[00:00:05]
[Call to Order]
ADJUSTMENTS MEETING IS COMING TO ORDER.BEFORE WE BEGIN, PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ON MOBILE DEVICES.
THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAGS ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.
THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THE BOARDROOM, AND THEN CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER AND THE NAMES 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.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
AS FOR THE BOARD'S RULES AND RESPONSIBILITY, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
PACIFIC POWERS, WHICH HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE CITY SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 30 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS 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 IN ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
PLEASE NOTE THAT MR. NEFF IS ATTENDING.
WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY IN THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REGARDING QUEST REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES, UH, FROM REGULATIONS WITH 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 20, UH, CHAPTER TWO 11 AND THE AND OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DECISIONS AND APPEALS.
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 THIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE IT'LL BE CLOSED AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WILL BE, WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST ON THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REP, WHICH, WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD REGARDING THE APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS SPECIAL.
EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COURT OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW.
BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL.
[00:05:01]
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE.FIRST WE WILL, UM, MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S HERE.
I BELIEVE CASE NUMBER ONE HAS BEEN POSTPONED.
THEN CASE NUMBER TWO, UH, B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 A REQUEST MY DAUGHTER, DAUGHTER DAY, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON, ON A SINGLE OPERATOR, BEAUTY, BEAUTY SHOP, BARBER SHOP, AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 39 0 6.
OKAY, THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE JUST CRAWLED.
CHAIR, IF YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MIC, MAYBE THAT WILL HELP FOR THOSE IN THE BACK.
REQUEST FOR HAM CAM PROPERTIES.
SO WE STILL UNSURE ABOUT NUMBER FIVE.
CASE NUMBER 1 5 9 MARIA H FARIA? YES.
SO WE'RE THE ONLY ONE WE'RE STILL UNSURE ABOUT IS NUMBER FIVE.
NOW THE STAFF WILL, UH, GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ON, UH, SPEAKING AND TIME OF FOR EACH WITNESS.
THE STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU WILL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU'LL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS CHAIR.
I'D LIKE TO HAND IT OVER TO ZEKE TO INTRODUCE A COUPLE OF NEW STAFF MEMBERS BEFORE WE START.
SO I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE KAYLA AL.
SHE'LL BE HANDLING OUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM.
SHE'LL ALSO BE PRESENTING TO THIS BOARD WHENEVER WE HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMING TO THE BOARD FOR AN EXCEPTION.
ALSO, JUSTIN MALONE, HE'S OUR NEW PLANNER.
HE'LL BE ASSISTING WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON UNTIL WE GET THIS POSITION STAFFED AS WELL.
UM, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, WE HAVE DEBRA GONZALEZ.
HER LAST DAY IS FRIDAY, SO WE'RE GONNA BE REPLACING THAT POSITION AND MS. RACHEL WILL BE ALSO PROMOTING UPSTAIRS AS WELL TO OUR POLICY ADMINISTRATION.
SO SHE'LL BE LEAVING THE BOARD AS WELL.
AND IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER DOMINIC SILVA, HE LEFT THE CITY TO GO TO SAS.
HE'S BACK WITH US AND HE'LL BE ASSISTING MY AGENDA
[Election of Officers]
THAT WE HAVE AN ELECTION OF OFFICERS.UH, SO THE, UM, THE CODE AS WELL AS OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT THE OFFICERS CAN HOLD
[00:10:01]
UP TO TWO, CAN HOLD UP TO POSITIONS UP TO TWO YEARS, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE TO BE ELECTED, UH, BY THE JANUARY, UH, AFTER THE ELECTIONS.AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THIS YEAR WE HAVE TO, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HOLD ELECTIONS.
SO, UH, WE CAN START WITH, UH, WE WOULD BE ELECTING ALL THREE PRO TEM THEN VICE CHAIR, THEN CHAIR.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN GO AHEAD AND IF YOU WANNA OFFICIALLY HAND IT OFF TO ME, THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE NOMINATIONS AND WE'LL DO EACH ONE, UH, UNTIL WE HAVE THE ELECTED OFFICER IN PLACE.
ALL RIGHT, SO FIRST WE'LL DO PRO TEM.
SO IF WE CAN HAVE NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR FOR PRO TEM, I NOMINATE DONALD ORIAN A SECOND.
SO IF THAT'S THE ONLY NOMINATION FOR DONALD ORIAN FOR PRO TEM, UM, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DO ALL IN FAVOR, UH, BY VOICE VOTE.
AND IF THERE'S ANY NAYS, THEN WE'LL DO A, UH, ROLL CALL VOTE.
SO, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
SO CONGRATULATIONS MR. ORIAN, YOU'RE PRO, UH, PRO TIM FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO.
NOW FOR VICE CHAIR, WE'LL TAKE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR PER I NOMINATE, UH, ALAN NEFF FOR VICE CHAIR.
ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT, IF NOT, SAME THING.
CONGRATULATIONS MR. NEFF, YOU'RE VICE CHAIR AGAIN.
AND LASTLY FOR CHAIR, LET ME TAKE NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT.
CONGRATULATIONS MR. MARTINEZ, I'LL HAND IT BACK TO YOU.
ALL RIGHT, SO I GUESS IT'S TIME TO, UH, ABOUT
[2. 20-1113 BOA-19-10300160: A request by Doroteo E. Pedroza for a special exception to allow a one-operator beauty/barber shop in a single family home, located at 3906 Longridge Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 7) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
THE CASES.MY NAME IS DOMINIC SILVA, SENIOR PLANNER COVERING FOR DEBORAH GONZALEZ.
19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 FOR THE ADDRESS OF 3 9 0 6 LONG RIDGE DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT BEING DORO TO PEDROZA HIS REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY, EIGHT 30 TO 3:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, UH, LARGE DRIVEWAY WHICH FAR AS AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS.
UH, THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE U D C BOARD.
ADJUSTMENT CAN APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR UP TO TWO YEARS.
THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT MEETING THE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS STATE IN THE CODE AND THE PROPERTY,
RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 6 0 BASED ON FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER ONE, THE HOME RETAINS ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR NATURE OF THE COMMUNITY.
TWO GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE HOURS OPERATION WILL STILL BE TUESDAY TO SATURDAY, EIGHT 30 TO THREE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
NOTICES MAILED TWO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSITION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MIC, IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU FROM OVER HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE, FROM THE DIOCESE? UM, ORIAN, GO AHEAD.
JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, DOES, DOES THE MOTION HAVE TO STATE THE AMOUNT OF YEARS OR IS THAT JUST IMPLIED? 'CAUSE IT'S HIS FIRST ASK.
JUST IMPLIED THE FIRST ONE BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR TWO YEARS AUTOMATICALLY.
LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.
[00:15:02]
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.UH, MY NAME IS OTTO PEDROZA AND I LIVE ON 39 0 6 LONG RIDGE.
I'VE BEEN A BARBER FOR 60 YEARS AND, UH, THE MAIN REASON WHY I WANNA MOVE TO MY HOUSE, UH, I HAD TWO OPTIONS RETIRE, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO AND I WON'T CONTINUE WORKING, BUT, UH, I NEED TO BE CLOSER TO MY WIFE.
UH, SHE NEEDS ME AND I'LL BE THERE.
AND, UH, IF YOU'RE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, I CAN CONTINUE TO WORK FOR WHATEVER TIME GOD GIVES ME.
SO I HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM MY CLIENTS FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE, AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THEM, UH, I GOT 'EM READY FOR YOU.
MAY SUBMIT THOSE LETTERS FOR THE FILE AND, UH, THE APPLICANT.
CRUZ MARIA? UH, SIR, YOU HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT IS OPPOSING YOU.
DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS? UH, NO, I SURE DON'T.
I THINK HE'S AROUND THE CORNER FROM YOU.
HE'S COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO ME IT'S GREAT.
WELL, I WORK, I WORK STRICTLY BY APPOINTMENT.
ONLY TWO CARS, ONE COME IN, ONE LEAVING.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTION? ARE WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION MANNA AHEAD REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 3.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOUR YEAR RENEWAL FOR A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBER SHOP IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH LIMITED HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY SITUATED AT 2 0 3 1 WEST PIN AVENUE APPLICANT BEING, AM I READING RIGHT? I BELIEVE YOU'RE READING THE SECOND ONE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0, I MOVE THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBER SHOP IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A LIMITED HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 8:30 AM TO 3:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY SITUATED AT 3 9 0 6 LONG RIDGE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING RE PEDROZA, UH, BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS ADMITTED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW IS TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR A ONE OPERATOR SHOP AS ESTABLISHED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AS SUCH, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE OF THE SUBSTANTIALLY WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SERVED AS IT WILL PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 8:30 AM TO 3:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY C THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE PRIMARILY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE BEAUTY BARBER SHOP WILL OCCUPY ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE HOME AS REQUIRED BY THE U D C.
A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT A PORTION OF THE HOME IS BEING USED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY IS STILL USED PRIMARILY AS A RESIDENCE.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEARING ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THEIR PRIMARY USE OF THE DWELLING REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSES OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT INTO MOTION.
SECOND ION, YES, I I WILL BE SO HORNING THIS.
UM, I THINK IT'S GREAT TO HAVE, UM, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND A COMMUNITY, UH, IN NEIGHBORS BUSINESS LIKE THIS.
SO THIS IS PERFECT, UH, FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK.
MARIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? UH, YES, I DO CONCUR WITH THIS AND I THINK IT'D BE, UH, GREAT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO KIND OF USE SOME OF THE WORDS THAT OUR FORMER BOARD MEMBER HENRY RODRIGUEZ WOULD ALWAYS USE IN HIS MANY YEARS ON THIS, UH, PANEL BECAUSE I HAD SO MUCH RESPECT
[00:20:01]
FOR WHAT HE WOULD SAY.THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT LAND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I DIDN'T GET THE WORDS RIGHT, BUT, UM, BUT I DO THINK, UH, THIS IS A GOOD, UH, HOME OPERATED BUSINESS THAT CAN OCCUR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT REALLY ALLOWS, UH, THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER TO CONTINUE IN HIS BUSINESS AND THE WAY THAT HE HAS DESCRIBED AND BE THERE FOR HIS, UH, WIFE AND FAMILY AND ALSO BE THERE FOR HIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BY OPERATING FROM HOME.
IT'S AN EXTRA SET OF EYES ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ON THE NEIGHBORS.
AND THAT CONSTANT FEAR OF NEW STRANGERS COMING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND POTENTIALLY CREATING PROBLEMS OR CRIME IS REALLY UNFOUNDED WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.
UM, SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.
ANYONE ELSE? THAT BEING, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE, UH, ROLL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR IF THE FINDINGS OF FACT MR. BRITTON.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. LOVE I CONCUR MR. MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
PLEASE UH, GET WITH THE STAFF FOR THE REST OF THE PROCESS AND, UH, PROCEED
[3. 20-1114 BOA-19-10300163: A request by Pura Zavala for a special exception to allow a four-year renewal for a one-operator beauty/barber shop in a single family home, located at 2031 West Pyron Avenue. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 5) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
TO THE NEXT CASE.THIS IS FOR B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 3 ADDRESS FOR 2031 WEST PYRON AVENUE.
APPLICANT BEING PDA ZAVALA A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FOUR YEAR RENEWAL FOR A ONE OPERATED BEAUTY BARBER SHOP IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
THE APPLICANT HAS LARGE DRIVEWAY WHICH PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS.
THE APPLICANT HAS MAINTAINED A ONE UPPER BEAUTY BARBERSHOP SINCE 1996 WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINTS, UH, COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE U D C AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CAN APPROVE THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR UP TO FOUR YEARS.
THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT MEETING THE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS STATED IN THE CODE.
HERE IS THE PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER ONE, THEIR HOME RETAINS ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR NATURE OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE HOURS OPERATION WILL BE TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
NOTICES MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? STAFF HERE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.
WE'LL NEED YOU TO, UH, SUBMIT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE WE BEGIN FOR THE RECORD.
ION MY ADDRESS, 2031 WEST SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
I'M HERE TO SEE IF I CAN GET PERMISSION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE WORKING ON MY HOUSE.
JUST FOR MY FAMILY FOR NOT GOING OUT TO DRIVE IN THE TRAFFIC.
DO WE, UH, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE STAFF? NO QUESTIONS.
[00:25:01]
HAVE A QUESTION.UH, THIS ISN'T, THIS IS A RENEWAL, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO, NO, UH, COMPLAINTS FILED ON THIS INDIVIDUAL? NONE, NO ISSUES FOUND.
AND, AND, AND IS ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, NO, NO WITNESSES THOUGH? NO, NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
I'M GONNA CLOSE IT FOR A VOTE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FOUR YEAR RENEWAL FOR A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH LIMITED HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY SITUATED AT 2031 WEST PYRON APPLICANT BEING URA ZAVALA.
UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW IS TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBER SHOP DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR A ONE OPERATOR SHOP AS ESTABLISHED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AS SUCH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SERVED AS IT WILL PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE HOURS OF TUESDAY TO SATURDAY FROM 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE PRIMARILY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE BEAUTY BARBER SHOP WILL OCCUPY ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE HOME AS REQUIRED BY THE U D C.
A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT A PORTION OF THE HOME IS BEING USED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY IS STILL USED PRIMARILY AS RESIDENTS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE PRIMARY USE OF THE DWELLING REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSES OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT INTO MOTION.
UM, YEAH, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I'VE PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS SUPPORTED THESE TYPES OF HOME BUSINESSES AND I THINK THEY'RE GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND I, UH, WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE, UH, MS. SAVALA FOR OPERATING THIS SINCE 1996.
THAT'S A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? UH, NO.
I WILL SUPPORT THIS, UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND, UM, I'M GLAD SHE'S STILL DOING IT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS.
