[Additional Item]
[00:00:09]
WE'RE GONNA GET THIS MEETING STARTED, SO IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS.
OH, CAN WE PLAY THE SPANISH TRANSLATION VIDEO PLEASE? OKAY, THANK YOU.
UM, WE'RE GONNA START THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY TODAY FOR EVERYONE THAT'S HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.
UM, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE NEW MEMBERS OF OUR BOARD AND NEW ALTERNATE MEMBERS BEING SWORN IN TODAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH THAT.
UM, LET'S COME ON UP FRONT, HOWEVER WE NEED TO PUT THAT TOGETHER FRONT AND ALL THE ONES THAT ARE REAPPOINTED, JUST STAND WHERE YOU ARE.
PLEASE STAND RIGHT OVER HERE SINCE NO ONE'S STANDING RIGHT AND YES, VERY GOOD.
A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THIS WAY.
THAT WAY YOU DON'T COVER ARLENE.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO ADMINISTER THE TWO OATHS OF OFFICE IN ORDER FOR YOU TO TAKE BEFORE YOU GET TO SERVE ON THE BOARD.
AND I UNDERSTAND ALL OF YOU ALL ARE ALTERNATES AT THIS TIME.
SO YOU WILL BE CALLED UPON AS NEEDED.
SO THE FIRST IS THE STATEMENT OF OFFICE.
AND SO PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME.
SWEAR THAT I HAVE NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PAID, OFFERED, OR PROMISED TO PAY, OFFERED, CONTRIBUTED OR PROMISED TO CONTRIBUTE ANY MONEY OR THING OF VALUE OR PROMISED ANY PUBLIC OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT FOR THE GIVING OR WITHHOLDING OF A VOTE AT THE ELECTION AT WHICH I WAS ELECTED, OBJECTION OR AS A REWARD TO SECURE MY APPOINTMENT OR CONFIRMATION, WHICHEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
SO HELP ME, GOD REMAIN STANDING AND REMAIN WITH YOUR HAND UP.
I STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR, SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AND OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND WELL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND, PRESERVE THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE.
SO HELP ME, GOD, CONGRATULATIONS AND LEAN AND I ARE GONNA COME AROUND SO WE CAN GET YOU TO SIGN YOUR DOCUMENT.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR STEPPING UP AND WANTING TO SUPPORT OUR CITY AND THIS BOARD.
WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
WHILE EVERYONE'S SIGNING PAPERS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START READING THROUGH OUR SCRIPT TO GET US GOING SO WE'RE NOT HERE ALL AFTERNOON.
BEFORE WE GET BEGIN, PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES.
[Call to Order]
OF ADJUSTMENT WILL COME TO ORDER.MONICA, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? DR.
[00:05:02]
PRESENT.SO WE HAVE A FULL QUORUM OF 11 UP HERE.
DO YOU HAVE A QUORUM? PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAGS.
I NEED TO GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPARENTLY, 'CAUSE I MISSED THE LAST SENTENCE THERE.
BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.
THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THIS BOARDROOM.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME AND APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
THE BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY'S STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28.
ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND ANY 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 BE, WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN, EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES THE CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THEIR REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE GONNA CONFIRM THAT APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT FOR EACH CASE.
IF YOU'RE HERE, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND BUT REMAIN SEATED.
UH, AND THEN WHEN WE GET ON, WE'LL CALL YOU UP ONCE YOUR CASE IS, UH, UP FOR DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE, UH, CASE 1 1 9 ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP, ACE 1 3 2.
MARSHALL FANNO, SOUTH PRAISE OF ST.
[00:10:01]
I PROBABLY SAID YOUR NAME WRONG.OH NO, JUST MAKING SURE YOU'RE HERE.
STAFF, CAN YOU GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE? STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOLLOWED BY ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD.
FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU WILL HEAR A BEEP WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU WILL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND I WILL INFORM YOU THAT THE THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
[1. 19-8514 (Continued from 11/04/19) BOA-19-10300119: A request by Alamo Community Group for 1) a 1,830 square foot variance from the minimum 4,000 square foot lot size to allow 3 lot sizes to be 2,170 square feet, and 2) a 10’ variance from the 20' rear setback requirement to allow new structures to be 10' away from the rear property line, located at 824 S San Eduardo Ave. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 5) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND GET THIS STARTED.UH, THE FIRST CASE IS BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 9, WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 18TH.
THE ADDRESS IS 8 24 SOUTH SAN EDUARDO.
THE APPLICANT IS ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP.
THE REQUEST IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A 1,830 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE TO ALLOW THREE LOT SIZES TO BE 2,170 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW NEW STRUCTURES TO BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTS OF PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE BUILDING SINGLE STORY HOMES AT 878 SQUARE FEET.
EACH HOME WILL BE ON ITS OWN LOT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION SO THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PLA THE PROPERTY OBJECT, PROPERTY OBJECT, AN ADJACENT VACANT LOT ADJACENT PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES IN B O A 19 103 0 0 1 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.
FACT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT PLATTED AND THIS IS NO FAULT OF THE OWNER.
THE SURROUNDING DWELLINGS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND THE VARIANCES WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE LOST PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION AND THEIR LETTER IS IN YOUR FILE.
AND THE APPLICANT COLLECTED EIGHT SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT, WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE FILE AND SHOWN IN THE LIGHTER GREEN COLOR HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS? COULD YOU PLEASE KE UM, BEFORE, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE QUESTIONS? YES.
UM, THIS IS OUR SECOND TIME HEARING THIS.
IS IT THE SAME APPLICATION AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY? YES.
UM, AND COULD YOU REMIND US, SINCE THERE ARE SOME NEW MEMBERS SITTING UP HERE, WHAT THE REASON FOR THE CONTINUANCE WAS? THE APPLICANT NEEDED TO WORK WITH LA LAS PALMA'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MEET WITH THEM REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS.
SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT THEN? YES.
UM, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
[00:15:02]
THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY DOWN THERE A MOMENT AGO.OH, THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
WELL, LET'S BRING UP THE APPLICANT THEN.
SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS ON THE RECORD AND THEN TELL US, UH, WHY YOU'RE HERE AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY.
UH, MY NAME IS MICHAEL SHACKLEFORD WITH ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP.
WE, UH, OUR ADDRESS IS 4,100 EAST PI ADDRESS DRIVE, SUITE 207 8 2 2 8.
UH, WE ARE A LOCAL NONPROFIT IN SAN ANTONIO.
UH, WE PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NEXT YEAR IS OUR 30TH ANNIVERSARY.
WE SPECIALIZE MOSTLY IN MULTI-FAMILY.
WE HAVE ABOUT 1400 UNITS OF AFFORDABILITY FROM 30% TO 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
UM, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS APPROACHED US ABOUT ACQUIRING PROPERTIES FROM THEM FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE'VE BEEN DOING AND WE'VE SELLING, BEEN SELLING THEM, UH, CONSTRUCTING NEW STUFF FROM, UH, 95,000 TO ABOUT $150,000 DEPENDING ON THE AREA.
YOU MOSTLY, UH, IN THE EDGEWOOD EDGEWOOD DISTRICT.
AS THIS, THESE TWO OR THESE THREE PROPERTIES ARE IN QUESTION.
UM, THIS IS A CONTINUATION, UH, AT OUR REQUEST.
UH, DUE TO MANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ASKING US TO MEET WITH THE LOST PROMISE ASSOCIATION, I WILL REPORT THAT WE DID MEET WITH THEM ON NOVEMBER 1ST.
UH, WE MET AT LUBY'S, UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, MANY OF THEIR REQUESTS.
AND A FEW FOLKS ON THE BOARD HAD ASKED MAYBE ABOUT REZONING THE PROPERTY TO I D Z TWO, WHICH WE WERE NOT WILLING TO, AND MEMBERS OF THEIR BOARD AT LAS PALMAS, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM 'CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE.
THEY WERE NOT OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE IDZ TWO IS VERY IN INTENSIVE USE.
THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THEREFORE, THEY FELT LIKE THE STREETS WEREN'T WIDE ENOUGH TO HAVE OFF, OFF, UH, OFFSITE PARKING.
UM, SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE, UH, THEY VOICED OTHER CONCERNS, UM, WHICH WE HEARD, AND WE THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED THEM.
SOMETHING THAT I TOLD THEM IS WE'VE NEVER BUILT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND WE'D HOPE THAT THEY WOULD NOT, UH, HOLD WHATEVER'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST AGAINST US.
LET US BUILD A GREAT PRODUCT THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE.
AND SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED BY THE CASE MANAGER, AND WE SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND THE FOLKS THAT LIVE ACTUALLY ON SOUTH SAN EDUARDO SIGNED, UH, GAVE US THEIR SIGNATURES AND SUPPORT BECAUSE A, THE PRICE POINT, IT'S NEW PRODUCT.
THIS LOT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR MANY YEARS.
UH, A LOT OF KIDS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DOING THINGS IN THAT PROP ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THEY WANTED IT CLEANED UP.
AND, AND SO, UH, WHEN WE HEARD THAT, WE ASKED FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND THEY DID GIVE IT TO US.
I ALSO STATE THAT, UH, WE'VE ASKED, HAVE YOU MET WITH THE LAST PROMISE ASSOCIATION? AND THEY SAID, WE DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
UM, AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, WHAT'S HAPPENED IS MAY NOT BE FULLY RELE REFLECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE AREA.
SO I'LL TELL YOU THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR VARIANCE AND WE WOULD CONTINUE AND HOPE FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO ALLOW US TO BUILD.
AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOME, THE HOMES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD, UH, WILL ALLOW US TO, UH, UH, IF, IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE, 150 SQUARE FEET MORE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD A TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH.
AND WE'VE ACTUALLY BUILT A TWO, TWO, UH, A TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH, UM, WHICH WENT UNDER CONTRACT AND SOLD IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THERE ARE FAMILIES OUT THERE THAT ARE, ARE WANTING, UH, THIS TYPE OF HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO MAINTAIN.
AND THE, THE PRICE, THE PRICE POINT AND AFFORDABILITY FOR US AND FOR THEM.
I'M HERE TO ASK ANY, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
SO IN THE FILE HERE, THERE'S A LETTER, UM, FROM I T S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JENNIFER GONZALEZ.
AND SO, AND PART OF THE LETTER, IT SAYS, RECENTLY THE CITY ESTABLISHED AN I D Z, UM, THAT ALLOWS THIS ZONING.
UM, ALTHOUGH THESE LOTS ARE NOT IN THEM, THEY ARE NOT FAR AWAY, ESSENTIALLY, HOW FAR AWAY IS THE NEAREST I D Z? DO YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SEEING A, A DIRECT ZONING MAP? WHAT I HAVE THE ZONING MAP THAT I HAVE HERE, IT'S ALL R FOUR AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A REZONING.
AND WE'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN AS THE R UH, THE R FOUR.
UM, UH, SO I, I CAN'T SPEAK OF THAT ON THE MAP THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NOTHING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ZONED I D Z TWO.
UM, I'LL TELL YOU THAT A COUPLE OF BOARD MEMBERS MAYBE SUGGESTED THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF NOT HAVING THAT, UH, 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE REAR.
AND I THINK THAT WAS A, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION, BUT IN REALITY, IT PROBABLY ISN'T THE BEST SOLUTION BECAUSE A, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID THEY DID NOT WANT IT, AND, UH, B IT JUST, IT WOULDN'T PROVIDE PARKING, WHICH
[00:20:01]
YOU NEED ON THE PROPERTY.I'M COURTING AND I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, THE DRAWING HERE.
SO EACH PROPERTY WILL HAVE A DRIVEWAY, BUT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY FOR ONE VEHICLE? IS THAT WHY Y'ALL ARE SAYING THERE WILL BE NO EXTRA PARKING IN THE AREA? NO, NO.
SO I MEAN, DEPENDING ON YOUR CAR SIZE, YOU COULD HAVE UP TO UP TO TWO.
UM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I D ZT, IF, IF YOU REZONED IT TO I D Z TWO, THERE'S NO REPAR REQUIREMENT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY ONTO THE PROPERTY.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS YOU DON'T WANT THAT.
'CAUSE THEN YOU'LL HAVE PARKING ON THE STREET AND THE THE STREETS AREN'T WIDE ENOUGH TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.
I MEAN, THE STREETS ARE VERY NARROW.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID, YOU KNOW, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID THEY DON'T WANT I D Z TWO.
WE'D RATHER KEEP IT R FOUR, WHICH WE WERE PLAN, WHICH WE'VE REQUESTED, AND, UM, HAVE NO INTENTION TO REZONE IT TO I D Z TWO.
IT'S JUST A SIMPLE SETBACK FROM THE FENCE LINE TO THE PRO TO, UH, THE, TO THE BACK OF THE HOME.
UH, RIGHT NOW THE REQUIREMENT'S 20 FOOT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING A VARIANCE TO BE, TO BUILD WITHIN 10 FEET SO WE CAN BUILD A, A LARGER HOME.
SO WHAT IS THE MAIN OBJECTION FROM THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THEN? YOU KNOW, UM, I, I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I WILL TELL YOU, THEY, THEY STATED THINGS LIKE, AND THIS WAS, THEY STATED HERE THAT THIS IS, UH, FOR POOR, POOR HOUSING, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER CITIES IT'S A SHOTGUN STYLE HOUSE.
THE REALITY IS THE LOTS ARE 25 FEET WIDE.
THAT'S WHAT WE ACQUIRED FROM THE CITY.
WE BOUGHT IT FROM THE CITY THROUGH, UH, AND WE BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE LOTS.
AND SO WE'RE BUILDING THREE HOMES.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE FACT OF IT.
BUT AT EIGHT, A LITTLE OVER 800 SQUARE FEET EACH HOME.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GONNA BE TWO BEDROOM HOMES? YES, MA'AM.
SO WE'LL HAVE, UH, WHERE'S THE, I DON'T HAVE, YEAH.
SO IF YOU LOOK HERE AT THE TOP WHERE IT SAYS LOT 14, THAT'LL BE THE MASTER BEDROOM, AND THEN THE, AND THEN IN BETWEEN IT'LL HAVE THE KITCHEN AND THE LIVING ROOM.
AND THEN TOWARDS THE FRONT IT'LL HAVE ANOTHER BEDROOM.
I MEAN, UM, IMMEDIATELY WHEN WE RECEIVED OUR C O OF C OF O FROM THE CITY, IT SOLD, IT WENT UNDER CONTRACT.
AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PRICE POINT AND THE SIZE, IT'S LOW MAINTENANCE.
BUT I THINK THEIR MAIN THING IS THEY'RE, THE PRICE RANGE IS WHAT THEY'RE PROBABLY COMPLAINING ABOUT ALSO.
'CAUSE FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S GONNA BE A BRAND NEW HOUSE AND IT'S ONLY TWO BEDROOMS, IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF HIGH, THE PRICE POINT.
SO IF YOU HAVE A THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH, THE PRICE IS GONNA, IT'S GONNA PRICE THEM OUT.
YOU SEE, THEY'RE ASKING US FOR A THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH.
SO IF YOU CAN'T, AND, AND WE BELIEVE IT'S AFFORDABLE FOR THIS AREA.
AND, UM, AND WE'VE, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN ISSUE WITH PRICING IN THIS AREA.
THIS IS KIND OF A POINT OF ORDER.
THEY'RE, UM, HE'S BEFORE US ABOUT TWO VARIANCES, ONE BEING THE SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS, 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, AND THE OTHER BEING THE REAR SETBACK.
WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE TO DISCUSS ZONING, REALLY.
I MEAN, WE DON'T, THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW.
AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS THEIR PRICE POINT UNLESS IT AFFECTS THESE TWO ELEMENTS THAT WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS.
SO, I MEAN, I KNOW THIS IS A DIRECTION WE WENT LAST TIME.
UM, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE US TO MAYBE THINK ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT RELATE BACK TO WHAT, WHAT'S REALLY IN FRONT OF US.
AND I AGREE WE'RE NOT HERE TO ADVISE ON POTENTIAL ZONING CHANGES.
UH, AND ALTHOUGH AFFORDABILITY IS VERY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IT WAS A POINT BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE LAST MEETING, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING DISCUSSED SOME.
BUT WE SHOULD REEL IT BACK IN AND STICK TO THE POINTS OF THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY.
SO, UH, DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HAVE YOU BUILT ANY OTHER DWELLINGS ON 25 FRONT FEET? LOTS? YES, MA'AM.
UH, WE BUILT ONE ON, UH, COPPEL.
I, I, I'M SORRY, IS THAT THE STREET COPPEL? YES.
