* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] I BELIEVE WE ARE. ALRIGHT, IT IS ONE O'CLOCK. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. LET'S HAVE THE, IF YOU HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL ROLL. COMMISSIONER REED PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IVANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES PRESENT. COMMISSIONER OZUNA. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. PRESENT CHAIR ORIAN. AND I AM PRESENT IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE UH, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS? ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE IN THE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL HONOR TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD. ONE INVISIBLE. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF AN EX EXPLANATION. THIS BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY A NUMBER WITH THE NAMES OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CH AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. SO WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. UH, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND WE DID NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR OUT CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION. THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MATTER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO PLEASE ADMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. STAFF. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT WILL SHOW THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS WILL INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN EX WILL INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING [00:05:01] THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED INTO SPEAK. GROUPS CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOTTED NINE MINUTES TOTAL TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE ITEM. 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. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ALRIGHT, [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, REGARDING FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOSEPH LAYS. I'M A SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS, UH, BO A DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 41 AT FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET, UNIT 1 0 1. IT'S WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO AND THE APPLICANT IS NOLAN ERS AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO ON THE BLOCK FACE. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS AE TWO FOR ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET, UNIT 1 0 1 SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL. UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO HAVING BEEN APPROVED AUGUST 25TH, 2025, AND IS OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT. UH, THIS PERMIT IS ALSO CURRENT ON HOT, UH, PER THE CODE. TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK PLACE. UM, AT LEAST ONE TYPE TWO SHALL BE PERMITTED REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. SO THIS IS THE TYPE TWO DENSITY COUNT. UH, THERE ARE NINE UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE THAT EXTENDS FROM 400 TO FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET. UH, THE ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO PERMIT THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK FACE IS FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET, UNIT 1 0 2 WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THERE ARE TWO ACTIVE TYPE ONE PERMITS ON THE BLOCK FACE AS WELL AT 4 0 8 MONTANA STREET, UNIT 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2. UH, BUT THOSE DON'T, UM, HAVE DENSITY LIMITATIONS. SO CURRENTLY THE BLOCK FACE IS AT 11.1% AND IF THIS ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO WAS APPROVED, IT'LL BE AT 22.2%. UH, THERE'S NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY NOR ANY ACTIVE LISTINGS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL, AND THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION PLAN. WE SENT OUT 49 NOTICES, UM, ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. UM, I BELIEVE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY VOICEMAILS EITHER. UM, NO RESPONSE FROM DENVER HEIGHTS AND THEN NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, I AM DANIELLE MILLER AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE THE, UH, YEAH. OR YOU HELLO. OH YEAH, IT'S OKAY. UH, MY NAME IS DANIELLE MILLER AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PETITION THE BOARD FOR THE TYPE TWO PERMIT. AND THIS IS MY HUSBAND. HI, MY NAME IS NOLAN. UM, WE ARE HERE TO PETITION FOR A TYPE TWO DENSITY, UM, LIMITATION EXEMPTION FOR OUR PROPERTY AT FOUR 30 MONTANA STREET. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IF IT PLEAD THE BOARD THIS AFTERNOON, UH, IS GO THROUGH A A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHY, WHY WE THINK, UM, WE'D BE A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOLLOWED BY A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. AND THEN AFTER THAT I'D LIKE TO FIELD QUESTIONS FROM YOU GUYS. OKAY. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND BEGIN. UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU GUYS. UM, THE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK Y'ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE TODAY. I, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING SOMETHING DIRECTLY. UM, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND WE RESPECT THAT RECOMMENDATION. BUT STAFF'S OWN CORRESPONDENCE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT'S RECOMMENDATION EXACTLY THAT IT'S A RECOMMENDATION. UM, AND THE FINAL DECISION DOES BELONG TO THIS BOARD. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO DECIDE THIS APPLICATION BASED UPON THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND EVIDENCE THAT I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU. WE DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ORDINARY TYPE TWO DENSITY LIMITATION HAS BEEN EXCEEDED. BUT SECTION 35 DASH 3 7 4 0.01 ESPECIALLY PROVIDES A PROCEDURE FOR THIS EXACT SITUATION. WHEN THE APPLICANT SEEKS, SEEKS TO EXCEED THE TYPE TWO DENSITY LIMITATION, THE CODE PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY [00:10:01] THIS BOARD. IF EXCEEDING THE DENSITY THRESHOLD AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRED DENIAL, THERE'D BE NO REASON FOR THE CODE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION PROCEDURE FOR EXCEEDING THAT VERY THRESHOLD. SO THE IMPORTANT QUESTION TODAY IS NOT SIMPLY HAS THE DENSITY THRESHOLD BEEN EXCEEDED? OBVIOUSLY IT HAS. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS, DOES THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISH THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION? RESPECTFULLY, WE BELIEVE IT DOES FOR A NON-DISTRESSED STRUCTURE. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION FRAMEWORK DIRECTS THE BOARD TO EXAMINE THE REAL WORLD IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED USE, INCLUDING WHETHER NEARBY STREETS WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED, WHETHER RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OR THE ADJACENT OWNER'S QUIET ENJOYMENT WILL BE DISRUPTED, OR WHETHER NEIGHBOR PROPERTY WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED. LET'S ADDRESS THE STREETS AND PARKING FIRST. WE HAVE PROVIDED DEDICATED, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOS THAT WE'LL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT. WE HAVE PROVIDED DEDICATED OFF STREET PARKING THAT WE HAVE ALSO SECURED WITH AUTOMATIC CLOSING GATES. OUR GUESTS DO NOT NEED TO RELY UPON THE SURROUNDING STREETS FOR THEIR PARKING. AND THIS PROPERTY SITS IN THE AREA ALREADY HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY ALAMO DO TRAFFIC AND EVENT ACTIVITY. SO ON THE STREET IMPACT ISSUE, WE HAVE AFFIRMATIVELY TAKEN STEPS TO PREVENT THE VERY HARM THAT THE CODE TELLS THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. NOW THE SECOND ISSUE, QUIET ENJOYMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. I ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE ACTUAL CHARACTER OF THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK RATHER THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA OF WHAT A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK MAY LOOK LIKE SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE EVIDENCE WE SUBMIT WILL SUBMIT SHOWS AN AREA IMMEDIATELY INFLUENCED BY ALAMO DOME. THERE ARE VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES. THERE ARE PROPERTIES USED FOR EVENT PARKING. THERE IS A NEARBY CHURCH PROPERTY THAT IS BEING CONVERTED INTO A RESTAURANT WHERE ALCOHOL AND FOOD WILL BE SERVED. AND TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THESE USES. WE WANT INVESTMENT IN THE AREA, BUT THOSE USES DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS AN EVOLVING URBAN ENVIRONMENT WHICH RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT, PARKING AND VI VISITOR USES ALREADY COEXIST. A PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM THAT EXISTING CHARACTER. AND THIRD, AND LASTLY, SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. WE ALREADY OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL HERE, SO THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TO SPECULATE ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT OPERATE. YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL OPERATING RECORD. WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED PATTERN, WE HAVE NO DEMONSTRATED PATTERN OF DISTURBANCES, NO DEMONSTRATED PATTERN OF POLICE INCIDENTS, NO DEMONSTRATED PARKING PROBLEMS ATTRIBUTED TO OUR GUESTS. AND NO DEMONSTRATED SAFETY PROBLEM. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PERMITTED, HAS BEEN PRESENTED ESTABLISHING THAT OUR OPERATION HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. INSTEAD, WE HAVE INVESTED IN SECURITY, CONTROLLED ACCESS, OFF STREET PARKING AND ACTIVE MANAGEMENT SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT THOSE PROBLEMS. NOW I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE 4 25 MONTANA OBJECTION. THERE IS ONE OBJECTION AS WE ALL SAW A MOMENT AGO, THE OWNER OF 4 25 MONTANA STREET. AND WE ABSOLUTELY RESPECT THAT. OWNER'S RIGHT TO OBJECT, BUT AN OBJECTION AND SUBSTANTIAL INJURY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. WE SUBMITTED PHO. WE WILL SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ACTUAL USE OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ITS USE AS AN EVENT PARKING DURING THE ALAMO DOME EVENTS. I'M NOT MENTIONING THIS TO CRITICIZE THE OWNER, I'M ONLY MENTIONING IT BECAUSE WHEN THE CODE ASKED THE BOARD TO DETERMINE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND QUIET ENJOYMENT, THE ACTUAL USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES MATTERS. AND ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S CORRESPONDENCE, THERE WERE NO RESPONSES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, APO, OH, EXCUSE ME, OR OTHER NEIGHBORS OPPOSING THIS APPLICATION. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE ISSUE STAFF. STAFF ALSO STATES THAT IT COULD NOT IDENTIFY A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, WARRANTING RELIEF. RESPECTFULLY, WE ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES COLLECTIVELY IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO A MAJOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE, SUBSTANTIAL EVENT ACTIVITY EVENT PARKING USES NEARBY EVOLVING COMMERCIAL USES, OUR EXISTING STR OPERATING EXPERIENCE, PRIVATE OFF STREET PARKING, SECURED AUTOMATIC GATES, ACTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF DEMONSTRATED NUISANCE OR SUBSTANTIAL INJURY. THAT COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES THIS PROPERTY. AND JUST IN CLOSING, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE UH, POWERPOINT PRESENTATION COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO ELIMINATE THE DENSITY RULE. WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO CREATE A RULE THAT EVERY TYPE TWO STR SHOULD BE APPROVED. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION PROCESS ALLOWS. EVALUATE THIS APPLICATION, THIS PROPERTY, THIS BLOCK, AND THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE VOTING, I RESPECTFULLY ASK EACH OF YOU TO CONSIDER ONE FINAL QUESTION. WHAT SUBSTANTIAL HARM DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW? THIS ADDITIONAL PERMIT [00:15:01] WILL ACTUALLY CAUSE? WHERE IS THE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY? WHERE IS THE DEMONSTRATED TRAFFIC PROBLEM? WHERE IS THE DEMONSTRATED SAFETY PROBLEM? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY? ON THE RECORD, THOSE HARMS HAVE NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. WHAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IS RESPONSIBLE OPERATION, PRIVATE PARKING, SECURED ACCESS, ACTIVE MANAGEMENT, AND A PROPERTY SITUATED IN A DISTINCTIVE EVENT ORIENTED ENVIRONMENT. THE DENSITY LIMITATION PROTECTS NEIGHBORS FROM HARMFUL CONCENTRATIONS OF SHORT TERM RENTALS. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION PROCESS ALLOWS THE BOARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HARMFUL CONCENTRATION AND AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY WHERE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS CAN BE MADE FROM THIS EVIDENCE. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 35 DASH 3 7 4 0.01 AND APPROVE THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION. THANK YOU. NOW WE'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION IF THAT PLEASES THE BOARD. I GOT IT, I GOT IT. LET ME JUST GET MY NOTES HERE. PARDON ME. OKAY. BOARD AND EVERYBODY HERE. UM, WHAT'LL NOTICE IS, UM, YOU'LL SEE THE FOUR 30 MONTANA PROPERTY. ON THE RIGHT IS UNIT 1 0 1, WHERE WE ARE REQUESTING THE PERMIT. 1 0 2 IS THAT LEFT DOOR WHERE THE PERMIT ALREADY EXISTS. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT'S COMPLETELY FENCED AROUND THE PROPERTY WITH GATES AND CLOSING EVERYTHING. ALSO THAT GIANT CONCRETE PAD THAT IS YOUR OFF STREET PARKING. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE LOT DIRECTLY TO OUR WEST, WHICH IS USED AS A POPUP PARKING LOT, UM, DURING EVENTS AT THE ALAMO DOME. AND THE THE FIRST PHOTO IS LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET AT 4 25 MONTANA, WHICH IS ALSO A LOT THAT'S USED AS A POPUP PARKING LOT FOR EVENTS AT THE ALAMO DOME. AND WE HAVE MORE. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. OUR TOP LEFT PHOTO HERE, YOU'LL SEE THAT WAS, UM, IT WAS AN OLD CHURCH THAT WAS TURNED INTO A MUSEUM, BUT THEY HAVE RECENTLY APPLIED FOR A, UH, ALCOHOL PERMIT TO TURN IT INTO A RESTAURANT. WE WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. MORE INVESTMENT INTO THE COMMUNITY. TO YOUR TOP RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER LOT THAT IS ALSO USED FOR POPUP POP POPUP PARKING DURING EVENTS AT THE ALAMO DOME. THE BOTTOM LEFT PHOTO IS JUST KIND OF DEMONSTRATES THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN THAT'S A VACANT HOUSE THAT'S DOWN THE STREET. AND THEN WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE, BABE? THAT'S LIKE RIGHT ACROSS, THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. UM, AND THEY JUST RECENTLY LIKE REVAMPED. I THINK THEY'RE STARTING TO DO LIKE LONG-TERM RENTAL. THE PRIMARY OWNERS HAVE SINCE MOVED OUTTA THERE. UM, WE HAD SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR AND HE SAID, YEAH, THEY REDID THE YARD AND MADE IT LOOK VERY NICE, BUT TO USE PROBABLY AS A RENTAL PROPERTY. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO JUST FURTHER CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE IN. JUST TO SHOW THIS IS NOT YOUR STANDARD, YOU KNOW, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS A BIT OF A MIXED USE. UM, THAT'S A VACANT LOT. IT IS NOT USED FOR PARKING. UM, IT IS FOR SALE. THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UH, THE TOP RIGHT PHOTO IS THE PARKING LOT FOR THE CHARITY BAR, WHICH IS A NEIGHBORHOOD BAR RIGHT AT THE END OF OUR STREET. THE BOTTOM LEFT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND THAT MIDDLE ONE, WE THOUGHT IT WAS ABANDONED, BUT SOMEBODY ACTUALLY DOES LIVE THERE. UM, SO THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY, TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT THERE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE ALAMO AND TRAFFIC IS KIND OF, YOU CAN GET A REAL WORLD VIEW OF WHAT GAME DAYS LOOK LIKE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN OUR AREA. SORRY, I CAN'T REALLY CALL A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE STREETS ARE BLOCKED OFF AND THAT THESE AREAS ARE TURNED INTO PARKING LOTS. SO A BIT OF A MIXED USE THERE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS OUR PROVEN RECORD OF RESPONSIBLE OPERATION, UM, AND WE'RE VERY PROUD TO SAY WE ARE ONE OF THE ONLY AIRBNBS, UH, IN OUR AREA WITH A HUNDRED PERCENT FIVE STAR REVIEWS. THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM LAST MONTH. NOW WE HAVE OVER 105 STAR REVIEWS AND UNDER A YEAR OF HOSTING AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND NO ADVERSE IMPACT. WE'VE KIND OF ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT. THIS IS JUST A FINAL, I THINK THIS IS THE FINAL SLIDE. UM, THATS JUST A, IS THERE A COUPLE MORE? OKAY. I I'M SORRY. CAN YOU GO BACK? JUST, UH, THERE'S ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH THE GATES, UM, JUST TO SHOW THE SECURED OFF STREET PARKING. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. UH, THESE ARE SOME LETTERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. UH, THIS IS WHEN WE REACHED OUT. I'M SORRY, THIS IS WHEN WE REACHED OUT TO MR. LEWIS. I [00:20:01] JUST WANTED TO SHOW WHO'S IN CHARGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT PART OF IT, WE ARE WITHIN 200 FEET, SO WE HAD TO NOTIFY HIM. UH, WE WERE UNABLE TO MAKE CONTACT, SO THAT WAS UNFORTUNATE. BUT WE DID REACH OUT TWICE VIA PHONE. AND THESE ARE THE EMAILS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, NEIGHBORS. THE NEXT SLIDE? NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. AND THEN HERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT LETTERS, UH, THAT WE RECEIVED. UH, WE RECEIVED THESE. AND THEN IS THERE ARE THE OTHER ONES IN HERE AS WELL. NEXT PAGE, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND A COUPLE MORE FROM, UH, LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS. AND THEN WE JUST WENT INTO ECONOMIC BENEFITS EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK THE BOARD IS OBJECTING TO THAT. JUST SHOWING THAT OUR HOTEL TAXES ARE PAID ON TIME. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY, NOW, NOW WE'RE IN CLOSING. SO, UM, JUST A FINAL SLIDE, KIND OF A LITTLE BIT ABOUT US. AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK THE BOARD FOR THE TIME. UH, WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TODAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. SO SOME THROW SOME QUESTIONS OUT THERE. SO THE UH, UNIT THAT IS AN STR AT THIS MOMENT, THAT WAS FIRST PERMITTED IN AUGUST OF, UH, 2025. YES, SIR. OKAY. IT WASN'T A RENEWAL. THAT WAS THE INITIAL, THAT WAS VERY FIRST ONE. THAT'S OUR FIRST SHOT AT IT. AND, AND HOW MANY OFF STREET PARKING SPACES DO YOU PROVIDE? UH, WITHIN THE SITE? SO EACH UNIT, UH, ACTUALLY THE 1 0 2, 1 0 1 CAN FIT THREE. AND THEN THE OTHER UNIT CAN ALSO FIT THREE. NOW, NOT IF YOU HAVE BIG JACKED UP TRUCKS. UM, IT COULD FIT TWO BUT THREE MEDIUM TO SMALL SIZE VEHICLES, TWO ALL DAY ON BOTH OF THEM. SO OH, SO AT LEAST FOUR FOUR TOTAL ON THE COMPOUND. YES, SIR. AND, UH, STAFF, I NOTICED THERE WAS A BUS STOP IN FRONT. SO BECAUSE THERE'S A BUS STOP THERE, HOW FAR AWAY DO YOU HAVE TO BE? WELL, THERE'S NO PARKING ON THAT ENTIRE BLOCK. IS THAT WHAT THE SIGN WAS INSINUATING OR IS THAT FOR THE BUS STOP? THE, THE NO PARKING SIGN. THE STOP. UH, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK. OKAY. UM, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS MR. MANNA? SO, SO HAVE YOU, UH, TRIED OR HAD ANY ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO DO, UH, MIDTERM RENTALS AND OR LONG TERM RENTALS ON THAT PROPERTY? SO, SO SOMETHING GREATER THAN A MONTH OR, OR LONGER? NO, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. UM, THANK YOU FOR ASKING MR. MANNA. THE REASON WE HAVEN'T, WE DO OPERATE A LONG-TERM RENTAL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN. THAT'S IN MUCH MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT A MIXED USE. IT'S BETTER FOR FAMILIES. FOR HERE ATTRACTING A LONG-TERM RENTAL RENTER WITH ALL THE POP-UP PARKING LOTS AND THE HEAVY ALAMO TRAFFIC, IT'S MUCH LESS INVITING, UH, FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE FAMILIES OR WHATNOT. THEY DON'T WANT HUNDREDS OF RANDOM CARS POPPING UP ON THE WEEKENDS AND DISRUPTING WHAT THEY HAVE GOING ON. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MORE SEEM TO BE OUR GUESTS ARE MORE RECEPTIVE TO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE TYPICALLY HERE FOR THOSE EVENTS AND THEY ENJOY, I MEAN, THEY KNOW IT'S PART OF IT. SO THOSE POPUP PARKING LOTS, ALL THE EXTRA TRAFFIC THAT COMES WITH THAT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BOTHER THEM. AND IT'S ACTUALLY A PERK 'CAUSE THEY CAN JUST WALK RIGHT TO THE ALAMODOME SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO RISK A DWI, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, EVEN CALL IT UBER. UH, BUT FOR A LONG-TERM RENTER, WE WANT OUR, WE WANT PEOPLE TO ENJOY THE SPACE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE LESS ATTRACTIVE FOR SOMEBODY JUST BASED ON THOSE TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT ALREADY EXIST. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND MR. COMMISSIONER? UM, YES. IT APPEARS THAT THE NO PARKING SIGN IS, UM, NO PARKING DURING ALAMO DEM EVENTS. OKAY. SO THE ON BOTH SIDES IS A, IS A, UH, VIA BUS STOP THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T NATURALLY INVOKE ANY, NO PARKING OR ANYTHING FROM THE CORNERS THERE. JUST LIKE 15 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE NORMAL. WE'RE STILL CHECKING ON THE CODE, BUT THERE'S NO, DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING THAT VERIFIES OR REQUIRES ANY, YOU KNOW, DISTANCE FROM AV BUS TIME. OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I MEAN, I'M, I THOUGHT IT WAS A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. I FEEL LIKE I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, SO THANK YOU. AND, AND, UH, WELL ACTUALLY THERE IS ONE LAST THING. YOU DID REACH OUT BY EMAIL TO THE, UH, DENVER HEIGHTS. YES, SIR. MR. LEWIS? UH, TWICE AND THEN TWO PHONE CALLS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE SOUGHT TO NOTIFY HIM 'CAUSE WE'RE 200 FEET. UM, DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK AT ALL? NO, SIR. ALRIGHT. I, I BELIEVE MR. LEOS HAD BEEN REACHED OUT TO HIM, UH, OR NOTIFIED HIM ANYWAYS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, UH, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 3 0 0 1 4 1. I MOVE [00:25:01] TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT FOUR 30 MONTANA UNIT 1 0 1, APPLICANT BEING, UH, NOLAN SCONIERS? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE ON ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RAIL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THERE'S NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY BE INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A SHORT-TERM TYPE TWO, SHORT-TERM RENTAL. D, ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING, APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22. THE CITY CODE WERE THE ONE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVOKED LICENSES, CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTIONS. F THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALSO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FORGED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. END OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BACK. COMMISSIONER BEES. COMMISSIONER BECKMAN. YEAH. UM, IN LISTENING TO THE APPLICANT'S, UM, HIGHLIGHTING OF THE FACT THAT IT IS A MIXED, UM, COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THERE ARE, UH, SOMEWHAT COMMERCIAL TYPE BUSINESSES, THERE ARE THE POPUP PARKING SPACES, UM, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT LESS DESIRABLE FOR A LONG-TERM RENTAL. UM, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF, UH, THIS MOTION FOR THOSE REASONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BEES. I CONCUR WITH MY, UM, COLLEAGUE ALSO. THERE'S, YOU'VE HAD NO DISTURBANCES. YOUR HOT TAXES ARE PAID ON TIME. YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND YOU OFFER FOUR TO SIX PARKING SPOTS. SO YOU SEEM TO BE AN IDEAL, UM, STR PERMIT HOLDER. SO I WILL ALSO BE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, MR. MAD. SO UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, IT'S SO, WHILE YOU SOUND LIKE A WONDERFUL BUSINESS PERSON AND, AND HAD DONE A GREAT JOB THERE, I HAVE NO FAULTS ON THAT AT ALL. YOU KNOW, THE CITY DID COME UP WITH, WITH, WITH A DIALOGUE ON HOW DENSE WE WANT SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO BE. AND WITHIN 1200 FEET OF YOUR HOME, THERE'S 37 OTHER SHORT TERM RENTALS. UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY DENSE AREA, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF THICK FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. AND, AND HOUSING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT IS HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK DOWNTOWN AND LIVE NEAR DOWNTOWN. AND SO, UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE LOOKING AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS RENTALS. AND SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER, OTHER, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE, I THINK BEFORE I GO DOWN THIS PATH. AND SO, SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I WON'T BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONLY BECAUSE YOU ARE AE ZONING. UH, I KNOW THAT WITH ALL THE, UH, MYTA PARKING LOTS, IT, IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER, UH, PARTS OF DOWNTOWN. AND, UM, SO FOR THE, AND BECAUSE THIS IS A THREE YEAR PERMIT, YOU'D HAVE TO COME BACK EVERY THREE YEARS. I THINK THAT IF YOU WERE, YOU WEREN'T BEING A GOOD STEWARD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE, WE CERTAINLY WOULD HEAR ABOUT IT IN THREE YEARS. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BEES. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. UH, AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THE MOTION DOES FAIL. SEVEN TO THREE. WE DO NEED TO HAVE NINE VOTES. UH, SO, UH, I WISH YOU LUCK AND IF YOU HAVE ANY [00:30:01] QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BOARD. YEP. UH, SO ITEM NUMBER TWO, UH, IS HAS BEEN POSTPONED. THAT'S AT 91 0 2 PROXIN. HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR THAT ITEM? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 3 5. LOCATED IN DISTRICT FIVE AT 2 5 5 TESLA DRIVE. THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A THREE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG TWO, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK FOR CARPORT. THREE. A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG TESLA DRIVE WITHIN A DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AMONGST PROPERTIES. ALSO ZONED R SIX RESIDENTIAL SWING. THE FAMILY DISTRICT, THE VARIANCE REQUEST ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE FOR BUILDING A CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN JULY OF 2026. THE CARPORT REMAINS CONSTRUCTED. STAFF DETERMINED THE CARPORT'S LOCATION NECESSITATED A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS ALONG WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION DATED STREET VIEW IMAGERY SHOWS FENCE IN ITS CURRENT POSITION AS FAR BACK AS 2008. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE FRONT SETBACK AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 35 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE FENCE TO ALLOW MOTORS TO VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SAFELY MANEUVER A VEHICLE INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. UM, YES, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 3 5 FOR THE DRIVE OF CLEAR VISION VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, A ONE FOOT NINE INCH SIDE SETBACK AND A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK OF OUR CARPORT COULD IMPACT FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES TO THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES AND MAY INCREASE WATER RUNOFF INTO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. STAFF MAIL AT 25 NOTICES ZERO. RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION FOR VOICEMAILS. ZERO. RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. MEMORIAL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. ALRIGHT. UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I NOTICED THAT THIS, UH, EXISTING CARPORT DOES HAVE GUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES. UM, DOES THAT, IS THAT, UM, WHEN A MOTION IS MADE ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BUILT WITH GUTTERS, CAN THAT BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION AUTOMATICALLY OR DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE TO ACTUALLY AMEND OR STATE ANYTHING? I MEANT WE JUST TO DOUBLE DOWN, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE SURE, GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO? HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CARPORT. MARIA MORENO AND I LIVE AT 2 5 5 TESLA. AND YES, I DID BUILD THAT CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT DOES HAVE, UM, GUTTERS AND IT DOES HAVE DOWNSPOUTS THAT GO DOWN IN THE FRONT. OKAY. WELL, UH, I JUST WANTED TO TO ASK, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION AND STATE THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS A CARPORT WITH GUTTERS? YEAH. ALRIGHT. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T, UH, AMEND THEIR APPLICATION. THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE, LET ME JUST ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS. HOW IS IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST DEEP ENOUGH FOR ONE CAR LENGTH. IT'S FOR TWO HOURS AND WELL SIDE BY SIDE, BUT YEAH. AND THEN, UH, YOU ARE A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT IS ABUTTING THE CURB. IT LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT ABOUT, UH, FOUR OR FIVE FEET. YEAH, SOMEWHAT. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEMS 'CAUSE I SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORS, ALL THE NEIGHBORS AROUND AND NONE OF 'EM HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY CARPORT. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER CRUZ. THANK YOU. UM, [00:35:01] MA'AM, IS THE CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOME? NO, IT'S, IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE HOME, BUT I, THEY DID PUT, UH, METAL SO THE WATER WON'T FALL TO IT. I PUT A TV ON THERE. MM-HMM . UNDER THE CARPORT. I PUT A TV SO THE TV WON'T GET WET. WE DID INSTALL, YOU KNOW, METAL RIGHT THERE SO IT WON'T FALL ON THE TV AND THE TEETH TO GET WET. SOME MILD FLASHING OR SOMETHING TO TIE IT IN. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO YOU SAID YOU TALKED TO SOME NEIGHBORS WERE YEAH. WAS IT THE, YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR? THE NEIGHBOR ON THE LEFT, THE RIGHT AND THE FRONT NEIGHBOR AND THEY ALL SAID THERE WASN'T ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY CARPORT. AND THEN, UM, WHILE YOU HAVE THIS GATE HERE, SO DO YOU EVER PARK ON THE STREET SIDE OF THAT GATE? UM, OR DO YOU UTILIZE THE GATE SIDE OF YOUR DRIVEWAY? YEAH. WHEN PARKING MM-HMM . VERSUS THE BACK VERSUS BEHIND IT. UH, BEHIND IT. SO ALWAYS BEHIND IT. MM-HMM . BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, WE, I GUESS THE CITY DISCOURAGES IS ACTUALLY PARKING SO THAT YOU BLOCK, DRIVE BLOCK SIDEWALKS. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION. YEAH, BECAUSE I HAVE FOUR VEHICLES, SO I PARK TWO VEHICLES IN THE INSIDE AND I PARK TWO VEHICLES ON THE STREET, SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. NO, BEN BENAVIDES. I JUST WANNA YES. CLARIFY WHEN YOU SAY YOU PARKED FOUR VEHICLES. I HAVE TWO IN THE AND THEN TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY. UHHUH BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK. NO, NO, NO. I DON'T BLOCK THE, ON THE STREET. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. MM-HMM . YEAH, I DON'T BLOCK THE DRIVEWAY. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT, WELL THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. AND I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 1 3 5. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ONE FOOT NINE INCH SIDE SETBACK FOR A CARPORT WITH ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG AND GUTTERS. TWO, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK FROM THE CARPORT, FOUR CARPORT AND THREE A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT CLEAR VISIONARY SITUATED 2 5 5 TESLA DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING, UH, MORE MORENO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT OF THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES TO THE CARPORT TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FIRE AND FLOOD EVENTS. AND REMAINING DRIVEWAY SPACE WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO MANEUVER A VEHICLE IN AND OUT OF STREET OF STREET TRAFFIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR A CARPORT TO MEET THE SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACKS IN THE DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION AREA IS MINIMAL AND WILL, WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THIS LOT OR PEOPLE NAVIGATING THE SURROUNDING STREETSCAPE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AS THE, AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND NEARBY STRUCTURES AND THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WOULD NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPTH OF THE FRONT YARD AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CARPORT THAT MEETS UDC REQUIREMENTS. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MADDOCK. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I THINK WE'VE, UM, WE'VE APPROVED FAR MORE EGREGIOUS DEVIATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THIS STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE, UH, BUILT WITH NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANOCK? UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, ALSO I THINK THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THERE REALLY IS NOT A DRIVEWAY CAPABILITY TO THE SIDE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY HAVE LIMITED SPACE. UM, WHILE THERE AREN'T MANY CARPORTS IN THIS AREA, YOU KNOW, WE ARE SENDING TO PRESIDENTS FOR ALL THOSE, [00:40:01] UH, THAT UH, MAY BE LOOKING AT THIS AS, YOU KNOW, AN OPTION FOR THEM. SO WE PROBABLY WILL SEE MORE OF THESE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. OKAY, JUST DO IT LIKE THIS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR THREE LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AT 1 1 1 0 BROOKLYN AVENUE. THE ZONING IS C TWO AND THEIR CROSS IS FOUR. ONE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE 20 FOOT 24 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT ALONG AN ARTERIAL TYPE B TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT SIGN TO OF 300 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 150 SQUARE FOOT AREA. SIGN ALONG AN ARTERIAL TYPE B TO ALLOW 450 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S ADDRESS OFF BROOKLYN AVENUE AND IS SURROUNDED BY SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE B BROOKLYN AVENUE PRIMARY ARTERIAL TYPE A EAST ELMIRA STREET IN LOCAL ROAD, EAST EUCLID AVENUE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALSO WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C3 NA, GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT AND C3 R GENERAL COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIVE ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST ORIGINATED FROM A COMMERCIAL PROJECT APPLICATION INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNS, ONE OF WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMIT OUTLINED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN JULY OF 2026. THE SIGN HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE SIGN REMAINING IN PLACE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF S RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR SIGN HEIGHT AND SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCES IN BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 3 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, WHEN THE VARIANCES ARE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THEIR PROPOSED INCREASED SIGN HEIGHT AND SIZE WOULD BE UNCHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA AND WOULD IMPOSE A STANDARD NOT OBSERVED ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TOMB. THE SIGN HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET AND COULD STILL BE PLANNED TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. SIGN REGULATIONS STAFF MAIL THAT EIGHT NOTICES. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. ZERO VOICEMAILS ARE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO. VOICEMAILS RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, SO I HAVE A, A QUESTION. SO YOU HAVE ELMIRA RIGHT OF WAY THAT ABUTS THE, THE INTERSTATE RIGHT OF WAY. ARE THEY COMPLETELY SEPARATE OR ARE THEY SOMEHOW MERGED TOGETHER? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT'S AN ART ARTERIAL. BI THOUGHT A A MYRA WAS LIKE 60 FEET AND, AND MAYBE YEAH, I SEE THE, UH, LET'S WE'LL HEAR FROM THE, WELL, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. SHE, THANK YOU. ARTOS. UH, CHIEF INSPECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO ELMIRA IS UNDER A, UH, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN. MAP IS CLASSIFIED AS A SERIAL A, UH, THE WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT BROOKLYN, THAT IS AN ARTERIAL BA COLLECTOR. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. I I I WAS LOOKING AT THE WOOD. THEY DIDN'T SEEM THAT WIDE, BUT YEAH. OKAY. AND TYPICALLY WE LOOK AT THE APEX OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE SIGN IS ORIENTED ON THE BROOKLYN SIDE, SO THEREFORE IT WOULD MEET, WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR ARTERIAL B. ALRIGHT, WELL THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE CITY BEFORE WE HEAR FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, HEARING [00:45:01] DONE IF I CAN. YES. ANOTHER POINT IS, UH, EXPRESSWAY ALLOWANCE IS 375 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 450 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S JUMPING THE THREE CLASSIFICATIONS FROM B PASSING, UH, A AND EVEN EXPRESSWAY. WOULD, IF THEY WERE TO ASK FOR 375 FEET, WOULD YOU BE MORE AMICABLE? NO. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. OKAY. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE EXPRESSWAY FRONTAGE, YOU'RE ALLOWED, YOU ALLOW EXPRESSWAY STANDARDS. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE HIGHWAY, BUT YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A HUNDRED, 200 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. YEAH. AND, UH, WELL I GUESS WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE, IS THERE ANY OTHER SIGNS THAT ARE NEARBY? I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SOME CELL CELL TOWER YEAH. ANTENNAS. BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER SIGNAGE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THAT WOULD POST CONFLICT? NO, THERE WAS AN OLD TECHNICAL STATION DOWN ELMIRA, BUT THAT ONE GOT KNOCKED DOWN WHEN THEY EXPANDED THE, THE EXPRESSWAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD IS THE APPLICANT FOR, UM, 1 1 10 BROOKLYN AVENUE HERE. ALL RIGHTY. SO WE WILL BE TABLING THIS, UH, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM. SO ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS, IS OFFICIALLY TABLED AND WILL BE RESURRECTED AT A LATER TIME. UH, DURING THE MEETING WE ARE GONNA JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER 5 35 10 NORTH MAIN AVENUE. OH, AND ONE LAST THING BEFORE WE MOVE ON. WAS THERE ANYBODY HERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ITEM FOUR? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, JUST ALL RIGHT. BACK TO ITEM FIVE. JUST PRESENT LIKE THIS. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 7 LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AT 35 10 NORTH MAIN AVENUE. THE ZONING IS OH ONE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A 10 FOOT VARIANCE IN THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, AN ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LAWN LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH MAIN AVENUE WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND OFFICE USES. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DUE TO MAJOR RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SITE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER REQUIRED OF A PROPERTY ZONE OH ONE ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PER SAS VISIT TO THE SITE IN JULY, 2026. THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT MAY EITHER REQUEST RELIEF FROM THE STANDARDS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR MODIFY THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO ADHERE TO THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THE REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE NORTH IS THE BLUE NUMBER ONE, AND THE REDUCTION OR THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFER IS THE ORANGE NUMBER TWO. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE REQUESTING THE REDUCTION. AND THIS IS THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE REQUESTING THE ELIMINATION. AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF COMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE BUFFER REDUCTION IN BUFFER ELIMINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REDUCTION IN ELIMINATION OF THE REQUIRED BUFFERS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN PLACE TO PROVIDE SEPARATION BETWEEN MORE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL USES IF GRANTED OR REDUCED BUFFER YARDS TO NORTH AND ELIMINATE ELIMINATION TO THE SOUTH BETWEEN THE EXISTING FACILITY AND ABUDDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WOULD BE PERMITTED, WHICH WOULD INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE SHIELD FROM THE NOISE AND TRAFFIC CREATED BY SUCH USE STAFF MAIL 35 NOTICES, ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION. THERE IS ZERO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED. THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. IS THIS CASE HERE BEFORE, SAY, BECAUSE THEY EXCEEDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE, OF THE RENOVATION WHEN THEY, FOR THE RENOVATION WORK, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL EXISTING. IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT'S INVOKING THE BUFFERS? I'M NOT SURE IF THE 50% IS WHAT INVOKED THIS, BUT I DO KNOW THE, THE, UM, [00:50:02] THE, THE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN EXISTING LIKE THIS. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO INCREASE OF DRIVES THAT WERE PART OF THE PROPOSED SUBMITTAL ON THIS. SO, SO THE, THE BACKSTORY ON THIS ONE IS, UH, THE BUFFERS THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE INITIAL PERMIT APPLICATION WERE NEVER INSTALLED AND THAT WAS IDENTIFIED DURING A TREE AND LANDSCAPING INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE BUFFERS THAT WERE INITIALLY PROPOSED WERE NEVER INSTALLED. SO, UM, KIND OF VARIANCE TO REFLECT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT ON SITE. AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE, CAN, CAN YOU GET ACCESS TO THAT SITE PLAN THAT WHAT THEY SUBMITTED? UH, YEAH, JUST, JUST A MOMENT. I CAN FIND THAT. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, UH, LASTLY, UH, THERE IS, UM, IS THERE ANY, IS THERE, THIS IS AN HL DISTRICT, WAS THERE A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE HISTORIC, UH, HCRC REGARDING THIS SITE? I CAN CHECK. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY, WHAT, WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO US. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE DO, UM, HAVE A SUMMARY HERE. OKAY. SORRY, HOLD ON. WE'RE GONNA LOOK INTO THE HDRT. THANK YOU. SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, IT TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT, BUT, UH, I, IF YOU, IF YOU HEARD ANY OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED, I'M, I'M INTERESTED ABOUT, WELL, I PERSONALLY AM INTERESTED ABOUT YOU SUBMITTED FOR, UH, A PLAN THAT INCLUDED BUFFERS, BUT THEY WEREN'T BUILT. AND ALSO WHAT ANY, IF ANYTHING, CAME OUT OF AN HDRC PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS SITE. YES, ABSOLUTELY. UH, WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RAYMOND AGUILAR. I'M WITH MP STUDIO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE REPRESENTING THE OWNER. UM, THIS IS MY ASSOCIATE CATINO. CAN CAN YOU, UH, KIND OF MOVE THAT? OH, I'M SORRY. YEAH, IT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, THIS, THIS WAS AN EXISTING SITE THAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE OWNERSHIP, UH, AS ITS ZONED OFFICE. UM, THE ARCHITECTURE THAT'S LOOKING TO MOVE IN IS JUST REQUIRED, UH, WANTING TO ACHIEVE THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND THE DRIVEWAYS ON BOTH SIDES WERE APPROVED ON PREVIOUS PERMITS THAT WERE GIVEN, UM, ON THE SITE. THAT WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS O OWNER. CURRENTLY IT WAS A PREVIOUS OWNER. SO, UH, LOOKING AT IT, WE WERE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THERE WAS SOME SORT OF LANDSCAPING THAT WAS GONNA BE PROVIDED GIVEN WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ARE. UH, NOT PROVIDING, UH, JUST THE, THE EXISTING FIT AS THE ONLY MEASURE OF A BARRIER TRYING TO INTRODUCE TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD SATISFY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE GIVEN WITH LIMITATIONS THAT ARE THERE, UH, UNABLE TO SATISFY THAT WITH REQUIREMENT. UM, AND I'M, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR SECOND QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, UH, SO, SO MY, THE, THERE WAS AN A, UH, YOUR ZONE HL, THERE'S SO HISTORIC. WAS THERE AN HDRC MEETING WHERE ANYTHING MAY HAVE COME OUT OF THAT THAT MIGHT BE PERTINENT TO US? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE RECORD OF THAT. OKAY. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE. OH, SORRY. KAINO, THE S AND P STUDIO. UM, WE DID REACH OUT TO, UH, THE CITY REGARDING KIND OF THE OLD PERMIT. AND SINCE IT WAS, UH, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS BASED OFF OF THE OLD, UH, SYSTEM THEY HAD, EVERYTHING WAS SCANNED, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS. AND THE PERMIT WAS, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2014. IT COULD BE, UH, UH, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OLDER. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING KIND OF THE PAST OWNERSHIP. SO, SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. THERE WAS A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ARRANGEMENT IN 2014. AND IN 2014 IT INCLUDED BUFFERS FROM WHAT I, UH, THE PERMITS WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, THE SCAN, UH, PLANTS. THERE WAS NO DRIVEWAY. CORRECT. UM, AND THEN WE RECEIVED ANOTHER UPDATED PERMIT WITH, WITH THE DRIVEWAY, UM, FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER ALSO. AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF GRAB. AND THIS PLAN IS BASED OFF OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. BUT, UM, YEAH. SO WHEN WAS THE BUILDING BUILT? UH, PLEASE, PLEASE COME UP. SORRY. UH, THIS IS JESSICA, UH, SANCHEZ SANCHEZ WITH ALTA UH ARCHITECTS. YES. HI, GOOD MORNING. I'M WITH ALTA ARCHITECTS. UH, THEY ACQUIRED THE BUILDING FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. SO WE, THE, WE BOUGHT THE BUILDING EXISTING EXACTLY HOW IT IS AND AS WE'VE CONTINUED TO TRY TO GET THE FINAL PERMITTING, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. WHEN WAS THE BUILDING BUILT? ORIGINALLY IT WAS, IT USED TO BE AN OLD S-A-I-S-D SCHOOL THAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS BUILT? NO, SIR. OKAY. UH, AND IS IT, HOW DEEP IS THE LOT? HOW DEEP IS THE LOT? WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS IS, UM, I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVEWAYS ARE NEEDED FOR FIRE PROTECTION IN ANY WAY OR IF THE BUILDING'S SPRINKLERED. UH, DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU KNOW IF THE BUILDING'S SPRINKLERED THE YES, EVERYTHING'S BEEN, EVERYTHING'S BEEN APPROVED MINUS LANDSCAPE? WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. IS A [00:55:01] BUILDING SPRINKLER? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I JUST WANTED TO ADD. YES, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM BC AD, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1960. OKAY. AND THEN AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTANCES OR THE WIDTH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WIDTH, NOT THE, WELL, I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, THE DEPTH IF THE DRIVEWAYS ARE NEEDED FOR LIFE SAFETY CODE COMPLIANCE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN. SO IF THE BUILDING'S SPRINKLERED, UH, IT KIND OF, YOU GET AN EXTRA, UH, INSTEAD OF 150 FEET, YOU GET 200 FEET. HOW TALL IS THE BUILDING? IS IT OVER 35 FEET TALL? NO, I BELIEVE IT'S A ONE STORY. I'M SORRY, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, IT'S A ONE STORY, CORRECT? IT'S A ONE STORY. IT'S NOT 35 FEET THOUGH. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO AERIAL LANE? NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS, I JUST WANT TO, I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS BASED ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY? YES. ITS CURRENT USE IS OFFICE. YES. IT'S A MINORITY OWNED ART ARCHITECTS. MM-HMM . WE HAVE ABOUT 54 EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HOUSED THERE. WE, UH, THEY, THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR PARKING FOR THE, UM, CLIENTS AND STAFF. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME PARKING UP IN FRONT. AND SO PRIOR TO YOU ACQUIRING THIS PROPERTY, WHAT WAS THE BUILDING USED FOR? THEY WERE USING IT FOR, I BELIEVE AS A TECH COMPANY FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNERS WERE USING IT AS A TECH COMPANY. SO A SIMILAR USE. SO A SIMILAR USE. YEAH, IT WAS DEFINITELY A MULTI-USE, UM, A COMMERCIAL SPACE. OKAY. GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. THANKS MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DRIVEWAY WIDTHS ARE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING? AND SO WOULD IT ALLOW FOR, UH, TWO CARS TO PASS EACH OTHER? NO, SIR. SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, RIGHT. IT'S KIND OF A ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. SO YEAH, I MEAN, THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ADEQUATE SPACE TO HAVE ENOUGH ON EACH SIDE TO AT LEAST GO WITH ONE AND SOME ROOM, POSSIBLY TWO. I DON'T KNOW. WE'VE NEVER DONE IT BECAUSE THE WAY WE DO IT IS WE GO IN, WE PARK, I'M SORRY, WE GO IN, WE PARK AND THEN WE COME OUT THE OTHER SIDE. THAT'S BEEN THE WAY THAT WE DO IT. IT WOULD'VE BEEN TOO SMALL TO I THINK, TRY TO GET US OUT, NAVIGATE OUT OF ONE SPACE. AND SO THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN IS THAT IF, IF WE DID PUSH FOR THE, UM, BUFFER LIKES BEING ASKED, THEN THAT WOULD RENDER THAT SPACE USELESS 'CAUSE YOU COULDN'T GET BACK TO HER. WOULD THAT CORRECT? OH YEAH. WE COULDN'T GET BACK THERE. YEAH. YEAH. AND SO WHEN WE, WHEN THEY NOT ME, UH, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY SET. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE LANDSCAPING APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN FINISH , BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING 'CAUSE WE RUN INTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RIGHT HERE AND OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T TAKE THEIR SPACE. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS THAT PROPERTY. I'M NOT SURE. RIGHT. ONE MORE QUESTIONS. SORRY. GO. SO THE FINAL QUESTION IS WITH REGARDS TO THE BUFFER SPACE THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UM, THE VARIANCE THAT IS SOUGHT IS, UH, IS NOT CHANGING, UH, THE, UH, THE DISTANCE INCLUDING THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY. SO WE AREN'T EXPANDING IT, IT, OR, OR SHRINKING IT. IT'S, IT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE DRIVEWAY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THAT THAT RIGHT SIDE OF THE, OF THE PLAN SHOWN HERE, UH, NORTH IS THE LEFT SIDE. SORRY, THE LEFT SIDE. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? SO, SO THE QUESTION IS, SO, SO WE AREN'T SHRINKING WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE? UH, JUST CLICK JUST REDUCING IT TO THE SIZE TO INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY? CORRECT. SO WE AREN'T MAKING IT SMALLER FROM, FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE FIELD? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. YES. SO SHOWN HERE IS THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF, UH, I GUESS IN 2014 IS THE, IS THE DATE THAT'S BEING STATED BY THE APPLICANT. UH, THIS PROJECT WAS MIGRATED, UH, INTO OUR NEW, UH, PERMITTING SYSTEM, BUT THIS IS THE OLD PLAN THAT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR LANDSCAPING. THE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR INTERIOR RENOVATION OF THIS EXISTING BUILDING. UH, MEP INCLUDED LANDSCAPING, NEW PARKING LOT AND SIDEWALKS. THAT'S A FULL SCOPE THAT WAS PROPOSED INITIALLY OKAY. WITH THIS LANDSCAPING PLAN. BUT WE DIDN'T BUY IT UNDER THAT. I MEAN, WE BOUGHT IT AS COMPLETE. ALRIGHT. IN 2014, WAS THERE A BUFFER REQUIREMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE? SO, SO THEY CONSTRUCTED IT THAT WELL COME ON. OR IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE MOBILE MICROPHONES, YOU CAN OH, YEAH. WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IF THERE WAS A BUFFER REQUIREMENT, WAS THERE A VARIANCE ACHIEVED BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WASN'T ONE PROVIDED AT ALL? I, I, I, I WASN'T OVER THE GROUP AT THAT TIME, BUT, UH, I THINK, UH, THE ONE IMPORTANT POINT TO KNOW IS THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1960, SO THEY REALLY, THEY'RE LIKE THIRD OWNERS. IT JUST TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT IF THEY'RE, SINCE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCES COMING TO YOU GUYS TO MAKE A DECISION ON, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE MET EVERY OTHER CRITERIA FOR THIS. YES. OKAY. AND, AND, UH, WHAT IS, WHAT IS TRIGGERING THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT TODAY? THE, THE CHA THE DIFFERENT ZONING OFFICE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL? NO, I MEAN, I MEAN THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE NOT, ARE THEY PROPOSING, [01:00:01] I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE 4,300 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING, OR AN ADDITIONAL 2000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING THAT TRIGGERED, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT BUFFERS THAT THIS WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTIES AND THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE SOUTH HAS BEEN THERE THIS WHOLE TIME. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S INVOKING THE REQUIREMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE TODAY. SO WHENEVER THE INITIAL, UH, APPLICATION IN 2014 WAS SUBMITTED, THERE WAS, IT WAS, IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP AS AN ISSUE WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. THAT'S WHERE IT WAS BROUGHT UP. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, CHECKING IT, IT WASN'T THE 4,300, IT WAS JUST THAT IT, IT SHOULD HAVE, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE ON THAT SOUTH SIDE. OKAY. SEE THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHERE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I MEAN, THERE'S NOT ONE AT ALL. AND, AND SO LIKE, I'M SURPRISED THAT DID, DID STAFF LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN A VR OR A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THIS GOT PERMITTED A LONG TIME AGO WITH RELATION TO THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER? IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN, IN MY RECORDS. I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, Y'ALL CAN SPEAK TO THAT. JUST CURIOUS. I MEAN, OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO BASICALLY WHEN THAT ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN 2014, WE, WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE BACK THEN. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE NOW. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE QUICK NOTE, UM, ON THE PLANTING PLAN ON THIS SET, UM, IF YOU GO TO THE PLANTING SCHEDULE, I BELIEVE IT'S LP 2.1. MAYBE THERE IS A LITTLE NOTE THAT STATES THAT THE SOUTH PORTION DOES NOT MEET THE BUFFER WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND THE VARIANCE WILL BE NEEDED. BUT LIKE YOU MENTIONED, UM, I BELIEVE WHOEVER THE OWNER WAS AT THE TIME OR WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE OF SUBMITTING THAT VARIANCE LETTER DID NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, PART OF THE ISSUE WITH THIS, UM, MY 2 CENTS ON THIS IS THAT YOU GOT A DUMPSTER IN THE BACK IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN IN AND OUT, IT'S DANGEROUS CONDITION FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE AND NUMBER TWO, YOU KNOW, THE PROVISION OF HANDICAPPED PARKING NEEDS TO BE AS CLOSE AS IT CAN. AND, AND, AND IF THESE DRIVEWAYS WERE TO BE CONFLICTED, THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE WITH HAVING ANY COMPLIANT PARKING. THEN ALSO, ISN'T THERE, UH, CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIZE OF BUILDING FOR REGARDS TO HOW MANY ARE NEEDED, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE BUILDING SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT ON THE FRONT? YEAH, RIGHT. THE FRONT, WE ONLY HAVE PROBABLY ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN. WE HAVE 53 EMPLOYEES. YEAH. AND, AND, AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT IS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO BACK INTO A PUBLIC STREET. SO I'M WONDERING WHY THAT'S NOT PART OF THE VARIANCE EITHER . YEAH. SO, OKAY. UM, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, ANYONE TIME TO SPEAK? YES. UH, WE HAVE ANTONIO AND CONSUELO SIGNED UP. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE WE DIDN'T, DIDN'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED THEM TO DO, BUT WE HAVE NO ISSUES. OH, OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. REID. COMMISSIONER REED. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 26 103 0 0 1 3 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR ONE A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, AN ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 35 10 NORTH MAIN AVENUE APPLICANT BEAN CATALINA DIAZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE STILL EXISTING FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES FOR REDUCTION OR ELIMINATED BUFFER TO BE GRANTED AND STILL LEAVE SEPARATION FROM THE ABUDDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH LEAVES LITTLE ROOM TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIRED TYPE B BUFFERS WITHOUT CONSIDERABLE ALTERATIONS TO THE CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND DRIVEWAYS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A REDUCTION IN ELIMINATION OF THE BUFFERS IS MINIMAL AND WILL NOT CAUSE HARDSHIPS CHARACTERISTIC OF REDUCED BUFFERS BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOTS. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIC USES, SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE ZONE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER, THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTED THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THEIR SUFFICIENT SEPARATION EXISTING AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE EXISTING BUFFER, WHICH ADEQUATELY SHIELDS THE ABUTTING LOTS FROM NOISE AND TRAFFIC CURRENTLY GENERATED BY SUCH USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND SIX, UH, THE PLAY OF THE OWNER OF THE [01:05:01] PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. PLAY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD IMPOSE HARDSHIP TO ALTER AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS PURCHASED UH, IN THIS CURRENT CONDITION AND IT SEEMS TO BE OPERATING FINE. AND, AND IF THERE'S NO NEIGHBORS OPPOSED, UH, I DON'T SEE WHY THIS WOULDN'T BE GRANTED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. IT'S OBVIOUSLY AN ESTABLISHED OFFICE USE AND A RELATIVELY DIVERSE COMMUNITY, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT. I THINK IT'S DUE TO THE AGE AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S A REAL NECESSITY AND YOU'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR IF THE FINDINGS OF FACT COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER NESS. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. 10 ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE WELCOME. APPRECIATE IF YOU HAVE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. BOARD ITEM OH, STAFF. DID, UH, ANY, ANY LUCK GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE APPLICANT FROM ITEM FOUR? NO. NO LUCK. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED A CALL. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX, BO EIGHT DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 8 LOCATED IN DISTRICT THREE AT 45 24 SINCLAIR ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C ONE AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRE FENCE WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK. TWO AT 29 FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRE FENCE WITH A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SINCLAIR ROAD AND IS ABUTTING C ONE CD TO THE WEST AND R FIVE TO THE EAST. THE VARIANCE REQUEST ORIGINATED FROM THE PROPOSED FENCE REPLACEMENT WITH THE BARBED WIRE FENCE PER STAFF'S VISIT TO THE SITE IN JULY OF 2026. AN EXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE IS PRESENT THAT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT THE PROPOSED FENCE IS INTENDED TO DO. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE SIDE REAR SETBACKS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE REQUEST IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND HAS A POTENTIAL NEGATIVELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT TWO, COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS WILL NOT PREVENT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF MAILED OUT EIGHT NOTICES, ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, ZERO VOICEMAILS ARE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR AN OPPOSITION JUPE MAN OR NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DO NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, QUICK QUESTION ON ITEM NUMBER TWO REGARDING THE 29 FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE. IS, IS IT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO, DO THEY, DO THEY EVEN HAVE 30 FEET TO A STRUCTURE IT LOOKS LIKE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY EVEN HAVE 30 FEET. NO, THERE IS NOT A DISTANCE OF 30 FEET FROM THE, UH, BUILDING TO THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. IT'S THE, SO BASICALLY THE BARBED WIRE MUST GO ALONG PROPERTY, OR I'M SORRY, THE SETBACK LINES AND C ONE HAS A REQUIRED BUFFER OR SETBACK LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF 30 FEET. OKAY. AND AND WHAT IS THE USE OF THIS PLACE? IT WAS LIKE A, A TELECOM, I BELIEVE IT'S, UM, I WAS GONNA SAY THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE FOR, IT'S FOR SPECTRUM, SO OH, OKAY. CABLE. AWESOME. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR FENCE. HOW ARE YOU? I'M RACI HADAD. I AM HERE FOR THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS SPECTRUM. UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING SITE AND I'M, I'M ACTUALLY KIND OF GLAD YOU RAISED THE QUESTION THAT YOU JUST DID AND I'M GONNA BACK INTO THAT FOR YOU. I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT THAT I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH, WHICH I THINK WILL ANSWER SOME PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO HAND OUT. UM, I'VE GOT [01:10:01] COPIES FOR EACH OF YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? IT'S NOT VERY LONG, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT HELP. STAFF CAN HELP YOU, UM, WITH THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, SO I REPRESENT CHARTER, WHICH IS BASICALLY SPECTRUM WHO YOU MIGHT THINK OF WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT GETTING INTERNET OR TV OR CABLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS A SITE THAT IS NOT A TYPICAL C ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE, MEANING IT'S NOT JUST A COMMERCIAL SITE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD DEVELOP. UM, THE WAY I LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS IS THIS IS MORE OF AN UNUSUAL, AN UNUSUAL SORT OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SITE. IT MAKES IT A BIT UNIQUE AND BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING ON THE SITE, IT MAKES THE ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. AND THERE'S A HARDSHIP THERE AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH, IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THE FIRST SLIDE PLEASE. OH, I CAN DO IT. GREAT, THANK YOU. THIS IS THE SITE HERE. YOU CAN SEE IT, IT HOUSES CRITICAL CHARTER SPECTRUM EQUIPMENT ON IT AND THAT EQUIPMENT IS SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH INTERNET SERVICE. AND SO WE NEED ENHANCED SECURITY AROUND THE SITE TO DETER DAMAGE TO THAT EQUIPMENT AND TO DETER TRESPASSERS ONTO THE SITE. IF THE EQUIPMENT IS DAMAGED, THEN THAT COULD KNOCK OUT A WHOLE LOT OF SECURITY AND USERS FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND THEIR EQUIPMENT AND THEIR INTERNET AND AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES. BUT THAT'S A PICTURE OF IT RIGHT THERE. AND YOU'LL SEE IT'S NOT A SITE WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE GO EVERY DAY LIKE A RETAIL STORE. IT'S JUST AN EQUIPMENT SITE. OKAY. UM, ONE KEY FACT THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP, WHICH I JUST SORT OF LOOKED INTO WHILE I WAS SITTING HERE, THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING, IT IS C ONE AND IT WAS ZONED C ONE IN 2015. BEFORE THAT IT WAS, SO WHEN IT WAS ZONED C ONE IN 2015, IT WAS ALREADY A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SITE, OKAY? IT WASN'T LIKE IT WAS JUST A VACANT LOT ZONED AT C ONE AND THEN THEY WERE GONNA IMPOSE CERTAIN SETBACKS ON IT. IT WAS ALREADY SORT OF BAKED, IF YOU WILL, INTO THIS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SITE. PRIOR TO THAT TIME IT WAS ZONED C3 NA, UM, WHICH WAS A C3 ZONING AND NO ALCOHOL SALES. OKAY? THAT CHANGED IN 2015 WHEN IT BECAME C ONE. SO THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN SORT OF, IF YOU WILL, GRANDFATHERED AS A COMMUNICATION SITE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE ACTUAL LAYOUT OF THE SITE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE WE ARE PROPOSING, I KNOW THE SETBACK SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF FEET, OKAY? BUT I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE HARDSHIPS ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY LINE IN PURPLE AND ORANGE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE FOR THE FENCING. OKAY? WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE, HOWEVER, IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SLIDE, IF YOU WERE, AND LET ME JUST SHOW YOU REAL QUICK, OH, WE HAVE A LASER POINTER IF YOU WANT TO, YES, IF YOU, IF YOU PULL THAT, IF YOU PULL THE UH, THE LEFT FOR EXAMPLE SIDE HERE, IF YOU PULL THIS HERE IN TO THE SETBACK, YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO EQUIPMENT. OKAY? SO COMPLYING HERE AND I'M NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB, BUT FOR EXAMPLE THERE YOU WOULD HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME COMPLYING WITH THE SETBACK. SAME FROM HERE COMING IN. OKAY? THIS HERE IS A DRIVEWAY AND THIS I'M GONNA GET INTO IN A MINUTE. THIS PRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT HOMELESS POPULATION THAT'S CAMPING OUT ON THE SITE. SO THERE ARE SOME HARDSHIPS, SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIPS HERE RELATED TO THE SITE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT A FENCE AROUND IT FOR SECURITY PURPOSES. AND WE ALSO NEED TO BE ACCESSING, IF YOU LOOK AGAIN ON THAT LEFT HAND SIDE, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS TRUCKING AND MAINTENANCE AROUND THE EQUIPMENT. AND IF THE FENCE COMES IN TOO FAR, WE WOULD BE OVER AND ON TOP OF THAT EQUIPMENT. AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THE CONTEXT OF THAT PRIOR ZONING AND THEN THEY CREATED THE C ONE ZONING IN 2015, BUT THIS WAS ALREADY SORT OF THAT BAKED INFRASTRUCTURE SITE WITH THIS EQUIPMENT THERE. SO [01:15:02] LET ME ADDRESS THE COMMERCIAL USE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE AT C ONE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THE BLUE, EVERYTHING AROUND THIS PROPERTY IS C ONE ZONING EXCEPT THE RESIDENTIAL R FIVE PARCEL TO THE RIGHT. THAT PARCEL IS NOT BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL. THAT PARCEL IS A COMMERCIAL USE SITE RIGHT NOW. AND I'M GONNA SHOW YOU THAT THIS IS THE R SITE THAT'S NEXT DOOR THAT YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED ABOUT. BUT THIS IS BEING USED BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL A TT. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY THINK THAT THIS IS R FIVE, IT'S BEING USED COMMERCIAL, WE NOTICED ALL THESE FOLKS OBVIOUSLY, AND THERE'S BEEN NO OPPOSITION TO OUR REQUESTS. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THAT RESIDENTIAL SITE AND HOW IT'S BEING USED. YOU CAN SEE THE COMMERCIAL USED AND YET IT'S ALREADY ZONED R FIVE, BUT IT'S BEEN, IT'S I GUESS A NON-COMPLIANT USE AND AT AND T IS THE OWNER. SO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE IS COMMERCIAL. HERE'S WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE SITE. ALSO, THERE IS THIS TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRESPASSING ON THE SITE. THESE ARE PHOTOS THAT ARE THREATENING THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROVI PROVIDING SORT OF AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT ON THE SITE. NOT ONLY FOR PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT ALSO FOR PEOPLE UH, THAT MIGHT HAVE TO ACCESS THIS SITE FOR MAINTENANCE AND SUCH. AND THAT'S POSING AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT AND IT'S JEOPARDIZING THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE SITE THAT WE HAVE THERE. SO I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH ON OUR APPLICATION, WE LISTED OUT THE HARDSHIPS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS GOING TO REQUIRE. UM, AND I'M RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR ALL OF Y'ALL'S VOTE IF I COULD POSSIBLY HAVE IT TODAY. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND ANY CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT ONE OF THE BURDENS WE HAVE TO SHOW AS AN APPLICANT IS THAT THERE'S A HARDSHIP ON THIS SITE. OKAY? AND THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. OBVIOUSLY YOU SAW SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON, UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THEM WITH YOU SO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE IN HAVING ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED ON THOSE ISSUES. THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPERTY IS HOUSING ESSENTIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. IT'S SERVING THOUSANDS OF CUSTOMERS IN SAN ANTONIO. WE'D LIKE TO PROTECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THIS EQUIPMENT AND THIS IS ACTUALLY HELPING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE FENCE IS ALSO GOING TO HELP DETER SOME TRESPASSING, WHICH IS A PROBLEM FOR THE CITY AS WELL AND FOR NEIGHBORING, NEIGHBORING FOLKS. SO IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, AGAIN WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP TO THE SITE. BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS LITERALLY ENFORCING IT, THE WAY THE SITE IS CONFIGURED AND BECAUSE THIS WAS A BAKED SORT OF TELECOMMUNICATION SITE WHEN THE ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED, YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME HAVING A PROPERTY OWNER TRY TO PUT UP A FENCE THAT'S GOING TO BUTT INTO THIS EQUIPMENT AREA. IT'S JUST NOT GONNA BE POSSIBLE. SO THERE'S UNIQUE CONDITIONS HERE. UM, IT WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE USEFUL, REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO TRY TO DO THAT, WHICH IS TO SECURE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. UM, ON THE SOUTH REAR SIDE, UH, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE 30 FOOT STEP SETBACK WOULD PLACE THE BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE. OKAY? AND THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM ON THE WEST SIDE. STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE 10 FOOT SETBACK WOULD PLAY PLACE THE FENCE IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE BUILDING. SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM. IF THIS WERE A VACANT LOT AND YOU IMPOSE THE SETBACKS, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING AND THEN YOU COULD FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PUT YOUR BUILDING. THIS WAS KIND OF THE REVERSE WHERE THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE AND THEN SORT OF THE SETBACKS WERE IMPOSED. UH, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. UM, THE VARIANCE TODAY IS REALLY ONLY SOUGHT TO PERMIT THE PROPERTY TO BE REASONABLY USED LIKE OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT. UM, IT ONLY MODIFIES AND REQUESTS THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE UNIQUE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND THE [01:20:01] CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE. IT'S A SECURITY MEASURE FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THIS VARIANCE, IF YOU GRANT IT TODAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF ANY OTHER USE ON THE PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT OPENING THE DOOR TO ANYTHING ELSE BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE OTHER THAN WHAT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR, WHICH IS THE C ONE AND WHICH IS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. THE PROPERTY WILL IS GOING TO CONTINUE IN ITS SAME USE. IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. IT'S GONNA COMPLY WITH THE C ONE ZONING ONLY THE LOCATION OF THE PERIMETER FENCE WOULD BE CHANGED A BIT. THE VARIANCE NOT, IS NOT GOING TO SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY. IT'S NOT GOING TO ENDANGER OR INJURE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. UM, IT'S NOT SOUGHT FOR THAT PURPOSE. ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE COMMERCIAL. THESE ARE ALL COMMERCIAL. EVEN THE ONE DESIGNATED AS R FIVE AND IT'S NOT USED AS RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS A STANDARD SECURITY MEASURE FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LIKE THIS. AND THEN THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SPECTRUM COMMUNICATIONS, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER. UM, THE REASON WE'RE HERE TODAY IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY. NOT BECAUSE WE NECESSARILY WANT TO BE, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE UNIFIED, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE HARDSHIP ITSELF ARISES FROM A COMBINATION OF PROBLEMS. HERE ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S A CRITICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS HUB THAT WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN THE ZONING WAS IMPOSED. IT'S A SMALL LOT. UM, THERE'S ONSITE EQUIPMENT, THERE'S TREES, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY, THERE'S OPERATORS THAT NEED TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE REALLY NOT CREATED BY THIS OWNER. THEY WERE BAKED INTO THE SITE AND THEN THOSE, UH, SETBACKS WERE IMPOSED ON THE C ONE. SO THIS ISN'T JUST A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THE OWNER OR SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU ALL TO VOTE ON JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT FOR OURSELVES. WE'RE GENUINELY TRYING TO JUST SECURE THE SITE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE EQUIPMENT WITH THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE. SO IN SUMMARY, THE KEY ISSUES ARE WE'VE GOT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'VE GOT A SITE HARDSHIP AND WE NEED SECURITY ON THE SITE. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO GO BACK AND JUST LOOK AT THE SITE BECAUSE THAT TENDS TO BE VERY TELLING. AGAIN, HAVING THE FENCE HERE AND COMPLYING WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. UM, WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THE FENCE HERE. THIS IS A DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW. ALL OF THIS IS BEING TRESPASSED UPON FROM TIME TO TIME AND WE WOULD PROPOSE HAVING THE FENCE HERE AND THERE WOULD BE A BADGE GATE. PEOPLE DON'T OCCUPY THIS SITE EVERY DAY, LIKE 30 PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP TO WORK HERE EVERY DAY. THIS IS EQUIPMENT GENERATING ALL DAY LONG AND PEOPLE COME AND GO ON THE SITE AND IT NEEDS TO BE SECURE. IF SOMEBODY GOT IN HERE AND MESS WITH THIS EQUIPMENT, IT WOULD BE PRETTY DANGEROUS. SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO WANT TO PROTECT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AMELIORATING PROBLEMS, BUT WE'RE ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, UM, THE FACT THAT THE SITE HAS CONSTRAINTS WITH RESPECT TO US BEING ABLE TO COMPLY. SO WE'RE SIMPLY, RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, BUT THAT'S THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF IT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THIS FACILITY WAS FIRST USED, UH, IN 1990 ABOUT? I BELIEVE SO, YES SIR. MM-HMM . OKAY. AND, AND, AND HAVE YOU ALWAYS HAD SOME SORT OF FENCING, I ASSUME AROUND THE FACILITY, BUT NOT, MAYBE NOT BARBED WIRE? YES, I BELIEVE THERE, WELL I CAN TELL YOU WAY BACK WHEN, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT TO HAVE SOME FENCING. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PHOTO, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A KEY HERE. OKAY. AND THE BLUE IS THE EXISTING FENCE THAT WE'VE TRIED TO PUT UP. OKAY. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT RED HERE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE. THIS WILL BE GONE. OKAY, SO YOU GOT BLUE AND BLUE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO. AND THEN WE WOULD REMOVE THAT AND THEN WE WOULD CREATE THE NEW FENCE AND THE YELLOW WOULD BE A SECURITY GATE. I'M NOT SURE OF THE TOTAL HISTORY OF WHAT FENCES WERE WHERE, BUT YES, WE'VE TRIED TO SECURE IT. YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS. SO LIKE BACK WHEN THIS, BACK THEN IN THE NINETIES IS, WAS IT BASICALLY THE SAME BARBED WIRE HAD TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN SETBACKS? 'CAUSE THE ONLY EXEMPTION IF YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL IS NOT IF, UH, I CAN DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH, BUT, UM, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A NEW PERMIT FOR BARBED WIRE, THAT'S THE, THE INTENT OF THIS, UH, STANDARD. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? AND MR. BREGMAN, HOW TALL IS THE PROPOSED FENCE GOING TO [01:25:01] BE? YES MA'AM. THE PROPOSED FENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SIX FEET TALL, AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR ONE FOOT OF BARBED WIRE BECAUSE PEOPLE JUMP THE FENCE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT. I MEAN, WE DEAL WITH THIS AT CHARTERS OTHER SITES. UM, SO IT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF SEVEN FEET. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I MEAN, BARBED WIRE IS DANGEROUS ON PURPOSE AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF INSTEAD OF, UM, SIX FOOT WITH ONE FOOT, UH, BARBED WIRE, IF YOU COULD JUST DO A TALLER FENCE WITHOUT THE BARBED WIRE AND BE EQUALLY SECURE. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS THE FIRST STEP IS OBTAINING THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACKS. AND THEN WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION IN FOR THE BARBED WIRE THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SO THAT'S NOT BEEN BAKED INTO THIS REQUEST TODAY. DOES THAT HELP? OKAY. MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, CAN YOU BRING UP GOOGLE DRIVE, UM, AND DRIVE IN THE DRIVEWAY NEXT DOOR TO IT? AND SO I GOT CONFUSED WITH REGARDS TO THE PICTURES. SOME, SOME LINES DIDN'T LINE UP IN THAT. AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. SURE. SO IF YOU ACTUALLY DRIVE ON THE STREET NEXT TO THE PROPERTY. AND SO THE QUESTION, FIRST QUESTION IS, THERE'S AN EXISTING FENCE THERE AND, AND YOUR PROPOSAL IS BASICALLY, SO IF YOU GO, UH, ON THE OTHER WAY, OTHER DIRECTION, COME BACK, TURN AROUND. SO TURN AROUND ON THE BACKSIDE, SEE, SO ANYWAYS, YEAH, SO IF YOU GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY NEXT TO THE APARTMENT OR BY THE APARTMENTS THERE, THAT'S A STREET. SO IF YOU GO DOWN THAT STREET THERE BEHIND APARTMENTS YEAH, GO BACK THERE. DRIVE BACK THERE PLEASE. THERE YOU GO. KEEP GOING. AND TWO MORE DING. ONE MORE. THERE WE GO. SO IF YOU SWING BACK TO THE BACKSIDE, SO, SO ESSENTIALLY THAT PROPERTY LINE THERE, THAT'S THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE THAT YOU HAVE? CORRECT. AND THAT'S THE FENCE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, UM, I GUESS GETTING APPROVAL FOR OR YOU KNOW, KIND OF WORKING THROUGH ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO, SIR. YES. OKAY. SO, SO THE FENCE LINE ISN'T MOVING AT ALL. RIGHT. AND UM, AND THEN LOOKING HISTORICALLY THERE WAS, THERE WAS PHOTOS THERE THAT, THAT DID INCLUDE BARBED WIRE BACK TO UM, UH, I SAW 2011. SO, SO THE BARBED WIRE'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. UM, HAVE YOU TALKED TO, UM, THE AT AND T NEXT DOOR WITH REGARDS TO MOVING THE FENCE AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH MOVING THE FENCE? WE TRIED, WE TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM AND DIDN'T GET, WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW ACTIVE SPECTRUM IS DAY TO DAY WITH THEM, BUT WE DID REACH OUT TO THEM AND THEN, UH, FOR THE CITY WITH REGARDS TO, WELL I GUESS WE'RE TALKING BARB WIRE HERE, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE I GUESS. BUT WITH REGARDS TO CORE TELECOM AND UTILITIES, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD DIALOGUE IN THE PAST WITH REGARDS TO I THINK SOME OF THOSE ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE BARB WIRE TO PROTECT, WE'LL SAY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WOULD, SO WOULD A EXTERNAL COMPANY PROVIDING, UM, UTILITIES BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THOSE GROUPS AS WE CONSIDER, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTECTING OUR UTILITIES, THAT PROVISION OF FIVE 14 I I THINK IT USES THE TERM GOVERNMENT FOR FACILITY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, YEAH, AND SO YEAH, I DID. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. 'CAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD DIALOGUES WITH REGARDS TO, UH, POWER STATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND, AND, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT IF EXTENDED BEYOND THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S LOTS OF, UH, UTILITY AREA OR, UH, WE'LL SAY, UM, TRANSMISSION LINES AND, AND, AND THINGS THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT BARB WIRE AROUND. AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST COMMON. UM, AND SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PERTAINING TO THE, THE USE OF BARBED WIRE, THAT'S ONLY THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION, UH, BY STAFF, IT'S ONLY PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY AND THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE BEING THAT THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY, IN EITHER CASE IT WOULD STILL NEED THE A VR FOR THE USE OF THE BARBED WIRE, WHICH AGAIN IS NOT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD TODAY. JUST THE SETBACK REQUEST. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, SO, AND SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS ITS AT T FACILITY NEXT DOOR THAT'S ZONED R FIVE. I MEAN BCA KIND OF REFLECTS, IT WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTIES, I THINK. HOW DID THIS, HOW IS IT ZONED R FIVE FOR WHAT THEY'RE USING IT FOR? I MEAN, WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH, YOU KNOW, HISTORY ZONING, HISTORY RESEARCH. BUT BASICALLY I'M A, THESE TWO BUILDINGS, THE AT AND T AND THIS CHARTER ARE NON-CONFORMING USES WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE ZONING. OKAY. AND IT'S, AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO JUST BECAUSE IT'S NON-CONFORMING, IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE THERE, THERE'S NO CONTINUITY OF LIKE, RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT HELPS [01:30:01] CORRECT APPLICANT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO. UM, JUST MS. RACI, BUT SHE'S ALREADY SPEAKING SO WELL, I THINK I, I KNOW I FEEL LIKE I HAVE KNOW A WHOLE BUNCH ABOUT THE SITE RIGHT NOW, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN. COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 8. I MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRE FENCE WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK AND TWO, A 29 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A BARBED WIRED FENCE WITH A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 4 5 2 4 SINCLAIR ROAD. APPLICANT BEING HOLLAND AND KNIGHT, LLP. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CARE OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE LEFT TO IMPLEMENT A BARBED WIRE FENCE WITHOUT IMPOSING A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE AND ITS PROXIMITY TO NEARBY USES THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL IN USE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACKS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A SAFETY CONCERN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH AS VARIANCE IS LOCATED, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN A DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM PROPERTY OR ALL THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR A BARBED WIRE FENCE TO EXIST AND NOT THREATENED ADJACENT CON UH, CONFORMING PROPERTIES. THERE IS AN EXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE, THUS THE REPLACEMENT BARBED WIRE FENCE WOULD NOT BE A NEW DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH IS VARYING THE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED THAT APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS LOCATION IN RELATION TO SURROUNDING BASED ZONING DISTRICTS AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, SO, SO I SEE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED, UH, SIMILARLY FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, OR, YOU KNOW, DECADES. AND SO I DON'T SEE A CHANGE, UH, IN THE FENCING. UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FENCING HAS BEEN BARBED WIRE, UH, AS LONG AS I CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK. UM, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, IT IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE KIND OF, UM, USE. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD THOSE IN THE PAST WHERE, YOU KNOW, FENCING AND, AND BARBED WIRE WAS PERMITTED AND THEN DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, THERE ARE SOME OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE FURTHER DOWN, UH, THAT UM, HAVE SIMILAR PLACEMENT FOR FRONT FENCING AS WELL AS IT BEING BARBED WIRED. AND SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE THIS AREA IN THIS, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFIC STREET AND THIS AREA. UM, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF STANDARD HERE. SO BECAUSE OF THOSE THINGS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED, UH, IT WOULD BE VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE GUIDELINES, UH, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO PRACTICALLY, UM, MEET THE GUIDELINES. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING UNANIM? ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER PECKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FACTS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARK CHAVEZ, SENIOR PLANNER. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, BEING BOA DASH 26 1 0 3 0 1 39. APPLICANT BEING MARGARITA MARGARITAS, UH, LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE, LOCATED AT 1102 [01:35:01] JULIA ROSS STREET. ZONING BEING MF 33 MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SOUTH SIDE SETBACK. TWO. A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A PORCH WITH A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THREE A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER. CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION. FOUR, A THREE FOOT, SIX INCH VARI FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEARVIEW VISION TO ALLOW A 11 FOOT SIX INCH DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED OFF JULIA ROSS STREET AND LOCATED ON THE CORNER INTERSECTION OF JULIA ROSS, JULIA CROSS STREET AND VE CRUZ STREET WITH SOUTH COLORADO STREET ABUTTING THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE CASE ORIGINATED AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRUCTED A CARPORT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS, RESULTING IN A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION IN JULY, 2026. DURING THE SITE INSPECTION, STAFF ALSO IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANT CONDITIONS, INCLUDING VIOLATIONS OF THE CORNER, CLEAR VISION AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA REQUIREMENTS BASED ON AVAILABLE STREET VIEW IMAGERY. THE PORTRAIT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED SOMETIME AFTER JAN JANUARY, 2022 AND THE FENCE SOMETIME AFTER JANUARY, 2019. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SIDE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE CORNER CLEAR VISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE FACT ONE, ALTHOUGH THE CARPORT, PORCH AND FENCE HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, GRANTING A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK FOR ONE LOT COULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR REDUCED SETBACKS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MAY NOT PROVIDE AMPLE ROOM TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF. TWO, THERE IS SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO MOVE THE CARPORT PORCH AND FENCE LOCATION FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO MEET THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF MET OUT 27 NOTICES ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED. THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT . YEAH, THERE SHOULD BE A, A SLIDE IN HERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, UH, FOR THE DRIVEWAY, UH, CLEAR VISION, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. AND DID YOU FIND THAT THE, THE HOME IS WHAT WAS CAUSING THE VIOLATION FOR THE 25 FOOT CORNER CLEARANCE? NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE FENCE WHICH IS, UH, NUMBER THREE. OKAY. SO IT'S ALRIGHT. YEAH, THE PORCH IS NUMBER TWO. OKAY, I SEE THAT. KIND OF HARD TO TELL HERE. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ALL ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARTA RODRIGUEZ AND I LIVE AT 11 0 2 GI ROSS. SINCE IT FIRST STARTED IN 2007, WE WERE FIRST BUILT BY ALTERNATIVE HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS WITH PATTY, RACHEL DISTRICT FIVE BACK THEN. OKAY. THEY WERE DOING THIS HOME STUFF, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS INVOLVED IN, UM, PART OF THE PLANNING ACTUALLY. AND UM, THE ISSUE THAT I SEE IS THE DRIVEWAY. UM, THE REASON FOR THE CARPORT BEING THE WAY IT IS, IS BECAUSE THE REAR, THE MASKING IS ALL THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE EVEN IF YOU SAW SOME OF THE HOUSES THERE, YOU LOOK AT THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND THE, AND THE PROPERTY LINES, THE DRIVEWAYS WERE ALL BUILT WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WHEN YOU BUILD A CARPORT, ARE THERE ARE TANK CARPORTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE BUILT WITH THE SAME ISSUE AS MINE WITH THE DRIVEWAY BEING WHERE IT IS ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEIGHBORS AND MINE. SO THE UM, WHAT UM, I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS THAT THE INSI ASSISTING CARPORTS OF ALL THE HOUSES WERE BUILT. SO THEREFORE, UM, THERE WERE, THE ORIGINAL PLAN BACK THEN IN 2006 [01:40:01] WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO GARAGES, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY. AND WE WERE ALL LIKE, OKAY, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT. BUT WE WERE HAD THE OPTION TO BUILD A CARPORT, BUT AGAIN, THEY FORGOT THAT WE HAD TO HAVE THAT FIVE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO PUT OUR POST. AND THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE. AND ON MY DEFENSE, I DID TRY TO COME OUT ON JULY THE FOURTH, OR NOT THE THIRD, A FRIDAY, BUT Y'ALL WE'RE CLOSED. SO BY THE TIME I CAME BACK, THE NOTIFICATION OF MY VIOLATION OF NOT GETTING A PERMIT WAS RESUBMITTED BY SOMEBODY. SO IT WASN'T THAT I WASN'T TRYING TO GET THE PERMIT. THE FACT IS THAT, UM, I THOUGHT I WOULD GET THE PERMIT AND NOT REALIZE THAT THE FIVE FOOT WAS AN ISSUE. SO I'M KIND OF GLAD THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT IT HAS TO BE FIVE FOOT. BUT I ALSO NEED TO BRING TO THE BOARD THE ATTENTION THAT ALL THE DRIVEWAYS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CAN PICK ANY HOUSE, LIKE I SAID, AND YOU WILL SEE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE WITHIN ONE FOOT OF ALL THE PROPERTY LINES, LIKE THE ONES THAT YOU ALL SAW. AND IF Y'ALL CAN GO BACK TO THOSE PHOTOS OR NOT. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAYS, THEY'RE BUILT WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF ALL THAT. AND THERE'S, THEY ARE, THERE'S 10 HOUSES RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE CARPORTS THAT ARE IN MY SAME SITUATION. SO I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OR NOT, BUT I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN HAVE CARPORTS IS I KNOW THAT ONE OF 'EM DID GET PERMISSION ALREADY. 'CAUSE I DID TALK TO ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS AND SHE SAID, NO, I GOT MY PERMIT. SO THEM ALREADY HAVING THEIR PERMIT, I FIGURED HOPEFULLY I WON'T HAVE AN ISSUE SINCE IT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT Y'ALL ALREADY APPROVED BEFORE SOMEONE DOWN THE STREET FROM ME ALREADY. SO WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, NUMBER ONE IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. AND THE REASON I'M TRYING TO, UM, BUILD THE CARPORT AND THE PORCH IS BECAUSE OF THE CANCER THAT I HAVE, I HAVE TO TRY TO PREVENT AWAY FROM BEING FROM THE SUN. SO A LOT OF TIMES WHEN I'M WASHING THE CAR OR UM, WHATEVER I'M DOING OUTSIDE WITH A VEHICLE, I TRY TO AVOID THE SUN. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE, THAT'S NUMBER ONE SAFETY FOR ME IS THAT THE CARPORT WOULD HELP ME, UM, STAY OUTTA THE SUN MORE AND PREVENT AND PREVENT MY DELAY OF MY HEALTH ISSUES TO COME. AND THE, WHICH BRINGS ME OVER TO NUMBER NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS WHERE THE STOP SIGN IS. SO THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, ALL THE HOUSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ALL HAVE IRON FENCES IN THE BACK IN FRONT. SO ALL I DID WAS TRY TO MAKE IT ONE PRESENTABLE TO THIRD POINT TO CHANGE FENCE LIKE OTHER PEOPLE DID. I LIKE, NO, I WANNA DO AN IRON FENCE. AND I GOT THE PERMIT AGAIN, I, SOMEBODY HAD CALLED IN THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT. AND WHEN THE CITY CAME OUT, I HAD MY PERMIT AND EVERYTHING. I SAID, LOOK HERE, HERE'S MY PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN YOUR SYSTEM, BUT OH, CAN WE TAKE A PICTURE OF IT? I SAID, YOU CAN TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT, I JUST NEED TO VERIFY THAT Y'ALL HAVE IT ON RECORD. AND SO THEY CAME, THEY TOOK PICTURES OF MY PAPERWORK AND THEY APPROVED ME BACK THEN THEY APPROVED ME. AND SO I WAS JUST NOTIFIED THAT IT'S ONLY, I'M SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT LESS THAN THREE FEET. BUT WHEN I WAS OUT THERE WITH THE C STAFF, WHEN THEY CAME TO CHALLENGE ME FOR THE FENCE, THEY SAID, UH, NO MORE THAN FIVE FEET. I SAID, NO, NO, IT'S ONLY BE LIKE FOUR FEET BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YEAH, MY DOGS WON'T JUMP THE FENCE. AND THEN I PUT SOLAR LIGHTS ON THE FENCE. SO WHEN THERE'S AT NIGHTTIME AND CARS GO BY, UH, WHERE THEY'RE COMING THIS WAY OR COMING TO THE STOP SIGN, THE LIGHTS TURN ON, TWO LIGHTS TURN ON AUTOMATICALLY TO HELP PREVENT, UH, ANY ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS. SO SINCE 2007 TO CURRENTLY, THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN ACCIDENT THERE. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW OF THE 25 FEET, BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOUR STAFF CAME OUT TO TALK TO ME THAT ABOUT MY PERMIT AND I SHOWED IT TO THEM, THEY NEVER TOLD ME IT HAS TO BE TO FU OR LESS. AND THEY SAW IT ALREADY BEING BUILT AND SO THEY SAW HOW TALL IT WAS. SO I FEEL THAT AT THAT POINT THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED ME, HEY MS. RODRIGUEZ, IT NEEDS TO BE LESS THAN THREE FEET. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE IT MORE THAN THREE FEET TALL. OKAY. STAFF, UH, ON A FENCE PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU'RE ON A CORNER LOT IT, IT'S USUALLY SCRUTINIZED A LITTLE MORE. IT'S LIKE REVIEWED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. THE, THE PROCESS WAS. YEAH. THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED IN JUNE, 2021, THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED DOES INDICATE A FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. AND IT DOES INDICATE THE INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE 25 BY 25 CLEAR VISION. SO THAT'S WHY THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED. OKAY. FENCE PERMITS DON'T GET A INSPECTION AFTER THE FACT. OKAY. SO I WAIT TO UNDERSTAND THAT NUMBER THREE IS OKAY OR WE'RE STILL, WELL YOU, YOU, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. MM-HMM . BUT THE FENCE STILL CANNOT BE [01:45:01] IN THAT 25 FOOT BY 25 FOOT CORNER. UM, IT CAN, YOU CAN HAVE A FENCE THERE, BUT IT'S LIMITED TO ONCE YOU GET TOWARDS THE CORNER, IT HAS TO BE CHAMBERED AND IT HAS TO, UH, AVOID THAT, THAT LOOK. AND SO THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR, UH, WHEN THAT WAS SUBMITTED DID REFLECT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT? YEAH, 'CAUSE I HAVE THAT, I DON'T HAVE IT CORNER TO CORNER. IT'S AT AN ANGLE. THE CORNER IS AN ANGLE. 'CAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE HAS AN ANGLE. IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST SHORT. JUST A, UH, IT'S SHORT A LITTLE BIT TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT. THAT'S, THAT. THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE. THAT'S ISSUE. THAT'S THE ISSUE. SO, SO Y'ALL WANT ME TO MAKE IT THREE FEET AND CUT IT? I DON'T OH, NO, NO, NO. IT'S NOT THE, WHETHER IT'S THREE FEET, IF IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, IF IT'S A SOLID FENCE, IT'S THREE FEET. BUT IF IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, YOU CAN GO UP TO FIVE FEET. BUT YOU, BUT EITHER WAY, YOU STILL CANNOT BE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE CURB ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT CORNER. OKAY. SO ON THAT NOTE THEN, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, WELL THIS IS, THE IRON FENCE WAS ALREADY THERE. THE OTHER ONE THAT'S SIX FEET HIGH, THAT ONE'S THERE. AND THAT ONE'S IN THE, THE STOP SIGN ALSO. AND IT HAS THE SAME, IT'S IDENTICAL TO MY TIME. SO AFTER THE, THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR IN 2021, DID IT, UH, INCLUDE ANY EXISTING WR IRON FENCE THAT WAS OF CONFLICT? , BECAUSE THAT WAS BUILT BY THE HOME BUILDERS. THAT ONE, THE, THE SIX FOOT, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS, THAT WAS APPROVED, SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN. UH, IT DOES NOT CALL OUT, UH, EXISTING. UM, AND SO WHAT, WHAT THIS PERMIT IS ISSUE REFLECTING THAT THEY WERE GONNA HONOR A 25 FOOT CLEAR VISION HOLDBACK THERE AT THE, AT THAT BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER. MM-HMM . BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT HERE NOR THERE. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THE YES, UH, DRIVEWAY, EXCUSE ME, CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA. UH, THE CODE SAYS NO FENCE EXCEEDING THREE FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE WITHIN THE CORNER. CLEAR VISION. SO, UM, THERE CAN BE FENCING IN THERE. IT JUST CANNOT BE TALLER THAN THREE FEET. OKAY. SO IF THIS DOESN'T WORK OUT, THE WORST THING THAT'LL HAPPEN IS YOU'LL HAVE TO TAKE A FOOT OFF OR A SMALL PORTION OF IT NEAR THE CORNER. OKAY. WELL THE ONLY DANGER THERE IS THE DOGS WILL THEN WILL BE ABLE TO JUMP OVER THE FENCE. AND THAT'S WHY I HAD YOU SAW THAT SIGNS IT'S DANGER, DO NOT ENTER. WELL WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. OKAY. I'M JUST, YEAH. TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE AS FAR AS, AND AGAIN, I ALSO DO HAVE TWO SOLAR LIGHTS AT NIGHT THAT HELP WHEN CARS GO BY, THE LIGHTS POP UP. AND SO IT KIND OF HELPS WITH THE STOP SIGN WITH PEOPLE. AND HONESTLY, I WOULD SAY WHEN I'M OUT THERE SITTING DOWN, I WOULD SAY ABOUT 80 TO 85% DO A CALIFORNIA STOP OR THEY STOP PAST THE STOP SIGN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER, HONESTLY. I'M PROBABLY GUILTY OF ONE OF THOSE THINGS, BUT IT'S JUST A NATURE OF THE CARS THAT I'VE SEEN. AND IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S HEAVY TRAFFIC EITHER. BUT AGAIN, MOVING ON TO NUMBER, I GUESS FOUR, I GUESS IT'S THE SAME THING BECAUSE, UH, IT WAS BUILT ALL TOGETHER. SO THAT'S THE SAME ISSUE WITH THAT FENCE. YEAH, IT'S JUST THAT, THAT FENCE. YOU'VE GOT ONE ON THE DRIVEWAY, ONE ON THE CORNER. 'CAUSE YOU'RE ON A CORNER LOT, UH MM-HMM . BUT WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. MANNA. YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE FRONT PORCH MM-HMM . IS, IS THAT STRUCTURE THAT WAS ADDED ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE ITSELF? IT'S DETACHED. IT'S NOT ATTACHED, BUT IT'S DETACHED BECAUSE I LIKE TO BE OUTSIDE AND LIKE I SAID, WITH MY CANCER, I NEED TO PREVENT THE, THE HEAT IN THE SUN. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT'S THERE. AND IT WAS GONNA ADD TO THE CARPORT SO THAT I CAN WALK IN THERE AND BE ABLE TO GET INTO MY HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE, THE WALKWAY IS RIGHT THERE. SO WOULD A DETACHED, UM, COVER NEAR THE FRONT DOOR? MM-HMM . BE CONSIDERED A PORCH. THAT'D BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO IT'S ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REALLY IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. NOT A PORCH. 'CAUSE IT SAYS PORCH IN THE, IN THE COR. CORRECT. FROM WHAT I RECALL, IT APPEARED ATTACHED IN THE FIELD. UM, IF THAT'S THE TESTIMONY BEING PRESENTED TODAY, THAT IT'S NOT, UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE TECHNICALLY NOT PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARD. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE VARIANCE NEEDED UNLESS MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO ATTACH THAT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT COULD BE ATTACHED, BUT IT CANNOT BE DEACH TO THE EXISTING PORCH. AND EVEN IF IT WAS ATTACHED, THERE'S STILL A SETBACK ISSUE OF COURSE. RIGHT. SO SETBACK IS A SEPARATE ISSUE IF IT IS DETACHED. YEAH. SO, SO IF IT WASN'T DETACHED, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND RE ADVERTISE IT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IF THE INTENT IS TO KEEP IT DETACHED, AND IF IT IS IN FACT DETACHED, WE WOULD NEED A RE ADVERTISEMENT TO, TO, FOR AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD. SO IS IT DETACHED OR ATTACHED? OH, OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT ATTACHED. IT APPEARS ATTACHED, BUT IT'S NOT AS DETACHED 'CAUSE IT'S FOR POSTS. WHAT, [01:50:01] WHAT DEFINES ATTACHED? SO IF THERE WAS A BRACKET CONNECTING THE ONE TO THE OTHER, WOULD THAT COMPLETE AN ATTACHMENT? CORRECT. I'M SORRY, YES. IF IT WAS CONNECTED WITH A BRACKET OR BUT I HAVE FOUR POSTS. THAT MEANS IT'S DETACHED, RIGHT? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. SO WHAT, SO, UM, SOMETIMES, SO CARPORTS, WE REGULARLY SEE WHERE THE, WHERE, WHERE IT GETS CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. IT ACTUALLY IS PHYSICALLY TOUCHING THE HOUSE AND, AND, AND THE HOUSE BECOMES PART OF THE STRUCTURE. AND SO IT'S AN EXTENSION OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. AND SO BECAUSE IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ATTACHED, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED, UM, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHICH ARE REALLY NOT PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARD. BUT IF YOU CONNECTED A BRACKET FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE HOUSE, THEN IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PORCH, WHICH IS WHAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AND WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE UM, CONTEMPLATING HERE. HOW CLOSE IS IT? LIKE WHAT THE, THE, THE PORTION, IT'S LIKE MAYBE TWO INCHES APART. I MEAN, RIGHT THERE. SO, SO EASILY RESOLVED I GUESS IS IS WHERE I WAS GOING. YEAH. I CAN ACTUALLY PUT A BRACKET AND THAT NEED TO BE ATTACHED AND YEAH. IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. SO, UM, DOES IT CHANGE YOUR PERMIT STATUS OR ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE ATTACHED AS OPPOSED TO BEING NOT ATTACHED? NO, THE, THE PERMIT WOULD JUST, UH, IT WOULD BE THE SAME. UM, IT, LIKE WE'RE NOT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE CONSTRUCTION OR SOMETHING, BUT RIGHT AT THAT POINT IT WOULD JUST BE AN, AN ADDITION PERMIT. UM OKAY. SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK STANDARD. YEAH. ALRIGHT. AND THEN, AND SO, SO I LIKE THAT YOU HAD THE LIGHTS AND, AND YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCE CORNER. AND UM, SO MY, MY CAVEAT OR MY, SO WE WANT NEIGHBORS TO BE SAFE IS REALLY THE WHOLE DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, UH, THE CLEAR VISION AND, AND PLANTS AND VINES AND THINGS ON THAT FENCE NO LONGER MAKE THAT FENCE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IN A CLEAR VISION AREA. MM-HMM . AND SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMPLETELY CLEAR YEAH, THERE'S NO TWO FOOT TO THREE FOOT, BUT I JUST, WELL, I'M LETTING YOU KNOW, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOU WOULD NEVER WANT TO HAVE ANY LANDSCAPING IN THAT 25 FOOT SPACE CORNER. UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT IS TRULY THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WANTING A CLEAR VISION, KEEP, KEEP IT AS CLEAR VISION AS POSSIBLE. THE ONLY THING THAT MIGHT BE THERE IS THE MYRTLE TREE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, UH, THAT WAS THERE. THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SEE THE MYRTLE TREE OR NOT BUT'S, RIGHT? THERE'S BIG OLD TREE THERE IN THE, AND SO THE TREE'S FINE BECAUSE IT JUST, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO, UM, ROOTLESS COMING UP THAT ARE TAKING UP TO THREE FOOT, RIGHT? TWO FOOT TO FOUR FOOT SECTION OR TWO FOOT TO SEVEN FOOT SECTION, I BELIEVE IS, IS HOW IT READS. SO, SO, SO KEEP IT WELL LANDSCAPE I GUESS IS THE POINT. UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. OKAY. UH, AS FAR AS CLEAR VISION, IS IT POSSIBLE TO READ THE MOTION AND EXPRESS THAT THE, THAT THE ISSUE IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, IT'S FOUR FOOT TALL? OR DOES IT, IS IT JUST ONE OR THE OTHER? IT'S EITHER LIKE PASS OR FAIL. THE REQUEST IS FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE CLEAR VISION DISTANCE, NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ONE THING TO, IT'S ONE THING TO UH, TO BE OFF ONE FOOT ON A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE. I WOULD HATE TO, TO GIVE THAT SORT OF, UH, UH, DISTANCE AND HAVE IT BE OPEN-ENDED TO WHATEVER COULD BE BUILT IN THERE. I MEAN, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY WAY TO TIE THE FACT THAT IT IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FOREFOOT OFFENSE AS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION? I MEAN, I THINK YOU CAN ADD INTO YOUR STATEMENT AS PRESENTED. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. OKAY. FOR WHOEVER READS THAT DIMENSION WAS THIS, SO I, I'M TRYING TO GO THROUGH MY NOTES HERE. DID THE CITY RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ONLY FOR ITEM FOUR? I'M SORRY. ONLY FOR ITEM FOUR. ITEM FOUR, OKAY. YEAH, WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION, BUT WE RECOMMENDED DENIAL FOR THE OTHER THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE SENATOR TO SPEAK? YES, WE HAVE JENA LORA. 1106, JULIA ROSS, GEN NOVERA COMING UP. YOU PRESENT. ALRIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. VEEVA LOREN, I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS SINCE I'M THE ADJACENT, UH, NEIGHBOR. 1106, UH, JULIA ROSS. AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CAR CARPORT I THINK THAT WAS RECENTLY BUILT. MY CONCERNS ARE, JUST BEAR WITH ME FOR A MINUTE. UM, FIRST OF ALL, BEING IN COMPLIANCE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. OF COURSE. AND ON THE CARPORT, I DON'T SEE ANY RUNOFFS OR OR [01:55:01] GUTTERS FOR WATER BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE LIKE A FLAT ROOF. A FLAT ROOF. THERE'S NO INCLINING. AND MY OTHER CONCERNS ARE FIRE HAZARD. 'CAUSE IT WAS BUILT SO CLOSE TO THE FENCE. IT'S A WOODEN FENCE. AND UH, LET'S SEE, UH, TO ME, BECAUSE I'M SO CLOSE TO IT AND IT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALSO, UM, ON THE CARPORT, LET ME SEE, LIKE I STATED, IT WAS BUILT TOO CLOSE TO THE FENCE AND NOISE, NOISE VIBRATION. WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING THIS PATIO, I WAS SITTING IN MY LIVING ROOM AND I HAVE ANTIQUE PLATTERS AND PLATES ON MY WALL. WELL, THEY FELL DOWN AND THEY CRACKED, YOU KNOW, AND I SAID, WHAT IS THAT NOISE? I GET UP AND THEY'RE MAKING THE HOLES FOR HER, HER, HER PATIO. AND I SAID, HEY, THAT'S NOT GOOD. I HAVE A LOT OF VIBRATION. THEIR CARS, WHEN THEY TURN ON, I CAN FEEL VIBRATION. AND NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, WITH MY NEIGHBOR, WE ALSO ARE NEAR THE TRAIN, THE RAILROAD TRACKS FROM THE GUADALUPE BRIDGE WHERE THE TRAIN GOES ALONG THE ALLAN, UM, ALLAN CREEK. I CAN FEEL VIBRATIONS THERE. SO CAN YOU IMAGINE THE VIBRATION I CAN FEEL NEXT TO MY NEIGHBORS AND MY PLANES RATTLE. THE WALL THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS FACING NORTH AND, AND, AND THEN IT'S MY DRIVEWAY AND THEN IT'S, IT, IT'S HER PROPERTY. THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPLICABLE, YOU KNOW, AS BEING LIKE A NOISE ASSESSMENT MAYBE, OR, OR VARIANCE. ANOTHER THING ON OUR PLATS, AND I HAVE THIS QUESTION AND I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE, I MEAN I TALKED TO THE MR. SANCHEZ ENGINEER, BUT I FORGOT TO ASK HIM ON OUR PROPERTY PLATS. I, I RECALLED THEIR, IT STATES SUBJECT TO, TO COVENANT RESTRICTIONS. I HOPE WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANY COVENANT RESTRICTIONS ON THAT SUBDIVISION TOO. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY OTHER CONCERN BECAUSE I RECALL WHEN I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, I RECALLED AND I ASKED AND THEY SAID I COULD NOT, I COULD NOT BUILD AN ENCLOSED GARAGE THERE. SO I SAID OKAY, SO THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS TO THESE PROPERTIES. SO THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO YOU ALL. I HOPE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE. WELL THE DO YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR AN HOA? NO, WE DON'T HAVE AN HOA AND I ASKED, I ASKED THAT THE FIRST TIME I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY. OKAY. THERE'S NO HOA THERE. SO THE CITY DOESN'T ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. BUT, UH, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S ENFORCED BY THOSE WHO LIVE IN IT, RIGHT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, AND I RECALL THAT. YEAH. ALRIGHT. UH, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, MANANA. SURE. SO, SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, SO IF IT WAS THAT THE CARPORT HAD GUTTERS SO THAT WAY WE, THERE WOULD BE NO WATER COMING TO YOUR PROPERTY, WOULD THAT ALLEVIATE AT LEAST THAT ONE CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO I DON'T OPPOSE THAT. OKAY. THAT MY NEIGHBOR BUILDS. BUT I WANT IT WITHIN CITY REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE I SEE THAT IT'S SO CLOSE. I KNOW WE HAVEN'T HAD RAIN, BUT IF THERE'S A LOT OF RAIN NOW WATER'S GONNA COME TO MY PROPERTY 'CAUSE IT'S THAT CLOSE TO THE FENCE. AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME RESTRICTIONS ON HOW FAR YOU HAVE TO BUILD FROM THE FENCE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. YES, SIR. AND I UNDERSTAND AND YOU'RE VERY THOROUGH AND I AGREE WITH THAT, . I AGREE WITH ALL, ALL YOUR, YOU KNOW, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'D LOOK AT FOR MITIGATING, YOU KNOW, SO, SO PROPERTIES ARE KIND OF NARROW SOMETIMES. YES, SIR. AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, CITIZENS CAN CAN PROVIDE COVERAGE STRUCTURES ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T ALLOW MUCH SPACE. AND SO WE TRY TO MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE, SOMETIMES THOSE CHALLENGES. AND ONE OF THE WAYS WE MITIGATE IT IS LIKE REQUIRING GUTTERS OR, OR, OR ASKING THEM TO, TO COMMIT TO GUTTERS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT IT, UH, RIGHT, IT DOESN'T HAVE ISSUE WHEN IT'S THIS CLOSE TO A PROPERTY THAT IT ALSO HAS TO BE FIRE, UH, FIRE, UM, RESISTANT. AND SO, SO IT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT AS WELL. UM, YOU KNOW, FROM A FIRE CONSTRAINT. SO, SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. SO, SO, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED FIRE AND YOU MENTIONED THE WATER, RIGHT? SO IF WE TAKE CARE OF BOTH OF THOSE IN THIS DIALOGUE, UM, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S CLOSE, UM, ARE YOU MORE OKAY WITH IT OR NOT THE WAY IT'S BUILT RIGHT NOW? , BUT NOT THE WAY IT'S BUILT BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT HAVING GUTTERS OR LOCATION, OR NOT HAVING GUTTERS. 