SO LET'S, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE, UH, A SECOND.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
MR. NEP, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. LOVE I CONCUR MR. MARTINEZ.
I WELL I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, THE MOTION PASSES AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROGRAM.
[4. 20-1086 BOA-19-10300157: A request by Rudolph Puzon and Carol Kelly for a special exception to allow a fence to be 8’ tall along both side yards and the rear property line, located at 15235 Chalet Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
TO THE NEXT CASE.BOARD, UH, CASE BOA 19 103 0 0 1 5 7 AT 15,235 CHALET DRIVE.
THE APPLICANTS ARE RUDOLPH PLONE AND CAROL KELLY.
UH, THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FENCES TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG BOTH SIDE YARDS IN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THE ZONING ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A FENCE THAT'S SIX FEET TALL.
IT'S A WOOD FENCE WITH THE TWO FEET SECTION OF LATTICE AT THE TOP TO MATCH WHAT HAS EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY ON A PORTION OF THE SITE IN THE REAR.
UPON VISIT TO THE SITE, STAFF NOTED THAT THE EXISTING FENCE WAS EIGHT FEET TALL, INCLUDING THE LATTICE, AND THE CONTRACTOR
[00:30:01]
HAD BEGUN TO INSTALL THE SUPPORTS FOR THE LATTICE.THE PROPERTY STATES THE EXISTING EIGHT FEET SECTION OF FENCING WAS INSTALLED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO MATCH THAT WITH THE NEW PORTION.
UH, STAFF AL ALSO NOTED AND DOCUMENTED THAT THERE'S A 30 INCH ELEVATION CHANGE BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS BEING LEVELED BY A RETAINING WALL.
UH, THIS ELEVATION CHANGE IS LESS THAN THE FOUR FEET MINIMUM THAT WOULD ALLOW AN EIGHT FEET TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY RIGHT.
AND THE NEW PORTION OF FENCE WOULD BE, UM, ALONG A PORTION OF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE AND ALONG THE SIDE OF THE FENCE OR SIDE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY TO WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING EIGHT FEET TALL SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN B O A 19 103 0 0 1 5 7.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE FENCE AROUND THE REAR YARD IS PROVIDING PRIVACY AND SECURITY.
THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INJURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE REQUESTED HEIGHT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, AND A PORTION OF THE FENCE ALREADY EXISTS WITH THE PROPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS.
OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN, WE MAILED 28 NOTICES RECEIVED NINE IN FAVOR THAT ARE, UM, ON THIS MAP WE RECEIVED FOUR ADDITIONAL, UM, IN FAVOR FROM THE APPLICANT, WHICH WERE IN THE FILE AND NOT REPRESENTED ON THIS MAP.
AND THEN NO RESPONSE, UH, NO IN O NONE IN OPPOSITION AND NONE, NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ORIAN? SO THIS IS ONLY FOR EIGHT FEET ON THE NORTH, NORTH SIDE AND THE REAR.
DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? JUST ON ONE SIDE, YES.
SO THEY'RE ADDING TO YES, THE NORTH SIDE ON THIS SIDE AND THEN A PORTION OF THE REAR AND THEN THE, UH, THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS THOSE, THE POSTS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL FENCE ADDED.
THAT SEC ASIDE IN QUESTION FROM THE PHOTOS? YES.
SO IS THE, UH, IS THE ISSUE IS HAVING THAT TOPPING ON THE FENCE, UH, THAT'S SHOWN.
UM, THERE'S A PICTURE OF A, OF A COVERED BARBECUE PIT IN THE BACK.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A FENCE WITH SOME SORT OF A, WITH SOME SORT OF A TOP ON TOP OF IT THAT WOULD EXCEED SIX FEET.
IS THAT IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS, YES.
SO THAT IS ADDITIONAL TO THIS SORT OF REQUEST.
SO THEY'RE MATCHING THIS PIECE SO THAT, SO IT'S GONNA GO, UH, TWO FEET ABOVE THIS PIECE.
SO THAT PICTURE IS ON THE SAME SIDE AS A PICTURE WITH THE POSTS? NO, THIS IS THE REAR.
WHY DO WE HAVE EIGHT FOOT HIGH? I MEAN, WHY DO WE HAVE A LIMIT OF SIX FOOT HIGH ON OUR FENCES, KAT? ANY IDEA? I SO, SO A AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT BEING, UM, HAVING PRIVACY, BUT STILL BEING NEIGHBORLY.
UH, SO EIGHT FOOT FENCES KIND OF GIVE THIS, UM, IMPLICATION OF, UH, SORT OF THIS BARRIER CREATING A BARRIER BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, WHICH WOULDN'T ALLOW NEIGHBORS TO LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER, IF YOU WILL.
UH, SO WE ALLOW, I MEAN, RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FENCES, BUT IF THEY WANT FENCES, THE LIMITATION IS TYPICALLY SIX FEET.
UNLESS YOU'RE ABUTTING CERTAIN, UH, LIKE AN ALLEYWAY OR A COLLECTOR STREET, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO EIGHT FEET.
BUT THE, UM, MINIMUM THAT YOU, THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED AUTOMATICALLY IS SIX.
AND THIS IS NOT, THIS ISN'T TIED TO ANY ZONING, IT'S JUST A, IT'S IN FENCES OR IS IT SPECIFICALLY RESIDENTIAL PER ZONING DISTRICT.
SO YOU'LL FIND IT IN THE, IN ARTICLE THREE, OR ACTUALLY IT'S ARTICLE FIVE 14.
YEAH, ARTICLE FIVE, WHERE YOU'LL HAVE ALL OF THE FENCING PROVISIONS AND THE ALLOWANCES BY HEIGHT.
YOU CAN GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, UM, IN A ZONING CASE, BUT THEY'RE NOT REZONING.
SO THE, THE NATURAL PROCESS IS THROUGH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW IN THE FUTURE CODE.
THE, THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT WE DO NOT MAKE THE ORDINANCES EXCEPT THAT WE ARE IN THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN SPONSOR SOME AMENDMENTS.
SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WANTS TO DISCUSS AND SPONSOR, WE WILL HAVE, UH, WORK SESSIONS, UH, THE FUTURE LATER THIS YEAR BEFORE THE SUMMER.
THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS UP, CHAIRMAN.
WELL, THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF
[00:35:01]
GOING ABOUT THAT.SO, BUT THIS IS NOT, UH, THIS IS JUST A STANDARD ORDINANCE AS IT IS.
WE CAN GO INTO SESSION AND DISCUSS THINGS LIKE THIS FOR THE FUTURE, BUT NORMALLY WE DON'T HAVE AN OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION OF OWN ORDINANCES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE A CHANGE UNLESS WE SUBMIT IT AND IT'S APPROVED.
SO NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE A SIX FOOT LIMIT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T DO A FOUR FOOT FENCE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T DO A THREE FOOT FENCE, BUT, UH, IT IS JUST THAT THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS.
NOW, UH, WHERE WERE WE? THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD AND THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR, UH, CONTRACTOR WILL BE UP TO SPEAK.
UH, MY, MY NAME'S RUDOLPH UZON.
YEAH, I'M CAROL KELLY, AND I ALSO LIVE AT 1 5 2 3 5 CHALET DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO.
AND THIS IS THE CONTRACTOR THAT WAS, UH, THIS IS THE CONTRACTOR THAT WAS DOING THE FENCE FOR US.
JUSTIN AGUILAR OR JUSTIN TIME SERVICES.
UH, WE'RE GONNA NEED YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL.
88 LONGHORN ROAD, STOCKDALE, TEXAS, UH, 7 8 1 6.
GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THE PRIMARY REASON THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS EXCEPTION IS BECAUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR HOUSE, UH, THE FENCE IS SIX FEET TO ADD.
WE HAVE A LARGE SWIMMING POOL, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO TO ADD, UH, SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO OUR HOME, AND THEN ALSO THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL TWO FOOT, UH, OF LATTICE.
AND YOU'LL SEE BY THE PICTURES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, THE POSTS EXTENDED WITH THE, UH, HOPE THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A, A, A, UH, AN APPROVAL PROCESS.
AND, UH, AS MENTIONED, THERE WERE, UH, I THINK 20 SOME NOTICES SENT OUT.
UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM 12 OF OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, SUPPORT OF THE TWO FOOT EXTENSION.
AND WE HAVE, UH, TWO HOMES, UH, TWO STORY HOMES, TWO TO THE SOUTH OF US AND TWO THE JUST NORTH OF US.
AND THEY OVERLOOK FROM, FROM THEIR UPPER WINDOWS, LOOK INTO, UH, VIEW OUR, INTO OUR POOL AND TO OUR PATIO.
I MEAN, WE CAN SIT IN OUR HOT TUB AND, AND THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN LOOK DOWN REAL EASY.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE MORE, UH, PRIVACY BOTH FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR THEM AND FOR US IS THAT, AND I SPOKE TO ALL THE ONES AT THE, WITH THE TWO STORIES HOUSE, AND THEY TOLD, THEY AGREED WITH, WITH WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UH, IS, UH, YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU WANT TO SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS OR, I NOTICED YOU'RE HOLDING THINGS AND I'M JUST WONDERING.
YEAH, WELL WE, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF, OF, OF, OF, UH, THREE OF THE HOMES, UH, HAVING MANY TO DO THE TWO STORY HOUSES THAT, THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY LOOK.
UH, THEY CAN LOOK DOWN INTO, INTO OUR YARD.
ONCE YOU SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS FOR EVIDENCE, THEY BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE FILE.
AND, UH, IT'S JUST SUPPORTS YOUR CASE.
AND I'M NOW GOING TO ENTERTAIN FROM THIS, FROM THE BOARD HERE, ANYONE WHO HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE OR ORIAN.
SO YOU'RE JUST PUTTING THE LATTICE, YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT SO COMPLETELY SOLID ALL THE WAY.
IT'S, IT'S THE SIX FOOT FENCE AND YOU KNOW, WHICH IS CEDAR.
AND THEN THE TOP PART WOULD BE THE, THE LATTICE WHERE I, I EVEN HAVE A PHOTO OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND, AND QUICKLY FOR STAFF, BECAUSE THE, THE, THE SWIMMING POOL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A, SOME SORT OF PROTECTANT GUARD, LIKE A FENCE BECAUSE THEY OWN A POOL.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS IN THE CODE SOMEWHERE, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING RELATED TO HEIGHT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SECTION OF THE CODE? I WAS A, I I I JUST RECALL SEEING THAT IF YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL, THAT THERE IS A SECTION REGARDING, UH, A FENCE AROUND THE SWIMMING POOL.
BUT I'D HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT AS FAR AS WHAT THAT HEIGHT WOULD BE.
BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD, HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EXCEEDING SIX FEET THAT WE NEED, JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHILE WE'RE DELIBERATING.
NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT WE CAN CHECK REAL QUICK.
I THOUGHT THE I R C HAD A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE IN REQUIREMENTS SURROUNDING ANY POOL.
THERE IS A, A SUBSEQUENT THAT SURROUNDS THE POOL THAT PROTECTS IT FROM SMALL CHILDREN, UH, FINDING THEIR WAY INTO IT.
BUT THAT'S, IF YOU HAVE A, A SECURE FENCE AROUND THERE, I BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.
YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS.
ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WANNA GIVE US? ALL RIGHT THEN.
WELL, WE HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 30 YEARS.
[00:40:01]
YEARS OLD AND WE ARE VERY, VERY COGNIZANT OF SAFETY.UH, AND SO WE'VE HAD NO COMPLAINTS FROM ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS FOR THE LAST 29 YEARS.
SO, AND THEY CONTINUED TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA, GERMANNA? SO THE PICTURES SHOWN HERE.
IS THIS A PICTURE, UH, OF THE SIDE NEIGHBOR? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE JUST NORTH OF ME.
ARE THERE OTHER, THEN THERE WAS NO OTHER WITNESS SIGNED IN.
SO I'M, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION.
OH, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I WAS, I WAS OFFERING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT, OH, I'M SORRY.
WELL, SHE KIND OF OPENED UP FIRST.
SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH NINE DASH 0 3 5 7, A MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL ALONG BOTH SIDE YARDS AND REAR YARD, SITUATED AT 1 5 2 3 5 CHALET DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING RUDOLPH HUON AND CAROL KELLY.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET.
THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
SAF FINDS THIS IS IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER B.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE.
THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AT EIGHT FEET.
AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE FENCE ENHANCES THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF THE PRO OF THE SUBJECT AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
A PORTION OF THE FENCE IS ALREADY EIGHT FOOT TALL AND HAS EXISTED THIS WAY FOR YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINTS.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE FENCE PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE REQUEST, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT END OF MOTION.
SECOND, I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A, UM, I HAVE TO ASK TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION.
WAS THIS ADVERTISED FOR ONLY THE NORTH SIDE OR WAS IT FOR BOTH SIDES? BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING THE, UH, PRESENTATION THAT IT WAS ONLY ONE SIDE.
IT'S BOTH SIDE AND REAR YARDS.
BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OR JUST RIGHT.
SO WHEN WE SAY SIDE AND REAR YARDS, WE MEAN BOTH SIDES.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND WE HAVE, UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SECOND.
AND DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT YOUR MOTION? UH, YES.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
UM, I, I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THAT YOU'VE GOT TWO, TWO STORY HOMES ON THE SIDE OF YOU THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM YOUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
YOU'VE BEEN THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LONG TIME, SO OBVIOUSLY, UH, YOU HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
SO, UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION AND I LIKE THE IDEA THAT IT'S LATTICE AND NOT ALL THE WAY UP TO EIGHT FEET.
I THINK IT STILL KEEPS A LITTLE OPEN FOR THE NEIGHBORS, YET STILL PROVIDE SOME PRIVACY.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A DISCUSSION HERE? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. LOVE I CONCUR MR. MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT.