AND, UM, OFF 1 51 AND HIGHWAY 90.
AND IT'S OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER THAT PURCHASED IT FROM US.
ORIAN, UH, UM, HAVE YOU HAD A PROFESSIONAL SURVEY OF THE LOT? I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT A LOT OF TIMES IN THIS PART OF THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY MAY SAY THAT THEY'RE 25 FOOT EACH, BUT THEY END UP BEING SLIGHTLY SMALLER OR EVEN SLIGHTLY LARGER.
HOW SECURE ARE YOU IN THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE 25 FEET?
[00:25:01]
GOOD, GREAT QUESTION.BIG RED DOG, UH, IS OUR ENGINEER, AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY SURVEYED THE LOTS AND THEY ARE, ARE 25 FEET.
ANYBODY ELSE? MANNA, MANNA, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, SO IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, THERE WAS DIALOGUE ABOUT RE PLATTING, BUT THAT WASN'T GONNA TRY FOR REPL BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LEAVE IT IN R FOUR, UM, IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.
AND THEN, UM, IF WE'RE DIVIDING THIS IN THREE LOTS, UM, THAT FALLS WELL BELOW AN R TWO OR, YOU KNOW, SO, SO IT'S, SO IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER EACH, EACH OF THESE LOTS THEN AN R FOUR.
AND SO AS ARRESTED COMMUNITY, AS I LOOK THROUGH IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY IS, IS TRULY AN R FOUR LARGER.
AND SO THESE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU KNOW, UM, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE 25 FEET, UH, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF VACANT PROPERTIES AND WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE FULL SURVEY PROCESS, I, I, I DON'T KNOW, UM, I'LL TELL YOU THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE MATCHES OR IS REFLECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
UM, AT THE CORNER, IF YOU LOOK, UH, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE MAP.
SO IF YOU LOOK HERE, SO OUR LOT IS HERE.
THIS IS ROUGHLY ABOUT A 25 FOOT LOT.
AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF VACANT STUFF HERE, UH, THAT, THAT ARE PRIVATELY OWNED.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY, THOSE ARE ALSO 25 FOOT LOTS.
AND AGAIN, UNLESS YOU DO THE SURVEY OR, UH, DO THE RESEARCH WITH THE COUNTY, UM, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY ON OUR END, BUT WE, WE'VE, WE'RE DOING WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S REFLECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE 25 FOOT LOTS.
SO ONE OF, I RECALL ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS BEING, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE LOOK AND FEEL AS THEY DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND IT, AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE ARE THAT MANY HOMES THAT ARE 10 FOOT AWAY FROM THE, THE, THE, THE SIDEWALKS OR FROM THE STREET ITSELF.
AND SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER THAN, THAN WE'LL SAY WHAT I SEE IN AS DRIVING GOOGLE DRIVE DOWN THE STREET.
UM, ANOTHER QUESTION, I'M SORRY.
UM, SO YOU HAD DIALOGUE WITH THE, UM, UM, WITH THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO WHAT DID, SO YOU SAID THAT THERE, THERE WERE SOME COMPROMISES MADE, OR YOU HAD, YOU KIND OF TALKED THROUGH SOME, WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THOSE? YOU? UM, THEY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE I D Z, UH, ZONING, AND THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, WHICH IS FINE.
WE WEREN'T SUPPORTIVE OF IT AS EITHER, UH, BUT THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO US.
WE'VE, WE'VE CALLED SEVERAL TIMES AND WE JUST NEVER HEARD BACK FROM THEM.
WE MADE AN EFFORT, UH, AGAIN, WE HAD, WE DIDN'T EAT LUNCH.
UH, NOBODY, NO ONE WAS HUNGRY.
UM, BUT WE MET WITH THEM AT LUBY'S AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY CLOSE TO AN HOUR AND A HALF.
AND, UH, IT WASN'T CONTENTIOUS WHATSOEVER.
AND, UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT IT AND WE THANKED THEM AND THANK YOU.
THERE WA THERE WAS NO, UH, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY THERE WAS NO REQUESTS THAT THEY, THAT, UH, THAT THEY LEFT WITH US.
VINNO, UM, GO AHEAD AND CORRECT ME IF THIS, I'M WRONG ABOUT THIS, BUT LAST TIME WE HAD YOU HERE, UM, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF YOU DOING TWO HOUSES ON THIS LAW, AND IT, THERE WAS A REASON WHY THAT WAS NOT FEASIBLE FOR YOU.
COULD YOU REMIND ME OF WHY? WELL, SO THESE, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THE INTENTIONS TO BUILD, UH, THREE LOT OR THREE HOMES ON THESE THREE LOTS.
UH, I WILL TELL YOU, IF WE DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND DO TWO HOUSES, WE'D HAVE TO REPL, WHICH IS A COST TO THE AFFORDABILITY.
ONCE AGAIN, UM, IT JUST, IT IT'S A PROCESS.
WE NEED TO GET THIS, THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING BECAUSE EVERY DAY THAT WE SIT ON THIS, WE ARE PAYING SOMETHING.
I MEAN, UM, WE RECEIVE THESE LOTS OR WE PURCHASE THESE LOTS FROM SCOTT PRICE WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
'CAUSE THEY KNOW WE CAN BUILD AFFORDABILITY AT A GREAT, GREAT, UH, THAT'S A GREAT PRODUCT.
WE'VE BUILT ROUGHLY ABOUT 12, 10 TO 12 YEAR, UH, SINGLE FAMILY STUFF THAT GOES UNDER CONTRACT IMMEDIATELY AND PURCHASED, UM, BECAUSE OF A, THE AFFORDABILITY, THE PRICE, AND THE QUALITY OF WORK THAT WE DO.
UM, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE COST.
HEY, ANYBODY ELSE? KEANO? YES, GO AHEAD MR. KEANU.
YOU KNOW, I'VE, UM, I'M, I'M AN ALTERNATE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'VE HAD EXPERIENCE, UM, IN THE PAST, UM, SITTING ON THE BOARD BEFORE I THINK ABOUT FIVE OR SIX YEARS.
AND MOST OF THE THINGS I I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LIKE 50 FEET, YOU KNOW, AND USUALLY WHEN WE, I, I SEE 25 FOOT, UH, IT LEADS TO PROBLEMS LATER ON.
CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE? IT LEADS TO PROBLEMS, UH, FURTHER ON, AND I'M JUST, UH, REALLY APPREHENSIVE ABOUT, UH, ALLOWING A 25 FOOT
[00:30:01]
LOT.IT'S, UM, IT DOESN'T GIVE ANY ROOM FOR IF THEY HAVE KIDS FOR THEM TO PLAY OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S REALLY JAM PACKED, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST DON'T, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRICE IS FOR IT, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT GOOD, THAT AT THE COMMUNITY WOULD WANT.
I COULD SEE THAT THEY WOULD WANT TWO LAUNCH ON IT, AND I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT TWO, BUT, UH, FOR THREE IT JUST SEEMS JUST, IT'S, IT'S TOO JAM PACKED.
AND I HAVE, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WELL, MR. KAHAN TO, UH, TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING, IF YOU LOOK HERE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE WIDTH OF THE LOT BECAUSE THAT WIDTH IS THE WIDTH ALREADY.
WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR IS RIGHT HERE, THE DISTANCE FROM THIS FENCE LINE TO OUR PRO TO THE BACK OF THE HOME, LET'S JUST SAY THAT'S 20 FEET, WE'RE ASKING TO BUILD 10 FEET.
SO UP TO THAT LINE RIGHT THERE.
SO WHETHER YOU, WHETHER THE, THE BOARD SAYS, HEY, UM, WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU THE VARIANCE, THAT 25 IS 25 PERIOD, WE BELIEVE, AND WE'RE, WE'VE FILED A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION DETER TO DETERMINE THAT, THAT LOT, THAT THE LOT SIZE.
SO, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE, AND I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
UM, IT SEEMS SMALL, BUT FOLKS, YOU KNOW, NOWADAYS THEY'RE BUYING SMALLER, LONG, GONE ARE THE DAYS OF THE MCMANSIONS.
PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO LIVE MINIMAL NOW.
UM, AND THESE ARE WHAT'S SELLING RIGHT NOW.
IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S VERY POPULAR AND, UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE PRICE POINT AND THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE, THE MAINTENANCE, UM, IT, IT REMAINS R FOUR.
AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ZONING CHANGES.
WE ARE JUST ASKING CAN WE BUILD 10 FEET MORE OF THE SET INTO THE SETBACK? ELLI, GO AHEAD.
SO THAT 10 FEET MORE, I, WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT EXTRA 10 FEET OR THAT EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU WOULD GET IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE? SO WE ARE PLANNING TO BUILD, UH, IT ALLOWS US TO BUILD ANOTHER BEDROOM.
SO IT'S, IT'S ESSENTIALLY GIVES US ABOUT 150 SQUARE FEET OF BEDROOM IN ADDITION.
SO THE CONSEQUENCE OF US NOT GRANTING THAT VARIANCE IS THAT THIS ENDS UP BEING A ONE, ONE, WHICH IS REALLY NOT DESIRABLE, BUT A TWO, ONE, A TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH IS SOMETHING THAT A STARTER COULD BE A STARTER HOME FOR A FAMILY.
AND CHAIR, IF I CAN, LET ME GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT.
A LOT OF THESE, A LOT OF THE, UH, PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INNER CITY, THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES, THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALREADY PLATTED.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT DECADES AGO THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE PROPERTY LINES, AND SO THEY EITHER COMBINED THREE, TWO OR OR TWO LOTS AND JUST BUILT ONE HOME.
AS, AS SOME PROPERTIES REMAIN VACANT, STILL ARE PLATTED AT 25 FOOT WITH LOTS.
IF YOU GO TO THE AERIAL MAP, DEBRA, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ARE, UH, A, A SIMILAR THREE LOTS THAT ARE ADDRESSED OFF OF THE SAME STREET AND THEN THREE LOTS BEHIND IT.
WE SEE A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES.
THE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE IS THAT THEY CAN'T SHOW, UM, THAT IT, WHEN IT WAS DEEDED OFF, UH, AND, AND MANY PEOPLE DO THIS, THEY DEEDED OFF PROPERTY WITHOUT PLATTING IT LEGALLY.
BUT, UH, THE, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THEY CAN'T PROVE WHEN IT WAS DEEDED OFF PRIOR TO THE ZONING STANDARD, REQUIRING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SOME PEOPLE CAN PROVE THAT, ARE ABLE TO FIND ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IN ORDER TO BUILD ON THE 25 FOOT WIDTH LOTS.
AND WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION ON 25 FOOT WIDTH LOTS ALL OVER THE, UH, ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES.
WE HAVE SOME HOMES IN MANKEY PARK, BEACON HILL THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED ON 25 FOOT WIDTH LOTS.
IN THIS CASE, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO SHOW THAT DOCUMENTATION, WHICH IS WHY IT'S LEADING THEM HERE TO ASK FOR THE REQUEST.
SO I CAN SEE THAT THERE MAY BE MORE THAT COME THIS WAY BECAUSE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TIE BACK WHEN THAT DEEDED, WHEN IT WAS DEEDED OFF PRIOR TO THE ZONING.
SO A LOT OF THESE LOTS EXIST ALL OVER.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL CLOSING COMMENTS? NO.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO ONE SIGNED UP.
UM, WOULD ANYONE ON THE BOARD PLEASE, UH, PROVIDE A MOTION FOR ORIAN? PLEASE GO AHEAD.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 1 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT ONE AND A 1,830 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000
[00:35:01]
SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THREE LOT SIZES TO BE 2,170 SQUARE FEET AND TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW NEW STRUCTURES TO BE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 8 2 4 SOUTH SAN EDUARDO AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ALAMO COMMUNITY GROUP.BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE HEALTH SAFE, GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, A PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING USES ON A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE SITE SETBACK REDUCTION WILL PROVIDE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MEETS THE INTENTIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THE LOT IS INTENDED.
THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION DUE TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN ANTIQUATED PLATT.
IN ORDER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTED, BUT, BUT BECAUSE THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A C O D, THE APPLICANT MAY NOT NEED TO REPL THE LOT.
HOWEVER, A C O D CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE A PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
AND A SINGLE FAMILY DUAL LINK CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS OF VARIANCE IS GRANTED.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
BECAUSE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF DIS OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, ADVANCES THE EFFORTS OF THE ZONING DESIGNATION, THE VARIANCE WILL PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE SURROUNDINGS, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WOULD NOT BE INJURED BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE LOSS SIZE WILL NOT CREATE INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD NOT BE ALTERED IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COHESIVE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT WITH THE WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR, AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CONDITION PRESENT IS THAT THE LOT HAS AN ANTIQUATED PLATT.
AND IN ORDER TO BUILD ON THIS, ON THE PROPERTY, THERE MUST BE A PLATT EXCEPTION APPROVED A PLAT EXCEPT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.
LESS OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO ALLOW FOR A SMALLER LOT SIZE TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, DWELLING UNITS.
UM, I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD.
MR. ORIAN, DO YOU WANNA START? YES.
UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UH, AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT THIS APPLICANT WAS ASKED BY THE CITY TO, FOR THIS ENDEAVOR, UH, HE HAD A CHOICE.
HE COULD EITHER GET A VARIANCE FROM US OR HE COULD, HE COULD PURSUE I D Z.
IF HE PURSUED I D Z, HE COULD DO WHAT HE'S INTENDING TO DO AND YET NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCES 'CAUSE HE'S LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING.
AND HE GETS A BUNCH OF OTHER BENNYS ASSOCIATED WITH I D C ZONING BY GOING THROUGH THE, THE VARIANCE PROCESS.
HE'S MEETING, UM, AN EXCEPTION, UH, FOR, FOR A C O D, UH, WHICH IS, WOULD, WOULD HELP KEEP THE UNITS AFFORDABLE.
THE ONLY ITEM OF OF THE, UH, C O D THAT HE SEEMS TO HAVE CONFLICT WITH IS A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
AND SO I SEE NO, UH, ISSUE WITH, WITH GRANTING HIM THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE, UH, HIS ALTERNATIVE WOULD JUST BE TO CHARGE SLIGHTLY MORE MONEY FOR THE HOMES AND, AND MOST LIKELY GET TO DO WHAT HE'S REQUESTING ANYWAY.
YOU, MS. BREGMAN? YES, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION AS WELL.
UM, BEING A REALTOR, I UNDERSTAND WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS LIKE AND THE LACK OF IT IN THE SAN ANTONIO AREA.
UM, AND MOST OF IT HAS TO DO WITH AVAILABILITY.
WITH OUR MEDIAN PRICE BEING WELL OVER 250,000 IN THE AREA, I'M SURE THAT THE PRICE POINT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GONNA BE MUCH LESS THAN THAT.
AND SO WE NEED TO START THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD MORE AVAILABLE AND, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE WAY OF DOING IT.
SO I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, IN THE LONG RUN, THIS BUILDS GENERATIONAL WEALTH FOR FAMILIES INSTEAD OF RENTING ALL THE TIME.
ANYONE ELSE? NO OTHER COMMENTS? YES, SIR.
AFTER REVIEW OF OF ALL THE INFORMATION, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, UH, HOWEVER, I HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE WITH 25 FOOT LOTS
[00:40:01]
IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF HOUSTON AND NOT SAN ANTONIO.AND I'M WARY OF THE RESALE IN THAT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT, IT, IT SEEMED THAT THE TRIAL CREATED MORE OF A SITUATION OF BLIGHT IN THE LONG RUN RATHER THAN, UM, ENHANCING THE AREA.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE SCENARIOS IN THE DIFFERENT MARKETS AND THAT THE, UM, SAN ANTONIO HISTORICALLY HAS THIS POCKETED IN DIFFERENT AREAS AND YOU HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE IT, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
ANYBODY ELSE? MY 2 CENTS, I GUESS.
UM, I'M NOT ALWAYS A FAN OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE 25 FOOT LOTS.
UM, BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO DO IT.
UH, SPECIFICALLY THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING WAS THAT THESE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE AT, UM, AFFORDABILITY PERCENTAGE RATES OF A M I FOR THIS SPECIFIC PRECINCT, NOT CITYWIDE.
SO THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY, THESE HOUSES WILL BE MORE AFFORDABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
I, I THINK WE DO NEED TO BE PROMOTING INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND IT SHOULD BE REASONABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS CASE TODAY AS WELL.
MS. DORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
TERELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. NEFF AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE VOTE OF NINE IN FAVOR TWO AGAINST THIS MOTION DOES PASS.
