* 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. [Call to Order] [00:02:11] IT SHOULD BE THE, THERE YOU GO. OKAY, GO AHEAD MS. CRUZ. OKAY, MR. TEAL. PRESENT. MR. MANA, UNMUTE YOURSELF, SIR. STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU, MR. MANA? NO, I STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU'RE UNMUTED, BUT FOR SOME REASON YOUR AUDIO IS NOT WORKING. I'LL COME TO YOU, UM, BECAUSE I CAN SEE YOU TRYING TO TALK, BUT THERE'S NO, UH, AUDIO COMING THROUGH MR. ORIAN. OKAY. TRY YOUR AUDIO. HEY THERE. SEE YOU. HELLO? OKAY. YES, GO AHEAD. OKAY, TRY IT AGAIN. TRY SPEAKING AGAIN. MS. DORIAN, ARE YOU THERE? HELLO? YES. OKAY. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. UH, MS. BRAGMAN PRESENT. MR. OZUNA? PRESENT. MS. TREVINO? PRESENT. MR. DELMER PRESENT. OKAY, MR. MANA, CAN WE HEAR YOU NOW? PRESENT? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. A QUO, MS. PRESENT? WE HAVE ALL 11. FANTASTIC. OKAY. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN 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 CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CITY ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THE THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. PACIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO COUNSEL. THEY ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCE PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. [00:05:01] WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32. THE HERE AND DECIDES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISOR AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWER HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT. EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD OF PROCEEDINGS. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES THE CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST UPON THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS WHICH THE REQUESTED 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 OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT. SO, UH, CATHERINE, CAN YOU CONTINUE? ALRIGHT, SO TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF C OVID 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 RESPONSE TO THE C OVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW.SANANTONIO.GOV/DSB OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3. TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES AND FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED. STAFF WILL ALSO PLAN ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL. LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS. SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTION. ALRIGHT, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET'S BEGIN WITH OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEMS, UH, AND THE BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S HOLD QUESTIONS, UM, UNTIL AFTER THE PERSON'S COMPLETELY SPOKEN, PLEASE UH, [1. 20-3594 BOA-20-10300027: A request by Maria E. Shoults for 1) a variance from the restriction of corrugated metal as a fencing material to allow for its use as a fencing material and 2) a special exception to allow a solid screen fence to be up to 7' tall in the front yard, located at 8390 North Verde Drive. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 7) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner (210) 207-0197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] PRESENT THE FIRST CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, ZEKE'S RELEASE AND ZONING. THIS IS B O A CASE, 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 7. ADDRESS AT 83 90 NORTH VEDA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS, UH, MARIA E. SCHULTZ. A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE RESTRICTION OF CORRUGATED MIDDLE AS A FANCY MATERIAL TO ALLOW FOR ITS USE AS A FANCY MATERIAL. DESCRIBED SECTION 35 5 14 AND TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE UP TO SEVEN FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BENDERA ROAD IN NORTH BETTA DRIVE JUST NORTH OF OP STAPLE PARK. THE REQUEST IS ALLOW CORRUGATED METAL AS A FENCING MATERIAL BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS A SEVEN FOOT TALL CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND A SIX FOOT TALL CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ALONG THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A SECTION OF SEVEN FOOT FENCE, WHICH STRETCHES PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE THAT IS PLACED IN THE FRONT YARD. THERE IS AN OPEN, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE INITIATED ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2019 FOR METAL FENCE BEING INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND A METAL SHIPPING CONTAINER IN THE REAR YARD. NEXT SLIDE HERE IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE METAL FENCE. THE DOTS IN THE MIDDLE ARE THE METAL FENCE SEPARATING THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. AND THE NEXT SLIDES ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. [00:10:12] THIS PHOTO IS OF THE, THE CENTER FENCE SEPARATING THE PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE AND, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 7. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CORRUGATED METAL AS A FENCING MATERIAL IS NOTICEABLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH A SURROUNDING AREA AND APPORTION. THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE IS CURRENTLY UNPROTECTED AND A SOLID WOOD FENCE, UH, IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ALONG BANDERA ROAD PER CODE 35 5 14. IF YOU'RE SO NEXT TO A ROADWAY LARGER THAN A COLLECTOR, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO EIGHT FEET. WE SENT OUT 10 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR, SIX IN OPPOSITION, UM, OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT AREA, THOSE ONE IN FAVOR, EIGHT IN OPPOSITION, AND NO OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE BEVERLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. UM, CATHERINE, I THINK IT'S THE BEST IN THIS CASE TO GO AHEAD AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. OKAY. SO, UH, THE BOARD, UM, I WOULD LIKE, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, I CAN EITHER READ YOUR NAME OR YOU JUST, UH, TELL ME YOUR NAME AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO AND ALLOW YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS TO STAFF ONLY ELLI DOCTOR, PLEASE. UM, ZEKE, WOULD YOU MIND CLARIFYING WHAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED BY? RIGHT. UM, AND, AND THEN, AND WHAT, WHAT ELSE THEY'RE REQUESTING? THANK YOU. SURE. ALONG THE, THE BANDERA ROADSIDE UP TO THE FRONT FACADE, SHE IS ALLOWED AN EIGHT UP TO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. UM, IN THIS SCENARIO, IT'S THE BUILDING MATERIAL THAT'S BRINGING IT OUT OF COMPLIANCE. SHE ALSO EXTENDED THE FENCE A BIT IN THE FRONT YARD FROM THE FRONT FACADE FORWARD. THAT IS ALSO IN, UH, IN QUESTION. UH, SHE DID BUILD A FENCE SEPARATING THE PROPERTY. INITIALLY LOOKED LIKE THAT THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL USE ON ONE SIDE OF IT. THAT METAL FENCE THAT SEPARATES IT, UH, IS ALSO UNPROTECTED AND IT RUNS FROM BANDERA TO THE NEIGHBORING LOT. SO BY RIGHT, SHE COULD HAVE UP TO EIGHT FEET UP TO THE FACADE OF THE HOUSE ALONG BANDERA ROAD WITH THE MATERIAL OTHER THAN METAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? MANNA, MANNA, MANNA. SO FORWARD OF THE FACADE OF THE HOUSE. UM, WHAT IS PERMITTED THERE? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE 20, 25 FEET OF, UH, FENCE THERE. UH, SO WOULD THAT HAVE TO CHANGE TO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN OR SOMETHING ELSE? THAT IS CORRECT. YOU CAN GO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN UP TO FIVE FEET, OR YOU WANNA GO SOLID, YOU'RE LIMITED TO THREE FEET, AND IT'S REALLY THAT PORTION RIGHT THERE IN THE DAMAGE. SHE HAS WROUGHT IRON BEYOND THAT. AND THAT'S FINE. AND THEN ANYONE ASK QUESTION? YEAH. ONE MORE QUESTION. IN THE BACKYARD THERE IS THE, THE DIVIDING, UM, UH, METAL FENCE, UH, THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD. AND SO, UM, SO OUTSIDE OF THE MA, SO DOES THIS BOARD HAVE WEIGH IN ON THE MATERIAL AND THE HEIGHT OF THAT FENCE AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT. UM, IN THIS SCENARIO, THE METAL FENCING ISN'T ALLOWED AT ALL, BUT YES, UH, THAT'S WHY WE ADDED IT TO THE PHOTOS. IT IS PART OF YOUR PURVIEW. ALL RIGHT. UM, MR. DONALD, I THINK I SAW YOU HOO YOUR HAND. GO AHEAD. YEAH, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. SO CAN, CAN STAFF TALK ABOUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING, UH, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE BILLBOARD IS IN THEIR BACKYARD. DOES HAVING A BILLBOARD THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S GOTTA BE A COMMERCIAL USE. I MEAN, IS THAT CHANGE ANYTHING YOUR RECOMMENDATION? NO, THE BILLBOARD, THE BILLBOARD ITSELF IS PRIVATELY OWNED. IT IS, IT'S BEEN THERE. UM, THAT'S NOT, IT'S NOT EVEN HER PROPERTY AT THAT PORTION OF IT. THE, THAT WHOLE AREA BEHIND IT, AROUND IT IS HER PROPERTY. EVERYTHING THAT BACKS UP TO IT LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE C P S POLE WITH THE LIGHT ON IT THAT'S NEAR THE R AND WRONG FENCE. IF THERE'S A SIDEWALK GUY WIRE THAT GOES OVER THE FENCE, IS ALL THAT IN A EASEMENT OR SOMETHING, OR WHAT? UH, THAT'S UNCLEAR AS FAR AS AN EASEMENT GOES, BUT IT IS ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED. OKAY. [00:15:01] THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, I THINK THE, UH, PART OF THE QUESTION OF WHAT, UH, MR. ORIAN WAS ASKING IS OBVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY SEPARATED AND THE, IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ZONE, UH, RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT IS CORRECT. AND, AND YES, SIR, THAT'S THE REASON WHY. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE STORAGE STRUCTURE AND THE, UH, THE COMMERCIAL STORAGE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, ON THE BACK PORTION THAT SEPARATED FROM THE PROPERTY? THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE PREVIOUS CODE CASES PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL USES ON THAT REAR PROPERTY, THOUGH IT IS ONE LOT AND IT IS ENTIRELY ZONE RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. SO IN IN ESSENCE, THE, UH, ANY COMMERCIAL USE, WHICH APPEARS THERE SEEMS TO BE A COMMERCIAL USE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COMMERCIAL GATE AND APPARENTLY IT'S USED, SO SOME, SOME MATERIALS MUST BE STORED BACK THERE. CODE COMPLIANCE ALREADY, UH, ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE. SO SHE'S REMOVING ALL COMMERCIAL, UM, ITEMS FROM BACK THERE TO INCLUDE THAT STORAGE CONTAINER. UH, STORAGE CONTAINER'S NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL, UH, ZONE PROPERTY. SO SHE'S CLAR, SHE'S CLEANING THAT UP AS FAR AS ANY, UH, COMMERCIAL USES. SO AT THIS STAGE, THE ONLY THING THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING FOR CODE COMPLIANCE UNTIL THAT STORAGE CONTAINER IS REMOVED IS REALLY JUST THE FENCE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? I GOT A QUESTION. YES. UH, UH, ZEKE, IS THAT, UH, ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THIS HOUSE WAS RESIDENTIAL OR WAS IT MAYBE MISNAMED OR IT'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL, SIR? YES SIR. IT WAS BEEN RESIDENTIAL. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN USES FOR PROPERTY THAT WERE CUT, YOU KNOW, CUT COMPLIANCE ADDRESSED, UH, FOR THE BACK PORTION. BUT, UM, SINCE THEN THAT'S BEEN CLEANED UP A BIT. SHE'S CURRENTLY SELLING THE PROPERTY, UH, SO THERE'S NO USES ON IT CURRENTLY. I SEE. SO WHAT DOES THE NEED FOR THIS, GO AHEAD, ROGER. YEAH. ONLY AS RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. EQUIP MY POINT WAS THAT IT'S ALMOST LIKE A DUAL PURPOSE UNTIL THIS ISSUE CAME ABOUT AND ALL THIS WAS DISCOVERED. IT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. EXACTLY. OKAY. YEAH, I SEE YOUR POINT. AND IT, UH, UH, DO WE KNOW IF IT'S BEEN MARKETED AS A RESIDENTIAL LAW? THAT I'M NOT CLEAR, SIR. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. TEAL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO, SIR. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, NO OTHER QUESTIONS THEN LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD TO EXPLAIN THEIR SITUATION. OKAY. I'VE GOT MARIA SCHULTZ, SHE'LL BE, UM, ON HAND WITH TRANSLATION SERVICES AS WELL. VERY GOOD. AND IN SAN ANTONIO. HI. OKAY. UH, HI. MY NAME IS MARIA EVA SCHULTZ, AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT MY CASE. I AM LOCATED AT 83 90 NORTH VERDE DRIVE IN SAN ANTONIO. MM-HMM. GRANDE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION FOR THEM TO ALLOW ME TO STAY WITH MY WOODEN FENCE AND THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY. AND I AM AN OLDER WOMAN, AND THE REASON THAT I AM ASKING FOR THIS IS BECAUSE I'VE HAD MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH, UH, PEOPLE HAVE COME IN TO STEAL THINGS FROM MY PROPERTY, AND MANY CAN SAY OR ATTEST TO THAT. I HAVE THIS PROPERTY VERY WELL KEPT AND IT'S CLEAN AND IT'S NOT TRUE. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE CONTAINERS IN THERE. I TAKE GOOD CARE OF MY PROPERTY [00:20:13] AND RIGHT NOW THAT PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL. AND ALL I WANT TO ASK FROM THIS COMMISSION IS FOR THEM TO ALLOW ME TO LEAVE THAT FENCE THERE TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT IT, THAT IT IS NOT WELL CAMPED. I KEEP MY PROPERTY VERY WELL. NOBODY PARKS THERE. THERE'S NO TRUCKS. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KEEP THIS FENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIS PROPERTY WHILE I SELL IT. OKAY. IS THAT, UH, THE EXTENT OF THE REQUEST? YES. I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW ME TO LEAVE MY FENCE BECAUSE IT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE FOR ME. NOW THAT SHE OPENED UP THAT QUESTION ABOUT EXPENSE, DID, DOES SHE KNOW OR COULD SHE GIVE US THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR THAT PUT THAT FENCE UP? YES, I CAN GIVE YOU THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR. HE CAME FROM LAREDO TO INSTALL THIS FENCE. HE DID NOT TELL ME I HAVE TO PULL ANY PERMITS, BUT I WILL PAY ANY FINES TO, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP MY FENCING. ALL RIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS CONTRACTOR'S NOT LICENSED SANITIZER NOW. ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, ANY, UH, THAT, UH, YOU HAVE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND MOVE ON TO THE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS AND, UH, WE CAN ADDRESS QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AFTER THE SPEAKERS AS SPOKEN. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, WE DO HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS. THERE'S NO LIVE CALLERS, BUT WE DO HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS AND I DO HAVE 14 EMAILS AND COMMENTS, UH, TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD. WE'LL START WITH A VOICEMAIL. YES, GO AHEAD AND PROCEED AND DO, YES. UH, THIS IS NOE LOPEZ, 83 0 5 NORTH. BE THE DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO FOUR ZERO. PHONE NUMBER (713) 254-3497. CASE 8 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 7. UM, I AM AGAINST, UH, THIS FENCE GOING UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THIS, UH, LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD DIRECT, UH, THE PROPERTY TO WANNA BE CONVERTED TO COM COMMERCIAL. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND DO NOT AGREE, THIS IS WILLIAM ROWE AT 10,002 50 BANDURA ROAD. AND, UH, I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER B O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 7. THAT IS LOCATED AT 83 90 NORTH 30 DRIVE. AND I AM, UM, I AM CALLING BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH ALLOWING THE KIND OF FENCING AND BUSINESS USE, WHATEVER THAT'S GONNA BE IN THAT, UH, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I LIVED THERE FOR MANY YEARS AND, UM, I, UM, THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. UH, CERTAINLY. UM, SO I DO DISAGREE WITH, WITH, UM, I THINK IT'S OUGHT TO BE TURNED DOWN. THANK YOU. AND, UM, HAVE A GOOD DAY. BYE-BYE. OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES THE TWO VOICEMAILS. I'LL START WITH EACH, UH, COMMENT CARD AND EMAILS. FIRST ONE'S FROM MILTON, I BELIEVE IT READS TFL AT 83 10 NORTH VETA DRIVE IN OPPOSITION [00:25:01] AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE. THE NEXT ONE IS M H S C PROPERTIES. L T P, UH, IN OPPOSITION, UH, WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD NOR, UH, LOOKS LIKE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES AND DEPARTMENTS OPPOSITION AS WELL. I BELIEVE WE JUST HEARD FROM MR. LOPEZ, NOE LOPEZ, JR. UH, ON THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST. 83, UH, OF 83 98 NORTH EDITED, I AM OPPOSITION, THE REQUESTED DESCRIPTION FOR FENCE INSTALLATION ON NOTICE FOR CASE NUMBER 21 0 3 0 0 2 7 FROM A WILLIAM AND AN EILEEN CAMARILLO IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, UH, ADJUSTMENT REQUEST. OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD IS CLEAN AND HOMES, UH, HOLD A GOOD VALUE SINCE WE, WE HAVE ACREAGE. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOR DO WE WANT IT TO BE. THERE'S ALREADY GRAFFITI ON THE METAL FENCE. UH, THEY HAVE NOT, THEY HAVE ALREADY, UH, PLACED ADDING MORE METAL FENCING AROUND THIS HOME WOULD LOOK TERRIBLE, UH, IN OUR SUBDIVISION OWNERS HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO PAINT, COVER OR PAINT OVER THE EXISTING GRAFFITI, WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOR MONTHS. THE IDEA OF MORE METAL FENCING WOULD BE A COMPLETE EYESORE, WHICH I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM AND DO NOT WISH TO HAVE, UM, AS MY VIEW NEXT EMAIL IS FROM, UH, SARAH AND COLIN CHU, 83 24 SOUTH BED OF THE DRIVE. AS THE LANDOWNER BEHIND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, MY HUSBAND, I OBJECT CONSTRUCTED, UH, THE TYPE OF MATERIAL LOOKS LIKE THE KIND OF SURROUNDING A JUNKYARD OR INDUSTRIAL SITE, NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WHILE WE ARE IN FAVOR OF FENCING IN GENERAL, ANY FENCE CONSTRUCTED SHOULD ADD TO THE APPEAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN DEPRESSED PROPERTY VALUES. ALSO, WE OBJECT TO THE FENCE BEING CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO HAVING OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT. NEXT EMAIL IS FROM DANIEL EARL, 54 43 GRISSOM ROAD. UM, MY NAME IS DANIEL EARL AND I LIVE AT, UM, TEN TEN TWO FORTY BELGIUM, UH, BEGA DRIVE IN VERTA HILLS SUBDIVISION. I WANT YOU TO KNOW, UM, THAT AS A RESIDENT, I'M A ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY REZONING, THEY MAY ALLOW A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO OPERATE IN OUR SMALL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT METAL FENCE, UH, TO BE WRECKED AROUND THE PROPERTY. NOT ONLY, UH, WOULD THIS CREATE A HAZARD BY OBSTRUCTING A VIEW OF, OF DRIVERS TURNING ON BENDER ONTO BENDER ROAD, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE A TARGET FOR, FOR TAGGING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IN I FOUR, THIS IS FROM LEAH EARL, SAME ADDRESS. I OBJECT TO THE HOUSE IN VETTED HILLS AT THE CORNER OF, UH, TO GET ZONED AS BUSINESS. AND ALSO, UH, OBJECT TO THE SEVEN FOOT FENCE. THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE SAFETY, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TRACY COWDEN AT TEN ONE NINETY BELGA DRIVE. UH, I'M A RESIDENT OF VE THE HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS MADE AWARE, UH, BY OUR H O A LEADERSHIP THAT THE OWNER OF THE, OF, UH, THE SUB SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REGULATIONS, ALLOWING CORRUGATED MIDDLE FENCING AND SEVEN FEET HIGH FENCING ACROSS THE FRONT YARD. THIS PROPERTY IS OBVIOUSLY BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. WE HAVE NEARLY BEEN HIT BY WORK TRUCKS PULLING OUTTA THIS PROPERTY, UH, BACKYARD DIRECTLY ONTO BOTH BANDERA ROAD. AS WE ARE PREPARING TO TURN ONTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED IF THEY WERE OPERATING A BUSINESS FROM THE, FROM THE PROPERTY, AND I REQUEST THAT YOU DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS TRUE. I'M VERY OPPOSED TO THE USE OF THE CORGI METAL FENCING AS IT IS, UH, POTENTIALLY, POTENTIALLY HIDES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT, AND IT CAN EASILY BECOME A TARGET FOR GRAFFITI UH, TAGS. IN FACT, THE FENCE AT 83 90 FACING BENDERA ROAD WAS DEFACED, UH, WITH SPRAY PAINT VERY RECENTLY AND HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED UP. THIS IS AN EYESORE AS YOU DRIVE INTO OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, FOR THIS REASON, I'M OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWING THIS VARI TO TAKE PLACE. IN ADDITION, A SEVEN FOOT FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE, THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL, AND WOULD PROVIDE A TREMENDOUS EYESORE JUST AS YOU ENTER OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA. IF THIS FENCE WERE ALLOWED TO BE CORRUGATED MIDDLE, THAT WOULD MAKE IT EVEN WORSE. I HOPE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AS YOU MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE. NEXT ONE IS FROM EDWIN HARDING. BASED THE CLARIFICATION, I WOULD SUPPORT ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP THE CURRENT TALL METAL FENCING ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH FACES BANDERA ROAD. I'M, HOWEVER, STILL OPPOSED TO ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL SOLID METAL FENCING TO BE INSTALLED FORWARD TO THE FRONT FACE OF THE, OF THE BUILDING. [00:30:03] THIS ONE IS FROM KARINA REN AT 78 10 NORTH, OR TEAM AT 78 10 NORTH . IN REGARDS TO THE REQUEST TO THE, UH, PUTTING UP THE SEVEN FOOT TALL, SAW THE FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD AT 83 90 AND IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TRIED IN THE PAST TO HAVE, HAVE THIS ADDRESS CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND HAS BEEN DENIED. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY FROM WHAT I KNOW, UM, SHE HAS ALREADY DIVIDED THE PROPERTY AND, AND CROSS FENCE, UH, AND CROSS FENCED IT. AND WITH COMMERCIAL VEHICLES UTILIZING PART OF HER PROPERTY, THE INDIVIDUAL U UH, USING THIS PORTION ENTERED THROUGH THE, AN ILLEGAL ENTRY THAT IS USED TO ENTER, UM, AT BENDERA ROAD FROM THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THE CITY HAS BEEN NOTIFIED, UH, MANY TIMES AND OBVIOUSLY NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE BECAUSE IT IS STILL GOING ON. THE FENCE ON BENDER ROAD SIDE HAS, UH, ALREADY BEEN TAGGED. UH, THIS HAS CREATED AN EYESORE AND WILL BLEMISH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT LIVE, RESIDE, OCCUPY THIS ADDRESS. SHE LIVES IN LAREDO, BUT STOKE CLAIMS A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AT THIS LOCATION. UH, THIS IS FROM JASON WESTER, UM, AND A JUANITA SALINAS, JASON WESTER AND, AND MS. SALINAS ARE PROPERTY OWNERS, VE HILLS AT 79 70 SOUTH . WE ARE CONTACTING, UH, TO PROTEST THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE CORRUGATED MIDDLE AS FENCING AND PROTEST THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SEVEN FEET HIGH IN THE FRONT YARD. THE PROPERTY IS, IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A COMMERCIAL ONE. WE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE OF THIS AND HOPE THE CITY WILL TOO. UH, THERE IS A HAZARD OF OF VEHICLES ENTERING BANDERA ROAD IN BLIND SPOTS WHERE THERE IS NO CURB CUT. THE OWNER HAS DIVIDED PROPERTY OFF AND IS LEASING TO A PAINT COMPANY. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SAFE AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES UP THE VARIANCE IN AN EXCEPTION WITH THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE PROPERTY COMMERCIAL IS DETRIMENTAL TO OUR FAMILY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE. ADDITIONALLY, THE FENCE HAS BEEN, UH, TAGGED, UH, ON THE BANDERA ROADSIDE AS IT, UH, IS ATTRACTIVE, UH, TAGGING STRUCTURE. PLEASE OFFICIALLY NOTE OUR OBJECTION TO THE EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE NOTED ABOVE, AND WE REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THESE. NEXT ONE IS FROM WILLIAM AND JESSICA BURKE. AT 81 20 NORTH OF THE DRIVE, WE ARE FOLLOW A FORMAL OPPOSITION AGAINST A REQUESTED VARIANCE AT A W 90, UH, TO INCLUDE A SEVEN FOOT TALL METAL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS OUR OPINION THAT THIS WOULD PRESENT A SERIOUS SAFETY AND SECURITY THREAT UNDER THE HILLS TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF DIRECT VISUAL VISUALIZATION OF THE RESIDENCE, UH, HOME AND OCCUPANTS. THIS FENCE ALSO, UH, DEPRECIATES THE VALUE OF THE HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY AS IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS IN THE SUBDIVISION, UH, NORTH FE THE HILLS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO OUR CONCERNS. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ONE IS, UH, WE LIVE AT 29 10 NORTH SOUTH . THIS IS FROM OUR ESA VALERO. WE POSITIVELY OPPOSE THIS REQUEST. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE, UM, WRECKING A SEVENTH FOOT CORRUGATED FENCE TO THE FRONT YARD OF THIS PROPERTY WILL DE EVALUATE AND DEPRECIATE ALL PROPERTIES IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO STILL WITHIN AN BEVERLY HILL SUBDIVISION AND WRECKING THE FENCE. UH, CONSTRUCTION WILL TOTALLY BE AGAINST THE STANDARDS OF THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION. INSTALLING A SEVENTH FOOT COR FENCE WILL NOT ONLY BE A TOTAL EYESORE TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF, BUT TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OWNER HAS ALREADY INSTALLED METAL FENCING ALONG BENDERA ROADSIDE AND HAS ALREADY BEEN TAGGED WITH GRAFFITI. FURTHERMORE, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS LEASING THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE COMMERCIAL COMPANY, AND DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE PROPERTY. THAT ONLY MAKES THE, UM, ME BELIEVE THE OWNER IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES TO OUR, THAT THE HILL SUBDIVISION COMMUNITY AND IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH IT WITH THEIR INTEREST IN MIND SINCE ASKED THAT THE REQUEST IS DENIED IN ORDER FOR OUR SUBDIVISION TO KEEP ITS LONG HISTORY OF A QUAINT, QUIET AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. AND THE FINAL ONE FROM A CARLA AND CHRIS ROGERS AT 79 65 NORTH BED, WE ARE FOLLOWING A FORMAL OPPOSITION AGAINST THE, UH, REQUESTED VARIANCE AT 83 90. UH, INCLUDED SEVEN FOOT TALL METAL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WOULD PRESENT A SERIOUS SAFETY AND SECURITY THREAT, UH, TO OUR COMMUNITY OF, OF THE HILLS, UH, THROUGH THE OBSTRUCTION OF DIRECT VISUAL VISUALIZATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND OCCUPANTS. DEFENSE ALSO DEPRECIATES THE VALUES OF THE HOMES OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL STANDARD OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE HILLS. THANK [00:35:01] YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO OUR CONCERN. THAT COMPLETES ALL THE COMMENTS AND, UH, SPELLS, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ONLINE LISTENING TO ALL THE ISSUES OF THE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS. YEAH, SO, UM, THE TRANSLATOR'S GONNA QUICKLY SUMMARIZE THE INFORMATION, UM, AND THEN, UH, SHE'LL BE, UH, SHE'LL BE, AND THEN SHE'LL DO HER REBUTTAL. OKAY? OKAY. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. ALRIGHT. OKAY. I HAVE COMMENTS. OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO I ACTUALLY LIVE THERE. I OWN THIS PROPERTY AND I HAVE BEEN RESIDING THERE ALL THIS TIME. I DO GO TO LAREDO, TEXAS BECAUSE I HAVE A BUSINESS THERE AND I WORK IN LAREDO, BUT I LIVE IN THIS RESIDENCE. MY BROTHER WAS THE ONE THAT WAS STAYING IN THE BACK AND HE'S THE ONE THAT HAD THE CONTAINER BACK THERE, BUT I TOLD HIM THAT THE CITY DID NOT ALLOW IT AND THAT HE HAD TO REMOVE THAT CONTAINER AND MOVE HIS THINGS OUT OF THERE. BUT, UH, THE REASON I WANT DISPENSING IS FOR MY OWN PRIVACY AND FOR MY WELLBEING TOO, BECAUSE THE CARS ON THE OUTSIDE THAT PASS THROUGH BANDERA ROAD CAN SEE ME THROUGH THE OUTSIDE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS FENCING FOR PRIVACY AND FOR SECURITY. I LIVE THERE. THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE COMMENTING DON'T LIVE THERE. I ALSO WANT TO SELL THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE I PAY ALMOST $12,000 IN TAXES AND WHOEVER BUYS THIS PROPERTY, THEY CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANNA TAKE IT OFF. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD NEED THE FENCE FOR MY OWN SECURITY. [00:40:02] GOT IT. OKAY. AND, OKAY. YES, THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC AND I WILL BE ENTERTAINING A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. WHO ON THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION MANNA MR. MANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 7, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE UP TO SEVEN FOOT TALL IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 8 3 9 0 NORTH VER EIGHTH DRIVE. APPLICANT V AND MARIA SCHULTZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT ALL LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY DUE TO ITS LOCATION ADJACENT TO BANDERA, ALLOWING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER. THE FEE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. A SEVEN FOOT TALL CORRUGATED METAL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCREENING FROM THE HEAVILY TRAVELED BANDERA ROAD CORRIDOR. C THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE CORRUGATED METAL FRONT YARD FENCING IS ONLY PLACED ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, UH, THAT DIRECTLY ABUTS A BANDURA ROAD. THERE IS NO METAL FENCING ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH ABUTS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, SO IT DOES NOT LIKELY THERE WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE FRONT YARD FENCING ONLY EXTENDS A SHORT DISTANCE PAST THE FRONT FACADE AND SERVES AS PROTECTION FROM BANDURA ROAD. THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS THEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT AND A MOTION. ALRIGHT, THIS IS FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALRIGHT, THAT'S MR. OZUNA. WHO, WHO MADE THAT SECOND O OZUNA? I'M SORRY. YOU'RE SPEAKING OVER EACH OTHER. I COULDN'T HEAR OZUNA. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, MR. MANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? SURE. UM, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY. UM, I LIVE IN A SISTER COMMUNITY AND IN 2009, UH, HELPED THIS COMMUNITY AS WELL AS 17 OTHER COMMUNITIES, RIGHT? THE, UH, LEON CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN. AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY, UH, TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO PRESERVE THESE COMMUNITIES AS THEY EXIST. UM, SPECIFICALLY THE LARGE LODGE RESIDENTIAL OR LARGE, LARGE, LARGE RURAL, LARGE PLOT RURAL COMMUNITY TYPE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS. UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF ENCROACHMENT OF DEVELOPERS TRYING TO COME IN AND, AND, UH, DO VARIOUS THINGS WITH THESE PROPERTIES. UM, SO THIS PARTICULAR, UH, ENTRANCE IS THE ONLY INGRESS AND, UH, EXIT ENTRANCE, UH, TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND SO, SO IT DOES SERVE AS THE PRIMARY, UM, YOU KNOW, VIEW, I GUESS, COME INTO THIS COMMUNITY. AND SO, UM, BECAUSE OF WHAT IT WAS THAT THE COMMUNITY PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED FOR WHAT THEY WANTED, HOW THEY WANTED THIS COMMUNITY TO LOOK, AND BECAUSE THIS IS THE PRIMARY VIEW, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING, UH, THIS SPECIFIC, UM, MOTION. ALL RIGHT. NOW, UH, MR. OZUNA, YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE, UH, I WOULD JUST ECHO THE, THE COMMENTS, COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUE. I MEAN, I, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL FOR THE EXACT, UH, ITEMS THAT HE BROUGHT UP. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO HAVE, ADD, COMMENT IN ORDER TO SAVE TIME? I BELIEVE THAT INCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION AND, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IS, UH, WE SHOULD BE TAKING A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, SECTION FOR THE SEVEN FOOT TALL OFFENSE. [00:45:01] PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL CALL DR. ELLI. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MENCHACA. I DO NOT, UH, CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT EITHER. DENIAL, MS. CRUZ, I DO NOT CONCUR MR. THIEL. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ROMANA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ORIAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. OZUNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. TREVINO. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DELMER. I DO NOT CONCUR AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR AS WELL. THE MOTION DOES FAIL. PLEASE HAVE THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE CITY STAFF IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL BE NEED TO BE DONE FOR THE FUTURE ON THE, ON THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION. NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE VARIANCE MANANA. MR. VANANA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED VARIANCE FROM RESTRICTION OF CORRUGATED METAL AS A F MATERIAL TO ALLOW FOR ITS USE AS A FENTY MATERIAL, UH, SITUATED AT 8 3 9 0 NORTH RED DRIVE, UH, ATON BEING MARIA SCHULTZ. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF REVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE FENCE IS INSTALLED ALONG A PROPERTY LINE THAT FACES BANDERA ROAD, WHICH IS HIGHLY TRAFFICKED. WITH VEHICLES TRAVELING AT HIGH SPEED, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS ITS LOCATION ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL ROAD WHERE A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE LOCATION TO SERVE AS MORE PROTECTION. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 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 DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE MATERIAL LIMITATION IS TO PRESERVE APPROPRIATE DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDINGS COMMUNITY, WHICH IS STILL MAINTAINED WITH A FENCE BEING PLACED ALONG ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT, UH, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CORRUGATED MIDDLE FENCING IS ADJACENT TO SCHNEBEL PARK AND BANDURA ROAD. THIS FENCE DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY CLEARLY SEEN FROM BANDERA ROAD SIX SUPPLY TO THE 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 THIS PROPERTY AND ARE NOT REALLY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE IS BEING SAW DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING LOCATED ADJACENT TO BANDERA ROAD, WHICH WAS NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION FOR ALLOWING, UH, A CORRUGATED METAL FENCE, UH, MATERIAL. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. AND WHO IS THAT? VINNO. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION, MR. VANNER. SO, UM, I GUESS BRING UP THE FIRST COMMENTS THAT I BROUGHT UP FOR THE FIRST MOTION. YOU KNOW, THE SAME THINGS APPLY HERE. THIS IS THE PRIMARY, UH, EGRESS, UH, AND, UH, INGRID AND EGRESS POINTS FOR THIS COMMUNITY. UM, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE HARDSHIP, IT WAS HEIGHT WAS REQUIREMENT. AND SO WHILE IT IS THE HEIGHT IS ALLOWED, THE MATERIAL IS WHAT'S REALLY IN QUESTION HERE. AND SO, SO I THINK THAT A, UM, SEVEN FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED. UM, IT JUST CAN'T BE THE METAL. AND SO I DO THINK THAT METAL DOES BELONG IN INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY AND NOT AS AN ENTRANCE INTO, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. OKAY. UH, AND THEN MR. VINO, YOUR INPUT? YEAH, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY [00:50:01] COLLEAGUE, UH, MR. MANNA. I FREQUENT THIS AREA QUITE OFTEN AND I'VE BEEN TO, UM, THE VERDE COMMUNITY, UM, QUITE A FEW TIMES JUST BECAUSE I, I LOVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. UM, AND THE FACT THAT I DO HAVE SYMPATHY FOR WHAT SHE'S GOING THROUGH. HOWEVER, I I DO FEEL THAT IT DOES DETRACT FROM THAT COMMUNITY AND IT IS BECOMING A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE GRAFFITI AS THE COMMUNITY HAS POINTED OUT. UM, AND THEN, AND, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER INPUT FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. UH, THE, UH, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE A, A BRIEF STATEMENT. I THINK THAT, UH, BECAUSE WE ALMOST HAVE A CONSENSUS FROM THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY FEEL IT DETRACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ALSO WILL NO LONG, UH, WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR MOTION. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. CATHERINE. DR. ELLI, UM, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT MR. MENCHACA. MR. MENCHACA. OH, MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE. THERE YOU GO. YOU GO. SO DON'T SUPPORT THE, THE MOTION. MS. CRUZ, MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE MS. THERE YOU GO. GO AHEAD MS. CRUZ. SHE'S OFF NOW. YEAH, YOU, YOU MUTED YOURSELF AGAIN. OKAY. OKAY, GO AHEAD NOW, NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU. I DO NOT CONCUR. OKAY, MR. TEAL, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MANA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. OZUNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. TREVINO. I DO NOT CON, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MR. DELMER. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. THE MOTION DOES FAIL. UH, PLEASE ADVISE THE APPLICANT TO GET WITH STAFF TO, UH, RECTIFY THE ISSUES AND, UH, I WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK IN SIGN THAT PROPERTY. [2. 20-3595 BOA-20-10300050: A request by Cheryl Carney for a 2' special exception and variance to the Beacon HIll Neighborhood Conservation District standards to allow a fence to be 8' tall along the side property line, located at 1124 West Gramercy Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 1) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner (210) 207-0197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] NEXT, UH, WE'LL GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE NUMBER, 0 5 0. ALRIGHT, WE GOT CASE 0 5 0 ADDRESS AT 1124 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. APPLICANT IS CHERYL E KEARNEY. THE REQUEST IS FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 35 5 14 OF THE U V C IN A VARIANCE FROM BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, FROM 35 3 35 TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THERE ZONE IS CURRENTLY ALL SIX NCD FIVE. NEXT SLIDE. GO. THERE IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT, UH, CURRENTLY HAS A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN, UH, SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE. THE TALLER FENCE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY TO THE APPLICANT. IT REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL AND CD DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH LIMITS THE SIX FEET FOR THE REAR YARD, AS WELL AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE U D C. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE, THE IMAGE, IT IS REALLY THAT ONE PROPERTY LINE THAT SHE'S REQUESTING. IT FRONT YARD WILL BE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FOREFOOT, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY BOTH U D C AND THE N C D. SO IT'S FROM THE FACADE BACK. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT IMAGES ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE THAT P 21 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. FACT, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET WILL PROVIDE THE APPLICANT'S SECURITY AND PRIVACY, AND THE FENCE WILL REMAIN TRUE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BY BEING A SOLID WOODEN FENCE IN THE SIDE YARD AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE AS BEEN SOUGHT TO ABIDE BY U D C REGULATIONS AND N C D FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SLIDE 27 NOTICES SENT OUT ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE BEACON MEMBER ASSOCIATION. WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY. THE APPLICANT THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND [00:55:01] THE APPLICANT IS CHERYL CARNEY, WHO IS READY ON THE LINE. HELLO? CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? OH, CHAIR, YOU'RE UH, MUTED. YOU MIGHT WANNA UNMUTE YOURSELF. ALRIGHT, I'M NOT ON MUTE THAT, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU SPEAK. OKAY. MY NAME IS CHERYL KEARNEY. I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 1 1 2 4 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 1. AND SHOULD I STATE MY CASE NOW? I'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE MY CASE. STATE YOUR CASE PLEASE. YES, I'M REQUESTING, UH, THAT FROM THE FRONT PADE OF MY HOUSE ALL THE WAY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE ALLEY. I'D LIKE TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND I'M CITING 15 YEARS OF ONGOING ON AND OFF HARASSMENT, UH, FROM THE RENTAL HOUSE THAT'S NEXT DOOR. UM, NUMEROUS CODE COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS, DANGEROUS SITUATIONS, DEALING WITH, UH, THE RENTAL, UH, PROPERTY NEXT TO US. AND THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE AT 1122 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE. WELL, PRIVACY IS VIOLATED, UH, BY THE RENTAL TENANT BREACHING OUR FENCE AND PROPERTY LINE. UH, THE DUPLEX HAS HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WORKING, UH, WITH CODE COMPLIANCE AND HEALTH AND WELFARE ALL THIS PAST YEAR IN 2019. UH, OVER THE YEARS, SS A P D US MARSHALS HAVE ARRESTED DANGEROUS TENANTS AND WE WANT, UH, MORE SECURITY, PRIVACY AND LESS CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT GOES ON. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER LIVING NEXT DOOR. WHO, UH, JUST FOR CONTEXT, UH, THE BACKYARD IS USED AS A PARKING LOT, SO WE HAVE CONSTANT, UH, RADIOS, UH, HEADLIGHTS, FLASHERS, UH, PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO BREACH A FENCE, UH, BICYCLE THEFT. UH, THEY LIFT BICYCLES OVER THE FENCE TO PUT THEM DOWN. ANYWAY, UM, THAT'S AN ASIDE. UM, WE WANNA CONSTRUCT A WOOD FENCE, EIGHT FOOT, CHANGE IT TO A HORIZONTAL PATTERN. AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT FOR RIGHT NOW. UM, WE'RE JUST WAITING TO SEE IF THAT'S APPROVED. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE EXTENT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU MAKE A VERY VALID CASE. LET'S, UM, UH, GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO THE, UM, PUBLIC INPUT. OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY LIVE CALLERS, BUT I DO HAVE ONE LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, IN OPPOSITION AND WHICH I'LL READ INTO RECORD. UH, GENTLEMEN, LADIES, I OPPOSE THE, UH, REQUEST REPRESENTATIVE ITEM NUMBER TWO ON TODAY'S JUNE 15TH, 2020 AGENDA, EIGHT FOOT, UH, FENCE PROPOSAL. I LIVE IN BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE REASONS WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DI UH, DISTRICT. IT COMES FROM JACK M FINGER PO O BOX 1 2 0 4 8 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL, THAT'S ALL MR. FINGER HAD TO SAY TODAY. THAT'S IT, . OKAY. WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY WITNESSING A VERY BRIEF STATEMENT FROM MR. FINGER. THAT'S UNUSUAL. UM, SO, UM, THE APPLICANT'S STILL ONLINE? YES, I AM STILL ONLINE, YES. OKAY, VERY GOOD. YOU HAD HEARD, UH, THE STATEMENT MADE BY MR. FINGER ON IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I BELIEVE THAT YOUR ISSUES HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IS GOING ON THERE AND, UH, AND, UH, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, YOU'RE WELCOME. I BELIEVE MR. FINGER LIVES ALL THE WAY UP BY BLANCO ROAD. HE DOESN'T LIVE IN THE AREA WHERE I LIVE. HE IS IN THE BEACON HILL COMMUNITY, BUT HE IS DEFINITELY NOT IN MY BLOCK OR EVEN IN MY FEW BLOCKS FROM ME. OKAY. NOW, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE STAFF OR, UH, THE APPLICANT FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? MANNA, MR. MANNA? SO, UM, BY CHANCE, [01:00:01] DID, UH, CHERYL, DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE BEACON HILL N C D ABOUT YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL OR, OR GO THROUGH ANY DIALOGUE WITH THEM, UH, PRIOR TO COMING TO THIS MEETING? WELL, BECAUSE OF COVID, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK IN PERSON TO, UH, THE BOARD, BUT I DID EMAIL, UM, THE PRESIDENT, UM, THE SECRETARY, AND, UM, A GENTLEMAN NAMED MARK SPIELMAN, WHO'S, UM, URBAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. HE IS ON THEIR, THEIR, UH, BOARD AND THEY DID NOT RESPOND BACK TO ME. SO, UH, I'VE JUST BEEN WAITING IT OUT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? UNA MR. MY RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST TO HAVE THE POLICE REPORTS OR ANY OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS JUST IN THE FILE, UH, TO DOCUMENT THE NUMBER OF CALLS OUT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THANK YOU. GOOD IDEA. ALL RIGHT. UH, MR. MENCHACA, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A QUESTION. YES, I DO. UH, TO THE HOMEOWNER, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIX FEET AND EIGHT FEET? JUST THE VISUAL PART. ANOTHER TWO FEET UP WOULD BE, YOU JUST DON'T WANNA SEE 'EM. I HAVE A BACK PORCH TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR WHO CAN LOOK INTO MY BACKYARD AND, AND BASICALLY CONTACT US AND, UH, I'VE GOT FULL TORSO VIEW OF THEM AND I'M TRYING TO BLOCK OFF THAT ACCESS. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MINKA? UH, YES. THANK YOU. I THINK I GOT THE REST. MOST OF THOSE HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE, APPEAR IN BEING, WHICH MEAN THEY SIT UP HIGHER THAN THE STANDARDS SLAB FOUNDATION, AND SO THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH PRIVACY. I I FIND IT INTERESTING THOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT IS SELECTING A VERTICAL, I MEAN, HORIZONTAL FENCE GENERALLY, THEY DO NOT SUPPLY AS MUCH PRIVACY AS, AS A VERTICAL FENCE. YEAH. BUT, UH, NEVERTHELESS, IT, IT'S THEIR PROPERTY. ALL THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR IS A HYPE ISSUE. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IN REGARDS TO APPLYING WITH THE, UH, UM, I GUESS THIS IS, I CAN'T FIND THIS ON MY LIST, BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE REVIEWING IT BASED UPON, UM, EITHER THE REVIEW BOARD OF SOME SORT, IS THAT CORRECT? SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE, UH, ZONING, UH, I, WHAT DO THEY CALL THE URBAN ZONING GROUP FOR BEACON HILL? YES. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES. YEAH, ZD, ULTIMATELY MARK FILLMAN IS PART OF THAT GROUP. UH, WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS FROM EITHER THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION OR ZD, UH, FOR BEACON HILL. SO WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH AN EXCEPTION. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ORIAN? HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, OKAY, DONALD, GO AHEAD. Y YEAH. YES. UM, THE ALLEY BEHIND THE PROPERTY, IT LOOKS, IT APPEARS DRIVABLE. DOES THAT, IS THERE ANY CLEAR VISION ISSUES WITH THE FENCE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE ALLEY? THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY BACK THERE. THE THIRD VISION ISSUE ONLY APPLY FOR DRIVEWAY, BUT DOES, DOES THE, UH, OKAY, THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ACCESS, DRIVE ACCESS THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE ALLEY? DOES IT HAVE ACCESS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY? UH, THIS IS CHERYL CARNEY. UM, IS THAT QUESTION DIRECTED TOWARDS ME? YES, YES. ALL QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW ARE BEING DIRECTED TOWARDS YOU. OKAY. UM, NO, I USE, UH, STREET ACCESS TO ENTER MY PROPERTY. THERE IS AN ALLEY BACK THERE FOR UTILITY WORK AND LIKE AT AND T SAWS, C P SS, BUT, UH, OTHERWISE IT'S, IT'S NOT PAVED. VERY GOOD. WELL, THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY, UH, YOU DON'T USE IT FOR ANY PURPOSE LIKE, UH, GARBAGE PICKUP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, I HAVE STREET SIDE GARBAGE PICKUP. OKAY. AND YOU'RE ONLY REQUESTING THE EIGHT FOOT SECTION AGAINST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE BACK ALLEY TO THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOUSE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, FOR THE APPLICANT OR, OR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. NONE BEING THE CASE. I'M CLOSING THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS EXCEPTION ELLI. DR. ELLI, PLEASE. [01:05:06] OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 2 0 3 0 0 0 5 0, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 1 2 4 WEST GRAMERCY PLACE, APPLICANT BEING CHERYL CARNEY, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE SITE MODIFICATION UP TO EIGHT FEET. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE PRIVACY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, THIS REQUEST THAT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA, UM, ARE REPRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT, TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE SLIGHT ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY RESULTS IN LESS PRIVACY. AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL RECREATE, WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE MATERIAL AND STYLE OF THE FENCE IS SIMILAR TO, SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES AND WILL NOT BE NOTICEABLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. FURTHER, THE FENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE FENCING DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FENCING IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PREEXISTING FENCING MATERIAL AND THE HEIGHT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. 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 PERMIT, THE, UM, SORRY, THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE REQUEST THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT CHAIR. IF I MAY, UM, YES. BEFORE YOU, UH, AND, UH, DR. ELLI, SINCE THIS IS BOTH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FOR THE SAME THING, YOU COULD COMBINE, UH, THE TWO AND READ ON, UH, FOR THE VARIANCE AS WELL. YEAH, I, I I WILL, I WILL DO THAT. SORRY, SORRY, I, I KEPT ON SCREEN. OKAY. SO ADDITIONALLY, REGARDING CASE BOA DASH 20 DASH 0 3 5, I, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THAT BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARD, THAT THE U D C SECTION OH, THAT I MOVED TO, SORRY. I MOVED TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 1 2 4 WEST RAMER PLACE. THIS IS ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT BEING CHERYL CARNEY BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US. HOLD ON. I AM, I'M SORRY. I SCROLLED BACK UP. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. OKAY, SO CONTINUING ON MY MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ALLOW THE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. OH. SO YOUR MOTION IS INCLUDING BOTH THE EXCEPTION AND THE VARIANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT? YES. VERY GOOD. YES. CAN I MAKE IT AN END OF MOTION OR DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE REST OF THIS? WELL, SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY READ THE, THE, UH, FROM THE PREVIOUS PORTION, I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH GONNA BE DUPLICATED. YEAH, I'M, AS I'M GOING THROUGH THIS, THEY DO SEEM TO BE A DUPLICATED, SO END OF MOTION. WE'LL ACCEPT IT AS IN ONE MOTION FOR BOTH THE EXCEPTION AND THE VARIANCE. OKAY. UH, NOW I WILL NEED A SECOND. SECOND. IS THAT MARIA? YES, SIR. OKAY, MARIA. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION. DR. . OKAY. SORRY FOR THAT AWKWARD MOTION. UM, WORKING OFF ONE SCREEN ELECTRONICALLY. UM, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. I HOPE WE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THE SAFETY AND SECURITY REASONS SEEM, SEEM VERY REASONABLE. THESE HOUSES ARE UP ON PIER AND BEAM. UM, SO SIX FEET SOMETIMES ISN'T [01:10:01] ENOUGH TO, TO PROVIDE PRIVACY. UM, AND THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THOUGHTFULLY, UM, ENSURED THAT THERE'S NO CLEAR VISION ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD BY HAVING THE, UM, BY, UM, BY INCLUDING THE, UM, THE PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT'S, UM, CLOSER TO THE STREET BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. VERY GOOD. NOW, UM, MS. CRUZ, UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH DR. SOLO. UH, I THINK IT, IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPTION FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT SHE'S HAVING ISSUE WOULD HELP HER WITH ALL THE ISSUES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD THEIR INPUT? NO, NONE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADD SOME INPUT TO THIS AS WELL. ORIGINALLY, I DO NOT LIKE TO SEE EIGHT FOOT FENCES. HOWEVER, AS A, UH, LANDOWNER AND AND RENTER TO VARIOUS PROPERTIES, I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH THESE SORT OF, UH, HATFIELD AND MCCOY ISSUES BETWEEN ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND SOMETIMES IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS WHERE A GOOD TALL FENCE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR CREATOR. SO I WILL ALSO BE IN, IN SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION. NONE, NOBODY ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LITTLE CALL VOTE. DR. TERELLI. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ, MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. OKAY? YES, I CONCUR. OKAY, MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. TREVINO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. YES, KER AND, AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. MOTION DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS IS, UH, JUST A VARIANCE AND A UH, EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. YOU'LL STILL NEED TO COMPLETE THE PERMIT PERMITTING PROCESS, UH, WITH THE CITY. AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS. SO LET'S CONTINUE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. NEXT [3. 20-3629 BOA-20-10300052: A request by Eduardo Di Loreto for 1) a variance from the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet to allow a lot to be 4,486 square feet, 2) a special exception to allow a solid screen fence to be up to 6' 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 509 Dowdy Street. Staff recommends Denial with Alternate Recommendation. (Council District 5) (Azadeh Sagheb, Planner (210) 207-5407, Azadeh.Sagheb@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department] CASE, NEXT CASE OF BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 5 2. AT 5 0 9 DOWDY. APPLICANT IS BLO DIRETO FOR REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE FROM THE ME MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 4,486 SQUARE FEET. TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE, PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. AND THREE, A VARIANCE IN THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO BE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD. ZOIA IS R SIX ML, D TWO MLR, MLR TWO. NEXT SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO KEEP THE LOT SIZE OF 4,004 AND 86 SQUARE FEET BELOW. THE ZONING REQUIRED 6,000 SQUARE FEET DUE TO LIMITED BUDGET. UH, THERE IS CURRENTLY THE APPLICANT IS GOING THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS WHEN SOME OF THE ISSUES WERE CAUGHT TO INCLUDE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. THE APPLICANT HAS BUILT A SIX FOOT TALL CLOSED FENCE WITH WITHOUT PERMIT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, UH, PROPERTY LINE AND WITHIN THE FRONT YARD THAT IS 13 FEET AWAY FROM THE CURB. THE FENCE IS TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE CLEAR VISION FIELD. HE HAS ALSO BUILT A FOUR FOOT TALL PRIVACY, UH, WOOD FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD THAT IS SIX FEET AWAY FROM THE CURB. HOWEVER, NO DRIVEWAY. UM, UH, THERE'S NO DRIVEWAYS PRESENT ON THAT SIDE OF THE FENCE. THIS IS A CURRENT SITE PLAN. PLEASE NOTE IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION DURING THE FIGHTING PROCESS. THERE WILL BE A 10 FOOT, UH, RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, WHICH MEANS THE ONE PROPERTY, THE ONE FENCE LINE, WILL NEED TO BE PUSHED BACK FOUR FEET. THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT. WE ALSO WERE NOTIFIED FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEERING THAT AS FAR AS CLEAR VISION, THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF A 13 FOOT. THOSE STAFF CURRENTLY WILL BE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THAT. NEXT SLIDE. ALRIGHT, NEXT IMAGES ARE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THAT IS THE FENCE THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CUT BACK, GO BACK TO THAT PHOTO. THIS WILL HAVE BE, WILL BE CUT BACK BY FOUR FEET. UH, DUE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION. AND THERE ARE NO DRIVEWAYS ON THIS SIDE. THIS IS WHERE THE, UH, TWO DRIVEWAYS MEET. [01:15:01] THE FENCE IS AT 13 FEET, UH, FOR CLEAR VISION. IT IS A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BO O A 1 0 3 0 0 5 2, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 4,486 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS, WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. UM, WE ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF VO O A 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 2 SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. BASED ON THE FALLING AND FINDING OF THE FACT THE MATERIAL USED FOR FENCING IS NOT OUTTA CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT. AND ONCE AGAIN, WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS BASED ON THE FOLLOW FINDINGS OF FACT. THE CONSTRUCTIVE FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD IS ENTIRELY OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT, AND CLEAR VISION STANDARDS ARE IN VIOLATION. HOWEVER, WE DID RECEIVE WORK FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE CLEAR VISION. NEXT SLIDE. 