* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:55] COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I'M PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BEEZ. HERE. THANK. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. HERE WE ARE. GOOD TO GO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF ANYONE COULD PLEASE, UH, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ON THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER IBANEZ THIS HAS JOINED THE MEETING. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT IN STREET'S ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FILED BY YOUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE BOARD OF SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETENT AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN 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 AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR OR DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE, UH, VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES OF REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, WE'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION OR REMARKS OF THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF. THANK YOU. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS YOU HERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS. INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTION BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPELLED VARIANCE FOR SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN ORDER TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED [00:05:01] OF MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION FOR THOSE THAT'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM TWO PEOPLE GIVING UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE, UH, TWO UH, CASES REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. ITEM FOUR AND AND ITEM 13. IS THERE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, ON THOSE TWO ITEMS? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PLEASE PRESENT ITEM FOUR AND 13, UH, FOR A CONTINUANCE CONSIDERATION. ITEM FOUR, UH, RE LOCATED AT 5 39, UH, ALMONT PLACE FOR A FOUR FOOT, UH, FRONT YARD FENCE AND A 10 FOOT CLEAR VISION. UM, AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A FENCE, MATERIAL VARIANCE AND A CLEAR VISION VARIANCE LOCATED AT 6 0 7 MCELVEEN BOTH REQUESTING, UH, MAY 18TH. ALRIGHT, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO, UH, MAY 18TH. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. ITEM IS CONTINUED TO MAY 18TH. UH, HOW ABOUT ITEM 13TH? SAME MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO MAY 18TH. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION. UH, CASE, UH, ITEM 13 IS CONTINUED TO MAY 18TH. UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. ITEM NUMBER, UH, LET'S SEE, 15 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM 15? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THAT LEAVES US WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS REQUESTED BY ENRIQUE LMAN AND IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. THIS IS A CONTINUANCE FROM THE APRIL 20TH MEETING. THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 2 2 ULA VISTA. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. PER THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO, SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED A CITATION FOR OPERATING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2022 AND EXPIRED ON AUGUST, 2025. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 11 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO PERMIT ALREADY BEING THERE AT 1 28 ULA VISTA. THE BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 9.09%. IF A SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 18.1% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST. THIS IS THE CURRENT LISTING, BUT ONLY ADVERTISING WITH A 30 DAY MINIMUM. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 21 MALE NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND VOICEMAILS. THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND SHEER HILLS RIDGE RIDGEVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM THE SAN SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION AND SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YES. AND THIS IS A DUPLEX, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, UH, MR. CHAIR CLARIFICATION? YES, IT'S A ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. OH, OKAY. UH, THE REASON WHY I ASK IS, UH, AND ON THE, AND I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, BUT ON THE AERIAL, ON RIO, ON RIO DRIVE, RIO, UM, RIO VISTA DRIVE, THERE'S AN ENTRYWAY, UH, BUT THERE'S A DRIVEWAY AND A DOOR OFF OF.DRIVE WITH THE NUMBER TWO. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IT A SECOND SUITE ON THIS HOUSE, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF, UH, THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH [00:10:01] THIS REQUEST, UH, AT ALL. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WAS, UH, DUPLEX AT ONE POINT, BUT BECAUSE THE ZONING DIDN'T ALLOW FOR THAT, UH, WE HAD THE APPLICANT GO BACK AND ADD A, A DOORWAY BETWEEN THE TWO SO THAT WAY IT CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS ONE UNIT AND RENTED OUT AS SUCH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. THAT IS ME. THE, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, BOARD. MY NAME IS ENRIQUE LAMAN. SO YES, I CAME LAST TIME, UM, WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RIGHT? LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I DID HAVE MY LICENSE TO PERMIT BACK IN 2022 WITH NO COMPLAINTS AND NO VIOLATIONS UP UNTIL THE POINT THAT I FOUND OUT THAT, UH, MY PERMIT HAD EXPIRED BECAUSE I GOT THE CITATION. UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY WHEN THAT HAPPENED, AND I IMMEDIATELY REAPPLIED. THEN I STARTED WORKING WITH THE CITY WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE CHANGE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE BACK, THE DOOR AND ALL THAT. UM, IN THAT 10 DAY PERIOD, ANOTHER STR CAME ON THE BLOCK. THEY APPLIED AND UNFORTUNATELY GOT, THEY APPLIED ON THE 15, APPLIED ON THE 25TH. MINE CAME ON WITHIN THE 30 DAY PERIOD. BASICALLY, I LOST MY PERMIT WHILE I WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY AND, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THE DRIVEWAY ON THE BACK IS SET FOR THE PARKING. WE CHANGED AS YOU SAW THE EGRESS ON THE PROPERTY, UH, AND MADE ALL THOSE CHANGES AND THAT, THAT'S WHY IT HAD EXTENDED ALL THIS TIME. BUT, UH, ANYWAY, THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS PRIOR TO THE, UM, TO THE SEPTEMBER ITEM. THE DENSITY ISSUE AROSE ONLY AFTER, UM, AFTER, UH, I WAS, UH, I WAS CITED. SO I'M, I'M ASKING IF YOU, YOU HAVE SOME, SOME OF MY PAPERWORK IF YOU CAN DISPLAY JUST SOME OF THE FACTS, RIGHT. UM, LIKE I SAID, I'VE NEVER IN, IN THE NEXT, IN THE NEXT SLIDE. OH, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE, BUT I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH IT. UH, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY, ANY, I WAS ALWAYS UNCOMPLIANT DURING ALL THOSE THREE YEARS, RIGHT. THAT I'VE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE. I HAD, UH, I'M JUST GONNA READ IT BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO READ. I'VE NEVER HAD A, A NOISE VIOLATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I HAVE NO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT ON THE PROPERTY LIKE ANY OTHER AIRBNBS. RIGHT. I'VE ALSO MAINTAINED A 4.95 GUEST, UH, AVERAGE AIRBNB RATING, WHICH IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. I'VE HAD OVER 205 STAR REVIEWS PROVING THAT I'VE BEEN A VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I'VE ALSO MADE A CHANGE AS, SO YOU CAN SEE THERE IN ITEM NUMBER FIVE, LIKE I TALKED EARLIER WITH THE CITY, MAKING SURE THAT THE PARKING IS IN THE BACK WITH THE NEXT TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX BECAUSE THERE'S A APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY IS THE ONE ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S THE VERY, VERY LAST PROPERTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT BACKS TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. UH, THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR IS 250 FEET, UH, TO THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR IN THE BACK, SO THERE'S NO ANNOYANCES TO ANY NEIGHBOR ON THE BACK. RIGHT. AND APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET TO THE NEAREST SECOND SER OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT GOT THE PERMIT APPROVED, WHILE I HAD MY LAPSE OF, UM, DENSITY. RIGHT. UH, AND THIS PROPERTY, I ALSO INVESTED OVER A HUNDRED K, UM, TO BRING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO LIFE. IT WAS VERY, VERY IN BAD SHAPE. AND I'VE MAINTAINED THE INSIDE, UH, THE OUTSIDE. I MADE A LOT, A COUPLE OF CHANGES INSIDE, RIGHT? THE EXTERIOR HAS NO CHANGES ON THE APPEARANCE, SO IT DOESN'T INFLUENCE ON ANYTHING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE'S NO COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES. I'VE TALKED TO THE, THE NEIGHBOR AND THEY HAVE NO COMPLAINT RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO ME. UH, I'VE PROVEN COMPATIBILITY WITH ALL THE RESIDENCIES AND LIKE, LIKE I SAID, UM, I, I PARKED IN THE BACK, RIGHT? I ALSO DID TALK TO THE HOA LAST TIME WE WERE GONNA GO TALK TO THE HOAI WENT, I MET WITH THE HOA. WE HAD ABOUT 20 TO 30 PEOPLE ON THE MEETING, UH, DURING THE, THE MEETING. EVERYBODY WAS IN FAVOR OF, UH, THE GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UH, AT LEAST THAT WAS MY OPINION. AND MY IMPRESSION. THEY EVEN VOICED OVER, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN I DID MY PRESENTATION TO THEM, UM, OVER, BUT THIS NEIGHBOR OVER THE WEEKEND, AND I GOT AN EMAIL TODAY FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY HAD MET AGAIN IN THEIR BOARD, AND I THINK THEY COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE, UM, TO THE CITY, THAT THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE, THE, THE OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF ST THEY DON'T LIKE ST ON, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT, UM, [00:15:01] I'VE PROVEN THAT I'VE BEEN A VERY, VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR OVER THREE YEARS. RIGHT. UH, WITH THE HARDSHIP, LIKE I SAID IN THE MIDDLE, IT BRINGS, IF I DON'T HAVE THE, I'VE INVESTED A LOT HERE, UM, AND IT WOULD PROVIDE A LOT OF HARDSHIP OF NOT ONLY FINANCIALLY, BUT IT THREATENS ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY PROPERLY. YOU KNOW, AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN, UM, DUE TO A, MY, MY LAPSING PERMIT WAS NOT DUE TO A VIOLATION, BUT IT WAS MORE OF A LAPSE OF MY, MY, UH, MY, MY, UH, BEING ME BEING OUT OF THE COUNTRY. RIGHT? SO OBVIOUSLY I HAVE A COUPLE OF ALTERNATIVES. I'VE TRIED, I THINK I PRESENTED LAST TIME WHEN I WAS HERE, UH, LONG TERM. I'VE HAD IT AS A LONG TERM RENTAL, BUT THE, UH, IT BARELY COVERED THE COST, SO IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE INVESTMENT THAT, UH, HAS BEEN PUT IN. SO MY RECOMMENDATION, MY OPINION IS THAT, UM, I'M ASKING THE BOARD FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO RESTORE MY PREVIOUSLY COMPLIANT STR GIVEN THAT I HAVE PROVEN HISTORY. SO IT'S NOT, NOT THAT THE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IT'S UP TO THE AIR. IT'S PROVEN HISTORY THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN COMPLIANCE, THAT IT'S NOT NOISE, THERE'S NO PARKING, THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, IT'S NOT, YOU'RE GOING BLIND. YOU'RE GOING WITH FACTS HERE THAT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE, WE HAD OVER 255 TAR REVIEWS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING AGAINST THE CITY, BUT, UH, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO, UM, FOR THE SPECIAL COMPLIANCE. SO, AND IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, UH, THANK YOU, UH, STAFF. DOES THIS APPLICANT OWE ANY MONEY TO THE CITY? THIS SDRI DON'T OWE ANYTHING I CAN SHOW YOU, BUT LET THEM, UM, HE'S CURRENT ON HIS HOT TAXES. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER, MY, THIS IS RELATED TO MY QUESTION FROM EARLIER. SO EVERYONE ON, ON RIO VISTA HAS THEIR DRIVEWAY ON RIO VISTA, BUT THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE HAS A DRIVEWAY AND NOW AN ENTRY DOOR ON.DRIVE. AND THE ONLY OTHER HOUSE THAT HAS A DRIVEWAY AND AN ENTRY DOOR IS HIS NEIGHBOR, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE RIGHT, ALSO ADDRESSED OFF OF.DRIVE IS, IS THIS APPLICANT QUALIFIED FOR ADDRESSING ON.DRIVE? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HIS ACCESS AND ENTRY DOOR IS THERE. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE AN ADDRESSING SITUATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE WAY THAT ADDRESSING IS DONE IS OFF THE FRONT FACE OF THE HOUSE, NOT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS OR THE, BECAUSE HE HAS AN ENTRY DOOR THERE NOW. THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING 'CAUSE BECAUSE THAT DOOR THAT HAS THE TWO YEAH, THAT IT, IT'S ONE UNIT SECOND, AN ENTRY ONE. AND THIS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS DOESN'T WORK OUT, I MEAN, I WOULD PURSUE A DRESSING OFF A DOT, THEN YOU'D BE THE ONLY STR. CORRECT? WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. THAT'S WHY I POINTED THE 200 FEET TO MY NEAREST NEIGHBOR ON.DRIVE. AND IT'S ALSO THE APARTMENT. UH, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY TO MAKE THE ENTRANCE THAT WAY AND MAKING SURE THAT I HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT WAY AS WELL. THAT'S DEFINITELY ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT'S GOING THROUGH. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ADDRESSING, YOU SAID I WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT WHERE, WHERE THAT IS. UM, OKAY. BUT OUR ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT IS HERE. WE CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. I, I WOULD NOT KNOW. I WOULD START WITH THEM. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER UNA? JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE, I KNOW YOU'RE CURRENT, ALL THE HOT TAXES, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, DO WE KNOW AT THE PEAK WHAT KIND OF TAXES THE CITY WAS COLLECTING IN HOT REVENUE FROM THIS UH, STR? JUST GIVE US ONE SECOND. WE'RE GONNA CHECK WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AMANDA? SO, SO IS THIS YOUR ONLY, UM, RENTAL PROPERTY IN SAN ANTONIO? I HAVE FOUR RENTAL PROPERTIES IN SAN ANTONIO. TWO ARE, UM, STS, WELL, THIS ONE WAS ONE. I HAVE TWO LONG-TERM RENTALS IN LA HEIGHTS AND ONE, UH, STR IN TOBIN HILL. AND SO DOES IT, IS THE SAME ARRANGEMENT OR, OR I GUESS IS, IS THAT PROPERTY SAFE OVER IN TOBIN HILL, I GUESS? OH YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. WITH REGARDS TO, UM, TOBIN HILL IS GOOD. OKAY. SO, SO THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE, WE'LL SAY CORRECT, SO TO SPEAK. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, THIS ONE WAS A LAPSE IN TIMING BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY TO WIND HILL. OBVIOUSLY I'VE LEARNED MY LESSONS AND IT'S, IT'S GOOD. YEP. ALL RIGHT. HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THE RESEARCH? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU BON FOR THE CITY? YES. COMMISSIONER THE OTHER STR ON THAT, ON THAT BLOCK FACE. IS THAT STR CURRENT? YES, IT IS. AND JUST TO ADD OR AVITA, HUH? ON R AVITA. OH, MINE IS CURRENT. COMMISSIONER [00:20:01] BONNI. IS THAT, WERE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER SDR R WERE, YEAH, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER, THE OTHER STR ON THAT BLOCK FACE IF THEY WERE CURRENT. THE YES. YES, THE OTHER STR IS CURRENT. AND JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, CHAIRMAN OR I'M SORRY. UM, IT'S ABOUT 866 PER MONTH OR SO, THE LAST 33 MONTHS. ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS I'M LOOKING FOR, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION UNA COMMISSIONER UNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 4 1. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED 1 2 2 RIO VISTA DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING ENRIQUE LMAN BE BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, AND THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES. A SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL. D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS, ROAD STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY, UH, FACILITIES HAVE BEEN, ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROVIDES, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE A PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSE CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR. PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES, BUT DOES HAVE ONE CONFIRMED CITATION AT THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 10TH, 2026, THE APPLICANT OR OWNER WAS HELD LIABLE FOR OPERATING SHORT TERM WITHOUT A PERMIT, IF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, USES WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING ALL STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. COMMISSIONER Z? YES. SO I HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT AND I AM GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. THE APPLICANT HAS FIVE STAR REVIEWS, HAS HISTORY OF OPERATING THIS, THIS PROPERTY IN GOOD ORDER. UM, THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED DUE TO A TIMING LAPSE AND APPLICANT, UH, KIND OF MADE AMENDS FOR THAT. HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF, OF MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UP TO THE BUILDING CODES AND, AND OPERATIONS FOR, UH, RENEWAL OF THE SHORT TERM LICENSE, AND THAT'S WHEN THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY APPLIED. SO IT'S KIND OF A TIMING ISSUE. AND THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT HAS CREPT UP A TIME TO TIME WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE ARE RENOVATING PROPERTIES, WE SEE THIS. AND SO I I THINK IT'S A TIMING ISSUE. I DON'T HOLD THE APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. IN PART, I THINK THE CITY IS RECEIVING REVENUE OF ABOUT $866 A MONTH FROM THE SHORT TERM TAXES, WHICH IS MEANINGFUL I THINK, FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO I'M SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BERNICE? YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT ALSO FOR EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER UNA SAID. UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU KNOW, HE HAS HAD A SOLID HISTORY AS AN OPERATOR, NO VIOLATIONS WHATSOEVER. UH, I THINK WE'VE BEEN HERE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GOOD OPERATORS AND WE SEE THAT OFTEN. WE DON'T SEE THAT HERE WITH THIS, WITH THIS OPERATOR. UH, I THINK HE'LL, HE'LL CONTINUE TO DO WELL AND, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? YES. UH, REED? YES. COMMISSIONER REED? UM, I SHOULD ASK THIS EARLIER, BUT WHEN A, UM, LICENSE IS, IS UP OR COMING UP FOR RENEWAL, HOW, WHAT KIND OF NOTICE DOES THE OWNER GET? IS IT A SINGLE NOTICE? IS IT MULTIPLE IS? UM, SO WHEN A PER THEFT EXPIRED, THEY RECEIVE A REMINDER TO RENEW THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO EXPIRATION DATE AND THEN ONE MONTH PRIOR TO EXPIRATION DATE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, NO. I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. MISS I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA? I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION DOES FAIL, HOWEVER. EIGHT TO THREE. UM, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF, UH, TO EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS [00:25:01] AND, AND WHERE TO TAKE THIS FROM HERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, ITEM TWO. GOOD AFTERNOON. TYLER ADAM, UH, PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UM, THIS IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION BO OA DASH 26 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 5. THIS IS LOCATED 1722 NORTH OLIVE STREET AND COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING NAT DOW. UH, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. ON THE BLOCK FACE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. AS MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1722 NORTH OLIVE STREET. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. PER CITY CODE TYPE TWO, SHORT-TERM RENTALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. THIS BLOCK FACE IS MADE UP OF ONLY THREE UNITS RANGING FROM 1722 TO 1730 NORTH OLIVE. THERE IS AN ACTIVE TYPE TWO ALREADY AT 1730 NORTH OLIVE, UH, WHICH MEANS THIS BLOCK FACE IS CURRENTLY AT 33% DENSITY WITH AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO. UM, THIS WOULD BRING THE BLOCK FACE TO 66%, UH, WHICH EXCEEDS THE 12.5% DENSITY LIMITATION. UM, APPLICANT SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION, UH, MARCH 24TH, 2026 WAS PLACED, UH, BY STAFF ON PENDING BOA DECISION FOR EXCEEDING BLOCK FACE DENSITY ON APRIL 4TH. AND AS MENTIONED, THERE IS A PERMIT AT 1730 NORTH OLIVE, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 2023. THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENT ON THEIR HOT TAXES AND FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THERE ARE NO CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, HISTORY, NO ACTIVE LISTINGS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED, AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, IS DENIAL AND STAFF MAILED 34 NOTICES. WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION. UH, WE DID RECEIVE A VOICEMAIL IN OPPOSITION. UH, NO RESPONSE FROM GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND FIVE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. AND APPLICANT IS HERE, UM, FOR QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. I PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR STR. YES. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS AL. UH, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. SIR, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF, OH YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE SENSITIVE. THANK YOU. UH, MY NAME IS AL AND I'M HERE TODAY TO, UM, REQUEST A SPATIAL EXCEPTION FOR MY PROPERTY. UH, I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, UM, LAST YEAR IN JUNE, 2025 TO BE CLOSER TO MY RATHER FAMILY. UH, THEY LIVE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. UM, SO I STAY IN SAN ANTONIO ABOUT FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS. UM, I WANT TO PUT MY PROPERTY FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL, UM, BECAUSE THE TIME I'M NOT HERE, I WANT TO HAVE SOME REVENUE SO I CAN MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY WELL. UM, THE HOUSE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT WITH GARAGE DRIVEWAY AND ADDITIONAL STREET PARKING DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE HOMES CAN FULLY ACCOMMODATE GUESTS WITHOUT IMPACTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES OR STREET. UM, ANY TYPE OF NEIGHBOR, THE HOUSE IS VERY SEPARATE. UH, I TAKE PRIDE IN MAINTAIN MY PROPERTY AND BEING RESPECTFUL TO NEIGHBORHOOD. I OPERATE RES RESPONSIBLY BY ENFORCING STRICT HOUSE RULE, INCLUDING QUIET HOURS, NO PARTIES, NO EVENTS OR GATHERINGS AND VERIFY SCREENING GUESTS. I ALSO LIMIT, UH, OUR ANCY TO SMALL FAMILY STYLE STAY, UH, TYPICALLY THREE TO FOUR GUESTS TO ENSURE MINIMUM IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE EXTERIOR, UH, SECURITY CAMERAS AND REMAIN ACTIVE INVO MANAGING THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND QUICKLY RESPOND TO ANY CONCERN. UM, IMPORTANTLY THIS REQUEST IS JUST FOR ONE MORE TAI TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL ON A LEFT FACE AND APPROVAL WOULD REMAIN WITHIN THE CITY PACING AND DENSITY REQUIREMENT AND WOULD NOT CREATE AN OVER CONCENTRATION. I'M FULLY COMMITTED TO COM LINE WITH ALL THE CITY REGULATIONS AND OPERATING IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS THE CHARACTER SAFETY [00:30:01] AND QUALITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND, UH, DO YOU OWN ANY OTHER SDRS IN SAN ANTONIO? NO. YOU DON'T? OKAY. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE'S ONLY THREE, UM, UH, UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE. AND I'M LOOKING, YOU KNOW, ON GOOGLE DRIVE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S, UM, THE RM ARE, ARE THEY BEING ADDRESSED DIFFERENTLY AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT BEING CONSIDERED ON THIS BLOCK FACE? UM, NO, IT'S BECAUSE THAT RM THERE'S MORE, IF THERE'S MORE THAN FOUR UNITS ON A LOT, THEY'RE CONSIDERED THEIR OWN BLOCK FACE AND NOT, ARE NOT COUNTED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOCK FACE. THE STREET IS, SO THERE ARE, HOLD ON. SORRY. OH, I'M SO SORRY. IT'S OKAY. SO, OKAY. SO, UM, SO THEY AREN'T INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT, SO, UM, DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THOSE UNITS AS WELL? THERE ARE NONE ON THAT UNIT. OKAY. THOSE, THOSE UNITS. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, REAL QUICK. BON YES COMMISSIONER ONE MORE TIME. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT, WHAT YOU JUST SAID? IF THEIR RM FOUR, THEY'RE CONSIDERED THEIR OWN BLOCK FACE, SO IF A LOT OR PARCEL HAS MORE THAN FOUR UNITS ON IT, THEY'RE CONSIDERED THEIR OWN BLOCK FACE AND ARE SEPARATE FROM THE REMAINDER OF THAT STREET. OKAY. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, SO WHO THE, UM, IS NOT ACCEPTING THE REQUEST. SOMEBODY SAID, UH, A POST, UH, A REQUEST. DO YOU KNOW WHY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? WHY? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT? YES. OKAY. UM, I CAN PULL THAT UP. IT'S THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THEY WOULD BE OPPOSING IT. UM, THIS IS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1712 NORTH OLIVE. OH, THIS IS THE RM FOUR WITH THE MULTIPLE UNITS? MM-HMM . OKAY. YEAH. BON, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE A. YES, MR. BON. YES SIR. WHAT TYPE OF HARDSHIP, UH, WOULD YOU EXPERIENCE IF, IF WE, IF YOU DON'T GET THIS PERMIT? UH, SO F FOR ME, IF I GET THIS PERMIT THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY REALLY WELL, WHICH IS I WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, HAVING, UH, A MANAGEMENT THAT HELPED ME TO RUN THIS PROPERTY WITH ME AS A CO-HOST, UM, I WOULD BE ABLE TO OBVIOUSLY PAY THE CITY TAXES, UH, BRINGING REVENUE FOR THE CITY. AND IF YOU DON'T GET, IF YOU DON'T GET THE PERMIT, WHAT, WHAT DIFFICULTIES DO YOU FACE IF YOU DON'T GET THE PERMIT? I WOULD HAVE CHALLENGING COVER THE EXPENSE, UM, YES. SUCH AS TWO THINGS. WOULD YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO, UH, IS THERE A MORTGAGE ON THIS? WOULD YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER THE COVER? THE, THE MONTHLY DEBT? YES. IF YOU GET THE PERMIT, YES. THANK YOU. AND THE, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU STAY THERE FIVE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. IS THAT FIVE MONTHS CONCURRENTLY OR SPORADICALLY SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR? UH, SPREAD OUT? SO DURING THE HOLIDAYS, UH, I COME FOR LIKE, UH, UH, I WOULD SAY LIKE, UH, BETWEEN THANKSGIVING UNTIL MAYBE LIKE, UM, MARCH. UH, SO I DON'T, I DON'T LOVE THE COAL IN WASHINGTON DC SO I COME HERE. UM, AND ALSO MY RATHER HERE, SO I JUST SPEND TIME WITH THEM HOLIDAYS AND SOMETIMES I COME BACK AND FORTH. IT ALL DEPENDS. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE D DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT YOU TO FIND A TENANT OR EVEN, OR EVEN ALLOCATE MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN A ROW TO RENT THIS FACILITY OUT? YES. I THINK IT'S CHALLENGING TO, UM, TO DO LONG TERM AND BECAUSE I WANT THE FLEXIBILITY FOR MY PROPERTIES IF I WANT TO, LET'S SAY IF MY NIECE GRADUATE AND I WANT IT TO COME FOR A WEEK, SO I THEN I HAVE THAT, UM, FLEXIBILITY THAT I CAN JUST BOOK AND SAY IF I RENT IT OUT LONG TERM, I, I WOULD SAY I HAVE MORE RESTRICTED. RIGHT. UM, YES. YEAH, THIS IS WHY I WISH WE HAD, UH, THE ABILITY TO DO LESS THAN THREE YEARS . OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO [00:35:01] PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, I MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 5. I'M MOVED TO THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 1 7 2 2 NORTH OLIVE STREET, APPLICANT BEING NAT DOW. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS REC, AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE IN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT, UH, CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL. D ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING, APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER OF THE PROP. UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES, CONVICTIONS, OR, UH, FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR. PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES, CONFIRMS CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTION OF CHAPTER 16 F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES, UH, WITH THIS, WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING ALL STREET PARKING, MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND OF MOTION. I SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EZ, COMMISSIONER, UH, MANNA. SO UNFORTUNATELY I I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION AND I APOLOGIZE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I TAKE A LOOK AT THIS COMMUNITY, I DO SEE THAT, UM, THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE A FAIR AMOUNT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET. THERE'S 18, UM, OTHER SHORT TERM, UH, TYPE TWO RENTALS HERE. AND SO, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PROTECT THE DENSITY IN A COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THIS, UM, BASICALLY JUST AGGRAVATES THAT. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. COMMISSIONER BANEZ, UH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSION COMM, THE COMMISSIONER. UM, IT'S VERY ODD, UH, FOR US, WELL, FOR ME TO SUPPORT THE PERCENTAGE. UM, 66% FOR THIS BLOCK FACE. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, EZ I MEAN, COMMISSIONER EZ. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS BLOCK'S LAID OUT KIND OF ODD. THERE'S ONLY THREE PROPERTIES THERE, SO EVEN ONE PUTS IT AT 33%, WHICH IS WAY OVER THE 12 POINT 0.5. UH, BUT IN ADDITION, I THINK THIS APPLICANT SAID, YOU KNOW, HE STAYS THERE FIVE MONTHS OUTTA THE YEAR, SIX MONTHS OUTTA THE YEAR. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE HIS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALSO HIS PERSONAL HOME TOO, AND THAT MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO USE THIS HOME AS A LONG-TERM RENTAL. AS A MIDTERM RENTAL. WE KNOW THEY DON'T REALLY DO WELL. UM, SO FOR, FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT BEING HIS HOME FIVE, SIX MONTHS OUTTA THE YEAR, HIM NOT BEING ABLE TO REALLY RENT IT OUT LONG TERM PUTS HIM IN A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU UNA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT TOO FOR ALL THE REASONS MY COLLEAGUE BROUGHT UP. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. UH, AND I CONCUR. UH, HOWEVER, THE MOTION, UH, DOES FAIL. SIX TO FIVE. UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GET WITH STAFF IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ITEM THREE. [00:40:12] GOOD AFTERNOON, TYLER, ADAM, UH, PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 9. LOCATED AT 2 4 7 PRINCETON. THIS IS COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. APPLICANT IS ELVIS TREVINO, AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. UM, AND THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS ZONED, UM, AS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE, UM, WITH USES PERMITTED FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS. UH, AS MENTIONED, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2 4 7 PRINCETON. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, AND PER CITY CODE TYPE TWO, SHORT TERM RENTALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS. ON THE BLOCK FACE, THERE ARE 15 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE, UM, RANGING FROM 2 0 7 TO 2 4 7 PRINCETON WITH ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO PERMIT LOCATED AT TWO 11 PRINCETON. CURRENT BLOCK FACE DENSITY IS 6.6%. IF AN ADDITIONAL IS APPROVED, THAT WOULD BRING THE DENSITY TO 13.3% EXCEEDING THE 12.5% LIMITATION. UH, APPLICANT SUBMITTED, UM, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 3RD, 2026. APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON PENDING BOA DECISION FOR EXCEEDING BLOCK FACE DENSITY ON MARCH 31ST. AND AS MENTIONED THE TYPE TWO THAT'S LOCATED AT TWO 11, PRINCETON, UM, WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 2025. THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENT ON THEIR HOT, UM, AND FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THERE IS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AND NO ACTIVE LISTINGS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT SLIDES ARE THE SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. UH, 29 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS WERE RECEIVED FOR, UM, FOR THIS REQUEST, UH, NO RESPONSE FROM UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. NO RESPONSE FROM SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION AND FIVE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR SDR. HI, UM, MY NAME IS ELVIS TREVINO. I'M THE OWNER AT THE PROPERTY AT 2 47 PRINCETON AVENUE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A TYPE TWO STR AT THIS LOCATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. THE EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY OPERATED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL CONCURRENT WITH THE OTHER EXISTING STR ON THE BLOCK WITHOUT INCIDENT. UM, DURING THAT TIME, THERE WERE NO IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOR WERE THERE CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY, UM, OR PERMANENTLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. THE PROJECT HAS OPERATED AS BOTH A LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT DISTURBANCE TO ADJACENT OWNERS. I HAVE ALSO COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH ADJACENT OWNERS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED NO CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE EITHER CURRENTLY OR BASED ON PRIOR OPERATIONS. UM, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE STR WAS, UH, PREVIOUSLY RAN BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND THE INTENT OF THE STR REGULATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE DENSITY LIMITATION AND TO MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND COMPATIBILITY, UH, I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED USE, UM, REMAINS IN HARMONY WITH ITS INTENT AS THE BLOCK FACE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL. AND THE SLIGHT INCREASE ABOVE THE DENSITY CAP DOES NOT ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA. UM, IN ADDITION, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN NO PRIOR ISSUES RELATED TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE OCCUPANTS OF, UM, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS WELL AS LONG-TERM RENTAL. AND THE PROPERTY WILL BE ACTIVELY AND LOCALLY MANAGED, UM, WITH CONTROL OPERATIONS INCLUDING NO PARTIES ENFORCED QUIET HOURS, UH, GUEST SCREENING AND 24 7 AVAILABILITY OF A LOCAL CONTACT TO RESPOND TO ANY CONCERNS. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THIS, UH, STR WILL NOT CREATE ANY UNDUE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR PARKING IMPACTS AS THERE'S TWO OFF STREET PARKING AREAS FROM [00:45:01] THE FRONT OF THE STREET. AND ON THE SIDE THERE'S A TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE, WHICH, WHICH CAN ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO, UH, THE STR UM, UH, GUESTS. IN ADDITION, I HAVE COORDINATED WITH RAY SALINA, PRESIDENT OF THE UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHO INDICATED NO OPPOSITION OR CONCERNS TO THE REQUEST AND ALSO NO CONCERNS WERE RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD. UM, MR. SALINA ACTUALLY RESIDES WITHIN THE PERIMETER OR CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE NOTICE NOTICES, UM, ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY. SO, UM, I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO KIND OF HIS, UH, LOOKOUT ON THIS. UM, THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, CONSTRUCTED IN 1930 AND HAS BEEN FULLY RENOVATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES, PERMITS AND REGULATIONS. AND THIS REFLECTS A COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY IN A MATTER CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. UM, THIS AREA ALSO LACKS HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS SUCH AS HOTELS, AND I STRONGLY BELIEVE HAVING AN ADDITIONAL STR IN THIS AREA WILL PROVIDE VISITORS WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO EXPERIENCE SAN ANTONIO AT A MORE INTIMATE LEVEL. UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, I RESPECTIVELY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION MEETS THE CRITERIA AND GRANTS APPROVAL OF THE TYPE TWO STR AT THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, YOU SAID THAT THE HOA PRESIDENT LIVED NEARBY? YES. DO YOU KNOW HOW CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY HE LIVES? IT'S, UH, 2 0 6 UNIVERSITY. SO. OKAY, SO JUST IT CATCHES, CATCHES THE, YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA? UM, DID, DO YOU HAVE LIKE DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THAT, THAT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF IT, SO AND SO ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION OUTSIDE OF, UM, NOT BESIDES A PHONE CALL AND A TEXT KIND OF COORDINATING OTHER THINGS THAT WERE, HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A 60 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOWN THE STREET AND HE TEXT ME ABOUT IT, BUT NO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION OR EMAIL. SO DOES YOUR TEXT SHOW HIS COMPLIANCE OR HIS, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT? SO, UM, SO IT'D BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO SEE JUST CONFIRMATION FROM, UH, LEMME SEE. YEAH, HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CAMERA SOMEWHERE OR, OH, I GUESS THE EXTENT OF IT, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, NICE CHATTING WITH YOU , BUT HE DID SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT A LOT DOWN THE STREET AND HE WAS JUST KIND OF TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KIND OF WHAT, UH, WHAT THEY LIKE TO SEE IN THE AREA. BUT IF, UH, SOME FORM OF, UM, I GUESS THUMBS UP WOULD HELP MY CASE, I THINK I COULD PROVIDE THAT, UM, OR REQUEST IT. SO. SO MY QUESTION, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT IT USED TO BE AN STR UH, THE PREVIOUS OWNER. CORRECT. AND SO DID YOU BUY IT IN THE HOPES TO CONTINUE ON ITS USE AS AN STR? YES. AND THEN THE, THE INDIVIDUAL AT UH, TWO 11 PRINCETON GOT A LICENSE BEFORE, WERE THEY GRANDFATHERED? DID THEY GET A LICENSE DURING THAT, UH, PART WHERE HIS LICENSE GOT CANCELED BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AND THEN THE ONE AT TWO 11 CAME IN TO TO BE, OR, OR WAS THAT A, UH, GRANDFATHER? UM, THE PREVIOUS PERMIT AT 2 4 7 EXPIRED IN 2024. MM-HMM . UH, TWO 11 GOT THEIR PERMIT IN OCTOBER OF 2025. OH, A YEAR LATER. YEAH. AND FOR CLARIFICATION, THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THEIR PERMIT REVOKED DUE TO HOT DELINQUENCY IN 2024. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY TRANSACTION, IT WASN'T A TRANSACTION THAT CAUSED THE PERMIT TO BE REV, RIGHT? UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, BEEZ FOR THE BEEZ, WERE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANY NEIGHBORS AND MAYBE GET SUPPORT FROM THEM? YES. UH, I SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WOULD BE BRAZOS. UM, AND THEN I SPOKE WITH THE ONE, UM, I GUESS IT WOULD BE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT. UM, THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION AND I ASKED ABOUT ANY PREVIOUS, UH, COMPLAINTS OR, UM, ANY OTHER THINGS THAT THEY WOULD WANT ME TO KNOW AS I OPERATE AN AREA AND THEY HAD NO CONCERNS. AND THEN, AND THEN I KNOW YOU SPOKE WITH MR. SALINAS AND YOU SAID HE WASN'T IN OPPOSITION, BUT, BUT WOULD HE BE IN SUPPORT YOU THINK? UM, I BELIEVE HE WOULD. UM, [00:50:01] I THINK, UH, HE'S ALSO OPERATES, UH, RENTALS, NOT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IN THE AREA. UM, SO I THINK HE, HE WOULD GIVE THE THUMBS UP ON IT. YEAH, I THINK I, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HIS BOARD'S BEING TOO FRIENDLY TODAY. SO, UM, I THINK MAYBE IF YOU COULD GET, UH, MAYBE SOME SUPPORT FROM, FROM MR. SALINAS AND UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SOMETHING, SOMETHING SAYING, HEY, YEAH, WE WE'RE GOOD WITH IT. IF YOU CAN GET MAYBE SOME, SOME CHECKS FROM NEIGHBORS AROUND YOU GETTING SOME SUPPORT THERE, I THINK THAT WOULD GREATLY HELP. AND, AND MAYBE BE ABLE TO GET YOU APPROVED. UM, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE A CONTINUOUS TO PURSUE THAT ENDEAVOR? COULD YOU EXPLAIN, UH, WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THAT? YEAH, WE WOULD JUST KIND OF SHELF THIS. WE WOULD, I, I WOULD ASK IF THE, IF A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A, A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE AND THEN IF IT GETS GRANTED YOU WOULD COME BACK, UH, HOPEFULLY WITH, UH, DOCUMENTED SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND DOCUMENTED SUPPORT FROM IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. OKAY. WOULD THAT RESULT IN NO. A NO VOTE RIGHT NOW. WHY DON'T YOU, NO ACTION TODAY. IT WOULD BE JUST CONTINUE TO ANOTHER DAY. UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE, UH, THE BEST PATH FORWARD, SO. I AGREE. ALRIGHT. IS THERE, IS, UH, ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CONTINUANCE? SO MOVED. IS THERE TWO WEEKS ENOUGH OR YOU NEED A MONTH? TWO WEEKS IS GOOD. OKAY. SO THERE'S A, A MOTION FOR CONTINUOUS TO MAY 18TH. IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND. I'LL GIVE THAT TO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN THIS TIME. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. UH, WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE WEEKS AND, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IF YOU CAN GARNISH WRITTEN SUPPORT. YES, SIR. IF I APPRECIATE Y'ALLS TIME, IF, IF YOU CAN GET THEM IN WRITING ESPECIALLY. YES, DEFINITELY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. AND IF, UM, REAL QUICK, UH, 'CAUSE WE GOT EXTERNAL STAFF HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX, UM, CAN WE PUSH THAT UP ON THE AGENDA? OH, SURE. YEP. I'M GONNA BE TRANSFERRING THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER OZUNA AS I WILL BE RECUSING THOMAS 1 53 AND, UH, CHAIR ORIAN HAS LEFT. SO THAT PUTS US DOWN TO HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS? UH, 10 COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO STAFF IF WE CAN HEAR THE PRESENTATION FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS JOEL VELES AND YOUR PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 7 3 AT 50 70 OLD PEARSALL ROAD. UH, WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND PRESENT OUTSIDE OF FULL SCREEN. YEAH. UH, THE APPLICANT BEING A DA CONSULTING GROUP INCORPORATED IN DISTRICT FOUR. UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, AN ELIMINATION OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE C BUFFER REQUIRED ALONG MEDINA BASE ROAD TWO, AN ELIMINATION OF THE 30 FOOT TYPE E BUFFER REQUIRED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE C BUFFER TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUFFER ALONG OLD PEARSALL ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD PIERSALL ROAD AND MEDINA BASE ROAD. UH, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THAT THIS IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT BE USED FOR A NEW FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WITH ACCESS FROM MEDINA BASE ROAD. THE UDC REQUIRES NEW DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TRANSITION SPACES, SPACES BETWEEN USES AND TO PROMOTE GREEN SPACE AS PART OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIZE OF THESE BUFFER YARDS IS BASED ON THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS IN THIS CASE ARE THE RESULT OF THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION OF I ONE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. IF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE NOT GRANTED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT MAY PROPOSE A CHANGE OF ZONING TO ANY OF THE SEA COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH E EACH PERMIT THIS PROPOSED USE AND WOULD IMPOSE A SMALLER LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 7 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REQUEST WOULD EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE ROUGHLY 90% OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, WHICH WOULD NOT ADEQUATELY SCREEN THE PROPOSED USE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ROADWAYS. AND TWO, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT MAY PROPOSE A CHANGE OF ZONING TO LOWER THE INTENSITY, UH, OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS MORE ALIGNED WITH THIS PROPOSED USE. STAFF MAILED 10 NOTICES. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, ZERO VOICEMAILS [00:55:01] WERE RETURNED AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE A NOTICE FROM THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY AS AS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S, UH, PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? CRUZ, MR. BRAGMAN, UH, FOR STAFF, MS. BRAGMAN AND THEN MS. CRUZ. SORRY, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE NOTIFICATION PLAN THAT WE HAVE COMPARED TO THE PRESENTATION AND THEY LOOK CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YEAH, I THINK THE, UH, TEMPLATE ONE THAT I SENT YOU OVER HAS SOME ONES AND TWOS IN THERE. THOSE THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S JUST THE TEMPLATE. THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COUNTS THAT WE HAVE HERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, MS. CRUZ COURSE. OKAY. ON THE, UH, NOTICES YOU'RE SAYING THERE WAS TWO ER ONE OPPOSED, BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING ANYWHERE ON THE MAP. CAN YOU SHOW IT? YEAH, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL, UH, NOTE, UH, NOTICES THAT WE RECEIVED HERE ON THE PRESENTATION BEFORE Y'ALL, NOT THE ONE THAT WE SENT OVER THE WEEKEND. THAT ONE, UH, IN, IN THAT PRES PREPARATION PACKET DOESN'T INCLUDE THE OFFICIAL COUNTS. WHAT WE RECEIVED WAS ONE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE 200 FEET, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AGAIN, THE ONE SENT OVER THE WEEKEND. SORRY, THAT'S, IT'S, GO AHEAD AND IGNORE THE, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN ON THAT ONE. WE'RE GOING OFF OF ON THE SCREEN HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. CRUZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WELL, YEAH, I, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THE COMPUTER. UHHUH . OKAY. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. APOLOGIES FOR THAT. NO WORRIES. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. HELLO. HI, MY NAME IS TAYLOR ERICKSON AND I WORK WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM ON THIS PROJECT. UM, I AM NEW TO THIS, SO JUST BEAR WITH ME . UM, TODAY WE'RE ASKING TO, UH, REQUEST LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCES TO ACCOMMODATE A SMALL DRIVE THROUGH ONLY RESTAURANT DEVELOPED, UM, IN AN EIGHT BY 40 FOOT REUSED SHIPPING CONTAINER ON A VACANT AND ISOLATED LOT. UM, YEAH, IF YOU COULD SHOW THE FIRST EXHIBIT, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. THANK YOU. OOPS. SO WHAT THIS SHOWS IS TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY ON HOW THIS TRACK CAME TO BE. WE GO BACK TO 1967 WHEN THE US AIR FORCE RELEASED A LARGE ACCESS DRIVE NOW CALLED MEDINA BASE ROAD, UH, WHICH WAS USED BY THE US UM, AIR FORCE TO ACCESS BLACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE AS OLD PEARSALL EXPANDED, UH, THE PAVED ROAD BECAME UNNECESSARY AND WAS ULTIMATELY DETACHED AND OBLITERATED BY THE CITY IN 1988 WHEN MEDINA BASE ROAD WAS IMPROVED. UM, SO IN 1988, UH, MEDINA BASE ROAD WAS CONNECTED TO OLD PEARSALL BY A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, TAKING THAT SEVERED OUR SMALL SITE FROM THE LARGER, MORE RECTANGULAR 4.283 ACRE LOT, UM, ACROSS THE STREET. UM, THIS LEFT OUR SMALL SITE ISOLATED AT THE HARD CORNER OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS. AND THEN COULD YOU SHOW THE SECOND ONE PLEASE? THANK YOU. AND NOW THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE 4.283 ACRE LOT THAT WOULD'VE HAD SOME REAL POTENTIAL FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE, BUT ONCE THE SMALL PORTION WAS ISOLATED BY RIGHT AWAY TAKING, IT LED TO OUR HARDSHIPS AFTER OUR REQUIRED 13 FOOT OF RIGHT OF AWAY DEDUCTION ALONG MEDINA BASE ROAD. OUR TRACT IS NOW 0.434 ACRES IN SIZE, MAKING IT PRACTICALLY UNUSABLE FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL USE. AND BEING ON THE CORNER OF TWO PUBLIC ARTERIAL STREETS, WE HAVE TO DEDICATE 14 FOOT CPS EASEMENTS ON THE TWO STREET FRONTAGES, MAKING THE SITE EVEN SMALLER WHEN COMPARED TO SMALL PARCELS THAT ONLY FRONT ONE ROADWAY. AND THEN THE LAST ONE AND THAT LAST ONE CAN STAY UP PLEASE. THANK YOU. UM, ANOTHER HARDSHIP IS THAT THIS SMALL SITE HAS A 30 INCH HERITAGE OAK TREE THAT IS BEING PRESERVED. THIS PUSHES OUR DEVELOPMENT BACK AWAY FROM OLD PIERCE CELL, FURTHER RESTRICTING WHAT WE CAN DO WHEN A SITE IS ON AN ARTERIAL. THE UDC DOES NOT ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 245 FEET OF AN INTERSECTION. SO BEING AT THE CORNER OF TWO ARTERIALS AND OUR SITE BEING SO SMALL, WE TECHNICALLY AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY AT ALL. SO OUR OFFICE HAD TO SECURE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO PLACE THIS DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT, WHICH IS RIGHT WHERE THE 30 FOOT SIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED. SO THEN TO GO OVER OUR VARIANCE REQUEST, SINCE THERE'S THREE REGARDING THE 30 FOOT SIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELIMINATION AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE, IF WE WERE ZONED C ONE OR C TWO LIKE THIS LAND SHOULD BE, THIS BUFFER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. AND WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO TREAT THIS PROPERTY AS SUCH, PROVIDING A 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG WITH OUR DRIVEWAY LOCATION REQUIREMENT RIGHT AWAY. AND CPS EASEMENT, DEDICATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE 30 INCH OAK TREE MAKE THIS [01:00:01] LAND BASICALLY USELESS. THE ABUTTING APARTMENT COMPLEX IN CONSTRUCTION IS SITUATED WELL ABOVE OUR SITE, AS YOU SAW FROM THOSE PICTURES. UM, SO BEAR ME WITH ME AS I TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS, BUT FROM THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE, YOU'D HAVE TO TRAVEL 16 FEET ACROSS A SANITARY SEWER MAIN EASEMENT. THEN THE ELEVATION RISES OVER 25 FEET TO THE APARTMENT PARKING LOT, WHICH IS ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE. THEN THE NEAREST FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING IS ANOTHER A HUNDRED FEET AWAY. SO THIS BUFFER TRULY SERVES NO PURPOSE AS IT'S NOT SCREENING ANYONE FROM ANYTHING REGARDING THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG MEDINA BASE ELIMINATION REQUEST TO PROVIDE COMPLIANT FOR PARKING SPOTS AND INTERIOR DRIVE ACCESS. THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO HAS TO LIE NEAR THE REQUIRED 14 FOOT CPS EASEMENT ALONG MEDINA BASE ROAD, LEAVING ONLY A FEW FEET PER PLANTING TO MEET ANY BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS ALONG MEDINA BASE ROAD, A 13 FOOT RIGHTAWAY DEDICATION TO THE CITY. AND THEN 14 FOOT CPS EASEMENT DEDICATION ARE REQUIRED ON THE PLAT. AFTER, AFTER PROVIDING THIS DRIVE AND SOME PARKING, THERE IS VERY LIMITED SPACE FOR ANY PLANTING ALONG THIS STREET. AND THEN REGARDING THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REDUCTION REQUEST ALONG OLD PEARSALL ROAD, WE ARE ASKING TO BE TREATED AS A C ONE OR C TWO ZONED PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD ONLY NEED A 10 FOOT BUFFER ALONG OLD PEARSALL. SO TO SUMMARIZE, OUR SITE IS ISOLATED WITH A TEXT DOT PARCEL USED FOR DRAINAGE TO THE NORTH TO THE WEST. IS A NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX CURRENTLY IN CONSTRUCTION. BUT AS I MENTIONED, THEY'RE WELL LOCATED OVER A HUNDRED FEET AWAY AND OVER 25 FEET ABOVE OUR SITE. ACROSS THE OLD PIOL IS A SAWS FACILITY AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS MEDINA BASE ROAD IS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER AS THE SUBJECT TRACT. BUFFERS ARE USED TO SCREEN USES OF HIGHER INTENSITY FROM VIEW. BUT WHO ARE WE SCREENING FROM? IF A CROSS MEDINA BASE IS THE SAME OWNER, WHICH IS UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME AND ACROSS ALL PIOL IS USED AS A SAW FACILITY FROM THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, I, ONE IS NOT APPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION AND WE REALLY SHOULD BE C ONE OR C TWO. AND IF WE WERE C ONE OR C TWO, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A 30 FOOT BUFFER AT ALL. AND WE WOULD JUST HAVE THE 10 FEET BUFFERS ALONG THE TWO ARTERIAL ROADS. EVEN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS CASE SUGGESTS THAT CHANGE OF ZONING TO A LOWER INTENSITY ZONING CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS MORE ALIGNED WITH THE PROPOSED USE, SUCH A CHANGE WOULD IMPOSE MORE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, A CHANGE IN ZONING IS EXPENSIVE AND CAN TAKE FOUR TO SIX MONTHS TO BE APPROVED. COMING TO THE BOARD IS MUCH QUICKER AND LESS EXPENSIVE. I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK TO BE TREATED AS A LOWER INTENSITY ZONING CLASS, NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK WE WOULD SUCCEED, BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S QUICKER AND CHEAPER TO GO THIS ROUTE. BESIDES THAT THE ZONING EVER DOES ULTIMATELY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S NO HARM IN GRANTING OUR VARIANCES TODAY. ALSO, OUR OFFICE DID REACH OUT TO THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VIA EMAIL AND DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND OUR REQUESTS WITH CHANEL ALAIR AND HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL STATING THEIR SUPPORT, WHICH I DO HAVE PRINTED HERE TODAY. IT JUST CAME OVER THE WEEKEND, SO WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION. IN CLOSING, WE ARE PRESERVING TREES. WE'LL FULLY COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPE CODE AND PROVIDE ONSITE PLANNING AND WE'LL ONLY HAVE 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE RELIEF TO OUR HARDSHIPS THAT I HAD MENTIONED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, MS. MS. BRAGMAN, COULD WE SEE FIRST OF ALL THE LETTER FROM, UH, THAT FIRST PAGE AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE IS WHAT WE HAD SENT THEM? UH, AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT ON THE MEDINA BASE ROAD WHERE THE 15 FOOT BUFFER, UH, IF YOU WERE A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO BUFFER REQUIRED AT ALL ALONG MEDINA BASE ROAD? I BELIEVE THERE'D STILL BE A 10 FOOT BUFFER AND SAME WITH OLD PIERCE SOUL, BUT THAT 30 FOOT BUFFER IN THE BACK PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT BE THERE. OKAY, SO BUT YOU'RE REQUESTING TO ELIMINATE THE 15 FOOT ENTIRELY AND NOT STOP? UM, YES. 'CAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BLUE, THAT'S WHERE THE 14 FOOT CPS EASEMENT IS. AND THERE'S THE GREEN IS WHERE WE COULD PLANT NOW, BUT I MEAN, WITH A REDUCTION WE COULD PLANT, WE COULD BEAUTIFY THE AREA MORE OUTSIDE OF THE STRICT SCREENING CODES. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO FOR. UM, OKAY, BUT I MEAN, IN YOUR REQUEST YOU'RE REQUESTING TO ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY. YES. WHICH MEANS THEN THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO PUT ANY SORT OF PLANTING NO, YEAH. NO STRICT REQUIREMENT, BUT WE WOULD STILL PLANT, UM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND HOW MUCH, HOW WIDE A STRIP DO YOU NEED FOR THAT PLANTING? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE THE WAY YOU'RE [01:05:01] REQUESTING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING TAKE IT DOWN TO ZERO MM-HMM . AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. MM-HMM . SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT YOU WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT YOU WOULD SAY, YES, WE CAN DO 10 FOOT, WE CAN DO FIVE FOOT REALISTICALLY, I THINK 10 FEET. UH, LIKE I SAID, IF WE WERE CLASSIFIED AS ZONE C ONE OR C TWO, WE WOULD ONLY HAVE THE 10 FOOT REQUIREMENT ON THE TWO ARTERIAL STREETS. UM, I THINK THE BIGGER ONE IS THE 30 FOOT ONE IN THE BACK. 'CAUSE IF YOU CAN SEE IT CUTS RIGHT THROUGH THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN PUT OUR DRIVEWAY. UM, SO THAT ONE'S THE BIGGER ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET ELIMINATED. AND THEN ALONG THE TWO STREETS, UH, LESS IS BETTER ALONG MEDINA ROAD. BUT IF IT WAS 10 JUST TO BE TREATED AS A C ONE C TWO I I, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO 10 FEET INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING AN ENTIRELY? UM, WELL, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T YOU HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT WHERE THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE SETBACK? YEAH. 'CAUSE IF YOU SEE ON THE LAP, THERE'S THREE SPACES THAT LOOK LIKE WOULD BE ENCROACHING INTO THE YES. UM, I, I THINK 10 COULD WORK, FIVE WOULD BE BETTER, MORE OR LESS JUST THE REDUCTION. IF I CAN'T GET AN ELIMINATION, I WILL, I WILL TAKE A REDUCTION. IT'S JUST, UH, AS I MENTIONED, THIS LOT JUST CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING INDUSTRIAL. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WE'RE SCREENING FROM AND I'M, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THIS LOT IN THIS UP AND COMING COMMERCIALIZED AREA. WELL, I GUESS MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IS NOT ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL 'CAUSE YOU'VE GOT AN ENTIRE SECTION OF, OF APARTMENTS BEHIND YOU, SO MM-HMM . I MEAN, FOR THEIR SAKE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. SO IT'S NOT JUST THEY'RE LOOKING AT A A, YOU SAID A CONTAINER IS WHAT THE UH, REUSE SHIPPING CONTAINER. YES. YEAH. SO THAT'S NOT TERRIBLY ATTRACTIVE. MM-HMM . AND I GUESS MY POINT WAS WITH THE 30 FOOT BUFFER IN THE BACK THOUGH, UM, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE IT, IT'S A HUNDRED FEET AWAY AND 25 FEET UP. SO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO A HUNDRED FEET TALL OF TREES OF THE TOP STORY OF A FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING COULD SEE RIGHT. OVER AND IN IS KIND OF WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THAT BACK ONE KIND OF DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. I UNDERSTAND THE STREETS BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD DRIVE BY IT, BUT, AND THAT WAS MY POINT. YEAH. THE ONE ON MEDINA BASE ROAD, NOT THE ONE BEHIND. YES. SO YES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION TO A UM, WELL, I MEAN, DON'T THEY HAVE TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION? NO, IT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MANNA. MANNA. SO THE QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. SO, SO ON THIS PICTURE HERE, UM, SO IS THERE, SO THERE'S THE BLUE SECTION. UM, SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CLOSE TO OLD PIOL ROAD IT CAN GET. 'CAUSE THERE'S A TREE DRAWN HERE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS STATING THAT THE PRESERVING, BUT ON THE PICTURE IT SHOWS THAT'S GONE. UM, AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT TREE'S THERE. AND SO CAN THE PROPERTY BE MOVED CLOSER TO OLD PIOL ROAD BY RIGHT BEFORE IT STARTS TO HAVE ISSUES? IN OTHER WORDS? SO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GREEN VERSUS THE BLUE IS THERE. THE, THE BLUE IS THE ACTUAL, UH, IT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY. IF YOU'RE ASKING IF THE PROPERTY LINE CAN MOVE CLOSER, ALL PEARSALL ROAD, NO, I'M ASKING IF THE WHOLE PARK CAN BE MOVED CLOSER TO PEARSALL ROAD. SO THE, THE BLUE I BELIEVE REPRESENTS THE EASEMENTS. YES. AND WE DO ALLOW, BECAUSE OF WHEN WE GET INTO SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S SO TIGHT, WE, WE DO ALLOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PLANTING IN THOSE EASEMENTS AS WELL. SO WE, WE, WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF ELIMINATING ANY BUFFERS. CERTAINLY REDUCING BUFFERS WE CAN CONSIDER. WELL, SO, AND WHERE I WAS GOING WAS THE APPLICANT WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MORE IN THE BACKSIDE. AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THEY MOVE EVERYTHING DOWN A LITTLE BIT THAT IF IT PROVIDES MORE IN THE BACKSIDE, UM, JUST IN GENERAL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PICTURE OF A TREE DRAWN HERE THAT'S NOT THERE ANY LONGER. SO AS A HERITAGE JOKE THAT WAS CUT DOWN. AND SO, UM, AND SO, SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE ANY OF THIS, UM, ACCORDINGLY. AND SO THEREFORE WE CAN PROVIDE A BIGGER BACK, A BIGGER BUFFER IN THE BACKSIDE, UH, FOR THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, FACING DEPARTMENTS THEMSELVES, SO THAT, THAT IS POSSIBLE. I KNOW THE DRIVEWAY IS NOT ABLE TO BE ADJUSTED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED. I DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. I KIND OF GUESS. SO TO THE APPLICANT, UH, BON EZ, IF YOU MOVE THIS FORWARD, AS, AS COMMISSIONER MAN [01:10:01] IS SAYING, CAN YOU STILL DO THAT, UH, THE DRIVEWAY, WOULD THEY, THOSE STILL HAVE ADEQUATE RUIN AND TURN THOSE VEHICLES AROUND? UM, KIND OF LIKE HOW I MENTIONED THE UDC DOESN'T ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 245 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION. SO BEING AT THE CORNER, THIS IS KIND OF WHERE IT CAN GO. UM, SO LIKE I SAID, WE WEREN'T TECHNICALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY DRIVEWAY ON OUR SITE AND WE HAD TO GO GET A SPECIAL VARIANCE FOR THAT. SO NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. GOTCHA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN? UH, SO YOU HEARD STAFF SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY SORT OF ELIMINATION ON THE, UH, BACKSIDE OF, OF THE PROPERTY AND IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE RENDERING THAT YEAH, THERE'S A FAIR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THE CONSTRUCTED PIECE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE IN THAT 30 FOOT BUFFER. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD LIVE WITH ON THE BACKSIDE BESIDES ELIMINATION? UM, YEAH. UH, FROM OUR SITE PLAN, IT'S POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE A FIVE FOOT BUFFER, BUT UM, LIKE I SAID, WE KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO SPEND OUR MONEY BEAUTIFYING THE AREA ELSEWHERE THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE SEEN BECAUSE IT'S, NOTHING'S GONNA BE SEEN BACK THERE. BUT I A 5, 5, 5 10 FOOT BUFFER, JUST 30 IS EXTREMELY LARGE FOR SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO SCREEN ANYONE FROM ANYTHING. AND IT'S JUST KIND OF A LOT OF MONEY BEING THROWN AT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA BE SEEN OR SERVING ITS PURPOSE AS A BUFFER. ANNA, MR. MAN. AND SO JUST CONFIRMING THE DIALOGUE FORWARD, THERE'S UM, IF THEY WERE TO CH GO FOR A REZONING, THEN IT WOULD BE A 10 FOOT BUFFER, UM, ALL THE WAY AROUND 10 FEET ALONG THE ROADS AND NO BUFFER ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. NO BUFFER ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT? C ONE TWO? YEAH. NO, NO BUFFER ALONG WHERE THE 30 FOOT IS CURRENTLY, IF THE ZONING WAS CHANGED. THANK YOU MR. MADAM. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS OWNED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY ANY BUFFER OR ANY, ARE THEY, WOULD THEY NEED TO PROVIDE ANY BUFFERING OR IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY? I, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I'M NOT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM, OR THE STATE WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM SOME OF THE PROPERTIES. THEY'RE DEFINITELY EXEMPT FROM ZONING, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT SECTION FROM ZONING. SO THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUFFERS AND IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY. YEAH, OUR UDC ONLY CLARIFIES AN EXEMPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE. UM, NOT THIS ARTICLE FOUR STANDARD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. DEAN, YOU SAID YOU WERE FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WAS CONSULTING WITH THIS MM-HMM . UH, FOR THIS PROJECT, THE DRAINAGE PIECE OF IT. UM, I'M LOOKING AT IT, IT'S, I GUESS IT'S GONNA DRAIN MORE TO PEARSALL LIKE, UM, AND THEN MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER HERE. UM, CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE MORE ON THE CONCEPTS RELATED TO THAT, RELATED TO THE DRAINAGE PIECE FOR THE BOARD HERE TO UNDERSTAND? YEAH, LIKE I, UM, BRIEFLY MENTIONED, THERE'S A T DOT DRAINAGE OUTFALL TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. SO ALL OF THE OFFSITE DOES FLOW DOWN AND COLLECT OFF OF OLD PEARSALL. THERE'S SOME EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ACROSS MEDINA AND THEN CUTS OVER AND GOES ACROSS THE STREET TOWARDS LEON CREEK, I BELIEVE. CAN YOU, CAN YOU USE THE POINTER? YES. SO THERE'S AN EXISTING DRAINAGE RIGHT HERE AND CULVERTS AND IT GOES ACROSS THE STREET HERE. UM, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE IT'S OVER HERE. THEN THERE'S ANOTHER, UM, DRAINAGE CULVERT RIGHT HERE. SO WHERE ALL THREE CULVERTS WILL CONNECT AND THEN THEY GO ACROSS THE STREET TOWARDS THE SAUCE FACILITY AND OLD PEARSALL PARK AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DRAIN THE LEON CREEK. UM, AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONLY TRYING TO DO 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHEREAS MOST COMMERCIALIZED LOTS ARE 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER. UM, AND WE DID THE DRAINAGE ON IT. THERE'S NO ADVERSE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM, UH, WITH THIS PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND, UH, THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN CONTAIN THE RUNOFF THAT WOULD OCCUR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. LEE? UH, YES. SO I, I I GUESS I'M GOING BACK TO THE TREE THING. YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE A TREE, WHICH HAS BEEN CUT DOWN APPEARS. UM, YEAH, WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, OBVIOUSLY YOUR SITE PLAN WORKS AROUND A TREE THAT'S NO LONGER THERE. COULD YOU NOT MOVE PARKING OVER TO GET IT OUT OF THAT EASEMENT AS YOU'RE SHOWING OUTTA THAT BLUE AREA? UM, [01:15:03] SORRY, REPEAT THAT. . UM, THE SITE PLAN KIND OF CURVES AROUND THAT 30 INCH TREE, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. YES. BUT IT, IT APPEARS FROM STREET VIEW THAT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CUT DOWN. OKAY. UM, SO MY QUESTION IS, SINCE THAT WAS DICTATING, UH, THE LAYOUT HERE, NOW THAT THAT'S GONE, CAN THIS BE CHANGED TO GET IT OUT OF THAT UH, BLUE EASEMENT AREA? THE PARKING, YOU SEE WHERE THE PARKING OVERLAPS? THE, THE BLUE AREA? OH, RIGHT, RIGHT HERE. UM, I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I WOULD ASSUME I'VE BEEN TOLD THE DRIVEWAY CAN'T MOVE. UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY WE WERE SAYING THAT ALONG OLD PIERSALL ROAD, THE 10 FOOT BUFFER IS OKAY IF WE KEPT THAT BECAUSE, UM, LIKE YOU SAID, THE TREE ISN'T THERE ANYMORE THEN I I WAS JUST THINKING TO ADD A LITTLE MORE BUFFER ALONG MEDINA, ALTHOUGH I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IT WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING THAT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED. YEAH, EXACTLY. UM, MORE OR LESS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM AN I ONE AND BE TREATED AS A COMMERCIAL AND JUST GET THE 10 FOOT BUFFERS ALONG THE TWO ARTERIAL STREETS. ALRIGHT, MR. REED, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR? I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, UM, STUFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHTY. ANY CLOSING REBUTTALS OR STATEMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? NO, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO, UM, GETTING RID OF ANY LANDSCAPE. WE, WE INTEND TO LANDSCAPE AND ADD GREENERY. IT WAS JUST MORE OR LESS TO GET OUTSIDE OF THESE STRICT, UM, BUFFERING BECAUSE OF HOW SMALL THE LOT IS AND WHAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO SO THAT IT'S USABLE. UM, THIS JUST KIND OF IS WHAT MADE SENSE THE MOST TO US. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT'D LIKE TO CHAIR CHAIR MS. IVANEZ, MS. IVANEZ, UM, ARE, DID, DID YOU AMEND, UH, THE ZERO TAKING THE, THE ELIMINATION OF THE UH, 30 FOOT BUFFER OR, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO AMEND IT. THEY, THE BOARD CAN, UH, REQUEST LESS. IT'S, THEY ONLY NEED TO AMEND IT WHEN THEY'RE ADDING STUFF LIKE GUTTERS OR STUFF LIKE THAT. YEAH. SO THE MOTION I THINK WILL INCORPORATE ANY. ALRIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU OKAY MR. BRAGMAN? OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 73, I MOVE THE BOARD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C BUFFER TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUFFER ALONG MEDINO BASE ROAD AND OLD PEARSALL ROAD SITUATED, UM, SORRY, AND TWO, AN ELIMINATION OF A 30 FOOT TYPE E BUFFER REQUIRED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 0 7 0 OLD PEARSALL ROAD. APPLICANT BEING A DA CONSULTING GROUP INC. BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL APP ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REQUEST WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR EFFECTIVE SEPARATION AND SCREENING BETWEEN USES AND PROVIDE LEAF RELIEF FROM THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING LOT SIZE AND SHAPE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER STANDARD WOULD CONS STEW OVER HALF THE DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE SCREENING OF CERTAIN LAND USES THAT MAY CREATE VISUAL CLUTTER OR DISTRACTIONS. THE 10 FOOT BUFFER ALONG OLD PAROL ROAD AND MEDINA BASE ROAD IS SUFFICIENT TO SCREEN THIS USE FROM THE ROAD. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER, ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPOSED REDUCTION OF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTY IS THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY ARE OVER 200 FEET AWAY AND SEPARATED FROM [01:20:01] THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY GREEN SPACE AND THE APARTMENT COMPLEX PARKING LOT. FURTHERMORE, THE PRO PROPOSED BUFFER ALONG OLD PERSONAL ROAD AND MEDINA BASE ROAD ARE SUFFICIENT TO CREATE SEPARATION FROM THE ROADWAY. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE OVERALL LOT SIZE, IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE AND ACCESS POINT LIMITATIONS ARE SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD STANDARDS WILL IMPOSE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT PRECLUDE THIS YACHT FROM LOT FROM BEING DEVELOPED. END OF MOTION. HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. UH, YES. WITH THIS AMENDED, UM, MOTION, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY COULD EASILY GO AHEAD AND GET, UM, THEY COULD APPLY FOR A ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ELIMINATE THESE BUFFERS ENTIRELY. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, PROVIDE SOME LANDSCAPE ALONG OLD PIOL ROAD AND MEDINA BASE ROAD. I AGREE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WHAT IS NECESSARY ON THE BACKSIDE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE UM, UM, APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND THE GREEN SPACE AND THE SLOPE. UH, SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A HAPPY, UH, MEDIAN, UH, BETWEEN WHAT WAS ASKED AND UH, WHAT WILL SERVICE THE PUBLIC BEST. THANK YOU MR. BRAGGA. MR. MANUP. SO I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PUT 10 FOOT ON THE BACKSIDE. WOULD THAT BE A CONSIDERATION OR DO YOU WANNA VOTE ON IT WITHOUT THE 10 FOOT? WELL, 'CAUSE I ASKED HER WHAT SHE COULD LIVE WITH AND SHE SAID FIVE ON THE BACKSIDE. YES. SO YOU WANT, SO, SO PROVIDE FOR A FIVE FOOT THAT, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NONE. SO I WOULD BE FINE WITH FIVE FEET. OKAY. I'M STILL FINE WITH ZERO, BUT I MEAN, I'D BE FINE. OKAY. FIVE FEET. 'CAUSE THEY SAID THEY COULD LIVE WITHOUT. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO GO, UH, UH, ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF FIVE FOOT THEN IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. ACCEPTED. OKAY. YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, SO LET'S GO AND TAKE A, UH, A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER A BONIS. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. VICE CHAIR ZONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH 10 FAVORS OR OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE PASSES AS READ AS AMENDED. UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. THE TIME IS 2 23. LET'S GET OUR CHAIR BACK IN A SEAT. HM? I GOT IT. I GOT IT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, WE'RE GONNA DO ITEM SEVEN SINCE THAT ALSO HAS A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. UM, ALL RIGHT. ITEM SEVEN, THAT'S ALSO YOU, SEAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, Y'ALL. THIS IS CASE BO A TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6. THE APPLICANT IS JUAN VARGAS. IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. LOCATION IS 7 2 0 NORTHWEST 24TH STREET. OH. AND IT'S ZONED C TWO. THE REQUEST IS FOR A REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH A 12 FOOT REAR SETBACK AND TWO, AN ELIMINATION OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER IN THE REAR. AND THREE IN ELIMINATION OF THE 10 FOOT TYPE A BUFFER ALONG NORTHWEST 24TH STREET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SITS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHWEST 24TH STREET AND LEO STREET. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY A LOT ZONE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ON ALL SIDES EXCEPT TO THE SOUTH WHERE THERE IS A PROPERTY ZONED NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS USED THIS UH, LOT AS A FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT OPERATED OUT OF A FOOD TRUCK. THE PROPERTY OWNER SOUGHT TO CONSTRUCT A PAVILION TO BE USED, [01:25:01] UH, AS A SEATING AREA FOR CUSTOMERS OF THE FOOD TRUCK. THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A COMMERCIAL PERMIT IN NOVEMBER, 2024 AND ORDERED TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE. THE PERMANENT APPLICATION EXPIRED, BUT THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT REGARDLESS AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FINISHED SOMETIME BETWEEN FEBRUARY, 2024 AND AUGUST OF 20, OR FEBRUARY, 2025 AND AUGUST OF 2025. THE UDC REQUIRES A MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK WHERE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONING DISTRICT. DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND REVIEW, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A TYPE A AND TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ARE ALSO REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT. THE APPLICANT INTENDED USE IS TO HAVE ONE FOOD TRUCK ON THE LOT, AND THE STAFF MADE AWARE THAT HAVING THREE OR MORE FOOD TRUCKS WOULD REQUIRE 200 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THIS IS THE BACKSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE IT'S ABUTTING. THAT RESIDENTIAL USE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 7 6. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS ENOUGH DEVELOPMENTAL SPACE, UH, TO INCORPORATE BOTH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFERY YARDS AND MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. AND THE, UH, PROPOSED DESIGN, THE ELIMINATION OF YARD, UH, OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS, AND A REDUCTION IN THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD LEAD TO AN INCREASE NOISE POLLUTION AND A DECREASE IN PRIVACY. ON THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WE MAILED 30, UH, ONE NOTICES. WE GOT FIVE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSITION. THAT OPPOSITION WAS THE PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND, UH, WE HAVE ZERO VOICEMAILS. UH, THE WEST END HOPE AND ACTION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. UH, VARGA. THE, MY NAME IS ERMO VAR, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE. WANNA START THIS? UH, THIS PROPERTY, IN 2016, MY WIFE AND I HAD A DRINK TO HAVE A, A FOOD TRUCK, AND WE DID EVERYTHING, UH, AS WE KNEW, UM, BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WE CAME OVER HERE AND WE EXPLAINED WHAT WAS OUR PROJECT AND THEY, THEY ALLOWED US TO HAVE IT. AND WE STARTED FROM 2016 UP TO 2022. SO, SORRY, MANNA. UM, CAN, I'M, I'M NOT SEEING THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION AT ALL. AND CAN WE STOP IT SO, SO WE CAN GET THAT FIXED? 'CAUSE I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING UP. YEAH. SO THE POWERPOINT, THERE'S A PART ONE AND A PART TWO PART. THEY'RE BOTH EXACTLY THE SAME. SAME, RIGHT. IS THERE, SO WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYTHING THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. YEAH, THE, THE STAFF HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, GET THAT TO US . OTHERWISE WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENTS FROM THE, UH, MEETING FROM THE WEBSITE. IT'S, IT'S BETTER. YEAH, THAT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING, BUT IT'S ALSO DELAYED BY YEAH. I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, SEND THAT TO Y'ALL RIGHT NOW. BUT WHAT IS DISPLAYED ON THESE TWO SCREENS HERE IS THE, IS THE FULL POWERPOINT, BUT I'LL, I'LL MAKE SURE TO GET IT TO YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR SCREENS. YES. IF YOU GO TO THE MEETING TAB, THERE'S A, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENTS, WHICH IS PART OF, IT'S NOT EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S SOMETHING. CAN WE SEND THE, UH, DISPLAY FROM THE PODIUM TO THE DAIS MONITORS AS WELL? THANK YOU. DID THAT WORK? ONE, TWO. [01:30:02] I MEAN, WE, WE CAN SEE WHAT'S ON, WHAT'S BEING PROJECTED. OKAY. PLEASE CONTINUE. UM, MY WIFE AND I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING STEP BY STEP. WE HAVE ASKED FOR ALL THE PERMITS REQUIRED, UH, SO WE CAN HAVE THE PREMISES THAT WE, FOR. IN 2024, I CAME OVER TO GET A PERMIT TO HAVE A ROOF 30 BY 30. AND THEN VERY RECENTLY, UH, WE HIRE ENGINEERS BECAUSE I WANTED TO HAVE A GATE. AND THEN WHEN WE CAME OVER FOR THE PERMIT, THEY TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ROOF. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A LONG, DID YOU CATCH ALL THAT? OKAY. UM, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THIS IS THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE THAT I, I'M OVER HERE. LIKE I SAID, SINCE 2016, MY WIFE AND I, WE'VE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING, UH, STEP BY STEP, THE DRAINAGE THAT ROOF, EVERYTHING THAT WE INSTALL, THE WATER WE ALWAYS DO WITH A, WITH A PERMIT FROM THE CITY. THIS IS OUR WAY OF LIFE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS VARIANT, AND THIS IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LIKE TO BE RESPONSIBLE. THIS IS OUR, THE WAY WE LIVE AND THIS IS, UH, HOW, HOW WE MAKE MONEY, UH, WITH THIS, UH, FOOD TRUCK. AND I'M HERE, UH, TO SEE WHAT CAN I DO WITH THESE VARIANCE AND THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF. AND, UH, LOOK AT THE, I HAVE SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR. I KNOW HIM BECAUSE HE'S ALSO MY CLIENT, AND HE SAID THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT'S GOING ON. ALL THE NEIGHBORS DO SUPPORT ME. AND I DID SPEAK WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE AROUND THE AREA. OKAY. UH, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY DO SUPPORT ME. OKAY. SO, UM, ONE QUESTION, UH, I HAVE IS, UH, THIS IS A PARKING LOT. WHEN WAS THAT CONSTRUCTED? UH, YES. SPEAKING TO THE MIC [01:35:06] IN 2020. AND WE STARTED DOING EVERYTHING BY STEP. WAS IT, WAS THIS ON C TWO WHEN YOU PURCHASED? WHEN THIS WAS PURCHASED? SO BEFORE I TRIED TO BUY THAT PROPERTY, I CAME OVER HERE AND I TOLD HIM WHAT WAS MY PURPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY, AND THEY SAID YES. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, HE PURCHASED IT IN 2021, I BOUGHT IN 2016 AND I FINISHED PAYING IT ON 2021. AND THEN THE, IN THE, DID, DID HE ACQUIRE A PERMIT TO BUILD THE PARKING LOT? THE CONCRETE? SO WHEN I, BEFORE I, I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I CAME OVER AND I SPOKE WITH THE CITY AND I TOLD THEM WHAT WAS MY INTENTION AND I TOLD 'EM THAT I WANTED TO PUT A BASE AND OBVIOUSLY I WANTED TO PUT ASPHALT. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION FOR STAFF, I MEAN, IF HE, IF IF QUICK QUICK CORRECTION, THAT'S NOT ASPHALT. THAT'S LIKE GRAVEL. IT'S GRAVEL. OH, THAT'S GRAVEL. MM-HMM. OKAY. ALRIGHT. JUST, I, I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE HE HAS A, THERE'S A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT LOOKS RELATIVELY CLEAN, MAYBE PRETTY NEW, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BASE MATERIAL. I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, WAS THERE ANY PERMITS ACQUIRED FOR THIS AT ALL? , AS FAR AS WE SAW, UH, THE ONLY PERMIT THAT WE FOUND WAS THE ONE FOR THE PAVILION. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS GOT BY DRAINAGE . YEAH. AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT WAS A PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THAT PAVILION STRUCTURE? UH, THAT WAS THE ONLY PERMIT THAT WAS SUBMITTED. PERMIT APPLICATION, EXCUSE ME, THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY. ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? QUESTION ON MR. ZUNA? SAME LINE. SO THE, THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE, FOR THE PAVILION WAS APPROVED BECAUSE HE'S BUILDING WITHIN THE SETBACK LINES, CORRECT? NO, IT, THE APPLICATION EXPIRED BEFORE APPROVAL PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED FOR THIS STRUCTURE. IT WAS NEVER ISSUED. CORRECT. HE CONTINUED ON THINKING PROBABLY THAT HE HAD THE PERMITTING BECAUSE HE HAD APPLIED FOR IT. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MANOCK? SO THE PAVILION, SO IS THE PAVILION CURRENTLY IN THE, UM, IN THE SPACE THAT SAYS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED OR IF, BUT YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE REAR SETBACK. UH, OKAY. 'CAUSE I, I WAS LOOKING AT THE, I GUESS THE WAY THAT, WHERE THEY HAD THE FOOD TRUCK RIGHT NOW AND THE GREEN SPACE THERE. SO THE GREEN SPACE IS, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY ON THAT, ON THE NUMBER ONE? SO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED? THE BUFFER OR THE SETBACK? I GUESS THE SETBACK. SO THE SETBACK WOULD BE A MINIMUM 30 FOOT AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR 12, OBVIOUSLY NOT. HELLO. WOULD THAT RENDERED LIKE THIS WHOLE PROPERTY UNUSABLE THEN? I GUESS SO, SO, SO YEAH, WITH THIS PHOTO SHOWN HERE, THAT BACK GREEN SPACE OR THE ONE ON, ON THE RIGHT, IT'S NOT PERFECTLY TO SCALE, BUT THAT'S REPRESENTING THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER AREA. UM, TO IMAGINE WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD LOOK LIKE. JUST DOUBLE THAT WIDTH THERE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE BEING THAT THAT'S, UH, CONSIDERED THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH TO YOUR POINT YES. WOULD TAKE UP A SIZABLE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. YEAH. AND SO WHEN WAS THE ZONING CHANGED TO C TWO? 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS ORIGINALLY RESIDENTIAL LOT AT SOME POINT. THIS IS, UH, FROM OUR RESEARCH ALWAYS BEEN A A A B TWO PRIOR TO THE 2001 ZONING CHANGE. UM, SINCE ITS ANNEXATION. OH, OH, OR HIGH SCHOOL, WHAT'S THE UH, YEAH, IT WAS OWNED A B TWO IN 1969. OKAY. 69. THANKS. OKAY, WELL THAT, COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. SO COMMISSIONER Z, THE C TWO ZONING AND THE SETBACK AND THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS WERE EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S, THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THAT, RIGHT? UM, YES. AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE A ZONING CHANGE. [01:40:01] WOULD WE HEARD EARLIER CASES THAT WOULD ELIMINATE POTENTIALLY THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS TO THE REAR? IT COULD, WELL IT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE ALL THE, UM, SETBACKS. IT COULD ELIMINATE BUFFER, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEN HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE, HE WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED. THE USE THAT HE IS DOING RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. THERE IS ALSO IDZ, UM, OPTION THAT HE CAN DO WITH THE REDUCED SETBACKS. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ASK FOR. AND SO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, HE MENTIONED THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND IS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT HE'S DOING. IS THERE ANY LETTERS OR ANYTHING THAT HE BROUGHT AS, UM, JUST EVIDENCE OF THE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND? YES, WE INCLUDED THAT RESPONSE IN THE PACKETS. OH, THE RED CHECK MARKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE RED IS THE RED CAN THROW YOU . THE RED THREW ME OFF. OKAY. THE RED. YEAH. SO THOSE, THE COLORS ARE FREAKING ME OUT TODAY AND CHECK MARKS VERSUS X'S AND OKAY. UM, WE'LL CHANGE THOSE COLORS. OKAY. OKAY. UM, SO, SO KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION I WAS KIND OF GOING TOWARDS IS, SO, SO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. AND SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE CURRENTLY LOCATED IS ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. AND SO IF THEY MOVED THAT ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE OUTSIDE OF THE 15 FEET, THE 15 FOOT BUFFER, DOES THAT CHANGE PART OF THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO HOW IT'S OPERATING AS A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT? OR IS IT STILL A 200 FOOT OR, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS HOW DOES ALL THAT PLAY IN THERE? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. WELL, THE FOOD, THE 200 FOOT SEPARATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THREE OR MORE. RIGHT. THEY, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THEY'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE ONE. OKAY. AND BUT BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S IN THAT 15 FOOT BUFFER RIGHT NOW. CORRECT. AND IF HE MOVED IT OUTSIDE OF THE 15 FOOT, IF WE SAID WE'D STILL, YOU KNOW, WE'D WANT A 13 FOOT OR WHATEVER, HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO MOVE THE TRUCK COR THE FOOD, THE FOOD TRUCK, CORRECT? YES. HE WOULD'VE TO MOVE THE FOOD TRUCK OUT OF THE BUFFER IF THE BUFFER IS CORRECT. OKAY. IS THERE, IS THERE ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO FURTHER COMMENT. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, I I, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I I, I REALLY THINK THAT THIS, UH, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU MY OPINION. I THINK THAT, UH, 12 FOOT IS FINE BECAUSE THE SITE IS THIN AND RECTANGULAR AND FRONTING AN ARTERIAL THAT ALSO HAS SOME ISSUES, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH ACCESS AND, AND IF HE, HE GOES THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO PUT A 12 FOOT SIDEWALK THERE. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. I'M NOT CLEAR WITH OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. UM, BUT YES, IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FULL, UH, PERMITTING AND REVIEW PROCESS. ALL DISCIPLINES FROM PLAN REVIEW WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO KIND OF, UH, HAVE THEIR INPUT ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T SEE AN ESTABLISHED BIKE LANDING IN THE STREET, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MULTI-USE PATH, WHICH IS 12 FEET. SO THIS, I MEAN, THIS SITE IS CONSTRAINED. IT'S PRE-EXISTING. I, I, I PERSONALLY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH, UM, 12 FOOT SETBACK, 12 FOOT BUFFER ON NUMBER TWO, AND ELIMINATION ON NUMBER THREE BECAUSE HE'S GONNA HAVE TO GIVE UP 12 FEET. HE'S GONNA HAVE TO DO A, UH, A MULTI-USE FACILITY ALONG THE ARTERIAL. SO THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. SO I GUESS LIKE WHERE I WAS, YOU KNOW, SO DOES THE FOOD TRUCK HAVE TO MOVE? UH, THE FOOD TRUCK WILL HAVE TO STAY AT LEAST 12 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR IF WE PAST THIS. YEAH. OKAY. SO, SO, SO IT WON'T BE SITTING WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS, IS WHAT I'M GATHERING. AND SO, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS ALONG THAT REAR AND SO YEAH. IS IS THAT CORRECT? SO IF WE READ IT AS IS, IS THAT WHAT'S GOING TO OCCUR? CORRECT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTARY? WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. WE'D LIKE TO GET THIS ROLLING. SO MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA . UH, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6, I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR ONE A 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW STRUCTURE, UH, WITH A 12 FOOT REAR SETBACK. OKAY. AND TWO, THE ELIMINATION OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER. SO, SO ARE WE READING THAT ONE? NO, I WOULD SAY I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING A THREE FOOT VARIANCE, THREE FOOT OR 12 FOOT BUFFER. DO YOU WANNA TAKE THIS ONE THEN ? SURE. LEMME I'LL, I'LL READ THIS MOTION. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 76, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE [01:45:01] WITH A 12 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO A VER A, UM, REDUCTION IN THE, UH, A THREE FOOT REDUCTION IN THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER IN THE REAR, UH, FOR A 12 FOOT BUFFER TO BE PROVIDED. AND THREE, AN ELIMINATION OF THE 10 FOOT TYPE A BUFFER ALONG NORTHWEST 24TH STREET, SITUATED AT SEVEN 20 NORTHWEST 24TH STREET, APPLICANT BEING, UH, JUAN GUILLERMO VARGAS. 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 VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE AND SEPARATION AND CREATE A NATURAL TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THIS PROPERTY INCLUDE LOCATION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE NARROW WIDTH OF THE LOT. UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD PREVENT THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY ON WHICH IS ROUGHLY 50% OF THE TOTAL PARCEL AREA. THREE, BY GRAINING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY ABUTTING THE SLOT AND THE REDUCED BUFFERS WILL IMPOSE NO HARDSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED THREATENING. THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. IS THERE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE NO, BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES? THE STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED OVER 10 FEET FROM THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE TYPICAL SITE SETBACK MINIMUM BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND AND RESIDENTIAL USES. SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF, FOR ITS VARIANCE. ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT GRADED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT. WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE, UH, TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NARROW LOT WIDTH AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT WITH FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH NORTHWEST 24TH STREET. THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT ON THE SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER STANDARDS WOULD PREVENT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND DEMOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS SITE IS SO NARROW. UH, EVERYONE'S IN SURROUNDING IS IN SUPPORT. UH, SO I HAVE NO, UH, ISSUE WITH GRANTING OF SOME RELIEF. UH, THIS IS SINCE THIS SITE WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL FOR SO LONG. AND IS, IS, IS AND AND THIS SITE ACTUALLY PREDATES THESE SETBACKS, UH, AND, AND BUFFERS. UM, I, I SEE NO ISSUE WITH THE REDUCTION DOWN TO 12 FEET. I THINK THE ELIMINATION ON 24TH STREET, UH, IS, IS JUST NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS, THIS, UH, APPLICANT WILL BE FORCED TO PUT IN A REALLY LARGE SIDEWALK, WHICH MIGHT EVEN HAVE TO CREEP INTO HIS PROPERTY THROUGH USE OF A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT, UH, AS, AS IS ALLOWED BY THE UDC. AND SO I JUST THINK HE'S, I THINK HE'S GONNA NEED THAT ELIMINATION TO MAKE THIS A FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UM, I, I DO CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND SO I WAS TRYING TO READ THE PROSPECT HILL, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR OBJECTIONS WERE. AND SO I THINK THAT UM, UM, WE ADDRESSED THE ONE WITH REGARDS TO NUMBER TWO BY, BY NOT COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT. AND THEN I THINK YOUR POINT WITH REGARDS TO NUMBER THREE, WHICH THEY ALSO HAD OBJECTION FOR, I THINK IS, IS RESOLVED, UH, WITH THE DIALOGUE THEY TALKED ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO SIDEWALK. SO, ALRIGHT, FOR THOSE REASONS I'LL BE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONIA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER, I THINK WE'RE ON FIVE. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. THIS IS CASE BO A TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 5. THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM LAST TIME. THE APPLICANT IS MICHAEL PEREZ. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE LOCATION IS THREE 30 MISSION STREET. IT IS OWNED RM FOUR AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE UDC ASSESSOR STRUCTURE REGULATION TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE SIDE YARD AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE. STEP BACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. [01:50:03] THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF MISSION STREET IN STEERING STREET. THE CLIENT IS PROPO PROPOSING TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING CARPORT TO CONVERT IT INTO A NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THE LOCATION OF THE A DD WAS SITUATED IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY AS ORIGINALLY PLATTED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT REPLANTED THE PROPERTY WHICH ALTERED THE OVERALL LOT LAYOUT. THE, UH, SUBJECT STRUCTURE IS NOW WHAT IS, UH, CONSIDERED THE SIDE YARD BY UDC STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A BOA SETBACK VARIANCE IN 2014 FOR THE CARPORT SIDE SETBACK. HOWEVER, SINCE THE NEW BUILD WILL CHANGE THE USE, UH, THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE WILL NO LONGER BE APPLICABLE AND A NEW APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. WE ALSO HAVE AN OHP SUMMARY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE KING WILLIAMS HISTORIC DISTRICT. ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION. APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OUTLINED AND ARTICLE VI OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ISSUED A COMMISSION ACTION LETTER, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM A, UM, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THAT IS LAYING OUT REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TO OBTAIN THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE HERE CURRENTLY TO OBTAIN THE, UH, VARIANCES TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AS I OUTLINED. UH, THE SIDE YARD IS ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE RIGHT AS YOU CAN SEE NOTATED ON THE SITE PLAN HERE. AND THEN THE FRONT YARD IS HERE. NOW THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE A DU THAT WILL BE ENCLOSED. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY STILL. THERE'S ANOTHER, UH, STRUCTURE BACK HERE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE AERIAL PORTION. YOU CAN SEE THE A DU RIGHT HERE. THESE USED TO BE DIFFERENT LOTS. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING STANDARD. AND, UH, SITE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, BINDING OF FACT LOCATION OF THE A DU WILL LEAD TO THE OVERCROWDING OF THE SIDE YARD. AND TWO, THE LOCATION OF THE A DU WILL BE OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SITE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 5 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, FACT LOCATION OF THE A U WILL LEAD TO LESS SPACE FOR THE SIDEWALK RIGHT AWAY. AND THE LOCATION OF THE A DU WILL BE OUTTA CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE MAILED 39, UH, NOTICES. WE GOT ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THERE WERE ZERO VOICEMAILS. AND KING WILLIAMS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. I, I NEED, I NEED TO BE SUPER CLEAR ON THIS. SO CAN YOU BRING UP THAT PICTURE THAT SHOWED THE A DU THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW? OKAY, THERE WE GO. SO THIS L-SHAPED LOT CONTAINS TWO HOMES OR IS THAT REAR ON SOMETHING ELSE? IT'S ANOTHER UNIT. SO IT'S AN RM FOUR. THEY'RE ALLOWED FOUR UNITS. IT'S AN THEY'RE ALLOWED FOUR. THEY'RE SEPARATE. YEAH, THESE ARE SEPARATE. OKAY. SO THERE'S ONE UNIT HERE, THE SECOND UNIT BACK HERE, AND THIS WILL BE AN A DU. AND, AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE ONE LOT AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO MAKE THREE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY IS THIS LOT OVER A THIRD OF AN ACRE. SO THE ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE RULE DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE CLASSIFYING AS ACCESSORY DWELLING. IF THEY WERE CLASSIFYING AS A NORMAL UNIT, WHICH THEY COULD, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO TO BOA FOR THAT RULE THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT. SO THEY'RE ALLOWED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE IT LIES IN THE CONFUSION. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO, IF SOMEBODY HAS ARMED FOUR ZONING AND THEY WANT TO BUILD THREE UNITS OR, OR THEY CAN HAVE ONE, THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO UNITS THAT ARE SEPARATE ON A RM FOUR THAT'S LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE, THEY COULD JUST CALL ONE IN A DU AND GET AWAY WITH IT. IS THAT HOW THAT, AS LONG AS IT MEETS A DU STANDARDS. OKAY. I'M JUST WONDERING 'CAUSE I, THAT'S A NEW ONE. I DON'T GET TOO MANY NEW ONES HERE, SO, UH, BEING ON HERE FOR SO LONG, BUT, OKAY. SO, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS, ARE THEY REMOVING THE DRIVEWAY? ARE THEY GONNA KEEP USING THIS AS A GARAGE AND PUT UH, DWELLINGS ON THE SECOND FLOOR? I'M NOT AWARE. OKAY. UM, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, I AM MEGAN PEREZ. I AM MICHAEL PEREZ'S SISTER, YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE MIC. JUST, OH, THERE YOU GO. THANKS. I AM MICHAEL PEREZ'S SISTER. HE'S [01:55:01] THE APPLICANT. UM, SO I AM HERE ON HIS BEHALF. UM, COULD YOU PULL UP THE SLIDESHOW? OKAY. I CAN QUICKLY AN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YEAH, I MEAN, IS IS THE GARAGE GONNA STAY? YES, IT'S, SO IT'S GOING WELL. HE HAS ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE STEERING PROPERTY, SO THAT'S GONNA BECOME THE PARKING. AND THIS IS A GENERATIONAL HOUSING. SO NONE OF THIS IS STR OR RENTAL. THIS IS HIS MAIN RESIDENCE. IT'S FAMILY RESIDENCE. UM, SO THE A DU IS GOING, AND I'LL SHOW YOU IN THE PRESENTATION, IT'S GONNA CONTINUE LOOKING LIKE A GARAGE. OKAY. UM, AND THERE'S NOT GONNA BE AN UPPER LEVEL ON IT. UM, SO I WILL GIVE YOU THE QUICK TIMELINE. UM, IN 2014, THE BOA AND HISTORIC APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED OPEN GARAGE IN WHAT WAS THE CURRENT REAR YARD OF THREE 30 STEERING. SO THIS IS BEFORE 4 0 3 WAS ACQUIRED. THEN IN 20 24, 4 0 3 STEERING WAS ACQUIRED. AND THEN IN 20 25, 3 30 AND 4 0 3 WERE RE PLATTED TO FORM ONE LOT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S GENERATIONAL LIVING IS THE PLAN. UM, 2025 H-D-R-H-D-R-C APPROVED TO ENCLOSE THE GARAGE AND CREATE AN A DU. AND NOW WE'RE HERE AND IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD, VARIANCES ARE NOW NEEDED. SO THIS WAS THE, THE OLD RENDERING, THE PICTURE YOU SEE HERE IS OLD RENDERING FROM 2014. AND THEN THIS IS A CURRENT PICTURE OF WHAT THE GARAGE LOOKS LIKE AND UM, BASED ON WHAT WAS READ BY STAFF THAT THERE'S GONNA BE AN IMPACT THE SIDEWALK, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY IMPACT, UM, TO THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS NOT GOING TO SHIFT TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK. UM, SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP WHILE WE HAD THIS PICTURE. OKAY. AND THE NEXT IS THE SITE PLAN IN THE NEXT SLIDE. YES. UM, SO NUMBER ONE, A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE, UH, FOR, FROM THE UDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW AN A DU IN THE SIDE YARD AGAIN, UM, THIS USED TO BE THE REAR YARD OF THREE 30 MISSION, BUT WITH THE REPL IT BECAME NOW THE SIDE YARD. UM, AND THEN ALSO A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN A DU ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS HOW THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY, UM, WITH THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL. SO IT'S IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT, UH, SETBACK OF, OF THE CURRENT HOUSE OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THEN THE ARROW POINTS TO THE EXISTING GARAGE LOCATION, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED A DU. AND KEEP IN MIND YEAH, I ALREADY SAID THAT THE, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PROPOSED A DU USED TO BE THE BACK BACKYARD BEFORE THE TWO LIGHTS WERE OR THE TWO LOTS WERE COMBINED. SO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS WHAT THE CONVERSION IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. UM, SO FROM THE STREET IT IS GOING TO STILL LOOK LIKE A GARAGE. THE BACK WALL IS GOING TO BE STYLED AS IF IT WAS STILL GARAGE DOORS. UM, AND SO THEY'RE JUST GONNA BECOME STATIONARY IN OPERABLE FAUX GARAGE DOORS PER HDRC REQUIREMENTS. AND ALL MATERIALS AND STYLES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY HDRC. AND THEN THESE ARE THE FRONT AND REAR, UH, ELEVATIONS. SO THE FRONT, AGAIN, IT'LL JUST LOOK LIKE A GARAGE. AND THEN THE REAR, THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY FACES THEIR, THEIR SIDE YARD, UM, WILL BE NICE DOORS, UM, TO OPEN AND ENJOY THE OUTDOOR SPACE. AND THEN THE RIGHT SIDE IS WHERE THE ENTRY WOULD BE. THE LEFT SIDE, UM, IS JUST BLANK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT FACES THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THERE'S GONNA BE THE WATER HEATER BACK THERE, THE AC UNIT. SO, AND IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO, UM, NO WINDOWS WERE NEEDED ON THAT SIDE. AND THEN THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN AND AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO EXPAND THE LIVING SPACE OF THE CURRENT HOME. IT WILL NOT BE A RENTAL UNIT AND UM, IT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE SINCE THEY'RE USING THE, [02:00:01] UM, CURRENT RESIDENCE, UM, AS A FULL-TIME RESIDENCE TO MAKE THIS AN A DU INSTEAD OF UPROOTING THE FAMILY MOVING WHILE THEY EXTEND THEIR MAIN RESIDENCE. SO THIS WOULD UM, BE LESS OF AN IMPACT ON THEM AND THEY COULD STAY THERE WHILE THIS A DU WAS BEING COMPLETED. OKAY. YEAH. SO, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 2014 OR 2012. UM, THE GARAGE. THE GARAGE WAS, LET'S SEE, I THINK THAT IT'S A CARPORT. I, THE PROPO. WE HAD THE VARIANCE IN 2014. THE VARI? YEAH. YEAH. 'CAUSE IT WAS A CARPORT BECAUSE IT, IT WAS AN OAK ENCLOSED ON MORE THAN TWO SIDES. IT WAS JUST A CARPORT. OKAY. SO HOW DOES THE NOW, BECAUSE IT WAS A CARPORT, UM, THE GARAGE DOOR REQUIREMENT FOR HAVING 20 FEET IN FRONT OF IT DIDN'T APPLY EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A GARAGE DOOR. HOW DID, HOW WAS THAT LOOKED AT? THAT WAS PROBABLY MISSED. UM, 'CAUSE THAT, THAT RULE WAS DEFINITELY AROUND THERE. UM, YEAH, SO IT, IT, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE 20 FOOT SO, BUT THEY DO GET A VARIANCE FOR IT TO EXIST THAT CLOSE TO THE STREET. YES. AND BE, AND AND I THOUGHT VARIANCES WERE PERMANENT. SHOULDN'T THAT, IF THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE, SHOULDN'T THAT VARIANT STILL BE INTACT? THE USE IS CHANGING FROM AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. OKAY. , WELL IF ANYTHING IT'S GETTING BETTER 'CAUSE YOU'RE GETTING RID OF THE 20, THE 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT DOESN'T APPLY ANYMORE IS MAN, SO, BUT SO WHERE IS THE PARKING NOW? 'CAUSE BASICALLY YOU REMOVED ALL THE PARKING. UM, LET'S GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN ON, BECAUSE BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE TWO UNITS AND AN A DU. SO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO ONSITE PARKING, CORRECT? RIGHT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, EXISTING CASITA IS HOW IT'S LABELED. OKAY. UM, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THAT'S NOT SHOWN, UM, THAT'S ALSO NEW. UM, AND WAS PUT IN, I GUESS THE APRON FOR IT WAS, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW FAR IT EXTENDS, BUT THERE'S A RIBBON PATH AND THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY PARKING THEIR TWO VEHICLES BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY USING THE A DU KNOT AS GARAGE AND MORE AS STORAGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. OKAY. STAFF, CAN YOU BRING UP A STREET VIEW I ON THAT? I CAN, THIS WOULD BE OFF OF, UM, I COULD USE THE LASER TO SHOW ON 4 0 3. OKAY. HOW DOES THIS THING WORK? OH, HOLD ON. S SO THERE'D BE THREE DWELLINGS, SO, SO I'M CONFUSED AGAIN. SO WITH REGARDS TO, BUT ONE'S AN A DU, SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT'S JUST TWO SPACES. 'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING ON AN A DU. CORRECT. IT'S ONLY IF IT'S 800 MORE THAN 800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH THIS ONE IS NOT. SO THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO HAVE TWO SPACES. AND THIS IS WHERE THE PARKING IS RIGHT NOW. BUT, BUT ARE THERE, ARE THERE NOT THREE, ARE THERE THREE DWELLING UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY? YES, BUT A, THE PARKING OF, SO ONE OF THEM IS CONSIDERED AN A DU AND AS MERKO SAID, IF IT'S UNDER 800 SQUARE FEET, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, REQUIRE A PARKING SPACE. SO IT SHOULD HAVE A PARKING SPACE. BUT IT, BUT THE BUT THE OTHER TWO REQUIRE PARKING SPACES? YES, CORRECT. YES. SO YOU AND SO ARE, SO, AND BECAUSE IT'S A COMBINED LOT, UM, THE BACK PARKING IS, IS CREDITING FOR BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES? CORRECT? BOTH. BOTH THOSE, BOTH THOSE HOUSING DWELLINGS? CORRECT. OKAY. YES. AND THEN CURRENTLY THE BACK ONE'S LISTED AS UM, A SHORT TERM RENTAL? UM, UH, I NOT SINCE IT'S BEEN PURCHASED, SO MAYBE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD IT, UM, AS THAT, BUT IT'S NOT BEEN THAT SINCE IT'S BEEN PURCHASED. IT'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL HOME. AND AFTER THE REPL WHEN IT WAS COMBINED WITH THIS HOUSE, IT'S NOT SO STAFF IS THERE A, IS THERE AN EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THIS LOT? ONE SECOND. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE IT WAS UPDATED IN APRIL OF 2025. WHEN DID THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? I CAN CHECK. UM, IT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT THE END OF, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN SOMETIME IN 2025. I CAN LOOK THAT UP. IT DOES LOOK LIKE AN STR PERMIT WAS ESTABLISHED IN APRIL OF 2025. DO YOU THINK THEY PURCHASED IT AFTER THAT? IT IS UNDER MICHAEL PEREZ'S NAME. OH, WELL THEN HE CHANGED HIS PLANS. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. I'M SORRY. SO IF YOU HAVE, UM, UH, A DWELLING UNIT AN A DU AND THEN A STR ON ANOTHER DWELLING UNIT, DOES THE SST R [02:05:01] DOES, DOES A PARKING IN ANY WAY CHANGE AS FAR AS HOW YOU LOOK AT IT? OR IS IT JUST TWO SPACES AND REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY'RE AT, SO YOU ARE REQUIRED A PARKING SPACE FOR ANY STR BUT THAT STR IS ALSO A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE. SO THAT MEANS IS THAT COUNT AS, AS THE PARKING SPACE THAT'S, THAT'S DUE FOR THAT STRUCTURE. SORRY, REPEAT. SO I MEAN WHETHER IT'S AN SDR OR NOT, THEY, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THEIR OBLIGATION TO ONLY HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES. CORRECT. 'CAUSE AGAIN, YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF WHAT USES ARE ON THE PROPERTY. SO IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AN STR, EACH OF THOSE WOULD REQUIRE A PARKING ONE PARKING SPOT. YEAH. SO HE'D BE REQUIRED AT LEAST TWO. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARKING SPOT FOR THE STR THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARKING FOR A DWELLING UNIT? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. OKAY. ALRIGHTY. SO THAT MEANS IT COULD BE COMBINED THEN. SO, SO, SO IF THERE'S TWO LOTS, TWO PARKING SLOTS ON THE SDR, THEN ONE COULD BE USED FOR THE CORRECT, SINCE THEY'VE REPLANTED IT INTO ONE PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY HE, IF HE HAS TWO SPACES ON THAT ONE LOT, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. VERY INTERESTING. ALL RIGHT. THAT'LL BE A TYPE ONE, RIGHT? UM, 'CAUSE IT'S ON THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? IF HE, SINCE HE'S LIVING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT IT BUT HE'S LIVING ON THIS AS A TYPE ONE, TYPE ONE. YEAH, IT WAS MOST LIKELY LISTED AS A TYPE TWO BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE THE TWO LOTS PLATTED TOGETHER AND THEY WERE CONSIDERED TWO SEPARATE UNITS OR TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES. BUT NOW THAT HE LIVES THERE, IT MOST LIKELY WILL EITHER NEED TO BE CHANGED. BUT THE STR TEAM IS NOT HERE TO ANSWER SPECIFICALLY THAT PROCESS. AND THAT'S A BY RIGHT. HE CAN'T, IT'S BY RIGHT TO HAVE THE TYPE ONE. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT A WELL, CAN YOU HAVE A TYPE ONE IF IT'S TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES? I THOUGHT, YES, I THOUGHT YOU CAN. I THOUGHT THEY HAD TO BE, I THOUGHT THEY HAD TO BE PHYSICALLY CONFINED. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE PHYSICALLY TOUCHING. THEY HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PROPERTY. AND AGAIN, AT THE TIME WHEN THE STR WAS MOST LIKELY REQUESTED, IT WAS TWO SEPARATE LOTS. BUT NOW THAT HE'S RE PLATTED AND MERGED THE TWO LOTS INTO ONE, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A TYPE ONE. BUT DO WILL STAFF REQUIRE IT TO BE A TYPE ONE? AGAIN, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN STR TEAM QUESTION. I CAN TRY TO TEAMS THEM. I THINK ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH STRI, I MEAN I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT THAT'S NOT HIS PLAN. IF THAT NEEDS TO GO AWAY, I'M SURE HE'LL BE OKAY WITH THAT. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IF THE, IF THE REST OF THE GOING AWAY, YEAH, IT WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING OFF BASE. BUT JUST FOR, BUT FOR THE REST OF, UH, IF Y'ALL RECALL YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD AN INDIVIDUAL WHERE THE CITY CLASSIFIED A CASITA AS AN A DU, THEY MADE THEM GET A TYPE TWO, NOT A TYPE ONE EVEN. SO, NO, THIS BOARD HAD ONE. THIS WE, IT WAS WHAT, A COUPLE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO. IT WAS BEFORE I, YEAH, THAT WAS AN INTERESTING CASE. THAT WAS THE ONE, YEAH. WELL I DON'T WANNA GET OFF ON THAT TANGENT. SO, ALRIGHT, SO, UH, IS THERE ANY QUE ADDITIONAL YEAH. COULD THE CITY BRING UP? SO, UM, I AM GONNA REQUEST A PAUSE AFTER THIS SO WE CAN GET THE RIGHT PRESENTATION UP. CAN YOU BRING UP THE, THE, THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE CITY WHAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE AND YOU HAD TWO LISTINGS, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING BOTH OF THOSE POINTS. OKAY. SO HOLD ON. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE, UM, ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE SIGN TO THE SPEED? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN, SO ONE MORE, I'M SORRY. AND THEN THERE WAS DIALOGUE, SO, AND YEAH, THIS IS FRUSTRATING ME A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE, WITH ALL THE NOTES IN MY HEAD. UM, AND SO THERE WAS DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UH, WAS THIS REVIEWED BY, BY OHP OR SOMEBODY REVIEWED BY OHP. OKAY. AND, AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH EVERYTHING? YES, THEY HAD STIPULATIONS ABOUT DESIGN AND THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET THE VARIANCE FOR THE, THE SETBACK OBVIOUSLY. BUT THEY HAVE THE, UM, COMMISSION ACTION REPORT, WHICH BASICALLY STATES THEY HAVE TO COME HERE FOR THE VARIANCE AND THEN SUBMIT THEIR FINAL SITE PLANS TO THEM AND THEY'LL GET THE, UM, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AFTER THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE CAN MOVE TO A MOTION. WOULD ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 6 5. A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE OF VARIANCE FROM THE UDC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW ACCESSORY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE SIDE YARD AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UNIT [02:10:01] ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT THREE 30 MISSION STREET. APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL PEREZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED A DU WOULD BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT EXISTING CARPORT. WELL GARAGE, ISN'T IT A GARAGE? GARAGE, YEAH. AND WILL NOT REPRESENT AN INCREASE OF CROWDING ON OF THE SIDE YARD OR REPRESENT A REDUCED SETBACK THAT WAS NOT ALREADY PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. SO LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOT ORIENTATION AS ITS CURRENT ORIENTATION WOULD NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT SPACE IN THE REAR YARD FOR THE A DU THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE NEW A DU WOULD OCCUPY THE FOOTPRINT OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS IN CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION BE USED OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE PROPOSED A DU WOULD OCCUPY THE SPACE OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, THEREBY HAVING LITTLE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE STREET STREET SCAPE. FURTHERMORE, THE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD ONLY IMPACT THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY RATHER THAN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH VARIANCES SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING THE CURRENT ORIENTATION OF THE LOT, THE LACK OF REAR YARD SPACE, AND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED FOR REHABILITATION AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOR. COMMISSIONER BRALEY. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE MOTION. I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION REGARDING THE GARAGE THAT'S GONNA BE CONVERTED AND THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE A, A GARAGE. UM, WE OBVIOUSLY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING, BUT THAT'S BEEN COVERED AND SO THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR, UH, WHAT THEY INTEND A LOT TO BE. SO I'LL BE THE SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TALK EARLIER, UM, BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THIS ARE A LITTLE WEIRD TO ME ON THE USES AND WHY WE NEED AN A DU, HOW THE PARKING IS ARRANGED, THE REAR YARD, THE FRONT YARD, AND KIND OF HOW IT WAS REPLANTED AND WHAT YOUR OVERALL, I GUESS, GOALS ARE, WHAT THIS PROPERTY AND SO IT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE ODD. UM, YEAH. SO I'M GONNA REOPEN, UH, WE'LL TAKE A REOPEN, THE PUBLIC HEARING REAL QUICK. IF YOU COULD PLEASE ANSWER, UH, COMMISSIONER DEAN'S QUESTION ABOUT ANY, UM, LONG-TERM USE GOALS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THE, THE PLAN IS FOR GENERATIONAL HOUSING. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS MY BROTHER'S PROPERTY, SO I'M PRESENTING ON HIS BEHALF. AND, UM, THEY FULLY USE THE, THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND THE CASITA FULL TIME. THEY JUST HAD A BABY THEY'RE WANTING TO HOST AND HAVE MORE FAMILY COME IN TOWN FROM MEXICO AND FROM EVERYWHERE. UM, AND SO AGAIN, INSTEAD OF, UM, MAKING THEIR, THEIR MAIN RESIDENCE, UH, A LARGER RESIDENCE AND DISTURBING THE MAIN RESIDENCE, THEY'RE ADDING ON THIS A DU, WHICH THEY, THAT MEANS THEY COULD STILL STAY IN THEIR MAIN HOUSE. UM, AND IT'S NOT A DISTURBANCE, UM, WHILE IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED AS IT WOULD BE TEARING UP THE INSIDE OF A HOUSE AND DOING AN ADD-ON. AND THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE NOTHER THING. SO FROM WHAT HE'S TOLD ME, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. UM, THEY PLAN TO STAY IN KING WILLIAM FOR A LONG TIME. HIS WIFE OWNS MUSTARD SEED, WHICH IS A FEW BLOCKS UP. SHE WALKS TO SCHOOL. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY PLANS ON LEAVING KINGHAM. AND I WILL ADD THAT IF THEY USE THAT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TEAM WITH THEIR PARKING PLAN AND THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH [02:15:01] PARKING. THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK TO BOA FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THAT PARKING STANDARD. YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING THAT DEF DEFINITION OF AN STR AWAY FROM THAT CASITA. 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE. IS THE STR UM, PERMIT ADDRESSED OFF OF MISSION OR, OR STY? IT'S OFF OF THE STEERING ADDRESS. SO BECAUSE THEY RE PLATTED AND THEY'RE DRESS OFF OF MISSION, DOES IT CHANGE TO A MISSION ADDRESS THUS BLOCKING ANOTHER STR FROM POTENTIALLY EXISTING ON MISSION STREET? I WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE STR TEAM BECAUSE THAT IS A CHAIR. YES. ALL DUE RESPECT. THIS APPLICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AN STR, CORRECT? NO, I BUT THE, AND IF WE COULD, AND IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE TALK OF THIS A DU AND THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. OKAY. UH, WELL, UH, IF THERE WAS NO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER DEAN? WELL, THE FACTS ARE IS THAT THERE IS AN SCR AND SO JUST TRYING TO DOUBLE CHECK THE GOALS OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT'S NOT THE GOAL AND STUFF. OKAY. WELL, UM, WE, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC, UH, HEARING, GOING BACK, UH, TO, UM, DISCUSSION. I THINK WE, WE WERE AT, UH, COMMISSIONER, WE'RE LOOKING FOR COMMISSIONER INPUT. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INPUT? UH, I JUST, I WILL ADD THAT, UM, THIS BOARD GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR, FOR THIS STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT IT WAS A CARPORT OR WHETHER IT IS GOING TO BE AN A DU TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE STREET. UM, AND SINCE THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT, I I, I HAVE NO ISSUE HONORING WHAT WE APPROVED. AND PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT BY REMOVING THE CARPORT AND HAVING CARS BACK ONTO STYRON IN A, IN, IN A COMPLETELY NONCOMPLIANT MANNER, UH, I THINK IS BEST FOR EVERYBODY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. SO ACTUALLY I'LL, I'LL COMMENT ON THAT. SO TWO COMMENTS. ONE, THERE'S ALREADY A SHORT TERM RENTAL ON, UH, MISSION AND SO, SO THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, UM, TO HAVE ONE HERE ON THE STREET UNLESS IT GETS GRANDFATHERED IN THERE. AND SECOND IS THERE ARE OVERHEAD PICTURES THAT SHOW THEY ARE PARKING ON STEERING ALREADY IN FRONT OF THE, YOU KNOW, ON STEERING ITSELF. AND SO THEY'RE NOT LEVERAGING THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING GARAGE. SO, SO THAT PART DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S CHANGING. UM, SO, SO MY ASSUMPTIONS AFTER WHERE THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO PARK, AND SO THEY'RE PARKINGS STILL AN ISSUE, BUT I'M STILL OKAY WITH IT, SO. OKAY. AND JUST, UM, FROM WE, LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, IT LOOKS LIKE THE GARAGE SLASH CARPORT IS OPENED ON THREE SIDES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ONLY CLOSED ON THAT GARAGE DOOR SIDE. SO EVEN THOUGH IT HAS GARAGE DOORS, IT'S STILL OPENED ON TWO OR MORE SIDES, SO IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A CARPORT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? YES. YES. COMMISSIONER, DEAN, UH, THE COVER IN THE REAR YARD, DOES THAT NEED A SETBACK? UH, VARIANCE. THIS ONE? WHICH ONE? I'M SORRY. THE EXISTING BUILDING? YES. TALKING ABOUT THE CARPORT ON 4 0 3. NO, SO WHEN THEY PLANTED THIS TOGETHER, ESSENTIALLY THEY CREATED A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THEY DO NEED A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK. I'M NOT SURE. I I THINK THEY MAY HAVE THAT THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S A DRIVEWAY THERE. CAN YOU PARK IN THE SETBACKS? YES. IF THEY'RE, AS LONG AS THEY'RE PAVED OR, UH, THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING LOT STANDARDS. UM, BUT YEAH, THEY CAN PARK, THEY JUST CAN'T PARK IN A BUFFER. YEAH, YEAH. THEY DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THOUGH, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE, THE PARKING, UH, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW MORE THAN, UH, TWO VEHICLES TO BACK ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. SO AS LONG AS THEY WEREN'T PUTTING THREE CARS, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE A, AN ISSUE WITH THAT PARKING SCENARIO. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MENNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES, UH, NINE TO ONE TO ONE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GIVE A STAFF. [02:20:01] THANK EVERYONE. WE WILL BE TAKING A BREAK. SEE EVERYONE BACK IN ABOUT SEVEN OR SO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT, 3 31, WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. WE'RE ON ITEM EIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 3 1 LOCATED IN DISTRICT FIVE ON 1419 WEST MULLAND AVENUE, ZONINGS R FIVE. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, A ONE FOOT, ONE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT, ONE INCH FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE AND TWO AND EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREAS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT WIDTH PROPERTY DRIVEWAYS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST MULLAND AVENUE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED FOR R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION ON THE PROPERTY IN AUGUST, 2025. HER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN APRIL, 2026. THE FRONT YARD FENCE STANDS AT FOUR FEET AND ONE INCH TALL AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING. STAFF ALSO FOUND THE FENCE TO BE WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED CLEAR VISION AREAS PROTECTING THE DRIVEWAY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. THE APPLICANT MADE THEIR MODIFIED EXISTING FENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS OR REQUEST RELIEF FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 31 FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ABUTTING AND IMMEDIATE NEARBY PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE FENCE HEIGHT SIMILAR TO THE REQUEST. AND TWO, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE INTRODUCING A FENCE HEIGHT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA 26 DASH 3 31 FOR THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THEIR PROPOSED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE FENCES DO NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC SUFFICIENTLY TO NAVIGATE THE STREETSCAPE TO THE GRANTING OF THE CLEAR VISION. REDUCTIONS IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD STILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE STREETS WOULD MAY REMAIN NAVIGABLE BY CARS, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC IN THE EXISTING PARKING SHOULDER ON THIS STREET, WHICH CREATES MORE SPACE TO SAFELY EXIT THE PROPERTY AND ENTER THE ROADWAY. STAFF MAILED 41 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. VOICEMAILS ALSO RECEIVED, RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. PALM HEIGHTS NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. UH, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, ARE WE ALLOWED TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WITH A LESS, WITH A, UM, HEIGHTENED, UH, PERCENTAGE? SO INSTEAD OF IT BEING LIKE 70% PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, CAN WE GO TO LIKE 30%? IS THAT ? IT'S UNDER OUR, YEAH, SO IT'S UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. UM, BUT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT CLEAR PERCENTAGE TO BE HELD TO IT. OKAY. 