YOU CAN MEET WITH STAFF ON THE WAY OUT.
[2. 19-8517 BOA-19-10300132: A request by Marshall Phaneuf for variances from the South Presa/South Saint Mary’s Street Neighborhood Conservation District standards for the following: 1) a 4.9 square foot variance from the 5 square feet maximum design standard to allow an individual tenant sign to be 9.9 square feet, and 2) an individual tenant sign location variance from the one canopy sign under canopy standard to allow an individual tenant sign to be above the canopy, located at 812 S Alamo St. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
LET'S GO ON OUR NEXT CASE.BOA 19 103 0 0 1 3 2 AT EIGHT 12 SOUTH ALAMO.
THE REQUEST IS A ONE A 4.9 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW A TENANT SIGN TO BE 9.9 SQUARE FEET.
AND TWO, A TENANT SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE FROM THE UNDER CAN FROM THE ONE CANOPY SIGN UNDER THE CANOPY TO ALLOW A NEW SIGN TO BE ABOVE THE CANOPY WITHIN THE SOUTH PREZA, SOUTH ST.
MARY'S STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
THE ZONING IS I D Z SOUTH PREZA, SOUTH ST.
MARY'S STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING THAT CONTAINS SEVERAL RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL STORES.
THE APPLICANT'S SPACE IS LOCATED BETWEEN TWO OTHER TENANT SPACES AND IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
IT HAS ONLY ONE ENTRANCE ONTO SOUTH, UH, ST.
THE PROPERTY IS AT THE NORTH MOST EDGE OF THE N C D ONE BOUNDARIES AND IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SITES BY PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE N C D BOUNDARIES.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS NOT A VARIANCE OF THE CHAPTER 28 SIGN STANDARDS, BUT OF THE N C D ONE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SIGNS IN THIS PARTICULAR N C D AREA.
THIS IS THE SIGN PLAN SHOWING ON THE RIGHT WHERE THE APPLICANT WISHES TO PLACE THE SIGN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT TENANT.
SOUTH ALAMOS STREET VIEW, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCES IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 3 2.
[00:45:02]
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THE SIZE AND LOCATION ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER TENANT SIGNAGE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.THE REQUESTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND FAIL TO ADHERE TO THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
WE MAILED OUT 36 NOTICES, RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE LE VACA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
QUESTIONS MANNA? GO AHEAD MR. MANNA.
SO I GUESS WHAT IS BEING PERMIT OR WHAT IS PERMITTED CURRENTLY VERSUS WHAT IS IT THEY'RE ASKING FOR? 'CAUSE THERE'S SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING.
SO, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS PERMITTED, WHAT ISN'T? YES.
WITHIN THE N C D, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL TENANT SIGNAGE THAT IS AT FIVE SQUARE FEET AND CAN BE UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY THAT EXISTS THERE.
IF YOU GO TO THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE FISHER HE OR THE A T M SIGNS, THOSE ARE SIMILAR GO BACK.
UH, THIS IS THE NEIGHBORING BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET.
SO THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE N C D STANDARDS.
BUT THIS IS WITHIN, INSIDE, WITHIN THE N C D.
UH, ARE YOU, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO PUT FOUR LEASE SIGNS ABOVE THE CANOPY BECAUSE, UH, OR IS THERE AN EXEMPTION FOR NON-PERMANENT STYLE SIGNS ABOVE THE CANOPY FOR TEMPORARY? LET ME, THOSE WOULD PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED TEMPORARY SIGNS, UM, THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE N C D.
THE N C D GOVERNS PERMANENT SIGNS.
SO YES, SOME TYPE OF FOUR LEASE SIGN WOULD BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THOSE AREN'T ALWAYS ONGOING AND THEY'RE NOT PERMANENT IN NATURE.
AND THEN WITH THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY, IF YOU WERE TO MOUNT A SIGN IMMEDIATELY ABOVE IT AS BEING PROPOSED, UM, CAN YOU EVEN SEE THAT FROM A VEHICLE, A STANDARD VEHICLE FROM THE STREET? IT LOOKS LIKE THE ANGLE OF VIEW IT WOULD BE CUT OFF.
DID Y'ALL, UH, IS THAT PART OF YOUR REVIEW WHEN YOU ARE ANALYZING THIS? NO, BUT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO HOW THAT WILL BE PROJECTED.
UH, BUT THE N C D DOES ALLOW FOR LARGER SIGNAGE FOR A SINGLE TENANT ABOVE THE CANOPY.
OH, ACTUALLY FOR A MULTI-TENANT, I BELIEVE IT IS.
UH, BUT THAT WOULD BE A MULTI-TENANT SIGN THAT, UH, WOULD HAVE THE ALLOWANCE OF THAT LARGER SIGN, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR ALL TENANTS WITHIN THAT BUILDING.
AND THEN FINALLY, COULD THEY PUT A SIGN ON THEIR, THEIR WINDOW, UM, AND, AND NOT HANG FROM THE CANOPY? IS THAT ALLOWED? IT, IT IS, YES.
IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT UP.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND TELL US WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MARSHALL FANNI, UH, 2 0 8 SOUTH ACKER, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT FOR AT AND T.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAME INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO.
SPENT $200,000 BUILDING, UM, A STORE TO TRY AND, AND REALLY TEST THE MARKET AND SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KIND OF HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO BRAND THE STORE AND MAKE SURE THE NEIGHBORS KNOW WHERE THERE AND TRAFFIC ON ALAMO AND ST.
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING THE SIGN ABOVE THE CANOPY.
UH, WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR, UH, INCREASING THE GLOBE SIZE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STANDARDS ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE A FIVE SQUARE FOOT SIGN, WHICH MAKES MY GLOBE 12 INCHES, AND MY LETTER SET ABOUT SEVEN INCHES.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND GO UP TO THE 9.9 SQUARE FEET, IT WOULD INCREASE MY GLOBE TO 17 INCHES.
SO A FIVE INCH INCREASE AND MY LETTER SET WOULD BE INCREASED BY THREE INCHES.
UM, ORIGINALLY WE WANTED TO PUT IT ABOVE THE CANOPY SO THAT THE TRAFFIC ON ALAMO COULD SEE IT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD CONSIDER GOING UNDER THE CANOPY, BUT I THINK HAVING THAT PARALLEL TO ALAMO DOESN'T HELP US OUT A WHOLE LOT, BUT WE COULD POSSIBLY, UM, THINK ABOUT THAT.
UM, IT IT'S JUST A HARD, UM, STORE TO REALLY GET THE BRAND OUT THERE THAT WE'D LIKE TO.
WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T PLAN ON PUTTING ANYTHING IN THE WINDOWS.
THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY SIGN WE'RE GONNA HAVE.
UM, AND HAVING A 12 FOOT GLOBE GLOBE AND THREE LETTERS IS, DOESN'T GIVE US A WHOLE LOT TO WORK WITH.
THE BANK ON THE CORNER I THINK HAS THREE DIFFERENT, UH, BLADE SIGNS AS THEY'RE ON THE END CAP.
UM, STEEL CITY POPS RECENTLY CLOSED.
WE WERE KIND OF COUNTING ON THEM TO GENERATE SOME ACTIVITY IN THE CENTER NOW THAT THEY'VE CLOSED.
UM, IT'S KIND OF THE BANK OURSELVES IN THE COFFEE SHOP.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AFTER SEEING THE STAFF'S COMMENTS, I THINK WE WOULD CONSIDER PULLING THIS DOWN AND PUTTING IT UNDER THE CANOPY.
IF, IF YOU GUYS WOULD LET US HAVE THE LARGER SIZE, UM, THAT WOULD WORK FOR US.
UM, WE'RE JUST STRUGGLING TO KIND OF GET TRAFFIC IN THE DOOR.
[00:50:02]
AND, UH, HAVE YOU STUDIED THE HEIGHTS OF HOW THIS WOULD RELATE IF IT'S HANGING BELOW WITH THE LARGER SIGN? WOULD YOUR HEAD CLEARANCES BE OKAY? WOULD IT FEEL IN CONFORM OF THE STATES? IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE TWO FEET TALL.IT WOULD HANG UNDER THE CANOPY JUST TWO FEET.
UH, WE COULD STUDY THAT TO SEE AND MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT INFRINGED UPON.
UH, HOW HIGH IS THE CANOPY, THE SOFFIT OF THE CANOPY? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE IT IN MY DRAWINGS OR NOT.
THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, UM, I, I DUNNO HOW TALL YOUR ENTRY DOOR IS, BUT YOU KNOW, A STANDARD DOOR IS, YOU KNOW, 80 INCHES, RIGHT? UH, AND SO IF YOU GO TWO FEET, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AT LEAST TWO FEET, UH, AND YOU KNOW, FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN, INCLUDING HANGING TO, TO THE CANOPY.
AND, UH, IS THAT SIDEWALK, IS THAT ON, UH, THE PROPERTY OF THE, OF THE RETAIL CENTER? OR IS THAT CITY SIDEWALK? I BELIEVE IT'S CITY, YEAH.
SO I, SO I AM, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT MAINTAINING, UM, 80 INCHES OF HEAD CLEARANCE ON THE SIDEWALK, UM, YOU KNOW, AS AN A D A ISSUE.
UH, BEING CITY PROPERTY BRAGMAN, GO AHEAD.
SO IN LOOKING AT THE, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE, UM, PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE CANOPY, WITH THE TWO SIGNS UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY, THAT ONE, UM, COMPARED TO THE CREDIT HUMAN SIGN, IF YOU WERE TO DO ONE UNDER THE CANOPY, WOULD IT BE MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THAT? I, THOSE MAY BE ACTUALLY, I, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD BE ANY, UH, TALLER.
THOSE ACTUALLY LOOK MAYBE LARGER THAN TWO FEET.
BUT, UM, I, I DON'T HAVE THE DIMENSIONS ON THOSE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY QUESTION THAT IT, THOSE SEEM FAIRLY TALL.
SO, WELL, I THINK THE WAY THE STANDARD IS WRITTEN, IT'S FIVE, FIVE SQUARE FEET, SO YOU COULD MAYBE MAKE THAT TALLER AND NARROWER OR MORE RECTANGULAR DEPENDING ON HOW YOUR SIGN IS LAID OUT.
SO THAT MAY HAVE GONE WITH A THREE FOOT TALL SIGN WITH, YOU KNOW, A MORE NARROW, UH, BOX.
WELL, I MEAN, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT MR. OREN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE HEADROOM.
YEAH, WE, WE, WE DID A RENDERING OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE TWO FOOT WOULD PROTRUDE PAST THE TOP OF MY DOOR.
AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE FONT SIZE AND THE GLOBE THAT YOU'D BE LOOKING FOR.
AND I CAN CIRCULATE A PICTURE IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE, IS THAT OKAY? IF OKAY.
I'VE, I'VE GOT ONE OF US UNDER THE CANOPY.
IS THAT OKAY? CAN I HAND IT OUT HALF RIGHT THERE? OKAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF TOO WHILE WE'RE PASSING OUT.
UM, SO IS THERE, IF THERE IS AN A D A HEIGHT, UM, REQUIREMENT, UH, STIPULATED, THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE GIVE 'EM WITH REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE OF SIGNAGE, CORRECT.
DONALD, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER THAT? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? CARE THAT, SO THE WAY THIS WORKS IS YOU WOULD SUBMIT, IF THEY SPEND $50,000 OR MORE, THEY WOULD SUBMIT FOR A TASK INSPECTION UNDER THE, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE U D C C AS FAR BACK AS I BELIEVE, 2000.
THEY HAVE AN EXEMPTION WHERE THE CITY DOESN'T INSPECT FOR A D A, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR SIDEWALK, THEY THEORETICALLY COULD BE UNDER THE, ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE U D C.
BUT WILL THEY NOTICE IT? I DON'T KNOW.
WHEN WE DO, WHEN WE DO A D A INSPECTIONS FOR THE STATE, WE, WE DON'T TOUCH CITY RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE IT'S, THEY'RE NOT THE LANDOWNER.
WE CAN ONLY, THE, THE TASK INSPECTION IS ONLY IS IN THE REALM OF WHO THE OWNER IS.
SO, UH, IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY TO NOTICE IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE RENDERING IS THE LARGER, THE NINE FOOT, NINE SQUARE FOOT, UM, BUT JUST UNDER THE CANOPY INSTEAD OF ABOVE THE CANOPY.
EVEN IN YOUR RENDERING, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE DOOR OPENING INTO THE SIGN, BUT I KNOW IT'S JUST A PHOTOSHOP THING CLOSE AS WE COULD GET
CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO STUDY IF YOU EVEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ADDITIONAL SIZE SIGN THAT YOU HAVE A D A BASIC FUNCTIONALITY OF A DOOR TO WORK WITH AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES INTO THAT STREETS SCAPE.
UM, WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGN IN TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NOBODY SIGNED UP.
MR. EFF, DID YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING WORDS YOU WANNA MAKE OR? NO, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND EFFORT AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOU.
UM, WELL, WE'LL CLOSE THIS CASE AND LOOKING FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
[00:55:03]
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 2, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A FOUR FOOT NINE, 4.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT FIVE SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW A TENANT SIGN TO BE 9.9 SQUARE FEET.UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I KEEP, KEEP GOING.
UH, WITHIN THE, UH, SOUTH PRESA, SOUTH ST.
MARY'S STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT SITUATED AT 8 1 2 SOUTH AMOS STREET, APPLICANT BEING MARSHALL, UH, A FAN OF, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY PRESERVING THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THIS COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RELOCATE A SIGN OR, UM, SO ACTUALLY IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE SIGN SIZE.
UH, THESE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THEY'RE UNLIKELY TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
LITTLE ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE OWNER TO PLACE THE, UH, PROPOSED SIGN AS DESIGNATED APPROVED, UH, AS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD MIRROR THE INTENT OF THE NCD ONE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN A STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW.
THE INTENT OF THE N C D IS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO, UH, INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ARE UNLIKELY TO DISTRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THESE REQUESTS WOULD NOT INJURE, UH, THE RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, NOR WILL THEY DISTRACT FROM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE PLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE CONDITION THIS, THE ISSUES FACED BY THE APPLICANT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO VARY FROM SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO ALLOW A PERMIT TO BE ISSUED, UH, WITHIN THE PROPOSED SIGN DESIGN AND A MOTION.
MOTION AND A SECOND FROM MR. ORIAN.
UM, OKAY, WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD.
SO I, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE SIGNAGE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE'S, UM, YOU KNOW, AT AND T IS, IS IS A KNOWN PRODUCT AND I THINK THAT THEY'LL DO A GOOD JOB OF, OF CREATING THEIR SIGN AND MAKING SURE THAT IT STAYS OUT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWS ALL THE, THE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY.
I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ABOVE THE, UH, THE CANOPY 'CAUSE UM, UM, ANYWAYS, END MOTION.
UM, WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE AT AND T SIGN IS GONNA BE MORE RECTANGULAR THAN SQUARE.
UH, AND AS LONG AS, UM, AND THE APPLICANT FEELS COMFORTABLE THAT IT'S GONNA MEET THE 80 INCH, UH, HEAD CLEARANCE, UH, IF IT WAS UNDER THE CANOPY.
SO I'M IN, I'M IN SUPPORT AS THE MOTION HAS READ.
COULD, COULD PORTION TWO OF THE VARIANCE BE RESTATED? JUST SO I UNDERSTAND I'VE GOT THE LANGUAGE CORRECT.
SORRY, IN THE MOTION YOU MEAN? I, I IF IT JUST COULD BE RESTATED, SO, OR REPEAT BACK SO I MAKE SURE I'VE GOT THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANGUAGE.
SO I SCRATCHED THE FIRST POINT AND THE SECOND POINT WAS A TENANT SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE.
UM, LET'S SEE, OH, I'M SORRY, SCRATCH TWO KEPT ONE.
UM, A 4.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM DESIGN STANDARD TO ALLOW A TENANT SIGN TO BE 9.9 SQUARE FEET AND NO SPECIFICATION AS TO LOCATION.
SO THE EXTENT OF THE MOTION IS JUST DEALING WITH THE SIZE THE APPLICANT STATED THEY WERE OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT THE VARIANCE ON THE LOCATION BEING ABOVE.
SO BY THE APPLICANT DOING THAT, IF THIS MOTION PASSES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE N C D RULE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT SIGN TO BE HUNG BENEATH THE CANOPY.
SO THERE'S NO MOTION TO THAT EFFECT AT ALL.
IT JUST LEAVES IT BACK TO THE N C D.
