MY MOM'S NAME IS FLO CASTILLO.

WE ARE HERE TO PLEASE ASK YOU TO ALLOW US TO KEEP THE, THE CARPORT AND THE FENCE FOR THE CARS.

AND THE BIG UH, REASON OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF MY KIDS.

THEY'RE MINORS AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT OF DANGER RISK BECAUSE THEY RUN AROUND THERE AND IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FENCE OR THE CARPORT, UM, THIS IS THE MAIN, UH, REASON.

[02:15:01]

UH, THE OTHER REASONS THAT WE HAVE IS THE CRIMINAL, UH, ACTIVITY.

THERE.

WE HAVE BEEN THING STOLEN FROM A HOUSE BEFORE IN, AND THE KIDS LIKE TO GO, UH, TO PLAY CROSSING THE STREET.

IT'S EASIER FOR THEM.

IT'S EASIER TO GO OUT THERE FOLLOWING A TOY OR SOMETHING TO GO ACROSS THE STREET PLAYING.

UH, YEAH.

THE REASON IS WE ACTUALLY ARE NOT AFFECTING ANYTHING.

'CAUSE WE ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE LADY, UH, NEXT TO US.

UH, EVEN SHE ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER WHERE SHE WAS EXPLAINING THAT SHE'S NOT ACTUALLY BEING AFFECTED AT ALL.

AND ALSO WE HAVE NOT FINISHED TO, UH, BILL THAT UH, BECAUSE OF THE LETTER THAT THEY SENT US.

'CAUSE WE ARE PLANNING TO DO, PUT SOME GUTTERS ON THE CARPORT SO THE WATER CAN ACTUALLY GO TOWARDS THE STREET.

BECAUSE INITIALLY THE LETTER THAT WE GOT, IT WAS, UH, REGARDING THE CARPORT ONLY.

UM, AND THEN WE GOT A DIFFERENT ONE ABOUT THE FENCE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

'CAUSE THE PERSON THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD TO MAKE THIS, HE SAID THAT HE ACTUALLY, UH, ASKED FOR ALL THE PERMITS NEEDED.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING RIGHT NOW IS FOR YOU TO ALLOW US TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.

'CAUSE WE HAVE DONE THIS WITH A LOT OF SACRIFICES AND BECAUSE AS YOU SEE, THE LADY BESIDE US HAS THAT TALL TREE RIGHT THERE.

WE DID IT THINKING THAT THOSE TALL TREES WITH THOSE BRANCHES COULD NOT AFFECT MY KIDS OR THE HOUSE.

AND THAT'S IT.

ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD.

DOES ANY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ORIAN ALRIGHT, MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD.

IN, IN THE, IN THE BACK OF THE CARPORT, IT'S, HOW CLOSE IS THE EDGE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME AND, AND PORCH ROOF OVERHANG.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? UH, HOW CLOSE IS THE, IS THE STRUCTURE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S STRUCTURE? IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE TWO OR THREE FEET.

UM, HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW.

SO, UH, ON THE CARPORT, UM, ON THE SIDE FACING THE NEIGHBOR, UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT POLICING A GUTTER THERE, BUT FROM THE PICTURE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE OVERHANG IS EVEN WITH THE PROPERTY LINE.

UM, SO, SO HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE GONNA ADD A GUTTER WITHOUT IT EXTENDING OVER INTO THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO YOU? ACTUALLY, YES, WE HAVE NOT, UH, PUT THAT GUTTER IN THERE.

BUT IF YOU APPROVE THIS, THEN WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING THAT GUTTER ON TOP OF THAT.

SO ALL THE WATER CAN GO TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS THE STREET.

BUT I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT TO PUT A GUTTER THERE, IT WOULD EXTEND OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.

WOULD THAT BE TRUE? NO.

NO, NO.

[02:20:12]

UH, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? ELLI? DR.

ELLI, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTION.

YOU HAVE A COMPELLING REASON WHY THIS CARPORT NEEDS TO BE SO LARGE THAT IT WOULD EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO, UM, TO THE EDGE OF YOUR PROPERTY LINE OR ESSENTIALLY TO THAT.

SO MAINLY IT'S BECAUSE FOR THE KIDS WHO ACTUALLY PLAY RIGHT THERE IN THE FRONT, AND ALSO THAT'S A PLACE WHERE WE CAN PARK THE CARS.

AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE CARS.

SO WE CAN PARK THE CAR THERE AND THE KIDS CAN PLAY IN THERE BECAUSE IN THE, IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WE HAVE THE DOGS AND THERE'S NO PLACE FOR US TO PARK THE CARS IN THE BACK.

ORIAN, UH, YOUR AUTOMATIC GATE APPEARS TO BE USED A SOLAR PANEL, UH, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS COVER IS OVER.

THE SOLAR SOLAR PANEL.

IS THE GATES FUNCTIONAL WITH THE COVER BEING THIS LARGE? OKAY.

UH, YES.

IT'S JUST A SOLAR PANEL FOR THE DOOR TO OPEN THE GATE AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE SOLAR PANEL.

DO I HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES? NOBODY SIGNED UP.

UH, THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ASK AN APP A QUESTION OF THIS APPLICANT.

UM, IT APPEARS FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, THAT THE CARPORT IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

IN FACT, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IT MAY BE BEYOND THAT BY OVERHANG OF MATERIALS.

UH, SO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR MOTION, UH, BY THE WAY, I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO PUBLIC.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

UH, I'VE TAKEN CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, AND, UH, MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION.

TAKE CONSIDERATION.

