[00:00:36]
THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC, WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDERGONE INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE, UNDERGONE, WON, AND INDIVISIBLE.
[ 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.THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE LINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE.
THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
UH, LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS A CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING.
UH, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETEN AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
UH, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF THOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS ASSERT THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
UH, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S.
DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL, UM, BEFORE YOU DO YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT'D BE GREAT.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ PRESENT, COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER GOMEZ PRESENT, COMMISSIONER MENNA PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN.
UH, WE'RE WAITING ON ONE MORE.
UH, COMMISSIONER WHO WILL BE WITH US SHORTLY.
STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF REQUEST.
PRIOR PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AIR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION IN QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST OR BOTH VARIANCE.
YOU'LL BE CALLED IN ORDER TO SIGN TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED MAXIMUM THREE TIMES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE TI MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED MAXIMUM THREE PEOPLE ABOVE, TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
UH, THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
UH, NOW THAT WE HAVE 10, UH, WE BUT WE WILL HAVE A FULL BOARD LATER, WE'RE
[00:05:01]
GONNA JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE ONLY ITEM WHERE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A AN APPROVAL.SO IF WE COULD PLEASE HEAR, UH, ITEM TWO REGARDING 29 35 CASTORVILLE ROAD.
MY NAME IS JOEL VELA, SENIOR, UH, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
ITEM TWO IS BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 26.
THE APPLICANT BEING LPA DESIGN STUDIOS IN DISTRICT FIVE.
UH, THE LOCATION IS 29 35 CASTROVILLE ROAD AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN ELIMINATION OF THE 10 FOOT TYPE A BUFFER ALONG ACME ROAD AND AN ELIMINATION OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER ALONG CASTROVILLE ROAD SLIDE.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTIONS OF US HIGHWAY 90 AND STATE HIGHWAY 1 51 ALONG CASTROVILLE ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS COMPOSED OF MULTIPLE LOTS AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING ALLEY RECENTLY RE PLATTED INTO A SINGLE LOT.
THE SITE IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR A NEW CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIRE STATION.
AND AS PART OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG CASTROVILLE AND ACME ROAD IS REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
SHOWN HERE IS THE SITE PLAN, UH, AND THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BUFFERS THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED TODAY, REQUESTED FOR ELIMINATION AND AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE'S THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUFFER YARD VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 26 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE COMMUNITY OUTWEIGHS THE COST OF ELIMINATING LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS TO SCREEN THE FIRE STATION FROM THE CASTROVILLE ROAD AND ACME ROAD THOROUGHFARES.
AND TWO, THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS ARE INTENDED TO SCREEN USES IN A C3 ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE ROADWAYS.
HOWEVER, THE FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY USE IS NOT OF COMPARABLE INTENSITY TO USES TYPICALLY EXPECTED IN A C3 DISTRICT AND SHOULD THE THUS NOT BE HELD TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARD STAFF MAILED 30 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION ZERO VOICEMAILS.
THE LOS HARENA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND THE WESTWOOD SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
THE COMMUNITY WORKERS COUNCIL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
OKAY, JUST REAL QUICK, WHY IS, UH, THE RIGHT OF WAY SO DIFFERENT ON ACME ROAD? 'CAUSE IF THEY PLOTTED IT, SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE GIVEN UP A SOLID RIGHT OF WAY ON THE ENTIRE WEST SIDE? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT KIND OF JUT OUT BIT THAT COMES OUT? I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT.
YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 FEET OR WHATEVER, I MEAN THERE'S MORE THAN 10 FEET RIGHT THERE.
UH, I KNOW THAT IT RECENTLY DID GO THROUGH THE REPL PROCESS AND THAT SHAPE THAT YOU SEE THERE IS WHAT WAS MAINTAINED.
UM, SO I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT THE REASON IS, BUT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LOOKED AT DURING THAT PROCESS, I'M SURE.
IS THAT THE APPLICANT? COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON FOR NANDA MORALES, LPA DESIGN STUDIOS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT.
SO, UM, WE ARE GOING TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO OUR REQUEST SO WE'RE NO LONGER GOING TO BE REQUESTING ELIMINATION OF THE TWO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
INSTEAD, WE INTEND TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED TYPE A BUFFER ALONG ACME ROAD.
AND WE WOULD INSTEAD LIKE TO ASK FOR A 50% REDUCTION IN THE BUFFER PLANTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TYPE B BUFFER ALONG CASTROVILLE ROAD, WHEREAS THE, UH, TYPE B BUFFER ALONG CASTROVILLE ROAD WOULD'VE TYPICALLY REQUIRED, UH, GIVEN THE LENGTH OF THE SITE, TWO CANOPY TREES, TWO UNDERSTORY TREES, EIGHT LARGE SHRUBS, AND 12 MEDIUM SHRUBS DUE TO, UM, SITE ELEMENTS SUCH AS DRIVEWAYS, DETENTION PONDS, UM, AND A SIDEWALK BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA ITSELF, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PLANTABLE AREA.
UM, OUR LANDSCAPE TEAM HAS TO TOUGH DETERMINED THAT WE CAN, UM, COMPLY UP TO A DEGREE OF 50% WITH THE REQUIRED BUFFER, UM, PLANTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO IN THIS CASE, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO ONE CANOPY TREE, ONE UNDERSTORY TREE, FOUR LARGE SHRUBS AND SIX MEDIUM SHRUBS THAT WE COULD PROVIDE, WHICH AGAIN WOULD BE ROUGHLY 50% OF THE NORMAL REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN I WOULD ALSO STATE THAT, UM, AS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THE, UH, THE RED LINE THERE, UM, ALONG THE PART OF THE SITE ON CASTROVILLE ROAD DEMARCATES, THE INNER BOUNDARY OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WE WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL PLANTING BEYOND THAT LINE, CLOSER UP AGAINST THE FACE OF THE
[00:10:01]
BUILDING.ADDITIONAL SHRUBS, WHICH ALTHOUGH NOT ABLE TO BE COUNTED WITHIN THE UM, LANDSCAPE BUFFER ITSELF, WILL NONETHELESS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE EMBELLISHMENT, UM, ALONG THE FACE OF THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING.
ALRIGHT, SO DO YOU KNOW WHY THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY IS SO DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT ON ACME ROAD? I I WOULD HAVE TO ECHO STAFF ON THAT AND SAY I DON'T, UM, I WOULD NEED TO, UM, RELAY THAT QUESTION TO MY CIVIL ENGINEER SO I WE COULD GET AN ANSWER.
ALTHOUGH, UM, WHEN THE SITE WAS REPLANTED, UM, EX THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ALONG ACME WAS MAINTAINED.
SO THERE IS A RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S JUST NARROWER, UM, AT THE, ALONG THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE SITE, UM, THAN IT IS ALONG THE SOUTHERN HALF.
YEAH, I I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S A CITY PROJECT THAT THEY'RE, THEY DIDN'T, DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE UP RIGHT AWAY? NO.
IT, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DUE TO THAT.
UH, LET THE RECORD SHOW ONE 11 AND COM AND WE HAVE AN, UH,
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO.
UH, SO YOUR, YOUR TESTIMONY OR AS YOU'RE TALKING TO US RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 50% ELIMINATION, BUT, BUT THAT'S NOT, YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE 15 FOOT TO SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT, RIGHT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PLANTING MATERIAL? NO, SIR.
CORRECT, BUT THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TODAY.
THE, THE, WELL SEE HERE'S THE, HERE THIS IS WHERE THIS QUESTION'S GOING.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ASK FOR THAT BEFORE AND WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED.
SO IS CAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CHANGE THE TYPE OF BUFFER OR ONLY THE WIDTH? AND I'M ASKING BECAUSE I'VE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD ASKING SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT ALLOWED.
SO I'M, I'M, I JUST WANT TO HEAR OUT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR SOMEBODY TELL ME WHETHER IT CAN BE DONE OR NOT.
NOT ON REDUCTION OF THE PLANTINGS.
YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE, THE TIGHT BUFFER, ONLY THE WIDTH MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA.
BUT IF IT IS THAT WE GO THROUGH AND VOTE THE ELIMINATION OF IT, THEY CAN STILL PLANT IT THEN.
SO, SO YOU CAN STILL COMPLY WITH WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT'S BEFORE US, IF WE GO THROUGH WITH THAT, THEN, THEN YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANNA DO.
BUT, UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING SIR, IS ELIMINATION AND THEN REPOSITIONING OF THE LANDSCAPE.
BUT THEN IF THE BOARD APPROVES AN ELIMINATION, THEN YOU'RE FREE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING BUT NOT REQUIRED.
THEY'RE DO NOT REQUIRED THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TYPE OF BUFFER, ONLY THE WIDTH OR MAKE IT GO AWAY.
AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, IS FOR ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER ALTOGETHER, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THEN YOU'RE FREE TO DO WHATEVER PLANTING BUFFER YOU WOULD LIKE WITHIN.
THE BUFFER DOESN'T EXIST, SO WHATEVER LANDSCAPE PLANNING YOU WANNA DO IS UP TO YOUR, UP TO THE CITY'S DISCRETION.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT I WAS REALLY HAPPY THAT YOU WERE GIVEN A PRESENTATION THAT YOU'RE GONNA PUT IN THE BUFFER AND, AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE THAT AS WELL.
AND YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING GOOD TO ADD THERE.
AND SO, UM, DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY.
UM, YEAH, IT CERTAINLY WASN'T OUR INTENT TO ELIMINATE ALL LANDSCAPING.
WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AS MUCH AS WE COULD.
SO, UM, IN THAT CASE THEN, THEN WE WOULD, UH, STICK WITH OUR REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFER ALONG CASTORVILLE ROAD.
AND, AND, AND ALONG AC ACME BUT NOT ACME.
SO, SO NO ISSUE WITH THE ACME? CORRECT.
UPON FURTHER STUDY BY THE LANDSCAPE TEAM, THEY FIGURED OUT THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT ONE.
IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK.
