* 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. [00:00:01] THE BOARD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS [Call to Order] WILL COME TO ORDER. I BELIEVE WE HAVE TIME. OKAY, WILL, UH, EVERYONE PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES? UM, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL CALL MONICA. MR. THIEL, PRESENT. DR. TERELLI? PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? MS. CRUZ. MR. ORIAN? HERE. MR. BRITTON. MR. RODRIGUEZ. MR. NEFF? PRESENT. MR. MANNA PRESENT. MS. FISHER? PRESENT. MR. PRESENT. MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAGS. I, THE UNITED STATES HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG I PLEDGE. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THE BOARDROOM. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER AND THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. THE BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF 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, IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL, AND ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND AUTHORIZED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS AND VARIANCES FROM THE REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES IN OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE BOARD'S DECISIONS AND APPEALS, EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED ALIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. SO TODAY WE ARE OPERATING ON THE SKELETON CREW. WE HAVE NINE VOTES, SO YOU MUST GET ALL NINE TWO IN YOUR CASE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEFS CAN BE LEGALLY RE GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOUR REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. NOW WE NEED TO CONFIRM THOSE THAT ARE HERE. UH, CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 2. [00:05:02] UH, PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA SHORTEN THIS A LITTLE BIT. UH, CASE NUMBER 1 1 6 A REQUEST BY RED AND BLACK ENGINEERING GROUP. THANK YOU. UH, REQUEST NUMBER 1, 2 1 BY LUIS CARDONA. THANK YOU. REQUEST NUMBER 1 24 BY MARK ACE ERTZ. ERTZ. IS THAT PRONOUNCED? ERTZ? OKAY. ACE NUMBER 1 1 9. ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER 1 1 8. DAVID RODRIGUEZ. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER 1 0 4 ERIC GIBSON. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER ONE 20 VERONICA JOHNSON. UH, 1, 2 2. UH, DEREK ZEAL, CASE NUMBER 1 1 7 JORGE DE LAVEGA. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL THE CASES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY. NOW WE NEED TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM STAFF ON THE, ON THE WAY. THE, UH, MEETING WILL PROGRESS. THEY'RE IN DISCUSSION, SO PLEASE HOLD. OKAY. STAFF WILL GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON INSTRUCTIONS ON SPEAKING TIME FOR THE WITNESSES. DAF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND NEXT INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. IN ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU'LL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES. NOW [1. 19-7799 BOA-19-10300112: A request by Patrick Christensen for a height variance from the two stories height limitation to allow construction of a new theater to be three stories and 38' in height within the Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation District, located at 725 and 741 West Ashby Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] LET'S GO AHEAD AND PROCEED TO OUR FIRST CASE. CASE NUMBER 1 1 2. THIS IS FOR BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 112. A REQUEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE TWO STORIES HEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLOW NEW THEATER CONSTRUCTION TO BE THREE STORIES AND 38 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPLICANT BEING PATRICK WILSON, WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN. ADDRESS IS 7 2 5 AND 7 4 1 WEST ASHBY PLACE. ZONING IS ID Z AND CD TWO IN FIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH USE OF PERMITTED FOR INDOOR VENUE TWO SCREENS, STAGES AND PERFORMING ARTS. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. A SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A NEW THEATER AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER B THREE STORES AND 38 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE NCD TWO ONLY LASTS FOR TWO STORIES OF HEIGHT FOR PROPERTIES NORTH ASHBY ZONING COMMISSION INITIALLY HEARD THIS CASE ON JANUARY 15TH, 2019. THE SITE PLAN REFLECTED THE THREE STORY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. A CONTINUANCE WAS REQUESTED ON JANUARY 15TH AND FEBRUARY 19TH, 2019. ZONING COMMISSION ULTIMATELY VOTED ON ITEM MARCH 15TH, 2019 WHERE IT WAS APPROVED. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE ITEM ON APRIL 4TH, 2019. [00:10:02] THIS IS THEIR SITE PLAN AND HEIGHT. EXHIBIT SUBJECT PROPERTY APING PROPERTIES F RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE AND BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 112 BASED ON FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. AND TWO, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE NEW THEATER AND NEARBY LAND USES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL AND MIXED HOUSING. WE MAILED 22 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALTAVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSITION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE MR. DUR? GO AHEAD. SO, UH, I SAW ON THE FILE THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE AND EVERYTHING WENT THROUGH. OKAY. BUT YES, IF IT'S OF A THEATER IS ALLOWED, HOW DID, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAS DID THEY NOT GO FOR THE APPROPRIATE ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW THE HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE SHOOTING FOR? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE HEIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT'S INTEGRAL TO WHAT THE USE IS. DURING THE ZONING CASE, IT WAS, UH, FOR THREE STORIES. SO IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS ZONING AT ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL. THE ISSUE HERE IS IT'S IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH LIMITS COMMERCIAL USES AT TWO STORIES, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR IS A VARIANCE OF THE N C D STANDARDS. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? NONE BEING THE CASE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT YOU GOT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. UM, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY, SUITE 2,700, UH, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THEATER SAN ANTONIO. THAT IS THE THEATER GROUP THAT HAS A LONG-TERM CONTRACT, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE SAN PEDRO PLAYHOUSE TYPE PLAN. UH, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS A NEW THEATER INCORPORATING THE EXISTING GAS STATION CANOPY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HISTORIC STAFF ON THAT. YOU CAN SEE. DO WE HAVE A POINTER? YEAH, YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL GAS STATION CANOPIES. WE'RE GONNA INCORPORATE THAT AS THE BOX OFFICE, HAVE SOME OUTDOOR SEATING. AND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS IS THE, UH, THE SAN PEDRO PLAYOFFS, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, HAS A VERY LARGE THEATER, THEN A VERY SMALL THEATER KIND OF IN THE BASEMENT AND EVERY TIME THEY SWITCH SHOWS, THEY'RE DOWN FOR, FROM FOUR, FOUR WEEKS TO SIX WEEKS, BOTH BUILDING THE NEW STAGE AND PRACTICING FOR THE NEXT SHOW. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS WE'LL ADD, IT WILL GIVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL LARGER THEATER SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE ONGOING PRODUCTIONS WHILE ONE THEATER'S DOWN, ONE THEATER WILL BE UP AND THEY'LL ALSO HAVE A SMALL THEATER, AND THIS WILL ADDITIONALLY HAVE SOME CLASSROOM SPACE SO THEY CAN TEACH ACTING THINGS LIKE THAT. THE PARKING WILL BE THE SAME PARKING THAT THE ST PEDRO PLAYHOUSE USES. THEY WILL NEVER HAVE TWO LARGE SHOWS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME. SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PARK ACROSS THE STREET, UH, AT THE PARK WHERE THEY PARK NOW FOR THE ST. PEDRO PLAYHOUSE. AND WE'RE WORKING WITH TREVINO'S OFFICE TO BUILD A NICE CROSSWALK WITH FLASHING LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING SO PEOPLE CAN WALK ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PARKING TO THIS SITE. UM, SO YES, I I ASKED THOSE SAME QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, WHY WE HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM COMING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT, BUT EVEN THOUGH OUR SITE PLAN INCLUDED THE THREE STORIES, SINCE THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THREE STORIES NORTH OF ASHBY, AND WE'RE RIGHT ON ASHBY UNLESS WE GO FOR A VARIANCE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. UH, I'LL BE IN THE AUDIENCE AFTER THE SPEAKER SPEAK. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO ONE ON THE STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES ON THIS CASE? ONE SIGNED UP. TAMMY KEGLEY. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND, UH, I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE. THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M TAMMY KEGLEY. I LIVE AT 5 0 6 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY IN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AS WAS NOTED. I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND I SERVE AS THE VICE PRESIDENT, UM, HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. A LETTER WAS SUBMITTED BY OUR BOARD THIS MORNING. I I HOPE THAT IT WASN'T TOO LATE TO BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD. UH, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, THE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN VERY OPEN AND PRODUCTIVE BETWEEN PUBLIC THEATER AND THE GREATER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE GOT A, A POSITIVE VOTE FROM OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST. SO IT'S THE WAY ALL PROJECTS SHOULD WORK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE CITY. AND THE VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF A PUBLIC CITIZEN, UH, READING FOR THE RECORD, THE DOCUMENTATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SHARED HAS ADEQUATELY ANSWERED ALL OF OUR CURRENT CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR PLANS FOR DESIGN. WE ARE COMMITTED TO ONGOING [00:15:01] COMMUNICATION AND BELIEVE THAT AS THE PLANS DEVELOP, THE NEWS WILL BE SHARED WITH US IN AN UPFRONT AND TIMELY MANNER. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PARTIES THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FUTURE VARIANCE REQUESTS. IT IS WITH GOOD FAITH IN BOTH OF OUR ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE, THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT PUBLIC THEATER OF SAN ANTONIO IN THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE NEW BUILDING HEIGHT STRUCTURE. BE LIMITED AT 38 FEET AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED. RESPECTFULLY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE THAT, UH, NO QUESTIONS ARE REALLY NEEDED HERE. SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? NONE. NONE. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M WAITING FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD ELLI, DR. SELLI, PLEASE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2. I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE TWO STORIES HEIGHT, HEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLOW A NEW THEATER CONSTRUCTION TO BE THREE STORIES AND 38 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SITUATED AT 7 25 AND 7 41 WEST ASHBY PLACE, APPLICANT BEING PATRICK WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT THAT IT IS PLACED. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS TRYING TO DEVELOP A NEW THEATER AND PERFORMING ART CENTER. THE PROPOSED THREE STORIES AND 38 FEET IN HEIGHT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF HOUSING, BUSINESS AND A PARK. THE BOARD FINDS THAT PERMITTING THE REQUESTED HEIGHT IS WARRANTED. IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN, IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD LIMIT THE STRUCTURE TO TWO STORIES. THE PROJECT AS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT PRESENTS CHALLENGES IN ITS DESIGN CONFIGURATION AS IT ENCOMPASSES TWO LOTS. THERE IS NO HARM TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATELY SCALED AND COMPATIBLE WITH SPECIFIC DESIGN AND HEIGHT CRITERIA. THE APPLICANT IS NOT SEEKING VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED DESIGN ASPECTS LISTED IN THE CODE ONLY SEEKING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND USE AND CHARACTER STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. SUCH, SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. NEARBY USES WILL BE BUFFERED BY THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY, AND THE PROJECT SITS AT AN INTERSECTION. THE APPLICANT IS NOT SEEKING ANY OTHER VARIANCES. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO A RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT IN THIS CASE IS, IS THE SCALE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE MOST OF THE BLOCK IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS WARRANTED. END OF MOTION. SECOND, AND WE MAY HAVE MOTION IN A SECOND. UH, DOCTOR, WOULD YOU START THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I'M ACTUALLY BEEN, BEEN AWARE OF THIS, UM, THIS PROPOSED USE FOR A WHILE. UM, I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, UM, KNOWING THAT THERE WAS, THAT, THAT, UM, BOTH THE PUBLIC THEATER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CAME TOGETHER AND ARE IN AGREEMENT MAKES IT VERY EASY TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. VERY GOOD. HENRY, I WANT YOU TO SAVE YOURSELF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SURE. UM, WELL, TO REITERATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUE HAS JUST SAID, UM, THEY FOLLOW ALL THE PROPER CHANNELS AND THE SUPPORT OF BOTH THE ASSOCIATIONS SPEAKS VOLUMES. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NONE READING THE CASE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL OF VOTE. UH, MONICA. [00:20:03] DR. ELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. I CONCUR. MR. VINNO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE NINE REQUIRED VOTES ARE APPEAR SO THE MOTION PASSES ONTO THE NEXT CASE [2. 19-7818 BOA-19-10300116: A request by Red & Black Engineering Group, LLC for a 15’ variance from the 25’ required front setback requirement to allow an existing building to be 10’ from the front property line, located at 6185 Camp Bullis Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 8) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE BO A 1 9 103 0 0 1 1 6 IS A REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS RED AND BLACK ENGINEERING GROUP. THE ADDRESS 60 61 85 CAMP BULLIS ROAD. THE ZONING IS OH 2 0 1 M L O D MLR, ONE H O D. THE NOTIFICATION PLAN OH DATE. THEIR PAPERWORK HERE. YEAH, SORRY. THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL PHO PHOTOGRAPHY. THE CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BEING REDEVELOPED AS A SCHOOL FROM RESIDENTIAL USE. THE METAL BUILDING IS ALREADY EXISTING FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THE PROPERTY HAS VARYING TOPOGRAPHY AND A SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT OBSCURES THE STRUCTURE COMPLETELY FROM VIEW OF THE STREET. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THE USE OF THE METAL BUILDING FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THEIR SITE PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BUILDING IS ASSOCIATED ROUGHLY RIGHT HERE ON THAT PICTURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE EXISTING METAL BUILDING, THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT FENCE LINE. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FRONT FENCE LINE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE PROPERTY LINE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 1 9 103 0 0 1 1 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. WE MAILED NINE NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE NE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS IN RETURN IN THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ONLY ONE QUESTION I HAVE. ARE YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE EXISTING STEEL BUILDING IS ALREADY 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT'S THE ACTUAL REASONING FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE. CORRECT. BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE 25 FEET AND SO THE REQUEST TRADITIONALLY FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY, IT'D BE 25 FEET. RIGHT. BUT BECAUSE THEY, THEY WANT TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO SAVE MONEY. RIGHT. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, PRESS BRING FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S O I REPRESENT THE OWNER, UH, WITH PINEAPPLE SCHOOL. UH, MR. CONTU, WE'LL NEED YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. 1 4 6 0 3 HENER, UH, SAN ANTONIO. SO THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE, THIS BUILDING WAS ALREADY BUILT WITH THE PREVIOUS, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS RE REMODEL IT INTO A OUTDOOR, OR LIKE AN INDOOR PLAYGROUND AREA, TURF IT AND, UM, TO BUILD SOME OVERHEAD STORAGE. UM, WE TALKED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND WE CAN'T SUBMIT OUR PLANS UNTIL, UH, UNTIL WE GET VARIANCE APPROVAL. UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. UH, THE BUILDING'S ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET. IT'S, UH, IN A CONCRETE SLAB, STEEL, UM, STEEL ERECTION. I MEAN, AND IT'S PRETTY, IT'S PRETTY WELL BUILT. THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS, UH, IT WAS THEIR, THEIR THEIR FABRICATION SHOP, UH, BACK WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS UP BACK IN THE COUNTY. SO IT WASN'T BUILT, YOU KNOW, OUT OF CODE OR, OR, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT WITHOUT TALKING TO SOMEBODY WHEN THE, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS, WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT. IT, IT WAS, IT WENT THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. DORIAN? YEAH, SO I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS AND SO WHAT I FOUND, I JUST WANT YOU TO VERIFY IT'S PLATTED IN 1947, NO [00:25:01] CCPS EASEMENTS. IT WAS ZONED R 20 AFTER AN NEXT ANNEXATION, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK. AND THEN THIS THING WAS BUILT AROUND 2012 AND, AND THEN IN 2018, THE ZONING CHANGE. BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT. YOU'RE ONLY DOING WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES. OKAY. EXACTLY. WE'RE THERE, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITION. IT WON'T GET, IT WILL NOT GET BIGGER. THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO IS IT'S, I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TALL IT IS, BUT IT'S, WE CAN PROBABLY FIT, UH, SOME STORAGE SPACE IN THE TOP. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE DOING LIKE A, A MEZZANINE ON TOP TO, TO STORE, YOU KNOW, STUFF FOR THE DAYCARE. OKAY. THE, THE DAYCARE FACILITY IS A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY HOLDS BETWEEN, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE PROJECTED 155 STUDENTS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE JUST NEED SOME SPACE. ALL RIGHT. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FA OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A PRIVATE SCHOOL OF SOME SORT THAT'S BEING BUILT HERE FOR, UH, WHAT PURPOSE? OH, IT'S A PRESCHOOL. IT'S, UH, ZERO TO I THINK FOUR YEARS OLD. UH, THEY EMPHASIZE ON, UH, LEARNING SPANISH, UH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE, ALL THE TEACHERS ADDRESS KIDS IN SPANISH. I MEAN, IT'S, UH, IT'S A DAYCARE SLASH PRESCHOOL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES, UH, ON THIS CASE? NO ONE SIGNED UP. WE DON'T. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ORIAN MR. ORIAN, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 116. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE 10 FEET FROM FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 61 85 CAMP BOLUS ROAD, APPLICANT BEING RED IN BLACK ENGINEERING GROUP L L C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACKS THAT MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE 15 FOOTPRINT SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE EXISTING SHRUBBERY HIDES THE METAL BUILDING COMPLETELY FROM THE STREET TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IF ENFORCED, THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE DESTRUCTION OF A METAL BUILDING THAT IS NOT INJURING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH A COHESIVE THEME. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS A PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJU THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A REDUCTION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANT HAS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY AND WHICH IS LOCATED END OF MOTION. ALL RIGHT. I NEED A SECOND, SECOND. SECOND, UH, MR. MANN. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UH, UH, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE START DISCUSSION? SURE. I'M IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS, THIS PLATTED, UH, 1947 DEVELOPED WELL BEFORE, UH, THIS BECAME AN ISSUE. IT WAS ZONED R 20. THIS WAS BUILT WITHIN ITS RIGHTS, UH, AND IT'S, THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING IT, SO I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY FINE. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. OKAY, MR. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, AS WELL AS IT DOES LOOK LIKE ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE WELL WITHIN THE CURRENT GUIDELINES, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? NONE BEING THE CASE. OKAY. MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. MR. ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. DINO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THEN NINE VOTES BEING ATTAINED. THE, THE, UH, VARIANCE PASSES. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF [00:30:01] FOR THE COMPLETION OF YOUR PROJECT. AND LET'S, UH, HENRY, DO YOU NEED A LITTLE BREAK? GOOD. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CONTINUE. [3. 19-7807 BOA-19-10300121: A request by Luis Cardona for 1) a 25’ variance from the 30’ Type E landscape buffer yard requirement to allow a buffer yard to be 5' along the south property line and 2) a 12’ variance from the 15’ Type C landscape buffer yard requirement to allow a buffer yard to be 3' along the north property line, located at 712 W Laurel St. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 21 A REQUEST FOR ONE A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT TYPE E LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE FIVE FEET ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE THREE FEET ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS LOUISE CARDONA. THE ADDRESS IS SEVEN 12 WEST LAUREL. THE ZONING IS I ONE INDUSTRIAL AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLY. THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE FIVE POINTS. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY A FEW NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USES RETAIL COMMERCIAL IN A VIA TRANSIT METROPOLITAN ANNEX. THE PROPERTY ABUTS A C TWO P THAT IS CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL USE IN AN I ONE, WHICH IS A VIA OFFICE LOCATION. THE PROPERTY DIMENSIONS ARE UP TO 60 FEET WIDE AND BETWEEN 126 AND 146 FEET LONG. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE BUFFER YARD FOR THE GIVEN LOT SIZE AND LOCATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD BE NOTED AS VIA TRANSIT AND NOT LOUISE CARDONA. THE SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. DAF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN B O A 19 103 0 0 1 2 1. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE REQUESTS DO NOT LY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES THE USE OF THE SITE. THE LOT SIZE WARRANTS, SOME RELIEF OF THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. WE MAILED 16 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FIVE POINTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE NOTIFICATION PLAN QUESTIONS, WHERE IS THE, UM, YOU SAID ONE IN IN FAVOR. WHERE IS THAT? OH, IT'S THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? MANNA MR. MANNA. SO IF WE'RE CONSOL, IF WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, CONSOLIDATE OR ALLOW FOR THE VARIANCE HERE, UM, THE EXISTING BUFFER YARD DENSITY OF PLANTS, WOULD THAT STILL BE REQUIRED, UH, IN THIS REDUCED SPACE? SO THE SAME NUMBER OF PLANTS, TREES, ET CETERA? YES, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE, THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A VARIATION IN THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND BEING THE CASE? ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES? APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SEE IS THE APPLICANT. LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARCOS DIAZ. 8 2 7 VISOR DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LUIS CARDONA WITH HALF ASSOCIATES AND WE'RE HERE REPRESENTING VIA, UH, SO THE, UM, PROPOSED SITE PLAN HERE, UM, IS SHOWING THAT WE WOULD REMOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING IN THIS LOCATION AND, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, TO RECEIVE A, A VARIANCE FOR FROM BUFFER YARD IF THIS VARIANCE WAS NOT RECEIVED, UH, THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY, UH, SPACE WITHIN THIS BUILDING FOR DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE, UM, ZONING THAT IS CURRENTLY, UM, SET FOR THIS PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL I ONE. UM, THE, UH, PURPO PURPOSE OF THIS, UH, PARKING LOT IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE FOR, UH, VIA METROPOLITAN FOR THEIR STAFF. UH, THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE FENCED, UM, AROUND THE PERIMETER AND UH, IT WOULD BE PAVED IN ASPHALT PAYMENT. THOSE ARE RENDERING OF, OF THE GREEN AREAS. UH, IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PAVING, UH, WITHIN THE AREA. SAME, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A, UH, PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE, UH, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL [00:35:01] PROPERTY, UH, TO HELP IN, IN, UH, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PRIVACY. AND LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING, UM, IS VERY NEAR THE, UH, PROPERTY LINES AS WELL, SO REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING, UH, AND PLACE IN THE NEW PARKING LOT, AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S GONNA TAKE VERY SIMILAR, UH, FOOTPRINT OF THE LOTS. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS? FROM THE STAND ORIAN? UH, UH, IT'S, IT'S, I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW, UH, THIS SITE PLAN IS GONNA PROVIDE. UM, I KNOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR REDUCTION OF BUFFER, BUT YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE THE DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIRED AND I I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STAFF COULDN'T ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE LESS THAN 20 FEET. IS THAT, DOES THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THIS APPLICATION? YES. UH, IF, UM, DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED THAT COMMENT DURING THE COORDINATION, BUT UH, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE VARIANCE. WELL, I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN ADVERTISED. I'M JUST, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AS A WHOLE OR JUST DOING THIS ONE PIECE NOW THAT'S ALL. UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY, AFTER THIS OR AFTER THE VARIANCE, THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO SUBMIT THIS TO, UM, OUR PARKING AND, UH, ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION TEAM. SO TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, IF THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE THAT'S NEEDED, WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR THAT. BUT IF NOT THERE, I MEAN, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES THAT, UM, YOU CAN EXPLORE WITH THEM TO SEE, UM, HOW, UH, THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE, UH, ACCOMMODATED OR WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO REVISE IT SLIGHTLY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE, UH, EXIST, THAT THE LAYOUT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE MEETS ALL THE, UH, CITY UH, REGULATIONS FOR PARKING SPACES, UH, AT THE ANGLE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. NEFF? YES. ON YOUR RENDERINGS THAT YOU SHOWED, YOU JUST KIND OF SHOWED GRASS AND A FEW TREES, WILL THERE BE OTHER PLANTINGS LIKE SHRUBS IN THOSE AREAS THAT JUST SHOW GRASS? UM, YES. UH, THIS, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, TREES ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THE TREES THAT ARE SHOWN RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE, UH, LOCATED IN THE, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. UH, BUT THEY WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE AND, UH, DUE TO THE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINES, UH, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE, UH, MEDIUM SIZED, UH, TREES. UM, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE, UM, LANDSCAPING, UM, DEPARTMENT TO, TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE, THE REQUIREMENTS AND WORKING WITH THEM. ARE THEY ADVISING YOU TO INCLUDE SHRUBBERY AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WILL SCREEN THE PARKING LOT FROM THE STREET? I SEE YOU HAVE THE PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SOUTH END, BUT ON THE NORTH SHOWING BASICALLY NOTHING THERE RIGHT NOW? YES, WE, WE WILL BE ADDING BRUSH AND, AND OTHER TYPES OF PLANTS FOR PRIVACY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE BEING THE, OH, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS AS PART OF THIS TEAM? I, IF I MAY, TOM CARRASCO, FACILITIES ENGINEERING MANAGER FOR THE VIET METRO POUND TRANSIT. AND TO GO BACK TO, I THINK YOUR QUESTION, HOLD ON, PLEASE. CAN YOU GIVE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? UH, SEVEN TWO OF UH, UH, UM, AT, UH, MY PERSONAL ADDRESS OR DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I NEED AN ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ADDRESS IS FINE. WORK ADDRESS. WORK ADDRESS IS GOOD. IS THAT OKAY? GO AHEAD AND PLEASE STATE IT. I'M SORRY. YES, THE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BEFORE WE WORK IN WITH THE, THE CITY OF ARBORS GROUP, AND WE'RE GONNA DO AHEAD, GO AHEAD AND DO THE RIGHT RATIO, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE REDUCING THE BUFFER. SO WE'LL HAVE THE, THE PLANNING REQUIRED IN THERE JUST TO, TO BE BEEF IT UP AND TO PROTECT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL ASSUME HE'S WITH THE VIA TRANSIT BOARD AND WE'LL USE THAT ADDRESS. UH, NO OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO GIVE US. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES TIED TO THIS? THERE'S NO ONE SIGNED UP. NO ONE SIGNED UP. OKAY. WELL THEN, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC ZARE. THAT'S DR. ZARE. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THIS IS ACTUALLY IN DISTRICT ONE AND NOT DISTRICT NINE AS NOTED. THAT IS CORRECT. SO, OKAY. MAKE THAT CORRECTION TO THE FILE AND DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE GONNA MAKE THE MOTION DR. CELEBR? I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE DISTRICT ONE WAS CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTE ATTRIBUTED. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 21, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 [00:40:01] FOOT TYPE E LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE FIVE FEET ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE THREE FEET ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT SEVEN 12 WEST LAUREL STREET, APPLICANT VIA APPLICANT BEING VIA TRANSIT. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY, EXCUSE ME, UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE REQUESTED THREE FOOT, THREE AND FIVE FOOT BUFFER YARDS ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THEY DO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE PROPERTY DOES CURRENTLY BENEFIT FROM A BUFFER YARD ON THE SOUTH IN THE FORM OF A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE, BUT THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING LOT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN, IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY REQUIRING A BUFFER YARD THAT TAKES UP NEARLY THE ENTIRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. DUE TO THE SMALL LOT SIZE ENFORCING THE FULL REQUIREMENT REVIEW REMOVES DEVELOPABLE DEVELOPABLE SPACE, WHICH MAY LEAD, LEAVE THE DEVELOPMENT WITH INSUFFICIENT SPACE FOR PARKING. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. IN THIS CASE, THE REDUCED BUFFER YARD WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE, UM, SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN ZONING. DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REDUCE BUFFER YARDS REQUIRED BY THE CODE, THE PROVISION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS WILL STILL ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE IS THE SMALL NARROW LOT WHICH WARRANTS SOME RELIEF, WILL ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT. END OF MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION. I NEED A SECOND TO MR. OREN. ALRIGHT, DOCTOR, WOULD YOU START THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I'LL, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. THIS IS A SMALL NARROW LOT. THEY DO NEED SOME RELIEF FROM THE, THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. IT STILL APPEARS THAT THEY HAVE SOME WORK TO DO WITH THE CITY, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE SP THE SPECIFICS OF THE LANDSCAPING. AND I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I MAY HAVE WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME. VERY GOOD. MR. ORIAN? YES, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, I SEE, UH, SOME AREAS THAT COULD BE CONVERTED TO GREEN SPACE, THE POTENTIAL PLANTING OF TREES, WHICH SHOULD BE WORKED OUT AS THIS MOVES FORWARD THROUGH PERMITTING. AND UM, AND ANY CONCERNS I HAVE WITH DRIVEWAY THROW WILL EITHER COME BACK TO US OR THEY'LL LOSE SOME SPACES OVER IT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT AS AS SUBMITTED. GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? WELL AT LEAST MY, UH, IF THIS SHOULD PASS THAT IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE STAFF TO CONSIDER FURTHER INVESTIGATION. SO I GUESS LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. MONICA. DR. ELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VINO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FACT WHEN NINE VOTES THE MOTION PASSES. UH, GOOD LUCK. AND, UH, DO WE NEED LITTLE BREAK? NO. VERY GOOD THEN WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE. [4. 19-7809 BOA-19-10300124: A request by Mark Aerts for a special exception of the density limitations to allow one short-term rental (Type 2) unit, located at 1154 East Euclid Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] OKAY, NEXT CASE IS BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4 A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS TO ALLOW ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO UNIT APPLICANT BEING MARK ERTZ. ADDRESS IS 1154 EAST EUCLID AVENUE. ZONING IS I D Z RIO TWO. INFIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE RIVER OVERLAY TWO. THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. [00:45:03] A SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ONE OF 27 ATTACHED TOWN HOMES DEVELOPED ON 1.179 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF ONE TYPE TWO S T R PERMIT. TYPE TWO INDICATES THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT LIVE ON SITE. APRIL 20, APRIL 23RD, 2019. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ISSUED A TYPE TWO S T R PERMIT TWO PROPERTY OWNER MARK PER THE RECENTLY ADOPTED CODE. EACH BLOCK PHASE DEFINED AT THE LENGTH OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN TWO STREETS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE AND UP TO 12.5% OF UNITS ON THE BLOCK. FACE CAN BE OPERATED AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 21 UNITS WITHIN THIS BLOCK FACE RESULTING IN THREE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS PERMITTED BY RIGHT FOUR. TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED DUE TO MEETING THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND OR GRANDFATHERING STATUS AT THE TIME OF THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR 1154 EAST EUCLID. THREE OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BLOCK FACE WERE INCORRECTLY DISPLAYED ON THE GIS ONLINE MAP AS TYPE ONE S T R AS A RESULT OF A MAP ERROR, STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE DENSITY LIMITATION HAD NOT BEEN REACHED AND ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR A TYPE TWO S T R AT THE 1154 EAST EUCLID. AND THESE, THESE ARE THE, UH, PROPERTIES WITH THE TYPE 2 11 10 EAST EUCLID 1158 EAST EUCLID, 1146 EAST EUCLID AND 1118 EAST EUCLID IS A TYPE TWO WHICH WERE INCORRECTLY DISPLAYED AS TYPE ONE AND 1154. