* 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. OH, OKAY. [00:00:01] ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD. WE'RE GOOD. YOU CAN START. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, [Call to Order] GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS LISA ELLI AND I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN SESSION, AND WE HAVE OUR INTERPRETERS READ THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR THIS MEETING. STAFF, PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL. MR. MENCHACA. PRESENT. MS. CRUZ ON MUTE. MA'AM. PRESENT MR. THIEL? PRESENT. MR. MANAM? PRESENT. MR. ORIAN? PRESENT. MS. BRETON? PRESENT. MR. UNA? PRESENT? MR. TREVINO PRESENT? MR. DELVER PRESENT AND DR. ELLI PRESENT? GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. MS. KORA IS PRESENT. OKAY. I THINK WE JUST HAD OUR CHAIR JOIN. I SEE MR. MARTINEZ. HELLO? OKAY, WE CAN HEAR YOU. SARAH, YOU'RE ON NOW. OKAY, BUT I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING. IT SAYS WE'RE, UH, WE ARE LIVE ALREADY. WE STARTED THE MEETING AND WE JUST FINISHED UP. ROLL CALL . SO, UH, UH, TIM MARTINEZ, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN, UH, WHILE YOU GET, WHILE YOU GET, UM, YOUR VIDEO UP, WE CAN START WITH DR. RE'S, UH, READING OF THE STATEMENT. VERY GOOD. OKAY, GO AHEAD. DR. RE, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S THESIS, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS ON THE CITY'S THE ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE A STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY ZONING CODE, 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, FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWER TO, IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWER TO HEAR CASES IN OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED OF THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES THIS CONCURRENT VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELIEF CAUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN [00:05:01] ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT VACCINE CASE. PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT. STAFF PROCEED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETING ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW ANTONIO GOV. I'VE BEEN CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENTS. TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL OR ASKING BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED. STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL. LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS. IN SPANISH, INTERPRETERS ARE STANDBY BY AS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. YES. UH, HAVE WE, UH, DONE THE EXPLANATION FROM, UM, THE STAFF AS TO PROCEDURE FOR THE, UM, MEETING TIME LIMITS ALL ON? YES. YES, WE DID. WE JUST FINISHED THAT, SIR. OKAY. I'M, I'M, YOU'RE BREAKING UP FOR ME. OKAY. WE'RE, UH, WE'RE READY TO START WITH THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEMS IF YOU ARE. OKAY. YES. [1. 20-3166 BOA-20-10300037: A request by Jaci Clemens for a 47.7’ variance from the minimum distance requirement of 150’ between signs per Chapter 28 to allow a sign to be 102.3’ away from the nearest sign, located at 5706 West Loop 1604 North. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 6) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0197, Kayla.Leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] SO CASE THAT'S CASE NUMBER, UH, ZERO ZERO, UH, THREE SEVEN. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND, UH, PLEASE HAVE STAFF GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSIONER, UH, ZEKE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES D O A CASE 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 7. IT'S AT 57 0 6 WEST WEEK, 1604 NORTH. THE APPLICANT IS JACKIE CLEMONS. REQUESTS FOR A 47.7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF 150 FEET BETWEEN SIGNS PER CHAPTER 28 TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE 102.3 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAR SIGN. ZOIA IS C THREE, GENERAL COMMERCIAL FIVE. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A AGREEANCE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A SIGNED PERMIT TO, TO REMOVE THE EXISTING LONGHORN STAKEOUT SIGN AND REPLACE IT WITH A MULTI-TENANT SIGN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE GLOVE AND MARKET SIGN MASTER PLAN ESTABLISHED IN JUNE OF 2005. THE PLAN REQUIRES SIGNS TO BE AT LEAST 150 FEET APART FROM EACH OTHER. THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE 102.3 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST SIGN. THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. THE FRONTAGE IS ALONG 1604. THE NEXT IMAGES ARE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SIGN ALONG WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE BO A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A NEW SIGN BY REPLACING AN EXISTING ONE. THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIGN PLACED ALONG SIX FOUR. AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SPACE WILL REMAIN BETWEEN SIGNS SO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CONTINUE TO BE OBSERVED. OKAY. THERE ARE TWO NOTICES MAILED OUT. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSES FROM THE MOUNTAIN VIEW ACRES SAN COALITION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. TAKE CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE AND WE'RE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. PROCEED, UH, MR. NER PROPERTY. OKAY, MR. NER, DO WE, DO YOU HAVE, GIVE US YOUR, UH, LEGAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? [00:10:02] UH, 48 20 SEVENTH QUARRY RUN, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 9. EXCELLENT. PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE FOOTAGE AS, AS WAS EXPLAINED, UH, WE'RE TAKING DOWN AN EXISTING SIGN AND, UH, REPLACING IT WITH A MULTI-TENANT SIGN TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE FOR ALL THE TENANTS IN THE, IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. OKAY. IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR, YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION? WELL, IT, UH, YES, SIR. I MEAN, BA WE'RE JUST, WE'RE NEED TO RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A CURRENT LONGHORN STAKE OUTSIDE, UM, AND PER THE MASTER SIGN PLAN, IT IS JUST, WE CAN DO A MULTI-TENANT SHOP, UH, RETAIL SIGN, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A SINGLE-TENANT LONGHORN STAKE OUT OUTSIDE, UH, AS THE PROPERTY SITS, THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT THE SIGN IS IS, IS WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE, FOR THE SPACING. OKAY. AND THERE'S, UH, THERE'S A SIGN, UH, OKAY. THAT'S, UH, AND OVER AT THE SAME TIME. AND WE HAVE ANY WI WE DON'T HAVE THE WITNESS SIGNED UP FOR THIS CASE. THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. OR, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, CONCERNING THE SIGNING? ANYONE? OKAY. IAN, MR. ARIA, GO AHEAD. UH, I JUST WANTED TO, BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS ROAD AND, AND THE WAY THEY'RE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION, ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS MULTI-TENANT SIGN IS GOING TO BE AFTER A DRIVEWAY, AND SO THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY VIEW CONFLICTS BECAUSE IT'S ONE WAY TRAFFIC. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY, ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT , MR. , DOES THE EXISTING MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN, UH, ALLOW FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ARE WE, ARE WE KIND OF STAYING WITHIN THAT MASTER PLAN IN TERMS OF THE, UH, THE SURFACE AREA OF THE SLIDE THAT'S PROPOSED? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. UH, WE, WE ARE SAYING WITHIN WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE MASTER TIME PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO, SO WILL IT BE CHANGES MADE TO THE HEIGHT AND OR DIMENSIONS OF THE CURRENT SIGN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MULTITENANT SIGN? YES, SIR. UM, THE CURRENT SIGN, UH, IS A SINGLE TENANT LONGHORN STEAK HOUSE, AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A MULTITENANT, SO IT DOES GO UP IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, UM, THAT'S JUST TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE EACH TENANT, UM, ACCORDINGLY. BUT IT DOES FALL WITHIN, UH, THE IONS OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. WHAT, WHAT IT'S ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE. WILL THE HIGH SPEED CHANGING FROM THE CURRENT TIME? UM, YES. I, IT IS GONNA BE PROBABLY, WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT CURRENT HEIGHT OF THAT LONGHORN STAKEOUT SIGN, UM, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT IS ABOUT 10 FOOT TALLER THAN, THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. UM, AND, AND JUST TO BACK UP AND CLARIFY, THIS LONGHORN SIGN WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED TO BE A, UH, A MULTI-TENANT SIGN LIKE WE'RE PROPOSING. UM, I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UH, THIS TIME LAST YEAR AND WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH A, UH, WITH A DEVELOPMENT IN AND THE H E V AND, UH, WHERE WE WERE, UH, FIGURE WHERE THIS, WE REALIZED THAT THEY, THE LONGHORN HAD PUT UP A SINGLE TENANT SIGN IN PLACE OF WHERE THIS MULTI-TENANT SIGN, UH, WAS BEING PROPOSED OR IS BEING PROPOSED. SO, UH, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MASTER SIGN PLAN, THIS SIGN SHOULD BE A MULTI-TENANT. UH, THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. UH, DO, DO WE HAVE, UH, UH, THE, UH, FILE INSTRUCTOR ON STAFF AVAILABLE FOR A QUESTION? WE DO, SIR. [00:15:05] EDWARD