AT THE BEGINNING YOU MENTIONED A RETAINERS UPON, CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE IT'S GONNA BE IN THE, ON THESE PLANS? CERTAINLY.
SO WE'VE GOT TWO, AND I APOLOGIZE, THEY'RE SORT OF FAINT ON THE DRAWING, BUT ONE IS LOCATED HERE AND THE OTHER IS LOCATED HERE TO THE LEFT.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND I THINK, UH, THEY, THEY'VE, THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THEY CAN PROVIDE A, A, A LANDSCAPING ON ACME, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE THE FULL, UH, REMOVAL ON CASTOR
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 26 A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR AN ELIMINATION OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER REQUIRED A ALONG CASTROVILLE ROAD SITUATED AT 2 9 3 5 CASTROVILLE ROAD.
[00:15:01]
DESIGN STUDIOS 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A 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.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE FIRE STATION WILL PROVIDE A PUBLIC GOOD FOR THE GENERAL VICINAL VICINITY AND IMPROVE OVERALL PUBLIC SAFETY.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY ARE SUCH THAT THE INCLUSION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY WOULD LIMIT THE FUNCTIONAL SPACE TO OPERATE THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY USE THREE.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD, THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD, IS INTENDED TO SCREEN USES IN THE C3 ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE ROADWAYS.
HOWEVER, THE FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY USE IS NOT OF COMPARABLE INTENSITY TO USE IS TYPICALLY EXPECTED IN C3 DISTRICT AND SHOULD THUS NOT BE HELD TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF 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.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY WILL PROVIDE A PUBLIC GOOD FOR THE GENERAL VICINITY, VICINITY AND IMPROVE OVERALL PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES FOR THIS AREA.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 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 TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO THE LOT SHAPE AND SIZE, WHICH PRESENT UNIQUE SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD TO SCREEN THIS USE FROM THIS ROADWAYS, THE WIDER COMMUNITY WILL STILL ENJOY A NET BENEFITED PUBLIC SAFETY FROM THE INSTALLATIONS OF A NEW FIRE STATION AT THIS LOCATION.
UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
I APPLAUD THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH, UH, THE BUFFER YARD ALONG, UH, CASTROVILLE ROAD IS GONNA BE ELIMINATED, THAT YOU'RE STILL PLANNING ON PUTTING IN SOME LANDSCAPING TO SOFTEN UP THE, THE LOOK OF THE FIRE STATION.
SO, UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
YEAH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING FOR THE SAME REASON AS MY COLLEAGUE.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? AWESOME.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
UH, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1101.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF AT THE NEXT MEETING, UH, TO CLARIFY, UH, THIS, THE BUFFER TYPE ISSUE BECAUSE THE UDC SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE DEPTH OR COMPOSITION OF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
AND SINCE WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS ASK FOR THIS BEFORE AND STAFF HAS TOLD THEM NO, UH, IT'S, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE UDC TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE FUTURE.
CAN YOU, UM, GIVE ME THE EXACT LOCATION IN THE CODE AGAIN? SURE.
THAT'S IN SECTION, UH, THIRTY FIVE FIVE, TEN FOUR.
AND MAYBE UDC REWRITE CLARIFICATION TOO.
IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE.
YOU ALL READ SOMETHING INTO THE RECORD FIRST.
UM, ITEM ONE, UM, BO A CASE 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 AN APPEAL AT 1603 AND 1611 BROADWAY.
I'M THE INTERIM INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK AFTER THIS.
SO, TODAY'S, UM, ITEM IS AN APPEAL OF MY DECISION TO APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUXILIARY STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE IN CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTROOM STRUCTURE OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
[00:20:01]
THE SITE AND SITE AND LANDSCAPING WORK IN GENERAL, UM, LOCATED IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO.UM, THIS CAME BEFORE THE HCRC.
THE HCRC ISSUED, UM, TOOK ACTION TO APPROVE STIPULATIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS REVIEWED TODAY TO CONTEST A COUPLE OF THOSE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE ADDED.
SO THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THAT SITE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY IN NEWELL IN RIVER, UH, RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO.
UM, THIS CASE HISTORY WILL NOTE THAT THE HDRC CONSIDERED THE ITEM A COUPLE OF TIMES.
UM, THE FIRST WAS, UM, IN APRIL.
UM, AND THEN AT THAT HEARING, THE REQUEST WAS REFERRED TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THAT IS A WORK SESSION, UH, FORMAT WHERE COMMISSIONERS CAN REVIEW THE REQUEST IN DETAIL, UM, IN ORDER TO TAKE ACTION AT THE NEXT HEARING.
AND SO THAT ITEM CAME BACK BEFORE THE HCRC ON MAY 6TH.
UM, THE HCRC REVIEWED THE CASE, UM, AND, UH, TOOK ACTION TO INCLUDE TWO STIPULATIONS, UM, WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU IN DETAIL HERE IN A MINUTE.
UM, HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE SITE AS PROPOSED.
UM, THERE ARE TWO AUXILIARY STRUCTURES THAT WERE REVIEWED.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE ONE ON THE RIGHT ON BROADWAY.
THE ONE TO THE SOUTH IS ON NEWELL.
AND THERE WAS A CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED ON THE SITE PLAN.
AND THAT WAS PART OF THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST AS WELL.
UM, THE FINDINGS CONSIDERED BY THE HCRC, THESE WERE IN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL.
UM, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WERE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
I'M NOT GONNA READ EACH ONE OF THESE, UM, BUT THEY ARE IN THE PACKET FOR REFERENCE.
I WILL NOTE THAT FINDINGS, UM, D AND F UM, IN PARTICULAR RELATE TO THE AUXILIARY STRUCTURE TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS THE SITE WORK.
UM, SO THEY VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS WITH TWO ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS.
THE FIRST IS THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING TREES BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED SITE DESIGN.
UM, AND THEN TWO, THAT THE AUXILIARY STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH BE RELOCATED TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE AGAINST THE ALLEY.
AND SO TO ILLUSTRATE, WHAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE IS THAT BUILDING THAT IS TO THE SOUTH THERE ON THE LEFT ON NEWELL WOULD BE TURNED 90 DEGREES ALONG THE ALLEY.
UM, THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE ALLEY, SO THIS WOULD BE THEIR WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
IT WOULD STILL BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE SKATING RINK.
UM, JUST NOT LOCATED ON NEWELL.
UM, BEFORE YOU TODAY, UM, YOU'RE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THOSE STIPULATIONS.
UM, THE UDC STATES THAT IN TERMINATING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE APPEAL, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS THAT THE HDRC CONSIDERED.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE THE FULL HDRC PACKETS AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
UM, AND THEN THOSE FINDINGS OF FACTS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HEARING.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, SO IF WE, IF, IF THIS GETS APPROVED TODAY, UH, DOES IT GO BACK TO Y'ALL TO LOOK AT WHATEVER IT IS THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO DO? SO IF THIS WAS APPROVED, IF THE APPEAL WAS APPROVED, UM, THEY WOULD NOT BE HELD TO THE STIPULATIONS AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH PERMITTING.
UM, IF IT WAS NOT APPROVED AND IT'S DENIED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STIPULATIONS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A PERMIT FOR THE SITE.
AND, AND WHAT WAS THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY DURING THE MEETING? WAS THERE SUPPORT FOR THE STIPULATIONS OR WAS IT, UH, DO YOU RECALL? I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS CASE.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? STEVENS, COMMISSIONER STEVENS, COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT INTO WHY THE REQUEST WAS MADE TO RELOCATE THE BUILDING? 'CAUSE IT KIND OF SEEMS RANDOM ON THE SURFACE.
YEAH, SO DURING THE DISCUSSION AT THE COMMISSION, THERE WAS A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE STREET EDGE.
UM, GENERALLY WITHIN RIO, UH, WE ARE LOOKING AT BUILDINGS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND SO THE STREET EDGE, STREET CONDITIONS BECOMES REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND THAT HAS BEEN THE FOCUS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ALONG BROADWAY.
UM, IN OUR REVIEW OF STAFF, WE REALLY VIEWED THESE AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND SO THERE WERE A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THESE DIDN'T REALLY COULDN'T MEET, YOU KNOW, SO WE WEREN'T REALLY APPLIED.
UM, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT I'VE GOT IN FRONT OF ME, UM, UDC SECTION 35 6 7 3 FOR SITE DESIGN.
IT SAYS BUILDINGS SHOULD BE CITED TO HELP ANIMATE THE STREET SCENE AND DEFINE STREET EDGES.
THE PLACEMENT OF A BUILDING ON A SITE SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK AND HOW THE STRUCTURE WILL SUPPORT THE BROADER DESIGN GOALS FOR THE AREA.
UM, AND THEN ORIENTED BUILDING'S, PRIMARY ENTRANCE TOWARD THE STREET.
AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT THERE'S NO FRONT DOOR TO THIS BUILDING.
IT'S REALLY KIND OF CONCESSIONS TICKET SALES THAT WOULD FACE THE PROPOSED RINK AND USE OF THE SITE.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT THE RELOCATION WAS REALLY TO KIND OF MITIGATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BACK OF THIS BUILDING BEING ORIENTED TOWARDS THIS, TOWARDS THE STREET.
UM, I WILL NOTE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE IS HERE AND THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN.
WELL, I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
UM, SO THIS IS IDZ AND IT'S RIO TWO AND IT'S, UH, URBAN CORRIDOR.
A LOT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, IDZ IS IS LIKE A SCULPTING, KIND OF A ZONING CHANGE.
WAS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE IDZ SITE PLAN THAT THIS WAS DEVIATED FROM? OR WAS IT IN LINE WITH THE, UH, COUNCIL APPROVED SITE
[00:25:01]
PLAN? YOU KNOW, WE, I THINK THE IDZ PERTAINED MORE TO THE USE.UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DETAILED SITE PLAN.
I THINK IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS PRIOR TO THE, OH, LIKE THE CITY, IT WAS A CITY ONE CITY.
THE CITY DID, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A SITE PLAN IF THE CITY MOVED FORWARD.
I I THINK IT'S JUST BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THIS WAS REZONED.
