* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] IT IS ONE OH ONE. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. IN THE SESSION WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER. COME OUT PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, THE FLAG, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TWO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS? ONE NATION LIBERTY JUSTICE UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG. P TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD. INDIVIDUAL. ALRIGHT, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. HERE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BONIS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES PRESENT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M PRESENT. SO WE'VE GOT 10 SEATING. WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE EXPECTED TO JOIN IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES OR SO FOR A FULL, UH, COMMISSION OF 11. SO IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE SILENCE THEIR CELL PHONES. UM, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WARDS OF EXPLANATION. THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASE IS E LISTED BY A NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS, I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE, TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES, UH, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY, SO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE TO SERVE. THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION AND ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A OCCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRECEDENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUEST OF RELIEF COULD BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED UPON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. UM, 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, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE I'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES. UM, SO ITEM [00:05:01] NUMBER ONE TODAY IS WHERE WE'LL START, UH, LET'S SEE. ALRIGHT, 1120 BUENA VISTA STREET. GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD MEMBERS. ITEM ONE IS BO OA CASE, UH, BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 8 9. THE ADDRESS BEING 1120 BUENA VISTA STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS EDUARDO GARCIA AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A THREE PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 12 PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT WITH NINE PARKING SPACES. TWO, A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE A 10 FOOT SIDE BUFFER YARD AND THREE A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 18 FOOT SITE DISTANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITH A FIVE FOOT SITE DISTANCE. THE ZONING IS C TWO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF BUENA VISTA STREET AND SOUTH COLORADO STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED ON SITE AS PER THE UDC. THE PROPOSED PARKING PLAN INCLUDES THREE FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AND THE PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SIDE BUFFER AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE EXISTING FENCE ENC CLOSING THE PARKING LOT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SITE DISTANCE FOR MOTORISTS TO SAFELY ENTER AND EXIT THE PARKING LOT. SHOWN HERE IS A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SHOWN HERE IS THAT PARKING AND BUFFER AREA AND THE SITE DISTANCE AREA OF FIVE FEET. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PARKING BUFFER AND SITE DISTANCE VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 8 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THE OPTION TO ESTABLISH A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER RE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE AREA TO MEET THEIR PARKING MINIMUM AND FURTHER REDUCE THE PARKING LOT TO ALLOW A BUFFER. TWO. REDUCED PARKING CAN CREATE CONGESTION AND HINDER EMERGENCY ACCESS, THREATENING PUBLIC SAFETY, ELIMINATING BUFFERS, ERODES THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE REDUCED SITE DISTANCES. INCREASED RISKS OF ASK ACCIDENTS. STAFF MAIL 26 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. ZERO WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION AND THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT, STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, I AM JANELLE PATRICK WITH RHINO DESIGN BUILD AND LAST TIME I WAS HERE I WAS GOING TO GET AN APPROVAL FROM ONE OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS FOR THE EXTRA PARKING. MM-HMM . SO WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS. SO THAT'S THE FIRST STEP IN APPLYING FOR THE VARIANCE. SO IF I CAN GET THAT LETTER OVER TO THE BOARD, THEN WILL WE GET AN APPROVAL AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT THE LANDSCAPING AND OKAY. WELL, WELL, UM, A COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT, SO YOU'D HAVE A SOMETHING IN WRITING STUFF. WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF THAT? IS THAT 30% OR SOMETHING? I BELIEVE IT'S 10%, BUT LEMME DOUBLE CHECK. OKAY. BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A, A VARIANCE FOR THREE THREE. THAT'S 25% MM-HMM . AND SO I, I THAT'S, I'M SURE THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THAT WILL ALLOW US TO JUST REMOVE THAT ITEM ALTOGETHER. OKAY. AND WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPING, HAVE YOU HAD ANY PRELIMINARY MEETINGS WITH, UH, THE LANDSCAPE DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO AND WHAT THEY, WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT IT WERE? NO, WE DID TALK TO, UH, CHRIS OVER AT ARCHITECTS AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING THE PLANS FOR US, BUT BEFORE WE PAY FOR THEIR SERVICES, WE NEEDED TO KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO EVEN GET THE VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING. OKAY. SO I DIDN'T WANNA PAY FOR SOMETHING IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD ALONG COLORADO. I NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE THREE FACE POWER, UH, RUNNING THERE. IS THERE AN, AN EXISTING ELECTRICAL EASEMENT? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. WHILE STAFF'S LOOKING THAT UP, MAYBE ANOTHER MEMBER STAFF, UH, THERE'S A PROPOSED COMPACT SPACE THAT'S WELL WITHIN THE 20 FOOT, UH, THROAT. IS THAT ANOTHER ISSUE THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER? I DUNNO IF THAT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. UM, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, SORRY. UH, THE, THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED SHOWS A, UH, PARKING SPACE, NUMBER [00:10:01] 10, A COMPACT PARKING SPACE THAT'S WITHIN THE 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY THROAT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY OR DOES THAT HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD? I DIDN'T, I I, FOR SOME REASON, I THINK IF IT WAS BELOW 10 FEET IT HAD TO COME TO US, BUT I COULDN'T REMEMBER. YEAH. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT CAN, I, I DON'T THINK THAT HAS TO GO TO BOA, BUT OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'M WAITING FOR WORD BACK FROM TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? STEVENS THE COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UM, COULD, COULD YOU JUST REFRESH OUR MEMORY IN TERMS OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING, WHAT THE USE OF THIS BUILDING CURRENTLY IS, AND THEN WHAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD BE? IT'S A LAW OFFICE CURRENTLY, AND THEY HAVE MAXIMIZED THEIR SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SO THEY ESSENTIALLY JUST WANNA GO UP AND ADD ADDITIONAL, LIKE SIX OFFICES IN A CONFERENCE AREA ON TOP. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE ANY PARKING SPACES IT LOOKS LIKE? NO, WE NEED MORE, UM, JUST TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, STAFF AND I SPEAKING TO THE ATTORNEY. NOT ALL, ALL EMPLOYEES DRIVE EITHER, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR CLIENTS. UM, SO THEY, THEY LIKE THE AREA, THEY LIKE WHERE THEY'RE AT AND THEY DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MOVE AND, YOU KNOW, VACATE THE BUILDING IF THEY CAN GET THE SECOND FLOOR APPROVED. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? JUST SO POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO WE'RE, WE'RE SEEKING, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL THEN ON THE, UM, SHARED PARKING FOR HOW MANY SPACES? UH, WELL THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A REDUCTION OF FROM THE MINIMUM 12 DOWN TO NINE AND THEIR SHARED PARKING WOULD BE FOR 20%. SO THREE ADDITIONAL SPACES, THREE ADDITIONAL OFFSITE. MM-HMM . OKAY. WHAT IS IT, WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF TERM FOR THAT EASEMENT PARK? ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THAT ARE OFFSITE? WELL, LIKE, WELL YOU'RE GETTING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. YES. SO HOW LONG IS THAT AGREEMENT FOR? IS THERE A DEFINED TERM FOR THAT PARKING SPACE OR? NO, THERE'S NOT A DEFINED TERM. UM, THEY ARE A MINISTRY, SO THEY'RE MORE, YOU KNOW, ON THE WEEKENDS THERE AND THEN THE LAW IS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EIGHT TO FIVE. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. SO THE COOPERATIVE PARKING PLANS, THE PARKING HAS TO BE WITHIN 600 FEET AND, UM, THERE HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE FORMALLY DOCUMENTED AND, UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PERCENTAGE IN HERE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. HUMANA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, ON, LET'S SEE HERE. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE VARIANCE LIMIT 10 FOOT SIDE BUFFER YARD. SO IS THAT CHANGING WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING OR, OR IS IT KIND OF REMAINING THE SAME AND WE'RE JUST BRINGING INTO COMPLIANCE? IT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. OKAY. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE, UH, SITE DISTANCE, UM, SO, SO YOU ARE, YOU ARE PLANNING TO LEAVE THE FENCING AS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING? CORRECT. SO THAT'S NOT CHANGING AT ALL? CORRECT. OKAY. MM-HMM . YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO OFFICE, YEAH, YOU CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP IF YOU WANT MM-HMM . DURING THE WEEK, SO YEAH, THAT'S, YEAH. WELL, WE WOULD BE FINE. UH, WE WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND STORY. IT'S JUST THE THREE PARKING SPOTS THAT HAS US TIED UP. NO, I UNDERSTAND. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M, I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO. YEAH, THE, THE EMAIL DIDN'T SHOW ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE'S UNDER TO SPEAK ON THIS. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY. NO, NO PROBLEM. NO, THERE WASN'T. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 89. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTER REQUESTS FOR ONE OF THREE PARKING SPACE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 12 PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT WITH NINE PARKING SPACES. TWO, A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE A 10 FOOT SIDE BUFFER YARD AND THREE, A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 18 FOOT SITE DISTANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITH A FIVE FOOT SITE DISTANCE SITUATED AT 1120 BUENA VISTA. APPLICANT BEING EDUARDO GARCIA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD NOT CREATE INSTANCE OF OVERFLOW PARKING ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS OR CREATE MORE HAZARDOUS INGRESS EGRESS TRAFFIC ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE HAVE TO SEEK ALTERNATE MEANS OF, OF MEETING THE, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN OUR AND AREA, GIVEN THE EXISTING LOT SIZE. THREE, BY [00:15:01] GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REDUCTION IN PARKING BUFFERS AND SITE DISTANCE WOULD NOT IMPOSE ANY HARM OR THREAT OF HARM TO THE PUBLIC. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USE, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE POTENTIAL OVERFLOW PARKING ONTO NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND SIX, THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY IS THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE ADEQUATE PARKING BUFFERS AND SITE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER STEVEN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF ALL, UH, THREE PIECES OF THIS VARIANCE. I THINK GOING VERTICAL MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. YOU'RE NOT REMOVING ANY PARKING, UH, YOUR OWN TESTIMONY YOU STATED THAT PEOPLE ARE, THAT ARE WORKING THERE ARE NOT NECESSARILY DRIVING THERE. SO I THINK CONTINUING TO PROMOTE THAT AND I DON'T NEED TO SEE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE CAN LEAVE THOSE SPACES FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL FOR THE SAME REASONS MY COLLEAGUE NOTED AND ALSO NO OPPOSITION FROM, UH, REALLY THE, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE, I GUESS SOME OF THE WORKERS WALK TO WORK VERSUS USING THE PARKING SPACES. SO I'M SUPPORTING IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, 10 TO ZERO. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU . YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF? ALRIGHT, UH, , LET THE RECORD SHOW ONE 18 COMMISSION ONE 19. COMMISSIONER CRUZ ENTERED THE, UH, JOIN THE MEETING. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER TWO. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 9 1. THE ADDRESS BEING 2 4 3 4 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE APPLICANT BEING PRTY MANAGEMENT LLC. THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING AND TWO, A THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, LIMITED TO 22 FEET PAST THE FRONT FACADE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS C3. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 ACCESS ROAD AND AIRLIFT AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR A MOTEL. A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED IN MAY, 2025, WHERE UPON A PORTION OF THE EXISTING FENCE WAS FOUND TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF A PROHIBITED MATERIAL. THE PROPERTY OWNER STATED THE NONCOMPLIANT FENCING PREDATES THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND DATED STREET VIEW PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS THE PROHIBITED MATERIAL WAS PLACED BETWEEN FEBRUARY, 2021 AND NOVEMBER, 2022. PER COUNTY RECORDS, THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP WAS ESTABLISHED IN DECEMBER, 2023. A PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT FOR A DRAINAGE CHANNEL SEPARATES A PROPERTY WHERE THE MOTEL OFFICE BUILDING IS LOCATED FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE THE MOTEL UNITS ARE LOCATED. THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED OFFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD CORRUGATED METAL FENCING WITH CAPS AT A PRO, UH, AT A PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET TO THE SOUTH. ADDRESS 25 12 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 ON JUNE 16TH, 2025. SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE FRONT VIEW AND FROM THE REAR SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 9 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE DEFENSE MATERIAL UTILIZES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY AND TWO, THERE ARE NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY THAT MERIT DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIRED DEFENSE MATERIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH 2 5 0 3 0 9 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE COMMERCIAL [00:20:01] PROPERTY ABOUT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT AND TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS IT IS LOCATED ALONG SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 ACCESS ROAD AND IS LIMITED IN SCOPE. STAFF MAILED 17 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE LACKLAND TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, UM, MY NAME IS DMMI BTA AND WE, UH, I JUST BOUGHT A PROPERTY IN 2023. MM-HMM . I DON'T KNOW, IT'S IT, I TALKED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THEY SAID THIS, THERE WAS A SAFETY REASON THEY PUT IT, THE FAN, THE FENCE, THE CORRUGATE METAL FENCE. OKAY. UH, DOES THIS FENCE CURRENTLY HAVE A CAP ON IT? UH, ONE SIDE, YES. ON THE EARLY AVENUE SIDE. OKAY. UM, WE HEAR THESE EVERY SO OFTEN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS, IS FOUND TO BE DESIRABLE, UH, BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S EXPOSED METAL EDGES, UH, ON CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DO CONDITIONS. UH, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION AT THE PODIUM, UH, TO INCLUDE CAPS AS PART OF YOUR REQUEST OR, OR YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. UH, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU. BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH QUESTIONS, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS VERY COMMONPLACE, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO CORRUGATED METAL. UH, SO IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE . OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, ADD OR, OR DO AT THIS TIME? I DON'T KNOW. NOTHING. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU YOU WANT ME TO PUT A CAP ON TOP OF THAT? I CAN'T REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANYTHING. I'M JUST, ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT IS USUALLY FOUND TO BE DESIRABLE WHEN WE HEAR SUCH THINGS THAT THERE IS SOME PROTECTION FROM EXPOSED METAL EDGES ON CORRUGATED METAL MANNA AND COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALWAYS THINK ABOUT IS THAT, UM, WE DON'T WANT TO BRING OUT ANYTHING THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD HARM CITIZENS, UM, NEIGHBORS AND OR GUESTS. AND SO, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT IS THAT WE LIKE TO HEAR THAT APPLICANTS WILL SAY, YES, WE'LL PUT A CAP ON THE FENCE SO AS TO PROVIDE SAFETY. AND SO, SO, AND IT GOES A LONG WAY. I I LIKE TO HEAR THAT, UH, PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEE SAN ANTONIO'S HURT AND SO, SO I, I DO LIKE, AND I, I VOTE MORE OFTEN IN FAVOR WHEN I DO HEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. SO ANYWAYS. OKAY. DO YOU WANT LIKE, PUT IT ALL, ALL THE WAY AROUND WHEREVER THEY ALL LIKE, YOU KNOW? WELL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION SUCH THAT ANY CORRUGATED METAL FENCING WILL HAVE A CAP, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO SO. OKAY. I, I WILL DO. ALRIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE CAPS COMMISSIONER UNA. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, REGARDING THE NUMBER TWO VARIANCE YOU'RE SEEKING, UH, ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, HOW, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO HAVE THAT SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT OF THE, THIS SMALL SECTION OF THE FRONT? I MEAN, I SEE THAT AS JUST BEING A TARGET FOR CONTINUED KIND OF TAGGING OR, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF VALUE PROTECTION THAT SMALL SECTION PROVIDES TO YOU. YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THAT PIECE I'M TALKING ABOUT? YEAH. UH, FOR NUMBER TWO? YEAH. THE NUMBER TWO. YES. UM, POSSIBLE TO BRING THAT, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO BRING THAT DOWN WITHIN COMPLIANCE? UM, OF WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM, WHAT IS IT, A THREE FOOT OR THREE FOOT? THREE FEET? YEAH, NO PROBLEM. OKAY. SO IT'D BE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY NUMBER ONE WITH A CAP AND THEN REMOVAL OF TWO AND THEN REMOVAL OF TWO. OKAY. MANANA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UH, UM, WOULD IT BE OKAY TO LEAVE IT AS CORRUGATED METAL? UM, ON NUMBER TWO IT'D JUST BE, UH, REDUCING HEIGHT AND CAPPED. YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. OKAY. SO, SO FOR STAFF, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE, YOU HAVE THE EXISTING HOTEL AND THERE APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE PORTION THAT'S BEEN BUILT OUT THAT THE FENCING GOES UP TO. UM, YEAH. IS THAT, IS THAT, DOES THAT EXTEND THE FRONT YARD BEYOND WHAT'S SHOWN ON OUR, OUR, UH, PACKAGE? I BELIEVE, UM, THERE IS THE, UH, DRAINAGE EASEMENT. UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? NO, UH, IT'S, IT, I WAS LOOKING ON A GOOGLE STREET VIEW. UM, THERE'S A YELLOW DOTTED LINE THAT DELINEATES THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. YEAH, BUT THERE'S A SHED THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THAT DOTTED LINE. YES. IS THAT CONSIDERED AN ADDITION TO THE FRONT YARD? NO, THE, UH, THE ACTUAL WALL, UH, IS CONSIDERED A FRONT, UH, FACADE. THE, IT, THE ADDITION IS TREATED LIKE A PATIO THE SAME WAY IN A RESIDENTIAL 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S COVERED IN, IT APPEARS. IS THAT THAT LITTLE ADDITION IN THE FRONT OF [00:25:01] YOUR HOTEL THAT'S NEAR YOUR SIGN? THERE'S A VERY SMALL UM, CAN YOU GO TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS, UM, THE FRONT YARD FENCE? FRONT YARD FENCE? RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE AN OFFICE. YEAH. AND, AND, OKAY, SO WHERE THE, WHERE THE SHINY METAL IS RIGHT UNDERNEATH YOUR SIGN? IT'S A LITTLE EXTENSION. IS THAT AN AIR CONDITIONED SPACE? AIR CONDITION, YEAH. OKAY. SO DOES THAT IT'S, IT'S ENCLOSED AND AIR CONDITIONED. DOES THAT COUNT TOWARDS THE FRONT? YEAH, IF HE, IF IT'S ENCLOSED AIR CONDITIONED AND PART OF THE BUILDING, THEN THAT WOULD BE HIS FRONT SETBACK. UM, OKAY. MAYBE JUST STEP, WE DIDN'T OBSERVE IT THE WAY HE'S DESCRIBING IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. THAT IS A FRONT STEPBACK THEN, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE HIS FENCE STOPS THERE IS WHY I WAS ASKING, UH, WELL THE ACTUAL FENCE, SO INSTEAD OF 22 FEET, IT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ABOUT 10 FEET. IF YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE THAT'S UP RIGHT NOW ON THE SCREEN. WELL, IF WE JUST REMOVE NUMBER TWO, HE WOULD JUST HAVE TO CUT BACK WHATEVER GOES PAST THAT FRONT. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I NOTICED THAT THERE'S NO VOICEMAILS. UH, IS THERE ANYONE SENATOR TO SPEAK? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. IS, UM, ANY LAST COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, UH, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT, SIR. UH, LET'S HAVE A LOOKING FOR A MOTION. O ZUNI COMMISSIONER ZUNI REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 9 1. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CORRUGATED METAL FENCING, UH, WITH, WITH CAPS ON THE, UH, AROUND THE PERIMETER SITUATED AT 2 4 3 4 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10, APPLICANT BEING A PROD HEAP MANAGEMENT LLC BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONTRACT TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS DEFENSE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT AND THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE AFFORDED LESS PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY UTILIZING MATERIAL OTHER THAN THOSE OTHER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. DEFENSE MATERIAL UTILIZED WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS ALSO IMPLE IMPLEMENTED ON ANOTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. AND SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE NEED FOR SECURITY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SIMILAR FENCING ON OTHER NEARBY PROPERTIES. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER BEES. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ. UM, WE HAD TESTIMONY ABOUT OTHER PROPERTIES IN VICINITY THAT ALSO HAVE THE CORRUGATED MATERIAL. UH, THE APPLICANT AMENDED HIS, UH, THE APPLICANT AMENDED THE, A APPLICATION TO INCLUDE, INCLUDE THE CAPPING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE FENCE. AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OR NEIGHBORING, UH, ASSOCIATION. SO I AM SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BENES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND THANK YOU FOR, UM, AGREEING TO ADD THE CAPS TO THE TOP OF YOUR FENCING. ALL RIGHT, LET'S, THERE THERE'S NO OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONIS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF F OKAY, SO SHOULD I TALK TO THEM AFTER? YES. UH, WE DID, WE DID APPROVE THE, THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL, UH, WITH THE CAPPING. WE DID NOT APPROVE THE FRONT SETBACK. UH, SO ANY OF THE FENCING THAT GOES BEYOND THAT SMALL ONE STORY OFFICE HAS TO BE REDUCED TO THREE FEET. ALRIGHT, NO PROBLEM. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER THREE. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 2. THE ADDRESS IS 2 4 1 EAST FRENCH PLACE IN CONS. DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS CONTENT SDS. A REQUEST FOR ONE OF FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK [00:30:01] TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT. PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH GATE ENTRANCE, LIMITED TO FIVE FEET OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE. THREE AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW. SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. FOUR, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IN THE REAR. AND FIVE, A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT REAR FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT REAR FENCE. THE ZONING IS R SIX WITH HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN MCCULLOUGH AVENUE AND NORTH ST. MARY STREET, SITUATED ON EAST FRENCH PLACE. THE APPLICANT'S I INITIAL REQUEST WAS FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO HAVE A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK. ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. UPON A VISIT TO THE PROPERTY STAFF IDENTIFIED EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WERE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING A FENCE AND GATE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION AREA ENCROACHMENT IN THE USE OF PROHIBITED FENCE MATERIALS. DATED STREET PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS THAT THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND GATE WERE BUILT BETWEEN MARCH, 2016 AND NOVEMBER, 2018. THIS SLIDE, UM, BRIEFLY DISCUSSES THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THEIR SUMMARY ON THE CASE. UM, ON JUNE 18TH, 2025, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ISSUED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR FRONT PORCH AND REAR FACADE RESTORATION. DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING REAR ADDITION CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY REAR ADDITION CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN A TAR CARPORT AND LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS. THE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE HDRC INCLUDE THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN REFLECTING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT REQUEST FOR A RARE SETBACK VARIANCE. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ITEMS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR FENCE SIDE VARIANCES AND FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE HDRC. FRONT, FRONT YARD FENCES EXCEEDING FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, REAR FENCES EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THE USE OF NON-TRADITIONAL MATERIALS SUCH AS SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THESE ITEMS WILL REQUIRE FINAL REVIEW BY THE HDRC AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION. THIS SITE PLAN HIGHLIGHTS THE AREAS FOR THE VARIANCES AND THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM 2016 WITH NO FRONT FENCE IN AS OF 2018, A FENCE ERECTED AND THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE FRONT VIEW AND YOU COULD SEE THE GATED ENTRANCE HEIGHT AND THE TRAFFIC CLEAR VISION. THE REAR SHOWING THE CORRUGATED, UH, METAL FENCE IN AND THE HEIGHT EXCEEDING THEIR MAXIMUM SIX FEET. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RARE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 0 0 9 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING OF FACT ONE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY. AND APPROVED USE OF CORRUGATED FENCING WAS NOT OBSERVED IN IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FRONT AND REAR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING FACT ONE, THE SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH FRONT FENCE DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE LINE OF SIGHT FOR ONCOMING AND EXITING VEHICLES AND IS LIMITED IN LENGTH TO FIVE FEET. TWO. THE FENCE HEIGHTS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. AND THREE, THE REAR YARD FENCE WILL INCREASE SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PRIVACY BETWEEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES. STAFF MAILED 46 NOTICES, ZERO WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE SAN ANTONIO TE TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION. [00:35:01] MANNA, CAN WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETATION PLEASE? SHE'S NOT, UH, SHE'S NOT DONE YET. OH, SHE'S NOT DONE YET. WELL, SHE'S SHOWING THIS THING HERE, SO I JUST WANTED TO YEAH, THE LAST ONE WAS, UM, THE OPPOSITION AND WAS IN SPANISH. OKAY, SO JUST ASKING FOR YEAH, JUST TRANSLATION FOR, YEAH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO WORRIES. OKAY, SO, UM, YES, , THIS COST THAT WILL INCREASE THE TAXES OF MY PROPERTY. JUANITA RODRIGUEZ. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ONE QUESTION ON THE SITE PLAN. UH, IT HAS AN, THE EXISTING ORIGINAL HOME AND AN A DASH LINE THAT TALKS ABOUT DEMOING AN EXISTING ADDITION AND THEN IT SHOWS THE MAIN ADDITION. IS THAT MAIN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MAIN EXISTING, ORIGINAL HOME ON THE TOP LEFT? I BELIEVE THAT IS THE PLAN THAT THEY'RE DOING IT, IT WILL BE 'CAUSE THEY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT 'CAUSE IT GAVE ME THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE BUILDING IT SEPARATE AND THEN THEY WERE ALSO PROPOSING AN A DU. SO, OKAY. THEY'RE BUILDING IT IN LINE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO GONNA KEEP THE EXISTENCE SET BACK FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI EVERYBODY, MY NAME IS COTTON ES. UH, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, SO I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UM, I'VE, AS THE APPLICANT, I APPLIED, UM, REGARDING ITEM NUMBER ONE AND THEN LEARNED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED, UH, PRIOR TO THE CURRENT OWNER'S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO WE'RE, UM, LOOKING INTO WORKING WITH THOSE EXISTING CONDITIONS HOWEVER NECESSARY, UM, TO MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS. AND WE DO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE, UH, HISTORICAL BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, UM, RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, WHICH IS 660 SQUARE FEET, THE ORIGINAL HOME, UM, DEMOLITION OF A NON PERMITTED LARGE ADDITION IN THE BACK THAT WAS FAIRLY POORLY CONSTRUCTED. UM, I THINK THE EXISTING EDITION WAS CONTEMPORARY WITH THE, UH, THE FRONT FENCE AND, UM, I'LL SPEAK TO THE REAR FENCE IN A MOMENT, BUT, UM, SO I DO NOT BELIEVE HISTORIC HAS REVIEWED THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE NOT PART OF OUR PROPOSAL, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN INCORPORATE WITH THEM MOVING FORWARD. UM, SO I THINK I'LL JUST FOCUS ON NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS, UM, OUR MAIN, MAIN REASON FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND, AND THEN MAYBE, UM, NUMBER FOUR, UH, WHICH STAFF ALSO, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. AND NUMBER FOUR, THE FENCING MATERIAL IN THE REAR. SO I CAN JUST, UM, ADDRESS THOSE TWO, TWO ITEMS. SO AS I MENTIONED, THE EX THE ORIGINAL, UM, HISTORIC STRUCTURES IS A LANDMARK AND THE INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 660 SQUARE FEET. IT'S VERY, VERY TINY, BEAUTIFUL, UM, UH, 1880S HOME. SO, UH, ITS PLACEMENT ON THE SITE SEVERELY RESTRICTS, UH, THE BUILDABLE AREA IN THE BACKYARD AND WE'VE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAINTAIN THE PROPORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL RESPECT, THE PROPORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL HOME. UH, VERY NARROW GABLES, 14 FOOT WIDE TALL EAVES. IT'S KINDA A VICTORIAN, UH, FOLK VICTORIAN HOME. SO, SO WORKING WITHIN THAT LANGUAGE, UM, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND MAKE THIS HOUSE LIVABLE IF WE COULD REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK BY FIVE FEET, UM, AND ALLOW 15 FOOT CLEAR, UH, REMAINING IN THE BACKYARD. THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL NUMBER NUMBER ONE. UM, I'LL JUST SHED A LITTLE MORE LIGHT ON THE ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THE REAR FENCE MATERIAL, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT THE CURRENT OWNER INSTALLED. UM, THE, WHAT, WHAT IS BENEATH? IT'S A, UM, SORRY. IT'S, IT IS NOT A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE. IT'S AN UN UNROLLED, UH, RECLAIMED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF FROM A NEIGHBOR HISTORIC HOME DOWN THE STREET WHO DONATED THIS MATERIAL TO THE CURRENT OWNER. UM, HE USED THAT TO CLAD AN EXISTING CHAIN LINK, SEVEN FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A THREE FOOT CONCRETE FOUNDATION UNDERNEATH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE NEIGHBOR AT 2 38 NORTH RUSSELL PLACE TO THE NORTH, UM, SOME 60 YEARS AGO. AND THAT EXISTING, UM, CAN'T, IT'S NOT WELL BUILT, BUT [00:40:01] IT'S VERY HEAVILY BUILT. IT'S, IT IS, UM, A MONSTER WALL BETWEEN ITS DEEP CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS THAT RUN THE LENGTH OF THE BACK, BACK WALL, SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON STEEL POSTS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN THE CONCRETE. SO THE CURRENT OWNER SIMPLY CLAD THAT CHAIN LINK TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE LOOK USING A HISTORIC, UH, RECLAIMED MATERIAL. AND THEN, UM, HAS GROWN VINES ACROSS THE TOP. UM, THE, THAT FENCE IS ALMOST TWO FEET INTO THEIR PROPERTY. UM, IT WOULD BE PRETTY EXPENSIVE TO TAKE DOWN THEIR CLEAR BENEFITS TO REPLACING IT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY WOULD GAIN QUITE A LOT OF SPACE IN THE BACKYARD, BUT, UM, IT IS EXPENSIVE TO DO SO, SO HE COULD REMOVE, UM, THE EXISTING METAL, UH, THE STANDING STEAM METAL ROOF MATERIAL. HE'S, HE'S INSTALLED OVER THE CHAIN LINK, BUT WHOLESALE REPLACING THE FENCE WOULD BE, UM, A, A MAJOR, MAJOR OPERATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO OFFER THAT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. UH, IS, IS THE STONE WALL A RETAINING, RETAINING OR IS IT JUST A WALL? IT'S JUST A CONCRETE WALL WITH A, A FOOTING. OKAY. SO THE, THE, THE, THE FENCING THAT'S ON TOP OF THE WALL COLLECTIVELY DOESN'T EXCEED SEVEN AND SOME ODD FEET. RIGHT. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE SEVEN FEET ON TOP OF THE WALL, DO YOU? UH, THE WALL, I BELIEVE THE CONCRETE FOOTING COMES UP ABOUT SIX INCHES ABOVE GRADE. OH, OKAY. UM, AND ABOUT TWO FEET BELOW GRADE AND THEN THE CHAIN LINK SITS ON TOP OF THAT. SO MEASURE TO THE VERY TOP OF THE FENCE IS ABOUT SEVEN FEET. OKAY. NOW THAT MAY I, WHEN I HEAR THE WORD WALL, I'M ENVISIONING YEAH. SOMETHING HIGHER. YES. OKAY. UH, SO, SO HISTORIC WAS AGAINST, UH, IT SEEMED ADAMANTLY AGAINST THE USE OF THE METAL ON THE REAR FENCE. AND YOUR, AND, AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THE OWNER'S WILLING TO TAKE THE METAL PART OFF OF THE FENCE. UM, THEY, THEY WOULD RATHER PRESERVE THE FENCE IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY'VE PLANTED IVY ON IT AND, UM, USED HISTORICALLY RECLAIMED MATERIAL. IF THEY WERE TO TAKE DOWN THE, THE METAL, I THINK THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT REPLACING THE CONCRETE AND THE CHAIN LINK MOST LIKELY. UM, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NO OTHER CLADDING YOU CAN PUT ON CHAIN LINK. LIKE I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF COMPOSITE SLATS OR SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE, WE COULD RE CLAD IT AND WOOD. UM, MY FEELING IS THAT TO USE A NICE MATERIAL, UH, LIKE WOOD ON TOP OF A PORE STRUCTURE WOULD BE, UM, A SHAME. SO I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT REPLACING THE OKAY. THE FOOTING. AND THE, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I THINK MR. STEVENS, STEVEN, I THINK THAT THE FENCE IS QUITE TASTEFUL. NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT LOOKS NICE. THANKS. ALRIGHT. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? YES, I GOT A QUESTION. UH, HAS THE FENCE MATERIAL, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT? NO. IT, IT HAS NOT. AND I APOLOGIZE, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WE FOCUSED ON THE NEW WORK INSTEAD OF APPROVING EXISTING CONDITIONS. BUT I CAN BE SURE, UM, TO INCLUDE THAT FOR THEIR REVIEW. UH, ON, ON THE, SO THERE ARE TWO ROUNDS OF, UH, APPROVALS WITH HISTORIC AND ON OUR FINAL REVIEW WE COULD INCLUDE THAT IF IT'S APPROVED TODAY, CHAIR. YES. SO REGARDLESS WHETHER WE APPROVE THIS OR NOT, IT STILL HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE, THE STROKE DEPARTMENT, ISN'T IT? CORRECT. WELL, I WOULD THINK SO. I MEAN, BECAUSE WE, WE WOULD APPROVE THE USE OF, WE COULD APPROVE THE USE OF THE MATERIAL. HISTORIC STILL HAS TO GIVE HER, UM, APPROVAL OVER THE PROJECT 'CAUSE IT'S IN HISTORIC AND AT THAT TIME IF HISTORIC, IF SHE COULDN'T GET THAT ASPECT OF IT THROUGH, SHE COULD APPEAL THAT ASPECT OF IT BACK TO US. SO SHE, YEAH, SO SHE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINITELY, SHE MIGHT COME BACK TO US OR THEY MIGHT NOT. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? UH, ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR IT. ANDREW ALVARADO. MY ADDRESS IS 2 38 EAST RUSSELL PLACE AND MY CASE NUMBER IS UH, 9 9 3. THE LAST THREE DIGITS, THE FULL THING IS 3 3 9 9 3. AND THE ADDRESS OF THE RESIDENCE IS 2 41 EAST FRENCH FOR THE CASE. AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, THE CASE WITH THE PROPOSAL. WITH THE PROPOSAL AND UH, YES, THAT IS IT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. UNLESS THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO A MOTION. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS MANA COMMISSIONER? MANA. [00:45:03] LET'S SEE HERE. SURE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 2. I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. THREE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IN THE REAR SITUATED AT 2 4 1 EAST FRENCH PLACE. APPLICANT BEING, UH, COTTON ES BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE, UH, ADEQUATE SPACING REMAINS FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE NEAR STRUCTURE OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE REAR. UM, THE RISK OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS HAS NOT INCREASE AS IT DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE CLEAR VISION FOR SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY. UH, THOUGH THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY, THE AS-BUILT FENCE IS LIMITED TO THE REAR YARD AND PROVIDES ADDED PRIVACY FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UH, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE, UM, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, BUT THE REAR YARD IS LIMITED IN DEPTH DUE TO THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME AS ESTABLISHED. UM, REPOSITIONING THE FENCE WOULD RESULT IN THE PROPERTY OWNER LOSING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR FRONT YARD AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE AS-BUILT FENCE. INSTALL A NEW FENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODES GUIDELINES. THREE BIKE GRANTING THE VARIANCE, A SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS AND WATER RUNOFF. AND THE RISK OF FIRE HAZARDS WOULD BE AGGRAVATED. UM, THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY, CLEAR VISION STILL ALLOWS FOR SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE AS-BUILT FENCE IS LIMITED TO THE REAR YARD AND PROVIDES, UM, ADDED PRIVACY FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN ADDITION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE REAR YARD WOULD BE MAINTAINED AT A WIDTH A 15 FOOT AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS FOR THE DRIVEWAY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK FACE AND THEIR SURROUNDING AREA. AND, UH, THOUGH THE BRICK, UH, DEFENSE MATERIAL IS UTILIZED AS PROHIBITED BY THE CITY, THE AS-BUILT FENCE IS LIMITED TO THE REAR YARD AND PROVIDES ADDED PRIVACY FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF 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 THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS A DEEP FRONT YARD LENGTH ESTABLISHED UPON THE ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH LEAVES A LIMITED AREA IN THE DEVELOPED, UH, TO DEVELOP AND BUILD WITHIN THE REAR YARD. THE SURROUNDING AREA HAS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED CLEAR VISION STANDARD AND MEETING THE CURRENT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THEIR YARD SPACE ESTABLISHED FOR OVER A CENTURY. AND THOUGH THE PROP, THOUGH THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY, THE FENCE IS LIMITED TO THE REAR YARD AND PROVIDES ADDED PRIVACY FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE AS-BUILT FENCE, INSTALL NEW FENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UDC GUIDELINES AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND SAYS OKAY WITH THE FENCING. SO THAT WAS I GUESS ONE OF THE BIG DRAWS. AND THEN YOU AND I, I DO AGREE THAT IT DOES, UM, UM, APPEAR TO BE ATTRACTIVE, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE WAY IT LOOKS AND FITS IN WITH THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, THE CAPA, THE, THE UM, UM, VINES. SO THAT LOOKS NICE. UM, AND THEN I THINK THE REST OF IT, UM, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC REVIEW HAS SAID THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO, UH, WITH THAT I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MR. MANNA HAD TO SAY. I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, SOURCING LOCAL HISTORIC MATERIAL KIND OF CONTRIBUTES TO HOW BEAUTIFUL THIS PROPERTY IS. AND UM, I THINK THAT YOU'VE BEEN VERY THOUGHTFUL IN TERMS OF THE ADDITIONS YOU'RE PLANNING, SO I'LL BE IN FULL SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT AND I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO HDRC, UM, MAKES ME FEEL MUCH BETTER ABOUT IT. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER [00:50:01] STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EALES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR OREN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO NOW TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A TWO FIVE. THANK WE. 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 2. I MOVED TO THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT. ONE, A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH GATE ENTRANCE. LIMITED TO FIVE FEET OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE. AND TWO, A, UH, ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT REAR FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT REAR FENCE SITUATED AT 2 4 1 EAST FRENCH PLACE. APPLICANT BEING ESUS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE EC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER AS THE SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH TALL GATE ENTRANCE IS LIMITED TO JUST A FIVE FOOT PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE, PROVIDING VISUAL OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT OBSTRUCT CLEAR VISION. THE REAR YARD FENCE WILL ALLOW INCREASED SECURITY TO A PROPERTY THAT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL USES. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE AS-BUILT GATE ENTRANCE ADDS TO THE HISTORIC CHARM OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. THEIR INCREASED REAR FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL PROTECTION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AS SUCH PROPOSED USES AS THERE IS VISUAL OPENNESS AND THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE. THE REAR YARD FENCE HEIGHT INCREASE DOES NOT INJURE THE REAR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS IT'LL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY BETWEEN BOTH PROPERTIES. UH, D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS A REMAINDER OF THE FRONT FENCE IS ABIDING BY THE FRONT YARD FENCE, HEIGHT, AND OPENNESS. THE REAR FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. AS THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY IS STILL PROMOTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS NO LOSS OF LIGHT, AIRFLOW AND VISUAL OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY ON THE FRONT AND REAR YARD FENCES. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, FOR THE SAME REASONS I VOTED FOR THE FIRST ONE, YOU KNOW, I'D BE USING FOR THE SECOND ONE AS WELL. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YEAH, AGAIN, THE REAR FENCE, VERY TASTEFULLY DONE. AND I THINK THAT THE GATE ENTRYWAY AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. IT REMINDS ME OF LIKE, UM, THE SECRET GARDEN OR SOMETHING. IT'S GREAT . SO IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD A HEARING NOW LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BEES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, HOW THIS IS GREAT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BO A DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 ADDRESS AT 1 1 4 BERRY STREET IN CONSUL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS STEPHANIE PINA. A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THE ZONING IN IS R FOUR AND IT IS IN THE HISTORIC RIVER ROAD DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST EAST OF HIGHWAY 2 81 ON DEBERRY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A REDUCED REAR SETBACK. THE PROPERTY DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN, AS AN IRREGULAR LOT AS DEFINED BY THE UDC, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR A REDUCED REAR SETBACK. AS SUCH, A VARIANCE MUST BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THIS IS ALSO A HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, CASE. UM, THEY SUBMITTED THEIR COMMENTS AND IT READS, ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS [00:55:01] OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW OUTLINED IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ON FEBRUARY 19TH, 2025, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ISSUED FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH A SITE PLAN REFLECTING THE PRESENT BOA REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT RARE SETBACK. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE REAR SETBACK IS TO, UM, IDENTIFY IT AS NUMBER ONE. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AS YOU SEE, THERE IS A WOODEN FENCE TO THE FRONT, WHICH EXCEEDS THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT, BUT THEY ARE INTENDED TO DEMOLISH THIS FENCE UPON CON UM, CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS THE INTERIOR AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT ONE SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF MAILED 18 NOTICES. THREE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND NO RESPONSE FROM SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ONE DISTRICT RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION. AND THESE ARE THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET IN SUPPORT. AND THIS IS THE COMMENTS FROM THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. OKAY. UM, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE PINA. THIS IS MY HUSBAND DANIEL. UM, WE'RE WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR PLANS FOR OUR, OUR HOME. UM, THE AREA IN QUESTION IS, IS FIVE FEET. UM, WITHIN WHAT WAS, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA STUMBLE AROUND A LITTLE BIT. SO, UH, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM OF 20 MM-HMM . UM, I, IF YOU VISIT THE THE SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ADJACENT SHARING A FENCE WITH US ALSO, UM, HAVE SHEDS OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE WELL WITHIN FIVE FEET OR LESS OF OUR FENCING. SO WE FEEL LIKE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SAME, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO, YOU USE OUR PROPERTY AS THEY HAVE EQUAL RESPECT. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A PARALLELOGRAM. YOU, YOU KNOW, JUST THINGS POP UP. IT IS ODD. SO, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. APOLOGIZE. IT'S A RHOMBUS COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YEAH, I'M, I'M WONDERING IF CITY STAFF COULD JUST GIVE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS THROMBUS IS NOT CONSIDERED IRREGULAR. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE THE AVERAGE SETBACK IS, IS PROBABLY MORE LIKE 20 SOMETHING ON AVERAGE. SO WE REVIEWED THIS, UM, WITH OUR TRAFFIC SECTION. UM, INITIALLY WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A EYEBROW STREET, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED ONLY THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE, UM, IN THAT TURN, UH, THE, THE PRETTY MUCH THE LOT RIGHT ABOVE THEM IS CONSIDERED, UH, FRONTING ON AN EYEBROW STREET. YES, THE ANGLES ARE IRREGULAR BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD QUALIFY 'CAUSE THEY'RE IRREGULAR IN THE SAME DIRECTION. IS NOT IRREGULAR IN ONE HERE, ONE THERE. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE LOT. STAFF INITIALLY TOLD THEM THIS WAS AN IRREGULAR LOT, BUT THAT AFTER IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE, UH, ADMINISTRATOR, UM, AND TRAFFICKED AND THEY DETERMINED IT WAS NOT ALRIGHT. HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, I I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY VOICEMAILS ON THIS AND ANYONE CENTER TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE A UH, UH, MOTION MAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT AT FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 1 1 4 DEWEY DEBERRY STREET, [01:00:01] APPLICANT B AND STEPHANIE PENA PENA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN FACT THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR BUILDING SETBACKS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. TWO, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE SLANTED FRONT AND REAR BOUNDARIES OF THE LOT LIMIT THE ABILITY TO MAXIMIZE USABLE SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTS WHILE COMPLYING WITH THEIR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES REMAINS FOR MAINTENANCE, WATER RUNOFF, AND FIRE SAFETY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE A MINIMUM 15 FOOT OF REAR YARD DEPTH WOULD BE MAINTAINED PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY. LINE SIX, APPLY TO THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE P APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE ATYPICAL SLANTED CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT LINES AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. UM, AND SO, UM, I DO BELIEVE THIS TO BE AN IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UM, UM, THE REQUEST IS CERTAINLY, UM, UH, DOABLE. ALSO, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A LOT AND BUILDING A HOME, 'CAUSE CITIES, SAN ANTONIO CERTAINLY NEEDS, UM, HOMES BEING BUILT. AND THEN FINALLY, UM, HAVING RIVER ROAD IN FAVOR WAS A COUP FOR Y'ALL. SO GOOD JOB THERE. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE REASONS, UH, MY, UH, COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER, UH, MANNA STATED, AND I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? I JUST WANNA SAY I'M IN FAVOR, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT, UH, VISUAL EXAMPLE FOR THE UDC RE AMENDMENTS FOR REGULAR LOTS. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZ LUNA. YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK GOD. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS CASE BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 8. THE ADDRESS BEING 70 38 UTSA BOULEVARD COUNCIL, DISTRICT EIGHT, THE APPLICANT BEING LET US LICENSE, UH, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION FOR A NONCONFORMING USE OU TO PERMIT THE USE OF A MOBILE FOOD COURT. PROPERTY ZONING IS C TWO. RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. AERIAL IMAGERY CONFIRMS NO MOBILE FOOD COURT USE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY FROM 2016 OR EARLIER. ADDITIONALLY, NO CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A MOBILE FOOD COURT USE AT THIS LOCATION OR HAVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS BEEN GRANTED TO SUPPORT THE USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM SINGLE FAMILY ZONING OR USES WERE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 2012 DASH ZERO FIVE DASH 17 DASH 0 3 55, WHICH ALSO RESTRICTED MOBILE FOOD COURTS WITHIN THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT, WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS, IS WITHIN. THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS TWO EXISTING FOOD TRUCKS WITH FOUR NEW PROPOSED FOOD TRUCKS PER THE UDC. THE USE OF TWO FOOD TRUCKS IS CLASSIFIED AS ONLY A FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT. UH, BUT THE USE OF THREE TO 10 FOOD TRUCKS IS CONSIDERED A MOBILE FOOD COURT, WHICH REQUIRES A ZONING WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION WITHIN THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT. GIVEN THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE USE WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 2012 ORDINANCE, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE STATUS. UH, THE ESTABLISHED MOBILE FOOD COURT TO THE SOUTH, THE BLOCK SA WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE, UH, 2012 ORDINANCE. AND THIS IS THE NON-CONFORMING USE [01:05:01] CERTIFICATE THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR DENIAL. UH, WITH THOSE SAME FINDINGS. THIS IS THE A, UH, SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE TWO EXISTING FOOD TRUCKS THAT ARE THERE TO THE, UH, TOP LEFT CORNER AND THE HIGHLIGHTED, UH, NEW PROPOSED FOOD TRUCKS ON THE PROPERTY. UH, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE, THERE IS AN EXISTING CORNER STORE OR A CONVENIENCE STORE, AND THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE UDC SECTION 35 DASH 3 99 FOR MOBILE FOOD COURTS SHOWING THAT EACH MOBILE FOOD COURT SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200 FEET AWAY FROM ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. UH, FURTHERMORE, THE DEFINITION OF A MOBILE FOOD COURT IS THERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THREE OR MORE MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT CONVENIENCE STORE WITH THE TWO EXISTING MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. IN CONCLUSION, UH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE USE OF A MOBILE FOOD COURT WILL REQUIRE A CHANGE OF ZONING APPROVAL BASED ON SECTION 35 DASH 7 0 2 A BA, UH, FOLLOWED BY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL TO REDUCE THE 200 FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, ONE AERIAL IMAGERY CONFIRMS NO MOBILE FOOD COURT USE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY FROM 2016 OR EARLIER. AND TWO, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM SINGLE FAMILY ZONINGS OR USES WERE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 2012 DASH FIVE DASH SEVEN DASH 0 3 5 5, WHICH ALSO RESTRICTED MOBILE FOOD COURTS WITHIN THE ERZD AND THAT, UH, STAFF MAILED OUT 11 NOTICES, UH, ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE CEDAR POINT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THE W RIOT COMMON COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION DID NOT RESPOND, AND THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YEP. HI, MY NAME'S ALIZA ALI WITH LETTUCE LICENSE. UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS, THE BUSINESS OWNERS OF, UH, ZQ MART. AND, UM, WE'RE PRESENTING THIS APPEAL. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A PRESENTATION FOR THIS THAT WOULD CUT, UM, WE'RE NOT ARGUING BASED OFF OF THE RULES OF ZONING RATHER THAN, UM, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE ZONING WAS OVERLOOKED. UM, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, WE TRIED WORKING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO WHICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SENT US BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEY COMPLETED THE REMAINING INSPECTIONS AND PASSED THE MOBILE FOOD COURT PERMIT, UM, IN 2020. SINCE THEN, EVERY YEAR WE'VE BEEN RENEWING WITH NO ISSUES OPERATING. UM, ADDITIONALLY, I THINK AT THE, THIS LAST RENEWAL IN 2020 4TH OF NOVEMBER, THAT'S WHEN THEY ASKED US TO GET MOBILE FOOD COURT ADDED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH THEN OPENED THE CAN OF, OF WORMS OF ZONING, UM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. UM, KIND OF GIVE YOU A TIMELINE, UH, THE OWNER'S BEEN THERE SINCE OH FIVE. IN 2019 THEY STARTED THE MOBILE FOOD COURT APPLICATION PROCESS, UM, ESTABLISHED BUSINESS IN 2020 AGAIN FOR FOUR YEARS, NO ISSUES. AND THEN ON THE LAST RENEWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WAS ASKING FOR MOBILE FOOD COURT BE ADDED, UH, AS A USE ON THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UH, FROM NOVEMBER TO TODAY, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON CLOSING OUT OPEN BUILDING, BUILDING PERMITS, YOU KNOW, GETTING THAT COO APPLIED AND NCUS AND HERE WE ARE TODAY, UH, MOVING FORWARD. UM, AGAIN, WE'RE APPEALING BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN OVERLOOK ON THE CITY'S PART, UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION MOVING FORWARD. UM, IF YOU CLICK ON THAT REASON FOR APPEAL, IT SHOULD OPEN UP A LINK. UH, THIS KIND OF GOES TO SHOW THE BUSINESS OWNER'S BEEN THERE SINCE OH FIVE, ACTIVE SALES TAX, UM, ALCOHOL PERMITS, YOU CAN JUST KEEP GOING DOWN. I'LL SPEAK AS YOU'RE MOVING IT. UM, ACTIVE ALCOHOL PERMITS SINCE OH FIVE AS WELL. UM, AND THEN IF YOU JUST KEEP GOING DOWN, SO IT WAS A BILL OF SALE SHOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE THERE SINCE OH FIVE, BUT, UM, YOU CAN CLOSE IN THAT ONE OUT. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I DUNNO IF YOU GUYS WANNA SEE A BILL OF SALE AS WELL. BUT, UM, MOVING FORWARD ON THE NEXT ONE, AGAIN, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, UM, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISED US TO GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THEY TOLD US TO GO BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THEY'D RUN AROUND, RIGHT? UM, CONTINUED THE PROCESS AND GOT APPROVED, UH, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO [01:10:01] BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WAS NECESSARY. UH, THEY HAD THE PROPERTY OWNER BILLED OUT, UM, RESTROOMS AND, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, WHICH COST THEM OVER $50,000, UM, WHICH GOT THE INSPECTIONS PASSED. YOU CAN CLICK ON APPLICATION PROCESS, IT'LL SHOW. SO THIS WAS THE INTERACTION IN JUNE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADDRESSING US TO GET WITH, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WORK. UH, AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE OVER DOWN. AND THEN AUGUST WE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO WHICH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LIKE, WELL, MOBILE FOOD COURTS ARE HANDLED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. AND WE WENT BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEY CONTINUED ON WITH THE PROCESS AND PASSED. THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO WHICH WE GOT THAT RESPONSE. OKAY. AND THEN THESE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE IN JANUARY WHEN WE WENT BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AFTER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAD, YOU KNOW, TOLD US TO CONTINUE WITH THEM. AND THEN THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO SHOW A TOTAL OF SIX TRUCKS, UM, WHICH WOULD QUALIFY FOR A MOBILE FOOD COURT. AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, AGAIN, SINCE 2020 TO 2024, THERE WERE NO ISSUES OPERATING, UM, IN 2021 AND 2022 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS ON THE PROPERTY DEALING WITH ANOTHER, UH, PROJECT. AND AT THAT TIME, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT UP REGARDING MOBILE FOOD COURTS OR ISSUES WITH ZONING OR CFO. UM, IF YOU CLICK ON THAT LINK, IT JUST SHOWS, UM, SOME OPEN PERMITS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, UM, AND THEN THE OPEN PERMITS AS WELL WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, SINCE NOVEMBER, UH, THIS WAS A KIND OF SURPRISE AND SINCE THEN IT'S CAUSED AN INCONVENIENCE AND EXTRA COST. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, SINCE WE GOT THE DENIAL ON THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WAS WILLING TO, I GUESS, PUT A NOTE IN THE SYSTEM THAT SAYS AS LONG AS THE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE THE SAME, THEY'LL WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING C OF OR MOBILE FOOD COURT BE ADDED ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. RIGHT. AND THEY'RE LIKE, AS LONG AS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS OKAY WITH THAT, AND I WAS HOPING THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RESOLUTION TO THIS, BUT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE NCU AND BOA AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, THIS IS THE PROCESS TO ESSENTIALLY PRESENT THAT FACT. SO HERE WE ARE TODAY, UM, IF WE WERE TO GET DENIED THE MOBILE FOOD COURT WOULD BE SHUT DOWN. UM, CITY FACES NO CONSEQUENCES TO THIS. I THINK IT WAS AN OVERLOOK ON THEIR PART AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS OWNER STILL HAS NOT GOTTEN BACK A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, SO. OKAY. SOME HUGE POINTS. WELL, I GOT A SLEW OF QUESTIONS. UH, I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, SOME FOR THE CITY. UH, SO IF YOU, IF YOU, IF THIS APPLICANT ONLY HAD TWO FOOD COURT, UH, TWO MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND WOULD THE, WOULD HAVING TWO STILL REQUIRE HIM TO GO TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HAVE EXTRA RESTROOMS OR WHATNOT? I, I KNOW HE STILL HAS TO PROVIDE THE HEALTH REQUIREMENT FOR TWO. I, I JUST DUNNO WHAT THOSE ARE. AND THEN, UM, I REMEMBER A LONG TIME AGO WHEN MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS WERE THING AND THE CITY PUT OUT THIS IS HOW WE'RE GONNA TREAT THEM. AND, AND IT WAS, IT WAS NEW TO EVERYBODY. WHEN DID THEY FIRST APPEAR IN THE UDC AS A USE? 2012 WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT CAME OUT TO YES. IT WAS QUITE A WHILE AGO, CORRECT. OKAY. SO IN 2020 YOU APPLY, YOU HAD SIX, HOW MANY DID YOU HAVE IN 2020 FOOD TRUCKS IN 29? IN 2020 ONCE WE GOT APPROVAL, IT WENT UP TO SIX. BUT YOU, PRIOR, PRIOR TO THAT, YOU HAD TWO? CORRECT. SO IN 2020 YOU ONLY APPLIED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH? WE STARTED THE PROCESS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEN OKAY. AND, AND FOR STAFF, IS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH A A SUBDEPARTMENT OF, OF, OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON APPLYING FOR A PERMIT OR ARE THEY INDEPENDENT? HOW, WHERE DO THEY STAND IN THIS PROCESS? UM, THEY'RE INDEPENDENT AS FAR AS, UM, GETTING THE PERMIT, I BELIEVE. BUT THEY STILL CLASSIFY. UM, AND THE CONFUSION WAS THEY STILL CLASSIFY ONE OR TWO FOOD TRUCKS AS MOBILE FOOD COURT ON THEIR EYES. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR AN APPLICANT TO APPLY TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND NOT NECESSARILY DO IT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT PROCESS? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO THE, THE, I THINK THE CONFUSION WAS IS THAT YOU, YOU HAD DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS [01:15:01] AND ONE OF THE BIG ONES GOING TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND, AND WHAT WAS THE, UH, THE TRIGGER THAT BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION WAS DURING A RENEWAL IN 2024, I GUESS SOMEONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASKED, HEY, WHAT'S, UH, GOING ON WITH THE CO? YEAH, THEY HAD TO GET A CFO WITH THE, UH, MOBILE FOOD COURT, WHICH INITIATED A NON-CONFORMING APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DENIED, WHICH INITIATED THIS. OKAY. WELL THAT DOES IT FOR ME. IS THERE ANY OF THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CLASSIFIES ALL, UH, FOOD TRUCKS, UM, PARKS AS MOBILE FOOD COURTS, AND SO THEY DON'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO VERSUS THE MORE THAN TWO, CORRECT? YEAH, THEY HAVE THE HEALTH STANDARDS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY THERE ARE. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, AND SO, AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, UM, YOU NEVER REALLY APPLIED FOR, UM, FOR, FOR THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR MOVING TO THE LARGER GROUPING OF THE FOOD COURT, CORRECT. SO, SO ESTABLISHING A MOBILE FOOD COURT VERSUS WHAT WAS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? WHEN IT CAME TIME TO GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND IT CAME TIME TO GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ADDRESS THAT PART, WHEN WE STARTED THAT PROCESS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TOLD US TO GO BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THAT PROCESS WAS NEVER COMPLETED. SO WHEN WE WENT BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WITH THE LETTER AND THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT BACK FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THEY TOOK THAT LETTER AND THAT AND JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS AND THE REMAINING INSPECTIONS. SO I GUESS BACK TO THE CITY THEN. SO, UM, SO, UM, I, I GUESS WAS, WOULD AN EXPECTATION BE SET UPON AN APPLICANT TO, UH, I GUESS FINISH THAT WORKFLOW OF KNOWING THAT THEY, THEY HAD TO STILL COMPLY WITH REGARDS TO REZONING OR REP, I GUESS GET, YEAH, GETTING A REZONED FOR ALLOWING FOR THE LARGER GROUP OR I, I GUESS HOW IS IT THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCONNECT? SO WHEN APPARENTLY WHEN SOMEBODY SENT HIM BACK TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WE ARE NOT, WE DID NOT HAVE AN APPLICATION TO REVIEW. WE WERE JUST GIVING HIM, UM, OR WHOEVER CAME INFORMATION ON WHAT THE ZONING WAS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE TOLD THEM THAT THE ZONING, IT REQUIRED REZONING OR NONCONFORMING AT THE TIME, BUT IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE HEALTH DEPARTMENT NEEDED THAT THEY JUST NEEDED A CFO AND THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, FROM WHAT HE'S SAYING. YEAH. I'LL JUST SUM SUMMARIZE A LITTLE BIT TO TRY TO HELP. UH, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT HER IS, ONCE THE NON-CON, THE APPLICATION FOR NON-CONFORMING USE FOR THE FOOD COURT, WHICH ADDED THE MUL ADDITIONAL FOOD TRUCKS, PRIOR TO THAT YOU WERE SENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, THE APPLICANT WAS SENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR JUST FOR THE PERMIT. AND SO WE, LIKE YOU SAID, WE WOULD'VE DONE THAT IN ANY CASE, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF FOOD TRUCKS. BUT ONCE THE ADDITIONAL FOOD TRUCKS WERE ADDED WITH THE NO PERFORM WARNING, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DENIED. BUT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED ONCE HE APPLIED FOR THE C OF O STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, DID THE, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT, NOT JUST A, IT'S A, A FOOD PERMIT, NOT A, NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. NO. BUT THEY HAD TO BUILD OUT RESTROOMS. SO THERE'S A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT AND THEN A MOBILE FOOD COURT PERMIT. IF YOU HAVE A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE TWO FOOD COURTS ON YOUR PROPERTY. RIGHT. AS LONG AS THEY'RE COMING AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE LEAVING THAT SAME DAY. RIGHT. AND AS RESTROOM REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THEY QUALIFY THOSE RESTROOMS USED FROM THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT OWNER. RIGHT? SO IF THAT CONVENIENCE STORE HAD A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, YOU WOULD USE THOSE BATHROOMS IN THAT FACILITY, BUT SINCE YOU'RE UPGRADING TO MORE THAN TWO, IT UPGRADES IT TO A MOBILE FOOD COURT REQUIREMENT, WHICH THEN CHANGES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTROOMS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. SO AT THE TIME WHEN THERE WAS TWO, THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER A MOBILE, OR I'M SORRY, A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT. RIGHT. AND THEN THAT FOOD, IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, THERE'S ALSO A MOBILE FOOD COURT PERMIT THERE. SO EVERY YEAR THAT BUSINESS OWNER RENEWS TWO PERMITS, ONE FOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND ONE FOR THE MOBILE FOOD COURT. SO I GUESS WHEN THE TRANSITION HAPPENED FROM TWO TO SIX, THAT'S WHEN ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT GO FROM FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO MOBILE FOOD COURT CAME UP. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHEN THE COST OF THE $50,000 AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND ALL THAT WENT THROUGH. AND, AND, AND THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE, WHERE LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL WILL COME IN OR, AND THEY'LL BE INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY. SO LIKE IN A RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, RESTROOMS HAVE TO HAVE A SELF-CLOSING DOOR. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT UNLESS IT'S A FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY. AND SO IF THAT INSPECTION IS BEING DONE NOT BY A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INSPECTOR, BUT BY SOMEONE FROM THE HEALTH [01:20:01] DEPARTMENT THAT, I MEAN, THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S, THERE'S JUST INDEPENDENCE. UM, SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, IS YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN APPEAL OF A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THE NON-CONFORMING USE. ONCE YOU GO FROM THREE TO 10, YOU'RE IN A SPECIAL ZONING. IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED TODAY, I KNOW THAT ON AN ON AN NCU, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. COULD HE STILL GO UP TO 10 FOOD COURTS IF THIS GETS APPROVED TODAY OR IS HE LOCKED IN AT SIX? SO IT WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE NON-CONFORMING DENIAL. THE NON-CONFORMING SITE PLAN SHOWS SIX. OKAY. UM, SO HE, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, UM, GO ABOVE SIX. OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THAT WORKS. AND, AND ON THE MOVE AND ON THE, DO YOU HAVE ANY FIXED SEATING THAT SERVES THIS OR ARE THEY JUST TRUCKS THAT ARE PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT? UH, THERE'S A SEATING AREA IN THE BACK, RIGHT? YES. COME UP. I BELIEVE THERE'S A SEATING AREA IN THE BACK AS WELL. I'M, I'M, WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN IS WHAT, COME ON UP, SIR. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS FA AMAD. I'M THE MANAGER OVER THERE. OKAY. SO, SO MY, THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION IS WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE RESTROOMS. ARE THERE, WERE THERE ANY OTHER FIXED ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD TRUCKS THAT YOU HAD TO DO? YES, SIR. UH, WHEN YOU WENT FROM TWO TO SIX, NOT NOT JUST PICNIC TABLES, BUT LIKE A FIX BUILT IN SORT OF ELEMENT. OKAY. UH, SIR, FIRST OF ALL, UH, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SAID WE NEED A BATHROOM OUTSIDE BECAUSE WE CLOSE THE STORE 12 O'CLOCK AND THE FOOD TRUCK CLOSED LIKE ONE ONE O'CLOCK OR SOMETIME TWO O BECAUSE IN FRONT OF THE UTSA, THE STUDENTS, THE WALK-IN STUDENTS. AND AFTER THAT I SAY, OKAY, I DO IT THIS ONE. THEN AFTER THEN, UM, THEY, THEY REQUIRE FOR THE GREASE STRAP, THEY ALSO NEED, UH, THE SINK OUTSIDE THE WATER, HOT, COLD WATER, HOT WATER, EVERYTHING. AND I PUT ALL THE LINES, I PAY EXTRA MONEY FOR THE ALL FOOD TRUCKS. THEY HAVE LIKE WATER WATERLINE, ELECTRIC LINES SEPARATELY. SO I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY THERE AND LAST SIX YEARS IS EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL. BUT, UH, RECENTLY, UM, THE HEALTH INSPECTOR BY MR. NATHAN AND, UH, BECAUSE BEHIND, UH, MY BUILDING THE FOOD COURT, LIKE YOU SEE THE BLOCK, UH, HE THREATENED MANY TIMES, HEY, YOU HAVE TO SHUT DOWN THIS ONE. THIS IS MY BUSINESS. I SAID, NO, I WANNA INCREASE LITTLE BIT. MY BUSINESS IS DOWN, SO I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING LITTLE BIT TO EVERYBODY. GET IT. THERE'S NO COMPETITION. AND EVERY MONTH WE GET A COMPLAINT, UH, LIKE WE HAVE TO SHUT DOWN WHERE THEY COME AND CHECK MY INSPECTION. SO I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS VERY, UH, , THIS IS VERY FISHY, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S HAPPENED WITH ME. AND, UH, NOW THE LAST YEAR, LAST YEAR, THE INSPECTOR A NEW ONE AND HE SAY, OH, YOU HAVE TO NEW, UH, YOU NEED A NEW ONE. SO, I DON'T KNOW, IT APPEARS I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, SIR. IT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT, THAT YOU, YOU KIND OF SNUCK UNDER THE RADAR A LITTLE BIT. YES SIR. 'CAUSE YOU DID GET A PERMIT FROM ONE DEPARTMENT, BUT YOU DIDN'T GET ONE FROM THE OTHER. AND YES, SIR. MAYBE YOUR NEIGHBOR MADE AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT. WHO KNOWS? YES, SIR. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER. SO, UH, WHAT FOR THE CITY HERE, SO, SO, UM, TO OBTAIN THE, UM, TO MOVE FROM, FROM THE TWO TWO PLUS, UM, WOULD IT REQUIRE, UH, FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, UH, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO HAVE HAD ALL THESE OTHER SERVICES INSTALLED PRIOR TO ISSUING THE PERMIT? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN'T GO GET THE PERMIT AND THEN COME BACK AFTER THE FACT AND PUT IN ALL THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIANT. IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? YOU CAN, SO SO TO GET THE ONE, YOU HAVE TO DO THE THE OTHER ONE FIRST, WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? YEAH, IT APPEARS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO GRANT THEM WHATEVER THEY'RE GRANTING THEM ON THEIR END. SO THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH YOU DESCRIBED FOR, FOR THAT SECTION. WOULD THAT BE PROCESSED AS A TRADE PERMIT THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY GO THROUGH A FULL REVIEW? LIKE IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A COMP SITE PERMIT? IT WOULD JUST BE MULTIPLE TRADE PERMITS? YEAH, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH A ZONING REVIEW. IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL SITE PERMIT, IT WOULD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. BUT JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CITY ISSUED LIKE A RENOVATION PERMIT OR OVER THE COUNTER PERMIT. SO THERE WAS, DID, DID THE ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY REVIEW THIS FOR THIS USE? I, SO THE ZONING TECHNICAL REVIEWS WAS JUST ADDED WITHIN THE, SINCE 2024. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID THEN, BUT WE DO DO THAT NOW FOR ALL COMMERCIAL PERMITS. THAT'S PROBABLY WISE. YEAH. UNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE PROCESS HERE. IF YOU WERE TO SEEK A REZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR A MOBILE FOR A FOOD COURT, HE WOULD STILL NEED THE VARIANCE FOR [01:25:01] THE 200 FOOT, UH, SETBACK AND KIND OF CART HORSE KIND OF DEAL, WHAT WOULD HE PURSUE FIRST, THE VARIANCE OR THE ZONING RECLASSIFICATION? IT WAS A, IT WOULD BE THE REZONING FOR STATE. BOA CANNOT HEAR IT UNLESS THE ZONING MATCHES. RIGHT. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, THERE'S STILL A CHANCE THAT HE GETS THE ZONING BUT DOESN'T GET THE 200 FOOT EXCEPTION. UM, CORRECT. BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND HIM, PROBABLY'S NOT GONNA SUPPORT HIS 200 FOOT VARIANCE EXCEPTION. THAT THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. UNDERSTOOD. WELL, I THINK WE HAVE, UH, UM, I I, I HATE TO SAY THIS, UH, AND, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONTINUE THIS FOR A TIME LONG ENOUGH TO WHERE HE COULD PURSUE A CHANGE OF ZONING? UH, AT THAT POINT? IF IT, IF HE'S PURSUING A CHANGE OF ZONING, THIS WOULD NO LONGER BE AN APPEAL. IT WOULD JUST BE A VARIANCE TO THE 200 FOOT BUFFER. WOULD HE BE LOCKED OR 200 FOOT SEPARATION? I MEAN, WOULD HE BE BANNED FROM COMING BACK TO US FROM AN APPEAL? NO, UH, THIS IS A, AN APPEAL, UM, THAT WOULDN'T, THIS IS, THAT WOULD NOT BAN HIM FROM COMING BACK FOR A YEAR. OKAY. I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE FOR, BECAUSE THE THING IS THAT HE'S, THIS APPLICANT IS OVER THE AQUIFER AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, YOU IT'S GO INTO SIX FOOD TRUCKS, I THINK THEY APPROPRIATE THING IS TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ZONING. PERSONALLY, UH, I DO FEEL FOR THE APPLICANT THAT HE DID APPLY FOR PERMITS. HE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND, AND, AND DID DO A LOT OF THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION. BUT, UM, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF HE WOULD AT LEAST TRY TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ZONING BEFORE AND SEE US AS A REAL LAST CASE SORT OF THING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT CONCUR AND JUST, UM, I GUESS FOR THE WHOLE PICTURE TO BE, UM, HAD, IF FOR SOME REASON HE NEEDS, IF THIS REZONING DOESN'T WORK, UM, AND HE WOULD WANT TO COME BACK FOR THIS, HE WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR A NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THERE'S A 20 DAY, UH, LIMIT, UM, BEFORE THEY CAN GO TO THE BOARD, UM, A APPLY FOR AN APPEAL. OKAY. SO JUST FFY I CHAIR? I, I, YES, COMMISSIONER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US TAKE A VOTE ON THIS NOW. OKAY. THEN THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. SO IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE SENATOR TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA LOOK FOR A MOTION. UH, WAS THERE A COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT IF NOBODY WANTS TO. THIS ONE'S SHORT. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 25 DASH 3 0 1 0 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THIS, FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 70 38 UTSA BOULEVARD APPLICANT BEING LED AS LICENSED BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN A DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR AND NON-CONFORMING USE REGISTRATION TO PERMIT THE USE OF A MOBILE FOOD COURT END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENES. UM, I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, TO, UH, APPROVING THIS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD MUCH, MUCH RATHER THIS GO THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS BE JUST BECAUSE HE'S GOING FROM TWO TO TO SIX, NOT TWO TO THREE OR SOMETHING. SO, UH, COMMISSIONER BENES, SO ARE YOU FOR IT OR AGAINST, UH, I'M AGAINST IT FOR NOW. AND THE IDEA OF ZONING. RIGHT. HOLD ON. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BEN, I, I'M GONNA DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. I, I AM, UM, FOR THIS, UM, ONLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH, UH, RED TAPE. NOT THAT I'M, NOT THAT IT'S NOT WARRANTED, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY WERE OPERATING FOR FOUR YEARS, UM, WITHOUT AN ISSUE AND I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLETELY THEIR FAULT. THEY PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS. SO I AM, I'M FOR THE APPLICANT. WELL, IF I HEAR SOME MORE SUPPORT, I'LL PROBABLY CHANGE MY MIND. WELL, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? I AGREE WITH, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER, UH, THAT FOR THE SAME REASONS. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? WHICH COMMISSIONER DID SHE AGREE WITH? I WAS CLEAR ON THAT FOR BEUS. OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET ZONING CHANGE AND THEN COME BACK FOR THE VARIANCE, UH, ON, ON THE DISTANCE FOR THE, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND I'D BE SYMPATHETIC TO THAT AT THAT POINT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE WAY WE HAVE TO GO. MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU CONSIDER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT SEEKING A CONTINUANCE ON THIS CASE? OF COURSE. I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE VOTES FOR THE GRANTING THE APPEAL HERE, SO, OKAY. UH, HOW LONG CAN THIS BE CONTINUED FOR? SO WHAT THE, THE PUR, I'M SORRY, THIS IS JOSEPH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTINUANCE IS, IS TO SEE HOW, UH, ZONING, UH, IS A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, UH, TURN JUST [01:30:01] TO SEE COMMENTARY FROM A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO THERE, THERE IS A LIMITATION, UM, WHERE A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT GOING, THAT THAT PROCESS WOULD MEET YOUR OBLIGATION TO MAKE A DECISION IN THIS CASE. THE, THE ZONING PROCESS COULD TAKE, UH, SIX MONTHS. YEAH. AND THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE BEYOND WHAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE MANDATES FOR A DECISION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. STEVENS, COMMISSIONER STEVENS, JUST, I'LL JUST OFFER MY THOUGHTS BEFORE WE TAKE THIS TO A VOTE. I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE BECAUSE IF IT FAILS THEN THEY CAN PURSUE A REZONING. AND I, I THINK I'LL BE IN SUPPORT MY THINKING. UM, IF ZONING HAD REVIEWED THIS, Y'ALL WOULD'VE BEEN DENIED. UM, AND NOW THEY DO REVIEW THESE TYPES OF THINGS WHEN GETTING PERMITS. AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT IS BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAS REVIEWED THIS. I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT THE EDWARD AQUIFER IS, IS VALID, BUT, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? SURE. MANANA, COMMISSIONER MAYOR. YEAH, SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, DID THE CITY MAKE A MISTAKE? AND I DON'T SEE A MISTAKE BEING MADE. AND SO I SEE THE APPLICANT NOT COMPLETING THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENTS HERE. AND SO BASED UPON WHAT IT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING CHANGE REQUIREMENT AND THEN KIND OF SLIDING UNDERNEATH IT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M, AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE AQUIFER THING. SO, SO I I WILL NOT BE, UH, VOTING IT EZ COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. SO I, YOU'RE RIGHT, I DON'T THINK THE CITY, UH, MADE A MISTAKE, BUT I THINK THE LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMEONE WHO, UH, WHO, WHO I'M GONNA ASSUME THIS IS THE FIRST MOBILE, UH, OR FOOD COURT, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE DEPENDENT ON THE CITY NAVIGATING THOSE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, THOSE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN HE, THEY WENT TO THE, THE ONE DEPARTMENT AND THEY LET THEM MOVE FORWARD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD'VE DONE THE SAME THING. I, OKAY, WELL I GOT MY PERMIT AND I'M GOOD TO GO. AND THE FACT THAT HE REAPPLIED FOR FOUR YEARS WITH NO ONE, UM, SAYING ANYTHING, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS AN ERROR ON THE CITY PART, CITY'S PART, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S A LACK OF COMMUNICATION. SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE SAID YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO AND GET, YOU KNOW, YOUR PERMIT FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENT. SO I, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE AT FAULT. I THINK THEY'RE 50,000 PLUS IN, AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, INTO CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE CITY IS, SO IF THIS GETS DENIED, ARE THEY ABLE TO OPERATE IN THE MEANTIME OR ARE THEY, IS THAT MOBILE FOOD COURT SHUT DOWN RIGHT NOW SO THEY'RE ABLE TO STILL OPERATE WITH TWO? UM, THEY CAN'T GO BEYOND TWO AND FOR, AGAIN, FOR OUR DECISION, HOWEVER MANY THEY HAD AT WHATEVER TIMELINE, THIS SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT WE RECEIVED DURING THE NON-CONFORMING APPLICATION, WHICH CLEARLY STATES THE FOUR NEW FOOD TRUCKS AND ZONING. WE COULD NOT IGNORE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR. UM, IF I MAY CLARIFY ON THAT. NO, HOLD ON. OKAY. I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING 'CAUSE I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. YOU STARTED IN OH FIVE, WHEN WAS YOUR FIRST TWO FOOD TRUCKS PUT IN? GOOD QUESTION. BETWEEN 16 AND 19 SOMETIME, RIGHT? YEAH. 2017 THE FIRST FOOD TRUCK, THEN AFTER THEN, UM, THEN SECOND, THEN THIRD. RIGHT NOW THREE IS OPERATING. WE NEVER HAVE SIX, ONLY WE HAVE FOUR. AND RIGHT NOW THREE IS OPERATING. NOW THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS THAT THE APARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU WAS BUILT IN 2013. AND SO YOU PUT THE FOOD TRUCKS IN AFTER THE APARTMENTS AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE, PART OF WHAT I LOOK AT, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAD A, HAD THE ABILITY TO DECIDE WHAT SORT OF ENVIRONMENT THEY WERE MOVING INTO. AND SO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, ALRIGHT, I'M GOING TO, THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO BACK TO DELIBERATION. I HEARING NONE. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, SO WE'RE BACK TO COMM SITE PLAN. NO, NO, WE'RE, YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE DONE THERE. SO WE'RE BACK TO DELIBERATIONS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. UH, I, I'M, I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER BENES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. [01:35:01] COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. ALRIGHT, THE VOTE IS, UH, FOUR TO SEVEN AGAINST, SO YOU DIDN'T GET THE APPEAL TODAY. UH, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND APPLYING FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING, SEEING HOW THAT TURNS OUT. YOU CAN ALWAYS APPLY FOR NCU AND COME BACK HERE. OKAY. UM, OTHER THAN THE, UH, CHANGE OF ZONING, WE COULD GLUE A DISTRICT APPEAL AS WELL. RIGHT ON THIS, I, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK, UH, STAFF ABOUT WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE AT THIS POINT. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MM-HMM . YEAH. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL SEE Y'ALL BACK IN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. IT'S 2 48 BACK IN SESSION. WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 9. THE ADDRESS BEING 50 50 EAST HOUSTON STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, THE APPLICANT BEING GILBERT PENA. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS C TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST HOUSTON STREET AND NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 AND IS, AND IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR A NEW VIA TRANSIT CENTER. PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY ARE CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW, AND THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD FENCE WOULD BE EIGHT FEET TALL, AGAIN, LIMITED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE ON THE LOT AS THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ABUTS RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THIS IS A SITE PLAN KIND OF DIS SHOWING THAT DISTINGUISHING, UH, THRESHOLD BETWEEN THE FRONT YARD AND THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. UH, THAT ITEM NUMBER ONE THERE SHOWS THE PROPOSED EIGHT FOOT FENCING SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT, UH, PROPERTY. IT'S VACANT LAND CURRENTLY. AGAIN, PERMITS ARE UNDER REVIEW AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH THREE NINE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WOULD BE SERVED AS THE FENCES INTENDED TO PREVENT EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND TWO, THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE UNIFORM APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY'S FENCING AS THE REAR AND SIDE YARD FENCES WILL BE BUILT AT THE SAME HEIGHT. STAFF MAILED 27 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE. GOOD AFTERNOON, GILBERT PENA. I'M WITH ABEL CITY ARCHITECTS. WE ARE THE, UH, OWNER AGENT FOR THE PROJECT. SO, UM, THIS WILL BE THE VIA TRANSIT. OH, EXCUSE ME SIR, CAN YOU LOWER THE MIC SO WE CAN HEAR YOU? YES, MA'AM. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY. UH, SO THIS IS FOR THE VIA TRANSIT CENTER LOCATED ON EAST HOUSTON AND MAYNARD STREET. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE IN THIS VARIANCE AND JUST BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE WANT TO AVOID THE LIGHT POLLUTION AS THE VEHICLES. THE BUSES WILL BE ENTERING FROM THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AND TURNING ON THAT DRIVE YOU SEE ALL THE WAY TOWARDS THE WEST. AND SO AS THEY ARE TURNING, THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, LIGHT DISTURBANCES THAT CAN GO INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND AGAIN, AS THEY'RE COMING DOWN TO EXIT ON MANOR STREET. SO, AND IN THAT REGARDS, THAT'S WHAT THIS VARIANCE IS SEEKING. YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST BEING PROACTIVE, WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. THE FENCE THAT WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING IS A FENCE CRETE, WHICH IS A, UH, PRECAST CONCRETE FENCE. IT'S ORNAMENT. IT'S VERY, IT'S PRETTY NICE LOOKING INSTEAD OF, OF FENCE, YOU KNOW, WOODEN FENCE PICKETS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND BE PROACTIVE IN THIS PROJECT. AND THE, THE BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER. ALRIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONE IS THERE. I I, I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, I AM APPRECIATE YOU COMING FORWARD. LET'S LOOK FOR A MOTION. BRAGMAN BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 9 AMID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GRANTED A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE TO ALL AN EIGHT FOOT FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 50 50 EAST HOUSTON STREET, APPLICANT BEING GILBERT PENA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER AS THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WOULD PREVENT EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION FROM VIA TRANSIT VEHICLES HEADLIGHTS FOR PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND [01:40:01] CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE FENCE IS INTENDED TO PREVENT EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE AS THE POTENTIAL FOR EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THE PROPOSED NEW TRANSIT CENTER WOULD BE MITIGATED FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS BY THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY, WHICH SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE UNIFORM APPEARANCE OF THIS PROPERTY'S FENCING AS THE REAR AND SIDE FENCE WOULD BE BUILT AT THE SAME HEIGHT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS THE PROPOSED, UH, FENCE HEIGHT WOULD MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THIS PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BRACKEN, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UH, IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, THE RIGHT THING TO DO, UM, AS THE APPLICANT SAID TO PREVENT LIGHT POLLUTION, UH, AND FOR UNIFORM APPEARANCE IN THE, UH, FENCE SITE. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. UH, PROVIDES A MUCH NEEDED MOBILITY, UH, PART OF THE, UH, VIA, UH, LIGHT, UH, REGIONAL, UH, TRANSPORTATION. SO SUPPORTING IT, NO OPPOSITION FOR THE NEIGHBORS. AND IT'S, UH, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, UH, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, ADDS TO THE, THE USE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITHOUT HAVING THAT LIGHT POLLUTION COMING ACROSS A FENCE. SO I SUPPORT IT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? I'M GONNA GO ON A LIMB AND ASK FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, I MEAN, SEVEN. APOLOGIZE. YEAH. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 1 1 1. THE ADDRESS BEING 4 1 5 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE APPLICANT BEING HARRY OLIVER. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN PETRANKO ROAD, MARBA ROAD, AND HUNT LANE. THE ATTACHED CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ACCORDING TO A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT WILL APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT PENDING THE RESULTS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING, AND THE CARPORT MEETS THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE FRONT YARD MEETS THE IMPERVIOUS COVERED IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARD. UH, NO PERMITS OR PRIOR VARIANCE APPROVALS WERE IDENTIFIED FOR TWO SIMILAR CARPORTS AT NEARBY PROPERTIES. THIS IS A SITE PLAN EXHIBITING THE CARPORT WITH THAT REDUCED FRONT SETBACK. AND THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT STATE WITH THAT CONSTRUCTED CARPORT. AND THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW FROM MARCH, 2020 OF THAT SAME PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. AND HERE IS A SIMILAR CARPORT DOWN THE STREET AT 4 22 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE. AGAIN, NO PERMIT OR VARIANCE WAS IDENTIFIED. THIS WAS BUILT SOMETIME BETWEEN 2008 AND 2011 AND ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, ANOTHER SIMILAR CARPORT AT 4 26 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE BUILT SOMETIME BETWEEN 2019 AND 2020. AGAIN, NO PERMIT OR VARIANCE WAS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 1 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAINS A GARAGE WHICH COULD BE USED TO PROTECT THE OWNER'S VEHICLES INSTEAD OF THE CARPORT. AND TWO, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE CARPORT WOULD BE INSUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. STAFF MAILED OUT 34 NOTICES TWO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT LOCATION. AND HERE'S THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FOR THIS, UM, FROM THE ADJACENT, UH, NEARBY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT MANANA. YEAH, COMMISSIONER MANANA. SO, UM, ON THE ONE PICTURE HERE, UH, SHOWING THE FRONT END OR FRONT VIEW, UH, WITH THE CARPORT THERE, SO, SO DOES THAT LEFT LINE, UM, AS I FACE THIS, IS IT IN, UH, IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING ROOF? UM, WITH REGARDS TO, UH, ITS DISTANCE AWAY FROM TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SIDE THERE? YES. THE, THE POSTS AND THE CARPORT ARE IN LINE WITH THE, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE ALL THE WAY DOWN. SO WITH THE SIDE SET. SO IF THE POSTS WERE AT THE WALL SPACING AND THE OVERHANG WAS EXACTLY THE SAME, THEN WOULD THIS CASE BE HERE? SO THIS REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. OKAY. SIDE SETBACK IS COMPLIANT. PERFECT. OKAY? MM-HMM . SO MY CLARIFICATION IS THAT THIS IS A DETACHED CARPORT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT [01:45:01] ATTACHED TO THE HOME. IT IS ATTACHED. UH, WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THAT THAT I CAN PULL UP, BUT THERE ARE LITTLE LEGS KIND OF ATTACHING AT EACH OF THOSE POSTS AS THEY GO DOWN. UM, THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO THE, AND BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED, HOW DOES THAT, IS THAT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DETACHED OR AN ATTACHED CARPORT? THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IN THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. UM, BUT THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE THE SAME 10 FEET MINIMUM REQUIRED. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. MM-HMM . GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M, AND YOU SEE THE CARDBOARD, RIGHT? UH, UM, IT IS THERE NOW BECAUSE OF THE RECENT HELL AGAIN. OKAY. HE WANTS TO DO THAT. NO UHHUH. WE, WE USUALLY DON'T GO OUT WHEN THE WEATHER IS BAD. OKAY. AND WHAT THAT RECENT HELL OF A STORM? WE, WE, WE GOT, WE, I FEEL NOW COMING THROUGH THE GARAGE WITH THE CARPORT IS, WAS SAFER BEFORE US. WHEN I WAS, UH, BEFORE I GOT SICK, I USED TO DODGE THE RAINDROPS AND STUFF, BUT NOW, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO GET HIT WITH IT. BUT WHEN THE BED WENT UP, I THOUGHT BEING THAT IT WAS OUR PROPERTY, I COULD DO IT. BUT, UH, AS A SAYING, WE HANGING OUT, WE, WE, WE COULDN'T HERE WE NEEDED WHAT'S THAT THING? A ME? SO I, I I, I HAD TO COME IN AND GET REQUESTED THE VARIANCE FOR YES, SIR. THAT, THAT HO IS THING TODAY. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, IS YOUR CARPORT, UH, ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FEET AWAY FROM THAT SIDEWALK? UH, YOU KNOW, I, YES, IT IS. IT IS NINE FEET, UH, OH. FROM THE CURB, I THINK IT NINE FEET AND SOME INCHES. OKAY. FROM THE, UH, FROM THE STREET. AND, AND WHEN THAT COLD LADY CAME OUT, SHE SAID WE HAVE TO BE 10 FEET FROM INSIDE THE SIDEWALK. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT IS AROUND SIX FEET. NO, I, I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. SO, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE SO. STAFF, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNING TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. UM, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE'RE GONNA SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. OKAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 1 1 1. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK SITUATED AT 4 1 5 SADDLEBROOK SADDLEBROOK DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING HARRY OLIVER. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SPACE AND SEPARATION OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE AFFORDED THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THEIR VEHICLES ON THEIR PROPERTY. [01:50:01] THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SECURITY OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE CARPORT WOULD BE SUB SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FRONT YARD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AND WOULD PREVENT THE USE OF A CARPORT TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S VEHICLES. SIX. THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE DUE OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY'S FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UM, WE ARE JUST HERE ABOUT THE FRONT SETBACK. THE SIDE SETBACKS ARE FINE. SO I, I SEE THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE FRONT OF YOUR CARPORT AND THE SIDEWALK AND THE BACK OF CURB. UM, I THINK THAT WE'VE APPROVED VERY SIMILAR CARPORTS IN THE PAST, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD ANNA, COMMISSIONER. SO ALSO JUST TAKING A LOOK THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S MORE THAN A DOZEN AS I LOOK THAT WERE EVEN CLOSER THAN THIS. SO, SO IT FITS WELL WITHIN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY ALREADY? CORRECT. ANYONE ELSE? UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. UH, I JUST LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S SOME SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BACK OF SIDEWALK. SO LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU . ITEM EIGHT PLEASE. ITEM EIGHT IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 1 2. ADDRESS BEING 3 22 EAST MAY MAYFIELD BOULEVARD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, THE APPLICANT BEING CARLOS CASADA. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. UH, THAT INCLUDES A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG. UH, ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWEST MILITARY DRIVE AND SOUTH FLORES STREET. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CONDUCTING A FULL REMODEL OF THE HOME THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1929. PER COUNTY RECORDS, UH, THE EXTENT OF THE REMODELS AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW FRONT PORCH AND REAR ADDITION ARE SUCH THAT A FULL PLAN REVIEW WAS REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW HOME PERMIT. RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW. STAFF AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW HOME PERMIT BASED ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT EXHIBITING A PROPOSED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. UH, BUILDING INSPECTION STAFF FOUND THE SIDE SETBACK TO BE LESS THAN FIVE FEET AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND DIRECTED THE APPLICANT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL. POST PERMIT REVIEWS AND REMAINING PERMIT INSPECTIONS ARE ON HOLD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. AND THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESIDENTIAL PLAN. REVIEW STAFF AGAIN SHOWING A FIVE FOOT PROPOSED SIDE SETBACK WITH A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG, WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH THE UDC. UM, THIS IS A MORE OF AN AS-BUILT SITE PLAN TO REFLECT WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY, UM, REFLECTING A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK, UH, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A TWO FOOT, TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE. UH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. AND HERE'S A HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM JUNE, 2024. AND THIS IS A VIEW OF THAT SITE SETBACK, AGAIN, MEASURED AT, UM, TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE OVERHANG, UH, THE SETBACK IS AN OVERALL TWO FOOT SIX INCHES AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 12 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE INSUFFICIENT SPACE WILL [01:55:01] REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF MAILED 30 NOTICES. EIGHT WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. AND THE HARLANDALE MCCOLLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. HERE'S THE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY STAFF FOR THIS REQUEST. TWO NOTICES WERE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. UH, JUST AS A NOTE. UM, AND THE LAST SLIDE HERE IS THE ONE OPPOSITION, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE CITY'S REMEDY FOR THIS 'CAUSE? 'CAUSE Y'ALL ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO, SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REMEDY THEN FOR THIS SOLUTION TO COMPLY WITH THE SIDE SETBACK OF A MINIMUM FIVE FEET. OKAY. SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WHAT WAS THE HISTORIC SETBACK OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE? DIFFICULT TO SAY FROM THE HISTORICAL VIEW. UM, I TRIED GETTING A MEASUREMENT AT LEAST APPROXIMATELY FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW. UM, UH, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN, CAN SHED LIGHT ON THAT. OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? HELLO, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT MEMBERS. MY WIFE LU AND I CARLOS CA ARE HERE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE. UM, WHAT THE QUESTION WAS IS WHAT WAS THE VARIANCE OR WHAT WAS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL HOME? THE HOUSE IS BUILT ON THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION. THERE WAS ACTUALLY, THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR THIRD ATTEMPT TO, UH, MODERNIZE OUR HOME, UH, DUE TO HEALTH ISSUES. THE VERY FIRST ONE, WHICH I GOT PERMITS FOR, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME WHAT I DID, I MEASURED OFF THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION TO THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE LINE, WHICH WAS THREE NINE. THEY GAVE ME A PERMIT. I STARTED DOING THE REMODEL. WE KNOCKED DOWN AND I HAVE PICTURES. WE KNOCKED DOWN THE OLD HOUSE WITH THE INTENT OF SAVING MORE THAN 50% OF THE WALLS. BUT WHEN WE STARTED TAKING IT APART IN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, IT'S A STUCCO HOME INSIDE AND OUT. WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF WOOD DAMAGE. THERE WAS HOLES IN THE FLOOR, BUT WE UPROOTED ALL THE FLOOR AND EVERYTHING THAT PUT PLYWOOD DOWN. ACTUALLY, WE'VE BEEN THERE 42 YEARS. WE WENT AHEAD AND DID EVERYTHING THING. WE PASSED THREE OF THE INSPECTIONS FOR THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE 85% COMPLETE RIGHT NOW. WHEN WE ASKED FOR THE FRAMING INSPECTION, THAT'S WHEN THEY CAME IN AND THEY TOLD US, YOU'RE NOT FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. WELL, ON MY ORIGINAL PERMIT, MY REMODEL, WHICH I DID IT TWICE THE FIRST TIME WE, THEY, UH, THEY HAD THE, WHAT DO THEY CALL IT? THEY CANCELED THE PERMIT BECAUSE MY WIFE WENT IN THE HOSPITAL, SHE HAD STENTS PUT IN AND THEY SAID, WELL, YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN THREE MONTHS. I SAID, WELL, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, SO WE LEFT IT ALONG THIS PAST NOVEMBER, WE WENT AHEAD AND WE GOT NEW PERMITS, STARTED DOING THE DEMOLITION, EVERYTHING WENT FINE. LIKE I SAID, WE GOT THREE, UH, PERMITS. UH, YOU THREE INSPECTIONS PASSED. WHEN IT CAME TO FRAMING, THEY SAID, YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LAND. AND I SAID, WELL, OKAY. SO I CAME OVER, WE WENT AHEAD AND DID, UH, GOT A NEW PERMIT. THEY SAID, YOU NEED AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, BECAUSE THE FIRST PERMIT, THEY DID IT WITH A SKETCH THAT I HAD BUILT. SO I WENT AND GOT AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, GOT AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, CERTIFY THE FOUNDATION. THAT THE FOUNDATION, BECAUSE WHAT WE DID, WE ADDED ONTO IT AND WE LIFTED THE HOUSE UP A LITTLE BIT, REPLACED ALL THE PLUMBING, EVERYTHING, AND EVERYTHING WAS GOING FINE UNTIL WE GOT TO THE, TO THE FIVE FOOT. SO WHEN I CAME INTO THE CITY AND I ASKED HIM, OKAY, WHAT'S, WHAT'S MY CORRECTIVE, UH, I GUESS PATH? HOW DO I FIX THIS? THEY SAID, AT A MINIMUM, YOU'RE GONNA NEED A ONE HOUR RATED FIREWALL. SO I WENT IN, I TALKED TO THE ENGINEER BECAUSE THE ARCHITECT HAD AN ENGINEER, ASKED HIM, WHAT'S A FIREWALL? SO WE DID THE RESEARCH. WE FOUND OUT THAT A ULU 3 0 5 IS A ONE HOUR RATED FIREWALL. SO WE TOOK DOWN THE SIDING OFF THE HOUSE ON THAT PIECE. I ALREADY HAD SIDING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE HOUSE. WE TOOK THE SIDING OFF TOOK THE OSB UH, PANELING OFF, AND WE PUT THE FIVE EIGHTS, UH, FIRE RATED SHEET ROCK ON, AND A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED SHEET ROCK IS, I MEAN, IT'S FIVE EIGHT SHEET ROCK ON THE INSIDE, FIVE RATED SHEET ROCK. ON THE OUTSIDE, [02:00:01] YOU HAVE TO CAULK ALL OF YOUR BLOCKINGS WITH FIRE RATED CAULKING. I'VE DONE ALL OF THAT. I, I DID EVERYTHING. I'M GONNA JUMP IN FOR A SECOND. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOUR HOUSE ORIGINALLY WAS THREE FOOT NINE? YES. THAT'S FROM THE FACE OF THE WALL? YEAH. WELL, OKAY. FROM THE, FROM THE FOUNDATION MM-HMM . TO THE FENCE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MEASURE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S THREE 10. SO WENT AND DID REMMING. SO THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION WAS THREE 10 OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. AND RIGHT NOW YOU USED, DID YOU REUSE YOUR ORIGINAL FOUNDATION? YES. SO YOUR, YOUR NEW HOME SHOULD ALSO BE THE WALL THREE FOOT 10, CORRECT? RIGHT. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS IT'S TWO FOOT SIX WITH A 12 INCH OVERHANG, WHICH WOULD BE THREE FOOT. YEAH. SEE WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY SEE. THE OLD HOUSE DIDN'T HAVE, IT WAS A SPANISH TILE. MM-HMM . WITH A FLAT ROOF. THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. WE HAD A FLAT ROOF. SO THE NEW HOUSE, WE PUT IN A ONE FOOT OVERHANG, WHICH WELL, THAT, THAT'S OKAY. I'M, I'M WONDERING THE FACE OF OUTSIDE WALL, WHERE IS THAT IN RELATION TO YOUR PREVIOUS FACE OF OUT? SAME PLACE. SAME PLACE. SO WE'RE, SO WE'RE, WITHOUT HAVING A SURVEY AND MEASURING, YOU KNOW, APPLES TO APPLES, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU WERE THREE FOOT 10 BEFORE, YOU'RE THREE FOOT 10 NOW. YES. WITH 12 INCHES EXCEEDING. RIGHT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS, I WAS CLEAR ON THAT. AND DID, DID, AT ANY TIME, DID YOU HAVE A SURVEY BECAUSE SOMEBODY PUT A, SOMEBODY PREPARED A PLAN THAT, AND THEY LISTED FIVE FEET? NO. SEE WHAT HAPPENED IS, AGAIN, WE WERE 85% COMPLETE. WHEN THIS, UH, WHEN I WAS TOLD I NEEDED A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, I HIRED MY ARCHITECT. HE SENT OUT A CREW, AND HE JUST AUTOMATICALLY PUT DOWN FIVE FEET. I ASKED MY ARCHITECT, I SAID, WHAT? OH, OKAY. IT'S, IT'S THREE 10. AND HE GOES, WELL, AT THAT TIME I TOLD HIM, NO, IT'S THREE NINE. HE GOES, NO, IT'S FIVE. NO. AND I GUESS WHAT HAPPENS FOR THEM IS THAT WHERE THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION IS, ME AND MY NEIGHBOR, WE NEVER PUT A FENCE UP. I'VE BEEN THERE 42 YEARS. SO HE JUST, AND IT'S A BIG OPEN SPACE. YEAH. SO IT'S LIKE, HEY, MAN, YOU'RE FIVE FEET. WELL ALONG, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHEN HOMES WERE BUILT LONG, LONG TIME AGO, A LOT OF THEM WERE THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. RIGHT. AND SO THIS ISN'T AN ANYTHING SURPRISING. I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST ASKING, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS ODD THAT SOMEBODY HAS A PROFESSIONALLY DRAWN PLAN AND THEY PUT FIVE FEET, LIKE IT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDATION WAS FIVE FEET. AND, AND I TALKED TO FERNANDO. THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOOD. HIM AND HIS ENGINEER, THEY WERE GOOD. THEY SAY, OH, WE JUST MESSED UP. I ALMOST FEEL I MESSED UP BECAUSE WHEN THE FRAMING INSPECTOR CAME OUT, HE SAID, YOU'RE FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE LOOK, OH, LOOK AT ALL THIS. YOU'RE MORE THAN FIVE FEET. RIGHT. I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT I WAS THREE FEET NINE. AND I DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT AN HONEST DOG, BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANNA MISLEAD ANYBODY. I, I UNDERSTAND. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND, UH, ANY VOICEMAILS, ANYONE SEND 'EM TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. MANNA. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO THE, IF, AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS, SO WHICH SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS IT THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? SO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE EAST SIDE, I MEAN THE WEST SIDE, WEST SIDE, WEST SIDE. AND SO, SO THE NEIGHBORING, SO, 'CAUSE THIS PICTURE HERE, SO IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE CLOSE TOGETHER. THAT'S THE GARAGE, THAT'S THE MRS. RAMIREZ GARAGE. THAT'S THEIR GARAGE. SO, SO WITH REGARDS TO THE WATER THEN, SO, SO IF WATER'S COMING OFF YOUR ROOF AND COMING OFF THEIR ROOF, IS IT, IS IT KIND OF COMBINING RIGHT THERE? DO YOU HAVE, HOW'S THE WATER RUNNING THROUGH THERE? WELL, AND, AND, UH, THE, THE WHOLE PLAN ON MY HOUSE IS TO PUT GUTTERS. SO THEY'RE GONNA, I'M, I'M GONNA PUT A GUTTER SYSTEM IN. IT'S NOT GONNA, IT, IT WOULD BE FOOLISH OF ME TO HAVE IT DROP RIGHT UP WITHOUT RUIN THE PRIVACY FENCE. SO IT'S NOT GONNA THAT THE, THE WATER'S NOT RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU WERE TO SAY, HOW IS IT RIGHT NOW? YES, THE WATER'S PUDDLING, BUT WHEN WE COMPLETE IT, WE'RE GONNA PUT GUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES AND GET IT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT, ONE OF OUR BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE HAD WAS THE FOUND I HAD PAID TWO PEOPLE TO DO FOUNDATION WORK. HUH. AND I GOT POKED IN THE EYES. FINALLY, I GOT ANOTHER GUY TO DO IT. HE SAYS, MAN, WE GOTTA LIFT THE WHOLE THING UP. YOUR BEAMS ARE SINKING. THIS IS SINKING. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADD PO. I MUST LIKE, BUT I ALREADY PAID TWO GUYS AND I GOT PERMITS FOR BOTH TIMES. I'VE GOTTEN PERMITS FOR EVERYTHING I'VE DONE ON MY HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHY, IN A WAY, WE WERE LIKE, DO WE REALLY WANNA REBUILD? AGAIN, WE KEEP ON GETTING POKED IN THE ICE, BUT THE PRICES OF HOUSES JUST WENT UP SO HIGH THAT IT'S, IT WAS CHEAPER TO BUILD HERE OR REBUILD. YEAH. I, I'M, I'M, I'M SATISFIED. AS IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DID, DID WE WANT TO INCLUDE THE GUTTERS AS PART OF THE APPLICATION? UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU, UH, WANT, WHILE YOU'RE UP AT THE PODIUM, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS IF YOU, IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS. OH, SO YOU ARE PUTTING GUTTERS? YES, SIR. OH, OKAY. NO, IT'S ALREADY THE FIREWALL THAT, THAT, THAT I TALKED ABOUT IS [02:05:01] IN THE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN. THE GUTTERS ARE IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. THE BLOCKING AND THE CAULKING IS ON EVERYTHING'S ON THE ARCHITECTURE. WELL THAT SOUNDS, THAT'S WONDERFUL. ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT, UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN READY REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 0 0 1 2. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK, UM, WITH GUTTERS ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THAT INCLUDES A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH OVERHANG SITUATED AT 3 2 2 EAST MAYFIELD BOULEVARD. APPLICANT BEING CARLOS GADA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY. AS SUCH, THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT, ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS, AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURAL STRUCTURES, ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADEQUATE SIDE SETBACK. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEED OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS, AS WELL AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NEIGHBORING HOME. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. A SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES WITH NO INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD OR DAMAGE FROM EXCESS WATER RUNOFF. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IS THE STRUCTURE'S FOOTPRINT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED AS THE PROPOSED REDUCED SETBACK. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO PRESERVE THIS SETBACK AND EXISTING FOUNDATION. END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER UNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE, THAT THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SITE, UH, FOUNDATION, UH, IS JUST BEING REUSED IN THE SAME LOCATION. UH, THE APPLICANT IS INCLUDING GUTTERS ON HIS APPLICATION AND HE'S ALSO, UH, INCLUDED FIRE RATED, UH, SITING. UH, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S, UH, ADDRESSED ALL THE CONCERNS THAT NORMALLY COME ALONG WITH A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ZUMA. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT FOR THE SAME REASONS. ALSO, WE HAVE CONCURRENCE WITH THE, UH, JOINING NEIGHBORS THAT MOST EFFECT BY PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING THE FIRE CODE, WHICH HE'S ALREADY ADDRESSED. SO SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ALL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY. SO AS THE MOTION WAS READ, SO, UH, THE EXISTING ROOF CAN STAY AND THE GUTTERS CAN BE ADDED. UM, AND THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, UH, FOR ADDING THE GUTTERS ONTO THE EXISTING ROOF LINE IF HE NEEDS IT. UH, I BELIEVE HIS PLANS, AS YOU STATED, UM, TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT ALREADY. AND, AND HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT, UH, WITHOUT A SURVEY HE HAD, HE MENTIONED IT WAS THREE FOOT 10. THREE 10. SO THERE MIGHT BE AN EXTRA FOUR INCHES FLOATING AROUND THERE THAT YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO SHAVE OUT THE ROOF TO COMPLY WITH THE WAY THE MOTION WAS RED. SO WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE WELCOME. . ITEM NINE. YOU ALL RIGHTY. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS CASE BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 1 3. THE ADDRESS BEING? TEN EIGHT ONE EIGHT GAYLORD DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT [02:10:01] FORD. APPLICANT BEING MARGARITA FLORES. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT WITH A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. AND PALO ALTO ROAD OR HIGHWAY 16. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT A CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS. DATED STREET PHOTOGRAPHY, UH, SHOWS THAT THE FRONT YARD FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER DECEMBER, 2021. THE PROPERTY OWNER CONFIRMED THEIR INTENTION TO REDUCE THE CARPORT'S CURRENT DEPTH TO BE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT IS, UM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER INTENDS TO APPLY FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMITS ONCE, ONCE A DECISION IS MADE REGARDING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCES. SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN MORE OR LESS DEPICTING THAT REDUCED FRONT SETBACK, THE SIDE SETBACK, AND THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION ON THE PROPERTY. AND HERE IS A CURRENT VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THAT CARPORT BUILT. AND HERE'S A HISTORICAL VIEW, UH, FROM DECEMBER, 2021 OF THAT SAME PROPERTY. AND THIS IS, UH, JUST TO MORE OR LESS SHOW THAT INTENTION ALREADY STATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, AGAIN, TO CUT BACK WHAT'S CURRENTLY BUILT, UM, TO THAT POST BEHIND THE, THE ONE THAT'S, UH, CLOSEST TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, TO, TO MAKE THAT DISTANCE. A, A ONE FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE FRONT SE UH, FRONT PROPERTY LINE. EXCUSE ME. UH, SO AGAIN HERE JUST TO SHOW THAT REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA, WHICH IS 10 FEET. AND THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT BLACK POST, WHICH IS AGAIN, WHERE THEY'RE GONNA CUT BACK TO IS ONE FOOT. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AGAIN, JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT POST, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GONNA CUT THE EXISTING CARDBOARD BACK TO. UH, AND HERE'S THE SIDE STEP BACK. UM, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY A FIVE INCH OVERHANG ON THERE AND APPROXIMATELY 11 INCHES, UM, MORE OR LESS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, USING A CONVENIENTLY LOCATED METAL STAKE ON THE PROPERTY TO MAKE THAT MEASUREMENT. AND HERE'S THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, THERE IS A CARPORT SIMILARLY CONSTRUCTED WITH THAT REDUCED FRONT SETBACK. UH, APPROXIMATELY TWO HOMES DOWN AT TEN EIGHT TEN GAYLORD DRIVE. UH, STAFF FOUND NO PERMITS OR VARIANCES APPROVED FOR THIS CARPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCES, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VISUAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACT OF ENCROACHMENT IS EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED ON LOTS WITH LIMITED SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD AND COULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. TWO. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE CARPORT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WATER RUNOFF. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH THREE THREE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE SURROUNDING AREA HAS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED CLEAR VISION STANDARD AND TWO, REPOSITIONING THE FENCE WOULD RESULT IN THE PROPERTY OWNER LOSING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR FRONT YARD. STAFF MAILED OUT 23 NOTICES. TWO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION. THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE IS THE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY STAFF AND THE OPPOSITION, WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO, HOW YOU DOING? MY NAME IS, STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CAR. MY NAME IS MARGARITA FLORES AND I LIVE AT 1 0 8 1 8 GAYLORD DRIVE. AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT DO I NEED TO SAY? UH, JUST THAT I'M TRYING TO BUILD THE CARPORT. I, AND UM, YES, I DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT. SO WE HAD SOME EXISTING BEAMS THAT WERE UP SINCE, UM, EIGHT YEARS AGO. AND SO ALL WE DID IS JUST CONNECT TO DO THE CAR PART. WELL, IT, THE PICTURES SPEAK A THOUSAND WORDS. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT WHAT'S GOING ON. I'LL JUST, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM, I'M JUST A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING. I'M SORRY. NO, THAT'S OKAY. UH, IT, DO YOU KNOW HOW DEEP YOUR CARPORT IS? LIKE HOW FAR IT STICKS OUT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? THE CARPORT? [02:15:01] UM, OKAY. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE GARAGE, IT'S 16 FEET. OKAY. SO THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA CUT IT BACK A FOOT, YOU'LL HAVE A 15 FOOT DEEP CARPORT. I WOULD ONLY HAVE LIKE A SIX FOOT CARPORT. NO, I MEAN, YEAH. WHEN YOU, BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY THE POLES TO THE FRONT OF THE BEAMS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE 10 FEET, THEY SAID. OH, NO, NO. UH, NO. IN THE PRESENTATION WE HEARD THAT YOUR INTENT WAS TO CUT IT BACK 12 INCHES AND ONE FOOT ONE FOOT, WHICH WE DID. SO THAT, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU A 15 FOOT DEEP. YES, SURE DID. OKAY. YEAH, WE DID. AND HAVE YOU TALKED TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, UH, ABOUT THE CARPORT AND WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT? I'VE BEEN THERE 45 YEARS. UM, I USUALLY DON'T, I, I WORKED AS A NURSE FOR 33 YEARS AND SO I NEVER REALLY HAD TIME TO BE TALKING TO MY NEIGHBORS. I WOULD GET HOME, I WOULD BE TIRED. AND SO, UM, BUT ONCE IN A WHILE. HI. BYE. LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH MY NEIGHBORS, UM, MY HUSBAND, HE HAS A FRIEND WHO LIVES A FEW HOUSES DOWN, WHO'S THE OWNER OF, UH, , YOU KNOW, AT THE RIGHT THERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UM, HE SAYS, THAT'S GOOD YOU'RE DOING A CARPORT. AND, UM, 'CAUSE UH, I WOULD TELL MY HUSBAND I WANT A CARPORT. 'CAUSE I MEAN, WHEN IT RAINS, I MEAN, I GET WET AND I'M ALREADY GETTING OLD. AND SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE FOR PROTECTION AND SAFETY, SO. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. NOBODY, NOBODY HAS REALLY SAID ANYTHING LIKE, NO. SO A MATTER OF FACT, PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED BY AND SAID, OH, I LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT CARPORT AND, AND SINCE MY HUSBAND IS THE ONE THAT'S BUILDING, HE IS A, A WELDER, THEY WANNA BORROW, ALSO HAVE A CARPORT, . SO YEAH. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA, MR. MRNA? SO, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, WE LOOK AT, UM, IS LOOKING AT THE SHAPE OF THE ROOF HERE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S GONNA BE DIVERTING WATER AS IT RUNS OFF. AND IF IT'S ONLY SIX INCHES AWAY FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD, UM, ARE YOU GONNA BE PUSHING A LOT OF WATER ONTO THEIR PROPERTY? UM, IT, WE WERE TOLD WE COULD PUT GUTTERS. SO IF WE NEED TO PUT GUTTERS, WE CAN PUT GUTTERS. BUT MY, NOBODY LIVES NEXT DOOR AT ALL RIGHT NOW. UH, THE LADY DIED, UH, ABOUT A YEAR AGO. MS. MARTINEZ DIED, SO I WANTED TO BUY THE HOUSE, BUT I'M STILL, IT'S PENDING, UH, WITH THE FAMILY TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH THE HOUSE. BUT I WANTED TO BUY THE, THE PROPERTY. SO, UM, BUT, BUT, BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO PUT G SO WE CAN'T, UM, WE CAN'T CONDITION, CONDITION THE REQUIREMENT HERE, BUT IF YOU WISH TO AMEND YOUR, UM, REQUEST AND SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INCLUDE GUTTERS THAT MAY HELP A LOT OF THE PEOPLE HERE THINK, OKAY, THAT'D BE MUCH BETTER. 'CAUSE AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARDS. AND SO, SO THAT, SO IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING NICE TO DO HERE. OKAY. HELPFUL. YEAH, WE ARE. WOULD WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR CARPORT? DO YOU WANNA PUT GUT, YOU CAN PUT THE GUTTERS. SHE ALREADY SAID SHE WOULD PUT 'EM ON THE NORTH SIDE. NO. YES. OKAY. WHICH IS ON MS. MARTINEZ SIDE, RIGHT? YEAH. ON, YEAH. YES. AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US. AND I, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTED TO ALSO, MY NAME IS RUBY PUENTE AND I AM THE DAUGHTER OF MARGARITA TO PUT THE MIC IN. OH, I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY. I'M SO SORRY. I CAN HEAR YOU FINE, BUT YEAH. YES. UM, MY NAME IS RUBY PUENTE AND I AM THE DAUGHTER OF MARGARITA, AND I JUST WANTED TO PUT A LITTLE INPUT MYSELF THAT, UM, THE REASON ALSO, UM, IN FAVOR FOR MY MOM TO HAVE THIS BECAUSE SHE'S AN ELDERLY ALREADY. UM, SHE WORKED MANY, MANY YEARS AND SHE'S STILL GOOD. AND SHE'S, AND I'M REALLY GLAD THAT SHE'S UP AND THAT SHE'S UP AND WALKING AND DRIVING AND DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO WORRY ABOUT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, CARE FOR MY MOM. SO, UM, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT POURS, I'M AFRAID SHE'S GONNA SLIP, FALL, AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIVE VERY CLOSE, SO IT WOULD BE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD THING. SHE TALKS A LOT ABOUT ME. YEAH. AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TOO BIG OF A FAMILY AND I'M THE REALLY THE ONLY DAUGHTER RIGHT NOW THAT SHE HAS. 'CAUSE MY BROTHER'S NOT AROUND. OKAY. AND MY SISTER LIVES LIKE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN TOO, SO [02:20:01] SHE NEVER COMES. I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT CHECKS UP ON HER, YOU KNOW, WHEN I NEED TO. BUT SHE DOES EVERYTHING ON HER OWN. AND I WOULD WORRY IF, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M, I DON'T WANT HER FALLING AND SLIPPING AND WELL, IT'S NICE, IT'S NICE TO HEAR YOUR SUPPORT OF YOUR MOM. YES. SO THAT'S GREAT. UM, ANY, ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL? I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED. THANK YOU. UH, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MANA COMMISSIONER MANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 3. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UM, GRANT THE REQUEST FOR ONE A NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT WITH A SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE NORTH PROPERTY. LINE. THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 1 0 8 1 8 GAYLORD DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING IN MARGARITA FLORES BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WOULD BE LEFT TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WATER RUNOFF FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UH, SIDEWALK AND RIGHT OF WAY BEING THAT YOU'RE GONNA ADD THE GUTTERS. SO THAT'S GONNA HELP THERE A LOT. UM, THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT INCREASE THE VARI THE RISK OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AS IT DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE CLEAR VISION FOR SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY. UM, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AS THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD INHIBITS THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT TO PROTECT THE OWNER'S VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY. AND REPOSITIONING THE FENCE WOULD RESULT IN, IN THE PROPERTY OWNER LOSING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE CARPORT WOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WATER RUNOFF AND THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION STILL ALLOWS FOR SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCES LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS, UH, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RISK OF DAMAGE FROM WATER RUNOFF TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. UM, AND THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK FACE AND SURROUNDING AREAS. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UH, THE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY IS THAT THE LIMITED FRONT YARD DEPTH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA HAS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. AND MEETING THE CURRENT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THEIR YARD SPACE ESTABLISHED FOR OVER A CENTURY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. AND JUST A CLARIFICATION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAG. YOU SAY NINE INCH OR NINE FOOT VARIANCE? THE FRONT IS A NINE FOOT VARIANCE. I THOUGHT I HEARD, I THOUGHT I HEARD NINE INCH. OH, I MEANT, I'M OKAY. THANK YOU. SO NINE FOOT PERIOD. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR THE YES. COMMISSIONER ONE TICKY MARK VERSUS TWO. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, REAL QUICK, UM, WHEN YOU READ THE MOTION, DID YOU, DID YOU READ, UH, GUTTER'S PHONE? YES. OKAY. UH, YES I DID. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND SO, SO UM, NEIGHBORS ARE SUPPORTING THIS, UM, I SEE A PLETHORA OF THESE TYPE OF, UM, CARPORTS ALREADY IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SO, UM, WITH THOSE TWO, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I AGREE. UM, THE GUTTERS, UM, IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT. UM, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SHORT, UH, FRONT YARD, SO, UM, YOU REALLY CAN'T CUT THE CARPORT BACK MUCH WITH, UM, WITHOUT IT'S SEASONED TO BE FUNCTIONAL. UM, SO, UM, AND WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT, UM, I AGREE I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. ANY OF, ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NONE THIS HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER [02:25:01] DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. YES. ALRIGHT. AMEN. ALRIGHT, GOOD. , IT'S A DREAM RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 10. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4. THE ADDRESS IS 6 2 6 FULTON AVENUE. IN CONS, DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS SERGIO DE LA MORA. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD TWO PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO ALLOW AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD TWO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE'S HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 35 FOOT TALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND DWELLING. AND THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NC D TWO AND UDC STANDARD TO ALLOW AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THE ZONE IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND CD TWO ON FULTON AVENUE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NCD TWO STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OR THE EXCEED STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. ACCORDING TO THE NCD TWO REQUIREMENTS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS NOT TO EXCEED 40% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. SIMILARLY, ACCESSORY DWELL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE NNC D TWO SHALL NOT EXCEED 40% OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT FOOTPRINT OR THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. ACCORDING TO THE UDC ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL NOT EXCEED 800 SQUARE FEET OR 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FLOOR AREA, WHICHEVER IS LARGER. PER BEAR COUNTY RECORDS, THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS 1,432 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT VERIFIED THE HEIGHT IS 16 FEET. SO 40% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SIZE WOULD BE 572 SQUARE FEET. BASED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, THE TOTAL STRUCTURE WILL CONSIST OF AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 35 35 FEET, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NC NCD TWO STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OR THE UDC STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. SO THIS SITE PLAN HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE IS THE AREA FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. AND BASED ON THE REFERENCE OF THE SETBACKS HE WOULD BE APPLYING WITH THE REAR END THE SIDE. SO THIS IS JUST A SNIPPET OF, UM, THE DEFINITIONS AND THE RULINGS BEHIND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE NCD TWO. AND THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON WITH THE FIGURES, UM, COMPARING TO THE SIZE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND WHAT THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE. UM, THE MATH IS SHOWING THAT IT'S, UM, QUITE EXCEEDING THOSE FIGURES. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS TO THE REAR AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NCD TWO NUDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SIZE, AND HEIGHT STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 114 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN BE REDUCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE NCD TWO AND UDC REQUIREMENTS. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF MAIL 22 NOTICES, UM, 11 WE'RE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FEET. UM, THERE IS A SLIDE WITHIN OPPOSITION, BUT THERE WAS NO ADDRESS. UM, ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION ON, UM, 6 25, YOU WILL SEE TWO CHECK MARKS THERE. UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER [02:30:01] PROVIDED, UM, SIGNED, UM, SUPPORT. ONE WAS FROM THE TENANT AND THEN WE RECEIVED, UM, SEPARATELY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, CAN CONTINUE. SO THIS IS THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT SIGNATURES WITHIN 200 FEET. THAT STAR THERE IS THE ADDRESS I WAS REFERRING TO. THIS IS FROM THE, UM, TENANT. THIS IS, UM, SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS IS THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER FOR 6 2 5. UM, THEY PRIOR SUBMITTED, UM, OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT UPON SPEAKING TO HIM, UM, THEY RESCINDED THEIR OPPOSITION AND NOW THEY'RE ON BOARD WITH HIS PROPOSAL AND THAT'S THE ONE HIGHLIGHTED SHOWING THEIR SUPPORT. AND THIS IS THE OPPOSITION FROM THE ALTO VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE IN OPPOSITION. YEAH. AND FROM BEACON HILL AREA, NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THEIR OPPOSITION. AND THIS IS A RESPONSE WE RECEIVE IN OPPOSITION, BUT, UM, NO ADDRESS TO, UM, COMPARED TO THE NOTIFICATION AREA. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR ADDITION. UH, YES SIR. THIS IS SERGIO DE LAMO. UH, I'VE BEEN AT THIS HOUSE, UH, GREW UP IN THIS HOUSE SINCE 2004. WE MOVED IN, UH, MY PARENTS ARE SET TO RETIRE, SO I, THE HOME IS IN MY NAME NOW. UH, SO THE MAIN REASON, UH, IS BECAUSE IF YOU, THERE'S OTHER PICTURES THAT SHOULD BE ATTACHED MAYBE. UM, THERE'S A QUAD THREE STORY HOME ON THAT SAME BLOCK. AND, UH, EACH HOMEOWNER HAS AROUND THREE TO FOUR CARS. SO THE WHOLE STREET IS ALWAYS BLOCKED IN THE EVENING OR NIGHTTIME. IF THEY EVER HAVE ANY EVENTS, UH, THE STREET IS COMPLETELY BLOCKED OFF. AND THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES NOW OFFICIALLY THAT MY CAR HAS BEEN HIT WHEN THEY TURN IN SINCE WHERE THE LAST DEAD END STREET. UM, OBVIOUSLY INSURANCE TOOK CARE OF IT, BUT IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PREMIUM, RIGHT? IT ALWAYS GOES UP. UH, SO I WANTED TO BUILD A STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO, UM, TO KEEP THE LIVING SPACE FOR MYSELF. UM, I WANTED TO BUILD A LIVING SPACE IN THE BACK. UH, THE HOUSE SITS ON THREE LOTS, SO, UH, I WASN'T SURE WHERE TO START. SO THIS IS MY FIRST SHOT IN THE DARK WITH TRYING TO BUILD A PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR. INSTEAD OF HAVING LIKE A QUAD FOUR UNIT HOME LIKE THEY DID AND DO SLIM BUILDINGS, I WANTED TO DO A, JUST A MASSIVE GARAGE AND THEN LIVING SPACE TOGETHER TO ACCOMMODATE MY NEEDS. UH, AND THEN MOST RECENTLY, UM, MY MOM, UH, HAD A MEDICAL ILLNESS AND NOW SHE CAN NO LONGER TAKE CARE OF HERSELF. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, MY SISTER IS MOVING BACK IN AND MY PARENTS' RETIREMENT KIND OF CHANGED AND NOW WE'RE JUST HER, HER PRIMARY CARETAKER. UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE ORIGINAL HOME IS, WAS SET TO BE REMODELED AND BE EXTENDED AS WELL, TO BE BIGGER. UH, BUT WITH HER DIAGNOSIS AND THE TAKING CARE OF HER, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THAT AS WELL. AND SPECIFICALLY FITTING HER NEEDS. UM, SO THE REAR THE, THE STRUCTURE IS TO FIT ALL OF OUR CARS IN THE REAR AND THEN ME AND MY SISTER WILL BE LIVING THERE. UM, AND THEN THE PRIMARY HOME IS GONNA BE FOR HER CARETAKER, WHICH WE'RE STILL ON HOLD TO GETTING ASSIGNED. AND THEN HOPEFULLY, UH, THAT WILL BE THEIR STRUCTURE TO LIVE ON AND WATCH AFTER HER PRIMARILY. UM, I KNOW IT'S VERY BIG STRUCTURE, UH, AND UH, AND THAT IS FOR ONE REASON. UM, I WAS TOLD I CAN DO THE SMALL A DU AND THEN HAVE THE EXPOSED GARAGE, UH, JUST NO WALLS AND JUST HAVE LIKE A CARPORT STYLE. UH, BUT I JUST THOUGHT THAT WASN'T, IF I COULD WRAP IT AND HAVE IT COMPLETELY UNCOVERED AND USE IT AS A, AS AN ADDITIONAL SPACE TO STORE THINGS AND, AND IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR MY USE. AND THEN, UM, THE BIGGEST THING IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I'M IN. I KNOW MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS I WAS ABLE TO GET A LOT OF SUPPORT. UM, IT'S BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY'VE BEEN THERE THEIR WHOLE LIVES AND A LOT OF THE HOMES ARE PASSED HUNDRED GENERATIONS. SO I ALSO INCLUDED SOME MURALS TO NOT MAKE IT AN EYE SOURCES. AND IT IS SUCH A BIG STRUCTURE, BUT BE MORE OF A CAPTIVATING STANDPOINT STANDPOINT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO PEOPLE CAN WELCOME THE, THE BUILDING TO COME IN. THAT'S JUST WITHOUT ANYTHING, IT'S BARE. UM, THE THREE GARAGE DOORS IS, UH, THAT WAS JUST WHAT CHAT G PT GAVE ME. I WAS OPEN FOR JUST ONE OR TWO GARAGE DOORS, THAT'S THE NEIGHBOR SIDE. IF I WERE TO CONTINUE THE MURAL. AND THAT IS THE SIDE WITHOUT THE MURAL, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHAT I'M GONNA GO FOR. SO, YOU KNOW, MURALS ARE EXPENSIVE. UM, AND THEN THE, UH, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF HOMES THAT ARE VERY, VERY BIG AS WELL. STEEL BUILDINGS AS WELL. AND THEY WRAPPED IT CORRECTLY TO FIT THE NCND STANDARD. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS ONE [02:35:01] IS REALLY, REALLY BIG. AND THEY ACTUALLY EXTENDED A STEEL BUILDING IN THE REAR THAT THEY RECENTLY DID IT, UH, NOT TOO LONG AGO TO FIT THEIR RV STRUCTURE. IF YOU CLICK THE NEXT PICTURE, UH, THEY JUST DID THREE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS. SO IT WAS ONE ORIGINAL BUILDING, THEN THEY EXTENDED IT AND ATTACHED IT AND THEN THEY EXTENDED THAT GARAGE BUILDING, WHICH IS WHAT I WANT TO AVOID. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT AS A CARPORT IN MY REAR BACKYARD. I, IF I CAN HAVE IT ENCLOSED AND HAVE IT WRAPPED, YOU LOOK LIKE THE CHAD GPT VERSION OF WHAT I, WHAT I NEED. THAT WOULD BE, I THINK A, A BETTER INTEREST FOR EVERYBODY 'CAUSE UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST THAT AND THAT IT WOULD JUST BE ONE BIG BUILDING WRAPPED IN, UH, PRESENTED A IN A NICER WAY. UH, AND THEN A COUPLE OTHER BUILDINGS AS YOU, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ROOFTOP, THAT'S THE THREE ADDITIONS THAT THEY DID. AND THEN JUST, UM, OTHER PICTURES ARE JUST REPRESENTING THE OTHER OPTIONS. UM, THAT'S THE STEEL BUILDING THAT THEY DID. THAT'S A COMMERCIAL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID. I DO NOT WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WANT TO CAPTURE THE SPIRIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ACTUALLY BE ADDING, UM, SPIRIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEXT BUILDING IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS, UH, GIVEN BY MY, UH, UM, ARCHITECT ENGINEER. INSTEAD OF HAVING, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, THEY WANT TO DO THIS AND I WANT TO AVOID THIS IF I CAN BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE. AND IT WOULD BE ONE FOR MY SISTER AND ONE FOR MYSELF. UH, AND THEN CONSIDERING THERE, 'CAUSE THERE, THERE'RE STILL GONNA BE GAPS. SO SHE WANTS HER PRIVACY AND I WANT MINE. UM, WE AGREED THAT WE CAN HAVE THE LIVING SPACE INSIDE THIS GARAGE A LOT MORE BETTER AND STORE OUR CARS BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO DO THIS IN MY BACKYARD, WHETHER IT IT WOULD BE LEGAL, IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER. WE WOULDN'T HAVE, I WOULDN'T BE HERE. UM, THIS WOULD ALSO STILL REQUIRE CARPORT, WHICH WOULD BE EXPOSED. AND THEN WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. SO THE CAR, THE BUILDING ITSELF, 1800 SQUARE FEET IS THREE ON ONE, A LIVING STRUCTURE FOR ME AND MY SISTER. AND A CARPORT SPACE FOR ALL THE CARS AND STORAGE AS WELL. UM, WITH THE, UH, IDEA OF REMODELING THE HOME, ALL THE FURNITURE WILL BE IN THE, IN THE PROPOSED BUILDING. AND THEN ONCE THE HOME GETS REMODELED, THEY'LL BE BACK INTO THAT BUILDING. SO IT WOULD ALSO BENEFIT US IN THAT WAY. UM, BUT I'M OPEN TO ANY, UH, ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH, I, I HAVE A, A QUICK CLARIFICATION. SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THEN AN 1800 FOOT SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. UH, BUT THE, IT'S JUST ONCE. YES, SIR. YEAH, WE COULDN'T MENTION THAT ON THE GROUND FLOOR THERE WOULD ALSO BE SOME LIVING SPACE IN, IN A CORNER. YES, SIR. SO WOULDN'T THAT MAKE IT MORE THAN 1800 SQUARE FEET? BECAUSE EACH FLOOR IS 1800 SQUARE FEET. I'M, I'M NOT DOING A SECOND FLOOR. IT'S GONNA BE OFF FIRST FLOOR, SIR. SO YOU ONLY, YOUR TOTAL IS GONNA BE 1800 SQUARE FEET? YES, SIR. OH, SO, ALRIGHT THEN STEVENS, OH, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU NOT DOING THE VARIANCE FOR THE, THE HEIGHT ANYMORE? UH, SO THE HEIGHT IS SO, YES. UH, SO THE HEIGHT IS 35 FEET. AND FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IF I DO THE 25 FEET WITH THIS STEEL BUILDING, THE, THE ROOF WOULD BE FLAT. AND I WAS ABLE TO GET A REALLY GOOD DEAL, UH, ON A BUILDING FROM ONE OF MY UNCLES THAT HE'S SELLING. AND I, I KNOW IT'S, UH, BUT THE, THE ROOF ITSELF, THE, THE, THE ROOF IS 13 FEET. SO IF I WERE TO DO THE 24 FEET PLUS THE ROOF, IT'S 34 BEFORE, BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON YES SIR. THIS, THIS COMMISSION CAN ONLY HEAR WHAT, TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT YOU'VE APPLIED FOR. YES SIR. OKAY. SO WHAT IS BEFORE US TODAY IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE MM-HMM . WITH 1800 SQUARE FOOT PER STORY, WITH THE GROUND FLOOR BEING ENTIRELY A GARAGE AND THE SECOND FLOOR BEING ENTIRELY A LIVING UNIT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO? THAT'S WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO. UH, BUT UH, I'M, I'M, I'M FLEXIBLE, SO I KNOW IF I CAN I GET ONE THING APPROVED, I CAN WELL, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE LI YOU KNOW, IF, IF IF, IF THERE'S A DEVIATION FROM WHAT THIS HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR OKAY. THEN WE HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE AND YOU HAVE TO COME BACK. OKAY, WELL THEN, THEN YES, I, I WOULD BE APPLYING FOR THE SECOND STORY. YES, SIR. OKAY. FOR, FOR ME AND MY SISTER. OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT DOING ANY LIVING SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHATSOEVER? NO, SIR. THAT'S, IT WOULD BE FOR CARS? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO I WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I THOUGHT YOU HAD MENTIONED DURING YOUR PRESENT. MY APOLOGIES. MY APOLOGIES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON, UM, YEAH, I'M ALSO, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. THERE'S A, HOW MANY TOTAL SQUARE FEET IS THIS STRUCTURE? 18. WE GOT TWO FIGURES OF, OF 1800 OR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. ARE WE TALKING 3,600 SQUARE FEET? THE STRUCTURE WOULD ONLY COVER THE GROUND, UH, 1800 SQUARE FEET SINCE IT IS ABLE TO STACK. AND WE CAN DO A SECOND STORY ON IT. IT WOULD ONLY BE 1800 SQUARE FEET. IT WOULD WHAT? YOU IT'S IT'S AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR. 1800 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR. YES SIR. OKAY. SO 30 WAS 3,600 SQUARE FEET TOTAL. MM-HMM . IN THE BUILDING. OKAY. UM, SORRY, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A LOGICAL PROBLEM TREATING THAT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT'S [02:40:01] A SMALL FRACTION OF THAT SIZE. YES, SIR. UM, SECOND, THE HEIGHT CONCERNS ME, THREE AND A HALF STORY IS GONNA TOWER OVER SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. AND THIRD, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE NCD REQUIREMENTS. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THROUGH A PRETTY ELABORATE PROCESS THAT REPRESENTS, I THINK AS CLOSE AS WE'RE EVER GONNA SEE TO A CONSENSUS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO, AND, AND ESPECIALLY NOW WE'RE FACED WITH OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, WHICH WE TEND TO TAKE SERIOUSLY. WE DON'T GUARANTEE TO FOLLOW THEIR RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE DO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I DON'T SEE A WAY I CAN SUPPORT THIS. I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU, WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE. YES SIR. MAN. AND I AM FLEXIBLE WITH THE ROOF BEING BROUGHT DOWN TO THE 25, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO BOTH THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS? SO, SO TOBIN HILL AS WELL AS, UH, BEACON HILL AND AL, OR BEACON HILL AND ALT VISTA? I'M SORRY. SO BEACON HILL, I WAS BLINDSIDED. I NEVER SPOKEN TO THEM. I THINK THEY'RE JUST SUPPORTING 'CAUSE THEY'RE SISTER UNITS WITH, UH, ALTA VISTA. BUT I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO ANY OF THEM. UH, ALTA VISTA? YES I HAVE. AND UM, I WAS ALWAYS GETTING DELAYED. I WAS NEVER GETTING PROPER RESPONSES BACK AND FORTH. I WANTED TO GET THE SUPPORT OR HAVE SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE SO WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN. 'CAUSE THIS WOULD HELP THE, THE SPARKING SITUATION FOR THE STREET. 'CAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY APARTMENTS ON THAT SPECIFIC BLOCK. UM, I WAS, I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, THE, ACROSS THE TRACKS IT'S NCD FIVE. CORRECT. ARE THOSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN, IN SIMILAR TO THE NCD TWO AS FAR AS SIZE AND HEIGHTS AND GOOD STUFF LIKE THAT? I'M LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THIS, AND I'M BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE BIGGER LOTS. YOU'VE GOT A HUGE RAILROAD TRACK THERE. YOU ONLY HAVE ONE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE FRONTAGE OF THREE OF THE HOUSES. AND THEN WHY IS THERE FULTON AVENUE LISTED TWICE? I MEAN, WHAT IT'S UH, IT'S A WEIRD DEVIATION. THE, THE STREET RUNS FROM THE BOTTOM, IT JUMPS OVER TO FLOORS AND THEN IT RUNS UP TO SAN PEDRO. UH, BUT YES, I DO COVER TWO STREETS AND, UH, THE, THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD BE FACING THE SOUTH FULTON AND IT'S ON A HILL AS WELL. SO IT'S NOT HITTING THE CURB. THE, THE PARKING ISSUES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT ON THE, IS THAT FULTON AVENUE ON THE NORTH PARK? ON THE NORTH, SIR OR THE SOUTH? BECAUSE I, I CAN'T PARK ON THE SOUTH. YES, SIR. OKAY. THE SOUTH IS WHERE ALL THE CARS ARE? YES SIR. OKAY. AND I WANTED TO DO A DRIVEWAY RUN UP, BUT, UH, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH THE ANGLE. YES SIR. YEAH, IT'S FILLED UP PRETTY HIGH. UH, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SO, SO YEAH, SO GOING BACK TO, SO, SO I WAS ALSO OBSERVING THIS STREET ON BOTH SIDES. UM, SO, SO ON THE SOUTH SIDE YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE PROPERTY 'CAUSE I SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT THE DRIVEWAY CUT OFF AND GOING INTO THE GARAGE ITSELF. AND SO IS IT THAT YOU CANNOT USE, UM, THE SOUTH VERSION OF THAT STREET TO GET TO? NO, SIR. THE, THE HILL IS ABOUT 20, 20 FEET TALL, SO THE, THE DRIVEWAY UP WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY HARD TO APPROVE. YEAH. AND SO, SO THE, SO THE HEIGHT, SO IT'S, SO, IT'S, SO YOU'RE, SO IT'S A PRETTY STEEP, I GUESS YES SIR. A PIECE OF PROPERTY. THEN YOUR HOUSE IS GONNA BE, UH, ON TOP OF SUPPOSED 35 FOOT ON TOP OF THAT. SO, BUT, BUT, UH, THE PROPOSITION, WHEN I LAST SPOKE TO ALTA VISTA, THE BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THE HEIGHT, UH, SECOND TO THE SIZE OF THE 40 BY 45, WHICH IS 1800 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S GONNA ENCOMPASS IT. UH, AND I LAST, I SPOKE WITH THEM, UH, ON THE PHONE CALL. THEY, THEY WERE OKAY WITH THE 25 FEET BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT'S LEGAL WITH THE NCD. UH, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THAT IN PAPER BECAUSE IT WAS, I GOT NOTICE THAT I GOT DENIED ON THURSDAY AT MIDNIGHT, WHICH WAS ODD. AND THEN ON FRIDAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE LAST DAY THAT I WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY SPEAK TO ANYBODY AND THEY WEREN'T, UH, ALLOWED TO HAVE A MEETING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. SO I WAS VERY BLINDSIDED THEN. I I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION. SO, SO I KNOW THAT, SO IN OUR COMMUNITY SOMETIMES WE'LL HAVE FLAG LOTS LAID OUT. UM, AND SO, SO WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF? YOU KNOW, UM, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVER FIVE, UH, UM, MAYBE 6,000 SQUARE FEET. I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME ON HAND. I'M SORRY. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS IN A SECOND. UM, YEAH, 11,000 FOOT, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE THREE LOTS. AND AND THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION I MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN LIE TO ME WITH. IF I WERE TO SPLIT THE LOTS AND SELL 'EM AND BUILD INDIVIDUALLY ON THE LOTS AND DO A WHOLE LOT OF THAT WORK, WHICH IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED, WHICH IS WHY I WANNA GO THIS ROUTE. UM, IS YOUR EXISTING HOUSE STRADDLING A LOT LINE? [02:45:01] IT IS THROUGH ALL THREE. THAT'S THE EXISTING HOUSES. EXISTING HOUSES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH. AND, AND ENTERING IT DOWN IS KIND OF OUT THE QUESTION 'CAUSE IT IS NCD TWO, SO YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO REPL IT IF YOU WANTED. YES SIR. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S, WE'RE SHOWING THAT THE, UH, THE SITE, YEAH, IT'S 11,074 SQUARE FEET. YEAH. QUARTER ACRE. AND, UM, AND SO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, NEIGHBORING NCD, THEY DO HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE ABOUT THE 40% ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. UM, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT HAS SIMILAR TO THIS REQUEST. OKAY. WOULD, WOULD, UH, YOU BE INTERESTED IN A CONTINUANCE TO, TO GET SOME, UM, DOCUMENTED BACKING FROM MALTA VISTA WITH YOUR HEIGHT NEGOTIATIONS? UH, I, I WOULD, UH, THAT'S WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT DO? THAT MEANS THAT, UH, YOU WOULD, WE'D GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS OR A MONTH, GO MEET WITH THEM AND TRY TO GET SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT 'CAUSE IT, IT'S, YOU DO HAVE SO MUCH SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE AROUND YOU, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS, IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU. SO WOULD YOU LIKE SOME MORE TIME? I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE MORE TIME. AND I HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU LIKE? I WOULD LIKE A MONTH. UM, AND WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, OH, WE'LL WE, WE, WE HAVE A, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF 'EM I THINK. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, AND I HAVE ONE, BUT, BUT YOU ARE ACTUALLY IN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION. THAT'S THE ONE YOUR, YOUR HOUSE LIES WITHIN. YES SIR. BUT THE RAILROAD TRACKS BREAKS IT INTO THE NEXT ONE TO BEACON. YEAH. YEAH. ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, VOICEMAILS? UH, BOTH. OKAY. LET'S HEAR VOICEMAILS FIRST. AARON ZAKO. I LIVE AT 7 1 4 WEST RUSSELL PLACE IN ALTA VISTA. I'M LEAVING THIS MESSAGE ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING CASE NUMBER 0 1 1 4. UH, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WE APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. WE ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT TOOK THE TIME TO DISCUSS HIS REQUEST WITH US AFTER HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT VIA EMAIL AND OVER ZOOM. THE BOARD, UM, VOTED ON JULY, UH, NINTH, UH, NOT TO SUPPORT ALL THREE VARIANCES REQUESTED. AND WE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT WE WERE OPPOSED, UM, TO THESE REQUESTS BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE AND BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD FIT A VERY BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE NEW STRUCTURE IS GONNA BE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE UDC IN OUR NCD TWO. UM, WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY WOULD ALLOW, UH, AN EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE TWO STORY A DDU AND GARAGE THAT'S IN TOTAL 3,600 SQUARE FEET, ALMOST THREE TIMES LARGER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE. UM, AND WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 35 FOOT TALL STRUCTURE BECAUSE A DD ARE LIMITED TO ONE STORY PER NCD TWO. SO AGAIN, WE THINK TAKING NO EXCEPTION TO THIS PROJECT WOULD SET A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE A DD AND ALLOW A WILDLY LARGE AND, UM, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LOOKING, UH, BUILDING TO ROOM OVER AN OTHERWISE VERY RESIDENTIAL SCALED LANDSCAPE, IT MUST BE TAKEN TO ACCOUNT THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT IN THE, IN THE BACK OF THE YARD PER SE, BUT ACTUALLY FRONTS ON, UH, FULTON STREET TO, TO THE SOUTH. UM, AND AS A RESULT, UH, WE THINK THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THAT FRONTING STREET SCAPE. AND IT HAS MANY OPPORTUNITIES, WE BELIEVE TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT WITH SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, PARKING SPACE. WE THINK IT COULD BE SMALLER, UM, AND CERTAINLY COME MUCH CLOSER, UH, TO MEETING THE NCD STANDARDS. SO I, UH, WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPPOSE THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS TODAY. AND AGAIN, WE ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER A FRONTAGE THAT IS MORE IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOLLOWS THE NCD TWO STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND AGAIN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE, UH, THE HOMEOWNER FURTHER IN THE FUTURE. I'M SORRY WE COULDN'T BE THERE TODAY IN PERSON. HAVE A GREAT DAY EVERYBODY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BYE-BYE. OKAY. HI, MY NAME IS CYNTHIA WALKER, 10 38 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE, 8 1 8 4 8 9 2 5 9 9. I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO BOA CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4 6 2 6 WEST FULTON AVENUE. DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SIZE AND HEIGHT FROM THE NCD TWO AND UGC STANDARD FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING AT [02:50:01] 6 2 6 WEST FULTON AVENUE. IT IS A POLICY OF BEACON HILLS TO SUPPORT ITS NEIGHBORS DECISIONS REGARDING VARIANCE REQUESTS. AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT. THE MOST RECENT UDC AMENDMENTS TO THE A DU CODES WERE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S REMOVING BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE IN 2021. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAD THE INTENTION OF MAKING THE BUILDING OF ADUS EASIER WHILE PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE AGREED WAS TO BE AVOIDED WAS THE BUILDING OF ADUS TALLER THAN THE SURROUNDING HOUSING. ANOTHER CONCERN BY THE COMMITTEE WAS THE ADUS THAT ARE LARGER THAN PERCENTAGE OF THE HOME ALREADY BUILT ON THE LOT. ALTA VISTA DOES AND CD TWO LEGAL DESIGN STANDARDS ECHO THESE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY CAN BE DESTABILIZING TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. YOUR APPROVAL OF THESE REQUESTS THAT THE PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE. WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS BOARD HAS MADE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE AREA. ADUS ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WHILE STABILIZING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE HELP US BOTH ALTA VISTA AND BEACON HILL TO ENCOURAGE ADUS WHILE ALSO RESPECTING THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. BEACON HILL RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS NOT APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SIZE. CYNTHIA WALKER SHARED THE ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE OF THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. YES. MY NAME IS DAVID CRUZ. I LIVE AT 6 22 FULTON AVENUE. I'M CALLING REGARDING CASE NUMBER 1 1 4. UM, AND I AM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO MR. GIO MORA. UM, AND HE HAS, UH, A PROJECT TO BUILD A GARAGE, UM, IN HIS BACKYARD ALONG WITH SOME LIVING SPACE. AND I WANT TO, UM, LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF HIM BUILDING HIS PROJECT. I KNOWN HIM FOR 21 YEARS AND I KNOW HIM TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AND CONSIDERATE NEIGHBOR. UM, HE IS, UM, A GOOD, UH, HIS, HIS PROJECT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, SO I DO, UH, SUPPORT HIM, UH, BUILDING HIS PROJECT AND I I HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL APPROVE, UH, HIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. I'M AN ALT VISTA RESIDENT AT 4 0 5 WEST MAGNOLIA AND I AM AGAINST THE VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN PR UH, APPLIED OR APPLIED FOR AT 6 26 FULTON. THE CASE NUMBER IS TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4. THANK YOU. BYE. KATHLEEN BAILEY, I LIVE AT 7 22 WEST FRENCH PLACE IN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, I'M CALLING REGARDING ITEM NUMBER 10, CASE NUMBER 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 AT 6 2 6 FULTON AVENUE. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS REQUESTED VARIANCES TO BUILD A 35 FOOT TALL GARAGE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THESE BUILDINGS ARE THREE TIMES LARGER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE. PLEASE UPHOLD THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AND VOTE AGAINST THESE VARIANCES. THANK YOU, TY. MY NAME IS KATHLEEN BRADLEY. I LIVE AT FOUR TWENTY FOUR FULTON AVENUE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN FOUR TWO TWO FOUR ONE FOUR EIGHT. I'M CALLING ABOUT 6 26 FULTON AVENUE. THE LAST THREE DIGITS OF THE CASE NUMBER ARE 1 1 4 AND I'M CALLING TO OPPOSE THE STRUCTURE DUE TO THE HEIGHT. I THINK IT'S WAY, WAY TOO TALL AND OUT OF MASSIVELY OUT OF BOUNDS WITH THE, UM, THE, UM, ALLOWED HEIGHT STRUCTURE. SO I OPPOSE THE STRUCTURE BASED ON THE HEIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BYE. , I'M A RESIDENT OF THE ALTA VISTA, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT 7 1 4 WEST RUSSELL PLACE. I'M CALLING IN AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO CASE NUMBER [02:55:01] 0 1 1 4. AND AGAIN, SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I WANNA SAY THAT I'M OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BECAUSE I THINK IT SETS A VERY BAD PRECEDENT, UH, FOR FUTURE APPLICANT WHO MAY WANT TO BUILD, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR ACCESSORY DWELLING, UM, UNITS. I'M ONE OF THOSE, UH, ACTUALLY WHO WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A TWO STORY A DU. UM, I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING HOW TO REQUEST A VARIANCE. UM, I I ALSO HAVE A, A NICE SIZE, UH, LOT SIMILAR TO THE APPLICANTS. UM, AND I COULD SQUEEZE SOME MORE, YOU KNOW, SQUARE FOOTAGE HERE. BUT I HAVE DECIDED THAT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR MEANS COMING FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE, NOT TRYING TO SKIRT AROUND IT. AND BECAUSE I NEED MORE ROOM FOR, FOR PARKING, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT HE WANTS TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE WANTS TO BE CODE COMPLIANT, BUT THIS PROPOSAL ISN'T IT AT ALL. AND, AND I THINK THAT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR MEANS COMING FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT'S RESPECTFUL, UM, OF THE CODE IN THE FIRST PLACE. UM, I ALSO FEEL AS IF THE APPLICANT MISLED HIS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS BY CIRCULATING A DOCUMENT THAT DID NOT AT ALL MENTION THE NEIGHBORHOOD CON CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, GUIDELINES, WHICH SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR, FOR WHAT IS CONSIDERED NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLIANT. UM, AND WITH THAT, THAT'S WHERE I'LL LEAVE IT. UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY. BYE-BYE. UH, YES, THIS IS HECTOR ES. I'M, I LIVE AT 5 39 WEST SME. UH, I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 4. UH, THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. I FULLY SUPPORT A SERGIO, UM, REQUEST TO BUILD, UH, THE SECONDARY OR THE OTHER ADDITION TO THE BACK OF, OF, UM, THE HOME ON FULTON. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I MENTIONED TO HIM, I'M A PAST PRESIDENT OF ALTA VISTA. I'VE BEEN ON ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PROBABLY ABOUT 30 YEARS. UM, I'VE BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVIST FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS. UM, THE PROBLEM WITH HIS HOME, UH, WITH THAT ADDRESS IS IT'S A DEAD END STREET. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THEM IS THESE HUGE APARTMENTS THAT WERE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT WITH, UH, NOT ENOUGH PARKING SPACE. SOMETIMES THEY CAN'T EVEN PICK UP THE TRASH. IT'S ALMOST A MUCH NEEDED, UH, FACILITY TO BE ABLE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN THE REAR WITH THIS NEW STRUCTURE, UH, AND TO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND TO EXIT THEIR HOME. UH, IT IS, IT IS A, A, UH, AN ISSUE WITH IT. UH, I LIKE THE DESIGN THAT HE DID. I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT. AND I KNOW WE'VE PUSHED ALONG WITH THE CITY FOR, I KNOW GRANNY FLAT, UH, SECONDARY HOUSING FOR, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I THINK THIS IS A, THIS IS AN, UH, A WIN-WIN SITUATION ALLEVIATES THE, THE PARKING ISSUE, UM, INCREASES OUR HOUSING AND, UM, MAKES OUR, OUR ALT VISTA HILL, UH, EVEN BETTER. UH, THANK YOU. MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 8 3 1 10 81. AND THIS IS HECTOR J. CARD. THIS IS 5 39 WEST ELSMERE. WE HAVE, UH, THREE, UH, INDIVIDUALS, SILENCE TO SPEAK. FIRST ONE IS MR. JACK FINGER. ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JACK FINGER AND I LIVE IN BEACON HILL. I LIVE, WHICH IS JUST WHOSE BOUNDARIES JUST INCHES AWAY FROM THIS, THIS CASE ADDRESS. THE, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED HE NEEDS THIS FOR HIS ELDERLY MOTHER, PERHAPS ELDERLY FATHER. WELL, I'M HERE TO SUGGEST THAT EVERY ONE OF US HAS AN ELDERLY MOTHER, AN ELDERLY FATHER, IF THEY'RE STILL LIVING. IF THEY'RE STILL LIVING, WE, WE AS DUTIFUL, UH, OFFSPRING, WE, WE TRY TO HELP THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE DO NOT PREVAIL OR TRY TO VIOLATE THE STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. [03:00:02] NO, WE, UH, WE TRY TO WORK WITH THAT. IN FACT, UH, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY APPROVE OF THIS THAT WAS MENTIONED. MY QUESTION IS, WERE THEY REALLY GIVEN THE WHOLE STORY ON THIS, WERE THEY REALLY TOLD EXACTLY WHAT THE, UH, UH, WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS ARE AND WHY, WHY THEY HAVE SUCH STANDARDS? I TEND TO DOUBT THAT MR. DELAMORE, AS MR. DE LAMORE REALLY LOOKED FOR ADEQUATE HOUSING NEARBY FOR HIS MOTHER. HE MENTIONS ALL THESE COMPLEXES ALONG THE STREET, JUST MAYBE ONE OF 'EM WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HIS MOTHER TO LIVE THERE AS HE REALLY LOOKED FOR SUCH, INSTEAD OF INSISTING THAT HE BUILD IT ON HIS BACKYARD PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE STANDARDS. THE, UM, ANOTHER QUESTION. DOES HIS MOTHER EVEN DRIVE? IF NOT, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A GARAGE APARTMENT. HE, HE, HE CAN . IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TWO STORIES AFTER ALL. OR IF, IF SHE DOES DRIVE WELL, THERE'S CERTAINLY ROOM FOR A, AN EXTRA SIDE DRIVEWAY THAT SHE CAN PARK ON. YES. UM, WHAT, HERE'S A QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE, IF YOU ACTUALLY DECIDE TO APPROVE THIS THING, AND AFTER THE MEETING, MR. BOMAR SAYS, WELL, I'M NOT GONNA HAVE MY MOTHER STAY THERE AFTER ALL, AND HE DECIDES TO RENT IT OUT FOR, UH, MONEY. IT'D BE BE A LITTLE HARD FOR YOU TO REVERSE YOUR DECISION AFTER, AFTER THAT POINT THERE KNOW, I, UM, IF THERE, AND ALSO IF THERE ARE TOO MANY CARS ALONG THE STREET, WELL, HAS ANYBODY EVER ASKED WHY THIS IS HAPPENING? MAY, MAYBE JUST, MAYBE ALL THOSE COMPLEXES, FOURPLEXES, DUPLEXES, MAYBE THEY'RE BREAKING THE RULES. MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWING PARKING IN THEIR BACKYARDS AND SO FORTH, THAT IS, HAS NOT BEING GIVEN. OR MAYBE THEY ARE ALLOWING IT AND THE, UH, MOTORIST REFUSE TO PARK THERE. MAYBE THERE, MAYBE THERE'S UNDERLYING REASONS FOR THAT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. NEXT IS, UH, MONTE STEVEN. OH. AND, UH, ANN WEINER. HELLO. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. YES, MY NAME'S ANN WEINER. I LIVE AT 9 0 5 WEST ASHBY PLACE. I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AV AND A ASSOCIATION AND SAYING THAT WE DIDN'T WANT, THIS WAS NOT A LIGHT DECISION, THAT THE BUILDING THAT WE WERE PRESENTED LOOKS LIKE A WAREHOUSE. YOU, YOU SAW IT. UM, EACH LEVEL IS BIGGER THAN MANY OF THE HOUSES IN ALTA VISTA. I MEAN, I HAVE 12,000 IF I REALLY PINCH IT INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM. UM, WE WANT TO WORK WITH MR. DELAMORA AND COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION. PART OF THE 35 FEET IS A PITCHED ROOF, WHICH HE INSISTED HE NEEDED. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK YOU DO. YOU CAN PITCH A FLAT ROOF, BUT THAT WOULD STILL MAKE IT LOOK VERY INDUSTRIAL. UM, YOU HEARD THE, FROM OUR PRESIDENT, SHE READ IT. IT, UM, IT GOES AGAINST ALL THE VARIANCES. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAD TO SAY. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE VEIN THAT IT WAS CREATED ALL THOSE YEARS AGO. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY HISTORIC, BUT IT IS STILL A, A REALLY DIFFERENT, PRETTY NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THOSE ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP. MANA COMMISSIONER MANA. SO QUESTION FOR A CITY. SO, SO, UM, WHAT ARE THE SIZE ALLOWANCES FOR ATTACHED AND DETACHED COMPONENTS? IF THEY WERE ATTACHED AS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHAT CAN THE SIZE BE AND, AND WHAT CHANGES THAT, UH, CHANGE WITH REGARDS TO THIS COMMUNITY VERSUS HAVING COMPLETELY DETACHED? SO THE, THE, THE NCD DOES NOT DISTINGUISH ON DETACHED OR ATTACHED. UM, SO THEY ARE PERMITTED SE 572 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE. UM, IF IT WASN'T IN THE NCD, IT WOULD BE 800 SQUARE FEET, BUT 572 IS THE ACCESSORY DWELLING LIMIT. BUT IF HE WERE TO ATTACH IT TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND [03:05:01] MAKE IT PART OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, WOULD THAT MEAN HE COULD DO WHATEVER HE WANTS? IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME STANDARD BECAUSE THE NCD IS NOT DISTINGUISHING WHETHER IT'S ATTACHED OR DETACHED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. OKAY. AND, UM, I CAN, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING UP STREET VIEW ON FULTON AND, AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE HEARD FROM THE VOICEMAILS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY CHANGED ONE LOT TO RM FOUR AND PUT FOUR THREE STORY MONSTROSITY. YES, SIR. RESIDENTIALS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE HEIGHT THING AFTER SEEING THAT, I I I, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BOTHER ME AS MUCH. UM, THE OTHER THING IS, UM, I I JUST, UH, I MEAN HE HAS TWO STREET FRONTAGES AND IF HE WERE TO BUILD THIS, COULD HIS OTHER HOME BE CONSIDERED THE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THIS BE THE PRIMARY, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE HE'S GOT TWO STREETS AND THEY'RE BOTH NAMED THE SAME NAME. I MEAN, THIS IS, IS THERE SOME SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL THING THAT HE COULD PURSUE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN? BECAUSE IT SEEMS THIS IS SO ODD. SO IF, IF YOU REVERSE IT, THE ACCORDING BEAR HAD THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS 4 14 32 SQUARE FEET, WHICH STILL IS ABOVE THE NCD STANDARD. UM, SO HE WOULD STILL NEED THE SAME THING JUST IN REVERSE. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT WAYS THIS COULD, THE THE DIFFERENT PATHS BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN THE EXACT SAME STREET NAME ON EITHER SIDE. UM, I MEAN, I GUESS IN THEORY HE COULD PLOT IT AS, AS JUST TWO LOTS AND, AND THEN BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE THERE AND JUST HAVE IT JUST BE ANOTHER HOUSE. CORRECT. SO HE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SPLIT THE LOT UP INTO TWO. UM, I THINK HE'S OFF BY A FEW HUNDRED SQUARE FEET BECAUSE IT'S R SIX REQUIRES 12,000. 6,000. OKAY. BUT, BUT POTENTIALLY COULD COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE FOR ONE OF THE PROPERTIES VERSUS THE OTHER. CORRECT. SO, AND, AND SO, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I HAD ASKED EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF THE OTHER STREET AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO OR THREE HOMES THAT DO HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY ON THAT STEEP INCLINE, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, SO THAT'S NOT OUTTA THE QUESTION EITHER. YEAH. I WANTED TO BRING UP THE, JUST TO KIND OF SHOW HOW MUCH IT, IT, IT JUST GOES UP. BUT, UM, YEAH, HIS HOUSE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT. I GUESS IT'S A DRAIN DITCH OR SOMETHING THERE BY THAT STREET LINE. IT'S JUST THE, MY HOUSE WOULD BE THE STEEPEST PART OF THE HILL. SO THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO ME, UH, HE'S A LOT. YEAH. HE'S, HE'S A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN BY THE BRIDGE, BY THAT DRAIN STRUCTURE. RIGHT. BUT IT, BUT IT STILL EXISTS AND, AND YOU KNOW, THERE IT IS POSSIBLE I GUESS AS WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, OPTIONS. SURE. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOK AT IS, IS THAT, LET'S SAY THAT WE DON'T APPROVE THIS. IS THERE SOME WAY FOR HIM TO ACCOMPLISH THIS? SO IF HE DOES, IF HE DOES AN AMENDING PLAN TO MOVE LOT LINES, AND HE AND HE PUTS, MAKES IT TWO DIFFERENT LOTS. THE, THE, THE NEGATIVE CONNOTATION OF THAT IS, IS THAT EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS COULD HAVE THEIR OWN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THEN THAT, THAT COULD BE EVEN MORE. AND SO DOING IT THIS WAY LIMITS HIM TO ONLY HAVING THIS, HE COULD PROBABLY ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING, BUT HE WOULD BE LIMITED TO JUST TWO STRUCTURES INSTEAD OF POTENTIALLY FOUR. CORRECT, SIR. YEAH. AND THEN IF YOU GO ACROSS THE STREET, UH, ON FULTON ON THE NORTH PART OF HIS HOUSE YEAH. BRING THAT STREET VIEW UP YEAH. AND PAN IT AROUND AND THEN GO DOWN ONE NOTCH. THEN HE'S GOT THIS THING ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIM THAT'S THREE STORIES AND THERE'S FOUR INDEPENDENT. HOW HOW ON EARTH DID ULTA VISA GET BEHIND THAT? YEAH. AND, AND THEN ALSO I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT DIALOGUE HAS CHANGED WITH REGARDS TO THE LAST UDC. THAT STRUCTURE I DON'T THINK WOULD BE PERMITTED ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, SO EVEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I KNOW, I MEAN, I, HE'S NEXT TO THIS BIG RAILROAD TRACK. THERE'S, THERE'S SOME OTHER BIG LOTS IN THE AREA. THE, THE WHOLE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS LIKE SIX OR SEVEN LOTS. IT'S JUST ONE BIG HOUSE. I, I DON'T KNOW. I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO, TO, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 'EM GO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT YOU COULD DO TO MAKE THEM HAPPY. MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE IT A LITTLE SMALLER TO MAKE THEM HAPPY. A LITTLE SHORTER. I'D LIKE TO HAVE TO GET THEIR INPUT ON IT. CHAIR, IF I MAY. IVANEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, YOU MEET WITH THE ASSOCIATION AGAIN AND MAYBE YOU CONSIDER A REDESIGN SINCE YOU HAVEN'T STARTED YOUR BUILDING YET. A REDESIGN. WE RECENTLY SAW, UM, A STRUCTURE OF AN ORIG, A HISTORICAL HOUSE IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE, UH, HAD THE SAME KIND OF DESI IDEA OF A LIVING, EXTRA LIVING SPACE AND A GARAGE. AND HE HAD ATTACHED IT TO THE, AND [03:10:01] IT WAS ONE STORY. UH, AND HE HAD ATTACHED IT TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. AND, UM, THE DESIGN WAS SUCH THAT IT COMPLIMENTED THE ORIGINAL HOME. UM, AND IT WAS A ONE STORY, UH, STRUCTURE I THINK THAT MAYBE YOU MIGHT WANNA CONSIDER. I KNOW, I, I WILL, IF WE WERE TO VOTE RIGHT NOW ON THIS, I, I WOULD NOT, UH, VOTE FOR THIS FOR YOUR PROJECT. UM, BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE ASSOCIATION AND MAYBE LOOK AT SOME OTHER DESIGNS AND TRY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED. UM, PLUS WHAT THEY HAVE AS THEIR CRITERIA FOR THEIR NCD. UM, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY IN, IN THE BACK. SO I THINK THAT A ONE STORY STRUCTURE IS VERY DOABLE FOR YOU. SO YOU MIGHT, UH, I, I WOULD, YEAH. SO WHEN'S THE, UH, WHEN'S THE NEXT MEETING OF FOUR WEEKS? AUGUST. THE AUGUST 4TH. AND JUST TO CLARIFY ANOTHER POINT ABOUT, UM, THE DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN ATTACHED OR DETACHED. THE NCD DOES ALLOW FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE EXPANDED. UM, THERE'S NO SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMIT ON AN ADDITION, BUT THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO, UM, ONLY THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PORTION. IF THEY WANTED TO ATTACH THE GARAGE, UM, LIVING SPACES OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE LIMITED TO. RIGHT. THE 5 72 BRAGMAN. YES. QUESTION ONE SECOND. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, THIS IS FOR STAFF. SO WHEN YOU SAID, UH, THE NCD STANDARD IS THAT THE A DU CANNOT EXCEED 40% OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, IF HE WAS TO BUILD A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT AND MAKE IT A PRIMARY ADDRESS IT OFF THE OTHER, UM, SIDE OF FULTON, DOES THE 40%, IS IT CALCULATED AT THE LIVING SPACE? IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE 1800, OR IS IT THE FULL 3,600 WITH THE GARAGE AND THE LIVING SPACE ABOVE? UM, WE CALCULATED THAT OFF OF JUST THE ACCESSORY DWELLING SPACE. UM, 1800 FOR THAT. WHAT WE'VE, FROM WHAT WE WERE SEEING, THE SECOND STORY ONLY, SO IT, IT ONLY FOR THE LIVING SPACE. CORRECT. AS THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS LISTED IN THE NCD TWO, ONE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS AND ONE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, THAT'S HOW WE CALCULATED IT. OKAY. SO IF THE, IF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WAS THE 3,600, YOU'RE STILL ONLY TAKING 40% OF THE LIVING SPACE OF THE 3,600? WELL, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT. THE GARAGE WOULDN'T COUNT. CORRECT. CORRECT. THAT'S HOW WE CALCULATED IT FOR THIS. BUT I, I THINK I'M MAYBE MISUNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION OF, UM, YEAH. SO IF YOU BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE THAT'S 3,600 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE, THE 40% WOULD GO OFF OF 3,400, NOT OFF OF THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION THAT HE HAS OF 1800 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT OF A PRINCIPAL DWELLING. SO IT'S EIGHT, IT'S 40% OF THE 1800 LIVING SPACE. OKAY. YEAH. SO, OKAY. SO I THINK AUGUST 18TH WOULD GIVE THEM A GOOD MONTH. AND THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO DIGEST HERE. I MEAN, YOU HAVE, UM, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMPONENTS, HEIGHT REDUCTIONS, POSSIBLY SIZE REDUCTIONS. IF NONE OF THAT WORKS OUT, YOU CAN ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LOT SIZE, MAKE IT TWO LOTS, AND JUST BUILD TWO HOMES. AND THEN THAT'S THAT. UH, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE HERE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD WHAT ALL OUR CONCERNS ARE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THEM IS MAKING ALTA VISA, UH, HAPPY. UH, SO WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ATTEMPT. UH, IS THERE, AND YOU DID, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR ASK? SO, UH, IF I WERE TO ATTACH TO THE HOME, THEN THAT WOULD BE KIND OF LIKE UNLIMITED ATTACHED TO IT. BUT I DIDN'T WANNA DO THAT. I, I PER SPECIFICALLY DID IT A DETACHED 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA HAVE A CONCRETE FOUNDATION, AND IF I WERE TO ATTACH IT TO THE HOME, IT WOULD DISRUPT THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOME. THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING TO HAVE THIS BUILDING BEING BUILT SEPARATE FROM THE HOME. SO I DON'T HAVE TO, YOU, YOU'D HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS. I HAVE A PEER AND BEAM ON THE HOME. YES, SIR. AND YOU, UH, WOULD YOU DO PEER AND BEAM ON THE, ON THE NEW ONE OR STANDARD? UH, I WANTED TO DO, UH, CONCRETE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAMAN. NO, I'M JUST SAYING SLAB. YEAH, SLAB. SLAB ON. UH, AND THE LAST THING IS, UH, UH, ALAVI STILL IS VERY ADAMANT THAT I'M GONNA SET A BAT PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, AND I, I AM A FIREFIGHTER RIGHT THERE AT STATION SIX. SO I SERVICE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRELY. AND THERE IS NO OTHER LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT A STRUCTURE OF THAT SIZE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RESTRICTIONS THAT I DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBOR TO THE BACKWARD TO THE LEFT. UH, SO [03:15:01] I HAVE A VERY, VERY UNIQUE CASE, UH, FOR I CAN SEE THAT FOR THAT. AND, AND I, AND I, I, I CAN SEE THAT I, YOU KNOW, THE RAILROAD TRACKS, YOU, YOU JUST, IT'S, IT IS DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU ZOOM OUT AND LOOK AT ALL OF ALTA VISTA. 90% OF THE HOMES ARE NOWHERE NEAR AS BIG AS YOURS, AND THEY'RE MORE RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE. AND SO IT'S, IT'S, I, BUT, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE DESIGN THAT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE THEM HAPPY, I THINK. BUT ALL RIGHT. UM, AUGUST 18TH, IF ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. SO IF A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EZ. WHO SECONDED THAT? CRUZ CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ SECOND CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR TO CONTINUE AUGUST 18TH. AYE. AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, MOTION PASSES. WE'LL SEE YOU ON AUGUST 18TH. UH, YOU KNOW, PLEASE, UH, IMPRESS US WITH SOME, WITH SOME, UH, DI GOOD DIALOGUE WITH THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . HAVE A GOOD DAY. COOL. ITEM NUMBER 11. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 5. THE ADDRESS IS 1 3 1 3 0 MORNING CREEK IN CONSUL DISTRICT 10. THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN JONES MOSSBERG ROAD, BULVERDE ROAD, AND THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE. ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK FACE ARE NOT FORMALLY PLOTTED AS ZERO LOT LINE PARCELS, THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE AREA REFLECTS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED DIRECTLY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES. THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A COVERED ADDITION ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH ENCROACHES ONTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE SETBACK, PERMITS OUR PEN AND THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE COVERED, UM, STRUCTURE. AND THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REFERENCING THE CHARACTER OF BEING BUILT ON PROPERTY LINES. AS WELL AS THIS IS THE PLA NOT SHOWING THAT IT'S FORMERLY PLATTED AS ZERO LOT LINE PARCELS. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE VIEW OF THE ADDITION AND THE FRONT WHERE THE ARROW IS FACING. AND THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE REAR AND THE FRONT WHERE THE ARROW IS FACING THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, INSUFFICIENT SPACE WILL, WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY. AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF MAIL 37 NOTICES WILL NOTICES. ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. UM, PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING THAT THE APPLICANT DID, UM, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SHE RECEIVED, UM, WHICH WAS OUR MAIL DOT NOTICES. DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO, UM, PRESENT IT, BUT THEIR ADDRESS AT 31 22, 31 26, 31 27, 31 39, AND 31 18 WARREN CREEK. THIS WAS THE ONE WE RECEIVED PRIOR IN SUPPORT. AND THAT'S THE ONE INDICATED ON THE MAP. THIS IS THE OPPOSITION, UM, RECEIVED AS WELL. THIS IS FROM THE BUD NEIGHBOR. HE ALSO SUBMITTED AN ENGINEERING REPORT, AND IN THAT REPORT INCLUDED SOME PHOTOS AS WELL, WHO SUBMITTED THE ENGINEERING REPORT? THE BUD NEIGHBOR. OKAY. CAN YOU BRING THAT BACK UP AGAIN? SURE. [03:20:07] AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR ON THE SIDE OF THE ADDITION DIRECTLY AFFECTED? YES. OKAY. AND THEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE MEETING. OKAY. AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT. GREAT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, UH, MY NAME IS JOSEPH MILLIGAN. I'M, UH, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, SO WHAT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE IS TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN AS BUILT, WHICH INCLUDE A, A LARGE FIVE INCH GUTTER ALL THE WAY ALONG THE, THE END, THE LOWER END OF THE ROOF, UM, WITH A DOWNSPOUT THAT WOULD TERMINATE INTO, UH, FRINGE DRAIN SYSTEM THAT WOULD ADDITIONALLY CONNECT THE OTHER EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO, UM, TO MITIGATE THE, THE WATER RUNOFF ISSUES THAT SEEMED TO BE CAUSED BY THIS ROOF. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UH, IT, IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN JANUARY OF 2024 BY A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR. UM, AND I JUST HAVE THESE LETTERS FROM MANY OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHO'VE HAD SIMILAR ISSUES JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES BEING CLOSED TOGETHER AND HAVE INSTALLED SIMILAR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, WHICH HAVE WORKED. OKAY. WELL, IS, UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO, MANNA, COMMISSIONER, MANNA. SO, SO, SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID WITH REGARDS TO, UM, OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME KIND OF PROBLEM SO THAT THEY HAVE SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THEIR, THAT THEY BUILT. NO, THEY, THEY DON'T. UM, I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THAT. UM, THEY, THEY'RE HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS WITHOUT THE SAME STRUCTURE. SO THE PROBLEM ALREADY EXISTED AND, AND STILL EXISTS BETWEEN THESE HOMES. AND SO, SO HAVING A 10 FOOT GAP, UM, ON THE SIDE PROPERTIES IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WATER DRAINAGE FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. IS, IS THAT WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE KIND OF SAYING? IT'S JUST WHAT, WHAT OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID AND EXPERIENCED. OKAY. SO, UM, AND I HAVE THESE LETTERS HERE. UM, I'M, I DON'T, I'M SORRY THEY WEREN'T, UM, LETTERS. YOU HAVE ALL THOSE. OKAY. BRAMAN. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, THEN BRAGMAN. AND, UM, CAN YOU HEAR A VOICEMAIL FIRST? DO YOU, Y'ALL MIND, I KNOW WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. I'D JUST LIKE TO, TO HEAR IT AT 2 1 0 2 1 6 5 2 5 3. I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER B OH AEN 25 1 0 3 0 1 1 5. MY NAME IS MARK DAVIS. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 3 1 3 4 MORNING CREEK, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HAVING A ADMIT MEETING ON MONDAY, JULY 21ST AT 1:00 PM TO DISCUSS MY NEIGHBOR'S REQUEST TO HAVE A PATIO ROOF, SIX INCHES FROM MY PROPERTY LINE. THIS WILL NOT SOLVE MY FLOODING PROBLEM CAUSED BY MY NEIGHBOR AT 3 1 3 0 MORNING CREEK BUILDING A PATIO OF CEMENT ROCKS AND A PLASTIC UNDERLAYMENT. TWO MONTHS AGO WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT, I OBTAINED AN INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO DO AN INSPECTION. I HAVE ATTACHED HIS INSPECTION LETTER SHOWING MY NEIGHBOR IS LIABLE FOR THE FLOODING THAT HAS OCCURRED THREE TIMES IN MY HOUSE AT 3 1 3 4 MORNING CREEK IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS SINCE MY NEIGHBOR BUILT THIS PATIO. I THINK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD INSTRUCT MY NEIGHBOR TO MAKE REPAIRS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOLUTIONS OUTLINED IN THE ENGINEERING REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE MY HOUSE FLOODS AGAIN. THANK YOU MARK DAVIS. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA THEN BRAGMAN. YEAH. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION. DID YOU MERELY JUST PUT THE PATIO ON A COVER ON TOP OR DID YOU ALSO POUR A CORRECT CONCRETE SLAB? THERE? THERE WAS AN EXISTING, UM, PATIO SLAB THERE THAT WAS BROKEN. AND SO THE ROOF WAS BUILT FIRST AND THEN THE SLAB WAS RE POURED UNDERNEATH IT AND THE SLAB JUST COVERED OVER AN EXISTING SLAB THAT WAS THERE BEFORE. CORRECT. AND HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY [03:25:01] OF THE FLOODING ISSUES WHEN THAT SLAB WAS THERE. IT'S THE ROOF THAT CAUSED THE PROB THE FLOODING OF, WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS ACTUALLY CAUSED THE PROBLEM. OKAY. BUT THE NEIGHBOR IS CLAIMING THAT IT, THAT IT'S OUR FAULT COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. SO, UM, THE VARIANCE IS FOR, UM, A SIX INCH, SIX INCH, UH, FOUR, FOUR FOOT, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. SO, UM, YOU SAID THAT THE OWNER IS WILLING TO PUT ON GUTTERS. I MEAN, LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE, DOES THAT MEAN THEN THEY WOULD BE CUTTING BACK THE LENGTH OR THE WIDTH OF, OF THE COVER TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE GUTTERS? 'CAUSE IT'S AWFULLY CLOSE AS IT IS, SO IT WOULD FIT AS IT IS, BUT THE PLAN WOULD BE TO CUT THE METAL FLUSH AND INSTALL A GUTTER THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW ROOM FOR THE NEIGHBOR TO INSTALL A GUTTER IF THEY DESIRED TO. SO HOW FAR BACK THEN WOULD YOU, WOULD THEY BE CUTTING THAT COVER? WOULD IT GO BACK TO THE EDGE OF THE POST? UM, NO, JUST BACK TO THE, WHERE THE METAL CURRENTLY OVERHANGS, THE, UM, IS THAT WIDE, IS THAT WIDE ENOUGH FOR A GUTTER? WHAT'S THE IT IS, WHAT'S THE WIDTH OF THE GUTTER PLANNED? FIVE INCHES. SO THAT METAL EDGE IS FIVE INCHES? NO, NO, BUT THERE'S ALREADY SIX INCHES OF ROOM BETWEEN THEM. SO IF YOU CUT THAT BACK AND THEN, THEN THERE'S I THINK, AND 12 OR 13 INCHES, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR TWO FIVE INCH GUTTERS TO FIT, BUT TWO INCHES IN BETWEEN. YES. IT'S AWFULLY CLOSE MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I, I KNOW THAT, UM, NORMALLY IN ZERO LOT LINE COMMUNITIES, THERE'S A GUARANTEED EASEMENT ACCESS. OKAY, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA CHIME IN BECAUSE I WAS WAITING. OKAY. SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. SO WHEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT, THEY DID A SERIES OF RESTRICTED COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT EXPIRE. UH, AND THEY DID DEDICATE A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT DOWN THE SIDE FOR THE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOME, WHICH IS THE PERSON WHO LEFT THE VOICEMAIL. HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD ANYTHING IN THAT EASEMENT, THOSE POSTS, NOTHING CAN BE THERE FIVE FEET. IT'S GOTTA BE CLEAR. THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT THIS COMES UP ONCE IN A WHILE AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, NOWADAYS THE CITY REQUIRES YOU TO PUT IT ON A PLAT ZERO LOT LINE. BUT IN 19, IN THE EIGHTIES, THE WAY THE UDC USED TO READ WAS THAT IF YOU HAD, UH, FEATURES THAT ARE NOT CONVEYED TO A PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC AGENCIES, PERPETUAL DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE FEATURES SHALL BE PROVIDE PROVIDED THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS. THAT WAS THE WAY THEY DID THESE THINGS A LONG TIME AGO. AND SO I DON'T THINK, UM, I'M JUST, I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S ALLOWED TO BE BUILT IN THAT FIVE FOOT EASEMENT. AND I DON'T THINK YOUR NEIGHBOR CAN, EVEN, EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO, COULD MAKE THAT GO AWAY. UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, UM, IT DOESN'T, THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS DON'T EXPIRE AND, AND THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REALLY RE ANY REAL RELIEF. UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE THESE, IF YOU WANT TO READ 'EM, I UNDERLINE IT. ALL THE GOOD STUFF IN THERE FOR YOU. UM, BUT, UH, THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. SO, SO, SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS KIND OF GOING IS SO THAT NOTHING WE BUILT IN THAT SPACE, WHATEVER IT IS. AND SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT SPACE. SO, SO IF HE CUT IT BACK FIVE FOOT, THEN THAT'S FINE FROM THE FENCE THEN, THEN, THEN NOW HIS BASICALLY IS IN HIS PROPERTY LINE. SO, AND HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE YEAH. BUSINESSS. AND SO YEAH. 'CAUSE I KNEW THAT, WELL, BECAUSE WHERE I WAS GOING WAS SKY VISION AND, AND YOU KNOW, AND SO YOU HAD TO HAVE THAT MUCH SPACE. YOU HAD TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESS. AND SO, UM, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PATIO? IT'S, THERE'S A FIVE FOOT STRIP ALONG THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE. YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING, ANYTHING VERTICAL, ANYTHING, ANYTHING WITHIN FIVE FEET. SO THE PATIO THAT ROOF THOSE POSTS, HE CAN MOVE IT WHAT SLAB AND THE PATIO? WELL, THE PATIO IS, IS SLAB. I'M TALKING THE SLAB IS LA COULD BE CONSIDERED LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW. AND IF I CAN INTERJECT ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS, OBVIOUSLY THE CITY DOES NOT ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I KNOW, I KNOW THE DOES NOT. BUT I'M SAYING IN THE EIGHTIES, THE WAY THE UDC READ WAS, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ZERO LOT LINE REGISTERING, ZERO LOT LINES DENOTING, ZERO LOT LINES. THE CITY ACTUALLY PROMOTED IN THE UDC AND I ACTUALLY WAS READING THAT FROM THE UDC ABOUT ALLOWING DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE THE WAY TO DO THINGS, WHETHER THEY ENFORCED THEM OR NOT. THAT'S HOW THEY WANTED YOU TO DO 'EM. AND I BROUGHT IT IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO READ IT. YEAH. AND, AND I KNOW THAT, SO MY, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW'S HOUSE OR MY, UH, IN-LAW'S HOUSE, THEY HAD THAT LINE AND WE BASICALLY ALLOWED, WE PUT IN THE, THE FRENCH DRAIN ALONG THEIR WALL BECAUSE THEY HAD, THEY FACED SIMILAR, UH, UH, DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, BUT WE HAD FULL ACCESS TO TEAR UP, YOU KNOW, THAT FULL EASEMENT TO DO WHATEVER WE WANTED WITH IT SO THAT WE COULD PUT IN THAT KIND OF THING. AND SO, YEAH. SO HAVING CONCRETE THERE WOULD [03:30:01] BE, YOU KNOW, A, A CHALLENGE OR, OR FREE REIGN TO REMOVE IT, YOU KNOW? UM, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT IT WAS THAT I KNOW WAS IN OUR YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND, AND THIS IS NOTHING AGAINST THE CITY. I, I MEAN, I WASN'T DEVELOPED, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EIGHTIES. I DIDN'T START TILL 1996, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ALWAYS THOUGHT, I WAS CURIOUS THAT THEY HAD ALL THESE ZERO LOT SUBDIVISIONS, ESPECIALLY OVER THERE BY BROOK HOLLOW AREA AND DOWN MUL JONES MOSSBERG. AND IT JUST SEEMED ODD THAT, THAT THAT'S, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ON EARTH ARE THESE KEEP GETTING BUILT AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT HAVING SOMETHING UNTIL I READ THIS THING. MY FIRST HOUSE WAS ZERO LINE, VERY CLOSE TO THIS. YEAH. . AND THOSE EASEMENTS ARE, I MEAN, I'VE HELPED PEOPLE WITH, WITH LAWSUITS BEFORE, AND THOSE EASEMENTS ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. MM-HMM . BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S SOME MY 2 CENTS. SO, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO, SO THAT'S A PRIVATE, THAT'S A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION, RIGHT? SO YEAH. BUT THE, BUT WHEN THE HOUSE IS BUILT, THAT'S HOW THE CITY WANTED YOU TO DO IT, WAS THROUGH PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS SO DIFFERENT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S HOW THEY WANTED YOU TO DO IT BACK THEN, SHOULDN'T WE BE AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT WAS? I DON'T KNOW. IT MEANS SOMETHING TO ME ANYWAY. BUT WHAT IS THE, I I, I DON'T KNOW. SO LET'S, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CHAIR? I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. YES. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT, THAT REGARDLESS OF US PROVING THIS, THIS, HE WOULD REALLY NEED TO MOVE, HOLDS BACK BECAUSE FIVE FEET EASEMENT. WELL, IF WE, IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, HIS NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE TO SUE HIM, UH, AND SAY, HEY, LOOK, I HAVE THIS PERMANENT EASEMENT HERE. YOU, YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THIS. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND BECAUSE THE CITY DOES NOT ENFORCE PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, HOWEVER, BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, THAT'S JUST HOW IT WAS DONE. AND IT'S, AND THAT REFERENCE TO IT IS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND I WAS ALSO THINKING THAT THE NEIGHBOR ALSO HAS THIS VERY LONG ROOF LINE WITH NO GUTTERS. RIGHT. AND THAT, AND THAT ROOF THROWS OUT PROBABLY MORE WATER. AND, AND THE HOMEOWNER OF THIS PROJECT HAS GUTTERS ON THE MAIN HOUSE. RIGHT. BUT NOT ON THE CARPORT. UM, SO I THINK A LOT OF THAT DAMAGE MIGHT BE FROM THAT AS WELL. WELL, IT VERY WELL COULD BE. AND THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S WHY THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THESE SORT OF DEVELOPMENTS IS BECAUSE IT'S, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR RELIEF FROM ANYBODY. BUT, UM, BUT THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, I, THERE IS A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT. HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BUILD ANYTHING. AND THE BUDDING HOMEOWNER MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THAT. 'CAUSE THIS IS, THIS STUFF WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, 40 YEARS AGO. SO, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I JUST CAN'T GET BEHIND THIS. SO, SO I DO, SO I, MAN, SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION THEN. SO, SO THE CITY HAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK HERE MM-HMM . UM, AND SO, SO HOW DOES THAT GET ESTABLISHED IN THIS TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT IT'S, SO WE'RE, WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT THIS WITH THE CURRENT STANDARD. UM, WE ARE NOT, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ENFORCING DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH I GET WHAT THE CHAIR IS SAYING, BUT CURRENTLY WE'RE NOT ENFORCING THAT. BUT LIKE HE SAID, OBVIOUSLY THERE CAN BE, UM, COURT ACTIONS BEYOND US ALL. WE ARE, THE ONLY STANDARD WE HAVE IS A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ENFORCING. AND I'M ALSO GONNA CHIME IN THAT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW ON EARTH DID THIS HA THAT PLAT, THERE'S NO COUNTY JUDGE SIGNATURE ON IT. THIS WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS, I ASSUME, WHEN IT WAS PLATTED. AND, AND, BUT YET I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN THE UDC. LIKE, HOW DID ALL THESE PERMITS GET ISSUED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S VERY, SO, SO FOLLOWING DOWN THAT. SO, SO WOULD IT BE A TRUE STATEMENT THEN THAT EVERY ZERO LOT LINE COMMUNITY, UM, PRIOR TO 2001 SURE. PRIOR TO TH HAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER HAS BEEN STATED. AND, AND SO, UM, AND THAT'S AN BY, I GUESS BY CITY ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT, EVEN THOUGH, SO I, I'VE SEEN PLATS WHERE IT HAD, UM, I BELIEVE THE WORDING IS COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHICH, LIKE THE EQUIVALENT OF ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT IN THE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THEM STRICTLY SAYING ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE SEEN THOSE BEFORE 2001. I JUST, I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MARRIAGE OR THE, I GUESS THE ADDITION OF THE CITY COMPONENT OF THE FIVE FOOT COMPONENT BEING ADDED TO, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS STATED WITH REGARDS TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND ALL THE REST OF IT. SO WOULD IT BE TRUE THAT THAT WOULD EXIST FOR ALL COMMUNITIES OR CORRECT. UM, THE ONES THAT WERE BUILT AFTER ANNEXATION, UM, OBVIOUSLY THE REALLY OLD HOUSES HAD THE THREE FOOT [03:35:01] SETBACK, BUT THE OLD R ONE STANDARDS HAD THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. UM, THE OLD A SINGLE, UM, DWELLING HAD THE FIVE FOOT STEP BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. UM, SHOULD I BE ABLE TO SPEAK? SURE. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. SURE. STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US. I'M GONNA KEEP IT OFF AND THE ATTORNEY CAN CLARIFY WHY SHE'S GONNA CLARIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER. YEAH, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION. SO THE REQUEST, YES, IT WAS NOT PERMITTED, BUT WHAT WE'RE REQUEST REQUESTING IS TO CUT THE ROOF BACK TO THE PULSE. IT'S WHAT I PUT IN THE APPLICATION AT A FIVE INCH GUTTER WITH A FRENCH DRAIN. OKAY. UM, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MY NEIGHBOR EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE OF THESE ISSUES. THIS GOT, THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN UP SINCE JANUARY, 2024 WITH NO FLOODING. JUST RECENTLY, LIKE HE STATED IN HIS VOICEMAIL, THERE'S BEEN FLOODING. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE AROUND ON THE NEWS, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF FLOODING IN SAN ANTONIO AND OUR SURROUNDING AREAS. LATELY. WE'VE HAD SOME NOT NORMAL FLOODING IN SAN ANTONIO AND OUR SURROUNDING AREAS IN TEXAS. AGAIN, THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN UP SINCE JANUARY, 2024 WITH NO ISSUES. UM, I DID NOT, I WAS NOT AWARE, I'M NOT A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON PERMITS OR PROPERTY LINES OR ANY OF THESE ITEMS. UM, HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT, NOW THAT I'M FINDING OUT, DID NOT PULL A PERMIT. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR BOTH THE NEIGHBOR AND MYSELF. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE COME UP WITH. UM, TO ADD A FIVE INCH, UH, CUSTOM GUTTER CONNECT ALL THREE OF MY DOWNSPOUTS, PLUS THE ONE THAT'S GONNA COME OFF THE, UH, PERGOLA. SO IT'LL BE FOUR DOWNSPOUTS INTO A, INTO A FRENCH DRAIN. AND I'VE ALREADY GOTTEN QUOTES, UH, FOR THAT. SO HOW FAR AWAY IS THE POST FROM THE HOUSE? THE FACE OF THE WALL OF THE HOUSE? UH, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ON THE, WOULD YOU SAY THREE FEET? IT'S OVER THREE FEET, YES SIR. IT IS OVER THREE FEET. YES SIR. AND THEY, THEY TOOK PICTURES SPECIFICALLY OF THAT I HOLD, HAD 'EM TAKE IT NOT JUST FROM, FROM THE WALL TO THE POST. THEY, THEY TOOK THOSE PHOTOS WHEN THEY CAME OUT. I WAS WITH THEM WHEN THEY TOOK THESE PHOTOS. YEAH, THERE THEY GO. YEAH. I MEAN, 'CAUSE I, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, YOU KNOW, I I, WE COULD HAVE, WE COULD APPROVE. I, I HAVE A, I HAVE AN ISSUE 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT, THAT WHEN THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO THAT HOUSE MM-HMM. THAT FIVE FOOT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. RIGHT. RIGHT. AND SO, UM, BUT IF THE POST WAS AT LEAST THREE FEET AWAY MM-HMM . OH IT IS. AND WE WERE TO, AND WE WERE TO JUST DO A VARIANCE FOR, YOU KNOW, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE ALLOWED TO BE WITHIN TWO FEET. I COULD PROBABLY LIVE WITH THAT. RIGHT. BUT I WOULDN'T LIKE IT THREE FOOT AND YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD STILL THEORETICALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH THE WHOLE FLOODING ISSUE. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS SEPARATE. AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN UP SINCE JANUARY, 2024. NOW THE LANDSCAPING WAS DONE RECENTLY, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT THROUGH INSURANCES AND STUFF RIGHT NOW. BUT AS FAR AS THE PERGOLA GOES, IT'S BEEN UP FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF WITH NO FLOODING ISSUES. AND ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT RODE IN, PROBABLY OUT OF THE FIVE THAT ARE HERE, FOUR OF 'EM REFERENCE FLOODING SIMILAR TO THIS WITHOUT EVEN A STRUCTURE UP. YEAH. THE FLOODING DOESN'T, IT HAS NO EFFECT ON MY THOUGHTS. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION. 'CAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THE ENGINEER CAME OUT BECAUSE I HAD USAA, UH, I FOLLOWED A LI LIABILITY CLAIM FOR THEM BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR DIDN'T HAVE FLOODING INSURANCE. UM, SO I DID THAT AND HE, USA TOLD THEM, HEY, YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT IT'S THE CAUSE OF THE PERGOLA. SO NOW THAT, AS YOU CAN READ IN THE ENGINEER REPORT, HE'S SAYING, WELL, IT'S NOT THE CAUSE OF THE PERGOLA NOW IT'S BECAUSE OF THE ROCKS. AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, ROCKS, ROCKS DON'T CAUSE WATER TO PULL. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE WENT WITH THE LARGER ROCKS SPECIFICALLY. AND THAT, AND THAT PART OF TOWN, THE DIRT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, WATER AND THE DIRT LEVEL OF THE HOUSE IS RIGHT AT WHERE HIS FOUNDATION IS. HIS, UM, YEAH, WELL, THE FOUNDATION OF HIS HOUSE. RIGHT. SO IT IS A PREDICAMENT AGAIN. YEAH. I WOULD PROBABLY NEVER AGAIN BUY A HOME IN A ZERO LOT LINE AREA, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT COMING INTO IT IN NOVEMBER, 2023 WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE. YES. SO WOULD WE, IT APPROPRIATE TO READ A VARIANCE HERE? GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE FIVE FOOT TO ALLOW THE POLE TO BE THREE FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE I'D GIVE HER A THREE FOOT VARIANCE. I MEAN, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE ALLOWED TO BE TWO FEET JUST TO GIVE HER SOME PADDING. BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD, SO, YOU KNOW, IT STILL HAS THE CIVIL DIALOGUE AND SO, SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTOOD THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION. RIGHT. AND SO I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND. UM, SO FROM WHAT I'M GETTING GATHERING RIGHT NOW FROM USAA IS THE LANDSCAPING WAS DONE PERGOLA SIDE, THE LANDSCAPING WAS DONE. OR WHAT IS YOUR SO I'M SPEAKING TO ANOTHER POINT. SO, SO, SO BY THE DEED RESTRICTIONS MM-HMM . UM, FOR HIM OR ME? I, FOR BOTH OF Y'ALL. OH, OKAY. SO, SO, UM, YOU'RE, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY STRUCTURE CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET FROM HIS HOUSE. MM-HMM . SO THREE FOOT, EVEN IF WE GET GRANTED THAT, THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, [03:40:01] THE CITY SAYING, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT PART'S OKAY. BUT HE COULD COME BACK AND SAY, NO, HE WANTS FIVE FOOT AND BRING YOU TO COURT, AND YOU WOULD'VE TO MOVE IT IF HE, IF HE, IF HE PREVAILED. SO, SO TO ME, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIVE FOOT DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, SO, SO THE QUESTION IS, IF HE BROUGHT IT BACK TWO FOOT RIGHT FROM WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, THEN THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE FINE. EVERYTHING GOES AWAY BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY AS WELL AS WHAT, WHAT IT, WHAT IT, WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD DO. AND SO YOU TAKE TWO FOOT OFF OF, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING PERGOLA VERSUS WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW. CAN I ASK FOR SOME CLARIFICATION? WHEN WE SAY TAKE TWO FOOT OFF, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OVERHANG OF THE ROOF OR WHERE THE POLES ARE? NO, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE GONNA CUT THE ROOF BACK DOWN. YES, SIR. THE POLES A HUNDRED PERCENT PERCENT A GUTTER. AND IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE POLES ARE THREE FEET AWAY, THEY ARE, THAT'S, THAT'S WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PHYSICAL, THE POSTS EXISTENCE OF OKAY. WHATEVER, YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO I'M WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION HERE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. WE READ THE MOTION. OH, YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. GOOD. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 15, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 31 30 MORNING CREEK APPLICANT BEING THE PROP, BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, MS. SALINAS, I GUESS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. PROPERTY OWNER. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED. SO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO PUBLIC INTEREST. SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS, AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE OVERHANG AND SUPPORTING BEAMS, WHICH WOULD DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF SHADE IN THEIR YARD COURT SIDE YARD COURTYARD. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES REMAINS FOR MAINTENANCE, WATER RUNOFF, AND FIRE SAFETY FOR THE VARIANCE, WITHOUT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE, OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARI VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL UP SUBSTANTIALLY INJU THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM OF PROPERTY, ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARRIER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY AS WELL AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NEIGHBORING HOME. AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE IS SOUGHT TO, TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT TWO, TWO OF THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ALTHOUGH, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE NEIGHBORING BLOCK FACE ARE NOT FORMALLY PLATTED AS ZERO LOT LINE PARCELS, THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE AREA REFLECTS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED DIRECTLY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES ENCROACHING ON THE, ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES, THEREBY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ERMAN? COMMISSIONER ZUMAN? YES. SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT, THE MOTION IS READ. UM, CLEARLY THE, THE SEPARATION IS JUST THREE FEET. THERE IS ACCESS, UH, FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN THAT AREA. UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT SHE'S IN CAN INCLUDE THE GUTTERS, UH, WITH THE DOWNSPOUT AND THE FRENCH DRAIN TO CONTROL THE WATER RUNOFF. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, SHE'S KIND OF MET HER OBLIGATION HERE, I BELIEVE, AND, AND CONTROLLING THAT WATER RUNOFF FOR HER PROPERTY. AND SHE HAS, UH, SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS, MOST NEIGHBORS, MOST NEIGHBOR COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, I, I, I THINK THIS IS ALL THAT WE WE CAN DO AS A CITY. OBVIOUSLY THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HAS OTHER AVENUES TO PURSUE, BUT FROM THE CITY'S STANDPOINT, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST THAT WE COULD DO. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER ENA? YES, I CONCUR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANO. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. LAST ITEM, ITEM 13, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS NOTICED, UH, COMMISSIONER GOMEZ HAD TO LEAVE AT FOUR O'CLOCK. OH, OKAY. SO, UH, AND THAT'S BEEN DENOTED THE TIME HE LEFT, SO. CORRECT. I KNOW IT WAS AROUND FOUR. AND THEN, UH, WE MAY NEED TO TAKE JUST A PAUSE FOR A SECOND. YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FEW MINUTE BREAK. SO WE GET [03:45:01] OUR, OUR 10 SEATS BACK. WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. ITEM NUMBER 12, I MEAN 13. YEAH. WELCOME. COMMISSIONER STILL OUT THERE IS ON THE PHONE. DO WE HAVE WE HAVE NINE RIGHT NOW. WE CAN DO THE MINUTES. [ Approval of Minutes  ] ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? THEY LOOK FINE TO ME. ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? NO. MOVE. SECOND. SECOND BY CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. UM, I KNOW COMMISSIONER DEAN'S NOT HERE, BUT IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S? I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO LET US KNOW? UH, NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT. OKAY. AH, GEEZ. YEAH, YEAH. WE'RE GONNA BE ON A A OH, HE'S COMING IN. ITEM NUMBER 13. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS CASE BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 7. THE ADDRESS BEING 5,400 IH 10 WEST IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS ALAMO CONSULTING SERVICES, AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE DENIAL TO PERMIT THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. THE ZONING IS C TWO. RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING USE. THE PROPERTY, UH, ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES IN 1998, 2001, AND 2009. HOWEVER, THE USE MATRIX, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, HOWEVER, THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WAS AT NO POINT PERMITTED USE ON THE LOT. UH, SINCE BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED TO PERMIT VE VEHICLE SALES BY RIGHT AND IS ALSO ADDRESSED AS 5,400 IH 10 WEST. HOWEVER, THAT IS A SEPARATE PARCEL FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, THIS IS THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT OF THE NONCONFORMING USE, UM, SHOWING THAT IT WAS DENIED. AND OUR ANALYSIS, AND THIS IS THE USE MATRIX FROM 1987. UH, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN THE MOST RECENT USE MATRIX, UH, PRIOR TO THAT INITIAL C OF O ISSUANCE, UH, SHOWING THAT AUTOMOBILE TRUCK SALES AND SERVICING, UH, WAS NOT PERMITTED IN THE B TWO ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS ZONED AT THAT TIME. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF CONCLUDES THAT THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WILL REQUIRE A CHANGE OF ZONING APPROVAL BASED ON SECTION 35 DASH 7 0 2 A. AND THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WAS AT NO POINT OF PERMITTED USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF MAILED 23 NOTICES FIVE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. THE LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND HERE IS THE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY STAFF AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. MANA COMMISSIONER MANNA, COULD, COULD YOU EXPLAIN BULLET POINTS TWO AND THREE SO THAT JUST MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY THERE. SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THOSE TWO POINTS. SO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO IF YOU GO BACK ONE MORE SLIDE HERE. UM, SO WE'RE KIND OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THAT NORTHERN PARCEL IS ZONE C TWO AND THE SOUTHERN ONE IS ZONE C3 RC THREE WOULD PERMIT MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. AND OUR HYPOTHESIS, OR OUR, WHAT WE'RE GUESSING HAPPENED IN 1998 WHEN THAT C OF O WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED, IS THAT IT WAS ISSUED BASED OFF OF THE C3 ZONING. THAT'S ONLY SPECIFIC TO THAT SOUTHERN PARCEL THOUGH, UH, WHERE THE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE WHEN IT WAS TAKING PLACE IS ON, UM, I BELIEVE ON BOTH OF THOSE PARCELS, PRIMARILY ON THE NORTHERN ONE, WHICH IS REALLY THE SUBJECT OF, UH, THIS CASE. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE NEXT SLIDE? UM, MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WAS AT NO POINT. SO, YEAH. AND, AND SO FOR BULLET 0.3, UM, AGAIN, THAT PROPERTY WAS OWNED B TWO AND THEN IS NOW C TWO. AT NO POINT IN THAT PROPERTY THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL'S HISTORY WAS MOTOR VEHICLE SALES A PERMITTED USE. SO THE, SO THE REMEDY THAT THE APPLICANT COULD [03:50:01] DO WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY REZONED TO, TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT ZONING. SO THEN THEY WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE THEN FOR THAT PARTICULAR THAT'S CORRECT. THE REASON THIS WAS DENIED IS THE CRITERIA TO PROVE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF USE, WHICH IS PART OF THE NON-CONFORMING REVIEW, WAS NOT SATISFIED. THANK YOU. STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, WAS THIS FACILITY BEING USED FOR MOTOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS? UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS CORRECT. AND, UH, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHY WOULD THEY GET A C OF O THREE DIFFERENT TIMES LIKE THAT LIKELY DBA NAME CHANGES? UM, WITHOUT TOO MUCH, UM, I MEAN GUESS, I GUESS DOCUMENTATION OF, OF WHEN THOSE WERE ISSUED, THE EXACT REASONING WHY OR THE ANALYSIS DONE AT EACH OF THOSE DATES. WE, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW. OKAY. ALRIGHT. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. QUESTION WOULD BE, UH, SO WHEN DID THEY OFFICIALLY APPLY FOR THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? SO THAT NOW THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT ALLOWED MOST RECENTLY? YES. UM, DO WE HAVE THAT? IT WAS IN, UH, END OF, UH, OR MIDDLE OF MAY. UM, BEGINNING OF JUNE OF THIS YEAR IS ONE DAY I APPLIED FOR A NON-CONFORMING, WHICH WAS DENIED SUBSEQUENTLY. OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN EMPTY FOR QUITE A WHILE. SO WE DID MENTION THAT TO THE APPLICANT. UM, THEY DID PROVIDE US, UM, SALES RECEIPT. I, I KNOW, I, I KNOW I'VE SEEN SOME PHOTOS OF IT, NOT WITH VEHICLES THERE. UH, WE ENGAGED WITH THE APPLICANT. THEY DID PROVIDE US SOME, UH, RECEIPTS AROUND THAT TIME. SO THAT DIDN'T BECOME THE ISSUE WITH THIS. UM, BUT YEAH, WE, WE DID SEE THE SAME THING THAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, AND SO THESE TWO PARCELS WITH THE SAME ADDRESS IS, IS BACK IN THE, IN IN THAT 87 UDC, YOU CAN HAVE AN AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT OR GARAGE. COULD THEY PARK CARS ON ONE BUT ACTUALLY MAKE THE TRANSIT TRANSACTION ON THE LOT ON THE PARCEL? THAT'S ZONE C3. WE WOULD LOOK AT IT AS AN EXTENSION OF THE VEHICLE SALES. WE WANNA LOOK AT IT AS A SEPARATE PARKING LOT. OKAY. I'M JUST, SAME WAY WE WOULD NOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT LOTS OR IS IT THEY ARE DIFFERENT LOTS. OKAY. THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT INITIALLY, UM, TO HAVE A C OF O ISSUED TO THAT SOUTHERN LOT BECAUSE IT IS ON C3 R, BUT ALL, YOU KNOW, ACTIVITIES FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WOULD BE CONSTRAINED TO THAT LOT AND A BUILDING WOULD NEED TO BE ERECTED ON THAT LOT BECAUSE A CFO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE ISSUED WITHOUT A BUILDING EXISTING ON THAT PARCEL. WELL, OKAY. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YES, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M THE, UH, BUILDING CODE CONSULTANT AND PERMITTING AGENT FOR THE OWNERS WHO ARE HERE AND ALSO THE TENANT WHO IS WITH, WITH US IF YOU CAN COME HERE. SO THEY ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND HE'S THE, THE TENANT. SO I PREPARED A, UM, BRIEF LETTER TO DESCRIBE THIS, WHICH OF COURSE MOST OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED ALREADY. UH, WE ARE APPEALING, UM, THE DECISION MADE BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO DENY MY CLIENT'S APPLICATION FOR NON-CONFORMING USE REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. DSE DENIAL IS BASED ON THE USE, NEVER HAVING THE ZONING TO ALLOW FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY HAS LEGALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY BEEN OPERATING AS A CAR DEALERSHIP SINCE AS LEAST THE LATE 1990S AS EVIDENCED ON CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN 1998, 2001 AND 2009. NONETHELESS, ON THE NOTICE OF DECISION LETTER DSD STATES THAT THE PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. MY CLIENT ACQUIRED A PROPERTY IN 2008 AFTER A THOROUGH DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED A COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY APPRAISAL REPORT REQUESTED BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FUNDING THE COMMERCIAL LOAN. THIS ACQUISITION WAS MADE WITH A CONFIRMED UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS A [03:55:01] LICENSED CAR DEALERSHIP. AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WERE A PRIMARY FACTOR IN THIS DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE. THIS RECENT DECISION BY DSE TO DENY NONCONFORMING REDUCED REGISTRATION HAS SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR MR. ENGLER AS IT WOULD PREVENT THE PROPERTY FOR, FROM CONTINUING ITS CURRENT USE. DESPITE HAVING BEEN IN CONTINUOUS OPERATION FOR OVER 25 YEARS. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD TO ALLOW MR. ENGLER TO CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED BY DSD THROUGH THE, UH, FORMATION CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE THE ONE FROM 1998? YEAH, THE OTHER CERTIFICATE ALSO SAID 2001, BUT IT WAS OKAY. YEAH, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THE COPY OF THE, UH, FIRST ONE, THE 1998 CERTIFICATE, BUT WE HAVE THE ONE FROM 2001 BECAUSE THE, THE, THE 2001 UDC, DID THAT GO INTO EFFECT IN MAY OR JANUARY? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH MONTH THAT WAS MAY 31. MAY 31. OKAY. SO THAT, OKAY. BUT THAT YEARS PREDATES THAT, SO. ALRIGHT. ANY COMM YOUR QUESTIONS SAVANNAH? SO, SO THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SHOWN THERE, SO I, SO THESE ARE FROM 19 91, 19 98 NAIL SALON WATTS WENT INTO, SO IT WAS A NAIL SALON AND THEN IT BECAME A AIR SALON AND USED CAR SALES IN 1998. OKAY. YEAH, THERE IT IS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT, IT STILL SAID LOTS ONE AND TWO ON THERE, CORRECT? RIGHT. SO I WAS GOING BACK. SO CAN YOU BRING UP THE, THE, THE YES, THAT SHEET THERE. SO, UM, YOU JUST WANT TO GO UP ON THERE. RIGHT. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE COO THEN, SO, SO IS THAT PROVIDED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? SO, SO 'CAUSE HERE IT DOES SHOW LOTS ONE AND TWO, UM, WITH THE ZONING OF B THREE R. SO, SO IS THAT A MISTAKE RIGHT THERE? BECAUSE IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS. SO IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF THE, THE CRUX OF WHAT WAS MISSED? CORRECT. YEAH. WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, WHAT JOEL SAID EARLIER, WE BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE THAT THEY MEANT TO REFERENCE THE OTHER LOT. AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT THE DECISION MADE WAS BACK THEN, BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE IT WAS A MISTAKE BY DSD. UM, HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THEM A NONCONFORMING BASED OFF, OFF A MISTAKE. SO ONE OF THEIR LOTS CAN DO IT, THE OTHER ONE CAN'T. CORRECT. AND THEN, UM, AND, AND, AND BOTH OF 'EM WERE LISTED AS B THREES ARE HERE WHERE IMPLIED THAT BOTH OF THEM COULD, YOU KNOW YEAH, AS I LOOK AT THIS, SO, AND, AND THEN, UH, SO ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS HOW MANY CARS ARE YOU ALLOWED TO SELL BEFORE YOU'RE CONSIDERED A CARLE? IS IT FIVE OR SIX? SOME NUMBER THAT'D BE A DMV, UH, UH, TEXAS DMV. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YES, I'M JOSE ENGLER. I'M, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. SO ONCE YOU HAVE OVER FIVE, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEALER'S LICENSE AND EXACTLY, EXACTLY. AND, AND ACTUALLY HAVE THE ZONING, LIKE IF YOU JUST WANTED TO SELL FOUR CARS, YOU COULD DO THAT AT YOUR HOUSE, BASICALLY NOT AT THE HOUSE BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE, UH, THE PERMIT, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR DO YOU STILL HAVE TO, I THINK YOU'RE REFERENCING A TEXAS DMV UH, RULE AS FAR AS ZONING IS CONCERNED. YOU'RE SELLING A VEHICLE, YOU STILL HAVE TO, FOR BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO BE ZONED CORRECTLY. BUSINESS ZONING. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS SOME, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE IF THERE WAS A LOT, WAS SMALL ENOUGH THAT MAYBE THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION OR SOMETHING ZONING. THE UDC DOES NOT HAVE A SEPARATE, UH, CATEGORY FOR THAT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SCOTT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, SO WHAT WE'RE RELIEF ARE WE PROPOSING, LET'S SAY, UH, IF WE VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL, SO WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY APPROVING, UM, A CHANGE OF ZONING IF YOU, UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE ZONING, CORRECT? WELL, ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE, YOU ARE GONNA BE APPROVING, UM, AN APPEAL OF A NON-CONFORMING OH, SO THE NON-CONFORMING. CORRECT. WE COULD SAY IT IS A, IT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT WILL HAVE CONTINUANCE BECAUSE WE CORRECT. I I WAS JUST SAYING IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF YOU, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING, BUT IT'S, IT'D BE THE EQUIVALENT [04:00:01] OF DOING I SEE. OKAY. DOES THIS LOCATION HAVE ANY CO COMPLIANCE OTHER THAN THE ZONING ISSUE? IS THERE ANY LIKE STUFF ON THERE THAT WE DID NOT FIND ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, VIOLATIONS, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY? AND THEN IS, AND THIS NCU, WOULD IT GO THIS APPEAL? WOULD IT GO AWAY IF THEY WERE TO EVER SELL IT TO ANOTHER CAR DEALERSHIP? BUT THE NONCONFORMING STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY. UM, SO AS LONG AS THEY DON'T STOP THE USE FOR 12 OR MORE MONTHS, THEY ARE FINE TO CONTINUE. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING THAT I RESEARCH. YES SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HELPS TO THE PANEL TO, TO DECIDE TO, EH, I RESEARCHED OVER THE WEEKEND THAT THE SLOT IS NOT THE ONLY CASE. THAT IS A C TWO AND THEY OPERATED AS A, AS A CAR DEALERSHIP. WE FIND SEVERAL, EH, CARLOADS IN SAN PEDRO THAT ARE C TWO AND THEY'RE WORKING WITH A NONCONFORMING ZONE LIKE PERMIT. AND ALSO DOWN THE STREET OF I 10, WE HAVE ANOTHER CARLOAD THAT IS THE SAME SITUATION AS ME, LIKE C TWO AND C3 IN THE FRONT. BUT THE BUILDING IS ON C TWO. THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT WE CANNOT OPEN THE BUILDING OR TURN THE LIGHTS BECAUSE WE CANNOT SELL IT FROM, FROM THE FLOOR. YEAH. THE, THE, THE ONLY ISSUE WITH, AND THIS IS GREAT INFORMATION, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING WAS WHEN THEY STARTED THE USE. IT COULD HAVE CHANGED. SOMETIMES THE CITY DOES THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY DO, THEY DO MASS, THEY DO LARGE SCALE ZONING AND YOU KNOW. YES. AND, AND I DON'T KNOW LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE, ON THE PLACE. ON THE ON, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RE UH, THIS LOT IS USED TO BE FROM MR. JOHN FIELDER. HE USED TO HAVE LIKE A LOT OF LOTS AROUND SAN ANTONIO. HE, IT WAS QUALITY PREON BEFORE THEY USED TO ADVERTISE FROM THAT LOT LIKE THE CAR, THE CAR SALES. AND THAT'S WHO I BOUGHT IT FROM, FROM MR. FIELDER ON, ON ON 2008. OKAY. THAT HE WAS HAVING A CAR, A CAR DEALERSHIP SINCE 98. AND IF, IF THIS APPLICANT WERE TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ZONING THAT TO MAKE IT C3, DOES THAT AFFECT IN ANY WAY ANY APPEAL THAT WE HAVE TODAY? LIKE IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND HE SUBMITTED FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING, DOES THAT MAKE THE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY IF THE ZONING DOESN'T PASS OR SOMETHING? RIGHT? IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY. SO TECHNICALLY IT WOULD GO IF YOU'RE REZONING TO SOMETHING THAT TURNS A NON-CONFORMING INTO A CONFORMING, THAT NONCONFORMING GOES AWAY JUST JUST FOR THE PURPOSES IN CASE YOU WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEANED UP OR PERFORM. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY EVERY YEAR FOR NONCONFORMING PERMIT $150 EVERY SINGLE YEAR. IS IT TRUE THAT ACTUALLY JUST GOT CHANGED BY THE, UH, DIRECTOR? SO THE NEW RULE IS YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED. UM, ACTUALLY YOU WERE NEVER REQUIRED TO REZONE OR, UM, RENEW ONLY IF YOU HAVE TO GET A LICENSE CERTIFICATE, UH, FROM THE CITY. UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE DO RENEW EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY STAY LEGAL. UM, BUT IT WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT. AND NOW THE NEW SOP IS STRICTLY SAYING, IT'S VERY CLEARLY SAYING IT'S NOT REQUIRED. OKAY. BANA. THERE YOU GO. COMMISSIONER MAN. SO FOR NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, IS A NON-CONFORMING USE RESTRICTED TO CAR SALES? UM, CORRECT. NO OTHER, NO OTHER, UH, SO THE PROPERTY IS SOLD THEN, UM, THE NON-CONFORMING USE WOULD BE ONLY FOR ALLOWING THE CAR SALES ON THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PROPERTY? CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE SENT TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. LIEUTENANT WANTS TO ADD SOMETHING? SURE. IF YOU NEED IT. IF NEED. NO, I I I IF SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN WELL IS FERNANDO SI REPRESENT FA MOTORCAR AS THE CURRENT TENANT CAN GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE, THERE GO. THE CURRENT TENANT. UH, I JUST WANNA SAY WE GET ALONG REALLY WELL WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS. UH, WE ONLY HAVE REALLY ONE NEIGHBOR THAT SHARES A PROPERTY WITH US THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT REALLY WILL BE AFFECTED OR ANYTHING. BUT, UM, THERE'S MANY INSTANCES WHERE I'M, I SHARE THE VIDEOS WITH THE CITY 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CRIMINALITY THERE AND THEFT AND STUFF. SHARE THE VIDEOS WITH THE CITY. UH, WE CALL EACH OTHER TO KEEP THE CRIME DOWN AND STUFF. SO IT HELPS TO HAVE SOMEONE THERE AND THAT CARES AND KNOWS THE NEIGHBORS. UM, AND, UH, RECENTLY THERE WAS A WRONG WORD, WRONG WORD, WRONG WAY. DRIVER, SORRY. AND THE DETECTIVE CAME AND ASKED FOR THE VIDEO. THEY, THE DA NEEDED THAT TO CLOSE THE CASE ON THAT, ON THAT ACCIDENT, WE'RE ABLE TO HELP 'EM OUT, PROVIDE THAT 'CAUSE WE WERE THERE AND HAVE SURVEILLANCE AND LIGHTS. SO LOVE TO HEAR IT. GOOD, GOOD. NEIGHBORS? GOOD? YEAH. JUST MY 2 CENTS IF NEEDED. YEAH. YES SIR. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . COMMISSIONER BRAMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT [04:05:01] GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 5,400 IH 10 WEST APPLICANT BEING ALAMO CONSULTING SERVICES BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN AREA AND A DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A NON-CONFORMING YOUTH REGISTRATION TO PER TO PERMIT THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. COMMISSIONER BRINKMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL. I, I JUST, I MEAN I CAN'T SEE ALL OF A SUDDEN DENYING THIS AFTER 25 PLUS YEARS OF CONSISTENT, UH, USAGE OF THE SAME TYPE OF ACTIVITY. SO, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RAGMAN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MANANA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, YOU KNOW, SO I ALWAYS LOOK AT THESE AS, YOU KNOW, DID THE CITY MAKE YOU KNOW, WOULD THE CITY AT FAULT HERE OR DID THEY, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THROUGH? AND I THINK IN THIS CASE THERE IS SO, OKAY. THIS WORLD CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES, I APPROVE. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER I BON, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE VICE OF FACT. MOTION TO PASS AT 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU BOYS. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE MINUTES AND WE'VE AND WE'VE DONE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, IT IS 5 24. WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.