[5. 20-1088 BOA-19-10300161: A request by Roberto Elizondo for an 850 square foot variance from the minimum 4,000 square foot lot size to allow a lot size to be 3,150 square feet, located at 1002 Lamar Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 2) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
[00:45:04]
OUR NEXT CASE, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 1 61.DID THEY, DID THEY SHOW UP? YES.
AH, VERY GOOD CASE B OA 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 1 AT 1002 LAMAR STREET, THE APPLICANT IS ROBERTO ELIZONDO.
A REQUEST FOR EIGHT AN 850 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT SIZE TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 3,150 SQUARE FEET.
THE ZONING IS R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAMAR AND NORTH PALMETTO STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS IN THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES, BUT DID NOT EXIST AT AS A LOT AT THAT TIME.
IT WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE LOT WAS CREATED AR ARBITRARILY SOMETIME BEFORE 1988 WHERE IT APPEARS ON A CITY MAP.
THE APPLICANT IS UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND IS PLANNING TO PURCHASE BOTH 1002 AND 1000, UH, LAMAR STREET, WHICH ARE BORDERING EACH OTHER.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO BUILD TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY APPROXIMATELY 1500 SQUARE FEET AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THEY WILL BE APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
UH, ON THE LEFT YOU'LL SEE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT IS THE SURVEY.
UH, WHEN THIS LOT APPEARED ON THE ORIGINAL, UH, MAP CITY MAP IN 1988 OR SO, IT WAS 50, UH, FEET WIDE.
AND TODAY, ACCORDING TO BCAT, IT'S ABOUT 30 FEET WIDE OBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 103 0 0 1 6 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT PLATTED AND THIS IS OF NO FAULT TO THE OWNER.
THE SURROUNDING DWELLINGS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
WE MAILED 29 NOTICES, DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN FAVOR AND OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF UNE MR. UNE? SO THE APPLICANT, HE WOULD HAVE TO PLOT THE PROPERTY TO GET UTILITY SERVICE.
IS THAT OR APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
SO HE CAN GET UTILITY SERVICE WITH, WITH A, WITH A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
AND AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A FULL PLA TO THE PROPERTY? YES.
UM, IT APPEARS VACANT ON OUR ONE STOP MAP.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THERE BEFORE THAT.
ON GOOGLE VIEW THERE SHOWS A HOME THERE BOARDED UP A WHILE BACK AND JUST SAW THE MAJOR EXCAVATION OR, YOU KNOW, DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT.
YEAH, THEY'RE IN THE, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT THAT.
OKAY, SO I FOUND IN THE CITY RECORDS FROM THE 18 HUNDREDS THAT THIS N C B WAS BROKEN UP INTO SEVEN LOTS.
THEY WERE SUS VERY SUBSTANTIAL.
THERE'S ONLY SEVEN ON THE WHOLE BLOCK.
SO SOMETIME BETWEEN WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED IN THE, UH, EARLY 18 HUNDREDS TILL TODAY, SOMEONE HAD CHOPPED UP THAT LOT UP.
SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT, UH, IT QUALIFYING FOR A C O D? IT'S CONSIDERED AN ARBITRARY LOT BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE 1929 ISH MAP IT SHOWS.
SO IF YOU NOTICE HERE ON THE SURVEY, LOT ONE AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF LOT ONE IS LOT ONE THROUGH OR ONE THROUGH 10.
AND THEN THIS ONE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT.
SO AT THE 1929 MAP IT SHOWS ONE THROUGH 10 AND THEN SOMETIME AFTER THAT IS, IS 11.
BUT I'M, I'M SHOWING IN THE 18 HUNDREDS, IT WAS SEVEN LOTS FOR THAT BLOCK.
SO HOW DID IT BECOME LIKE, DOES, DOES, WAS IT, IF I'M SAYING IF IT WAS BROKEN UP FROM SEVEN LOTS INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY, DOES THAT AFFECT IT? SO IF SOMEBODY MADE IT AN ARBITRARY LOT IN 1880 MM-HMM.
SO IN THIS SCENARIO WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE GOING THAT FAR BACK FOR US.
EXCEPTION NUMBER SIX ALLOWS YOU TO UTILIZE A LOT AS LONG AS IT'S BEEN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION SINCE 2005.
HOWEVER, YOU MUST MEET ALL CURRENT ZONING CODE, WHICH IS THE, THE LOT SIZE.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING TO THE BOAR TODAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T QUITE MEET IT.
[00:50:01]
I CAN SEE FROM THIS IS THAT WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT A LOT THAT APPEARS TO BE, UH, CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN A STANDARD LOT.UM, IT'S GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A STRUCTURE IN THAT AREA AND COMPLY WITH BOTH SIDE.
IN MANY SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A SHOTGUN GET BUILT OUT.
UM, WE'VE HAD THAT BEFORE WITH 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS WHERE YOU BUILT A 15 FOOT WIDE HOME, YOU COULD BUILD A A 20 FOOT HOME HERE, HERE.
SO WHAT I FOUND WAS I FOUND ANOTHER MAP THAT SHOWS PALMETTO USED TO BE MUCH WIDER AND APPARENTLY THE CITY SOLD THE HARD CORNER 30 FOOT WIDE BY 105 FEET DEEP.
UM, I GUESS THEY JUST SOLD IT AND CREATED A LOT 11.
BUT ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD WANT TO ASK A QUESTION? ALL RIGHT, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT IN.
I'M AT 75 11 RIVER BIR DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
UH, I AM AT 1458 COUNTY ROAD 57 14.
AS MENTIONED, UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE BOTH LOT ONE AND 11.
I DO HAVE AN UPDATED, UM, SURVEY THAT JUST GOT SENT TO ME, WHICH SHOWS THE SPLIT ON BOTH LOTS, UM, WHICH I'LL SEND THE SEND TO THEM.
BUT BASICALLY, UH, LOT 11, WHICH IS THE LOT IN QUESTION IS 30 FOOT WIDE.
SO, AND UH, THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
SO WE'RE UNDERSIZED ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT.
NOW LOT ONE WHICH WE ARE ALSO UNDER CONTRACT, UM, IS 45, UM, FOOT WIDE.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON LOT 11 TO EITHER ONE OF TWO THINGS, EITHER TO GIVE US THE VARIANCE TO BUILD ON A, ON A SMALLER LOT OR WE CAN TAKE AND SPLIT BOTH LOTS.
THEY'RE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.
AND IN TOTAL IT'S SEVEN 7,875 SQUARE FOOT.
SO IF WE CAN DIVIDE THEM, IT WOULD BRING US TO 39, 3937 SQUARE, UH, AND A HALF SQUARE FOOT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE LOT AND UM, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'D WANNA REPLANT THE, THE LOTS? UH, NO.
NO, I MEAN, AND JUST WHEN, WHEN I HEARD THE CONCERN ABOUT BUILDING ON SUCH A SMALL LOT, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO, THAT'S, THAT IS A WAY, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR WAY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING, RIGHT? ASKING FOR OH, AHEAD
I SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ON ONE LOT, WHICH YOU SAID WAS 30 OF 33 FEET.
UM, IF YOU, UH, WE CAN APPROVE WHAT YOU'VE ASKED US.
HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT BUILD ACROSS LINES.
SO WITH A SINGLE FAMILY YOU CAN CROSS LOT LINE, IT WILL STILL REQUIRE THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
IT WOULD QUALIFY IN THAT SCENARIO.
IF YOU BUILD ONE HOME, ONLY IN THIS SCENARIO, YOU WANNA BUILD TWO SEPARATE HOMES.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR LOT 11.
SO THEREFORE, UH, HE COULD BUILD ON THAT SMALLER LOT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE U D C.
AND HE COULD BUILD ON THE LARGER LOT.
UH, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS, IS WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE SMALLER LOT, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO THE SMALLER LOT, IF YOU BUILD THERE, THEN YOU'RE HAVE TO BE WITHIN THOSE LINES.
CORRECT? UH, IF YOU WANTED TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY, THEN THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY, RIGHT? NO, WE'LL LEAVE IT THE WAY WE PROPOSED IT INITIALLY.
ANY OF THE QUESTIONS UNA, RIGHT?
[00:55:01]
YES.HOW, HOW DO YOU, HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS PARKING? WOULD YOU? UM, I MEAN CLEARLY THERE'S A NEED FOR PARKING WITH OFF STREET.
IT ACTUALLY BACKS UP TO AN ALLEY AND SO WE SUPPOSED TO PUT A GARAGE ON THE BACK BACKSIDE, WHICH IS THE WAY THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS.
SO TWO CAR, ONE CAR GARAGE OR YEAH.
I WANTED TO ASK, UH, THERE'S, SO THERE IS NO HOME ON THERE NOW 'CAUSE AERIALS IMPLY THAT THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CORRECT? THERE WAS, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A UM, TWO DWELLS.
TWO DWELLINGS ON, ON, ON THE PROPERTIES AND THEY, BUT THEY'VE BEEN DEMOED AS AND LOT ONE THAT YOU ALSO OWN THERE.
YOU'RE GONNA KEEP THE HOME THERE? NO, IT'S BEEN DEMO.
SO I'LL JUST, SO WE'LL BE BUILDING, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE HOW CLOSE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU GOTTA STAY THREE FEET AWAY TO HAVE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE OF YOUR HOME.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD POTENTIAL TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING.
AND I ALSO NOTICED FROM THE PICTURES THAT IT APPEARS THAT LA LA IS IT LAMAR? LAMAR THAT HAS UH, UM, OVERHEAD UTILITIES, THAT'S A NARROW SIDE OF YOUR LOT.
THE LONG SIDE ALONG PALMETTO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OVERHEAD UTILITIES THAT WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE HOME CONSTRUCTION THEN.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? ALRIGHT, THAT'S VERY GOOD.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? WE DO.
HAVE A SEAT, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK.
RUTH MENDOZA PLEASE COME FORWARD.
WE'LL NEED YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN STATE YOUR CASE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS RUTH MENDOZA AND I OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET AT THE CORNER OF LAMAR AND PALMETTO.
AND, UH, MY QUESTION IS, AS AT THIS PRESENT TIME, THE TRAFFIC IS UNBELIEVABLE.
THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THE PEOPLE TO PARK ON THE STREETS AND THEY ALL END UP PARKING ON MY SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK, UH, STRAIGHT ON PALMETTO STREET.
AND, UH, SO I'M INTERESTED IN HOW HE PLANS TO FACE THE HOUSES THAT HE PLANS TO BUILD.
AND WHERE WILL THE DRIVEWAYS BE? ALRIGHT, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED THE DRIVE, THE DRIVES WOULD BE TO THE REAR OF THE, THE ALLEYWAY AND THE PARKING WOULD BE TO THE REAR.
HE SAID WHERE, WHERE HE HAS A PROPERTY.
YEAH, WE'LL BRING HIM BACK UP.
I BELIEVE HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PARKING WAS GONNA BE THROUGH THE ALLEY IN THE REAR, THE GARAGE.
HE WAS BUILDING A TWO CAR GARAGE IN THE REAR.
BOTH HOUSES WILL BE A TWO CAR GARAGE LESS.
WOULD HE TESTIFY? BUT WE'LL BRING HIM UP.
JUST TO CLARIFY FOR YOU, MS. MENDOZA, THE POINT IS, IS THAT THIS, THE ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY IS FROM THE ALLEY.
THEY HAVE TO DRIVE OFF THE ALLEY ON, ONTO THEIR PROPERTY TO HAVE A REAR ACCESS GARAGE.
I I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HE'S GONNA GET TWO HOUSES BUILT ON THAT ONE PROPERTY.
WELL THE, THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT IT, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, SINCE HE HAS TO HAVE, UH, IT'S A 30 FOOT LOT, HE'S GOTTA HAVE 10 FEET CLEARANCE ON EACH SIDE, WHICH MEANS THAT HE'S GOT 20 FOOT, THE BEST HE COULD DO IS PROBABLY AN 18 FOOT, UH, CAR OR CARPORT OF SOME SORT.
UH, AND THAT'S STILL PUSHING THE ISSUE A A BIT TO MAKE A COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, A BUILDING PLAN.
THE CODE ONLY REQUIRES ONE PARKING SPACE.
TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A HOME AT 20 FOOT, 15 FOOT WIDE, YOU'RE TYPICALLY GONNA HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE TYPICALLY.
UM, IT DEPENDS ON THEIR DESIGN.
IN IN ESSENCE WHAT HE'S, WHAT HE'S JUST REFERRING TO IS THAT HE CAN TRY TO, TO SQUEEZE IN TWO CAR GARAGE ON THE BACK OF THE SMALLER LOT OR HE CAN BUILD JUST ONE CAR GARAGE IN THE BACK.
AND OF COURSE THAT'S GOING TO, LIKE YOU SAY, IT MAY LEAD ME TO LEAVE, UH, MORE ISSUE WITH PARKING ON THE STREET.
BUT, UH, THIS, THIS IS THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE FOR YOUR PARTICULAR AREA.
I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION 100% BECAUSE I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT.
UH, I I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT TOO.
AND THERE'S VARIOUS WAYS OF APPROACHING IT, BUT THE APPLICATION IS FOR, UH, BUILDING ON THAT SMALL LOT.
TECHNICALLY WE NEVER EVEN KNEW THAT THAT TO, TO THE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE AREA CONSIDERED THAT A SHACK.
I NEVER EVEN REALIZED THAT IT WAS A, A RESIDENCE SO TECHNIC, I KNOW THE HOUSE HAD BEEN THERE, BUT TO THE SIDE OF IT, THAT'S WHERE THE, WHAT WE CALLED A SHACK.
[01:00:01]
AND SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE HE WANTS TO BUILD ABLE A SECOND HOUSE.UM, SO IT, IT'S BEEN TREATED AS LIKE ONE LOT FOR DECADES AND DECADES.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY KIND OF TOOK OVER THAT OLD PIECE OF THE STREET AND MADE A WIDER LOT BY 30 FEET.
WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO IS TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO, A SKINNY LOT ALONG PALMETTO AND THE REGULAR LOT WHERE THE HOUSES WERE.
AND SO YOU'LL HAVE, THEY'LL HAVE TWO HOUSES.
THEY WANNA BUILD THAT BOTH FACE.
NOT THE WAY THERE'S ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER AS IT'S BEEN IN THE PAST.
IT WOULD BE TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE FACING LAMAR WITH PARKING FROM LOGAN IN THE REAR.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TODAY, IS AN ALLOWANCE TO BUILD ON THAT SMALLER LOT THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED BY CODE BECAUSE IT'S TOO SMALL TO BUILD ON BY CURRENT CODE.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH, PART OF PALMETTO STREET WAS TAKEN AT, AT ONE POINT TO, TO ADD TO THAT PROPERTY.
SO, UM, WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS IN, WHEN LAND IS IN THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES AND IT WASN'T PLATTED, THEY WERE BROKEN UP INTO LOTS AND BLOCKS THROUGH THE EITHER THE CITY ENGINEERS OR SUBDIVISION RECORDS OR THROUGH THE RED TAX MAPS.
AND SO I FOUND, UM, SOME HIS HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THAT IT WAS, UH, CREATED AS LOT 11 PROBABLY A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
UH, WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME INTENT AT ONE TIME FOR PALMETTO TO BE MUCH, MUCH WIDER, BUT IT DIDN'T TURN OUT THAT WAY.
UH, AND SO IT WAS THEREFORE TURNED INTO A LOT THAT'S 30 FEET WIDE.
UH, BUT I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS REQUEST DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY VARIANCES FROM THE, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OTHER THAN THE, THE LOT SIZE.
SO THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE SETBACKS AND, AND, AND EVERYTHING.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S IF, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME CONSOLIDATION THAT IT'S SIMPLY JUST A SMALLER LOT SIZE, SO IT'LL BE A SMALL HOME SINCE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY OTHER VARIANCES.
SO JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE MUCH TOO SMALL.
BUT THAT, THAT WILL ACT ACTUALLY THAT WILL COME OUT IN, IN THE PERMITTING OFFICE PORTION OF THIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES IS THAT, AND THEY, UH, AND THIS INFORMATION IS PUBLIC RECORD.
THE TRAFFIC IS WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE PALMETTO STREET IS NOT STRAIGHT TO THE OTHER PORTION, PORTION OF PALMETTO STREET.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THE FRONT YARD OF MY HOUSE OR DRIVEWAY AND, AND JUST COME UP THE STREET.
AND IN FACT IT'S, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL WRECKS THAT HAVE BUMPED CARS THAT HAVE RUN INTO OUR YARD AND HIT THE HOUSE, BUT THE HOUSE IS STUCCO, SO IT'S VERY STURDY, THANK GOD.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A CONCERN ABOUT THE, ABOUT THE, UH, PARKING IS PALMETTO.
THE LAMAR STREET IS NOT VERY WIDE ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS TWO OR THREE CARS AND THERE'S MORE THAN ONE FAMILY LIVING SAY LIKE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR THAT HAS ONE OR TWO CARS AND THERE'S NOT A PLACE TO PARK.
THE, THE CARS IS, UH, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THIS, UH, THIS STREET HERE, IS IT CURBED? I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN.
IF THERE'S A CURB THERE, A CURB ON THE STREET, PALMETTO OR, UM, THERE'S NO CA THERE'S NO CURB ON PALMETTO AT ALL.
UNDER, UNDER, UNDER, UNDER CITY CODE AREN'T NOW THAT THEY'RE REVITALIZING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WOULDN'T THEY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CURB? THAT IS CORRECT.
ONCE THEY DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE GONNA BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL CURRENT, UH, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE THE CURB SIDEWALKS.
THERE'LL BE, UH, SIDEWALKS IF THEY CAN IN THE BACK.
UH, LAMAR OR LOGAN APPEARS TO BE A SUBSTANDARD STREET, SO OUR BUILDING CO UH, OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THAT.
SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS, UH, A STREET, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A CURB AT LEAST ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
NOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ON THE OTHER SIDE? I CAN'T TELL YOU.
NO, I KNOW THAT ONCE YOU GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THE RULES AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
SO, UH, HOPEFULLY IT'LL TURN OUT WORKING, UM, AS LONG.
AND I THINK THAT IF MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT, IF THE STREET IS NOT AT LEAST 20 FEET WIDE, YOU CANNOT PARK ON IT.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT, UH, LOGAN STREET TO
[01:05:01]
SEE WHAT THE PARKING SITUATION IS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PARKING ON LOGAN.SO IN, IN THAT EVENT, THEN, UH, YOU COULD ACTUALLY, UM, ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT FOR NON, FOR NON-PAR.
THAT'S, THAT'S REASON THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF PALMETTO AND LAMAR ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE HAS, HAS NO, UH, PLACE TO PARK EITHER.
THEY PARK IN THE STREET THERE ON THE NO CURB.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE CARS BACK THEN, SO
THIS IS ONE OF THE UNUSUAL THING, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO WATCH VERY DILIGENTLY FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW, IN ITS ESSENCE, WHAT IS, IF WE APPROVE THIS, HE BILLS ON THIS PROPERTY, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A CURB TO SEPARATE THE EDGE OF THE STREET FROM THE DIRT.
NOW, UNDER MY UNDERSTANDING, UNDER CITY CODE, YOU CANNOT PARK ON A STREET THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CURB.
I I, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
UM, FOR A SUBSTANDARD STREET, YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE PEOPLE PARKING ON THEIR YARDS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET.
BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
AND WE'RE ALSO GETTING TOLD, IF YOU CAN MOVE THE MIC CLOSER TO YOU WHEN YOU SPEAK, 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'RE PICKING UP YOUR AUDIO.
NOW, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT UNDER CITY CODE, YOU, YOU MUST HAVE, UH, MUST HAVE A CURB TO BE ABLE TO PARK ON A STREET.
THERE ARE A LOT OF STREETS OUT THERE THAT DON'T HAVE CURBS THAT, BUT ARE WIDE ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO PARK.
IT'S ALL GONNA BE DEPENDENT UPON THE SITUATION.
BUT THEN IF THEY'RE NOT PARKING ON, ON THE STREET, THEY'RE PARKING ON THE GRASS POSSIBLY.
MUCH OF THE EAST SIDE HAS NO CURBS, CARS, PARKING ALONG THOSE NO CURBS STREETS AND PARKING IN THEIR FRONT YARDS.
AND NONE OF THAT IS REALLY THE POINT OF WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
SO I'D ASK THAT WE CAN KIND OF MOVE FORWARD AND TALK ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TODAY.
THE, ANYWAY, GETTING BACK TO THIS, IS THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING IF THIS IS GONNA BE COMPLETED.
SO THAT'S ALL BEST WE CAN OFFER FOR YOU AT THIS TIME.
RIGHT? IT, IT, IT IS STRANGE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOBODY CAN PARK WITHOUT A CURB, BUT THE HOU THE RESIDENCE AT THE CORNER OF PALMETTO AND LAMAR ACROSS THE STREET HAS NO CURB.
LET'S CALL THE MOTION, MR. CHAIR.
ANYWAY, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL WE CAN GIVE YOU AT THIS TIME.
WE'VE EXCEEDED YOUR TIME, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE ON.
AND, UH, WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES? NO OTHER WITNESSES.
LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT BACK.
YOU'VE, YOU'VE HEARD THE CONCERNS AND HOW YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, SO THIS MAY NOT BE WHERE IT ULTIMATELY ENDS UP, BUT, UH, ALL WE CAN DO, I, AS WE WERE REQUEST, YOUR REQUEST IS TO, UH, CONSIDER ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION ON A MINIMAL LOT.
AND, UH, THAT'S, UM, SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADDRESS WITH THIS.
WHAT, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS THROUGH THE MOTION PORTION AND TO SEE HOW THIS COMES ON AND IT GOES THROUGH AND, UH, LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
TO ANSWER ONE OF HER QUESTIONS, IF I MAY.
UM, THE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN UNDERSIZED LOT AND IT'S 30 FOOT, IT IS WITHIN, WITHIN THE SETBACKS, IT'S WIDE ENOUGH TO, TO ALLOW FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE IN THE REAR ON THE, AND I KNOW THAT'S HER MAIN CONCERN, AND I KNOW HER SIT, UH, I UNDERSTAND HER SITUATION BECAUSE PALMETTO DOES OFFSET IF YOU'RE COMING SOUTHBOUND ON PALMETTO PRIOR TO THEN THE STREET OFFSETS, I BELIEVE, LIKE SIX FOOT OVER TO THE LEFT.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS GOING SOUTHBOUND WHERE, UH, TRAFFIC COULD GO INTO SOMEONE'S YARD OR IF I'M, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, SHE'S ACROSS THE STREET, VICE VERSA, TRAFFIC COMING NORTHBOUND DIDN'T HAVE TO VEER OFF TO THE LEFT TO, 'CAUSE IT DOES OFFSET.
BUT AGAIN, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED, I MEAN AS FAR AS PARKING, WE, WE ARE ALLOWING FOR TWO PARKING SPACES ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO YOU'RE JUST UNDER 8,000 FEET FOR BOTH LOTS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO GET 'EM BOTH CLOSER TO 4,000 FEET, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
WELL, THE INTENT OF THE CODE WAS OBVIOUSLY TO KEEP A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000
[01:10:01]
FEET.SO YOU WERE AMENABLE TO MOVING THAT LOT LINE OVER TO, SO BOTH LOTS WOULD BE JUST UNDER, BUT CLOSER TO 4,000.
BUT IT WAS AN, I GUESS WE MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT, UM, WHAT THEY HAD TOLD US THEY HAD.
THE WAY WE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS IF WE COULD GET IT APPROVED, A VARIANCE APPROVED, THEN WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE IF NECESSARY.
SO IF IT WOULD HELP THE SITUATION, WE WOULD, OKAY.
WE DO NOT MOVE PROPERTY LINES AND CORRECT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE, WE BROUGHT IT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION THAT IF THAT WAS FACT, THEN WE WOULD, WE WOULD, UH, UH, UH, CERTAINLY BE A WAY TO CONSIDER MOVING IT OVER CONSIDER 4,000, WHICH WOULD, WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UM, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS AT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AND VOTE ON THAT.
OR YOU CAN REQUEST A CONTINUANCE AND MOVE IT TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT.
PROBABLY BE NO, WE WANT TO, WE WANT TO CONTINUE.
SO ULTIMATELY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THIS, UM, THE CURRENT SITUATION IS IF YOU GO FORWARD WITH, WITH THE REQUEST, YOU CAN BUILD ON BOTH LOTS WITH A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PLATTING PROCESS WHERE YOU CAN MOVE THE LOT LINE.
ULTIMATELY YOU COULD KEEP ONE LOT AT 4,000 AND THE OTHER LOT 11, WHICH IS IN QUESTION TODAY.
IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, YOU COULD KEEP IT SUBSTANDARD, BUT YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT AMENDING PLATT OR PLATT AT THAT POINT.
UM, IF YOU MOVE FORWARD TODAY, WE'D HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION READY PROBABLY IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
ORIAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THIS.
UM, ANYWAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PRESENTED AND WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO SEE WHICH WAY, WHICH WAY THE BOARD'S GONNA GO.
SO WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, UH, LET'S, LET'S PROCEED TO THE MOTION.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 1.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT EIGHT AND 850 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A, TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 31 50 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT 1 0 0 2 LAMAR STREET, APPLICANT BEING ROBERTO ELIZONDO.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A 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 PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ARBITRARILY CREATED WITH A LOT SIZE THAT IS JUST UNDER THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OF THE LOT SIZE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THE LOT IS INTENDED.
IN ORDER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTERED OR THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION TO AVOID PLATTING.
THE LOT APPEARS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
HOWEVER, A C O D CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE A PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
AND, AND A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED.
AND LET'S SAY VARIANCE IS GRANTED.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE GRANTING THE, THE REQUEST WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
BECAUSE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, ADVANCES THE EFFORT OF THE ZONING DESIGNATION, THE VARIANCE WILL PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT.
FOUR, 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.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE WITHIN THOSE USES, SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE INJURED BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE A LOT SIZE WILL NOT CREATE AN INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ALTERED AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COHESIVE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CONDITION PRESENT IS THAT THE LOT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AND LOT SIZE, AND IT WAS CREATED ARBITRARILY.
A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION CANNOT BE APPROVED UNLESS A VARIANCE IS GRANTED TO ALLOW FOR A SMALLER LOT SIZE TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AND, UH, MR. ORIAN, YOU WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? YES, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE, UH, HISTORICALLY THIS HAS BEEN A COMPLETE, UH, LOT, BE IT ALBEIT ARBITRARY IT HAS BEEN IN THIS, UH, CONFIGURATION FOR ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS, IF NOT LONGER.
UH, I ALSO THINK THAT, UH, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS NOT ASKING
[01:15:01]
FOR ANY OTHER VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION, THAT WOULD BE THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.I THINK THAT I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT BY APPLYING WITH THE U D C AND THE, AND THE, AND THE BUILDING CODES THAT ARE APPLICABLE, THAT THIS WILL BE A, A HOME THAT WILL FIT IN NICELY WITH THE AREA.
IT MAY NOT BE VERY HUGE, BUT IT'LL BE OF A, OF A NICE SIZE AND, AND USABLE AND FUNCTIONAL, UH, FURTHER BY GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE, UH, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE FOR HIM IN THE FUTURE TO, UH, POSSIBLY, UH, AMEND THE PLA TO MOVE THE LOT LINE IF HE NEEDED TO.
BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, I THINK THAT BECAUSE HE HAS ACCESS TO THE REAR, HE'S GOING TO PROVIDE CURBING AND HE HAS NO UTILITIES ON THE LONG SIDE, THE PALMETTO SIDE OF HIS LOT.
I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS, UH, APPLICABLE FOR A 30 FOOT WIDE LOT.
UM, ABOVE FRAGMENT, UH, YES, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION AS WELL.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE, UH, QUESTION BROUGHT UP BY THE, THE NEIGHBOR.
UM, THEY ARE PROPOSING, UH, TWO CAR GARAGES ON BOTH OF THESE LOTS, WHICH IS ONLY 20 FEET WIDE AND THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE GIVEN THE LOT IS, UH, 30 FEET TO PUT A, A 20 FOOT GARAGE, A TWO CAR GARAGE ON, ON EACH OF THEM.
SO THAT SHOULD, UM, ADDRESS SOME OF THE, THE PARKING ISSUES.
UM, OVERALL, UM, I APPROVE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SMALLER LOT BEING BUILT ON AS OPPOSED TO STAYING AN EMPTY LOT.
UM, I'VE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE, THE BOARD, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LACK OF AVAILABILITY AND CERTAINLY BUILDING ON A SMALLER LOT LIKE THIS IS A WAY OF ADDRESSING, UH, THAT AND I'M HOPING TO SEE MORE OF IT GOING FORWARD THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
ANYONE ELSE? YES, I WOULD, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, BUT I AM MOVING THE LOT LINE OVER AND THEM COMING BACK AND MODIFYING THEIR REQUEST AND PUTTING BOTH LOTS CLOSER TO THE INTENT OF THE CODE, GETTING AS CLOSE TO 4,000 AS YOU CAN.
UM, IT WOULD HELP THE SMALLER LOT OUT.
UM, I WOULD SAY DEFINITELY THESE ARE REALLY SMALL LOTS AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, THERE'S ZONING FOR A REASON 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND I THINK WE'RE WORKING WITH, WE'D BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT IF THEY CAME BACK AND DID THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS LOT DOESN'T END UP NOT DEVELOPABLE.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT FAIR, BUT, UH, GETTING THEM BOTH CLOSER TO THE INTENT OF THE CODE OR WHICH THE CODE WAS WRITTEN AT 4,000, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN JUST GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE SINGLE MUCH SMALLER LOT.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WANNA ADD TO THAT? UH, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
MR. ORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF A MIKE AND, UH, BUT THE MOTION DOES PASS.
SO, UM, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE BREAK.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, UH, BRIEF BREAK, PLEASE.
WE WANNA GET OUTTA HERE BEFORE THE RAIN COMES GREEN.
[6. 20-1111 BOA-19-10300147: A request by Hacam Properties, LLC for a 190 square foot variance from the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size to allow a lot size to be 5,810 square feet, located at 221 Muncey. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 2) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE NEXT CASE.CASE BO A 19 103 0 0 1 4 7 AT 2 21 MUNSEY.
THE APPLICANT IS HACOM PROPERTIES L L C.
THEIR REQUEST FOR 190 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 5,810 SQUARE FEET.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, HIS DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2019.
THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY ABUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN SIMILAR COMPACT LOTS AND IS ADJACENT TO AN 11.8 UH, FOOT ALLEY THAT CONTRIBUTES TO MINIMIZING THE LOT.
[01:20:04]
IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ABUTTING ALLEY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.DAF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT PLATTED AND IT'S NO FAULT OF THE OWNER.
THE SURROUNDING DWELLINGS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
WE MAIL 25 NOTICES RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUE ANY QUESTIONS FOR SNOW? UH, OR DOES THE, DOES THE ALLEY UH, REDUCE IT DOWN TO TWO AND A HALF FOOT ON A SETBACK? DOES, DOES THE ALLEY REDUCE THE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK LIKE HALFWAY FOR THE BUILDING? I DON'T, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOU CAN UTILIZE HALF OF THE ALLEY TOWARDS YOUR SETBACKS FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD.
SO HE CAN GO DOWN TO NOTHING THEN? THAT IS CORRECT.
YOU CAN DROP IT TO ZERO IF YOU WANTED TO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND CONTINUE WITH YOUR CASE.
MY NAME IS OKTA ES, UH, 9 0 8 11 COVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
I'M WITH HAKAM PROPERTIES AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
THIS RENOVATION IN HILLS IS SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE VERY EXCITED.
THIS IS, I THINK, ANOTHER GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADD TO THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, TO THIS DISTRICT.
UM, THE LOT WORKS VERY WELL SINCE THE FRONT ACTUALLY HAS 50 FEET, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT A LOT OF THE SIMILAR LOTS IN THE AREA HAVE.
UM, IF WE LOOK AT IT, THE ALLEY ALSO ADDS TO IT.
HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT USE UTILIZING THE ALLEY OR ANYTHING TO GET ADVANTAGE IN OUR, IN OUR SETBACKS.
WE ARE RESPECTING THE SETBACKS AS IF THE LOT, UH, COMPLIED WITH, WITH WITH THE ZONE.
UM, TECHNICALLY WHAT WE'RE MISSING IS FOUR FEET IN THE BACK AND IT STILL DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE MORE THAN, THAN WHAT THE SETBACKS IN THE AREA ASKED FOR.
UH, PRIOR TO PRESENTING THE PROJECT TO THE BOARD, UH, WE GOT THE H D R C APPROVAL.
UH, WE'VE BEEN EMBARKING WOMEN WORKING VERY WELL WITH THEM AND, AND, AND THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTING.
AND LIKE I MENTIONED, UM, WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO ADD TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THIS PROJECT.
UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, I HAD A PRESENTATION, HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE PRESENTATION WAS, WAS ALREADY, UH, PRESENTED.
UM, BASICALLY IT STATES THE LOCATION, UH, A LOT OF THE FACTS THAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
THE PROJECT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY, APPROVED BY THE H D R C.
UM, AS YOU CAN NOTICE, UH, WE HAVE, UH, ON, ON, ON THE RIGHT, ON THE SIDE OPPOSITE TO THE ALLEY.
WE, WE HAVE OUR, OUR FIVE FEET SETBACK.
THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S REQUIRED.
WE HAVE A FRONT SETBACK AND ON THE SIDE OF THE ALLEY, WE, UH, SO WE MORE THAN RESPECT THE, THE, THE, THE SETBACKS AND THE REAR SETBACK.
IT'S ALSO MORE THAN, THAN WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE.
UM, A LOT OF THE FACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT.
THIS IS OUR, UH, SURVEY AND, UM, OR YOU CAN OBSERVE, UH, THAT THAT LACK OF, UH, FOUR FEET THAT WE HAVE ON THE BACK ACTUALLY TO COMPLY WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S REQUIRED BY R SIX.
AND, UM, WE'RE JUST, UH, ADDING THAT, THAT WE CONSIDER THIS NOT CONTRARY TO, TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
ON THE CONTRARY, WE BELIEVE THIS IS GONNA HELP THIS RENOVATION GOING ON, UH, A COUPLE OF THOSE PHOTOS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN.
UH, I THINK THIS IS RE REPETITIVE ON THIS.
UH, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE WORK WE'VE BEEN DOING.
UM, I WANNA APOLOGIZE 'CAUSE I RAISED MY HAND A LITTLE BIT AGO, UH, WHEN YOU MENTIONED LAMAR, WE'RE ALSO CURRENTLY BUILDING IN LAMAR, UH, A SIMILAR PROJECT THAT HAS ALSO BEEN APPROVED BY D H D R C.
AND LIKE I SAID, UH, OUR, OUR, OUR IDEA IS TO ADD UP TO THIS RENOVATION AND, AND, AND HELP TECHNOLOGY GO BACK TO WHAT IT USED TO BE AT SOME POINT.
STILL NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I AM LOOKING THROUGH THE PICTURES AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE ON YOUR, UH, NEW SKETCHES, UH, YOU HAVE LOTS OF TREES IN THAT PROPERTY.
WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH THEM? THEY ALL STAY.
[01:25:02]
THAT'S SOMETHING WONDERFUL AND THE LOTIT SURE IS, UH, JUST MAKING SURE IT, THAT'S LOTS OF TREES WE'RE, AND WE ARE VERY LUCKY THAT THEY ALL SURROUND THE PERIMETER AND THEN THEY'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE.
SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT REALLY ADD.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP.
ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE, UH, PUBLIC AND, UH, OPEN FOR ZUNA.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 19 DASH ZERO ONE, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 7.
I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A 190 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 5,810 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT 2 21 MUNCIE APPLICANT BEING HACOM PROPERTIES, HACOM PROPERTIES L L C BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNEC UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE R SIX PRESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS INTENDED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING USES ON A MINIMUM, MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MEETS THE INTENTION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP AS THE LOT IS INTENDED AND THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETER DETERMINATION DUE TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN ANTIQUATED PLAT.
IN ORDER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTED, BUT BECAUSE THE LOT QUALIFIES FOR A C O D, THE APPLICANT WILL NOT NEED TO REPL THE LOT.
HOWEVER, A C O D CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
AND A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN UNLESS A VARIANCE IS GRANTED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE LOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BECAUSE THE PRO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ADVANCES THE EFFORTS OF ZONING DESIGNATION.
THE VARIANCE WILL PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE INJURED BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE A LOT SIZE WILL NOT CREATE INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ALTERED AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COHESIVE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NUMBER SIX, APPLY TO 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 OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER.
AND IT'S NOT A FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
UH, UNA I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE, THE MOTION HERE.
I MEAN THIS, UH, TRULY, UH, IS, IS, IS IN, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANY JUSTIFICATION HERE FOR, FOR THE MOTION OF HAVING THE ABILITY FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT TO, TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THIS LAW.
I MEAN, IT, THIS IS A SUBJECT CASE HERE.
I MEET'S ALL THE, WE'LL MEET ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SIDE SETBACKS, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
AND IT IS A TRUE, UM, UH, BENEFIT TO THE, TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL BE A COHESIVE, UM, DESIGN BUILD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, APPLICATION.
YOU KNOW, IT BEING R SIX AND IT'S JUST SEEMS LIKE A FEW FEET SMALLER THAN R SIX, UH, 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S STILL LARGER THAN MANY OF THE OTHER, UH, ALLOWED RESIDENTS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES, UM, OF R FOUR, R FIVE, SO ON.
UM, AND I THINK, UH, THE APPLICANT PRESENTED WHAT APPEARS TO BE A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS CORRECTLY.
[01:30:01]
UH, WITHOUT PAUSE.ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE ROLL COUNT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BREGMAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
PLEASE MAKE A NOTE THAT, UH, MR. NEFF IS GOING TO BE LEAVING AND I'M GONNA REQUEST THAT SARAH RAVINO REPLACE HIM ON THE BOARD.
[7. 20-1087 BOA-19-10300158: A request by Miguel Morones for a 4’11” variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be 1” from the side east property line, located at 578 Lively Drive. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 1) (Rachel Smith, Planner (210) 207- 5407, rachel.smith@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
CASE WILL BE, UM, 1 5 8 A B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 8 AT 5 78 LIVE LEAD DRIVE.THE APPLICANT IS MIGUEL MORENOS.
A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED CARPORT ON THE FRONT AND A DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE SHED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A 15 FOOT WIDE ALLEY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE A SERVICE ALLEY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS AN EXISTING CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE OF THEIR DWELLING AND WISHES TO EXPAND COVERED PARKING FOR THEIR VEHICLES BY ADDING ANOTHER ATTACHED CARPORT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER BEGAN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND WAS NOTIFIED OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE AS A RESULT.
UPON VISIT TO THE SITE STAFF NOTED THAT THE CARPORT POSTS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE AND ATTACHED TO THE HOME AND FENCE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER STATES THE CONTRACTOR STARTED WORK ON THE CARPORT AFTER THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND RECEIVED A STOP WORK ORDER.
UM, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT, UH, YOU CAN SEE HERE THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION IS WHERE, UH, THE CARPORT, UH, IS ACTUALLY ATTACHED.
UH, THE FENCE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
WHEN YOU SEE THE PICTURES, IT'S THREE INCHES OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT SHOULD SAY 5 78 LIVELY OBJECT PROPERTY.
AND AGAIN, IT'S ATTACHED TO THE FENCE, BUT, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE FENCE IS NOT THE PROPERTY
AND WHERE HIS FINGER IS, IS POINTING TO THE WIDTH OF THE CARPORT.
SO JUST INSIDE THE POST NINE FEET, SEVEN INCHES.
AND THIS FENCE, THIS FENCE HERE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE.
ACCORDING TO THE, UM, OWNER, A ADJACENT PROPERTIES STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACH CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UH, IN BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 8.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE TO PREVENT FIRE SE FIRE SPREAD, MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE OR PREVENT WATER RUNOFF ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND THE RECOMMENDED TWO FOOT DISTANCE STILL PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE TO ALLOW THE NEEDED WITHIN COVER.
UH, WE MAILED 35 NOTICES RECEIVED THREE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? IS THE OPPOSITION THE SIDE WHERE THE GARAGE PROPOSED GARAGE IS OR, OR THE OTHER SIDE? IT IS THE, THE HOUSE WHERE THE CARPORT WOULD BE? YES.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE ALLEY BEHIND THE HOME IS A, A DRIVABLE SURFACE IS THE GARAGE, UH, CURRENTLY HOUSING VEHICLES.
DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE ANY OF THAT? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO WHAT'S, HOW HE'S USING THAT.
[01:35:01]
AND DID YOU GET, UH, AND YOUR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, UH, YOU HAD REQUESTED TO GO DOWN TO A TWO FOOT, UH, BUT YOU HAD ALSO REMARKED THAT IT WAS NINE FOOT SEVEN WIDE CURRENTLY BETWEEN THE POSTS THAT THEY GO DOWN TO THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, IS THERE GONNA BE ENOUGH WIDTH TO, IS THAT GONNA BRING THE WIDTH BETWEEN POSTS DOWN TO SEVEN FOOT SOMETHING? UM, IT WOULD, BUT THEY COULD ALSO MOVE THE POST OVER.SO THIS WOULD BE AN, A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE BOTH SITES.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? ALL RIGHT, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.