OH, OH, I, I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO THE, LIKE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
IF YOU RELOCATE THAT TO THE ALLEY AND IT'S THE TICKETING AND KIND OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE SKATING RINK, YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SKATING RINK TO GET YOUR TICKET TO GET, I MEAN, I'M JUST, ANY CONSIDERATION FOR KIND OF FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE SITE PLAN AS THEY'RE KIND OF DECIDING WHERE THE BUILDINGS GO? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO, CAN YOU CLICK ON THAT SO I CAN GO BACK? OKAY.
UM, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD PROHIBIT, UM, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER KIND OF SPATIAL THINGS TO WORK OUT, BUT I WAS JUST OBSERVING THAT.
SO, UM, STILL LOOKING AT IT FROM A, HIS, THE HISTORICAL OVERSIGHT I GUESS, AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT COMPONENT OF IT.
BUT, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE REST OF THE BLOCK OR THE REST OF THE DISTRICT, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THIS, IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING OFF FROM WHAT IT IS THAT, THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE REST OF THE DISTRICT LOOKS LIKE AND THAT'S WHY KIND OF THIS IS BEING REVIEWED THIS WAY OR YOU TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS CONSISTENCY AND YOU KNOW HOW WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT THIS IS, THIS IS A SOMEWHAT UNCONVENTIONAL REQUEST AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT REALLY PRECEDENT FOR IT THAT THE HCRC HAD PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, UH, REVIEWED SOMETHING BY TO GO OFF OF.
AND SO, UM, I DO THINK THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SORT OF MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE STREET EDGE WITH THIS NOT BEING A TYPICAL LOT LINE TO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT.
AND WOULD MOVING IT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE AREA THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE INTO THE SKATING THING? OR, OR WOULD CHANGE THE SHAPE I GUESS POTENTIALLY.
I THINK POTENTIALLY AGAIN, THE A OKAY.
AND THEY COULD TALK THROUGH THAT.
LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
AND WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU, I LOOKED UP THE ORDINANCE AND IT WAS ONE OF THE OLDER ONES, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS OVER AN ACRE, THE, IT'S MORE OF A BROAD LOOK OF THIS IS WHERE COMMERCIAL ZONING'S GONNA BE.
IT DOESN'T CALL OUT EXACT LOCATIONS OF ANY BUILDINGS OR SQUARE FOOTAGES.
TELL US YOUR NAME AND LET'S, LET'S HEAR ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
JAMES MCKNIGHT WITH ORTIZ MCKNIGHT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH CORY WAS GONNA PUT INTO THAT, SO I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT THAT I'VE GOT MAYBE SOME REPEATS, BUT THERE IS SOME COMPLEXITY TO THIS.
I HOPE I CAN HELP SORT THAT OUT.
UH, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE SITE, I WON'T GET INTO THAT.
BUT THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT I REALLY WANT TO DISCUSS, OBVIOUSLY THE RIO TWO OVERLAY IS THE REASON THAT WE'RE IN FRONT OF HDRC AND IT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE.
AND, UH, THAT ORIGINAL REQUEST, TWO STRUCTURES, LANDSCAPING AND FENCING.
I'M REALLY JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT RELOCATION OF THE, THE ONE STRUCTURE.
AND THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
SO IT IS UNCONVENTIONAL IN THAT NOT JUST THE SITE, BUT IN THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR OVERTURNING OF A PARTIAL APPROVAL BECAUSE WE DID GET APPROVAL, BUT IT WAS TO MOVE THE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO, IS TO A, APPROVE THE APPEAL BY LEAVING THE BUILDING IN PLACE AS, UH, ASKED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT, AS, AS YOU'LL SEE IN MY PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS A MISAPPLICATION OF THOSE HDRC, OR I'M SORRY, THE UDC STANDARDS TO THIS SITE.
SO COREY ALREADY MENTIONED IT, BUT I HIGHLIGHTED THIS TO, TO SAY THAT YOU, THE BOA HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS, WHICH IS WHY I'M GONNA BE WALKING THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE CASE IS BECAUSE I'VE GOTTA PRESENT TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TO THEM TO, I THINK MAKE A LITTLE MORE SENSE AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE REQUESTING.
SO THIS SITE, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE, IT'S USED SEASONALLY.
IT'S USED AS A PUMPKIN PATCH, AS AN ICE RINK AT TIMES.
IT'S VERY UNIQUE IN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A SPACE ON THE INSIDE THAT CAN CHANGE WITH TIME, UH, TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY USES OPEN SPACE, COMMUNITY USES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
NOW, WE DID ASK FOR A PERMANENT SLAB WHERE WE COULD PUT THE ICE RINK ON AT THE TIME OF CHRISTMAS, BUT THE REST OF THE TIME IT'S OPEN.
BUT THERE WERE SOME CHALLENGES TO THAT IN THAT THERE WERE NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS WE WERE DOING THIS.
WE'RE ASKING FOR TWO PERMANENT STRUCTURES, ONE FOR THE RESTROOMS, MAKES SENSE, AND ONE FOR JUST AUXILIARY USES THAT'S STORAGE, SOME ELECTRICAL FACILITIES.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION, WE THOUGHT THOSE PERMANENT FACILITIES SHOULD BE DESIGNED MORE THAN JUST SLAPPED DOWN.
SO AS PART OF LOOKING THROUGH THE, THE RIO SITE, UM, WELL, I'LL, I'LL PAUSE THERE FOR A SECOND.
JUST, JUST TO SAY, IF YOU LOOK HERE, YOU
[00:30:01]
CAN SEE THAT THE LOT TO THE WEST, COREY MENTIONED IT.WE DON'T OWN THAT LOT, BUT WE HAVE USED THAT LOT WITH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OWNERS NEXT TO US.
AND THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHY WE ARE, UM, ASKING FOR THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING WHERE IT IS.
BECAUSE THE, THE REASONS FOR RIO THAT OVERLAY IS TO CONNECT THINGS, CONNECT PEDESTRIANS, AND IN OUR CASE TO THE WEST, IF YOU GO UNDERNEATH THAT UNDERPASS UNDERNEATH, UH, THE HIGHWAY ON NEWELL, THAT'S THE PEARL.
AND THEN THE RIVER'S RIGHT THERE.
SO THE CONNECTION IS FROM BROADWAY DOWN THROUGH THE PEARL TO THE RIVER.
WE'RE NOT ON THE RIVER UNIQUE SITE IN THAT WAY, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH PEOPLE THROUGH.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THAT RED ARROW, RED ARROW, THAT'S WHERE THIS PICTURE IS TAKEN.
SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THOSE SITES CONNECT AND HOW WE'RE TRYING TO DRAW PEOPLE THROUGH THAT SITE TO OUR SITE, WHICH ON OUR SITE PLAN, THAT IS WHERE THE ENTRANCE ENTRANCES, THERE YOU GO.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT RED ARROW INDICATES OUR INTENT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING PEOPLE COME IN OFF THAT SIDE AND WHY WE HAVE LOCATED THIS BUILDING TO THE WEST, OR I'M SORRY, TO THE SOUTH IN THIS CASE IT'S PLAN WEST HERE.
SO THAT'S ONLY, IT'S, IT'S 870 SQUARE FEET.
HERE'S A, A BLOW UP OF THAT BUILDING.
IT'S A 14 FOOT BRICK BUILDING.
AGAIN, FLOOR STORAGE SPACE, FLEX SPACE, AND AN ELECTRICAL ROOM.
BUT AS COREY SHOWED THIS PICTURE, WE'RE TRYING TO INTEGRATE THAT BUILDING INTO THE SURROUNDING AREA, CREATE A STREET EDGE, THAT SIDEWALK TO THE SOUTH ON NEWELL, THAT'S A 20 TO 30 FOOT SIDEWALK.
AND WE'VE GOT, UM, LANDSCAPING THERE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE ON THE CORNER RIGHT HERE.
THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK INTO THE SITE, OPEN SITE TO JOIN THOSE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES.
SO THE ENTRANCE HERE ISN'T THE BUILDING ITSELF, IT'S TO THE SITE AND IT'S RIGHT THERE LOCATED ON THE CORNER.
YOU CAN SEE THE LANDSCAPING ALONG BROADWAY, THE LANDSCAPING ALONG NEWELL.
WE HAVE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF CREATING THIS OPEN COMMUNITY, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY USERS, UH, SPACE.
AND WE WANTED THOSE BUILDINGS WHERE THEY ARE.
SO THEY COULD SET A STREET EDGE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ALONG BROADWAY, AND LEAVE IT OPEN SO YOU CAN CONNECT THROUGH THE ALLEY.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ALL OF THESE, BUT THESE ARE THE, THIS IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHY THE RIO OVERLAY EXISTS.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE RIVER, OTHER WATERWAYS AS WELL, LIKE SAN PEDRO CREEK, BUT IT'S THE UNIQUE EXPERIENCES THAT THE RIVER OFFERS.
THAT'S THE REAL, AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM.
THEY ALL TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT INTEGRATION OF THE RIVER AND THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE.
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT ON THE RIVER.
IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT WE ARE CONNECTING THROUGH.
SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT DOWN TOWARDS THE RIVER, NOT THE RIVER ITSELF.
SO HD'S PURVIEW, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS TO THE, THE HEART OF, OF WHY I'M HERE.
THEY LOOK AT IN SECTION 35, 6 70, YOU LOOK AT TWO BROAD CATEGORIES, AND I HAD TO PARSE THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT.
YOU LOOK AT CHARACTER AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY IN SECTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SLIDE, THE BOTTOM DESIGN OBJECTIVES, THAT'S IN SECTION, UH, 35, 6 70.
THOSE ARE BROAD OBJECTIVES OF RE TWO.
BUT YOU ALSO LOOK, HDRC IS LOOKING AT THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE SET IN, IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS, SITE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND IN SECTION 35, 6 71, YOU CAN SEE APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED IF IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER IN THE APPLICABLE GUIDELINES.
SO I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT HOW HDRC IS SUPPOSED TO APPLY THOSE IMPORTANT RIO TRAITS AND THESE SECTIONS DIRECTLY TO OUR REQUEST.
