* 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. WE ARE READY TO GO. [00:00:03] OKAY. UM, I DON'T HAVE THE COGA SCRIPT. UM, OKAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE SCRIPT FROM LAST TIME. WELL, I HAVE THE SCRIPT, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE FOCUS PORTION OF IT. THAT'S OKAY. THE, THE, THE COVID PORTION IS THE ONE THAT I READ, SIR. OH, OKAY. WELL THAT'S PROBABLY WHY I DON'T HAVE IT. ALRIGHT, ARE WE ON THERE? YES, WE'RE ON. GO AHEAD SIR. ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS ROGER MARTINEZ [Call to Order] AND I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I HEREBY CALL THIS RAIDER NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. UH, HAVE WE DONE OUR, UH, INTERPRETER READ OF, UH, LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION? ALRIGHT, THEY'RE GONNA GO RIGHT NOW. THANK. OKAY. UH, STAFF, CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL? OKAY. DR. ELLI, MAKE SURE TO HIT ON MUTE. PRESENT. MR. MINKA. PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? RELEVANT? MR. KEEL? PRESENT. MR. PRESENT? MR. ORIAN TO HIT UNMUTE. UH, PRESENT. THERE YOU GO. MS. PRESENT. MR. MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE. SIR. THERE YOU ARE. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD, TRY AGAIN. MR. ENA, HAVING TROUBLE WITH YOUR AUDIO? CAN'T HEAR YOU. I TRY AGAIN. OKAY. I, I SEE YOU, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, SO YOU MIGHT WANNA TEST YOUR AUDIO A LITTLE BIT. UM, MS. FISHER, TRY AGAIN. MS. FISHER PRESENT. OKAY. MR. DEL PRESENT. OKAY. TRY YOU AGAIN. MR. . ANDREW? YEAH. YOUR AUDIO'S NOT WORKING. YOU MIGHT WANNA TRY TO RECONNECT AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN PUT YOUR AUDIO WITH IF YOU RECONNECT. I'M LETTING YOUR HEADPHONES. YEAH. AND, AND TREVOR PUTTING THEM BACK IN. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ PRESENT. OKAY. UH, CHAIR CORN IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD CALLS AND AGENDA, WHICH IS POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE, THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED BY TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S GOING 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 NOT, AND DO NOT BEEN ROBBED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND CITY COUNCIL. THEY ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE, FROM THE DECISION OR TERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32. THE ADHERE AND DECIDES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND AUTHORIZED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM [00:05:01] REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. IN ADDITIONALLY, OUR POWER IS TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTER OFFLINE BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION AND THE ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY REQUIRES A RECURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBER, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS ALWAYS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF LAW REST WOULD BE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT BOARD OR COUNTY BOARD OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING. APPEALS TO THE BOARD'S DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION OR REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE PRIOR TO STARTING, UH, WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORM NOW. UH, PLEASE. GREAT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE THREAT 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 MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONDS 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 DO SAN ANTONIO.GOV/CSC OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3. TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. PLEASE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT'S STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED AND STAFF WILL ALSO PLANNING MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL. LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO RECEIVE A CALL BACK, WE WILL CALL 'EM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENT AND SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS MAINTENANCE. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS OR QUESTION. THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, VERY GOOD. UM, UH, LET'S BEGIN WITH OUR INDIVIDUAL, UH, HEARING ITEMS AND BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE. [1. 20-3370 BOA-20-10300003: A request by Brian Kolodziej for a 2' special exception from the maximum height restriction of 6' to allow a fence to be up to 8’ tall in the side and rear yard of property, and a 6" special exception from the maximum height restriction of 6' to allow a fence to be up to 6'6" tall behind the front facade facing the street, located at 3115 Sable Creek. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Azadeh Sagheb, Planner (210) 207-5407, Azadeh.Sagheb@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] UH, PLEASE PRESENT THE FIRST ITEM. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. THIS IS ZEKE SISE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. FIRST CASE IS V OA CASE, 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 AT 3 1 1 5 SABLE CREEK. THE APPLICANT IS BRIAN, UH, AL. FORGIVE ME. UH, , UH, REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OFFENSE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, A SIX FOOT OR SIX UH, INCH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OFFENSE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET, SIX INCHES TALL IN THE SIDE OF PROPERTY BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE FACING THE STREET. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX P U D M P D M L D ONE D. THE PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OFFENSE UPDATE, UH, SIX FEET TALL WITH THE, THE REAR PROPERTY YARD HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE APPLICANT ON JANUARY 6TH, 2020. UH, THE APPLICANT'S IN TURN BUILT AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AS WELL AS A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH TALL SOLID FENCE IN THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE FACING THE STREET. UH, THE APPLICANT WILL NOT ADD ANY FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD. PIPELINE IS SHOWN. NEXT PHOTOS ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S A FENCE OF THE SIDE YARD AND ONCE AGAIN, THE FENCE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL. MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ALONG THE SIDES. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DROP IN ELEVATION AND THAT'S ALONG THE SIDE OF THE NEIGHBOR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE. D O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, DEFENSE IN THE FRONT YARD DOES NOT EXTEND PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. AND THE FENCE HAS NOT OBSTRUCT A CLEAR [00:10:01] BID STANDARDS. AND THE MATERIAL AND LOOK OF THE EXISTING FENCE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH SCRU NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT, NEXT, NEXT SLIDE. 17 NOTICES SENT OUT ZERO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE H O A IS NOT CURRENTLY REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, ZINC, UH, YOU PRESENTED THIS AS A VARIANCE AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN EXCEPTION, UM, UH, THIS PROJECT THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARI NEGATIVE. IT'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD OUR, OUR INFORMATION CORRECT ALL. OKAY. UH, THEN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I SUGGEST WE BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. BRIAN, GO AHEAD. WHY YOU TAKE IT MUTE. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. UH, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? I CAN HEAR YOU. UH, OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO IT SEEMS LIKE I, I MADE A MISTAKE IN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, AND I WANNA APOLOGIZE UPFRONT. UH, WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THE FENCE BETWEEN MY NEIGHBOR'S HOME AND, AND OUR HOME WAS KNOCKED DOWN, BLOWN DOWN IN A STORM. AND SO WE HAD, WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS, WE HAD ALSO TALKED TO OUR H O A ABOUT PUTTING UP A NICE TALL EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND THERE ARE TWO HOMES THAT HAVE EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY. SO I WAS UNAWARE WE WERE BOTH UNAWARE, OR I WAS GONNA, AUGUST, I WAS UNAWARE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING TO TALK TO THE CITY. SO I, I DON'T WANT, IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE JUST BEEN A ROPE PERSON HERE AND PUTTING UP OFFENSES WITHOUT PERMISSION. SO I APOLOGIZE. ONCE I LEARNED WHAT THE PROCEDURE WAS, I WENT, OBVIOUSLY WENT DOWNTOWN AND, AND GOT THE PROPER PERMITS FOR BUILDING THE, THE, THE FENCES. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR UP FRONT. UM, SO THE, UH, BRIAN KLO IS MY NAME, 3 1 1 5 STABLE CREEK IS THE ADDRESS. AND REALLY THE REASON FOR THE, THE FENCE BEING PUT UP IS, IS OUR FENCES ARE CURRENTLY IN, IN DISREPAIR. THEY'RE ALL APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT, EXCEPT THE NEW FENCES THAT ARE UP. UM, WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING HOMES, WE ALL HAVE POOLS, SO IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE AS WELL AS ALSO A NOISE ISSUE. 'CAUSE WE ALL HAVE PETS, , AND IT DOES SEEM TO REALLY TEMPER THE NOISE FROM DOGS. UH, WE DON'T, OUR DOGS DON'T BARK AT OUR NEIGHBORS DOGS AND VICE VERSA ANYMORE. SO THAT'S NICE. SO WE HAVE LIKE A LITTLE TEST, A TEST WALL THERE AND IT SEEMS GREAT. UM, I HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL, ALL MY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE, ARE TOUCHING OUR PROPERTIES AND, AND I'VE DISCUSSED WITH ALL THE, ONE, ONE HASN'T RESPONDED ABOUT HAVING, UM, THE, THE ENTIRE YARD OF OUR HOUSE, UH, ENCOMPASSED BY THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. IT LOOKS NICE. IT, IT, IT'S STRONG. AND I GUESS, I GUESS REALLY THAT WOULD BE THE ASPECT IS IF IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE MORE PRIVACY AND MORE SAFETY, ESPECIALLY NOW WITH WHAT'S GOING ON. IT DOES SEEM AS THOUGH SINCE WE ALL HAVE PLAY SETS, UM, THAT WHEN OUR KIDS ARE ON THE PLAY SETS, THEY'RE NOW BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE FENCING. SO IT SEEMS TO BE LESS CHANCE OF AIRBORNE TRANSMISSIONS AND THAT TYPE OF THING, AND DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP OTHER THAN ANECDOTAL LOOKING THAT YOU NOW CAN'T SEE EACH OTHER THROUGH THE FENCES WHEN WE'RE ON TOP OF THE, THE, THE PLAY SETS. AND THEN ALSO TOO, JUST WITH THE, THE RIGHT THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING ON WITH, UM, THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AS FAR AS THE, THE PROTESTS AND WHATNOT, OR EVEN LOOTING, IT DOES SEEM NICE TO HAVE THE SIX FOOT SIX FENCE, UH, FACING THE STREET. IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE WOULD SHOOT ANOTHER HOUSE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO COME THROUGH OUR FENCE. SO THAT'S A, A NICE PIECE OF MIND. UH, THAT MAY BE SEEM SELFISH, BUT IT IS KIND OF NICE. UH, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE AS FAR AS THAT. THE OTHER, THE OTHER TWO HOMES THAT DO HAVE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES ARE AT, UH, 2, 2 3 2 2 ROME FOREST, 2 2 3 1 8 ROME FOREST. THOSE ARE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND THEY HAVE 'EM SURROUNDING THEIR, THEIR LOTS. THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE H O A OF EVANS RANCH. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD RECEIVED A VARIANCE, UH, THROUGH, THROUGH THE CITY, THROUGH Y'ALL OR NOT. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER FENCE THAT IS 10 FEET TALL. UM, AND THAT IS AT, I, I SENT A PICTURE OF THOSE AS WELL THAT THEY, THEY WERE SENT FRIDAY, SO I MAY HAVE MISSED A DEADLINE IF ISABEL WAS ABLE TO GET THOSE IN. BUT THERE ARE PHOTOS OF ALL THESE FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ADDRESS FOR THE 10 FOOT TALL FENCE IS AT, WHERE IS THAT? HMM, 3 0 0 2 [00:15:03] SABLE CREEK. AND THAT HAS A 10 FOOT TALL FENCE THAT I TOOK A PICTURE OF AND SUBMITTED AS WELL. AND IT'S A WOODEN STYLE FENCE AND IT'S GOT, UH, THE PARALLEL BOARDS INSTEAD OF THE, THE, THE HORIZONTAL BOARD, UH, EXCUSE ME, THE VERTICAL BOARDS, THEY RUN HORIZONTAL AS WELL, AND THAT'S FACING THEIR BACK AND AROUND ONE OF THE SIDES OF THEIR HOUSE. SO I WANNA MAINTAIN, OBVIOUSLY CONGRUENCY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, THEIR FRONT FASCIA FENCE WHERE YOU SAW THE ONE PICTURE, THEY HAD A SHORTER FENCE INITIALLY, BUT THEY'VE GONE. THERE IT IS. THAT'S NICE. THANK YOU. UM, THAT MATCHES. NOW THAT'S ANOTHER NEIGHBOR THAT, THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS A VIOLATION OF THE H O A BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THERE'S THE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, UH, ON ROME FOREST. THOSE ARE TWO, THOSE TWO HOMES SHARE THAT FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT AND THEN AROUND THE, THE PROPERTY LINES. UM, I COULDN'T GO IN THEIR BACKYARD THOUGH THEY WEREN'T HOME WHEN I STOPPED BY. I JUST TOOK THAT PICTURE OVER THE TOP. UM, AND THAT'S THE 10 FOOT TALL FENCE AT 3 0 0 2 TABLE CREEK. SO THAT, THAT'S MY NEIGHBOR'S HOME TO THE RIGHT. THEY STAY IN THEIR FENCE. I WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE RECEIVED OFFICIAL APPROVAL BEFORE WE DID ANY STAINING, BUT NOW IT LOOKS REALLY NICE FROM THE STREET VIEW AND, AND, UM, I MOST NEIGHBORS COMPLIMENT WHEN THEY WALK BY OR WALKING THEIR DOGS OR THIS AND THAT. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME AND, AND THAT MADE SOME SENSE. I'M A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS, SO I APOLOGIZE. OKAY, THAT'S VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, PLEASE HOLD ON. WE'RE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, WITNESSES ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? NO, SIR. NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT WE DID RECEIVE ONE CARD IN OPPOSITION WITH A SMALL STATEMENT. OKAY. SO GO AHEAD AND READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. LET ME SEE HERE. IT'S FROM A DONALD AND JULIA. I, I CAN'T MAKE UP THE LAST NAME THERE, SIR, BUT IT, THEY'RE FROM 31 3 6 3. OKAY. UH, SO THE STATEMENT IS WHEN NEIGHBORS SPENT 7 3 1 1 9 TABLE CREEK BLEW DOWN, UH, BRIAN IGNORE THE H O A CRITERIA SIX FOOT TALL AND PUT UP AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND DID NOT APPLY FOR ZONING VARIATION UNTIL EVANS RANCH, H O A, UH, CALLED HIM ON IT. AND ONLY THEN DID HE APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE, HIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED A FOOT FENCE. CAN'T MAKE THAT WHAT IT SAYS HERE. UM, ALL THE H O A OWNERS, FORGIVE ME SOME OF THE, I CAN'T READ OUT WHAT THAT SAYS, BUT THAT'S THE END OF THE STATEMENT AND THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. AND THAT, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE CONTACT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UH, IS THE APPLICANT STILL LISTENING? OKAY, I WENT OFF MUTE THERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE NOW I'M GOING TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY NEED TO ASK YOU. I'M SORRY YOU COULDN'T HEAR. THAT VOICE IS ALL MESSED UP. OH, OKAY. I'LL BE SURE THEN IF YOU CAN HEAR ME. UH, MY QUESTION IS, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT, IS THE NEIGHBOR HOUSE BEHIND YOU AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THE SAME OR A LOWER ELEVATION THAN YOU? I I SEEMS LIKE YOU ASKED IF THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND ME IS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION OR LOWER. YES, YES. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. YES. THEY, THEY'RE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT VARIANCE OF THAT, BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. AND THEY HAVE A, A TWO STORY HOUSE. WE JUST HAVE A ONE STORY HOUSE. NO, I I'M ASKING BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT AND BEHIND YOU, EVERYBODY HAS A POOL, SO I UNDERSTAND AND THE PRIVACY ASPECT, UH, UH, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MATTERS AS FAR AS PRIVACY. AND THEN DID YOU EVER GET PERMISSION FROM THE H O A ? YES. AND THANKS FOR ASKING THAT BECAUSE I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. THE H O A HAS NO RESTRICTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ON WOODEN FENCES AS FAR AS HEIGHT. THERE ARE NO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AT ALL AS FAR AS WOODEN FENCES AS, UH, SO WHEN THIS HAPPENED, I NOTIFIED THE MANAGER BECAUSE THIS HAPPENED ACTUALLY WHEN I WAS, I TRAVELED FOR WORK. I'M IN THE MEDICAL FIELD, UH, HAPPENED WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN. UM, AND SO WE HAD TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION TO DO IT. SO I NOTIFIED THE, THE H O A MANAGER, UH, HER NAME IS, IS AMY AND ZA, AND LET HER KNOW THAT WE WERE CONSTRUCTING THE FENCE AND THAT WE DISCUSSED IT. NEIGHBOR AND I DISCUSSED IT. WE WERE PLANNING TO DO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. SHE GAVE THE VERBAL, SHE SAID, WELL, IT'S JUST THE FENCE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON, ON THE HEIGHT [00:20:01] FOR WOODEN FENCES. SHE CONFIRMED THAT THE ONLY RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE ON HEIGHTS ARE WROUGHT IRON FENCES. AND ACTUALLY DON KANE, THE NEIGHBOR THAT THAT CALLED, THAT, THAT SENT IN THE, THE STATEMENT, HIS, HIS WROUGHT IRON FENCE IS ACTUALLY SIX FEET TALL. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED APPROVAL ON THAT, BUT THOSE ARE, WE DO VARIANCES ON FENCES ALL THE TIME IN THE H O A. BUT I DID APPROVE IT VERBALLY. AND THEN AS SOON AS I GOT BACK IN TOWN, I SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR, FOR THE H O A APPROVAL. BUT OF COURSE, WORK ALREADY STARTED BECAUSE WE BOTH HAD POOLS AND WE BOTH HAVE DOGS. SO IT NOT IF WE COULD JUST WAIT UNTIL I GOT BACK INTO TOWN BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTED, AND I'D GOTTEN THE VERBAL FROM, FROM AMY. UM, BUT THAT'S ALL, THAT'S ALL REALLY ON THAT. IT WAS, IT, UM, IT SEEMED LIKE A NON-ISSUE. DON WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT SEEMED TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION WITH IT. BUT NO, I WASN'T, THEY, HE DIDN'T FORCE MY HANDS OR ANYTHING. AS SOON AS I KNEW WHAT, WHAT THE RULES WERE WITH THE CITY WAS WHEN I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED Y'ALL AND GOT THAT CLEARED UP. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UM, DON, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ASK THE OFFER CHAIR BEFORE YOU START? UM, MR. ORIAN, YOUR, UM, SPEAKER, YOUR AUDIO'S NOT COMING THROUGH CLEARLY. IT IS VERY BROKEN UP. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO, UM, TEST YOUR AUDIO SOME OTHER WAY, BUT IT'S, IT'S COMING IN VERY, VERY SCRATCHY. JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. OKAY. GO AHEAD. PERHAPS IT, HE RESTARTS THE SYSTEM. I PREFER TO DO THAT AFTER THE CASE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BEAR WITH US DONALD. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. TAL? DID I HEAR? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. UH, I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE RAISING THEIR, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO THAT. UM, OBVIOUSLY, UM, YOU'RE USING THE MODEL OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW, UH, IF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IN THE CITY'S LIMITS AT THE TIME OF THE, THEIR PROJECT. SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT JUSTIFICATION OR WHAT WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THOSE. BUT YOUR CASE, I'M ASSUMING THAT SINCE YOU WERE ISSUED A CITATION, UH, OR NOTICE OF SOME SORT THAT, UH, YOU ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS. UM, YES SIR. ANY, ANY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS DONE WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT REQUIRES THAT YOU CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF A, UH, PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I NOTICED THAT YOUR, UH, SIDE FENCE WAS EIGHT FEET AND FRONT FENCE WAS, I BELIEVE YOU WERE TOLD IT WAS SIX AND A HALF FEET. WHY WAS THERE THAT A DIFFERENT, UH, JUST JUST FOR THE VISUAL ASPECT? I THOUGHT EIGHT FEET. WELL, BOTH, I, I THOUGHT EIGHT FEET WOULD BE TOO TALL, UH, FOR THE STREET VIEW. I DON'T KNOW IF I, WE NEVER PUT IT THAT HIGH THAT TO TEST IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMED LIKE KEEPING THE AESTHETICS, UM, AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS, SO THERE'S, THERE'S A RAISE, AN ELEVATION RAISE AT THAT FENCE LINE COMPARED TO THE MAN DOOR. UM, AND IT, AND THAT SIX FOOT, SIX INCHES MATCHES THAT MAN DOOR FRAMING. SO IT MAKES LIKE A NICE LINE FROM THE MAN DOOR BY THE GARAGE DOOR ALL THE WAY OVER AND, AND REALLY MAKE THIS NICE SIDELINE. IN MY OPINION. IT KIND OF SEEMS SILLY WHEN I SAY IT OUT OF MY MOUTH NOW, BUT I THINK AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD'VE BEEN AS TALL AS THE GARAGE DOOR. I JUST THINK THAT WOULD'VE LOOK REALLY HIGH FOR A STREET VIEW. BUT THAT OTHER, THE OTHER FENCES DOWN THE STREET, UM, ON ROME FOREST LOOK PRETTY GOOD. BUT I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST SEEMED DIFFERENT THE WAY OUR HOUSE WAS SET UP. I DIDN'T WANNA, I DIDN'T WANNA MAKE IT TOO TALL LOOKING. OKAY. OTHER THAN, OTHER THAN THE STAINING ON THE THICKER FENCE, UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED? UH, WELL, YES. SO I, WE JUST DID, AND AGAIN, I, UH, WE JUST DID THE SIDE FENCE, UH, ALONG AND THE, AND THE FRONT FENCE, SO THERE'S STILL THE BACK PERIMETER AND THEN IF YOU'RE FACING, IF YOU'RE FACING THE HOUSE, THE LEFT PERIMETER FENCE, SO THERE'S TWO MORE ASPECTS OF THE FENCE THAT WOULD PROBABLY TOTAL, I THINK, UH, LET'S JUST SAY 200 FEET TO BE SAFE. AND SO I STOPPED ALL CONSTRUCTION ONCE I, ONCE I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAD TO GET PERMIT. SO THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S COMPLETELY IGNORANT, SO I HAD NO IDEA ON THAT. UH, SO YES, WE'RE WAITING TO DO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY BACK HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW ON THAT PICTURE, THAT'S THERE, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THOSE FENCES ARE, ARE [00:25:01] IN, ARE IN DISREPAIR NOW, AND THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED. SO THOSE, THOSE WHAT WE'RE WAITING ON NOW FOR THIS APPROVAL TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN THE, THE REMAINING EIGHT FOOT FENCES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY NOW ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MY PLEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER MEMBERS? UH, NOTHING. ALRIGHT. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PORTION TO, UH, THE PUBLIC. AND I'M INTERVIEWING A MOTION ON THIS. FINE. BEFORE YOU CONTINUE THE MOTION. THE APPLICANT IS HAPPY WITH HIS SIX AND A HALF DEFENSE, IF I'M ACTUALLY REQUESTING EIGHT FEET ON THE SIDE IN THE BACK. IAN, MR. IAN? YEAH. IS THAT CAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME BETTER, I MOVE TO A DIFFERENT ROOM. WONDERFUL, THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 3, I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PRINT ONE, A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ON THE SIDE OF REAR PROPERTY YARD. AND TWO, A SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE UP TO SIX FOOT, SIX INCHES TALL ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE FACING THE STREET SITUATED AT 3 1 1 5 S CREEK. APPLICANT BEING BRIAN, BRIAN CO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACTS AND WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS EMITTED WILL RESULTED IN NECESSARY HARDSHIPS, SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. UH, THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE SIDE MODIFICATION OF THE AP. THE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE SIDE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA REPRESENTED BY A MAXIMUM FENCE SITE TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND A CLOSED FENCE ALONG THE PORTION OF THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH TALL SOLID FENCE ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WERE REBUILT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY BE INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND UNLIKELY TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE MATERIAL, THE STYLE OF DEFENSE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES AND IS NOT NOTICEABLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, OR THE FENCING DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SAW DEFENSE DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FENCING IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PRE-EXISTING FENCING MATERIALS AND HEIGHT WITHIN THE VICINITY. THE EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR EACH REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS CURRENT USE, THE REQUEST OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. I NOT WRONG. I TURNED OFF. OKAY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I HEARD SECOND SHARE. YES. OKAY. UM, WHO WAS THE SECOND REMAN? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE HAVE, UM, MR. OREN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION ON THIS? SURE. UM, SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT. NUMBER TWO, THE H O A SEEMS TO BE OKAY WITH IT. UH, BUT ALSO THE FACT THAT ALL THE, THE APPLICANT AND, AND THE, THE THREE NEIGHBORS TO HIS SIDES AND REAR ALL HAD POLES AND THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND HIM HAS AN ELEVATED, UH, PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. AND I, I, I PERSONALLY HAVE THAT SAME KIND OF CONDITION. AND I'LL TELL YOU ONE THING, YOU KNOW, THAT EXTRA ELEVATION HEIGHT REALLY TAKES AWAY FROM THE SECURITY OF, UH, PRIVACY OF THE BACKYARD. YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO I'M, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. I THINK THE X EXTRA TWO FEET WILL HELP. OKAY. I THINK, UH, DONALD, YOU MEANT IT AS TO THE SECURITY. WHAT, AND THEN YOU SAID YOU MEANT IT AS TO THE SECURITY DOESN'T TAKE AWAY. OH, IT, WELL, IT ADDS TO THE SECURITY. IT MOSTLY ADDS FOR THE PRIVACY. I SHOULD HAVE SAID PRIVACY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, MS. BRA, DO YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INPUT? OH, NO, I'M JUST GONNA CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I, I BELIEVE SINCE THE BACK HOUSE, THE HOUSE AND BACK IS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, UM, AGAIN, IT ADDS TO THE, THE PRIVACY, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S A TWO STORY COMING BACK. UM, SO I'LL BE MORE OF THE NOTION AS WELL. ALRIGHT. [00:30:01] UM, ANY OTHER INPUTS? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND REVIEW THIS VERY CAREFULLY SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION IS THAT THE, UH, THERE WILL BE GRANT, UH, THERE'S A GRANT AND EXCEPTION FOR THE, UH, UH, FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE SIDE AND BACKYARD AND ALLOW FOR THE ADDITIONAL HALF FOOT ON THE FRONT, UH, YARD, UH, OR NOT THE FRONT YARD, BUT THE RETURN SECTION OF THE FENCE BEHIND THE, UH, UH, FRONT FACADE. IS THAT, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? OKAY. YES. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I HAVE NO QUESTION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. YOU HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY MR. OR MS. ELLI. I CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT MR. FINDING FACT, MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACTS. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRECKMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. GO AHEAD MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. DELMORE. YES, I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. THE, UH, MOTION DOES PASS. YOU ARE GRANTED THE EXEMPTION EXEMPTION FOR THE ADDITIONAL HYPE ON YOUR FENCING AROUND YOUR PROPERTY. UM, BEEN VERY FORTUNATE AND I BELIEVE THAT, UH, MAKE SURE YOU GO THROUGH THE, THE PROPER, UH, PERMITTING PROCESS AND, UH, GOOD LUCK. I HOPE YOUR FENCE LOOKS BEAUTIFUL HERE. HAS THE APPLICANT UH, HUNG UP? OKAY, IN THAT CASE, LET'S GO ON [2. 20-3371 BOA-20-10300038: A request by Fernando Garcia for 1) a 2' special exception from the 6' maximum fence height to allow a solid screen fence to be up to 8' tall within the rear yard and 2) a 3' variance, from the 5’ maximum fence height for combined or predominately open fences, to allow a solid screen fence to be up to 8’ tall along the side property line within the front yard and 3) a variance from the Clear Vision standards to allow a fence to be within the Clear Vision field, located at 139 Valdez. Staff recommends Denial with Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 1) (Azadeh Sagheb, Planner (210) 207-5407, Azadeh.Sagheb@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] TO OUR NEXT CASE. I BELIEVE THAT'S NUMBER 13. THAT'S CORRECT. SO DO 8 8 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 8. THE APPLICANT IS GARCIA. UH, A REQUEST ONE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE, ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY, SIDE PROPERTY LINES WITHIN THE REAR YARD. AND TWO, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE IF GOT THE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE, PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. AND THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD. CURRENT IS R SIX A H O D AND FIVE. THE APPLICANT HAS BUILT AN EIGHT FOOT TOP PRIVACY WOOD FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IS INTERESTED IN CONSTRUCTING EIGHT FOOT TOP PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE REAR SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BEHIND A VACANT LOT ZONE THAT THAT'S COMMERCIAL. THEREFORE, A SOLID FENCE OF THE EIGHT FEET TALL COULD BE BUILT AT THE VERY END OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY CODE. THE TWO NEIGHBORS BUILD A SIX FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY FRONT YARD. THERE IS IN CODE VIOLATION. CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTE, UH, NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON MARCH 3RD, TWO, 2020, UH, FOR FENCE HEIGHT. THE SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATES WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AN FOOT FENCE ON THE REAR END SIDE YARDS AND INCLUDING THE FRONT YARD. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT PHOTOS ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. PLEASE NOTE THE BARB WIRE FENCE ALONG THE UH, THE BUSHES WILL BE REMOVED AS IT IS IN, IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THIS IS A CLOSE OF THE FRONT YARD OF THE FENCE AND THE NEIGHBORING LAWS STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL VIEW A 1 0 3 OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF FOR PROPERTY SIDE FENCE WITHIN THE REAR YARD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT. THE MATERIAL AND LOOK OF THE EXISTING FENCE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER, BUT THE SHRINE NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO GO UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. AND THE VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. FACTS, THE CONSTRUCTIVE FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD IS ENTIRELY OUT OF CHARACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CLEAR VISION STANDARD STANDARDS ARE IN VIOLATION. 32 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO [00:35:01] IN FAVOR, FIVE IN OPPOSITION. AND THE TOKEN HILL NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AGREED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. I ALSO HAVE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT IN ALONG WITH THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION HE READ OUT ALONG WITH TWO VOICEMAILS. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ THOSE LETTERS INTO THE RECORD. SIR, WE TYPICALLY, UH, HAVE THE APPLICANT GO FIRST AND THEN WE, UH, GO COURT OPPOSITION AFTER THAT. OKAY, LET'S, LET'S, UH, LET Z CAN HOLD OFF UNTIL WE GET THE APPLICANT THROUGH. IS THE APPLICANT READY? MR. GARCIA, YOU READY? THIS ON YOUR ITEM? I AM FERNANDO GARCIA. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. YES. GO AHEAD, SIR. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, OR MY NAME IS FERNANDO GARCIA AND I LIVE ON 1 3 9 VALDEZ, WHICH IS A STREET THAT INTERSECTS AT THE HEART OF THE NORTH ST. MARY'S BAR STRIP, I THINK OUT OF THE WEEK. THE ME ST. MARY'S BAR STRIP IS USUALLY ACTIVE WITH FIESTA TYPE PARTY BOARDS WALKING FROM BAR TO BAR. MOST TIMES THEY'RE INTOXICATED AND OFTEN FILTER DOWN VALDEZ STREET. THEY OFTEN PUBLICLY URINATE IN THE OPEN AND SOMETIMES FIGHT AND ARGUE NEAR MY HOUSE. I FEEL MY FAMILY HAS A RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A BARRIER WHICH PROTECTS US FROM THESE UNPREDICTABLE CROWDS. THE SECURE PRIVACY FENCE I AM HUMBLY ASKING FOR HELPS SHIELD US FROM THE INTOXICATED CROWDS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL OF SECURITY KINDS ARE CHANGING DOWNTOWN. THE THREAT OF RIOTERS AND ERS, UH, HAVE BECOME IMMINENT. VALADE STREET HAS BEEN REZONED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. BUSINESSES AROUND ME HAVE THE HIGH FENCE SECURITY TO PROTECT THEIR BUILDINGS AND INVENTORY. I WISH TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF SECURITY FOR MY WIFE AND MY THREE YEAR OLD TODDLER AT HOME. THESE BARS ON THE ARE ON THE SAME STREET AND BLOCK MY HOUSE IS ON WHEN THE BARS CLOSE AND LOCK THEIR DOORS. MY FAMILY IS VULNERABLE TO THEIR INEBRIATED AND SOMETIMES, UH, DRUG INDUCED CROWDS. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE GUIDELINES THAT CALL ON FORMALITIES AND RESIDENTIAL FENCES, BUT MY FAMILY NEEDS A FAIR CHANCE. ALSO. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I HAVE VERY NOSY MAL INTENDED NEIGHBORS. I ABSOLUTELY NEED MY PRIVACY FROM THEM. GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. THIS FENCE WILL PREVENT FUTURE CONFLICTS. AND LASTLY, I AM A NINE YEAR MARINE VETERAN, UH, WITH A 70% P T S D DISABILITY RATING. UH, I REALLY NEED MY PRIVACY, IF NOT EIGHT FEET, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY WITH A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON THE SIDES AND THE REAR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW, THE RECORD, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UM, ZEKE, WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND READ THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, SIR. I'M GONNA READ THE STATEMENTS FIRST ON THE OA UH, STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY THE TWO VOICEMAILS AFTER THAT. SO THE FIRST TWO COMMENTS ARE GONNA BE IN, IN FAVOR. THAT'S FROM REBECCA VEGA FROM 1 26 VALEZ IN RESPONSE TO 1 39 NBC 95 82. THE QUESTION OF BEING ALLOWED TO INSTALL FENCING IN BACK AND AROUND PROPERTIES SEEMS A, UH, RE REASONABLE REQUEST AND WILL BE MORE CONSIDERED AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND PRIVACY. NO OBJECTION. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM, UH, ELAINE MARTINEZ AT 4 67 BRANCH PLACE. THIS ONE IS SIMPLY IN FAVOR, THE OPPOSITION, WHETHER LU GARCIA 1 31 EZ. I'M UNABLE TO FALL, UH, TO PULL OUT SAFELY FROM MY DRIVEWAY TO THE SOLID, UH, WOOD WALL. MOHAMMED, UM, CAN'T READ HIS LAST NAME. 1 28 VALEZ. IT WOULD NOT BE PLEASING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A STATEMENT FROM TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN TOKEN HILL. AFTER REVIEWING THIS, THE APPLICATION, UH, REQUEST AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY T H C A SUPPORTS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCE. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. THIS IS FROM, UH, RICK, RICK SHELL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND NEXT WE'RE GONNA BE PLAYING THE VOICEMAILS. YES, GO AHEAD AND GO AHEAD. VOICEMAIL. UH, MY NAME IS JOHN BURKE AND MY PHONE IS FIVE ONE TWO NINE ONE FOUR FOUR SEVEN FOUR. AND I WAS CALLING [00:40:01] PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER B O A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 8 ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STREET, UH, ROAD LOT 1 47 ON VALDEZ. AND WE WANT THAT FENCE TO NOT COME ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STREET BECAUSE IT BLOCKS THE VISION, UH, FROM CARS COMING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE GOING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE STREET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS MARTHA BURKE. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (512) 497-2712. AND I'M CALLING ABOUT MY PROPERTY AT 1 3 5 VALEZ IN SAN ANTONIO. THE CASE NUMBER IS OH 8 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 8. AND, UM, I HAVE GOT RENTERS IN THIS, IN THIS PROPERTY. AND THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THEY CANNOT, THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR CAR ALMOST 80% OUT INTO THE STREET IN ORDER TO SEE IF ANYONE IS COMING. SO, UM, I REQUESTED ON NUMBER THREE, THE VARIANCE FROM CLEAR VISION STANDARDS BE, UH, ADHERED TO AND, UM, AND THAT THIS SKIN NEEDS TO BE REMOVED IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK Z IS THAT ALL CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE CALLS AND THE STATEMENTS. OKAY. DID THE THE FIRST CALL EVER GIVE AN ADDRESS OR JUST A PHONE NUMBER? JUST A PHONE NUMBER, SIR. OKAY. UH, WAS THAT, WELL, WE'LL DISCUSS THIS ON THE SIDE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ADVISABILITY IN THE FILE. ANYWAY, UH, NEVERTHELESS, WE'VE GOT THE RECORD PLAYED. UH, LET'S, UH, BRING THE, UM, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, BACK ON TO, UH, REVIEW THE, UH, STATEMENT. AND, UH, THEN WE'LL HAVE GO THROUGH A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS FERNANDO. OKAY, MR. GARCIA, YOU HEARD WHAT THE WITNESS, DID YOU HEAR WHAT THE WITNESS HAS SAID? YES, I DID. OKAY. AND, UH, I, I DID HEAR WHAT THEY SAID AND, UH, I AM WILLING TO SCALE BACK MY FENCE, UH, 15 FEET FROM THE STREET. FROM WHAT I KNOW, THE AVERAGE S U V IS 15 FEET LONG, 15.5 FEET LONG. AND, AND I DO ADMIT I AM THE WRONG IN THAT THIS IS A, A FIRST, UH, THIS IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ME AND I DO CARE ABOUT MY NEIGHBOR'S SAFETY. UM, BUT A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, UH, AF AFTER WHERE THE VEHICLE CAN SEE WOULD BE NICE. I MEAN, 15 FEET IS, UH, A LOT CONSIDERING THE DRIVER'S ON THE BUMPER. SO MAYBE, UH, 10 FEET FROM THE STREET WOULD GET CLEAR VIEW. I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT. UH, AND, AND OH, I'M SORRY. UM, AND ONE MORE THING. OUR STREET IS A, IS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET WITH A TURNAROUND IN THE REAR. IT'S NOT A VERY FAST STREET. CARS, UH, DRIVE VERY SLOW THROUGH THE STREET. THAT IS IN, ITS VERY NARROW, RIGHT? IT'S RIGHT AT THE CULDESAC. YES. YES, SIR. VERY GOOD. OKAY. IS THAT, UH, THE TOTAL OF YOUR RESPONSE? I'M SORRY? IS THAT ALL YOU WOULD WANT TO ADD AT THIS TIME? YES. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT EIGHT FOOT DOWN TO ABOUT SIX TO SIX AND A HALF IF IT HELPS ME OUT WITH PRIVACY AND SCALE BACK MY FENCE TO ALLOW CLEAR VIEW, UH, WITH A VEHICLE IN, IN, OR THE VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THEY CAN SEE WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE ROAD WHEN EXITING. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND ALSO TO CONSIDER THAT, UH, MY P T S D SOMETIMES GETS THE BETTER OF ME WHEN I DON'T HAVE PRIVACY. AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE CONSIDER THAT, I'LL BE TOTALLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF BEFORE WE CONTINUE. I KNOW THAT IN LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE'S GOT A SMALL WOODEN FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD FACING ON THE STREET SIDE. WAS THAT INCLUDED IN, IN THIS, UH, UH, REQUEST? CORRECT, SIR. SO CURRENTLY THE CLEAR VISION IS AT SIX FEET RIGHT NOW AND THE, THE, UH, THE SOLID SENTENCE GOES UP TO THAT POINT? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE . OH, NO SIR. SO THE VERY FRONT YARD, NO SIR. SO IT'S GONNA, BASICALLY, WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU THE, THE, UH, SITE PLAN OF [00:45:01] THE REQUEST. BASICALLY LEAVE THE FRONT OPEN. IT IS JUST REALLY THE SIDE YARDS IN THE FRONT YARD. WELL, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE NEEDED TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE, UH, PACING OF THE PICKET. SO THEY'RE SHOW, WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE PIPELINE CURRENTLY THIS IS OF THE REQUEST FOR THE AP ALL THE WAY AROUND IN THAT REGARD. OKAY. SO THESE ARE ONLY THINGS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AT THIS TIME? YES, SIR. SO ELLI, YES. DOCTOR ZANI, COULD YOU KIND OF MARK OR SHOW US SOME WAY ON THIS PLAN THAT YOU HAVE UP ABOUT HOW FAR BACK DOES IT NEED TO GO TO MEET CLEAR VISION? WE'RE PARKED 15 FEET, SO WITH IT, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS REALLY TIGHT. UM, THERE'S ONLY SIX FEET CURRENTLY, SO IMAGINE WE GOTTA GO BACK ANOTHER NINE FEET BEHIND WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY TO MEET THE CLEAR VISION. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TELL HOW CLOSE THAT WOULD BE TO THE HOUSE. OKAY. SO IN ORDER TO MEET CLEAR VISION, I KNOW BENIGN FEET BACK, HE COULD HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO THAT POINT, AND THEN IT DROPPED DOWN TO THE FOUR. IS IT FOUR FEET FOR CLEAR VISION? UH, SOLID. FOR SOLID SENSING IT WOULD BE THREE FEET. BUT I REMEMBER IT STILL, THAT'S CORRECT, A THREE FEET. OKAY. BUT IF IT WERE, UM, YOU COULD SEE THROUGH IT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? FIVE FEET? SO THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, YOU CAN GO UP TO FIVE FEET IN THE FRONT YARD. OKAY. OKAY. SO HE COULD HAVE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE UP TO FIVE FEET IN THE FRONT YARD BY, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THE, DOES THE, AND THEN THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, MR. GARCIA, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST ASKED? I I DID UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING. YES MA'AM. DO YOU HONEY? OKAY. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. NOW IF YOU'LL NOTICE THE, UH, FRONT FENCE THAT YOU'VE GOT, THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION, RIGHT? IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT IF IT WAS 70% VIEW VIEW THROUGH CURRENTLY IT LOOKS TO BE 50% SO NONCOMPLIANT AS WELL. UNLESS IT WAS NO MORE THAN THREE FEET TALL, THAT PORTION OF OFFENSE IS AT FOUR. OKAY. WELL, I'M, I'M JUST LET LET THE BOARD KNOW WHAT THE POSITIONS ARE ALLOWING. UH, UH, WELL, HE DOESN'T WRITE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. OF COURSE. THAT'S GENERALLY DESIGNED FOR, UM, A HOT ROD ORNAMENTAL IRON TYPE FENCING. AND TO WITH A WOOD SLACK, IT WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO BE, UH, PRETTY OPEN BETWEEN THE PICKET. COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE LAST PIECE YOU JUST SAID WITH REGARDS TO THE PICKETS? DOES IT REMOVE EVERY OTHER PICKET? NO. WELL, ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS, IS IN ORDER TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, THERE MUST BE 70% THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. SO IF HE IS GOT A BOARD THERE, AND HE IS GOTTA CALCULATE, UH, INCLUDING THE BOARD, THE 70% RULE IN ORDER TO SPACE HIS TICKETS APPROPRIATELY SO HE CAN USE A WOODEN FENCE. GENERALLY THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE BECAUSE THE TICKETS ARE VERY THIN AND THERE'S USUALLY MORE THAN, UH, 70% VIEWABLE AREA. BUT IF A WOOD FENCE, IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE CALCULATION, HE COULD DO THAT ON THE SIDE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE, THE AREA HE IS GOT RIGHT NOW, AS LONG AS IT'S NO LONGER FIVE FEET TALL AND HAVE THE 70% YIELD VIEWABLE VIEW THROUGH FENCE. AND I THINK THAT WOULD EVEN COMPLY WITH THE, UM, UH, REAR VISION. IS THAT CORRECT, LEE? AND THAT'S THE NEAREST, SIR. WE, WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO RUN IT BY, UH, TRAFFIC TO REVIEW ANY KIND OF, OF PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET, LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE. SURE. YOU KNOW, HE MAY DECIDE TO TEAR DOWN THAT FENCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND PUT A FORMENTAL HIRE, UH, AND UH, THEN IT WOULD BEHOOVE HIM, UH, TO HAVE THE CLEAR VISION EXEMPTION IF NEEDED. AND IT WOULD'VE GIVEN THE NEIGHBORS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY AND HAVE SOME VISIBLE AREA TO SEE IAN, MS. ORIAN. YEAH. SO [00:50:01] A COUPLE OF QUICK COUPLE ITEMS. UH, NUMBER ONE ON ONE, THE PICTURE THAT'S BEING SHOWN RIGHT NOW, UH, BY STAFF, THERE'S A, APPEARS TO BE A SMALL BARBED WIRE FENCE THAT RUNS ALONG THE BUSH LINE. CAN, CAN YOU HAVE TWO FENCES THAT RUN PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER? UH, AND SECONDLY, HOW DOES CLEAR VISION KICK IN? YOU KNOW, I, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR, THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A 70% OPENING, BUT EVEN IF IT HAD 70%, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO HAVE SCREENING BUSHES THAT GO RIGHT IN FRONT OF WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING THROUGH? I MEAN, IS THAT A VIOLATION ALSO? IT'S A VIOLATION. SO I GOT THIS, SIR. SO THE, THE BARB WIRE FENCING IS NOT ALLOWED. HE'S GONNA GO TO REMOVE IT. AND UH, AS FAR AS THE CLEAR VISION, YEAH, THE BUSHES ARE IN VIOLATION. ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE TRAFFIC TAKE A LOOK, BUT WITH THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, TRAFFIC DID REVIEW AND THEY DID HAVE, UH, MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THAT ONE. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE, IF YOU'RE USING A BUSH AS A HEDGE, I THINK YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE NO MORE THAN THREE FEET TALL. YES, SIR. AS LONG AS YOU, YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING THE AREA. RIGHT. AND THREE FOOT TALL, SHOULDN'T IT HAMPER SOMEONE INSIDE A VEHICLE SEEING CLEARLY BOTH? CORRECT. YES. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF, UH, , DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT OR THIS POTENTIAL CHANGES? YES, SIR. WE DID. WE WALKED THROUGH THIS WITH HER, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT. UM, ON TODAY THAT CASE MANAGER DID, UH, COMMUNICATE WITH HIM. OKAY. SINCE MOST OF WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSING IS BY RIGHT. UM, THEN WE COULD VERY WELL TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, AND, UH, UH, JUST TO PROVE WHAT, UH, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. THAT CORRECT, ZEKE? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. UH, WE PRETTY MUCH, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER PERSON WANNA ASK THE QUESTION? UH, CRUZ. MS. CRUZ, GO AHEAD. UH, ZEKE, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ON THE COMMENTS THAT YOU ADDED ON, WERE THOSE PART FORM HAD ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED OR THEY WERE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO, SO THESE WERE COMMENTS THAT WERE, UM, WE ADDED THEM INTO THE POWERPOINT ITSELF, BUT WE WANTED TO GO AND PRESENT ALL THE PART, THE COMMENTS SINCE YOU'RE NOT IN, IN HOUSE. OKAY. SO FROM HERE WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE PRESENTING ALL COMMENTS IN, IN GENERAL. OKAY. AND YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR, ON YOUR SCREEN, RIGHT, THOSE ARE THE, THOSE IN FAVORING OPPOSITION. OKAY. WELL IT ONLY SHOWS FOUR CODES, SO I'M WONDERING WHERE THE FIFTH ONE IS AND ALSO TWO, DOES THE, DOES MR. GARCIA KNOW THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE OPPOSED IT? YES, WE DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM. MATTER OF FACT, UH, WE CALLED OUR APPLICANTS THIS MORNING TO REMIND EVERYBODY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, FOR THE RECORD, Z WHO IS THE FIFTH OPPOSING? ARE YOU CONSIDERING THAT THE HOMO UH, THE OPPORTUNITY ASSOCIATION STAND BY? I'M GOING THROUGH IT NOW. I UNDERSTAND. SO IT SHOULD BE ACTUALLY FOR IN OPPOSITION THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS ADDED INTO THAT, THAT FIFTH COMMENT, BUT, UH, OKAY. YEAH, WE HAVE ON THE BOTTOM. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. THAT, THAT'S EASILY UNDERSTOOD. ALRIGHT, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO CHAIR. I HAVE ANOTHER POINT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP. ALRIGHT, MR. NOW'S THE TIME. UH, YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK ON, ON THE GOOGLE MAPS VIEW, THESE HOMES AND CARPORTS LOOK VERY, VERY CLOSE TOGETHER. AND THE STAFF, IF THEY WERE TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN, ARE THEY GOING TO BE, UH, ABOVE THE SOFFIT OF THE CARPORTS THAT ARE ON THE, THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF THIS HOME? DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN WE WENT OUT, WE ACTUALLY, UM, WERE ABLE TO MEASURE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND THERE WEREN'T ANY ISSUES AT THE TIME. UM, BECAUSE THE FENCES LOOKED LIKE IT WAS SOMEWHAT UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO WE MEASURED AT THE EIGHT FOOT POINT AND IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'D BE ANY PROBLEMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MAKA, MAKA, GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION. UH, BESIDES, UH, USING WOOD, I'M SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T USE THE CHAIN LINK EXTEND TO GREAT SAFE SECURITY, BUT MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE SOLID WALL FENCE. UH, SOLID WALL FENCES ARE NOTORIOUS FOR [00:55:01] HOLDING WATER OR REPELLING WATER. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SOLID WALL ON THE NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE? WILL IT COLLECT WATER ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE BECAUSE IT CAN'T DRAIN PROPERLY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. UH, THAT IS THE QUESTION. ULTIMATELY THE FENCE, I MEAN, THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW ANY KIND, ANY KIND OF DRAINAGE ONTO YOUR NEIGHBORING LOT ANYWAY. IT'S, IT'S REQUIRED TO DRAIN OUTWARD REGARDLESS OF THE FENCE. WELL, I DON'T SEE THE REQUIREMENT THERE. CLEAR IF THE FENCE IS THERE. I MEAN, IS THERE AN ELEVATION THAT I'M NOT SEEING OR NOT NOTICING ON THIS SLIDE? NO, SIR. IT WAS PRETTY FLAT MORE OUT THERE. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, THAT IT'S PRETTY FLAT ON A POOL IS WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT THAT WAS JUST MY CONCERN ON THAT VERSUS A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT ALLOWS DRAINAGE, ALLOWS VIEWING AND I'M NOT PROPOSING A CHANGE ON THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THE DIFFERENCE. YES, SIR. UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, MOST REPUTABLE, UH, FENCE COMPANIES TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND GENERALLY LEAVE THE FENCE APPROXIMATELY ONE TO TWO INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND. UH, YES SIR. THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS, SO WE CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. RIGHT. REMEMBER, REMEMBER THIS, THAT, UH, WHATEVER WE DECIDE ON REGARD TO SECTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH ALL OUR ASPECTS CODE. OKAY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. NO OTHER QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD. THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE, OF THIS, UH, AGENDA TO THE, UH, PUBLIC AND WE'LL BE ENTERTAINING A MOTION. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION HONOR DOCTOR, PLEASE. SO, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOTION JUST FOR THE, UM, FOR GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE, RIGHT? FOR THE, FOR THE PRIVACY FENCE, THE HEIGHT ISSUE. UM, SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER V O A DASH TWO ZERO DASH 3 0 0 0 3 8, I MOVED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT. ONE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE'S, PROPERTY LINE WITHIN, WITHIN THE REAR YARD. AND TWO, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 1 3 9 VALDEZ. APPLICANT BEING FERNANDO SIMON, UM, RK GARCIA SENIOR, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR REFERENCE TYPE MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE C, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING COMMUNITY AND EIGHT FOOT TALL. UM, CLOSED FENCE ALONG THE APPLIED PROPERTY LINES WITHIN THE REAR YARD, AS WELL AS ALONG THE APPLIED PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE, BUT THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO ENTER ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND MATERIAL AND STYLE FENCE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES THAT IS NOT NOTICEABLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, AND OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SPOT THE FENCING DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FENCING IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PREEXISTING FENCING MATERIAL AND HEIGHT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE USE, UH, I'M SORRY, THE CURRENT ZONING PERMIT, THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WILL NOT LEAD WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. UM, END OF MOTION. SECOND. [01:00:05] SO, MR. CHAIR, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU MUTE, MR. CHAIR. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. OH, OKAY. I, I THINK, I THINK HE'S GOT BANDWIDTH ISSUES, BUT, UM, DR. RE DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. SO I FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE ISSUE. UM, AND I RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT AT ONE POINT SAID SIX FEET. HE'D GO DOWN TO SIX FEET, HE'D GO DOWN TO SIX AND A HALF FEET. UM, WE REQUESTED EIGHT FEET AND I, AND I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT. UM, REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT, UM, WE'RE GONNA HANDLE THE DIVISION SEPARATELY, BUT REQUEST THAT FOR THE HEIGHT. UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ST. MARY'S GROUP. IT IS BUSY, UM, WITH PEOPLE PARKING UP AND DOWN'S NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN FROM PEOPLE THAT THIS, THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ST. MARY'S AS WELL AS, AS ON HIS SIDE OF ST. MARY'S, UM, ABOUT PEOPLE BEING IN THEIR FRONT YARD, PUKING IN THEIR FRONT YARDS, THROWING BOTTLES IN THE FRONT YARD, THE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. AND SO THIS IS A STORY WE ARE HEARING CONSISTENTLY IN THE ST. MARY'S STRIP AREA. I LIVE A FEW BLOCKS FROM THIS, FROM WHERE MR. LIVES, AND I'M FAR ENOUGH NOT TO BE CONSIDERED THE ST. MARY'S STRIP AREA, AND YET I STILL HEAR, AND WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IT, PARTICULARLY ON VERY, VERY BUSY NIGHTS. SO HIS, YOU KNOW, PERCEPTION OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN HIS DESCRIPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, UM, FROM MS. . HIS NEIGHBORS DIDN'T HAVE CONCERN WITH THE DEFENSE. THEY HAD CONCERN WITH THE, WITH THE CLEAR VISION ISSUE. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, OF THIS MOTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT OF DEFENSE CHAIR. UH, CAN WE HEAR YOU NOW? IF NOT, IF WE, IF YOU'RE HAVING, UH, BANDWIDTH ISSUES, CONNECTION ISSUES, IF NOT, THEN I WOULD HAND IT OVER TO DR. ELLI TO LEAD UNTIL WE CAN HEAR MR. MARTINEZ. OKAY. SO WHO SECONDS, , CORIAN. CORIAN, UH, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO? YES, SO I DON'T, I'M, I DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH HIM HAVING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UH, IN THE SIDE, UH, REAR. UM, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT IN THE CLEAR VISION. SO AS LONG AS THIS MOTION, UH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEXT MOTION, I MEAN, THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT TO WHERE HE, HE'S NOT GONNA VIOLATE, VIOLATE CLEAR VISION. I'M NOT GONNA BE OPPOSED TO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE, THE TEXT THAT WAS IN THE SUGGESTED TEMPLATE DIDN'T USE THE WORD REAR LIKE IT DID IN THE AGENDA. AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING, UH, ANY FOOT FENCE IN THE REAR AS WELL BECAUSE IT SAID, IT SAID, UH, ALONG THE SIDES PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE REAR YARD, BUT IT DIDN'T SAY ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT, IS THAT UH, CORRECT. HOW, HOW COMMISSIONER THE REAR YARD IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL BEHIND THE PROPERTY. SO BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL PUTTING RESIDENTIAL, YOU'RE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT AUTOMATICALLY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING FOR ME. SO DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NANA? YEAH, SO, SO I DID HAVE A QUESTION HERE. SO AS READ, UH, WOULD THIS ALLOW FOR THE FENCE TO BE AHEAD OF THE FRONT OF THE SOD, UM, OF THE HOUSE AT EIGHT FOOT? BECAUSE YOU SAID IN THE FRONT, AS LONG AS IT BE CLEAR VISION, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT. SO WOULD THIS ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT PEN TO CROSS THE FRONT OF THE YARD IF IT'S STILL WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION OR EXCLUDED THE CLEAR VISION AS RED IT WOULD ALLOW IN THE FRONT YARD, UM, EXCLUDING THE CLEAR VISION? THAT'S CORRECT. SO, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THE FRONT OF THE FACADE, I COULD SEE, BUT, UM, I DO WONDER ABOUT HAVING, YOU KNOW, IN THE FRONT YARD, YOU KNOW, UP TO THE CLEAR VISION LINE. SO AS IT STANDS, IT'S SIX FEET FROM THE EDGE OF CLEAR VISION. SO HE'D HAVE TO COME BACK IN AN ADDITIONAL NINE FEET, UH, TO MEET CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. SO NINE FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? NO, CURRENTLY THE FENCE IS SIX FEET FROM, [01:05:01] UH, THE PROPERTY LINE OR FROM THE STREET. UM, YOU WOULD'VE TO COME IN AN ADDITIONAL NINE FEET FROM THAT POINT, WHICH TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT CLEAR ON HOW CLOSE THE HOUSE IS TO THAT. SO IF WE SAY SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD INCLUDE THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, UM, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IT TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO EVEN WITH THE FRONT OF THE FACADE. AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS, IS THAT FRONT PIECE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE IT OFF TO THE HOUSE TO BE THE EIGHT FOOT TALL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? SO HIS SITE PLAN IS ONLY SHOWING THE EIGHT FEET IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. UM, IT DOESN'T ENCLOSE IT ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN OR THE REQUEST. IT'S REALLY SUSTAINED ON THE, ALONG THE SIDE YARD. SO, MR. ANA, WOULD YOU, OR , EITHER ONE, WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO MODIFY THE MOTION IN A WAY THAT SAYS, AS PRESENTED AND WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE SITE, THE CLEAR VISION? AND, AND I'LL BE HONEST, I, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF, OF GRANTING ANY EXCEPTION FOR THE CLEAR VISION, JUST SIMPLY THE HEIGHT. SO, BUT DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY? YOU CAN, AS PRESENTED IN THE SITE PLAN, UM, LEFT THE CLEAR VISION. SO AT THAT TIME THAT APPLICANT WANTS NEED, HE'LL NEED TO CUT BACK THE FENCE AND MEET THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. BUT YOU CAN SAY, AS PRESENTED IN THE SITE FUND, HOW DO I DO THAT? DO IT. UH, WELL, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT AN AMENDED MOTION. IT IS JUST WE, WE CAN, BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION, IT CAN BE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THAT HELP YOU, MR. MANANA? SO I GUESS, YEAH, SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE MAY ALLOW FOR THE, FOR THE EIGHT FOOT CALL FENCE TO EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT LINE OF THE PROPERTY, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UM, UP, UP TO THE CLEAR VISION LINE, I THINK IS WHAT I JUST HEARD. AND SO, YES. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE THAT THAT MAY BE CLOSER, YOU KNOW, TO THE STREET THAN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE DIALOGUE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN EVEN WITH THE FRONT, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND SO, SO WE'RE ALLOWING FOR IT FIXED IN BEYOND THAT FOR, FOR THE CURRENT READ. OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THEY WANNA SAY, UH, MENKA? UH, YES. I, I THINK I'M GETTING IT. SIX FEET BACK THEN. NINE FEET BACK. THE EIGHT FEET. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE FEET, UH, ANYTHING AFTER THE, OR BEFORE THE NINE FEET HAS TO BE LOWER THAN WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. IN MY FRONT YARD. SO REMEMBER, CLEAR VISION FOR RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS IS 15 FEET AND 15 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB OR THE STREET. AND THIS SCENARIO'S GONNA BE THE STREET. SO CURRENTLY THERE'S A SIX FEET, SIX FOOT SEPARATION FOR THE CURRENT FENCE TO GO AN ADDITIONAL NINE FEET BACK. NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN'T GO, GO WITH A, YOU KNOW, CODE ALLOWED FENCING, WHETHER IT BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING OR A THREE FOOT SOLID, HE COULD DROP IT DOWN. SO THOSE ARE OPTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER. OKAY. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. JUST THE DROPPING DOWN IS WHAT I'M GETTING TO. UH, THE, THE, I KNOW THE BEARS IN THE FRONT. THAT'S, THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE CAN SEE IS THEY'RE GETTING OUT FROM, UH, TWO HOUSES DOWN OR NEXT DOOR. THAT'S THE MAIN THING. MM-HMM. , THANK YOU. ANYBODY, ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. UM, CAN, IS ROGER BACK? I DON'T SEE HIM. HE MAY HAVE DROPPED OFF TO FIX HIS ISSUE. SO I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS JUST, UH, NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UM, THERE WAS SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH HIM AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE. OKAY. SO THERE'S TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH MR. UM, MARTINEZ. THE MARTINEZ, AND SO WE'RE GONNA PROCEED WITH THE RE RECALL. ALRIGHT? I HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DEFENSE ONLY, UM, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED BASED ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED, AND THE SLIP DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CLEAR VISION AREA. SO DR. ELLI, UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. , I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THEN. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. [01:10:02] I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER, GO AHEAD AGAIN, MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. UH, MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. OKAY. UH, DON'T SEE CHAIR MARTINEZ STILL. SO. ALRIGHT. UH, SO MOTION IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF EIGHT, UH, 10 TO ZERO. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. THANK YOU. UM, SO WE CAN CONSIDER THE, UM, THE SITE, THE, UM, I'M SORRY, I LOST MY NOTES. UM, THE CLEAR VISION, IF ANYONE WANTS TO PRESENT A MOTION AND IF NOT, THAT WILL, UM, SIMPLY DIE. I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT. UH, PRESENT THE MOTION ON THE CLEAR VISION? NOPE. SO WE ARE GOING TO, UM, SO WE'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE, UM, OF THE FENCE HEIGHT, BUT THE APPLICANT WILL BE TO COMPLY WITH CLEAR VISION FIELD REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO NOW WE NEED TO MOVE, I'M SORRY, THIS MY FIRST TIME. NOW WE NEED TO MOVE ON THE NEXT CASE. YES, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT CASE AND I THINK THE APPLICANT IS ON FOR THE NEXT CASE. OKAY, SO THIS [3. 20-3363 BOA-20-10300025: A request by Michael A. Perez for a variance from the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-5) design standards to allow a minimum vertical to horizontal dimension ratio of 1:1, single pane light division for street-facing windows, located at 1002 & 1006 West Magnolia Avenue and 715 & 719 Grant Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner (210) 207-0197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] IS CASE ITEM NUMBER THREE, DEFENDANT. OKAY. 0 2 5. OKAY. THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS IS THE, THIS B O A 21 3 0 0 0 2 5 ADDRESS. THAT WAS 1002 AND 1006 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND SEVEN 15 AND SEVEN 19 GRANT AVENUE. APPLICANT IS MICHAEL A BETIS REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OR NEIGHBOR OR NEIGHBOR CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW MINIMUM VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL DIMENSION RATIO OF TWO TO ONE AND AT LEAST A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION FOR STREET FACING WINDOWS. CURRENT ZONING IS I E Z STAR SIGNIFICANT NCD FIVE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE. WHAT THE SUBJECT PARKS ARE LOCATED, LOCATED AT THE, ON THE CORNER OF WEST WING AVENUE AND GRANT AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCENTRATION DISTRICT, UH, DESIGNING STANDARDS FOR STREET FACING WINDOWS. THE DWELLINGS ARE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AND THE VARIANCES NEEDED FOR FROM THE VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS RATIO OF TWO TO ONE AND AT LEAST A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION. THE APPLICANT LOOKS LIKE MR. MARTINEZ IS COMING ON PRESENTATION. STANDBY. WE SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICUL. OKAY, WE'RE BACK ON. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS FELT SOME FALSE DIVISIONS ON SOME OF THE WINDOWS IN ORDER TO AESTHETICALLY DISPLAY. THEY HAVE THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION. HOWEVER, UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IN THE CASE THAT A NEW PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO REMOVE THEM. THESE STRUCTURES ARE RECENTLY BUILT AND THE WINDOW DESIGN WAS CAUGHT DURING A STAFF N C D INSPECTION AT THE SITE. THESE ARE THE CURRENT SITE ELEVATIONS. KEEP GOING. THE NEXT PHOTOS ARE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING AREAS. AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT, THE ONE, THE, THE WINDOWS ARE THE SMALLER STYLE WINDOWS. NEXT SLIDE AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. [01:15:08] STAFF COMMEND VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE OF BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, STREET PACING WINDOWS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN REGULATIONS OF THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE. WE SENT OUT 23 NOTICES. FAVOR RECEIVED IN FAVOR, UH, TO IN OPPOSITION. THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. THAT CAN CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. UH, THE APPLICANT IS MICHAEL FED. WHO IS ON NEXT? NO, MSRE. YOU READY? YES. . UH, I'M HERE. GO AHEAD, SIR. YOU CAN PRESENT THE TAPE. OKAY. UH, I GUESS, I GUESS THERE'S A PRETTY BIG DELAY OF WHAT I'M SEEING ON SCREEN, BUT I WAS JUST GONNA KIND OF GO DOWN THE, UH, THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, THE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT UP, UH, FOR THE BOARD, JUST TELL US WHAT SLIDES YOU'D LIKE TO, TO PRESENT. THERE'S GONNA BE A LAG IN WHAT YOU'RE WATCHING ON THE SCREEN. YEAH, YEAH. BUT YEAH, ONE THROUGH SEVEN. WE CAN JUST KICK IT OFF ON ONE PIECE AND I CAN JUST KIND OF GO AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE. UM, BUT YES, UH, FORD, THIS IS MICHAEL . WE'RE, UM, BROTHER SISTER TEAM OWNERS OF IP TWO URBAN DEVELOPMENT. UH, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED AND, AND PROUD OF, UH, OF WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED HERE. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING, I GUESS WE, WE STARTED REALLY STARTED 2016, 2017. WE KICKING OFF THIS PROJECT, UM, IN BEACON HILL. SO, UM, ANYWAY, WE CAN JUST KIND OF RUN DOWN THE SLIDE. UH, NANA, GET YOUR, CAN WE GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? I'M SORRY. MICHAEL EZ. I LIVE AT THREE 30 MISSION STREET, KING WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE FIRST ONE WAS JUST REALLY, UH, PRESENTATION. SO AGAIN, WE'VE, UH, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME WITH THE DESIGN AND AS WE WENT THROUGH OUR BUILDING PROCESS, UM, AND, AND THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS WHERE THESE ONE OVER ONE, UH, UH, DIFFERENTIATE OVER THE, THE TWO OVER ONE WINDOWS, YOU POINT 'EM OUT ON THE EXTERIOR. THESE ARE IN AREAS OF, OF, OF PRIVACY REALLY. THEY'RE AREAS, UH, IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, IN, IN, IN THE TOILETS, THE LABORATORY, THE WATER CLOSETS IN THE MASTER BATHROOM WHERE IT'S AREAS OF, OF REALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS MIX AND, AND VARIOUS STATES OF UNDRESS AND NUDITY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE REALLY THOUGHT DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO, UM, FIND A WAY TO WHERE WE, UH, PROTECTED, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE INHABITANTS OF, OF THESE HOMES, UH, IN THESE, IN THESE PRIVATE AREAS. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT TO, UH, THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, OF COURSE, GOING IN THE, IN THE VARIANCE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I FEEL IT SUPPORTS IT BECAUSE IT PREVENTS OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COM UH, THE COMMUNITY BEING, YOU KNOW, EXPOSED TO THE NEW OCU OCCUPANTS. SO, UM, REALLY YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE EXTERIOR AND THE INTERIOR OF THE TOILETS AND THE RESTROOMS. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO SITE THREE. SO SITE THREE, UH, SHOWS 1 0 0 2 THE NEXT, THE NEXT HOME OVER, UH, MAGNOLIA IN THE SAME FORMAT. THE MASTER BEDROOMS ARE FORWARD FACING IT, DISPLAY IT FORWARD FACING THE MASTER BEDROOM IS STREET FACING. UH, AND SO ARE THE RESTROOMS. I DON'T THINK IT'S PAGE THREE. ZEKE, ARE Y'ALL ON PAGE THREE BY CHANCE? YES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DELAY. SO, YOU KNOW, AS BUILDERS, WE SEE THESE THINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. AND, AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS, AND, AND I KNOW THAT, THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF HARD WORK AND PLANNING AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANT IT TO BE THE BEST WHEN WE BUILD, AND WE WANT IT TO BE THOUGHTFUL, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FOLKS IN THOSE HOMES. AND WE WANTED LIFE, BUT WE ALSO WANTED PRIVACY AND CONCEALMENT, UH, DURING THESE, YOU KNOW, DURING THESE, THESE REALLY, THESE PRIVATE AREAS, WE CAN GO, GO DOWN DOWN THE OTHER, THE OTHER ARGUMENT IS SOME OF THESE LIGHTS, DIVISIONS, WE INSTALLED CASEMENT WINDOWS WHERE YOU, WHERE YOU SEE WHERE [01:20:01] WE HAVE TO PUT THESE FALSE PLASTIC LIGHTS DIVISION, AND THIS IS SLIDE NUMBER FOUR. WE'RE LOOKING AT BASEMENT WINDOWS ARE NICE BASEMENT WINDOWS OPEN. WE, IT, IT OVER OPENS FOR FIRE EGRESS, ESPECIALLY FROM THE SECOND, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SECOND STORY ON, ON THESE, ON THESE WINDOWS WHERE WE HAVE TO PUT THESE DIVISIONS ON. AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, FIRE ESCAPE IS, AND LIFE SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT, UH, IN OUR BUSINESS AND TO THE, AND TO THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THESE HOMES. AND YOU KNOW, WE, WE, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO HAVE LIFE DIVISIONS, BUT THESE CASE WINDOWS DO NOT OPEN UP AND DOWN. UM, YOU KNOW, WE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER REQUEST THAT WE WANT, IS, YOU KNOW, ON, ON, ON THESE, ON THESE WINDOWS WHERE WE HAD TO PUT THESE ONE OVER ONES, UM, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HERE THAT THEY OPEN, UH, OUT AND, AND NOT UP AND DOWN REALLY. THE NEXT SLIDE OVER ZEKE IS, IS, I'M, I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP THIS QUICK. YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, UM, THAT, UH, I GUESS, UM, I GUESS I WOULD EXPRESS AS, UH, THEY, THEY'RE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THESE HOMES THAT HAVE EXACT SAME, I WOULD SAY, VIOLATION, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT ARE BEING, UM, HEARD IN THIS CASE. AND, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS AROUND THE CORNER, YOU, AND THESE ARE STREET FACING WINDOWS. THAT'S HOW WE GOT THESE PHOTOS. YOU HAVE BLOCK A BLOCK GLASS WINDOW. YOU HAVE A CIRCULAR WINDOW UP FRONT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. YOU HAVE SIX GLASS. I MEAN, THIS IS ALL AROUND FRENCH STREET. RUSSELL STREET. UH, WE , UH, VERY BIG, THICK, THICK GLASS. AND I KNOW THE N C D SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE FROSTED OR TYPES OF COVERUP GLASS OR FOIL IN YOUR WINDOWS OR, YOU KNOW, FOR WINDOWS. UH, THIS IS PAGE SIX. WE'RE GOING DOWN TO PAGE SIX. IF WE CAN JUMP AHEAD. UM, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR WINDOW, THE COVERINGS, YOU CAN'T HAVE BOARDS UP ON 'EM. AND, AND REALLY THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I'M, I WANT TO EXPRESS, IS IT, IT IS, IT IS REALLY, I MEAN, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE VARIANCE TO AL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHEN SEVERAL OTHER ADJACENT NEARBY PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME VIOLATIONS AND SOME OTHER FEATURES HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, BUT I DO FEEL THAT WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE OVERALL DESIGN. WE ADD YOU TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE ESSENCE OF IT. AND, UM, REALLY I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO SEE FROM OUR POINTS, FROM THE PRIVACY POINT OF VIEW, UM, UH, UH, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE RECOGNIZING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE RECOGNIZING THE, UH, INHABITANTS OF THE HOME, HOW IT'S FUNCTIONAL, AND, UM, REALLY, UH, I HAVE TO GO BACK AGAIN. YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY PROUD AND THOUGHTFUL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND WE'RE JUST NOT ANOTHER BOLT FOR A BOX BUILDER HOME, HOME BUILDER HERE. BUT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE VERY PROUD OF, OF, OF WHAT WE HAVE MADE AND, AND, AND HAPPY FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE MOVED IN. THANK YOU. HI, THIS IS, UM, MEGAN PEREZ. I AM A PARTNER AT NMP TWO URBAN DEVELOPMENT. UM, I HEAD UP THE HOME SALES AND MIKE AND I WORK REALLY CLOSELY TOGETHER ON THE, ON THE DESIGN. BUT, UM, THE GREAT, GREAT PART FOR ME IS I GET TO SPEAK A LOT WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AND PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY END UP BUYING OUR HOME AND OUR RESTORATIONS. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, UM, ALSO HEARD. I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE, UM, TAPPED INTO THE CALL TODAY. UM, WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, TEXTING AND EMAILING AND, UM, I GOT A REALLY GREAT LETTER, UM, FROM 1 0 0 2 WEST MAGNOLIA FROM, UH, JACOB COME, RYAN AND I, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG I HAVE TO SPEAK, BUT I DID WANNA BRING UP, UM, SEVERAL OF HIS POINTS, UM, GIVEN THAT HE LIVES THERE AND, UM, THAT THIS IS REALLY WELL WRITTEN. UM, AND SO CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE, MA'AM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AS THE APPLICANT. DO YOU HAVE, UH, ENOUGH TIME TO, TO SEE WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY? OKAY. SO, UM, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, UH, SATISFIES, THIS IS FROM JAKE . UM, EACH OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 35 DASH 4 8 2 E OF THE U D C, AND THEREFORE, THEREFORE SHOULD BE GRANTED. FIRST, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE WOULD APPLY TO WINDOWS AND BATHROOM AREAS TO PROVIDE PRIVACY TO THE OCCUPANTS IN VARIOUS STATES OF UNDRESSED, INCLUDING COMPLETE NUDITY. NOT ONLY IS THIS VARIANCE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BUT IT'S ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY IN SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT PREVENTS [01:25:01] OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FROM BEING EXPOSED TO NUDE OCCUPANTS. THIS IS UNCONTESTED. SECOND, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS WITH NEW WINDOWS OF A DIFFERENT LIGHT RATIO, SUCH AS REPLACE SUCH REPLACEMENT, WOULD REQUIRE A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO THE MASTER BATHROOMS OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY OCCUPIED. THE OCCUPANTS WOULD BE FORCED TO GIVE UP THE USE OF PRIMARY BATHROOMS OF THE RESIDENCES AT THE SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE. IN ADDITION TO THE NOISE, DUST AND OTHER NUISANCES INHERENT IN A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT REQUIRES CUTTING A HOLE IN AN EXTERIOR WALL OF THE HOUSE. THIS HARDSHIP IS ESPECIALLY ACUTE DURING THE GLOBAL CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, WHEN THE OCCUPANTS ARE UNABLE TO LEAVE THE RESIDENCES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY NEED TO WORK FROM HOME BECAUSE OF ALL DISCLOSURE. THIRD, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA MEMO, THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THAT LARGER WINDOWS WOULD SEVERELY IMPACT OCCUPANT PRIVACY. ADDITIONALLY, SEVERAL OF THE OTHER HOUSES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE NON-CONFORMING WINDOWS, INCLUDING HOUSES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM, REFUSAL TO GRANT THIS VARIOUS, WHEN OTHER HOMES IN THIS DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY HOMES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT HOMES HAVE THE EXACT SAME VIOLATION WOULD BE ARBITRARY AT CAFETERIA. HOW DO I SAY THAT? C, SORRY. AND THEREFORE, UM, SOMEWHAT, UM, AND THIS IS FROM OUR WORDS AS THE DEVELOPER, UH, WE FEEL A LITTLE BIT DISCRIMINATORY. UM, SO FOURTH, AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA MEMO, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION, UH, THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY UNAUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THIS IS UNCONTESTED THIS, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT IMPAIR ANY OTHER PROPERTIES USED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE VARIANCE TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT FROM SEVERAL OTHER ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT HAVE THE SAME EXACT FEATURES AT ISSUE HERE. THE VARIANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THESE OTHER HOMES. FINALLY, THE PLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH, WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE MERE, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CURRENT OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ARE FORCED TO REMAIN IN WORK FROM THEIR HOMES. UH, DUE TO THE, THE GLOBAL CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION WOULD MAKE THEIR HOMES UNUSABLE FOR WORK FROM HOME AND VIOLATE CURRENT GUIDANCE FROM HEALTH EXPERTS AND CITY OFFICIALS. THE CURRENT OWNERS OF OCCUPANTS HAVE NO INPUT ON THE DESIGN OF THE HOMES OR THEIR WINDOWS OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING THEM TO OCCUPY AND WORK IN THEIR HOMES AT THIS TIME. FINALLY, THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT OWNER. SPECIFIC TO THE OWNER'S SITUATIONS. FOR THESE REASONS REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD SATISFY EACH OF THE U D C, EACH OF THE U D C AND SHOULD BE GRANTED. SO, UM, THAT IS JUST ONE LETTER. OF COURSE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, UM, LOTS OF OTHER CONVERSATIONS, BUT I DID WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, THAT THAT LETTER WAS VOICED TODAY IN THIS PHONE CALL. THANK YOU. UM, CHAIR, PASS IT BACK TO YOU. I DON'T THINK ROGER'S BACK ON THAT. WE CAN SEE OR HEAR HIM, SO DR. ELLI. OKAY. SO, UM, I GUESS NOW WE, CAN WE HAVE ANY, UM, ANY LETTERS OR INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC? WE DO, MA'AM. WE'VE GOT TWO, UH, NOTICES, TWO VOICEMAIL, AND WE ALSO HAVE TWO CALLERS, UH, ONE FROM THE ASSOCIATION WITH A PRESENTATION. OKAY. I'LL START WITH THE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT IN. UH, THE FIRST ONE IS IN FAVOR FROM, UH, JUSTIN NICHOLS AT 1007 WEST MAGNOLIA, UM, AS THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND SONG CREDIT, THE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND THINGS BE GRANTED. UM, AND THEN HE SAID, HE SAID, PS IS ALREADY BUILT THEN AN EMAIL RECEIVED FROM A ELLA BRUNEY AT 10 10 WEST MAGNOLIA. DO YOU WANNA MAKE CONCERN THE REQUEST THAT THIS EMAIL BE READ AS THE BOARD? I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE BEACON NEIGHBOR CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED. AS SUCH, THE UH, FORMING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT SHOULD HAVE ADHERED TO THE BEACON HALL HISTORIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED TO THEM, WHICH IT SHOULD BE A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND LENIENCY IN CHARGES [01:30:01] OR IN CHANGES, WILL ALLOW BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SET FORTH TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS IN THE FUTURE. SINCERELY OF ELLA GREEN, WE ALSO HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS THAT WE WILL BE PLAYING AS WELL. THIS IS JACOB REM. MY ADDRESS IS 1002 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 1. I'M CALLING WITH REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER B O A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 5, UM, FOR A, THE ZONING VARIANCE, UH, FOR WINDOWS ON THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. UM, I'D LIKE TO REGISTER MY SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE AS THE VARIANCE IS FOR, UH, MY HOUSE AND MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. UH, THE ONLY PLACE THAT THESE TWO WINDOWS APPEAR ARE IN PRIVATE AREAS WHERE EXTENDING THE WINDOW WOULD, UH, GIVE A VIEW TO, UH, PERSONAL VIEWS, ESSENTIALLY OF, UH, NUITY IN RESTROOMS, WHICH IS, UH, I THINK ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. UM, AND THE VARIANCE WOULD BE MINOR AND BARELY COSMETIC. UH, THANK YOU. AND PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAR. HI, MY NAME IS RYAN MCDERMID. UM, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (813) 759-3433. I LIVE AT 1 0 0 6 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND THE CASE NUMBER IS, UH, B O A TWENTY TEN THREE ZERO ZERO ZERO TWO FIVE. JUST CALLING TO, UH, EXPRESS MY SUPPORT IN MAINTAINING THE WINDOWS AS IN MY ADDRESS AS IS GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN OUR BATHROOM AND OUR WATER CLOSET AND EXTENDING THE WINDOWS WITH ESSENTIALLY EXPOSE MYSELF AND MY WIFE TO THE STREET, UH, WHILE WE'RE USING THE BATHROOM OR CHANGING, ET CETERA, WHICH I THINK IS VERY INDECENT. THE A SPOKEN WITH ALL OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WHO ACTUALLY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT PHYSICALLY SEE IT EVERY DAY AND THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE WINDOWS AS IS. LASTLY, IT WOULD BE A HUGE INCONVENIENCE TO MOVE OUT OF OUR PROPERTY AND HAVE OUR BATHROOM ESSENTIALLY NON-FUNCTIONING WHILE THIS, UH, SILLY WORK ORDER IS COMPLETED. UH, AGAIN, WE ARE VOICING OUR CONCERNS AND OUR SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN OUR WINDOWS AS IS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, CHAIR, WE DO HAVE A, UH, CALLER WITH A PRESENTATION, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, LINK THEM INTO THE CALL. OKAY. I HAVE, UH, SIMA COLVIN ON THE LINE. AS A REMINDER, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. WE HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION UP BEGINNING ON SLIDE TWO. JUST TELL US WHAT SLIDE NUMBER YOU WANT. GO AHEAD PLEASE. OKAY. I CAN'T SEE IT ON MY SCREEN. UM, SO, UM, MY NAME'S LIN. I'M WITH THE BEACON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE, BUT WITH THE DELAY, I CAN'T SEE THE PRESENTATION OF MY SCREEN, SO I'M GONNA GO TO MY VERSION OF IT, UM, AND HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH JOE, I GUESS. YEAH, JUST A QUICK SLIDE NUMBER AND WE'LL GO TO THAT SLIDE. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE DELAY. WELL, YOU SLIDE TWO. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO, SO WHAT IN TWO FOUR BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKED WITH THE CITY STAFF TO BECOME A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND PRODUCE A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS. THESE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2005, A PART OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A LEGALLY BINDING IN 2016 AND 2017. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WENT THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES TO THE CHANGING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TRENDS. ONE OF THE SPECIFIC CHANGES WE MADE WAS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL STREET FACING WINDOWS HAVE A TWO TO ONE VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL DIMENSION, AND A MINIMAL ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION CHANGES THE PAGE OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. CONSERVATION DISTRICT [01:35:01] 24 HAS, IS A CLOSEUP, AND THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THERE THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT, UH, IN OUR GUIDELINES THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOUR ON SLIDE WE HAVE STATED, WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF OTHER WINDOWS ON THE 1000 BLOCK OF MAGNOLIA ON SLIDE SIX IN 2017, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTED THE REQUEST FOR THE DEVELOPER REACH ON THIS PROPERTY SO THAT THEY COULD BUILD FOUR HOUSES ON THE LEFT TWO FACING MILLION AND TWO FACING GRANT. WE ALSO SUPPORTED THEIR CASE IN FRONT OF THE REVIEW COMMISSION. IN BOTH CASES, THAT WAS ON NCD FIVE STATUS WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH DEVELOPER STATED AND HIS HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION APPLICATION THAT HE WOULD COMPLY WITH N C D FIVE GUIDELINES. AND ON SLIDE SEVEN, I HAVE A COPY OF THE APPLICATION WHERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT HE MAKES IT THAT STATEMENT. SLIDE SIX, UH, NO, SORRY. SLIDE EIGHT IS A EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER HOME NEWLY CONSTRUCTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE DEVELOPER HAS COMPLIED. SLIDE NINE, ALSO A NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SLIDE 10, THOSE ARE ALL IN COMPLIANCE. THIS DEVELOPER SLIDE 11, CONSERVATION DOING A . THEY HAVE PROPERTIES ALL OVER TOWN AND ARE WELL FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDINGS, BOTH HISTORIC DESIGN AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS. IN FACT, THEY OWN ANOTHER PROPERTY. THEY A PROPERTY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT 1132 WEST MISSILE TOE. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPORTED THEIR REQUEST TO RES ON THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR DENVER DEVELOPMENT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SENT OVER BACKWARDS TO WORK WITH AND ACCOMMODATE THIS DEVELOPER. WE DESERVE TO HAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RESPECTED AND PROMISES KEPT. PARDON? THAT'S TWO. OKAY, SO WE, EVERYBODY, IS AN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANT. JARED, PASS IT TO YOU. UM, USUALLY THIS TIME, SINCE WE HAVE THE CALLER ON THE LINE, UH, YOU CAN ASK FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO, UM, THE CALLERS BACK SO THEY COULD RESPOND TO THE, UM, COMMENT THAT THEY'VE HEARD. OH, NO, THIS IS THE POINT WHERE THE, UM, YOU CAN ASK THE BOARD IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. COLVIN. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU. OKAY. SO BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, UM, FOR THE PERSON REPRESENTING THE, UM, BEACON HILL ASSOCIATION? NANA, NANA? SO, UH, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, UM, AS FAR AS MATERIALS INSIDE THE WINDOW, I, AT MY HOUSE, I HAVE SOLID SHUTTERS THAT I CAN OPEN IN AND OUT, YOU KNOW, TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, TO BLOCK VISION, I GUESS. SO IS THAT PERMITTED? UM, UM, IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO HAVE LIKE A SOLID, LIKE A SHUTTER THAT OPEN CLOSES ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES DO NOT, UH, ADDRESS INTERIOR WINDOW TREATMENTS. SO YOU COULD HAVE SHUTTERS, CURTAINS, MANY BLIND. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DELMER? YES, MR. DELMER, UM, AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT DURING THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING THAT THEY STATED THAT THEY WOULD ADHERE TO, UH, THE CODE? IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? UH, I WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE THERE, BUT WHAT I HAVE IS A COPY OF THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH IS ON SLIDE SEVEN IN WHICH THEY STATE THAT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING FOUR NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FROM BEACON WITH HISTORIC ON THE CORNER OF MAGNOLIA AND GRANT AVENUE WILL COMPLY WITH NCD FIVE AND HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. HAVE THEY DONE ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE WINDOWS ELSE? THE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THEIR FIRST DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY DO HAVE ANOTHER, UH, VACANT LOT THAT WE, UM, SUPPORTED EVERY ZONING. I ASSUME THEY'RE GOING BE DEVELOPING THAT LOT. THANK YOU ORIAN. MR. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. UH, YES. UM, SO THAT, THAT APPLICATION THAT YOU HAD SHOWED WAS, UH, MARKED AS A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW [01:40:01] SUBMITTAL, SO THE FINAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL, WHEN THEY SUBMITTED ELEVATIONS, DID THOSE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE WINDOWS THAT WE SEE TODAY, OR DID THEY, OR DID THEY DEPICT WINDOWS THAT, THAT MET THE N C D REQUIREMENTS? SO AGAIN, I WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING. I DUNNO THAT ANSWER TO THAT. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. NO. WELL, I'LL, I'LL REPHRASE. SO, UH, MA'AM, SO, SO YOU DO A CONCEPTUAL SUBMITTAL AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU WORK THINGS OUT AND YOU, YOU TALK ABOUT THE JOB, AND THEN THERE'S A FINAL SUBMITTAL THAT HAS ELEVATIONS AND COMPLETE PLANS. AND SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS AT THE CONCEPTUAL PART, THEY, THEY, THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA COMPLY, BUT FROM THAT POINT IN TIME TO THE END, UM, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THE FINAL ELEVATIONS? NOT NECESSARILY AT A MEETING, BUT YOU KNOW, MAYBE PERHAPS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR JUST DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY AS A OUT OF CURIOSITY, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THE FINAL ELEVATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR ACTUAL ITY PURPOSES? YOU KNOW, I IMAGINE THEY, I KNOW THAT THEY BROUGHT DRAWING WITH THEM WHEN THEY MET WITH THE ZONING COMMITTEE AND WHEN THEY DID A PRESENTATION AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN 17. UM, BUT I DON'T, OR THOUSAND 18, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THOSE ELEVATIONS. I DON'T RECALL. OKAY. SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE FINAL ELEVATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES, DID THEY DEPICT THE WINDOWS AS CONSTRUCTED? UH, I'M REVIEWING AT THIS TIME AND THAT PERMISSION I DON'T HAVE REALLY AVAILABLE IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION WITH ME, BUT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND BASED ON WHAT THEY SUBMITTED TO, UH, O H P AND H C R C? YES. SO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED DURING THIS TIME? IT WAS KIND OF A, A DIFFERENT CASE. WE WERE WORKING AT THE SAME TIME CONCURRENTLY ADHERING TO THE N C D FIVE STANDARDS, UH, AND OF COURSE, MAINTAINING THE GUIDELINES FROM H D R C FOR THE OVERALL, UH, OVERALL DESIGN. SO DURING THIS, DURING THIS TIME, I KNOW STANDARDS OF N T D UH, UH, GUIDELINES, IF SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS, ROOF PITCH, UH, SETBACKS, PORCH SIZES, EVERYTHING THAT GOES, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT OF, HEIGHT OF HOUSE HEIGHTS UP EACH OF THE HOMES. SO REALLY THAT'S WHAT WE WERE BOTH BALANCING DURING THIS TIME, WORKING WITH TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES TO TRY TO, UH, UH, TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. AND OF COURSE, THESE HOMES, WE REALLY WANTED TO RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DESIGN. WELL, MR. MR. PEGA, I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT YOU, BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT JUST REGARDING THE WINDOWS, THE PLANS THAT YOU TURNED IN, THE ELEVATIONS THAT YOU TURNED IN AS PART OF YOUR FINAL REVIEW TO THE, THE H C R C AND FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES, DID THEY REFLECT, DID THEY SHOW THE WINDOWS AS YOU BUILT THEM OR DID THEY SHOW SOMETHING ELSE? THEY SHOWED TWO OVER ONE. AND I KNOW DURING THIS TIME, JUST TO, JUST TO DOVETAIL ON THIS, IS THAT, UH, DURING THIS TIME DURING 2017 WHEN WE STARTED OUR INITIAL DRAWINGS, I KNOW THAT THE N C D IN BEACON HILL DID CHANGE FOR SOME OF THESE WINDOWS THAT WERE IN CLOSETS, THAT WERE IN BATHROOMS. UH, AND WE WERE TRYING TO BALANCE BOTH OF THOSE OUT. SO WHEN DID YOU APPLY TO THE H C R C INITIALLY? WHEN WAS THE VERY FIRST APPLICATION? DID IT PREDATE THE CHANGES? I, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, SIR. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2017 TO 2018. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU MAY HAVE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE QUESTIONS. UH, GO AHEAD, MR. AKA. SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS, UH, IT ALL LIES ON THE PLANS, IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. THEN THE PLANS, IF THEY DON'T SHOW THE PROPER WINDOWS, THEN WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, SO THIS IS CAT. SO YES, THE PLANS CAME THROUGH WITH THE TWO TO ONE LIGHT DIVISION. UH, DURING INSPECTION. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE SMALLER WINDOWS WERE BEING USED, UH, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, WHICH LED THEM TO, UH, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST IN ORDER TO KEEP THOSE WINDOWS BECAUSE OF, UH, WHAT ROOM THAT THEY ARE USED FOR. UH, SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE HERE. UH, THANK YOU. UH, UH, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF AESTHETICS IS WHAT I SEE HERE. AND, UH, ANYWAY, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU. [01:45:04] ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I OKAY. OR I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF. YES. SO STAFF DOES, DOES THE N T D HAVE A A SQUARE FOOTAGE OR A MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR WINDOWS? SO LIKE IF THEY WERE TO TRY ATTEMPT TO FIX THIS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT A THINNER WINDOW THAT MEETS TWO TO ONE, OR WOULD THAT BE ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE N C D? THE WHOLE, WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IS JUST MEET THE TWO TO ONE. SO IT'S BASICALLY FOR EVERY, UH, ONE, FOR EVERY ONE, FOR EVERY ONE FOOT IN WIDTH, IT'S LIKE TWO FEET AND HIGH. THAT'S KIND OF THE EXAMPLE THAT WE USE. SO THERE'S TALLER HAS TO BE WIDER. SO THERE, THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE OF, OF THE FACADE THAT HAS TO BE WINDOWS THAT THERE IS A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOWS? YES. AND THIS ALREADY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THAT WITH THE OTHER WINDOWS? IT FOR THE ENTIRE FRONT FACADE. OKAY. BUT IT, IT, IT'S THE, THE TYPE OF WINDOW OF THE MEASUREMENT. AND SO THIS DOESN'T MEET THAT TWO TO ONE. UM, UH, STAFF HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO IN 2017, THERE WAS CHANGES INITIATED TO THE N C D. IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, IT SAYS THAT THEY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN 2018. WAS THE N C D ALREADY PASSED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THEIR, TO 2018, OR DID IT, WAS THERE A LITTLE CROSSOVER THERE? NO, IT, IT, THEY APPLIED AFTER THE, THE REVISIONS, BUT, UH, THERE WAS NO REVISIONS TO THIS. OKAY. ONE, ONE WAS ALWAYS A REQUIREMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, CHAIR, WE STILL HAVE THE CALLER ON THE, ON THE PHONE IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT WE HAVE THE SECOND CALLER, UH, BRING IT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, ? I HAVE, YES. A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WE SAW ON THE TESTIMONY SOME OTHER HOUSES THAT WERE VIOLATION OF THE SAME, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN REGULATIONS. IS THERE ANY PLANS TO NOTIFY THOSE, UH, OWNERS THAT ARE VIOLATION AS WELL? SO, WHEN THE N C D WAS, UH, CREATED IN 2008, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UM, ANYTHING THAT WASN'T COMPLIANT WITH THE, UH, N C D STANDARDS BECAME GRANDFATHERS, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN WHAT THEY HAD AT THE TIME THAT THE N C D WAS CREATED. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THESE ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. I DON'T BELIEVE THESE ARE ALL ENTIRELY NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO IF THEY HAD THAT WINDOW, UH, LIKE THAT BEFORE THE N C D, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THAT WINDOW IN THE SAME SHAPE AND PATTERN. UH, BUT IF THERE IS A VIOLATION, WE HAVE A TEAM THAT, UM, DOES PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND THEY WOULD NOTIFY 'EM, BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT THESE ARE IN VIOLATION. THESE MAY JUST BE GRANDFATHERED IN WHAT WE CALL NON-CONFORMING. AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE CAN BRING IN THE OTHER CALLER NOW. THANK YOU, MS. COLVIN. THANK YOU. I HAVE JUSTIN NICHOLS ON THE LINE. AS A REMINDER, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. GO AHEAD PLEASE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JUSTIN NICHOL. I ONE ON THE PROPERTY AT 1 0 0 7 WEST MAGNOLIA, ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. I WANNA REALLY ADDRESS TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I SERVE AS A DIRECTOR ON THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. UM, WE EXPLICITLY, UM, CONSIDER THIS AND VOTED, AND IT, THE POSITION OF THE BOARD WAS TO NOT TAKE A POSITION AT ALL. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT STAFF HAS REPRESENTED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THIS OR THAT A SUBORDINATE COMMITTEE MEMBER HAS REPRESENTED THAT THERE IS A POSITION, BUT A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS SIMPLY AN UNEQUIVOCALLY , UM, YOU KNOW, WANT TO ADDRESS THAT INTERNALLY. BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR. UH, YOU KNOW, I CALLED STAFF AND LET THEM KNOW THAT TODAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WAS, THAT INCLUDED IN THEIR PRESENTATION. IN ANY EVENT, UM, I, ACROSS THE STREET, I THINK THAT IF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, THE CHARACTERISTICS, UM, FOR THE FIVE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE IN ORDER TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, EACH HIS, UH, WINDOWS ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THEIR SIDES ACROSS THE ENTIRE STREET. UM, HAS KIND OF BEEN ALLUDED TO BEFORE. THEY EXIST ALL UP AND DOWN THE STREET. HAVE THESE STRUCTURES BEEN THERE IN 2006, WOULDN'T BE HAVING A HEARING BECAUSE THEY WOULD'VE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN. UM, THE, THE, THE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET WERE A WONDERFUL ADDITION. THAT ABSOLUTELY IS A VAST IMPROVEMENT TO THE RUMBLE VACANT BLOCK THAT WAS THERE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE THESE HOMES WERE BUILT. [01:50:01] UM, THE DEGREE OF UPSET AND INCONVENIENCE IN THE EXPENSE ENLARGING, UH, BATHROOM WINDOWS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DOING IT, UM, WHEN THE HOUSE OVERWHELMINGLY FITS THE CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF YOU WERE TO ASK YOUR QUESTION, OR IS THIS STRUCTURE, IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER WITH THIS STRUCTURE THAN WITHOUT TO ANSWER THAT IS BETTER. UM, I UNDERSTAND. I I'VE SERVED ON BODIES IN OTHER CITIES WHERE, UM, WE EVALUATED CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND ZONING AND VARIOUS REQUESTS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO UPHOLD 'EM THAT HERE THERE NEEDS TO BE A MARRIAGE OF KIND OF COMMON AND ALSO, UM, REALLY THAT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, WHETHER OR NOT, UH, REQUIRING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYONE, AS MUCH AS I LIKE THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET, I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT A BIGGER WINDOW INTO BATHROOM. UM, AND I THINK THAT THESE HOMES ARE WONDERFUL ADDITION AND THE REQUESTED VERY REALLY COSMETIC FOR A DEVELOPER WHO OVERWHELMINGLY CREATED STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ONE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TAKING. NO. OKAY. THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER. I'M, YEAH, GO AHEAD. SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SO, SO I'VE WORKED WITH MY COMMUNITY TO ESTABLISH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SAY GUIDELINES AND, AND YOU KNOW, TRY TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS, YOU KNOW, WHILE EVERYTHING'S PRESENTED AND EVERY, AND REVIEWS OCCURRED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRESENTED AS HAVING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT WAS, UH, THE CORRECT WINDOWS, YOU KNOW, THEN IT CHANGED AFTER THE BUILD. AND SO THAT, THAT SEEMS, UM, A LITTLE BIT, UM, AWRY THERE. AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, BY NOT ENFORCING IT, ARE WE SAYING THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN BASICALLY BUILD WHEREVER THEY WANT AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THAT LINE? AND SO, SO TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS, YOU KNOW, OPEN OPENING UP A BOX THERE THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOUR COMMUNITY MAY WANT TO OPEN AND YES, PLEASE. OKAY. SO I, I UNDERSTAND CONCERN, IT'S VALID CONCERN, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY HERE, UM, WE HAVE A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF, UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THE HOMEOWNER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE, OR THE DEVELOPER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE N CD VERSUS JUST BUILT WHATEVER, WHATEVER STRUCTURE THEY WANTED, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY TRIED TO, UH, BUILD SOMETHING THAT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DID IT WELL, IN A PERFECT WORLD, UH, EVERYONE NO WOULD'VE BEEN PERFECTLY COMPLIANT. BUT THIS IS TWO OR THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THERE ARE NOW NEW FAMILIES THAT HAVE MOVED INTO OTHERWISE UNOCCUPIED STRUCTURES. UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THE TEMPERATURE OF DEVELOPER WHO'S ON THE LINE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS GETTING, IS THAT DEGREE OF APPETITE FOR THESE TYPES OF VARIANCES. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA SEND THE MESSAGE TO THE DEVELOPER THAT NECESSARILY ONE OF THE, UM, THE CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IT, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE FIVE FACTORS ARE MADE, I DON'T THINK THE, UM, BY RAISING YOUR VARIANCE, BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS, IS SO OTHERWISE COMPLIANT, AND HAD IT EXISTED IN 2006, WHAT WE WOULD'VE HAD NO QUESTION AND CONSISTENT WITH MANY WINDOWS ON THE STREET, UM, THAT HAD BEEN GRANDFATHERED. SO I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, UH, CONCERN THAT YOU WANT SEND A MESSAGE OF THESE REPORT GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW, BUT THE PRACTICALITIES OF REQUIRING THESE, UM, THESE WINDOWS TO BE RIPPED OUT, PUT IN AND THEN JUST COVERED UP BECAUSE THEY'RE A BATHROOM ANYWAY, JUST DOESN'T SEEM PRACTICAL. AND THERE HAS TO BE INSTANCES IN WHICH, RIGHT, THAT'S WHY THIS VOID SAYS TO GREAT VARIANCES WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS DON'T NECESSARILY FIT PERFECTLY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CASE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, YES. MR. UH, DO WE STILL HAVE THE DEVELOPER ON THE LINE? YEAH, IF YES, WE DO, DO WE HAVE ANY ION FOR PARTICULAR PERSON? AND IF NOT, THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPER. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA, PAT, CAN WE LET THIS GENTLEMAN GO AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPER? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. [01:55:01] THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY, MR. DELMAR, YOU WANNA ASK THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE WINDOW, UH, WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE PLANS AND THEY HAD THE TWO TO ONE, UH, WINDOWS IN THEM, DID YOU GET THROUGH PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND FIND THAT YOU HAD A WIRING SITUATION TO WHERE YOU WOULD'VE TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE DO WITH THE OTHER SIZE WINDOWS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE SWITCHED FROM ONE TO TWO TO WHAT THEY ARE NOW. AND I, I THINK, IS THAT A VALID QUESTION? AM I ALLOWED TO ANSWER? I'M GONNA ASK THAT CHAIR. YES, I, UH, OKAY. UH, YOU ARE KIND OF BREAKING UP. UM, BUT WHAT I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WHAT I SUBMITTED ON THE PLANS. UH, CAN YOU GO BACK AGAIN? I'M SORRY, I, I COULDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND OR YEAH, YEAH, YOUR QUESTION. WHEN, WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE, THE PLANS, YOU HAD ONE, ONE TO TWO WINDOWS IN YOUR PLANS, AND AS YOU WERE GOING THROUGH CONSTRUCTION, DID YOU FIND A PROBLEM WITH WIRING OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO GO TO THE SMALLER WINDOWS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WENT FROM ONE SET OF PLANS TO THE SMALLER WINDOWS. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. OKAY. WELL, IN MY PRESENTATION, SIR, YOU'LL SEE THAT THESE WINDOWS ARE IN PRIVATE AREAS. AND AS BUILDERS, WHEN YOU BUILD THE EXPERIENCE OF BUILDINGS, YOU SEE THINGS THAT ARE ON PAPER WHEN YOU ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THINGS SHOULD BE AND SHOULD CHANGE DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. THAT IS REALLY WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I MEAN, IT, IT'S PRAGMATIC AND IT'S COMMON SENSE. NO, THERE WAS NO WIRING ISSUE. IT WAS A MATTER OF PRIVACY. AND YOU SEE THESE THINGS DURING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION WHEN IT BECOMES TANGIBLE AFTER A LOT OF PLANNING. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT THESE WINDOWS NEED TO BE PRIVATE IN THESE PRIVATE AREAS. THANK YOU. GONNA TALK TO THE CALLER. YEAH. AGAIN, YES, MR. MITCHELL. UH, WHAT CONCERNS ME HERE, THE SMALL WINDOWS AND, UH, YOU'RE LOOKING UP TO A SECOND STORY, AND THE TWO TO ONE IS HALF A CURTAIN ON IT WOULD'VE PROVIDED MUCH PRIVACY. WAS THAT AN ISSUE THAT NOT HAVING THE TWO TO ONE, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE IN THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, LOOKING DOWN AND, UH, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH COVERAGE DO YOU NEED? IT IT STILL IS AN ISSUE. YOU STILL ARE EXPOSED AND THERE ARE THOSE WINDOWS, UH, WHERE THERE'S SHOWERS IN THERE. SO YES, WE FELT THAT, THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S PLACES WHERE YOU CAN'T PUT A CURTAIN, BUT TO LET NATURAL LIGHT IN, UH, IN A WAY TO WHERE YOU'RE STILL CONCEALED AND COVERED. A A AGAIN, KAT POINTED OUT THAT THESE, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR THESE WINDOWS IN THESE AREAS. SO YES, WE FEEL THAT THESE ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS GIVE AND MAINTAIN RESIDENT PRIVACY DURING THIS AND NUDITY, THESE ARE STREET FACING BATHROOMS AND, AND, AND, AND THESE MASTER BEDROOMS. THANK YOU, SIR. I'M NOT, NOT INVESTING YOUR, UH, YOUR ABILITY, I'M JUST SAYING THAT HAVE LIVED IN HOMES WHERE THEY'RE LIKE TRANS LIGHT WINDOWS, BUT SKYLIGHT WINDOWS ABOVE WHICH GETS PRIVACY, BUT STILL HAVE THE, UH, TWO TO ONE WINDOWS. WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT, THAT, UH, LIGHT CAN BE IN OTHER WAYS AND STILL COMPLY WITH A CODE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, HEARING NO MORE QUESTIONS THAT CAN WE MOVE TO, UM, ARE THERE ANY, UM, DO WE LET THE APPLICANT GIVE A FINAL REBUTTAL OR DO WE JUST MOVE ON TO THE MOTION? UM, TYPICALLY WE, I'LL OFFER THEM A FINAL REBUTTAL, BUT I THINK THAT THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WAS SORT OF THAT REBUTTAL. YEAH, UNLESS ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, IT'S UP TO YOU CHAIR. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, LIKE, FINAL STATEMENTS, MS. HARRIS? I THINK AT THIS TIME, UM, THIS IS MEGAN PEREZ. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM. UM, WE DID, YOU KNOW, FULLY STATE WHY, UM, WHY THOSE WINDOWS WERE PUT THERE ULTIMATELY. UM, IT WAS JUST BECAUSE, LIKE MICHAEL SAID, WHEN YOU'RE TANGIBLY BUILDING SOMETHING AND YOU SEE THAT SOMETHING IS NOT GONNA WORK, IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE SENSE. UM, YOU MOVE ON TO THE BEST NEXT OPTION. AND, UM, THAT'S, [02:00:01] YOU KNOW, NEARLY WHAT WE DID. UM, SO, AND WE DID IT OUT OF THOUGHTFULNESS AND OUT OF, UM, THOUGHTFULNESS TO THE NEXT FIRES. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THIS AND TO THE PUBLIC. AND NOW I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO PRESENT THE MOTION SEAL, MR. TE YES, MA'AM. REGARDING, UH, CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 2 3 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN CD FIVE DESIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW MINIMUM VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL DIMENSION RATIO OF TWO TO ONE AND AT LEAST A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION FOR STREET FACING WINDOWS, SITUATED AT 1 0 0 2 AND 1 0 0 6 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND 7 1 5 AND 7 1 9 GRANT AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING MICHAEL AEZ. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE LOT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE STILL PROVIDES ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A SHORTER WINDOW TO PROVIDE PRIVACY TO THE HOMEOWNER. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE STRUCTURES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS ALREADY BEING CONSTRUCTED. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO INSTALLED FALSE DIVISIONS TO SATISFY THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION ASPECT PER THE BEACON HILL N C D DESIGN STANDARDS. THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE, EXCUSE ME, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE BEACON HILL DESIGN STANDARDS IS TO AESTHETICALLY PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, GIVEN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF THE UNITS. ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SPECIFICALLY, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PLACE THE STRUCTURE OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FORCED THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT REALLY CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT REALLY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. GIVEN OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. END OF MOTION. SECOND. WHO WAS, WHO WAS THE SECOND ORIAN? OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. ORIAN. MR. DO YOU WANNA START THE DISCUSSION? UH, YES, MA'AM. UM, AS SOMEBODY WHO'S CONSTRUCTED SEVERAL HOMES AND, AND RENOVATED MANY HOMES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND, AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, UM, SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA VERIFY THINGS IN THE FIELD, UM, AND YOU CAN PUT EVERYTHING ON PAPER AND IT CAN WORK OUT. UM, AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GO TO CONSTRUCT IT, IT, IT DOESN'T WORK OUT NECESSARILY AS PLANNED. UH, IT'S CALLED A CHANGE ORDER. AND FROM TIME TO TIME, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE HAS TO DO 'EM. I THINK THAT THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS BEING MET HERE. I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT WENT, UM, TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT FITS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THESE SMALLER WINDOWS ACTUALLY DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR THE HOME SPECIFICALLY. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. I THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT USE OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS. MR. ORIAN? YES, I, I AGREE WITH, UH, WITH SETH. I MEAN THIS, MY, MY THING IS, IS THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THE WINDOWS. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A HANDFUL OF 'EM. UH, I DON'T THINK IT WAS, UM, THEY WERE SET OUT TO, TO TRY TO VIOLATE THE N C D, BUT, BUT REALISTICALLY, [02:05:01] YOU KNOW, THE N C D, UH, IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES WHERE THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF WINDOWS HERE AND THERE ON, ON EXISTING HOMES THAT HAD SMALLER SQUARE TYPE WINDOWS LIKE THIS. AND SO PERHAPS THERE'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE IN THE, IN THE BEACON HILL AREA THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE THESE SORT OF WINDOWS HERE AND THERE. AND THIS IS JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A, THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE EXAMPLES OF THAT. BUT I THINK, UM, BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, HAVING A HANDFUL OF WINDOWS, UH, ON THESE BUILDINGS IS JUST KEEPING IN LINE WITH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HOMES THAT ALSO HAVE WINDOWS LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN, IN THIS, AND THE NEIGHBORS DON'T SEE THEM. SO I'LL BE IN SIMPLE. ANY OTHER ELEMENTS? OH, OZ, YES. MS. OZUNA? YES. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL. THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD IS, I GUESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS PUT THE DEVELOPER ON NOTICE AS THEY CONTINUE TO DEVELOP IN THESE, UH, HISTORICAL DISTRICTS AND WILL NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS FOR VARIOUS, UH, ZONING. UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A, A KIND OF A GUNSHOT ACROSS THE VALLEY, AND THEY'LL LEAD TO, UH, RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IF THEY CONTINUE TO DEVELOP IN THESE HISTORICAL DISTRICTS. UH, BUT I WILL SUPPORT THESE MOTIONS FOR THE VARIOUS, UH, REASONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. MAD. THANK YOU. YEP. YES, MR. MAY, UM, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UM, AS READ AND, UM, HAVING WORKED THROUGH LOTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU CLAW YOUR WAY TO TRY TO GET STANDARDS UP AND, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. AND WHEN IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY VIOLATES IT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY HAS VERY, YOU KNOW, VERY LITTLE SAY EXCEPT PULLING UP THESE DOCUMENTS, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY TRY TO WORK THROUGH TO SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE, HERE'S WHAT WE WANT. AND SO THE HOUSE WAS BUILT AFTER IT'S ESTABLISHED. OKAY, SO, SO IT'S ALREADY ON NOTICE. HERE'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. SO PRESENT A DESIGN AS, YOU KNOW, AS COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THEY VIOLATED IT. AND PERSONALLY, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT, THAT THEY STATED OF WHY IT IS THAT THEY COULDN'T PUT IN A TWO TO ONE WINDOW, UH, WITH SHUTTERS AND OR OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR PRIVACY IN THOSE PRIVATE AREAS. I HAVE A SHOWER THAT I HAVE HAMMERED BLAST IN THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH, AND IT STILL LETS LOTS OF LIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, AND IT IS ACTUALLY A VERY LARGE WINDOW IN MY SHOWER. SO, UM, SO, SO THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE, SO, SO JUST THE NOTION OF THE PRIVACY AREA TO ME DIDN'T, DIDN'T HOLD WATER TO ME. UM, SO, AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE CHANGE ORDERS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF YOU MAKE A CHANGE ORDER, WHY WOULDN'T IT SHARED BACK WITH THE M C D TO SAY, HEY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE. GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, SAY, DO YOU GET, YOU KNOW, WOULD THIS BE OKAY? AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD WITH THE TWO WITH REGARDS WAS PRESENTED. SO, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. , YES, GO ON. YES, I WILL BE IN, UH, NOT IN FAVOR OF, UH, THIS MOTION AS WELL AS MR. MATTA FOR THE REASONS HE, UH, DISCUSSED AND OUTLINED. I, I ALSO HAD TO, I'VE WORKED WITH OUR COMMUNITY HISTORICAL COMMITTEE AND IT IS A, DEFINITELY A PROCESS AND I, IT'S, IT'S MY OPINION THAT YOU CAN'T GO AHEAD AND MAKE THESE GUIDELINES AND THEN A DEVELOPER COME THROUGH AND SPECIFICALLY DISREGARD 'EM. IT'S IN MY OPINION THAT THE WINDOWS COULD HAVE BEEN CONFORMING TO THE, UH, GUIDELINES WITHOUT, UM, OFFERING ANY, UH, PROBLEM FOR THE, THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS. I, I MUST SAY TOO THOUGH THAT I DO, UM, HAVE EMPATHY FOR THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS, I THINK THIS IS, UH, IT IS A SHAME THAT THIS, THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY, MISS MR. NKA, I THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. YES, UH, I ALSO AGREE MY TWO COLLEAGUES FOR THE SAME REASONS. AND, UH, THE THING ABOUT THE CHANGE ORDERS, THEY'RE NEVER THE CHANGE ORDERS IN MY EXPERIENCE. I'VE NEVER BEEN THIS, I MEAN, LET ME USE THE WORD GROSS, WHERE IT'S AN OVERSIGHT. THERE'S TOO DETAIL OF INFORMATION THESE TWO PRESENTERS, UH, HAVE PRESENTED. I'M SURPRISED THIS KIND OF LITTLE DETAIL IN THE PLANS WAS JUSTLY OVERLOOKED AND NOT GONE BACK DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS. SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION. DO I HAVE ANYBODY, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT WANNA, UM, MAKE A COMMENT? DELMER MR. DELMER? [02:10:01] I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, ALTHOUGH I DID HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THE PLANS AND THE WINDOWS BEING CHANGED AND STUFF LIKE THAT, I, I THINK THAT, THAT, UH, THESE FOLKS, UM, ARE BRINGING A LOT OF VALUE AND A LOT OF GOOD HOUSES AND, AND, AND NICE DEVELOPMENTS, UM, TO PLACES. AND WE NEED 'EM, FRANKLY, I THINK, UH, WE NEED HIM HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. I DIDN'T LIKE THE PROCESS. I THINK THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME HERE, UM, BY JUST CHANGING IN, IN THEIR PLANS AND THEN HAVING IT APPROVED, UH, AT ANOTHER TIME. BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. KATIE? KATIE, THANK YOU. JUST ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M HEARING THE OTHER COMMENTS AS WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY MR. SECOND, MADE BY MR. ORIAN. IS THAT, UM, I'M SORRY. I I DO NOT CONCUR HER WITH THE, OKAY. MR. MINKA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH A MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT. MS. BRAMAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OONA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT. MS. FISHER, MAKE SURE TO HIT GO AHEAD. I THINK YOU MUTED YOURSELF AGAIN. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DEL. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. GONNA TRY. UH, MR. MARTINEZ, CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF IF YOU'RE THERE? WE SEE YOU, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. YEAH, THE AUDIO'S NOT COMING THROUGH, SIR. UH, SO I'M GONNA HAND IT BACK TO, UH, DR. ELLI. THIS IS, UM, MOTION, UH, BY VOTE OF FOUR TO SIX? YES. OKAY. NO, DO, DO WE HAVE SIX TO SIX? WE COUNTED SIX TO SIX DOING SIX AGAIN AND FOUR. FOUR, CORRECT. AND MR. MARTINEZ WAS UNABLE TO VOTE. OKAY. SO, UM, THE APPLICANT WILL GET WITH THE, THE CITY AND TALK TO THEM AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STATE. OKAY. HONOR, CAN WE TAKE A ABSOLUTELY. 10 MINUTES? FINE. WE'LL RECONVENE AT 3 26. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SIR, GO AHEAD. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. WELCOME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING FOR, UM, JUNE 1ST. IT IS, UH, 3:27 PM AND [4. 20-3368 BOA-20-10300043: A request by Priscilla Loker for a 3’ variance from the required 5’ side setback to allow an accessory detached dwelling unit to be 2’ from the side property line, located at 232 Brightwood Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 10) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR NEXT CASE, UH, NUMBER 43. SO STAFF, LET'S BEGIN. ALRIGHT, UH, ON SERVICES. THE OA CASE 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 3. THE ADDRESS IS 2 32 BRIGHTWOOD PLACE. THE APPLICANT IS PRI UH, REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARI FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONE IS N P EIGHT A H O D FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REMODEL AND UPGRADE THE EXISTING ACCESSORY DETACHED WALL UNIT IN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. OUR PROPERTY WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK TO CURRENT CODE. THE ACCESSORY DETACHED WALL UNIT WILL MAINTAIN THE CURRENT SIZE AND EXTERIOR CONFIGURATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A AND IMPROVED ALLEY. THUS NO REAR SETBACK VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DETACHED ACCESSORY FALL UNIT. UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY 2 22 BRIGHTWOOD WAS APPROVED ON, ON THE [02:15:01] IDENTICAL REQUEST DURING THE MARCH 2ND 2, 20 20 HEARING CYCLE OF THE B O A IN FIVE. THIS IS THE PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE VARIANCES IN B O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 3. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, EFFECTS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, UM, WILL NOT DESTRUCT FROM THE CHARACTER THE OF THE DISTRICT AND ADEQUATE SPACE WILL BE UTILIZED TO RENT STORMWATER RUNOFF, MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS. AND THE LOT IS TOO SMALL TO REASONABLY PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS AND NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED. FIVE. THERE 14, UH, NOTICES MAILED OUT. THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. VERY WELL. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT ON SO, UH, WE CAN CONTINUE. MS. READY TO GO? MS. LOKER, PLEASE. MAY, MAY, UH, MENTION YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HI, YES, THIS IS ACTUALLY ANGEL WHITLEY. I AM, UM, REPRESENTING MRS. LOKER. UM, I AM WITH RINO DESIGN BUILD. SHE HAS HIRED US TO DO THE PROPERTY RENOVATION ON THE DETACHED GARAGE AT 2 32 BRIGHTWOOD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 9. LIKE STATED, IT IS AN EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE INTO SEPARATE ROAD. THE BUSINESS ADDRESS. OH, THE BUSINESS ADDRESS. I'M SO SORRY. RINO DESIGNED IS 4 3 3 5 VANCE JACKSON ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 3 0. OKAY, CONTINUE. SURE. SO WE WERE HIRED BY MRS. LOKER TO LOOK INTO DOING, UM, A, A CONVERSION OF HER EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE IN AT THE STATED ADDRESS ON DRIVEWAY. UM, UPON, UM, OBSERVATION OF THE PROPERTY WHEN WE CAME TO , WE SAW THAT THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IT'S ABOUT THREE, IT'S THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE WALL, BUT THEN IT HAS A 12 INCH OVERHANG. SO THAT MEANS WE'RE REALLY TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO, UM, WE ARE JUST HOPING THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER GIVING US A VARIANCE FOR THAT SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, UM, COMMENCE OUR CONVERSION OF THIS TWO CAR GARAGE INTO AWELL FOR HER. HER, UM, DAUGHTER AND GRANDSON LIVE ON THE PROPERTY IN THE MAIN HOUSE, AND SHE IS HOPING TO, UM, CONVERT THIS SPACE SO THAT SHE CAN LIVE THERE ON THE PROPERTY WITH THEM. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. AND, UM, OKAY, YOU SUBMITTED ALL THE, I I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY. IS THERE ANY TYPE OF, OF, OF PHOTO PRESENTATION INCLUDED THIS OTHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE ON FILE? NO SIR. MM-HMM. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC, UH, WITNESSES THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS? NO, SIR. NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT WE DO HAVE THREE EMAILS. OKAY. LET'S, LET'S, UH, SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED, LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ THE EMAILS IN THE FILE AND MS. BROKER WILL COME BACK TO YOU. OKAY. FIRST EMAIL IS FROM, UH, SHELLY JONES AT 2 0 6 CA PLACE SIMPLY SAYS, I AGREE WITH THE REQUEST. SECOND EMAIL IS FROM CHRISTINE YOUNG AT 2 22 BRIGHTWOOD PLACE. I'M IN FAVOR, THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2 32 BRIGHTWOOD PLACE. AND THEN THE THIRD IS FROM A JOHN HOUSTON. UH, WE LIVE AT 2 36 BRIGHTWOOD, WHICH IS A HOUSE JUST EAST OF 2 32 BRIGHTWOOD. THE PROPOSED RENOVATIONS WOULD BE ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UH, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PROP, THE OWNER'S REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE, JOHN OR REBECCA HOUSTON. OKAY. IS THAT THE TOTAL COMMENTS? THAT'S IT. WELL, SINCE WE HAVE COMPLETE SUPPORT ON PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE PROJECT, I HAVE, THERE REALLY IS ANY REBUTTAL NECESSARY. MS. LOOKER, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO ASK OUT? NO, SIR, WE ARE GOOD, THANK YOU. OKAY. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? ANA, MR. MCNA? SO, UM, YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE PICTURES HERE. AS FAR AS THE ROOF LINES ARE CONCERNED, I'M ASSUMING THAT, UH, THE ROOF LINES ARE SUCH THAT THE WATER DRAINS EITHER INTO THE ALLEY OR BACK INTO THE YARD AND NOT INTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. MR. MENKA, PLEASE ASK QUESTION. YES, SIR. UM, THE ROOF LINES, UH, UH, ALMOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROOF LINES BEING CLOSE TO [02:20:01] A PROPERTY LINE TO ANOTHER STRUCTURE. WAS THERE ANOTHER STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THAT THAT FIRE COULD JUMP SINCE THIS IS GONNA BE A LIBBY QUARTERS? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? IT BROKE UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. THE LAST PART. OKAY. THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE, IS SOMETHING GONNA BE EXTENDED MORE TOWARD THE PROPERTY LINE THAT THE ROOF COULD, IF IT CATCHES FIRE, COULD JUMP TO THE NEXT ONE? THUS, IS THERE A FIRE CODE LIMITATION HERE THAT I'M MISSING? OKAY. UH, NOT THAT I KNOW YET. SORRY, MR. COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. UH, SINCE THERE'S A PERMIT BEING PULLED, AND I BELIEVE IT'S SPECIFICALLY ON THIS STRUCTURE, IT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL FIRE STANDARDS IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PERMITTING PROCESS. SO WHAT YOU'RE, IT IS A VERY VALID QUESTION AND I THINK THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT STAFF ADDRESS THAT AS THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DELMER, WHO WAS THAT? ER, MR WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, MY QUESTION BEFORE, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. UH, MR. MR, GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION. YEAH, I, I WAS GONNA ASK ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF, OF THIS, OF THIS ACCESSORY TO THE ONE NEXT DOOR, BUT I THINK THAT WAS 30 JUST, JUST ANSWERED. SO I'LL, I'LL STOP. OKAY. MR, DO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. WAS THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CONTACTED AT ALL? THAT IS CORRECT. IS OAK PARK NORTHWOOD AND NO RESPONSE FROM THEM? THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTION? UM, AND, UH, ANYTHING ELSE PREPARED FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE? NONE THAT BEING THE CASE, UH, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. CONTINUE WITH THE MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT 20 DASH 0 3 4 3. I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED WELDING UNIT TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 3 2 BRIGHTWOOD PLACE, BRIGHTWOOD PLACE APPLICANT BEING PRISCILLA LOCKER. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT PROVIDES ADEQUATE HABITAT, HABITAT OF LIVING SPACES, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING A REAR AND INSIDE SETBACK FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE STAFF SLIDES, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE COMMUNITY IS CHARACTERIZED BY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILT, SERVED BY 1949 WITH SETBACKS ESTABLISHED AFTER THEIR DEVELOPMENT. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PROHIBITING THE OWNER TO UTILIZE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT AS A HABITABLE SPACE THAT WHAT'S INTENDED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPUR OF THE ORDINANCE AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE, RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW, THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK LIMITATIONS PREVENT FIRE SPREAD WHILE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE AND ENCOURAGE, UH, PROPER STORMWATER DRAINAGE. ALL INTENTS OF THIS FALL WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED, AND WOULD ADD THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS AND MEET ALL SAFETY, UH, LIFE CODES WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE. OTHER, THE, THOSE USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALL THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT TOWARDS THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED THIS VARIANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SPECIFICALLY, THE STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY. FURTHER, THESE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE IN CIRCA 1949 AND HAVE NO RECORD OF CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY OR CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. THE STRUCTURE, THE VARIS ARE REQUESTED FOR, FOR FOLLOWS A DIS A DISTRICT NORM OF REDUCED SETBACK BUILT WITHIN THE AREA. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE EITHER DUE TO, OR, I'M SORRY, UM, SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIOUS ASSAULT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY [02:25:01] THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE, AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE EITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT ARE DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. THE CHARACTER OF REDUCED LOT SIZE WITHIN THE DIS DISTRICT IS UNIFORM, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR PROPER BUILDING SETBACKS. THIS IS CREATED BY THE PROLIFERATION OF OLDER, OUTDATED, SUBSTANDARD, LOTS AND A MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. OZUNA AND A SECOND BY MS. CRUZ. AND, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BEGIN THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. OZUNA. YES, I'M, I'M SUPPORTING THE, UH, REQUESTED MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE. UM, WE SAW THAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE ALL IN, IN APPROVAL AND THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, ALSO HAD NO RESPONSE. SO THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, SUPPORTED THE VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODES AND LIFE SAFETY. UH, THEREFORE I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. VERY GOOD. AND MS. CRUZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT SOME INPUT? UH, YES. I DON'T, I WANNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, CONCUR WITH UNA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT AND I THINK WE DID BE ON THE ALLEYS. THE BACKSIDE OF THE ALLEY WOULD BE A GREAT, UH, INVESTMENT FOR HIM. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME INPUT? DELMER, MR. DELMER? I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, UH, AS WELL FOR THOSE REASONS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, JUST TO ANYONE ELSE, MR. TO RESTATE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE, WE'RE VOTING ON A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE, UH, FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY DETACHED VOLUME, BEES PLUS AS TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. PRIMARILY, THIS IS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY A, A, A GARAGE, WHICH UNDER THE, UH, INFORMATION GIVEN TO US BY THE APPLICANTS, UH, PEOPLE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONVERTING THIS INTO SOME SORT OF LIVING QUARTERS AND THAT THIS WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF PERMITTING IN THE PROCESS. AND ALL WE'RE DOING IS ALLOWING FOR THE DISCRETION TO BE DUE. SO, UM, AND THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I'M GOING GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE ROLL. PAUL VOTE. ALRIGHT, I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY, UH, MR WITH A SECOND MADE BY MS. YES. I WITH THE MENCHACA. I WITH THE MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. GO AHEAD MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FIVES OF FACT AND MARTINEZ, I CONCUR WITH THE FACT, UH, VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. THE THE MOTION IS PASSED. UH, THE VARIANCE IS, IS ALLOWED. UM, PLEASE TELL THE APPLICANT TO CONTACT THE CITY STAFF FOR THE PROPER PERMIT, PERMIT, PERMITTING AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT. AND WE HOPE THAT, UH, THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. PAYROLL AND SATISFACTION. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO OUR, UH, NEXT CASE CASE NUMBER, [5. 20-3369 BOA-20-10300044: A request by Bobby Herrera for 1) a 10’ variance from the required 20’ rear setback to allow an attached addition to be 10’ from the rear property line, 2) a 10” variance from the required 10’ front setback to allow an attached addition to be 9’2” away from the front property line, and 3) a 2,500 square foot variance from the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement to allow a home to be located on a 2,500 square foot lot, located at 411 Muncey. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 2) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] UH, 0 44 ON, UH, FOUR 11 MUN THREE. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AS YOU MENTIONED, FOUR 11 MUNSEY. THE APPLICANT IS GUDA, UM, OR REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUESTED OR REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE 10 FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE NINE FEET, TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, UH, 2,500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE LOCATED ON A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT. CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE H A H O D FIVE BUILT SCA 1920S AS A 775 SQUARE FOOT HOME. THE APPLICANT RENOVATED AND EXPANDED THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BETWEEN 2017 DUE TO 2020. UH, THE ATTACHED ADDITIONS WERE NEVER PERMITTED. THE APPLICANT HAS GONE THROUGH H C R C IN 2017 AND HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE MAJOR AND MINOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE THE ATTACHED IONS. THE APPLICANT IS RE UH, REQUESTING [02:30:01] TO KEEP THE ATTACHED IONS BUILT AS IS WITHIN THE SIDE OF REAR END PROPERTY LINE. THE LOT IS SITUATED ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY, THUS NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, UM, TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY 2,500 SQUARE FEET BELOW THE REQUIRED, UH, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT FEET. UM, THUS THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IF APPROVED FOR THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND B O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING EFFECT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, UH, VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. AND THE LOP SITE STILL PROVIDES REASONABLE ACCESS TO, TO PREVENT STORMWATER RUNOFF, MAINTENANCE, PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS. AND THE LOT IS TOO SMALL TO REASONABLY PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS. SLIDE. THERE WERE 24 NOTICES MAILED OUT, ZERO IN FAVOR AND, UH, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. WE DID RECEIVE ONE OPPOSITION THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT, UH, BUFFER AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE DEY HILL ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. YOU, YOU MENTIONED A 10, A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, CORRECT. OH, 10, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I, I UNDERSTOOD THAT SO THAT, THAT IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD TO SAY 10 FOOT. OKAY. GOOD CATCH. GOOD CATCH, SIR. WE HAVE BOBBY , UM, WHO'S REFERRED TO, TO START HIS PRESENTATION, SIR. VERY GOOD. LET'S GO AHEAD HEAR FROM BOBBY. OKAY. PLEASE EXCUSE ME. THEY, THEY JUST, UH, THIS WAS JUST HANDED DOWN TO ME THIS MORNING. I DO WORK PART-TIME FOR IT BUILDERS. MY NAME IS BOBBY VEDA AT 9 0 0 6 MINT JU SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. AND AGAIN, I'M MEETING LUNCH AT MY COUSIN'S PLACE, HENRY'S COFFEE, TEXAS. I CAME TO THE CONFERENCE ROOM, , EXCUSE ME. UH, THIS, THIS, UH, UH, PROJECT THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON IS ON 4 1 1 MUNCIE. AND BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS, UH, ON THE REAR SETBACK AND IS BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS LOCATED ON ON THE RIGHT SLOT. AND BASICALLY THEY ALREADY HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF, UH, DETERMINATION ON THE EXISTING HOME, AND THEY HAVE AN OPEN PERMIT APPROVAL PERMIT BY THE HISTORICAL PEOPLE. AND IF, UH, WE HAVE TO DO, HAVE TO DO, IF SOMETHING HAS TO BE ADDED OR TAKEN AWAY, UM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I, BECAUSE THAT WAY WE CAN TABLE THIS AND TAKE THE FURTHER, I BELIEVE WE'RE COVERING ALL THE BASES. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO, WE'RE REVIEWING THE, UH, 25 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE, THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND WELL, LOOKING AT A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND A 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED? THAT NO, NO. THAT, THAT 10 INCH, WHEN SHE SAID 10 FOOT, I GO, WHOA, THAT'S 10. THAT, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT. SO WE BASICALLY ARE COVERING ALL THE BASIS, LET'S CONTINUE AND GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED TODAY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY DOING HERE IS WE'RE ACCOMMODATING A STRUCTURE THAT'S PREEXISTING. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UH, IT IS JUST A MATTER OF BRINGING IT IN, YOU DON'T WANT IT. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. OKAY. I FULLY UNDERSTAND. UH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UH, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. NO. NO. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC, UH, OR WITNESSES THAT NO WITNESSES AND NO COMMENTS? GREAT. EXCELLENT. SO WE BASICALLY HAVE A FULL CASE BEFORE US. UM, IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SPEEDING THINGS UP BY GOING AHEAD AND CLOSING THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAINING A MOTION, UH, FROM THE BOARD. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. OH, OKAY. WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? WELL, I WAS LOOKING AT THE, AT THE, [02:35:01] UH, YES, IT IS DONALD. I WAS LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL ON THE TITLE SURVEY OF WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA BE DOING. AND AM I READING THIS RIGHT, BAKER? ARE THEY REMOVING THE REAR PORCH? NO, SIR. EVERYTHING'S BUILT. OH, OKAY. BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE IT SAYS NEW ADDITION AND IT SHOWS SOMETHING IN PURPLE, KIND OF IMPLYING THAT THERE'S A, A, A, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING ADDED TO IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. NO, SIR. EVERYTHING WAS BUILT OUT. IT WAS JUST A LITTLE ON PERMIT AND THEN, UH, THEY BROUGHT THEM TO US. OKAY. SO WHATEVER, WHATEVER WE'RE SEEING ON THE STAFF REPORT, THAT'S THEY'RE DONE. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET APPROVED TODAY. THAT CORRECT, SIR. OKAY. AWESOME. THANK YOU. AND MATT, SO, SO LOOK AT THE HASH MARKS OF WHAT IS ALREADY BUILT. IT APPEARED THAT PART OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, THE PRIOR STRUCTURE WAS ALREADY IN OR OUT OF COMPLIANCE, UH, AS I LOOK AT IT. YEAH. AND SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE BRINGING, THEY REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR COMPLIANCE, THEIR PRIOR COMPLIANCE, UH, POSITION, AND ALL THEY DID IS JUST ADD NEW PIECES TO IT. IF I, IF I SEE THE PICTURE CORRECTLY, LET, LET ME RES RES SUM THIS. SO IT'S VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND. THE BIG ISSUE REALLY IS THE SIZE OF THE LOT. YEAH. AND CONSTRUCTION ALL. YEAH. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH, WITH, UH, ITS, UM, R FIVE DESIGNATION. SO IT'S, WE NEED TO GIVE AN, UH, A VARIANCE FOR THE LOP SIDE. NUMBER TWO, THE STRUCTURE'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND ESSENTIALLY ALL WE'RE GONNA BE DOING BY GRANTING A VARIANCE IS WE'RE GONNA BE ALLOWING SOMEONE TO SELL THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO SEE FOR THEIR VARIANCE. UH, SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GONNA MAKE, IF WE PASS THE VARIANCE FOR THIS, THE THREE ISSUES, THEN THE, THE PROPERTY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE BY VIRTUE OF THE VARIANCE. CORRECT? THAT FULLY EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. MACHACA. MR. ? YES, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION. AND I WAS TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS 2,500 SQUARE FEET VERSUS A 5,000. SO HE'S ALREADY USED UP A LOT IS WHAT I AM STANDING. YES. ESSENTIALLY, MR. CHAIR, THIS, THIS IS ZEKE AGAIN. UM, SO CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION ONE, IT BASICALLY, IT'S APPLIED EXCEPTION AND ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE IS A FIGHT EXCEPTION HAS LONG LOCKED IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION SINCE 2005, WHICH IT IS, THE DILEMMA IS IT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO IN THOSE SCENARIOS, WHEN IT DOESN'T MEET THAT LOT SIZE, THEY THEN HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE. AND THE ONLY REASON THEY'RE DOING THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSIONS. OTHERWISE, IT WAS JUST A REMODEL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THEY WOULDN'T REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE DETERMINATION, BUT BECAUSE OF THOSE EXPANSIONS, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE. RIGHT, I UNDERSTOOD THAT. THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY, THEN THAT'S CLOSED AND WE GO TO A ROLL CALL. UH, NO MOTION. MOTION. MR. MANLEY, YOU'D LIKE TO READ THE MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANDE REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN, AN ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE 10 FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW ATTACHED ADDITION TO BE NINE FOOT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THREE A TWO A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW HOMES BE LOCATED ON A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT SITUATED AT 4 1 1 EY, UH, AFTER BEING , UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTIMATED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE ATTACHED ADDITION PROVIDES ADEQUATE HAV HABITABLE LIVING SPACE, A MODEST INCREASE IN SPARE FOOTAGE, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING A REAR AND SIDE SETBACK FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT AIR AND OPEN SPACE THAT FINDS FOR REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE COMMUNITY IS CHARACTERIZED BY HISTORIC PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES THAT ARE RELATIVELY TIGHT ON LIVING QUARTERS WITHIN THE AREA. LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE [02:40:01] WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PROHIBITING THE OWNER TO UTILIZE THE SMALL LOT TO ITS POTENTIAL. 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 THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK LIMITATION IS TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE, AND ENCOURAGE PROPER STORMWATER DRAINAGE. ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO OTHER 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 PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALSO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UH, UH, THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SPECIFICALLY HOW THE ADDITIONS WERE BUILT. THERE IS NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE FROM ANY OTHER RESIDENCE WITHIN THE AREA. FURTHER, THESE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE SURFACE 1920. RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSIONS WILL BE NECESSARY. THE ADDITIONS OF THE VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED TO, UH, FOR FOLLOWS A DISTRICT NORM OF REDUCED SETBACKS BUILT WITHIN, UH, THE AREA. AND SIX, THE DEPOSIT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL COMMISSIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. THE CHARACTER OF REDUCED LOSS SIZES WITHIN THE DISTRICT IS UNIFORM, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR PROPER BUILDING SETBACK. THIS IS CREATED BY THE PROLIFERATION OF OLDER, OUTDATED SUBSTANDARD BLOCKS AND A MOTION. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MS. BRAGMAN, WHO WAS THAT THAT MADE THE SECOND? YES, I WOULD GIVE IT TO MS. RAGMAN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND. UH, MR. MANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT UP THE DISCUSSION? YES. I WILL BE PUTTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. I THINK THAT AS PRESENTED, I DON'T SEE, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANYTHING THAT SAYS THAT THIS SHOULDN'T BE DONE IN THIS, UH, NEW COMMUNITY. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON WITH REGARDS TO SUBSTANDARD. SO I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS ONE. VERY GOOD. NOW, MISS, UH, BRIAN, DO YOU WANNA HAVE INPUT? IT WASN'T ACTUALLY ME, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO THE DO THE SECOND. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUE. UH, IT'S A SUB-STANDARD LOT AS IT'S NOT UNUSUAL IN THIS AREA OF TOWN. AND SO YOU, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. OKAY. VERY GOOD. AND, UH, MR. MR, ANYONE ELSE WANNA MAKE IT AT ANY SPEED? DONALD, DO YOU WANNA ADD TO IT? SECOND. OKAY. NEVERTHELESS, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION AGAIN. UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING A PIECE OF PROPERTY NONCOMPLIANT COMPLIANT, SO IN THE FUTURE, SOLD, UH, UH, SO THAT, UH, BECAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T FIT THE, UH, LOT DOESN'T FIT THE DESCRIPTION. SO, UH, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY MR. MEOW WITH A SECOND BY MS. BRECKMAN. DR. ELLI? YES. I CONFIRM WITH THE BASIS THAT MR. MENCHACA, I WAS THAT A DO NOT CONCUR, SIR, CORRECT? I DO NOT. OKAY. MS. CRUZ, UH, HIT ON MUTE, PLEASE, MA'AM. OH, SORRY. I THOUGHT I HAD, UH, YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RAMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OONA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. GO AHEAD, MA'AM. [02:45:01] YES, I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH TO THE FACT THE, UH, MOTION HAS APPROVED. UM, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T SAY GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT COMPLETING. UH, IT, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THE, UH, AGENDA, I BELIEVE FOR CASES FOR TODAY. NOW WE [6. 20-3421 Consideration and approval of the May 18, 2020 Board of Adjustment minutes.] NEED TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THE MEETING ON MAY THE 18TH. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. VERY GOOD. WE GOT A SECOND. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THAT. ALRIGHT. DR. ELLI APPROVED. MR. MANCHACA APPROVED. MS. CRUZ APPROVED. MR. TEAL APPROVED MR. APPROVE. MR. ORIAN? YES, I APPROVE MS. BREMAN. I APPROVE. MR. OONA? YES, I APPROVE. I APPROVE MR. DELMER. I APPROVE AND CHAIRMAN. OKAY, I APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. THE MINUTES ARE THEREFORE ACCEPTED. UH, I HAVE, UH, VERONICA, I GUESS, UH, SEND THOSE TO ME SO THAT I CAN SIGN AND RETURN 'EM BACK TO HER. UH, ALRIGHT, SOUNDS GOOD. THERE ANY INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF? NOPE, THAT'S ALL, SIR. UH, JUST A REMINDER, WE'LL STILL BE IN VIRTUAL MEETINGS, UH, THIS SUMMER FOR THE ENTIRE SUMMER. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THE NEXT MEETING WE HAVE SCHEDULED FOR MAY, OR EXCUSE ME, JUNE 15TH OF THIS MONTH. UM, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET ALL OUR LITTLE GLITCHES TAKEN CARE OF BY THEM. AND I WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THAT YOU PUT IN THERE. I HAVE NO ANNOUNCEMENTS OF MY OWN OTHER THAN HEAT SAFE OUT THERE PEOPLE. UM, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UH, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AS OF NOW. * 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.