WE CANNOT ALLOW ANY STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE PROPERTY ONE INCH.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? ORIAN, VERY MUCH REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 0 9.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARDBOARD TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, UH, SITUATED AT 1544 WEST AGARITA, APPLICANT BEING FLORA BELLA CASTILLO.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT FOR THE VARIANCE ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

IN THIS CASE, A CARPORT PROVIDES NECESSARY SHELTER FOR THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLES.

IT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

THE POSTS IN ROOF ARE PLACED BEHIND THE FENCE AND CONSTRUCTED OF METAL THAT REDUCES THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD.

TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT GRANT THE APPLICANT THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR VEHICLES.

THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THIS CASE, THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ENOUGH OF A SETBACK TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE CARPORT IS MADE OF METAL, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF FIRE SPREAD.

THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT, DID GIVE THEIR CONSENT TO CONSTRUCT THE CARPORT AND HAS NO CONCERNS ABOUT WATER RUNOFF ONTO THEIR PROPERTY.

FOUR.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.

FIX THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

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.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUEST.

WHILE THE CARPORT IS UNIQUE ON THEIR STREET.

OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA DO HAVE A CARPORT.

THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT

[02:25:02]

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE CARPORT SERVES TO PROVIDE SAFE ROUTE FOR THE OWNER TO ACCESS THEIR HOME FROM THEIR VEHICLE.

IN THE CASE OF INCLEMENT WEATHER, SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO GET FROM THE HOME INTO A VEHICLE DUE TO SLIPPERY CONDITIONS.

THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, DR.

ZEL.

UH, MS. DOAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I, I READ THE, UH, STAS ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THIS CARPORT IS JUST, IT'S TOO BIG, IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE.

UM, IT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES.

UM, AND, AND IT, IT JUST IS JUST TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORING HOME.

IT ACTUALLY CREEPS BACK BETWEEN THE FRONT PLANE, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORING HOME.

AND IT JUST, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OF A SETBACK.

SO I, I WILL ACCEPT IT AS A RED FOR CLAR FOR CLARIFICATION.

DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE THE FRONT SETBACK? NO.

HE READ IT EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WROTE IT, WHICH MEANS THERE THE FRONT SEC BACK, UH, HIS VARIANCE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR, BUT WE'RE ONLY DEALING, WE'RE ONLY ALLOWING A VARIANCE ON THE SIDE.

NOT THE FRONT.

ON THE, YES, ON THE, I I DID NOT READ IT WITH THE FRONT SETBACK, UH, AS STEPH WROTE AND I, I WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FROM ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I, FOR NOW I'M READING IT AS WELL.

I THINK WE'RE BEYOND FRONT FOR ANY AMENDMENT.

NOW I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION FROM AN ALTERNATE MO MOTION HERE.

ANYONE WANT TO ENTERTAIN A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT? YOU COULD TAKE THEM SEPARATELY IF, IF YOU CHOOSE TO, YOU CAN DO THE SIDE SETBACK FIRST, THEN THE MOTION FOR A FRONT, AND THEN THE MOTION FOR THE FENCE.

RATHER GET THIS DONE IN ONE MOTION HERE.

ANYONE I'D LIKE TO MAKE, OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR.

MAKE A MOTION FOR THE MENTION CASE TO ADD THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE EIGHT FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

I ACCEPT THAT'S NOT A FRIENDLY MINUTE.

THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO VOTE ON REAL QUICK.

SO, ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION ALTERATION, UH, SAY AYE.

AYE.

NOW ALL IN THOSE IN FAVOR.

ACCEPTING THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

SAY AYE.

ANYONE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN ALTERED TO CONCLUDE BOTH THE SIDE AND FRONT VARIANCES.

SO NOW GO BACK TO, YOU CAN START WITH YOUR DISCUSSION HERE, OR WE CAN GO ON.

I'M FINE WITH THE AMENDMENT.

ALRIGHT, DR.

ZELLER RILEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE? YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE.

I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION READ AND THE, UM, THE SECOND PIECE WITH REGARD TO THE SETBACK.

SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING, UM, THE MOTION AS STATED FINALLY, ULTIMATELY.

ANYONE ELSE WANNA ADD TO THE DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND BEING THE CASE? SO I GUESS WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

AND NOW LET ME RECITE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY CONFUSION WE'RE GONNA DO.

WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THE, UH, THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK TO BE TWO FEET VARIANCE.

THEREFORE THE CARPORT MUST BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

SECOND PORTION OF THIS VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT VARIANCE OF THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE NO CLOSER THAN EIGHT FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

OKAY? SO TAKE THE VOTE, MONICA.

MR. ORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MS. BRAGMAN.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.

YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS

[02:30:01]

OF FACT.

MR. VINO.

THE MOTION, UH, ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION HAS PASSED.

PLEASE GET WITH STAFF FOR THE, UH, DEALING WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE, UH, ASSISTANCE IN MAKING THE CORRECTIONS IS NECESSARY.

UH, GREG, WHAT DO YOU WANT? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE GOING TO CONSIDER THE, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

OH, THAT, THAT'S NEXT.

WE ALREADY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO US CONCERNING THE, UH, UH, PORTION OF, OF THE PROJECT.

SO I'M ENTERTAINING A, A MOTION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ELLI.

ZEL, GO AHEAD.

REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 0 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW WR IRON FENCE TO BE SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED IN 1544 WEST AGITA AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING, UM, FLORA BELLA CASTILLO.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE, THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT FOR THE PURPOSE, WE, WE FIND THAT FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UM, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.

THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET.

THE ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OFFENSE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE, WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.

THE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PRO TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.

A SIX FOOT TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

UM, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.

