* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] WE'LL START. UM, HERE WE GO. BEFORE WE BEGIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDC, UH, UH, THAT'S OKAY. PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES. THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL COME TO ORDER. PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER REED PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER BOEZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. HERE. CHAIR ORIAN. CHAIR ZENA? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. YES. VICE CHAIR ENA. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. UNTIL EACH BEGIN THE, THE FIRST PART OF THE MEETING HERE. PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. I PGI TO FLAG FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TWO, THREE FOLKS WHICH JUST STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG, TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD. ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. INDIVISIBLE. ALRIGHT. AT THIS TIME I'D ASK IF WE CAN HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT AND WE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME AND THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES, OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND OUTTA COURT OF LAW, WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE THOUGHT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND 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 ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM, FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS 28 THROUGH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE POWERS TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD MUST MUST BE BASED UPON A FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARDINGS PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR, OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES THE CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESIDENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT ARREST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN REQUESTED RELIEF, CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND ASK, UH, CITY STAFF DO YOU HAVE, UH, COMMENTS OR PRESENTATION? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE YEAR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED OUT IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOTTED MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE THAT'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER [00:05:01] WILL BE ALLOT OF MAXIMUM TWO PEOPLE GIVEN THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. AND, UH, REAL QUICK, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES, I CAN. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? HELLO? I CAN HEAR YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ALRIGHT. UM, AT THIS POINT IN POINT I'D LIKE, LIKE TO ASK IF, UH, WE HAVE A, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH CASE. UM, DO WE KNOW IF EVERYONE HEAR IS FOR THE CASES TO BE HEARD? UH, SO WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME OF THE APPLICANTS COMING IN AT THREE O'CLOCK, BUT I BELIEVE DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? WE'RE GOOD TO PROCEED. OKAY. WELL, LET'S, UH, PROCEED WITH CASE NUMBER ONE PLEASE. ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? ALRIGHT. PERFECT. UH, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, CASE 2 74. IT IS AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION. I'LL GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE HERE IN A MOMENT. EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT LOUDER? SURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG LOOP 1604, BETWEEN HAUSMAN ROAD TO THE SOUTH AND RED ROBIN DRIVE TO THE NORTH. UH, IT ENCOMPASSES NEARLY 180 ACRES OF LAND, UM, AND IT IS SPLIT ZONED A COUPLE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. LIGHT COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND A SMALL PORTION IS ZONED R SIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. IT INCLUDES, UH, THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT OVERLAY, AS WELL AS THE MILITARY LIGHTING, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT UC, ONE THAT IS A SIGNAGE RELATED DISTRICT, UH, THAT ISN'T PARTICULARLY PERTINENT TO THIS CASE. UM, TO START, WE MAILED 161 NOTICES. UH, WE HAD SIX RETURNED IN FAVOR, 13 IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY. AND ADDITIONAL SEVEN NOTICES WERE RECEIVED OPPOSED WITH NO FORMAL COMMENT FROM THE HILLS AND DALES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, AS WE ARE REQUIRED. WE ALSO NOTIFIED SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS, BUT RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. UH, UNLIKE A TYPICAL CASE. I'M GONNA START OFF WITH A COUPLE SLIDES OF BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE. 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S PRETTY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, UH, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO IN ITS 89TH SESSION, UH, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THEY APPROVED HUNDREDS OF BILLS. SEVERAL OF THOSE BILLS WERE RELATED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT. SEVERAL OF THOSE BILLS THIS BOARD WAS BRIEFED ON AS THE CITY ENDEAVORED TO ENROLL THOSE MANDATES INTO OUR UDC. UM, THE ONE THAT IS PERTINENT TO TODAY'S CASE IS SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, WHICH REQUIRES A NUMBER OF THINGS. UH, BUT, UH, IT APPLIES ONLY TO A CITY WITH A POPULATION OF 150,000 OR MORE AND LOCATED IN A COUNTY WITH OVER 300,000 PEOPLE. SO IT CERTAINLY APPLIES TO SAN ANTONIO. UH, AND IT SAYS THROUGH, UH, SUBCHAPTER B THAT MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT MUST BE ALLOWED ON ANY TRACK ZONED OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL WAREHOUSE, OR MIXED USE, UH, FOUR PROJECTS THAT ARE STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. THAT'S THE DAY THAT IT BECAME EFFECTIVE. IT ALSO ALLOWS THROUGH ITS SUB-CHAPTER C, UH, THAT A CITY MUST ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING INTO A MIXED USE OR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, AND IT WAIVES CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LIKE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, ET CETERA. SO IT'S A MULTI-PRONGED BILL. UM, OF NOTE, IT IS A MANDATE. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. IT, AUSTIN DID NOT GIVE CITIES THE OPTION. IT SAID THAT IF YOU QUALIFY BASED ON YOUR POPULATION, THIS IS THE LAW AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. SO WE ADOPTED THOSE INTO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. UM, IN ADDITION TO APPLYING, OR PARDON ME, COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW, PART OF THE REASON WE ADOPTED IT INTO OUR UDC WAS TO HAVE ONE CENTRALIZED, UH, SET OF REGULATIONS FOR PEOPLE SEEKING TO DEVELOP IN SAN ANTONIO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO LOOKING IN MULTIPLE BOOKS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU CAN USE YOUR LAND FOR TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT CAN BE DESIGNED, ET CETERA. UM, THE ACT OF CODIFYING THESE AMENDMENTS INTO OUR UDC WAS MERELY TO APPLY WITH THE STATE LAW, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY EVIDENCED BY THE [00:10:01] LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN. WHEREAS THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS SAW THE PASSAGE OF OVER 300 BILLS, MANY OF WHICH WERE DEVELOPMENT RELATED, WHERE THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE STATES THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF, OF A MUNICIPALITY MAY ADOPT, ENFORCE, OR MAINTAIN AN ORDINANCE ONLY IF IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW. WHEREAS PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD, THERE'S NOWHERE AS IN THERE THAT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS OPTIONAL. WE FELT LIKE DOING IT. WE ADOPTED IT WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS. WE ADOPTED THE LAW. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. UH, ON SEPTEMBER 19TH OF LAST YEAR, WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION, UH, FOR A RIGHTS DETERMINATION. UH, RIGHTS DETERMINE APP APPLICATIONS. THEY'RE GENERALLY, UH, SEEKING CITY RECOGNITION THAT A PROJECT WAS STARTED A WHILE BACK, THAT THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY GRANDFATHERED AND LOCKED INTO RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEIR INITIAL PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED. UH, IT SOUGHT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM CITY STAFF THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD RIGHTS. WE AGREE THAT IT, DID WE HAVE A CONSENT AGREEMENT? UM, WE HAVE HAMMERED OUT AN AGREEMENT ON THOSE VESTED RIGHTS. UH, IT ALSO ASKED IF THE PROPERTY WAS ELIGIBLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEW LAW. AND, UH, RIGHTS WERE RECOGNIZED CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. AGAIN, THAT CONSENT AGREEMENT IS VOLUNTARY. IT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, CONSENT AGREEMENTS GENERALLY ARE USED TO AVOID LITIGATION. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHTS. THEY ASCERTAIN THEY DO, WE COMPROMISE THROUGH A CONSENT AGREEMENT. SO, HAVING REVIEWED THAT APP, UH, APPLICATION ON OCTOBER 8TH, CITY STAFF ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT VESTED RIGHTS DO IN FACT EXIST, UH, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE FULL PROVISIONS OF THAT LAW. CRITICALLY, THE VERY LAST BULLET ON THE SLIDE, SECTION FOUR A OF SB EIGHT 40 SAYS, APPLIES ONLY TO A MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIATED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT. UH, LOGAN, I'M SORRY, LOGAN. THIS IS JOSEPH HARNEY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. REAL QUICK, WE HAVE, UH, MS. CRUZ CAN, OH, WE NEED HER VIDEO FOR A FULL COMPLIMENT OF THE BOARD. UM, THANK YOU MS. CRUZ. OKAY. UM, THAT IS ITALICIZED AND UNDERLINED FOR A REASON BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT SB EIGHT 40 ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT WAS STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS LAW BEING SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. WHAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE APPLICANT IN THEIR REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS ASSERTS THAT THEIR PROJECT STARTED ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 1988. AND WE AGREE IT DID. THEY HAVE A-P-O-A-D-P. THAT'S WHAT WE USED TO CALL AN MDP, UH, SUBMITTED ON THAT DATE. THEY HAVE, UM, HAD RIGHTS RECOGNIZED OVER THE YEARS VESTED TO THAT DATE. UH, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE VESTING THIS PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 THAT SAYS, YOUR PROJECT HAS TO START ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. THEREFORE, OUR ISSUE, THE LAST BULLET IS YOU CAN'T HAVE A PROJECT THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY STARTS ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 1988 AND SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. MM-HMM . THE APPLICANT IN THE APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL SAID THAT STAFF CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THEIR APPLICATION. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. WE DID NOT, THE WORD CONDITIONAL DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE LETTER. WE RECOGNIZED RIGHTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, AND WE RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF SB EIGHT 40, BUT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE YOU WANT. 'CAUSE THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN, YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. UH, SO AGAIN, THE THE CHOICE PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT WAS, TELL US HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. YOU WANNA PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECT WITH VESTED RIGHTS, OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECT USING SB EIGHT 40? THE CHOICE IS YOURS. UM, IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IN CONVERSATIONS OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM THE BILL'S AUTHOR, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE LAW. WELL, [00:15:01] WE DON'T ENFORCE LAWS BASED ON WHAT THE INTENT WAS. WE ENFORCE THE LAW BASED ON WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNED. AND THE LANGUAGE IS, IS PRETTY PLAIN. IN THIS EXAMPLE, IT'S ALSO BEEN ASSERTED THAT USING THE WORD PROJECT DOES NOT MEAN A ENDEAVOR TO DEVELOP SOMETHING OVER TIME. IT MEANT A BUILDING PERMIT THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WOULD'VE COME IN AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. BUT THE LAW ITSELF RATHER CONTRADICTS THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL. IN, UH, SECTION FOUR A, SUBCHAPTER B, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, IT SAYS, APPLIES ONLY TO A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIATED ON OR AFTER THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH CONTEMPLATES A BUILDING PERMIT. IF THEY MEANT TO WRITE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY WOULD'VE WRITTEN BUILDING PERMIT AS THEY DID TWO SENTENCES LATER IN THE LAW. UH, THEREFORE, UH, WE ARRIVE AT THE RECOMMENDATION IN A TYPICAL APPEAL. AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, YOU ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DIRECTOR MADE THE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN APPLYING THE LAW. THIS CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. UH, THE DIRECTOR APPLIED THE LAW AS IT'S PLAINLY WRITTEN, AS HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE. WE DON'T GET TO INVENT THE LAWS. WE DON'T GET TO CHANGE THE LAWS. WE READ THE LAW AND APPLIED IT. UM, AS ACKNOWLEDGED AND STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VESTING. WE RECOGNIZED RIGHTS. WE ALSO RECOGNIZED THE POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF SB EIGHT 40 BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR MERELY APPLIED THE LAW AS IT MUST BE APPLIED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TAKE NO ACTION. TODAY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT HAVE PURVIEW TO ADJUDICATE STATE LAW. THE, AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING, THE CHAIR READ THE BOARD'S POWERS, AND NOWHERE IN THAT LIST IS INCLUDED A JUDICIAL POSITION OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW. THIS IS A MATTER IF THERE IS A DISPUTE, IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN A COURT OF LAW. AND THAT'S STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. BRAGMAN. MS. BRAGMAN ORIAN, UH, MR. BRAGMAN DID MR. ORIAN, SO DID THEY APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AT ANY POINT? NO. NO. THANK YOU MR. ORIAN. YES. UM, I, I'M GOING TO READ SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THINK ABOUT AND ANSWER AT SOME POINT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE. AND I'M READING AN EXCERPT FROM, UH, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE RELATED TO VESTED RIGHTS, SPECIFICALLY, UH, SECTION 2 45 0.00 2D, WHERE IT SAYS, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER TO THE CONTRARY, A PERMIT HOLDER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RECORDED SUBDIVISION S RECORDED RESTRICTED COVENANTS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCY OR A CHANGE TO THE LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR ORDINANCES OF A REGULATORY AGENCY THAT ENHANCE OR PROTECT THE PROJECT WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS UNDER THIS CHAPTER. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE VESTED RIGHT RULES ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHANGES THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE PROJECT. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE STAFF TO AT SOME POINT COMMENT ABOUT THAT. I KNOW I'M JUST PUTTING THAT EXCERPT OUT THERE, BUT IF STAFF COULD PLEASE COMMENT AT THAT AT SOME POINT DURING THIS CASE, I'D APPRECIATE IT. JUST, I, I BELIEVE, AND WE'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WEIGH IN. I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU CONTINUE READING THAT SECTION, IT GOES ON TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OTHERWISE. AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OTHERWISE THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT STARTS ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAW. YEAH. NOT, NOT IN THE SECTION DI DIDN'T SEE THAT IN SECTION DI KNOW WHAT YOU, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, BUT I, I DIDN'T SEE, I WAS JUST READING SECTION D. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. ORIAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, I, HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE, UH, APPLICANT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET'S HEAR YOUR CASE PRESENTATION. KEN BROWN, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE 1365 OR 85. UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I'LL WAIT FOR THE, CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER? I'M SORRY. IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR YOUR BACK. YOU BET. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, WHAT DO I HIT TO MAKE IT MOVE? THIS ONE BLINK. ALRIGHT. UM, HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR LOGAN, AND I THINK VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING [00:20:01] HE SAID WAS TRUE. UM, I WILL GO OVER REAL QUICKLY, THE TIMELINE. UH, IN FEBRUARY OF TWO, UH, 1988, THE SEAL FAMILY, UH, SUBMITTED A-P-O-D-P, WHICH IS AN MDP, UH, TO THE CITY FOR 1,325 ACRES. UH, THEY'VE HAD THAT LAND IN THEIR FAMILY FOR, UH, ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS, UH, WITH CITY'S ANNEXATION AND 1604 COMING OUT. IN THAT WAY, THEY REALIZED THAT FARMING AND RANCHING WAS NOT GOING TO LAST VERY LONG. UM, I, I THINK LOGAN DESCRIBED VESTED RIGHTS OR GRANDFATHERING, AND IT, IT BASICALLY IS YOU GET TO LOCK IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR FIRST APPLICATION. SO THIS WAS OUR FIRST APPLICATION. UM, THERE'S COMMON LAW ABOUT, UH, VESTED RIGHTS, BUT THE FIRST STATUTE THAT WAS EVER ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE WAS ADOPTED IN 1987. IT'S NO COINCIDENCE THAT A-P-O-D-P WAS SUBMITTED IN 1988. UH, THERE WAS 1300 ACRES THAT WERE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. AND SO THEY SUBMITTED A-P-O-D-P, UH, AND KNOWING THAT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE, WELL, IT'S BEEN 35 YEARS, I'M BAD AT MATH. UH, PL I THINK CLOSE TO 40 YEARS, AND IT'S STILL NOT DONE YET. UH, AS LOGAN STATED, THERE'S ABOUT 180 ACRES LEFT. UH, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, UH, WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. UH, LOGAN DESCRIBED IT AS A CONSENT AGREEMENT. UH, AND THAT THAT AGREEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE REMAIN REMAINING 180 ACRES, I'M JUST GONNA SAY. AND THAT LOCKED IN THE RULES. UM, AND, AND IT HAD OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE CITY SIGNED IT, AND THE SEAL FAMILY SIGNED IT. UH, IT IS A BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. UH, IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THE, THE LEGISLATURE DID, UH, ADOPT SB EIGHT 40. AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, UH, IT MEANS THAT AND IS CODIFIED IN THE CITY'S CODE. IT MEANS THAT A DEVELOPER CAN DO MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH WASN'T ALLOWED BEFORE. UH, WE HAVE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING. SO IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL, YOU DO COMMERCIAL. MULTIFAMILY, MULTIFAMILY. THIS INCLUDED THOSE DISTRICTS. THIS ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY IN, IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. UM, SO WE WANTED TO KNOW THE IMPACT ON THE REMAINING BECAUSE THE 180 ACRES AS, AS, UH, LOGAN SUGGESTED, IT'S ALMOST ALL ZONE COMMERCIAL. OKAY? SO WE WANTED TO KNOW IF WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, WOULD WE MAINTAIN OUR VESTED RIGHTS? THAT, THAT WAS THE QUESTION. WE SUBMITTED IT TO THE CITY. UM, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PODP. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CROSS HATS. THAT'S THE 180 ACRES. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND IT'S ALL BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY PURPOSES, OR 95% OF IT HAS, THIS IS AN AERIAL SAME PROPERTY. THE 180 ACRES. EVERYTHING, IF YOU REMEMBER THE SHAPE OF THE DEAL ARE, ARE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SUBDIVISION. THERE'S ONE MULTIFAMILY, UH, FOR RENT, UH, TOWN HOME SORT OF PROJECT THAT'S UP ON HOUSEMAN NEAR 1604. UH, SO THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WE ADOPTED OR WE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY LAST YEAR, IT'S, IT'S ONLY FOR THE 180 ACRES. IT SET OUT THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'D HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. AND IT SAID THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A CHANGE IN THE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS. UNDER CHAPTER, CHAPTER 2 45, THAT IS THE STATE STATE CODE THAT SAYS THAT CODIFIES VESTING, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. IT SAYS, AND THERE IS NO OTHER LANGUAGE UNLESS IT SAYS SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT SAYS, THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CHANGES IN LAWS AND IT WOULD NOT FORFEIT OUR VESTED RIGHTS. UM, SO THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED IT, UH, AND CODIFIED IT INTO CHAPTER TWO 18 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THERE WERE NO AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 45. THERE WAS NO CROSS REFERENCE BETWEEN TWO 18 AND 2 45. CHAPTER 2 45 STANDS ALONE AS A VESTING STATUTE. THE CITY, AS THEY STATED, ADOPTED, UH, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 INTO THE CODE. UH, THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE PERMITTED USE TABLE. AND IT SAYS MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED IN OH 1 0 2. THEY WERE COMMERCIAL C ONE, C TWO, C3, UH, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. [00:25:01] WEIRD. UM, NOTE TO NOTE, ALSO, WHEN THEY CODIFIED IT, UH, THE CITY HAS A SECTION IN INVESTED RIGHTS. UH, IT'S SECTION 35 7 12. THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT TO THAT SECTION. THAT SECTION STANDS ALONE AS PROVIDING VESTED RIGHTS TO APPLICANTS THAT, THAT HAVE THE PERMIT AND HAVE, HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, IN OUR CASE, A, UH, CONSENT AGREEMENT. SO, UM, WE DID SUBMIT A, UM, APPLICATION FOR VESTED RIGHTS AND TO SIMPLIFY, AND, AND LOGAN SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, OUR PODP IS VALID. WE DO HAVE VESTED RIGHTS. OUR PROJECT AS DESCRIBED ON THAT PODP INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY, UH, AND, UH, UM, IT HADN'T LAPSED. IT, IT, UH, IT IS STILL AN ONGOING PROJECT. THOSE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE ASKED THEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE. UM, THEY ALSO SAID THAT IF WE WENT THROUGH A ZONING CASE TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY, WE WOULD MAINTAIN OUR VESTING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ONE. UM, SO OUR QUESTION THOUGH WAS IF WE UTILIZE EIGHT 40, UH, UNDER EITHER THE STATE STATUTE OR THE CODE NOW AND DEVELOP MULTI-FAMILY, DO WE MAINTAIN OUR VESTING UNDER, WHAT I'M GONNA SAY IS UNDER OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT? UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE FOCUS OF THE APPEAL. OKAY? THIS ISN'T A JOHN GRISHAM NOVEL. WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A SUPREME COURT BRIEF. I, I THINK IF WE HAVE, UH, IF WE CAN READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT OUR CONSENT SAYS, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR. UH, OUR QUESTION IS, UM, CAN WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW LAW AND NOT FORFEIT OUR VEST, OUR VESTED RIGHTS? THERE ARE THREE SECTIONS, THE LOW GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UDC AND OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT. AND EVERY ONE OF 'EM SAY THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHANGES IN LAWS WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS UNDER 2 45. IT'S, IT JUST, I DON'T THINK COULD BE ANY MORE CLEAR. UH, I'M NOT ASKING YOU, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET STATE LAW. I'M ASKING YOU TO HONOR THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, UH, THAT THE CITY, UH, EXECUTED AND THE, AND THE SEAL FAMILY ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY IN GOOD FAITH. UH, NOW I'LL GET BACK TO THE SEAL FAMILY. AND, AND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR 35 PLUS YEARS. THEY'VE HONORED EVERY AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE EVER, UH, ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY. THEY HAVE SPENT. AND THIS COMES FROM GENE DAWSON. 'CAUSE PAPE DAWSON HAS, UH, WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING IN 1988. THEY HAVE SPENT BETWEEN 80 AND $100 MILLION ON INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY HAVE EXTENDED WATER AND SEWER. THEY HAVE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY. THEY HAVE BUILT MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. UH, THEY HAVE GRANTED EASEMENTS FOR SAWS, CPS, UH, FOR WATER AND SEWER. UH, THIS IS AN ONGOING PROJECT. THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE HONORED THEIR COMMITMENTS. THEY HAVE HONORED THEIR, THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OBLIGATIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO TODAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DO. DOES THAT SAY WHAT IT SAYS? DOES IT SAY, IF I TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A NEW RULE, AM I ENTITLED I TO MY RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSENT AGREEMENT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THERE. THERE'S NOTHING UP OUR SLEEVE. THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING NUANCED ABOUT THIS. UH, WE DON'T NEED A SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, JUSTICE OR A CLERK TO DO, TO DO, UH, A BRIEF ON THIS. THAT'S IT. IT, IT, IT REALLY IS RIGHT THERE. UH, I, I'M NOT ASKING FOR INTENT. UH, I'M NOT ASKING WHAT THEY MEANT. ALTHOUGH I HAVE TALKED TO THE AUTHOR AND, AND THE SENATOR, AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. I'VE GOT A CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT TAKES PRECEDENT OVER THAT LAW. I HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT SAYS I CAN UTILIZE THAT AND NOT FORFEIT MY VESTED RIGHTS. UM, I DON'T WANT TO FORGET ANYTHING. BUT, UM, WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO FOLLOW THE AGREEMENT AND, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THEY, THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOUND BY, YOU KNOW, TO ADHERE TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. UH, AS THEY SAID, [00:30:01] IF THE INTENT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT IT IN THE RULE. WELL, IF THE INTENT WAS TO CHANGE CHAPTER 2 45, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THAT ALSO. AND THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT WHEN THEY AMEND THE UDC, IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE EITHER. IT, IT'S IN THE BILL, BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. UH, AND IT'S CLEAR IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT WE, WE HAVE ALL AGREED, UM, THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS IF THEY BENEFIT OUR PROJECT. UH, YOU KNOW, THIS LAST PART'S GONNA SOUND A LITTLE PARANOID, UH, BUT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. UH, AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ME LAST TIME, I DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN, BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME LAST TIME WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WENT IN THERE AND SAID, THE SKY'S FALLING. YOU'RE OPENING US UP TO ALL KINDS OF LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. UH, I NEED YOU TO GO BACK OUT THERE AND VOTE AND DO IT. ASK ANY QUESTIONS. I, I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. UH, I, I AM HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I, I, THE, I HAVE REPRESENTED THE SEALS ALL THREE GENERATIONS. UM, THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD A BINDING AGREEMENT. UH, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE SHOCKED IF, IF THEY, THEY DON'T, UH, BASED UPON THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION. UH, BUT I I, I THINK AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY DESERVE THEIR DAY IN COURT. MM-HMM . AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, I WOULD, I WOULD SINCERELY APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, MR. BROWNS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, LET'S SEE. FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY BUDDY SIGNED UP FOR, UH, COMMUNITY, UH, COMMUNITY SPEECH, OR, YEP. WE HAVE, UH, THREE VOICEMAILS AND TWO SPEAKERS. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR THOSE AND THEN WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. HI, I AM SORRY. MY NAME IS AHMED AND MY HOUSE ADDRESS IS 8 0 0 7 EAGLE PEAK, , TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT ZERO TWO THREE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 421-1195. I'M CALLING YOU REGARDING THE REZONING OF THE LAND CASE NUMBER, UH, ENDING IN 2 7 4. UH, THE REZONING WILL IMPACT THE VALUE OF MY HOUSE, THE TRAFFIC, THE PRIVACY OF MY BACKYARD. BASICALLY, MY HOUSE WOULD BE PULLED, UH, TO ANY APARTMENTS, UH, ESPECIALLY TWO A THREE STORY APARTMENTS BEFORE, UH, BUILT. THE TRAFFIC IS GONNA IMPACT, LIKE I SAID, AND IT WOULD ALSO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ASSURANCE OF ANY BUFFERING OR ANY SPECIAL DESIGNS OR THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT'S GONNA BE PUT ON, ON THE, UH, ON THIS, UH, PIECE OF PLAN. UH, MY ONE, AGAIN, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 4 2 1 11 95. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS AMERICA AB. MY HOUSE ADDRESS IS 8 0 0 7 EAGLE PEAK. HELLO IS TEXAS. OF COURSE, MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO ONE ZERO SEVEN TWO FIVE SIX THREE SEVEN. I AM CALLING IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING IN CASE BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 4 FOR ITS IMPACT ON MY HOUSE. VALUE MY PRIVACY SINCE MY BACKYARD WILL BE FULLY EXPOSED TO THE APARTMENT, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IT WILL CAUSE. AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ASSURANCE OF ANY BUFFER OR DUE RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU. FIRST SPEAKER. UM, YOU HAVE FATIMA FAUSTO. I'M SORRY, ONE MORE VOICEMAIL. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS MIKE MORLINO. MY ADDRESS IS 8 7 3 4 REDWOOD BEND IN VELOTI. I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO AGENDA ITEM BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 4. THE APPLICANT BROWN AND MCDONALD, PLLT, ON BEHALF OF H KYLE SEAL PROPERTY LIMITED, SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY. THIS REQUEST VIOLATES THE TERMS OF SB EIGHT 40. THIS COMMUNITY ALREADY HAS TOO MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES. BUILDING ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON PALEO PARKWAY AND THE LUBE SIX FOUR SERVICE ROAD OVERCROWD OUR SCHOOLS AND PLACE ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON WATER PRESSURE, SEWER CAPACITY, AND ELECTRIC SERVICE. THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONING IS [00:35:01] WELCOME. ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE IS NOT. THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, FIRST SPEAKER, UH, FATIMA . GOOD AFTERNOON. I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN A DIFFERENT, UH, NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION TO BE MORE, INSTEAD OF BEING MORE INVOLVED IN CITY MATTERS. UH, UM, I'M HERE FOR THIS ITEM. UM, LITTLE SPLIT, UH, MY HOUSEHOLD. AND REAL QUICK, MA'AM, PLEASE SAY YOUR, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE FOR THE RECORD? OH, FATIMA. THANK YOU. YEAH. UM, ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR ADDRESS WOULD AGREE? 1 3 8 1 2 RIVER BANK PASS, HELO 7 8 0 2 3. THANK YOU. YEAH. UM, UM, WE'RE SPLITTING MY HOUSEHOLD. I WOULDN'T MIND MORE MULTI-USE FAMILY. UM, MY SIGNIFICANT OTHER IS MORE WE SHOULD JUST STICK WITH COMMERCIAL, UM, PERSONALLY, SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY FOR OR AGAINST, UM, BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES, UH, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST STICK WITH COMMERCIAL. UM, THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY GETTING REALLY BAD NOWADAYS ON, ON THE, UH, OFF RAMP ON 1604. UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN. I LITERALLY JUST SAW A CHILD PLAYING SOCCER ON THE SIDEWALK ON HOUSEMAN. UM, BUT I WOULD ALSO KIND OF PREFER PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF COMMERCIAL, PERHAPS A REZONING TO, I DON'T KNOW, PARKS. I HATE HAVING TO CROSS THE HIGHWAY FOR A PARK NOWADAYS. I HATE NOT HAVING, UH, PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THAT AREA. UM, I THINK MY FELLOW HOMEOWNERS WOULD DISAGREE ON THAT AS WELL, UM, GIVEN THEIR PREVIOUS COMMENTS. BUT, UM, I GUESS WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES OR THE DIRECTOR DECIDES, I MEAN, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES, ESSENTIALLY. THANKS. THANK YOU. THANKS. NEXT WE HAVE, UH, EY, UM, B YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. YES, SIR. IT'S CY BIWA. I LIVE AT 84 10 FEATHER TRAIL, UH, WITH DIRECT EXPOSURE TO THE, WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THIS, THIS PROPERTY. UM, YOU KNOW, PRIVACY'S GONNA BE AN ISSUE FOR SURE, UH, WITH A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, CONCEPT. UM, I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER COMMERCIAL OR, YOU KNOW, THE PARK THINGS SOUND GREAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S NOT REALLY IN THE CARDS LOOKS LIKE, BUT, UM, I, TRAFFIC IS GONNA BE A PROBLEM. I AGREE WITH THAT. UM, IT'S BEEN CONGESTED FOR A WHILE. UM, ANYWAYS, UM, BUT YEAH, AND THE VALUE OF MY HOME, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE, I'M DIRECTLY IMPACTED, WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE, TO THE RANCH. SO, I MEAN, ENJOYED THE RANCH FOR A LONG TIME. BUT, UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I'VE GOT. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. THAT TIME, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALRIGHT, AT THIS POINT I'D ASK, UH, I GUESS THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND WE CAN SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOR YOU FROM THE BOARD. YEP. MS. BRAGMAN. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. UM, SO MY QUESTION IS, IF, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE SEALS IF THIS APPEAL IS NOT APPROVED? IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT USES ZONES ON THIS PROPERTY, IT, DOES IT BECOME LESS VIABLE IN LIKE A COMMERCIAL CONTEXT BECAUSE OF THE, THE DIFFERENT ZONING? WHAT, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS APPEAL IS NOT APPROVED? UM, SO, AND I, LOGAN, I, I BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE. SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE 100 ACRES IS ZONE COMMERCIAL. OKAY? UH, IN LOOK, IN DOING A LAND PLAN FOR THAT AREA, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ABOUT A HUNDRED OF THOSE ACRES THAT WILL BE, WILL BE COMMERCIAL. IT'S RIGHT ON 6 16 0 4. IT IT'LL BE COMMERCIAL. THAT THAT'S WHAT IT, IT'LL BE. OKAY. WE THINK ABOUT 35 OF THE ACRES WILL BE MULTIFAMILY. OKAY? SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE COMMERCIAL IS NOT, UH, UNDER DISPUTE TODAY. IF WE DEVELOP THAT A HUNDRED ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, IT WILL BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. OKAY? SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE 30 TO 35 ACRES OF WHAT MIGHT BE MULTIFAMILY. OKAY? UH, AND, AND REALLY THE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF, IF WE WANNA DO MULTIFAMILY, UH, IT'S, WE'RE GONNA DO IT. WHETHER THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S VESTED OR NOT. OKAY? SO, UH, BECAUSE AS THEY'VE STATED, WE CAN UTILIZE IT. UH, WE JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT TODAY. ALRIGHT? WHICH IS IN CONTRADICTION OF OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT. OKAY? SO I KNEW YOU GUYS WERE GONNA BE PRAGMATIC [00:40:01] . SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, IF YOU DENY IT, WE'LL GO ALONG OUR MERRY WAY. A HUNDRED ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL WITH VESTING. THE 35 TO 40 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A MULTIFAMILY, I BELIEVE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE WOULD, IF WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS, UH, AS CODIFIED, IF WE USE COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL UNDER THE CODE, WE CAN GO UP TO 65 UNITS ACRE. I'M GETTING TO YOUR ANSWER, I'M SORRY. IT'S A LITTLE DRAWN OUT. UH, NOBODY'S GONNA DO 65 UNITS PER ACRE OUT IN THAT AREA. I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST, I'M HORRIBLE AT MATH. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO THE MATH, UH, WITH VESTING, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO A, A MULTIFAMILY AT ABOUT 25, 26, 27 UNITS PER ACRE WITHOUT VESTING, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO IT AROUND 33. SO THE DIFFERENCE IS WHATEVER, 35. ARE YOU DOING THIS? NO, I'M NOT. I'M JUST, IS ANYONE IN MY MIND THINKING OF IT? , IT, IT'S, UM, WELL I'M GONNA THROW OUT A NUMBER IF NO ONE'S GONNA DO IT, BUT IT, IT'S, IT, IT IS PROBABLY WILL INCREASE THE DENSITY BY ABOUT THREE OR 400 UNITS, UH, TOTAL OVER, OVER THAT. UH, BUT IT STILL GETS BUILT. UM, THE, THE TREES, UH, WE WOULD PROBABLY DEAL WITH IN A, IN A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A LOT OF FLOOD PLAIN, AND SO WE WOULD PROBABLY DEAL WITH TREES THROUGH A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. AND, UH, IT WOULDN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. I MEAN, I, I, I'M SURE MY CLIENT IS SCRATCHING HIS HEAD RIGHT NOW. UH, WHAT IT WOULD CHANGE IS THAT WE HONORED EVERY ONE OF OUR, OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER EVERY AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD. AND WE FEEL LIKE THE CITY'S NOT NOT DOING THAT. AND WE DON'T SEE WHY. THANK YOU, MR. MORGAN AND I AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE. I, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION 'CAUSE IT WAS A VESTED RIGHTS DEAL. I I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET STATE LAW. I'M ASKING YOU TO DIRECT STAFF BECAUSE THEY MADE A DETERMINATION TO HONOR THE AGREEMENT THEY ENTERED INTO. SO, SO, MR. BROWN, MR. NU YES MA'AM. MS I THINK MS. UH, DONALD HAD FIRST, AND THEN MR. NU UM, I HAVE ALL DAY. OKAY, SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, UH, THERE'S TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, UM, THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE, THERE'S ANOTHER SUBSECTION G, WHERE IN 2005 WHEN THE LEGISLATOR MADE SOME CHANGES, THEY DID SAY IN THERE THAT THAT, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING, UH, UH, THIS A SECTION 2 45 DOUBLE ZERO TWO, THE CHANGE IN LAW MADE TO SECTION A AND THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS APPLY ONLY TO A PROJECT COMMENCE ON OR AFTER A CERTAIN DATE. SO THERE, THERE'S ALREADY LIKE A, IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THEY'VE ADJUST, MADE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE. AND THEY, AND THEY, AND THEY CODIFIED WHAT THEY WANTED YOU TO DO ABOUT IT. SO WHEN THE STATE PASSED THIS LAW AND THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE, THAT KIND OF GEARS ME IN ONE DIRECTION OF WHAT THEIR INTENT IS. UH, THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IF THE VEST, IF, IF HE MOVES FORWARD WITH, WITH DOING THE SB, WOULDN'T HE ALSO BE ALLOWED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF THE VESTED RIGHTS? 'CAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE APPELLATE BOARD FOR THAT A POINT THAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP. IT JUST SEEMED KIND OF LIKE, THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF NEW GROUND FOR US, BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING. ALRIGHT, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. AS I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT? TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I THIS, SO WHAT SAFS ARE GONNA SAY IS THEY APPROVED OUR CONSENT, OUR, OUR VEST RIGHTS DEAL, BUT THEY APPROVED IT SAYING THAT IF I UTILIZE THE NEW LAW, I, I DON'T HAVE VESTING ANYMORE. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT SAYS. CHAIR, UH, MR. IMAN, UM, MR. BROWN, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YES MA'AM. UH, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE OF YOU USING KEEPING YOUR VESTED RIGHTS YES MA'AM. USING THE NEW LAW. AND, UH, CITY IS SAYING THAT ACCORDING TO, UH, THE NEW CODE BY THE STATE, UH, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT YET, YOU'RE SHOWING US INFORMATION, UH, THAT YOU SAID THAT THERE'S NO WORDING SAYING THAT YOU LOSE YOUR, YOUR VEST RIGHTS. YEAH. YES. YES MA'AM. OKAY. I, THAT IS THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. THAT IS THE AGREEMENT THAT THE CAST SEAL FAMILY HAS WITH THE [00:45:01] CITY. YES, MA'AM. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE, UM, YOU SAID AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, NOT THE VENUE, THAT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OF THE CASE. UM, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE, WELL, ACTUALLY THEY'RE SAYING IT TOO. I CHAIR. UM, AT, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, WE CONVENE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THERE ARE SOME, SOME CONCERNS, SOME ATTORNEY CLIENT CONCERNS WE WOULD, UH, DISCUSS. THIS IS WHERE MY PLANS GET PULLED IN. ALRIGHT, UH, THE TIME IS 1 48, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, COM, UH, ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5 51, UH, 0 7 1. A TEXAS GOVERNMENT COACH SHALL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF A CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION OF THE EAGLE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED, UH, TO THE, UH, CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 3 0 2 74. AFTER SUCH A DELIBERATION, THE COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. AND IF, IF I MAY, FOR THOSE THAT ARE JOINED VIRTUALLY, UH, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU LEAVE THE WEBEX MEETING AND YOU WILL RECEIVE A PHONE CALL SO THAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION. DO WE, DO WE LOG OFF OR DO, DO WE, CAN WE JUST KEEP IT ON AND JUST ANSWER THE PHONE OR? I, I WOULD LOG OFF AND THEN REJOIN WHEN YOU, UH, COME TO LEAVE THE EXEC SESSION REAL QUICK. UM, WE'D HAVE THE NUMBER AND THE ACCESS CODE THAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED ON THE CHAT. SO YOU GUYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO JOIN, UM, ON THE PHONE. UH, HOLD ON, LET ME WRITE THIS DOWN. NUMBER ABOVE NUMBER CODE DIAL. ALRIGHT, THE TIME IS NOW, UH, 3 0 4. ON JANUARY 12TH, 2026, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS POINT. UM, WE'VE, WE HEARD TESTIMONY FOR THE APPLICANT. WE HEARD, UH, TESTIMONY, UH, FROM THE CITY. UM, WE CLO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION WITH, UH, WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INVOICES TO BE HEARD. AND I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION ORIAN MR. ORIAN. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH HUNDRED 3 0 0 2 7 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOUSING ROAD AND WEST LOOP 1604, APPLICANT BEING BROWN AND MCDONALD, PLLC, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING US, UH, AT SECTION 35 THROUGH 12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AS PASSED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND, MS. BRAMAN. MR. ORIAN. YEAH, SO, YEAH, SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, I THINK THAT, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE USE OF CERTAIN TERMS AND HOW THEY'RE APPLIED BY CERTAIN CODES, WHETHER THEY BE A STATE CODE OR A CITY CODE, JUST, UH, OCCASIONALLY THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT. AND THIS STUFF'S SO NEW, BUT I THINK THE INTENT WAS FOR, FOR THEM TO, TO, UH, TO, TO NOT OVERRIDE EACH OTHER. AND SECONDLY, UM, BECAUSE VESTED RIGHTS DOESN'T GET INTO USE, IT GETS INTO THINGS LIKE TREE ORDINANCE AND, AND MINUSCULE KIND OF STUFF THERE. I THINK THEY STAND SEPARATELY AND I, I DON'T, UH, TAKE ISSUE WITH IT. SO I'LL MEANS MS. BRAGMAN, UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, UM, THE ADMIN, THE, UM, CITY MADE AN ERROR IN, UM, THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE. SO, UH, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENT. ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN, UH, I, UH, AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL. YES. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER REED? NO. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER RE BONIS? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? NO. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, MR. QUEZ? CAN'T HEAR YOU. COULD YOU GIVE US, WHAT WAS THE VOTE? VICE CHAIR? ZINA? I'M, I WOULD VOTE FOR, YEAH, SO, UH, WITH, UH, SEVEN AGAINST AND THREE FOUR, THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. [00:50:01] UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN, UH, EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT THE REMEDIES HERE WOULD BE. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. AND, UM, REAL QUICK IF I CAN READ OFF THE TWO CONTINUANCES. UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE, BO 8 25 DASH 3 2 3. REQUEST BY ROB MCLEAN FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL STR TYPE TWO ON BLOCK FACE, UH, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE. AND ALSO DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY VO UH, VOICEMAILS OR ANY PUBLIC RECORD TO BE READ IN ON THOSE IN THAT CASE? NOT FOR THAT ONE. OKAY. ALSO, AND ALSO BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 3. OR, I'M SORRY, WHICH ITEM NUMBER? THAT'S ITEM THREE. UM, THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. THE OTHER ONE HAS ONE VOICEMAIL THAT WE NEED TO PLAY. UM, THREE. SECOND ONE IS BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 7 REQUEST BY RICARDO NAVARRO FOR A VARIANCE FOR RRN FOUR DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON EACH LOT ON 3 0 5, 3 0 7. 3 0 9 PORTER STREET STAFF. RECOMMENDED DENIAL. AND WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL ON THAT ONE. UM, THAT'S FOR ITEM NUMBER 13. THE CASE NUMBER THAT I'M CALLING IS LAST THREE DIGIT IS 2 6 7. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S 2 6 7 AND I RECEIVED A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT I HAVE TO LEAVE A VOICEMAIL, UH, BEFORE 10:00 AM TODAY JANUARY 12TH, 2026. I'M CALLING TO BOTH IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED, IF IT IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, THERE'S ALREADY APARTMENT COMPLEX VERY CLOSE BY. BUT IF IT IS A CONDOMINIUM THAT ARE SIMILAR TO BEING BUILT OR THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ON THE SAME STREET NEXT TO THE, THESE THREE PROPERTIES, I AM IN FAVOR, IT WOULD DEFINITELY, UM, UH, BRING A LOT OF, UH, REJUVENATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY, UH, NAME IS PSAD. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 201-7077. THANK YOU. READ OFF ONE MORE. THAT IS A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE WITH A VOICEMAILS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 9. REQUEST BY JK AND FRANCE GUIDANCE LLC FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPEAL FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL LOCATED 82 0 1 MIDDLE POST. UM, AND THAT ONE IS ONE VOICEMAIL ITEM NUMBER FOUR. YES. I'M CALLING ABOUT PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING. UH, CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 9. IT'S ABOUT REVOKING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY ON 82 0 1 MEADOW POST. I'M THE PRO, MY NAME IS ERNEST GUTA AND I LIVE ON 82 0 2 MEADOW POST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT. AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM, UH, DOING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT. THEY'VE BEEN DOING AIRBNB ALL SUMMER LONG. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I ALREADY CHECKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THEM. WELL NEXT DOOR TO THEM. AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER. THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA CALL ALSO. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THEIR, UH, RISK AGREEMENT AS IS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT. AGAIN, MY NAME IS ERNEST URA. I LIVE IN 82 0 2, MIDDLE POST ACROSS FROM 82 0 1. MIDDLE POST. WE'LL DO ONE SEPARATE ONE, BUT WE'LL DO THAT ONE SEPARATE SINCE THERE'S TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ONE. OKAY. CAN WE GET A, JUST A VOICE? UH, WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. FIRST MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OR? YEP. MS. MAKE A MOTION. THESE ARE BOTH TWO WEEKS. I MEAN, ALL OF THEM TWO WEEKS. ALL TWO WEEKS. SO THAT WOULD BE, WHAT'S THE DATE? THE 26TH? JANUARY 26TH. 20. OKAY. I MOVE THAT, UH, WE CONTINUE. CASE BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 3 TO, UH, JANUARY 26TH. HAVE A SECOND. SECOND CALL A FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. SO MOVE. AYE. DO THE NEXT ONE. WAIT, WHAT WAS THE CASE NUMBER THEY JUST DID ON NUMBER THREE? 2 3 3. I THOUGHT SHE SAID ENDING IN TWO. THREE THREE. DID I HEAR THAT? OH, THERE IT IS. IT IS 2, 3 3. IT'S CASE. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. I, I THE VOICEMAIL SAID 2 6 9. THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING. NO, THAT THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE. UM, OKAY. A MOVE THAT WE [00:55:01] CONTINUE CA CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 6 9 TO JANUARY 26. WAIT A SECOND. ALL ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. SO MOVED. WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT ONE? STEVENS. STEVENS. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 67, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONTINUED TO JANUARY 26TH. HAVE A SECOND. I SECOND. SECOND. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE LAST CONTINUANCE, UH, THIS ONE HAS TWO SPEAKERS. UM, IT'S BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 1 REQUEST BY HEADMAN GARRA FOR, UH, SQUARE FOOT VARI FROM THE MAXIMUM 2,500 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 11 0 0 0 2 VANCE JACKSON ROAD. AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE. AND WE DO HAVE TWO SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR THIS ONE. FIRST ONE IS TAMMY SLATER. OKAY. UH, MR. MIKE SLATER, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SLATER. HEAR A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, RIGHT? GO. MICHAEL SLATER, I RESIDE 11 0 6 VANCE JACKSON. AHA. WE GOT THAT. 11 0 0 6 VANCE JACKSON, WHICH IS DIRECTLY WESTERN NORTH OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I CERTAINLY AM NOT GONNA TAKE SIX MINUTES. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO, UH, PASS A BIG THANK YOU TO MS. PALUS FOR HER COMMUNICATION WITH ME. I, I, I'M NEW AT THIS AND SHE WAS JUST EXCELLENT IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS, GIVING ME THE PROCEDURES AND WHATEVER. THAT BEING SAID, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE AGAINST, UH, MR. GARZA BUILDING AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY. UM, WE'RE ALSO OPPOSED ANY CONTINUANCE ON THIS. UM, THE REASON BEING, UH, BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE THIRTIES. MINE HAS TWO ACRES. THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR THAT MR. GARZAS HAS, UH, ONE ACRE THAT PROPERTY'S BEEN VACANT FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS. THE ORIGINAL OWNER PASSED AWAY FOR THE LAST YEAR. I BELIEVE MR. GARZA BOUGHT IT IN 24, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. UM, AND FOR THE PAST YEAR, THAT VACANT AREA WHERE THE GARAGE IS TO BE BUILT HAS BEEN FULL OF LANDSCAPE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AND EQUIPMENT AND CREWS. AND IT'S USED, IT WAS SOME COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE COMPANY THAT WAS USING IT THAT I BELIEVE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MR. GARZA. SECONDLY, THE SIZE OF THIS THING IS 8,200 PLUS SQUARE FEET. IT'S 60. IT HAS A 60 BY 90, WHICH IS 5,400 SQUARE FEET WORKSHOP, AND IT SHOWS STORAGE FOR, UH, LOOKS LIKE A 40 FOOT SUV AND A BOAT AND OTHER STUFF. UH, THE PLAN ALSO SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS. UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT AREA OF VANCE JACKSON, JUST WEST OF WBA, THAT AREA IS IN A DIP. AND, UH, IT ALSO SERVICES ST. MATTHEWS CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND FIRE STATION NUMBER 37. SO, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS PROPERTY GONNA BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING OR IS IT GONNA BE A ST AN 8,000 FOOT STORAGE UNIT? UH, SO THE USE IS A CONCERN. UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT ANSWERED TODAY IF POSSIBLE. UM, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FOR THE SCHOOL, SCHOOL AND THE FIRE STATION, THE DRIVEWAY. AND LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? WHAT'D YOU SAY, TAMMY? AND WE HAVE CHILDREN WITH OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR THAT ARE, THAT ARE THERE. SO THOSE ARE OUR CONCERNS. IT IT'S PRIMARILY THE SIZE. YOU KNOW, MY GARAGE IS, IS 20 BY 24, WHICH IS 480 SQUARE FEET, AND I HAVE TWO FULL SIZED TRUCKS IN IT. MM-HMM . THIS GARAGE IS 8,000 SQUARE FEET. IT'S BIGGER THAN BOTH OUR HOUSES IN BOTH OUR GARAGES COMBINED. SO THAT IS OUR PRIMARY, UH, [01:00:01] CONCERN. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NO. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHTYY, WE'RE SEEKING A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A CONTINUANCE FOR CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 2 61 TO JANUARY 26 OF A SECOND OF SECOND. MS. STEVENS, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. SO MOVED. NO. OKAY. ONE OPPOSED? YEP. SO MOVED. YEP. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. I, IS THAT OKAY? WE'RE HAVING OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY HERE, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. UH, THE SECOND CASE, UH, THAT I'M PRESENTING TODAY, APPLICATION ENDING IN 2 7 5 IS MATERIALLY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ITEM THAT YOU JUST CONSIDERED. UH, SIMILARLY, UH, THERE IS, UH, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION FOR VESTED RIGHTS THAT APPLICATION SOUGHT, UH, FOR STAFF TO CLARIFY IF THE PROPERTY HAD VESTED RIGHTS AND IF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 APPLIES SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE, UH, STAFF ISSUED A LETTER THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT RIGHTS DO EXIST. THE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE RIGHTS EXIST EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONSENT AGREEMENT. THAT WAS NOT A NECESSARY STEP FOR CITY AND THE DEVELOPER TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHTS ARE APPLICABLE. UM, THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UH, ALSO SIMILARLY HAS A COUPLE DIFFERENT ZONES. C 1 2 3, ALSO IN THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT. CAN WE DO THE NEXT SLIDE? UH, WE MAILED 83 NOTICES NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. SEVEN IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED NO FORMAL RESPONSES FROM THE ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OR THE VILLAGE AT ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. UH, AGAIN, UH, PERTINENT TO THIS CASE IS THE PRESENCE OF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AND ITS PASSING IN THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. UH, IT WAS A MANDATE KINDA REITERATE THAT, AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW. THE UDC AMENDMENTS WERE CODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT REQUIREMENT FROM STATE LAW. UH, ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2025, CITY STAFF ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER, UH, THAT SAID THAT YOU HAVE VESTED RIGHTS THAT DATE THE PROJECT BACK TO NOVEMBER 13TH, 1984. THAT WAS THE UNDERLYING PERMIT DATE, THE P-O-A-D-P. BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN ONLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 FOR PROJECTS THAT START ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER ONE, UH, 2025. WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE IN PLAY. A PROJECT CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY START IN 1984 AND 2025. UH, AND THAT IS WHAT HAS LANDED US BEFORE Y'ALL TODAY. UM, THE ASSERTIONS, BY AND LARGE, REMAIN THE SAME. UH, THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE PROVIDED A CHOICE. YOU CAN CHOOSE VESTED RIGHTS OR SB EIGHT 40, BUT NOT BOTH. UM, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE, UH, INTENTIONS OF THE BILL'S AUTHOR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY CODIFIED, NOT THE UNWRITTEN INTENT OF THE BILL. AND SIMILARLY, YOU ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE IF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MADE THE CORRECT DECISION OR MADE AN ERROR IN ITS LETTER APPROVING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VESTED RIGHTS AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SB EIGHT 40 MAY BE, UH, UTILIZED BUT NOT BOTH. ACTUALLY, THE FULL REPORT IS INCLUDED FOR THE RECORD, BUT I WANNA RESPECT EVERYONE'S TIME AS WELL. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. HEARING NONE, I ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY. MY NAME IS KEN BROWN. [01:05:01] SPANISH INTERPRETER, UH, ENGLISH TO SPANISH? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE OFFER. GOTCHA. UM, SUITE 1385. UM, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10. UM, THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY UNFAIR NOT TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND AFTER THE DEAL, SO I'M GLAD I HAVE THIS SECOND, UH, OPTION. SO, UH, GOING OVER THE TIMELINE, UH, AS WITH THE LAST CASE, WE, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1984, UH, FOR 1,849 ACRES, UH, WE SUBMITTED A VESTED RIGHTS, A APPLICATION FOR 39.48 ACRES. ORIGINAL AMOUNT, UH, FOUR EIGHT ACRES. CITY CONFIRMED THOSE RIGHTS. UH, WE APPEALED, UH, THE CITY'S, UH, CONFIRMATION. OUR QUESTION WAS, DO WE STILL HAVE RIGHTS IF WE USE, UH, EIGHT 40? UH, LIKE THE FIRST CASE, UM, WE HAD A-P-O-D-P, UH, FOR 1800 ACRES, 18 POINT, EXCUSE ME, 1800 ACRES. UM, THIS IS WHAT THE AREA LOOKS LIKE TODAY. 95% SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, MUCH LIKE THE FIRST CASE, THE DEVELOPER OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY AND, UH, MADE ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 WAS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND WAS CODIFIED IN THE UDC. UH, AND WHAT THAT DID WAS ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ZONING BASED DISTRICTS. UH, ONCE AGAIN, WE SUBMITTED, UH, A REQUEST TO VERIFY OUR RIGHTS. IN PARTICULAR, OUR QUESTION WAS, IF WE USE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, DO WE STILL HAVE VESTED RIGHTS? THAT SOUNDED GOOD, DIDN'T IT? UM, THE CITY RESPONDED THAT WE HAD RIGHTS, BUT, UH, RIGHT TO DO MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE WOULD FORFEIT OUR VESTED RIGHTS. UM, I WOULD GO OVER THE PROVISIONS IN THE LAW, BUT THEY'RE MEANINGLESS. EVIDENTLY, THE STATE AND CITY LAW SAYS WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHOUT FORFEITING OUR VESTED RIGHTS, BUT WORDS HAVE NO MEANING CLEARLY. [01:10:01] I WISHED I COULD HAVE TAKEN MORE TIME, UH, BUT THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. SO IF WE HAVE EV, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, I I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT. PLEASE. UM, I VOTED AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE DATE OF THE LAW OF THE 8 0 4 SAYING THAT THE PROJECT HAD TO BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. THAT'S WHY I VOTED FOR IT. UM, I FELT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO STILL DO THEIR PROJECT. UH, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE OF SAYING YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHICH ONE YOU WANNA USE FOR THOSE 35 ACRES, UM, VESTED RIGHTS OR THE, UM, THE NEW CODE. UM, AND SO I, THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT, 'CAUSE OF THIS SPECIFIC DATE THAT'S ON THE CODE. THANK YOU, MR. BANES. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. BROWN? YES. YES, PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. I AGREE WITH THAT. ALSO, I JUST AGREE, I JUST BELIEVE THAT THE STATE STATUTE, THE 2 45 SUPERSEDES THAT, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. BON EZ FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING THE VESTED RIGHTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I HAVE TWO ANSWERS. ONE, WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HONORING A CONTRACT? AND YOU HAVE CHAOS IF, IF PEOPLE DON'T ABIDE BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ON WHY? THE WHAT, WHAT BENEFITS THE APPLICANT BY USING THE VESTED RIGHTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IN THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA USE? WHAT, WHAT PARTS OF THE VESTED RIGHTS ARE GONNA BE APPLIED IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE? THANK YOU. UH, TWO VERY IMPORTANT, UH, WHICH WON'T BE POPULAR, BUT, AND I GET BACK TO THE CONTRACT. NUMBER ONE, IF I DO MULTIFAMILY, UM, WHICH IS ALLOWED, UM, I WOULD HAVE A CATEGORY, ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY, MEANING I WOULD HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER AS OPPOSED TO 50. UH, AND NUMBER TWO, I WOULD BE UNDER THE 1997 TREE ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF THE 2010. BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS COULD BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. SO, SORRY. YES, MA'AM. AND IF I COULD FINISH, RENTS ARE ONLY WHAT RENTS WHAT YOU CAN GET. OKAY. SO IF THE COST IS MORE AND THE RENTS STAY THE SAME, THEN I EITHER INCREASE DENSITY OR I DE QUALITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BONIA. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, I HAVE, I WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT HIS THOUGHT ON SOMETHING VESTED RIGHTS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HAVE. TRUE OR NOT TRUE? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I, I HAVE VESTED RIGHTS. SO, SO WHETHER YOU APPLIED FOR VESTED RIGHTS OR NOT, YOUR SITE IS PART OF AN MVP PROJECT, SO SHOULDN'T THE CITY, [01:15:01] HOW CAN THEY EVEN OFFER YOU TO, TO GIVE YOU VESTED RIGHTS IF IT'S, THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU ANYTHING, THEY'RE JUST ACKNOWLEDGING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HAVE. SO WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF THAT IN THE, IN THE DISCUSSION. I'M SURPRISED THEY'RE EVEN LETTING YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO COMPLY WITH EIGHT 40. 'CAUSE I, I MEAN, IN THEORY, ANYBODY WHO'S PART OF AN MVP PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO IN VOGUE EIGHT 40 ANYWAY. AND I'M WONDERING WHY THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN ANYBODY'S DISCUSSION. VESTED RIGHTS ARE, ARE A STATUTORY RIGHT AND CODIFIED. RIGHT. AND THE PROCESS OF ACKNOWLEDGING 'EM THROUGH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VEST RIGHTS PERMIT, UM, PUTS THE DEVELOPER IN A BAD SITUATION. I, THE, THERE'S ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS AND THEY'RE ALSO THE JUDGE AND THE JURY AS TO WHETHER I CAN U HOW I CAN USE THEM. IS IT IF YOU, UH, WHAT ANOTHER QUESTION IS, IF YOU, IF YOU DECIDE TO, TO INVOKE EIGHT 40, ARE YOU GONNA APPEAL THE VESTED RIGHTS DENIAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IT'S NOT A DENIAL. SO THAT'S NOT APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THAT IS THE CONUNDRUM I'M IN. I THE CODE SAYS ANY DENIAL OF VESTED RIGHTS IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I CAN'T GET THERE. I'M HERE STAFF. I JUST WONDER, STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED THE VESTED RIGHTS SO YOU COULD APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF VESTED RIGHTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO APPROVE OR APPEAL THE APPROVAL. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT I DID. I APPEALED YOUR APPROVAL AND YOU SENT ME HERE, I SENT YOU THE CAPTION THAT SAYS, AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO RECOGNIZE VESTED RIGHTS. AND YOU SAID THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANTED. YOU WANTED TO APPEAL WHAT YOU CALLED A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. WE DIDN'T CONDITIONALLY APPROVE IT. WE ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS AND READ THE LAW. SO THEY'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO, TO APPEAL AN APPROVAL TO THE, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I SAID NO. DOES IT , I'M LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE HERE. I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WHERE THE, EVEN THE, THE PURVIEW FOR US TO REVIEW IT IS UNDER QUESTION? OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN POSSIBLY LOOK AT A CONTINUANCE SO THEY CAN KIND OF WORK SOMETHING OUT OR LOOKING FOR STAFF FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE? UH, THERE I'M ASKING THE, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION OF STATE CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE REQUESTED AND PEOPLE CAN'T ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. DON'T YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR A, YOU KNOW, A, UH, A STATE LEGISLATOR OR SOMETHING. I MEAN, IS DOES THIS APPLICANT EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET A FORMAL INTERPRETATION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON, ON THIS THING AT ALL? NO. NO. UH, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY HAS TO ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AN OPINION. I MEAN, SHOULDN'T, I MEAN, SHOULDN'T AT, AT A MINIMUM THE, I MEAN, IF THE CITY'S THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT PROCESS TAKES, BUT I, I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE PERSONALLY. BUT, UH, YEAH, THE, WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND A CONTINUOUS. THE THE QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD. OKAY. SO I WOULD PRESENT THE APPLICANT. SO A CONTINUANCE IS RECOMMENDED HERE WOULD, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, NO, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND. OKAY. NO CONTINUANCE. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER, I GUESS THAT'S, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I MUST, SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN OR DID WE, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. LET'S GO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, TO CALL UP FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL OF, UH, MRS. ANNETTE BREWSTER. YES, AND I'M A MISS, NOT A MRS. FIRST OFF, I WANNA THANK RILEY FOR TAKING THE TIME. I'M SORRY WE DIDN'T GET YOUR NAME. AND MY NAME IS ANNETTE BREWSTER. MY ADDRESS IS 1941 CREEK MOUNTAIN STREET. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. AND IF YOU CAN PUT THAT MAP UP OF THIS. OOPS. THIS, THIS. OKAY, FIRST OFF, UM, I'VE LIVED IN THIS PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS NOW, ALMOST 30 YEARS. AND WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME, IT WAS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT, UH, EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGED ZONE OWNED IT. AND WE WERE GIVEN CCRS WHEN WE MOVED INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON HOW TO [01:20:01] PROTECT THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE COULDN'T PUT DOWN PELLETS, WE COULDN'T USE LIQUID FERTILIZER. THERE WAS THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE STAYED PURE, WHICH WAS FINE WITH ALL OF US IN 84, IT WAS ZONED FOR COM COMMERCIAL, AND ALL THAT'S EVER BEEN UP ON THAT PROPERTY WAS FOR SALE SIGNS, NOTHING MORE FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS. HOWEVER, MR. SEALE CLAIMED, OR IN 1984 NOVEMBER, HE APPLIED FOR THE, UH, COMMERCIAL PERMIT AND THAT'S WHEN HE HAD GOTTEN IT. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. AND THEN SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 PASSED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2005 OR 2025. AND THE, THE INVESTOR WANTS TO COMBINE BOTH OLD ZONING AND OVERLAY IT. AS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OR AS Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, THAT CAN'T BE DONE. IT, YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE START DATES ON A PROJECT. YOU KNOW THAT. I KNOW THAT. AND I COME FROM A FAMILY OF BUILDERS AND THEY ALL KNOW THAT. WE ALSO HAVE THE MILITARY LIGHT PROTECTION. SO WE HAVE DARK KNIGHTS, WHICH IS REALLY COOL. WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE OUT THERE FROM PORCUPINES TO SKUNK AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. AND I'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF PICTURES, FOXES, EVERYTHING. I MEAN, IT'S SO COOL TO BE SITTING OUT AT NIGHT WATCHING ALL THE, THE WILDLIFE THAT WE HAVE. AND I DID TALK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, AND IF THEY NEED TO BE SUMMONED, THEY WILL. WE ALSO HAVE ON THAT MAP, 50% OF THAT FROM WHERE YOU SEE THE, MA'AM, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY. WHERE YOU SEE THE T ON MOUNTAIN FROM THAT GOING EASTBOUND IS ALL FLOOD ZONE AND ON WHERE ALL THOSE X'S ARE. THAT'S ALL FLOOD ZONES. ALSO, THE ATTORNEY DIDN'T KNOW IT AND I ASKED HIM THIS MORNING IF HE KNEW THIS WAS PARTIAL FLOOD ZONE. HE SAID NO, HE DIDN'T KNOW IT. SO WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING AS WELL IN THAT AREA. WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ON A MIXED USED. WE DON'T, WE CAN'T CONTROL TENANTS FROM PUTTING STUFF INTO THE GROUND THAT WILL GO INTO SEEP INTO THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE. AND BECAUSE IT'S SO MOLDY OUT IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS A TRUE STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH LAND, ANYBODY THAT SPRAYS THEIR DECK, IF IT'S A APARTMENT COMPLEX, ARE THEY GONNA THROW BLEACH DOWN THERE TO GET IT INTO THE RECHARGE ZONE AS WELL? AH, WE, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY DESTROYING THAT RECHARGE ZONE. WE HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS TO MOTHER NATURE AND TO GOD AND TO THE LAND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AND TO THE ANIMALS. WE HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS TO ALL OF THEM AND TO THE MILITARY BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT OUR CITY. SO THERE ARE PLENTY OF LOTS ALONG 2 81 NORTH AND SOUTH THAT ARE UNDERDEVELOPED, THAT ARE CODED. ARE YOU ALMOST, THAT'S YOUR TIME LIMIT. THAT'S YOUR, I'M ALMOST DONE. OKAY. OKAY. THAT, THAT THIS GUY CAN BUILD ON THAT, THAT ARE NOT IN FLOOD ZONES, THAT ARE COMMERCIAL AND ARE MIXED PROPERTY. AND ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT I'VE TALKED TO, WE OPPOSE. AND I KNOW THAT ONLY SEVEN HAVE TURNED IN, BUT WE OPPOSE ANY TYPE OF APARTMENT COMPLEX OR OFFICE BUILDINGS GOING BEHIND OUR HOMES IS GOING TO DEPRECIATE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES. AND IF ANY ONE OF YOU LIVED WHERE WE LIVED, YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT EITHER. OKAY. ALRIGHT. NEXT SPEAKER. MR. ROBERT KIRBY. MR. ROBERT, YEAH. HE HAD TO GO KIRBY. ALRIGHT, THAT'S OUT. PUBLIC COMMENT? YES. ALRIGHT. SO I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND I, I GIVE YOU A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL. I'VE HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS. I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF USING SECTION EIGHT 40. I MEAN, IT GIVES 'EM THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP A MULTIFAMILY. SO NO, LET'S TALK ABOUT RACCOONS AND SQUIRRELS. I MEAN, OKAY. WE WE'RE NOT GONNA FOLLOW THE LAW, SO, OKAY. I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I ASSUME WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, NOT FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT FOR, FOR CITY. YEP. BUT , WHAT, UH, SO, YOU KNOW, HE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICANT HAD TALKED ABOUT 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER AS OPPOSED TO A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER? WHY, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER REGULATIONS ENSURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE, UM, OR LIMITS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, I SHOULD SAY? YEAH, IT'S GENERALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AQUIFER RECHARGE. OKAY. AND MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW FOR RECHARGE. AND THEN I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD ALSO SPOKE ABOUT, UM, THE, THE, THE TREES OR, OR SOMETHING. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE, THE, THE, THE TREE ORDINANCE IN THERE? THE TREE ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO PROTECT AND MITIGATE FOR TREES. SO THEY, YOU KNOW, EVERY SITE JUST CAN'T BE CLEAR CUT. SO WE [01:25:01] HAVE A TREE ORDINANCE HAVE, SINCE 1997, WE'VE ADOPTED FOUR OR FIVE ITERATIONS OF IT OVER THE YEARS. THE MOST CURRENT BEING THE 2010 TREE ORDINANCE. SO THEN BY, LIKE, IF WE, IF WE WERE TO SAY, OKAY, WE GRANT, YOU KNOW, HIS APPEAL, THEN WE ALLOW HIM TO DO A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN IGNORE THE TREE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE SET TODAY. IS THAT RIGHT? UH, I ON THE SPOT I ONLY WANT TO COMMIT TO SO MUCH, BUT I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WAS VESTED TO 1984, WHICH WOULD PREDATE THE 1997 TREE ORDINANCE. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU MR. EZ. COMMISSIONER DEAN. MR. DEAN, UH, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF, YOU KNOW, VESTED RIGHTS FROM THE CITY? VESTED RIGHTS IS THE ASSERTION THAT YOUR PROJECT STARTED AT A CERTAIN TIME AND YOU'RE LOCKED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT THE TIME A REQUIRED PERMIT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED. IS THAT A STATUTORY RIGHT? YES. DO STATUTORY RIGHTS GROW IN HAVING MORE BENEFITS AS THE CODE CHANGES? BUT LET THE ATTORNEYS ANSWER THIS ONE. YEAH. IT DEPENDS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE ALLOWS US. SINCE THE ORIGINATING STATUTE IS FROM THE STATE, THE STATE, UH, WOULD DICTATE THAT IN THIS CASE, HAS THE RIGHTS GROWN IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT TO DO WHAT HE IS ASKING OF US TO, UH, PROVE NO, NOT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. IN WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU REFER TO? YEAH, THE STATE LAW WAS ENACTED. AND THIS IS A STATUTORY RIGHT? UH, WELL IT IS A STATE LAW. SO YEAH, IT'S BOTH LAWS ARE EMANATING FROM THE STATE STATUTES. THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW STATE LAW, BUT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE NEW STATE LAW, NOT ONLY THE PORTIONS THAT ARE BENEFICIAL. SO WE CAN'T IGNORE THE PART THAT SAYS ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. THE STATE WROTE THAT, NOT THE CITY. SO THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40, BUT THEY HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF IT, INCLUDING VESTED RIGHTS. 'CAUSE THAT'S A PART OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT. SB SB EIGHT 40 ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT STARTED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025 IN THEIR VESTING APPLICATION. THEY ASSERT THEIR PROJECT STARTED IN 1984. SO IT, IT CANNOT START IN 1984 AND START IN 2025. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. DEAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? OKAY, SO PLEASE, UH, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT IF VESTED RIGHTS OR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND NOT A PERMIT, THEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN MDP DATED FOR TO 1984, DOESN'T THE CITY AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO NOT ALLOW HIM TO INVOKE EIGHT 40? I'M, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION? YEAH. SO VESTED RIGHTS IS, IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE. IT'S NOT A PERMIT. THE FACT THAT IT'S INDISPUTED, THAT THERE WAS AN MVP THAT PUT THIS 1300 OR 1800 ACRES IN MOTION IN THE EIGHTIES. THE FACT THAT THE MVP IS STILL FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE AND HASN'T BEEN VACATED, DOESN'T THAT, DOESN'T THAT PRECLUDE HIS ABILITY TO EVER COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AT ALL? BECAUSE IF THE ANSWER IS NO, WELL THEN IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY ISN'T HARPING ON THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT DATE ISN'T AS IMPORTANT AS THE CITY, UH, IS MAKING IT OUT TO BE VESTED. VESTED RIGHTS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU STARTED A PROJECT AT A GIVEN DATE AND WE DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY STARTED THEIR PROJECT IN 1984. WE RECOGNIZED THAT THEY APPROVED IT. BUT IF THEY DON'T, BUT IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY DECIDE TO, TO, UH, TO, IF THIS APPLICANT DECIDES TO, TO INVOKE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AND IGNORE THE VESTED RIGHTS, HOW CAN THE CITY IGNORE THAT? THE PROJECT STILL STARTED IN 1984. WE'RE NOT IGNORING IT. WE ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY HAVE VESTING. NO, NO, NO. IT, WHETHER THE PROJECT STARTED IN 84 OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION. I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN MDP FILE, THE PROJECT STARTED IN 1984, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S A VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION OR NOT, SHOULDN'T YOU BE DENYING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 ANYWAY BE NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE, AS [01:30:01] THEY'RE ASSERTING A NEW PROJECT TO START IN 2025 BASED ON NEW RULES THAT WERE APPROVED IN 2025. I KNOW. YEAH, I KNOW. BUT THE MDP, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF VESTED RIGHTS, JUST LET'S FORGET THAT THEY EVER APPLIED OR THERE, THERE WAS AN MVP FILED IN 1984 THAT STARTED THIS 1800 ACRE DEVELOPMENT. SO THEREFORE, SHOULDN'T YOU BE DENYING IT ANYWAY? I MEAN, IF THAT, THAT, THAT'S EITHER THE DATE OR IT ISN'T THE DATE. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M GETTING AT? I I SEE EVERYBODY TALKING, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, LIKE MY, THE QUESTION THAT I'M TRYING TO POSE, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, TO THE ANSWER OF HOW THIS SHOULD BE DONE MOVING FORWARD. IN ADDITION TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE HERE. THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN MVP OR A PLAT OR ANYTHING THAT THE CITY CAN RECOGNIZE AS A PROJECT START DATE, THAT ALONE, REGARDLESS OF VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION, SHOULD CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT EIGHT 40 APPLIES TRUE OR FALSE. TRUE. I MEAN, I'M JUST, 'CAUSE THIS ISN'T, THAT, ISN'T THAT REALLY THE QUESTION AT BAY HERE? I MEAN, IF IN FACT THAT VEST ADVICE IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE AND THIS THING DID IN FACT START IN 84, THEN WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE AT ALL. THE H 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO ANYBODY. SB EIGHT 40 APPLIES TO ANYONE WHO STARTS THEIR PROJECT ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. THEY CAN USE SBA 40. OKAY, SO, SO IN, IN AUGUST OF 2025, IF I'VE RECORDED A SINGLE LOT, A SINGLE LOT PLAT, ARE YOU GONNA SAY THAT I CAN'T INVOKE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 BECAUSE MY PLAT WAS RECORDED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. SO THIS IS AUDREY DEMAR WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEY ARE . SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING? EITHER? NO, HONESTLY, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF WHY WE'RE ALL BACK HERE TALKING. 'CAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK THAT YOU'RE ASKING. UM, YEAH, SO, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN YOU CAN RESTATE YOUR, YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR STATEMENT. YES, YES. WHEN YOU HAVE A, AGAIN, 2 45 IS VESTING YOU TO A PROJECT AND YOU ARE LOCKING IN A PARTICULAR START DATE FOR THAT PROJECT, BUT YOU CAN LOSE YOUR VESTED RIGHTS DUE TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN YOU CHANGE THAT PROJECT, THEN YOU CAN NO LONGER COME BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY, BUT I HAD AN MDP BACK IN 1984 WHEN YOU TELL US THAT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT START DATE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW DOING MULTIFAMILY IN WHAT USED TO BE COMMERCIAL, THAT IS CONSIDERED A CHANGE OF PROJECT. AND JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU CHANGE YOUR PROJECT, YOU LOSE YOUR VESTED RIGHTS ON THAT PARTICULAR PORTION. THAT IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT. NOW I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. HOWEVER, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REALLY ODD MVPS THAT THE CITY WOULD NEVER LET YOU DO TODAY WHERE IT SAYS, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DO THIS ONE HUGE THING AND I'M GONNA DO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY. IT'S LIKE ANYTHING GOES KIND OF THING. I'M NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M NOT BEING SPECIFIC LIKE YOU WOULD NORMALLY WOULD WANT. AND SO I'M NOT CHANGING THE PROJECT, I'M, I'M STILL HONORING THE PROJECT 'CAUSE I'M DOING ONE OF THE THREE THINGS THAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T ALLOW THAT ANYMORE. BUT NOWADAYS, BUT BACK THEN THEY, I GUESS THEY, THEY DID SO IN A, AND IN A WAY I'M NOT CANCELING THE JOB, IT'S STILL THERE. I'D HAVE TO, I WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE MVP AND, AND MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC AND THEN IT WOULD BE A CHANGE. I GUESS I JUST THINK WITH THIS PARTICULAR, THIS, THESE PARTICULAR CASES, THIS ONE AND THE ONE BEFORE, BECAUSE THE MVP ALLOWED YOU TO DO ANYTHING, THERE'S NO CHANGE OF THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE 8, 8 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO BEGIN WITH. SO AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY, AND, AND, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE STATE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NEW PROJECT START DATE POST 2025, YOU CANNOT HAVE A PROJECT THAT STARTS BOTH PRE IN 1984 AND POST 2025. ONE IS COMMERCIAL, ONE IS MULTIFAMILY, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING BECAUSE UNDER THE PREVIOUS RULES, COMMERCIAL MEANT COMMERCIAL. IT DID NOT MEAN COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY. WHAT DID, WHAT WERE THE ALLOWED USES FOR THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND THAT'S BEFORE US? WHAT DID IT ALLOW? COMMERCIAL ONLY MM-HMM . SO YES, BASED ON THE APPLICATION AND THE INFORMATION, IT'S COMMERCIAL. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS RECOGNIZED. THE MDP DIDN'T SAY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY? NO, BECAUSE [01:35:01] THE PREVIOUS ONE IT DID. AND THAT'S THE, THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE. OKAY, BECAUSE YOU, I DIDN'T SEE THE MVP FOR THIS ONE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF, BECAUSE IT WAS, IF IT'S ALL DONE BY THE SAME PERSON, I ASSUMED IT WAS DONE THE SAME WAY. NO, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS, SO I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THE MDP WAS STILL BEING FOLLOWED THEN THEREFORE EIGHT 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY. THESE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OWNERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE BEING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAW FIRM. OKAY. OKAY. WELL THEN ON THE PREVIOUS JOB THEN IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPLIED THEN. I SHOULD HAVE JUST BROUGHT UP THAT UP THEN. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT TILL RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT THANK . THANK YOU MR. ORAM. ALL RIGHT, MR. BROWN, WOULD YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REBUTTAL OR, I MEAN, I EXPECTED THIS. I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR. IN 1984, COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY WAS CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL. IT'S, IT'S THE SAME FACTS AS THE ORIGINAL. I I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND YOUR DISTINCTION. I JUST DON'T WANNA LOSE ANY MORE RIGHTS MM-HMM . BY STANDING UP HERE. UH, COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY WAS COMMERCIAL IN 1984. SO MR. ORIAN, IT IS ALLOWED, THEY'RE SAYING I CAN'T START THE PROJECT AFTER 2025, UH, AND STILL MAINTAIN VESTING. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT CLOSES BOTH THE PUBLIC PORTION AND THE BOARD'S COMMENTS ARE QUESTIONS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT, I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION ORIAN IAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO OA DASH 25 103 DOUBLE 0 2 7 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 2 81, NORTH AND EAST EVANS ROAD, APPLICANT BEING BROWN AND, AND MCDONALD, PLLC BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 35 3 12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AS PASSED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE. END OF MOTION. GIVE A SECOND. SECOND, MR. BRAMAN A SECOND. MR. ORIAN, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS FOR THE SAME REASON AS IMPORTANT OF THE OTHER ONE. THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THEY CAN EXIST TOGETHER. I THINK THAT, THAT THE PERMIT DATE IS BE, IS, IS HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGS DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU'RE READING AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND I DON'T, I THINK THAT IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE INTENT, UH, IS, IS TO ALLOW BOTH TO RIDE TOGETHER. I ALSO DON'T, UH, AND WITH REGARDS TO WATER QUALITY, YES YOU CAN DO A HUNDRED PERCENT IN PRAIRIE COVER, BUT YOU ALSO GOTTA DO MORE FILTRATION. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GETTING A FREE PASS FROM, YOU'RE BEING TREATED LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND THEN THIRDLY, THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THESE CODES ARE, ARE JUST SO NEW. IF, IF, IF THERE WAS A, A MECHANISM FOR THE CITY TO GET CLARIFICATION IN A SPEEDY WAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE ANGLE. BUT IN THIS, BUT FOR THIS, I THINK I'M JUST GONNA BE IN SUPPORT AS FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. THANK YOU, MS. BRAGMAN. UM, SO FOR THE SAME REASONS, AS I STATED BEFORE, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, UH, CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING THE CODE. SO I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER IAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER REED? NO. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO. COMMISSIONER E BONIS? NO. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? NO. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? NO. VICE CHAIR? NU YES, I CONCUR. UH, IT'S SIX AGAINST AND FOUR IN FAVOR. THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE. THANK YOU SIR. NEXT CASE PLEASE. I THINK WE'RE ON NUMBER FIVE. FIVE. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, TYLER ADAM PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 2 64. ADDRESS IS THREE 14 MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS MATTHEW METROS AND THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS LOCATED [01:40:01] AT 3 1 4 MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. UM, AS STATED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UM, PERMITS FOR BOTH 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. UM, SDR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS INCLUDES THIS INCLUDES REPORTING $0 IF NO REVENUE WAS COLLECTED. ALL STR OPERATORS ARE, UM, ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BEXAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. UH, THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT WHO MANAGE REPORTING AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STATES THAT REVENUE REPORTS WERE MISSING FOR BOTH UNITS FROM DECEMBER, 2024 THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 25. SIX NOTICES FOR EACH U FOR EACH UNIT, UM, OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE BETWEEN FEBRUARY, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025. A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD AND THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025. THIS IS THE BLOCK FACE. UM, BOTH OF THE PERMITS IN QUESTION WERE TYPE TWO PERMITS. THERE ARE CURRENTLY ZERO ACTIVE TYPE TWO PERMITS, 14 TOTAL ALONG THE BLOCK FACE SO THAT, UH, CURRENT DENSITY IS 0%. UH, EACH UNIT HAD A PRIOR CODE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO VIOLATION IN JULY OF 2023. UM, PERMITTING HISTORY UNIT 1 0 1 WAS INITIALLY ISSUED AS A TYPE TWO PERMIT IN UH, APRIL OF 2021 AND UNIT 1 0 2 WAS ISSUED AS A TYPE TWO PERMIT IN JULY OF 2021. UM, THIS DISPLAYS THE, UM, NOTIFICATIONS SENT OUT BY AVENUE, UM, DATED, UM, AS WELL AS THE ADDRESS THAT IT WAS SENT TO. AND THEN THE TWO EMAIL NOTICES SENT FROM DSD STAFF, UH, THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE LISTING. UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IN THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND STAFF, UH, MAILED 36 NOTICES. WE'VE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THERE WERE SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS THAT WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. UM, AND I DO HAVE A NOTE FROM, UM, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE STAFF REPORT. THEY WANTED TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT. ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN. SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW OUTLINED IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE UDC. UM, AND WE DO HAVE, UM, FINANCE DEPARTMENT HERE WITH THE PRESENTATION AS WELL. UM, AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEP. MS. BREGMAN, UM, SO JUST CLERICAL ITEM, I NOTICED THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UNIT 1 0 1 AND UNIT 1 0 2, YET THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UNIT ONE AND UNIT TWO IS THERE, COULD THAT BE THE REASON WHY THERE ISN'T A DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE I THINK WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT PUT 1 0 1 BUT IT'S MAILED TO WHATEVER ADDRESS IS IN, IS IN THE SYSTEM ON AVENUES INN IN THE SYSTEM THROUGH, UM, THROUGH AVENUE. SO WHEN THE, WHEN THE APPLICANT REMOVED, SHE GOT THEIR PERMIT BACK IN 2021, THEY ENTERED IN THEIR CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS INFORMATION INTO OUR OLD SYSTEM AND THAT'S THE ADDRESS THEY PUT ON FILE. SO THE ADDRESS WAS 1 0 1 OR IT'S UNIT ONE? I BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME ADDRESS AGAIN. THE APPLICANT PUT 1 0 1 ON THE PROB SIDE, BUT THEN HE PUT NUMBER UNIT ONE OR TWO WHEN HE CLEARED THE HOT ACCOUNT BACK IN 2021. SO IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY AND UNITS. OKAY. WELL I GUESS WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING MAIL THAT COULD BE WHY THEY DIDN'T GET THE NOTICE. WELL, WE'LL FIND OUT. WE'LL FIND OUT. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING NOT ASKED? ORIAN? OH, MR. ORIAN? YES. UH, DID, WAS THERE ANY, UH, SOFTWARE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE 2024 SINCE OUR LAST, UH, REPORT THAT THAT WOULD'VE CAUSED ANY HICCUP WITH REPORTING? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THE DATE WAS WHEN Y'ALL SWITCHED OVER. WE SWITCHED OVER INTO TO AVENUE IN JUNE, 2023. OH, SO THIS IS AFTER, OKAY. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD. [01:45:07] HELLO, MY NAME IS CARL SOZA. I'M REPRESENTING MATTHEW METROS. YES. AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? THIS IS FOR 3 1 4 MISSION STREET. AND, AND YOUR ADDRESS? YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? OH TWO ONE, UH, 2 1 5 AAX DRIVE. 7 8 2 1 3. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, SO FIRST, SO I DON'T FORGET, SINCE IT JUST CAME UP, AS FAR AS THE ADDRESS IS CONCERNED, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE UNIT NUMBERS. UM, IT MAY OR MAY NOT CORRECTLY BE LISTED WITH THE US POSTAL SERVICES ONE OR TWO. UH, I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY JUST SPECULATION AT THIS POINT UNLESS WE GET, UM, SOMETHING FINAL ABOUT THAT. UM, BUT THE INFORMATION I HAVE HERE IS JUST LIKE THEY MENTIONED, UM, THERE WERE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT. THAT'S WHAT THE, UH, THE REPORT SHOWS WHEN THEY PRINT OUT AND SEND ME THE REPORT OF THEIR HOT FILINGS. UM, THEY CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT, DID NOT RECEIVE THESE MAILS, BUT AS SOON AS THEY RECEIVED THE EMAIL, THEY REACHED OUT, UM, TO THE DEPARTMENT. AND I HAVE PHONE RECORDS OF THOSE PHONE CALLS. UH, THEY'VE MENTIONED TO ME THAT THERE WERE NO RESPONSES OTHER THAN BY EMAIL. SO THEY COULD NOT CONTACT ANYONE BY PHONE OR, OR THEY NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE BY PHONE. UM, THAT WAS NOVEMBER 5TH AND NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 6TH. I BELIEVE THE NOTICE WENT OUT ON NOVEMBER 2ND OR THIRD. UM, THE FIRST EMAIL TO UH, DSD WAS NOVEMBER 18TH AND WE DID START GETTING REPLIES FROM THERE. UH, THEY HELD TREMENDOUSLY AND US FIGURING OUT WHAT THE APPEALS PROCESS WAS. UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HERE. UM, HOT FILINGS AND PAYMENTS, UM, HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER, 2025. UM, SO THERE WAS THAT GAP OF MISSED PAYMENTS, UH, BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND MARCH. AND AS OF TODAY ALL OF THE HOT FILING AND PAYMENTS ARE UP TO DATE. AND THAT, UM, WAS THE SEQUENCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EMAIL CONVERSATIONS WE FINALLY HAD WITH DSD. UM, ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. THEY'RE UP TO DATE RIGHT NOW. THE OWNER HAS CONVERTED THE LISTING TO A LONG-TERM OR MIDTERM RENTAL TO ABIDE BY THE, THE RULES OF THE STR PERMIT. UM, I ALSO ENCOURAGED THE OWNER TO SET UP INFORMED DELIVERY WITH USPS. THEY HAVE DONE THAT AND NOW SHOULD BE GETTING, UH, SCANNED IMAGES OF ALL THE MAIL COMING TO THE PROPERTY OR SUPPOSED TO BE MAILED AND DELIVERED TO THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY MAKE SURE NOT TO MISS ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS OR NOTICES. AND THAT'S IT. I HAVE, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU BRAGMAN. MS. BREGMAN. SO THIS IS FOR CITY STAFF, SO, UM, THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 2021, IS THAT CORRECT? WERE THEY MAKING, WERE THEY FILING HOT TAXES SINCE 2021 UP UNTIL UH, WHATEVER THE DATE IS ON THIS CHART? YES, THEY'RE REPORTING ON TIME EVERY MONTH UP UNTIL DECEMBER, 2024. AFTER THAT TIME, THEY STOPPED MAKING REPORTS AND THAT'S WHEN THE NOTICE MAILED NOTICES WERE SENT OUT FOR NO PAYMENTS BEING MADE FROM, UM, SORRY, FROM NOVEMBER, 2020, 2024. SO PAYMENTS STOPPED BEING MADE ON A MONTHLY BASIS FROM DECEMBER, 2024, UM, THROUGH MAY, 2025 WAS WHEN WE HAD THE LAST LETTER. THAT DATE. AT THAT DATE. AND SO WERE THERE ANY CHANGES IN THE PROCESSES THAT MIGHT HAVE TRIGGERED THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING NOTICES? I'M JUST, IT SEEMS ODD THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IF THEY HAD BEEN RELIGIOUSLY FILING HOT REPORTS UP UNTIL NOVEMBER, JANUARY, 2025, THAT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMETHING SHIFTED, SOMETHING CHANGED IN TERMS OF OUR, UH, SYSTEM PROCESSING. NO, WE STILL MAINTAIN AND KEEP AVENUE. THE ONLY CHANGE WE'VE HAD THAT WAS IN MARCH, 2025 WAS WHEN PLATFORM REMITTING CITY HOT TAX ON LIBERTY BEHALF. BUT AGAIN, THAT DIDN'T START UNTIL MARCH, 2025. PAYMENTS WERE STOPPED BEING MADE MONTHLY AFTER STARTING DECEMBER, 2024. SO THERE WAS FOUR MONTHS BEFORE OF THE PLATFORMS PERMITTED ON THEIR BEHALF THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE BEING MADE ANYMORE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. BRAGMAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, BON FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. BON, DID YOU? YES, SIR. YEAH. SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOUR, YOUR CLIENT MADE A, YOU KNOW, WAS, WAS PAYING TAXES ON TIME AND DOING ALL THAT. WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON WHY THEY THEY STOPPED PAYING THE TAXES? UH, IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE STARTED HAVING TO TRAVEL FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. HE'S USING A NON-LOCAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY AS WELL. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HIS PLANS ARE WITH THAT MANAGEMENT COMPANY NOW THAT THIS HAS COME UP. UM, THAT'S ALL I REALLY KNOW. BUT HE AGREES HE, HE DIDN'T PAY HIM. IT WAS AN ERROR ON HIS PART. IT MADE JUST HIS TRAVELING AND JUST NOT RECEIVING THE MAILS, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY NOT FOLLOWING UP WITH THE CLEANERS OR WHEREVER THEY HAVE CHECKING THE PROPERTY. RIGHT, RIGHT. UM, AND THEN JUST ELAPSE. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE HE MADE THOSE PAYMENTS AND, AND HE, HE'S UP, HE'S CURRENT TO THEM [01:50:01] NOW. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. YES, SIR. UH, QUICK QUESTION ALSO. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY KIND OF VIOLATIONS OR ANY NOTICES THAT HE WOULD'VE HAD NO OTHERS? NO. UH, BESIDES THESE, UH, IN MARCH OR APRIL AND MAY. OKAY. YEAH. AND STAFF, DO WE KNOW OF ANY, ANY CODE VIOLATIONS OR ANY, UM, THERE IS ONE OPEN INVESTIGATION, BUT THAT WAS FROM A 3 1 1 CALL, BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED. UM, AND AS THE, FOR THE PERMANENT REST STAYS, REBO STAYS THE DECISION OF THE BO OA GOTCHA. MM-HMM . YES. REID, SIR. UM, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, WERE THE HOT UM, FEES BEING PAID DIRECTLY BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY? YES OR YES. OKAY. SO THEY'RE THE ONE, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENTS. OKAY, THANK YOU. EFFECTIVE WHEN, I BELIEVE IT'S FROM THE BEGINNING. SO FROM 2021. CORRECT. THAT'S MY KNOWLEDGE. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT, THIS 24, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, SO I'LL ALL OF A SUDDEN IN 20 DECEMBER, 2024, THEY STOPPED DOING THAT. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A CHANGE IN THEIR MANAGEMENT OR CHANGE IN THEIR STAFF, UH, OR WHOEVER IT WAS THAT WAS OVERSEEING THIS AND WAS MAKING THOSE TIMELY PAYMENTS. UM, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ON THE PAYMENTS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? UH, STEVENS. MR. STEVENS, JUST FOR CITY STAFF, ARE THERE OTHER, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNDER THIS A APPLICANT'S NAME AND IF SO, ARE THEY UP TO DATE? UH, WE COULD NOT FIND ANY IN OUR SYSTEM. NO. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS AT THIS, AT THIS POINT I'D CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE NO VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH, UH, IF ANY, UH, IF WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION RAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 64. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 3 1 4 O MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2, APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW METROS BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR ENFORCING SECTION 16 DASH ONE 10 D WHEN REVOKING THE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMITS END OF MOTION. IT WAS SECOND. SECOND, UH, MS. BRAGMAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE, UH, CITY MADE AN ERROR. UM, I THINK THAT THERE WERE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES PERHAPS WITH A MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UM, THAT STOPPED PAYING OR STOPPED FILING THE, THE HOT TAXES. AND UM, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT UP, UH, CURRENTLY SO THEY ARE ALL PAID UP. SO, UM, I WOULD GRANT THE APPEAL NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT I THINK THE CITY MADE, UH, A MISTAKE, UH, BUT THAT THEY ARE NOW IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT THE CURRENT TYPE TWO DENSITY IS ZERO. THANK YOU MR. BOEZ. YEAH, I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR, UH, MAINLY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS UP TO DATE ON EVERYTHING AND BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER STR ON THIS BLOCK FACE. YEAH, AND I I I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL. THERE'S NO, UH, OPPOSITION, THERE'S NO UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT'D BE MOST EFFECTIVE. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER SHORT TERM RENTALS AND HOT TAXES ARE CURRENT, SO I'M SUPPORTING. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER EZ. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR? YES. I CONCUR. WITH NINE. IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION DOES PASS. GO OVER THE PROJECT. THANK YOU SIR. NEXT CASE PLEASE. CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE A BREAK? UH, YEAH, THIS TIME IS FOUR 12. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND I'LL SEE YOU BACK AT FOUR 17. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT GUYS. UH, IF WE CAN START GETTING, UH, REASSEMBLED, REASSEMBLED BACK IN THE DAAS. HERE IT IS, FOUR 19. UM, ASK IF STAFF IF WE CAN BEGIN ON THE NEXT PRESENTATION OR AS SOON AS WE GET A QUORUM HERE GOING MR. ORIAN, MS. CRUZ, MR. VASQUEZ. HELLO? I HEAR, THERE WE GO. OKAY, THERE'S, OKAY, I'M BACK. OKAY, WE GOT A QUORUM [01:55:04] BACK IN SESSION. OKAY. IT'S FOUR 19, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BACK IN SESSION. OKAY, NEXT CASE PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS REQUESTED BY DANIEL WA WADO AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DUE TO HOT COLLECTION LOCATED AT 34 95 RIVER PATH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 34 95. RIVER PATH SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025. PLATFORMS THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT, ALSO NOT DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT TO THE CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT. ALL STR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUES AND PAY BEXAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. FIVE NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE FROM MARCH, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025. AND THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2025. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN 90 DAYS, THEREFORE THE STR PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025. THERE IS A TOTAL OF 23 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. NO ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO PERMIT CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS AN OPEN INVESTIGATION FOR OPERATING WITHOUT AN ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. AND THIS IS THE PERMITTING HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS SENT FROM AVENUE TO THE APPLICANT AND THE LAST TWO WERE SENT FROM DSD. THIS IS THE ACTIVE LISTING. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND A TOTAL OF 49 MAIL NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR OF TENANT OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM WELL SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NO RESPONSE FROM JACKSON COURT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS FOR NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND FINANCE IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY HOT ACCOUNT QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. OH, I HAVE A QUESTION. MS. BRIGMAN, COULD YOU, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE, UM, TIMELINE OF THINGS WERE ISSUED? IT IS NOT IN OUR PRESENTATION. THANK, THANK YOU. AND SO WHEN WAS, WHEN WAS THEIR PERMIT ORIGINALLY ISSUED? LEMME SEE. JULY 7TH, 2023. OKAY. UH, AGAIN, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, UM, SO THEY WERE PAYING THE FIRST YEAR BUT AS OF AUGUST, 2024, THEY WERE NOT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU NONE I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU IF YOU COULD. HELLO? HELLO. UH, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS DANIEL RO AND ADDRESS FOR THE, THE AIRBNB ADDRESS OR, UH, YOUR ADDRESS? 1 8 2 0 6 MAN DRIVE. SO THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED DUE TO MISSED MONTHLY NET REVENUE FILINGS. THIS OCCURRED DURING THE TRANSITION FROM MANUAL HOT FILINGS TO AUTOMATIC COLLECTION THROUGH PLATFORMS LIKE AIRBNB AND VRBO AT THE TIME. I MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT BEGINNING IN JANUARY, 2025, THOSE PLATFORMS FULLY COVERED ALL APPLICABLE TAXES INCLUDING THE COUNTIES AND THAT THE AUTOMATIC REMNANTS ALSO SATISFIED THE CITY AND COUNTY'S MONTHLY RE REPORTING REQUIREMENT. BASED ON THAT UNDERSTANDING, I DID NOT MANUALLY SUBMIT FILINGS DURING THAT PERIOD. UM, AND BY THE WAY, THIS MORNING WE UH, I GOT NOTIFIED BY, BY JUAN THAT I WAS MISSING ONE FILING DURING 2023, WHICH I IMMEDIATELY, UH, COVERED AND IT'S RIGHT NOW IN, IN IN PROCESS. 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS MISSING IN SEPTEMBER, 2023, EVERYTHING ELSE WAS FILED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE MAIL NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO PREVENT THE REVOCATION. I'VE PROVIDED A SIGNED LETTER LETTER FROM USPS EXPLAINING THAT THE PROPERTY FLAG AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND TREATED AS A VACANT, WHICH CAUSED MAIL TO BE RETURNED. ADDITIONALLY, THE WARNING EMAIL WENT TO SPAM. AS SOON AS I BECAME AWARE OF THE ISSUE, I AM IMMEDIATELY FILED ALL OUTSTANDING REPORTS. MY ACCOUNT IS NOW FULLY CURRENT AND IN GOOD STANDING. I'VE ALSO SUBMITTED MY COMPLETE FILING HISTORY SINCE 2023, WHICH SHOWS CONSISTENT [02:00:01] TIMELY COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO THE ISOLATED INCIDENT. AND OBVIOUSLY PLUS THE ONE THAT I FOUND OUT THIS MORNING, SEPTEMBER, 2023. TO ENSURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. I'VE IMPLEMENTED MULTIPLE SAFEGUARDS INCLUDING CALENDAR REMINDERS, ROUTINE CHECKS OF THE REPORTING WEBSITE AND A AND A-U-S-P-S MAIL FORWARDING SERVICE. SO ALL MAIL MAILS SENT TO THE STR PROPERTY IS DELIVERED TO MY CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS. AS WELL AS MAKING SURE MY MAILING ADDRESS IN MY HOT PROFILE IS CURRENT. I'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE USPS CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND MAIL FORWARDING CONFIRMATION FOR THE BOARD'S REFERENCE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE OVERSIGHT AND I WANNA ASSURE THE BOARD THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, UM, THE DOCUMENT YOU PROVIDED COULD BE ENLARGED. I IT'S TOO SMALL TO TO READ. UH, WHICH DOCUMENT? SORRY? THE DOCUMENT ON THE SCREEN THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THERE. OH YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A HISTORY AND I ACTUALLY, I HAVE A, SHOULD HAVE A COPY HERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT. IF WE CAN JUST ENLARGE THIS, THAT WOULD HELP. UH, THAT'S BETTER. IT'S JUST THE, THE FILING HISTORY SINCE 2023. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALL RECEIVED. SO WHY IS, I'M CONFUSED. SO THIS IS OFF OF THE WEBSITE THAT, UH, AVENUE A CORRECT. AND SO IT SHOWS THAT YOU, THAT THEY RECEIVED, I BELIEVE IT'S 'CAUSE UH, SEPTEMBER, 2023 IS NOT SHOWING AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE ERROR IS. AND I GUESS I DID NOT, UM, I DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED THAT I WAS MISSING SEPTEMBER, 2023 IN SPECIFICALLY. WELL, CAN WE BRING UP THE, UM, SPREADSHEET FROM THE, FROM STAFF? 'CAUSE THAT'S SHOWING A LOT. MULTIPLE, YEAH. YEAH. AND THIS SHOWS MULTIPLE, BUT WE'RE NOT OR NOTICES THAT WERE SO, SO STAFF IT'S, IS IT BEING REVOKED FOR ONE MISSED? NO, IT'S BEING REVOKED FOR THAT ONE MISSED PAYMENT. AND FROM JANUARY 20TH, 2025 THROUGH MAY, 2025, HE MADE PAYMENTS AFTER THE 14 DAY DEADLINE, THE DAY AFTER. SO THE, WE GAVE THEM 14 DAYS TO, FOR, TO BRING THEIR HOT ACCOUNT CURRENT. HE MADE PAYMENT ONLY 15TH DAY. RIGHT WHEN I GOT NOTIFIED THAT I WAS, UM, I DID NOT SEE THE LETTER IN TIME AND I THOUGHT, SO I GOT CONFUSED. OBVIOUSLY MY, MY UM, MY ERROR OF NOT CHECKING THE, THE WEBSITE THAT I NEEDED TO MANUALLY SUBMIT EVERY FILING INSTEAD OF AIRBNB AND VRBO PAYING THOSE OUT AUTOMATICALLY THROUGH THE PLATFORM. 'CAUSE I WOULD SEE THAT THE GUESTS WERE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX AND, AND OBVIOUSLY I, UM, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO SUBMIT THOSE MANUALLY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CHANGED FROM WHEN YOU INITIALLY STARTED MAKING THE PAYMENTS IN 2023. THAT CHANGED IN JANUARY OF 2025? I, I THOUGHT IT DID IN 2025, BUT THEN I FOUND OUT IT WAS MARCH, 2025 AND THAT I STILL NEEDED TO MANUALLY SUBMIT, UH, THOSE FILINGS TO PAY THE COUNTY'S TAX AND ALSO TO PAY A ZERO TAX FOR THE CITIES. 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY PAID BY THE PLATFORMS. YES. AND TO CLARIFY, STAFF DID SEND OUT E-BLAST ABOUT THE 'CAUSE ABOUT PLATFORMS REMITTING ON THEIR BEHALF, UM, BACK IN JANUARY AND BEFORE THEN STATING THAT IT WAS STARTING MAY 10TH, 2025 AND IT WAS SENT TO ALL THE PERMIT SCR PERMIT HOLDERS IN OUR SYSTEM RECEIVED THAT E-BLAST THAT IDENTIFIED MARCH 10TH AS THE DATE PLATFORMS WOULD BE REMITTING CITY HOT TAXES ON THEIR BEHALF. BUT WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO REPORT AND PAY COUNTY TAXES MOVING FORWARD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS? MR. STEVENS, WHY DO YOU THINK MOST OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE SO AGAINST YOUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL? I THINK, UH, SINCE WE PURCHASED MY WIFE AND I THE PROPERTY, THERE'S BEEN ONE NEIGHBOR IN PARTICULAR THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST ST UH, EVEN BEFORE US OPERATING IT. AND AGAIN, I RESPECT IT. I'VE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR, GAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION TO, FOR THEM TO HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER IN CASE OF ANY ISSUES WITH GUESTS OR ANYTHING. UM, WE'VE TRIED, WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH NEIGHBORS, WHICH WE ACTUALLY HAVE. UH, I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP. UM, BUT I KNOW THAT THIS NEIGHBOR REALLY TOOK TIME TO GET SIGNATURES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AGAIN, THIS WAS AN ISSUE BEFORE EVEN US OPERATING THE STR. AND AGAIN, I RESPECT IT AND I'M STILL GONNA [02:05:01] TRY MY BEST TO WIN OVER ANY NEIGHBOR THAT IS AGAINST IT. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ORIAN. MR. ORIAN? UH, YES. UH, THE PAYMENT THAT WAS MADE ON THE DATE ON THE 15TH DAY, WHICH IS ONE DAY LATE, WAS IT INITIATED BEFORE THE 15TH DAY OR WAS IT RECEIVED ON THE 15TH DAY QUESTION? IS THAT TO ME? UH, I THINK THAT'S HER STAFF. IT WAS POSTED ON THE 15TH DAY, POSTED ON THE 15TH. CORRECT. WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS IF THE APPLICANT, DID HE PAY BY CREDIT CARD CHECK EFT? HOW DID, HOW WAS THE PAYMENT MADE, SIR? IT WAS ONLINE, BUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS IN AVENUE, THE POST-IT DATE IS WHEN YOU MADE THE, YOU'VE REPORTED AND MADE THE PAYMENT, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES TAKE A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER THE POST-IT DATE FOR THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION TO BE PROCESSED. YEAH, I I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE IF IT WAS A DAY BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, HE INITIATED IT BUT HE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT UNTIL THE NEXT DAY. I'M NOT, THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO GET. I THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY, UH, UH, VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE SEE ? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, FOR THE CITY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE WERE TO, UM, APPROVE THIS HERE, WHEN WOULD THE REVIEW, WHEN WOULD THE NEXT REVIEW OF HIS APPLICATION BE COMING UP? UM, IS IT A TWO YEAR OR IS IT A, SO IF IT REINSTATED TO ITS INITIAL DATE, WHICH WAS JULY 7TH, 2023. SO IT WOULD BE UP FOR RENEWAL THIS COMING JULY. THIS COMING JULY? YES. AND SO IF REINSTATED OKAY. AND THE STAFF, IS IT ADMINISTRATIVE RE RENEWAL OR DOES THIS THE BOARD HAVE A REVIEW? UM, NO, THIS ONE WAS APPROVED BY, RIGHT, THERE WASN'T A DENSITY ISSUE. SO IT WOULD JUST GO THROUGH ITS RENEWAL REVIEW, WHICH WOULD BE VERIFYING THEY'RE STILL CURRENT AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM THE PERMIT THREE YEARS AGO. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT CHECK SUM, RIGHT? THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BE CURRENT ON EVERYTHING FOR THE RENEWAL? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SIR? ALRIGHT. UH, ANY LAST COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UM, NO, LIKE I JUST, UH, I AGAIN, I TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IT WAS MY MISTAKE OF NOT CHECKING THE PORTAL AND JUST WANNA ASSURE THE BOARD THAT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GET A MOTION READ BON? YES, I'LL DO IT. OKAY. BONOUS, JUST MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE HERE. SIX SIX. NUMBER SIX. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A TWO 500 HUNDRED 3 0 2 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 39 OR 34 95 RIVER PATH APPLICANT BEING DANIEL GUDO BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 1 16 1 10, UH, D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. I GOT A SECOND FOR, UH, MR. REED. ALRIGHT, MR. EZ. YEAH, I I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY WAS AN ERROR HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE, THERE WAS SOME, SOME ISSUES THAT HAPPENED WITH REPORTING THIS. UH, I BELIEVE HE'S NOW CURRENT AND AS LONG AS HE CAN REMAIN CURRENT, UH, I'M OKAY WITH IT. UH, AND THERE'S NO OTHER ST ON THIS CITY BLOCK FACE, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. MR. REED. UH, NO, I, I I SHARE THAT SENTIMENT. I THINK THAT, UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO BE AN ERROR, UH, THAT YOU'VE, UH, MADE AN ATTEMPT TO REMEDY. SO HOPEFULLY IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. RIGHT. AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. THE, THE, UH, APPLICATION RENEWAL WILL BE COMING UP. THAT'D BE A CHANCE FOR, UH, HIM TO BE OP, BE A GOOD OPERATOR, BE CURRENT ON HIS TAXES, AND CITY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE RENEWAL. AND SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RE, BARNES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BERGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR? YES. I CONCUR WITH TENANT IN FAVOR. WHEN IN OPPOSITION THE MOTION DOES PASS. MAKE SURE YOU STAY CURRENT ON YOUR TAXES AND, AND, UH, REPORTS. REPORTS AND, AND REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. WILL DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT CASE PLEASE. [02:10:07] GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS REQUESTED BY BERTHA ROSALES AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DUE TO HAWK COLLECTION LOCATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025. PLATFORM THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT, ALSO NOT DI DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT. ALL STR OPERATORS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BEAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. FORWARD NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED FROM AVENUE FROM APRIL, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025. AND A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2025. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE 90 DAYS AND ONLY PARTIAL PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER RECEIVING THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY. IT'S POPPING UP THEREFORE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE UNITS ON THE BLOCK PHASE. NO ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO PERMIT IS CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CODE OF VIOLATIONS AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACTIVE LISTINGS. AND THIS IS THE PERMITTING HISTORY OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THIS IS THE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS SENT FROM AVENUE TO APPLICANT AND THE LAST TWO ARE FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL. AND LASTLY, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 46 MALE NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM HISTORIC GARDENS NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND FIVE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND SO IS THE CITY HOT DEPARTMENT. ALRIGHT, BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, MS. BRAGMAN, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE PERMITTING HISTORY? IT'S NOT IN OUR PRESENTATION. SO 2019 AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE THAT HAS THE, SO WAS THE APPLICANT CURRENT BETWEEN 2019 AND 2024? YES. I BELIEVE THEY WERE ONLY MISSING A ONE OR TWO MONTHS, BUT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT CAN CLARIFY ON THAT THEY WERE LATE PAYING BY FIVE PAYMENTS. CAN'T HEAR YOU. THEY WERE LATE PAYING FIVE PAYMENTS. WE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. I DON'T THINK YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON. THEY WERE LATE PAYING FIVE PAYMENTS IN WHAT TIMEFRAME? UM, IN NOVEMBER, 2023. NO, THE PAY PERIOD, THE PERIOD 9 23. THEY PAID IN NOVEMBER THE PERIOD OF 2020 SECOND. 2024. THEY PAID IN DECEMBER, 2025. UM, APRIL, 2024. THEY'RE PAID IN DECEMBER 25. UH, MAY, 2024. THEY'RE PAID IN JULY, 2024. SO IT, IT VARIED. OKAY. AND ARE THEY CURRENT NOW? YES, THEY'RE CURRENT. RIGHT. THANK YOU MS. BRIAN. WAS THAT WAS IT? MM-HMM. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR, OKAY. UH, WE WILL, AT THIS POINT I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. 2019 ALREADY BEEN RENEWED ONCE. MM-HMM . MY NAME IS BERTA ROSALES. MY NAME IS BERTA ROSALES AND MY ADDRESS ONE 12 S IN DRIVE. UH, I AM FROM LAREDO, TEXAS AND I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH AN INHERITANCE. MY FATHER LEFT ME. I HAVE BEEN RENTING MY PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. I ALSO USE MY PROPERTY, HAVE THE TIME TO VISIT MY SONS AND GRANDCHILDREN WHO LIVE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. RECENTLY IN THIS LAST YEAR, I HAD SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS PROCESSING MY HOT PAYMENTS ONLINE. I PERSONALLY CAME TO THESE OFFICES IN MARCH, 2025 TO RENEW MY PERMIT, WHICH WILL EXPIRE APRIL 30. IT WAS HERE THAT I WAS INFORMED THAT I HAD SOME PENDING PAYMENTS, SOME PEN PENDING PAYMENTS. I WAS INFORMED THAT I OWED THREE OLD AND RANDOM PAYMENTS. NOVEMBER 20, 23 [02:15:02] AND TWO PAYMENTS FOR 2024. I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER ON JANUARY 14TH, 2025 INFORMING, INFORMING ME OF THESE THREE PAYMENTS DUE. I MADE THESE, THESE THREE PAYMENTS ONLINE IN FEBRUARY, 2025 WHEN I WAS PERSONALLY INFORMED THAT I OWE THESE PAYMENTS. I WAS SURPRISED, BUT PROCEEDED TO PAY THEM AGAIN ONLINE. I TOOK A SCREENSHOT OF MY PAYMENTS AND SENT IT VIA EMAIL AS PROOF OF PAYMENT. I WAS INFORMED PERSONALLY THAT NOTHING WAS PENDING AND THAT EVERYTHING WAS GOOD. I RECEIVED MY NEW PERMIT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, VALID UP TO APRIL, 2028. I LEFT THESE OFFICES WITH THE, CERTAINLY THAT EVERYTHING WAS PERFECT. AS TIME WENT BY, I CONTINUED RECEIVING LETTERS FROM AVENUE INFORMING ME THAT I STILL OWED THE SAME THREE PAYMENTS, WHICH I HAD ALREADY PAID. I IGNORED THESE LETTERS, WHICH WERE SEVERAL. THIS BECAUSE I HAD THE PERMIT, WHICH CONSTITUTED EVERYTHING WAS IN PLACE. I ALSO TOLD I WAS RECEIVING THESE LETTERS IN ERROR AS MAYBE AVENUE HAD NOT UPDATED THE PAYMENTS TO MA. TO MY SURPRISE, I CONTINUED TO RECEIVE THESE LETTERS LETTING ME KNOW THAT NOT ONLY I STILL OWE THESE THREE PAYMENTS, BUT NOW NEW ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS. I WAS IN SHOCK WHEN, IN NOVEMBER 18, I RECEIVED A LETTER LETTING ME KNOW MY PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED. I IMMEDIATELY CAME BACK OF THESE OFFICES, OFFICES TO PROVE THAT I HAD MADE ALL THE PAYMENTS, I HAD ALL THE, MY SCREENSHOTS TO PROVE THIS. I RECEIVED HELP FROM AN EMPLOYEE AND AN INTERPRETER TRYING TO FI FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. THEY HAD TO CALL A THIRD EMPLOYEE FOR HELP. IT WAS THIS THIRD PERSON THAT FOUND THE PROBLEM. THE PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE THE REASON OF REVOKING MY PERMIT WERE ALL IN PROGRESS. THIS INCLUDE THE FOUR PAYMENTS THAT WERE ISSUED BEFORE MY NEW PERMIT WAS GIVEN TO ME. I APOLOGIZE FOR THESE MISTAKES AND I AM NOT VERY GOOD IN COMPUTERS AND IF, IF I HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THESE MISTAKES BEFORE THEY HAVE RENEWED MY PERMIT, I WILL NOT MAKE THEM AGAIN. ALRIGHT, THAT'S, THANK YOU. LET, UH, SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MS. ROSALES, ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THOSE PAYMENTS. IF SHE WAS, IF SHE, HER SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS REISSUED IN 2025, WHY WOULD SHE BE GETTING THESE LETTERS? AND SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE PAID THEM. CAN YOU CLEAR UP THE CONFUSION? YES. SO THE, UM, IMAGES THAT SHE SENT FOR THIS APPLICATION, IT SHOWED THAT THEY WERE IN PROGRESS, WHICH MEANS IT'S ALMOST LIKE A TEMP RECORD. STAFF MISTOOK THAT AS IT WAS PROCESSED, BUT IN PROGRESS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS ACCEPTED AND THAT'S WHY SHE KEPT RECEIVING LETTERS. UM, SHE ALSO, EVEN, SHE, EVEN AFTER SHE GOT THE PERMIT ISSUED, WE DO SEND A RENEWAL REMINDER SAYING, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU REPORT TAX ON A MONTHLY BASIS. AND OUR RECORDS SHOW SHE, UH, STOPPED PAYING, DID NOT PAY TAXES ON A MONTHLY BASIS FROM MAY, 2025 UNTIL NOW. ALSO. SO EVEN WHEN SHE WAS NOTIFIED TO PAY MONTHLY, SHE STILL KIND OF STOPPED MAKING PAYMENTS AFTER APRIL, 2025. UM, BUT YEAH, SO THEN WHAT SHE SHOWED US, IT WAS SAYING THAT IN PROGRESS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS RECEIVED. UM, RECEIVED IS A STATUS THAT IT WAS FILED. SO THAT WAS THE ERROR THAT WE MADE IN TERMS OF WHY IT WAS RENEWED, BECAUSE THEY JUST SAW THE SCREENSHOTS. THEY DIDN'T REALIZE IN PROGRESS, DID NOT MEAN IT WAS POSTED. WE HAD TO REACH OUT TO AVENUE FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE, ON THE, THEIR THREE DIFFERENT STATUSES. SO FOR THE APPLICANT, DO YOU AGREE THAT YOU DID NOT PAY TAXES AFTER MAY OF 2025? [02:20:03] YEAH. YEAH. I PAY, I DON'T, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T THINK SHE UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. 'CAUSE SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE, UH, DIDN'T PAY BECAUSE AIR, UH, AIRBNB SHE THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THEM. I THINK, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE ANSWER YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. MAYBE WE COULD, UH, YES, AIRBNB, THEY, THEY'LL COLLECT AND REMIT THE TAXES AND THEN I START THINKING OF THAT. CAN YOU TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? BUT, BUT THE BUT YOU'RE STILL I LATE FEE, AH, , SORRY. OKAY, SO, BUT, BUT THE, YOU'RE STILL REQUIRED TO PAY THE COUNTY TAXES YOURSELF? YEAH, I KNOW. THEY, THEY, THEY SEND US ANOTHER LETTER EXPLAINING, OH NO, EVERYTHING IS, EVERYBODY'S CONFUSED. WE ARE GONNA COLLECT AND YOU ARE GONNA REMIT. THEN I UPDATED MY TWO PAYMENTS. I DIDN'T PAY. I, I PAID, BUT I PAID LATER. BUT ALL THOSE PAYMENTS WERE IN PROGRESS BECAUSE I, I, I DON'T KNOW. I I I JUST SAY I JUST READ FAIL IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY END. NO, WHAT, WHAT THE CITY IS SAYING IS THAT AFTER MAY OF 2025, THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE, UH, CORRECT. SO TO CLARIFY, WHEN THE PERMIT WAS RENEWED IN MARCH, MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WE SENT OUT A NOTIFICATION THAT DID EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE THAT YES, A AIRBNB IS REPORTING CITY HOT TAXES FOR YOU, BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE TO REPORT AND REMIT COUNTY HOT TAXES THROUGH AVENUE. UM, AND THEN I SAW ONLINE THAT PAYMENTS FROM MAY, 2025 THROUGH TO, TO NOW WERE NOT PAID UNTIL AFTER, UNTIL THE END, TILL NOVEMBER OF DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR AFTER SHE RECEIVED THE FINAL NOTICE AND HER PRINT WAS REVOKED DUE TO HOT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND AT THIS POINT I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. WAIT. OH, MS. BRAGMAN, I DUNNO IF I ASKED THIS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THREE OF THESE IN A ROW. , IS SHE CURRENT NOW? YEAH, SHE IS NOW CURRENT. THANK YOU. AND, AND I'LL, I'LL THROW THIS INTO ANY CURRENT, UH, VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ON RECORD OR, UH, THERE ARE NO ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FOR THIS PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS MOMENT I CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION EZ MR. EZ? YEAH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET, APPLICANT BEAN BIRTH AT ROSALES. UH, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 16 DASH D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. ALRIGHT, A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, MR. REED. ALRIGHT, UH, MR. EZ, I'LL BE IN A, I'LL BE IN APPROVAL OF THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE OTHER ONES, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE CITY MADE AN ERROR, BUT I DO FEEL THEY MADE AN ERROR IN THIS ONE WITH GRANTING HER THE PERMIT E AND THEY SHOWED SOME CONFUSION THERE WITH IT, READING IN PROGRESS, THEM HAVING TO REACH OUT TO HAVING YOU. SO, SO I, I THINK THAT, UH, ALONE SHOWS THE ERROR THERE, BUT THEN ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS CAUGHT UP ON ALL THEIR PAYMENTS. UH, THERE'S NO OTHER STR ON THIS BLOCK PHASE, SO I THINK, UH, WE SHOULD GRANT THE APPEAL. ALRIGHT, MR. REED? UH, I, I FEEL THE SAME WAY. . ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BONILLA. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZINA? YES. I CONCUR WITH, UH, TENANT FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE, UH, UH, APPEAL DOES PASS. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE YOU GET CURRENT ON TAXES AND SUCH. ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE, PLEASE [02:25:06] GRAB A SLICE OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. IS CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 59. THE ADDRESS BEING SEVEN 10 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX. THE APPLICANT IS RICARDO GONZALEZ LECHA. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A SIX INCH OVERHANG TO AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SETBACK AND THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THIS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN A SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF TEXAS STATE HIGHWAY 1 51 AND EAST OF MILITARY DRIVE WEST. A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER, 2025 IN RESPONSE TO A CITIZEN REPORT OF BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF OBSERVED A NEW CARPORT WITH NO BUILDING PERMIT ON FILE AND ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. THE CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK AREA ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED A CHAIN LINK FENCE FENCE, WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION AREA. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED VARIANCES FOR SIMILAR, UH, VIOLATIONS ON A CARPORT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN JUNE, 2025. SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE CARPORT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN FEBRUARY, 2025. AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHICH, UM, THE BOARD APPROVED VARIANCES FOR IN JUNE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, UH, BASED ON, UH, INSUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THE CARPORT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE STRUCTURE AND RIGHT OF WAY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA DUE TO THE FENCE BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. AND TWO, THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF MAILED OUT 21 NOTICES. ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR ZERO. AND OPPO, UH, ACTUALLY ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE 200 FOOT AREA. UH, WE DID RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING SUPPORT. THIS LETTER HERE AT THE START OF THE MEETING, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF. THAT IS THE PROPERTY, UH, WITH THAT CARPORT THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE BOARD. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. UH, EZ, MR. UNI. SO THAT'S, THAT APPEARS TO BE LIKE A FABRIC, A FABRIC COVER. SO THAT'S THE HISTORICAL VIEW. THAT'S WHAT WAS IN FEBRUARY, 2025. UH, IF WE GO ONE SLIDE BACK, THAT IS THE, THE CURRENT . OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE NEIGHBOR'S ONE THERE. OKAY, SO THAT IS THEIRS NOW? YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S MUCH NICER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU'RE NOT, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD WHEN THIS, UH, RICARDO GONZALEZ BROWNLEY STREET. UH, RICARDO GONZALEZ, SEVEN 10 BROWN LEAF STREET. UH, UH, HE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT HE, UH, UH, BUILT HIS, UH, CARPORT AND HE IMITATED HIS NEIGHBOR. MM-HMM . AND HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY. ALRIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I, I HAVE ONE ON THE, THE, THE GUTTERS. UH, THERE'S A RAINFALL ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE ON THE, UH, RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. HE SAYS HE DOESN'T HAVE GUTTERS. WHERE DOES THE RAIN FALL FROM? THE, OKAY. IT DOES NOT FALL IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. [02:30:02] AND DOES IT, DOES A LOT SLOPE TO THE STREET OR TO BACK OR WHICH WAY DOES IT? HE FALLS A LITTLE BIT ON THE SIDES AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE FRONT. ALRIGHT. IN FRONT OF THE CARDBOARD. OKAY. LET'S SEE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM, FOR THE APPLICANT STORY? IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE OF THE, THE WAY THIS IS CONFIGURED, AS YOU MOVE FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY, IT GETS WIDER AND WIDER. YEP. MM-HMM . FROM SETBACK FROM THE SIDE. IS THAT WHAT I'M SEEING? AM I LOOKING AT THE CHAIR ORIAN? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. UM, THE, UH, SIDE SETBACK THAT IS POSTED, UH, ON THE ADVERTISEMENT IS CLOSEST, UH, TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE SIDE OF THERE. YOU'RE CORRECT. WHAT DOES IT GET TO AT THE BACK END OF THE CARDBOARD? HOW FAR, DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR IT IS BACK THERE? UH, WE, WE DID NOT GRAB THAT MEASUREMENT, JUST THE CLOSEST MEASUREMENT. UM, I CAN'T IMAGINE IT'S MORE THAN A FOOT AND A HALF DIS DIFFERENCE. UM, IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL WIDENING. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. HE SAID IT WAS 1.9019. ONE FOOT NINE INCHES. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ INTO MY PUBLIC COMMENT OR VOICEMAIL OKAY. OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION READ HERE. YOU CAN SIT DOWN, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU, YEAH. OKAY. I'LL DO. OKAY, MS. BREGGAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 5 9, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A SIX INCH OVERHANG. TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SETBACK AND THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA SITUATED. SEVEN 10 SOUTH BROWN LEAF STREET. APPLICANT THEME, UH, RICARDO, UH, GONZALEZ, UH, LAHA, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE 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 REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE AND PREVENT DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM WATER RUNOFF. UH, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION TO SAFELY OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND EXIT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE LOCAL STREET. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A RELOCATION OF THE CARPORT TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS UNFEASIBLE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE ARE ALREADY SIMILAR FENCES ON ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUEST WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS, AS WELL AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE CLEAR VISION AREA MAINTAINS SUFFICIENT SPACE BACK INTO THE STREET AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH, UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CARPORT AND PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS. THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS IT APPEARS ALIGNED WITH ESTABLISHED FENCES IN THE AREA. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE TO SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OF WHICH THE VARIANCE TO SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT CANNOT BE ALTERED TO FIT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS WHILE STILL PROTECTING [02:35:01] VEHICLES WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SHALLOW FRONT YARD DEPTH END OF MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, UH, SECOND FROM MR. STEVENS. UH, MR. BRAGMAN, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A PRECEDENT SET WITH THE NEIGHBOR AT 7 1 4 BROWN LEAF. UM, AND HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO, HE'S THE ONE THAT WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY, UH, THE WATER RUNOFF FROM THE CARPORT AND HE WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE CARPORT. UM, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I THINK THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE TO THE FRONT AND THE SIDE OF THIS CARPORT, SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR? YES. I CONCUR WITH 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. UH, THE MOTION HAS READ. UH, PASSES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, UM, ON CASE NUMBER 10, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 6 2. THE ADDRESS BEING 1 23 FAY AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS DEION COMPOST AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD, UH, FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT TALL FRONT YARD FENCE. THE ZONING IS C TWO P COMMERCIAL PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN NEW LAREDO HIGHWAY AND SOMERSET ROAD ALONG FAY AVENUE. ACCORDING TO HISTORICAL IMAGERY, CORRUGATED METAL FENCING APPEARS TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE PROPERTY SOMETIME BETWEEN 2006 AND 2008. SINCE 2024, MULTIPLE CODE EN ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY IN RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF ILLEGAL OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES. THOSE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT. HOWEVER, THE ILLEGAL OFFENSE MATERIAL AND EXCESSIVE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WERE OBSERVED DURING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND NOTICES OF VIOLATION WERE ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD, AS THE LOT IS BEING DEVELOPED AS A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT ABUTS A SINGLE FAMILY USE. HOWEVER, UH, THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR THIS PROPERTY. UH, AND TO RESOLVE THESE VIOLATIONS, THE APPLICANT MUST COMPLY WITH THE FENCING STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN. UH, AGAIN, THE FEDERAL, UH, THE, THE METAL FENCING IS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY PERIMETER AND THE FRONT YARD FENCE IS, UH, SEVEN FEET OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT. AND HERE'S ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE STREET. THIS IS WHAT THAT FENCE LOOKS LIKE OFF OF FAY AVENUE. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE STREET A SIMILAR FENCING ON THE LOT DIRECTLY ACROSS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND HERE'S A LOOK AT THAT FENCE, UH, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE WEST SIDE. UH, THAT'S THE KIND OF SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAT THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHARES WITH THIS LOT, THAT, AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE EAST SIDE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY UNLESS IT IS, UH, AN EXISTING USED AUTO PARTS RECYCLER OR METAL RECYCLING ENTITY. AND TWO, THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING DETRACTS FROM THE OVERALL STREET SCAPE APPEARANCE AND APPEAL OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE FENCE ISOLATES THE PROPERTY FROM THE WIDER COMMUNITY. AND TWO, THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION CREATED BY THIS FENCE BLOCKS THE FREE AND OPEN VIEW OF THE WIDER AREA FROM THE FRONT YARD OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. STAFF MAILED 12 NOTICES. EIGHT WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE QUINTANA COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. UH, THREE OF THOSE RESPONSES IN FAVOR ARE PICTURED HERE. THE REST, UH, WERE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. UH, AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE HERE, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BRAGMAN, MR. BRAGMAN? UH, TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PICTURE. SO, UM, [02:40:02] SLIDE NUMBER 1 22, WHICH SHOWS CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT ALSO CORRUGATED METAL THAT IS IN THAT PROPERTY? UH, THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET I THINK IS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE TWO USES, EITHER USED AUTO PARTS RECYCLER OR A METAL RECYCLING ENTITY. SO IT'S A PERMITTED OH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S PERMITTED. THEY THAT'S CORRECT. UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF, OF THE, ONE OF THOSE TWO USES. I CANNOT REMEMBER WHICH AT THIS TIME. OKAY. AND YOU SAID THAT THE FENCE ON THE LEFT THERE, THAT'S 10 FOOT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 10 FOOT FENCE? CORRECT. OKAY. AND NO CAP, IT LOOKS LIKE? UM, ACTUALLY I DID, DID NOT OBSERVE A CAP. I'M, I'M NOT TOO SURE. COULDN'T GET UP THAT HIGH. A LADDER. RIGHT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BRAGMAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING NOT ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD? HELLO, MY NAME IS IANNA CAMPOS AND MY PROPERTY IS 1 2 3 FA AVENUE. AND, AND I WILL, YOU KNOW, UH, MY DAD GAVE ME THIS PROPERTY AND HE BUILD A FENCE LIKE, UH, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO. AND, UH, AND THEY NEVER TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE FENCE AND HE BUILD THE FENCE BECAUSE A LOT OF, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT WORD TO USE, THESE PEOPLE THROW FURNITURE AND THEY THROW, UM, A LOT OF TRASH, EVEN THOUGH, UH, PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO STEAL, THEY JUMP THE FENCE. SO HE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THE REASON THAT HE, I THINK HE BUILT THE, THE FENCE, THE FENCE THAT HIGH. BUT LIKE I SAY BEFORE, HE NEVER HAVE, UM, PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY. THEY ABOUT THE FENCE, THE HIGH OF THE MATERIAL. AND I WENT TO AROUND THE NEIGHBOR AND I ASKED IF THEY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE FENCE. AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WAS, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEM. THEY FEEL SAFE BECAUSE THEY USED TO JUMP, LIKE I SAY BEFORE, UH, PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO STEAL AND, YOU KNOW, THROWING FURNITURE IN TRASH. SO THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. . THANK YOU. LET'S SEE, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND ONE CLARIFICATION. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, HAS A NON-CONFORMING FOR A METAL RECYCLING ENTITY. ORIAN IAN? YEAH, SO THE, THE, THE, THE, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE, THE, THE SHEER NEED FOR A 10 FOOT TALL FENCE. I MEAN, IS, IS, IS SEVEN, IS SEVEN OR EIGHT FOOT TALL? DO DO THE JOB OR I MEAN, WHY DO YOU NEED 10? I DON'T KNOW. WELL, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, LIKE THEY GIVE YOU THIS, UH, PROPERTY, SO HE, HE BUILD THE FENCE LIKE MANY YEARS AGO, SIR. AND I THINK THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE, UM, A LOT OF THI AND PEOPLE WHO USED TO STEAL AROUND THE NEIGHBOR, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE PLACE TOO WHEN MY DAD WAS, UM, IN USING THE PROPERTY. HOW TALL IS THE FENCE? UH, AND WHEN, HOW TALL IS THE FENCE? UH, UH, AWAY FROM THE FRONT ON THE SIDE AND THE REAR. HOW TALL IS THAT FENCE? I THINK, UH, IT'S, UH, NINE FEET FRONT AND ON THE SIZES IS A AND HALF AND A HALF. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UHHUH. AND BEHIND THE PROPERTY THEY HAVE A LOT OF, UH, ANOTHER JOINT YARD. SO, UH, AND THE FRONT IS ANOTHER JOINT YARD. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND MS. GAN. SO WHAT IS THE PROPERTY BEING USED FOR? UH, WELL MY DAY HE USED TO, UH, I THINK SELL CARDS. NO, NOW? NO, NOW IT'S EMPTY. IT'S EMPTY. THE PROPERTY'S EMPTY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS CRUZ, MS. STEVENS, AND THEN MS. CRUZ, HOW TALL OF A FENCE DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO SECURE YOUR PROPERTY? TO BE HONEST, I THINK SINCE HE, MY DAD BUILT THAT PROPERTY, THAT TILE IN THE FRONT AND AROUND, UM, IT'S SAFE LIKE THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT I, I THINK IS PROBLEM IS OUTSIDE THEY THROW A LOT OF FURNITURE, TIRES, ENGINES AND A LOT OF STUFF. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT SIZE TO, TO HAVE THE, THE FENCE AFTER SO MANY YEARS, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY BARELY TELL ME THAT IT'S NOT THE RIGHT SIZE, THE RIGHT HIGH, I'M SORRY. MM-HMM AND EVEN THOUGH, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I ASK THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY HAVE ANY HUGE ISSUES AND THEY SAY THEY FEEL SAFE LIKE THAT. SO, SO, SO DO YOU THINK A SEVEN FOOT FENCE WOULDN'T PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY ADEQUATELY? NO. NO. BELIEVE ME, NO. I'VE BEEN PAYING FOR ONLY THE TRASH THEY TAKE, THEY THROW A OUTSIDE, I'VE BEEN PAYING LIKE 500, [02:45:01] 600 TO THROW THAT, MOVE IT FROM THERE. THEY SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU CALL? I SAID, BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHEN THEY THROW IT JUST TO, THEY, MOST OF THE TIME THEY GO AT NIGHT AND THROW IT. SO IF I IS SHOULDER, THEY'RE GONNA THROW IT INSIDE A LOT, SIR, THAT'S WHY. SO PLEASE TAKE MY CONSIDERATION WHAT I SAY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR. STEVENS. MS. CRUZ? UH, YES. ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE PROPERTY SINCE IT'S BEEN EMPTY FOR A WHILE NOW? I DON'T KNOW YET. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TO HAVE, UM, MONEY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY, SO NO, NO FOR NOW. BONIS. MR. BONIA, AS FOR THE CITY, ARE THERE ANY, UH, CODE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR LIKE, TRASH, DEBRIS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE PAST OR CURRENT? NOTHING BESIDES THE, UH, VIOLATION OF OFFENSE MATERIAL. THANK YOU. MR. BONS. BRAMAN. MR. BRAGMAN. MS. BRAGMAN, THIS IS FOR STAFF. SO THE ZONING THAT, UM, IS CURRENTLY ON THIS PROPERTY, WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW FOR? WHAT, WHAT USES DOES THAT ALLOW FOR? UH, SO THE MEDIUM INTENSITY, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, THE MOST INTENSIVE ONE WOULD BE OIL CHANGES. UM, OBVIOUSLY REGULAR RETAIL AND UH, UM, FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. UM, MAYBE SOME MOBILE FOOD COURT. OKAY. AND AND IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ON TWO SIDES? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. BREGMAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, UH, YES, I, I ASK ONE MORE BEFORE WE MOVE ON HERE. UH, IF YOU HAD TO SHORTEN DOWN THIS FENCE AND, AND BRING IT DOWN TO A LOWER, LOWER HEIGHT, UH, CAN YOU AFFORD THAT? NO, RIGHT NOW, SIR. I'M SORRY. NO, RIGHT NOW IT'S TOO MUCH MONEY. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. CAP? YEAH, AND ALSO THE CAP, RIGHT? IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOMETHING, WE'D AT LEAST WANT A CAP ON THE TOP. SO A CAP WOULD BE JUST SO THE SHARP EDGES WOULDN'T BE EXPOSED IF SOMEONE WERE TRYING TO CLIMB THE FENCE, THEY WOULDN'T CUT THEMSELVES ON THE OH, NO, NO, NO. IF IT'S ANY, UM, I FORGOT HOW YOU SAY . CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IF IT'S ANYBODY CAN BE IN DANGER TO JUMP THE FENCE, THAT'S YOU? YEAH, YEAH. NO, NO, NO, NO. BECAUSE IT'S HIGH, BUT THERE'S NO SHARPING LIKE THEY CAN GET HURT. NO. IF WE WERE EDGE THAT WHAT, THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION I, I THINK IS WHAT HE, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE FENCE AND THE HEIGHT OF IT RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT A CAP ON IT. WOULD YOU PUT A CAP ON IT AT LEAST? OH YEAH, YEAH. I'M SORRY. YES. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. YES, THANK YOU. I'M SORRY YOU'RE NO RIGHT. UM, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR VOICEMAILS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? NO. PUBLIC RIGHT. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? DOES SHE HAVE, UH, MS. CAMPOS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE CLOSE? NO SIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. BON MR. BON. YEAH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 2. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT OFFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING SITUATED AT 1 23 FA AVENUE. UM, I, I IF, UH, AS LONG AS WE CAN PUT A CAP ON THE TOP OF THAT FENCE, APPLICANT BEING DIANA CAMPOS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LIT THAT A LETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRA CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL SECURITY THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPERTY. UH, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDI DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE FENCE MATERIAL MAY BE REPLACED WITH A PERMITTED, WITH A PERMITTED MATERIAL, BUT WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LEVEL OF SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AS THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED WOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SECURITY TO THIS PROPERTY. NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS SIMILAR FENCES ARE PRESENT IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER [02:50:01] OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND THE PRESENCE OF SIMILAR FENCING IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. END OF MOTION. I GET A SECOND. SECOND. MR. STEVENS? UH, MR. EZ? YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF, UH, OF THE MOTION. UM, ADDING THE CAP ON THERE. UH, I DO BELIEVE IT'S A FINANCIAL BURDEN TO HER TO HAVE TO REMOVE THIS FENCE. UH, PUT A LOWER FENCE ON THERE. SHE DIDN'T PUT IT UP, HER FATHER DID MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. SHE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. UH, IT SEEMS THAT THEY DO DUMP A BUNCH OF TRASH HERE. YOU CAN GO LOOK ON GOOGLE PHOTOS AND, AND THEY DO DUMP IN THIS PROPERTY OFTEN. UM, AS LONG AS SHE CAN PUT A CAP ON IT, I'M IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS? UH, I'LL, I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR WITH THIS ONE. TYPICALLY, I, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE SO HOT ON A 10 FOOT WALL FENCE, BUT CONSIDERING THERE'S A MATCHING FENCE ACROSS THE STREET, I DON'T THINK THAT GOING THROUGH THE COST AND THE TIME TO LOWER THIS THING, A COUPLE OF FEET IS REALLY GOING TO ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT ALL THAT MUCH. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. WELL, THIS IS FOR THE MATERIAL, RIGHT? FOR THE SHEET ROLL MATERIAL. THE SECOND MOTION. OKAY, SORRY. YEAH, PRETTY RED WOULD BE FOR THE HEIGHT. SO WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. SO JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS IS FOR THE MATERIAL, RIGHT? SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. SECOND CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZINA? YES, I CONCUR. 11 IN FAVOR? ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE MATERIAL DOES PASS. NOW LET'S GET THE MOTION GOING FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT FOR STAFF. WAS IT NOT ALL INCLUDED IN THAT ONE? NO, IT WAS A SEPARATE MOTION. IT'S SEPARATE. OH MAN. OKAY. I GUESS, IS THAT 10? YES, THAT WAS 10. YEAH, IT'S THE SECOND PAGE ON 10. OKAY, HERE WE GO. FRONT STUFF. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 62, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE SITUATED AT 1 23 FAY AVENUE APPLICANT BEING DIANA CAMPOS. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE, WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WOULD BE SERVED BY THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION AS THE FRONT YARD FENCE MAINTAINS THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION AS THE FENCE HEIGHTS IS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. D THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION ASSAULT. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE FENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE STREETSCAPE. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREON ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE FENCE FOR A FENCE THAT IS TYPICALLY OF ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. ALTHOUGH THIS PARCEL IS NOT CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THIS TYPE OF USE, MULTIPLE PARCELS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA ARE ZONED FOUR AND OCCUPIED BY INDUSTRIAL USES. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT, MR. EZ? UH, YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. I I THINK IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY WITHIN THE MOTION. YOU KNOW WHY WE'RE GONNA DO THIS? UH, NEIGHBORS ACROSS FROM IT HAVE DEFENSE HEIGHT SIMILAR. I DON'T THINK IT TAKES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS? UH, SAME. YEP. I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR THE SAME REASONS I GAVE INADVERTENTLY DURING THE LAST MOTION. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER BON. YES. SECOND CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. SECOND CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, YES. VICE CHAIR. YES. I CONCUR. SO 11 IN FAVOR IS ZERO OPPOSITION. UH, SO THE MOTION DOES PASS. REMIND THE APPLICANT THAT THE, THE CAP WOULD NEED [02:55:01] TO BE PLACED AROUND THE TOP OF THE FENCING TO PROTECT, UH, SOMEBODY FROM GETTING CUT. SO THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD WITH NEXT CASE FOR THIS ONE, MR. CHAIR. THANK, TAKE A CALL. OH, OKAY. OKAY. ANOTHER BOARD. OH, OKAY. OKAY. UH, THE TIME IS FIVE 20 AND COMMISSIONER REED WOULD BE STEPPING OUT FOR THIS CASE AND WE WILL HOPEFULLY GET HIM OUT IN THE NEXT CASE. CHAIR. YES. UH, IT'S MS. CRUZ. MS. CRUZ, I NEED TO LOG OFF ALREADY. OKAY. SO WE'RE DOWN TO, THAT'D BE NINE. SO WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM. SO WITH NINE BEING THE CASE I'D, I'D ASK FOR THE SITTING MEMBERS TO LIKE, UH, PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR, UM, OPINIONS HERE AS THE VOTES ARE BEING TAKEN AS A COURTESY TO THE APPLICANT. AND SO ALRIGHTYY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND ROLL WITH GOOD AFTERNOON Y'ALL. THIS IS BOA CASE 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 3. THE APPLICANT IS NELLY FARGO, IT'S COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. THE LOCATION IS TWO 10 TASMAN ROAD. UH, THE ZONING IS R FOUR AND I'M THE CASE MANAGER. THE REQUEST IS FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FOOT, ONE FRONT YARD. SO DOWN TO NINE. I WOULD ASK IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASES THAT HAVE STAFF APPROVAL FIRST. UH, WHICH WE HAVE 2, 6, 5. YEAH, IT'S JUST, WE'RE ONLY DOWN TO NINE. UM, SO THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 12? YES. ALRIGHT. APOLOGIES FOR THAT. ALL GOOD. YEAH. BUT ISN'T REED ONLY OUT FOR THIS CASE OR IS HE OUT FOR, HE'S ONLY OUT FOR THIS CASE. WILL HE TAKE, HE'LL BE BACK. SO YOU'LL BE BACK TO 10 FOR THE REMAINING CASES. THAT'S BETTER THAN THAT. WELL, YEAH, SO COMMISSIONER REED HAD A CALL THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RECUSAL OF THIS SPECIFIC CASE OR HE'S GONNA BE OUT HERE. I UNDERSTAND. SORRY. OKAY. I THOUGHT HE WAS S REFUSING FROM THIS ITEM. MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S PROBABLY PROMPTED IT THAT WAY, BUT I APOLOGIZE. YEAH. ALRIGHT, SO IF WE CAN GO WITH, UH, 2 65 CASE NUMBER 12. ALRIGHT, BO OA 25 BO O 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 5. UM, LOCATED 25 22 TOWN BRIAR. THIS IS FOR A 10 SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A FIVE FOOT 10 INCH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE LIMITED TO THE GATE AS CONSTRUCTED. AND A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINERAL 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION, UH, TO ALLOW 10 FOOT CLEAR VISION IS ZONE R SIX. ALL THIS STEMS FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE. UM, THIS IS LIMITED TO THE FENCE, UM, KIND OF DECORATIVE THAT GOES UP ON THE FRONT YARD. AND THEN THE, UH, THE, UH, ENCROACHMENT OF THE CLEAR VISION. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS, UH, SHOWING THE FRONT YARD AREA AND THE CLEAR VISION AREA. NEXT PHOTO, SO THAT, UM, GATE WHERE IT GOES UP. THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FENCE HEIGHT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPTION APPROVAL, UH, SPECIALIZATION WILL BE LIMITED TO ONLY THE ARCH GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY AND REMAINS THE FRONT YARD FENCE WILL COMPLY WITH DEFENSE CODE AND DEFENSE AS CONSTRUCTED. DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE. AND ALSO APPROVAL FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE. THERE'S SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENCROACHMENT FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. THE STREET SCAPE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOW SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED BY THE FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION AREA. UH, 34 NOTICES MAILED OUT. FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THUNDERBIRD HILLS IS IN SUPPORT. THERE IS THE, UH, SUPPORT LETTERS I SENT EARLIER AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALRIGHT. DON'T HEAR ANY, UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR? YES. OKAY. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT UP. THANK YOU FOR, UH, YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR TIME AND NO, NO, NO. APOLOGIZE FOR THE, YOU GUYS HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO TODAY, . UM, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO SAY. I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THE FENCE. UH, WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S REALLY AFFECTING ANYTHING MAJORLY AND, UH, REALLY JUST LIKE TO HEAR IF YOU GUYS ARE IN APPROVAL. OKAY. NAME AND ADDRESS. UH, YEAH, I'M SORRY. UH, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD. OH, MATTHEW JONES. MY ADDRESS IS 96 0 2 DIAMOND GAP, UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 5 4. OKAY. UM, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT. UH, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN MR. MR. ES? OH, OKAY. UH, SO MR. ES IS GONNA COME [03:00:01] UP AND THEN I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO OKAY. REBUTT MS. KI AS WELL. MR. OKAY. MY NAME IS STEFAN RAVEN. I'M THE OWNER AT 25 22 TOM BRI STREET. OKAY, THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. YEAH. HELLO, MY NAME'S BERTO ES I LIVE IN 25 30 TOM BRIAR STREET. UH, I LIVE IN THE CUL-DE-SAC WHERE MR. JOEL IS BUILD THIS FENCE. UH, I'M OPPOSING THE FENCE BECAUSE ON THE SIDE IS A PRIVATE FENCE AND IT'S TOO HIGH AND IT BLOCKS THE VIEW OF THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC. WHEN I'M COMING OUT OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, I CAN'T SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING. I HAVE TO LITERALLY GO INTO THE, THE STREET BEFORE I EVEN SEE TRAFFIC COMING ONTO THE, ONTO THE STREET. AND I THINK IT'S A DANGEROUS FENCE. UH, IT SHOULD BE CUT DOWN TO THE CODE VIOLATIONS, UH, THE CODE SIZE. SO, UH, I WOULDN'T HAVE NO PROBLEMS LOOKING OUT TO MY LEFT TO SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN THE STREET. THERE'S ALSO NO, THERE'S ALSO NO SIDEWALKS THERE. WE LIVE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. THERE'S NO SIDEWALK, SO HE HAS TO BE ON, I HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET. OH, I SEE. TO GO TO THE YES, THE SIDEWALK. SO WHEN HE'S COMING, IF THERE'S CAR GONNA TURN, THERE'S GONNA HIT HIM BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENED. CAN, CAN WE GET YOUR NAME ALSO FOR THE RECORD? YVANNA LEMAN. OKAY. IS MY WIFE YOUR ADDRESS? 25 30 TOM BRIER. OKAY, THANK YOU. MM-HMM . SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. UH, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN? SO WHAT PORTION OF THE FENCE, UH, OBSTRUCTS YOUR VISION WHEN YOU'RE PULLING OUT? IT'S THE, THE PRIVATE FENCE. THE WOODEN FENCE ON THE SIDE. WOODEN FENCE. OKAY. SO NOT ONE THAT HE BUILT THERE, NOT THE ROD IRON THERE. BEFORE ALL OF THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE HE BUILT, HE BUILT A WOODEN FENCE. THE PRIVATE FENCE WHEN HE BUILT THE, THE ROD IRON FENCE IS, IS THERE A PORTION? SO I, UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A, IF THE APPLICANT IS, KNOWS THE ISSUE HERE, HAVE Y'ALL TALKED AT ALL ABOUT NO. THIS FENCE OR MAYBE THERE'S SOME KIND OF A CONCURRENCE IF Y'ALL TALK AND THERE'S MAYBE A SECTION OF THAT FENCE THAT COULD BE BROUGHT DOWN TO MAKE WAIT FOR THAT CLEAR VISION. WE'LL DROP IT DOWN BECAUSE THIS, THE SITE IS CONSIDERED LIKE THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, BUT HE BUILT THE FENCE FROM THERE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK. AND WHEN YOU'RE COMING, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THAT FENCE WASN'T THERE BEFORE. RIGHT. SO IT'S JUST SLIDE 1 47, IT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOWS THE SOLID WOOD FENCE ON THE, IN THE CUL-DE-SAC. MM-HMM . RIGHT? CORRECT. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UH, THAT WOODEN FENCE ISN'T PART OF THIS APPLICANT'S, UH, THING. IT'S JUST THE, THE FRONT OF THE FENCE. THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. THIS REQUEST ONLY CONCERNS THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE. THE REASON BEING, UH, AS PICTURED HERE, THAT WOODEN FENCE ACTUALLY DOES ENCROACH SLIGHTLY INTO THE FRONT YARD. BUT I'M SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS REQUEST. THEIR INTENT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND CUT THAT WOODEN FENCE DOWN TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FEET. OKAY. FOR A SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. FOR THAT REASON, WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOLID FENCE AS PART OF THIS REQUEST. SO AS THANK YOU AS PICTURED HERE, IT WILL BE CHANGED. AND SO HOW DO WE ENFORCE THAT? I MEAN THE STANDARD CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. OKAY. NO ONE INFORMED US ABOUT THAT. I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE BECAUSE OF THE WOODEN FENCE. WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE, THERE WOULD BE SOME COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE CUT DOWN. SO SIGN IS GONNA BE CUT DOWN. YOU GO TO A SIDE PLAN, JOE. YEAH, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN CALLED THE CITY AND THEY TOLD US THAT IN TWO YEARS THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A SIDEWALK. IT'LL BE IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, BUT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC WE WILL NEVER GET A SIDEWALK. SO HE STILL HAS TO BE ON THE STREET. YEAH. AND IF YOU SEE THE SIDE PLAN WHERE IT SAYS FRONT YARD AREA, ANYWHERE THAT THE, THE PRIVACY FENCE IS ON THE SIDE, IT'S GONNA BE CUT DOWN. THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE. AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PORTION OF A FEW FEET THAT IS IN THAT'S ENCROACHING ON THERE, ON THAT WOOD FENCE. CORRECT. AND, AND AS FAR AS UH, YOUR CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS KEEP BUGGING YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON TO GET A SIDEWALK THERE AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF YOUR USE OF YOUR WHEELCHAIR, UH, THEY, THEY SHOULD PUSH IT REALLY QUICKLY BUT THE CITY NEEDS TO GET THAT SIDEWALK IN THERE. YEAH, WHEN WE CALLED, THEY SAID IN 2028 THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A SIDEWALK BUT IT'S ONLY GONNA GO IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE THE OTHER WAY. BUT THEY WON'T, THEY WILL NOT DO IT ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. KEEP BUGGING THEM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. YEP. AND AT THIS POINT THE APPLICANT I'D ASK YOU TO PLEASE COME FORWARD, I MEAN YOU HEARD UH, THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND UH, THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH THEM ABOUT COMPLYING WITH THAT SIR CLEAR VISION AREA IN THE FRONT YARD AREA? YEAH, WE DID COMPLY WITH, UH, WHAT JOEL REQUESTED. WE HAVE A PHOTO OF WHAT WE'VE STARTED WORKING ON ON THAT AREA THERE ON THE SIDE WHERE IT KIND OF ENCROACHES. IF YOU NOTICE HERE THERE'S A LINE WHICH SHOWS WE'RE KIND OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE REDUCING DOWN TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THAT THREE FOOT FRONT FENCE REQUIREMENT. SO IT'S [03:05:01] GONNA STAY A SOLID WOOD FENCE, IT'S JUST GONNA REDUCE DOWN TO THREE FEET AT THAT AREA THERE AT THE FRONT. AT THAT END OF THAT FRONT OF THERE. YES. IT, YEAH, IT'LL BE REDUCED FOR CLEAR VISION. OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. WE ALREADY REDUCED IT LIKE SIX FOOT DEEPER FOR CLEAR VISION AND WE CAME BACK A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT WAS REQUESTED JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT CORNER CLEAR THROUGH THE PERFECT, THANK YOU. AND THAT'S THE MOST WE CAN ENFORCE WITHIN BOARD ANYWAY, SO. ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HEARING UNITED? ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 65. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANDER REQUEST FOR A 10 INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT 10 INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE LIMITED TO THE GATE AS CONSTRUCTED, SITUATED AT 2 5 2 2 TOWN BRIAR STREET, APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW JONES. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY OF THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE EXCEPTION WILL BE LIMITED ONLY TO THE ARCH GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY. AND THE REMAINING FRONT YARD FENCE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE FENCE CODE B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PUBLIC WELFARE SHOULD BE SERVED AS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALLOW FOR AN AESTHETIC FEATURE ALONG THE FRONT YARD FENCE. AND THE MAJORITY OF THE REMAINING FENCE WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANT. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AS THE FENCE AS CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THIS RESIDENTIAL SEAT STREET SCAPE. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS DEFENSE WOULD LARGELY REMAIN CODE COMPLIANT AND ADHERE TO A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FENCE APPEARANCE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE LIMITED IN SCOPE AND ONLY APPLY TO THE GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, A SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT, MS. BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. IT'S VERY LIMITED SCOPE IN TERMS OF THE, UM, HEIGHT OVER THE, THE GATE. UH, AND SO, AND BEING THAT IT'S UM, A WROUGHT IRON FENCE, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS, I'LL CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PROACTIVENESS ON THAT SIDE FENCE, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR. NU YES, I CONCUR. SO NINE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION DOES PASS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK. THE PROJECT, THERE'S MORE MOTION, CLEAR VISION. THERE'S OH WHOA. THERE'S A SEPARATE CL CLEAR VISION MOTION. YEAH. OKAY, THERE'S, THERE'S MORE. OH, OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN SIT DOWN BUT THERE'S MORE . HOW DO I HAVE, I'LL DO IT. OH THERE IT'S, YEAH. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 6 5 MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT OR REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA FOR A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD SITUATED AT 2 5 2 2 TOWN BRIAR STREET. APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW JONES. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION TO SAFELY OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND EXIT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE LOCAL STREET. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENCROACHING FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE CURRENT CLEAR VISION AREA [03:10:01] OF 10 FEET LEAVES SUFFICIENT ROOM TO BACK INTO THE STREET AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE STREET SCAPE OF THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED BY THE FENCE HAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THIS CLEAR VISION AREA. SIXTH PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE SHALLOW FRONT YARD DEPTH, THE END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, GET A SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT BRAGMAN. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY STATED THAT THEY ARE GONNA, UH, REDUCE DOWN THAT SIDE SOLID FENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAR VISION. UM, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AND I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR LUNA? YES, I CONCUR. ALRIGHT, SO NOW, ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF MR. RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO ITEM NUMBER 16. OKAY. YOU GET A 16, UH, 2 73 PLEASE. IS MR. REED OUT THERE OR IS HE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR I THINK SO. HE'S PROBABLY IN. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. BO OA 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 3. UH, THIS IS FOR EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, UH, ZONE I ONE. SO THIS IS FOR A 12 FOOT VARI FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. SUBJECT'S LOCATED JUST OFF THE, UH, BOUNDARY OF KIRBY. THE LAW HAS AN EXISTING BUILDING WITHOUT, UH, PLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT. HOWEVER, ONCE THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR, IT WAS FOUND THAT NOT ABIDE BY THE FRONT SETBACK PROPERTY OF THE CDL DRIVING, UH, DRIVER'S TRAINING AND THE BUILDING WAS PLACED FORWARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE REAR FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE 18 FOOT, UH, SETBACK IN THE FRONT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL REDUCING THE SETBACK BY 40%. UH, SHIFTS THE BUILDING MASS CLOSER TO THE STREET, POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC SAFETY SITE DISTANCE, STREET SCAPE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THE REQUEST PLACES THE INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES VISIBLY CLOSER TO THE STREET, INCREASING THEIR PERCEPTION OF INTENSITY OF POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THROUGH VISUAL INTRUSION AND REDUCED BUFFERING. UH, 16 NOTICES WERE MAILED. NONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION WITH A 200 FEET. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE, STEVENS? I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND IT IS, IT IS CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE EVEN THOUGH IT'S UH, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE MOVED EASIER THAN SOMETHING BUILT ON THE GROUND. BUT BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S THERE ON UH, ON BLOCKS LIKE THAT, IT'S CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. AND IF IT, IF IT WASN'T CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, WOULD THOSE, WOULD IT BE IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? UM, SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED A BUILDING PERMIT. UH, ZONING, UH, ZONING SETBACKS WOULD NOT, UH, BE IN EFFECT AT THAT POINT. UM, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER PERMIT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, LET'S GET THE APPLICANT FORWARD IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD. AND HELLO, JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S CASSANDRA [03:15:01] BERNICE. UM, THE ADDRESS IS EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 9. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UM, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL VILLALOBOS, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW THE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED BASED ON PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE FROM A PREVIOUSLY HIRED ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTRUCTION. UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE 30 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AS A RESULT, THE BUILDING WAS PLACED ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERED PLANS PROVIDED AT THE TIME, AND ALL UTILITIES WERE INSTALLED TO SUPPORT THIS LOCATION. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN FULLY OPERATIONAL WITH NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO, UM, TO PROPERTIES PUBLIC SAFETY, TRAFFIC VISIBILITY, OR THEIR SURROUNDING DISTRICT. THE CURRENT PLACEMENT HAS FUNCTIONED SAFELY AND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE NEARBY DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING THE BUILDING TO BE RELOCATED 12 FEET. TO MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF, I'M SORRY, OF THE SIGNIFICANT HARD, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE, DISRUPTION OF ONGOING BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND REMOVAL, RELOCATION OF ALL EXISTING WATER, SEWER, AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES. THESE IMPACTS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE AND WE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, I MEAN, UM, I DID SUBMIT ADDITIONAL PHOTOS, UM, THAT WAY YOU GUYS CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE WE DO NEED THAT SPACE 'CAUSE WE HAVE, UM, PRE-UP INSPECTIONS, YOU KNOW, SO IT IS GONNA BE, UH, FINANCIALLY HARDSHIP JUST TO HIRE OTHER ADDITIONAL, UH, MOVERS AND PLUMBING, ELECTRICITY, YOU KNOW, TO DO THAT MOVE. SO RIGHT THERE, THERE'S NO OTHER SPACE THAT WE CAN DO TO PUSH THAT FURTHER OUT. ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WE JUST DO LITTLE MOVEMENTS OF OFFSETS AND IT IS, UM, ACROSS THE STREET, IT IS, UH, MOBILE UNITS, BUT THAT'S BEHIND, YOU KNOW, BACK AND IT'S NOT AS MUCH TRAFFIC. UM, THEY DRIVE BY SLOW. IT'S THE SAME TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS NEXT DOOR IS, UH, AUTO PARTS. MM-HMM . UM, BUT IT IS IN EMPTY, LOTS IN BETWEEN. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . UM, LET'S SEE IF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MS. B, HOW LONG HAS THAT BUILDING BEEN IN PLACE? I WOULD SAY ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF I WOULD SAY. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT, UM, BUT IT'S FAIRLY RECENT. IT'S, YEAH. OKAY. AND YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT SHOWED, IT WAS SUBMITTED ACTUALLY, THEY, BEFORE THE PLACEMENT, UM, THE ENGINEER, THE PRIOR ENGINEER DID SUBMIT A APPLICATION, BUT UNDER MANUFACTURED HOME. SO IT GOT WITHDRAWN TO BE UNDER COMMERCIAL, BUT IT WAS SET IN STONE WITH HIM. HE DID SUBMIT THAT THERE FOR THE PERMIT FOR STAFF. DID THEY, THEY REQUIRE IT IS ANCHORED DOWN ON THE POST PIERCE? YEAH. SO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, PENDING COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT. UM, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T GET IT APPROVED UNTIL THE BO IF THE BO OA APPROVES THIS. BUT I BELIEVE THEY, UH, APPLIED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FIRST UNDER, UH, REGULAR MANUFACTURED HOME. BUT THEN IT WAS CORRECTLY CHANGED TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. OH, I SEE. OKAY. BUT THAT, SO THE, THE BUILDING'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER A YEAR. MM-HMM . WHEN WAS THE REQUEST SUBMITTED? UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR? 2025. AND WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL? OH, ONE SECOND. MY POINT IS DID THEY GET ANY SORT OF PERMIT BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE? NO, UM, THAT THEY, UH, INITIATED THAT ONCE THE, UH, ONCE CO COMPLIANCE, UM, NOTIFIED THEM THAT THEY NEEDED A PERMIT. OKAY. WHAT ELSE? UM, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SEPTEMBER, UM, SO ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT. SO THERE WAS NO PERMIT ISSUED BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE. UM, THIS WAS BETWEEN THE ENGINEER THAT WAS HIRED ON, UH, WE WERE LOOKING DEEP INTO IT BECAUSE, UM, HE DID WITHDRAW HIMSELF DUE TO ILL BEING ILL. AND, UM, WE ACCEPTED THAT. SO WE STARTED MOVING BACKWARDS. WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH A LOT OF PERMITS IN THE CITY TO GET APPROVAL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING. WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH YOU ALL. SO WE ARE SUBMITTING PERMITS. WE CREATED THE SITE PLANS ALREADY TO BE SUBMITTED. I HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE TO BE SUBMITTED, BUT I ONLY, THIS IS A MAJOR ONE THAT WE DO NEED TO RESOLVE TO CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATION. AND WELL, CORRECTION, SORRY FOR THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS AUGUST 20, 24. SO A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL ONE. OKAY. SO THAT COULD HAVE COINCIDED WITH WHEN THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE? CORRECT. YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE VERY QUICKLY AFTER THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE, THEY WERE [03:20:01] NOTIFIED AND THEN THEY APPLIED. IT WAS JUST APPLIED IN THE WRONG APPLICATION, THEN THEY WENT TO THE CORRECT APPLICATION. NOW THEY NEED THIS VARIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. . PO PO YOU GUYS HAVE ELECTRICAL THROUGH CPS? YES. SO FOR C, HOW DOES CPS HOOK THIS UP? DO, DO THEY JUST HOOK IT UP TO ANY STRUCTURE OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH YOU GUYS FIRST BEFORE THEY HOOK UP THIS, THIS MAIN LINE AND METER? I BELIEVE THEY DID IT BASED OFF THE PERMIT APPLICATION. OBVIOUSLY NOT THE, THE PERMIT APPROVED, I BELIEVE. UM, BUT YEAH, THEY DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE, THE NORMAL PERMITTING GUIDELINES. I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE HOW, UM, CPS APPROVED IT. UM, UM, WE DID DO THAT WITH CPS. WE, I STAYED ON TOP OF THE PHONE CALLS AND PERMIT. THEY SAID THEY HAD TO GET CITY APPROVAL, SO THAT'S HOW WE STAYED IN THINKING THAT IT WAS GONNA BE APPROVED, BUT WE MADE SURE THAT IT WAS. YEAH, NO, 'CAUSE I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS TOO, WHERE I COULDN'T GET IT ELECTRICAL HOOKED UP TO YOU GUYS APPROVED IT ONCE APPROVED BY YOU GUYS, THEN CPS CAME OUT AND HOOKED UP OUR METER. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE METER, HOW THEY GOT A LINEUP WITHOUT IT BEING APPROVED BY CITY. YEAH, I'M SEEING THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT ISSUED, UM, HAS SINCE BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2024. I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME, PERHAPS A CLERICAL ISSUE AT THE FRONT COUNTERS, UM, REVIEWING THAT, THAT PORTION OF THE, OF THE WORKFLOW. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU GUYS STARTED, OR I GUESS MAYBE IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, WHEN THE STRUCTURE PUT UP, WAS THE OWNER, WAS HE TRYING TO GET A PERMIT? WAS HE GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS 'CAUSE YOU CONTACTED CPS SO HE KNEW HE NEEDED. YEAH, SO HIRING THE ENGINEER, WE, IN GOOD FAITH, WE LEFT IT TO HIM, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING. SO ONCE, UM, WE, HE DID WITHDRAW HIMSELF BECAUSE HE GOT VERY ILL. THERE'S, WE HAD TO DIG DEEP IN THERE. OKAY, LET'S PICK UP WHERE HE LEFT OFF. RIGHT. WE NEED TO HIRE ANOTHER PERSON TO COME, YOU KNOW, FIX THIS. YEAH. SO ONCE WE LOOKED INTO IT, WE SAW THE APPLICATION WITH HIS WITHDRAWN. OKAY. SO HE, WHEN HIS, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT'S WHY WE FIGURED, OKAY, EVERYTHING'S GOOD. STAYED IN CONTACT WITH CPS WITH THE WATER. WE SAWS OTHER CONTRACTORS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE STARTED APPROACHING OURSELVES PERSONALLY TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION AND CLARITY ON THIS, UM, SITUATION. OKAY. RIGHT. GOTCHA. AND REAL QUICK FOR CITI, THE 30 FOOT SETBACK, IS THAT, IT IT, IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A MANUFACTURED HOME OR A BUSINESS, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PAST THAT, UM, SETBACK, THEY DO HAVE AN EASEMENT ON THERE, BUT WE CAN'T USE THAT EASEMENT AS PART OF THE SETBACK, BUT IT DOES EXIST. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. BOEZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, STAFF, ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ INTO THE PUBLIC? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER LAST QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? THIS IS THE LAST THING FOR THAT WHOLE PROCESS WE DOING RIGHT NOW MM-HMM . SO YEAH, WE ARE TRYING TO GET THIS, UH, THE LAST STEP, THE LAST STEP TO BE, UM, COMPLETED COMPLETE SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH WHATEVER YOU GUYS ARE REQUIRING TO, YOU KNOW, FIX. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. BON MR. EZ. THANK. YEAH. UH, REGARDING, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER B 8 2 5 0 3 2 7 3, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK SITUATION SITUATED AT EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, APPLICANT BEING, UH, STAR CDL TRAINING LLC 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 WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS REDUCED FRONT SETBACK DOES NOT DECREASE THE EXISTING SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET AND ALLOWS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY TO BE POSITIONED FAR FARTHER FROM THOSE RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO LOCATE INDUSTRIAL USE SPACE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE LOT WHERE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CAN BE BETTER MANAGED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE BY SUPPORTING FUNCTIONAL SITE DESIGN AND APPROPRIATE LAND USE TRANSITIONS. AND BY PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, BY ALLOWING REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE, THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY LOCATED SUCH VARIANCE WOULD [03:25:01] NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS IT DOES NOT INCREASE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND RELOCATES INDUSTRIAL USE FAR FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS FACING THE SITE. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SOLD IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE ORIENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LOT, WHICH WAS NOT SELF, WHICH WAS NOT SELF-CREATED AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR THE, OR AS THE RESULT OF A GENERAL DISTRICT CONDITIONS END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND? ALRIGHT. UH, MR. EZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME? SURE, YEAH, NO, I, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, MAINLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I I I, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES ACROSS, YOU KNOW, CPS HOOKING UP, UH, METERS AND HOOKING UP POWER LINES AND HAVING TO GET CITY APPROVAL. YOU KNOW, WHEN ALL THIS IS DONE, AND I'VE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS WHERE, UM, I'VE HAD CPS DENY ME GETTING A LINE HOOKED UP BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE CITY APPROVAL UNTIL WE GOT CITY APPROVAL IS WHEN WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO GET OUR LINES HOOKED UP. SO THE FACT THAT THESE GUYS HAVE CPS HOOK HOOKED UP THEIR LINES, THEY GOT SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ON A STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE. UM, I'M, I'M, I'LL BE FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK 18 TO 30 FEET IS GONNA GREATLY HINDER ANY OF THIS WITH THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BEING TO THE REAR. UM, IT'S PROBABLY BEST THAT IT IS CLOSER TO THE FRONT. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. BREVIN, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK IS GONNA REALLY MEAN VERY MUCH. AND, UH, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING VERY HARD TO REMEDY ISSUES WITH THE PREVIOUS ENGINEER. UM, SO I APPLAUD THEM FOR THAT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHTY. UM, THE TIME IS LIKE FIVE 50 AND, UH, COMMISSIONER REED, UH, JOINED THE BOARD BACK AGAIN. SO ARE YOU GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? YES. HAVE YOU HEARD ENOUGH? OKAY. SO, UH, LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE THEN. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, YES. VICE CHAIR. ZINA? YES, I CONCUR. 10 IN FAVOR? ZERO OPPOSITION. THE THE MOTION DOES PASS. UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA JUMP BACK TO, ARE WE NUMBER 14? 14? YEP. 11 SHOULD BE 11. 11. OH, 11. OKAY. ALL RIGHT FROM THE TOP, THIS IS BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 6. UH, THE APPLICANT IS NELLY FRAGA. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. ITS LOCATION IS TWO 10 TASMAN ROAD. THE ZONING IS R FOUR. THE REQUEST IS FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE, LIMITED TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES AND TWO, A THREE FOOT THREE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE FOOT, FOUR INCH SOLID FRENCH YARD FENCE WITH A SIX FOOT THREE INCH POST LIMITED TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK FACE ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF TASMAN ROAD. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF OBSERVED A FRONT YARD FENCE BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS AT A HEIGHT THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM, THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. NOTICE OF VIOLATION WERE ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST EITHER ABATE THE VIOLATION OR OBTAIN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. UH, NUMBER ONE IS THE FOUR FOOT SIX INCH PRIVACY FENCE. AND NUMBER TWO ALONG THE FRONT OF THE, UH, PROPERTY ALONG TOSON ROAD IS THE FIVE FOOT FOUR INCH PRIVACY FENCE WITH THE SIX FOOT THREE INCH POST. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE FRONT. THIS IS THE SIDE FENCE, THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PUBLIC WELFARE WILL NOT BE SERVED AS THE FENCE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. AND TWO, THIS FENCE WOULD INJURE THE SURROUNDING BLOCK FACE BY LIMITING THE VISIBILITY OF THE FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 37 MAIL, UH, MAILING. UH, 37 MAILING NOTICES WERE, UH, MAILED. ZERO IN FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE PECAN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THAT IS THE LETTER IN OPPOSITION. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO [03:30:01] PROVIDED MORE, UH, IN SUPPORT AND WE'LL SHOW THOSE ON THE SCREEN WHEN SHE APPROACHES. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? BRING NONE. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. HELLO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. HI. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. UH, MY NAME IS NELLIE FRAGA. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF TALISMAN ALONG WITH MORENO RAMIREZ. WE OWN THIS PROPERTY. UM, WE BOUGHT IT, UM, IN MARCH AND WE PUT THAT FENCE, UM, FOR PRIVACY AND SAFETY REASONS. WE ARE NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE LIVED IN THE WEST SIDE ALL OUR LIFE. WE ARE NEW TO THE EAST SIDE. UM, WHEN WE CAME IN, HE'S GONNA SHOW, UM, WHEN WE CAME IN, WE ACTUALLY GOT INTRODUCED TO ONE OF THE, UM, POLICE OFFICERS FROM THE, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, A SPECIAL DIVISION. SO WE, THAT WAS OUR FIRST ENCOUNTER. UM, HE JUST TOLD US TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO BE SAFE. UM, HE CAME AND INTRODUCED HIMSELF AND THAT WAS IT FROM HIM. HOWEVER, WE DECIDED TO PUT IN A PRIVACY FENCE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC. SO THERE IS, WE SEE PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT ALL DAY. WE STAY AWAY FROM TROUBLE. UM, WE DON'T MESS WITH ANYBODY. NOW, WE DID GET THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, I DID EMAIL HIM AND HE DID RESPOND WITH APPROVAL FROM THE PECAN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE PRESIDENT, UM, JOHNNY MAR, JOHNNY MARROW. HE DID GO, HE SAW OUR FRIENDS AND HE DID NOT SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT OR THE APPEARANCE OF THE FENCE ITSELF. ALSO, I DID SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBORS ALONGSIDE, SO I DON'T, MY NEIGHBOR IN FRONT IS FACING NORTH. WE ARE FACING WEST. AND SO WE SPOKE TO THE, THERE'S TWO NEIGHBORS TO THE LEFT AND A NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT. UM, THERE'S ALSO A CREEK BY THERE. AND WE GOT APPROVAL OR WE GOT SUPPORT FROM SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE SPOKE TO SOME OF THEM. THEY DID SAY THEY WERE GONNA CALL. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY DID. THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T. UM, BUT WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTING THE NEIGHBORS AND AS OF WHAT I, WE KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET ANY REJECTION OR ANY, IT WASN'T IMPEDING ANYBODY'S VISION OR ANYTHING AS SUCH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MM-HMM . FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. BONILLA. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY FRONT, UH, NEIGHBORS IN FRONT OF YOU? SO IN THE PICTURES THAT, UM, THEY TOOK IT, HE, HE DOES, HE HAS LIKE, UM, PLASTIC, PLASTIC ALONG HIS CHAIN LINK. CAN SEE IT IN ONE OF THE PICTURES. IN ONE OF THE PICTURES, YES. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT NEIGHBOR ONE MORE. THAT IS OUR FRONT NEIGHBOR. SO THERE'S TWO HOUSES. ONE OF THEM IS SOLID FENCING AND THAT ONE IS A CHAIN LINK WITH KIND OF LIKE PLASTIC ON IT. Y'ALL, Y'ALL FACE THE REAR OF OTHER PROPERTIES? YES. SO THEY HAVE SIX FOOT FENCES? YES. THAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS. SO THAT ONE'S ACTUALLY AN EIGHT FOOT. RIGHT. OKAY. CAN I, CAN I GET YOUR NAME? UM, MARIANO, SORRY. MY, UH, MARIANO RAMIREZ. UH, TWO 10 TALIMAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOTCHA. YEAH, SO, SO IT'S JUST UNIQUE TO KIND OF THE, WHERE, WHERE YOUR HOUSE SITS. YOU DON'T, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE UP AGAINST REAR REAR YARDS WHERE THEY HAVE HIGH FENCES LIKE THAT. UM, AND WHY DO YOU GUYS FEEL THAT, THAT THAT EXTRA FOOT AND A HALF HELPS YOU GUYS? SO IT'S MORE OF A SAFETY CONCERN BECAUSE, UM, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT DID HAVE THE THREE FEET ORIGINAL. THAT ONE THAT HE JUST SHOWED, IT WAS SAID. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T, UM, IMPEDE ANYBODY FROM COMING INTO THE PROPERTY. IT'S VERY SMALL. SO THE THREE FEET DOES NOT SERVE MUCH OF A PURPOSE FOR THE REASON THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO GET IT FOR. THAT IS WHY, UM, WE DID THE FIVE IN THE FRONT. THAT WAS THE FIRST PART OF IT. UH, WE WERE DOING IT IN PARTS OF COURSE. UH, AND THEN WE GOT THIS NOTICE. THE FIRST NOTICE IT WAS JUST TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. WE CAME HERE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US, THAT WE COULD NOT OBTAIN A PERMIT BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT. AND WE GOT INFORMED ON THE PROCESS. AND THIS IS HOW WE DECIDED TO GO THROUGH THE, THIS MEETING. UM, THEREFORE WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR THE SITES TO BE ALLOWABLE AT FIVE FEET. SO IT COULD BE CONGRUENT WITH THE FRONT OF THE FENCE. AND OF COURSE FOR THAT SAFETY, NOT ONLY THE PRIVACY, BUT IT'S WHERE OF THE SAFETY FOR PETS. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE PETS, WE HAVE PETS. UH, THERE'S SMALL CHILDREN AND WE JUST KIND OF WANT THAT SAFETY. OKAY. AND JUST TO CONFIRM THAT YOU DID GET PECAN VALLEY APPROVAL IS RIGHT? YES. OKAY. UH, WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS? I, I DIDN'T, YES. HAVE I MISSED OVER THAT? YEAH. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SORRY, MAY I ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? SO I, I WORK FOR THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. I'M A BRIDGE INSPECTION SPECIALIST. SO WHENEVER THERE'S A ACCIDENT IN THEIR SURROUNDING AREA, WE RESPOND TO IT AND SPECIFICALLY I HAVE TO RESPOND TO IT. I HAVE TO GO AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BRIDGE IS SAFE TO BE DRIVEN ON, GIVEN TO THE NATURE OF THAT JOB. I ACTUALLY HAVE A LETTER, UM, I HAVE TO TAKE OFF SOMETIMES AT TWO, THREE IN THE MORNING AND I'M NOT SURE AT WHAT TIME I'M COMING BACK. AND IT JUST GIVES ME SOME PEACE OF MIND KNOWING [03:35:01] THERE'S SOMETHING THERE. 'CAUSE SHE STAYS HOME BY HERSELF. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? YEAH, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, ACTUALLY, WE, UH, ADVERTISED THE REQUEST TO REFLECT THE FENCE AS BUILT. UM, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE OF YOUR COMMENTS MA'AM. UM, WERE YOU LOOKING TO BUILD THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES UP TO THAT SAME HEIGHT OR REMAIN AT THE, HOW WE PICTURED THEM HERE? OR ARE YOU GONNA MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE FENCE SO THAT, THAT FENCE THERE ON THE SIDE, WERE YOU LOOKING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON THAT ONE? YES. FOR IT TO BE CONGRUENT TO, UM, TO THE, WITH THE FRONT. OKAY. GOTCHA. SO THE REQUEST AS ADVERTISED RIGHT NOW LIMITS THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO JUST THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, NOT THE FRONT YARD. SO FOR THAT REQUEST, WE WOULD NEED TO RE ADVERTISE. OKAY. OKAY. SO JUST, UM, IT WAS JUST, I GUESS A MISCOMMUNICATION. 'CAUSE FROM WHAT WE HAD BEEN TOLD, WE COULD, UM, JUST KIND OF BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN THE FRONT. WE, WE, WE WERE TOLD IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN THE FRONT YARD THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IT'S CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SIDES. CORRECT. OKAY. THE, THE VERBIAGE THAT IF WE GO TO SLIDE ONE, SO RIGHT NOW WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT THE FRONT ITSELF. SO ITEM TWO I THINK, UH, TALKS ABOUT JUST THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ITEM ONE TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE SIDES THERE ALLOWING UP TO FOUR FOOT SIX, UH, KIND OF TO ACCOUNT FOR. THERE'S THAT SMALL PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT KIND OF, UH, TEARS UPWARDS AS IT GOES TOWARDS THE SIDE YARD. SO THAT IF THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE YOUR REQUEST AS ADVERTISED RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT YOU COULD GO ON THOSE SIDES THAT ARE IN YOUR FRONT YARD. OKAY. UM, BUT IT WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD IT TO MATCH WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS FIVE FOOT FOUR. YOU COULD ONLY GO FOUR FOOT SIX, FOUR FOOT SIX. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE IS WE CAN RE ADVERTISE YOUR REQUEST FOR THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD TO BE FIVE FOOT FOUR AND YOU CAN COME ANOTHER DAY BEFORE THE BOARD. UM, I KNOW THAT'S A LOT TO KIND OF THROW ON YOU RIGHT HERE, BUT, UH, IF THAT, THOSE WOULD BE YOUR OPTIONS, UM, TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. I JUST DON'T WANT THE FRONT FENCE THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING TO BE AN ISSUE OR TO GET ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS. I DO WANNA SEE IF THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE THAT AND POSSIBLY SINCE THAT IS ANOTHER SITU, ANOTHER CASE SEPARATE. WE COULD COME BACK IN THE FUTURE FOR THE SITES, BUT I KNOW THE ORIGINAL SITE NOT, IT WASN'T THE CITATION, BUT THE NOTICE IT WAS FROM THE, FOR THE FRONT FENCE WE'LL GO TO FOUR AND A HALF OR WE CAN, BUT, BUT, BUT WE CAN GO TO FOUR AND A HALF ON THE SIDES. YEAH, SO IT'S FIVE. I KNOW IT'S JUST FIVE INCHES, BUT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY SAID, WE CAN, SORRY, NOT 5, 4, 4 AND A HALF. WE COULD DO FOUR AND A HALF ON THE SIDES THEN. OKAY. JUST GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTIONS AS AS, UH, AS IS. YEAH. REAL QUICK, BON UH, FOR THE CITY, IF THEY READVERTISED, DO THEY HAVE TO PAY AGAIN? SO IF THEY MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW JUST OFF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FENCE AND THEN THEY WANT TO COME BACK LATER, YES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, PAY, UM, IF WE HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE THIS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AT THE MOST THEY WOULD'VE TO PAY A POSTPONEMENT FEE. UM, BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR A NEW APPLICATION FEE. AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS TO, TO NO, SINCE IT WAS ADVERTISED AS CORRECT. OKAY. BUT WE COULD APPROVE BOTH ONE AND TWO AND IF THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT LATER, THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR THAT EXTRA 10 INCHES FOR THE SIDE WITH NO TIME, NO TIME LIMITATION. RIGHT. THEY COULD DO IT, WHATEVER, CORRECT. IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS APPROVED. YEAH. YES SIR. DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT? YES. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT HIGHER LATER ON, WE CAN COME BACK OF COURSE. GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. RIGHT. WHAT WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW IS WE COULD VOTE ON NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO AS WRITTEN. SO YOU GUYS WOULD STILL GET THAT, THAT SIDE EXCEPTION. THE FRONT EXCEPTION. BUT IF YOU GUYS LATER DOWN THE ROAD ARE LIKE, HEY, WE DO WANT THAT EXTRA 10 INCHES ON THE SIDE, YOU DO THIS PROCESS. ABSOLUTELY. AGAIN, FOR THE SIDE. AND, AND I WILL THROW OUT THERE ALSO, IF THIS GETS APPROVED AT FOUR FOOT, FOUR FOOT, YOU CAN DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE WITH US FOR SIX ADDITIONAL INCHES WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YEAH. AND THEN I WOULD JUST TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. ALRIGHT. I'M SORRY THERE WAS SECURITY GUARD LOUIS. OKAY, I THINK WE'RE GOOD STILL. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK, UH, MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION HERE BOEZ, MR. BON. OKAY, HERE WE GO. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 2 6 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE LIMITED TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES AND TWO, A THREE FOOT THREE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT, FOUR INCH SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE WITH A SIX FOOT THREE INCH POST LIMITED TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 1 0 TALISMAN ROAD. APPLICANT BEING [03:40:01] NELLIE FRA FRAGA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT, UH, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE FENCE ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT BECAUSE IT PROVIDES A NECESSARY AMOUNT OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY WITH A MODEST PROPOSED HEIGHT INCREASE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE TALLER FENCE PROVIDES A DEGREE OF SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS IN THE AREA. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE, WILL, WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPO BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK FACE, THERE IS NO VISUAL IMPAIRMENT FROM THE PROPOSED FENCE. AND THERE IS, UH, MINIMAL VISUAL OR PHYSICAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS BEING, IS BEING SOUGHT DUE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, BACKING UP TO A GREEN BELT, THE FENCE HEIGHT WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKER THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS. HEREON ESTABLISHED FOR THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT, ALLOWING A MODEST INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT IN THIS UNIQUE LOCATION DOES NOT UNDERMINE THOSE GOALS AS IT IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO MOST LOTS. END OF MOTION. GOT A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. STEVENS. MR. BONIA? YEAH, I, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, AND, AND FOR A FEW REASONS. UH, MAINLY THEY DID GET THE SUPPORT OF PECAN VALLEY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR THAT HERE, GETTING NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. UH, THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT. UH, THIS AREA DOES HAVE A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. I, MY BUSINESS IS LOCATED NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE, SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING THROUGH. UM, AND, AND IT'S, IT'S A GOOD LOOKING FENCE. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT, UH, IT ADDS CHARACTER AND, AND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM IT. UM, I BEING SUPPORT. THANK YOU SIR. STEVENS. YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOUR NEED FOR SOME PRIVACY AND THE FACT THAT YOUR HOUSE IS FRONTING SIDE LOTS WITH SIX FOOT FENCES OR TALLER AS YOU'VE STATED. UM, I THINK THAT THIS SEEMS TO FIT THE AREA, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES I CAN. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR. YES. I CONCUR. SO THAT'S, UH, 10 OF FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE PASSES AS READ. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. YES. NOW IT'S 14. 14. WE DID 12. UH, 12. SO NOW 1413 IS, YEAH. 13. WHAT'S PULLED? 14. 14. YEP. UM, 13. LET'S CONTINUE. 12. ITEM 14 IS CASE BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 6 8. THE APPLICANT BEING VICTOR VITA IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THIS IS 3 1 5 REFUGIO STREET. UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE SIX FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE LIMITED TO THE PROPOSED STAIRCASE AND REAR DECK ACCESS WAY. AND TWO, A 248 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT FEET TO ALLOW FOR A 3,752 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THE ZONING IS RM FOUR. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME TO INCLUDE A RAISED DECK WITH A STAIRCASE ACCESS WAY IN THE REAR YARD. THE PROPOSED STAIRCASE ENCROACHES INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR REAR YARD BY 10 FEET. FURTHERMORE, THE LOT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIZE OF AN RM FOUR. LOT TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND JUST A QUICK OHP SUMMARY, UH, STANDARD, UH, LANGUAGE FROM THEM STATING APPROVAL OF ANY SITE PLAN AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE FOR AN APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW. OUTLINED IN ARTICLE, UH, SIX OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UM, EXISTING OR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED THERE BY THE, THE DARK GRAY, UH, LINES OF THAT, UH, SITE PLAN THERE. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PROPERTY IN THE EXISTING HOME, THAT VACANT AREA, UM, TO THE RIGHT THERE. AND THIS IS THE REAR VIEW. UH, ALL THIS VACANT AREA [03:45:01] IS WHAT'S PROPOSED TO BE FILLED IN. THIS WOULD BE THE REAR YARD THAT WOULD BE REDUCED DOWN TO A SIX FOOT WIDTH. UM, CONSIDERING THAT STAIRCASE PROPOSED IN THE REAR YARD. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE, THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND FIRE SAFETY. AND THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO SUPPORT AN ADDITION OF A SMALLER SIZE, UH, WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LOT SIZE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THE APPROVE, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HOME AND THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, THE DIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL PARCEL WAS EXECUTED BEFORE THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. STAFF MAILED 37 NOTICES. ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND IN THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? NONE. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, PATIENCE TODAY. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A REALLY LONG, LONG MEETING, BUT WE'RE HERE SO WE ALL ABLE TO PULL UP AND I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MY NAME IS VICTOR VIDA, UH, 91 42 VILLAGE BROWN. ACTUALLY, LEMME GRAB ANOTHER ONE. IT'S ON THE SCREEN. SO, UM, THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE PREPARED A DOCUMENT, UM, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE SCREEN HERE. UH, IT'S A PRETTY LENGTHY DOCUMENT. UM, BUT BASICALLY THEY, WHICH THEY JUST WANNA PRESENT ALL OF THE FACTS, UH, ABOUT THE PROPERTY. UH, I'LL TRY TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THE MAIN POINTS HERE. UM, MAINLY TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF IT. SO HOMEOWNERS PURCHASED IT ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO. UM, HOME WAS BUILT IN 1908. UH, IT'S IN THE LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT. UH, THE HOME IS SMALL AND IT WAS POORLY CONSTRUCTED, ENCLOSED WITH AN ENCLOSED PORCH AND SOME SIGNIFICANT FOUNDATION PROBLEMS. UM, THEY, THEY LOVE THE HOME THOUGH. THEY BOUGHT THE FOR RETIREMENT AND THEY HIRED ME TO COME IN AND, UM, RENOVATE THE PROPERTY. UH, TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF IT. SO THEY WENT INTO DESIGN, UH, WITH FISHER HECK. UM, THEY SPENT ABOUT $30,000 ON, ON DESIGN. UM, THEY CURRENTLY WENT THROUGH THE EOHP PROCESS. UM, THEY DID 3D RC AND THREE HDRC MEETINGS, UM, DEVELOPING THEIR DESIGN. UM, THEY'VE ALSO GOTTEN A, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RECEIVED FROM HDRC, UH, BACK INTO 2023. THEY ALSO PUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THE FOUNDATION REPAIR. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT IN 28 PIERS. UM, THEY DID SOME BEAM WORK, THEY ADDED SOME JOIST. UH, THEY, THEY ENCAPSULATED THEIR CRAWLSPACE. UM, AND THEN THEY ALSO DID SOME SPRAY FOAM INSULATION. SO ALL IN ABOUT $60,000 THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY INVESTED INTO THE PROPERTY ITSELF. UM, ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT THEY HAD THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS WAS THAT, HEY, WE NEED TO DECREASE THE MASS OF THE PROPERTY. UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR INITIAL DESIGN WAS TOO LARGE, HAD A SECOND STORY. UM, THERE WAS SOME, OBVIOUSLY SOME PUSHBACK FROM OHP. SO THEY WENT AHEAD AND THEY REDESIGNED AND ACTUALLY GOT IT TO, TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, ALL THAT TO SAY THAT, THAT THEY'VE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO TRYING TO GET THIS DESIGN APPROVED. UM, UP TO THIS POINT. SO IF YOU GO THROUGH SOME OF THE, TO THE SECOND PAGE, UM, THIS REQUEST IS FOR TWO, TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT SIZE, UM, WHICH WE'RE GETTING APPROVAL FROM, UH, RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF. UM, BASICALLY THE, THE LOT IS TOO SMALL FOR, UH, A SINGLE FAMILY ACCORDING TO THE ZONING. UM, UH, WE, WE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE, UH, APPROVAL FROM OTHER, OR THERE'S OTHER, UH, PROPERTIES VERY CLOSE BY. UM, THERE'S TWO EXAMPLES THERE. 3 23 REFUGIO AND THREE 18 REFUGIO THAT ARE SIMILAR SIZE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'VE, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL. UM, THE OTHER ONE IS A SETBACK. SO THIS ONE IS, UM, CURRENTLY OUR SETBACK, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE REAR STAIR, UM, IS INTO OUR, OUR SETBACK, OUR TEMPLATE SETBACK OFF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU CAN GO TO PAGE, UH, SORRY, IT'S GONNA BE APPENDIX [03:50:01] OF B. SO APPENDIX B, UM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, OH, I'M SORRY, NOT APPENDIX B, SORRY. THERE'S SO MANY PAGES IN HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE ACTUALLY PUT IT. ALL THAT TO SAY IS JUST THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE INTO THE BACK OF THE, UH, THE SETBACK, RIGHT? SO WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT FOUR FEET INTO THE 10 FOOT SETBACK IN THE REAR, UH, FOR THE STAIRCASE THAT GOES UP TO THEIR SECOND STORY. UM, SO THAT IS WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY AT THE DESIGN. UH, AGAIN, THEY'VE HAVE, THEY'VE INVESTED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY ALREADY INTO THE PROJECT. UM, THEY'RE RIGHT THERE AT THE CUSP OF ACTUALLY STARTING. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP FOR THE HOMEOWNERS TO TRY TO GO BACK AND REDESIGN THE PROJECT, UM, WITH ALL THE TIME AND MONEY THEY'VE ALREADY INVESTED INTO IT. SO, UM, JUST TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE. UM, SO APPENDIX B, IT'S A, SOME, IT'S A SIMILAR PROJECT. UM, THREE 18 REFUGIO IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT HOMEOWNER THAT LIVES ON THAT SAME STREET THAT HAD A VERY SIMILAR, UH, ISSUE WITH THEIR SETBACKS. UM, IT'S KINDA HARD TO SEE, BUT BASICALLY WHAT THEIR, WHAT THEIR ISSUE WAS WAS THAT SOME OF THEIR SIDE ON THEIR SIDE SETBACK, THEY HAD A, AN ADDITION THAT WAS GOING INTO THEIR SIDE SETBACK AND THEY PRESENTED THAT TO THE BOARD AS WELL. UM, AND THEY GOT APPROVAL, UM, FOR THAT. UM, THIS IS THE, UM, UH, HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION. SO BASICALLY JUST THEIR COMMENTS ON, YOU KNOW, REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY OR THE PROJECT PREVIOUSLY FROM PREVIOUSLY DESIGN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. SO THIS IS A SIMILAR, UH, THIS IS TO SUPPORT THAT. UH, ANOTHER, UH, PROJECT THAT WAS A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THEY GOT APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE, UM, FOR THEIR SETBACK ISSUE. UH, YOU CAN SKIP THAT. UH, KEEP GOING. SO THIS IS SUPPORT FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS. UM, THEY DID GO AND REACH OUT TO OTHER NEIGHBORS, UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET SUPPORT FROM, UH, THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, SO THIS IS SOME CORRESPONDENCE WITH HER, UM, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR, UH, SUPPORT. AND THEN THEY DID GET SEVERAL LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS. SO THESE ARE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS, DIFFERENT, UH, ADDRESSES ON THE SAME STREET. AND THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. BRAGMAN, MS. BRAGMAN. UM, SO IN THOSE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS, ARE ANY OF THEM FROM THE IMMEDIATE BACK NEIGHBOR THAT WOULD BE CLOSEST? I THINK IT'S 3 1 6 LAVACCA. THERE IS NO, UM, THEY, APPARENTLY THE BACK NEIGHBOR IS, UH, IT'S A VACANT LOT OR IT'S A VACANT HOME. UM, THERE'S SEEMS TO BE SOME, UM, I GUESS SOME ISSUES WITH THAT NEIGHBOR OR TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF HIM. UM, SO THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET SUPPORT FROM THAT NEIGHBOR. OKAY. AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, IN LOOKING AT SLIDE NUMBER 1 75, IF WE CAN BRING THAT BACK UP, UM, WHERE IT SHOWS, UH, THE REAR YARD, THE HOUSE THAT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND 3 1 16 LAVACCA, HOW CLOSE IS THAT HOUSE TO THE BACK FENCE FROM THIS ANGLE? IT LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE. SO IF WE WOULD HAVE, YOU'D ONLY HAVE SIX FOOT IN THE REAR YARD TO THE FENCE AND THEN HOW FAR TO THE, I I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS TO THAT OTHER HOUSE FROM THE FENCE. UM, DO YOU THINK IT'S 10 FEET? THE, UH, I, I HAD ABOUT 20 FEET THAT, THAT REAR HOUSE IS 20 FEET FROM THE FENCE. THAT IS, THAT'S A NEW BUILDING THAT'S, OH, HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WITH THE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONE, THE TREE. CAN YOU GO BACK? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WITH THE TREE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSE DIRECTLY BEHIND. SO YEAH. WHAT, WHAT IS THAT DISTANCE? ABOUT 20 FEET TO THE, TO THAT OTHER HOUSE TO 3 1 6 LAVACCA. WOW. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. REED FOR THIS, UM, STAIR, WHAT'S THE COMPOSITION OF THAT AND IS THAT, IS IT A OPEN STAIR? IS IT A FREE STANDING? I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THAT. CONCERNS WITH FIRE AND MAINTENANCE? YEAH, SO SORRY. [03:55:01] UH, SO THE STAIR IS, IS GONNA BE METAL. UM, IT'S GONNA BE AN OPEN STAIR. SO THERE IS NO CLOSING OFF OF ANY OF THE, OF THE, OF THE STAIR ITSELF. UM, IT'S, IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST, JUST METAL. UM, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE STRINGERS METAL. THE TREADS WILL BE METAL. UM, YEAH. THANK YOU MR. REED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, REAL QUICK, UH, HOW MANY OTHER HOUSES THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DID YOU GUYS COUNT THAT ARE, THAT HAVE A, A SHORTER THAN 10 FOOT, UH, REAR SETBACK? THERE'S QUITE A FEW OF THEM. THERE IS QUITE A FEW. YES. MO MOST OF THAT STREET IS, IS UNDERSIZED LOTS. RIGHT. OKAY. GOTCHA. UM, FOR, FOR CITI REAL QUICK, UM, I KNOW YOU GUYS, UH, I GUESS ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL IN THIS SETBACK, UH, AS OPPOSED TO 10 FEET TO SIX. WHAT, WHAT IS THAT REAL REASON, THE FOUR EXTRA FEET? HOW DO WE FEEL THAT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN IT OR, YEAH, UM, IT, IT'S ALREADY AT A REDUCED, UM, STANDARD FOR THE RMS OF 10 FEET. UH, WE JUST THOUGHT, UM, THE CITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. I THINK THIS REQUEST IS BETTER LEFT UP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THEM TO MAKE THE CASE TO Y'ALL. UNDERSTOOD. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENT OR VOICEMAILS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANY LAST CLOSING, UH, COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UH, THE ONLY THING I, I REALLY WANTED TO STATE, UM, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE AMOUNT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, HARDSHIP THAT THIS WOULD, UH, PUT ON THE HOMEOWNERS. 'CAUSE AGAIN, THEY'VE ALREADY, UM, INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND MONEY INTO THIS PROJECT AS IT IS. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE. ORIAN. MR. ORIAN. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION, CAN THEY LIMIT? I KNOW WE CAN LIMIT IT TO THE APPLICATION AND WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, BUT CAN WE SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IT'S LIMITED TO A METAL STAIRCASE? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN LIMIT IT TO THE, THE MATERIAL THAT, OR THE, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. ONCE YOU APPROVE A SETBACK, YOU KNOW, MOST LIKELY THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO IT. BUT THEORETICALLY THEY COULD REBUILD AND CLOSE IT OUT HOWEVER THEY NEED TO DO IT. WELL, OKAY. JUST ASKING. WE COULD REFERENCE THE SITE PLAN, RIGHT? UH, AS, AS SUBMITTED FOR THE APPLICATION? YEAH, YOU COULD REFERENCE IT. IT'S MORE THE OHP AND HCRC HAVE APPROVED IT. THEY, YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE AS PER THE APPROVAL PER PER THE APPROVAL. RIGHT. ALRIGHT, SO CAN WE GET A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL READ IT IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME. UH, WE CAN HEAR YOU FINE MR. ORIAN. ALRIGHT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH OH 3 0 2 6 8 THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANDER REQUEST WERE FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE LIMITED TO THE PROPOSED STAIRCASE AND REAR DECK ACCESSORY AND TWO, A 248 SQUARE FOOT, UM, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT TO ALLOW FOR A 37 52 SQUARE FOOT LOT SITUATED AT THREE 15 REFUGIO STREET. APPLICANT BEING VICTOR ADA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US IN THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED ENROLLMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND FIRE SAFETY REGARDING THE LOT SIZE AND VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS ALREADY AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AN ADDITION. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PROPOSED SETBACK ALLOWS FOR SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND FIRE SAFETY. REGARDING THE LOT SIZE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE REGARDING THEIR SETBACK. GRADING THIS VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL ALLOW FOR AN ADEQUATELY SIZE REAR YARD AND SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FOR THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND FIRE SAFETY. REGARDING THE LA SIZE GRADING, THIS VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT GETS A CONSTRUCT IN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ALREADY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT COMPONENT PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. WHICH OF PROPERTY IS LOCATED REGARDING THE WERE SETBACK? THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE SHARED WEAR. PROPERTY LINES WOULD BE MAINTAINED FOR PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND BUYER SAFETY. UH, REGARDING THE LOT SIZE, THE VARIANCE [04:00:01] WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE USE IS ALREADY EXISTING AND THIS PROPERTY WOULD ONLY SEEK TO REMODEL THE EXISTING HOME. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS VARIANCE SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT REALLY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY HAVING BEING SPLIT BY DEED AT THE TIME PRIOR TO THE CURRENT OWNER'S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS DIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL PARCEL IS NOT REALLY FINANCIAL, IS NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT. UH, AND I'M GONNA AMEND THE BEGINNING TO, UH, UH, TO STATE THAT IT'S, UH, TO FOLLOW THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. UH, END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, CAN WE GET A SECOND PLEASE? SECOND, WHO'S THAT? BON EZ. OKAY. ALRIGHT, ALL MR. ORIAN. ALRIGHT. UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, THE LOT SIZE THING IS JUST, UH, STANDARD FOR THIS AREA. UH, WE SEE A BUNCH OF THOSE, UH, THE REAR SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S NOT, UH, AN ENTIRE STRUCTURE ENCASING THE, THE AREA, BUT LIMITED TO, UH, WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH IS A STAIRWELL PRIMARILY, UH, IT'S NOT AS INVASIVE AS, AS A BIG LOOMING, UH, UH, RESIDENTIAL DWELLING STRUCTURE. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT ALRIGHTYY, MR. BONIS. YEAH. I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT FOR, FOR THE SAME REASONS. UH, UH, CHAIR ORIAN SAID, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS HOW THEY ARE IN THIS AREA. IT'S HOW MUCH YOU CAN WORK WITH THERE. I BELIEVE A BIG AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS BEEN INVESTED BY THE, BY THE DEVELOPER OR BY THE OWNER. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, YES. REED. MR. REED? UH, YES, I'M, I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT. I THINK THAT, UM, THE METAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STAIR, UH, ELIMINATES ANY SORT OF, UM, FIRE HAZARD AND I THINK THE, UH, OPEN DESIGN ALLOWS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE. AND, UH, I'LL ALSO TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT THAT HDRC HAS REVIEWED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AND APPROVED. UM, SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH, UH, THE DESIGN AS SHOWN. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN, SIR? CONCUR. OKAY. VICE CHAIR. ENA? YES, I CONCUR WITH 10 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION HAS READ. UH, PASSES. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE PLEASE. TWO MORE CASES. MM-HMM . ALL RIGHT, BO 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 72. LOCATED AT 8 11 8 15 EAST PARK. UM, ZONE IDZ THREE FOR USE OF PERMITTED, UH, MF 65. THIS IS FOR, UH, ONE AND A HALF STORY VARIANT FROM A MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORY VARIANCE, UH, TO ALLOW A FOUR STORY BUILDING AND A 21 FOOT VARIANT FROM THE MAXIMUM 25 35 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 56 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. SO THEY'RE PROBABLY LOCATED, UH, JUST NORTH OF DOWNTOWN, EAST OF NORTH ST. MARY WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A HEIGHT AND STORY INCREASE WILL ALLOW FOR PARKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND ABOVE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THERE IS AN IDZ DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD, UH, CONS WOULD BE CONSIDERED FORCE ORIENTED. TODAY'S STANDARD, BUT WAS ALLOWED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. CURRENT PROPERTY, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. UM, THE PROPERTY, UH, REMAINS BUILDABLE AND ECONOMICALLY USABLE UNDER THE EENT TWO AND A HALF STORY, 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION. THE RESULTS IN IMPACTS LOSS OF PRIVACY, VISUAL DOMINANCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTION CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY. UH, 45 NOTICES WERE MAILED IN FAVOR. UH, ZERO IN FAVOR, OR, SORRY, 45 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR. NINE OPPOSED AND NO RESPONSE FROM ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. AND THIS IS THE OPPOSITION MAINLY FROM THE, UH, IDZ PORTION. UH, SMALL LOSS THERE TO THE NORTH. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [04:05:02] ORIAN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. YES, SIR. SO, UM, THIS IS ZONE IDZ THREE, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND SO I, I THOUGHT IDZ IDZ THREE DIDN'T HAVE A HEIGHT RESTRICTION. ONLY WHAT WOULD BE LIMITED BY WHAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. IS THAT TRUE? UH, THAT IS TRUE, BUT IT ALSO HAS THAT PARAGRAPH WITHIN THE IDZ THREE STANDARDS THAT IF IT'S, UM, UH, BUDDING, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S LIMITED TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, UH, 35 FEET. OH, OKAY. NO, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO ASK 'CAUSE I, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF IT WAS, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE IDZ SITE PLAN PROVIDED ANY SORT OF HEIGHT RESTRICTION, UH, AS PART OF WHAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING, I GUESS WAS WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. YEAH, NO, IT DOES NOT, UH, DID NOT NEED TO, BUT EVEN IF IT DID, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JAVIER YU. ADDRESS IS 84 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 6. AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER EIGHT 11 AND EIGHT 15 EAST PARK AVENUE, LLC. UH, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THIS HEIGHT AND STORY VARIANCE, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY. THIS REQUEST IS NOT ABOUT INTRODUCING A NEW OR IN INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ABOUT RECENTLY IMPLEMENTING WHAT CITY COUNCIL ALREADY APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY. BACK IN JANUARY, 2024, UH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS CHANGE OF ZONING SITE TO IDC WITH MF 66 PERMITTED USE AND APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR HEIGHT INTENSIVELY INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THAT ACTION FOLLOWED PUBLIC NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING, COMMISSIONING REVIEW, AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. IN DOING SO, UH, CANCEL DETERMINED THAT THIS LOCATION ISS APPROPRIATE FOR URBAN SCALE MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE APPROVED SITE PLAN CLEARLY ANTICIPATES GROUND LEVEL PARKING WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE STEP BACK ALONG WITH SINGLE FAMILY EDGE TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY. THE VARIANCE WE'RE REQUESTING TODAY ALLOWS THAT APPROVED CONCEPT TO BE EXECUTED IN PARTICULAR AND RESPONSIBLE WAYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION. THE APPROVED PLAN INCLUDES MITIGATION MEASURE MEASURES SUCH AS STEP BACKS AND, UH, INTERNALIZED PARKING AND ORIENTATION AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES REGARDING HARDSHIP. THIS IS NOT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, IT'S A REGULATORY HARDSHIP CREATED BY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE APPROVED IDC CYCL PLAN AND THE STANDARD, THE STANDARD HIGH LIMITS STRICT ENFORCEMENTS WILL RENDER THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT IN VISIBLE AND FORCE A DIFFERENT AND LESS COMPATIBLE OUTCOME. THE PURPOSE OF ID C3 SONY IS TO PROMOTE COMPACT VERTICAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN APPROPRIATE URBAN LOCATIONS. RAN IN THESE VARIANTS WILL FILL THIS PURPOSE. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES HIGH TRANSITION AND STEP BACKS, IDEATION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE AND THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT ALREADY INCLUDED IN THIS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR SINGLE, UH, OR SIMILAR HEART AND INTENSITY. SO THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE MISUNDERSTANDING ON, ON WHERE, WHAT THE CLIENT IS, UH, PROPOSING. SO LIKE CITY STAFF, UH, MENTIONED ON, ON THEIR PRESENTATION, UH, THERE'S ALREADY DEVELOPMENTS IN THERE THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOUR STORIES RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED BACK IN THE DAY WHEN THERE WERE DEVELOPED. SO, UH, THIS IS GONNA SHOW UP IN THERE. THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE MULTIFAMILY NEXT TO US. SO THE, THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, LOTS IN, IN QUESTIONS ARE BEHIND THOSE. UH, IDC BUILDINGS ON THE RIGHT. SO WE'RE TRYING ON, ON THE LEFT, UH, THAT'S OUR BUILDING. WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO THEIR HIDE ONLY ON THE LEFT SIDE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY MULTIFAMILY, WE'RE GOING TO FOUR STORIES. SO NOT THE WHOLE BUILDING, IT'S FOUR STORIES. IT'S, IT'S MORE LIKE A THREE AND A HALF STORIES ACTUALLY. LEMME SHOW. SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, ONLY THE L THAT YOU SEE, UH, THANK YOU. ON THE, THIS IS WHAT IS FOUR STORIES. AND RIGHT HERE IT'S WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE IN QUESTION. ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE LOTS IN THERE ARE EITHER IDC OR MULTIFAMILY. BUT THOSE, THOSE TWO LOTS [04:10:01] IN THERE ARE BEING USED AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SEWING AS MULTIFAMILY. THIS ONE IN HERE, IN THE FRONT IS THE ONE THAT IS IDC AND IT'S EITHER 35 OR MORE, UH, FEET HEIGHT ON THE BOTTOM, THERE'S ALREADY ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERY, EVERYTHING IN, IN THAT, IN THAT UH, LOT OR IN THAT, UH, UH, BLOCK, IT'S, IT'S MULTIFAMILY. SO THIS IS 35 FEET OR MORE, 35 FEET OR MORE. THOSE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND A HALF FEET. THESE ARE EITHER 35 FEET OR MORE. THOSE ONLY ON THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO RESIDENTIALS THAT IT'S IN THERE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THOSE TWO RESIDENTIALS IS THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S SEVEN STORIES PROBABLY OVER 70, 80 FOOT TALL. SO THAT'S WHY, UH, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO, TO OVERRIDE THE, THE, THE UDC, WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO ALLOW A REASONABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE DECISION FROM BACK ON 2024. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? EZ, MR. BONIA? UH, SO, UH, REAL QUICK, THERE'S UH, MANY AN OPPOSITION TO THIS, RIGHT? IS THAT, HOW MANY OPPOSITIONS DO WE HAVE TO THIS? YOU HAVE, IS IT SEVEN? I BELIEVE EIGHT. EIGHT. CAN WE GET THAT BACK UP THERE REAL QUICK? OH NINE. SEE ALL THOSE OPPOSITIONS THAT WE HAVE, UHHUH, , THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE MULTIFAMILY AND THEY'RE THEIR THREE STORIES OR MORE. SO WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION THEN? UH, WELL, FROM WHAT WE READ, SOME OF THEM ARE, SIR, WE'RE GONNA BE BLOCKING THEIR VIEW. SO I, I'M PROB THEY'RE PROBABLY BLOCKING SOMEBODY ELSE'S VIEW BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALREADY THREE STORIES HIGH. SO THERE'S THIS, THESE ARE THE ONES IN QUESTION RIGHT HERE, THE RESIDENTIALS. OKAY. AND THERE'S NO OPPOSITION FROM THEM, RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE OPPOSITION. IT'S, YEAH. THE OTHER STRUCTURES IS THE O THE OTHER ALREADY MULTIFAMILY? 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA TOWER OVER THEM NOW. YES. 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA BE ABOVE THEIR HEIGHT A LITTLE BIT ONLY, WE'RE ONLY A LITTLE BIT HIGHER ON THIS. AND, AND REAL QUICK FOR CITY, I KNOW YOU HAD ANOTHER THING UP THAT SHOWED, THERE'S SOME STRUCTURES THERE THAT ARE 37 FEET, 35 FEET, RIGHT? ALL AROUND KIND OF THERE. YOU GUYS ARE GONNA GO TO 56? NO, ACTUALLY 56 IS WHAT IT WAS APPROVED ON THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE FOR, FOR CHANGE OF ZONING. THE HIGHEST PART THAT WE HAVE IS 51, THAT IT'S THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. UH, THE, THE AREA WHERE WE HAVE FOUR STORIES, IT IS 48 AND THE THIRD STORY IS 38. SO, SO 51 THEN IS THE MAX YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO THE ONE IS THE MAX AND IT'S ONLY ON THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT, AND THEN SO CITY, THEY GOT SOMETHING ON HERE THAT'S A REQUEST FOR, UH, 35 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR A 56 FOOT HEIGHT. IS THAT HOW THEY ORIGINALLY HAD ADVERTISED IT? YEAH. SO WE ADVERTISE FOR 56. UH, THAT'S WHAT WE VERIFY WITH THE APPLICANT. BUT IF HE'S SAYING 51, THEN OBVIOUSLY GO DOWN. SO THEN WE WOULD READ IT AS 51? YES. 51. IF YOU WERE TO GO THROUGH WITH IT, I THINK THEY WENT FOR TO 56 BECAUSE THAT IT'S, THAT IS WHAT IT STATES ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE FROM 2024. GOTCHA. OKAY. SO JUST FOR THE BOARD IT'LL BE 51, NOT 56 FOR WHOEVER READS IT. CAN WE LIMIT THAT TO A, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, HE'S SAYING IT'S ONLY THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. SO I MEAN, I WOULDN'T WANNA GIVE 51 FEET AND B, THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. CAN WE LIMIT IT TO A, A DESCRIPTION? JUST SAY THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. I MEAN, HOW DO WE, SO THE, MY ELEVATOR SHAFT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO, UM, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE REST OF IT IS 40 FEET, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO 40 FEET, EXCEPT FOR THE 51 FEET FOR THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO THE APPLICANT. DOES YOUR, DOES YOUR SITE PLAN SHOW THE ELEVATOR SHAFT AT 51 FEET? WHAT DOES THE SITE PLAN SHOW? UH, IT'S, WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR THAT. THAT SITE PLAN. WELL, THIS IS WHAT IT WAS APPROVED ON THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT IT SHOWS THE 56. BUT THE SITE PLAN THAT, THAT IT'S SHOWN ON THE PRESENTATION IS THE ONE FROM THE ORIGINAL, UH, PRESENTATION BACK ON 2024. COULD YOU SHOW THE, THE BUILDING PLAN? THERE YOU GO. BUILDING PLAN, YEAH, BECAUSE CITY WE COULD READ IT AS, AS, UH, STICK TO THE BUILDING PLAN AS PRESENTED. THAT'S OUR ELEVATOR. IT'S, IT'S RIGHT HERE. SO IT'S ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT MINUS THE ELEVATOR SHAFT? ABOUT 48. SO YOU CAN DO, UM, 48 FEET EXCEPT 4 51 FEET FOR THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. LANGUAGE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 48 IS, IS THIS L AS HERE? AND I WOULD SAY AS PRESENTED TO DURING THE MM-HMM . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT [04:15:01] MEETING ON, UH, JANUARY 12TH. SO THAT, THAT THE PURPLE AREA IS THE ONLY ONE, ONE IN QUESTION THAT IT'S ABUTTING RESIDENTIALS. SO THAT THIS IS THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S ENCROACHING THE, THE 50 FOOT RESIDENTIAL. EVERYTHING ELSE, ALL OF THIS WE'RE GOOD BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE ABUTTING MULTIFAMILY. SO THAT, THAT, THAT PART OF THE HEIGHT LIMITS DID NOT APPLY TO THAT AREA. SO FROM THE SITE PLAN AND THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS, THE HEIGHTS THAT ARE DENOTED ON THE SITE PLAN, IT DOES SEEM LIKE YOU'RE GONNA BE FAIR AMOUNT TALLER THAN SURROUNDING STRUCTURES. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE SAID THE ELEVATOR SHAFT IS 51, BUT THE REST OF THE BUILDING IS 48. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THREE FEET DIFFERENT. SO THAT'S, YEAH, 48 IS ONLY THAT, THAT L AREA THAT I, THAT I SHOW. SO IT'S NOT THE WHOLE BUILDING. CAN CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE? NO, TO THE OTHER SLIDE. THE ONE THAT HAS YES. NO, THAT ONE. SO 48 IS, IS RIGHT HERE. THIS AREA IS 48. THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. ALL OF THAT. THAT'S 38. AND, AND WHAT, THIS IS THE, THE PURPLE AREA IS THE, THE ONLY ONE IN QUESTION. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT IS ABUT IN THE RESIDENTIALS. EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE'S MULTIFAMILY HERE AND MULTIFAMILY ALL, ALL THE WAY AROUND. SO THE, THE ROAD IS GONNA BE ON THE RIGHT OF THE STREET. YEAH, THE ROAD IS ON THE RIGHT. SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON WHITE THAT THE, THE HIGH LIMIT DOES NOT APPLY IN THERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ABIDING ANY, ANY RESIDENTIALS. WE'RE ONLY ABIDING THE RESIDENTIAL TWO LOTS ON THE TOP WHERE I'M, WHERE I'M SHOWING THAT, THAT PURPLE AREA. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT WE SHOULD BE 35 OR BELOW. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS PIECE TO BE, TO BE 40, 48, 51. SO STAFF, SO IS THERE'S SOMETHING, 'CAUSE THIS IS GETTING VERY COMPLEX IN TERMS OF READING A MOTION, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REFER TO THAT WILL SPECIFY THE THINGS THAT HE'S SAYING? 51 48 AND THEN YOU SAID 30, 30, 38 WERE 38 TO THE PARA PIT WALL OF THE, OF THE THIRD FLOOR. MEAN? 'CAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO HARD TO JUST DESCRIBE THAT. YEAH. WHAT WAS THE 38 FOR AGAIN? UH, THE 38TH TO THE PARAPET WALL OF, OF, OF HERE. I THINK IF YOU BRING YOUR RENDERING BACK UP. YES. CAN YOU PUT IT THE, THE FIRST ONE? NO, ON, ON THE SHEET. THE ONE BELOW. BELOW THAT ONE? YES. SO THIS IS, THIS IS 38. SO THE WHITE AND THE BLACK, THEY'RE AT THE SAME HEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S 38 AND THIS IS 48. SO ON THIS AREA THERE'S ALREADY MULTIFAMILY, SO THAT'S WHY HEIGHT DOESN'T APPLY ON THE BACK IS MULTIFAMILY ON THIS FRONT LOT IS MULTIFAMILY. SO WE COULD HAVE BEEN AT 48 IF WE WANTED TO, BUT WE TRY TO, TO MATCH THIS ALL THE WAY BACK TO 38 UNTIL ALMOST THE END OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS. YEAH. SO YOU CAN DESCRIBE THE, UM, 38 AS THE, THE WALL 48 AS THE, THE HEIGHT AND THEN ADD 51 FEET FOR THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. YES. IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. IS THE ELEVATOR SHAFT IN THE AREA THAT YOU DESCRIBED THAT NEEDED THE VARIANCE? NO, THE, NO, ACTUALLY THE, THE, THE SHAFT. IT'S AT SOUTH SIDE. OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE JUST YEAH, IT'S TWO MULTICAM. THE 38 AND 48. YEAH. SO IT'S A VERY SMALL PIECE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GOING ON OVER 35 TO 48. SO AGAIN, I WOULD POSSIBLY RECOMMEND 38 FEET AND 48 FEET AS PER THE SITE PLAN PRESENTED, UM, ON THE 1112, OR I'M SORRY, THE JANUARY 12TH, 2026 BOA MEETING, SINCE THIS IS A DOCUMENTED PUBLIC MEETING AND WE SEE THIS IN PUBLIC RECORD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UH, WE HAVE ROXANNE FREEMAN. ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A LONG THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M ROXANNE STRICKLAND. I LIVE AT 8 2 3 PARK AVENUE, WHICH IF YOU WILL PUT UP THE PICTURE OF HIS PROPOSED, UH, THAT I LIVE IN THE ONE WITH THE MERRY CHRISTMAS RED, UM, BANNER AT THE TOP. SO THESE ARE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEY'RE CONTAINERS AND THEY'RE [04:20:01] THREE STORY. THE TOP FLOOR IS OUR OUTDOOR PATIO. UM, THEY'RE NOT MULTI-FAMILY, THEY ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. ONE OF THE UNITS, THE SECOND ONE IS, UH, IN A RENTAL. MM-HMM . THAT OWNER LIVES, UH, IN NORTH DAKOTA. AND WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A MULTIFAMILY GOING IN THERE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT'S GONNA GO THERE. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING. HOW, WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE PARKING? BECAUSE ACROSS THE STREET IS APARTMENTS AND THEY ALL PARK ON THE STREET. UM, , IF YOU CAN SEE, WE CANNOT EVEN PARK IN OUR DRIVEWAY. WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED TWO TICKETS FROM THE CITY BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE CITY HAD TO APPROVE IT WHEN THEY WERE BUILT. BUT OUR SIDEWALKS ARE TOO WIDE AND BECAUSE OF THE HANDICAP LAWS, WHICH WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR OUR CARS TO GO IN OUR DRIVEWAY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE FOR THIS. IS IT UNDERNEATH? YES, UNDER HERE. OKAY. IT'S, UH, ON THE, ON THE GROUND. ON THE GROUND LEVEL. THE, THERE'S THE, IT'S ALL PARKING. HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HAVE AND HOW MANY SPACES DO YOU HAVE? UH, WE HAVE, I BELIEVE 20, LET ME SEE. 18. 18 UNITS AND 19, UH, PARKING STALLS. ONE TO ONE PLUS. YES. ONE TO ONE AND EIGHT. THAT'S GREAT. UH, WITH I, WITH IDC, WE COULD HAVE GONE TO HALF OF IT, BUT WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE GROUND LEVEL SO WE CAN PROVIDE PARKING FOR, FOR AIR FOR ALL THE UNITS. OKAY. THAT WAS A QUESTION. IT WASN'T ON HERE, SO WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS GOING IN HERE. THE HEIGHT, WE'RE NOT REAL HAPPY ABOUT. UM, OURS, OUR THREE STORY WE SEE DOWNTOWN, WE SEE PRETTY MUCH ALL BEHIND US. YES. THEY PUT IN THE NEW, UH, COMMONS WAY AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CORNER OF IT ON THE NEXT STREET ON ELMIRA. UM, AND IT BLOCKS THE VIEW, 'CAUSE WE LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PEARL, SO IT, IT'S GOING TO BLOCK ALL THAT. THEY'RE ALSO BUILDING ANOTHER ONE RIGHT BESIDE IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY LOFTS, CONDOS DOWN THERE. UM, WE'RE NOT REALLY AGAINST IT. WE ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE HEIGHT AT ALL. UM, SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR, OKAY. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MA'AM. THANK YOU. UH, ORIAN. MR. ORIAN. YEAH. OKAY. SO I, THIS, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS. SO THAT THE APPLICANT JUST STATED THAT HE HAD 19 PARKING SPACES FOR 18 UNITS, AND EVEN THOUGH IDZ THREE DOES ALLOW FOR A PARKING REDUCTION, YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW, UH, THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND YOUR, YOUR APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THAT ORDINANCE SAYS THAT YOU'RE DOING 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. UH, I LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OR, OR AT LEAST STAFF TO COMMENT HOW, HOW HE CAN ONLY HAVE 19 SPACES. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AT THE MOMENT. YEAH, BECAUSE THAT, AND, AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS REDUCTION, UH, IN HEIGHT DUE TO BEING A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY. UM, I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT IF THAT, IF YOU WERE IDZ THREE, THAT'S NOT, I KNOW IT HAS USES OF PROOF FOR MF 65 AND SO THEREFORE IT'S KIND OF LOOKED AS MULTIFAMILY. BUT I THOUGHT IDZ THREE WAS, OR TWO WAS A WAY TO, TO GET AROUND THAT HEIGHT BECAUSE IT HAD TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL. IT WAS LIKE A, A SCULPTING, KIND OF A ZONING CHAIN. SO BECAUSE IT IS A STANDARD, UM, THE HEIGHT IS A STANDARD OF THE IDZ, UM, THE SAME WAY AS, UM, WE'VE SEEN SOME ID ZS WITH THAT NEEDED A REDUCED SETBACK AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT. THAT'S KIND OF IN THE SAME, UM, STANDARD, EVEN THOUGH IT IS PERMITTED IN THE IDZ MINUS THAT ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHY IT NEEDS TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. UM, WE DO SEE THE PARKING, UH, 1.5 IN THE, UM, SITE PLAN THAT THEY TURNED IN. HOW MANY STATES ARE THERE? SO JUST, JUST TO ADD TO IT, 19, THIS, THIS, THE, THIS, UH, ORDINANCE WAS DONE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, NOT BY THE CURRENT OWNER. SO WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY GAVE US THIS, UH, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT PARKING WAS GONNA WORK. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN [04:25:01] PARK IN THERE AND THEN GET OUT WHEN THERE'S AN, WHEN THERE'S OTHER CARS PARKING THERE. THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IF, IF YOU HAVE A, A PICKUP, ANYTHING. IF YOU'RE PARKING THERE, THEN YOU'RE GONNA STAY THERE UNTIL EVERYBODY ELSE LEAVES AND THEN YOU GET OUT AND THEN THAT TURNERS RADIOS, THAT WAS NOT GONNA WORK OUT. SO THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'D NEED TO REDUCE YOUR UNIT COUNT? YEAH, WE DID. THE UNIT COUNT ON THIS ONE WAS 23, SO WE HAVE 18. SO WE REDUCED THE UNIT, WE REUSE THE UNITS WHERE WE USED THE HEIGHT AND WE U UH, WE, UH, REDUCED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF, OF THE PREVIOUS, UH, APPROVED. AND, AND STAFF IS KIND OF LOOKING AT THE PARKING OF THIS AS A STANDARD OF, UM, WHAT IS PERMITTED OR WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR PARKING. UM, KINDA LIKE THE SAME WAY THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUTTING IN PREVIOUS COVER, UM, OTHER ITEMS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS KIND OF THE STANDARD, BUT IT'S NOTHING THAT WE WOULD HOLD THEM TO, UM, BECAUSE OF THE IDZ, UM, STANDARD TO REDUCE THAT PARKING, UH, BY HALF. UM, SO DO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S IT, THEY DID PUT IT ON THE SITE PLAN. UM, HOWEVER, IT'S NOTHING THAT WE WOULD HOLD THEM TO, UH, BECAUSE OF THE IDZ STANDARD FOR PARKING. I WILL STATE, UM, WHAT WE COULD COMPLETE IS A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THIS TO RE REDUCE THE, UH, PARKING BECAUSE THAT IS AN ITEM THAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A MAJOR. SO THEN IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MINOR. SO WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR PARKING? THERE IS NOT THE, WELL, THE PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY IS 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT. SO IF THEY'RE DOING 18 UNITS, THAT WAS GOING TO BE I BELIEVE 27 SPACES. 29 SPACES CUT A HALF. THEY WOULD REQUIRE 15 SPACES. AND THEY HAVE 19. 19? YES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. ORIAN. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NO, , HE WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD. I LOST YOU. NOPE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. . I THINK YOU'RE MUTED. I THINK IT'S OKAY. WELL QUEZ OH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU SAYING SOMETHING? WE CAN'T HEAR EITHER COMMISSIONER FOR SOME REASON. OKAY, WE'LL TRY TO, OH, WE LOST HIM COMPLETELY. I YOU MIGHT TRY TO RECONNECT. YEAH, PROBABLY. OKAY. WELL I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO HERE OTHER THAN KIND OF PROCEED WITH A CAN'T A QUORUM. YEAH, WE TREAT THAT. WE CAN'T ASK 6, 7, 8. TAKES US DOWN TO IS DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY ON OUR SIDE WORKING ON TRYING TO GET THEM UP OR IF YOU'RE ABLE TO TYPE SOMETHING IN THE CHAT, I CAN READ IT OFF. LOOKS FINE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN, MAYBE YOU COULD, UH, YOU COULD TYPE YOUR QUESTION IN THE CHAT OR, OR TYPE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE CHAT. WE COULD RE MY PHONE. OH MY GOD. TAKE A QUICK BREAK. FIVE MINUTES. WE KNOW MAYBE I DON'T WANT TAKE ANOTHER BREAK. NO, I DON'T. I'M GONNA PUT THE PHONE NUMBER YOU CAN DIAL TO THE APPLICANT. I GUESS WHILE WE'RE WAITING, UH, QUESTION FOR YOU, UH, THE, THE HEIGHT, THE CEILING HEIGHT OF THESE UNITS, HOW, HOW HIGH ARE THEY? ARE THEY EIGHT FEET? 10 FEET? EIGHT, EIGHT AND NINE ON THE, ON THE HALLWAYS. OKAY. OKAY. SO, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS UM, I I I HAVE BEEN TOLD, AND I'VE ACTUALLY HAD THIS APPLIED TO ME OR WHATEVER'S ON THAT SIDE PLAN COUNSEL'S APPROVING AND IT, IT DOESN'T, SO IN THEORY, UH, BECAUSE THAT SITE PLAN SAYS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO PARTS OF MY QUESTION BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN SAYS THAT THEY CAN GO TO THIS HEIGHT AND BECAUSE IT ZONE IB THREE I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT, THAT [04:30:01] THAT NOTE 11 EVEN APPLIES. IT DOES ANYTHING THAT'S MULTIFAMILY USE THAT IS OR COMMERCIAL USES, THAT IS A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE MUST COMPLY WITH THE, UH, 2.5 STORIES OR 35 FEET WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET FROM THE ABUTTING PROPERTY LINE. THEN THE OTHER PART OF THIS QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU, IF THIS JUST WENT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL IN 2024, I MEAN ALL THE ABUTTING RESIDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, I MEAN THIS SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RINGER TWO YEARS AGO. HOW DID THAT, WAS IT A CLOSED CASE OR, I MEAN IT SEEMS SO RECENT THERE'S SO MUCH OPPOSITION TO IT NOW. WHAT WAS GOING ON TWO YEARS AGO? I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. UM, ABOUT THE OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT. UM, WHAT WAS THE RESPONSES? UM, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS BASED OFF OF LAND USE PRINCIPLES AND SO THIS WAS, THIS WAS ADDING RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS EXISTING AND ESTABLISHED ON THIS BLOCK FACE. LAST THING IS, IS IS THE, I HAVE, UH, A YEAR AGO I HAD A, A, A CLIENT THAT DID IDZ AND WE REDUCED THE HEIGHT SO IT COULD GET APPROVED AND THEN WHEN HE WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING HIGHER, THEY WOULDN'T LET HIM GO TO THE BOA 'CAUSE THEY SAID COUNSEL PUT IT, PUT IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE PARKING. THIS PARKING IS IS I IS NATIVELY 50%, BUT THEY PUT 1.5 ON THE THING BECAUSE THIS IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. I, I THOUGHT THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY SORT OF DEVIATION FROM THIS WITHOUT A REZONING. SO AGAIN, WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MAJOR AMENDMENTS FOR AN IDZ OR AN IDZ TWO UNDER, UM, AN ACRE, THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN GUIDELINES, SO LIKE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS OR AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGE, TOTAL INCREASE IN INDUSTRIAL VARIOUS OF VARIETY OF ITEMS. UH, AN INCREASE OF HEIGHT OR AN INCREASE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS CALLED A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SAME PROCESS OF GOING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT THE REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES IS NOT IN THAT LIST OF MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENTS. HENCE WHY WE CAN DO A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND IS THAT THE OTHER QUESTION BECOMES, I THOUGHT THAT ANY, ANY CHANGE IN PARKING, AND THIS MAY JUST BE BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE TABLE ONCE YOU GO ARE GOING OVER 10%, DOESN'T IT HAVE TO GO TO THE BO OA? AND I'M ASKING ALL THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS OF PARKING. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT REALLY HIGH BUILDINGS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE, MORE POTENTIAL VEHICLES. IF, IF THEY DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH PARKING IT, IT MIGHT CAUSE ME TO NOT NECESSARILY BE A FAN OF THIS THING AGAIN. YES. SO AGAIN, WITH AN IDZ, YOU DEFINITELY MULTIFAMILY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT. SO, AND THEN HALF OF THAT FOR IDZ. SO OUR TRAFFIC TEAM, ONCE IT GOES THROUGH PERMITTING WILL CONFIRM THAT THEY MEET THAT REGULATION AND AGAIN, ZONING WILL PUT A HOLD ON IT TO MAKE SURE IF IT'S LESS THAN THE 27 SPACES THAT IS OR HOWEVER MANY SPACES ARE CALLED OUT ON THE SITE PLAN, WE COULD DO A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. OKAY, WELL THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT SITE, THE APPROVED SIZE PLAN WAS LIKE SENTENCED DEVIATE FROM IT KIND OF THING. AND REAL QUICK, THE, UH, YOU MENTIONED THE OPPOSITION, A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION SEEMS TO BE GEARED TOWARDS THE HEIGHT. SO WHEN THE ZONING WAS DONE, IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED AS, UH, MULTIFAMILY GOING THROUGH WASN'T REALLY HIGHLIGHTED. SO MAYBE THAT WASN'T PAID ATTENTION TO. WELL I APPRECIATE YOU CLEARING THAT UP FOR ME AND THE REST OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO JUST TO 0.1 THING OUT, UH, REGARDING WHAT WE WERE TALKING ON THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, UH, IT WAS APPROVED 35,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE HEIGHT AT 56 AND DURING CITY COUNCIL, EVERYBODY VOTE ON YES ON IT. SO IT WAS, IT WAS ANONYMOUS. AND REGARDING THE, THE HEIGHT CONCERN THAT EVERYBODY HAS AROUND IT, LIKE, LIKE WE MENTIONED, IF THOSE, IF THOSE TWO LOTS THAT ARE BEING RESIDENTIAL WILL BE USED AS MULTIFAMILY AS THEIR ZONE, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING ANY, ANY ISSUES WITH HIDE RIGHT NOW. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT, THAT I GUESS CONCLUDES WE HAD THE PUBLIC PORTION, UH, THAT WOULD, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE, OF THE, THE MEETING. AND SO I'D ASK OUR MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE SOME HELP WITH THE SITE PLAN AND, OKAY, MR. REED. [04:35:01] MR. REED. ALL RIGHT. ALL, OH, SURE. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE, A 1.5 STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2.5 STORY HEIGHT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR STORY BUILDING AND TWO, A 21 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MAXIMUM 35 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 50, WE WERE GONNA SAY 51 NOW I THINK IT'S 51 51 FOOT HEIGHT BUILDING SITUATED AT EIGHT 11 EAST PARK AVENUE APPLICANT BEING EIGHT 11 AND EIGHT 15 EAST PARK AVENUE, LLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEER VISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN A HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT EXISTS ON THE ADJACENT LOT AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED FOR HIGH INTENSITY AND FILL DEVELOPMENT WHERE INCREASED HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PREVENTING DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SITE'S HIGH INTENSITY IN FILL ZONING RESULTING IN UNDERUTILIZATION DUE TO CODE CHANGES ADOPTED AFTER NEARBY DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL EV JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE BY ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM WITH ADOPTED ZONING POLICY AND ENSURING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BY TREATING SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES EQUITABLY. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWS WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS PROPOSED HEIGHTENED SCALE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING NEARBY DEVELOPMENT. SIX. THE PLAY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED UNDER PRIOR STANDARDS AND THE PROPERTY'S INFILL ZONING WAS NOT SELF-CREATED AND IS NOT SOLELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE. THAT'S IT. END OF MOTION. END OF MOTION. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT. UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? THANK YOU. SECOND. SECOND, NIA. ALRIGHT. UH, MR. REED, UM, THE, THE PARKING HERE DOESN'T CONCERN ME AS IT IS ONE-TO-ONE AND IT IS, UM, INFIELD DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS, UM, A FAIRLY URBAN SETTING. UH, I THINK THERE'S MORE OF THIS TO COME. UM, THIS ENTIRE AREA IS BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW FOR, UM, FOR THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING. UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HEIGHT I CAN UNDERSTAND CONCERNS, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDINGS. UM, SO I I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU MR. BONIA. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. UH, THIS THING WENT THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL, GOT APPROVED. UH, HE'S MADE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT IN REDUCTION, NOT INCREASING ANYTHING. UM, I THINK THAT WE NEED THAT HEIGHT INCREASE IN STORIES BECAUSE HE IS USING THE FIRST GROUND FLOOR FOR PARKING, WHICH IS, UH, MUCH NEEDED IN THIS AREA. UM, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. LIKE I SAID, IT'S GONE THROUGH, THROUGH, THROUGH OTHER CHANNELS OF BEING APPROVED BEFORE IT GOT HERE, SO I'M IN APPROVAL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ AS WELL. I MEAN, I THINK, UH, IF NOT FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE TWO PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIAL, HE'D BE ABLE TO BUILD EXACTLY AT ONCE AND I WILL GUARANTEE THOSE TWO PROPERTIES ARE MOST LIKELY NOT GONNA STAY RESIDENTIAL AS THE REST OF THE PROPERTY START GETTING DEVELOPED OUT AND GET THE DENSITIES, UM, UH, THAT KIND OF FEED OFF OF THE PEARL AREA. AS FAR AS THE OPPOSITION, I THINK A LOT OF IT'S DRIVEN BY THE, UH, THE VIEW BLOCK AND, AND THERE REALLY IS NO ANSWER TO THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW BY RIGHT, HE HAS THE ABILITY TO KIND OF BUILD THE HEIGHT THAT HE NEEDS ON THIS PROJECT. SO, UM, SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS READ. SO LET'S GET A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. [04:40:02] COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, I CONCUR BY VICE CHAIR. YES, I CONCUR WITH, UH, WHAT IS IT? NINE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE IS READ PASSES. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT, SIR. UH, LAST CASE. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WISH I HAVE A GOOD MORNING. YEAH, EXACTLY. . ALL RIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GONNA HEAR Y'ALL NOW. . ALL RIGHT. HEAR, HEAR? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. . OKAY. LAST CASE. BO OA 25 103 0 0 2 76 LOCATED AT 10 38 SHERMAN, UH, WAS ZONED R FOUR. SO FIRST REQUEST IS A FIVE FOOT VARI FOR THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. A THREE FOOT VARIANT FOR THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. A 12 FOOT VARI FROM THE 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW 13 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AND A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT FENCE ENTRANCE HEIGHT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF UNION PACIFIC EAST YARD AND JUST WEST OF NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE. CORNER OF LAW IS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY. DWELLING THE LOT RECEIVED A COD ALLOWING SUBSTANDARD LOT TO BYPASS THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. DWELLING IS PRO, UH, PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, UH, WITH MULTIPLE CONTAINERS CONVERTED INTO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ALTERING PASS OF BODY IN THE BUILDING CODES. FENCE, HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS LIMITED TO AN ENTRANCE GATE. ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SETBACK. SHOWING THE FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO THE RIGHT ALONG SHERMAN TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE, UH, THE BOTTOM THERE. THEN YOU SEE THE FENCE ON THE BOTTOM THERE, THE NINE FOOT LIMITED TO THE FENCE. WE'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE LATER. AND THEN THE CORNER CLEAR VISION, THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OTHER ANGLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THIS IS THE, UH, ENTRANCE GATE. UM, WE CAN'T CALL IT ANYTHING ELSE BUT A FENCE FOR FENCE STANDARD. SO THAT'S WHY THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXISTS FOR THIS AND SURROUNDING AREA. OUR TRAFFIC TEAM DID, UM, WORK WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR THE CLEAR VISION. SO THEY ALREADY, UH, REVIEWED IT. STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT NOW FOR THE FRONT, UH, SETBACK VARIANCE, THE PROXIMITY OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY ATE NOISE, VIBRATION AND SAFETY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY RAILROAD OPERATIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN ALTERING THE DISTRICT'S CHARACTER AND THE SETBACK REGULATIONS TO MAINTAIN UNIFORM BUILDING, PLACEMENT, SAFETY AND PREDICTABLE STREET SCAPE CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY AT CORNERS SIDE STEPBACK AND CORNER CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THE TRUCTURE REMAINS PHYSICALLY SEPARATE FROM THE STREET AND ADJACENT USES. UH, THE VARIANCE HAS NOT COMPROMISED PUBLIC WELFARE OR SAFETY. THE THEREFORE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REMAINING 13 FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA PRESERVES FUNCTIONAL VISIBILITY WHILE BALANCING SAFETY WITH REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE COMBINATION OF THE CORNER. CLEAR VISION, SUBSTANDARD LOT AND ADJACENT RAILROAD OPERATIONS CREATES UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS NOT SHARED BY TYPICAL PARCELS IN THE DISTRICT AND FENCE SITE. SPECIAL EXEMPTION WE RECOMMEND DENIAL CREATES A DOMINANT VISUAL BARRIER THAT CAN CONVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UH, THROUGH THE LOSS OF OPENNESS, SHADOW SHADOWING, AND REDUCED VISUAL CONTINUITY. THE NINE FOOT FENCE OR ENTRANCE ELEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY SEES THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD AND INTRODUCES, UH, FORTIFIED OR INSTITUTIONAL APPEARANCE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHAPTER'S PURPOSE. 34 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED THE ANNUITY HILL IS OPPOSED TO ALL REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE IN SUPPORT FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND THE OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND IN OPPOSITION FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING LOTS. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. UH, ANY UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? NONE. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND, UH, CAN THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, PATIENCE TODAY AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH ALL THE CASES. UM, HELLO THERE. MY NAME IS, UH, STEVEN LUCKY. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY. UM, YES, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WE ARE BUILDING THIS. GET YOUR ADDRESS, UH, FOR THE RECORD. UH, 10 38 SHERMAN STREET. THANK YOU, SIR. YES. UM, IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCES WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, THERE'S A FEW THAT ARE MORE NECESSARY THAN THE OTHERS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE, UM, THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE FURTHEST RED LINE TO THE RIGHT, UH, WHICH IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE [04:45:01] PROPERTY. UM, SO AFTER OUR PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S STILL ABOUT ANOTHER 10 FEET BEFORE YOU HIT THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN, UH, WE'RE ASKING TO GIVE US THE VARIANCE. SO INSTEAD OF GOING 10 FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WE CAN GO FIVE FEET. SO WE'LL STILL HAVE A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD. UM, AND IF YOU GO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'LL SEE HOUSES THAT ARE ACTUALLY CLOSER THAN THAT 15 FOOT SETBACK THAT WE WILL HAVE. AND THEN ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, UM, YOU CAN SEE OUR PROPERTY LINE. WE'RE ASKING FOR WHAT, WHAT IS THIS? RIGHT HERE. OH, OH, NICE. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS LASER. OKAY. UM, YES, SO THIS IS, UH, WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE. AND AGAIN, FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE TO THE SIDEWALK, WHICH THIS SIDEWALK DOES NOT EXIST, WE WILL BE BUILDING IT. WE STILL HAVE LIKE ANOTHER 10 TO 12 FEET. SO OVERALL WE ARE STILL GONNA HAVE A REALLY NICE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD WITH THESE VARIANCES. UM, AND NOW REGARDING THE FENCE. SO WE HAVE ABOUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE, UM, CURRENTLY ON THE EASTERN SIDE AND WE PLAN TO CONTINUE THAT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE AS WELL. IT'S SIMPLY AN ENTRANCE AND WHETHER THIS NINE FOOT ENTRANCE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A ARBOR OR LIKE A PERGOLA ENTRANCE WHERE WE'RE GONNA GROW SOME VINES ON IT, UM, WHETHER IT'S THERE OR NOT, YOU WOULD STILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE PAST IT BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS GONNA BE RIGHT THERE. SO, UM, IT'S NOT GONNA BE ANY TYPE OF, UM, OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW ESSENTIALLY OTHER THAN BEING ABLE TO SEE THE STRUCTURES. UM, WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO AVOID RIGHT HERE, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE THAT WE'D LIKE TO GET PAST IS THIS 10 FOOT SETBACK, PUSHING IT TO FIVE FEET BECAUSE WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL, PROBABLY 50 TO 75-YEAR-OLD PECAN TREE RIGHT HERE. AND SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, IF WE DO NOT GET THIS SETBACK, THE CONCRETE FOOTERS, WHICH WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION, ARE GONNA BE EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THIS TREE. AND THIS TREE, AS YOU KNOW, THE SAN ANTONIO'S TREE CANOPY IS EXTREMELY LOW. WE ACTUALLY ARE PLANNING TO PLANT MORE TREES ON THE PROPERTY. UM, BUT WE DO NOT WANNA HARM THIS TREE. WE HAVE HAD A ARBORIST DO AN ASSESSMENT ALREADY AND THE TREE IS IN GOOD HEALTH. UM, PRIOR TO US OWNING THE PROPERTY, THE PAST OWNERS, UM, SOMEHOW GOT SOME METAL LODGED INTO THE TREE. UM, THE TREE HAS GROWN AROUND IT. UM, BUT OVERALL BESIDES THAT IT'S IN PRETTY GOOD HEALTH. UM, SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SITUATION AT THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU SIR. UH, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS, MR. STEVENS, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT YOU'RE BUILDING OR IS IT TO SUPPORT THE OPIA DOWN ON NEW BRAUNFELS OR YES. GREAT QUESTION. UM, SO THE, THE, THE PLAN IS TO INITIALLY HAVE A FAMILY LIVING THERE. UM, WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS IN THE FUTURE, UM, ABOUT EXPANDING TO MORE LOTS IN THE PROPERTY. UM, OUR GOAL IS TO HOPEFULLY PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS IS A PILOT PROJECT THAT COULD HOUSE ONE FAMILY AND IF WE CAN DO IT RIGHT, THEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS ON MORE VACANT LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS OR VOICEMAILS ADDRESS? ONE VOICEMAIL. OKAY. HELLO, THIS IS LULU FRANCOISE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE DIG, WHITNEY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW COMMITTEE CALLING IN ON CASE NUMBER 2 7 6 10 38 SHERMAN STREET. WE AGREE WITH STAFF FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY NUMBER ONE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. NUMBER FOUR, A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM A MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT FENCE AND ENTRANCE HEIGHT BECAUSE MM-HMM A NINE FOOT HE FENCE HEIGHT SHOULD NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND TO APPROVE NUMBER TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER THREE, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 13 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION. SO THIS PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF DIGNITY HILL. THE APPLICANT SHOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THESE PLANS TO THE RESIDENTS AT THE DIGNITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING BECAUSE THIS WAS NEVER DONE. WE ARE REQUESTING A CONTINUATION OF THIS CASE UNTIL THE APPLICANT CAN DO THIS. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. BONNI FOR THE APPLICANT. HAVE YOU WOULD DIGNITY, UH, HILL WHAT, WHAT IT WAS, WHAT'S THE CONVERSATIONS WE'D HAVE WE'VE HAD WITH THOSE GUYS? UM, GREAT QUESTION. SO THE PRESIDENT OF DIGNITY [04:50:01] HILL JUST CAME BY, UH, TODAY AND I SPOKE TO HER. WE PAID OUR DUES. UM, PHYLLIS, UM, I REALLY WASN'T, UM, AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO, TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS. I'M A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SINCE 2015. I KNOW LULU, I THINK IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE NINE FOOT FENCE AND THE SETBACK. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S DRIVEN BY THIS PROPERTY AND UNDERSTOOD THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY IN FRONT OF OUR, UM, PROPERTY LINES, UM, IN REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, FURTHER ISSUES. HAPPY TO TO ADDRESS THAT WITH THEM, BUT I, YEAH, I JUST WASN'T AWARE THAT WE NEED TO, AND BY THE TIME WE SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION, THEY DID NOT MEET IN DECEMBER. UM, THAT'S A OFF MONTH FOR THEM. SO WE REALLY NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO SPEAK TO THEM, THEM BEFORE THIS. RIGHT. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE AN AN APPROVAL FOR SOME PARTS OF IT, NOT OTHERS. MAYBE THEY JUST 'CAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THE PROJECT OR WHAT YOU PLAN ON DOING WITH IT. LIKE YOU SAID, DECEMBER WAS AN OFF MONTH. I I'M OKAY VOTING ON IT TODAY. UH, BUT FOR STAFF, DID, DO Y'ALL WANT TO MAYBE HAVE, GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH DIGNITY HILL, EXPLAIN THIS PROJECT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH, THEN SEE IF WE CAN GET THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE OTHER ITEMS ON THERE. 'CAUSE THEY'RE SUPPORTING, UH, ONE OF THEM, JUST NOT THE OTHER ONES, BUT MAYBE IF THEY SAW YOUR PLAN AND IDEA AND VISION, THEY THEY WOULD AGREE WITH WITH THE OTHER ONES AS WELL TOO. YES, AND I, UH, JUST SPOKE TO PHYLLIS, SO WE WERE JUST TEXTING AND SO SHE SAID SHE COULD GET ME ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THEY'RE MEETING ON THE 26TH, I WANNA SAY. YEAH, THERE YOU GO GUYS. SO WOULD Y'ALL BE IN FAVOR OF A CONTINUANCE IN THIS TO GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH DIG NOY HILL AND, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE? I'LL BE RESPECTFUL FOR YOUR TIME HERE. I MEAN, YOU SPENT A FULL DAY SITTING HERE. JEEZ. YEAH, A CONTINUANCE TO ME WOULD BE, I MEAN, HE CAME IN. OH, YOU CAME IN, THEY, THEY CAN'T, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SEE 'EM TILL JANUARY 26TH, SO THAT MEANS WE'D HAVE TO GO TO FEBRUARY. CAN I GET YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? I'M, UM, THIS IS MY ADDRESS, MY HOUSEHOLD THE SAME 10 OF 10 38 SHERMAN, 10 38 SHERMAN. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING OR, UM, BASICALLY, UH, SOME OF THESE, LIKE THE SETBACKS ON THE FIVE FEET, ON THE SAME, ON THE, ON THE SIDES, UH, WE ARE ADJUST THE, BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE, UH, UH, BUILDING PROCESS ALREADY HAS. SO WAY THEY ASK US IF WE CAN REDUCE THE BUILDING. SO WE DON'T, IT'S NOT THAT WIDE. SO WE KEEP THE FIVE FEET ON THE SIDES. OKAY. SO THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. UHHUH, THE ONLY ISSUE IS THE ONE FOR, AGAIN, THE ONE FOR THE TREE. THEN WE WANNA SAVE THAT TREE. THAT IS THE MAIN POINT. AND THE FENCE IS FOUR FEET RIGHT NOW AND IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR. UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE PERMIT ALSO, UH, FIXING THAT ENTRANCE IF WE GO AND IN FEBRUARY, IT WILL PUSH ALL THE BUILDING PERMIT EVERYTHING LIKE FROM PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AFTER THIS APPROVAL PROCESS, THE BUILDING PERMIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. UNDERSTOOD. UH, THE SITUATION WITH HAVING TO ASK FOR CONTINUANCE, I THINK, DO WE WANNA TAKE A VOTE AND KIND OF OPEN IT UP IF, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THE SUPPORT TO AT LEAST, UM, HAVE THE ORIAN? YES, SIR. YEAH. UH, SO MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS IF WE, IF WE ENTERTAIN ITEMS, LET'S SAY ONE AND TWO, BUT BUT DON'T ENTERTAIN THREE AND FOUR AT ALL, CAN HE STILL COME BACK LATER? OR DOES HE HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR SO THERE'S NO DENIAL? HOWEVER, UM, IF THERE'S NO MOTION, WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A MOTION MADE FOR THOSE CERTAIN ITEMS THEN? YES. WELL, THE, THE APP, THE APPLICANT, THE ONLY THE, WHAT HE NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD IS ONE AND TWO, THREE AND FOUR. HE COULD COME BACK LATER IF HE WANTED TO. YEAH. BUT IF WE DON'T READ IT IN, DOES THAT LOCK HIM INTO THE ONE YEAR SO HE CAN NO, SO THE APPLICANT CAN WITHDRAW THOSE ITEMS. IF HE DOESN'T WITHDRAW THEM, THEY WILL BE DENIED AND THEN HE CAN'T COME BACK FOR A YEAR. BUT THE APPLICANT WITHDRAWS THEM AT THIS POINT, THEN HE'S NOT LIMITED TO THAT ONE YEAR TO COME BACK. CAN WE DO A CONTINUANCE AND HE DOES A GOOGLE STREET VIEW. THEY, THEY, HE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ALREADY, HE'S ALREADY POURED HIS FOUNDATION. DID, DID HE, DOES HE HAVE A PERMIT? NO, WE HAVEN'T. WE, WE HAVE NOT POURED ANY ANYTHING. WE, UH, OH, I'M SORRY. THERE WAS AN EXISTING, UH, DRIVEWAY, BUT WE HAVE NOT, UH, YEAH, I'M MAYBE, I'M, I'M LOOKING ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A, OH, THAT'S A OLD, THAT'S AN OLD VIEW. UM, WE ACTUALLY GOT RID OF THAT FOUNDATION. UM, SO THE PROP THE PROPERTY IS FULLY CLEARED. ? YEAH. OKAY. IT LOOKED NEW. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. OKAY. COULD, COULD WE THANK YOU, UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF AS WELL. COULD WE THEN ASK FOR CONTINUANCE ON ITEM THREE? UM, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THAT YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION ON A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS AND CONTINUE. OKAY. OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO DECIDE ON. AND THEN WE WOULD RESCHEDULE OBVIOUSLY TO THE MEETING THAT YOU'RE CONTINUING TO FOR THOSE I REMAINING ITEMS. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE PLAN THEN. SO I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEMS NUMBER ONE AND TWO AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE CONTINUANCE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. I THOUGHT [04:55:01] REAL QUICK FOR THE APPLICANT, ARE Y'ALL OKAY WITH IT OR DO Y'ALL, I MEAN, UM, I BELIEVE ONE AND TWO ARE THE MOST PRESSING SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. UM, THREE AND FOUR SEEM TO BE RELATED TO THE FENCE. AND SO IF I COULD PRESENT TO NUITY AND SHOW THEM THE DESIGNS, IT'S AGAIN CATTLE PANEL FULLY SEE THROUGH, UM, HOPEFULLY WE COULD CONVINCE THEM THAT THAT MESHES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND JUST LOOKING AT GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES HAVE FENCES BEYOND THE, I MEAN, RIGHT UP ON THE SIDEWALK. YES. SO, UM, I GUESS I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN , WHICH IS GONNA BE 15 FEET BACK FROM AT THAT. UM, SIR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE NINE FOOT FENCE, GATE GATE INTEREST. IT'S JUST THE GATE, RIGHT? THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT, YEAH. OKAY. I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE MISUNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE. MM-HMM . YEAH, SHE'S PUT IT, IT LOOKS INSTITUTIONAL LIKE WE WOULD NEVER BUILD A NINE FOOT FENCE MM-HMM . AROUND A PROPERTY. LIKE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SO, UM, IT'S JUST THE ENTRANCE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN. AND AGAIN, FOR SOME GREENERY WE ALREADY PLANTED GRAPES ON THE FENCE LINE THAT ARE GROWING RIGHT NOW. QUESTION? YES SIR. DO YOU PLAN TO PROTECT THAT PECAN TREE DURING CONSTRUCTION? YES, SIR. WE WANT TO, UH, KEEP THAT PECAN TREE ALIVE. UH, WE'VE ALREADY HARVESTED SOME PECANS OFF OF IT. UM, SO WE'LL BE TAKING ALL THE PARAMETERS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING COVERING IT WITH LIKE TWO BY FOURS OR TWO BY SIXES, UM, AS WE'RE DIGGING. YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY. SO I, I THINK WE HAVE A PLAN HERE. IF I HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEMS ONE AND TWO, IF I CAN HAVE A BOARD MEMBER MAKE A MOTION AND WE CAN SETTLE THAT UP. YEAH, I'LL DO IT. MS. BRAGMAN. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ONE. THAT ONE? YEAH, THAT'S A SEPARATE THAT THAT'S NOT GONNA BE READ BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA CONTINUOUS, WE WON'T DO THE CLEAR BOOK. WE'LL JUST DO THE FRONT AND SIDE. YEP. OKAY. GOT IT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 2 7 6, MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, UH, SITUATED AT 1 0 3 8 SHERMAN STREET. APPLICANT BEAM OPIA GARDENS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH TO 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 GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PROPERTY. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE STREET IS MAINTAINED THROUGH EXISTING SPACE BEYOND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE PROPERTY FACES HEAVY RAILROAD OPERATIONS RATHER THAN SENSITIVE USES. THIS CONDITION PRESERVES FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION VIABILITY, SORRY, VISIBILITY AND SAFETY DESPITE THE REDUCED SETBACK ON PAPER. BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE REMAINS PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM THE STREET AND ADJACENT USES, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC RECORD. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK WOULD CREATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY LIMITING THE REASONABLE SITE DESIGN, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY SPACE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE STREET. THE VARIANCE ALLEVIATES THIS HARDSHIP WHILE ALLOWING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT EXPANDING DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY BEYOND WHAT THE DISTRICT OTHERWISE PERMITS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE BARRETTS, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY OBTAINING FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION FROM THE STREET AND PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BY ALLOWING REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT IN LIGHT OF SURROUNDING CONDITIONS. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMITY PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS THE SURROUNDING AREAS DOMINATED BY INDUSTRIAL AND RAILROAD OPERATIONS [05:00:01] AND NOT PEDESTRIAN ENGINE ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. NO ADJACENT STRUCTURE IS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE REDUCED EAST SIDE SETBACK. THE PRESENCE OF OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE STREET COMBINED WITH THE NEARBY RAILROAD CORRIDOR MEANS THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INTRODUCE NEW IMPACTS OR ALTER NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 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 WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND WERE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT DUE TO ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXCESS SPACE BETWEEN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE PRESENCE OF HEAVY RAILROAD OPERATIONS ACROSS THE STREET WERE NOT SELF-CREATED AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR DUE TO GENERAL, UH, DISTRICT CONDITIONS. THE COMBINATION OF A CORNER LOT SUBSTANDARD SIZE ADJACENT RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE BEYOND THE EAST PROPERTY LINE CONSTITUTES UNIQUE SITE CONDITIONS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, GOT A SECOND HERE. SECOND. SECOND. MR. STEVENS. OH, MS. BRAGMAN. UM, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. I THINK THAT BASED UPON THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED SHOWS THERE IS TRULY MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE FRONT. UM, AND SO IT, IT, IT WILL APPEAR LARGER THAN WHAT THE NUMBERS INDICATE. AND, UH, THE SIDE SETBACK I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BECAUSE AGAIN, FOR THE SAME REASON, THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE LEADING UP TO THE SIDEWALK THAT'S GONNA BE INSTALLED. SO IT'LL BE MUCH MORE OPEN THAN, UH, THE NUMBERS, UH, DICTATE. AND THEN HOPEFULLY WITH THE, UM, SUPPORT THE DIGNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THE OTHER ITEMS, UM, THE PROJECT CAN BE FINALIZED, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU MS. BRAGMAN. MR. STEVENS, I CONCUR WITH MS. BRAGMAN. UH, I THINK THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESPERATE FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT OPIO IS EXPANDING THEIR WORK IN THE AREA. AFTER, YOU KNOW, A DECADE OF BEING ON NEW BRAUNFELS, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS THAT, THAT YOU'RE A FIXTURE OF THE COMMUNITY AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. SO I'LL BE IN FULL SUPPORT. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RE BON I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, YES. VICE CHAIR ? YES. I CONCUR. THAT'S 10 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCES DO PASS. UM, NOW WE'RE SEEKING A, UH, A CONTINUANCE, RIGHT? DOES SOMEBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE? UH, BON I MOVE TO CONTINUE. GO AHEAD. SECOND, MR. WYN. I MOVED TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 9TH. ITEMS THREE AND FOUR. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. SO MOVED. AYE. THANK YOU SIR. WHO THE HECK? UH, WE'LL SEE. WE'LL SEE YOU IN FEBRUARY. YES. WE'RE WITH DEFENSE AND, AND, AND APPROVAL FROM, UH, OUR SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. YEAH. ALRIGHT. STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, ANY UH, REPORTS OR DIRECTOR'S REPORT OR MINUTES? UH, THE MINUTES, THE, UH, MINUTES. [ Approval of Minutes  ] DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WITH THE SO MOVED? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY DIRECTOR'S REPORTS? I'LL SECOND. ? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORTS. WE DO NICE WORK. NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT. WE'RE FREE TO GO. YOU ARE FREE TO GO. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO THE BOARD. I MEAN THIS WAS A LONG BUT ADJOURN. ADJOURN. THANK YOU. * 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.