* 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. YEAH. OKAY. [00:00:02] ALRIGHT. THE TIME IS ONE [Work Session  ] O'CLOCK AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS NOW IN SESSION. I'LL ASK THE SPANISH INTERPRETER. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND MAKE YOUR STATEMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE OUR MOBILE DEVICES. UH, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPUBLIC, WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, GOD, INDIVISIBLE, IN LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR PART OF THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE, UH, AND INDIVISIBLE. ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS, AS AN ADVISORY APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE, TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FOR REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS 28 THROUGH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO, 11 OF THE C OF THE LOCAL, UH, 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 REC IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE REQUESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER ARE PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELEASE THOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION TO THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATIONS AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. UH, STAFF WILL GIVE A BRIEF PRE UH, PRESENTATION. INSTRUCTIONS, UH, STAFF THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE ERROR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARYING SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED ON AN ORDER YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE I'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY, THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. UH, SO WE HAVE ONE CONTINUANCE, CASE NUMBER 13TH. UH, THERE'S A MOTION TO, UH, CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 14TH OR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD AND I'M SORRY, OCTOBER 12TH. I TOLD YOU IN COURT. I'M SORRY, OCTOBER 12TH. CAN I GET A MOTION? SO MOVED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. CASES MOVED. WHAT'S THAT? ROLL CALL. OH YEAH. CAN WE DO THE ROLL CALL? I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER [00:05:01] BEAD PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DEAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANNA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN. COMMISSIONER BEES PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. PRESENT, PRESENT VICE CHAIR ZUNA AND I AM PRESENT. UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, SO WE ARE GONNA MAKE SOME MOVEMENTS HERE BASED ON THE LAST MEETING. WE'RE GONNA MOVE, UH, CASE NUMBER SEVEN AND NUMBER TWO. AND NUMBER TWO IS GONNA BE MOVING TO NUMBER FOUR. SO THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, CASES WILL BE HEARD OF THIS ORDER. 1, 7 3 2. AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE ON THE NORMAL CADENCE OF THE AGENDA. OKAY. WITH NO FURTHER LIST STAFF, LET'S HEAR THE FIRST CASE. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. UH, MARCO RAVI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER. UH, FIRST CASE IS BO O 8 26 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 63, LOCATED AT 3 0 6 CARMA HANDS STREET. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE NCD STANDARDS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, NOT IN THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. A FOUR FOOT SEPARATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAY AND LIMITED TO 12 FEET, UM, EXCEEDED 12 FEET WITHIN A DRIVEWAY FOR THE NCD SIX STANDARDS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. MODIFICATIONS WERE COMPLETED UNDER PROPERTY THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE NCD STANDARDS. THE REQUIREMENT WAS INADVERTENTLY, INADVERTENTLY MISSED BY ZONING STAFF DURING THE INITIAL PERMANENT REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED DURING THE PERMANENT INSPECTION. THAT WAS ONLY FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS THE, UH, CARPORT, UH, GARAGE, NOT BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. UH, COMPLAINT TO CODE COMPLIANCE REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVEWAY PROMPTED AN ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION. THE CURB CUT PERMITTED WAS IDENTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PLANS DEPICTED A DRIVEWAY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE NCD STANDARDS WHILE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXPANSION EXCEEDED WHAT WAS SHOWN AND APPROVED. AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARD. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OUT NUMBER ONE. YOU SEE, IT IS NOT BEHIND TOTALLY BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS KIND OF A INDENT IN THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE. UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE WALKWAY SEPARATION. AND ITEM NUMBER THREE SHOWS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY EXCEEDS THE 12 FEET. SO SUBJECT PROPERTY, ANOTHER VIEW OF IT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON THE CARPORT, UH, SETBACK AND BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 63, UH, CARPORT, NCD STANDARD. I MEAN, UM, ONLY A LIMITED PORTION OF THE CARPORT EXTENDED BEYOND THE REAR PLANE OF THE PRINCIPLE DWELLING DUE TO RECESS. EXTERIOR WALL. THE CARPORT VISUALLY APPEARS TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WHEN VIEWED FROM THE FRONT. STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, DENIAL ON THE WALKWAY AND DRIVEWAY, UH, VARIANCES. VARIANCES WILL DIMINISH THE DIS, UH, DISTINCT SEPARATION OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN AREAS INTENDED BY THE STANDARDS. NO PHYSICAL, NO SPECIAL PHYSICAL CONDITION ON PROPERTY PREVENTS THE PROPERTY FROM MEETING THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS. 22 NOTICES WERE MAILED. FOUR RECEIVED IN FAVOR. THREE IN OPPOSITION. ONE VOICEMAIL WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. AND ME HANKY PARK IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST MAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ANY QUESTIONS HEARING UNITED, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. HELLO? HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. SORRY, CAN WE, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY, PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAURA VACCARO. I'VE BEEN A PROUD RESIDENT OF MANKEY PARK FOR 27 YEARS. I BOUGHT MY FIRST HOME IN 1999, A BLOCK OVER ON PING AVENUE AND HAVE REMAINED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THIS ENTIRE TIME BECAUSE I FELL IN LOVE WITH THE CHARM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BEAUTIFUL MATURE TREES, AND REALLY JUST THE FEELING OF COMMUNITY, UM, THAT EVERYONE EXHIBITS IN THAT, UM, IN WHAT WE CALL MICKEY PARK. UM, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, MY HUSBAND AND I DECIDED TO MOVE BECAUSE OUR FAMILY HAS BEEN GROWING. WE NOW HAVE FOUR GRANDCHILDREN AND I HAVE AN AGING MOM THAT'S GOING TO BE MOVING, UM, TO TEXAS AND WILL LIVE PART OF THE TIME WITH US. UM, WHILE WE LOOKED OUTSIDE, WE COULD NOT FIND ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LOVED AND FELT LAKE HOME LIKE MANKEY PARK DID. WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT A HOME BECAME AVAILABLE ABOUT A BLOCK FROM WHERE I LIVED. UM, PURCHASED [00:10:01] THAT HOME AND ALONG WITH IT THERE WERE PLANS FOR A GARAGE, AN APARTMENT THAT CAME WITH IT. THE, THE FORMER OWNER OF THE HOME HAD PLANNED TO DO THIS WORK AND NEVER GOT TO IT. UM, WE PROCEEDED WITH THE WORK AND, UM, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WE'VE MADE EVERY ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW CITY CODES. WE'VE GOT PERMITS, UM, INSPECTIONS. UM, WE REALLY APPROACHED EVERYTHING IN GOOD FAITH AND IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO CIRCUMVENT RULES OR TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T HONOR AND RESPECT, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE RENEE LA FUENTE, WHO HAS BEEN, UM, OUR CONTRACTOR ON THE PROJECT AND DONE ALL THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE CITY. SO CAN ANSWER THE MORE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TODAY AND TO MEET ALL OF YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, UM, PLEASE, UH, CONTRACTOR, IF YOU WANNA STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN AND, UH, RENEE LA FUENTE. 12 7 2 5 APPLE WHITE ROAD. OKAY. AND IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE PROCESS EVER? WELL, I'M KIND OF WEARING TWO HATS HERE. I'M THE BUILDER SLASH DESIGNER, IF YOU CAN SEE MY NAME AND EVERYTHING. MY PHONE NUMBER THERE ON THE, WE SUBMITTED PLANS. UM, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND I WOULD, I WAS ASSUMING, I GUESS, UH, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE PLANS THAT THE DRIVEWAY HAD BEEN LOOKED AT AND EVERYTHING HAD BEEN, 'CAUSE IF YOU SEE THE DRIVEWAY, THAT'S WHAT WE SUBMITTED. THAT'S WHAT'S PERMITTED. I HAVE COPIES OF THE PLANS FROM THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY THAT HAS SHOWED THAT EXACT LAYOUT. SO WE HAD NO, WE GOT BLINDSIDED BY THIS WHOLE THING, BUT EVERY, EVERYTHING IN THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN PERMITTED. UM, PLANS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED THROUGH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. SO AS WELL AS THE CITY. UM, WE'RE AGAIN, WE'RE JUST BLINDSIDED BY, I MET INSPECTORS OUT THERE FOR THE APPROACH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE DOING OKAY WITH THE APPROACH. SO I MET THE SUPERVISOR OF ALL THE INSPECTORS OUT THERE FOR THE APPROACH CUT. SO HE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH IT. WE CONTINUED WITH IT. THEN A COUPLE MONTHS LATER, WE GET BLINDSIDED BY THIS, UH, COMPLAINT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MANNA? SO, QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. OKAY. SO, UM, THERE ARE THREE COMPONENTS HERE AND WERE ALL THREE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO? NO, JUST THE FIRST ONE. UH, THE OTHER TWO, THERE WAS NO, UH, PERMIT FOR IT. ONE OF 'EM WAS MENTIONED IN A CURB CUT PERMIT, UH, FOR THE DRIVEWAY. BUT EVEN THAT PERMIT, I THINK HAD EITHER 12 FEET OR LESS. SO ONLY ONE WAS APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. SO THE APPLICANT HERE TALKED ABOUT GETTING PERMITS APPROVED. UM, AND SO WOULD PERMITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE TWO AND THREE AS WELL THEN? YES. IF HE GOT PERMITS FOR THE WORK DONE, THE CONCRETE WORK IN THE FRONT YARD, HE SHOULD HAVE GOT A PERMIT. SO, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DELTA HERE. SO, SO, UH, THEY'RE SAYING IT WAS NOT APPROVED, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS APPROVED. SO, SO CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT PLEASE? AGAIN, THE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. THE CURB CUTS ALL THAT. WE DIDN'T CUT THE CURB, WE JUST REPLACED WHAT WAS THERE, SIDEWALKS. 'CAUSE THEY WERE TERRIBLE IN THAT AREA. IF YOU CAN SHOW PICTURES OF, ANYWAY, WE REPLACED THAT AND I MET THE SUPERVISOR. THAT'S WHAT REQUIRES PERMITS. ANYTHING INSIDE FLAT WORK DOESN'T REQUIRE PERMITS. THAT'S WHAT HE'S PROBABLY ALLUDING TO, THAT THERE WAS NO PERMITS OR THERE WAS NO APPROVAL. BUT THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED SHOWED THE FLAT WORK IN THAT MANNER, EVEN THOUGH PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED TECHNICALLY FOR FLAT WORK INSIDE THE PROPERTY. SO COMING BACK TO CITY THEN, UM, SO DOES THAT, SO YEAH, I, I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WHETHER THEY NEED PERMITS OR NOT. UM, BUT THE PERMIT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, LIKE HE SAID, IS FOR THE CURB CUT. UM, THEY DID MENTION THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH ON THAT PERMIT, BUT EVEN THAT CALCULATION WAS 12 FEET OR LESS. IT, IT STILL, IT CURRENTLY EXCEEDS WHAT IT WAS EVEN PUT IN THE PERMIT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT, UH, REVIEWED ON THAT CURB PERMIT. OKAY. I'M CONFUSED THERE. SO, SO WAS IT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED? WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IS THEY, WHAT WAS INSTALLED IS GREATER THAN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED OR, OR WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THAT CURB CO THEY PUT IN BROADWAY INFORMATION, WHICH WAS NOT REVIEWED BECAUSE CURB CUT. UM, BUT EVEN THAT CALCULATION IS LESS THAN WHAT IS ON GROUND. ACCURATE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. MANNA. MR. ORIAN. OKAY. SO, UH, THERE'S A 12 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY, BUT THE PLANS REFLECT THE 12 FOOT WIDE APRON AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE IT EXPANDS SO THAT IT CAN HOUSE A VEHICLE PARKED PARALLEL. UH, IS AT WHAT POINT DOES THE CITY STILL RE STILL CLASSIFY [00:15:01] IT AS A DRIVEWAY OR, AND NOT JUST A PARKING SPACE? SO WE DON'T CONSIDER THE TURN. SO WE CALCULATED WHEN THE DRIVEWAY FIRST OPENS UP AT THE 14 FOOT, UM, DRIVEWAY WIDTH. UM, WE DON'T CONSIDER IT ONCE THEY TURN TO THE RIGHT 14 FEET IS WHAT WE CALCULATED FOR THE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. I THEN THAT, THAT'S WHERE I WAS MISTAKE. I THOUGHT IT WAS, IT WAS 12. SO THE ISSUE AT BAY IS, IS THAT IT'S TWO FEET WIDER THAN IT SHOULD BE. AND THEN THE, ON THE APPLICANT'S PLAN, DO THEY CALL IT OUT TO BE THE 12 AND THEY JUST BUILT IT AT 14? THEY INDICATED TO CITY STAFF IT'S 14 FEET. AND I'M WONDERING, DID THEY SUBMIT A PLAN THAT REFLECTED IT AS BEING 12? SO THERE'S NO OFFICIAL PLAN, UM, FOR ANY PERMIT ON THERE. OKAY. OKAY. STEVENS AND THE, AND THE FOUR FOOT SEPARATION, APOLOGIZE, THE SIDEWALK THAT GOES OUT TO THE STREET, THERE'S A GAP THERE THAT'S ABOUT 18 INCHES. UH, ON, ON THE, UH, THERE'S A GREAT PICTURE YOU HAVE IN THE FILE THAT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING TOWARDS THE STREET. THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO BE FOUR FEET. EXCELLENT. RIGHT? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND IF I MAY, I, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK OKAY. RESPOND EVIDENCE. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S NOT 12 FEET, IT'S 10 FEET AT THE APPROACH SIDE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I GOT PERMITS FOR. SO IT'S NOT AT THE APPROACH SIDE. IT'S 10 FEET WHERE THE START THE DRIVEWAY STARTS, IT'S 10 FEET, SO IT'S NOT 12. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, UH, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THERE'S ANY, UH, PUBLIC, UH, VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL INVITE YOU BACK UP TO, SO PROVIDE SOME REBUTTAL. OH, MAD. DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION? YES, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO, UM, SO YOU'VE BEEN A LONG TIME NEIGHBOR IN, IN MENKE PARK AS YOU STATED. SO DID YOU WORK WITH MENKE PARK, YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS UPGRADE IN THE BEGINNING ALONG THE WAY? YOU KNOW, I TRIED. SO THROUGH THE YEARS I'VE RELIED ON THE NEWSLETTER. I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF MINKE PARK, SO I GET THE NEWSLETTER IN MY DOOR. IT USED TO HAVE THE NAMES OF THE LEADERS AND PHONE NUMBERS, AND NOW IT HAS LIKE AN INFO AT MINKE PARK. I ALSO WENT OUT TO THE WEBSITE, LIKE CONTACT US. ALL I COULD FIND WAS THAT INFO AT MANKEY PARK. I WENT IN AND TRIED AND IT SAID YOU NEEDED A PASSWORD. I PUT IN MY EMAIL AND IT WAS LIKE, NOPE. SO I TRIED AND, AND I WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. I'M SURE SOMEONE'S GONNA TELL ME IT WAS USER ERROR. BUT I ALSO SCOPED THE NEWSLETTER AGAIN AND DID NOT FIND, LIKE, IN, IN THE PAST WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY CALL A PERSON AND ASK. I DID WALK AROUND AND TALK TO NEIGHBORS. I ACTUALLY HAD MORE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAN MAYBE IT WAS INDICATED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ALL MADE IT VIA SNAIL MAIL. I KNOW I HAD A COUPLE OF LE OF NEIGHBORS THAT TOLD ME THEY WERE EMAILING, BUT I DID HAVE THREE IN HAND PAPER, BUT, OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MR. MAY STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN? ALRIGHT. RIGHT. AND YOU'RE MR. DE LA FUENTE, RIGHT, SIR? YEAH. OKAY. UM, SO WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MR. JOHN BUSANTE. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. AFTERNOON AND CHAIR. MY NAME IS JOHN BUSANTE. I LIVE AT 3 0 7 WILKINS AVENUE. I COME, UH, TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT, MS. VACCARO, IN SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THESE THREE ITEMS. UM, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK I APPRECIATE THAT THE STAFF HAS SUPPORTED HER ON ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE CARPORT. UH, IN THAT CASE, AS YOU CAN SEE, GIVEN THE INDENT, THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTIONS ASKED, IN MY OPINION, AN APPROPRIATE USE OF VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FOUR FOOT SPLIT. UH, THOSE SECOND AND THIRD ITEMS, IT DOES BECOME A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT. UM, AND SO I ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS BODY NOT SUPPORT A VARIANCE FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS, THAT THEY LIMIT WHATEVER IS REQUIRED OF MS. VACCARO TO WHAT'S LITERALLY REQUIRED BY THE NCD IN THIS CASE, WHICH WOULD MEAN EXPANDING OUT THAT AS COMMISSIONER ORIAN POINTED OUT, UH, 18 INCH SPACE TO ABOUT FOUR FEET AND CUTTING DOWN THAT APPROACH ONCE YOU'RE BEYOND THE SIDEWALK TO ABOUT 12 FEET. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE OUTCOME IF THIS BODY WERE NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. UM, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE, AND THAT'S ALL I WANNA SAY. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUSTA? UH, ORIAN. SORRY. YEAH, SO, UH, ON THE REGARD OF THE DRIVEWAY, UM, IS, IS I NEED, I, I ASSUME YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE, UH, NCD, BUT DOES THE NCD COUNT THE TYPICAL TWO FOOT FLARES THAT ARE PART OF THE DRIVEWAY AS TOWARDS THE WIDTH? [00:20:01] OR IS IT SIMPLY JUST THE, THE, THE MAIN WIDTH AND THE FLARES ARE EXCLUDED? IS THAT ADDRESSED TO ME? COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, I'M, I'M SURE YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH ETD. I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT'S BEEN APPLIED AND LOOKED AT IN YOUR OPINION? I, I, IN MY EXPERIENCE, I DON'T RECALL THAT ISSUE EVER COMING UP. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE CURB CUT FLARES ARE GONNA BE WIDER THAN ANY DRIVEWAY, UM, RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA WANT THAT GREATER APPROACH. BUT YES, MR. LE UH, LA FUENTE CAN ANSWER IN HIS EXPERIENCE IF YOU'D LIKE. COMMISSIONER, UH, ACTUALLY, OR I CAN HEAR FROM STAFF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED HE PUT A 10 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE MEASURING 14 MAKES SENSE. WHEN YOU INCORPORATE THE STANDARD TWO FOOT WIDE FLARE ON A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE? SO WE'RE MEASURING THE DRIVEWAY ONCE IT OPENS UP, NOT NECESSARILY THE CURB CUT. UM, I'M TRYING TO PULL UP A PICTURE OF WHAT WE CALCULATED WITH THE APPLICANT. YEAH. BECAUSE ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED, IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S HOLDING THAT TWO FOOT FLARE ALL THE WAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT. SO THEN HE WOULD HAVE 14 FEET OF THE STREET, BUT THEN ONCE YOU HIT, UH, ONCE THIS THING BOTTLES OPEN AND WIDENS MIGHT ONLY BE 10 FEET. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ANSWER. AS PER, AS PER NCD SIX, IT DOES STATE SPECIFICALLY THAT YOUR CURB CUTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 FEET IN WIDTH, AND THEN BEHIND THE CURB CUT DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE, UM, I'M SORRY, NO MORE THAN 12 FEET. SO THAT REGULATES THE CURB CUT VERSUS THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND, AND WHAT ARE THE EXACT, WHAT DID YOU MEASURE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AT THE STREET AND THEN, OH, UH, THE WIDTH AT THE PROPERTY, THE, THE LARGEST WIDTH SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 12 FEET AS PER NCD SIX. WELL, I'M HEARING, I'M, I'M WONDERING WHERE YOU'RE MEASURED 14 FEET. SO LOOK, LOOK WHERE THE NUMBER THREE IS ON THIS PLAN. YOU SEE HOW THE DRIVEWAY WIDENS AS IT GOES TO THE PHYSICAL EDGE OF ASPHALT. DID YOU MEASURE 14 FEET WIDTH AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR DID YOU MEASURE IT AT THE EDGE OF ASPHALT? WHEREABOUTS? PULL THE UP A PICTURE. I CAN ANSWER. IT'S 10 FEET AT THE DRIVEWAY IF WE APPROACH IT'S 10 FEET. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHERE STAFF MEASURED, UH, THE WIDTH AT. OKAY. IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE? IT IS NOT, NO. SO YOU MEASURED 14 RIGHT THERE. BUT I'M, YOU COULD SEE HOW THE DRIVEWAY WIDENS AS IT'S WORKING ITS WAY OUT TO BE, TO, TO HOUSE A PARKING SPACE FOR A CAR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO MEASURE THAT A FOOT IN, IS IT GOING TO BE A VIOLATION? CORRECT. WE DETERMINE THAT THIS IS THE SPOT OF, UM, THAT THE KIND OF DRIVEWAY ENDS. UM, EVERYTHING ELSE SEEMS TO BE KIND OF EITHER PARKING OR TURNING AROUND AREA. UM, THIS IS THAT. YEAH. SO, SO, SO IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T HAVE TO REDO THE DRIVEWAY. ALL THEY'D HAVE TO DO IS CARRY THAT NARROWER WIDTH UP A FOOT OR TWO AND THEN MOVE IT OVER TO THE RIGHT? NO, CURRENTLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THE DRIVEWAY BY TWO FEET TO THE, TO THE LEFT. YEAH. BUT LOOK, LOOK WHERE ON THAT PICTURE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THE SCREEN, IF I WERE TO SCOOT THAT MEASURE, IF I WERE TO SCOOT THAT DIMENSION LINE DOWN TWO FEET, WOULDN'T IT BE AT THE 12 FOOT MAX? I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S JUST CROPPING THAT LITTLE CHAMBER THERE ON THE CORNER. CORRECT. YEAH. SO IF, IF IT GOES DOWN TO TWO FEET AND KEEPS GOING ALL THE WAY, WE WOULD BE MEASURING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, UM, FROM WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW. YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S ONLY HAVING THE SOCKET SUCH A SMALL LITTLE PIECE. IT JUST SEEMS NOT A BIG DEAL TO ME. OKAY. OKAY. AND JUST TOLAR TO, TO TO, TO JUST RESTATE YOUR POSITION, UH, DONALD, IS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT BOW OUT THAT THEY WOULD'VE MET IT UP UNTIL LIKE MAYBE THE HALFWAY POINT OR SOMEWHERE WITHIN THAT? YEAH, I MEAN, THEY, WITHIN THAT R THEY'RE, THEY'RE AT THE 12 FEET AS YOU MOVE UP THE THROAT AND THERE'S A PART WHERE IT'S WIDENING OUT IN THE TRANSITIONAL WAY, KIND OF FLARES OUT. SO THERE'S THAT PORTION WITHIN THAT CURVE THAT EXCEEDS. YEAH, I MEAN, AND SO IT'S, IT'S JUST, I I WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING OUT A SMALL PIECE OF CONCRETE SO THAT IT'S, HE'S HOLDING 12 FEET UP TO THAT POINT WHERE STAFF IS MEASURED. IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF UNDERSTOOD, KIND OF THE MOOT CONDITION TO ME. UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HERE FOR, UM, UH, FOR MR. BUSANTE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, I'D INVITE THE APPLICANT. YOU HEARD, I GUESS THAT, SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR, [00:25:01] I GUESS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND CHAIR ORION'S, UM, POSITION OR, OR WHAT HE STATED. SO IF WE GO TO THE NEXT PICTURE, UM, OR LIKE TWO PICTURES AWAY WHERE IT SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY. UH, THERE YOU GO. SO, SO THE 18 INCHES IS, WHAT'S THAT GRAVEL AREA THERE? AND IT APPEARS THAT THE FLARE OUT TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, UM, CURRENT CUTOUT IS EXCESSIVE FROM, UM, WHAT IS, I GUESS WHAT IS THE NCD IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY? AND, YEAH. UM, AND SO, SO CHAIR, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT, UM, WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT IT BE CUT BACK OR WHAT WERE YOU THINKING HERE ON THIS? WELL, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS IF, IF STAFF COULD PULL UP THE PICTURE WHERE THEY'RE STANDING AT THE STREET AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE HOME, THAT ONE, SO THEY, RIGHT WHERE THAT CLEANOUT IS, THAT PLASTIC CLEANOUT, UH, ON THE, ON THE RIDE OF THE PICTURE, THEY'RE, THEY HAVE THE 12 FEET AT THAT POINT. AND AS YOU'RE WORKING YOUR WAY UP, IT'S, YOU, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A RADIUS THERE. AFTER YOU GO PAST THAT PLASTIC CLEAN OUT, THERE'S A RADIUS THERE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS WIDENING. THE STAFF IS MEASURING IT REALLY CLOSE TO REALLY, REALLY CLOSE TO THAT, UH, THAT BUSH THERE THEN YEAH, IT'S MORE THAN 12 FEET. BUT IF HE COMES BACK A LITTLE BIT COMING TOWARDS THE CLEANOUT, IT GETS DOWN TO 12 FEET. SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING THE RADIUS AND MAKING IT A 90 DEGREE TURN. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WELL, I GUESS I WAS, UM, SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING OR WHAT THE CITY'S, OR WHAT, YEAH, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING IS A PARKING PAD IS DIFFERENT THAN A DRIVEWAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE STATING? YEAH. I MEAN, IF, IF, IF HE WERE TO TAKE RIGHT TO THE, TO THE LEFT OF THAT CLEANOUT, IF YOU WERE TO CARRY THAT RUN UP A LITTLE BIT AND THEN INSTEAD OF RADIUS SEEING ABOUT THREE TO FIVE FEET ON A RADIUS OF THE CONCRETE, YOU WOULD JUST MAKE A 90 DEGREE RETURN. IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT. AND I JUST, I JUST SEE, I JUST THINK CUTTING THAT LITTLE SMALL ARC OUT OF THE EQUATION IS, IS TOO MINOR FOR ME TO, TO NOT GRANT 50. SO WHAT COMMISSIONER UH, ORIAN IS JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. THE 90 DEGREES IS CORRECT. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. SO I GOT THAT. SO, BUT WE'RE STATING THAT THE PARKING PAD THEN IS NOT PART OF THIS DIALOGUE AT ALL, AND A PARKING PAD IS PERMITTED BY NCD FOR THIS COMMUNITY IS WHAT, IS THAT WHAT'S BEING STATED? THAT IS NOT PART OF THE, UH, REVIEW. UM, BUT YEAH, THE PARKING PAD IS NOT PART OF THE DRIVEWAY. UM, AND AS THE PPLICANT STATED, IT DOES NOT GO ABOVE 50% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU STAFF. DID WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS? NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, SO WITHOUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. ALRIGHT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE ANY REBUTTAL? YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HERE ON THE CASE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. IF YOU WANNA KNOW THE REASON FOR THE PAD AND THE FRONT, IT'S, IT IS TO ALLOW TWO CARS TO PASS. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE BOTH WORKING, PLAYING MUSICAL CARS IS, IS DIFFICULT. I'VE HAD A CAR AT MY PREVIOUS HOUSE, MY NIECE'S CAR PARKED IN THE STREET WAS TOTALED. SOMEBODY FLED THE SCENE. SO I IN GENERAL TRY TO KEEP CARS, CARS OUT OF THE STREET BECAUSE THE STREETS AREN'T THAT WIDE. AND I, THE INTENTION REALLY FOR THAT WAS SAFETY. THANK YOU, MS. VAQUERO. YES, SIR. UH, THAT WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION STEVENS MR. STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 1 63. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NC D SIX STANDARD TO NOT HAVE A DETACHED GARAGE TO THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD SIX STANDARD TO NOT HAVE A FOUR FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN A DRIVEWAY AND A WALKWAY. AND THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NNC D SIX STANDARD TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY OVER 12 FEET IN WIDTH, SITUATED AT 3 0 6 CARNAHAN STREET, APPLICANT BEING LAURA VACCARO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE GARAGE IS LOCATED ALMOST ENTIRELY BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND IS MINIMALLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET WHILE SOME SEPARATION REMAINS BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE WALKWAY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS DESPITE THE PROPERTY SUBSTANTIALLY MEETING THE INTENT OF THE NCD SIX STANDARDS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS MAINTAINED BECAUSE THE GARAGE REMAINS VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE HOME AND, AND THE DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAY REMAIN DISTINGUISHABLE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THEIR 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 A VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE [00:30:01] USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ESSENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF THE HOME GARAGE, DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAY CREATES SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS TO MAKE FULL COMPLIANCE DIFFICULT AND ARE NOT, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE. END OF MOTION. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. LET'S READ A SECOND. UH, MR. STEVENS, UH, I I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK, UM, THE FIRST REQUEST REGARDING THE DETACHED GARAGE IS, IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE CITY, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE STRUCTURES CLEARLY SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND WITH REGARDS TO THE DRIVEWAY, I THINK, UM, WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY MEASURED FROM IS SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY AND THE, IN GENERAL, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE, WHICH I THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT. UH, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. REAP? UH, YES, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STEVENS. I, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THESE VARIANCES. ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ANNA. OH, MR. MADON. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REASON I WILL BE IS BECAUSE OF THE PARKING PAD DESIGNATION VERSUS DRIVEWAY AND MINKY NEEDS TO CLARIFY THAT DIALOGUE TO STATE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. OTHERWISE, I WOULD'VE VOTED AGAINST THIS. BUT BECAUSE IT IS A PARKING PAD, A PARKING PAD IS PERMITTED, THEN, UM, I, I CAN'T ARGUE WITH IT. SO I'M SORRY. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONIS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ONE MORE TIME. COMMISSIONER, CAN WE GET A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN? OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHERYL ZENA? YES. I CONCUR WITH UNANIMOUS. 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO AGAINST THE, UH, VARIANCES DUE PASS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT AND, UH, THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. AND IF WE'RE GOING, UH, THIS WOULD BE CASE NUMBER SEVEN, RIGHT? GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 9. LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AT FOUR 18 EAST LOCUST STREET. THE ZONING IS MF 33 AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, I HAVE STORE VARIANCE FROM THE 2.5 MAXIMUM STORY LIMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THIRD STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND TWO, I HAVE STORY VARIANCE FROM THE 2.5 MAXIMUM STORY FROM SECTION 35 5 17. LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON A MULTI-FAMILY LOT ABUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY USE TO ALLOW A THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN MC AVENUE TO THE WEST AND NORTH, ST. MARY STREET TO THE EAST, ALONG EAST LOCUST STREET. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE TOBIN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SURROUNDED BY PROPERTY ZONED MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO THE SOUTH. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE OCCUPIED BY MIX OF MEDIUM DENSITY AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO THE R FOUR BASED ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON LOTS ZONED MF MULTIFAMILY AND ADHERENCE TO THE HEIGHT LIMITATION OF ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN 50 LINEAR FEET OF A MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD LIMIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO 35 FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT AND A MAXIMUM OF 2.5 STORIES THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BY, BY THE OVERALL HEIGHT STANDARD AND REQUEST THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD STORY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP OR PREVENT THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A COMPLIANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME. TWO, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO ABIDE BY THE OVERALL HEIGHT LIMIT, THE INCLUSION [00:35:01] OF A THIRD FULL, FULL THIRD STORY WOULD INCREASE THE BILLING'S PERCEIVED SCALE BEYOND WHAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT STAFF MAIL. AT 28 NOTICES WE RECEIVED SEVEN IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE 200 FEET. WE RECEIVED FOUR IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED ZERO VOICEMAILS. THE TOPEN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATIONS IN SUPPORT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. DO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ARE HEARING NONE THAT ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. DAVE, DID YOU SAY IT'S OVER? YEAH. MM-HMM . OKAY, SORRY. UH, I'M MICHAEL GREENWOOD, THE BUILDER FOR THE PROJECT. UM, UH, DR. PATELLO, WHO'S THE OWNER OF THIS PROJECT, SPENT, UH, THREE PLUS YEARS DINING, TAKING IT THROUGH HDRC, GETTING APPROVAL, ET CETERA. UH, I JUMPED IN, YOU KNOW, ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING. UM, IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WE WERE ASKED TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. UPON GETTING A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, WE THEN WERE TOLD IT WILL BE, UH, R FOUR, IT WOULD BE BUILT AS R FOUR EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN A, UH, UH, A MULTIFAMILY 33 STREET DISTRICT ZONE. UM, UPON THAT THERE WAS THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT WAS BEING DESIGNED AS A TWO AND A HALF STORY. AFTER COMING INTO TO PLANNING, THEY SAID, WELL, IT'S GONNA GO AND IT'S A THREE STORY, BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE SPIRIT OF IT. UM, AS YOU'LL SEE, UM, AS WE GO THROUGH THE DRAWINGS, UM, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK FOR. SO JUST TOUCHING ON SOME OF THAT. WE'RE ON THE THIRD FLOOR. WE'RE UNDER 50% ON THE THIRD FLOOR. OKAY. RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE THIRD FLOOR OR WHAT WE WERE SHOOTING FOR AS A TWO AND A HALF STORY. YOU CAN SEE IT HERE. THIS, THIS, UH, THE ARCHITECT WITH THE CLIENT THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED THIS HOUSE. UM, THE CLIENT EVEN OWNS THE LOT, ONE OF THE HOUSES NEXT TO IT. SO THEY'RE IN PARTICIPATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON OTHER LEVELS AS WELL. UH, NEXT SLIDE. UH, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE CLIENT, DR. PATEL AND HIS WIFE OWN THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. SO THEY HAVE TRIED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MANY, MANY ASPECTS JUST TO GET THIS TO BE WORKED OUT THROUGH HDRC, WHICH WAS DONE FOR TWO YEARS. I THINK THEY WENT THROUGH THREE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UH, ALONG WITH TOBIN HILL, UH, ALONG WITH GETTING NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, UH, FOR THIS FINAL DESIGN. WHEN A LETTER WENT OUT, UM, UH, AFTER COMING INTO, UH, PERMITTING, IT THEN WENT OUT AS A THREE STORY, WHICH I THINK CAUSED SOME CONFUSION AMONGST SOME OF THE RESIDENTS. UM, THAT, WELL, NO ONE WANTED THE THREE STORY, BUT THREE STORIES WERE ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING ITS MULTIFAMILY. SO THIS, IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, WE FELT LIKE, UH, THE PATELS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB DESIGNING SOMETHING THAT, UH, ACCOMMODATED EVERYTHING THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS REQUIRING AND TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE EVERY NEIGHBOR THAT THEY POSSIBLY COULD. UH, FOR MANY YEARS THIS HAS GONE ON. UM, SO NOW WITH THIS, AT THIS POINT, AFTER WE HAVE GETTING THE, THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, WE'RE NOW IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, EVERYTHING'S BEEN DONE, AND NOW WE'RE BEING STOPPED BECAUSE OF SOME TECHNICALITIES, WHICH WE HOPE THE SPIRIT OF THIS DOES NOT, UH, GO AGAINST. UH, NEXT SLIDE. SO, CONDITIONS, UM, WE DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS ISSUED AFTER DESIGN WAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE. UH, NOT JUST DESIGN, I MEAN ALL THE, UM, THE ENGINEERING WAS COMPLETE FOR THIS PROJECT. SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN, HISTORICALLY REVIEWED, APPROVED DESIGN. NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S THE LETTER FOR THE APPROVAL. UH, I THINK IT WAS KAITLYN BROWN THAT, THAT RAN THIS PROJECT. UH, NEXT MINIMAL IMPACT. IT'S GOT A COURTYARD, THE UPPER LEVEL IS 32% OF THE FLOOR BELOW IT, WHICH WAS GOING TOWARDS THE SPIRIT OF A TWO AND A HALF STORY. UM, KEEP GOING. THIS WAS THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. WHAT GOT THROWN INTO THE, THE WHOLE JUMBLE, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE WERE ALREADY DEEP INTO PERMITTING, THIS CAME UP. UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DE DEVELOPED IN 1910, I THINK IS WHY WE HAD TO GO BACK AND GET THAT CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION. UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ANTE. UH, THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UM, NO CHANGE IN USE NEXT. OKAY. SO RATHER THAN IT'S A HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, THERE'S [00:40:01] NO IMPACT. THERE'S STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND WE FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S ANY, UH, SUPPORT AGAINST IT TODAY, IT'S JUST FROM THE CONFUSION OF GOING FROM THE TWO AND A HALF STORY INTO THE THREE, AS I SAID, KEEP GOING. THESE ARE SOME OF THE HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED IN THE AREA THAT ARE, I DON'T WANNA SAY IDENTICAL, BUT VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE TO WHAT DR. PATEL AND HIS FAMILY HAVE DESIGNED WITH THE ARCHITECT AND JUST SOME OF THE HOUSE HOUSES IN THE AREA WITH BEING ACCOMPLISHED. NEXT SLIDE. UH, NEXT, JUST SUPPORT NEIGHBORS FROM THE NEIGHBOR. JUST SOME SUPPORT LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. KEEP GOING. BRONTE, PLEASE. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IT'S NARROW AND TECHNICAL, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. UM, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THIS LOT TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. WE FEEL THAT THE INTENT SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE ORDINANCE. UM, LIMITED IN SCOPE. WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THESE ISSUES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNERS. KEEP GOING. BRONTE, THIS JUMPED INTO THE MIX, THIS BULLETIN. UM, I EVEN TALKED TO, UH, MCCLURE, ERIC MCCLURE A COUPLE WEEKS BACK JUST ASKING WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S COMING IN THAT'S CREATING THIS NEW, THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE THIRD STORY, ERIC, UH, ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME AND THE BEST OF MY ABILITY WERE NOT FIGHTING WITH WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, UH, GOD WILLING. AND, UM, THIS CAME IN DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS, WHICH NO ONE WAS EVEN AWARE OF. AND IT'S ONLY POPPED UP A FEW TIMES ON THE RADAR OF PERMITTING AND PLANNING AND ZONING. SO, UM, IT JUST KIND OF FURTHER LIMITS WHAT CAN BE DONE TO THE THIRD FLOOR OR TO A TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING IN THAT AREA. AND THEN NEXT, AND THAT'S THE APPLICATION. SO, AND IF, IF IT'S OKAY, DR. PATEL JUST MIGHT SHARE A, A LITTLE HISTORY. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR HEARING MY COMMENTS. UH, WERE YOU DONE WITH MR. GREENWOOD? UH, WE'LL IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE US YOUR, YOUR, UH, NAME AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD. YES, MY NAME IS JUHAN PATEL. UM, MY WIFE AND I OWN THAT LOT. AND, UH, AS MR. GREENWOOD HAD ALLUDED TO, WE'VE SPENT A BETTER, UH, PORTION OF TWO YEARS, VERY THOUGHTFULLY MEETING WITH OUR ARCHITECT WHO HAS BUILT A FEW HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE DESIGN AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE BEING RESPECTFUL TO OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, WE EVEN WENT, UH, SO FAR AS TO MEET WITH THE TOBIN HILL, UH, ASSOCIATION. AND AS BRONTE HAD MENTIONED, THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. UM, MY WIFE AND I WANTED TO MOVE DOWN IN THE, THE HEART OF SAN ANTONIO IN THE TOBIN HILL DISTRICT TO RETIRE. THERE WE'RE BOTH PHYSICIANS, UM, AND OUR KIDS HAVE MOVED ON AND WE WANT TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE HEART. WE, WHAT WE FEEL LIKE THE HEARTBEAT OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, WE DESIGNED THAT BACK PART THOUGHTFULLY TO HAVE VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO. WE WANTED TO SEE THAT AREA AND BE PROUD OF THIS CITY, WHICH WE'VE GROWN TO LOVE, BEEN HERE OVER 20 YEARS. SO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT MR. GREENWOOD ALLUDED TO IS WITH A LOT OF THOUGHT AND A LOT OF, UM, CRAFTING A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF MONEY ACTUALLY. WE PUT QUITE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL, UM, BACKING INTO THIS. UM, JUST SO WE CAN LIVE OUT OUR DREAM AND A FAMILY HOME THAT WILL BE THERE FOR GENERATIONS. AND, UM, WE WANT OUR KIDS TO ENJOY IT, OUR GRANDKIDS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, INTENT BEHIND THIS. THERE'S NOTHING MEAN-SPIRITED ABOUT IT. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'VE, I'VE BEEN ASKED TO BY HDRC AND THEN THIS CAME UP. SO, UH, WE WOULD VERY RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH ALL THESE COMMENTS AND, UM, ENDORSE THIS PROJECT. UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. PATEL. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MR. REED. AND THEN MR. UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU DID RECEIVE A COA FROM, FROM HISTORIC. OKAY. YEAH, IT WAS IN THAT SLIDE. YES. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. OKAY. MANAM. SO YES MAAM. UM, SO I GOT CONFUSED, UH, A SECOND AGO. UH, THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, CORRECT? YES SIR. OKAY, SO CLICK CHECK ON THAT. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE TOP, THE TOP DECK, IS IT GONNA BE HAVE AN OBSERVATION DECK ON IT SO THAT YOU CAN LOOK OUT ON THE, ON THE TOP FLOOR OR IS IT JUST GONNA BE THE, THE, I GUESS THE ROOM FOOTPRINT? UH, WHAT WAS THE INTENT UP THERE IS TO HAVE A MUSIC ROOM BECAUSE WE'RE MUSICIANS MY FAMILY AND WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT AREA JUST SPECIFICALLY UP THERE AND ALSO TO ENTERTAIN [00:45:01] AND HAVE VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO AS I MENTIONED. SO, SO WOULD THE ENTERTAINMENT INCLUDE STEPPING OUT ON TOP OF A ROOFING DECK ON THE BACKSIDE OR IS IT GONNA BE JUST FROM THE VIEWS INSIDE THE HOUSE? UH, THERE'S A SMALL DECK THAT POPS OUT OVER THERE. OKAY. SO IS THE DECK WHAT CAUSES THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE THIRD STORY IS, UH, THE DECK AND THE POSITIONING OF THE THIRD STORY, WHICH IS NOT CENTERED. IT IT'S 20% ON THREE SIDES, IT'S JUST THAT ONE SIDE THAT IS CAUSING THE ISSUE. SO, SO WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE DECK? UH, IT'S NOT VERY BIG. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT'S ABOUT, IT'S JUST FOR OBSERVATION MOSTLY, AGAIN, JUST TO GET THE DOWNTOWN VIEW. IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A ROOFED AND ENCLOSED AREA, BUT IT'S OPEN, OPEN AIR. SO YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT PART OF THE DIALOGUE WAS WHEN WE, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING FOR THE THREE STORIES. 'CAUSE WE, WE WERE BEING INUNDATED, THE CITY WAS BEING INUNDATED BY THREE STORY BLOCK STRUCTURES. RIGHT. AND PART OF THE DIALOGUE THAT CAME UP WAS, UM, NOT WHEN WE WENT TO THREE STORIES, NOT HAVING PEOPLE OBSERVING OUTSIDE TO, TO ENSURE THE PRIVACY OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THEM. AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHY THE DIALOGUE STARTED OR ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE DIALOGUE. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU STEVENS. MR. STEVENS, WHEN THE, WHEN THE CITY'S EVALUATING THIS FOR A HALF STORY, ARE THEY CONSIDERING THIS A FLAT ROOF? WELL, THE FLAT ROOF, IT'S, THEY HAVE IT BROKEN UP. LIKE IF THE ROOF IS, UM, IF IT'S EQUAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THREE AND 12 SLOPE, IT'S CONSIDERED A FLAT ROOF. SO I DON'T BELIEVE LIKE THE FIRST TWO FLOORS, 'CAUSE YOU DO SEE SOME PITCHED ROOFS THAT ARE MORE THAN THAT, UM, THREE AND 12 SLOPE. SO THAT WOULD MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE GOING WITH THE, UH, SLOPED ROOF STRUCTURE STYLE. SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT, IT DOES, BUT THEN IT MAKES ME QUESTION A FEW MORE THINGS. UH, IF IT'S, IF IT'S A SLOPED ROOF, IT'S MEANT TO THE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE WALLS ARE MEANT TO SPRING FROM THE TOP PLATE OF THE WALLS BELOW IT. IS THAT CORRECT? OR THE ROOF IS MEANT TO, IT'S ACTUALLY MEANT TO COME IN, LIKE BE, UM, INSIDE FROM THE, THE WALLS OF THE BOTTOM FLOOR AND ACTUALLY POKE THROUGH THE PITCHED ROOF. SO IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE DORMERS OR THAT KIND OF STYLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY, I'M JOKING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MATTEL? I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. THE, UM, YES SIR. EXPOSED DECK AREA, DOES THAT OVERLOOK THE PROPERTY THAT YOU OWN OR IS THAT THE OTHER SIDE OR SOME OVERLAP? IT'S TOWARDS THE BACK, YES, SIR. THAT'S THE PROPERTY WE OWN IS TOWARDS THE FRONT. SO WE BUILT THE BULK OF THAT TO TOWARDS THE STICK OUT TOWARDS THE FRONT. OKAY. THAT'S MORE RECESS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM, IF YOU COULD PULL THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BRIAN, SO THE PROPERTY YOU OWN WOULD BE, IT OVERLOOKS THE, UH, IT OVERLOOKS THE, UH, ALLEY. THERE'S AN ALLEY RIGHT THERE. THERE'S NO HOUSE DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT. SO IT WOULD OVERLOOK AN ALLEY, SIR, SIR. AND NOT LIKE DIRECTLY INTO SOMEONE'S BACKYARD OR ANYTHING, OR NO, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE DESIGNED THAT WAY. OKAY. IT WAS MEANT TO LOOK THROUGH BEHIND THE ALLEY TO GET A VIEW OF DOWNTOWN. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PATEL OR, OKAY. ORIAN. OH, MS. ORIAN. YEAH, SO JUST TO, SO THIS COULD BE A VARIANCE TO HAVE A THIRD STORY OR IT COULD BE A CONSIDERED A VARIANCE TO THE DEFINITION WHERE IT'S LESS THAN 20% ON ONE SIDE. UH, AND IT HAS, UH, AN EXTERIOR, UH, UH, PORCH, WHICH ISN'T ALLOWED. UM, AND I, AND, AND THIS HOUSE LOOKS SO CUSTOM THAT I, I JUST THINK IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE AT 32%. I, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE, I DON'T SEE THIS ONE BE OF A BIG DEAL, ESPECIALLY AS SO MUCH SUPPORT, BUT THIS HOUSE IS REALLY CUSTOM AND VERY NON-TYPICAL. SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU MR. ORIAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY TO SIGN UP FOR, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS OR VOICEMAILS TO BE READ IN? OH, NO VOICEMAIL, PUBLIC COMMENTS? UH, THREE SPEAKERS. FIRST ONE IS FEDERICA KUSHNER, COULD YOU PROJECT THIS? HELLO? HI, . UM, YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS FREDERICA KUSHNER. I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE [00:50:01] STREET, UH, 7 8 2 1 2 IN TOBIN HILL, HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 7 4 1 8 4 18 EAST LOCUST, WHICH IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF MY HOME. MY, UH, I HAVE LIVED IN TOBINS HILL SINCE 2001 AND SINCE 2010 WITHIN THE TOBIN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. I APPRECIATE THE CHARACTER THAT THE BUILDINGS FROM THE TEENS, 1920S AND THIRTIES GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THOSE BUILDINGS, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER, COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER. AND THIS HAS CREATED A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A CERTAIN LOOK AND FEEL. IN FACT, I FOUGHT UNSUCCESSFULLY IN 2011 TO PREVENT THE DEMOLITION OF THE ONE STORY CLASSICAL REVIVAL BUNGALOW ORIGINALLY ON THE LOT. THAT'S THE, THAT IS, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE IT THERE. OVER THE YEARS, THE COMMUNITY HAS WORKED SUCCESSFULLY WITH VARIOUS DEVELOPERS TO CONFORM TO THE O HP'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT HERE WE ARE AT THE BOA IN THIS CASE, I WHOLLY AGREE WITH THE BOA STAFF AND ASK YOU TO NOT DENY THE REQUEST FOR A THREE STORY STRUCTURE IN THE TOBIN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ORDER TO STOP THE SETTING OF A PRECEDENT AND TO PROTECT THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND THE PRIVACY OF THEIR INHABITANTS AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BY THE WAY, THE ALLEY THEY REFER TO, THERE ARE HOUSES BEHIND THAT HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY. THEIR BACKYARDS ARE, UH, ON THE ALLEY ALSO. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. MANA, MR. MANA. SO, UM, SO TOBIN HILL, UM, THEY, DO YOU WORK WITH THE TOBIN HILL OR HAVE YOU MET WITH THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS WITH THAT? BECAUSE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THEIR PERSPECTIVE AND THEN YOUR PERSPECTIVE JUST IT'S A REAL, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A LITTLE ODD. UH, YES, I AM FULLY AWARE OF, UH, WHAT, OF OF THEIR PERSPECTIVE. UH, BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE QUITE A BIT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE WHOLE THING. UH, AND I, I DO NOT HAVE THE SAME PERSPECTIVE AND I'M SPEAKING PERSONALLY NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION. UNDERSTOOD THAT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ENGAGED WITH THEM AND, AND KIND OF HAVING THOSE DIALOGUES, YOU KNOW, ON HOW YOU WANT YOUR COMMUNITY TO BE DEVELOPED AND THAT'S PART OF THAT DIALOGUE. OH YES, DEFINITELY. OKAY. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THANK YOU MA'AM. NEXT SPEAKER IS ED LUCHA LIP. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ED LIPOMA AND I LIVE AT FIVE 11 EAST DEWEY, WHICH IS ONE BLOCK, UH, NORTH OF THE PROPERTY HERE, WHICH I'LL REFER TO AS THE PATELS. UH, I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. OH, YOU CAN LIFT, LIFT UP THE MICROPHONE. YEAH. YEP. AND, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE OPPOSITION WAS GOING TO LOOK FOR TODAY, BUT I, GOING BY A LETTER SHE SENT TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, OKAY. PRIVACY, PRIVACY WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES. AND IN THAT REGARD, UH, THE, THE, THE NA MS. KUSHNER, THEY'RE RIGHT BEHIND, BUT THEIR PRIVACY FENCE IS A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LENGTH FENCE. SO IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER HOW TALL ANY PROPERTY IS GONNA BE BEHIND THEM. SMALL, A SMALL BOY ON A BICYCLE CAN SEE THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR BACKYARD. THE OTHER IS THE CHARACTER, THE SKYLINE. THERE'S A LOT OF, OF VERY TALL BUILDINGS, VERY TALL TREES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE A BAD IMPACT AT ALL ON IT. AND AS WAS KIND OF POINTED OUT, MS. KUSHNER HAS PUSHED A LOT FOR KEEPING THE HISTORICALS PROTECTED, BUT WE HAVE NUM A NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE JUST FALLING DOWN AND, AND LITERALLY I'VE GOT $50 ON THIS ONE HOUSE JUST UP THE BLOCK THAT'S, I'VE GOT IT FALLEN DOWN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR . SO, AND WHAT WE REALLY LIKE IS MOST OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS MULTI-FAMILY, SHORT-TERM, LONG-TERM RENTAL, AND FAIRLY LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. AND WE ARE REALLY HOPING WE GET MORE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'LL MOW THEIR YARD, THEY'LL PICK UP THEIR TRASH, FIX THEIR BROKEN WINDOWS, AND, AND UH, JUST BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE REALLY, WHEN SOMEONE NEW MOVES IN, WE ALL RALLY AROUND THEM. FOR THAT REASON, WE SUPPORT THE PATELS AND LOOK FORWARD TO THEM BECOMING OUR NEW NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER LAST ONE IS, UH, SHANE [00:55:02] RE ROBBIE. GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU. UH, I'M IN HERE TO, IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE, MY, I LIVE AT 5 0 1 EAST LOCUST ACROSS THE STREET, TWO DOORS DOWN, SO I'M RIGHT, RIGHT THERE. I HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 10 YEARS. UM, I'VE SEEN THAT LOT TURN INTO, UM, A HAVEN FOR TRANSIENT PEOPLES AND UM, SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. UH, HAVING THIS HOUSE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT DR. PATEL HAS MENTIONED, HE HAS HAD A GREAT DEAL OF OUTREACH WITH ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ATTENDING THE TOBIN HILL MEETINGS. I'VE BEEN TO FIVE WITH HIM IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UM, AND WE'RE EXCITED. THE PATELS WILL BE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS, IT'LL BE A GREAT ADDITION. AND THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN, I THINK IT'S ALMOST LIKE INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO AND A HALF AND THREE STORIES ALMOST. UM, LIKE A DISTINCTION WITH NO DIFFERENCE, BUT THE WE'RE, WE'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE IT AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THEM AS NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE ANY FINAL KIND OF REBUTTAL. YOU HEARD SOME COMMENTS FROM, UH, ADJOINING PROPERTIES IF YOU'D LIKE TO KIND OF MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. UH, YES SIR. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO REITERATE THE POINT THAT WE DID ENGAGE WITH THE TOBIN HILL ASSOCIATION. WE'RE VERY TRANSPARENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS, SO IT WAS NOT ANYTHING LIKE A HIDDEN AGENDA THAT IS OFTEN THE CASE SOMETIMES WITH THESE TYPE OF PROJECTS. WE WERE VERY TRANSPARENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT POINT. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM MRS. KUSHNER IN THE PAST. IT'S DOCUMENTED AT THE LAST HDRC MEETING JUST TO BE COMPLETELY, UH, CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU. AND, AND JUST IN CLOSING, THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR BEARING WITH US ON THIS. UH, THE, THE PATELS HAVE NO INTENTION TO TURN THIS INTO AN AIRBNB OR ANY OTHER FORM. THEY JUST WANNA LIVE THERE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND FRANKLY, UH, I DRIVE THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, QUITE OFTEN AND IT'S FALLING APART. AND THE HOUSE THAT WE WOULD PUT THERE FOR THE PATELS THAT WAS THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED WITH, UH, PARTICIPATION OF EVERYBODY WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION. AND OTHER HOUSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT JUST ABOUT LIKE IT IN THE AREA. SO THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK IF THERE'S A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION REED, MR. REED, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE TWO AND A HALF MAXIMUM STORY LIMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TWO A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE 2.5 MAXIMUM STORY FROM SECTION 35 5 17 LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTI-FAMILY LOT BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY USE TO ALLOW A THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITUATED AT FOUR 18 EAST LOCUST STREET, APPLICANT BEING MIKE GREENWOOD BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IMPOSED ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DEVELOPED IN MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTERESTS, WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CURRENT BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY WITH A SINGLE FAMILY USE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. INCREASED NUMBER OF STORIES PER PERMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTIES ABUTTING THIS LOT. FOUR, THE VARIANCES NOT, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WHAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. VARIANCE WOULD NOT REDUCE THE PRIVACY OF RESIDENCE OF A BUDDING PROPERTIES, NOR WILL IT IMPOSE A STANDARD THAT DEVIATES CONSIDERABLY FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. SIX PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE C CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULT IN GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. PLIGHT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BAY ZONING DISTRICT POST DEVELOPMENT, AND IT SHARED PROPERTY LINES WITH OTHER SINGLE FAMILY USE AND OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, MR. STEVEN. SECOND. UH, MR. REEB, UM, I I, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT IN THIS VARIANCE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE, THEY'VE CERTAINLY, UH, MADE AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORS. THEY'VE, UH, DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE [01:00:01] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, WHO SEEMS TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND IT'S GONE THROUGH OHP, UM, AND HDRC AND GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS, UH, AN APPROPRIATE USE. I SHOULD ADD ALSO THAT THAT THIRD STORY IS NOT GOING TO FACE, UM, THE STREET FRINGE BE FACING AWAY FROM IT. SO I, I THINK THE, UH, DESIGN IS, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UH, THEY DID RECEIVE A C OF A FROM, UH, OHP AND HGRC, AND WHILE I RESPECT THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE TWO AND A HALF FOOT MAXIMUM STORY LIMIT, UH, TO PUT IT INTO EFFECTIVE USE, IT MAKES FOR PRETTY RESTRICTIVE DESIGN AND A LOT OF BUILDINGS JUST KIND OF LOOKING VERY SIMILAR AND BORING. SO I RE I RESPECT THE, THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THE DESIGN IN FRONT OF US, AND I THINK GENERALLY IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THIS ORDINANCE. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. WELL, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER, UM, MANNA, MR. MANNA? SO I'D LIKE TO OFFER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, SUCH THAT THE VARIANCE IS LIMITED TO THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED. MM-HMM . OKAY. YES, I ACCEPT. OKAY. YEP. TOOK A SECOND. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT? UH, UM, AND THEN, AND THEN JUST THE OTHER COMMENT FOR, FOR, UM, SO BY RIGHT, THEY CAN DO TWO AND A HALF STORIES AND SO, SO I, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, WISH THAT HAVE ONE STORY REMAIN, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, BUT BY, RIGHT, ANYBODY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, KID BUILT IT TWO AND A HALF STORIES. AND, UM, AND I THINK BY HAVING THE DIALOGUE FOR SETTING IT SO THAT WE'RE LIMITED TO THE, TO THE INSTRUCTION AS DEFINED, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S NOT A FAR STRETCH FROM WHAT IS, UH, THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND BEING THAT TOBIN HILL APPROVED IT, UH, WHAT HE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. AND I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS READ AS WELL BY, RIGHT AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE TWO AND A HALF, UH, STORY. UH, THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE, THE, THAT OUTSIDE SMALL, UM, PATIO AREA, UH, WHICH IS RUN CONTRA TO WHAT THE CODE IS, BUT THAT TO WHAT I'VE SEEN IT KIND OF FACES DOESN'T FACE THE STREET FACES THE BACK ALLEYWAY. AND THERE'S ENOUGH, UH, BARRIERS THAT IT'S NOT GONNA PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, AN IMPOSING, UH, STRUCTURE ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO FOR THAT, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS READ. ANY OTHER, ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PU CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK, UM, FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE HERE. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. VICE CHAIR ZUNA. I CONCUR. THAT'S 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION. THE MOTION, UH, IS, IS APPROVED AS READ. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO CASE NUMBER THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS KATELIN BROWN CLANCY, SENIOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 3 0 0 1 7 AT 1115 SOUTH ST. MARY'S. UM, THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY LOCATED AT 1115 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, AS YOU SEE, UM, LOCATED HERE, UM, IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DE DECISION TO APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS. A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A SIX FOOT TALL IRON FENCE FEATURING TWO OPERABLE VEHICULAR GATES AND ONE PEDESTRIAN GATE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, STAFF RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION, UH, FOR THIS REQUEST ON JULY 13TH. AND IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HEARD BY THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD ON AUGUST 20, UH, FIRST WHERE, UM, THE COMMISSION TOOK ACTION TO APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FENCE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FINISHED HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET. NEXT SLIDE. UM, HERE IS, UM, AN IMAGE OF THE CURRENT CONDITION. YOU CAN SEE, UM, ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THERE'S A FOUR FOOT TALL WOODEN PICKET FENCE. AND THEN HERE YOU SEE THE EXISTING SITE PLAN, UM, SHOWING THAT SAME CONDITION THERE ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD HEARD, WHICH WAS INITIALLY A REQUEST OF A SIX FOOT TALL IRON FENCE WITH TWO OPERABLE VEHICULAR GATES AND ONE PEDESTRIAN GATE. HERE YOU'RE, YOU'LL SEE THE FINDINGS CONSIDERED [01:05:01] BY THE C TAB. UM, AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET. THE APPLICANT, UH, DID PROVIDE SOME PRECEDENT IMAGES FOR TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT EXCEEDS THAT FOUR FOOT AND HEIGHT. ONE HERE IS LOCATED AT 1 2 9 EAST GUNTHER AND THE OTHER AT 4 2 2 PARDA. LASTLY, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF WHAT THAT ULTIMATE CONDITION WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THE APPEAL IS GRANTED. UM, I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT DURING THE HEARING THE, UH, REQUESTED RECEIVE 24 PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION OF WHICH WAS THE KING WILLIAMS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND LASTLY, BEFORE YOU TODAY, YOU'RE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE STIPULATIONS OF THE CT A B AND WE'VE PROVIDED THE FULL PACKET PROVIDED TO THE CTAP FOR YOUR REVIEW SO THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS AS THE COMMISSION INFORMING THEIR ULTIMATE DETERMINATION. THANK YOU. AND I'M AVAILABLE TO AN ANSWER. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE? THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, SO, UM, I I NOTICED THAT, UH, IN THE REPORT STAFF IS, LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPORTING A FIVE FOOT FENCE, BUT THIS, THE ULTIMATE USE OF THIS FACILITY IS, IS, IS FOR A CHILD, UM, UM, EDUCATION, YOUNG, YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE MUSTARD SEED, RIGHT? CORRECT. IS THERE ANY, ANY, UM, OBLIGATIONS, UH, BASED ON THEIR USE TO HAVE A TALLER FENCE BECAUSE THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR YOUNG CHILDREN TO BE ON THE PROPERTY? NOT IN REGARDS TO HISTORIC REVIEW. UM, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE TAKEN AS THE, UM, ORIGINAL USE OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. BUT, BUT ASIDE FROM HISTORIC REVIEW, IF SOMEBODY IS OPERATING A, AND THIS MIGHT GO TOWARDS, UH, UH, MAYBE NOT, UH, HISTORIC, BUT, UH, IF SOMEBODY IS SUBMITTING A PERMIT, UH, TO HAVE, UH, UH, A, A USE OF THIS NATURE ARE, WOULD THEY NORMALLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FENCE, UH, YOU KNOW, DUE TO THE POSS DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF YOUNG CHILDREN BEING AROUND? IS THERE ANYTHING, IS THERE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THAT EDUCATIONAL TYPE USE? THERE'S A ZONING REQUIREMENT, NOT, NOT ZONING. UM, I'M LOOKING, I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE, IF A HARDSHIP EXISTS BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE USE. OR IS THERE AN OBLIGATION FOR THEM TO HAVE SUCH A FENCE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S YOUNG CHILDREN THERE, REGARDLESS IF IT'S HISTORICAL, WHATEVER. I'M JUST WONDERING IS THERE SOME SORT OF RULE OR REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO HAVE THIS OUTSIDE OF THE CELL? IF THERE IS, UM, THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO, SHE SOME LIGHT ON THAT IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE IT MANNA. ALL RIGHT. SO MANNA, SO, SO I'LL WAIT FOR THE APPLICANT. YEAH. SO ED A REQUIREMENT FOR A, A SCHOOL TO HAVE A FENCE, BUT IT ISN'T STIPULATE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN RECALL IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE'VE HAD THAT DIALOGUE AND OFFENSE IS REQUIRED, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAD ANY DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE HEIGHTS. SCHOOLS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO A EIGHT FOOT PERIMETER FENCE. UH, BUT AS FAR AS REQUIRED, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN OUR CODE. IS THAT, IS THAT HELPFUL? YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN I THINK IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT IS, IS THERE SOME OBLIGATION FOR YOU TO HAVE SOME HEIGHT? WELL, STAFF SAID BY RIGHT, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BUT NO OBLIGATION? IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD? CORRECT. UH, SCHOOLS ARE ABLE TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT PERIMETER FENCE, UM, ALONG WITH GOVERNMENT FACILITIES. UM, BUT THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT NOT, WE DON'T OBLIGATE THEM UNDER ARTICLE THREE. OKAY. WELL, I'LL, I'LL WAIT FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND MAYBE THERE'S A LICENSING REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A TALLER FENCE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW IF SUBJECT REQUIREMENT EXISTS. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY. CAN YOU DO A, OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA MENO AND I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF MUSTARD SEED ACADEMY. TODAY I AM HERE ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR A FIVE FOOT WR IRON FENCE ALONG THE FRONT OF THE SCHOOL. OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IN OUR CARE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT ADDITIONAL FOOT WILL PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PROTECTION. WE ARE, YOU CAN STAY THERE. THE SECOND ONE. WE ARE A SMALL, UH, BOUTIQUE NURSERY AND PRESCHOOL. WE HAVE BEEN SERVING THE COMMUNITY FOR 13 YEARS [01:10:01] AND WE CARE FOR CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 12 MONTHS. CHILDREN PLAY IN THIS BUILDING EVERY DAY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SIDE. SO THIS IS NOT ONLY A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THIS, THIS IS A BUILDING THAT IS TAKING CARE OF VERY YOUNG CHILDREN. OKAY, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. MM-HMM . WHAT ARE WE REQUESTING? OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR A SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE. THROUGH THIS PROCESS, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED A FIVE FOOT FENCE, AND THAT IS WHAT I'M HERE ASKING FOR. WE HAVE LISTENED, WE HAVE COMPROMISED. WE ARE NO LONGER ASKING FOR A SIX FEET. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT ABOVE THE FOUR FOOT HISTORIC GUIDELINE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT MAKES A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE FOR A PROPERTY THAT SERVES YOUNG CHILDREN. THE NEXT ONE? MM-HMM . SCHOOL SAFETY HAS CHANGED. SCHOOL SAFETY ISN'T VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS YEARS AGO. AS A PRESCHOOL, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK PROACTIVELY ABOUT CONTROLLED ACCESS AND THE PERIMETER OF OUR CAMPUS. A FENCE IS ONLY ONE PART OF OUR SAFETY PLAN, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT FIRST PHYSICAL LAYER BETWEEN OUR CHILDREN AND THE PUBLIC. RIGHT AWAY, WE BELIEVE FIVE FEET PROVIDES A MORE MEANINGFUL BARRIER THAN FOUR FEET, WHILE STILL BEING REASONABLE AND VISUALLY APPROPRIATE. OUR SURROUNDINGS HAVE ALSO CHANGED. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AS WELL. WE ARE SEEING INCREASED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AROUND THE SCHOOL AND WE ANTICIPATE EVEN MORE ACTIVITY. AS DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA CONTINUES TO GROW, WE WILL ALSO BE ANTICIPATING THE GREEN LINE, WHICH WILL BE RUNNING RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR SCHOOL. WE AREN'T ASKING THE BOARD TO REACT TO ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENT. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO BE PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE. AS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE CHILDREN EVERY DAY, WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT IMPROVING OUR PERIMETER. OKAY. THIS ONE. OKAY. HIT NO, GO BACK PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO HISTORIC CHARACTER. WE LOVE OUR HISTORIC BUILDING. ITS CHARACTER AND BEAUTY ARE PART OF WHAT MAKES MUSTARD SEED ACADEMY SO SPECIAL AND WE WANT TO PRESERVE THAT THAT IS EX EXACTLY WHY WE CHOSE A TRADITIONAL TRANSPARENT ROD IRON DESIGN. IT MAINTAINS VISIBILITY OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY RATHER THAN CREATING A SOLID VISUAL BARRIER. WE ARE ALSO WILLING TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING THE DESIGN SO THAT THE FENCE IS AS COMPATIBLE AS POSSIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CHILD SAFETY CAN COEXIST. COMMISSIONERS. I UNDERSTAND WHY HISTORIC GUIDELINES EXIST AND I RESPECT THEM, BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER THE UNIQUE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. WE CARE FOR VERY YOUNG CHILDREN EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED SIX FEET. WE LISTENED TO THE FEEDBACK, AND TODAY WE ARE ASKING FOR FIVE FEET THE HEIGHT RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF. FOR US, THIS ISN'T ABOUT AESTHETICS OR CONVENIENCE, IT'S ABOUT ADDING ONE MORE REASONABLE LAYER OF PROTECTION AROUND THE CHILDREN ENTRUSTED TO OUR CARE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO APPROVE OUR REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT WR IRON FENCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE. ANA, SOA, SOA. SO A QUESTION, SO WE'RE, THIS HERE IS, UH, REGARDS TO GRANTED A MOTION FOR THE APPEAL. UM, AND SO IF THE APPEAL IS GRANTED, SO DOES THE APPLICANT COME BACK TO THE CITY, UM, WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THEY WANNA BUILD OR IS IT BY RIGHT NOW WE'RE, WE'RE OPENING UP SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY WISH TO BUILD. SO UNLESS OHP CORRECTS ME, UM, IF YOU GUYS APPROVE THEIR APPEAL, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD THE FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE. SO IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE OR IS IT AS PRESENTED HERE? WE CAN FIVE FEET IS THE LIMIT THAT THEY'RE PERMITTED, UH, BY, RIGHT. UM, ANYTHING ELSE? THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND THEN, OKAY, LET'S SEE. I I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU KNOW, GOING BACK FOR THE WHOLE DIALOGUE FOR SCHOOLS, AND THE REASON WHY I WENT THERE IS 'CAUSE IN MY COMMUNITY THAT SOMEONE PUT IN A LANDSCAPE NURSERY AND THAT, AND THEY CITY CAME OUT AND SAID, YOU HAVE A NURSERY THAT WAS IMPLIED WITH CHILDCARE AND YOU REQUIRED OFFENSE. AND SO THEN THAT'S WHY I BECAME ENGAGED IN THIS WHOLE CITY BECAUSE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO THE WORD NURSERY USED IN [01:15:01] THE UDC AND NOT BEING CONSISTENT. AND SO NURSERY'S IMPLIED AT THAT POINT TO REQUIRE, TO IMPLY A DAYCARE OR A PLACE WHERE, WHERE CHILDREN ARE AND WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FENCE THAT THAT, THAT THIS APP, THIS PARTICULAR PERSON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUT IN. AND SO WERE YOU ABLE TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT A NURSERY REQUIRES FENCING? YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA VERIFY THAT AGAIN, WE WEREN'T REALLY NOW NOT ABLE TO SEE IF THE CITY REGULATES THAT WITH THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF USE. I KNOW EARLIER WE MENTIONED THAT A SCHOOL IS ALLOWED UP TO EIGHT FEET, BUT OUR, PER OUR DEFINITION, IT KIND OF GOES INTO REGULATIONS OF KINDERGARTEN AND UP. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY FOCUS MORE ON THE YOUNGER, UH, PRESCHOOL OR PRE-K KIND OF ITEMS. SO I DON'T, SO TWO MERKEL'S COMMENT. THE CITY CODE WOULD ALLOW THEM UP TO FIVE FEET IN OR FIVE FEET HEIGHT IN THE FRONT. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS APPEALING. UH, THE HD C'S DECISION TO ONLY ALLOW FOUR FEET AND THEN THE EIGHT FOOT DIALOGUE WOULD NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE IT IS THE FRONT, THE, THE FRONT HEIGHT, UH, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE USE SCHOOLS ARE PERMITTED UP TO EIGHT FEET, BUT WE DO NOT, WE DO NOT SEE THIS AS A, LIKE WE WOULD SEE THIS MORE AS LIKE A DAYCARE OR, UM, CHILDCARE RATHER THAN AN ACT LIKE A SCHOOL AS PER LIKE OUR DEFINITIONS IN THE UDC. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR. MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? UM, IVAN? YES. YES, MR. MR. UM, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT THIS, A SIX FOOT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON A, THIS ROAD. IT IS MOST OF THE, IT'S A VERY COMMERCIAL ROAD WITH LOTS OF BUSES THAT GO DOWN THIS ROAD. LOTS OF BIG TRUCKS, COMMERCIAL TRUCKS GO DOWN THIS ROAD. UM, AS THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED VIA HAS THE GREEN LINE, WHICH A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION IS GONNA BE HAPPENING AROUND THERE AS WELL. UM, SO I'M KIND OF SURPRISED THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF SECURITY FOR CHILDREN IN THIS DAYCARE CENTER IS NOT BEING TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY BY THE CITY AND JUST MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT, WELL, IT USED TO BE A RESIDENTIAL HOME AND NOW, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, TO ME IT'S, IT'S VERY ODD AND I, IT KIND OF DISTURBING TO ME, UM, I PASS BY YOUR DAYCARE EVERY DAY AND, UM, I'VE SEEN IT GROWN AND, AND I'VE SEEN YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT PROPERTY BEAUTIFULLY. UM, AND UH, MYSELF, I I WOULD SAY THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE STUCK WITH GETTING A VARIANCE FOR SIX FEET AND NOT BE SO KIND TO KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE SIX FEET FENCE IN THE FRONT AND THEY DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN THAT THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF. SO IT'S VERY DISTURBING TO ME THAT TH THEY WERE TELLING YOU IT'S, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED FOUR FEET. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY 2 CENTS ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU MS. IBAN. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTION? MS. WHAT'D I HEAR MR. ORIAN? YEAH, SO, OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT IT'S A, IT'S THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REGARDING THE, UH, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM FOR THIS SORT OF USE OF A FOUR FOOT FENCE. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY, THAT'S WHAT THE STATE CODE REQUIRES. SO IT WOULD BE THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR THE STATE. YEAH. SO IF IT'S, IF IT IS A, UH, IT'S SECTION 7 4 6 DO 4 3 0 5 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, UH, AND THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO FENCE AN OUTDOOR ACTIVITY SPACE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOUNG CHILDREN. UH, AND IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST FOUR FEET HIGH. SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I FOUND. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE TAKE MORE CARE OF OUR DATA CENTERS THAN WE DO OUR CHILDREN. MAN, SO MAN. RIGHT. UM, ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHEN THE CITY WAS READING, UM, I GUESS THE SUMMARY, DID YOU STATE THAT KING WILLIAM WAS IN OPPOSITION OR THEY WERE IN SUPPORT? 'CAUSE YOURS SAYS SUPPORT, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD OPPOSITION. THAT WAS THE CITY . CORRECT. THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN OPPOSITION OF A SIX FOOT TALL ROD IRON FENCE. BUT IT STATES HERE ON THE SLIDE THAT THEY'RE IN SUPPORT THAT WAS INITIALLY FOR THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT, SO I GOT CONFUSED NOW. SURE. SO I WAS THE CASE MANAGER WHEN THIS REQUEST CAME TO THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD. UH, WE RECEIVED 24 PUBLIC COMMENTS OF SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. THAT ONE IN OPPOSITION WAS FROM THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW IS REFLECTED OF PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU ALL FOR THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. [01:20:01] SO BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION HAS CHANGED THEIR THANK YOU. YEAH, , THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GO. OKAY. UH, AND, AND WAS THE DIALOGUE FOR, IT WASN'T WITH REGARDS TO THE SIX FOOT OR FIVE FOOT, IT WAS JUST IN GENERAL FOR HAVING A FENCE TALLER THAN FOUR FOOT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, STAFF, SO WE'LL CALL YOU BACK. STAFF. DID WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR, UH, PUBLIC, UM, COMMENTS? UH, MR. ROBERTO MURANO, MADANO. HELLO CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS? MY NAME IS ROBERTO MADANO. I LIVE AT 3 0 3 WILKINS AVENUE AND, UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF WHAT MS. UH, MADANO JUST PRESENTED. UH, I WILL JUST ADD THAT THERE IS A CONCERN AS COMMISSIONER YIA STATED, UH, SECURITY, UH, AND NOT, NOT ONLY SCHOOLS BUT DAYCARE CENTERS AS WELL. I THINK, UH, WE SAW THAT, UH, HAPPEN AND RIGHT IN OUR FRONT YARDS WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN VALDI. UH, THERE IS AN UNDERCURRENT OF CONCERN FROM PARENTS AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING MYSELF AS A GRANDFATHER. AND, UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE IN THIS SITUATION AND AVOID OR AVERT ANY, ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY INCIDENT HAPPENING THERE. IF IT WAS TO HAPPEN, UH, UH, IF AN INCIDENT WAS TO HAPPEN THERE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY NOT. WE PRAY THAT NE IT NEVER HAPPENS. UH, QUESTIONS START TO ABOUND RIGHT AWAY. WHAT DID YOU DO, UH, TO PREVENT THIS SORT OF THING? UH, AND AND THEREFORE THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE HERE, UH, TO BE PROACTIVE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, UH, ADDRESS EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN TO AVERT A ANY TRAGEDY FROM HAPPENING. THANK YOU. VERY. THANK YOU SIR. MANNA? WELL, YES, MR. MADDA. SO THE, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT, WHEN THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE REQUEST, WAS IT SPECIFICALLY FOR FENCING, UM, ON THE STREET, YOU KNOW, ABOVE FOUR FOOT OR I GUESS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, TO FOLLOW UP WITH A FELLOW COMMISSION WITH REGARDS TO SIX FOOT, IF THEY WISH TO, IF THEY DESIRE TO PUT A SIX FOOT, COULD THEY COME BACK THROUGH AND PUT IN A, UM, REQUEST, A REQUEST TO MAKE IT HIGHER AND THEN THIS BOARD, UH, VOTE ON THAT PERSPECTIVE? SO, YEAH, SO IT WOULD OR ORIGINALLY, UM, APPLIED FOR, FOR A SIX FOOT, UH, SPECIAL EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CHANGED IT TO JUST APPEAL WHAT THE OHP BOARD FOUND. BUT YES, THEY CAN COME BACK HERE FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY ADVERTISED FOR THE FIGHT. CORRECT. IT'S A ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REQUEST. OKAY. SO A NEW APPLICATION. SO, SO THE NEW APPLICATION CAN BE PROVIDED TO GET IT TO SIX FOOT IF THAT WAS YOUR REQUESTED AND THEN AT THAT POINT ANYWAYS, SO UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR MAN. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER, UH, OF, OF PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AND JUST I GUESS TO ADD ON, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH OHP REVIEW, UM, THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT PROCESS HAS TO BE, CAN BE TAKEN AWAY IF THEY COME BACK FOR A SIX FOOT. UM, OKAY. NOW I GUESS I GOTTA CLARIFY WITH OHP WHETHER THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEIR BOARD OR NOT, BUT WASN'T THE SIX FOOT THE REQUEST THAT WENT THROUGH OHP AND THAT'S WHAT WAS REJECTED AND IF WE, WE APPROVE THAT TODAY, WE ARE BASICALLY STATING THAT, UM, CAN YOU VERIFY THAT OP FIVE FOOT WOULD BE SO I JUST WANNA VERIFY. 'CAUSE TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE FIVE FOOT BY RIGHT WOULD BE THERE AND THEN SIX FOOT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXTRA THING. ALRIGHT, MS. CRUZ, WERE YOU OUT THERE ANYWHERE OR DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR O P'S GONNA CLARIFY THE PREVIOUS QUESTION REAL QUICK. OH, OKAY. HOLD ON MS. CRUZ. I'LL TRY TO CLARIFY. SO THE QUESTION IS, IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES I DO WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH SIX FEET, WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE? UM, ESSENTIALLY I BELIEVE THE INITIAL REQUEST THROUGH THE, UH, C TAB WAS FOR SIX FEET. SO THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE COULD JUST COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH AN APPEAL AND NOT HAVE TO GO BACK TO HDRC TAB RATHER TO HAVE THEM HEAR SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE ALREADY MADE A DECISION ON. UH, SO THERE TECHNICALLY THERE IS AN OPTION. THE CT A COULD RECONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SIX FEET. UH, BUT THE MORE DIRECT WAY TO HAVE RESOLUTION ON THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE, UH, AN APPEAL, UH, FOR SIX FEET OR A VARIANCE IN AN APPEAL. HOWEVER, THAT WOULD GO FOR THE SIX FEET FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND TODAY'S ACTIONS, IF WE TAKE ACTION TODAY, THAT WON'T IMPEDE ANYTHING SHE TRIES TO DO IF, IF SHE ELECTS TO DO A SIX FOOT FENCE? UM, WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE POSTING LANGUAGE FOR THE, WHAT THE REQUEST IS TODAY WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FROM MERKO. BUT IF THE APPROVAL TODAY WAS FOR A FIVE FOOT FENCE CORRECT, THEN THEY WOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD TO PERMITTING AND IT WOULDN'T, AND IF WE TAKE ACTION TO THE FIVE FOOT, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THEY DO TO DO WITH THEM COMING BACK TO SEEK A SIX FOOT FENCE? NO, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. [01:25:01] THANK YOU STEVENS. UH, MS. CRUZ AND THEN MRS. NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. THEY ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE TODAY? NOT TODAY. THANK YOU, MR. STEVENS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, HEARING NONE, UH, THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, I'D LIKE TO READ THE SHORT ONE. PLEASE DO. AND THEN CLARIFY IF YOU COULD, UH, CHAIR, UM, WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THE VOTES MEANS. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH OH 3 0 0 1 70, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT AND APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1 1 1 5 SOUTH ST. MARY'S STREET, APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL PEREZ BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR AND A DECISION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, REGARDING FENCE HEIGHT. ALRIGHT. AND FOR, AND THE MOTION. OKAY, I SECOND DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. MR. MANNA AND CLARIFICATION, IF YOU VOTE IN SUPPORT, YOU ARE VOTING FOR THE FIVE FOOT FENCE IF YOU'RE VOTING YEAH. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING FOR THE APPEAL. YOU'RE GRANTING AN, YOU'RE GRANTING AN APPEAL FOR THEM TO, TO EXCEED THE FOUR I THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, YOU KNOW, THEY APPLIED FOR SIX, THEY GOT DENIED. THERE'S AN APPEAL BEFORE US, WHETHER THEY CHANGED THEIR APPLICATION TO A FIVE OR, OR NOT. IT'S STILL NO TWO SIX OFFENSE IN EXCESS OF FOUR FEET. RIGHT. I, I, I THINK, I THINK STAFF SHOULD JUST LOOK INTO IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GO STRAIGHT TO SIX, BUT IF NOT, WE'LL WAIT FOR ANOTHER APPLICATION TO DEAL WITH. UH, ANOTHER FOOT. IF SO DESIRED, MR. MAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL LET'S GO AHEAD. TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE APPLICANT WHAT JUST CORRESPONDED WITH US TALKING RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AND I THINK THEY MIGHT BE A LITTLE CONFUSED. . WELL, RIGHT NOW WE'RE VOTING FOR JUST THE FIVE FOOT FENCE. IF WE'RE VOTE, IF WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, THEN WE'RE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT. IF YOU VOTE AGAINST IT, THEN YOU'RE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF STAFF TO UPHOLD THE FOREFOOT LIMIT ON THE FENCE. COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY PLEASE, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, UH, OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, AND COME BACK WITH, WITH A REVISED APPLICATION. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIVE FOOT, THAT'S MY OPINION. AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS RESUBMIT. THERE'S NO TIMETABLE FOR THEM TO RESUBMIT FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANNA SEEK. YEAH, THEY'RE NOT RESTRICTED BY TIME LIMITATIONS. UM, AND IT WOULD STILL BE TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS 'CAUSE THERE'S AN APPEAL AND A SPECIAL EXEMPTION, SO WE COULDN'T COMBINE IT. OKAY. MY, MY SUGGESTION IS THIS, WE'RE ALREADY ON THE, ON THE ONE FOOT LINE. OKAY. JUST TAKE THE, THE VOTE. THANK YOU. AND THEN COME BACK. YEAH, IF YOU CONCUR WITH THAT. YEAH. AND THEN THERE'S STILL A COST REGARDLESS. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE FOR THE SIX FOOT, EVEN IF THEY DEFERRED THE DIALOGUE. AND SO IT'D STILL BE, UH, TWO CASES. SO THERE STILL WOULD BE A SECOND CAUSE. SO THERE'S NO BENEFIT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS IS THERE A REASON TO VOTE ON THIS IF, I MEAN THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD A FIVE FOOT FENCE THEN ADD A FOOT EXTENSION? WELL, LET ME, LET ME ASK, LET ME POSE THE QUESTION THIS WAY. IF, IF THEY GOT DENIED BY THE HCRC BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING SOME, THEY, THEIR INTENT WAS TO PUT SOMETHING OVER FOUR FEET. OUR THIS APPEAL, ALL THAT DOES IS GET THEM PAST THE HCRC. THE HCRC IS NOT ALLOWED TO AUTHORIZE OR ALLOW A FENCE SITE THAT'S IN EXCESS OF UVC. ANYWAY, THEY, I I, I THINK THAT THEY ALWAYS WOULD HAVE TO COME TO US A SECOND TIME FOR, FOR OFFENSE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO Y'ALL CAN, YOU CAN SAY, ALWAYS HAVE TO COME BACK TO US. WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST GET YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE THERE. YOU CAN VOTE ON THE APPEAL TODAY AND THEN IF THEY DECIDE TO GO SIX, THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. OKAY. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? YES. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY, SO GO AHEAD, UH, STAFF, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER MANNA? YES. COMMISSIONER REED? YES. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES. COMMISSIONER REED BARNES? YES. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. AYE. CONCUR. VICE CHAIR ZUNA? YES. 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION GRANTING THE APPEAL, UH, PASSES. UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT AND UH, WE MIGHT SEE YOU AGAIN. SO BLINK. THANK [01:30:01] YOU. OKAY, NEXT CASE. THIS WOULD BE, UH, CASE NUMBER TWO THEN, RIGHT? YOU GOT THAT. ALL GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS BO OA DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 3 0 1 5 1 LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO ON 28 0 6 SOUTH ROSARY STREET. THE ZONING IS R SIX AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCE EXTENDING 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE ON THE WEST SIDE. PROPERTY LINE TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION STANDARD THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SET SETBACK SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG ROSARY STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROSARY STREET WITH SOUTH MEL. WADERS WAY THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK WITH PROPERTIES ALSO ZONED R SIX. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION FOR BUILDING A FENCE WITHOUT A PERMIT. STAFF VISITED THE SITE AND FOUND A PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO EXTEND THE SOLID EIGHT FOOT FENCE FOR 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE ON THE WEST SIDE. PROPERTY LINE STAFF ALSO FOUND CONDITIONS TO NECESSITATE A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED CLEAR VISION REQUEST AND REDUCED FRONT SETBACK REQUEST FOR A CONSTRUCTED CARPORT, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE CARPORT BASED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, WHICH IDENTIFIED A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. HOWEVER, THE SETBACK SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN WAS BASED ON AN INCORRECT MEASUREMENT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. OH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT'S INCORRECT. THAT'S THE WRONG, YES, THIS IS THE WRONG SITE PLAN. I WILL BRING UP THE CORRECT SITE PLAN AFTER THE PRESENTATION. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE IS SEE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE FENCE EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT OUTLINED WITHIN THE CHAPTER. IT WOULD NOT BE CHARACTERISTIC OF OTHER FENCES LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FACADE. TWO. THE FENCE HEIGHT INCREASE WOULD NOT PROMOTE THE PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AS AN EIGHT FOOT FRONT YARD. SOLID FENCE IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARDS OF RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS. COULD YOU CLICK ON THIS? THANK YOU. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE CLEAR VISION AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE REDUCED DISTANCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE ROAD COULD PROVIDE AN UNSAFE SITUATION FOR BOTH DRIVERS BACKING ON THE DRIVEWAY AND DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THEY REDUCE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE VISIBLE, VISIBLE SPACE FOR DRIVERS NAVIGATING THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND ROADWAYS AS WELL AS REDUCE VISIBILITY FOR DRIVERS UTILIZING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DRIVEWAY. THE VARIANCE IS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A ONE INCH STEP BACK TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE COULD IMPACT FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES TO SURROUNDING STRUCTURES AND MAY INCREASE WATER RUNOFF INTO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY. STAFF MAIL 28 NOTICES WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION. ZERO VOICEMAIL, ZERO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED. DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ON, UH, TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ITEMS TWO AND THREE WERE REMAINED OR TO BE WITHDRAWN. SO. AND THEN THE SECOND PLAN. THANK YOU. AND THIS IS THE CORRECT SIDE PLAN. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. SEE, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THERE WERE THINGS, THINGS WITHDRAWN. NO. SOME OF THE PORTIONS, NO, THERE'S NONE WITHDRAWN. BUT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ITEMS TWO AND THREE POSSIBLY BEING WITHDRAWN. SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. JUST ALL RIGHT. UH, CAN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD. HELLO? HELLO, I'M RICHARD DEION. JUST MAKE SURE YOU PRESS THE BUTTON. I'M RICHARD DILLION. I LIVE AT 28 0 6 SOUTH ROSA. THE ONLY REASON I PUT THAT PICKET FENCE THERE, MY NEIGHBOR PUT A CAMERA ON THE [01:35:01] CORNER OF THE HOUSE FACING MY HOUSE, SO I BLOCKED IT AND UM, AND THEN HE TOOK IT OFF OF THERE AND PUT IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TREE FACING MY HOUSE, FACING MY WINDOWS. I HAVE GRANDKIDS, NIECES THAT GO OVER THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE DID THAT, BUT HE'S NOT THE ONE THAT REPORTED IT. THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET REPORTED THAT TOOK A PICTURE OF MY FENCE AND CALLED CO COMPLIANCE, BUT OKAY. I HEAR YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DELIO? ANY QUESTIONS? SO I GUESS PART OF THE QUESTION, PHIL MANNA, UM, SO THERE'S A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE CLEAR VISION, UM, AND THE, UM, I GUESS DIALOGUE. AND SO WITH REGARDS TO THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE, UM, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, UM, WHAT IS THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING WITH REGARDS TO THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE ITSELF? YES. SO, SO YOU REQUE SO YOUR REQUEST IS TO HAVE WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN YOUR REQUEST AND KEEP THAT FENCE LENGTH FOR THAT? YEAH, FOR THAT WHOLE, THE CAMERA. OKAY. OKAY. SO ALL OF THE VARIANCES THAT, THAT ARE BEING READ ARE ALL YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, ALL ARE, YOU WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDED VARIANCES? YES. OKAY. GOTCHA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UH, KIND OF THE, THE, THE ROOF. WHICH WAY DOES THE, THE WATER RUN OFF FROM YOUR, FROM THAT GARAGE SIGNATURES ON THE BACK TO THE FRONT. TO THE FRONT. OKAY. AND NONE OF IT, UH, GOES TO YOUR NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE? NO. OKAY. NO, SIR. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HERE? ALRIGHT, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ OR NO PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHTY, WELL, ANY CLOSING REMARKS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE OR IS THAT IT? I JUST WANT MY FENCE TO, UH, BLOCK MY PRIVACY 'CAUSE THAT'S TOO MUCH HAVING A CAMERA FACING MY HOUSE AND, AND WE'RE HANDICAPPING. UH, MY WIFE IS BLIND, SO UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. YEAH. ANYBODY HERE ON THE BOARD? WANNA MAKE A MOTION? MANNA, MR. MANNA? LET'S SEE HERE. ARE WE GONNA BREAK 'EM UP INTO THE, UH, NUMBER ONE AND THEN WE CAN DO THE, UM, LET'S SEE. 'CAUSE THEY'RE BROKEN UP, RIGHT? WE HAVE THE FIVE FOOT HEIGHT AND THEN WE HAVE THE, UH, 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE BEEN ON 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. YES. SO I WAS YEAH, BREAKING UP IN TWO SEPARATE READINGS. OKAY. SO THE FIRST CASE, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 1, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOW THREE FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A EIGHT FOOT SOLID FRONT FENCE EXTENDING 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE. UM, AND, UH, UM, AND BUILT OR I GUESS, UM, AND AS PER SUBMITTED IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, SO FOR THE LENGTH, SO NOT PROVIDING FOR ANY MORE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, UM, EXTENDING, UH, 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 2 8 0 6 SOUTH ROSARY STREET, APPLICANT B AND RICARDO DEADLY OWNED BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER, THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT RULE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC UH, AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE PROPOSED EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, THE FRONT YARD ALONG A PORTION OF THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD PROVIDE EXTRA SECURITY AND PRIVACY AS IT IS IN CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. B, THE, UH, PUBLIC WELFARE CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT HARM THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND SLIGHT LINES TO THE HOUSE WILL BE MAINTAINED FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE APPRO PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS A FIFTH HEIGHT INCREASE WILL NOT BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE FROM THE STREET. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION, WHICH IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THEIR OPPOSED FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT WOULD NOT BE OUTTA CHARACTER FOR OTHER SURROUNDING AREA AND IS NOT A TOTAL DEPARTURE OF FENCES PERMITTED IN [01:40:01] OTHER SITUATIONS IN AREAS OF THE CITY. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS, UH, HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. ALLOWING A MODEST INCREASE IN FENCE SITES IN THIS UNIQUE LOCATION DOES NOT UNDERMINE THESE GOALS. THAT IS BASED ON A SITE SPECIFIC ADDITION THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO MOST LOTS IN THE MOTION. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. OKAY, I'LL TAKE THE SECOND THEN. IF NO ONE TAKES A SECOND. MR. MANNA. SO, YOU KNOW, LIMITED TO THE SIZE, UM, YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE KIND OF CALLED OUT, YOU KNOW, DOES UH, GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS? AND I THINK THIS IS A CASE OF THAT AND SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. YEAH. AND I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE ON THIS ONE AND NO OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. VICE CHAIR INNO. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BON, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH FINDING FACT. RIGHT. SO WITH THE 11 IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES PASS MANANA. NO. MR. MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 1 AND MOVE THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT. GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 8 0 6 SOUTH ROSARY STREET. APPLICANT BEING RICARDO DEON BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS THE AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO THE CARPORT AND ADEQUATE SPACE TO NAVIGATE THE REDUCED DRIVEWAY LENGTH. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM LENGTHWISE FOR A FULL CARPORT TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND LITTLE ROOM TO MEET CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND CENTRAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SUCH VARIANCE WOULD, UH, WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE REDUCTION OF THE FRONT SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY. CLEAR VISION WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY. AB ABUDDING THIS LOT. UH, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED, UH, IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS 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 CHANGE OF FORM PROPERTY OR ALTER, ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT REDUCE VISIBILITY AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD AND WATER RUNOFF TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SIX. APPLY TO THE OWNER PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLY TO THE OWNER, UM, IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPTH OF THE FRONT YARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE TO MEET SETBACK AND CLEAR VISION STANDARDS WHILE ALSO HAVING CARPORT AND A MOTION. WE GOT A SECOND. SECOND. STEVENS MS. UH, YEAH, MR. LET'S SEE HERE. WHO IS OUR FIRST? OKAY, MR. MANN. I'M SORRY. UM, SO, UM, I WILL BE, UH, I'M OKAY WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. UM, I DO SEE THAT THERE ARE ONE OR TWO OTHERS, UH, CARPORTS HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY. UM, AND AGAIN, WE HAD THE COMMUNITY BUY-IN OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BUY-IN. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER MAN, WE'VE SEEN VERY SIMILAR UM, REQUESTS AND I'VE BEEN IN FAVOR SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MANUP. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BONIS? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZUNA? YES. I CONCUR WITH 11 IN FAVORS THEIR OPPOSITION. THE, UH, MOTION DOES PASS AS READ. CONGRATULATIONS SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. HOW ARE WE DOING ON TIME GUYS? YOU READY TO PUSH ON OR BREAK? YOU WANT A BREAK? OKAY. UH, THE TIME IS, UH, 2 45. WHAT DO YOU NEED? A 10 MINUTE BREAK. [01:45:01] UH, 2 55. WE'LL RECONVENE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS 2 55. UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS BACK IN SESSION. WE ARE LEADING OFF WITH, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S CASE NUMBER FOUR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARCO MVE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER. ITEM NUMBER FOUR LOCATED AT 74 OR BO O 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 LOCATED AT 74 0 1 WBA ROAD. UH, THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR AN EXTENDED STAY MOTEL, UH, HOTEL, MOTEL, UM, TIMESHARES CORPORATE APARTMENTS. THIS IS A 20 FOOT VARIANCE, 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT'S 49 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MEDICAL CENTER JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF BABCOCK AND WBA ROAD. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTENDED STATE HOTEL WILL EXCEED THE C TWO HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 25 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY LOTS WITH, WITH MANY DEVELOPMENTS EXCEEDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPROVED, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL INDICATED A FOUR STORY DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN JUST SHOWING THE PROPOSED MOTEL THERE. CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT SHOWING THE APARTMENTS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT THERE. AND THEN A, UH, HOSPITAL, UM, IN A NEARBY AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO OA 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACT THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLANS INDICATED THE PROPOSED FOUR STORIES AND THE EXISTING HEIGHT AND SCALE NEARBY DEVELOPMENT CREATE UNIQUE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHT LIMITATION WOULD UNNECESSARILY RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SEVEN NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF GORIAN. MR. ORIAN. SO, UM, WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE, WHY DIDN'T THEY PURSUE A, A, A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE HEIGHT? DID ANY OF THAT COME UP OR, OR DID THEY WANT TO KEEP IT AT A C TWO? IT WAS MORE OF A, A LAND USE ISSUE. UM, MOST LIKELY, UM, TO RESTRICT THE UH, USE THERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. ORIAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF HEARING HONOR, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. I PUSH THE BUTTON. THAT'S GOOD. OH, IT'S GOOD EVENING OR GOOD? SORRY, GUESS. STILL GOT A DIFFERENT ONE. UM, GOOD E GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, CLAYTON NOLAN 3, 2, 2 9 DARTMORE COURT, DALLAS, TEXAS. UH, APPLICANT ON THIS, UH, PROPOSED, UM, ZONING CA OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE. UM, JUST WANTED TO SHARE A FEW SLIDES. THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS A FOUR STORY STANDARD WYNDHAM ECHO SUITES PRODUCT. UM, PART OF IT IS THAT WE ARE KEPT THE C TWO ZONING BASED ON THE USE OF AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL. THE DEVELOPERS PROPOSED USE IS TO TRY AND SUPPORT THE MEDICAL DISTRICT AROUND IT WITH LONG-TERM STAYS FOR DOCTORS AND ANYBODY ELSE LOOKING FOR THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT. UM, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE PLEASE? UH, THIS IS, YOU SAW THIS ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE JUST TRYING TO SHOW WHERE IT WAS LOCATED. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. WE'RE SHOWING THE PROPOSED BUILDING, UM, KIND OF OFFSET FROM THE, UH, SIDE YARD SETBACK OR WELL WITHIN THE OTHER SETBACKS ON THE SITE. AND THEN THE RED IS THE EXISTING EASEMENTS THAT ARE CRISSCROSSING THE SITE THAT INCLUDE STORM WATER, UTILITIES AND EVEN SOME PRIVATE UTILITIES ON THE SITE. SO WE TRIED TO OFFSET IT MORE TOWARDS THE CENTER AS FAR AS WE COULD. UH, THIS, THE SIDEY YARD SETBACK HERE IS 10 FEET. WE PUSHED IT TO 15 AND THAT WAS MAINLY TO KIND OF GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF OFFSET FROM THAT STORM SEWER THAT KIND OF SWEEPS ACROSS THE SITE. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND JUST FOLLOWING UP ALL THE THINGS THAT STAFF HAS ALREADY SAID ABOUT THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT WE'RE SEEKING. AND THEN JUST ANOTHER RENDERING, SAME ONE AS THE FIRST SLIDE SHOWING THE FOUR, UH, STORY BUILDING. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. MANUP? SO WERE THESE RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS PRESENTED WHEN IT WAS, IT WENT THROUGH THE ZONING CASE. [01:50:01] WE SHARED THAT IN CASE IT WAS PULLED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT SINCE IT WAS NOT, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO SHARE THEM, BUT THEY STAFF DID HAVE THEM IN CASE WE NEEDED TO DISCUSS IT WITH THOSE BOARD. YEAH, JUST WHAT, JUST TRYING TO VERIFY THAT THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES THAT THEY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING. YES. WHEN WE REACHED OUT TO MS. RATCLIFFE, WE DID SHARE THIS, UH, RENDERING. PERFECT. THANK YOU. MR. MANNA OR MR. ORIAN. OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXISTING USE OF THIS PLACE WAS A PARKING LOT. UM, IS THERE, WAS THIS BEING USED TO, TO MEET ANY SORT OF MINIMAL PARKING FOR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? IT JUST, IT JUST SEEMS ODD THAT THERE'S THIS BIG RECTANGULAR PARKING LOT JUST SITTING THERE. YES. SO WHAT UM, OH, SORRY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. YES SIR. SO THE UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT'S MULTIFAMILY, THIS, THESE TWO, THAT LOT IN THIS LOT USED TO MAKE UP A RESORT PREVIOUSLY AND THEN WAS SUBDIVIDED FOR, I ASSUME THE REASON OF DEVELOPING THE MULTIFAMILY. AND THEN THIS WAS KIND OF THE OUT PARCEL THAT WAS LEFT, BUT THEY DON'T, BUT THIS PARKING IS NOT A NECESSITY FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY TO MEET THEIR PARKING OBLIGATION. THERE'S NO OFFSITE COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT OR ANYTHING? NO SIR. THIS, THIS IS ALL THE PARKING YOU SEE IN THE PAVEMENT THAT ARE THERE ARE JUST REMNANTS FROM THE, UH, PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT DOES SINCE BEEN AND ALSO AND ALSO FOR STAFF. DOES, DOES THIS SITE QUALIFY FOR ANY OF THE UH, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCREASES DUE TO FURTHER OFFSETS FROM THE FRONT? NO, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PLAN IS SO CLOSE TO THE, UH, SIDE, UH, PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE LEASE, UH, SETBACK TO START THAT WEDDING CAKE PROCESS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, I I THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. STEVENS MR. STEVENS, THANK YOU. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 7, I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A 24 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 25 FOOT HEIGHT TO ALLOW 49 FOOT BUILDING SITUATED 7 4 0 1 WOCK ROAD. A APPLICANT BEING FLANAGAN BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED 49 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE EXISTING HEIGHT AND SCALE OF NEARBY DEVELOPMENT CREATE A UNIQUE CONTEXT IN WHICH STRICT APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHT LIMITATION WOULD UNNECESSARILY RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTED THE VARI THE VARIANCE WOULD MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED HEIGHT WOULD REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOW 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 BUILDING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. ALREADY BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ALREADY EXCEED THE REQUESTED HEIGHT AND PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD THEREFORE NOT INTRODUCE A HEIGHT OR SCALE THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. SIX. THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ALTHOUGH THE OWNER INITIATED THE REZONING, THE RESULTING ZONING ENTITLEMENTS CON CONTEMPLATES A FOUR STORY DEVELOPMENT THAT CANNOT BE REASONABLY ACHIEVED WITH WITHIN THE APPLICABLE 25 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. END OF MOTION. HAVE A SECOND. SECOND, SECOND, MR. MANO. MR. I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. UM, PARTICULARLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES ALREADY HAVE FOUR STORY STRUCTURES. I THINK THAT THIS CONTEXTUALLY MAKES SENSE SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. YEAH. AND I CONCUR. I WOULD, UH, GIVE MY SUPPORT. ALSO WE HAVE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM APPROVAL FROM STAFF SO THAT, UH, KIND OF GIVES MY SUPPORT. SO ANYWAY, LET'S UH, TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER [01:55:01] BEES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZENA? YES. I CONCUR WITH 11 AND FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION GRANTING OF VARIANCE DOES PASS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. NEXT CASE. CASE NUMBER FIVE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 2. APPLICANT BEING ARMANDO SINO LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR LOCATED AT 3 2 6 CYPRESS GARDEN DRIVE ZONING AND BEING R SIX SINGLE FAMILY. UH, THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT TO BACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE LOCATED ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON CYBER GARDEN AND DRIVE LOCAL ROAD SURROUNDED BY A DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ORIGINATE FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE FOR BUILDING A CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. PER STAFF SITE VISIT IN AUGUST OF 2026, THE CARPORT REMAINS CONSTRUCTED, STAFFED TO PER DETERMINE THE CARPORT'S LOCATION. NECESSITATE NECESSITATED A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT STEP BACK. THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 2 ON THE SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF THE FACT ONE, ALTHOUGH THE CARD REPORT HAS BEEN DIS CONSTRUCTED, GRANTED A REDUCED FRONT SETBACK FOR ONE LOCK COULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR REDUCED SETBACKS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MAY NOT PROVIDE AMPLE ROOM TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF TO THEIR SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO MOVE THE CARPORTS LOCATION FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO MEET CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 39 NOTICES WERE MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR. SO THERE WERE OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED. UH, NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MAAM? SO, SO ON THE, THAT PICTURE THERE, UM, SO IT ALMOST LOOKS, UH, SO DID YOU MEASURE THE OVERHANG PORT OR THE PART OF THE POLE? UM, WITH REGARDS TO 10 FOOT? THE OVERHANG IS AT THE ONE INCH OVER THE FRONT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT DID LOOKED CLOSER THAN THAT, BUT OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I CRUZ, MS. CRUZ, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER CARPORTS IN THAT AREA CLOSE TO HIM THAT WOULD GIVE HIM A, A BENEFIT OF WHY HE DECIDED TO DO THIS CARPORT? SURE. THAT'S, DUNNO THE SPECIFIC ADDRESS, BUT THERE'S UH, I GUESS 3, 3 8 CYPRESS GARDEN DRIVE IS PROBABLY ONE SIMILAR BESIDES THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME CONTRACTOR. MM-HMM. BECAUSE IT'S ALUMINUM. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. CRUZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN MR. ORIAN? SO, SO THE CARPORT IS EXTENDING INTO THE GRASS PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. DOES THAT RECLASSIFY IT AS NOT A CARPORT ANYMORE SINCE YOU CAN'T REALLY PARK UNDER IT? IS THAT BECOME SOMETHING ELSE? I, I THINK DEFINITELY WE'RE STILL OPEN ON ALL THREE SIDES, SO STILL FALLS UNDER A CARPORT. OKAY. I MEAN I, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THERE'S PRETTY, A PRETTY LARGE AMOUNT THERE. THAT'S THAT I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. YEAH. ON THAT, ON THAT TUNE, ON THAT PORTION THAT'S COVERED BY THE ROOF, IS THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER, IS THAT PERVIOUS? 'CAUSE IT'S AS A ROOF STRUCTURE ABOVE IT, I BELIEVE WE WOULD STILL CONSIDER IT PERVIOUS COVERAGE. OKAY. GOTCHA. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD? UH, MY NAME IS ARMANDO. [02:00:03] THE REASON WHY I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I NEED YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE, THE CARPORT THAT IT ENDS WHERE THE LINE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ENDS. YES. OH, IT'S, I, ANTONIO. SO THE REASON WHY I BUILT IT, I REALLY DIDN'T WANT IT TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT LAST YEAR, UM, IT WAS RAINING. HELL, ALL OF MY VEHICLES GOT DAMAGED, SO I DECIDED TO BUILD THE CARPORT. SO THEY CAN BE PROTECTED. AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE MEASUREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS FOR THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE CARPORT. SO I WAS DRIVING AROUND AND I SAW ON A GREENHOUSE THAT HAS THE SAME CARPORT, AND ALSO ON MY, THE LEFT OF MY HOUSE, THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE WITH A CARPORT LIKE THAT. SO WHEN THE CONTRACTOR CAME BY, I TOLD HIM, LOOK, THIS IS THE ONE HOW I WANT IT. LIKE, SO IF I WERE TO KNOW ABOUT THE MEASUREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS IN PLACE FOR, FOR THESE TYPE OF BUILDINGS, THEN I WOULD'VE, UM, COMPLY WITH THE CITY RULES AND MEASUREMENTS. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHY I AM HERE TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE IT FOR ME. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANA, MR. MANA? UM, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE WIDTH OF THE CARPORT AND HOW IT ACTUALLY GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT DOOR. AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU CUT DOWN A TREE TO MAKE ROOM FOR IT. SO IT WAS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL TREE THAT WAS IN THE FRONT YARD. SO IS THERE A REASON FOR HAVING IT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT DOOR? SO, THE REASON WHY I MADE IT SO WIDE, IT IS BECAUSE I HAVE THREE VEHICLES AND I WANTED THEM TO BE, UM, COVERED. ONE OF THEM, I PUT 'EM INSIDE THE GARAGE AND THE OTHER TWO OUTSIDE IN A UNDER THE CARPORT. AND THE REASON WHY I MADE IT SO WIDE TOO IS BECAUSE I HAVE TWO LITTLE KIDS. ONE IS 1-YEAR-OLD AND THE OTHER ONE IS TWO YEARS OLD. AND WHEN IT'S RAINING, THEY HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR RUNNING, UM, BECAUSE IT'S RAINING SO THEY DON'T GET WET. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THERE, SO THE WIDTH, SO YOU'RE NOT PARKING A VEHICLE IN THE GRASS, IS THAT TRUE? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS? MR. STEVENS, WHICH DIRECTION DOES THE, THE ROOF PITCH OR SIDEWALK? TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK? THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. STEVENS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HERE? OKAY, THANK YOU. WE'LL CALL HIM UP IN A SECOND. BACK QUESTION STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS OR VOICEMAIL TO BE READ IN OR NO PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. ANY OTHER FINAL [02:05:01] QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? OKAY. THAT CLOSE CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE A MOTION. I STEVENS MR. STEVENS REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OH EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 1 42. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRAND REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 3 2 6 CYPRESS GARDEN DRIVE. APPLICANT BEING ARMANDO SINO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF HIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE, AS THE CARPORT WILL REMAIN CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY AND WILL NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC OBSTRUCTION. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE EXISTING SITE CONFIGURATION AND LIMITED AVAILABLE AREA CREATES SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT MAY COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED SET FRONT SETBACK AND PRACTICAL, WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE EXER, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP FOR EITHER PROPERTY. ABUTTING THIS LOT THE VARIANCE ALLOWS REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTENT OF THE CODE AND AVOIDING UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. 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. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT. 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. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE, DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING CONFIGURATION AND SITE CONSTRAINTS CREATE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE AND ARE NOT DISTINCT FROM GENERAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, DO I GET A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SECOND. MS. MANNA. MR. STEVENS? UH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. THIS IS ANOTHER REQUEST THAT WE SEE PRETTY OFTEN. UM, I'LL NOTE THAT THE ONE INCH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE APPEARS TO BE MEASURED FROM A SLIGHT OVERHANG AND THE STRUCTURE IS NON-COMBUSTIBLE AND THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF APPEARS TO BE FAVORABLE IN TERMS OF, UH, ADJACENT AND A BUDDING NEIGHBORS. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. THANKS MR. MANA. UM, I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL, ALTHOUGH I AM SADDENED TO SEE THAT A BIG TREE WAS CUT DOWN TO PUT THIS IN. UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, THAT WE HAVE APPROVED. SO WE, WE ARE APPEARS TO BE APPROVING FOR THIS TYPE OF BUILDING, UH, IN THIS, IN THIS COMMUNITY. AND I'LL, I'LL BE IN FAVOR TOO. AND, UM, JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. HE'LL NEED A, A BUILDING PERMIT RIGHT? TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE, UH, THE STRUCTURE KIND OF STANDING. 'CAUSE HE HAD, HE DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT BEFORE. AND IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE HERE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME TYPE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH, THE NORMAL PERMITTING PROCESS. THE PERMITTING PRO PROCESS. RIGHT. SO FOR THAT, I AM APPROVING, I AM SUPPORTING THE VARIANCES. READ. OKAY. CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR DINA? YES, I CONCUR. UH, LEVI IN FAVOR IS YOUR OPPOSITION. THE MOTION GRANTING OF VARIANCE DOES PASS. CONGRATULATIONS. ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE, PLEASE. MR. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM [02:10:01] NUMBER SIX, BO OA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 4 7 LOCATED IN DISTRICT SEVEN AT 80 15 MISTY BLUFF. HIS ZONING IS R SIX AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG MSTY BLUFF WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AMONGST PROPERTIES. ALSO ZONE R SIX ERZD. THE CASE ORIGINATED FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. UPON VISITING THE SITE IN JULY, 2026, STAFF FOUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ATTACHED PATIO HAD BEEN COMPLETED. AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS THE PATIO HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED SOMETIME BETWEEN DECEMBER, 2025 AND JULY, 2026. THIS IS A SITE PLAN. THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS ENOUGH FOR THE RARE SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. ONE, THE REDUCED SETBACK VARIANCE COULD LEAVE INSUFFICIENT ROOM TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FIRE CONCERNS AND WATER RUNOFF INTO A ABUDDING PROPERTIES. TWO. THE EXPANSION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BUILD AN ATTACHED COVERED PATIO IS PERMITTED SO LONG AS IT ABIDES BY CURRENT UC. REGULATIONS SUCH AS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF MAIL AT 41 NOTICES ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR DURING OPPOSITION VOICEMAILS. WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WITH 200 FEET. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? ALRIGHT, HEARING HONOR, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. HI. HELLO. HI, MY NAME IS WAN MOHAMED AND THIS IS MY WIFE. I LIVE, I LIVE WITH THE PROPERTY. UM, SO I BOUGHT THIS HOUSE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. UH, BUT THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS CALLED RIVER MIST. I'VE BEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE MY PARENTS, UH, LIVED DOWN LIKE FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES DOWN. SO, UM, WE, WE LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 25. I, I LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 24 YEARS. IT WAS BUILT IN 20 2004. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, I LOVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHY I BOUGHT THE HOUSE THERE. SO MY PARENTS ARE CLOSE BY. UM, GROWING UP I NEVER HAD A BACKYARD WHERE I COULD, UH, DO BARBECUE OR PLAY IN THE BACKYARD BECAUSE, UH, I, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO I, I DO HAVE TWO KIDS WHO ARE SIX AND THREE YEARS OLD. SO I DO HAVE, UM, I DID CONTACT THE HOA BEFORE I STARTED THE PROJECT. UH, I STARTED IN JULY. SO RIGHT IN THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. SO I DID TAKE THEIR PERMISSION AND CAN I SHOW THIS? SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE HOA APPROVAL. UM, I DID TELL THEM THE DIMENSIONS AND ON HOW I WAS BUILDING IT. UH, AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE, OF MY PROPERTY. WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE. UM, I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY, UM, SETBACK REQUIREMENT BECAUSE HERE CLEARLY IT DOESN'T STATE THAT. SO THIS IS MY SIDE PLAN. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THAT ALSO. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S MY, UM, RESIDENT IN THE BACK. LIKE IN THE FRONT THERE IS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BUT IN THE BACK THERE IS, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING. THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. SO I DID, WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THE REAL ESTATE AGENT MAY, I THINK MISINFORMED ME. YEAH, THERE'S NO SETBACK. YOU CAN BUILD IT. UH, THAT'S ONE, THAT WAS THE ONE MISINFORMATION SENT, UH, THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME AT THAT TIME. SO I DIDN'T, BUT THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. SO I DID GO BACK TO IT. AND THEN THE CONTRACTOR THAT I HIRED, I HAD ASKED HIM ALSO ABOUT THE PERMIT AND STUFF. HE THOUGHT, I THINK THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION. HE THOUGHT JUST BECAUSE I GOT THE HOA APPROVAL THAT HE THOUGHT THAT I GOT THE PERMIT. SO THAT WAS THE CONFUSION PART. AND THEN HERE IS THE, UM, I GOT, I HAD, UH, TWO, THREE ENGINEERS LOOK AT IT AFTER IT WAS BUILT. AND THEN THAT'S THE SITE, THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. UM, THEY DO LOOK AT THE WATER, HOW IT RUN. IT HAS TWO S SWES, ACCORDING TO THIS CIVIL ENGINEER THAT THERE'S A COMPANY RIGHT THERE. THEY DID LOOK AT IT AND THEN THE WATER DOES NOT STOP. AND IT DID RAIN AFTER THAT. WE KNOW WE HAD THE, AFTER JULY, WE HAD THE BIG RAIN. UH, THE WATER IS FLOWING THERE BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S LOCATED IN MY PROPERTY, UH, IT GOES, UM, IF, IF, IF I HAD A PICTURE OF THE BACK OF THE FENCE AND THE WATER RUNS DOWN ON BOTH SIDES. AND, AND THERE IS A, YOU SEE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS, THERE IS A SEWER SYSTEM. SO THE WATER NEVER STANDS THERE, NUMBER ONE. AND THEN, UM, UH, IT DOES STILL HAVE 15 FEET, 15.2 FEET OF, UH, SETBACK SET IN THE BACKYARD. SO THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE. [02:15:01] AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, I DID TALK TO MY NEIGHBORS. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THE ONE ON THE LEFT. UH, THEY WERE IN, UH, FAVOR OF THIS. AND I HAVE THE LETTER THAT THEY SIGNED. SO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, WELL, ACTUALLY RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE, THE, THE FENCE THAT I'M SHARING WITH HER NAME IS JUANITA GOMEZ. SO, UM, SO THIS, UM, SO SHE'S IN FAVOR AND SHE HAS, I HAVE ALL THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT NEXT TO ME AND BEHIND ME, THEY ARE SUPPORT. AND I HAVE THEIR SIGNATURES. I WENT TO THEM AND I TALKED TO THEM. SO THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS IF I HAD KNOWN, UM, IF I HAD KNOWN LIKE THAT THERE WAS A, BECAUSE IN MY MIND IT WAS A FIVE FEET, BECAUSE I KEPT ASKING THE, UM, THE CONTRACTORS AND THEY SAID IT WAS, OH, AS LONG AS YOU'RE FIVE FEET AWAY, YOU'RE GOOD. YOU'RE NOT LIKE IN THEIR BACKYARD, NOTHING. SO, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, UH, I MADE A MISTAKE AND I'M HERE FOR YOU Y'ALL'S APPROVAL BECAUSE, UM, I, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE I'M A NEW HOMEOWNER. LIKE I SAID, I BOUGHT THE HOUSE TWO YEARS AGO. BUT IT IS A MISTAKE THAT I, AND I'M WILLING TO CORRECT IT IF IT NEEDED TO BE. BUT I MAINLY DID IT IN MY MIND, THINKING THAT MY KIDS WOULD GROW UP WITH A BACKYARD THAT I NEVER HAD IN MY, UM, I, I LIVED IN THAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 2004. IT WAS BUILT IN SEPTEMBER, 2004. UH, MY, MY ORIGINAL ADDRESS WAS WHERE MY PARENTS LIVE AS 1 0 8 3 AT HILLSDALE LOOP. IT'S FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES DOWN THE STREET. SO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE I JUST GOT UP AND DID IT. I DID ASK HOA, I DID HAVE THE SITE PLAN, UH, BUT I WAS NOT AWARE. I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE THERE'S A LOT OF SAN ANTONIO WHO PEOPLE LIVE THERE NOT AWARE OF THE CITY PROCESS. THEY THINK, UH, BECAUSE THE CONTRACTORS COME IN, OH, YOU HAVE AN IDEA. OH, THEY'LL JUMP ON IT. EVERYBODY GETS EXCITED AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU LOST THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH ME. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. THAT IS MY SITUATION. I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO KNOW. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. LET, IF WE, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. MOHAM MANA, MR. MANNA. SO REGARDING, UM, UH, DO YOU HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK THAT YOU USE FOR STORAGE AT TIME? UM, CORRECT. THE STORAGE, YES. SO THERE'S, YEAH, THERE'S A STORAGE, STORAGE SHED. YEAH. AND SO PART OF THE DIALOGUE OF, OF WHERE WE GO IS, IS WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ENTIRE YARDS AREN'T BEING COVERED AND, AND NOT ALLOWING FOR WATER RUNOFF OF, YOU KNOW, WATER ABSORPTION. AND SO, UM, I GUESS A QUESTION FOR STAFF WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE START TO APPROACH, UM, IMPERIAL COVERED COVERAGE, SO DOES THAT WEIGH INTO THIS DIALOGUE AT ALL? IT DOES NOT. UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ONLY FOR THE FRONT YARD. UH, WE OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SQUARE FOOTAGE. UM, BUT THAT'S NOT RELATED TO THIS PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ADDITION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, CAN I ADD SOMETHING FOR THE STORAGE? I DID GET PERMIT THAT WAS BUILT ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND THE HO HAD APPROVED IT. AS LONG AS IT HAS THE FIVE FEET SET BACK, THEY'RE GOOD BECAUSE IT'S NOT ATTACHED LIKE THIS ONE. SO I WAS MISINFORMED. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? ALL RIGHT. ORIAN ORIAN HISTORIAN. YEAH. UM, THE, THE FACT THAT HE'S OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, DOES THAT AFFECT ANY OF THIS OR STAFF? IT DOES NOT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, VOICEMAILS OR, OR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHTY. WELL, IT'S A VERY WELL-BUILT STRUCTURE. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. SO YOUR CONTRACTOR DID A NICE JOB, UNFORTUNATELY , IT WAS FIVE FEET OVER THE RIGHT. 15. UM, SO, ALRIGHT, UH, LET'S SEE IF WE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND SEE IF WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. ORIAN, I'LL READ IT. HIS VICTORIAN, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO OA DASH 26 DASH OH 3 0 1 47. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK SITUATED AT 80 15 MISTY BUFF APPLICANT BEING RIZWAN MOHAMMED, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AS THE PORCH LOCATION LEAVES OPEN SPACE IN THE BACKYARD. TWO TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS A LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME AND SIZE OF THE BACKYARD, WHICH LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR BOTH A PORCH AND THE ADHERENCE TO A REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK. 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 OF THE SETBACK. IT'S MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER PROPERTY ABIDING. THIS LOT FOR THE VARIANCE [02:20:01] WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES ON THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BRANDING THIS VARIANCE SHOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE ARE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION. AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT REDUCE THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPTH OF THE BACKYARD, WHICH LIMITS THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PORCH. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, DO WE GET A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SECOND, MS. VEGA. UM, ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD MS. ORIAN, DO YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME YEAH, I MEAN, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. IT'S A, IT IS A VERY WELL-BUILT PORCH. I HAVE ONE VERY SIMILAR IN MY BACKYARD AND IT DOES PROVIDE A LOT OF, OF, UM, YOU KNOW, EMPHASIS TO THE REAR YARD AND THE ABILITY TO BE OUT THERE IN THOSE HOT DAYS. AND, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. MS. BEVIS, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. YEAH. AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. OBVIOUSLY, LIKE THE PRIOR CASE AND PRIOR, UH, PARKING STRUCTURE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GET THE PERMITS FROM THE CITY, WHICH WOULD, UH, ENTAIL A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MAKE SURE IT'S BUILT IN A SOUND MANNER. SO, UH, FOR THAT REASON, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEFORE US FOR THIS VARIANCE AND GIVES US A CHANCE TO JUST, UH, GET THE, GET IT UP TO CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE, UH, BUILDING CODES. SO SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS READ. ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. YES. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. VICE CHAIR IS ENOUGH. YES, I CONCUR AGAIN WITH 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION. GRANTED, THE VARIANCE DOES PASS. CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK. ALRIGHT, RIGHT. NEXT CASE THIS WOULD BE, UH, JUMP INTO CASE NUMBER EIGHT, RIGHT? YEAH. EIGHT ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BO EIGHT DASH TWO SIX S 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 2. LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO AT 2 5 1 CUNNINGHAM AVENUE. THE ZONING IS R SIX. THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SECONDARY STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO ALLOW SECONDARY STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. TWO, A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET, TWO SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO INCLUDE A ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED OFF CUNNINGHAM AVENUE AND IS PART OF AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT IS LOCATED ACROSS FORT SAM HOUSTON TO THE SOUTH. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY USE AND ARE LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MR ZONE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST FOR ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY OUTLINED STANDARDS ADDRESSING THE HEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURES WERE THE ORIGIN OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S VARIANCE REQUEST PER STAFF VISIT TO THE SITE. IN AUGUST OF 2026, THE PROPOSED RENOVATION AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING GARAGE HAVE NOT BEEN STARTED YET. STAFF ALSO FOUND EXISTING CONDITIONS TO NECESSITATE ASIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE UDC SETBACK STANDARDS. THIS IS A SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE NCD NINE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, IF GRANTED, THE PROPOSED RENOVATION WOULD EXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE HEIGHT FOR A SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN THE NCD NINE DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND POTENTIALLY INJURE THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATION. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD LIMIT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO MEET THE OUTLINED HEIGHT STANDARD, WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN NON NECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SIGNS. THE FACT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A TWO FOOT SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK COULD IMPACT FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, FOR SURROUNDING STRUCTURES MAY INCREASE WATER RUNOFF INTO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. THEIR PROPOSED RENOVATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN STARTED YET AND COULD STILL BE PLANNED TO ADHERE TO UDC SETBACK REGULATIONS. STAFF MAIL THAT 18 NOTICES. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, ZERO VOICEMAILS [02:25:01] WERE RECEIVED. AND THE WESTFORD ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? YEAH, ORIAN IAN. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE REAR YARD, UH, IN THIS BLOCK. UH, ARE ANY OF THEM TWO STORIES? I AM DUNNO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I CAN LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREA. OKAY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. I OH YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD MEMBERS, UM, I THINK SHE'S GONNA HAND OUT PACKETS THAT WE PUT TOGETHER. MY NAME IS RICHARD BECKER. UM, MY WIFE, PATRICIA JACOBY BECKER AND MYSELF ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 2 5 1 CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU. UM, WE ARE REQUESTING, UH, VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR TWO ISSUES. UH, ONE IS THE HIGH REQUIREMENT FROM THE NCD, UM, WHICH STATES THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE CANNOT BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY. AND, UH, THE SECOND, UH, VARIANCE IS FOR THE, UH, UM, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. UM, SO WHAT WE, WHAT WE WERE PLANNING TO DO IS HAVE A AN A DU, WHICH WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY, UM, APPROVAL. WE HAVE A-A-C-O-D, WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED AND IS ON FILE. UM, AND WHEN THE, UM, INSPECTORS WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, THEY FOUND THE, THE SETBACK. WELL, THE STRUCTURE IS A GARAGE THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1949. UM, WE FEEL THAT HAVING TO MOVE THAT , THE GARAGE JUST TO FIT THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR US. UM, WE SPOKE WITH, UH, THE NCD. WE MET WITH THEM. UM, THEY, THEY HAVE APPROVAL FOR OUR PROJECT. WE HAVE ENGINEERS LETTER THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION. UM, IN ADDITION, WE'VE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SLIDE SHOWING THAT. SO LET'S GO TO, UM, NUMBER ONE, THE BEFORE HERE. OKAY. SO YES, THIS IS OUR, THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. YOU CAN SEE THE GARAGE IN THE BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY THERE. UM, TOWARDS THE, THE BACK OVER THE, THE ROOF OF THE GARAGE. YOU SEE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE BEHIND US AND THAT'S A SECONDARY STRUCTURE. SO YOU, SOMEONE WAS ASKING, ARE THERE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE TWO STORY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THERE'S ONE EXAMPLE RIGHT BEHIND US. WHAT'S THAT? THERE'S THREE AROUND US. YEAH, THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR OF THOSE AROUND US. YOU CAN'T SEE 'EM, BUT THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE. SO THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE SITUATION. UM, WE'RE AWARE THE CITY HAS, UH, ISSUED TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST. HOWEVER, AS WE DEMONSTRATE TODAY, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON RIGID READING OF MODERN DIMENSIONS FOR A NEW BUILDING. OUR APPLICATION REPRESENTS A UNIQUE HISTORICAL PHYSICAL HARDSHIP WHERE THE STRUCTURE HAS STOOD SAFELY SINCE 1949. UH, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RULES CREATES EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND HARDSHIP DUE TO UNIQUE PHYSICAL, UH, PREEXISTING CONSTRAINTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE UBC OR UDC AND THE NCD OVERLAY. UM, SO WE'RE ON PHOTO ONE. YOU SEE OUR CURRENT 77-YEAR-OLD GARAGE. UM, WE HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION ON FILE. UM, FOOTPRINT IS PRE-EXISTING. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT TO THAT SETBACK. WE JUST WANT TO GO UP, WE WANNA PUT AN A DU ON TOP OF IT. SO THAT'S WHERE THE NCDS VARIANCE [02:30:01] WOULD COME IN. UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT SETBACK. IT'S THE SAME THING. UM, YES, IT'S LESS THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET, I THINK, I THINK TOTAL IS FOUR FEET TO THE WALL OF THE STRUCTURE. BUT, UM, AGAIN, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD CHANGE THAT ANYWAY. UM, MOVING THE STRETCHER TO CONFORM WITH THE MODERN FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT TEARING DOWN THIS, THIS ASSET. UH, FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL, UH, COMPACT LAYOUT OF THE LOT AND ITS UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHICAL SLOPE, IT SLOPES FROM THE STREET TOWARDS THE BACKYARD. SO ANYTHING DONE TO THAT STRUCTURE WOULD BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY IN THE FRONT. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE TWO, WHICH IS YES, THAT ONE, UM, IT KIND OF SHOWS THE LAYOUT OF IT. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS THE, THE LOWER SIDE. AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS THE BACKYARD, IT SLOPES UP. UM, SECONDARY HIDE VARIANCE IS UNIQUELY REQUIRED. SO WE CAN MAINTAIN, UH, IMPLEMENT A STRUCTURALLY SOUND ROOF PITCH. UH, THAT WILL MIRROR THE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. OUR CONSTRUCTION WANTS TO, WANTS TO RESTORE THE, THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TO LOOK SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. AND WE WANT TO HAVE FUNCTIONAL UNIT BACK THERE ON THE A DU. SO THIS REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM DEPARTURE POSSIBLE TO SAFELY UTILIZE THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND IT WILL HAVE A COMPLETELY POSITIVE ARCHITECTURAL IMPACT. SLIDE THREE. SO THESE ARE, UM, ARTISTS RENDERING OF PROPOSED AFTER PRODUCTS. ON THE BOTTOM THERE IS WHAT WE WANT THE FINISHED GARAGE FACING TO LOOK LIKE. AND YOU CAN SEE KIND OF A RELEVANCE, UH, WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. UM, DESIGN ENSURES SECONDARY STRUCTURE, HEIGHT, UH, COMPLIMENTS RATHER THAN COMPETES WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. UH, BECAUSE SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, UTILITIES AND THE FOUNDATION CONCRETE FOUNDATION ARE ALREADY PRE-EXISTING AND ACTIVE, THE TRANSITION REQUIRES MINIMAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION AS FAR AS TRENCHING GOES. UM, PROUD TO SHARE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS WITH OUR COMMUNITY. PAGE FOUR. UM, WE DID, LIKE I SAID, UH, SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE, THE NCD. WE HAVE THE N CD'S APPROVAL ON THIS PROJECT. WE PERSONALLY SPOKE WITH THEM, GAVE THEM THE SAME IN INFORMATION, OUR ENGINEERS REPORT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND THEY HAVE APPROVED IT. SO WE HAVE THEIR SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, UM, PAGES FIVE AND SIX, START WITH PAGE FIVE. UM, SHOWS IN GREEN THERE, THE NEIGHBORS THAT ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO US AND SIX IS THEIR LETTERS SHOWING APPROVAL. UM, SO FOUR, UH, OUT OF ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE WITHIN THAT, THAT UH, DOTTED LINE, WE, WE TRIED TO SPEAK WITH THEM. FOUR OF 'EM RESPONDED TO US WITH POSITIVE LETTERS. UM, IN SUMMARY, ITS REQUEST MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY SAN ANTONIO CODE. IT IS ROOTED IN CLEAR PRE-EXISTING PHYSICAL HARDSHIP, MAINTAINING HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT, FEATURES READY UTILITIES, AND CARRIES UNANIMOUS BACKING OF BOTH OUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION BOARD. IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF SAN ANTONIO'S VARIANCE CRITERIA. OUR COVENANT AGREEMENT WARRANTY DEED, A-D-D-R-A-V-A, A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION ENGINEERS LETTER, PROPERTY SURVEY. ALL OF THIS IS ON FILE, UM, WITH COMPLIANCE. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE TO THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS. MY WIFE PATRICIA AND I ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IAN? OH, WHAT, HOLD ON MR. GOMEZ, JUST REALLY QUICK. UH, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. MR. GOMEZ WAS FIRST AND THEN, AND THEN YOU CAN, OH, APOLOGIZE. YES. YES. I GOT A QUESTION. HAVE YOU HAD AN ENGINEER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION ON AN EXISTING BUILDING? YES. THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE, THE GARAGE, THE STRUCTURE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. YES. YES. AND YOU GOT AN APPROVAL AS FAR AS THE, THE STRICTLY SOUND WE HAVE PUT IN FOR, UM, A RENOVATION. AND DURING THAT, THAT [02:35:01] PROCESS, THE APPLICATION IS IN, IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE NOW. UM, WE PUT IN THE ENGINEER'S LETTER, UH, FOR THAT PERMIT. UM, AND IN THERE IT SAYS THAT THE STRUCTURE IS SOUND AND IT CAN HOLD THE LOAD OF A SECOND STORY. WE HAVE ALSO, UM, PUT IN FOR AN A DU ALREADY THAT'S BEEN APPROVED, UM, AS WELL. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . CAN WE JUST GET YOUR NAME? 'CAUSE IT, THE MEETING'S BEING RECORDED. IT'S PATRICIA JACOBY BECKER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHT. UH, MS. DO. YEAH. SO, UM, IF WITH THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND MAYBE THIS IS MORE TOWARDS STAFF, IS THIS GONNA PUT THEM NEAR THE LIMIT TO WHAT THEY COULD HAVE? UH, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR THEIR TOTAL? BECAUSE I, I, ONE THING I NOTICED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BLOCK, THERE'S A LOT OF GIST STUFF. I MEAN, BUILDINGS A LOT MORE, THERE'S LESS, UH, PERVIOUS COVER GOING ON. AND I, AND I PERSONALLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SOLELY SO THAT THEY COULD KEEP THEIR YARD AND NOT HAVE IT WALL TO WALL IN PERVIOUS COVER, LIKE THE PEOPLE BEHIND THEM, UH, AND ON THAT SIDE OF THE BLOCK. SO, UM, BUT IT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER IF THIS WOULD HELP GET THEM TO THAT MAX LIMIT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THEIR PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND DID STAFF LOOK AT ANY OF THAT? SO WE DIDN'T SEE THAT THEY WERE IN DANGER OF EXCEEDING THE MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUM SIZE OF, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UM, OR THE FOOTPRINT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. IS THAT, AND THAT AND THAT PERCENTAGE, IS THAT BASED ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE, THE GARAGE AND THE SECOND FLOOR DWELLING TOGETHER? OR IS IT JUST THE FOOTPRINT? THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY ITSELF HAS A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. OKAY. IS THE FOOTPRINT ON THE SATURN REAR YARD? THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, JUST A DWELLING. SOUNDS AWESOME. WELL, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS NAME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. DORIAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA MR. MANNA? SO ON, ON PAGE FIVE OF THE PACKET THAT WE, ON PAGE FIVE OF THE PACKET WE HAD, UM, IT SHOWS THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, UM, THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S A, A POWER LINE OR SOME KIND OF UTILITY COMING ACROSS FROM A TELEPHONE POLE TO THE MA TO THE MAIN HOUSE. UM, THAT WOULD BE BLOCKED IF IT WAS ANY TALLER. UM, SO, SO, UM, ARE ADJUSTMENTS BEING MADE FOR HOW WE'RE GONNA GET POWER TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE VERSUS THE SECONDARY? OF COURSE WE WOULD, YES. MM-HMM . HOWEVER, THE, UM, THE, THE POWER GOES FROM THE POLE. YOU SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR? UH, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. THE, THE POWER GOES FROM THE POLE TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FIRST AND THEN OVER TO THE HOUSE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. THE, YEAH. YEAH. THE MAIN BREAKER IS IN THAT GARAGE. YEAH. THERE IS A, THERE'S A LINE RUNNING IT AND I ASSUMED IT'S, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS A LITTLE VOLTAGE OR NOT, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PICTURE WHERE IT SHOWS THE LINE GOING OVER THAT STRUCTURE AND JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S BEING ACCOUNTED FOR. UM, OKAY. WHAT DO I THINK YOU, UH, MY QUICK QUESTION, I HAD A QUESTION. YEAH. JUST KIND OF A MAINTENANCE ON THAT SIDE WITH THE TWO AND A HALF FOOT SETBACK, RIGHT? ARE YOU GONNA BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT SIDE OR DO YOU HAVE A COOPERATION FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR TO SO THAT SIDE HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR THE LAST, UM, 13 YEARS THAT WE OWN THE PROPERTY. OKAY. UM, THERE'S JUST GRAVEL BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THAT FENCE LINE. WE'RE VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS, UM, FRIENDS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS THERE. UM, NOTHING WOULD OVERHANG AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY A ONE FOOT OVERHANG FROM THE ROOF LINE. OKAY. UM, AND THAT WOULD JUST GO STRAIGHT UP. WE WOULD MIMIC THE ROOF THAT WE HAVE NOW. IT'S A HIP ROOF THAT, UM, IS ON THAT ROOF RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S A VERY LOW PROFILE. I SEE. AND IS THERE ANY STRUCTURES ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE THAT WOULD, I DON'T SEE ANY, NO, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PICTURE, BUT NOTHING THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A FIRE KIND OF HAZARD TO BE CLOSE TO THE STRUCTURE. NOT ON THAT SIDE. NOT UNLESS I CAN WALK THROUGH THE, IT'S FOUR FEET FROM THE WALL TO THE FENCE. OH, I SEE. OKAY. I CAN WALK THROUGH THAT. OKAY. THE OVERHANG IS WHAT PUT IT AT, I SEE. TWO AND A HALF FEET. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? OKAY, UH, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN OR NO PUBLIC COMMENT? ALRIGHT, JAR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION REGARDING THAT EAST WALL AGAIN. MM-HMM . CAN YOU DISCUSS AGAIN, THE, THE, I GUESS ARE YOU FIRE RATING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE IN THERE I ASSUME. UM, OH YEAH. OKAY. YES, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. IT'S PART OF THE, UM, BUILDING APPLICATION WHEN WE PUT IN FOR THAT, WE WILL HAVE TO FIRE RIGHT THAT EXCELLENT BY CODE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. DEAN. UH, THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION AND UH, SOUNDS LIKE, DO YOU WANNA READ THE MOTION THERE, MR. DEAN, ARE YOU GOOD OR? YES. OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION FROM SOME MEMBER OF THE BOARD, PLEASE [02:40:01] THOUGHT I'D ASK MANNA. SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 2, I MOVED THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE OF VARIANCE FROM THE NCD NINE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SECONDARY STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A SECONDARY STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND TWO, A TWO FOOT SIX INCH OH UH, PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS PROVIDED, UH, IN THE, IN THE LAYOUT. SO, SO LIMITED TO THAT. UM, AND TWO, A TWO FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET SIX INCH SIDE SETBACK TO INCLUDE A ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG SITUATED AT 2 5 1 CUNNINGHAM AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING PATRICIA BECKER BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED US IN THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER'S PROPERTY IS SUCH AS LITTLE ENFORCEMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED THE REQUEST WOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR GOALS OF THE NCD NINE NOR IMPACT FIRE SPREAD OR WATER RUNOFF MITIGATION MEASURES TO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY, UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS THE LONG TIME EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OPPOSED ON THE SECONDARY STRUCTURES IN THE NCD NINE THREE OF OUR GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPARE, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REDUCTION OF THE SIDE SETBACK IS MINIMAL AND WILL CAUSE NO HARDSHIP TO EITHER THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THIS LOT. THE DEVIATION FROM THE NCD NINE STANDARD WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHER NCD NINE GUIDELINES THAT THE STRUCTURE MUST STILL ADHERE TO FOR THE VARIANCE OF NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS, 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 OF PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE, THE, I'M SORRY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION AND THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PERMIT A STRUCTURE THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE, UH, PROPERTY FOR WHICH THIS VARIANCE SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, UH, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE P APPLY TO THE OWNER THAT, UH, IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR SECONDARY STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT AND THE LONG EXISTING SECONDARY STRUCTURE. AND I DID READ IT, UH, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY WITH REGARDS TO THE MOTION THAT, UH, IT IS RESTRICTED TO THE ELEVATION PROVIDED, UH, BY THE APPLICANTS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THAT KINDA LOCKS IN WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SECOND. UH, WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? BEEZ. OH, MS. BENAVIDEZ. MS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, SO I, I THINK, UH, SO ONE, UH, WE HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN FAVOR. UH, WE ALSO HAVE THE COMMUNITY IN FAVOR. I THINK IT'S A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. UM, AND I THINK THAT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS IT'LL ENSURE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, IT IS BUILT TO ENSURE THAT THE FIRE SPREAD ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN BY HAVING THE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS DEFINED. UH, IT IS USING THE EXISTING, UM, FOOTPRINT OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE CURRENTLY. AND UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE RESTRICTED TO THE, UH, ELEVATION IS PROVIDED BY THE, UM, UH, APPLICATION, UM, I THINK THAT, UH, THIS WILL LOOK FINE IN THIS COMMUNITY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU MR. MENA. MS. BENAVIDEZ, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I'LL BE IN FAVOR FOR THE SAME REASONS. THEY HAVE THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT, THEY FOLLOWED ALL OF THE STEPS. UM, THEY'RE WITHIN THE FOOT, THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT, SO I WILL ALSO BE IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND FACT. VICE CHAIR ZENA? YES, I CONCUR WITH TENANT FAVOR. ONE ABSTENTION THE VARIANCE IS READ. DOES, UH, DID PASS. UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. CONGRATULATIONS. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, SO AT THIS POINT WE HAVE EXTERNAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL STAFF THAT, UH, UH, IS HERE IN THE MEETINGS. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, BOTH THE APPEALS AND THE MOTIONS. UH, SPECIAL GRANTING MOTIONS ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL CASES, WHICH WOULD BE 15, 16, AND 17, RIGHT? UM, CHAIR? YES. UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOG OFF. OKAY. SO THAT [02:45:01] THE TIME IS, UH, 3 55. MS. CRUZ IS, UH, LEAVING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEET MEETING THAT PUTS US DOWN TO 10 MEMBERS. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, OKAY. OKAY, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE ONE THAT SHOULD BE JOINING US. UM, WE'RE GONNA TRY TO GET 'EM ON RIGHT NOW. OKAY. WELL SHOULD WE WAIT FOR THE CASE OR JUST GO AHEAD AND START LISTENING? I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO START. OKAY. ALRIGHT STEPH, LET'S HEAR CASE NUMBER 15. GOOD AFTERNOON. TYLER ADAM PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS IS BO, A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 6. UM, PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6 33 EAST PARK AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT 10. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER IS ROXANNE LE AND THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT LOCATED AT 6 33 EAST PARK AVENUE. THIS IS A TYPE ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND IT IS ZONED, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. UM, AS MENTIONED, THIS IS 6 33 EAST PARK AVENUE. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY. UH, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. UM, AS NOTED IN OUR, UM, ORDINANCE, STR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT MONTHLY HOT TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT. UH, THIS INCLUDES REPORTING ZERO IF NO REVENUE WAS COLLECTED. UM, UH, ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UM, REVENUE REPORTS WERE MISSING FROM MAY, 2025 THROUGH MARCH 20, 26. NINE. NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE BETWEEN JULY, 2025 AND MAY, 2026. AND A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON JULY 20TH, 2026. UM, NO PAYMENT WAS MADE AND SO, UM, PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON AUGUST 4TH, 2026. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE MADE A LUMP SUM PAYMENT, UM, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY FILED THROUGH THE AVENUE PLATFORM. UM, UH, I INCLUDED THE UM, BLOCK FACE DENSITY COUNT. UH, THERE ARE 33 TOTAL UNITS ALONG THE BLOCK FACE WITH FOUR TYPE TWO ST. UM, THE DENSITY IS 12%, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A TYPE ONE PERMIT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO, UH, THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO CODE INVESTIGATIONS TO THIS PROPERTY, UM, FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE, UH, IN MAY OF 2024 AND IN APRIL OF 2025. BOTH HAVE SINCE BEEN CLOSED. UH, THE PERMIT IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED ON MAY 29TH, 2025, AND REVOKED ON AUGUST 4TH, 2026. UH, THIS IS THE ACTIVE LISTING. THIS IS THE COMMUNICATIONS, UH, SENT FROM AVENUE AS WELL AS THE, UH, EMAIL NOTICES SENT BY DSD STAFF AND THE SITE PLAN. AND THEN THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. UH, 28 NOTICES HAVE BEEN MAILED OUT. UM, WE'VE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED, UH, NO RESPONSE FROM TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE CITYWIDE GROUPS. UM, WE, UH, DID RECEIVE FOUR IN FAVOR FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE MANANA. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MANNA MANNA. SO ON ONE OF THE SLIDES THERE, IT SHOWED, UM, THAT THERE WERE TWO VIOLATIONS, RIGHT? THERE YOU GO. INVESTIGATIONS. SO, UM, I GUESS WHAT IS THE WORKFLOW FOR AN INVESTIGATION? SO WHAT COMMUNICATION, SO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL IS CLOSED. SO WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS? UM, ON EACH OF THOSE? UH, I BELIEVE THAT FIRST ONE WAS RESOLVED AS, UM, NO VIOLATION. THE SECOND ONE WAS RESOLVED WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR THE STR PERMIT. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THE FIRST WAS, UM, I KNOW WAS OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT. HOWEVER, UM, THE CODE, THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SO THAT CASE IN 2024 WAS CLOSED AND THEN REOPENED IN 2025, WHICH THEN CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS STILL OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR THEIR PERMIT. SO THEN FROM A TIMING OF TIME WISE PERSPECTIVE THEN, UM, SO, SO ALL OF THE DIALOGUE FOR WHAT IT TAKES TO RUN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WOULD'VE BEEN EXPLAINED AT THAT POINT OF WHEN IT IS THAT THEY CAME INTO, UH, CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL AFTER THE [02:50:01] FIRST TWO OR AFTER THE VIOLATION, CORRECT? CORRECT. THEY WERE NOTIFIED IN THE 2024 THAT THEY WERE OFFERED THAT A PERMIT. THERE WAS SOME TIME PERIOD, UM, AND THE CODE OFFICER RETIRED, NEW CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME IN. SO FOR THAT PROCESS WE REASSIGNED THE CASE TO THE NEW APPLICANT, TO THE NEW CODE OFFICER, WHICH IS WHY THAT FIRST ONE WAS CLOSED AND THEN REOPEN AGAIN IN 2025 TO RESTART THE WHOLE PROCESS OF NOTIFICATION. BUT THE, SO THE, SO THE INITIAL THING WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A, A, AN APPLICATION, BUT NOW IT'S THE, THE HOT TAX. AND THE HOT TAX WOULD'VE BEEN EXPLAINED WHEN IT WAS THAT THEY ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR, UH, TO, TO ACTUALLY GAIN THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT? CORRECT. UH, YEAH. SO THEY WERE BOTH NOTIFIED WITH WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THEN WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS. GOTCHA. THAT I GOT THE PART, PART WITHOUT THE PERMIT, BUT THE POT. BUT THE PORTION OF HOT TAX DELINQUENCY OR HAVING TO PAY THE HOT TAX WOULD'VE BEEN EXPLAINED WHEN IT IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY APPLIED. CORRECT? CORRECT. WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED THE PERMIT, THEY WERE GIVEN THE INFORMATION TO REPORT HOT TAXES ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAD A QUESTION THERE. OTHER THAN THE TA TAXES, WAS THERE ANY, UM, REPORTS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY LOUD MUTE NOISES OR ANY NUISANCE REPORTS ON THIS PROPERTY? UH, WE WOULD'VE TO GET WITH SAPD FOR THAT, BUT WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING NOISE. AND IS THIS, IS THIS THE ONLY SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UM, OPERATION THIS APPLICANT HAS? I BELIEVE SO, BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK. OKAY. ALRIGHTY. ENOUGH. UH, YEAH. UH, SO I GUESS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. HELLO EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. UM, BEFORE I GET INTO THE DETAILS, I'M VERY SORRY HOW WE GOT INTO THE SITUATION. I APOLOGIZE. I'M VERY BAD ABOUT CHECKING. CAN WE GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? OH, ROXANNE LEAL. 6 3 3 EAST PARK AVENUE. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU ARE WELCOME. UM, I AM NOT GREAT AT CHECKING MY MAIL, BUT AS SOON AS I SAW THE EMAIL, I'M MORE DIGITAL. I ATTEMPTED TO PAY THE HOTEL TAX AND, UM, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NEW TO ME 'CAUSE IT'S A NEWER SHORT-TERM RENTAL. I'M NOT EXCUSING IT AT ALL. I KNOW IT'S MY OBLIGATION, BUT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHY GOT BEHIND ME, NOT NEGLECT OR AVOIDANCE. UM, SO I DO HAVE A LIST OF EMAILS WHERE WHEN I WAS TRYING TO PAY IT ONLINE, I WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY, IS THIS SOMETHING TYLER THAT TYLER CAN SHARE? SO ON JULY 20TH, AS SOON AS I SAW THE EMAIL, UM, I ATTEMPTED TO PAY IT RIGHT AWAY. AND BETWEEN JULY AND EARLY AUGUST, MY ATTEMPTS TO PAY ON THE PORTAL, I LET THE AGENCY AND CITY KNOW THAT I WAS UNABLE TO GET IN THERE. THE SITE DID NOT HAVE ANY PAYMENT OPTIONS. SO, UM, I HAVE SEVERAL EMAILS THAT KIND OF SHOW BACK AND FORTH WITH ME AND AVENUE, WHICH I GUESS IS CALLED PNEUMO NOW AND THE CITY. AND ON AUGUST 4TH, UM, EXPLAINED THE PORTAL FAILURE, INABILITY TO ACCESS THE PAYMENT DOCUMENTATIONS TO UPLOAD. SO I CALLED AVENUE WHEN I WAS RECEIVED INCORRECT INFORMATION, AND THEN I FOLLOWED UP ON AUGUST 5TH AND THEN AUGUST 6TH AND THEN AUGUST 7TH, AND THEN AROUND AUGUST 10TH, I WAS ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHY I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET IN THERE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT, WHICH NOW I'M OVERPAID, I OVERPAID ON MY TAXES NOW. SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT. HMM. ALL RIGHT. UH, I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. BEDA, MS. BENAVIDEZ. SO THE, JUST TO TO CONFIRM WITH THE CITY, SO IS SHE CAUGHT UP NOW WITH THE, UH, WITH, WITH THE TAX ISSUES BEHIND? THE ONLY PAYMENT WE HAVE RECEIVED WAS IN, UM, AUGUST OF 2026. AND IT'S FOR THE PERIOD OF, UM, JUNE, JULY, 2026. AND HA HAVE YOU RENTED THE PROPERTY SINCE THEN, OR NO? I, I, AS SOON AS I GOT THE NOTICE I STOPPED. AND ARE YOU REPORTING ZERO? UH, 'CAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO REPORT ZERO, AS I UNDERSTAND. IF THERE'S NO INCOME, UM, I DID ASK MELISSA FROM AVENUE IF WE COULD, BECAUSE SHE NEEDED TO MELISSA FROM AVENUE INSIGHTS IF SHE COULD HELP ME. OKAY. DO IT ONLINE BECAUSE I I DID IT ALL IN ONE LUMP SUM AND I ALSO OVERPAID. SO I NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. MANANA. BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WASN'T SHE BEHIND FROM LAST YEAR, FROM 2025 THROUGH THIS YEAR? SO IS SHE, YOU SAID THAT SHE PAID JUNE AND JULY, BUT IS SHE CAUGHT UP FROM 2025 OR IS SHE STILL BEHIND? UNFORTUNATELY, SHE ONLY PAID ONE LUMP SUM, SO WE CAN'T VERIFY WHAT WAS PAID MONTHLY. YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND ACCOUNT, DO THE ACCOUNT. YEAH. AND I WAS TRYING, I WAS CONTACTING AVENUE AND TYLER'S AWARE OF THAT TOO, AND I WAS NOT GETTING RESPONSES, BUT YEAH, I AM OVERPAID ON TAXES NOW. YEAH. MS. BEVI, SHE DID ONE LUMP PAYMENT, SO THERE'S NO, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND RECONCILE THE ACCOUNTING TO SEE, BUT SHE'S CLAIMS SHE'S OVERPAID ON TAXES. MM-HMM . AND TO CLARIFY THE LUMP, WHEN SOME, THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT WAS PAID AFTER [02:55:01] REVOCATION, ALL RIGHTY. MANAM, MR. MANAM. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE APPLICANT STATING THAT, UM, THEY HAD MADE ATTEMPTS, UM, TO REGISTER OR TO WORK THROUGH THE WORKFLOW, UM, ON FILING AND, AND ALL THE THINGS WITHIN AVENUE. SO IF IT HAD BEEN THE CASE THAT SHE HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN HER FIRST ROUND ATTEMPTS, WOULD SHE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY HAVE MITIGATED THE ISSUE FOR, UM, UM, FOR, FOR BEING REVOKED? IF SHE HAD, IF IT HAD BEEN THE CASE THAT SHE'D BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE BEGINNING? UM, THAT IS CORRECT, BUT TO CLARIFY, WE SENT A FINAL NOTICE FOR GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL 14 DAYS. THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. STAFF COULD HAVE EASILY JUST REVOKED THE PERMIT AS SHE HAS BEEN MORE THAN 90 DAYS DELINQUENT AND HAD BEEN NOTIFIED. I BELIEVE SHE WAS SENT NINE NOTICES PRIOR TO, TO HER MAILING ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY. SO SHE WAS STILL NOT OF REPORTING HOT TAXES FOR ALMOST A YEAR DESPITE BEING NOTIFIED. SO DID IT TAKE MORE THAN A YEAR FOR YOU TO FIGURE OUT, UH, THAT, THAT YOU NEEDED TO BE DOING SOME ACTIVITIES? I HONESTLY JUST DID NOT. I'M REALLY BAD ABOUT CHECKING MY MAIL. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT, BUT AS SOON AS I GOT THE EMAIL I WAS TRYING TO DO IT RIGHT AWAY. SO SOG, IS THERE A BEST WAY TO COMMUNICATE THEN? WELL, NOW I KNOW IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MY, MY THOUGHT HERE IS THAT IT, IT'S A TYPE ONE, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT LIKE A TYPE TWO WHERE, UM, WE'RE MEETING A DENSITY BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. SO, AND ABILITY TO KIND OF CAPTURE SOME TAX REVENUE, HOT TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY. AND NOW SHE KNOWS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. SO, UH, SO MANNA, MANNA, SO DO YOU LIVE THERE AT THE HOUSE AS WELL? YES, I, UM, I AM AN OWNER OCCUPIED. OKAY. OWNER OCCUPIED. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT WAS TRULY A TYPE ONE. YES, WE'VE HAD OTHER CASES, YES. AND IT'S ALSO VERY RARE THAT I HONESTLY RENT IT OUT. IT'S VERY RARE. IT'S JUST ON OCCASIONS. DID THE, DID THIS, UH, UH, AND THIS IS FOR STAFF, DID THE THIS APPLICANT PAY A, A PENALTY OR A FINE? AND, AND IF SO, CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHAT THAT IS? UH, FOR, FOR NOT FILING THESE, THESE REPORTS. SO AGAIN, SINCE SHE PAID A LUMP SUM, WE CAN'T VERIFY WHAT LATE FEES OR PENALTIES SHE PAID UNTIL WE CROSS REFERENCE WHAT SHE WAS REP, WHAT REVENUE SHE RECEIVED EACH MONTH SINCE OBTAINING THER EARN. BUT SHE PAID SOME, SHE PAID SOME KIND OF A PENALTY, RIGHT? NO, SHE HAS, I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THERE'S A PENALTY. I, I THINK THE ISSUE IS BECAUSE SHE REPORTED FOR THE MONTH BEFORE, SO THERE WAS NO PENALTY APPLIED BECAUSE SHE PAID THAT ON TIME INSTEAD OF GOING BACK TRACKING EACH MONTH AND THEN BEING PENALIZED THAT LATE FEE. OKAY. I'M STILL UNDERSTANDING, BEN. I'M SORRY, BUT IF I NEED TO PLAY A PENALTY, I'LL BEN THE, THE DOCUMENT. EXCUSE ME. GO AHEAD. BENES. UH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. UM, DID SHE EVER PAY, UM, HOT TAX LIKE BEFORE SHE WAS DELINQUENT? OR WAS THIS THE BEGINNING LIKE SHE'S JUST NEVER PAID HOT TAX? SHE NEVER PAID ANY HOT TAXES SINCE I OBTAINING PERMIT. OKAY. OKAY. IVANEZ. UM, AND THE DOCUMENT WE SAW, UH, THERE WAS A DOCUMENT THERE OF WHAT WAS PAID FOR EACH MONTH. CAN YOU SHOW THAT DOCUMENT AGAIN? SO THIS REPORTING PERIOD THAT'S ON THIS PAGE, WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? UH, SO THIS IS, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT'S AIRBNB, UM, ACCOUNT. SO SHOWING HER MONTHLY REPORTING THROUGH AIRBNB. IS THAT ALL MISS? IS THAT, IS THAT IT? THAT ANSWERED. OKAY. I THOUGHT, DO I NEED, I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS A CITY'S REPORT, BUT IT'S FROM AIRBNB AND, AND THIS DOCUMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY FOR, UH, AIRBNB, UH, OWNERS BECAUSE THE CITY CAN SEE WHAT YOU MADE ALL THE TIME. YEAH. AND SO EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A A ZERO AMOUNT THAT YOU MADE THAT MONTH, YOU STILL HAVE TO REPORT IT EVERY MONTH ON TIME. AND SO I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THAT WAS THE, THE FEE THAT YOU HAD PAID, BUT IT ISN'T, IT IS WHAT YOU MADE FROM MAY 25TH YES. TO JULY 26TH. YES. AND I THINK, AND TYLER HAS MY RECEIPT FROM WHAT I PAID. ALL RIGHTY MANANA. MR. MANANA, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE CITY. SO, SO WHEN IT IS THAT, UH, SHE FILED FOR, UM, UH, I GUESS FOR THE PERMIT, UH, DID SHE DO ANY REPORTING AT ALL FROM THE BEGINNING OR HAS THERE BEEN ZERO REPORTING FROM THE BEGINNING? THERE HAS BEEN NO REPORTING SINCE SHE GOT THE PERMIT. THE FIRST TIME SHE REPORTED ONLINE WAS ON JULY WITH THAT LUMP SUM AMOUNT. OKAY. SO, [03:00:02] UM, I, I'VE VOICED CONCERN ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST WITH REGARDS TO AN APPLICANT WHO FILES AND, AND MISSES THE FIRST ONE OR TWO THAT THE CITY, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE OUTREACH JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE AND, YOU KNOW, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HEADING TOWARDS THIS PATH. UM, BUT ANYWAYS, BENAVIDEZ, SORRY, MS. BEDA, FOR THE CITY STAFF, HOW MANY, HOW MANY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THAT ADDRESS? NINE. NINE. AND FOR THE APPLICANT, DID YOU NOT RECEIVE NINE NOTICES THROUGH THE MAIL? NO, I'M JUST, I'M, I PROBABLY DID, I'M JUST, SORRY, I'M REALLY BAD. BUT ONCE I GOT THE EMAIL I PROBABLY PAID IT RIGHT AWAY. MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. ALL RIGHTY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, IF THE, IF THE, THIS MOTION GRANTING APPEAL IS APPROVED, IS THIS A THREE YEAR APPROVAL FOR THE PERMIT OR WILL IT COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD BEFORE FOR APPROVAL SO WE CAN SEE? OR IS IT AUTOMATIC? SO IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE APPEAL, HER PERMIT WILL BE REINSTATED AND IT WILL BE VALID UNTIL MAY 29TH, 2028. AND SINCE THE TYPE ONE PERMIT SHE CAN RENEW WITHOUT COMING BEFORE AS LONG AS SHE'S CURRENT OF STAFF AS SHE CURRENT YES. AND THINGS LIKE MEETS HER REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY, THEN WE HOPE WE NEVER SEE YOU AGAIN . WELL, NOT EITHER. OKAY. UM, ARE, IS, IS, DOES THIS SUPPLEMENTAL YES. FROM YOUR AIR AIRBNB? YES, FOR SURE. IS IT A HARDSHIP FOR YOU NOT TO HAVE? IT'S MORE, IT RENTALS MORE, IT'S MORE SO YES FOR EXTRA EXPENSES AND I DON'T WANNA LIKE PUT MY PERSONAL STUFF ON LIVESTREAM, YOU KNOW, BUT YES IT IS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BANIS. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND THAT'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. UM, ASSUMING WE HAVE NO, UH, VOICEMAIL OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC INPUT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION HERE? MAD MR. MADAM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 6. I MOVED THE BOARD JUSTIN AND GRANT THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 6 63 EAST PARK AVENUE APPLICANT BEING ROXANNE LEAL BECAUSE THE TE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND THE APPLICANT CHOSE THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR ENFORCING SECTION 16 1 1 1 0 D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT END. YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND, MS. MANDI. ALL RIGHTY, MR. MANA. SO I, I'VE STATED IN THE PAST THAT, YOU KNOW, I I I HAVE A CHALLENGE WHEN IT IS THAT AN APPLICANT SETS UP, UH, THESE, UM, THESE PROGRAMS WITH THE CITY AND THEY APPEAR TO HAVE MISSED A MARK FROM THE, FROM THE GET GO. AND, AND TO ME THAT'S, THAT IS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, FAILURE ON THE CITY'S PART. UM, AND I, AND I'M SORRY TO PUT IT THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE AND, AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT THAT PIECE. UM, AND SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M GOING TO SAY YES, I'M GONNA GRANT THE APPEAL. OKAY. MS. BENAVIDES, I'M GONNA DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I, UM, I, I CAN AGREE TO A POINT, BUT AFTER RECEIVING NINE NOTICES IN THE MAIL AND NOT RESPONDING, I THINK THAT'S JUST NEGLIGENCE. AND SO I, I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU MS. BEDA. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD? I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE APPEAL AS, AS READ. UM, I BELIEVE THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO GAIN SOME HOT TAXES, WHICH WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE OTHERWISE. UM, SHE HAD NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST HER, UH, THE OPERATIONS, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOUSEKEEPING, JUST GENERAL FISCAL HYGIENE AND MAKING THE TAXES PAID. AND SHE'S ON NOTICE NOW, RIGHT? SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE HER BEFORE THIS BOARD AGAIN FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIFIC ISSUE. SO, ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER MENNA? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER BEES? NO. COMMISSIONER REED? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. I OCCUR, THEY'RE UP HERE. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. BY VICE CHAIR? YES. UM, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S SEVEN IN FAVOR. AND THEN WE HAVE THREE, UH, ONE ABSTAIN, RIGHT? AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. AND WE WOULD NEED NINE TO OVERTURN. AND SO THE, THE APPEAL AS REQUESTED, DOES NOT PASS UNLESS SOMEBODY FROM THE OPPOSING SIDE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REOPEN THE VOTE AND OTHERWISE I THINK IT'S GONNA [03:05:01] BE WHAT, A YEAR BEFORE THEY COULD REAPPLY AND, AND SO UNFORTUNATELY THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. SO WE'LL GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN KIND OF GET WITH YOU TO SEE WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE HERE. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. CASE NUMBER 16. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER 16 IS REQUESTED BY, AND ANDREA SAMIS VVA THE AVEDO AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT CONCEPT DISTRICT NINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 15 6 11 HYMAN ROAD SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK, HAVING BEEN APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024. A UNIT IS DEFINED AS HAVING ITS OWN DISTINCT SLEEPING AREA, KITCHEN AND BATHROOM. TYPE TWO INDICATES THAT THE OWNER SLASH OPERATOR OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT OCCUPY THE SITE AS THEIR PERMANENT LEGAL RESIDENCE. PER THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHTH OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR QUADPLEX UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE, AT LEAST ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE PERMITTED PER BLOCK. FACE REGARD. REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 11 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE. ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO BEING 15 6 0 7 HEIMER ROAD ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024. THE BLOCK, THE BLOCK PHASE IS CURRENTLY AT 9%. IF THE SECOND TYPE TWO IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK PHASE WILL BE AT 18%. THIS EXCEEDS A 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO ST. THIS PROPERTY HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AND THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS NO ACTIVE LISTINGS AS OF TODAY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED OF THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 23 MAIL NOTICES TO IN FAVOR. FIVE IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS AND NO RESPONSE FROM FRIENDS OF THE NORTHERN CREEK PRE PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND FOR CITYWIDE GROUPS ARE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? ALRIGHT, LET'S PLEASE, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. HELLO, NOW. OKAY, WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS FABI VEDO AND THIS IS MY WIFE, ANDREAS. SAM IS, THAT WAS THE APPLICANT. WE ARE PARTNERS IN GREEN, CAPITAL A OC, THE OWNER OF THE THE PROPERTY 15 6 11 AT HEIMER ROAD. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL, UH, OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THIS BLOCK PHASE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THIS IS THE SUMMARY THAT WE'LL FOLLOW TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FACTS THAT COULD, UH, PRESENT WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THIS, THIS PERMIT, THIS PERMIT IN THE BLOCK. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BECAUSE THE REQUEST WOULD EXCEED THAT 12.5% DENSITY STANDARD TODAY. HOWEVER, WE REPRESENT THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND OPERATING, UH, SAFEGUARDS THAT DISTINGUISH THIS PROPERTY AND SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. THE CITY ALSO RECORD SHOWS THAT THIS BLOCK PHASE CONTAINS 11 UNITS IN ONE EXISTING TYPE TWO STR LOCATED AT THE BESIDES, UH, PROPERTY. TO OUR, THE ONE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING NOW APPROVE OF YOUR, OUR REQUESTS WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER FROM ONE TO TWO RESULTING IN A DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 18%. THE RECORD ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE, THE PROPERTY IS AN ELIGIBLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OFF STREET PARKING AND ADEQUATE UTILITIES [03:10:01] ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. THE PROPERTY HAS NO CODE CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AND NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR THE OWNER HAS ANY DISQUALIFYING STR VIOLATIONS. THESE FACTS DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE FINDINGS CONCERNING ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY AND PROVIDE IMPORTANT SUPPORT FOR REMAINING FINDINGS THAT WE ADDRESS TODAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, OKAY, NEXT ONE. THE PROPERTY WARRANTY UNDER CONTRACT. WE SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL ACCEPT EXCEPTION WAS REQUESTED BY THE BUYER. AS A CONDITION OF CLOSING, ALL PARTIES ARE AWARE THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL IN ANY SDR PERMIT ARE NON-TRANSFERABLE AND THAT THE SUB SUB, UH, SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL REQUESTED IN THE FUTURE BY THE BUYER IS NOT 100% GUARANTEED. EVEN IF WE GET OUR PERMIT APPROVED BY, BY THE BOARD, APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WOULD NOT IN ITSELF AUTHORIZE THE BUYER TO OPERATE AN S-D-R-S-D-R. AFTER CLOSING, THE BUYER WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR A COM, A COMPLETELY NEW STR PERMIT. WE CANNOT GUARANTEE WHAT THE FUTURE OWNER WILL DO, BUT THEY ARE ONLY PURCHASING THE PROPERTY FOR INVESTMENT INVESTMENT PURPOSES, AND WE WILL NOT WANT TO DISTURB THE QUIET ENVI ENJOYMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOR VIOLATE THE CODE OF ENFORCEMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE, JUST A COPY OF THE CONTRACT SHOWING THE, THE CONDITION THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE BUYER, JUST, UH, SCREENSHOTS OF IT, THE ARY THAT WE SENT ALSO TO THE CITY. UH, HE REGARD THE CONDITIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'LL FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE STATED TO, TO ALLOW THE REQUEST THAT WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU NOW. NEXT ONE. IN FINDING A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, HE REGARD HIS FINDING THE REC RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WITH MATERIALLY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH FOR SAFETY, THE PROPERTY IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY PHYSICAL EXPANSION, ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT OR CHANGE TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY. IT PROVIDES SIX DEDICATED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, TWO IN THE GARAGE GARAGE, AND FOUR IN THE DRIVEWAY. AND CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT HAS ADEQUATE, HAS ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. ANY FUTURE STR OPERATION WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S OCCUPANCY LIFE SAFETY, EMERGENCY INFORMATION, FIRE DISTINGUISHER, AND FOUR AND 24 HOUR CONTACT REQUIREMENTS BEFORE IT MAY BEGIN OPERATING. ALTHOUGH THE DENSITY CALCULATION MUST BE CONSIDERED, IT DOESN'T IDENT, IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A PROPERLY SPECIFIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARD AT, AT THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. REGARDING THE PUBLIC NUISANCE, UH, HE GOT IN FINALLY. B, THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER OPERATED A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND HAS NOT HISTORY OF STR RELATED NUISANCE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT BECAUSE OF A, WAS A CONDITION, UH, PLACED BY THE THE BUYER REGARDING THE, THE CLOSING. WE RECOGNIZE, HOWEVER, THAT THE ABSENCE OF A PRIVATE OPERATING HISTORY IS NOT IT'S ENOUGH BY ITSELF. THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHAT CONTROLS WILL GOVERN THE PROPERTY IF IT IS APPROVED AND SUBSEQUENT, SUBSEQUENTLY PERMITTED TO OPERATE ON EVERY PLATFORM? USE IT TO ADVERTISE THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING AIRBNB, VERBAL AND BOOKING.COM. AS EXAMPLES, THE LISTEN AND HOUSE RULES WILL CLEARLY STATE THAT PARTIES EVENTS DISRUPTIVE, DISRUPTIVE GATHERINGS AND UNREGISTERED GUESTS ARE PROHIBITED, ONLY RESISTED GUESTS WILL BE PERMITTED AT THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE KIND OF RULES THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN AIRBNB VERBAL AND ALSO BOOK THAT BOOKING.COM TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF ISSUE. THE LAWFUL OCCUPANCY LIMIT ESTABLISH QUIET, UH, THE LAWFUL OCCUPANCY LIMIT ESTABLISH QUIET HOURS WILL BE ENFORCE. GUESTS WILL ALSO BE INSTRUCTED TO USE PROPERTIES OFF STREET PARKING AND WE PROHIBIT FROM BLOCKING NEIGHBORHOOD DRIVE, DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, OR TRAVEL LANES. TRASH AND RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE RULES AND PRE ARRIVING INSTRUCTIONS. TOGETHER, TOGETHER, THE EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING AT THESE PARKING RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT GAS VEHICLES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT HIM ROAD OR NEARBY STREETS. THE, UH, THE RULES WILL BE COMMUNICATED THROUGH THE ONLINE LISTING AS AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PROTECTION. THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, UH, HAVING FORMULA, THEY WILL CONTRACT [03:15:01] A, A COMPANY THAT'S CALLED PLUS SHE HOST AS A PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THIS COMPANY, PLUS SHE HOSTS ADVERTISE A 24, UH, 24 HOUR SUPPORT, A FULL-TIME HOST ASSIGNED TO EACH MANAGED PROPERTY AND IS SMART LOCK TECHNOLOGY USE. USE IT TOGETHER WITH LOCAL INSPECTORS TO HELP KEEP THE PROPERTY SAFE AND SECURE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER GUEST STAYS. THESE SERVICE WOULD PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS POINT OF CONTACT TO FOR GUESTS AND ALSO FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBORS IF NEEDED TO RE REPORT ANY, ANY, FIND ANY PROBLEM. IT MIGHT THAT MIGHT HAVE COMBINE IT WITH THE WRITTEN OCCUPANCY NOISE, GAS, PARKING, AND E UH, EVENT RESTRICTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THESE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL PROPOSAL USE WILL NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. OKAY. CAN I, CAN I STOP YOU RIGHT THERE? SURE. WE SAW THE, UM, THE NOTICES, RIGHT? AND A NUMBER OF YOUR NO NEIGHBORS WERE IN OPPOSITION TO YEAH. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS? WE, WE DID THAT. OKAY. WE WENT THERE AND WE DISCUSSED WITH SOME OF THEM. I WENT WITH, MY DAUGHTER IS ALSO HERE. SHE'S THE AGENT. OKAY. SHE'S THE REAL ESTATE AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND WE WENT THERE, WE TALKED TO SOME, BUT AFTER REACHING OUT TO SIX PROPERTIES, WE FIGURED OUT THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY THESE I WILL, UH, SHOW TO YOU LATER, BUT ALSO THERE IS A KIND OF ISSUE, UH, WHERE THE, UH, ALREADY STR THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE, IN THE BLOCK. UHHUH . THERE WAS A PARTY THERE AROUND A COUPLE DAYS AGO, AND WITH THAT PARTY, ONE OF THE NEIGHBOR, UH, CALLED THE POLICE, THE PARKING WAS A, A BIG ISSUE THERE. OKAY. AND THIS PROBABLY MAY HAVE, UH, MAY HAVE CHANGED THE, THE IDEA OF THIS ALLOWANCE OF A NEW STR IN THE SAME BLOCK. YES. SO THE, MY OTHER THOUGHT OR COMMENT HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE KIND OF AN LLC OR A, A PARTNERSHIP OR SOMETHING AND SELL AND GET THAT GETS THE PERMIT AND YOU SELL THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE PERMIT THEN CONVEYS WITH THAT SAME OWNER. SO THERE'S NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE PERMIT HOLDER. RIGHT? NO, I DIDN'T GET YOUR QUESTION, SIR. SORRY. SO THE, THE, IF THE APPLICANT UHHUH THAT'S SEEKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL IS A CORPORATION AND THAT CORPORATION SEEKS THE PERMIT AND YOU SELL THE CORPORATION TO YOUR BUYER, THEN THAT NEW BUYER WOULD STILL GET THE SAME CORPORATION. NO, I, I GOT, OKAY. NO, WE CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE THIS COMPANY THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY, WE DO FLIPPING HOUSES. AND THEN WITH THAT, WE CANNOT JUST SELL THE PROPERTY, THE, THE CORPORATION TO THEM TO KEEP THE, THE STR PERMIT. AND YOU COULDN'T CONVEY IT TO ANOTHER SINGLE PURPOSE CORPORATION THAT WOULD SELL IT TO THE I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE, I'M JUST GIVING YOU, BECAUSE I MEAN, TO ME, YOU HAVE SO MUCH OPPOSITION. I MEAN, I'M LISTENING TO ALL, ALL EVERYTHING YOU'RE READING HERE MM-HMM . BUT THAT'S NOT GONNA MITIGATE ALL THE NEIGHBOR'S OPPOSITION TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. MM-HMM . AND I THINK I KIND OF SPEAK FOR THE BOARD HERE. SO THERE'S, THERE'S KIND OF AN UPHILL THERE PUSH ON THIS, RIGHT? SO, UM, CAN I LEAVE IT OUT STEVENS, MR. STEVENS? CAN CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? ARE THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT? YEAH, IT IS. AND ARE YOU THE BUYER OR THE SELLER? WE, WE ARE THE SELLERS. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR. WE KNOW THAT. YEAH. SORRY FOR, FOR INTERRUPT YOU AND MANNA. YES. SO YEAH, I'M JUST LOOKING AT YOUR BUSINESS AND, AND I THINK YOU SAID FLIPPER IS, IS BASICALLY YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR LINE OF BUSINESS. AND SO YOU OWN 11 PROPERTIES AND, AND THE SALE OF THIS HOME IS, HAVE YOU TRIED SELLING IT AND OR RENTING IT OR ANY OTHER OPTIONS? AND THIS IS THE FIRST BUYER OUT THE GATE IS SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO DO SHORT TERM RENTALS. YEAH. BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE MARKET NOW FOR SELLING, I'M NOT, UH, SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT THE MARKET IS REALLY DIFFICULT RIGHT NOW. THIS WAS THE FIRST SALE, FIRST BUYER THAT WE HAD IN MONTHS WITH THE HOW MANY MONTHS WITH THE HOUSE LISTED. AND THIS WAS THE ONE THAT CAME. BUT HE, HE INCLUDED THIS CONDITION. BUT THAT'S, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF YOU AS, AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT AS THE BUYER. HE'S GOTTA START ALL OVER AGAIN. NO, HE KNOWS THAT. HE KNOWS THAT. ALL THE PARTIES KNOWS THAT. OKAY. EVEN IF WE GET YOUR APPROVAL HERE TODAY, THEY WILL NEED TO REAPPLY FOR THAT. THEY JUST GET, WANT TO HAVE A KIND OF, UM, UH, CHECKING HOW IT GOES. RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS WHAT I, I THINK THAT THEY WANTED. SO HE COULD DO KIND OF LIKE A, A LONG, LIKE A, WHAT IS IT? A 90 DAY TYPE RENTS AND THAT, BUT 30 DAY, 30 DAY. RIGHT. 30 DAY. THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE SHORT TERM RENTAL. YEAH. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF HE CONSIDERED THAT WRITEUP IN THE CONTRACT OR YEAH. BUT THIS WAS A CONDITION THAT HE IMPOSED [03:20:01] TO SIGN THE CONTRACT TO DO A 30 DAY SHORT-TERM RENTAL. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE'S GETTING. THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD IS APPROVING. A 30 DAY SHORT-TERM RENTAL. YOU COULD DO A 31 DAY, WHICH WOULD NOT NEED TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. YEAH. 'CAUSE THEY ARE, THEY WANT TO USE SHORT-TERM RENTAL THROUGH THE, THIS KIND OF PLATFORMS. LIKE YOU CAN'T, IT JUST COULDN'T BE LESS THAN 30 DAYS. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YES. CHAIR. YES. SINE I REMEMBER, UH, THAT WE DON'T, LIKE AT THE BEGINNING WHEN WE READ THE NOTES, WE DON'T GET INVOLVED IN LIKE, UM, I GUESS DISPUTES OR YEAH. LIKE SOME OF THESE, THESE CONTRACTS AND STUFF BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S NOT OUR, YOU KNOW. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO YEAH. OKAY. MS. AND I, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING TOO THAT I UNDERSTAND IT AND I DON'T, UM, THAT YOU'RE KIND OF SHOWING THEM, HEY, THIS CAN, YOU CAN DO THIS TOO. UM, IF WE DON'T PASS, WE, WE DECIDE WE VOTE NOT TO GIVE YOU TR TWO MM-HMM . THEN YOUR DEAL IS DONE. YEAH. THIS IS THE, IS THE ISSUE BECAUSE WE ALSO, WE DIDN'T WANT TO, TO HAVE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IDEA TO PRESENT TO ANY OF POTENTIAL BUYER THAT THEY COULD USE THAT AS A, AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HAVE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IDEA, BUT THEY CAME, THEY WERE ONLY THE, THE ONE, THE BUYERS THAT WE, WE FOUND FOR MONTHS AND THEY CAME WITH THIS CONDITION CAME FROM THEM, NOT FROM US. THIS, THIS SPECIAL ONE. I SEE HOW IT BENEFITS THEM AT ALL. 'CAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ORIAN, MR. ORIAN. YEAH. SO I, I WANNA MAKE A POINT. SO RIGHT NOW THE, THE GREEN CAPITAL LLC OWNS THIS LAND AND THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THIS CORPORATION HAS OTHER ENDEAVORS, BUT IF, IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED TODAY, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM SEVERING THEIR OTHER ENDEAVORS AND THEN THEY'RE JUST SELLING THE LLC FOR THIS ONE. THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT WE SPEND ENOUGH TIME DOING STUFF OR, YOU KNOW, I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. AND, AND THIS IS, THIS IS JUST VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. UH, AND I ALSO DON'T LIKE THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS SENDS IS THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME TO OUR BOARD AND JUST PRETEST SOMETHING WHEN WHOEVER BUYS IT IS THE PERSON WE'D BE LOOKING AT, WHAT IS THEIR HISTORY? DO THEY HAVE ANY, UM, HOT TAX VIOLATIONS? ARE THEY GOOD STEWARDS? YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GONNA RUN AN STRI MEAN THIS, THIS, I CAN'T GET BEHIND THIS ON MANY LEVELS. UH, AND I JUST, UH, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO VOTE SOMETHING. YEAH. GIVEN THE, THE, THE NON-SUPPORT AND, AND FROM THE NEIGHBORS SOME SORT WHO ARE THE MOST AFFECTED. WE JUST HEARD THAT THERE OF AN ISSUE WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL DOWN THE STREET WITH, UH, WITH THE PARTIES. I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST PART I WOULD START WITH IS, IS GETTING THE NEIGHBOR'S SUPPORT, UH, BEFORE WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING ANOTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL MM-HMM . UH, TO THE BLOCK. AND I DON'T SEE US GETTING THERE. SO, UM, LOOKING FOR HELP HERE. ANYBODY I WOULD LIKE TO, TO JUST ASK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO FINISH HIS PRESENTATION AND THEN WE CAN GO AND EITHER HAVE MORE DISCUSSION OR CONTINUE FOR A VOTE. ALRIGHT. SO YOU, I APPRECIATE THANK YOU. AND, UH, SORRY, MR. ORIAN. RIGHT. UH, JUST REGARDING YOUR POINT AND I'M, WHAT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND WE DIDN'T CAME, COME HERE TO TEST THE, THE, THIS WAS NOT OUR INTENTION. I KNOW THAT PROBABLY IT MIGHT SEEMS THIS WAY, BUT THIS WAS NOT OUR INTENTION JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION WE ARE HERE AND TO TRY TO SELL IT. BUT ANYWAY, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, SIR. AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE, THE, LET'S GO TO FINDING C PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, NO SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FINDING C. ALSO, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT WE, WE WOULD DO THAT. I WOULD TRY TO MOVE FASTER. THE PROPOSED OPERATING RULES ARE SPECI, SPECIFICALLY INTENT TO PREVENT NOISE, UH, EXCESSIVE ENCY, IMPROPER PARKING TRASH. AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING SHOWING THAT THE, THE PROPOSAL TO USE WHEN OPERATED UNDER THESE CONTROLS WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE IN ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. FIGHTING THE ADEQUATE FACILITIES. WE ALSO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED. [03:25:01] THE NEXT ONE, COMPLIANCE HISTORY. WE ALSO DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T OPERATED AN STR THERE IN THIS PROPERTY, AND WE ARE JUST APPLYING, AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE REQUIRE REQUIREMENT PRESENTED BY THE BUYER. NEXT ONE, PLEASE. UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, CHART CHARACTER. WE ARE NOT PLANNING TO MAKE ANY CHANGE TO IT. UH, THE PROPOSAL USE USE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR DISLOCATION. AND, AND ALSO, UH, WE ASK THE BOARD, JUST WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE BOARD WILL NEEDS TO USE THE 11 BLOCK, UH, RULE 11 UNIT, BLOCK PHASE IN OUR CASE, RESULTING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A TYPE TWO STR APPROVED THERE. BUT I JUST WANT TO SHOW IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. ALSO SHOWING THE PROPERTY THERE. THIS IS, IS DIRECTLY FROM THE ONE STOP WEBSITE. WE JUST NARROWED THAT WITH THE ZIP CODE, RIGHT? AND THERE YOU CAN SHOW THE BLOCK. I TRY TO MARK THE SAME BLOCK THAT YOU, YOU HAD IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWING THAT WE DON'T HAVE MANY STR THESE ARE SPECIFICALLY STRS TYPE TWO, RIGHT? WE HAVE A, ANOTHER, JUST AS A KIND OF EXAMPLE IN THIS ZIP CODE, UH, WE HAVE ONLY 70, UH, TYPE TWO STRS, RIGHT? IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE PLEASE. AND THE CITY ALSO THE CITY ONE STOP MAP SHOWS THAT APART FROM THE EXISTING TYPE TWO PERMIT AT THE THE 15 6 0 7 600 0 7 HEIMER, NO OTHER MAP, THE TYPE TWO SDR IS LOCATED WITH WITHIN OUR RADIOS OF AROUND 1600 FEET CENTERED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE NEXT CLOSET MAP TYPE TWO STR IS AROUND 0.34 MILE AWAY BY ROAD AT BROKEN. THAT, THAT PROPERTY THAT'S MARKED IN THE MAP, BROKEN OAK DRIVE, WE ARE RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPLICABLE DENSITY CALCULATION IS BA BASED ON THE BLOCK FACE, NOT ON THE WIDER, ON A WIDER RADIOS. WE OFFER THIS BROADER AR AREA EVIDENCE ONLY AS A RELEVANT CONTEXT SHOWING THAT APPROVAL ON THIS SINGLE EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A BROADER CONCENTRATION OF TYPE TWO RENTALS IN THE SURROUND SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA. AS YOU MENTIONED ALREADY, ALSO, WE SKIP THIS PORTION BECAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THE, THE SUPPORT THAT WAS NOT EASY TO GET FROM THE, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE TRY TO HIT THEM. WE REACH, WE WERE ABLE TO TALK WITH SIX, UH, OWNERS, TWO OF THEM SIGNED, UH, IN SUPPORT. TWO OF THEM AT THE TIME WHEN WE WENT THERE AROUND 10 DAYS AGO, REMAIN, REMAINED ON THE SIDE AND THEN DID NOT FOLLOW UP. ONE OFFERED CONDITIONAL SUPPORT AND ONE OPPOSED BASE IN THE, ON THE EXPERIENCE WITH THE EXISTING SDR AND, OKAY, THAT'S IT. BASE. DURING OUR DIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE OF THEM TOLD US ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU REGARDING THE, THE PARTY THAT WAS, UH, ANOTHER, ANOTHER, UH, OWNER CALL THE POLICE. AND WE HAVE THE ISSUES THAT I ALREADY MENTIONED TO YOU. I KNOW THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN ISOLATED, UH, INCIDENT, BUT THIS ALSO COULD HAVE LED, UH, LED THE, THE OWNERS NEARBY TO HAVE THIS KIND OF IMPRESSION OF THIS BAD BEHAVIOR. RIGHT? OKAY, PLEASE. THE NEXT ONE ALSO, WE WANT TO SHOW SOME POTENTIAL BENEFITS RELATED TO THE USE OF A RESPONSIBLE MANAGED TYPE TWO SDR. SOME RESEARCHERS SHOW THAT, UH, THAT ASSOCIATED WITH THE INCREASE OF RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION, THIS IS A BENEFIT OF THE AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS HOUSE WAS, UH, REMODELED WITH SOME CHANGES THAT WE DID ON IT, UH, MAY SUPPORT ALSO RETAINING RETAIL, DINING AND ENTERTAINING BUSINESSES. AS A KIND OF EXAMPLES, WE UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO, TO GET YOUR APPROVAL RIGHT. WE KNOW THAT ALSO THE, THE, THE SUPPORT THAT WE DIDN'T GET FOR MANY, FOR MANY OWNERS IN THE AREA THAT'S AROUND THE AREA. BUT IF THE BOARD CONSIDERS ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS APPROPRIATE, WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT REASONABLE CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE ADVERTISED, RENTED OR USED FOR PARTIES, EVENT EVENTS OR DISRUPTIVE GATHERINGS ONLY RE, RE REGISTERED GUESTS [03:30:01] WILL BE PERMITTED AND OCCUPANCY WILL NOT EXCEED THE LIMITED THE LIMIT TOURISTS, TOURISTS BY THE CITY ESTABLISHED QUIET HOURS AND APPLICABLE NOISE REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON SO FORTH. UH, THESE CONDITIONS WOULD CONVERT THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE OPERATION PLAN INTO CLEAR COMMITMENTS, ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT NOISE GATHERINGS, PARKING, TRASH, AND NEIGHBORHOOD DISTURBANCE. AS A KIND OF CLOSING, IF YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE, UM, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, WE, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED, EXPRESSED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. FIRST, WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THOSE CONCERNS. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE, THE, THE ISSUE THAT HAPPENED INVOLVING A PARTY THAT DISTURBED NEIGHBORS AND RESULT IN THE POLICE BEING CALLED, WE UNDERSTAND WHY THAT EXPERIENCE WOULD NATURALLY MAKE SOME NEIGHBORS CONCERNED ABOUT ANOTHER SDR OPERATING NEARBY. HOWEVER, WE RESPECT, THEY ASK THE BOARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED AT ANOTHER PROPERTY AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY THAT WE ARE REQUESTING. THE SDR, WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL ONLY FOR A TYPE TWO SDR ON THE BLACK FACE. THESE ARE DIFFERENT PROPER PROPERTY AND THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS INTEND TO HAVE PRO HAVE IT PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED UNDER SPECIFIC SAFEGUARD GUARDS. WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE THAT EACH PROPERTY AND EACH OPERATOR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BASED ON THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THIS, THAT INVOLVING INVOLVING ONE STR DOES NOT NECESSARILY PREDICT HOW ANOTHER PROPERTY WILL BE OPERATED. JUST AS THE CONDUCT OF ONE LONG-TERM TENANT OR HOMEOWNER WILL NOT ESTABLISH HOW ANOTHER RE RESIDENT WILL BEHAVE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE NOT SIMPLY ASKED THE BOARD TO TRUST THIS PROPERTY WILL BE RESPONSIBLY OPERATED. WE HAVE PRESENTED CONCRETE SAFEGUARDS. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT APPROVAL COMES WITH CONTINUED RESPONSIBILITY. RESPONSIBILITY. THE CITY HAS INFORMED ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. WHEN AN SDR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ITS REQUIREMENT, THE BOARD ITSELF HAS HEARD CASE INVOLVING THE REVOCATION OF SDR PERMITS. SO APPROVAL TODAY WILL NOT GIVE ANY FUTURE OPERATOR PERMISSION TO DISREGARD THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OPERATOR REMAINS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY MANAGED. WE UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND ALSO BECAUSE SOME OF THE OWNERS, THEY, THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERTY, UH, VALUES. HOMEOWNERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CARE ABOUT PROTECTING THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES, BUT RESPECTIVELY SUBMIT THAT CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBLE FUTURE EFFECT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROPOSAL, THE USE WILL SUBSTANTIALLY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE FINDINGS THE CODE ASKS THAT THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER. WE, WE HAVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED TO COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMITMENT TO THIS, TO THIS PROPERTY. WHEN WE AC ACQUIRE ACQUIRED THE HOME, IT HAD SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL LACK OF MAINTENANCE. WE INVESTED ON IN RESTORING IT, IMPROVING ITS EXTERIOR APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING AND RESTORING THE POOL AND THE PROPERTY TO THE CONDITION YOU SEE TODAY, WE HAVE EVERY INTEREST IN SEEING THAT STANDARD PRESERVER. IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE ACTUAL CONCENTRATION OF TYPE TWO ST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, ALTHOUGH THESE REQUESTS WOULD RESULT IN A SECOND TYPE TWO STR ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOOD PHASE. THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, AND ALSO, AS I MENTIONED, THE DISTANCE THAT WE HAVE FROM DIFFERENT SDR IN THE AREA THAT WE ARE FAR FROM THE CLOSE, THE CLOSEST ONE IS AROUND 1600. UH, FROM THIS, UH, WE SAW A, UH, UH, UH, ANOTHER HEARING AROUND A MONTH AGO WHERE THERE WAS A CASE THAT WAS NEARBY THE UD DORM WHERE THAT, THAT SPECIFIC, UH, REQUESTER, THEY HAD A BUNCH OF SUPPORT FROM THE, FROM THE, THE NEARBY OWNERS. BUT MR. MANNA, UH, PRESENTED THAT IN 1200 FEET, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE AROUND 37 STR PROPERTIES, RIGHT? THE DENSITY THERE IS WAY BIGGER THAN THE ONE THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME NEIGHBORS SIMPLY PREFER PERMANENT OWNER ANTS RATHER THAN SHORT TERM RENTAL GAS. WE RESPECT THAT PREFERENCE. UM, THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS INDICATES THAT THE CODE ALLOWS THE BOARD TO CONSIDER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO STR MAY BE APPROPRIATE. DESPITE THE ORDINARY DENSITY LIMITATION, WE ARE NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO DISREGARD NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND GOING TO THE FINISH TO NOT TAKE MODEL OF YOUR TIME FOR THIS REASON, [03:35:01] WE UNDERSTAND YOUR POINTS. WHAT YOU, YOU SHOWED US, YOU TOLD US THE POINTS THAT THE WAY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANOTHER SDR MAY IMPACT, IMPACT THEIR PROPERTIES. BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE, DON'T TAKE THE WORD, THIS WORD THAT I, UH, WRONG BUT PENALIZE AND NOT NOT GETTING THE, THE SDRI HEAR YOU. AND BUT THE CITY, I MEAN, SO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS WHAT WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S NOT A RIGHT, IT'S, UH, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AN OPTION OF THE BOARD. OKAY, LET'S UNDERSTAND THAT. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE STEVENS. MR. STEVENS, DO YOU, DO YOU LIVE IN THIS HOUSE? NO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION STEVENS MR. STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 360. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED 15 6 11 HEIMER ROAD, APPLICANT BEING RESA IDE AS AVEDO. 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 UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR, 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 IN AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY, WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT'LL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL, DE 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 AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE CONFIRMATION CITATIONS, CONFIRM CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES, CONVICTIONS OR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT OR OWNER DOES NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY EVOKED LICENSE CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES OR CONVICTION OF CHAPTER 16 F. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE 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 FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND OF MOTION. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. UH, I HEARD SECOND FROM MR. MANAM. UM, I, I UNFORTUNATELY WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME, UH, BEING IN FAVOR OF THESE TYPES OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. EVEN IF THE, THE PERSON THAT'S GONNA BE OPERATING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL IS STANDING IN FRONT OF ME. AND THIS IS KIND OF A SECOND LEVEL OF NOT KNOWING HOW THIS THING IS GOING TO OPERATE. I THINK, UH, IF YOU WOULD'VE CAME, COME IN AND, AND TOLD US THAT YOU LIVE IN THIS, IN THIS, THIS, UH, THIS HOME AND YOU'RE IN A TOUGH SPOT AND, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL IT, THEN I MIGHT BE MORE AMENABLE TO THAT SITUATION. BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT YOU'RE RUNNING A BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING HOMES AND THIS IS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS. I'M NOT, I'M NOT WILLING TO SET THE PRECEDENT FOR A FUTURE UNKNOWN OWNER TO COME INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND DO WHO KNOWS WHAT. SO, UH, I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR UNFORTUNATELY, MR. MANO. SO, UM, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AS WELL AND, BUT, UM, I I PUT ON A DIFFERENT HAT A LITTLE BIT TO SAY, OKAY, EVERYTHING YOU READ, YOU UNDERSTAND A WHOLE LOT WITH REGARDS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT. AND, AND SO, UM, AND, UM, I WORKED ON THE, ON THE GROUP ON HOW TO SET THE SHORT TERMINAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT AT WITH THAT HAT ON. YOU KNOW, TO ME, UM, IF YOU WERE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERSON, I STILL WOULD'VE HAD A PROBLEM IMPROVING THIS. AND, AND SO YOU DID BRING IN MY POINT. ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE DENSITY IN THAT COMMUNITY. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. SO, SO IT IS NOT NECESSARILY AS DENSE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE, THE MAIN THING IS, YOU KNOW, IN A COMMUNITY, IN A HOME OR ON A STREET BY RIGHT IS ONE. BUT AFTER THAT, THEN I START TO HAVE CHALLENGES. AND I HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, AM VERY CONSERVATIVE WITH REGARDS TO [03:40:01] APPROVING SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND SO I WOULD'VE VOTED NO, YOU KNOW, JUST IF YOU HAD COME BEFORE ME. SO, SO I, UM, SO I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE AT S , I, I HAVE A COMMENT. UM, I HA I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME ONLY BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE OPERATING IT AS A, AS AN STR AND UM, I'VE SITTING ALMOST THREE YEARS HERE AND IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THIS WHERE THIS KIND OF APPLICATION HAS COME THROUGH AND SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. AND UM, AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. IT IS NOT AS DENSE WITH THE STR AROUND THERE, BUT UH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT HAPPENING, UM, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT LIKE THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. VENUS. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, UH, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENNA? I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? NO, I DO NOT. CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? NO. VICE CHAIR? NO, I DO NOT. CON CONCUR. SO THAT'S TENT OPPOSITION. UM, FORTUNATELY THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PASS. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF. UM, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER OPTIONS, LIKE I SAID, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A TOUGH ASK FOR THE BOARD, SO THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR OUR TIME. MM-HMM . OKAY, NEXT. STR CASE NUMBER 17. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER 17 IS REQUESTED BY JUAN FRANCO AND IS REQUESTING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS ON THE BLOCK FACE LOCATED AT COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 20 24 11 PIN ROAD UNIT 2 0 3 AND 2 0 4. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, AND COMMERCIAL. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THE BLOCK FACE. THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS ON THE BLOCK FACE AND ARE OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT. THE UNIT THAT OBTAINED THE PERMIT BY RIDE WAS 24 11 PIN ROAD UNIT 2 0 2 AND WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 ON MARCH 4TH, 2024. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS FOR 2 24 11 PIN ROAD UNIT 2 0 5 AND TWO SIX PER THE CITY CODE TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS WITHIN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS OR GROUPS OF BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LAND LOT OR PARCEL REGARDLESS OF ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE LIMITED TO DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNITS ON THE BLOCK. PHASE THREE ACTIVE TYPE TWOS ARE ALREADY ON THE BLOCK PHASE BEING 24 11 PIN ROAD UNIT 2 0 2, 2 0 5, AND 2 0 6. THE BLOCK PHASE IS CURRENTLY AT 38%. IF THE TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWOS ARE APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 63% EXCEEDING THE 12.5 DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO STS. THE PROPERTY HAS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AND THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS NO ACTIVE LISTINGS AS OF TODAY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 28 MAIL NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS, NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE 200 FEE NOTIFICATION PLAN. AND FOUR CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, THANK YOU SIR. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY, [03:45:09] TERMINAL. HELLO, MY NAME IS JUAN FRANCO. I LIVE IN 2 1 4 4 2 4 1 1 PILL ROAD. I HAVE, I ALREADY HAVE, UH, SHORT TERM RENTALS AND I'M HERE TO REQUEST FOR, UH, PERMISSION FOR ANOTHER ONE. THAT'S IT. OKAY. . UM, LETS SEE, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ORIAN? ORIAN? YEAH, SO, UH, WHEN I, I'M ON COSA ONE STOP AND I, I'M SHOWING SIX SDR PERMIT NUMBERS. CAN, ARE SOME OF THESE JUST A REPLACEMENT? 'CAUSE I NOTICED THREE OF 'EM WERE FROM 2020. UM, UM, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. UM, HE HAD TWO, TWO OF THE PERMITS THAT WERE GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BACK IN 2024. HE INITIALLY GOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BACK IN 2020. THOSE PERMITS EXPIRED AND HE CAME BACK TO THE BOARD IN 2024 FOR THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS. SO THERE'S ONLY THREE ACTIVE SDR PERMITS AT THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. AND DOES THIS APPLICANT HAVE ANY, UM, CO COMPLIANCE ISSUES OR ANYTHING? HE'S HAD NO ISSUES AT THIS PROPERTY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, UH, JUST FOR STAFF, FOR, FOR THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOWN TO 10 MEMBERS HERE. WE NEED, YOU KNOW, NINE FOR APPROVALS IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, UM, TO THE REQUEST, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD JUST MAKE IT VOCAL SO THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST GIVE A FAIR SHOT CHECK MARK. FULLY EMPA HERE. YES, CHECK. OKAY. MR. BANNER. OKAY. UM, GOTCHA. STEVENS, MR. STEVENS, HAVE, HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO, UH, RENT THESE OUT AS LONG-TERM RENTALS AND CAN YOU SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THAT? YEAH, I HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO RENT THEM SINCE OCTOBER. ARE ARE THEY JUST RECENTLY RENOVATED OR WHY, WHY HAVE, HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO RENT THEM OR? YES, UM, I HAD THEM RENTED BUT SINCE OCTOBER NOBODY HAS RENTED THEM. I AM CLOSE TO THE LACKLAND AREA AND UH, VISITORS CAN COME AND STAY THERE, BUT, UH, THEY HAVEN'T RENTED MY PLACE AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FOR THAT. AND, AND HOW MANY ARE CURRENTLY SHORT-TERM RENTALS? NOW? I HAVE THREE AND I WANT TO HAVE TWO MORE. IS THERE A TOTAL OF FIVE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY EXISTING THERE? THERE ARE, UH, THESE ARE EIGHT UNITS. THREE ARE RENTED MONTHLY ON A MONTHLY BASIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? ALRIGHT, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN OR NO PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY, SO I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR STAFF. SO THIS IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH, YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE SHORT TERM RENTAL, THERE'S EIGHT UNITS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT IT WOULD NORMALLY NEED 12 PARKING SPACES IF HE GETS FIVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. DOES THAT MEAN IT'S ONE PER RENTAL AND THEN FIVE PARKING SPACES FOR THE REMAINING THREE AT, AT A ONE AND A HALF RATE? SO THAT IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS IS ACTUALLY ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE LESS PARKING? IS AM I, IS THAT, AM I CORRECT ON THAT? UH, THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR OR REQUIRES ONE PER, UH, PERMIT, BUT WE CAN DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE PARKING STANDARDS AND JUST IDENTIFY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THEY NEED FOR ALL OF THE UNITS. UM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A MORE RECENT PROJECT AND WAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH PLAN REVIEW AND HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE PARKING SPACE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS HE HAS A GATED ENTRY AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT HE HAS ADEQUATE PARKING EITHER WAY, I GUESS, YOU KNOW. YEAH. WE CAN PARTNER WITH, UH, TRAFFIC TO VERIFY THAT. OKAY. I MEAN 'CAUSE THIS, THIS GENTLEMAN IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES, UH, UM, [03:50:02] ACROSS THE STREET NEXT DOOR. THERE'S SOME HOMES DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S ALSO A-A-C-P-S EASEMENT BACK THERE AND HE HAS A NICE FENCE. I MEAN I, IIII JUST THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE FEW TIMES WHERE I, I DON'T REALLY SEE AN ISSUE. I JUST WANT TO, IF THERE, IF THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING IS THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF. SO JUST TO, TO ADD TO THAT, DONALD, UM, AND I JUST TALKED WITH KELLY TOO. MF 33 REQUIRES 1.5 PARKING SPACES, UM, YEAH. PER UNIT. SO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED. UM, AS YOU KNOW, AS APARTMENT COMPLEX. NOW THE, WITH THE STR ORDINANCE BEING THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE, THAT SHOULD UM, BE OH, OKAY. SO THAT DOESN'T, IT CAN'T CAUSE A REDUCTION THEN? NO. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS. I I THINK I'VE EVER HAD THAT COME UP LIKE THIS, SO, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MISS TORIA. SAVANNAH. SO FOR KUSH FOR THE CITY, SO THIS IS, UH, TEND THIS BE REZONED SO THAT IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY MAKE THIS INTO A HOTEL. YEAH, THIS, FOR RIGHT NOW, THEY, I MEAN THEY TECHNICALLY COULD GO THROUGH REZONING, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED AS MULTIFAMILY. THEY'RE ALLOWED AS SHORT TERM RENTAL THROUGH THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, BUT, BUT IT'S CAPPED AND SO WE'RE AGREEING TO CHANGE IT. AND SO THE REAL SOLUTION TO ME WOULD BE THAT THEY GET IT REZONED INTO A BUSINESS, UM, YOU KNOW, TO SUPPORT IT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ALREADY WENT ONE THROUGH ONE SET OF APPROVALS TO HAVE MORE ON THIS BLOCK FACE. CORRECT. AND NOW WE'RE DOING IT AGAIN. AND SO BASICALLY WE'RE CHANGING THE USE OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE MORE ALIGNED WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, A HOTEL TYPE COMPONENT. CORRECT. THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD, I'M SORRY, THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERMITTING AS WELL THROUGH LIKE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROCESS TO INCUR LIKE STREET SPRINKLERS AND THOSE OF ADDITIONAL PERMITTING FOR THAT. UH, OKAY. SO WHY WOULDN'T THAT APPLY ANYWAY? SO ALL OF A SUDDEN IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE USING A, AN END AROUND, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IN A HOTEL, UM, AND, AND, AND INCUR SOME, SOME, UM, RISK, UM, YOU KNOW, ON REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, TO SAVE MONIES HERE. AND SO, SO I ACTUALLY, I, I HAVE BIGGER CHALLENGE NOW BECAUSE OF THAT POSITION. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE FROM STAFF OR, UM, MAYBE NOT. SO, BUT BASICALLY THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IF IF IT REALLY WAS TO GO THE PATH IT SHOULD, THEY SHOULD HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE ENGAGED. AND SO THEY'VE TURNED US INTO, YOU KNOW, A HOTEL OR A MOTEL AND SO, SO I'M, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ZONED AS A, AS A, AS A HOTEL. AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT THEY'RE, BUT THEY'RE MOVING TOWARDS THAT, YOU KNOW, AND WE MOVED A WHOLE BUILDING TO A SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND SO THEY BASICALLY ARE END ROUNDING, BUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE NOT CONSIDERED HOTELS. I GOT THAT. BUT I'M SAYING HE'S ALLOWED TO HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL HERE. HE'S JUST ASKING FOR DENSELY, RIGHT? THAT'S EXACTLY, BUT WE'RE NOW, WE'VE DONE THE WHOLE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, OR ALMOST THE ENTIRE BUILDING TO BE THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE I GUESS I'M, I'M GONE. OKAY. DO, UH, DO YOU WANNA TRANSLATE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT OR, UM, HE'S, HE'S HAVING THE TRUSTEES. OH, OKAY. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, HEARING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK FOR A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE A MOTION HERE. I CAN READ IT UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO. DONALD, DO YOU WANNA TAKE A RIP AT IT? YEAH, I'LL READ IT. OKAY. WHAT THE HECK. SO, REGARDING CASE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 24 11 PIN ROAD UNIT 2 0 3 AND 2 0 4, APPLICANT BEING JUAN FRANCO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED, I'LL SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE TWO ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL 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 OF THIS FACILITY DURING THE PERIOD. THIS PROPERTY HAS THREE ACTIVE TYPE TWO STR PERMITS STARTING IN 2020, AND STAFF WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, THE LOCATION IN THE PAST SIX YEARS. 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 TWO ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS WERE APPROVED. THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED SINCE 2020 THAT THE OPERATION OF THEIR STR DOES NOT CAUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE BY SUCH PROPOSED [03:55:01] USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT'LL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS. D ADEQUATE UTILITIES, UH, ACCESS, ROAD STORM, DRAINAGE, RECREATION, UH, OPEN SPACE AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR R BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS IN OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUS REVOTE SHORT TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE 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 CONVICTION OF CHAPTER 16 F. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SAW. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES WITH A PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AS MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DO NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, MS. MANA? MR. ORIAN. RIGHT. I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE. AND THE REASON WHY IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS FROM THE SER FROM THE SURFACE, THEY'RE RELATIVELY SMALL UNITS. HE HAS ADEQUATE PARKING, IT'S GATED. HE HAS A LITTLE AREA WITH A BARBECUE AND SOME BENCHES IN THE BACK AND, AND HE HAS ADEQUATE, UH, TRASH COLLECTION, UH, BY, BY MEANS OF A, OF A DUMPSTER BACK THERE. AND BETWEEN HIM AND THE NEIGHBOR, THERE APPEARS TO BE A PRETTY POSITIVE SCREENING. UM, HE'S SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES NE LEFT AND RIGHT AND ACROSS THE STREET HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CITATIONS. AND SO, UM, I DON'T THINK THIS IS OF ISSUE, ALTHOUGH HE'S GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK HERE, WHICH SEEMS LIKE ON A YEARLY BASIS TO KEEP RENEWING THESE PERMITS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT UH, FOR THIS ONE I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. UM, I'M NOT AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UM, AS YOU PROBABLY COULD HAVE TOLD. UM, SO SIMPLY 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN END AROUND FOR REALLY WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN HERE, WHICH IS THE REZONING. AND I THINK IF I WAS ON THE ZONING BOARD, I WOULD'VE APPRO, YOU KNOW, APPROVED A CHANGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT I THINK THE CITY BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS, UH, THIS IS BYPASSING SOME, SOME SAFETY, UM, COMPONENTS, YOU KNOW, UM, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF MY OTHER OBJECTIONS. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS HERE? YEP. SO, UM, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE AND FOR THE SAME REASON THAT, UH, MR. ORIAN BROUGHT UP. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES, COMMISSIONER MENA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BEEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. VICE CHAIR ZUNA? YES. SO I CONCUR. THAT'S EIGHT IN FAVOR. ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE OPPOSITION. UH, IS THERE ANY KIND OF MOVEMENT ON THE, UM, UH, ON THE, I GUESS THE ABSTAINING SIDE THAT WOULD MAKE THE PERMIT OR MAKE YOU RECONSIDER OR SO, UH, UNFORTUNATELY WITH ONLY EIGHT IN FAVOR AND TWO AGAINST, UH, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PASS. SO THAT WAS STAFF AND THEY CAN EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR OTHER OPTIONS ARE. FAIR. IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION JUST FOR ONE, IS THAT DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO MAKE A MOTION JUST TO GRANT ONE OR ARE WE LOCKED IN, UM, THE OPPOSING SIDE? WOULD YOU ALL CONSIDER JUST ONE VERSUS A TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS? THE OTHER THING IS THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT FULLY EMPANELED HERE WITH THE BOARD AND, AND, UH, TO ME THAT'S, THAT'S JUST A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A NOT RIGHT THAT WE'RE DOING THAT I WOULD STILL VOTE NO, BUT, OKAY. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN EX EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE HERE. OKAY. DO WE WANNA TAKE A BREAK? IT'S, UH, FIVE 10. ARE WE GOOD? KEEP MOVING OR DO YOU WANNA? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP ON GOING. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE JUMPING BACK TO CASE NUMBER NINE. THERE IS SOME, UH, FOOD BACK THERE FOR YOUR, UH, LEISURE AS WE GO THROUGH THE MEETING. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 4. APPLICANT BEING P DAWSON LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, UH, LOCATED AT 1 0 1 10 SOUTH [04:00:01] ALMORA ZONING BEING MPCD AND C TWO P, UH, COMMERCIAL PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 35 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT SETBACK OF 55 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF SAL ZU AND MITRA WAY AND ENHANCED SECRETARIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL AND IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES. THIS CASE RESULTED FROM SPLIT ZONING AND THE C TWO P DISTRICT'S MAXIMUM FRONT TYPE ACT REQUIREMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL USE PORTION OF THE MPCD. THIS IS SITE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 4 ON THE FRONT SETBACK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINES OF FACT, ONE, THE VARIANCE WILL MAINTAIN THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK. REQUIRE REQUIREMENTS BY PRESERVING AN OPEN LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHILE ACCOMMODATING NECESSARY DRIVE THROUGH CIRCULATION. TWO, MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED SETBACK COULD COMPRESS THE SITE LAYOUT AND DURING PEAK PERIODS, POTENTIALLY CAUSE VEHICLE QUEUING TO EXTEND INTO MUTUAL WAY, CREATING A TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERN. THE PROPOSED SETBACK THEREFORE SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY ALLOWING ADEQUATE SPACE FOR ONSITE VEHICLE CIRCULATION. AND QING 30 NOTICES ARE SENT. THAT SHOULD BE ONE IN SUPPORT, UM, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED, THEN NO RESPONSE FROM STARBRIGHT OVERLOOKED SOUTH AND OR VITA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR THE STAFF. UH, NOPE. I HAVE A QUESTION. ORIAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THIS PROPERTY ATTEMPTING TO BE? UH, FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. OKAY. 'CAUSE THEY, THE SITE PLAN HAS A, AN OBSCENE AMOUNT OF CARS STACKED UP. IS THIS JUST LIKE A DOUBLE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING? PRE PRETTY MUCH, YEAH. THE, THE QUEUING IS AT THE NORTHERN SIDE KIND OF LEADING, UH, I GUESS TOWARDS MITRO WAY. YEAH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A LOT OF QING. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, SO AT THIS POINT I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. HELLO SIR. HOW ARE YOU GUYS? OH, WE'RE HANGING IN THERE. I AM, UH, ANDREW BELTON WITH P DAWSON HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IT'S BEEN A REALLY LONG DAY, SO I DON'T WANT TO DIVE INTO ANYTHING THAT YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO KNOW. I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THIS IS A PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A AND THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF QUEUING ON THEIR SITE PLANS. THE SITE IS VERY UNIQUE. IT IS AN NPC ZONE WITH A C TWO P ZONING. THE NPCD REQUIRES A FRONT LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH. SO BY MOVING THE BUILDING UP TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE C TWO P MAX FRONT SETBACK, WE WOULD THEN BE PUSHING INTO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND OR WE WOULD BE ELIMINATING DRIVE-THROUGH LANES AND QUEUING, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY QUEUE US BACK UP ONTO UH, THE ROADWAY. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE, MA'AM? MR. MANO? SO THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEHIND IT, UM, THAT'S I GUESS, UH, BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THIS PROPERTY, IS THAT LIKE A, A, A CREEK BED, DRY CREEK BED OR SOMETHING? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S PART OF THE MPCD. I THINK IT'S A COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. SO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. SORRY, A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANYTHING TO BE READ? UM, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION HERE? I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. UH, ON THE SITE PLAN, WHEN, WHEN CARS ARE LEAVING, THEY'RE, THEY, THEY'RE GOING STRAIGHT AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA TURN UP AND AND GET ON A MITRA WAY THAT WHAT IT'S UH, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. THEY CAN, THERE'S ALSO A SHARED ACCESS TO THE SOUTH, SO THEY CAN EITHER COME OUT AND THEN TAKE A RIGHT AND GO BACK OUT TO ZAR ZAMORA OR THEY CAN DO A LEFT AND GO BACK OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY. YEAH, I'M ONLY ASKING, 'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE IN THE, THE NORTHEAST CORNER. UM, [04:05:01] AND I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE YOUR SITE PLAN LOCKS INTO THAT. THERE YOU GO. SO YOU'RE, IT LOOKS LIKE DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THOSE THREE HOMES. YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THERE? UH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE? YEAH, SO THE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO HOW TO POINT, BUT THE, THE PROPERTY LINE GONNA BE GRAY. THIS IS BEFORE THE LAST, THAT LINE RIGHT THERE IS THE SINGLE FAMILY. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST SINGLE FAMILY. OH, OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S BEFORE THE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A MASSIVE BUFFER NEXT TO THE DRAINAGE. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, NO, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A MASSIVE BUFFER NEXT TO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. RIGHT? OKAY. I MEAN, NO, I'M ASKING A QUESTION. IS THAT TRUE? OH, HE'S ASKING YOU A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE, THE BUFFER AGAINST THE DRAINAGE? I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THREE HOUSE. THOSE THREE HOMES. THE WIDTH OF THOSE THREE HOMES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE HUGE BUFFER NEXT TO THE DRAINAGE. THAT'S THIS, THIS AREA RIGHT HERE? YEAH. UH, THAT'S THE PART OF OUR PROPERTY. BECAUSE YOUR DRIVEWAY'S GOING TO TO THE LEFT OF THOSE THREE HOMES. CORRECT. SO THAT'S A, OUR, OUR PROPERTY LINE. THERE'S A, A FLAG THAT KIND OF COMES DOWN RIGHT HERE. SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, HARD TO ARTICULATE. BUT THE PROPERTY LINE IS HERE. AND SO THIS AREA BACK HERE IS ACTUALLY PART OF THIS FLAG. IT'S NOT PART OF OUR LOT. SO THE SHARED CROSS AXIS, WHICH IS GONNA BE THIS DRIVE RIGHT HERE, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS GONNA BE HALF ON THIS REMAINING PORTION, COMMERCIAL LAND AND HALF ON OURS. WHERE ARE THE THREE HOMES? SO THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST LOT ADJACENT TO HE'S POINT, CAN'T SEE BECAUSE OF THE, HE'S ONLINE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE THE DOTTED DASH. SO DIRECTLY BELOW THE THREE HOMES. MOVE YOUR CURSOR DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WELL, YEAH. SO BELOW THE THREE HOMES RIGHT THERE, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING. YOU'RE JUST, IT'S JUST GONNA BE, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR LOT. THAT'S GONNA BE A SEPARATE COMMERCIAL LOT. WE'RE NOT DOING THE ENTITLEMENTS ON THIS, WE'RE JUST DOING THE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE AERIAL AND IT IMPLIES THAT YOUR LOT GOES BEYOND THE THREE HOMES AND ABUTS THE DRAINAGES. THAT'S JUST THE ZONING DEPICTION. 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY TAKING ALL OF THE C TWO P LOT WE'RE ONLY TAKING A PORTION OF THE C TWO P. SO CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT SHOWS THE ZONING WITHIN THERE? THE, THERE WAS THE ONE THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED, IT MIGHT BE IN MY PRESENTATION. SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE IN THIS ONE, THE C TWO ZONING. WE'RE NOT TAKING THAT WHOLE C TWO ZONING LOT. IT EXTENDS SOUTHBOUND. AND SAME GOES WITH THE MPCD. IT GOES TO THE FLAG, IF YOU'LL POINT HERE AND THEN IT GOES BACK THERE. SO IT'S NOT, NOT PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT AREA THAT'S PART OF YOUR ACTUAL REQUEST IS, IS NOT, IS OFF YOUR SITE PLAN. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. I I'M TRYING TO MAKE, I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE YOU LIE AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING APPLIED FOR. SO THE, THE REQUEST, IF YOU'LL GO BACK TO THE EXHIBIT, SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THE C TWO P PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ZAR ZAMORA, THERE'S A MAX FRONT SETBACK THAT OUR BUILDING IS NOT, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THE APPLICATION IS INCLUDING THIS MASSIVE SWAB OF LAND AND YOUR SITE PLAN IS SHOWING THIS VERY SMALL SWAB OF SWAB OF LAND OR IS IS THE PART THAT'S ZONED C TWO P EVEN PART OF YOUR SIDE PLAN AT ALL? SO THERE IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT RIGHT NOW, UM, THAT IS GONNA BE SPLITTING A LOT UP THE ZONING MAP OR THE BO OA MAP IS CURRENTLY LIKE THAT. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE LOT IS CONFIGURED RIGHT NOW. SO, UM, WE DID OVER NOTIFICATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LOT IS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I JUST, I JUST, I WAS, I COULDN'T SEE WHERE THE S PLAN LIED ON THE AERIAL. IT WAS EXTREMELY CONFUSING AND I JUST WOULD, WOULD RATHER SEE, YOU KNOW, THE CY PLAN IMPOSE ON THIS AERIAL, SO I KNEW WHAT THE HECK I WAS . WE'LL, UH, WE'LL PULL UP THE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLA RIGHT NOW. YEAH. THIS, THIS MIGHT HELP A BIT. IS THAT HELPFUL DONALD? OR THAT'S A LOT MORE HELPFUL. YES. ALRIGHT, LET'S, ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE A ARE YOU, UH, IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? SO, SO WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS, SO WHEN WE'RE VOTING ON THIS, THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TO THE SOUTH, ARE THEY INCLUDED IN ANY VARIANCE APPLICATION OR IS IT ONLY THE CO FEES? 'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ON THE MPCD. WE, WE ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE SOLELY FOR THE 1 0 1 1 0 SOUTH SAR ZAMAR, THE CHICK-FIL-A SITE. OKAY. I JUST, [04:10:01] I JUST WANTED, I, IF WE VOTE ON THIS AND IT GETS APPROVED, IS, IS, IS, AND THEY BILL THIS CHICK-FIL-A ARE THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH LOCKED IN FOREVER AS WELL? I DON'T, I KNOW THAT THIS ONE WOULD BE PART, WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS SAY AS SUBMITTED. OKAY. I JUST, I'M JUST WONDERING. I ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M, I'M HAPPY. UH, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? OKAY. UM, AND AGAIN, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. NO COMMENTS ARE TO BE READ OR CHAIR, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. OH, I'M SORRY. HAVE Y'ALL LOOKED AT ANY OTHER CONFIGURATION? LIKE IS THIS YOUR PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE? YOU LOOKED CROSS UP AND DOWN EVERYTHING, LIKE TO THE CHAIR'S POINT. SO WE HAVE, UM, IF THE, THE 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK ACTUALLY EXTENDED TO WITHIN THE MPCD, WE COULD ACTUALLY GET THE CANOPY STRUCTURE INTO IT, UM, WHICH IS THAT NORTH STRUCTURAL ELEMENT, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE ADJACENT TO THE BLUE, WHICH WOULD BE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IF IT EXTENDED WITHIN THE MPCD. BUT IT DOESN'T. AND IF, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE INTENT OF THE C TWO P ZONING IS TO PUSH THE PARKING TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND PUSH THE BUILDINGS TO THE FRONT SO THEY ARE MORE VISIBLE TO, UM, THE THOROUGH AFFAIRS, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE SITE PLAN. OKAY. THE, THE THREE HOMES, UM, THEY'RE IN SUPPORT. SORRY, I WAS, UH, I I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY BUDDY SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE, TO THE DESIGN. ARE THEY REQUEST, ARE THEY CURRENTLY OCCUPIED OR ARE THEY OWNED BY LENNAR? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE BUILT ON THAT AERIAL. YEAH, WE, WE DO HAVE ONE IN SUPPORT, WHICH IS JUST THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY, UH, UM, ON THAT PLANT. SO THOSE THREE LOTS ARE STILL OWNED BY PERRY HOMES. THANK YOU, MR. DEAN. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NAN, CAN SOMEONE FROM THE BOARD, LET'S GET A MOTION RIGHT HERE. ANYBODY STEVENS MR. STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 3 54, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 35 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT SETBACK OF 55 FEET, SITUATED AT 10 11 0 SOUTH ZZA MORRIS STREET, APPLICANT BEING PAVED. DAWSON, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PROPOSED LAYOUT WILL PROVIDE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDING OF THE, AND THE STREET WILL CON CONSIST SOLELY OF DRIVE THROUGH LANES. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SITE LAYOUT AND THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY CREATE UNIQUE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACK AND PRACTICAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE SITE TO FUNCTION APPROPRIATELY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE VARIANCE WILL MAINTAIN THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BY PRESERVING AN OPEN LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WHILE ACCOMMODATING NECESSARY DRIVE-THROUGH OR CIRCULATION. 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 PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE FRONT YARD WILL REMAIN LANDSCAPED AND FREE OF PARKING. THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES WILL BE CONTAINED ON THE SITE AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. 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 AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE UNIQUE SITE LAYOUT AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTY. THESE CONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE SITE, WERE NOT CREATED SOLELY BY THE OWNER AND ARE NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, CAN WE GET A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. THAT WAS MR. MANNA. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? YES. OKAY. UH, MR. STEVENS, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. I THINK THE, THE SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE RELATIVELY PRAGMATIC AND I THINK THAT IT, IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, MEANING, UH, WE TRY TO AVOID A SEA OF PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND IT DOES THAT. AND [04:15:01] I KNOW THAT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS CREATE ONE HECK OF A QUEUE. SO I CAN APPRECIATE BEING SENSITIVE TO THAT AND AVOIDING TRAFFIC IN THE, IN THE STREET. UH, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ON THEIR APPROVAL. YEAH, I CONCUR. UH, THIS ONE HAS, UH, CITY, UH, UH, STAFF APPROVAL. SO I AM IN CONCURRENCE AS WELL. SO LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZUNA? YES. I CONCUR WITH, UH, 10 IN FAVOR? NO, NONE IN OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCE, UH, MOTION DOES PASS AS READ, SO, CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU GUYS. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. YES, SIR. AND REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER BEEZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? READY? PLEASE KNOW. COMMISSIONER BEEZ HAS JOINED A MEETING THAT WAS STILL UNANIMOUS. 11 CONCURRENCE. OKAY. OKAY. CASE NUMBER 10. CAN YOU TALK REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER BEEZ JUST TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HEAR YOU. TESTING. TESTING. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. LINE FOR THE OTHER CASE. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 5. APPLICANT BEING NOA GOMEZ LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO. UM, SHOULD BE LOCATED AT ONE 18 EERO STREET. UH, ZONING BEING R THREE. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A FOUR FOOT TWO INCH WESTERN SIDE STEPBACK SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED OFF ERO STREET AND SURROUNDED BY AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED PREDATING ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, LEADING TO THE PLACEMENT AND CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE REQUIRED SITE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 5 ON THE SIDE. STEPBACK, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, A SETBACK OF FOUR FEET TWO INCHES WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL SEPARATION BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND THE MINOR REDUCTION. WOULD NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RELATED TO PRIVACY ACCESS, DRAINAGE, FIRE SAFETY, OR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. TWO. REQUIRING STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD LIMIT THE REASONABLE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WHILE THE REQUESTED REDUCTION TO FOUR FEET TWO INCHES WOULD PROVIDE A PRACTICAL SOLUTION WITHOUT CREATING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. 42. NOTICE SENT WHEN RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM THE HARVARD PLACE. EAST LAWN, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE. LET'S, LET'S SEE. HAVE THE APPLICANT UP. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE HERE. HI THERE. UM, UM, 6 0 2 CAN AVENUE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 2 1 0. UM, SO THE, THE EXISTING HOME WAS KEPT IN, UH, WITHOUT BEING MODIFIED. WE DID THE, THE ADDITION, UH, WE DID A MISCALCULATION WHERE WE WERE FOLLOWING THE FENCE LINE INSTEAD OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S, OH, SO WE WERE FOLLOWING THE FENCE LINE INSTEAD OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WHAT WE DID IS, UH, WE DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THE PROPER, THE FENCE LINE UNTIL WE PULLED THE SURVEY THAT THE FENCE LINE WAS GOING INTO THE SUBJECT, THE OTHER PROPERTIES. SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE SHORT. SO WE DID EVERYTHING INTENT. IF YOU SAW ON IN DIAGRAM, WE WENT IN TWO FEET IN FROM THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE. SO THE ADDITION OF THE IS THE GRID PART. WE WENT TWO FEET IN TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE PERMITS. BUT WHEN THE SURVEY WAS PULLED OUT, WE WERE 10 INTENDING ARE SHORT. SO, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, I MEAN, WE WENT IN LINE, WE WENT IN. SO WE WON'T BE IN CONNECTION PIECE. I KNOW THE, THE HANDOVER HAS TO BE APPROVED. SO WITH THE ADDITION, WE INTENDED TO DO EVERYTHING RIGHT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE PROP, UH, THE FENCE LINE WAS INCORRECT. SO WE CAME OUT SHORT, [04:20:02] BUT WE STILL WENT IN FROM THE ACTUAL SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND DID YOU HAVE LIKE ALL THE BUILDING PERMITS AND ALL THE DID WE SUBMITTED ALL THE PERMITS AND EVERYTHING. REVIEWS AND ALL. EVERYTHING. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. WE, WE PULLED THE PRI THE RIGHT PERMITS. UM, AND WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE INSPECTION, THAT'S WHEN THEY NOTICED WHEN THEY DID THE SIDE, THE SIDE BACK MEASUREMENT. OKAY. LET'S SEE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? ALRIGHT. OKAY. UH, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY, UM, NO PUBLIC COMMENT? PUBLIC COMMENT YOU READ IN. ALRIGHT, DOES ANYBODY HERE WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION DO NINE? IT'S ITEM NUMBER 10. SO IT'S A CASE ONE FIVE ENDING IN 1 55. MR. STEVENS, NOT STEVENS, MR. REED. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA 26 103 0 0 1 55, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUESTS TO A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A FOUR FOOT, TWO INCH WESTERN SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT ONE 18 ERO STREET. APPLICANT BEING NO GOMEZ. 