THE FENCE ENHANCES THE SECURITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.

FURTHER, THE FENCING DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS.

THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.

THE FENCE WILL PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WHILE ENHANCING AESTHETICS, UM, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.

THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT.

SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, FIRST SLIDE.

AND MR. MANNA, YOU WILL GET THE SECOND CORRECT.

ZELLER, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION.

YEAH, I, I DID APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT FOR HER, REALLY, UM, MUCH OF THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF US WERE ABOUT SAFETY FOR HER CHILDREN, ENSURING THAT THEY DIDN'T GO OUT IN FRONT OF THE, IN, UM, CHASING A TOY INTO THE STREET, UM, SECURITY OF HER PROPERTY.

AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS FENCE, MR. MANA.

AND I THINK THAT WITH THE SCALLOP FENCE, IT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, I GUESS ROUGH TO TAKE THE MEASUREMENT AS FAR AS WHERE IT IS.

AND SO I THINK AVERAGING OUT, IT ACTUALLY IS CLOSER TO WHERE IT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE.

SO, I, I'M OKAY WITH THIS GOING THROUGH AS WELL.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO GIVE THEIR OPINION THAT BEING THE CASE? MONICA, PLEASE TAKE VOTE.

MR. TEAL.

MS. BRAGMAN.

MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR.

WE'RE DOWN TO OUR FINAL CASE.

I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.

MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR.

MS. DINO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MR. MARTINEZ AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE FACT THE MOTION PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY YOU HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR YOUR FENCING.

AGAIN, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF FOR THE PROPER PERMITTING PROCESS.

AND

[10. 19-7474 BOA-19-10300115: A request by Daniel Garcia for a 9’ variance from the 10’ front setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 1’ from the front property line, located at 232 Saddlebrook Drive. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 4) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207-5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

I BELIEVE THE BOARD IS EAGER CASE BOA 19 103 0 0 1 1 5.

A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

THE APPLICANT IS DANIEL GARCIA.

THE PROPERTY IS 2 32 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE.

ZONING IS R SIX M O D

[02:35:01]

TWO MLR TWO H O D.

THE LOCATION MAP THE APPLICANT IS SEEING, SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING CARPORT IN FRONT OF THEIR EXISTING GARAGE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES WITH CARPORTS ON SADDLEBROOK DRIVE AND FEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE IN B O A 1 9 103 0 0 1 1 5.

BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THE CARPORT WILL BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE VARIANCES CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

WE MAIL 25 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ORIAN ORIAN? IT IT APPEARS LIKE, UH, THE DISTANCE FROM THE FACE OF THE GARAGE DOOR DUE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, IT, IT MAY NOT EVEN BE 20 FEET.

UH, DID YOU OBSERVE THIS TO BE AT LEAST 20 FEET DEEP? I DID NOT, BUT THAT IS NOT, UH, THEY'VE CONVERTED THAT TO LIVING SPACE, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO OH, OKAY.

UH, STAFF, I MEAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF HERE.

OH, YES.

UH, IN YOUR OBSERVANCE DRIVING THROUGH THIS AREA, DID YOU, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE OR WITNESS OR SEE ANY OTHER CARPORTS WHILE YOU WERE DRIVING TO THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENCE? YES, THERE ARE SOME ON ADJACENT STREETS, BUT NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET.

LIKE THOSE CARS ON THE ADJACENT STREET, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY, UH, WERE AS CLOSE TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS THIS PARTICULAR ONE RIGHT HERE? NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD AND WE'LL NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, UH, BEFORE YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE.

GOOD EVENING.

UH, MY, MY NAME'S DANIEL GARCIA.

I'M AT 2 32 SADDLEBROOK.

THIS IS MY WIFE, ANGELITA GARCIA.

UM, THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY, UM, WE ALWAYS LIKE DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.

WE HIRED A COMPANY TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

UH, THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA GET ALL THE PERMITS AND EVERYTHING AND THEY CAME AND BUILT AND I MADE A MISTAKE BY NOT ASKING THEM LOOK AT THE PERMIT BEFORE THEY STARTED LEARN AND LIVE.

AND, UM, BUT THE MAIN REASON THAT WE BUILT THIS CARPORT, UH, IS JUST TO PROTECT OUR VEHICLES FROM HAIL DAMAGE AND FROM THE SUN BEING SO, SO HOT HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, TO PREVENT FROM, FROM THE CARS GETTING PEELED AND CRACKING PAINT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

UH, THE VARIANT, UH, SHOULD BE SEVEN FEET, NOT NINE FEET.

UH, WE SENT AN A SECOND UPDATED, UH, POTLUCK THAT, UH, SHOWED IT, THAT SHOWED IT, UH, FROM RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS SEVEN.

UH, ON THE ACTUAL PLAN THEY PUT IT WAS NINE, BUT IT'S REALLY SEVEN FEET FROM THE, UH, FROM THE POLE, FROM THE POLE ALL THE WAY, UM, OUT BOTH TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE, SIR.

I MEAN, WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT Y'ALL LET US KEEP IT.

UH, I DID TALK TO ABOUT FIVE OR SIX NEIGHBORS, UH, AND THEY WERE ALL OKAY WITH IT.

UH, SOME OF THEM WERE ACTUALLY ASKING ME FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE COMPANY THAT BILLED IT, BUT I TOLD THEM, NOPE, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS COMPANY GOT ME IN TROUBLE SO I WON'T PASS ON THAT INFORMATION

[02:40:01]

NO MORE.

UH, 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYBODY GETTING IN TROUBLE.

AND I DIDN'T COME TO FIND OUT UNTIL THEY PUT THE CITY CAME AND PUT THE NOTICE ON MY, ON MY DOOR.