AS CORY MENTIONED, STAFF, UH, DID THEIR OWN FINDINGS ON THIS, AND FOU FOUND THAT OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RIO.
AGAIN, THAT'S GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND THE SITE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO HERE ARE THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES IN SIX 70, ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE WITH HIGH QUALITY STREET SCAPE DESIGNS.
WE PUT LANDSCAPING IN THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE STREET TO CREATE THAT ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CULTURAL TOURISM.
AS I SAID, THIS IS A, A SPOT TO HAVE OPEN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, EMPHASIZES STREET EDGE TO ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE.
AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT SEVERAL TIMES.
THAT'S WHAT THE LANDSCAPING IS FOR, TO CREATE THAT EDGE JUST AS YOU DO ALONG BROADWAY.
MAXIMIZE USABLE OPEN SPACE, PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PASSIVE RECREATION AND COMMUNITY GATHERING.
THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS SITE.
SO THOSE ARE GENERAL OBJECTIVES.
HERE ARE THE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE MORE, UH, DETAILED.
SO IN 6 73 B, IT'S TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ORIENTATION.
[00:35:01]
DESIGN, BUILDING ORIENTATION.UNDER SITE DESIGN, HELP DEFINE ACTIVE SPACES, PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, ANIMATE THE STREET SCENE AND DEFINE STREET EDGES.
AS COREY EVEN READ THIS QUOTE, PLACEMENT OF A BUILDING SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK, AS WELL AS HOW THE STRUCTURE WILL SUPPORT THE BROADER DESIGN GOALS FOR THE AREA.
WE PURPOSEFULLY SET THESE STRUCTURES TO DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
AND AGAIN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ORIGINALLY WAS THAT WE DID MEET THOSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT I'M GONNA POINT OUT, SECTION 6 73 N THESE HAVE TO DO WITH SERVICE AREAS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
THIS IS NOT UNDER SITE BUILDING ORIENTATION.
BUILDING ORIENTATION IS WHERE THERE ARE CLEAR GUIDELINES ON WHERE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PLACED.
SERVICE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT JUST HAS TO DO WITH USES.
IT TALKS ABOUT SERVICE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE VISUALLY UNOBTRUSIVE, INTEGRATED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE SITE IN THE BUILDING.
THOSE USES NEED TO BE INTEGRATED WITH THE SITE AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.
WE PUT THEM IN PERMANENT STRUCTURES, THE THE RESTROOM BUILDING AND THIS AUXILIARY STRUCTURE, NOT JUST SLAP THEM DOWN ON THE ALLEY HERE, HERE'S WHERE THE, THE GARBAGE GOES.
LOCATE SERVICE ENTRANCES, WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS, AND OTHER SIMILAR USES ADJACENT TO SERVICE LANES AWAY FROM MAJOR STREETS AND THE RIVER.
THOSE USES SERVICE ENTRANCE, WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS SIMILAR USES.
WHAT'S SIMILAR ABOUT THE USES, THEY'RE EXTERIOR.
THOSE, THAT'S WHERE THE GARBAGE, UH, UH, DUMPSTERS ARE THE SERVICE ENTRANCES.
THEY WANT TO BE VISUALLY UNOBTRUSIVE AND LOCATED SOMEPLACE ELSE.
THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE USES WITHIN A BUILDING, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXTERIOR.
AND WE DID LOCATE THEM NEXT TO A SERVICE LANE, WHICH IS, UM, OH, YOU CAN'T SAY IT IN THIS PICTURE, BUT THE SERVICE LANE IS ON THE BACK, UH, NEXT TO THE ALLEY.
MY POINT IS THAT THE, IF YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING IN 6 73 N THAT HAS TO DO WITH SERVICE USES.
IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT LOCATING THINGS ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SITE.
AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS WE GET TO COMMISSIONER'S STATEMENTS.
COREY MENTIONED THERE WAS AN APRIL 15TH HEARING FIRST, AND AT THAT TIME, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONER'S, COMMISSIONER FETZER ASKED WHY THOSE BUILDINGS WERE FRONTING ON BROADWAY AND NEWELL.
WE EXPLAINED HOW WE'RE TRYING TO CONNECT TO THE OTHER SIDE WE'RE WE EXPLAINED HOW WE TRYING TO MAKE THESE BUILDINGS PERMANENT, BUT THIS IS WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
THE SAME COMMISSIONER THEN POINTED OUT SEVERAL ITEMS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SERVICE USES THAT THE DUMPSTERS COULD POSSIBLY BE SEEN.
THAT THERE WERE, THERE WAS A GENERATOR SOMEWHERE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
EXHAUST FANS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
AND THAT THERE WERE WALL PACK LIGHTS.
THOSE UGLY AND INDUSTRIAL LOOKING LIGHTS THAT WE SEE WERE ON THE EXTERIOR.
AND THEY SAID, IF THOSE ARE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, THEY NEED TO BE MOVED.
SO WE DID, THOSE ARE ALL DESIGN ELEMENTS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE THE BUILDING TO CHANGE THOSE PIECES AND, AND ADDRESS WHAT HE DID.
SO THAT WAS BETWEEN APRIL AND THEN MAY.
UH, THEY HAD A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, THEN THERE, THERE WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT WAS SPLIT.
SO THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER FETZER SAYS, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT WITH MOVING THIS BUILDING.
AND HE STATED THE REASON WAS BECAUSE IT WAS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE UDC AND HOW LOCATION OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITES IS PHRASED.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SITE BUILDING STANDARDS TALKS ABOUT IN TERMS OF UTILITY BUILDINGS AND UTILITY USES.
HE SAID THIS IS A UTILITY BUILDING.
PLACING IT OFF A UTILITY ALLEY IS MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE SITE DESIGN STANDARDS.
IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MOVING UTILITY BUILDINGS SOMEPLACE.
IT IN THE UTILITY SECTION, IT TALKS ABOUT NOT HAVING THINGS BE SHOWN AND VISIBLY INTRUSIVE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE A BUILDING TO DO THAT.
SO THE WAY I'M SEEING WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY MISAPPLIED THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT SERVICE USES TO THE BUILDING ORIENTATION STANDARDS.
THAT'S A MISAPPLICATION THAT'S, THAT'S NOT IN THEIR AUTHORITY TO SAY, WELL, I DON'T LIKE THAT THIS USE IS WITHIN A BUILDING, SO I'M GONNA MOVE THE BUILDING.
IF YOU LOOK DOWN BROADWAY, YOU DON'T THINK THAT THOSE BUILDINGS ON BROADWAY HAVE, HAVE SUPPORT USES INSIDE THEM.
OF COURSE THEY DO THAT ARE ALONG THE STREET.
YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE INSIDE THE BUILDING.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE THE BUILDING FOR THAT.
IF YOU DON'T WANT THE DUMPSTER THERE, THEY'RE, IT'S COMPLETELY SCREENED.
IN OUR CASE YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT YOU COULD JUST SAY, OKAY, WE'LL PUT THE DUMPSTERS OVER THERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE AN ENTIRE PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
AND WHY WOULD WE GO THROUGH THE, THE, THE EXERCISE OF CREATING A STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS WITH THIS PERMANENCE, WITH THE BRICK TO MATCH THE BUILDINGS DOWN BROADWAY.
IF IT WASN'T TO BE ON THE STREET AND FRAME THAT EDGE, IF WE WERE GONNA PUT THEM ON THE BACK ALLEY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
BUT THE, THE POINT FOR US IS THAT WE WANNA LEAVE THAT OPEN AND CONNECT IT TO THE PEDESTRIANS THAT ARE FLOWING THROUGH.
[00:40:01]
SO IN SUMMARY, WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO APPROVE OUR APPEAL, ALLOW THE AUXILIARY BILLING TO STAY WHERE IT IS.WE'VE ALREADY MADE THE DESIGN CHANGES NECESSARY THAT MAKE IT, UM, UH, WE PUT MORE DECORATIVE WALL LIGHTING, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE'VE GOT RID OF THE EXHAUST FANS.
WE PUT PERMANENT SCREENING UP, SO YOU CAN'T SEE ANY OF THE OTHER USES.
UM, WE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
THEY, THEY ASKED ABOUT, UM, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
UH, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT WE HAVE MET THE UDC AND THAT THE, THE HDRC IN MAKING THIS CHANGE, MISAPPLIED THOSE STANDARDS.
UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MANNA.
SO I'M LOOKING AT AN AERIAL VIEW OF GOOGLE EARTH ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SEALED.
UH, IT WAS CONSTRUCTION, KIND OF FENCING, I GUESS ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY.
AND, AND SO, SO THE PICTURE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING IS VERY OPEN WITH NO FENCING OR ANYTHING.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE FENCING AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? NO, SIR.
IT'S GONNA BE COMPLETELY OPEN LIKE IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWING.
I I THINK THERE, THE, THE PLAN IS TO HAVE SOME, UH, SECURITY FENCING THAT CAN BE CLOSED IN, IN CERTAIN TIMES, BUT OTHERWISE, YES, IT IS NOT TO, IT IS NOT A, THE INTENTION'S NOT TO HAVE, UH, FENCING ALL THE WAY AROUND IT LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
AND SO, BECAUSE IT DID SHOW ON THAT AERIAL AS WELL, IS IT DID HAVE A SIDE ENTRANCE OFF OF, UM, NEWELL AND THEN, AND THEN THE OTHER ENTRANCE LOOKED TO BE ON THE BACKSIDE WHERE IT IS THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THE, THE BUILDING.
AND SO, UM, SO I GUESS, UM, YEAH, I WAS JUST CALLING OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO PICTURES AND JUST TRY TO PUT MY HEAD AROUND.
WELL, AND, AND TO YOUR POINT, UH, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE, THAT'S HOW THE SITE LIVES RIGHT NOW.
YOU CAN SEE IN THIS ONE, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME STRUCTURES THAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN OTHER PICTURES.
AND THAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS APPLICATION WAS TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA PUT DOWN THESE PERMANENT STRUCTURES AND REALLY, UM, MAKE THE SITE FRAMED AND MORE PERMANENT SO WE DON'T JUST HAVE THIS ALL THE TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STEVENS, COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND BRAGMAN.