RODRIGUEZ CITY IS SAN ANTONIO. VERY GOOD. MR. RODRIGUEZ, UH, DOES THIS SIGN THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THE NEW SIGN THAT'S GONNA BE REPLACING THE LONG HORSE SIGN POSITION, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW CITY, UH, CITY COAST SIGN? YES, IT DOES. OKAY. AND, UM, SO EVERYTHING'S BEEN APPROVED. THE, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THEIR STATEMENTS. WE HAVE NO WITNESSES. UH, NO MORE AND NO MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. OKAY. I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION ON THIS ON REQUEST CORIAN RA GO AHEAD. REGARDING CASE NUMBER, UH, B O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 3 7, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A 47.7 FOOT BEARINGS FROM THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF 150 FEET BETWEEN SIGNS PER CHAPTER 28 TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE 102.3 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST SIGN SITUATED AT 57 0 6 WEST LOOP 60 0 4 NORTH APPLICANT BEING CLAIMANTS BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH AS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER 28 AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE STRICT ENFORCEMENT PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY IS A HARDSHIP THAT COSTS THE APPLICANT TO NOT HAVE MANY OPTIONS REGARDING SIGNED PLACEMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE CURRENT SIGN ON SUBJECT PROPERTY REPLACED WITH A MULTI-TENANT SIGN, AND IF SOMEONE WILL NOT INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO THE AREA AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO A DENIAL WILL PRO WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY STAFF FINDS A DENIAL WILL ELIMINATE THE APPLICANT'S OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE THEIR SIGNAGE WITH A MULTI-TENANT SIGN, WHICH WILL CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE ADDITIONAL TENANT'S COMMERCIAL USE. THREE A DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SITUATED, UH, OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST DOES NOT LIKELY PROVIDE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. THE NEW SIGN WILL REMAIN AT THE SAME EXACT LOCATION AS PREVIOUSLY LOCATED. THREE D WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE REPORT. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL EMPLOYEES A BRAND NEW SIGN IN THE SAME LOCATION AS A CURRENT SIGN. THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT INTRODUCE AN ADDITIONAL SIGN TO THE SIGNAGE EARLY SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES RECEIVED NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 28. THE INTENT OF THE MATERIAL LIMITATION IS TO PRESERVE AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF SPACE IN BETWEEN EACH SIGN WITHIN THIS MASTER PLAN AREA. THE REQUEST DOES NOT DISREGARD THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT 102.3 FEET WILL BE RETAINED BETWEEN SUBJECTS AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 28. END OF MOTION. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND I DO THE SECONDING HONOR CHAPTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DOCTOR. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. UM, MR. RY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THAT? SURE. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, UH, AS READ, UH, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE, UH, THEY'RE IN LINE WITH THE MASTER SITE PLAN. IT DOESN'T APPEAR A CONFLICT WITH UTILITIES. IT'S NOT GONNA CONFLICT WITH, UH, EMBER EGRESS OF THE, UH, NEARBY DRIVEWAY DUE TO THE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD WHILE WE SUPPORT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. DR. DR. UM, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING TO ADD THAT, UM, THE DISTANCE, THEY ADDRESS THE DISTANCE AS FAR AS NOT BEING ABLE TO PUT IT ANY PLACE OUT AS WELL WHILE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. ALRIGHT. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO PUT THEIR INPUT? I HEAR OF NO ONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS. OKAY. THAT BE THE CASE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. ALRIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY DR. MADE BY MR. ORIAN, SECOND BY DR. ELLI. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FACTS, MR. MENCHACA SECOND WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UM, MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. [00:20:01] YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTO YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR MARTINEZ. TRY IT AGAIN. CHAIR. HELLO? OKAY. CAN HEAR YOU. I CONCUR WITH THE, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. AND THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, PLEASE, UH, HAVE THE APPLICANT CONTACT, UH, STAFF FOR COMPLETION OF THE APPLICATION APPLICATION. AND [2. 20-3165 BOA-20-10300028: A request by Hiram Garcia Munoz for a 136 square foot variance from the maximum 40% allowance for Accessory Detached Dwelling Units (ADDU) to allow an ADDU to be 550 square feet, located 446 Demya Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 4) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0197, Kayla.Leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] NOW WE'LL GO ON THE NEXT CASE. NEXT CASE IS BO OA 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 8. THE ADDRESS IS 4 4 6 DAMIA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS HI GARCIA MUNOZ. THE REQUEST FOR A 136 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40% ALLOWANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY, UH, DETACHED 12 UNIT TO, TO ALLOW THE A D D U TO BE 550 SQUARE FEET. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX ML D TWO MLR ONE A H O D FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE PRIOR, UH, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. EUC CURRENTLY PERMITS AN A D D, YOU SEE A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 40% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED WOULD BE 414 SQUARE FEET. THE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 136 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE A D D U TO BE 550 SQUARE FEET. NEXT SLIDE. THE NEXT PHOTOS ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE METAL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS BEING REMOVED AND WILL BE REPLACED WITH WOOD FENCING, SO THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE. NEXT IMAGES ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA THE SHED THAT WAS SEEN AT THE BACKYARD THAT SHED WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE A D D U. THE A D D U WILL MEET OFFSET BACKS APPLICANT'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 136 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO THE ACCESSORY DETACHED WALL UNIT. AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATIONS. AND THE PROPOSED A D U WILL MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY INCLUDING A SIMILAR ROOF PITCH AND SLOPE. IN THE DESIGN OF THE A D D U, THERE WERE 21 NOTICES SENT OUT, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE RAINBOW HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION CHAIR. YES, WE'RE READY WITH THE APPLICANT. OKAY. PLEASE BRING IT FORWARD OR PUT HER LINE HER MS. GARCIA. THANK YOU MR. GARCIA. GO AHEAD AND START. UM, YOU MIGHT NEED TO. OKAY. YOU'RE, UM, YOU'RE ON MUTE WITH MR. GARCIA. GO AHEAD. OH, YES. UM, I'M MR. GARCIA. UM, AS WAS REVIEWED THERE IN THE PRESENTATION, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE MAXIMUM WORK FOOTAGE FOOTPRINT. UM, MY WIFE AND I, WE MOVED IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR. UH, AT THIS TIME WE ALSO DID MY PARENTS, MY AGING PARENTS TO LIVE WITH US. SO THIS A D U WOULD BE FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD 40% FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE. UH, OUR HOUSE, UH, HAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1,036 40% WOULD EQUAL 414 SQUARE FEET. UM, HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THIS NEED TOO MUCH OF A REDUCED SPACE FOR MY AGING PARENTS. AND WHILE WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UH, WE COULD BUILD UP TWO STORIES THAT GIVEN THEIR AGE, UH, AND THEIR HEALTH, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION TO BE CLIMBING, UH, STAIRS. THUS WE REQUESTED THEIR VARIANCE OF A HUNDRED AND, UH, 36 SQUARE FEET SO THAT WE'VE BE ABLE TO GIVE 'EM AN ADEQUATE LIVING SPACE AND WE CAN HAVE 'EM HERE WITH US SO WE, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THEM CLOSELY, UH, WHILE THEY, AT THE SAME TIME [00:25:01] THEY MAINTAIN A CERTAIN LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE, UH, WE ARE AWARE THAT WE WOULDN'T BE, UH, OR WE'RE NOT SET TO BE LUCRATIVE OR MAKE PLENTY OFF THIS DEAL. UH, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN OUR BACKYARD AND WOULDN'T IMPOSE ON ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UH, WE WILL KEEP IN MIND THAT THE SLOPE AND PITCH, UH, AND KEEP IT, UH, A SIMILAR STRUCTURE TO THE PRINCIPAL HOUSE, UH, SO US TO NOT ATTRACT UNDUE ATTENTION OR, OR, OR, OR TO KEEP EVERYTHING FOR, UH, FOR, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDELINES AND OF COURSE CITY ORDINANCES. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, UH, WE'VE NEVER HEARD, UH, YOUR LEGAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOR BEGINNING THIS PRESENTATION. MY APOLOGIES. UH, MY LEGAL ADDRESS IS 4 4 6 DAMIA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 7. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP THE SPEAK SIR. ALRIGHT. BOARD, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? NO, I DO. ABEL MKA CHAKA, GO AHEAD. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDING THE CHIEF STRUCTURE BE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. IS THERE LIKE A PROTECTIVE WAY THAT YOUR, IS THERE A, A COVER THAT PROTECTS, CONNECTS BOTH STRUCTURES? LIKE WALKING FROM ONE HOUSE TO THE OTHER, THAT'S LIKE A ROOF. I, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT, THAT PROTECT THAT CUT CONNECTS BOTH STRUCTURES? NO, THAT, THAT'S NOT, NO, UH, FEE STRUCTURE WILL BE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. I SEE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? I DO NOT SEE OR HEAR ANYONE, NO QUESTIONS, SIR, THAT WE CAN SEE. OKAY, VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. UM, ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS THAT YOU MENTIONED THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR YOUR, UH, I GUESS FOR SOMEONE'S PARENTS AND IT'LL BE HAVE, IT'LL HAVE ALL, YEAH, IT'LL HAVE ALL THE FACILITIES NECESSARY. AND, UH, SO THEREFORE STAFF, HAVE YOU SEEN THE, THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING TO MAKE SURE IT MAKES ALL COMPLIANCE? YES, SIR, WE DID. IT WOULD MEET ALL THE FARMS FROM A D D U. UM, IT ALSO, AS, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, WE MEET ALL SETBACKS AS WELL. THE BACKYARD IS LARGE ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN IT AND THERE'S AN ALLEY TO THE BACK AS WELL. OKAY, VERY GOOD. NO. ANY QUESTIONS? NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, SPEAK UP PLEASE. DONE. OKAY. I'LL GO CLOSING ON THIS MEETING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS CASE. I'M SORRY, I DID NOT HEAR ANYONE RE OH, PLEASE MAKE YOUR MOTION. OKAY. SORRY, MR. MAD, UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 8, I MOVE WELL ADJUSTMENT GRANTS THAT A 1 36 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 40% ALLOWANCE FOR, FOR ACCESSORY DETACHED WELLING UNIT, UM, TO ALLOW THE A B B U TO BE 550 SQUARE FEET TO TREATED AT 4 4 6 DEIA DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING KYRA GARCIA, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWS 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 ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT THAT WILL HAVE THE SAME ROOF SLOPE AND PITCH AS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITION, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF LINES IN ANY SPECIAL CONDITION THAT FORCED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT IS LIMITED TO A TWO, I'M SORRY, LIMITED TO A 414 SQUARE FOOT A B B U WITH LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 1 36 SQUARE FEET. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE A D D V SQUARE FINISH [00:30:01] LIMITATION IS TO LIMIT OVERSIZED STRUCTURES UNDER REAR YARD. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS ONLY REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 130 SQUARE SIX A HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX SQUARE FEET. SO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE MAINTAINED AND OBSERVED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF ABUSE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN PROPERTY. FOR THE VARIANCE SOUGHT IS LOCATED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURY USED OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE POINT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SPOT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THE LIMITATIONS INCURRED BY THE ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION VARIANCES BEEN SOUGHT DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. WAS THAT MR. MANNA? OKAY, I'M SORRY. DID WAS THAT MR. MAN MADE THE SECOND? NO HONOR. OKAY. OH, OKAY. AND, UH, LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION. SO, UM, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. THEY, THEY'RE GONNA MEET ALL THE SETBACKS. THE GUARD, UM, IS LARGE ENOUGH ACCORDING TO THE, UM, THE STAFF AND THEY'RE SEEKING APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS STRESS, UM, AND FIND AND, AND VERY IMPORTANT. AND SO, UM, THIS SEEMS TO BE A THOUGHTFUL PROJECT WELL THOUGHT OUT. UM, AND IT'S BEING DONE FOR SUPPORT OF ELDERLY PARENTS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UH, JONATHAN, DO I WOULD AGREE WITH DR. ZORE COMPLETELY ALL. DO WE HAVE ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WISHING TO GIVE THEIR INPUT INTO THIS DISCUSSION? THAT BEING THE CASE THEN I, UH, I, I REQUESTED, I REQUEST THAT WE CAN, UH, CONTINUE TO YOUR ROLL. ALTHOUGH I, I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST MADE BY MR. SECOND BY MR. ELLI. UM, YES, I MR. WITH THE OF FACT MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VINO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMARK. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE BINDINGS OF FACT. UH, AGAIN, WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. UM, PLEASE ADVISE THE APPLICANT. THEY SHOULD, UH, CONTINUE CONTACT WITH THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THEY GO TO THE PROCESS CORRECTLY. UH, THEN WE'LL GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE, [3. 20-3170 BOA-20-10300035: A request by Michael Whidden for a 1) an 8'8" variance from the rear setback requirement to allow a new residential structure to be 11'4" away from the rear property line, located at 17914 Cantera Court. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 8) (Azadeh Sagheb, Planner (210) 207-5407, Azadeh.Sagheb@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] WHICH I BELIEVE IS 1 0 3 0 3 5. THAT IS CORRECT. ALRIGHT, SO BO OA CASE 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 5. LOCATION IS 17 9 1 4 ATTA COURT. THE APPLICANT IS MICHAEL WOODEN. THIS IS BACK PAGE, THE REQUEST IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE 11 FEET FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX S A OH ONE M L O D ONE ML, R ONE A O D E R Z D. NEXT H AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS A NEW SUBDIVISION BEING CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH AN A NEW NEWLY DEVELOPED, UH, SUBDIVISION. DUE TO THE UNIQUE LAYOUT OF THE COMMUNITY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE LOT IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF ADHERING TO SETBACKS OF THE UNIFIED FILE CODE, THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE GOOD USE OF THE LEAD AND MATCH THE, UH, COMMUNITY DUE TO ITS UNIQUE SIZE. NEXT SLIDE. [00:35:01] CURRENTLY IT'S VACANT LAND. THE NEIGHBORING AREA IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS WILL SHOW THE AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, AND ADEQUATE FACE WILL BE UTILIZED TO PREVENT STORM STORMWATER RUNOFF. MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY IN MAINTENANCE, MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS AND UNIQUE LAYOUT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO REASONABLY PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS. SLIDE. THERE ARE FOUR NOTICES MAILED OUT. ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, THAT BEING THE CASE, UH, I RECOMMEND THAT WE BRING THE APPLICANT ONLINE, UH, TO GIVE US DETAILS OF THE ISSUE HERE. MR. WHITTEN, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, UH, YOU CONSTRUCT YOUR PRESENTATION. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. I APOLOGIZE, I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, SO IF, UH, IF I'M WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME. UM, WE HAVE THE PROPERTY HERE WHERE WE'VE GOT THE HOUSE. MR. WHITTEN, CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR, UH, AD NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? I'M SORRY, SIR. MY NAME IS MICHAEL WHITTEN. I AM THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR HIGHLAND HOMES. THE MAIN OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 3 6 1 9 5 PARKWAY. UH, WEEK 1 1 4. GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO MY APOLOGIES. WE HAVE THIS, UH, HOUSE ON THIS LOT AND GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES AND THE 60 FOOT AND WHATNOT, THE HOMEOWNER HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS HOUSE IN THE LOT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT LAYS OUT. NOW, ACCORDING TO THE PLOT PLAN ON THE LAYOUT, WE ARE ENCROACHING ON THE REAR SETBACK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THIS HOUSE, WHICH MATCHES THE OUTSIDE AESTHETICS, ELEVATIONS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE ON WITH THIS HOUSE, WE HAVE PLACED THE FORMS AND HOPES OF A VARIANCE BRANCHES IN THE REAR. UM, AS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS AS OPPOSED TO GRADING AND THE BUILDING OF THE HOUSE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING MATCHES OUT WELL AND OUR STORM STORMWATER PLANS ARE FEASIBLE WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IN THE GRADING. AND THAT WAS IT. UH, WE WERE JUST REQUESTING A VERDICT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES, UH, SIGNED UP FOR THIS CASE? NO SIRS, NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF ON THIS CASE? MR. BO, PLEASE? ORIAN MR. ORIAN CONTINUE? YES. MR. WHITTEN, UM, IS, UH, IS THERE AN H O A THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CREATED OR IS IT TOO EARLY FOR THAT? UM, THERE IS NO H O A CREATED YET, BUT IT, UM, THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT OUT ON THE FELLOW HOMEOWNERS AROUND IT HAVE ACTUALLY, THEY'RE ALL LIKE CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITY. THEY, THEY TALK QUITE A BIT TO EACH OTHER AND THEY'VE ALREADY ACTUALLY ENGAGED AND HOPE THAT THIS HOUSE WILL BE RELEASED. YES, SIR. SO, NO, THERE'S NO AGENT A ESTABLISHED YET, BUT THERE IS A DEVELOPER CONTROL. AND I WANTED TO ASK, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOME, IT IS, ONCE YOU GO UP ABOUT A THIRD FROM THE FRONT, IT SEEMS TO SUBSTANTIALLY KICK IN. AND SO THERE'S A, THERE'S, IT LOOKS LIKE FOR WHAT YOU'RE EXTENDING INTO THE SETBACK, YOU ARE REALLY NOT EXTENDING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE ROOMY. RIGHT. SO THAT, UH, THE SIDE ON THE EXTENSION OF THE SIDE BEFORE IT RETURNS IN IS JUST A THIRD PART GARAGE. THE AREA OF THE BACK WHERE EXTEND OVER WOULD BE THE MASTER OF THE PATIO BELIEF. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. OKAY. WE HAVE ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OH, ZUNA, IS THIS THE ONLY UNIQUE LOT THAT WOULD NEED TO ACCOMMODATED THIS WAY? THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME OTHER KIND OF QUIRKY LOOKING LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. WE'RE GONNA SEE OTHER VARIANCES COMING BEFORE US. DO YOU THINK THIS IS THE ONLY, UH, APPLICATION ? NO, SIR. I, WE BELIEVE THIS COULD BE THE ONLY ONE OVER THE 20 FOOT. UH, WE DO HAVE SOME QUIRKY LOTS OUT THERE AND HAVE WORKED WITH TRYING TO GET SOME PLANS TO FIT IN, WHETHER IT BE SHORTENING A MASTER BEDROOM A COUPLE OF [00:40:01] INCHES OR MOVING A BATHROOM IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, WHATNOT. THERE ARE A COUPLE LOTS WE HAD TO DO A DROP GARAGE ON, BUT THIS ONE IN ITSELF, SINCE IT'S FLAT, WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THE SIZE IN ORDER TO PROPER DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING. AND SO THIS ONE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WE WANTED TO GO FOR AT THAT BECAUSE, UH, LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T DONE THIS OFTEN, SO, UH, US TO DO THIS IS A BIG, IS A BIG THING. WE, WE FELT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. RIGHT. IT'S EASIER THAN REP REPLYING, THAT'S FOR SURE. UH, THANK YOU. YES, SIR. OKAY. NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THE BOARD, ALL THAT BEING THE CASE, THEN I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION FOR THE, I'M SORRY, WAS THAT MRNA? IT WAS. ALL RIGHT. MR. MAD PROCEED REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 5. I MOVE AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, AN EIGHT FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE 11 FOOT FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 7 9 1 4 PANERA COURT. APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL WHIT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENT TO US ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE LACK OF STRENGTH GRANTING THE VARIANCES STILL PROVIDES ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. DUE TO THE UNIQUE SIZE OF THE LOT, CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO CONTINUE THE ESTABLISHED DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THIS LOT AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP OF RESOURCES LOST ON A TOTAL REDESIGN. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE WITH A GRANTED VARIANCE ON THIS UNIQUELY SIZED BLOCK. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE ADHERED TO JUST BY THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL PARTIES. THIS HOUSE IS DESIGNED WITH CONSIDERING THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK LIMITATIONS TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE AND ENCOURAGE PROPER STORM WATER DRAINAGE. ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARI, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING. DISTRICT 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. THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ENTER OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL FACILITATE A MORE HARMONIOUS FLOW WITH THE CURRENT HOUSES AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE SAME CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE LAW PLACEMENT AND SAME STYLE PLANS IS GIVEN TO ALL HOUSES TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL GO AHEAD, I'M SORRY. YOU GOT MUTED. OKAY. UH, SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON A PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THIS DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. APPLY TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THE DEVELOPER DESIGNED THE LOT, SIZE, THE LOCATION AND NOT THE OWNER. THE SHORTER PROPERTY LINE ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE IS DUE TO THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF MOTION. SECOND, MS. MOON MADE THAT SECOND CRUZ. OKAY. MARIA, THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. MADA, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, UM, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ONE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT IS IN THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF. UM, AND SO THE SECOND PIECE BEING THAT IT, UH, THERE WAS DIALOGUE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE THEY'RE WORKING AS A GROUP. AND SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. [00:45:01] DISABLED A MOTION. OH, JARED, UH, YOU ARE KIND OF CUTTING OFF. UH, DO YOU WANT, WERE YOU ASKING FOR THE SECOND TO MAKE A STATEMENT? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. HELLO. HELLO. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. APPARENTLY MR. FELT OR SOMEONE IS CUTTING MY MIC OFF? YEAH, YOU, UH, CHAIR, I THINK IT'S, UH, YOUR, YOUR BANDWIDTH. BUT, UH, MS. CRUZ, IF YOU WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, STATE YOUR COMMENTS ON YOUR SECOND. OKAY. UM, I CONCUR WITH, UH, MR. UM, ANNA'S, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY SHE DISAPPROVE IT SINCE IT IS A NEW, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I DON'T SEE ANYONE WITH RAISED CANCER. OKAY. THEN, UH, I, LET'S CLOSE THIS, UH, TO THE, THE MEETING AND, UH, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. ALRIGHT. I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST MADE BY MR. ROMANO WITH A SECOND BY MS. DR. ELLI. YES, I CAN. THAT MR. MANCHACA CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAMAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MR. OONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMAR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THE MOTION DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. UM, UM, VARIANCE IS, IS GRANTED. PLEASE GO THE CONTACT THE STAFF TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS AND, UH, BELIEVE [4. 20-3168 BOA-20-10300031: A request by Mona L. Mora for a 5' variance from the required 10’ front setback to allow a carport to be 5’ away from the front property line, located at 443 Mount Vernon Court. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 3) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] OUR NEXT CASE. ANYONE? GO AHEAD, SIR. I WAS JUST ASKING THE BOARD IF ANYONE WAS REQUESTING A SHORT BREAK. WE'RE ONLY ON THE LAST TWO. ACTUALLY, WE ONLY HAVE TWO CASES LEFT. I DON'T SEE HEAD. OKAY. VERY GOOD. LET'S CONTINUE ON ON THE NEXT DATE. OKAY. DO O PAGE 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 1. THE ADDRESS IS 4 4 3 VERNON COURT. THE APPLICANT IS IS MONA MOA. THEY CHRISTOPHER FIVE FOOT BRANCH AND A REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR A H O D. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT TO KEEP A CARPORT BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS WITHIN THE FRONT STEPBACK. 80% OF THE FRONT YARD IS NOW UNDER THE CARPORT. CURRENTLY, UH, CURRENTLY PERVIOUS, THE APPLICANT WILL NOT SEEK TO PAVE THE AREA ABOVE THE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTION. THE INTERIOR OF THE CARPORT MEASURES 11 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH AN EXTERIOR ROOF EXTENDING BEYOND THE ROOF LINE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. BOTH SIDES OF THE CARPORT MEASURE FIVE FEET AND ABOVE, THUS NO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED. THE CARPORT IS MADE ENTIRELY OF WOOD MEASURES 40 FEET IN WIDTH AND 24 FEET IN LENGTH. CODE ENFORCEMENT INITIATED THE CASE FEBRUARY 20TH, 2020 DUE TO THE SETBACK VIOLATIONS THE APPLICANT ATTEMPTED TO APPLY FOR PERMIT WITH STAFF ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2020. SITE PLAN SHOWING THE STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD. NEXT SLIDE. AND NEXT ARE THE IMAGES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMEND DENIAL OF VARIANCE V O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CARPORT [00:50:01] BUILT IS UNC UNCHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE'S NO OTHER CARPORTS WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. STAFF INSPECTED AND THERE ARE NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT THAT WARRANTS THE REQUEST. AND THE CARPORT POST CAN BE RELOCATED 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT LINE WITH A FIVE FOOT OF OVERHANG. NEXT SLIDE. 24 NOTICES SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR TO AND AN OPPOSITION WITH COMMENTS I'LL READ SHORTLY. AND THERE WAS ONE OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AREA. UH, WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO HOT WELLS MISSION, UH, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WITH NO RESPONSE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, UH, I BELIEVE YOU'VE MADE AN ADEQUATE PRESENTATION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING ONLINE THE APPLICANT. MS. MORA, IF WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. HI, UH, MY NAME IS MONA MORA. UM, THE REASON THAT I WAS REQUESTING THE, THE CARPORT TO BE, UH, AT THE FENCE LINE WAS BECAUSE, UM, WE DO PLAN ON PUTTING UP A FENCE AND, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE POSTS FOR THE CARPORT AND THEN POSTS FOR THE FENCE, WE WOULD LIKE TO DOUBLE. SO JUST USE THAT THE POST, THE SAME POST FOR THE FENCE AND THE CARPORT AT THE SAME TIME. SO IT WOULDN'T, UH, BE TOO LIKE TAKING UP TOO MUCH SPACE OR IT, IT WOULD JUST BE THAT THE THING POST TO STABILIZE THE FENCE AND THE CARPORT AT THE SAME TIME. UM, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. I PRETTY MUCH JUST WANTED TO HAVE A FENCE AND SOMEWHERE TO PARK THE CARS BECAUSE, UM, LIKE WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW, U USUALLY IT'S JUST MUDDY ALL THE TIME, LIKE IF IT RAINS OR SOMETHING. AND THEN, UM, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD HAD OUR CAR BROKEN INTO A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A LOT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 13 YEARS, BUT THOSE TWO TIMES WHEN THEY TAKE, WHEN THEY COMPLETELY TAKE EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE, THEY JUST, IT, IT IS A LOT. SO I, I THINK THE FENCE HAS BEEN GIVE US MORE SECURITY THERE AT MY NEW HOUSE. UM, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. UH, STAFF, HAVE YOU ADVISED HER ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FENCE AND A STRUCTURE? THE FENCE IS, SHE HADN'T COME UP TILL NOW, SIR. THE CONVERSATION WAS STRICTLY ABOUT THE CARPORT SHERIFF. OKAY. UH, MS. MAN. MR. MR. MANA. YES. SO I DO, UH, WE NEED TO READ THE, UH, NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE RECORD. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, I'M I'M ALMOST DISCONNECTED. DID, DID THE APPLICANT READ THE NAME INTO THE RECORD? FOUR MONA. 4 4 3 MOUNT VERNON COURT. VERY GOOD. NOW I'M GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. DID, UM, IS THE STAFF AWARE OF ALL THAT SHE'S REQUESTING IN COMPARISON TO, TO WHAT I HAVE HERE ON THE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME? JUST THE CARPORT ITSELF, UH, THE FENCING, THERE WAS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCING BEFORE. SO THAT HADN'T POPPED UP. OKAY. AND, UH, THE, AN EXPLANATION OF THAT, EVEN WITH A POST ON THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, THAT OVERHANG WOULD VIOLATE, UM, NEIGHBOR'S. RIGHT. SO THE CURRENT OVERHANG IT, THE CARPORT ITSELF IS FIVE FEET FROM SIDE YARD STAFF'S. CONCERNS WAS THE ANGLE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE PITCH, EVEN AT FIVE FEET DRAINAGE WAS, WOULD POSSIBLY GO INTO ING LOT. IT'S UNCLEAR, BUT IT IS TALLER THAN A NORMAL CARPORT WOULD BE VERY WELL. OKAY. THE BOARD, DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? CRUZ, UH, MR. UH, MS. CRUZ FIRST, AND THEN MR. UNA. OKAY. UH, FOR STAFF. UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE NOW OF THE CORN PORT ON, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, IS THAT INTERFERING WITH THE TREE AT ALL OR HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE TREE IS IT? IS THE TREE ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE OR ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WE'RE GOING TO THE PIC TO THE PHOTO NOW, MA'AM. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. SO THE, THE TREE IS, APPEARS TO BE ON THE NEIGHBORING LOT. OKAY. SO THE ROOF IS PART OF THE HOME OR OF THE CARDBOARD? THAT'S [00:55:01] WHAT I CAN'T TELL BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE FENCE LINE. SO THE HOME ITSELF HAS FIVE FEET OF, OF SETBACK ON THAT SIDE YARD AS MEASURED OUT. UH, THE CARPORT IS ATTACHED TO THE HOME, SO IT IS PART OF THE HOME, BUT IT IS, UM, APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF CARPORT. OKAY. AND IT'S ONLY ONE HOME? CORRECT? BECAUSE THE WAY BETWEEN THE DOOR AND THE WINDOWS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A DUPLEX. THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE SURE. NO MA'AM. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, MR. UNA. RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, AND THE QUESTION IS, WHO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WHO, DID SHE HIRE SOMEBODY OR WAS THIS WORK THAT SHE UNDERTOOK HERSELF? AND IF IT WAS A CONTRACTOR, WE COULD HAVE THE NAME FOR THE RECORD? NO, IT WAS JUST DONE BY MY FAMILY. UM, I DID NOT A CONTRACTOR. AND IN, IN REGARDS TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, IS THE INTENT TO LEAVE HALF OF IT, I GUESS IMPERVIOUS AND NO CONCRETE TO ALLOW THE WATER TO SATURATE IN? IS IS THAT THE INTENT HERE TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, UH, FRONT YARD AND PREVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT? YES. OKAY. SO THERE'D BE NO HARD SURFACE TO THEN PARK ON, IT'D JUST JUST BE GRAVEL OR SOMETHING ON ONE SIDE OF THE DRIVE OF THE CARPORT? YES. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? IAN? MS. DORIAN, PLEASE? SO TWO QUESTIONS. UM, FOR THE ONE FOR THE APPLICANT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ROOF PITCH IS SLOPING TOWARDS THIS, THIS, UM, CARPORT, WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ROOF. HOW IS THE WATER GETTING FROM THE EXISTING HOME? IS THERE, IS IT, IS THERE A SEAM, UH, A BREAK OR SOMEHOW, I MEAN, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE WATER THAT'S NATURALLY FLOWING FROM THE CENTER OF THE EXISTING HOUSE TOWARDS THE FRONT OF HOW THAT'S GETTING OUT. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH WOULD BE FOR STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A 50%, UH, OUS COVER RULE, BUT IF YOU COVER IT LIKE THIS, DOES THAT EXCLUDE IT FROM BEING CONSIDERED IN THE FRONT YARD AT THAT POINT? BECAUSE I MEAN, NOTHING'S GONNA GROW UNDER THERE. I'M JUST, I'M WONDERING HOW THAT'S LOOKED AT BY STAFF. WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE HARD TAPE ITSELF. UH, CURRENTLY THERE IS A GRID COVERING THE ENTIRE AREA. UH, BUT IN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT SHE NEEDS TO REMOVE HALF THAT GRID, UH, TO STICK WITH A, UM, CURTEOUS MATERIAL SO IT CAN DRAIN THROUGH. OKAY. AND THE, BUT DID YOU NOTICE THE EXISTING ROOF, HOW IT SLOPES TOWARDS THIS CARPORT? LIKE THIS IS A GREAT PICTURE, THE ONE YOU'RE SHOWING NOW THAT IT, THE EXISTING ROOF IS DRAINING TOWARDS THE, THE ALMOST THE SOFFIT OF THIS CAR PORT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WATER'S BEING ADDRESSED AND ALL OF THAT WOULD'VE TO BE ADDRESSED IN PERMITTING. UH, SHE'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS CAR PORT AND THAT WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. OKAY. THANK YOU MANNA. MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD. SO THIS QUESTION'S FOR THE CITY. SO, UM, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT IF THE POSTS WERE MOVED BACK FIVE FEET, THEN THIS WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE THEN, UM, EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE WERE HANGING EXTENDS INTO YOU INTO THAT, I GUESS INTO THAT FIVE FOOT AREA, WE'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S CORRECT. ONCE THE STRUCTURE'S MOVED BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AS REQUIRED AND THE, THE OVERHANG ITSELF WOULD BE OKAY. JUST, IT WOULD HAVE TO GET PUSHED BACK. OKAY. OKAY. I I, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOUR RESPONSE. I'M SORRY. SO THE, THE OVERHANG IN FRONT WOULD'VE TO BE MOVED BACK FIVE FEET AS WELL? THE CODE ALLOWED FOR AN OVERHANG OF FIVE FEET. OKAY. SO THEY COULD HAVE, UH, MEETING THE 10 FOOT SETBACK WAS OPPOSED. AND THEN FIVE FEET OF OVERHANG. THANK YOU. SURE. SO ESSENTIALLY THIS ENTIRE COVER IS GONNA HAVE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, RIGHT? OR AT LEAST MODIFIED CORRECT. AND IT, THE FALSE ESTIMATE ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO THERE'S NO TELLING AT THIS STAGE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DEALING WITH THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE. ALL WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE FRONT. THAT'S CORRECT. THE PURPOSE COVER IS NOT ON THE TABLE AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THERE'S NO CURB ON THE STREET, THERE'S NOTHING THERE? NO, SIR. OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? [01:00:06] I, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS. I DON'T HEAR ANY VOICES. AYE UH, MR. ORIAN, WAS THAT YOU? NO, SIR. NO, I HAVE NO, IT NOT. OKAY. ALL, UH, THAT BEING CASE, WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. UM, THEN I WILL, UH, CLOSE THIS MEETING TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN MOTION REGARD. COMMENT, EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. TWO COMMENT CARDS? YES. THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, HOWEVER, THERE'S TWO COMMON COURT WILL RECEIVE AN OPPOSITION. THE FIRST READ, IF I'M ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME THING, THEN IT'S OKAY IF THAT THEN NO, THE SECOND, UH, SECOND HOUSE FROM PARK FROM, UH, VEHICLE WILL HAVE NO PARKING STILL FALLING THE STREET HOUSE CONGESTION. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS. UH, I'M SORRY, ZEKE, I LOST YOU FOR A LITTLE BIT. CAN YOU, UH, DO THE CARD AGAIN PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. SO THE FIRST ONE IS, IF I'M ALLOWED TO DO THE, THE SAME, THEN IT'S OKAY. IF NOT, THEN NO. SECOND ONE READS, SECOND HOUSE FROM CORNER VEHICLES WILL HAVE, UH, NO PARKING BUILDING INTO THE STREET, SMALL APARTMENT, BACK OF HOUSE, LARGE AMOUNT OF CONGESTION. OKAY. I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE. AND, AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO READ INTO THE, INTO THE, IS THAT ALL WE HAVE TO READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR. THAT WAS, THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENT CARDS AGAINST IT. THAT IS CORRECT. THEY'RE BOTH AGAINST IT. VERY GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHT THEN, UH, WITNESS RECORD. YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE THE WITNESSES HAVE MADE STATEMENT, THE APPLICANT'S ENTITLED TO REBUTTAL IS THE WITNESS, I MEAN THE APPLICANT STILL ONLINE. AM I ONLINE? YES. YEAH, YOU'RE BACK. OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS STILL HERE ON THE, ON THE LINE. OKAY. HAS SHE BEEN, UH, ADVISED OF WHAT THE WITNESSES HAD HAD STATED? OH, JUST BY READING THESE INTO THE RECORD, I UNDERSTAND, BUT IF, IF SHE HAS BEEN ADVISED THIS, SHE'S ENTITLED TO A REBUTTAL OF THE THE CENTERS. OH, I'M HERE. UM, I HEARD THE TWO COMMENTS. UM, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. UM, I THINK THAT THE SECOND ONE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING AND THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF CONGESTION. UM, BUT I THINK THAT BY ME HAVING THE CAR POURED, THAT'S GONNA ALLOW US TO CREATE PARKING FOR OURSELVES. UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE NEIGHBOR TO MY RIGHT, SHE PARKS HER CARS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY. AND I HAVEN'T HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE OF COURSE WE WERE JUST PICKED THE HOUSE AND WE REALLY WE'RE NOT THERE MOST OF THE TIME. SO THAT'S OKAY. BUT I THINK MAYBE SHE'S THE ONE WHO MADE THAT COMMENT AND I THINK SHE WAS TRYING TO BE FOR IT. I GUESS SHE PROBABLY, UM, WAS CONFUSED BE, UM, BUT I HAVE SPOKEN TO HER AND SHE DID TELL ME THAT SHE DID LEAVE, UM, UM, A RE A RESPONSE AND THAT SHE WAS OKAY WITH ME HAVING THAT COURT REPORT. SO I THINK MAYBE THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. UM, BUT THE OTHER ONE, THE, UH, THE FIRST COMMENT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, MAYBE THEY, THEY'RE NOT, UH, TOO SURE AND IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING THAT THEY WOULD ALSO DO IT. SO I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT SHOULD COME AGAINST ME. WELL THESE ARE, THESE ARE OPINIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND UH, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST HAS TO BE READ TO THE RECORD. UM, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. NO OTHER, NO OTHER STATEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE IN REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION. NO STATEMENT. [01:05:01] ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AT THIS POINT, I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION FROM THE BOARD, OZUNA, MR. OZUNA, YOU MAY MAKE THE MOTION, I'M MAKING THE MOTION ANY AFFIRMATIVE, BUT I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 20 DASH 0 3 3 1, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTED FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SET TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 4 4 3 MOUNT VERNON COURT, APPLICANT BEING MONA MODA. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. AND THIS GRANTING, IN THIS CASE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WOULD STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE WHILE PROTECTING THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLES TOO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE INTENT OF THE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRESPASS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY, AND ENSURE PROPER STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. ALL THESE IN INTENTS WILL, WILL STILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. BY SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THIS REQUEST. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE OUTTA CHARACTER IN THIS DISTRICT. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UNIQUE SITUATION EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOTS ITSELF. END OF MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND CHAIR? I HAVE MR. DORIAN AS A SECOND. OKAY. SHE DIDN'T HEAR. ALL RIGHT THEN. LET'S START TO DISCUSSION WITH MR. OZUNA. YEAH. SO I DON'T BELIEVE AT WHAT IS CONSTRUCTED, UH, IS, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THERE'S WAYS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD ACCOMMODATE A CARPORT, UH, BUT NOT TO THE SCALE AND SCOPE THAT THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED. UH, FURTHERMORE THEM PULLING, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTING WITHOUT PERMITS AS A CONCERN OF ME. ALSO, WE HAVEN'T REALLY EXPLORED, UM, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IF THERE'S AN ALLEY ACCESS THAT THEY COULD HAVE USED TO, UH, TO PUT SOME PARKING BEHIND THE, THE HOUSE. UH, AND THEN WE SAW THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NEIGHBORS THAT, UH, UH, AGAIN, ARE, ARE NOT IN IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING TO BUILD, BUILD HERE. SO, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS AND MORE, I'M NOT SUPPORTING THE, UH, MOTION THAT I PROPOSED. THE, UH, HELLO. OKAY. I WANT, I'M GONNA ASK FOR THE SECOND TO RESPOND, BUT I WANT SOMEONE TO ENTERTAIN POSSIBLY A MOTION, OR EXCUSE ME, A, AN AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION THAT WOULD MIGHT BE ABLE TO PASS THE BOARD FROM, UH, MR. ORIAN. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION. O OKAY. WELL, AS READ I AM, UH, ALSO NOT FLOOR. MY REASONING IS, IS THAT IT'S, IT'S, THE SCOPE OF IT IS TOO LARGE. I THINK IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. EVEN IF THEY LEAVE IT, UH, UN THEY DON'T CONCRETE UNDERNEATH IT BECAUSE THE ROOF IS ENTIRELY COVERING. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A CONTRAST TO THE 50% RULE OR FOR PREVIOUS COVER. AND FINALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, WITH THE ROOF DRAINAGE DUMPING INTO THIS THING, IT HAS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, I THINK ANYWAY, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR. SO, AS, YOU KNOW, AS, AS SHOWN AND AS PRESENTED ON, I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT IN AGREEMENT WITH MR. ORA. SO. FAIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE TO, UH, HAVE SOME INPUT IN HERE? OR DO, DOES ANYONE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THEY'D LIKE TO OFFER [01:10:01] ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? OKAY, THIS IS WHAT, UH, I'M GONNA PROPOSE. I PROPOSE THAT THE, UH, AMENDMENT BE, UM, TO READ THAT THE, THE COVER, UH, IN ORDER FOR THIS, UM, MOTION, UH, WE NEED TO ALTER TO READ THAT POSTS NEED TO BE MEET THE FIVE, THE 10 FOOT SET BACK. OKAY. AND THE COVER HAS TO BE CUT BACK, UH, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE CODE. OKAY. WE HAVE A, A SECOND ON A MOTION. UH, SIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING ACTUALLY IS A CODE REQUIREMENT. UH, SO THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A, A MOTION TO REQUIRE THEM TO MEET CODE. OKAY. UH, IS THAT SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THAT MOTION AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH IT, AND THEN GO FROM THERE. ALRIGHT? RIGHT THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND NO OTHER, NO, NO OTHER INPUT FROM BOARD. AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST MADE BY MR. WITH A SECOND MADE BY MR. ORIAN, DR. ELLI. NO, I DO NOT WITH MR. MINKA. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR MR. TEAL. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ORIAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BREGMAN, NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MR. UNA. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTO, NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF BERG. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDING EFFECT. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MOTION FAILS. WILL WE HAVE MOTION FROM THE BOARD? I DON'T SEE ANYONE WITH A RIGHT HAND, THEREFORE NOT APPROVING UH, REQUEST. UM, PLEASE ADVISE THE APPLICANT OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AND THAT, UH, THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH, WITH THE CURRENT U D C. OKAY, THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO THE NEXT CASE. [5. 20-3169 BOA-20-10300036: A request by Cathy Ann Guzman for 1) a 3'11" variance from the side setback requirement, to allow a carport to be 1'1" away from the side property line and 2) a 3'8" variance from the front setback to allow a carport to be 6'4" away from the front property line, located at 2110 West Hermosa Drive. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] OKAY, CASE NUMBER 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 6. THIS IS AT 2110 WEST WAN DRIVE. APPLICANT IS KATHY N GOSMAN. IT'S A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE AND THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT, ONE INCH AWAY FROM SITE PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE. AND THE FRONT STEP BACK TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE SIX FEET FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR H O D, SINGLE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL. NEXT SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO KEEP A METAL CARPORT BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS WITH AN INSIDE AND FRONT SETBACK. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUED A CITATION ON APRIL 23RD, 2018 FOR THE CARPORT BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS. ON MAY 1ST, 2018, THE APPLICANT APPLIED AND RECEIVED A PERMIT. CITY INSPECTORS PLACED ALL INSPECTIONS ON HOLD. ONCE DETERMINED THE CARPORT DID NOT MEET THE SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT'S CARPORT IS BUILT ENTIRELY OF METAL WITH A FLAT, UH, DESIGN ROOF. THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY OBTAINED THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S LETTER ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE FRAME AND FOOTINGS. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT PHOTOS ARE OF THESE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE STRUCTURE DOES DRAIN OUTWARD ONTO THE STREET SIDE YARD NEIGHBORING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. IN FACT, THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS PRESENT THAT WARRANT A CARPORT OF THIS SIZE AND THE CARPORT LACKS ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE AND STORMWATER. UH, CONTROLS SLIDE. THERE ARE 37 NOTICES. UH, FOR IN FAVOR. WE IDENTIFY ZERO IN OPPOSITION HERE, BUT I DID RECEIVE A LETTER , UH, WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER IN FAVOR FROM THE APPLICANT WITH SIGNATURES FROM THREE OTHER [01:15:01] PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND MAKE SURE THEY NA. STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, SIR. , GO AHEAD. HELLO, MY NAME IS KATHY GUZMAN AND MY ADDRESS IS 2110 WEST PROMOSA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 1. AND I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST. OKAY, VERY GOOD. CAN YOU GIVE ME, UH, YOUR, UH, APP YOUR REASONING FOR THE APPLICATION? I'M SORRY, AGAIN, CAN YOU GIVE ME THE, YOU WANT ME YOU WANT ME TO SAY IT AGAIN? NO, I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW, HOW THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THE CARPORT AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT, UH, BEING IN VIOLATION OF THESE ZONING ORDINANCES, UH, NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. OKAY. UM, THE CARPORT WAS ACTUALLY GIFTED TO ME FOR MY FAMILY, UM, BACK IN 2018. AND, UM, JUST DUE TO, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY KIND OF WORK LIKE THIS EVER DONE. I WAS UNAWARE THAT ANY PERMITS WOULD BE REQUIRED. UM, I GUESS I WAS EXPECTING THE GENTLEMAN WHO INSTALLED IT THAT HE WOULD KNOW WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO GET THE APPROVAL. UM, SO ONCE THE CARPORT WAS UP, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN I WAS CITED WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, BUT SINCE THEN, YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS REQUIRED AS WE, YOU KNOW, GETTING PERMITS. UM, I'VE RECEIVED THE ENGINEER LETTER, UM, JUST TO SHOW THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW, A GOOD STRUCTURE. IT'S NOT GONNA GO ANYWHERE. IT'S NOT GONNA FLY ANYWHERE. YOU KNOW, I'VE GOTTEN, UM, IN CONTACT WITH MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM, IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT THEIR VISION WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING AND, UM, YOU KNOW, KNOW THEY'VE ALL BEEN OKAY WITH IT. AND I'M JUST REQUESTING TODAY THAT, UM, IF I CAN PLEASE KEEP MY CARPORT, YOU KNOW. UM, FOR MY YOUNG CHILDREN, I DON'T HAVE ANY TREES FOR SHADES, SO THEY DO PLAY UNDER THERE. AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, FOR PROTECTION OF THE VEHICLES WHEN IT HAILS OR YOU KNOW, OO UM, HEAVY SUN DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLES AS WELL. OKAY. IS THAT AFTER YOUR COMPLETE, UH, EXPLANATION? YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. I'M IT'S FEEDBACK. YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. I'M HAVING A FEEDBACK. THIS IS ALL NEW FOR US AS WELL. UM, OKAY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND, UH, YOU, YOU, UH, STATED THAT YOU, YOU HAD DONE THE CONTRACTING WITH THE CONTRACTOR FOR THIS JOB? I DID NOT DO THE CONTRACTING WITH THE CONTRACTOR. UH, MY MOTHER AND MY FATHER DID. UM, I ONLY MET, I WAS ONLY THERE AT THE HOUSE WHEN HE PUT IT UP. I, SOMEBODY HAD TO BE HOME, SO I WAS THERE WHEN HE PUT IT UP. OKAY. ALRIGHT. DO, UH, STAFF, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER WITNESSES? NO, SIR. NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE LETTER INTO RECORD. IT'S ALSO SIGNED BY THREE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AS WELL. OKAY. SO THE LETTER READS, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M WRITING THIS, UH, THIS LETTER ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER REGARDING THE VARIANCE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 18TH, 2020 AT 1:00 PM THE CARPORT LOCATED THE ABOVE ADDRESS DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR EVERYDAY ROUTINE REGARDING DRIVE OR, OR OBSTRUCT THEIR ABILITY TO SEE OUT THEIR FRONT PORCH. UH, THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING IT REMOVED FOR ANY REASON. I WROTE THE SMALL LETTER. SINCE MY NEIGHBORS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CALLING, EMAILING, OR LOGGING IN LIVE ON THIS DATE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CONNECTED WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND MADE SURE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES. AND IF THEY DID SO, UH, TO PLEASE CALL, EMAIL, OR LOG IN, UH, TO SPEAK REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. AND THANK YOU. KATHY GUZMAN, UM, SIGNED BY DEBORAH CHAVEZ AT 2106 WEST OSA MARIZA, 21 1 15 WEST HERMOSA AND MARIA TERESA, I'M PROBABLY GOING BUTCHER THE SAME RU RU ALBA AT 2114 WEST MOSA. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE 11. HEAR ME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY AND, UH, THERE'S ONE MORE, SIR. THERE, THERE'S ONE CARD THAT WAS SENT IN. IT DOES, IT IS IN FAVOR AND IT READ SHOULD IMPROVE LOOKS OF PROPERTY. VERY GOOD. [01:20:01] ALRIGHT. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR TIME DOES BACK, UH, IN REGARD TO THIS. NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN THIS WHOLE, UH, CASE UP TO QUESTIONING FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. OR YES. UM, ON ONE OF THE PICTURES, UH, FROM IDENTIFY STAFF, IT, IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE THE, I'M CONFUSED WHETHER OR NOT THIS CARPORT IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOME ROOF THAT IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME, SOME LIGHT BREAKING IN AT THE CONNECTION POINT. IS THIS, IS THIS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOME? NO, SIR. IT DOES NOT AS DETACHED. AND HOW DOES THAT, DOES THAT IN ANY WAY AFFECT HOW YOU EVALUATE THIS PER, PER CODE? NO, SIR. IN THIS REGARD, WE WERE JUST SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE SIDE YARD AS THE MAIN UH, FACTOR. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? PROOF MS. CRUZ? GO AHEAD. I GOT QUESTION FOR STAFF, OR MAYBE I DIDN'T SEE IT IN, IN YOU SHOWING PICTURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ZEKE, I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE WITH A CARPORT. AM I CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. WHEN, WHEN WE VISITED THE SITE, WE DIDN'T NOTICE ANY OTHER CARPORTS, UH, SIMILAR IN NATURE. OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S NO OTHER CARPORTS WHILE ALL THE NEIGHBORS ARE AGREEING TO THIS, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MICHAEL. OKAY, MY MIC'S ON NOW. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. UM, AND I BELIEVE, I THINK WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THIS CARPORT. ONE MOMENT AS WE GET, WE'RE GONNA GET THAT FOR YOU. THE SITE WE DID MENTION, OR WE DID NOTE THAT, UH, THE CARPET WAS LARGE ENOUGH TO FIT, UH, TWO VEHICLES AND HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO GET MOVED OVER AS WELL. UH, LET ME GET THAT INFORMATION. ONE MOMENT. IT APPEARS TO ALMOST BE LARGE ENOUGH TO HOLD FOUR VEHICLE. MM-HMM. , UH, ORIAN. MR. ORIAN, UH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT TWO HOUSES DOWN, UH, THAT GENTLEMAN HAS A SINGLE, UH, CAR WITH, UH, CARPORT THAT'S ALSO METAL, AND IT'S PRETTY LONG, BUT I JUST, JUST TWO HOUSES DOWN, UM, ON GOOGLE MAPS. SO YOU ABLE, ARE YOU ABLE TO DETECT WHETHER IT'S, UH, TOO CLOSE TO THE FRONT OR HAVE, UH, ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS? UM, I I, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS RELATIVELY CLOSE, BUT NOT AS CLOSE AS THE LAST QUESTION. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE CAR WAS 18 FEET, EIGHT INCHES WIDE. AND HOW LONG, HOW LONG WAS IT? OH, WE COULDN'T MEASURE IT. THE, THE GATE WAS CLOSED AT THE MO AT THAT TIME, BUT IT DOES SET TWO VEHICLES. OH, I MANANA. MR. MANANA, GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION. SO, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, YOU STATED THAT YOU WORKED WITH AN ENGINEER TO DO THE STRESS ASSESSMENT ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. UH, DID THEY ALSO TALK ABOUT OR VALIDATE, UM, HOW THE WATER DRAINED OFF OF THE STRUCTURE AND WHICH WAY DID, WHICH WAY DID THE WATER DRAIN? IS THE APPLICANT STILL ON ? THIS IS BASED ON OUR, UH, REVIEW. THE HARPER DOES LOOK LIKE IT DRAINS FORWARD. I THOUGHT I HEARD THE APPLICANT. IS SHE STILL ON THE PHONE? YES, I'M STILL ON THE PHONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THE QUESTION, AND IT DOES DRAIN FORWARD TO ANSWER WHOEVER'S QUESTION, THAT WAS MR. MAD'S QUESTION, BUT THAT'S OKAY. AND, UM, THE, UM, WAS WHEN THIS CARPORT WAS BUILT, WAS THE CONCRETE PORT AT THE SAME TIME ON THE RIGHT SIDE AS YOU'RE FACING THE HOUSE? UM, IT WAS AFTER IT, THE CONCRETE, UM, WAS PUT, UM, AT THE SAME DAY THAT THE CARPORT WAS INSTALLED. SO THE CARPORT WAS, UM, DUG TO THE, IN TO THE GROUND AND THEN, UM, THE REBAR AND ALL THAT WAS PLACED ON TOP OF IT, AND THEN IT HAD AN EXTRA LAYER OF, UM, CONCRETE ON TOP OF WHATEVER IT ALREADY HAD BEEN DUG IN, DUG DOWN. VERY GOOD. OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION. NOW THIS QUESTION'S FOR STAFF. I THINK I, UH, MENTIONED SOMETHING EARLIER BEFORE THAT. UM, I HAD A QUESTION CONCERNING THE CUT CURB ON THE FRONT. WAS, UH, THAT PERMITTED? NO, SIR. IT [01:25:01] WAS NOT. OKAY. AND IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, CASE, BUT THE RIGHT OF WAY? NO, SIR. THAT WOULD'VE TO GO, UH, IN PERMITING PROCESS, IN PUBLIC TERMS PUBLIC COURT. OKAY. UM, JUST A COURT, I I JUST WANTED TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON THIS BECAUSE IT APPEARED TO ME THAT, THAT THE CARPORT AND CONCRETE REPORT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, THAT THIS, THIS, THIS DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE IS IN VIOLATION THAT HE GOES CONCERNING THE WIDTH AND AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STREET. UM, SO DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS TO MAKE SURE IT CLEARS UP THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. IF THAT INCLUDED, UH, A DRIVEWAY APPROACH PERMIT THAT WAS NOT, UM, APPLIED FOR, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO RECTIFY THAT AS WELL. I