BIT OF TALKING, BUT, UH, MY NAME IS, UH, MIGUEL MORS.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BETTER.
YOU, YOU CAN PULL IT DOWN AND YOU CAN BEND IT DOWN.
MIGUEL MORS, I LIVE ON 5 78 LIVE DRIVE.
WE LIVED THERE, ME AND MY WIFE SINCE 1994.
OR Y'ALL GOT, YEAH, I GOT A QUESTION.
AM UH, I WANT PERMISSION TO RETAIN A PERMIT TO BUILD A CARPORT BECAUSE I LOST MY OTHER TRUCK THAT I HAD ON HELD, HELD DAMAGE.
WHEN, UH, IT HAILS NOW AT MY HOUSE, I DRIVE TO THE CAR WASH SO I COULD, THE TRUCK I BOUGHT
SO THE LAST TIME I WENT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND STAYED THERE TILL THE HELL ENDED, UH, WE MADE A MISTAKE.
I MADE A MISTAKE AND THE GUY THAT WAS GONNA WORK ON THE CARPORT MADE A MISTAKE OF, OF, UH, NOT KNOWING THE FIVE FEET.
I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST AT THE BACK YARD, BUT HE WANTED, THE GUY WANTED, UH, REALLY TO DO IT BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND HE NEEDED CHRISTMAS MONEY AND ALL THAT.
AND SO I REALLY GAVE HIM MOST, ALL THE
SO, BUT THE WORK HE DID, I WANTED TO TEAR IT DOWN ANYHOW BECAUSE HE DID BAD WORK ON IT.
THE POSTS AREN'T EVEN LINED UP RIGHT.
AND I TOLD THEM THEY'RE NOT RIGHT.
AND, UH, SO I WANTED TO CUT IT ALL OFF AND REDO THE WOOD OR MAKE A METAL GARAGE.
'CAUSE THEY TOLD ME SOMETIMES THE BOARDS, YOU HAD TO HAVE, UH, RETARDANT, FIRE RETARDANT BOARDS.
AND THOSE WEREN'T RIGHT BOARDS.
THEY WERE FROM LIKE PEOPLE, SOME SOMEPLACE, OR, I DON'T KNOW, LOADS, I THINK.
ANYHOW, SO I'M, I WANT TO THE PERMIT, UH, THE PERMIT AND, UH, I WOULD DO WHAT Y'ALL WANT ME TO DO.
UH, I REALLY WOULD LIKE IT 35 FEET, BUT IF NOT, I HAVE TO DO IT SOME OTHER WAY.
BUT THE, THE WOOD IS NOT GONNA BE ON THE, ON THE, ON ONTO MY HOUSE.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE DID THAT, BUT I TOLD HIM TO NOT DO IT.
BUT, SO I GUESS THAT'S ALL I GOTTA SAY.
BUT, UH, UH, WE'RE WAITING AROUND TO, TO THIS DAY, BUT ALL AND, UH, THE GARAGE IN THE BACK, I HAVE A, A, LIKE A MAN CAVE AND A COUPLE CARS IN THERE ALREADY, SO I CAN'T PUT MY TRUCK IN THERE 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE NO ROOM ANYMORE.
DOES YOUR HOME HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS? YES.
THAT DRIVEWAY WE MADE OF A 1997.
SO TO CONFIRM, YOU HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE, A TWO CAR CARPORT, AND YOU WANNA BUILD A SECOND TWO CAR CARPORT.
UH, AT ONE TIME, UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT CARPORT ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND, UH, AND I BOUGHT MY WIFE A NEW CAR WHEN WE DID IT ABOUT SIX YEARS AGO.
[01:40:01]
TOLD HER, I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU A CARPORT FOR, FOR MY WIFE'S CAR.AND SO WE SAVE UP MONEY AND WE PUT IN WINDOWS ON THE HOUSE AND, AND I WANTED TO MAKE ANOTHER PART CARPORT ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD GET ANOTHER CARPORT IF WE CAN AND PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT THAT ONE'S SHORT AND YOU CAN'T PUT, UH, ONLY ONE CAR IN THERE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. DORIAN? IAN, SO IS YOUR, IS THAT A FUNCTIONING GARAGE IN THE REAR? SO YOU, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A, LIKE A GARAGE DOOR, YOU CAN GET CARS.
I ALSO NOTICED FROM AN AERIAL THAT YOU HAD, UH, TWO VEHICLES BETWEEN THE GARAGE IN YOUR HOME ON AN OLD AERIAL PHOTO.
DO YOU HAVE, HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE, ARE, ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO PARK ON YOUR, ON YOUR LOT, SIR? HOW MANY? WELL, NOT NO MORE.
I'M TRYING TO GET RID OF, I'M TRYING TO SELL ONE ON CRAIGSLIST.
I, I I'M ASKING 'CAUSE YOU HAVE A, A TWO CAR CARPORT AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU CAN EVEN PROBABLY GET THOSE TWO CARS ON YOUR EXISTING CARPORT.
TWO CARS BEHIND THOSE CARS, THREE OR FOUR CARS ON THE OTHER DRIVEWAY, AND THEN YOU HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE IN THE REAR.
AND THEN I SEE AN AERIAL THAT HAS TWO CARS PARKED JUST OUTSIDE.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS YOUR LONG-TERM GOAL? HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE? WELL, I'M GONNA, THIS YEAR I'LL GET RID OF LIKE THAT TRUCK IN THE FRONT THAT WAS THERE AND, UH, TWO CARS.
UM, I GOT A PROBLEM OF, UH, LIKE OLD CARS,
ANY, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION?
UM, DID YOU, UH, BY ANY CHANCE, DID YOU, UH, HEAR THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND HE WAS, SHE WAS MAKING THE PRESENTATION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE, UH, RE THE CITY WILL ALLOW? YES.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, BUILDING THE CARPORT APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET NARROWER.
I DON'T WHAT, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT GOING IN WITH A DIFFERENT MATERIAL IN A CARPORT.
UM, THAT WOULD BE ON, YEAH, SO, AND I THINK SHE SHOWED IT TO BE NINE FEET, NINE FEET, SEVEN INCHES.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, I THINK A, A SEVEN FOOT TRUCK IN A SEVEN FOOT SLOT.
WITHOUT HITTING THE MIRRORS OR THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD'VE ALSO INCLUDED MOVING BOTH SIDES? BOTH POSTS ON BOTH SIDES.
SO THE POSTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE FENCE WOULD MOVE IN, AND THEN THE POSTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE WOULD ALSO MOVE IN.
THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION, SO THE, THE, THE NEW CARPORT IS GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE STILL PARTIALLY ON THE SIDE.
IT WOULD JUST BE MOVING THE POSTS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
THAT'D BE THE ONLY WAY IS IF TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THE HOME TO MOVE THE, THE POST A COUPLE FEET OVER.
THAT'D BE THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT, IS EXPANDING THAT, UH, CURB A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT OVER.
WELL JUST SEE TEARS DOWN THE WOOD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INPUT? NONE.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'M GONNA, UM, ANY, UH, WITNESSES? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M GOING CLOSE THIS TO THE, UH, FLOOR AND, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 58.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A FOUR FOOT, I'M, I APOLOGIZE.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK RE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO BE
[01:45:01]
TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 7 8 LIVELY DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING MIGUEL MORONES.BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY SETBACKS WHICH HELP TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THE BOARD SUPPORTS REDUCING THE SIDE SETBACKS, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE AND WOULD PROVIDE BETTER SEPARATION FOR FIRE SPREAD AND STORM WATER RUNOFF.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A SPECIAL CONDITION COULD BE THE REQUIRED WIDTH NEEDED TO FIT THE VEHICLE IN THE, A VEHICLE IN, UH, OR THAT THE APPLICANT COULD MODIFY THE PROPOSED CARPORT TO MEET THE SIDE SETBACK.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW.
THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO PROVIDE, TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT AND TO ESTABLISH ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE AND REDUCE THE THREAT OF HIGHER SPREAD.
THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE CARPORT COULD BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SITE SETBACK.
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 ARE 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.
A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD BE CIRCUMSTANCE, COULD BE THAT THE CARPORT POSTS ARE ALREADY BUILT ON INTO THE FENCE.
WHO GAVE THAT PEEL, MR. PEEL? VERY GOOD.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START DISCUSSION.
SO I READ THE ALTERNATE MOTION, BUT I AM NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT EXPRESSED, UH, UH, A TRUE HARDSHIP.
HE ALREADY HAS A TWO CAR CARPORT.
HE ALREADY HAS A GARAGE IN THE BACK, UH, THAT IS USABLE.
UH, AND HE HAS ADEQUATE DEPTH, UH, FROM THE EXISTING CARPORT AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO PARK, UH, A, A GOOD NUMBER OF CARS.
UH, FURTHER, WHEN YOU LOOK ON THIS, UH, ON LIVELY STREET FROM ONE END OF THE BLOCK TO THE OTHER, THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER HOME, UH, ON, ON GOOGLE MAPS THAT IS REFLECTED TO HAVE TWO, UH, DRIVEWAYS.
SO I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE, UH, INCONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, AREA.
UH, I'M, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUE MR. ORIAN.
I, I DON'T THINK A, A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE AND OR A HARDSHIP WAS, UH, CONVEYED BY THE, THE APPLICANT.
SO I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, MR. LOVE? YEAH, I, I COULD, WOULD, WOULDN'T MIND BEING THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBOR FOR SURE.
UM, I JUST, WE JUST CAN'T APPROVE THINGS FOR NO REASON.
I, I WOULD GO TO SAY, AS FAR AS TO SAY THAT, I MEAN, IF WE'VE GOT A, AN ORDINANCE, UH, OR SOMETHING IN OUR ZONING CODE THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.
IT, IT NEEDS TO BE, IT WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED.
I MEAN, THERE'S QUITE A FEW THINGS OUT THERE LIKE THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I SETBACKS KIND OF HARD TO ARGUE WITH.
AND IN A CASE LIKE THIS, AGAIN, I'M LIKE, YOU GUYS, I, I DON'T SEE ANY HARDSHIP.
ANY ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, UH, LET'S, UH, NO OTHER DISCUSSION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE, THE VOTE.
NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
MS. BRAGMAN? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO NOT CON CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
UH, YOU MAY TAKE THIS UP WITH THE CITY, UH, AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, BUT, UH, THIS TIME DOES
[01:50:01]
NOT PASS.[8. 20-1115 BOA-19-10300164: A request by Lazar Hausman for 1) a 10.5’ variance from the 20’ rear setback requirement to allow for a new dwelling unit to be 9.5’ from the rear property line, and 2) a 2’ variance from the 5’ side setback requirement to allow new dwelling unit to be 3’ away along the east and west property lines, located at 231 Chicago Boulevard. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 3) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
LET'S GO TO THEIR NEXT CASE.ALRIGHT, LET IS FOR B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 4.
ADDRESS BEING 2 3 1 CHICAGO BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT BEING LAZAR HAUSMAN, IT'S A REQUEST FOR ONE A 10 AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALLOW A NEW DWELLING UNIT TO BE NINE AND A HALF FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A NEW DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES ZONING BEING R FOUR CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CONDITIONAL USE FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS.
CASE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT'S QUESTIONING TO REDUCE THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A NEW DWELLING UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
THE PROPERTY HAS A 13 FOOT ALLEY FROM THE REAR YARD, WHICH IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT.
THE PROPO, UH, THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING TWO-STORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT, FOUR FEET, NINE INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2019, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE ZONING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS, THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.
AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY FROM THE REAR AND THE SIDE PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCES AND B O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, NUMBER ONE, THE REQUESTED SETBACKS PROVIDE ROOM FOR ADEQUATE LIGHT AIR AND MAINTENANCE.
TWO VARIANCES ARE UNLIKELY TO DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
AND THREE, THE VARIANCES ARE UNLIKELY TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
UH, ONE UNKNOWN RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? BRUCE? GO AHEAD.
UM, OKAY, SO I'M TOTALLY LOST ON THIS.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE REPLACING THE GARAGE APARTMENT OR THEY'RE JUST GONNA ADD A NEW ONE TO, TO WHERE? LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE ABOVE THE, YEAH, ABOVE THE SECOND STORY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CURRENT ZONING AND OKAY.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE THAT CAN HELP TO CLARIFY THAT.
ORIAN OF WHAT I CAN TELL FROM, UH, GOOGLE MAPS, UH, THAT THE ALLEY THAT'S BEHIND THERE, THE 13 FOOT IS, IS ALL GRASS NOT DRIVABLE? MM-HMM.
UH, AND SO HE'S, DOES, IS THERE ANY UTILITIES THAT YOU OBSERVED IN THERE? I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS.
WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD.
UH, LASER HOUSEMAN LIVE AT 1 4 3 11 BEN BRUSH.
I'VE OWNED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD OWNED IT.
I, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG, UM, BUT HE WAS THE TYPE THAT NEVER DID ANY REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THERE WERE FOUR UNITS, WHICH IS, UH, THE FRONT IS A DUPLEX AND THE REAR IS TWO UNITS, ONE OF TOP ONE, ONE ON BOTTOM.
UM, HE NEVER DID ANY REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE TENANTS HAD BEEN THERE ABOUT 15 YEARS, AND IN THE LAST THREE YEARS I'VE LOST TWO OF THE TENANTS.
UH, THEY WERE, THEY WERE MUCH OLDER AND IT'S JUST TIME TO DO SOME REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY AND THE REAR UNIT, I'M WANTING TO DEMOLISH IT AND REBUILD A SINGLE UNIT.