I DIDN'T COME TO FIND OUT UNTIL I CAME HERE THAT THEY WEREN'T REGISTERED WITH THE CITY.

BUT THEY'RE ALL OVER.

THEY BUILT ALL OVER THE CITY, OUTSIDE THE CITY.

AND THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY.

WELL, I SYMPATHIZE.

THERE'S A LOT OF BANDIT CONTRACTORS AND THE CITY HAS RECENTLY MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR CONTRACTORS OR FOR PEOPLE TO BE LICENSED IN THE CITY.

AND THAT'S FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION.

WE, UH, CITY IS LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT ONLY REPUTABLE CONTRACTORS ARE LICENSED WITHIN THE CITY.

AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVEN'T FOUND ONE.

UH, BUT UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, TO REVIEW THE CASE.

NOW.

FIRST, UM, I WILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I'M OPEN THAT THE, UH, DISCUSSION HERE FOR THE DIOCESE.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? BETH? YES, SIR.

UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOUR APPLICATION SHOULD BE SEVEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO WHERE YOUR CARPORT BEGINS.

YES SIR.

WHAT ARE YOU MEASURING FROM TO DETERMINE THAT? SEVEN FEET.

RIGHT FROM THE, FROM THE EDGE OF THE POLE ALL THE WAY PAST THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY, I MEAN THE SIDEWALK.

SO IS THAT UP TO THE CURB OF THE STREET OR TO THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK? THE, THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK.

IF I WENT FROM THE POLE TO THE, ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET, THAT'S THE, IT'S 11.

AND DO YOU KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS IN RELATION TO THE SIDEWALK? UH, DO YOU HAVE A SURVEY OF THAT THAT SHOWS, 'CAUSE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS VARY IN WHERE THAT LINE IS? WELL, THEY TOLD US THERE WAS SOME METAL POLES RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE, THE WATER METER WHERE THE, WHERE IT MEASURES.

SO WE GOT A LITTLE SENSOR DEAL TO BEEP FOR THE, WHERE THE, THE PIPE IS AT THE METAL PIPE.

SO THAT'S HOW WE MEASURED FROM THAT POINT.

AND THAT METAL THAT YOU FOUND WAS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK? YES, SIR.

ANY ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? UH, ORIAN.

OREN, GO AHEAD.

SO THEY REQUIRE METERS TO BE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR WITHIN AN EASEMENT.

AND SO WHEN, WHEN YOUR APPLICATION IS FOR ONE FOOT OFF AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT WAS SHOULD BE THREE FEET, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE NUMBER RIGHT.

AND SO DO YOU HAVE, UH, DID YOU HAPPEN TO MEASURE WHERE THE, UH, BACK END OF THE METER BOX WAS IN RELATION TO THE SIDEWALK? NO, SIR.

BUT THE METER, UH, SITS OVER ON THE, UM, LEFT SIDE OF THE CARPORT.

UH, WHICH IS, UM, IN, ON A PICTURE YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LITTLE GROOVE.

'CAUSE I, I TRIMMED THE TREE.

I MEAN THE, THE GRASS.

YEAH, I, I I CAN SEE IF I'VE PULLED UP A DIFFERENT STREET VIEW.

UH, AND, AND HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE FACE OF THAT, UH, GARAGE DOOR, UH, TO THE, TO THE BACK POST, DO YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT MEASUREMENT IS? BECAUSE YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE PLAN SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY, UH, WASN'T NECESSARILY CORRECT WITH YOUR APPLICATION.

SO IS THAT MEASUREMENT ON THAT PLAN CORRECT.

OR DO YOU THINK THAT YES, SIR.

ON THIS, ON THE SECOND ONE THAT WE SENT? YES SIR.

AND, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLE, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO THE GARAGE DOOR.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, THIS IS AN ISSUE FROM THE DEPTH OF THE CARPORT, THE, THE, THE EDGE OF THE CARPORT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND YOU KNOW, IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF I DECIDE TO, TO, TO AGREE WITH THIS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER YOU END UP WITH IS AT LEAST ADEQUATE TO PARK A CAR UNDER.

THAT'S ALL.

OH, OKAY.

WELL, LIKE RIGHT NOW WHERE THE, WHERE THE CARS ARE PARKED, WE HAVE THE, THE THREE RECY, WELL THE RECYCLE BINS AND THE TRASH CANS IN THE FRONT.

BUT I HAVE PLANS TO MOVE THOSE OUT OF THE WAY SO THE CAR CAN ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD.

YOU'RE THE PLAN SUBMITTED SHOWS 19 FOOT SEVEN INCHES.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S, UH, GENERALLY CORRECT? YES, SIR.

'CAUSE THEY WOULD, I THEY WOULD, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE, UH, 20 BY 20, BUT WE COME TO FIND OUT THAT THEY DIDN'T .

PROPERTY LINE IS MOST LIKELY, UH, THAT GAP BETWEEN WHERE THE, AND THE REASON WHY I STATE THAT IS THAT IT TAKES A SPECIAL PERMIT TO POUR THAT PARTICULAR PORTION.

SO THANK YOU QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, I I'M GONNA MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT HERE BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF THIS AND, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ALL PLATTED PROPERTIES, THE APRON, THE APPROACH ON THE DRIVEWAY IS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE, YOUR

[02:45:01]

YOU CAN'T JUST GET ANY CONTRACTOR TO DO THAT.

IT REQUIRES A LICENSED CONTRACTOR SPECIFICALLY FOR WORKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S WHY THAT IT'S LIMITED LIKE THAT SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE.

