* 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. [00:00:03] ALL RIGHT. WHO ARE WE WAITING ON TODAY? WE'RE ON COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ AND COMMISSIONER VA VASQUEZ. AND IS ANYBODY, UH, DIGITAL TODAY? UH, THOSE TWO. OH, THEY'RE GONNA BE OKAY. I'M SORRY. BRAGMAN. WELL, WE HAVE, WE HAVE NINE HERE NOW. NO, I KNOW, BUT I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING, WERE WE GONNA HAVE THREE? ARE YOU EXPECTING THREE MORE THEN? NO, TWO MORE. I'M SORRY. JUST TWO MORE. JUST TWO MORE. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. UM, IT'S ONE OH ONE. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. IN THIS SESSION, WE HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT, PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A STAFF COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER REED PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? HERE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. COMMISSIONER EZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. CHAIR ORIAN. AND I'M HERE. SO WE HAVE NINE, WE'RE EXPECTING TWO MORE, BUT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. IF EVERYONE 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 STANDS? STANDS NATION ONE NATION UNDER IN LIBERTY AND JUSTICE. FOR HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE. AND, HI. ALRIGHT, SO [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES WHEN THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR WILL 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 IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER, THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF COULD BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE STAFF. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, CAN YOU HEAR US? AND CAN YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA ON PLEASE? [00:05:08] WHILE SHE WORKS ON THAT, UH, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUESTS. PART OF PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST PROPOSED VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXEMPTION. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALL ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES, UH, PER SPEAKER, AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALL ALLOWED OF MAXIMUM. TWO PEOPLE GIVE UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP, THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES. UH, WHILE WE CURRENTLY HAVE NINE, UH, PEOPLE SITTING, UH, WE'RE WAITING ON THE 10TH TO, UH, JOIN DIGITALLY. UH, WE, WE ARE GONNA ENTERTAIN THE MINUTES AT THIS TIME. UH, DOES EVERYONE HAVE ANY, UH, REVISIONS OF THE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. O MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. READ SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MINUTES ARE PASSED. UH, WHAT WE USUALLY DO WHEN WE DO HAVE A LIMITED BOARD IS WE GO THROUGH OUR AGENDA AND WE LOOK FOR, UH, ELEMENTS OF WHERE STAFF IS HAS RECOMMENDED A FULL APPROVAL. AND WE'LL TACKLE THOSE ITEMS FIRST. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, LIKE THAT IS ITEM NUMBER NINE AT 18. CHELSEA WAY IS THE APPLICANT FOR 18 CHELSEA WAY. HERE WE WILL BE HEARING YOUR CASE. UH, FIRST. SO, UM, STAFF ITEM NUMBER NINE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MARK CHAVEZ, SENIOR ZONING PLANNER. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO. A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 6. APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL QUIST LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT, DISTRICT ONE, UH, AT 18 CHELSEA WAY, UH, ZONING IS R SIX PUD REQUESTS FOR A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE 12 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE GREENS AT LINCOLN HEIGHTS PLAN UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT, UH, PUD SUBDIVISION. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ADDITION TO THE REAR AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME TO ENCROACH INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PUD PERIMETER SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM THE TREE LINE PARK ROADWAY BY THE SUBDIVISION'S PERIMETER WALL. APPROXIMATELY ALL GOOD. 10 FEET OF PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY, INCLUDING A SIDEWALK. NO, NO. WHAT I SEE IS OKAY. DO YOU SEE THAT? WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. BYE. IT'S 1 0 9. COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ HAS JOINED THE MEETING. THIS IS THE, UH, SIDE PLAN HERE. VASQUEZ IS A BOARD. THANK YOU. MY CAMERA TO WORK. PLEASE CONTINUE. YEAH. THIS, UH, THE SIDE PLAN SHOWING THAT EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE AND, AND THAT LOCATION AT THE REAR. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT'S THE PHOTOS SURROUNDING AREA. SAME THING SURROUNDING AREA STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PUTT PERIMETER SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, FINES. YOU FACTS ONE, THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY CASE. PROPERTY CREATES AN INHERENT LIMITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NORMAL SETBACKS ARE ENFORCED. TWO, THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO SUPPORT FIRE SAFETY, WATER RUNOFF, MITIGATION, AND TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ACCESS. THAT IS OUR NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION PLAN. WE SENT OUT 26 NOTICES. ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. UH, THERE'S NO [00:10:01] REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE GREEN'S AT LINCOLN HEIGHTS, HOA PROVIDED COMMENTS AND SUPPORT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR GARAGE. YES, HELLO, I'M MICHAEL QUIS. THANKS FOR, UH, HEARING MY CASE. UM, SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A, UH, ESSENTIALLY A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE ABOVE THE GARAGE FOR MY DISABLED, UH, MOTHER-IN-LAW. UM, THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY DESIGN, ALONG WITH THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE BUILT ON A 12, UH, FOOT SETBACK. UM, I THINK THE, UH, SETBACK CHANGED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN PRESENT DAY AND 2003 WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT. UH, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS, UM, THE SETBACK TO BE CHANGED BACK TO 12 FEET FOR THIS VARIANCE. SO WE CAN BUILD IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE HOME AS WELL AS THE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL SETBACKS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, SO WE CAN HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM, UH, FOR THE, UH, MINIMUM SUITE. SO SOME QUICK QUESTIONS. YOUR GARAGE IS CURRENTLY ALREADY THERE, CORRECT? YOU'RE BUILDING ON TOP OF AN EXISTING FOOTPRINT. UH, SO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT WILL EXPAND, UM, IN ORDER TO FIT ON THE, UH, TRIANGULAR SHAPED LOT. WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ORIENTATION OF THE GARAGE, UH, FURTHER TOWARDS THE REAR OR FURTHER. UH, IT'S GOING TO MOVE FURTHER TO THE RIGHT. UM, OH, THANK YOU. SO, LET'S SEE. UH, SO THIS IS THE EXISTING GARAGE CURRENTLY. UM, THE NEW GARAGE WILL EXPAND THIS WAY TO THE, UH, BUILDING, BUILDING SET BACK HERE, THE FIVE FOOT BOUNDARY ON THE LOT. AND THEN THE SHADED AREA WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 20 AND 12 FOOT VARIANCE. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE STAYING OUT OF THE 12 FOOT EASEMENT IN THE BACK AND THE LANDSCAPE WALL EASEMENT, ALL THAT STUFF. CORRECT. YEAH. SO, SO WE'D UH, STILL BE RESPECTING THE 12 FOOT EASEMENT, UM, AS SHOWN HERE. AND STAFF DID THIS, WAS THIS, WAS THIS AN ANNEXATION WHERE THERE, OR WAS IT A ZONING CHANGE WHERE IT WENT TO A 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM WHAT APPARENTLY WAS A 12 AT ONE POINT. SO IT'S BEEN A HUD SINCE 2000 OR 93? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAD, I DON'T BELIEVE, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAD, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAD DIFFERENT SETBACKS BACK THEN. IT SHOULD HAVE JUST BEEN THE ORIGINAL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. AND BY THE WAY, IT'S UH, ONE 13 AT COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN. IS, UH, JOIN THE MEETING. WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS ONE? UH, BON I'LL TAKE IT. COMMISSIONER BOEZ NUMBER NINE. ALRIGHT, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 6. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE 12 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 18 CHELSEA WAY, APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL QUIST. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF SUPPORT, FIRE SAFETY, WATER RUNOFF MITIGATION AND PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ACCESS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. GIVEN THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN, IN THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP OF REDUCING THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THIS LOT TO AN AREA SMALLER THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTED, THIS VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD NOT CREATE A, A CROWDED APPEARANCE ON THIS LOT AND WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE IN THE REAR TO MITIGATE FIRE RISK AND WATER RUNOFF CONCERNS IN THIS AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THESE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED EDITION IS A CITY, CITY RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED SETBACK. ADEQUATE SPACE WOULD REMAIN BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT REQUIRING ACCESS TO THE [00:15:01] ADJACENT UH, PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SALT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE C CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE O BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND 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 OF THE OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH CREATES AN INHERENT LIMITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NORMAL SETBACKS ARE ENFORCED. UH, END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. COMMISSIONER BEEZ? YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. UH, THI THIS LOT IS ODDLY SHAPED, UH, THE CITY'S BEHIND IT, SO I I WILL AS WELL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BONNI? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UH, WE HAVE NOW A FULL BOARD. WE'LL BE BACK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS REQUESTED BY RICHARD GONZALEZ AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE, OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DUE TO INCORRECT INFORMATION APPLIED LOCATED AT ONE 17 CACTUS STREET. TYPE TWO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT ONE 17 CER STREET SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. SECTION 16 DASH 1 1 1 1 STATES THAT THE DIRECTOR IS AUTHORIZED TO, TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT UNDER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLE WHEREVER THE PERMIT IS ISSUED IN ERROR OR ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED OR WHERE IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE UNIT OR PORTION THEREOF IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE. THIS LOCATION WAS INITIALLY ONE OF TWO IN WHICH STR PERMITS WERE REVOKED. SHORTLY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF RENEWAL APPLICATIONS, BOTH LOCATIONS WERE REVOKED BECAUSE SHORTLY AFTER APPROVAL, CODE ENFORCEMENT VISITED EACH LOCATION AND DETERMINED THAT AI WAS USED TO CREATE PHOTOS OF COMPUTER GENERATED DRIVEWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT APPROVALS. SUBSEQUENTLY, STAFF LAUNCHED PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF OTHER STR MANAGED BY THIS ENTITY. SO FAR, SIX ADDITIONAL EIGHT TOTAL VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FROM THIS ENTITY. THE OWNER CONTENDS IN THEIR APPLICATION THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE IN SUPPLYING THIS INFORMATION TO STAFF AND STAFF CONTENDS THAT THIS CONSTITUTES A PATTERN OF DECEPTION. ON APRIL 4TH, 2026, STAFF REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE A PHOTO OF THE DRIVEWAY TO ENSURE THAT THE PARKING SPACE WAS CODE COMPLIANT. THE APPLICANT FOLLOWED UP ON APRIL 10TH, 2026 WITH A PHOTO OF THE UPDATED DRIVEWAY. THE RENEWAL APPLICATION WAS THEN APPROVED ON APRIL 14TH, 2026. STAFF COORDINATED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TO VISIT THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THE DRIVEWAY MATCHED THE PHOTOS PROVIDED TO STAFF FOR THE APPLICATION APPROVAL. WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT VISITED THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 16TH, 2026, APRIL PROVIDED US WITH THE CORRECT WITH THE CURRENT PHOTO OF THE DRIVEWAY, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WAS AN INCORRECT AND ALTERED PHOTO. THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON APRIL 21ST, 2026 DUE TO VIOLATION OF SECTION 16 DASH 1 1 1 1 WITHIN THE CITY CODE. THIS IS THE ACTIVE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS A TOTAL OF NINE UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE AND THERE IS NO OTHER ACTIVE TYPE TWO ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS AN OPEN INVESTIGATION FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE PERMIT HISTORY. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2023 [00:20:02] AND IT WAS RENEWED ON APRIL 14TH, 2026. AND THEN THE REVOCATION DATE FOLLOWED ON APRIL 21ST, 2026. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY PICTURE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON APRIL 10TH, 2026. AND THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY PICTURE PROVIDED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT SIX DAYS LATER ON APRIL 16TH. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE DRIVEWAY PICTURE PROVIDED BY STAFF DURING THE SIDE VISIT. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 46 MALE NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS AND NO RESPONSE FROM DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SEVEN CITYWIDE GROUPS ARE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO THE DRIVEWAY IS CONSTRUCTED AS OF TODAY? YES. OKAY. AND IS COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH. BON YES. COMMISSIONER BONNI, WAS THERE EVER A PERMIT ISSU, UH, ISSUED OR OR WAS THERE A PERMIT TRIED THAT WAS, UH, ATTEMPTED TO BE PULLED DURING THIS TIME TIMEFRAME FOR THE DRIVEWAY? RIGHT NOW IN ACELA, THERE IS ONE PORT IN MAY. THERE WAS ONE PORT IN MAY. IN MAY. AND THEN OKAY. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND JUST TO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY WERE GIVEN AN SDR PERMIT IN 2023. THIS IS THE RENEWAL THAT IT GOT CAUGHT ON? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. MM-HMM . ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. I WAS TOLD TO PASS OUT THINGS FIRST, SO I'M GONNA DO THAT IF I CAN. PLEASE DO. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS EDDIE BRANICK. MR. GONZALEZ HAS THE JOYOUS, UH, THING OF WELCOMING A NEW CHILD OF THE WORLD. HE'S IN THE HOSPITAL WITH HIS WIFE. THE CHILD WAS BORN YESTERDAY. UH, HE APOLOGIZES FOR NOT BEING HERE. UH, HE SAYS HIS WIFE IS IN A FAIR AMOUNT OF PAIN. AND WHILE THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO HIM, HE'S THE FIRST CHILD. HE DOESN'T WANNA LEAVE HIS WIFE ALONE. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE KIDS, I THINK YOU GET IT. UM, IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF, OF, OF THE SITUATION YOU FINDS HIMSELF IN TODAY. UH, MY NAME IS EDDIE BRANICK. I'M A LAWYER. I DON'T APPEAR HERE THAT OFTEN. UM, THAT CAN BE AN ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE WHEN YOU'RE AS GOOD LOOKING AS PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. YOU WANNA SEE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. WHEN YOU'RE AS BAD LOOKING AS ME, YOU DON'T WANNA SEE IT VERY OFTEN. UM, SO I WANNA START OUT BY SOMETHING. PEOPLE OFTEN MAKE MISTAKES AND IT HAPPENS BECAUSE I MAKE MISTAKES ALL THE TIME. AND I'M ASKED, MR. BRANICK, HOW DID YOU MESS THIS UP? AND MY ANSWER TO THEM IS, WELL, I DID THIS, I DID THIS, I DID THIS. AND THE NEXT QUESTION I GET ANSWERED, WELL, HOW DID THAT BENEFIT YOU? AND I SCRATCH MY HEAD AND I SAY, WELL, I CAN'T SEE HOW THAT MISTAKE BENEFITED ME AT ALL. I KNOW THE STAFF HERE FEELS THAT THERE'S A PATTERN OF SOME DECEPTION THAT'S GOING ON, BUT WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY MR. AMI IS THAT THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS CURRENTLY AT THE LOCATION IS CODE COMPLIANT. AND, AND LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. HAD MR. GONZALEZ NOT MADE A MISTAKE AND PROVIDED A COPY OF THE OTHER DRIVEWAY THAT USED TO BE THERE BEFORE THEY TORE IT OUT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, CONSIDERED TO BE COMPLIANT. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO ADVANTAGE TO SUBMITTING A PICTURE OF AN OLD DRIVEWAY VERSUS A NEW DRIVEWAY. AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IF THERE HAD BEEN, UH, A DRIVE NOT BEEN A COMPLIANT DRIVEWAY AT THE TIME, I WOULD UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S POSITION THAT THERE WAS DECEPTION GOING ON. UM, HOWEVER, UH, THE, I, I WENT AND DID SOME RESEARCH HERE AND I I GOT A PICTURE THAT I WANT THE STAFF TO SHOW YOU. OH GOSH, WHERE DID I PUT IT? OH, THE TOP PICTURE. I'M GONNA WAIT TILL THEY TURN TO IT. THE TOP PICTURE IS THE PICTURE THAT WAS PRESENTED. MR. GO GONZALEZ WOULD TELL YOU THAT THAT WAS THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS AT THE LOCATION. THE BOTTOM [00:25:01] PICTURE IS THE ONE THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE STAFF WHEN THEY WENT TO THE LOCATION. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT'S COLLEGIATE, BUT YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE CLICHE. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT'S A DIFFERENT COLOR, RIGHT? SO THE QUESTION BECOMES WHY DID MR. GONZALEZ DO WHAT HE DID? WELL, IF YOU GO BY THE PROPERTY NOW, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THERE IS THAT COLLEGIATE, UM, FROM THE FENCE BACK, BUT HE PUT IN A NEW DRIVEWAY WITH A PERMIT ON THE FRONT. SO MR. GONZALEZ'S PLAN WAS VERY SIMPLE. I HAVE A HOUSE THAT HAS PROBLEMS WITH DRAINAGE. I'M GONNA TEAR OUT THE OLD DRIVEWAY, PUT IN COLLEGIATE TO STOP THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND PUT A NEW PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY BELOW THAT WHERE YOU SEE THAT COLLEGIATE. AND I MEAN, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER THAT THAT WAS HIS PLAN. BOTH DRIVEWAYS WERE COMPLIANT ACCORDING TO STAFF AND WHAT THEY REPRESENTED TO ME. BUT THAT'S WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE COMING UP WITH IT BEING AN AI CREATED PICTURE. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. I THINK IF YOU WENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND YOU'D LOOK, YOU'D SEE THAT THAT DRIVEWAY USED TO BE THERE. UM, AND YOU, IN FACT, THE PICTURE AT THE BOTTOM IS ALSO NOT CURRENT. SO, UH, IT, THERE IS A ONLY A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY GOING UP TO THE SIDEWALK NOW SO THAT THE HOUSE WON'T HAVE ISSUES WITH ITS FOUNDATION. SO, UM, WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS, UM, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS THAT WERE ASKED WHAT THEY THOUGHT. AND FULL DISCLOSURE HERE, I TOLD MR. GONZALEZ ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THE BOARD WILL PROBABLY HAVE IS WHAT DO YOUR NEIGHBORS THINK ABOUT YOU? UM, THIS AREA IS SORT OF A MIXED AREA. WHEN I SAY THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PICTURES. THIS IS LIKE A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S DONE. I THINK THIS ONE IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. I BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT SAID THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF IT. IF YOU PASS THAT OFF, THIS IS A, A DUPLEX THAT'S, IT'S EITHER TWO OR THREE DOORS DOWN. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU. THIS ISN'T A NEW DIVISION AREA WHERE EVERY HOME IS A COOKIE CUTTER HOME. THERE ARE SOME RENTALS THERE. NEXT PICTURE, PLEASE. UM, THAT'S THE, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE OLD PICTURE OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IF THEY WERE DOING AI, THEY ALSO AIED SOMEONE'S CAR ON THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE THAT SMART. AND I SUPPOSE I COULD LOOK UP THE LICENSE PLATE, BUT THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE, THE, THE OLD DRIVEWAY WITH A CAR ON IT. NEXT ONE PLEASE. THAT'S THE LOT NEXT DOOR. THAT'S NOT OPENED BY MR. GONZALEZ. BUT WE ESPECIALLY WANTED THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT. AND THEN THE NEXT, THAT IS A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE FOR, I THINK IT'S ONE 19 CACTUS. THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO MR. GONZALEZ'S, IS IN FAVOR OF HIM KEEPING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UM, THIS OWNER ACTUALLY OWNS TWO PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, I THINK 1 24. I MIGHT HAVE IT INCORRECT, BUT THAT'S A PICTURE OF ONE 19, I BELIEVE. AND THAT'S THE PHOTO THAT I ALREADY SHOWED YOU ABOUT HOW IT WAS REMOVED. SO HERE'S WHERE WE GET INTO SEMANTICS. AND I'M NOT A BIG SEMANTICS PERSON, BUT THE STAFF IS SAYING THAT IT'S INCORRECT. UH, BY THE WAY, THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE ME BEFORE THIS HEARING SAYING THAT THERE ARE EIGHT OTHER VIOLATIONS SOMEWHERE. DON'T KNOW ABOUT 'EM. I CAN TELL YOU THAT HE WAS CONSISTENT WITH HIS MISTAKE. THERE WAS ONE OTHER PROPERTY THAT HE GAVE THE OLD PHOTO. IT ALSO HAD ANOTHER DRIVEWAY THAT WAS ALSO WOULD'VE BEEN COMPLIANT. HE DIDN'T APPEAL THAT ONE IN TIME, WHICH IS WHY THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU. I HAVE THOSE PICTURES SHOWING THAT HE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE EACH TIME, BUT THAT DRIVEWAY ALSO WOULD'VE BEEN COMPLIANT. SO WHAT'S OUR SITUATION WE HAVE HERE? WELL, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHOSE NEIGHBORS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PER UH, PERMIT. WHY ARE THEY IN FAVOR OF IT? WELL, APPARENTLY THEY THINK HE'S A PRETTY GOOD RUNNER OF A, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLACE IS THAT YOU PROBABLY ARE BE AWARE BETTER THAN I AM. IF HE LOSES HIS PERMIT, IT MEANS SOMEONE ELSE GETS TO APPLY FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND I SUSPECT, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ASK EACH OF THEM, THAT THEY'RE REALLY CONCERNED WHAT WILL COME AFTER THIS. YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE THAT'S RUNNING A GOOD SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLACE. UH, SOMEONE WHO, UH, HAS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DIFFERENT CLICHE, MUST HAVE TORN OUT THE DRIVEWAY AND PUT A NEW ONE. AND SOMEONE WHO MADE A MISTAKE THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT HIS CASE WHATSOEVER. IN OTHER WORDS, HAD HE SUBMITTED THE CURRENT PHOTO, THE STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE A COMPLAINT. SO THE STAFF SAYS, ANYTIME YOU SUBMIT AN INCORRECT PHOTO, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION. TAKING IT TO A LAWYER'S END. WHAT IF YOU'RE, YOU SUBMIT A PHOTO WHERE YOU'VE PAINTED IT A DIFFERENT COLOR? WHAT IF YOU SUBMIT A PHOTO THAT'S SIX MONTHS EARLIER? WHAT IF YOU SUBMIT [00:30:01] A PHOTO WHERE YOU HAVEN'T MADE IT IN AN ADDITION, BUT NOW YOU HAVE MY LEGAL LAWYER WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS? IS THAT IT MUST BE INCORRECT FOR WHAT IT REPRESENTS THAT WE'RE HERE ON TODAY. IN OTHER WORDS, HAD MR. GONZALEZ REPRESENTED THAT THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY THERE, BUT THERE WAS NOT A DRIVEWAY THERE, THAT WOULD BE INCORRECT. WHAT I POINTED OUT TO THEM IS THAT YOU COULD, THEY COULD HAVE USED THE WORD INACCURATE. AND I CAN GO DOWN A WORDING THING HERE IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO YOU. BUT IT, THIS IS CURRENTLY AND CLEARLY AN INACCURATE PHOTO. BUT IT IS CORRECT IN THAT IT REPRESENTS THAT THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY THERE. NOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A WORD GAME, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SEEMS TO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND WHEN THERE'S NO BENEFIT FOR MR. GONZALEZ SUPPOSEDLY MISREPRESENTING SOMEONE THAT HE WOULD BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE OF, OTHERWISE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE EQUITIES HERE TEND TO, OR THE, THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE MAYBE ARE ON THE BEHALF OF ASSUMING THAT MR. GONZALEZ MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE. 'CAUSE HIS MISTAKE DID NOT BENEFIT HIM. IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE. HE HAD TO HIRE A LAWYER THAT CHARGED HIM TOO MUCH. HE HAD TO PAY AN APPEAL FEE, AND HE HAS A CHANCE OF LOSING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WHEN HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE. I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. STEVENS. SORRY, COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED THE PREVIOUS DRIVEWAY BEING REMOVED. WHEN, WHEN WAS THAT REMOVED? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T THINK AHEAD OF TIME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE, BECAUSE I CAN GO BACK NEARLY 20 YEARS ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND THERE'S NO PAVED DRIVEWAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A SUMMARY AS WELL. STAFF HAS A SUMMARY, UM, IF JUAN WANTS TO PULL THAT UP. BUT, BUT THIS IS IVANIA AND I'M JUST MAKING A STATEMENT. UM, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THERE'S A DRIVEWAY, WHETHER IT'S A CEMENT DRIVEWAY, WHETHER IT'S A CALICHE DRIVEWAY, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY. UM, AND FOR ME IT SEEMS KIND OF, UM, NITPICKY ABOUT THE PHOTO. UM, YOU AGAIN, I, FOR ME, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT IF THERE WASN'T A DRIVEWAY AT ALL AND HE TURNED IN A PICTURE SHOWING THAT THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY, UM, THEN I, THERE WOULD BE TO ME AN ARGUMENT. BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THERE, WHETHER IT'S MADE OF CALICHE OR WHETHER IT'S A CEMENT DRIVEWAY. THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ASK. UH, SO BETWEEN 2019 AND 2022, THE CITY WENT IN AND WIDENED, UH, AND REDID ALL THE SIDEWALKS ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET. I THOUGHT IT WAS TYPICAL WHEN THE CITY DID THOSE SORT OF JOBS TO TAKE THE, THE IMPROVEMENT OUT TO THE, THE PAVE SECTION. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, NOT PAVED BEHIND THE SIDEWALK, BUT I I THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD'VE AT LEAST CONCRETE APRON, UH, IT UP TO THE STREET. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, UM, IF ANYBODY LIKED TO, UH, CHIME IN ABOUT THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. UH, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. THE PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE. SORRY, OVER HERE. OH YEAH, JEREMY COMAD WITH STAFF. UM, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. PUBLIC WORKS, UH, TYPICALLY WILL GO IN FOR ONE SPECIFIC PROJECT. THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS GO IN FOR THE DRIVE APPROACHES AND APRONS AS WELL. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, AND ALSO ON SOME OF THE HISTORIC PICTURES, I NOTICED, UH, REMNANTS OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE GA UH, GRAVEL OR HEAVILY RAVELED ASPHALT. SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, UH, WHAT IS CONSIDERED A PERVIOUS VERSUS PERVIOUS DRIVEWAY IS GRAVEL AND ACCEPTABLE SURFACE TO STAFF? YES, GRAVEL IS AN ACCEPTABLE, UM, A MATERIAL. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT COME ALONG WITH THAT. UH, WE DO REQUIRE THAT THERE IS A CURB PLACED AROUND THE GRAVEL, SO THAT WAY IT DOES NOT PREVENTS RUNOFF, UH, FOR RAIN AND ALL OF THAT. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, EZ COMMISSIONER EZ, UH, THIS, THESE ARE FOR CITY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER UH, UH, UH, STR PERMIT REQUESTS CURRENTLY FOR THIS BLOCK PHASE? I'LL CONFIRM. UH, OKAY. UM, ANY VIOLATIONS, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE IT'S BEEN AN STR SINCE 23? NO, SIR. UM, ARE THEY CURRENT ON ALL THEIR HOT? YES. WHY DO WE BELIEVE THIS WAS AI JUDGING BY THE PHOTO? UM, IT IS NOT WHAT WAS A PREVIOUS, UH, DRIVEWAY. IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DRIVEWAY FROM WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. AND THEN IN 23 WHEN AN STR PERMIT WAS ISSUED, UM, WAS THERE A RECORD OF A DRIVEWAY THERE OR WAS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH THE DRIVEWAY [00:35:01] AT THAT POINT? UH, NO, THERE WAS, UH, THERE'S BEEN CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE TO, UH, FURTHER REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR THE DRIVEWAY SINCE THEN. OKAY. SO IN 23 WHEN HE FIRST PULLED IT, WHATEVER WAS THERE WAS, OKAY, NOW HE'S TRYING TO GO FOR RENEWAL. NOT IT'S, NOW IT'S NOT. OKAY. UM, THIS ONE'S FOR THE, UH, THE APPLICANT OR THE ATTORNEY. YES SIR. UM, YOU STATE THAT THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY HE HAD THERE BEFORE AND THEN HE DECIDED TO TEAR IT UP AND THEN POUR A NEW ONE. DO YOU KNOW WHEN HE POURED THAT FIRST DRIVEWAY? SO, AND THIS IS THE SAME ANSWER I'LL HAVE TO GIVE COMMISSIONER STEVENS, I AM SORRY, I AM NOT FAMILIAR BECAUSE I DID NOT OWN THE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE DETAILS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I'M GETTING IT WRONG BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. AND I WANNA MAKE IT REAL CLEAR WHEN I SAY I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. I, I, THIS, I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUS DRIVEWAY ON THERE. THAT PICTURE YOU SEE WITH A CAR WAS WHAT HE TOLD ME WAS THE PREVIOUS DRIVEWAY. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHEN IT WAS DONE AND WHEN IT WASN'T. MY EXPERIENCE WITH GOOGLE EARTH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, WHICH IS THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE EACH AND EVERY DAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I COULD BE LYING, BEING LIED TO. IT JUST SEEMS UNUSUAL. AND BACK TO CITY, UH, I KNOW YOU GUYS SAID THAT THERE WAS VIOLATIONS, UH, WAS IT SIX OTHER VIOLATIONS FROM DIFFERENT STRS BY THE APPLICANT? THERE'S A A TOTAL OF EIGHT? YES. WHAT AND WHAT ARE THOSE FOR? CAN WE JUST GO DOWN THE LIST OF WHAT THOSE ARE? UH, THE EXACT SAME THING, JUST PHOTOS THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE WITH, I GUESS WHAT'S REALLY THERE, CORRECT? YES. AND WE HAVE THOSE AS WELL IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE. SURE. YEAH. LET'S, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION, ARE THOSE OTHER STR BY THE APPLICANT OR ARE ALL OF THOSE CURRENT ON HOT? I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY. OKAY. SO I'M A, I'M A LITTLE DISTURBED HERE BECAUSE I, I WAS PREPARED FOR THE ONE OTHER WHICH I HAVE THE PICTURES FOR, WHICH CAN SHOW YOU THE PREVIOUS DRIVEWAY. AND I ASKED FOR WHAT EVIDENCE THEY WERE GONNA HAVE AND I WASN'T TOLD THAT THERE WERE GONNA BE SIX ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OR SEVEN. YEAH, WE CAN'T ENTERTAIN THE OTHER, WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO SEE ANY HISTORY WITH THE APPLICANT. SURE. BUT WHEN, I MEAN, PRACTICALLY, WHEN YOU'RE TOLD YOUR CLIENT IS BEING ACCUSED OF SIX OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK INTO, AND THE STAFF DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT AND DIDN'T MENTION IT, SO YOU CAN BRING YOUR OWN EVIDENCE HERE. I I THIS ISN'T AN OBJECTION, THIS IS JUST A, A PLEA THAT THAT SEEMS GOSH UNFAIR AT THE LAST MINUTE AND I WASN'T PROVIDED ANY OF THAT. SO, SO THIS PHOTO THAT YOU JUST PUT ON THE SCREEN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THIS ONE? UH, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOP ONE AND THE IT'S THE WRONG HOUSE. BOTH THOSE ARE WRONG HOUSE THERE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HOUSE THAT IS OR WHAT THAT YEAH, AS AN EXAMPLE, THIS LOOKS THE SAME. THE DRIVEWAY JUST LOOKS A LITTLE DIRTY, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT. I, ME, YOU CAN SEE THE WATER VALVE OR METER THAT'S THERE IN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. AND MAYBE IF IT'S THAT TICKY TACKY, UH, I, I I SHOULD JUST LET YOU GO FORWARD. I JUST, LEMME PUT THIS OUT, UH, THERE. IF, IF IT'S, IF THINGS THAT I NEED TO ANSWER OR I'D LIKE A CHANCE TO ANSWER WITH THAT, I'LL JUST SHUT UP. STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS. THERE, THERE IS A REASON THAT THIS, THIS APPLICANT ALTERED IMAGES TO BE SENT TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, I WOULD ASSUME SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO ENTERTAIN A CONTINUANCE, COULD WE HAVE THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER HERE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID? I, I SEE NO REASON HE COULDN'T. LITERALLY, I, HE SENT ME A PICTURE. I KNOW THAT HIS WIFE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE INDUCED. THEY HAD THE KID YESTERDAY. IF YOU WANT HIM TO BE HERE, I'LL MAKE HIM HERE. I I, I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE HE'S DOING AN AI INDUCTION, BUT I WAS AWARE THEY WERE TRYING TO GET PREGNANT AND I WILL BRING THE HOSPITAL RECORDS SO THE CITY DOESN'T ACCUSE US OF THAT EITHER. SO YES, AND SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, YEAH, IF YOU CONTINUE IT, I'LL MAKE SURE HE IS HERE. GIMME AT LEAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS CHAIR. UM, I WOULD, THIS IS IVAN. YES. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IF THE CITY FEELS THAT THEY NEED TO BRING THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN, THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE A CASE FOR THAT SEPARATE FROM THIS. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I I'M GONNA LEAVE THIS UP TO THE BOARD. I THINK THAT IF, UH, A BOARD MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS TODAY, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. AND THE, IF A BOARD MEMBER FEELS IT CONTINUANCES AND IS NECESSARY, THAT'S FINE TOO. UM, WE'RE FINE WITH EITHER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, I DO APPRECIATE BAN SAYING THAT, BUT I WANT TO GIVE A GOOD PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD AN HONEST PRESENTATION AND I WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. I ALWAYS FEEL THAT THINGS STAND BEST WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVEN FULL INFORMATION, RIGHT? SO IF YOU FEEL CONTINUANCE [00:40:01] IS NECESSARY, WE'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION. BON I JUST, UH, IF I CAN JUST COMMENT ON SOMETHING HERE. YOU KNOW, WHENEVER WE SEE HOUSES GET PUT UP FOR SALE OR FOR RENT OR WHATEVER, WE SEE THIS DONE A LOT. THEY MAKE THE GRASS LOOK WAY GREENER THAN IT REALLY IS. UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THIS GUY'S PUTTING ENOUGH STUFF ON AIRBNB, MAYBE HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE IT APPEAR A LITTLE NICER. SO HE, HE PUTS THESE PHOTOS UP THERE, WE SEE THIS DONE ALL THE TIME IN REAL ESTATE. YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU SEE THESE PHOTOS, YOU GO LOOK AT THE HOUSE FOR REAL AND YOU'RE LIKE, MAN, THE GRASS ISN'T THAT GREEN OR THE DRIVEWAY'S NOT THAT NICE. THEY DO THESE THINGS JUST TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT APPEAR BETTER FOR THE PHOTOS, FOR, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, MARKETING PURPOSES, WHATNOT. UM, HE'S SHOWN NO HISTORY OF NOT PAYING HOT TAXES. HE'S SHOWN NO OTHER HISTORY OF, YOU KNOW, ON ANY OF 'EM. I, I DON'T THINK WE GOT THE INFO ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S NO REAL VIOLATIONS ON THIS ONE. UM, THE DRIVEWAY'S THERE NOW. HE PULLED THE PERMIT FOR IT. I, I'M OKAY WITH MOVING ON AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE A DAY AND VOTING ON IT. IF, IF EVERYONE ELSE IS, I I AM, I AM TOO. AND, AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IF IF ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, A PICTURE, I MEAN I, I SAW GRA I SAW ENOUGH GRAVEL ON THIS AND HISTORIC PICTURES FOR IT TO BE FINE WITH ME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER. GOOD. UH, ONE MORE QUESTION REGARDING THE EARLIER TOPIC ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND GRAVEL BEING ACCEPTED. I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT TYPICALLY THE TIRES HAVE TO BE ON A PAVED SURFACE. UM, NOT SURE IF THAT'S A FACT OF THIS CASE, BUT, UM, IS THAT, IS THAT, WELL THEY HAVE TO BE LIKE, LIKE THE, UH, LIKE STAFF HAD MENTIONED GRAVEL'S ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS IT HAS A CURB BORDER TO CONTAIN IT. UH, IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN THE STREET ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW, YOU'LL SEE A GOOD NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS THAT LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD PICTURE RIGHT NOW. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO PUT OUT THERE. UH, WAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I THOUGHT I COULD FAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. UH, SO FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BUNO BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR CODE OF ETHICS TO ALTER A PHOTOGRAPH TO MAKE IT, UM, UNTRUE. SO, UH, JUST LIKE TO MAKE THAT POINT. UM, BUT I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I MEAN IF THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE NOW, FINE. OKAY. WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, ITEM ONE CHAIR. THERE'S A HAND UP IN THE BACK IN THE GALLERY TO SPEAK. TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES SIR. SO NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? EXCUSE ME? DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON THE LIST? NO. NO. I DON'T KNOW IF, I MEAN, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BEING HERE. OKAY. HOLD ON. IS THERE A BOARD MEMBER WHO'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THIS APPLICANT? ANNA, PLEASE COME FORWARD. HELLO. GOOD MORNING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. YOU GOT THREE MINUTES. UH, MY NAME'S ELISSA GARCIA AND I LIVE ACROSS THIS PROPERTY FROM ONE 17. I AM THE OWNER OF ONE 12 CACTUS STREET. OKAY. UM, I AM HERE. I DO NOT OPPOSE FOR THAT, UM, APPLICATION TO KEEP GOING THROUGH. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DRUG TRAFFICKING COMING IN AND OUT FROM THAT HOUSE. PROSTITUTION, LITTLE GIRLS COMING IN AND OUT FROM THAT HOUSE, ESPECIALLY DURING EVENTS THERE. THE TRASH CANS HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE FROM THIS PROPERTY OUT IN THE PUBLIC, EVEN IN THE STREET BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS. I HAVE PICTURES. I HAVE CAMERAS. I HAVE NEVER SEEN OR SPOKEN TO THE OWNER, WHICH I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FOR THE PAST MONTHS. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET EVEN A HOLD OF THAT RENTAL PROPERTY TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. I HAVE GOTTEN A HOLD OF THE EAST SIDE SUBDIVISION. I HAVE GOTTEN A HOLD OF THE SAFE OFFICER. I HAVE SENT THEM PICTURES. I HAVE SHOWED THEM VIDEOS OF GUYS COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT HOUSE WITH HANDBAGS. AND I'M NOT SAYING, I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY'S COMING IN PROPERTY, THEY'RE RENTING IT FOR THE NIGHT, FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. YOU AIN'T GONNA KEEP COMING OUT EVERY SINGLE HOUR WITH LUGGAGE. YOU ARE JUST NOT OKAY. AND LITTLE GIRLS, I CAN SAY AS YOUNG AS 15 YEARS OLD, UM, COMING NIGHT IN A NIGHT FROM THAT PROPERTY, I CAN SAY FROM TWO THREE IN THE MORNING. OKAY. AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR EITHER OF THE DRIVEWAY. I HAVE DOCUMENTS. OKAY? I LIVE IN ONE 12. THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED WITH THIS PROPERTY. IT HAPPENED TO THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH THE ONE 14 IS A NEW BUILT, OKAY? I'M THE ONE 12. THERE WAS ONE FENCE AROUND THESE BOTH PROPERTIES. WHEN THIS OWNER BOUGHT THAT EMPTY LOT BESIDE ME, I HAD A GRAVEL, I HAD A GRAVEL LAND, OKAY? THE [00:45:01] SAME WAY I HAD A DRIVEWAY, A WHOLE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WAS 13.1 FEET. EVER SINCE THAT MAN DECIDED TO BUILD, HE BUILT ONTO MY DRIVE WHEN HE ENCROACHED. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THESE PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE ASKING FOR PERMITS FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE ENCROACHING INTO PEOPLE'S LANDS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THIS SAME MAN AND NOT, NOT THIS ONE, OKAY? BUT THE OWNER FROM ONE 14 CACTUS STREET, HE DECIDED ON FEBRUARY THE 19TH OF 2026, OKAY? BECAUSE OF PARKING SITUATIONS THAT KEEP GOING ON, I EVEN ON MADE IT ONTO THE NEWS, OKAY? BECAUSE THIS MAN STEPPED ONTO MY PROPERTY ONCE THEY TOLD HIM NOT TO TALK TO ME, NOT TO COME INTO MY PROPERTY, HE HAD A GUN, OKAY? AND HE LOADED THAT GUN IN FRONT OF MY KIDS, THREATENING MY KIDS, THREATENING MY FAMILY, ALL BECAUSE OF DRIVEWAY PROBLEMS. DRIVEWAY ISSUES. THERE'S NO PARKING. I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE OWNER, NOT EVEN FROM ONE 14, UH, FOR THEM TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'VE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE ALL IN FAVOR. WELL, THAT'S A LIE I CAUGHT A LITTLE WHILE AGO. I LEFT A VOICEMAIL. YOU KNOW, WHY ISN'T THAT VOICEMAIL RIGHT HERE BEING HEARD? SO YOU'RE THREE MINUTES UP. SO LET ME ASK YOU, YES SIR, YOU'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT ONE 14 CACTUS. WE'RE HERE ABOUT ONE 17. YES SIR. WELL, SAME THING THAT HAPPENED WITH ONE 17 IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT HAPPENED WITH ONE 14. THE SAME THING WITH THE GRAVEL. OKAY. THE, THAT THERE WAS A GRAVEL THERE ON MINE. I HAD GRAVEL. OKAY. BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO COUNT AS THE, THE, THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BEHIND. HE SAID, WELL, WELL, IT'S NOT GRAVEL ANYMORE. IT'S A, IT'S A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. WELL NOW IT IS. OKAY, NOW IT'S, BUT IT WASN'T. AND 2023, THEY NEVER HAD A DRIVEWAY EITHER. IN ONE 17, THEY NEVER HAD A DRIVEWAY. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO SINCE YOU LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, SO, UM, SO IT WAS GRAVEL AND DID THEY PUT IN A DRIVEWAY AND THEN TEAR IT UP AND THEN PUT ANOTHER DRIVEWAY IN? NO, THEY JUST DID THAT. RIGHT NOW I HAVE CAMERAS AND I CAN PROVE THAT TO YOU. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, WE DID GET A VOICEMAIL, BUT IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, OBVIOUSLY THE CUTOFF WAS FRIDAY AT 4:00 PM ALRIGHT. AND YES, GO AHEAD AND JUST TO, UH, COMMISSIONER EZ, THERE IS NO OTHER APPLICATION ON FILE FOR THAT WHOLE BLOCK PHASE. ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, LOOKING FOR A MOTION, SIR? UH, CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER DEAN, CAN WE HEAR THE ATTORNEY'S REBUTTAL TO THE SURE. YOU KNOW ABOUT SOME OF THE DEVIANT ACTIVITY OVER, WELL, YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE NEXT DOOR, ALL THE OTHER FOUR PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A COMPLAINT OF THE DEVIANT ACTIVITY. I, I GUESS I, I, IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT, WHAT PICTURES SHE'S SHOWING. UM, SHE SAID THERE WERE PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS. BUT IF IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL, I, I, I WOULD FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE. UM, I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND, AND THE POLICE ARE TOO. I MEAN, THIS IS, I THINK, A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE ALAMO. DO I THINK THAT THERE WAS A DRUG HOUSE? I, I WOULD, I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE MORE TRASH AROUND IT. UH, I DROVE IT BEFORE THE HEARING AND I WOULD ALSO EXPECT THE THERE TO BE SOME POLICE REPORTS. I MEAN, BY HER COMMENT, IT WASN'T A ONE-TIME INCIDENT. THESE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS. I MEAN, I, I'M NOT THERE AS I WOULD EXPECT IF THERE'S A LONGSTANDING CRIMINAL, UH, THING GOING ON THAT THE POLICE WOULD DO A DRIVE BY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME REPORTS THAT SUPPORT THAT. UM, AND EVIDENTLY THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING AT ONE 14. I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT'S GOING ON MAY BE INCORRECT FROM THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBOR. SO IS THERE ANY STAFF, IS THERE ANY POLICE REPORTS FOR ONE 17 CACTUS? WE WOULD HAVE TO, SORRY, THIS IS JEREMY. WE WOULD HAVE TO PARTNER WITH SAPD TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION. UH, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT. UM, BUT I JUST WANT TO, UM, GO BACK AND SAY THAT THIS IS FOR THE PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION, NOT FOR A CODE COMPLIANT DRIVEWAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? READY? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT ONE 17 CACTUS STREET, APPLICANT BEING RICHARD GONZALEZ BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 16 1 1 1 1 WHEN REVOKING [00:50:01] THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOEZ. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ, UH, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE, UM, THE APPEAL. ALRIGHT, ON THE BASIS OF, UH, ON THE BASIS THAT, UM, THIS CASE WAS FOCUSED ON THE DRIVEWAY. I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING, UM, SECTION 16, 11 11. BUT, UM, I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS, THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY THERE. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT, WHAT'S IN THE PICTURE? THERE IS CURRENTLY DRIVEWAY THERE. THAT DOES LOOK LIKE WHAT IS IN THE PHOTO. UH, FOR ME, THE DRIVEWAY IS, IS, UH, PLACED IN REALITY IN THIS PROPERTY. SO I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER EZ? YEAH. UM, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT. UM, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE REASONS BEING, THERE ARE NO OTHER PERMITS OUT ON THIS BLOCK FACE. UH, THEY'RE UP TO DATE ON HOT. THERE'S NO CODE VIOLATIONS. NOW AS FAR AS SAPD AND THOSE CASES, WE, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THERE'S NO CODE EN ENFORCEMENT CODE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY. UM, WHEN THE APPLICANT DID FIRST PULL THE PERMIT IN 23, HIS DRIVEWAY WAS FINE. THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE HE NOW HAS A DRIVEWAY THAT, THAT IS PERMITTED. UM, WHAT HIS TRUE INTENTIONS WERE WITH THAT PHOTO? I DON'T KNOW. HE'S NOT HERE TO SPEAK ON HIS BATH, BUT I ALSO CAN ASSUME WHAT HIS INTENTIONS WERE WITH THE PHOTO. I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE NOW THAT'S COMPLIANT AND FOR THOSE REASONS I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, SO I AM, I, I SEE SOME PROBLEMS HERE AND SO, YOU KNOW, SO I KIND OF AGREE WITH THE CITY WHERE IF SOMEBODY COMES THROUGH, YOU KNOW, AND THEY START FABRICATING THINGS ON A PROPERTY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA BELIEVE THE CITIZEN THAT SPOKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THERE WAS NOT A DRIVEWAY, THAT'S NOT A REAL PHOTO, YOU KNOW, THE NEW THE NEW DRIVEWAY WAS PUT IN, BUT THAT'S FINE. THAT'S AFTER THE FACT. AND THEN, UM, YEAH, SO I'M, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN PAPER. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? I'M JUST GONNA SAY I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS FOR TWO BIG REASONS. NUMBER ONE IN 2023 WAS PERFECTLY FINE. AND, AND, UH, IF, IF THE DRIVEWAY'S THERE NOW AND WHAT, WHATEVER WAS THERE BEFORE WAS IN LINE WITH WHAT'S COMMON IN THE AREA. SO I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ONE IF THERE'S NO CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, UH, ISSUES VIOLATIONS OTHER THAN THIS. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ, I SUP, UH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACTS. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? I DO NOT CONCUR. I'M SORRY, SIR. OH, COMMISSIONER STEVENS. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR. UH, MOTION DOES FAIL FOUR TO SEVEN. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, UM, CERTAINLY CAN REAPPLY AFTER THE 12 MONTH, UH, SINCE THEY WERE DENIED. ALRIGHT, ITEM TWO. UH, IT IS 1 54. COMMISSIONER MANEZ RECUSING FROM ITEM TWO. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 81 LOCATED IN DISTRICT SEVEN AT 91 0 2 BROXTON DRIVE THE ZONINGS R FIVE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH GUTTERS TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TOMB. A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH GUTTERS TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BROXTON [00:55:01] DRIVE AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH BRANCHES OFF OGLETHORPE DRIVE TO THE NORTH AND HAS A REAR PROPERTY LINE. AB ABOUTING OXFORD TRACE TO THE SOUTH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND RE AND R 20 ACROSS OXFORD TRACE. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THEIR PROPERTY. IN OCTOBER, 2025, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS OBSERVED TO ENCROACH INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR INSIDES THAT BACK PER STAFF SITE VISIT TO THE SITE IN APRIL, 2026. ACCORDING TO STREET VIEW EVIDENCE, THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER FEBRUARY, 2020. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER MOVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO CONFORM WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS, REMOVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, OR REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW REDUCED SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. THE OUTSTANDING CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE IS PENDING THE RESULTS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING AND PICTURED HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING THE FACT THE REDUCED SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD LEAVE INSUFFICIENT ROOM TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FIRE CONCERNS AND WATER RUNOFF INTO ABUTTING PROPERTIES. AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ALREADY PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY AS LONG AS IT ABIDES BY CURRENT UDC REGULATIONS SUCH AS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ABOVE THE STREET TO THE SOUTH, WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE ROOM TO LIMIT ITS IMPACT ON NEARBY STRUCTURES. AND THERE'S LIMITED ROOM TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT THE APPROPRIATE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE STAFF MAIL 31 NOTICES WE RECEIVE ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVE ZERO VOICEMAILS AND ALAMO FARMSTEADS BABCOCK ROAD NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STOPS PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? HI, STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM PHIL BAZAR. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, THIS IS A CONTINUANCE FROM, UH, MAY 18. AND, UH, I DID DO SOME RESEARCH THAT YOU REQUESTED. YOU ASKED THAT I REACH OUT TO CPS OR THAT THE STAFF REACH OUT TO CPS PROVIDE ME WITH A CONTACT, UH, TO DETERMINE, UH, WHAT THE SETBACK, UM, LIMITATIONS WERE. SO I DID SPEAK WITH THEIR, UH, CONTACT. THERE WAS A ROW MANAGER. HIS NAME'S MARK AUGH. UH, HE STATES THAT HE WOULD, UM, LIKE TO HAVE A, UM, ENGINEER COME OUT AND, AND ASSESS THE PROPERTY, UM, TO SATISFY YOUR REQUEST. UM, HOWEVER THAT'S GONNA TAKE TIME ON THEIR PART. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO TAKE. SO AT THIS POINT I'VE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE WITH THE STAFF. I BELIEVE THEY SUPPORTED THAT. UH, THE ONLY CAVEAT THAT IS I'M STILL IN THE MILITARY AND I'M GOING TO BE ON ORDERS IN A FEW WEEKS AND I WON'T BE BACK UNTIL AUGUST. SO I WOULD BE AT LEAST THAT WINDOW OF TIME TO HAVE THEM DO THEIR PART ON CPS AND THEN HAVE MY, MY ABILITY TO COME AND DO WHATEVER NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE AT THAT TIME. OKAY. SO, UM, I I WILL TELL YOU THAT CPS TYPICALLY WILL NEED A MONTH. UH, THAT'S OUR DISCUSSION FROM LAST TIME, RIGHT? UH, STAFF, WHAT IS THE LONGEST CONTINUOUS WE CAN DO? CAN WE DO 60 DAYS OR DO, DO WE HAVE TO LIMIT IT TO A MONTH? WE CAN DO TWO MONTHS. OKAY. IS TWO MONTHS GONNA BE ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO BE BACK IN TOWN AND, OKAY. UH, IF, UH, THAT PUTS US TO AUGUST, AUGUST 3RD OR 17TH, THIRD OR AUGUST 3RD OR 17TH, COULD WE DO THE 17TH? AND THAT WAY I CAN HAVE SOME TIME TO, SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AUGUST 17TH. UM, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 17TH. CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, EXTEND A REQUEST FOR A, UH, EXTENSION TO AUGUST 17TH. IS THERE A, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. OKAY. THEY TRICKLED IN A LITTLE SLOWER. UH, ANY, UH, ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. WE'LL SEE YOU ON AUGUST 17TH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. OH, AND SIR, UH, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO CPS COMING OUT, THERE IS AN ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION. THERE'S SOME DOCUMENTATION. JUST I WOULD GET THAT STARTED. ALRIGHT. Y YOU MADE ME AWARE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MANNA HAS RETURNED. IT IS TWO O'CLOCK. WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER THREE. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX [01:00:01] DASH 1 0 3 88, LOCATED AT 2 0 9 PAELLA GRANDE IN DISTRICT NINE. THE ZONING IS RE, THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A 1,215 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2,500 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL FLOOR ACCESS AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO ALLOW FOR A COMBINED 3,715 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TWO, A FENCE METAL VARIANCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW RAZOR WIRE IN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG PALO GRANDE AND AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK WITH RE AND R 20 BAY ZONING DISTRICTS AND WITH MH PUD TO THE EAST AND R SIX TO THE NORTH, THE APPLICANT OR PRIDE FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. STAFF VISITED THE SITE IN MAY OF 2026 AND DID NOT SEE ANY CONSTRUCTION STARTED FOR THE PROJECT. THERE WERE OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF ALSO FOUND CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE A FENCE SITE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND A FENCE WITH RAZOR WIRE AB BORDERING THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER MODIFY THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLY WITH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS AND MEET THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EXTRA STRUCTURES OR REQUEST OF VARIANCE FROM THIS STANDARD. FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PICTURED. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS ONE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE NEXT COUPLE OF PHOTOS WILL BE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES EXIST EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE RAZOR WIRE FENCE. AND THEN THIS IS A VIEW TO SHOW THE PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE THAT IS GOING IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FACADE. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE RAZOR WIRE, FOOT VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND REMAINING YARD SPACE. AND WELL, OKAY, THIS IS FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING. UM, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS STILL OBSERVED THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM OTHER NEARBY STRUCTURES AND SERVING ITS PURPOSE AS INTENDED BY THE CODE TO, IN THIS INSTANCE, STAFF FOUND THERE'S ADEQUATE ROOM ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT AN A DU THAT EXCEEDS UDC STANDARDS AND STILL PROVIDES ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM SURROUNDING EXISTING STRUCTURES. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCE. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE FENCE SITE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, THE FINDINGS OF FACT THERE'S ADEQUATE ROOM ON THE PROPERTY, LOCATE THE FENCE, AND WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SIDE YARD. AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND MAY LEAD TO SIMILAR FENCES IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA. THAT'S ALLOWING A HEIGHT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS TYPICALLY OBSERVED OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. STAFF MAIL AT 23 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED NO VOICEMAILS, AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. UH, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE SIDE PLAN RAISE OR WIRE. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, GO AHEAD. WHAT ABOUT THE RAZOR WIRE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE RAZOR WIRE. OKAY. I DIDN'T HEAR THE RATIONALE. JUST FOR THE MOTION TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD, YOU, YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT, WHAT MOTIVATED STAFF TO DENY. I APOLOGIZE. YEAH, I THINK I, IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING THE SLIDES, I SKIPPED OVER THAT SLIDE. I CAN READ IT RIGHT NOW THOUGH. OKAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THEIR RAZOR WIRE, MATERIAL VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, GRANTING A PROHIBITED MATERIAL VARIANCE FOR RAZOR WIRE FENCE WILL NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A FENCE, WOULD ALLOW CONDITIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNSAFE AND OBTRUSIVE MATERIAL THAT IS NOT NORMALLY OBSERVED OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TOO. THERE'S THE OPTION TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD, WHICH IS ALREADY TALLER ALLOWANCE THAN NORMALLY PERMITTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. ALRIGHT, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS ON THE SIDE PLAN PRE, UH, PRESENTED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER WHERE THEY WANT THE TALLER SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE, IT'S 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU HAVE ANOTHER DIMENSION THAT'S A LITTLE BLURRY. [01:05:01] I CAN'T READ IT. DID, DO YOU, UH, DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL THAT, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT DIMENSION IS TO THE CORNER OF THE HOME? HOW MUCH FURTHER BACK BEHIND THE 50? IS THAT, YEAH, I CAN LOOK AT THIS ON MY COMPUTER, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHICH, WHICH TO THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT, UH, THE DIMENSION FROM THE FRONT CORNER OF THE HOME TO THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH, THAT ONE WHEN I RIGHT HERE MOVED IN, I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT. YEAH. I CAN SEE, UH, LOOKING AT IT ON MY COMPUTER IN THE PDF, I CAN FIND THAT MEASUREMENT. OH, THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE THAT AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UH, AND I ALSO WANTED TO ASK AS IT, BECAUSE THIS IS ZONED RE UH, THEY, THEY'RE ALLOWED A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. CORRECT. BUT JUST NOT A SOLID FENCE. SO THEY HAVE TO MEET THE, UH, I THINK THEY MEET THE STREET, UM, FRONTAGE, BUT THEY DON'T MEET THE SIZE OF THE LOT TO HAVE A, UH, IT'S 20,000 SQUARE FEET, I BELIEVE. SO THIS LOT, I MEAN, I I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THIS WAS TWO LOTS THAT, THAT THEY OWN OR IS IT ONE LOT, BUT IT SURE LOOKS LIKE IT'S 20,000 SQUARE FEET. YEAH. HOW, HOW, HOW LARGE IS THIS PROPERTY? I'M SURE THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE THAT AS WELL. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. I'M SURE THEY CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WELL, YOU'VE HEARD TWO OF MY QUESTIONS ANYWAY, IF YOU CAN. YES, SIR. MY NAME IS DUDLEY HARRIS. I'M 83 YEARS OLD. I'M A VIETNAM VET, AND I'VE LIVED AT TWO 19 POLY GRANDE FOR 51 YEARS. DID MY, UH, DID THE PICTURES THAT I SENT IN SHOW UP THERE? OR, OR, BUT I ALSO DO YOU THE PICTURES YOU SENT ME? YES. I HAVE THOSE ALSO. YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE, I THINK THEY'RE THERE. OKAY. SO RECENTLY, UH, MY WIFE AND I DECIDED THAT WE WANTED TO BUILD A STRUCTURE IN OUR BACKYARD, UH, FOR WHEN OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN CAME TO VISIT. SO WE APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. UH, AND SO THE CITY CAME OUT, TOOK A LOOK AROUND AND BUNCH TO OUR SURPRISE, IT TURNS OUT WE NEED THREE VARIANCES BEFORE WE CONTINUE THE FIRST. UH, SO THOSE THREE VARIANCES WERE RAZOR WIRE. WE HAVE TOO MUCH, UH, BUILDING ON OUR PROPERTY, AND THE FRONT FENCE IS IN THE WRONG PLACE, THE WRONG SHAPE, AND THE WRONG SIZE. SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, UH, WE DECIDED TO TAKE DOWN THE RAZOR WIRE. SO, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT A, UH, THERE'S THE FENCE COMING DOWN. EXHIBIT B WILL SHOW THAT THE RAZOR WIRE IS GONE. SO WE, THAT'S HOW WE DECIDED TO DEAL WITH THAT VARIANCE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE FENCE IS CLEAR. NOW, THEN THE, UH, ISSUE IS WHETHER WE HAVE ROOM FOR ANOTHER BUILDING ON OUR PROPERTY. I HAVE A LOT OF SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS ON OUR PROPERTY. NONE OF THEM ARE HABITABLE, BUT THEY'RE WORKSHOPS AND STORAGE SHEDS. I'M A POTTER, AND POTTERS NEED A LOT OF ROOM. AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE BUILDINGS ARE. UH, THE, THE EXHIBIT, UH, C WILL SHOW A VIEW OF, UH, THAT'S NOT THE, OKAY. USE EXHIBIT C FROM MY PICTURES THERE, IF YOU DON'T MIND. TERRIBLY. CAN YOU SHINE THAT UP? UH, YES. OKAY. EXHIBIT C SHOWS THE, SHOWS THE, THE WHAT WE CALL THE NORTH LOT. UH, THE SHADED AREA SHOWS WHERE WE WANT TO PUT THE HOUSE. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. AND OURS PROPERTY'S THREE ACRES. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY, THERE'S ACTUALLY ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE HOUSE. AND I ASKED MY NEIGHBORS, UH, AND I'M SORRY TO SAY THEY DIDN'T SEND IN THEIR PAPERWORK LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD, BUT, UH, THAT, NO, NO NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED. SO IT SEEMS TO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO PUT THE BUILDING, 800 SQUARE FEET. THEN THE, THE THIRD ISSUE IS FENCE. 