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BRING PROPERTIES THAT RECOMMENDS DENIAL. THERE'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A NINETEEN ONE TEN THREE ZERO ZERO ONE TWENTY FOUR BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET ALL APPROVED CRITERIA FOR THE OPERATION OF TYPE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND APPROVAL AND ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATING ON A BLOCK FACE, WHICH ALREADY INCLUDES SEVERAL PROPERTIES OPERATING AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. TYPE TWO MAY RESULT IN CHANGE OF CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE MAILED 52 NOTICES AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. ONE IN FAVOR, OWNER OF TWO LOTS WITHIN THE AREA. FIVE IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM THE TOPEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. AND THIS IS OUR CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. ONE STOP G I S MAP. THAT INDICATES THE TYPE TWOS AND TYPE ONES. TYPE ONES IS BLUE ICON AND TYPE TWO IS THE RED ICON. VERY, VERY WELL. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN? SO, UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED THERE 4.25 TYPE TWOS WERE ALLOWED BY, BY THE BLOCK FACE DENSITY. I THINK I SAID FOUR. LEMME SEE. FOUR, TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL BEEN PERMITTED DUE TO MEETING THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND OR GROUND PRODUCTING STATUS. YEAH, I, I WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW 'CAUSE I I THOUGHT YOU SAID FOUR AND A QUARTER. I DIDN'T KNOW IF HOW YOU DID YOUR ROUNDING ON THAT OR IF ROUNDING CAME INTO PLAY. DEFINITELY FOUR. OKAY. THANK YOU. AFTERNOON. MR. N JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S THREE THAT ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT, CORRECT? BUT ONE WAS GRANDFATHERED, IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT, YES. ONE WAS GRANDFATHERED, NOT THAT FOUR ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT. TECHNICALLY THREE ARE, ONE WAS GRANDFATHERED. SO THERE ARE NOW FOUR. CORRECT. OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION MM-HMM. WAS CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. I READ SOMETHING ABOUT TYPE ONE. WAS IT APPLIED FOR AS A TYPE ONE AND THEN ISSUED AS THAT OR WAS IT JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON THE CITY'S PART? IT WAS, IT WAS AN ERROR ON THE CITY PART. ULTIMATELY THEY WERE APPLIED FOR AS A TYPE TWO, THE MAPPING SYSTEM. SO ULTIMATELY WHEN WE RECEIVE AN APPLICATION, WE, WE RELY ON THAT MAPPING TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY EXISTING TYPE TWOS. AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, IT ONLY IDENTIFIED ONE TYPE TWO AND THREE TYPE ONES. SO DUE TO THAT STAFF REC, YOU KNOW, REALIZED THAT THEY COULD, UH, RECEIVE ANOTHER ONE. SO WE ACCEPTED IT AND A FEW MONTHS LATER WE FOUND OUT THAT THE MAP WAS INCORRECT. WE'VE SINCE CORRECTED THAT MAP, BUT THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING SINCE APRIL. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE STAFF? NONE BEING THE CASE. APPLICANT MAY STEP FORWARD. NOW YOU DO KNOW THAT WE ONLY HAVE NINE HERE, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUED, YOU MAY DO SO. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ROB KILLEN, 100 WEST HOUSTON STREET HERE ON BEHALF OF THE S THE, UH, OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY. UH, WE BELIEVE THAT WE MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS WELL AS THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF HAVING A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH NEARLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT BASED ON ACTING AND RELIANCE ON THAT PERMIT. BUT, UH, IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THIS BOARD WHEN YOU ONLY [00:50:01] HAVE NINE MEMBERS TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE. I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO OUR CLIENTS TO, UH, BRING THIS BACK IN A COUPLE WEEKS WHEN YOU HAVE A FULL BOARD. SO OUR REQUEST IS FOR A CONTINUANCE TODAY. YOU'RE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR THE, UH, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 4TH? NO, TWO WEEKS. OH, I'M SORRY. YOU, YOU TWO WEEKS. NOVEMBER 4TH. OKAY. I NEED A MOTION FROM FROM BOARD MEMBER. WE HAVE, UH, CITIZENS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. UM, CHAIR IF YOU'D LIKE. THEY CAN SPEAK NOW. WELL, OR AFTER. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE, UH, WANTING TO SPEAK? THERE'S TWO SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, UH, NOW I'M GONNA LET, UH, YOU MAY SPEAK NOW KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE, UH, REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE ON THIS CASE, WHICH MEANS THE CASE WILL BE REVIEWED IN TWO WEEKS. UH, HOWEVER, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TODAY, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, UH, TESTIMONY WILL BE ON RECORD. UH, SO IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU WANNA SPEAK NOW OR COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS, WHICH YOU PREFER. VERY GOOD STEP FORWARD AND, UH, IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND STATE YOUR CASE. HELLO, MY NAME IS SARAH WILSON. I LIVE AT 1120 EAST EUCLID, WHICH IS A, A PROPERTY WITHIN THE SOJO CROSSING, UH, TOWN HOMES. I ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE SOJO CROSSING TOWN HOMES. UM, H O A, UM, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AS THE TREASURER. AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF, OF THE H O A. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS. WE'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. SO, UM, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE BOARD DID DISCUSS THIS MANNER AND, UM, THE BOARD WAS UNANIMOUS AGAINST, UM, APPROVING THIS. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED SINCE FEBRUARY WITH THE NUMBER OF, UH, PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WE'VE HAD WITHIN OUR VERY TINY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF, UM, SHORT-TERM RENTALS. AND, UM, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THE OWNER, UM, WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE NEED TO, TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF IT. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? ORIAN. OKAY. SO, UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE BOARD. AND SO OUTTA CURIOSITY, YOU'RE, I LOOKED UP YOUR, YOUR P O A AND ACCORDING TO YOUR DE RESTRICTIONS, IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE RENTAL THIS USE WITHIN YOUR P O A. DID YOU GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE OTHER THREE OR ARE YOU CONTEMPLATING, DO YOU, CAN YOU GRANT A VARIANCE TO THESE THINGS? I APOLOGIZE. WE ARE BRAND NEW. WE ARE TWO YEARS IN EXISTENCE AND WE HAVE BEEN STUMBLING ALONG TRYING TO FIGURE THIS WHOLE THING OUT. WE DID NOT REALIZE THAT OUR, UM, PROPERTY, OUR BY, IS IT OUR BYLAWS? YEAH, IT'S, UM, RECORDED BOOK 17 8 5 1, PAGE 9 9 6 OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS. AND WHAT IT, I'M JUST CURIOUS. WHAT IT SAYS IS, IS THAT, UH, UH, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO, ONE OF THE PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES IN THIS P O A IS THE RENTING OF A PORTION OF A RESIDENCE OR STRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. AND IT ONLY ALLOWS ANY SORT OF, UH, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, UH, THAT IS A REASONABLE HOME OFFICE. SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS. YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. I LIKE THIS. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW IF, IF THIS WAS, UH, SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WERE ALLOWING OR GRANTING VARIANCE TO. WE HAVE NOT GRANTED ANY VARIANCE SINCE WE WERE NOT, UM, AWARE OF THIS SITUATION. AND IT'S AN ONGOING THAT WE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED, WE'VE HAD HOMEOWNERS APPROACH US AND ASK IF WE COULD AS A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION LIMIT THE NUMBER OR IF WE HAD TO, UM, GO WITH WHAT THE CITY ORDINANCE SAYS. AND WE ARE STILL UP IN AIR ABOUT ALL THAT. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD HERE. UM, WE DO NOT CONCERN OURSELVES WITH LOCAL H O A RESTRICTIONS OR REQUIREMENTS. THOSE ARE IN THEIR PURVIEW AND IT'S UP TO THEM TO DEAL WITH THOSE THINGS ACCORDINGLY. UH, IT IS INTERESTING THAT THIS DOES EXIST, UH, BUT UH, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IT'S, IT'S NOT OF INTEREST TO THIS BOARD. UH, CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, OUR CHARGE ON THE EXCEPTION IS THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY, BY THE SUCH PROPOSED USE. AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT IS APPLIED. WELL, LIKE I SAID, UH, IT IS NOT UNDER OUR, UH, PURVIEW TO CONSIDER, UM, DE UH, COVENANTS, UH, FOR NEIGHBORHOODS. NOW, UH, THAT IS, UH, THAT, I CAN'T SAY THAT YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I CAN SAY THAT IS NOT OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, NOR IS IT OUR AREA TO BE CONSIDERED. NOW THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE INVOLVED AND THAT COULD BE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, BUT THAT'S A DIFF DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY'S RESTRICTIONS WERE, UH, BEFORE THE OWNER TOOK, UH, UH, CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THEN AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY. SO THAT IS, THAT IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT WHEN WE READ IN THE MINUTES, UH, EARLIER [00:55:01] THAT WE SAID WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN LEGAL ISSUES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S WHY THAT'S THERE. ELLI, I WOULD LIKE THE SPEAKER TO COME BACK. UM, SO I CAN ASK SOME QUESTIONS. PLEASE. HI, MS. WILSON. UM, CAN YOU, YOU, YOU ALLUDED TO SOME CONCERNS YOU HAVE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THIS ADDITIONAL S T R WOULD DO TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CAN YOU SHARE WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE AND MORE SPECIFICS? YES. WE'VE HAD, UM, WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW ISSUES WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 'CAUSE WE ARE VERY, VERY TINY. UM, THE NORMAL THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITHIN RENTERS, WE'VE GOT THE NOISE, WE'VE GOT, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TRASH ISSUES. WE'VE HAD, UM, IMPROPER USING OF OUR GATES WHERE THE OWNERS WERE NOT GIVING OUT CODES AND SO THEY WERE MANHANDLING OUR GATES. UM, AND DOING DAMAGE TO THAT. UM, I PERSONALLY HAVE HAD PEOPLE WALKING ON TOP OF MY ROOF, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. UM, AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO I HAD INCLUDED A LITTLE MAP THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURROUNDED BY SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND, UM, THIS IS MY HOME. THIS IS, UM, WE HAVE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD, WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS, AND, UM, IT IS JUST, HAS NOT BEEN WHAT WE HAD PROJECTED WHEN WE PURCHASED THESE AS HOMES. OKAY, THANK YOU VINNO. UM, MR. VINNO AND I JUST WANNA ASK, HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE OWNER? HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION APPROACHED THEM IN ANY WAY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS AND YOU HAVE BEEN HAVING, UH, WITH SOME OF THE OWNERS WITH THE ISSUES? YES, WE HAVE. WE HAVE. AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING OUR OWN RULES OR BYLAWS, UM, TO, UM, GET THE OWNERS TO ADHERE TO COMMON SENSE RULES WITH IT WHEN THEY'RE RENTING THEIR PROPERTIES TO MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE FOR EVERYBODY. UM, AND WE WERE, WE WEREN'T, WE KNEW, WE'VE KNOWN THAT THIS PROBLEM SINCE FEBRUARY AND BEEN TRYING TO FIGHT THIS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND WHY THERE WERE SO MANY RENTAL PROPERTIES UP TO SEVEN AT ONE TIME IN OUR TINY LITTLE 27 UNIT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UM, THE PRIOR OWNER WAS VERY AWARE THAT THERE WERE NO PERMITS. I HAD SPOKE, SPOKEN TO HIM SPECIFICALLY, AND HAD TOLD HIM, AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T, IT'S NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO LET HIS NEW OWNER KNOW OR HIS REALTOR KNOW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I DID HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH THE CURRENT OWNER THAT THERE WERE NO PERMITS AVAILABLE AND HE SAID, NO, I GOT THE LAST ONE. AND NO FAULT OF HIS, HE, HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO TO, TO ATTEMPT THAT. BUT THE CITY, UM, HAS MADE A BIG MISTAKE AND WE, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO SHOULDER THAT BURDEN. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS THAT'D LIKE TO TESTIMONY TESTIFY, DAVID, AND MORNING? YOU CAN TESTIFY NOW OR YOU CAN COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS. I WILL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE SPEAKING TO THE MIC, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DAVID MARTIN. I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER. I LIVE AT TWO 11 HUNTERS BRANCH STREET, SOUTH, SHANO PARK, TEXAS. I WAS ACTUALLY THE, HE'S REAL ESTATE BROKER WHEN THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ON THE PROMULGATED FORMS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. THERE IS A BOX THAT SAYS USE, AND MOST OF THE TIME SOMEONE WOULD WRITE RESIDENTIAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE ON THIS FORM. WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE, WE SPECIFICALLY WROTE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND MADE THAT A, A SUBJECT OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT BEFORE THE SALE WAS CONSUMMATED, BEFORE THEY SPENT OVER $500,000 ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY WENT TO THE CITY AND GOT A PERMIT AND THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED. HAVING THAT PERMIT APPROVED, THEY THEN PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THEY WOULDN'T, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD'VE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY HAD THAT NOT BEEN APPROVED. NOW, THERE, THAT'S ONLY A FINANCIAL THING, BUT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS AS WELL. UM, BUT THAT WILL BE FOR THE ATTORNEYS TO TALK TO YOU. BUT IF, IF IT'S MY OPINION THAT IF THIS WAS, WAS, UM, TURNED DOWN BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THEN THAT THEN THE CITY, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE, THE CITY WOULD BE LIABLE FOR ALL OF THE FUTURE EARNINGS THAT WERE, THAT WERE NOT REALIZED FOR ALL OF THE EXPENSES FOR THIS PROPERTY. THEY DID ALL DUE DILIGENCE. THEY WENT TO THE CITY. THERE IS TONS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO ARE SHORT-TERM RENTING PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NOT GOTTEN PERMITS THAT ARE DOING THIS UNDER THE RADAR. THESE ARE CITIZENS THAT CAME AND FILLED OUT THE RIGHT FORMS, WENT TO THE RIGHT OFFICES, [01:00:01] MADE THE APPLICATIONS, DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK, AND THEN AFTERWARDS, AFTER THEY SPENT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, THEY GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY THAT SAYS, OOPS. SO I, I DON'T EVEN THINK THIS SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS FAR, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED WITH THE CITY, BUT IT IS BEFORE YOU NOW, I WON'T BE ABLE TO BE HERE ON THE FOURTH, BUT THIS IS JUST SEEMS UNBELIEVABLE. YOUR TESTIMONY IS NOW ON THE RECORD. AND, UH, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO INTEND ON THE FOURTH ORIAN. THANK YOU. MR. ORIAN HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. YEAH, WHEN DID, UH, SIR, WHEN DID THE, UH, WHEN WAS THIS PRO PROPERTY PURCHASED? MAY 30TH IS WHAT YEAR? OF, OF THIS YEAR? 2018. OKAY. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, SO IN THE COURSE OF YOUR, YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THAT ON MAY 9TH, 2016, THERE WAS A RESTRICTED COVENANT THAT DIDN'T ALLOW YOU TO, TO THAT SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED YOU TO A RESTRICTED COVENANT FROM THE CITY, FROM YOUR, OR ARE YOU REPRESENTING FROM P O A, THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION? RIGHT NOW, IT WAS FROM YOUR P O A THAT'S TIED TO THE LAND. SO ALL LANDOWNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN THAT. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, BECAUSE WHEN WE CONTEMPLATE THIS, AND I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU FILLED OUT FORMS, YOU DO THIS DUE DILIGENCE. THERE IS, THERE'S, THIS IS SUCH A SMALL COMMUNITY. I'M JUST WONDERING, WAS THAT PART OF YOUR DUE DILIGENCE A RECORDED COVENANT THAT, UH, WAS JUST IGNORED? THE RECORDED COVENANTS WOULD GO THROUGH THE TITLE COMPANY. THE TITLE COMPANY DID A TITLE SEARCH AND SENT IT CLEAR TO THE FUTURE OWNERS. UM, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME VERY MUCH. AND THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. THANKS YOU AS WELL. UH, IS THAT THE ONLY WITNESS WE HAVE THAT'S ALL SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT, NOW I DO NEED A MOTION CONTINUANCE AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE NOVEMBER 4TH DATE THOUGH. MOVED. ALRIGHT, I HAVE SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT. HENRY WILL GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THE SECOND. AND, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. GO AHEAD AND, AND CALL ROE. VOTE ON THAT, PLEASE. MS. DORIAN? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES. MR. THIEL? YES. DR. ELLI? YES. MR. NEFF? YES. MR. MANNA? YES. MS. FISHER? YES. MR. VINNO? YES. MR. MARTINEZ? YES. UH, THE MOTION PASSES. WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE THIS CASE, UH, FOR NOVEMBER 4TH. UH, IT'LL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT THAT TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK [5. 19-7803 BOA-19-10300119: A request by Alamo Community Group for 1) a 1,830 square foot variance from the minimum 4,000 square foot lot size to allow 3 lot sizes to be 2,170 square feet, and 2) a 10’ variance from the 20' rear setback requirement to allow new structures to be 10' away from the rear property line, located at 824 S San Eduardo Ave. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 5) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] YOU. AND LET'S GO TO OUR NEXT CASE. H B O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 9. A REQUEST FOR ONE A 1,830 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT. LOT SIZE TO ALLOW THREE LOT SIZES TO BE 2,170 SQUARE FEET. AND TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW NEW STRUCTURES TO BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP. THE ADDRESS IS 8 24 SOUTH SAN EDUARDO. THE ZONING IS R FOUR ML O D TWO AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY. THE LOCATION MAP WITH ARIEL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT THAT WAS PURCHASED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRIMARILY SINGLE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY, SMALLER HOMES WITH SEVERAL LOTS BEING VACANT. ON THIS BLOCK OF SOUTH SAN EDUARDO, THE APPLICANT WILL BE BUILDING SINGLE STORY HOMES THAT ARE 878 SQUARE FEET. EACH HOME WILL BE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT WITH, WHICH IS 2,170 SQUARE FEET AND 25 FOOT WIDE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION FOR THIS PROCESS FOR THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT PLATTED AND THIS IS OF NO FAULT OF THE OWNER. AND THE SURROUNDING DWELLINGS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. WE MAILED 51 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT [01:05:01] PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE LOST PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THERE'S ONE RETURNED IN FAVOR. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. I'VE PLACED THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE FILE AND THIS IS OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ORIAN THIS, UH, THIS SORT OF LAYOUT SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE IN AN I D Z SORT OF SETTING. WAS THAT EVER ATTEMPTED OR DO THEY JUST COME STRAIGHT HERE? I WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANKS STAFF. AND OKAY, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SHACKELFORD WITH ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP AT 4 1 0 EAST PI ADDRESS DRIVE, SUITE 200, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 8. UH, THE REASON FOR THIS, UH, APPLICATION IS THIS, THIS, THE THREE LOTS WERE ACQUIRED, UH, THROUGH THE CITY, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, R S A, UM, WHICH IS CHARGED TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM, AND THE CITY ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP ACQUIRED THIS. AND, UM, UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO THE DEATH OR LACK OF DEATH, UH, WE COULD ONLY, WE, WE COULD ONLY BUILD A CERTAIN, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME. UH, THIS, UH, POTENTIAL VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 878 SQUARE FEET HOME, UH, SINGLE FAMILY. AND IT WILL BE AFFORDABLE, UM, UH, THE CITY AS WELL AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY THROUGH ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP. I HAVE JOHN WRIGHT, WHO HANDLES OUR CONSTRUCTION, WHO CAN ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES, UH, RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MY NAME IS JOHN F. WRIGHT. I RESIDE AT 1 0 3 1 6 MOUNT EVANS DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR SOMETHING UP. THESE LOTS ARE PLATTED AS THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LOTS. WE DISCOVERED THAT IN OUR DUE DILIGENCE REPORT AND TO REPL THEM IN ANY OTHER WAY WOULD COST AN ADDITIONAL MINIMUM OF $6,000 IN THREE TO FOUR MONTHS TO ACQUI TO DO THAT. AND SO WE, WE HAVE ALREADY IN THE PAST BUILT HOUSES ON THESE KINDS OF LOTS AND THEY'VE SOLD VERY, VERY WELL. SO, UH, WE TAKE OUR, WE TAKE MUCH PRIDE IN THAT. IN THE, UH, WE DID LOOK AT THE I D Z. THIS IS NOT IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, BUT IT IS DONE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF I D Z TWO. UH, WHICH IS, UH, AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT THE REAR PART, THE REAR SETBACK LINE IS NORMALLY 20 FEET IN R FOUR. UNDER IDZ TWO, IT CAN BE AS LITTLE AS FIVE FEET. WE ONLY WANT 10. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE 10 FEET BECAUSE THAT GIVES US ANOTHER 150 SQUARE FEET IN THESE HOUSES. THESE ARE TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH HOUSES WITH OFF STREET PARKING AND ARE BUILT TO STANDARD CITY CODES AS THEY ARE NOW, UH, PRESCRIBED. OKAY. UM, I HAVE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE. YOU SAY THESE PROPERTIES ARE FLATTED, THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND OUT AFTER THE CITY. WELL, UH, I NOTE THAT I ONLY HAVE ONE ADDRESS ON THIS FILE. WELL, THAT'S A . UH, IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH BECAUSE NO, UH, IT WAS NOT ADVERTISED. NO. THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE ADDRESS. THE PLAT THAT HE'S REFERRING TO. THIS IS ONE LOT. THE PLAT THAT HE'S REFERRING TO SHOWS THAT IT IS, IT'S AN OLD PLAT. THESE ARE ACTUALLY HALF OF THAT. SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE RE PLATTED BECAUSE IT'S A PARTIAL LOT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE, THE DESCRIPTIONS. SO THEY'RE NOT, IT'S NOT PLATTED AS THREE DISTINCTIVE STRUCTURES CORRECT. OR, OR PROPERTIES. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT NEEDS TO BE REPLANTED. CORRECT. OR SEEKING A CERTIFICATE OF. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN RE WE'RE GONNA ISSUE A VARIANCE FOR THE FACT THAT THESE PROPERTIES AREN'T PLATTED PROPERLY. SO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE REQUESTING IS, IT'S A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION TO, UM, TO QUALIFY FOR A PLAID EXCEPTION BECAUSE THESE WERE IN THIS CONFIGURATION AS THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT THEY'RE HALF OF THE PREVIOUS LOTS PRIOR TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THEY'RE GOING QUALIFYING FOR A C O D. WHAT THEY REALLY NEED TODAY IS THE SETBACK VARIANCES. BUT SINCE AND OH, BUT SINCE THEY'RE COMING IN FOR SETBACK VARIANCE, THEY'RE ALSO GETTING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO [01:10:01] HAVE A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES. UH, THEY COULD QUALIFY FOR AS A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD, BUT NO ONE LIKES THAT NON-CONFORMING STATUS ON A LOT. AND SO AGAIN, A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH WOULD MEAN THAT THE VARIANCES, UH, WOULD BE, NEED TO BE APPROVED IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH. BUT IT, WE HAVE ADVERTISED FOR BOTH. SO YOU CAN CONSIDER BOTH ORIAN GO AHEAD MR. OREN. JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON BCA, IT'S SHOWING AS A WEST 86 FEET OF THESE THREE LOTS. SO IT APPEARS THAT THESE THREE LOTS EXTENDED FROM SAN EDUARDO TO SAN DARRIO. AT ONE TIME, THE PERSON TO THE EAST OF THEM APPARENTLY TOOK THOSE THREE. AND INSTEAD OF DOING LONG LOTS, THEY WENT TO MORE OF A, OF A REC OF A SQUARE SIZE LOT LEAVING THIS AREA BEING, YOU KNOW, HALF OF THE THREE LOTS AT 6,500 SQUARE FEET. THIS, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO, BUT, BUT THE C O D WOULD, WOULD BE FOR THE SOLE REMAINDER OF THESE THREE ARBITRARY LOTS. UM, I'M ASSUMING THE PLAT PREDATES 1929, BUT IT, IT, UM, IT, IT JUST, I'M JUST TRYING CURIOUS. BUT IT JUST HAVE ONE ADDRESS. WAS THERE A HOME ON THERE BEFORE? NO, I THINK THAT THESE WERE PROBABLY BACKYARDS AT ONE TIME. OKAY. I, OUR CIVIL ENGINEER DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE ADVISED US THAT THEY ARE PLATTED AS THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. WELL, THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDRESS FOR EACH LOT, WOULD THEY NOT? ADDRESSES CAN COME LATER. ADDRESSES CAN BE RE-ADDRESSED AT A LATER TIME. IT, UH, PLATT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO AN ADDRESS. YOU GET AN ADDRESS WHEN YOU'RE READY TO BUILD. BUT ON RECORD, ANY COUNTY WOULD HAVE A RECORD OF WHERE TO SEND THE MAIL. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT IF THEY WERE BACKYARDS, THEN IT WAS THE BACKYARD OF THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH, I THINK IT WAS. YEAH, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT SAYS THE WEST 86 FEET OF 14, 15 AND 16. AND THE, AND SINCE A LOT IS 86 FEET DEEP, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE IS BECAUSE IT WENT TO THE OTHER SIDE, OTHER STREET. OKAY. SO ALL WE'RE TAKING CONSIDERATION HERE IS THE JUST, UH, THE VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT AND THE UH, UH, THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S THE VARIANCE TO THE REAR SETBACK. NOT THE FRONT. NOT THE FRONT. IT'S THE REAR SET. RIGHT? THE REAR SETBACK. VINNO. OKAY, MR. VINNO, GO. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, WITH THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, EVEN IF IT WAS TO BE APPROVED, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GET THESE PLATTED CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, UH, WOULD WORK IN THIS SCENARIO, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BY GETTING THE VARIANCE. UH, THEY WOULD THEN QUALIFY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION FOR EACH LOT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UH, NO MORE QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES ON THIS? YES. TWO SIGNED UP. FIRST IS GLORIA HERNANDEZ. ALL RIGHT. UH, PLEASE STEP FORWARD, GLORIA. AND I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN STATE YOUR CASE. UM, MY NAME IS GLORIA HERNANDEZ. I LIVE AT 37 23 EL PASO, AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I HAVE, UH, I'M GOING TO READ A, A EMAIL LETTER THAT I SENT TO Y'ALL. UH, THE LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS RESEARCHED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS FOR THE ABOVE CASE. WE ARE VOLUNTEERS WHO REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS AREA AND ARE MEMBERS OF THE WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE ABOVE ADDRESS BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BA THE SIDE SETBACKS, UH, ARE A HAZARD. AND NOW I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REAR SETBACKS, WHICH I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. AND TO ME, THAT WOULD ALSO BE A FIRE HAZARD. UM, THESE TYPES OF HOMES, UM, ARE CALLED SHOTGUN HOMES AND ARE SYMBOLS OF POVERTY IN CHICAGO, NEW ORLEANS, AND OTHER IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES. BECAUSE OF DETER DETERIORATED HOUSING STOCK IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, WE ARE GOING TO SEE HOUSES DEMOLISHED AND YOUR HOUSING BUILT. THIS WILL SET A PRECEDENCE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WANTS TO ENCOURAGE NEWER HOUSING THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD VISION. TWO HOUSES WITH NORMAL VARIANCES I THINK WE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH. BUT WHAT WE SEE HERE, UH, REMINDS ME OF THE VISITING DADES, UH, BACK IN THE SIXTIES WHEN AS A CHILD HERE LIVING HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. AND, UM, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, [01:15:01] THE ASSOCIATION IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THE IMAGE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, WE HAVE MET WITH THE CHIEF OF, UH, MCMANUS. WE'VE MET WITH CODE COMPLIANCE, CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS, EDGEWOOD, I S D, SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY AND CITY MANAGERS TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER TO IMPROVE THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I AM ASKING, UM, TO REJECT THESE VARIANCES. I BELIEVE THIS COMPANY CAN DO BETTER. THEY CAN GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND DO BETTER AND MAKE US BETTER QUALITY HOMES. NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA, UM, BE NOT HAPPY WITH. I THINK THEY COULD, I COULD DO, THEY COULD DO BETTER. SO, UH, WE ARE TRYING VERY HARD TO IMPROVE THIS COMMUNITY AND, UM, UH, WE JUST WANT THE, THE DEVELOPERS TO, TO WORK WITH US. AND, UH, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THEM. I JUST GOT THE LETTER A WEEK AGO, SO IT JUST TOOK US THIS LONG TO, UH, IT WAS A SHORT TERM ROUND TIME, 30 SECONDS. SO, THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, HOLD ON, PLEASE. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS, UH, WITNESS ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YES. SO IT'S, IT'S, UM, YOU WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO, TO AS MUCH OF A DRASTIC REDUCTION. YOU WERE SAYING TWO LOTS. YES. YES. I THINK TWO HOU TWO HOUSES IN THAT PARTICULAR LOT. 'CAUSE I'VE DRIVEN. MM-HMM. DID YOU HEAR, DID YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, PULL THE NEIGHBORS TAKE A FORMAL VOTE OR WAS HOW NO. YES. WE, WE DID GO BY THE LOT. WE WENT AND LOOKED AT IT. WE SAW THAT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF TRASH FOR JUST TO THE SIDE THING. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY TRASHY. UH, IT HASN'T BEEN CLEANED UP AT ALL. AND, UM, UH, MAYBE WITH, IF THEY DO WANNA BUILD, 'CAUSE WE, WE WANT, WE WANNA SEE NEW HOMES, BUT NOT THIS TYPE OF HOUSING, NOT THIS TYPE. OKAY. WE, WE MM-HMM. . THANK YOU. SO MM-HMM. RODRIGUEZ, ANYTHING ELSE? HENRY, GO AHEAD. YEAH. HI. HI. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, YOU ALL DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T REALLY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH PLENTY OF TIME SO THAT YOU COULD, UH, SORT THINGS OUT AND ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? CORRECT. RIGHT. WE HAVE NOT MET WITH, UH, WITH THE BUILDER OR ANYONE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ATTENDING. AND, UH, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS? LAURA TREVINO TREVINO. OKAY. YOU HAVE, MY NAME IS LAURA TREVINO. MY ADDRESS IS 4,100 EAST PIERA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 8. AND I AM FOR THE PROJECT, AND I GIVE MY TIME TO JOHN OR I NOW YOU TAKE IT. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY, ANY, ANYONE ELSE? NO ONE ELSE. ALRIGHT. UH, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO RETURN AS, AS THE APPLICANT TO RE REBUT ANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE AND, UH, AND GIVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU THINK WILL HELP US. SURE. UH, AGAIN, MY NAME IS MICHAEL SHACKLEFORD. I, UH, WE DO WANNA COME TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WANT TO BEAUTIFY IT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THESE LOTS HAVE BEEN EMPTY FOR MANY YEARS NOW. UM, AS YOU MAY KNOW, WE ARE AN AFFORDABLE NON-PROFIT. WE'VE BEEN IN SAN ANTONIO FOR 30 YEARS. WE DON'T BUILD BAD PROJECTS. UM, WE'VE ACTUALLY BUILT 10 THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ACQUIRED THROUGH OURS, A THROUGH SCOTT PRICE, AND THEY'VE ALL SOLD IMMEDIATELY. WE DO NOT BUILD, AND WE SERVE FOLKS THAT ARE AT 80% OR BELOW OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW SHE'S NOT SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT US SPECIFICALLY, BUT WE BUILD REALLY GREAT PRODUCT. OUR RECORD SAYS A LOT ABOUT WHO WE ARE. UM, WE'RE NOT 30%, WE'RE AT 80% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. UM, IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO TOUR ONE OF OUR PROPERTIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE OR, OR THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, UH, WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO. BUT AT THIS TIME, WE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST FEEL WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO HELP BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JOHN FISHER, OH, HOLD ON. I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. YES, MR. MARTINEZ. SO THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME QUESTIONS AND I'M, I BELIEVE, UH, UH, UH, MR. NIFF OPENED HIS MOUTH FIRST. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE HIM ASK HIS QUESTIONS AND LET YOU GET THE BARRAGE LATER. SURE. CAN'T BELIEVE I BEAT DONALD TO THIS, BUT , UM, JUST BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPECT OF IT, I'M UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE FOR SALE PRODUCTS. THAT IS CORRECT. AND AND YOU SAID 80% A M I IS THAT THAT IS CORRECT. IS THAT 80% OF THE CITY A M I OR 80% OF THE CENSUS TRACKED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE BUILDING? GREAT QUESTION. OF THE CENSUS TRACK OF THAT SPECIFIC AREA. OKAY. [01:20:01] YES, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY, IAN. OKAY. SO, UM, I, I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN THINGS LIKE THIS. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE SMALLER LOT JUST TO, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE, BUT HOW FAR AWAY ARE YOU FROM THE I D Z ALLOWANCE AREA? BECAUSE IT SURE, BECAUSE I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THIS SURE LOOKS LIKE AN I D Z TYPE OF PROJECT, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT IN THAT SUBJECT AREA, BUT YOU'RE REALLY CLOSE TO IT, I WOULD JUST WAS WONDERING IF, IF YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT, BECAUSE WHEN I, WHEN I'VE SEEN THE I D Z MAP, SOMETIMES THERE'S SPOT BLOCKS OR IT'S VERY CHOPPY THE WAY THAT, WHERE THOSE ALLOWANCES COME IN. BUT IF YOU'RE LIKE ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT OR SOMETHING THAT'S SO HE CAN REQUEST I D Z THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS. IT'S WITHIN, UH, LUKE FOUR 10. THIS IS WITHIN THE AREA? YES. I D Z CAN ONLY BE REQUESTED WITHIN INSIDE LOOP FOUR 10. OKAY. SO IT'S IN FOUR 10. SO IT'S POSSIBLE TO GO, TO GO THROUGH THAT REGIME AND GO THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE AND HAVE ALL THIS STUFF OFFICIAL SITE PLANS? YES. A MORE EXPENSIVE PROCESS. AND, UM, IT GOES THROUGH TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION. AND THEN, BUT THEN THAT LEADS THEM TO A REPL PROCESS, WHICH IS A CONCERN OF THEIRS BECAUSE THAT ADDS TO THE EXPENSE. BUT ON BEING UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET, THEY'RE NOT UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE STORMWATER AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SUBSTANDARD STREET SECTION. SO I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME BENNY'S THEY GET FROM IT, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, UH, IF THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING AS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION FOR THEM. THAT IS AN OPTION. KEEP IN MIND THE I D Z, YOU'RE LOOKING AT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. OF COURSE NOT A GUARANTEE. C O D IS STILL AN OPTION AS WELL. UM, 1,250 SQUARE FEET IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. IT WILL BRING IN THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK TO FIVE FEET NO SETBACK IN THE FRONT YARD WITH I D Z. BUT IF THEY GO I D Z, THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE A REDUCTION IN LANDSCAPE IN THE 25 POINTS. THEY GET, THEY GET A PASS ON THE DRAINAGE, THEY GET A PASS ON THE SUBSTANDARD STREETS. BUT IF THEY DO IT THIS WAY, IT'S EVEN MORE STRINGENT FOR 'EM WHEN THEY MOVE FORWARD NECESSARILY. NO, BECAUSE THESE ARE INFILL LOTS. THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH JUST BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN THE CRAG AREA. YES. OKAY. SO THEY, THEY DO GET SOME BENNYS, BUT IT STILL MIGHT BE, I'M JUST, I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT BY DOING IT THIS ROUTE, IT'S STILL SLIGHTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SLIGHTLY MORE STRINGENT ON THEM AS A DEVELOPER AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING THROUGH AN I D Z PROJECT. YES, BECAUSE THE STANDARDS REQUIRE, UM, THE PROCESS TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING IT, UM, WAIVED THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. CORRECT. AND THE EXCEPTION FOR US IS THE PROCESS OF REZONING TO I D Z. THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND THAT COST MAKES IT UNAFFORDABLE TO, FOR US. I GET TO BE ABLE TO SELL IT UNFORTUNATELY. THANK YOU. I THANK YOU. I GET IT. YEAH. ALSO, ONE MORE THING IS THAT TO REDO THIS IN ANY OTHER FASHION, OTHER THAN THE WAY IT'S EXISTING PLOTTED, IF WE HAD TO GO WITH AN R FOUR ZONING, THEN WE COULD ONLY HAVE