[01:00:03]
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, NONE.I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
TERELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. NEFF AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, HEARING 11 IN FAVOR ZERO AGAINST THIS MOTION PASSES.
UH, GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT AND STAFF CAN TALK TO YOU IN THE HALLWAY ABOUT YOUR NEXT STEPS.
[3. 19-8516 BOA-19-10300131: A request by Justin Kim for 1) a special exception to allow a privacy fence to be up to 6’ tall in the front yard, and 2) a variance from the restriction of corrugated metal as a fencing material to allow for its use as fencing, located at 1226 Wyoming Street. Staff recommends Approval of the special exception and Denial of the variance. (Council District 2) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department) (Part 1 of 2)]
THANK YOU.LET'S GO AHEAD INTO THE NEXT CASE.
BOA 19 103 0 0 1 3 1 IS AT 1226 WYOMING STREET.
THE REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD AND A VARIANCE FROM THE RESTRICTION OF CORRUGATED METAL AS FENCING MATERIAL TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE THE PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED AS THREE STORY DUPLEXES IN TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS TO WYOMING STREET, BUT BOTH BUILDINGS FACE EAST TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE CREATING SPACES THAT FUNCTION AS REAR YARDS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING BUILDINGS.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE WAS INCLUDED ON PLAN SUBMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
HOWEVER, THE HEIGHT WAS NOT PERMITTED IN THE PERMIT DUE TO THE REQUIRED SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED THE METAL ON THE SHORTER FENCE AS A LAST MINUTE ADDITION AND WAS UNAWARE THAT THIS WAS A RESTRICTED MATERIAL.
THE ADDITION OF THE MATERIAL CHANGED THE FENCE TO BE MORE THAN 70% SOLID WITH HEIGHT RANGING FROM THREE TO FOUR FEET.
THE SECOND FENCE, A PRIVACY FENCE, IS SIX FOOT TALL AND IS CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY OF WOOD.
UPON VISIT TO THE SITE STAFF NOTED THAT THE METAL EDGES ON THE FRONT FENCE WERE VERY SHARP AND NOT PROTECTED.
STAFF ALSO NOTED THAT THE FRONT YARD SLOPES DOWNWARD CREATING UNEVEN ELEVATION AND THAT NO PORTION OF THE FENCE OBSTRUCTS THE CLEAR VISION AREA AROUND THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, HERE IS THE SITE PLAN, A LITTLE, UH, CONSTRICTED, BUT THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE, THIS IS WYOMING STREET.
THE FENCE THAT IS SHORT WITH THE METAL EDGING IS ALONG THIS DASHED LINE HERE AND ALONG THE, UH, SIDE OVER HERE.
AND THEN THE SOLID RED IS THE WOOD FENCE THAT SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OBJECT PROPERTY COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR, CHAIR.
AS FAR AS A NOTIFICATION AREA, IT APPEARS THAT YOU FALL WITHIN 200 FEET.
SO I HAVE AN ALAN CHRISTOPHER NEFF AT 1315 WYOMING STREET.
I HAVE THREE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND THAT'S WHAT I NOTIFIED YOURSELF OF A WEEK PRIOR ASKING THAT QUESTION.
UH, YEAH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS, UH, INFORMATION SENT ON A, AN ETHICS OPINION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED THAT.
NO, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE OTHER THAN KAT SAYING SHE FORWARDED IT ON TO CITY ATTORNEY.
THERE WAS A, UH, ETHICS OPINION THAT WAS SENT BASICALLY STATING THAT, UH, WE WERE ADVISING YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
THEN IF I'M REQUIRED TO RECUSE MYSELF, I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MY COMMENTS ON THIS CASE AS A NEIGHBOR WITHIN BEING WITHIN THE 200 FEET AREA,
[01:05:13]
IS WHY I BROUGHT THIS UP A WEEK OR MORE AGO.UM, SO IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN TABLE THIS ONE, GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
HE NEEDS TO, UH, CONFIRM WITH THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS CASE AFTER THE NEXT ONE.
SO WE'LL, DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THIS OR JUST STATE WE'RE TABLING THIS TO NO, WE'RE JUST TABLING THIS RIGHT NOW.
[4. 19-8515 BOA-19-10300129: A request by Sandra Hernandez for 1) a 2' variance from the 5' side and rear setback requirement to allow an accessory detached dwelling unit to be 3' away from the side and rear property lines, and 2) a 20 square feet variance from the 40% footprint limitation of the principal residence to allow an accessory detached dwelling unit to be 506 square feet, located at 131 E Lambert. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 5) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
LET'S START UP THE NEXT CASE.THE APPLICANT IS SANDRA HERNANDEZ.
THE REQUEST IS ONE A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE SITE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES INTO A 20 SQUARE FEET VARIANCE FROM THE 40% FOOTPRINT LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE 506 SQUARE FEET.
THE ZONING IS R SIX AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CONVERT A 500 AND SQUARE FEET DETACHED GARAGE INTO A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
THE PRIMARY DWELLING IS A ONE STORY HOME CONSTRUCTED A 1938 PER BCA RECORDS.
THE DETACHED GARAGE HAS REMAINED 500 SQUARE FEET, 506 SQUARE FEET SINCE BUILT ON OCTOBER.
CODE ENFORCEMENT IN OCTOBER, CODE ENFORCEMENT GAVE A CITATION FOR WORKING WITHOUT PERMITS.
UPON VISIT TO THE SITE, STAFF NOTICED THAT THERE WERE TWO BEDROOMS CONSTRUCTED AND THE DETACHED DWELLING UNIT AND INFORMED THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT RESPONDED BY REMOVING THE CLOSET AS REFLECTED IN THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU'LL SEE.
AND THIS IS THE, UM, FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS THE PORTION THAT'S IN RED, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL SQUARE FOOT, 506 SQUARE FEET OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES IN BO A 1903 1 29 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT THAT EXISTED FOR YEARS WITH NO REGISTERED COMPLAINTS, THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WE MAILED 29 NOTICES, RECEIVED NONE IN FAVOR IN O OPPOSITION, AND HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ORIAN UH, DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS, UH, MODIFIED GARAGE, THERE APPEARS TO BE A, MAYBE A SHED OR ANOTHER STRUCTURE REALLY, REALLY CLOSE TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FAR OFF THAT IS? I DO NOT, BUT THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? NO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY.
HI, I AM SANDRA HERNANDEZ AND MY PROPERTY IS 1 3 1 EAST LAMBERT STREET.
UM, I'M SEEKING THIS, IT'S CALLED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, UM, TO HELP THE SPACE WITHIN MY HOME WITH MY FAMILY.
UH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU NEEDED A PERMIT, SO I'M COMPLETELY NEW TO THIS PROCESS, SO I APOLOGIZE MY FOR NOT DOING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, IT'S AN EXISTING INSTRUCTOR THAT'S BEEN THERE THE WHOLE TIME.
UM, WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR MORE SPACE, SO WE THOUGHT WE COULD CONVERT THIS AND UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT TODAY.
WE WERE, WE DIDN'T KNOW YOU IF YOU WANTED TO REZONE.
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT EITHER.
AND SO WE REMOVED ONE OF THEM.
UM, 'CAUSE WE ONLY WANNA KEEP IT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UM, THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE, THE
[01:10:01]
SHED THING THAT YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT IN THE BACK HAS BEEN LIKE ABANDONED FOR YEARS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY USE IT FOR.KIND OF LIKE JUNK ESSENTIALLY.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR HERE TODAY.
UM, AND MY COUSIN'S, UH, ARCHITECT AT U T S A AND HE'S LEARNING AND THIS IS LIKE, HE'S HELPING THE FAMILY TO TRY TO DO IT.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS?
YEAH, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORING YARD.
'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO SEE, UH, HOW CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S, THERE'S A GOOD FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FAR AWAY THE, THAT ABANDONED, UH, SHED IS ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? IS IT A FOOT, TWO FEET ON THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S PROBABLY LIKE FROM THE WALL, LIKE FROM HERE TO THE WALL I THINK.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE IN THE BACK, RIGHT? YEAH, DIRECTLY BEHIND THE THIS, UM, MODIFIED.
SO IT'D BE LIKE FROM HERE TO THAT WALL, MAYBE MAX.
UM, THE, IT, THE AERIAL REFLECTS IT TO BE BASICALLY ON THE FENCE LINE.
OH, WELL THERE'S LIKE ROOM BETWEEN MINE AND THEN THERE'S ROOM BETWEEN THE SHED AND THEN THERE'S THE SHED.
AND THEN, UH, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE GARAGE WAS BUILT? LIKE 19 SOMETHING? IT WAS WHENEVER THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS BUILT.
YEAH, I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN BCA THAT HAD 1938 FOR THE ORIGINAL HOME.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS, HAD BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.
AND THEN WHEN YOU MODIFIED THIS, DID YOU ADJUST THE ROOF PITCH AT ALL OR IS IT MAINTAINED THE SAME DRAINAGE PATTERNS IT HAD BEFORE? YEAH, I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH THE ROOF, SO IT'S GONNA REMAIN, REMAIN WHATEVER IS YOU GUYS ADVISE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? KEANO? GO AHEAD MR. KEANU LOOKING AT THE, YOU, YOU THE SIDE.
I NOTICED, UH, AND I THINK, UH, MY, SOMEONE ELSE BROUGHT THIS UP AS FAR AS THE, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, THE PITCH IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE, UH, DRAINING INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT DOING SOME KIND OF, UM, OH, WELL, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? GUTTERS? YEAH, GUTTERS.
'CAUSE THAT'S, OTHERWISE YOU'RE GONNA BE PUTTING WATER IN THE, THE OTHER NEIGHBOR'S.
YEAH, WE CAN PUT GUTTERS IF THAT'S WHAT I, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IF YOU RECOMMEND THAT, THEN WE'LL PUT THE GUTTERS.
SO YEAH, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT, THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE THE FENCE, THE WOODEN FENCE IS YOUR NEIGHBOR'S, CORRECT? UH, YES.
SO AND THEN THE STEEL FENCE IS YOURS, CORRECT? YES.
SO YOU, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE SOME WAY TO MITIGATE THE, YOU KNOW, THE WATER GOING IN INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
ARE THE GUTTERS JUST LIKE THE ONE INCH THING THAT YOU PUT ON THE SIDES? ARE THOSE WOOD GUTTERS IN? THEY SHOULD BE A GUTTER.
SO THAT WAY IT DRYS OUT, SO THERE WERE, THAT WAY IT'LL DRAIN OUT ONTO THE DRIVEWAY AND DRAIN AWAY.
THIS, THIS STRUCTURE WAS ALREADY HERE.
CORRECT? YOU DIDN'T CONSTRUCT THAT ROOF, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO MODIFY WHAT'S ON THE INSIDE.
SO IS ELLI KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, UM, HOW'S THE WATER DRAINING OFF THE ROOF RIGHT NOW? WHERE DOES IT GO? I THINK JUST LIKE TO THE SIDE.
I MEAN, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY COMPLAINTS FROM MY NEIGHBORS THAT THE WATER'S LIKE POURING DOWN ON THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
ORIENT, UH, WHERE IS THE AN AC UNIT GONNA GO? I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHAT END OF THE PICTURES.
ARE YOU GONNA USE A WALL MOUNTED? UH, WE WERE THINKING TO DO THE, LIKE EUROPEAN STYLE ONES 'CAUSE IT'S CHEAPER.
I'M LEARNING HERE, BUT YEAH, I GUESS.
ANYBODY ELSE? MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR, NO, THANK YOU.
ANYTHING SELLING POINTS? WE NEED MORE SPACE.
WE'LL CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 29, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIRED TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.
AND TWO, A 20 FOOT SQUARE VARIANCE FROM THE 40% FOOTPRINT LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE, TO BE 5 0 6 0 506
[01:15:01]
SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT 1 3 1 EAST LAMBERT STREET, APPLICANT BEING SANDRA HERNANDEZ.BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE HAS, IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONTRARY.
SPECIFICALLY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS EXISTED FOR YEARS IN THAT LOCATION AND THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN IN TO THE SIZE.
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE PROVIDES ENOUGH CLEARANCE TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, MAINTAIN STORM WATER RUNOFF ON SITE, AND ALLOW LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASSING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A SPECIAL, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE THAT THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITHIN THE SETBACK MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, ACCORDING TO GOOGLE EARTH, AND THE APPLICANT IS ONLY SEEKING TO CONVERT THE STRUCTURE TO AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO ALTER THE SIZE OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND OR MOVE THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
STAFF FINDS THAT THIS VARIANCE OBSERVES THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY ALLOWING FOR ADEQUATE LIGHT SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE AND STORMWATER RUNOFF AND MAINTAINS ADEQUATE DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE INJURED BY THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE AS THERE WILL NOT BE ANY CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OR THE SIZE OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SITUATED SIMILARLY NEAR THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXISTS ON THE SITE IN THE CURRENT, UM, PLACEMENT, NOT BY THE WORK OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE OWNER WISHES TO CONVERT THE STRUCTURE TO AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT IN ITS CURRENT PLACEMENT.
THE CIRCUMSTANCE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IS NOT A RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITION IN THE DISTRICT, NOR IS IT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
WHO WAS THE SECOND EO? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD.
YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
I MEAN, THIS IS WHERE THE, THE, UM, STRUCTURE WAS AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES.
AND SHE'S SIMPLY, UM, RE DOING SOME WORK ON IT SO THAT SHE AND HER FAMILY CAN HAVE SOME MORE SPACE.
UM, AND, AND THAT JUST SEEMS VERY REASONABLE.
THE CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, WATER DRAIN, WATER RUNOFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF SHE HASN'T EXPERIENCED THEM THUS FAR, I DON'T IMAGINE WHAT SHE'S DOING ON THE INSIDE IS GONNA CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. SO I WISH HER WELL ON THIS WORK.
SHE'S NOT ALTERING ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ALREADY THERE.
SHE'S WORKING ON THE INSIDE OF HER PROPERTY TO MAKE AN EXTRA DWELLING UNIT.
UM, SHE DIDN'T REALIZE SHE NEEDED TO GET A PERMIT AND SHE'S GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS AND I THINK THAT, UM, WE, WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS AND I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
ANYBODY ELSE? ORIAN, ORIAN, GO AHEAD.
UH, I'M GONNA ALSO BE IN SUPPORT.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF IT BEING OPEN ON ONE COMPLETE SIDE AND HAVE A DIMINISHING FROM THE FIVE FOOT TO THE THREE FOOT IN THE REAR.
AND THERE ALSO IS, UM, ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE? I'LL JUST COMMENT.
I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL, THEY DIDN'T REALLY TEACH US MUCH ABOUT PULLING PERMITS.
SO HE JUST LEARNED HIS, UH, LESSON ON THIS ONE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND HOPEFULLY HE'LL REMEMBER THROUGHOUT HIS LONG SUCCESSFUL CAREER TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO PULL PERMITS.
[01:20:01]
WE'LL CLOSE THIS.LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
YES, I CONCUR MR. NEFF AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT MAKES IT UNANIMOUS.
WITH 11 IN FAVOR, ZERO AGAINST THIS, UH, MOTION PASSES AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND FINISHING THAT OUT AND STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON GOING FORWARD.
SO WHAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR, WHAT? WE'LL, A TAKE A QUICK BREAK IF WE, WE'LL, FOR THE CASE, WE'LL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BATHROOM BREAK AND DISCUSS THIS.
LET'S EVERYBODY HAVE OUR SEAT CALL THIS BREAK TO AN END.
[3. 19-8516 BOA-19-10300131: A request by Justin Kim for 1) a special exception to allow a privacy fence to be up to 6’ tall in the front yard, and 2) a variance from the restriction of corrugated metal as a fencing material to allow for its use as fencing, located at 1226 Wyoming Street. Staff recommends Approval of the special exception and Denial of the variance. (Council District 2) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department) (Part 2 of 2)]
AND I AM, UH, BEING TOLD BY THE CITY THAT I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF BECAUSE I'M A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION FOR THIS CASE.SO I WILL BE RECUSING AND STEPPING OUT OF THE ROOM AND MR. ORIAN WILL BE OUR BOARD CHAIR.
IN THE MEANTIME, CHAIR, UM, I'M GONNA HAVE MR. DELMER, ONE OF OUR ALTERNATES COME IN AND SIT.
SO WE'LL HAVE HIM SEATED UP THERE.
I'LL BE, UH, TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRING, TO BRING OFF THE TABLE, UM, CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 31.
THE CASE BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 3 1 IS AT 1226 WYOMING WING STREET.