I JUST HAD A, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THIS, IS THIS STRUCTURE CONDITIONED? NO, IT'S NOT.
AS EXHAUST FANS, IT'S NOT CONDITIONED.
DO, DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IS COMING IN? IS LIKE THE PRIMARY DISCONNECT ON THIS BUILDING? IT'S COMING IN OFF OF BROADWAY AND IT'S GOING TO THAT CORRECT THAT BUILDING? THAT'S RIGHT.
HAS, HAVE THE DUMPSTERS BEEN RELOCATED? IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
AND WE TO ADDRESS, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE IT.
WELL, YOU CAN SEE IT UP AT THE, THE TOP HERE ON, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT STRUCTURE, THE DUMPSTER'S THERE AND IT HAS A PERMANENT FENCE AROUND IT.
COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN? YEAH, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
UM, STAFF IS REFERRING TO AN ALLEYWAY, BUT I'M NOT SEEING IT.
I SEE IT ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT I DON'T PHYSICALLY SEE IT ON A GOOGLE STREET VIEW.
YEAH, YEAH, YOU CAN'T REALLY, IT'S NOT DEFINED THE WAY YOU SEE IT IN THE DRAWING.
BUT THAT, THAT IS AN ACTUAL PLATTED ALLEYWAY, IT'S 12 FOOT WIDE, IS THAT WHAT IT SHOWS? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UH, MR. CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR A HARDSHIP CASE FOR THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS JUST MERELY DID THE STAFF MAKE AN ERROR IN THE DECISION THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO APPEAL? YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THERE'S DISCRETIONARY HERE AND, UM, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH WHAT STAFF HAS, HAS, HAS SAID.
AND, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS THAT THE SECTION IS, UM, THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO PROBABLY BE AWARE OF A 35 6 73 B THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S THE SITE DESIGN STANDARDS OR THE BUILDING ORIENTATION, I SHOULD SAY.
BUT B VERSUS N IS THIS THE PART OF THE SITE DESIGN STANDARDS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT ACTUALLY GIVING AUTHORITY TO MOVING BUILDINGS? YEAH.
IS UNDER B YEAH, SO B STATES JUST, UH, BUILDINGS SHOULD BE CITED TO HELP DEFINE ACTIVE SPACES FOR AREA USERS.
PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS BETWEEN, BETWEEN SITES, HELP ANIMATE THE STREET SCENE AND DEFINE STREET EDGES CONSIDERATION OF BOTH THE STREET AND RIVER OR CREEK SIDE SHOULD BE GIVEN PLACEMENT OF A BUILDING ON A SITE SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK, AS WELL AS HOW THE STRUCTURE WILL SUPPORT THE BROADER DESIGN GOALS FOR THE AREA.
SO SOUNDS VERY, VERY, UH, SUBJECTIVE
[00:45:02]
OKAY.UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, I, I, I WANNA SAY ONE THING.
IT IS, IT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE, HOWEVER, IN THE, WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY THE MOTION TO MOVE THE BUILDING, THE COMMISSIONER SAID THE REASON WAS BECAUSE UTILITY USES NEED TO BE ON AN ALLEY, WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SECTION, IN MY OPINION.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR, FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, A A, A VOTE IN SUPPORT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT? YES.
UH, REGARDING CASE NO BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 33, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1611 AND 1603 BROADWAY STREET, APPLICANT BEING ORTIZ MCKNIGHT, PLLC, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SO AS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN THE DECISION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT HERE.
UM, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE AND, AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT HE WAS MAKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE UTILITIES AND SUCH AND THE DECISIONS THAT THE HDRC MADE, I THINK ARE CONTRAST OR CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SEEKING AND WAS ABLE TO REMEDY WITH THE DESIGN, UH, THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING FOR THE SITE.
I THINK, UM, TRYING TO CREATE AN EDGE LONG RENEWAL MAKES SENSE AND IS GOOD PRACTICE FROM AN URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT.
AND I, I GET WHAT THE APPLICANT'S TRYING TO DO TO CONNECT BROADWAY TO THE PEARL.
SO IT MAKES SENSE FROM A POSITIONING STANDPOINT.
AND YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY THE SITE IS PRETTY SAD.
STATE OF AFFAIRS, PRETTY HODGEPODGE AND, AND THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY ON A MASONRY BUILDING.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HERE? UNANIM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
YES, YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR, BUT THE, IT WAS VOTE WAS EIGHT, UH, TO TWO, UH, WITH ONE ABSTENTION, SO IT DID NOT PASS TODAY.
ANYONE LIKE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND BEFORE WE MOVE ON? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
ITEM THREE IS CASE BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 9.
UH, LOCATED IN DISTRICT 10 12 8 2 3 BELL DRIVE.
UH, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR FULL SCREEN ON THAT.
UH, ONE A THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 17 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 13 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AND FOUR, A NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT.
PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT NINE INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE.
UH, THE APPLICANT INTENDS A COMPLETE REMODEL RECONSTRUCTION AND HOME ADDITION TO A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY CONDUCTED IN FEBRUARY, 2026 FOUND PROPER PERMITS FILED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THAT TIME.
SINCE THEN, WORK HAS EXCEEDED THE INTENDED SCOPE OF WORK, UH, FOR THE ISSUED PERMITS AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN ADVISED TO OBTAIN A NEW HOME PERMIT REQUIRING A FULL PLAN REVIEW.
THE NEW PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME ENCROACHES INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD AND A PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR THE ISSUANCE OF A VARIANCE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF OBSERVED A NEW FENCE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FEET AND WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DRIVEWAY AND STREET CORNER, CLEAR VISION AREAS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BELL DRIVE AND MIDDLE LANE STOP SIGNS ARE PROVIDED ON ALL FOUR
[00:50:01]
UH, APPROACHES.UH, SO SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, JUST WANT TO NOTATE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSED OFF OF BELL STREET HERE GOING THIS WAY.
UH, AND HERE'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FACING BELL STREET.
THIS IS THE CONDITION THAT CREATES, UH, THE REAR YARD BEING LOCATED ALONG.
UH, THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY 12 9 0 6 MIDDLE LANE.
UH, HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THOSE COLUMNS GOING IN FOR THAT FRONT YARD FENCE.
AND HERE'S A BETTER LOOK OF THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION BEING DONE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, AND AGAIN, THOSE COLUMNS IN THE FRONT YARD.
HERE'S A LOOK AT THE CORNER AND THE EXTENT OF THE FENCE THERE.
AND THE REAR YARD, WHICH ABUTS THE SIDE PROPERTY, LINE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CREATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY ENFORCING A REAR YARD STANDARD WHERE A SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD TYPICALLY BE EXPECTED.
AND TWO, THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO SUPPORT ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS INTENDED BY THE SETBACK STANDARD.
AND THREE, AN ADEQUATE CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD REMAIN TO SUPPORT SAFE USE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CORON CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE FENCE TO ALLOW A MOTORIST TO VIEW AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE INTERSECTION.
AND TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA DO NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED AND SIMILAR FENCING ENCROACHING INTO THE MINIMUM CLEAR VISION AREA.
SO THIS IS NOT A FEATURE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT WOULD LIMIT VISIBILITY ACROSS THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY, THEREBY DETRACTING FROM THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT IS TYPICAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND TWO, NO AUTHORIZED OR SIMILAR FENCES, UH, WERE OBSERVED WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF MAILED 19 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION.
WE RECEIVED, UH, RECEIVED NO VOICEMAILS AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, UH, SO THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
I'M, UH, REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF THIS, UH, CASE.
AND INITIALLY, UH, LI UH, LIKE WAS, UH, REFERRED TO BEFORE THE PERMITS WERE, UH, OBTAINED AND THERE WAS AN ADDITION PERMIT, UH, AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S OUR MAJOR CONCERN IS, UH, GET THAT, UH, THREE FOOT, UH, INGRESS OR, UH, UH, UH, ENCROACHMENT ON THAT REAR 20 FOOT SETBACK.
'CAUSE UH, IF, UH, WE'RE, UH, NOT ALLOWED THAT, UH, ENCROACHMENT, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TEAR THAT DOWN.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS JUST GONNA BE AN ADDITION AND REMODEL.
THE, THE, UH, LOT WAS SO, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS SO DILAPIDATED.
IT, UH, BY THE TIME THEY TOOK OUT ALL THE ROTTEN, UH, UH, WOOD AND EVERYTHING, THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT EXCEPT FOR THE FOUNDATION.
AND SO THE OWNER DECIDED TO REBUILD.
AT THAT POINT, THE CITY, UH, STOPPED HIM AND, UH, MADE HIM, UH, PULL A PERMIT FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND THAT'S WHEN THIS WHOLE ISSUE, UH, UH, MANIFESTED ITSELF.
WE DID, UH, UNDER THE ADDITION PERMIT, THEY WERE BUILDING THAT BACKSIDE.
THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW, UH, THE CITY GRANTED A, UH, AN ADDITION PERMIT ALLOWING THAT THREE FOOT, UH, ENCROACHMENT.
AS FOR THE, UH, FENCING, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OWNS, UH, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND THAT'S HIS RESIDENCE ON MIDDLE LANE.
AND HE'S BUILDING THIS PROPERTY FOR HIS DAUGHTER.
UH, HE CANNOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW.
HE'S SUSTAINED A HEART ATTACK DURING ALL THIS AND, UH, IS BEDRIDDEN RIGHT NOW TRYING TO RECOUP.
BUT HE IS TRYING TO, UH, BUILD THIS PROPERTY FOR HIS DAUGHTER, KEEP HIM HER CLOSE, AND, UH, GIVE HER, YOU KNOW, NICE RESIDENCE TO LIVE IN.
SO, UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW, UH, YOU WANT TO APPROACH THIS, UH, WITH THE FENCE.
IF, IF, UH, WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT WE CAN, UH, APPROACH THE OWNER ABOUT DOING THAT.
UM, WELL ONE QUESTION ABOUT A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE.