MEAN, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO, UH, WIDEN THE DRIVEWAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS IN AN N C D. UH, SO THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED UPON, UH, REVIEW OF THE PERMITS AND DURING THE INSPECTION PROCESS AS WELL. OKAY, VERY GOOD. AHEAD. WELL, I WAS JUST CONCERNED THAT, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT WAS GONNA HAVE TO DO TWO SEPARATE CASES ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND I THOUGHT THEY, IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO HAVE ONE. UH, IF THIS IS EFFICIENT AT THIS TIME, UH, AND I GUESS WE CAN PROCEED. UH, DOES ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING. I DO NOT HEAR ANYTHING. OKAY, VERY GOOD. AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING TO, I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT. THERE WERE NO, UH, THERE WERE NO NOTICES, WITNESSES THAT WERE, UH, NEGATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE A REBUTTAL, THEREFORE, I'M GOING AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND I'LL BE ENTERTAINING A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. TEO, MR. FIELD, REGARDING CASE NUMBER, NUMBER BO A DASH TWO ZERO DASH 0 3 0 0 0 3 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTOR REQUEST FOR THE THREE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT, ONE INCH AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND A THREE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW THE CARPORTS TO BE SIX FOOT FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 2 1 1 0 WEST HERMOSA DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING KATHY ANN GUZMAN, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED PUBLIC CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IN THIS CASE. GRADING THE VARIANCE STILL PROVIDES ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR, AND OPEN SPACE WHILE PROTECTING THE APPLICANT'S VEHICLES. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRESPASS ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE, FIRE SAFETY, AND TO ENSURE PROPER STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. ALL OF THESE INTENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT, THE DISTRICT FIVE, SUCH A VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY. BARTO, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE, BY THE REQUESTED. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UNIQUE SITUATION EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE SIZE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT ITSELF. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WHO MADE THE SECOND CORIAN? MS. DORIAN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. [01:30:01] UM, LET'S PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION. MR. PEEL, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, THE CARPORT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS THAT, UH, DON'T POSE A FIRE HAZARD. UM, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, SOME SPACE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. UM, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ACTUALLY BE OBSTRUCTING ANYTHING IN, IN THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY. UM, AND ANY OF THOSE ISSUES, UH, THAT, THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. SO AGAIN, I I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. ALL RIGHT, MS. MS. DORIAN? UH, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UH, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, THE UTILITY OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO IF THE CITY WERE TO EVER PUT IN A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, THIS WOULD STILL BE WELL AWAY FROM, UM, THE STANDARD SIDEWALK WITH AND FURTHER WITH THE DRAINING TOWARDS THE FRONT. UM, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE WATER DUMPING ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND THEN FINALLY, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW THIS, IT ISN'T A SUPER WIDE AIRPORT. IT'S TWO CARS WIDE. IT IS IN NO WAY WIDER THAN THE HOUSE. UH, SOMETIMES WE SEE THAT IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S, IT IS JUST A, A SIMPLE CARPORT THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT TO IMPOSE CASE. OKAY. UH, MR BEFORE WE CONTINUE, ARE YOU LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPH THAN I'M, BECAUSE THE FRONT BOARD IS MUCH WIDER NOW, OR MUCH EXTEND CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE? NO, I MEAN, IT'S, IT IS, IT SAID TO BE SIX FEET, UH, AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO FROM THE FACE OF CURB TO THAT GATE. OKAY. YEAH. SIX FOOT FROM THE FRONT AND ONE FOOT ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE. YEAH. THIS, THE SIDE DIDN'T, UH, DIDN'T BOTHER ME BECAUSE IT, IT SLOPES UNIFORMLY TO THE FRONT. UM, AND THE FACT THAT IT, IT DOESN'T EXCEED, YOU KNOW, TWO THIRDS OF THE WIDTH OF THE HOME. UH, SO I MEAN, I'M, I, IT'S JUST NOT TOO IN CLOSINGS, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. OKAY. VERY WELL. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT THEY'D LIKE TO OFFER ON THIS PAGE? I DO NOT SEE ANY HANDS. I DO NOT SEAR ANY VOICES. NONE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THEN. UM, THEN, UH, CLOSING THIS, AND WE'RE GONNA GO WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE. I, MR. REQUESTS MADE BY MR. TEAL WAS A SECOND BY MADE BY MR. ORIAN. DR. ELLI? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THAT. MR. MENCHACA. I DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FLAG OF A MOTION. MS. CRUZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT HONOR. MS. BREGMAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MR. YES, I'LL CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. I DO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MARTINEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, THE MOTION WOULD HELP ACCEPT , UH, A NEW MOTION FOR A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COVER. UH, PERHAPS, UH, UH, MOVING THE COVER BACK SLIGHTLY OR TO CUT THE SIDE DOWN. WE NEED TO FIND SOME WAY, UM, TO, UM, OFFER SOME PROTECTION FOR APPLICANT. AND BEFORE WE MOTION, YOU NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST BY THOSE THAT VOTE AGAINST MOTION. OKAY, THEN I'M, I WOULD, I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. DOES ANYONE WANT TO RECONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR CASE? OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. THAT BEING THE CASE, NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MADE. DO YOUR INITIAL VOTE OF, OF, UH, I HAVE SIX TO FOUR. UM, SIX BEING IN FAVOR, FOUR BEING, UH, DISSENTERS. THE MOTION WOULD NOT CARRY, UH, AND THE A UH, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO BRING ANOTHER CASE BEFORE US, UM, IF IT'S, UH, SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT OR OTHERWISE, I'LL COME BACK IN A YEAR. BUT I NEVERTHELESS, UM, THE, THE MOTION DOES FAIL. AND, UH, PLEASE ADVISE THE APPLICANT OF THE SITUATION. AND, UM, THAT CONCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR CASE. NEXT AREA TO [6. 20-3297 Consideration and approval of the May 4, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes.] GO ALL INTO WILL BE THE, UH, [01:35:01] ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING. HAS EVERYONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE MINUTES FROM, FROM THE, UH, THE LAST BOARD MEETING? YES. I THINK. OKAY. SO ARE THERE ANYONE THAT NEED TO, TO MAKE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE, TO THE MINUTES? NONE BEING THE CASE. UH, DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL? VOTE ON ACCEPTING THE MEETING. THIS, UH, MINUTE, MINUTES CAN BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. UM, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. BECAUSE OF, UH, AUDIO ISSUES, I WANNA BE SURE THAT WE RECORD EVERYBODY'S VOICE. I JUST NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY. I, I'M GONNA A MOTION TO EXTEND AS PRESENTED. I SECOND. OKAY. THERE IS, AND, AND MR. , CORRECT? CORRECT. YES, CORRECT. ALL LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY. UH, DR. ELLI APPROVE. MR. MACHACA APPROVE. DISAPPROVED APPROVE. MR. TEAL APPROVED. MR. APPROVE? MR. ORIAN? I HAD SEEN I WASN'T PRESENT. MS. BREMAN? I APPROVE. MR. OZUNA? YES, I APPROVE. MR. VILLO APPROVE. MR. DELMORE? I APPROVE. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ? YES. THE MO I APPROVE OF THE MINUTES IS PRESENTED. THE MOTION, UH, PASSED. THEREFORE THE MINUTES ARE ACCEPTED. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DIS UH, INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME? CHAIR? I JUST NEED TO CLARIFY ITEM NUMBER FIVE. UH, THE MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE, UH, THE VOTE WAS SIX TO FIVE. SIX IN FAVOR? FIVE OPPOSED? I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT WE CLARIFIED THAT FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. I SEE THAT. YES, I DO SEE THAT IT WAS FIVE, SIX TO FIVE. AND THE MOTION STILL BILL FAILS? THAT'S CORRECT. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER, UM, INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED? UH, NO. JUST A REMINDER ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING IN JUNE. OUR MEETINGS IN JUNE WILL ALSO BE VIRTUAL MEETINGS. ALL FOR ALL MEETINGS OR JUST THE FIRST MEETING OF ALL MEETINGS IN JUNE. OKAY. SO WE CAN PERHAPS IRON OUT SOME OF THE BUGS. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, WELL THEN THIS CONCLUDES THE, UH, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. UH, I SHOW THE TIME AS, AS 2:40 PM UH, THE BOARD MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BYE EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. BYE. * 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.