SO MOST LIKELY WHAT YOU, WHEN YOU PUT THAT, UH, DETECTOR CLOSE TO THE WATER METER, IT WAS DETECTING THE WATER METER NOT ACTUALLY THE POINT BECAUSE THE, UH, WHAT I WOULD REQUIRE IF I WERE DOING A, UH, SURVEY IS THAT THEY FIND AT BOTH ENDS OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN THEY'D RUN A STRING.

AND, UM, SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY EXACTLY, I THINK STAFF DID THIS APPROPRIATELY, THE WAY THEY APPROACHED IT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE COMPLIANT SHOULD A VARIANCE BE APPROVED.

UM, THE, UH, THE, THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS, IS REALLY WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THAT AREA.

UM, AND UM, THERE WERE SOME ERROR ERRORS THAT WERE MADE HERE.

UM, OBVIOUSLY THE CONTRACTOR WASN'T VERY DILIGENT IN PERFORMING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT, UH, THERE MAY BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE, BE MADE TO MAKE THIS MORE COMPLIANT.

AND I THINK IT CAN BE DONE, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WORKING WITH STAFF, BUT WE'RE GONNA WORK WITH THE VARIANCES AS WE HAVE IT PROPOSED TO US RIGHT NOW.

SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION HERE, NOW THAT I'VE MADE MY EXPLANATION ORIAN UH, STAFF, I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS, UH, IN A WHILE, BUT IF THEY WERE TO MOVE THE POST BACK, HOW FAR COULD THEY OVERHANG FROM THE POST AND HAVE IT STILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SETBACK? FIVE FEET, BUT NO CLOSER THAN THREE.

SO IF THEY MOVE THE POST BACK FIVE FEET, IT'S ONLY CONSIDERED A FIVE FEET ENCROACHMENT.

IF THEY MOVE THE POST BACK, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SIX STAFF ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE PLAT, WHICH IS A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WITH A 30 FOOT STREET.

SO WE MEASURED IT OUT AND THAT'S WHERE WE GAVE, THAT'S WHERE WE GOT OUR ONE FOOT FROM.

SO THE MOVING THE POST IS NOT GONNA ADDRESS.

THERE'S NO, OKAY, THANK YOU.

SINCE THERE IS NO OVERHANG ON THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE, THE OVERHANG WOULD STILL NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON THE VARIANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

WE'RE GONNA STUFF TO, IT'LL STILL TO BE PART OF THE VARIANCE IF YOU'RE GONNA PUSH, UH, THE POST BACK AND LEAVE SOME OVERHANG ORDER FOR THIS PARTICULAR COVER TO STAND POST POSITION IS NOT.

THE ISSUE HERE IS WHERE AS CLOSE AS THE STRUCTURE GETS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND FROM YOUR OBSERVATION, AND I OF COURSE THIS IS A VERY SMALL LOOKS AS IF THE, THE POST IS APPROXIMATELY, UH, 18 INCHES FROM THE, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

WE MEASURED IT AT ONE FOOT.

UM, DID YOU, DID YOU BASE THAT UPON THE SURVEY THAT YOU FOUND FOR THE PROPERTY? THE PLAT? WE MEASURED OUT THE STREET ITSELF BASED ON THE PLAT AND THEN THE PLAT SHOWS A 10 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE CURB OR THE STREET TO THE PROPERTY LINE? THAT IS CORRECT.

NO, YES, BUT SEE IT'S INTERESTING THING.

IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE CURB, IT'S THE STREET.

RIGHT? SO IT WAS A 50 FOOT, UM, PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY 30 FOOT STREET.

SO WE MEASURED OUT THE STREET AND IT WAS EXACTLY 30, SO THE ADDITIONAL 10.

SO DID ANYONE MEASURE THE APRON APPROACH TO SEE HOW LONG THAT WAS? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE MEASURED UP TO.

SO THE APRON IS, IS THE POINT, OKAY.

WE'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS HERE BASED UPON EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE DE FOR US.

SO ACCORDING TO THIS, FROM WHAT WE'RE, I'M LOOKING AT, AND OF COURSE THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH IS VERY SMALL, MAYBE YOU CAN ENLARGE IT FOR YOURSELF, BUT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A 20 TO 21 INCH DISTANCE FROM THAT, THAT EXPANSION JOINT BETWEEN THE APRON AND THE POST DOES WANT TO, DOES ANYONE SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? NO.

I SEE 24.

WELL, I'M, I YOU MAY BE RIGHT.

SO, UM, IF WE GRANT THEM A 24 INCH VARIANCE, I MEAN A, A, UH, EIGHT, EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE ALLOWING IT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THIS CARPORT SHOULD STAY CORRECT WITHOUT A SURVEY.

THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION.

IT'S A TWO FOOT.

I KNOW, BUT

[02:50:01]

ALRIGHT, SO ANYWAY, I'M, THE ONLY REASON I'M MAKING THIS POINT IS THAT WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION TAKES THIS IN CONSIDERATION.

OKAY? I BELIEVE THAT ALL WE'VE OBTAINED ALL THE INFORMATION WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET FROM THIS, AND WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

SO IF WE CAN HAVE, UH, A MOTION HERE FROM SOMEONE TAKING ALL THIS INFORMATION IN CONSIDERATION, I'D GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

TEAL.

MR. TEAL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 15, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM A 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 3 2 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING DANIEL GARCIA.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDER THE GENERAL HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF A COMMUNITY.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT.

THREE.

BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE RESERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL.

JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.

THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PROVIDE UNNECESSARY TRESPASS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY, AND TO ENSURE PROPER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

ALL OF THESE INTENTS WILL STILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.

FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.

SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OF OR CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.

SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE UNIQUE SITUATION EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE CARPORT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTED IN A MOTION.

ALRIGHT, UM, MR. TEAL, WOULD YOU PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION? YES, I, I READ THE MOTION AS WRITTEN.

UM, WHILE WE WERE PRESENTED SEVERAL FACTS ABOUT THE DISTANCES BETWEEN WHAT ONE ASSUMES IS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND WHAT ASSUMES IS THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, SINCE WE WERE ADVERTISED AT, AT THE, AT THE NINE FOOT VARIANCE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND KEEP THAT.

I DON'T THINK THE, UH, APPLICANT'S GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADD ON AN EXTRA FOOT IF THAT IS THE CASE.

SO THIS I THINK KEEPS US ON THE SAFE SIDE.

UM, AND SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT.

ALRIGHT, UH, AND, UH, WHO MADE THE SECOND, UH, MANNA, PLEASE CONTINUE.

SO, UM, AND I DID GO DOWN THE STREET AND TAKE A LOOK IN THERE.

I FOUND TWO OTHER PROPERTIES, ONE AT 2 83, UM, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, WE MAY HEAR, MAY HEAR AND, AND I GUESS HERE, BUT IT LOOKS TO BE, UH, SIMILARLY CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME DISTANCES.

UM, AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER PROPERTY TOO, SO, SO THERE ARE TWO ON THIS SAME STREET THAT I DID FIND, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? ORIAN VICTORIAN.

UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT.

UH, THE DRIVING FACTOR WAS FOR ME WAS, IS THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE ROOM FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE EDGE OF THE, OF THE CARPORT.

SO THAT WAY IT'S NOT GONNA CONFLICT.

THE CARPORT DOES NOT APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH PEDESTRIAN USE.

UH, I ALSO DID NOT SEE ANY, UH, BUS STOPS ALONG THE STREET, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.

ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? AS A NOTE, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE THE STATEMENT HERE THAT THIS, UH, VARIANCE ONLY WOULD APPLY TO YOUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

ANY OTHER PROPERTY DOES NOT COMPLY, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET ANY, UH, CREDENCE ON THIS.

AND ANY MO, ANY ANY CARPORT BUILT SHOULD BE NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH HAS TO BE FOUND FIRST.

SO BY MAKING THAT STATEMENT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK MONICA TO TAKE THE VOTE.

MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

ELLI,

[02:55:01]

MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR.

MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. YES.

YES, I CONCUR HER.

BEFORE US, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE REVIEW OF THE MINUTES.

I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ALTHOUGH THE MOTION DOES CARRY, UH, AND, UH, YOUR PERMITING, UH, VARIANCE IS, UH, ALLOWED.

PLEASE GET WITH STAFF FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, PROCESS OF, OF GETTING YOUR PERMITS AND YOUR COMPLIANCE NOTICES.

AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP.

BUT AGAIN, I WARN YOU FOR ANYONE ASKS, IT'S ONLY FOR YOU.

OKAY? OKAY, , YOU'RE WELCOME.

[11. 19-7480 Consideration and approval of the September 16, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes.]

HAS EVERYONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY ALTERATIONS, CORRECTIONS, ET CETERA, THEN BEING THE CASE? THEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS, AS REPORTED.

ANY OTHER ISSUES? ANY,

[12. 19-7511 Approval of the 2020 Board of Adjustment Calendar]

ANY DOCUMENTATION, ANY QUESTIONS THAT, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORTS OR ANYTHING? WE DO HAVE ONE MORE ITEM, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE 2020 BO O A CALENDAR.

WE HAVE THE CALENDAR.

WHERE IS THE CALENDAR ? OH, IT WAS, IT WAS LOADED ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT SHOULD BE, YOU WANNA PUT IT ON THE SCREEN, DEBRA? SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TYPICALLY IN JANUARY, BECAUSE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY IS THE FIRST MEETING BACK FROM THE HOLIDAY.

UM, WE HAVE TYPICALLY MOVED THE JANUARY MEETING DAY TO THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH, AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE, UH, MEETING THAT MONTH.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING JANUARY 13TH.

FEBRUARY WOULD STILL, UM, FEBRUARY, MARCH, UH, WOULD STILL HAVE THE FIRST AND THIRD, UH, MONDAYS OF THAT MONTH.

APRIL, WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING APRIL 6TH BECAUSE THE OTHER, UH, DATE COINCIDES WITH FIESTA WEEK.

AND SO WE TYPICALLY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING ATTENDANCE.

UH, MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST.

UH, STILL HAVE TWO MEETINGS THAT MONTH.

SEPTEMBER, UH, WE'RE ONLY, UH, PROPOSING ONE MEETING BECAUSE OF LABOR DAY HOLIDAY.

AND THEN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER STILL HAVE THE TYPICAL MEETING DATES.

OUR HOLIDAY SCHEDULED FOR, UH, 2021 OR FISCAL YEAR 2021, WHICH INCLUDE OCTOBER THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2020 WON'T BE RELEASED UNTIL NEXT SUMMER WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

SO IF WE NEED TO MAKE ANY, UM, ADJUSTMENTS, WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THEN.

BUT WE'VE TYPICALLY BEEN ABLE TO MEET BOTH MEETINGS IN DECEMBER.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, GO AHEAD.

NOW FOR IF, IF THE, IF THE FISCAL BUDGET, UH, FINDS THAT YOU TAKE THAT WEEK OFF, WHAT WEEK WOULD YOU USUALLY DEFER TO? UH, SO WE WOULD THEN ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE DECEMBER 7TH AND THEN THE JANUARY WOULD HAVE THE, THE ONE MEETING IN JANUARY.

