[00:00:05]
ALL RIGHT.I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION.
LET'S HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT, PLEASE.
UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL.
SO WE HAVE NINE SEATED SO WE CAN, UH, CALL THEM.
WE HAVE A QUORUM FOR THE MEETING.
IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR RELIGIOUS STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.
UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY 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 A CHAIR, AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
UH, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD.
THIS BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF T IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND AUTHORIZED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT, AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, 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 A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW.
BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO LET'S PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION OR REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS POSTPONED LOCATED AT 3 35 EAST PARK AVENUE AND IT WILL BE READVERTISED AND ITEM NUMBER SIX LOCATED AT 11 0 0 2 VANCE JACKSON ROAD IS WITHDRAWN.SO THOSE TWO CASES WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY.
UM, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION 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 ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION, YOU'LL
[00:05:01]
BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK.THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'LL NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION FOR THOSE.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER.
THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
YES, UH, I HAD IT, UH, DENOTED AND I, I JUST NEEDED TO KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT OR NOT.
IS ITEM NUMBER TWO POSTPONED THIS FIRST CASE BEING HEARD TODAY? OKAY.
AND AS FAR AS ITEM NUMBER, UH, FOUR OR SIX, WERE THERE ANYBODY SENT TO SPEAK OR ANY VOICEMAILS SPEAK? NO VOICEMAILS.
UH, SO AT THE BE WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO AT THE BEGINNING IS, UH, WE HAVE TWO APPLICANTS WHO HAVE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE.
UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TILL APRIL 6TH, IF WE COULD START WITH THAT.
UM, I'M SORRY, ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR, UH, 27 51 FOREST SPUR STREET REQUEST AND CONTINUANCE TO APRIL 6TH.
NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS ONE.
IS THERE A MEMBER, UH, COMMISSIONER, LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MOVED, UH, TO CONTINUANCE FOR, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 TO, UH, APRIL 6TH.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
ANY, ANY OPPOSED? UH, HEARING NONE.
THE NEXT ITEM ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE WAS ITEM THREE, CORRECT.
THIS IS, UH, FIVE 15 BELMONT STREET ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 23RD.
AND WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE SPEAKER COME FORWARD.
IS BEN, UH, SHADOW BOMB NECESSARY? CONTINUOUS, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK, BUT YOU'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO.
YOU CAN ALSO COME BACK, UH, IN A FEW WEEKS, UH, AND, AND PARTICIPATE AT THAT TIME.
JUST GO AHEAD, SAY YOUR NAME AND THEN WE DO REMEMBER WHEN WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE AND, OKAY.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR START, SIR.
UH, YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
THEY HAVE TO RECORD ALL THIS STUFF.
WE READY? BEN SCHOEN, BAUM NEIGHBOR AT FIVE 14 BELMONT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CITY WANTS TO REVOKE, UH, THIS LICENSE TO, UH, OPERATE A, UH, AIRBNB, I BELIEVE IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
BUT, UH, ANYWAY, NONETHELESS, THIS NEIGHBOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO ME.
UH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
HE'S GOT A HUGE INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY, UH, NEAR, AS I CAN TELL, HE'S IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT HURTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK IT'S EXCESSIVE, UH, UH, AN EXCESSIVE PENALTY TO REMOVE HIS ABILITY TO MAKE A LIVELIHOOD WITH THIS PROPERTY.
UH, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY TO MEET WITH HIM AND FIND A WAY TO BRING HIM INTO COMPLIANCE, WHATEVER THE PROBLEM IS.
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS, UH, ISN'T DISCRETIONARY.
THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS TO DO IT AND, AND THE PROCESSES FOR THAT APPLICANT TO COME HERE, BUT, UH, WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME DISCRETION, UH, BUT, BUT THE CITY, IN MOST INSTANCES DOES NOT.
AND WHEN CERTAIN, UM, ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN, HAVE BEEN REACHED, THEY, THEY ACT, THEY HAVE TO REVOKE.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
IT'S NOT PERSONAL, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, IF IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, THE, UH, CITIZEN SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE TO, UH, UH, BRING, BRING HIMSELF INTO COMPLIANCE.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SPEAKING ON, ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S BEHALF.
AND, UM, WE, WE, A LOT OF US, UH, WE'RE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WILL BE HERE IN A FEW WEEKS, PROBABLY A COUPLE EXTRA, SO WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN THE CASE IS HEARD.
IS THERE A MEMBER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FOR CASE NUMBER 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 9 TO MARCH THE 23RD.
ANY, ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE CASES CONTINUE TO MARCH 23RD.
UM, THE FIRST CASE IS GOING TO BE ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[00:10:08]
GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS JOSEPH FLAZ, UH, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 7 AT 2 1 1 0 CHEATHAM TRAIL DRIVE.
IT'S WITHIN COUNCIL, COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE APPLICANT'S JEFF RYON AND THEIR REQUESTING, UM, TO, FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THEIR SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
UM, SO AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT 2 1 1 0 CHITHAM TRAIL SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, UM, AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025, UH, PLATFORMS THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT.
NOW REMIT THE CITY HOT TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS INCLUDES MAJOR PLATFORMS SUCH AS AIRBNB AND VRBO.
UM, IF THE RENTAL ISN'T ADVERTISED OR RENTED THROUGH PLATFORM THAT DOES NOT REMIT THE HOT, UH, THE OPERATOR MUST CONTINUE AND, UM, MANUALLY REPORT AND REMIT THE CITY AND COUNTY HOT.
UM, ALL SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CONTINUE FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BERRY COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
UM, SO THE CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UH, THEY STATED THAT REVENUE REPORTS WERE MISSING FROM, FROM FEBRUARY, 2025 THROUGH APRIL, 2025.
UH, DELINQUENCY NOTICES WERE MAILED BY AVENUE BETWEEN APRIL, 2025 AND JULY, 2025, UH, WITH A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY EMAILED BY US ON JANUARY 5TH.
UM, SECTION 16 DASH 11 D STATES THAT FAILURE TO TIMELY REPORT AND PAY HOT TAXES WITHIN 90 DAYS.
SO REPORT AND PERMANENT REVOCATION, UH, SINCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THAT 90 DAYS, THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW CURRENT ON THEIR HOT TAXES.
UH, THIS IS THE TYPE TWO DENSITY COUNT.
UH, THERE ARE 18 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
UH, WE DO HAVE ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO AT 2002 CHI TRAIL.
UM, AND THAT ONE WAS APPROVED BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2025.
UH, SO FOR THE BACKGROUND HISTORY, UH, THERE WAS A OPEN INVESTIGATION, UM, IN FEBRUARY OF 2025.
IT WAS FOR OPERATING WITHOUT, WITHOUT A PERMIT.
UH, THE OPERATOR, THEY HAD APPLIED AND THEY WERE ISSUED ONE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ACTIVE LISTINGS, AND THIS IS JUST THE COMMUNICATION HISTORY FROM, UH, BOTH AVENUE AND DEVELOPING SERVICES OUTLINING THE NOTICES OF DELINQUENCIES AND EMAILS, UH, EXCHANGED.
UH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, WE ARE GONNA RECOMMEND A DENIAL, AND WE SENT OUT 39 NOTICES, UH, RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVORS OR AN OPPOSITION.
UH, THE PROPERTY'S NOT WITHIN A NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, AND THEN THE COMMUNITY GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED AND DIDN'T RESPOND BACK.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED, IT'D BE TWO OUT OF 18, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 12.5%, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THEN, AND THEY ARE CURRENT ON ALL TAXES AND PAPERWORK AND EVERYTHING? UH, YES.
YES, COMMISSIONER MAY SO IS, SO IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG GAP FROM WHEN IT, I GUESS WHEN IT IS AT THE STARTED VERSUS WHEN IT WAS REVOKED.
IS THERE, I GUESS THE LOGIC OR REASONING FOR THAT, THAT THAT LARGE DELTA THERE BETWEEN WHEN THE PERMIT WAS, UH, REVOKED AND WHEN THEY HAD APPLIED OR SO WHEN THEY STARTED BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE, I GUESS, AND SO THEY HAVE WHATEVER THE TIMEFRAME IS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE JANUARY.
SO WHAT LOOKED LIKE FROM JANUARY TO JANUARY, ALMOST A YEAR, I GUESS, THAT THIS WAS MM-HMM
AS, AS SOON AS WE HAD RECEIVED THE, UM, LIST OF, OF, UH, DELINQUENT PROPERTIES FROM AVENUE, THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE, WE BEGIN THE REVOCATION PROCESS.
SO THAT CONSISTS OF DOING, UM, JUST RESEARCH JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THERE BOARD NO OUT, SO, WHICH IS WHY Y'ALL SEE MAYBE, UM, SOME MONTHS IN BETWEEN.
UM, AND AS A FOLLOW-UP COMMISSIONER, SO LIKE JOSEPH STATED, WE GET THIS LIST AT A LATER DATE, WHICH TAKES US A COUPLE MONTHS TO CONFIRM WHICH PROPERTIES ARE ELIGIBLE REVOCATION.
AND ONCE WE DO GET THAT LIST, WE KIND OF DO IT IN BATCHES.
SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR SDR.
UH, FORGIVE ME FOR MY TIRE, BUT I'M WORKING TODAY.
SHE'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ALSO.
AND WE'RE, UH, TWO OF THE OWNERS OF CHI TRAIL CHI, YEAH, CHIHOW 21 CHI TRAIL.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF NOTES.
WHEN, WHEN WE GOT A CASE MANAGER, WE WERE TALKING OUTSIDE, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY MAKING THAT, UH, A SUGGESTION TO Y'ALL FOR DENIAL OR WHATEVER.
SO WE'RE TALKING OPEN OUT THERE, AND I'LL TELL YOU THE SAME THING.
[00:15:01]
NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAIL FROM ANYBODY, BUT THAT COULD BE BECAUSE OF OUR, OUR MAILBOXES.I WISH I WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT WAS THE CASE BECAUSE I COULD HAVE BROUGHT UP PROOF FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE, OR THE BACK OF OUR BOX HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF SEVERAL TIMES.
I'VE EVEN OFFERED FOR THEM TO PUT A CAMERA BECAUSE MY HOUSE IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT, SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY KEEP TRACK OF IT.
MY IDENTITY WAS STOLEN LAST YEAR.
MOTORCYCLES BOUGHT IN MY NAME.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST CONCERN ABOUT GETTING MAIL.
MY DAUGHTER RECEIVED AN EMAIL IN JANUARY, AND SO IN JANUARY, I SAID, SAID, WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE HOT TAXES ARE PAID BY, UH, AIRBNB AND VRBO.
I OWN TWO OTHER ONES, AND WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.
SO I WAS LIKE, NO, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THEN WHEN I CAME BACK, I WAS IN PUERTO RICO ACTUALLY PAYING OFF OUR LAST PAYMENT ON AN AIRBNB THERE.
AND WHEN I GOT BACK SHE SAID, DAD, YOU GOTTA GO DOWN AND GET THIS DONE.
SO THE DAY THAT THE REVOCATION WAS HAPPENING, I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE, THE FINANCE OFFICE, WHICH IS WHERE I THOUGHT I NEEDED TO GO.
AND I WAS THERE SPEAKING WITH A LADY AND SHE SAID, WELL, THESE ARE SHOWING ZERO.
AND I SAID, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE WE'VE REMITTED ALL THESE TAXES.
YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE GOT PROOF ON AIRBNB.
SO SHE SAID, YEAH, IT'S KIND OF A QUIRKY THING HERE.
THEY DON'T COLLECT THE COUNTY TAXES.
I WAS NEVER AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY TAXES ARE WEREN'T PAID.
SO ONCE SHE MADE, MADE ME, MADE ME AWARE OF THAT, I SAID, OKAY, SO WHAT DO WE DO? SO WE GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE AIRBNB, WHICH IF YOU EVER CONTACTED, THAT'S NOT EASY, AN EASY TRANSITION EVEN TO SPEAK WITH THEM.
BUT I HAD THEM ACTUALLY GO BACK, TEACH MY DAUGHTER HOW TO GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT STAYED THERE, EVERY SINGLE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE PAID IN TAXES, DO THE CALCULATIONS.
AND I SAID, OKAY, LET'S GO DOWN AND GET IT PAID BEFORE WE GET TO THE, THIS, THIS, THIS PROCESS.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE.
WE'VE NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT AGAINST OUR PROPERTY.
WE KEEP OUR PROPERTY IN GREAT SHAPE.
THE EXTERIOR'S IN GREAT SHAPE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE, I I, I TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW, I TELL 'EM, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA HAVE AN ISSUE.
UM, SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
WE'VE ALSO FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO IT ON THE AIRBNB PLATFORM AND ON THE VRBO PLATFORM, WE'RE THE ONLY TWO WE RENT TO HOW TO ADD THAT TAX ON THERE.
SO NOW THAT TAX IS AUTOMATICALLY GOING, AGAIN, THOSE GONNA BE COLLECTED SENT TO US, AND THEN WE HAVE TO REMIT IT TO YOU MANUALLY, AND I DON'T EVEN MIND IF I HAVE TO PAY IT MONTHS IN ADVANCE TO JUST TO KEEP OUR LICENSE.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US.
AND WE WEREN'T TRYING TO BE NON-COMPLIANCE, WE JUST WERE NOT, WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT.
ONE OTHER FURTHER NOTE, IT WAS WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE, WHEN WE DID CALL AIRBNB AND THEY TOLD US THAT I CALLED DOWN HERE AND TALK TO SOMEBODY AT THE CITY, I DIDN'T MAKE NOTE OF IT BECAUSE I, I WAS GONNA GO AHEAD AND COME DOWN AND PAY IT.
BUT THEY WERE SAYING, YES, AS LONG AS YOUR HOTEL TAXES ARE BEING PAID, YOU'RE FINE.