ONE HOUSE ON THIS LOT WITH OUR INTENTION AND HOPE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE INFILL HOUSING AT A REASONABLE PRICE. OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT ONCE YOU DO ONE, ONE PLACE ON A BLOCK, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYTHING ELSE STARTS TO GET BETTER. SO, ALRIGHT. OKAY. I'M GONNA PUT, PUT, PUT ON HOLD RIGHT NOW. HENRY, DO YOU NEED, UH, YES, I DO. PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GONNA PUT A STOP RIGHT NOW FOR ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS. FILL A RECESS JUST BRIEFLY. UM, HE IS GRATEFUL ENOUGH TO COME AND WE ARE SO HAPPY THAT HE ABLE TO COME, BUT HE IS NOT FEELING WITH, UH, UP SNUFF RIGHT NOW. SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE HIM A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. ALRIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE, UM, ALLOWING US TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK HERE TALKING ABOUT A MINUTE AGO. BE SET OF ONE OR TWO OR WHATEVER. WE'RE, UH, WE DO THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ONE, UH, R S A AND THEY IDENTIFY LOTS THAT, UH, ARE INFILL LOTS AND WE'LL CALL FOR THE LACK OF BETTERTON, UH, RELIC. AND, UH, SO IN THE, IN THE PAST WE JUST RECENTLY BUILT TWO LOTS ON A BLOCK ON JOE BLANKS. AND THE TIME WE FINISHED OUR TWO HOUSES, THREE OTHER HOUSES ON THE BLOCK HAD BEEN RENOVATED. IT DOES START THIS, THIS PROCESS. SO THERE IS SOME POSITIVE THINGS TO THIS FACT. AND THEN THE OTHER IS THAT, UH, ACCORDING TO OUR ENGINEER, THEY ARE PLANTED AS THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. HE ESTIMATES FOUR TO SIX MONTHS [01:25:01] AND $6,000 A LOT TO REPL 'EM. THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE ABILITY TO SELL THIS HOUSE. AND IT, IT, UH, IMPACTS WHAT WE CAN DO. AND SO OBVIOUSLY, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY OUR REQUEST AND THEN THE FACT THAT WE WERE TOLD THERE'S A SQUARE WHERE I D Z WAS IN, AND THEN ANYTHING OUTSIDE THAT SQUARE YOU COULD NOT, UH, REQUEST I D Z. BUT WE DESIGNED THE HOUSE AND THE SITE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. WE DO HAVE AN ARCHITECT INVOLVED AND WE PRIDE OURSELVES IN THE FACT THAT WE BUILT QUALITY HOUSING FOR PEOPLE AND USUALLY TWO HOUSES ON JOE BLANK SOLD BEFORE WE EVEN GOT THE ELECTRICITY TURNED ON. THEY ARE GOOD HOUSES AND GOOD QUALITY AND THEY INCORPORATE A DESIGN ASPECT THAT MAKES THEM MUCH MORE, UH, WHAT, UH, REASONABLE FOR A LIVING. WE DON'T TAKE IT, UH, REALLY DO WORK ON THESE HOUSES. FISHER. YES. CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHAT APPROXIMATE PRICE THESE PRI THESE PRICES, THESE HOUSES I THINK WILL SELL AT LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND BUCKS. AND THEY ARE LIKE TWO BEDROOM, ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, ONE, TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH HOUSES WE ALL GREW UP IN, YES, THEY ARE ALL SHOTGUN HOUSES, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY TODAY, SHOTGUN HOUSES, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALL THESE INFILL LOTS, UH, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY EVERY LOT IN TOWN I THINK WAS 25 FEET WIDE AND YOU BOUGHT MULTIPLES. WELL, SOME OF THOSE MULTIPLES, SOME OF THOSE LOTS DIDN'T GET SOLD. SO THERE'S A LOT OF 25 FOOT WIDE, UH, LOTS IN THIS, IN THIS TOWN. AND THIS IS ONE WAY TO APPROACH PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THOSE TENS OF LOTS. ALRIGHT, ANA, ANA. SO, SO CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, JUST HOOD, IT APPEARS THAT THE MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL OF THE LOTS ARE CURRENTLY R FOUR, WHICH IS 4,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, UM, MINIMUM. AND SO, SO HERE YOU'RE REQUESTING FOR A ZONING KIND OF, OR OR SIZE LOTTING DOWN TO R TWO. SO YOU'RE DROPPING TWO USES ALL THE WAY, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT, WHICH DOES SEEM DISPARATE WITH THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND SO, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IS IT COST PROHIBITIVE TO DIVIDE IT IN HALF WHERE YOU'RE ONLY DROP IT DOWN ONE, YOU WOULD NOT MEET R FOUR ZONING, CUTTING IT IN HALF R FOUR ZONING'S 4,000 SQUARE FEET. CORRECT? YOU ADD THESE THREE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SOMEWHERE AROUND 6,000 AND THAT'S NOT R THREE, BUT I'VE SAID IF YOU DROP IT DOWN ONE VERSUS TWO ZONING, SO RIGHT NOW IT'S R FOUR. IF YOU DROPPED IT R THREE IT'S 3000 SQUARE FOOT. YES. AND SO, SO, UM, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLANTED. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO WHETHER THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PLOTTED PROPERLY OR NOT, BUT, UH, I I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT YOUR INFORMATION IS CORRECT. UH, YES, WE USE BIG RED DOG ENGINEERING AND, AND, UH, THAT, UH, ONLY ALL MY ONLY CONCERN IS, IS PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS AND LEGAL LOTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE BECAUSE ISSUING ONE, ARE WE GONNA BE ISSUING ONE VARIANCE FOR THIS ENTIRE LOT OR THE THREE AS HE DESCRIBES? IT'S, IT'S ONE VARIANCE FOR EACH LOT STAND, BUT WE ONLY ADVERTISED ONE LOT. NO, WE ADVERTISED ALL THREE THREE LOTS SITTING AT 1 24. YES, IT'S THE WEST 86.8 FEET OF LOT 14, 15 AND 16. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL THREE WERE ADVERTISED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE BEING THE CASE. NO OTHER WITNESSES. I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR, UH, FROM THE BOARD OR IN PLEASE. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 19 DASH OH THREE NINE, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE AN 1830 1,830 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THREE LOT SIZES TO BE 2,170 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW NEW STRUCTURES TO BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 8 2 4 SOUTH SAN EDUARDO AVENUE, [01:30:01] APPLICANT BEING ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP, BECAUSE A TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNI UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, A PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY A MINIMUM, BY MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT PROVIDE FOR A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE R SIX, THE R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING USES ON A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. THE SIDE SETBACK REDUCTION WILL PROVIDE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT AIR AND OPEN SPACE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MEETS THE INTENTIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THE LOT IS INTENDED. THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION DUE TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN ANTIQUATED PLATT. IN ORDER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTED, BUT BECAUSE THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A C O D, THE APPLICANT WILL NOT NEED TO REPL THE LOT. HOWEVER, A C O D CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE A PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. AND A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS A VARIANCE IS GRANTED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, ADVANCES THE EFFORTS OF THE ZONING DESIGNATION, THE VARIANCE WILL PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DIS DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE INJURED BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE A LOT SIZE WILL NOT CREATE INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, NOR WILL IT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ALTERED AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COHESIVE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PLIGHT OF NUMBER SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CONDITION PRESENT IS THAT THE LOT HAS AN ANTIQUATED PLOT IN ORDER TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. THAT MUST BE A PLAT EXCEPTION APPROVED. A PLAN EXCEPTION CANNOT BE APPROVED UNLESS A VARIANCE IS ALLOWED GRANTED TO ALLOW FOR A SMALLER LOT SIZE TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WHO WAS THAT SECOND THI MR. THIEL. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO, SO THE ISSUE I'M SEEING HERE IS, IS THAT THIS SITE IS JUST TRYING TO, THIS IS WHAT I'M OBSERVING. AVOID A ZONING CHANGE TO I D Z, WHICH WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS. AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS TO BE NOTIFIED AND HAVE A SITE PLAN FILED AND EVERYTHING BE RUN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND THEN THROUGH CITY COUNCIL, THIS COMING TO US WHILE I COMPLETELY GET IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA BE ACCOMPLISHING THE EXACT SAME GOAL. IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE AN I D Z AND, AND IT'S JUST GONNA BE ZONE R FOUR. UH, THERE'S NOT ANY, YOU'RE LOSING SOME OF THE BENNY'S. I THINK IT'D BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO GO I D Z. HOWEVER, THE COST IS ASTRONOMICAL. I HAVE PERSONALLY DONE THEM MYSELF, SO I MEAN, I, I'M A LITTLE TORN HERE BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE COMMUNITY WAS NECESSARILY INVOLVED AS THEY WOULD BE THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE. SO AS, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I I I I JUST CANNOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE ITS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO AVOID, UH, AN I D Z ZONING CHANGE UNLESS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, UH, CHANGES MY MIND WITH THEIR DELIBERATION. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. UH, MR. TEAL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR YES. UH, I'M ACTUALLY HAVE A DISAGREEING OPINION WITH MR. ORIAN. UM, I FEEL THAT THIS PROPERTY OR THIS PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. UH, THESE ARE THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. UM, THEY'RE HERE, UM, WITH A NOBLE CAUSE, UH, WORKING TOWARDS CREATING, UH, GOOD INFILL DEVELOPMENT, UM, AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE. UH, I THINK THAT THESE AREAS NEED THIS. I THINK THE ENTIRE CITY NEEDS A GOOD INFILL DEVELOPMENT. AND OFTENTIMES, YEAH, THAT IS INCREASED DENSITY, WHICH PEOPLE IN SAN ANTONIO SEEM TO BE AFRAID OF. AND I THINK WE NEED TO EMBRACE IT AND, UH, MOVE FORWARD. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT ELLI DR. ELLI. YEAH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL. FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASON OR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT MR. TEEL LISTED. I, I WILL BE HONEST, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE, UM, THE APPLICANTS DID NOT MEET WITH THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE EXACT KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS. BUT WHAT THEY ALSO NEED TO NEED IS TO BE HEARD AND BE PART OF THE PROCESS. AND THAT WOULDN'T HAVE ADDED MUCH COST AND IT WOULD'VE BOUGHT YOU A TON OF GOODWILL. UM, AND [01:35:01] SO I ENCOURAGE YOU, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AND AT THE END OF THIS, I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO MEET WITH MS. HERNANDEZ AND, AND REALLY SPEAK WITH HER AND MAKE SURE THAT SHE AND HER COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THE WORK THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. BECAUSE THIS IS THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO SEE HAPPEN IN SAN ANTONIO TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. ANNA. ALRIGHT, MR. MANNA, HAVE YOU, I I'M, I'M STRUGGLING TO SUPPORT THIS MYSELF. I'M SORRY. UM, AND SO, SO ONE IS THAT I BELIEVE, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHAT'S BEEN CALLED OUT AS FAR AS NOT MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT SECOND, I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT DOES IMPACT THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF. AND, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, GOING AS DEEP AS HE CAN AND AS LARGE AS HE CAN IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA ISN'T NECESSARILY THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT IF YOU FELL WITHIN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A MORE APPROPRIATE BUSINESS THAN I WOULD'VE SUPPORTED. BUT I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TOO BIG AND TOO DEEP FOR ME. ALL RIGHT, MR. NEFF, I'VE BEEN TORN ON THIS HEARING ALL THE DIFFERENT TESTIMONY. UH, 'CAUSE I AGREE WITH DR. DER'S COMMENTS THAT ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP SHOULD HAVE DEFINITELY MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORS. UM, AND I AGREE WITH MRS. HERNANDEZ'S COMMENTS. UM, SHOTGUN HOUSES ARE NOT JUST REPRESENTATIVE POVERTY IN NEW ORLEANS AND CHICAGO, BUT ALSO IN THE WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO FOR GENERATIONS. UM, BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THIS PRESENTATION IS ALSO THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSES TO BE SOLD TO FAMILIES AT A COST THAT IS. UM, AND IT'S ALSO RARE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BASED ON THE CENSUS TRACT AND NOT JUST THE, UH, BOGUS FULL CITY A M I IN WHICH IT'S NOT REALLY AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY'RE SELLING THEM IN. UM, THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. UH, I DISAGREE ABOUT THE I D Z SUGGESTION BECAUSE IF THIS WERE TO GO THROUGH I D Z, THERE WOULD BE MUCH LESS STRINGENT APPLICATION OF THIS PROPERTY OR THESE PROPERTIES ON THE SITES. THEY WOULD ALLOW FOR LESS SETBACKS AND MORE DENSITY AND POTENTIALLY NO PARKING. AND THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT I THINK WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THIS, TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED. UM, SO BASED ON THIS ONE CASE AND THE WAY IT'S BEEN PRESENTED, I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, BUT I ALSO WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT A C G WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE BUILDING THE BEST PRODUCT FOR THAT COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. THANK YOU, . ALRIGHT. UH, HENRY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, UM, AS WELL INTENTIONED AS THE APPLICANT IS AND, UH, THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INFILL? UM, THIS IS NOT MONTE VISTA OR ONE OF THOSE OTHERS. UH, VERY WELL ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT IS ASKING TO HAVE, BE GIVEN THE RESPECT THAT THEY DESERVE. AND IF THEY DON'T GET IT, THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT I CAN SUPPORT THIS. SO MY VOTE IS NO. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? HOLD ON. I'M OKAY. UM, FISHER, MS. FISHER, GO AHEAD. FISHER. YES, I'M STRUGGLING AS WELL WITH THIS. UM, FOR NUMEROUS REASONS. I KNOW HOUSING TYPICALLY ANYWHERE LESS THAN 140,000 IS CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE. REALLY, THERE'S HARDLY ANY HOUSING THAT YOU CAN FIND ANYWHERE THAT'S IN THAT PRICE POINT, UM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE AS WELL AS AS, UM, AFFORDABILITY. UM, I, IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THAT HOMES, ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN LOT SIZE IN FRONTAGE, UM, DON'T REALLY PARTICULARLY HAVE A GOOD RESALE VALUE. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M THINKING. IT MIGHT NOT BE THIS GENERATION, BUT WE'RE LOOKING THE NEXT GENERATION AND ESTABLISHING, UM, A WELLNESS OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, FOR THE LONG TERM. UM, SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT. UM, WELL, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, MR. ORIAN, I'M GONNA LET YOU GO AHEAD. YEAH, I JUST, I I JUST WANTED TO, TO ADD, UM, I, YOU KNOW, I I, I SEE THIS AERIAL MAP AND I'M NOTICING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, OF 25 FOOT WIDE AND SINGLE ADDRESS HOMES, UH, ACROSS THE STREET. MOST OF THE LOTS ARE ALL, ARE ALL 2 25 UNITS. I'M, I'M, MY FEAR IS THAT IF THIS DOESN'T GO THROUGH THAT LENGTHY PROCESS BEING THE FIRST ONE, THAT THIS IS JUST GONNA JUST EXPLODE IN THIS AREA. AND, AND I JUST THINK FOR THE FIRST ONE, [01:40:02] IT REALLY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH SOME REAL SCRUTINY. UM, SO UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD, I'M, MY MIND HASN'T BEEN CHANGED YET. UH, OWEN AND CHAIR, IS IT, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO POSSIBLY VOTE TO TABLE THIS SO THAT WE HAVE TWO MORE MEMBERS HERE? 'CAUSE I HATE TO BE JUST NOT, IF I MAY CHAIR, I THINK THE APPLICANT, UM, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE, UH, DISCUSSION THAT HAS OCCURRED RELATED TO MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS GOING, WANTS TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. OKAY. THAT IS WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO GET AT. BUT, UH, LESS, UM, UH, LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AT THIS TIME, I, I WOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER, UH, CONSIDER IT PROBABLY TO YOUR BEST INTEREST TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS TILL WE HAVE A LARGER BOARD, NOT ONLY FOR THAT REASON, BUT TO ALLOW YOU TO GET YOUR ORGANIZATION A LITTLE BETTER, BETTER PREPARED SURE. TO PRESENT THIS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SPOKEN OF THAT I WAS ABOUT TO GET TO. SO, BUT, UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A, A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE, I WILL ENTERTAIN IT AT THIS TIME. SURE. UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE APOLOGIZE FOR NOT MEETING WITH THE LAST PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE DID MEET WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE. UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, CONTINUANCE ON THIS CASE. I BELIEVE IT'S THE NOVEMBER 4TH OR THE NEXT MEETING AVAILABLE. UM, AND WE ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO MEET WITH THE LAST PROMISE ASSOCIATION. I, I, I'LL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEN TO, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR ALREADY, SO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND KNOWS THAT SECOND IT NEED TO WITHDRAW IT. I WITHDRAW. YES. I WAS GONNA ASK YOU TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND THE SECOND NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT I BELIEVE WHO WAS, I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT WAS MR. TEAL. DO YOU ALSO ACCEPT THAT WE'RE GONNA WITHDRAW THE MOTION? YES. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE TAKING A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. I MOVE TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER. AND IS NOVEMBER 4TH ENOUGH TIME TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR, OR DO YOU WANNA GO TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 18TH? 18TH, NOVEMBER 18TH. NOVEMBER 18TH. WELL, I MOVE TO, UH, MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS, UH, CASE TO THE NOVEMBER 18TH HEARING. SECOND. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. UM, UH, I'M JUST GONNA TAKE A HAND VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR PARTICULAR MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? CONTINUING THIS CASE TO, NO, UH, NOVEMBER 18TH, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. WAS THERE A NAY? IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. MAJORITY RULES WITH CASES CONTINUE TILL, UH, NOVEMBER 18TH. OKAY. I'M GONNA GIVE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I NEED ONE. [6. 19-7802 BOA-19-10300118: A request by David Rodriguez for appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness, located at 1418 West Rosewood Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Huy Pham, Historic Preservation Specialist, (210) 207-5469, huy.pham@sanantonio.gov, Office of Historic Preservation) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ALL RIGHT, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT CASE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 1 1 8 FOR CASE BO A 19 103 0 1 1 8. AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY CERTIFIC APPROPRIATE APPLICANT BEING DAVID RODRIGUEZ. ADDRESS IS 1 4 1 8 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. ZONING IS R FOUR H RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY KEYSTONE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AREA PHOTOGRAPH A SUMMARY AND APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY WINDOW REPLACEMENT ADMINISTRATION MODIFICATIONS AS PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1418 WEST ROSEWOOD. THESE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ROSEWOOD AVENUE, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PROPERTIES. AND THEN I WILL TURN IT OVER TO HISTORIC ON THEIR PRES PRESENTATION. EDWARD HALL, A SENIOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HU FAM HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST WITH OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE, WE CAN GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE CASE HISTORY FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, I'LL DO THAT MYSELF AND THEN WE WILL GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED AND HOW IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES. O H P STAFF RECEIVED O H P STAFF RECEIVED, UH, A NOTICE, UH, FROM A CITIZEN IN REGARDS TO A SCOPE OF WORK TAKING PLACE AT THE PROPERTY. THIS WAS ON JULY THE SECOND, 2019 O H P STAFF, UH, CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT, LEFT A STOP WORK ORDER, AND THEN THE APPLICANT FOLLOWED UP AFTER THAT. THAT WAS ON AUGUST THE SECOND WHEN THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO BE HEARD BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ON OCTOBER THE 21ST. THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. AT THAT TIME, COMMISSIONERS REFERRED THAT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE [01:45:01] OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO MAKE A SITE VISIT AND BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, UM, IN, IN, IN TO RECEIVE INFORMATION THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. UM, THIS REQUEST RETURNED TO THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ON AUGUST 28TH. AT THAT TIME, THE REQUEST WAS DENIED AND THE APPLICANT THEREFORE OR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AS WE MENTIONED, THE WORK WAS DONE PRIOR TO RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THE APPLICANT WAS GENERALLY COOPERATIVE WHEN RECEIVING THE STOP WORK ORDER. HOWEVER, UH, THE DISCUSSION OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 14 WOOD WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS, AS WELL AS CHANGES TO WINDOW SIZES AS WELL AS CHANGES TO WINDOW LOCATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS, UM, WE ULTIMATELY NOT BE ABLE TO BE MET BY THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE, UH, THE TYPICAL H D R C PROCESS. SO THE APPLICANT, UH, I BELIEVE IS REQUESTING TO APPEAL TO KEEP THE MODIFICATIONS AS CONSTRUCTED AS PROPOSED. AND, UH, AND TO MEET COMPLIANCE THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, AN THE, THE APPEAL BY YOUR BOARD AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE, UM, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WOULD NOT BE UH, REQUIRED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR O H P STAFF AT THIS TIME? MR. NEFF? THIS, THE TOTAL REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE WINDOWS IN THE WHOLE HOME, OR IS IT ONLY PARTICULAR ONES OR PARTICULAR ELEVATIONS? UH, IT WAS ALL THE WINDOWS THAT WERE NOT ON THE FRONT. UH, I BELIEVE THERE WERE TWO FRONT WINDOWS THAT WERE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPLACED, BUT MOSTLY SIDES AND BACK AND MAYBE TWO IN THE FRONT. OKAY. SO THEY, THE STOP WORK ORDER MAY HAVE PREVENTED ALL OF THEM FROM BEING REPLACED OR IT WAS THEIR PLAN TO JUST DO, UH, IN SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY PLAN TO, UH, DO, UH, A MORE IN-KIND REPLACEMENT OF THE FRONT BEING THE ALUMINUM CASE WINDOW, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN INITIATED WHEN WE FIRST POSTED THE STOP WORK ORDER. SO THE HOUSE HAD SOME CASEMENTS ON THE FRONT AND THEN DOUBLE HUNG WOOD WINDOWS AROUND THE, THE REMAINDER OF THE HOME? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ORIAN, HIS ORIAN. SO ABOUT WHEN WAS THIS PROPERTY DESIGNATED HISTORIC AND, AND I'M ASKING THAT BECAUSE IN THE, IN THE APPEAL THEY LISTED THERE HAD BEEN SOME WORK DONE IN THE 1980S, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAS WAS THERE ANY WORK DONE TO THIS HOME PRIOR TO ITS HISTORIC DESIGNATION THAT HE'S TRYING TO REPAIR? IT WAS, I BELIEVE IT WAS DESIGNATED EITHER, UH, 2004, 2007. I CAN GET THE CLOSER NUMBER. 2009. SORRY. SO WAS, IS THERE ANY WINDOWS THAT IN YOUR OPINION APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN, UH, REPLACED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WITH THE HOME THAT POSSIBLY PREDATED THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION? UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A NO, ALL THE WINDOWS, UH, THAT WE WERE AWARE OF WERE WOOD WINDOWS. SO EVEN IF THEY WERE REPLACED FROM THE VERY ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS OR THE METAL CASEMENT WINDOWS, THEY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO METAL OR WOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, COULD YOU PLEASE BRING UP THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOME PRIOR TO, UH, MODIFICATIONS OR WE HAVE ANY, ANY MAP THAT SHOWS THE HOUSE PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING DONE ON IT? AND THIS IS THE THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS PRIOR TO MODIFICATIONS AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, UNDER THE GABLE ON THE PROTRUDING BAY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, UM, THERE ARE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS. UH, BUT AS WE SCROLL DOWN, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE TWO ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS THAT ARE FLANKING THE CHIMNEY. UM, WOOD WINDOWS WOULD CONTINUE TO WRAP THE HOUSE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE, UH, BEHIND THE CARPORT, THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BESIDES THE GENERAL CHANGES OF WINDOW SIZES AND LOCATIONS. [01:50:02] CASEMENT WINDOW IN THE FRONT, THAT, THAT WINDOW THERE IS, IS, WAS A, A STEEL WINDOW THAT'S CORRECT. ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE UNDER THE GABLE, I'M GETTING DIZZY. OKAY. IT'S ONE COMPLETE, ONE COMPLETE FRAME. UM, THE TWO FLANKING PARTS ON THE OUTSIDE WOULD BE THE, THE ONES THAT WOULD OPEN, UM, THESE, THAT SYSTEM THERE IS ORIGINAL, UM, IF YOU LOOK THE ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS THAT FLANK THE CHIMNEY, AND THEN THOSE THAT CONTINUE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE DOWN THE SIDE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PHOTO. UH, AND THEN THOSE THAT WERE SHOWN DOWN FURTHER. UM, I WILL FLIP BACK THROUGH TO THE POST WORK PHOTOS. AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE BACK OF THE PORTAGE SHARE, YOU SEE TWO SMALLER WINDOWS WHERE THE FENESTRATION HAS BEEN CHANGED. UM, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS THAT ARE SMALLER IN PROFILE AND MODIFIED IN PROFILE THAN WHAT WOULD BE ORIGINAL ON THE HOUSE. UH, THESE WINDOWS HERE THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY PAIRED, UH, HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND TWO VINYL WINDOWS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN THEIR PLACE. AND THEN HERE'S JUST AN INSIDE PHOTO OF THE CASE WITH THE STEEL CASEMENT. THAT IS NOT A CASEMENT WINDOW, THAT IS A FULL OPERATIONAL WINDOW MOLD TO A PITCHER WINDOW. OH, OKAY. MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS WINDOW WAS, WAS RETROED PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE SEVENTIES. IT'S A REPLACEMENT WINDOW. IT WOULD'VE REPLACED, UH, AN ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOW. UM, THOSE THAT THE WAY THAT THEY FUNCTION CAN SWING OUT OR, OR CAN RAISE, UH, BUT TO THE POINT THAT'S A NON-ORIGINAL WINDOW, UM, THAT WINDOW WAS ALREADY REPLACED. THE WINDOW THAT STAFF IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THE WOOD ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS THAT WERE REPLACED WITH VINYL WINDOWS. SO THIS WINDOW IS NOT OF ISSUE AT, AT THIS PARTICULAR CORRECT. THIS WINDOW HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED IN THE PAST TIME THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IF IT WERE TO BE MODIFIED, IT WOULD NEED TO BE WHAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE A WOOD WINDOW OR MAINTAINED IN PLACE. RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THEM? YEAH, ORIAN. UH, SO OUTTA CURIOSITY, UM, WE, WE HEARD, UH, IN THE FILE IT, IT'S SAYING THAT HE WANTS, UH, THE STYLE OF ALUMINUM WINDOWS, UH, JUST FOR THE, UM, UM, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, THE, THE RATING OF THE WINDOW. DO YOU GUYS HAVE, UH, A WINDOW THAT HAS A WOOD TRIM ON IT THAT PERHAPS COULD BE THIS ALUMINUM WINDOW COULD BE MODIFIED SO THAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE A WOOD WINDOW OR SOMETHING? IS THERE ANY OPTIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT? YES, A FEW OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT. UM, TO, TO CLARIFY, THE, ALL OF THE WOOD WINDOWS ON THE SIDE AND BACKS OF THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH VINYL WINDOWS. THERE ARE, UM, BOTH SUSTAINABLE AND, UM, WINDOWS THAT ARE, ARE GOOD FOR THE, UM, THE, UH, RETAINING, RETAINING HEAT AND, AND, AND COOLANTS IN YOUR HOUSE. UM, HOWEVER, THE CASEMENT WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AT THIS TIME ARE NOT OF CONCERN. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. AND, UH, WHO'S APPEALING THIS DECISION BY THE H D R C? I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN PLEASE, UH, DETAIL YOUR CASE. UH, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M DAVID RODRIGUEZ AND I'M THE OWNER OF, OF THIS PROPERTY. AND, UM, WELL YOU HAVE THE ADDRESS. BUT ANYWAY, UM, AND I'M HERE TO, UH, I MEAN, I AM IN DESPERATE NEED TO HAVE THIS APPROVED AND, AND, UH, AND HAVE CLOSURE BY THIS BOARD SO THAT I CAN PROCEED, MY WIFE AND I CAN PROCEED TO FINISH THIS THING. THIS IS REALLY CREATING HAVOC AS FAR AS, UH, EXPENSE. WE'RE DROWNING IN EXPENSE AND, UH, THE HOUSE NEEDS A LOT OF WORK. WE CERTAINLY CANNOT AFFORD THE RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. UH, BUT I'M GONNA SHOW YOU THESE PICTURES HERE. AND WE FEEL THIS IS A HOUSE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. AND, AND IT'S RELEVANT IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S SIMILAR VINTAGE. OKAY. IT'S A BUNGALOW. LIKE THE BOTH OF 'EM ARE BUNGALOWS AND OF EUROPEAN COTTAGE STYLE. OKAY. AND WE REDID THIS HOUSE, THIS IS IN THE MONTE VISTA AREA, BUT WE REDID THIS [01:55:01] HOUSE, AND I'M SHOWING YOU THIS PICTURES MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE WINDOWS. WE'RE USING THE SAME WINDOWS, AND I DON'T, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A PAINTED WHITE WOODEN WINDOW WOULD LOOK ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE USING. AND BESIDES THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S PUT THE, THE CAN'T AFFORD IT ASIDE. WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. YOU KNOW, THERE IS NOT GONNA BE, AND THE NEIGHBORS WILL LIKE IT. THE NEIGHBORS WOULD WANNA LIVE THERE. I THINK. SO. YOU KNOW, MY WIFE AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET ON WITH THIS THING AND WITH OUR PLAN AND WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD A A A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. I THINK THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE THERE. AND, AND WE HAD TO REDO. IT WAS SIMILAR CONDITION. UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M DONE. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. I HAVE A QUESTION NOW. COULD YOU BRING, PLEASE BRING UP THAT PREVIOUS PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOME? ? OH, . NO, NO. CAMERON, CAN YOU USE YOUR MIC PLEASE? OH, THAT ONE, THAT ONE, THAT ONE GOTTA GO BACK. AND THE, AND THEN THAT FRONT ALUMINUM WINDOW THAT WE'RE CALLING CASEMENT WINDOW IS THE PLAN IS FOR IT TO COME OUT AND HAVE TWO WINDOWS. LIKE WHAT FLANKS? THE, THE FIREPLACE. THAT, THAT, THAT DOESN'T LOOK ANY GOOD. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS DONE PROBABLY IN THE SEVENTIES. I AGREE. SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? RODRIGUEZ? RODRIGUEZ? UH, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, SINCE YOU SAID THAT, UH, NEIGHBORS WOULD LOVE IT, HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS? HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM TO, TO THE ASSOCIATION? A A FEW AND THERE'S ONE HERE, BUT THE NEIGHBORS, NO, I MEAN, I, I CAN'T SAY THERE'S A BUNCH OF 'EM, BUT THEY'RE, I WENT AND KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND, UH, SO THERE'S ONE HERE THAT TEAL. MR. TEAL, GO AHEAD. THE PICTURE THAT YOU PROVIDED IS AN EXAMPLE OF A HOUSE YOU RENOVATED. UH, WAS THAT IN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT? HISTORIC DISTRICT? NO, IT'S A STREET AWAY. OKAY. BUT THE, IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN THAT STREET AND THREE STREETS OVER, THEY'RE ALL SIMILAR TO THIS. IS IS THE REASON I'M SHOWING THAT HOUSE. I MEAN, UH, IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT HOUSE, IT'D BE NO RELEVANCE, BUT, BUT YEAH, THAT'S IT. IT JUST, THE, A LOT OF THE HOUSES OVER THERE WHERE THIS HOUSE THAT WAS RENOVATED IS ON, ON RIDGEWOOD COURT IS, OR SIMILAR HOUSES TO THESE HERE AND JUST LIKE THESE HOUSES, SEE, THAT'S ALUMINUM. THOSE ARE ALUMINUM WINDOWS. I, I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS GOOD WITH THE, IS IT THE GUIDES IN IT? BUT YOU KNOW, THE, THE HOUSE THAT I'VE GOT ACROSS THE STREET, SEE, THAT LOOKS BETTER WITH, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ORIGINAL TYPE OF THING WITH NO, NO GRIDS IN IT. NOT ALL OF THEM HAD GRIDS BACK THEN. SOME, MOST OF 'EM DIDN'T. SOME OF 'EM DID. ORIAN. SO IS, SO THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT YOU, YOU, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THIS HOUSE? NO, WE HAVEN'T LIVED IN IT. WE, MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT THIS HOUSE WITH MONEY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE USED AND RETIREMENT MONEY, BUT, UH, WE MAY END UP LIVING THERE, YOU KNOW, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT WE BOUGHT IT TO FIX UP AND RESELL. OKAY. OKAY. AND, BUT IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE THAT WE LOVE THE, THOSE HOUSES, YOU KNOW, AND WE, WE MIGHT LIVE THERE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT DO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PICTURES, UH, FROM HOMES WITHIN A, A BLOCK OR TWO THAT MIGHT PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF YES, THEY'RE IN THERE. I I, I HEARD YOU HAD MENTIONED, UM, MONTE VISTA, BUT IT WASN'T IN A HISTORIC STREET. THEY FLASH, THEY FLASHED IT UP THERE OF, UH, PROBABLY FI LOOK, THERE'S, UH, NO, THAT'S FROM YOU GUYS. THAT'S FROM YOU GUYS. THE THE HOUSES THAT I TOOK WERE THIS ONE BECAUSE THE WINDOWS ARE SIMILAR. AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OF MORE, THERE'S PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE MORE, NOT THAT, THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET. AND, AND, UH, THE HOU THE THE GOLD HOUSE, SAME THING. AND THIS HOUSE HERE HAVE THOSE WINDOWS LIKE I'M USING. [02:00:01] AND THOSE ARE HISTORIC, UH, WITHIN THE VICINITY. . OH, THOSE ARE ACROSS THE STREET, THOSE HOUSES. BUT THOSE WINDOWS ARE THE SAME WINDOWS I'M USING. OKAY. AND, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, EVEN IF YOU WALK UP TO THE WINDOW RIGHT UP TO IT, I DARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A WHITE PAINTED PAINTED WHITE WOODEN WINDOW. AND THIS IS MORE OPERABLE. THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT NOTHING CAME UP. THE WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE THAT I BOUGHT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT OPERABLE. THEY'RE ROTTED. THERE, THERE WERE MAYBE THREE. AND THE BEST WORKING WINDOW IS THAT ALUMINUM THING. THAT'S A PICTURE WINDOW WITH THE TWO ON THE SIDE. THIS ONE HAD THE WOOD WINDOWS WITH A LITTLE WEIGHT GOING DOWN THE SIDE OF IT. YES. OKAY. YES. BUT YOU KNOW, THEY WOULDN'T GO UP AND DOWN. OKAY. AND THEY WERE ROTTED BECAUSE IT WAS A, THERE IS A LOT OF, UH, RAIN THAT CAME IN AND THAT, THAT'S WHY I NEED TO FINISH. 'CAUSE IT, I MEAN, IT, IT WILL DETERIORATE EVEN WORSE. THANK YOU CHAIR. IF I CAN, THERE'S A SLIGHT CLARIFICATION. DOMINIC, CAN YOU GO TO THE, UM, SLIDE RELATED TO THE NOTICES RECEIVED BACK, GO BACK ONE. UH, SO I BELIEVE WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE BACK FROM THE KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD. ALRIGHT, SO NOTED. OKAY. UM, WE HAVE, UH, SINCE DETERMINED THIS, THIS WAS, UH, HISTORIC, DETERMINED HER HISTORICAL AT WHAT DATE? 2009. 2009. WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THIS HOUSE? OH, JUST NOT EVEN A YEAR. SO YOU WERE VERY WELL AWARE THAT THE HOUSE WAS HISTORIC? NO, I WASN'T BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THAT'S WHY I'M SHOWING YOU THIS OTHER RESTAURANT RESTORED HOUSE. WE WILL STILL GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT KIND OF HOUSE IF I'M ALLOWED TO FINISH. NO, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING, THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S GONNA GET A TERRIBLE HOUSE. BUT NO, I I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT YOUR FAULT. IT'S MINE. I SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE HOMEWORK. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS HISTORIC. NOBODY TOLD ME THAT WHEN I, WHO, WHO I BOUGHT IT FROM DIDN'T TELL ME. HEY, UH, MS. DORIAN, WE'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. YEAH. SO THERE'S TWO PARTS OF YOUR APPEALS. ONE IS THE TYPE OF WINDOWS ONE'S THE FENESTRATIONS. UH, IS THERE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MEET ONE OF THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS? YOU TELL, UH, I CAN'T DO THE WINDOWS. I MEAN, YOU TELL ME, WOULD YOU SPEND $800 PER WINDOW TIMES 14? I, I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD DISCUSSED THAT WITH, WITH STAFF AS FAR AS MAYBE MEETING THEM HALFWAY OR, OR SOMETHING. I I DON'T, UH, WE'RE NOT HERE TO NEGOTIATE. WE'RE NOT HERE TO NEGOTIATE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW. THANK YOU. BUT, UM, WE DO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, DO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE GUIDELINES THEY HAVE TO, UH, OPERATE IN. AND ONE OF THOSE, UH, GUIDELINES HAS, HAS TO DO WITH THE DATE THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. AND A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED AND WHATNOT, AND WHAT WAS USED BY THE BUILDERS OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES WHEN THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH THE HOUSE. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF MODIFICATIONS ON HOMES AND HISTORICAL DISTRICTS THAT DON'T COMPLY, UH, THAT WERE DONE, UM, ILLEGALLY. THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT IT'S STILL IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND FOR THAT REASON, UH, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES BECAUSE THAT'S THE SAME THING WE HAVE TO DO. THE, THE CITY DOES FOR PERMITS AND HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD. AS FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN VINYL WINDOWS AND ALUMINUM WINDOWS, CASEMENT WINDOWS, WOOD WINDOWS, UM, YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE STAFF HERE. MOST OF US ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE VARIOUS TYPES OF WINDOWS. I PARTICULARLY, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE VARIOUS TYPES OF WINDOWS. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALUMINUM WINDOWS DO NOT LOOK LIKE VINYL WINDOWS, WHICH DO NOT LOOK LIKE WOOD WINDOWS, WHICH DO NOT LOOK LIKE CASEMENT WINDOWS. I CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT 'EM. UM, AS FOR THE HOR, THE, THE FACT THAT THIS HISTORICAL, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS THE KEY FACTOR HERE, BECAUSE THEN ANOTHER, UH, AREA OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT COMES INTO, UH, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE, WITH THE WHAT HAS AND WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT ALLOW. AND JUST BECAUSE, UH, OF A FINANCIAL ISSUE, UM, THAT'S REALLY NOT THE PURVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, UH, IN REGARD TO WHAT DECISIONS YOU MADE IN CONTRARY TO WHAT THE, THE H D R C DID. NOW, THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE IS, UH, I WOULD THINK WOULD BE THAT YOU FEEL THAT THEY'RE BEING UNFAIR TO YOU BY SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO USE A SPECIFIC TYPE OF WINDOW. IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? OKAY. YEAH. I'LL, I HADN'T THOUGHT OF THAT, BUT YEAH, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. I MEAN, , BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH EXPENSE. IT DOESN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, IF I COULD DO THE WOOD, THE WOOD WINDOWS, THAT'D BE THE FIRST ONE TO DO IT. YEAH. NOW, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M NOT GONNA GET [02:05:01] INVOLVED WITH THAT. BUT THIS AT THIS TIME, IS ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY, ANY STATEMENT THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE CONCERNING WHAT THEY FEEL ABOUT HISTORICAL REVIEW OR, OR HOW THIS MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT COMPLY, OR WHETHER AN EXCEPTION SHOULD BE, YOU WANNA HEAR FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS? NO, I'M JUST WANTING TO SEE WHAT THE BOARD HAS TO SAY ABOUT THEIR DETERMINATION OF THIS, BECAUSE I'VE JUST STATED WHAT I BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD'S REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. AND OUR DETERMINATION SHOULD BE WHETHER THEY'RE FAIR OR NOT, NOT WHETHER THEY ARE, UH, UM, UH, CORRECT OR NOT. THAT'S NOT OUR PURPOSE, IS WHETHER THEY, THEY, THEY FAIRLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS HERE. SO, UM, I MEAN, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. UH, IF, IF FOR, IF THIS WERE TO PASS, IS IT TIED TO THE PROPERTY FOREVER OR IF THEY EVER TRIED TO, UH, DO MAINTENANCE ON THE WINDOWS IN THE FUTURE, THEY'D HAVE TO RE REAPPLY AND FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES. AGAIN, THE APPEAL IS ONLY RELATED TO THE APPEAL OF THIS, THIS DECISION RELATED TO THIS PERMIT, RELATED TO THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. OKAY. ANY OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS, UH, THE PROCESS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, AND DON'T FORGET CHAIR, UH, THERE'S ALSO REBUTTAL FROM THE O OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AFTER THE APPLICANT IS DONE NOW, UH, GET TO WHAT HIS PARTICULAR DESIGNS ARE FOR BRINGING THE REQUEST, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS JUST THAT WE DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT WHAT THEY'RE TELLING US, AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY. SO ANYWAY, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND LET THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD REBUT THEIR, THEIR PARTICULAR CASE. AND, UH, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU TRY TO JUST DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. OKAY. MR. MARTINEZ, YOU MENTIONED IT EARLIER, BUT JUST TO REPEAT, UM, OUR GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY NOTE, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE HISTORIC WINDOWS, UH, THOSE NEED TO BE PRESERVED. UM, IF IN THE EVENT A WINDOW IS BEYOND REPAIR, THAT WINDOW SHOULD BE REPLACED. AND I'LL, UH, QUOTE, UM, INSTALL NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH THE HISTORIC OR EXISTING WINDOWS IN TERMS OF SIZE TYPE CONFIGURATION, MATERIAL FORM, APPEARANCE, AND DETAIL WHEN THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR. UM, AND I THINK, UH, THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TODAY ARE THE WINDOWS THAT, UH, WERE INSTALLED, UH, ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN REGARDS TO THE TYPE CONFIGURATION, MATERIAL FORM AND APPEARANCE. UM, I THINK, I BELIEVE THAT MORE OR LESS CONCLUDES OUR, OUR REBUTTAL. WE DO HAVE A COMMENT. YES. AND TO, UM, ANSWER, UH, MR. OREN'S QUESTION ABOUT HOW THE VIOLATION PROCEEDS TO THE NEXT PROPERTY. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER SELLS IT, UM, THE, THE VIOLATION WOULD FOLLOW THE PROPERTY. SO WHEN, UH, SELLING THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD NEED TO BE DISCLOSED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I AM WILLING TO SELL THIS PROPERTY, BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION STATUS IF THE NEXT OWNER HAS THE MEANS TO DO THE CORRECTION. YEAH, I, THIS IS, TO ME IS, IS A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION BECAUSE I'VE NEVER, I'VE ALWAYS CONSIDERED WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT TO BE IN, LIKE, KIND IN OTHER WORDS, A WOOD WINDOWS REPLACED WITH A WOOD WINDOW AND, UH, WOOD DOORS REPLACED WITH A WOOD DOOR. UH, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE MUCH BETTER QUALITY WINDOWS AND THEY'RE MUCH BETTER QUALITY DOORS AND, AND ALL THIS, UH, I'VE BEEN, UH, AT ODDS WITH THE, THE H D R C ON, ON VARIOUS ISSUES BEFORE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY I LOST AND ACCEPT THOSE. BUT THE CASE IS, IN THIS REGARD IS VERY SIMPLE TO ME. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER, UH, VINYL WINDOWS ARE ACCEPTABLE ON A STRUCTURE THAT DID NOT HAVE VINYL WINDOWS ORIGINALLY. AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. ALRIGHT, SO NOW I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, AND, UH, THERE'S NO OTHER WITNESSES. NO ONE SIGNED UP. OKAY, I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM, UH, A BOARD MEMBER TEAL, MR. TEAL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 8. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS AS PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1 4 1 8 WEST ROSEWOOD, APPLICANT BEING DAVID RODRIGUEZ. 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IN A MOTION. SECOND, HEY, WHO MADE THE SECOND DOCTOR THIEL START THE DISCUSSION? UH, YES, SIR. I, I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN ACTUALLY IS NOT THE WINDOWS AT ALL. IT'S THE FACT THAT IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY PULLED A PERMIT FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS PROPERLY AND WOULD'VE [02:10:01] KNOWN AND NOT MADE THE MISTAKE. UM, THAT'S A BIGGER CONCERN TO ME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE RENOVATING MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY A YEAR, YOU SHOULD KNOW TO PULL A PERMIT. UM, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT. OKAY. YEAH. AND DR. ZALEY, I AGREE WITH MR. TEAL, AND, AND YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES OF LIVING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, I LIVE IN ONE, I LEARN, UH, LEARN NEW THINGS ALL THE TIME. UM, BUT AS A HOMEOWNER, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, FOR LEARNING THAT INFORMATION AND FOR PULLING PERMITS AND FOR DOING THINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND FINANCIAL, UM, ISSUES ARE REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN RESOLVE HERE. I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. ALL RIGHT, DID ANYONE ELSE WANNA MAKE MR. NEFF? I'VE RESTORED DOZENS UPON DOZENS OF THESE DOUBLE-HUNG WOOD WINDOWS, AND THEY'RE QUITE EASY TO FIX UP AND MAKE OPERABLE, AND THEY ACTUALLY FUNCTION BETTER THAN THE NEW VINYL WINDOWS THAT YOU CAN BUY TODAY. AND THEY WILL ALSO LAST MUCH LONGER. AND THE PRICE POINT FOR RESTORING THOSE, EVEN IF YOU HIRE SOMEONE, IT'S REALLY MORE LIKE $350, NOT 800. UM, AND SOME OF THE POINTS MADE IS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AND WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS APPEAL. UH, I FIND TO BE INCORRECT. UM, I CAN LOOK FROM 50 FEET AWAY AND TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VINYL WINDOW AND A HISTORIC DOUBLE-HUNG WOOD WINDOW AND BEING UP CLOSE TO THEM. I CAN TELL EVEN MORE EASILY. IT'S, THEY'RE QUITE DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T LOOK THE SIMILAR, THEY DON'T LOOK SIMILAR IN CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE AT ALL, EVEN IF THEY'RE ALL PAINTED THE SAME COLOR AS WELL. THE NEIGHBORS, I THINK, DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WOULD NOT CHOOSE VINYL WINDOWS OR ELSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD NOT HAVE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THIS APPEAL. UH, SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS APPEAL TODAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? THAT BEING THE CASE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. MONICA. MR. TEO, I DO NOT CONCUR. DR. TERELLI. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. RODRIGUEZ. MR. NEFF, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. VINO. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ? NO, IT IS A UNANIMOUS NO FOR THE, UH, RECONSIDERATION FOR THE H G R C. THE H G C UH, POSITION STANDS, UM, WE'LL HAVE TO GO FROM THIS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF SO THEY CAN ADVISE YOU OF YOUR NEXT ROUTE. [7. 19-7801 BOA-19-10300104: A request by Aric Gibson for a special exception in fence height limitation to allow a privacy fence to be up to 8’ tall along both sides and rear yard of the property, located at 6739 Millrock Pass. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 10) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ALRIGHT, LET'S GO TO OUR NEXT CASE. CASE, BO 8 1 9 103 0 0 1 0 4. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL INSTEAD OF SIX FEET AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 5 14 ON BOTH SIDES AND REAR YARDS OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS ERIC GIBSON. THE ADDRESS IS 67 39 MILLROCK PASS. THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RANDOLPH MILITARY NOTIFICATION AREA AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY. THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SURROUNDED IN ALL DIRECTIONS BY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING FENCE THAT SURROUNDS THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS THAT'S BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX FEET. THE REAR YARD TOPOGRAPHY IS NOT ENTIRELY FLAT, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE AREA THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE BACK PROPERTY HERE AND HERE ALL THE WAY UP THE SIDES. THIS PART DOWN HERE WILL BE VARIABLE HEIGHT FROM SIX TO EIGHT FEET, AND THEN ALL OF THIS WOULD BE EIGHT FEET AROUND THE SITES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, EXISTING FENCE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 4. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE APPLICANT STATES FENCE IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR PRIVACY. THE FENCE DOES NOT VISUALLY DETRACT FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE MAILED [02:15:01] 29 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. ALRIGHT, UH, WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IAN, UH, ON THE PLOT PLAN, AM I READING THIS RIGHT TO WHERE HE WANTS EIGHT FEET TO GO TOWARDS HIS HOUSE AND THERE'S, IT'S ALSO BLUE GOING TOWARDS THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SO THE EIGHT FEET WOULD BE STARTING AT THIS POINT ALL THE WAY AROUND THIS SIDE. OKAY. AND THEN YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A A, THERE'S AN AREA THAT'S TAPERED. OH, NO, NO. I YOU HAD ALSO MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A TOPOGRAPHY CHANGE, UH, TO THE REAR. UH, HOW DOES THE EXCEPTION FOR, UH, FENCE HEIGHT INCREASES DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SIDE AND REAR EFFECT? UM, THIS APPLICATION, IT ALLOWS A VARI, SO THE U D C ALLOWS VARIATION IN TOPO TOPOGRAPHY UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. UM, THEIR TOPOGRAPHY IS NOT, IT'S NOT ENOUGH. YEAH, IT'S NOT REALLY ENOUGH. YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT DROP, A FOUR FOOT VARIATION IN TOPO TOPOGRAPHY TO GET THE EIGHT FOOT. IN THIS SCENARIO, THEY'VE GOT ONE OR TWO FEET, BUT NOT THE FOUR. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. AND, AND THE POOL THAT'S IN THE REAR, THAT'S, UH, IS THAT, UH, LET ME SEE. ME SEE. IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS IN THE NEIGHBORING YARD THAT THEY, THAT, THAT WOULD HELP WITH PRIVACY FOR THAT YOU OBSERVED? NOT THAT I OBSERVED, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? NONE. BRING FORTH THE APPLICANT. HELLO NAME'S ERIC GIBSON. I LIVE AT 6 7 3 9 MILLROCK PASS SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 OR 7 8 2 3 3. UM, I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM A SIX FOOT FENCE TO EIGHT FOOT FENCE SO I CAN HAVE SAME PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF WHAT A STANDARD PRIVACY FENCE PROVIDES. UM, I'M ALSO, BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION OF MY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO MINE, UM, I'M NOT ABLE TO ENJOY THE PRIVACY OF MY BACKYARD BY GRANTING ME THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. UM, IT WILL NOT BE SEEN BY ANYBODY PASSING BY ON THE STREET. THE MOTORISTS ARE PEDESTRIANS. I'LL HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TAPERING UP TO EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES TO A FULL EIGHT FOOT FENCE AROUND THE BACK. UM, IT'S NOT INCONVENIENCE TO MY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE SPOKE TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS. AND THAT'S A PICTURE OF, UM, MY BACKYARD . AND, UH, THAT'S A SIX FOOT FENCE THAT IT'S SHOWING THERE. AND IF YOU CAN SEE IT, THAT'S THE BACK PORCH. THE OVERHEAD'S BEING REPLACED, BY THE WAY. EXCUSE ME. OKAY, SO THE TOP PICTURE THERE, THAT'S, UH, ONE NEIGHBOR IN MY BACKYARD AND THAT'S THEIR BACK DOOR ONTO THEIR BACK PORCH. UH, AND THAT'S SIX FOOT FENCE BACK THERE. THAT'S THE SECOND NEIGHBOR. AND IF YOU LOOK WHERE THE RED IS, THAT'S THEIR BACKYARD AND UH, THEIR BACK PORCH. AND ALL I DID WAS BLOW UP THE PICTURE A LITTLE BIT THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE, WHERE IT IS IN RELATION TO THAT, THAT SIX FOOT FENCE. IF I HAD A EIGHT FOOT FENCE, THEN I COULD HAVE TOTAL PRIVACY IN MY BACKYARD. UH, THAT'S A PICTURE. UH, THERE'S A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON BOTH SIDES, A BASKET WEAVE THAT'S BASICALLY FALLEN OVER. MATTER OF FACT, THE ONE SIDE HAS ALREADY FELL OVER AND I'VE, UH, REMOVED IT ALREADY. AND AT THE SIX FOOT FENCE AREA WHERE THE DOTTED LINE IS, MY NEIGHBORS DON'T BELIEVE IN A DRYER. SO THEY HANG ALL THEIR LAUNDRY OUT THERE. AND I REALLY DON'T CARE TO SEE THAT DURING, UM, [02:20:01] DURING MY POOL AND MY BACK DECK. SO A EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD COVER THAT ALL UP, WHICH IS A SOLID LINE LINEUP ON TOP. THAT'S JUST THE OTHER SIDE. THAT'S THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. THAT'S THAT FENCE THAT I TOLD YOU THAT FELL DOWN. UM, AND THAT'S A NEIGHBOR'S AND HOW HIGH THEIR, THEIR LAND IS TO MY LAND. AND IF THEY GO ON THEIR BACK PORCH, THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE WOULD GO. IF I HAD A EIGHT FOOT FENCE VERSUS A SIX FOOT FENCE, SIX FOOT FENCE REALLY WOULDN'T HELP ME ON THAT RIGHT HAND SIDE, THEY'D STILL BE ABLE TO LOOK STRAIGHT INTO MY BACKYARD ALL I HAVE. OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? RAVINO, CAN YOU PULL UP THAT LAST PICTURE YOU JUST HAD WHERE IT WAS THE FENCE THAT WAS FALLING DOWN? NOW THAT PARTICULAR FENCE, IS THAT THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE SHARING WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS YOUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD? THE OTHER SIDE IS MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND YOU'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THIS. THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS? OH, WITH EIGHT FOOT? YES MA'AM. I'VE, I'VE GOT, UM, LETTERS, NO OBJECTION LETTERS THAT I, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT Y'ALL SENT OUT LETTERS TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I GOT NO OBJECTION LETTERS FROM ALL MY NEIGHBORS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, UH, IN THE FOLDER ALSO. BUT SINCE Y'ALL ARE SENDING OUT YOUR PAPER, I DIDN'T THINK OF, UH, SUBMITTING MINE. THANK YOU. UH, OKAY, SO YOU'VE BROUGHT LETTERS FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS SAYING THERE'S NO OBJECTION, RIGHT? YES. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS NOT RECEIVED HERE. IS THAT WHAT? MAKE SURE THEY WERE RECEIVED AND BOTH NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, SUPPORT. BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO THAT YOU HAVE? YES. WHAT HAS HE BROUGHT? I GOT ONE MORE FROM MY BACKYARD NEIGHBOR. OKAY. SO HE IS GOT A, HE'S GOT AN AGREEMENT WITH FROM ALL THE NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING HIS PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, THAT'S, I WANTED MAKE SURE ORIAN, MR. ORIAN, UH, ON YOUR PLOT PLAN, UH, THE FENCE POSTS THAT SOME OF YOUR DOTS ARE YELLOW, SOME ARE RED. DOES THAT SIGNIFY ANYTHING? UH, NO SIR. NO, THAT'S JUST, UH, WHERE THE POLES ARE GONNA BE SINCE I'M GONNA MAKE IT OUT OF THE STEEL POLES. YEAH. AND BURY 'EM AND PUT A SIX INCH CONCRETE AROUND THEM. UH, THAT'S JUST SO I CAN KEEP A COUNT OF WHO OWES WHAT WHEN I GO TO. OKAY. THANK YOU. , THEY DID INVITE THAT BEING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE ENGINEERED. NO, SIR. THAT, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. OKAY. NEVERTHELESS, OKAY. YOUR NEIGHBOR SITS HIGHER THAN YOU DO, AND THEN YOU SIT HIGHER THAN YOUR OTHER NEIGHBOR AND THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND YOU SIT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL YOU DO. THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND ME SIT A LITTLE HIGHER THAN I DO. OKAY. THAT WAS THE TWO PICTURES THAT I SHOWED YOU THAT ARE LOOKING IN THEIR BACKYARD AND THEY CAN LOOK IN MINE. WHERE, WHERE DOES ALL THE WATER RECESS FROM YOUR PROPERTY? IT GOES LIKE, UH, 45 DEGREES. IF YOU LOOK HERE. DOES THIS POINT OF WORK? YES. SO IT, THE WATER RUNS ABOUT LIKE THIS WAY DOWN THE PROPERTIES? YES, SIR. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I I GOT ONE MORE. IS IT SHED IN THE BACK CORNER? IS THAT, UM, ON A FOUNDATION OR IS THAT MOVABLE? NO, THAT'S MOVEABLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? NO ONE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT, I THANK YOU. MOTION FROM THE BOARD. VINNO. GO AHEAD MS. TRINO REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 0 3 0 0 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE FENCE HEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG BOTH SIDES AND REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 6 7 3 9 MILLROCK PASS, APPLICANT BEING ERIC GIBSON BECAUSE THE TEST ERIC ERIC GIBSON, SORRY, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS ATTENDED TO [02:25:01] IMPROVE, TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE AND PRIVATE YARD FOR THE RESIDENT. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE EVENTS WILL BE THIS HIGH ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. NO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC WILL BE HARMED BY THE PROPOSED FENCE. 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. THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT AND WOULD PROVIDE ADDED SECURITY AND PROTECTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCING STANDARDS IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE AND PRIVATE REAR YARD FOR THE RESIDENT. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. HOLD ON. I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY MINIMUM FOR A SECOND. IS, UH, THAT WE, UH, UH, ACCEPT A DIAGRAM AS HE'S PROVIDED. AS FOR THE, WHAT THE PROCESS WE'RE GONNA ALLOW. HE'S SHOWING A FENCE THAT IS, STARTS AT SIX FEET AND RISES UP TO EIGHT FOOT AT A CERTAIN POINT. OKAY, I'LL, I'LL ACCEPT IT. SO AS PER THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU PROVIDED, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT, OR FAMILY A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE HAVE A SECOND. WANNA HAVE A DISCUSSION? YES. NO, I THINK WE'VE SAVED TIME. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. MONICA. MR. VINO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT GERMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THEREFORE, YOU HAVE YOUR, UM, UH, REQUEST FOR THE, UH, EXCEPTION TO THE HIGH RULE. GET WITH STAFF TO SHOW THEM THE, SO THEY CAN SHOW YOU WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO PROVIDE THE ENGINEERING REPORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. FOR CLARIFICATION, THE ENGINEERING REPORT IS ONLY REQUIRED WHEN THE WOOD FENCE IS OVER EIGHT FEET TALL, NOT REQUIRED AT EIGHT. IF IT'S A SOLID WALL OVER SIX, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ALLOW FENCES OVER EIGHT FEET. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT AT EIGHT FEET IT DOES REQUIRE A, UH, I HAD STAFF LOOK AT THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THAT AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. OKAY? 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ALLOW A FENCE OVER EIGHT FEET. NOT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AS A VARIANCE. UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN CONSIDER THAT, BUT ANYTHING OVER EIGHT FEET REQUIRES TO BE ENGINEERED EIGHT FEET AND UNDER DOES NOT. WELL, HE'S GONNA MAKE IT STRONGER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE ANYWAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, SIR. RIGHT NEXT CASE. B O A 19 1 0 3 0. HOLD ON A SECOND. OH, I BELIEVE HENRY JUST TOOK A BREAK. OKAY. BO [8. 19-7806 BOA-19-10300120: A request by Veronica Johnson for a special exception to allow a fence to be eight (8) feet tall along the northeast property line, located at 3502 Litchfield Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 2 A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE YARD. PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS VERONICA JOHNSON. THE ADDRESS IS 35 0 2 LICHFIELD DRIVE. THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE LOCATION MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT WITH THE SIDEWALK ON THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO REPLACED THE SIDEWALK ALONG STONEHAVEN DRIVE AND IN THE PROCESS INCREASED THE ELEVATION OF THE SIDEWALK TO BE ABOUT 16 INCHES ABOVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GRADE. THE APPLICANT STATES THEY REPLACED THEIR SIX FOOT FENCE IN JULY, 2019 WHEN A VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE EXISTING FENCE. THE APPLICANT STATES THE VARIANCE AND HEIGHT IS NEEDED DUE TO THE HIGH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC ALONG THAT STREET. THIS IS THEIR SITE PLAN. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SUBJECT, UH, VARIANCE IS ONLY ALONG A PORTION OF THAT SIDE SIDE FENCE AND NOT THE ENTIRETY OF IT. SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY SIDE YARD. THIS [02:30:01] IS THE FENCE IN QUESTION SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, DAF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 20. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE APPLICANT STATES THE FENCE IS NECESSARY FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY PURPOSES. THE FENCE DOES NOT VISUALLY HINDER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY'S DRIVEWAY OR OTHER MOTORIST VIEW. WE MAILED 23 NOTICES AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO OR RETURNED IN FAVOR. AND OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN QUESTIONS BUSINESS AFF ORIENT. UH, SO IS THERE ANY, ANY EXCEPTION TO WHERE IF THE ABUTTING STREET AND SIDEWALK, IF THIS IS SUNKEN BELOW THAT, DOES THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON FENCE SIDE AND HOW YOU EVALUATE IT? I THINK IT THE SAME WOULD APPLY AS THE VARIANCE IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GEAR WHERE IT WOULD BE A FOUR FOOT. BUT SINCE THIS IS LESS THAN, OH NO, NOT THAT, NOT BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU THIS, THIS FENCE IS PROBABLY WITHIN TWO, TWO OR THREE FEET OF THAT BACK OF SIDEWALK. AND IT, AND IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE SIDEWALK IS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN WHATEVER WAS THERE BEFORE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT AFFECTED ANY SORT OF HOW THIS GETS EVALUATED, BUT THIS SIDEWALK WAS NOT AT THE ELEVATION THAT IT IS. I KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. IT WAS, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN LOWER 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE KNOW IF THAT HAD ANY EFFECT ON, ON HEIGHT. 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S A RETAINING WALL COMPONENT THAT DOESN'T COME IN, UH, THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE FENCE HEIGHT EVALUATION. SO IF YOU'RE NEIGHBORING LAND IS HIGHER THAN YOURS AND YOU'RE, YOU AND THERE'S SOME SORT OF RETAINING COMPONENT, THEN THAT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THE HEIGHT. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS SLOPE PRETTY PREDOMINANTLY FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK AND THE CITY DID IT, DOES THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THEIR PERMITTING HEIGHT ALLOWED? IN THIS SCENARIO? THERE WAS NO RETAINING OF ANY MATERIALS. WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AS WELL AND IT'S, IT'S PRETTY FLAT. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE ROADWAY BEING A COLLECTOR OR ABOVE THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT. AND THEY WOULDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT SECTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. F F GO AHEAD. I SEEM TO RECALL IN THE PAST THERE WAS, UH, WHEN A STREET IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, TYPICALLY IN THE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENTS THAT FENCES THAT ABUT THAT MAIN ENTRANCE STREET WERE ALLOWED TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? AND THAT'S WHAT I JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE COLLECTOR OR ABOVE ANY MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM, YOU'RE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT'S COLLECTOR, NOT JUST ABOUT THE, THAT IS WHAT THE STREET THAT ENTERS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS THE COLLECTOR. IT'S IT'S THE CLASSIFICATION, UH, IN THE CODE. IT JUST READ, UH, COLLECTOR OR ABOVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THOSE HAVE ALWAYS ALLUDED ME THE STREET NAMES. I'M NOT A CIVIL GUY. THANK YOU. OKAY, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON GLENN JOHNSON. 3 5 0 2 LITFIELD DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO. 7 8 2 3 0. UH, THE FENCE WAS ORIGINALLY, UM, UH, BUILT BECAUSE A CAR CRASHED THROUGH IT AND WE HASTILY HAD TO BUILD IT, BUT WE BUILT IT UP TO EIGHT FEET BECAUSE WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS BUILT NEXT TO IT, UH, ABOUT A YEAR PRIOR WHEN PEOPLE WERE WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, THEY CAN EASILY SEE OVER THE FENCE INTO THE BACKYARD. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC. THE, THE STREET STONEHAVEN LEADS DIRECTLY INTO CALLAHAN AT THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT'S A VERY BUSY STREET. PEOPLE CROSS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD A LOT. ALSO, THERE'S BEEN A SURGE IN CRIME IN THE COLONIES NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO A LOT OF, UH, PANHANDLER THAT ARE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. PANHANDLING, THERE WAS SOME HOMES WHERE THERE WERE A LOT OF DRUG ACTIVITY AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST CIRCLING INSIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DRIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKING FOR, UH, THEFT, UH, BREAK-INS, UM, UM, BAIL THEFT, PACKAGE THEFT, UH, CAR BREAK-INS AS WELL. SO WE FEEL THAT THE FENCE IS ALSO A BARRIER TO PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SEE INTO THE PATIO, INTO THE BACKYARD AND INTO THE BACK WINDOWS INTO THE HOUSE AS WELL. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. UH, ORIAN? YEAH. SO WHEN, UH, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS UH, IN MY EARLY TWENTIES, I USED TO ACTUALLY HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIVE OFF STONEHAVEN AND I WAS VERY FREQUENT TO THE AREA AND I RECALL, AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT THIS IS STILL THE SAME WAY, IS THERE STILL A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS? I MEAN, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING UP AND DOWN STONEHAVEN. IT'S NOT JUST VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. THERE'S JUST A LOT OF YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF, LOT OF, UH, EVERYTHING. TRAFFIC PEOPLE, NEIGHBORHOOD PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOGS WITH STROLLERS. THERE'S TWO BUS BUS STOPS RIGHT AT MY ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOME AND ONE CADDY [02:35:01] CORNER. SO YOU GET A LOT OF THE PARENTS THAT GO THERE TO MEET THE KIDS PLUS THE KIDS AND WALK AROUND THERE TOO. I'M SURPRISED STONEHAVEN ISN'T A COLLECTOR PERSONALLY 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT STREET WAS JUST REALLY HEAVILY TRACKED. WE REQUESTED SPEED BUMPS TOO 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SPEEDING THERE, BUT THAT WENT NOWHERE AS THIS IS BACK IN THE, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S STILL THE CASE. STILL THE SAME. YES. AND THERE'S A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AS THEY CUT ACROSS TO GET TO WARS BLOCK TO GET TO I 10 AND TO GET OUT TO CALLAHAN FROM ALL OVER THE AREA. I I I GET IT. . THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, WITNESSES? NO ONE SIGNED UP. VERY GOOD. I THINK YOU'VE MADE A GOOD CASE. THANK YOU. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MANNA MR. NEFF WOULD LIKE TO DO THE MOTION. MANNA WAS PROBABLY BETTER PREPARED THAN I WAS THOUGH. REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE YARD, PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 35 0 2 LITCHFIELD DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING VERONICA JOHNSON. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE AND PRIVATE YARD FOR THE RESIDENT. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY FENCE HEIGHT WILL BE BUILT ALONG A PORTION OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE AND PRIVATE YARD FOR THE RESIDENT. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. NO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC WILL BE HARMED BY THE PROPOSED FENCE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT AND WOULD PROVIDE ADDED SECURITY AND PROTECTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCING STANDARDS IS TO PRO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE AND PRIVATE REAR YARD FOR THE RESIDENT. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. UH, MR. NEFF TALK TO START DISCUSSION. UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE. I THINK, UH, APPLICANT PRESENTED THE CASE WELL THAT WITH THE ADDITION OF THAT SIDEWALK IN RECENT YEARS, IT HAS INCREASED TRAFFIC AND THAT TRAFFIC HAS A PRETTY CLEAR VIEW INTO THE BACKYARD, AS WELL AS COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, CRIME AND THE NATURE OF STONEHAVEN ACTING MORE LIKE A COLLECTOR THAN THE CITY HAS DEEMED IT TO BE. UM, LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEWS, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT YOU CAN JUST SEE RIGHT INTO THE YARD. AND WE ALSO RECEIVED FROM TWO NEIGHBORS SAYING THAT THEY REALLY LIKE THE FENCE. IT LOOKS WELL BUILT AND IT ADDS TO THE CHARACTER OF THEIR COMMUNITY. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. UM, MR. MANDY, YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALRIGHT. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. MONICA, WHO WAS THE SECOND? MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. GERMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. VINO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THEREFORE YOU GET YOUR, UH, EXCEPTION. SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FENCE. THANK YOU. HOPE NO ONE DRIVES THROUGH IT. OKAY. [02:40:05] UH, AT THIS POINT, UH, THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO CEASE BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE A QUORUM. THEREFORE, THOSE CASES THAT ARE ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION WILL BE MOVED TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, WHICH IS, UH, NOVEMBER 4TH. SO I NEED A MOTION FOR THIS MOVE TO ADJOURN. MOTION TO, TO CONTINUE THE CASES. MOTION TO CONTINUE. SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. UH, FELLAS. BUT YOU'RE, IF YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GOOD CHANCE FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT ALL YOUR, YOUR I'S DOTTED. OKAY. MY NAME'S DEREK. KAREN, I, I OWN 8 0 2 MAD [Director's Report: BOA Alternates] YES. DIRECTOR'S REPORT. UM, SO LAST WEEK AT THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, THE, UM, GOVERNANCE CONSIDERED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALTERNATES. AND, UM, THERE WERE, UM, ALTERNATES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED ON NOVEMBER 14TH. UM, HOWEVER, AS PART OF THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A SLEW OF, UH, CANDIDATES THAT WERE, UM, THAT WERE REVIEWED. THE CODE, UM, REQUIRES THAT THERE BE SIX ALTERNATES, UH, APPOINTED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, UNIQUE SITUATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING RELATED TO QUORUM ISSUES, AND, UH, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE, UM, NINE, UH, DISTRICT APPOINTED MEMBERS AND A MAYORAL APPOINTMENT, UM, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED SEVEN ALTERNATES. IN ORDER TO HAVE SEVEN ALTERNATES APPOINTED, WE NEED A UNI, A U D C AMENDMENT. UH, SO, UH, WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD A U D C AMENDMENT, UH, TO INCREASE THE BOARD ALTERNATES, UH, TO SEVEN AS WELL AS, UH, THE, THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH. UM, ON NOVEMBER 14TH, AND I'M GONNA LET YOU KNOW WHO THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH. THERE IS, UM, SEYMOUR BATTLE, JONATHAN DELMER AND ENGLER ARLENE FISHER, KEVIN LOVE FRANK HANNO AND, UH, SIERRA TREVINO. SO SEVEN ALTERNATES ARE BEING FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14TH. SO PART OF THAT PROCESS AGAIN IS A U D C AMENDMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING A U D C AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS FROM SIX TO SEVEN. IT ALSO GOES TO ZONING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND THEN IT'LL GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14TH. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE AGENDA AS WELL. WE HAD HEARD ANY WORD FROM THOSE, UH, DISTRICTS THAT HAVE NOT SUBMITTED A NAME FOR A BOARD MEMBER? YES. I THINK WE HAVE THREE MORE THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, FOR REAPPOINTMENT. UH, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FOR SURE, UH, DISTRICT FOUR, WHICH IS MR. BRITTON, DISTRICT EIGHT, WHICH IS MR. ORIAN AND DISTRICT 10, WHICH IS MR. MARTINEZ. UH, COMING FORWARD WE HAVE DISTRICT TWO, WHICH IS MR. NEFF, DISTRICT FIVE, WHICH IS MS. CRUZ AND DISTRICT SIX, WHICH IS MR. TEAL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND SO, UH, WE'RE STILL WAITING ON A FEW MORE. UM, AND UH, WE SHOULD BE SEEING THOSE COMING THROUGH THE FIRST THREE. WE ALREADY GOT REAPPOINTED THOUGH, RIGHT? OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID WERE COMING. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT THOSE WERE ALREADY, THOSE WERE, WE ALREADY HAVE THESE AND THEN WE HAVE THE THREE MORE COMING UP. RIGHT. BUT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM DISTRICT THREE. NO. THAT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'RE STILL WAITING ON. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS THAT, UH, AS ANY OTHER ISSUES TO COME UP THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, NONE BEING THE CASE THEN, UH, I'VE DETERMINED THIS MEETING IS OVER. * 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.