'CAUSE THIS FENCE IS DOES HAVE, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT OPAQUE LIKE WE'RE USED TO SEEING. JUST CURIOUS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH RUSSELL. I, I REPRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING, I REPRESENTED THE CURRENT OWNER, ABEL MARTINEZ. THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONTRACT AT THAT TIME AND, UM, WHILE THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONTRACT IS WHEN THE CURRENT OWNER OF THAT TIME RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONTRACT. MY ORIGINAL CLIENT WANTED TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE FENCE BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE PROPERTY. AND SO WE REQUESTED THIS VARIANCE. UM, UNFORTUNATELY I WAS LIKE SIX MONTHS PREGNANT AND SO WE'VE HAD SOME DELAYS DUE TO MY PREGNANCY. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR ACCOMMODATING ME. BUT SINCE THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY HAS CLOSED AND THERE IS A NEW PROPERTY OWNER AND WE DID GET PERMISSION FROM THAT PROPERTY OWNER FOR ME TO BE HERE TODAY. UM, MY ORIGINAL CLIENT, ABEL MARTINEZ OWNED, UM, I'M SORRY, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2022. UM, AT THAT TIME, THE FENCE HAD BEEN IN PLACE, AS YOU CAN SEE, AT LEAST SINCE 2015. HE THINKS MAYBE EVEN LONGER THAN THAT. UM, [02:25:01] HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME IN 2022 WITH THE FENCE HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS. HE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE WERE ANY VIOLATIONS UNTIL HE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE WHILE THE PROPERTY WAS PENDING FOR SALE. UM, HE HAS REACHED OUT PHYSICALLY TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY ADDRESSES. GIMME JUST A MOMENT. 1414 MALONE, 1415 MALONE, 1418 MALONE AND 1423. AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF HIM AND THE TWO PROPERTIES IN FRONT OF HIM. UM, I'VE ALSO SENT LETTERS TO THOSE SAME FOUR PROPERTIES. WE'VE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE AND THEY DID NOT COME TO THE DOOR WHATSOEVER. UM, HE ALSO WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO NOTATE THAT FOUR 15 AND 4 23 MALONE WERE PURCHASED AFTER, UM, HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. SO THEY MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A FENCE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. UM, HE IS REQUESTING ON BEHALF OF HIS PURCHASER THAT YOU DO GRANT THE VARIANCE. HE, UM, HAD ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY FOR HIS SON, DID NOT WORK OUT FOR HIS SON TO LIVE THERE AND DID SELL THE PROPERTY ALREADY AT A LOSS. AND SO HAVING TO REPLACE THE FENCE OR, UM, WOULD INCUR EVEN A MORE OF A FINANCIAL LOSS AND A HARDSHIP FOR MY PARTICULAR CLIENT. THE OWNER NOW OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO REPLACE THE FENCE AND THERE IS NO CUTTING DOWN THE FENCE BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE FENCE. THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY COULDN'T JUST BE ELIMINATED 13 INCHES. YOU COULDN'T JUST REMOVE IT TO THAT POINT. UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY IT IS FAIRLY OPEN. IT'S NOT OPAQUE YOU. THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER FENCES THAT LOOK LIKE THIS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT DOES MATCH WHAT THE FRONT FACE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S LIKE SOME RAILINGS ON THE PROPERTY THAT IT WAS, UM, INTENDED TO ALL MATCH AND LOOK KIND OF UNIFORM TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. UM, MY CLIENT DID SAY THAT THERE WERE OTHER FENCES LIKE THIS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN REPLACED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS, BUT I DID DRIVE AROUND AND I COULDN'T FIND ANY. UM, AGAIN, WE ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NO HARM TO, UM, PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE AT LEAST SINCE 2015. SO THAT'S OVER 11 YEARS. AND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BOTH FOR MY ORIGINAL CLIENT, THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE NEW OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND I TALK REALLY FAST AND I APOLOGIZE. SO, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT ABOUT WHAT SORT OF, UM, OPENNESS THE FENCE HAS? IS IT LIKE 30%? YOU KNOW, I I THINK IT'S 30% JUST BASED ON LIKE THE MEASUREMENTS THAT I TOOK, BUT THEY WERE, THERE WAS NOTHING EXACT. AND JUST LOOKING AT IT, I DO THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT ONE THIRD OPEN IN MY OPINION. YEAH. OKAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO OFFER THAT TO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION THAT THERE'S AN OPTION OF, OF LISTING A 30% PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IF, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO, I DO SEE THOUGH THAT ON OLDER STREET VIEWS THAT THAT FENCE EXISTED SINCE 2017 DECEMBER. THERE WAS NOTHING THERE FEBRUARY, 2016, BUT 2017 DECEMBER THERE WAS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK COMMISSIONER NANA. SO, SO IF WE READ IT TO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN BY 30%, SO DOES THAT BOTHER FOREVER THEN? SO THAT IT COULD ALWAYS BE 30% OR COULD IT BE READ 30% AS IS FOR RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT'S RECONSTRUCTED, IT WOULD'VE TO MEET CURRENT COMPLIANCE? I THINK WE USUALLY PUT AS PRESENTED BY THE, BY THE APPLICANT. UM, OR AS, UH, CURRENTLY BUILT SOMETHING, SOME LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, INSTEAD OF SAYING LIKE 30%. SO, SO IF WE SAY AS BUILT, BUT IF IT GETS SO, AND IF IT IS THAT MORE THAN SO, SO THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN, UH, 25% OR WHATEVER. IS IT 50%, 25% OF FENCE REPLACEMENT? IT HAS TO BE 70% OPEN FOR IT TO BE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. NO, BUT, BUT IF THEY REDO THE FENCE, UM, AND THEY REPLACE THE FRONT FENCING, WOULD IT THEN HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT? UM, OR COULD THEY BUILD BACK TO AS BUILT IF THEY WERE TO REMOVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, 50% OR MORE? BASICALLY IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CODE. PERFECT. OKAY. YEP. I THINK THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER PART OF THAT QUESTION WAS, UM, WOULD THEY HAVE TO BUILD IT IF THEY REMOVED THE ENTIRE FENCE, THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD IT BACK JUST LIKE THIS? OR COULD IT BE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF A 30% PREDOMINANTLY OPEN? NO, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CODE. YEAH, THAT'S [02:30:01] WHAT I WAS ASKING. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. NO, IF WE GRANTED A VARIANCE IN, AND THE VARIANCE CITED THAT THEY COULD HAVE 30% PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE THAT WAS FOUR FOOT ONE IN THE FRONT YARD AND THEN THEY RECONSTRUCTED THE FED, THAT VARIANCE WOULD GO AWAY. NO, THEY CAN REBUILD A DIFFERENT KIND OF, IF YOU, IF YOU SAY 30%, THEY CAN REBUILD IT AT THAT 30%. YEAH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING. WOULD IT HAVE TO BE THE SAME STYLE? BUT IF WE SAID AS BUILT, OBVIOUSLY BESIDES THE 12 MONTH, MAY I ADDRESS SOMETHING, THE ATTORNEY IN ME IS CONCERNED WITH A 30% BECAUSE THE AS-BUILT MAKES US NOT DETERMINE THAT CALCULATION. I AM CONCERNED THAT A FUTURE BOARD MIGHT SAY THAT IS NOT 30%. IF WE COULD PUT AS-BUILT OR Y'ALL COULD MAKE A FINDING THAT IT WAS 30%, EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER, THAT WELL, I THINK WE WOULD GIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF AS BUILT AND RIGHT, BECAUSE IF IT WAS 50% OF IT WERE TO BE DESTROYED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CODE. SO YES, THEY ARE GOOD FOR 12 MONTHS. SO ANY TIME WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS, WHY AM I CORRECT? SO YOU'RE IMPLYING, SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF IT. IF YOU HAVE A FENCE AND YOU DESTROY MORE THAN 50% OF IT AND IT'S THAT WAY FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS, OUR VARIANCE IS VOID. NO, I SAID THE VARIANCE IS GOOD FOR 12 MONTHS. SO IF YOU WERE TO, OH, OKAY, GOTCHA. I UNDERSTAND. IF IT WAS TO BE TORN DOWN AFTER 12 MONTHS AFTER, IF YOU GUYS WERE TO APPROVE IT, ANY BRAND NEW FENCE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE. THE PRE, THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT THE, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS FENCE, BUT IF THEY WERE TO GET, GET A VARIANCE AND THEY WERE TO REBUILD IT NOT OUT OF LET'S SAY WOOD, BUT THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT, UH, UM, WROUGHT IRON WITH ONLY 30% PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, COULD THEY WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS? YES. OKAY. BUT THEN AFTER THE 12 MONTH, I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING THE 30% IS WHAT, IS WHAT FOLLOWS PERMANENCY IS IS THE PERMANENCE OF THIS NOT THE MATERIAL. CORRECT. YEAH. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MATERIAL. OKAY. BUT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT SHE WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME DOESN'T COMPLY. NO. I KNOW I'M, BUT I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I JUST WAS WONDERING HOW THE STAFF LOOKED AT THAT. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ? NONE. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 1, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR A ONE FOOT, ONE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID, UH, OR, OR UM, FENCE AS BUILT, UH, TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT ONE INCH FRONT YARD AS BUILT FENCE SITUATED AT 1 4 1 9 WEST MALONE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING LAW OFFICE OF E-A-R-P-L-L-C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF PROPERTY SUCH AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. UH, IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER, AS THIS FENCE WOULD PROVIDE EXTRA SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF THE SUB FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT HARM THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND IT PRESENCE WOULD PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. C. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED. AS SUCH PROPOSED USE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS MODEST AND WILL NOT BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE FROM THE STREET. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE PROPOSED INCREASE OF THE SIDE FENCE IS MODEST AND NOT A TOTAL DEPARTURE FROM THE AESTHETICS FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS, UH, HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT'S REGULATION IS PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROMOTE SAFETY, ENSURE CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN FENCE SITES IN THIS LOCATION DOES NOT UNDERMINE THESE GOALS AS IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO MOST LOTS AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THERE ARE LOTS OF, UM, PROPERTIES THAT HAVE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. UM, I THINK THAT BY ALLOWING THIS PREDOMINANTLY OR THIS SOMEWHAT OPEN FENCE, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME, UH, IS UM, APPROPRIATE. AND SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL. I MEAN, THE FENCE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE OVER 11 YEARS. UM, IF MORE THAN 50% OF IT WERE TO BE DESTROYED, UM, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT, UM, ZONING, UH, THE CURRENT, UH, UH, CODE HERE FOR FOUR FENCES. AND SO, UM, I, YOU [02:35:01] KNOW, THAT'S FROM, THAT'S WHAT GETS MY SUPPORT FOR RANDY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS' LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE THIS HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER PERMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ANNE. AND YES, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, NOW MOTION FOR THE UH, CLEAR VISION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARD TON WITH BO. 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 1. I MOVE TO THE BOARD. JUSTIN GRANT REQUEST FOR EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREAS TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY. WEST PROPERTY DRIVEWAYS SITUATED AT 1 4 1 9 WEST MALONE AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING LAW OFFICE OF E-A-R-P-L-L-C BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE DETERMINED SHOULD THE PHYSICAL CHARACT CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS DEFENSE DOES NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC'S ABILITY TO SAFELY NAVIGATE THE ROADWAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ALTER THE FENCE FOR WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR TO MODIFY A LONG TIME EXISTING DRIVEWAY OF THE PROPERTY. THREE. BY GRANTING VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE GRANTING THE CLEAR VISION REDUCTIONS IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD STILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE STREETS WOULD REMAIN NAVI NAVIGABLE BY CARS GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC AND THE EXISTING PARKING SHOULDER ON THE STREET, WHICH CREATES MORE SPACE TO SAFELY EXIT THE PROPERTY AND ENTER THE ROADWAY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH AS VARIANCE IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTERED ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTED THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS THE CONDITIONS GRANTED WOULD NOT IMPEDE OTHER INDIVIDUALS OPERATING CARS IN THE AREA DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S REDUCTION IN CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. SIX APPLIED IN THE OWNER 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 OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE ONE WAY TRAFFIC RULE AND THE EXISTING PARKING SHOULDER ON THE STREET. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MAY, UH, I'LL ACCEPT THE CITY'S, UM, RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER MANU. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE UNLESS OF ROLL CALL VOTE. I. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER A BON I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 6 9 LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO ALONG 10 23 NORTH PINE STREET. THE ZONING IS RM FOUR AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A TWO FOOT SIX INCH FENCE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIX FOOT SIDE OR REAR FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SIX INCH FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT. PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN RAW IRON FENCE WITH A SIX FOOT INCH STONE COLUMNS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH [02:40:01] PINE STREET AND IS BOUND BY BURLESON STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTH OLIVE STREET TO THE WEST AND LAMAR STREET TO THE SOUTH. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING RM FOUR, R FIVE, R FIVE, R SIX IDZ, AND MF 33. THE IDZ TO THE NORTH PERMIT USES IN THE NC AND MF 18 BAY ZONING DISTRICT USES AND HAS DEVELOPED SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA ARE WITHIN THE DIG NODE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES CURRENTLY UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS WHICH INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SECURITY PERIMETER FENCE TO CREATE A CONSISTENT EIGHT FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AROUND THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS AND A SIX FOOT SIX INCH DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. BOTH PROPOSED FENCE DESIGNS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMITATION AND THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THEY MAY ALTER THEIR PROPOSED DESIGN OR REQUEST A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION ALLOWANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG NORTH PINE STREET. THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CERAMIC AREA IS LOOKING NORTH ALONG NORTH PINE STREET. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH ALONG NORTH PINE STREET ALSO. THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUND AREA LOOKING WEST ALONG BURLESON. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH ALONG NORTH OLIVE AND THIS IS LOOKING EAST ALONG LAMAR. AND THEN BACK TO LOOKING NORTH ALONG NORTH PINE STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE SITE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 6 9 IS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AS THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE DESIGN MAINTAINS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE DISTRICT. ENHANCES SECURITY FOR USE SIMILAR TO GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY AND DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTERNATIVE CHARACTER. TWO, GRANTING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF UD SEAM AS COMPARABLE FENCE HEIGHTS ARE PERMITTED FOR GOVERNMENT USES AND THE PROPOSAL SUPPORTS PUBLIC WELFARE WITHOUT WEAKENING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. STAFF MAILED OUT 55 NOTICES. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. ZERO VOICEMAILS WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NUITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, THERE IS AN OPENING OR THERE IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE THAT'S PARTLY THERE RIGHT NOW. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION FOR MYSELF HERE. SO, BUT THEY HAVE, UH, CONSTRUCTION, PLASTIC, UH, BACKING UP I GUESS AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE RENOVATION, BUT, UM, IF YOU PUT CONSTRUCTION PLASTIC ONTO A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IT CORRECT, IT'S NO LONGER PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AT THAT POINT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S NOT A PERMANENT, UM, PART OF PERMANENT STRUCTURE, SO IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T CLASSIFY THAT AS A OH, CLOSED FENCE. SO THIS IS JUST A TEMPORARY, UH, SCREENING, BUT AFTER THE FINISHED CONSTRUCTION IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED 'CAUSE IT WOULD NO LONGER BE PER PERMANENT. CORRECT. I JUST WAS JUST KIND OF GENERAL, YOU KNOW. YEAH. I MEAN MOST LIKELY THEY'RE GONNA REMOVE IT, BUT RIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD GET INVOLVED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE TEMPORARY FENCE WILL COME DOWN ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS FINISHED. THANK YOU. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE. UH, HELLO EVERYONE. UH, MY NAME IS GONZALO FRAGA. I'M WITH WEST EAST DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECT AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY'S, UH, CAPITAL DELIVERY DEPARTMENT, UH, THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT. UM, I ALSO WANNA MENTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HU UH, HUMAN SERVICES WILL BE RUNNING THE BUILDING. SO THIS IS A CITY PROJECT? YES SIR. IT'S OKAY. AND SO THE INTENT HERE, OUR, OUR REQUEST IS, UH, NOT NECESSARILY, UH, REMOVE ALL THE EXISTING FENCING. IT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TRYING TO REPLACE EXISTING FENCING. UH, THE EXISTING FENCE IS CURRENTLY EIGHT FOOT HIGH, SO THE INTENT IS TO MATCH THAT. UM, THE IMAGE YOU SEE AT THE MOMENT THAT'S ALONG NORTH PINE STREET, THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO OR DESIGN OR INTEND TO DO, IS MATCH THE EXISTING, UH, BRICK PILLAR FENCING WITH THE VERTICAL BAR FENCING IN BETWEEN. AND SO THAT'S THE INTENT THERE. UH, WE'RE NOT MODIFYING OR CHANGING THE DESIGN THERE. UM, THAT'S ALSO PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO SHOWCASE TO HDRC. SO WE STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. UM, AND THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY UNDER PLAN REVIEW. SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT, THAT [02:45:01] WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU JUST SAID YOU HAD AN EIGHT FOOT, YOU, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE? THAT IS CORRECT. AND WHAT, WHAT STREETS IS THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE RUNNING ALL FOUR? YES, THERE'S PORTIONS OF IT. SO THIS IS LAMAR STREET, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. OKAY. I I'M SORRY. THIS IS NORTH OLIVE. THIS IS, UH, THE FENCING AROUND THE COMMUNITY GARDEN AT THE MOMENT. THAT IS THE FENCING ALONG, UH, BERLINGTON STREET AND OLIVE STREET. AND IF YOU GO BACK ONE MORE, UM, IF YOU CAN JUST STAY ON THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS, UH, ABOUT 11 FEET AT THE MOMENT. AND SO THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TAKE THAT FENCING DOWN AND, AND COME BACK WITH AN EIGHT FOOT. UH, SO THEN QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE, I THOUGHT WE HEARD IN THE LAST CASE THAT AS LONG AS THEY REBUILT IT WITHIN 12 MONTHS IT COULD REMAIN AS, AS, SO THE MAJORITY OF FENCES BEING REBUILT TO A SIMILAR STYLE FENCE AND OBVIOUSLY THE, THE CHAINING FENCE IS GONNA BE COMPLETELY REMOVED. SO I I BELIEVE THE PROJECT IS SAYING THAT THEY'RE REBUILDING THE FENCE. IT'S JUST GONNA CLOSELY REPLICATE THE EXISTING FENCE AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION STATED. BUT, BUT IF IT GETS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS, DO THEY EVEN HAVE TO COME HERE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE BO OA APPROVAL? NO, NO, NO. I MEAN, OH, OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS A, THERE WAS SOMETHING ASSOCIATED WITH NON-CONFORMING USE CODE THAT WERE, IF IT WAS, UM, DORM OR SOMETHING HAPPENED WHERE IT DIDN'T EXIST FOR 12 MONTHS AND IT WAS REBUILT. SO IF THEY DEMOED A FENCE THAT WAS NON-CONFORMING AND THEN REBUILT IT WITHIN 12 MONTHS. SO IF THEY, IF THEY DEMOED IT FOR LESS THAN 50%, THEN THEY CAN DO A NON-CONFORMING, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 12 MONTHS. SO THE NON-CONFORMING GOES AWAY AFTER THE 50%? CORRECT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? SO, UM, ARE THERE SECURITY REASONS THAT YOU NEED THE FENCE TO BE THIS HEIGHT? THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE NEED FENCE HEIGHT AT THE MOMENT. WE HAVE, UM, VANDALISM GRAFFITI ON THE BUILDINGS AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. WHAT'S THE USE OF THE BUILDING? GONNA BE A COMMUNITY CENTER. AND THEN, UH, HOW LONG IS THAT REAL? BECAUSE CURRENTLY YOU HAVE AN 11 FOOT TALL FENCE. HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN THERE? LIKE A REALLY LONG TIME. SO THE STEEL FENCING THAT WE SEE THERE, UH, I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS, UH, INSTALLED IN 2003 OR 2007 BASED ON THE GOOGLE IMAGERY, GOOGLE MAP IMAGERY. MM-HMM . UH, THE CHAIN LINK FENCING I THINK WAS THERE BEFORE THAT. SO, UM, NOT QUITE SURE HOW LONG THE CHAIN LINK FENCING HAS BEEN RUNNING, BUT THIS PROPERTY NEVER RECEIVED A BOA VARIANCE FOR THE FENCING. IT'S, IS IT OLD ENOUGH TO PREDATE ANY OF THE FENCING CODE? NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY. I'M JUST, I'M JUST, UH, MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS, IS THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE THAT LONG, IT EITHER NEEDED A VARIANCE FROM US OR IT WAS NONCONFORMING OR I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON THAT AND SO IT WOULDN'T, THE AMOUNT OF WORK BEING DONE WOULD NOT, UM, CLASSIFY THEM AS A NONCONFORMING. YEAH, IT IS. THAT IF THEY, IF THIS TALLER FENCE WAS BUILT IN 2014, WHAT, I DUNNO WHAT YEAR YOU 20? UH, 2003 OR 2007. 2000 THAT OUR FENCE CODE WAS STILL IN PLACE BACK THEN. SO WOULDN'T THEY HAVE, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE HAD TO COME TO US AT SOME POINT TO THE BOA FOR THAT TALLER FENCE IF THEY WAS BUILT IN NO THREE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBILITY TO BE SPORT COURT FENCING. 'CAUSE THAT AREA LOOKS LIKE IT POTENTIALLY. OKAY. SPORT COURT, WHICH IS PERMITTED UP TO 12 FEET. ALL RIGHT, WELL, GREAT. UNLESS THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED US TO SPEAK. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER BUNNIES HERE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 9. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR 1 8 2 FOOT SIX INCH HEIGHT FENCE, UH, FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIX FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ROD IRON FENCE, UH, IN THE SIDE AND THE REAR YARD. AND TWO, A ONE FOOT SIX INCH FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE YARD, UH, FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ROT IRON FENCE WITH A SIX FOOT SIX INCH STONE COLUMNS SITUATED AT 1 0 2 3 NORTH PINE STREET. APPLICANT BEING WEST END DESIGN GROUP. 