THEY NEVER SAID THAT YOUR COUNTY TAX IS DIFFERENT.
AND IF THEY WOULD'VE TOLD ME THAT, I WOULD'VE COME DOWN THERE THAT DAY AND TAKEN CARE OF WHATEVER SITUATION WE NEEDED TO BE IN.
BUT I, I MADE SURE THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE, WE HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE PROPERTIES IN COMPLIANCE, IT'S IN GOOD SHAPE.
WE HAVE NO, NO COMPLAINTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS EVER REGISTERED AGAINST US.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GUYS WOULD, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THAT AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND ALSO FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, I'LL BE THE ONE HANDLING, YOU KNOW, UH, REPORTING OUR TAXES AS WELL AS PAYING THEM.
SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE SYSTEM NOW WITH AVENUE AND, UH, FROM NOW ON FORWARD WE'LL HAVE THAT, UM, THAT TAX REMITTED.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ADDED TO THE, UH, PLATFORM SO THAT YOU ACTUALLY, THAT WAS ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN.
UM, 'CAUSE HE HAD HAD ISSUES WITH A SECURITY BREACH WITH HIS ADDRESS.
SO I WENT IN AND UPDATED, UM, A BETTER ADDRESS FOR HIM AS WELL AS ME AS A SECONDARY PERSON OF CONTACT.
YEAH, Y'ALL HAVE A BRYSON@ATT.NET.
SO I TOLD HIM THAT I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH A A BRYSON.
THAT'S WHERE ONE OF THE THINGS THEY FOUND OUT WERE THAT WAS GETTING THINGS STOLEN WAS UNDER MY EMAIL.
SO, I MEAN, I, I DUNNO IF Y'ALL HAVE EVER HAD AN IDENTITY STORE.
I USED TO THINK THAT WAS NOT REALLY REAL, BUT THEY STOLE, IT HAD A LOT OF CREDIT CARDS, THEY BOUGHT A MOTORCYCLE AND SO I TOOK IT DOWN AND GOT, UM, MY, MY LAPTOP GONE THROUGH AND, AND FIXED.
AND THEY SAID, WE ACTUALLY SUGGEST YOU GET RID OF THE LAPTOP.
LIKE THEY COULDN'T FIX IT COMPLETELY.
IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
YOU, SO WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE WITH REGARDS TO THE WORKFLOW AS IT GETS STARTED WITHIN, THEY'LL SAY THE, THE, THE WHOLE, UM, SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN OTHER, WE WILL SAY WORKFLOWS IN THE CITY WHERE THERE'S MANDATORY ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN.
AND SO COULD WE WORK THROUGH A DIALOGUE PO POTENTIALLY OF, AS SOMEONE SIGNS UP THAT THEY, MAN THEY GO THROUGH A MANDATORY TRAINING TO IDENTIFY ALL THE WORKFLOWS AND VERIFY IT, YOU KNOW, BY THEIR SECOND MONTH IN, IN THE WORKFLOW? UM, YEAH.
SO CLARIFICATION, WHEN WE ISSUED THE PERMIT, THEY ARE SENT AN EMAIL IDENTIFYING THE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED.
WE ALSO SENT A FOLLOW UP EMAIL INDICATING THIS IS YOUR TAXPAYER NUMBER.
AND WE ALSO IDENTIFIED ABOUT REMINDER TO REPORT TAXES ONLY MONTHLY BASIS.
AND THAT PLATFORMS LIKE AIRBNB HOME, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING HOT TAXES ON BEHALF OF THE OPERATORS.
THAT EMAIL COMMUNICATION WAS SENT TO A BRYSON AT AT&T DOT NET.
JUSTINE BRYSON'S EMAIL AT BRYSON@JUSTINEATGMAIL.COM AND THEIR DESIGNATED OPERATOR, LANE OXEN AND HIS EMAIL ADDRESS.
SO THAT WAS SENT OUT FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025.
SO THEY WERE PROPERLY NOTIFIED ABOUT REPAYING HOT
[00:20:01]
TAXES ON A MONTHLY BASIS, NOT AIRBNB.SO, SO I GET, YOU KNOW, I, I GET THAT WE'RE DOING A LOT OF GOOD NOTIFICATION AND I, I KNOW THAT WE PICKED IT UP QUITE WELL AND, AND SO I'M REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT PART.
BUT LOOK AT THE ELEVATE, IT'S ONE MORE STEP AS TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, A FOLLOW UP TRAINING.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, A LETTER OR AN EMAIL YOU MAY GET MISSED OR ALONG THAT LINE.
AND WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A ZOOM CALL WHERE WE WALK THROUGH EACH OF THE STEPS THAT EVERYONE'S GONNA SEE, ESPECIALLY FOR THAT THE FIRST, THE FIRST GO ROUND.
SO IT'S LIKE, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING SO THAT THERE ARE NO SURPRISES, WE'LL SAY MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, SO YEAH, SO FOR CLARIFICATION, ONCE AIR OR ONCE PLA PLATFORMS REMITTING HOT TAXES IN MARCH, 2025, WE STARTED SENDING OUT E ALONG WITH THESE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS, A GUIDE ON HOW TO REPORT HOT TAXES SAYING THING FROM THE MAIL NOTICE IS SENT OUT, IDENTIFYING YOU HAVE TO REPORT ZERO AGAIN, THAT PLATFORMS ARE NOT RESPONSE FROM ITS CITY OR COUNTY TAXES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
THE MAILING ADDRESSES WAS SENT TO BEXAR COUNTY SHOWS THIS AS THEIR HOMESTEAD.
SO THEY WERE SENT TO WHAT, AGAIN, WHAT THE CITY WAS GIVEN PROPER COMMUNICATION WAS SENT OUT REGARDING HOT TAXES AND DELINQUENCY.
ANY OTHER, CAN I MAKE ONE BON ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
UH, HOW MANY, UM, SHORT TERM RENTALS DO YOU GUYS MANAGE ALL TOGETHER HERE IN, IN EVERY OTHER PLACE? I GUESS I JUST MANAGE THE ONE HERE.
AND I'VE GOT TWO IN, IN PUERTO RICO.
ONE'S IS A FAMILY, UH, OWNED AND ONE IS OWNED WITH ANOTHER FRIEND OF MINE.
THAT ONE HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE MANAGER.
UM, AND ARE, DO TAXES WORK DIFFERENT IN PUERTO RICO THAN THEY DO HERE IN BEX COUNTY? YES, SIR.
WHEN WITH AIRBNB REMITTING THEM AND, AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT I WANTED TO RESPOND, IF YOU GET SPEAKING INTO THE I CAN, OH, SORRY.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO RESPOND TO IS ACTUALLY WHEN IT SAYS THAT AIRBNB IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE, UH, SUBMITTING OF THE HOT TAXES AIRBNB'S PLATFORM AND VR BBOS BOTH TELL US THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE AND THEY DO IT.
UM, IT'S JUST ONE PART OF IT THAT'S NOT BEING DONE.
AND IT'S VERY SMALL PART THAT WE, IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN IT, WE IT WOULDN'T BEEN ENOUGH FROM DAY ONE.
IT COULD, IT COULD BE CONFUSING.
AND, AND THEN YOU SAID, UH, SOMEWHERE AROUND THIS TIMEFRAME WHERE NOTICES WERE BEING SENT, THAT'S WHEN YOU WERE HAVING ISSUES WITH YOUR MAILBOX BEING VANDALIZED? YES, SIR.
UH, AND THEN FOR CITY, IS HE CURRENT NOW IN ALL HIS TAXES? YES.
AND THERE'S, UH, NO VOICEMAIL, SO I'M ASSIGNED TO HIS FEET.
COMMISSIONER ZUNE, MR. I WAS JUST GONNA BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NINE MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE IN PANEL TODAY AND WOULD TAKE NINE CONCURRING VOTES OF EVERYBODY ON THE PANEL TO, UH, APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO, UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE, UH, LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS JUST OUTTA RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS.
UM, WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UH, EZ COMMISSIONER BEEZ, UH, THIS ITEM TWO? YEAH.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 2110 AT CHITHAM TRAIL APPLICANT BEING JEFF BRYSON BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF, UH, MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION ONE 16 DASH 10 D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER MAMMA, COMMISSIONER EZ.
YEAH, I, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE PLATFORMS AND IF YOU OWN MULTIPLE, THEY CAN, THEY CAN BE HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF THESE, BUT I THINK THE APPLICANT NOW HAS A WAY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
I THINK THE FACT THAT HIS, HIS DAUGHTER'S GONNA HELP HIM.
UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THEY'LL ALWAYS BE CURRENT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAILBOX BEING VANDALIZED AND YOU'RE MISSING OUT ON SOME MAIL, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD PROBABLY DELAY SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
BUT I THINK THEY HAVE A REALLY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF HOW, HOW TO DO IT GOING FORWARD.
AND I THINK THEY'LL BE GOOD OPERATORS AND THEY'LL PAY THEIR TAXES ON TIME GOING FORWARD.
SO, UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, BUT YEAH, THE CITY.
SO WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY MADE AN ERROR AND THEY DID NOT.
BUT, BUT I THINK OUTSIDE OF THAT, I THINK THERE'S SOME EXTENUATING EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
UH, WHY DOES, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS.
SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR ALL.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NUN HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER EZ, YOU SECOND CO COMMISSIONER MANNA? I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
I'LL, I'LL DO COMMISSIONER CRUZ.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
IS THERE A MOTION, UH, MR. CHAIR? UM, AS THE, UM, I GUESS THE PARTY THAT DENIED I, I MAKE A MOTION TO ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION.
I'LL SECOND THE RECONSIDERATION WOULD BE FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE CASE.
AND, UH, LET'S HAVE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE FOR THE, UH, RECONSIDERATION.
[00:25:01]
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
UH, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, CONTINUE THIS TO MARCH 23RD.
ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NON MOTION.
WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 23RD.
BUT YOU MIGHT EXPLAINING WITH US FOR YOU, YEAH, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE NINE VOTES, AND THIS IS GOING FOR EVERYONE IN THE GALLERY.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE NINE VOTES, WHETHER THERE'S NINE PEOPLE HERE OR 11, WHICH IS A FULL BOARD.
UH, WE, WE RARELY HAVE NINE PEOPLE TODAY.
SO, UM, YEAH, SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN TWO WEEKS.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, CONCURRENCE OF THE NINE THAT ARE PRESENT TODAY.
SO WITHOUT THAT WE'LL BE FULLY IMP PANELED AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE 23RD.
SO THAT, UM, WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THE CASE.
WE'LL BE HERE AND IF IF IT'S IN FAVOR, YOU'LL NEVER SEE US AGAIN
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 2 5 5.
LOCATED IN DISTRICT SEVEN ON 1 54 BABCOCK ROAD.
HIS ZONING IS O2 AND IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A 29 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR AND 20 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK AND A BARBED WIRE FENCE WITH A ONE INCH REAR INSIDE SETBACK.
AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE UDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE REAR SETBACK OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE SERVICE OFFICE UNDER RENOVATION AND A FIRE DAMAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS SLATED FOR DEMOLITION.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A STORAGE SHED TO HOUSE MATERIALS AND TOOLS USED FOR MINOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS ON CLIENTS' HOMES LISTED FOR SALE UDC STANDARDS PROHIBIT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CARPORTS WITHIN THE REAR, INSIDE SETBACKS OF AREAS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALSO WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR BUFFER YARD.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STORAGE SHED TO BE LOCATED AND USED WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK AND ABOVE YARD AREA.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 0 0 2 55 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES EXCEPT FOR CARPORTS, ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK AREAS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
TWO, THE REDUCED SEPARATION MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT LOTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE A POTENTIALLY HARMFUL MATERIAL SUCH AS BARBED WIRE IS UTILIZED.
ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.
MAVERICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.
THIS IS THE LETTER RECEIVED IN SUPPORT AND THIS IS MAVERICK'S LETTER AGAINST THE CASE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, CAN YOU, CAN YOU REFRESH OUR MEMORY? THE COMMISSION'S MEMORY IS, UH, THIS CAME BEFORE US.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OR THE REASON FOR THE CONTINUOUS? WAS THAT TO NEGOTIATE WITH NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION OR WAS THERE SOME OTHER ASPECT? UM, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WAS THIS A PART OF THE JANUARY RESTART CASE? OH, DUE TO THE COLD WEATHER DAY AND THERE WAS ANOTHER CONTINUANCE IN THERE TO FACILITATE NEGOTIATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, THEY DID ATTEND, MAVERICK DID ATTEND, UH, THE LAST TIME, BUT THAT WAS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AT THAT DATE.
THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT ON THAT DATE.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
UM, MY NAME IS GILBERT VARGAS.
I AM MANAGING THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.
[00:30:02]
IF YOU, IF I CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND QUICKLY JUST SAY WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME.SO THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION FROM, UM, BIANCA, UM, MONTE LOBOS.
SHE WAS REPRESENTING THE, UH, MAVERICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HER BIGGEST CONCERN, AND, AND I'M JUST RECALLING IT, THE BIGGEST CONCERN WAS SOME ISSUES ABOUT WHAT WE WERE GONNA PLAN THERE.
WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE WITH, THERE WAS A FIRE HAZARD BEING SO CLOSE TO THE BACK.
UM, SO THERE, THERE WAS A VARIETY OF THINGS.
SO WE, WE UM, WE BASICALLY ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE.
SO I MET WITH, UM, BIANCA BACK IN END OF JANUARY AND WE BASICALLY AGREED TO, UM, REDUCE THE, THE REQUEST FOR FOR SETBACK.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY AT 15 FEET, YOU KNOW, WE WENT FROM FIVE FEET TO 15 FEET.