AND THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH IT BEING MORE THAN 30 DAYS OLD APART OR ANYTHING? NO, THAT'S ONLY FOR PLATTS AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

AH, GOTCHA.

ANYONE HAVE ANY STATEMENTS THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE? I DO.

I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BECAUSE ONE DATE IS ON MY BIRTHDAY.

I WON'T BE HERE , THE AUGUST 17TH.

I WILL NOT BE PRESENT.

PLEASE NOTE YOUR CALENDARS.

OH, NO, NO.

ALLOWS FOR RIDICULE.

UM, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, UH, IS GONNA BE ABOUT THE 24 1ST OF DECEMBER.

THAT'S, THAT'S AT CHRISTMAS WEEK.

THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TIME TO GET ANYBODY TO SHOW UP.

AND I WAS WONDERING, UM, MAYBE MOVE IT UP A WEEK OR, OR, UH, IT IT'S UP TO YOU.

I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE DECEMBER 21ST AND WE'VE HAD IT PREVIOUSLY AND WE HAVEN'T HAD QUORUM ISSUES BEFORE.

OH.

BUT ON SOME OF THE OTHER BOARDS, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF QUORUM ISSUES.

I KNOW THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR A LOT OF, OF ADVERTISING BETWEEN OR FOR CONTINUANCES.

'CAUSE IT IS CLOSER TO, UH, CHRISTMAS.

IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

I MEAN, YOU CAN ADOPT IT WITH IT AND THEN WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS NEXT YEAR.

LET, LET ME ASK THIS, UH, HISTORICALLY, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE, ARE THERE IN THE HOPPER FOR THAT TIME OF YEAR? I MEAN, WE, I HAVEN'T, WE'VE SEEN A FULL COMPLIMENT OF NINE TO 10 CASES.

THE REASON WHY I ASK IS IN MY BUSINESS, UH, EVERYONE SEEMS TO KNOW THAT YOU GUYS CLOSE FOR A WEEK AND IT, AND I'M GONNA TELL YOU AFTER DECEMBER 14TH, YOU START HEARING CRICKETS.

SO I WAS JUST WONDERING, LIKE AT THIS, YOU KNOW, WITH HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE B O A , WELL, REMEMBER THEY SUBMIT A MONTH BEFORE, SO THEY'LL BE SUBMITTING IN NOVEMBER FOR DECEMBER MEETING DATES.

HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO MOVE THAT 21ST TO THE 14TH?

[03:00:01]

AND TYPICALLY WE WOULDN'T ADVISE THAT UNLESS WE HAD A HEAVY CASELOAD.

UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, MAYBE NEXT SUMMER, I, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST ADOPT THE CALENDAR AS PRESENTED NEXT FALL, WE CAN ASSESS, UH, BY THEN WE'LL HAVE THE HOLIDAY SCHEDULE.

WE CAN ASSESS.

UM, IF YOU KNOW WHAT, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE OUT ON LEAVE, WE'LL KNOW VACATIONS, WHATNOT, THEN, AND THEN WE CAN CANCEL THE MEETING DATE.

THAT'S MUCH EASIER THAN TRYING TO SCHEDULE SOMETHING.

PLUS I'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS AVAILABILITY WITH THIS BOARDROOM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE 14TH.

WANTED TO TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GRAB THE BOARDROOM BEFORE ANYONE ELSE.

THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I WAS, UNLESS IT'S A REGULAR MEETING DATE FOR ANOTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION POINT THAT TOOK FIRST I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

UH, I GUESS WHAT'S BEFORE US NOW IS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CALENDAR AS PRESENTED TO US.

OH, UH, I'M GOING TO, I GUESS WE CAN JUST ASK FOR A VOICE, UH, UH, VOICE VOTE ON THIS VOICE VOTE.

FINE.

THOSE THAT ARE APPROVED, WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US BY STAFF FOR NEXT YEAR'S CALENDAR, THOSE IN SUPPORT SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAYYY NAYYY.

UH, AYES HAVE IT.

I'VE LOST.

AND, UH, SO THAT HAPPENS A LOT IN MY LIFE.

SO NEVERTHELESS, UH, WE'VE APPROVED THE CALENDAR FOR NEXT YEAR.

UH, IS, UH, WE ARE DEALING WITH, WE'RE WELL INTO THIS CALENDAR YEAR AND WELL INTO THIS VOTING YEAR, AND WE HAVE NOT HAVE ANY, ANY IDEA ABOUT ANY FURTHER MOVEMENT ON DISTRICT THREE FOR REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, OCTOBER 16TH IS THE GOVERNANCE MEETING DATE IN WHICH THEY'LL INTERVIEW THE ALTERNATE, UM, CANDIDATES THEY WILL INTERVIEW OR WE WILL BE NOTIFIED.

NEXT QUESTION,

[Director's Report:]

THESE ARE JUST FOR ALTERNATE CANDIDATES.

THE, THOSE THAT APPLIED FOR THE ALTERNATES.

HAVE WE HAD ANY MOVEMENT ON DISTRICT THREE FOR REPLACEMENT? WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING GET SCHEDULED YET FOR DISTRICT THREE.

THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS DON'T HAVE TO GO TO GOVERNANCE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS CAN GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL ONCE THE COUNCIL MEMBER SUBMITS A MEMO.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING, ANY APPOINTMENT FOR D THREE.

THE REST OF THEM ARE COMING IN SLOWLY.

UM, NO.

IF, IF LETICIA IS BACK, IF SHE'S BACK AND NOT HER OFFICE, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S ON VACATION OR THE COUNCILWOMAN NO, NO, NO, NO.

