* 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. [00:00:08] ALL RIGHT. ARE WE RECORDING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT IS ONE O'CLOCK. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN SESSION. WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER REED PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BEES PRESENT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BONNI. PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M PRESENT. SO WE HAVE 1110 HERE AND ONE BY, UH, WEBEX. ALL RIGHT. IF ANYONE, EVERYONE COULD PLEASE, UH, JOIN ME WITH THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS FOR A NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE. WHETHER IT BE INJUSTICE OR WRONG HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS, I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE BOARD OF SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED, BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR IS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. 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. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED IN TO SPEAK OR, UH, FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. UH, [00:05:01] THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN GIVE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, UH, UH, ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] CHAIRMAN. YES, UH, I SEE THAT ITEM NUMBER 11 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE GALLERY HERE THAT'S, UH, FOR, UH, THE CASE LOCATED AT 5 0 5 ARBOR PLACE THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY, UH, CASES REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE? UH, NO CONTINUANCE IS BEING REQUESTED. ITEM 12 IS POSTPONED TO JANUARY 12TH. SO IF ANYONE HERE IS FOR, IS HERE FOR, UH, THE PROPERTY AT TWO 14 NORTH ZAZA MORRIS STREET THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UM, SO WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS REQUESTED BY ROB MCLENNAN AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6 2 6 DELMAR STREET, UNIT 2 0 2. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK LOCATED AT 6 2 6 DELMAR STREET, UNIT 2 0 1 AND IS ZONE BY THE SAME PERSON AS THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVING BEEN APPROVED ON AUGUST 11TH, 2025. PER THE CODE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS. ON THE BLOCK FACE, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 15 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. ONE ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO BEING AT 6 2 6 DELMAR STREET. UNIT 2 0 1 ISSUED ON AUGUST 11TH, 2025. THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 7% AND IF THE SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 13% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST. THIS PROPERTY HAS NO ACTIVE LISTINGS AND THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A TOTAL OF 37 MALE NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM OUR FIVE CITYWIDE GROUPS. THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL. HELLO, AND MY NAME IS ROB MCCLELLAN. UH, MY SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT I CURRENTLY HAVE IS THE, UH, THE OH, REALLY? IS THAT BETTER? OH YEAH. ALRIGHT. UH, HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ROB MCCLELLAN. UH, I HAVE THE, UH, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL. UH, TO EXPLAIN IT FURTHER, I TRY TO, I'VE BEEN IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY FOR, I DON'T KNOW, 25 YEARS. AND, UM, MOVING HERE I WAS JUST TRYING TO, UH, INCREASE THAT AS I HAD QUITE DIFFICULTY IN, UH, THE RENTAL ASPECT OF LONG-TERM RENTAL, WHEREAS IN DAMAGES WERE HAPPENING AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO GO FORWARD, UM, TO, UM, EX EXTEND IT FOR THAT ONE EXTRA LAST PROPERTY THAT I HAVE. UM, I'VE HAD A LOT OF FIVE STAR RATINGS AND I'M JUST TRYING TO INCREASE THAT FURTHER. UM, UH, THIS IS ALSO MY FIRST TIME EVER DOING THIS, SO I AM PRETTY NERVOUS, BUT I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BY ALL MEANS, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, QUESTION IS, SO, SO HOW MANY UNITS ARE ALREADY ON THIS PROPERTY? SO THERE'S, THERE'S FOUR UNITS TOTAL. OKAY. I LIVE IN ONE OF THEM. OKAY. UM, DUE TO THE, UH, THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE YOUR BYLAWS, I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE BESIDE ME. THE OTHER ONE IS THE STR TWO, AND THEN THE ONE BESIDE THAT IS THE ONE THAT I'M, UH, GOING ALONG WITH. SO IT WOULD BE 2 0 2 THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, HAVE APPROVED. SO SO YOU HAVE TWO TYPE ONES THERE? YES, I HAVE TWO TYPE ONES. SO, UM, SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO, SO DO YOU CAN'T LIVE IN BOTH? NO, I LIVE, WELL, I LIVE IN, UM, 1 0 1. [00:10:01] OKAY. AND THEN BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED TO MY, UH, PROPERTY, THEY STATED THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR 1 0 1 TO BE A, A TYPE ONE STILL. UM, AND THEN 2 0 1 IS THE TYPE TWO AND 2 0 2 IS ATTACHED TO 2 0 1. SO THAT'S THE EXTRA PROPERTY THERE. IT'S ALL ON ONE, UH, ONE LOT. SO JUST TO, JUST TO CONFIRM WITH THE CITY, SO, SO, UH, THAT'S CORRECT. WITH REGARDS TO, YOU CAN HAVE A TYPE ONE ATTACHED TO, UH, A, A BEDDING, ANOTHER TYPE ONE, UH, CORRECT. YEAH. FOR MULTIPLE UNITS ON ONE PROPERTY, UM, A ADDITIONAL TYPE ONE CAN BE APPROVED FOR ONE NON-OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT. SO A TYPE ONE WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL NON-OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT CAN QUALIFY FOR A TYPE ONE. ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A TYPE TWO? YEAH, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT ONE, SO THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT, UM, UH, THE ADDRESS AT SIX 14? THAT'S ALSO A TYPE TWO RIGHT? OUR RECORD CHART FOR A TYPE ONE PERMIT. OH, I APOLOGIZE. I'M LOOKING. I GOT THE COLOR WRONG. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, JUST SO MY QUESTION IS IN REGARDS TO PARKING, HOW, HOW DO YOU PARK THIS WITH A SINGLE ONE BAND? UM, PARKING THE BACK OUT ALL THE CARS TO? EXCELLENT QUESTION ANDREW. UM, YES, SO THERE IS A LANEWAY AND THEN THERE IS TWO, UM, PARKING SPOTS BEHIND THE, UH, FIRST BUILDING AND THEN THERE IS TWO ADDITIONAL, SORRY, TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS BEHIND THAT BUILDING AS WELL. OKAY. SO IT'S, IT'S THAT ADEQUATELY PARKED AND IT WOULD BE ADEQUATELY PARKED FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL IF IT WAS APPROVED TODAY? YES, IT WOULD BE OUT. THERE'S A PARKING SPOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. UM, MR. MC LELAND, UM, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT YOU HAVE FOR STR R ONES. MM-HMM . SO YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE ONE STR R ONE YOU LIVE IN THE OTHER APARTMENT, SO THAT APARTMENT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE A LISTING AS AN STR R ONE? UH, NO, I RENT THAT OUT AS WELL IF I'M NOT THERE. SO IF I'M AWAY I WILL RENT THAT UNIT OUT. OKAY. AND, AND, AND YOU HAVE THE OTHER TWO, UM, SPACES BEHIND THOSE TWO UNITS, CORRECT. MANANA, SO, OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION, UH, ON THAT QUESTION THERE. SO, SO YOU HAVE TWO TYPE TWOS, OR I'M SORRY, ONE TYPE TWO, TWO TYPE ONES. UM, AND, UM, AND YOU LIVE IN THE ONE WHICH IMPLIES THAT YOU CAN ROUND A PART OF IT AND THEN, UH, THE, THE EXEMPTION MEANS YOU COULD USE THE OTHER ONE AS A FULL RENTAL. SO MORE OR LESS IT'S A HIDDEN TYPE TWO, UM, ON THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO, SO, AND SO THE ONE YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU WHEN YOU ARE THERE OR NOT THERE, SO DO YOU RENT THAT WHOLE, THE, THE ONE THAT YOU LIVE IN OR IS THAT ONE ALWAYS YOU'RE ALWAYS LIVING THERE? THE ONE THAT I'M LIVING IN, I WOULD ONLY RENT IF I WAS TO BE DEPARTED FROM GOING SOMEWHERE. IF I WANTED TO GO TO DALLAS OR SEE MY MOTHER IN CANADA, THEN I WOULD RENT THAT OUT. OKAY. OKAY. PUNI, COMMISSIONER MOONEY, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US HOW IT BENEFITS YOURSELF AND THEN HOW IT MAYBE BENEFITS THAT SURROUNDING AREA TO ADD THIS AS AN ADDITIONAL STR INSTEAD OF A LONG-TERM? UH, TENANT TO BENEFIT FOR MYSELF WOULD BE TO PAY MY MORTGAGE AND THEN ALSO TO BENEFIT FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COMMUNITY. IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT, IF I WAS EVER TO BE SO BUSY IS TO HIRE STAFF, I WOULD DEFINITELY BE SEARCHING FOR ANY LOCALS IN THE AREA. UM, THERE IS THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET THAT I'VE, UH, VERY NICE GENTLEMAN NAMED FRED. I ALWAYS BRING ANY EXTRA NON-PERISHABLE ITEMS OVER TO AND, UH, HELP ANY FAMILY IN THE AREA THAT'S LOCAL. HAVE YOU, UM, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN DOING, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS FOR? UH, I'VE BEEN DOING SHORT TERM RENTALS SINCE, UH, I GOT HERE, WHICH WAS, UH, JANUARY OF 2024. GOTCHA. AND YOU PURCHASED THESE, THEY WERE ALREADY BUILT OR DID YOU THEY WERE, YES. YEAH, THEY WERE ALREADY BUILT. I PURCHASED THEM. THEY WERE ALL LONG-TERM RENTALS AND THEY WERE, UM, IN, UH, A BAD STATE. UM, ALL THOSE TENANTS HAD LEFT ON THEIR OWN. UM, AND THEN I DECIDED TO GO INTO THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, WHICH I'M, I'M USED TO. GOTCHA. AND UH, YOU SAID YOU HAVE HOW MANY FIVE STORE RATINGS? UH, PROBABLY AROUND 200. YEP. ? YES. UH, ARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT DISTRICT TWO IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST, UM, DISTRICTS WITH THE MOST, OTHER THAN DISTRICT ONE WITH THE MOST STR TWOS, UH, IN THE CITY? NO, I WAS NOT AWARE. AND THAT COMMUNITY HAS [00:15:01] REALLY STRUGGLED WITH NOT HAVING LONG-TERM RENTALS OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF ST IN THAT COMMUNITY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT. NO, I'M SORRY, I WAS NOT AWARE. OKAY. BEING NEW, I'M LEARNING AS I GO, ESPECIALLY GETTING AROUND THE TOWN. AND, AND SO I REALLY WANTED TO ASK ABOUT PARKING. SO THE STAT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY. UH, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MANY SPACES YOU COULD FIT ON HERE? YEAH, CERTAINLY. SO I COULD POTENTIALLY FIT FIVE PARKING SPOTS, UH, COMFORTABLY. UM, I WOULDN'T FIT ANY FURTHER. SO THERE IS THE TWO, UM, JUST BEHIND THAT BUILDING IN THE PICTURE THERE, THERE IS TWO THAT YOU BACK INTO OR DRIVE INTO WHICHEVER YOU WISH. AND THEN BEHIND THAT BUILDING THAT YOU CAN SEE IN IT, THE ONE IN THE BACK, UH, THERE'S TWO PARKING SPOTS BEHIND THERE AS WELL. I HAD SUBMITTED THE, UH, THE PARKING PHOTOS IN, UH, MY REQUEST. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, YES, REED? YES. COMMISSIONER REED. UM, IF THIS WERE NOT GRANTED, UM, HAVE YOU EXPLORED MIDTERM RENTALS BETWEEN ONE MONTH AND ONE YEAR? YES, I HAVE EXPLORED THAT AS WELL WITH EITHER, UH, NURSES OR WITHOUT BORDERS OR TRAVELING NURSES, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, THERE HAD, THERE WAS A SUCCESS FOR IT I HAD FOR SIX MONTHS AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO HAVE THIS AS A BACKUP JUST IN CASE THAT WASN'T EVER PAN OUT AS WELL. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO ON THE RENTAL, YOU SAID YOU TRIED RENTING IT OUT LONG, LONG-TERM? I HAVE DONE THAT, YES. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE COMPARISON RATES ARE THAT YOU WERE GOING AFTER FOR LONG-TERM RENTALS COMPARED TO WHAT'S TYPICAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE LONG TERM RENTAL IS AT A PRICE THAT WOULD, UM, ATTRACT PEOPLE LOCALLY OR IF IT'S, IF IT'S JUST OUT OF REACH FOR, FOR MOST PEOPLE IN THE AREA. UM, I'M NOT SURE FOR THE AREA. I'VE BEEN TOLD FROM THE PROPERTY MANAGER I HAD AT THE TIME IT WAS, UH, BETWEEN 1300 TO 1500 FOR A TWO BEDROOM, AND I WAS WITHIN THAT STANDPOINT, UM, I HAD NO APPLICANTS THAT HAD COME IN FROM THE PROPERTY MANAGER. THEY HAD VETTED. I'M NOT SURE WHO OR WHO HAS NOT. UM, AND THEN OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, FACEBOOK OR OTHER LOCAL, UH, MARKETPLACES THAT I CAN TRY AND FIND SOMEONE WITHOUT SUCCESS. ALL RIGHT. BON ONE ONE MORE BEEZ. UH, DID YOU TRY TO REACH OUT TO DENVER HEIGHTS AND, AND IF SO, WHAT'S, WHAT'S COME OF THAT? I KNOW WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM HIM. NO, I HAVE NOT REACHED OUT TO DENVER HEIGHTS AS OF THIS MOMENT. UM, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO AND SPEAK WITH THE, THE COMMUNITY FURTHER. I KNOW THAT SOME, SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THIS BOARD REALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY LIKE THAT THEY LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEN, AND IF, UH, OR APPROVAL FROM THEM WOULD BE EVEN BETTER. CERTAINLY. UM, I KNOW, I KNOW THAT SOME, SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE REALLY LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL IF I HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THEM AT ALL. SO, SO STAFF, SO WHEN THEY, WHEN YOU APPLY TO THE BOA FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, DON'T YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? THAT'S MORE THE CHANGES. NO, THERE, THERE'S A CHANGE OF ZONING. UH, WE BUILT THAT INTO THE UDC DURING THE LAST AMENDMENT CYCLE THAT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO SHOW STAFF PROOF THAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS BOARD. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GETTING THAT, THAT MAY BE A SUGGESTION FOR REVIEW, UH, AN UPCOMING SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING WE CAN BRING UP. YEAH. ALRIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS THAT ANYONE SIGNED A DISPUTE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, FIRST OF ALL. WAS HE, IF HE'S LOOKING FOR APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WOULD THAT COME BEFORE A MOTION? UH, WE CAN ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT'S INTERESTED IN, IN DOING. OKAY. HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED? I, I KNOW FOR DENVER HEIGHTS I USUALLY NEED AT LEAST 30 DAYS. YES SIR. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR MYSELF AS WELL. LIKE, OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BRING US TO, UH, JANUARY 12TH, FOURTH, FIFTH, 12TH. 12TH. OH, WOW. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GO THAT FAR IN ADVANCE? MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS? I DUNNO WHY I THOUGHT WE COULDN'T DO MORE THAN A MONTH. IS HE OPERATING IN THE INTERIM OR WOULD HE ALLOW TO BE OPERATING IN THE INTERIM? WELL, HE'S, HE ALREADY HAS SOME SDRS THERE. WHAT THIS SPECIFIC UNIT? NOT THAT UNIT. THIS UNIT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE OPERATED IN THAT TIME. ALL RIGHT. SO IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO JANUARY 12TH. SO MOVED. OKAY, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, YOU HAVE TILL JANUARY 12TH. THEN LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING FROM, UH, DENVER HEIGHTS. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR TIME. YOU GOT IT. THANK YOU. ITEM TWO, [00:20:04] ITEM TWO, ITEM TWO IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 180 5. THE ADDRESS BEING 2119 SAN PEDRO AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS GEORGE RODRIGUEZ. UH, THE, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 59.75 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD TWO FREESTANDING SIZE SIGN SIZE MAXIMUM OF 12.25 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A 72 SQUARE FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN. AND TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD TWO FREESTANDING SIGN HEIGHT, MAXIMUM OF EIGHT FEET TO ALLOW FOR AN 18 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN. THIS IS AS, UH, THE REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED. UM, WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED A MODIFICATION TO THIS THAT I'LL SHOW ON A LATER SLIDE. UM, THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS C TWO. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH LIMITS SIGN DIMENSIONS TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, UH, A NEW FREESTANDING SIZE, UH, FREESTANDING SIGN AT A SIZE AND HEIGHT GREATER THAN WHAT THE NCD CURRENTLY ALLOWS. ACCORDING TO THE NCD DESIGN STANDARDS, FREESTANDING SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO A HEIGHT OF FOUR INCHES PER EACH FOOT IN BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT FEET, AND A SIGN AREA OF 36 SQUARE INCHES PER LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50 SQUARE FEET. UH, GIVEN THE PROPERTIES BUILDING HEIGHT OF 27 FEET AND THE BUILDING FRONTAGE OF 49 FEET, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN HEIGHT AND SIZE ON THIS PROPERTY IS EIGHT FEET AND 12.25 SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY. UH, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PROMO PERMITS A 24 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT AND 150 SQUARE FOOT SIGN OUTSIDE THE NCD DESIGN STANDARDS ALONG THE PRIMARY, PRIMARY ARTERIAL TYPE B, UH, WHICH IS NOT EXCEEDED BY THIS REQUEST. UH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ROUGH LOCATION OF WHERE THAT SIGN WOULD GO IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED AGAIN AT 18 FEET AND, UH, 72 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. UH, THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE PUT BEFORE THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 6TH, THAT IT'S HAS SINCE BEEN CONTINUED, UH, TO FACILITATE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ALTAVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAVE THE CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANT, UH, REDUCING THE ORIGINAL. UM, SO NOW WE'RE AT A 10 FOOT PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT AND 25 SQUARE FOOT PROPOSED SIGN SIZE. SO THAT'S A TWO FOOT VARIANCE AND A 12.75 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE RESPECTIVELY. AND HERE'S THE SURROUNDING AREA. JUST TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE EXISTING SIGNS ALONG THIS CORRIDOR ACROSS THE STREET, THERE IS A SIGN OF SIMILAR FORM. UM, THIS ONE ONLY GOES TO ABOUT 14 FEET IN HEIGHT, UM, THAT IS TALLER THAN THE NCD CURRENTLY ALLOWS. THE ONLY, UH, THING THAT WE CAN KIND OF SEE HERE IS THAT THIS, UH, SIGN PREDATES THE NCD STANDARD, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NCD TWO SIGN VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 180 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE VARIANCES WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE PROPOSED SIGN EXCEEDS BOTH THE, THESE LIMITATIONS IN AREA IN AN AREA WHERE THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING CHARACTER IS PRIORITIZED. AND TWO, SUCH A VARIANCE WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT FOR INCREASED SIGN SIZES IN THIS AREA, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STAFF MAILED 27 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, UH, TWO IN OPPOSITION. THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. SHOWN. HERE ARE TWO OF THE RESPONSES STAFF RECEIVED. AGAIN, THESE ARE DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST AS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED. WE ALSO RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND THE ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ALSO IN OPPOSITION. AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST AS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. CAN YOU BRING THOSE, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? I'M LOOKING AT THE, I WHAT I WANT TO SEE THE DATES. OCTOBER 5TH. OKAY, SO THESE ARE OLDER. CORRECT. THE, UH, REVISED SIGN DESIGN WAS RECEIVED? UH, TODAY. OH, TODAY? OKAY. CORRECT. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MAN. THEN CRUZ, WHAT WAS THE DIMENSIONS AGAIN OF THE REVISED SIDE? YEAH, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. THEY'RE LOOKING AT, UH, 10 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS TWO FEET OVER THE MAXIMUM 25 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, WHICH IS 12.75 SQUARE FEET OVER THE MAXIMUM. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, YES. SO THEN THAT MEANS THE, [00:25:01] UH, ASSOCIATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE CHANGE OF, OF THE SIGNAGE. THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED A COMMENT ON THESE CHANGES. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT YOU SAID YOU JUST RECEIVED IT TODAY, SO I'M ASSUMING THEY GOT NOTIFIED TODAY ALSO, CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS HE, IS HE, UH, UM, BUT DUE TO ADVERTISE, DUE TO ADVERTISING, IT'S STILL ADVERTISES WITH THE PREVIOUS, YOU COULDN'T DROP WHAT'S BEING ADVERTISED TO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR? UM, THIS IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY A REDUCTION OF THE, UM, I KNOW ORIGINAL WE CAN DO IT. I'M JUST WONDERING. BUT THERE'S NO PUBLICATION THAT REFLECTS AS YOU GOT EVERYTHING TODAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE, UH, APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND JUST ONE CLARIFICATION, THAT SIGN ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT INDIANA CD DISTRICT. OKAY. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR SIGN. HELLO. I'M VERY FAR AWAY. I, I'M KIM DIXON. I'M REPRESENTING THE SIGN COMPANY. SO WE DID REACH OUT TO ALTA ALTA VISTA, WE WENT TO A BOARD MEETING. WE REDUCED THE SIGN FOUR TIMES SINCE THAT MEETING, UNFORTUNATELY WITH THANKSGIVING AND, AND THE SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GIVE THEM THE NEW ONE. UM, WE HAD THOUGHT IT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE THAT 50 SQUARE FOOT. SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT. BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE LINEAR FOOT, SO IT'S ONLY THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDING, WHICH GAVE US A LOT SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN WE HAD ASSUMED, WHICH IS WHY WE REDUCED IT AGAIN TODAY. SO OUR THIRD ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE SIGN WAS WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWABLE AND ONLY TWO FEET HIGHER. WE DID SUBMIT SOME PICTURES. SORRY. THERE WE GO. . UM, SO BASICALLY IN THIS AREA, THIS SIGN IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THE GRAFFITI ON THE POLES, BUT ALSO THE SIGN IS RIPPED. EVERY SIGN WITHIN THIS AREA THAT IS WITHIN THAT EIGHT FEET EITHER HAS VANDALISM OR GRAFFITI BECAUSE IT IS SO SHORT. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SIGN THAT'S A FOUR FEET OFF THE GROUND. SO IT'S EASY TO, TO KIND OF MANAGE IT. AND THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE SLIDES. THIS ONE IS A DAMAGED SIGN THAT'S UNDER EIGHT FEET. SO YOU COULD SEE HOW SOMEBODY HAS PUSHED IT, BENT, IT, IT'S KIND OF HUMAN NATURE. IF SOMETHING'S WITHIN REACH, YOU'RE MAYBE GONNA JUMP AND SMACK AT IT AND PLAY WITH IT A LITTLE BIT. UM, THIS IS A SIGN THAT'S TWO BLOCKS OVER, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE IT WAS 18 FEET HIGH. AND THERE'S NO DAMAGE ON THIS ONE. SO WHAT OUR CLIENT IS REALLY WANTING, AND THEN THIS OF COURSE IS ABOVE REGULATION. YOU CAN SEE THE STREET SIGN AND THIS, THEY'RE ALL GRANDFATHERED IN. BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF ESTABLISH IS THAT, AND THEN THIS, YOU CAN SEE GRAFFITI ON THE BOTTOM PART OF IT. THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THERE. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO INDENTIONS IN THE TOP OF THE SIGN WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PUSHED IN THE SIGN BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN REACH. SO WE ABSOLUTELY RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN HISTORICAL DISTRICT, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT OUR SIGN TO BE EASILY DAMAGED BECAUSE IT IS, IT'S NOT AN INEXPENSIVE THING. . SO WHAT, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. MM-HMM . UH, THE SIGNS THAT WE'RE SEEING AS EXAMPLES, WHY DO THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE IN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK PLANE OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK? SO SOME OF THEM ARE . OKAY. WAS THERE A RIGHT OF WAY TAKING THAT MADE IT OCCUR? SO BEFORE THIS, UM, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NEW, THE NEW LAWS THAT WERE PUT INTO PLACE TO REALLY RESTRICT THAT AREA. SOME OF THESE ARE BEFORE THAT. SO THIS ONE HAS THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK, BUT THE OTHER ONES DON'T HAVE AN APPROPRIATE SETBACK. BUT THEY'RE OLDER SIGNS BEFORE, UH, THE REGULATIONS WERE CHANGED IN THAT AREA. AND YOUR SIGN IS NOT BEING PROPOSED OVER ANY RIGHT OF WAY? NO, WE ARE, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RAW, THE RULES AND THE LAWS OF THE SETBACK. SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THE SIGN, WE WERE DOING IT TO UCD STANDARDS, SO IT'S A BIGGER SIGN, TALLER SIGN. IT'S ON AN ARTERIAL A ROADWAY. SO WE'RE ALLOWED A REALLY BIG SIGN. WE DID NOT REALIZE THAT WE WERE IN THE ALTA VISTA AREA. UM, SO THAT DRASTICALLY CHANGED OUR SCOPE BECAUSE OF COURSE WE WANT TO ADHERE TO ALL THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN AN AREA. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING SOMETHING RIGHT NEXT TO, THERE'S A BUS STOP RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. SO WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING SOMETHING REALLY LOW WHERE YOU'RE HAVING A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT THE BEST AREA, THERE'S, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, TO MAYBE PUT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO MAKING IT SMALLER IF THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT WE WOULD LIKE IT TALLER TO HOPEFULLY NEGATE SOME OF THE DAMAGE THAT UNFORTUNATELY MAY HAPPEN. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING THE SIGN ON THE SAN PEDRO SIDE OR THE SAN PEDRO SIDE AND YOUR SIDE OF SAN PEDRO'S IN THE NCD, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF SAN PEDRO IS NOT EXACTLY. GOD, THAT IS SO STRANGE. IT'S, IT'S REALLY, IT'S SO HARD BECAUSE OUR, OUR, OUR BUSINESS, YOU CAN SEE A BILLBOARD WITHIN TWO AND A HALF BLOCKS OF US, WHICH IS RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THESE HUGE SIGNS YEAH. THAT ARE NOT IN THE ZONE. SO BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET, IT REALLY CHANGES US. BUT WE WERE WILLING TO WORK, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THAT. WE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE SITUATION, BUT WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT TALLER. YES. STAFF. WHAT IS THE MAX HEIGHT AND AND SIZE OF A SIGN IF YOU'RE NOT IN THE NCD? IT'S ON THE FIRST SLIDE. UM, JOEL, HE ACTUALLY DID ALL THE WORK ON THIS . CORRECT. THAT'D BE 20, 24, 4 FEET AND 150 SQUARE FOOT SIGNS. SO THAT'S HUGE. OKAY. ANY [00:30:01] COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? AND JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY THE PICTURES, THE, UH, LIBERTY TAX, THE RESTAURANTS AND THE LAUNDROMAT ARE ALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SAN PEDRO? YES, THEY ARE. I'M SO SORRY, CLARIFIED THAT THE ONLY, BUT THE ONE THAT IS ON THE SAME SIGNS IS THE ONE THAT HAS THAT BENT SIGN THAT IS THE EIGHT FEET. SO ALL THE DAMAGED VANDALIZED SIGNS ARE ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET. AND WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. SO I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. SO IS THAT THE, THE MAIN HARDSHIP YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONTESTING TODAY IS THE GRAFFITI AND THE VANDALISM? ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU CAN SEE SIGNS BEING VANDALIZED WEEKLY, MONTHLY, AND YOU'RE SEEING THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO REDO THEM, REFACE THEM, UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST AN EYES SOURCE. SO OUR SIDE OF THE STREET LOOKS DESOLATE AND LOOKS TOTALLY LIKE IT'S JUST BEEN THROUGH DAMAGE AFTER DAMAGE. AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IS GORGEOUS BECAUSE NOBODY CAN REALLY REACH THEIR SIGNS. SO WE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL ASPECT OF IT, BUT WE'D ALSO LIKE IT TO JUST LOOK A LITTLE BIT NICER. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE DAMAGED SIGNS IN GRAFFITI. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, YES, I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS. UM, ONE WOULD BE, UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAFFITI, IS THE BUILDING ITSELF RECEIVING ANY GRAFFITI? SO WE HAVE HAD A DAMAGED POTS IN TWO TIMES THAT WE HAD TO REPAINT THE GRAFFITI. UM, AND THEN THE SIGN DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, THEY HAVE TO DO IT EVERY, UM, I THINK THEY TOLD ME EVERY MONTH OR SO THEY HAVE TO PAINT IT BLACK. SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF BLACK ON THE SIGN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THAT'S ALSO RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUS STOP. OKAY. AND THE SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, HAVE YOU EXPLORED BUILDING SIGNAGE OR WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS? SO WE DO HAVE A BLADE SIGN AS AN OPTION. SO FOR WALL SIGNS IN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT, YOU CANNOT BE BLOCKING WINDOWS. AND UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE BUILDING. WE HAVE WINDOWS EVERYWHERE. UM, SO WALL SIGN REALLY WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT A THREE FOOT STRIP WHERE WE COULD PUT A WALL SIGN. BUT UH, WE DO HAVE AN OPTION TO PUT A BLADE SIGN. OF COURSE IT'D BE BLOCKED BY TREES . SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLORE OPTIONS. THEY WOULD PREFER A PYLON SIGN JUST FOR VISIBILITY PURPOSES. BUT THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE NEW REGULATIONS THAT ARE ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET. I MEAN, I COULD SEE A BLADE SIGN ON THAT CURVED CORNER THERE. YES. THAT'S WHAT OBVIOUSLY IT WOULDN'T BE AS VISIBLE. RIGHT. UM, THERE ARE OPTIONS. UH, WE'RE GONNA, EITHER WAY WE ARE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT SIGN AND 12.25. SO WE WOULD DO THAT REGARDLESS. BUT WE WOULD JUST LOVE TO HAVE IT IF WE COULD HAVE IT HIGHER SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY AVOID DAMAGE, THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO US. 'CAUSE HE JUST DOESN'T WANNA HAVE TO REDO A SIGN CONSTANTLY. UM, AND SORRY FOR ASKING ALL THESE QUESTIONS. YOU'RE FINE. BUT BACK TO THE BLADE SIGN, IS THERE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT THERE? IF YOU WERE TO MOUNT IT ON THE SECOND STORY OF THAT BUILDING? UH, THAT WOULD BE REGULATED BY THE CHAPTER 28 SIGN CODE? UM, I CAN FIND THAT. UM, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE'S NO REGULATION AS FAR AS HOW HIGH ON THE BUILDING IT NEEDS TO BE, OR IT CAN BE, BUT IT HAS MORE OF AN AREA REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO HOW BIG IT CAN BE WITH REGARDS TO THE FACE. SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AROUND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO ASKED. OH NO, THANKS. AND WITH THAT, ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE A MUCH LARGER SIGN. I BELIEVE WE HAD 198 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWABLE FOR A BLADE SIGN, WHICH IS HUGE. AND, UH, NOT, IT WOULD JUST BE BETTER TO HAVE A PYLON. 'CAUSE THAT'S A BIG SIGN. COMMISSIONER, MANNA MANNA. UM, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND I GET THE, THE, THE, THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO HEIGHT. UM, YOU KNOW, UH, BUT IT IS EXCEEDING THE, THE, THE SIZE OF THE SIGN ITSELF WITH REGARDS TO REGULATION. RIGHT. WE'RE, WE'RE TOTALLY WILLING TO REDUCE THAT. OKAY. AS WELL. LIKE, I, I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO CHANGE THAT HEIGHT IS KIND OF THE, THE DEAL BREAKER FOR US BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE DAMAGE OCCURS. IT SQUARE FOOTAGE ISN'T GONNA CHANGE ANY OF THAT VISIBILITY. OF COURSE, IT'S BETTER IF IT'S BIGGER. UM, AND IN SAN ANTONIO WE WOULD BE ALLOWED A HUNDRED AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET IF IT WAS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ASK IF IT'S NOT GONNA HURT US TO ASK A LITTLE VERY, IF YOU GUYS SAY NO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. GOT CONFUSED HERE A LITTLE BIT. 'CAUSE THERE'S A LAW OFFICE DOWN DOWN THE STREET MM-HMM . THAT HAS A RELATIVELY SMALL SIGN, YOU KNOW, THAT LOOKS MORE BOUTIQUE LIKE, WHICH IS I THINK WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ON THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THAT AREA. AND THAT IS EXACT, THEY ACTUALLY SAID THAT DURING THE BOARD MEETING, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR BOUTIQUE LIKE, UM, IT IS NOT THE AESTHETIC OF MY CLIENT. YES, IT, IT DOES. YEAH. THERE'S A CONTRAST BETWEEN THOSE TWO. BUT IF IT WAS THAT SIZE, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THAT I'M OKAY WITH THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, PER THE DIALOGUE AND, AND I'M WILLING TO BET THAT THEY WOULD BE TOO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY STAND DIALOGUE. RIGHT. AND THEY WEREN'T, AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO PRESENT IT WITH THANKSGIVING AND THE WAY THAT THEIR MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO PRESENT IT BECAUSE OF COURSE I HAD TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE CLIENT BEFORE WE COULD GO BACK TO THE, TO THE CITY. BUT DURING THAT BOARD MEETING, THEY DID SAY THAT THEY WERE, THEY WERE WILLING TO LISTEN TO CERTAIN THINGS. UM, THEY DID SAY BOUTIQUEY AND THEY DID, UM, HAVE A, A FEELING ABOUT THE AESTHETIC. BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN CHANGE. REED ONE MORE. UH, COMMISSIONER REED. UM, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I [00:35:01] I, I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH ALTA VISTA BEFORE, UM, BEFORE I COULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. UM, AND WE HAVE, AND I UNDERSTAND I HATE TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND YEAH, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL, UH, WE HAVE MET WITH THEIR BOARD AND THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED CHANGING OUR DIMENSIONS AND OUR SIZES AND EVERYTHING. WE ARE ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH HAVING THE DIMENSIONS, THE, THE NECESSARY THINGS. UM, THE TWO FEET. IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WAS A DEAL BREAKER FOR THEM. I, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE THEM. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO HAVE ANOTHER EXTENSION AND TO THINK THIS IS OUR THIRD ONE, WHICH WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE WILLING TO DO IF THAT'S A DEALBREAKER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION? HEARING NONE, UH, ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'RE GONNA HEAR A VOICEMAIL AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING CASE ENDING IN 1 8 5 OR 2 1 1 9. SAN PEDRO DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SIZE AND HEIGHT FROM THE NCD TWO AND UDC STANDARD FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AT 2 1 1 9 SAN PEDRO AVENUE. A VARIANCE ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NNC D TWO FREESTANDING SIGN, MAXIMUM SIZE OF 12.25 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A 59.75 FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN. AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD TWO FREESTANDING SIGN. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 10 FEET TO ALLOW AN 18 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN. IT IS THE POLICY OF BEACON HILL TO SUPPORT ITS NEIGHBOR'S DECISIONS REGARDING VARIANCE REQUESTS. AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT. WE ALSO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. A SIGN OF THE REQUESTED SIZE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CORRIDOR. EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A COMMERCIAL AREA OF ALTA VISTA AND MONTE VISTA, IT IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES WHO WOULD SUDDENLY FIND THE LOOK OF THIS CORNER FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED BY A MUCH LARGER SIGN THAN ALLOWED. WE ALSO FEAR THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS LARGER SIGN COULD SET PRECEDENT. WE COULD ALSO ARGUE THAT A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR A BUSINESS WOULD MORE LIKELY DIRECT CLIENT TRAFFIC THAN SUCH A LARGE SIGN. BEACON HILL. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOT APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SIZE. THANK YOU. CYNTHIA WALKER, CHAIR OF THE ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE. BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ALRIGHT, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR THAT. UM, YES. CHAIR, UM, TO THE CITY. UM, SINCE THE CHANGES WERE MADE AND THEY DON'T MATCH WHAT IS ON THE, THE APPLICATION THAT WE SEE HERE, DOES IT NEED TO, DOESN'T IT NEED TO SHOW THOSE CHANGES BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT? SO, NO, YOU CAN VOTE ON IT NOW. UM, THE, UH, THEY'RE BRINGING DOWN THE REQUEST. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT INCREASING IT. UM, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE, UH, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD CHANGE IT OR NOT, BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN'T MAKE A DECISION NOW OFF OF THIS. SO CHAIR, WOULDN'T IT BE, UH, EQUITABLE FOR, FOR THEM TO PRESENT THE NEW DIMENSIONS? BECAUSE WHAT WE JUST HEARD RIGHT NOW HAS THE OLD DIMENSIONS. YEAH, THEY, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S EQUITABLE TO THE APPLICANT. RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE, UH, CONTEMPLATING CONTINUANCE SO THEY CAN GET THAT ADVERTISED AND WE'RE ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH THAT SO THAT WE CAN AGAIN, YES. SO THAT WE CAN AGAIN, REACH OUT TO THEM AND TRY TO HAVE THAT, THAT DIALOGUE. WE JUST WANTED TO PRESENT IT TO YOU GUYS TO SHOW, HEY, WE ARE, WE HAVE REDUCED IT FOUR TIMES. WE'RE WORKING ON IT. LET ME ASK YOU, TAKE ME THROUGH THE THREE OR FOUR TIMES THAT YOU REDUCED IT. SO THE FIRST TIME YOU REDUCED IT, THE FIRST TIME WE REDUCED IT, WE WENT TO 15 FEET TALL. SO WE STARTED AT 18 FEET TALL. SO WE WENT DOWN TO 15 FEET AND WE REDUCED IT 10%. SECOND TIME WE WENT DOWN TO 12 FEET, REDUCED IT ANOTHER 10%, AND THEN WE WENT DOWN TO 10 FEET. SO, UM, AND, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE LAST TIME THAT THEY LOOKED AT IT, THE LAST TIME THEY LOOKED AT IT WAS AT 15 FEET, I BELIEVE BECAUSE WE HAD THANKSGIVING. OKAY. SO WE MISSED, WE MISSED OUR ABILITY TO KIND OF SHOW THEM. AND THEN EVEN AT THAT THEY, THEY WEREN'T REALLY HAPPY WITH IT. SO THEN WE REDUCED IT AGAIN. SINCE THEN, WHAT, WHAT I'M, WHERE, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THEIR, THE METHOD OF THINKING OR PERHAPS ANY DIALOGUE THEY HAD. SO WHEN YOU WENT THERE AND YOU SAID, I AM GONNA PUT THIS BIGGER SIGN AND THIS TALLER SIGN, DID THEY EVER COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WE, WE SEE THAT ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS, SO WE'LL GIVE YOU, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LIVE WITH, DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY INDICATION WHAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH? [00:40:01] I WOULD, IF I'M BEING REALLY HONEST WITH YOU GUYS, I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH IT WAS MORE AESTHETIC VERSUS SIGN. AND AS MY CLIENT WAS UNWILLING TO CHANGE HIS PICTURE ON HIS SIGN AND, AND THE AESTHETIC OF THE SIGN, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR MORE BOUTIQUE, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR, FOR A DIFFERENT AESTHETIC THAN MY CLIENT IS WILLING TO GIVE. I DO NOT BELIEVE IF EVEN IF WE GO BACK WITH A, A SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY APPROVE AND 10 FEET, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD APPROVE IT IF I'M BEING A HUNDRED PERCENT HONEST. AND I'M VERY SORRY TO KIND OF PUT THERE, THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR TIMES, YOU'RE CHANGING IT. WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE GIVEN YOU SOME. LAST TIME I WAS HERE, UM, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TOLD ME TO GET THAT APPROVAL. I TOOK IT TO HEART . I WAS GUNG HO TO GET THAT APPROVAL. THAT'S WHY WE REDUCED IT SO MANY TIMES. AND THAT'S WHY I, I WORKED SO HARD WITH MY CLIENT. I TRIED TO, HE WAS UNWILLING TO CHANGE THE AESTHETIC AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY REALLY HAD THE ISSUE WITH. YEAH. UM, AND THERE'S JUST NOTHING I CAN, I CAN DO ABOUT THAT. I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE. SO EVEN IF WE STOP THIS TODAY, GO BACK AND JUST ASK FOR THAT TWO FEET. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW I WOULD, I WOULD BE SO HAPPY WITH THAT JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE LESS DAMAGED. I DON'T, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD APPROVE IT. WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE BOARD. I'M READY TO VOTE ON IT TODAY. OR WE CAN GIVE THEM A, AN EXTENSION. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD IT'LL DO. STEVENS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DROP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUEST? I WILL DROP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUEST. WE CAN PUT THAT DOWN TO 12.25 JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WITHIN SIGNAGE. THE, THE DAMAGE IS AT THE HEIGHT LEVEL. SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S AN AESTHETIC THING. I'M GONNA ASK BECAUSE MY CLIENT RIGHT. ASKED ME TO. UM, BUT I WILL GIVE THAT UP. OKAY. WELL THEN HERE'S WHAT, HERE'S WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO. UH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR, UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMISSIONER MAY. SO I'M GOING, I'M GOING TO LEAVE OFF THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION, UH, AND JUST READ THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS A SIGN HEIGHT. UM, AND SO, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 8 5, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT, OR I'M SORRY FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD, UH, TO FREESTANDING HE HEIGHT MAXIMUM OF EIGHT FOOT TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN SITUATED AT 2 1 1 9 SAN BETA AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING GEORGE RODRIGUEZ BECAUSE A TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED SIGN, UH, HEIGHT WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY DEVIATION FROM ESTABLISHED CHARACTERISTICS OF FREESTANDING SIGNS ON THIS PORTION OF SAN PEDRO AVENUE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S LIMITATIONS ON SIGNAGE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT. UM, UH, IS SIMILAR TO THE SIZE AND EXISTING SIGNS IN THE AREA. UH, THESE ESTABLISHMENTS WOULD ENJOY GREATER ADVERTISING CAPABILITIES THAT WOULD NOT BE AFFORDED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THREE OF OUR GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT WOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE, UM, OR SIMILAR IN HEIGHTS TO EXISTING SIGNS AND IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT GLOBALLY ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTERED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR A CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF FREESTANDING SIGNS ALONG THE PORTION OF SAN PEDRO AVENUE. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITION IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARD SEEKS TO LIMIT NEW FREESTANDING SIGNED DIMENSIONS TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURED DIMENSIONS. EXISTING STRUCTURED DIMENSIONS ARE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS PROPERTY AND ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, SO I THINK A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, KEEPING THE SIGN THE SIZE THE SAME, UH, THE SIGN, THE UM, FIT FITTING WITHIN THE NCD STANDARDS TO ME MAKES, YOU KNOW, IS PART OF THE AESTHETIC THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR WITH REGARDS TO THE SIZE OF THE SIZE OF THE SIGN ITSELF. AND I THINK LIFTING IT TO TWO FEET WOULD PROVIDE, UH, THE APPLICANT HERE, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL OF OF NOT HAVING IT IMPACTED, UH, BY, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, UH, VANDALISM, ET CETERA. SO, SO BECAUSE OF THOSE I WOULD BE VOTING IN [00:45:01] THIS REGARD. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT TO UH, WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, TO TRY AND GET WITHIN THE NCD STANDARDS. UH, BUT I DO THINK THAT THE TWO FOOT, UH, HEIGHT VARIANCE WILL, UM, SERVE THE PURPOSE OF UH, SECURING THE, THE SIGN BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE SIGNS LIKE THAT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER ZINA? YES. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS, UH, MOTION WERE TO BE DENIED IS A BLADE SIGN, WHICH THEY COULD GO UP TO 198 SQUARE FEET OF THAT SAME COPY WITH MARCO'S FACE ON IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE. SO I THINK THEY WOULD BE VERY OPPOSED TO THAT. . EXACTLY. SO I THINK THE COMPROMISE HERE IS TO MAINTAIN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE NCD AND THEN THE HY TO MINIMIZE THE, UH, GRAFFITI. AND THE VANDALISM IS THE APPROPRIATE COMPROMISE HERE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UM, BEFORE WE TAKE A, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE CHAIR. MAY I JUST SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE VOTE? YES. MURPHY BEN, THIS, UM, I JUST WANNA TELL YOU, THANK YOU FOR BEING FRANK ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT YOU SHARED WITH US TODAY. . I THINK IT, IT CLARIFIED A LOT OF THINGS SO I, I I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO BUT IT WAS, UM, I'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF THESE. I WORK FOR A SIGN COMPANY. IT WAS THE MOST HOSPITAL BOARD MEETING I'VE EVER BEEN TO. UM, SO I JUST DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS GONNA BE ANY WIGGLE ROOM. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T WANNA SAY THAT. THANK YOU. UH, HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RE BARNES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ. YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF THIS APPLICANT WANTED TO APPEAL THIS BOARD'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL TO TACK ON THE, CAN THEY STILL TACK ON THE SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE IF THEY WANTED TO PURSUE THAT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? UH, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT TAKES AWAY HER ABILITY TO DO SO. YEAH, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION ON THE AREA PORTION THAT COULD TECHNICALLY BE APPEALED AS A DENIAL FROM THE BOA. OKAY. I JUST, JUST IN CASE, 'CAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE FEW INSTANCES WHERE YOU, OR THE ONLY INSTANCE THAT YOU CAN APPEAL THE CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. SO IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO GO TO THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND REALLY WANTED TO GET A BIGGER SIGN, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY DO SO. I, I GET YELLED AT BY A LOT OF PEOPLE. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DO IT . I JUST LIKE TO, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU THROWING THAT OUT THERE, . ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ITEM THREE. THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD REST OF THE DAY. ITEM THREE IS CASE BO A DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 2 27. THE ADDRESS BEING 8 3 5 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT BEING DRK WORKS. THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE NNC D FIVE BUILDING SIZE AND MASSING DESIGN STANDARD TO OFFER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACROSS FOUR SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT. TWO A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE BUILDING HEIGHT DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR THREE STORY STRUCTURES. THREE A 21 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE CD FIVE PAVING DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR A 36 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY CURB CUT AND A 32 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. FOUR A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE CARPORTS DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW CARPORTS AS AN ATTACHED OR INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE WITHOUT A FIVE FOOT RECESS BESIDE, UH, BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES FRONT FACADE. AND FIVE A 51 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE LOT SIZE DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW A MULTI-FAMILY USE PARCEL TO BE RE PLATTED WITH A 126 FOOT LOT WIDTH. THE ZONING IS MF 33. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND REQUIRES A NEW PLAT FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPL THE PROPERTY INTO A SINGLE LOT AND DEVELOP A FOREST STRUCTURE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY OFF MAGNOLIA AVENUE. THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS NOT ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REGARDING BUILDING MASSING BECAUSE THERE'S SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING HEIGHT, DRIVEWAY WIDTH. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT AND LOT WIDTH REGULATIONS CONSIDERING THAT PROPOSED RE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO EACH OF THESE STANDARDS SHOWN. HERE'S A DIAGRAM OF EACH OF THESE STANDARDS, STARTING WITH ONE AND TWO AGAIN. ONE BEING THE SEPARATION OF MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS ACROSS FOUR STRUCTURES. THE STANDARD IS TO, UH, MAINTAIN ALL DWELLING UNITS WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. THIS WOULD BE ONE, TWO AND THEN THREE AND FOUR BEHIND. UM, REQUEST [00:50:01] TWO IS FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO INCREASE TO FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO THREE STORIES. UH, REQUEST THREE IS FOR THE WIDTH OF THIS CURB CUT AND THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. UH, REQUEST FOUR IS THE LOCATION OF THESE CARPORTS. THE STANDARD IS TO RECESS THESE CARPORTS FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE. UH, THE PROPOSED RECESS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE AT EACH OF THESE IS ONLY ABOUT TWO FEET AND THE REQUEST FIVE IS FOR THE TOTAL LOT WIDTH HERE. AGAIN, THIS IS A PARCEL MADE UP OF MULTIPLE LOTS. UH, TO REPL THIS, THE STANDARD FOR THE NCD IS THAT THE OVERALL UM, LOT WIDTH BE NO GREATER THAN UH, I DON'T HAVE THAT MAXIMUM HERE, BUT IT'S A 51 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 126 UH, LOT WIDTH HERE. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET AND THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NNC D FIVE DESIGN VARIANCES STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 2 27 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE PROPOSED VARIANCES ARE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE PROPOSED DESIGN DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS. AND TWO, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT AND CONSPICUOUS DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF BUILDING MASSING HEIGHT, DRIVEWAY WIDTH, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND OVERALL LOT WIDTH. STAFF MAILED 25 NOTICES. ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. SHOWN HERE IS THE BEACON HILL RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND A LETTER RECEIVED FROM A RESIDENT IN THE AREA ALSO IN SUPPORT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. SO QUICK QUESTION. THEY'RE NOT GETTING A COD ON THIS, RIGHT? THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO PLAT THIS AS ONE LOT. UH, NO, THEY WOULD BE GOING FOR A FULL REPL AND THE APPLICANT WAS MADE AWARE THAT IF APPROVED THEIR APPROVAL WOULD ONLY BE GOOD FOR A YEAR'S TIME. AND THEN, UH, IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES TO COMING TO THE BOA? IS THERE A CHANGE OF ZONING, LIKE GOING TO IDZ? IS THERE SOME MAKING IT TWO LOTS? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD REMOVE SOME OF THESE VARIANCES THROUGH OTHER AVENUES? UM, I SAY THE IDZ MIGHT TAKE CARE OF, WELL, NO, THESE ARE ALL NCD STANDARDS. UM, 'CAUSE THESE ARE A LOT OF VARI. I MEAN THESE ARE FIVE VARIANCES IS A LOT AND YOU KNOW, IF, IF A IDZ ZONING CHANGE COULD GET RID OF FOUR OF 'EM, THAT'S SOMETHING AT LEAST THAT GOES THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AND WHATNOT. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. MANNA YES, COMMISSIONER, COULD, COULD YOU EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR, WHERE YOU'RE GOING OR YOUR THOUGHT HERE. SO JUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WELL SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SEE IF, IF, IF AN APPLICANT DOES CERTAIN THINGS THAT, THAT WHERE THEY CAN DO IT BY, RIGHT? SO LET'S SAY THEY, THEY PLATTED THIS AS TWO LOTS. THAT MAKING, MAKING IT, UH, TWO SMALL, THE DRIVEWAYS, MAKING THE MASSING DIFFERENT. UM, IF THEY PLATTED IT AS TWO LOTS, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEY WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO DO IT. DOES THAT MAKE SOME OF THESE GO AWAY? IF THEY WENT THROUGH IDZ ZONING TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD, THEY COULD HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SCULPTING SOMETHING THAT, THAT, THAT EVERYONE COULD LIVE WITH. YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'D BE LOCKED INTO A SITE PLAN. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW. UM, YOU KNOW, BUT UM, YOU, SOME OF THESE THINGS IS JUST FIVE VARIANCES IS JUST A LOT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, ARE THEY JUST TRYING TO AVOID A ZONING CHANGE? SO IF, IF I MAY QUICKLY JUST RUNNING THROUGH THE, THE LIST HERE ONE THROUGH FIVE, WHETHER IT WAS ZONED IDZ OR NOT, THOSE ARE ALL NCD SPECIFIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. SO A CHANGE OF ZONING WOULD NOT NEGATE THE NECESSITY, UH, FOR THAT DESIGN. SO I, IDZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY SORT OF OVERRIDE? NO, QUITE THE OPPOSITE ACTUALLY. THE NCD SPECIFICALLY OVERRIDES THE IDZ REGULATIONS. OH, WELL THEN THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THE MAXIMUM, UH, PLAT WIDTH, UH, WAS 75 FEET. OKAY. AND ALSO, YEAH, SO IF THEY PLATTED THIS INTO FOUR SEPARATE ONES, THEN THAT WOULD ELIMINATE NUMBER ONE, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT. SEE, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THEY PLED TO AS TWO LOTS, AND THEN THEY SLEPT IN INGER SEEGER SEASON AND THEY MADE THE DRIVEWAYS 18 FEET AND 18 FEET. DOES THAT MAKE THAT ONE GO AWAY TOO? I'M JUST CURIOUS. . I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE THAT'S THE OVERALL DRIVEWAY WIDTH. OKAY. AND THEN IF IT'S TWO LOTS, THEN IT WOULD STILL BE TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES. UNDERSTOOD. YES. IVAN? YES. UM, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT BEACON HILL IS SUPPORTING THIS AND THEY'RE ONE OF THE HARDEST NEIGHBORHOODS TO GET. IT IS A GLOWING RECOMMENDATION, BUT, AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE PATH. JUST AS YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A DELTA THAT WOULD OCCUR, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN THE OTHER PATH VERSUS HERE. [00:55:01] I'M JUST, 'CAUSE FIVE IS JUST A LOT THERE. OH, GOT THAT. BUT YEAH, SO, OKAY. I, I JUST, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION, SO. ALL RIGHT. LET LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, I'M REED KIRKSEY, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND, UM, THE CONTRACTOR AS WELL FOR, UH, THE PROPOSED, UM, BUILDINGS. UH, WE PURCHASED THIS LOT THINKING IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD HOUSING IN THE AREA. UH, WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DESIGN SOMETHING AND PUT SOMETHING THERE THAT FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, UM, ADDED A LOT OF HOUSING, UH, WAS STILL WITHIN THE ZONING THAT WE'RE ALREADY ZONED FOR, UM, BUT WASN'T TOO DENSE. WE FELT THAT WE COULD GO UP TO 12 UNITS THERE. WE DECIDED AT EIGHT AS A PLACE TO, THAT STILL ALLOWED FOR SOME YARD SPACE FIRST, JUST TO NOT MAKE IT SO CROWDED. UM, AND SOMETHING THAT WOULD SELL AND BE, UH, DESIRABLE TO LIVE IN. UM, SO WITH THAT SAID, WE, WE GOT, UH, SUPPORT FOR ALL OF OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM BEACON HILL. WE MET WITH THEM MANY, MANY TIMES. UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. UH, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS? CRUZ RAGMAN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. UM, SO IF THERE'S FOUR BUILDINGS AND YOU'VE GOT TWO APARTMENTS IN EACH BUILDING, SO WELL, THERE'LL BE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES FOR, UM, FOR EACH FAMILY. SINCE YOU'RE SAYING EACH APARTMENT IS 2 2 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS, CORRECT? YES. YES. OKAY. UM, SO MORE THAN LIKELY AT LEAST TWO CARS FOR EVERY APARTMENT? YES. EACH, EACH UNIT HAS TWO SPACES IN THE CARPORT AND, UM, POTENTIALLY MORE ON, IN BETWEEN IF WE CAN SEE IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS THERE. OKAY. I WASN'T SURE. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT FROM HERE TO SEE IF THERE'S ROOM TO YES. TO HAVE MORE VEHICLES, UH, UH, PARKING IN CASE THEY NEED IT. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. AND OUR TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT THIS PLAN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARKING, UH, ISSUES ON THIS ONE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO ARE THESE RENTALS OR ARE THESE, UH, FOR SALE? IDEALLY WE WOULD BUILD TO SELL. UM, IF THE MARKET IS NOT ALLOWING THAT, THEN WE WOULD TURN THEM INTO LONG-TERM RENTALS. UM, BUT IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE, WE SELL 'EM. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT. AND WAS THAT PROPOSED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS. UH, NO VOICEMAILS, ANYONE'S TIME TO SPEAK. WE HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS. TWO VOICEMAILS. I THOUGHT I SAW ON YOUR LIST YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY WALKER. GO AHEAD. HI, MY NAME IS CYNTHIA WALKER. I LIVE AT 10 38 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE. UH, I'M FOLLOWING ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 7 AT 8 35 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN THE REGULARLY HELD IN ADVERTISED MEETING ON FEBRUARY 10TH, 2025 AND OCTOBER 13TH, 2025. TO SUPPORT THE NCD VARIANCES FOR A WIDER DRIVEWAY CUT FOR CREATING A SERIES OF DUPLEXES. INSTEAD OF ALL THE UNITS IN ONE BUILDING, AN ADDITIONAL POSITORY AND FOR A CARPORT VARIANCE AT 8 35 WEST MAGNOLIA, THIS LEAD COMMITTEE AND FOUND ON A BOARD ALSO VOTED TO REPORT TO PLAING. THE, THE RESIDENTS VOTED TO SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. THE DRIVEWAY CUT ARE TO FACILITATE THE ENTRANCE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENCE, THE SEPARATE UNITS ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT SEEKS THREE STORIES, THE UNITS WILL BE HELD AT THE 35 FOOT LIMIT. AND THIS VARI ANSWERS OF HALF A STORY. THE PROJECT IS SURROUNDED BY MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS, INCLUDING THE THREE STORY BLANKET APARTMENTS. THE CAR VARIANCE REQUEST, WHICH PLACES IT UNDER THE MAIN UNIT INSTEAD OF BEHIND A SPOT, ISN'T EASY BECAUSE THE LAW IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH FOR SEPARATE CARPORTS. THE ALTERNATIVE IS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL CREATE ONE LESS UNIT, WHICH IS UNREASONABLE BURDEN. WE APPRECIATE THE RECURS EFFORTS TO WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HIS PROMISED TO INCLUDE FRONT PORTRAITS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS PROJECT. WHILE WE EVALUATING ENCOURAGE DENSE OR HOUSING AND THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND LAND USE, WE ALSO VALUE OUR NCD FIVE STANDARDS, WHICH ARE COMMUNITY STANDARDS THAT HELP TO CREATE A MORE STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE EMBRACE CHANGE, PRESERVING WHAT RESIDENTS SHOWS AS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT. MAHANA ASKS RESPECTFULLY THAT YOU APPROVE THE NCD FIVE VARIANCES AT 8 35 WEST MAGNOLIA. THANK YOU, CYNTHIA WALKER, [01:00:03] COLIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, CASE ENDING IN 2 2 7 FOR 8 3 5 WEST MAGNOLIA DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, I HAVE LIVED AT 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE FOR 20 YEARS AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS LOT FINALLY BEING DEVELOPED. I'M ALSO A LONGSTANDING MEMBER OF THE BEACON HILL ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN MANY DISCUSSIONS AND VOTES REGARDING ZONING AND BOA REQUESTS. ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO SUPPORT ALL FIVE VARIANCES, I AM NOT GOING TO OPPOSE. I WOULD HOWEVER, LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT THAT I THINK IT IS A CONCERN WHEN THE DEVELOPER PLANS FOR PROJECT FIRST AND THEN COMES TO THE COMMUNITY WITH REQUEST FOR VARIANCES WHEN THEIR PLANS DON'T COMPLY. AS OPPOSED TO UNDERSTANDING THE UDC AND NCD REQUIREMENTS FIRST AND DESIGNING THEIR PROJECT WITHIN THOSE CONFINES. ALL OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED ENABLE THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD MORE DENSITY, WHICH TYPICALLY LEADS TO MORE PROFITABILITY. OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PLANNED THEIR DESIGNS WITHIN OUR NCD IN MIND, WERE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME DENSITY. IN MY MIND, THIS LEADS TO GIVING ONE DEVELOPER A FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE OVER OTHERS. I HAVE BROUGHT THIS TO MY, TO THE ATTENTION OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT FACTOR AS WELL IN YOUR DELIBERATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. ALRIGHT, UH, IF YOU DON'T, HAVE YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR, UM, TO THE ENFORCEMENT? THIS, THIS WAS ZONED MF 33, SO I COULD POTENTIALLY BUILD UP TO 12 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND I'M CHOOSING TO BUILD EIGHT. OKAY. SO, YEAH, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? HEARING ON, LET'S HAVE, LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 3 2 27 MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NC D FIVE BUILDING AND MASSING DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACROSS FOUR SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT TWO A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE BUILDING HEIGHT DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR THREE STORY UNITS. THREE A 21 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE PAVING DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR 36 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY CURB CUT WITH A 32 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. FOUR, A VARIANCE FROM THE NC D FIVE CARPORTS DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW CARPORTS AS ATTACHED INTEGRAL ELEMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES WITHOUT A FIVE FOOT RECESS BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL'S STRUCTURES FRONT FACADE. AND FIVE OF 51 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NCD FIVE LOT SIZE DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW A MULTIFAMILY USE PARCEL TO BE RE PLATTED WITH A 120 FOOT 26 FOOT LOT WIDTH SITUATED AT 8 3 5 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING DRK WORKS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENT PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN NECESSARY HARDSHIP, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD PREVENT THE REASONABLE USE OF THIS PARCEL AND THE LOT WOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THESE VARIANCES WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH THESE STANDARDS AIM TO PRESERVE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY LOCATED SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WOULD ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE UTILIZATION OF A CURRENT CURRENTLY VACANT LOT SIX, THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE [01:05:01] CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE OF SPACE, WHICH LIMITS THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND OPEN SPACE AT THE PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT DENSITY. THE THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, IT'S NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. UM, AS NOTED EARLIER, UH, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NOT OVERLY AMENABLE TO, UH, CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE NCD STANDARDS, UH, WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. UM, AND ALTHOUGH THE, UM, SECOND, UH, CALLER DID, UH, VOICE REG, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UM, BUILDING, UH, THE APPLICANT DID POINT OUT THAT BECAUSE THIS IS MULTIFAMILY, HE COULD BUILD MUCH, UH, DENSER, UH, UNITS ON THIS LOT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH, I CONCUR. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AND CONCUR FOR THE SAME REASONS AS MY COLLEAGUE. UM, AS SHE POINTED, THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT THAT THE ZONING ALLOWS FOR 33, UH, M 33 ALLOWED FOR 12 UNITS VERSUS THE EIGHT THAT HE'S PROPOSING. AND I DO BELIEVE IT PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED HOUSING, WHETHER IT IS FOR SALE OR RENTAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE JUST SAW, YOU KNOW, UH, CONTINUED NEED FOR HOUSING IN THAT AREA. SO, MANNA. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MADA, UM, FRIENDLY, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, WHICH WOULD BE TO, UM, HAVE THE DESIGN, UM, AS PER SUBMITTED SO AS TO ENSURE THAT IT'S LOCKED IN, IN THE, IN THE DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO AS DESIGNED OR AS SUBMITTED, ACCEPTED. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YES, I ACCEPTED. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE ADDED THAT TO THE MOTION. UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE LOOKING FOR A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON AN ON THE MOTION AS READ WITH THE AMENDMENT TO, UM, TO ADD THE SITE PLAN, UH, AS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AS A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ CONCUR AND CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALRIGHT, ITEM FOUR. ITEM FOUR IS CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 3 2. THE ADDRESS BEING 1 57 WEST BROADVIEW DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN. THE APPLICANT IS CARLSON BRISON DORING INCORPORATED. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET NINE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. LIMITED TO LOT NINE TO A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH TO ALLOW A 48 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH. THREE A THREE FOOT, THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT NINE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. LIMITED TO LOT LOT NINE FOUR A ONE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT TWO INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, LIMITED TO LOT 10 AND FIVE. A SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR SETBACK. UH, FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE THAT IS LIMITED TO LOT 11. THE ZONING IS IDZ ONE WITH USES PERMITTED FOR 12 DWELLING UNITS. ALL RIGHTY. SO, UM, THE PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BANDERA ROAD AND BROADVIEW DRIVE. THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY REZONED TO IDZ ONE, UH, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 12 DWELLING UNITS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPL THE PARCEL AS A 12 LOTS FRONTING A NEW PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS THAT CUL-DE-SAC YOU SEE THERE ON THE EXHIBIT SHOWN. UM, A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROPOSED FOR EACH NEW LOT AND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. UM, THAT FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK IS NOTED HERE BY THAT BLUE BAND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. UH, LOTS. NINE, 10, AND 11 ARE THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S REQUEST. THESE DASHED LINES YOU SEE ON THIS, UH, SITE PLAN ARE THE DESIRED FOOTPRINT OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. AND YOU CAN SEE LOTS NINE, 10, AND 11 WITH THE CURRENT DESIGN CURRENTLY ENCROACHED WITHIN THAT BLUE BAND THERE. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TWO KIND OF PATHWAYS TO, UH, FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION [01:10:01] TO GET AROUND THIS. UH, THE FIRST IS VARIANCES ONE AND TWO. UH, FIRST TO PROPOSE A 40 FOOT, EXCUSE ME, 48 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. UH, THAT'S A TWO FOOT REDUCTION FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENT. UM, THIS WOULD GIVE THE NECESSARY LOT DEPTH TO LOT 10 AND LOT 11 TO FIT THOSE FOOTPRINTS WITHIN, UH, THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK. UH, IT WOULD NOT ALLOW ENOUGH SPACE ON LOT NINE TO FIT THE DESIRED FOOTPRINT AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S ALSO A REQUEST HERE FOR THE ONE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW THIS DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THREE FOOT NINE INCHES. THESE ARE KIND OF HAND IN HAND HERE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO LEAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH AS IS, UH, FOR A PUBLIC STREET THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. UM, AGAIN, LOT NINE, 10 AND 11 WOULD ENCROACH INTO THAT FIVE FOOT BAND THAT YOU SEE THERE. UM, SO EACH OF THESE REPRESENTS A, A PROPOSED VARIANCE TO THAT FIVE FOOT, UH, REQUIRED SETBACK. SO THREE FOOT, THREE INCH VARIANCE FOR LOT NINE, A ONE FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FOR LOT 10 AND A SIX INCH VARIANCE FOR LOT FIVE, UH, EXCUSE ME, LOT 11. LOT 11 COULD, UH, THEORETICALLY BE, UH, RESOLVED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, VARIANCE PROCESS. BUT AS THIS PRO, THIS ENTIRE PROJECT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR, UM, BY THE BOARD. UM, WE'VE, WE'VE SUBMITTED THIS HERE FOR Y'ALL TO CONSIDER AS WELL. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD CONSIDER EITHER VARIANCES ONE AND TWO, A REDUCED RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REDUCED SETBACK ON ONLY LOT NINE OR VARIANCES THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, WHICH IS A REDUCED SETBACK FOR LOTS NINE, 10, AND 11 WITH NO ADJUSTMENT TO THE MINIMUM RIGHT OF WAY. ALTHOUGH THE BOARD IS FREE TO MAKE MOTION ON ANY AND ALL OF THE VARIANCES AS SHOWN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, IS SHOWN HERE. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW. IT'S KIND OF SANDWICHED BETWEEN TWO EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ON EITHER SIDE. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE GROUND AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. IF WE GO BACK TO THAT FIRST SURROUNDING AREA PHOTO, UM, THIS FIRST, UH, THIS IS THE, UH, ONE MORE BACK RIGHT THERE. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE TO THE RIGHT. THIS FENCE LINE RIGHT HERE IS KIND OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS, WHICH ABUTS THE PARKING LOT OF THE ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY, UH, DEVELOPMENT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 3 20 32 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD REMAIN SUFFICIENTLY WIDE TO SUPPORT INGRESS EGRESS TRAFFIC FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND TWO, THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD ONLY SERVE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCES STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 3 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE NEED FOR VARIANCE IS CAUSED BY THE DESIRED FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH ON THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK. AND TWO, THERE WOULD BE INADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, TO SUPPORT MAINTENANCE ACCESS FOR THE STRUCTURES, PRIVACY FOR THE RESIDENCE, AND THE PROTECTION AGAINST POTENTIAL NOISE AND OTHER NUISANCES CREATED BY THE ABUTTING MULTIFAMILY PARKING LOT STAFF MAILED OUT 14 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THE WOODLAWN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY, I'VE GOT A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. SO THIS IS IDZ. SO MY FIRST OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHY, WHY ARE WE HEARING A RIGHT OF WHY IS A RIGHT OF WAY REDUCTION? ISN'T THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION VARIANCE TO THE STREET STANDARD DURING PLATTING? UH, NO, THIS, UH, ACTUAL SECTION OF THE CODE FOR THE MINIMUM PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY, IT FALLS UNDER THE PUR OR THE PURVIEW OF WHAT THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER. UM, AND, AND SO THE APPLICANT DID CONSIDER ALSO, UH, THE POSSIBILITY OF A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY HERE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH NARROWER, UM, RIGHT OF WAY THERE. UH, THIS IS JUST THEIR PREFERENCE TO, TO INSTALL A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THERE. WELL, BECAUSE, UM, , UH, UH, ACCORDING TO IDZ ONE CODE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE STREET CONSTRUCTION STRETCHES IS STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, UH, DON'T APPLY TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT. UH, AND SO MAKING THIS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS A LOCAL, I GUESS A, UH, I MEAN I, THE AT THE MINIMUM IS 50 FEET. I REALLY THINK THAT'S A PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUE. AND I, I'M CONFUSED WHY WE'RE, AND THE OTHER THING IS, WHAT ABOUT THE 10 FOOT CPS EASEMENT THAT'S REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? AND SO HOW DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY? BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS APPLICANT'S TRYING TO DO IS PROVIDE THE 30 FOOT STRIP SO THEY CAN HAVE PARKING ON THE STREET AND NOT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH FIRE TRUCKS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF, BUT THEN THEY'RE USING THE OTHER 10 FEET THAT'S BEYOND THE FACE OF CURB AS THEIR U UTILITY EASEMENT. AND CPS IS GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, NO, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT A PUBLIC STREET. WE WANT OUR 10 FOOT EASEMENT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC STREET. HMM. I REALLY THINK THIS, A LOT OF THIS IS A MORE OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, REVIEW ISSUE THAN A BOA ISSUE REGARDING THE RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT. UM, BUT I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. I I JUST, I JUST DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO A TWO [01:15:01] FOOT REDUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO, AND, AND, AND FOR THAT REASON, OR MAYBE NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT REASON, BUT WE ARE, WE DO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE ALTERNATIVE, UM, REQUEST AS PUT FORTH BY THE APPLICANT OF THE, UM, PROPOSED REDUCED SETBACKS FOR ALL THREE OF THOSE LOTS AS WELL WITH NO RIGHT OF WAY ADJUSTMENT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WERE TO CONSIDER. BUT, UM, NO, I MEAN I'M, I'M, I'M A FAN OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. I'M JUST AFRAID WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN THEY SUBMIT A PLAT AND CPS SAYS, GIMME MY 10 FOOT, AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THEIR DESIGN? I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME WITH SOME OF THIS IF IT HASN'T GONE THROUGH THAT REVIEW YET. SO THE TRAFFIC TEAM DID REVIEW, UM, THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY REDUCTION. UH, THEY, UM, RECOMMEND OR WERE BEHIND US WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT REDUCTION OF TWO FEET. UM, I DO NOT KNOW IF THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING WAS REVIEWED BY THAT. YEAH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GOT 30 FOOT OF PAVEMENT AND THEN YOU HAVE A, THE CURB IS NINE INCHES WIDE CITY STANDARD CURB, THEN YOU HAVE A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK, AND THEN YOU GOTTA HAVE 24 INCHES FOR THE, THE, THE, UH, THE, UH, SAWS, UH, METER BOX. I GOTCHA. SO 48 FOOT CAN ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT. MM-HMM . THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. BUT CPS, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRAFFIC REVIEW, IS GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, I WANT 10 FEET OUTSIDE OF THAT. OKAY. AND DOES THAT PUSH THEIR BUILDINGS BACK CAUSING A REAR SETBACK ISSUE BEYOND WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY? YEAH. AND I, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR, UH, THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN RE PLATTED INTO ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT IT. UM, THIS, THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN REPLANTED INTO ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS, UH, AND THE PUBLIC STREET HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PLATTED IN PLACE. UH, THAT REVIEW IS FORTHCOMING, UH, PENDING APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR THAT. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT. I'M SURE THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN SURE THING COMMISSIONER MANN. AND SO, UM, SO LOOKING AT THE MOTIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, OR ALL OF THE LINE ITEMS THAT ARE THERE, UM, AND IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF KEEPING THE, THE, UM, STREET ALONE, BUT GOING FOR THE OTHERS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ALL, WHAT ALL IS CANCELED OUT? 'CAUSE I I GOT CONFUSED TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, THE CHANGE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHERE IT'S GOING. SO WE JUST, UH, NOT READ ANY OF THE OTHERS AND JUST GO FOR THAT. THAT'S WHAT, UH, WE WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU'RE GONNA GO WITH EITHER OR. YOU CAN MAKE ANY MOTION ON ALL, ANY AND ALL OF THEM IF YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE. BUT IF WE GO BACK, UH, TWO SLIDES, UH, THE KIND OF GROUPING IS GONNA BE, UH, UH, ITEMS ONE AND TWO ON YOUR, UH, MOTION SHEET OR, UH, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE. OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, JUST WHAT WAS, AGAIN, GOING DOWN AN EARLIER DIALOGUE, WHAT WAS, UM, PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, AND DOES THIS FALL IN AS A NARROWER OR NARROWING OR, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WAS ADVERTISED? AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED? SO, SO ALL WERE ADVERTISED, UM, THE, THE, THE FULL GROUP OF, OF ALL FIVE WERE, WERE ADVERTISED TO THE COMMUNITY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF OUR CONCERNS, SO IF YOU COULD INTEGRATE SOME OF THOSE INTO YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT'D BE GREAT. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, SO, I'M MATTHEW HARRE. I'M THE LEAD ENGINEER FOR CARLSEN GANSON DOWING HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. AND THE ORIGINAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPLICATION WAS FOR POINTS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE JUST TO ENCROACH IN THE REAR SETBACK LINE WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF WAY ADJUSTMENTS. ONE POINT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS, THIS IS NOT THE PREFERRED, UH, LAYOUT FOR THE BUILDING PADS. IT IS THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS 1250 SQUARE FEET, UH, BY IDZ ONE REGULATIONS. SO IT'S NOT A PREFERRED, IT'S THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FOR THE CPS EASEMENT. WE HAVE DONE A-U-P-P-R MEETING WITH CPS AND THEY'RE ON BOARD WITH A FIVE BY FIVE EASEMENT INSIDE EACH LOT PERIMETER, WHICH WOULD BE A TOTAL 10 FOOT WIDE FIVE FEET INTO THE LOT FOR THEIR PEDESTALS TRANSFORMERS IN ALL OF THOSE NATURES. WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THEM THAT SINCE WE HAVE MORE SPACE ON THE LOTS, NINE THROUGH 12 SIDE BETWEEN EACH BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE THE MAIN TRANSFORMERS WILL GO. THEY HAVE VERIFIED THE 10 FOOT CPS EASEMENT AND NOT A 14 SINCE IT IS A SINGLE PHASE AND NOT A THREE PHASE ELECTRIC. SO IT WILL BE 10 FEET ON OUR SIDE, NOT 14 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WHERE IT SAYS, UH, WEST BROADVIEW DRIVE, THERE WILL BE OVERHEAD ELECTRO THAT COMES DOWN. IT WILL THEN GO UNDERGROUND AT THAT POINT AS A RISER AND GO UNDERNEATH THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN RUN ALONG LOTS TWELVE, ELEVEN, TEN NINE UP UNTIL THE CUL-DE-SAC WITH SECONDARY GOING ACROSS THE STREET. SO EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CLEARED WITH CPS AND UPPR IN THAT STANDPOINT. AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL ASK WAS FOR POINTS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, WE THEN TALKED WITH THE PLATING DEPARTMENT WITH STREETS AND TRAFFIC AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ADVISED US TO COME IN WITH A CHANGE IN THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND BRING THAT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ESSENTIALLY FOR YOU GUYS TO GIVE THEM THE BLESSING TO APPROVE IT LATER. SINCE THE PUBLIC STREET MINIMUM IS 50 FEET FOR A LOCAL A, THEY ESSENTIALLY SAID THEY WANTED YOUR BLESSING FOR THEM TO CHANGE IT. YEAH. AND AND WHERE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS, SO IN, IN THE UDC, UM, SECTION 35 5 0 1 C, IT TALKS ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT FOR THE STREET STANDARDS ARE PART OF DURING THE, DURING STREET AND PLA [01:20:01] REVIEW, BUT THE APPELLATE TO THAT IS, IT CLEARLY SAYS IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EVEN VOTE ON THAT. UM, REALLY, REALLY CONFUSING, UH, TO ME ON THAT. AND AS FAR AS CPS GOES, THEY'RE ONE OF THE, THEY'RE ALLOWING YOU NOT TO, TO DO YOUR LOOP ON JUST ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND NOT AND DO CROSSINGS AND HAVE ALL YOUR PADS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT HAVING, ARE YOU DOING LIKE AN EIGHT INCH MAIN WITH THE TWO INCH HDPE AT THE, AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE WATER? YES. SO WITH THE WATER STANDARDS NOW BEING LOWERED TO FIVE FEET, ARE YOU GONNA HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THOSE CROSSINGS? 'CAUSE CPS NOPE. YOU'RE GONNA BE OKAY WITH THAT. ALRIGHT. WATER CAN BEND UNDER ANYTHING. IT CAN BEND OVER AND UNDER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE SINCE THEY DROPPED IT KINDA MAKES THINGS A LITTLE GOOFY. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE C COMMITTEE COMMISSION? OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY ONE SIGN TO THE SPEAK? UH, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. IS IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, BRAGG COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO ARE WE BEING ASKED TO EITHER READ ONE AND TWO OR THREE, FOUR AND FIVE? IS THAT, IS THAT THE POINT OR ALL OF THEM? ALL OF IT. BUT THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH I GUESS IS THE, I MEAN I, I DON'T MIND READING THE RIGHT OF WITH, I JUST DON'T, I JUST THINK IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S AN A VER THEN A PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUE AND NOT, NOT A VOA ISSUE, BUT I DON'T MIND BEING IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT. I THINK IT'S FINE IT. AND SO I GUESS THEN, SO FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE AND YOU KNOW, POINTS YOU BROUGHT UP WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, ACCESS FOR FIRE AND SAFETY, YOU KNOW, DOES, SO I GUESS THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE STREETS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ARE 48 FEET RIGHT NOW AND WELL, IT'S JUST THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO RIGHT. WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOUR, IF YOUR PAVEMENT IS 30 FEET WIDE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PARK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET. IF IT'S LESS THAN 30 FEET, YOU CANNOT, SO THERE ALTERNATIVE TO DOING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS AN IRREVOCABLE IN GARCIA OR A PRIVATE GOING DOWN TO 28 FEET. UH, AND THEN LIMITING PARKING, THEIR, THEIR RUN ISN'T LONG ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THE HAND HAND WIDTH ON A FIRE TRUCK. I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT'S LIKE FOUR 50 OR SEVEN 50 BEFORE YOU NEED TO GO WIDER. CORRECT. AND ALSO TO CLARIFY, EVERY SINGLE LOT HERE HAS A TWO CAR GARAGE AS WELL, SO THERE WILL BE MINIMAL ON STREET PARKING UNLESS IT'LL BE VISITORS ONLY. I WAS JUST MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CPS COMING BACK AND SAYING, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME AND CAUSING A PROBLEM WITH YOU IMMEDIATE. CORRECT. WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED TO EVERYBODY SAW CPS, THE CITY, EVERY REVIEWER POSSIBLE BEFORE WE WENT AND PLOTTED THIS THING, JUST TO KIND OF CLEAR IT ALL OUT. OKAY. SO WE HEARD THAT, WE DID HEAR FROM STAFF THAT UH, WE EITHER GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. UH, WHICH WAY IS MORE PREFERABLE FOR YOU? WE PREFER THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE BE APPROVED AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS. SO WITH REGARDS TO NUMBER THREE, I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. I'M NOT SURE HOW SOMEBODY MAINTAINS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THEIR, THEIR HOUSE WITH ONE FOOT NINE INCH ACCESS. ESSENTIALLY. THEY TECHNICALLY WOULDN'T. UM, THAT WALL THAT WOULD BE THERE IN RED WOULD BE A NON-ACCESS WALL ANYWAY. THERE'D BE NO WINDOWS, NO DOORS SINCE IT'S WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A PROPERTY. SO IT'D BE A FIRE RATED WALL. THEREFORE WE GAVE LOT NINE A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD ON THE RIGHT AND A FURTHER EXPANSIVE MULTI WIDTH ON THE LEFT. AND THEIR GARAGE WOULD HAVE A SIDE DOOR ACCESS TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO GIVE THEM MORE SIDE YARD THAN A REAR. I MEAN, PERSONALLY I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LOTS. I'D RATHER SEE THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH BE REDUCED TO GIVE A LITTLE AT AT LEAST TWO OR THREE FEET. I MEAN IN THE BACK ONE NINE IS JUST REAL CORRECT, REALLY BAD. ARE YOU DOING FLAT ROOFS OR ARE YOU DOING OVERHANGS? UH, THAT WOULD BE AN ARCHITECT QUESTION. YEAH. THE REASON I'M ASKING IS YOU'RE AT ONE FOOT NINE AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER GOING OVER TO THE NEXT GUY'S LOT. IF HE HAS A A 12 INCH, WELL THEY'VE GOT A ABOUT FOUR FOOT DROP ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX. IT'S A ONE TO ONE SLOPE WITH CONCRETE AND IT GOES RIGHT INTO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, SO IT WOULDN'T REALLY MATTER. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. UH, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GET THIS BALL ROLLING. I PERSONALLY THINK, UH, UM, GEEZ, I MEAN I WOULD, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT GO DOWN TO 48, ALTHOUGH I, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A PC ISSUE, BUT, UM, WHO'D LIKE TO MEANING MEANING ALL FIVE OR, OR JUST THE FIRST TWO? I, I, I HAVE A PROBLEM. I I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STEVENS. I, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF A, OF A NEW HOUSE HAVING SUCH A REALLY SMALL REAR SETBACK. I MEAN, I I I WOULD TAKE NUMBER THREE AND, AND, AND, AND MAKE IT THREE FEET ALMOST FORCING THEM TO GO TO THE 48 FEET SO THAT THEY COULD AT LEAST PROVIDE THREE FEET BACK THERE. WELL IF YOU JUST READ ONE AND TWO, THAT KIND OF PUSHES THAT POINT, RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH. SO, AND, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE SAFETY AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND LOWERING THE, OR LOWERING THE WIDTH AND, YOU KNOW, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT WASN'T COMPROMISED AND, AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH STEVEN. YEAH, I THINK [01:25:01] ONE AND TWO WOULD BE BETTER. YES. BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST STATING OUR SUPPORT OF THE ITEM, BUT YEAH. YEAH. AND THAT SUPPORT WOULD GO TOWARDS, UM, AN A VR, UM, LATER ON, UM, THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER WHEN THE AVR IS TURNED IN. I MEAN, IT'S IDZI MEAN THIS IS 48 FEET WIDER THAN YOU USUALLY SEE ANYWAY. I, I, YEAH, I I WAS ABOUT TO SAY ON IDZ DEVELOPMENT, I DARE SAY IT'S 20 UN UNCOMMON TO FIND 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY. YEAH. THEY, YOU KNOW, PART OF IT, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT. SAWS IS NOW WANTING 50 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A DRIVER FOR YOU ASKING FOR THE PUBLIC STREET 'CAUSE THEY'RE REALLY ON THE, THE WANTED TO BE AS PUBLIC LOOKING AS POSSIBLE FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE OWNERS OF THESE BUILDINGS. YOU GOT 30 FEET PAVEMENT, IT WILL BE . CORRECT. OKAY. UH, I MEAN IF WE WENT TO 46 FEET NINE INCHES, THEN EVERY LOT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. UH, IF THAT WAS AN OPTION AS WELL, I'M NOT SURE Y'ALL COULD READ THAT IN OR NOT. WELL, AND IDZ ISN'T THE FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK ON THE WHOLE PROJECT AND NOT NECESSARILY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THIS NEW ROAD THAT THEY'RE BUILDING. SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A FRONT SETBACK TECHNICALLY? NO. THESE WOULD BE ZERO LOT SETBACKS IN THE FRONT BECAUSE YEAH, IDZ ALLOWS THAT, SO I WOULD SUPPORT ONE AND TWO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT. COMMISSIONER MANNA MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 2, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A ONE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET NINE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE LIMITED TO LOT NINE AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT RIGHT RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH TO ALLOW A 48 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. UM, LET'S SEE, UH, GET TO THE APPLICANT, UH, SITUATED AT 1 5 7 WEST BROADVIEW DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING CARLSON BRIEN AND DUREN. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND, UH, THE REAR SETBACKS, THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS ADEQUATE SPACE WOULD REMAIN BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UM, RIGHT AWAY WITH, UH, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD BE CREATED AS MOTORISTS AND, UH, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE CREATED ONLY BY THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH REGARDS TO REAR SETBACK AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD BE CREATED AS PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD REQUIRE MODIFICATION TO ADHERE TO THE REQUIRED SETBACK. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE WITH REGARDS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE VARIANCE WOULD SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE TO SUPPORT MOTORS AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK, THE VARIANCE WOULD SUPPORT THE SUB SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND, AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE, UH, USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH HIS VARIANCE. UM, FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMED PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMED PROPERTY AS A NEW RIGHT OF WAY WOULD ONLY SUPPORT TRAFFIC CREATED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH REGARDS TO REAR SETBACK, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AS A REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD POSE NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASED RISK OF FIRE HAZARDS, WATER RUNOFF OR WATER RUNOFF DAMAGE OR OTHER POTENTIAL NU NUISANCES SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY. LOCATED. WITH REGARDS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER, UH, IS THE RESULT OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EXISTING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WIDTH OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD NORMALLY SERVE THROUGH TRAFFIC. UM, UH, HOWEVER, THIS RIGHT OF WAY WOULD ONLY SUPPORT INGRESS EGRESS TRAFFIC FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK APPLY TO THE ORDER IS THE RESULT OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LIMITED DEVELOPABLE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO, TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND A MOTION. AND IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER, IT WAS A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WITH TO ALLOW 48 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, CORRECT. JUST FOR THE RECORD, 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY. [01:30:01] YES. I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T READ IT THAT WAY. YES, I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I THINK, YEAH, LOOKING AT THE, THE TWO OPTIONS AND I THINK WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE, THE, MY QUESTION ADDRESSED WITH REGARDS TO SAFETY, I THINK TO ME, UH, UM, THE FIRST OPTION, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SEEMS TO BE THE BEST OPTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO, SO WITH THAT REGARDS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, UH, I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER MANNA. I THINK THIS IS THE, THE OPTION THAT GIVES ME THE LEAST AMOUNT OF HEARTBURN. YOU GUYS OBVIOUSLY DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE UPPR, WITH CPS, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ANYONE'S LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. IS THAT A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BEAD? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BNI? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR OR, AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YEP. ALL RIGHT, ITEM FIVE. ITEM FIVE IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 2 3 5. THE ADDRESS BEING 75 0 3 PARKWOOD WAY IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN, THE APPLICANT IS JOE . THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS R FIVE CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION, 44 A 45 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC IN A SUBDIVISION NORTH OF PRU ROAD AND WEST OF LEON CREEK GREENWAY. THE PROPERTY ABUTS AN UNDEVELOPED LAND, UH, TO THE REAR, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING A NEW ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME. UH, THE ADDITION WOULD EXTEND TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITH A PROPOSED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK. CURRENTLY THERE'S A BACKYARD DECK WHICH WOULD BE DEMOLISHED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION. AND ALTHOUGH THE LOT IS CONSIDERED IRREGULAR DUE TO THE CUL-DE-SAC FRONTAGE, THE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE ALLOWABLE REAR YARD REDUCTION FOR IRREGULAR LOTS, WHICH IS 15 FEET. UM, THEREFORE A VARIANCE FROM THE STANDARD R FIVE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED. UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, THAT 16 BY 16 ADDITION IS WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE REAR YARD, UM, TO BE FIVE FEET AWAY AT THE CLOSEST POINT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SHOWN HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE REAR YARD. UH, WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN RED IS, UH, AN APPROXIMATION OF THE FOOTPRINT, UH, UH, OF WHERE THAT ADDITION WOULD GO, UM, INCLUDING THAT, THAT DECK SPACE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 3 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITION WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. AND TWO, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE OBSERVED AS A USABLE REAR YARD WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE ELIMINATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF MAIL 19 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN THE RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THAT THE APPLICANT? COME FORWARD. HELLO. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, MY NAME'S JOE ARAIZA. I AM JUST PROPOSING TO PUT AN ADDITION. UH, THE DECK WAS GETTING OLD AND MY WIFE AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT REBUILDING THE DECK, BUT THEN, UH, WE STARTED THINKING ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN AND NIECES AND NEPHEWS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT ALWAYS COME OVER FOR THE HOLIDAYS. AND WE JUST SAID THAT MAYBE WE CAN ASK FOR, UH, A PERMISSION TO ALLOW US TO, TO BUILD A 16 BY 16 FOOT, UH, ADDITION TO THE HOME, WHICH WILL BRING US A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE, THERE IS, RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN 18 BY BY 10 FOOT DECK AND I JUST WANNA BUILD A 16 BY SIX FOOT, UH, ROOM THERE. SO YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A DECK OUTSIDE OF THE ADDITION? NO, THAT'S GONNA BE DEMOLISHED. OKAY. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNE, ONE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR DENIAL WAS THAT THE ADDITION COULD BE MOVED TO ANOTHER PLACE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. IT, IT WAS, IS THAT A HARDSHIP FOR YOU OR CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE HARDSHIP OF YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO? I'M NOT SURE WHAT, UH, AREA THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. UM, UH, THAT THEY WERE SAYING THEY COULD BE BUILT BECAUSE TO THE RIGHT THERE, THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE LEFT, UH, THE RESTROOM TO THE MASTER BEDROOM WAS RIGHT THERE. UM, SO THERE'S NO ONLY ONE. AND THE OTHER ONES ARE THE, THE BEDROOMS ARE RIGHT THERE AND [01:35:01] THAT'S ON THE LEFT SIDE. SO THE ONLY ADDITION IS TO THE BACK. THANK YOU MANA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THE, SO THE PROPERTY THAT, UH, IS BEHIND YOU, SO IS THAT OWNED BY THE CITY? MM-HMM . IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY AND IT'S EMPTY AND IT JUST STARTS SLOPING ALL THE WAY DOWN THERE. UH, THERE IS NO, UH, FUTURE PROJECTS THAT I, THAT I UNDERSTOOD TO, UH, BUILD INTO THAT AREA. THERE'S JUST A GREENWAY THAT'S HAS, UH, BECOME SO, SO THE POINT I'M ASKING OR THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING, THE POINT, I GUESS IS THAT, THAT WE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTING ANY OF THEIR NEIGHBORS. IT'S BASICALLY THE ONLY IMPACT IS TO, UM, TO MYSELF SELF AND, AND THEN ALSO TO THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE OPEN SPACE. SO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND JUST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, YES, IT IS. CITY OWNED THAT PROPERTY TO THE RIVER. ALL RIGHT. UM, ANYONE ELSE? AND I YOUR ZONE? R FIVE CD. WHAT IS A CD FOR? THE CD WAS TO ALLOW FOR A 45 MINIMUM, UH, LOT WIDTH, UH, WHICH IS I THINK FIVE FEET. OKAY. SMALLER THAN THE NORMAL. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, NO VOICEMAILS. ANYONE SOUNDED TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. OH, ZUNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 3 2 35, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR STEPBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. I'D ALSO, UH, WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO EVIDENCE THE, UH, SITE PLAN. SO, UH, THE CONTINUOUS USE OF THE, OF THE, UH, SETBACK WOULD NOT BE FOR THE ENTIRE REAR PROPERTY LINE, BUT FOR GENERALLY THAT AREA THAT'S BEING IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE SITE PLAN. UM, SITUATED AT 7 5 0 3 PARKWAY, UH, PARKWOOD WAY APPLICANT BEING JOE AT ISA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THERE ARE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDCA AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THERE WOULD BE NO APPARENT OVERCROWDING AND STRUCTURES AS THE ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE REAR IS VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PROPERTY IS IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND THERE IS LIMITED EXISTING SPACE IN THE REAR YARD TO OTHERWISE SUPPORT A HOME ADDITION. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WOULD REMAIN BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE REAR PROPERTY. LINES AND STRUCTURES ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OF THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SIX VARIANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY AS THE LOT OF BUTS VACANT, UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE REAR. THE PROPOSED ADDITION DOES NOT EXTEND TOWARDS ANY PROPERTY CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY ANOTHER. USE. SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OTHER RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY TO THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE PROPERTY SHAPE AND LIMITED LOT DEPTH CAUSED BY THE FRONTAGE ALONG, UH, THE CUL-DE-SAC, THEREBY LIMITING THE AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE REAR TO EX TO EXTEND THE EXISTING HOME AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. COMMISSIONER ASUNA? YEAH, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION AS READ. I, I'D LIMITED THE, UH, SPACE TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS UH, SUBMITTED. UM, AND THERE WAS NO IMPACT. WE DID NOT GET ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS, FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UH, TO THE LEFT. UH, THE REAR, UH, THE PROPERTY'S PARKLAND OWNED BY THE CITY. SO NO IMPACT, UH, TO THAT, TO THAT SIDE. AND IT PROVIDES A WAY FOR THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF AGE IN PLACE AND, AND PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF HIS FAMILY FOR A BEDROOM OR SPACE BACK THERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE IN ADDITION THAT IT STILL PROVIDES FIVE FEET FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE, UM, NEW ADDITION. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE THAT? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UH, I LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY, SO, SO UM, JUST BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR BUILDING STANDARDS BECAUSE THAT WHOLE AREA IT HAS A LOT OF WEIRD SHIFTING GROUND AND HOUSES HAVE FALLEN OFF IN THIS, YOU KNOW, NOT FAR FROM HERE. SO, SO DO A GOOD JOB ON YOUR CONSTRUCTION. YES. YOU KNOW, DO GOOD PERMITTING PLEASE. MY RIGHT THE RIGHT WAY, . THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BEES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE FACT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE CAN TAKE [01:40:01] A QUICK BREAK. UH, WE'LL SEE EVERYONE BACK IN ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES. IT'S 2 40, 2 50. WE'RE GONNA GET THIS MEETING BACK IN SESSION. WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX SAYS BO A DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 ADDRESS AT 1 9 5 COVINGTON ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. THE APPLICANT IS STEFAN ENGEL. A REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND STREET DESIGN INTERSECTION. SITE DISTANCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A REDUCED SITE DISTANCE BY THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE ZONE IS R FIVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COVINGTON ROAD AND CREST HILL ROAD. THIS CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE INSTALLATION OF A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CITED FOR BUILDING WITHOUT PERMITS AND VIOLATING THE REQUIRED CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. THE NEWLY INSTALL PRIVACY FENCE WAS FOUND TO OBSTRUCT THE INTERSECTION SIDE DISTANCE NECESSARY FOR SAFE TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR TRAVELERS TURNING WESTWARD OR EASTWARD AS THERE IS NO STOP SIGN LOCATED ON CREST HILL ROAD. UPON STOP'S VISIT TO THE SITE, THE PRIVACY FENCE WAS OBSERVED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE 25 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA. HOWEVER THEY EXISTED. PREDO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS OBSERVED TO BE WITHIN THE CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA. THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE PRIVACY FENCE AND PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO REMAIN IN THEIR EXISTING LOCATION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING THE PROPERTY LINE AND ALSO ALONG THE FRONT IS THE EXISTING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. THE NUMBER TWO IS THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT'S LOCATED ALONG, UM, THE FRONT FACADE. HOWEVER, FOR ITEM FOUR CONSIDERATION IS SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT TWO IS. THAT'S THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE COR, THE SITE DISTANCE AT THE INTERSECTION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY AND THE CORNER CLEAR VISION FOR THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE CIRCLE. AND THEN FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE SITE DISTANCE IS THAT CIRCLED AREA AND APPROXIMATION. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CORNER CLEAR VISION AND THE INTERSECTION SIDE DISTANCE IS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD CREATE A LOSS OF VISIBILITY NEEDED FOR SAFE TRAFFIC MANEUVERING AT THE INTERSECTION. AND TWO, THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE TO RELOCATE BOTH FENCES WHILE PRESERVING PRIVACY, SECURITY AND THE FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE FRONT YARD. 28 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. UH, CAN YOU, UH, GO THROUGH THE CORNER CLEARANCE AGAIN? 'CAUSE ON, ON THE SKETCH IT'S ON THE, UH, THE, THE, THE POWERPOINT. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY, THAT RED LINE IS OUTSIDE OF THE 25 BY 20 IT YES, THE FRONT PRIVACY FENCE IS OUTSIDE OF THE 25. HOWEVER, PER PUBLIC WORKS, UM, DETERMINATION TRAFFIC ON COVINGTON ROAD AT THIS POINT, IT PREVENTS THEM FROM SEEING DOWN THIS WAY SINCE CREST HILL ROAD HAS NO STOP SIGN. OKAY. AND WHAT, WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THIS AS QUOTED AND STATED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS REPRESENTATIVE WHO CAME ON SITE? UM, IT WAS SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 D FIVE A. OKAY. I'M, I'M JUST, I THOUGHT ONCE YOU HAD THE 25 BY 25 YOUR GOLDEN YES, THAT FENCE IS OUTSIDE THE CORNER. UM, CLEAR VISION, HOWEVER IT'S MESSING WITH THE SITE DISTANCE AT THE INTERSECTION. ALRIGHT, STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, UH, WITH REGARDS TO REQUEST NUMBER TWO, WHAT IS THE TARGET DISTANCE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE AT, UM, PER THAT SECTION? UM, WE DIDN'T GET AN EXACT MEASUREMENT, BUT IT SAYS IF IT'S A MAJOR ARTERIAL THEY WOULD NEED AN 18 FOOT BEHIND THE CURB LINE OR OTHERWISE THE DECISION POINT WILL BE 14.5 FEET. WE NEVER GOT THAT EXACT MEASUREMENT, [01:45:01] BUT HE WAS TOLD THAT IF HE REMOVED AT LEAST 12 PICKETS, THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THAT INTERSECTION SIDE DISTANCE, UH, OR HE COULD PUT UP A STOP SIGN THAT AS WELL. OKAY. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SAID THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. YES SIR. HELLO, MY NAME IS STEFAN ENGLE, UM, THE OWNER AND THE RESIDENCE OF, UH, 1 95 COVINGTON. UM, SO I DID INITIALLY START BUILDING MY OWN FENCE AND UH, THE SAME DAY THAT THEY CAME OUT AND SAID I DID IT WITHOUT A PERMIT, I FILED FOR A PERMIT AND IT WAS ISSUED. UM, THE VARIANCE ONE IS FOR THE EXISTING FENCE. I THINK THE CLEAR VISION STATES THAT I HAVE TO BE, IT COULD BE NO, NO HIGHER THAN THREE FEET, 36 INCHES. MY EXISTING FENCE, IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE, I DON'T KNOW, SEVENTIES, EIGHTIES, IT'S 39 INCHES. YOU KNOW, UH, IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE WITH CODE COMPLIANCE THAT HAVEN'T CITED IT, BUT WHEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WENT OUT, THEY NOTED THEY JUST WANTED TO NOTATE THAT IT IS 39 INCHES AND NOT THE 36 INCHES. UH, NOW TO THE NUMBER, THE VARIANCE NUMBER TWO, UM, UM, WITH THE 5 0 6 D UM, SITE VISION, UH, SITE INTERSECTION, TEAR VISION, UM, THEY, THEY CAME OUT, TRAFFIC CAME OUT. THEY SAID THAT, UH, I WAS ABOUT FIVE FEET OR 12 PICKETS AWAY FROM THAT CORNER INTERSECTION. BUT WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL ME IS THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD CREATE LIKE A TRIANGLE BASICALLY MY FENCE, MY FENCE WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO NOT BEING ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND GOING, UH, DIAGONALLY TO, OH YEAH. SO FROM RIGHT HERE, FROM THIS POINT DOWN, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE FIVE FEET, BUT THEN IT WOULD CUT DIAGONALLY ALL THE WAY TO OVER HERE. SO THEN I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, TO FINISH MY FENCE ALONG MY PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD HAVE TO DO IT FIVE FEET DOWN AND THEN AT AN ANGLE, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT WOULD REALLY JUST CAUSE A, UM, AESTHETICS. IT JUST WOULDN'T LOOK RIGHT. RIGHT. UH, SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS, THE PRIMARY REASON FOR ME BUILDING MY FENCE IS OF COURSE I'M ON A CORNER LOT. I'M OPEN 360 DEGREES WHEN PEOPLE TURN AND CAN SEE EVERYTHING AS WELL AS FOR MY DOGS AND FOR SECURITY. UH, COVINGTON DOES GO INTO A DEAD END ROAD, SO THE ONLY PEOPLE TRAVELING UP, UP THIS WAY GOING UPWARDS. IT'S A DEAD END ROAD UP HERE. SO THERE'S ONLY RESIDENCE RIGHT HERE GOING THIS WAY. IT'S ONE MORE STREET AND THEN A DEAD END AS WELL. AND THEN THIS LEADS OFF INTO KIND OF A DEAD END AREA AS WELL. UM, I DID, DID THEY SEND A VOICEMAIL ABOUT UH, UM, SO I HAVE TALKED TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS PRETTY MUCH ALL MY NEIGHBORS. I'VE, I'VE GROWN UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE NEXT STREET, ACTUALLY ON HOME GREEN. UH, THIS WAS ACTUALLY AN OLD FAMILY FRIEND'S HOUSE WHO I PURCHASED AND KIND OF STAYED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, NOT ONLY, NOT ONLY AM I IN OBSTRUCTION OF THIS, UH, CLEAR VISION SITE DISTANCE INTERSECTION, UH, VIOLATION, BUT EVERY ONE OF MY OTHER NEIGHBORS IS, IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL DUE TO THEIR VEGETATION AND TO, AND THEIR TREES AS WELL. SO, AT LEAST TWO OF US ARE, HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIGHTING THIS, CUTTING VEGETATION DOWN ALL THAT. TWO OF THE OTHER ONES, I'M UNSURE IF THE CITY HAS EVEN CITED THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS THAT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS, THEY HAVE NOT DONE ONE SINGLE THING TO THEIR PROPERTY. SO, UH, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST ME BEING TARGETED OR WHAT, BUT YOU COULD CLEARLY SEE RIGHT THERE, THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE DISTANCE. THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE DISTANCE, THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE DISTANCE. AND I WAS, I WAS NEVER IN COMPLIANT WITH THE SITE DISTANCE BECAUSE ALL THE VEGETATION AND TREES I HAVE ON HERE, BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN I PUT UP MY FENCE, THEY, UH, THEY TURNED IT INTO A BIG DEAL ABOUT THE 25 BY 25 CLEAR VISION INTERSECTION, WHICH I COMPLIED, BUT I JUST WAS UNAWARE OF THE, THE INTERSECTION, CLEAR VISION SITE DISTANCE. AND IT TOOK ME ABOUT PROBABLY TWO TO THREE WEEKS TO EVEN GET WITH ANYONE IN TRAFFIC TO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AND SHOW ME HOW TO CALCULATE THAT, UH, THOSE DIMENSIONS. SO FOR EV, FOR ANY AVERAGE CITIZEN, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND AND KNOW WHAT THE INTERSECTION DI SITE DISTANCE IS UNLESS YOU GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PHONE CALLS. I DID GET WITH TRAFFIC, AND TRAFFIC DID POINT ME IN THE DIRECTION OF, HEY, IF WE, IF THE CITY ADDED TWO MORE STOP SIGNS THERE, UH, THEN THE SITE DISTANCE WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE. SO I CONTACTED THE CITY TRAFFIC, CAME OUT THERE, THEY PUT, UH, THEY PUT THEIR RECORDING DEVICES IN THE STREET, UH, FOR LESS THAN 24 HOURS THE NEXT DAY ON A THURSDAY, THE NEXT DAY FRIDAY AT 7:00 AM THEY TOOK EVERYTHING GONE. I, I JUST FELT THAT WASN'T EVEN A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO COLLECT THE PROPER DATA TO TELL ME IF, IF THAT'S THAT INTERSECTION WAS APPLICABLE FOR A A STOP SIGN. MY OTHER NEIGHBORS DID CALL TRAFFIC AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO GET A STOP SIGN TOO, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF AN ONGOING ISSUE FOR ALL FOUR OF US IN THAT INTERSECTION RIGHT THERE. YEAH. DUE TO OUR VEGETATION AND ALL THAT. [01:50:01] SO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT? YEAH. YEAH. I WANT TO KEEP THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. YOU KNOW, I, I WAS, IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION TO TAKE IT OFF AGAIN. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JUST ADDED IT, THREW IT INTO HERE BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, THE THREE FOOT, YOU HAVE A LASER POINTER. CAN YOU BRING UP THE SITE PLAN AND STAFF, UH, KIND OF LET US KNOW. I, I SEE THE ONE ON THE CORNER, BUT YOU HAVE A WOOD FENCE ON THAT RED LINE AND YOU ALSO HAVE A YES, A RED LINE THAT GOES RIGHT THERE. WHERE IS THERE A CHAIN LINK FENCE? THE, ALL THIS IN YELLOW IS ALL CHAIN LINK RIGHT HERE. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, IT'S ALL A DOUBLE FENCE. NO, NO, NO. FROM, SO THE VARIANCE NUMBER ONE IS THIS CORNER, RIGHT? THIS 25 FOOT BY 25 FOOT CLEAR VISION INTERSECTION, UH, THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANT. IT'S EXISTING FROM THE EIGHTIES, BUT IT'S 39 INCHES INSTEAD OF 36. BUT YOU NO, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT YELLOW LINE THAT RUNS THAT, DO YOU HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT RUNS PARALLEL WITH A STREET ALL THE WAY THIS WAY? UH, DOWN, YEAH. THIS WAY. THAT, THAT WAY THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE TOO. YES. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE. YEAH. AND THEN EXACTLY LIKE THIS RIGHT HERE. OKAY, I SEE THAT. SO YEAH, JUST LIKE THIS PICTURE. SO THIS, THIS THREE FOOT FENCE WILL NEVER GO AWAY. I, I DO PLAN TO KEEP THAT. IT'S JUST THIS NEW PRIVACY FENCE RIGHT HERE. UM, WELL, SO MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS THAT IF YOU CAN HAVE TWO FENCES LIKE THAT, I MEAN A PRIVACY AND THEN A CHAIN LINK, AS LONG AS A GUESS A CHAIN'S LIKE THREE FEET TALL. SO AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT STANDARDS, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY THESE FENCES DO, UH, UH, IT'S ONLY ON THAT CORNER THAT THEY DON'T, AND GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, A CHAIN LINK FENCE AS OLD AS THAT, UM, IS, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE, I, I THINK WOULD NORM NORMALLY CONSIDER, UH, IN A CASE LIKE THIS. BUT THE PROPERTY WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, BOTH FOR CORNER CLEAR VISION, THE SECTION, UH, SECTION OF CODE ON THAT 35 5 14, AS WELL AS THE SITE DISTANCE, UH, SECTION OF CODE 5 0 6. UH, SO WE DID ADD THIS ENCROACHMENT FOR THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS SO OLD, UH, IN, IN, IN AN EFFORT TO HELP THEM RECTIFY THAT VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO RIGHT BELOW THE WHITE PART ON THE CORNER DOES, DOES THE CHAIN LINK FENCE TURN 90 DEGREES AND GO TOWARDS THE NUMBER TWO? YEAH, LOWER DOWN, LOWER DOWN. IT, IT WOULD EVEN, OH, RIGHT HERE. RIGHT THERE, YEAH. CHAIN. NO, NO, NO. IT DOESN'T TURN THIS WAY. OKAY. NO, IT JUST GOES STRAIGHT ACROSS THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY LINE. AND I, I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE HALTED CONSTRUCTION SINCE JUNE BECAUSE OF THE, THE ISSUES THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE CITY. SO ALL THIS WOULD EVENTUALLY BE A PRIVACY FENCE AS WELL. OKAY. COMMISSION QUESTIONS. MANNA. SO, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION WITH THE CITY, SO, SO REGARDLESS OF THE WOOD FEDS COMING IN, UM, THE, UM, WE'LL SAY THAT THE OLD FENCE THAT WAS INSTALLED IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE IN THAT CORNER SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S A CHAIN OR IT'S A FENCE OVER THREE FEET TALL. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND SO, SO AND SO EVEN A CHAIN LINK FENCE OF THREE FOOT, FOUR FOOT, OR FOUR FOOT, FIVE FOOT WOULD, WOULD COME BEFORE THE BOARD, UM, ON THAT REGARDS? CORRECT. ANY FENCING TALLER THAN THREE FEET WITHIN THAT 25 BY 25 AREA. OKAY, PERFECT. AND SO, AND SO, SO JUST, UM, SO I, I WORK IN, UH, IN MY COMMUNITY WITH REGARDS TO A LOT OF CORNERS. AND SO PART OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT SAFETY AND, AND THERE IS A THING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, VEGETATION. 'CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE WILL PLANT FOOT PLANT, THEY PLANT IN THAT CLEAR SPACE THAT STARTS TO EXCEED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT SAFETY STANDARD. AND SO WE HAVE CORNERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE BLOCKED WITH, WITH PLANTS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. AND SO, SO KEEPING LOW PLANTS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT, BUT IF THEY GROW AND THEY START TO IMPACT THAT CORNER, THEN YOU KNOW, THAT THAT CAN BE A CHALLENGE. UM, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I, YEAH, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM OUTSIDE OF KEEPING YOUR BUSHES TRIMMED. YEAH. AND SO FOR THE, FOR, FOR THE ITEM NUMBER TWO, THAT IT WAS ONLY OFF 18 INCHES ACROSS THE WHOLE , UH, FOR, FOR NUMBER TWO, UM, NOT 18 INCHES. THIS 18 FOOT WAS FOR THE THREE, THIS, UH, TH THE 39 INCH HEIGHT CHAIN LINK FENCED EXISTING. BUT FOR NUMBER TWO RIGHT HERE, IT'S ABOUT A FIVE FEET FROM, FROM MY CHAIN, MY EXISTING CHAIN LINK THAT GOES ALONG CREST HILL. IT'S ACCORDING TO TRAFFIC, I AM FIVE FEET AWAY FROM BEING COMPLIANT. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A CAR'S GOING UP THE STREET, THEY, THEY, THE GREEN BOOK MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE STOP SIGNS. THEY MAKE YOU FOR, FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES. THERE'S A PART WHERE YOU LOOK OVER, SO IT LOOKS LIKE STAFF IS SAYING, YOU, IF I WERE TO TAKE FIVE FEET DOWN FROM, UM, CREST HILL AND THEN CONNECT THE, AND THEN CONNECT THE DOT ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THAT THAT TRIANGLE THAT'S MADE IS A CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE. MM-HMM . THAT, THAT'S WHAT REALLY NUMBER TWO IS ABOUT. SO, SO AND SO WOULD IT JUST BE THE, THE FENCING ALONG? UM, YEAH, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD CONNECT THE.AT THE REAR CORNER ON THE LEFT COMING TO, BUT, BUT IF YOU PUT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON FIVE FEET OF IT, NO, NO, NOTHING. NO. THEY'RE SAYING GO FROM THAT POINT. LET'S, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU'RE SAYING GO FROM THAT BACK CORNER ALL THE WAY TO FIVE FEET. SO, SO IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE THIS, IT MAKES THE TRIANGLE, IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE THIS [01:55:01] BACK CORNER. IT'S ACTUALLY THE WAY, 'CAUSE I STUDIED, I STUDIED IT, AND I ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE TRAFFIC BOOK TO REALLY UNDERSTAND IT, YOU KNOW, AND SO BASICALLY THEY SAY, SO I, I DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS OR CURBS ON THIS STREET RIGHT HERE. SO BASICALLY IT SAYS WHERE THE ROAD ENDS, OR LIKE, THESE SIDEWALKS JUST DIE IN RIGHT HERE. BUT OVER HERE, THE ROAD ENDS HERE. IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, IT'S KIND OF A, A STICKY SITUATION BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A CONSISTENT, UH, CURB LINE TO MEASURE OFF OF. BUT THEY SAY BASICALLY FROM LIKE THIS CURB LINE, YOU MEASURE 14 AND A HALF FEET BACK, AND IN THE CENTER OF THIS LANE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK 310 FEET OR 315 FEET THAT WAY. SO YEAH, WE, IF, IF THIS WAS A ETJ PLANT, THEY MAY ACTUALLY MAKE YOU PUT CLEAR VISION EASEMENTS ON THE PLAT. IT'S KIND OF INTER INTERESTING. EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FIVE INCH, I'VE DONE FIVE INCH ONES BEFORE. I MEAN, IT'S HILARIOUS. BUT SO, SO, SO BASICALLY WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IS, IS BECAUSE I MEASURED IT AND I HAD SOMEONE STAND WAY OVER THERE, IT WOULD BASICALLY BE AT A TRIANGLE FROM LIKE RIGHT HERE WHERE THIS BIG SIGNIFICANT TREE IS MM-HMM . FROM RIGHT HERE AT AN ANGLE, AND IT'LL KIND OF SLOPE TO FIVE FEET TO RIGHT ON TOP OF THAT, MAKE A 300 FOOT BY FIVE FOOT TRIANGLE. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THAT. OKAY. THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD THIS COME OUT WITH REGARDS TO CLEAR VISION, THAT AGGRESSIVE ONE, WELL, THEY MAKE IT, NORMALLY IF YOU HAVE A STOP SIGN, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM. YEAH, YEAH. IF YOU HAVE A STOP SIGN, THAT'S WHAT, AND THE, THE PEOPLE AT TRAFFIC REALLY TRY TO HELP ME, BUT THEN WHEN I FILED WITH 3 1 1 FOR A TRAFFIC REVIEW FOR STOP SIGNS, THEY, I MEAN, THEY PUT THEIR DEVICES ON FOR LESS THAN 24 HOURS, AND I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA BE THERE A WEEK. LIKE THEY'RE GONNA MONITOR THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC AND, WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE, THE SCOPE OF ALL THIS WAS. SO, SO WHAT WHAT I'M REQUESTING IS TO SEE IF I COULD JUST CONTINUE MY, MY, UH, SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SAME PROPERTY LINE WHERE MY CHAIN LINK FENCE IS. SO THE SECTION FROM HERE TO HERE, THE CHAIN LINK WOULD COME OUT AND, UH, UH, YOU HAVEN'T BUILT IT YET? NO, I HAVEN'T BUILT IT. I, I SO WOULD, WOULD THE STOP SIGN BE REQUIRED OFF, OFF OF, UM, COVINGTON OR CREST HILL, OR BOTH? NO. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S STOP SIGNS ON COVINGTON IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE HERE, WHEN YOU'RE HERE AND YOU LOOK LEFT, YOU SHOULD SEE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE 315 FEET THAT WAY WHEN IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, ACTUALLY IN HERE AS WELL. AND SO ACTUALLY NONE, ALL FOUR OF US ARE NOT IN NONCOMPLIANT. THAT'S, THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A LOT OF FENCES SET BACK FURTHER THAN YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE IS, IS, IS TO MEET THOSE CORNER CLEARANCES LIKE THAT. BUT IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. AND, UM, I MEAN, IF YOU HAVEN'T BUILT THE FENCE YET, I MEAN, IT'D BE, BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT PART OF THE DIALOGUE THOUGH IS IF THERE WAS A STOP SIGN PUT UP ON THE OTHER TWO CORNERS, THEN, THEN THIS WOULD BE MOOT RIGHT THEN. SO YEAH, NONE OF US, NONE OF ALL FOUR OF US WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE A TON OF VEGETATION. I MEAN, THIS IS, MY PROPERTY WAS FROM, ACCORDING TO MY NEIGHBOR'S, AN OLD PECAN ORCHARD. SO IT'S JUST TREES AND STUFF EVERYWHERE. YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET JUST WENT TO, UH, COURT TODAY OR TO LIKE, UH, I GUESS LIKE THE HEARING FOR HIS VEGETATION. AND HE'S STILL NOT IN COMPLIANT, BUT THERE'S A BIG PECAN TREE IN THE WAY AND IT'S A HERITAGE TREE. AND SO THERE'S, THEY BASICALLY TOLD HIM, OKAY, WELL GOOD ENOUGH, UH, FOR THE, THE 25 BY 25 CORNER CLEARANCE, A REAL ISSUE IS A CHAIN LINK FENCE, NOT THE WOOD. YEAH. YEAH. SO, AND SO HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU TALKED WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER AT ALL? NO, I HAVEN'T. SO, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHO I WORK WITH WHENEVER IT IS THAT I'M LOOKING FOR SIGNAGE, STREET SIGNAGE IN THAT UHHUH. AND THEY, THEY CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN FOR YOU? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, UH, YEAH, THE OFFICE, THE CITY HERE TOLD ME AS WELL, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I'M, I'M ALWAYS WORKING AND BUSY, SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S NOT MINE. YEP. THAT'S EXACTLY HOW, SO THIS IS KIND OF A CRUDE MOCKUP OF THE AREA OF THE SITE DISTANCE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED HERE. BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS RED LINE REPRESENTS THAT PRIVACY FENCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED. AGAIN, THIS CASE ORIGINATED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION WHO EMPLOYED THE ASSISTANCE OF PUBLIC WORK STAFF TO IDENTIFY THIS, UH, SITE DISTANCE AREA. AND THEIR DETERMINATION WAS THAT THIS RED LINE, THIS LITTLE ENCROACHMENT INTO THIS OVERALL KIND OF SITE DISTANCE AREA FOR REALLY CONCERNING FOLKS THAT ARE COMING ALONG THIS ROADWAY HERE, UM, THAT LENGTH RIGHT THERE IS ABOUT EQUIVALENT TO 12 PICKETS OF THE EXISTING FENCE. SO THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, 12 PICKETS NEED TO BE ESSENTIALLY REDUCED FROM THE EXISTING FENCE OR IF THE FENCE MAY REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED, BUT THE FENCE ISN'T CONSTRUCTED ALONG CREST HILL. CORRECT. SO ALONG GOING THIS WAY, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME TOWARDS CREST HILL THAT IS CONSTRUCTED, IF WE COULD PULL UP THE SLIDE. SO YOU NEED TO MOVE THE WHOLE CREST HILL FENCE BACK EITHER AT AN ANGLE OR FIVE FEET OR WHATEVER IF HE WERE TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION. SO IT, IT IS BUILT TOWARDS CREST HILL AND THE INTENTION IS TO BUILD [02:00:01] A LONG CREST HILL. IF HE WAS TO BUILD A LONG CREST HILL, IT WOULD HAVE TO ALSO, YOU KNOW, BE OUTSIDE OF THAT SITE DISTANCE AREA OF IF THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED TODAY. AND THAT SITE DISTANCE AREA WAS, WAS KIND OF, UM, UM, IF THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED, HE COULD BUILD THAT FENCE ALONG. AND THEN THE CHAIN FENCE WHERE THE NUMBER ONE IS ON THE MAP IS THAT LITTLE CORNER NEEDS TO BE CORRECT. THE CHAIN LINK FENCE EXTENDS FROM THIS CORNER WHERE THE PRIVACY FENCE IS FORWARD AND THEN CUTS ACROSS THE FRONT OF HIS PROPERTY. THERE AGAIN, IT'S AN OLD FENCE. IT'S BEEN THERE HISTORICALLY. UH, BUT HE WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT AS A VIOLATION AS WELL. SO TO HOPEFULLY CLOSE THAT CASE, WE PRESENTED BOTH, UH, REQUESTS TO THE BOARD. OKAY. IT'S STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS. JUST WANNA CONFIRM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE INCHES FOR NUMBER ONE. YEAH, . OKAY. THAT'S CRAZY. AND IT DEPENDS WHERE YOU MEASURE FROM. YEAH, . ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S NO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY, UH, ON THIS ONE, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. ALRIGHT, LET'S HEAR YOUR VOICEMAIL. HELLO, MY NAME IS JESSE RUS. I LIVE AT ONE 90 HEVINGTON ROAD. I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO THE, UM, MEETING FOR NCB 1 0 7 4 5. UM, I DO NOT OPPOSE THE FENCE BEING UP. IT IS, DOES NOT, IT'S NOT A NUISANCE IN MY OPINION. UM, IT ACTUALLY LOOKS GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN BE REACHED AT 2 5 6 9 2 4 8 8 3 9. AGAIN, MY NAME IS JESSE BUMPERS, I LIVE AT ONE 90 COVINGTON ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO TWO ZERO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (256) 924-8839. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, ANNA. MR. MANANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 0. I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUESTS FOR ONE, AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE, 25 FOOT CLEAR CORNER VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT CLEAR CORNER VISION AREA. AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND STREET DESIGN INTERSECTION SITE DISTANCE STANDARD TO ALLOW A REDUCED SITE DISTANCE BY THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME SITUATED AT 1 9 5 COVINGTON ROAD. APPLICANT BEING STEVEN DANELL. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE LOCATION OF THE PRIVACY FENCE 35 FEET FROM THE CORNER WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT THE VISUAL OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NECESSARY FOR VISIBILITY FOR THE WESTWARD INCOMING TRAFFIC ON CREST HILL ROAD. THE CHAIN LINK FENCE BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND WITH AN INCREASED HEIGHT OF ABOUT SIX INCHES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM THREE FOOT CORNER FENCE HEIGHT, UH, PRESERVES CLEAR VISION VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE RELOCATION OF BOTH FENCES WOULD REDUCE THE VISIBLE SPACE IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE GRANTING THE VARIANCES WILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE VISIBILITY AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE PRESERVED FOR MOTORISTS TO SAFELY MANEUVER INTO THE INTERSECTION. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CORONARY PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF DISTRICT, UM, WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WOULD NOT, AND WOULD AND, AND WOULD NOT CREATE AN INCREASED RISK OF ACCIDENTS. UM, SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH IS VARIANCE OF 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 NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AS A PRIVACY FENCE IS LOCATED 35 FEET FROM THE CORNER AND THE FENCE IN THE CORNER, CLEAR VISION AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WITH NO MODIFICATION SINCE IT WAS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE END OF MOTION. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, COMMISSIONER, YOU READ THE MOTION AS, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE BUILT IN LINE WITH [02:05:01] THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME. IF THE INTENT OF THE BOARD IS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO EXTEND THAT FENCE ALONG COVINGTON ROAD, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO OMIT THE PHRASE, THE FENCE BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE JUST SO THAT HE'S NOT LIMITED TO THAT, UM, DOWN THE LINE. SO I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AGAIN. SURE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, UH, ABOUT POTENTIALLY EXTENDING THE FENCE IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT, LOOKING AT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE. CURRENTLY IT'S, IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME UP TOWARDS COVINGTON ROAD. UM, EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN? UH, I THINK IT'S CREST HILL ACTUALLY CREST HILL UP TOWARDS CREST HILL. THE APPLICANT IS CONSIDERING EXTENDING IT ALONG CREST HILL, UH, TOWARDS THE LEFT THERE. UM, AS READ THE MOTION CONSIDERS THIS, UH, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SITE DISTANCE BY THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE BUILT SPECIFICALLY IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME. IF YOU WERE TO OMIT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOME, HE COULD EXTEND THE FENCE. UM, I'M NOT, I'M JUST NOT SURE IF THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE BOARD WAS, WAS CONSIDERING TO JUST INCLUDE JUST THE FENCE AS BUILT OR TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO, FOR THE FENCE TO BE EXTENDED ALONG THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN THE FUTURE. YEAH, HE'S, INSTEAD OF, INSTEAD OF, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE FENCE DROP DOWN OR ANGLE A LITTLE BIT, DO YOU WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IT PARALLEL TO THE ROAD WHERE HE STOPPED IT NOW? LIKE TO CONTINUE? YEAH, I'M STILL, I'M STILL CONFUSED A LITTLE BIT, BUT, BUT, UM, SO, UM, AS SHOW, SHOW THAT ONE WITH A SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE. YEAH. COULD YOU BRING UP THAT? SO I'M NOT TRYING TO DO SIDE DISTANCE TRIANGLES. WHAT I'M NOT TRYING TO DO . AND SO BASICALLY BUILT IT, YOU KNOW, AS DESIGNED FOLLOWING THE CHAIN, THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE ROAD IS WHAT I WAS TRYING, WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS READING. UM, YES. STAFF IS SAYING THAT IF, IF AS, AS THE PER THE TEMPLATE, IT WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO CONSTRUCT IT. IT'S LIKE HE WOULD HAVE TO PUT THE FENCE AT AN ANGLE. YES. SO NOT THAT. SO THEN, SO SO WHAT DO I STRIKE THEN? SO TO MAKE IT JUST BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE OKAY. BUILT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. SORRY, YOU'RE GOING TO OMIT THAT. STRIKE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I SAID THEN EVERYBODY? SO, SO YEAH, SO, SO LOOKING TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY MAXIMIZE THE FENCING ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. SO WHO, WHO'S THE SECOND ON THAT? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO THANK YOU FOR DOING ALL OF THE RESEARCH AND HELP AND HELPING EDUCATE ME AND, AND MAYBE SOME OTHERS HERE ON THE, ON THE BOARD HERE WITH REGARDS TO FENCING. 'CAUSE UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING NEW FOR ME. UM, ALSO I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, AS YOU DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ARE WORKING WITH YOUR COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, HOW ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED BY THIS. AND, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A LOT OF COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH AND HELPING, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE THIS. AND I THINK STOP SIGNS AT ALL OF THOSE CORNERS WOULD DO IT. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, REACHING OUT TO YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD HELP FACILITATE THAT AND, AND MAKE IT SAFE FOR EVERYBODY IN YOUR COMMUNITY, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT A LOT OF THINGS THAT I DRIVE FOR. AND SO, SO I THINK BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT AT HEART, UM, AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE LISTED, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER STEVENS. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER MANNAR SAID, AND I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO YOUR COUNCIL PERSON AND, AND START A COALITION WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND HOPEFULLY THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME THING THAT YOU DID. YEP. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, WITH ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ES I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. AWESOME. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF. OH, THANK, THANK Y'ALL SO MUCH. HAVE GREAT ITEM SEVEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, Y'ALL. I'M SEAN SHELIA. I'M A ZONING PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, THIS IS BO OA CASE 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 2. THE ADDRESS IS 3 1 17 AND 3 1 15 HOWARD STREET AND 3 0 9 AND THREE 11 MILLARD STREET. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT IS ROBERT ROYALL. THE REQUEST IS FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORIES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT TO THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT AND TWO, A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM [02:10:01] TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT UP TO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE ZONING IS MF 33. PUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE INTERSECTION OF MILLARD STREET AND HOWARD STREET. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED RESIDENTIAL PLANS TO BUILD A NEW THREE STORY TOWN HOMES AND THE LOTS LOCATED AT 3 0 9 AND THREE 11 MILLARD STREET AND 3 7 1 3 AND 3 7 1 5 HOWARD STREET. AND THE PLAN REVIEW TEAM NOTED THAT ON THE LOT LOCATED AT 3 0 1 MILLER STREET, THEY CURRENTLY EXIST AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ACCORDING TO TABLE THREE FIVE DASH THREE 10.01. NOTE FOUR. THAT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR LOT WOULD BE DEVELOPED TO AN R FOUR RES, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT STANDARDS. MAKING NOTE 11 FROM THE SAME TABLE APPLY TO OUR SUBJECT PROPERTIES LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT TO THE R FOUR SINGLE FAMILY. UH, DISTRICT HEIGHT AND STORIES LIMIT TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR STORIES AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. LOCATED ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE UH, DEVELOPMENT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE. THIS IS THE RENDERING OF THE BUILDING AND THE THREE STORIES AND THE HEIGHT. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT'S LOCATED ON THE CORNER. THIS IS THE SAME ONE. AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 2. UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THE EXISTENCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SHARING THE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, THE HEIGHTENED STORY REQUIREMENT WOULD LEAD THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS TO HAVE LESS ACCESS TO LIGHT AND BE SUBJECT TO THE SHADOW CAST FROM THE NEW TALLER STRUCTURE. 23 NOTICES WERE, UH, MAILED THREE IN FAVOR, UH, ONE OUTSIDE. AND THEN THE, UH, APPLICANT ALSO GAVE ME SIX MORE, UH, UH, THAT WERE IN FAVOR, BUT THEY WERE ALL OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET AND THE KENWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THESE ARE ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THESE ARE THE TWO THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN, AND THEN THE ONE THAT'S LOCATED WITHOUT IN SUPPORT. THAT CONCLUDES SAS PRESENTATION. I KNOW THIS IS ALSO PUD ZONING. IS THERE A PLAN OR ANYTHING THAT THERE'S A PUD PLAN? DOES IT PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT THIS BOARD MIGHT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT? AS FAR AS THE PUD PLAN? UH, IT'S BASICALLY NOTHING VERTICAL. IT'S ALL JUST PLAING AND WHATNOT. OKAY. AWESOME. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAD THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HOW DO YOU TURN IT ON? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, I AM, I'M BO BRO, AKA ROBERT BRO. UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR HEARING MY, UH, MY, UH, CASE TODAY. UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, ZONING DISTRICT. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PROXIMITY, THE HEIGHT LIMITS, UH, DEFAULTS THE SINGLE FAMILY BASE HEIGHT, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY ZONE MF 33, WHICH NORMALLY ALLOWS MORE DENSITY AND GREATER HEIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO BUILD A THREE STORY. UH, MY PROPERTY DOES HAVE AN APPROVED, UH, UH, SAN ANTONIO, UH, PUD PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019, BUT WITH THE INTENT OF A THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT. CAN Y'ALL PUT THIS UP? YEAH. AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE LEFT, THE, THE LEFT ABOUT I WOULD SAY THREE INCHES FROM THE BOTTOM. YOU CAN SEE I, I, UH, ILLUSTRATED THAT WHAT MY PLAN WAS FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BUILD A A THREE STORY, UH, TOWN HOME PROJECT. IT, IT'S ON THE APPROVED PUD PLAN. SO IT WAS DISCUSSED AND, AND PLANNED FOR. UH, SIR, WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE P HOWARD CROSSING? HOWARD CROSSING. THANK YOU. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, LOOKING AT MY DESIGN, THERE'S SOME FLAG LOTS IN THERE. WE COULD HAVE RE IF I, KNOWING THIS, IF IF THIS WAS GONNA BE AN ISSUE, I COULD HAVE POSSIBLY REDESIGNED THE PLAT TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THESE THREE STORIES AND GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THAT SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE. UH, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE, I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY OVER 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE CUT IT. I'VE DEALT WITH VAGRANTS, I'VE, I'VE, YOU KNOW, DEALT WITH DUMPING AND I'M, IT'S TIME TO DEVELOP IT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S READY FOR IT. THE, [02:15:01] THERE'S NINE APPROVALS AND NO OPPOSITION THAT I'M AWARE OF. SO, UH, UH, THE, I FEEL, UH, UH, PRIVACY IS PROTECTED THROUGH A, UH, THROUGH WINDOW ORIENTATION, LANDSCAPING AND FENCING. UH, ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. I FEEL THAT THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT BLOCK SUNLIGHT OR CREATE OVERBEARING APPEARANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, WHICH IS ONE THAT IT, THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED TO THIS ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT BRINGS, UH, SEVERAL BENEFITS. IT ADDS NEEDED HOUSING IMPROVES APPEARANCE AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, INC. INCREASES TAX REVENUE AND SUPPORTS, UH, RESPONSIBLE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT, UH, BUILDING UPWARD PRESERVES OPEN SPACE AND CREATES A CLEANER AND MORE EFFICIENT SITE LAYOUT. IN SUMMARY, THE HARDSHIP IS TIED TO THE LENS PHYSICAL CHARACTER CHARACTERISTICS AND THREE STORY DESIGN IS THE MOST REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE SOLUTION. IT RESPECTS NEIGHBORING HOMES AND PROVIDES BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE HEIGHT AND THREE STORY, UH, VARIANCE. THANK YOU, MR. BRO. YES, SIR. UH, MY NAME IS YVONNE. YES. UM, IS THAT SINGLE, UH, FAMILY HOME IN THE CORNER? IS IT LOOKS VACANT. IS THERE SOMEONE LIVING THERE RIGHT NOW? YES, THERE IS. AND HOW DID THEY, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PROJECT? I'VE NEGOTI I'VE, YOU KNOW, HAVE OFFERED TO BUY THAT HOUSE, SO YES, I, I HAVE SPOKEN TO THEM. UH, SHE'S OPEN TO SELLING. WE HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED A PRICE AND COME TO THAT, THAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO YOU'VE SPOKEN TO HER. HOW DOES SHE FEEL ABOUT THE, UM, PROPOSED STRUCTURES BEING THREE STORIES? HAS SHE VOICED ANY CON OPINION ABOUT IT? BECAUSE SHE WOULD'VE OBVIOUSLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO BE, TO BE NOTIFIED AND TO RESPOND AND WE DON'T SEE A RESPONSE FROM HER. SO N NO MA'AM, THAT WE HAVE. IF, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES, WE HAVE OTHER FOUNDATIONS DOWN, UH, SHE'S WELL AWARE. CONSTRUCTION IS, IS HAPPENING ON MAY AND SHE'S NOT OPPOSED TO IT. I HA SHE HASN'T EXPRESSED THAT TO ME. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO IF THERE WAS NOT A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY, UM, 'CAUSE IT'S LISTED AS SINGLE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, ON, ON BE A, UM, AND SO, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE SINGLE FAMILY BE A LISTING THAT IS, IS, UH, WE'LL SAY SETTING THESE REQUIREMENTS, IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UM, CAN, CAN I ADD THAT THAT HOUSE SITS ON A MULTI-FAMILY MF 30? YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. AND SO, SO I HAVE THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL. AND SOME OF 'EM ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE DONE 40 YEARS AGO AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WANTED TO LAY OUT THE COMMUNITY. AND SO IT'S, UH, AND UM, PUDS IS, IS PARTICULARLY WHERE THAT HAPPENED. AND SO I HAVE A WHOLE PUD COMMUNITY WITH ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION. SURE. AND UM, AND, AND, AND THERE'S ONE OUTLIER THAT, THAT WE'LL SAY CHANGED A LOT, UH, FROM WHAT IT WAS THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY HAD AND SIMPLY BECAUSE ACCESS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND OTHER THINGS. SO YES SIR. SO, SO, AND THE SINGLE FAMILY THING IS IMPORTANT, BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T WEIGH INTO THIS PICTURE, UH, FROM BC, A PERSPECTIVE, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO DO YOU OWN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND BESIDES THE ONES ON HOWARD AND, AND LARD? YOU DO YOU I HAVE BUILT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON, ON, UH, ONE 40 ODELL, UH, IN THE PAST, BUT CURRENTLY, NO MA'AM. I DON'T OWN ANY OTHER, UH, SO NONE OF THOSE PODS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR PROPERTIES? THE ONLY PROPERTY I OWN CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, BUT THOSE TWO, THIS, WELL, I'M SORRY. THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE DEVELOPING 33 UNITS. OKAY. IN, IN, IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP UNITY IN THESE THINGS, THESE, THESE BUILDINGS LOOKING THE SAME. IT'S GONNA LOOK FUNNY. UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA CREATE THREE OUT OF PLACE. I, I GUESS, UH, SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, IF I'M DENIED, YOU KNOW, SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE SINK, THE ONLY, THERE'S FOUR THERE. UH, WE GOT A TOTAL OF 33 DOORS. OKAY, SO YOU DO OWN THAT WHOLE PARCEL? YES, MA'AM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR QUESTION MA. AND FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S THAT WHOLE WEDGE, RIGHT? SO THE GREEN WEDGE THERE, YOU OWN THAT WHOLE WEDGE EXCEPT FOR THE ONE PROPERTY THAT'S AT MF, THE WHOLE TRIANGLE? YEAH, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE CORNER, RIGHT? EXCEPT FOR THE, FOR ONE CORNER. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. THIS DID THIS, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PUD PLAN, BUT DID IT, DID IT GO THROUGH PUD ZONING AND ACTUALLY HAVE A PUD ZONING APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE PLAN? THE REASON I ASK IS THAT THEY, THE APPROVED PUD PLAN IS SHOWING LIKE A PICNIC AREA AND THE LOTS AREN'T AS SMALL OFF [02:20:01] OF MILLARD. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? AND THE PHOTO WAS APPROVED IN 2007. YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT IT. I JUST, I I BROUGHT IT UP. I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT, WHAT I'M SEEING HERE ON THE, THE, THE PLAN CHANGED A LITTLE BIT AND, AND THE DESIGN GOT, WE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE, THE LOT LAYOUTS, BUT IT YES SIR, IT DID CHANGE, UH, SLIGHTLY BRACKMAN COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. SO IT LOOKS LIKE FROM GOOGLE EARTH THAT THERE'S A RAILROAD TRACK BEHIND THAT, CORRECT? IT IS. OKAY. SO THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SO THAT, UM, YOU GOING IN THERE AND DEVELOPING THIS, UM, IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A DETERRENT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, SO WITH THE HOMES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GONNA MAKE 33 OF THEM. SO THE ONLY PROBLEMS YOU'RE HAVING IS WITH THIS TWO THAT ARE CURRENT THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING, AND ALL, ALL OF THEM WILL BE THREE STORIES? YES MA'AM. ALL THE SAME. ALRIGHT. THERE'S, THERE'S FOUR DOORS, THE, THE TWO BUILDINGS? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MANNING. AND SO JUST, SO, UM, WITH REGARDS TO, UM, BUILDING HEIGHTS AND STORY LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT'S IN THIS PUD, WOULD ANY OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE THAT SAME DIALOGUE OR IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED JUST BY RIGHT. UM, IN THE REST OF THE P YES. SO THE BY RIGHT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE WOULD BE THE THREE STORIES. UH, THESE TWO PROPERTIES, THESE FOUR UNITS THAT ARE, UH, IN QUESTION HERE TODAY, THEY'RE ONLY HELD TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY'RE WITHIN 50 FEET PROXIMITY OF THE ADJACENT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY USE. SO THE OTHERS ARE FINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? CAN I SAY SOMETHING ELSE? YES, THERE WAS, UH, YOU, YOU ADDRESSED I THINK WHEN THE, THE PUD, THE PUD WAS VOTED ON. IT WAS 2019 DECEMBER 11TH IS WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED. YEAH, I ONLY FOUND THE 2007 ON THE CITY OF RECORDS. THAT'S WHY I WAS SO CONFUSED. WELL WE HAVE THE 20 19 1. OKAY. NO, THAT I FEEL A LOT BETTER. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. ALRIGHT, THERE'S ANOTHER, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. ANY VOICEMAILS LOOKING FOR A MOTION? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. O OR YOU SURE? YEAH, WE'RE ON SEVEN. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT TO THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT AND TWO, A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM, UH, TO ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT UP TO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT, SITUATED AT 37 13 AND 37 15 HOWARD STREET AND 3 0 9 AND THREE 11 MILLER STREET, APPLICANT BEING ROBERT BRAUL. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT, THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED 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 UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT NUMBER ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS PROPOSED AS THE PROPOSED HEIGHT AND DESIGN IS IN, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT OF ON THIS PARCEL. NUMBER TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT, UH, WOULD RESULT A REDESIGN OF THESE STRUCTURES TO BE IN CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARCEL. NUMBER THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE VARIANCE WOULD, THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPREAD OF THE ORDINANCE AND THERE, AND AS THERE IS ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY USE TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS RELATED TO AN INCREASED STRUCTURE HEIGHT NEAR AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY HOME. NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE, UH, USE, UH, THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. NUMBER FIVE, SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ALL OTHER STRUCTURES AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT TO THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS, AND AS SUCH, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. UH, SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT ME, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE PROXIMITY TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS ESTABLISHED ON A PARCEL DESIGNATED FOR MULTIFAMILY USE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BOEZ. YEAH, AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, YOU [02:25:01] KNOW, I I DO THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF THIS, THIS CORNER HOUSE THAT'S KIND OF LIMITING ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM HAPPENING. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I FEEL THAT THIS OWNER, YOU KNOW, OWNS ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES AND HE'S GONNA KEEP ALL OF THEM IN THE SAME TYPE OF FASHION AND DESIGN. UH, BUT I THINK THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR THAT AREA AND THAT THAT PARCEL OF LAND THAT HAS SAT THERE, YOU KNOW, VACANT FOREVER. YOU KNOW, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND I THINK THAT'D BE GOOD FOR THIS AREA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, HE HAS HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNER OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, CURRENTLY SHE DOESN'T HAVE OPPOSITION TO IT AND THEY'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS RIGHT NOW TO HER SELLING HIM THE PROPERTY. SO, UH, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS IS A, A WIN-WIN FOR, FOR HER, UM, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? UM, SO, UM, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE ITSELF, IT IS PUSHED CLOSER TO THAT CORNER. AND SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE DIALOGUE THAT WE HAD WITH REGARDS TO WHEN IT WAS THAT WE PUT IN SOME LIMITATIONS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ABOUT LIGHT AND, AND ACCESS, YOU KNOW, AROUND A, A HOME ITSELF WHEN IT, BUT WHEN, WHEN IT IS A LARGER DEVELOPMENT, BUT A, UM, WE'LL SAY RESIDENTIAL HOME. AND I THINK BECAUSE THERE IS ENOUGH PROPERTY AROUND THIS, IT IS STILL PROVIDING FOR THAT, FOR THAT LIGHT, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, AND, AND AIRSPACE. SO, SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SIGN. AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, UH, NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE, UH, THE PERSON WHO LIVES THERE DIDN'T FILE AN OBJECTION, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY HERE, YOU KNOW, WE WILL SAY THAT THEY'RE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GETTING AND READY TO HAPPEN. SO BECAUSE OF REASONS I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? AND, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER BONILLA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANON. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. THERE WE GO. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YOU ARE WELCOME. ALRIGHT, ITEM EIGHT. ITEM EIGHT IS CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 4 4. THE ADDRESS BEING 1 0 5 QUINTA ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. THE APPLICANT IS MARJORIE GONZALEZ AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SOUTH SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS R FOUR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF VISTA ROAD AND QUINTA ROAD. ACCORDING TO A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH AN ENCROACHMENT AT TWO POINTS INTO THE VISTA STREET PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS ENCROACHMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS OBTAINED A PUBLIC STREET ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER RECENTLY INITIATED A PROJE, UH, INITIATED A PROJECT TO REMODEL THE EXISTING PORTION OF THE TWO STORY HOME TO INCLUDE ENCLOSING AN EXISTING BALCONY THAT FRONTS VISTA STREET. THE PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND ALL WORK IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PREEXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND STOP WORK ORDER FOR THIS PROJECT FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. ALTHOUGH THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ACCOUNTS FOR THE STRUCTURES ENCROACHMENT INTO, INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY OR PAST THE PROPERTY LINE, A VARIANCE MUST STILL BE GRANTED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE STRUCTURES ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD. SO THAT'S THE FIVE FEET BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, BOTH APPROVALS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. SO HERE'S KIND OF A DEPICTION OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE GREEN LINE. THIS IS THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, SURVEYOR. UH, THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS LOT HERE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE EXISTING HOME DOES ENCROACH, UH, WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AREA AND BEYOND THE GREEN LINE INTO THE VISTA STREET RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, THAT'S BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY PUBLIC WORKS. THEY HAVE OBTAINED A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. UH, SO THE REQUEST HERE TODAY IS FOR THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THIS BLUE AREA, THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AREA. UH, AND HERE'S JUST A QUICK LOOK AT THE PUBLIC STREET, UH, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. AGAIN, JUST, UH, NOTING HERE THE, THE AREA THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS IDENTIFIED AS ENCROACHMENT. [02:30:01] UH, AND THEY, UH, REFERENCE EXHIBITS A AND B, WHICH WILL BE SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDES. UH, SO THIS IS EXHIBIT A THAT THEY INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT B, CALLING OUT THE VARIOUS ENCROACHMENTS. UH, THEY'RE ACTUALLY A COUPLE INTO THE REAR YARD AS WELL, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S VARIANCE CASE. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE, EXISTING ENCROACHMENT ALONG VISTA STREET IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, JUST TO TRY TO DEPICT, UM, THIS IS AN ESTIMATED BLUE LINE PROPERTY LINE, SO IT'S NOT, UH, TOTALLY ACCURATE HERE. AGAIN, UH, THIS PORTION OF THE HOME AND THIS PORTION OF THE HOME, UH, HERE AT THE FRONT ARE THE TWO AREAS THAT ACTUALLY GO BEYOND THE OFFICIAL PROPERTY LINE, UM, AND THAT WE'RE, WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE TODAY. BUT, BUT REALLY THE ENTIRE HOME HERE ENCROACHES WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK AREA, WHICH IS, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE BOARD. AND THIS HERE IS THE AREA BEING REMODELED. SO THIS IS A HISTORICAL VIEW FROM 2022. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE SECOND FLOOR BALCONY THERE. PREEXISTING, UH, THIS IS, UH, SAME CONFIGURATION THAT THE HOME HAS EXISTED IN FOR DECADES. UH, NEXT SLIDE. UH, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TODAY. UH, SAME FOOTPRINT, IF ANYTHING. I THINK THERE'S A OVERHANG HERE THAT WAS PREEXISTING, THAT WAS REMOVED. UM, EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO ENCLOSE THIS SECOND STORY, UH, BALCONY UP TOP. UM, THIS IS KIND OF ANOTHER LOOK. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT RED LINE. THERE'S ESTIMATED PROPERTY LINE ACCORDING TO, UH, BEST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LOOKING AT WHAT THE SURVEY SHOWS. UM, AGAIN, EVERYTHING BEYOND THAT RED LINE ESTIMATED THERE, UH, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING THIS FENCE HERE. UM, IS ALL, UH, BEEN, BEEN SIGNED OFF ON. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT SEEKING ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK AREA OR RIGHT OF WAY. RATHER, THE INTENT IS TO IMPROVE UPON THEIR EXISTING HOME IN ITS EX, UH, CURRENT CONFIGURATION. AND TWO, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ABATE THE ENCROACHMENT, WHICH HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES PRIOR TO THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF MAIL 24 NOTICES SIX WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, AND HERE IS A PETITION THAT, UH, SIGNATURES COLLECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, FOR THOSE SIX, UH, VOICES IN SUPPORT. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO, UM, SO THERE'S A LOT OF FOOTPRINT HERE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, COVERING THE PROPERTY ITSELF. SO AS FAR AS UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER PERCENTAGES, EVERYTHING'S FINE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, CORRECT? I, I BELIEVE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, MORE DEALS WITH, UM, UM, JUST FRONT YARD AREA, UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROJECTS. SO, SO THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS, UH, NOT VIOLATING ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1986 AND THE, THE UDC CHANGED IN 87 AND THEN 2001. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THIS MAY HAVE NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MUCH ANYTHING. OKAY, THANKS. YEAH. OKAY. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. HI, UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PRO. TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. MY NAME IS, WELL, THE REASON WHY I'M HERE IS BECAUSE, UH, SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE BEFORE WE START ACTING. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HOUSE IS IN BACK CONDITION DUE TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN. AND MY WIFE AND I FOUND, UH, WE WANTED TO REMODEL THE HOUSEHOLD, BUT UH, WE REALIZED THAT THE COSTS WERE REALLY HIGH TO BE ABLE TO REBUILD THE HOUSE OR WE WOULD'VE LED IT AS IT WAS BEFORE. THE REASON WHY WE START, [02:35:01] UH, THE REASON WHY WE STARTED REMODELING IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST ABOUT TO COLLAPSE. SO YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THIS PICTURE, BUT I KNOW, SO WE WANTED TO CLOSE THAT UP, UH, UH, TO AVOID ACCIDENTS WITH OUR CHILDREN. AT THE SAME TIME, I WANNA APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING, UH, DONE SOMETHING WITHOUT PERMIT AND UH, THEN THEY STOPPED CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT IS GOOD BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WE LEARNED FROM OUR MISTAKES AND, UH, WE ALL LEAVE THIS IN YOUR HANDS. IF, UM, IF YOU ALLOW US TO CONTINUE, WE ARE GONNA DO IT. OTHERWISE WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT AS IS. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN AFTER THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA, COMMA QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF? SO, SO, UM, THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I GUESS ABUTS A CITY OWNED, IS THAT LIKE A DRAINAGE DITCH OR A DRAINAGE? SO THAT'S THE PROPERTY. THE OTHER SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAT DOES ABUT A DRAINAGE DITCH, THE PROPERTY LINE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE ALONG VISTA STREET. OKAY. OKAY, PERFECT. SO THE NORTH IS THE DRAINAGE DITCH, SO, SO, SO THAT PART'S NOT IN. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. 'CAUSE YOU HAD LINES SAYING WITH REGARDS TO THE CORNERS THERE, BUT, OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, EZ COMMISSIONER EZ, IS THIS YOUR, YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE? IS THIS WHERE YOU AND YOUR WIFE BOTH LIVE IS? UM, YES. WE LIVE THERE AND IN FACT, UM, WE HAD SOME, UH, PEOPLE, SO HOMELESS PEOPLE WALK ALONG THE FENCE AND, UH, THEY BROKE INTO OUR HOUSE ABOUT A FEW MONTHS AGO AND THEY EVEN, UH, CUT OUT THE, THE FENCE AND THEY WENT INTO, THEY BROKE INTO OUR HOUSE BROKE. GOTCHA. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO THAT'S WHY WE CLOSED THAT, UH, THAT AREA THERE. BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER EVEN THIS WAS CLOSED THEN THEY BROKE INTO THE HOUSE ON, ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. COMMISSIONER BEESE. OKAY. JUST, AND DO YOU HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON THIS HOUSE? BCAT DOESN'T SHOW THAT THERE'S ONE. DO YOU MEAN THE, THE MONTHLY, THE YEARLY TAXES THAT I PAY? MM-HMM . IF, IF HE HAS HIS, YES, THEY ARE. EVEN, EVEN THE TAXES ARE HIGH BECAUSE OF THE AREA, BUT I HAVE TO PAY WHERE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON THE HOUSE. RIGHT. BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT ON THERE. YEAH, BCA DOESN'T HAVE IT LISTED AS AN EXEMPT. I, I TRIED TO DO THAT, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT. THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT IT. DOES HE HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE THAT HE LIVES IN HERE OR IS THIS THE ONLY HO HOME THAT THEY OWN? NO. NO, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. OKAY. YEAH, YOU MAY WANT TO HEAD BACK THERE AND DEFINITELY SEE ABOUT GETTING THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON THERE. 'CAUSE THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULD GRANT IT TO YOU. UM, 'CAUSE I, I WAS JUST NOTICING THAT TAX ROLL. UM, SO I WAS, I WAS WONDERING DID HE HAVE ANOTHER PLACE WHERE HE WAS LIVING OR WAS THIS A RENTAL OR SOMETHING? BUT HE SAYS IT'S HIS HOME, SO. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I'M GOING TO GO AGAIN [02:40:01] TO GO BACK THERE TO SEE IF IT CAN BE GRANTED TO ME. UH, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE, UH, GUIDANCE FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU BECAUSE WE AS COMMUNITY MANY TIMES WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I IVANEZ IVANEZ REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 0 5 QUINTA ROAD. APPLICANT BEING MAGORE GONZALES BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED 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 INTERESTS. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AS THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FRONTS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THE HOME HAS EXISTED IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION WITH NO RECORDED PRIOR ISSUES SINCE BEFORE THE APPLICANT'S OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITER LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF EXISTING HOME, INCLUDING PORTIONS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY NOT UNDER RENOVATION. MUST BE AB DEMOLISHED TO ABATE THE EXISTING SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD, UH, WILL BE OBSER OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE. AS IN PRACTICE, THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE RIGHT OF WAY AS THE UTILITY OF THE SIDEWALK AND STREET ARE NOT HINDERED BY THE PRESENCE OF THIS HOME. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPOSED RENOVATIONS WOULD BE CONFINED TO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME. NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SIDE SETBACK AREA OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE PROPOSED BY THIS PROJECT. 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 PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE HOME. HISTORICAL CONFIGURATION WITH AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY IN ENCROACHMENT. THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND IS NOT A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BEEZ. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. UH, I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF, UM, REQUESTS. UH, I FEEL THAT, UH, HE GOT THE, UH, PERMITS FOR THE OTHER, UM, UNUSUAL PROPERTY LINES, THE CONFIGURATION. I ALSO THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY IS, IS VERY UNIQUE AND HE'S BEEN ON THAT. HE, UH, PURCHASED A HOME THAT IS, IS A VERY UNIQUELY, UH, BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND HE'S WANTING TO REPAIR HIS HOME ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BEEZ. YEAH, I I ALSO WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I AGREE WITH, UH, MY, MY COLLEAGUE AND EVERYTHING SHE SAID. UM, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS HIS HOMESTEAD AS HE CLAIMED. SO I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS TO HIS, TO HIS HOMESTEAD. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ. [02:45:01] I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACTS. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACT. COMMISSIONER BEDA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINE FACT. MOTION PASSES. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND GOD BLESS YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM NINE, THIS IS BOA CASE TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 6. THE ADDRESS IS 1 0 6 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. THE APPLICANT IS DANIEL MODERNO. THE REQUEST IS A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRE UH, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FOUR FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SET ACT TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE THREE THREE FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST TO, UH, WEST OF THE CORNER OF EMERALD GLAD AND SADDLEBROOK DRIVE. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF WAS DISPATCHED TO THE PROPERTY IN RESPONSE TO A CITIZEN CALL AND FOUND THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS. AND WITHIN THE SLIDE SETBACK UPON A, UH, ZONING STAFF VISIT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CARPORT IS ALSO WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR THE CARPORT TO BE REMAINED AS CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND ONE IS THE SIDE SETBACK, AND TWO IS THE FRONT SETBACK. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. THEY HAVE, UH, SIMILAR CARPORTS SURROUND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BOA, UH, TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 6 SIDE SETBACK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY OFFERS LIMITED SIDE YARD SPACE FOR THE CARPORT TO BE BUILT. THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO SUPPORT MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND AVOID AGGRAVATING THE RISK OF DAMAGE FROM FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA TWO FIVE, UH, DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 6. FRONT SETBACK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE'S ADEQUATE DEVELOPABLE SPACE AVAILABLE TO SET THE CARPORT WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE FRONT SETBACK. AND THE REDUCTION OF THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD LEAD TO LESS VISIBILITY AND WHILE ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE MAILED 36 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, SIR, IS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARPORT. AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DANIEL MEDRANO. I'M FROM 1 0 6 SADDLEBROOK. AND, UH, LIKE I SAID, I BUILT THIS, UH, WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW . AND THE REASON IS THAT I HAVE VEHICLE TWO VEHICLES AND, UH, UH, MY VEHICLES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY HAILED THREE TIMES. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT CAUSED US A, A LITTLE BIT STRAIN ON FINANCE. UH, THIS LAST RECENT ONE, THE WINDSHIELD WAS BROKEN ON BOTH VEHICLES AND, AND WE JUST, UH, WE RETIRED, SO WE HAVE LIMITED, YOU KNOW, UH, FINANCIAL. AND, UH, BASICALLY I TOOK A LITTLE DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, GOING, UH, WEST ON SADDLEBROOK DRIVE ALL THE WAY AROUND. AND THEN ON, UH, HERITAGE AND THEN FROM HERITAGE TO SOOO AND THEN DOWN, UH, UH, SUGARLOAF AND THEN, UH, UP TO, UH, UH, CYPRESS WAY, WHICH IS THE STREET THAT IS RIGHT OVER FROM MY HOUSE. AND I, I TOOK A LITTLE VIDEO, BUT I TRIED TO SEND IT AND I, IT WAS TOO LONG. BUT THERE'S SEVERAL HOUSES THAT ARE JUST ABOUT LIKE MINE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT ON THERE. SOME OF 'EM ARE A LITTLE BIT PAST AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND I DON'T THINK [02:50:01] ANYBODY HAS EVER, AND, UH, SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE, WE JUST STUCK THERE. IT RAINS. WE HAVE, WE GET SOAKED. IT HAILS, WE GET DAMAGED, AND, UH, SO, UH, THAT'S, UH, WHY WE DID IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, YOU HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE? UH, YES, BUT THEY'RE NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR MY CARS. YEAH, WE, WE HAVE, UH, SUV AND, UH, UH, A, A RAM, UH, ONE 50. AND THOSE, THOSE, UH, GARAGES ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR CARS LIKE THAT. MAYBE FOR A TOYOTA OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET ONE IN THERE. , UH, BONIA THIS OR CITY? YES. JUST TO CONFIRM, THOSE FRONT POSTS ARE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? CORRECT. RIGHT. SO, SO THAT PROPERTY LINE ISN'T SIDEWALK, IT'S FURTHER UP OR FURTHER BACK, I SHOULD SAY, FROM THE SIDEWALK? NO, SIR. IT'S THREE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHAT WE MEASURED. IT'S NOT THE SIDEWALK WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS. YEAH. GOTCHA. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S THE SIDE PLAN SUBMITTED IS A LITTLE, UM, WONKY, I THINK. UH, BUT, UM, THE THREE FOOT MEASUREMENT IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. NO, THE PROPERTY LINE ISN'T ON THE SIDEWALK. LIKE THAT LITTLE SITE PLAN WE HAVE THERE? UH, NO. OKAY. IF STAFF COULD BRING UP THE, UH, THE PICTURE. THERE'S ONE, THERE'S A GOOD SHOT RIGHT FROM THE FRONT. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE KIND OF SHOWS THE PERSPECTIVE. UH, COMMISSIONER MADA, SO THE, UM, A BUDDING PROPERTY, SO THEY ALSO HAVE A CARPORT, BUT THAT ONE IS WITHIN, UM, I GUESS APPROPRIATE DISTANCE WITH REGARDS TO SETBACKS. THAT WOULD BE AT 1 0 2. I DON'T BELIEVE WE GOT A MEASUREMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UM, CARPORT. GIMME ONE SECOND AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL RESEARCH TO SEE IF THEY'VE HAD PRIOR APPROVAL. YEAH, SO, SO ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOK FOR IS, YOU KNOW, SO HOW IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOING AND HOW ARE THEY BUILDING ALL OF THEIR CARPORTS? AND, AND SO, UM, AND, AND IT IS CONFUSING WITH REGARDS TO, UM, WHAT THE SET FRONT SETBACKS ARE AND, YOU KNOW, JUST OVERALL ACROSS THE CITY. BUT, BUT I DO LIKE TO LOOK FOR CONSISTENCY AND SEE WHERE, WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS BUILDING AND HOW FAR AWAY. AND SO, SO YOUR, YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, UM, DOES LOOK LIKE THEY PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE, YOU KNOW, ALONG THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE STREET TO THEIR, TO THEIR CARPORT. AND SO YOUR, SO YOURS IS YOURS CURRENTLY IS, IS EX APPEARS TO BE EXTENDING OUT FURTHER THAN IT. UM, YEAH, THAT ONE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, THE POLES LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND YOU CAN HAVE AN OVERHANG UP TO FIVE FEET, SO LONG AS THAT OVERHANG DOESN'T GO INTO THAT THREE FOOT. AND SO, AND SO, JUST SO CLARIFICATION OF THAT, 'CAUSE THAT'S A NICE RULING THERE, OR A NICE DIALOGUE. SO, SO THE POLES ARE BACK 10 FEET, YOU CAN HAVE A FIVE FOOT OVERHANG FROM THAT SPACE. RIGHT? SO LONG AS THAT OVERHANG DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE THREE FOOT, IT, IT'S, SO YOU GET THREE FOOT THERE. SO YEAH, THAT, THE ONE IN THE PICTURE THAT'S BEING SHOWN, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S AS LONG, LIKE, IT'S DEEP, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAYBE A FEW FEET SHALLOWER, BUT IT, BUT IT HAS A, A HUGE EXTENSION OVER THE TOP. AND, AND SO IT HAS FIVE FOOT OVERHANG. AND SO, SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE IS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE CAPABILITY OF MOVING THE FRONT POLES BACK ANY, UM, AND, AND YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO KEEP THE, THE COVERAGE ON TOP, BUT IF YOU'RE ABLE TO MOVE THE POLES BACK, ANY, AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? YES. IF, UH, IF I CAN JUST MOVE THE POST, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO IT AND IT PROBABLY WON'T BE THAT MUCH STRAIN ON US, YOU KNOW? UH, OKAY. UH, BUT SINCE WE DON'T KNOW A DEFINITE DIMENSION, I, I THINK HE NEEDS SOME KIND OF A VARIANCE, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A FEW FEET OR SOMETHING. YEAH. THIS ONE, BECAUSE THE OVERHANG LOOKS LIKE IT STOPS RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S INSIDE THAT THREE FEET. SO THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO STOP WHEREVER THIS OVERHANG IS, WHETHER THE POLES ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR NOT. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DO YOU KNOW HOW, UM, FAR INSIDE THE OVERHANG THE POSTS, THE TWO FRONT POSTS ARE? IS IT RIGHT TO THE EDGE OF THE, OF THE CARPORT, OR IS IT INSIDE? NO, THEY'RE THERE WE GO. DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE YEAH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TO THE EDGE. BUT THE, I MEASURE SURE FROM, FROM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE, UH, I MEASURED FROM, FROM THE POLE TO, [02:55:01] TO WHERE THE, UM, LINE IS AND IT'S LIKE SEVEN FEET, UH, SOME INCHES FROM THE SIDEWALK BACK A SIDEWALK. UH, YEAH. UH, NO, IT'S, ITS FROM LIKE THE END OF THE, UH, OF THE, UH, SIDEWALK TO THE POLE IS ABOUT 19 FEET AND SOME INCH, OR 17 FEET AND SOME INCHES. AND THEN, UH, FROM THE, UH, WITH THE DRIVEWAY MIX THAT PYRAMID, IT'S, UH, ABOUT SEVEN FEET. I, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. YEAH. UH, BEFOREHAND. BUT STAFF, WHEN YOU DO YOUR MEASUREMENTS, ARE YOU MEASURING FROM THE POLE TO, TO THE TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY APRON, WHICH, WHICH IS WHERE TYPICALLY THE PROPERTY LINE IS? UH, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S NOT ALWAYS EXACTLY WHERE THAT, UH, APRON ENDS, UH, BUT IT'S USUALLY VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THAT LOCATION. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE, I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN THIS BEFORE. YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. UM, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER APPROVE AS REQUESTED OR GIVE HIM SOME SORT OF A VARIANCE, EVEN IF IT'S FIVE FEET, WHICH WOULD FORCE HIM TO MOVE THE POST BACK AND PROVIDE AN OVERHANG. SO, UM, CHAIR, YES, IVAN? YES. UM, I, I THINK IT WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THIS GENTLEMAN, UH, TO HAVE TO DO THAT. I, I, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, JUST GO WITH THE REQUEST. IT MEANS, YEAH. AND MY ISSUE WITH IT IS, IS THAT IF YOU JUST MOVE THE POST BACK, IT MAY NOT BE DESIGNED FOR A CANTILEVER, IT OVERHANG MM-HMM . SO, UM, SO YEAH. OKAY. SO WE'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE COMMISSION TO VOTE ON. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE MOVE ON, SIR? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 22 DASH 0 3 0 2 4 6. I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE A SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 0 6 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING DANIEL MEDRANO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THERE'S ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND CARPORT. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT AS THE CARDBOARD LEAVES OPEN SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD, TWO TO TWO TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION IN ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY, WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN THE REDUCED SITE SETBACK TO BILL THE CARPORT IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING HOME. THE CARPORT WOULD ALSO MAINTAIN A REDUCED SITE SETBACK. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM LENGTHWISE FOR FULL CARPORT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE, UH, VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP OR INCREASE FIRE RISK TO EITHER PROPERTY. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD BE IN SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY ABUTTING THIS LOT. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS 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. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDING, EVEN WITH THE BUILDINGS, WITH THE, EVEN WITH THE REDUCED SITE SETBACK, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY. SIX, THE PLIGHT OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR 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 OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION, WHICH LIMITS THE SIDE YARD AREA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT [03:00:01] OF A CARPORT, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER, THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPTH OF THE FRONT YARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CARDBOARD END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BEESE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO I AGREE THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT TO MOVE THOSE POSTS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT IS HOW FAR AWAY IT IS FROM THE SIDEWALK. UM, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISTANCE, UM, FROM THE END OF THE SIDE, THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK TO THE CARPORT. UM, THE CARS DON'T STICK OUT INTO THE, THE, UH, SIDEWALK. UM, AND AS FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, UM, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. IT'S ONLY SIX INCHES, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BEEZ. YEAH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, I THINK YOU CAN LOOK IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT REALLY DOESN'T TAKE FROM THE CHARACTER OF IT. YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO DOWN SEVERAL OF THESE STREETS AND YOU SEE SIMILAR CARPORTS, EVEN WITH THE POST A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK, PROBABLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR EVEN OVER. SO, UM, I'LL BE IN, I'LL BE FOR ANYONE ELSE, LIKE TO ADD MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT AND, AND, AND IT IS CONSISTENT. YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, WE MAY NEED TO GO THROUGH AND TAKE A LOOK AND DO A BETTER JOB DEFINING, YOU KNOW, CARPORTS AND DISTANCES AND, AND HELP CITIZENS THERE. UM, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT JUST AS A NOTE, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS REPORTED AND SO THERE IS AT LEAST A NEIGHBOR WHO, YOU KNOW, UH, DID OBJECT TO THIS AND DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHO THAT WAS. UM, BUT, BUT, YOU KNOW, DRIVING AROUND THE COMMUNITY, I DO SEE SOME POLES PUSH BACK, WHICH WITH, UM, CANTILEVERED ROOFS BEING AS CLOSE, IF NOT CLOSER. AND SO, SO, SO IT, IT DOES SEEM CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT THE POLES ARE, YOU KNOW, TOO CLOSE FROM CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. I'LL JUST CHIME IN. IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY IS ASKING ABOUT THE HOW TO BUILD THESE THINGS CORRECTLY. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NOW? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BECKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BUNS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. IN FACT. MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. LAST ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 10, . THIS IS BO OA CASE TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 7. THE ADDRESS IS 1 4 4 5 BRADY BOULEVARD COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS EMBASSY REAL ESTATE AGENCY, LLC. THE REQUEST IS A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL WITH A CAP ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD HERE, THE ZONING IS C TWO NACD AND THE CD IS FOR AUTO PAINT AND BODY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, FACE OF BRADY BOULEVARD BETWEEN ARMOR STREET AND COUPLES ROAD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL PERIMETER FENCE. THE PROPOSED MATERIAL IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE UDC AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOW OF SOLID, SOLID FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS THREE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THESE STANDARDS. THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED AS AN OVERFLOW PARKING PARKING LOT FOR THE AUTO PAINT AND BODY SHOP ON THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE EAST . THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS WHERE THE FENCE WILL GO RIGHT HERE. THERE IS A, UH, CELL TOWER, AND THEN THIS IS THE LOT THAT THEY OWN. UH, THE FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL BE THIS FRONT PORTION RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S CURRENTLY BARBED WIRE, BUT ALL THIS FENCE WILL GO AND BE REPLACED WITH CORRUGATED METAL IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, AND IT WILL BE THE WHOLE LOT. THERE'S THE CELL TOWER RIGHT THERE, AND THEN THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET, AND THIS IS MORE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS NILE AND BO A TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, UH, SECURITY CAN BE PROVIDED A LOT BY A NON FENCE MATERIAL AND THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL ADDED SECURITY. AND TWO, THE PROPERTY IS ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY D DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH. UH, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE EIGHT FOOT FRONT FENCE OBSTRUCTS THE LINE OF SIGHT FOR INGRESS EGRESS TRAFFIC. AND TWO, THE FENCE HEIGHTS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF [03:05:01] THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE MAJORITY OF THE FENCES ARE OPEN FACED. WE MAILED 17 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED. AND THE WESTWOOD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO IF THIS HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A, UM, A FRONTAGE ROAD, WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGED ANY OF THE COATING AT ALL? I BELIEVE IT WOULD'VE, BUT THIS, UH, ROAD RIGHT HERE IS, UH, NOT ACTUALLY ON THE HIGHWAY. YES. SO IT CHANGES A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. SO TO CLARIFY ALSO, THOSE EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE FOR THE SIDE AND REAR YARD, UH, FOR FENCING THIS, UM, THE, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE, OF THE STREET CLASSIFICATION IN THE FRONT YARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR STAFF? YES. REED COMMISSIONER REED, UM, FOR THE AUTO BODY SHOP, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A, UH, UH, SHEET STEEL FENCE. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THAT? EIGHT, EIGHT FEET. ARE THEY GONNA BE COMING HERE NEXT, OR WHAT? , I BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME. SAME OWNER. SAME OWNER. THAT LOOKS LIKE MORE LIKE SIX FOOT, JUST, JUST AS COMET. IT'S BELOW THE ROOF OF THAT F TWO 50. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD SIX FEET? WELL, IT'S GOT BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF IT AND THE POSTS GO UP REALLY TALL. MY NAME'S AMANDA. UM, I WORK FOR EMBASSY REAL ESTATE AND EMBASSY COLLISION. UM, SO THERE YOU GO. OKAY. I CAN HEAR YOU FINE. BUT MY, MY NAME'S AMANDA. I WORK FOR EMBASSY REAL ESTATE AND EMBASSY COLLISION. SO MY BOSS, HE BASICALLY OWNS, UM, THE COLLISION. HE OWNS THE LOT'S ON BOTH SIDES. SO HE OWNS LIKE THREE, THREE LOTS OVER. AND THEN WHERE THE COLLISION IS, HE OWNS IT USED TO BE A, UH, CHURCH. IT'S NOW LIKE A LITTLE EVENT CENTER. SO HE OWNS ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES. UM, BASIC, HE WANTS TO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THIS. WHERE? THIS ONE? YEP. OKAY. HOW DO I MOVE IT THOUGH? LIKE, THE SLIDE HANDS? ? NO, NO, NO, I'M SAYING THE SLIDES. OH, , OKAY. SO WHERE IT SHOWS LIKE THE, UH, THE, AT THE FRONT? YEAH, LIKE RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE. UM, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A METAL FENCE RIGHT THERE IN THE, IN THE FRONT. WE'RE, AND, AND HE WANTS TO OPEN THE, SO RIGHT NOW IT'S LIKE SEPARATED. CAN YOU SEE WHERE IT'S LIKE SEPARATED? IT SHOWS HE WANTS TO BASICALLY KNOCK THAT FENCE DOWN AND OPEN IT TO THE COLLISION, SO. OKAY. SO YEAH, SO IT SEPARATES WHERE THE, THE COLLISION AND THE LOT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1445. HE WANTS TO, UM, KNOCK THE FENCE DOWN AND JUST OPEN IT UP SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PARK ALL THE BEHIND THE CELL TOWER. YES. BEHIND THE FACILITY TOWER. YEAH. UM, BUT LIKE, THERE'S A LOT OF THEFT IN THE AREA. HE, HE JUST WANTS TO KEEP IT AS PRIVATE AS HE CAN FOR THE REASON THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THEFT. WE'VE HAD LOTS OF BREAK-INS OVER THE, THE YEARS. UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS. IT'S FOR PRIVACY, SECURITY. SECURITY. YEAH. UH, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION DIRECTLY NORTH OF YOUR PROPERTY, THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ISOLATED LOT. IS THAT YOURS AS WELL? A LOT WHERE BEHIND OR ON THE SIDES? YEAH. RIGHT. IT'S, IT'S BETTER TO LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, UH, THE AERIAL, THAT ONE. OKAY. SO RIGHT NORTH OF YOU, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN ISOLATED LOT THAT THAT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY TOO, IS IT ON THIS SIDE? NO, RIGHT TO THE NORTH. RIGHT BEHIND YOU. OH, BEHIND. UH, NO, IT'S, IT'S A LANDLOCKED PIECE OF PROPERTY. I WAS WONDERING, IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR LAND AS WELL? HE OWNS, UM, ON THE [03:10:01] NEXT STREET IS PATTON. HE OWNS A 6 34. 6 34 PATTON. RIGHT BEHIND, LIKE IT'S CENTERED BETWEEN THE COLLISION AND THE LOT WE'RE YEAH. BUT THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THAT ONE, IS THAT ONE YOURS AS WELL? NO, THE R FOUR. THIS RIGHT THERE? NO. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON THERE. I DIDN'T, NO OKAY. NO. MM-HMM. OKAY. NO, HE OWNS THE 6 34 THAT IT'S LIKE THAT ONE. YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S COMMON BETWEEN BOTH OF YOUR REAR PROPERTY LINES. YEAH. OKAY. SO ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ, MR. CRUZ, ON THE AUTO SHOP, UH, FENCE THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY, THAT'S WHAT, SIX FEET AND THEN, UH, TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE? OR IS IT ALL EIGHT FEET IN FRONT? IN THE FRONT? IT'S, I BELIEVE IT'S ALL EIGHT FEET. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SIX FEET OF, OF FENCE AND THEN TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE, IF I'M CORRECT. 'CAUSE I KNOW THE AREA AND I'VE GONE THROUGH THERE LOTS OF TIMES. SO I'M TRYING TO PET OF WHY I, AND I KNOW HE OWNS THE, THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WHY IT WOULD STILL NEED TO STAY EIGHT FEET. I CAN SEE SIX, BUT I CAN'T SEE EIGHT ON THE METAL. RIGHT. THE METAL IS SIX FEET AND THEN TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE. UH, HE HAS, OH, I GUESS IT'S, WELL, THE, THE ONE WHERE THE BARBED WIRE, THAT'S, THAT'S LIKE EIGHT FEET. THAT'S NOT SIX FEET. THE FENCE? NO, THAT MEANS THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET TALL AND IT'S NOT, THE FENCE IS EIGHT FEET AND THEN TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE, THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET. AND THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE ACTUAL, THE EXISTING FENCE DOOR FENCE RIGHT THERE. IT'S 'CAUSE WE HAVE TWO, WE HAVE A GATE THAT'S, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF CONFUSED IF, IF YOU GO MORE. YEAH, RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE COLLISION OR THE NO, THE COLLISION RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE COLLISION. MM-HMM . STORE. THE, THE PAINT AND BODY SHOP. MM-HMM . YOU MIGHT WANNA BRING ON A STREET VIEW. YEAH. STREET VIEW. YEAH. STREET VIEW IN FRONT SHOWS THE, THE TRUCK PARKED IN FRONT. SO YOU CAN KINDA GET AN IDEA OF THE, THE HEIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT THERE. AND IF YOU CRUISE A LITTLE BIT, UH, YEAH. THAT WAY, YEAH. KEEP GOING. KEEP GOING. CAN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE? THERE YOU GO. OF THE FENCE. YEAH, THAT'S, YEAH. OKAY. THEN I GUESS IT'S SIX FEET. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S SIX. YEAH. I MEAN, UNLESS YOU'RE MEASURING THE POST HEIGHT, THE POSTS ARE REALLY TALL. YEAH. THE POST LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE EIGHT FEET, BUT THE FENCE ITSELF IS SIX FEET AND ABOUT TWO FEET OF, UH, BARBED WIRE. I MEAN, IF WE COULD DO THE SAME THING WE HAVE THERE, BUT THE BARBED WIRE IS SOMETHING THAT WE, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY. RIGHT. IS YOUR INTENT TO PURSUE BARBED WIRE? NO, THAT WASN'T TOLD TO ME. HE JUST WAS, HE JUST WANTS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH A CAT. FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM, HE SAID NO BARBED WIRE. OKAY. SO THE FENCE WOULD STAY THE WAY IT IS ON THAT PROPERTY. AND ON THE EXTENSION THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE EIGHT FEET TALL, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO FOR THIS PROPERTY, IF A, SO IF WE GRANTED SIX FOOT, COULD THEY ADD THE TWO FOOT OF, OR 18 INCHES OF BARB WIRE ON TOP OF THE EXISTING FENCE AS PERMITTED, OR THEY WOULD'VE TO GO THROUGH ADDITIONAL PERMITTING TO PUT BARB WIRE THERE? WOULD THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR AN, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THAT APPROVAL? BUT IF, IF THEY COULD, IF APPROVED FOR THAT, THEY COULD DO SIX FOOT FENCING WITH AN ADDITIONAL UP TO 18 INCHES OF BARBED WIRE. AGAIN, IF APPROVED, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE REVIEW PROCESS. RIGHT. OKAY. SO, SO ESSENTIALLY DUPLICATING WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, UM, WOULD BE, YEAH, BONS, COMMISSIONER BONS FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, SO THE CITY'S OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT, UM, PRETTY MUCH YOU CAN PROVIDE SECURITY WITH SOME OTHER, WITH SOME OTHER TYPE OF FENCE MATERIAL. CAN YOU, YOU KNOW, BEING, UH, THE OCCUPANT THERE PROVIDE SOMETHING TO US WHY THE PRIVACY FENCE DOES PROVIDE THAT SECURITY? I MEAN, IT'S, WE HAVE A LOT OF VEHICLES THERE, SO IF YOU'RE JUST DRIVING DOWN THERE AND YOU COULD SEE THROUGH THERE, LIKE, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S LIKE IF YOU A KID GOING DOWN AND HE SEES KIES, LIKE HE'S, HE WANTS TO GO IN [03:15:01] THERE, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, IF IT'S PRIVATE, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GONNA AVOID ANY THEFT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD THEFT, BUT I GUESS YOU WON'T DRAW AS MUCH ATTENTION TO IT. AND, AND SO WOOD FENCE IS PROBABLY WHAT THE CITY'S MORE WANTING YOU TO LEAN TOWARDS. IF YOU'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING THAT'S PRIVACY, HOW DOES THAT NOT, UH, PROVIDE ENOUGH PRIVACY? UM, I FEEL THAT WOOD FENCE IS PROBABLY EASIER TO BREAK INTO. IT'S, IT'S NOT AS STRONG AS METAL. OKAY. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO MIKE, SO I'M GONNA CONTINUE THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. MM-HMM . IS THE ISSUE PRIVACY FROM THE FRONT. I MEAN, DO YOU NEED EIGHT FOOT DOWN THE SIDE AND IN THE REAR BY THE RESIDENTIAL AREA? IS THAT, UM, IS THAT NECESSARY? I MEAN, IN THE, I GUESS IN, IN THE, THE BEHIND, I MEAN, SIX FEET COULD WORK FOR US, UM, BUT HE DOES OWN LIKE THE, THE SIDE OF THAT LOT. BUT IT, IT, HE'LL EVENTUALLY LIKE RENT IT OUT. SO WE STILL WOULD NEED TO HAVE, UM, PRIVACY ON THAT SIDE. SO ON THE FRONT, I, I SEE THE FRONT. MM-HMM . YOU GOT A HIGHWAY THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, I SEE THAT, I UNDERSTAND THE PRIVACY THERE, BUT I, YEAH, AGAIN, AGAINST THE SIDE, AGAINST THE REAR, I DON'T SEE THE NEED AS MUCH. UM, BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE WANTING IT ON THE WEST SIDE AND ON THE FRONTAGE? YES. YES. OKAY. YES, BECAUSE HE'S GONNA OPEN IT IN THE MIDDLE. SO RIGHT THERE, HE WOULDN'T NEED IT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE OPEN TO THE, WELL I COLLISION, I'LL JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. I, ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT A FAN OF IT IN, IN THE REAR AGAINST THE HOMES. MM-HMM . UM, AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY ALONG THE, UH, YOU KNOW, ALONG WITH THE CELL TOWERS, BUT ON THE FRONT AND THE SIDE. I SEE. I GUESS WHERE YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS CHAIR, UH, YEZ. YEZ, UM, I WAS NOTICING THAT THE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY DID THE, THE, THE GOOGLE MAP THAT THE PROPERTIES IN THE BACK, UH, HAVE VARIED, UH, DEEP BACKYARDS. UM, AND I CAN, I, I, I CAN SEE WHERE THAT, FOR THEIR TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT IT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR SECURITY. AND, UM, AND THE CORRUGATED FENCE THAT YOU HAVE, OR THE METAL FENCE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE IN THE AUTO BODY, UM, IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL ROLLOUT METAL. IT LOOKS, UH, LIKE A MORE, UM, SECURE METAL FENCE. MM-HMM . UM, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT IS THE SAME STYLE THAT YOU WOULD BE USING FOR THE SECURITY OF THE OTHER PROPERTY? YES. EZ COMMISSIONER EZ, HAVE YOU GUYS HAD ANY THREATS FROM THOSE REAR PROPERTIES OR ANY BREAK-INS FROM THOSE REAR PROPERTIES WHERE YOU NEEDED ALONG THE REAR FENCE LINE? UM, WE JUST RECENTLY, LAST WEEK WE HAD, UM, UH, I, IT'S LIKE A HOMELESS PERSON JUMP OVER FROM THE SIDE WHERE THE, WHERE IT USED TO BE THE CHURCH, HE JUMPED IN THE BACK OVER TO OUR SIDE AND HE GOT IN. HE DIDN'T LIKE TAKE A VEHICLE OR ANYTHING, BUT THEY DID BREAK IN AND TOOK SOME THINGS FROM THE VEHICLES. OKAY. OKAY. AND YOU DIDN'T GET ANY, UH, COMMUNICATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS BEHIND YOU ABOUT NO CORRUGATED METAL VERSUS A WOOD FENCE? NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UH, WE NEED TO GET THIS ROLLING ALONG. IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND COMMISSIONER UNI, WE'RE ON, IS THIS 1210 ITEM? 10, 10, 10 10. 2 47, 2. OH MAN, IT'S TWO. I DON'T KNOW. IT CHANGED MY MIND. UH, OKAY, HERE WE GO. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL WITH THE CAP ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, SITUATED AT 14 4 45 BRADY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT BEING, UH, EMBASSY REAL ESTATE AGENCY LLC. BECAUSE THIS TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS, WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED, WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT NUMBER ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE FENCE MATERIAL WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE PROPERTY. NUMBER TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AND A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT NOT HAVING THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY THAT THE REQUESTED FENCE MATERIAL WOULD AFFORD THEM. NUMBER THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, [03:20:01] THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REQUESTED FENCE MATERIAL WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY. NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. NUMBER FIVE, SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AS THERE ARE USES OR OF SIMILAR INTENSITY AND PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NUMBER SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER, BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT, IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY THAT THE FENCE PROVIDES. THESE, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER, IS NOT, IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UH, END OF MOTION. DO I CONTINUE THE NEXT? NOPE, WE GOTTA DO 'EM SEPARATE. UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND COM COMMISSIONER MANUS SECOND COMMISSIONER EZ. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT THE CITY DOESN'T VIEW, YOU KNOW, METAL OR CORRUGATED AS PROVIDED ENOUGH, UH, PRIVACY, BUT, BUT I REALLY FEEL IT DOES. I THINK EVEN WITH WOODEN, UH, WITH WOODEN FENCES, YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY START TO, TO WEAR AND GET OLDER, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GAPS IN THEM ARE, ARE VERY EASY FOR PEOPLE TO SEE, SEE THROUGH. AND, AND LIKE SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE A KID IN A CANDY STORE OR WHEN YOU'RE SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE, BEING ABLE TO SEE IT, UH, IS THE FIRST THING THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE THAT WILL MOTIVATE THEM TO WANT TO JUMP THAT FENCE OR GET ON THAT PROPERTY. SO, UH, I, I FEEL METAL FENCES DO ELIMINATE THAT AS LONG AS THEY KEEP THE CAP ON THERE. I'M GOOD WITH IT. COMMISSIONER, I, MY COLLEAGUE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. AND THIS IS ON THE FENCE MATERIAL, UH, FENCE MATERIAL ONLY. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, NOW WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE, UM, UH, DEFENSE FIGHT. I'LL COMMIT BON, I, I KIND OF CALLED MYSELF OUT WITH IT. RIGHT. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 7 AND MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED, UH, REQUEST FOR A, UH, FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR A EIGHT FOOT SOLID FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 14 4 45. 1445 BRADLEY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT BEING EMBASSY REAL ESTATE AGENCY LLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US, AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE PROPOSED EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALIGNS WITH THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER AS IT WOULD PROVIDE SCREENING FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND NECESSARY PROTECTION AND SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY, SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THIS PROPERTY IS CLOSE TO THE INTERSTATE ADJACENT TO BRADY AVENUE AND WILL SCREEN THE PROPERTY FROM VIEW. UH, C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXEMPTION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AMONG VARIOUS OTHER COMMERCIAL USES AND IS ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE FROM BRADY AVENUE D. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION ASSAULT. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS AT THE OUTERMOST BOUNDARY FACING A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, ITS CONTEXT IS DISTINCT FROM INTERIOR LOTS. THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL NOT, UH, BE DISSIMILAR FROM OTHER COMMERCIAL FENCING ALONG THE SAME STREET. E THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREON ESTABLISHED FOR THE, UH, FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT'S REGULATIONS IS TO PREDICT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROMOTE SAFETY, AND ENSURE CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. ALLOWING A MODEST INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT IN THIS UNIQUE LOCATION DOES NOT UNDERMINE THOSE GOALS AS IT IS BASED ON THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO MOST LOTS. UH, INTO MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANER. COMMISSIONER EZ. YEAH. AND ONCE AGAIN, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I, I FEEL THAT, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE AND, AND KINDA WHERE IT SITS. UM, AND A THREE FOOT JUST DOESN'T DO, UH, THE JUSTICE NEEDED. THEY DO NEED THE FULL EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UH, TO, UM, TO, TO GET THE, UH, SECURITY THAT NEEDED. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'M GOING TO BE SLIGHT DISAGREEMENT [03:25:01] HERE. UM, AND, AND SO, SO I CONCUR THAT THE THREE FOOT IS, IS NOT ADEQUATE. UM, AND, BUT THEY ARE USING SIX FOOT NEXT TO IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE FENCING THERE IS SIX FOOT, YOU KNOW. UM, AND, AND I, I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PART. AND I THINK THE EXTRA TWO FEET WOULD CHANGE THE DYNAMIC OF THE STREET. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE APPROVED FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE FRONT OF A PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S THAT MANY. AND SO, SO TO ME THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OFF. UM, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, UM, AT AS EIGHT AT EIGHT I PROBABLY WILL REJECT IT, BUT IF YOU TAKE A FRIENDLY MEMO TO SIX, I WOULD GO TO THAT PATH. BUT IS THAT SIX ONLY ALONG THE, UH, THE FRONT? YES. THE FRONT, YEAH. AND THIS IS REALLY ONLY FOR THE FRONT AS FAR AS THE DIALOGUE AS AS I READ IT, SO MM-HMM . BUT, BUT, UM, ANYWAYS, THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO YOU CAN READ IT AS IS, BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT AT EIGHT, BUT I WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. SIX. BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU THINK THE REST OF THE BOARD OF, SO FOR, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. 'CAUSE THE WAY IT'S, IT'S ADVERTISED, IT SAYS, UH, EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. SO IS THAT FORD OF ANY POTENTIAL BUILDING IS EIGHT FEET? LIKE IF WE WERE TO THAT'S CORRECT. AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO BUILDING CURRENTLY, IT REALLY ONLY IS TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. ONCE A BUILDING WERE TO BE ESTABLISHED, HYPOTHETICALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, MORE OF A FRONT YARD WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BUILDING. IT'S JUST THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON THE SIDE IN THE REAR, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES. YEAH, I JUST, I I I JUST SAY IF WE DROP IT TO SIX ALONG THE FRONT AND HE BUILDS EIGHT FOOT ON THE WEST, ENTIRE WEST SIDE, THE MOMENT THEY POP A BUILDING THERE, THAT LITTLE PIECE ON THE SIDE WOULD BE, WOULD BE NONCOMPLIANT AT THAT POINT. CORRECT. ON UP UNTIL THAT POINT. YOU FOLLOW ME? YEP. OKAY. SO IF, SO ON THIS, ON THE SKETCH UP THERE WE'RE, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT YARD, BUT THE FRONT YARD ISN'T ESTABLISHED 'CAUSE THERE'S NO BUILDING. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST WHAT'S, WHAT PARALLELS, UH, BRADY. UM, AND SO, UH, BUT THE MOMENT HE, THEY POP A BUILDING ON THERE FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO BRADY ON THE SIDE, SAY IT'S 40 FEET OR SOMETHING, THAT LITTLE STRETCH, IF HE MAKES IT EIGHT FEET WILL IMMEDIATE WILL INSTANTLY BECOME NONCOMPLIANT BECAUSE IT'S NOW CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD INSTEAD OF A SIDE YARD. AND SO, SO TODAY THE FRONT YARD IS ONLY THE, THE STRETCH THAT PARALLELS, UM, BRADY. BUT WHEN THEY PUT A BUILDING IN, IT'LL BE THE, THE FRONT PLUS WHATEVER GOES UP THE SIDE TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND SO THAT'S, SO IF, UM, IF I HEARD THE CONVERSATION, I THOUGHT THIS WAS SOLELY FOR PLACING CARS IN THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. WAS FOR THE ABUDDING LOT? NO BUILDING. OH, THERE'S NO BUILDING. YEAH, NO BUILDING. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. AND SO, SO THE BUILDING IS ON THE, ON THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY FURTHER DOWN I THINK IS, IS WHAT I HEARD. WELL, I APOLOGIZE. I WANTED TO MAKE, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IN THE FUTURE. SO NO, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST GONNA OPEN IT UP, UH, OPEN THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE COLLISION AND THAT, UH, LOT. WE'RE JUST GONNA KNOCK THE FENCE DOWN AND OPEN IT UP, BUT IT'S NO BUILDING NOTHING. WE HAVE THE COLLISION ONLY. OKAY. SO THERE'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO TAKE THE FRONTAGE ALONG BRADY DOWN TO SIX FEET. IS THAT ACCEPTED? I ACCEPT IT. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S OUR NEW MOTION IS TO MAKE IT A, UM, INSTEAD OF A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, IT'S A, IT'S A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE FRONTAGE. LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER EZ. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER E BONNI. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR CHAIR AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. UH, THAT MOTION PASSES FOR SIX FOOT ALONG BRADY, CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. BUT I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SO THE SIDE IN THE BACK, WE CAN STILL DO THE EIGHT? YES. OKAY. JUST THE FRONT. WE'RE DOING SIX JOEL. UH, WE'LL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. YEAH, THEY'LL, THEY'LL, OKAY. SOUNDS [ Approval of Minutes  ] GOOD. LAST IS THE MINUTES. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY, UH, AMENDMENTS OR ARE EVERYBODY HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY SAW? I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THEN I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION PASSES. [ Director’s Report  ] IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? UH, NOT DIRECTOR'S REPORT. JUST, UH, ONE QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THE CARPORTS. UH, I THINK SOMEBODY MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, OBVIOUSLY WE DO REACH OUT WHENEVER THEY COME TO THE COUNTER AND WE ALSO PRODUCE THE FAQ FOR CARPORTS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS WE PUT ON THE FAQ. LIKE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS NOT THE STREET MOST OF THE TIME. IT'S PLEASE ASK US SO WE CAN TRY TO HELP YOU FIGURE OUT WHERE YOUR STREET OR YOUR PROPERTY LINE STARTS, BECAUSE THAT PEOPLE DO GET CONFUSED A LOT ABOUT THAT 10 FOOT. SO WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT. AND, AND WITH, WITH DECEMBER HOLIDAYS. SO WE, OUR NEXT MEETING IS DECEMBER 15TH. [03:30:01] THE CITY'S GONNA BE CLOSED FOR A FEW WEEKS AT THE END OF THE MONTH. ARE Y'ALL STILL ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS AT ALL? YES. UH, WE DO HAVE APPLICATIONS THAT WE ACCEPT ONLINE. UH, WE WILL HAVE A SKELETON CREW HERE TO PROCESS THOSE APPLICATIONS. OKAY. SO THERE'S GONNA BE FLOW, LIKE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET WHAMMIED WITH SOME SUPER MEETING IN THE END OF JANUARY. OKAY. AND MANNA. SO, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THAT I'VE ASKED IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, IS HOW CAN WE DO A BETTER JOB OF LETTING THE COMMUNITY KNOW, UM, WHERE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES AND REALLY ALL OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OR THE, OR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO, SO REACHING OUT TO THE, UM, WE'LL SAY WHERE IT IS THE MATERIALS ARE PURCHASED AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THAT COMMUNITY WOULD BE ONE AND SECOND IS, YOU KNOW, I GET REGULAR LETTERS FROM MY, FROM UM, UM, COUNCIL P COUNCILWOMAN AND SO, SO CAN THEY ALSO, YOU KNOW, UH, FOSTER THAT, THAT DIALOGUE A WHOLE LOT MORE? JUST SO WE DO A LOT MORE EDUCATION. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE DO HERE 50% OR, OR 75%, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE'S RE YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENT HERE. UM, AND SO WHAT COULD WE DO TO IMPROVE THAT? I'LL GIVE YOU AN ID, I'LL GIVE YOU AN IDEA. SO EVERY SIX MONTHS WE GET THOSE LITTLE, NOT SIX MONTHS. SO DURING THE HOLIDAYS WE GET A THING ON OUR DOOR. THIS IS OUR HOLIDAY PICKUP SCHEDULE FOR YOUR TRASH AND RECYCLE. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE IT A TWO PAGE PAMPHLET AND PUT SOME INFO ABOUT FENCES AND CARDBOARDS ON THERE, OR BETTER YET WOULD BE REALLY GREAT IS THAT I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MATERIAL FOR MY HOA NEWSLETTER. IF MAYBE THE CITY COULD GIVE US A ONE PAGE PDF WE COULD SLAP IN A NEWSLETTER, UM, AND TO THEY SEND IT OUT TO THE HOAS, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING COOL BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU CAN REALLY PUT SOME GOOD INFO. YEAH. AND SO I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, TO THAT POINT, THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S ALL KIND OF THINGS THAT WE COULD DO TO COMMUNICATE BETTER THAN, THAN, THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY ARE DOING. SO YEAH, SEND ME SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE NEWSLETTER. 'CAUSE AND USED TO BE THAT WE HAD A COMMITTEE HERE THROUGH THE CITY THAT WOULD, UH, INVITE ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO ATTEND AT LEAST ONE MEETING A YEAR TO SHOW, TO LET 'EM KNOW ABOUT ALL THE UPDATES THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD IN ABOUT FOUR YEARS. BUT BESIDE THE POINT, THEY THEY DO THAT THEY, THEY DO THAT. UH, I KNOW THAT WHEN LOGAN WAS UH, IN CHARGE, HE WOULD MEET WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, RIGHT. PRESIDENTS AND YEAH. AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE ONE MEETING A YEAR HERE UPSTAIRS FOR, UH, RESIDENTS FROM THE DIFFERENT CORRECT DISTRICTS TO COME AND LEARN ALL ABOUT. YEAH. BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE. YEAH. WELL THANK YOU. GREAT STUFF . SO HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL COME OUT OF IT, BUT, UM, THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. IT IS 4 43 AND WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.