13 YEARS AGO, UH, MY WIFE DIED AND I DECIDED TO TAKE THE NORTH LOT AND TO BUILD, IT WAS JUST WEEDS AT THE TIME. AND I CLEARED IT. AND I WANTED TO BUILD A SPACE WHERE I COULD HAVE MY WORKSHOP AND IN A WAY, HONOR HER MEMORY. SO I CLEARED THE NORTH LOT. AND WHEN, WHEN I WAS IN THE NAVY, MY WIFE AND I LIKED TO GO TO JAPAN, AND SHE LOVED THESE TALL BLACK FENCES THAT THE JAPANESE PUT AROUND THEIR HOMES IN, ESPECIALLY IN KYOTO. SO THAT'S WHAT I BUILT, AND THE WAY I DECIDED WHERE TO PUT IT, [01:10:01] I JUST TOOK THE BACK WALL OF OUR HOUSE AND I DREW A LINE OUT FROM THE WALL OF THE HOUSE AND, UH, THAT, THAT'S HOW I LAID OUT THE FENCE. SO THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE CAME FROM. THEN THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THIS, AND WOULD IT STAND OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A BLEMISH OR A BLOT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH OH. NOW, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S LOOK AT THE FENCE. SO HERE'S THE VIEW OF THE FENCE FROM THE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBOR ON THE NORTH. SO YOU CAN, THE PAULA GRANDE IS THERE ON THE LEFT, AND MY FENCE IS ON THE RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE IT THERE. THE EXHIBIT, UH, EXHIBIT NEXT EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT G. OKAY. THAT'S A VIEW OF THE FENCE. LOOK FROM THE SOUTH LOOKING NORTH, EXCUSE ME, LOOKING NORTH. SO THE FENCE IS THERE ON THE LEFT. OKAY. EXHIBIT H. UH, OKAY. SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THIS A BLEMISH ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS IS KINDA RURAL. IT HAS NO SIDEWALKS, NO CURBS. IT HAS A RURAL EFFECT. AND THEN THE, AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND ME ARE PRETTY FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO. SO THIS IS MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET. OKAY. NEXT IS THE NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET, THAT'S HIS MAILBOX. AND THE NEXT IS, UH, A NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET WHO COLLECTS CARS. SO, AND I THINK SOME OF THEM RUN, UH, BUT THE EXHIBIT K HERE, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE, THIS IS THE NEXT BLOCK, BUT THAT FENCE IS SIX FOOT TALL. IT'S ABOUT SIX, MAYBE SEVEN FEET FROM THE STREET. THE REASON THIS IS WITHIN SPECS OR SPECIFICATION IS THAT HIS HOUSE POINTS TO THE LEFT. BUT I WAS THINKING, BUT IF HE TURNED HIS HOUSE, 90 DEGREES TO THE RIGHT FENCE WOULD BE ILLEGAL, BUT THE FENCE DIDN'T MOVE. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MY FENCE IS NOT A BLEMISH ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A NEIGHBOR'S FENCE THAT CLEARLY IS SIX FOOT FROM THE STREET. IT'S SIX FOOT TALL, IT'S SOLID WOOD. SO I CAN'T SEE HOW MY FENCE IS REALLY, WOULD CAUSE THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM. AND, UH, AND UH, AND THEN THERE, THERE WAS A PERSON WHO WROTE IN, WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT WHERE, UH, FOR SUMMARY I TRIED TO CONTACT THAT PERSON. DID NOT GET AN ANSWER. BUT HERE'S THE VIEW, UH, IS A MOBILE HOME PARK BEHIND MY HOUSE. AND YOU CAN JU AND YOU CAN, EXCUSE ME, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. YOU CAN JUST SEE A VIEW OF THE MOBILE HOME THERE ON THE LEFT. UH, AND THEN THERE WAS THERE ONE MORE? UH, NO, I, NO, I KEPT THAT DOWN. BUT ANYWAY, I COULDN'T CONTACT THE PERSON. OH, THERE IT IS. EXHIBIT M SHOWS THAT SPACE WHERE I, WHERE I CONTACT THE MOBILE HOME PARK AT TWO NINE FROM TWO 19. AND YOU CAN JUST SEE THAT THERE'S ABOUT A 15 FEET, 15 FOOT, UH, BOUNDARY WHERE WE CONTACT. SO THE PERSON IN THE MOBILE HOME CAN'T SEE MY LOT. I'M NOT, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHY THERE WAS SOMEONE IN OPPOSITION, BUT IN, IN SUMMARY, I ASK THAT I GET A VARIANCE PER BUILDING, UH, AN 800 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. AND THAT MY FENCE, WHICH IS BY THE WAY, HAS BEEN THERE FOR 13 YEARS, THAT I'LL BE ALLOWED TO KEEP MY FENCE WHERE IT IS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SO MY OUTSTANDING QUESTION WAS A DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY. IT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT 90 FEET. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW. AND ANY COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? SO, SO THE PROPERTY IS, IS SITUATED OR THE, THE, UH, HOUSE IS SITUATED, UH, I GUESS THE ANGLE ON THE PROPERTY. AND WE TALK ABOUT FRONT YARD FENCES, YOU KNOW, BEING FROM THE FRONT FACADE. UM, WOULD THAT BE, THAT HAS TO BE PARALLEL TO THE STREET, UM, FOR A FENCE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE MADE THIS TYPIC? SO THE DEFINITION FOR A FRONT YARD IS BASICALLY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO BASICALLY THAT FIRST 90 FEET WOULD BE CONSIDERED HIS FRONT YARD AS PER UDC STANDARDS. SO ANYTHING THAT GOES BEYOND THAT 90 FEET WOULD BE CONSIDERED HIS FRONT YARD FENCE. AND AS Y'ALL WERE SAYING, YES, UH, LARGER PROPERTIES ARE PERMITTED UP TO SIX FEET, A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, JUST NOT A, UM, SOLID. WE, WE DON'T SEE A LOT WHERE THE FENCE IN QUESTION IT'S 50 FEET, RIGHT? CORRECT. WELL, WELL TO ME, YOU KNOW, SO THEY DID TRY TO GO FROM THE BACK OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE BACK VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND SO AND SO, BECAUSE IT IS ON SUCH A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD THEN IF WE DON'T HAVE TO READ INTO THE RAZOR WIRE ONE. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. [01:15:02] LET'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER MADMAN. OH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 3 88, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE, UH, 1,215 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 2,500 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY DR STRUCTURES TO ALLOW FOR A COMBINED 37 15 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND, UH, SITUATED AT 2 1 9 PA GRANDE. APPLICANT BEING, IT SAYS HERE, FERNANDO DELEON, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS INSTANCE, STAFF FOUND THERE WAS ADEQUATE ROOM ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT AN A DU THAT EXCEEDS THE UDC STANDARDS AND STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE SURROUNDING EXISTING STRUCTURE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NECESSITATE, UH, THE PROPERTY TO COMPLY WITH UDC STANDARDS, WHICH MAY BE DIFFICULT AND NECESSARY DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF SAFETY CONCERNS AND VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. AN ACCESSORY DWELLING THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PERMITTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD STILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHILE ALSO MEETING ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM OTHER NEARBY STRUCTURES AND SERVING AS PURPOSE INTENDED BY THE CODE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUB SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTY OR ALTER THE SURROUNDING CHARACTER. GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE LOCATION OF ALL ACCESSORIES BEHIND IT, 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, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, THE EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ALTER. THE REMAINING DEVELOPABLE LAND AND POTENTIAL SECURITY CONCERNS ARE ALL CONTRIBUTE TO, UH, TO THE NEED FOR THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL IN THIS CASE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER. MAD COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR SINCE THE RAZOR WIRE WAS TAKEN DOWN. UM, SO THIS IS A LARGE ENOUGH LOCK THAT I THINK THAT IT CAN HANDLE THOSE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES, UH, WITHOUT BEING TOO CROWDED AND CERTAINLY WITHOUT CREATING A, A FIRE HAZARD OR RUNOFF HAZARD. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UH, I ACTUALLY LIVE IN A SIMILAR COMMUNITY AND IT, AND SEE SIMILAR STRUCTURES ON THOSE LARGE ACRE LOTS. SO I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE. LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. 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 STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THE FENCE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 8 8. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTER REQUEST FOR THREE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 2 1 9 PA GRANDE. APPLICANT BEING FERNANDO DELEON BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESIDED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED, SO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, IT'S SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE [01:20:01] AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER IN THIS CASE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS SPACE LIMITATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS OF THE PROPERTY PRESENT A CHALLENGE IN LOCATING THE FENCE IN WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SIDE YARD. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE FENCE HEIGHT INCREASE WOULD STILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC WELFARE. WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AS THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUESTED WOULD PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNER WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. C. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FOR THE FRONT YARD WOULD NOT STRAY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE STANDARD CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORING AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE PROPOSED INCREASE OF THE SIDE FENCE IS MODEST AND NOT A TOTAL DEPARTURE FROM THE AESTHETICS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. ALLOWING A MODESTY INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT IN THIS UNIQUE LOCATION DOES NOT UNDERMINE, UNDERMINE THESE GOALS AS IT IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO MOST LOTS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANOCK AND COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M AFRAID I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, VARIANCE. UM, I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HASN'T REALLY PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT, UH, INDICATES THAT THERE'S A SECURITY ISSUE AND FOR THE NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE, I DO THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO, UM, BE A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A LOT OF LARGE LOTS THERE. IT'S A VERY COUNTRY FEELING. UH, AND SO THE ADDITION OF A SIX FOOT FENCE I THINK WOULD BE, UH, OUT OF HARMONY, UH, WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. SO I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER MANO. UM, I, UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AND, AND FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE IS, UH, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF, UH, THE LOT, UH, THE YARD. UM, AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, THE WAY IT'S SET UP, YOU KNOW, THEIR BACKYARD VIEW BASICALLY IS, YOU KNOW, THIS FENCE IS NOT, IS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY DEFINING THAT BACKYARD VIEW. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT THE SCOPE BE LIMITED TO THE FENCE AS PRESENTED IN THE, UM, UM, IN THE, IN THE, UM, PROPOSAL HERE. AND SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, IT COULDN'T MOVE FURTHER THAN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. AND THAT WOULD BE MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO THIS, TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T GROW ANY LARGER THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS. SO IS THAT ACCEPTED COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A, THE, THE MOTION'S BEEN AMENDED FOR THE DEFENSE TO BE AS IT LIES, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRESENT PRESENTATION PACKAGE. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MANUP. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER A BONIS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES, UH, 10 TO ONE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. I COPY IT. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 2 LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO AT 1 5 5 CANTON STREET. THE ZONING IS R FOUR AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING. TWO A 22 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA AND THREE A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES DRIVEWAYS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CANTON STREET AT THE CORNER OF CANTON STREET AND ST. JAMES STREET SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED R FOUR TO THE WEST AND SOUTH AND C3 AND C3 R TO THE NORTH AND EAST. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR A VARIANCE [01:25:01] TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL AS A FENCE MATERIAL FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN APRIL OF 2026. STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN APRIL, 2026 CONFIRMED A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WAS EXISTING AT THE TIME. STAFF AL ALSO FOUND CONDITIONS TO NECESSITATE TWO REQUESTS FOR A REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA. THE APPLICANT MAY THERE REPLACE THE FENCE WITH PERMITTED FENCE MATERIALS AND MOVE THE EXISTING FENCE TO CONFORM TO CLEAR VISION STANDARDS OR REQUEST THE VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCING AND REDUCE CLEAR VISION AREAS. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE OFFENSE 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. AND TWO, UPON INQUIRY AND APPLYING FOR A PERMIT, THE APPLICANT WOULD'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE CITY'S PERMIT. DEFENSE MATERIALS STAFF RECOMMENDS THE NOW FOR THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINES OF THE FACT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PURPOSE OF THE MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS IS TO PROVIDE A SAFER STREET SCAPE FOR DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS AND THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION VARIANCES IF GRANTED WOULD REDUCE THE VISIBLE SPACE FOR DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND DRIVERS UTILIZING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ADJACENT PROPERTY DRIVEWAYS. STAFF MAIL 28 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR? ZERO IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVE ZERO VOICEMAILS. JEFFERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND DITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. UH, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE MATERIAL FOR THE SIDEWALK PRIOR TO THE CONCRETE? IS THAT, IS THAT STONE OR IS UM, THAT PICTURE, THIS PICTURE THAT ONE OR THE NEXT ONE? I MEAN THE ONE THE OTHER DIRECTION THAT, THAT ONE BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE, THE STREET. IS THAT, IS THAT LIKE A FLAGSTONE? WHAT IS THAT? IT'S JUST OLD CONCRETE. OKAY. THE CONCRETE THAT'S KIND OF OKAY. THE WAY THE CRACKING LOOKS. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOME SORT OF NO, IT'S JUST A OLD CONCRETE. OKAY. AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE CORRUGATED METAL DOES HAVE A CAP EXCEPT FOR THAT LITTLE SIDE PIECE IN THE BACK AND IN THE BACK. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR, YOUR FENCE. AND I'M JACK HERNANDEZ FROM CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO. I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY SON. HE'S IN THE ARMY RIGHT NOW. SO HE, HE CAN'T BE HERE. OKAY. SO THE REASON BEHIND THIS STORY ON THIS HOUSE, UM, IF WE WOULD'VE KNOWN WHAT HE WAS BUYING, WE WOULD'VE NEVER BOUGHT IT. THIS IS A CRACK HOUSE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S A CRACK HEAD HOUSE. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE THERE AT 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, YOU'LL SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YOU'LL SEE ALL THE TRAFFIC ROCKING UP AND DOWN THAT SIDEWALK RIGHT THERE. THEY THROW ALL THEIR JUNK OVER THE FENCE. WHEN WE WERE CLEANING THIS LOT UP, THERE WAS TWO OTHER HOUSES UP THERE. THE CITY MADE US TAKE 'EM DOWN 'CAUSE THEY WERE JUST JUNK. THEY MADE 'EM TAKE THREE INCHES OF DIRT OUT BECAUSE OF ALL THE CONTAMINATION. THERE WAS EIGHT FOOT OF WEEDS ON THAT PROPERTY WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, WHEN HE BOUGHT IT. SO OFF AND ON, COMING BACK AND FORTH. HE LIVES IN SAN DIEGO. SO EVERY TIME WE COME TO WORK ON THIS PROPERTY, WE GOTTA STAY A WEEK OR SO. UM, JUST ALL THE WORK WE PUT INTO IT, UM, THEY, THEY WERE STILL IN, THEY STOLE HIS UNIT, HIS UH, AIR CONDITIONING UNIT. THEY RIPPED ALL THE COPPER OUT. ANYTHING YOU LEAVE IN THAT YARD, THEY'LL STEAL IT. THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND THAT 10 FENCE. UM, I'M A BUILDER. I'M A WELDER BY TRADE, SO I KNOW WHAT'S GONNA LAST LONGER. WOOD OR TIN. AND THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SAYING THEY'RE GONNA BREAK THE WOOD, THEY'RE GONNA BREAK IN, THEY'RE GONNA BURN YOUR, THEY'RE JUST GONNA DESTROY IT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO JUST TAKING IT FROM THE FATHER'S PART OF VIEW. I PUT THE 10 FENCE UP. UM, THE FRONT FENCE, THEY TOLD HIM THEY HAD TO SPACE IT I GUESS. SO WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING AROUND THE CORNER, YOU GOTTA BE ABLE TO SEE THE LITTLE PIECE OF SIDEWALK. IT'S ALL, IT'S NO GOOD. SO WE REPLACED THAT LITTLE PIECE BECAUSE THEREFORE WE WERE GETTING ALL THE DIRT OUT BACK FROM THE BACKYARD. UM, THE TROUBLE HE'S GONE THROUGH, WE SHOULD'VE KNOWN, BOUGHT THE HOUSE , THEY DIDN'T TELL US SOMEBODY GOT SHOT THERE. THERE WAS BULLET HOLES ALL THROUGH THAT HOUSE. UM, HE'S HAD TO REPLACE ALL THE WIND TWO WEEKS PRIOR. I MEAN, TWO DAYS PRIOR BEFORE HE RENTED THE HOUSE, THEY BROKE THE TWO FRONT WINDOWS OUT SO THAT, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS BAD. I MEAN, AND THIS IS THE REASON WE DID THIS. WE'RE GONNA COME BACK. WE GOTTA FINISH PUTTING THE CAPS, WE PUT THE CAP ON THAT ONE SIDE. 'CAUSE THEY SAID THE CITY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY JUMPING INTO STEEL. THEY'RE GONNA CUT THEIR FINGERS. THAT'S THE REASON [01:30:01] WE, WE PUT THE CAPS. WE'RE GONNA FINISH IT UP WHEN WE GET TIME TO GET BACK OVER HERE. UM, SO I'M JUST PLEADING THAT Y'ALL A LIE TO KEEP THE FENCE. SO COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO YOU'RE, ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL TO INCLUDE A TOP CAP? NO, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, WE'RE JUST, I'M TRYING TO SAY LET US KEEP THE FENCE. WELL YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU WERE GONNA PUT A CAP ON. YEAH, WE GOT A CAP ON YOUR APPLICATION ON THE WHOLE ONE. YEAH. BUT YOUR APPLICATION WILL INCLUDE A CAP ON ALL THE CORRUGATED METAL. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN I NOTICED ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY IS WHERE YOUR NATURAL DRIVEWAY IS CUT. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY CUT. THERE WAS, IT WAS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS THERE. ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TO THIS HOUSE? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS PLAN IS EVENTUALLY. UM, I KNOW HE IS GOT IT RENTED OUT. OH, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, YEAH, SO THERE'S A GATE RIGHT OVER HERE ON THIS FAR END. SO HE THE PEOPLE. OH, THERE IT IS. YEAH, THE PEOPLE. AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE STILL CLEANING THIS PROPERTY UP THERE. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. OKAY. SO THERE'S A STOP. THERE'S A A STOP SIGN COMING UP, UH, KEITH AND YEAH. OKAY. THAT WHOLE SIDEWALK IS NO GOOD ALONG THE FRONT. HE'S GONNA REPLACE IT LITTLE BY LITTLE AND I DON'T SEE WHY HE SHOULD REPLACE IT. I MEAN IT'S CITY PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE DOING IT 'CAUSE HE WANTS IT TO LOOK GOOD. ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT, IS IT, IT'S NOT YOUR INTENT TO CONTINUE THE CORRUGATED METAL ANY FURTHER? NO, THAT'S IT. WE JUST DID THAT TO KEEP ALL THE JUNKIES OUT. ALRIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE SIGN TO? IT'S JUST 'CAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S AT. I UNDERSTAND. ANYONE SIGN TO THE SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED SPEAK. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? STEVENS? MAKE SURE STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 82, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE OFFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL FENCE TWO A 22 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA AND THREE AND NINE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT REAR VISION AREA FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT ADJACENT PROPERTIES DRIVEWAYS SITUATED AT 1 55 CANTON STREET. APPLICANT BEING JOSE HERNANDEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE. THE FENCE MATERIAL IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE MATERIAL UTILIZED COULD APPROPRIATELY OPERATE AS A FENCE. THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS, AS THE REDUCED DISTANCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE ROAD COULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR BOTH DRIVERS BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO USE A PERMITTED FENCE MATERIAL AND ADHERE TO CLEAR VISION STANDARDS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING WOULD ACT APPROPRIATELY AS THE FENCE MATERIAL IN THIS INSTANCE. AND THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WOULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBLE SPACE FOR DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND DRIVERS UTILIZING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ADJACENT PROPERTY DRIVEWAYS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DIS WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE AND REDUCE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE TO ADHERE TO CLEAR VISION STANDARDS AND THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE BEING THE MOST IDEAL MATERIAL TO OPERATE AS A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY. AND I JUST WANNA GO BACK AND, UM, CLARIFY THAT THIS DOES INCLUDE A CAP ON THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AMANDA. AND, AND ACTUALLY CAN WE, CAN WE GO BACK JUST FOR A SECOND? I APOLOGIZE. YEP. UM, SO, SO ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, I DO SEE SEVERAL HOMES WITH SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCES ALONG THE FRONT. AND SO IS THERE A REASON FOR HALF WOOD VERSUS A SIX FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK? DO YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE FOR SECURITY SLASH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING [01:35:01] TO GET TO? WELL, DUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT'S THE, THE PEOPLE IN THE FRONT CORNER, THERE'S A BUS STOP THERE, RIGHT? THEY GOT AN EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE. UM, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCES. JUST WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE HOUSE. TO ME THAT WAS THE SAFEST THING TO DO. 