THE REQUESTS ARE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND A VARIANCE FROM THE RESTRICTION OF CORRUGATED METAL IS FENCING MATERIAL TO ALLOW FOR THE USE.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE.
THE PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED AS THREE, TWO STORY DUPLEXES AND TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
THE PROPERTY'S FRONT WYOMING STREET, BUT BOTH BUILDINGS FACE EAST TOWARDS THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, ALLOWING THE OTHER SIDE TO FUNCTION AS A REAR YARD.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE WAS INCLUDED ON PLAN SUBMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
HOWEVER, THE HEIGHT WAS NOT PERMITTED DUE TO THE, THE REQUIRED SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED THE METAL ON THE SHORTER FENCE AS A LAST MINUTE ADDITION, AND THE ADDITION OF THAT MATERIAL CHANGED THE FENCE TO BE MORE THAN 70% SOLID, WHICH IS ALSO THREE TO FOUR RANGES FROM THREE TO FOUR FEET TALL.
THE SECOND FENCE ACTS AS A PRIVACY FENCE AND IS SIX FEET TALL UPON VISIT TO THE SITE STAFF NOTED THE METAL EDGES WERE VERY SHARP AND NOT PROTECTED.
STAFF ALSO NOTED THE FRONT YARD SLOPES DOWNWARD CREATING UNEVEN ELEVATION AND THAT NO PORTION OF THE FENCE OBSTRUCTS THE CLEAR VISION AROUND THE DRIVEWAY.
THE SITE PLAN, THE RED DASH LINE BEING THE FENCE THAT HAS THE METAL, THE CORRUGATED METAL, AND THE RED SOLID LINE BEING THE SIX FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE THAT IS THE PRI FENCE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DAF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 3 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE MATERIALS NOT USED WITH SAFETY IN MIND.
THE MATERIALS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN
[01:25:01]
BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 1 3 1.BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS PROVIDING PRIVACY AND SECURITY.
THE FENCE DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS.
THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR ROYAL OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WE MAILED 30 NOTICES RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FOR THE FROM THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, BEFORE WE OPEN THIS TO QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO ASK, UH, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OTHER RESPONSES, UH, BETWEEN THE MAIL OUT AND TODAY? NO.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS? ANA, GO AHEAD.
SO THE, UH, THE FRONT YARD FACING, UM, SO THE SIDE FENCE STOPS AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, SO THAT'S NOT IN CONSIDERATION AT THIS CASE.
IT'S JUST A FENCE THAT'S, UH, COMES OUT FROM THE, UH, TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S BOTH FENCES FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT IS, IS THAT THE QUESTION? SO THE ONE ON THE SIDE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO, SO DOES THAT, UM, SO AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, DOES IT STOP AT THE FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING? SO, SO THE SIDE SIDE FENCING WE ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT BECAUSE IT STOPS AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY OR FRONT OF THE HOUSING.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE SIDE YARD ON, LET ME SCROLL BACK HERE.
SO IT'S ODD BECAUSE IT'S THE SIDE, BUT IT'S THE FRONT, SO THE ONE THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO THIS PORTION IS INCLUDED FOR THE HEIGHT.
SO THAT IS AT THE SIX FOOT, THEN THAT IS AT FOUR FEET.
BUT SINCE IT'S MORE THAN 70% SOLID YES.
SO IF THE METAL THAT WA WAS IN THE, CAN YOU SHOW THE PICTURE OF THE SIDE FENCE? THE ONE GOING RIGHT THERE.
SO IF THAT THOSE METAL SHEETS ARE REMOVED, DOES THAT FENCE THEN BECOME OPEN, OPEN ENOUGH THAT SO THEN IT WOULDN'T? YES.
I THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK WITHOUT
IT WOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
UM, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IS 70%.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, AND I, AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAD ALREADY CLARIFIED THIS, BUT FROM MY OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, YOU HAVE A A SIX FOOT TALL WOOD FENCE THAT'S PROTECTING A SIDE PORCH THAT IS RIGHT BEHIND IN PARALLEL WITH THE FENCE IN QUESTION WITH THE METAL.
UH, IS THAT FENCE, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE AS A SIDE YARD FENCE TO THE FACING OF THE HOME OR NOT? IT'S CONSIDERED BY ORDINANCE A FRONT YARD FENCE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY'S ADDRESSED, IF THAT'S OKAY.
THE REASON WHY 'CAUSE IT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO DUPLEXES FACING THAT WAY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY SORT OF AN EXCEPTION FOR THAT.
NO, THERE'S NO EXCEPTION FOR THAT.
ULTIMATELY, IT'S STILL THE FRONT YARD.
SO THE EXCEPTION THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP TODAY ACTUALLY COVERS THE SMALLER FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AS WELL AS THAT FENCE.
SO THE ONE EXCEPTION COVERS BOTH.
HI, I'M SCOTT CASON, URBAN HOME CREATORS.
I WORK TYPICALLY WITH INVESTORS.
SIR, WE NEED YOUR, UH, WE NEED YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
2111 QUAIL RUN, SAN MARCUS, TEXAS.
I'M REPRESENTING JUSTIN KIM OF E H A HOLDINGS.
HE'S ONE OF MY INVESTORS THAT I BROUGHT TO SAN ANTONIO FROM THE AUSTIN AREA.
UM, AND FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE DUPLEX.
UH, WE CONSIDER THAT NECESSARY FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.
UM, THE OCCUPANTS THAT BOUGHT THAT UNIT, UH, HAVE ALREADY HAD THEIR CAR KEYED AND THEY'VE HAD A SHOOTING RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM 'EM.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BIG ISSUE AND WE DO NOT WANNA GO BACK TO THE OWNER AND SAY, WE NEED TO LOWER YOUR FENCE ON THE SIDE.
AND AGAIN, THIS WAS APPROVED, UH, APPARENTLY MISTAKENLY IN REVIEW.
NOTHING WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT NEEDING A VARIANCE AT THE TIME.
SO WE PROCEEDED AND BUILT THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND THE STREET FRONTAGE.
UH, ADMITTEDLY THE, THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE ALONG, UH, THE PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE, UM, WAS A LAST MINUTE AD.
[01:30:01]
FAR AS THE VARIANCE ON THE MATERIAL, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I, I KIND OF QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE ACTUAL FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THAT THEY STATED THE MATERIAL WAS NOT USED WITH SAFETY IN MIND.UH, UM, I THINK THERE, UM, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT ANY MATERIAL USED CAN BE DANGEROUS, CAN CAUSE HARM.
CEDAR FENCING, YOU CAN GET SPLINTERS ON.
UM, IN FACT, THREE OF THE PICTURES THAT STAFF BROUGHT UP OF THE NEIGHBORS, THERE'S CHAIN LINK FENCING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S A TWIST WIRE, HAS TWO SHARP DAGGER POINTS AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE.
IT WAS INSTALLED INTENTIONALLY TO CREATE HARM.
UM, NEXT DOOR I HAVE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITH SIMILAR SPIKES AS WHAT THIS FLAGPOLE HAS ON TOP.
AGAIN, THAT IS WITH THE INTENT OF CAUSING HARM.
THE FENCE THAT I DESIGNED HERE WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CAUSE HARM.
NOW GRANTED, THE SHEET METAL CAN CAUSE CUTS IF YOU ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY GO UP AND MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT I'M GONNA GRAB THAT FENCE.
I CAN PROTECT THAT WITH, WITH EDGE PROTECTIVE SLEEVES THAT THEY MAKE FOR SHEET METAL.
UM, BUT I, AGAIN, I QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT ITEM ONE IS ACTUALLY A FINDING OF FACT.
UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE MATERIALS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDED COMMUNITY.
UH, YOU CAN DRIVE LESS THAN 60 SECONDS FROM THE PROJECT AND FIND THREE FENCES WITH SHEET METAL.
USED LARGE PANELS OF SHEET METAL.
IN FACT, ONE OF THE FENCES IS EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG PINE STREET.
UH, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN APPROVED MATERIAL FOR THAT PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT COMMENT IS A SUBJECTIVE OPINION AND NOT A FACT.
UM, WE'RE DEALING WITH AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S PART OF A REGENERATION AREA.
UH, THE EAST SIDE HAS TO BE REBUILT, IT'S FALLING APART.
THIS IS A NATURAL PROCESS IN THE URBAN, UH, IN THE URBAN CYCLE.
EVERYTHING STARTS AT THE CENTER.
IT GROWS OUT TO THE SUBURBS, THE CENTER FALLS APART.
I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS IN AUSTIN.
I WORKED IN AUSTIN FOR 10 YEARS, WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN REBUILDING THE EAST SIDE OF AUSTIN.
UM, SO TO SAY THAT IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER I THINK IS A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT IN ITSELF.
IT'S ALSO EXTREMELY MYOPIC BECAUSE IT IS NOT LOOKING AT THE FORWARD ADVANCEMENT OF THE EAST SIDE AND THE REBUILDING OF THE EAST SIDE AND WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN THERE AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
UM, SO I MEAN, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FENCE, IT'S NOT AN UGLY FENCE.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET, CHAINLINK FENCE, BE AWARE OF DOG PIT BULL CHAINED UP RIGHT BEHIND THE FENCE.
UM, UH, I, I WOULD HOPE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE METAL ON THE FENCE WITH, AGAIN, INSTALLING PROTECTIVE SLEEVES ON THE EDGES BECAUSE WE DO FEEL THAT THE PROJECT DOES ADD VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT HAS BEEN THE INTENT WITH SAN ANTONIO GRANTING, SAY THE I D Z ZONING, THE ICRP PROGRAM, ALL THAT WAS INCENTIVE TO BRING INVESTORS IN AND REBUILD THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
AND YOU CAN'T REALLY DETERMINE HOW THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
IN MAJORITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IT IS GONNA BE BASICALLY MODERN DESIGN.
SO IF MY FENCE DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NEITHER DOES MY BUILDING THE BUILDING'S MUCH LARGER THAN THE FENCE.
BUT WE HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS.
ALL WE'VE HAD IS COMPLIMENTS ON WHAT WE'VE DONE ALONG THAT STREET AND ON ON THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT I'VE WORKED IN THE AREA.
SO, LIKE I SAY, I WOULD HOPE WE'D BE ABLE TO COME TO A COMPROMISE ON THIS AND BE ABLE TO PUT PROTECTIVE SLEEVING AND TAKE THE SAFETY ISSUE OUT OF, OUT OF THE PICTURE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ELLI, GO AHEAD.
SO WHY NOT HA WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THE PROTECTIVE SLEEVE ON THE FENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE? UM, I'VE DONE THIS TYPE OF FENCE IN AUSTIN MANY TIMES AND IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE.
LIKE I SAY, THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY HURT YOURSELF, YOU HAVE TO GO UP AND PHYSICALLY TRY TO HURT YOURSELF.
YOU CAN DO THAT ON A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN DO IT ON THE WOODEN FENCE BEHIND THERE.
WITH SPLINTERS, YOU CAN RUB YOUR HAND LIKE THAT, THAT, AND YOU CAN GET SPLINTERS AND HURT YOURSELF.
[01:35:01]
COMPARED TO WHAT IS NEXT DOOR ACROSS THE STREET.AND THE ACTUALLY THE TWISTED CHAIN LINK WIRE THAT I TALK ABOUT THAT IS 50% OF THE FENCES, THE CHAIN LINK FENCING ON THE EAST SIDE AND THROUGHOUT SAN ANTONIO, THAT IT WAS INSTALLED THAT WAY INTENTIONALLY TO CAUSE HARM.
THIS WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY TO CAUSE HARM.
THIS WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM CROSSING THE FENCE.
THIS IS PURELY AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE.
SO IT'S PURELY COSMETIC AT THIS POINT.
THAT METAL PART IS PURELY COSMETIC.
SERVES NO PURPOSE BEYOND THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT SAFETY IN MIND.
'CAUSE YOU DIDN'T PUT THE SLEEVE IN, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND IN FACT THEN DECIDED THAT THAT WAS JUST GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING.
UM, AGAIN, ANY MATERIAL WE USE CAN BE, YOU CAN SAY THAT ABOUT THERE.
ANYONE ELSE? KEANU? YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT IT AND, AND IT'S REAL PRETTY MM-HMM.
SO, UM, I THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVED.
I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF SOME YOUNG KID WALKING BY JUST RUNNING HIS HAND ALONG THE FENCE AND THEN SLICING HIS HAND OPEN.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.
I'M SURE YOU'VE DONE IT IN AUSTIN, BUT AUSTIN HAS THEIR OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SAN ANTONIO JUST DOES NOT ALLOW THE COATED IRON WORK.
IT JUST DOESN'T, UH, ANYONE ELSE? MANANA.
SO, SO I GUESS SO ESTABLISH THAT IT'S AESTHETICS IS, IS IS WHAT'S DRIVING, HAVING THE METAL THERE AND, BUT YOU KNOW, IT DOES MAKE, IT DOES CHANGE IT FROM BEING A, UH, PRIMARILY OPEN FENCE TO A CLOSED FENCE.
AND SO, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, SO, SO THAT'S A CHALLENGE I THINK JUST IN, IN AND OF ITSELF IS MAKING IT A, YOU KNOW, A A UH, CLOSED FENCE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, I GUESS THE CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE, IS THE UPPER STORY ONE.
AND SO, SO YOU KNOW THAT, THAT ONE I DO AGREE DOES PROVIDE THE PI THE PRIVACY AND SO, SO I THINK THAT ONE PROBABLY DOES WORK TO BE APPROPRIATE.
BUT I DO HAVE A CHALLENGE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, WITH THE LOWER FENCE, NOT NOT BEING OPEN.
SO, AND DRIVING DOWN THIS, DRIVING DOWN THIS STREET, I WENT UP AND DOWN IT AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHERS THAT WERE CLOSED.
UH, THERE WAS ONE BRICK ONE, BUT IT WAS A SHORTER BRICK ONE, BUT IT WAS WAY FURTHER DOWN.
BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT APPEARS TO BE CLOSED AS WELL, SO, WELL, I CAN, I COULD KEEP CO COMPLIANCE BUSY FOR ABOUT A YEAR WITH A, A QUICK DRIVE BY THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON, ON THE FENCING ISSUE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RAGMAN? RAGMAN, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO THERE'S A PROPERTY DOWN IN THE CORNER OF PINETT AND WYOMING, WHICH IS JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY, WHICH LOOKS, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION AS WELL.
IT'S, IT'S ALSO GOT A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AROUND MOST OF IT, BUT IN THE FRONT YARD IT HAS A SIMILAR HEIGHT FENCE TO YOURS.
UM, AND INSTEAD OF THE CORRUGATED METAL, IT'S GOT, UM, FULL WIRE, RIGHT? WOULD THAT BE AN OPTION? UM, MORE THAN LIKELY YOUR, IT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE, UM, 70% ABILITY.
IT'S, IT'S NOT A LONG-TERM DURABLE PRODUCT AS FAR AS FENCING GOES.
UH, THERE'S NO WAY TO SECURE IT PROPERLY.
UH, OUR, ACTUALLY, WHAT WE'LL DO ON THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT GRANTED THEN WE WILL, WE WILL PULL THAT OFF AND WE'LL PUT CEDAR FENCE.
UM, LIKE I SAY, IT'S, IT'S AN AESTHETIC THING AND, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN AUSTIN WITH OUR PROJECTS, WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON LANDSCAPE AND THE FENCING IS PART OF LANDSCAPE AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT BRINGS THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK TO WHERE IT USED TO BE AND IT MAKES THE NEIGHBORS PROUD TO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGAIN AND PEOPLE START CLEANING UP THEIR YARDS.
IT'S, IT'S REALLY, UH, THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHAT I DO, UH, THAT I GET SATISFACTION FROM, UH, AS WHEN WE DO GO INTO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE FALLEN APART AND THEN PEOPLE START TAKING PRIDE AGAIN IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, OKAY.
UH, ON ONE OF THE PICTURES, YOU'RE FIXING THIS OF THE POST WITH THE SINGLE OF BOLT OR SCREW IN THE CENTER.
AND WHERE I HAVE ISSUE WITH THAT IS, IS THAT, I MEAN, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE EASILY BENT BACK LEAVING EXPOSED CORNERS.