UH, DO Y'ALL LOOK AT THE, UM, THE, THOSE PILLARS OF STONE PILLARS WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE 70%? OR DO YOU JUST AVOID THOSE?
[00:55:01]
IT'S THE, IT'S THE CUMULATIVE, UM, PERCENTAGE OF, OF TRANSPARENCY.SO WE DO INCLUDE IT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S LARGELY, PREDOMINANTLY, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IN THIS CASE.
SO YOU, YOU STILL DEFINE THIS AS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN PASS? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MAD.
SO THERE'S A, IF I LOOK ON, UH, GOOGLE DRIVE, THAT THERE'S AN EARLIER FENCE, WHICH WAS LIKE A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND IS THIS FENCE LOCATED IN THE SAME LOCATION? YES, IT IS.
SO, UM, AND SO, UM, SO ONE QUESTION I GUESS.
SO YEAH, IT'S IN THE SAME SPACE AND, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FENCING ALONG THAT WHOLE STREET THAT IS IN THAT SAME DISTANCE.
SO, UM, WOULD THERE BE ANY ABILITY TO, UH, ANGLE THE CORNER, UM, TO PROVIDE MORE LEEWAY, UH, YOU KNOW, TO ROUND THAT CORNER OUT WITH THE FENCING POTENTIALLY? I THINK HE WOULD BE, UH, AMIABLE TO THAT.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT SAFETY AND SURE.
AND SO, UM, AND ON A CORNER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE AS MUCH SPACE AS WE CAN.
AND I'M SURE THAT WITH HI, UH, BEING THAT, UH, HIS DAUGHTER'S GONNA BE OCCUPYING THE RESIDENCE, HE, HE WANTS HER SAFETY ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS 25 FEET IS PRETTY BIG DISTANCE THERE.
AND IS THAT A, IS THAT LIKE A ACROSS THE ANGLE PIECE, YOU KNOW, ON THE CORNER ITSELF, IT'S NOT 25 FEET ON EACH SIDE, RIGHT? IT'S 25, I GUESS.
HOW DO YOU DO THAT MEASUREMENT? YEAH, SO IT'S MEASURED FROM THE, THE CURB 25 FROM THE CURB INTO THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN, UM, FROM THAT POINT YOU MEASURE BACK OUT TO THE OTHER CURB 25 FEET AND KIND OF WHEREVER THOSE TWO POINTS MEET IS THE CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA.
SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A HOUSE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ON A MAJOR INTERSECTION THAT I CALLED IN ON AND THEY SAID IT COMPLIES AND IT'S NOT THAT, AND SO, SO, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS THE ANGLED PIECE THAT THEY'RE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH.
UM, HOW BUSY IS THAT STREET? IS IT, IS IT FAIRLY BUSY STREET? UH, IT, IT HAS ITS TIMES DURING, UH, SCHOOL HOURS AND STUFF, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A HEAVY TRAFFIC, UH, UH, RIGHT OF WAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, SO YOU'VE, SO YOU'RE A, YOU'RE AMICABLE TO HAVING THAT CORNER MOVE BACK A LITTLE BIT? SURE.
BECAUSE CURRENTLY BASED ON THE STAS MEASUREMENTS, IT WAS, UM, IT'S ONLY 12 FEET OFF OF THE CURB.
COULD YOU, I MEAN, I'M SURE WE COULD, UH, TAKE THAT, UH, UH, JUST DEMOLISH THAT AND RELOCATE IT.
AND YOU'VE GOT A CPS POLE THAT RUNS ALONG YOUR SIDE OF BELL, IT LOOKS LIKE? YES.
IS THAT, IS THAT POLE ON THE PROPERTY LINE? I'M NOT SURE.
I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONFLICT WITH THAT POLE ON THE FENCING.
OR IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IF THE FENCE IS FALLING THE SAME LINE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT FIVE FEET OUT FROM THE FENCE.
SO PER THE, PER THE STREET VIEW.
AND JUST TO ADD A BIT OF COMMENTARY ON WHAT THE, UM, WHAT WAS STATED EARLIER, THE ADDITION PERMIT WAS, UH, ISSUED FOR, UM, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK.
THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO, UH, PERMIT COUNTER STAFF SHOWED A 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK PROPOSED.
UH, SO THAT PERMIT WAS ISSUED AS THAT WOULD HAVE COMPLIED, UH, WITH THE STANDARD.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS, UM, CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD.
UH, I JUST WANNA REITERATE, STAFF IS, UH, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE SETBACK REQUEST.
THIS IVANEZ, UM, STAFF ALSO MADE APPROVAL FOR THE CLEAR VISION.
UM, SO WITH THAT REQUEST OF PUSHING THAT CORNER BACK, THAT WAS THE DRIVEWAY? THAT WAS FOR THE DRIVEWAY? YES.
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE DRIVEWAY REQUEST.
UM, 13 FOOT SEPARATION THAT WE OBSERVED THERE.
UM, RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR THE CORNER, SINCE IT IS SUCH A MAJOR DEPARTURE, THE DRIVEWAY WAS ONLY TWO FEET OFF FROM BEING COMPLIANT, BUT THE CORNER'S MUCH MORE THAN THAT.
SO WE, WE, WE CAN LOOK AT THIS ALL TOGETHER OR WE CAN BREAK IT OUT.
I MEAN, WHATEVER Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO DO.
WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION AFTER, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HEAR FROM, YOU KNOW, THE TONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UM, TO THE APPLICANT.
SO ON THE EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR FIVE FOOT NINE, COULD YOU LIVE WITH FIVE FOOT? 'CAUSE IT'S ONLY NINE INCHES DIFFERENCE.
AND IS THAT THE PILLAR HEIGHT OR IS THAT THE, THE ACTUAL FENCE HEIGHT? THAT'S THE, TO THE TALLEST POINT, I APOLOGIZE, I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WHICH IT IS, BUT TO THE ABSOLUTE TALLEST POINT I CAN FIND THAT.
DO YOU KNOW THE FENCE? IT'LL PROBABLY BE THE PILLAR HEIGHT THEN.
SO WE'D HAVE TO REMOVE NINE INCHES OFF, UH, THE EXISTING PILLARS.
[01:00:02]
I'D PROBABLY KEEP THE PILLARS.AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TOOK, AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY DIFFERENTIATE THOSE, YOU KNOW, FROM PILLARS TO THE FENCE HEIGHT, BUT IF IT'S JUST A FENCE, THE, IF THE FENCE IS AT THE STANDARD HEIGHT, WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE THE FENCE SHORTER.
SO WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE PILLARS DON'T SEEM TO BE OF ISSUE, BUT IT'S JUST THE FENCE WOULD BE LIMITED.
IT'S THE ACTUAL BROAD IRON TO FIVE FEET.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO ANYWAY.
WELL, STAFF CAN APPROVE SIX INCHES ABOVE THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND IF I, I WOULD CALL OUT THAT IF YOU WERE TO GIVE THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT YOU WOULD SAY SOMETHING THAT IT IS FOR THE PILLARS ONLY.
YEAH, IF THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GATHERING.
THEN YOU'D ONLY HAVE TO TAKE LIKE THREE INCHES OFF THE FENCE.
IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORK.
IT'S THING, UH, THAT'S NOT BUILT YET, SO WE CAN FABRICATE IT WHATEVER LENGTH WE NEED.
WELL, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
SO, SO IF WE HAD DEFENSE, UM, SO IF, IF IT WAS BROUGHT BACK 25 FEET BACK FROM THE, FROM EACH SIDE AND THEN ANGLED FROM CORNER TO CORNER, UM, SO, SO BASICALLY CUTTING THE CORNER, UM, THE MIDDLE PART WOULD STILL BE OUTTA COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? UM, OR WOULD IT WOULD AT THAT POINT? AT THE DRIVEWAY.
SO, SO HE, WOULD IT BE, WOULD THAT EVEN BE AN ISSUE THEN IF HE BASICALLY WENT 25 FEET IN 25 FEET OVER AND ANGLED ALL THE WAY THROUGH? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANCE.
NO, IF HE'S ANGLING IT AT A, I GUESS A 45 DEGREE ANGLE IS THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ACROSS CUTTING THE, ACROSS THAT CORNER HE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, HE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT.
YEAH, I MEAN I'M PERSONALLY I'D BE, I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF LIKE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, JUST SO THE SPACING.
HE'D HAVE SOME LEEWAY WITH THE SPACING.
UH, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION.
ALRIGHT, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, WELL I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING DOWN.
UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS MOTION? STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 9, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANDER REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 17 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 13 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER.
CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA SITUATED 12 8 2 3 BELL DRIVE.
APPLICANT BEING ALLEGRE IBARRA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE REVERSE CORNER ORIENTATION OF THE HOME MAKES THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIRED.
WHERE A TYPICAL FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK WOULD BE EXPECTED.
THE PROPOSED 17 FOOT SETBACK WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE SEPARATION FOR THE PUR PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY AND WATER RUNOFF MITIGATION REGARDING DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION.
THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THIS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, ALLOWING ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO VIEW THIS VIEW AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR CORNER CLEAR VISION.
THE CORNER CLEAR VISION VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS, THERE SHALL BE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THIS OPEN FENCE TO ALLOW A MOTORIST TO VIEW AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE IN INTO THE INTERSECTION.
TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
GIVEN THE IRREG IRREGULAR YARD CONFIGURATION ON THIS LOT, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CREATE AN UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY ENFORCING A REAR YARD STANDARD WHERE A SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD TYPICALLY BE EXPECTED.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
REGARDING DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, AS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE FENCE PROVIDES A SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA TO VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
WITH REGARDS TO CORNER CLEAR VISION, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE FENCE OR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE FENCE TO PROVIDE A 20 FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA TO VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE INTERSECTION.
[01:05:01]
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK, THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSISTENT SPACE IN BETWEEN STRUCTURES IS A 17 FOOT SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE AND MITIGATE FIRE HAZARDS AND WATER RUNOFF.
UH, WITH REGARDS TO DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A MOTORIST COULD STILL ADEQUATELY VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
REGARDING CORNER CLEAR VISION, THE VARIANCE WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A MOTORIST COULD STILL ADEQUATELY VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE INTERSECTION.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
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.
WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AS THE PRO PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO SUPPORT ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS INTENDED BY THE SETBACK STANDARD.
UH, WITH REGARDS TO DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT, INJ WOULD NOT INJURE OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AS AN ADEQUATE, CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD REMAIN TO SUPPORT SAFE USE OF THE DRIVEWAY REGARDING CORNER CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WOULD NOT INJURE OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AS AN ADEQUATE, CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD REMAIN TO SUPPORT SAFE USE OF THE INTERSECTION ROADWAYS.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE SETBACK STANDARD, IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE YARD CONFIGURATION ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IMPOSES A REAR SETBACK STANDARD WHERE A SIDE SETBACK WOULD TYPICALLY BE EXPECTED.
REGARDING DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, THE P OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE EXISTING WIDTH OF THE PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE STREET, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE A CODE COMPLIANT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA ON ITS OWN.
REGARDING CORNER CLEAR VISION, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE EXISTING WIDTH OF THE PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE STREET, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE A CODE COMPLIANT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA ON ITS OWN END OF MOTION.
UM, I I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF ALL THESE.
I I DID, UM, I, I READ THE SEP OR THE, THE CLEAR VISION WITH REGARDS TO THE CORON AS A A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW SOME, SOME WIGGLE ROOM THERE FOR Y'ALL WHEN YOU GO TO RECONSTRUCT.
I WOULD BE OPEN TO, UM, TO SUGGESTIONS IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH WIGGLE ROOM, BUT, UM, ASIDE FROM THAT, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE OTHERS.
SO, AND I'M, I AM FLEXIBLE AS, AS WELL AS THAT CORNER, SO, UM, YOU, I WOULDN'T MIND GIVING MORE, BUT I'M, I'M GOOD.
DO YOU NEED MORE? I I HAVE TO TALK TO THE OWNER.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING ON LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENES? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO THE DEFENSE SITE.
STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 9.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A NINE INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT NINE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE.
SHE SITUATED AT 1 2 8 2 3 BELL DRIVE APPLICANT BEING ALL UA IBARRA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THE LIT, LITERAL ENFORCEMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.
IF GRANTED STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN THE HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT VISIBILITY ACROSS THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
THE PROPOSED FENCE APPEARS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AS NO SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF VISIBILITY OR ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
CHARACTER WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THE PROPOSED FENCE.
SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL SEE THE NEIGHBORING.
[01:10:01]
NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND THEREFORE WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT VISIBILITY ACROSS THE FRONT YARD OF ADJACENT PROPERTY.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER, WILL NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS SIMILAR FRONT YARD FENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS SIMILAR FENCING WAS OBSERVED AND THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED.
I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO TEAR APART YOUR FENCE AND BUILD IT SIX INCHES SHORTER, BUT TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF EFFORT AND TIME, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
SO, AND MAYBE I MISSED A POINT, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE PILLARS BEING AT THE HEIGHT, BUT THE FENCE POTENTIALLY BEING SHORTENED, UM, TO THE FIVE FOOT HEIGHT.
UM, IS THAT, IS YOUR INTENTION TO GIVE IT THE FULL ON BOTH OF THOSE OR? MY, MY THE WAY I READ IT OR INTENDED TO READ IT WAS THAT THE FENCE IS GOOD AS IS FIVE NINE ACROSS PILLARS AND FENCE.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NOW HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER UNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FIGHT OF FACT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
ITEM FOUR, GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD MEMBERS.
ITEM FOUR IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 2 0.
UH, THE APPLICANT BEING JOSE ANDRES ALBA IN DISTRICT FIVE.
THIS IS AT 1709 SAN PATRIZIO STREET.
UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW TWO INCH SIDE SETBACKS.
TWO, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT REAR SETBACK.
A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 35 FOOT LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 25 FOOT LOT WIDTH.
AND FOUR A 2,175 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 1,825 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF KMA STREET WITH SOUTH HAMILTON AVENUE ALONG SAN PATRIZIO STREET.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE PROPOSED, UH, LOCATION WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, UH, REQUIRED SETBACKS OF THE R FOUR ZONING DISTRICT, NOR WOULD THE LOT MEET MINIMUM DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR THE R FOUR ZONING DISTRICT.
AS SUCH, THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THESE STANDARDS BEFORE FILING A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN, AGAIN NOTING THE TWO INCH SETBACKS BEING, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE ALONG WITH UH, REAR SETBACK AND DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR THREE AND FOUR.
UH, SHOWN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AN AERIAL VIEW JUST FOR CONTEXT ON SAN PATRIZIO STREET AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SETBACK LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THESE VARIANCES WOULD NOT SERVE TO PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS DISCOURAGING, UH, CROWDING OF STRUCTURES AND INAPPROPRIATE STRUCTURAL MASSING OR ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM FIRE HAZARDS OR DAMAGE FROM EXCESSIVE WATER RUNOFF.
AND TWO, DESPITE THE CHALLENGES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT PRESENTED BY THE LOT SIZE, A NEW HOME, UH, WOULD BE PERMITTED HERE AND THE PROPERTY MAY BE REZONED TO A DISTRICT THAT IS BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING LOT SIZE TO ALLOW MORE FAVORABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, UH, STAFF MAILED 45 NOTICES ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION.
THE EL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND, NOR DID THE BRADY GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE A BIG QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO THIS IS A PLATTED ANTIQUATED LOT
[01:15:01]
AND UNDER SECTION 35 7 0 2 C AS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, THE LOT SIZE IS, IS NOT OF ISSUE.IT SHOULD AL ALREADY BE APPROVED.
WHY IF, IF APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, CORRECT? WELL, DON'T THEY NEED ONE ANYWAY? 'CAUSE IT'S AN ANTIQUATED PLAT.
I THINK THE APPLICANT'S APPROACH HERE IS TO SEE, UH, IF THERE'S PROJECT VIABILITY VIS-A-VIS THE SETBACKS PRIOR TO APPLYING AND PAYING FOR CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
UM, SINCE THAT WASN'T ALREADY IN PLACE, WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDED THE LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH JUST TO COVER THAT.
UM, YEAH, I JUST, I I HEARD A LOT OF, A LOT OF, UH, THE DISAPPROVAL SUGGESTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOT SIZE, WHICH THEY ALREADY GET A FREE PASS ON THAT ANYWAY, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HELLO SIR, PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND GOOD MARTIN LA GARZA.
UH, I'M GONNA TRY THE SETBACKS AND THE, AND THIS LEFT RIGHT SIDE TWO INCHES BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL HOUSE.
IT'S A THREE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDS.
UH, WE, YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST TO GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
IT'S A SMALL HOUSE, LIKE A THREE BEDROOMS, TWO BEDROOMS, THREE UH, BEDROOMS. IT IS 1089 LIVING AREA.
WELL, UM, I'M GONNA START OFF BY JUST SAYING THAT, UM, AS A LOT OF TIMES THESE, THESE OLDER PLATTED AREAS WOULD HAVE A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
UM, BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR TWO INCHES.
IT'S TWO INCHES AND IT'S, IT'S, YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY TOO LOW FOR ME.
UM, THE MINIMUM THREE FEET FOR EACH SITE OR FOR REQUESTING? I DON'T, I I KNOW IT IS FIVE FEET.
WELL, YOUR SITE, YOUR SITE WAS PLANTED IN 1924 AND BACK THEN THREE FOOT WAS NORMAL.
QUESTION FOR THE UPPER, HOW DOES HE PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE SIDES OF THE STRUCTURE WITH TWO INCHES? H HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN THE SIDE IF YOU ONLY HAVE TWO INCHES? WELL, YEAH, IT'S, UH, IT, NOTHING, NOTHING.
SO HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN IT? HOW DO YOU BUILD IT? HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN IT? THE SIDING IS GONNA BE CLOSE TO THE TWO INCHES.
WELL, HOW, WITHOUT GOING ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, HOW DO YOU PAINT IT? HOW DO YOU WEATHER IT? HOW DO YOU WASH YOUR WINDOWS? HOW DO YOU BUILD IT? BUT I DON'T HAVE WINDOWS ON THE SIDES.
YOU CAN'T HAVE WINDOWS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THREE FEET.
THE MAN IS MAN, DOESN'T MATTER.
YEAH, SO I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT ANYTHING LESS THAN THREE FEET, JUST SO ANYONE KNOWS THAT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE REAR SETBACK, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT? IS YOUR AC CONDEN UNIT GONNA BE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE? YES, IT'S IN THE BACK.
YOU'RE JUST USING A STANDARD? YES, IT STANDARD A CONDENSER.
SO YOU DON'T, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAINTAIN ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL IN CASE THERE WAS A FIRE OR SOMETHING, OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE? WELL, UM, IS ANYONE SIGNED TO THE SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED TO THE SPEAK.
ALRIGHT THEN I GUESS, UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS. UM, SO WHATEVER SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE ON THIS, LET'S GET THE BALL ROLLING.
STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 2 0, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND.
REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
TWO, A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A EIGHT FOOT REAR SETBACK AND 10 A 10 FOOT OR, AND THREE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED THREE FIVE FOOT LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A 25 FOOT WIDE LOT.
AND FOR A 2,175 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 1,825 SQUARE FOOT LOT SITUATED AT 1 7 0 9 SAN PA PATRICIO STREET APPLICANT BEING JOSE ANDRES UBA.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT
[01:20:01]
WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THESE VARIANCES WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEY WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH SETBACKS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT FIRE SAFETY AND TO MITIGATE WATER RUNOFF ONTO NEIGHBORING LOTS.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE PROPERTY IS THE ADEQUATE SIZE TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH THE PROPOSED SETBACKS.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THESE VARIANCES WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS, AS THE PROPOSED SETBACKS WOULD PROMOTE AN ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM FIRE HAZARDS OR DAMAGE FROM EXCESSIVE WATER RUNOFF.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE STRUCTURES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
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 IN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE THE, TO THE SUBSTANDARD LOSS SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH PRESENTS A CHALLENGE TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE SETBACK OF LOT AND LOT DIMENSION STANDARD STANDARDS OF THE R FOUR ZONING DISTRICT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES AS READ.
