* 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. [00:00:03] I KNOW THERE'S A HANDFUL THAT, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON THAT WE CAN START WITH. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. SO IT IS ONE OH TWO. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, STAFF IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL RO. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. HERE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER EZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M PRESENT. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NINE, WHICH MAKES A QUORUM. WE'RE EXPECTING ONE MORE, UH, FOR 10 LATER. UM, IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FROM WHICH STANDS? ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN LIBERTY. THE JUSTICE, JUSTICE. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE. FAITH UNDER GOD. ONE. AN INDIVIDUAL . ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH TODAY'S CASES, PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES. I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION FOR THOSE IN THE GALLERY. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK 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 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 RELEASE THOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ON 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 DUE THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. UM, 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 FACTS AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE ASSERT THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTED THE RELEASE LAW RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THIS DECISION OF THE, OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. SO AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, WE HAVE NINE UH, BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AND YOU NEED NINE VOTES TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED. UH, WE DO HAVE ONE MORE MEMBER WHO WILL BE JOINING US SHORTLY AND UNTIL THEY GET THERE, WE'RE GONNA BE MOVING UP CASES THAT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, A AND UH, WHO HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PUBLIC COMMENTARY. UH, JUST TO BE FAIR. UM, AND WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE MINUTES JUST BECAUSE . ALRIGHT, UH, REAL QUICK, UM, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE. A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST PRIOR PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST [00:05:01] AND X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED AT MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION FOR THOSE THAT'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED AT MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE, GIVEN THAT THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITHIN A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES. UM, SO [ Approval of Minutes  ] WE ARE GONNA START WITH A MINUTES. UH, DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. IT LOOKED GOOD TO ME. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, MOTION PASSES. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] UH, WE HAVE ANOTHER QUICK ONE IS THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL MEETING. UH, THAT'S ITEM 13 ON THE AGENDA. UH, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF SEPTEMBER 29TH WITH, WHICH IS A, WHICH IS A MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH, A TUESDAY OR OCTOBER 3RD, A FRIDAY. IS THERE ANY, UH, DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS ON A DAY? I, I PERSONALLY LIKE MONDAYS, BUT IS I'M NOT AVAILABLE ON THAT MONDAY. ON THAT MONDAY, SAME THING. IT WHAT ABOUT THE TUESDAY THE 30TH? YES, I'M AVAILABLE ON THE OTHER TWO DATES, WHICH IS JUST NOT THE FIRST DATE TOO. OKAY. AND I'M NOT A FAN OF FRIDAYS. UH, I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE UNTIL FIVE OR SIX O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY. SO IF, IF NOBODY IS IS AGAINST, UH, I WOULD I MOVE TO, TO, TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH. AND CURRENTLY, UM, THE RESPONSES THAT WE RECEIVED, UM, WAS EIGHT FOR MONDAY. SEVEN FOR TUESDAY AND SEVEN FOR FRIDAY. UM, WOULD THAT, DID THAT INCLUDE ALTERNATES OR IS THAT JUST, THAT INCLUDES, UH, ALTERNATE, THAT DOES INCLUDE ALL VOTE FOR VAZQUEZ'S ON THERE. HOW OUT OF THE, UH, SEVEN THAT VOTED ON TUESDAY AND, AND ON MONDAY, HOW MANY OF THEM WERE FROM THE, UH, APPOINT? THE, UH, SO RIGHT NOW THE ONLY VOTES THAT WE DON'T HAVE IS COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER BONILLA, COMMISSIONER INGLES, UH, COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. COMMISSIONER RHI. COMMISSIONER BONILLA. IS TUESDAY THE 30TH ACCEPTABLE. ALL RIGHT, SO I'VE, I'VE MADE A MOTION FOR TUESDAY, UH, THE 30TH OF SEPTEMBER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, SO OUR NEW NEXT MEETING, UH, ADDITIONAL MEETING FOR THE MONTH WILL BE ON THE 30TH OF TUESDAY. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, GOING THROUGH THE LIST, UH, WE, OF THE REMAINING CASES, THE FIRST ONE THAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IS ITEM NUMBER SIX. WAS THERE ANY COMMENTARY ON THAT ONE OR ANYONE OPPOSED? THERE WAS NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WELL THEN WE'RE GONNA START WITH NUMBER SIX. THIS IS OVER AT, UH, ONE 50 STORY WOOD. SO STAFF. ALL RIGHTY. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 1 30. UH, THE ADDRESS BEING ONE 50 STORY WOOD DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT BEING KIM C JONES. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT SIX INCH CARPORT SIDE SETBACK IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, A 12 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK. THE ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN VANCE JACKSON ROAD AND WEST AVENUE. ALONG STORY WOOD DRIVE HISTORICAL IMAGERY INDICATES A CARPORT HAS EXISTED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE AT LEAST 2007. THE PROPERTY OWNER BEGAN A PROJECT TO CONVERT THIS EXISTING CARPORT INTO A GARAGE, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PLACED ON HOLD FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION BY CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT ON JULY 1ST, 2025. THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES OF, WITH TWO WALLS HAVING RECENTLY BE ADD BEEN ADDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INTENT TO IMPROVE UPON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE REQUIRES THE ISSUANCE OF A RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PERMIT BEFORE PROCEEDING. UH, FURTHER THE ENLARGING THE STRUCTURE WOULD PREVENT NON-CONFORMING REGISTRATION ISSUANCE. UH, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW PERMIT, A VARIANCE APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED FOR THE REDUCED SIDE SETBACK OF THE STRUCTURE. UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THAT STRUCTURE, AGAIN, EXISTING CARPORT, UH, IN THE REAR YARD THERE. UM, AND THIS IS, UH, ONE A REQUEST FOR EITHER A CARPORT SETBACK OR A REQUEST FOR A GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK. UH, SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE FRONT YARD. [00:10:01] UH, AND THAT IS THE CARPORT LOCATED IN THE REAR OFF OF SAXON. AND THIS IS A HISTORICAL IMAGE OF THAT SAME STRUCTURE FROM NOVEMBER, 2007 AND ANOTHER HISTORICAL IMAGE FROM JUNE, 2024, UH, SHOWING THAT THAT STRUCTURE HAS BEEN A CARPORT ON THAT PROPERTY DURING THAT TIME. AND THIS IS A CURRENT LOOK AT THAT STRUCTURE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ENCLOSED ON THREE OF FOUR SIDES. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT SIDE SETBACK AND GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 30 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACK WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE CLOSEST TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE STRUCTURE'S FOOTPRINT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED AND IS SEPARATED FROM STRUCTURES ON NEIGHBORING LOTS BY THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY, THEREBY MINIMIZING ANY INCREASED FIRE SAFETY OR WATER RUNOFF CONCERNS. STAFF MAILED OUT 32 NOTICES FOUR WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE BELLEVUE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND AND THE SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY STAFF FOR THIS REQUEST. AND ONE MORE NOTICE OF SUPPORT HERE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I BELIEVE, UM, THIS IS THE SECOND, UH, NOTICE THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS ONE INCLUDED THE, UH, CHANGE OF THE ADDITION, THE, THE CHANGE TO BEAT THE GARAGE ITSELF. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT IS CORRECT. AND BOTH OF 'EM, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK, UH, REGARDING, UH, OPPOSITION. RIGHT. SO LAST WEEK WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY OPPOSITION AS WELL, OR LAST MEETING? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZS JOINED AT ONE 14. UH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. UM, THIS IS CONSIDERED THE, UM, REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND IF IT'S A CARPORT VERSUS A GARAGE, HOW DOES A REAR SETBACK WORK WITH THE ALLEY? I THINK AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE THE SAME, UM, FIVE FOOT REQUIRED FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UM, WHETHER IT'S A GARAGE OR A CARPORT, THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS STILL ALLOWED THAT HALF DISTANCE OF THE ALLEY AS A, AN ALLOWANCE. SO, SO THE, THE CRUX OF MY QUESTION IS, IS ON THE ATTACHMENTS, IT'S SHOWING ITEM ONE, UH, AS BEING MEASURED TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND IT, IT'S, IT'S LOOKS LIKE IT'S A INTENDED TO BE A SIDE SETBACK. IS THIS A SIDE SETBACK ISSUE OR A REAR SETBACK ISSUE? SIDE SETBACK ISSUE. OKAY. AND IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE, IF THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN AS A CARPORT, UH, IT'S TO THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK IF THIS IS GONNA BE A GARAGE, THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. BUT IT'S, WAS THIS ADVERTISED AS A SIDE SETBACK VERSUS A REAR SETBACK? IS THAT, IS THAT AN ISSUE? CORRECT. IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR A SIDE SETBACK. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. SURE. ALRIGHT. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. DOES THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? DO ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, UH, CARPORT SLASH GARAGE. WELL, UH, YEAH, I WAS HERE, UH, ON THE 18TH OF LAST MONTH AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, UH, SENTIMENT AS THAT, THAT TIME. BUT, UM, IT'S, I THINK IT'S BEEN THERE PROBABLY SINCE THE MID SIXTIES. THAT CARPORT THAT'S EXISTING THERE. I WANTED TO USE THE FRAME. UH, THAT'S ALREADY BUILT. IT'S REALLY BUILT WELL THAT THING WAS LIKE, MAN, IT'S STRONG. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BUILD ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT. UM, AND WE JUST WANNA BE ABLE TO LOCK UP OUR, OUR VEHICLES. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT FOR THE 30 YEARS WE'VE BEEN LIVING THERE. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 95, SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MANANA? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR NAME? WHAT'S THAT? CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? 'CAUSE I DON'T LOOK. YOU GET KIM KIM JONES. PERFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, IS THERE, SINCE NO ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK, THERE'S NO VOICEMAILS. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE NO PUBLIC THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE UNLESS I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 0. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR ONE AT THREE FOOT SIX VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT SIX INCH CARPORT SIDE SETBACK IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, A 12 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH GARAGE ENTRY SETBACK SITUATED AT 1 5 0 STORY WOOD DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING KIM C JONES. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REDUCED SETBACK [00:15:01] WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE CLOSEST TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, ABUTTING A RIGHT OF WAY, MINIMIZING ANY INCREASED FIRE SAFETY OR WATER RUNOFF CONCERNS. TWO IS TO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT TO IMPROVE UPON THE STRUCTURE AND NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE SETBACK IS PROPOSED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE STRUCTURE WOULD REMAIN ADEQUATELY SEPARATED FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY THE ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY. UH, THE VARIANCE FOR 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 CONFORMITY PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. THE STRUCTURE WOULD REMAIN IN EXISTING LOCA IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION, WHICH IS SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR THE WIDTH OF THE ADJACENT RIGHT AWAY AN ALLEYWAY. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNI. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THERE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE STRUCTURE'S LOCATION, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN BEFORE 2001 END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, UH, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. UH, THE ABUTTING RIGHT AWAY, THE, UH, ALLEY AND THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN PLACE, UH, SINCE BEFORE 2001. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANIF, UH, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND, AND WE GAVE THE COMMUNITY, UH, TWO EFFORTS OR TWO, TWO NOTICES HERE. SO, SO I THINK THAT EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, AGREES THAT THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. IN FAVOR AS WELL. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE THIS HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. UH, NEXT ITEM, UH, SINCE WE DON'T STILL DON'T HAVE A FULL BOARD TIL A LITTLE BIT LATER, IS ITEM EIGHT THAT IS RECOMMENDING A FULL APPROVAL. WHERE DO WE GO FROM THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 ADDRESS AT 8 3 8 COLLIBRA ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS IVAN ALMA GEAR A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 13 FOOT TWO INCH REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT WITH A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK ABUT A 13.7 FOOT ALLEY AND TWO, A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT. PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALLOW A FIVE FOOT NINE INCH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH SIX FOOT NINE INCH STONE PILLARS. THE ZONE IS R SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT LAND LOCATED ALONG COLLIBRA ROAD, JUST WEST OF IH 10. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND INCREASED DENSITY PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN 2025. THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE REZONING APPLICATION DEPICTED THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THE WESTERN FRONTAGE. HOWEVER, THE PRESENCE OF A STORM SEWER AT THIS LOCATION, NECE NE NECESSITATED THE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THE CENTRALLY LOCATED EXISTING ENTRYWAY IS INSUFFICIENT IN WIDTH TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DESIGN. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SITE PLAN WAS REVISED TO POSITION THE DRIVEWAY ALONG THE EASTERN FRONTAGE. THIS UPDATED LAYOUT INCLUDES A 10 FOOT RARE SETBACK TO FULFILL THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT OF SIX SPACES. A VARIANCE IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO PERMIT THE REDUCED 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK, WHICH ABUTS A 13.7 FOOT WIDE ALLEY. HALF THE WIDTH OF THIS ALLEY'S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MINIMUM [00:20:01] REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. THIS EFFECTIVELY REDUCED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 13 FOOT, 13 FOOT TWO INCHES. ADDITIONALLY, DURING A SITE VISIT, STAFF OBSERVED AN EXISTING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH STORM PILLARS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF FIVE FEET. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED. AND THIS IS THE SIDELINE HIGHLIGHT IN THE LOCATION OF THE ITEMS FOR REVIEW. AND THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW FROM 2007 SHOWING A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, NO STORM, SEWER OR SIDEWALK. AND ANOTHER VIEW FROM 2011 SHOWING SIDEWALK AND THE STORM SEWERS. ANOTHER VIEW, UM, REPRESENTING THE NEW, UM, FENCE WITH THE STORM PILLARS EXCEEDED THE FIVE FEET PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND ITS CURRENT VIEW. THIS IS THE PREDOMINANT OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD AND THE MEASUREMENTS INCLUDING THE STONE PILLARS, HEIGHT, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA VIEWS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RARE STEPBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE SUFFICIENT SPACE IN THE REAR WILL REMAIN FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ALLOWS FOR EFFICIENT USE OF THE LOT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FUNCTIONALITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 41 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT PROVIDES INCREASED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FROM THE HEAVILY TRAFFICKED COLLIBRA ROAD. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT AS IT ENHANCES THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE STREETS SCAPE AND DOES NOT IMPACT TRAFFIC CLEAR VISION FOR SAFE ACCESS ONTO RAILROAD STAFF MAILED 34 NOTICES, ONE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE MARTIN CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND NO RESPONSE FROM WEST END HOPE IN ACTION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION. AND THIS IS FROM THE MARTINEZ CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THEY FULLY SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTS. THEY STATE THAT REMOVING BARRIERS LIKE THESE TO BUILD IN HOUSING HELPS TO COMBAT OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE AND SHOULD HELP TO CALM TRAFFIC ON COLLIBRA ROAD BY NOW IN THE FIELD OF VISION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S, UM, PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, THIS SHOWS A CD. UM, DO YOU KNOW, UM, I GUESS WHEN THAT CD WAS APPROVED AND, AND WHAT WAS THE, I GUESS GRANTED WITHIN THAT CD ITSELF, IT WAS IN JANUARY 2ND, 2025 THIS YEAR GRANTING FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS. AND SO WHAT WOULD BE THE NORMAL FOR A, UM, FOR AN R SIX LOT? UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THERE BY, I GUESS BY RIGHT. UH, ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. OKAY. AND SO WE INCREASE IT TO FOUR. OKAY. THANK YOU. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. HAS THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, UH, I'M IVAN AL MAER. UH, WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD, UH, TWO DUPLEX THERE, SO FOUR UNITS AND, UM, WE WANT TO STAY WITH THE, UH, SAME FENCE, SO WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE APART AND GET, UH, A LITTLE SPACE, MORE SPACE ON THE BACK. OKAY. UH, ARE YOU, UH, UH, WANTING DESIRING TO USE THE ALLEY AS A MEANS OF ACCESSING YOUR PROPERTY? NO. OKAY. I NOTICED MOST OF IT WASN'T PAVED ANYWAY, BUT, UH, ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA? SO, SO I DON'T, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE, AND THIS BE QUESTION FOR THE CITY WITH REGARDS TO PARKING AND ENSURING THAT, UM, THE ADEQUATE PARKING IS, IS PROVIDED OR, OR I GUESS WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT? AND I'M ASSUMING THIS MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, UNITS FOR FOUR UNITS, IT WOULD BE 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOUT SIX SPACES. AND SO, SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS THAT THEY COMPLETE THAT PART OF IT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS ANY VOICEMAILS ON THIS ONE, SO NO PUBLIC COMMENT? I GOT, I GOT ONE. YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN, HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ON THIS? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. [00:25:01] IS IT PAVED ALL THE WAY AROUND YOUR DRIVEWAYS AND, NO, WE WANNA LEAVE ON THE BACK ON, SORRY, ON THE BACK. SO WE HAVE A PATIO THERE WITH THE TREES, SO ALL THAT LINE. YEAH, THAT ONE IS, UH, WILL BE A PATIO THERE AND ALSO A COVER PATIO RIGHT THERE. SO ON THE WEST. AND IS THIS, IS THIS SITE PLAN THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED WITH YOUR CONDITIONAL USE? YES, JUST I CITY COUNCIL. WE MOVED, UH, WE MOVED JUST A LITTLE ON THE FRONT AND UH, ON THE MIDDLE AND THEN ON THE BACK TO PUT ANOTHER CAR ON THE TOP ON THE RIGHT. I CAN SEE THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR SIX CARS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, IS THERE, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT NINE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH SIX FOOT NINE INCH STONE PILLARS SITUATED AT 8 3 8 CBRA ROAD. APPLICANT BEING IVAN, UH, ALMA GURE BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC 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, UM, THE SIX FOOT NINE INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE PROVIDES VISUAL OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION. B. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE FENCE IS APPROPRIATELY SET BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, MAINTAINING VISIBILITY AND OPENNESS THAT SUPPORT A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. C. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USES AS THE FENCE MAINTAINS A, THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION AND THE MAJORITY OF THE FENCES WILL EXCEED THE HEIGHT STANDARD BY NINE INCHES, UH, WHICH DOES NOT OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY, UH, NEEDED FOR SAFE ACCESS ONTO DECLA ROAD. D. THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THIS, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS FENCE PRESERVES VISUAL OPENNESS TO THE PROPERTY AND COMPLIES WITH DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DISTRICT, FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, UH, DESIGN MAINTAINS VISIBILITY ON THE PROPERTY, COMPLIES WITH DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS AND PRESERVES THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND A MOTION WE SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BECKMAN, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK JUST, JUST A NOTATION THAT THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY, UM, I GUESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT STEP, AS WELL AS, UM, UM, THE COMMUNITY ITSELF, UH, BEING IN FAVOR OF THIS AND, UH, IT DOES LOOK LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, AN, AN EFFECTIVE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. AND SO I SEE NO ISSUES FOR NOT APPROVING THAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, ESPECIALLY WHAT THE, UM, ASSOCIATION CALLED OUT IN TERMS OF, UH, INCREASING, UH, AVAILABLE PROPERTIES, UH, FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN TO INCREASE OUR HOUSING STOCK. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THE FENCE ISSUE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MENNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BUNES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. SO THE, THE, UH, ITEM REGARDING THE FENCE HEIGHT, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION HAS PASSED AND NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. I MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT OR REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 13 FOOT TWO INCH REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT WITH A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK ABUTTING A 13 FOOT SEVEN INCH ALLEY SITUATED AT 8 3 8, UH, GLABRA ROAD, UH, APPLICANT BEING IVAN EG G**O BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REDUCED SETBACK. THE REDUCED SETBACK OF 10 INCHES INCLUDES HALF OF THE ALLEY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE, UH, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURE, FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNNER ROUTE RUNOFF HAZARDS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THEIR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IT WOULD REQUIRE THE REDESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLY WITH REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, [00:30:01] MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS AND REASONABLE, UH, APARTMENT UNIT SIZES, ALL CONSTRAINED BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REDUCED SETBACK, THE REDUCED 10 FOOT SETBACK MAINTAINED SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH THE ADJACENT ALLEY, FURTHER CONTRIBUTING TO FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES PARTICULARLY 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 VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALL THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ADEQUATE SEPARATION FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS, WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY WILL REMAIN, UM, WITH THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, THE PLY TO THE OWN SIX, THE P TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST IS DUE TO UNIQUE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING ITS DEVELOPMENT AS A FOUR UNIT COMPLEX UNDER ITS CONDITIONAL USE AND THE PRESENCE OF A REAR ALLEY THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL SEPARATION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN TO MR. MANNA? UM, YES, FOR REALLY THE SAME REASONS, UH, THAT I I AGREE WITH THE FIRST, UM, SET OF MOTIONS. UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, ALSO I THINK, UH, HAVING THAT ALLEYWAY IN THE BACK IS A SIGNIFICANT, UM, I GUESS ADV OR SIGNIFICANT REASON WHY IT IS THAT I, I DON'T SEE THIS AS AN ISSUE. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND AS THE PREVIOUSLY, UM, STATED COMMENTS THAT I MADE, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? UH, HEARING NONES HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER , I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. UH, CONGRATULATIONS IF YOU DO HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS ALWAYS AND GET WITH STAFF. UH, THE LAST ITEM THAT HAD A FULL APPROVAL IS ITEM NUMBER 10. SO WE'RE GONNA JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER 10. ITEM 10 IS CASE BO A DASH 25 0 3 0 0 1 45. THE ADDRESS BEING 52 0 7 ROGERS ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX. THE APPLICANT IS AUSTIN FORD AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE. UH, THE ZONING IS C3. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY TEXAS HIGHWAY 1 51 WISEMAN BOULEVARD. AND ROGERS ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DATA CENTER IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY ON THE PROPERTY. AND THIS REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED SECURITY FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WHERE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS ALREADY PERMITTED ALONG THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A PROPERTY ABUTS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET. A SIMILAR EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED JUST SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON ROGERS ROAD IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, HIGHLIGHTING IN RED THERE THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE, WHICH REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT VIEW AND THE SURROUNDING AREA OFF OF ROGERS ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN B BO A DASH 25 DASH 1 345 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, OTHER INSTANCES OF INCREASED FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA AS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SURROUNDING USES. AND TWO, THE FENCE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND SCREENING FOR THE DATA CENTER STAFF MAILED 11 NOTICES. ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE. ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TATE GUY. I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR AUSTIN FORD, THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT. SO AS, UH, THIS GENTLEMAN VERY WELL, UH, PUT OUT IN THE PRESENTATION. YES, WE ARE LOOKING TO GET THE EXCEPTION TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE ON THE NORTHERN PERIMETER [00:35:01] OF THE SITE THAT BUTTS UP TO ROGERS ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF THE AREA TO THE EAST SIDE. THERE IS A MEDICAL BUILDINGS, THERE'S REALLY NO PROPERTIES. THERE IS A OPEN OR A LOT THAT'S NOT CLEARED BETWEEN US AND THE HOSPITAL. AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE IS ANOTHER DATA CENTER PROPERTY THAT DOES HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. SO OVERALL WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP A UNIFORM EIGHT FOOT FENCE HEIGHT ON ALL ELEVATIONS OF THE PROJECT. AND YEAH, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. ALRIGHT, SOUNDS SIMPLE ENOUGH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? OH, Z COMMISSIONER, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE, UH, MATERIAL. IS IT, UH, WHAT MATERIAL ARE YOU USING FOR THE FENCE? THIS IS A WELDED WIRE, UH, MESH FENCE. SO IT IS, I BELIEVE THREE EIGHT INCH. SO IT'S A SECURITY FENCE, NOT YOUR TYPICAL K 12. UH, BASICALLY A, A WELDED WIRE MATERIAL. OKAY. DO YOU NO BARBED WIRE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF NO SIR, NO BARBED WIRE ON THIS ONE. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE FENCE IS, UH, CONSIDERED PREDOMINANTLY OPEN BEING 70? IS IT 70% OPEN? CORRECT. IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT CLOSE TO 70% AT LEAST? I WOULD SAY YES. I MEAN IT'S, IT'S A VISIBLE SEE-THROUGH FENCE. IT'S JUST LIKE A, LIKE A MESH KIND OF LIKE A, IT'S LIKE A METAL CHICKEN COOP ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT THE MATERIAL LOOKS LIKE. OKAY. HARD TO SEE ON THAT. BUT YEAH, I MEAN YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE, UH, PANELS VERY PUT IN PLACE ON THE ELEVATIONS AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A MOTION. ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 3 45. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE SITUATED 5 2 0 7 ROGERS ROAD. APPLICANT BEING AUSTIN FORD BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE, WE HAVE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SETS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS, THE UDC HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. AS A SPECIAL, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE TO MET THE PROPOSED EIGHT FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SECURITY FENCE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND SCREENING FOR THE DATA CENTER BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE INSTANCES OF SIMILAR FENCING WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA, WHICH IS PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF SIMILAR LARGE SCALE PRIVATE FACILITIES AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED, UH, BY SUCH PROPOSED USE AS OTHER INSTANCES OF INCREASED FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS WERE OBSERVED IN THE AREA AS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SURROUNDING USES DEED. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE OC OCCUPIED BY SIMILAR LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE FACILITIES, WHICH GENERALLY EMPLOY INCREASED SECURITY METHOD METHODS SUCH AS THE INCREASED FENCE, HEIGHT AND GUARDED GATE ENTRANCES. AND E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIED DISTRICT AS INCREASED SECURITY WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE NEW DATA CENTER TO MEET THE SECURITY STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANA. COMMISSIONER UNA. YEAH, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THIS, UH, THIS BOARD HAS GRANTED VERY SIMILAR, UH, VARIANCES ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THIS. UH, IT IS WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE AREA TO HAVE THESE EIGHT FOOT, UH, FENCES THAT I WOULD SAY ARE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. UM, IT PROVIDES SECURITY AND SCREENING FOR SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS THAT THESE APPLICANTS HAVE MADE IN THEIR DENTIST DATA CENTERS. AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR, UH, PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO REQUEST FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE BASICALLY STATED AS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN VERSUS SOLID BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT, UH, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. BUT, BUT AS IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. AND IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND IT, THEY ARE ALL PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. WHAT DO YOU THINK COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH. ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THAT IS THE CONSTRUCTED METHOD THAT Y'ALL DID WITH THE EXISTING FENCE, RIGHT? PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. SO, AND TO THE OP YOU HAVE NO INTENT OF HAVING IT SOLID. SOLID, RIGHT? NO SIR. NO INTENT FOR ANYTHING SOLID. SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO, UH, STATE IT AS AN EIGHT FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED. ALL RIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE HERE NOW. LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BONNI? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, SO NOW WHAT, WHAT THE CASES THAT WE HAVE LEFT AFTER GOING THROUGH, UM, UH, WHO'S, WHO IS, UH, ANY OPPOSITION OR PEOPLE SIGNING TO SPEAK? WE WILL BE DOING ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHO HAS, UH, NO OPPOSITION, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, NO VOICEMAILS. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. AND AFTER THAT WE'LL GO STRAIGHT BACK TO THE AGENDA. AND JUST IF I WE'RE NOT EXPECTING ANY MORE COMMISSIONERS, 10 OH, COMMISSIONER STEVENS IS NOT GONNA COME IN CORRECT? ALL. WELL THEN I GUESS WE CAN HIT NUMBER ONE AND GO BACK TO, WE'LL JUST GO TO THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR THOSE IN THE GALLERY WE WERE, [00:40:01] WE WERE TRYING TO HIT THE ONES THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD SEEM TO HAVE THE LEASE OPPOSITION, UH, 'CAUSE WE WERE THINKING ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IS GONNA SHOW UP. BUT WE ARE, WE, THIS BOARD WILL ONLY HAVE 10 MEMBERS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. SO WE'RE BACK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS REQUESTED BY NATHAN LANG AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT CONTRA DISTRICT ONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6 4 7 LAY STREET. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY AND VACANT LOTS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK LOCATED AT 6 3 9 LAY STREET, HAVING BEEN APPROVED ON JUNE 17TH, 2022. THIS TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT HAS BEEN RENEWED AND DOES NOT EXPIRE UNTIL JUNE 17TH, 2028. PER THE CODE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS. ON THE BLOCK FACE, THERE'S A TOTAL OF 14 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. ONE ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO BEING 6 3 9 LAY STREET ISSUED ON JUNE 17TH, 2022. THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 7%. AND IF THE SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 14% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST. THE PROPERTY HAS HAD INVESTIGATIONS FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT, BUT WAS CLOSED WHEN THE OWNER WAS ISSUED THEIR PERMIT. AND THE PROPERTY HAS NO ACTIVE LISTINGS. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 31 MALE NOTICES. FIVE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM OUR FOUR CITYWIDE GROUPS. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. DID I JUST, UH, MY QUESTION IS, UH, DID I HEAR IT RIGHT THAT THEY WERE AT ONE TIME ACTIVELY AN STR PERMIT? YES. THEY THEY WERE BUT THEY DIDN'T RENEW THEIR PERMIT AND THEN THE OTHER ONE CAME IN. NO. SO THAT ONE ALREADY HAD ITS PERMIT, JUST THAT WHEN IT WAS ISSUED, IT WAS IN THE ROUNDING. THERE WERE ROUND ROUNDING THE 12.5%. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? SO WHEN DID THAT PERMIT EXPIRE? IS THAT THE FEBRUARY 16TH, 2023 OR LET SEE, SIX 40 LAY STREET. THAT ONE EXPIRED. LET ME DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT. THE, UM, MS, DO YOU ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THE PERMITT EXPIRED ON JUNE 10TH, 2025. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR SDR. YEAH, SO NATHAN LANG, UM, HOLD ON HERE. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE 2023, UH, THING THAT THEY BROUGHT UP, THAT WAS AN ERROR ON THEIR PART. IF YOU COUNT BACK THREE YEARS, I ALREADY HAD IT IN 22 AND THEN I HAD IT BACK IN . SHE'S SPEAKING TO THE MIC, SIR. OH, SORRY. THEN THEY HAD IT BACK IN 19, SO IF YOU 19 22, 25, THAT WAS JUST AN ERROR ON THEIR PART. SO THERE WAS NO, I DIDN'T GO GET THE, I DIDN'T GET, IF I GOT IT IN 23, I WOULDN'T GET UP FOR IT UNTIL 26. HOLD ON. IT'S JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. SO, UH, WE HEARD THAT THIS WAS ISSUED, THE SECOND ONE WAS ISSUED DUE TO ROUNDING THAT WE DID LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENTLY YEARS AGO AND WE DID ROUND BACK THEN. SO, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE MENTIONED THAT I WAS IN INVESTIGATION IN 23, THAT WAS AN ERROR ON THE CITY'S PART PART. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO, WELL, THAT VIOLATION WONDER, THE STAFF DID STATE THAT THAT WENT AWAY, SO YEAH. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 'CAUSE MY PERMIT WAS, I'VE BEEN IN HERE FOR EIGHT YEARS WITH OPERATING FOR IT. AND THEN, UM, THE WAY PROCESS. WELL, PLEASE CONTINUE. YES. OKAY. SO YOU WANNA PUT THE LITTLE SLIDESHOW AGAIN? TRY TO PUT SOME, UH, TRY TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR YOU GUYS LAST NIGHT, JUST GOING THROUGH THE SIX STEPS OR SIX POINT PROCESS. SO SINCE I WORKED ON IT LAST NIGHT, I'D LIKE Y'ALL TO SEE IT. . [00:45:04] ALL RIGHT, GOT A SLIDE POINT. UM, SO, UM, I LIVE ON LAY STREET ALSO OF MY PERSONAL RESIDENCE. UM, I'M HERE TODAY JUST TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE 6 47. UM, I'VE BEEN AT LOCK, THE LOCK, UH, ON LAVACCA STREET RESIDENT FOR YEARS. I'VE OPERATED THIS ONE SINCE 2017. UM, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS OR ANY OF MY DIRECT NEIGHBORS. UH, MY PERMIT LAPSED JUST BY ONE DAY. THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS HERE, IF Y'ALL DON'T KNOW, THEY SEND YOU AN EMAIL ABOUT THREE MONTHS BEFORE, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN IN MARCH. I'M GONNA ACCOUNT IT BY NATURE. YOU CAN PROBABLY GUESS. I WAS JUST BURIED, LOGGED IN PAPERWORK I DIDN'T HAVE JUST KIND OF SLIPPED MY MIND. AND THEN THE NEXT THING I GOT WAS AN EMAIL SAYING YOUR PERMIT'S EXPIRED. SO I IMMEDIATELY LOGGED IN THAT DAY, TRIED TO RENEW IT, THE RENEWAL OPTION WASN'T THERE. I CALLED THE CITY AND THEY SAID, OH, YOU GOTTA REAPPLY. THEN WHEN I REAPPLIED, IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF THE 12 POINT A HALF PERCENT THING. SO IT'S REALLY JUST A, A ONE DAY THING. AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY DON'T SEND OUT MORE REMINDERS. ANOTHER REMINDER A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE LAPSE, BUT THE ONLY REMINDER THEY SEND IS THREE MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME. UM, SO THE SIX CONDITIONS, SLIDE THREE, HERE'S THE SIX CONDITIONS ACCORDING TO THE CODE I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE OF. UM, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE JUST QUICKLY TODAY AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. SO THE FIRST ONE ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. UM, I'VE BEEN IN EIGHT YEARS OF OPERATION HERE. THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO SAFETY INCIDENTS AT THIS PROPERTY. UM, I DO CAREFULLY VET THE GUESTS. THIS IS NOT JUST A HOME THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF. THIS IS ACTUALLY A FAMILY HOME THAT MY FAMILY STILL USES. AND, UM, SO WE, WE HAVE VERY EXPENSIVE FURNITURE IN THERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I'M NOT JUST TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE THING THAT'S REALLY JUST TO KIND OF OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS THAT WE HAVE THERE. BUT THERE'S BEEN ZERO SAFETY INCIDENTS. UM, I VET ALL THE GUESTS. UM, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED THE LAST 12 MONTHS, ABOUT FOUR TO SIX DAYS A MONTH IS ALL THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY STAY IN THE HOUSE. UM, AND THEN I, YOU KNOW, WITH ME LIVING ON LEE STREET, I ALSO HAVE THE SAFETY CONCERNS AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S, YOU KNOW, WELL DONE. UH, CONDITION B, NO PUBLIC NU UH, NUISANCE. UH, THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY NOISE OR NUISANCE COMPLAINTS FROM THE HOME. I ENFORCE QUIET HOURS. UM, NO PARTIES. I MONITOR EVERY RESERVATION PERSONALLY. I HAVE A FRONT CAMERA ON THE, THE PATIO SO I CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, THE HOME, YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO OPERATE LIKE A NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UM, JUST TO ENFORCE THAT, UM, JUST SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A LITTLE EXCERPT FROM MY WELCOME LETTER THAT KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE RULES. UM, EVEN IN THE INTRO OF THAT, ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS HAD THE LITTLE KIDS. SO I SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT, YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU CAN'T BE ALLOWED. I'VE GOTTA BE A NEIGHBOR WITH THE BABY. I WANNA MAKE SURE Y'ALL ARE RESPECTFUL OF THAT. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE MY PHONE NUMBERS, THEY CAN CALL ME IF THERE'S EVER ANY ISSUE. UM, SO ANYWAY, I, I THINK I TRY TO RUN IT AS AS WELL AS YOU CAN. UM, CONDITION C NO SUBSTANTIAL ENTRY TO THE NEIGHBORS. UH, YOU KNOW, I, I MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, THE VERY HIGH STANDARD INSIDE AND OUT WITH THE LOCAL. I HAVE LOCAL PEOPLE THAT I TRY TO EMPLOY TO HELP, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THE CLEANING THE YARD WORK, ANY OF THE MAINTENANCE THAT UM, I DO FOR IT. UM, AND SINCE YOU KNOW, I AM ON THE SAME STREET, IF SOMETHING COMES UP, I CAN WALK DOWN THERE. IT'S THREE DOORS DOWN TO TO HELP, YOU KNOW, TAKE CARE OF IT. UM, ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, WE ARE CONNECTED TO ALL THE CITY UTILITIES. UM, I BUY THE LARGER TRASH CANS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE PLENTY OF TRASH. THERE'S NOTHING EVER ON THE SIDE. UM, I HAVE ALL STREET PARKING. I ASK PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NOTHING AVAILABLE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE STREET THAT THEY USE SOME OF THE PARKING SPOTS IN THE BACK. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO D ADDITIONAL STRAIN ON THE ROADS, THE DRAINAGE OR THE CITY SER CITY SERVICES. YOU KNOW, IN FACT WITH HOW LITTLE THIS HOUSE IS ACTUALLY USED FOR THIRD PARTY STUFF, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL IS ACTUALLY LIGHTER THAN WHAT A FULL RENTAL WOULD BE. UH, CONDITION E FOR MY COMPLIANCE RECORD. UM, LIKE I SAID, I'VE NO, UH, ISSUES OR ANY LICENSES REVOKED. UM, CITATIONS ARE OBJECTED TO OFFENSES UNDER THE CITY CODE, UH, IN MY EIGHT YEARS OF OPERATING THIS CONDITION. F NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE HOME LOOKS AND OPERATES LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IT'S NOT A BUSINESS. UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND, WE ACTUALLY BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN 2017. IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO WE PERSONALLY DESIGNED IT. AND THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AT THE TIME I WAS LIVING IN AUSTIN, MY PARENTS WERE LIVING IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY. MY MOM, UH, WAS PRETTY SICK AND COMING UP HERE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT AT THE MILITARY BASE. UM, AND WE ALSO HAD SPUR SEASON TICKETS. SO IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A NICE MEETING PLACE TO WE COULD GO TO DINNER DOWNTOWN AND GO WATCH SOME FUR SPURS GAME, UH, SPEND TIME WITH THE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, [00:50:01] SINCE THEN MY MOM HAS PASSED AND UM, MY DAD STILL IS REMARRIED NOW, SO THEY STILL USE IT. UM, BUT WE DO, WE WANNA KEEP THE HOUSE, OUR PLAN, WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO SELL THE HOUSE. WE LOVE IT. AND UM, SO WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO OFFSET COSTS MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE WITH TAXES, DOUBLING INSURANCE QUADRUPLING IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. UM, SO ANYWAY, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I TALKED TO MY REALTOR TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, HEY, IF THIS DOESN'T, WHAT DOES HE, AND HE SAYS HE HAS A CLIENT THAT'S A, A TRAVELING NURSE THAT COULD DO A TYPE ONE. I DON'T PREFER THAT. I'D RATHER VET MY OWN, YOU KNOW, CUSTOMERS OR PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA STAY THERE SINCE I OWN THE PROPERTY. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, FURNISHED IT, YOU KNOW, VERY NICELY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT IS SELFISH, BUT THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. UM, SO IN CLOSING, I THINK I'VE ADDRESSED ALL SIX OF THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THIS VARIANCE. UM, I THINK I'VE SHOWN THAT I'VE OPERATED IT RESPONSIBLY FOR EIGHT YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINT WHILE MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND SUPPORTING SOME LOCAL WORKERS. UM, WE DID GET, AS HE SAID, I THINK WE HAD FIVE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL, YOU KNOW, PUT IN INTO FAVOR FOR IT. UH, THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I DID TALK TO, HER NAME IS MELISSA, THE PRESIDENT OF IT. SHE TOLD ME THEY JUST DO BLANKET DENIALS AND I ASKED HER, I SAID, WELL, HOW CAN YOU DENY IT? YOU NEVER EVEN CALLED ME TO HEAR MY FACTS OR MY CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SHE SAID, WELL, THEY'RE JUST BLANKET. AND UM, YOU KNOW, AND SHE SUGGESTED TO ME THIS MORNING, SHE'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT REALLY MORE OF A NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, HOW IT AFFECTS YOUR STREET VERSUS THE ENTIRE ASSOCIATION. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW, WE'RE NOT IN AN HOA, IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE, YOU GOTTA PAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THE LAVACA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE LESS IMPACT ON IT SINCE IT'S NOT, THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING OUT. IT'S ONLY PEOPLE THAT WANNA BE PART OF THAT ASSOCIATION AND MOST LIKELY THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE NEGATIVE ON THINGS. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DID NOT HEAR ANY OF MY CASE OR WHATEVER WHEN THEY SENT THAT LETTER OUT. THEY DIDN'T ASK ME FOR ANY FACTS, ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SHE SAID IT'S JUST A BLANKET LETTER THAT THEY SENT OUT EVERY TIME THEY'RE ASKED THAT QUESTION. SO THAT'S CLOSING AND I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. THIS IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT, UM, HE LET THE PERMIT LAPSE BY ONE DAY. IF HE HAD RENEWED IT WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE PERMIT WAS STILL ACTIVE, WOULD HE HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR WOULD HE HAVE STILL HAD TO COME HERE TO THE, THE BOARD? IF HE SUBMITTED HIS RENEWAL PRIOR TO HIS EXPIRATION DATE, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ROUNDING UP RULE THAT WAS IN PLACE BACK IN 2019 WHEN HE INITIALLY GOT THE PERMIT. IT WOULD NOT NEED TO GO TO BOA FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. A QUESTION FOR SCOTT. COMMISSIONER Z, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH, WHEN HE WAS OPERATING AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, HOW MUCH DID WE COLLECT FROM HOT TAXES? UH, LIKE, UM, I GUESS HIS, THE PEAK YEAR OR SOMETHING. GIVE US JUST A SECOND TO YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING GET US MANANA OF OPERATIONS COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, LET'S SEE. SO, SO, UM, AS A MEMBER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT IS NOT MANDATORY, BE KIND TO THEM BECAUSE THEY TRULY OH, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU. THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD HER AND I RESPECT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT SHE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN YOU, THE GAS STATION ON FLORIDA STREET THAT I THINK NONE OF US WANTED IN THERE. I WISH THEY COULD DO MORE WITH THE VICTORIA COMMONS BEHIND US, WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOMES AND A LOT OF TYPE ONE RENTALS GOING IN THERE WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A TON OF TRANSIENT PEOPLE GOING IN THERE. BUT, BUT THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO THEM. SO, YEAH, AND I DID, AND SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE NOTICE HERE, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS, UM, THAT THEY DID PROVIDE KIND OF, I WON'T SAY NECESSARILY LOOKS LIKE A, A BLANKET STATEMENT, BUT IT DID SAY THAT, UM, THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IN THIS DIALOGUE. SO, SO I WOULD, SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPLY WITH REGARDS TO WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WROTE HERE. AND, AND I'D ASK IF THEY'RE LISTENING, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY DO PROVIDE BETTER GUIDANCE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE KIND OF LISTEN TO THESE KIND OF CASES. YEAH. AND, AND, AND ON THAT NOTE, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE UNIQUE 'CAUSE IT'S GOT THE, IT'S KIND OF ON A DEAD END STREET SORT OF. UH, THERE'S A, THERE'S I 37 TO THE EAST. YOU'VE GOT A LARGE PARK BEHIND YOU. YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT IN THE MEAT OF AN, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE KIND OF ON THE OUTSKIRTS. AND YOU DO OWN IT PERSONALLY. IT'S NOT IN A CORPORATION'S NAME OR ANYTHING. NO. OKAY. SO THAT IF YOU EVER SOLD IT, IT WOULD, THE PERMIT WOULD JUST GO AWAY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING COMMISSIONER MANNA. AND SO THIS QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF AS WELL, SO, SO UM, BEING THAT THIS NO LONGER KIND OF IN THE GRANDFATHERED SITUATION, UM, IN THREE YEARS TIME, DOES UH, WILL THIS APPLICANT HAVE TO COME BACK, UM, AND, AND ADDRESS THIS QUESTION AGAIN? YES. OKAY. AND THEN STAFF, DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER QUESTION? UM, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE $3,875 AND 83 CENTS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I HEARING NONE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL VOICEMAILS OR ANYTHING. WERE THERE? WE DO HAVE ONE PRESIDENT SOUNDED TO SPEAK. OH, OKAY. WELL LET'S HAVE THEM COME [00:55:01] UP. UH, MAY FERNANDEZ GOOD. GO BACK. YES. HELLO. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. HI, MY NAME'S MAY FERNANDEZ. I, UH, LIVE ON 6 55 LAY STREET. I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PROPERTY WHERE MY MOM LIVES ON THE SAME STREET AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT HIS INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE TAXES ARE GONNA BE GETTING OUTRAGEOUS IF WE HAVE THIS SPURSE ARENA THERE. AND WE SHOULD NOT BE HELD BACK FROM TRYING TO MAKE THOSE TAXES TO PAY THOSE BILLS THAT WE HAVE TO DO. OKAY. SO I AGREE THAT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO, AND MAYBE THOSE, THAT ADJUSTMENT OF 12.5% NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. LIKE YOU SAID, THERE IS NOTHING IN BACK OF US, WE'RE NOT IMPACTING ANYBODY. SO IN THE FUTURE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THEY CAN ADJUST THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. SINCE LIKE YOU SAID, WE ARE AT THE EDGE. WE'RE NOT IN AN ASSOCIATION AT ALL. SO I'M FOR HIM GOING AHEAD AND GETTING THAT AND UH, WOULD LIKE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME, JUST TO PAY OUR OWN TAXES FOR OUR OWN HOMES THAT WE OWN. ALRIGHT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. MANNA. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO, SO, OR, OR JUST COMMENT. SO, SO, SO THE CITY'S GETTING READY TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER WHAT'S CALLED A UDC REWRITE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IS GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE EXISTING CODE. AND SO, SO, SO THEN THIS COULD BE ONE OF THE CODES THAT WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT. AND SO IF THE COMMUNITY COMES BACK WITH, WE'LL SAY STRONG FAVOR OR WANTS TO REVIEW IT, THEN WE CERTAINLY CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AND IT JUST, THE NUMBERS, IF IT'S TRULY WHAT, WHAT IS THAT? THE COMMUNITY, THE BUSINESSES AND EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO. AND SO, SO IT'S SOMETHING LEFT TO THE CITIZENS TO HELP US FIGURE OUT. OKAY. AND ALSO THEY'RE SELLING BRAND NEW HOUSES, REALLY CRAZY PRICES. AND ONE OF THEIR SELLING POINTS IS THEY'RE DOING THEM AS A DUPLEX OR MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE. AND THE SELLING POINT IS YOU CAN A DU 'EM TO MAKE UP THE EXTRA MONEY THAT YOU'RE PAYING. THEY'RE SAYING, OKAY, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RENT OUT HALF OF THE HOUSE TO PAY YOUR TAX OR FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT THEY'RE ALREADY, UM, THEY'RE ALREADY PUTTING IT OUT THERE AS A SALES PITCH. SO WHY SHOULD WE GET HURT IF SOMEBODY'S PAYING SEVEN, 800,000 COMING IN AND THEY'RE EITHER BEING LIED TO OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING'S WRONG. AND IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING. 'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN THERE LONGER. THESE ARE NEWCOMERS WHO KNOW WHERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, BUT THEY'RE NEWCOMERS. THEY'RE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY FOR THESE PROPERTIES. I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT PERSONALLY. 'CAUSE I KNOW WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD THOSE HOUSES, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT, TOTALLY DIFFERENT , UH, AGENDA THERE. BUT, UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE PRO FOR THAT ONE LITTLE STRIP BECAUSE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING WHEN, UM, A CORPORATION WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA BUY THE WHOLE STRIP. AND THESE WERE ALL GONNA BE AIRBNBS. OKAY. BUT THERE WAS A LAWSUIT THAT CAME INTO PLACE AND, UH, CANCELED THAT. AND THEY SAID, SINCE TAXPAYERS MONEY WENT INTO THIS, THESE, THESE HOUSES INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY HAD TO GO AHEAD AND SEND IT, GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO OWN THESE. SO WE SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED WHEN THE CORPORATIONS DOING THE SAME THING AGAIN. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BUILDING BRAND NEW HOUSES AND SAYING YOU CAN A DU 'EM. SO IT'S OKAY TO SPEND SEVEN, $800,000 OH, THANK YOU. ON A DUPLEX, BASICALLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY HERE. YOU, YES, COMMISSIONER, YOU'VE BEEN IN, UM, AND I'M, I'M NORMALLY DON'T SUPPORT HAVING MORE THAN ONE STR TWO ON A BLOCK FACE, BUT SINCE IT'S SO, SUCH A LITTLE PERCENTAGE ON THAT BLOCK FACE JUST UP TO 14% IN INSTEAD OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING IN THE PAST GOING UP TO 25% AND MORE, UM, I THINK THAT, THAT, UM, AND, AND BEING THAT MR. LANG HAS BEEN IN WITH THIS AIRBNB FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS, UM, I, I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, THIS REQUEST. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF THERE'S, UH, NO ONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING PA CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 1 1 3 7. [01:00:01] I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL SITUATED AT 6 47 LEE STREET, APPLICANT BEING NATHAN LANG. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE U PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE ON ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THERE'S NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY, WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY BE INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY ADD VACANT STRUCTURES, SORRY. UM, THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE AND SUB AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AT ITS SHORT-TERM AS A SHORT AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES, CONFIRMS CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES, CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THAT OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY AS THEY ONLY RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT AND SUBMITTED THE STR APPLICATION SHORTLY AFTERWARD OR OTHER PROPERTIES. THE OWNER DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES AT THIS PROPERTY. F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SAW. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS LOCATED, IS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL W WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. UM, THE FACT THAT, UM, THE PREVIOUS PERMIT LAPSED BY ONE OR TWO DAYS, UM, DOESN'T SEEM QUITE FAIR THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED A RENEWAL. AND BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OVER THE 12 AND A HALF PERCENT, UH, BY CODE, UM, AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, SO I NORMALLY DON'T SUPPORT THESE KIND OF, UH, UH, VARIANCE REQUESTS EXCEPTIONS HERE. AND I WENT IN THINKING THAT I WASN'T, BUT HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, SEEING THE, THE ONE DAY LAPSE, UH, THE, HIS HISTORY OF OPERATING THIS PROPERTY, ALL THE SUPPORT HE GOT FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, THE, THE REALLY ALMOST NON-EXISTENT IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS HERE. UM, AND THEN THE HOT TAXES THAT THE CITY COLLECTS OF OVER $3,800 PER YEAR, I THINK IS MEANINGFUL. AND I SUPPORT. AND ALSO GIVEN THAT HE HAS TO COME UP FOR RENEWAL IN THREE YEARS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I'M SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE AS REQUESTED. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE? LET HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER NESS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I DON'T, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO ONE. UH, IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER THREE, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TYLER ADAM, PLANNER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 9. [01:05:01] LOCATED AT 4 1 4 MASON STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT MANUEL RAGO. UM, AND THIS IS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT LOCATED AT 4 1 4 MASON STREET. UH, THIS IS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND IT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4 1 4 MASON STREET. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UH, IT IS AN APPEAL TO, UH, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THIS INCLUDES REPORTING $0 IF NO REVENUE WAS COLLECTED, UH, IN MARCH OF 2025. PLATFORMS THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT ALSO NOW DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT. UH, ALL SHORT TERM OR ALL STR OPERATORS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUE REPORTS MONTHLY. UH, THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UH, STATES THAT REVENUE REPORTS WERE MISSING FROM JUNE, 2024 THROUGH FEBRUARY OF 2025. EIGHT NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE BETWEEN JULY, 2024 THROUGH MARCH 20, 25. AND A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON JUNE 30TH, 2025. UM, SECTION ONE SIX DASH 1 1 1 0 D STATES THE FAILURE TIMELY REPORT. HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WITHIN 90 DAY SHALL RESULT IN PERMIT REVOCATION. THIS PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON JULY 15TH, 2025. UH, AS OF SEPTEMBER 7TH. UH, THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW CURRENT IS, OR IT IS A TYPE TWO. THERE'S, IT IS, UH, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. IT IS CURRENT AS IT, IT IS CURRENT NOW. YES. THANK YOU. UM, IT IS A TYPE TWO, THERE ARE SEVEN UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE, AND THIS IS THE ONLY TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE WAS A CODE INVESTIGATION AUGUST 28TH, 2023 FOR OPERATING WITHOUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED AND OWNER COMPLIED IN MAY OF 2024. UM, THAT INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED. THERE IS A CURRENT INVESTIGATION, UM, ALSO WITHOUT OPERATING, ALSO FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UH, PENDING RESOLUTION OF, UM, THIS HEARING. THERE IS AN ACTIVE LISTING SITE PLAN AND THEN SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO FOLLOW. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL. UH, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE STAFF REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR THE VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. THE OWNER OPERATOR, UH, OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT VIOLATED THE STR ORDINANCE BY FAILING TO TIMELY REPORT REVENUES. AND THE OWNER OPERATOR FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE EVEN AFTER ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THEIR DELINQUENT STATUS. 33 NIGHT NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. UM, WE ACTUALLY DID RECEIVE THREE IN FAVOR THIS MORNING. UH, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPONDED IN FAVOR AS WELL. UH, NO RESPONSE FROM THE THREE CITYWIDE GROUPS. ALRIGHT, UH, SO, SO THE, ON THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, IT SAID THAT THE HOT TAX WAS NOT UP TO DATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 3RD, BUT CORRECT. I UPDATED THAT THIS MORNING AFTER VERIFYING WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE OVER THE WEEKEND. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MANNA, THEN BRAGMAN. SO, UH, I GUESS THIS WILL COME OUT MAYBE THROUGHOUT THE DIALOGUE HERE, BUT, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE CITY. UM, SO, UH, WHAT ARE OUR MODES OF NOTIFICATION, UM, TO THE APPLICANT'S, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THIS PROCESS HERE? AND SO, SO I'M SURE IT'S MORE THAN JUST AN EMAIL AND SO JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT ALL OF THOSE WERE PLEASE. SO THE PROCEDURE IS IF A, ONCE A PRIOR BECOMES 90 PLUS DAYS DELINQUENT, OUR THIRD PARTY SYSTEM AVENUE MAILS OUT NOTICES TO THE MAILING ADDRESS THAT WAS ON FILE FOR THE PERMIT RECORD AND FOR THIS PROPERTY. UM, AS TYLER MENTIONED, SEVEN NOTICES WERE MAILED FROM THE PERIODS BETWEEN AUGUST, JULY, 2024 THROUGH MARCH, 2025. AND THEN, UH, STAFF SENDS A FINAL NOTICE EMAIL, UM, THROUGH BILL ESSAY ON JUNE 30TH, 2020, 25 TO THE EMAIL THAT'S ON FILE. AND THEN WHEN PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE, THE REVOCATION NOTICE WAS ALSO EMAILED THROUGH THE BILL ESSAY SYSTEM. AND IS SNAIL MAIL ALSO USED IN THAT, IN ANY OF THOSE NOTIFICATIONS AS WELL? IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, ALL THE AVENUE NOTICES WERE SET VIA MAIL. VIA MAIL, OKAY. CORRECT. UM, SECOND QUESTION IS THE, UH, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DELINQUENT HOT TAX WHILE IT IS THAT THEY WEREN'T? AND SO WAS IT ZERO OR WAS IT TRULY, WAS THERE AMOUNTS THERE? UM, OUR SYSTEM HAD NO PAYMENTS MADE AT ALL, SO NO, BUT, UM, BUT AFTERWARD [01:10:01] WAS, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT IT WAS INDEED THERE WAS TAX OWED. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE RUNNING IT BUT JUST WEREN'T PAYING THE HOT TAXES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? AND THEN THE FINAL QUESTION IS, UM, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, ONCE THE LICENSE OR ONCE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED, UM, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING. UM, AND, AND THEN AT THAT POINT, DID THEY ALSO RENT IT OUT? UM, YEAH, WITHOUT PAYING THE HOT TAX. SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THOSE TWO NUANCES THERE. UH, COMMISSIONER, TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, UM, YES. THE REPORT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THIS MORNING FROM HIS PAYMENTS DO SHOW THAT, UM, THERE WERE, UM, REVENUES BEING GENERATED EACH OF THOSE MONTHS. THANK YOU. AND THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER, ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION. SO ONCE A PERMIT IS REVOKED, IF THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN APPEAL TO THE BOA, THE REVOCATION STANDS PER THE DECISION OF THE BO OA. SO AT THE TIME HE CONTIN, HE CAN'T CONTINUE LISTING UN UNTIL THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION. THANK YOU. OKAY. BUT, UM, BUT THE ONE YEAR WHERE HE CAN APPLY AGAIN STARTED ON WHAT DATE? THE DAY WE REVOKED IT ON JULY 15TH, 2025. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF, UH, THE THREE IN FAVOR, WHAT WERE THE ADDRESSES? WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT. IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER SHORTLY. ARE THOSE, ARE THEY THE GREEN CHECK MARKS THAT ARE ON THE, UH, SCREEN RIGHT NOW? OH, ON THE SCREEN? YEAH. THE PLUS PLUS SIGNS, YES. PLUS SIGNS. YEAH, THEY SWITCH IT UP ON US SOMETIMES. FINALLY SEE TWO. THERE IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU . OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? HEARING NONE, LET HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR STR. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MANU PARAGO AND I AM THE OWNER OF 4 1 4 MASON STREET. UM, I TRY TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK, BUT SOMETIMES WE, SOME THINGS CAN SLIP. UM, I MANAGE THE GUEST COMMUNICATIONS AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. MY WIFE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING ME A LITTLE BIT WITH PAYING THE HOT TAXES, AND WE HAVE FIVE DAUGHTERS, 16, 14, 11, A 2-YEAR-OLD AND THREE MONTH NEWBORN. THE HOUSE IS TOO SMALL FOR US TO LIVE THERE, AND AT ONE POINT WE'VE BEEN TRYING AND LOOKING AT RENTING LONG TERM. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE SURROUNDING HOMES, UH, IT'S HARD TO GET A LONG TERM, UH, TENANT THAT WILL PAY TO COVER, UH, COST OF MORTGAGE AND, AND TAXES, ET CETERA. SO WE CHOSE TO, TO GO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ROUTE. LAST YEAR THERE WAS, UH, I GUESS A NEWS THAT, AND THAT MY WIFE MISINTERPRETED THINKING THAT AIRBNB WAS PAYING DIRECTLY THE WHOLE TAXES TO THE CITY. WHEN WE CAME TO LEARN, THAT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN UNTIL IT STARTED HAPPENING UNTIL MARCH OF 2025. WE THOUGHT THAT WAS ALREADY MARCH OF 2024. UM, THE LETTERS, I, I HEARD, UH, THE TEAM FROM THE CITY MENTION THAT WE RECEIVED SOME LETTERS FROM AVENUE. THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ALMOST LOOK LIKE THEY'RE JUNK MAIL. AND, UH, THE NOTICES THAT WE RECEIVE IN THE EMAIL, UH, WITH MY PERSONAL EMAIL AND THE 90 DAY NOTICE, I, THEY COME HERE ACTUALLY ON JULY 15TH WHEN I REALIZED, UH, THAT THAT WAS THE TIME THAT EXPIRING. AND EVEN THOUGH THE, THE STAFF, WHICH IS FANTASTIC, THEY'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BUT GREAT THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THEM. THEY TOLD ME NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS THE DAY THAT, THAT IT WAS TOO LATE. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE, HOW TO MAKE THOSE, UH, THOSE PAYMENTS AND TRY TO, TO GET BACK CAUGHT UP. UM, DURING THAT TIME THAT WE GOT THAT NOTICE, MY WIFE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR FOUR WEEKS IN BED REST BECAUSE WE ARE OUR, UH, HIGH RISK PREGNANCY. AND THEN OUR FIFTH DAUGHTER WAS IN THE NICU FOR SIX WEEKS. SO [01:15:01] I EVEN HAVE A, A LETTER FROM THE HOSPITAL THAT CAN PROVE THAT. SO THAT 90 DAY NOTICE, WE WERE LIVING IN BASICALLY A HOSPITAL. MY WIFE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL, I WAS TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF FOUR OTHER DAUGHTERS. SO WE HAVE THERE EVEN LIKE UNTIL JULY 18TH. UM, SO WE HAD LIKE, LIKE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REALLY KEPT US FROM BEING, STAYING ON TOP OF SOME THINGS. AND I, WE TRULY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. UH, I SPOKE TO MULTIPLE OF MY NEIGHBORS. IN FACT, I HAVE LIKE FIVE OF THEM, OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT THEY ACTUALLY SIGNED THIS PETITION. BUT THEN I HAVE A TOTAL OF 11 ON THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT, UM, GOVERNMENT HERE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY, THEY'RE IN FAVOR AND, UH, SO IT'S JUST NOT LIKE I GO TO THE ASSOCIATION MEETINGS. THEY KNOW ME AND EVERYBODY SIGNED IT WITHOUT ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, HILL ALLIANCE, ROSEMARY HILL, HE ALSO KNOWS THAT I, WE'VE BEEN TAKING VERY GOOD, GOOD CARE OF THIS PROPERTY. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY INCIDENTS. AND THIS IS ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY TO GRANT THE EXCEPTION TO, TO REINSTATE THE PERMIT. UH, IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS OF MY PROPERTY COMPARED TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND WE PUT MONEY INTO THIS PROPERTY, WE JUST REPENTED IT THIS YEAR, SPENT $7,000 REPAINTING IT. FIXING IS, IS ALL WOOD IN THE OUTSIDE FIXING THE WINDOW TRIMS, ET CETERA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT, UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF THE FEW NEIGHBORS THAT ACTUALLY TAKES GOOD CARE OF THE PROPERTY. UH, AND THAT'S I THINK WHY THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE IS IN FAVOR OF REINSTATING THIS STR. UM, AND WE ARE CARING NOW AND WE, LIKE I SAID, LIKE WE, WE LIKE, WE JUST PERSONAL REASONS GOT IN THE, ON THE WAY OF STAYING ON TOP OF, ON ALL OF OTHER MATTERS. WE APOLOGIZE FOR IT AND APOLOGIZE ON THE BEHALF OF MY WIFE THAT SHE CANNOT BE HERE. SHE'S HOME TAKING CARE OF TWO BABIES RIGHT NOW. BUT WE, WE TRY TO MAKE IT RIGHT AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE VIEW THE, OUR REASSURANCE THAT GOING FORWARD, WE'LL WE'LL STAY ON TOP OF IT. IN FACT, I THINK I OVERPAY BECAUSE, EH, I PAID FOR SINCE MARCH 25, 2 THROUGH LAST MONTH. AND I THINK I OVERPAY BECAUSE I THINK I'M DOUBLE PAY. I THINK AIRBNB PAID THE CITY AND I THINK I PAID AS WELL, SO WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO FIGURE THAT OUT OVER THE LAST TWO. AND, AND FROM MARCH, 2024 TO MARCH, 2025, ACTUALLY AIRBNB DIDN'T COLLECT TAXES ON MY BEHALF. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGHT WITH THEM. WE NOT FIGHT TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION AND FIND WHY THEY DIDN'T COLLECT THE TAXES. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR THREE MONTHS AND THERE'S NO RESOLUTION YET. THEY CANNOT FIGURE IT OUT. SO I HAVE PAID THE TAXES OUTTA MY OWN POCKET AND I THINK WE HAVE ACTUALLY DOUBLE PAY FOR THE LAST FIVE MONTHS BECAUSE AIRBNB NOW TELLS ME AND THE CITY TELLS ME THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING. SO, UM, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, I THINK THE CITY NOW HAS EVEN MORE MONEY THAN WHERE I WAS SUPPOSED TO. SO WE, WE HOPE YOU RECONSIDER OUR REQUEST. ALRIGHT, THANK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. DID IS, IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT THERE WAS AN OVERPAYMENT? UM, IF AIRBNB PAY, I PAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. HOLD ON, SIR. YEAH. UH, WHEN AN APPLICANT REPORTS IN AVENUE, OH, WHEN AN APPLICANT REPORTS AN AVENUE, IT'S WHAT THEY REPORTED, IT DOESN'T DOUBLE PAY OR TAKE DOUBLE PAYMENTS. OKAY. SO WHEN, SO THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS AIRBNB MAY HAVE COLLECTED THE HOT TAX RECENTLY, UH, AND THEN SUBMITTED THAT TO THE CITY. I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF THAT HAPPENS OR NOT. NOT REALLY. WELL, I'M SURE YOU'LL GET, UH, A RESOLUTION. I'LL FIGURE IT OUT. SURE. OKAY. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OH, Z IS THIS YOUR ONLY SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY? YES, I HAVE A SMALL APARTMENT NEARBY, BUT IT'S RENTED LONG TERM. I HAVE A A, A STEP ONE THERE, BUT IT'S RENTED LONG TERM. YES. I DON'T, I DON'T OWN PROPERTIES EVERYWHERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IS WHERE IS A FAMILY MAN. OKAY. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I HAVEN'T, JUST SOME CLARIFICATION TO THE STAFF. IS THIS THE ONLY STR UH, TWO ON THAT BLOCK FACE? YES. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIR MAY JUST MAKE A COMMENT. YES, ABSOLUTELY. UM, ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE PAST FOR, UM, THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, UH, FOR S STR ONES AND SDR TWOS, UM, I THINK HAVE CONFUSED MANY OF THOSE USERS. UM, I THINK THAT WHEN THE CHANGE OCCURRED, 'CAUSE I HEAR THIS FROM MANY, UM, PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIKE WHAT YOUR SITUATION IS, UM, THAT [01:20:01] IT WAS VERY CONFUSING WHEN THOSE CHANGES OCCURRED. UM, SO I I BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY, HEY, I THOUGHT AIRBNB WAS TAKING CARE OF THIS AND, AND, UH, I THINK THAT FOR OUR DEPARTMENT, THERE HAS TO BE A, MAYBE WHEN WE DO LOOK AT IT IN A UDC CODE, UH, SOME OF THOSE CHANGES MAY HAVE TO BE COVERED ON THERE. I KNOW THAT THREE MONTHS IS A LOT OF TIME FOR YOU TO LOOK AT AND SAY, HEY, I GOT THIS NOTICE, LET ME TAKE CARE OF THIS. BUT SOMETIMES THINGS DO HAPPEN FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, AND I HOPE THAT, THAT, UM, YOU CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE CITY AIRBNB AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT SINCE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE ON THAT BLOCK FACE. AND, UM, SEEING THAT YOU BROUGHT SOME OF YOUR EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE THAT WOULD KIND OF MAKE IT KIND OF FOGGY OF WHAT IS GOING ON. UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT YOUR REQUESTS. THANK YOU, MR. EZ. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. MAY MR. IS COMMISSIONER, I JUST, MR. I, UM, CLARIFICATION REAL QUICK? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. UM, I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT WHEN WE ISSUE PERMITS THAT ARE APPROVED, UH, STAFF SENDS A FOLLOW UP EMAIL IDENTIFYING THEIR TAX PAYER D AND CLARIFYING THAT THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO REPORT HOT TAXES ON BEHALF AND THAT AIRBNB AND PLATFORMS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO DO THAT AND PROVIDE THE CONTACT AND EMAIL COMMUNICATION FOR AVENUE ON HOW TO REPORT MONTHLY HOT TAXES ON A REGULAR BASIS. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAYA. SO THE QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF AND JUST SOME JUST GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. SO, SO, YOU KNOW, UM, PEOPLE STARTING SMALL BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS, DO WE HAVE ONGOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT TEACHES PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, HOW THESE WORK, YOU KNOW, ON A, ON A REGULAR BASIS TO SAY, HERE'S, HERE'S HOW THIS WORKS. AND I KNOW WE HAVE ADVOCACY ADVOCATE GROUPS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT DO THIS, BUT DOES THE CITY DO THAT IN GENERAL? SO THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. SECOND QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, UM, SO, SO WE'VE, WE, IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE TYPES OF COMMUNICATION THAT WE, THAT WE DO THE OUTREACH WITH AND, YOU KNOW, UM, AND SO, SO, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE'RE DOING A LOT OF THE SNAIL MAIL, UH, OR POSTAL SERVICES, SORRY, POSTAL SERVICE, UH, OUTREACH. UM, WITH REGARDS TO, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL THING. I KNOW THAT, UM, IN, IN, IN A BIG BUSINESS WORLD, YOU KNOW, THE, IF THE EMAIL DIDN'T WORK AND THE, AND THE MAIL DIDN'T WORK, I WAS ON THE PHONE CALLING THEM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF AS THE LAST RESORT, TRY TO MAKE THAT, THAT PIECE. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WOULD BE AS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH AND REVIEW WHAT ARE THE OTHER MESSAGES, YOU KNOW, UM, OR POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR REACHING OUT TO, TO THOSE MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NOTING THAT THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY ON THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL, UH, THAT WE'LL SAY THE OTHER GROUPS ARE SO SORRY. YEAH. SO I, I I CAN START WITH YOUR FIRST QUESTION. SO YOU, WE CERTAINLY HAVE MATERIAL THAT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AND WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE STR ASSOCIATION OF SAN ANTONIO AS WE TRY TO PUSH OUT INFORMATION ON THE TRANSITION AS IT HAPPENED, UH, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT TO LAUREN'S POINT, WE DELIVER A PERSONALIZED EMAIL THAT WALKS PEOPLE THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. WE PROVIDE LINKS TO THE WEBSITES THEY NEED TO REPORT. UM, YOU KNOW, IN PART, AT LEAST BASED ON COMMUNICATION OVER THE YEARS FROM THE BOARD, WE HAVE REALLY EXPANDED WHAT WE TRY TO DO TO GET THE WORD OUT. UM, WE HAVE EMAILED COMMUNICATIONS, WE HAVE MAILED COMMUNICATIONS. I, I'LL BE BLUNT, WE'VE GOT ABOUT 3,700 ST OPERATING IN SAN ANTONIO AND I HAVE FOUR STAFF MEMBERS. UH, I DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PLACE PHONE CALLS TO EVERY OPERATOR TO REMIND THEM TO PAY THEIR TAXES. UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN, IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY DIDN'T GET THE EMAILS. IT, IT ALWAYS SEEMS THAT WE GET THE EMAIL WITH THE PERMIT. WE ALWAYS SEEM TO GET THE EMAIL THAT SAYS YOU'RE GOOD TO GO, BUT WE NEVER SEEM TO GET THE EMAIL THAT SAYS YOU'RE TAX DELINQUENT OR YOU'RE REVOKED. IT'S THE SAME EMAIL THAT IT GOES OUT TO. UM, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, YOU KNOW, UDC AMENDMENTS CERTAINLY CAN BE A, AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE PROCESSES. THE 90 DAY WINDOW THAT'S NOT CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 35, THAT'S IN CHAPTER 16. SO UNFORTUNATELY THE UDC AMENDMENT CYCLE IS NOT GONNA BE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THAT. UM, BUT I AM AT THIS POINT IN TIME CONFIDENT IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE A ROBUST OUTREACH, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUING AND, AND REVIEWING AND MANAGING THESE PERMITS. AND, AND, AND I, I AND I RECOGNIZE THE FRUSTRATION 'CAUSE IT IS KIND OF, UM, DIFFICULT. AND, AND SO I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, I'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS, IS RETURN RECEIPT REQUIRED WITH REGARDS [01:25:01] TO EMAILS AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, PLEASE, YOU, YOU NEED TO CLICK ON THIS BUTTON TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE THE CORRECT EMAIL AND THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THIS EMAIL WILL BE WHERE WE USE ALL OF OUR FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS TO, TO BE ABLE TO CHECK THAT BOX. AND SO DO WE DO THAT BY CHANCE? SO WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS, UH, THAT GO OUT ARE THROUGH OUR PERMITTING SYSTEM AND THAT IS NOT A FUNCTIONALITY WRAPPED INTO THAT. SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING TODAY, . ALRIGHT. SO, UH, WE, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, I DUNNO IF I'VE ASKED, I DON'T RECALL. DO WE HAVE VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UM, I'M, I THINK THAT WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO A MOTION ON THIS. UH, IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MANA, MR. MANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 9. I MOVED AT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 4 1 4 MASON STREET, APPLICANT BEING MANUEL RAGO BECAUSE THE, UH, INFORMATION PROVIDED, UH, BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 16 DASH D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MADDEN. SO, UM, NORMALLY I, YOU KNOW, I, I, SO, SO I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE HERE. AND SO WHENEVER I GO DOWN THIS PATH, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY THAT'S A DIALOGUE AND THAT'S WHERE I RIDE. AND SO HOWEVER THAT SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF PIECES HERE THAT I THINK ARE RELEVANT. UM, AND SO, SO ONE BEING THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THIS AND I RARELY TRY TO GO AGAINST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. AND THE SECOND IS THAT, UM, AS WAS BROUGHT UP BY MY COLLEAGUE, UM, THAT THIS IS THE ONLY SHORTTERM RENTAL ON THIS BLOCK. AND SO IT'S A MATTER OF JUST A DELAY BEFORE IT WOULD THIS APPLICANT BE APPLIED AGAIN. SO BECAUSE THOSE TWO THINGS I'LL BE PUT IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZUNE. YEAH, SO I'M, I MIRROR MIKE, MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS THERE, UH, EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE CITY'S PART AND THE NOTIFICATION, HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THERE WERE SOME EXTENUATING PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE, UH, THE LAPSE OF THE TAXES HERE. UM, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT PROBABLY HAS LEARNED IN KIND OF A LITTLE LESSON HERE AND, AND HOPEFULLY WE WON'T SEE HIM UH, BEFORE THE BOARD AGAIN WITH ANY, UH, ISSUES HERE. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'M GONNA ADD THIS AND I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. UH, I'M, I, MY FIRST SON WAS IN NICU FOR A MONTH AND I REMEMBER I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. GOING TO SEE HIM EVERY DAY. SO, UM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YES, I AGREE WITH THE APPEAL. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE PFIZER OF FACT. UH, APPEAL PASSES. UH, NINE TO ONE. UH, THANK YOU. WE HOPE TO NOT SEE YOU AGAIN. YOU WANNA SEE ME AGAIN? THANK YOU TO THE BOARD. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES OFFICE. RIGHT, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS REQUESTED BY MITCHELL GONZALEZ, MITCHELL GONZALEZ AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL DUE TO HAW COLLECTION LOCATED AT 7 0 4 CUNEY WAY IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7 0 4 CUNEY WAY SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025. PLATFORMS THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT ALSO NOW DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT. ALL STR OPERATORS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FINAL FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BEXAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THE APPLICANT IS CURRENT ON THEIR HOT AS OF SEPTEMBER, 2025. SEVEN. NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE FROM JULY, 2024 THROUGH MARCH, 2025. AND THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON JULY 14TH, 2025. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE 90 DAYS. AN ONLY PARTIAL PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER RECEIVING THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY [01:30:01] ON JULY 14TH, 2025. THEREFORE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON JULY 29TH, 2025. THERE IS A TOTAL OF SIX UNITS ON THE BLOCK. PHASE ONE ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO PERMIT IS ALREADY ON THE BLOCK BEING SEVEN 16 CONNIE WAY ISSUED ON MARCH 14TH, 2023. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CODE VIOLATIONS AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES HAVE AN ACTIVE LISTING AS OF TODAY. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND A TOTAL OF 38 MAIL NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION AND THREE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND FINANCE IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY HOT ACCOUNT QUESTIONS. AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR A TYPE ONE STR? YES, TYPE ONE. OKAY, THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR STR. HOW Y'ALL DOING? UH, MITCHELL GONZALEZ. UH, I HAVE THE TYPE ONE ON 7 0 4 COONEY WAY. UM, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPERTY. UM, I'VE HAD THE PERMIT FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS. UH, MY WIFE IS A TRAVEL NURSE SO WE ARE THERE AND BACK. UM, SHE, UM, WE'VE BEEN OBVIOUSLY WE MAINTAINED IT. WE BROUGHT IT BACK UP. I PROBABLY PUT, I PROBABLY PUT ABOUT 30 TO 40 K RENOVATIONS WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. UM, WE'RE PROBABLY ONE OF THE NICEST HOUSES ON THAT BLOCK. UM, NO COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS. OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE MY NUMBER. I'M IN CLEAR COMMUNICATION WITH THEM 'CAUSE I DON'T ALLOW PARTIES. SO IF THERE IS SOME TYPE OF PARTY GOING ON, THEY DO CALL ME, BUT IT REALLY, IT HASN'T HAPPENED. UM, WE RENT IT OUT, LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE'RE NOT HOME. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, THE REASON THAT THIS GOT, UM, THE REASON THAT THIS GOT REVOKED WAS BECAUSE, UH, KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE LAST GUY THAT WAS KIND OF CRAZY WITH THE WAY HE WAS TALKING, BUT LIKE I, MY WIFE GOT PREGNANT IN DECEMBER OR I'M SORRY NOVEMBER AND WE JUST HAD THE BABY AND SHE'S IN CHARGE OF MAINTAINING THE HOT. AND SO, UM, SHE HAD TOLD ME BACK IN MARCH THAT AIRBNB WAS GONNA START COLLECTING IT. SO I WAS LIKE, OKAY, GREAT. LIKE WE DON'T GOTTA WORRY ABOUT FILING ANYMORE. AND SO WE JUST KIND OF LEFT IT THAT WAY. UM, AND THEN IN JULY I GOT AN EMAIL SAYING THAT WE WERE, UH, DELINQUENT. I THOUGHT WE WERE ONLY DELINQUENT. UH, I GOT IT IN JULY 14TH, SO I THOUGHT WE WERE ONLY DELINQUENT NOVEMBER, BUT WE WERE DELINQUENT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER. SO I ONLY DID NOVEMBER. AND THEN A MONTH LATER, JULY 29TH, I GOT ANOTHER EMAIL. UH, SO A TOTAL OF TWO EMAILS. UH, THE SECOND EMAIL WAS LIKE, YOU'RE REVOKED. AND I WAS JUST KIND OF LIKE, WHAT? LIKE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAD HAPPENED. AND UM, I REALIZED THAT WE MISSED DECEMBER WHEN WE FIRST, WHEN WE GOT THAT FIRST EMAIL. UM, I DID GET A COUPLE MAILED, UM, THINGS BY THE CITY, BUT AGAIN, UM, I THOUGHT THEY WERE JUNK MAIL. I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY WERE FROM SAN ANTONIO 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE SAN ANTONIO ON THERE. IT HAS SOME RANDOM COMPANY NAME ON THERE. UM, SO WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WE WERE DELINQUENT UNTIL THEN. BUT IF YOU DO LOOK BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2024, WE WERE ON TIME EVERY MONTH AND WE'VE HAD THIS, UM, PERMIT FOR GOING ON TWO YEARS. UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY SITUATION. UH, NO COMPLAINTS, UH, NO VIOLATIONS, NO UH, POLICE OR ANY TYPE OF INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY. UH, WE HAVE FOUR CAMERAS ALL THE WAY AROUND, SO IF ANYTHING HAPPENS, WE'RE AWARE OF IT. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY CASE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER MANNING. SO, SO IS THIS YOUR HOME? I MEAN, YES. YES, I HAVE MY ID AS WELL MATCHES THAT AS WELL. SO WE'RE, WE'RE THERE AND BACK, LIKE WE TRAVEL A LOT WITH MY WIFE, SO RIGHT NOW SHE'S ON MATERNITY LEAVE OBVIOUSLY. BUT YES, THIS IS OUR HOME. OKAY. SO, UM, JUST SO BY BEING, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TRAVEL, THE TRAVEL PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO. YEAH. TYPE ONE IS WHERE YOU LIVE THERE AND YOU ALSO BUTTE. SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE PERMIT WE HAVE THERE FOR IT. WELL MY WIFE, WE, I TRAVEL WITH MY WIFE A LOT FOR HER WORK. SO WE'RE NOT THERE ALL THE TIME. AND THEN WHEN WE DO GET BOOKED, UM, IF IT'S BOOKED ON A DAY THAT WE ARE IN TOWN, WE'LL STAY WITH THE IN-LAWS. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S, WELL LET'S, LET'S GET TO THE, THE ROOT OF THE QUESTION IS HOW OFTEN ARE YOU AWAY FROM THE HOUSE? I WOULD SAY MAYBE A COUPLE WEEKS OUT OF THE MONTH, MAYBE LIKE TWO WEEKS OUT OF THE MONTH. BUT IT REALLY VARIES DEPENDING ON WHERE SHE'S NEEDED AT. SO SHOULD THIS BE A TYPE TWO OR, OR TYPE ONE? LIKE IF, IF THEY, IF THIS IS HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE BUT ONE OR TWO WEEKS A MONTH THEY'RE GOING TO OTHER PLACES ON HIS FOR HIS WIFE'S WORK, IS IT STILL CONSIDERED A TYPE ONE? YEAH, WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT A TYPE ONE IS A [01:35:01] FACILITY OR A HOME IN WHICH THE OWNER IS GENERALLY PRESENT. SO WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE FOLKS IN THE PAST THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY'RE IN THE MILITARY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THERE SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND THEN DEPLOYED FOR A COUPLE MONTHS. BUT IF THEY'RE GENERALLY PRESENT, UH, WE WOULD ALLOW THAT AS A TYPE ONE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT. AND THEN, UH, ON COMMISSIONER MAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OH, SORRY TO ADD IN. UM, WELL, HOLD, HOLD ON A SECOND. SORRY. OKAY, COMMISSIONER MAN. SO YEAH, SO I GUESS, SO THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT, THAT THIS IS BEING, UM, APPROPRIATELY, UM, I GUESS TYPED AS A TYPE ONE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT IS THAT'S BEEN STATED BY THE APPLICANT HERE. YEAH. IF, IF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE PLACE FOR ONE TO TWO WEEKS A MONTH, THEN YES THAT WOULD BE FINE. AND, AND SO, SO THE REASON THE APPLICANT'S HERE IS BECAUSE THE HOT TAX, UM, DELINQUENCY, IS THAT CORRECT? AND UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO MY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, SO I I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. YOU SAID THAT, UM, WHEN THERE ARE BOOKINGS, WHEN YOU ARE HERE IN TOWN, YOU GO AND STAY SOMEPLACE ELSE? WITH MY IN-LAWS, OH YES, THEY HAVE EXTRA ROOM. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S ALSO A SOURCE OF INCOME FOR US. SO LIKE, IT'S NOT JUST LIKE, UM, IT'S A SOURCE OF INCOME FOR US. SO WHEN THERE IS STAYS THAT WE CAN'T CANCEL, OBVIOUSLY 'CAUSE WE GET CHARGED. IF WE CANCEL 'EM, WE'LL STAY WITH THE IN-LAWS AND WE HAVE LIKE A WHOLE THING SET UP THERE. SO IT'S NOT AN INCONVENIENCE FOR US TO BE HONEST. UM, IT'S JUST MORE OF IF WE GET A BOOKING, GREAT. IF WE DON'T, THEN WE'RE STAYING AT HOME. SO JUST A FOLLOW UP. SO WHEN YOU HAVE BOOKINGS AND YOU'RE HERE IN TOWN, YOU ARE NEVER STAYING IN THE HOUSE WHEN YOU HAVE GUESTS THERE? NO, NO. 'CAUSE IT'S A, I DON'T WANNA BE PART OF THAT. LIKE WE'RE PEOPLE THERE. WELL IT'S, IT, THIS SOUNDS LIKE THIS, THIS NEEDS TO BE, UH, LOOKED AT AS THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH SDRS, . YEP. WE'RE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REACH OUT AND HAVE A CONVERSATION THEN. YEAH. SO, SO THE WAY, JUST SO YOU KNOW MM-HMM . A TYPE ONE MEANS THAT YOU'RE, THE INTENT IS THAT YOU'RE THERE WHEN PEOPLE ARE STAYING THERE. NOT, YOU'RE NOT THERE. OH, I WASN'T, I WASN'T AWARE THAT, WELL, YOU REALLY NEED TO TALK TO STAFF AFTER TODAY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE MORE ISSUES THAT COME UP, UH, AFTER TODAY. BUT CHAIR, JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS OTHERWISE. SO HE IS FOLLOWING THE CODE FOR AN STR ONE IN THAT GENERALLY THE WORD WAS GENERALLY PRESENT AND IT DID IT, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE HOUSE. 'CAUSE WE HAD A CASE LIKE THIS SOME MONTHS AGO. YES. AND, AND SO RIGHT NOW THE CODE SAYS THAT HE CAN CAN HAVE IT CHAIR ONE. IT DOES. SO WHAT, WHAT I WOULD, WHAT I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO DO TODAY IS CONSIDER A TYPE ONE BEFORE YOU. WE WILL LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A TYPE ONE OR A TYPE TWO, BUT THE BOARD TODAY SHOULD PROCEED AS IF THIS IS A LAWFUL TYPE ONE. AND, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT HIM ASKING BECAUSE HE SKIPPED SOME PAYMENTS THAT HE DIDN'T PAY HIS PAYMENTS ON TIME. WELL, I'M GONNA ASK NOW THAT'S THE LINE OF QUESTIONING I HAVE FOR, FOR FINANCE. SO HE, APPLICANT STATED THAT, THAT HE WAS MISSING DECEMBER IN, UH, UH, IN NOVEMBER OF 20 23, 20 24. WELL, HOLD ON. UH, SO HE, SO JUST FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE ON THE, ON THE POWERPOINT HE HAD, HE WAS ORIGINALLY DELINQUENT FOR NOVEMBER OF 2023, DECEMBER OF 2023 AND THEN NOVEMBER OF 24 THROUGH FEBRUARY OF 25. BECAUSE THE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF 2023 WAS ONLY TWO MONTHS AND NOT THREE MONTHS. THIS DIDN'T REALLY START KICKING IN UNTIL NOVEMBER OF 2024. THAT'S WHEN HE HIT 90 DAYS. AND THAT'S WHEN Y'ALL STARTED INITIATING COMPLIANCE? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN THE APPLICANT MADE THE PAYMENT FROM NOVEMBER, HOW DOES THAT, DOES THAT CLEAR IT OR DOES THAT GO BACK TO HIM MISSING TOO AND THEN WHEN HE MISSED DECEMBER, THAT KICKED IT IN AGAIN. SO, SO PART OF THE MAIL NOTICES SENT OUT BY AVENUE, THEY IDENTIFY THE MONTHS AND PERIODS YOU ARE DELINQUENT FOR AND THAT'S HOW STAFF VERIFIES IF THEY BECAME CURRENT IS BASED OFF THE LETTER THE AVENUE IS SENT OUT OF THE MONTHS THEY ARE MISSING. AND, AND AS AN ASIDE, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO, TO JUST ETERNALLY BE MISSING TWO MONTHS AND, AND NEVER REALLY HAVE THAT THIRD ONE KICK IN AND THEN KIND OF SKIRT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE 90 DAYS? WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THAT INSTANCE? UH, LET ME SAY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THAT INSTANCE AND WE'RE PRETTY GOOD AT CATCHING IT, [01:40:01] IS YOU WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MAILED NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY UP UNTIL YOU GO TO RENEW YOUR PERMIT. OKAY? YOU RENEW YOUR PERMIT AND WE SEE THAT THERE'S MISSING MONTHS. YOU'RE NOT GETTING A PERMIT UNTIL THERE ARE NO MISSING MONTHS. OKAY. JUST, I JUST CURIOUS. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ, I'M JUST CURIOUS, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? 'CAUSE IT SAYS DENVER HEIGHTS IS, IS IN OPPOSITION AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY. UH, GOOD QUESTION. UM, SO I DID CALL THEM. I DIDN'T EMAIL THEM AND I DID NOT GET A CALL BACK. I DID SEND AN EMAIL OUT AND I AM WAITING FOR THAT TO GET REF. I DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY SO I GUESS THEY JUST DENIED ME. BUT I DID CALL MULTIPLE TIMES AND THAT VOICEMAILS, UM, NO RE NO RESPONSE. I DID EMAIL AND I'M STILL WAITING ON A RESPONSE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I WAS JUST CONFIRMING. SO THE TYPE ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE BLOCK DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? LIKE A BLOCK TWO. SO THAT COULD BE, UM, AS MANY TYPE ONES AS THE FIT ON THE BLOCK. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. ANY VOICEMAILS? ANYONE SIGN THE SPEECH? IT'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S GO TO A MOTION. SO, UM, MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, SHOULD WE CONSIDER, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT UM, REACHED BACK OUT TO, UM, DENVER HEIGHTS, UM, TO GET THEIR INPUT? UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MAY BE RELEVANT HERE IN THIS CASE TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS MAYBE THAT THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION AND MAYBE THEY HAVE SOME OF THE, SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE TO HOW THE HOUSE IS BEING USED AND, YOU KNOW, AND ANYWAYS, I I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PERSONALLY. OKAY. WELL THERE ARE UH, 10 OF US HERE. IF THERE'S ANOTHER COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A CONTINUANCE, PLEASE SPEAK UP. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A CONTINUANCE. SO THERE'S TWO. SO, UM, HOW LONG, HOW LONG WOULD YOU NEED, SIR? UH, I ALREADY SENT THE EMAIL OUT. IF THEY DON'T RESPOND TO THAT, I'M GONNA TRY TO CUT, TRY TO KEEP CALLING. IT'S JUST ONE POINT OF CONTACT AND ONE EMAIL. SO, UM, AND HE HAS AN A OL EMAIL, SO I'M NOT SURE LIKE IF HE'S CHECKING IT OR WHAT THE WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I I, I'M JUST GONNA KEEP TRYING TO REACH OUT AND I CAN TRY AS HARD AS I CAN TO GET SOME TYPE OF RESPONSE 'CAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON WHY THEY WOULD BE IN OPPOSITION 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD FROM THEM. OKAY, WELL, UH, TODAY IS THE EIGHTH. THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE HAVE IS ON THE 22ND AND ON THE 30TH NOW. SO IS THERE A DATE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE 22ND OR THE 30TH? THE 22ND SHOULD WORK. THE 22ND WILL WORK STAFF. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? ARE THEY, ARE WE ALL BOOKED UP FOR THE 22ND? UH, THAT'LL BE 13 CASES TOTAL, BUT, UM, YEAH, THAT'S HOW WE PROBABLY DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF SEPTEMBER 22ND? MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. WE WILL SEE YOU AND IF IN A FEW WEEKS, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU WITH TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 AT 4 2 2 HEARTLINE DRIVE IN CONSUL DISTRICT TWO. THE APPLICANT IS ARNOLDO URIBE. A REQUEST FOR ONE FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL ON A NORTHERN SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE LIMITED TO THE AS-BUILT PORTION. TWO OF 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ELIMINATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. AND THREE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THE ZONE AND A C TWO NA WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE SALES, SERVICE AND STORAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN AUSTIN HIGHWAY AND NORTHEAST I 35 AND LOOP FOUR 10 ON HEARTLINE DRIVE. THIS CASE IS A RESULT OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION FOR THE NON PERMITTED USES OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE SERVICE AND STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY DUMP STORAGE OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY. THESE USES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE C3 NA AND R FIVE BASED ZONING IN DISTRICT. THIS INVESTIGATION TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR [01:45:01] REZONING A PLAN AMENDMENT AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVIEW. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO C TWO NACD COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE STOR SERVICE AND STORAGE WITH A SITE PLAN THAT APPROVED A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AND A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF THE FRONT YARD. THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE NUMBER OF FRONT DRIVEWAYS TO TWO TRAFFIC, REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AND CONCLUDED THAT NO ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AND NO SITE VISION ISSUE EXISTS. AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE REAR AND SIDE YARD, HOWEVER, THE CONTINUATION OF THAT FENCE PASSED THE FRONT FACADE REQUIRES A FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THIS IS A SITE LINE HIGHLIGHTING THE AREAS BEFORE THE BOARD FOR REVIEW AND AN OVERALL AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW. THIS IS ONE OF THE DRIVEWAYS THAT IS KEPT. THE PREVIOUS PHOTO, I BELIEVE IS THE ONE THAT WAS ELIMINATED. AND THE, THE NORTHERN MERS, UH, MOST, UM, DRIVEWAY IS THE SECOND DRIVEWAY THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. THIS IS THE FENCE INTO THE FRONT FACADE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE. AND THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF IT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE AND THE REAR. THIS IS THE AREA FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFENSE MATERIAL AND BUFFER STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE DEFENSE MATERIAL UTILIZED IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY AND APPROVE 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 THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FRONT YARD PRIVACY FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS A FENCE WILL CREATE A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF MAIL 36 NOTICES, ONE RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. THIS IS IN OPPOSITION WITH NO CLEAR REASONING. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. MANA. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO MAYBE JUST COMMENT IN GENERAL. UM, SO WHEN IT IS THAT WE HAVE A CASE THAT COMES BEFORE US THAT UM, WE'LL SAY RECEIVED LIKE A, A, A CD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO KIND OF GET SOME CASE INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S PRESENTED IN FRONT OF PLANNING SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE LARGER AS WE COME TO THESE. UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I GUESS THAT QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO GET THE CD, WAS THERE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND DID ANYBODY PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY A COUPLE TIMES HERE AND SO, SO DID, WAS THERE ANY DIALOGUE? UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE UM, YOU, I'LL SAY THAT, UM, TO HAVE YOU, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WAS DONE UN PERMITTED AND THEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE CITY TO GET A CD TO BASICALLY ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. UM, AND SO THERE WAS SOME REASON WHY IT WAS, I GUESS WHY IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND SO, SO YOU KNOW, JUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT WORKFLOW OF YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, I GUESS MY PREMISE OF THE QUESTION IS, WAS THERE ANY UH, UM, UM, OPPOSITION WHEN IT WAS REACHING FOR THE CD COMPONENT AS OF THE CASE ITSELF? SO I CAN GIVE A BRIEF, UM, A BRIEF ON THE ZONING SINCE I WAS PART OF THAT. IT WAS REZONED ONLY LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. UM, THEY DID REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORS. THERE WAS ORIGINALLY OPPOSITION JUST BECAUSE OF THERE WERE SOME CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT THEY RESOLVED THAT, THEY ENDED UP GOING DOOR TO DOOR GETTING, UM, AND THEY GOT A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS TO TURN THEIR, UM, OPPOSITION TO SUPPORT. AND SO THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SUPPORT WHEN IT DID FINALLY GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS ITEM. OKAY. AND, AND, AND ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO ALSO SEE THE, UH, CONDITIONAL [01:50:01] USE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL JUST TO SEE IF, IF THERE'S ANY DEVIATION FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING. AND, AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, SO MAYBE FOLLOW UP ON THAT. SO, SO 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE'S PART DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TYPE OF FENCING, SO WAS THAT PART OF THE DIALOGUE AND INITIAL THING? AND THEN ALSO WITH REGARDS TO BUFFERING AND YOU KNOW, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'D BE ABLE TO SNEAK SOMETHING AND KIND OF, OR NOT NECESSARILY SNEAK, THAT'S A BAD WORD, BUT, BUT HAVE SOMETHING CODE THROUGH THAT. IT WASN'T REALLY WHAT THE COMMUNITY WAS WAS BUYING, BUT I AM VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS ENGAGED. AND, AND FOR THIS, UH, FOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD AS WELL. I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT ON ANY SITE PLAN THAT IS SUBMITTING, UH, THAT'S PAIRED TO A CHANGE OF ZONING CASE, WHETHER IT'S CONDITIONAL USE OR SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WILL ABIDE BY THE UDC, THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE SITE PLAN. UM, FOR INSTANCE, IF THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT AS PART OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, THEY COULD NOT COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THAT, THAT WOULD BE REZONING THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE PLAN. SO, UM, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT ON THESE MOVING FORWARD. BUT, UH, I DO WANT THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS NOT AMENDING WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CITY, COUNTY AND WELL ON THAT. SO HERE, HERE'S, HERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH THIS, WITH THIS ONE. SO YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE AN EXISTING OR TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS, UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO MULTIPLE LOTS. UH, SO YOU, SO THE OPEN YARD IS SHOWN AS LOTS NINE TO 11 AND THEN A LOT FIVE FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. IS THEIR CFO TIED TO THE USE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? AND I'M ASKING BECAUSE THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WE WERE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE, IS IT, IS THAT ONLY SUBJECT TO A CFO? THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED A, THE LOTS THAT CONTAINED THE ACTUAL BUILDING OR WERE, OR WAS ALL OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE CFO AND A 15 FOOT BUFFER IS A, IS SOMEHOW REQUIRED TO TO, OR A CONDITION OF A CFO? LIKE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS SOME OF THIS 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, TIED TO ANY, ANY CFO THAT'S BEING HELD BACK AND AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE REST OF THE LOTS SOLELY JUST TO KIND OF CLOSE THE GAP AND UNIFY THIS, THE PROPERTY? YEAH, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT? I'M MAYBE, YEAH, SO THIS IS A PROPERTY, THIS IS ONE PROPERTY. IT'S DESCRIBED AS MULTIPLE LOTS, BUT THIS IS ONE PROPERTY. UM, AND THEN SECOND, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE TOOK OUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, TO IN FRONT ZONING. WE JUST PUT THE, UM, VARIANCE OVERLAYS ON IT AND, BUT THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS ZONE C TWO. SO THAT BUFFER WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. WELL I THINK THAT IS A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. LIKE IF YOU, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND I'VE GOT THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND LET'S SAY LIKE LOT FIVE FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S JUST GONNA BE AN UNDEVELOPED YARD, UH, I COULD THEORETICALLY EXCLUDE THAT FROM MY APPLICATION AND THEREFORE NOT NEED TO PUT A BUFFER THERE TO GET A C OF O THAT'S AT LEAST HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT. YEAH, LIKE IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE BUFFER, IS HE GONNA BE FORCED TO BUILD ONE ALL THE WAY DOWN OR JUST FOR THE FIRST HALF? YEAH, SO KIND OF TO ME'S POINT, WHILE IT IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MULTIPLE LOTS, IT IS ACTUALLY ONE TRACT. SO THEY ARE GOING TO APPLY THE STANDARD ACROSS THE ENTIRE TRACT. OKAY. UM, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ADVERTISED. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS, SOME OF THAT WAS CRITICAL AND SOME THAT WAS JUST BEING UNDERSTOOD, TIED. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? SO MA'AM, COMMISSIONER, SO MR. MAN, SO, UM, SO, SO THE IMAGE THAT YOU HAVE THERE WITH, WITH, WITH THIS, WHAT IS BEING LISTED OR I GUESS THE ONE IN THREE THERE. UM, SO, SO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM WHAT WAS ON THAT SHEET THERE. SO THE, SO WITH REGARDS TO THE BUFFER, SO BASICALLY WHEN FOLKS ARE SUBMITTING A CHANGE OF ZONING APPLICATION AND THEY HAVE THAT CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN, THEY'LL CALL OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, BUFFERS MAY BE REQUIRED, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY, MOST LIKELY THE PLAN JUST SAID BUFFERS TO BE AS REQUIRED BY UDC AND NOW THEY ARE COMING TO YOU BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE THE ONLY ENTITY THAT CAN WAIVE A BUFFER. CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. AND, AND IF I CAN EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE MORE, THE REASON THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THIS IS BECAUSE AS FAR AS THE BUFFER YARD IS CONCERNED, THEY JUST SAID FOLLOW THE UDC SO FOLLOW THE SAME STANDARD THAT ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IN TOWN WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW. SO, SO FOR THE SO, AND THE REASON I WAS, SO THAT WAS WHY MY FIRST QUESTION WAS VERY IMPORTANT WITH REGARDS TO HOW THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WAS AND WHAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY AGREED TO. AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOW SLIGHTLY CHANGING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE FENCE WAS ALSO IN THE DIALOGUE ABOUT HERE'S WHAT THEIR VISION WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY PRESENTED THIS TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND SO JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH THAT. YEAH. AND THOSE, I MEAN, THOSE ARE CERTAINLY STAFF'S CONCERNS. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE DENYING. YEAH. I, IF [01:55:01] I MAY SAY ONE MORE THING. IF CITY COUNCIL IMPOSED SPECIFICALLY A CONDITION, THERE MUST BE A 15 FOOT BUFFER. THIS WOULD NOT BE BEFORE YOU TODAY. YEAH. THAT WOULD'VE TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL. YEAH. AND, AND JUST SO FOR THE BOARD KNOWS WHEN YOU, WHEN PEOPLE DO THESE, THESE SITE PLANS TIED TO ZONING, THEY ARE USUALLY VERY, VERY GENERIC. THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT INCREDIBLY SPECIFIC. AND THEY, AND THERE IS JUST, YOU KNOW, A NOTE THAT JUST SAYS, COMPLY WITH THE UDC. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT REALLY REVIEWED BY ALL AGENCIES. AND I PERSONALLY THINK SOME AGENCIES SHOULD REVIEW THEM, BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS ANYWAY. SO LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, THANKS EVERYBODY. UH, MY NAME IS ARNOLD L AND I, UH, I'M COMING FORWARD TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS. THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS STARTED BECAUSE LOT FIVE WAS RENTED TO A, UH, TO A CITY CONTRACTOR. AND THEY START, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT? THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE LOT NUMBER FIVE WAS, UH, RENTED TO A, UH, CITY CONTRACTOR THAT WAS DOING SIDEWALKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT. AND THEY WERE PARKING BIG TRUCKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. WE, UH, A VICTIM AND NOW THE, THE, THE LOT, THE LOT IS EMPTY AND IT WILL BE, IT WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. UM, UH, ABOUT THE FENCE, THE FENCE WAS PUT IN, I WANNA SAY ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. IT'S BEEN THERE, THERE'S, THERE WAS A WOOD FENCE BEHIND IT. THERE IS A WOOD FENCE BEHIND IT. AND, UH, WHEN I WENT PERSONALLY AND TALKED TO EACH OF THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TRYING TO GET THEIR SIGNATURES, UH, THEY LIKED THE PRIVACY OF THE METAL FENCE. UH, WE TOLD THEM IF WE, IF THEY REQUEST OR THEY DISLIKED THE, THE, THE, UM, THE METAL FENCE, AND THEY DIDN'T SAY THEY HAD A PROBLEM ABOUT THE BUFFER. THERE IS A FIVE FOOT BUFFER RIGHT NOW. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT A, AN AERIAL PICTURE OF THE, OF THE THING. THERE IS AN AERIAL, A FIVE FOOT BUFFER. YOU CAN HARDLY SEE IT, BUT, UH, THERE ARE SOME PLANES RIGHT THERE, THERE. I GUESS THEY'RE NOT RIGHT NOW. WE CAN, I CAN SEE THERE, THERE ARE PICTURES PROVIDED IN OUR FILE THAT DO SHOW YES. AND SOMETHING THERE. I MEAN, WE'RE WILLING TO COMPLY TO WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE, THE CITY RECOMMENDS. IT'S, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. UH, EVERYTHING FROM WHERE THAT RED POINT IS TO THAT, IT'S EMPTY LOCK. IT'S AN EMPTY LOCK RIGHT NOW. SO, AND, AND IT'S GOING BACK TO STAY THAT WAY. EVERYTHING ELSE ON THIS SIDE IS FOR THE, FOR THE BIGGER TRUCKS. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE HAS BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS? YES. OKAY. AND, AND YOU HAVE NO INTENT TO PUT A FENCE ALONG HEARTLINE ONLY ON THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE THAT BETWEEN YOU AND, AND THAT PARKING LOT TO THE NORTH? I WASN'T PLANNING, BUT IF IT'S REQUESTED, WE, WE'LL BE WILLING TO DO IT IF NECESSARY. AND THEN FOR STAFF, DOES THIS, DOES THIS FACILITY CURRENTLY HAVE A COO? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS, THE TENANT THAT IT'S ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE HAS APPLIED FOR A COO, IT'S PENDING THE, UM, OUTCOME OF TODAY. PENDING THE OUTCOME? YES. OKAY. UH, UM, AND YOU, AND YOU WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO A FIVE FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN YOU AND THE NEIGHBORS 'CAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE, BASICALLY, YES. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, MAAM? COMMISSIONER, MAAM. SO, SO YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD DOCUMENTS FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS STATING THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THE FENCE. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND HAND THOSE OVER? UM, SO THAT, WELL, I JUST HAVE WHAT THEY DISPLAYED HERE. I WENT AND COLLECTED. PERFECT. YEAH, IF YOU CAN HAND THAT TO THE STAFF HERE, THEY'LL, YES. THEY DISPLAY IT ON THE, ON THE SCREEN. THAT'S IT. IT'S THE SAME PAGE. YEAH, THEY DID ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY, I GUESS I MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE'LL SEND 'EM TO SPEAK. ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, UH, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT CORRUGATED METAL FENCES BEFORE IN THE PAST, AND GIVEN THAT THIS BACKS UP TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THERE A CAP ON THE, ON THE, ON THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE? A CAP ON IT? A CAP ON IT? NO. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A CAP ON TOP OF THE METAL FENCE? NOT A PROBLEM. WE CAN, WE CAN PUT A CAP ON IT IF, IF NECESSARY, BUT MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS LIKE IT. THE ONES, THE, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE BACK, THEY LIKE IT. THEY HAVE A, A WOOD FENCE, A SIX FOOT FENCE. WELL, THE, THE, WE CAN'T IMPOSE CONDITIONS. NO, I UNDERSTAND. BUT IT IS VERY COMMON FOR THIS BOARD TO, UM, BE MORE AMICABLE TO A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE IF THERE WAS A CAP, UH, STOPPING ANY EXPOSED METAL ON THE TOP. EDGING. YEAH, EDGING. SO IS, IF SO, WE ALWAYS LIKE TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT ELECTIVELY TO, UH, AMEND THEIR APPLICATION TO OCCLUDE A CAP ON THEIR CORRUGATED METAL FENCE. WE, WE CAN DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A CAP AS PART OF, AS [02:00:01] PART OF THE REQUEST FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE. ALL RIGHT. UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I'LL READ ONE OF 'EM. I HAVEN'T READ ONE YET. OKAY. UH, LET'S SEE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH HUNDRED THREE 10, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOUR SHEET ROLLER CORRUGATED METAL, UH, WITH A CAP, UH, ON THE NORTH AND SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE, LIMITED TO THE AS-BUILT PORTION AND TO A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO PROVIDE A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, SITUATED AT 4 22 HEARTLAND HEARTLINE DRIVE APPLICANT BEING ARNOLDO URIBE, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH A, THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED ONLY CODE AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE DEFENSE MATERIAL PROVIDES INCREASED SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN STORAGE FOR THE BUSINESS, THE BUFFER ELIMINATION WOULD NOT LEAVE THE ABUTTING ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL HOMES OF THE REAR EXPOSED TO INCREASED NOISE FROM THE AUTO REPAIR USE AND OTHER RELATED DISTURBANCES OF THE RELOCATION OF THE REPAIR SHOP IS ADEQUATELY SPACED FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE CURRENT FENCE AND INSTALL THE NEW PRIVACY FENCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, CODE'S, GUIDELINES. LIKEWISE, THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACING FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH LIMITS NOISE RELATED DISTURBANCES. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND ESSENTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACING REMAINS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE UNAPPROVED FENCE MATERIAL ABUT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES PROVIDE SCREENING AND PRIVACY FROM THE COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE UNAUTHORIZED AND OPERATION VIEWS OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES ON THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. AS THE METAL FENCE IS LOCATED ALONG THE REAR INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY PERIMETER, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, WILL NOT EXPOSE A NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO INCREASE HAZARDS AND NOISE AS A LOCATION OF A COMMERCIAL USE IS EQUITY SPACE ON THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EX EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACING THERE. PROPERTY THAT PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL USES. THE CURRENT FENCE MATERIAL PROVIDES SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND A MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. UH, THE FENCE HAS BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS, AND BASED ON THE AMENDMENT BY THE APPLICANT, THERE'S GONNA BE A CAP ON THE FENCE. UH, SECONDLY, UH, THERE IS, UH, UH, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF TOTALLY ELIMINATING PUFFERS, BUT GOING DOWN TO THE FIVE FEET THAT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THERE, UH, MAKES THIS SEEM FINE TO ME. AND THREE, BECAUSE THIS WENT THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE AND A ZONING CHANGE THAT'S ALREADY WENT THROUGH WITH THE SCRUTINY OF PUBLIC COMMENTARY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. AND, UM, I THINK, UM, GETTING THE SIGNATURES FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT BACK UP TO IT, UM, THEY WOULD'VE RECOGNIZED, UM, THE BUFFER SIZES AND WOULD'VE SAID SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT IT. AND SO, BECAUSE THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT, THEN I'LL BE OKAY WITH IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO ADD? YEP. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON. UH, A FRIENDLY EDITORIAL AMENDMENT. UH, PARAGRAPH ONE, THE BOLD PRINT SECOND LINE. YOU READ IT AS WRITTEN BY THE STAFF? OH, YES. THE BUFFER REDUCTION. I MISSED THAT ONE. I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE FINDINGS, UH, UNDER ONE TO, TO REPLACE THE BUFFER ELIMINATION WITH THE BUFFER REDUCTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THOUGHT I I PINKER CAUGHT THE OTHER ONES. YOU GOT THE SECOND ONE, BUT NOT THE FIRST. RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE ON THE VARIANCES. CHAIR. ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MENA. 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 BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA, UH, I'LL READ A MOTION FOR THE, UM, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE DEFENSE, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH OH 3 0 0 1 OH. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR [02:05:01] A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 4 22 HEARTLINE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING ARNOLDO YOUR, UH, YOUR BAY. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, YOU FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER AS THE PRIVACY FENCE WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY ACROSS THE FRONT YARD OR IMPEDE SAFE ACCESS AND EX AND EXIT ONTO HEARTLINE DRIVE. B. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE INCREASED FENCE SITE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE, AS IS LIMITED TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND DOES NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY NOR OPPOSE A RISK TO VEHICLE SAFETY TO TRAFFIC ON HEARTLINE DRIVE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH APPEALS USE AS THERE IS NO VISUAL OBSTRUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE INCREASED FENCE SITE IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE PROPERTY'S COMMERCIAL USE BY PROVIDING ENHANCED SECURITY IN THIS LOCATION THROUGHOUT THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONAL, NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISH FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS A SENSE OF OPENNESS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK FACE AS HEARTLINE DRIVE IS STILL MAINTAINED AS THE INCREASE FENCE HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARM MANNA, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. IT'S JUST A SMALL LITTLE PIECE OF FENCE JUST TO KIND OF CLOSE THAT LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE. UH, AND SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. UH, COMMISSIONER ARM MANNA. I CAN GROW WITH MY COLLEAGUE ALSO. IT'S, UH, MF 33, SO THAT'S PROBABLY NOT AN INAPPROPRIATE, UH, BARRIER BETWEEN THE TWO. RIGHT? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR ORIAN? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN GET THE STAFF. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A LITTLE BREAK. IT IS 3 0 8 3 0 9. WE'LL SEE Y'ALL BACK IN ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES. IT'S, UH, MEETING ROLLING AGAIN, AGAIN. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PLEASE. OKAY. OH, IS HE, IS HE NOT BACK? COMMISSIONER BONNI. THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. ITEM SEVEN IS CASE BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 1 38. UH, ADDRESS BEING 74 22 AURORA CIRCLE COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE APPLICANT BEING LISA ANA. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FI MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK FROM THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND LIMITED TO 13 FEET IN DEPTH. THE ZONING IS R FIVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RAY ELLISON BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10. THE HOME ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 2015 AS PART OF THE SOLANA RIDGE SUBDIVISION. UH, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STAFF, UH, ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT OBSERVED ON JULY 18TH, 2025. AN ADDITION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE NORTHERN SIDE YARD OF THE EXISTING HOME. SUCH CONSTRUCTION VIOLATES THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SET SIDE SETBACK FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY. UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, HIGHLIGHTING THAT ADDITION DONE. UH, IT'S AGAIN, A 13 FOOT WIDE ADDITION IN THAT NORTHERN SIDE YARD. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT ADDITION AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 38 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS INSUFFICIENT SPACE WOULD REMAIN TO PERFORM GENERAL MAINTENANCE TO [02:10:01] THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT ACCESSING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE REDUCED DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES WOULD AGGRAVATE THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND DAMAGE FROM WATER RUNOFF. STAFF MAIL OUT 36 NOTICES, ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR AND ZERO WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. DOES THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR ADDITION. HI, MY NAME IS LIZETTE MIRANDA. UM, SO IT'S BASICALLY JUST A SMALL STORAGE SHED FOR OUR KIDS', BICYCLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT JUST SO THEY HAVE EASY ACCESS TO IT. WE DID PUT IT ON THE SIDE JUST BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A CANINE DOG IN THE BACKYARD. UM, AND IT'S MAINLY JUST TO AVOID THE PUTTING EITHER THE DOG AND OUR KIDS IN DANGER AT ANY TIME OF THEM WANTING TO LIKE, ACCESS THEIR BICYCLE SKATEBOARDS OR JUST ANYTHING THAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE MIGHT STORE IN THERE FOR THEM. OKAY. SO THIS IS, UH, IS IS, DOES YOUR FENCE HAVE A GATE IN FRONT OF THIS? IT DOES. SO THEN THE PREMISE IS YOU WOULD, THEY WOULD OPEN THE GATE AND THEN THERE WOULD, IS THIS, IS THIS ADDITION, UM, GOT A DOOR ON IT OR IS IT JUST OPEN? UM, IT WOULD HAVE A DOOR. OKAY. IT WOULD HAVE A SMALL DOOR RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE. OKAY. AND THEN, BUT WITHIN THE ADDITION, CAN YOU GET WITHIN YOUR HOME OR IS IT COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THE HOUSE? UM, OR CAN YOU GET IN YOUR GARAGES OR DOOR INTO THE GARAGE? OH, YEAH, WE CAN GO IN THE GARAGE. IT'S NOT LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE GARAGE. IT'S RIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. OH YEAH. ONE. OH, SO IF I'M ON THE OUTSIDE AND I OPEN UP THE GATE, THE WOOD GATE, AND I, AND I'M LOOKING AT YOUR ADDITION, YOUR INTENT WAS TO PUT A DOOR INTO THE ADDITION? YES. WHEN I'M WITHIN THE ADDITION, CAN I GO INTO YOUR GARAGE? OH, NO. OKAY. SO IT IS, YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THAT WALL, THAT EXISTING WALL ON THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE? NO, WE DIDN'T CHANGE THAT AT ALL. OKAY. AND, UM, AND THERE'S NO GUTTERS ON IT, RIGHT? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I KNOW THAT YOU STARTED CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A BILLING PERMIT, UH, STAFF. WOULD THIS BE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH BUILDING, UH, PERMIT AND BUILDING REVIEW IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED? CORRECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE NORMAL, UM, PERMIT REVIEWS, PERMITTING REVIEWS. AND THEN PART OF THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A FIREWALL OR FIRE RATING, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT EASE, UH, EASEMENT. CORRECT. THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM IT. EVEN WITH BOA APPROVAL. YEAH. SO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT THE BUILDING PLANS FOR A PERMITTING PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY, AND SOME OF THAT PERMITTING PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE A FIRE RATED WALL? UH, OH. I WASN'T AWARE, BUT I MEAN, WE'LL DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT THERE. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, IS IT SUCH THAT THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE AND SO ESSENTIALLY OPENING THAT FRONT, THAT FRONT FENCE, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THE BACKYARD, UM, BECAUSE I'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STRUCTURE. SO IT'S BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE BACKYARD ON THIS SIDE, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO DOORS, ONE IN THE FRONT OF IT AND ONE BEHIND IT. SO WE CAN GO RIGHT THROUGH IT. UH, CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER EZ MSDA, UH, THE FENCE, THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT IS RIGHT ON THE WALL OF YOUR STORAGE, ARE YOU PLANNING TO, TO TAKE THAT FENCE DOWN SO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO TAKE OF THAT WALL, JUST HAVING FENCE FROM BACK, FROM THE BACK CORNER OF YOUR SHED TO THE BACKYARD? WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON REMOVING THE FENCE. UM, IF WE DID NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO THE SIDE OF THAT SHED, UM, TO LIKE MAINTAIN IT, UM, WE WOULD REMOVE IT AND THEN I'LL LIKE, JUST PUT IT BACK IF NEED, WHEN WE NEED TO. WE WOULDN'T JUST COMPLETELY REMOVE THE FENCE. ARE ARE YOU PLANNING TO PUT GUTTERS ON THERE IF WE NEED TO? YES. I, I WASN'T SURE IF WE DID NEED TO OR NOT. UH, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A GATE INTO YOUR BACKYARD OFF OF BLAZER AWAY? YES, WE DO. OKAY. SO YOU CAN'T GET INTO YOUR YARD WITHOUT USING THIS AREA. AND UM, DO YOU, DO YOU, IS YOUR FENCE REMOVABLE AT THIS LOCATION? I NOTICED THAT THE WOOD IS, IS LIKE YOU MAY HAVE REPLACED THOSE PICKETS THAT DID, DID YOU PUT IT LIKE TO WHERE THAT THAT WHOLE PANEL CAN COME OFF AND EXPOSE THE SIDEWALL OR IS IT NAILED IN? NO, IT'S NAILED IN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND ANNA, COMMISSIONER MANAGER. SO, SO MY ASSUMPTION THAT THIS IS NOT A ZERO LOT LINE COMMUNITY, UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE ESSENTIALLY IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE IT IS ATTACHED, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS HOUSE IS BEING BUILT AS, IS KIND OF RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY LINES. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. WELL, MY QUESTION ABOUT PUTTING GUTTERS THEN, IT WOULD HANG OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, WOULDN'T IT? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. AND, AND ON THAT STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP THE PICTURE? NOT THIS ONE, BUT THERE'S ONE WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING [02:15:01] DIRECTLY AT IT, BUT A LITTLE CLOSER OR, UM, JUST ONE, ONE MOMENT. I'LL PULL THAT UP RIGHT NOW. YEAH, IT'S, IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE ONE THAT YOU HAD UP. THAT'S IT? NO, THERE, IT'S IN THE STA IT'S ON THE, IF I DOWNLOAD IT FROM THE WEBSITE, IT'S IN THE ATTACHMENTS. I'M, YEAH, IT'S IN THE ATTACHMENTS. AND, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPRESS IS THAT IF YOU'RE REALLY, REALLY CLOSE, YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH THAT FRONT YARD COMPLETELY, UH, SLANTS TOWARDS, UH, THIS APPLICANT'S HOME. AND, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE IF WATER WERE, WERE TO FALL OFF THAT ROOF, IT'S JUST GONNA ROLL IMMEDIATELY BACK TOWARDS THEIR PROPERTY AND NOT REALLY POSE ANY, ANY ISSUE TO THE NEIGHBORS. UH, IS THIS, IS THIS ADDITION ON A CONCRETE FOUNDATION WITH THAT'S BEAMED INTO THE GROUND? UH, OR IS IT JUST ON LIKE A ON CONCRETE FLAT WORK? YEAH, THAT PICTURE THAT'S ON, UH, THEY ADDED A SLAB OF CONCRETE ON THERE BEFORE BUILDING ON IT. IT, IT HAS CONCRETE, BUT IS IT BEAMED INTO THE GROUND? I BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE THEY DID PUT BEAMS ON IT BECAUSE WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN, ANY WATER THAT FALLS OFF IS GONNA COME RIGHT BACK TO THAT FOUNDATION. IF THAT ISN'T BEAMED DOWN INTO THE GROUND VERY WELL, IT'S GOING TO REALLY MESS UP THE INTEGRITY OF THAT, UH, CONCRETE THAT YOU MAY HAVE THERE. SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, SO THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, IT, IT, THE ONLY PERSON THAT'S REALLY GONNA HURT IS WELL'S. YOU, UH, 'CAUSE IT, IT'S GONNA COME, YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLAN OF THAT THING, IT'S GONNA COME DIRECTLY RIGHT BACK TOWARDS YOUR SEAM LINE. YEAH. SO JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY VOICEMAILS PEOPLE SEND TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND, AND IT'S, IT'S MENTIONED DURING THE PRESENTATION. IT'S 13 FEET LONG. ALRIGHT. SO IT'S LIMITED TO THE 13 FEET THAT'S THERE NOW. SO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION SHOULD PROBABLY INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION. OKAY. NO ONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 8. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THROUGH REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE. I'M SORRY. A A YEAH, TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION, UM, UH, TO BE, UH, THREE FEET AWAY, UH, ON THE SIDE SETBACK. THIS IS ITEM SEVEN. I'M SORRY. UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. OH, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. , I THOUGHT HE WAS AMENDING THE I AM AMENDING IT. OH, I'M, I'LL APOLOGIZE. CONTINUE. I, I THOUGHT YOU WERE READING IT FROM THE, UH, UH, RECOMMENDED, RIGHT? ONE CIRCLE. YEAH, IF YOU'RE AMENDING IT, THEN YOU WERE READING THE RIGHT ONE. OKAY. I WAS READING THE RIGHT ONE. OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. SO NO WORRIES. UM, UM, LIMITED TO A 13 FOOT IN DEPTH, UH, SITUATED AT 7 4 2 2 AURORA CIRCLE. APPLICANT BEING LIZETTE MIRANDA. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY SUCH AS LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY, UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WOULD NOW BE PROVI, UH, REMINDED, PROVIDED, UH, THAT WOULD, UM, REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SEPARATION DUE TO TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS, UH, THE EXISTING LOT CONFIGURATION IS SUCH THAT, UH, ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE IS NEEDED, UH, WITHIN THE SIDE OF THE HOME. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS SUFFICIENT SPACING, UM, NOW REMAINS BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT PROPERTY TO SUPPORT MAINTENANCE WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SEPARATION. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, UH, [02:20:01] IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS ADEQUATE SEPARATION WILL NOW REMAIN BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING PROPERTY. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT, UM, ADDITIONAL STORAGE IS NEEDED, UH, IN THE SIDE YARD OF THE HOME END OF MOTION. RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO NORMALLY WHEN WE SEE THESE TYPES OF, UM, REQUESTS, IT'S FOR CARPORTS AND, AND GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, LENIENT WITH REGARDS TO THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE OPEN SPACE AND ALLOWING FOR THAT TRANSIT BETWEEN, BETWEEN HERE. BUT I, I BROUGHT THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE ZERO PROPERTY LINE. 'CAUSE ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT THIS HOME IS ESTABLISHING FOR THE NEIGHBOR. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S, UM, NOT CONDUCIVE WITH THIS COMMUNITY. UM, AND, AND I READ IT SO THAT IT HAD TO BE REDUCED IN WIDTH TO ALLOW FOR ONE TO ALLOW, YOU STILL HAVE A STORAGE SPACE ON THE SIDE, BUT NOT TO BE AS WIDE AS WHAT IS THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. AND SO, SO AS I AMENDED IT, I WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE IT AS THAT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AL BE IN SUPPORT, UH, BASED UPON THE AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? NO, NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OONA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN? UH, I CONCUR. UH, BUT MOTION, UH, FAILS, UH, SEVEN TO THREE, UH, UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ANYTHING TO THE ALTERNATIVE. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. UH, OKAY. SO THIS MOTION'S COMPLETELY FAILED. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER NINE, EIGHT. UH, WE ALREADY DID EIGHT AND WE DID 10. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS CASE BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 4 3. THE ADDRESS BEING 2 1 8 WOODLE STREET AND COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT BEING THE LAND FEAR LAW FIRM. PC UH, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. TWO, A NINE FOOT, 11 INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR A BARBED WIRE FENCE. AND THREE, A 29 FOOT 11 INCH REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK FOR A BARBED WIRE FENCE. THE ZONING IS C ONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NORTH FLORES STREET IN SAN PEDRO AVENUE AND IS JUST SOUTH OF FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SITE BEGAN IN JULY OF 2024 WHEN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE USE OF PROHIBITED BARBED WIRE AND RAZOR WIRE. UH, AFTER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS MADE AWARE OF A VIOLATION OF THE FENCING MATERIAL STANDARDS FOR THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL, AS WELL AS A USE VIOLATION ON THE PROPERTY FOR CONDUCTING OUTSIDE STORAGE ON A LOT ZONE C ONE LIKE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO CORRECT THESE VIOLATIONS. THE OWNER SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF BARBED WIRE AND RAZOR WIRE ON, UH, IN JANUARY OF 2025. UH, BUT THIS REVIEW WAS PLACED ON HOLD AND THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING ZONING USE VIOLATION AND OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE BARB AND RAZOR WIRE AS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK STANDARD WAS NOT MET IN JULY, 2025. THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THAT BARBED WIRE EXPIRED, UH, IN APRIL OF 2025. RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY DID QUALIFY FOR A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE CERTIFICATE FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE USE. BUT THE ACCOMPANYING REQUEST TO REGISTER THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE AND BARBED WIRE AS LEGALLY AND NON-CONFORMING WAS DENIED. THE NON-CONFORMING REGISTRATION FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE ALLOWS FOR AN INDUSTRIAL FENCE STANDARD OF EIGHT FEET. ADDITIONALLY, UH, A CONDITION OF SCREENING FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES WAS PLACED ON THE NON-CONFORMING USE IN JUNE OF 2025. THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WAS COVERED WITH A COMPLIANT WOOD MATERIAL. HOWEVER, CORRUGATED METAL [02:25:01] IS STILL PART OF THE EXISTING FENCE CONSTRUCTION. BEFORE CONSIDERING ANOTHER REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO PERMIT BARBED AND RAZOR WIRE, THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN A SETBACK VARIANCE DUE TO THE BARBED AND RAZOR WIRES PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THE YELLOW AND BLUE AREAS SHOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. UM, BARBED WIRE FENCING PER THE CODE DOES NEED TO ABIDE BY THESE BUILDING SETBACK LINES. AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR ITEMS TWO AND THREE ON THIS REQUEST TO REDUCE THOSE TO THE MAXIMUM OR TO THE MINIMUM. ONE INCH REAR SETBACK AND ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK SHOWN HERE IS THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARCH OF 2022, A HISTORICAL IMAGE HERE AND THE CURRENT VIEW OF THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S BEEN COVERED, UH, WITH A COMPLIANT WOOD FENCING MATERIAL. HOWEVER, THAT CORRUGATED METAL, UH, IS STILL PART OF THAT FENCE CONSTRUCTION. UH, IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, BUT IT IS STILL, UH, PART OF THAT FENCE CONSTRUCTION BEHIND THAT WOOD FENCING. UH, AND THIS IS A VIEW OF THAT SAME PROPERTY, BUT FROM FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, EFFECTIVELY THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THIS IS JUST TO SHOW THE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT FENCE AGAIN, THAT WOOD FENCING IN THE FRONT CORRUGATED METAL STILL EXISTING ON THAT. AND THIS ALSO INCLUDES SOME OF THAT BARBED AND RAZOR WIRE STILL EXISTING ON THAT, ON THAT FENCE. AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THIS IS ON WOODLE STREET HERE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE MATERIAL AND FE UH, SETBACK VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 43 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE OTHER METHODS OF SECURING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND DETERRING INSTANCES OF TRESPASS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WHILE USING APPROVED FENCING MATERIALS. AND TWO, THE VARIANCES WOULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF HARM TO RESIDENTS AND CREATE AN UNSIGHTLY STREET SCAPE. STAFF MAILED 24 NOTICES. TWO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE FIVE POINTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THE SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT RESIDENT, UH, SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FOR THIS REQUEST. AND SHOWN HERE IS THE OPPOSITION RECEIVED FOR THIS REQUEST. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE USE OF BARBED WIRE AND NOT RAZOR WIRE, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE SPECIFIED? SO THE USE OF BARBED OR RAZOR WIRE IS GONNA COME THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE. IF THIS IS, UM, APPROVED FOR THE SETBACK REDUCTION, UM, THE ACTUAL USE OF BARBED OR RAZOR WIRES NOT PART OF THIS, UH, THIS REQUEST. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO ASK 'CAUSE I, I KEPT HEARING RAZOR WIRE, BUT THE MOTION AND THE, AND IT SEEMS TO BE ADVERTISED WITHOUT THE USE OF THE WORD RAZOR WIRE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IF, IF I'M LOOKING AT A SETBACK, RAZOR WIRE SEEMS A LITTLE MORE SOMETHING I CARE ABOUT THAN THE BARBED WIRE. GOTCHA. UM, IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION, WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, I'M SURE THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO SHED A LITTLE MORE LIGHT ON THAT. AND, AND THEN FINALLY IT CAN WE, IF THIS WERE TO APPROVE ON THE CORRUGATED METAL, ARE WE ALLOWED TO SAY, UM, SO LONG AS THERE'S WOOD CLADDING ON THE OUTSIDE, WHICH IS APPARENTLY WHAT THEY DID, CAN THAT BE A PART OF OUR, OUR MOTION? BECAUSE THAT, I MEAN, IF, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A METAL FENCE IN THEM, PUT WOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT, THAT SURE MEANS THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN IMPOSE ON THEM. UM, I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ADD BECAUSE IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE CORRUGATED, THE ACTUAL CORRUGATED METAL. THEY DO HAVE IT ON THERE, OBVIOUSLY. YEAH, I KNOW. IIII DON'T THINK ANYBODY I'VE SEEN EVER I'VE EVER SEEN ANYBODY TRY THAT. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WE CAN, IF WE SAY AS CONSTRUCTED, DOES THAT, AS CONSTRUCTED PORTION WOULD BE ONLY FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL. JUST CHECKING, MAN. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, AND, AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT SO, SO SAY I HAVE A WOODEN FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND MY PROPERTY AND THEN I ADD ON THE INSIDE OF THAT PROPERTY A SECTION OF CORRUGATED METAL, UM, TO CORDON OFF, YOU KNOW, PART OF MY AREA. WOULD THAT NEW METAL FENCING REQUIRE, UM, A ZONING OR, OR A, UH, A NOTICE BEFORE THE BOA BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT CORRECT. IT'S ACTING AS A FENCE. THE ONLY WAY IT WOULDN'T, IF IT WAS PART OF LIKE A COURTYARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT IT AS PART OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT STANDARDS. BUT IF IT'S ACTING AS A FENCE, THEN IT'S HAS TO BE THE CAN'T BE CORRUGATED METAL. HOW BIG OF A COURTYARD CAN IT BE? IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE BUILDING SETBACKS, UM, HAS TO BE ENCLOSED. UM, IS THERE SOMETHING CHARACTERISTIC I'M [02:30:01] FORGETTING ENCLOSED? RIGHT. AND THEN WITHIN THE BUILDING SETBACKS I THINK IS THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS AND IT WOULD, IT WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO BE, LOOK LIKE AN EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. OKAY. THANK YOU. A ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, UH, OFFENSE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M DAN LANDFAIR. I'M THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER. UM, THIS IS DOMINICA CASTILLO WITH ME. UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, MY CLIENT AND HER HUSBAND PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN JUNE 8TH OF 20 2004. THE FENCE, THE METAL FENCE WAS IN PLACE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. IT HAD BEEN BUILT THERE BY THE PRIOR OWNER. UH, SAME THING WITH BARBED WIRE AND THERE WAS RAZOR WIRE AT ONE POINT. THERE IS NO RAZOR WIRE AT ISSUE. UM, THEY'VE TAKEN THE RAZOR WIRE DOWN, UH, BUT THE BARBED WIRE WIRE IS IMPORTANT TO THEM. THEY HAVE A, UM, RESTAURANT SUPPLY COMPANY AND THEY'RE ZONED, THEY HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF USE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO STORE A RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT IN THIS, UH, OTHERWISE VACANT LOT. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THE BARBED WIRE IS OBVIOUSLY TO PREVENT, UH, TRESPASSERS FROM GETTING INTO THE PROPERTY. IT'S A FAIRLY HIGH CRIME AREA AND, UH, TRESPASSERS HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE BARBED WIRE, WHICH AGAIN, UH, WAS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN MY CLIENTS PURCHASED IT. UH, THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAVING ALSO USED, UH, THE LOT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW DOMINICA AND THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS, UH, JOELLE CORRECTLY ADVISED IS JUST, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT BARBED WIRE IS ALLOWED TO BE PART OF THE FENCE, UH, IT WOULD MAKE, UH, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY, UH, FOR THE BARBED WIRE TO REMAIN WHERE IT IS. SO, SO MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE IS HOW LONG HAS THAT FENCE WITH THE BARBED WIRE BEEN THERE SINCE AT LEAST, UH, 2004 IS IF IT PRE IN 2004, WAS THERE STILL A REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR THE SETBACK ON THE BARB WIRE? IT WAS DURING THE NON-CONFORMING PROCESS. UM, WE LOOKED AT THE, ADDING THE FENCE ON THERE AND WE SAW THAT WE DID NOT FIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO GRANT THE GRANDFATHERING FOR THE FENCE. OKAY. JUST FOR THE USE. DO, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT CODE CAME INTO EFFECT? IT WAS PREVIOUS TO, UH, 2001. UM, OKAY. SO IF IT WAS, IT WAS UNDER THE 87 UDC, IT'D BE OKAY. CORRECT. IT WASN'T CLEARLY WRITTEN AS IT IS NOW, BUT WHEN WE EVALUATED, THEY DID MENTION, I FORGOT EXACTLY HOW THEY MENTIONED IT, BUT IT WAS, AND THEN YOUR NEIGHBOR, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A HOME, UH, IF I'M FACING YOUR PROPERTY, THERE'S A HOME, A RESIDENCE TO THE RIGHT, IT'S VACANT TO THE LEFT. UH, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I WANTED TO FIRST SAY THAT, UH, MR. GRANARY, OH, CAN WE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE? DOMINICA CASTILLO. THANK YOU. THE, THE FAMILY THAT WE BOUGHT IT FROM HAD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS A, SINCE 1998 FOR THE USE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY USING IT AS. OKAY. SO EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY ON THERE. SO, SO FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD IN 2001, MAY OF 2001 IS WHEN THE UDC CHANGED. PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS UNDER THE 87 UDC WHERE IT WAS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER OR NOT BARBED WIRE WAS REQUIRED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THAT SETBACK. SO WITH, BUT I WAS ASKING ABOUT YES, THE HOMES, YEAH, THE HOME TO THE LEFT BURNT DOWN BECAUSE OF, UH, HOMELESS. OKAY. AND THE HOME TO THE RIGHT HAD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE BACK WHO THAT WAS ALSO, UM, SET OFF LIKE YEARS AGO. BUT IS THERE SOMEBODY LIVING THERE NOW? THERE IS, AND I BELIEVE HE, WELL ACTUALLY HE'S, IT'S UNDER RENOVATION. THE, THE PERSON ON THAT LIVES THERE. UM, UM, MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS TRYING TO FIND, 'CAUSE IT'S ZONE C ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF YOU. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, UH, WHICH SIDE OF YOU IS, WHERE THE INTENT IS TO, FOR IT TO BE A RESIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO A COMMERCIAL USE. I SEE. I THINK THERE'S A MAP IN HERE. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UM, THE BARBED WIRE, UH, WITHIN THE SETBACK ON BOTH OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. IS THERE A, UH, NEED TO HAVE IT ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE OR CAN IT STOP WHERE THE MOMENT A STRUCTURE EXISTS, THE BARBED WIRE WAS ALREADY THERE AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR ALSO HAS BARBED WIRE AND THE METAL FENCING, THAT'S THE HOME THAT YOU SEE ON, ON THE PICTURE. OH, THERE'S PICTURES THAT SHOW CORRUGATED METAL. I'M SURE WE MIGHT SEE THAT LATER. YEAH. UH, COME AT. BUT I, I, I WAS JUST WONDERING, TO ME PERSONALLY, [02:35:01] IF THERE'S BARBED WIRE NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IF IT'S NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE PROPERTY. MM-HMM . THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. AND SO STAFF, DO YOU HAPPEN, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? BECAUSE ON THE, ON THE STAFF REPORT IT'S SHOWING, UH, A SINGLE RESIDENCE, UH, TO THE PREDOMINANTLY TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST. IT'S, IT'S VACANT RESIDENTIAL, WHICH THE, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A FIRE AND THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS COMPROMISED. BUT, BUT IN Y'ALL'S OPINION, WHEN Y'ALL WERE OUT THERE, DID YOU FEEL THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE RESIDENCE ON THE EAST AND AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY AT 2 1 4 WOODLE THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT? YES, UH, YES. THERE, THERE'S AN EXISTING HOME THERE. UM, WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE, I MEAN, WE DIDN'T OBSERVE ANYONE OCCUPYING IT, BUT IT DID NOT LOOK DILAPIDATED TO THE POINT OF OKAY. VACANCY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT'S MY LINE OF QUESTIONS. DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY, UH, THOUGHTS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA, YOU, UH, THERE WAS A NOTIF ON THE NOTIFICATION, SO, UH, WAS IT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S POSTED? SO COULD IT LOOK, I THOUGHT I RECALL SEEING SOMEONE IN OPPOSITION. WAS THAT TRUE? YES. OKAY. SO THAT PROPERTY THAT IS THE HOUSE IS IN OPPOSITION. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE A FAN OF THE BARBED WIRE ON THAT. RIGHT. AND SO, YEAH. SO, UM, YEAH. CONCUR. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ADD ANYTHING? UH, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS? ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? THIS IS, UH, TWO VOICEMAILS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR 'EM. UH, HELLO. UH, HELLO. UH, YES, UH, MY NAME IS CARMEN HUGHES. I LIVE AT 5 0 3 MARSHALL STREET. I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER B OH A DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 43, UH, AT TWO 18 WOODLEY. UH, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS BUSINESS, PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY AT TWO 18 WOODLEY. UM, WE DO NOT NEED THIS COMPANY PURCHASING, UH, THE, IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEN USING IT FOR COMMERCIAL, UH, MAINTAINED PROPERTY THAT IS NOT MAINTAINED. IT WOULD CREATE, UH, MANY RODENTS AND, UH, MUCH DEBRIS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH MANY POSSUM AND RODENTS, UM, , ET CETERA. UM, IN OUR AREA, UH, WE ARE JUST AT THE POINT WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS PURCHASE WOULD NOT, UM, CONTRIBUTE TO OUR CAUSE. THE HOUSE IS IN TOTAL DISARRAY, SHAMBLES, UH, WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING, UH, NEW, A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE HERE AT 4 25, UH, APARTMENTS. AND THERE'LL BE MANY CHILDREN ALSO IN THE AREA. AND I JUST DO NOT FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE AN ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE DO NOT WANT THIS BEING SOLD, UH, FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND, UM, WE JUST ASK THAT YOU DO NOT ALLOW THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. HI. YES, THIS IS ROXANNE GARZA CALLING FROM 5 0 5 MARSHALL STREET. I AM CALLING IN REFERENCE TO 2 1 8 WOODLEY STREET, 7 8 2 1 2 BOA 5 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3. I'M CALLING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST AS THIS IS A, UH, PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA. THIS APPLICANT HAS HAD OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY HAVE A HIGH INCIDENCE OF RODENTS, ABANDONED APPLIANCES AND UTILIZATION OF STREETS FOR COMMERCIAL LOADING AND UNLOADING. UH, AND DISREGARD FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR BO, A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3 2 1 8. WOODLE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST. THANK. AND JUST AS A NOTE, THOSE TWO VOICEMAILS WERE FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? UH, GO AHEAD. WELL, THERE IS ONE THING I WANNA ADD. THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU SEE THERE WERE ALL INDUSTRIAL AT ONE POINT WHEN WE MOVED, WHEN WE'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 40 YEARS AND THEY WERE ALL INDUSTRIAL AND THEY, THAT PARTICULAR LOT WAS INDUSTRIAL [02:40:01] AND THEY'RE ALL ZONE COMMERCIAL NOW. UM, SOME OF THEM, OH, EVERYONE ON YOUR, EXCEPT FOR ONE, EVERYONE ON YOUR BLOCK SEE ONE, SO. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE, FROM THE COMMISSION? I, I JUST WANTED TO COMMISSIONER EEZ TO CLARIFY, UM, THE FENCE THAT, UH, ON THE SIDE, THAT ON THE MAP IT SHOWED THAT, UH, THE HOUSE THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIDE IT'S ON. YEAH, IT, I I WOULD SAY THE EASTERN SIDE, EASTERN SIDE, UM, HAS THE, UM, BARBED WIRE ON IT AS WELL. AND, AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT SURE IF THAT OWNER IS GOING TO MAKE IT RESIDENTIAL, BUT ON THE MAP IT SHOWS THAT IT'S C ONE. YEAH. SO IF, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL, WOULD THEY CHANGE THE ZONING THAT HE'S GONNA LIVE IN THAT HOUSE? WOULD YOU CONSIDER TAKING THE BARBED WIRE DOWN FROM THAT SITE? YES. ALL RIGHT. AWESOME. SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND I WOULD, I'M JUST GONNA PUT IT OUT THERE, I'D RECOMMEND NOT INCLUDING THE BARBED WIRE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S, THANK YOU. MM-HMM . OH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT SINCE I DON'T HEAR ANYBODY GETTING EXCITED. . SO I DID HAVE A QUICK, SO, SO THE, SO WHAT WAS JUST BEING TALKED ABOUT THOUGH WAS ON THE WESTERN SIDE, CORRECT? UM, WELL, UM, THIS IS KIND OF ON THE SOUTHEASTERN SIDE. IT'S, SO IT'S A SIDE THAT, SO NORTHWESTERN SIDE I THINK IS ALSO MAYBE IN DIALOGUE HERE, ISN'T IT? WELL, THAT'S A COMMERCIAL THAT, THAT SITE IS A COMMERCIAL OWNED PROPERTY THAT GOT, THAT WAS A HOME AT ONE TIME THAT GOT BURNED DOWN. THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT LOT. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH OH 3 0 0 1 4 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. UH, TWO, A NINE FOOT 11 SIDE SETBACK ON THE WESTERN LEE SIDE, UH, VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR BARBED WIRE FENCE ON THE WESTERN LEE SIDE ONLY. AND THREE, A 29 FOOT, 11 INCH REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK FOR A BARBED WIRE FENCE LOCATED AT TWO 18 WOOD LEAF STREET. APPLICANT BEING THE LAND FAIR LAW FIRM PC BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONJURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS DEFENSIVE MATERIAL ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT, WOULD PROVIDE INCREASED SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AS THE PROPERTY IS NOT PERFORMING OUTSIDE STORAGE USE NECESSITATES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASED SECURITY METHODS TO PROJECT, TO PROTECT PROPERTY STORED ON THE LOT. THREE, BY GRADING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE PROPERTY STORED IN THE LOT WOULD BE, UH, WOULD BE AT A LOWER RISK OF THEFT AND DAMAGE DUE TO THE INCREASED SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED FENCE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE OF NOT AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF A USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OF THOSE USE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIAL INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FALLING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED AS THIS LOT IS NEAR PROPERTY ZONE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH LENDS TO THE OVERALL INTENSE CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING OUTSIDE STORE LOT AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL SECURITY ME MEASURES TO PREVENT THEFT, VANDALISM, AND TRESPASSING. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS READ. UH, I DID TAKE OUT THE BARBED WIRE ON THE EASTERN LEE SIDE THAT ABUTS THE, UH, EXISTING, UH, RESIDENCE. UH, I ALSO FEEL THAT BECAUSE THIS SI THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AND PUT INTO MOTION PRIOR TO MAY, MAY OF 2001, IT'S NONCONFORMING USE PRETTY MUCH ALLOWS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE THERE NOW. UM, SO I'M TAKING OUT THE BARBED WIRE ON THE EASTERN LEE SIDE. IS, IS COMPLETELY ENOUGH FOR ME TO BE IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANYONE SAY, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THE, WAS THIS FOR THE METAL FENCE? UH, THIS WAS FOR EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING, YEAH. EXCEPT FOR WE TOOK THE BARBED WIRE OFF OF THE EASTERN LEE SIDE NEXT TO THE HOME. ARE WE, ARE WE LOOKING TO GET A CAP ON? IS IS, UH, IS THERE CURRENTLY, [02:45:01] UH, I'M GONNA GO, UH, GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING COMPONENT. UH, IS THERE A CAP ON THE FENCE? MY UNDERSTANDING? I HEARD THE DISCUSSION. CAN YOU, UH, SPEAK TO, SORRY, YOU HAVE TO GET CLOSE TO THE MIC. YEAH. OH, I'M SORRY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S NO EXPOSED, UH, CORRUGATED METAL, BUT WE, THE ISSUE IS WE CAN'T PUT A CONDITION OF THE WOOD FENCE. UH, SO WE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO GUARANTEE YOU COULD TAKE THE WOOD FENCE DOWN. SO IS THERE AN, WOULD YOU AT THIS TIME, LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO ENSURE, UH, CAP OR OTHERWISE PROTECTION FROM THE METAL FENCE? SHE'S WILLING TO DO THAT. SO WE HAVE, UM, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. F SO I'M GONNA AMEND MY MOTION AS READ TO INCLUDE, UH, THE PROVISION AS, AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE METAL FENCE TO INCLUDE A CAP OR OTHERWISE BE PROTECTED, UH, WHICH CURRENTLY IS THE WOOD FENCE, UM, FROM EXPOSURE. OKAY. IS THAT, IS THAT, UM, ACCEPTABLE? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I ACCEPT. OKAY. SO WE'RE BACK TO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD ? MAN, COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO JUST AS SO GENERALLY YES, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF IT, SO, SO IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, HEY, WE, WE, WE TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME HERE. I KNOW. SO I JUST, I, SO NORMALLY I DO FIGHT FOR THESE, BUT, BUT IT IS, BUT YEAH. SO JUST INTERESTING NOTE. YEP. UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. CUT BY THIS POST CHAIR. ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? AYE CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. AYE, CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. AND YOU HEARD WHAT, WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE, UH, PROTECTION AND THE CAPPING AND NO BARBED WIRE ON THE EASTERN LEE SIDE. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 11 WAS CLOSE. THANK YOU. ITEM 11 IS BO EIGHT DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 46 LOCATED AT 4 3 6 WEST CRAIG PLACE IN CONS, DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS MICHAEL REYNOLDS. HE IS REQUESTING ONE A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO FOOT N CD TWO PRIVACY FENCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE. TWO, A SEVEN FOOT, FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO FOOT CD TWO PRIVACY FENCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT FIVE INCH PRIVACY FENCE, LIMITED TO SIX FEET, TWO INCHES IN WIDTH FOR A GATE ENTRANCE. THREE, A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE. AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 13 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A FIVE FOOT THREE INCH REAR SETBACK, A BUTTON, A 14 FOOT ALLEY, AND FOUR A 14 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT, FOUR INCH CORNER CLEAR VISION. THE ZONE IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST CORRECT PLACE AND BREEDING AVENUE WEST OF SAN PAGER AVENUE WITHIN THE ALTO VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THIS CASE, OR ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION CONCERNING BUILDING WITHOUT PERMITS FOR A NEW PRIVACY FENCE AND RESIDENTIAL EDITION. ACCORDING TO THE PRIVACY FENCE STANDARDS FOR NCD, TWO NEW FRONT YARD WALLS CONSTRUCTED A SOLID MATERIAL SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO FEET IN HEIGHT. THE EXISTING FENCE EXCEEDS THIS HEIGHT LIMIT ALONG BOTH THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD, THEREBY OBSTRUCTING THE REQUIRED CORNER CLEAR VISION BASED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN. THE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION CONNECTS A PRIMARY RESIDENCE TO THE GARAGE IN THE REAR BUILT IN 1988. THIS CONNECTION WILL EFFECTIVELY MAKE THE GARAGE PART OF A SINGLE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE R SIX ZONING IN DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM, MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURES PER SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 16 C OF DUDC LOTS AT A BUTTON ALLEY, A PUBLIC ALLEY, ONE HALF OF SUCH ALLEY CAN BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD. DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A 14 FOOT ALLEY AT THE REAR. SEVEN FEET CAN BE APPLIED TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD REQUIREMENT FROM 20 FEET TO 13 FEET. WITH THE EXISTING FIVE FOOT THREE INCH DISTANCE BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE IS NEEDED TO PERMIT THE NEW PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. THE ALS VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED ON MAY 8TH, 2003 AND AMENDED ON MAY 18TH, 2018. [02:50:02] THIS IS THE SITE PLAN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE AREAS OF REQUESTS AS WELL AS THE NCT NCD TWO FENCE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM APRIL, 2011 AND ANOTHER FROM 2019 WHERE THE FENCE IS REMOVED. AND FROM 2022, NO FENCE ALONG THE FRONT. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW. AND FROM THE SIDE, THIS IS A MEASUREMENT STAFF TOOK OF THE FENCE HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE GATED ENTRANCE, WHICH IS LIMITED TO SIX FEET TO INCHES IN WIDTH. YES, THE CORNER CLEAR VISION AFFECTED ALONG BREEDING AVENUE, AND THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE SIDE TO SHOW THE CONNECTION FROM THE PREVIOUS PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO THE GARAGE. PRESENTLY, THERE IS A BREEZEWAY AND THERE IS A REMAINING ADDITION TO, UM, COMPLETE THAT CONNECTION. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT REAR SETBACK WITH THE HISTORIC HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED REAR, UM, SETBACK FROM THE GARAGE. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA AND A VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RARE SETBACK. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 46 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE SUFFICIENT SPACE IN THE REAR WILL REMAIN FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE, HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND CORNER CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OE DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 46. BASED ON THE FINE FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE INCREASED PRIVACY FENCE HEIGHT EXCEEDS THE NC D TWO STANDARDS SIGNIFICANTLY, CREATING CORNER CLEAR VISION ISSUES AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST CRAIG PLACE AND BREEDING AVENUE. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALTER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED BY SETTING THE PRECEDENT OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STAFF MAILED 25 NOTICES. SEVEN WERE RECEIVED IN SUPPORT, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, AND THEY TAKE EXCEPTION TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH WILL BE, UM, SEEN IN THE UPCOMING SLIDES. AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION. THESE WERE SUPPORT RECEIVED AS WELL AS SIGNED SIGNATURES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SOME OF THOSE WERE ALREADY, UM, COUNTED FOR TOO. AND THIS, UM, HIGHLIGHTS THE COMMENTS FROM THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION, UM, AS SEEN IN PARAGRAPH FOUR, THEY, THEY STATE REGARDING THE FOURTH VARIANCE AND CONSIDERING IMPORTANCE OF PEDESTRIAN AND VE SAFETY. WE DO TAKE AN EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DEFENSE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS WITHOUT INCIDENT OR COMPLAINT FROM NEIGHBORS. WE SUPPORT A SOLUTION THAT INCLUDES A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, INCREASED VISIBILITY, PROVIDED THE CITY'S GOVERNING BODIES INTERPRETATIONS ALLOW IT. WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE STOP SIGN AT THIS CORNER'S POSITION MUCH FARTHER THAN AT OTHER INTERSECTIONS, NECESSITATING EXTRA CAUTION AT THAT INTERSECTION REGARDLESS OF ANY POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, SO JUST REALLY QUICKLY, UM, THE EXISTING GARAGE IS GOING TO BE NO LONGER A GARAGE OR IT'S STILL GONNA BE A GARAGE. UM, I BELIEVE HE STATED THAT IT WOULD BE AS PART OF A MAN CAVE. AND, AND SO THE, THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE REAR SETBACK IS BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS GONNA CONNECT THE EXISTING GARAGE. CORRECT. SO NOW IT REDUCES IT TO A COMPLETE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? MANNA COMMISSIONER, MANNA? SO, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO, SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE, UM, I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DRAWN ATTENTION, AT LEAST FROM THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE, IS THE CLEAR VISION AND THE CITY'S POSITION AS WELL. AND SO I WAS LOOKING FOR A BETTER POSITION OR BETTER PICTURE, OR MAKING SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT PICTURE. AND SO THERE'S ONE IN THE SLIDE THAT'S PAGE EIGHT, I THINK IT [02:55:01] SAYS CURRENT VIEW. IS THAT THE FENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE? YEP. THERE YOU GO. YES. UM, AND SO, UM, AND SO TO BE COMPLIANT, UM, WITH REGARDS TO CLEAR VISION, AND SO WE'RE IT'S FOUR FOOT, SO THAT'S, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES. SO, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WITH REGARDS TO HEIGHT. CORRECT. AND THEN ALSO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, CORRECT. THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO THINGS TO ADDRESS FROM A CLEAR VISION PERSPECTIVE, NO, FOR A CLEAR VISION, IT'S ANYTHING ABOVE THREE FEET, WHETHER IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR PRIVACY. RIGHT. BUT, UM, UH, BUT THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE WAS PREDOMINANTLY, IF IT WAS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, THEY WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT, IT WAS, THEY WERE AMENABLE. AMEN. UM, AMENABLE TO, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN HERE, BUT WE STILL HAD TO DO THE, THE FOREFOOT. YES. OKAY. AND, AND, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE SPACING HERE, UM, IT IT, WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF FEET THAT HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE FROM A CORNER? UH, FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR FOR, UM, FOR CLEAR COM? UH, 25 FEET. 25 FEET. OKAY. SO WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE IS TO THE, UH, TO THE BACKYARD FENCE OR WHATEVER? YEAH, THE BACKYARD FENCE. WOULD THAT ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THEN? 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW, THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE 25 FEET THERE. UM, THEY REQUIRED, UH, 15 FEET IN THE, FOR ALLEYS OR DRIVEWAYS. SO ON THIS PICTURE HERE, SO, SO THAT, SO THAT BACKYARD FENCE IS COMPLIANT. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY PUT ANYTHING IN THE REAR YARD. I THINK THE ONLY FENCE THAT THEY PUT WAS IN THE, UH, FRONT YARD. IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS IT RIGHT, BUT, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CLEAR VISION, AND SO THEN WOULD THAT STILL NOT APPLY, YOU KNOW, FROM A CLEAR, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT 25 FEET FROM THAT CORNER, I THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FORWARD OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO COVER THEIR, UM, DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION IF, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. AND IF THAT FENCE HAS BEEN THERE A REALLY LONG TIME, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT CAME INTO EFFECT THAT THE, THE CLEAR VISION. WHAT IS WELL, I JUST, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS GOING THROUGH MY, AS I'M GOING THROUGH MY THINKING, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ASSUMING THE NEW PIECE ADDED IS TRULY ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FENCE THAT WAS THERE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE, THAT FENCE TO THE LEFT OF THE GARAGE OPENING THAT LOOKS LIKE, 'CAUSE THERE WAS A CAR THAT KIND OF FITS ON THERE ON THE, ONE OF THE PICTURES. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE WITHIN THAT 15 FEET THAT THEY REQUIRE. OKAY. YES. THE PHOTOS THAT WE TOOK ON THAT DAY SHOW THAT, UH, THERE WAS A 19 FOOT, UH, BETWEEN THAT FENCE AND, AND THE BACK OF THE CURB THERE 19 FEET, WHICH IS, WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIRED 15 FOR DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS. AND THEN FOR THE CORNER AT WEST CRAIG, COULD THEY CHAIN FOR THE FENCE AND PUT IT AND PUT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE? OR DO THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE WHOLE FENCE? I MEAN, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT IF THEY WERE TO PUT A 45 DEGREE CHAMBER AT THE CORNER? YEAH, SO I THINK THEY'RE, THIS FENCE WAS KIND OF CONSTRUCTED IN A CLEAR VISION WAY. IT JUST WASN'T DONE ENOUGH. UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH MORE THEY'RE OFF, BUT THE WAY THIS FENCE IS BUILT ON THE CORNER IS THE CORRECT WAY. IT JUST WASN'T DONE ENOUGH. OKAY. SO, SO IF, IF THE BOARD WAS TO GO THROUGH A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FOUR FOOT FENCE, UM, IN THIS SPACE, UM, WOULD THAT, I MEAN, COULD WE SPECIFY THAT I, I GUESS THAT WE, IT STILL WOULD, UM, ENCROACH THE CLEAR VISION, ANYTHING OVER THREE FEET THAT'S INCLUDING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES OR JUST A REGULAR SOLID FENCE, BUT IT, WHAT IF WE GAVE A VARIANCE THAT WAS LESS THAN THAT? LIKE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 14 FOOT, EIGHT INCH VARIANCE. IF, IF IT'S REALLY CLOSE, COULD WE DO LIKE A 10 FOOT VARIANCE AND HAVE IT BE SUFFICIENT? YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S, IF, IF YOU GUYS CAN APPROVE, UM, ANY DISTANCE BETWEEN THE REQUIRED AND WHAT'S ON THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL REYNOLDS. I LIVE AT 4 36 WEST CRAIG. UM, THERE'S A FEW REASONS WHY THE FENCE WAS IN PLACE FOR, OF COURSE, SECURITY REASONS, UM, TO MEDIATE NOISE. UM, THERE'S A FEW HOMES IN THE AREA THAT WERE BURGLARIZED. UM, I LIVED TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK. THERE'S A LOT OF RIFF RAF THAT COMES DOWN THAT STREET. AND, UM, IT IS A HIGH CRIME AREA. UM, [03:00:01] ALSO I DO HAVE A SERVICE DOG THAT I'M TRYING TO KEEP IN WITHIN THE FENCE LINES. UM, BUT THE, THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS THE STREET IS NARROW. IT'S NOT YOUR STANDARD SIZE STREET. UM, SO THAT DOES AFFECT 25, UH, FOOT RULE. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE STOP SIGN IS VERY FAR BACK FROM THE STANDARD, UM, SPOT THAT IT USUALLY WOULD BE AT. UM, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE, UM, THERE'S A TELEPHONE POLE, IF YOU CAN SEE IN ONE OF THE PHOTOS. UM, IF THERE WAS ANY CARS THAT WERE, CAN, CAN YOU PUT THAT, THEY CAN PROJECT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN. WE CAN CHECK THAT OUT. SO, SO MY STREET, UM, ALLOWS STREET PARKING. SO IT, THERE'S NO SIGNS AS YOU COULD SEE. SO MY ISSUE IS, UM, A CAR COULD PARK, PARK ANYWHERE ON THAT CURB RIGHT THERE AND IT WOULD OBSTRUCT, UM, THAT TURN REGARDLESS. UM, ALSO WHEN IT CAME TO THE MEASUREMENTS, THE CITY, WHEN THEY CAME OUT, THEY MEASURED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. UM, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THAT'S IN THE, IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. AND ABOVE THAT RETAINING WALL IS MY PROPERTY GROUND LEVEL IN FRONT OF WHAT I WAS TOLD THROUGH A FEW, UH, CITY, UM, OFFICIALS THAT, UM, THE FENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MEASURED WITH INSIDE, UM, THE PROPERTY ON THE GRADE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. IT WAS MEASURED WITH THE RETAINING WALL. UM, AND OF COURSE, AT ITS HIGHEST PEAK, UM, THE FENCE IS FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. UM, IT DOES HAVE, UH, VISIBILITY. UM, AND I SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M WILLING TO CREATE MORE VISIBILITY. UM, THE ONLY ISSUE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN COMPROMISE WITH ME AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, UM, I DO HAVE A BELGIUM MAL WALL AND THE THING CAN JUMP 10 FEET TALL. UH, SO I JUST WANT TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF SECURITY AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THAT. NO, I UNDERSTAND. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, AMANDA BRAGMAN? UH, SO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING IN TERMS OF MAKING IT MORE, UH, I WOULD MAKE IT COMPLETE MORE VISIBLE. UM, I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE THE, UM, THE METAL, THE METAL MESH, SO YOU COULD SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. OH YEAH. WR IRON. WR IRON. THERE WOULD BE NO OBSTRUCTION WHATSOEVER. UM, SO SIR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST TWO PANELS FROM THE, THE PANEL FROM EACH, FROM THAT CORNER? YEAH. YEAH. WHAT I WOULD REMOVE, I WOULD REMOVE EVERY SINGLE PANEL EXCEPT THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM. AND THEN I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE METAL IN THOSE AREAS SO YOU COULD SEE THROUGH 'EM A LASER POINT. OH, YOU KIND OF WANNA POINT OUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE. YEAH. SO, UM, HERE'S THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU COULD SEE THERE'S SOME, SOME TREES IN HERE, SOME, SOME LANDSCAPING PALM TREES. YEAH. THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS, UM, WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, UM, MEASURED. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY FOUR FEET. UM, I KNOW HERE IT IS FIVE FEET, BUT REMEMBER THE RETAINING WALL. UM, SO I'M, I'M WILLING TO REMOVE 1, 2, 3, 4, WHATEVER YOU NEED ME TO DO. UM, I'M WILLING TO COMPLY AND, AND, AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES, UH, TO MAKE THIS MORE VISIBLE TO HELP THE TURN. BUT, UM, I MEAN, THE TURN IN GENERAL, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT DON'T INVOLVE MY PROPERTY, LIKE THE STOP SIGN AND, AND, AND, AND THE STREET PARKING, UM, THE NARROW STREET AND WHATNOT. BUT, UH, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, INFORM YOU GUYS WITH MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, SO TWO QUESTIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE. SO, SO DID YOU TALK ABOUT THIS WITH THE I DID. THEY WERE TOTALLY ON BOARD BOARD THAT, OKAY. YEAH. THEY, THEY LOVE THE IDEA. AND SO THE, AND SO THE SECOND QUE UH, THE SECOND POINT, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO ASK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND WHAT THAT MEANS. AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WE CAN STATE. 'CAUSE WE TRY TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO SET IT LIMITS AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S GETTING WHAT IS THAT THEY WANTED TO GET RIGHT. YOU KNOW, UH, AS WE GO THROUGH HIS DIALOGUES. AND SO, SO IF THE APPLICANT COMMITS TO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF YOU MENTIONED HIS APPLICATION, SO THAT HE'S GONNA STATE THAT THIS IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, DOES, CAN THAT BE SUBMITTED WITH REGARDS TO THE DIALOGUE AND THEN WE GO THROUGH AND SAY THAT WE'RE OKAY WITH THE FOUR FOOT HEIGHT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO IF, YEAH. SO THE SAME WAY AS ADDING CAPS, IF THE APPLICANT DOES STATE THAT THEY'RE DOING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN MOTION. UM, ALSO [03:05:01] FOR THE CLEAR VISION. SAY AGAIN? FOR THE CLEAR VISION? YES, CORRECT. OKAY. UM, ALSO, JUST TO TOUCH ON THE POINT THAT HE MADE, YES. IF THAT IS A RETAINING WALL, IT DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST HIM. UM, OBVIOUSLY HE'S STILL OVER THE NCD STANDARD AND A CLEAR VISION STANDARD OF THREE FEET. BUT IF HE'S SAYING THAT THAT'S A RETAINING WALL, THAT ONE FOOT DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST HIM. UH, ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, SO FROM THE ABSOLUTE CORNER, IF YOU GO BACK ONE PANEL, UH, AND LET'S JUST SAY THAT THOSE PANELS WEREN'T THERE AT ALL. WOULD HE MEET CLEAR VISION? WHICH PANELS? I'M SORRY. LIKE FROM THE HARD CORNER AT WEST CRAIG IN THE SIDE ROAD, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, THERE'S A SINGLE POST AND THEN THERE'S A, THERE'S, THIS IS A PANEL THAT GOES IN EITHER DIRECTION FROM THE HARD CORNER. SO IF YOU HAVE A SKETCH, YOU CAN YEAH, THAT RIGHT THERE. THAT THE ONE, THAT FIRST, YEAH, THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY AT THE, THERE YOU GO. THAT ONE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE SINGLING ON. IF YOU GO BACK ONE PANEL TO THE LEFT, YOU KNOW, BEHIND AND THEN TO THE RIGHT. AND IF THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE AT ALL, WOULD THAT MEET THE CLEAR VISION IF THERE'S NO FENCING WITHIN THAT 25 FOOT AIR? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS WE DON'T HAVE THOSE , THE APPLICANT IS TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF POTENTIALLY A PANEL AND REPLACING IT WITH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. SO IF WE WERE TO READ THE MOTION AND SAY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, CLEAR VISION WAS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, IF A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WAS PROVIDED IN THAT AREA, WOULD ONE PANEL BE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THAT AREA? BUT AGAIN, JUST GOING BACK, A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IS STILL OH, I KNOW. AGAINST CLEAR VISION. SO IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, I GET IT THAT THERE'S MORE VISIBILITY THERE, BUT IT WOULD STILL GO AGAINST THE CLEAR VISION. BELIEVE IT, IT DOES. BUT I, I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT WE COULD READ INTO THE MOTION THAT A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WAS PRESENT IN THE SUB, IN THAT CLEAR VISION AREA AS A MEANS OF A AS NEEDS, RIGHT? YEAH. IF THE APPLICANT A, A AMENDS THEIR APPLICATION, IF HE AMENS THE APPLICATION. I'M JUST WONDERING, IT'S ONE PANEL ENOUGH, I THINK. YEAH, I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE O THE AREA THAT, UH, JOEL WAS POINTING AT IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING INTO THE CLEAR VISION, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT, JOEL? THAT'S THE FRONT FENCE, THE, THE ONE THAT YOU POINTED AT. THAT'S THE ONLY PART. WOULDN'T THE FRONT, THAT FRONT CORNER FENCE ALSO NEED TO BE, THERE'S A BETTER PICTURE THAT WE CAN BRING UP AND, AND THERE'S ONE WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN ANGLE WITH A FENCE THERE. AND MAYBE IT WAS THE PICTURE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT BEING PROJECTED THAT I'M CONFUSING THIS. SO, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE DISTANCE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REQUIRED FOR, UM, YEAH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 25 FEET. SO, SO THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE CURVE VISION. SEE, SO, SO WHATEVER THE DISTANCE IS, THE PICTURE, YEAH. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. SO IF YOU TAKE, IF YOU TAKE ONE PANEL IN EACH DIRECTION AND IT WAS REPLACED WITH A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UM, OR LET'S JUST, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF, OF DISCUSSION, IF THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE AT ALL, WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH TO MEET CLEAR VISION? I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 25 PUTS YOU, I GUESS IS WHEN, YEAH, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS WITHIN CLEAR VISION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER SIDE IS ALSO WITHIN CLEAR VISION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. OKAY. 'CAUSE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS THAT I WOULD SUGGEST READING THE MOTION SO THAT, SO THAT, UM, RIGHT NOW HE'S SHORT 14 FOOT EIGHT INCHES, BUT HOW LONG IS THAT PANEL? IS THAT AN EIGHT FOOT PANEL BETWEEN THE POSTS? I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I MEAN, I'D BE WILLING, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GO DOWN TO A 10 FOOT VARIANCE. AND THEN JUST SAYING ANYTHING IN THAT AREA SHOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IF THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION. BUT THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. WHAT, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS, IS THERE ANY, UH, ANYTHING FROM THE COMMISSION THAT, ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT AT ALL? WELL, I GUESS GOING, SO, SO, SO WHAT WAS YOUR INTENTION, I GUESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WHAT DID YOU DISCUSS WITH THE COMMUNITY WITH REGARDS TO PUTTING IN, UM, WE'LL SAY THE METAL FENCING BEHIND THOSE TWO SLATS? HOW FAR BACK WERE YOU GONNA GO? WERE, WERE YOU PLANNING ON DOING IT THE ENTIRE FRONT? SO THE ENTIRE FRONT? THE ENTIRE FRONT. I WAS GONNA CHANGE THE HOLE, KEEP IT ALL VISIBLE. OKAY. AND THEN, AND POTENTIALLY ONE PANEL GOING BACK TOWARDS THE, UM, UH, OR I GUESS ONE SECTION GOING BACK TOWARDS, UH, YOUR, UM, GAZEBO OR, OR WERE YOU GOING TO LEAVE THE FRONT COMPLETELY? NO CLAD? NO, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA OPEN IT ALL UP FOR YOU GUYS. SO ALL I'M DOING IS I'M JUST, I'M KEEPING THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM, AND THIS IS ALL GONNA BE VISIBLE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FRONT FENCE, GOING ACROSS THE WHOLE THING. OKAY. ACROSS THE WHOLE, SO THEN, SO I THINK FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEN I THINK IT'S JUST REALLY A DIALOGUE FOR PR. IF HE, IF HE'S GOING TO SUBMIT IT FROM A PRPROBABLY OPEN, THEN I THINK WE'RE COVERED. YEAH, I MEAN, WHAT DO, DOES ANYONE [03:10:01] ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTARY? I PERSONALLY, IT'S, IT'S THERE. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME EXCEPT FOR THE CLEAR VISION. I MEAN, THAT'S MY THING, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO LIMIT WHAT, I'M SORRY. WELL, I MEAN, IF, IF THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS FINE WITH EVERYTHING HE'S DONE AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS SEEM TO BE FINE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CLEAR VISION I'D, I'D HATE FOR HIM TO GET RID OF ALL THAT WOOD FENCE THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE HAPPY WITH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE MINIMUM THAT HE COULD DO TO MAKE THE CLEAR VISION HAPPY. WELL, TO ME IT WOULD BE THE 25 FEET, YOU KNOW, SO THAT, SO I, AND SO IF HE COMPLIES FROM THAT, THEN I THINK WE'RE GOOD. UM, WHATEVER THAT DISTANCE IS, AND THEN HE CAN CHOOSE FROM THERE TO DO AS MUCH OF THE FENCING AS HE CHOOSES, YOU KNOW, SO WE CAN READ THE MOTION AS SAYING THAT, UM, A VIOLATION, WE CAN READ THE MOTION AS READ, BUT IT JUST SAY PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. YEAH. OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS, ANYTHING WELL PREDOMINANTLY AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT AMEND HIS APPLICATION RIGHT, FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN? IS THERE VOICEMAILS? IT'S TWO VOICEMAILS. OKAY. UM, BEFORE WE GO TO THE VOICEMAILS, WERE YOU WILLING TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE PREDOMINANTLY O TO PROVIDE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UM, IN THE CLEAR VISION AREA? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION. YES, COMMISSIONER ZU. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHO THE FENCE CONTRACTOR AND WHO THE CONTRACTOR WAS THAT WAS BUILDING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE. IT WAS MYSELF. YOURSELF. OKAY. SO NOW YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENT TO THE CITY NOW, RIGHT? YEAH. AND ANYTHING THAT IF WE DO PROVE THIS VARIANCES, UM, A PERMIT WILL NEED TO BE PULLED FOR THE ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE THE VOICEMAILS. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS CHARLES L CATRELL, C-O-T-R-E-L-L. I'M THE OWNER OF PROPERTIES AT, AND I LIVE AT 5 0 8 WEST CRAIG PLACE. I AM CALLING, UH, CONCERNING CASE NUMBER B AS IN BOY, O AS IN ORANGE, A AS IN ALBERT, DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 6. I WOULD LIKE TO RECORD THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST FOR, UM, FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 4 36 WEST CRAIG PLACE. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 508-4596. AGAIN, I FAVOR THE, UH, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE OWNER AT THE WHO RESIDES AT 4 36 WEST CRAIG PLACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS FRANCISCO SOLI. MY ADDRESS IS 7 0 1 WEST RUSSELL PLACE AND I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO A CASE FOR 4 36 WEST CRAIG PLACE. THE LAST THREE DIGITS ARE 1 4 6. I'M CALLING TO SUPPORT, UH, MY NEIGHBOR'S, UM, ABILITY OR DESIRE TO BUILD THEIR FENCE. I HAVE NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER TO THEIR PRIVACY FENCE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SHOULD YOU NEED ANY INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL ME AT (210) 379-3438. AGAIN, THIS IS, UM, A CALL REGARDING FOUR THREE SIX WEST CRAIG PLACE. UH, CASE NUM, LAST THREE DIGITS OF THE CASE NUMBER 1 4 6. UM, I'M CALLING IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING HIM TO BUILD HIS FENCE. I HAVE NO OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO READ A VERY LONG MOTION. IT'S A DOUBLE COMMISSIONER, AMANA SHEA. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE REQUEST FOR ONE A SEVEN FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 13 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A FIVE FOOT THREE INCH REAR SETBACK, ABUTTING A 14 FOOT ALLEY AND TWO, A 14 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A, UH, 10 FOOT, FOUR INCH CORNER CLEAR VISION, UM, UH, USING, UTILIZING A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, SITUATED AT 4 3 6 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APPLICANT BEING, UM, MICHAEL REYNOLDS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY [03:15:01] FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS, UM, THE REAR SETBACK, THE HISTORICAL, THE HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED REDUCED REAR SETBACK OF FIVE FOOT THREE INCH REMAINS ADEQUATE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WOULD NOT IMP, UH, IMPACT FIRE SAFETY OR WATER RUNOFF HAZARDS. UH, FOR THE CLEAR VISION, UH, THE REDUCED CORNER CLEAR VISION WOULD NOT CREATE A POTENTIAL RISK FOR, UH, ACTUALLY THE CLEAR, THE NOT THE REDUCED THE, YEAH, I GUESS THE REDUCED CLEAR CORNER VISION WOULD NOT CREATE A POTENTIAL RISK FOR TRACE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY AS A INTERSECTION OF WEST CRAIG PLACE AND BRADEN AVENUE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, ALLOWING OR FOR, BECAUSE OF THE INSULATION OF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING. UM, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE REAR SETBACK. THE GARAGE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE, UH, 1988, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REAR SETBACK. MIMS WOULD NECESSITATE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE AND THUS ELIMINATE ITS INTENDED USE. AND WITH REGARDS TO CLEAR, UH, CORNER CLEAR VISION, THE FENCE, UH, WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTALLED FURTHER FROM THE CORNER, THEREBY REDUCING THE USABILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY OF THE FRONT YARD. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. AS REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK, SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL BE MAINTAINED AND THE PRESENCE OF THE ALLEY ALSO INCREASES THE SEPARATION OF THE REAR LOT. AND REGARDING CORNER CLEAR VISION, UH, THE VISIBILITY FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY, UH, WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED AT THE INTERSECTION, GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO PUTTING IN, UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING. UH, FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS, UM, REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK, CONNECTING IT TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IN TO FORM A SIGNAL STRUCTURE WOULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND WILL PRESERVE ADEQUATE SEPARATION FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS, WATER RUNOFF, AND FIRE SAFETY. AND WITH REGARDS TO CORNER CLEAR VISION, THE, UM, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT CLEAR VISION, UM, AT THE INTERSECTION AS BEEN INDICATED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER. THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL ARE NOT DUE TO A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK, THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND WITH REGARDS TO CLEAR, UH, CORNER CLEAR VISION, THEIR PROPERTY ORDER, UH, WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL A FENCE FURTHER FROM THE CORNER, THEREBY REDUCING USEABILITY AND FUNCTION OF THE FRONT YARD. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, UM, WITH THE APPLICANT COMMITTING TO THE PROBABLY OPEN FENCE, UM, THE, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, CONCURS WITH, WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE. SO WITH THAT REGARDS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE FOR ALL THOSE REASONS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING UNANIM? HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNIS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION PASSES REGARDING THE VARIANCES. MAY I? AND JUST SO, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED, UM, FOR THAT 25 FEET FROM THE CORNER, UM, BECAUSE YOU AMENDED YOUR APPLICATION, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. IF YOU WANNA DO MORE THAN THAT, I GUESS YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, BUT FOR, BUT THE MINIMUM IS FOR THAT CORNER CLEARANCE AREA. THE NEXT VARIANCE IS FOR THE FENCE SITE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 6. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO FOOT NCD PRIVACY FENCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM TWO FOOT NCD PRIVACY FENCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT FIVE INCH PRIVACY FENCE LIMITED TO SIX FOOT TWO INCHES IN WIDTH FOR A FRONT ENTRANCE SITUATED AT 4 3 6 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APPLICANT B AND MICHAEL REYNOLDS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER AS THE FIVE FOOT PRIVACY [03:20:01] FENCE WITH A NINE FOOT GATE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT DISRUPT THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, B THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AS THE INCREASED HEIGHT DOES NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY OR POSE A RISK TO VEHICLE SAFETY IN THE INTERSECTION OF WEST CORRECT PLACE AND BRED, UH, BRADEN AVENUE C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE AS THE TALLER FENCE STILL REMAINS OPENNESS, MAINTAINS OPENNESS AND VISUAL CONTINUITY OF THE STREET. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT, PROMOTES VISUAL HARMONY ALONG, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK FACE. AND E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT ENHANCES SAFETY AND PRIVACY WHILE PRESERVING THE VISUAL OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE GATE ENTRANCE COMPLIMENTS THE HISTORIC DESIGN OF THE HOME. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. AND QUESTION FOR THE GROUP HERE. SO, SO WE DID READ IT FOR THE, UH, THE FULL HEIGHT, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE HEIGHT. BUT THERE, THERE IS THE EXCEPTION WITH REGARDS TO THE BLOCK FACE UP. SO SHOULD EVERYTHING BE REDUCED BY A FOOT? UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCE ITSELF, OR JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS AND I'M OPEN FOR AMENDMENT THERE. OKAY. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THE, I LOOKED AT THE PICTURE WHERE ALL'S DOING IT HAS FIVE FEET, BUT IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE ABOVE THE RETAINING PART THAT SURE LOOKS LIKE FOUR FEET. I MEAN, I WOULD JUST KEEP IT THE WAY. WELL, SO BY READING IT SO IT, SO READING IT THE WAY IT IS WOULD ALLOW HIM POTENTIALLY TO LIFT IT ANOTHER FOOT IF HE WANTED TO. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS NO, I MEAN THE WOOD PORTION OF THAT FENCE LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALREADY FOUR FEET. I, THAT'S WHAT I'M, IIII GET THAT. THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. HOWEVER, BY READING IT THE WAY THAT WE'VE READ IT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO ACTUALLY, TO REPLACE A FENCE AND PUT A ONE FOOT TALLER FENCE IN THE FUTURE, I BELIEVE. IS THAT NOT, OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BECAUSE HE'S SAYING THE WOOD FENCE THAT YOU BUILT NOW FROM THE, THE ABSOLUTE GROUND IS FOUR FEET TALL OR IS IT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FOUR FEET TALL? NO, FOUR FEET. I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE IT SIX INCHES. I MEAN, I, I WOULD GIVE THEM, I WOULD CHANGE IT TO TWO AND A HALF FOOT INSTEAD OF THREE. JUST 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW. SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING? SO, SO GENERALLY WE, WE, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH WHAT IT'S THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE GIVE IT, WE'RE PROTECTING PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS YOURSELF. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WE WANNA GIVE YOU WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH REGARDS TO THAT HEIGHT. AND SO IF WE SAID, UH, UM, TWO FOOT SIX INCHES, THAT WOULD STILL GIVE YOU ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT YOUR FENCE IN YEAH. AND MAINTAIN THE HEIGHT. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN WE GIVE YOU A VARIANCE, IT'S FOREVER. IT'S TIED TO THE HOUSE FOREVER, WHETHER YOU, YOU KNOCK THE FENCE DOWN OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S, IT'S, UH, WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT TO EVER DO MORE THAN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. AND BECAUSE YOU GET CREDIT FOR THE RETAINING PART OF IT, UM, WE, WE, YOU THEORETICALLY COULD MAKE YOUR FENCE A FOOT TALLER IF WE READ IT THE WAY IT IS. BUT IF WE DO IT AT TWO FOOT SIX, I I WOULD FEEL BETTER 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN ABSOLUTE MEASUREMENT. SO, SO I'LL ACCEPT TWO FOOT SIX IN JUST ALL OF THE DIALOGUE ACCORDINGLY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I ACCEPT. ALL RIGHT, SO THE MOTION IS FOR A TWO FOOT SIX VARIANCE TO THE, UM, TO THE, TO THE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FOUR AND A HALF FOOT TALL FENCE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. AND ALSO, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT EXACTLY FOREVER. YOU HAVE TO BUILD OR SUBMIT AN APPLICATION WITHIN A YEAR OF THIS. HE'S ALREADY BUILT IT . I KNOW HE'S ALREADY BUILT IT. HIS IS HIS WILL BE FOREVER . I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, BUT THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONNI. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. AYE. CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, BUT CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH GUYS. THANKS FOR GOING EASY ON ME. QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THANK YOU FOR SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE THING SO IT'S NOT FOREVER HAVE TO BUILD? WELL, IF IT WASN'T BUILT, YEAH. IF, IF IT WASN'T BUILT OR IF HE WANTED TO REBUILD, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN A YEAR OR, YEAH, WITHIN A YEAR OF, OF Y'ALL'S MOTION. THE PERMITS HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR AFTER THE PERMITS IS APPLIED FOR THEN IT'S VM. WE DO GET A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE BUILT ALREADY. SO SOMETIMES SINCE IT IS BUILT ALREADY, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT ISSUE. YEAH. ITEM 12, [03:25:01] ITEM 12 IS CASE BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 5 2. THE ADDRESS BEING 1 43, 1 45 AND 1 47 FOREST AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS ANTHONY ALMARAZ. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM, EXCUSE ME, A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORIES TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT TO THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT. THE ZONING IS IDZ ONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN NO GTO STREET AND SOUTH FLORIST STREET ALONG FOREST AVENUE. A REQUEST WAS RECEIVED IN NOVEMBER, 2022 TO CHANGE THIS PROPERTY. ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO IDZ ONE, LIMITED INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO BUILD THREE NEW HOMES AT A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 2.5 STORIES AMENDMENTS TO THE UDC, WHICH TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, 2023. UPDATED THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY WHEN APPLIED TO THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE THREE PROPOSED NEW HOMES AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT UNDER THE NEW HALF STORY DEFINITION. UH, BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN IDZ ONE DISTRICTS IS 2.5 STORIES. A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IS REQUIRED TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DESIGN. SHOWN HERE IS A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED, UH, BY COUNCIL FOR THE IDZ CHANGES, ZONING AND AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY. AND SHOWN HERE IS THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 52. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA ARE BUILT NO TALLER THAN A SINGLE STORY IN HEIGHT. AND TWO, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LIMITED INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED. STAFF MAILED 41 NOTICES. SIX WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED SHOWN HERE ARE THE SIGNATURES RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION. AND SHOWN HERE IS THE OPPOSITION BY COLLINS GUARDED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. SO I KNOW WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE HALF STORY, HALF STORY DEFINITION CHANGE, IS HE ATTEMPTING TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE THIRD LEVEL THAT IS NOT A FULL BLOWN THE SIZE OF THE GROUND BELOW IT, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN HALF AND, OR HAS IT GOT A FLAT ROOF OR HAS IT GOT A, SO I CAN PULL UP A PHOTO OF WHAT EXACTLY IT LOOKS LIKE? WELL, WE DO HAVE THOSE RENDERINGS. I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED AT IDZ, IT, IT WAS FELL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY. UM, IT'S JUST CURRENTLY THOSE PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN, UH, ISSUED YET. UH, UNDER THE CURRENT STANDARD, THE NEW DEFINITION, IT DOES NOT MEET IT. LET ME PULL UP THAT PHOTO. YEAH, ELEVATIONS ARE IMPORTANT I THINK, IN THIS DIALOGUE. SO YEAH, THE REASON I ASK IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO A FULL THIRD STORY, THEY WOULD DO IDZ TWO. THEY WOULDN'T DO IDZ ONE. SO IF, IF THIS WENT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL IN 2022 AND THEY HAD A, A DETAILED, YOU KNOW, PLANNING AND ALL THIS STUFF, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE NOT GRANDFATHERED 'CAUSE BUT I DUNNO. AND SHOWN HERE IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATION. OKAY, WELL IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A FULL LEVEL. YEAH. SO IT'S, SO THAT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE A TWO AND A HALF. YEAH, AT THE TIME IT, IT DID QUALIFY AS A, BECAUSE OF THE VAGUENESS IN THE, IN THE OLD DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY, IT DID QUALIFY AS A, THIS WAS A TWO AND A HALF STORY CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME WITH THE UPDATES TO IT TO MAKE THAT DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY MORE CLEAR. UH, AND TO MEET MORE, UH, THE INTENTION OF THE CODE. UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULDN'T QUALIFY BECAUSE IT IS, YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE CLOSER TO A, TO A FULL THIRD STORY HERE. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED? SO, UM, BESIDES THE WEDDING CAKE DIALOGUE, UM, I GUESS WITH THE NEW UC, SO WHAT IS THE FOOTPRINT ON THE THIRD FLOOR OR THE, THE, THE TOP LEVEL? UM, WHAT IS THAT MAXIMUM AMOUNT, I GUESS, UM, SANDS? WE'LL SAY THAT THE WEDDING CAKE SOLUTION, IS IT 50% OF THE TOP FLOOR? OH, UM, THE WEDDING CAKE OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE, UM, WITHIN THE SETBACK. UM, [03:30:01] I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ROOM FOR THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH ON THIS ONE. IS THAT, IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? WELL, WELL I GUESS WE'RE, SO, SO PART OF THE NOTION, YOU KNOW, WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY ONE WAS THAT THE VISUAL, THE VISUAL, UH, THE VISUALS OF THE, THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES WAS KIND OF THE WHOLE DIALOGUE AS, UH, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT U-D-C-U-D-C DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT THOSE, THE STORIES THERE. AND THEN THE QUESTION WAS, WE ALSO INCLUDED, UM, A PERCENTAGE AROUND, UM, THAT WEED CAKE DESIGN TO SAY, HERE'S WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET FOR THAT THIRD LAYER. AND SO, SO 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO DIALOGUES HERE. ONE IS COULD YOU PUSH IT ALL THE WAY SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WEDDING CAKE, BUT YOU STILL HAVE WHAT'S CURRENTLY, UM, ZONED AS THAT, AS THAT SECOND STORY. UM, UM, SO, SO IF WE MET THAT CRITERIA, THAT MAY SWAY SOMEBODY HERE IN THAT DIALOGUE IF, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO I'VE GOT THE DEFINITION UP FOR THE NEWER 2023 UPDATE. UM, THE UTMOST STORY CONTAINING SPACE COMPLETELY WITHIN A SLOPING ROOF OR, UM, SPRINGING FROM THE TOP PLATE OF THE STORY BELOW AND BROKEN ONLY BY DORMERS DO, DO, DO, DO OR A FLAT ROOF WHERE THE TOP OR THE, UM, HALF STORY IS SET BACK 20% OF THE DEPTH FROM ALL OPPOSING WALLS. SO IN THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION, YOU COULDN'T DO A, A FLAT ROOF? WELL, NO, ACTUALLY, THE OLD WAY THAT THE, WE WOULD REGULATE THIS IS BASICALLY WE WOULD JUST LOOK AT WHAT YOUR FOOTPRINT IS ON THE 50% FIRST FLOOR. YEAH. AND ANYTHING ON THAT TOP FLOOR IS, AS LONG AS THE LIVABLE SPACE WAS UNDER 50%. SO IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE ON THE OUTSIDE. AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS, IS THAT, UH, I, I'M KIND OF CONCERNED WITH, SO I PULLED UP THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY CHANGES THE IDZ ONE, AND ON THE SITE PLAN IT SAYS TWO AND A HALF STORIES. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO? IF, IF COUNCIL APPROVED THIS AS A CONDITION OF THE ZONING, ARE WE EVEN ALLOWED TO GO THERE? SO LIKE THE BUFFER PREVIOUSLY, THIS IS WHAT WAS, UM, THIS IS WHAT IS PERMITTED. UM, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THE SITE PLAN. IT'S NOTHING THAT WAS ADDED ON BY CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT, SO EVEN THOUGH COUNCIL APPROVED THIS, WITH THE RESTRICTION OF IT BEING TWO AND A HALF STORIES WE'RE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE. RIGHT. THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, UH, IS IDZ ONE RESTRICTION, NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT IN BY COUNCIL. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT. THAT MAKES, THAT, CLEARS THAT UP. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE EVEN ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT OKAY. UM, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND ONE THING THAT, THAT I'LL, AS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SURE. IS, UH, IDZ ONE DOES REQUIRE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. AND SO WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU'RE BUILDING, IS THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE GOING TO BE SET BACK FIVE FEET? BECAUSE THIS BOARD DOES, HAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD THAT, THAT, UH, A PROJECTING AN ENTIRE LEVEL TWO FEET OUT FROM THE, FROM THE FOUNDATION IS NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AND CANNOT PROJECT INTO THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. SO JUST KIND OF BE AWARE OF THAT. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE WANTING TO HEAR SOME COMMENTARY ON THAT. SO GO AHEAD. YES, SIR. ANTHONY ALURA. UH, SO I'D LIKE TO JUST START FROM THE VERY MAYBE BEGINNING IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. I KNOW, I, I THINK I'M THE LAST ONE, SO JUST GIMME SOME GRACE IN IT. AND I THINK THIS WHOLE CASE IS, UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE. SO IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN SHOW THE EMAIL THREADS WHEN I, UH, STARTED THIS PROCESS? SO, UH, NEW TO THE REZONING RE PLATTING, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A WHOLE PROCESS THAT I HAD TO GO THROUGH, UH, IN ORDER TO FINALLY GET THIS FINALIZED. PART OF THAT REZONING AND RE PLATTING, UH, WAS GETTING WITH, UH, MR. BUSTAMONTE, WE ENDED UP WALKING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE FROM THAT UNDERSTANDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST IT. SO MR. BUSANTE AND MYSELF, UH, WE ACTUALLY WALKED AND TALKED TO EACH NEIGHBOR. UM, I HAVE SOME OLD SIGNATURES THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF AN APPROVAL LETTER, BUT, UM, AND WE MADE SOME CHANGES, UH, BASED ON, AND ORIGINALLY WE HAD A GARAGE. UH, AND THEN FROM THAT GARAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS, UH, WAS PARKING. SO WE ENDED UP CHANGING THE PARKING. UH, WE ENDED UP CHANGING THE PARKING, UH, FROM HAVING A GARAGE I GOT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THEN WE ENDED UP MAKING THAT A CARPORT. UH, FROM THAT, UH, I THINK IS WHEN WE GOT NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL, UH, GOING DOOR TO DOOR, MR. MR. BUSANTE AS WELL, UH, WAS ABLE TO SEE AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE APPARENTLY OPPOSED. BUT ONCE THEY SAW THAT WE MADE THOSE CHANGES AND MADE SURE THAT WE RECTIFIED THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED GETTING THE APPROVAL. NOW, STARTING FROM THIS, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION MAYBE STARTS TAKING PLACE ON, ON MY PART. SO FORGIVE ME ON MY NEGLIGENCE, BUT, UM, IN [03:35:01] THIS, THIS IS KIND OF JUST THE, THE FIRST DIALOGUE. SO IT SAYS RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOTHING IN THE UDC THAT DEFINES A HALF STORY, THAT CRITERIA WE SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY IN THE HALF STORY BEING DETERMINED BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE GROUND FLOOR AND FORCED BY OUR DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE UDC AMENDMENTS TO BE PASSED JANUARY 1ST, 2023, SEEKS TO CLEARLY DEFINE THE HALF STORY. THE PLANS AS THEY EXIST ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE AS A HALF STORY WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, TIME TO PULL THE PERMITS. SO THE STRUCTURES WILL IN TURN BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDZ, UH, ONE BASED ZONING DISTRICT. SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, UH, TO KEEP EVERYTHING MOVING FORWARD IS KEEPING THE IDZ ONE FOR THREE UNITS AND GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THE SITE WORK PERMITS BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2023. YOU NEED TO PUT THIS SITE PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION BEFORE THESE UDC AMENDMENTS GO INTO EFFECT. THAT WAY YOU HAVE A 22, UH, 2022 PERMIT APPLICATION AND ALL IS IN COMPLIANCE. AND THIS WAS THE CURRENT PLANS THAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME, AT THAT CURRENT TIME, IT WAS HALF, UM, HALF THE STORY OF THE FIRST FLOOR FOR THE THIRD STORY. UH, SO AT THAT TIME, THE, THE, THE PLANS WORKED AND THEY, THEY, THEY WERE GOOD. THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN IS GOOD TO SUBMIT FOR THE APPLICATION IN A REGULAR ZONING DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO. THIS IS DEFINITELY PUTTING, UH, THE CART BEFORE THE, SORRY, THIS IS A LITTLE FAR FOR ME TO READ, UH, BEFORE THE HORSE IN THAT THE SITE WORK PERMIT WILL GET FLAGGED FOR ZONING REVIEWS AS THE, UH, PROPERTIES ARE ZONED SF. BUT WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, IT IS JUST THE WAY THIS HAS TO GO. ALSO, YESTERDAY I TOLD YOU THAT WHEN IDZ BASED ZONING DISTRICT IS REPLANTED, ALL REPLANTED LOTS NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IDZ SETBACK REGULATIONS. THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS WITH OTHER ZONING, UH, DESIGNATIONS. BUT IDZ IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT, SO THE SETBACKS AS YOU HAVE THEM ARE FINE. WHETHER YOU REPL, UH, THE LOT INTO THREE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES FOR SALE OR KEEP, UH, KEEP IT IS, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT AS ONE. SO, AND I THINK THAT'S KINDA THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT. UM, WE CAN GO INTO THE SECOND ONE AND IT SAYS, SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION. I ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. EVEN SHE RECOGNIZED. CAN YOU SCROLL UP ONE MORE TIME? I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE READ THAT LAST ONE. UM, UH, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW YESTERDAY YOU LEFT THINKING THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO REPL INTO ONE LOT AND GO WITH THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION. AND THEN SHE'S, YOU KNOW, LETTING ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION. NEXT ONE. AND THIS GETS A LOT QUICKER, SO I'M NOT GONNA HAVE, HAVE TO READ A LOT. UH, HI. HI ANNE. THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME YESTERDAY AND ALL THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE. HOW DO WE, OR HOW DO YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SUBMISSION? CAN WE DO THIS WITH YOU? SO THIS IS WHAT I'M NOW TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. OKAY, WELL HOW DO WE SUBMIT THIS TO BE ABLE TO GET APPROVED IF WE'RE AT A DEADLINE, UH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD BEFORE THESE LAWS OR CHANGES, NOT LAWS, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, UH, MAKE, MAKE EFFECT, RIGHT? SO THEN WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. UM, AND THEN I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, UH, MOVE FORWARD SO WE CAN, WE CAN BE GOOD ON THIS PROCESS. HELLO? UH, HELLO. JUST FOLLOWING UP AGAIN, NOT SURE IF YOU RECEIVED MY PREVIOUS EMAIL WANTING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT IS NEEDED TO BE DONE ON OUR END. AND THEN THAT'S DECEMBER 13TH. UH, SHE REPLIES DECEMBER 13TH. HI ANTHONY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY IN MY RESPONSE. AND NOTHING IS NEEDED ON THIS END FOR TOMORROW'S PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IN, IN MY THOUGHT PROCESS, HEY, NOTHING'S NEEDED. WE'RE GOOD TO GO. BUT AGAIN, MAYBE I'M NEEDING TO CLARIFY AND, AND READ A LITTLE BIT DEEPER. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PLA BECAUSE THAT YOU WOULDN'T GO TO THE, THIS IS ABOUT THE LAND USE PLAN? NO, THIS IS DURING HIS REZONING PROCESS AND HE NEEDED TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT. OH, PLAN AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE HALF STORY IS WHAT ALL THIS IS REFERRING TO. BECAUSE SHE'S SAYING, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M GOOD AND I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE HALF STORY THAT HAS TO GET MOVING FORWARD, I'M ASKING WHAT, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO AND WHAT DO I NEED TO SUBMIT IN ORDER FOR ME TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M GOOD? AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ISSUES WITH THIS HALF STORY, WHAT THE CHANGES ARE GONNA BE HAPPENING ON THE, IN 2023. SO FROM THESE EMAILS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO JUST SHOWCASE. OKAY. BUT ZONING ISN'T A PERMIT. ZONING IS PLATTING COULD BE A PERMIT, BUT ZONING IS NOT. SO HIM GOING TO THE, BASICALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO, WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO STAY, IF YOU GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH THAT SITE WORK PERMIT THAT YOU WOULD BE, UM, REVIEWED UNDER 2022 REGULATIONS. AND SO I HAVE THE, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION HERE 'CAUSE HE WAS THINKING, HE WAS ASKING, YEAH, I MEAN REALLY ABOUT HOW DO I GET, SHOULD HAVE, SHOULD GET THAT STARTED. BUT SHE WAS STILL UNDER THE IMPRESSION HE WAS ASKING SPECIFICALLY FOR ZONING QUESTIONS. SO HE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A SITE WORK PERMIT AND THEN WORKED ON THE ZONING AND PLANNING DURING THIS BEFORE IT BECAME DOORMAN OR WHATEVER THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT, ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO, UM, AND THEN SHE SAYS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE PLANNED AMENDMENT ITEM TOMORROW. SO HOPEFULLY THE ITEM REMAINS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO COME TOMORROW TO PRESENT THE ITEM [03:40:01] AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THE COMMISSIONS, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN CONTINUE READING THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY IT'S KIND OF SAYING, OKAY, I I THINK I'M GOOD. WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I HAD TO GET WITH THE, THE ARCHITECT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME, SOME CHANGES, THINGS ALONG THAT SORT. UM, SO I, I BELIEVE THAT I'M GOOD. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING, HEY, IF WE CAN HAVE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S JUST CONFUSION, YOU KNOW, IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS. UM, AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN IT KIND OF EXPLAINS, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT STEPS ON EVERYTHING. BUT I HAVE, UH, YOU CAN KIND OF GO TO THE OTHER, UM, WE CAN GET OUTTA THE EMAILS UNLESS WE WANNA CONTINUE GOING THROUGH THAT. I MEAN THERE, UH, THERE'S MORE EMAILS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE CONSENSUS. SO I'M NOT HOLDING Y'ALL UP. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANS, UH, YOU KNOW, AS WE KIND OF SCROLL DOWN, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE FOOTPRINT, UH, FOOTPRINT. SO EVERYTHING FROM, YOU KNOW, A TO Z FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, EVERYTHING WAS A STEP PROCESS. BUT PART OF, UH, THE PLATTING AND REZONING WAS GETTING APPROVAL ON THE PLANS. PLANS WERE ALWAYS A PART OF THE APPROVAL PLA UH, PROCESS WHEN IT CAME TO PLAT AND ZONING, I HAD TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PLANS. SO I'M THINKING IN MY HEAD, OKAY, THESE CHANGES IN MY PLANS IS PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I'M GOOD BASED ON THOSE COMMUNICATIONS, BASED ON THOSE EMAILS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SHOWS THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, HALF, UH, THE THIRD STORY IS HALF OF THE FIRST, UH, FLOOR, ACCORDING BACK TO THOSE REGULATIONS BACK IN THE DAY, THOSE WERE THE GOOD, UH, PLANS THAT WOULD'VE GOT APPROVED RIGHT. UH, BACK IN THE 2022. SO, UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THOSE OTHER SIGNATURES, SO I WENT BACK JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT HEY, WE'RE GOOD. JUST, YOU KNOW, NOTHING CHANGED RECENTLY. UH, SO I HAVE OLD SIGNATURES THAT WE CAN MAYBE SHOW AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN THE DAY, UH, BASED ON THESE PLANS. AND THEN I WENT BACK RECENTLY, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE, HEY, ARE WE STILL GOOD WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE PLAN ON DOING? UM, THIS IS A THREE STORY STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WELL, TWO AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE. I, I THINK, AGAIN, I'M GETTING CONFUSED ON WHAT I CALL IT NOW. UM, BUT, BUT YEAH, THAT THESE WERE THE SIGNATURES, UM, THAT WERE APPROVED RECENTLY. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE HAVE THOSE THAT WE, WE CAN MAYBE SHOW. WELL, LET'S, LET'S FIRST OF ALL, THE PLAN THAT WE'RE SEEING UP HERE MM-HMM . IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION FOR HALF STORY, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GRANT VARIANCE TO JUST THE DEVIATIONS TO THE HALF STORY AND NOT JUST SAY THREE STORIES? UM, AND THE REASON WHY I ASK IS 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, IF HIS, IF HIS PLAN IS LIMITED TO HALF OF THE FLOOR BELOW IT AND IT MEANT THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF WHAT HE HAD STARTED TO DO IN 2022, I ALWAYS, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF JUST SAYING CARTE BLANCHE THREE STORIES. I'D RATHER SAY, YOU KNOW, PER THAT PLAN, AND LET'S LOOK AT THE FEW THINGS THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF FOR IT BEING CONSIDERED A HALF STORY. SO WE'RE NOT JUST GIVING THEM A WHOLE THIRD FLOOR. I DUNNO, THAT'S JUST WHAT I THINK. SO I WAS WANTED TO DO SOME MATH AND SO, SO WHAT IS IT, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR VERSUS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TOP FLOOR? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? I, I HAVE THOSE MARKED ON, YOU KNOW, FROM THE ARCHITECT. UM, SO IT'LL HAVE, CAN YOU ZOOM IN? IT SHOULD HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE I WANT. CAN, YEAH, CAN YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? I WANT TO SEE THE TOP DIMENSIONS OF THE THREE UNITS. THERE YOU GO. 22. 22, OKAY. WHAT'S ON THE FAR LEFT LOOKS LIKE 38.40. ACTUALLY IT MIGHT BE 44.4, BUT THE, THE, THE WIDTH IS THE SAME ON EVERY ONE. YEAH. THESE, THESE ARE ALL THE SAME. YOU'RE NOT DOING ANY UNITS THAT STICK OUT LEFT? NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. THEY ALL HAVE, UH, FIVE VENTS, UH, FIVE, I'M SORRY, FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND REAR SETBACKS. UM, WELL, 'CAUSE IDZ ONE, YOUR SITE HAS A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER MM-HMM . AS LONG AS THEY'RE ATTACHED. IF IT'S A SETBACK, NOT A VARIANCE. YOU DON'T HAVE AN INTERIOR SETBACK. THE ONLY THINGS OF THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS ON THE WEST SIDE. SO ON THE, ON THE LOT THAT'S ON THE FAR RIGHT. MM-HMM. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT NO PART OF YOUR BUILDING'S GONNA BE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE. NO, THE LEFT SIDE. I'M, I, I BELIEVE I'M, AND IF HE ZOOMS OUT, I BELIEVE IT'S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET ON THE LEFT SIDE. YEAH. SIDE. WHAT ABOUT, BUT THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE FIVE FEET, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY, THE RIGHT SIDE IS FIVE FEET AS WELL. YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY BUILDING PROJECTIONS STICKING OUT INTO THAT? NO. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO 21, LET'S SEE, YOU'RE GIVING DIRECTIONS THERE. SO, SO ON THE EAST SIDE THERE'S A BUDDING R 5 1 30, UH, ADDRESS, 1 39. RIGHT. IF WE, IF WE, CAN WE ZOOM OUT OF THIS ONE AND MAYBE LOOK AT THE UM, MAYBE PAGE ONE? YEAH, SO THIS IS THE WAY THESE THREE HOMES WITH THE LOTS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A 10 FOOT, UM, ESSENTIALLY EASEMENT IF YOU WANNA CALL IT, BUT IT'S FIVE FEET, YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET. SO FROM, IT COULD BE TWO FEET IF YOU WANTED IT. SO ON, ON IDZ, CORRECT? YES SIR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FI SO, UM, SO IF YOU GO BACK ONE PICTURE, UM, [03:45:01] THERE YOU GO. SO GO BACK TO THE RENDERING THERE. OKAY. SO IS IT THAT THE TOP FLOOR IS PUSHED AWAY FROM THE STREET GOING TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE VERSUS THE FRONT OF THE STREET? IS THAT YES, THAT'S, IS THAT WHAT I'M READING? YEAH. SO IF YOU GO ON ELEVATION YET, YEAH. SO, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE DIALOGUE HERE IS, LET'S SEE, SO IT'S NOT YEAH, YOU GOT YOUR, OKAY. SO AGAIN, WE HAVE THE WEIRD THING WITH REGARDS TO THE BOTTOM STORY BEING LESS THAN THE MIDDLE STORY VERSUS THE UP STORY. UM, AND SO THE, AND THAT'S OPEN AREA ON THE RIGHT. SO THE ENCLOSED AREA IS ON THE LEFT, SO IT'S GONNA BE COVERED. IT'S A TERRACE. IT'S A TERRACE. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE BECAUSE WHERE I'M GOING IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DIALOGUE WE WANTED AIR AND LIGHT AVAILABLE FOR THE BUDDY NEIGHBORS. AND THAT'S WHY THE WHOLE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE 20% GIVE WITH REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO, SO ARE WE COMPROMISING THAT 20% ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS DESIGN IS, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO, I GUESS. YEAH. THE REAR, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE CAN, EACH ONE HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT REAR. 'CAUSE IT, UH, MAYBE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LOT. AGAIN, THE REAR ON THE LEFT SIDE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A, I I BELIEVE IT'S A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR ON THE FIRST NEIGHBOR. UM, AND THEN LIKE FOR INSTANCE RIGHT HERE, SO IT'LL ACTUALLY TELL YOU THE SETBACKS, UH, FROM THESE, SO IT'S A NINE AND A HALF FOOT SETBACK FROM, YOU KNOW, FIRST FLOOR AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE SECOND HOUSE THAT KICKS OUT A LITTLE BIT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER OF A REAR. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOT 49, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S A FULL, UM, OPEN WITH JUST THE, THE OPENNESS. BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION YEAH. THAT, THAT'S NINE FEET FROM THE REAR. WELL, SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNED WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE SETBACK. OKAY. UM, BUT, BUT THE TOP STORY, THE THIRD FLOOR MM-HMM . IS WHERE YOU'LL, I'M LOOKING TOWARDS THAT WEDDING CAKE DESIGN AND PUSHING BACK FROM THE WALL SO THAT THEY AREN'T SEEING A THREE STORY WALL WHEN THEY LOOK OUT THEIR BACK DOOR. AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE WEDDING CAKE. AND SO THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS HOW FAR SETBACK IS THAT TOP BUTTRESS OR WHATEVER THAT IS FROM THE WALL THERE? THAT'S, THAT'S THE FRONT OVER HERE ON THAT SIDE THOUGH. I'M SORRY. YEAH, THAT'S THE FRONT SIDE. THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE BACK SIDE. SO IT'S, SO IT'S STRAIGHT UP. AND SO THAT, SO I DO HAVE A, I GUESS A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THAT PERSPECTIVE THERE. SO ON THAT SIDE, IT'S AN OPEN TERRACE. SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO READ THIS AS BEING A TWO AND A HALF STORY WHERE THE HALF STORY IS LIMITED TO 50% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED SPACE OF THE FLOOR BELOW IT? UH, AND, AND THEN WE'D ALSO HAVE TO SLAP IN THE TERRACE PARK 'CAUSE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T ALLOW WITH THE HALF STORY. I THINK PREVIOUSLY THE BOA, UH, MADE THE MOTION AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AS WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE. OKAY. BUT WITH, SO GOING BACK TO THE CURRENT CODE, UM, SO, SO THAT, SO A TERRACE IS NOT PERMITTED RIGHT? AS FAR AS IT, UH, THE, IT HAS WEDDING CAKE DESIGN, IT'S COMPLETELY, UM, UNU UNUTILIZED SPACE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. NO, THERE'S NO OPEN PATIOS OR YEAH, TERRACES HALF STORY NOT ON THE TOP STORY. YEAH. AND THIS WILL ANSWER YOUR, UH, SETBACK OR NOT SETBACK, EXCUSE ME. BUT THIS IS ONLY THREE FEET THAT'S COMING OUT ON THE REAR. SO THEN WE STILL HAVE SIX AND A HALF FEET. IF THAT'S A NINE AND A HALF FROM THE FIRST FLOOR, THEN IF YOU JUST SUBTRACT THE NINE AND A HALF FROM THE THREE, WE'RE AT A SIX AND A HALF STILL SETBACK. YEAH. YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT VIOLATING. OKAY. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU'RE VIOLATING SETBACKS. OKAY. OUR, OUR ISSUE IS, IS THAT THERE, THERE'S A SCOPE AND AN INTENSITY MM-HMM . WHEN YOU START PUTTING STUFF ON A THIRD LEVEL MM-HMM . AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT HALF STORY DEFINITION WAS TO, WAS TO DEFINE WHAT THAT IS. OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, AND SO FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FLAT ROOF, THE EXPECTATION WAS FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT TOP FLOOR INSET THE 20% AND INSTEAD OF YOU HAVING LIKE SLOPE ROOFS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD RESULT IN THAT. AND SO, AND ALSO THEY DID, THEY ALSO SAID THAT A HALF STORY CAN'T HAVE A TERRACE OR A BALCONY UP THERE. SO THAT'S ANOTHER SPECIFIC THING THAT YOU CAN'T DO. UM, AND THE NEW ONES RIGHT. UNDER THE NEW RIGHTS. CORRECT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION IS LOOKING AT, IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WHATEVER THAT IS UP THERE, IS IT, IS IT AN, AN A VIOLATION OF THAT AND OF THAT DEF DEFINITION FOR THE HALF STORY THAT WOULD HELP DEFINE THE INTENSITY FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS? MM-HMM . OKAY. AND, AND, AND I GUESS COURT. AND SO WHAT I WAS THINKING THROUGH IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL IN DESIGN PHASE AND IF WE PUSH THAT WHOLE BACK FORWARD SO THAT THE FRONT WALL WAS SOLID VERSUS THE BACK WALL BEING SOLID AND YOUR BUDDY NEIGHBORS, SO, SO THAT BASICALLY THE, THAT THAT WALL WOULD, WOULD SIT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, UM, WHERE THE BACK NEIGHBOR WOULD NOT, WOULD BE, WOULD HAVE THAT TERRACE POSITION. RIGHT. AND SO, SO, SO NOT AS A, NOT AS, I GUESS [03:50:01] AS OBVIOUS AS FAR AS WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. AND, AND JUST TO GO OVER THIS TOO AS WELL, I, I GUESS, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE LOOKING AT REVISING AND, AND MAYBE POSSIBLY CHANGING, BUT THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BACK, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN IT WAS APPROVAL. AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THESE WERE ALL THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO END UP CHANGING TO MAKE IT WORK AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS GONNA END UP GETTING PASSED. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. WHEN DID YOU APPLY FOR YOUR PLAT? UH, THIS WAS, UH, 20, YOU PROBABLY HAVE THOSE EMAILS, BUT AT 2022 I BELIEVE IS YOUR PLAT APPLICATION WAS IN THE YEAR 2022. MM-HMM. YEAH, I, I WAS GOOD TO BE ABLE TO, SO COULD HE USE THAT AS A VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION AS THE ORIGINAL PERMIT AND THEN NOT HAVE TO COME HERE AT ALL? THE DESIGN OF THE THIRD STORY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAT. IT HAS TO BE BUILDING PERMITS. WELL, NO, I MEAN, LIKE VESTED RIGHTS DOES INCLUDE PLATTING. THAT'S THE FIRST ORIGINAL PERMIT IN, IN THE CHAIN. THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING. LIKE IF HE APPLIED FOR A PLAT, UH, IN 2022 AND THAT, AND HE GOES BACK AND HE SAYS, HEY, I'M PUTTING THIS PROJECT IN MOTION IN 2022. IS THAT POSSIBLE? I, I, I'VE USED PLAS BEFORE, BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH THE HIGHER UPS. , WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING THAT UP, COULD WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE, UM, NOTIFICATION PLAN AGAIN? I'D, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THAT BACKED NEIGHBOR AT 1 0 8 MOFFITT OR MARGARET MARK, IF THESE DO MATTER. THIS IS A SLOPED ROOF, IF THAT MATTERS. UH, WELL, EVEN A FLAT ROOF HAS A SLOPE TO IT. IT'S MM-HMM . DEPENDS ON WHAT STAFF SAYS IT IS, I GUESS. WELL, IT'S, IT'S METAL, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST AT A TWO PITCH OR ABOVE. SO THIS ISN'T TPO OR MODIFIED BID, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE FLAT. OKAY. PROOF. YEAH. SO COMMISSIONER CRUZ, AND I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON THE PICTURE WHERE THEY SHOW THE PROPERTY, THE HOME THAT'S THERE IN THE BUILDING IN THE BACK TO, YOU'RE GONNA TEAR THOSE DOWN? YES, MA'AM. TO, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THREE HOMES THERE, CORRECT? SURE. YES MA'AM. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. AND, AND, AND JUST FOR THE REASON OF, OF THAT WHOLE VESTED RIGHTS AND THE PLAT THING, BECAUSE HE APPLIED FOR THE ZONING AND HE TURNED IN A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SHOWING CERTAIN THINGS. I KNOW THAT WITH, WITH VESTING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FAIR NOTICE, AND USUALLY DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS YOU'LL DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS YOU'RE DOING AND THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF YOU'RE USING TO, TO LOCK YOU INTO SOME OF THOSE, THOSE THINGS. YES, SIR. BUT IF A, IF THERE WAS A ZONING THAT WAS TURNED IN PRIOR TO 2023, WOULDN'T THAT ZONING SITE PLAN BE CONSIDERED A FAIR NOTICE? UM, I'M JUST ASKING BECAUSE IF THIS THING DOESN'T WORK OUT, SO YEAH, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE THAT WHEN IT'S WITHIN LIKE A YEAR TO TRY TO GRANDFATHER THEM IN MM-HMM . WE'VE HAD, WHEN THE 2023, UH, UDC AMENDMENT CAME IN, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE, UM, I THINK A COUPLE INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE REZONED AND THEY APPLIED FOR THEIR PERMITS WITHIN A YEAR. WE GRANDFATHERED THEM IN. THIS ONE WAS TOO FAR, TOO FAR SEPARATED FROM THE REZONING TO DO THAT. AND THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THIS TOOK PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, YOU KNOW, WITH OR MAYBE A YEAR FOR GETTING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE MAYOR AND FINALLY GETTING THE APPROVAL, WHICH I WOULD'VE PROBABLY BEEN OUTTA THAT, THAT WINDOW OF HAVING SOME GRACE. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK CAN I DO THINK CONCURRENTLY? BECAUSE YEAH. I TELL YOU, ZONING CAN TAKE A WHILE. YOU DON I UNDERSTAND. AND THIS IS A YEAR FROM THE REZONING APPROVAL, NOT THE PROCESS OF REZONING. OH, AN ENTIRE, OKAY. WHEN RE ZONING WAS APPROVED, WE'VE, WE'VE TAKEN, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE GRANDFATHERING BECAUSE OF THIS INSTANCE, BUT THIS IS JUST TOO FAR AWAY FROM THESE ZONING APPROVAL. I UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT'D YOU FIND OUT? ? SO, UM, VESTED RIGHTS, THEY DO NOT COVER ZONING ITEMS AND THIS IS A ZONING ITEM. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. YEAH. CHAIR. YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN. HEY, UM, GOING BACK, CAN I SEE THE SIDE SETBACK PLAN AGAIN? UH, AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR TOO, JUST MAYBE Y'ALL CAN HELP ME OUT, HOPEFULLY NOT FOR FUTURE, BUT, UM, HOLD ON A SECOND. I JUST WANNA HEAR THIS QUESTION. OF COURSE. UM, IS THERE, THERE'S GONNA BE A FENCE IN BETWEEN THESE MM-HMM . OKAY. UH, THE AC UNIT IS, HOW HIGH IS THAT GONNA BE? IS THAT GONNA BE IN THE WAY TO ACCESS TO THE BACK OR IS THAT SO OBSTRUCTION, SO IDZ INTERNALLY, NO SETBACKS. YOU COULD PUT THOSE BUILDINGS SIX INCHES AWAY FROM EACH OTHER AND YEAH. AND, AND IT GETS WEIRD FOR FIRE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE, IN THE IDZ CODE THAT SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET FIRE, BUT THEN IF HE GOT A BILLING PERMIT, IF, IF HE DIDN'T HAVE A FIVE FOOT PATH, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO IRATE THE WALLS AND ALL THIS STUFF. BUT THAT'S A PERMITTING ISSUE. SO, BUT WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, SO IF I WOULD'VE MAYBE UNDERSTOOD THAT EMAIL THREAD THAT WE'RE GOING BACK TO, AND [03:55:01] NOT THAT YOU'RE GOOD AND THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT AND WE'RE GOOD, BUT IF I WOULD'VE DONE WHAT WAS INTENDED IN, IN THAT CONTEXT OF SUBMITTING THIS BEFORE THAT DEADLINE, I WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I, COMMISSIONER, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT AND, UM, JUST LISTENING TO THE HISTORY OF YOUR PROJECT AND NOT BEING CLEAR ABOUT THE STEPS YOU HAD TO TAKE, UM, WE'RE NOW IN 2025, YOU STARTED THIS PROCESS IN 2022, YOUR PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AS IS, UH, THE UDC CODE CHANGED, THE GAME CHANGED, AND YOU'RE STUCK THREE YEARS LATER WITH, AND YOU DID SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE RE REQUESTED TO YOU ALREADY BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, MA'AM. UM, AND NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE FACING THIS DILEMMA OF HAVING TO START ALL OVER AGAIN, HOPEFULLY NOT WITH THE PROCESS. RIGHT. . SO THIS VARIANCE WILL, WILL ASSIST YOU IN THAT. UM, NOW I'VE DRIVEN AROUND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE NEAR THERE. YES, MA'AM. AND WHAT YOUR DESIGNS ARE SHOWING, I'VE SEEN MANY, MANY BUILDINGS, NEW BUILDINGS, NEW HOMES DESIGNED LIKE THIS. YES, MA'AM. SOME OF THEM EVEN TALLER. YES, MA'AM. UM, SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM SUPPORTING YOUR REQUESTS. UM, AND I, AND, AND I FEEL FOR YOU BECAUSE I THINK THE PROCESS OF HAVING TO CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOPED PROPERTIES CAN BE ALMOST SELF-DEFEATING SOMETIMES BECAUSE THE RULES CHANGE MM-HMM . AND, UM, AND SO I'M, I JUST HEARING THE HISTORY OF YOUR PROJECT, UM, KINDA GIVES ME THE EEB GBS FOR SOME LITTLE PROJECTS I WANNA DO. IT'S SCARY. YEAH, IT'S SCARY. SO I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT AS IS. THANK YOU FOR THE, FOR THE REASON, THE HISTORY THAT YOU'VE SHARED AND BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL ALREADY VOTED GO AHEAD. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND, AND BECAUSE YOU KIND OF GOT STUCK IN THE HURRICANE OF UDC CHANGES. YES, MA'AM. SO, UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YES. SO, UH, JUST STEMMING OFF OF MS. BANES, IF I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PATHWAY HERE. IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION AS PRESENTED? IF THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING? YEAH. SO THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS STATED THAT THE PLANS THAT WE HAD SAW IS WHAT HE WANTS TO PURSUE. IS ANY OF THAT PART OF THE PACKAGE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU BROUGHT, UH, YOURSELF TODAY? UM, IT WAS NOT PART OF THE BOA PACKAGE, BUT IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. UM, SO WE DO HAVE AS, YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A RECORD OF, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, AND WE DO HAVE A RECORD OF WHAT HE SHOWED, LIKE WHOEVER READS A MOTION THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN REFERENCE, MAYBE A DATE OR A NAME OF A, OF A SHEET OR SOMETHING OR, SO THAT'S ONE PLAN SET. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY HOW WE'RE GONNA PRESENT THE MOTION, RIGHT? IF ONE, HOW WE'RE GONNA READ THE MOTION. YEAH. SO HERE THIS IS, UH, FOR, IT'S A SHEET THAT BY MCCULLOUGH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LEAVE THAT UP FOR WHOEVER'S GONNA READ IT. YEAH. THE O THE OTHER IMPORTANT PART IS THAT WE'RE NOT FULLY EMPANELED HERE, MR. CHAIR. WHAT? AND DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE 11 MEMBERS, RIGHT? WELL, WE HAVE 10. WE HAVE 10. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE 11. WE DON'T HAVE 11. BUT, WELL, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A FAIR SHAKE, RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU HAVE AN OPPOSITION, THEN TO HAVE A FAIR SHARE AND JUST TO VOICE YOUR, UM, YEAH, IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, PLEASE VOICE YOUR OPINION SO THAT WE, WE GIVE THIS GUY COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, SO, SO THAT, WELL, AND I, AND SO, UM, SO I'D LIKE THE DESIGN, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY I KEPT GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT DO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THE TOP STORY FORWARD SO AS TO GIVE SPACE TO THE BACKSIDE? AND SO, SO YOU'RE STILL, WE AREN'T TAKING AWAY ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ANY OF THAT, JUST CHANGING THE POSITION OF THAT TOP STORY. SO WE PROVIDE THE LIGHT AND FAIR USE FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND YOU, EVEN THOUGH THEY AGREED. BUT I THINK THAT PUTS IT MORE ALIGNED FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE INTENT WAS OF THE CURRENT CODE, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND STILL GETS YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO GET TO. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS A QUESTION I WAS ASKING IS, IS WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO BE ABLE TO SHIFT IT FORWARD? UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF WE LOOK AT A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES AS, AS WAS BROUGHT UP HERE, I THINK THAT A LOT OF 'EM DO SHOW THE FRONT BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE SOLID WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGNS. AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUT OF PLACE, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION. UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO RESPOND. YEAH. MY, MY [04:00:01] QUESTION, MY HOPE WOULD BE IS THAT WE CAN APPROVE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY MY THOUGHT PROCESS APPROVED. UM, I THINK THAT WOULD CHANGE THE, UH, FACADE OF THE BUMP OUT WHERE IT MATCHES THE WOOD CLADDING AT THE TOP. AND ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, I'M GONNA END UP WANTING TO PUT STANDING SEAM, UH, ON THE, ON THE SECOND, UH, SECOND STORY. SO IF POSSIBLE, IF WE WOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, IF THAT WOULD BE A NO. AND THAT WOULD STOP ME FROM GETTING AN APPROVAL THEN. WELL, LET'S, LET'S SEE HOW THAT TURNS OUT. OKAY, SO AND SO ON THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE. SO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS PICTURE IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR THE BACK OF THE HOUSE SIDE. ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. SO, AND, AND STAFF, ANY OF THESE STATE LAW CHANGES THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THREE STORIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, DOES THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT OF THIS? NO, IT WOULD, UM, BASICALLY HAVE TO BE THAT, UM, WHEN YOU WERE PLATTING WHEN YOU HAVE LIKE THAT FIVE ACRES OR MORE. OH, OKAY. SO IF YOU WERE FIVE ACRES OR MORE, YOU COULD PUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF THREE STORIES. NOT APPLICABLE HERE. OKAY. WELL LOOK, I THINK IT'S TIME FOR EMOTION. IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYTHING WE NEED TO LISTEN TO? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD JUST READ THE MOTION AND, AND REFERENCE THE PLAN. AND LET'S SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'LL LET IT FLY. UM, CAN WE MOVE THE, CAN WE SEE THE, GET THE TITLE BLOCK BACK ON THIS, ON THE TITLES, ON THE PLANS AND GONNA GO FROM THERE? I'LL, I BELIEVE YOU COULD ALSO JUST SAY AS PLANS AS PRESENTED. OKAY. AND THIS IS A, THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT HERE, SO IF YOU NEED TO, OKAY. GIMME SOME CORRECTIONS, PLEASE. LEMME KNOW GROUP EFFORT HERE. SO ANY PLANS, UH, ANY AMENDMENTS, LET ME KNOW. OKAY. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OH EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 3 0 0 1 15 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT TO THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT, SITUATED AT 1 4, 3, 1, 4, 5, AND 1 47. FOUR STAFF. AS PER THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, ANTHONY ALMAREZ AND PRESENTED TO US TODAY, UH, FURTHER NOTATION THAT IT'S DESI, THE PLANS WERE DESIGNED BY MCCULLOUGH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, UH, AND THOSE WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD HERE. UM, UM, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION TO THE CHARACTER FORM AND SIZE OF THE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALTER THE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE HOMES, WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED THIRD STORY, WOULD NOT EXCEED THE OVERALL MIX. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, LIMITATION, MEASURE, AND FEE FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. SO SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT OF, OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS A TYPICAL HEIGHT VARIANCE, UH, VARIATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES IN THIS AREA WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPTED OR OTHERWISE DEPARTED BY, UH, DE DEPARTED FROM, BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH VARIANCE IS SAW AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT GRANTED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCES, UH, IS BEING SOUGHT AS THE UUDC WAS AMENDED DURING THE TIME BETWEEN THE, UH, PROJECT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSITION, UH, BY CHANGE OF ZONING AND THE CURRENT DATE MAKING THE PROPOSED DESIGN NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT CODE END OF MOTION. SO IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENI. COMMISSIONER UNA. RIGHT. SO WE HAD A FULL, UH, DISCUSSION, DIALOGUE BY, BY THE BOARD HERE. UM, THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE IS THAT THE, THE PROCESS OF THE UDC WAS CHANGED DURING THE, UH, IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROJECT. UM, I THINK THAT BY STATING THAT THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED ARE WHAT WE'RE HOLDING THE APPLICANT TO, UH, DOES NOT GIVE HIM ANY OTHER, UM, UH, BENEFIT THAN JUST TRYING TO BUILD WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO FROM HIS AIT, HIS INITIAL SUBMITTAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ COMMISSIONER EZ. YEAH. UM, I WILL ALSO SUPPORT, UH, THE, UM, THE STATEMENT AS READ. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS, UM, IS GOING THROUGH A TOUGH TIME WHEN HE WAS DOING THAT WITH THE CODE CHANGES. I BELIEVE IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR HIM TO CONTINUE WITH THESE BUILDS IF WE KEEP IT WITHIN THE SAME PLAN. AND HE'S BUILDING THREE HOMES IN AN INFILL, IN AN INFILL LOT. AND THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THOSE INFILL LOTS IS TO PUT HOMES THERE. I THINK LET'S NOT DELAY THIS ANYMORE AND LET'S HELP MS. STRAU MAREZ, [04:05:01] UM, GET THESE HOUSES BUILT. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BARRINGTON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I ABSTAIN. CHAIR ORIAN? UH, NO. UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD RECONSIDERED THIS CASE SINCE THE MOTION FAILED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. WE HAVE ONE DENIAL, UH, MOTION PASSES. I MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS FOR TWO WEEKS TO SEPTEMBER 22ND. WAS, WAS THAT THE PREVAILING PARTY THAT YES. YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE LOADING UP. HOW ABOUT THE 30TH? YEAH. YEAH. UH, . OKAY. UM, THE 30TH. OKAY. WHAT'S, WHAT'S SHARE CHAIR? WHAT, WHAT ARE WE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO, TO DO DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT HE DID TODAY? WELL, WE'VE HEARD, WE'VE HEARD FROM, UM, THE ONE PERSON, UH, UH, ABOUT ANY SORT OF REDESIGN. SO I WOULD, I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME DISCUSSION WITH YOUR DESIGN TEAM JUST TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ENTAIL. SO, SO MAYBE IF I CAN FOLLOW UP JUST BECAUSE WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THAT WOULD GET AN APPROVAL ON WHAT WE HAVE. IF WE'RE GOOD, THEN HEY, WE'RE, LET'S LEAVE IT AS IS. IF WE NEED TO MAKE A SUGGESTION ON BRINGING THE THIRD STORY UP TO MATCH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE SECOND STORY OR JUST MAKE SURE THE SECOND ALIGNS WITH THE THIRD, WOULD THAT BE ABLE TO GET AN APPROVAL AND RE RECAST THESE? MAYBE. OKAY, SO THEN YES. OKAY. SO IS THE, SO SEPTEMBER 30TH, WELL, WELL MY QUESTION IS CAN WE REDO THIS? IF I MOVE THE THIRD STORY UP, LIKE HE TALKED ABOUT KEEPING THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT JUST MOVING THAT UP SO IT'S FLUSH AS HE SUGGESTED. AND SO, SO AS A NOTE, SO THE DIALOGUE, SO, SO MY POSITION IS WE HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT, UH, 20% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SUPPOSED TO BE ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. AND IF WE MOVE IT SO THAT IT'S FORWARD SO THAT THERE IS THAT 20% COMPLIANCE AND ISN'T NECESSARILY ALL THE WAY FLUSH WITH THE FRONT. SO YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS. SO THAT, I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR THE LIGHT FOR THE BACK SPACE OF THE, OF YOUR BUDDY NEIGHBOR AND YEAH. I, I, SO FOR THE 30TH, UM, YOU NEED TO TALK TO YOUR DESIGN TEAM ABOUT MM-HMM . ABOUT THAT. BUT ALSO LET'S GET CRITICAL ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW, SO WHAT EXACTLY YOU DOING ON THE THIRD FLOOR. GET WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT THAT MOTION, ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL HALF FLOOR, UM, CO DEFINITION WOULD REQUIRE. AND LET'S GET SOME NUMBERS TO IT, PERCENTAGES SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO BASE SOME OF THIS ON. UH, I ALSO WOULD RECOMMEND YOU PUTTING A, A TIMELINE SUMMARY OF, I APPLIED FOR THIS ON THIS DATE. I APPLIED THIS ON THIS DATE. 'CAUSE WE'VE HEARD THAT YOU'VE BEEN IN MOTION FOR YEARS, BUT IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU DID IT. YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT HELP. UH, 'CAUSE YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO ABSTAIN AND WE HAVE ONE THAT WAS A NO, I ONLY VOTED NO. SO THAT WE COULD RECONSIDER IT PERSONALLY. YES. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTA MAKE, SO THE THE CHALLENGE THOUGH IS IF I DO BRING THAT UP, WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED, WHICH IS HAVING PARKING AND THAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING THAT WE WANTED MAKE. WELL THEN YOU NEED TO BRING THAT UP. AND, AND SO I DO AND, AND, AND THAT WAS GONNA BE MY RECOMMENDATION AND ALSO IS TO BRING BACK SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS, IS OPPOSING 'CAUSE BECAUSE AGAIN, I I DO SIDE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REGULARLY AND SO, SO SO HAVE YOUR DIALOGUE WITH THEM WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THE DESIGN IS AND, AND ALL THE REST OF THOSE THINGS. AND WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? YES. YES, THEY WERE. OKAY. SO MAYBE GETTING THEM NOT TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO THAT. WELL, RIGHT. YEAH. I NEED TO GET THE PEOPLE THAT, UH, SAID YES TO ATTEND THOSE. BUT THERE'S TWO PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WILL ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS IN WHICH, UH, THERE'S A TOTAL OF FIVE THREE DON'T VOTE, TWO VOTE. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GONNA BE MY CHALLENGE. AND, AND I THINK JUST HAVING THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THAT YOU HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND HERE'S WHAT WAS SAID AND, AND DOCUMENTED WELL ENOUGH. SO THAT WAY I THINK THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I HAD MR. BUS DEANTE WALK WITH ME. THE PERSON THAT WAS WANTING TO SAY NO WAS THE ZONING COMMISSION CHAIR. [04:10:01] YES, SIR. OH, OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ON ALL THREE LOTS OR ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT ON LOT 47? ALL THREE. ALL THREE. OKAY. YOU ACTUALLY HAD CHAIR BUSANTE WALK. OKAY. YEAH, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HOA AND HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WASN'T THE CONSENSUS. I THINK ORIGINALLY THEY THOUGHT I WAS FORGING SIGNATURES, SO I INVITED HIM TO COME WITH ME TO ACTUALLY WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, HE, HE DID, WHICH WAS FANTASTIC. AND HE SAW THE APPROVAL THAT WE HAD BASED ON THESE STRUCTURES. RIGHT. AND, AND SO THE, I GUESS THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, YOU KNOW, AND SO, SO I RECOGNIZE THAT MM-HMM . AND SO WHAT, WHAT DELTA CHANGED BESIDES THE TIMELINE WITH THE, WITH WITH THE COMMUNITY AND, AND YOU KNOW, WAS IT THE CASE THAT COLIN GARDENS WAS IN FAVOR WHEN IT IS THAT YOU KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE ZONING AND ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS AND THEY WERE, THEY WERE FINE WITH IT. SO WHAT CHANGED SINCE THEN? THEY, THEY WERE NEVER IN FAVOR, BUT THEY WERE NEVER IN FAVOR. CORRECT. THE, THE ACTUAL HOA. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY MR. BUSTA MONTE HAD WALKED WITH ME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THE CONSENSUS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. YEAH. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, 'CAUSE I, BECAUSE THAT FOR THIS IDZ ZONING TO GO THROUGH, YOU MUST HAVE MADE SOMEBODY HAPPY BECAUSE IF THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WAS OPPOSED AND YOU HAD BUSANTE WALKING AROUND WITH YOU, THEY MUST HAVE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DID WANT MM-HMM . YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WERE DOING. YES, SIR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THERE IS THERE. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE 30TH AND CHAIR. THAT WAS A POCKET VETO VOTE. DID WE HAVE A A VOTE ON? YEAH, IT WAS A, IT WAS, UH, TO THE 30TH. UM, VOTE ON IT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A NAY. AYE. SO EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR DEAN, UH, MOTION PASSES. WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 30TH. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? NOTHING OF NO REPORT. HAVE A GOOD DAY. UM, IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE MINUTES, SO WE'RE ADJOURNED. IT IS FIVE 20. * 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.