[01:40:01]
AND SO I'M, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO, UH, UM, ADDRESS THAT? AND SECONDLY, DO YOU HAVE A, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING THESE SCOOTERS, UH, NEAR THIS FACILITY? UM, AND WHERE I'M IN MY LINE OF WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT QUESTION IS, IS THAT, UM, SAFETY, LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, YES, YOU COULD INTENTIONALLY TRY TO HURT YOURSELF BY RUBBING YOUR HAND ON A CEDAR FENCE, BUT IN THIS CASE, UH, BECAUSE THIS METAL FENCE RUNS PARALLEL AND RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK, UM, YOU KNOW, AS ACCIDENTS CAN HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, THE U D C LOOKS AT A METAL FENCE AS AUTOMATICALLY BEING A SAFETY HAZARD UNLESS THERE'S BEEN, UH, ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED TO, TO MAKE OF THEM SAFE.IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR EXPOSED CORNERS, UH, YOU HAVE SHARP EDGES THAT RUN PARALLEL WITH A WALKWAY AND YOU HAVE NOT PUT IN ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THAT AS OF YET.
AND SO, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK ABOUT, UH, IF YOU WERE TO KEEP THIS, WHAT YOU COULD YOU DO TO ALLEVIATE THOSE TWO ISSUES? UH, PRIMARILY TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SINGLE SCREW THAT YOU HAVE HOLDING THESE ON, IT COULD BE SECURED, UH, WITH THREE SCREWS.
UM, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE SCOOTERS, THERE DEFINITELY ARE SCOOTERS ON THE EAST SIDE, ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET, WE ARE THE ONLY RESIDENCE THAT HAS A NEW SIDEWALK.
UH, IT'S ACTUALLY WOULD BE HAZARDOUS TO EVEN WALK DOWN WHAT USED TO BE A SIDEWALK THERE.
BUT WE INSTALLED 60 FEET OF NEW SIDEWALK AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
WELL, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANY, MAY I A QUESTION? YES SIR.
UM, CAN YOU TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH MORE SCREWS AND THEN PLASTIC TUBING TO DO SAFETY SO ALL THE SHARP EDGES ARE COVERED? YES.
THAT, THAT'S, AND THAT'S A RELATIVELY LOW COST.
UH, TO TAKE CARE OF THAT AND AT LEADS THE ARTISTIC ELEMENT, AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT IS AN ARTISTIC ELEMENT.
UM, I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT IT'S GONNA KILL US IF WE HAVE TO REMOVE IT.
UH, IT IS A MODERN ARTISTIC ELEMENT AND AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE PROJECT.
AND BRING UP THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PUTS MY WHOLE PROJECT OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN CONTEXT WITH THE PROJECT, WHICH VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
YOU DON'T PUT A WHITE PIG OF FENCE UP IN FRONT OF A MODERN HOUSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? QUESTION? FAIR? GO AHEAD.
UM, SO, SO THE FRONT OR THE FENCE THAT'S CLOSER TO THE BUILDING IS A SIX FOOT FENCE.
AND IT'S LIKELY, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THAT PORTION OF IT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO STATE TO KEEP IT CLOSE TO THE BUILDING VERSUS BRING IT ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET? 'CAUSE IF WE APPROVE A SIX FOOT FENCE TO THE, ON THE FRONT SIDE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET THEN AT THAT POINT? IT, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CLEAR VISION, UH, STANDARDS.
SO I THINK THAT'S ABOUT 15 FEET BACK FROM THE CURB.
SO THERE WOULD STILL BE THAT, UM, REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A MOTION IS MADE, IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THAT CLARIFICATION IN THE MOTION, THAT'D BE WONDERFUL.
MAYBE JUST AS PRESENTED AS PRESENTED, RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE.
UH, I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO, BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD OUR LINE OF QUESTIONING.
IS THERE ANY, UH, A BRIEF STATEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, UH, TO WRAP IT UP BEFORE WE, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC SESSION HEARING? OH REALLY, NO.
OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR, WHAT OUR GOAL IS WITH OUR PROJECTS AND A LOT OF BUILDERS DON'T SPEND MONEY ON THE LANDSCAPE.
UM, THAT IS PART OF MY DEAL WITH MY INVESTORS.
I USED TO BE IN COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE.
WE PROVIDE A GOOD PRODUCT AND IT, IT DOES ADD VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, GETTING THE EAST SIDE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THE, THE ACTUAL LONG-TERM RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVED ON THE EAST SIDE COMPLIMENT ME ALL THE TIME.
UH, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A MOTION.
UH, BEFORE I DO, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.
UM, WE HAVE A, AN APPLICATION BEFORE US WITH, UH, CORRUGATED METAL, UH, TO BE ALLOWED.
WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THERE COULD BE POTENTIAL TO ADD SAFETY FEATURES TO IT.
IF THIS GETS DENIED TODAY, CAN THE APPLICANT, UM, OFFER UP SAFETY, UH, AND THEN BRING THIS BACK UP? CAN YOU SPEAK ON THAT? IF THERE'S A, A, A REVISED REQUEST THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY FOR, UH, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IT IN THE TWO-STEP MANNER.
ONE TO WAIVE, UH, THE ONE YEAR, UH, RESTRICTION, AND THEN TWO TO CONSIDER THE CASE.
SO IF, IF, IF WE WERE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO, UM, CAN HE TABLE THIS? 'CAUSE HE, THIS IS THIS TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO TABLE THIS AND COME BACK WITH HIS SAFETY FEATURES AND DO IT THAT WAY INSTEAD OF HAVING TO COME BACK AS A NEW APPLICATION? THE BOARD CAN SPLIT THE TWO, UH, REQUESTS.
ONE CAN BE DECIDED ON TODAY AND THE OTHER ONE COULD BE
[01:45:01]
A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE IF THE BOARD WANTS TO.SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN A CONTINUANCE TO PROVIDE US WITH, UH, WHATEVER SAFETY FEATURES YOU WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN YOUR APPLICATION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE FOR, UH, THE USE OF THE METAL? ALRIGHT, WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? ELLI RECOGNIZED REGARDING CASE BO O A DASH 19 DASH 3 3 1.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD AS PRESENTED, SITUATED AT 1 2 2 6 WYOMING STREET APPLICANT BEING JUSTIN KIM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET.
IN ADDITION, FENCE HEIGHT IN, IN THE, UM, IN THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, THE AREA BEHIND THE FENCE, WHILE TECHNICALLY A FRONT YARD IS FUNCTIONING AS A SIDE REAR YARD DUE TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS.
IF GRANTED THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
A SIX FOOT TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
NO, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA RESTATE THAT.
A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AS, UM, BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE FENCE ENHANCES THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF THE SUBJECT.
FURTHER, THE FENCING DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE FENCE PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WHILE ENHANCING A SET, UM, AESTHETICS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT END OF MOTION.
AND JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT'S A SOLID FENCE, RIGHT? I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT IT'S, IT'S FOR THE SOLID FENCE.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, LET'S START THE DISCUSSION.
WHO, WHO PROVIDED THE SECOND BRAGMAN? OKAY, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
YEAH, I, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE SOLID FENCE, UM, IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AND ITS CURRENT HEIGHT.
UM, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO WANT THAT PRIVACY ON THE SIDE, WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SIDE OF THE DWELLING.
AND SO, UM, IT'S, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
MS. BRACKMAN? UH, YES, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH DR.
UH, PLUS IT ADDS THE, UH, SECURITY THAT THE, UM, HOMEOWNERS SEEM TO BE LOOKING FOR.
IS THERE ANY, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BRING DISCUSSION? I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL, UH, FOR THE MOTION AS READ.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, LET'S PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANNA I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A MOTION, UH, ON THE NEXT ITEM, THE USE OF CORRUGATED METAL.
WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT, UM, HE, HE WOULD, HE WOULD ENJOY HAVING A, UH, CONTINUANCE.
DO WE HAVE, IS THERE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE PROOF? WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S A TWO WEEK, UH, CONTINUANCE OR ONE MONTH.
I WHAT DATE DOES THAT PUT US TO? DECEMBER 16TH WOULD BE THE NEXT WOULD BE THAT
[01:50:01]
DATE.MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO DECEMBER 16TH BY MEMBER OF THE BOARD? RUTH.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR A CONTINUANCE.
OKAY, SO ALL THE AYES HAVE IT.
ACTUALLY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL.
IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE A NAY VOTE.
WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THE CONTINUANCE? MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
MR. KEANU NO, I DO NOT CONCUR.
AND WITH A VOTE OF 10 TO ONE MOTION PASSES ALL ON THE NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING IN, UH, THE CHAIR AND THEN, UH, WE'LL SEAT HIM.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT UH, MR. DELMER, UH, EXITED AT 3:09 PM AND MR. NEFF HAS RETURNED AT 3:09 PM HEARD EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT TRUE.
[5. 19-8518 BOA-19-10300136: A request by Cyprian Juma for 1) a 4’ variance from 20’ rear setback requirement to allow a home to be 16’ from the rear property line and 2) a 4’ variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow a home to be 1’ from the side property line, located at 156 Day Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 2) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
OKAY.CASE BO O A 19 100 300 0 1 3 6 AT 1 56 DAY ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS CYPRIAN JUMA.
THE REQUEST IS ONE FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW HOME TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 1952 AFTER THE ORIGINAL ONE STORY HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED.
THE ONE STORY HOME WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1940.
IN 2009, A COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON THE PROPERTY FOR WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT ON A TWO STORY EDITION.
THE UNPERMITTED WORK CONTINUED AT 2010 WHEN ANOTHER STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED BETWEEN 2018 AND 2019.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED AND ONLY THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE REMAINED.
THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT WHO WISHES TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS ONLY SEEKING TO ALLOW THE HOME TO REMAIN IN PLACE WITHIN THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK.
UPON VISIT TO THE SITE STAFF NOTED THAT A PORTION OF THE BUILDING HOUSING THE WATER HEATER ON THE SIDE IS ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE SETBACK.
STAFF ALSO NOTED SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THEIR LOTS.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED HIS INTENT TO REMEDY THE SIDE SETBACK BY REMOVING THE WATER HEATER CLOSET WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
UH, WHAT YOU SEE BETWEEN THESE ON THE FIRST SITE PLAN HERE SHOWS THE WATER HEATER CLOSET ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UH, RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REMOVE WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY DISTANCE.
THIS IS THE WATER HEATER CLOSET SHOWN AND THEN THIS IS THE DISTANCE TO THE HOME WITHOUT THE WATER HEATER CLOSET.
PRESENT ADJACENT PROPERTY, ADJACENT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 3 6.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST IS NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASSING AND MANAGE STORMWATER RUNOFF.
WE MAILED 35 NOTICES, DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION, BUT THE APPLICANT DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE, WHICH
[01:55:01]
IS IN THE FILE, UH, THIS MORNING FROM A NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE ON THE NOTIFICATION PLAN IN SUPPORT.ANY QUESTIONS? MANNA? SO, UM, SO THE STORAGE OR THE, UH, FACILITY FOR THE WATER CLOSET OR FOR THE WATER HEATER, UM, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE, THE, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, UH, MOTION FROM THE CITY FOR THE FOREFOOT VARIANCE? OR IF WE MOVE THAT, IS IT REALLY ONLY ONE FOOT VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR? UM, THE WATER HEATER CLOSET IS NUMBER YES.
IT'S INCLUDED IN NUMBER TWO ON THAT MOTION.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REMOVING THE WATER CLOSET AND SO, AND THE MEASUREMENT, IT WAS FI WITHOUT THE WATER CLOSET.
IT'S FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY.
SO WHY WOULD THEY NEED A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE IF THEY'RE GONNA REMOVE IT ANYWAY? DO THEY NEED NUMBER TWO? NUMBER ONE IS FOR THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WOULD STAY.
NUMBER TWO IS FROM THE SIDE SETBACK.
SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT WOULD BE TAKEN OUT.
IF SO, THEY DON'T NEED THAT ONE? NO.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, ORIAN, GO AHEAD.
UH, I JUST WANT TO, NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT IS, IS THE PLUMBING ALREADY THERE IF THEY MOVE THE WATER HEATER INSIDE THE BUILDING OR IS THAT GONNA INCUR ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT WITHIN THE REAR SETBACK? UM, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT YOU NEED FROM US.
UH, MY NAME IS CYPRIAN JUMA, UM, ADDRESS 11 9 2 5 LUCKY FALLS.
IT'S A NEW INVESTOR IN THE AREA COMING FROM MISSOURI.
SO, UM, WITH THE PROPERTY HERE, WE ACQUIRED IT ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO FROM A PREVIOUS OWNER WHO HAD DONE SOME REMODELING ON THE TWO STORY, BUT I THINK HE DID IT WITHOUT GETTING PERMITS.
SO AS WE ACQUIRED IT AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE PERMITS IS WHEN WE RAN INTO THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE, UH, SETBACK ON THE BACK.
BUT THE CONCRETE FLOOR THAT WAS USED TO BUILD THE TWO STORY ALREADY EXISTED FROM THE HISTORY BACK IN THE, IN THE FORTIES.
UM, AND SO I, I NEEDED THE ADJUSTMENT FOR IT TO BE ALLOWED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE FOUR FEET VARIANCE ON THE BACK ON THE SIDE.
LIKE, UH, THE STAFF NOTICED, UH, WITH THE WATER CLOSET, THE SPACE IS ONLY ONE FOOT, BUT WE'RE GONNA TAKE THAT OFF.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. ORIAN, UH, THE PLUMBING ALREADY EXISTS FOR THE WATER CLOSET, BUT SINCE MOST OF THAT STUFF WAS PROBABLY DONE WITHOUT PERMIT, WE WE'RE GOING TO REPLUMB THAT AND MOVE THE WATER CLOSET INSIDE.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA, NNA, GO AHEAD.
SO, SO THE TAPE MEASURE THAT I SAW SAID 58 INCHES, UM, WHICH IS LESS THAN FIVE FOOT.
AND SO, SO YOU'D NEED A LITTLE BIT OF A VARIANCE TO COUNT FOR THE HOUSE APPARENTLY.
UH, 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FOUR FOOT 11.
AND THEN IF YOU HAD THE EASE THAT WOULD NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WELL AS WELL.
SO IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO, UH, TWO FOOT THEN THAT WE NEED TO BE COUNTING FOR THAT ON THIS SIDE.
SO, UM, FOR ALL THE LOTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, MOST OF THEM HAD MOVED A LITTLE BIT TO THE RIGHT.
SO THE FENCE ON THE LEFT SIDE IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE FENCE TO THE RIGHT IS ACTUALLY ALSO ON PROPERTY LINE OF MY NEIGHBORING LOT.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ALLOWANCE THERE IF YOU MEASURED IT FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE.
AND WE DO HAVE THE SURVEYS FOR THAT.
WELL, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCE OF ANY, THEN YOU KNOW THAT LINE IS A, IS A LINE AND SO SOMEONE CAN COME BACK.
AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT, THAT IF YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT IF THAT HOUSE IS CLOSER TO THAT LINE THAT YOU ARE COVERED.
AND THEN ANYTHING THAT YOU DO THERE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
YOU KNOW, LIKE COMMISSIONER, TO CLARIFY ON THAT, THE CODE DOES ALLOW STAFF TO DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION FOR SIX INCHES.
THAT'S FOR HEIGHT AS WELL AS UH, SETBACK.
SO IF, IF THEY MEET THE FIVE FOOT SIDE BACK, UM, THE EAVES ARE ALLOWED UP TO A CERTAIN POINT ALREADY,
[02:00:01]
RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.SO, SO WITH THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD, IF HE'S SAYING THAT HE HAS THE FIVE OF THE EAVE STICK OUT UP TO TWO FEET? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.
UM, ANY, ANYBODY SIGN IN TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NOBODY SIGNED UP.
HEY MR. JUMA, YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR, UH, THE ONLY FINAL COMMENTS I WOULD SAY IS THAT MOST OF THE NEW WORK THAT'S THERE IS REALLY THE ADDITION OF THE TWO STORY, THE SLAB OF THE FOUNDATION THAT EXISTED, WHICH IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SIDING FROM THE REAR SETBACK ON THE SIDE EXISTED FROM DECADES AGO.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER JUST ADDED THE TWO STORY AND THEN SELL, SOLD IT TO ANOTHER INVESTOR PRIOR TO MYSELF WHO TOOK OUT THE FRONT SINGLE STORY AND LEFT THE TWO STORY IN THE BACK.
BUT THE REAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE LOT EXISTED THERE MULTIPLE DECADES AGO.
AND SO WE'RE NOT REALLY MOVING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE LOT, IT'S JUST MORE THE WORK WITHIN THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WE'RE GONNA SEEK PERMITS TO DO THAT ACCORDING TO CODE.
DO YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU DON'T, 'CAUSE YOU PURCHASED IT RECENTLY, BUT WAS THE ORIGINAL HOME IN THE SAME LINE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AS THE ADDITION? YES.
WERE THEY BUILT IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER? UH, THE ONE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED IN THE FRONT OR YES.