SO I WOULD BE DOWNSIZING, WHICH IS WHAT I GOT APPROVED FOR, UH, AT THE, UH, PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
AND THERE'S, UH, NO PARKING REALLY AT THE PROPERTY.
I, DID YOU GET, DID YOU GUYS GET THE PHOTOS? I, SO THE, UH, PROPOSED BUILDING THAT I WANT TO BUILD WOULD BE ONE UNIT UP TOP WITH FOUR PARKING SPOTS UNDERNEATH TO CREATE PARKING.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT BETTER VIEW OF KIND OF THE PARKING SITUATION HERE.
UH, SO THAT'S THE PICTURE OF THE FRONT.
I THINK THE NEXT ONE THAT SAYS 1 0 5.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY PARKING THAT'S THERE.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S JUST THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT
[01:55:01]
GETS TO THE REAR UNIT.UH, ONE OF THE TENANTS HAS BLOCKED OFF THE REAR, UH, BECAUSE HE LIVES THERE.
UM, BUT THERE'S NO PARKING OTHER THAN JUST THE DRIVEWAY.
SO FOR THERE BEING CURRENTLY WHAT THERE IS FOUR UNITS, THE ONLY PLACE TO PARK IS ON THE STREET.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO, LIKE I SAID, REDUCE DOWN TO THREE UNITS AND ADD FOUR PARKING SPOTS UNDERNEATH.
AND THE, THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS SO THAT I CAN BACK UP, UH, WHAT'S WILL IT BE DEMOLISHED, BUT FROM WHERE IT'S EXISTING, I'D LIKE TO BACK THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, WHICH WOULD GIVE THE CARS ENOUGH ROOM TO BACK OUT AND TURN AROUND AND, AND EXIT THE PREMISES.
SO I'M JUST KIND OF TAKING WHAT'S EXISTING, EXPANDING IT TO THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT AND, AND SCOOTING IT BACK.
BUT OBVIOUSLY WITH A NEW DWELLING UNIT AND BRINGING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE.
UH, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE UTILITIES, I KNOW THE SEWER GOES OUT THE FRONT 'CAUSE I HAD TO REPLACE THE SEWER LINE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
THE ELECTRIC, I'M, I'M NOT SURE, I THINK IT COMES FROM THE FRONT.
I, I WAS HOPING I WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL FROM THIS PHOTO, BUT, UM, I, I CAN'T TELL FROM THERE THAT THAT LINE'S GOING FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK UNIT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY UTILITIES IN THE BACK, BUT I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE.
THAT'S A VIEW FROM THE, THE BACK, UH, THAT'S THE EXISTING REAR STRUCTURE THERE ON THE LEFT, AND THEN THAT'S THE, THE STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT RIGHT THERE.
SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE MOVED BACK TO ALLOW FOR PARKING FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO BACK OUT AND EXIT THE, THE PROPERTY.
YEAH, I CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES YOU HAVE ELECTRIC'S COMING IN FROM THE FRONT, BUT I, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, YOU'RE CALLING OUT FOR AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AND WIDENING, UH, THE DRIVE.
UH, IS THAT SPACE GONNA CONFLICT WITH THAT LARGE TREE THAT'S IN THE FRONT? SO THAT'S A, EXCUSE ME.
PART OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR ZONING AND HAVING THREE UNITS IS TO HAVE ONE AND A HALF SPOTS PER UNIT.
I'M HOPING THAT FIVE SPOTS FIT IN THE REAR OR THAT I COULD POSSIBLY PUT ANOTHER SPOT, UM, TO THE, TO THE SIDED UNIT WHERE SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IN, IN AND OUT.
UH, CURRENTLY YOU SEE WHERE THE, THE LITTLE SEAT IS THERE ON THE LEFT, UM, IN THE FRONT.
ONE OF THE TENANTS HAS BEEN, YEAH, RIGHT THERE.
ONE OF THE TENANTS HAD BEEN PARKING THERE WHENEVER HER SON COMES.
SO SOMEBODY'S BEEN PARKING IN THE YARD.
I'D PREFER NOT TO HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT.
UM, BUT I DO SEE THE TREE BEING THERE.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
I GUESS I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE TREE FOR THERE TO BE A UNIT, OUR PARKING SPOT OR IF HOPEFULLY, UM, EIGHT FEET WIDE IS ABOUT, IS ABOUT WHAT A SPOT NEEDS TO BE.
AND I, I THINK THE EIGHT TRUCTURE IS 40 FEET, SO POSSIBLY FIVE SPOT SPOTS WOULD FIT IN THE BACK.
UM, THE, THE FRONT PARKING SPOT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I HAD TO PUT THERE AS A REQUIREMENT TO MEET THE FOUR AND A HALF SPOTS.
AND YOU'RE, AND YOU HAD, YOUR PREVIOUS BUILDING WAS SHOWN TO BE 4.9 FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR.
YOU'RE GONNA MOVE IT BACK THREE, BUT YOU STILL HAVE THAT, THAT UNIMPROVED ALLEY THERE.
THAT'S, UH, AND, AND ON THE ONE SIDE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SEVEN FEET, INCLUDING THE STAIRS.
THE STAIRS GONNA BE ABOUT FOUR FEET WIDE, DO YOU THINK? UH, YES.
I THINK THEY CAN BE 36, UH, WIDE TO KIND OF SHORTEN IT A LITTLE BIT.
AND THAT'S STILL PLENTY OF ROOM FOR SOMEBODY TO GET UPSTAIRS.
I PREFERRED FOR THE UNIT TO HONESTLY BE AS FAR BACK AS POSSIBLE, BUT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED TO ASK FOR THREE FEET INSTEAD OF A A ZERO SETBACK.
SO, UM, SO DRIVING AROUND WITH GOOGLE MAPS, I DO SEE THAT THE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE POWER ARE FROM THE FRONT, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE'S, IT LOOKS LIKE CALM, UH, COMMUNICATION IN THE BACK.
SO IT'S GOT A, THERE IS A, A POLE GOING DOWN THE ALLEYWAY.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IMPACTS, YOU KNOW, A UTILITY REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR THAT.
SO, SO, UM, IF IT'S ON ONE SIDE OF THE ALLEY, DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS WHERE THE UTILITY POLES WOULD BE? AFTER COM.
YOU NEED TO USE IT IN, BECAUSE REMEMBER WE TELEVISED THIS AND IT'S NOT GONNA PICK IT UP.
I I HAVE TO SHUT IT OFF FOR IT.
UH, OKAY THEN, UH, WE HAVE NO FURTHER WITNESSES.
NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THIS AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
[02:00:02]
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 64, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A 10 FOOT FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A NEW DWELLING UNIT TO BE 9.5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.AND TWO, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A NEW DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FOOT AWAY ALONG THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 2 3 1 CHICAGO BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT BEING HOUSEMAN HOME BUYERS INCORPORATED, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE, WILL NOT CREATE WATER RUNOFF ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND WILL NOT INJURE THE RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE 9.5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY AND THREE FEET FROM BOTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES.
AND NO PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CLEAR VISION FIELD.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN NOT ALLOWING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO BUILD THE REQUESTED STRUCTURE AS PROPOSED.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE REQUESTED SETBACKS WILL STILL PROVIDE FOR A SAFE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE REQUEST WILL PROVIDE FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE SEPARATION.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH AS THIS, IT IS COMMON FOR AN ACCESSORY UNITS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS ESTABLISHED BY THE CURRENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE REQUEST WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED UNIT WILL NOT BE, THE PROPOSED UNIT WILL BE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, NOT AFFECTING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR THE CLEAR VISION ORDINANCE WITHIN THE TIME SPAN.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE HAD BEEN IN PLACE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO OBSERVED HARM DONE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AS THE NEW STRUCTURAL WILL OCCUR AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS UNLIKELY, THE REQUEST WILL INJURE THE ADJACENT OF PROPERTY.
THE PLY TO THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
THE CHARACTER OF THE REAR AND SIDE, SIDE YARDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT ARE PREDOMINANTLY COMPACT.
LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR PROPER BUILDING SETBACKS.
UH, MR. THIEL, WILL YOU START THIS DISCUSSION? I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS DONE HIS DUE DILIGENCE, CITY COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE, THE DOWN ZONE, UM, AND HE'S TAKEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF IN ORDER TO, TO HELP, UH, SWAY THE BOARD.
UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION IS READ RIGHT.
MR. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A, UH, NON-DRIVABLE ALLEY IN THE REAR.
THERE'S ONLY COMM UTILITIES IN THE REAR.
UH, THE ACCESS TO THE REAR, UH, PARKING IS ADEQUATE.
HE HAS 25 FEET IN FRONT OF THE, UH, COVERED SPACES TO ACCESS IT.
AND HE HAS A PLAN FOR THE FIFTH SPACE TO OCCUR IN AN AREA THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO HOUSE ANOTHER VEHICLE.
UM, SO, AND HE'S REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS FROM FOUR TO TO THREE AS PART OF THIS WHOLE, UH, PROJECT ENDEAVOR.
ANYONE ELSE WANNA MAKE AN FACT STATEMENTS? VERY GOOD.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE ROLL COUNT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. LOVE, I CONCUR MR. MARTINEZ.
[02:05:01]
OF FACT.[9. 20-1112 BOA-19-10300159: A request by Maria H. Ferrier for 1) a 4’ variance from the 20’ rear setback requirement to allow for an attached addition to be 16’ from the rear property line, and 2) a 1’4” variance from the 5’ side setback to allow for an attached addition to be 3’9” from the side property line, located at 5526 King Richard Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 7) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
LAST CASE.LAST CASE FOR BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 9 ADDRESS BEING 5 5 2 6 KING RICHARD STREET, APPLICANT BEING, UH, MARIA FERREIRA.
A REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW, UH, FOR AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE THREE FEET AND NINE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ZONING ME BY BEING RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
A SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING TO KEEP AN ATTACHED EDITION.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WITH THE ATTACHED EDITION ENCROACHING ONTO THE REAR SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING ATTACHED EDITION, REBUILT IT, INCREASING THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE ATTACHED ADDITION EXTENDING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
ON JULY OF 2018, CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER FOR DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE ATTACHED ADDITION WAS BUILT ON THE 16 FOOT ELECTRIC EASEMENT.
THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY NEED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM C P S TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE 16 FOOT ELECTRIC EASEMENT OR NEED TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS, THE PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY COMMEND RECOMMENDATIONS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCES IN B O A 19 3 0 0 1 5 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, NUMBER ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THIS DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT.
AND TWO, THE OWNERS WILL STILL NEED APPROVAL FROM THE UTILITY TO ENCROACH ONTO THE EASEMENT.
23 NOTICES MAIL FIVE IN FAVOR? ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, ORIAN, ORIAN, GO AHEAD.
HOW MUCH DID HE INCREASE IT AND WAS IT JUST THE WIDTH OR JUST, OR THE DEPTH OR BOTH? DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD OF WHAT IT WAS THERE PRIOR? SO THIS, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, SO I'LL JUST POINT OUT ON THE SITE PLAN.
THIS IS THE OLD TITLE SURVEY, AND THEN THE BLACK LINE IS WHAT HE'S TRYING TO TELL WHERE HE EXTENDED IT? YES.
AND THEN ON ONE OF THE PICTURES YOU HAVE, YOU'RE SHOWING A WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ELEVATED GATE.
HOW, HOW WAS THAT REVIEWED BY FOR CODE PURPOSES? IS THAT CONSIDERED IN THE FRONT YARD OR WHAT? OH, THAT ONE.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE WHERE IT'S SHOWING ACCESS FROM THE DRIVEWAY UP.
HOW, HOW DO, HOW DO Y'ALL REVIEW THAT? THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME, I DON'T KNOW, CHING LINK OR, YEAH.
SCREENING AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT, SO I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PICTURE.
YEAH, THAT, THAT'S OF NO ISSUE THEN.
HOW, HOW WAS THE CASE ORIGINATED? DID THE APPLICANT COME IN? IT MIGHT'VE BEEN CODE ENFORCEMENT IS WHAT I READ FROM THE CASE SUMMARY.
CODE ENFORCEMENT DID STOP THEM FROM DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION, NO PERMIT.
SO, SO IT WAS A, SO THEY, IT WAS JUST A DRIVE BY, BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WHO SAW IT AND THEN TO THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REFERENCE BACK TO OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MARIA HERNANDEZ FARRIER AT 55 26 KING RICHARD, AND THIS IS MY DAUGHTER, CYNTHIA MARSHALL.
WHEN I OBTAINED THE PROPERTY IN 1995, THE APARTMENT WAS ALREADY THERE.
AND IN FACT, MY, UM, MY BROTHER, WHO IS DISABLED, LIVED THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
THEN IT ABOUT, UH, WHAT, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, MAY, 18 MONTHS AGO, WE DECIDED TO REMODEL THIS APARTMENT
[02:10:01]
BECAUSE I HAVE A GRANDSON WHO HAS BEEN INCARCERATED FOR 10 YEARS AND IS NOW GOING TO RETURN HOME.AND ACTUALLY, HE EARNED TWO COLLEGE DEGREES WHILE HE WAS IMPRISONED.
SO WE HIRED A CONTRACTOR BY THE NAME OF MARK KENNEDY, WHO WAS A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, UH, PERSON.
AND HE BEGAN TO REMODEL THE HOME.
HE TOLD, UH, THE APARTMENT, HE, UH, TOLD US THAT HE HAD THE PERMITS AND IN FACT TOLD US THAT HE HAD PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO EXTEND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET.
SO I HAD NO REASON TO NOT BELIEVE HIM.
I DIDN'T ASK TO SEE THE PERMIT.
UH, AND AS WE WENT ALONG, WE NOTICED THAT THE WORK WAS REALLY SHODDY AND WE, AND THAT HE WAS ASKING FOR MORE AND MORE MONEY.
