* 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. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. [00:00:01] IT'S ACTUALLY, UH, SEVEN [Call to Order] MINUTES AFTER ONE. WE NEED TO COME TO ORDER. GO AHEAD AND START THE VIDEO FOR THE SPANISH TRANSLATION. ALL RIGHT, WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE JOIN US IN, UH, WE PLEDGE TO LEAD TO THE US FLAG AND THE TEXAS FLAG PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE INDIVISIBLE UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE Z TEXAS, UH, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. BEFORE WE CONTINUE, PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES. UM, AND, UH, I BELIEVE MONICA, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL CALL. MR. TEAL. PRESENT. DR. ELLI? PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. ORIAN? HERE. MR. BRITTON? HERE. MR. RODRIGUEZ? HERE. MR. NEFF. PRESENT. MR. MANNA? PRESENT. MS. FISHER? PRESENT. MR. VINO PRESENT. MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THE BOARDROOM. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAMES AND APPLICANTS AND STREET ADDRESSES. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I'LL ASK THAT BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. DURING THE MEETING, THE BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THESE AREAS. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE 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 THE DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS 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 UNDER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOP SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITIONS, WE HAVE POWER TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTER AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER 2122 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE BOARD'S DECISIONS AND APPEALS, EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON A FINDING OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THEIR PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE IT WILL BE CLOSED AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY, REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHICH IS PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS ALWAYS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR CO OR COUNT COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORDS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF THE CASE. [00:05:03] UM, NOW I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CONFIRM THAT EVERYONE IS HERE FOR TODAY. CASE NUMBER, UH, I BELIEVE CASE NUMBER ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTPONED. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO, UM, DECISION REQUIRED. THE, THIS, THIS ONE IS POSTPONED. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HERE THAT, UM, HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TOO, SO YOU CAN, AT THE END OF YOUR ROLL CALL, UM, YOU CAN DETERMINE IF YOU'D LIKE FOR THEM TO SPEAK VERY WELL. ALRIGHT. UH, CASE NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS, UH, CASE NUMBER NOT LISTED HERE. OKAY. IT'S INTERNAL. OH, I'M SORRY. NUMBER TWO IS A U D C AMENDMENT, SO IT'S NOT A CASE. OKAY. RELATING TO, OKAY. THEN, THEN, AND THEN HERE WE HAVE A CONTINUATION CASE NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS CONTINUATION FROM LAST SESSION. UH, NUMBER 1 24. ARE YOU PRESENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND CASE NUMBER? UH, 1 1 7 JORGE DEL VEGA. THANK YOU. UM, CASE NUMBER, UH, 1 2 2. DEREK NA ISRAEL. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER 1 28 PATRICK ENSON. PRESENT. VERY GOOD. CASE NUMBER 1 25 ADAM HARDIN PRESENT. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER 1 26 NICHOLAS VANIS. CASE NUMBER 1 33 ROBERT KING, CASE NUMBER 1 27 BRADLEY JOHNSON. I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR FINAL CASE FOR TODAY. WE RE APPROVE THE MINUTES. OKAY. NOW, STAFF WILL GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON INSTRUCTIONS FOR SPEAKING TIME OR FOR THE WITNESSES. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION 'CAUSE UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SIGNED UP SO FAR FOR SPEAKING TODAY. ONLY TOTAL OF 11. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND STICK WITH THE THREE MINUTE RULE. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. IN ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT. OH, IT'S, IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE A BEEP , YOU'LL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND YOU WILL, AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, HERE IS THE BEEP. ARE YOU PULLING THAT ON ME? ? VERY WELL. UM, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO CASES, CASES THAT WERE CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS. TWO CASES I BELIEVE THAT WERE DELAYED. THERE WERE TWO CASES THAT WERE CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO BE HEARD. THEY DIDN'T GET TO REQUEST TO BE POSTPONED. RIGHT. THEY WERE FORCED TO BE POSTPONED BECAUSE WE WENT BELOW QUORUM BECAUSE THEY WERE, THEY WERE FORCED TO BE POSTPONED. I'M GONNA MOVE THOSE TWO CASES TO THE FRONT OF THE LIST SO THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR CHANCE TO SPEAK. UH, SO I GUESS WE'LL BE STARTING THEN WITH CASE NUMBER THREE. IS THAT CORRECT? CASE NUMBER FOUR. NUMBER [4. 19-8083 (Continued from 10/21/2019) BOA-19-10300117: A request by Jorge de La Vega for a 1.5' variance from the 5' required side setback requirement to allow a structure to be 3.5' away from the east property line, located at 429 Natalen Ave. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 2) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] FOUR. WHICH IS NUMBER? OKAY. IT'S FOUR AND FIVE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S START WITH CASE NUMBER 1, 1 7. GOOD MORNING, GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD , UH, CASE B O A 19 103 0 0 1 1 7. UH, AT 4 29 [00:10:01] NALINE AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS JORGE DE LA VEGA. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MANKEY PARK. THE ZONING IS MULTIFAMILY MINKE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, UH, MARTINDALE ARMY AIRFIELD OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO. THE REQUEST IS FOR A 1.5 VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE AND A HALF FEET AWAY FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALLOT WITH TWO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND HAS MET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE N C D. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 21 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE AT 4 35 NALINE AVENUE. UPON VISIT TO THE STATE STAFF NOTED THAT A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONCRETE PAD HOUSED IN AC AC HOUSING AND AC UNIT IS OVER THE PROPERTY LYING, PREVENTING FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE. THE NEIGHBOR EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THIS ENCROACHMENT AND HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO CUT BACK THAT ENCROACHING PORTION. SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPT THE VARIANCE IN VO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. WELL, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? ORIAN HERE? THERE'S A, UH, UH, A THIN SLIVER OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE BETWEEN, UH, THE OTHER, THE NEIGHBORING EXISTING HOME. WHO OWNS THAT? THE NEIGHBOR DOES. OKAY. AND IS THAT WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER RESIDENCE? UH, NO, SIR. NOT AT THE TIME. BASICALLY, IT WAS AN EXISTING PORTION, A REMAINING PORTION OF LOT, AND THAT WAS JUST GIVEN TO THE OTHER OWNER. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. MR. NEFF, HOW WAS THIS CASE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD? IT WAS BROUGHT DURING INSPECTION. UM, THE STRUCTURES ALMOST COMPLETED WHEN THE INSPECTIONS WERE SCHEDULED. UM, ACTUALLY I DID THE INSPECTION. I NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY LINE WAS PRETTY CLOSE, SO WE QUESTIONED THAT OF THE CONTRACTOR. THEY VERIFIED THEY WERE CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET. THAT'S WHY THE, THE OWNER'S COMING IN TO GET THAT SQUARED AWAY. SO IT'S A NEW HOUSE. AND WAS IT PERMITTED TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR BUILT INCORRECTLY OR WHAT HAPPENED THERE? BUILT INCORRECTLY. OKAY. BUILT LARGER THAN THE ORIGINAL PLANS OR JUST OFF CENTER OR DO WE KNOW? UNKNOWN. BUT THE SETBACK WAS ORIGINALLY SET FOR FIVE FEET. UM, THEY ENDED UP BUILDING AT THREE AND A HALF FEET. OKAY. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT THEN. THANK YOU. I I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS APPEARING BEAM STRUCTURE OR A CONCRETE SLAB? CONCRETE AND THERE WAS NO, UH, FOUNDATION INSPECTION. I GOT THE, THE FRAME INSPECTION WHEN THE STRUCTURE IS ALMOST COMPLETE. UM, WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FOUNDATION. I DIDN'T GET A FRA UH, FOUNDATION INSPECTION, BUT IT WAS INSPECTED. OKAY. IT WASN'T CA IT WASN'T CAUGHT AT THAT TIME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. YES, THANK YOU. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. ALRIGHT. WE WILL NEED YOUR NAME AND FULL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, JORGE DEL LAVEGA. I'M, UH, UH, 1, 1, 1 PREVENT, UM, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 4. SO GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, SO WE DID, UM, WE PLANNED FOR THIS TO BE INSIDE THE SETBACK. THIS WAS NOT PLANNED TO BE OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. UM, THERE HAS, UH, WHAT I GET TO SAY IS THAT IT WAS HUMAN ERROR. UH, AND IT, IT, IT'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT FACTORS. AFTER WE REALIZED THAT WE WERE IN FACT, UH, ENCROACHING, WE, UH, HAD THE, UH, SURVEYOR DO A, UM, AS-BUILT SURVEY WHERE IT SHOWED AT THE SAME TIME. UM, WE HAD THREE ENGINEERS WORK ON THIS PROJECT, THE SURVEYOR, THE CIVIL ENGINEER, AND THE PLATTING, THE, THE GUY THAT DID THE PLATTING ENGINEER. RIGHT. SO, UM, THEY ALL KIND OF NARROWED IT DOWN TO ONE. THE PINS THAT WERE ON SITE [00:15:01] WERE, UH, IN THE WRONG LOCATION. SECOND, UH, THERE IS ALSO ON MY, ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS, THE WIDTH OF THE HOUSES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 19.5 AND WERE 19.8. UH, THAT WASN'T AS A RESULT OF US TRYING TO MAKE THE HOUSES BIGGER. I MEAN, 0.3, THAT'S WHAT, UH, YOU KNOW, FOUR INCHES. SO, UM, IT WAS JUST DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT IT GOT WI. UH, SO THERE'S, THOSE ARE, I GUESS THIS, THAT'S WHERE, WHERE WE'RE AT. AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE. ORIAN. OKAY. MR. GO AHEAD. UH, STAFF HAD, UH, GOD, THIS IS SO LOUD. UH, STAFF HAD DISCUSSED, UM, THE AC UNIT. HMM. UM, DID, WHERE DID YOU RELOCATE IT TO? WE DIDN'T RELOCATE. WE JUST, UH, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT FOUR TO FIVE INCHES INTO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEIGHBOR. SO WE JUST, UH, WE'RE JUST GONNA SAW, CUT THAT SECTION OFF AND BE WITHIN, WITHIN OUR PROPERTY LINE. AND WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. MR. NAPP, WAS THIS PROPERTY BEFORE US AS A PREVIOUS CASE? YES, IT LOOKS FAMILIAR. YES. I DID STAND BEFORE YOU GUYS. UH, THIS IS IN 2017. IT WAS A DIFFERENT, UH, WE WERE TRYING, UM, TO HAVE, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES. IT WAS HAVING PARKING IN THE FRONT AND HAVING AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT, WHICH DID GET DENIED. WE WORKED WITH THE, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AFTERWARDS AND, AND, UH, CAME UP WITH THIS DESIGN. ONE OF OUR ARGUMENTS BEFORE WAS THE TREES. SO WE ACTUALLY HAD TO REDESIGN AROUND THE TREES AND CAME UP WITH THIS DESIGN, WHICH MET ALL AND CD REQUIREMENTS AND THEY GAVE US THE GREEN LIGHT. SO THIS, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. IS IT REQUESTING SETBACK VARIANCES AT THAT TIME? NO. NO, IT WAS ABOUT FRONT PARKING. IT WAS, IT WAS ABOUT, UH, UH, HAVING A GARAGE IN THE FRONT, WHICH THE N C D DOESN'T ALLOW AND HAVING AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT. THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD. OKAY. SO YOUR SOLUTION YOU CAME UP WITH IN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MM-HMM. . AND YOU HAVE NOW THE PARKING IN THE REAR WITH THE CENTER DRIVE? YES, SIR. YEAH. YOU'RE ABLE TO PRESERVE THE TREE? YEAH, WE'RE PRESERVE ALL, PRESERVE ALL THE TREES ON SITE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I CAN THINK OF NOW. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING ON THIS CASE? NOBODY SIGNED UP. NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU FEEL IS NECESSARY FOR US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION? UH, JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING TO COMPLY. UH, AND IT WAS, THIS IS A RESULT OF HUMAN ERROR AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE, UH, REACHED OUT TO THE, TO MANKEY PARK AND LETTING THEM KNOW BEFORE THE MEETING WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WHERE WE DISCUSSED IT WITH OUR NEIGHBOR. UM, WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING TO, YOU KNOW, COMPLY AND, AND, UH, GET THIS SORTED OUT. SO APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA, OKAY, MR. NEFF, GO AHEAD. EXCUSE MA'AM. WHAT IS THE SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS? UH, IT'S 11.3. 11.3. AND UM, AND WHAT WAS IT INTENDED TO BE AT THE TIME YOU STARTED PLANNING? 11.6, ACTUALLY, NO, I'M SORRY, 11.5. UM, I HAVE A UPDATED, UH, SURVEY THAT I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS HAVE, BUT IT'S BASICALLY, I GOT IT THIS MORNING WHERE THE SURVEYOR FOUND WHERE THE PINS WERE OR MOVED THE PINS TO WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. ALRIGHT. UH, GO AHEAD AND HAND THAT TO STAFF. STAFF. YOU'LL NEED TO MAKE A COPY BACK 'CAUSE I'M SURE THAT'S THE ONLY ONE HE HAS RIGHT NOW. I HAVE TWO. ALRIGHT, WELL THEN THAT WILL BE SURRENDERED TO THE, TO THE FILE. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO IF YOUR DRIVEWAY IS LESS THAN YOU HAD INTENDED AND YOU HAVE FIVE FEET ON THE LEFT SIDE, WHATEVER IT IS, WELL WE ALSO, THE, NOW IT'S 5.4 ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE, IT SHOWS IT AS 5.1. UM, TALKING HAIRS OF DISTANCE IN TERMS OF THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE SITE. BUT EVERYTHING'S LAYING OUT PRETTY MUCH AS YOU WANTED IT, BUT SOMEHOW YOU'RE A FOOT AND A HALF OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE. AND WE ARE, WE'RE 0.4, 0.5. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE IT IF WE CAN MOVE IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT OH YEAH, THERE IT IS. 5.4 UM, FEET RIGHT THERE. THESE CAME OUT 19.8 WHEN THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE 19.5. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE 11.5 AND IT CAME OUT 11.3 AND NOW THIS IS 3.8. WHEN ON THE PREVIOUS IT WAS 3.5. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SURVEYOR HEADACHES. OKAY. SO WE'LL, WE'LL BE GOING BY THE NEWLY HANDED OVER SITE PLAN MEASUREMENTS NOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. [00:20:01] ALL RIGHT. NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW. I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ACTION. CAN I GET A MOTION PLEASE? EH, I NEED A VOLUNTEER. ORIAN. ALRIGHT, MR. ORIAN, THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 107, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REQUIRED SITE SET BACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 3.5 FEET AWAY FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 4 2 9 NALINE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ROBERTO GARZA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE, OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACKS THAT MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE 1.5 SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING IS 21 FEET AWAY FROM THIS STRUCTURE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON ON THIS LOT ARE THAT THE UNIQUELY NARROW LOT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WALL OF THE SECOND HOME ON THE LOT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIZE SETBACK OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN AND SIMILAR PLACEMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AT THE REDUCTION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ADJACENT HOMES ON EITHER SIDE ARE AT LEAST 10 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THIS DISTANCE. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. AND THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND OF MOTION. VERY GOOD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MANNA. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION STORY. YEAH, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, IT DOESN'T, I DON'T, UH, FOR THIS TO OCCUR, BUT IT ENDED UP DOING SO AS A RESULT OF SOME, UH, VARIANCE, UH, VARIATIONS IN THE SURVEY AND SOME CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCE ISSUES. SECONDLY, BECAUSE, UH, UH, THIS SIDE OF THE, OF THE LOT INCURS A UNDEVELOPABLE TRACT OF LAND, WHICH WILL ENSURE, UH, THAT THE PROPERTIES WILL BE A, A GOOD FIREBREAK DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER, DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER. I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE, UH, UH, ITEM THAT I CAN SUPPORT VERY WELL. MR. MANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE? YES, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AS WELL AS, UH, REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS THEMSELVES. SO IT DOES SEEM THAT EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD AT THIS, SO I WILL BE IN AGREEMENT AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? VERY GOOD. MR. NEFF. GO AHEAD. I'M TORN ON THIS CASE BECAUSE, ANYWAY, I TRY TO DO THE MATH ON THE LOSSES AND THE MISTAKES AND THE DIMENSIONS OF 0.3 INCHES, 0.3 FEET HERE, 0.3 FEET THERE. IT NEVER ADDS UP TO ONE AND A HALF FEET. AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT NEVER WAS PLANNED TO FIT THIS SITE. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD EVER GET THIS FAR TO WHERE IT'S FULLY CONSTRUCTED AND DOESN'T FIT ON THE LAND. UH, WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS FIT AND CATCH ERRORS FAR MORE QUICKLY THAN THIS. UM, SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO VOTE AN APPROVAL OF THAT FOR THAT REASON. UM, BUT I CAN ALSO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE THAT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IS NOT AS MUCH OF A CONCERN TO ME IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THAT UNDEVELOPABLE LOT NEXT TO IT. UM, AND THE KIND OF [00:25:01] FREE AND CLEAR AREA SURROUNDING THE STRUCTURE. UM, SO I'LL, I'M NOT DECIDED, BUT I'LL BE MAKING MY DECISION BASED ON THOSE THOUGHTS. VERY WELL. ANYONE ELSE WANNA HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? OKAY, MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE. MS. DORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACTS. MR. TEO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I RELUCTANTLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MS. REO? YES, I CONCUR. DEAR MR. MARTINEZ, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT, UH, BELIEVE BRINGS A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF APPROVAL. PLEASE GET WHAT THE STAFF FOR THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AND, UH, WE'LL NOW PROCEED [5. 19-8084 (Continued from 10/21/2019) BOA-19-10300122: A request by Derek Gisriel for 1) a 4'11" variance from the 5' side setback requirement to allow a detached dwelling unit to be 1" from the side property line and 2) a 2' variance from the 5' rear setback requirement to allow a detached dwelling unit to be 3' from the rear property line, located at 802 Matagorda Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ONTO CASE NUMBER 1, 2 2 CASE BO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 22. A REQUEST FOR A ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE ADDRESS IS 8 0 2 MATAGORDA. THE APPLICANT IS DEREK ISRAEL AND THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAVACCA. HISTORIC HISTORIC LANDMARK SITE AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A HISTORIC HOME IN THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HOME IS ON A CORNER LOT, WHICH ABUTS A VERY NARROW STREET ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CARRY A HISTORIC DESIGNATION. THE PROPERTY HAS TWO STRUCTURES, THE PRIMARY DWELLING AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS BEING RENOVATED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT'S ELDERLY DISABLED PARENT TO LIVE IN THE ACCESSORY. THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION AND IS SEEKING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO REMAIN IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN, THE PROPERTY LINE IS ALONG THIS RED LINE AND THE FENCE SITS JUST BELOW THAT PROPERTY LINE, ESPECIALLY IN THE REAR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE REAR, AGAIN, THE PROPERTY LINE IS AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND NOT AT THE FENCE LINE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 22. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMUNITY. STAFF MAILED 32 NOTICES. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. NAFF, WAS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE A DWELLING PREVIOUS BEFORE THE REMODEL OR WAS IT A DIFFERENT FUNCTION REMODELED INTO A DWELLING? I BELIEVE IT WAS ALREADY A DWELLING, BUT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . AND THESE ARE THE REMODELING RENOVATIONS ARE ALREADY COMPLETED AND THIS IS NOW KIND OF GOING BACKWARDS OR THEY HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED? NOT YET OCCURRED. SO PART OF IT WAS, WAS FINISHED. THE, THE INTERIOR IS NOT FINISHED. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TOO. THEY CAN GIVE MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , ANYONE ELSE? UH, ORIAN. MR. IAN, GO AHEAD. SO ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY, THE, THE FENCE IS THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE? YES. ALONG THE SIDE IT'S VERY NEARLY AT. OKAY, THANK YOU. OR I'M SORRY. YES, SORRY. IN THE REAR. YES. IT'S OFF IN THE SIDE. IT IS AT, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION, [00:30:01] UH, TO HAVE A FENCE AS PART OF THE, UH, HISTORIC STANDARDS OR NO, IF THEY MAKE MODIFICATIONS OF THE FENCE? I'M, I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF, IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO THE FENCE AND BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCT IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO, THAT IT, IT COULDN'T BE THERE BECAUSE THE HOME IS NOW STRADDLING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT GONNA CAUSE ANY FUTURE CONFLICT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION? SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FENCES. UM, IF THEY DO PROVIDE A, A FENCE, THEN THEY JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS, BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE FENCES IN BETWEEN YARDS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. BRING FORTH THE APPLICANT PLEASE AND I'LL NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR FULL NAME, ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR REQUEST. OKAY. MY NAME IS DEREK GIZ ISRAEL AND I LIVE AT 8 0 2 MATAGORDA STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 0. SO IN MARCH OF 2013, MY DAD, DAVE, WHO IS BACK HERE, UH, WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE MOST AGGRESSIVE FORM OF A L S. UM, IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT SERVICE CONNECTED, UH, WITH STEMMING FROM HIS TIME AS A SNIPER, UH, IN THE ARMY. THE DOCTORS AT THE TIME, UH, STATED THAT HE COULD LIVE TWO TO THREE YEARS. UH, HERE WE'RE ALMOST SEVEN YEARS INTO OUR JOURNEY WITH US. UH, EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO WE CLOSED ON 8 0 2 MATAGORDA. AND THE REASON FOR THAT, UM, AMONG OTHER THINGS IS THE ABILITY TO FINISH OUT THE ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT OP OCCUPIES THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OFFICE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND GIVEN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, I REACHED OUT AND RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM OUR ADJOINING NEIGHBORS, OLIVIA TREVINO, WHICH SHE OWNS 2 0 1 REIO AND 2 0 7 RERA IN ADDITION TO RITA HECK, AT 2 0 1 RERA. UM, I HAVE THOSE LETTERS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY THOSE, UH, BY THOSE NEIGHBORS. UM, BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. IT'S REALLY KIND OF THE LAST STEP THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FROM MY DAD. OKAY. IS THAT, UH, EXTENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO PRESENT? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN YOU PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, DID, UH, THE SURVEY SHOW THAT THE FENCE WAS NOT ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF? UH, SO THAT SURVEY IS WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THAT'S WHAT WE RECEIVED. SO IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE FENCE WAS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE SAME SURVEY THAT, THAT WE RECEIVED WHEN WE CLOSED ON THE HOUSE. UM, NOW THAT FENCE, UM, TO THE RIGHT OF THAT PICTURE, WHICH ADJOINS, UH, RITA HECK AT 2 0 1 RERA IN THE ONE BEHIND THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WERE PUT THERE, BUT THEY'RE, THEY LOOK EXTREMELY OLD. I MEAN, THE, THE TREES ARE LITERALLY GROWN INTO THE FENCE. UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE PLANS ON, ON TOUCHING ANYTHING BACK THERE. OKAY. I'M JUST WONDERING IF ANYONE HAD QUESTIONED THAT BEFORE, BUT NO, IT'S NEVER CAME UP. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUE QUESTIONS? YES. MR. NEFF, COULD YOU EXPLAIN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS ASKING STAFF? LIKE WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT, WAS THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALREADY A DWELLING AND YOU'RE REMODELING IT OR YOU CHANGING IT? YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT AND WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO BE? SO WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, IT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE THIS ON THE OUTSIDE. IF YOU GO INSIDE, IT'S JUST STUDS, UM, RIGHT NOW. AND, UH, PLYWOOD. AND SO IT WAS MARKETED, UH, THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE LISTING AS COULD BE, UH, SHED, UH, IT COULD POTENTIALLY FINISH OUT FOR LIKE A CATO TYPE THING, WHICH IS OUR INTENT, UH, FOR MY DAD. AND SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WE'VE PUT IN THE PLANS AND ESSENTIALLY THE, UH, GOAL IS TO WRAP AROUND THE DECK UNCOVERED AND, UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, CONNECT THAT WITH A BUILT-IN WHEELCHAIR RAMP INSTEAD OF THE METAL ONE THAT'S COMING DOWN NOW. UM, YEP. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OR, SO YOU'D BE ADDING IN A RESTROOM TO IT OR A LITTLE KITCHENETTE? YES. YEAH, IT'S GOT A LITTLE, DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE PLUMBING OR IT DOES, YEAH, NOTHING. NOTHING. OKAY. AND THE DECK, YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ADDING ON THE TWO SIDES, THE FRONT AND THE SIDE TO THE HOUSE? YEAH. SO HE NEEDS ACCESS TO BOTH HOMES. SO INSTEAD OF US HAVING TWO RAMPS, WE'RE GONNA JUST CONNECT IT, WRAP AROUND OFF OF THAT RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE, OF THE DECK, UM, BACK TO THE CA WITH A BUILT IN WOODEN HAND DEC CAP RAMP. UM, SO THAT WAY HE CAN JUST EASILY, YOU KNOW, MOVE BETWEEN BOTH HOMES. UM, BUT ALL OF THOSE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND ALL APPROVED BY HISTORIC. OKAY. I'M [00:35:01] ONLY ASKING 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S BEYOND KIND OF THE LIMITS OF WHAT THE VARIANCES ARE YOU'RE ASKING TODAY, SO YOU DON'T GET TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD AND HAVE TO COME BACK, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YEAH. WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THEM WILL BE OKAY WITH WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS EXACTLY. YEAH. ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT VARIANCE, UH, THE CITY, YOU KNOW, FOR US TO EVEN FINISH IT OUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, OTHER THAN JUST THE FRONT, UH, DECK, EVERYTHING ELSE IS INTERNAL. UM, SO NOTHING'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, EVEN, YOU KNOW, PAST THE FENCE OR, OR CLOSE TO THAT IT'S GONNA BE WITHIN THOSE VARIANCES REQUESTED. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND NOW, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I ONLY HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION. SO YOU DID SUBMIT IN THE, UH, IN THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT THE PLANS FOR PLUMBING AND, AND, UH, WATER AND ELECTRICAL AND ALL THAT FOR THIS STRUCTURE, CORRECT? YES SIR. YEAH. OKAY. THAT TELLS ME ENOUGH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT? ANYONE SIGNED UP? I'VE GOT JIM MULLEN. JIM MULLEN, . ALRIGHT. HOLD ON A SECOND, PLEASE. HAVE A SEAT. OKAY, MR. MULLEN, STEP UP. LET'S GET YOUR, YOU'RE YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE, OF WHAT YOU'RE, YES. ALRIGHT, I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, JAMES MULLIN, M U L L I N, UH, TWO 14 RERA 7 8 2 1 0. ALRIGHT. AND, UH, JUST STATE WHAT YOU STATED. UH, THE, OUR PROPERTY IS PROBABLY, UM, HALF A BLOCK FROM HIS PROPERTY AND, UM, I MEAN, WE'VE DRIVEN BY IT NUMEROUS TIME. WE'VE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS MARKETED, UH, UH, AND SO WE, WE HAVE NO CONCERNS OR, UH, UH, ABOUT WHAT, WHAT HE'S ASKING TO DO TODAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, AND PRESENCE. ALL, UH, THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED TO REBUT SINCE THERE'S NOTHING REALLY TO REBUT. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION. MR. THIEL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 2. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 8 0 2 MATAGORDA STREET, APPLICANT BAR BEING DEREK GRIS ISRAEL. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRA CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. AND THEN CA IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY THE SETBACKS THAT MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE FOUR FOOT 11 SIDE AND THE TWO FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY DO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IF ENFORCED. THE ORDINANCE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE PHYSICAL HARDSHIP FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS ALREADY LOCATED IN THE SETBACK AREA AS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED, AND IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TO RELOCATE THE STRUCTURE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH A COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SITES AND REAR SETBACK OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN AND SIMILAR PLACEMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE ZONING. DISTRICT FIVE, SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. WERE ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THE REDUCTION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE, IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED. END OF MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND BY MR. HERNANDEZ. UH, GO AHEAD AND, UH, MR. THIEL, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, I APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH THE H C R C PROCESS AND, AND DOING ALL [00:40:01] THIS BEFORE YOU JUST KIND OF WENT AHEAD WITH IT. UM, I THINK IT'S A, A, A NOBLE CAUSE IN INDEED. AND I LIVE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, SO HAPPY TO SEE YOU GETTING THIS DONE. ALRIGHT? YES, OF COURSE, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND IT WAS, UH, A GOOD GESTURE ON THE NEIGHBOR TO COME FORWARD AND, AND SUPPORT THIS, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, ANY, UH, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PUT THEIR COMMENT IN AND BEING THE CASE THEN ON, UH, MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE. MR. TEO? YES, I WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. BRITTON. YES, MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT BEING UNANIMOUS VOTE THE, THE, UH, VARIANCE PASSES. UM, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO GET YOUR PAPERWORK TOGETHER AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, SIR. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE ON. UH, LET'S GO BACK TO OUR FIRST ISSUE. I WANTED TO FIND OUT, UH, SINCE THIS ONE HAS BEEN POSTPONED, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON, UH, SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S STILL HERE, BUT GLORIA HERNANDEZ. SHE LEFT. OKAY, SHE LEFT. ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT POSTPONED. NEXT ISSUE THAT WAS, UH, UH, BEFORE US, WHICH WAS NUMBER TWO, WAS THE [2. 19-8055 Discussion and possible action amending the Unified Development Code (UDC), Chapter 35 of the City Code of San Antonio, Texas, with changes to Section 35-801 relating to the composition of the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and authorizing a change to the BOA Rules and Procedures Document in order to modify the BOA Composition. (Catherine Hernandez, Development Services Administrator, (210) 207-5085, catherine.hernandez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBLE ACTION AMENDING THE U D C CHAPTER 35. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE US. IS THIS YEAH. YES. I MENTIONED THIS AT THE LAST DIRECTOR'S REPORT. UM, SO AS YOU'RE AWARE, AT THE LAST TIME, UH, WE MET, UH, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, UH, WAS CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT'S TO FILL THE B O A ALTERNATES, THE VACANCY, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE ONES THAT ARE UP FOR, UM, APPOINTMENT. DURING THAT DISCUSSION, UH, THE GOVERNANCE ASKS THAT THE ALTERNATES INCREASE FROM SIX TO SEVEN ALTERNATES, AND IN ORDER TO INCREASE THAT CAPACITY TO ADD ANOTHER ALTERNATE, IT REQUIRES A U D C AMENDMENT. UH, SO WE ARE MO GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS TO, UH, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO UPDATE THE U D C AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14TH TO A, AMEND THE U D C TO ADD THE SEVENTH SPOT, AND THEN B, APPOINT THE SEVEN, UM, CANDIDATES INTO THOSE VACANT POSITIONS. UM, SO WE HAVE ALREADY GONE TO, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. UH, WE'VE ALREADY GONE TO TAC, UM, AND THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE TAC IS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. UM, NEXT IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR RECOMMENDATION. FOLLOWING THAT IS ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS YOU'RE AWARE, WHEN WE, IN AUGUST WHEN WE UPDATED OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, WE ALSO HAVE REFERENCE TO THE ALTERNATE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE REGULAR MEMBERS AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATES. AND SO, UH, WE, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALSO UPDATE THE RULES AND PROCEDURES BECAUSE AS WE MENTIONED LAST TIME, IT NOW REQUIRES COUNSEL APPROVAL FOR UPDATING ANY RULES AND PROCEDURES. BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALSO BRIEFED YOU ON THAT AS WELL. THAT INCLUDED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE U D C ALSO INCLUDES THE UPDATE TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. SO, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S THE PRESENTATION. AND SO WE JUST WANNA SEE IF THERE'S A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION BY COUNSEL. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR US IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF, OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ALTERNATES FROM SIX TO SEVEN AS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FOR THE U D C. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO I NEED A MOTION FROM THE FLOOR MANNA MR. MANNA, SO STATES THAT HE DOES MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. SURE. IT CAN BE A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE AS AGENDIZED. OKAY. AND DOES IT HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OKAY. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO, THE BOARD APPROVES RIGHT NOW. WE'RE READY FOR CASE NUMBER THREE, I THINK NOW. YES. [3. 19-8085 (Continued from 10/21/2019) BOA-19-10300124: A request by Mark Aerts for a special exception of the density limitations to allow one short-term rental (Type 2) unit, located at 1154 East Euclid Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] ALL RIGHT THEN. CASE NUMBER 1 2 4 E O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. UH, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO. THE ADDRESS IS 1154 EAST EUCLID. THE APPLICANT IS MARK ERTZ. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS TOLIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. [00:45:01] THE ZONING IS INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE RIVER OVERLAY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ONE OF 27 ATTACHED TOWN HOMES DEVELOPED ON 1.179 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM PERMIT ON APRIL 23RD. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ISSUED A TYPE TWO S T R PERMIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS PER RECENTLY ADOPTED CODE. EACH BLOCK FACED DEFINED AT THE LENGTH OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN TWO STREETS ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE AT LEAST, UH, ONE AND UP TO 12.5% OF THE UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE AS TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THERE ARE 21 TOTAL UNITS RESULTING IN THREE TYPE TWO PERMITS BY RIGHT AT THE TIME THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR 1154. THREE OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS BLOCK FACE WERE INCORRECTLY DISPLAYED ON THE G I S ONLINE MAP AS TYPE ONE ST. AS A RESULT OF THE MAP ERROR, STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE DENSITY LIMITATION HAD NOT BEEN REACHED AND ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR THE TYPE TWO. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THE HISTORY OF THE PERMIT ISSUANCE. THIS IS A ONE STOP MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING SITUATED RIGHT HERE, THE PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 24. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET ALL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR THE OPERATION OF A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATING ON A BLOCK FACE, WHICH ALREADY INCLUDES SEVERAL PROPERTIES OPERATING AS S T R TYPE TWOS MAY RESULT IN A CHANGE OF CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN. WE DID UPDATE THIS FROM THE LAST TIME THAT IT WAS CONTINUED. UM, WE GOT ADDITIONAL RESPONSES BACK. SO 52 NOTICES MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, THE OWNER OF TWO LOTS, SIX IN OPPOSITION. THE TOLU HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS IN OP OPPOSITION AS WELL. WELL, UH, WE HAVE ONE OPPOSITION FROM OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE RECEIVED. ALRIGHT, DOES THAT EXTEND, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF IN THIS ORIAN? ORIAN, GO AHEAD. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT ON APRIL 23RD YOU ISSUED A TYPE TWO PERMIT TO, UH, MR. MARK TTT? CORRECT. OKAY, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T OWN THE PROPERTY TILL MAY 30TH. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. ANY, ANY ADDIT QUESTIONS TO STAFF? NONE. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. BOARD MEMBERS. I'M ROB KILLEN, 100 WEST HOUSTON STREET. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ERTZ. UH, WHO ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS CASE? I'VE GOT A, UH, I'D LIKE TO SAY IT'S A BRIEF PRESENTATION, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE A TRUE STATEMENT. BUT I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION AND I WILL, UH, TRY TO MOVE THROUGH IT. THE, UH, ERTZ WILL ALSO GET UP AND MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE BACKGROUND IN THE FLAVOR. BUT WHAT, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS FRAME THE ISSUE FOR PURPOSES OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE HISTORY, UH, WITH A PERMITTING. UH, SO THE, WHAT THE ERT ZONE IS A THREE BEDROOM, THREE BATH TOWN HOME. IT'S WITHIN SOJO CROSSING. UH, SOJO CROSSING IS, UH, ZONED INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE, WHICH IS A MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. UH, YOU CAN SEE IT HERE. THE, UH, AIR TUNE IS RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE. AND SO THESE ARE, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THESE ARE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ON INDIVIDUAL, UH, LOTS. MOST OF THEM ARE FACING THE INTERIOR. YOU HAVE A FEW UNITS, SIX UNITS OF FACE, EUCLID, BUT MOST OF THE HOMES WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY FACE TOWARDS THE INTERIOR. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE GOT A DIVERSITY OF ZONING. WE'VE GOT, UH, I D Z, UH, WHICH IS THE SOJO CROSSING AND F 33, UH, MULTIFAMILY, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, INDUSTRIAL OVER HERE, MORE COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY, AND A LOT OF I D Z. IT'S A, IT'S A MIXED USE AREA. IT'S OVER BY THE PEARL. AND A LOT OF THIS AREA IS REDEVELOPING. UH, THIS IS THE URCH PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, OUTLINED IN BLACK. AND THEN THERE IT IS AGAIN IN RED. UH, THIS IS A VIEW OF THE FRONT. UH, THIS IS THEIR FRONT DOOR RIGHT HERE FOR THE, THE TOWN. UH, SO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, THE TIMELINE. SO ON APRIL 10TH, [00:50:01] THEY WENT TO THE OWNER AND THEY, UH, PUT AN OFFER IN, AND THE OFFER WAS CONTINGENT UPON GETTING A PERMIT ISSUED. THEY SIGNED THE CONTRACT, UH, STILL 'EM CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. THEY SIGNED THE CONTRACT ON THE 15TH AND THE 16TH, THEY CAME DOWN HERE AND APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. AND, UH, AS PART OF THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, I WANNA CHECK OFF A COUPLE BOXES. ONE, COULD THEY GET THE PROPER PERMITTING FROM THE CITY? AND TWO, WERE THEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOJO CROSSING'S REGULATIONS? SO WHAT ANDRESS IS, ANDRESS PENA FROM OUR OFFICE, ANDRESS IS GIVING TO YOU, IS A COPY OF THE A C C DOCUMENTS FOR SOJO CROSSING. AND SO IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN HERE, POINT THE WRONG ONE, LITTLE HARD TO SAY, BUT IT SAYS THAT BASICALLY SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE PERMITTED. SO AS PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE, AGAIN, THEY WANNA MAKE SURE THEY GOT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY AND MADE SURE THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS PERMITTED BY SOJO CROSSING. ON THE 23RD, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ISSUED THE TYPE TWO PERMIT. AND ON THE 30TH, ABOUT FIVE WEEKS LATER, AFTER GETTING THE PERMIT, THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. THEY STARTED MAKING INVESTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND I'LL SHOW THOSE TO YOU. SO THERE'S THE PERMIT THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AND, UH, A COUPLE OF SHOTS AT THE INTERIOR. THAT'S, IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S TURNED OUT REALLY NICE. UH, THEY PAINTED, THEY BOUGHT FURNITURE, UH, TV, ALL OF THIS, YOU KNOW, COUCH, ALL OF THIS, UH, TURNED OUT REALLY NICE. AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S THREE BEDROOMS, SO IT'S A LARGE UNIT. SO THEY HAD TO FURNISH THE WHOLE THING. UH, AND THEY DIDN'T, UH, SPARE ANY EXPENSES BECAUSE THEY, UH, THEY DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AND THERE WERE NO OBSTACLES TO USING THIS AS SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THEN ON AUGUST, THEY GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING, HEY, THERE'S A MAPPING ERROR. WE MISCALCULATED, UH, THE DENSITY WAY BACK IN APRIL. UH, AND SO HERE'S THE LETTER FROM THE CITY. SO BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS, LOOK, WE MISCALCULATED. UH, BUT YOU CAN GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UH, SO TAKE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. THE STAFF CHARACTERIZED THIS AS A FAIRLY SIMPLE STEP, RIGHT? IT'S, UH, WE MADE A MISTAKE, GO TO B O A, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. AND SO A STAFF NOTED WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY LIMITATION. AND SO IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, THE DENSITY LIMITATION IS 12.5%, OR ONE EIGHTH OF THE BLOCK. FACE IS THE MAXIMUM OVER SHORT TERM RENTAL UNITS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED. NOW, I SERVED ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TASK FORCE, AND WE HAD, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT CITIES, WHAT, WHAT DIFFERENT FOLKS DO. FOR EXAMPLE, AUSTIN HAS A DENSITY LIMITATION, BUT THEIR DENSITY LIMITATION IS 25%. SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO REAL RHYME OR REASON FOR THE 12.5% OTHER THAN THAT'S KIND OF WHAT CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE AND WENT UP TO COUNCIL. BUT THERE'S, THERE'S NO SCIENCE BEHIND THE 12.5%. AND SO THERE ARE SIX CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UH, MRS. ERICKSON, WHEN SHE GETS UP HERE, IS GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE RESEARCH THAT SHE'S DONE ON SOME OF THESE, UH, SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT YOU LOOK AT. UH, STAFF TALKED ABOUT THESE SIX CRITERIA IN THEIR REPORT. THEY RECOGNIZE THAT WE MEET FOUR OF THOSE SIX CRITERIA, AND THEY SAID THERE'S REALLY JUST A COUPLE QUESTION MARKS ON TWO OF THOSE SIX CRITERIA. AND ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED USE. AND TWO, THAT IT WON'T ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SO WE HAVE SOMETHING WHICH I THINK IS UNIQUE IN TERMS OF ASKING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL. TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY, IT'S PROSPECTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'VE GOTTA GUESS IF WHEN THEY START OPERATING, IT WILL CAUSE AN INJURY. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE HAD A PERMIT, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN OPERATING LEGALLY, OR AT LEAST WE THOUGHT LEGALLY, UH, FOR MONTHS NOW WE'VE HAD NO CODE VIOLATIONS AND NO INCIDENT. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A RECORD THAT THERE IS NO INJURY, WHICH YOU'LL NEVER SEE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PROSPECTIVELY. AND SO WE JUST HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE ACTUALLY DETERMINE THAT THERE ISN'T AN INJURY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING. AND AGAIN, UH, IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THERE, THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN SOJO CROSSING, EVERYONE HAD THESE DOCUMENTS, THE A C C DOCUMENTS. EVERYONE CAME IN WITH THE SAME BUNDLE OF RIGHTS, THE ABILITY TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IF THEY SO CHOSE. SO THERE CAN'T BE AN INJURY TO OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SAME EXACT RIGHTS, UH, THAT WE DID. AND IT IS, UH, AS DOCUMENT SAYS, IT IS, UH, PERMITTED. UH, MR. RORY AT THE LAST MEETING MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. I I HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, BUT THERE IS A, UH, TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASE FROM LAST YEAR, UH, FROM 2018. IT TALKS ABOUT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND SHORT TERM RENTALS. YOU, YOU CAN'T GET ANY CLEARER ON POINT THAN THIS, [00:55:01] UH, RULING, WHICH WAS BACK IN MAY. SO A LITTLE OVER A YEAR OLD. AND SO WHAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WAS ASKED TO DO, AND THIS IS FROM TIMBERWOOD PARK, JUST, JUST RIGHT OUTSIDE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UH, WHETHER A RESTRICTION, LIMITING A USE TO RESIDENTIAL ONLY PROHIBITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO YOU HAD IS MR. TAR HAD BOUGHT A HOUSE OUT IN TIMBERWOOD PARK. HIS COMPANY MOVED HIM OUT TO HOUSTON. AND SO WHAT HE DID WAS HE FORMED A COMPANY TO OPERATE HIS HOUSE AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. HE WENT THROUGH V R B O AND STARTED OPERATING IT, RENTING IT OUT. AND SO THE RESTRICTIONS IN TIMBERWOOD PARK SAID THAT YOU CAN ONLY USE YOUR LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, NO BUSINESS PURPOSES. AND SO WHAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SAID WAS, SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS A RESIDENTIAL USE. IF THERE'S A PROHIBITION LIMITING YOU TO RESIDENTIAL USE SHORT-TERM RENTAL WHERE YOU'RE STAYING THERE ONE NIGHT, ONE YEAR, THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, THAT IS STILL A RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT IS NOT A BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH HE'D FORMED A BUSINESS TO OPERATE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IT IS STILL A RESIDENTIAL USE. AND SO THAT IS THE LAW IN TEXAS NOW, THAT IF YOU HAVE A DEEDED RESTRICTION SAYS RESIDENTIAL SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE INCLUDED IN THAT BUNDLE OF RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS. AND THEN THE, UH, THE CHARACTER AGAIN TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOJO CROSSING HAS THESE, UH, RESTRICTIONS THAT ALLOW FOR, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS. TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S A TOWN HOME COMMITTEE WHERE THEY ALL KIND OF FACE TOWARDS THE INTERIOR. UH, THE OTHER THING IS, OF COURSE THE AREA. THIS IS, THIS IS OVER BY THE PEARL. IT'S VERY WALKABLE. YOU'VE GOT A MIXTURE OF USES. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENING AROUND THERE, AND I'VE GOT A, A PICTURE. BUT, UH, SOJO IS, IS DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE. UH, YOU'VE GOT SOME REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENING OVER HERE, UH, AS YOU SAW FROM THE ZONING MAP, A MIXTURE OF ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THIS IS THE PEARL OVER HERE. HERE'S THE RIVER, THE PEARL, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT HOTEL IMA IN HERE. AND SO IT'S A VERY WALKABLE COMMUNITY. AND THAT IS THE CHARACTER. AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOJO IS A RELATIVELY NEW DEVELOPMENT. WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS SHORT TO RENTAL, WON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF SOJO AND WON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. UH, STAFF EVEN TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THEIR REPORT. THEY SAID, CONSIDER THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE REQUEST. STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT ONLY SIX OF THOSE TOWN HOMES ARE FACING TOWARDS EUCLID. THE REST ARE FACING INTO THE INTERIOR. AND, UH, THERE'S COMMON IN THE STAFF REPORT DOES NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF, UH, THE DISTRICT. UH, MRS. ERICKS, OF COURSE, THE EIRS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN SHE GETS UP. UH, SHE'S GONNA TAKE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE FACTORS AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND UP EVERY DAY. AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROPERTY, JUST TO REMIND YOU, UH, THEIR UNIT IS RIGHT IN THERE. THE FRONT OF THE UNIT THEY'RE FACING TOWARDS THE INTERIOR. THEY'RE NOT FACING TOWARDS THE OUT OUTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OTHER THING, I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED ALL THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA, BUT THE EARS GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. THEY HAVE SOMETHING CALLED AUTO HOST, WHICH IS A SCREENING SYSTEM FOR THEIR RESIDENTS, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY THEY'VE HAD NO CODE VIOLATIONS IN THEIR SEVERAL MONTHS OF OPERATION, WHY THERE HASN'T BEEN AN INCIDENT. SO THEY, THEY CHECKED OUT THE GUEST. IT'S, IT'S A WAY OF PROTECTING THEIR NEIGHBORS, QUITE FRANKLY. IT'S A WAY OF PROTECTING THEIR OWN PROPERTY INVESTMENT. THE OTHER THING THEY DO IS THEY HAVE A, NOT A NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM CALLED NOISE AWARE. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DECIMAL LEVEL GETS TOO HIGH? THEY GET AN ALERT AND THEY CAN RESPOND IMMEDIATELY. AND SO NOISE AWARE AND THE, OF COURSE, THE PRE-SCREENING HELP, AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY INCIDENTS. SO AGAIN, WE MEET THE SIX CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THAT UNIQUE PIECE OF THIS CASE. AND THAT'S THE FACT THAT THEY RELIED UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND TALK ABOUT WHY THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TODAY IS SO CRITICAL. NOW. YOU HEAR A LOT OF VARIANCE CASES WHERE A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED IN AIR AND DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED. AND, UH, TO ESTABLISH THE HARDSHIP OF THE VARIANCE, YOU SAY, WELL, WE RELIED UPON A PERMIT. THIS CASE IS NOT LIKE THIS. THIS IS, AND I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU. I'VE TALKED ABOUT CANTU AND, AND SUMNER AND SOME OF THESE OTHER CASES. I'M NOT RELYING ON THAT TODAY. BUT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT LINE OF CASES. THIS IS A SEPARATE LINE OF THINKING. THAT IS WHEN A CITY ISSUES A PERMIT AND YOU RELY ON THAT PERMIT AND YOU SPEND MONEY ON THAT PERMIT, UH, YOU REALLY HAVE NO REMEDIES IF THERE IS A DENIAL. AND SO IT'S A CONCEPT CALLED ESTOPPEL. YOU KNOW, IT'S A DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE, UH, CONCEPT. AND SO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SAID, JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE ESTOPPEL IF THAT'S THE ONLY REMEDY. SO THE 2006 CASE, TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IT'S THE, IT'S THE LEADING CASE ON ESTOPPEL. SO SUPER WASH WAS THIS CAR WASH AND THEY'D BEEN OPERATING FOR YEARS. THEY GO TO THE CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT AND THEY SAY, WE NEED A PERMIT TO BUILD A SECOND DRIVEWAY. CITY ISSUES THEM. A PERMIT CITY MADE A MISTAKE. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE ISSUED THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT. [01:00:01] AND SO IT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT THE FACTORS FOR THE CAR WASH. THEY SAID, WELL, THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR YEARS. THEY DIDN'T NEED THAT AT THEIR PERMIT. THEY CAN OPERATE WITHOUT THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY REALLY NEED IT. THAT'S NOT THEIR ONLY REMEDY. IT'S ALSO NOT THEIR ONLY REMEDY BECAUSE THE CAR WASH SUPER WASH COULD HAVE GONE AND RE AND SOUGHT A VARIANCE. THEY COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. THEY HAD ANOTHER ROUTE TO FIND SOME SORT OF SOLUTION OTHER THAN THIS PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR. UH, IF THAT'S THE ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE COURT REALLY FOCUSED ON. THE OTHER THING IS FOR SUPER WASH IS THE FOLKS AT SUPER WASH COULD HAVE GONE, THEY COULD HAVE JUST READ THE CITY'S ORDINANCES READILY AVAILABLE. THEY COULD HAVE READ IT AND DETERMINED THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THAT DRIVEWAY PERMIT. AND SO THAT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT TO SAY, LOOK, IF THIS INFORMATION'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, WE'RE GONNA GIVE THAT SOME WEIGHT. AND SO SUPER WASH, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE ORDINANCE FIRST, JUST SHOULDN'T JUST RELIED ON THE PERMIT. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THEY SAID, WAS THE CITY ACTED WITHIN JUST A FEW DAYS TO TELL THE CAR WASH, HEY, LOOK, WE, WE GAVE THAT PERMIT, SORRY, WE SCREWED UP. UH, WE'RE GONNA NEED A BACK VERY QUICKLY. THERE'S ANOTHER CASE THAT, UH, Y'ALL MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF YOU. THIS WAS A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A FEW YEARS BACK, AND THAT WAS THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UH, FOR A BUSINESS SOLD ALCOHOL NEAR SCHOOL, UH, EAST CENTRAL I S D IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS SAID, WELL, HEY, WAIT A SECOND. I GOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND I'VE ALREADY SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T TAKE MY PERMIT AWAY. AND SO WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IS, WELL, YES, YOU GOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, BUT YOU SPENT ALL THE MONEY BEFORE YOU GOT THE PERMIT. IT'S UNLIKE THIS OTHER CASE WHERE WE, YOU, UH, ANOTHER CITY ISSUED A PERMIT FOR A SIGN, AND THEN THEY SPENT THE MONEY. SO THEY DREW A BRIGHT LINE TEST. IF YOU SPENT THE MONEY BEFORE GETTING THE PERMIT, YOU CAN'T RELY ON THE FACT OF THE PERMIT SPENT, THE MONEY, IF YOU GET THE PERMIT AND THEN RELY, THAT'S A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CASE. AND SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, WAS THE PERMIT, AND THIS IS AGAIN SUMMARIZING THE, THE TWO CASES WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, WAS PERMIT NECESSARY? DID THE MUNICIPALITY QUICKLY ALERT THE APPLICANT? COULD THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE FIGURED IT OUT? COULD THEY, UH, DID THE APPLICANT SPEND MONEY AFTER GETTING THE PERMIT? AND IS THERE ANY OTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE? AND SO JUST TO PUT THIS BACK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE IRKS AND THEIR TIMELINE, THEY PUT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. THEY DIDN'T SPEND A PENNY, AND THEY WEREN'T GOING TO SPEND A PENNY UNTIL THEY'D DONE THEIR PROPER DUE DILIGENCE. THEY MADE SURE THAT THE A C C DOCUMENTS ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT, AND THEY HAD A PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY FIVE WEEKS LATER. SO THERE WAS FIVE WEEK PERIOD WHERE THEY DIDN'T CLOSE. THEY'RE STILL GOING THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE. THEY CLOSED ON. THEY SPENT $465,000 FOR THE PROPERTY AND THEN SPEND ANOTHER $65,000 FURNISHING IT, PAINTING IT, FINISHING IT OUT, PUTTING IN ALL THESE GREAT FIXTURES. AND THEN ONLY MONTHS LATER DID THE CITY SAY, YEAH, I'M SORRY, WE MADE A MISTAKE, AND THEY GOT THE PERMIT. UH, THIS IS THE LETTER FROM THE CITY. AGAIN, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO DO THEY NEED THAT PERMIT? YES, THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. UNLIKE SUPER WASH WHERE THEY DIDN'T NEED THE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE CAR WASH, THE EIRS NEED THIS PERMIT. UH, IS THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION THE ONLY REMEDY? THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD. WAS THIS DENSITY AVAILABLE? NO, IT WAS A ONLY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, ONLY STAFF HAD THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF WHO WAS, WHAT TYPES OF RENTALS WERE IN, WHAT LOCATIONS. THEY DID THE DENSITY CALCULATION. THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT ON THEIR OWN WHO WAS THE TYPE ONE, WHO WAS THE TYPE TWO. AND IF THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THAT DENSITY LIMITATION, WAS THE CITY SLOW IN ACTING? THE ANSWER IS YES. AGAIN, IT WAS A MISTAKE. UH, IT HAPPENS, RIGHT? BUT IT WAS FOUR MONTHS AFTER THEY GOT IN THE PERMIT. THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, THEY STARTED BOOKING IT, STARTED OPERATING IT, AND DID THEY SPEND THE MONEY AFTER GETTING THE PERMIT? THE ANSWER IS YES, OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. SO I'M GOING TO, UH, WRAP UP MY COMMENTS. UH, LIKE I SAID, THE S ARE GONNA COME UP HERE AND, UH, SPEAK FOR A COUPLE MINUTES ON A COUPLE OF THESE OTHER FACTORS I THINK ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR. BUT THEY DID ALL THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. THEY MADE SURE THAT THEY COULD OPERATE IN THIS, UH, LOCATION UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF SOJO CROSSING. THEY GOT THE PERMIT FROM THE CITY, AND ONLY FOUR MONTHS LATER, THE CITY SAY, YEAH, WE MADE A MISTAKE. WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THIS IS OUR ONLY REMEDY. SO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THANK YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. THANK YOU, SIR. SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? F FISHER? MS. FISHER, GO AHEAD. UH, [01:05:01] I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE TWO EX, UH, EXAMPLES YOU CHOSE WERE FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, AND YOU'RE COMPARING IT TO WHAT YOU SAID IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL, UH, BUSINESS ONLY. SO THE SUPER WASH EXAMPLE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. IT'S, IT'S A TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULING ON ESTOPPEL. IT'S ON THE CON THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF ESTOPPEL. THE FACT THAT BUSINESSES, UH, REALLY HAS, HAS NO BEARING BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THE RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS A RESIDENTIAL USE SYSTEM, REALLY WASN'T REGULATED IN TEXAS UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. THERE'S BEEN A ROUND OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED ACROSS THE STATE OF THE LAST FEW YEARS. SO THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CASE LAW. THE TIMBERWOOD PARK IS PROBABLY THE SEMINAL CASE ON SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT IT DIDN'T GO TO THIS ESTOPPEL QUESTION. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST RELYING ON THE, THE LAW THAT IS THERE. AND THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED WAS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS ANALOGOUS. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. ANYONE ELSE? ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO TWO THINGS I I I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO EXPAND UPON. SO YOU, YOU PASS THESE RULES OUT. ARE THESE RULES RECORDED? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, THERE'S A SECTION THAT ALLOWS OUR SHORT TERM RENTAL OR HOME SWAP. SO LONG AS THE USE OF THE RESIDENCE AS A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL OR A HOME SWAP DOES NOT RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THESE, THESE RULES OR DE DEDICATORY, UH, DE UM, ATORY DEDICATORY INSTRUMENTS. YES. SO IN THE INS IN THE D CCRS THAT WERE RECORDED, UM, MANY MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS, THEY RESTRICT THE USE OF A COMMERCIAL RESIDENCE AS A COMMERCIAL USE. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WHY WOULDN'T AN ST. S T R TYPE ONE SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY THING THAT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THESE RULES AND THE D CCRS, AND I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT. YEAH, I'D LOVE TO SEE THE D CCRS. AND THE OTHER THING I NEED YOU TO COMMENT ON IS, UM, ON MAY 30TH WHEN THE DEED WAS SOLD AT THE SAME DATE, THEY ALSO RECORDED A DEED OF TRUST. AND IN THE DEED OF TRUST, IT SPECIFICALLY, UH, REQUIRES THE BOWER TO USE THE PROPERTY AS THEIR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR. AND SO I'M TRY CURIOUS TO FIND OUT HOW THAT'S BEING, UH, UH, HANDLED WITH THIS BEING AN S D R TYPE TWO APPLICATION, IF ALL THE DUE PROPER DUE DILIGENCE AND THEN THE INTENT OF PURCHASE. I MEAN, THIS IS WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT, IT WAS, THEY WENT ON RECORD WITH A SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTION BETWEEN THE LENDER THAT THEY CANNOT USE IT, UH, OTHER THAN THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR. I'D LIKE TO TO HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. UH, SO MRS. ERTZ WILL BE UP HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. WOULD YOU LIKE HER TO ADDRESS THAT IN HER COMMENTS? OKAY. UH, SO WHAT YOU'VE JUST HANDED ME SAYS THAT THE PROHIBITED USE ANY COMMERCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY OKAY. APPORTION OF RESIDENCE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. RIGHT. SO BASED ON TIMBERWOOD PARK, WE DO NOT VIOLATE THIS. OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, I'M, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE INTENT WAS TO BUY IT TO BE A BUSINESS, AND IF IT WAS AN STR ONE, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE IN LINE WITH THE RULES IN THE D CCRS, WHEREAS AS AN SDR TWO, IT WOULD NOT BE, LET'S GO GO BACK TO THE TIMBER ROAD RULING. AND SO, UH, WHAT MR. TAR AND TIMBER ROAD, UH, PARK DID IS HE CREATED A COMPANY TO MANAGE HIS HOUSE AS AN S T R AND IT SAID TRACKS REVIEW SOLELY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL USE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OPERATED BY A COMPANY. BUT THEY, THEY, THAT RULING ALSO TALKS ABOUT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WOULD RESTRICT. SO IF YOU SAY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS HOW THE RULING WENT. BUT IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC RESTRICTION THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE AN S T R, AND IN THIS CASE, THE WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING IS AN ALLOWANCE TO BE AN SDR R TYPE ONE, AS I READ IT, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO MEET BOTH REQUIREMENTS, WHEREAS AN SDR TWO WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE D CCRS. AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M, I NEED SOME HELP GETTING ME THROUGH THAT. YEAH, I, UH, AGAIN, THEY'RE OPERATING SHORT-TERM RENTAL JUST LIKE IN THE TIMBERWOOD PARK CASE. AND SO IT'S, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. OKAY. THAT'S A MATTER FOR US TO DETERMINE, BECAUSE AGAIN, WHILE WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO, UM, ENFORCING DEEDED RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF WHETHER IT'S AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, IT'S HARD TO DENY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND, UH, ASSOCIATION WHERE THIS WAS AN, AN ELEMENT WHERE PEOPLE WERE, YOU KNOW, PURCHASING THEIR HOMES IN THIS, UH, UNDER THIS ENVIRONMENT, JUST LIKE TIMBER ROAD PARK, AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. IT SAYS, UM, COMMERCIAL USE. AND THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL USE, IT'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IT'S RESTRICTED FROM RENTING FOR COMMERCIAL [01:10:01] USE. CORRECT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPREME COURT TALKED ABOUT IN TIMBERWOOD PARK IS THEY SAID THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL USE. SO THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN NO WAY STIPULATED THAT, THAT IT WAS, IM, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTRICT AN S T R IN ANY D CCRS. NO, ABSOLUTELY. THEY, THEY SAID YOU CAN, YOU CAN HAVE A PROVISION IN YOUR DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, SAY SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE PROHIBITED. OKAY. AND IT WOULD, AND IT HAS TO, AND, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING SAYS IT HAS TO BE STIPULATED IN THAT TAX OR, OR THE, OR THE PROVISION FOR NOT, UH, RENTING AS A, AS A COMMERCIAL USE, IT DOESN'T CUT IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT THEY SAY. THE COVENANTS REQUIRE ACTIVITIES, WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE, NOT A BUSINESS PURPOSE, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ARE, YOU KNOW, INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS. AND SO WHAT THEY SAID WAS, WE DECLINED ADD RESTRICTIONS. SO GENERAL WORDS ARE GENERAL, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC. AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE LIVE IN A MODERN SOCIETY WHERE SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS, UH, PREVALENT. AND SO AS DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE ADOPTED, THAT WILL PROBABLY BE SOMETHING NEW THAT WE'LL SEE IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, CHAIR, IF I COULD CLARIFY, JUST, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD, WE'VE HAD SOME, SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND SOME OTHER LEGAL THEORY. UM, SOME OF THIS, UH, ISN'T NECESSARILY THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. WE JUST ASK THAT YOU KEEP, KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND. I BELIEVE WE'RE MAKING A RULING HERE BASED UPON THE INTENT OF, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, NOT NECESSARILY THE INTENT OF THE, THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ERROR OF STAFF THAT ISSUED THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE IN THE, THE EFFECT THAT SHOULD WE EXTEND, UH, AND SUPPORT THE STAFF ON THEIR GENERAL ROARING OR, OR OVERRULE THEM AND DETERMINE THAT ONCE THEY ESTABLISH THE ORIGINAL, UM, THAT, UH, IT, IT PERHAPS JUSTIFIES THE, UH, POSITION OF GRANTING A VARIANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO, I MEAN, IT DOES COMPLICATE IT. AND SO EVERY, EVERY VARIABLE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION HERE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE BASICALLY BASED, UH, MAKING A DECISION BASED ON INTENT IN MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR, BUT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY, UM, A, UH, UH, AND IT WASN'T CAUSED MALY, IT WAS JUST AN ERROR. AND NOW WE HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO'S BEEN OPERATING A AN SS T R IN, IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THE, UH, S UH, UNDER THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED NOW REQUESTING THAT, BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE BEING TOLD THEY CANNOT DO THAT. SHOULD WE DENY THEM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED? IS IT THERE, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON, ON THE, THE CITY DOESN'T ENFORCE THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S ISSUE. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ALL THE ASPECTS OF IT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR US TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON WHETHER, UH, WE WERE FOLLOWING EVERYONE'S MO MO MOTIVE FOR ACTIONS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ON A DECISION BASED UPON THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL. THEREFORE, WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY MADE A STIPULATION THAT THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND TO MAKE SURE THEY, THEY QUALIFIED WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THIS. SO THEY OPENED THE DOOR IN REGARD TO THE DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, IT WILL NOT BE PERTINENT TO THE DECISION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YES. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? MANNA, MR. MANNA? IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY. UM, SO, UM, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE OR, OR HOW LONG DOES A PERMIT LAST? UH, ONCE IT'S ISSUED TO, UM, WE'LL SAY A RESIDENT, THEY'RE GOOD FOR THREE YEARS, UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WHERE THERE'S THREE CITATIONS, THEN THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO REVOKE THAT PERMIT, OTHERWISE THREE YEARS. SO THAT'S KIND OF A NEW ORDINANCE. SO WE HAVEN'T RUN ACROSS THE THREE YEAR TIMELINE YET. SO ARE EVERY ONE OF THOSE PERMITS THAT ARE GRANTED AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED, UH, WHEN THAT TIMELINE EXISTS OR COMES UP? THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RENEWAL PROCESS AT, AT THREE YEAR MARK, SO WE'LL RE REEVALUATE THE ENTIRE AREA. SO, UM, SAY THREE YEARS FROM NOW, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED AND YOU SEE THAT THERE'S FOUR PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA, THEREFORE NOT MEETING THE 12%, UM, DOES THAT MEAN THAT EVERY ONE OF THOSE ARE GONNA BE REVIEWED, I GUESS AT THAT POINT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE WHERE WE'VE ISSUED, UM, SOME ON EIGHTH STREET. THAT SAME APPLICANT WILL BE HERE IN THREE YEARS BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AGAIN, UNLESS THE CODE CHANGES. SO ALSO, LET ME CLARIFY. SO IF A PROPERTY HAD TO GO THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS, THE INITIAL TIME, AND, UM, WHEN THEY COME IN TO RENEW, IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AGAIN [01:15:01] BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY LIMITATION, THEN YES, THEY HAVE TO RENEW THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE BOARD. SO, SO IN THIS CASE, REGARDLESS OF THE TIMELINE, WHEN THEY PURCHASE IT OR WHY THEY PURCHASE IT THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THAT'S NOT REALLY GONNA PLAY OUT. AND SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S GONNA BE BASED UPON, I GUESS, HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHICH OF THIS, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SAY THE FOUR UNITS WHICH ARE GONNA GOING TO GET PERMITTED. IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON THE TIME THAT THEY APPLY FIRST IN THE DOOR. THANK YOU ORIAN. MR. DURANG, GO AHEAD. UH, THE FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTIONING, UM, FROM MY COLLEAGUE, WHERE DOES THIS PROPERTY LIE? UH, SO THIS IS THE FOURTH ONE, BUT IS THIS THE FOURTH? I MEAN, WHERE DOES THIS STAND IN THE, AS THE THREE YEARS ARE EXPIRING AND DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, HOW SOON PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF AN S D R PERMIT, THE APP, THE REAPPLICATION CAN OCCUR. WHERE DOES THIS, WHERE DOES THIS LIE IN THE, IN THE STANDING? IS THIS LIKE, TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIFTH ONE. UH, THERE WERE THREE THAT WERE ISSUED INITIALLY. A FOURTH ONE MADE IT UNDER THE DEADLINE FOR, IT WAS UNDER THE GRANDFATHERED LIST. THEY HAD THEIR HOT ACCOUNT BEFORE NOVEMBER 1ST. SO THEY WERE ISSUED THAT FOURTH PERMIT BECAUSE THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED. THIS FIFTH ONE WAS, I WOULDN'T SAY TWO MONTHS AFTER THE OTHERS. HOW SOON, HOW SOON BEFORE CAN YOU REAPPLY FOR A PERMIT? I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT THAT IF, IF THE FIRST THREE THAT WERE ISSUED RE-UP, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY ALL FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THIS IS GONNA BE OVER THE LIMIT. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO, UM, THERE'S NO, THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY BY THE, BY THE DEADLINE OF WHEN IT EXPIRES. UH, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE GIVEN OUR REVIEW PERIOD THAT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE SENDING THEM LETTERS TELLING THEM THAT THEIR PERMIT IS UP FOR RENEWAL AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PROCESS THE PERMITS. I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO APPLY FOR A RENEWAL PRIOR TO THE FIRST THREE PERMITS BEING RENEWED. LIKE CAN THEY DO IT A YEAR IN ADVANCE TO RENEW? NO, IT'S NOT UP FOR RENEWAL A YEAR IN ADVANCE. OKAY. SO THERE'S, THERE IS A, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT AT WHAT POINT CAN THEY APPLY FOR A RENEWAL? IS IT THREE MONTHS BEFORE IT EXPIRES? SIX MONTHS? WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AT WHAT POINT WE'LL OPEN UP THE RENEWAL PROCESS, BUT AGAIN, I IMAGINE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE STAFF CAPACITY TO REVIEW AT LEAST A COUP, MAYBE ABOUT 60 DAYS PRIOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY, NO MORE QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT. UH, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. I BELIEVE WE PROBABLY HAVE SOME WITNESSES IN REGARD TO THIS. WE DO. WE HAVE SIX SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. FIRST SIGNED UP IS, FORGIVE ME FOR SAYING THIS. AN OR AN MELENDEZ FOLLOWED UP BY MARK S ALL RIGHT. AN ALI. OH, HOLD ON. UH, ARE YOU, YOU NEED TO KIND, IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK, YOU NEED TO STEP FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU'RE WILLING TO SPEAK NOW OR IF YOU WANT TO DEFER YOUR TIME, YOU CAN HOLD ON. GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. TELL ME WHO YOU'RE DEFERRING YOUR TIME TO. MELISSA S OKAY. IT'S YOUR NAME AND WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS? NO, MY NAME'S AN MELENDEZ. OKAY. AND YOUR ADDRESS. AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 2 800 APPLE WHITE ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 4. VERY GOOD. AND YOU WANTED DEFER YOUR TIME TOO, MELISSA TZ. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S MOVE HER OVER. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT. UM, NEXT IS MARK TZ. MARK TZ, 6 1 9 LEGACY RIDGE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT, UH, 2 6 0. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA GIVE, I'M GONNA GIVE MY TIME TO MY WIFE, MELISSA. ALRIGHT. PLEASE BE SEATED. AND NOW I NEED YOU TO ADDRESS AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, MY NAME IS MELISSA ERTZ. I LIVE AT 6 1 9 LEGACY RIDGE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 6 0. AND HOW MUCH TIME IS SHE LI LIMITED? NINE MINUTES. NINE MINUTES. ALRIGHT, GOOD LUCK. TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS. YES. SO MY HUSBAND AND I ARE, UH, LOCAL REAL ESTATE OWNERS, AND WE HAVE OVER 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. WE ONLY RECENTLY BEGAN TO INVEST IN PROPERTIES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT OUR BUSINESS MODEL FROM THE BEGINNING WAS TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND AREAS AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE SHORT-TERM RENTAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED, AND WHERE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS ON THE PERMITS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT. SO IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION OR DESIRE TO FIND OURSELVES IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD, UM, BECAUSE WE RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS, UM, BUT WE NOW FIND OURSELVES HERE TO DEFEND THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, WHICH IS NOW IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE MAP ERROR AND THAT OUR ACQUISITION TIMELINE AND FACTS WERE ALREADY DISCUSSED BY, UM, MR. KILLEN. UM, I WOULD MAYBE MAKE A COMMENT THAT, UM, ON COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU RESEARCH THAT, WHICH I I DID BEFORE WE STARTED GOING INTO THIS LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS ACROSS THE NATION ARE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL USE AND NOT COMMERCIAL USE. THAT'S ALWAYS THE CASE. BUT IT'S NICE WHEN THE INSTRUMENTS, [01:20:01] THE, THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS ACTUALLY SAY, NOT ONLY IS IS COMMERCIAL USE IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S PROHIBITED, BUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED. SO THAT TELLS YOU THAT IT'S OKAY. UM, THE THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WERE THE SIX NECESSARY CRITERIA. I GUESS THE, THE CITY ALREADY STIPULATED THAT WE MET FOUR OF THE SIX CRITERIA. THEY HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO OF THEM. UM, ONE OF THEM, THEY SAID THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE DATA SHOWING THAT OCCUPANCY RATES FOR LONG-TERM RENTALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS REQUEST. SO THE PERCENTAGE OF RENTAL REAL ESTATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH SOJO CROSSING IS LOCATED, NOT JUST THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 94%. THIS IS HIGHER THAN 98% OF ALL NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS AMERICA. THE HOME AND APARTMENT VACANCY RATES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE CITYWIDE RATE. SO IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, 8.3% VACANCY CITYWIDE 8.5%. THIS WOULD SEEM TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE PRESENCE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT AFFECTING OCCUPANCY RATES IN THE LONG-TERM RENTALS. ANOTHER POTENTIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING SUPPLY AND THEREBY OCCUPANCY WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE OPERATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE SUPPLY IS IMPACTED IS NEGLIGIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. NUMBER ONE, IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT ALL UNITS THAT ARE DEDICATED TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE ARE BEING REMOVED FROM THE LONG-TERM RENTAL STOCK BECAUSE SOME OF THEM WERE NEVER A PART OF IT. THE HOME WE PURCHASED WAS OWNER-OCCUPIED AND IS NOW SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THERE WAS A STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED TO EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN SANTA BARBARA CITY AND COUNTY. THEY CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR THE PERCEPTION THAT STR HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SUPPLY AND THEREFORE OCCUPANCY RATES OF LONG-TERM HOUSING. I TOOK THEIR METHODOLOGY AND APPLIED IT TO THE SAN ANTONIO MARKET, AND I RESEARCHED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS IN SAN ANTONIO IS 494,260. IF YOU BREAK THIS DOWN AND INCLUDE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY RENTER OCCUPIED HOMES, THE NUMBER IS 115,761. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 1,015 TYPE TWO S T R PERMITS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SO THESE PERMITS REPRESENT LESS THAN 1% OF THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSES IN SAN ANTONIO. IF ALL PERMITTED SS T R UNITS WERE CONVERTED, CONVERTED TO LONG-TERM RENTAL UNITS, THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF LESS THAN 1% IN THE LONG-TERM RENTAL SUPPLY. AND OBVIOUSLY, OUR INDIVIDUAL PERMIT REPRESENTS ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF THIS NUMBER, AND SO THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE IS EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON LONG-TERM RENTAL AVAILABILITY. ANOTHER POTENTIAL CONCERN APPEARS TO CENTER AROUND A DECREASE IN AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY WORKFORCE RENTAL HOUSING UNITS. SO THE AVERAGE RENTAL RATE IN SAN ANTONIO IS $1,270 A MONTH IN THE SOJO CROSSING NEIGHBORHOOD, THE AVERAGE RENTAL RATE IS 1,970. BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS PROPERTY TO COVER ITS EXPENSES AND FUNCTION AS A LONG-TERM RENTAL, THE RATE WOULD NEED TO BE $3,200 PER MONTH. SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE, AND THIS RENTAL WOULD NOT FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF AN AFFORDABLE RANGE, AND IT'S UNLIKELY TO COMPETE WITH OR AFFECT THE OCCUPANCY AND THE OTHER RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE CITY ALSO STATED THAT THEY'RE SHOWING THAT PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS REQUEST. IN APRIL OF 2018, THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL B SESSION PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS PROTECT OR SLIGHTLY INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES. THEY CITED STUDIES CONDUCTED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY, WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY, AND M I T U C L A U S C. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH SOJO CROSSING IS FOUND IS DESCRIBED AS THE BROADWAY STREET SLASH EAST JONES AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NUMBER FIVE IN THE LIST OF THE TOP 10 NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE HIGHEST APPRECIATION IN SAN ANTONIO SINCE THE YEAR 2000. THIS IS DESPITE THE HIGH NUMBER OF, UH, HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS TO INCLUDE SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS IN SOJO CROSSING. COMMUNITY OWNERS HAVE ENJOYED AN AVERAGE OF 5.33% APPRECIATION BASED ON TAX ASSESSED VALUES WITH A RANGE UP TO 35% INCREASE IN VALUE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS ALONE. THIS APPRECIATION OCCURRED IN THE COMMUNITY THAT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF UNITS WITHOUT ANY DENSITY RESTRICTION OR ANY RESTRICTION ON NON-OWNER OCCUPIED USE. THE PROPERTY WE PURCHASED WAS PURCHASED FOR 16% MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE AFTER ONLY TWO YEARS. SO FOR CRITER CRITERIA F UM, THE CITY STIPULATED THAT OUR REQUEST IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS STILL USED PRIMARILY AS A RESIDENCE AND IT IS NOT UNLIKE OTHER HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY. UM, THEY ALSO, AGAIN, [01:25:01] INSERTED THE SAME STATEMENT THAT I COULD ADDRESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO OCCUPANCY RATES AND PROPERTY EVALUATIONS, WHICH I WOULD REFER YOU BACK TO WHAT I'VE JUST PRESENTED. AND IT SAYS THE BOARD CAN ALSO CONSIDER PUBLIC INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING THE CHARACTER IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. I WOULD SAY THAT SOJO CROSSING WAS PURPOSE BUILT IN A TOURIST DESTINATION NEAR THE PEARL TO EMBRACE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS THE H O A RULES SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR IT. AND AGAIN, THE PERCENTAGE OF RENTAL REAL ESTATE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IS 94%. SO THE RENTAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN KEEPING WITH THAT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CITY STAFF THEN SUGGESTED THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE REQUEST. HOWEVER, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE REQUEST CENTERS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, THAT WE EXERCISED ALL DUE DILIGENCE AND ACTED IN GOOD FAITH UPON RECEIPT OF THE PERMIT TO PURCHASE AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. HAD THE CITY DENIED THE PERMIT INITIALLY, WE WOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED AND WE WOULD NOT FIND OURSELVES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. TODAY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TODAY, WE ACTUALLY HAD A CONTRACT ON ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT WE WERE DENIED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. WE WERE TOLD WE COULD COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND WE SAID, NO, THAT'S NOT OUR GIG. WE DON'T WANNA FORCE OURSELVES INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE LOOKING FOR PLACES WHERE IT'S ACCEPTABLE. UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SHOWN THAT THE PROPERTY DOES MEET ALL OF THE APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT WILL NOT RESULT IN A CHANGE IN CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP FOR US AS OWNERS. WHILE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT RESULT IN HARM EITHER TO THE CITY OR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVE OUR REQUEST FOR OUR VARIANCE IN THE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS AND ALLOW OUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT TO STAND. OKAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY REQUEST ORIAN BURGLARY. OKAY. SO, UM, YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN APRIL? YEAH, WE, WE WENT UNDER CONTRACT IN APRIL. IN APRIL. YOU GOT YOUR S D R PERMIT ON THIS PROPERTY ON APRIL 30TH. YOU CLOSED? UH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE. I THINK IT WAS APRIL 23RD. OKAY. AND YOU PURCHASED IT, UH, THE DEEDED AND WAS RECORDED ON MAY 30TH? CORRECT. WHEN DID YOU SPEND $56,000 IN RENOVATIONS? AFTER THE PERMIT WAS AFTER WE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. SO YOU SPENT OVER $50,000 ON THE RENOVATION OF A STRUCTURE WHOSE PURPOSE WAS TO BE AN S T R FURNITURE, SOFT WATER, UH, REVERSE OSMOSIS, TELEVISIONS, NOISE AWARE. NOISE AWARE, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WERE REQUIRED. IT'S A LUXURY RENTAL. IT'S NOT JUST YOUR TYPICAL RENTAL. DID YOU, DID YOU PULL ANY PERMITS? THIS, THESE ARE NOT RENOVATIONS IN THAT REGARD. THEY'RE ACTUALLY OUTFITTING. OKAY. AND SO, UH, I HAD ASKED, UH, YOUR ATTORNEY ABOUT YOUR DEED OF TRUST RESTRICTION MM-HMM. , SO ON MAY 30TH, UH, YOU COLLECTIVELY BORROWED MONEY AND ENTERED INTO RESTRICTION TO USE IT SOLELY AS YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR. OKAY. AND ACTUALLY THAT ISN'T TRUE. THE, THE PEOPLE WHO LENT US THE, I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT DOUBTING THAT YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT, BUT THEY WERE WELL AWARE THAT THIS WAS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY WHEN THEY LENT US THE MONEY. BUT THE CONDITION REQUIRES YOU TO GET THAT IN WRITING. HAVE YOU DONE THAT? I CAN, I GUESS. I MEAN, BUT TODAY YOU DON'T HAVE THAT? UH, I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO BRING IT. I COULD PROBABLY LOOK THROUGH MY EMAIL AND FIND IT. I'M GONNA INTERRUPT AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE CONDITION THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT. IT IS INFLUENTIAL, BUT IS NOT THE CONDITION. SO. OKAY. SO THE NEXT THING I WANT TO ASK YOU IS, UM, YOU HAVE SIX CHARGES, A THROUGH F UH, YOU SPOKE ON CHARGE F. UH, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO, UM, UH, SPEAK ON CHARGE C. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. SO THERE ARE, UH, A, UM, STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FIVE PEOPLE IN AN OPPOSITION THAT HAVE REGI REGISTERED. UH, THERE'S SIX. SO YOU HAVE SIX, UH, OF THE ABUTTING NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST. CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, SPEAK ON HOW, UH, CHARGE C IS BEING MET? WELL, AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I KNOW THIS IS HER TIME. I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT YOU USE THE TERM A BUDDING AND REMEMBER THESE ARE ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS. SO THESE, THE FOLKS ARE IN OPPOSITION ARE NOT A BUDDING PROPERTY OWNERS. WANNA CORRECT THE RECORD. I KNOW IT'S THE, THE SITE'S FULLY ENCAPSULATED BY A LOT 9 0 2, BUT IT'S STILL PART OF THE P O A. UM, BUT YOU HAVE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, I WAS MISTAKEN IN USING THE WORD A BUDDING, I'LL READ THE CHARGE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. SO YOU'VE GOT SIX OF YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK ABOUT HOW, UM, THEY'RE NOT BEING INFRINGED UPON BY YOU BEING IN TYPE TWO S T R? WELL, I WOULD SAY FIRST THAT THEY, [01:30:01] WHEN THEY MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS AND THEY KNEW THAT ANY ONE OF THE 27 UNITS COULD BE USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND THEY VOLUNTARILY MOVED INTO THE COMMUNITY SO THAT, THAT IS NOT, SHOULDN'T BE AN INFRINGEMENT. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. NUMBER TWO, ALL OF THE UNITS IN OUR BUILDING, ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN'T REGISTER THAT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT, NONE OF THEM HAVE REGISTERED ANY OPPOSITION. WE'RE VERY FRIENDLY WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS IN OUR BUILDING. AND LIKE, UM, ROB KILLEN MENTIONED, WE HAVE A VERY PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY. WE HAVE, UH, OUR HOSPITALITY MANAGER IS NELLIE. SHE'S FULL-TIME. WE HAVE A FULL-TIME MAINTENANCE PERSON. WE'RE ON SITE ANYTIME THAT THE, UH, PROPERTY GOES BETWEEN GUESTS IS VACANT, WE'RE INSPECTING, MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS GOOD. WE MONITOR FOR NOISE. WE, UH, WE SCREEN EACH GUEST, UH, THEY'RE SCREENED AGAINST SEX OFFENDER DATABASES, UH, UH, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, A HUNDRED DIFFERENT PARAMETERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO TELL US WHAT THE RISK WOULD BE TO RENT TO THESE PEOPLE. AND WE DON'T WANNA PUT OUR $500,000 INVESTMENT AT RISK TO LET SOMEBODY COME IN AND TEAR IT UP AS A PARTY HOUSE. WE'RE VERY COMMITTED TO RESPONSIBLE. IT'S CALLED RENT RESPONSIBLY. WE FOLLOW LEGISLATION, WE FOLLOW BEST PRACTICES. WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BUSINESS APPROACH. AND, AND, AND LAST, UH, BEFORE I PASS THE TORCH HERE, UH, THE RULES THAT WERE PASSED OUT BY YOUR ATTORNEY THAT ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THEY ALSO STIPULATE THAT YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS COULD CHANGE THEM WHENEVER THEY WANT. MM-HMM. AND THEY BECOME FULLY EFFECTIVE. SO IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, IF, AND IF WE WERE TO PROVE THIS AND THE BOARD WERE TO CHANGE THOSE RULES, LET'S SAY NEXT WEEK, AND YOU GO UP TO GET YOUR PERMIT REISSUED, THEN WHAT? I BELIEVE THAT'S MORE SPECULATION. WE NEED. I, I CAN'T SPECULATE UNTIL THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. I NEED TO, WE REALLY NEED TO, TO STICK TO THE, TO THE, THE ISSUE OF OF SHOULD, DOES IT JUSTIFY THAT WE OVERRULE THE CITY STAFF ON THEIR CURRENT DETERMINATION? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? YEAH. IF IT, UM, THE MAP ERROR, NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO TELL US HOW LONG THE MAP ERROR WAS IN PLACE, WHAT THE EXTENT OF THE MAP ERROR WAS, AND WHETHER WE'RE THE ONLY PEOPLE AFFECTED BY IT, WHICH I SUGGEST TO YOU IS NOT THE CASE. OKAY. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE MAP EARLIER TODAY AND WE SEE 14 OR 13 OUT OF 15 PROPERTIES ON ONE BLOCK FACE THAT ARE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THIS ORIGINALLY AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF THAT ISSUE OF THE BLOCK FACE, BECAUSE SINCE THESE PROPERTIES DO NOT FACE THE STREET, THAT HOW THAT DETERMINATION WAS DEVELOPED. AND, UH, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, UH, BECAUSE MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE TURNED INWARDS, NOT OUTWARDS. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? INSIDE BLOCK FACE OR OUTSIDE BLOCK FACE, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION IS THE OUTSIDE BLOCK FACE. SO THE ERROR HAD, THE MAP ERROR HAD TO DO WITH THE TYPE OF PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED. S T R TYPE ONE S T R TYPE TWO. UH, FOR THE PERMITS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TYPE TWO, THEY WERE INCORRECTLY DISPLAYED AS TYPE ONES. AND SO THE DENSITY LIMITATION ONLY I IMPACTS TYPE TWO PERMITS. SO THE DATE OF WHICH THE ERROR MAP ERROR OCCURRED WOULD'VE BEEN THE DATE THAT THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED. WERE THEY INCORRECTLY DISPLAYED AS TYPE ONE? AND IT WASN'T DISCOVERED UNTIL ABOUT JULY. UH, WHEN WE RECEIVED A CALL REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED, WE LOOKED INTO IT AND THAT'S WHEN WE DISCOVERED THAT THE MAP ERROR HAD OCCURRED ON PREVIOUS PERMITS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED AT THESE ADDRESSES. OKAY. AND MY QUESTION STILL STANDS, I MEAN, THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK FACE GENERALLY APPLIES TO THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE FACING TOWARD THE STREET AND THEN THESE ARE INTERNALIZED? NO, IT'S ABOUT, UM, FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY. AND THEN SECONDLY, IT'S WHERE THEY'RE ADDRESSED OFF OF. SO WE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE PERMITS, UM, THAT WERE ISSUED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE PAGE, THOSE ARE ADDRESSED OFF OF WHAT'S THAT STREET MYRTLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE PART OF THE SAME PROJECT AREA, BUT THEY'RE ADDRESSED OFF OF MYRTLE. SO THAT'S THEIR BLOCK FACE. THE REST OF 'EM IS A BLOCK FACE FOR, UH, EUCLID BECAUSE THE REST ARE ADDRESSED AT EUCLID. ALL THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE MOVING THE ARROW AROUND RIGHT NOW ARE ALL EUCLID? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? NONE. IF YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. UH, THERE ARE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? THREE MORE. FIRST IS MARTIN KUSHNER, FOLLOWED BY SARAH WILSON. KUSHNER, I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN. MY NAME IS MARTIN KUSHNER. I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET IN TOBIN HILL. I AM NOT [01:35:01] ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AT ALL. I'M JUST SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT OF TOBIN HILL AND THE CONCEPT OF WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. UH, I RECENTLY READ A BOOK THAT UH, TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS THE MAKEUP OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE BOOK STARTED OUT BY SAYING A NEIGHBORHOOD IS MADE UP OF PLACES AND PEOPLE, PEOPLE BEING DEFINED AS NEIGHBORS, NOT SHORT TERM INDIVIDUALS THAT MOVE IN AND MOVE OUT. I CAN SPEAK VERY CLOSELY TO THIS BECAUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS TO THE STREET I HAD A VERY GOOD DRINKING BUDDY WHO HAD TO LEAVE THE CITY AND HE SOLD HIS HOUSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SIGNED A VERY SIMILAR THING TO THE PEOPLE THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONTRACT THAT SAID YOU WILL LIVE THERE. AND FOR THAT THE CITY GAVE THEM CERTAIN RIGHTS AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD LIVE THERE IN THIS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY AND THEY NEVER HAVE LIVED THERE. WITHIN THREE DAYS THEY MOVED IN NEW FURNITURE AND IT WAS A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITHIN FIVE DAYS. SO THEY LIED. SO IT'S JUST NOT AN EASY THING TO JUST SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WHEN WE SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT SAYS YOU WILL LIVE THERE. THIS WAS DONE ON PURPOSE, I SUSPECT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT. SO I CAN'T ATTACK ANYBODY. A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE HAD THIS HOUSE. WE'VE LIVED IN THAT HOUSE, THIS HOUSE FOR 20 YEARS. WE HAD LOTS OF HAPPY HOURS, WE HAD LOTS OF FUN WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. AS TIME HAS GONE BY IN THIS BLOCK OF FIVE STREETS, PEOPLE HAVE LEFT. AND MORE SHORT TERM RENTALS HAVE COME IN. THINGS LIKE HAPPY HOURS AND GROUP GET TOGETHERS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY. I'M NOT GONNA ATTRIBUTE THAT TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH IT. THE CITY LOOKED AT IT AND SAID WE NEED TO ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE. TOOK A YEAR TO DISCUSS AND COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE. AND THIS ORDINANCE CAME UP WITH LIMITS THAT THE CITY AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN A GR RELATIVELY AGREED WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THERE WASN'T ANYTHING EXCEPT, EXCEPT, EXCEPT IT WAS SAID BLOCK FACE, TWO UNITS. THIS HAS MORE THAN THAT 30 SECONDS. SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE HERE, PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED IN SOJO. WE WALK BY IT EVERY SINGLE WEEK 'CAUSE IT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE TO WHERE WE LIVE AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL. BUT PEOPLE HAVE IN FACT INVESTED IN THAT PLACE AS THEIR RESIDENTS AND WE SHOULD GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THAT. THEY SHOULD HAVE NEIGHBORS, NOT HOTEL OCCUPANTS. THANK YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. NOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE DI HERE, BUT I HAVE ONE IN PARTICULAR YES. JUST FOR EX FOR CLARIFICATION. YEAH. SO YOU ARE, UH, AGAINST THE SUPPORT OF I'M AGAINST. OKAY. VERY MUCH. SORRY. DO, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? ORIAN? SO THE, THE, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT EXISTS, UM, NEAR YOUR HOME. YEAH. UH, WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF WHAT THAT'S DONE TO TRAFFIC AND MAINTENANCE OF THE HOME? UH, THE HOME IS BEING MAINTAINED WELL, AND I WOULD SAY THAT TRAFFIC, IT IS A LISTED UNDER AIRBNB AS IT'S A THREE BEDROOM SUITABLE FOR UP TO 12 PEOPLE TO LIVE IN. THAT'S MORE THAN IS LEGAL BECAUSE IT'S TWO PER BEDROOM FOR LEGAL OCCUPANCY. THEY HAVE A CONVERTIBLE COUCH IN THE, IN THE LIVING ROOM. THERE'S ALSO A CASITA IN THE BACK, ONE BEDROOM LISTED FOR FOUR PEOPLE. SO IN EFFECT, WE'RE TALKING 16 PEOPLE THAT CAN RENT THAT PLACE FOR A GIVEN FIGURE. SO THESE DON'T, PEOPLE DO NOT COME WITH ONE CAR AND IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, MANY, MANY OF THE HOUSES DO NOT HAVE GARAGES OR THEY PARK ON THE STREET. THERE ARE VERY FREQUENTLY THREE AND FOUR CARS PARKED ON THE STREET ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT RE RETICENT. I'M SORRY. RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT IT HAS HAD AN IMPACT. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS. YOU MAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOUR TIME. SARAH WILSON, FOLLOWED BY FREDERICA KUSHNER. MS. WILSON, WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, SARAH WILSON, 1120 EAST EUCLID, RESIDENT OF SOJO CROSSING NEIGHBORHOOD. ALRIGHT. AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT TODAY, THAT WERE PRESENT TWO WEEKS AGO. I'LL BE REPEATING MYSELF A LOT. UM, [01:40:01] I AM AN OWNER, A HOMEOWNER. THIS IS MY HOME. UM, AND THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE HE SPOKE ABOUT. WE'VE GOT SOME WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE SOCIALS, BUT I'M ALSO A BOARD MEMBER. AND THE BOARD OF THE H O A AND THE H O A, UM, DID MEET ON THIS ASPECT, UM, THREE OR FOUR WEEKS AGO. AND WE DISCUSSED IT. IT LINKED THE PROS AND THE CONS AND, UM, ALL FACTORS. WE HAD DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO THIS AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION. AFTER THE HEARING LAST, UH, TWO WEEKS AGO, THE OWNERS REQUESTED TO HAVE AN A PRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD. WE MADE A SPECIAL PROVISION AND HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK. THEY PRESENTED THEIR CASE. UM, WE MET AFTERWARDS, DISCUSSED IT AGAIN, AND UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED TO NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. WE SUPPORT THE CITY'S VARIANCE RULE OF THE LIMIT FOR THE DENSITY. UM, THE MAP SHOWED THE OPPOSING, I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S SEVERAL MISSING MINUS MISSING OFF OF THERE. AND I KNOW I REPLIED AND I WAS ALSO COPIED. SO THE FRONT BUILDINGS FACING EUCLID, THERE ARE TWO MORE RED X'S THERE AND I WAS COPIED HA HIS RESPONSE, SO I KNOW HE DIDN'T, UH, OPPOSE IT AS WELL. IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, IT WOULD, WELL I NEED TO BACK UP. OF THE FOUR THAT WERE, THAT ARE CURRENTLY GRANTED AND THE CITY WILL HAVE TO TELL ME THIS, I WAS TOLD THAT THREE ARE GRANDFATHERED AND ONE IS A REGULAR. UM, SO THAT IS OUR QUESTION TOO. WHEN TIME COMES TO PERMIT, IS IT A RACE TO GET IN LINE FIRST? CAN THE LATEST ONE GET IN LINE BEFORE THE OTHERS? I DO NOT KNOW. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FIFTH PERMIT. WE ARE ALREADY 30%, 33% OVER OUR DENSITY LIMIT. THIS WOULD BE 66% OVER OUR LIMIT. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH SHORT TERM RENTERS AND WE ARE ADDRESSING THAT INTERNALLY AS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BOARD. OUR PROBLEMS RANGE FROM NOISE, TRASH, GATE USE, DAMAGE TO THE GATES AND EXTREME PARKING PROBLEMS. IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN REPORTED AND THAT'S TRUE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY. ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS WAS NOT ALLOWED, WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF HIS GARAGE BECAUSE THERE 30 SECONDS SHORT-TERM RENTER HAD PARKED INAPPROPRIATELY. I ALSO WANNA SAY THAT THE PRIOR OWNER, MR. MARK SMITH, I HAD A PERSONAL CONVERSATION WITH HIM BACK IN APRIL AND HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT THERE WAS NO MORE PERMITS ALLOWED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT WE WERE AT OUR MAX. AND ALSO THAT I'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS SINCE FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR. UM, WE'VE ONLY BEEN ABOUT LESS THAN TWO YEARS IN, IN THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF WHEN WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY. OKAY. UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE DISCUSSION, IS YOUR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION REGISTERED WITH THE CITY AS A ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? IT'S REGISTERED AS A TOWN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, YES. OKAY. THOSE ARE, IF YOU WERE REGISTERED, THEN YOU WOULD BE NOTIFIED ON ANY ACTION TAKEN THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD. UM, THEY'RE NOT LISTED WITH THE CITY AT THIS TIME. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU GET ON THE, I I HEAR I HEAR THIS A LOT WITH THE STATE. NO, IT'S, THE CITY'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GET ON THOSE LISTS. OKAY. I SURE WILL. ALRIGHT. NOW BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I WANT TO ASK THE BOARD IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT. WE'RE IN WITH THIS WITNESS. GO AHEAD. MR. DO, UH, HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE ON YOUR BOARD? WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS. HOW MANY, UH, HOW MANY HOMES ARE IN YOUR COMMUNITY? 27. SO SEVEN OUT OF 27. UH, UH, WERE ANY OF THOSE SEVEN MEMBERS PART OF THE RED X'S THAT SHOWED UP ON THE MAP OR IS THERE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY, UM, YOU SAID IT WAS UNANIMOUS AGAINST, BUT HOW MANY DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR OPINION? UM, WERE NOT PART OF PEOPLE WHO MAILED IN RESPONSES. UM, IT APPEARS TO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE H O A SO THERE'S OR THE BOARD. OKAY. SO AT LEAST NINE, THERE'S NINE PEOPLE FORMALLY AGAINST THIS, WHETHER WE KNOW ABOUT IT OR NOT, BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY AND WHAT WAS, WHAT PAPERWORK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED OUT OF 27? YES, AND I HAD HEARD, UM, VERBAL, I, AND I KNOW I CAN'T CONFIRM VERBAL, BUT I HAD HEARD MORE VERBAL SUPPORT. UM, THE OWNERS OF 1124, SHE WAS ACTUALLY HERE AT THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO AND SHE WAS AGAINST IT AND HAD MAILED IN THE FORM. SO YES, THERE ARE MORE. DO YOU HAVE ANY UM, UM, OFF STREET PARKING AVAILABLE ON THE NEIGHBORING STREETS? I'M TRYING TO GET A, I'M TRYING TO GET A FEEL OF THE IMPACT THAT SDRS MAY HAVE IN YOUR PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. 'CAUSE THE SMALLER THAT YOU GET, THE MORE THINGS CAN BE IMPACTED. SO IF, DO YOU HAVE OFF STREET PARKING AVAILABLE? NO, WE HAVE NO PARKING AVAILABLE. WE, WE ARE A LITTLE OVER ONE ACRE, [01:45:01] UM, OF THE UNITS THAT ARE IN QUESTION. THERE, THERE IS THEIR PARKING GARAGE AND YOU CAN PARK ONE CAR PARALLEL UP AGAINST THE BUILDING. BUT ALL GUESTS OR ANY OTHER OVERFLOW IS ONLY STREET. WE HAVE NO PARKING. OKAY. AND IS, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. YES. AND I, I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? YES, I'M HERE AS A HOMEOWNER AS WELL AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BOARD. THEY'VE ASKED ME TO SPEAK. THANK YOU MANNA, MR. MANNA. SO, UM, SO I LOOKED AT A DOCUMENT ON VAR REPORT THAT TALKED ABOUT WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT AND THE PURPOSE OF IT, UH, BY THE BUILDER AND THIS MISSO. AND BASICALLY IT SAID, UM, UM, BASICALLY THEY WANTED THE PROPERTY, UH, NOT FOR, FOR PEOPLE TO BUY AND NOT RENT. 'CAUSE THERE'S LOTS OF RENTING AND THINGS GOING ON AROUND THERE. AND THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, YOU KNOW, HERE WAS THE PURPOSE THAT WAS PROPOSED TO THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A WHOLE LOT OF DIALOGUE THAT HAPPENED THEN. HOW IS IT THAT THERE'S DOCUMENTS NOW THAT SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE ALLOWING FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE CONTRARY TO WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHY IT CAME FORWARD TO BEGIN WITH? UM, IT WAS, IT WAS SOLD TO ME AND I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL NOW. IT WAS SOLD TO ME AS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY THAT WOULD ALLOW, UM, I DID KNOW THERE WERE SOME INVESTORS ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO LIMIT IT TO THE DENSITY THAT THE CITY HAS PROPOSED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? TIME YOU TOOK TO COME HERE AND, UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS NEXT? I HAVE, IT WAS FREDERICA KUSHNER. KUSHNER, I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR EXPLANATION. I'M FREDERICA KUSHNER. I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET, UH, IN TOBIN HILL. UM, AND I DO ON A WEEKLY BASIS. AND MORE OFTEN THAN THAT, I, UH, GO PAST, UH, THE MYRTLE STREET FACADE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. UH, I JUST HAVE A, A FEW POINTS. UM, THEY ARE NOT, I'M NOT A LAWYER OBVIOUSLY. UM, HOWEVER, I AM A HOMEOWNER AND I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THAT CITY BLOCK, UH, ON WHICH ALL, UH, OF THOSE, UH, TOWN HOMES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WERE BUILT ACTUALLY INCLUDES MORE THAN ONE DEVELOPMENT. UM, IT'S ACTUALLY A CITY BLOCK FROM, UH, EUCLID STREET, ELMIRA STREET, MYRTLE AND PARK. AND IN THAT CITY BLOCK THERE ARE EIGHT TYPE TWOS, EIGHT TYPE TWO, UM, SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THAT ONE CITY BLOCK. UM, IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU HAVE HEARD, UH, THERE ARE ALREADY FOUR STR SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND, UH, THIS, THIS, UH, APPLICANT WANTS TO ESTABLISH ONE MORE. SO THAT WOULD BRING IT UP TO, UM, UH, FOR THE, UH, ENTIRE BLOCK IT WOULD, UH, IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE TYPE ONE, IT WOULD BRING IT UP TO 10 SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THE ST ARE ALL OVER THE CITY, BUT THEY ARE CLUSTERED IN VARIOUS PARTS. AND TOBIN HILL IS ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE THE CLUSTER OCCURS ONLY IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS COMMUNITY, TOBIN HILL IS NOT A HOTEL DISTRICT, IT IS NOT, IT IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT NINE IS ENOUGH. THANK YOU. SECOND. JUST A SECOND PLEASE. TITLE TO BOMBARD YOU WITH QUESTIONS. YES, I UNDERSTAND. UH, WHO HAS THE QUESTION FOR THIS WITNESS PERSON MAY SPEAK. WHO SAID WAS THAT YOU? THAT WELL, I I HAVE ONE QUESTION BECAUSE YOU, YOU MADE MENTION OF A, A FEW THINGS. YOU SAID YOU LIVED ON, ON THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. YOU DON'T PARTICULARLY LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? NO. AND, AND, UH, NO. I LIVE, UH, IN ONE OF THE HISTORIC HOMES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. HISTORIC DISTRICT. MM-HMM. . AND, UH, YOU HAVE, HAVE, WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC? UH, AND I'M NOT TALKING SINCE YOU WALK THE AREA. YOU MENTIONED, [01:50:01] UH, THE PARKING SITUATION THERE. AND DO YOU, IS IT, DOES THE PARKING ALLOW FOR PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY OR IS THERE, OR IS THERE, WOULD YOU SAY THERE'S MORE PARK CARS PARKED THAN USUAL? UH, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UH, I WALK BY THERE ON AT EIGHT O'CLOCK ON SUNDAY MORNING, , UH, HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CARS PARKED NOW AND THEN, UM, THERE IS A, UH, THE PEARL HAS A PARKING LOT, UH, IN THE VICINITY. UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS USED, UH, BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE, UH, STAYING IN, UH, THE SOJO DEVELOPMENT. UM, I DO KNOW THAT, UH, CLOSER TO THE, UM, MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, STREET PARKING IS VERY HARD TO COME BY. VERY HARD TO COME BY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY MORE WITNESSES? NO ONE ELSE. NO ONE ELSE? OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO, UH, REBUT SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS OR OFFER SOME FURTHER INFORMATION. UH, THANK YOU MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR PATIENCE WITH THIS ISSUE. WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM, UH, FOLKS, UH, PRIMARILY ANNA AND THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS GENERALLY, AND STORIES ABOUT OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT THE GENTLEMAN WHO LOST HIS, HIS DRINKING BUDDY AND, AND CHANGES AND VIOLATIONS IN OTHER PLACES WE'RE HERE SPECIFICALLY TO TALK ABOUT THE EARTH'S PROPERTY. AND UNLIKE A PERSPECTIVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO ANTICIPATE SOME SORT OF INJURY OR SOME SORT OF CHANGE IN CHARACTER, THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN OPERATION AND THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRABLE INJURY AND THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF SOJO CROSSING OR THE AREA IN GENERAL. SO WE HAVE, I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED ALL SIX OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, CRITERIA. WHAT IS UNIQUE AND WHICH WE SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT ON TOP OF ALL THAT, ON TOP OF MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD TO COUNTER THAT, THAT THEY WENT TO THE CITY, THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, THEY ASKED FOR A PERMIT, THEY DIDN'T CLOSE, THEY DIDN'T SPEND A PENNY UNTIL AFTER THEY'D GOTTEN THE PERMIT. THEY LOOKED AT THE, UH, H O A DOCUMENTS AND DIDN'T BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT PROHIBITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THEY DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AND OPERATED FOUR MONTHS UNTIL THEY WERE TOLD, SORRY, UM, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE, BUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO AGAIN, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. ALRIGHT, I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, GO AHEAD MR. NAFF. THANK YOU. UM, IN THE CASE FILE THAT PASSES BY US, WE GET A, ALL THE RETURN NOTIFICATIONS FROM NEIGHBORS, UH, WITHIN THE 200 FEET THAT GIVE THEIR, YOU KNOW, OPINION AND THEIR COMMENTS. SOMETIMES THEY WRITE SOMETHING, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. UM, I DIDN'T COUNT, BUT THERE WERE AT LEAST SIX IN THERE. I THINK THERE WERE MORE THAN THAT, THAT WERE AGAINST IT. AND THEY DID HAVE DIFFERENT COMMENTS FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS. UH, ONE THAT STOOD OUT AND THAT STOOD OUT AT ME. IT MAY HAVE BEEN TWO, TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE TAXING ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF SOJO CROSSING. SO THIS WAS SOMEONE THAT LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, THAT THEY DO EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH OVERFLOWING TRASH CANS FROM THE AMOUNT OF USE OF, OR CREATION OF TRASH FROM STR UH, AND PARKING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STAYING IN THE UNITS. UH, AND I'VE SEEN THAT IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE STR THAT SURROUND MY HOUSE, OVERFLOWING TRASH CANS, CARS PARKED EVERYWHERE, A LOT OF PEOPLE STAYING IN THESE VACATION RENTALS. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW MANY BEDROOMS THIS S T R HAS? HOW MANY BEDS AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO STAY IN IT? SO IT'S THREE BEDS AND, UM, LIMITED TO TWO ADULT OCCUPANTS PER SLEEPING AREA. COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC PLEASE? AGAIN, THE OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO TWO ADULT OCCUPANTS PER SLEEPING AREA. THERE'S THREE BEDROOMS AND THEN THE LIVING ROOM IS ALSO A DESIGNATED SLEEPING AREA. AND THEN WE DO ALLOW UP TO 10 IF THERE ARE CHILDREN. OKAY. SO YOU'RE ALLOWED, I HAVE YOUR AIRBNB, UH, LISTING UP ON THE COMPUTER AND IT STATES 10 GUESTS, THREE BEDROOMS AND SEVEN BEDS. SO THAT IS WHAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN YOUR UNIT. UM, HOW MANY CARS ARE [01:55:01] ALLOWED AND HOW MANY SPACES DO YOU HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE VEHICLES? WE HAVE A SINGLE CAR GARAGE AND A PARKING PAD. SO WE ALLOW TWO CARS IN YOUR LISTING I SEE ONE CAR PARKED PARALLEL ON THAT PERVIOUS PAVER AREA AND THEN A LARGE DODGE RAM PICKUP OR SOME LARGE PICKUP THAT'S PROJECTING OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY LANE PARKED IN A REAR END TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S JUST TO SHOW HOW THE PARKING COULD BE. YES. SO IT APPEARS THAT IT COULD GET QUITE CONGESTED IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 PEOPLE STAYING IN YOUR HOME WITH ONLY LIMITED PARKING. WELL, IT'S LIMITED TO TWO VEHICLES AND IT'S USUALLY A FAMILY WITH ONE VEHICLE. UM, AND THEN THE BED SITUATION IS THREE KING BEDS AND THEN WE HAVE FLOOR MATTRESSES. WE'RE UP TO 10 GUESTS IN THE HOME. MOSTLY USED BY CHILDREN? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU ELLI. DR, GO AHEAD. YEAH, SO PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT THERE'S BEEN NO COMPLAINTS IN THIS FROM, FOR THIS RENTAL THAT THEY'VE BEEN WITHOUT COMPLAINT FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT THEY'VE OPERATED. THEY CLOSED ON MAY 30TH, THEY WERE NOTIFIED OF THE ERROR BY THE CITY ON AUGUST 14TH, ESSENTIALLY TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. HOW MANY, AND THEN, AND IN THAT TIME THERE WERE RENOVATIONS THAT, OR SOME KIND OF ACTIVITY INSIDE THAT HAD TO DO WITH PUTTING IN A WATER SOFTENER, GETTING FURNITURE, UM, ALL OF THAT WORK BEING DONE. HOW LONG DID THIS OPERATE AS AN ACTUAL SS T R FROM THE TIME YOU WERE, YOU WERE DONE WITH THE, THE FIXING IT UP AND GETTING IT READY AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU RENT IT? I BELIEVE THAT WE, UH, ENTERTAINED OUR FIRST GUESTS ON THE 1ST OF AUGUST BECAUSE IT DID TAKE US A WHILE TO GET THINGS READY. UM, I CAN'T, I I COULD PULL UP THE, THE INFORMATION TO SEE. WE'VE PROBABLY HAD MAYBE 14 PARTIES THAT WE'VE, UM, ENTERTAINED OR HOSTED AND WE DO HAVE, UM, FUTURE BOOKINGS THAT WE HAVE. BUT I COULD LOOK IT ALL UP FOR YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. UM, SO DID YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THIS AFTER THE 14TH WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE, UM, PERMIT WAS GIVEN AN ERROR? WE WERE TOLD THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE, BUT THAT WE HAD TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT OR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, FOR AN EXCEPTION. SO UNTIL WE DID THIS AND WE CAME BEFORE YOU THAT WE'RE STILL PERMITTED TO OPERATE. RIGHT? WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST. WE JUST ISSUED A, UM, HEY, THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN, IN ERROR. YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND SO WE GAVE THEM A TIMEFRAME TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, I MEAN TO APPLY FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THAT'S WHAT THEY COMPLIED WITH. OKAY. THANK YOU MANNA. MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD. SO, SO LOOKING AT THE, THE S T R FORM, YOU KNOW, IT HAS THE BOX THAT SAYS OWNER AND TENANT, AND IF YOU'RE A TENANT YOU HAVE TO ASK THE OWNER. AND SO, SO IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE A CHICKEN AND THE EGG THING WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T THE OWNER YET, BUT THEY APPLIED FOR AN S T R. SO I GUESS AS A CITY, DO THEY GIVE OUT, UM, UM, SDRS TO POTENTIAL OWNERS, YOU KNOW, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAD THIS OTHER CONTINGENCY THING, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'VE WRITTEN UP, YOU KNOW, AND GET, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING BOUND UP IN THOSE RULES, I GUESS, THAT THEY'RE WRITING FOR CONTINGENCIES OF WHY THEY CAN BUY OR WHEN THEY CAN BUY THE PROPERTY OR NOT? YES, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, UM, POTENTIAL APPLICANTS THAT ARE LOOKING TO PURCHASE PROPERTY. UM, IF THEY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR, UH, PURCHASE, WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE THAT BECAUSE MANY TIMES WHAT THEY WANT IS THE ASSURANCE AND THE CERTAINTY THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY, THEY WANT TO DO LEGALLY ON THE PROPERTY. UH, SO IF THEY PRODUCE A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE SIGNED BY THE OWNER AS WELL AS THEM, THEN THAT SUFFICES FOR THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT. AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE BEING THE CASE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEVER ADDRESSED MR. NEFF'S QUESTION. PART OF HIS QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE, THE GENERAL NATURE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THE IMPACT ON THE TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE 12 POINT A HALF PERCENT DENSITY LIMITATION, WHICH AGAIN, 25% AUSTIN, 12 POINT A HALF PERCENT. THAT'S WHAT WE, UH, CAME UP WITH HERE. WHAT WE ALSO DID WAS, HOWEVER, IS IT'S, IT'S NOT A STRICT PROHIBITION OF 12.5% BECAUSE WE HAVE RELIEF, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY COULD, IT COULD HAVE BEEN JUST A STRICT PROHIBITION, SO YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 12 POINT HALF PERCENT. WE HAVE THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION OPTION BECAUSE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DICTATE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DEMAND THAT THE EXCEPTION BE GRANTED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A IAN REGARDING [02:00:01] CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS TO ALLOW ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO UNIT SITUATED 1154 EAST UCL AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING MARKED ERRS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE WELL CA THERE'S AN AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING AND ON STREET PARKING, AND NOTHING ABOUT THE TOWN HOME PLACES IT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THOSE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE SINCE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL. STAFF CAN FIND NO RECORD OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OR SAN ANTONIO POLICE ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROPERTY. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A TYPE TWO SS D R SINCE A PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL, 2019 WITH NO CODE VIOLATIONS, THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE DATA SHOWING THAT OCCUPANCY RATES FOR LONG-TERM RENTALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE REQUEST, WHICH COULD MITIGATE THIS FINDING. D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE. ANOTHER NECESSARY, UH, FACULTIES HAVE, HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED DURING THE SITE VISIT TO THE, DURING THE VISIT TO THE SITE. CITY STAFF NOTED THAT NOTED THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF AUS STREET PARKING FOR GUESTS OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THE STRUCTURE ALREADY EXISTS WITH ADEQUATE UTILITIES. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR. PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO KEEP THE EXISTING PERMIT TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF THE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AS SUCH, NO PREVIOUS PERMIT HAS BEEN REVOKED. F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS TAUGHT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS A PROPERTY IS STILL USED PRIMARILY AS A RESIDENCE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE HOME IS NOT UNLIKE OTHER HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY. AND OF MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION. I NEED A SECOND. SECOND, ANA. ALL RIGHT. UH, MR. ORIAN, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. SURE. UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, THE REASON WHY IS I CAN'T GET PAST ITEM C OF THE CHARGE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM, UH, WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE HAVE SENT IN WRITTEN RESPONSES AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS AT THEIR SEVEN MEMBER H O A PANEL, WHICH WAS HELD AS AN OPEN MEETING THAT THEY WERE AGAINST THIS. UM, THERE'S OTHER, UH, ISSUES AT BAY HERE, WHICH ARE NOT, UM, SPECIFICALLY PERTINENT TO THIS APPLICATION, BUT FOR THE, BUT BECAUSE, UH, OF SUCH A HIGH NUMBER OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY THAT ARE AGAINST IT, I CANNOT BE IN SUPPORT VERY WELL, MR. MANNA. UM, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS EITHER. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UM, POSITIONS THAT HE HAD. UM, ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST THE NOTION OF, UH, TIMING OF WHEN IT'S SIGNED THREE YEARS FROM NOW, IT'S NOT GONNA BE VALID OR LIKELY NOT GONNA BE VALIDATED SIMPLY BECAUSE, UM, THE OTHER COMMUNITIES WERE THERE FIRST. AND SO BASICALLY IT'S A RACE TO THE FINISH LINE AND THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE FIFTH IN LINE. SO, UM, SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO HAVE THEIR INPUT? MR. NO, THANK YOU. WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE STATED THAT THIS S T R USE IS NOT IN THE CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SPECIFIC STATEMENTS IN THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS PROVIDED THAT STATE, THAT PARKING OVERLOADED TRASH, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE ISSUES THAT THEY BELIEVE AFFECTS THE CHARACTER OF THEIR COMMUNITY. UM, AND I'VE, WE'VE HEARD ALSO THAT THERE CAN BE 10 GUESTS IN THIS WITH, OR THAT MAY HAVE MORE CARS AND MORE TRASH. SO I, I HEAR THAT THAT KIND OF BACKS UP WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING ARE PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE WITH, UH, THE DETRIMENT THIS S T R OR ANY S T R COULD HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY. SO I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE VERY WELL. ANYONE ELSE? RODRIGUEZ? YES. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REALLY AND TRULY IN ALL WITH, UH, FAITH HAS GONE THROUGH PAINSTAKING EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S ASKED OF THEM. HOWEVER, THE RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS. UH, WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT, UH, WHAT IT'S LIKE UNLESS WE LIVE THERE AND, UH, THEREFORE I HAVE TO GO WITH THE RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? TEAL MR. TEAL? I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. UM, I THINK A MISTAKE [02:05:01] ON THE CITY'S PART SHOULD NOT BE PUNITIVE, UH, TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESSES THAT ARE SET FORTH BY THE CITY ITSELF. UM, AND THERE'S NO GREATER, UH, NO GREATER OPTION THAN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE, THE PERFECT TIME TO USE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE WHEN PEOPLE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WAS SET FORTH BY THE CITY. AND FOR THAT REASON, I, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ANYONE ELSE? ELLI DR. ELLI? YOU KNOW, I AM, I'M LISTENING TO MY COLLEAGUES AND I AM STILL TORN. THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE. UM, EITHER THE PERSON WHO THE CITY MADE THE MISTAKE WITH, WITH REGARD TO THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, IS RECEIVES THE PENALTY OR THE NEIGHBORS RECEIVE THE PENALTY. AND THIS HAS REALLY PUT US IN, IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER. UM, I'M LEANING TOWARDS APPROVING, APPROVING THIS OR VOTING AND APPROVAL FOR THIS MOTION SIMPLY BECAUSE AT A TIME POINT IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, THIS WOULD THEN BE REMEDIED BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE, THEY, IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD, THERE'S NO WAY I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. BUT I, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO PENALIZE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DID TRY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. ALRIGHT. DO WE, UH, FISHER POSSIBLE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, MS. FISHER? YES, I AGREE WITH DR. ZARE. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, CURRENT OWNER HAS GONE THROUGH GREAT LENGTHS TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THIS, UH, DWELLING, UM, RE A REASONABLE RENTAL UNIT. UM, AND I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR A MISTAKE WITH THE CITY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, THE TERM IS SHORT TERM AND I AGREE WITH DR. ZARE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGAIN AT THAT POINT, I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I'M GONNA PUT MY 2 CENTS IN HERE. FIRST OF ALL, I, I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA BECAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD DISLIKE SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE. UH, AND, BUT I MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, I'M SEEING A LOT OF THIS TRAFFIC TYPE OF ISSUE WITH RESIDENTS, NOT JUST RENTALS. I MEAN, MANY PEOPLE BUY HOMES THAT ONLY HAVE TWO CAR PARKING AND THEY HAVE FIVE TO SIX CARS BECAUSE EVERY KID AND THEIR BROTHER LIVES THERE WITH CARS. SO THAT'S, TO ME, IS NOT REALLY THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE. THE BIG ISSUE TO ME IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD IS, IS THE ERROR MADE BY THE CITY IF THE ERROR HAD BEEN MADE, UH, DUE TO MISINTERPRETATION OF THE RULES. I THINK THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE TO UNDERSTAND. UH, AND I COULD SEE THE CITY PERHAPS MAKING AN ERROR AT THIS ONE. FORTUNATELY, THIS IS A LEARNING PROCESS FOR THE CITY, BUT THE APPLICANT SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED FOR THE ERRORS MADE BY THE CITY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, I SEE THAT, UM, THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY, JUDGING BY THE NUMBER OF OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT RAN INTO FIRST PLACE IS PREDOMINANTLY, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. AND TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT CON UH, TO IT'S NOT A USUAL CIRCUMSTANCE, WELL OBVIOUSLY IT WAS MARKETED THAT WAY. THE REAL REALTORS SELL IT THAT WAY. THE, EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE THESE CONTRACTS THAT SAY YOU CAN'T ENCOURAGE IT ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET A SALE AND TO PENALIZE THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY FELL FOR ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT CAME FOR THEM. THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. UM, AND I THINK WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, SOMETHING'S GONNA BE, THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF UNHAPPY PEOPLE IN THIS AREA REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY WE VOTE IN THIS CASE. BUT IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AND THE ERROR WAS MADE. UH, ALTHOUGH, UH, THEY WILL NOT BE PROBABLY BE ABLE TO DO THIS FOREVER, AT LEAST THEY COVER SOME OF THEIR, THEIR FUNDS AND POSSIBLY MARKET THE PROPERTY OFF TO, TO COVER THEIR COSTS. AND FOR THAT REASON, I THINK I WILL GO AHEAD AND, AND BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION BECAUSE I THINK FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, THIS IS GONNA BE A BIG LAWSUIT FOR OTHER PEOPLE, NOT US. SO THAT'S MY POSITION. ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER MS. FISHER? I WOULD ALSO, UH, STRONGLY URGE THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE TO GO AHEAD AND SHORE UP THE, UM, RESTRICTIONS TO SPECIFICALLY INDICATE WHAT IS ALLOWED AND, AND NOT ALLOWED. UM, I EMPATHIZE BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A VERY, UM, WAS KIND OF A NEBULOUS. IT, IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE TO ADDRESS [02:10:01] WHEN YOU'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY IS. AND IT, IT'S APPARENTLY ONGOING AND, AND INCREASING IN SOPHISTICATION. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. THANK YOU. THAT BEING ALL THE STATEMENTS MADE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. MONICA. HISTORIAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. NEFF. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MS. VINNO? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF, UH, FACT, HOWEVER THE MOTION, UH, DOES FAIL. UM, I WILL OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A SECOND MOTION FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE. UH, ENTERTAIN ONE IS, IS THERE ANY, NONE BEING THE CASE. THEREFORE, THE THE MOTION FAILS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I'M GONNA OFFER A FIVE MINUTE BREAK FOR THE BOARD AND UH, PLEASE BE BACK QUICKLY 'CAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF TO GO. WE'RE BACK IN SESSION, PLEASE. LET'S START THE NEXT CASE. [6. 19-8080 BOA-19-10300128: A request by Patrick Cristensen for a variance of 3’8” from the 5’ rear setback requirement to allow a detached carport to be 1’4” from the rear property line, located at 7801 Broadway. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 10) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] THAT'S 1 28 CASE BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 8. THE ADDRESS IS 78 0 1 BROADWAY STREET. THE ZONING IS OH TWO AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY. THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTED CARPORT TO BE RETAINED IN PLACE WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE CARPORT WAS DESTROYED BY A TORNADO IN 2016. THE PREVIOUS CARPORT HAD BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1990. THE APPLICANT REBUILT THE CARPORT IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND ON JULY 2ND, 2019, EXCUSE ME, A CODE INVESTOR CITED THE PROPERTY FOR A CARPORT BEING BUILT WITHOUT PERMIT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 28 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE RECONSTRUCTED CARPORT IS IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL, WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY A NATURAL DISASTER. AND THE CARPORT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CARPORT DOES NOT INJURE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. WE MAILED 22 NOTICES AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN RESPONSE. WE HAVE HAD, UH, A CASE SIMILAR TO THIS. ADJACENT TO THIS, CORRECT? ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? YES. AT 78 0 9. ALRIGHT. AND THE, AND I BELIEVE ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE, WE, WE PASSED VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. I BELIEVE SO. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. LET'S BRING FORTH THE APPLICANT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, IT'S BASICALLY THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH. THERE WAS THE, THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY TO HAVE THE CARPORT. THERE WAS A TORNADO THAT CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGE IN THE AREA AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, EXPERTS ON ZONING AND SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY HIRED A CONTRACTOR WHO BUILT THE, UH, A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE, CARPORT STRUCTURE AND NOT REALIZING IT VIOLATED THE SETBACKS. WHEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER GOT CITED, THEY GOT CITED AS WELL AND THEY CONTACTED ME ABOUT TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. UM, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER IS RANDY BEAMER, THE ANCHOR MAN. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HIM AS AS NEIGHBORS FOR YEARS. HE'S NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. SO WE'RE REALLY JUST ASKING FOR PERMISSION FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE SO WE CAN KEEP OUR CARPORT WHERE IT IS. I MEAN, IN A PERFECT WORLD WE CAN MOVE THE CARPORT FIVE FEET OVER, BUT THEN IT WOULDN'T BE COVERING UP THE CARS THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PARKING AND WE CAN'T MOVE THE PARKING SPACES [02:15:01] 'CAUSE IT'S, EVERYTHING'S THERE. IT'S PRETTY TIGHT. SO WE WOULD JUST RESPECT, UH, REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THIS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ORIAN MR. ORIAN? UH, I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED ABOUT THE, UH, PREVIOUS APPLICANT. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, SOME OF THE CARPORTS ARE, ARE HAVE DRAINAGE RUNNING OFF IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, WHEREAS THE ONE WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND THEY, THEY RUN IN ONE DIRECTION. CAN YOU COMMENT ON DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND BEFORE AND AFTER? WELL, ON THIS ONE, WE UM, CONTACTED RANDY BEAMER ABOUT, AND YOU ASKED US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE ON THIS PHOTO THAT IN THE RUNOFF, I GUESS SHORT OF A TOTAL TROPICAL DAM PORT, IT WILL JUST DRIP DOWN AND NOT ONTO HIS PROPERTY. SO YOU, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT ANY DIFFERENT. YOU'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN CURRENT, UH, DRAIN DRAINAGE PATTERNS. CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THE, WE, WE DID NOT ALTER THE CONCRETE PARKING PAD AT ALL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES? NOBODY SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY NO OTHER QUESTIONS? NO OTHER WITNESSES CLOSES TO THE PUBLIC. AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION. MANNA. MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 19 1 3 0 1 2 8, I'VE MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REAR, FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 7 8 0 1 1 BROADWAY APPLICANT BEING PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE ORIGINAL CARPORT HAS BEEN IN THE SAME LOCATION SINCE 1990 WITH NO REGISTERED COMPLAINTS AND THE NEW CARPORT IS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE NEW CARPORT IS BUILT WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT THAT WAS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER IN 2016. LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE THE RES WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT REMOVING THAT PORTION OF THE CARPORT THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE REAR SETBACK, LEAVING THE CARPORT UNUSABLE AND ITS CURRENT FORMAT DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE NEW CARPORT IS NOT OVERWHELMING IN SIZE AND FOLLOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT THAT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 1990 WITH NO REGISTERED COMPLAINTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CARPORT IS BUILT OF METAL POSE AND CANVAS WITH NO OVERHANG. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CARPORT IS NOT NOTICEABLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IS LOCATED. THE PREVIOUS CARPORT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 20 YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINT. THE DISTRICT IS CHARACTERIZED BY COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USES OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND WERE NOT REALLY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE BEING SOUGHT IS DUE, UH, TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT THAT WAS DESTROYED BY A TORNADO IN 2016. THE NEW CARPORT FOLLOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE PREVIOUS AND IS MADE ENTIRELY OF METAL. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT. AND OF MOTION. SECOND, MR. SO, UM, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT, UH, BASICALLY IT'S IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND, UH, WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBOR, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THEY DON'T, UH, THEY ARE NOT OBJECTING EITHER OR APPEARS NOT TO BE PROJECTING AND UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT WAS TAKEN OUT BY THE STORM. SO SIMPLY REPLACING IS, I THINK, APPROPRIATE FOR ME. YES. UM, THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE CARPORT WILL NOW BE NEW. NO DIFFERENCE. I'M SUPPORT ANY, ANY OTHER, UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. ALRIGHT, THEN, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. [02:20:01] MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. TERELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MS. ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE FACT THE MOTION PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY. THEREFORE, YOUR VARIANCE IS, UH, GRANTED. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO GET THE PROPER PAPERWORK COMPLETED. ALRIGHT, [7. 19-8076 BOA-19-10300125: A request by Adam Harden for a special exception request to allow for one Type 2 short term rental, located at 507 E Ashby Place #102. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH WOULD BE CASE NUMBER 1 25 PACE B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 5 AT 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY. PLACE NUMBER 1 0 2. THE APPLICANT IS ADAM HARDEN. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THE ZONING IS, UH, THAT IS INCORRECTLY LISTED. IT'S, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UH, THE REQUEST IS A VARIANCE OF THREE FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR. OH CORRECT. IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SHORT-TERM TYPE TWO RENTAL. OKAY. OKAY. THE CASE SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO MAINTAIN HIS TYPE TWO PERMITS, BUT REALLOCATE THEM BOTH TO THE DUPLEX ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE AND 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AND CONTAINS A DUPLEX AND A SMALL HOME ON AN UN PLATTERED LOT. THE THIRD DWELLING IS ON THE SAME PARCEL BUT ADDRESSED TO A DIFFERENT STREET ROSE LANE AND A FENCE SEPARATES THE TWO ADDRESSES. THE PROPERTY WAS CONDITIONALLY REZONED TO ALLOW THE THIRD DWELLING IN MARCH OF 2019. IN AUGUST OF 2019. TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO PERMITS WERE ISSUED FOR 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY UNIT 1 0 1 AND 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. THERE ARE 11 RESIDENTIAL USES IN A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ON THE EAST ASHBY BLOCK FACE ALLOWING FOR ONE TYPE TWO PERMIT BY RIGHT. THIS HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT AT 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY. UH, THIS IS UPDATED FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE THE APPLICANT PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION SHOWING AN ADDITIONAL FOUR UNITS AT ONE OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE, ON THE BLOCK FACE. THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE 12 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE TO ALLOW A SECOND TYPE TWO PERMIT BY RIGHT WITHOUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WERE APPROVED, IT WOULD RESULT IN INSTEAD OF 29%, THAT SHOULD BE 18% OF THE UNITS ON THE ASHBY BLOCK FACE OCCUPIED AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THERE ARE OTHER NEAR TYPE NEARBY TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH ARE GRANDFATHERED AND NOT OBLIGED TO THE DENSITY LIMITATION. THE GRANDFATHERED UNITS ARE AT FIVE 16 EAST ASHBY WITH ONE PERMIT AND 4 23 EAST ASHBY HAS FOUR PERMITS. HERE IS A MAP SHOWING THE, UH, NEARBY TYPE TWO AND TYPE ONE UNITS SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ADDRESS AT 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. ALSO ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THIS IS ALSO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING ALL OF THE UNITS WITH THE FENCE SEPARATING THE TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 2 5. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT ON THIS BLACK FACE WILL RESULT IN 18% OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THIS BLACK FACE BEING UTILIZED AS TYPE TWO RENTALS. AND THIS IS OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN. 40 NOTICES WERE MAILED, ONE IN OPPOSITION. UH, NO COMMENT FROM THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND ONE IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA. QUESTIONS NOTRE DR. GO AHEAD AND DOCTOR, DID YOU JUST SAY THAT, UM, THE GRANDFATHERED UNITS ARE NOT ADDED INTO THE DENSITY CALCULATION? THEY'RE NOT OBLIGED TO THE DENSITY CALCULATION. THEY'RE NOT ON THE BLOCK FACE EITHER. THEY'RE JUST IN NEARBY BLOCKS. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO OTHER GRANDFATHERED IN TYPE TWO ON THAT BLOCK FACE? NO. ON THAT BLOCK FACE THAT YOU'RE NOT CALCULATING IN? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ORIAN. SO ON STREET VIEW ON EAST ASHBY, [02:25:01] IT, THERE'S A, UH, A HANDFUL OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE EITHER DUPLEXES OR MORE. IN FACT, ONE OF THEM EVEN HAS A, A FOURPLEX. YEAH, A FOURPLEX. SO IF, SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, THIS AND THAT, DO Y'ALL ROUND, HOW DO Y'ALL DO ROUNDING? STANDARD ROUNDING OR IF YOU'RE OVER ONE, DOES IT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO TWO WHEN YOU APPLY THE 12.5% STANDARD ROUNDING? YEAH. UH, MEASURES APPLY. SO FIVE OR MORE ROUND UP. SO WITH THE NUMBER OF DUPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE, UH, THAT COUNTS INTO THE NUMBER OF UNITS? SO THAT'S A TOTAL OF 11. OH, IT'S ONLY 11, YES. ON THAT BLOCK FACE, MM-HMM. . ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. F I'M MR. NEFF. I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO THERE'S UNIT 1 0 1, UNIT 1 0 2, AND THEN ROSE LANE. AND I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MOVING TWO PERMITS TO TWO. YES. SO RIGHT NOW HE HAS TWO SHORT TERM PER, UH, TYPE TWO PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY. ONE IS AT THE 2 0 6 ROSE LANE, WHICH IS THE SHORT HOU THE HOUSE ON THE ON ROSE LANE. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS AT THE DUPLEX. WHAT THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO DO IS TO REALLOCATE THE ONE FROM ROSE LANE TO THE ONE ON, UH, EAST ASHBY. SO THAT BOTH OF THE UNITS IN THE ASHBY PLACE WOULD BE TYPE TWO. SO THE MAP DOESN'T SHOW THE ROSE LANE AS BEING AN S T R IN THE FORM THAT YOU'RE SHOWING IT TO US TODAY. THE MAP ONLY PUTS ONE.AT EACH UH, PARCEL. SO THIS ONE DOT ACTUALLY IS TWO PERMITS. IT'S THE SAME WITH THIS. ONE OF THESE IS, IT ACTUALLY HAS FOUR. SO WHEN YOU CLICK THE DOT, IT EXPANDS TO SHOW ALL THE PERMITS THAT ARE ON THAT PROPERTY. OKAY. AND SO ROSE LANE WILL BE CONVERTED TO WHATEVER OTHER NON S T R TYPE USE? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVOKED TO ALLOW THE ISSUE OF THIS ONE. OKAY. AND SO THEN THE PERMITS WERE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE UNIT ON THE BLOCK ON EACH OF THOSE BLOCK BASES. ROSE LANE AND WHATEVER THE MAIN STREET IS. OKAY. BUT NOW SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED TO PUT THE TWO FACING? YES. ASHBY. OKAY, I GET IT NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, ANNA, MR. MANANA. SO, SO WHAT'S DRIVING THAT ROSE LANE THEN GETS DECOMMISSIONED IF IT'S ON A DIFFERENT BLOCK FACE. SO THEY'RE TIED TO, HOW ARE THEY TIED TOGETHER? SO, SO YOU SAID THAT, UM, THEY WERE GONNA REVOKE ROSE LANE, UM, IF THIS ONE'S GRANTED. SO, SO IS THAT BECAUSE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTER SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO THAT? OR, OR IS THERE SOME OTHER THING DRIVING THAT IT'S GONNA BE REVOKED? THE APPLICANT DID NOT WANT THE PERMIT ISSUED AT ROSE LANE BECAUSE HE HAS A LONG-TERM RENTER IN THAT PROPERTY. ELLI OKAY. DOCTOR, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. MR. MANA MANNA, ARE YOU COM FINISHED? I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. YES, I'M, THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. OKAY. UM, SO I'M CONFUSED. SO ON ROSE LANE, IS THAT THE ONLY TYPE TWO S T R ON THAT BLOCK FACE? YES. SO WOULD, WOULD THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT TYPE TWO BY? RIGHT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN ON ASHBY, BECAUSE WE LOOK AT THIS BY BLOCK, BLOCK FACE. AND THIS IS REALLY MY QUESTION. IF WE'D WERE TO AWARD HIM HIS REQUEST, WOULD HE THEN BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND BY RIGHT, REQUEST THE TYPE TWO ON THE ROWS ON THAT, ON THAT OTHER STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER TYPE TWOS ON THAT BLOCK FACE? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE. THE ONLY REASON HE WANTS TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE HE HAS A LONG-TERM RENTER. HE DOESN'T WANNA BOTHER WITH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND THE MONTHLY REPORTING THAT GOES WITH IT. SO HE'D PREFER TO HAVE IT ON ASHBY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STATE, BRUCE? MS. OKAY, I I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED, BUD. ONE THING THAT I DID NOTICE IS HOW MANY, YOU SAID YOU SEND OUT 40 NOTICES. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT? BECAUSE ON THE FILE, 'CAUSE I JUST LOOKED AT IT, IT SHOWS TWO OUR POSTS AND YOU ONLY SHOW ONE AND ONE OF 'EM IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. YES. SO THE, THE LETTERS MM-HMM. , THERE'S NO OFFICIAL LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. IT'S FROM THE INDIVIDUALS. THEY DID NOT WANT TO SUBMIT A LETTER. IT'S FROM THEIR PERSONAL RESPO, THEIR PERSONAL FEELINGS. THEY LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE NO NOTIFICATION PLAN, AND THEY'RE BOTH MARRIED, SO THEY COUNT AS, AS THEY [02:30:01] HAVE ONE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA. OKAY. THEN, ALL RIGHT, I GUESS I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. STATE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION UNDERNEATH HER NAME. SO YES. BUT THEN SHE ALSO CLARIFIED IN, IN A RESPONSE AFTER THAT, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OFFICIAL LETTER ON LETTERHEAD IF IT CAME FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. IS THAT ALL FOR THE, UH, STAFF? LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ADAM HARDEN. UH, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE, AND I GUESS 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. AND YOU'RE CONFUSED. SO AM I. UM, SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, DO I HAVE THE CLICKER? OH, OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO REALLY IS WE HAVE TWO TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS FOR ONE PROPERTY. AND ON THAT PROPERTY WE HAVE THREE UNITS. AND SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY FOR THE CITY BLOCK, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ACTIVITY ONTO THAT BUSY EAST ASHBY STREET AND GET IT OFF OF ROSE LANE, WHICH IS A REALLY SMALL STREET AS YOU SAW. UM, AND TO TRY TO MOVE THAT SHORT TERM ACTIVITY AND THE TRAFFIC ONTO A REALLY, REALLY BUSY STREET ALREADY, UH, THAT HAS IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. IT HAS ON STREET DESIGNATED PARKING SPOTS, UM, FROM THE CITY ON BOTH THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST ASHBY PLACE BECAUSE THE CITY RECOGNIZES THAT THAT IS A HEAVILY TRAFFICKED THOROUGHFARE. SO, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO CHECK A BOX THAT WAS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A THIRD FOR THE PROPERTY. UH, I'M JUST ASKING FOR THAT SECOND ONE THAT I DO HAVE ON ROSE LANE TO BE MOVED. UH, LIKE I SAID TO UNIT 1 0 2, UM, THE REASON THAT I HAVE THE PERMIT FOR ROSE LANE IS BECAUSE I SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND THEY SAID, IF YOU PUT IT, UH, THEY CALL ME BACK AND THEY SAID, IF YOU PUT IT AT 1 0 2, WE'RE GONNA DENY IT. IF YOU CHANGE IT TO ROSE LANE, WE'LL ACCEPT IT. AND I DIDN'T WANNA WASTE A HUNDRED DOLLARS. UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY I HAVE THAT ONE. BUT LIKE THEY MENTIONED, UM, THIS IS THE AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A REALLY UNIQUE PROPERTY IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S A DOUBLE LOT THAT EXTENDS FROM EAST ASHBY PLACE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, THE BUSIER STREET ON EAST ASHBY PLACE AND THE SMALLER, UH, LESS TRAFFICKED, UH, ROSE LANE THERE. UH, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, IT'S CREATED SOME ISSUES. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM ADDRESSING WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UH, IT DID NOT HAVE SEPARATE UNITS. UNIT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 WERE ADDED AFTER I PURCHASED IT BECAUSE I HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PAYING MONEY, GETTING IT RE-ADDRESSED. UH, WHEN I PURCHASED IT, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT HAD AN ADDRESS FOR 2 0 6 ROSE LANE, AND I'LL TOUCH ON THAT IN A SECOND. UH, THIS IS THE BEFORE. UH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPROVING VALUES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY, UH, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN I PURCHASED IT. WALL UNITS, UH, HARDLY ANY INSULATION THINGS WERE FALLING OFF OF THE WINDOWS. UM, THIS IS THE AFTER, UH, SO WE'VE COMPLETELY REDONE IT. UM, THIS IS THE INSIDE OF THE UNIT 1 0 2. UH, IT NOW HAS CENTRAL AC AND HEATING. AND MY WIFE AND I, UH, IF, IF I COULD PAT HER ON THE BACK, I THINK SHE DID A GREAT JOB. UH, SO SOME RELEVANT FACTS THAT COULD HELP YOU GUYS. I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2018. UH, THE CITY ORDINANCE WAS PASSED ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2018. UH, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE SEPARATE UNIT ADDRESSES, I WAS LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR HOT ACCOUNTS FOR UNIT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST. AND SO, JUST BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAD IT SET UP, I, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, COULDN'T BE GRANDFATHERED IN EVEN THOUGH I, I WANTED TO BE. UH, SO I APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED UNIT NUMBERS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. I APPLIED AT FOR, AND RECEIVED HOT ACCOUNTS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT. UH, AND THEN I APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, TYPE TWO FOR UNIT 1 0 1. UH, THE INITIAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE UNITS. AND SO, UH, IT APPEARED TO APPLY, UH, OR PROVIDE A BLANKET STATEMENT, UH, OR BLANKET PERMIT FOR THE FRONT STRUCTURE. SO THIS IS THE INITIAL RENTAL PERMIT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT THAT I RECEIVED. UM, I LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS SEEMS TO BE, UH, I GUESS GENEROUS. AND I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RIGHT. AND SO I BROUGHT IT TO THEIR ATTENTION AND I SAID, I THINK I NEED TO DO MORE HERE IN ORDER TO OPERATE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO UNITS. AND SO THEY SAID, OKAY, UH, YOU NEED TO SUBMIT THE, THE SECOND ONE. AND SO THEY AMENDED THE FIRST ONE TO SAY THIS WOULD GO TO UNIT 1 0 1. UM, THEN [02:35:01] I APPLIED FOR 1 0 2 AND THEY DENIED ME. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN. UH, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS IS TO BE, UH, UPFRONT AND HONEST. SO WHEN I APPLIED FOR THAT SECOND ONE, THEY SAID, IF THIS SAYS 1 0 2, WE'RE GOING TO DENY IT. UH, WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT ON 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AND THEN WE'LL ACCEPT IT AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS. SO THAT'S WHAT I DID. UH, THE DOWNSIDE THOUGH IS THAT AT 2 0 6 ROSE LANE, WE HAVE LONG-TERM RENTERS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE I OWNED THE PROPERTY. SO THEY MOVED IN IN JULY OF 2016. UH, THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE. I THINK THAT IF THE RESULT IS THERE'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THEIRS, AND SO THEY HAVE TO MOVE TO UNIT 1 0 2 AND THEN SHARE A WALL WITH A SHORT-TERM RENTER, THAT DOESN'T REALLY, IT'S NOT A GOOD OUTCOME FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING ON THE PROPERTY. UM, AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE, LIKE I SAID, SINCE BEFORE I'VE, I'VE EVEN OWNED THE PROPERTY. THEY'VE BEEN GOOD RENTERS, LONG-TERM RENTERS. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE WITH THESE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS IS TO KEEP THE LONG-TERM RENTERS IN PLACE. AND IN MY OPINION, THIS IS KIND OF HOW, HOW WE CAN RESOLVE IT THAT, AND CREATE A SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO STAY IN IN THE RIGHT SPOT. UH, SO NOT INCLUDING MY PROPERTY, THERE ARE NINE UNITS ON THE 500 EAST ASHBY BLOCK FACE. UH, MY PROPERTY DOES HAVE THREE UNITS, AND IF YOU, WE'LL GO THROUGH HERE IN A SECOND, BUT IT'S 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE. THAT'S WHAT THE PURCHASE CONTRACT SAYS. THAT'S WHAT SAWS SAYS. THAT'S WHAT BEAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT SAYS. SO IT'S, IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD ALL THREE BE COUNTED AS ONE BLOCK FACE BECAUSE IT'S ONE MAJOR PROPERTY. UM, PRIOR TO 2019, THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED AS R SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN USED SINCE 1930 AS A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY WITH TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON THERE. UH, I SPENT TWO MONTHS, AND THIS IS ME WHINING, UH, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS GETTING THE PROPERTY ZONED CORRECTLY SO THAT WE COULD GET THE RIGHT PERMITS AND, AND DO THINGS AGAIN THE RIGHT WAY, AS OPPOSED TO JUST KIND OF GOING LIKE A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP AND TRYING TO DO WHATEVER WE WANTED TO. AND THEN ASKING FOR PERMISSION AFTER THE FACT. UM, ONE THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TO ME IS WHY DON'T YOU RE-ADDRESS 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AS UNIT 1 0 3 AND THEN GET ALL THREE OF THOSE UNITS ONTO THE 500 BLOCK FACE. UH, AND THEN YOU COULD BUY, RIGHT, MOVE THAT APP, UH, WITH THAT PERMIT. SO, UH, I SPOKE WITH EDDIE TORRES IN, UH, ADDRESSING, AND WE'LL GET TO KIND OF WHAT HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS. BUT, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT HIGHLIGHTED AREA, IT SAYS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS THAT SHARED THE SAME ADDRESS TO INCLUDE PORTABLE BUILDINGS. WE'LL BE IDENTIFIED NUMERICALLY IN A CLOCKWISE OR COUNTERCLOCKWISE SEQUENCE. SKIP IT TO THE NEXT SENTENCE. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND DWELLING UNITS. GRANNY FLATS ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE ASSIGNED THE PRIMARY STRUCTURES ADDRESS. AND LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS WAS ZONED AS A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, LOT. AND SO WHEN 2 0 6 ROSE LANE WAS ADDRESSED, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE RECEIVED THAT ADDRESS BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THAT ONE MAJOR PROPERTY. SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AS UNIT 1 0 3 OR UNIT 1 0 2 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO 1 0 2 AT THAT POINT. BUT IN NO, YOU KNOW, WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, SHOULD IT HAVE RECEIVED A ROSE LANE ADDRESS BECAUSE OF THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT FROM THE ADDRESSING FOR CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, THIS IS THAT EXAMPLE. SO IT'S JUST SHOWING, UH, BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL HAS IT AS 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE. UH, IMPROVEMENT NUMBER ONE IS 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE, UH, 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. IMPROVEMENT NUMBER TWO IS 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. SO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN, UH, THESE AS BEING ON A DIFFERENT BLOCK FACE. IT'S ALL ONE BLOCK FACE. AND I KEEP HIGHLIGHTING THAT BECAUSE IF WE CAN TREAT 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AS BELONGING TO 500 EAST ASHBY PLACE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE 12TH UNIT. AND THEN I COULD GET THAT SHORT TERM RENTAL FOR 1 0 2 JUST BY RIGHT HERE'S MY, UH, KIND OF HIGH WATER BILL. UH, BUT IT SHOWS THAT IT'S 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE, AND SAWS HAS ALL THREE OF THESE UNITS AS ONE, UH, WATER SOURCE, SO THEY'RE NOT SEPARATELY METERED WITH 2 0 6 AND 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. IT'S ALL ONE AND IT'S ALL COMING. THE UTILITY IS ALL COMING FROM THE 500 EAST ASHBY PLACE, BLOCK FACE. UH, SO MR. TORRES IN ADDRESSING, UM, SAID THAT 2 0 6 ROSE LANE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED AS SUCH, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNIT 1 0 3. UH, HE ALSO, HOWEVER, NOTED SIGNIFICANT HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS TO REDRESSING AS UNIT 1 0 3, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THAT BLOCK AND YOU SEE 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 AND YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER LOOKING FOR 1 0 3, IT'S NOT READILY APPARENT THAT THERE EVEN IS A 1 0 3. AND SO, IN ORDER TO KEEP THE HEALTH AND SAFETY, HE SAID, I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO NOT RE-ADDRESS IT. UM, WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. AND THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS ENDANGER THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF THOSE LONG-TERM RENTERS ON 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT C P S ENERGY DOESN'T ALLOW TWO DROP POINTS ON THE SAME ADDRESS. AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO DISCONNECT ME FROM, UH, 2 0 6 ROSE LANE, SHUT OFF THE UTILITIES FOR THOSE LONG-TERM RENTERS, PUT A NEW, UH, UTILITY POLE [02:40:01] HALFWAY THROUGH MY PROPERTY, RUN ELECTRIC FROM EAST ASHBY PLACE TO THE MIDDLE, AND THEN ALL THE WAY BACK TO ROSE LANE OR, YOU KNOW, UNIT 1 0 3. AND HE SAID THAT THAT WOULD, THEY WOULD CHARGE ME ABOUT $30,000 TO DO THAT. AND THAT SEEMED LIKE A REALLY EXPENSIVE, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT COST. SO, UH, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, ROSE LANE IS A QUIET, I THINK ONE AND A HALF LANE STREET IS KIND OF GENEROUS, UH, BUT THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING, IT'S MORE LIKE AN ALLEYWAY THAT'S BEEN, UH, ADDRESSED AS A, AS AN ACTUAL STREET. WHEREAS EAST ASHBY PLACE IS A BUSY THOROUGHFARE. THERE'S A BUS STOP IN FRONT OF MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE ON STREET PARKING LANES ON BOTH SIDES. AND A YOUNGER VERSION OF MYSELF COULD HAVE THROWN A BASEBALL AND HIT ST. MARY'S STRIP. I MEAN, IT'S A REALLY BUSY AREA. AND SO TO MOVE THE PERMIT TOWARDS THAT ACTIVITY, I THINK JUST MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. UM, WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME, IT DID NOT HAVE PAVED OFF STREET PARKING. IT HAD ONE, UH, KIND OF GRAVEL DIRT OFF STREET PARKING SPOT FOR UNIT 1 0 2 AND FOR THE FRONT, UH, STRUCTURE. AND I PAID, UH, SOMEBODY TO PUT IN THREE PAVED OFF-STREET PARKING SPOTS SO THAT THE, UM, ANY SHORT-TERM RENTERS THAT WOULD BE UTILIZING 1 0 2 WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR OWN DESIGNATED OFF STREET PARKING. SO IT WOULDN'T IMPACT MY NEIGHBORS. UM, LIKE I SAID HERE, UH, I, I SEEK TO HAVE REALLY JUST TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND BOTH FOR THE FRONT DUPLEX, UH, THE CITY'S PROVIDED TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS AND SEEKS TO INCENTIVIZE AND SECURE LONG-TERM, UH, RENTERS THROUGH DENSITY RESTRICTIONS. SO THE REAL QUESTION, I THINK IS HOW DO WE ASSIGN THE, THE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS THAT I HAVE. UM, ONE REQUEST IS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS INCORRECTLY ADDRESSED WHEN PURCHASED, UH, THAT MAYBE I COULD GET GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE IT WAS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ACTUALLY APPLY FOR THE CORRECT HOT ACCOUNTS. UM, YOU GUYS TELL ME IF THAT SOUNDS RIGHT, BUT I COULDN'T COMPLY WITH THE LAWS THAT WERE, OR THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE THERE WERE NO 1 0 1, 0 1 0 2. AND SO LEGALLY, IF I HAD GONE DOWNTOWN AND SAID, CAN I HAVE A HOT ACCOUNT? THEY'D SAY, FOR WHAT? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST IN OUR RECORDS. UM, MY ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS, AND KIND OF WHAT I THINK WE, UH, SHOULD BE AIMING FOR, UM, IS THAT, UH, WE SHOULD COUNT THE THIRD UNIT AS PART OF 500 EAST ASHBY BLOCK FACE WITHOUT FORMALLY CORRECTING 2 0 6 ROW LANE TO UNIT 1 0 3. UH, MOVE THE SHORT-TERM TYPE TWO PERMIT AND NOT DISTURB THE LONG-TERM TENANTS. UH, SO YOU CAN SEE KIND OF HOW IT WAS CURRENTLY, UH, DESIGNATED AND, AND KIND OF MY PROPOSAL THERE, UH, TO REMOVE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AND KEEP THOSE LONG-TERM RENTERS. UH, THIS IS KIND OF MY, MY PLEA HERE. I THINK IT IT'S COMMON SENSE OVER, UH, RED TAPE AND IT'S WORKING TOGETHER FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE RIGHT OUTCOME AND SOMETHING THAT THAT SHOULD BE, UH, REWARDED. I THINK BASED ON THE SPIRIT OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE. UH, IT ALSO AVOIDS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESING 2 0 6 ROSE LANE. UH, THE, THE POLICE OR AMBULATORY SERVICES COULDN'T FIND THAT BACK UNIT. UH, THERE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TO FENCING. UM, WE'D HAVE TO PUT UP A, A LARGER FENCE ON THE BACK ON ROSE LANE. SO IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN ROSE LANE, IT WOULDN'T BE READILY APPARENT THAT THERE'S THAT THIRD UNIT. UH, WE'D ALSO HAVE TO CUT OUT THAT DIVIDER FENCE, WHICH WOULD, UH, IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE, BUT IT WOULD ALSO CREATE, UH, LESS PRIVACY FOR THE LONG-TERM RENTERS ON THE PROPERTY. UH, DOING SO WOULD ALSO HAVE NO IMPACT, UH, OR A POSITIVE IMPACT ACTUALLY TO THE QUIETER ROSE LANE TRAFFIC, UH, AND PARKING SITUATION. AND IT ENSURES THE LONG-TERM RENTERS ARE NOT DISPLACED. UH, THERE'S A MINIMAL IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND PARKING DUE TO THE THREE DESIGNATED OFF STREET PAVED PARKING SPOTS THAT I BUILT FOR UNIT 1 0 2, UH, PLUS THE MULTIPLE ON STREET PARKING LANES PROVIDED BY CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WHICH I THINK ALSO COMPLIES WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO NOT OVERLY, UH, TRAFFIC A STREET THAT WAS NOT OTHERWISE TRAFFICKED. UH, AND IT, YEAH, AGAIN, THAT'S MY PLEA HERE, DOES NOT CONTINUE TO MONETARILY PUNISH ME FOR JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. I HAD TO PAY OVER $1,400 FOR THE REZONING, UH, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT WAS ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY, BUT IT HADN'T BEEN USED LIKE THAT FOR GENERATIONS OF SAN ANTONIANS. UM, AND JUST ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THERE. UM, NOW I, I DID NOTICE THAT THE, THE GROUP THAT WAS TALKING TO YOU EARLIER, UH, ABOUT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WENT THROUGH THOSE SIX REQUIREMENTS. UH, SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, UH, WILL THERE BE A MATERIAL ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? I THINK NO. BY MOVING THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A MATERIAL ENDANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH. IF YOU, UH, RE-ADDRESS 2 0 6 ROSE LAND TO UNIT 1 0 3, UH, THAT'S SUPPORTED BY MR. TORRES, UH, DOES IT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE? UM, NO. I THINK IN FACT, IT AVOIDS A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON 2 0 6 ROSE LANE, WHICH IS A MORE QUIET [02:45:01] STREET. AND IF THIS PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AS COMPARED TO ST. MARY'S, I THINK I'LL HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM, UH, THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, THE SHORT TERM RENTALS. I THINK IT'LL BE, UH, A PRETTY CRAZY NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED. SO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, UH, TO MY WEST, UH, IS A VACANT HOUSE. UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE SHORT-TERM. I THINK THERE ARE FOUR SHORT-TERM, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS FOR THAT, UH, FOR THAT PROPERTY. AND I THINK IF I SAW THAT CORRECTLY, THAT WAS THE RED X. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY OR THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, COMPETING AIRBNB A HALF BLOCK AWAY. UM, BUT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE EITHER VACANT, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT 1 0 1 IS, IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND THAT'S MINE, AND IT'S ALREADY USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. UH, AND THEN THE LONG-TERM RENTERS ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WHO WOULD MUCH RATHER, UH, STAY THERE THAN MOVE TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, THEN THE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, UH, WHO DID NOT SUBMIT ANY COMMENTS. UH, THE UTILITIES ARE GOOD. THEY WERE DEEMED ADEQUATE. UH, NO REVOCATIONS OR CITATIONS. I HAVE OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS. NOTHING'S BEEN REVOKED OR CITED. UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. UM, AGAIN, I, I THINK IT'S MY POSITION THAT MOVING THE PERMIT, UH, ALONG WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT I'VE DONE TO THE PROPERTY HAS ENHANCED THE CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DISTRICT. UM, THERE'S ALSO A SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL PRESENCE ON THIS BLOCK FACE. THERE'S A, A PARKING LOT, UH, THAT SERVICES, UH, DEMOS, GREEK FOOD. SO WE ALREADY HAVE, UH, A PRETTY HEAVY COMMERCIAL PRESENCE ON THIS, UH, BLOCK FACE AS IT IS. UH, I, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD ADD OR SUBTRACT TO THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL ASPECT. UM, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE IT. YEAH. YEAH. OH, SORRY. ONE THING, UH, THE KUSHNER'S, I BELIEVE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO SUBMITTED THE COMMENTS, UH, AS OPPOSED TO IT. AND THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THAT, UH, DISTRICT OR WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY. UH, I TALKED TO, UH, MRS. KUSHNER BEFORE THE HEARING TODAY EXPLAINED, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTATION AND SAID, IT'S NOT ASKING FOR A NEW SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT, IT'S REALLY JUST ASKING FOR, UH, THEM TO BE CORRECTLY ALLOCATED. AND SHE SAID, OH, WELL, NOW THAT I KNOW THAT I'M NOT GONNA SIGN UP IN OPPOSITION TO SPEAK, UM, I'LL JUST TALK ABOUT THE ONE THAT YOU SAW EARLIER. SO, UH, THERE WAS THAT COMPONENT AND I TALKED TO THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AND AS IN HIS PERSONAL, UH, OPINION, CODY, THE PRESIDENT, SAID THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, HE SAID, YEAH, IT'S NOT ADDING TO THE DENSITY OF THE CITY BLOCK OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S REALLY JUST CHANGING THE ADDRESS ON THE PERMIT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. BUT BECAUSE HE HAD TALKED TO MR. AND MRS. KUSHNER IN THE TASK FORCE, HE SAID, BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS, WE CAN'T SUBMIT COMMENTS ON YOUR BEHALF. SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'LL, UH, TURN IT OVER AND I FEEL LIKE I GAINED AN HOUR YESTERDAY AND LOST FOUR TODAY. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ORIAN, GO AHEAD. SO OCTOBER 31ST, YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND YOU APPLIED FOR AN S STR TWO PERMIT? NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. OKAY. I, I THOUGHT IT DIDN'T EXIST, SO I, I COULDN'T HAVE APPLIED FOR A HOT ACCOUNT, UH, BECAUSE THE ADDRESSING DIDN'T EXIST AS OF OCTOBER 31ST ON YOUR PRESENTATION. I WAS, UM, I WAS, LOOK, I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU APPLIED FOR SOMETHING, UH, MAYBE IT WAS JUST A, A, A HOT PERMIT. UH, I, IF I HAD WANTED TO, I COULDN'T HAVE BECAUSE THE, UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF YOU HAD, IF THERE WAS A DOCUMENTED ATTEMPT. NO, NO, NO, NO, I DIDN'T. UH, I DIDN'T APPLY FOR SOMETHING BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE HELPED ME IF, IF I HAD APPLIED FOR A HOT ACCOUNT, IT WOULD'VE JUST BEEN FOR 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY PLACE, AND THEN I WOULD'VE HAD TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER HOT ACCOUNT ONCE I GOT THE UNITS ASSIGNED. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THAT YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A, A STRUCTURE THAT IS IN A, THAT BEEN A DUPLEX FOR 80 YEARS. 90 YEARS, YEAH. YEAH, A LONG TIME. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY THING STOPPING YOU WAS, WAS THE, THE LACK OF OFFICIAL ADDRESSING. DID, WERE YOU RECEIVING ADDRESSES TO TWO DIFFERENT, UM, UM, DWELLING UNITS AT THAT TIME OFF OF ASHBY? YEAH, SO THE, UH, THE PROPERTY, LIKE YOU SAID, HAD BEEN AT A DUPLEX FOR A LONG TIME. IT WAS LEASED OUT BEFORE I BOUGHT IT AS I THINK UNIT ONE AND ONE AND UNIT TWO. AND SO, AND SEPARATELY METERED WITH C P S ENERGY AS SUCH. AND SO WHEN I GOT THE NEW ADDRESSES, I HAD TO GO TO C P S ENERGY AND SAY, PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS BECAUSE YOU HAVE UNIT ONE AND TWO IN YOUR RECORDS. BUT THOSE WEREN'T ACTUALLY OFFICIAL, THOSE DIDN'T EXIST. IT WAS JUST KIND OF HOW WE'D BEEN GOING ABOUT IT. AND THEY, AND THEY WERE LONG-TERM LEASE FOR CONTINUOUS, LIKE SINCE YOU HAD PURCHASED IT. AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WERE DORMANT FOR 10 YEARS OR SOMETHING. THE, THE BACK UNIT WAS LEASED. THE FRONT UNIT WAS ACTUALLY BOTH WERE VACANT WHEN I BOUGHT IT. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THEY WERE VACANT FOR? UH, A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE THEY POSTED RENTS ON THE M L S, LIKE LESS [02:50:01] THAN A YEAR. UH, YEAH, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. MM-HMM. . SO DID YOU GET, DID YOU REQUEST THE, UM, SHORT TERM THE TYPE TWO ON THE ROSE STREET BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GET, I MEAN, TELL ME WHY YOU, YOU ALREADY HAD RENTERS, YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN ACTUALLY HAVING THOSE LONG-TERM RENTERS MOVE, RIGHT? SO WHY DID YOU GET THE S STR R TWO ON THAT OTHER STREET? IT WOULD'VE COST ME A HUNDRED DOLLARS TO GET A NO OR A YES, AND I FIGURED I COULD JUST GET A YES. I MEAN IT, IF, IF I HAD SAID NO, JUST THEY WOULD'VE DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT AND I WOULD'VE BEEN STUCK EXACTLY KIND OF WHERE I AM WITH NO 1 0 2 AND NO 1 0 1. BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON ROSE LANE TO KIND OF SAY, LOOK, I HAVE TWO ON THIS PROPERTY, CAN I JUST PLEASE MOVE THE SECOND ONE TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY? IF I DIDN'T HAVE THAT SECOND ONE, I WOULD'VE JUST BEEN HERE TODAY SAYING, UM, ESSENTIALLY I HAVE ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND I'D LIKE A SECOND ONE, WHICH IS A HEAVIER ASK THAN TO SAY I HAVE TWO ON THE SAME PROPERTY. I DON'T WANT TO INCREASE CITY BLOCK DENSITY. AND BECAUSE I HAVE THAT SECOND ONE, NOBODY ELSE CAN COME ONTO ROSE LANE AND ASK FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. AND SO IF YOU JUST ALLOW ME TO MOVE THAT TO 1 0 2, IT KIND OF LOCKS IN THE DENSITY FOR MY CITY BLOCK. UH, AND DOESN'T INCREASE, LIKE I THINK YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, COULD I JUST GO BACK AND APPLY FOR ANOTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR 2 0 6 ROSE LANE? AND I HOPE THE ANSWER OR AN AGREEMENT WOULD BE NO. UH, I MEAN THE, THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT I HOPE THE AGREEMENT THAT WE COULD, I GUESS PASS HERE WOULD BE NO, THAT THIS COUNTS AS THAT ONE. IT'S, IT'S WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN'T SWAP AN S T R TWO FOR, TO MOVE IT. WE'RE REALLY MAKING THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER T R TWO ON ASHBY. YOU'RE HOPING THAT WE'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE S T R YOU HAVE ON ROSE LANE, BUT WE ARE NOT, WE, WE DON'T, IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR POWER TO SWAP. WELL, I, I THINK I WOULD BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE REVOKED. I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE THE FORWARD TODAY. WHAT HE'S REQUESTED IS, IS TO ESSENTIALLY HAVE US REVOKE THE ROSE LANE ONE AND ISSUE BASED ON TODAY'S DECISION, THE ADDITIONAL ONE ON, UH, ASHBY. HE'S ALREADY INDICATED THAT IN WRITING WHEN HE WANTED TO APPLY FOR THE ADDITIONAL ONE ON ASHBY AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN, IS ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT DECISION. NO, NO. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER THE ROSE LANE ONE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD ANOTHER ONE ON ASHBY. IF WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THE S T R TWO ON ROSE LANE REV REVEAL REVOKED BECAUSE IT DOES IN FACT THEN HOLD THAT DENSITY. OH, YEAH. IS THAT AT ALL? NO, WE STILL, YOU'RE STILL NOT, THAT'S NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. SO WE ONLY HAVE ASHBY UNDER CONSIDERATION. CORRECT. AND IF APPROVED, THEN WE'LL FULFILL WHAT HE'S REQUESTED AND REVOKE THE ROSE LANE. BUT THAT MEANS ANYBODY ELSE CAN APPLY, RIGHT? YES. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO KNOW THAT THAT'S PART IS HAPPENING. CORRECT. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD HELP, BUT, UM, BECAUSE OF MY PLANS TO NOT USE THAT AS A LONG OR AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, I COULD KEEP IT AND BLOCK THE BLOCK BASICALLY. RIGHT. WE WOULD NEED THAT IN WRITING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WOULD YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. THAT'D BE FINE WITH ME. AND THAT WOULD, I GUESS, PREVENT ANY FUTURE PERSON ON THAT ROSE LANE BLOCK FROM COMING IN AND ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE. BUT AGAIN, THIS WOULDN'T BE TIED TO YOUR DECISION. THIS, THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PROCESS. OKAY. THIS IS OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. SO THE, LET'S FORGET ABOUT ROSE LANE AT THIS TIME, WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING, UM, UH, THE OTHER LOCATION AND BECAUSE IT WAS, OR ORIGINALLY TWO, TWO STRUCTURES OR ACTUALLY ONE STRUCTURE WITH TWO DWELLINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY? YES. OKAY. SO NOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO YOU WANT TO DO IS YOU WANT TO ADD THE SECOND STRUCTURE AS AN ADDITIONAL S T R? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S OKAY. NOW, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REST OF IT IS NOT OUR, OUR DETERMINATION, ALL WE'RE GONNA DO IS DETERMINE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL IN AND TAKE THE PERCENTAGE ABOVE 12 AND A HALF TO A NEW PERCENTAGE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SINCE IT'S ALREADY, THE QUESTION REALLY IS, IS THAT, HAVE YOU BEEN UTILIZING BOTH OF THESE AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS? NO, THEY'RE BOTH VACANT. OKAY. SO HE'S, HE'S TRYING, HE'S GOT, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A PERMIT FOR ONE? I ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT FOR ONE, BUT OKAY. I WANT TO, OKAY, SO START IT OFF, RIGHT? ASKING THE SECOND FOR THE NEW ADDRESS. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT HERE. SO THE QUESTION REALLY ISN'T SO MUCH MOVING IS THAT, ARE WE ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL, UH, LOCATION, UM, ON THE, UH, ASHBY, UH, STREET? [02:55:01] SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ELLI? YES. I I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE BLOCK FACE. SO JUST THE ASHBY STREET MM-HMM. , HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS ARE ON THAT ASHBY STREET? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOURS WAS ONE, BUT IT REALLY WAS TWO. SO HOW MANY? SO THERE'S NINE NOT IN COUNTING, NOT INCLUDING MINE. AND, AND THEN I HAVE EITHER TWO OR THREE, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU ADDRESS IT. YOU HAVE BY, BY THE DEFINITION OF A BLOCK FACE. MM-HMM. , YOU HAVE TWO. SO HOW MANY OTHERS DO YOU THINK HAVE EXTRAS THAT AREN'T GETTING COUNTED OR THAT ARE GETTING, I MEAN, TO JUST TRY TO GET WHAT'S THE REAL DENOMINATOR THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH ON ASHBY? YEAH. I, I'M NOT SURE. I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE LOOK THERE ARE MORE AND MORE, THAT'S WHY WE CHANGED THE , THE, THE REPORT TODAY, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS IS A STREET, A BLOCK FACE I'M FAMILIAR WITH. AND, AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE DUPLEXES IN THIS GENERAL AREA. YES. AND THERE'S ALSO THEN BACK HOUSES IN THIS GENERAL AREA THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED ALREADY TO ASHBY. MM-HMM. . SO I'M TRYING TO GET AT HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS DO YOU THINK THERE MIGHT BE? IF I'M, IF I MAY, WE COUNTED 11. THAT WAS THE LAST COUNT. AND THAT'S BASED ON INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TO US AS WELL WITH PHOTOS AND PROOF. OKAY. SO HOW DID YOU, DID YOU CHECK YOURSELF? 'CAUSE WE'VE COME UP WITH THIS QUESTION BEFORE ABOUT HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY ON THE BLOCK, BLOCK FACE? INITIALLY WE COUNTED SEVEN, BUT WE DID PUT IT BACK ON THE APPLICANT, AS WE ALWAYS DO. IF YOU HAVE PROOF OF OTHER UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE THAT WE DON'T SEE, YOU CAN PROVIDE US THAT INFORMATION. SO THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE US ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHOWING US THAT THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY 11 UNITS. 11 UNITS. OKAY. I FOUND FOUR MORE. AND I DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. UH, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CITY CCP. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE C P SS, I DON'T HAVE SAWS, I DON'T HAVE ADDRESSING LIKE YOU GUYS DO. OKAY. SO THEY FOUND SEVEN, YOU FOUND AN ADDITIONAL FOUR MORE. I FOUND FOUR MORE. SO YOU BROUGHT IT UP TO 11? MM-HMM. . OKAY. THANK YOU. ORIAN. UH, WHEN YOU WERE RESEARCHING THIS PROPERTY, THE VACANT RESIDENTIAL, UH, JUST FROM PHOTOS AND IT, IT REFLECTS ONE ELECTRICAL METER, BUT BCA SHOWS IT AS HAVING TWO ADDITIONAL LIVING AREAS. UH, DID, DID, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE IN ANY OF YOUR SITE RESEARCH THAT THERE WAS IN FACT, UP TO TWO IN THAT CORNER HOUSE? ON MY, ON MY PROPERTY, UH, 5 0 1 0 5 0 1, IT'S A, UH, HONESTLY IT'S A VACANT HOUSE. UM, THERE, THERE ARE NO WINDOWS THERE, THERE ARE BLANKETS IN THE YARD FROM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT JUST SLEEP IN THERE. UH, AND SO IF THERE IS, IF THERE ARE UTILITIES AND, UH, THERE, I MEAN, WHICH THERE COULD BE, THEY'RE ALL SHUT OFF. AND I DON'T KNOW IF C P S HAS ANY RECORDS. AND THEN, SO THE OTHER THING I GOT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY IS, IS THAT FOR A A $30,000, UH, FEE, A C P SS, YOU COULD VERY EASILY MAKE THIS THREE, YOU WOULD LOSE SOME EMERGENCY ACCESS ISSUES, BUT YOU COULD, WITH THE EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT 30 GRAND AND THE CHANGE IN AN ADDRESS BE COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE WITH HAVING I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. BUT YEAH, THERE'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPONENT. AND SO ONE MORE, I'M SORRY, ONE MORE QUESTION. SO WOULD HE BY RIGHT. IF HIS, THAT PART WITHIN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THE, IF THE RENTER HAD PERMISSION TO RUN A TYPE ONE AND A TYPE TWO, HE WOULD BY RIGHT? IF HE USED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS LONG-TERM RENTER, BE ABLE TO RUN A TYPE ONE BY, RIGHT? MM-HMM. AND THEN HAVE A TYPE TWO BY RIGHT. AND THAT'S COMPLETELY WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE? THAT IS CORRECT. UH, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE AND HE DIDN'T WANNA BURDEN THE CURRENT, UH, TENANT WITH THAT ISSUE. SO WE DECIDED TO GO THIS ROUTE INSTEAD. UM, UNDER THAT ORDINANCE, IF YOU'RE THE, IF YOU LIVE ON SITE OR IF YOU HAVE A LONG-TERM RENTER, YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE TWO TYPE ONES. UH, SO IN THIS SITUATION, HE JUST SIMPLY DIDN'T WANNA BURDEN THE, THE TENANT. I PAID $600 TO ALLEVIATE THEIR CONCERNS THAT THEY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK. WHY LEGALLY IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED ON THAT FRONT UNIT, UH, IT JUST WASN'T WORTH IT TO BURDEN THEM WITH THAT KIND OF CONSTANT OVERHANG OF, OH MY GOSH, MY NAME'S ON THIS PERMIT. I CAN TELL YOU I STAY UP AT NIGHT THINKING ABOUT THAT. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT THAT ON THEM. UH, WHEN YEAH. RAVINO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WERE THEY DENIED THIS ON UNIT 1 0 2 THE FIRST TIME, AND HOW DOES US AWARDING THIS ON THAT UNIT AFFECT ANY KIND OF DENSITY LIMITATIONS FOR THAT BLOCK FACE? SO INITIALLY WHEN HE APPLIED FOR THAT UNIT, HE WAS, HE ALREADY HAD THE ONE TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO PERMIT. UM, HE'D BE BEYOND THE, THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS. SO AT THAT TIME, THE CONVERSATION, I BELIEVE WITH HIS, UH, REVIEWER WAS UTILIZING ROSE LANE, UM, BY GOING WITH THE SECOND UNIT. HE'S OVER THE, OF THE 12.5, BUT BARELY, UH, IF THERE WERE 12 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK BASE, IT'D BE A MOOT POINT AND [03:00:01] COULD HAVE TWO UNITS, AND I COULD GET THERE IF I RE-ADDRESSED 2 0 6 ROSE LANE TO 1 0 3, BUT IT WOULD JUST ENDANGER THOSE PEOPLE. ORIENT. YEAH. GO AHEAD. SO, UH, HOW MANY, YOU HAD TALKED THAT YOU HAD DEDICATED PARKING, SO ON THAT DRIVE, DO YOU HAVE A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WHERE 2 0 6 HAS A RIGHT TO SO MANY PARKING SPACES, LEAVING SO MANY FOR, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MANY PARKING MIGHT BE DEDICATED TOWARDS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2? SURE. SO, UH, THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP, OKAY, UH, ON, SORRY, CAN YOU, I'M GONNA JUST, OKAY. OH, SO OH, OKAY. I'M OBVIOUSLY A PRO. UH, SO THIS SIDE IS 1 0 1, THIS SIDE IS 1 0 2. THIS IS, OOPS. DID I DO THAT? NO, I, OH, . OKAY. UH, JUST GO TO THE SITE PLAN. AND THAT'S THE THREE PAVED OFF STREET PARKING SPOTS. AND OUR ENVISIONMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE, BECAUSE THIS IS A THREE BEDROOM UNIT, THIS IS A TWO BEDROOM UNIT, THIS WOULD GET HIGHER, UH, RATES. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT WOULD COME WITH THE PAVED OFF STREET PARKING. BETH, CAN YOU PUT THE, UH, THE SURVEY SITE PLAN? YEAH, THERE YOU CAN YOU USE THE POINT BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL GRAVEL WITH DRIVE THAT GOES, IT SEEMS LIKE GET MORE THAN THREE CARS. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN CASE IT WAS MORE THAN THREE CARS. LIKE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? SURE. SO WE, RIGHT ALONG HERE, WE PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE TO PROTECT THESE LONG-TERM RENTERS FROM, UH, BASICALLY HAVING A DUPLEX ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT SPANNED ACROSS THE GRAVEL DRIVE. UH, IT SPANNED ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. SO IN A WAY YOU'RE KIND OF SEPARATING THE TWO. YEAH, AND I WANTED THEM TO HAVE KIND OF THEIR OWN, UH, PRIVATE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, HONESTLY. SO WE PUT THAT, UH, THAT FENCE UP HERE. THIS IS A, UH, GRASSED AREA. UH, THERE'S A WRAP WRAPAROUND DECK THAT WAS PERMITTED AND PASSED. THIS IS A PRIVATE YARD FOR THE 1 0 2, OR SORRY, THE 1 0 1 SIDE. AND THEN THIS ALL BELONGS IN OUR OPINION TO 1 0 2. SO IT'S A LARGER, IT'S A THREE BEDROOM UNIT ON THIS SIDE. IT'S A TWO BEDROOM UNIT. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE ARE TWO, UH, ON STREET PARKING SPOTS, UH, POSSIBLY THREE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU SQUEEZE IT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. SO OUR, THE WAY THAT WE ENVISIONED IT WOULD BE THE 1 0 1 SIDE HAS THAT ON STREETE PARKING, WHICH IS DESIGNATED, IT'S CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BUT NOBODY REALLY PARKS THERE. AND THEN THE 1 0 2 SIDE WOULD HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO THOSE THREE OFF STREET PAVED PARKING SPOTS. OKAY, THANK YOU. CAN I JUST MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT FOR EACH TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENEWAL, HE NEEDS TO HAVE ONE DEDICATED SPOT OFF STREET. I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY STATEMENT . SO YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S IS, I GUESS IT'S SHARED DRIVEWAY, BUT, SO THAT'S, I GUESS ANY MORE, MR. NEFF, I'M GONNA BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE BECAUSE I'M STILL CONFUSED AND I NEED STAFF'S CLARIFICATION. ARE S T R PERMITS ISSUED BY LOT OR BY ADDRESS? BY UNIT. EACH UNIT'S GONNA GET ITS OWN HOT ACCOUNT AS WELL AS PERMIT. SO IF YOU HAVE A FOURPLEX AND YOU WANT TO USE ALL FOUR, EACH ONE WOULD HAVE ITS OWN. BUT DENSITY CALCULATIONS ARE TAKEN BY LOT WITH A PRIMARY ADDRESS BY UNITS TOTAL. SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE BLOCK FACE AND IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR EACH BLOCK FACE, WHETHER THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX QUAD. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA THROW ALL THAT INTO CALCULATION OUTSIDE OF MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS FIVE OR MORE UNITS. WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THAT ROSE LANE SIDE, AND IF, IF IT'S ON THE SAME LOT AS THE 5 0 7 ASHBY AND IT WAS GIVEN A SECOND PERMIT, BUT THE ASHBY DOESN'T MEET THE DENSITY, IS IT TREATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE IT HAS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS? CORRECT. IT HAD ITS OWN, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ON THE SAME LOT, IT'S ON THE SAME LOT, BUT IT'S FRONTING A DIFFERENT STREET AND IT HAS ITS OWN BLOCK FACE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE ALONG WITH THE SEPARATING FENCE, IT, IT'S CLEARLY A SEPARATE UNIT ON ITS OWN LOT. I MEAN, IT'S CREATED LIKE ITS OWN SPACE. SO IT IS BY UNIT AND BY ADDRESS AND NOT BY LOT IN ANY WAY. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. BUT CAN I RESPOND ALSO, BUT YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE IS HOW ARE WE TREATING 2 0 6 ROSE LANE AND HOW ARE WE COUNTING UNITS ON A BLOCK FACE? BECAUSE IF IT IS BY THE PRIMARY ADDRESS, BY 5 0 7 EAST ASHBY, THAT'S OUR 12TH UNIT, AND I GET THE SECOND PERMIT ON THAT FRONT DUPLEX, BELIEVE ME, I'VE TALKED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A A MILLION. YEAH. DID YOU, DID YOU PUT UP THE FENCE BEFORE OR AFTER YOU APPLIED FOR THE, UH, HOT TAX ACCOUNT? AFTER. AFTER, AFTER. SO THEY, THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE WHEN I, UH, WHEN I APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS OR FOR THE HOT ACCOUNT. FISHER, THIS IS THE STAFF. UH, HOW FOR, AGAIN, JUST [03:05:01] FOR CLARIFICATION, IN THREE YEARS THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN, CORRECT? IF THEY EXCEED THE DENSITY. YES. UM, KEEP IN MIND, AT ANY TIME IF ANYBODY REZONES AND YOU HAVE MORE THAN 12 UNITS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK. THAT'S WHY DURING THAT REVIEW PROCESS, WE'RE GONNA ALWAYS LOOK AT THE BLOCK FACE AT THAT TIME. AND, UH, IF I COULD JUST MENTION REAL QUICKLY, FIVE OH, UH, 5 0 1 EAST ASHBY PLACE IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE DOUBLE LOTS. AND AT SOME POINT THERE WAS ANOTHER UNIT ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THAT WENT TO IT, BUT IT'S BEEN TORN DOWN. I MEAN, THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE PROPERTY'S DILAPIDATED AND, UM, I WON'T THROW THEM UNDER THE BUS, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF, YEAH. . UH, ONE QUICK, ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, IF, IF THIS WAS GRANTED TODAY AND A YEAR FROM NOW, AN ADDITIONAL UNIT MATRICULATED ON EAST ASHBY AND HE BECAME, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE DENSITY, UH, DOES, DOES HE BECOME GRANDFATHERED OF UNITS GO AWAY? OR, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? DO YOU JUST LOOK AT IT COLD TURKEY EVERY THREE YEARS? OR DO YOU, IS THERE ANY SORT OF, A NEW REVIEW IS DONE EVERY THREE YEARS. OKAY. SO DENSITY CALCULATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT POINT. SO EVERYTHING'S AT A POINT IN TIME. SO TODAY IS THE POINT IN TIME OF 11. THREE YEARS FROM NOW, IT'LL BE A POINT IN TIME BASED ON THE, WHAT I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT HAD THE ADDRESSING BEEN ON 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 BEEN COMPLETELY FINE, AND IT WAS PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1ST WHEN THE ORDINANCE KICKED IN, WOULD HE BE CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED ALL THE TIME MOVING FORWARD? IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING GRANDFATHERED, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT YOUR, UH, YOUR APPLICATION COMES IN IN TIME BEFORE THE DENSITY THRESHOLD, UM, IS MET. SO IN OTHER WORDS, FIVE 15 COULD COME IN AND BUILD AN A D D U, WHICH INCREASES THE DENSITY 'CAUSE THAT'S UNIT. SO ANY OF THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN A D D U COULD COME IN BETWEEN NOW AND THE THIRD YEAR AND BUILD ONE. YEAH, I, I'M ASKING, 'CAUSE I, I, I THOUGHT I HEARD TESTIMONY THAT HE PURCHASED THE HOME PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 1ST, AND THERE WAS AN INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT WHAT WAS KEEPING HIM WAS THE ADDRESSING FORMALITY. RIGHT? HE WASN'T ABLE TO APPLY FOR A HOT TAX ACCOUNT. THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD BEEN HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IS IF YOUR HOT TAX ACCOUNT HAD BEEN ACTIVE AND, UH, YOU WEREN'T IN ARREARS BY NOVEMBER 1ST. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT? YES. UH, NEVERMIND. OKAY, NOW LET'S, LET'S, LET'S GET BACK TO, UH, WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE. I THINK WE'VE PRETTY MUCH COVERED WHAT WE'RE, WE HAVE FULLY TO UNDERSTAND HERE. WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH ASHBY. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ROSE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE FACING THE WRONG STREET. AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING, I BELIEVE WE CAME TO DETERMINATION, THERE WERE 11 UNITS ON THAT BLOCK FACE. AND SO THEREFORE HE'S JUST IN THAT EDGE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF WHETHER IT QUALIFIES OR NOT. AND, UH, NOW THAT HE'S GOT THE ADDRESS CORRECTED, UH, NOW HE'S REQUESTING THIS, UH, ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. UH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION WHAT HAPPENED WITH, WITH THE PREVIOUS SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATION BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BLOCK FACE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER AN APP, UH, WE APPROVE IT OR NOT. NOW, UM, IS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY, THEN ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES? NOBODY SIGNED UP. OKAY. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE IS THE GENTLEMAN HAS, NOW HE HAS TWO PROPERTIES ON ONE PIECE OF, OR TWO STRUCTURES ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY UTILIZING FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. NOW, THERE ARE 11 UNITS OUT THERE, AND THERE ARE NO, MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S NO OTHER SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE VICINITY, NEIGHBORING BLOCKS, BUT NOT IN THIS ONE, BUT NOT IN THIS BLOCK PHASE. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION IS HERE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA ISSUE A, UH, AN EXCEPTION FOR THE RULE TO ALLOW IT TO, TO SLIGHTLY EXCEED THE 12.5% OR NOT. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY. SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR, UH, FOR THIS, UH, REQUEST TEAL MR. TEAL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH NINE DASH 3 25. I MOVE THAT TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS TO ALLOW ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO UNIT SITUATED AT 5 0 7 EAST ASH, B NUMBER 1 0 1 APPLICANT BEING ADAM HARDIN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT 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 EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER IN THE PROPOSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL WILL FOLLOW THE SPECIFIED CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN SECTION [03:10:01] 35 DASH 3 7 4 0.01 IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE SINCE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN AUGUST. STAFF CAN FIND NO RECORD OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OR SAN ANTONIO POLICE ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROPERTY. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. COULD PROVIDE DATA SHOWING THAT THE OCCUPANCY RATES FOR LONG-TERM RENTALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE REQUEST, WHICH COULD MITIGATE THIS FINDING. D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACULTIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED DURING OUR VISIT TO THE SITE. CITY STAFF NOTED THERE IS PLENTY OF OFF STREET PARKING FOR GUESTS. THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THE STRUCTURE ALREADY EXISTS WITH ADEQUATE UTILITIES. EITHER APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR SPEC FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT EXCEPTION TO KEEP THE EXISTING PERMIT, BUT REALLOCATE THEM TO SPECIFIC DUPLEX LOCATED 5 0 7 EACH AT ASHBY PLACE OF TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL MAY CONTINUE AS SUCH, NO PREVIOUS PERMIT HAS BEEN REVOKED. F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT MERELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY IS STILL USED PRIMARILY AS A RESIDENCE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE HOME IS NOT WITH UNLIKE OTHER HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A, UH, MOTION TO SECOND. MR. TEAL, CAN YOU SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT? I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. HE'S NOT ACTUALLY INCREASING THE DENSITY OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THIS AREA AT ALL. UM, IT SEEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, UM, THAT HAS TO DO WITH SEMANTICS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND FOR THAT REASON, UM, GOING ASIDE WITH THE APPLICANT, VERY GOOD AND MISS, UH, DOCTOR, I BELIEVE YOU WERE THE SECOND. YEAH, I WAS THE SECOND. UM, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I, I THINK THIS, UM, APPLICANT MADE A CONVINCING, AN APPEALING ARGUMENT, UM, FOR THE NEED FOR THIS KIND OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO BE GRANTED. UM, I, I'M ACTUALLY BOTH IMPRESSED AND PERPLEXED BY HOW MANY TIMES HE COULD BE OFFERED ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND YET HE DECIDED TO COME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND APPEAL HIS CASE AND REALLY DO THE RIGHT THING. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT. ANYONE ELSE? ORIAN, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL. I THINK THIS IS A SOMATIC ISSUE IS A SOMATIC ISSUE. HE HAS, UH, ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING. I I PERSONALLY THINK THAT, UH, HAD THE ADDRESSING BEEN IN LINE WITH THE 90 YEAR HISTORICAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT, UH, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. UM, SO AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS BA SIMPLY SOMATICS, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MANNA. OKAY, MR. MANNA. UM, ALSO I THINK, UM, AS STATED WITH MY COLLEAGUES, I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL AS I THINK, UH, THAT HE DID REACH OUT TO, UH, THE TOPEN HILL COMMUNITY AND THERE, UM, APPEAR TO BE AN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, UM, WITH THIS SOLUTION AS WELL. UM, AS WELL AS THE, THE, I GUESS THE NEIGHBORS THAT DID REACH OUT. SO THE ONES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN OPPOSITION OR AFTER SPEAKING WITH HIM, UH, WERE NO LONGER IN OPPOSITION, SO I'M IN AGREEMENT. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, THAT'S, THAT'S IT. SO LET'S, I HAD ONE MORE. OKAY. ONE LAST STATEMENT. I'M SORRY. I ALSO, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT, UM, THERE WEREN'T ANY NEIGHBORS HERE THAT, UH, SHOWED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST US, SO THAT WAS, THAT ALSO, UH, HELPED ME BE IN LINE WITH BEING IN APPROVAL. OKAY. VERY GOOD. OKAY, MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. MS. TIO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ZDI CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MS. VINNO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT THAT THE MOTION PASSES. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROGRAM. LET'S, UH, I THINK, UH, SOMEONE NEED TO GO. OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S, YES. UM, I DO HAVE A HARD STOP IN 10 MINUTES. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STEP OUT NOW? [03:15:01] UM, NO. LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET THE NEXT CASE AND, AND LET'S SEE HOW QUICKLY WE CAN ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING [8. 19-8077 BOA-19-10300126: A request by Nicholas Van Delist for a 2’ variance from the 5’ side and rear setback requirement to allow a detached garage to be 3’ from the side and rear property lines and eaves to be projected 1’ from the side and rear property lines, located at 509 West Gramercy Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] BO. A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 6 AT 5 0 9 WEST GRAMERCY PLACED, THE APPLICANT IS NICHOLAS VANDALS. THE REQUEST IS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND EAVES TO BE PROJECTED ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY IN THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE WITH PROJECTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON THE STRUCTURE REQUIRE A FIVE FOOT SET SETBACK. IN 2017, THE APPLICANT DEMOLISHED THEIR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD, IS NOW SEEKING TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE. THE REAR YARD ALSO HAS A, HAS A STORAGE SHED AND SWIMMING POOL, WHICH LIMIT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE NEED TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION TO BUILD THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED OVER THE LOT LINES WITHIN THE PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 2 6. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. THE APPLICANT STILL HAS REMAINING SPACE TO ALLOW FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND ADEQUATE STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THE PROPERTY. WE MAILED 30 NOTICES, UH, ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. QUESTIONS OF STAFF ORIAN? YES. SO, UH, THERE APPEARS TO BE A STRUCTURE DIRECTLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FENCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW CLOSE THAT IS TO THE FENCE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY OR, UH, DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS LOT. OH, I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT ONE. THERE'S ALSO A UTILITY POLE THAT APPEARS TO BE PRETTY MUCH ON THE FENCE LINE, UH, WITHIN THE, UH, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES YARD WITH, UH, APPARENTLY COMMUNICATIONS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ELECTRICAL, BUT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN, UH, WHERE THAT RUN OF UTILITIES WOULD LIE IN RELATION TO THIS THREE FOOT, UM, OFFSET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. I WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT PIECE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UH, FORWARD. HELLO, MY NAME IS NICK VANDALS. I AM AT, UH, 5 0 9 WEST GRAMERCY. UH, MY WIFE AND FAMILY, WE LIVE AT THIS PROPERTY. UH, WE MOVED THERE IN 2016 FROM DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AT 5 0 8. MY FAMILY HAS EITHER LIVED ON THIS STREET, UH, OR IN OTHER PARTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE 1920S, AND WE PLAN TO STAY HERE AS LONG AS WE CAN. UM, THE PROJECT IS A TWO DETACHED, A DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE. THE VARIANCES STATED IS TO PUT, UH, THAT GARAGE, UH, THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE WITH AN OVERHANG ON IT TO MATCH THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. UM, IF WE DID NOT HAVE THE OVERHANG, WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SET THE PROP OR THE BUILDING AT THAT THREE FOOT MARK, BUT BECAUSE WE WANT TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THIS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE OPTED TO GO IN AND DO THE OVERHANG WITH AN 18 INCH EVE THERE. UM, WE'D ASK THAT WE HAVE THIS FIVE FOOT SETBACK AS WELL IN ORDER TO HELP MAINTAIN A DRIVABLE ACCESS TO THE STRUCTURE. UH, I'M SORRY, THE THREE FOOT SETBACK. A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ACTUALLY PUTS THE GARAGE DOOR OPENING AT A POINT WHERE, UH, VEHICLES WILL BE HAVING A PROBLEMATIC ENTRY IN A DIRECT DRIVE SITUATION INTO THAT GARAGE. YOU'D HAVE TO BACK UP AND MOVE FORWARD MULTIPLE TURNING MANEUVERS TO GET INTO IT. UM, AGAIN, OR IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS INCREASE THE USABLE YARD SPACE HERE. WE COULD STRETCH THIS BUILDING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE, UH, LOT AND, UM, DECREASE THE ACTUAL USABLE YARD [03:20:01] SPACE THERE. THE DENIAL COMMENT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE IN OPPOSED BECAUSE OF THE YARD SPACE ISSUES. UM, THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE WANT TO, UH, PUSH THIS THING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OVER AS WELL AS GO FURTHER VERTICAL WITH IT AS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A STORAGE UNIT ON TOP. UM, AGAIN, THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TRYING TO BE MAINTAINED WITH THIS SIMILAR MATERIALS TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, COLOR, ARCHITECTURAL ACCENTS AND, AND THE SUCH. UM, WE HAVE RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS SUPPORT FROM 5 0 3. THIS IS AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN WHO HAS NEVER USED THE INTERNET, NOR DOES HE USE EMAIL. I HAVE SUPPORT FROM FIVE 15 AND WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM FIVE 18 AS WELL WHO IS ANOTHER ELDERLY WOMAN WHO HAS NOT USED THE INTERNET AND DOES NOT EMAIL. UM, THE OPPOSITION WAS 5 5 12, WHICH IS A RENTAL PROPERTY. UH, AND WE USED TO LIVE AT THE 5 0 8. UM, THE PROPOSED OVERHANG BEING 18 INCHES. WE'LL MAINTAIN 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WATER FALLING FROM THAT ROOF. IF WE OPT TO PUT IT IN A GUTTER SYSTEM TO, UH, BE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, PRIMARY STRUCTURE WILL DISCHARGE IN A DIRECTION AWAY FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND TOWARDS THE FRONT OF 5 0 9. UH, IF NO GUTTER SYSTEM IS PUT IN PLACE, THERE WILL BE, THERE WILL STILL BE 18 INCHES FOR THAT WATER TO FALL. WE WILL NOT BE BLOCKING ANY OF THE OFFSITE DRAINAGE AND WE'LL ACCEPT AND CONVEY ANY OFFSITE DRAINAGE AS IT IS GOING RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE, UH, MR. NEFF HAD SOME QUESTIONS OR, ALRIGHT, ORIAN MR. HAND. YEAH. SO, UH, I'M IN A, I ASKED THAT PREVIOUSLY, I'LL ASK YOU TO ANSWER. THERE APPEARS TO BE A STRUCTURE DIRECTLY BEHIND, UH, THE REAR FENCE RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THIS PROPOSED GARAGE IS GOING. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW CLOSE THAT IS TO THE REAR FENCE? SO THE STRUCTURE IS, IS THIS ONE HERE THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT? WELL, IN THERE WAS A, THERE WAS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING THAT WAS HERE. I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE STAFF PICTURE. THE SECOND PICTURE, UM, PROPOSED LOCATION FOR DETACHED GARAGE. AND IF YOU LOOK BEHIND THE FENCE, YOU CAN SEE A WINDOW PRETTY CLOSE. YEAH, THAT ONE. THIS ONE RIGHT BACK HERE? NO, IT'S A PICTURE WHERE IT'S RELATIVELY CLEAR. YEAH, THAT ONE. OKAY. YEAH. THIS ONE HERE. UM, LET ME GET THAT DISTANCE. DO NOT HAVE THAT DISTANCE WRITTEN DOWN. UH, ACTUALLY NORTH ADJOINING STRUCTURE IS 5 0 6. IT'S A MULTIFAMILY POP PROPERTY. UH, IT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH NO DRIVABLE ACCESS TO THE BACK LOT. UH, AND THE DISTANCE IS MEASURED WITH THE ELECTRIC DISTANCE METER WAS 54 FEET TO THAT PRIMARY. SO, SO THERE IS NO STRUCTURES WITHIN 54 FEET OF THE REAR FENCE OF THE REAR FENCE THERE? NO. OKAY. THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR TO THEM, I BELIEVE IT'S 5 0 8, UH, FULTON, THEY HAD A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS DILAPIDATED ROOF CAVED IN, UH, BECAME A BIG NUISANCE. THEY'VE SINCE TORN THAT DOWN, KIND OF. THEY, THEY LEFT MOST OF IT IN PLACE. YEAH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE IN THIS PICTURE THAT YOU, YOU HAVE UP THERE, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S, IT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN 54 FEET. BUT, UH, AND THEN HOW, HOW FAR IS THAT UTILITY POLE FROM THE FENCE? THE UTILITY POLE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT INSIDE THE BACK PROPERTY LINE. THERE'S CURRENTLY A OVERHEAD DATA LINE THAT STRETCHES FROM HERE TO OUR PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN THIS DIRECTION. OKAY. THAT'S, AND THAT WILL BE DISCONNECTED AND REMOVED. IT IS TELECOMMUNICATION LINES. THE POWER IS FED FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH TRANSFORMS IN THE FRONT. GREAT. UM, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, WITNESSES ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? NOBODY SIGNED UP. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE, I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION DEAL MR. TE, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH NINE DASH 0 3 0 1 2 6. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED TWO FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND EAVES TO BE PROJECTED. ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES SITUATED AT 5 0 9 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. APPLICANT BEING NICHOLAS VAN . BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT NUMBER ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC [03:25:01] INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACKS THAT MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WIDTH OF THE REMAINING THREE FEET. THE APPLICANT STILL HAS ENOUGH, EXCUSE ME, WITH THE REMAINING THREE FEET, THE APPLICANT STILL HAS ENOUGH SPACE TO ALLOW FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH TRESPASS. WITHOUT TRESPASS, THE STRUCTURE WILL BE IN SIM, SIMILAR CHARACTER TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE N C D REQUIREMENTS. AND THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY AND DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE UNDERGROUND POOL, THE ONLY SPACE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO EXIST IS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED. IF THE STRUCTURE WERE TO BE PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, IT WOULD CAUSE DIFFICULTY DRIVING INTO AND OUT OF THE GARAGE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SP SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN AND SIMILAR PLACEMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE AN OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. THE 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 REQUEST WILL NOT ENTER THE RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A REDUCTION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS STILL SPACE FOR PROPER WATER RUNOFF ON THE PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT F MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF, OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED INTO MOTION. ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT. MAKE MAKE YOUR STATEMENT BRIEF. MR. TEAL? YES SIR. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, THIS SEEMS, UH, FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. UH, PLENTY OF ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE AND, UH, I'M GLAD THEY'LL BE COMPLYING WITH THE N C D. ALRIGHT. DOCTOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO YEAH, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I, I, UM, AND WE'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? BRIEFLY ORIAN? UH, I I'M, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. UH, HE ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, AND HE USES THIS AS A DWELLING UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, DOES THAT, WOULD HE HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US? OTHER WORDS, IF HE RAISED IT UP TO A SECOND FLOOR? WELL, HE'S JUST PROVIDING STAIRS IN A BATHROOM. THAT'S WHY AS WELL. RIGHT. THEN IT BECOMES AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WOULDN'T IT? YEAH, YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THAT ONE. IF IT'S GONNA BE ADDED AS A SECOND STORY DWELLING. YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK. YEAH. 'CAUSE I JUST SAW THE STAIRS IN THE RESTROOM. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MONICA, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL VOTE. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, DR. ELLI, THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MR. MANNA FINDINGS. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MS. DENO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION PASSES AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. AND I AM OFFICIALLY NOTING IT'S, UH, FOUR 50 AND DR. ZARE IS, IS LEAVING THE BENCH. DO WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE TO REPLACE? OKAY, SO WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE DOWN TO 10 PEOPLE. THOSE, THERE ARE TWO CASES LEFT. IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE FULL BOARD PRESENT, YOU CAN REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. OTHERWISE WE WILL [9. 19-8034 BOA-19-10300133: A request by Robert King for 1) a variance of the 800 square feet maximum for an accessory detached dwelling unit to allow it up to 1,500 square feet and 2) a 18% variance from the 40% maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be 58% of the size of the primary structure, located at 250 Laurel Heights Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CONTINUE. CASE NUMBER 1 33. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I FORGOT TO MENTION YOU WILL NEED A TOTAL. OH, I DID SAY THAT. NINE NINE VOTES IN ORDER FOR IT TO GET PASSED. OKAY, THIS IS CASE VO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 33 ADDRESSED, UH, TWO 50 LAUREL HEIGHTS. APPLICANT ROBERT KING. [03:30:01] UM, IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF MONTE VISTA ZONING. R FIVE H A H SHOOTING. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A 700 SQUARED FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 800 SQUARED FOOT MAXIMUM FOR AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE UP TO 1500 SQUARE FEET. AND SECOND, A 18% VARIANCE OF THE 40% MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW THE FOOTPRINT TO BE 58%. THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A 1500 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE WITHIN THE REAR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS OVER 2,800 SQUARE FEET AND IT WAS BUILT IN 1949. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT IS 2,570 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE 58% OF THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY FOOTPRINT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT. H D R C HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSED, UM, PROJECT IN APRIL, 2019. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, VIEW FROM THE SHOCK AVENUE STREET SUBJECT PROPERTY. HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. IT'S, THIS IS THE LOCATION FOR THE DETACHED DWELLING UNIT AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A GARAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OBJECT PROPERTY REAR FIELD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH A PROPOSED A D D U, UH, TO YOUR RIGHT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. ADJACENT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 33. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THEIR REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT US SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO BE SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO THE DENSE FOLIAGE AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SINCE THAT DWELLING UNIT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND LOT H D R C APPROVED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. HERE'S A NOTIFICATION PLAN. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. QUESTIONS ORIAN. OKAY, SO THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, UH, ON THE SITE PLAN THERE'S A DIMENSION OF SEVEN FOOT NINE INCHES. IS THAT BETWEEN THE PROPOSED POOL HOUSE AND THE POOL EQUIPMENT? POOL EQUIPMENT OR IS THAT BETWEEN THE POOL HOUSE AND THE PROPERTY LINE? DO YOU MIND, UH, REFERRING AGAIN TO ? YEAH, SO ON THE CORNER OF THE POOL HOUSE YOU HAVE A SEVEN FOOT NINE DIMENSION THAT'S KIND OF IN BRACKETS AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS BETWEEN THE POOL HOUSE AND THE POOL EQUIPMENT OR IS THAT HOW MUCH IT'S OFFSET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? I BELIEVE IT'S TO PROPERTY LINE, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO ELABORATE IN THAT. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. MEASUREMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO BE IT. OKAY. LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, UH, FOR THE, UH, RECORD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. HELLO, MY NAME IS ROBERT KING. UH, I'M THE OWNER OF ALAMO CONSTRUCTION HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I LIVE AT 1 1 0 6 VIDORE COURT, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 1 6. VERY GOOD. GO AHEAD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE FOR YOUR REQUESTING FOR A VARIANCE. UM, TO ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION THAT, THAT HE JUST HAD, THAT IS THE 7.9 THAT IS THE CLEARANCE TO THE RIGHT SIDE PROPERTY LINE IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO INDICATE THERE. AS YOU CAN SEE, I KIND OF WRITE BIG, SO I COULDN'T REALLY FIT IT IN THERE, BUT THAT'S THE REASON WHY I DID IT AND THE METHOD IN WHICH I DID. UM, I THINK THE KEY WORD HERE IS WHAT SHE MENTIONED EARLIER IS PROPORTIONAL. UM, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT STANDARDS AND CODES, REGULATIONS, EVERYBODY GOES BY. I'VE BEEN 40 YEARS IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND UM, YOU KNOW, MY THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THESE GUIDELINES THAT SAYS, WELL, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD OVER 8,800 SQUARE FOOT OF A OF A, OF A, OF A, OF A DWELLING. THAT'S, THAT'S A DETACHED DWELLING TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR SOME UNIQUE SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE LOT ITSELF IS 10 TO 12 TIMES LARGER THAN YOUR AVERAGE FOUR TO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT [03:35:01] LOTS, FOR INSTANCE. AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S A THING THAT, UH, WE FEEL LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT WE, WE REALLY WANT THE BOARD TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HERE. UM, IT'S, IT'S A VERY LARGE LOT AND, AND IT ACCOMMODATES THIS REALLY WELL AND STILL LEAVES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF YARD AND FORAGE IN, UH, IN, IN GRASS AREA THROUGHOUT AND LANDSCAPE AREA. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPE ALSO. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, ANNA, MR. MANNA? SO IT, IT APPEARED THAT, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS, UH, AGAINST THIS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR, WHAT THEIR POSITION WAS AND WHY IT WAS THAT THEY'RE AGAINST THIS? I DO NOT. I MENTIONED TO THE LADY EARLIER, UH, WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED HERE, SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS TWO PEOPLE HAD A, A CONCERN ABOUT IT. UM, BUT I HAVEN'T GOT THE DETAILS ON THAT AT ALL. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I GUESS, AS THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WORKING THROUGH THIS OR, OR WAS IT JUST THROUGH THE SERVICE? AS FAR AS THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF, HE TRAVELS A LOT. HE'S, HE, DUE TO HIS WORK, HE'S, HE'S GONE, YOU KNOW, UH, 80% OF THE TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUE? ALRIGHT, I, I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS STRUCTURE IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT, AND I'M LOOKING AT YOUR DRAWING HERE. IT'S A POOL HOUSE SLASH GUEST HOUSE GUEST HOUSE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. IS THIS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE? NO, IT IS NOT. AND THAT'S 1500 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING THE POOL HOUSE AND THE, AND THE, UH, LIVING QUARTERS. THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. THE, THE, BY THE WAY, THE CARPORT, UM, SHE DIDN'T MENTION BUT, WELL SHE, SHE, SHE MENTIONED THE WORD, UH, GARAGE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A THREE CARPORT. THAT PORTION EVERYWHERE YOU SEE BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE POOL HOUSE, THAT PORTION IS ALREADY PERMITTED. AND MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING UP WITH THE STRUCTURE. A LOT OF THE CONCRETE'S ALREADY DONE. A LOT OF THE, ALL THE DEMOLITION IN THAT IS ALREADY DONE AND COMPLETED. UM, HE PLANS TO USE THIS FOR, FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, EVENTS, UH, GUEST HOUSE AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, A COMBINATION OF POOL HOUSE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? HE WAS SIGNED UP VERSUS TONY GARCIA. PLEASE HAVE A SEAT AND WE'LL, WE'LL GET FOLLOWED BY GEORGE NELSON. MR. GARCIA, PLEASE, UH, GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU PRESENT YOUR POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH. I'M A BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UH, WE FIRST WANNA REFERENCE, UH, PAGE 30, WHICH IS THE O H P EXHIBIT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE H D R C ON APRIL THE THIRD OF 2019. WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONS WERE THE STAFF FINDINGS, UH, UH, WERE THE STAFF FINDINGS, INCLUDING ITEMS B AND G, WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE H D R C APPROVED PLAN AND THE, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SITE PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE, UH, B O A, WHICH IS THIS, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, THE H D R C EXHIBIT SHOW SHOWS A FOUR CAR CARPORT, AND THE B O A SITE PLAN SHOWS A THREE CAR CARPORT. THE H D R C EXHIBIT SHOWS A TRELLIS SPACE BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE POOL HOUSE, WHILE THE B O A PLAN SHOWS A CARPORT AND POOL HOUSE SHARING A COMMON WALL. THE H D R C EXHIBIT SHOWS A STORAGE FACILITY AND A POOL POOL HOUSE, WHILE THE B O A PLAN SHOWS ONE GUEST HOUSE. THE H D R C EXHIBIT EXHIBIT INDICATES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WHILE THE B O A PLANS HAVE NO ELEVATION. FINALLY, THE H D R UH, APPROVED A PLAN WITH A TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 1,490 SQUARE FEET. WHILE THEY SUBMITTED B O A PLANS SHOW A TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 2,492 SQUARE FEET, THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST. [03:40:02] WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS BUILDING USE AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL, ONLY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOW BEING SUBMITTED BEFORE THE B O A HAVE NEVER BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE H D R C FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, REPEAT. THIS CURRENT PLAN HAS NEVER BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE THE H D R C. FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE H D R C PROCESS, THE MONTE VISTA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS AN OPINION UNTIL NOW LATE IN THE PROCESS ON A DRAWING WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL H D R C EXHIBITS. WE FIND THIS ACTION TO BE UNFAIR TO THE PROCESS AND UNFAIR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE START FROM THE SAME POINT, GO THROUGH THE REVIEW, APPROVAL, OR DENIAL PROCESS, AND HAVE A FINAL DOCUMENT WHICH IS CONSISTENT BETWEEN ALL PARTIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST BEFORE THE BO O A. THEREFORE, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED AND THE APPLICANT BE REFERRED BACK TO THE H D R C WITH NEW PLANS FOR REVIEW AND ACTION. THANK YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. ALL RIGHT, HERE'S AN INTERESTING, THIS IS THIS PROPERTY IN THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATED DISTRICT? YES, IT IS. OKAY. AND THE, AND THESE PLANS WERE NOT SUBMITTED THROUGH THE H D R C, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS HERE AND THEY CAN HELP TO CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. WELL, LET'S, UM, I REQUEST THAT WE COME FORWARD AND LET'S CLARIFY THIS SITUATION. PLEASE. HI, I AM STEPHANIE PHILLIPS WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1901 SOUTH ALAMO. UM, SO YES, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. SO THESE TWO, WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN TODAY IS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE H D R C ON APRIL 4TH. UM, AND THIS TOTAL IS ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET. INITIALLY WE THOUGHT THE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS, UM, FOR BOTH OF THE STRUCTURES, BUT IT'S DOESN'T INCLUDE THE CARPORT. SO EVEN IF THE B O A APPROVED THIS TODAY, WE WOULD, WOULD STILL NEED A DIFFERENT ACTION FROM THE H D R C BECAUSE THEY APPROVED A POOL POOL HOUSE THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 850 SQUARE FEET, NOT 1500 SQUARE FEET. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THE PROPER GUIDELINES WEREN'T FOLLOWED IN, IN PREPARING THIS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, IS THAT, IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THE ONLY INPUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE FROM THE H D R C AT THIS TIME IS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE PLANS THAT WERE BEING REVIEWED, THE FINAL PLANS, BESIDES ALL WE'VE SEEN IS WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS THE DIFFERENT FOOTPRINTS. SO WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN ADDITION TO THE EXTENDED SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. WERE THESE, UH, WERE THESE CONDITIONS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THIS MEETING? WHO WAS, WHO'S HANDLING THIS CASE? REPEAT YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. UH, WERE THESE ISSUES OF THE, OF THE PROPER PROCEDURE BEFORE COMING TO WORK TO THE, UH, THE B O A DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT? SO, YES. AND THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT FROM O H P WAS THAT FINAL DESIGN WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL H D R C APPROVAL AND THAT THIS WAS GOOD TO GO FOR THE BO O A. OKAY. SO WE'RE ENTITLED TO, TO REVIEW THIS AND, AND, UH, BUT, SO IF, IF H D R C DOES NOT APPROVE, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO OVERRULE THEM. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THERE, THERE'S STILL FINAL APPROVAL BY H D R C. OKAY. THAT THIS, THEY WENT THROUGH A, I GUESS A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FINAL APPROVAL. THAT'S WHAT I RECEIVED FROM THE DEPUTY HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION OFFICER. OKAY. SO THE, IT HAS ORIGINALLY BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION. IT JUST, IT HASN'T BEEN IN, IN THE, IN THE FORM THAT YOU SEE IT RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. SO WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE H D R C ON APRIL 3RD. OKAY. SO IF THIS VARIANCE OR CREST WOULD BE APPROVED TODAY, IT WOULD STILL NEED TO GO IN FRONT OF THE H D R C FOR THOSE DESIGN DETAILS SUCH AS ELEVATIONS, MASSING, THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. DO, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, OKAY, GO AHEAD, MR. SO REGARDLESS OF, OF B O A ENTERTAINING THIS CASE, THEY WERE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO YOU ANYWAY IF THE, YES. SO THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED. ANY CHANGES TO THIS APPROVAL WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL H D R C REVIEW. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, UH, ONE LAST THING. UH MM-HMM. CITIZENS THAT, UH, SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT, AT THE H WERE YOU AT THE COMMISSION MEETING IN APRIL? YES. YOU WERE. DID YOU, DID YOU RECALL [03:45:01] WHAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORING, UH, INPUT WAS? MAYBE WHAT THEY WERE FOR OR AGAINST? DO YOU HAVE? TONY COULD CLARIFY, BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WHAT WAS APPROVED ON THE SCREEN TODAY, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER IN FOOTPRINT, WAS APPROVED WITHOUT ISSUES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. I BELIEVE YOUR TIME WAS UP ANYWAY. WAS THERE ANOTHER WITNESS? OKAY, HOLD ON. WE HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS AND I'LL BRING YOU BACK. GEORGE NELSON. MR. NELSON, I'LL NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, UH, BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS GEORGE NELSON. I LIVE AT 2 31 LAUREL HEIGHTS PLACE. AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE HERE. I KNOW IT'S AN ARDUOUS TASK AND IT'S, UH, IT'S A FINE THING THAT YOU'RE DOING TO HELP SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY. UM, I THINK THAT WE'RE ENCOUNTERING SOME, SOME SORT OF PROBLEMS WITH COMMUNICATION REGARDING WHAT THIS PROJECT IS, UH, IS, IS TRYING TO DO. UM, I RECEIVED IN THE MAIL ONE OF THESE THINGS WHICH, UH, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE A PLAN SIMILAR TO, TO, UH, ONE OF THESE PLANS HERE. BUT IT HAS VERY FEW DIMENSIONS ON IT. IT IS ALMOST ILLEGIBLE. IT DOES NOT HAVE A NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST. AND QUITE FRANKLY, NOT BEING A TECHNICAL PERSON, I FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED HERE. AND A NUMBER OF MY NEIGHBORS HAD AN EQUAL, UH, COMMENT ABOUT THAT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THEM WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS FINDING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROJECT IS SUPPOSED TO RESULT IN. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ENSURE THAT THE PRESENT OWNER AND FUTURE OWNERS NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT US WITH EVENT LOCATIONS, WITH EVENT DESTINATION LOCATIONS, WITH, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE ALL AFTERNOON. AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT PUT DOWN IN WRITING IN RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO INQUIRE, UH, IN THE PAST WHY THE BUILDING WAS PAINTED BLACK FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S JUST AN AWFUL COLOR AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. UM, ALL I HAVE. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN AND FROM THE BOARD? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING YOUR TIME AND STAYING THIS LATE. THANK YOU. NOW, OTHER WITNESSES? NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP. ALRIGHT, THEN THE APPLICANT MAY RETURN AND REBUT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU'VE HAD OR AT LEAST DISCUSS WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. FIRST COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS, UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME ACCUSATIONS TODAY TO THE FACT THAT WE PURPOSELY HAVE CHANGED THE PLAN WITHOUT GOING THROUGH DUE PROCESS. FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE HERE TO KNOW THAT AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, I TOOK IN THE DRAWING, THE PROPOSED DRAWING THAT WE NOW HAVE SET THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS YOU DO TO PULL THE CITY PERMIT INDICATED TO THE LADY WHAT WE WERE, WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AND PERMITTING AT THAT TIME. SHE WROTE UP ALL THE PAPERWORK, WE WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING. SHE GOT RIGHT ABOUT 75% INTO IT. AND SHE SAID, WELL, I KNOW YOU'RE HAVING A HISTORICAL APPROVAL, BUT HERE I'M SEEING YOU CHANGED IT FROM A THREE CAR CARPORT FROM A FOUR CAR TO A THREE CAR. AND ALSO HERE I SEE THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE AN OFFSET TO THE BACKSIDE OF YOUR GUEST HOUSE AND IN THE BREEZEWAY. AND SHE SAID, UH, LET ME GO SEE HISTORICAL. SO SHE WENT DOWN TO HISTORICAL AND, UH, THE LADY'S NAME'S KATIE, I'VE WORKED WITH HER ON NUMEROUS SITUATIONS. SHE WENT DOWN THERE, SPOKE WITH KATIE. WITHIN 10 MINUTES OR LESS, SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, YES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT KATIE CAN IMPROVE AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. UM, TO, TO MY SURPRISE, FIVE MINUTES LATER SHE SAID, EVERYTHING'S ALL GOOD TO GO, BUT WE'VE GOT ANOTHER PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, DUE TO THE 800 SQUARE FOOT DEAL, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO SOMETHING ON THE VARIANCE. SO SHE ALLOWED ME AT THAT DATE TO LEAVE THERE WITH A THREE CAR CARPORT WITH THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. AND FOR THE RECORD, I WANNA STATE THAT WAS IN FACT APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH HISTORICAL AND FOR THE RECORD, HISTORICAL AT THAT TIME KNEW THE INTENT WE WERE GOING [03:50:01] WITH THE GUEST HOUSE. AND SO THERE'S NOBODY HERE TRYING TO SLIDE ANYBODY, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING UNDERNEATH THE TABLE, ALTHOUGH THERE'S MANY ACCUSATIONS IN THIS ROOM THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. OKAY. UH, LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UH, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN, SO YOU HAVE AN, YOU HAVE AN AP NUMBER? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND IF, MATTER OF FACT, I GOT IT HERE IN MY HAND AND THE, THE PLANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SUBMITTED ARE WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN THAT THEY'RE REFLECTIVE WHAT WE SEE ON THE SCREEN. YES. OKAY. AND THAT IS CORRECT. AFTER YOUR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. AND, AND, UH, APRIL, HAVE YOU DONE ANY, UH, COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE OF THE H C R C MEMBERS TO TALK ABOUT PER THIS SITE, HOW THE SITE PLAN COULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN, IN APRIL? MM-HMM. ? YES. WE, WE, WHEN OF, I WAS DIRECTED TO GO TO ZONING AND SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH A, WITH A GUY THERE. AND THEN AFTER SPEAKING WITH HIM, WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION WE ARE GONNA REQUIRE TO GO MOVING FORWARD WITH A VARIANCE. OKAY. THAT DID, THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE AS FAR AS CHANGING FROM THE FOUR CAR, CAR, THE THREE CAR. AND THAT WAS A NEVER AN IS NEVER AN ISSUE AS FAR AS MOVING THE BUILDINGS FROM THE, FROM THE OFFSET. WELL, SIR, ALSO THE GENTLEMAN DID MENTION THAT IT'S GONNA SHARE AN ADJOINING WALL WITH THE CARPORT AND THE, IN THE GUEST HOUSE, BUT AGAIN, HE'S INCORRECT IN THAT THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT WITH THE CARPORT IS GONNA BE TOTALLY SEPARATE FOUNDATION AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORTIVE THAN THE GUEST HOUSE ITSELF. SO AGAIN, THE GENTLEMAN HERE IS VERY INCORRECT IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. HE NEEDS TO GO BACK AND DO HIS HOMEWORK. WELL, THE, THE ISSUE OF OF WE'RE JUST HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. BUT I I, I'M HERE TO NOT BE, BE BELITTLED AND I'M HERE TO, FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT I'M HERE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND THAT'S HOW I'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL FOR 40 YEARS. UH, YEAH, I WAS SIMPLY JUST WONDERING THAT SINCE, SINCE APRIL, UM, USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, YOU'LL GET A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF KICKBACK FROM THERE UNTIL FINAL, THEY'LL REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT GO TO A COMMITTEE MEETING TO DISCUSS JUST THINGS, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY'RE ADDRESSING ANY COMMENTARY OR WHATNOT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, HAS THAT OCCURRED? AND I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT THAT MAY HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD YET AT THE HISTORICAL LEVEL. THE CHANGES WERE MADE TO MY UNDERSTANDING AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. OKAY. SO HERE WE HAD THE BIG, BIG PACKAGE AND THEN WE HAVE THE SMALL SUBTLE CHANGES. AND TO MY UNDERSTANDING, KATIE DID THAT AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. OKAY. YEAH. WELL, WE DON'T, AND, AND THAT'S, WE ARE NOT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF H D R C. WE, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT THAT MAYBE WE COULD TRY TO GET HER HANDS ON, BUT THAT'S OKAY. A AGAIN, THERE WAS NOTHING TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SHARING WITH THE MONTE VISTA PEOPLE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE WERE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SHARING WITH PROPER PERMITTING. THERE WAS NOTHING TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT GOING THROUGH PROPER HISTORICAL FOR THE RECORD, I YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. ACTUALLY, I, I'LL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YOU'VE ALREADY STARTED THE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE ALREADY PERMITTED AND WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH ONE. AND THAT'S THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE POOL HOUSE AND LIVING QUARTERS. AND, UH, SO THE REQUEST IS YOU ARE GRANTED BY A RIDE AT 800 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE AND YOU'RE REQUESTING A 1500 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE AT THIS TIME. SO NOW THAT I'VE GOT THAT DEFINED, ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THIS APPLICANT? NONE. ALL RIGHT. ACTUALLY, MENA, SO, SO IT, IT TALKS ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FOOT ON THE SHEET HERE, BUT ON THE MAP IT DOES SAY 1736. SO ON, ON THE SHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED AND, AND WITH A CARPORT, SO, SO CARPORT PLUS 17, 36 AND THEN 1500. SO JUST THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCES HERE. WELL, THE CARPORT IS NOT PART OF THE LIVING STRUCTURE, SO, UH, ACCESSORIES. CORRECT. AND SO IT CALLS THAT OUT, BUT THEN IT SAYS GUEST HOUSE 1736, WHERE WE HERE IT SAID IT WAS 1500. SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED. I MY UNDERSTANDING ON THAT IS HISTORICAL, UH, EARLY ON, I, I CAN'T GO BACK AND QUOTE THE ACTUAL DATES. I HAVE IT HERE WITH ME. I COULD LOOK IT UP. UM, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURE, THE COMBINED STRUCTURE, THE CARPORT, WHETHER IT BE A FOUR CAR OR A THREE CAR, UM, AND COMBINED WITH THE POOL HOUSE, GUEST HOUSE SLASH WE, WE NEEDED TO KEEP BOTH OF THOSE FOOTPRINTS UNDER THE 2,500 SQUARE FOOT. AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CALCULATIONS BEING [03:55:01] THE WAY THEY ARE. AND IT DID CHANGE, UM, IT DID CHANGE WHENEVER WE WENT FROM THE FOUR CAR THAT ALLOWED US TO INCREASE THE OTHER. AND, AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE ARRIVING AT THAT NUMBER. WELL, ACTUALLY THE CARPORT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH, I GUESS I'M, I'M CONFUSED NOW. O OTHER THAN WE HAD TO KEEP IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND THAT WE HAD THESE GUIDELINES THAT HISTORICAL HAD SET. RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT I SHOWED, SO 24 9 2, SO WRITTEN DOWN HERE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN VERSUS, UM, SO IT SAYS 24 9 2 SQUARE FOOT RIGHT HERE. SO ON THE PAGE, SO 24 9 2 AT THE TOP, AND THEN IT SHOWS THE TWO PIECES, 70, 56 AND OR, UH, 7 56 AND 1736. SO IS IT 1736? THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROPERTY SIZE THAT'S BEING BUILT. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT 1500. AND SO THEREFORE THE PERCENTAGE IS NO LONGER 58%. IT'S, IT'S NOW, IT'S A, YEAH, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. CORRECT. AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE CLEARLY ON MY DRAWING I'M INDICATING 62 BY 28, WHICH EQUALS IT BRINGS YOU OUT EXACTLY AT THE 1736. YOU'RE SPEAKING UP. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, WHERE, WHERE, UM, WHERE THEY CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER AND PUT IT ON, ON THE, ON THIS GUIDELINE. I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING WITH THE 1736 COMBINED WITH THE THREE CAR CARPORT, KEEPS US UNDER THE OVERALL 2,500. SO, UH, A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UH, AND THE CALCULATION OF THE FOOTPRINT, DO YOU ACCOUNT, UM, UH, COVERED TERRACES, ATTACHED GARAGES? BECAUSE ON B C A, THEY SHOW A, A GROUND FOUR LIVING AREA, 1757, AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE SERIES OF ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT SOME OF THEM MAY NOT COUNT. THEY HAVE AN OPEN, AN ATTACHED OPEN PORCH, AN ATTACHED GARAGE, A CANOPY, UH, ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA. PORCHES ONLY WILL COUNT TOWARDS THE CALCULATION, UH, BUT THE OTHERS WILL NOT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE NUMBER WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS 1500, UH, THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR AT 17 BECAUSE YOU'D BE OVER A HUNDRED PERCENT ABOVE THE 800 LIMIT. SO THAT WOULD, WE WOULDN'T HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING 1700 FORWARD ANYWAY. UM, WELL, THE, UM, AGAIN, I'M JUST, I'M SIMPLY GOING BY WHAT BECA HAS. AND SO IF THEY HAVE 1757 FOR A LIVING AREA, THE, AT AN ATTACHED GARAGE, DOES THAT COUNT FOR THE FOOTPRINT? YES, ATTACHED GARAGE DOES. SO THAT BRINGS IT UP TO 2157. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT A, UH, THEY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA THAT APPARENTLY IS ON THE GROUND FLOOR? NO, I'M LOOKING AT, BECAUSE THAT, YEAH, THERE'S AN, IF IT'S ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, YES. AND THEN THERE'S A TERRACE, A PATIO SLAB. DOES THAT COUNT? NO. WHAT ABOUT AN ATTACHED OPEN PORCH? YEAH, PORCHES DO, BUT THE PATIOS, I DON'T BELIEVE DO, WE'RE CLARIFYING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. YOU HAVE TO ADD UP ALL THESE NUMBERS. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHALL INCLUDE PORCHES, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE PATIOS. ACCORDING TO THIS LIVING AREA IS 36 22 ACCORDING TO BEXAR COUNTY FOR BOTH DOORS. CORRECT. BEAR COUNTY SHOWS IT AT 3,600 OR 3,600 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FOOTPRINT. I MEAN, THE, IT COULD BE 23, 28 IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. BUT WHAT, WHAT DID, UH, WHAT DID HE APPLY? WHAT WOULD, OKAY. JUST LOOKING TO BUILD A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. WELL, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT. YOU SAID IT WAS 3,200 OR THREE? THREE. YEAH, THAT'S FOR, SO ON THE APPLICATION IT SAID 25 70 SQUARE FEET IS WHAT YOU'RE BASING THE 40% AT ACCORDING TO BCA, IT'S, I MEAN, I'M GETTING 23, 28 PLUS HOW YOU COUNT PERHAPS SOME FORES. SO I MEAN, THAT MIGHT MAKE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE APPLICATION IS, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE, THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS 2,400, AND HE'S ASKING IS THE PERCENTAGE, IF IT'S OVER 58%, IS THAT WHAT CONTROLS THE PERCENTAGE OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE HE'S ASKING FOR? I, IT'S, IT'S 50% OF WHAT THE, THE, THE MAIN HOME IS. BUT THE POINT I, I HAVE TO MAKE HERE IS WHAT WAS ADVERTISED AND WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ADVERTISED WAS 1500, AND I'M THINKING, I, I KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS. ORIGINALLY, YOUR ORIGINAL PLANS IDENTIFIED TWO BEDROOMS IN THAT GUEST HOUSE, AND WE DISCUSSED THAT AS FAR AS A REZONING. THEN YOU ALTERED [04:00:01] THE PLANS TO GO DOWN TO ONE BEDROOM, UH, TO MEET THEIR CRITERIA. TRAVINO, I'M, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS A 62 BY 28 BUILDING. THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE ON HERE IT SAYS THAT'S WHAT WE WERE, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR. YES. OKAY. 'CAUSE ON HERE, I, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IT SAYS 62 BY 20.9. IS THAT CORRECT? OR WHAT IS, WHAT AM I LOOKING AT? NO, THE 20, THE 20.90, THAT'S FROM THAT, THAT'S PROPERTY CLEARANCE. THE BACK. CORRECT. SO THIS IS 62 BY 28. YOU'RE RIGHT. MM-HMM. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GETTING THAT 1736 FROM. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. OKAY. THE POINT, THE POINT I HAVE TO MAKE RIGHT NOW IS WE CANNOT HEAR THIS CASE. WE CANNOT HEAR THIS CASE FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY. IT WAS NOT ADVERTISED ABOVE 1500 SQUARE FEET, AND WE'RE DISCUSSING 17 OVER 1700 SQUARE FEET. THIS, THIS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GET WITH STAFF. THIS HAS TO BE REDONE READVERTISED FOR A FUTURE DATE. I'M SORRY, BECAUSE WE CANNOT EXCEED WHAT THE ADVERTISED AMOUNT IS, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR ISSUE IS. WE CAN'T GRANT YOU WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, AND WE CAN'T EXCEED 1599 ANYWAY. SO THE CODE ONLY LETS YOU GO, UH, IT DOESN'T LET YOU GO A HUNDRED PERCENT ABOVE. WELL, HE'S, REGARDLESS, WE'RE ABOVE 1500. THIS IS OUT OF OUR PURVIEW. THAT'S CORRECT. HOWEVER, WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, HE INDICATED TO US IT'S A 1500 SQUARE FOOT REQUEST. WE CLARIFIED WITH THEM ON FRIDAY WHAT THE PERCENTAGE WAS, AND IT WAS 18% OVER THE 40%, WHICH WAS AT 58%. SO WHAT WE RECEIVED WAS 1500 SQUARE FEET, NO BIGGER THAN THAT. SO IF IT'S NOW MORE, THEN AGAIN, THE MAX YOU CAN GO UP TO IS 1599. BUT NOW YOU'D HAVE TO START ALL OVER AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFTER PROPER NOTIFICATION. HOWEVER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY HEAR, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FINAL APPROVAL WITH H D R C, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD ONLY GIVE YOU YOUR MAX, BUT THE H D R C COULD BE MORE RESTRICTED AND, AND MAY RESTRICT IT EVEN FURTHER TO NOT ALLOW YOU AT 1500, LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY THEY ONLY APPROVE YOU AT 1300. SO YOU CAN EITHER HAVE WHAT'S CONSIDERED TODAY, WHAT WAS ADVERTISED, AND THEN YOU CAN WORK THROUGH THE H D R C PROCESS, OR IF YOU NEED MORE, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WORK THROUGH THE H D R C PROCESS FIRST BEFORE COMING BACK TO THE B O A. YEAH, I, I'LL TAKE ALL THAT'S, THAT WAS ALL ADVERTISED. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM WE CAN DO. REGARDLESS OF ALL THE OTHER STUFF, IT WAS ADVERTISED 1500 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. I MEAN, AND, AND THEN THAT'S, THAT'S O THAT'S NOT REALLY, IT'S REALLY JUST A COMMUNICATION ERROR. BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT THAT'S OUR LIMITATION. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. THE INDI THE DRAWINGS AND EVERYTHING I TURNED IN INDICATED THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. UM, AND AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING, THE 1500 SQUARE FOOT. UM, I'M SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, THOSE CHANGES COULD BE MADE, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S STILL GIVING HIM, UH, YOU KNOW, A, A, A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF AN INCREASE FROM WHAT THE INITIAL CODE IS. ALL RIGHT. SO IN IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS THAT IF YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO RULE, YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO RULE, THEN THEY CANNOT BE ANY MORE THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET. FEET. THAT'S IT. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, OR IF YOU WANT TO, TO GO BACK, UM, UH, TO THE, THE STAFF AND RENEGOTIATE THIS OUT, THAT'S YOUR PURVIEW. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM. BUT WE'RE LIMITED TO 1500 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR CHOICE? UM, ONE MOMENT. I'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH AND AND CHAIR. THE STAFF HAD SAID THAT THE MAX WAS 1599 THAT COULD EVER BE ASKED FOR NO MATTER WHAT. WELL, THAT'S BASED ON THE NUMBERS THEY'RE WORKING. I, I, OKAY, LET'S I GET INTO THAT. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? OKAY, WELL, THAT, THAT, ONCE I FIGURED THAT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. BUT THAT'S A, I SAID THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR LIMITATION. OKAY. SO GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE STORAGE POOL HOUSE. OKAY. SO I KNOW EVERYONE IS CALCULATING THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF 62 FEET IN LENGTH. THE A D D U, UM, CALCULATION, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE STORAGE AREA. THE A D D U IS ONLY RELATED TO THE UNIT ITSELF. THE REST OF IT IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH HAS A FAR DIFFERENT, UM, LIMITATION, [04:05:01] WHICH HE WILL NOT EXCEED. SO THE ONLY PIECE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE A D D U. SO IF WE KNOW WHAT THAT CALCULATION IS, IT MAY WELL BE AROUND 1500 SQUARE FEET. THE REASON WHY I MENTIONED, GO BACK TO STAFF SO WE GET THE PRECISE NUMBERS, BECAUSE ALL WE CAN APPROVE IS THE 1500 SQUARE FEET, BUT THE PLAN ON THE SCREEN IS NOT WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT TODAY. THE PLAN THAT'S IN THE CASE FILE IS DOES NOT HAVE THAT HUGE STORAGE ROOM. YEAH. CAN YOU PUT THE L HDR R C THIS PLAN, RIGHT? OH, THAT PLAN. THEY HADN'T, BUT THERE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES. THAT'S NOT US. THIS IS OURS. AND I, I COULD CONFIRM AT THIS TIME THE, WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 1500 MAX. ALRIGHT. DID YOU HEAR THAT, CATHERINE, THAT, THAT HE'S GONNA LIMIT THE 1500 SQUARE FOOT OF, OF, UH, ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE? YES. BECAUSE AGAIN, I MEAN, I KNOW IT DOESN'T INDICATE STORAGE, BUT I DON'T ENVISION THAT THE A D D U IS 62 FEET LONG AND THAT BIG, THAT ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE BUILDING. WELL, REGARDLESS, YOU'RE ONLY WORKING WITH THE 1500 SQUARE FEET, SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT. PLUS THE LIMITATION ON THE PERCENTAGE. PAT, I'D LIKE TO JUST STATE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CASE FILE. IT HAS AN A D U THAT IS 28 FEET BY 62 FEET WITH NO STORAGE AREA. IT IS ENTIRELY LIVING AREA. THAT'S THE FILE. AND WE COULD PUT THIS UP ON THE, OKAY, SO THAT MAY BE AN OLDER SITE PLAN, BUT THE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, THAT IS THE MOST CURRENT SITE PLAN WOULD BE THE ONE THAT'S IN THE REGISTRAR PACKET, WHICH IS THE, IN THE AGENDA, POSTED IN THE AGENDA, WHICH SHOULD BE THAT ONE. THIS IS THE CASE FILE HANDED TO US. IT'S, I'M NOT, AGAIN, WHAT WE RECEIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF A PROCESS IS AN APPLICATION. HOWEVER, WHEN WE GO THROUGH OUR COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW, THERE MAY BE ITERATIONS OF A SITE PLAN THAT THAT ENDS UP BEING SUBMITTED AND ENDS UP BEING A FINAL SITE PLAN. BUT WE DON'T THROW AWAY THE OLD DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED. THAT'S STILL PART OF THE CASE FILE. BUT WHAT IS AGENDIZED IS THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, AND ANY NEW SITE PLAN THAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED HAS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT THE HEARING. SO CAN WE VIEW THE CURRENT PLAN, THE FLOOR PLAN THAT SHOWS THE STORAGE AREA THAT YOU'RE STATING? IS THERE? SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED SO HE CAN CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS STILL SOME STORAGE WHERE IT SAYS POOL HOUSE. AND, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, HE'S JUST GONNA HAVE TO PUT A BUILDING THAT'S MAXIMUM 1500 THAT MEETS ALL THE SETBACKS AND ADJUST THE STORAGE AS NEEDED, AND THEN DEAL WITH THE H D R C SEPARATELY. NOT A BUILDING, BUT THE A D D U. YEAH. RIGHT? YES. FOR THE RECORD, UM, THERE IS NO STORAGE AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A COMPLETE POOL HOUSE, GUEST HOUSE COMBO. OKAY. OKAY. AND, AND THE OTHER PROCESSES ARE STILL OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. SO ALL WE'RE DEALING WITH IS, IS THE VARIANCE. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN HE INDICATED FOR THE RECORD, HE WANTS TO PROCEED WITH JUST THE 1500, UH, SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION AND THE 58%. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD FROM ALL THE WITNESSES. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, I'M WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. I JUST CHECKED OUR RECORDS AND WHAT WE SHOWED, WHAT TONY SHOWED, WHAT WAS APPROVED IN APRIL, ON APRIL 3RD, IS THE ONLY APPROVAL WE HAVE ON RECORD. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS THAT ALLOW FOR AN EXPANSION OF WHAT WAS APPROVED AT THE H G R C. SO EVEN IF THIS 1500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOOTPRINT WAS APPROVED TODAY, WE WOULD NEED AN AMENDMENT FROM THE H D R C. RIGHT. BUT THAT HAS THAT ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, JUST WANNA HAVE THAT ON RECORD. RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE ONLY ADDRESSING WHAT WE'RE ADVERTISING. OKAY? CORRECT. THANK YOU. ON THE RECORD, I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO HAVE A PERMIT THE DAY I CAME DOWN HERE TO GET IT. I HAVE IT HERE. I CAN SHOW YOU THE DATE I PULLED IT, BUT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO HAVE THAT PERMIT TILL AFTER THE LADY HAD HER DISCUSSION WITH KATIE. UNDERSTAND. SO FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, EVEN IF HER RECORDS SHOW IT OR DON'T SHOW IT FOR THE RECORD, MY LADY THAT DAY SPOKE WITH THE LADY AT HISTORICAL AND AT, SHE ALLOWED AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD TO ALLOW ME TO HAVE A PERMIT THAT DAY. WELL, HERE'S A FACT. YOU WOULDN'T BE STANDING BEFORE US IF THERE WAS A VALID PERMIT FOR AN AUXILIARY, UH, LIVING STRUCTURE. UH, IF THERE WAS SUCH A PERMIT, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING, THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING THOUGH. BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE WORKING ON WHAT YOU HAVE PERMITTED FOR. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SKIPPING THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING, THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING IS THAT NOBODY TRIED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OLD DRAWING [04:10:01] THAT THE GENTLEMAN BACK HERE SHOWED YOU MM-HMM. IN ORDER TO SKIP THEM TO GET OVER HERE. OH, I, I BELIEVE THAT. OKAY. THAT'S THE POINT I'M MAKING AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, JUST LIKE SHE WANTS IT ON THE RECORD, I WANT IT ON THE RECORD. RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, THIS IS THIS. I THINK WE HAVE IT STRAIGHTENED OUT AND WHERE WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON IS THE 1500 SQUARE FEET AND WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. SO NOW, SINCE WE'VE HAD EVERYBODY SPEAK, EVERYONE'S, I'M ENTERTAINING. I'M CLOSING IT TO THE PUBLIC. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT. AND, UH, LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION ORIAN MR. ORIAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER VOA DASH 19 DASH OH 3 1 33. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A VARIANCE OF 800 OF THE 800 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW IT, TO ALLOW IT UP TO 1500 SQUARE FEET. AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE 40% MAXIMUM SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE MORE THAN 40% AND UP TO 1500 SQUARE FEET OF THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. BUT NO LESS THAN A HUNDRED PER, NO MORE THAN, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE APPLICANT BEING ROBERT KING. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY THE ACCESSORY DUELING UNIT SIZE LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE FEATURE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT THAT IS PLACED. THE LOT SIZE MEASURES OVER MEASURES OVER 28,000 SQUARE FEET. THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURES COMPARABLE THE SIZE OF THE LOT, AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, THE BOARD FINDS THAT PERMITTING THE, THE REQUESTED SIZE VARIANCE IS WARRANTED AND NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE IS SET WELL WITHIN THE LOT AND OUT OF VIEW OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, DENSE FOLIAGE AND FOUNDED BY MATURE TREES, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN THE OWNER BEING UNABLE TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS IN SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, IS THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS NOT OVERWHELMING IN COMPARISON TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND IS SITUATED WITHIN A LOT, WITHIN A LOT OF SUBSTANTIAL SIZE. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF REUSE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT WARMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY DOLING UNIT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE SIZE OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING AND THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT IMPOSE ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT OF WATER RUNOFF OR FIRE SPREAD ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR THE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND WERE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLICANT HAS A SUBSTANTIAL LOT WITH A LARGE HOME AND IS FOUNDED BY MATURE TREES AND DENSE FOLIAGE. THE ACCESS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL BE PROPORTIONAL IN THE SIZE WITH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I BELIEVE THAT. WHO WILL SECOND BY THAT? OKAY. VERY GOOD. MR. VNO, UH, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU START THE DISCUSSION? SURE. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOT. I THINK THE SIZE OF THE POOL HOUSE IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE TO THE UNIT. THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF LANDSCAPING AND GRASS AREA. UH, FOR THIS. I, UM, WHATEVER IS GOING ON WITH THE, UH, THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF, OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE DEALT WITH H C R C IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT AS, AS SUBMITTED, A 62 FOOT DEEP AND A VARYING WIDTH POOL HOUSE, NOT TO EXCEED 1500 SQUARE FEET THAT MEETS ALL THE SETBACKS, UH, IS FINE BY ME. ALL RIGHT. MR. RAVINI WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND, UH, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATED, UH, HIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE CITY IN, UH, REDESIGNING THIS TO FIT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 1500 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT. SO I WILL BE IN FULL SUPPORT. ANYONE ELSE? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ AND MR. NAF? YES. UH, I DO NOT FIND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO BE UNREASONABLE. I THINK THAT, UH, AFTER LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES, UM, I THINK THAT JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE, IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE AT ALL. SO I'M IN SUPPORT. OKAY, MR. NASH, I'M TORN ON THIS CASE BECAUSE I HEAR SO MANY INCONSISTENCIES IN EVERYTHING THAT'S PRESENTED, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A PROPER FLOOR PLAN SHOWING WHAT THIS BUILDING IS AND STAFF TELLING US. THERE'S A LARGE [04:15:01] STORAGE ROOM WITH A FLOOR PLAN THAT SAYS THERE'S NO STORAGE ROOM AND THE APPLICANT SAYING THERE'S NO STORAGE ROOM AND WE'RE CHANGING SQUARE FOOTAGES ON THE FLY TO JUST GET THROUGH THIS. AND WE DON'T HAVE H D R C APPROVAL AND FINAL, BUT A SLAB IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD'S UNAWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON DESPITE ATTENDING ALL THE MEETINGS FOR IT. I THINK IT'S ALMOST INAPPROPRIATE TO EVEN BE REVIEWING THE CASE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS NOT REALLY NOT EVEN DETERMINED WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE'RE DIGGING HOLES IN THE GROUND BEFORE WE KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS OR WHETHER THERE'S A STORAGE ROOM. UM, I'M NOT EVEN OPPOSED TO 1500 SQUARE FEET AND THE INCREASE IN SIZES BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO EVEN BE MAKING THIS CALL RIGHT NOW. AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THIS CASE. BUT THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WHY. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, UM, MONICA, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. HISTORIAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VINA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. UH, YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON. I'M WITH MY, UH, NEIGHBOR HERE, MR. NEFF. UH, I'M GOING TO SAY NO. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. NEFF. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. HOWEVER, THE, UH, NUMBERS DO NOT ADD UP CORRECTLY. SO THE MOTION DOES FAIL. I'M GOING TO OPEN A MOTION FOR THE, UH, A PREVAILING SIDE, UH, TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE FLOOR IS OPEN TO THE, TO A MOTION. ALRIGHT, THEN NONE BEEN MADE. THE, UH, THE, UH, MOTION PASSED, UH, FAILS RATHER. AND, UH, I GUESS WE'RE ABOUT WHERE WE WERE BEFORE WE STARTED. SO THERE'S STILL A PROCESS TO SAVE THIS. AND, UH, GOOD LUCK. I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, LET'S STAFF UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND WE'LL GET TO THAT. SO, ONTO THE NEXT [10. 19-8078 BOA-19-10300127: A request by Brady Johnson for a variance of 4'11" from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow a home to be 1" from the side property line, located at 12627 Sandtrap Lane. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 10) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE, OUR LAST CASE OF THE DAY SHOULD BE, UH, 1 27. OKAY. CASE BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 27 AT 1 21 2 6 2 7 SAN TRAP LANE. THE APPLICANT IS BRADY JOHANSSEN. THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF FOUR FEET, 11 INCHES FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW HOME FEE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBDIVISION WAS DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES IN THE 1970S. THE FIRST PHASE WAS PLATTED AS A PUD WITH ZERO LOT LINES. THE SECOND PHASE WAS NOT PLATTED AS A PUD, BUT WAS DEVELOPED WITH ZERO LOT LINE RESIDENCES. EACH HOME IN THE SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN FIVE FEET AND MANY HOMES HAVE ONE WALL ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AS IS THE CASE WITH THIS PROPERTY. AS SUCH, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SUBDIVISION OBTAIN A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES. OKAY, ACT. THE PROPERTIES ARE ALL SEPARATED BY 10 FEET BY, BY RULE, NOT FIVE FEET. THEY'RE SEPARATED BY 10 FEET. 10 FEET, UH, BETWEEN STRUCTURES. THEY MUST BE 10 FEET APART. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TURN AN ALCOVE THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE A ROOF AND MISSING PART OF THE WALL, WHICH IS LYING ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO USE THE SPACE TO CONSTRUCT A BATHROOM. UPON VISITING VISIT TO THE SITE STAFF FOUND THAT THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE GATE ABUTS DIRECTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND THE ENTIRETY OF THAT FENCE IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE WALL THAT IS IN QUESTION, A PORTION OF IT CURRENTLY NOT BUILT, AND A PORTION OF THE ROOF, WHICH YOU CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY FROM THESE VIEW [04:20:05] STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 100 301 2 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, EFFECT THE EXISTING HOME COMPROMISES FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT AND INCREASED FIRE RISK. THE PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE TRES TRESPASS ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THE HOME. WE MAILED 37 NOTICES. ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OR I'M SORRY, NEIGHBOR. NORTHERN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN? MR. ORIAN? SO THE NORTHERN HILLS, UH, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, DID THEY GIVE ANY SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THEY WERE AGAINST IT? YES, I BELIEVE I LEFT THAT IN THE FILE. THEY HAD A DETAILED IS IT IN, DID YOU WANT US TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD OR JUST GIVE YOU THE CASE? FILE IT IN THE FILE. IT'S NOT, READ IT INTO THE, IT'S INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. PRESIDENT. OH. SO THE NORTHERN HARRIS HOME HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, DUE TO THE EXTREME PROBLEMS WITH WHICH WOULD OCCUR IF REAPPROVED A ONE INCH SETBACK WOULD RESTRICT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ACCESS FOR ANY REPAIRS, INCLUDING SITING, FOUNDATION, PLUMBING, ET CETERA. LIKEWISE, IT WOULD HAMPER EMERGENCY RESPONDERS FROM ACCESSING THE PROPERTY FOR FIRE OR OTHER PROBLEMS. SUCH A VARIANCE COULD ALSO AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF NEIGHBORING HOMES. WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD REJECTS THIS VARIANCE. UM, NOW WE HAVE A VERY, FOR POOR PRINT IN FRONT OF ME. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS SIGNED BY, UH, UH, FORMER COUNCILMAN MIKE GALLAGHER. LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS GALLAGHERS. ALRIGHT, YOU'VE READ IT INTO THE RECORD. SO THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN DONE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEYOND THAT? YEAH, I, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, AND IN, IN LOOKING AT THIS, THIS APPEARS TO BE A ZERO LOT SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T, THAT ISN'T ENTITLED APPROPRIATELY. UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO, FOR THE RECORD, DID STAFF FIND ANY SORT OF RECORDED INSTRUMENTS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PROVIDE, OR AT LEAST IMPLY THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A 10 FOOT, UH, MAINTENANCE EASEMENT THAT'S, THAT'S STANDARD WITH THESE SORT OF DEVELOPMENTS AT ALL? WAS THERE ANYTHING? WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING ON RECORD. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT THEN LET'S BRING FORWARD THE APPLICANT. I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MY NAME IS BRADY JOHANSSON, UH, THE 1 26 27 SAND TRAP LANE. UH, MY COMPANY IS BRADY COLT CUSTOM HOMES. I AM THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO DO THE RENOVATION ON THIS PROPERTY. EXCUSE ME. UM, YOU JUST GAVE THE ADDRESS TO THE LOCATION. THAT'S NOT YOUR RESIDENCE. YOU NEED MY RESIDENCE? WE NEED AN ACCURATE OR JUST BUSINESS ADDRESS AS FINE BUSINESS ADDRESS WOULD BE PERFECT. OKAY. 2 2 2 1 1 IH 10 WEST SUITE 1206 SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 5 7. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M THE CONTRACTOR HERE. AND, UM, CAN YOU PULL UP THE DRAWING THE PICTURE OF WHERE WE'RE AT? KEEP GOING. THE SIDE, UH, I'M GONNA EXPLAIN TO YOU GUYS WHAT'S GOING ON. ONE MORE. OKAY. BACK. RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO HERE'S OUR PROPERTY. HERE'S THE 1 26 27 WAG, UM, SAND TRAP. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE APPARENTLY, WHERE IT'S ONE INCH OFF OF IT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING, THIS LITTLE ALCOVE AREA RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ROOF LINE STOPS AND GOES. THAT IS, YOU CAN ACCESS THAT FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. WE ARE PROPOSING, WE'RE DOING A FULL HOME REMODEL RENOVATION AND WE'RE PROPOSING TURNING THAT INTO A BATHROOM. SO WE WOULD JUST BE BRINGING THE WALL. WE WOULDN'T BE DOING ANYTHING WITH THIS BRICK WALL RIGHT HERE. WE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING A WALL ON THE INSIDE OF IT TO COME UP. AND THEN THE ROOF LINE MATCHING UP. AND SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING AND WE'LL. [04:25:01] SO THE ROOF LINE WILL THEN EXTEND OVER AND, UH, WE'LL EXTEND THE GUTTERS OVER AS WELL. BUT I CAN TALK THROUGH THAT. SO THAT'S THE PROJECT THAT'S GOING ON. UM, WITH THE, THE H O A RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK THAT HE'S CONFUSED OR SOMETHING. MR. GALLAGHER IS, UM, IT SAYS THE ONE INCH SETBACK WOULD RESTRICT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, ACCESS FOR ANY REPAIRS, INCLUDING SIDING THAT EXISTS. THAT CONDITION ALREADY EXISTS. THAT'S THERE, THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING. UM, INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION. WE'VE ALREADY LEVELED THE HOUSE. IT WAS, UH, THE FOUNDATION WAS THE HOUSE WAS FALLING OVER, WE'VE LEVELED IT ALREADY. WE DIDN'T NEED TO ACCESS THAT, THE PROPERTY TO DO THAT. UM, AND ALSO PLUMBING, ANY PLUMBING THAT WOULD BE INSIDE THE HOUSE WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE FROM INSIDE THIS LITTLE COURTYARD AREA RIGHT HERE IN THE WALL THAT WE PUT UP. UM, SO I THINK THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION THERE. UH OH, HE ALSO SAID SUCH A VARIANCE COULD ALSO AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF NEIGHBORING HOMES. AND, UH, I WANNA ARGUE THAT ACTUALLY DENIAL WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES NEGATIVELY OF NEIGHBORING HOMES. UM, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY COULD POSSIBLY REMAIN IN THIS DILAPIDATED STATE THAT IT IS. MY HOMEOWNER PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN AN ESTATE SALE, I BELIEVE. UM, NO ONE HAD LIVED THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT WAS QUITE DISGUSTING. AND UNKEPT. UH, IT HAD A POOL. UM, IT WAS UNINHABITABLE, DILAPIDATED, UM, IT WAS LITERALLY FALLING OVER. WE'VE ALREADY LEVELED THE HOUSE. UM, TREES WERE OVERGROWN OVER INTO THE SIDEWALK. WE'VE TRIMMED THOSE UP NICELY KEPT THE YARD MAINTAINED AS WELL. THE POOL WAS HALF FULL OF PRETTY FILTHY WATER. UH, FULL MOSQUITOES, RODENTS, UH, BOTH OF WHICH WE FOUND SEVERAL OF 'EM. WE DRAINED IT. THE POOL IS ALSO LEAKING. WE DRAINED IT. WE HAVE PLANS TO REPAIR THE POOL, GET IT BACK UP AND RUNNING AGAIN. UM, SO I GUESS AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH EACH ITEM THAT THE STAFF, UH, THE COMMENTS OF THEIR FINDINGS AND THE CRITERIA. AND THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THAT, UM, LET'S SEE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACTOR TO THE PUB. CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TRESPASS ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND WOULD ALLOW STORM WATER TO RUN OFF INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. UM, I GUESS MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT WE'RE JUST NOT CHANGING ANYTHING HERE. UM, WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY. WE DO NOT NEED TO ACCESS THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT OUR WALL. WE DON'T NEED THE ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO DO THE ROOF. UH, WE DON'T NEED ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO DO ANYTHING. THEIR SIMPLE, THEIR FINDINGS WERE SIMPLY MAINTENANCE OF THE HOMES. THAT IS, THAT CONDITION ALREADY EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED FOR 40 YEARS WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT. UM, WE'LL BE GLAD TO ADD A GUTTER TO THAT SECTION WHERE YOU SAW THE TWO GUTTERS THERE TO PREVENT THE DRAINING AND WE'LL REPAIR ANY OF THE OTHER GUTTERS, UM, THAT AREN'T WORKING PROPERLY. WE WERE OUT THERE THIS MORNING. HALF OF 'EM ARE GOOD, HALF 'EM MARKED. SO WE'RE GONNA REPAIR THOSE. UM, I GUESS, OKAY, THE SECOND FINDING WAS DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UH, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE. UM, I AGREE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN PLATTED PROPERLY TO BEGIN WITH, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THESE ISSUES. BUT THAT SHOULDN'T AFFECT OUR DECISION TODAY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US FILLING IN THIS SEVEN FOOT SECTION. UM, THIRD WAS, AS A RESULT OF THE WOOD CONSTRUCTION, THE STRUCTURE POSSESSES AN INCREASED RISK OF FIRE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. PERMITTING CONDITIONS THAT PLACE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AT A HEIGHTENED RISK FOR FIRE THREAT DOES NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. UM, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONSTRUCT OUR SEVEN FOOT SECTION OF WALL WITH A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY. UM, AND ONCE AGAIN, THE ENTIRE REST OF THE HOUSE IS NOT FIRE RATED AND IT HAS BEEN FOR 40 YEARS. SO, UM, THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR VARIANCE TO FILL IN THIS AREA. UH, THE FOURTH, WE AGREE ON FIFTH. UM, SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. THE ADDITION OF THE WALL ROOF OF THE PROPERTY WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED FIRE RISK FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. ONCE AGAIN, DO A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY, UM, TRESPASSING TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY IS AN EXISTING ISSUE, UH, WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR RENOVATION. UH, REGARDING CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY, THE SEVEN FOOT SECTION OF ROOF AND THE SECTION WE'RE FILLING IN, UH, ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT WAS BUILT ON THESE LOT LINES. THESE DREW LOT LINES. UH, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAVING AN ISSUE BEING AN ISSUE. UM, NUMBER SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER. UH, THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SIGNED IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. STAFF IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO WARRANT THE ELIMINATION OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED BECAUSE THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT IS. UM, AS SUCH, PLIGHT TO THE OWNER WAS CAUSED BY THE, UH, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLY TO MY OWNER WAS CREATED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED, PLATTED, AND DEVELOPED. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SIMPLY NOT CREATED [04:30:01] BY HIM. UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL, UH, PRETTY MUCH PULLS DOWN TO TWO ISSUES. THE INCREASED FIRE RISK AND TRESPASSING TO MAINTAIN, ONCE AGAIN, NOT GONNA BE, WE'RE NOT ADDING, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THAT ISSUE. FILLING IN THE SEVEN FOOT SECTION, UM, THE HOME'S, UH, LETTER FROM THE H O A PRESIDENT, WE WENT OVER THAT. UM, IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD, THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD FORCE MY HOMEOWNER TO RECONSIDER REPAIRS STILL NEEDED AND RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE RENOVATION PROJECT. KEEPING THE HOME IN ITS DILAPIDATED STATE EVEN LONGER, CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS AND HAVING TO PUT THE HOME ON THE MARKET TO SELL AS IS. THIS COULD TAKE YEARS TO FIND THE RIGHT BUYER WILLING TO TAKE ON SUCH A PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY, KNOWING THAT THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE SPACE TO ADD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, TWO WOULDN'T BE AN OPTION DUE TO THIS DENIAL. UH, ONCE AGAIN, APPROVAL DENIAL. THIS VARIANCE ISN'T GOING TO ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE CURRENT HARDSHIPS OUTLINED BY THE STAFF. FIRE HAZARDS AND MAINTENANCE ACCESS ISSUES, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST. HOWEVER, DENIAL WILL NOT BE WHAT'S IN THE BEST INFERENCE INTEREST FOR THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THE PROPERTY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY CARING FOR AND MAINTAINING THE HOME IS WHAT WE WANT. AND, UM, THIS COMPLETE RENOVATION CAN GET US THERE. SO WE ASK YOU TO APPROVE YOUR VARIANCE AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? TEAL, WELL, MR. MR. TEAL FIRST AND THEN MR. ORIAN, ON, ON WHICH SIDE OF THE HOME? LEFT EYE, LEFT SIDE OR RIGHT SIDE? ARE YOU, UH, INTENDING TO FILL IN THE, THE GAP? THE LEFT SIDE. OKAY, SO IT'S THE NEIGHBOR ON THE RIGHT SIDE THAT'S OPPOSED? THAT'S CORRECT. WE SPOKE BEFORE, BEFORE UH, WE CAME HERE AND I THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING, SO, OKAY. WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. THANK YOU MR. ORIAN. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THERE'S AN ALLEY IN THE REAR AND ALL THE DRIVEWAY A ACCESSES ARE BACK THERE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE THE GARAGE IS AT. OKAY. THANKS MANNA. AND MR. MANNA. SO I, I MAY, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, BUT THE, THERE'S EXISTING WALL THERE IN THAT OPEN COURTYARD SPACE. CORRECT. AND ALL YOU'RE DOING IS LIFTING THE EXISTING WALL UP FOR THE FINAL SPACE TO CLOSE OFF THAT AREA AND THEN THAT'S CORRECT. MAYBE A ONE FOOT OR 18 INCH SECTION. AND WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING ON TOP OF THE WALL. WE'RE GONNA GO INSIDE THE WALL. ALRIGHT. HAVE TO GO AHEAD. THAT LITTLE COURTYARD WALL THAT WAS ORIGINAL TO THE HOMES WHEN THEY WERE BUILT. SO YES SIR. PEOPLE HAVE THOSE. YEAH, THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES THAT. YES SIR. AND I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THESE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 'CAUSE I WOULD NEVER LIVE IN ONE, BUT THIS ZERO LOT LINE THING, IS THERE THERE AN ACCESS MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON EACH PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THAT SIDE OF THE WALL? OR ARE YOU EXPECTED TO PAINT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S EAVES EVERY FIVE YEARS? OKAY, LET, OH YEAH, THERE IS NO MAINTENANCE EASEMENT. LET ME MAKE, OBVIOUSLY NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOW THIS, THIS IS, UH, A SPECIAL SIX SITUATION. UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED 40 YEARS AGO. THIS WAS THE NORTHERN HILLS DEVELOPMENT MADE BY DENTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHO PLOTTED ALL THESE PROPERTIES OUT HERE. AND THEY DID GET SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, SEVERAL PUDS IN THERE THAT WERE AS THE CONSTRUCTION. UNFORTUNATELY, DURING ALL THESE PROJECTS, THE CITY ANNEXED THIS TERRITORY AND FOR SOME REASON, SOME OF THE PLOTS PLOTTED PROPERTIES WERE NOT TRANSFERRED. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS. BUT THE RULES THAT THESE WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BE AND SOLD AS GARDEN HOMES UNDER THE GARDEN HOME, UH, DESCRIPTION. UH, ONE WALL WAS ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND THERE WAS A 10 FOOT GAP FROM ONE'S HOUSE TO THE NEXT HOUSE, WHICH THE NEXT HOUSE WOULD HAVE THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE WALL. NOW YOU'VE KIND OF JUMPED INTO THIS PARTICULAR THING NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO EITHER, BECAUSE NOW THAT YOU'RE PULLING PERMITS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY STANDARDS. CITY STANDARDS ARE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETS BACKS ON EACH SIDE BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T HAVE A PREVIOUS, UH, PUD DESIGNATION. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO PUD DESIGNATION FOR THIS ONE. PHASE ONE DID HAVE A PUD DESIGNATION, RIGHT? PHASE TWO DID NOT. SO OTHERWISE IT'S, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CODES. AND THE CURRENT CODES SAY FIVE FOOT EACH SIDE. NOW, WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU IS THAT IF YOU, IF WE ARE EVEN TO GRANT THIS, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO FIRE RATE THAT ENTIRE WALL FROM FRONT TO BACK BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE, UH, REQUIRED, UH, UNDER THE NEW CODE. BECAUSE WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK, THE OTHER OPTION YOU WOULD'VE HAD WAS TO GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION. UH, BUT EVEN THAT, I BELIEVE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE FIRE RATED, UM, UNDER THE CODE. UM, BECAUSE, UM, THEY ARE NOW STILL ALLOWING ZERO LOT LINE HOMES. THERE ARE IN THE DESIGNATION, BUT THIS IS ISN'T ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE. BUT THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THERE WHO BOUGHT THOSE HOMES IN THE, IN THE, IN THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES, THEY [04:35:01] BOUGHT KNOWING THAT ONE WALL WAS, WAS THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT FROM THEIR PATIO TO THE SIDEWALL HAD TO BE OPEN FOR 10 FEET FOR ACCESS. AND EACH ONE OF THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES UNDERSTOOD THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ZERO LOT LINE, THEY HAD TO ALLOW FOR EASE OF ACCESS FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. AND THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THAT TERRITORY. AND THAT WAS UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CONTRACTS HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THAT TIMEFRAME, BUT I I KNOW QUITE A FEW. AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S THE WAY THE DEVELOPER DID THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A, YOU KNOW, A UPPER GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY, WHICH FORTUNATELY IT'S STILL A GOLF COURSE, BUT MOST OF THESE LIKE THIS HAVE TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT, UH, THIS HAS SURVIVED ALL THESE YEARS. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, I MEAN THIS IS A PROJECT. THIS, THIS IS PROBABLY WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKED AWAY FROM IT. THEY GOT IT, IT FOR A SONG BECAUSE IT IS, UH, A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I'M SEEING THIS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE, I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, MY HOME WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS A GARDEN HOME. HOWEVER, THE BUILDER WAS SO INCOMPETENT, THEY BUILT IT UNDER THE REGULAR GUIDELINES AND DIDN'T REALIZE THEY COULD DO IT AS ZERO LOT LINE. BUT THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT. I'M LUCKY IN THAT REGARD. THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, I MEAN, UH, THESE, THE FOUNDATIONS, ALL THE FOUNDATIONS ON THAT STREET ARE NIGHTMARES. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY EVERYBODY HAS TO KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR FELLOW AND SAY, LISTEN, I NEED TO GET BACK THERE AND, AND, AND UH, GET MY DRILLING COMPANIES HAVE PUT IN SOME PIERS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE TO RAISE THE, AND STABILIZE THE HOUSE. AND THAT'S BEEN WORKING QUITE WELL WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS OVER THE YEARS. BUT THE RULES ARE THE RULES THAT YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ACCESS. UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE. I MEAN, THIS IS A BIG HOME, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THIS IS. I DON'T KNOW EITHER 2700, 2700 SQUARE FEET FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE AVERAGE SIZE HOME WAS 14 TO 1700 SQUARE FEET. SO THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD SIZE HOUSE. THAT'S TWO STORY. YEAH. AND THEN, AND THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE FOUNDATION DIDN'T MAKE IT. UH, BUT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AND THE BOARD ALSO KNOWS AS WELL, BECAUSE I'VE HAD TO RESEARCH THIS FOR MY OWN PROPERTIES. 'CAUSE I OWN SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, AND, UH, IF YOU COULD FIND THE ORIGINAL PLOTTED PLANT, YOU'LL FIND THAT THAT'S ALL THAT STUFF IS DESIGNATED ON THAT. BUT YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK PROBABLY 1974 OR 75, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE TO FIND WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT. SO, UM, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S THE BACKGROUND. NOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY, YOU WANT TO KEEP THE LINE SQUARE TO, TO ENCLOSE AN AREA WHICH IS NORMALLY ALLOWED UNDER CERTAIN RULES. BUT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPER DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T OCCUR, IF IT HADN'T BEEN THERE, YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO COME BEFORE US TO DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. BUT SINCE YOU'RE PULLING A PERMIT, I THINK THE RULES HAVE CHANGED NOW. AND NOW YOU HAVE TO FIRE A RATE THAT ENTIRE, ENTIRE OVERHANG I THINK. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THEY'LL HAVE TO DO SOME SORT OF FIRE SINCE IT'S ON, UM, THE NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE. YES. WITHIN THE FIVE FEET LIMITATION. CORRECT. SEE NOW THAT, SEE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THAT YET, BUT THAT WHOLE WHOLE SIDE WILL HAVE TO BE THE OVERHANG. ESPECIALLY YOU COULD HARDY PLANK IT OR WHATEVER, BUT ANYTHING TO MAKE IT FIRE RATED OVER THERE. AND UH, BUT UM, YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR REAL ISSUE IS GOING TO BE IS THE OTHER SIDE. 'CAUSE THE OTHER SIDE HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR 40 YEARS ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. NO ONE MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING THERE, WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. I BELIEVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY, THERE IS A, UH, PART PA A PATIO ROOM OR KITCHEN OR SOMETHING THAT'S GOT AN AIR CONDITIONER IN THE WINDOW. YEAH, YEAH. IT'S LIKE A THAT'S IT'S TACKED ONTO THE LIVING ROOM OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE THE DAY IT WAS BUILT. OKAY. OKAY. AND MORE THAN LIKELY IT'D BE BEST TO TAKE IT APART 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA CRUMBLE ANYWAY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT BUILT ON A PROPER FOUNDATION. WELL, IT IS NOW . OH, WELL IT'S BEEN STABILIZED, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE THICKNESS YES. AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. BUT NEVERTHELESS, I MEAN, UH, IN YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION, UM, YOUR YOUR, YOUR CHOICES ARE, LIKE YOU SAY, WE'RE HERE TO GIVE YOU, TO OFFER YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. IT'S ALREADY THERE. UH, IF THE PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY DESIGNATED AND, UH, PLOTTED PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THE CITY, YOU, LIKE I SAY, YOU WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE TO DO THIS OTHER THAN COMPLY WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO, BUT THIS IS ALL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE IS THAT ONE LITTLE OPENING. THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE. THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, WE ARE, WE'RE RENOVATING THE REST OF THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE, BUT, UH, STILL GOT TO GET THE C F O, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY YEAH. FOR THIS [04:40:01] STRUCTURE ONCE YOU'RE COMPLETED. OH YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. SO I JUST THOUGHT I, I'D ADVISE YOU THAT YOU'VE GOT OTHER ISSUES TO DEAL WITH. SO, OKAY. MANNA HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MANNA. UM, SO, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, SO IF THEY WERE NOT REQUESTING THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE AND BUILT THE WALL ON THE INSIDE, FIVE FOOT IN, WOULD THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FIRE RATING AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS? WOULD THEY, WOULD IT JUST BE THAT WALL WOULD NEED TO BE FIRE? I THINK, I THINK ONCE YOU PULL THE PERMIT, EVERYTHING HAS TO COME TO COMPLIANCE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? NO, JUST THE ADDITION. SO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT THREE FEET, YOU FIRE RATE ANYTHING BELOW THAT, IT'S A, UH, ADDITIONAL FIRE RATING MATERIALS. BUT IF IT WAS FIVE FEET, THEY'D BE FINE. YEAH. BUT I THINK THEY WOULDN'T ENCLOSE IT COMPLETELY. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, HAVE A THREE FOOT PATIO THERE AND THEN YEAH. SO ANYWAY, JUST, JUST WAS THINKING, YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE AN ENTIRE BATHROOM OUT OF THAT. SO I MEAN, BRINGING IT IN, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THE WIDTH DIMENSION OF IT, BUT BRINGING IT IN FIVE FOOT IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, CORRECT? NO, I'M NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING. I SUGGEST YOU DO WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON DOING. LET'S, LET'S, AND LET'S GO FOR THE VARIANCE. BUT THE, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATIONS. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN NORTHERN HILLS IN THE PAST 50 YEARS HAS BEEN PEOPLE DOING THINGS WITHOUT PERMITS. AND HERE I AM, THERE YOU ARE, BRINGING IT ALL UP TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION, DOING THE RIGHT THING. I'M GONNA APPLAUD YOU FOR REQUESTING A PERMIT. OKAY? SO, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE HAVE NOT YES. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE DEALING WITH ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES AS WELL. SO, ALL RIGHT. UM, I UNDERSTAND. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HE'S TRYING? DID I KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? WELL, THE IDEA IS THAT THIS IS, THIS IS NOT PLOTTED PROPERLY. THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT PLATTED PROPERLY. I I, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS, BUT IT WAS, THE HOUSES WERE BUILT. UH, THEY WERE IN THE E T J, AT LEAST IN THE E T J AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T COMPLY WITH CITY CODES OR WHAT THEY WERE AT THAT TIME, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE GOT. THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. THAT'S GREAT. SO HE'S ACTUALLY, HE'S GOT ACT IN MY DEFINITION HERE. YOU'VE GOT A HARDSHIP, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK WITH. SO, UM, ANYWAY, UH, THAT'S, I'M JUST SITTING HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO TO, TO CONTINUE WITH THIS. BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION USUALLY OF A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS TO SAY NO. BUT YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY DEALING WITH WHAT THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WAS CONSIDERING. THAT'S CORRECT. HOMEOWNERS WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH THE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED. THAT'S CORRECT. NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. SO, UH, AND YOUR REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH WALL, IS THAT CORRECT? THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE? THAT'S CORRECT, YES. OKAY. SO, AND, UH, SO THAT'S DIRECTION I'M SAYING IS THAT IF HE, I, I SEE IT. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS PROPER, AS LONG AS THAT, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE, THE REST OF THE RENOVATIONS ARE JUST WITH INSIDE THE HOME, YOU KNOW, COSMETIC AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO ANY, ANYBODY ELSE? NOBODY ELSE. SO THERE'S NO WITNESSES, RIGHT? THERE ARE TWO. WE DO HAVE OH, HOW WE ARE. I SAW THOSE FRIENDLY FACES FIRST. I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. NOW, NOW DID YOU HEAR WHAT I, HOW I DESCRIBED THAT? THAT IS IN, UH, SO PLEASE, SO FIRST IS BRENDA SELLER, FOLLOWED BY GLORIA MARTINEZ. ALL RIGHT. WELL THE REASON I WAS MENTIONING THIS IS TO SPEED THINGS UP. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT I HAD DESCRIBED AND YOU WERE STILL IN NEEDING TO SPEAK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE CONFUSION OUT OF THIS. WELL, IT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T ALL THAT CLEAR WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING. RIGHT. MY NAME IS BRENDA SELLERS. I MET 1 2 6 2 3 SAND TRAP. I'M ON THE LEFT SIDE. AND MY MAIN, UM, QUESTION I THINK CAME FROM THE REQUEST, THIS VARIANCE OF FOUR FEET, 11 INCHES OF THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT AT ALL. WELL, AS I EXPLAINED A MIN MINUTE AGO, WHAT YOU HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE, YOU KNOW? YES. WHAT YOU HAVE AND THAT PROPERTY, UH, THAT [04:45:01] ADJACENT TO YOU, THAT WALL IS THE PROPERTY LINE AND ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS CLOSE IN THE HOLE. MM-HMM. , THAT'S WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT, YOU NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. 'CAUSE IT WASN'T APPLICABLE. AND, BUT THE POINT IS, BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CODE CHANGES AND THE PROPER AND THE PROPER AND THE IMPROPER DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY, WE STILL HAVE TO APPLY THE CURRENT CODE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY. NOW, THE REASON WHY WE ARE OFFERING FOUR FEET 11 INCHES IS BECAUSE WE CAN'T OFFER MORE THAN THAT. AND THAT WALL IS ALREADY ON THE ZERO LOT LINE. SO 11 FEET, FOUR FEET, 11 INCHES IS ON THE INSIDE WHERE HE WANTS TO WORK. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, IS IS THAT HIS OVERHANG. NOW THIS IS WHERE I THINK ANOTHER QUESTION'S GOING TO COME OUT BECAUSE HIS OVERHANG IS ACTUALLY HANGING OVER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. HOW ARE WE GONNA DEAL WITH THAT? UH, SO IF THERE'S A SURVEY THAT, I MEAN, EACH OF THESE HOMES PROBABLY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT PLATTED CORRECTLY. DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF CC AND R OUT THERE THAT JUST HASN'T BEEN FILED, THAT SHOWS 10 FOOT MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS. ALTHOUGH IT MAY APPEAR THAT THEY ARE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. IT IT WITHOUT DEFINITIVE PROOF. I CAN'T COMMENT THAT IT IS OR IT ISN'T. UH, BUT AGAIN, THERE IS FOR ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENTS. WE DO SEE SOME SORT OF EVE OVERHANG OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. IT HAPPENS BECAUSE THESE ARE ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THEY HAVE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS. OKAY, I THINK WE HAVE A CLARIFICATION. YES. UH, SO FOR THE RECORD, IN VOLUME 1419, PAGE THREE 10 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS ARE THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. AND ON PAGE THREE IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A, UH, UM, AN EIGHT, UH, THERE'S A BRICK BRICK LOG AND BRICK WALL EASEMENT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LOT AND A FOUR AND A HALF FOOT ROOF OVERHANG EASEMENT ON EACH SIDE OF EACH LOT IS PROVIDED AND RESERVED FOR EVERYBODY. AND SO THERE, IT, IT ALSO REFERENCES YOUR LOT LINE. AND SO ALL THAT STUFF'S IN THERE. SO THERE YOU GO. . AND, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DONE AFTER THE PLATT WAS RECORDED. THAT WAS 1970. OH, WELL THE PLATT WAS RECORDED. WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? IT WAS RECORDED NINE IN 1979. 1979. OKAY. AND TYPICALLY WHAT WHAT HAPPENS ON THESE PLATTS IS THEY'LL SHOW A ZERO LOT LINE, UM, REFERENCE AND ALL OF THOSE REFERENCES WERE REMOVED IN THIS PLATT. SO IT'S NOT RECORDED AS SUCH, BUT THERE, IF THERE IS DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, THEN IT HELPS WITH MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT HE WAS READING. THAT WAS A PART OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFER. THAT WAS, THAT WAS PART OF THE CONTRACT FOR SALE. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. SO NO, ACTUALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT HAS CHANGED. MM-HMM. , WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS HE WANTS TO CLOSE THAT HOLE. THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. SO, AND AS REGARD TO MAINTENANCE, THEY CAN GO THROUGH MY GATES AND MY THEY HAVE TO ASK YOUR PERMISSION AND, AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GRANT THEM SOME OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTY. OKAY. THEY CAN'T DAMAGE ANYTHING ON YOUR PROPERTY. ANYTHING THEY DAMAGE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE OR WHATEVER. AND YOU HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE WHERE YOUR LINE IS, YOUR HOUSE HAS NO WINDOWS. THAT'S THE ZERO LOT LINE THERE. YES. AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN ON THAT SIDE AS WELL. OKAY. SO NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGED. IT'S JUST THAT BECAUSE OF FORMALITIES IN THE CITY'S SYSTEM OF, OF RECORDS, THEY'RE NOW SAYING THAT ALL HOUSES HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. WELL, THIS ISN'T RIGHT. OKAY. AND YOUR HOUSE ISN'T RIGHT. SO EVERYTHING IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. YOUR GOOD NEIGHBOR WILL ALWAYS BE YOUR GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOUR NOT SO GREAT NEIGHBOR'S STILL GONNA BE A NEIGHBOR. AND SO THE THING IS, IS THAT WHAT, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGED. HE JUST WANTS TO BE ABLE TO ENCLOSE THAT AREA TO IMPROVE THE USE OF THE HOME. PLUS, UH, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA THANK YOU. MAKE A NOTE THAT, UH, MR. BRITTON IS LEAVING. ALRIGHT. UH, SO ANYWAY, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU, I MEAN THAT'S, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGING. SO THESE GUYS THAT WALKED THROUGH MY GATE SAYING WE'RE DOING POOL MAINTENANCE NEXT DOOR, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO THAT, RIGHT? UH, THEY HAVE TO ASK YOUR PERMISSION AND YOU CAN DESIGNATE THE TIME THAT AND WHEN THEY CAN DO THAT. OKAY. WELL, THEY JUST USUALLY APPEAR, YOU KNOW, [04:50:01] AND I GO OUT AND I SAY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHERE ARE YOU GOING? YOU KNOW, AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY TELL ME THEY'RE SERVICING THE POOL NEXT DOOR. WELL, YOU, LIKE I SAY, YOU ESTABLISH YOUR, YOUR, YOUR RULES. IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. BUT YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE A DOG IN YOUR BACKYARD AND THEY WANT TO CAME ACCESS, THEY HAVE TO ALLOW YOU TO SECURE YOUR DOG OR DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO BEFORE YOU ALLOW THEM ACCESS. THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA CONTINUE. OKAY. SO, BUT HIM, HIM IN CLOSING THIS AREA IS THAT, I MEAN, THE WALL LOOKS PRETTY LIKE IT MAY, YOU KNOW, BE DETERIORATING OR SOMETHING ANYWAY, SO THAT, THAT'S HIS PROBLEM. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY, THERE'S WAYS OF STABILIZING THAT AS HE BUILDS HIS INTERIOR WALLS. MM-HMM. . BUT, UH, YOU'RE ON THE POOL SIDE OF THAT, OF THAT PROPERTY, CORRECT? NO. YOU'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE RIGHT WHERE THE HOLE IS. RIGHT. OKAY. WELL AND THEY WERE ACCESSING YOUR PROPERTY TO GET TO THE POOL. MM-HMM. , WE WERE NOT. WELL, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. NO, THAT WAS BEFORE YOU. YEAH. YEAH. OH, OKAY. OH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S TRANSPIRING HERE. ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS ENCLOSE THE HOLE THERE LIKE A LOT OF YOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS DID. YOU DON'T SEE ANY, ANY, UH, DETERIORATION OR ANYTHING OF THAT WALL BY WHAT HE'S SEEING. IT HAS TO MEET THE STANDARDS. SO HE'S STILL GONNA HAVE INSPECTORS OUT THERE AS HE'S WORKING. SO ACTUALLY YOU'RE BETTER OFF AND IT'LL BE NICE TO SEE A NICE HOUSE STORE. I CAN'T MAKE PROMISES ON, ON AESTHETICS. I MEAN, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S THE GENTLEMAN THERE TO ADDRESS. RIGHT. OKAY. BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO SIMPLIFY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 'CAUSE I WAS, FIRST TIME I SAW IT, I JUST COULD NOT BELIEVE ANYBODY WAS GONNA DO ANY OF THIS STUFF, BUT OKAY. OKAY. AND DO ANYBODY HERE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS LADY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. THANK YOU. SEE YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY, NEXT. GLORIA MARTINEZ. YOU'RE WELCOME. IS THAT IT? THAT'S EVERYBODY. ALRIGHT. NOW YOU'RE ALLOWED TO RETURN AND, UH, YOUR EXPLANATION IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET A, A VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT YOU CAN ENCLOSE THAT AREA TO BUILD YOUR PROJECT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND I, SHE WAS THE NEIGHBOR IN OPPOSITION, WHICH I BELIEVE SHE IS NOT NOW. SO YOU WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE DONE? SO WE SOLVED A PROBLEM. YES. AND WE'LL BE GLAD TO GET A VARIANCE FOR YOU. WE'LL, WE WILL WRITE THAT UP AND GET OUR VARIANCE TO COME OVER THERE AND WE'LL WRITE YOUR YOURS UP FOR THE, YOUR NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE TOO. WELL, ACTUALLY, YOU DON'T, ACTUALLY, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING, YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT AS LONG AS YOU GIVE THEM HER YOUR INFORMATION, THEY'LL NOTIFY YOU IF THEY NEED ACCESS. OKAY. THAT'S REALLY ALL. IT'LL BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. GOOD NEIGHBORS HAVE PAPER. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO STATE ABOUT? I DO NOT ALL. SO I, I'M GONNA OPEN, UH, CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND OPEN UP A REQUEST FOR A MOTION. VERY SIMPLE. ONLY THING I, I REQUEST THAT YOU ADD IS THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, RUTH. OKAY. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 1 9 103 0 0 1 2 7, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND GRANT A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE, TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 2 6 2 7 SAND TRAP LANE, APPLICANT BEING BRA BRADY JOHNSON. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACKS THAT MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLACEMENT. OF ALL HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING IS AT LEAST FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THIS STRUCTURE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. [04:55:01] A SPECIAL CONDITION COULD BE THE ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT AND THE GENERAL PLACEMENT OF ALL HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ZERO LOT. LINE THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIZE HEAD BACK, OBSERVE THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPILE COMPILES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN AND SIMILAR PLACEMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT BASE. SONY DISTRICT FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A REDUCTION DOES NOT TRACK FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ADJACENT HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OR AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE. AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT ALTER THIS DISTANCE. SIX PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. EXCUSE ME. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO TWO OR THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT YOU TWO OR THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED IN A MOTION. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. I NEED A SECOND. SECOND I GUESS MR. NEFF. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND, UH, MARIA, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UM, CONCUR WITH THIS. I KNOW THE SITUATION. IT IS A VERY, VERY ZERO LINE PROPERTY, UH, IN ALL THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LIKE YOU SAID, IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR AGES. UM, UNFORTUNATELY WHAT, WHAT THE OWNER OR WHAT THE PROPERTY PEOPLE WERE THINKING OF WHEN THEY STARTED BUILDING THESE HOMES IS BEYOND OUR CONTROL. SO THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO. ALL WE CAN DO IS ACCEPT IT. SO GOOD LUCK ON THE PROJECT AND HOPEFULLY EVERYTHING WILL COME OUT RIGHT. UH, MR. NEFF, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. JUST FOR A FINAL NOTE. THE WHOLE IDEA OF THESE STRUCTURES WERE TO ALLOW 10 FEET ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO YOU HAD LIVING AREA BECAUSE MOST OF THESE HOUSES HAD NO BACKYARD TO SPEAK OF. SO IT ALLOWED FOR SOMEBODY TO PUT UP, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE PATIO AREA, GROW SOME PLANTS, POUR. YOU COULDN'T QUITE EASILY DO THAT WITH JUST FIVE FEET GAP. SO THIS GAVE THEM, THAT GAVE THEM THE, THE TOTAL OF FIVE FEET OF BOTH SIDES ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, TO MAKE THAT FOR NOT REALLY HAVING MUCH OF A BACKYARD. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE, AND I HOPE HE SUPPORTIVE THIS AS WELL. SO, MONICA BLISS, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE BUCKET. ROLL VOTE. MS. YES, I CONCUR. MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. BRITTON. MR. RODRIGUEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BINO. YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THE MOTION DOES PASS WITH NINE VOTES. MAKE NOTE THAT THE VARIANCE ONLY INCLUDES THE, THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND IF YOU NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MR. GALLAGHER. HE'LL GIVE YOU ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION. BY THE WAY, HE'S THE FORMER, FORMER CITY COUNCILMAN MIKE ALLERGAN. TELL HIM HI FOR US. YEAH, HE HE KNOWS EVERYTHING. IN FACT, HE'S GOT ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES, SO HE'S JUST DOWN AT THE END OF THE STREET. RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT ONE'S ILLEGAL. I ALREADY TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOW DID EVERY EVERYBODY [11. 19-8087 Consideration and approval of the October 21, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes.] HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? YES. ALL RIGHT. [05:00:01] UH, I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THEM HERE. SOMEONE STUCK THIS IN MY BOOK AND IT'S, IT'S ALL KINDS OF STUFF, BUT IT'S NOT THE MINUTES. IT SAYS OCTOBER 7TH. WELL, IF THEY DO SEE, WHAT IS THIS? WELL, BOARD, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I KNOW I ASKED. I SIGNED OCTOBER 7TH. DO I NEED TO SIGN IT AGAIN ALSO FOR YOUR INFORMATION? UH, IS THERE ANYONE THAT NEED ANY CORRECTION ON THAT? DID ANYONE NOTICE ANYTHING? THEN THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. IT READ FINE TO ME. I MEAN, YOU'VE HAD A COPY, A COPY SENT TO YOU, DID YOU? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEY LOOK PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE TO ME. SO THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. ALSO WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I WILL NOT BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO, ALAN, YOU, YOU'RE GONNA RUN THIS FOR ME. OKAY. THAT DATE, THE 18TH, I BELIEVE. UM, YES. 14 DAYS FROM TODAY WOULD BE THE 18TH. SO I'LL BE BACK FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING. SO, UH, EVERYONE HAVE A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS. I DO HAVE SOMETHING ON DIRECTOR'S REPORT REALLY QUICK JUST TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. UM, SO WITH, UH, THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNSEL ON NOVEMBER 14TH FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ALTERNATES, UH, WE WILL LOOK TO SCHEDULE A, AN ORIENTATION, UH, FOR THE NEW MEMBERS AS WELL AS, UM, UH, THE RETURNING MEMBERS ARE INVITED FOR DECEMBER. AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL HAVE A WORK SESSION BEFORE THE REGULAR MEETINGS. SO THAT WAY WE'LL FEED YOU SOME LUNCH AND ALSO, UM, HAVE THAT ORIENTATION. YOU'RE WELCOME TO ATTEND. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND, BUT WE DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND. SO THAT WAY IT'S JUST AN ANNUAL REFRESHER. AND WHERE ARE WE ON THE REAPPOINTMENTS? I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THEM. THEY'RE, THEY'RE COMING IN LITTLE BY LITTLE. THERE'S STILL, STILL ABOUT A HANDFUL THAT STILL NEED TO BE REAPPOINTED OR APPOINTED. UM, BUT THEN OF COURSE WE'VE GOT THE ALTERNATES THAT WILL COME FORWARD ON NOVEMBER 13TH. OKAY. AND IN MY CASE, I'M GONNA BE PHASING OUT 'CAUSE UH, I GOT A CALL FROM THE MAYOR. I HAD BEEN CALLING THEM, AND FINALLY THEY CALLED ME AND THEY'RE, THEY, THEY, UH, HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S, HE WILL REPLACE ME. UH, SO WHEN, WHENEVER HE COMES, IT COMES, MAYBE I CAN COME BACK AT THE SEVENTH ALTERNATE . I, I ACTUALLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT . BUT HENRY, I TELL YOU WHAT, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THIS? HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE BOARD? IT'S BEEN SO LONG. I FORGOT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE YEARS. YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY, OH, YOU, YOU'RE FUN. I, I LOVE READING YOU ON THE, ON, ON THE SOCIAL MEDIAS, BUT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S AMAZING ALL THE YEARS OF SERVICE. YOU DESERVE A LOT OF CREDIT FOR ALL THE WISDOM THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED FOR US. AND REMEMBER, WE'RE ALWAYS FRIENDS. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS? THEN I DECLARE THIS MEETING 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.