DO WE HAVE THAT EXHIBIT THAT SOMEWHERE HERE THAT, UH, WHICH SETBACK ARE YOU? BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE, UH, A 29 FOOT, 11 INCH, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR AND THEN A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT BUFFER.
AND THEN, UM, IS, IS YOU TALKING ABOUT THE REAR VARIANCE? YES, SIR.
AND WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOU, UH, OFFERING? WELL, SO NOW OFFERING AT 15 FEET VERSUS FIVE FEET, THE, THE LAST TIME YOU YEAR IT WAS FIVE FEET.
UM, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO BE A 15 FOOT VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO A 29 FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE.
SO IT'LL STILL BE THE 29 11 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE ONE INCH SEPARATION FOR THE BARBED WIRE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
UM, BUT HE IS PROPOSING TO PUT THE STRUCTURE 15 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AS OPPOSED TO FIVE FEET.
THAT WAS HIS ORIGINAL REQUEST BACK IN DECEMBER TO HAVE THIS STRUCTURE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, IN COMMUNICATION, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT WITH BETWEEN THEM AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE AMENDED TO PLACE THAT BUILDING NOW 15 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THAT IS HOW IT WAS, UM, ADVERTISED FOR THIS CYCLE.
AND THAT'S HOW IT'S DISPLAYED ON THE, UH, THE SCREEN IN, IN FRONT OF YOU HERE.
THERE'S NO LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY.
SO ITEM NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS, IS STRIKED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THERE'S SUFFICIENT SPACE NOW FOR THE REAR BUFFER ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN, SO ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD READ IT AS A DUAL MOTION OF 15 FOOT FOR THE STRUCTURE AND THEN A ONE INCH FOR A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
EVERYBODY CATCH THAT? ALRIGHT, PLEASE CONTINUE.
SO THE OTHER THING THAT THE OWNER, THE OTHER THING THAT THE OWNER AGREED TO DO, THIS IS A METAL STRUCTURE.
AT THE TIME THEY WERE ASKING HIM, WELL, WHAT'S GONNA GO THERE? BECAUSE OF THE FIRE CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A BIT REMOTE, HE, HE WENT AHEAD AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT THE STRUCTURE'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
SO IF YOU HAD BASICALLY HOMELESS OR SOME VARIANTS, UH, VAGRANTS IN THE BACK WHO TRIED TO START THE STRUCTURE ON FIRE, THEY WOULD HAVE A MUCH HARDER TIME.
UM, SO THAT, THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT HE, WE DID.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, MS. BIANCA WAS ALSO MENTIONING THAT THERE WAS THE OLD SHED THAT WAS THERE, UM, AND HE, THE OWNER SINCE REMOVED IT, I MEAN, WE DIDN'T SEND ANY PICTURES IN, BUT I HAVE 'EM AND HE, HE SHOWED 'EM TO ME.
AND SO WE REMOVED HIM WITH THE IDEA THAT SH ANOTHER CONCERN WAS, HEY, DID YOU POLICE THAT AREA UP? IF THERE'S TRASH? AND THE HOMELESS WERE THERE WITH BASKETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND IT WAS JUST A, A WORK IN PROGRESS.
BUT SINCE THEN, UM, THEY CLEANED UP THE BACK OF THE SIDE.
AND HAS STAFF RECEIVED ANY UPDATE FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION REGARDING THESE RECENT CONVERSATIONS AND POTENTIAL, UH, ACCEPTANCE? 'CAUSE ALL WE SAW IN THE PRESENTATION WAS THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOCUMENTED, UH, UH, AN OPPOSITION NO, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY UPDATED RESPONSE.
AND CAN COME COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT BOB WIRE FENCE IS, THAT'S STILL GONNA STAY THERE AND IT'S STILL FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OR WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BUILD THERE? YES, IT, IT'S ALREADY THERE.
SO YOU DIDN'T PUT IT IN, IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
NOW, WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING TODAY FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UH, WHEN STAFF'S RECOMMENDING DENIAL AND A NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION'S RECOMMENDING DENIAL, I'M GONNA OFF THE BAT ASK IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN REQUESTING THE COMMISSION PURSUE A, A CONTINUANCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND WHEN WOULD YOU THE NEXT, NEXT AVAILABLE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF CORRECTING.
I MEAN, IF, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, I IT IS WHY SHE'S NOT HERE.
I DON'T, I KNOW I REMINDED HER THAT IT WAS TODAY.
BUT IF WE NEED SOMETHING FROM HER TO THE CITY THAT
[00:35:01]
SAYS THAT SHE'S IN, WELL, THERE MIGHT BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION WHO, WHO, WHO, UH, WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN WRITING.SO IF, SO, IF YOU'RE ASKING UNTIL MARCH 23RD, WE'LL TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION.
IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO, UH, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO CONTINUOUS MARCH 23RD.
SO IT WAS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
I GIVE THAT TO COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
WE'LL SEE YOU THEN AND PLEASE, UH, TRY TO GET SOMETHING FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION.
UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR SHERMAN STREET, YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM EARLIER, IS THE APPLICANT FOR 10 38 SHERMAN STREET HERE.
ALL, UM, I UNDERSTAND THIS CASE, THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION'S IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ONE AS WELL.
AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A DENI, UH, AN APPROVAL THOUGH THEY ARE IN THE, THEY ARE OPPOSED TO THE, UM, FENCE HEIGHT, GATE ENTRANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
BUT THEY ARE FOR THE CLEAR VISION.
UM, BO OA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 76, UH, LOCATED AT 10 38 SHERMAN STREET.
UM, REQUESTING, SO THIS ONE WAS TWO ITEMS THAT ALREADY BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.
SO THE ONLY TWO ITEMS HERE IS THE 12 FOOT VARI FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW 13 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AND A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW NINE FOOT FENCE SLASH ENTRANCE HEIGHT.
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE UNION PACIFIC EAST YARD AND JUST WEST OF NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE CORNER.
LOTS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
THEY RECEIVED A COD ALLOWING THE SUBSTANDARD LOT TO BYPASS LOT SIDE REQUIREMENTS.
THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT WITH MULTIPLE CONTAINERS CONVERTED INTO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ALTERING PAST ABID BY BUILDING CODES.
DEFENSE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPT IS LIMITED TO THE GATE ENTRANCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO THE TWO BLANKED OUT, UH, REQUESTS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
JUST THE TWO ON THE BOTTOM IS THE NINE FOOT ENTRANCE AND THE 13 FOOT CORNER.
THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S THE FENCE THAT IT, THE FENCE HAS, IS LIMITED TO.
THAT'S THE CORNER CLEAR VISION AND THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GONE THROUGH.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, APPROVAL FOR THE, UH, CORNER CLEAR VISION.
THE REMAINING 13 FOOT, UH, CLEAR VISION, UH, PRESERVES FUNCTIONAL VISIBILITY WHILE BALANCING SAFETY WITH REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE COMBINATION OF A CORNER LOSS OF STANDARD LOT AND ADJACENT RAILROAD OPERATIONS CREATED UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITION NOT SHARED BY TYP TYPICAL PARCELS IN THE DISTRICT.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT.
SPECIAL EXEMPTION CREATES A DOMINANT VISUAL BARRIER THAT CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTY THROUGH LOSS OF OPEN SHADOW AND REDUCED VISUAL CONTINUITY IN A NINE FOOT FENCE OR ENTRANCE ELEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDS THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD AND INTRODUCES A FORTIFIED OR INSTITUTIONAL APPEARANCE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHAPTER'S PURPOSE.
ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION OUT OF 34 NOTICES, UM, SENT ANNUITY HILL IS OPPOSED TO THE FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
THIS IS THE LETTER IN SUPPORT, SAME FROM PREVIOUS ONE.
THIS IS THE UPDATED, UH, ANNUITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LETTER.
AND THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN OPPOSITION.
AND, AND THE FENCE TIES IS LIMITED TO A FIVE FOOT WIDE ENTRY GATE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FIVE FEET WIDE.
I'D ALSO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY ISN'T ACTUALLY LOCATED IN DINU HILL AS NOTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
ALRIGHT, SO I, I MEAN, WE CAN TAKE THIS UP OR WE CAN, UH, CONTINUE THIS.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
CAN WE JUST MOVE THIS TO THE BACK OF THE AGENDA IN
[00:40:01]
CASE THEY DO SHOW, IS THERE ANY INDICATION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WERE GONNA BE HERE TODAY? THEY TOLD US.THEY, THEY, THEY, AFTER I REMINDED 'EM, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME THAT THEY WEREN'T GONNA SHOW UP, SO.
I AM TABLING ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
UH, WE WILL BRING IT UP IF THEY HAPPEN TO SHOW UP PRIOR TO THE END OF THE MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL FOR THAT LAST ITEM IF WE JUST WANNA PLAY THAT NOW BEFORE MOVING ON.
HELLO, THIS IS LULU FRANCOIS, CHAIRPERSON OF THE DICK WOODY HILL HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW COMMITTEE CALLING IN ON CASE 10 38 SHERMAN STREET.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR PRESENTING TO THE RESIDENCE THAT ATTENDED THE D WOODY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING IN FEBRUARY, BUT AS A-D-H-N-A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW COMMITTEE, WE MUST ABIDE BY CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CODES TO MAINTAIN A SENSE OF NEUTRALITY AND FAIRNESS TO ALL RESIDENTS, BOTH WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC BOUNDARIES.
IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE AGREE WITH O P'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE NINE FOOT ENTRANCE REQUEST.
AND THERE'S NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? NO, SIR.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT.
BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 5 IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT SIX ON 34 0 2 MEADOW DRIVE.
THE ZONING IS R SIX AND THE REQUEST IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT THREE INCH FRONT SETBACK WITH A THREE INCH OVERHANG.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG MEADOW DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MEADOW DRIVE AND PIPER'S LANE.
THE SURROUNDING AREAS PRIMARILY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS ZONE R SIX.
THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA IS DEVELOPED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION.
THIS CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION IN RESPONSE TO A CITIZEN CALL REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CARPORT.
THE CARPORT WAS COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN FEBRUARY OF 2026.
STAFF OBSERVED OTHER CARPORTS BUILT RECENTLY, BUT FOUND NO APPROVED VARIANCE.
SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDE THE BELOW ADDRESSES, UM, 77 0 2 PIPER'S CREEK, DENIAL OF VARIANCE IN 19 93, 77, 22 PIPER'S HILL, DENIAL OF A VARIANCE IN 2008 AND 77 0 8 PIPER'S VIEW, DENIAL OF THE ORIGINAL QUEST AND AN ALTERNATE VARIANCE APPROVED.
UM, THE, THERE'S GONNA BE TWO ADDRESSES PICTURED IN THE PRE UPCOMING SLIDES THAT HAVE NO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE CARPORTS.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL NBOA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND TWO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A PURPOSE.
FOR MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS TO MAINTAIN A UNIFORM STREET SCAPE, ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
STAFF MAIL 37 NOTICES 13 WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR WITHIN 200 FEET, ZERO IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
SEVEN WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
UM, P PIPER'S MEADOW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
THIS IS THE RESPONSE FROM PIPER'S MEADOW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THEN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES WILL BE THE OTHER LETTERS RECEIVED IN SUPPORT.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, YOUR CARPORT.
UM, ONE OF THE, UM, REASONS THAT I'M ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF MY, UH, DRIVEWAY, MY PROPERTY IN ITSELF, UH, DOESN'T GIVE ME ADEQUATE, UM, SPACE.
WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK, I WOULD BARELY BE ABLE TO PUT A 10 FOOT CARPORT.
[00:45:01]
THAT'S IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T ADEQUATELY COVER MY VEHICLE.UM, I WAS, I HAVE TWO MORE PICTURES THAT I PRESENTED TO THEM OF THE SIDES OF MY VEHICLE UNDER THE CARPORT.
WHERE COULD YOU DO THE OTHER ONE AS WELL THERE? SO, AS YOU SEE IF THE 10 FOOT SETBACK WOULD ALMOST BE AT THE MIDDLE POST.
AND SO IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T GIVE ME ADEQUATE, UM, COVERAGE.
AND I'VE GONE, I'VE BEEN IN THE PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS AND, UM, FOR MOST OF THOSE YEARS I'VE NOTICED ALL SORTS OF OTHER, UH, PROPERTIES THAT HAVE CARPORTS THAT GO OUT ABOUT AS FAR AS MINE DOES.
AND SO I WASN'T REALLY THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPOSITION TO THAT.
UM, SO, UM, OH, AND, AND IN THOSE TIMES, I, I'VE, UM, HAD PLENTY OF TIMES WHERE THE WEATHER WAS PRETTY ADVERSE AND HAD HAIL DAMAGE AND ALL THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THAT OFTEN, BUT I'M TRYING TO PREVENT THAT FROM IN THE FUTURE SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH CLAIMS AND ALL THAT.
UM, ON THOSE, WHEN SHE WAS SAYING THAT 13 OF THE 200 FEET RESIDENTS WERE IN FAVOR, UH, ACTUALLY I HAD, I THINK IT WAS 17 OR 18 OF THEM THAT WERE WITHIN THE 200 FEET.
IT'S JUST THAT THEY WERE NOT THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE HOUSE.
BUT OVERALL, I BELIEVE I HAVE, WHAT IS IT, 21 OR 22, I THINK, UM, IN, IN FAVOR OF, OF WHAT I'VE PUT UP THERE IS.
UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, UH, IS THERE ANY VOICEMAILS THAT ANYONE'S SIGNED TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE MOVE TO A MOTION.
NO, NOT THAT I, OKAY, SO YOU, EVERYBODY'S, NOBODY'S AGAINST IT.
UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 5.
I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT VARIANCE FOR A EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT THREE INCH FRONT SETBACK WITH A THREE INCH OVERHANG SITUATED 3 4 0 2 MEADOW DRIVE.