'CAUSE I DO, LIKE I STATED, IF WE GET A REAL BIG RAINFALL, I CAN SEE THAT WATER COMING THIS WAY UNLESS THEY HAVE LITTLE RUNOFFS OR, OR, OR GUTTERS, YOU KNOW? AND, AND, AND WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE FLOODING EACH OTHER'S PROPERTIES. RIGHT. AND SO, SO WE HAVE THAT DIALOGUE. WE'RE GONNA, AND I AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH. AND, AND MY OTHER CONCERN WAS FIRE. SO IS THIS, IS THIS CARPORT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR A PERMIT? [02:00:01] UH, NO, IT HAS NOT. SO AFTER THE, AFTER THIS, UH, CASE, IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED, A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED? THAT'S CORRECT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE FIRE REVIEW. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK FOR, COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE OTHER. OH, I APOLOGIZE. UH, YES. LETICIA SANCHEZ. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M LETICIA SANCHEZ AND I'M THE CO-CHAIR PERSON OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE PROPERTIES IN THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, UH, OUR ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF MS. RODRIGUEZ'S REQUEST. UM, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO KNOCKING DOOR TO DOOR TO MEET WITH HER NEIGHBORS. AND, UM, THE FOLLOWING, UM, RESIDENTS, UH, OPENED THEIR DOORS AND ALL. UM, STA STATED THAT THEY WERE ALSO IN SUPPORT OF, UM, THE REQUEST THAT SHE'S MADE FOR HERE AT BOA OLIVIA THOMPSON AT 1103. JULIA ROSS, LIZETTE DOMINGUEZ, 1111. JULIA ROSS, EMILY ALVAREZ, 1115, JULIA ROSS AND YOLANDA FLO. 1119 JULIA ROSS. UM, AND JUST FOR A HISTORY OF THIS LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NUMBER ONE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S, UH, NON-CONFORMING. SO, UH, THIS HAPPENS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A LOT. WE HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THINGS CAN BE UP TO CODE. UM, UH, UDC CHANGES ALL THE TIME, BUT IT'S, IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK. UM, BUT THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENT BUILT BY THE SAN ANTONIO ALTERNATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SO IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE SPACE AND LAND USED, UM, AND TO PROVIDE A LARGER NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSES, THE HOUSES WERE BUILT VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEVELOPERS CHOSE TO NOT ADD GARAGE UNITS, UM, IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PRICE OF THE HOUSES LOW. UM, SINCE MOVING INTO THEIR HOUSES, THOUGH, SEVERAL OWNERS ON THIS BLOCK HAVE ADDED CARPORTS. AND THERE, I MEAN, I WALKED THAT BLOCK AND, UH, SO DID SOME OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING CARPORTS THERE, UM, THAT ARE ALSO NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE. UM, BUT WHEN I, YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATIONS ARE LIKE, WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CARS. THE SUN IS REALLY, THE SUMMER'S SUN IS REALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT FOR US TO HANDLE AS WELL. UM, AND SO, UM, MR. RODRIGUEZ'S DRIVEWAY ABUTS HER NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY. IT'S NOT DIRECTLY NEXT TO AN ACTUAL, UH, STRUCTURE. SO, UM, WHEN WE HAD A CONVERSATION, I DID ASK ABOUT THE RUNOFF, AND SHE SAID SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE, UH, UM, GUTTERS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO RUNOFF INTO THE PROPERTY. UM, AND SO ALSO THE, AS I SAID, THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS BUILT. AND SO A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT EXIST THERE, LIKE THE, UH, THE FENCING WAS ALREADY IN PLACE, UH, WHEN SAN ANTONIO ALTERNATIVE HOUSING DEVELOPED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, UM, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE, UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S VERY SMALL PROPERTY, UM, IN EACH OF THE LOTS. AND, UH, ONCE AGAIN, WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MANANA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER MANANA. UH, MISS, SO, EXCUSE ME, MISS. SO LETICIA ACTUALLY JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR BEING, TAKING A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. SO I, SO I, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPLAUD ANY COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT COMES UP AND REPRESENTS THE COMMUNITY, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO YOU'VE HEARD FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS MM-HMM . AND, UH, ASSOCIATION MM-HMM . AND THE ASSOCIATION IS, UH, UM, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UH, AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS? YES. THE, I DO HAVE THE INCLINE THAT IT HAS RAINED RECENTLY BEFORE, AND I'VE SEEN THE WATER WHERE IT DOESN'T FALL INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S BECAUSE I DO HAVE AN, IT DOESN'T LOOK, BUT IF YOU DO THE MEASUREMENT, THERE'S THAT LITTLE STRING THAT GOES BARELY DOWN. BUT I WILL GO AHEAD AND JUST FOR MORE, UH, SECURITY FOR HER SET OF MINE, UH, DO THE GUTTERS AS WELL. OKAY. SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, [02:05:01] UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA, AND THEN, SO THERE IS A REALIZATION THAT WHEN THE CITY COMES BY AND TAKES A LOOK AT IT, THEY MAY REQUIRE SOME CHANGES MM-HMM . TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF TO MAKE IT, UH, MORE FIREPROOF. AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, UM, GIL. YEAH. AND THAT MATERIAL THAT I HAVE, IT'S THE GAR, IT'S NOT ROOFING, IT'S NOT WOOD, IT'S THE SILVER THING. THE G UM, WHAT'S IT CALLED? STANDING SEA METAL ROOF. YEAH. METAL ROOF. METAL ROOF, YEAH. METAL. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GONNA GET ON FIRE ANYTIME SOON. SO, BUT, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE THAT PASSING THAT. AND SO, SO, SO AS YOU BUILD WHATEVER, IS THAT YOU, OR AS YOU COME INSPECTED, I STOPPED THE PROJECT BECAUSE RIGHT. I WANNA GET THIS DONE FIRST TO GO FORWARD. SO, UM, THAT'S WHY THAT PERMIT HASN'T GOTTEN IN YET, BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL APPROVE THE SETBACK, BECAUSE THAT'S NUMBER ONE THING THAT'S HOLDING ME BACK. I STOPPED EVERYTHING BECAUSE, WELL, LET'S SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 9. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT. ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SOUTH SIDE SETBACK. AND TWO, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A PORCH WITH A FOUR FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THREE, A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CORNER REAR VISION TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA, UH, WITH A FENCE BUILT AS IS. UM, AND SO, AND FOUR, A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A 11 FOOT, SIX INCH DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA SITUATED AT 1 1 0 2. UH, JULIA ROSS STREET, APPLICANT BEING MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED SIDE AND FRONT SETBACKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THE REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED CARPORT IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED CORNER. CLEAR VISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORISTS TRAVELING ALONG THE ADJOINING STREETS. THE PLACEMENT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN NATURE OF THE FENCE ALLOWS DRIVERS TO OBSERVE APPROACHING VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS AND SAFETY SAFELY MANEUVER THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEIR PROS DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS ADEQUATE VISIBILITY WOULD BE MAINTAINED FOR SAFE MOTOR VEHICLE INGRESS AND EGRESS. THEIR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN NATURE OF THE FENCE ALLOWS SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE STREET, PROVIDED MOTORS WITH AN OBSTRUCTIVE VIEW OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND ALLOWING VEHICLES TO SAFELY ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY DUE TO TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE STAFF FINDS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WARRANT THE REDUCED SIDE AND FRONT SETBACKS. THE CONFIGURATION EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY CREATE CREATES SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT LIMITS THE REASONABLE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED CARPORT AND PORCH. WHILE MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED SETBACK. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITING THE REASONABLE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF FINDS THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY WARRANT CONSIDERATION OF THE REDUCED CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA. ALTHOUGH MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION, IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT THE REASONABLE USE OF THE FRONT YARD AREA AND WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S CONFIGURATION. THEIR POSE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING A SUFFICIENT LEVEL OF VISIBILITY TO SUPPORT SAFE VEHICLE VEHICULAR MOVEMENT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. THE LOCATION PREDOMINANTLY OPEN NATURE OF THE FENCE PROVIDES ADEQUATE CLEAR VISION FOR MOTORISTS ENTERING AND EXITING THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION ALLOWS DRIVERS TO VIEW ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SAFELY MANEUVER VEHICLES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY WHILE ALLOWING FOR REASONABLE AND EFFICIENT USE OF THE FRONT YARD AREA SURROUNDING THE DRIVEWAY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE REDUCED SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK. VARIANCES WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A PROPOSED CARPORT AND PORCH WOULD PROVIDE FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND CHARACTER. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA AND WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE USED IN A REASONABLE AND FUNCTIONAL MANNER WHILE ACCOMMODATING THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF VISIBILITY FOR MOTORISTS APPROACHING AND NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION. THE EXISTING SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE STREET TOGETHER WITH THE PREDOMINANTLY [02:10:01] OPEN NATURE OF THE FENCE, ALLOWS APPROACHING VEHICLES AND OTHER ROADWAY USERS TO BE OBSERVED. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD PERMIT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY TO SUPPORT SAFE VEHICULAR MOVEMENT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. THE PROPOSED SEPARATION BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE STREET PROVIDES ADEQUATE VISIBILITY FOR MOTORISTS ENTERING AND EXITING THE PROPERTY. THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN NATURE OF THE WALL ALLOWS ONCOMING TRAFFIC, UM, TO BE OBSERVED AND PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR VEHICLES TO SAFELY MANEUVER INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY MAINTAINING ADEQUATE VISIBILITY AND SUPPORTING SAFE VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. AND THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE, IS LOCATED NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WOULD MAINTAIN A ONE INCH DISTANCE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND FOUR FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, THESE REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT WHILE REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORS APPROACHING, NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION, ALLOWING FOR THE SAFE USE OF THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS. THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION WOULD THEREFORE REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA, WHILE ALLOWING REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AS ADEQUATE, CLEAR VISION WOULD REMAIN OPEN OR REMAIN TO SUPPORT SAFE VEHICULAR, EGRESS AND EGRESS FROM BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION WOULD MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORS AND NOW SUBSTANTIALLY IN INTERFERE WITH THE SAFE AND REASONABLE USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH CONFIGURATION. EXISTING CONFI CONDITIONS ON THIS PROPERTY, THE LOCATION LAYOUT, UH, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND IMPROVEMENTS CREATE SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS THAT LIMIT THE REASONABLE PLACEMENT. OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WHILE MAINTAINING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS, GRANTING VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CARE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION AS A CORON PROPERTY. THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS THAT LIMIT THE PLACEMENT OF FENCING AND REDUCE THE USABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY. GRANTING THE VARIANCE, UH, WOULD RECOGNIZE THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WHILE MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY, UH, FOR MOTORS AND SUPPORT THE SAFE USE OF THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS. THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CER UH, CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FENCE, PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY AND STREET. THE LIMITED WIDTH BETWEEN THE FENCE AND STREET CREATES A SITE SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT MAKES STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD WITHOUT REQUIRING THE FENCE TO BE RELOCATED FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY. GRANTING A VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE EXISTING FENCE CONFIGURATION TO REMAIN WHILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE VISIBILITY FOR SAFE VEHICULAR, VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS. AND NOW WE'LL START BY WARM PEACE READING . SO, UH, THAT WAS LONG. SO, AND THE MOTION , IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER MANNA. AND JUST TO REITERATE, COMMISSIONER MANNA, YOU DID READ IN THE AMENDMENT, UH, TO INCLUDE CUTTERS, CORRECT? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS. OH, ON THE ITEM. THANK YOU. UM, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS. SO YES, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFYING. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, FIRST THING, DRIVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DO SEE FENCING, UM, AT OTHER INTERSECTIONS FURTHER DOWN THAT ACTUALLY, UH, MIMIC THIS ONE. AND SO, SO IT DOES SEEM THAT THE COMMUNITY, UM, HAS A ADOPTED OR UTILIZED FENCING THAT DO MEET THE CORNERS. SO, SO THAT'S ALREADY CHALLENGED REALLY IN THIS COMMUNITY. UM, SO THE APPLICANT HERE IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING SAFE FENCING AND, AND RECOGNIZES, YOU KNOW, THE SAFETY OF, OF HER NEIGHBORS. UM, ADDITIONALLY, UM, SO I THINK WITH THE PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY, UH, COM, COMMITTING TO THE GUTTERS AND TO [02:15:01] ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO FIRE SPREAD, UM, CONDITIONS THAT THE CON CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY THE NEIGHBOR, I THINK ARE ADDRESSED. AND SO, SO, UM, AND BECAUSE THIS IS A SMALL LOT, THERE'S REALLY A, A WHOLE LOT OF SPACE TO PLAY WITH WITH REGARDS TO WHERE TO PUT IN, UM, UM, THE, UH, CARPORT. AND THEN, UH, LET'S SEE. AND THEN HAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COME IN AND, AND TALK ABOUT REALLY THE CHALLENGES WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY AND, YOU KNOW, AND HOW IT IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PART OF HOW THEY CONSIDERED THEIR COMMUNITY TO EXIST. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER MINE. I DON'T SEE TOO MANY PROBLEMS THERE, BUT THE PROPERTIES WERE SMALL TO BEGIN WITH 'CAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE CITY CREATED THEM FOR LOW INCOME. SO I'M SURE THAT WITH THE NEW UPDATES AND WITH WHAT SHE WANTS TO GET DONE, UH, EVERYTHING SHOULD COME UP FINE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NONE OF ROLL CALL VOTE. OH, AND ONE QUICK THING, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, DID YOU ACCEPT THE, UH, AMENDMENT TO ADD GUTTERS? YES, I DO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MANNA. AND IT WAS ACCEPTING THE READING THAT THE APPLICANT INCLUDED GUTTERS, SO, RIGHT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE, SO IT WASN'T WANNA BE CLEAR THOUGH, IT WAS THE APPLICANT COMMITTING TO ADDING THE GUTTERS, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF? UH, YES. REGARDING THE PERMITTING. I APPRECIATE YOU. HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK? WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN, SIX TO SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. 3 25. WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. AND, UM, WE ARE GOING TO BRING ITEM NUMBER FOUR BACK UP FROM THE TABLE. UH, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. UH, IF COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. UH, MY NAME'S ERIC LOWITZ AND I REPRESENT, UH, AN COFFEE. UH, WE ARE REMODELING WHAT WAS A VINTAGE, 1980S, UH, MOTOR BANK FROM BANK OF AMERICA WITH AN EXISTING SIGN FRAME THAT WAS, UH, THERE AND HAS BEEN BASICALLY A VACANT, IT'S BEEN A FRAME WITHOUT A SIGN FOR PROBABLY DECADES. UH, UNFORTUNATELY. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS IMPROVE THAT FRAME WITHOUT AN ACTUAL SIGN THAT REPRESENTS THE BUSINESS THAT'S GONNA, UH, PARTAKE THEIR ACTIVITIES AND HOPEFULLY BRING, UH, SOME VERY NICE THINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UH, THE FRAME AS IT IS EXISTS AND THE SIGN THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT IN, UM, HAS, UH, IS A LITTLE OFF OF THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS BY SIX FEET ON HEIGHT AND 150 SQUARE FEET IN DI IN, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO WE WOULD, UH, UH, KINDLY REQUEST, UH, WITH THE, WITH, UH, TO THE BOARD TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BASICALLY USE THE FRAME THAT'S EXISTING THAT WAS THERE IN THE 1980S AND IN USE AS A BANK OF AMERICA SIGN, AND BASICALLY PUT A NEW SIGN THAT'S, UH, NICELY BUILT AND, AND ABLE TO, UH, HOPEFULLY IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY AND, AND ELIMINATE A A FRAME THAT HAS BEEN, UH, UH, ABANDONED FOR DECADES. OKAY. UM, STAFF IS, DO YOU HAVE A, A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING FRAME THAT WE CAN DISPLAY? THERE IT IS UP THERE. OH, OKAY. AND YOU'RE WANTING TO REUSE THAT? YEP. SO YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT DOING A, A, A SQUARE, LIKE A TRADITIONAL SQUARE SIGN. THIS IS A VERY LONG, WIDE RECTANGULAR SIGN. UH, CORRECT. IT WOULD BE A RECTANGULAR SIGN. I THINK WE HAD A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. UH, I CAN SEE IF WE HAVE THAT IN OUR RECORDS TO PUT UP ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MANON, WE PREVIOUSLY, SO THE SIGN, UM, CITY SIGN MANAGER, OR I GUESS WHATEVER YOU WOULD CALL HIM, WAS HERE EARLIER. UM, AND TALKED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN AND, AND HOW THIS LARGER THAN, UM, WHAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY PERMITTED ALONG THE HIGHWAY AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER COMPONENTS OF IT. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I, I, I GUESS WOULD THINK ABOUT, OKAY, SO IS, UM, SO IF IT WAS NOT [02:20:01] GOING EDGE TO EDGE ON THE FRAME IS THAT'S STILL THE SIZE OF THE SIGN. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY USED THREE-FOURTHS OF THE FRAME AND DROPPED OR ELEVATED THE SIGN, I GUESS THEY DROPPED IT FROM THAT, FROM THE, FROM THE POST THERE. IF THEY DROPPED IT FROM AND ONLY USED THREE QUARTERS OF IT, WOULD THAT BE THE SIGN OR THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, OR WOULD IT STILL BE PULLED TO PULL? I'D PROBABLY WANT, UH, MR. OLMO TO CHIME IN ON THAT. LET ME GET HIM, UH, UM, TO BE AVAILABLE AGAIN, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, TIM, UH, WHILE WE'RE, UH, TALKING ABOUT IT, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW OF ANY, UH, REDUCTIONS THAT YOU COULD LIVE WITH ON THIS WHILE WE'RE PROBLEM CONTEMPLATING THIS? THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM WOULD BE YOU WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO TEAR THE WHOLE STRUCTURE DOWN AND, UH, REPLACE AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF IT. UM, BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T, IT WOULD BE, UH, TECHNICALLY CHALLENGING TO, UH, REDUCE, UM, ALBEIT PROBABLY NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT, UH, I THINK THE ISSUE WOULD BE FOR ME PERSONALLY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME THAT MUCH, BUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY MEASURED BY AN, UH, REDUCING A RECTANGULAR ITEM AROUND UNTIL IT FITS. AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS ON THE RENDERING THAT WE SAW. LIKE IT COULD BE NOT AS TALL AND STILL HAD THE SAME WIDTH. AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I'D, I'D BE MAYBE BETTER TO GET BEHIND. WHAT DID THE REST OF THE COMMISSION THINK ABOUT THAT? YES, MAY I? YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN REED. SO LOOKING AT HISTORICAL IMAGERY ON, UM, GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IF YOU GO BACK TO 2007, YOU CAN SEE THEY ACTUALLY HAD A SIGN SUSPENDED FROM THAT CROSS BEAM AND IT WAS SO CAN THE CITY SMALLER? CAN THE STAFF BRING UP THAT VIEW? SO HISTORICAL VIEW OF THAT, THAT PARTICULAR SIGNAGE, 2007 VERSION STREET VIEW OF THAT. SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. TOOK IT FROM BROOKLYN AVENUE 2007. YEAH. WHO'S THE OLDEST IMAGE I CAN FIND? BUT SEE, IT'S A, ACTUALLY, SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE THAT YOU COULD UTILIZE THIS FRAME FOR A, WELL, WELL, I GUESS, SO THE QUESTION I HAD THOUGH, SO THERE WAS A SIGN, SIGN SIZE ALLOWED, BUT IS THIS SIGN HERE, WOULD THIS SIGN HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, SIMPLY BY SIZE AND, AND YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY HEIGHT? SO WAS THIS IN, IN COMPLIANCE AT THIS POINT? WOULD SAY YES, IT WOULD BE HARD VERSUS MY FRAME DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, SIDE TO SIDE OF THE SIZE OF THE FRAME AND WHAT HAVE YOU. IT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN. RIGHT. ALTHOUGH, I GUESS IT'S THE HEIGHT AS WELL, BUT I IT SURE LOOKS PRETTY COMPLIANT. . YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD ASSUME IT IS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE FRAME WASN'T PART OF THE WHOLE DIALOGUE. 'CAUSE YEAH, 'CAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO THE POINT HERE, WHICH IS KINDA THE POINT I WAS BRINGING UP, IS THAT THE SIGN IS, DOESN'T GO EDGE TO EDGE OF THE FRAME. AND SO, SO, SO THE SIZE OF THE SIGN SEEMS, YEAH, BUT THE WEIGHT OF THIS, I MEAN THE WEIGHT OF THIS SIGN RELATIVE TO, I MEAN, THIS IS A POSTAGE STAMP HERE TO SOME DEGREE. IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL, I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE A 50 SQUARE, UH, 10 SQUARE FOOT SIGN OR SOMETHING. SO I, I THINK THE, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD EQUATE THAT. I, I IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO COMPARE THAT TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO. UM, ULTIMATELY, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO, UH, OF COURSE I'M NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, AN ENGINEER, BUT, UH, YOU NEED TO BE OR A SIGN MANUFACTURER. UM, BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO SUPPORT THE SIGN. AND, UM, AND, AND THE FRAME WAS OBVIOUSLY WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY AT SOME POINT IN ITS LIFE, RIGHT? SO THE, THE, THE STRUCTURE OF THIS WAS, UH, CITY APPROVED, I WOULD ASSUME IN THE 1980S. UM, SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING NEW. WE'RE JUST ASKING TO RECONSTITUTE A, AN EXISTING APPROVED SIGN THAT WAS, UH, PUT THERE IN THE 1980S, UM, AND, AND JUST REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT CAN BE, UH, THAT WILL ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY AND NOT, UH, AND NOT LEAVE AN ABANDONED STRUCTURE THERE. UM, ARE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY PHOTOS OR DO WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS INDEED A SIGN THAT COVERED THIS ENTIRE MAKE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 300 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WOULD BE A FIVE BY SIX OR SO LIKE THAT. UM, SO IT'D BE LARGER THAN WHAT'S SHOWN HERE. 50 BY 6, 50 50 50 BY SIX. YEAH. UM, BUT, BUT I GUESS THE POINT IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE A SIGN THAT MEETS THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT UTILIZING THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE AND, UM, I THINK YOU STILL HAVE A DECENT AMOUNT OF VISIBILITY. [02:25:04] WELL, UM, AND DO, DO WE RECALL WHAT SIZE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO, I I, ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WIDTH OF THIS FRAME IS FROM POLE TO POLE? UM, I DON'T, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE INITIAL, THE APPLICATION OF, OR THE SIGN COMPANY, WHICH I DON'T HAVE WITH ME. UH, UNFORTUNATELY, I JUST GOT NOTICE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. SO, SO HERE, HERE'S, HERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO. UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T HAVE, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SIGN, THE, THE INSPECTOR HERE FOR SIGN, SIGN INSPECTOR. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ALSO DON'T KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU, WHAT COULD BE MODIFIED TO GET YOU TO A PLACE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS FUNCTIONAL FOR, FOR THE FACILITY. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THIS ONE. I'M ALSO NOT OPPOSED TO, LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY, I'M NOT, I'M, I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THE HEIGHT. UM, I THINK THAT THREE, THE 450 SQUARE FEET IS A LITTLE TOO BIG, BUT I COULD LIVE WITH 300 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD GET BEHIND TODAY. BUT OTHERWISE, I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST HAVE THE SIGN COMPANY HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE FUNCTIONAL, THAT WE COULD HAVE IT FOR US. I, I THINK IF WE CAN GET THE SIX FOOT, UM, OF THE HEIGHT, AND I, I WOULD SUSPECT HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME SORT OF BRACKETS TO DE TO DECREASE THE WIDTH, UH, ENOUGH TO, TO DO THAT. I WOULD HOPE. I NEED TO CHECK WITH THE SIGN COMPANY, BUT I THINK THE HEIGHT IS PROBABLY FROM MY STANDPOINT, WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY, THAN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WELL, THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT, THAT THIS IS GROUPED TOGETHER AS ONE VARIANCE, RIGHT? AND SO WE EITHER ARE GONNA TABLE THIS FOR A FEW WEEKS OR A MONTH OR, OR WE'RE GONNA NEED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING TODAY. RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. AND SO YOU DO NEED TO HAVE NINE OF US GET BEHIND THIS, UH, FOR IT TO PASS, SO. SURE. WHAT DO YOU THINK COMMISSIONER MANNA? SO, AND, AND I THINK THE CITY STAFF, YOU KNOW, TALKED ABOUT THIS IS LARGER THAN EVEN WHAT WE'D BE PERMITTED ON THE HIGHWAY IF IT WAS ON, ON THE, THE ACCESS ROAD. SO, SO TO ME, THE SIGN SIZE IS JUST, IS IS A NON-STARTER. YEAH, THEY SAID IT WAS 3 75 MAX FOR THE EXEMPTION. THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING 300 WAS THE MOST I'D PROBABLY GET BEHIND. RIGHT. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A THING TODAY, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. OTHERWISE WE CAN GET A MOVE FORWARD. CONTINUANCE. YEAH, I WOULD SUPPORT 300 SQUARE FEET IF YOU ALLOW THE SIX FOOT FEET AND THE 300 SQUARE FEET, I THINK I CAN MAKE THAT WORK. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ABOUT 300 SQUARE FEET. I WAS THINKING 200, BUT , SO THEY, BECAUSE THAT'S STILL ALLOWED FOR, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY SIZABLE SIGN THERE. SO ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS SIGNING TO SPEAK FOR THIS? UH, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO THROW A NUMBER OUT THERE FOR AREA THAT THEY COULD GET BEHIND? CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I WAS THINKING TWO 50 MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? UM, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE, THE ORIGINAL THING IS THERE, BUT THE SIGN ITSELF AT THREE 50, UH, I CAN'T SEE IT. SORRY, TWO 50 SOUND LIKE SOMETHING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT OR I CAN DO IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. . OKAY. I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 250 FEET FOR, AND THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT WOULD STILL STAY AT THE SAME, UH, SIX, THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE YES. DIMENSION AT THE SAME DIMENSION THAT IT IS NOW, WERE YOU GONNA READ A MOTION WITH THE, WITH THE HEIGHT SIX FEET ON THE HEIGHT TOO? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME. WELL, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO ASPECTS. THERE'S A ITEM. ONE IS A, IS A SIX FOOT BURNED. OH, OKAY. SORRY. SORRY, I HAD SOMETHING IN MY MOUTH. SORRY. UM, OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. OKAY. UM, I AM NOT SURE BECAUSE I, THE SIGNED SUPERVISOR WHEN HE WAS HERE, I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO, [02:30:02] WELL, HE MOST, HE, HE REALLY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FREEWAY EXCEPTION THAT DIDN'T APPLY, BUT MM-HMM . THAT'S TRUE. I I THINK HIS CONCERN WAS MORE WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WELL. YEAH. HE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CHAIR. I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. THE, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS SIX FEET TALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED. IS THAT WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT VARIANCE? THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT THE REASON YOU'RE ASKING BECAUSE IT'S SIX FEET TALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED? YEAH. YEAH. YOU'RE WANTING TO, WHAT WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU REMOVE, WHEN YOU REMOVE THE, THE SIGN OFF FROM THE STRUCTURE, IT'S CONSIDERED DEMOLISHED AND THEREFORE YOU DON'T GET ANY RETAINING OF WHAT WAS BUILT. SO SINCE THIS IS HERE SINCE THE EIGHTIES, THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO REUSE AND HAVE IT BE PROPORTIONAL. SO YES. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. SO MANNA, SO, SO GOING BACK FOR, I, I THINK IF I UNDERSTOOD MS. CRUZ CORRECTLY, SO ONE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, ASKING THAT THE SI THAT THE SIGN HEIGHT NOT BE TALLER THAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, I THINK IS KIND OF, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT THAT SIZE IS, SO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN DEFINE THE MOTION BASED UPON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE SO IT DOESN'T GO ANY HIGHER THAN THAT, YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO, UM, WOULD LIKE ME TO READ IT? ? YES, SIR. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 3 6, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF JUDGMENT GR REQUEST FOR ONE, UH, UP TO A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOW 24 FOOT FOOT SIGN HEIGHT, UH, SUCH THAT IT, UH, THE, THE HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED, UH, THE TALLEST PART OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, UH, ALONG A MATERIAL TYPE BEAD, UH, TO ALLOW UP TO A 30 FOOT, UH, SIGN AND TO A 100 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 150 FOOT AREA SIGN ALONG AN ARTERIAL TBI TO ALLOW A 250 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AREA SITUATED AT 1 1 1 0 BROOKLYN AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING PANICKED OFF BAKERY LLC BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY, PERCENT OF US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCES TO NOT BE UNCHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA, NOR IMPOSE A STANDARD UNSEEN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS A LOCATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE A SIGN WHICH IS CLOSE TO AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND IS EXISTING. THREE, BY REGARDING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED VARIANCES WOULD NOT IMPOSE A STANDARD THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. FOUR, THE EVENTS WILL NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF VISA THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED. IT WOULD NOT DEVIATE SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE MEETING SURROUNDING AREA SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STREET TO WHICH IT'S ADDRESSED OFF OF, WHICH LIMITS ITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN AN AREA THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE SUCH DEVIANCES FROM THE UDC END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, YEAH, I'M NOT OPPOSED, UH, TO THE UP TO SIX FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE, UH, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EX, UH, A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL EXISTING FRAME THAT'S BEEN THERE, UH, FOR ALMOST, UH, FOUR DECADES. AND THE SLIGHT INCREASE OF A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET TO 250, UH, IS CERTAINLY FINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ALONG ON THE HIGHWAY. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, I AGREE WITH, WITH YOUR STATEMENTS AND I WITH THAT AMOUNT, I THINK THAT EVERYTHING, EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. AND I KNOW IT IS A BUSINESS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE THE HIGHWAY CONTROL ALSO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NOW? HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE CHAIR ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGG. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES NINE TO ONE. UH, STAFF WILL HAVE TO, UH, REFERENCE THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO SEE WHAT THAT HEIGHT ACTUALLY WAS. UH, [02:35:01] BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF? THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO O 8 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 0. APPLICANT BEING JOSE SANCHEZ LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO, LOCATED AT SIX 30 EAST CARSON STREET. UH, ZONING BEING R FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR A ONE 19 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR STEPBACK TO ALLOW A ONE INCH REAR SETBACK LIMITED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS BUILT. TWO A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN A DU WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO INCLUDE A ONE INCH, SORRY, ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG AND LIMITED TO THE A DU AS-BUILT. THREE. A VARIANCE FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT CENTER TO ALLOW A A DU IN THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD. LIMITED TO THE A DU AS-BUILT. BUILT FOR A THREE FOOT FIVE INCH SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FIVE INCH FRONT YARD SOLID FENCE LIMITED TO THE FRONT YARD FENCE AS BUILT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER INTERSECTION OF EAST CARSON AND NORTH PALMETTO STREET. THE SURROUNDING AREAS COMPRISED OF ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THE BASE ZONING OF R SIX. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SETBACK A DE LOCATION VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL EXEMPTION AS AN ADDRESS AND CHANGE REQUESTS WOULD REORIENT THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARD ON THIS LOT. THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT HILL DISTRICT HISTORIC DISTRICT. ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THE PREVIOUS SITE SETBACK WAS REDUCED TO APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH SOMETIME AFTER JULY, 2025. NO PERMITS WERE FOUND AUTHORIZING THIS EX EXPANSION. THEREFORE, A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ADDRESS CHANGE IS COMPLETED. PER BEAR COUNTY RECORDS, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING WAS CON CONSTRUCTED IN 1950. THE OUTSTANDING CHANGE OF ADDRESSING APPLICATION IS PENDING THE RESULTS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, DENIAL ON THE SETBACKS AND ACCESSORY DWELLING LOCATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD LEAD TO AN INCREASED RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF. TWO, THE ADUS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND PLACING IT FORWARD AND TO THE SIDE OF THE PRIMARY DING UNIT WOULD CREATE DISCORD WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE FENCE HEIGHTS SPECIAL EXEMPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, INCREASED FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS WERE NOT OBSERVED TO BE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, INCREASED FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS DO NOT PROMOTE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THAT IS A TYPICAL DESIRABLE FEATURE OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 26 NOTICES WERE MAILED. SIX RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS WERE RECEIVED IN, UH, FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. AND THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. SO THE ACCESSORY, UH, STRUCTURE BEING BUILT IN 1950, ARE WE JUST HERE TO TRY TO CLEAN UP A NON-CONFORMING USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? YEAH, SO THE, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A CHANGE OF ADDRESS, WHICH NOW KIND OF CREATES ISSUES, UH, FOR THE FENCING A DU LOCATION, UM, WHICH KIND OF LEADS US TO THE, OH, SO IT WAS, IT WAS ADDRESSED OFF PALMETTO AND NOW IT'S ADDRESSED OFF CARSON? NO, IT, IT USED TO BE, OR IT CURRENTLY STILL IS ADDRESSED OFF OF CARSON. THEY'RE LOOKING TO CHANGE TO PALMETTO, WHICH A DU LOCATION NUMBER THREE YEAH. IS KIND OF BECOMING THE ISSUE THERE. AND THEN THE, UH, WHAT YOU, YOU SAID IN 2025 THERE WAS A A, A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION. WHAT WAS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT, WHAT THEY DID? I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PHOTOS. SO IT'S GONNA BE LOCATED, I BELIEVE IT'S ON, ON NUMBER ONE WHERE THAT EXPANSION OCCURRED PAST THE DASH LINE? CORRECT. OKAY. I I THOUGHT THAT DASH LINE WAS LIKE A PORTION OF A LOT OR SOMETHING. WELL, NO, IT, IT IS A PORTION OF A LOT, BUT THE LOCATION AREA OF WHERE THAT TOOK IS, IS TO THE LEFT OF THE DASH [02:40:01] LINE. OKAY. SO THAT WAS COMPLETELY ADDED TO STAFF'S KNOWLEDGE? CORRECT. OKAY. AND WITHOUT GOING TO HDRC CORRECT. OR PERMITTED OR ANYTHING THAT THAT'S UNDERSTAND. OKAY. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO REGARDING, UM, THE LOCATION OF THE A DU, UM, SO, SO IT'S SUPPOSED, SO ADUS ARE HISTORICALLY SUPPOSED TO BE BEHIND, IS IT BEHIND AND IS BEHIND CONSIDERED THE FRONT FACADE AND EVERYTHING IN, IN THE REAR YARD? SO IT WAS ACTUALLY SO BEHIND THE REAR FACADE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, SO I MEAN, CURRENTLY IT'S COMPLIANT UNTIL THEY GET AN ADDRESS CHANGE, CORRECT? YEAH, BUT THE, WELL, IF THEY CHANGE THE ADDRESS, THE FRONT SO IT BECOMES, IT GOES ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE OF THAT CHANGE. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR. YES, COMMISSIONER DEAN, HAVE WE SEEN THIS CASE BEFORE? THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR. THIS AREA STAFF, HAS THIS ADDRESS BEEN BEFORE US? I BELIEVE THEY APPLIED FOR AN STR. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ONE THAT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD THOUGH. I CAN, I CAN FIND THAT OUT. PALM SEEMS FAMILIAR, BUT OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE US SOME INSIGHT TO WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE, . SURE. MY NAME IS, UH, WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JOSE JOSE SANCHEZ. I'M REQUESTING VARIANCE RELATED TO THE ADDRESS DIRECTION FOR MY PROPERTY AT SIX 30 EAST CARSON, COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC, SIR? SORRY IF THE MIC'S NOT ON. SORRY FOR THAT. OH MY GOSH. OKAY. I'LL START AGAIN. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JOSE. I'M REQUESTING VARIANCE RELATED TO AN ADDRESS CORRECTION FOR MY PROPERTY ON SIX 30 EAST CARSON STREET ON THE CORNER OF CARSON AND NORTH PALMETTO. UH, I GUESS I'LL START OFF WITH, UM, RELATED TO THE, UH, MENTION OF ANY KIND OF CHANGES THAT HAPPENED IN 2025. THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN, UH, AS BUILT SINCE 1904. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THAT HOME EXCEPT WE DID ADD A FENCE IN 2005. SO WE DID ADD, UH, COMPLIANT WITH PERMITTED FENCE. SO ALL OF THAT IS, UM, IN COMPLIANCE. SO REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS I SUBMITTED AN ADDRESS CHANGE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT FUNCTION FROM CARSON STREET. CARSON IS MORE THAN 50% BLOCKED BY VIA BUS STOP, WHICH ELIMINATES PARKING AND PREVENTS SAFE ACCESS. ALL DAILY ACCESS, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY AND COVERED ENTRANCE OCCURS AT NORTH PALMETTO AVENUE. CHANGING THE ADDRESS TO PALMETTO IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, BUT IT AUTOMATICALLY REC RECLASSIFIES THE FRONT, REAR AND SIDE YARDS. SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGING IS THE ADDRESS. UH, THIS RECLASSIFICATION CREATES FOUR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS INVOLVING SETBACKS, A DU PLACEMENT AND FENCE HEIGHT. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE CREATED BY ME AND NONE INVOLVE NEW CONSTRUCTION. THEY ARE SIMPLY THE RESULT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDRESS CHANGE. AND I THINK I DID, I GIVE A PRESENTATION THAT I THINK I SENT ONE IN? IF WE CAN PUT THAT UP, THAT'D BE HELPFUL. I'LL START WITH, UM, APPROVE APPROVED VARIANCES. Y UH, REALLY IT'S AN ADDRESS CHANGE FOR SAFETY AND THERE'S NO CHANGES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES EXCEPT THE FENCING THAT OCCURRED IN 2025. OKAY, THAT'S WHERE I'LL START THERE. UM, BUT THEN I GUESS I WAS GONNA GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONS THAT, UM, WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA OF ALLOWING A VARIANCE. SO IN TERMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, UM, YOU CAN READ ALL OF THIS, BUT, UH, THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE PUBLIC. ALL STRUCTURES ALREADY EXIST AND HAVE COEXISTED WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR YEARS. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. ADDRESS CHANGE WILL IMPROVE SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS, VISITORS IN THE COMMUNITY. CURRENTLY, WHEN ANYONE GPSS, THEY GO STRAIGHT TO THE FRONT AND IF WE CHANGE THE ADDRESS AND THEY GP PS IT, THEY WOULD SEND THEM TO THE SIDE, WHICH IS A MORE SAFE AREA TO PARK. UM, IF I DID HIGHLIGHT SOME THINGS HERE IN RELATION TO THE FIRST CONDITION, IT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY, NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, IT'LL SIMPLY ALLOW THESE EXISTING AND LONGSTANDING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN COMPLIANT AFTER THE ADDRESS REORIENTATION. UM, AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY THE, THE VIA BUS STOP IS ELIMINATING PARKING AND LIMITING SAFE ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. CONDITION NUMBER TWO, THE HARDSHIP IS THE CITY INSTALLED BUS STOP BLOCKING THE CARS IN [02:45:01] FRONTAGE. THIS IS A UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITION THAT PREVENTS THE PROPERTY FROM FUNCTION AS A TYPICAL FRONT FACING LOT. WHEN THE ADDRESS IS CORRECTED, THE EDC RECLASSIFIES THE YARDS AND CREATES TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION. THIS HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-CREATED. AND IN RELATION TO THE CONDITIONS, UM, CITY INSTALLED BUS STOP PROHIBITED AND, AND, UM, SO A PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUS STOP BUS STOP IS PROHIBITED AND UNSAFE. UM, AGAIN, THEY WERE NOT CONDITIONED BY THE OWN, I MEAN THEY WERE NOT SET UP BY THE OWNER. THIS IS LITERALLY ENFORCEMENT THAT WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP CAUSED SOLELY BY THE BUS STOP AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDRESS CHANGE. OKAY. CONDITION NUMBER THREE, SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS PRESERVED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WILL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION EXACTLY AS IT DOES TODAY. THE VARIANCES SIMPLY ALLOW EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN COMPLIANT AFTER THE ADDRESS CORRECTION. UH, LEMME GO TO THE, OH, SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE MOVED THAT FORWARD. OH, SO THIS IS, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HOME RIGHT NOW. SO THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, TAKEN UP BY THE BUS STOP. SO GPS TO THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE MUCH MORE, UM, USABLE AGAIN IN THESE, UH, THIRD CONDITION RELATED TO GRANTING THE VARIANCE BEING IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND, UH, BEING OBSERVED. UH, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. NO NEW CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION IS PROPOSED. THE REQUEST DOES NOT GRANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. ONLY RELIEF FROM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS THAT ARE TRIGGERED BY THE ADDRESS CHANGE PROCESS, UM, SUBSTANTIAL. OKAY. SO WE'LL JUST GO ON TO THE NEXT CONDITION. NUMBER FOUR, USE. NO NEW USE IS REQUESTED. THE PROPERTY REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN EXISTING A DU THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1950, WHICH IS PERMITTED. UM, GO ONTO THAT ONE. NUMBER FIVE, UH, NO INJURY TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL OCCUR. NOTHING CHANGES PHYSICALLY, VISUALLY, OR OPERATIONALLY. AND THEN NUMBER SIX, THE VARIANCE IMPROVE SAFETY BY ALIGNING THE LEGAL ADDRESS WITH THE ACTUAL ACCESS POINT USED BY RESIDENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. AND THEN I HAVE, UH, REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, THE SEVEN FOLKS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH, THEY ALL SUPPORTED. UM, THEY SIGNED A PETITION AND ENDORSED THE VARIANCES WITH AN APPROVAL, INCLUDING ONE OWNER WHOM, UH, SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY OPPOSITION BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE VARIANCES. UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST, UH, TODAY, THIS MORNING, THE, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT HILL ASSOCIATION ALSO APPROVED AS WELL. UH, SHE SENT ME AN EMAIL WITH HER APPROVAL. AND THEN IN CLOSING, THESE VARIANCES ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO REMAIN EXACTLY AS IT IS TODAY AND PREVENT UNNECESSARY RECONSTRUCTION CAUSED SOLELY BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADDRESS CORRECTION. I RESPECTFULLY, UH, REQUEST APPROVAL OF ALL FOUR VARIANCES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE EVERYTHING'S BUILT ALREADY? YES. AND I LOOKED IT THROUGH THE OLD HISTORIC SINCE OH SEVEN. MM-HMM . YOU'RE RIGHT, EVERYTHING'S BEEN THERE. MM-HMM . AND YOU'RE CHANGING THE ADDRESS 'CAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE BUS STOP. WELL, THE SAFETY CONCERN WHERE THEY GET TO WHERE THEY PARK THERE, IF SOMEBODY GETS OUT OF THEIR VEHICLE, HERE COMES A BUS. UM, SO I'M TRYING TO GET IT REDIRECTED TO THE OKAY. YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS SO THAT YOU CAN GET AN STR, ARE YOU? WELL, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SAFETY IMMEDIATELY. I MEAN, IF THERE'S AN STR THAT WOULD TO COME UP. WELL 'CAUSE THERE'S ALREADY ONE ON YOUR BLOCK FACE. IF YOU CHANGE THE ADDRESS, YOU'D, YOU'D, YOU COULD GET AN STR AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY I, I, I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. OKAY. I SEE NO REASON WHY YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING ANY OF THIS. MM-HMM . I, I MEAN, YOUR FRONT DOOR IS FACING CARSON STREET, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE OTHER VARIANCES GO AWAY FROM AN ADDRESS TRAIN. IT'S THE ONLY THING THE ADDRESS TRAINS, UH, WOULD DO FOR YOU WOULD GIVE THE ABILITY TO GET AN SDR AND I JUST DON'T GET IT. WELL, THE, THE, THE SIDE, I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SIDE, BUT THE SIDE ACTUALLY HAS A DOOR THAT LOOKS LIKE A FRONT DOOR. MOST PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK, THINK THAT'S, SEE THAT OKAY. RIGHT. MM-HMM . BUT PERMIT HISTORY SHOWS OR RECORD HISTORY SHOWS THAT, UH, THIS PROPERTY DID APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD IN 2025 FOR A TYPE TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH WAS DENIED IN APRIL, 2025. OH, THAT'S INTERESTING. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DELTAS WOULD BE, UM, PERMITTED WITH REGARDS TO THIS PROPERTY BY CHANGING THE ADDRESS, UH, TO CARSON. AND SO FENCING, UM, ON THE SIDE CURRENTLY IS IN THE FRONT, SO IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, ALLOW FOR SOLID FENCING THERE. [02:50:01] UM, THE GPS ADDRESS WOULD CHANGE AS THE APPLICANT STATED. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, CHANGES THAT ARE PERMITTED? PARKING, DRIVEWAYS, ANYTHING ELSE? UM, OTHER THAN WHAT'S STIPULATED AS, UH, THE VARIOUS REQUESTS FOR THIS? YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REAR SETBACK. WOULD, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE A, CREATING A CREATION OF A NON-CONFORMING ISSUE WITH THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE SIDE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ALREADY, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHING WHAT, WHAT IT SHOULD BE. BUT, UH, ANY ISSUES CREATED BY THIS ADDRESS CHANGE ARE, UM, ADDRESSED BY THE VARIOUS REQUESTS LISTED ON THIS APPLICATION. UM, SO I'M KIND OF FOLLOWING UP, YOU KNOW, ALONG, ALONG THE LINE THAT, THAT THE CHAIR IS ASKING OR FOLLOWING UP THROUGH AND JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS FOR, FOR DRIVING THAT WE WOULD GO TO ANOTHER ADDRESS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, UM, KEEPING IT WHERE IT IS. AND SO DO WE, HOW OFTEN DO WE DO THAT? UM, IS THAT A, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IF SOMEONE LIVES ON A CORNER WANTS A CHANGE ADDRESS, THAT KIND OF JUST, JUST HAPPENS SO THEY, THEY CAN APPLY FOR A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE ONLY REASON THAT THIS ONE WAS STOPPED IS THE ADDRESSING TEAM DID IDENTIFY THAT SEVERAL NON-CONFORMING ISSUES WOULD BE CREATED BY THAT CHANGE OF ADDRESS, WHICH IS WHEN IT WAS DIRECTED TO OUR TEAM. UM, UM, ANY NON-CONFORMING CERTIFICATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO THIS APPLICANT FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE CREATING THOSE ISSUES BY PROPOSING A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. YEP. AND IF I CAN SPEAK IN RELATION TO THAT APPLICATION, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MET. UM, THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE ON THE SIDE AS WELL. UM, AND SO THAT'S BEING SO, SO THAT FIRST I GUESS HURDLE TO GET IT APPROVED, UM, EVERYTHING, I THINK AT LEAST IT MET THAT WAS MET THAT WHICH IS WHY IT WENT TO THIS LEVEL. BUT ONCE IT GOT TO THIS LEVEL, THEN VARIANCES HAVE TO BE, UM, APPROVED. REED. YES. COMMISSIONER REED, UM, THIS ISN'T A HISTORIC DISTRICT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. UM, THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES DO STIPULATE THAT THE ORIENTATION OF A HOME NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THAT BLOCK FACE. SO I THINK RE-ADJUSTING, UM, ONE IS GONNA BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT. UM, AND IT ALSO IS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS ON THE SAME STREET THAT THE OTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURES, UM, ARE ADDRESSED. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I SEE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S ONE THAT, THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED. YEAH. WELL ONE THING ABOUT THAT IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE, THE BUS STOP THERE, THE ADDRESS IN THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT IS FACING PALMETTO AND THREE OTHERS ON PALMETTO ARE FACING PALMETTO STEVENS, COMMISSIONER STEVENS. IS, IS THIS JUST A MEANS TO AN END TO OBTAIN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT? I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT FOR SAFETY. SO IS THAT, IS THAT A NO OR A YES OR NO? OH, NO, I MEAN IT LOOKS, I, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR. AND THE ONLY ONE THAT I, I PERSONALLY CAN GET BEHIND IS THE, UH, IS THE, UH, THE, THE SETBACK ISSUE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD EVEN POSE THAT BECAUSE IF, IF, IF WE DON'T GRANT THE OTHER VARIANCES AND THE ADDRESSING DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND THEN IT'S NOT, IT'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND NOT A 20, IS THERE ANY WAY TO POSE SUCH A MOTION TO WHERE THEY COULD BE GIVEN, UH, UP TO FIVE FEET AND THEN HAVE IT APPLY WITHOUT AN ADDRESS CHANGE? I MEAN, 'CAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 19 FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE, UM, TO GET IT DOWN TO ONE INCH. BUT COULD IT BE POSED AS A, AS A VARIANCE TO GET IT TO ONE INCH, WHETHER IT'S A SIDE OR A REAR, SO THAT WE COULD, THAT WE COULD ADDRESS THIS, THIS SOLE NON-CONFORMING USE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDRESS CHANGE HERE. ISN'T THAT PROBLEMATIC IN THAT NOWHERE IN THIS REQUEST? IS IT TALKING ABOUT AN ADDRESS CHANGE? I MEAN, WELL, HE'S, HE'S PREEMPTIVELY COMING BEFORE US SO THAT HE CAN GET AN ADDRESS CHANGE. BUT OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US, THE ONLY ONE THAT IS REALLY A, AN ISSUE TIED TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE STRUCTURE IS THAT SETBACK. AND SO I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CLEARING A NON-CONFORMING USE, [02:55:01] ALTHOUGH I, IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT NECESSARY. BUT, UH, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO SEE HOW THE COMMISSION VOTES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO AT LEAST OFFER THAT STEVENS COMMISSIONER STEVENS COULD. I'M, I'M JUST SEARCHING FOR THE HARDSHIP HERE. CAN YOU, IS IT, IS IT A SAFETY CONCERN? YEAH, OF COURSE. OKAY. FOR THE CITY, IS THIS, IS THIS BUS STOP A SAFETY CONCERN FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I MEAN, THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ACCESSORY USE IS THERE, IT'S GONNA STAY THERE. I DON'T, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGING OTHER THAN INTRODUCING ALL THESE NEW VARIANCES. AND THEN THE ABILITY TO GET AN SDR, THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING CHAIR. UH, IF WE DO NOT APPROVE THESE VARIANCES, HOW WILL IT AFFECT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY? WELL, ITS NONCONFORMING USE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE LIKE THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS. WELL, SO ALL IT'S GONNA DO IS NOT ALLOW HIM TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF ANYBODY COULD A MOTION BE MADE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT SETBACK? I MEANT YOU COULD TECHNICALLY SAY IF YOU WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE VARIANCE. AGAIN, BEING IN A NON NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ALLOWS, ALLOWS HIM TO GO AHEAD AND DO DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IF HE WAS TO TEAR DOWN OR REBUILD, THEN YES, HE WOULD NEED THE VARIANCE. UM, YEAH, THE ONLY REASON WHY I EVEN BROUGHT IT UP, JUST, UH, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF YOU HAVE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, SOMETIMES IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A BANK LOAN. AND SO IF WE WERE TO GIVE HIM THIS THING, IF HE WANTED TO SECURE A LOAN TO DO ANY RENOVATIONS, IT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR HIM. BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M NOT A BANKER, SO I DON'T JUST, AND, AND JUST TO REITERATE, THAT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS THEN FOR, TO REVIEW FOR THE CRITERIA OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE? IT WOULD NOT BE A GUARANTEE. OKAY. SO IF, UH, NO ONE'S WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON ANY OF THIS STUFF, MANNA, CAN WE SEE THE, UM, SO DID, DID, UH, GOVERNMENT HILL SUBMIT, UM, A WRITTEN RESPONSE? CAN WE SEE THAT? I HAVE, I HAVE A COPY OF WHAT THEY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE YEAH. HAND IT, THEY CAN PROJECT IT UP. AND JUST TO KIND OF ANSWER, YOU ASKED IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE SETBACK THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE MM-HMM . YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO SOMETHING LOWER AND JUST NOT SAY THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, BUT THE WEST PROPERTY LINE THAT KIND OF GIVES YEAH, I GOT IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE, SENATOR TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ. BUT QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE DO THAT, WOULD HE STILL GET, BE ABLE TO GET A CHANGE OF ADDRESS? NO. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. AND ALSO TOO IS HOW LONG HAVE THE VIA BUS STOPS BEEN THERE? 'CAUSE I KNOW VIA REDID QUITE A FEW OF THE BUS STOPS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, SO I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S THE PROBLEM OF WHY WASN'T IT PROTESTED AGAINST VIA, IT LOOKS LIKE THE VIA BUS STOP FIRST APPEARS ON GOOGLE STREET IMAGERY IN 2018. THE IMAGE BEFORE THAT IS 2016 AND IT'S NOT IN THAT PHOTO. OKAY. IF, IF NO ONE'S OPPOSED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. ALRIGHT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 40, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A, UH, A, A, A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, TO, I'M SORRY TO ALLOW A ONE INCH SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, LIMITED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS BUILT, SITUATED AT SIX 30 EAST CARSON, APPLICANT BEING JOSE SANCHEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED REDUCED WEST SIDE SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE REASONABLY RETAINED WITHOUT CREATING CENTRAL IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY AND STRUCTURES. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE VARIANCES WILL PERMIT REASONABLE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF VISA. OTHER, THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY [03:00:01] AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF ITS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES ON THOSE ALLOW, ALLOW WITHIN, WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOW WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCES, NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST. ITS THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY SUPPORTED THE REQUESTED SETBACK, VARIANCES, THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY, CREATE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS IN THE PLACEMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS, UH, WHILE ALLOWING SUFFICIENT AREA FOR REASONABLE RESIDENTIAL USE. AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. UH, I'M WILLING TO, UM, APPROVE A, A WEST SIDE SETBACK DOWN TO ONE INCH AS IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOREVER. AND, UH, IT REMOVES, UH, THE, THE SOLE NON-CONFORMING USE, UH, THAT THAT IS TIED TO THIS PROPERTY COMMISSION MATTER. CAN I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE? AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST FOLLOWING THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. SO I CONCUR WITH THE CITY AT THIS POINT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT IT'S ONLY A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH? UH, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT IT AS A SIDE SETBACK. THE MOTION IS A FOUR FOOT, 11 INCH VARIANCE. THANK YOU. TO THE WEST SIDE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY SETBACK DOWN TO ONE INCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER MATT AS THE WAY I'D CLARIFY THAT. ACCEPTABLE. I ACCEPT THAT. ALRIGHT. ANYONE COMMISSION LIKE TO ADD COMMISSIONER? DEAN, DO WE NEED TO, UH, JUST ACCOUNT FOR IT? JUST BEING IN SUPPORT OF THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE AND NOT, NOT ANYWHERE. YEAH. I READ THE, UM, I MENTIONED THE WEST SIDE AND I THINK WHEN, LET ME PULL THAT LANGUAGE BACK UP. YOU'D STATED, UH, LIMITED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS BUILT. LIMITED STRUCTURE. OKAY, GREAT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE CHAIR ORIAN. YES. COMMISSIONER MANUP. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR THE FINES OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VESQUEZ? I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. UH, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, ON THE REMAINING ITEMS? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF, BUT WE DID GIVE YOU THE, THE SETBACK DOWN TO ONE INCH OKAY. ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S ALL THAT WE APPROVED TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE PO 8 2 6 1 0 3. 0 0 1 4 3. APPLICANT BEING ALEXANDER VANDA LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO, LOCATED AT 54 0 3 PORT TOWNSEND DRIVE, ZONING BEING R SIX. UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. TWO AN EIGHT FOOT, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY, CLEAR VIEW, UH, VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA. THREE. A 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED. 25 CORNER CLEAR VISION TO ALLOW AN SEVEN FOOT CORNER CLEAR VISION AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT AT THE INTERSECTION OF PORT TOWNSEND DRIVE AND SEAFARER DRIVE SURROUNDED BY R SIX SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT YET CONSTRUCTED THE CARPORT OR SUBMITTED A PERMIT APPLICATION. THEY'RE SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND PERMITTING PROCESS. UPON CONDUCTING THE SITE VISIT, IT WAS DE DETERMINED THAT A RECENTLY INSTALLED FENCE WITH NO ACTIVE PERMIT WAS FOUND TO BE OUTTA COMPLIANCE WITH THE CORNER AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. IT IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED CARPORT AND JUST THE GENERAL SIDE PLAN. SUBJECT, PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. [03:05:02] STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE BACK DRIVEWAY AND CORNER. CLEAR VIEW VISION, UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR PROPER PLACEMENT OF A CARPORT. TWO. THE DRIVEWAY AND CORNER CLEAR VISION ARE NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THREE. THE REQUESTED DISTANCES ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE SAFE SIGHT LINES TO EXIT THE DRIVEWAY. 32 NOTICES ARE MAILED. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED. NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS ALEXANDER RWANDA AND THAT'S, YOU SEE, I WAS REQUESTING A APPROVAL OF A SETBACK VARIANCE OF AN ATTACHED 24 FOOT BY 18 FOOT CARPORT AT MY HOME. LOOKING AT 54 3 PORTHOUSE DRIVE. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK. THIS IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED DUE TO THE EXISTING LOCATE LOCATION OF MY HOME DRIVEWAY AND LOT LAYOUT, WHICH MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL AND CONSTRUCT AND A FUNCTIONAL ATTACHED CARPORT WHILE MEETING THE FULL SETBACK REQUIREMENT, THE CARPORT WILL PROVIDE COVERED PARKING AND PROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE FUNCTIONALITY OF MY HOME AND REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL NOT LY AFFECT TRAFFIC VISIBILITY, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, EMERGENCY ACCESS OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND THEY WILL BE BUILT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. THERE ARE ALSO SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WITH COMPARABLE SETBACKS. SO THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH, WITH THE AREAS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF MY SETBACK VARIANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. UH, WHAT YOU'RE DESIRING TO DO IS BUILD A CARPORT TO HOUSE UP TO ONE VEHICLE. DO YOU KNOW HOW DEEP THE CARPORT IS? LIKE HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I WANNA BRING IT OUT. 24 FEET. 24 FEET? YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN TO THE, AND THE, THE POST WILL BE TO THE OUTSIDE. UH, THAT'S GONNA BRING, YEAH. OKAY. I'M GONNA HAVE A 16, I WANNA HAVE A 16 INCH OVERHANG. AND IS IT YOU REQUEST TODAY? INCLUDES, INCORPORATES THAT OVERHANG? YEAH. ALRIGHT. YEAH. 'CAUSE A LOT THOSE FRONT SETBACKS ARE MEASURED TO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POST. YEAH. YOU KNOW. OKAY. ALRIGHT. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? THE COMMISSION, MAN. COMMISSIONER, MAN. SO THERE'S EX SO IT HAD AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE IN 2019. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT. YEAH. AND SO, SO THAT ONE WAS TAKEN DOWN, I GUESS AS IT WAS YOU WERE DOING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE HOME? YEAH, THAT WAS, UH, TAKEN DOWN. OKAY. AND THEN SO THE SIZE, SO, SO THAT ONE LOOKED A LITTLE BIT SHORTER? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT WAS, UH, A NINE BY 16. OKAY. AND IT, IT REALLY DIDN'T HELP OUT AT ALL. IT DIDN'T COVER MY VEHICLE. AND SO WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE NEW ONE WAS? THE NEW ONE WOULD BE 18 FOOT BY 24. 18 BY 24? YEAH. AND, AND IN THE PICTURE THAT'S, IS THAT A FULL-SIZE TRUCK THAT YOU PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY? THAT'S ONE OF THEM. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE LONGER. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. NOTHING, ANYONE, SENATOR, SPEAK? YES. UH, ALYSSA MAR. ALRIGHT. WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEN WE WILL GET, SEE IF WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. HELLO? WHY? HELLO. SORRY, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME. SO THESE TAKE THESE, MAY THESE GO A WHILE, DON'T THEY? UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. OKAY. MY NAME. THERE YOU GO. NAME IS ALYSSA MAR. I LIVE 1 91 58. ZIP IN FRONT OF, UH, THIS MAN. UM, CAN YOU MOVE THE MIC DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT? UH, EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE DOWN JUST A LITTLE. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. UM, THE REASON THAT I'M HERE IS BECAUSE, UH, HE ALREADY, UH, HAVE A, UH, ANOTHER DRIVE DRIVEWAY AND HE PUT THE TRUCKS IN THERE. I HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE. UM, THEY CAN PROJECT THEM UP. IF YOU HAND HAND THEM TO, UH, THE STAFF, THEY CAN SHOW 'EM RIGHT ON THE SCREEN FOR US. UH, HE HAS SEVERAL CARS, SEVERAL TRUCKS. UH, HE HAD LIKE A BUSINESS OF, UH, CONTRACTION. AND, UM, UM, WELL I AM AGAINST THIS, THIS CONCERNING BECAUSE I'M AN IMMEDIATE HOMEOWNER. SO, UM, UH, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA, SO TRAILERS WITH MACHINES HE HAS, HE OWNS, UM, [03:10:02] HE ALREADY HAVE A, UM, A DRIVEWAY. HE MADE ANOTHER ONE. SO HE'S ALREADY PARKING IN THERE IN THE NEW ONE. UM, AND IN FRONT OF HIM THERE IS THE BUS STOP FOR THE KIDS, FOR THE SCHOOL. UM, IT'S, UH, UM, FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL. SO THERE IS IN THE MORNING AND IN THE AFTERNOON, AND IT'S IN FRONT OF, OF HIM. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND HE ALREADY BUILT ALL OF THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT IS IT BETTER TO ASK FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. HE ALREADY PUT EVERYTHING THERE. SO YOU CAN SEE THE CARS, THE TRUCKS THAT HE HAS IN THERE. ARE YOU SAYING THE CARPORT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED? THERE'S, THERE'S TWO. OKAY. THERE'S ONE DRIVEWAY AND THEN HE MADE ANOTHER ONE WHERE HE WANTS TO MAKE THE, THE CARPORT. WELL, THE, THE, THE HISTORIC DRIVEWAY IS ON, UH, PORT TOWNSEND, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SECOND GATE THAT'S IN THE FRONT YARD? IS THAT THE OTHER DRIVEWAY YOU'RE REFERRING TO? THAT ONE IS, YEAH. WE DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY FENCE CONCRETE POURED THERE, BUT YOU'LL SEE THERE IS ANOTHER GATE AND THE CONCRETE, HE MADE IT BIGGER. IT WAS TOWARDS THE CORNER OF THE LOT. THERE IS ANOTHER, UH, GATE THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S JUST USING LIKE A CURB CUT FOR THE CROSSWALK AS LIKE ANOTHER ENTRY, SOME KIND OF APPROACH DOES, BUT STAFF'S FIELD VISIT DID NOT OBSERVE A CARPORT THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT. OKAY. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS, I MEAN THERE'S THIS, THIS, UH, LOT ONLY HAS ONE, LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A DRIVEWAY AND THE PICTURES THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT REFLECT A WROUGHT IRON FENCE, THAT THAT WOULD APPEAR TO LIMIT ANY OTHER ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IS THAT, AM I CORRECT ON THAT? THAT THAT'S CORRECT. OTHER THAN THE GATE THAT IS IN THIS PICTURE THERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES ARE PASSING IN AND OUT THROUGH THERE. MAYBE THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY CAN OFFER TESTIMONY TOWARDS THAT. OKAY. BRAGMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, FOR THE, SO THERE'S A PICTURE HERE. UH, YES. THIS ONE. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT OF THAT PICTURE, YOU'LL SEE THE WROUGHT IRON GATE ON THE RIGHT. THERE IS, THERE IS THE NEW DRIVEWAY THAT HE, THAT, THAT HE'S ALREADY USING IT. WELL, SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF HE ASKED FOR PER, FOR PERMISSION TO MAKE THAT OR NOT. I'M NOT, I'M SO WHEN YOU SAY A DRIVEWAY, DO YOU MEAN CONCRETE HAS BEEN POURED OR HE IS JUST PARKING ON THE GRASS? PARKING ON THE GRASS. AH, OKAY. WHICH IT LOOKS TO BE CORRECT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE WET IT AND THAT'S ILLEGAL UNDERNEATH THE, FOR WHAT I KNOW THE FENCE. I CAN SEE THAT. RIGHT. WHAT I'M CONCERNED TOO IS ABOUT THE KIDS THAT YOU KNOW FROM SCHOOL, THAT THEY GET OUT FROM THE BUS, FROM THE SCHOOL BUS THERE IN THE MORNING AROUND SEVEN. THEY, THEY GO TO SCHOOL, THEY PICK THEM UP AND IN THE AFTERNOON. OKAY, I SO YOU, IT LOOKS LIKE, SO AT THE HARD CORNER, THAT FENCE IS ACTUALLY A, A, A A TWO, A TWO LEAF GATE THAT CAN OPEN AND ALLOW A VEHICLE TO GET INTO THE YARD. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SO IS IT LEGAL TO PARK CARS ON THE GRASS AND HE HAS SEVERAL TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AND IT THAT IS THERE MY PICTURES. IT APPEARS NOT TO BE A A, A CUT, BUT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HANDICAP CURBING THAT WAS DONE. IVANIA, I I JUST WANNA REMARK, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THAT DRIVE POTENTIAL DRIVEWAY THERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CARPORT AND THE FENCE, UH, CLEAR VISION HERE. SO JUST TO KEEP US ON TRACK ON THAT, PLEASE. OKAY. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE CARPORT IS GONNA BE THERE, NOBODY'S GONNA, WELL THIS IS A, THIS IS, THIS HOUSE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY AND THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY. IF HE'S, IF HE'S JUMPING THE SIDEWALK AND DRIVING UP INTO THE YARD, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF COULD LOOK AT AND SEE IF THAT'S A PROBLEM. UH, BUT, BUT AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU HAVE A UNLESS YOU HAVE A TANGIBLE DRIVEWAY, THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE US. I MEAN, NOT, NOT ON THIS MANNA COMMISSIONER. SO, SO IF IT, IF AN APPLICANT PARKS [03:15:01] A VEHICLE IN THAT SPACE, UM, IS UM, IN THEIR YARD, IS THAT PART OF CLEAR VISION TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT TALL VEHICLE SITTING AGAINST THAT FENCE LINE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CLEAR VISION? YEAH, SO THE, SO THE SECTION OF CODE THAT WE'RE REFERENCING FOR THE CLEAR VISION REQUEST IS, UH, 35 5 14 UNDER FENCES, WHICH ONLY REFERENCES FENCES. IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY OTHER TYPE OF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OF CODE. YEAH. IF THAT'S A VIOLATION, IT'S A CODE COMPLIANCE VIOLATION. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. WE MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT I DUNNO IF THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. AND THAT WOULD BE BOTH CITED FOR PARKING THE GRASS AS WELL AS A, UM, POTENTIAL SITE DISTANCE ISSUE, SITE DISTANCE FROM THE TRAFFIC SECTION. IT'D BE TWO VIOLATIONS ON THE ONE. YES. SO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE? UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS YOU'D LIKE TO EXPRESS BEFORE WE, UM, WELL, UM, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU GUYS. YES. AND THANK YOU. YES. AND WE HAVE TWO MORE SPEAKERS. THEY GAVE ME A TICKET BECAUSE I WAS PARKED ON THE GRASS INSIDE MY YARD, SO, OKAY. I I'VE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 40 YEARS. I'M SORRY. AND ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. SO AS FAR AS THE, UH, VEHICLES THAT ARE BEING PARKED, ARE THEY, UM, UM, ARE THEY TRULY WORK VEHICLES? SO ARE THEY TRULY, UH, WORK VEHICLES WHERE THEY HAVE SIGNAGE ON IT INDICATING THAT IT'S A, IT'S A, A WORKING VEHICLE? OR IS IT JUST, UM, YOU DIDN'T SEE THE PICTURES? I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNAGE ON THE SIDE OF THEM BECAUSE HE'S NOT, HE TOOK HIM OUT. OKAY. UM, WELL, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT SOMEBODY WAS BARKING THERE, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. SO WE HAVE TWO MORE SPEAKERS. YES. THANK YOU MS. ALYSSA. UH, ELIZABETH OROZCO. I WANT YOU TO SEE THIS OTHER PICTURE, PLEASE. WELL, WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER THAT DID ASK TO SEE IT. WE'LL LET, WE'LL LET IT, IF YOU COULD LET, LET THEM PROJECT THAT, PLEASE. OKAY. THAT ONE, THAT'S ONE OF THEM. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT SPEAKER. THANK YOU. ELIZABETH OROZCO. HELLO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS. MY NAME IS, MY NAME IS ELIZABETH OROZCO AND I LIVE RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF PORT THOMPSON AND SEAFORD AS WELL. NEXT TO ALICIA. MM-HMM . I, WHEN I GOT THIS NOTICE, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT IT WAS ABOUT REALLY. SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WANTED TO BUILD A CARPORT WHERE HIS TRUCK IS RIGHT NOW. I THOUGHT HE WANTED TO BUILD THE CARPORT ON THIS OTHER SIDE NEXT TO YOUR GARAGE. NO, RIGHT HERE WHERE THE GATES ARE AT. OH. OH, SORRY. SEE. SO FOR ME, I BELIEVE IF HE WAS GONNA DO IT THIS WAY, IT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTING OUR VIEW BECAUSE I HAVE TO PARK IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE TO GET TO MY HOUSE AND I CAN'T SEE AS IT IS. YOU CAN SEE THE TRUCK'S RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THE CORNER IT BLOCKS. YOU CAN'T SEE. I HAVE TO SCOOT UP ALMOST ALL THE WAY, ALMOST, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? PRACTICALLY RISK RISKING GET HIT JUST TO GO INTO MY OWN DRIVEWAY. MM-HMM . SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN. I SAID IF IT'S THAT WAY NOW AND HE MAKES, UM, A CARPORT AND HE PARKS MORE VEHICLES THERE, THEN I WON'T, CLEARLY I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE. NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO SEE. AND THE BUS DOES STOP AT THE CORNER RIGHT THERE. THE SOUTHWEST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUS LEAVES KIDS THERE, THE BUS PARKS THERE, PICKS UP KIDS AND DROPS OFF KIDS. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WANTED TO BUILD THE CARPORT OVER HERE. HERE I REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT MY VIEW, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IF THOSE VEHICLES WERE MOVED FROM THE CORNER, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE BECAUSE I CAN SEE CLEARLY I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT'S WHY IT CAME. SO YOU'RE NOT OPPOSED TO, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT ON THE DRIVEWAY, NOT THE CARPORT. 'CAUSE ORIGINALLY THERE WAS A CARPORT THERE. OKAY. IT WAS JUST SMALLER. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. I HAD AN ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, IT GOING ON THIS SIDE AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE THEN FOR SURE, THAT WOULD JUST BE LIKE NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OKAY. I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S JUST A SAFETY ISSUE. IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE TO THE CORNERS RIGHT BY THE CORNER MM-HMM . AND YOU'RE GOING IN AND OUT, [03:20:02] YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE, LIKE IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. IF YOU'RE GOING IN AND OUT, SOMEBODY'S GONNA END UP RUNNING IT. IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE CORNER. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WE'VE GOT, UH, ONE MORE PERSON FROM 91 62 CFA, AND I APOLOGIZE, I CAN'T READ OUT THE NAME. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS THE SAME ADDRESS. UM, HAS ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP SPEAK ON THIS? IS ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP, UH, REGARDING THIS CASE? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE WAS HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, OH, HEARING NOW I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA, ALTHOUGH I PROMISE I WASN'T GONNA READ THREE PAGER AGAIN. OH GOODNESS. UM, OKAY, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 3, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A ONE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM REQUIRED. UM, LET'S SEE, I BACK UP FOR THAT ONE. UM, LIMITED TO THE 18 BY 24 FOOT STRUCTURE. UM, UM, AND TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA, AND THREE, AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25 FOOT CLEAR CORNER VISION TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT CLEAR CORNER VISION AREA, UM, SITUATED AT 5 4 0 3 PORT TOWNSEND DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING ALEXANDER BANDA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE PACS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT, I'M GONNA READ THIS PRETTY FAST HERE. SO ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. GRANTING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD MAINTAIN AN APPROPRIATE SEPARATION FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY, ALLOWING THE CARPORT TO REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE REDUCED SETBACK WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE AND THE PUBLIC GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PROVIDED THE PROPOSED FENCING IMPROVEMENTS MAINTAINED ADEQUATE VISIBILITY FOR PHYSICALS FOR VEHICLES AND ENTERING AND EXITING THE PROPERTY TO REDUCE CLEAR VISION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO RETAIN ITS EXISTING CONFIGURATION WHILE MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORS TO SAFELY MANEUVER INTO AN OUT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPRISE COMPROMISE THE TRAFFIC SAFETY OR CREATE UNREASONABLE HAZARDS TO MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS USING SURROUNDING STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH PROPERTIES SUPPORT THE NEED FOR THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK. THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY CREATE CREATES PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WHILE ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO CONTINUE TO BE UTILIZED FOR A REASONABLE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AND WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE RELIEF WITH THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE C WITHOUT CREATING THE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR NEIGHBORS OR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY OR THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS CREATE LIMITATIONS ON MAINTAINING THE FULL REQUIRED CORNER AND DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREAS. GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO RETAIN A REASONABLE USE OF THE FRONT YARD WHILE MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORS TO SAFELY ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY AND NAVIGATE THE INTERSECTION. THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE INTENT OF THE CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT CREATING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. BY ALLOWING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE REQUIRED SETBACK STANDARDS, THE PROPOSED CAR WOULD REMAIN APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. AND THE REDUCED SETBACK WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE PRACTICAL USE OF THE SITE WITHOUT CREATING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRANTING THE DRIVEWAY AND CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. BY BALANCING THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY STANDARDS WITH THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION, REASONABLE USE OF [03:25:01] THE PROPERTY WHILE THE PROPOSED SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FENCE AND STREET IS REDUCED, THE VARIANCE WOULD MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY FOR MOTORISTS TO OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SAFELY MANEUVER INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORM PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THE SETBACK VARIANCES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE BUDDING PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED SETBACKS WOULD MAINTAIN REASONABLE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. WHILE ALLOWING FOR THE CONTINUED RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE REDUCED SETBACKS WOULD NOT CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN POTENTIAL FOR FIRE SPREAD OR WATER ROD OFF INTO THE BUDDING PROPERTY. AND APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE MEASURES CAN FURTHER MITIGATE THESE CONCERNS. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FOREIGN PROPERTIES. ALTHOUGH THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR A REDUCED DRIVEWAY AND CORNER CLEAR VISIONARY, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ALONG WITH ADJACENT PRO WAYS. THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE STATE SAFE USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTIES WHILE MAINTAINING THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE SAFETY STANDARDS AND AVOIDING A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THEY APPLY TO THE OWNER. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH THE CARPORT HAS NOT YET BEEN CONSTRUCTED, THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE PRESERVING THE EXISTING SITE LAYOUT. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD PROVIDE THE PROPERTY WHILE PRESERVING THE EXISTING OH, GRANTING WITH FRAUD. THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER WITH REASONABLE FLEXIBILITY TO CONSTRUCT THE CARDBOARD IN A PRACTICAL LOCATION WITHOUT REQUIRING A SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION TO THE OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION. THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY CREATES A PRACTICAL LIMITATION IN MAINTAINING THE MINIMUM CLEAR VISION AREA WHILE PRESERVING THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT OF THE WALL AND MAXIMIZING THE FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. GRANTING VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO RETAIN THE PROPOSED FENCE LOCATION WHILE PROVIDING A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE INTENT OF THE CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS. THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW REASONABLE VISIBILITY FOR MOTORS AND PEDESTRIANS AND WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPROMISE SAFE MOVEMENT ALONG THE ROADWAY AND OF MOTION. SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BERGMAN. SO I THINK, UM, SO I THINK BY LIMITED TO THE SIZE OF THE, UM, UM, STRUCTURE, UH, AS WAS INDICATED BY THE APPLICANT, UM, AND I THINK, UH, HEARING FROM ONE NEIGHBORS THAT, UH, THE LOCATION OF, OF THE PROPOSED, UM, STRUCTURE IS, WAS OKAY FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. UM, WE DO LIKE IT WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DONE THE CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, WITH REGARDS TO CLEAR VISION, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, AS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CON UH, VOICED, THERE ARE CONCERNS, BUT I THINK, UM, ALTHOUGH THOSE CONCERNS, UH, CAN BE ADDRESSED BY, UM, APPROPRIATE BY APPROPRIATE, UH, CALLS TO CODE COMPLIANCE AND LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET AND IN OTHERS CORNERS AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE FENCE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT, WHICH IS ALREADY PROPOSED. SO, SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE PUTTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF ITEMS ONE AND TWO. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER THREE. UM, IT'S VERY APPARENT JUST FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE WITH THE RUDD ON THE, UM, GRASS. AND THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY SHOWS SOME CARS THAT ARE PARKED, UM, IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE ON THE GRASS. UM, AND THEN I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THE SCHOOL BUS STOPPING THERE AT THE CORNER. SO I, I'M, I, I WOULD MOVE TO BIFURCATE THIS MOTION, UM, AND APPROVE ITEMS ONE AND TWO, UM, AND LOOK AT NUMBER THREE SEPARATELY. OKAY. I CONCUR. OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON JUST ONE AND TWO. ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM ONE AND TWO? SO ROLL CALL, VOTE ON ONE AND TWO. COMMISSIONER MENA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THAT MOTION PASSES. UH, I, I, I MOVE FOR ITEM THREE. SAME FINDINGS. UH, YOU KNOW, AS PREVIOUSLY READ, [03:30:01] UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. IS THAT ADEQUATE FOR YOU GUYS? OKAY. UM, LET'S JUST, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON ITEM THREE. THIS IS REGARDING THE CO CLEARANCE CHAIR. MAY I JUST MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS? YES. UM, I, I I'M ASSUMING THAT HIS PROPERTY, WHEN YOU PARK YOUR TRUCKS ON YOUR PROPERTY, THAT I NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE BACKSIDE. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT I'VE SEEN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UM, I HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORS THAT ARE INTO CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT? UH, THEY HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS AND THAT'S HOW THEY SURVIVE. THEY DO PARK IN THE BACK, THEY HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE UP SO THE NEIGHBORS DON'T NEED TO SEE THE VEHICLES. UM, AGAIN, I WANNA JUST POINT OUT TO MY COMMISSIONERS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE JUSTIFYING THE CLEAR VIEW BASED ON VEHICLES ON THE PARK GRASS. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FENCE ITSELF AND WHETHER IT'S CLEAR VISION OR NOT, AND WHERE WHETHER WE SHOULD GIVE THAT VARIANCE OF, OF THAT FOOTAGE FOR THAT CORNER. WE HAVE GIVEN IN PAST, UH, FENCE VARIANCES REQUESTS, UH, THIS USE OF THE FENCE FOR THAT FOOT FOOTAGE. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANNA REMIND THAT WE MAY NOT LIKE THAT HE AS A BUSINESSMAN AND A SMALL BUSINESS IS PARKING HIS CARS IN HIS YARD, BUT IT IS HIS YARD. HE IS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND MAYBE HE CAN LISTEN TO NEIGHBORS AND PARK FURTHER IN BEHIND THE 'CAUSE IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. ALRIGHT? UM, SO I'M JUST WANTING TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS WHY, WHAT THIS VARIANCE IS ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HIS TRUCKS, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER HE'S HAS BUSINESS TRUCKS ON HIS PROPERTY. IT IS ABOUT OFFENSE, RIGHT? AND, AND, AND OUR JUDGMENT COULD AFFECT HIS, HIS BUSINESS AND COULD BE A HARDSHIP. SO I JUST WANNA REMIND YOU ABOUT THAT AND I'M, I'M GONNA VOTE FOR IT. THANK YOU. UH, SO THERE'S A MOTION, UH, FOR, FOR A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE, WITH THE CORNER CLEAR VISION. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS BEFORE US TODAY. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE DOWN THERE. AND SO YEAH, I WAS, I READ 'EM ALL TOGETHER SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT IF THERE ARE ANY CHALLENGES, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S TO BE ADDRESSED BY, BY CODE COMPLIANCE AND CODE COMPLIANCE CAN, CAN BE OUR BEST FRIEND, YOU KNOW, 3 1 1 IN CODE COMPLIANCE. AND THAT'S HOW THIS, YOU KNOW, HOW WE ENSURE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE REMAINS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND SO, SO I CONCUR. UM, SO I WILL, UM, BE VOTING FOR THIS. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ITEM THREE. WHO, WHO IS SECOND? RE COMMISSIONER? BREGMAN. OH, OKAY. BECAUSE I HAVE BEN AVID. OKAY, SO SECOND IS BREGMAN. OKAY. CHAIR ORIAN. YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER REED? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER RE EZ? YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN, CHAIR. THERE'S A HAND UP IN THE GALLERY. I DUNNO IF I CAN SAY SOMETHING. UH, NO, NOT AT THIS, NOT AT THIS TIME. UNLESS YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. UM, I'M HERE WITH MY MOM. UH, MATT, WHAT ABOUT, NO, WE'RE CLOSED. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HEARING ANYMORE FROM THE PUBLIC. CONTINUE WITH THE ROLL CALL. VOTE EVERYONE. THERE'S STOP RIGHT AT THE CORNER. WHERE, MA'AM, PLEASE? THAT'S GOING MA'AM, HIT A FILE. I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO JUST SAY, MA'AM, WERE YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? WE DID HAVE A THIRD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IF THAT WAS YOU, CAN YOU LET US KNOW? EXCUSE. SHE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP. THERE WAS THREE. WE CALLED THE NAME, WE CALLED FOR THE THIRD SPEAKER. WERE YOU INITIALLY ALSO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YES. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME? I JUST CAME LATE BECAUSE I HAD TO GET MY CHILDREN. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME? ? NO, IT WAS, UM, MR. OROZCO THAT HAD SIGNED UP. SO HE WAS THE THIRD. OKAY, SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE'RE MOVING ON. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THE ROLL CODE. VOTE COMMISSIONER, DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. [03:35:01] NO. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. ALL RIGHT, SO THE MOTION FAILS, UH, SEVEN, SIX TO THREE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. SO, UH, WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THAT FENCE AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CHAMBER THE, CHAMBER IT BACK A LITTLE BIT. UM, THE, YOU WANT, YOU WANT THE FENCE BACK? NO, NO. STAFF CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THAT MEANS. YEAH. BUT IT BASICALLY MEANS YOU'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR STRAIGHT FENCE AND YOU'RE GONNA ANGLE IT BACK A LITTLE BIT AND THAT'S IT ON THE CORNER. AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT? AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO PROVIDE BETTER VIEW FROM THE CORON SO STAFF CAN EXPLAIN. WE CAN, WE CAN HELP, SIR. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ITEM 10, CHAIR? YES. EVERYONE HERE. SO DOES THIS MEETING'S GONNA, THE CHILD GETS HIT BY ONE OF THOSE BIG TRUCKS. THAT'S MA'AM, I'M SORRY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS DONE. THE STOP SIGN, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S RIGHT IN THE CORNER. MA'AM, MA'AM, THE STREET. ALL OF YOU RESPONSIBLE IF A CHILD GETS HURT, THERE YOU. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 10, UH, BO OA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 6. APPLICANT BEING COOPER LOCKE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, LLC ON BEHALF OF MCDONALD'S, U-S-A-L-L-C, UH, LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR LOCATED AT 96 46 MARBACH ROAD ZONING BEING C3 R, GENERAL COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIVE ALCOHOL SALES. UH, THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR AN ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SIDE AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE REAR CONSISTING OF C3 R, C TWO, RM FOUR AND R FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS. THE PROPOSED VARI SEEKS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD ALONG THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ABUTS THE SIDE YARDS OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES LANDSCAPING ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE, RELOCATING THE LANDSCAPE WOULD NOT FULFILL THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE REQUIRED BUFFER, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE SEPARATION AND PROTECTION BETWEEN THE PROPOSED FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NO SIMILAR BUFFER ENCROACHMENTS OR ELIMINATIONS WERE OBSERVED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WHILE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE EAST ALSO, BUT TO RESIDENTIAL R FIVE PROPERTIES, THAT COMMERCIAL USE WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO 2020 REZONING THAT CHANGED THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THEREFORE, THAT CONDITION IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. YEAH, WE, WE WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE WE HAVE SOME COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE TO LEAVE, SO IF WE COULD, WE NEED TO SPEAK A LITTLE FASTER FOR SURE. THANK YOU. THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN THE BUFFER YARD FOR BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 6. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF THE FACT, ONE, THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD PROTECTS THE ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES FROM THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING A LANDSCAPE SEPARATION TO SCREEN FROM VIEW, CERTAIN LAND USES TO NO UNIQUE PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT NECESSITATE THE ELIMINATION OF THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD. ALL RIGHT, 31 NOTICES ARE SENT OUT, ZERO FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED, AND NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT. OKAY. AND JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, UM, WE'RE GONNA BE CUTTING THIS MEETING SHORT SOON. WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS WE'LL BE LEAVING. UH, SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO SEE, WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS AND I'M GOING TO, I'VE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THIS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE CRUX OF THIS CASE IS THE BUFFERS HAVE TO BE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS, THIS APPLICANT IS TRYING TO BUILD, UH, HIS, HIS LANDSCAPING WAY FURTHER OFF FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SINCE THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT, HE HAS TO HAVE AN ELIMINATION. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS PRIMARILY ABOUT. JUST FOR THOSE WHO ARE WONDERING THANK YOU. YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON. UH, MY NAME IS JASON LOCHTE. I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. I'M, UH, REPRESENTING, UH, MCDONALD'S U-S-A-L-L-C TODAY ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, I'LL MAKE THIS FAIRLY SHORT IF I CAN. UH, WE ARE C TWO PROPERTY ADJOINING AN R FIVE. WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL ON, UM, THE OPPOSITE SIZE, BUT IT'S THE, UH, C3 TO COMMERCIAL, OUR C3 TWO RESIDENTIAL WHERE WE HAVE A 15 FOOT REQUIRED BUFFER. UH, THE CODE STATES THAT THE 15 FOOT REQUIRED BUFFER IS A MINIMUM BUFFER. IT'S A TYPE C REQUIRING A FENCE [03:40:01] PLANTING AND A, UH, 15 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH. SO, UH, THE SITE HAS BEEN PERMITTED. UH, THE PRIVACY FENCE IS ALREADY CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. WE ACTUALLY HAVE 155 FEET BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB OF THE MCDONALD'S DRIVE THROUGH AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS, UH, INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE PLANT MATERIAL RIGHT ALONG THE FENCE LINE, THERE'S A 20 FOOT WATER LINE EASEMENT ALONG THAT FENCE LINE AS WELL. WE'RE ASKING TO MOVE THE TREES AND SHRUBS, NO REDUCTION IN QUANTITY, BUT MOVING IT CLOSER TO THE, UH, THE MCDONALD'S DRIVE THROUGH BACK OF CURB. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE PLANT MATERIAL RIGHT UP AGAINST THE FENCE LINE, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER CLOSER TO THE DRIVE. THIS IS A PRIMARY CASE FOR A UDC AMENDMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR US TO PULL THIS OFF OTHER THAN AN ELIMINATION, MAAM. YES, YOUR SO, UM, IF WE READ IT AS SUBMITTED, THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT THERE COULD BE, THAT IT IS IN PERPETUITY AND THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED AND SO THE LINE WOULD STAY WHERE IT'S CORRECT. I WOULD THINK SO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I JUST SAID? SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE, SO YOU HAVE IT DEFINED SO THAT IT'S, UM, MOVING THE LINE WITH THE, WITH THE LANDSCAPING GREAT. AND YOU'RE LEAVING A BIG BUFFER BEHIND YOU. GREAT. AND SO BY STATING AS IS IT WOULD, IT WOULD PREVENT THAT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THAT IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT? EXCEPT THAT WE CAN'T READ IT THAT WAY. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE, WE, WELL AS SUBMITTED, SO, SO WELL WE CAN SAY AS SUBMITTED, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE TECHNICAL. I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING, I MEAN, NORMALLY WE CAN SAY THINGS 'CAUSE WE CAN HAVE SOME MORPHING, WHATEVER, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO BUFFERS, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO MECHANISM FOR US TO SAY, TO MAKE IT A HUNDRED FOOT WIDE BUFFER AND HAVE THE PLANTING EXISTS SOMEWHERE. AND THERE'S, THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR IT. SO HE, WE HAVE TO READ IT AS AN ELIMINATION, WHICH, WHICH IS, I MEAN, I'M SURE WE CAN PUT IN THERE, BUT THIS IS GONNA BE, I ALREADY PUT IT ON MY LIST TO GIVE US THAT ABILITY TO MOVE AND, AND SCOOT THINGS OVER, BUT AS OF TODAY WE CANNOT. SO IT HAS TO BE READ AS AN ELIMINATION. BUT I'M, BUT THIS IS WHAT HE'S TURNED IN FOR A PERMIT. YEP. I MEAN THIS, THIS CERTAINLY ISN'T SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. NO, I AGREE. I CONCUR. SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR PERPETUITY. SO, SO COVERING THAT. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UM, DO YOU MIND IF I READ THIS ONE REALLY QUICK? GO FOR IT. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O EIGHT DASH 26 S 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 8, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, I'M SORRY, NOT 1 48. I WAS READING THE WRONG ONE. OKAY. OH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER VOA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 46, I MOVE THE ORDER ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD, UH, IN A MANNER AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SITUATED AT 9 6 4 6 OCK ROAD, APPLICANT BEING COOPER ACTING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC ON BEHALF OF MCDONALD'S U-S-A-L-L-C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED OF OLYMPIC CODE AS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY RUN ABUTTING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RE REDUCING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND REQUIRED BY FEAR IS INTENDED TO MITIGATE DUE, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE 15 FOOT TYPE C BUFFER YARD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SITUATED AWAY FROM THE, UH, AFFECTED REAR PROPERTY LINE, LIMITING THE PRACTICAL BENEFIT OF REQUIRING THE FULL BLUFF YARD WHILE IMPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL RESTRICTION ON, ON THE USE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRADING THE THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CONTINUE TO BE OBSERVED BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. COMBINED WITH AN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE OF PROPOSED ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE, WE'LL PROVIDE MEASURES THAT HELP MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MAINTAIN AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN USES. FOUR, THE VARIANCE OF UNAUTHORIZED, THE OPERATION OF USE, OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES ON THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTERNATE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOGISTIC WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ORLY THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA BECAUSE THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE FROM THE SHARED REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEREFORE REDUCING POTENTIAL VISUAL, UH, VISUAL NOISE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS IN THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USE. SIX. THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE SPECIFIC LAYOUT AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE REQUIRING THE BUFFY YARD. THESE FIVE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TOGETHER WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING ELSEWHERE, THE PROPERTY DISTINGUISH OF THE REQUEST [03:45:01] FROM THE GENERAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR RELIEF AT THIS TIME. REALLY FINANCIAL NATURE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT, UM, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS. UH, THEY'RE PROVIDING PLENTY OF LANDSCAPING, SO I'M, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER MANANA CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. THANK Y'ALL. WE'RE GONNA TRY TO WHIP THROUGH THIS NEXT ONE, BUT WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE LEAVING, SO WE'LL SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT. PLEASE READ AS FAST AS YOU CAN. ITEM NUMBER 10 11. UH, WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT MOTION? MANNA. THANK YOU. ITEM 11 IS BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 1 4 8. APPLICANT BEING KILLING GRIFFIN FROM FAIRMONT. UH, LOCATED AT 11 6 70 INTERSTATE 10 EAST ZONING C TWO CD, UH, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITION USE FOR MACHINERY TOOLS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALES AND SERVICE. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR AN ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD ALONG IH 10 EAST. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF IH 10 EAST, EAST OF 1604 AND WEST END 1518. NORTH OF IH 10 EAST IS THE CITY OF SHEZ AND TO THE SOUTH OF CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, ETJ. THE SURROUNDING MP, TENS ARE VACANT AND THE C TWO AND I ONE HAVE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL USE PER BEAR COUNTY RECORDS SITE WAS DEVELOP DEVELOPED IN 1985 JUST PRIOR TO THE 1986 ANNEXATION EXPANSION OF THE USE IN PARKING IS INITIATING THE BUFFERS ABUTTING THE PRIMARY ARTER TYPE B, THE ABUTTING I ONE THAT REQUIRES A 30 FOOT BUFFER YARD. THE NP 10 THAT REQUIRES A 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD AND FIELD ROAD, WHICH IS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A THAT REQUIRES A 10 FOOT BUFFER. APPLICANT STATED THEY WILL MEET ALL REQUIRED BUFFERS EXCEPT FOR THE ONE BEING REQUESTED. THAT'S THE LOCATION OF THE ELIMINATION SUBJECT. PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE BUFFER YARD ELIMINATION ON BO OA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING PROVIDES VISUAL SCREENING, ENHANCES THE STREETSCAPE AND HELPS MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF EXPANDED DEVELOPMENT ALONG A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. TWO, THE REQUIREMENT RESULTS FROM THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND GENERALLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. FOUR. NOTICE OF RECEIPT SENT ZERO IN FAVOR. IS THERE AN OPPOSITION? NO VOICEMAILS OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. HI, I HI. HOW YOU DOING? BE VERY QUICK. THANK YOU. UM, ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT. UH, I, I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF JCB BOSS AND SO EVERYONE'S AWARE OF THE NEW JCB FACILITY COMING IN AS PART OF THAT OR ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THEY ALSO NEED A PLACE TO SELL THEIR EQUIPMENT, UM, AS WELL AS SERVICE. SO THIS IS A, DO I, CAN YOU HELP MY PRESENTATION? SORRY. UM, SO THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING. IT WAS BUILT IN 1981, UH, PRIOR TO ANNEXATION HAS BEEN ADDED ON A FEW TIMES, BUT IT IS A BUILDING THAT THEY ARE RENOVATING AND MAKING THEIR NEW FACILITY. UM, SO DON'T WANT TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT HAVE TO, AND I'LL JUMP TO THAT. SO THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE, UM, THE BUILDING THERE. UH, SO THERE ARE FOUR EASEMENTS THAT ARE RUN ALONG. I 10 ALONG THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED TWO OF THEM HERE, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU THE LANGUAGE FOR, BUT THERE'S AN UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT, THERE'S A WATER EASEMENT, THERE'S A 14 FOOT ELECTRIC EASEMENT, AND THEN THE, THE BIG ONE IS THERE IS A CENTER, UM, PIPELINE, A SITCO PIPELINE THAT RUNS ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S FROM 1945. IT IS A BLANKET EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. UM, BUT AS PART OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, AND THIS IS THEIR APPROVAL, UM, BASICALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION. UM, BUT THEY HAVE SAID YOU CANNOT PLANT ANYTHING IN THEIR BUFFER, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY ALSO, UH, AND, AND IT'S ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS AN EASEMENT. SO IT'S LARGE. UM, AND SO THIS IS KIND OF THE, GENERALLY THE AREA, UM, THAT EXISTS. THIS IS THE ELECTRIC EASEMENT. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE POWER LINES THAT RUN ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, SO CAN'T PLAY TREES UNDER THOSE AS WELL. UM, SO WOULD LOVE TO PLANT THE TREES ALONG THE FRONTAGE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THEY'RE REQUIRED SINCE THIS IS A FREEWAY EITHER . YEAH. UM, BUT, UH, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE RENOVATED BUILDING WOULD LIKE. CAN CAN YOU BRING UP THE PLAT REAL QUICK? SO JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE, OF THE COMMITTEE. SO WE, THERE WAS AN, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE UDC THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REDUCE THE BUFFER DOWN TO FIVE FEET TO DO PLANTING. BUT THIS ONE'S A LITTLE MORE PARTICULAR BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE, UH, THE TELECOMMUNICATION ASPECT, THAT PIPELINE INCURS A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON [03:50:01] EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE PIPELINE. SO THEY HAVE AN IMPOSED, BASICALLY 50 FOOT WIDE STRIP THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH, UH, THAT RUNS AND THEY CAN'T NECESSARILY PLANT TREES PER SE EITHER. SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PECULIAR CASES. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO BE WHIPPING THROUGH A MOTION ON THIS ONE QUESTION? ALRIGHT, ANYONE SIGN TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 3 0 48, I MOVE THE ORDER ADJUSTMENT GRANTED AND ELIMINATION OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 50 FOOT TYPE P LANDSCAPE ABOVE LOCATED ACROSS I 10 E, UH, SITUATED AT 1 1 6 70 INTERSTATE 10 EAST. APPLICANT BEING KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT BECAUSE THE APP TESTIMONY WE PRESENTED US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CARE OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED CODE AS AMENDED WOULD'VE RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY, UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ALLY. WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VANCE IS LIMITED TO THE BUFFER ALONG THE I 10, UH, EAST AXIS ROW WHERE THE EXISTING ROAD WE PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WHILE OTHER REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS ON THE SITE WILL BE MAINTAINED TOO TO DO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITTLE FORCE OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SITE IS ALREADY DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING. INSTALLATION OF A NEW 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD ON, UH, ALONG THE EXISTING I 10 EAST FRONTAGE AS WELL AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WOULD POSE A SUBSTANTIAL SITE CONSTRAINT ON THE, ON AN ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT. THREE. BY GRADING THE VARIANCE OF THE OR THREE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE POTENTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE INTENT OF THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY MET THROUGH THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED BUFFER ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY WHERE BUFFERING PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. FOUR, THE VARIANCE OF NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF VISA THAN THE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND WAS A VARI LOCATED. NO USES ON THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED. THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARI NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENTRY, THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE LOGISTIC WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE APPLIES ONLY TO THE I 10 EAST ACCESS ROAD FRONTAGE DOES NOT ELIMINATE REQUIRED BUFFERING BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, THEREFORE IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ALSO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA OF THE AREA SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE RESULTS FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPED CONDITION OF THE SITE IN ITS FINANCIAL IN I 10 EAST ACCESS ROAD RATHER THAN A CONDITION CREATED SOLELY FOR FINANCIAL BENEFIT WHILE THEY WERE PROPOSED. EXPONENTIAL OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA. ANY, UH, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M UNSUPPORT OF THIS COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, DITTO. HOPEFULLY THEY PLANT PLANTS ELSEWHERE IN THE PROPERTY AVAILABLE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. UM, SOMEBODY HAS TO LEAVE AT FIVE. JUST [ Approval of Minutes  ] REALLY QUICK. UM, CAN WE JUST DO THE MINUTES, UH, RIGHT. UM, ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO I SUBMITTED ONE CORRECTION FOR SPELLING MY NAME, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, EVERYTHING ELSE LOOK PERFECT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FRAGMENT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT, MINISTER PASS. SO, UH, SO FOR THE, FOR THE, I GOT SOME BAD NEWS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE GALLERY. WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE LEAVING THAT TAKES US DOWN TO EIGHT. WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO HAVE A MEETING, SO WE WILL HAVE TO SEE Y'ALL. UH, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A A CONTINUANCE OR, OR DOES THIS, IS IT OKAY FOR JUST US TO ADJOURN? IT JUST GETS MOVED TO THE NEXT MEETING AND THEY WILL BE THE FIRST ITEMS. YEAH, ONCE, ONCE TWO PEOPLE LEAVE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN MEET ANYMORE. ONCE, YEAH, ONCE WE GO OVER NINE MEMBER OR ONCE WE GO EIGHT OR UNDER WHICH WE'RE ABOUT TO HIT AT FIVE, THEN WE CAN NO LONG, WE DO NOT HAVE QUORUM AND WE NO LONGER ARE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE MEETING. BUT THE TWO ITEMS RIGHT NOW WILL BE RESCHEDULED AND THEN, UM, THEY WILL BE THE FIRST ITEMS AT THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH, AT THE NEXT MEETING. TWO WEEK, UH, THREE WEEKS. RIGHT? THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7TH. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7TH AND, I'M SORRY, I THINK IT'S UH, SEPTEMBER 14TH. SO SEPTEMBER 14TH IS THE, IS THE FALL HERE. I'M SORRY. SORRY. THAT'S LABOR DAY. SEPTEMBER 14TH. . THANK YOU. FOUR APOLOGIES. SEPTEMBER 14TH. OKAY. IS THIS, IS THAT THE MEETING, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIKE 18 PEOPLE OR SOMETHING. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIKE 18 CASES OR SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW. MARK, YOU'RE THE ONE TAKING IN THE APPLICATION. I HEARD, I HEARD MEGO GIVING US SOME HORROR STORY ABOUT SOME MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CASES THAT SOME COMING. IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE PRETTY LENGTHY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. OKAY. WE'RE ADJOURNED. IT IS 5 0 2. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.