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE 10 INCH REDUCTION IS MINOR AND WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. ACCESS SAFETY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE REQUEST OF REDUCTION TO FOUR FOOT TWO INCH PROVIDES A PRACTICAL SOLUTION WHILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE MINOR 10 INCH REDUCTION WOULD NOT UNDERMINE THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND WOULD ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION AND USE OTHER THAN THOSE 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 VARIANCES DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER A CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. REMAINING SETBACK PROVIDES MEANINGFUL SEPARATION. THE MINOR REDUCTION WOULD NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. PRIVACY ACCESS, DRAINAGE, FIRE SAFETY OR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. SIX. THE PLAY THAT 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 AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. REQUEST IS BASED ON UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK UNNECESSARILY DIFFICULT. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE INHERENT TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER. THE VARIANCE WOULD ADDRESS THOSE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND ALLOW REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SECOND. SECOND. UH, SECOND. IS THAT MR. STEVENS? OKAY, MR. REED? UM, YES. I MEAN, I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. SOUNDS LIKE YOU FOLLOWED ALL THE CORRECT PROTOCOL. JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE THAT EXACTLY. I I RAN INTO THE SITUATION AT BEGINNING HILL WHERE THE HOUSES ARE SO CLOSE TO YOU TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAT I ALWAYS HAVE TO MOVE BACK. SO I KNEW THE PROCESS IS JUST, I WAS FOLLOWING THE FENCE LINE INSTEAD OF RIGHT. MR. STEVENS? YEAH. I'LL BE IN FAVOR. THIS IS LIKE REALLY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE A HOUSE IN THE AREA WITH MULTIPLE FENCE LINES, SO I FEEL YOUR PAIN, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHTY. AND IN MY LINE OF BUSINESS, WE TYPICALLY DO WHAT WAS CALLED A FOUNDATION SURVEY BEFORE WE EVEN START BUILDING A HOUSE OR WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, WHERE THE FOUNDATION LIES WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES. BUT YOU DO YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A . LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE HERE. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER YBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ. WHAT WAS THAT? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR ZINA? YES. UNANIMOUS. 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSITION. THE VARIANCES READ, UH, DID PASS. SO CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK IN FINISHING THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NOW, UH, ITEM NUMBER 11. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 11, IT'S BO. A 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 7. APPLICANT BEING SEGER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE, LOCATED AT 26 14 VERA CREW STREET ZONING BEING [04:25:01] R FOUR SINGLE FAMILY. THIS BEING A REQUEST FOR ONE A 2,300 SQUARE FOOT SIZE VARI FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 1,700 SQUARE FEET. TWO. A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A REAR SETBACK OF FIVE FEET. THREE. A ONE FOOT EAST SIDE SETBACK FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED FOUR FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN VERA CRUZ OR LOCATED OFF CRU WITH AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE R FOUR. THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ORIGINATED FROM THE APPLICANT APPLICATION ARE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR A CERTIFICATE DETERMINATION LEADING TO THE SUBMITTAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. GIVEN THE LOT SIZE, THESE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AFFECT HISTORICAL LAW CONFIGURATIONS AND SETBACKS THAT PREDATE AND DO NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF THE FACT, UM, FOR THE REAR SETBACK ON LOT SIZE ONE, A REZONING COULD BE PURSUED TO A ZONING DISTRICT WITH SUB WITH STANDARDS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LOCK CONFIGURATION, ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. TWO, GRANTING THE VARI VARIANCE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED LOT SIZE AND DENSITY STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE SITE SETBACK IN BO 8 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WE'LL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BY ALLOWING REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT WHILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. TWO, THE REQUEST IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION AND PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH LIMIT THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT WHILE MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED SETBACK. 43 NOTICES ARE SENT ZERO IN FAVORS IN OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED, NO RESPONSE FROM THE ODO, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT INCLUDES STAFF'S ORIENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHTY. SO WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION WOULD THEY NEED TO MOVE INTO IF, IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO BUILD ON THIS LOT? I MEAN, THEY WOULD NEED AN AN R ONE. YEAH. LOOKING AT R ONE OR IDZ. GOTCHA. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING UNITED ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD? BLESS YOU. BLESS YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON. YES, THANK YOU FOR, UH, SEEING ME TODAY. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, SO I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK. UH, SO YES, WE ARE ASKING FOR THREE VARIANCES, UH, FOR THIS LOT. UM, THE BIGGEST ONE BEING THAT THE LOT IS ONLY 1700 SQUARE FEET, BUT WAS ZONED ARE FOUR. AND SO IT REALLY SHOULD, WELL I SHOULD SAY SHOULD, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IT SHOULD BE AN R ONE. AND SO BECAUSE OF THE R FOUR DESIGNATION, WE ARE SEEKING THESE VARIANCES. UM, IT IS ALSO, UH, I'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF CONSULTATIONS HERE WITH THE CITY TRAINING TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO HERE. UM, I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE CITY, AND I HAVE MET WITH ELIZABETH NEFF, WHO'S A SENIOR PLANNER IN LAND ENTITLEMENTS THAT A CER CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION FOR THIS LOT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE R FOUR AND R ONE DESIGNATION. IT IS WITHIN THE 36 MILE RADIUS THAT IS, THAT SURROUNDS SAN FER FERNANDO CATHEDRAL. AND, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, THE R FOUR WAS, WAS NOT IMPOSED BY US, THAT WAS IMPOSED BY THE CITY. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE LOT WORK FOR US. UM, IF IT WASN'T R ONE, THEN I WOULDN'T NEED ANY VARIANCES. IT WOULD, IT WOULD FIT. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, HAVING SET THAT, I WILL SHOW HERE. I I DID GET THREE SIGNATURES FROM PEOPLE THAT I WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GOT IN FAVOR, GOT IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND, UH, I ALSO BROUGHT WITH ME [04:30:02] THIS, UM, BULLETIN THAT SHOWS, UH, ARTICLE 35 DASH 7 0 2 C THAT TALKS ABOUT THE NON-CONFORMING LOTS, UH, THAT ARE BASIC, LIKE IN THIS CASE R FOUR TO R ONE AND, UM, THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION WOULD, UM, TAKE CARE OF THE PLAING PROCESS. WE DO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION APPLICATION, UH, UH, REQUESTED. UM, THEY HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAVE PUT THAT ON HOLD BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GO FORWARD UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED. SO, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, ON, UM, WITH, YOU KNOW, CONSULT CONSULTATION TO, AND PEOPLE FROM THE CITY AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, TO, TO MAKE THE PROPERTY FIT. UM, THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 1700 SQUARE FEET. IT'S 25 BY 68, SO IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT WE CAN DO. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MULTIFAMILY OR ANYTHING. UM, BUT WE'D JUST LIKE SOME CLARITY ON HOW THIS, HOW THESE THINGS ARE GONNA BE HANDLED. WE HAVE SEVERAL LOTS IN, IN THE AREA. UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO BEAUTIFY IT A LITTLE BIT. WE, YOU KNOW, KEEP OUR LOTS CLEAN. UH, THIS WAS A DUMP SITE FOR EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE LOTS AROUND US ARE ALL FULL GROWN WITH WEEDS AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING LITTLE BY LITTLE, UM, MAKE OUR MARK AND IMPRESSION ON, ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE NEED A LITTLE HELP HONESTLY. MM-HMM . SO, UM, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE ARE ASKING FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE IN THE REAR. WE WOULD MAKE THAT WALL FIREPROOF AND FIRE SAFE. UH, WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE WITH THE, WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS. UM, SO I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DRAINING ANY WATER TO THE BACK. UM, AND REALLY IT'S ONLY A HALF FOOT SETBACK ON EACH SIDE, BUT I WAS TOLD IT'D BE BETTER JUST TO MOVE TO ONE SIDE AND REQUEST A ONE FOOT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. WE'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, ZONING COMMITTEE. UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE JUST, WE NEED A LITTLE HELP IN TRYING TO GET THESE LOTS ORGANIZED FOR US AND SEE WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO ONCE AND FOR ALL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? ANY QUESTIONS? SAMANTHA? SAMANTHA? SO, SO SMALL PROPERTY. UM, SO SMALL LOT, SO I KNOW WE'VE HAD DIALOGUE IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, SO SHOTGUN STYLE HOUSES FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IN THE PAST WE TALKED ABOUT LIKE THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT ON THE SIDES, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR LIGHT AND AIR AND, AND SAFETY AND OTHER THINGS. AND THEN FIVE FOOT IN THE BACK, OR I MEAN 10 FOOT IN THE BACK. SO DOES THAT PUT MOVE YOU OUT OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD A HOME? IF WE'D WENT THREE AND THREE AND FIVE, UH, 10 IN THE BACK? WELL, UH, IF YOU GIMME THREE AND THREE, I MEAN, I, IT WORKS BECAUSE I JUST, I'M ONLY ONE FOOT OFF ON THE SIDES, UM, IN THE REAR. I, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW PROPER PARKING. THAT'S WHY I HAD TO PUSH IT BACK. AND THE CONFIGURATION, YOU CAN SEE, UM, ON THE, ON THE PLAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE SITE PLAN, UM, RENDITION, I BROUGHT A, I BROUGHT A AI RENDITION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, UH, THERE SO YOU CAN SEE IT. UH, BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PARKING WORK, THAT'S WHY IT PUSHES IT BACK AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING NICE WITH THE DESIGN SO IT LOOKS GOOD. IT'S APPEALING, UM, FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE THERE AND, UM, AND TO HELP BEAUTIFY THE AREA. UM, SIR, REAL QUICK, ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TWO UNITS ON HERE IS RIGHT HERE? NO, NO, NO. THOSE ARE, THAT'S ONE UNIT. OKAY. WITH AN A AND A B. NOPE. THERE'S NO A AND B. WELL, IT'S BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING ORIGINALLY, BUT WE GOT DENIED TO DO MULTI-FAMILY. WE'RE TRYING TO DO TWO UNITS, BUT THIS IS STRICTLY JUST, UH, ONE UNIT'S, A TWO BEDROOM, ONE UNIT. SO WOULD WE, UM, DISMISS THE, THE B OR IS IT WELL, IT'S JUST THAT, IT'S, THEY'RE, THEY'RE METAL CONTAINERS, SO RIGHT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE TWO UNITS. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT THERE'S TWO CONTAINERS THAT MAKE ONE. OKAY. BUT IT'S ONE UNIT, SINGLE FAMILY. SO THIS RENDERING HERE, YOU, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE FRONT SPACE AND HOW IT'S BEING LEVERAGED. SO IS THE INTENT HERE WHERE THE B UNIT IS TO HAVE A A, A PARKING SPOT [04:35:01] THERE? PARKING IF YOU, YOU HAVE TO REFER BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S JUST A RENDITION FOR ARTISTIC, YOU KNOW, VIEWING. OH, I SEE. OKAY. BUT YOU GOT THE PARKING THERE ON THE SIDE. OKAY. SO, SO I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, AND CHAIR ORIAN IS NORMALLY THE ONE WHO SPEAKS UP ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT IN THE BACK. SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS HERE WITH REGARDS TO THAT, THAT SPACING ON THE BACKSIDE. YOU'RE MUTED. STILL MUTED. HEY DONALD. YEAH. LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT HERE, . OKAY. WELL, SO, UM, LIKE I WAS, I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE REAR, I KNOW IT'S FIVE FEET AND LIKE I SAID, THAT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE R ONE DESIGNATION, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY AND MAKE EVERYBODY FEEL COMFORTABLE, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NO WATER RUNOFF AND WE WOULD MAKE THAT A FIREWALL. AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS, DO THEY HAVE MULTIPLE SIZE SHIPPING CONTAINERS? SO DON'T THEY MAKE A SH A, A SHORTER ONE THAT, THAT POTENTIALLY THESE ARE PRETTY STANDARD. I KNOW, BUT, BUT I THINK, WELL THEY HAVE TWO, I THINK THEY HAVE TWO SIZES, RIGHT. SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE. YEAH, I'M PRETTY SURE THEY DO. UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU STILL COULD LEVERAGE THE SHIPPING CONTAINER, BUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, THE FOOTPRINT IN THE BACK. OKAY. STEVENS THE, YOU KNOW, THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS, WHAT'S REALLY AFFECTING THAT REAR WALL? THAT REAR SETBACK IS ONLY EIGHT FEET. THAT SHIPPING CONTAINER IS ONLY EIGHT FEET WIDE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE ENTIRE SETBACK IS BEING AFFECTED BY WHO'S TALKING ABOUT THE REAR SETBACK? THE REAR SETBACK, YEAH. IT'S ONLY EIGHT FEET WIDE. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT, THAT IS REALLY, VERSUS A 16 FEET IF THERE WERE VERSUS 16, OR IF I HAD A HOUSE THAT WAS 40, WELL, I MEAN LOT'S ONLY 25 FEET, SO, YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE NEED A, A SIDE DEAL THERE, BUT, ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. UH, MR. STEVENS THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK WHAT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS AS PLANNED? 640. OKAY. AND I CAN APPRECIATE THE, THE EIGHT FOOT WIDE ELEVATION ONLY ENCROACHING INTO THAT SETBACK. I'LL SAY I, I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. LIKE, ANYBODY THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO ENDEAVOR INTO TRYING TO BUILD NEW HOUSING ON, ON THESE TYPES OF LOTS. I'M, I'M NOT GONNA STAND IN THE WAY, SO I'LL BE IN FULL SUPPORT. APPRECIATE THAT. THERE. IT'S, IT IS A CHALLENGE. IT IS VERY MUCH A CHALLENGE, WHETHER IT'S STICK BUILD OR NOT, IT'S A CHALLENGE. WELL, I JUST HAD THE QUESTION 'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, THERE ARE HOMES BUILT IN THE REST OF THAT COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING IN THAT. SO THEY WERE SMALLER OR WHATEVER, SO THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR, THERE WERE SEVERAL HOMES THAT WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR IT. AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. DEAN. DEAN, MR. DEAN. HEY. SO WHEN Y'ALL PUT THE CONTAINERS TOGETHER, DO Y'ALL, DO Y'ALL WELD IT ON THE OUTSIDE AND WELD ON THE INSIDE? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IT'S ALL, UH, ENGINEERED. OH WOW. OKAY. WE HAVE AN ENGINEER AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA USE PEER FOUNDATION? YES, SIR. OKAY. ALSO DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER. OKAY. GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. THANK YOU MR. DANE. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, STAFF, DID WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, THAT WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER, THE BOARD, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, ORIAN, I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING IF YOU WANNA, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE CHAT, I CAN READ IT OUT FOR YOU. YES, SIR. Y'ALL HAVE, Y'ALL HAVE A SURVEYOR, RIGHT? UH MM-HMM . OKAY. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE PROPERTY SURVEYED. OKAY, GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DO IT CONSTRUCT, UM, IT'S GOOD SINCE YOU'RE CLOSE, JUST MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE YOU'RE CLOSE, YOU KNOW, AT FIVE FOOT, YOU KNOW, OR ELSE YOU CAN BE COMING BACK. ABSOLUTELY. WE DON'T WANNA COME BACK FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE. YEAH. OKAY. MR. IAN IS, IS GOOD. SO LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION READ IF WE CAN GET THE MOTION GOING. STEVENS, UH, MR. STEVENS, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 3 55, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, UM, [04:40:01] ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. UM, TO ALLOW FOR A PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR, OH, I, I SEE TO ALLOW FOR A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A FOUR FOOT, TWO INCH WEST SIDE SETBACK SITUATED AT 1 1 8 E ROSS STREET. APPLICANT BEING NOEL GOMEZ BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACT, I THINK YOU'RE READING, WAIT, YOU READING MOTION? OH, I'M, YEAH, I THOUGHT WHEN YOU SAID 10 INCH SETBACK, THAT'S NOT ME, WE'RE IN 1 57 OR, OR ITEM NUMBER 11. I SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT YOU EARLIER THAN THAT. I WAS TRYING TO, HERE WE GO. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OH EIGHT DASH 26 DASH 0 3 0 0 1 5 7, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANDER REQUEST FOR AT ONE AT 2,300 SQUARE FOOT. LOT SIZE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT, 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 1,700 SQUARE FEET. TWO, A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 20 FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A REAR SETBACK OF FIVE FEET AND THREE, A ONE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, A ONE FOOT EAST SIDE SETBACK, ONE FOOT EAST SIDE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED. FOUR FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 6 1 4 VERACRUZ STREET. APPLICANT BEING SAGER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDC AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD ALLOW REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S CONFIGURATION AND LIMITED DEVELOPABLE AREA. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS WOULD UNNECESSARILY RESTRICT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT. THE VARIANCES PROVIDED A PRACTICAL SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. 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. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIAL INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY IN 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 THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE PROPERTY'S UNIQUE CONFIGURATION AND PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS WHICH RE RESTRICT THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT. THESE CONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER. END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE SECOND FROM, WHO IS SECOND? MR. DEAN? ORIAN. OH, ORIAN. OKAY. YEAH. , WE GOT, WE'RE BACK ON. OKAY. WE ARE STEVENS ARE BACK ON. UH, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE IN FULL SUPPORT FOR REASONS THAT I'VE PREVIOUSLY STATED. UH, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, MR. ORIAN? YES. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT TOO. I, I WAS TRYING TO MENTION EARLIER THAT I, I THOUGHT I, I, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS BEING A, EITHER AN ANTIQUATED LOT OR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD QUALIFY FOR A COD. SO I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY NUMBER ONE WAS EVEN ON THERE, BUT, UM, UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M IN SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THAT CLOSE PUBLIC PORTION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE FOR ITEM NUMBER 11. COMMISSIONER STEVENS. YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MENA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER EZ I CONCUR. VICE CHERYL ZUNA. YES, I CONCUR. UNANIMOUS. 11 IN FAVOR IS YOUR OPPOSITION THE MOTION? UH, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES PASS. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE HERE. I JUST, ONE QUESTION. SO I I STILL NEED TO GET THE CERTIFICATE DETERMINATION CORRECT. OKAY. TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. UM, SO THE NEXT ITEM FOR NED RUB IS NOT HERE. WE BELIEVE THE APPLICANT LEFT, UM, BUT WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, [04:45:01] ITEM NUMBER 14. UH, SO BO O 8 26 1 0 3 0 0 1 64, UM, AT 24 0 6 EL PASO STREET. THIS IS FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANT FROM THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE SETBACK. NEXT SLIDE. PROBABLY LOCATED JUST WEST OF DOWNTOWN, UH, EAST OF SOUTH ZAMORA. CITIZEN, CITIZEN COMPLAINT TO CODE COMPLIANCE PROMPTED INVESTIGATION. THE STRUCTURE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED ON SHARED PROPERTY LINE BEFORE THE, A ADOPTION OF APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS RESULTING IN VIRTUALLY NO SEPARATION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE AND THE CARPORT. ALTHOUGH THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE A VEHICLE WITHIN A COMPLIANT CARPORT, ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN THE REAR YARD. CURRENT CARPORT REPLACED A PREVIOUSLY CARPORT WITH THE SAME SETBACKS. IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK CURRENT, UH, CARPORT AS IT STANDS CLOSER LOOK AND SURROUNDING AREA, THE STATUS RECOMMENDS THAT NOW ON BO OA 26 103 0 0 1 64 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE FACTS. ALTHOUGH THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD PROVIDE LIMITED SPACE, THE REAR YARD OFFERS A VIABLE LOCATION FOR A COMPLIANT CARPORT AND THE VARIANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK WHERE STRUCTURAL SEPARATION IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT DUE TO NEIGHBORING DWELLING LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY LINE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, 26 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT. NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND OPPOSITION, NO VOICEMAILS RECEIVED AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE HISTORIC RESIDENCE. HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT. OH WOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. YOU'RE WELCOME. NO PROBLEM. YEAH. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UH, MY NAME IS SELENA GONZALEZ AND I AM THE, UM, I'LL BE REPRESENTING MY MOTHER, CARMEN ALSAN. SHE'S, UM, 80 YEARS OLD AND IS UNABLE TO, UH, ATTEND THIS HEARING. UM, MY MOTHER AND MY NEPHEW, UH, THAT LIVES WITH HER, THEY HAD, WE HAD AN ORIGINAL CARPORT, UH, REPLACED, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING AS IT SHOULD. UM, A LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD HANDYMAN TOLD HER THAT HE COULD REPLACE IT AND HE DID IT, UNFORTUNATELY WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT. AND THEN, UM, AND NOT WITHIN THE RULES OF CODE COMPLIANCE. UM, BUT, UM, THAT PHOTO OF THE, OF THE NEW CARPORT, IT SHOWS THAT IF WE, IF HE TRIED TO INSTALL IT WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT, UH, SIDE PARAMETER, THAT A CAR WOULD NOT FIT, UM, IN THAT, IN THAT, UH, AREA, THAT SPACE. AND SO, UM, SHE REQUESTS THAT THE, UH, VARIANCE BE A WAIVE TO ALLOW HER TO KEEP THE, THE CARPORT AS INSTALLED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. DOES SHE HAVE, LIKE, OBVIOUSLY ANY KINDA MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHERE SHE'S TRYING TO KEEP THE CAR COVERED OR, YOU KNOW, UH, SHE DOESN'T HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION. IT'S, UH, THE CARPORT IS MAINLY JUST FOR THE PROTECTION OF MY NEPHEW'S, UH, CAR. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? DOES YOUR CARPORT HAVE, UM, GUTTERS ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE? UM, I, I BELIEVE IT HAS PANELS IN ON TOP. UM, BUT OH, THE, HER PROPERTY, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A GUTTER RIGHT BY THAT, UM, THAT SIDE OF THE CARPORT BY THE HOUSE. I, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SEE THE, UNFORTUNATELY THIS CARPORT PRESSURE ON THE HOUSE MORE VALUABLE THAN THE HOUSE, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. OH, OKAY. I'M SO SORRY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I BELIEVE THE GUTTERS, UH, FALL LIKE RIGHT IN THIS AREA AND IT'S CAUSING THAT. WELL, YOU KNOW, THE SIDING IS BUCKLING AT THIS TIME, BUT, BUT THE SIDE OF THE, THE ROOF OF YOUR CARPORT IS GOING LIKE THIS TOWARDS THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. RIGHT. SO DO YOU HAVE GUTTERS AT THAT EDGE OF THE CARPORT? I AT THIS EDGE? NO, THERE'S, THERE AREN'T ANY GUTTERS ON, ON THAT EDGE ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, BY THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE? NO, NO, IT, WE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY GUTTER, SO NO. [04:50:03] SO ALL THAT, WHEN THAT RAINS RIGHT HERE, WHEN IT RAINS MM-HMM . ALL THE WATER FROM YOUR PROPERTY ROOF DUMPS TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, IT, IT ACTUALLY FALLS LIKE RIGHT HERE IN BETWEEN THE, THE GATE AND ALL THAT. UM, YOU HAVE ONE INCH. YES. SO, AND SO IT, IT PUDDLES ALL RIGHT. IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. WOULD YOU CONSIDER PUTTING A GUTTER ON THAT SIDE TO OH, I MEAN, IF SHE, I WOULD ASSUME IF SHE HAD TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO, UM, UH, KEEP THE, THE CARPORT, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, WE CAN'T IMPOSE THAT CONDITION, BUT IF SHE'D LIKE TO AMEND THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROOF, THEN THAT'D BE, THAT'LL GO A LONG WAY TO, TO TRY TO GET THE APPROVALS HERE FOR THAT VARIANCE ASIDE SETBACK VARIANCE. MM-HMM . SO YOU, YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY YES, WE'D INCLUDE GUTTERS ON OH, I'D HAVE, YEAH. UM, BUT IF, UH, WOULD I HAVE TO DO THAT EVEN WITHOUT HER? UH, WELL, YOU'RE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR, YOU'RE REPRESENTING HER IN THE CASE TODAY, SO YES, THAT WOULD, OH, I GOSH, I I REALLY WOULD HATE TO MAKE, UH, THAT DECISION, UM, IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT I CAN PROVE THAT THERE'S GUTTERS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE HOUSE AND NOT, BUT THERE'S NO GUTTERS NOW WE CAN SEE THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE NOW. THERE'S, THE CONCERN IS THAT THE WATER FLOWS INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND, AND THAT CAN CAUSE FOUNDATION ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. OKAY. UM, YEAH, I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, AND, UH, AMEND THIS TO INCLUDE GUTTERS THEN. OKAY. AND, AND MANNA. SO, UM, YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE PAPERWORK THAT WAS PROVIDED MM-HMM . AND IS THE PROPERTY LINE WELL-DEFINED? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ROOFS ARE OVERLAPPING, UH, FROM THE PICTURES I'M LOOKING AT MM-HMM . AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, IF THEY'RE OVERLAPPING SOMEONE OR BOTH ARE IN VIOLATION OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, CROSSING OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AND, YOU KNOW, SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED WITH REGARDS TO THAT. UH, AND THEN IF WE ASK FOR THE GUTTER, SO WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FLOOD EACH OTHER OUT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN, SO THE QUESTION IS, IF WE PUT GUTTERS ON THERE, YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO TRIM THE METAL A LITTLE BIT ON THE ROOFING TO PUT A GUTTER IN THERE BECAUSE YOU, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MAY ALREADY BE AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS ONE INCH, BUT YOU KNOW, THE PICTURE, YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SITTING OVER ON TOP OF THE, THE CURRENT CARDBOARD OR THE PICTURE SHOWS LIKE IT IS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I DO HAVE A CONCERN OVER THAT. JUST IN GENERAL, UM, COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, WE SAW A, A CASE LIKE THIS, UH, LAST YEAR AND WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID WAS GET A LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR STATING, UM, BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THE HOUSES WERE SO CLOSE TOGETHER, THE PROPERTIES WERE SO CLOSE TOGETHER, AND SO WE ASKED THEM TO, TO GET A LETTER FROM THAT PROPERTY OWNER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS TYPE WOULD APPLY FOR APPLICANT. WELL, I GUESS IT, WELL THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO BRING UP IS THAT, THAT IF WE ASKED TO PUT UP A GUTTER, THEY LIKELY HAVE TO SHAVE IT OR FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, HOW TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I GUESS IT'S WHAT IT IS. WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT. SO, UM, YEAH. SO IF IT GETS APPROVED FOR A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK, YES. REGARDLESS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINE IS AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THAT ONE INCH. UM, IF THIS IS APPROVED BY THE BOA. YEAH. AND THIS IS JUST THE TOUGH SITUATION. BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WERE BUILT IN 1930. YEAH, IT LOOKS, UH, TO ME, IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT, I MEAN IT LOOKS LIKE THAT HOUSE TO THE LEFT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE ENCROACHMENT, BUT, BUT WHAT DO, WHAT DO I KNOW? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND EVERYTHING WAS MADE OF METAL, RIGHT? ON THE, ON FROM, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF ITS METAL WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE CARPORT THAT WAS PUT IN. YES, SIR. CORRECT SIR. NON-COMBUSTIBLE. NON-COMBUSTIBLE. SO, UM, ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN OR NO PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYBODY SIGNED IN TO SPEAK? WE DO NOT. OKAY. THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION. I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION. AND, AND SO DID WE GET UH, UM, SHE READ IT IN THE, SHE READ. SHE DID READ. GOT HER. OKAY. UM, SURE I CAN DO IT. ALRIGHT, MR. REED. OKAY, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO [04:55:01] OA 26 103 0 0 1 63, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. GRANTED REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH A ONE INCH SIDE SETBACK AND WITH GUTTERS, UM, INSTALLED ALONG PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 24 0 6 EL PASO STREET. APPLICANT BEING KARMA OUS ON, UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS, WE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IN SUCH LITERAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. UNITED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A CARPORT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED IN THE SAME LOCATION WITH SIMILAR SETBACKS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATING A CARPORT DESPITE THE PROPERTIES ESTABLISHED CONFIGURATION, HISTORICAL USE OF THE, OF THIS AREA FOR A CARPORT. THREE BY GRAYING THE VARIANCE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. GRANTED, THE VARIANCE MAINTAINS THE SPIRIT AND ORDINANCE BY ALLOWING THE CONTINUED USE OF A AREA HISTORICALLY OCCUPIED BY A CARPORT. FOUR VARIANCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZED THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED. 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 PROPERTY IS LOCATED. VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER AS A SIMILAR CAR REPORT PREVIOUSLY EXISTS IN THIS LOCATION. SIX PLAY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE, OR A RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. PROPERTY'S EXISTING CONFIGURATION AND HISTORY OF A CARPORT WITH SIMILAR SETBACKS CREATES A SITE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE. I THINK THAT'S END OF MOTION. ALRIGHT, I GOT A SECOND HERE. SECOND. SECOND. STEVENS. MR. REED? UH, YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITH THE GUTTERS I THINK, UM, SINCE THERE'S ALREADY CARPORT THERE, BUT THAT WILL PREVENT ANY SORT OF DAMAGE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER REED? UH, YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER DEAN? YES, I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER BOEZ? I CONCUR. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. VICE CHAIR DINA? YES. I CONCUR WITH 11 IN FAVOR. ZERO OPPOSITION. UNANIMOUS, UH, MOTION GRANTING THE VARIANCE. THUS PASS. CONGRATULATIONS AND PLEASE GET WITH STAFF SO THEY CAN HELP YOU WITH THE NEXT STEPS HERE. I WILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, YOU BET. UM, SO WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 12. UM, I GUESS THEY LEFT. UM, I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE BOARD IF WE CAN GET THIS CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12TH. UM, ADDITIONALLY, I'M NOT SURE WHY MY NOTES SAY ITEM 14 WAS READ EARLIER FOR CONTINUANCE. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND READING JUST, OR ACKNOWLEDGING ITEM 13 IS THE ONE THAT'S BEING CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12TH ALSO. SO WE HAVE 12, 13. YEAH, I MOVED TO CORRECT. OKAY. SO DO I, CAN I GET A, JUST A UH, MOTION FOR I MOVED, I MOVED FOR BOA DASH 26 DASH 1 0 3 DOUBLE 0 1 58. ITEM NUMBER 12 TO BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12TH. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A THERE. WHO'S SECONDING AYE. MOTION PASSES. UM, AND THEN ITEM 13, WHO IS THE SECOND PHILLIP? MR. MANUP. OKAY. AND THEN NUMBER 13, RIGHT? UH, WE WERE CORRECT. YEAH, ITEM 13 WAS CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 12TH. DO WE NEED TO MOTION THAT AGAIN? YEAH. CAN YOU JUST MOTION THAT AGAIN? 'CAUSE MY NOTES SAY WE READ ITEM 14 FOR SOME REASON. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET ON RECORD. I, I MOVED TO CONTINUE. ITEM NUMBER 13, BO OA DASH 26 DASH 3 0 0 1 61 TO OCTOBER 12TH. SECOND. ALRIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. AYE. AYE. ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD? UH, MINUTES. [ Approval of Minutes  ] UH, THE MINUTES. UM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. WE HAVE ONE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE ALREADY THAT I RECEIVED. NO OTHER CHANGES WERE RECEIVED. MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. SECOND. ALRIGHT, THE TIME IS SIX 10. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.