I READ IT SO THAT, UM, THE ONLY MODIFICATION I MADE WAS TO THE SIDE SETBACKS, ALLOWING FOR A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
I THINK THAT THAT'S LIKE THE BARE MINIMUM THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDES OF YOUR, OF THIS PROPERTY AND THEN ALSO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE REAR.
UM, YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF EVERYTHING ELSE, SO THANK YOU.
ONE THING THAT I DID NOT HEAR, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO, UM, ADD IT WAS GUTTERS SINCE THIS IS SUCH NARROW SIDE SETBACKS.
OKAY, I'M GONNA, THE GUTTERS, I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS? NO, I DON'T INCLUDE GUTTERS, BUT WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE GUTTERS.
THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS.
WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE AGAIN AND WE'RE BACK TO COMMISSIONER BRECKMAN.
BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED.
SO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS IN THE MOTION.
I APPROVE THAT AND IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER.
AND IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UH, NO, I, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION AS, UH, READ AND AMENDED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO I APPRECIATE THE COURAGE OF REQUESTING A TWO INCH SETBACK.
COMM COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR.
CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
KEEP STAYING WITHIN THREE, FOUR, YEAH.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 2 5.
LOCATED IN DISTRICT SEVEN AT 1938 WEST CRAIG PLACE.
THE ZONING IS R FOUR NCD EIGHT AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD EIGHT DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW AN ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE OPENING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S ADDRESS OFF OF WEST CRAIG PLACE AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST CRAIG
[01:25:01]
PLACE AND VOLUME AVENUE.THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PRIMARILY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOT ZONE R FOUR AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NCD EIGHT WOODLAWN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
A RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN MAY OF 2026 FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE GARAGE DOORS.
THE WOODLAWN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAS ADOPTED IN 2010, WHICH SPECIFIES DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTIES WITH NCD EIGHT OVERLAY.
THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED FOR THIS DISTRICT ARE INTENDED TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE AREA WHILE PROMOTING AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF QUALITY OF SPACES DESIGNED FOR NEIGHBOR INTERACTION.
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE WOODLAWN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIFIES THAT THE GARAGE OPENING SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND UNALTERED.
ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AFTER 2010 MUST ADHERE TO THE LATEST DESIGN STANDARDS IMPOSED BY THE ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED, THIS IS, UH, THE EXISTING AND THEN THE PROPOSED ALTERATION TO THE GARAGE DOOR OPENING.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEW FROM WEST CRAIG, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEW FROM VOLUME.
THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA FROM WEST CRAIG.
IT IS JUST TAKING A WHILE TO CHANGE SLIDES.
UM, VOLUME SURROUNDING AREA FROM VOLUME IS THE SURROUNDING AREA FROM VOL.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY STAFF RECOMMENDS, OR FOR THE GARAGE OPENING STANDARD IS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE NCD EIGHT WOODLAWN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT SO THAT HISTORICALLY COMMON SITE AND BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS ARE PERPETUATED IN THE FUTURE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARDS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST REGARDING THE PRESERVATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
AND TWO, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE GARAGE MAINTAINING TWO SEPARATE DOOR ENTRANCES, WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
WE RECEIVED EIGHT IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THAT OUTSIDE 200 FEET THERE WAS 77 RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
WE RECEIVED ZERO VOICEMAILS AND WOODLAWN LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING NOW LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
MY NAME IS JASON AMBROSE AND THIS IS MY WIFE REBECCA.
AND, UH, WE, WE HAVE A, A REMODEL PERMIT THAT, THAT USED TO BE LIKE AN EXISTING, LIKE WE, WE, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS A TENANT ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY LIVED IN THERE AND WE JUST WANT TO CONVERT IT BACK TO A GARAGE.
AND IN DOING SO, TWO DOOR GARAGE FOR US, THE SAFETY OF IT VERSUS A ONE DOOR GARAGE, WE JUST THINK THAT IT WOULD BE SAFER FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE OUR CARS IN AND, AND WHATNOT.
UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ROOF LINE.
WE'RE NOT, UM, THERE'S NO ALTERATION TO IT OTHER THAN IT'S LITERALLY JUST GONNA BE A GARAGE AND THAT'S IT.
AND IT, ARE YOU SAYING THAT AT ONE TIME IT WAS, IT IT WAS A HOUSE.
WE HAD, SHE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, A SMALL APARTMENT, SMALL APARTMENT.
WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THERE WAS ALREADY A TENANT IN, CAN YOU, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND YEAH.
BECAUSE THEY RECORD ALL THIS STUFF.
I BOUGHT THE HOUSE BEFORE I MET MY HUSBAND.
AND, UH, THERE WAS A LADY LIVING IN THAT, THAT GARAGE WAS A SMALL APARTMENT.
OH, THE GAR THE GARAGE WAS A SMALL APARTMENT.
SO NOW WE'RE HAVING MY 80-YEAR-OLD MOTHER MOVE IN, UH, WITH US AND SHE'S GOT TWO CARS AND WE HAVE TWO CARS.
SO WE'RE CONVERTING IT BACK INTO A GARAGE AND THAT'S THE PERMIT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
BUT THE, UH, NCD EIGHT DOESN'T ALLOW TO HAVE TO CHANGE THE GARAGE DOORS, WHICH IS THE CONCERN.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE PERSON DIRECTLY ACROSS THE
[01:30:01]
STREET FROM YOU HAS A, HAS THE EXACT SAME THING THEY WANT AND, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT OLD.I DON'T KNOW IF THEY, UM, WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A DOOR ON IT, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS ONE DOOR.
I KNEW THE LADY, THE WHO PREVIOUSLY OWNED THE HOUSE AND SHE JUST HAD IT OPENED UP.
IT WAS, YOU'D SEE INTO THE GARAGE.
AND THEN WHEN THE NEW OWNER, UH, PURCHASED THAT HOUSE, THEY PUT UP THE ONE DOOR.
BUT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE DOOR.
UH, I NEVER SAW LIKE THE, THE PIECE DOWN THE MIDDLE THAT SEPARATES IT.
WE DID GO, WE DID GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THOUGH TO SEE IF THERE WAS ONE DOOR GARAGES AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM AND THERE'S SEVERAL YEAH.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.
IT'S NOT, THE LOOK IS, IT'S JUST GONNA BE IN INSTEAD OF IT BEING YEAH, TWO DOORS, IT'S GONNA BE ONE DOOR, BUT LIKE THE SHIPLAP AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE WOOD AND THE COLOR AND EVERYTHING IS, NOTHING'S GONNA CHANGE THE ROOF LINE.
DID, DID, DID THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, IT'S HARD TO GET AHOLD OF.
WE TRIED A COUPLE TIMES I KNOCKED ON, I, I WENT AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YEAH, I, I, WE ALL, WE TALKED TO MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS, SO I TALKED TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND NOBODY SAID ANYTHING TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS MR. MANOR? SO DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? I DIDN'T HEAR THE NO.
I WENT TO HIS HOUSE A COUPLE TIMES, BUT HE, HE WASN'T HOME.
HE LIVES RIGHT, HE LIVES RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM US THOUGH AND YEAH, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF HIM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CRUZ? COMMISSIONER CRUZ.
SO THE CARPORT WILL STILL STAY, BUT THE GARAGE DOOR, YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVERT IT INTO TWO DOORS INSTEAD OF THE ONE.
IT'S TWO DOORS NOW AND WE WANNA CHANGE IT TO ONE BIG WHITE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PICTURES SHOW.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, UH, ANYONE SEND TO SPEAK? NOBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK.
ALL RIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN.
COMMISSIONER ANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 5.
I MOVED THE FOR ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE NCD EIGHT DESIGN CENTERS TO ALLOW AN ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING OPENING SITUATED AT 1 9 3 8 WEST CRAIG PLACE, APPLICANT BEING REBECCA VARA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IN THIS CASE THERE WOULD BE MINIMAL VISUAL CHANGE WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO-DOOR GARAGE OPENINGS WITH A ONE DOOR GARAGE OPENING.
TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS OPPOSED DEVIATION FROM THE NCD EIGHT STANDARDS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A CONSPICUOUS 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.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL STILL BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING GARAGE DOOR OPENING WOULD STILL CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN WHILE ALSO SERVING ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.
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.
SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF EXISTING FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
GRANTINGS REQUEST WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS A PROPOSED CHANGE IN GARAGE DOOR OPENING.
WOULD NOT EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT NOR INTRODUCE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD INJURE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES.
APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE, OF THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND OF MOTION.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN AND COMMISSIONER MANNA.
UM, UM, THE APPLICANT DID GO THROUGH AND GET WE'LL SAY THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH REGARDS TO, UH, APPROVING THIS.
UM, WOODLAWN LAKE DOES, DOES PROVIDE IN THE, HAS IN THE PAST PROVIDED FEEDBACK AND DIDN'T DO SO IN THIS CASE.
UM, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, UH, BUT YOU KNOW, BEING THAT THERE'S SO MANY, UH, OTHERS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE THE SIMILAR DESIGN, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE, THE NCD THERE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN.
UH, YEAH, I AGREE WITH ALL THE POINTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE, UH, BROUGHT UP, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? I'LL JUST SAY THAT I HAVE TWO SINGLE GARAGE DOORS AND, AND I DON'T HAVE A SUV AND IT'S SOMETIMES A LITTLE SPOOKY PULLING IN THERE,
[01:35:01]
HAVE A ROLL CALL.I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BEEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
MOTION PASS PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Y'ALL GOT UP EASY WAS ONLY FIVE CASES TODAY.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
RIGHT, LET IS ON TO THE MINUTES.ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES APPROVED AS WRITTEN? OKAY.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO.
IS THERE, UM, ANYBODY? I MEAN, THIS IS WEIRD.
IT'S ONLY STILL GOT A TWO IN FRONT OF THE TIME, BUT
DOESN'T FEEL, DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT, BUT WE'RE ADJOURNED.