APPLICANT B AND JOHN MARQUIS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUEST PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UM, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS INADEQUATE ROOM TO DECREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CARPORT WITHOUT COMPROMISING ITS INTENDED USE.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK APPEARS TO STILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE AS A PROPOSED REDUCTION IN DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO THE CARPORT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE VISUAL UNIFORMITY OF THE STREETSCAPE.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE WAS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IF GRANTED, THE CARPORT WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA OR SUBSTANTIALLY OBSTRUCT THE FRONT YARD SPACE CHARACTERISTIC OF A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AS CARPORTS WERE RESERVED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS SOUGHT COULD BE OBSERVED WHEN CONSIDERING THE IMPACTS OF WEATHER EVENTS AND THE PROCESS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION.
EXPENDING TIME AND RESOURCES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CARPORT COMBINED WITH THE IMPACT, UH, THAT WEATHER EVENTS COULD HAVE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER'S VEHICLE WOULD PRESENT AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
UM, YEAH, SO, SO, UH, I ALWAYS LIKE IT WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS, IS IN SUPPORT AND ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
SO THAT, SO THOSE BODE REALLY WELL FOR ME.
AND THEN ALSO JUST DRIVING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THIS IS KIND OF AN IMPROVED STANDARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I TAKE IT YOU'RE A REALLY GOOD NEIGHBOR.
[00:50:01]
HAVE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS.UH, THESE ARE ALL OVER YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT ALSO.
I DON'T THINK IT TAKES FROM THE CHARACTER.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 6 LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO ON 1505 WYOMING STREET.
THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
ADDITION TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITH EIGHT INCHES OF OVERHANG.
A VARIANCE FROM THE UDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD.
A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG.
FOUR, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH THREE FEET OF OVERHANG.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WYOMING STREET, NEAR THE CORNER OF WYOMING STREET AND PIEDMONT AVENUE AND IS PRIMARILY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES.
THIS CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION FOR BUILDING IN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE.
THE ADDITION WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT FOR WHICH A STOP WORK ORDER WAS THEN ISSUED.
THE ADDITION STILL STANDS AND IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICH ALREADY ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
THUS PROMPTING A VARIANCE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS AL ALSO REQUESTING A SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A CARPORT IN THE BACKYARD AND A VARIANCE TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TWO DOG HOUSES IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ADDITION CARPORT IN THE REAR AND THE FRONT YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ALL EXISTING.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN DEPICTING ALL FOUR OF THE VARIANCE.
THIS IS THE CAR, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE CARPORT IN THE BACK.
AND THEN THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 16 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACKS COULD POTENTIALLY IMPEDE MEASURES TAKEN A SLOW OR STOP THE SPREAD OF FIRE AND WATER RUNOFF TO NEARBY STRUCTURES.
ZOOM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS SUFFICIENT SPACE TO PLACE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SIDE OR REAR WHILE ALSO ADHERING TO PROPERTY SETBACKS.
AND THEN DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.
THIS IS THE NOTICE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.
AND THIS IS THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LETTER.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
YOU HAD MENTIONED THOSE TWO STRUCTURES WERE DOG HOUSES.
IS THERE A POINT WHERE A DOG HOUSE IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ON THOSE, THOSE CONCRETE, UH, STONES THAT I BELIEVE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE HEIGHT AND THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
ONCE IT EXCEEDS THE, UM, 36 INCH INCHES, 30, THEN IT BECOMES AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, UH, PROJECT.
I'M TALKING ON BEHALF OF MY DAD.
UH, MY NAME IS PRISCILLA DE I'M TALKING ON BEHALF OF ARMANDO ROMERO.
UH, WE GOT A PETITION AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS ARE, HE'S LIVED THERE FOR PAST, WHAT, 36 YEARS.
HE, I, I BELIEVE HE COULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
HOW LONG HAS A CARPORT BEEN THERE? 30 YEARS.
STAFF, DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? IS IT CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING? AND THEN ALSO THEIR ME, I'M SORRY, THE MEASUREMENTS THEY TOOK, THEY WEREN'T ACCURATE.
THERE WERE STUFF IN FRONT OF IT AND THEN WE TOOK ONE MEASUREMENT AND WE TAPPED.
BUT I, I WAS CURIOUS, WHAT DOES THAT DO? SO, UH, AT NO POINT IN THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS THE CITY HAD SETBACKS THAT ALLOW THIS STRUCTURE TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS IT IS.
IT CONSTITUTES A ZONING VIOLATION AND A ZONING VIOLATION.
YOU CAN'T GRANDFATHER YOUR OUT YOURSELF OUTTA THE VIOLATION ITSELF.
I JUST WANNA ASK, I KNOW THAT 2001 WAS A YEAR, 87 WAS ANOTHER YEAR.
[00:55:01]
DIDN'T KNOW, UH, IF THERE WAS ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT, YOUR HONOR.AND NOW YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF WILL DO THEIR BEST TO, TO RUN, UH, DIMENSIONS, BUT, UH, THIS BOARD CAN, UH, ENTERTAIN SOMETHING LESS.
WE CAN'T GO MORE, BUT WE CAN ENTERTAIN SOMETHING LESS IF IT'S, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THOSE, UH, STATEMENTS FROM THE PODIUM.
UM, IS THERE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT REGARDING THE FOUR DIFFERENT, UH, ELEMENTS THAT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY.
SO PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE, UH, ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MEASUREMENTS.
OH, UM, THE ADJUSTMENTS, THEY SAID IT'S EIGHT INCHES.
MY FATHER IS, 'CAUSE HE, HE PUT PLYWOODS THERE AND THEY COULDN'T GO THROUGH IT.
AND SO THEY ONLY MEASURED WHATEVER THEY COULD.
SO MY FATHER, MY MOTHER WENT BACK THERE, THEY MOVED EVERYTHING AROUND TO GET THE PRECISE MEASUREMENTS.
WHAT IS THE CORRECT MEASUREMENT? UH, WHAT IS, THEY'RE ON MY PHONE.
YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS ON THERE.
JUST NO, KEEP GOING THAT WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD'S UNDERSTANDING.
SO WHEN THE, THAT'S FROM THE GATE WHEN THE APPLICANT INITIALLY CAME TO US.
WHEN THE APPLICANT INITIALLY CAME TO DSD, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE UNPERMITTED ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE STAFF.
NOTICE THERE WERE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WERE NON, NON-COMPLIANT.
BUT THERE IS NO ACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE AGAINST THE CARPORT.
JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
WELL, THAT, THAT, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
COMMISSIONER ZUNA QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IF, IF THIS VARIANCE WERE TO BE APPROVED FOR THE, UM, SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE, WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO MEET CURRENT BUILDING CODES AND FIRE CODE? WOULD THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING, UH, FIRE OKAY.
AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? SO IF THIS VARIANCE IS TO BE APPROVED MM-HMM
THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT WOULD HAVE TO BE CURRENT BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING FIRE CODE AND ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL CODE, ALL THE OTHER CODES THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING, UH, DEPARTMENT'S PURVIEW.
SO JUST WANNA MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT.
SO, SO LOOKING AT THE, UM, ONE PICTURE, SO SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE ADDITION.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A, SO NEXT PICTURE WAS, THERE YOU GO.
UM, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S IN THE BACK THAT'S A WALKING CLOSET.
SO, BUT WAS PART OF THE, SO AN OLDER PART OF THE STRUCTURE THAT'S NOT IN ADDITION.
AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE IS THE SHOWER.
AND THAT ONE, WE DID GET A PERMIT FOR THAT YEARS AGO.
AND SO THIS, THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT WAS ADDED IS BASICALLY AT THE SAME, UH, LINE YES.
AND THEN THE QUESTION I HAVE HERE IS, UH, UH, FOR THE BUDDING HOUSE, HOW MUCH OF, UH, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS PUSHED, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS GREAT.
SO HOW FAR IS, I GUESS, IS IT, UM, A BUDDING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR THE BUDDING PROPERTY? HOW, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS COVERED? YOU KNOW, THE, THE BACK PROPERTY IS, IS, IS IN THE BACKYARD.
SO HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH OF THAT BACK SPACE IS COVERED BY THAT? I GUESS SHARING, WE'LL SAY THE DISTANCE THERE, IS IT, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT FIVE FEET THERE.
IS THAT ABOUT, UH, WHAT'S THE DISTANCE THAT FROM THERE? I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE HOW MUCH OVERLAP, AND I HAVE A RISK ABOUT, I ALWAYS HAVE AN AVERSION FOR FIRE SPREAD, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE DIALOGUE'S COMING FROM.
AND SO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY IS AT RISK? THREE INCHES.
UH, MA'AM, YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME IF THAT'S MY MOM.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? NO.
SO I'M LOOKING, SO IT'S PUSHED BACK AND, AND SO, SO I'M LOOKING TO RESOLVE HOW MUCH OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, HOW MUCH OF THE, FOR THE BACK WALL TO, WE'LL SAY MIDWAY, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS BASICALLY ABUTTING THAT, THAT EXTENDED STRUCTURE YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE DEPTH OF, SO THE DEPTH, PART OF THE STRUCTURE, THAT DEPTH, THAT JUS OUT DEPTH COMPARED TO THE SIDE PROPERTY.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON HALF OF THE PROPERTY OR HALF OF THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF VISUALIZE HOW MUCH OF THAT IS AT RISK THERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, UM, THE CLOSET FROM THE CLOSET TO THE FENCE, IT'S THREE INCHES, EIGHT, THREE FEET, EIGHT INCHES, OKAY.
YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY ONTO YOUR PROPERTY, YOU USE THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS.
AND SO IT, WE SHARE THAT WITH THE NEIGHBOR CON CANTU, WAS IT? AND THEY USE THAT FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AS WELL? YEAH, HE GETS TO THERE AND MY HU MY DAD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SEE ON THE DRIVEWAY, MY FATHER ALWAYS CUTS DOWN
[01:00:01]
THE BAMBOOS AND EVERYTHING.LIKE RIGHT HERE, ALL THAT, RIGHT HERE IN THE BACK, MY FATHER MAINTENANCES THAT AND ALSO THE BACK HERE, MY FATHER MAINTENANCES ALL THAT.
THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR DOESN'T DO NOTHING.
ALL THE TREES, BRANCHES THAT FALL OVER.
AND I ALSO NOTICED YOU HAVE A NO PARKING SIGN ON WYOMING.
SO IN REALITY, I, I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'RE ADDRESSED OFF WYOMING MM-HMM
AND THAT'S THE FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY.
BUT IT KIND OF OPERATES AS A SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
OH, NO, IT'S THE, IN THE FRONT.
OH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING.
WE GOTTA HAVE YOU SAY YOUR NAME.
PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR NAME.
A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING IN ALLEY.
SO SHE HAD TO GO, I GOT A CAR ON THE SIDE.
I HAD TO LOCK THE WINDOWS ON THE DOORS OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I WAS, I WAS, UH, MAKING A REMARK THAT IT, IT APPEARS THAT, THAT THE HOUSE SEEMS LIKE WYOMING IS KIND OF LIKE A SIDE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE YOU'RE USING THE ALLEY AS YOUR ACCESS, YOUR CARPORT'S FACING THE ALLEY.
IT JUST, I WAS JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION.
OH YEAH, IT'S, WE'VE BEEN LIKE THAT FOR YEARS.
UH, ANY COMMISSIONER? QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, MAN.
SO IS THERE A REASON WHY THE DOGHOUSE IS SO BIG? THEIR HUSKIES, THE HOUSE KIDS? THEY, UM, THEY HAVE CALLED, OKAY, ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE.
THE CITY TOLD ME YOU HAVE LIKE A PLASTIC HOUSES, RIGHT? SO YOU NEED TO MAKE IT ONE BIG ONE FOR THREE DOGS.
SO NOT AFTER THAT, SOMEBODY COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, SO YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN A CHASE.
SO THERE'S STILL SOMEBODY COMPLAIN.
SO HOW MUCH IS IT? HOW, HOW BIG ARE THESE DOGS? THEY'RE, THEY'RE HUGE.
SO COMMISSIONER DISPLAYED HERE ON THE SCREEN.
SO THE QUESTION GO AHEAD, DISPLAYED HERE ON THE SCREEN IS I THINK THAT MEASUREMENT THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, IT'S ON THE BIG SCREEN.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ON YOUR MONITOR.
AND THEN, SO, UM, SO ASSUMING THE MOTION GETS READ, CAN A MOTION BE READ SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS A DOGHOUSE CAN HAVE A MAX HEIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, VERSUS JUST A, YOU KNOW, SO, SO KIND OF INSTEAD OF AN OPEN VARIANCE, CAN WE SPECIFY THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE? YOU KNOW, THERE ON THAT WE'RE KIND OF APPROVING BECAUSE I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO APPROVE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S BASICALLY BECOMES A GIANT STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.
DO YOU KNOW THE SIZE OF THE DUNCANS BY, UH, FIVE FEET.
BY FIVE FEET? THAT'S OUTER TO OUTER.
NO, THEY, I THOUGHT THEY MIGHT, MIGHT EVEN BE SIX FEET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH OH 3 1 6.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SET BACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ADDITION TO BE ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITH AN EIGHT INCH OVERHANG.
TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE UDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS CURRENTLY BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD.
THREE, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH A ONE FOOT, WITH ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG AND FOUR, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WITH A THREE FOOT OVERHANG SITUATED AT 1505 WYOMING STREET.
APPLICANT BEING ARMANDO ROMERO.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD STILL PROVIDE, PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY STRUCTURE AND SURROUNDING STRUCTURES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL HAZARDS SUCH AS FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF.