BUT MY DAUGHTER WORKED WITH HIM.
AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I'D LIKE FOR HER TO TELL YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED.
MY NAME IS CYNTHIA MARSHALL, AND I ALSO RESIDE AT 55, 26 KING RICHARD.
SO WE, UH, CONTRACTED MR. KENNEDY ON RECOMMENDATION, UH, FROM SOMEBODY THAT WE THOUGHT KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND HE WAS LICENSED.
HE, YOU KNOW, HAD BEEN A HOME BUILDER, AND WE HAD ASKED HIM TO REMODEL THE, THE GARAGE APARTMENT.
AND WE WERE SHOCKED WHEN WE CAME HOME AND THE THING HAD STARTED BEING DEMOLISHED.
SO WE DIDN'T REALIZE HE WAS GONNA DEMOLISH.
WE JUST THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO REMODEL.
AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, HE HAD REQUESTED MONEY FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN HE DIDN'T USE THE MONEY FOR WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GONNA USE THE MONEY FOR.
AND IN FACT, UM, WE HAD TO PAY THE ACTUAL WORKERS WHO WERE WORKING.
UH, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD PAID MR. KENNEDY, HE DIDN'T PAY HIS WORKERS.
AND THEN WE HAD THE STOP WORK ORDER.
AND SO THE APARTMENT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE.
WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT A VARIANCE WAS AN OPTION UNTIL A REALTOR FRIEND OF OURS TOLD HER, TOLD US WHAT THE PROCESS WAS.
SO WE'RE HERE JUST REQUESTING AN APPROVAL OF THE VARIANT SO THAT WE CAN GET BACK TO COMPLETING THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, STAYING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE CITY CODES, UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A PLACE WHEN, YOU KNOW, MY SON COMES BACK.
ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THEN PUT, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE LINES, THE ELECTRICAL LINES.
UH, I CALLED AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM C P S, MR. JOSE TREVINO, WHO IS WORKING WITH US TO MAKE THAT WORK.
WHY ARE YOU CALLING SOMEONE UP FOR YOUR C P S MAN DIDN'T SHOW.
OH, I DON'T, DID, I DON'T KNOW IF HE NEEDED TO SHOW OR NOT.
HE IS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER ENGINEERING FOR, UH, AND HE ASKED ME FOR THE, DID SOME, SOME, SOME, UH, SENT A LETTER OR ANY TYPE OF DOCUMENTATION TO WHAT DREW DREW AND, NO, ACTUALLY WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON FRIDAY.
SO THAT WAS JUST, SO IMMEDIATELY, UH, I CALLED C P S AND TALKED TO PAULA GOLD WILLIAMS, AND THEN SHE HAD JOSE CALL ME.
AND SO THAT'S, AND HE CALLED ME AND HE SAID, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT I'M YOUR POINT PERSON FOR C P S.
I ACTUALLY HAVE HIS PHONE NUMBER IN MY PHONE IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT.
YEAH, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A ONE FOOT FOUR FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE, THREE FOOT NINE INCH.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. YES.
UH, SO, UM, IF, IF A VEHICLE IS PARKED, UH, IN YOUR CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, UH, HOW, HOW, HOW DO YOU FEEL WHEN YOU'RE BACKING OUT? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A OBSTRUCTION OF VISION, UH, WHEN CARS ARE COMING UP OR DOWN THE STREET, UH, VERY CAREFULLY, BUT, UH, WE'VE CUT DOWN, WE'VE CUT DOWN SOME OF THE BUSHES, THE MAN THAT DOES MY YARD, AND IN FACT, WE ARE EVEN LOOKING AT THAT TREE THAT YOU SEE, RIGHT.
THAT TREE RIGHT THERE, UH, WILL BE CUT DOWN.
AND, AND WHAT IS THE ENCROACHMENT THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT FOR THE UTILITIES? UH, YOU SEE WHERE YOU SEE THE FENCE, THAT FENCE AND, OKAY, SO SUP OH, YOU DO, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT IS
[02:15:01]
RIGHT IN THERE SOMEWHERE COMING ALONG THE SIDE OF, OF THE PROPERTY.THE REASON WHY I ASK IS YOU HAVE A A 16 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT, AND YOUR REQUEST IS TO BE 16 FEET OFF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ENCROACHMENT YES, ABSOLUTELY.
IF THIS BUILDING WASN'T, WAS LESS THAN 16 FEET OR, YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS ON KING RICHARD, AND THE VIEW FROM WHERE THIS IS IS ON CAIRO.
SO THE HOUSE IS ON THE CORNER, AND SO WHEN YOU SAY FRONT OR BACK OR SIGHTED, IT, IT TENDS TO BE CONFUSING.
SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS THE UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH IS ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE FOUNDATION WHERE THE APARTMENT SITS NOW WAS HOW IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
SO APPARENTLY WHEN THE APARTMENT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, IT WAS BUILT ONE FOOT SIX INCHES ENCROACHING INTO THE UTILITY, INTO THE UTILITY BASEMENT.
I'M SORRY, DIDN'T YOU REMEDY THIS WHEN IT WAS RECONSTRUCTED? NO.
SO WE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE IT WAS ENCROACHING.
SO, UH, MARK KENNEDY USED THE ORIGINAL YEAH.
WELL, THE, SO THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION IS, IS, UM, YOUR REQUEST IS FOR A, A VARIANCE TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND YOU HAVE A UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S 16 FEET.
AND SO IF YOUR, IF YOUR BUILDING IS 16 FEET AWAY AND YOUR EASEMENT'S 16 FEET AWAY, HOW CAN THERE BE AN ENCROACHMENT WITH THIS STRUCTURE? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK, IS LIKE, IS IT CLOSER THAN 15 FEET AND THEN THEREFORE, IS YOUR REQUEST NOT FOR ENOUGH? NO, I DON'T KNOW.
DEBORAH GONZALEZ HELPED US INTERPRET IT AND SHE'S NOT HERE.
IS IS, DID, DID Y'ALL GET WHAT I WAS GOING FOR ON THAT ONE? OKAY.
'CAUSE WE, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T CONSIDER REQUESTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
SO IF YOUR BUILDING IS 15 AND A HALF FEET AWAY, UM, YOUR REQUEST WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR AT LEAST 15 AND A HALF FEET, NOT 16.
SO A COUPLE OF OPTIONS IF, UM, BASED ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, IF IN FACT HER STRUCTURE IS OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT, YOU CAN CONSIDER WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AND THEN SHE CAN PROCEED FORWARD.
AND SHE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD BASED ON THE VARIANCE APPROVED, IF APPROVED TODAY, IF SHE IS ENCROACHING AND IT, IT'S NOT SHOWING THAT ACCURATELY ON THE SITE PLAN OR IT WAST ADVERTISED AND WE'LL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.
UH, BUT IF, 'CAUSE THE SITE PLAN, THE WAY IT SHOWS IS IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT THE BUILDING IS IN THE 16 FOOT UTIL EASEMENT.
IT JUST SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY IS, AND WE HAVE A SURVEY THAT SHOWS IT TO BE NOT ENCROACHING.
AND SO I WAS JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ARE, YOU'RE ALL JUST TALKING ABOUT AN OVERHANG OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NO, NO, THE ACTUAL FOUNDATION.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS ENCROACHING, BUT IF IT'S NOT ENCROACHING, THAT'S FABULOUS.
IT'S JUST THAT WE RECEIVED, UH, OKAY.
AND, AND THEN ONE MORE FOR STAFF.
UH, THERE, THIS IS A, IT HAS A PLATTED 15 FOOT B S L I KNOW WE DON'T, WE DON'T RE UM, YOU KNOW, ENFORCE THOSE, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAID IF THE PLATT PREDATED 2001, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SETBACK.
IS THERE, CAN YOU, UH, UH, TALK ABOUT THAT? UH, CITY POLICY BASICALLY CHANGED AS FAR AS THE B S L AND WE NO LONGER LOOK AT THOSE.
WE'LL LOOK AT STRICTLY THE ZONING CODE.
UH, MANY OF THE BSLS, AS YOU KNOW YEAH.
I, I JUST, I THOUGHT FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE U D C THAT IF IT WAS PREDATED A CERTAIN DATE, THEN IT WAS LOOKED AT DIFFERENTLY WITH YOU GUYS, THAT'S ALL.
NO, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONFLICT IN THE CODE.
WE DID A RID IS THAT WE ONLY, WE ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE ZONING SETBACK.
WE DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE.
AND I THINK THE, THE UTILITY EASEMENT WAS PROBABLY MY FAULT.
I THINK I READ CONCRETE AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT OF, UH, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
BUT NOW I'M REALIZING THAT'S THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH.
SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS DO WE REALLY NEED A VARIANCE HERE? NO, NOT THE, NOT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH.
BUT THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD INTERPRETED THE STRUCTURE TO BE IN THE EASEMENT AND IT'S NOT, NOT, OKAY.
SEVEN 20 FOOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
SO WE CAN GRANT A, A FOUR FOOT EASEMENT, I MEAN A VARIANCE.
AND WE'RE, THIS SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM.
MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO WE HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THE BUILDER DID NOT PULL ANY BUILDING
[02:20:01]
PERMITS.NOW, WILL THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE PERMITS REVIEWED FOR ELECTRICAL PLUMBING? AND YES, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO APPLY IN ORDER TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, WHICH IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT THEY BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS, UM, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE VARIANCE FIRST IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND THEN THE INSPECTION PROCESS.
AND THEN I JUST A COMMENT TO THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE, UH, THE HOMEOWNERS, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THIS IS A PRIVATE ISSUE, BUT ANY CC AND R IS A COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS AGAINST WHAT THEY CAN ENFORCE AGAINST YOU ON THE STRUCTURE.
BUT THERE MAY BE SOME RECORDED, UM, BUILDING RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY NOT BE PART, I JUST FOR YOUR OWN SECURITY TO REVIEW THOSE AS WELL.
'CAUSE THOSE ARE ENFORCEABLE ON A PRIVATE ACTION, BUT NOT THROUGH THE BOARD.
AN OVERHANGS AN ENCROACHMENT, RIGHT? YOU'RE ALLOWED SOME OVERHANG.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU THINK OF A HOME ON THE SIDE YARD STEPBACK, YOU HAVE AN OVERHANG OF PROBABLY ABOUT TWO FEET.
IT CAN'T BE CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED SOME LATITUDE WITH SOME OVERHANG.
AND THAT'S IN THE CODE IN ARTICLE FIVE, NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET.
UH, I GUESS IN THIS CASE WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE FOUR FEET.
AND WHAT, UM, AND WHAT ABOUT THE, UH, NUMBER TWO AS FAR AS THE, UH, ONE FOOT FOUR FOR THE SIDE SETBACK? THEY'RE ALL STILL THERE.
WE'LL STILL NEED THE ONE AND TWO.
I, I CAN MOVE FORWARD OR READ IT.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 19 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 9, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT.
ONE, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE 16 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
AND TWO, A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE THREE FOOT NINE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 5 2 6 KING RICHARD STREET, APPLICANT BEING MARIA FERRERA.
UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE ATTACHED ADDITION IS MAINTAINED A 16 FOOT REAR SETBACK SINCE 2011 WITH NO COMPLAINTS AND IS ONLY ENCROACHING ONE FOOT NINE INCHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
THE ATTACHED ADDITION DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH CLEAR VISION.
THE OWNER WILL STILL NEED APPROVAL FROM THE UTILITY TO ENCROACH INTO THE EASEMENT IF THAT'S REALLY AN ISSUE.
UM, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH A LARGE PORTION OF THE ATTACHED ADDITION.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE GRANTING OF THE REQUE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRESPASS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY, ENSURE PROPER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
ALL OF THESE INTENTS WILL STILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.
FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE OWNER WILL STILL NEED APPROVAL FOR THE UTILITY TO ENCROACH INTO THE EASEMENT IF THAT'S AN ISSUE.
UH, SIX, APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT FOR WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE PROPERTY EDITION DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR DOES MEET THE CLEAR VISION FIELD AND EMOTION.
LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE DISCUSSION.
UM, I THINK, UH, A COUPLE THINGS.
ONE IS THAT IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE, THE COMMUNITY, UH, WAS, WAS, UH, VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS OR DIDN'T HAVE ANY
[02:25:01]
OPPOSITION TO IT, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBOR.THAT'S, UM, PROBABLY CLOSEST TO THE ADDITION ITSELF.
AND SO, SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THE PERMITTING PROCESS WILL RESOLVE ANY OF THE QUESTIONS.
SO I THINK THAT ONCE THAT'S DONE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT THAT MAY EXIST WILL BE RESOLVED.
AND, UM, AND SO THEREFORE I WILL BE APPROVING THIS.
ALL RIGHT, MS. FISHER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
YES, I ALSO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I FEEL LIKE THE OWNER HAS DONE AS MUCH DUE DILIGENCE AS, UH, POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
ORIAN, UH, I WILL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UM, JUST PASS ALONG TO THE HOMEOWNER THAT THERE, YOU DO HAVE RECORDED COVENANTS THAT ARE IN PLACE A REFERENCE ON YOUR TITLE SURVEY.
I JUST LOOKED AT 'EM AND YEAH, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES YOU MIGHT WANNA GET WITH YOUR H O A, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE, YOU'RE COVERED THERE.
ANYONE ELSE? WE DON'T TAKE CONSIDERATION THOSE THINGS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR, YOUR PROJECT AND, UH, THAT'S, UH, WE HAVE ANY MORE ISSUES TO DISCUSS TODAY? HAS EVERY
[10. 20-1272 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from December 16, 2019]
EVERYONE READ THE BOARD THE, UH, MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? YES.EVERYONE CONCUR WITH THE WHAT, UH, WHAT'S STATED? YES.
ALL RIGHT, THEN OFFICIALLY THEY'RE APPROVED.