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 THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ROD IRON DESIGN MAINTAINS VISIBILITY AND AESTHETIC COMPATIBILITY. AND THE REQUESTED HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALLOWANCES TYPICALLY GRANTED [02:50:01] TO GOVERNMENTAL TYPE USES, SUPPORTING THE CHAPTER'S INTENT TO PROMOTE SAFE AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT ENHANCES SECURITY FOR USE THAT FUNCTIONS SIMILARLY TO A GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY, THEREBY PROTECTING USERS OF THE SITE AND PROVIDING A BROADER COMMUNITY BENEFIT. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USES. THE OPEN DESIGN OF DEFENSE MINIMIZES VISUAL IMPACTS AND THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, UH, COMPARABLE TO WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. FOR GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES. IT DOES NOT INTRODUCE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT. THE USE OF WROUGHT IRON AND STONE COLS ENSURES A HIGH QUALITY OPEN APPEARANCE AND THE SCALE OF DEFENSE IS CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR SECURITY MEASURES ALLOWED FOR GOVERNMENTAL TYPE USES PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. E THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREON ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT BECAUSE SIMILAR FENCE HEIGHTS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT FOR GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES. GRANTING THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A COMPARABLE USE DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE DISTRICT'S REGULATIONS, BUT RATHER IMPLIES, BUT RATHER APPLIES THEM IN A CONSISTENT AND CON CONTEXT. SENS SENSITIVE MATTER. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER EZ? YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR. UH, THE CITY'S IN FAVOR OF IT AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD, UH, GOOD USE OF THIS PROPERTY. UH, FOR THE AREA. I THINK IT'S GONNA BE A, UM, COMMUNITY CENTER, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. GREAT. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT. UH, IT IS, UH, GONNA BE A GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NOW A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES. I KURT COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ANA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENTED AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU. ITEM 10. ITEM 10 IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO AT 1 0 3 CONNOLLY STREET. THE ZONING IS I ONE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. OH GOSH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CONNOLLY STREET AND HEDGE STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WYOMING STREET TO HEDGES STREET. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE A MIXTURE OF I ONE AND RM FOUR BAY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL USES, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND A CHURCH. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION BY CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUTSIDE STORAGE AND PARKING STANDARDS. ZONING STAFF VISITED THE SITE IN APRIL, 2026 AND OBSERVED AN EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL FENCE SURROUNDING THE PERIMETER. THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE USED AS A DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR FACILITY. AN INDUSTRIAL USE MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON THE LOT TO RETAIN THE INDUSTRIAL FENCE HEIGHT STANDARD. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP FOR LOT 13 ONLY. AND THIS QUEST AND ANY APPROVALS ISSUED FOR THIS REQUEST WOULD PERTAIN TO LOT 13 ONLY AS DESCRIBED ON THE APPLICANT'S WARRANTY DEED. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS LIKE SUBJECT PROPERTY AROUND THE, THE OTHER SIDES. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 FOR DEFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE CORRUGATED METAL MATERIAL IS NOT INTENDED TO BE UTILIZED AS A FENCE AND THEREFORE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY TO BE USED AS SUCH. TWO. UPON INQUIRY AND APPLYING FOR A PERMIT, THE APPLICANT WOULD'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE CITY'S PERMITTED FENCE MATERIALS. STAFF MAILED OUT 30 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO. RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION FOR VOICEMAIL. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO. RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION. DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. I HELLO. PLEASE STATE [02:55:01] YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. JARVIS MOORE, UH, FOUNDER OF JARVIS MOORE, INCORPORATED. IS THIS THE RIGHT ONE? YES, SIR. YEAH. FOUNDER OF JARVIS MOORE INCORPORATED. UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WANT ME TO START. UM, BUT, UH, WE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE. UH, MR. ALI PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY FROM ME IN, UH, 22. I STILL RESIDE THERE AS A, BECAUSE WE HAVE A BUYBACK CLAUSE. HE PURCHASED IT PROPERLY SPECIFICALLY TO HELP ME THROUGH THE, UH, HARDSHIP OF, UH, POST PANDEMIC. AND SINCE UH, THEN WE'VE, UH, WE STRUGGLED, UH, AS A BUSINESS, HOWEVER, UH, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR? THESE, THESE, THESE EVENTS HAVE CREATED EVEN MORE, UH, HARDSHIPS JUST, UH, JUST HERE IN THE RECENT WEEKS, UH, CONCERNING THIS MATTER. ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NANA? GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER NANA. SO QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. SO, SO IT'S USE CURRENTLY WHAT'S, WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR USE? SO RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS STORAGE OF, OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS AND, AND COMPONENTS. IS THAT PERMITTED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT? CORRECT. UM, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO BE SCREENED FROM RIGHT OF WAY, UM, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, BUT, UH, THE ACTUAL USE IS PERMITTED. OKAY. SO, AND THAT'S WHERE I GUESS GOING DOWN THAT PATH. SO, SO HOW IS BEING USED REQUIRES SOME SCREENING, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND, AND THIS HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 2016. UM, SO 14, 20 14 AFTER MAY, 2014. UM, OKAY. YEAH. SO, OKAY, I'M GOOD. AND I NOTICED THAT THE CORRUGATE METAL FENCE HAS A CAP ON THE TOP. YES. ALRIGHT. UH, AND YOU KNOW, TO GO BACK, YOU KNOW, ZONING, UH, INSTRUCTED US HOW TO ERECT THAT FENCE, YOU KNOW, IN 2014. IN 2014 THEY TOLD US, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER, THAT CORNER IS ANGLED. OH. OH. IN REGARDS TO CLEAR VISION, IT DON'T BELIEVE WE ANGLED THAT IS BECAUSE ZONING TOLD US TO. THAT WAS IN REGARDS TO CLEAR VISION, NOT, NOT THE MATERIAL. YEAH. OKAY, I GET THAT PART. OKAY. COMMISSIONER WAS, UH, YES. UH, JUST QUESTIONING, HOW WAS THIS CASE ORIGINATED? I BELIEVE IT WAS FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO WAS IT A CALL IN OR JUST THEY JUST HAVE IT TO BE DRIVING BY OR IS THERE A WAY TO ORIGINATE THE YEAH, WE GOT IT. OKAY. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY, UH, NEXT QUESTION BECAUSE ALL OF THIS HAS, UH, EVOLVED, IF YOU WILL, AS THE NEIGHBOR, CAN YOU PUT THE PICTURE BACK UP WHERE IT SHOWS THE BORDERING, UH, PROPERTIES, WHERE IT SHOWS THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO THAT? GO, KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE IT. WELL STOP RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE. UH, BECAUSE THIS IS THE ISSUE WHERE WE ARE TALKING IT. YEAH. THIS IS, THIS IS THE ISSUE WHERE THAT POLE IS WHERE THAT POLE RUNS. THERE IS A NEIGHBORING, UH, BUILDING. WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 2014, UM, THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY OWNED ALL OF IT. HE OWNED THE, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY ENCOMPASSES BOTH THE WEST AND EAST SIDE OF CONLEY. IS IS THE, UH, CELL TOWER ON YOUR PROPERTY OR THE OPPOSING PROPERTY? BOTH ON THE OPPOSING PROPERTY. OKAY. BOTH ALL OF THE TOWERS. IN FACT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. THE, THE NEIGHBOR WANTS TO PUT A CELL TOWER IN ORDER FOR HIM TO PUT THAT CELL TOWER, HE NEEDS 220, I BELIEVE FEET FROM THE STREET, FROM HEDGES STREET. AND SO HE'S MADE THIS BIG ISSUE ABOUT THAT EASEMENT WHERE I SHOWED YOU [03:00:01] THAT POLE. THAT'S AN EASEMENT. THAT EASEMENT, UH, WE WENT TO TITLE, THIS PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THE AGENT WAS SCOTT PRICE OF THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. WHEN I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, THIS WAS A DUMP GROUND. THIS, THIS PROPERTY LAID DORMANT OVER 30 YEARS AND I HAD TO GO TO THE CITY BEFORE THE, THE BOARD TO BUY IT. AT THAT TIME, THEY HELD THE PROPERTY FOR THE SAMARITAN VETERANS CENTER, WHICH IS A BLOCK AWAY, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY. YEAH. WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OFF TOPIC WITH THE FENCE, BUT NO, THIS IS THE TOPIC, SIR. IF YOU GIMME A MINUTE OKAY. IF YOU JUST GIMME A MINUTE. SURE. UH, THE NEIGHBOR PURCHASED THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN 25 IN 2025 LAST YEAR. AND BECAUSE OF THAT EASEMENT, HE CAME TO ME AND SAID, HEY, THERE'S AN EASEMENT HERE. I SAID, YEAH, I'M AWARE. IT'S, IT GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS, IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO NEW BROWNSVILLE AND IT IT GOES THROUGH MY PROPERTY AND, UH, THERE'S A CHURCH BEHIND ME WHICH HAS THE SAME EASEMENT THAT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH. AND SO HE SAID, WELL THAT'S, I I SHOULD HAVE HALF OF THAT EASEMENT. WELL, HE NEEDS HALF OF IT IN ORDER TO, TO MAKE HIS PROPERTY FIXABLE, TO PUT ONE OF THESE CELL TOWERS. WELL, NOW WHEN CODE COMPLIANCE CAME TO ME, OFFICER TORRES CAME AND HE HAD A SCHEMATIC OF THE EASEMENT AND HE SAID, THIS EASEMENT BELONGS TO YOU AND, UH, MR. ERIC JONES. I SAY, WELL, THAT NEEDS TO BE SETTLED IN COURT. OKAY. THAT COURT, THIS, THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MATERIAL OF THE FENCE. OKAY. WHETHER IT'S, I'M JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU WHERE ALL OF THIS CAME ABOUT. THIS IS WHERE IT STARTED. THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION WAS, IS THAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE THE PICTURE IMPLIED THAT THE, THAT THE CELL TOWER WAS ON YOUR PROPERTY. I WANTED TO ASK WHICH PROPERTY IT WAS ON. NO SIR. NO SIR. IT'S ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. OKAY. AND, AND, UH, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, WHAT, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF THIS FENCE BY? RIGHT, BECAUSE HE'S INDUSTRIAL. CAN YOU GO EIGHT FEET? EIGHT EIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? UH, EZ COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, SIR. UH, AND YOU DECIDED TO DO IT, UH, WITH METAL FOR WHAT REASON? SECURITY, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, THIS IS A HIGH CRIME AREA AND, UH, I'VE HAD SEVEN, EIGHT TRAILERS STOLEN WITH THAT METAL GATE. I'VE HAD FOUR OR FIVE BREAK-INS AS WELL AS THERE, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. UH, AND SO IT JUST MADE SENSE TO HAVE METAL. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE, IF THEY CAN SEE IT, THEN THEY'LL, UH, MESS WITH IT. AND WE HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, EQUIPMENTS THAT IF YOU TOUCH IT, IT'LL CUT YOU, YOU KNOW, SO IN PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, THAT WAS OUR ENERGY BEHIND THAT. BUT, BUT TO GO, UH, A STEP. BUT ALL THIS STARTED WITH, UH, UH, THE EASEMENT. THEN IT WENT ACROSS THE STREET BECAUSE I'M A DEMO CONTRACTOR AND THIS PAST SUMMER I WAS WORKING IN, UH, HOUSTON AND I WOULD COME PERIODICALLY, I WAS WAKING UP BY, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE AT MY HOUSE AND I LIVE ON THE BROWNSVILLE STREET, WHICH IS THREE OR FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS. THEY KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND TOLD ME I HAD TO COME OVER. I SAID, WELL, HEY, I JUST GOT IN. IT'S FIVE O AT, AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. THIS IS AT EIGHT 30 IN THE MORNING. AND THE NEXT DAY I GET LIKE 10 TICKETS. I GOT 60, 70 TICKETS FOR THE FENCE FROM MARCH IN, IN, IN APRIL. FOR THE FENCE, FOR THE FENCE, FOR THE, FOR THE DEBRIS THAT WE'VE NOW MOVED THAT I USE THAT YARD I DO DEMOLITION FOR, HAVE BEEN ON A DEMOLITION CONTRACT SINCE 2013. OKAY. WITH THIS DEPARTMENT, YOU'RE CURRENTLY A PROVIDER FOR THE CITY? NO. OKAY. AS OF APRIL, I HAVE RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SAID, BECAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, [03:05:01] I'M BEING REMOVED FROM THE CONTRACT. OKAY. SO IF YOU ASK ME IF I GOT A HARDSHIP, I CAN'T PAY MY CAR PAYMENT TODAY BECAUSE I COULDN'T DO DEMO 'CAUSE OF THIS. IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, PLACES ON THE, UH, IN THE AREA THAT HAS CORRUGATED METAL? YEAH, I JUST, I SENT Y'ALL ALL THE PICTURES. WELL, WAS, I WAS, I WAS ASKING THEN THREE. WELL THEN PLEASE LET ME GET THIS OUT. OKAY. THEN THREE BLOCKS, TWO BLOCKS UP, ONE BLOCK OVER ON RS STREET YOU SPEAK, SIR, ON COMMERCE STREET. MAN, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S CORRUGATED METAL GRAFFITI ON IT. EVERYTHING THAT'S OVER THERE IS ON THE GROUND. THEY TELLING ME TO MOVE MY CONTAINERS. I, I I, I'VE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING TO TRY TO CLEAN UP, BUT NOW YOU TAKE THE VERY ESSENCE OF MY LIFE, MY JOB. I HAVEN'T GOT A, A DEMO, UH, ORDER SINCE FEBRUARY BEHIND THIS MAN. ALRIGHT. I CAN BARELY PAY MY MORTGAGE MAN BEHIND A FENCE, MAN. SIR, DID I ASK Y'ALL, COULD I PUT IT THERE? OKAY, WELL IT MAY NOT BE NOTHING TO YOU, BUT A FENCE BRO. BUT THIS FENCE HAS COST ME MY JOB, MAN. HOW DO I MAKE MONEY, SIR? OKAY. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE FENCE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, CORRUGATED METALS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. SO I'M JUST GONNA ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. HOW LONG HAS THE FENCE BEEN THERE? AND, AND THE, YOU SAID 2014 IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. WE, WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 14. AND THE FENCE WAS THERE ALREADY? NO. OKAY. WE EVERY, IT WAS, IT WAS A DUMP GROUND. IT WAS A, IT WAS A VACANT LOT. THEY DUMPED EVERYTHING OVER THERE. THEY HAD WINE TREES ALL THROUGH THERE AND I HAD TO GO TO THE CITY TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. OKAY. BUT THE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR THE FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED? 2000, PROBABLY IT WAS BETWEEN FOUR, END OF 14, BEGINNING OF 15. ALRIGHT. WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, WE, WE BEGAN TO ERECT THE FENCE. WELL, SOMETIMES THIS BOARD LIKES TO SEE, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG SOMETHING'S BEEN IN PLACE. YES SIR. AS WE DELIBERATE. SO. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE, UH, COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF STAFF? LAST THING I, I DO JUST WANNA ASK YES, COMMISSIONER. AND THERE'S A CAP ON IT, RIGHT? YES, THERE IS. GOTCHA. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. IF THERE'S ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, NOBODY'S SIGNED TO SPEAK. I DO SEE SPORADIC CORRUGATED METAL. UH, JUST NORTH ON SOUTH NEW BRAUNFELS, UH, JUST BY LOOKING AT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW I ANSWER THE QUESTION FROM EARLIER. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT PUT IN, UH, UH, INVESTIGATION IN ITSELF. OKAY. SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS. ALRIGHT, GREAT. SO WITH THAT SIR, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GOING TO FOR A MOTION AND WE'RE GONNA SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT AND, UH, WE'LL FIND OUT MOMENTARILY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS MANNE COMMISSIONER MANNE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 0. I'M WITH THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR OFFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING SITUATED AT 1 0 3 CONNELLEY STREET, APPLICANT BEING JARVIS MOORE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE CORRUGATED METAL WOULD SUFFICE AS AN APPROPRIATE FENCE MATERIAL. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD, UH, REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THE FENCE WITH MATERIALS THAT COMPLY WITH UDC STANDARDS, THUS RESULTING IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE. BY GRANTING A VARIANCE, THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING A VARIANCE IN FENCE MATERIAL WOULD STILL OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE IN THIS INSTANCE AS CORRUGATED METAL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BE AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL TO SERVE AS A FENCE FOR THIS PROPERTY. UH, FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN A DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTED VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT FORM. PROPERTIES AS A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLIED IN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, FOR WHICH OF VARYING THE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT MERELY FINANCIAL. THE CORRUGATED METAL ADEQUATELY SERVES THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF SECURING [03:10:01] HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERING THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER MAN. SO I'LL BE VOTING, UH, IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, IT IT IS, UH, MATERIAL THAT I HAVE OR I DO SEE AS I GOOGLE DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SECOND IS THAT THE SOLID FENCE IS REQUIRED, UH, YOU KNOW, IN, IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONED AREAS. UM, AND SO THIS ONE HAPPENS TO BE METAL, SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AND THEN ALSO SINCE IT HAS BEEN HERE, UH, PRIOR TO 2016, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, UM, AND THAT DENVER HEIGHTS WHO IS VERY VOCAL, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARDS TO THE COMMUNITY ISN'T AN OBJECTION. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER . SO A COUPLE THINGS. I KNOW THERE WAS NO MENTION ABOUT A CAP. I KNOW THERE'S A CAP EXISTING, BUT JUST TO GO FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CAP IS PART OF THE VARIANCE. OKAY? SO I AGREE WITH THAT AMENDMENT SO THAT IT DOES INCLUDE A CAP, BUT AS WAS STATED, IT DOES HAVE A CAP, BUT I AGREE EXACTLY. SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. FIRST, THE CODE REQUIRES A SCREEN MATERIAL. IN THIS CASE, HE CHOSE A MATERIAL OF, OF THE METAL, THE METAL, UH, CORRUGATED, WHICH THERE IT IS, UM, A MATERIAL THAT'S USED WITHIN THE, THE AREA. SO IT'S NOT OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE AREA. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS PROBABLY, UH, A, A, A KIND OF A VENGEANCE CALL IN FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT HAS ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THE APPLICANT. SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS KIND OF, UH, A GENUINE, UH, UH, CODE ISSUE HERE. I THINK THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER ISSUES AT PLAY. AND THEN THE FENCE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A WHILE WITH NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO THEREFORE I'M SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING ON THIS OF A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MINNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BERGMAN? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONIA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALL RIGHT, ITEM 10, I MEAN ITEM 11. DO THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, MARCO RAVE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER. UM, ITEM, UH, NEXT ITEM IS BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 0 71, LOCATED IN 1910 MONTEZUMA STREET. UH, THIS IS FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SURROUNDED BY R FOUR, UH, PROPERTY OWNER OWNS LOTS. 27, 28, 29, 30, 45, AND 46. THE EXISTENCE STRUCTURE OCCUPIES LOTS 27 THROUGH 29 COD FOR NONCONFORMING. LOT OF RECORD HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE THREE REMAINING LOTS. GIVEN THE COD ISSUANCE, THESE LOTS DID NOT HAVE TO MEET ON LOT SIZE OR WIDTH. THE REQUESTED PROPOSED, UH, 70, UH, THE REQUEST PROPOSED A 75% REDUCTION OF THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK ONLY ON LOT 30. AND THE APPLICANT INDICATED, UH, SIMILAR CONSTRUCTIONS MAY BE PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE FOR 45 AND 46. IT'S THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY VACANT AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, UH, FOR BO O 8 26 103 0 0 0 71. UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINAL OF FACTS, THE LACK OF OPEN YARD SPACE PROPOSED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO AN INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD, INCREASED CROWDING, AND INCREASED DENSITY ON THE BLOCK. AND WHEREAS A FULL 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK MAY BE, UH, MAY PRESENT A CHALLENGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, A 75% REDUCTION OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE. THE, UH, THE NOTICE PLAN, UM, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR AN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSES FROM THE UH, ES ASSOCIATION OR COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES, THAT'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. ALFONSO GARCIA, I'M, UH, REPRESENT HOLDING, UH, THE GIMME ONE SECOND. I, [03:15:05] WHAT'S SAN ANTONIO HOLDING LLC. AND, UH, WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE 20 FEET, UH, SETBACK ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS IT, I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY IS, UH, TOO NARROW AND NOT TOO LONG. OKAY. AND TAKING THE 20 FEET FROM THE BACK WILL TAKE PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE LOT. THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE, NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE THE SAME, UH, SETBACK. PRETTY MUCH ALL THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A FIVE FOOT, UH, SETBACK, REAR SETBACK. SO, SO, UM, THAT'S FIRST, UH, THAT'S THE REASON WE ASKING IF WE CAN A VARIANCE ON THE 20 FEET TO FIVE FEET OR SIX OR SEVEN, SOMETHING THAT DOESN IN EFFECT THIS HOUSE IS PLANNING TO BE FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW IT IS, THE PLANS ARE PRETTY MUCH FOR A TWO BEDROOM KITCHEN, UH, ONE RESTROOM AND GARAGE ON THE FRONT OPEN GARAGE, UH, SPACE. THERE'S NOT MUCH SPACE. IF WE TAKE IT AT 20 FEET, IT'S NOW THAT PROJECT IS NOT GONNA BE FEASIBLE TO. ALRIGHT, SO HOW DEEP IS YOUR LOT? IT'S, UH, 70, LEMME, UH, 74.8 IN THE WIDTH. 25. IT, IT'S, UH, 24 POINT 0.8. OKAY, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELL BELOW THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT? MM-HMM . WHICH IS OKAY. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? RUTH, MR. CRUZ? SO YOU'RE PLANNING TO BUILD A HOME IN EACH OF THESE LOTS AT THE SAME SIZE, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S ONLY ONE. IT'S ONLY ONE LOT. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. OKAY. IT'S ONLY ONE LOT MM-HMM . SO ALL THE OTHER LOTS ARE, ARE STILL EMPTY AND ARE THEY GONNA HAVE ANYTHING BUILT ON THEM? WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY, ANY OTHER LOTS. THIS IS ONLY FOR THIS LOT. THE STAFF PRESENTATION IMPLIED THAT YOU HAD CODS FOR THREE OF THE LOTS. OKAY. HO HOLD ON, SIR. 45 AND 46. CAN YOU CLARIFY ON, ON THE I, ON THE IMAGE, LIKE WHICH, WHERE THOSE LOTS ARE IN RELATION TO THE ONE IN QUESTION? SURE. THING. THE ONE OUTLINED IN RED IS THE SUBJECT LOT 40, UH, EXCUSE ME, SUBJECT LOT 30 45 AND 46. ARE THOSE TWO LOTS TO THE SOUTH? UH, LOTS. 29 THROUGH 27 ARE OCCUPIED BY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. OKAY. SO THERE'S, THERE'S THREE CODS THAT ARE ON VACANT PROPERTY, CORRECT? 30 45 AND 46, BUT THE APPLICANT IS ONLY PURSUING A VARIANCE ON ONE OF THE LOTS TODAY. TODAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET IS PRETTY SMALL. UM, YOU KNOW, 10 FEET MIGHT BE A LITTLE BETTER. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S LIVABLE? CAN WE GO LIKE A, IN THE MEETING BETWEEN LIKE A SEVEN FOOT? WELL, THAT'LL BE UP TO THE COMMISSION. I'M, I'M, I'M JUST, I KNOW USUALLY ON THESE, ON THESE SORT OF EXISTING LOTS, THEY'RE AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET DEEP. AND SO I SEE THE HARDSHIP THAT YOU HAVE. UH, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF 20 FOOT, 25 FOOT, UH, NATIVE WIDE LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET DEEP. SO WAS THIS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN THIS CONFIGURATION OR WAS THIS, UH, CUT IN HALF SOMEHOW? I THINK TO OBTAIN THE COD IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN IN THIS CONFIGURATION. CORRECT? IT'S A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD. YEAH, THAT IS JUST SO SHALLOW. WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE ON THE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE FLOOR PLAN, THERE IS NOT MUCH ROOM TO DO. OH, I SEE. MORE THAN TWO, UM, BEDROOMS. I MEAN, IT'S ONLY FIVE FEET HERE RIGHT NOW AND ONE TWO BEDROOMS, VERY SMALL BEDROOMS, LITTLE, UH, BATHROOM, A REST, UH, AND THE SMALL KITCHEN AND THE LIVING AREA AND A SPACE FOR OUR GARAGE. OKAY, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, THAT'S GONNA BE A GARAGE? WELL, NOT, NOT A COVERED GARAGE. I MEAN OPEN, OPEN GARAGE, OPEN DRIVEWAY, OKAY. MM-HMM . ALL RIGHT. SO THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE IS SET BACK 20 FEET, CORRECT. FROM THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. GREAT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, DO WE KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT PROPOSED SETBACK AND THE NEXT STRUCTURE BEHIND YOU? I THINK IT'S ANOTHER FIVE FEET IF, BASED ON, ON THE GOOGLE MAP. SO, SO THERE'LL BE A 10 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE, AND THE NEW STRUCTURE SET. SOME OF THEM HAVE NO SETBACKS. OKAY. SOME OF THEM HAVE FIVE, FIVE FOOT SETBACKS, MANNA, COMMISSIONER, MANNA. AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO. SO, SO IF YOU BRING UP THE AERIAL, UH, GOOGLE MAP, UM, OF THIS, UM, WITH JUST THE CLOSE, UH, WITHOUT THE LAYERS, SO JUST THE, THE BARE THE BEAR [03:20:01] LAYER, SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S LOTS OF, UM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST ZERO LOT LINE ON THE BACK. UM, AND SO IS THAT JUST BY, JUST FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WHY THAT'S THAT WAY? OR YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND SO YOU, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ALREADY THERE? WELL, IF, IF IT'S ANTIQUATED, IT WAS BUILT BEFORE 1927 AND THE ZONING CODE CAME IN IN 1935. 35, 35. SO PRIOR TO 35, WAS THERE A SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT ALL? PROBABLY NOTHING, HUH? NOW, YEAH, SO GO TO THE, ACTUALLY NOT THIS VIEW. SO, SO IF YOU GO WITH THE CLEAN VIEW, SO CLICK ON THE, THE, THE FINDING GLASS OR THE HOURGLASS OR THE SPYGLASS, SO WITHOUT THE LAYER ADDED, THERE WE GO. OKAY. SO THAT VIEW KIND OF GIVES ME A CLEAR VIEW OF IT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE, AND SO THERE'S SOME THAT LOOK LIKE IT'S LESS THAN FIVE FEET SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BACK PROPERTY AND THAT. SO, UM, AND THIS PROPERTY, SO THE ONE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE ONE I GUESS THAT IS, DOES HAVE THE, UH, THE MARKER ON IT, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT, UH, IS THERE ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS? NOBODY TIME TO SPEAK. AND, AND REAL QUICK SIR, UM, DID YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? YES. FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD, RIGHT? YES, SIR. LUIS STRADA, YOU SAID ADDRESS 51 69 RANDOLPH BOULEVARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO IF WE, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I, I WOULD TELL YOU PERSONALLY, I I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST SEVEN AND A HALF E BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT, WHERE SOMEONE STARTS OFF ON THIS. I'LL WRITE WITH IT. MANA COMMISSIONER MANON. UM, RIGHT, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 1, I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A, UM, LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD MAKE IT, LET'S SEE, , UH, 12, 13, 12 AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR VIEW SETBACK TO ALLOW A NEW HOME WITH A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT, UH, REAR SETBACK IF I DID THE MATH RIGHT, UH, SITUATED AT 1 9 1 0 MONTEZUMA STREET. APPLICANT BEING WEST SA HOLDINGS LLC. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS ADEQUATE SEPARATION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FROM PROPERTY LINES WOULD REMAIN TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF STRUCTURES, MITIGATE THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE TYPICAL OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, INCLUDING OPEN REAR YARD SPACE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AS MANY PARCELS ON THIS BLOCK ARE GENERALLY OF A SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE AN INEQUITABLE APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING AREA. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO ENSURE A MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND PROPERTY LINES. ON THIS LOT, A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SEPARATION IS, UH, APPRO IS APPROPRIATE FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WELL ACTUALLY JUST BE FOR THE BACK, UH, WITH THE SIDE BEING FIVE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SMALL LOT SIDES. UH, FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY, NOR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT. AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK ALIGNS WITH FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS, PREVENTS OVERCROWDING AND INAPPROPRIATE DENSITIES, PROTECTS OWNERS PRIVACY AND SUPPORTS CONSISTENCY WITH THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL AND CHARACTER. END OF MOTION. OH WAIT. NOPE. ONE, THANK YOU. SORRY. SIX. THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED THAT APPLY TO THE OWNER, WHICH IS VARYING. THE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE TO THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS A CONDITION THAT APPEARS TO AFFECT THE MAJORITY OF PARCELS IN THIS AREA NOW INTO MOTION. ALL RIGHT, WHO'S A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO I DO LIKE THE, UH, THE, THE ADDITIONAL SPACE THERE BECAUSE LOOKING AT THIS AREA, IT DOES LOOK PRETTY DENSE AND FIRE SPREAD SHOULD BE PROBABLY A CONCERN. [03:25:01] I THINK BY PROVIDING THAT EXTRA, UH, DISTANCE THERE IN THE BACK KIND OF WILL MITIGATE SOME OF THAT OR HOPEFULLY MITIGATE SOME OF THAT. SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR WITH THE, UH, WITH THE SLIGHT ALTERATION OF SEVEN HALF FOOT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. IN ADDITION, UM, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO GUARANTEE IT'LL STAY THIS WAY, IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S NOTHING BUILT DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS LOT. UM, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MINNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER NESS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER NU YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL? YEP. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 12. OH GEEZ, I'M DOING THAT AGAIN. I'M WRITING MY NOTES. 1, 1 1 NOTCH OFF. OKAY. UM, ITEM NUMBER 14. WHAT THE, OKAY, I'M, I APOLOGIZE. ITEM 12, I HAD A RIGHT FIRST PLAN. AND REAL QUICK, DO WE HAVE MR. VELASCO HERE? ADAM VELASCO. OKAY, PERFECT. JUST MAKING SURE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS JOEL VELA AND YOUR PLANNER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, ITEM 12 IS BO A DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 7 2 AT 2 3 9 HIGHWAY DRIVE. UH, THIS IS IN DISTRICT TWO AND A REQUEST FOR AN 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE FOUR FOOT ONE INCH FROM THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF IH 10 WITH SOUTH WW WHITE ROAD ALONG HIGHWAY DRIVE. BEXAR COUNTY RECORDS INDICATE THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1954 WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ZONE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. AT THAT TIME, THE ZONING DESIGNATION ONLY REQUIRED A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE HOME WAS BUILT FOUR FEET ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE HOME SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT FIRE DAMAGE IN JUNE, 2025 FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTED AN ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DSD TO DETERMINE REQUIRED PERMITS FOR REPAIR. THE ASSESSMENT FOUND 15% OF THE STRUCTURE'S WALLS AND 15% OF THE STRUCTURE'S ROOF SYSTEM TO HAVE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT FIRE DAMAGE AND PERMITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS. SUBSEQUENT BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOUND THE WORK DONE TO HAVE EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUED PERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT A PLAN REVIEW WOULD NOW BE REQUIRED. THE ENSUING PLAN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS. UH, AND BECAUSE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE'S NORTH SIDE SETBACK WAS ALREADY NARROWER THAN THE MINIMUM, UH, REQUIRED MINIMUM. AND GIVEN THAT THE PROJECT GOAL OF REPAIRING THE STRUCTURE WHILE MAINTAINING THE PREEXISTING FOOTPRINT OF VARIANCES REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW PERMIT FOR THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THIS STRUCTURE WITH A REDUCED NORTH SIDE SETBACK. SHOWN HERE IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT SIDE NORTH SIDE, UM, PROPERTY LINE SHOWING THE SEPARATION, UH, THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 2, UH, ONE TO RESTORE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ITS HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT OF MODEST VARIANCE IS REQUIRED WHERE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK. TWO, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. BEYOND THE PLAN RESTORATION EFFORTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRING THE STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK ORDINANCE. AND THREE, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE AND THE NEED TO RESTORE THE HOME AFTER SUFFERING. SIGNIFICANT FIRE DAMAGE STAFF MAILED 31 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVE NO VOICEMAILS AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND HE'S REUSING THE FOOT, THE FOUNDATION? CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. HI, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, MY NAME'S ADAM VELASCO AND THE KIND OF THE SCOPE OF IT WAS, AS HE PREVIOUSLY STATED, UH, IT SUSTAINED A FIRE DAMAGE ON THE REAR FACING IN THE HOUSE, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOME. MM-HMM . UH, WHEN THAT HAPPENED, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE ASSESSMENT GOING IN, DETERMINE [03:30:01] KIND OF THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE TO IT AS WELL. STARTED GETTING EXPOSED. UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF TERMITE THAT WAS ALSO, UM, DAMAGING THE HOME. SO AS THE REPAIRS WERE DONE WHEN THEY WENT BACK IN, THEY REALIZED THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE OF THE REPAIRS WERE DONE THAN, THAN INITIALLY THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS WRITTEN OUT. WHEN THEY WENT OUT THERE, THEY, THEY SAW THAT AT LEAST TWO WALLS WERE REPLACED, WHICH IS WHERE THE DAMAGE OF THE FIRE OCCURRED. SO THEY ASKED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THAT'S WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP OF THE 11 INCHES VARIANCE APPROVAL THAT WAS REQUESTED. UM, OVERALL, YOU KNOW, UM, I SPOKEN TO THE, TO THE OWNER TO THE RIGHT SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE INITIALLY THE FIRE TOOK PLACE AND KIND OF MENTIONED THE SITUATION, DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, THE 11 INCHES DISCREPANCY OF TODAY'S CODES. AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO SEE IF, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CAN GRANT US THAT APPROVAL. WELL, WHEN THIS HOUSE IS BUILT THOUGH, SETBACK WAS THREE FEET, SO YOU'RE FOUR FOOT ONE, SO IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT I WAS USED TO SEEING. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? I NOTICED THAT THE, UH, THE CARPORT WAS TAKEN DOWN. DO YOU PLAN ON REBUILDING THAT AT SOME POINT OR, UH, NO SIR. WE'RE NOT GONNA REBUILD THE CARPORT. YEAH, THE ONLY THING I WOULD JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THE FRONT STEP BACK INSIDE IF YOU WERE TO REBUILD, SO, ABSOLUTELY. YES SIR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO FOR THE CITY, SO HAD, I GUESS HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE AMOUNT OF, UH, EXTRA WORK THAT WAS DONE, WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN, UH, A NON-ISSUE HERE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. THE, UH, REPAIR PERMIT JUST COVERED THE INTERIOR WORK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. AND THEN, UM, AND DOES, DOES THE CITY HAVE, UM, I KNOW THAT SOME THINGS, WE'LL, WE'LL SAY THE CITY HAS A LEEWAY TO GRANT SOME VARIANCES WITH REGARDS TO DISTANCES AND SO SOMETIMES LIKE SIX INCHES, SO WAS THAT NOT THE CASE HERE AS WELL OR, UH, ADMINISTRATIVELY, UH, WE CAN REVIEW AND GRANT UP TO A SIX INCH SETBACK VARIANCE. UH, BEING THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS FOUR FOOT ONE AWAY, UH, WE COULD NOT GRANT AN 11 INCH VARIANCE. IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO BOARD. TO THE BOARD. AND WITH THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, I KNOW THAT THERE'S TWO, TWO, UH, TESTS. IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, IT'S, IT'S 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE BUILDING. BUT I THOUGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL IT WAS 50% OF THE STRUCTURE AND COST WAS NOT PART OF THAT. SO, AND I'M ASKING, 'CAUSE WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS 15% OF THE WALLS AND WHATNOT THAT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED. WHAT, WHAT TRIGGERED THIS TO, TO COME HERE I THOUGHT, I MEAN, IS ISN'T THAT A, ISN'T IT A 50% OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE THAT TRIGGERS FOR RESIDENTIAL THE FOOTPRINT? UM, SO ONCE THEY START REDOING THE WALLS, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE ROOM AS PART OF THAT FOOTPRINT. OKAY. I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? NOBODY'S SIGNED TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. IS ANYBODY AGAINST THIS? NO. ALL RIGHT. SO JUST CURIOUS, LOOKING FOR A MOTION. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 3 7 2. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE FOUR FOOT ONE INCH FROM THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 3 9 HIGHWAY DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING, UM, ADAM OF VELASCO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT PROPOSE A NARROWER SIDE SETBACK THAN THE ONE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED ON THIS LOT. TO RESTORE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ITS HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT, A MODEST VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. WHERE THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BEYOND THE PLAN. RESTORATION EFFORTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRING THIS STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK ORDINANCE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE BARRETTS, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE OVERALL SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AS IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE STRUCTURE WITHIN ITS HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTERED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GIVEN THE SIDE FACADE OF THE FRACTURE STRUCTURE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THIS SIDE PROPERTY LINE. [03:35:01] THE HOME IS ONLY FOUR FOOT ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AT THE REAR CORNER, AND THIS SEPARATION GRADUALLY INCREASES TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. SIX. THE P PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH APPEARANCE 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, NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING A HISTORICAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT ESTABLISHED UNDER AN HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY STANDIN OF A FIRE THAT DAMAGE THE STRUCTURE AND NECESSITATED REPAIRS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. GOODBYE, COMMISSIONER ESE. COMMISSIONER BYWAY. UH, YEAH, I THINK WE'VE SEEN ISSUES LIKE THIS BEFORE WHERE THEY'RE JUST REBUILDING ON THE EXISTING, UM, SLAB AND, UM, THROUGH NEW FALL TO THEIR OWN. AND AS, UH, THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT, UM, AT THE TIME IT WAS BUILT, IT PROBABLY WAS THREE FOOT STANDARD AND SO THIS, IT'S GONNA EXCEED IT BY 13 INCHES. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOIS? YEAH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT FOR, UH, ALL THE REASONS MY COLLEAGUE LUCID. THANK YOU. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 14, THIS IS BO A TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 8. THE APPLICANT IS ABRAHAM SANCHEZ. IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. THE LOCATION IS 4 2 6 0 MICKEY ROAD. THE ZONING IS FR FARM AND RANCH DISTRICT AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A REQUEST FOR A 12.321 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 ACRE LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 12.679 ACRE LOT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG MICKEY ROAD AND IS ROUGHLY 12 ACRES IN OVERALL SIZE. THE APPLICANT RECENTLY COMPLETED A REPL OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS RECORDED JUNE 28TH, 2024. AND ON FEBRUARY 17TH, 2026, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT. UH, UNDER PLAN REVIEW IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE OF 25 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED, UH, FR FARM RANCH DISTRICT. THE FR LOT DOES NOT MEET THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A VILLAGE CENTER OR MINOR NODE AS IT IS AT FRONTS. A LOCAL ROAD. THE APPLICANT WAS A FORM THAT THEY MAY EITHER REQUEST A CHANGE OF ZONING TO DISTRICT WITH A SMALLER MINIMUM WAT SIZE REQUIREMENT, OR REQUEST A RELIEF FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO THEY APPROACH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN AND IF YOU SEE THE SITE PLAN THERE, IT'S 497 FEET FROM MICKEY ROAD TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING THE, UH, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY IS, AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE RESIDENTS OUT THERE. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REALLY BIG LOTS SO YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO A TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. OF FACT, THE CURRENT LOT SIZE IS LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHILE MAINTAINING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. AND THE CURRENT LOT SIZE IS NOT DISSIMILAR FROM NEARBY PROPERTY. AND THE PROPOSED HOME WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE AREA. WE MAILED 15 NOTICES, WE HAD ZERO RESPONSES. THERE WERE ZERO VOICEMAILS, AND THE SOUTHS AND COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. SO I I HAVE TO, I JUST HAVE TO ASK, UM, ISN'T THERE ANOTHER MECHANISM THEN THIS, I MEAN, ISN'T THIS NON-CONFORMING? BECAUSE IF IT'S A PLATTED LOT AND IT'S ZONED INCORRECTLY, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THIS APPLICANT HAS TO COME HERE. UM, BECAUSE IT, WHAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR ISN'T, ISN'T PLATTING USUALLY THE TRIGGER FOR THIS? SO BASICALLY WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THAT IS THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY ASSIGNED IT AND, UM, WHEN THE PLAT WAS DONE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, BUT IT WAS MISSED. OH, THAT IS, THAT'S ACTUALLY SO MANANA. SO SO MY OPINION ON THIS IS I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TOUCHED. AND THE REASON WHY IS IF IT WAS A RE PLATTING, SO, SO THEY DID A, A CITY COUNCIL RE PLATTING TO MAKE A MARKED UH, RE LOTS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE LOTS COULD BE DIVIDED DOWN TO ONE ACRE LOTS WITHOUT ANYBODY SAYING ANYTHING. AND SO I THINK COMING THIS WAY IT PRESERVES A LARGE LOT, LARGER LOT COMMUNITY AND WE HANDLE BY EXCEPTION. AND SO, SO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE HAVE LOTS THAT ARE BEING SUBDIVIDED DOWN TO THE RE UM, THAT ARE MULTI ACRE LOTS AND, AND SO I THINK THIS PRESERVES THAT AND PRESERVES THAT COMMUNITY. THAT [03:40:01] BE MY PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS. I WAS JUST CONFUSED THOUGH. SO HE PLANTED THIS AFTER IT GOT INEXT? CORRECT. AND I I DIDN'T THINK THE CITY WAS ALLOWED TO ASSIGN ZONING IF IT DIDN'T MATCH, WELL, I GUESS IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED. IT WASN'T APPLIED. IT WAS ANNEXED FIRST. OKAY, GOTCHA. ALL RIGHTY. SO IF THERE'S, UH, ANYONE, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S ABRAHAM SANCHEZ. I AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER JOSE JESUS FERNANDEZ. REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 42 60 MICKEY ROAD. WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FR ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY PLATTED AND RECORDED AS OF JUNE, 2024 AT 12.679 ACRES. IT FALLS SHORT OF THE CURRENT 25 ACRE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ITS DISTRICT. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IF IT WOULD RENDER A ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED PARCEL OF OVER 12 ACRES COMPLETELY UNBUILDABLE FOR ANY REASONABLE USE. OUR PROPOSAL IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. WE ARE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE FR DISTRICT. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL MAINTAIN THE LOW DENSITY RURAL CHARACTER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR OUR NEIGHBORS. ESSENTIALLY WE ARE JUST ASKING TO USE THIS PROPERTY FOR THE EXACT PURPOSE IT WAS INTENDED TO FROM WHEN IT WAS PLANTED. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, WELL IS THERE ANYONE SO TO SPEAK? NOBODY'S SO TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION EZ COMMISSIONER EZ REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 8. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A REQUEST FOR A 12.321 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 ACRE LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 12.679 ACRE LOT SITUATED AT 42 60 MICKEY ROAD. APPLICANT BEING ABRAHAM SANCHEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THE LETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THE EXISTING LOT SIZE IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THAT AREA. TWO, THE DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE CURRENT PLATTED LOT SIZE IS UNDER THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 ACRES AND WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS IT WOULD REQUIRE EITHER A NEW PLAT TO BE RECORDED TO COMBINE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR CHANGE OF ZONING REQUESTED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE FR ZONING, UH, DISTRICT PERMITS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE CURRENT LOT SIZE IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM SIMILARLY ZONED PROPERTY IN THAT AREA AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE OPEN AREAS INTENDED TO BE PRESERVED. NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF OTHER USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZING THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE INJURE, THE APPROPRIATE, UH, USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT INJURE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AS THERE ARE SEVERAL SIMILARLY SIZED LOTS WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ALONG MICKEY ROAD. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. 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 PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE CURRENT, UH, CURRENT SIZE OF THE PLA OF LOT WHICH, UH, WHICH IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND ALLOWS FOR MAINTENANCE OF A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO PRESERVE THE RULE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANER. COMMISSIONER BEEZ? UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, THE CITY'S AN APPROVAL FOR IT AND I, I THINK, UH, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF IT. UM, I'LL BE IN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER MADA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE ARE ONTO THE MINUTES. [ Approval of Minutes  ] ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? YOU WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT. OKAY. UH, I I HAVE TO ASK, UH, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT ALTERNATES IN A LONG TIME. I THINK THERE'S STILL A VACANCY. IS THERE ANYTHING GOING ON WITH, [03:45:01] WITH, UH, FILLING OF THAT VACANCY? ANY NEWS? UH, WE WILL REACH OUT TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICTS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK AND AT THE NEXT MEETING WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT, UH, THE, THE STR TEAM SAID ABOUT THIS CHANGING OF ADDRESS BUSINESS WITH THAT RN FOUR. THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF NEW ASPECTS OF HOW THAT GETS INTERPRETED. WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FOR NEXT TIME. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. SO IT, IT IS 4 56 WE'RE ADJOURNED. , WHAT AM I GONNA DO? FIVE MINUTES? YEAH. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.