THE TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD ARE NOT VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO DRIVERS OR PEDESTRIANS OR CONTAINED BE AND ARE CONTAINED BEHIND A PRO PROPERTY FENCE.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE ALREADY LEAVES LIMITED SPACE TO BUILD ADDITIONS THAT EXTEND TO THE WEST.
FURTHERMORE, THE CARPORT APPEARS TO HAVE EXISTED AND IS NOT A RESULT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THUS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY
[01:05:01]
HARDSHIP.THE PLACEMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD WOULD IMPEDE THE EXISTING LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY, THUS MAKING THE PLACEMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD THE MOST IDEAL LAYOUT.
THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SETBACK RE REDUCTION STILL APPEAR TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REQUESTS ARE DUE TO LIMITED SPACE LEFT IN THE WEST AREA OF THE PROPERTY.
AND TO ENHANCE THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND TO SUPPORT THE CARPORT THAT APPEARS TO HAVE ALREADY EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD STILL BE OBSERVED WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD, IS THE PLACEMENT WOULD NOT INTERRUPT THE COHESIVE LOOK OR CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THEIR 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.
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.
IF GRANTED, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ADDITION IN THE CARPORT WOULD MAINTAIN A REDUCED DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WEST, WHICH WOULD IN WOULD NOT INTERRUPT THE RESIDE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DO NOT INTERRUPT, INTERRUPT THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR DO THEY PROVIDE A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TO DRIVERS OR PEDESTRIANS.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MAN, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PLATO OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW, CAN BE SEEN IN THE LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE FOR IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
FURTHERMORE, THE EXISTING CARPORT IS NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION, THUS ENFORCING A MODIFIED PLACEMENT OR REMOVAL OF SAID CARPORT WOULD PROVIDE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT WOULD BE OBSERVED IN THE MEASURES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN TO MOVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF, UH, THESE VARIANCES.
I THINK, UH, THE ADDITION ON THE WEST SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE IS ALIGNED WITH THE PRE-EXISTING ADDITION AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE TO STILL MAINTAIN YOUR PROPERTY.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THESE TYPES OF SETBACKS ARE, ARE QUITE COMMON IN THIS AREA.
UM, THE CARPORT, AS YOU SAID, HAS BEEN THERE FOR DECADES AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE SPACE THAN ORIGINALLY MEASURED.
UM, I JUST MAINTAINED THE DIMENSIONS THAT THE CITY IDENTIFIED JUST TO BE SAFE.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT THE DOGHOUSES IN THE FRONT YARD IS JUST FINE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND BETTER PROBABLY TAKING PRETTY GOOD CARE OF THOSE DOGS.
S SO I, I I I, I DID HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE, THE DOGHOUSE PIECE AND, AND I APOLOGIZE, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE PRETTY HUGE STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARDS AND WE DON'T SEE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, IN FRONT YARDS AND, AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE PLENTY OF YARD SPACE THERE TO MOVE IT AROUND ELSEWHERE.
AND SO, SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PULL THAT PART OUT? UM, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY? OR DO YOU WANNA GO FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE WHOLE THING? DO DO Y'ALL HAVE ON THAT? UM, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS KEPT COMPLAINING WE HAD TO GIVE 'EM THAT THEY'RE BARKING.
THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO SEPARATE 'EM.
IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S A GATE IN BETWEEN BOTH DOG HOUSES.
SO WE LITERALLY HAD TO SEPARATE THE DOGS, GIVE THEM MELO TO, UM, WHAT'S THAT? THE MEDICINE, MEDICINE, TO NOT LET THEM BARK.
THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN BROKE INTO, I DON'T LIVE THERE.
THEY'RE BY THEMSELVES ALREADY.
THEY'VE GOTTEN BROKEN INTO, THEY EVEN CUT THE GATE JUST TO TAKE A DOG.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THAT NEIGHBOR JUST KEEPS REPORTING AND THEY, THEY, THEY'RE UP TO FROM THEY WHAT? THE DOG P IT, THEY'RE UP TO CODE AND ALL THE DOGS ARE VACCINATED, HAVE THEIR SHOTS.
SO IS THIS, ARE THERE, IS THERE ANOTHER LOCATION THAT YOU COULD PUT THESE DOG OUT? YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T NEED TO CONVINCE ME.
I THINK YOU NEED TO CONVINCE COMMISSIONER MANNA DOWN THERE.
UM, THE DOG HOUSES ARE REALLY HEAVY TO MOVE.
AND WHEN THE DOG POUND CAME BACK, THEY SAID THEY WERE FINE.
'CAUSE THERE WAS A GATE IN BETWEEN THEM AND THEY WERE BOTH SHELTERED.
THEY HAD EVERYTHING UNDER SHADE BECAUSE IN THE BACK, I HAVE ANOTHER DOG CHAIR.
SO THERE'S A FRIENDLY, SO THERE'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PULL ITEM THREE FROM CONSIDERATION OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION.
UH, WE CAN VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY, BUT WOULD YOU, ARE YOU, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I I'M IN
[01:10:01]
FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO PULL IT AND, AND VOTE SEPARATELY.COMMISSIONER MANN, ARE YOU ACCEPT CONCUR? COMMISSIONER IVAN IS, DO YOU HAVE A, A REMARK? I JUST WANTED A COMMENT THAT I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA ABOUT NUMBER TWO, ABOUT THE, UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT, UH, OKAY, SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION THAT'S PULLED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ITEM NUMBER TWO, UH, FROM THE MOTION.
SO WE, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEMS ONE, THREE, AND FOUR, UH, BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER STEVENS? UH, AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THESE, THESE VARIANCES AND WE'LL VOTE ON TWO SEPARATELY.
AND COMMISSIONER AMANDA, ANY, ANY OTHER OCCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE? OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, JUST REGARDING NUMBER ONE.
I MEAN, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT THEY WOULD, UH, BRING THAT BUILDING UP TO CURRENT BUILDING CODE AND FINISH OUT THE BUILDING.
SO MY COMFORT IS THAT IT WOULD MEET CURRENT, UH, FIRE CODE AND BUILDING CODE, UH, ONCE THAT IMPROVEMENT IS COMPLETED AND THEN IT DOES ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
SO, YOU KNOW THAT I THINK THAT PRECEDENT HAD ALREADY BEEN SET ON THAT KIND OF SET SIDE SETBACK, SO.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON ITEMS. UH, ONE, TWO, AND FOUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACTS.
UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, REGARDING ITEM 3, 2, 2.
I'M NEVER GONNA GET THAT RIGHT TODAY.
ITEM TWO, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
UH, SO WE'VE APPROVED ITEMS ONE, THREE, AND FOUR WITH REGARD TO THE DOG HOUSE THAT DOES NOT GET, UH, A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, WHAT YOU CAN DO, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF, UH, ABOUT WHAT YOUR NEXT STEPS ARE.
ITEM NUMBER 10, BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT FOUR AT 2 2 4 CANOGA PARK AVENUE.
THE ZONING IS R SIX AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CANOGA PARK DRIVE CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF CANOGA PARK DRIVE AND SADDLEBROOK DRIVE.
THE SURROUNDING AREA IS DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS ZONED R SIX AND ABUTS.
ANOTHER AREA DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ZONED R FOUR.
THIS CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION IN RESPONSE TO A SYSTEM CALL REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CARPORT.
AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED AFTER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT PER THE STAFF'S SITE VISIT.
THE CARPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AERIAL VIEW.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VISIT, AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 2 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACT.
ONE, THE REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES COULD IMPACT FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES TO SURROUNDING STRUCTURES AND MAY INCREASE WATER RUNOFF INTO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES TOO.
THE CARPORT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY AND COULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED TO ADHERE TO RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.
SF NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
THIS WAS THE LETTER RECEIVED IN FAVOR.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
SO, SO LOOKING AT THE PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THE CARPORT IS ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AM I? YES, WE DETERMINED THAT MEASUREMENT USING THE CLOSEST POINTS TO WHERE THE CARPORT COULD HAVE BEEN TO THE SIDE.
THE PROPERTY'S SHAPED A LITTLE BIT ODD, SO NOT ALL OF IT'S GONNA BE ONE INCH, BUT WE WANT THE MOST, UH OH, I SEE.
THAT WAS GONNA BE THE CLOSEST CLOSEST.
[01:15:02]
ALL RIGHT.STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARPORT.
ALRIGHT, JOE RODRIGUEZ AND MY WIFE MARINA MARINA RODRIGUEZ.
UM, YEAH, SO THE, UM, SAME EXACT THING I'M GOING THROUGH WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE BEFORE THE CARPORT.
UM, THE REASON WHY I BUILT IT WAS FOR THE, WE HAD TWO, UM, BAD HAIL STORMS LAST YEAR, AND OURS ACTUALLY, WE HAD ALMOST $20,000 WORTH OF DAMAGE OF OUR VEHICLES.
SO, UM, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I BUILT IT.
AND, AND I, I BUILT IT, THE, THE LENGTH OF MY DRIVEWAY TO COVER, YOU CAN SEE, UM, BARELY COVERS MY, MY TRUCK.
UH, AND I STAYED ON, ON LIKE MY PROPERTY ON, ON THE SIDE AWAY FROM THE APPROACH IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, I I JUST THOUGHT AS LONG AS YOU STAYED AWAY FROM THE APPROACH THAT WAS THE CITIES, IT WOULD BE OKAY.
UM, YEAH, THEY, WHAT HAPPENS IS ON A TYPICAL STREET, THE, THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY IS 50 FEET.
SO FROM THE FACE OF CURB, THE THE RIGHT OF WAY ACTUALLY GOES BACK 10 FEET.
THAT'S, IT'S A MISCONCEPTION, BUT RIGHT.
AND, AND THEN, SO YEAH, SO IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE LIKE HALF A CARPORT ACCORDING TO LIKE, WHAT, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE TO BUILD IT, IT WOULD BE HALF, HALF OF THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANANA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS, SO THE WAY THIS IS, UH, CARPORT IS, IS, UH, BUILT THE ANGLE BASICALLY BRINGS A RUNOFF ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
AND ONE THING THAT, UM, WE DISCOURAGE, OR YEAH, DISCOURAGE IS WATER RUNOFF TO THE BUDDING PROPERTIES.
AND SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE TO MITIGATE THE WATER RUNOFF FROM YOUR ROOF ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR PROPERTY? UH, N NO.
I MEAN, I COULD PUT, UM, GUTTERS, BUT THAT THE LETTER THAT THAT YOU ALL GOT WAS FROM THAT GENTLEMAN RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
THERE'S NO LIKE WATER IN HIS DRIVEWAY OR RIGHT ON THE GRASS WHERE IT DROPS, BUT STILL IT'S BASICALLY DUMPING WATER INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
AND SO, SO, UM, AND SO, UM, I THINK THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO GUTTERS.
BUT YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, IF IT'S ONE INCH, UM, AWAY, THEN HOW DO WE GET GUTTERS ONTO THAT SYSTEM? AND SO, SO THAT WOULD BE, DO YOU SEE WHERE THE GATE IS AT THE GATE? I MEAN, 'CAUSE WHERE, WHERE, WHERE THE, WHERE MY, THE CARPORT IS AT.
I, I, YOU KNOW, MY PART OF IT, WHERE THE GATE IS AT IS QUITE A, QUITE A BIT TO WHERE HIS, YOU SEE WHERE IT, IT'S FIVE FEET AWAY AND THEN IT GOES DOWN TO AN INCH.
SO HE COULD PROBABLY PUT GUTTERS ON MOST OF IT.
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE HIS, UM, WHERE THE GREEN BIN IS AT.
THAT'S HIS PROPERTY THERE? CORRECT.
AND THAT WAS STAFF'S BEST ESTIMATION FOR WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE MAY BE.
ALL THAT IS MINE, LIKE MINE RIGHT THERE.
SO THERE THE WATER THAT RUNS OFF, RUNS OFF RIGHT HERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT GOES INTO HIS PROPERTY, NO WATER.
BUT, BUT THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT.
YEAH, IT KIND OF, UM, THE ONE INCH IS REALLY THE BEST ESTIMATION FOR WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE MAY BE.
UM, AT THE CLOSEST POINT AT THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT FROM THERE, AS YOU GO BACK, THE, THAT DISTANCE KIND OF INCREASES AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO ONE INCH WOULD BE THE CLOSEST POINT.
YEAH, I I, I JUST WANTED TO ADD, I KNOW THIS IS NOT TYPICAL FOR US, BUT NORMALLY, UH, WHEN THEY BUILD DRIVEWAYS ON A PUBLIC ROAD, THEY REQUIRE THE FLARES TO BE IN, IN THE PLANE OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY SERVE.
I KNOW SOMETIMES THEY CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY.
UH, BUT IF THAT HAS A STANDARD TWO FOOT FLARE ON IT, IT MAY BE, IT MIGHT BE MORE, IT MIGHT, COULD BE SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THAT WITHOUT HAVING IT SURVEYED, YOU KNOW? SO, AND, AND THE ONLY REASON I WENT THERE WAS 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT IF WE, SO THE, THE APPLICANT MAY BE AMENDING THEIR, THEIR, UM, YEAH, WE PIECE TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T BUILDING OVER THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE WE WOULD NEVER PERMIT THAT.
AND THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY CONSTRUCT FOR ESTIMATING THAT.
SO WHAT ARE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IT IS VERY COMMON WHEN THESE CAR SORT OF CARPORTS COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT THEY EITHER HAVE GUTTERS OR THE DESIGN INCLUDES GUTTERS OR THE APPLICANT AMENS THEIR APPLICATION TO PROVIDE GUTTERS, UH, TO THEIR BEST OF THEIR ABILITY ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE, UH, WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THIS TIME? YES.
SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOUR, OF YOUR CARPORT? UM, OKAY, BUT DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW WITH THE OKAY, IF I JOIN CORRECTLY OR JUST WANNA ADD THE LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE THE GUT, IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN ADDING IT, UH, TO THEIR, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION WHILE, WHILE YOU'RE AT THE PODIUM, UH, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS,
[01:20:01]
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION WOULD, WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.WE CAN'T MAKE YOU DO ANYTHING.
YEAH, IF YOU, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD.
ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOUR CARPORT.
SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CARPORT.
ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ANYONE SIGN IT TO SPEAK VOICEMAILS? WANNA VOICEMAIL? ALRIGHT, LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL.
HELLO, THIS IS JOSE RAMIREZ AT 2 2 3 INCA PARK DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 5.
UH, MY ADDRESS, UH, I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF, UH, CASE NUMBER DOA 26 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 PROPERTY OF, UM, 2 2 4 CANOA PARK DRIVE.
THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CARPORT AND, UH, I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF THEY REQUESTED VARIANCE.
AND MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS TWO ONE ZERO SEVEN ONE FOUR FOUR TWENTY TWO TWENTY EIGHT SEVEN.
AGAIN, I AM CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BY THE HOMEOWNER AT 2 2 4 CANGA PARK DRIVE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I HAD GOTTEN THE DIRECTION WRONG.
IT'S ACTUALLY THE WEST SIDE THAT'S NEIGHBORING TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COM UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, MADAM COMMISSIONER MAD REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 WITH THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT, UH, WITH GUTTERS WITH A ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK ON THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 2 2 4 CANOGA PARK DRIVE.
APPLICANT BEING JOE RODRIGUEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE ONE INCH FRONT SETBACK AND ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK WITH A FOUR A CARPORT WITH GUTTERS WOULD STILL LEAVE ADEQUATE CONDITIONS TO ADDRESS FIRE AND WATER RUNOFF MITIGATION TO SURROUNDING STRUCTURES AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES, THUS SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, UH, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY'S OWNER'S VEHICLES.
BY GRANTING A VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
GRANTED, VARIANCE WILL STILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADEQUATE SPACE STILL EXISTS TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL HAZARDS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NEARBY PROPERTIES FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED.
AND THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCES LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FOR A PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
GRANTING VARIANCE WOULD, UM, BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS OTHER CARPORTS WERE OBSERVED IN THIS AREA.
THUS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT INTRODUCE A STRUCTURE THAT IS NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD SIMPLY PROVIDE REDUCED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THEIR PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE, ON THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE ASAD IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
AND ONE SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT WAS, UH, THE GUTTERS ON THE WE, UH, WEST SIDE.
SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ.
I, UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THESE KIND OF THINGS REGULARLY, REALLY STRANGE SHAPE, LOT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR AND BY ADDING THE GUTTERS THAT'S RESOLVED.
SO, UH, WITH THAT I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR.
I GUESS WITH THE, UH, ADDITION OF THE GUTTER SAID, DOES WILL IMPROVE THE, THE, THE CUT, THE CARPORT, AND I THINK, UH, I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE EVEN HAPPIER.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NOTICE THAT ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE.
[01:25:01]
OF FACT.COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES AND F*G.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
THIS IS BO OA CA, BO CASE TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 1.
UH, THE, THE COUNCIL DISTRICT IS THREE.
THE LOCATION IS 10 27 SOUTHWEST MILITARY DRIVE.
UH, THE ZONING IS C TWO AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT VARI, UH, BUFFER TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT SCHEDULED A PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW MEETING WITH DSD STAFF FOR A NEW OIL CHANGE IN TUNEUP LOCATION ON THE, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
DURING THIS PRE-PLANNED REVIEW, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT TO CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT PLANS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR BUFFER REDUCTION VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED PERMITS OF THE STATE AND IS WAITING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BEFORE PROCEEDING.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S CALLED OUT WHERE THE BUFFERS ARE NEEDED TO BE REDUCED.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON BO OA 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 21.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO INSTALL A MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFERS AND THE PROPOSED REDUCTION WOULD NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES FROM AN IN FROM INCREASED NUISANCES, SUCH AS NOISE POLLUTION CREATED BY THE COMMERCIAL USE.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE DALE MCCOMB ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND, BUT THEY ARE CURRENTLY PRESENT.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
SO THE PREVIOUS USE WAS A RESTAURANT? YES.
DID THE RESTAURANT HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH? I BELIEVE IT DID HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH.
AND, UH, TOWARDS THE SIDE THERE.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT, UH, THE INTENDED PLAN, UH, IS, IS TO PUT, THERE ISN'T ANY BUFFERS AT ALL THERE TODAY? NO, THERE ARE NO BUFFERS AT ALL TODAY.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF SPACE.
IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF BUFFER SPACE.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT? HEARING NOW, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
JOSH LIEBERMAN, VELOCITY AUTO CARE, TWO 10 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
ALSO WITH ME, HE IS OUR HEAD OF OPERATIONS.
I'M THE VP OF OPERATIONS FOR VELOCITY AUTO CARE.
UM, JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION TOO.
I KNOW IT SAYS VELOCITY AUTO CARE THERE, BUT WE BUILD LENE, SO WE ARE A FRANCHISEE OF VAL.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE A, UH, JUST HANDED THOSE OUT JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEARER AND KIND OF WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON HERE.
SO THIS IS, UH, WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT TO ACQUIRE THIS VACANT, ABANDONED, NOT ABANDONED, STILL OWNED, BUT VACANT OUT OF OPERATION, UM, OLD RESTAURANTS.
UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE PERIA SURFACE.
AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT NOW, THE ENTIRE SITE IS ALMOST COMPLETELY IMPERVIOUS.
SO, YOU KNOW, TEARING DOWN THE BUILDINGS, GOING THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION ON THE BUILDING AND PUTTING IN A BRAND NEW FACILITY, UH, 1800 SQUARE FOOT LENE INSTANT OIL CHANGE CENTER.
WE'VE BUILT SEVERAL IN THE MARKET.
WE HAVE BACK HERE IN A COUPLE MORE WEEKS FOR A PROPERTY OVER IN THOUSAND OAKS THAT WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING REDEVELOPMENT.
SO WE'VE GOT ABOUT SEVEN PROJECTS WE'RE TRYING TO GET BUILT HERE IN, IN THE NEXT NINE TO 12 MONTHS.
AND, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AND CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY HAS FOUR DRIVEWAYS.
WE'RE ELIMINATING TWO OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS.
WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH TXDOT RIGHT NOW ON THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
ONE SPACING REQUIREMENT ON MANGO AVENUE IS DRIVEWAYS HAVE TO BE 125 FEET, UM, ON THE SIDE STREETS.
AND THEN I THINK IT'S EVEN MORE THAN THAT ON THE MAIN ARTERIALS.
BUT ON THE SIDE STREET, THAT WAS KIND OF ONE OF THE ISSUES ON TRYING TO MEET THE BUFFER AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, PROPER CIRCULATION AND MEETING PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON THESE SMALLER PARCELS.
[01:30:01]
PROPOSED IN THE BACK IS MORE NEW LANDSCAPING, SIX FOOT HIGH WHITE VINYL FENCING THAT NEEDS NO MAINTENANCE.SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT'S OUT THERE NOW IS WOODEN FENCES AND THINGS FALLING DOWN.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN PROVIDE IMAGES OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED.
SO I JUST, UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
SO ONE, UH, YEAH, THERE'S THAT 125 FOOT RULE ON, ON MANGO, BUT, BUT IF RECOLLECTION SERVES ME THAT IF YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE 125 FEET IS THERE, ISN'T THE CODE ALLOW FOR YOU TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE DRIVEWAY AS FAR BACK AS POSSIBLE, OR 90% OR SOMETHING? THERE WAS SOMETHING I RECALL ABOUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S OUTSIDE OF MY EXPERTISE, BUT I CAN TRY TO FIND THAT ANSWER.
AND THE WHERE I'M GOING WITH IT IS, IS THAT, UH, WITH TXDOT ROADS, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE GONNA WANT AT LEAST ONE DRIVEWAY REMOVED.
BUT ONCE YOU HAVE AN ACCESS POINT, THERE'S ONLY SO MANY INSTANCES WHERE TDOT BY CODE CAN TAKE THEM AWAY.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY DO AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, THEY DEEM IT TO BE A DANGER TO TRAFFIC OR DRAINAGE, WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED.
UH, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING COUNTS BECAUSE A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH HAS MORE TRIPS IN OH, THAN, THAN THAN THIS THING.
AND, AND YOU'RE NOT, ARE YOU PLATTING THIS I'S ALREADY PLATTED PARCEL.
SO, SO YOU DON'T EVEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UM, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS THAT YOU WILL MOST LIKELY BE REQUIRED TO PUT THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE REAR, WHICH, WHICH THEN FORCES THAT BUFFER TO AT LEAST PARTIALLY EXIST, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY ROAD IS, WHERE THE MINIMUM 20 FEET THAT THEY REQUIRE FOR THAT THROAT TO BE AN OFFICE STREET LIKE MANGO.
UM, I, I DUNNO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I, WELL I GUESS THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO THE HARDSHIP HERE, RIGHT? IF THEY YEAH.
HAD TO MEET THE, UH, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THEY COULDN'T MEET IT WITH A BUFFER THAT'S REQUIRED WITHIN CITY UDC.
IS THAT YEAH, THEY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO PUT THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK AND THEY'D HAVE TO, THEY'D HAVE TO HOLD 20 FEET OF THROAT AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO BUMP THE, THEY'D HAVE TO BUMP THAT OUT.
I, I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CURRENT RESTAURANT HAS A, A DUMPSTER IN THE BACK CORNER.
YOUR PLAN IS TO MOVE THE DUMPSTER AWAY, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY A LOT BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY BACK THERE ANYWAY.
NO STRUCTURES IN THE SETBACKS.
WE'RE MEETING ALL THE BUILDING SETBACKS AND AS YOU DISCUSSED ON THE TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, OUR TRAFFIC IS USUALLY 50 CARS A DAY AND OUR MAX PER HOUR IS SIX TO EIGHT.
VEHICLES AND TURNING MOVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT A 24 HOUR USE.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU KNOW, SPENCER CAN SPEAK TO.
I, I PROMISE I WON'T OPEN PAST 7:00 PM
THAT'S WHAT WE DO AT ALL OF MY STORES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
UM, SO, AND JUST THIS IS, UH, HONESTLY THIS IS KIND OF COOL FOR ME 'CAUSE I LIVED IN SAN ANTONIO FOR 10 YEARS.
THIS IS WHERE I STARTED MY MILITARY CAREER.
AND, UH, IT'S COOL TO BE NOW IN FRONT OF THIS DOING STUFF LIKE THIS TO HELP IMPROVE THE CITY.
SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
UM, BUT UM, THE BIG THING IS YES, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THE NOISE THING TOO, SO A LOT OF PEOPLE I KNOW GET SO WORRIED 'CAUSE OF THE NOISE.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE BIGGEST AND NOISE THING WE HAVE, RIGHT, IS A COMPRESSOR THAT SITS INSIDE A CLOSED DOOR.
OR WHEN WE DO TIRE ROTATIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE'RE GREAT AT EVERYTHING, BUT I DO LESS THAN 1% TIRE ROTATIONS ON CARS, UM, IN THE STORES THROUGHOUT OUR 48 STORES THROUGHOUT TEXAS.
SO, UM, WHEN CONSIDERING THE NOISE PIECE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OPEN CRAZY EARLY.
THE EARLIEST MY STORE IS OPEN IS 7:00 AM THE LATEST THEY CLOSE IS 7:00 PM USUALLY ON A NEW SITE LIKE THIS, WE'RE LOOKING MORE AT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, EIGHT TO TO SIX AND THEN CUTTING IT DOWN ON SATURDAY AND THEN MAYBE 10 TO FOUR ON A SUNDAY.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? JUST CURIOUS.
YEAH, MS. CRUZ, I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW MANY, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD YOU HAVE AT A LOCATION TYPICAL OF THIS? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT, A GREAT QUESTION.
SO USUALLY WHEN I GO TO STAFF A STORE IN THE VERY BEGINNING IT'S GONNA BE SIX, FIVE TO SIX EMPLOYEES PLUS THE MANAGER.
AND AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, OBVIOUSLY THAT INCREASES WITH VOLUME AND WHEN WE CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, HANDLE THE MARGIN.
NOW, UH, WERE YOU STATING YOU'RE GONNA PUT UP A NEWER FENCE AND IT'S STILL GONNA BE AT SIX FEET, CORRECT? YES.
WE ALSO SHOW IT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, CONTINUING SOUTH TO AN END FENCE POINT.
SO AT LEAST TO GIVE THAT PRIVACY GOING KIND OF MORE TOWARDS THE NORTHEAST AS WELL.
SO FIRST QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
UM, SO, SO IS THERE A ZONING CHANGE WITH THIS THAT REQUIRED A DIFFERENCE WITH REGARDS TO THE BUFFERS WHERE WE HAD ZERO BUFFER BEFORE VERSUS NOW? OR WAS IT THE PREVIOUS BUILDING WAS JUST KIND OF BUILT THAT WAY? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY RECENT CHANGES ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY THAT'S TAKEN PLACE.
UM, I CAN FIND OUT WHEN THAT RESTAURANT WAS BUILT AND, UH, BUT YEAH, MORE THAN LIKELY AN ISSUE OF SO BUFFER WOULD'VE BEEN REQUIRED REGARDLESS
[01:35:01]
OF, OF IT.I CAN FIND THAT OUT AND THEN RESERVE MY SECOND QUESTION FOR AFTER I GUESS THE PERSON SPEAK FOR THE PUBLIC.
IS THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOTHING.
ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS WANTS TIME, TIME TO SPEAK MR. BREEZE? ALL RIGHT.
HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HARLAND AL MCCULLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, I'M COMING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION TO ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS BUFFER.
UH, AS, UH, MR. LIEBERMAN STATED, UH, THIS IS A VACANT BUILDING.
IT HAS CREATED A SPACE FOR HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS, OVERNIGHT, OVERGROWN WEEDS, LOTS OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, UM, THAT I'VE WITNESSED MYSELF.
AND SO BRINGING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE, WE'VE DECIDED TO SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE AND HAVE A NEW BUILDING COME IN AND HAVE THE INVESTMENT, UM, IN OUR COMMUNITY TO MAKE IT A BETTER, SAFER PLACE WITH LIGHTING AND THE BACK LINE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, POSE A RISKS FOR SAFETY OF THOSE FAMILIES THAT, UM, CURRENTLY ARE DEALING WITH THE HOMELESS ISSUE BACK THERE.
ALL I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS COMING DOWN.
MANNA, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S WONDERFUL THAT YOU GET TO, UM, PARTICIPATE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, HELPING US MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
AND JUST TO NOTE, THE UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 1975 AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT A DEAL BACK THEN.
YEAH, IT DID ASPHALT 1990 AND THEN THE CONCRETE IN 1990.
ALRIGHT, WELL WITH THAT, IF THERE'S, UH, NO OTHER QUESTIONS, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UNA COMMISSIONER UNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 21, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT NAMED NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT, UH, TO ALLOW A FOR A SIX FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SITUATED AT 1 0 2 7 SOUTHWEST MILITARY DRIVE, THE APPLICANT BEING VELOCITY AUTO CARE BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE TO THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT WHEN THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THIS CASE, THIS WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE CURRENT BUFFERS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.
IT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF BUFFER SPACE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS, IS THE, UH, LOCATION OF THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOP DEVELOPABLE SPACE.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNNEC UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IT WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER WOULD BE MODEST IN IMPROVEMENT TO CURRENT CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OF NO USE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER, THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY WILL SUCH VARIANCE, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION, EVEN WITH THE REDUCED BUFFERS AND THE PROPOSED BUFFER WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY AND SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OF THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITION OF THE DISTRICT.
ONCE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ABUTTING THIS LOT.
IT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BONILLA.
SO I'M GONNA BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
I MEAN, IT'S CLEARLY AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY.
UH, WE'RE PROVIDING THE BUFFERS, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ON THE SIDES.
UH, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE IMPROVED AND THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL CREATE A VALUE TO THE TAX ROLLS.
SO NOT, THAT'S NOT A CONSIDERATION, BUT IT IS, UH, IN MY MIND, IMPROVEMENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITION AND OBVIOUSLY NO OPPOSITION.
AND THEN FULL SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BEEZ? YEAH, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER OZUNA AND ALL THOSE REASONS.
I ALSO DON'T THINK IT REALLY TAKES FROM THE CHARACTER, THERE'S SO MANY PROPERTIES ON MILITARY THAT DON'T HAVE THIS BUFFER.
THESE GUYS ARE GONNA PUT ONE IN, AT LEAST IT'S GONNA LOOK GOOD AND, UH, THEY'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE FOR THE, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY THERE.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MOTION PASSES ON NINE TO ZERO.
[01:40:01]
DID THE, THE, THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM SEVEN, UH, EVER MAKE IT BACK? NOT YET.UM, WELL, WE STILL GOT A COUPLE MORE BEFORE WE, UH, POTENTIALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO ABOUT IT.
DID YOU WANT ME TO GO FORWARD OR DID YOU WANT YES.
THIS IS BOA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 2.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
UH, THE ZONING IS MF 33 AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT REPLACED AN EXISTING, UH, METAL CARPORT WITH A NEW WOODEN CARPORT.
A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION FOUND THE APPLICANT WAS BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE APPLICANT PLACED THE NEW CARPORT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL CARPORT.
HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS CONSIDERED A NEW STRUCTURE, A SETBACK VARIANCE IS NEEDED TO KEEP THE CARPORT WHERE IT CURRENTLY STANDS.
THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA WAS ESTABLISHED WHILE THE, UH, STANDARD SIDE SETBACK WAS FEET THREE FEET.
A SIMILAR REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN 1974 FOR 2 1 0 2 BEACH HAVEN DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN DONATING WHERE THE CARPORT CURRENTLY IS.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THERE'S A BETTER VIEW OF THE CARPORT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO 8 2 6 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 22.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND DAMAGE FROM AND DAMAGE FROM WATER RUNOFF TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND A CARPORT MAY BE ESTABLISHED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY TO ABIDE BY THE SETBACK STANDARD.
WE HAD TWO IN FAVOR, UH, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND BOTH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY PROVIDED IT TO US.
THESE ARE THE TWO LETTERS IN SUPPORT AND THESE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COMMENTS THAT APPEAR GENERALLY IN SUPPORT, BUT THEY WERE PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT.
SO I PUT IN, UH, COMMENTS AND THAT CONCLUDES SAS PRESENTATION.
DID I, DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? THAT THEIR, THEIR COMMENT WAS JUST APPLY FOR A VARIANCE? YES.
SO IN 74 WAS WHAT WAS APPLIED FOR AND THEN WHAT WAS REJECTED.
DO YOU KNOW IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY OR? IT WAS A, UH, SIMILAR REQUEST FOR THE SIDE SETBACK.
THE NOTES, UH, STATED IT WAS FOR A REDUCED SETBACK.
UM, IT DIDN'T REALLY GIVE THE DETAILS THAT WE GIVE NOWADAYS, BUT IT WAS BUILT ANYWAYS I GUESS, OR SO BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE OR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND? UH, I'M NOT CERTAIN.
UM, WE JUST VERIFY THAT'S IT'S A DIFFERENT ADDRESS.
IT'S 2 1 0 2, SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
MY NAME IS JOHN ANTHONY DIAZ, DEION, PART OWNER OF, UH, 2026 BEACH HAVEN.
UH, THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WAS PUT UP WAS ACTUALLY JUST A REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOTPRINT THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO, UH, I THINK THE NEW ROOF SLOPES THAT ARE THERE NOW FORCE THE WATER TO COME TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE VERSUS TO THE PRIOR MADE IT GO TO THE SIDE THAT WENT TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT WAS THE OLD ROOF THAT IT WAS.
DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE CARPORT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED? I HAVE NO IDEA.
WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE WITH THAT CARPORT IN PLACE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1955.
YEAH, SO THE, THE, OR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE WAS PRETTY DILAPIDATED AND KIND OF FALLING APART.
SO AS A, FOR A SAFETY MEASURE FOR MY SON THAT'S GONNA BE MOVING INTO THAT HOUSE HOPEFULLY, UH, SURE.
WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD REBUILD IT AND OKAY.
UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION AND THEN GETTING LETTERS FROM THE ASSOCIATIONS.
THEY, UH, ACTUALLY LIKED THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE ARE.
UH, SO FROM STAFF, IF IT WAS AN EXISTING CARPORT, DID THEY CONSIDER THAT A SEPARATE STRUCTURE OR IF IT'S TIED TO THE HOUSE, IS IT CONSIDERED PART OF THE HOUSE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE 50% RULE OR WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE RULE IS? IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, COMPLETE, UM, REMODELING OR REPLACEMENTS MM-HMM
UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST THE AREA THAT'S BEING AFFECTED BY IT.
[01:45:01]
SO I WANTED TO CHECK AND WAS IN THE PREVIOUS CARPORT, WAS IT LESS OR CLOSER TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S THE EXACT SAME EXACT.ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? ANY VOICEMAILS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT? WELL, ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER EZ REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 6 1 0 3, UH, 0 0 0 2 2.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 2026 BEACH HAVEN DRIVE.
DEON, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS 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 NUMBER ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR THE CARPORT OR, UH, FROM THE CARPORT TO THE STRUCTURE ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO INCREASED RE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF DAMAGE AS THE CARPORT IS BEING BUILT ALONG THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE FORMER CARPORT.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE PROP ON, ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM WITH, UH, WISE FOR A CARPORT.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
SUCH VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK WOULD CAUSE NO HARDSHIP, INCREASED RISK, RISK OF FIRE, OR SPREAD OF WATER RUNOFF TO THE PROPERTY OF BUDDING THIS LOT.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THO THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
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.
GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE STRUCTURE ON THE ABUTTING LOT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES ASSAULT IS, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THIS DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CARPORT.
UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT THAT HE LAID OUT BEFORE THE WATER RUNOFF IS BEING PUSHED AWAY.
UM, I THINK IT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR'S ACTUALLY.
THE ONE HIS IS BUILT PUSHES TOWARDS YOURS.
IT'S NICE, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE GUTTERS, SO AT LEAST YOU RAN YOURS THE OTHER WAY.
SO WATER RUNOFF WILL GO TOWARDS FRONT AND BACK.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK IN THIS AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF CARPORTS THAT ARE BUILT LIKE THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY ALTERS THE CHARACTER.
I'LL BE IN FAVOR COMMISSIONER MANNA CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
ANYONE ELSES LIKE TO ADD? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVEN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER ROSANA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
ITEM 13 IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 3.
THE APPLICANT BEING STEVEN MARTIN AND COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.
THE UH, PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1 2 4 PARKVIEW DRIVE AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, UH, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 45 0 8 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
UH, TWO, AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 45 FOOT LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 34 FOOT WIDE LOT.
THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON ALL SIDES EXCEPT TO THE NORTH WHERE SAS FACILITY IS LOCATED IN 2023.
AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE DST STRIKE TEAM FOUND WORK BEING DONE ON THE PROPERTY WITH EXPIRED PERMITS AND A CONSULTATION WAS COMPLETED WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ESTABLISH A PATHWAY TOWARDS PROJECT COMPLETION.
IN 2024, THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP AND THEN AGAIN IN APRIL, 2025 TO THE CURRENT OWNER.
IN MAY, 2025, THE STRIKE TEAM REASSESSED THE CASE WITH THE NEW OWNER AND DETERMINED THAT THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE UP TO THAT POINT REQUIRED A NEW HOME PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.
[01:50:01]
SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND 34 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM AND REQUIRED LOTS, UH, AND 45 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE R FIVE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.UH, THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE COMPLETE REMODEL IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A CHANGE OF ZONING TO THE R FOUR BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE CONSTRUCTION ONGOING ON THE PROPERTY, UH, KIND OF DESIGNATING WHERE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE REAR.
AND HERE'S A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, JUST KIND OF NOTATING, UM, THAT THE, UH, 34 FOOT WIDE LOT WIDTH IS AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A BIT WIDER ON THE FRONT, UM, JUST, BUT NOT MY MUCH, BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT 34 FOOT WIDE COMES FROM.
AND HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LOT SIZE AND WIDTH VARIANCES, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE REQUEST WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK FACES PREDOMINANTLY COMPRISED OF SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZES.
AND TWO, THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN, UH, WILL MAINTAIN ALL OTHER DIMENSION REGULATIONS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND JUST ANOTHER, UH, THING TO ADD FOR CONTEXT, UH, THE BOARD DID RECENTLY APPROVE JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
UH, SIMILAR REQUESTS FOR PROPERTY.
UH, STAFF MAILED 31 NOTICES, ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND SHOWN HERE IS THAT SUPPORT RECEIVED BY STAFF.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK, IT LOOKS LIKE THE SIX PARCELS TO THE, TO THE, UH, WEST AND THE SIX PARCELS TO THE EAST ARE ALL IN THE SAME CONDITION.
UM, ALL THOSE LOTS ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.
UH, IF AND WHEN THE TIME ARISES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THIS MAGNITUDE OF, UM, CONSTRUCTION IS TAKING PLACE ON ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES, THIS ISSUE WOULD BECOME, SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY NEEDS TO GO R FOUR ON THIS AREA TOWN,
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
HELLO, STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON TO EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS STEVEN MARTIN WITH 1718 PARTNERS.
GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE BOARD AND TO CITY STAFF.
SO I AM REPRESENTING A SC VENTURES, WHICH IS THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER AT 1 2 4 PARKVIEW.
SO AS MR. VELA HAD MENTIONED, THE OWNER PURCHASED A PROPERTY THAT HAD CONSTRUCTION THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMITS.
THEY ARE LOOKING TO, UH, ADVANCE THAT CONSTRUCTION.
UH, BACK IN FEBRUARY OF, UH, 2025, THEY HAD SUBMITTED A BRAND NEW APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND REMODEL.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN, THERE WERE TWO COMMENTS THAT, UH, THAT WERE MADE BY MR. JOE PARDO, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
UH, THOSE COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT THE STATED ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY DID NOT MATCH WITH THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTY, NOR WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO THEREFORE, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, UNFORTUNATELY MY CLIENT CANNOT ADVANCE THIS REVIEW PROCESS ANY FURTHER UNTIL WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE LOT SIZE AND THE ZONING RESOLVED.
IT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAD SUBMITTED, UH, TO THIS BOARD.
UH, AND IN THE REQUEST FOR THE 492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE, UH, DID YOU MENTION THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CASE IN PLAY OR PREVIOUS ZONING CASE? DID I SEE THAT ON YOUR PRESENTATION THERE, THERE WAS NO, SO THAT WAS PERTAINING TO THE ZONING CASE.
THAT BASICALLY WAS A BLANKET R FIVE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE OH, THEY CHANGED IT TO R FIVE? CORRECT.
SO, AND, AND THAT WAS CHANGED ACCORDING TO MY DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF.