OH NO.

THE CLERK IS THERE.

AND THEN WHEN THEY GET THE MEMOS, THEY FORWARD 'EM TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT.

BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FOR D THREE YET.

OBVIOUSLY I'M GONNA HAVE TO PUT A BUR UNDER SOMEONE'S SADDLE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WITHOUT A, A DISTRICT THREE PERSON NOW FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AND THAT, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK.

I MEAN, I, I'M GLAD WE HAVE ALTERNATES WILLING TO ATTEND AND I APPRECIATE YOU DO SHOWING UP.

UH, BUT I AM, UH, I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ONLY BECAUSE, UM, UH, THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A TIME WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE OFF LIKE ALAN'S BIRTHDAY AND OTHER REASONS, OR EVEN RE RECRUIT RECUSALS ON THESE CASES BECAUSE, AND SO, BECAUSE OF, THE REASON I MENTION THIS IS BECAUSE THIS TV THAT WE'RE NOW BEING BROADCAST ON HAS MADE US PUBLIC IMAGES.

I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE AS I TRAVEL AROUND SAYING, OH, YOU'RE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

I WANNA TALK TO YOU.

AND I SAY, TALK TO ME ABOUT SOMETHING.

I SAY, NO, YOU DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO ME.

AND, UH, BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE THINGS WE DO TO MAKE THINGS MORE VISIBLE CAN BACKFIRE ON US.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE START SEEING US, I MEAN, I WAS NOT DRESSED LIKE THIS AT, AT, UH, HOME DEPOT, BUT THEY STILL RECOGNIZE WHO I WAS AND THEY CAME, OH, YOU'RE ON THIS AND YOU'RE ON THAT.

I MEAN, I, I THINK IT'S GREAT.

I'D RATHER THAT WE HAVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING HALF THE, HALF THE BOARD HAVING TO RECUSE THEMSELVES ON A CASE AND NOT HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO FILL IN WHERE THE ALTERNATES COME IN.

OF COURSE I DON'T, THAT'S AN EXAGGERATION.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE NEED EVERYBODY THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN AVAILABLE FOR THIS BOARD BECAUSE IT'S TOO IMPORTANT.

DISTRICT HAS SUBMITTED A NAME FOR, FOR THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

SO, UM, I MEAN, I'M ALMOST WILLING TO NOMINATE SOMEONE TO CONTACT DISTRICT THREE TO FIND OUT WHY WE CAN'T GET AN APPLICANT TO HAVE SOMEONE IN THAT POSITION.

AND RIGHT NOW, I UNDERSTAND EVERY, EVERY OTHER, UH,

[03:05:01]

EVERY ONE OF US HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED.

NOT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN RESUBMITTED.

NO.

WHICH ONES OF US HAVE NOT? THERE'S QUITE A FEW.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT HE, UH, I THINK JOE SAID THAT HE JUST SAW ONE COME THROUGH.

I THINK THAT WAS FOR D NINE.

UH, BUT WE'RE STILL MISSING 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 9, WHICH I THINK YOU JUST SAW.

AND MAY ORAL.

OH, I'M GONNA ADVISE THOSE OF YOU ON THE, ON THE BOARD, IF YOU'RE IN ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE BEEN NAMED AS NOT NAMING SOMEONE, GET OUT THERE AND MOTIVATE THEM.

AND IF YOU'RE AN ALTERNATE IN THAT DISTRICT AND YOU'D LIKE TO BE ON THE BOARD, MOTIVATE THEM TO NAME YOU.

SO PLEASE, LET'S GET SOME ACTION GOING BECAUSE BEFORE WE KNOW IT, WE'LL BE, YOU KNOW, IN ANOTHER ELECTION CYCLE AND HAVE NOT SOLVED OUR PROBLEM.

AND WE'LL REACH OUT TO DISTRICT THREE TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE IN ON A POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT.

I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS MONTHS OR LONGER AND I'VE SEEN LITTLE ACTION, SO, OKAY.

WELL, I WAS TOLD BY MY CONGRESSWOMAN'S OFFICE THAT AS LONG AS I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM HER, I WAS GOOD TO GO.

SO I'LL TALK TO HER AGAIN.

THEIR NAME, THEY STILL HAVE TO NAME, NAME YOU FOR THAT POSITION.

WELL, MY NAME IS ON THERE.

WELL, I KNOW IT'S ON THERE NOW, BUT I'M NOT, IT'S NOT ON THE, THE NEW LIST.

EVERYONE'S IN HOLDOVER UNLESS YOU'VE BEEN REAPPOINTED.

I'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH D TWO OFFICE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HASN'T HAPPENED.

I THINK THAT A LOT OF 'EM ARE, ARE, UH, WHAT DO THEY, WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT NOW? NO, THEY'RE PLAYING THEIR OPTIONS.

AND, AND THIS IS, I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING TO SAY, IT'S ANOTHER THING TO DO.

AND SO LIKE I SAY, I'M ASKING YOU TO MOTIVATE THEM TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL SO THAT WHEN WE DO SIT DOWN AND, UH, SQUARE IN ALL THE NEW ALTERNATES, THOSE THAT NEED TO BE SWORN IN CAN BE ALL DONE AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE THINGS EASIER ON THE STAFF AND FOR THE CITY AND FOR US.

BECAUSE LAST THING I WANNA SEE IS SEVEN OF US SHOW UP RIP ROARING TO GO FOR A MEETING AND NOT HAVE A QUORUM HAPPENS IN THE, IN SOME OF THE OTHER BOARDS.

AND IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN ON MY BOARD.

OUR BOARD.