'CAUSE THEY WERE GONNA BREAK IN, THEY WERE BREAKING INTO THAT HOUSE. EVEN WHEN WE WERE THERE, WE WERE TAKING THE OLD FENCE DOWN THE OLD CHAIN LINK FENCE. AND AT NIGHT WHEN WE WOULD GO TO THE HOTEL, THEY WOULD STEAL THE FENCE . SO, YOU KNOW, SO IT WAS MY IDEA. 'CAUSE SINCE I'M A WELDER, I SAID LET'S JUST GO WITH METAL FENCE. IT'LL BE THERE. SO, SO NOT TALKING ABOUT THE METAL FENCE ON THE BACK, I'M TALKING ABOUT IN THE FRONT YARD. NO, THE FRONT YARDS WOOD. I, I KNOW, BUT IT, SO THE QUESTION I HAVE THAT I'M ASKING YOU IS, 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CLEAR VISION AND SO CLEAR VISION'S KIND OF THIS WHOLE DIALOGUE FOR SAFETY AND IT IS ON THE CORNER. YEAH. SO THEY TOLD HIM TO SPACE IT RIGHT, SO THAT WHEN THE CAR'S GOING AROUND THE CORNER, THEY CAN SEE ACROSS THERE AND IT, IT'S ONLY SO TALL. UM, AND SO I UM, AND I GUESS WHAT I'M QUESTIONING OR OR ASKING IS, YOU KNOW, CHAIN LINK IS GENERALLY MORE DURABLE. UM, AND IF IT WAS SIX FOOT TALL IN THE FRONT, WOULD THAT GIVE YOU THE SAME LEVEL OF SECURITY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR VERSUS THE WOOD SLATS? YOU KNOW, UM, JUST IN GENERAL I WOULD, I WAS GONNA GO RIDE IRON A THREE FOOT ROD IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT, OR A FIVE FOOT OR SIX FOOT ROD IRON. I MEAN, IF, IF Y'ALL'S DON'T ALLOW US, HE WANTED TO DO THAT. SO YOU COULD DO A FIVE FOOT WROUGHT IRON, YOU COULD DO A FIVE FOOT WROUGHT IRON. UM, I, I BUILD WR IRON FENCING. I WOULD GO WITH A WR IRON FENCE JUST SO MY SON WOULD BE MORE SECURE. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BE COMING BACK EVERY TWO MONTHS TO FIX SOME. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHERE, AND THAT'S KINDA WHERE I WAS GOING, YOU KNOW, IS, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANY SO THE CLEAR VISION IS REALLY THE WHAT'S UP AND THAT WOULD BE RESOLVED BY THAT OR, OR WOULDN'T NEED TO BE READ IN. SO WHAT? NO, I MEANT FOR THE LOCATION OF THAT FRONT FENCE, HE WOULD STILL NEED THE CLEAR VISION. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN, IN CONTACT WITH THE INTERSECTIONS. SO STAFF, DO YOU QUALIFY THE, THE GAPPING? DOES THIS MEET PREDOMINANTLY OPEN? NO. WELL, YEAH, THE EXISTING, THE EXISTING WOOD FENCE IS CONSIDERED PREDOMINANTLY OPEN BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE MORE THAN 70 OR IT'S OKAY. SO WE CAN, WE CAN ALL UPDATE THE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY, UH, AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THAT THE, UH, FENCING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLEAR VISION IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. YEAH, IT'S EXISTING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. IT'S JUST BASICALLY THE LOCATION OF IT IN CONGRUENCE WITH. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK IF WE COULD, UM, SPECIFY THAT THE CORRUGATED METAL WILL BE ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE IT LIES. NOW I'D BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THOSE AMENDMENTS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANDA. OKAY. SO THAT WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO SPECIFY CORRUGATE METAL WITH THE CAP THAT IT'S ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE. AND THAT THE, UH, CLEAR VISION CONCERNS WITH THE, WITH THE FRONT FENCING IS, UH, FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN RELATED TO THE CLEAR VISION. SO, OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER PECKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. NO QUESTION. THANK YOU. ITEM FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AT 6 3 1 6 CINCINNATI AVENUE. THE ZONING IS R FOUR AND THEIR REQUEST IS FOR A FOUR FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FOUR INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG CINCINNATI AVENUE AMID AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK WITH PROPERTIES PRIMARILY ZONED R FOUR AND A NEARBY WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREA OVERLAY. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT TO THE SIDE OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN MAY OF 2026. THE CARPORT HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER AMEND THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO CONFORM WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS OR REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. [01:40:02] I STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD LEAVE INSUFFICIENT ROOM TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FIRE CONCERNS AND WATER RUNOFF ONTO ABUTTING PROPERTIES. AND TWO, THE CARPORT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET AND CAN STILL BE PLANNED TO ADHERE TO RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICTS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF MAIL AT 35 NOTICES WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED NO VOICEMAILS AND THE MARTINEZ CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WEST END HOPE AND ACTION. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. SO IS THERE, IS THERE AN APPLICATION THAT IT, THAT HAS ANY, ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, WHETHER IT'S ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OR IF IT'S GONNA HAVE GUTTERS OR IF THE ROOF IS GONNA BE SLANT A CERTAIN WAY? I CAN CHECK IF THERE ARE PLANS SUBMITTED IN OUR SYSTEM. WELL, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND, UM, WE DID RECEIVE ONE VOICEMAIL IN FAVOR, UM, BEFORE, UH, AFTER A DEADLINE? YES. OKAY. SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARDBOARD. UH, DID YOU GET TO HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION? YES. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. YES. MY NAME IS HENRY M. GONZALEZ JR. I'M THE OWNER OF THE, THAT HOME, UM, THE CARPORT. UM, I KNOW WITH THE PAPERWORK I SENT, I SENT A PHOTO OF WHAT I WANTED AND, UH, BASICALLY THOSE HOUSES ALL ON THAT AREA, THE DRIVEWAYS ARE REAL NARROW. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE THAT BIG. UM, IT'S GONNA BE MADE OUT OF, UH, METAL METAL, UH, LIKE FOUR BY FOUR METAL B I'M NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH THAT STUFF. BUT, UH, IT'S GONNA HAVE A ROOF PITCH TOWARD THE FRONT. UH, THE MAIN HOUSE. IT'S GONNA BE UNDER THE MAIN HOUSE OVERHANG THAT'S GOT A GUTTER ALL METAL NEW ABOUT A YEAR OLD GUTTERS WITH DOWNSPOUT. SO THAT WATER'S NOT GONNA RUN ON THE ROOF. IT'S GONNA RUN THE GUTTER. IT'S GONNA HAVE A PITCH AND WE'RE GONNA PUT A GUTTER IN THE FRONT, GUTTER DOWN. AND THEN WE'RE GONNA, IT'S MADE OF CALICHE. WE'LL PROBABLY ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE SIDE OF THE FENCE LINE SO IT WON'T BE FALLING OVER THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. OKAY. I ALREADY TALKED TO HER. I'M NOT SURE IF SHE'S THE ONE WHO SENT THAT LETTER IN, BUT SHE'S FINE WITH IT. OKAY. SO FOR THE PARAMETERS OF, OF WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US THAT WE DON'T GET, IRONICALLY WE DON'T GET A LOT OF PEOPLE APPLYING WHO HAVEN'T ALREADY BUILT IT. SO UH, SO FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR PARTICULAR CARPORT, WHAT IS THE SIZE? IS IT, IT'S GONNA BE, UM, 12 FEET. MM-HMM . AND THAT'S BASICALLY, IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE LESS 'CAUSE THE, THAT'S HOW MUCH AREA I GOT. HOW MU IT'S GONNA BE LIKE 11 FEET SOMETHING. WHAT ABOUT THE LENGTH? 40? THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TWO CARS. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A A A PER A 12 BY 40 FOOT CARPORT THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY SLOPED TOWARDS THE FRONT YES. WITH GUTTERS ON THE FRONT? YES. AND YOU'LL BE FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? YES, I WILL. OKAY. THE BEAMS WILL BE FOUR. I HAVE A PHOTO OF UHHUH AND IT'S GONNA BE MADE OUT OF METAL BEAMS AND YEAH, JUST METAL ROOF. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANT. I ALREADY TALKED TO THAT. OKAY. UM, LIKE THAT. BUT IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE LONGER, BUT SLOPE TOWARDS THE FRONT. WELL THAT, YEAH, THEY SLOPE THAT TOWARD THE HOUSE, I GUESS, BUT YOU COULD SEE GUTTERS ON THE, HOW THEY DID THAT. BUT MINE'S GONNA BE TO THE FRONT AND YOURS WILL BE ABOVE THE ROOF LINE SO THAT IT'S, OR BELOW THE, WELL IT BE UNDER, UNDER UNDERNEATH THE SOT OF THE, OF THE ROOF. IT'S ABOUT NINE AND A HALF FEET TALL. OKAY. AND I NEED THAT LENGTH BECAUSE, UH, I AM RETIRED NOW AND UH, I HAVE A LARGE TRUCK, A TUNDRA AND ANOTHER CAR. SO I, THAT'S WHY I NEED THE LENGTH AND, UM, UH, I NEEDED TO BECAUSE, UH, I, YOU COULD STILL SEE THE WEATHER TODAY. HORRIBLE. YOU KNOW, AND THE HAIL AND STUFF AND LITTLE PROTECTION FROM MY VEHICLES FOR THE SUMMER. AND THEN I HAVE A BUNCH OF MEDICAL STUFF GOING ON AND, UH, IT'S HARD TO GET IN A HOT CAR, HOT STUFF, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT WOULD HELP ME TOO. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR, YOUR APPLICATION BEFORE US IS FOR A 12 BY 40 CAR PORT SLOPED TO THE FRONT. YES. PREDOMINANTLY CONSTRUCTED OF METAL MATERIAL. YES. UH, ALRIGHT. YEP. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE. THAT WAS BE READ INTO THE MOON. YEAH. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY INCENTIVE TO SPEAK? NOBODY'S TIME TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION REED COMMISSIONER REED, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 6 103 0 0 1 0 0. [01:45:03] I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT EIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT BY 40 FOOT, UH, METAL CARPORT SLOPED TO THE FRONT WITH GUTTERS TO BE FOUR INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 6 31 CINCINNATI AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING HENRY GONZALEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AS A CARPORT LEASE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME IN THE DRIVEWAY, LEAVING LIMITED ROOM TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT THAT ABIDES BY CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, CURRENT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN A SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY ABIDING THIS LOT. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OR USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OF THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, CONFORMING PROPERTY, OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF. FURTHERMORE, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY. SIX. THE PLAY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THIS DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE WIDTH OF THE SIDE YARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CARPORT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, YES. I'LL, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE. UH, I THINK, UM, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING TO US FIRST, UH, ASKING FOR PERMISSION. UM, AND I, I THINK BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE SO, YOU'VE, YOU'VE HEARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD, UM, YOU'RE GOING ABOUT THE RIGHT WAY BY PUTTING GUTTERS AND YOU'VE SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBOR. SO, UH, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THIS SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. I THINK THIS IS KIND OF AS GOOD AS IT GETS GIVEN THE, THE NARROWNESS THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH AND, UM, IT'S REFRESHING THAT SOMEBODY WOULD APPLY FOR VARIANCE PRIOR TO BUILDING THIS THING. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD ALL, HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, BUT HAVE A GOOD, OKAY, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT NOT ABOUT THIS. UH, LIKE MY NEXT STEP, WELL, STAFF WILL CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THAT. OKAY. BUT, UH, YOU HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON. I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL. I APPRECIATE IT. YES, SIR. MM-HMM . AND THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE FIRST. OKAY. . ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER SIX. YEAH. IS IT A IT'S GOING THROUGH THE UPDATE RIGHT NOW. , MAYBE JUST PRESENT IT OUT LIKE THIS. ITEM NUMBER SIX, HIS BO OA DASH, OH, SORRY, NOT NUMBER SIX. WAIT. YES. ITEM NUMBER SIX. HIS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 LOCATED IN DISTRICT FIVE AT 1 2 4 EAST AVIO STREET. THE ZONING IS IDZ ONE WITH USES PERMITTED FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT. THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A 50% VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 50% FRONT YARD IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. TWO AND EIGHT FOOT TWO INCH DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, 10 INCH CLEAR VISION AREA FOR THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. THREE, A TWO FOOT SIX INCH [01:50:01] FENCE HEIGHT FETCH. SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT. PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT, SIX INCH OVERHEAD RAIL FOR A MOTORIZED SLIDING GATE. LIMITED TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND A SIX FOOT OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE. THERE WE GO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG EAST AVIO STREET AND IS WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST AVIO STREET WITH NO GITA STREET AND SOUTH FLORIDA STREET TO THE WEST. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE A VARIETY OF BAY ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING I-D-Z-H-S TO THE WEST, N-C-I-D-Z, AND C TWO N-A-I-D-Z TO THE EAST AND R FOUR DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH AND I TWO ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH. OTHER IDZ AND COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICTS CAN BE OBSERVED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM THE APPLICANT APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT TALL, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE AND A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH OVERHEAD RAIL FROM MOTORIZED SLIDING GATE. UPON VISITING THE SITE IN MAY OF 2026, STAFF ALSO FOUND CONDITIONS TO NECESSITATE A VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE AND A REDUCED CLEAR VISIONARY VARIANCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RECENTLY WENT THROUGH A CHANGE OF ZONING IN 2024 AND WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT FOR THREE STORY STRUCTURE USING A PITCHED ROOF AS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AT A PREVIOUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2024. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS A SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCES IN BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 0 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, INSTALLING EXCESSIVE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO A LOT THAT HAS ALREADY PERMITTED 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT CONTRIBUTES TO THE DIFFICULTY IN MITIGATING STORMWATER AND CAN INTENSIFY FLOOD EVENTS. TWO, THERE IS THE OPTION TO UTILIZE PERVIOUS MATERIALS FOR PARKING AREAS TO MEET UDC STANDARDS. THREE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PURPOSE OF THE MINIMUM CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS IS TO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A SAFER STREET SCAPE FOR DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS FOR THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION VARIANCE IF GRANTED, WOULD REDUCE THE VISIBLE SPACE FOR DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND ROADWAYS DRIVERS UTILIZING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DRIVEWAY AND PEDESTRIANS USING THE SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY, WHILE ALSO PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FOR THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD AND THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL OTHER FENCE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. STAFF MAIL OUT 31 NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED NO VOICEMAILS AND LONE STAR NARRATIVE ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, MY NAME IS JUAN OSA. I'M HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR AND FOR THE CLIENT, MRS. LUC ROCO. OKAY. UH, SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR LISTENING TO THE CASE AND THANK YOU FOR THE CITY FOR BEING A GREAT HELP THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS. IT WAS, IT WAS AMAZING. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FIRST. UH, AS YOU SAW FROM THE PICTURES, UH, WHEN WE SUBMITTED, WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE, UH, CHANGE OF THE DRIVEWAY. UH, ORIGINALLY WE HAD A DRIVEWAY TO THE LEFT OF THE HOUSE. UH, THEN THE OWNER SWITCHED IT FROM A GARAGE TO JUST A, A FLEX ROOM IN THE FRONT. SO WE CHANGED THE DRIVEWAY AND WE SUBMITTED IT. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE. SO THE DRIVEWAY IS 40 OR THE, THE FRONT LOT IS 40 FEET ACROSS. THE PAVERS ARE EXACTLY 20 FEET, SO THE LOT IS A LITTLE OVER 40 FEET. SO, AND THEN WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THERE'S RIVER ROCKING BETWEEN THE PAVERS, YOU GO BELOW THE 50%. UH, SO OUR QUESTION WAS, AND THIS MAY, MAYBE IT WAS JUST US THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE UDC, UH, CLEARLY ENOUGH ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT WE THOUGHT RIVER ROCK WAS PERVIOUS COVER. WELL, IT IS. IF STAFF IS SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T DEEM IT AS SUCH, THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A PLASTIC LINER UNDERNEATH THAT? THERE'S NO PLASTIC LINER. THE, THE RIVER ROCK WAS PUT ON TOP OF THE SOIL THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. AND CAN YOU VERIFY THE SIZE OF YOUR LOT? IS IT ABOUT 0.08 ACRES? I BELIEVE SO, YES. YEAH, SO THAT, SO AROUND 4,000 SQUARE FEET, LESS THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET, WHEN YOU'RE LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE FULLY EXEMPT FROM THE ENTIRE STORMWATER MANUAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THAT THE IMPERVIOUS, EVERYTHING DOESN'T REALLY BUG ME BECAUSE IT'S THE INTENT OF THE IDZ. THEY COULD HAVE A HOUSE FIVE FEET ON ALL FOUR SIDES IF THEY WANT. AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT, [01:55:01] YOU KNOW, THAT WE'VE HAD ONGOING DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO ROCK VERSUS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT. AND, AND TO ME THIS LOOKS PERVIOUS ENOUGH FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BUT YEAH. YEAH. AND STAFF, UM, ANOTHER EXEMPTION THAT FOLLOWS IDZ IF YOU'RE UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET IS A, IS AN EXEMPTION EXEMPTION FROM THE STREET STANDARDS. IS CLEAR VISION PART OF THE STREET STANDARDS OR IS THAT SOMETHING ELSE? THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF FIVE 14. UM, SO IT'S NOT PART OF THE STREET STANDARD. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO ASK. SO, BUT, SO I DO HAVE, SO GOING BACK, SO, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERVY COVER, UM, AND IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND SO, SO IF YOU TOOK A LOOK WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE, IT WAS A SOLID DRIVEWAY, UM, TO BASICALLY 50% OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE REST OF IT WAS OPEN. AND SO, UM, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THIS, WE COULD READ IT SO THAT IT LOOKS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS SO IT DOESN'T BECOME A HUNDRED PERCENT CONCRETE ACROSS THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ALLOW FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, UM, NON OUS COVER, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'VE INTENDED HERE VERSUS WHAT IS THAT WE'RE SEEING? YEAH. OUTSIDE OF SAYING AS SUBMITTED, I GUESS, IS THAT AS SUBMITTED SEEMS THE WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, I WOULD SPECIFY CONSISTING OF RIVER ROCK WITHOUT A BOTTOM LINER. OKAY. YEAH. SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, ON THAT ONE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, WE, WE DIDN'T SUBMIT THAT THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY, BUT WE WERE UNSURE IF WE WERE OUT OF, UH, COMPLIANCE. THAT'S WHY WE LEFT IT IN THERE JUST SO WE COULD HAVE IT HEARD TODAY. WELL, SOMETIMES NO, YOU'RE GOOD. SOMETIMES PEOPLE COME HERE JUST TO BE SAFE ON THE SAFE. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. UM, AND THEN, UH, SPEAKING ON THE FENCE THEN, THANK YOU FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO PROVE THE HEIGHT. UH, YEAH, THE OWNER'S CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY IN THE AREA OF SECURITY. UH, MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY COMMERCIAL IN THE AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF APARTMENTS, A LOT OF RESTAURANTS, A LOT OF, UM, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE. UM, AS FAR AS THE CLEAR VIEW, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE PICTURES FROM THE CITY ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR, RIGHT, YOU COULD SEE THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. THAT'S A FENCE FOR THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. IT'S ALREADY AT SEVEN AND A HALF FEET. UH, AND IT ALREADY IMPEDES A CLEAR VIEW FROM THAT SIDE. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO PUT A FENCE ON THAT SIDE ANYWAYS, BUT JUST AS, AS, AS A, AS A NOTE, WE ALREADY HAVE AN IMPEDE, IMPEDIMENT IMPEDIMENT, UH, ON THAT SIDE. ON THE OTHER SIDE. UM, WE DO WANNA PUT THAT SEVEN AND A HALF OR SIX FOOT HIGH ON THAT SIDE AND IT'S GONNA BE TRANSPARENT. UM, BUT THE, AS WE SAID, THE DRIVER WAS MOVING OUT TO THE CENTER. SO WHEN IT COMES TO PEDESTRIANS, UH, WE STILL HAVE SOME CLEAR VIEW, UH, OF THE PEDESTRIANS. WHEN IT COMES TO THE ROAD. UH, THE ONLY, UH, ROAD THAT'S GONNA BE AFFECTED BY THAT SIDE WILL BE THE OPPOSING ROAD. SO WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE A CLEAR VIEW FROM CARS COMING FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK. SO MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCING, IT'S GONNA BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING? YES. THEN ON. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANA COMMISSIONER MANA. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1, I MOVED TO THE BOARD OF ADDRESSING GRANT A REQUEST FOR, UM, AN IMPERVIOUS COVER FRONT YARD, UH, CON, UM, UM, AS SUBMITTED, UH, WHICH IS CONTAINS, UH, RIVERWALK, UH, WITHOUT, UH, A, A PLASTIC LINER BELOW, UM, AND TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT TWO INCH DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION VARIANCE FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT, 10 INCH CLEAR VISION AREA FOR THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. SIT AT 1 2 4 EAST OF VALLA STREET. APPLICANT BEING JOSE'S SEPULVEDA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE IMPERIOUS COVER REQUESTED WOULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONDITIONS TO MITIGATE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THIS PROPERTY. THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A REDUCED DISTANCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE ROAD COULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR BOTH DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION AND DRIVERS BACKING OUTTA THE DRIVEWAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN REMOVAL OF PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH PRESENTS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE LOT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED AND THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL INVERSE ADVERSE IMPACTS. THE REDUCED DISTANCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE ROAD WOULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BOTH DRIVERS BACKING OUTTA THE DRIVEWAY AND DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. [02:00:01] AN IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE WOULD STILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY INVERSE IMPACT TO STORMWATER DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA. A REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND ROADWAYS. DRIVERS UTILIZING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DRIVEWAY AND PEDESTRIANS USED IN SIDEWALKS IN THIS AREA FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. AND THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCES LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. UH, FIVE SUCH, UH, VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR TENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST DOES NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS REMAINING AMOUNT OF PERIAL SURFACE OR PERMEABLE AREA IS SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE STORMWATER RUNOFF. AND THERE STILL WOULD BE ADEQUATE ROOM FOR DRIVERS TO NAVIGATE THE SURROUNDING STREETS SCAPE. UH, SIX APPLY TO THE UL PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE AREA SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED, UH, AS A BY THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARYING THE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY. THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED. THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED IMPERVIOUS COVER AND MOVE THE PROPOSED FENCE LOCATION FURTHER BACK IN THE PROPERTY WITH ALREADY LIMITED FRONT YARD SPACE AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK THE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UH, PERUS VERSUS IMPERVIOUS COVER. I THINK, I THINK THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT HERE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY DOES MEET IT, BUT IT'S UH, I GUESS KIND OF PER THE DIALOGUE ON HOW WE LOOK AT IT, UH, THE TYPES OF COVERS. SO, UM, AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO PROBABLY OPEN FENCE, I THINK THAT, UH, THIS IS APPROPRIATE ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. I I DO KNOW THE AREA AND BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND WITH ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, IT IS, UM, PRETTY HARD CELL. BUT, UH, THE FENCING SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE A APART THE, UH, COMPLEX THAT THEY'RE MAKING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE IS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BONIA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR THE FACTS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA HEAR A MOTION ON THE FENCE HEIGHT MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3. 0 0 1 0 1. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SIX INCH FENCE HEIGHT. SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT, MAXIMUM, UM, LIMITED TO, UH, THE SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH OVERHEAD RAIL FOR A MOTORIZED SIDING GATE LIMITED TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND A SIX FOOT OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE, UH, SITUATED AT 1 2 4 EAST CEVALLOS. APPLICANT BEING JOSE SEPULVEDA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITTLE 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. THIS CASE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF, OF THE CHAPTER AS THE FENCE WOULD PROVIDE AN EXTRA SENSE OF SECURITY FOR ITS RESIDENTS AND THERE IS ADEQUATE ROOM ON THE PROPERTY TO LOCATE THE FENCE IN WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED FRONT YARD. B. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE FENCE HEIGHT INCREASE WOULD STILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THEIR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY, WHILE ALSO PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. C. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED, UH, BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FOR THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD AND THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL THEIR FENCE. ALL OTHER FENCE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY FOR WHICH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SOUGHT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT AS THE FRONT YARD FENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE LY OPEN, WHICH WOULD STILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN THE AREA, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING SOME SEPARATION FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH CONSISTS OF A VARIETY OF BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND EXISTING USES. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL'S PURPOSE OF THE [02:05:01] DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE SPECIAL, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPOSED FENCE HEIGHTS EXCEPTION IS A MODEST DEPARTURE FROM THE CURRENT STANDARD. AND THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BUILDING A FENCE AND DEMO. MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS LOOKING AT THE DISTRICT AND UH, AND UH, PARTICULARLY WHERE THIS IS LOCATED, I DID LIMIT THE SEVEN FOOT, SIX INCH, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT JUST TO THAT, TO THE GATE AREA. AND SO I THINK WITH THAT THEN I'M OKAY WITH READING THIS AS IS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GET WITH STEPH. WE'LL DO SOON. THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU. I WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL SEE Y'ALL IN SEVEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. THREE 16. WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AFTERNOON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UH, BO OA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 3. LOCATED AT 5 51 GRIGGS AVENUE. UH, CURRENT ZONING OF R SIX AND THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH A FOUR FOOT, FOUR INCH FRONT SETBACK TO A FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO A LARRY CARPORT WITH AN EIGHT INCH NORTH SIDE SETBACK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GRIGGS AVENUE AND COLLIBRA ROAD. THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES ZONED R SIX, R FIVE AND C TWO. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF INITIATED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN APRIL, 2026 AND FOUND A CARPORT WAS BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD WITHOUT A PERMIT. BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED FOR THE CARPORT, THE OWNER MUST DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK STANDARDS OR OBTAIN A VARIANCE FROM THESE STANDARDS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN INDICATING, UH, WHERE THOSE TWO R THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE IS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, WHEN THE PROPOSED SITES SETBACK DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT ACCESSING ADJACENT PROPERTY OR TO MITIGATE AGAINST POTENTIAL DAMAGE FROM WATER RUNOFF TO THE PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK, WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN FRONT YARD SPACE IN A SINGLE FAMILY. UH, IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MAILED OUT 24 NOTICES RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS WERE RECEIVED. UH, THE CULEBRA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPRESE STATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. ONE OF THE RESPONSES WAS FROM THE FIRE STATION. DOES THAT MEAN THE CITY WROTE BACK IN OR THE, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AT THE FIRE STATION DID? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE, WE'RE LOOKING UP THE RESPONSES REAL QUICK. HOLD ON. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IT'S A CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND THEY KIND OF CONTRADICTS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT. OKAY. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. WHILE WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT. HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS VALERIE TOBIAS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY MOTHER. SHE IS THE OWNER OF THE HOME CASTILLO, ADRIANA CASTILLO. FIRST AND MOST WE WANNA APOLOGIZE FOR BUILDING THE CARPORT BEFOREHAND ONLY BECAUSE SHE SPOKE WITH A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS DOWN THE STREET THAT HAVE OTHER CARPORTS AND THEY [02:10:01] HAD LET HER KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEVER HAD TO BUILD IT. WE NEVER HAD TO ASK FOR PERMISSION FROM THE CITY. WE HAD COME BEFORE WHENEVER WE HAD TO BUILD THE SIDE, UM, DRIVEWAY FOR, UH, TO ALLOW ANOTHER VEHICLE ON THE PROPERTY. AND WHEN WE ASKED THEM THE PERMISSION, THEY STAYED, UH, UP IN THE FRONT. THEY'RE LIKE, OH NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET NOTHING OUT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT AFFECTING THE CITY. UM, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE, THE CURVE. IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T DAMAGE ANYTHING. SO THAT'S WHY SHE WENT AHEAD AND CONTACTED SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO DEPORT. THE REASON WHY WE BUILD THE PORT IS BECAUSE, UM, WE'RE AT THE INTERSECTION OF WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ENTERS IN AND WHEN WE PARK OUR VEHICLES ON THE SIDE, WE HAVE, SHE HAS, UH, FIVE NIECE, UH, NIECES AND NEPHEWS THAT ARE ALL UNDER THE AGE OF 10. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD FOR US TO PARK ON THE SIDE AND LOAD 'EM UP AND UNLOAD 'EM FROM THE VEHICLES WITHOUT THE VEHICLES RUNNING INTO THEM. SO A LONG, LONG TIME AGO, ONE OF MY SIDE MIRRORS GOT BROKEN BECAUSE MY CAR WAS PARKED ON THE STREET AND WE HAD TO REPLACE THAT. AND THEN THIS ALLOWS US TO PUT THE VEHICLES, BOTH OF THE VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE THERE. UH, IT'S TWO TRUCKS, SO IT ALLOWS THE VEHICLES TO BE IN THERE AND HAVE THEM NOT BE DAMAGED. AND THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS US, WHEN WE WA UH, GO OVER TO HER HOUSE FOR HER GRANDKIDS TO BE LOADED AND LOADED WITHOUT HAVING TO RUN INTO THE STREET. SO SO YOUR CARPORT IS WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE? EXACTLY, YES. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, WE HAD ALSO REQUESTED, 'CAUSE UM, WHEN IT RAINS A LOT OF DIRT AND MUD ACCUMULATES ON THAT AREA, SO SHE WANTED TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY AND EXPAND IT TO THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT, JUST SO THAT WAY IT'S NOT ALLOWING A LOT OF MUD TO RUN ON THERE. UM, WE DID SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THE NEIGHBORS WERE OKAY WITH IT. WE SPOKE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE STATING. UM, AND THEN WE ALSO SPOKE WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS DOWN THE STREET. THE CARPORT IS, UM, ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE, SO, UH, WE DID, UH, IT IS SIX FOOT FROM WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS INWARDS TOWARDS THE HOUSE AND IT'S ABOUT A FOOT IN FROM WHERE OUR PROPERTY ENDS. SO THE POST FOR THAT CAR REPORT IS SIX FEET AWAY FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK? UH, YES. AND THEN IS IT SLOPED PREDOMINANTLY TOWARDS THE FRONT? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. FROM WHAT THE, THEY, THEY HAD GIVEN US AND STAFF. THERE'S NOTHING, NOTHING BEFORE US, UH, OR IMPLIED ABOUT WIDENING THE DRIVEWAY OR IS THERE, IS WIDENING THE DRIVEWAY GONNA CAUSE US TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO US BECAUSE WE DID REQUEST THAT TO, UH, DO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY AND PUT IT BACK ON THERE AS WELL. ONLY THE CARPORT. YEAH. THE WIDENING WOULD BE ONLY COME BACK TO Y'ALL IN CASE IT WENT BEYOND THE 50% RULE. WHICH YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE. IT'S, IT'S NOT. YEAH, IT'S ONLY 400 SQUARE FOOT. UH, 'CAUSE WE DID THE MEASUREMENTS AND IT'S UNDER, UNDERNEATH THE 50 PERCENTAGE. OKAY. BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO REMOVE, UH, WHERE IT, IF YOU SHOW THE OTHER PICTURE AFTERWARDS. YES. THAT ONE, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. SHE WANTED TO REMOVE WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS TOWARDS THE HOUSE. SHE WAS GONNA REMOVE THAT PART OF THERE SO IT DOESN'T GO OVER THE 50 PERCENTAGE AND JUST WIDEN A LITTLE BIT WHERE THE, UM, FRONT PORCH IS. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, THE ONLY THING I DON'T SEE IS, UM, DRAINAGE. UH, WHERE DOES, WHEN THE, WHEN IT RAINS, WHERE DOES THE WATER RUN UP TO, TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME OR TO THE FRONT OF THE YARD? IT RUNS BOTH WAYS. WAIT, WHEN THE WATER FALLS BOTH WAYS, WHENEVER IT RAINS, LIKE THIS PAST TIME THAT IT RAINS, IT BOTH RUNS BOTH WAYS, BUT RIGHT THERE WHERE WE HAD IT, UM, WE, IT RUNS RIGHT THERE IN THE, TO TOWARDS THE FRONT AND THE SIDE FROM WHEN IT HITS THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT HITS ON THE, THE ROOF CARPORT? YEAH. YEAH, IT RUNS TO THE SIDES. OKAY. THE CORRUGATION IMPLIES THAT IT DRAINS TO THE FRONT, LIKE THE WAY IT'S, YEAH. 'CAUSE IT'S SLANTED, SO IT PRETTY MUCH RUNS BOTH WAYS TOWARDS THE FRONT AND THE SIDE. OH, SHE SAYS IT RUNS JUST TOWARDS THE FRONT. SORRY, SHE'S MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE THAN I AM. I'M JUST TRANSLATING HER. YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, YEAH. BUMP BUMP. I JUST SEEN THE PICTURE. YEAH, I'M SORRY. I DO APOLOGIZE. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, YES. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO INSTALL UH, RAIN GUTTER? YES. SO YOU'RE ADMITTING YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ALONG THE FRONT? YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND WOULD THIS INCLUDE ALSO THE REMOVING OF THE DRIVEWAY AND INSTALLING THE WELL, IF YOU DON'T EXCEED THE 50%, UM, STAFF HAS COMMENTED THAT IT'S, IT'S, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO COME BEFORE US FOR THAT. OKAY. OH, OKAY. DOES THAT STILL REQUIRE A PERMIT THOUGH, RIGHT? YEAH, CORRECT. JUST MAKING SURE IF IT WAS UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT EXCEPTION IS ANYMORE. OKAY. [02:15:01] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE, SENATOR TO SPEAK? UH, NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UM, AND THAT WAS A FIREHOUSE. UH, LOOKS LIKE A LIEUTENANT THAT WORKS IN A FIREHOUSE THAT MADE THAT RESPONSE. ALRIGHT, SOUNDS AWESOME. LET'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MONEZ. COMMISSIONER BOEZ. READY REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE A FIVE FOOT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH, UH, FRONT SETBACK, UH, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ALONG THE FRONT. UH, TWO, A FOUR FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW COURT PORT WITH AN EIGHT INCH NORTH SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 5 51 GRIGGS AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING ADRIANA CASTILLO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. HIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE TO MAINTAIN THE CAR WITHOUT ACCESSING ADJACENT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE EFFORT TO RELOCATE OR MODIFY THE CARPORT WOULD NOT YIELD PROPORTIONAL BENEFITS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OR THE WIDER, UH, OR THE WIDER NEIGHBORHOOD. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTEE, THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK ALLOW SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS AND SUFFICIENTLY PRESERVES OPEN FRONT YARD SPACE ON THE PROPERTY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE, SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THESE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK ALLOWS FOR SUFFICIENT SPACE TO MAINTAIN THE CARPORT WITHOUT ACCESSING ADJACENT PROPERTY. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIED ASSAULT 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, AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE LIMITED EXISTING WIDTH AND DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH CONSTRAINS THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED CARPORT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER EZ. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THEY AGREE THAT THEY WOULD, UH, PUT A GUTTER ALONG THE FRONT AND, UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER CARPORTS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS IN THE AREA, SO I DON'T THINK IT, UH, DIMINISHES THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CAN, UM, CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER BONIA AND I DON'T SEE, UH, ANY BIG ISSUES COMING OUT OF IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE LIKE HE SAID, THERE IS MORE PROPERTIES AROUND THE AREA THAT HAVE SIMILAR CARPORTS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE THIS HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVE? YES. SECOND CUR COMMISSIONER E BON. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENNA. I 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 FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 4 LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AT 1431 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. HIS ZONING IS R FOUR AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST GRAMERCY PLACE AMID AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK WITH PROPERTIES PRIMARILY ZONED R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM AN APPLICANT'S FOR A VARIANCE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS ABUTTING AN ALLEY TO THE NORTH, THUS NEGATING THE NEED FOR A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN MAY OF 2026. THE CARPORT HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER AMEND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO CONFORM WITH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS OR REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. [02:20:02] THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 0 4. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD LEAVE INSUFFICIENT ROOM TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FIRE CONCERNS AND WATER RUNOFF ONTO A BEDDING PROPERTIES. TWO. THE CARPORT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND COULD STILL BE PLANNED TO ADHERE TO UDC DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. STAFF MAIL THAT 45 NOTICES ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED ZERO VOICEMAILS AND KEYSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARPORT. YEAH, CECIL, UH, LENNY SINCLAIR AND I DO HAVE, UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, UH, SUPPORT. ALRIGHT. I CAN TELL FROM YOUR APPLICATION IT'S GONNA BE A 25 FOOT DEEP CARPORT ALONG THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND HOW WILL THE, UH, WILL THE CARPORT BE ATTACHED TO YOUR, THAT REAR STRUCTURE? NO, SIR. THE POLES WILL BE IN FRONT OF IT. THE ROOF WILL OVERLAP IT, SO WATER WILL RUN OFF NOT ONTO MY GARAGE, BUT TOWARD THE ALLEY AND, OKAY. UH, THE MAIN REASON FOR THE REQUEST AND THE SETBACK IS I HAVE TWO CLASSIC THUNDERBIRDS THAT I KEEP IN THE GARAGE. SO AS YOU COME DOWN, TURNING THE CAR INTO THE GARAGE IS KIND OF A CHORE, SO THAT, THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO TURN THE VEHICLE INTO THE GARAGE. AND FURTHERMORE, HAVING THE POLES, LIKE IF, IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE FIVE FOOT OR THE THREE FOOT, UH, AS IT WERE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY HILLS OR EAVES, THE POLES WOULD BE SO CLOSE TOGETHER. MY DODGE IS 7.5 FEET WIDE AND MY CHEVY'S, UH, 12, UH, 6.5 FEET WIDE, THAT'D BE CRAMMED TOGETHER IN THERE. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THE DOORS OPEN. OKAY. UH, ONE CONCERN THAT THIS BOARD YOU, WELL YOU'VE BEEN HERE THIS WHOLE MEETING YEAH. UH, IS REGARDING CARPORTS IS, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE. UM, SO YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT IT'S GOING TO UNIFORMLY SLOPE TO THE ALLEY. YES, SIR. UM, OKAY. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN PUTTING GUTTERS ON THAT? OH, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA AND, AND MAYBE THE CITY COULD HELP HERE. SO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, SO THEY HAVE THAT, THE REAR BACK, IT LOOKS FAMILIAR. SO DID WE TALK ABOUT THE ABUTTING PROPERTY AT SOME POINT? AND WAS, UH, AND FOR THE APPLICANT HERE, WHAT'S A DISTANCE, UM, AT THAT BACK SPACE TO, UM, FOR THAT, FOR THAT BACK STRUCTURE? DO YOU KNOW? UH, WHAT, DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR IT IS AWAY FROM THE FENCE? UH, IT'D BE A FOOT, MY STRUCTURE. OH, THE THE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. YES, THE NEIGHBOR'S. I WANT TO SAY IT'S ALL IN MAYBE TWO, THREE FEET. YEAH. SO I, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT A DIALOGUE ABOUT THAT STRUCTURE. AND, AND SO WHAT IS, WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE GONNA CONSTRUCT YOUR, UM, CARPORT OUT OF? IS IT GONNA BE METAL OR, YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE A FOUR BY FOUR, UH, MINIMUM, UH, LNG GAUGE THICKNESS, UH, MAYBE THREE SIXTEENS. THERE'S GONNA BE EYE BEAMS ALONG THE SIDE. UH, WE'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH 11 GAUGE MINIMUM, UH, C CHANNEL PURLINS WITH 22 GAUGE CORRUGATED ROOFING. AND DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE A SIDE ON IT? NO, ON THE, SO IT'S GONNA BE COMPLETELY OPEN FOR OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. ALL, UM, ALWAYS ROUND OPEN BECAUSE THERE IS, THERE IS DIALOG. SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE IS FOR SAFE AND, AND FIRE SPREAD. AND SO FIRE SPREAD FROM YOUR PROPERTY ISN'T GONNA BE AN ISSUE. THE BUDDING PROPERTY, UH, HAS SOME CHALLENGES POTENTIALLY THERE, BUT IF YOURS IS COMPLETELY METAL, THEN, THEN YOU AREN'T THERE. AND THEN THE SECOND IS FOR ACCESS FOR FIRE OR, OR YOU KNOW, ON THE SIDES. BUT SINCE YOURS IS OPEN, THE NECK CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN THAT. SO I THINK I'M GOOD. SO JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR, YOUR APPLICATION, UH, JUST IF YOU COULD VERIFY IS FOR, UM, A, A CARPORT THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY SLOPED TO THE REAR ALLEY, PREDOMINANTLY CONSTRUCTED OF METAL THAT WILL HAVE GUTTERS ON THAT NORTH SIDE, UH, AND IS OPEN ON ALL FOUR SIDES. YES, SIR. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK? [02:25:01] NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR MOTION MANANA, COMMISSIONER MANANA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 4. I MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT, UH, THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY METAL OPEN ON ALL FOUR SIDES SLOPED TO THE ALLEY WITH GUTTERS, UM, TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCH FROM THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 4 3 1 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE, APPLICANT BEING CECIL ST. CLAIR JR. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, OTHER PROVISIONS OF UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AS A CARPORT, LEAVES SUFFICIENT SPACE TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LOW ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY LEAVING LIMITED ROOM TO CONSTRUCT A CARDBOARD THAT ABIDES BY CURRENT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN THE, WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY. BUDDING THIS PROPERTY FOR 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 CONFORMING PROPERTY OR AL THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS REQUEST WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE, THE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUN. ON. FURTHERMORE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT, UH, REDUCE VISIBILITY. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE WIDTH OF THE SIDE YARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CARPORT AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER MANOCK. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT I NORMALLY HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, WERE, WERE, UM, WERE ANSWERED APPROPRIATELY WITH REGARDS TO METAL PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. UM, SO, SO ALLOWS FOR OR WOULD MINIMIZE THE, UH, FIRE SPREAD AND ALLOW FOR, UM, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND, UM, AS DESCRIBED, I THINK IT IT'S APPROPRIATE HERE ON THIS PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STEVENS. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER MAN HAS SAID. AND AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOU COMING BEFORE BUILDING THE STRUCTURE. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. WILL THEY SAY PERMISSION AND FORGIVENESS ? WELL, WE DO APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEAR NONE SEVERAL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? 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 BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF ACT COMMISSIONER BOEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES AND FACT MOTION PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YOU GOT IT. ITEM NUMBER 10. OH, THERE YOU GO. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 8. UH, LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, LOCATED AT FIVE 17 NEVADA STREET. UH, CURRENT ZONING OF RM FOUR. UM, THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR ONE A 450 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 3,550 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A 24 INCH OVERHANG. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND BEXAR COUNTY. UH, RECORDS INDICATE A HOME WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED ON THE PROPERTY IN 1928 PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL ZONING CODE. ZONING CODE IN 1936, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A COMPLETE RENOVATION AND REAR YARD ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME. A STOP WORK ORDER [02:30:01] WAS POSTED ON THIS PROPERTY IN FEBRUARY, 2023 AFTER INVESTIGATIONS FOUND WORK DONE WITHOUT PERMITS AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR REVIEW AND PERMIT ISSUANCE. UH, THE ENSUING PLAN REVIEW, UH, FOR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK, SETBACKS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS. CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE OF A PROPERTY ZONE RM FOUR AND THE WEST SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF FIVE FOOT SEPARATION OF FIVE FEET. UH, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMPLY WITH THE CODE VIA CHANGE OF ZONING AND MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR OBTAIN VARIANCES FROM THESE STANDARDS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SIGN PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION ON THE LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDS THE FACT ONE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT HOME IS ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY CONCERN OF EXAGGERATING FIRE HAZARDS. TWO, THE SUBJECT HOME AND LAW BOUNDARIES WERE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE OPTION OF A LOCAL ZONING CODE, WHICH HAS CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THE PROPERTY CANNOT MEET CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THREE, THESE VARIANCES WOULD ALLOW FOR THE HOME TO BE REHABILITATED AND IMPROVED IN ITS CURRENT HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT. 42 NOTICES WERE SENT. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR THERE AN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS WERE RECEIVED. THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A HOME ON THIS PRIOR CORRECT. AND, AND THIS, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS IN THE SAME PLACE AS A PREVIOUS STRUCTURE. SO THE WORK THAT THEY'RE HAVING DONE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT ACCORDING TO LIKE OUR PLAN REVIEW TEAM, THAT IT'S CONSIDERED A NEW BUILD. OKAY. BUT THEY'RE RENOVATING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. OKAY. IT'S JUST ENOUGH WORK TO BE CONSIDERED NEW. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. UH, I'M DAN GONZALEZ. I'M THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND, UH, WE STARTED PRETTY QUICKLY. WE DID GET A PERMIT FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE. AND UH, WE PRETTY MUCH STOPPED THERE JUST 'CAUSE OF FINANCES. UH, UP UNTIL RECENTLY WE WERE ABLE TO, UH, ACQUIRE SOME FINANCING. SO WE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING AND UH, UM, IT CAME BACK THAT WE HAD A, THAT'S WHEN WE REALIZED THAT, THAT WE'RE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, UH, TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE. SO OUR, OUR, OUR PROJECT IS KEEPING THE EXISTING HOUSE PRETTY MUCH THE WAY IT IS. WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GUTTING THE INTERIOR. UM, AND THEN THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE BACK, THAT ONE DOES STEP BACK FIVE FEET TO, UH, TO CORRESPOND TO THE CURRENT CODE. I CAN SEE THAT ON THE PICTURE. SO YOU'RE WHERE YOUR ENCROACHMENT IS WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY? THE EXISTING HOUSE LIES. YOU'RE NOT INCREASING? NO. OKAY. THE, OKAY, SO THAT'S ONE ISSUE. THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT, UH, IT'S A, UH, RM FOUR, THE LOT IS, UH, I THINK WAS 3,600 SQUARE FEET. SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO AN ADDITION. SO THAT WAS THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING FOR. OKAY. YOU HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR A COD? WHAT IS THAT? NO, . C-O-E-C-O-D. THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. OH, WE'RE, WE'RE IN THAT, WE'RE IN THAT WHOLE PROCESS, SO, OKAY. THAT COD YOU MEAN? CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT HE WAS ASKING. YEAH. OKAY. SO THEY JUST, HE JUST NEEDS US TO ENTERTAIN THAT, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. YEAH. AGAIN, WITH THE RENOVATION, UM, AND HOW EXTENSIVE IT, IT IS, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THAT IS WHY HE'S HERE BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY? YEAH. THE INITIAL CONFUSION THAT WE HAD SUBMITTED ONE PERMIT AND THEN IT CAME BACK. SO WE HAD TO DO A NEW, A NEW, UH, UH, A PERMIT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. WHICH IS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT, ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? MANNA COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO THERE IS A VALLEY ROOF LINE THERE THAT IS, LOOKS LIKE IT'S, WOULD BE CHANNELING WATER DIRECTLY ONTO THE BUDDING PROPERTY AND IF WE'RE [02:35:01] ONE INCH FROM IT, UM, YEAH, I GUESS HOW DO WE MITIGATE THAT? SO WE, WE COULD PUT GUTTERS ON THAT END. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH GONNA STAY THE SAME. SO THAT'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, RIGHT? WE GET BEYOND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING FIVE FEET IN, BUT ON THAT SIDE WE COULD DEFINITELY, UH, PUT IN SOME GUTTERS. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE'RE TALKING, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S AN ISSUE FOR FIRE, UH, FIRE ISSUES IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING WITH THE PERMIT OFFICE IN TERMS OF, UH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CUT THE, UH, THE OVERHANG BACK A LITTLE BIT. WE'VE ALREADY, UH, STARTED TALKING ABOUT CREATING A, UH, USING A CEMENT, CEMENT, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? UH, LIKE A, THE FIBER BOARD, RIGHT. UH, ON THAT WALL WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SOFFIT ENCLOSED WITH, UH, LIKE HARDI BOARD, CEMENT, CEMENTITIOUS, UH, BOARD. SO WE'LL MAKE THAT ALL FIREPROOF, THAT WHOLE WALL. OKAY. YEAH. SO I DID, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING I SAW WAS JUST THAT ONE CORNER DROPPING WATER AND SO, YEAH. SO, SO ARE YOU MINDING IT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS IN FOR THAT CORNER? WE, WE COULD, UH, INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE, UH, ON THE WEST SIDE? YEAH. OR REALLY JUST AT ONE POINT AS FAR AS I SEE. YEAH. OR WELL MAYBE THAT ALONG THAT WHOLE FRONT OR I GUESS REALLY FROM THAT VALLEY FORWARD PROBABLY IS WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT THEN. YEAH. IT'S ONLY ABOUT SIX FEET. YEAH, SIX FEET. SO IT SHOULD BE SMALL GUTTERS. SO, OKAY. SO THERE'S AN APPLICATION AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THAT APPROXIMATE SIX FOOT SECTION. OKAY. STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS IS, IS THAT, IS ADDING A GUTTER ON THAT SIDE GONNA CREATE ISSUES IF THEY'RE AN INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? WE DID TALK ABOUT CUTTING THE BACK THAT LINE ALTOGETHER THOUGH, SO, BUT YEAH, I DO WORRY ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO TRYING TO FIGURE THAT PIECE OUT. I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT THIS, THIS IS LIKE, THIS IS NOT AN ATYPICAL CONDITION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE THIS IS JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUSE IN, IN THE AREA. YEAH, I LIVE IN THE AREA, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. AND, UM, I MEAN WE, WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME WHERE THE, THE DRIVEWAY IS THE THING THAT'S BUFFERING. SO , I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT GUTTERS ARE, ARE CRITICAL IF IT MEANS HAVING TO CUT BACK THE ROOF FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT SO SUGGESTED BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED IS WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT I'M HEARING. SO WE'LL RECANT THAT FROM THE APPLICATION THEN. RIGHT. OKAY. SUGGESTION . SO WE HAVE WHAT'S BEFORE US AS APPLIED. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY, SENATOR TO SPEAK ON THIS? BRAGG? NOBODY SIGNED US TO SPEAK. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DID YOU? BRAGMAN? YES. YES. I HAD A QUESTION. SO IS THE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STAYING OR IS IT GONNA BE REPLACED WITH ANYTHING ELSE? IT'S GONNA BE A NEW, NEW STANDING SEAM ROOF. IT'S, IT'S GONNA STAY METAL, BUT, OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S IN SUCH A BAD REPAIR. WE'RE JUST GONNA REDO IT. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, OKAY. OKAY. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YOU? NO, I WAS GONNA READ A MOTION. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? ALL RIGHT. YEAH, GO AHEAD AND PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 8, I MOVE THAT A BORROW ADJUSTMENT GRANT OR REQUEST FOR A ONE OF 450 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 3,550 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND TWO OF FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A 24 INCH OVERHANGING SITUATED AT 5 1 7 NEVADA STREET. APPLICANT BEING CHAIR NEXT, REAL ESTATE LLC I'M SORRY, I'M HEARING A LOT OF NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND. YOU'RE HEARING, WHAT WAS THAT? 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US MM-HMM . SORRY, I'M JUST HEARING A LOT OF NOISE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF REVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THESE VARIANCES WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY WOULD ALLOW FOR THE HOME TO BE REHABILITATED AND IMPROVED IN ITS CURRENT HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND ESTABLISHED SETBACKS, UH, WHICH PREDATE THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL ZONING CODE. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STANDARDS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THESE VARIANCES WOULD SUPPORT THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE EXISTING HOME, WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT [02:40:01] OF THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RENOVATE IN ITS HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARE OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT HOME IS ADJACENT TO, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY CONCERN OF EXACERBATING FIRE CONDITION HAZARDS THAT IS TYPICALLY PRESENT IN REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACKS. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SUBJECT HOME AND LOT BOUNDARIES HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL ZONING CODE, WHICH HAS CREATED SITUATION WHERE THIS PROPERTY CANNOT MEET CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A REGULAR LOTS ALL OVER TOWN AND THIS IS A MINOR, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. UH, AND AGAIN WITH THE, UM, STANDING SEA METAL ROOF AND THE FACT THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS ON THE UP THE SIDE THAT MIGHT, UH, PRESENT RUNOFF ISSUES. UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, I, I THINK AGAIN, LIKE THIS IS PRETTY TYPICAL IN THE AREA AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE SOME TRACTION ON THIS PROPERTY. SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NUN? HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BONIA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIENT AND I CONCUR WITH THE F OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK, THANK YOU. ITEM 11. ITEM ITEM NUMBER 11 IS BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 9 LOCATED IN DISTRICT 10 AT 36 14 SHALLOW BROOK DRIVE. THE ZONING IS R FIVE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW 14 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC ALONG SHALLOW BROOK DRIVE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED R FIVE WITH C TWO AND O2 BAY ZONING. DISTRICTS ALSO OBSERVABLE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING A RESIDENTIAL IMPROVE ITS PERMIT APPLICATION IN APRIL, 2026 FOR AN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN WHICH IT WAS PLACED ON HOLD DUE TO THE INDICATED REDUCED SETBACKS PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN MAY OF 2026. CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED BUT IS NOT YET COMPLETE. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER MOVE WITH THE ADDITION TO MOVE THE ADDITION TO CONFORM WITH UDC STANDARDS OR REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW REDUCED DEBRIS OR SETBACK. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE, THE ADDITION TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS IN THE BACKYARD AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPEAR OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE PURPOSE OF THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR ADEQUATE AIRFLOW TO MIN TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FIRE SPREAD AND TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. TWO. THE ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED. THUS THE PROPOSED PLAN COULD BE MODIFIED TO ADHERE TO RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING, DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND THREE, THE EXPANSION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS PERMITTED SO LONG AS ABIDES BY CURRENT UDC REGULATIONS SUCH AS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF BAIL OUT 34 NOTICES FOUR WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO. RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET. THERE IS ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSITION. THERE ARE ZERO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. THIS [02:45:01] CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. DID THE APPLICATION INCLUDE THE SIZE OF, OF THIS APPARENT PORCH EDITION? I CAN CHECK. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, UM, DID THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT NAME. ADAM. ADAM ORTIZ. I REPRESENT THE MONTOSS. UH, I BELIEVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS A HUNDRED. IT'S, UH, 1212 BY 10. 12 BY 12 BY 12 WIDE. 10 EXTENDING FROM THE HELM. YEAH, WELL, 12 WIDE S 12. IT'S ACTUALLY 10 BY 12 WITH A LITTLE BAY WENT 12 TWO FOOT BAY WINDOW. SO IT'S ABOUT 626 SQUARE FEET I BELIEVE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO SEE HOW MUCH, HOW, WHAT'S THE WIDTH THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO? SO COMING BACK FROM THE HOUSE? MM-HMM . IT'S UH, ABOUT 12 FEET LESS. THE BAY. THE BAY WINDOWS. HOW, HOW WIDE IS THE ENCROACHMENT? 14 FOOT WIDE. OKAY. FIVE 14. RIGHT. GREAT. AND THIS IS FOR AN OPEN PORCH? IT'S, IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE KITCHEN. OH, OKAY. SO IT IS GONNA BE ENC FULLY ENCLOSED. FULLY ENCLOSED. IT USED USED TO BE A PORCH AND, AND A ROOF ON IT. OKAY. THAT'S, I SAW THE PICTURES. I THOUGHT YOU WERE BUILDING A PORCH. RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO ME. IS THERE, UH, ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? NO, BUT, OKAY. UM, NO QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN FOR A, UM, A 12 FOOT, UH, DEEP BY 14 FOOT WIDE ADDITION THAT'S ENCROACHING, UH, SIX FEET INTO THE REAR SETBACK. I'LL DO IT. I HAVEN'T READ ONE YET. ALRIGHT, HERE IT COMES, . LET'S SEE HERE. UH, RIGHT REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 1 0 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 14 FOOT, UM, UH, SETBACK FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR, UH, A A FOR A 12 BY 14 FOOT WIDE ADDITION, REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME SITUATED AT 36 14 BROOK DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, BLAZE THEM ORTIZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, YOU FIND THAT THE VARIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE PROPOSED PRIMARY STRUCTURE. ADDITION TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF ONTO ABUTTING PROPERTIES DUE TO TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN THE, A APPLICANT HAVING LIMITED SPACE TO EXPAND THEIR PRIMARY STRUCTURE INTO THE BACKYARD, WHICH, WHICH PREVENTS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE. BY GRADING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE ABSURD AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND PROVIDE THE PROPERTY OWNER MORE SPACE TO IMPROVE THEIR HOME. FOUR VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE PROBATION OF THE OPERATION OF EASE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES ON THE OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE'S SUFFICIENT SEPARATION AND MITIGATE RENT, RAIN, WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SPREAD. SIX. THE PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE C CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. APPLY TO THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPTH OF THE REAR YARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BONNI. UH, I'LL JUST SAY I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, SEEMS, UH, IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL AND, UM, NO ONE'S OPPOSED TO IT. SO COMMISSIONER BENI? YEP. I CONCUR. UH, THE TWO NEIGHBORS TO THE BACK, UM, IN THE REAR SUPPORT IT. AND, UH, IT, IT'S ONLY SIX FEET, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. ALRIGHTYY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE. HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR. ORION. UH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. YOU, I CONCUR. [02:50:01] ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 11 TO ZERO. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LAST ITEM. ITEM NUMBER 12. ITEM NUMBER 12. UH, BO OA DASH 26 1 0 3. ZERO ZERO. UH, 1 1 0 LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, LOCATED AT 2 85 POST AVENUE. UH, CURRENT ZONING OF R SIX CD WITH A CONDITION THEY USE FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE STANDARDS TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD AND A 25 FOOT SEVEN INCH WIDE DRIVEWAY IN THE SIDE YARD. THREE. A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE STANDARDS TO ALLOW CARPORTS IN THE, TO ALLOW CARPORTS IN THE SIDE YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTWARD NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ALONG POST AVENUE BASED ON HISTORICAL IMAGERY. A HOME WAS, WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THIS LOT WAS DEMOLISHED SOMETIME BETWEEN 2016 AND 2018 AND HAS SINCE REMAINED VACANT. THE APPLICANT'S SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONED A CHANGE OF ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IN 2023 TO ALLOW THE CONDITION OF USE OF THREE DWELLING UNITS AND NOW PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO PRIMARY STRUCTURES TO HOUSE THESE THREE UNITS. CURRENTLY THE PROPOSED DESIGN DOES NOT MEAN CERTAIN BASED ZONING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS. BEFORE A PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED, THE APPLICANT MUST MODIFY THEIR PROPOSED, UH, DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODE STANDARDS OR OBTAIN VARIANCES FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FROM THESE STANDARDS. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN PHOTO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, REDUCING THE SETBACK TO 10 FEET ALONG THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHERWISE INAPPROPRIATE MASSING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TWO. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTY AS A PROPOSED 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO MITIGATE ANY FIRE, SAFETY, WATER RUNOFF OR MAINTENANCE CONCERNS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE NCD DESIGN VARIANCES, UH, BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, FINES OF FACT ONE A LATER ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. RATHER STRICT ADHERENCE TO THESE STANDARDS WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE THOUGHTFUL DESIGN AND A GREATER CREATIVITY TO BALANCE PROJECT INTENT WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. TWO. THESE VARIANCES WOULD INJURE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY BY DEVIATING FROM THE APPLICABLE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD CREATE A LACK OF AESTHETIC COHESION WITHIN THE DISTRICT. NO DOUBT OUT. 17 NOTICES SIR. RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS, UH, RECEIVED. THE WESTFORD ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, DOES NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST. THAT CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION. SO REALLY QUICK, DID YOU GET A RESPONSE FROM THE MILITARY? I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID. OKAY. I I WE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, 'CAUSE TYPICALLY WE WILL NOTIFY FOLKS WHO ARE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL TAX CODE AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MILITARY GETS A NOTICE LIKE THAT, BUT WE DO NOTIFY JBSA ON CERTAIN ITEMS. WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH ZONING, DO YOU RECALL IF THEY HAD ANYTHING? IT DID GO TO JBSA WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE REZONING AND THEY DEFINITELY DID THEIR STANDARD COMMENT OF NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE USE PER SE. OKAY. AND DID, AND THE, AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE SEEING BEFORE HERE IS, IS THAT THE, UH, CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY ZONING OR DURING ZONING? I THINK PATRICK COULD ANSWER THAT. ALRIGHT. MANANA COME. ONA COME. ONA MANANA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, AT, FOR THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FROM NUMBER ONE AND TWO AND THREE IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE NCD. UM, AND IF IT HAD NOT BEEN, WOULD THOSE EVEN BE IN DISCUSSION FOR TWO AND THREE? WOULD THOSE HAVE BEEN IN? CORRECT. OKAY. THOSE ARE NCD REGULAT DESIGN REGULATIONS. SO, SO NOT AN ISSUE WITH THE CITY FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. UM, AND THEN, UM, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SCREENS THAT SHOWED WHO'S IN FAVOR, SO, SO THE NCD, IS IT SPONSORED BY THIS GROUP HERE? SO THE WEST ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD [02:55:01] THAT IS THE NAME OF THE NCD I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY WERE YES. INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN REGULATION. YOU APPEAR TO BE IN SUPPORT OF ALL THREE. ALRIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HEARD MY QUESTION. I WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT THAT SITE PLAN TO SEE IF IT WAS PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 15 EAST COMMERCE. I'LL EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT HERE. SO I DID THE REZONING BACK IN 2023. WE ORIGINALLY WENT IN FOR FOUR UNITS WITH AN IDZ DESIGNATION AND A LARGER STRUCTURE, UM, THAT PRETTY MUCH SET THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HAIR ON FIRE. THEY DID NOT WANT THE IDZ, THEY DID NOT WANT FOUR UNITS. SO WE AGREED TO DO THREE UNITS AND AS PART OF THAT, WE, WE, WAS THERE A POINTER? DID I HAVE IT? AH, AS PART OF THAT NEGOTIATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'S VERY ACTIVE, WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SMALLER STRUCTURE UP FRONT AND THEN A, A REAR STRUCTURE OF COURSE AT THE REAR. UM, AND I HAVE A DEPICTION OF THAT. I'LL SHOW YOU HERE IN A SECOND. BUT, BUT THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE, WE ENDED UP GOING WITH THE, THE, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS R SIX CD FOR THE CONDITIONAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE THREE UNITS. AND AS PART OF THAT AND, AND WHAT HA AND SO THAT HAPPENED IN 2023. WE GOT SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NO OPPOSITION FROM JBSA AND WE WERE APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION WHEN THE INTERVENING THREE YEARS. THE DEVELOPER, I'VE GOT LOLLY LENE, SHE'S THE ARCHITECT AND THE DEVELOPER HERE WITH ME. YOU, UM, YOU KNOW, INTEREST RATES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE WERE SOME DELAYS. SO CHIEF GOES IN TO SUBMIT ALL THE BUILDING PLANS AND WE FIND OUT, OKAY, WE'VE GOT THESE OTHER ISSUES. AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN WE WERE, WE WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT THE REAR SETBACKS, WE WERE ASKING FOR IDZ, BUT THEN WHEN WE AMENDED THAT TO CD, OF COURSE THE SETBACK HAS TO APPLY. UM, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, UH, HOW WE, HOW WE GOT HERE AGAIN. UM, SO FOR THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE THAT IS THIS RIGHT HERE, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO APOLOGIZE IF YOU CAN GO BACK AND FORTH. CAN YOU SHOW MY LITTLE EXHIBIT I HAD? I THINK I CAN DO THIS. OH, OKAY. SO IF YOU LOOK RIGHT HERE, THIS IS SORT OF AN AERIAL, YOU KNOW, AS, AS YOU SAW WITH THE, THE NOTIFICATION MAP WE'RE SURROUNDED BY FORT SAM. THERE'S A BIG PARKING LOT BACK HERE THAT WILL BE NOTHING, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE 10 FEET VARIANCE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR FROM THE REAR. AND THEN ON THE DRIVEWAY, WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE WEREN'T REALLY TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY WHEN WE WENT THROUGH ZONING, BUT AS WE GOT TALKED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEY WANTED A 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY TO COMPLY WITH FIRE REGULATIONS. WE GOT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO AGREE TO 15 FEET. SO WE DESIGNED A 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. BUT THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THE NCD ONLY ALLOWS A 10 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THIS VARIANCE, I MET WITH, UM, JOE BRAVO WITH THE WEST FORD ALLIANCE AND, AND THEY GAVE HIS NON NON-OP OBJECTION TO THE 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. AND THIS IS THE, WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 25 FEET IS WHERE WE HAVE THE CARS COME IN HERE FOR THE TWO UNITS UP HERE. AND OF COURSE THE ONE UNIT BACK THERE TO GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER DRIVEWAY, WE, WE'VE AGREED TO DO EITHER GRAVEL OR PERVIOUS PAVERS, GRAVEL WITH THE HEXAGON MATERIAL THAT KEEPS THE GRAVEL FROM, FROM GOING EVERYWHERE. SO WE DON'T HAVE SOME GIANT PARKING LOT BACK THERE. AND THEN THE LAST VARIANCE OF COURSE IS THE, I APOLOGIZE, LEMME READ THIS, MAKE SURE I GET IT CORRECT. UM, TO ALLOW THE CARPORTS IN THE SIDE YARD. WELL THESE ARE THE TWO CARPORTS, AGAIN, I'LL READ WHAT WEST FORD ALLIANCE WROTE. THE CARPORT, ALTHOUGH IT VIOLATES THE ENTITY AS BEING IN FRONT OF A HOUSE, IT IS HIDDEN BY THE FRONT STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE POSES LESS OF A CONCERN TO THE ASSOCIATION. SO THAT WAS KIND OF PART OF OUR GOAL WAS TO HIDE THE CARS BACK THERE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU END UP WITH SEEING FROM THE STREET, A NICE SORT OF COTTAGE STRUCTURE. SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. UM, WE WOULD ALSO JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET THESE VARIANCES, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REZONE AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO OUR SITE PLAN. SO WE RESPECT, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I JUST HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHEN, WHEN YOU DO A REZONING AND IT HAS THE NCD, DOES COUNCIL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THROUGH CONDITIONS TOWARDS AN NCD? NO SIR. YOU DON'T? OKAY. YEAH. JUST FOR ALL REZONINGS, IT DOES HAVE TO COME WITH A STIPULATION THAT OWNERS ARE AWARE THAT IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH UDC AND YEAH. AND BECAUSE IT, I I, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE AND THEM WANTING A CERTAIN WIDTH OR, I MEAN THERE MIGHT, I JUST THINK THERE MIGHT, SHOULD HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDABLE. WOULD NEED TO DO SOMETHING. OKAY. SO YOU'RE PUTTING IN, YOU'RE PUTTING IN THESE THREE UNITS, YOU'RE NEXT TO FORT SAM, AND, AND WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, THE, THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DIDN'T HAVE MEETINGS AND YOU OH YES. WITH THEM AND NUMEROUS MEETINGS AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE THREE UNITS AND THE SITE PLAN WE HAVE. AND WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE HAD TO GO BACK FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE, I IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO JOE BRAVO, THE PRESIDENT, WHO'S STILL THE PRESIDENT, HE WAS THREE YEARS AGO AS WELL, TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HE WAS KINDA THE OPINION. OKAY. WE ALREADY PROVED THIS THROUGH ZONING, JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU SUPPORT. OKAY. WELL, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. ALRIGHT. ANYONE SET HIM TO SPEAK? NO, DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE HERE. ALRIGHT, GREAT. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. REED COMMISSIONER REED. [03:00:03] OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD AND A 25 FOOT SEVEN INCH WIDE DRIVEWAY IN THE SIDE YARD. AND THREE, THE VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW CARPORTS IN THE SIDE YARD SITUATED AT 2 8 5 POST AVENUE APPLICANT BEING PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE NOT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SETBACK VARIANCE. THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE REAR IS ARMY BASED. FORT SAM HOUSTON FACILITY PARKING LOT AND REDUCING THE SETBACK TO 10 FEET ALONG THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHERWISE INAPPROPRIATE MASSING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NCD DESIGNED VARIANCES. THESE VARIANCES WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY WOULD NOT INTRODUCE ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN FEATURES THAT DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE NCD AESTHETIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SETBACK VARIANCE. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS SIMILARLY SITUATED. LOTS ALONG THIS NORTH SIDE OF POST AVENUE WOULD BE PERMITTED. THE REQUESTED 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK BY RIGHT NCD DESIGN VARIANCE SAYS LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A PROPOSED VARIANCES WOULD NOT REPRESENT A SUSPICIOUS, SUSPICIOUS, UH, DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SETBACK VARIANCE GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS EVERY OTHER LOT ON THIS BLOCK FACE WOULD ALREADY BE PERMITTED. A 10 FOOT SETBACK IN THE REAR NCD DESIGN VARIANCES. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THESE VARIANCES AS THEY WOULD NOT CREATE A NOTICEABLE LACK OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE EXISTING SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SETBACK VARIANCE. THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AS THE PROPOSED 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK WOULD NOT, WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO MITIGATE ANY FIRE, SAFETY, WATER RUNOFF OR MAINTENANCE CONCERNS. NCD DESIGN VARIANCES THESE VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE SURROUNDING PROPERLY AS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE INTRODUCED BY THIS PROJECT. SIX. THE PLAY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE THAT SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SETBACK VARIANCE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CONDITION EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY REGARDING THE ABUTTING PARKING LOT. THIS CONDITION WOULD PRESENT, PREVENT THE APPEARANCE OF OVERCROWDED STRUCTURES IN THE AREA AS THERE ARE NO OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. NCD DESIGN VARIANCES PLAY THE OWNERS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CONDITION OF THE LIMITED REAR YARDS SPACE FOR THIS PLA PLACEMENT OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURES AND OF VARIANCE. SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER REED? UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, I THINK THE FACT THAT THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN SUPPORT OF IT, UH, SAYS QUITE A BIT AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. SO, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANNA. YEAH, I, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND SO ONCE THEY'RE PRESIDENT, ALWAYS A PRESIDENT. UM, SO, SO I CAN SEE WHY IT IS THE SAME PERSON'S IN THERE. AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, NCDS ARE, YOU KNOW, I WAS TOLD IN COMMUNITIES IT'S A PRO AND A CON AND YOU KNOW, HERE IS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE I THINK IT'S A PRO BEING THAT THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BRINGING THAT ENGAGEMENT IN SO THE COMMUNITY CAN CONTINUE TO PRESERVE HOW THEY WANT THEIR COMMUNITY TO LOOK. AND SO, SO WE'RE BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS, UH, AND I THINK THIS IS WHERE IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT PARTICIPATION. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER MENNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER E BON, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER [03:05:01] BONIA? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. UH, 10 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT. ANYTHING GOING [ Director’s Report  ] ON THIS SUMMER? WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT . UH, WE DID ADVERTISE FOR THE, UH, VACANT POSITIONS FOR THE AT LARGE, UH, BOAS. HOPEFULLY WE GET SOME APPLICANTS IN AND GREAT. WELL, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, IT IS FOUR 15 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.