IT WAS CHANGED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, IF COUNCIL GOES THROUGH AND DOES A BLANKET REZONING AND, AND CREATES NONCONFORMING USES THERE, THERE'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC PASS OR EXISTING PARCELS LIKE THAT
SO IF, IF IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD, UM, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE ONLY NON-CONFORMING THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
YEAH, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS, I'M CURIOUS 'CAUSE IF THEY, IF, IF COUNCIL WOULDN'T BUY AND, AND, AND, AND PUT R FIVE, THERE'S LIKE 12 LOTS, I MEAN, RIGHT.
CAN YOU SEE THAT ARE NONCONFORMING? I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY RELIEF FOR, FOR THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT COMING TO
[01:55:01]
THIS BOARD THAT WAS THAT ENTERTAINED OR WE CAN AND THAT, BUT WE CAN REACH OUT TO COUNCIL TO SEE IF THEY WANNA DO A LARGE AREA ZONING ON THAT STRIP.UM, BUT THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORDS.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS A CLAUSE ABOUT, UM, DUE TO A GOVERNMENT ACTION THERE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY SORT OF LIKE, WHAT WAS THE ZONE BEFORE? LET ME ASK THAT BEFORE IT CONVERTED TO R FIVE.
WHAT WAS THE ZONE BEFORE? IT WAS A B RESIDENCE DISTRICT IN 1985.
IT WAS WHEN IT WAS, WHEN THE REZONING TOOK PLACE FOR THIS AREA TO R FIVE AND, AND B.
WHAT DID B CONVERT TO? R FOUR.
SO IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE, SO IN EFFECT IT WAS R FOUR, COUNSEL TOOK R FOUR, WHICH THAT STILL REQUIRES A 35 FOOT LOT, DOESN'T IT? YES.
SO IT WAS OUR, IT WAS NONCONFORMING BEFORE Y'ALL, BEFORE COUNCIL.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT UP THE HISTORY TO THE COMMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY VOICEMAILS, ANYONE SEND TO SPEAK? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OUT THERE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 26 1 0 3 0 0 2 3, I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 4,508 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND TWO 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 5 45 FOOT LOT WITH TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 30 FOOT WIDE LOT SITUATED.
APPLICANT BEING STEVEN MARTIN 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 UDC AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT WILL PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER BY ADHERING TO ALL OTHER LAW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT WOULD PREVENT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, DESPITE THE PROPOSED HOME COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER LAW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN PROPERTIES WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE WASTE, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT INTEND TO OBSERVE ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT FOUR.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IGNORE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE LOT SIZE IN WHICH ARE RECENTLY SIZED TO DEVELOP THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE ACCESS, WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MENTALLY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, EX EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AS A NARROW WIDTH OF THE LOT LIMITS THE ABILITY TO MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED BY THE I FOUR FIVE ZONING DISTRICT AND OF MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
AT LEAST WE'RE IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK THE NEW HOMES WOULD BE A GREAT ASSET TO THAT AREA.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT, LOVE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
[02:00:01]
HEARING NOW OF VOTE? CALL, VOTE PLEASE.COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF, UM, EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES.
WHAT ABOUT ITEM SEVEN? OH YEAH, I WAS GONNA GIVE HIM ANOTHER MINUTE TO UH, SHOW, BUT HE'S NOT GONNA BE HERE.
I'M, I'M ASSUMING WE CAN HIT ITEM SEVEN.
UH, SO ITEM SEVEN IS, UM, AND REAL QUICK, THIS, UM, I FORGOT WHO MADE THE COMMENT.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN ANNUITY HILL? UM, IT IS CORRECT.
IT'S AT THE NORTHERN EDGE OF IT, BUT OKAY.
AND THEN, SO SECOND QUE SECOND QUESTION I HAD ON THAT IS THAT, UM, IT'S LISTED AS A FRONT ENTRANCE AND THIS IS, SO IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AND THE FENCE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ON THE SIDE, THE SIDE ENTRANCE.
UM, AND SO DOES THAT CHANGE THE LISTING AT ALL? NO, IT'S JUST THE ENTRANCE.
IT ESSENTIALLY IT'S A FENCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
WE JUST ADDED THAT FOR KIND OF A YEAH.
I'M BRINGING ID ITEM SEVEN BACK TO FROM THE TABLE.
UM, OKAY, SO WE, Y'ALL ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON ITEM ONE, WHICH IS THE, UH, CORNER CLEARANCE AND DENIAL FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
AND WE ALREADY HEARD THE VOICEMAIL.
IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? THE APPLICANT'S NOT PRESENT.
UH, WE COULD CERTAINLY TAKE THIS UP IF WE WANTED TO OR WE CAN DO A, A CONTINUANCE FOR A COUPLE WEEKS.
I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
JUST NO, WE DO HAVE 17 CASES WITH ALL THE CONTINUANCES NEXT MEETING AND IN THE, UH, FIRST APRIL MEETING 'CAUSE WE HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING CITY'S GONNA BUY THE DINNER, RIGHT? BILL MILLERS IT IS A LITTLE C CHAIR.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
UH, HE'S BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES ALREADY.
UM, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE WITH ME TOO.
UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? I STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS.
THIS IS NUMBER SEVEN, RIGHT? MM-HMM
ONE FOR THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND ONE FOR THE VARIANCE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 0 3 0 2 76.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANITE REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT CORNER.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 13 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION SITUATED AT 10 38 SHERMAN STREET.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF A 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 INTERSECTION FRONTS OF ROADWAY INFLUENCED BY RAILROAD, RAILROAD OPERATIONS WHERE TRAFFIC PART PATTERNS, SPEEDS AND VISIBILITY CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE OF TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL INTERSECTIONS.
AS A RESULT, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT COMPROMISE PUBLIC SAFETY AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE FULL 25 FOOT CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE WOULD UNREASONABLY CONSTRAIN, CITE LAYOUT AND REDUCE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN A MANNER OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY ZONING.
THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED 13 FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA CONTINUES TO MEET THE ORDINANCES SAFETY INTENT BY PRESERVING ADEQUATE VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT, INCLUDING THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR AND EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS ALREADY DEFINE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
[02:05:01]
THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS NOT DUE TO ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
THE COMBINATION OF CORN LOT, SUBSTANDARD, SUBSTANDARD SIZE AND ADJACENT RAIL RAILROAD OPERATIONS CREATES UNIQUE CARE, PHYSICAL CARE CONDITIONS NOT SHARED BY TYPICAL PARCELS OF THE DISTRICT.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT, UH, OF THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE.
IT APPEARS THAT, UH, THERE'S STILL ADEQUATE, UH, CLEAR VISION.
COMMISSIONER MANOR, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
THEY WILL HAVE TO WHACK THAT ONE BUSH AT THAT CORNER 'CAUSE THAT'S, UH, THAT IS CAUSING A HAZARD.
BUT, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT I AGREE WITH THE COLLEAGUE.
UH, ANY OTHER ONE? ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING UNANIM THIS ON ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BONILLA? YES, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
UH, NEXT MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION CHAIR.
MAY WE HAVE, UH, SOME DISCUSSION ON, ON THIS? SURE.
BEFORE WE, WE VOTE? OH YEAH, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE RIGHT NOW.
I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THE NINE FOOT GATE, BUT I WOULD VOTE FOR THE FIVE FOOT FENCE AND A FIVE FOOT GATE.
IS IT KOSHER FOR US TO MOVE ON THAT IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TO SAY OTHERWISE? WELL, THE, THE, THE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IS ALREADY ALLOWED.
WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE GATE.
SO THE GATE WOULD BE COULD WE MOVE THAT? WE COULD DO ANYTHING LESS THAN CAN IT BE SHORTENED DOWN TO FIVE FOOT? WELL, FIVE FOOT IS WHAT'S ALLOWED.
OR SIX FOOT MAYBE OR SIX FOOT.
SO WHY DON'T, WHY DON'T YOU SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION FOR SIX FEET AND THEN WE WILL UH, SO I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE SIX FOOT GATE IS I'D KNOCK MY HEAD ON IT WALKING THROUGH.
BECAUSE THERE'S A BAR OVER THIS HOP.
I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT, WHY THE STRUCTURE WAS REQUIRED AND WHAT WAS IT? YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SEE REALLY THAT MUCH ARCHITECTURAL YEAH.
I, I'LL SAY I, I DO RECALL, UM, WE APPROVED A, AN ENTRY SIMILAR TO THIS, BUT MAYBE IT WAS MORE ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASANT IN THE MONTE VISTA AREA IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
UM, I I DO RECALL THE, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT STATING THAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO PLANT IT AND THAT THERE'D BE A LOT OF LIKE, GROW EASE ON IT.
UM, I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE.
I THINK THAT THEY, THEY DO GREAT WORK IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BUT AM OPEN TO OTHER SUGGESTIONS.
I MEAN WE, UM, I'M, I WOULD SAY THAT WHOEVER, WHOEVER WOULD BE OPPOSED TO NINE FOOT MAKE A MOTION FOR WHATEVER THEY CAN LIVE WITH.
'CAUSE THERE'S ONLY NINE OF US.
AND THEN MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN WAS THE READING OF WAY IT SITS AND SO NOT THE FRONT.
AND IT WOULD BE AS BUILT, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.
'CAUSE I WOULDN'T WANNA SEE ANY TALLER ANYWHERE ELSE IF, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT.
AND ALSO THIS IS CONSIDERED A SIZE SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO, CAN GO UP TO SIX FEET IF THEY BY, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO THEY CAN GO UP TO SIX OR ASKING FOR NINE.
UM, I'LL JUST LET EVERYONE KNOW.
I'M FINE WITH EIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
WELL, I WAS PROPOSING SEVEN FEET.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE PERFECT.
THE NINE FEET JUST DOES NOT GO.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET A MOTION OUT THERE.
WE RECOMMEND THE FENCE HEIGHT AT SEVEN FEET.
OH, YOU GOTTA READ THE WHOLE PAGE.
COMM COMMISSIONER STEVENS WILL VOLUNTEER IF YOU WANTED TO.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 27 6, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR FOUR FOOT, UH, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW SEVEN FOOT FENCE ENTRANCE HEIGHT SITUATED AT 10 AS WELL.
IS IT A TWO FOOT EX A ONE FOOT EXCEPTION? 'CAUSE SIX IS ALLOWED? YEAH, SO IT WOULD BE A ONE FOOT VARIANCE.
[02:10:01]
OKAY.OR ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OH EIGHT DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 2 76, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RE GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT FENCE ENTRANCE HEIGHT SITUATED AT 10 38 SHERMAN STREET.
APPLICANT BEING GUARDIA GARDENS 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE SPECIAL ACCEPT EXCEPTION IS IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER BECAUSE THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE ENTRANCE OPENING AND DOES NOT EXPAND FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY.
FRONTAGE B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXCEPTION SUBSTANTIALLY SERVES THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE BY ALLOWING THE CLEARLY DEFINED FUNCTIONAL ENTRANCE AND IMPROVES SITE ACCESS, SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE HEIGHT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE IT IS LIMITED IN SCOPE, DOES NOT CREATE CONTINUOUS VISUAL OBSTRUCTION AND DOES NOT INCREASE OVERALL FENCING ALONG THE PROPERTY.
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 WILL NO, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS CONFINED TO A SINGLE ENTRANCE AREA ENTRANCE FEATURE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPICAL ACCESS AND SECURITY ELEMENTS IN THE AREA.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT FOR ITS REGULATION BECAUSE IT APPLIES ONLY TO AN ENTRANCE OPENING THAT MUST BE CLASSIFIED AS A FENCE AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT FOR INCREASED FENCE HEIGHTS ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A WONDERFUL COMPROMISE AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
I THINK THIS WILL REALLY, UH, HELP THE PROPERTY OWNER.
ANYTHING ELSE? YES, COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO JUST TO, JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO RESOLVE THE PICTURE HERE.
UM, AND SO THE PICTURE AS IT'S SHOWN ON THE ONE SHOWS THE PERSON MEASURING TWO OF SUBSURFACE OF, OF THE GROUND HERE AND, UM, ARE THEY GONNA, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GONNA BE PUTTING IN A CURB, UM, SLASH SIDEWALK POTENTIALLY.
AND SO, SO IS THE DISTANCE, DOES THAT CHANGE THE DISTANCE FOR WHAT'S, WHERE IT'S BEING MEASURED TO MAYBE ALLOW FOR IT A LITTLE BIT TALLER IN THAT DIALOGUE OR, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SEVEN FOOT PERSPECTIVE? YEAH, WE'RE GONNA, SO NOTHING IN THE UDC ALLOWS US TO MEASURE ANYTHING BUT TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
UM, SOME I KNOW SOMETIMES, BUT TO THE BOTTOM.
AND SO, SO THE BOTTOM RIGHT NOW IS MULCH SLASH WHATEVER AND A PICTURE LOOKS LIKE A POTENTIAL SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THIS AS WELL AS A WALKWAY ON THE BACKSIDE OF IT.
AND SO EITHER IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S GONNA BE A TWO FOOT STEP UP, YOU KNOW, I GUESS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE LEVEL OF PROPERTY IS, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE MEASURED FROM GRADE, FROM A BUDDING GRADE, CORRECT? YES.
SO IF HE FINISHES IT TO RAISE THE GRADE UP AND YEAH, IT HAS TO BE A RETAINING WALL KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO KEEP IT IF HE RAISES THE GRADE UP AND PUTS THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
THE MINUTES.EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW, COMMENT OR NOT COMMENT? IF SO, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
HEARING NONE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
UH, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT?
[ Director’s Report ]
JUST A, UH, UPDATE AGAIN THAT WE WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTING VOICEMAILS STARTING APRIL 1ST.SO WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING AFTER THIS.
AND, UH, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS DUE APRIL 1ST.
SO PLEASE GET THOSE DONE BY THE END OF THE MONTH.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.