THE NEIGHBOR THAT DID ISSUE ME THE LETTER I THINK USED TO LIVE IN THE FRONT ONE BEFORE IT WAS DEMOLISHED.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 1 3 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW HOME TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 5 6 DAY ROAD.
APPLICANT BEING IAN JUMA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRE PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE ISSUES FACED BY THE APPLICANT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
THE APPLICANT SEEMS SEEKS TO VARY FROM SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR THE REDEL REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP RESULT FROM THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE EXISTING, THE ALREADY EXISTING HOME.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW.
THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK OBSERVES THE, SORRY, LET ME REPHRASE THAT.
RE THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND SIMILAR PLACEMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED.
THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS THERE IS STILL ADEQUATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES AND THE HOME WILL NOT CREATE FIRE SAFETY OR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
THERE WILL BE AT LEAST 16 FEET ON THE REAR BETWEEN THESE STRUCTURES AND THE EXISTING ADJACENT HOME.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH LOCATED END OF MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION FROM MS. BRAGMAN AND A SECOND FROM MR. MANNA.
GO AHEAD AND START DISCUSSION.
YEAH, I'M SO IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, I THINK ONCE YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE WATER HEATER ON THE SIDE, WHICH I CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERING THAT YOU'VE MOVED INSIDE NEXT TO THE WASHER AND DRYER, UM, THAT THE SIDE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
[02:05:03]
GERMANA.ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ELLI I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, GOOD LUCK WITH BRINGING THAT PROPERTY UP TO SPEED TODAY.
UH, STAFF WILL TALK TO YOU OUTSIDE AND LET'S HEAR THE NEXT CASE.
[6. 19-8502 BOA-19-10300130: A request by Jeanette Baylor Arce for 1) an 8' variance from the 10’ front setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 2’ from the front property line and 2) a 4’ variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 1’ from the side property line, located at 506 Golden Crown Drive. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 3) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
HELLO, UH, NEXT CASE IS BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 30.UM, ADDRESS, 5 0 6 GOLDEN CROWN DRIVE, APPLICANT, JANET BAYLOR PROPERTY ADDRESS, I'M SORRY, THE REQUEST IS 4 2 1.
AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ZONING R FOUR M L O D THREE M L O R TWO AH, SHOOTING.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD A CARDBOARD.
UM, IT'S A REPLACEMENT WITHIN A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK PER THE APPLICANT.
THE CARDBOARD IS GOING TO BE REBUILT WITHIN THE PREVIOUS ONE FOOT, UM, BUT EXTENDING INTO TOWARDS THE FRONT FOR LARGER COVERAGE.
IN OCTOBER, UH, THREE OF 2019, CODE ENFORCEMENT DISCOVERED THAT THE CARDBOARD WAS BEING REVEALED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND WITHOUT AN APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THE NEW CARDBOARD WILL BE BILLED OUT OF UM, METAL ROOF AND METAL POST.
THERE ARE A FEW OTHER SIMILAR OLDER CARPORTS IN THE AREA.
WE CAN SEE THE POSTS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.
THIS IS WITHIN THE, THE FRONT SETBACK.
THIS ONE SHOWS THEIR PROXIMITY ON THE SIDE.
SO THEY ARE ROUGHLY ABOUT A FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THIS IS THE NEIGHBORING ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH A VERY SIMILAR CARDBOARD.
UM, THEY'RE INTENDING TO BUILD THAT RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF NUMBER ONE, AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RECOMMEND, WE RECOMMEND AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR NUMBER TWO, A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE FRONT, UH, FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 30.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS PRESENT TO WARRANT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES OF A TWO FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND A ONE SIDE SIDE SETBACK.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ALTERNATE OF THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO MITIGATE STORM WATER RUNOFF INADEQUATELY PREVENT FIRE SPREAD NOTIFICATION.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN A POSITION AND NO COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE POSITION COMMENT IS IN THE FILE IF YOU WANT TO.
QUESTIONS RAGMAN, UM, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THE CARPORTS THAT ARE PICTURED, ARE THOSE PERMITTED? ARE THOSE APPROVED? UM, MOST LIKELY THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY EXISTENT.
SO THEY ARE OKAY TO BE AS THEY ARE UNTIL A COURT ENFORCEMENT, UH, VIOLATION.
SO AT THIS POINT, THIS CASE MIGHT COME UP TO THE BOARD AT A LITTLE POINT, BUT NOT AS OF RIGHT NOW, ORIAN.
SO IS THE PLOT PLAN THAT'S IN THE FILE, IS THAT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUILDING PERMIT OR IS THAT JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF, OF THE B O A APPLICATION? AND AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW THE ROOF PITCH.
UH, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE ROOF PITCH.
[02:10:01]
AND I'M ALSO CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE IS FROM THE FENCE TO THE OUTER POST THAT'S BUILT.UH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GONNA BE ADEQUATE ENOUGH ROOM TO ACTUALLY PARK A VEHICLE UNDER THERE, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH A, WITH THE, UH, STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION.
OH, IN THE SIDE, LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION.
SO ON THE SIDE, WE ARE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT IF THEY, IF THEY COMPLY WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, THEY SHOULD HAVE ROOM TO ENTER THE CAR.
AND THAT'LL BE TWO FOOT WITH A, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT IF IT'S A PITCHED ROOF, THAT IT'S GONNA STOP AT THE, AT THE POST.
I WOULD HAVE TO YIELD TO THE APPLICANT.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE DESCRIPTION OR THE DETAILS OF THE ROOF.
I MEAN IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH WIDTH, UH, FOR A VEHICLE TO FIT THERE WITH THE, WITH THE TWO FOOT ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION.
LET'S, UH, CALL THE APPLICANT FORWARD AND NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN TELL US WHAT YOU UH, JEANETTE RC 5 0 6 GOLDEN CROWN AND UH, I HAD THE CARPORT WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT THE HOUSE, A PREVIOUS CARPORT AND THINKING THAT I WAS ALREADY APPROVED BECAUSE I ALREADY HAVE A PREVIOUS CARPORT AND IT WAS GETTING RUN AND IT HAD LEAK.
WE REMOVED IT AND WE WERE GONNA ADD A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA FOR THE OTHER TWO VEHICLES NOW THAT OUR FAMILY EXTENDED.
AND, UH, FOR SOME REASON I USED TO HAVE 70, I THINK FEET, UH, TO MY POINT AND THEY TOOK AWAY TWO FEET AND BACK THEN, SO IT ONLY BOUGHT ME 2 65 WHITE.
SO IT ONLY GIVES ME, THAT'S THE ONLY ROOM I HAVE, JUST THAT TWO FEET.
THE DRIVEWAY WAS ALREADY PUT ON THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE NEVER HAD NO PROBLEMS AND THE WATER WOULD ACTUALLY BE GOING TO THE STREET.
THE HEIGHT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT HIGH, HIGHER.
AND IT ALSO HELPS ME TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT RIGHT IN THE SIDE.
I HAVE, UH, IT'S LIKE MY LAUNDRY ROOM SO WHEN IT RAINS I'LL BE ABLE TO GO OUT THERE AND STILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.
RAIN, MAKE, LETS ME BRING MY PET BACK INTO SITE FOR MORE AND, UH, BACK WEATHERS AND, UH, IT NEVER BEEN NO PROBLEM.
IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE I BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KIND OF UPGRADE IT TO NOT DAMAGE OUR VEHICLES AND WE WANNA GET ANOTHER VEHICLE, BUT JUST NO CARPORT IS KIND OF HARD RIGHT NOW.
THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION OF UM, YES.
HOPEFULLY I COULD GET THAT CARPORT.
AND SO NOTHING GOING ON WITH ANYBODY ELSE.
SO, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT PREVIOUSLY YOU HAD A CARPORT, BUT IT WAS ONLY 60 SOME ODD INCHES OF CLEAR WIDTH.
AND, AND FROM THE PICTURES IT LOOKED LIKE YOUR EXISTING APRON, YOU WIDENED IT TWO OR THREE FEET.
IT WAS UH, THE SAME, THE POLES WERE ON THE SAME, THE SIDE OF THE, THE CEMENT, THAT'S HOW FAR IT GOES.
THE OH ONE TWO, WE HAD TO, 'CAUSE IT WAS GETTING RUN IN THE POLE, SO WE REMOVED THE POLES AND IT'S GONNA BE IN THE SAME PLACE.
AND THE, AND THE, IT'S ONLY GETTING LONGER THOUGH.
UM, AND EXTEND IT OUT TO CLOSER TO THE STREET, MAKING IT MORE 'CAUSE IT ONLY WENT UP TO THE HOUSE.
AND THEN ON YOUR, ON YOUR ROOF PITCH, CAN YOU, UH, DELVE INTO HOW YOU, HOW YOU, YOU WOULD CONSTRUCT THE ROOF? THE ROOF.
IT'S, UH, IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE OVER HERE.
SO THEY SAY THEY'RE GONNA MAKE IT LIKE A EIGHT LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND THEY'RE GONNA CONNECT.
IT'S GONNA BE HIGHER, LIKE THE POINT OF THE ROOF.
SO IT COULD BE MAYBE 10 10 AND HIGH.
SO IT COULD MAKE THE WATER GO TO THE STREET.
SO YOU'LL YOU'LL TIE IT INTO YOUR, IT'LL BE A SHINGLED ROOF OR A METAL ROOF? NO, IT'S GONNA BE THE METAL, LIKE A METAL, UH, ALUMINUM METAL.
AND WAS THAT, WAS THAT PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND YOUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION? MY, MY BROTHER'S AND UH, THEM ARE DOING IT FOR ME.
SO MANNA, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA MR. MANNA? GO AHEAD.
SO, SO I'M LOOKING ON GOOGLE AND IT SHOWS YOUR OLD, UM, UH, CARPORT THERE.
THAT WAS BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED AND SO IT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE LINE PREVIOUSLY.
ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE LINE AND THEN THE END OF THE HOUSE LIGHTING.
SO, SO, SO WE ALREADY, SO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT'S, IT COMES IN BY UM, I THINK, UH, TWO FOOT MM-HMM.
AND SO IS THAT, WOULD THAT PRESENT A PROBLEM TO YOU? IF, IF WE SAID BRING IT TO THE TWO FOOT LINE? SO, SO IT'S TWO FOOT SHORTER THAN IT USED TO BE.
SO, SO IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE, BUT TWO FOOT, TWO FEET AWAY FROM ME.
UH, TO KEEP IT ON THIS SIDE OF THE FENCE? YES.
SO TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE FENCE, WOULD THAT BE OKAY? I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THE LAST POLE IS CONNECTING IT TO, TO HOLD, TO BRACE IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE UH, WHAT THEY NEED.
[02:15:02]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, ORIAN ONE MORE.UM, HOW DEEP WAS THE EXISTING CARPORT? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ADDING 20 OR 30 FEET TO THE, TO IT.
HOW DEEP? AS FAR AS, UM, COMING THIS WAY, THE, IT WAS ONLY, UM, THE FENCE LINE WHERE YOU SEE THE FENCE GOING ACROSS ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE I'M ADDING FOR MY VEHICLE AND THEN MY HUSBAND'S VEHICLE.
BECAUSE I HAD A, UH, I HAVE A RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK.
I HAVE A 67 RESTORED A VOLKSWAGEN THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR A LOT OF YEARS AND WE GOTTA KEEP IT ANOTHER CARPORT.
IT'S A LOT OF MONEY INVESTED ON THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SIGNED UP? NOBODY SIGNED UP.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL WORDS FOR US BEFORE WE NO SIR.
UM, AND IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE DAIS UP HERE? ORIAN ORIAN, GO AHEAD.
UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH 19 DASH 3 0 0 1 30, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 0 6 GOLDEN CROWN DRIVE.
APPLICANT BEING JEANETTE BAYLOR RC BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND FOR THE VARIANCE ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE CARPORT PROVIDES NECESSARY SHELTER FOR THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLES AND DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
THE CARPORT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF METAL THAT REDUCES THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD.
DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT GRANT THE APPLICANT THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR VEHICLES AS PROPOSED.
IN THIS CASE, THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ENOUGH OF A SETBACK, I'M SORRY, THREE.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THIS CASE, THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ENOUGH OF A SETBACK TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THE CARPORT WILL BE MADE OF METAL, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF FIRE SPREAD.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUEST.
THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE CARPORT SERVES TO PROVIDE SAFE ROUTE FOR THE OWNER TO ACCESS THEIR HOME FROM THEIR VEHICLE.
IN CASE OF INCLEMENT WEATHER, SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO GET FROM THE HOME INTO THE VEHICLE DUE TO SLIPPERY CONDITIONS.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT I HEARD WAS, UM, A MOTION FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, BUT NOTHING ADDRESSING THE FRONT.
SO THAT WOULD RESULT IN LIMITATION OF THAT CARPORT BEING 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, NOT AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, GO AHEAD AND START DISCUSSION MS. DORIAN.
YEAH, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION AS RED.
UM, I DO BELIEVE THERE'S ADEQUATE WIDTH WITH A TWO FOOT OFFSET THAT THEY CAN EASILY PARK THEIR VEHICLES AND HAVE IT BE A USABLE CARPORT.
UH, I WAS NOT A FAN OF IT PROJECTING, UH, WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE FRONT, THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT'S, THAT WAS HISTORICALLY THERE, UM, WAS MUCH, MUCH FURTHER BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE, FROM THE, UH, STREET.
AND THE UH, PROVISION OF A CARPORT WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WILL STILL ALLOW FOR AT LEAST ONE MORE VEHICLE TO BE PARKED UNDERNEATH AND PROTECTED FROM THE WEATHER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSION, HEARING NOBODY? LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. DORIAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ELLI I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
[02:20:01]
MS. BRAGMAN.I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
SO FOR THAT MOTION WE HAVE 11 IN FAVOR.
ZERO AGAINST IT CARRIES PASSES.
THERE WAS THAT MOTION DID NOT DEAL WITH THE FRONT SETBACK.
DID ANYONE WANNA BRING A MOTION UP FOR THAT HEARING? NOBODY THAT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD.
SO THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL ON THE SIDE SETBACK AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT AND STAFF CAN HELP YOU WITH ANY QUESTIONS GOING FORWARD.
YEAH, I WOULD LOVE FIVE MINUTES 'CAUSE I MISSED OUT ON THE LAST BREAK.
SO WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED AND GET OUTTA HERE TODAY.
THIS IS BEING OUR LAST, UH, CITIZEN HERE.
[7. 19-8506 BOA-19-10300134: A request by Elena Huerta for a 4’6” variance side setback from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 6” from the west property line, located at 115 Hartford Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 3) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.A B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 4 ADDRESS.
ONE 15 HARTFORD AVENUE APPLICANT EL ELTA REQUEST, UH, IS A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE SITE SETBACK.
FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE SIX INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ZONING.
R FOUR A H ODI, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO MAINTAIN A SIX INCH SITE SETBACK FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE TO KEEP AN ATTACHED CARPORT AS BUILT.
THE CARPORT WAS REBUILT WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF THE PREVIOUS CARPORT IN THE SAME LOCA LOCATION.
IT HAS, IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE OR IT WAS IN PLACE FOR APPROXIMATELY 11 YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINTS UNTIL NOW.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE CARPORT WAS IN PLACE PRIOR, PRIOR TO THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP.
CODE ENFORCEMENT INITIATED THIS CASE ON MARCH 13, 20 19TH.
THE STRUCTURE IS MADE ENTIRELY OF WOOD AND THERE ARE A FEW SIMILAR CARDBOARDS PLACED WITHIN THE SITE SETBACKS NEAR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE CAN SEE THE, THE FE, THE CARPORT ATTACHED SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO THE POSTS ARE SIX INCHES TO THE, TO THE FENCE, BUT THERE IS A LITTLE EXTENSION OF THE ROOF ENCROACHING ON THAT.
SO THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO MODIFY THAT TO BE COMPLIANT WITHIN THE SIX INCH NE DEFECT.
PROOFED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WE CAN SEE A FURTHER CARDBOARD THAT SIDE.
THIS IS AN ADJACENT, UM, PROPERTY WITHIN THE FRONT AND PRETTY MUCH ON PROPERTY LINE THAT RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE IN BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST CREATES UNSAFE FIRE PROTECTION DISTANCES AND JOINS WATER ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY.
UH, MAIL 35 NOTICES RECEIVED ZERO OPPOSITION, ZERO IN FAVOR.
AND A COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OH, I'M SORRY.
ONE, UM, IT, THERE WAS JUST ONE SUBMITTED RIGHT NOW FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, OF THE NEIGHBOR.
WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS? SO IT'S THE ONE SHOWN IN THE RED, THE YELLOW, I'M SORRY, THE GREEN MARK
QUESTIONS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO IT'S NOT A REALLY, BUT IS THAT ONE THAT'S IN FAVOR? IS THAT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE UM, THE CARPORT IS LOCATED? YES.
SO I'M LOOKING AT AN HISTORIC, UH, PICTURE STREET VIEW THAT SHOWED THE, THE PREVIOUS CARPORT THAT ALSO HAD A PITCHED ROOF.
DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE PREVIOUS
[02:25:01]
POSTS WERE TO DETERMINE IF THIS CARPORT IS ANY FURTHER, FURTHER OVER OR IN THE SAME LOCATION? NO, I WOULD YIELD TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT.UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT, UH, RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE, UM, OUTLINE? THIS ONE? NO, KEEP ON GOING.
YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS THE CARPORT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CARPORT IS NOT IN HIS PROPERTY AND IT'S OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE? IT'S, IT'S SIX, SIX INCHES TO PROPERTY LINE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO IN THIS, IN THIS PICTURE THAT IS CLOSER, THE FENCE IS PRETTY MUCH ON PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE POST IS SIX INCHES TO THE FENCE, WHICH IS PROPERTY LINE.
IF SO, IT IS INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRINT, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS LINE, THAT LINE COMING ALL THE WAY DOWN.
THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED THIS.
SO THE OUTSIDE BOUNDARY THAT IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THIS ONE IS THE LINE WHERE THEY WERE STATING THAT THEY WERE THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO YOU CAN, IT'S ACTUALLY SIX INCHES, NOT THREE FEET.
IT WAS JUST IDENTIFYING THE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE OUTSIDE LINE.
OKAY, LET'S CALL THE APPLICANT UP PLEASE, SIR.
I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO AT THIS POINT.
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? MY NAME IS DAMON GIBBS AND THE ADDRESS IS ONE 15 HARTFORD.
TELL US WHY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE TODAY AND HOW YOU GOT HERE.
UM, WELL, SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE.
WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE SETBACK HAD CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL 'CAUSE.
THE, THE HOUSE I BOUGHT, WHICH WAS A CO COMPLIANCE SHUTDOWN HOUSE.
SO I'VE HAD ISSUES GALORE WITH IT, BUT I I MADE IT THE SAME FOOTPRINT WHEN I BUILT IT BACK.
SO THAT EXISTING CARPORT HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND I PUT IT BACK IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT.
AND I HAVE PICTURES THAT I'VE TURNED OVER TO STAFF TO SHOW THAT IT'S BACK IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT.
SO, UM, I DIDN'T REALLY CHANGE NOTHING, I JUST BUILT IT IN THE SAME SPOT.
BUT NOW THAT THE, I GUESS THE STATE HAS CHANGED THE VARIANCE IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES, THAT'S WHERE MY ISSUE'S COMING IN.
WELL I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT HISTORY OF WHEN THAT FIRST CARPORT WAS BUILT THERE, BUT YOU HAVE SOME OLD PHOTOS, I THINK 68 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU COULD SEE THAT THAT'S THE ONE YOU JUST PASSED RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT I TORE.
THAT'S THE EXISTING CARPORT YOU COULD SEE IT WAS, IT'S IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN THERE FOR THE LIFE OF THE HOUSE STAFF.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON HOW WE END UP HERE WITH, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A CARPORT THERE THAT EXISTED SINCE 68, WHY THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR, IT'S A NEW BUILD.
SO ULTIMATELY WITH NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, UH, MORE THAN 50, IF THE WORK IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING, YOU'D HAVE TO ABIDE BY ALL CURRENT CODE.
AND IN THIS PHOTO THE STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED ENTIRELY.
UM, WELL IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH THIS PHOTO, BUT ONCE YOU REMOVE IT, THAT STRUCTURE NOW HAS TO MEET CURRENT CODE.
JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT HERE, BUT IT'S CLEAR THERE WAS ONE THERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN HISTORY.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. BRITTON? GO AHEAD.
COULD YOU TELL US WHICH WAY THE, UH, UH, THE RAIN GOES ON THE CARPORT? DOES IT GO FRONT BACK? RIGHT, THE WATER GOES TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, WHICH WAS THE NEIGHBOR THAT CAME TO SPEAK ON MY BEHALF THAT THE CARPORT'S BEEN THERE.
NOW I BUILT IT LIKE I GUESS FOUR MONTHS AGO.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH SOME HEAVY RAINS AND HE'S COMPLETELY FINE WITH, THERE'S NO BUILDUP ON HIS PROPERTY AND UM, IT'S, IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE.
SO HE'S BEEN USED TO DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, IT BEING THERE, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE OF WATER RUNNING OFF IN HIS PROPERTY TO WHERE HE'S FLOODING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO HE WANTED TO COME SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF, ON MY BEHALF, BUT HE HAD TO GO.
SO HE, THEY SAT HERE FOR A HOUR OR TWO.
SO, BUT IT RUNS INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD OR OUR PROPERTY LINE I SHOULD SAY, BUT INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD TOO.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ORIAN, ORIAN.
UH, STAFF, UH, ON THE 50% RULE, BECAUSE A CARPORT IS ATTACHED TO THE HOME, IS DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU DO THE VALUE OF JUST THE CARPORT OR JUST OF THE ENTIRE HOME? ARE THEY SEPARATED IN ANY WAY OR ARE THEY GROUPED TOGETHER? THEY'RE SEPARATED IN THE, IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE CARPORT IS REMOVED TO BE, UH, REBUILT, THEN WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT AS NEW CODE.
THE BUILDING ITSELF, IF THE STRUCTURE KING WILLIAM IS A PRIME EXAMPLE, IF THE STRUCTURE WERE REMODELED AT 50% OF THE VALUE, THEN THEY'D BE BACK TO THE, THEY'D BE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR SETBACKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND THEN FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, I NOTICED THAT YOUR EXISTING, YOUR PREVIOUS CARPORT, I GOT A GOOD STREET VIEW PICTURE.
[02:30:01]
OUT TO THE SIDE AND IT LOOKS PRETTY SIMILAR.THE ONE THAT YOU, YOU BUILT IS A LOT NICER, BUT, UH, IS ON THIS, UH, AS A POINT OF REFERENCE I'M USING THE, THE, UH, CONCRETE SLAB.
DID YOU RECONSTRUCT THE CONCRETE SLAB OR IS IT THE EXISTING SLAB UNDERNEATH? IT'S THE EXISTING SLAB.
SO AS A POINT OF REFERENCE I CAN SEE WHERE IT WASN'T BEFORE.
AND THEN THE, DID YOU CONSTRUCT THE, UH, DID YOU BUILD LIKE A SMALL CHAIN LINK FENCE? I DID NOT.
THE, THE NEIGHBOR PUT THAT CHAIN CHAIN LINK FENCE UP, UM, DUE TO THE CO COMPLIANCE ISSUES THAT HE WAS HAVING WITH THE HOUSE THAT I PURCHASED, THE PEOPLE WERE GOING INTO HIS YARD AND HE PUT THAT FENCE UP.
SO I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT THOUGH.
UM, HAVE YOU HAD A SURVEY AND FOUND PROPERTY CORNERS ON THIS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS? WE DID NOT HAVE A SURVEY.
HE, THE GENTLEMAN NEXT DOOR SAID THAT HE HAD A SURVEY DONE WHEN HE PUT HIS FENCE UP.
SO WE WENT OFF OF HIS PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE HE HAD IT SURVEYED.
YOU'RE TRUSTING THAT FENCE IS, I'M TRUSTING THAT FENCE IS PROPERTY LINE.
HAVING SIT ON THIS BOARD FOR YEARS, WE ALWAYS SEE THAT THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINES.
UM, BUT TAKE CAUTION AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT WHEN WE, IF WE GO FORWARD, UM, MAN, IS IT CURRENTLY, I'M SORRY, ONE MORE.
IS IT CURRENTLY HANGING OVER THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE EVE? IT, IT APPEARS TO BE IN THE PICTURE, BUT WHEN YOU STAND ON THE FENCE LINE, IT DON'T APPEAR TO BE THE PICTURE APPEARS.
WHEN I LOOK AT IT, LOOK AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S VISIBLY OVER, BUT WHEN YOU STAND THERE AT THE HOUSE, IT, IT DON'T AND ON, AND I HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHEN I WAS BUILDING IT AND SO, OKAY, WHICHEVER WAY YOU END UP GOING FORWARD, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
ANYBODY ELSE WITH A QUESTION? UM, ELLI.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, UM, FROM THE CITY, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS AS IS, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THE ENCROACHMENT IF THAT ISSUE IS PRESENT AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH FIRE RATING? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANYTHING UNDER THE FIVE FEET, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GO TO FIRE RATING, ESPECIALLY UNDER THREE FEET.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SOFFITS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, WRAPPING THE POSTS AND IT AND SO FORTH.
CODE ALSO DOES NOT ALLOW THE NEIGHBORING LOT TO DRAIN ONTO, ITS THE NEIGHBOR.
SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.
CAN I, CAN I LIKE, SO WE HAVE A, I HAVE SOME PICTURES UP THERE THAT I SHOWED YOU OF SOME NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT BUILT CARPORTS ON THEIRS THAT ARE ON THE FENCE LINE.
AND I, I STAYED OFF THE FENCE LINE HOPING NOT, NOT TO HAVE TROUBLE, BUT THESE HOUSES THAT THEY BUILT IT ON THE FENCE LINE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEIR CARPORTS ARE NEW AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD ON THE FENCE LINE AND ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEIRS.
IF I'M NOT ABLE TO DO MINE SIX FEET OFF OF THE FENCE LINE, I MEAN SIX INCHES OFF OF THE FENCE LINE.
UH, WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE OTHER CASES OTHER THAN A PHOTO YOU'VE PROVIDED TO US, BUT WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY JUST HAVEN'T HAD A CODE VIOLATION AND HAVEN'T ENDED UP BEFORE THIS BOARD.
OR THEY WERE CITED AND WE MIGHT BE SEEING THEM IN THE FUTURE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE.
THEY'RE MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND THE, THE, THE CARPORTS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.
SO I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT THEY'RE NOT APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE.
SO THEY'RE NOT APPLYING FOR, FOR NOTHING.
'CAUSE I KNOW THE PEOPLE, UM, BUT THEIRS IS BUILT ON THE FENCE LINE.
SO I, I WAS THOUGHT I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING BY STAYING OFF AND, AND BUILDING IN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
BUT WITH THAT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WAS JUST WANT, WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBOR, THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BUILT TO THE FENCE LINE ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE LINE.
AND I HAVE PICTURES OF THEM HOUSES AND THEM CARPORTS.
WE'RE WELL AWARE OF MANY OF THESE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OBJECTS THAT WERE BUILT NOT ACCORDING TO CODES OR WERE GRANDFATHERED BEFORE CODES AND STILL EXIST.
AND IT COULD JUST BE THAT YOU'RE THE LUCKY ONE THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE BUILDING THINGS NEW, SOMEONE REPORTED YOU OR A CODE OFFICER DROVE BY AND SAW YOURS.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T BASE OUR DECISIONS ON WHAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE OTHER THAN CONTEXT AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SHOW YOU.
UM, YOU HELD SIX INCHES OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH CODES AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE TODAY.
SO WE'LL SEE, UH, WHERE WE GO WITH HOW THE BOARD FEELS ABOUT IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. FISHER? GO AHEAD.
WOULD THERE BE ANY WAY TO ABATE THE WATER DRAINING DIRECTLY ONTO THE PROPERTY? SURE, I COULD PUT A GUTTER ON THAT OUTSIDE END THAT WOULD CATCH THAT WATER AND BRING IT BACK INTO MY PROPERTY.
AND AS FAR AS THE, THE, LIKE THEY SAID IT WAS CONSTRUCTED ALL IN WOOD.
THE THE, THE ROOF ON IT IS METAL OF, OF THAT CARPORT IS METAL.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT 'CAUSE IT'S NOT ALL IN WOOD.
IT'S A METAL ROOF ON IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE OR NOT.
I JUST HEARD THE DISCREPANCY AND I WANTED TO MAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE.
YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR, I'M SORRY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, THERE WAS A LAURA LEE NOLAN AT ONE 11 HARTFORD IN FAVOR.
[02:35:01]
THANK YOU.UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS FOR US BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS? NO SIR.
WE'LL CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
MR. BRUCE? BRUCE, GO AHEAD PLEASE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE SIDE SETBACK FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE SIX INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 1 1 5 HARTFORD AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING EL ELENA HUERTA.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT FOR THE VARIANCE ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE CARPORT PROVIDES NECESSARY SHELTER FOR THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLES AND DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
THE CARPORT WAS REBUILT WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF THE PRE PREVIOUS CARPORT AND, AND IS IN THE SAME LOCATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 11 YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINTS UNTIL NOW.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRESPASS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY, AND ENSURE PROPER STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.
ALL OF THESE INTENTS WILL STILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.
FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR, FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED.
THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT SIX P APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH, IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE SITUATION EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY IS A CAR CARPORT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND A MOTION.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR MR. ORIAN.
UM, THE MOTION WAS READ AS REQUESTED FOR SIX INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, FROM THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK, UH, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SOME MODIFICATION, BUT THE POSTS REMAINING IN THE SAME PLACE IF THE SURVEY PROVES IT'S SIX INCHES.
SO, UH, AND OF COURSE ALL OF IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING AND FIRE PROTECTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
UH, YES, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK, UH, THAT BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT THE WAY IT WAS ALREADY BEFORE, AND OF COURSE WITH THE NEIGHBOR ALSO, UH, BEING IN FAVOR AND NOT, UH, REALLY SHOWING ANY KIND OF PROTEST AGAINST IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
UH, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, WHAT I, I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF, OF WATER DRAINING ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, BUT IT'S BEEN DOING SO FOR, FOR 50 YEARS.
IS IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS A PREVIOUS, UH, CARPORT? UH, IT DOES, IT LOOKS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA, THE WAY IT WAS BUILT AND, UM, I SEE NO ISSUE WITH IT AS LONG AS HE HOLDS A SIX INCHES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NOBODY? LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
ZORE, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. BATTLE? I CONCUR.
[02:40:01]
I CONCUR.I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND IN FAVOR ONE AGAINST THE MOTION PASSES.
THANKS FOR BEARING WITH US ALL DAY.
YOU CAN SPEAK WITH STAFF ON YOUR WAY OUT AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT.
[8. 19-8527 Consideration and approval of the November 4, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes.]
OKAY, NEXT UP WE HAVE THE MINUTES.DID EVERYONE GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS OR QUESTIONS ON THEM? HEARING NONE MOTIONS ARE APPROVED.
I'M SORRY THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
ANYTHING ELSE? DIRECTOR STAFF REPORT? YES.
JUST REAL QUICKLY, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE ALTERNATES, UH, FOR COMING TO YOUR FIRST MEETING.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE CONTEXT NOW YOU'LL BE READY FOR OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ORIENTATION.
UH, WE HOLD ORIENTATIONS, UM, AT LEAST, UH, ONCE A YEAR, IF NOT ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS, DEPENDING UPON IF WE GET NEW MEMBERS, ALL MEMBERS ARE INVITED TO ATTEND BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD REFRESHER, UH, TRAINING.
AND THEN WE HOLD OTHER, UH, TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL, DEPENDING UPON ANY CODE AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, WE ARE, WE'D LIKE TO SCHEDULE OUR, UH, ORIENTATION TRAINING FOR THE NEXT MEETING DECEMBER 2ND.
UH, WE WILL HOST IT, UH, THROUGH THE LUNCH HOUR.
IT'LL BE ABOUT A TWO HOUR, UH, UH, TRAINING.
AND SO WE'LL FEED YOU LUNCH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE Y'ALL AWARE OF THAT.
UM, BUT IT'LL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE NEW MEMBERS.
UH, NOW ONCE THEY GET THROUGH THE TRAINING, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO RELAY IT BACK TO THE MEETING THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO, UH, WATCH OR PARTICIPATE IN.
UH, SO DECEMBER 2ND, UH, LUNCH HOURS.
SO WE'LL PROBABLY START IT AT ABOUT 11 SO WE CAN BE DONE BY, UH, ONE 30 THE LATEST.
OKAY, AGAIN, EVERYONE IS INVITED, SO WE'LL HAVE THE FULL ROOM.
NO OTHER COMMENTS? THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 4 0 5.
I THINK IT'S JUST EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.