28 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. VERY GOOD. OKAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF IN THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? DOES ANY BOARD MEMBER A QUESTION? I HAVE A QUESTION. NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING THEM A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED OPEN FENCE ON THE, ON THE SIDE OF THE FENCE FROM THE FACADE TOWARD THE STREET. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. A PORTION OF IT IS SIX FEET ON ONE SIDE, THEN IT DROPS TO FOUR FOOT SOLID. AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS, IT'S AT SIX FEET. AND THAT'S THE SIDE WITH A CLEAR VISION OF 13 FEET. RIGHT. SO THE, THE CITY TRAFFIC IS, IT SAYS THAT THE ISSUE OF THE TWO FEET IS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE. THEY, THAT IS CORRECT. DID THEY ADDRESS THE, UH, THE, UM, UH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE FOR THE FRONT OF THE FACADE ON, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT FROM THE FACADE TOWARDS THE STREET IS NOT, IS GOING TO BE OH, I SEE. NO, THE, SO REMEMBER PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD, THAT SIDE, THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY, SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR THEM. THE ONLY REQUEST THAT THEY HAD WAS THAT THE APPLICANT PUSHED BACK THE FENCE BY FOUR FEET AND THEY'D BE FINE WITH IT. OKAY. BUT THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN ASPECT OF THE FENCE, BECAUSE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TOWARDS THE STREET, THE REGULATION IS FOR A FOUR FOOT OR, OR A TALLER FENCE, IT HAS TO BE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. ARE WE ADDRESSING THAT? SO THE FENCING THAT YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS A NEW PHOTO THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT. HE ALREADY PULLED BACK THE SOLID FENCING. THAT FENCE THAT YOU SEE IS THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE. THE APPLICANT HAD A SOLID FENCING, UH, THAT WENT BASICALLY UP TO THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION ABOUT THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY YESTERDAY IT SEEMS LIKE, WENT BACK OUT AND PULLED BACK THE FENCE A BIT. SO THE CLEAR VISION, THE FENCE YOU SEE RIGHT THERE IS THE NEIGHBORS. AND REMEMBER, CLEAR VISION FENCING OR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD IS ALLOWED UP TO FIVE FEET. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THE, THAT FENCE THAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE, THAT CHAIN LINK IS NOT THE FENCING QUESTION. IT'LL BE THE SOLID FENCE, YOU SEE? RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, UH, IS THAT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT IN THIS. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY, IT DOES, UH, EXCEED THE FACADE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE PHOTO YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT THERE, THAT IS THE SIDE THAT HAS NO DRIVEWAY. THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY AND I ON EITHER, UH, LOT GO BACK TO THE OTHER PHOTO. SO THAT'S WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE MOVED THAT BACK. OKAY. SO HE'S MAINTAINING IT FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE ADJACENT BUILDING, NOT HIS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND ON THE DRIVEWAY SIDE, HE'S DOING THE SAME THING? NO, SIR. HE IS NOT PULLING THAT BACK. CAN YOU GO TO THE IMAGE? THERE YOU GO. SO THAT IMAGE IS OF THE DRIVEWAY SIDE. THERE'S A DRIVEWAY ON HIS, ON HIS LOT AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORING, THE NEIGHBORING LOT. THERE IS A CUSHION BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FENCE AND DISCUSSING WITH TRAFFIC THERE IS ENOUGH FOR MORE THAN, MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR CLEAR VISION. BUT THAT'S A, THAT'S A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S PART OF OUR, UH, THAT'S PART OF THE, UH, MOTION TODAY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SIX FOOT IN THE FRONT, FRONT FACADE [01:20:01] OR FRONT YARD. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. LOOK, IT'S A BIT COMPLICATED. YES, IT'S, AND I WANT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WAS UH, DISCUSSED HERE. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO, SO YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE'RE DO NOT REQUIRE THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SECTION FOR THE, THE FENCE FRONT, UH, FRONT OF THE, OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THIS STAGE WAS APPROVAL, AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR WHERE THAT, UH, THAT IS THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. SO IT'S IN LINE WITH THEIR FENCE AND IT STOPS EXACTLY AT THE FENCE. UH, THE NEIGHBORING, UH, SOLID FENCE ENDS WITH THE FACADE OF THE NEIGHBOR. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT EXTENDS IN THE FRONT YARD, REALLY, UM, BEYOND THE FRONT, ANY OF THE FACADES. BUT AGAIN, IT ISN'T KEEPING WITH THE BACKYARD OF THAT NEIGHBORING LOT. I SEE. SO HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BRING, AS LONG AS IT WASN'T BLOCKING HIS, UH, IT WASN'T BLOCKING HIS OWN DRIVEWAY. THAT'S CORRECT. SO IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THAT FENCE OR, OR JUST GONNA LEAVE IT THE WAY IT SIT? THE INTENT WAS TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. UM, BUT WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT ADDRESS ANY OF THINGS, ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND ADD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD? ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YES. UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE AERIAL AND, AND I JUST WAS WONDERING FROM STAFF IS, IS, ARE MOST OF THE LOTS IN THE AREA AROUND THE SIZE OF THIS LOT? I MEAN, THEY ALL SEEM TO BE UNDER, UH, 6,000 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT TRUE? THAT IS CORRECT. UH, THE SCENARIO HERE IS WHEN THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, THEY REALIZED THAT IT HAD TO BE PLATTED AND THEN DURING THE PLAT PROCESS IT GOT FAR ENOUGH ALONG THAT IT WAS CAUGHT THAT WE NEEDED TO COME BACK TO THE, TO YOURSELVES, UH, FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? UH, IF NOT, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. ALRIGHT, SIR, YOU READY TO GO, MR. CHAIR? UH, FORGIVE ME. UH, LORENO. GOOD AFTERNOON. YES, UH, MY NAME IS EDUARDO PARRA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS EDUARDO PARRA AND I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER PREPARING THE PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 0 9 DOWDY STREET. UM, . DURING THE PLATT, THE CITY NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDED A VARIANCE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOG. THE PLAT, UH, IS BASICALLY READY PENDING THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY. UM, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY'S NOT GONNA BE CHANGED. IT'S GONNA BE A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM LOSS SIZE AND, AND, AND SEE VERY KINDLY, THERE'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE SIX FOOT, UM, FENCE. UM, REGARDING THE, THE VARIANCE OF THE CLEAR VISION, THE OWNER HAS BEEN VERY PROACTIVE AND, UH, WORKING WITH THE STAFF. WE WENT OUT, UH, THIS WEEKEND AND, AND HE REMOVED THE, UH, FENCE THAT WAS, UH, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STAFF, THE OWNER. UM, YOU KNOW, UH, WE, WE JUST REQUEST HUMBLY REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF, UM, OF, UH, ALL OF THE REQUESTS. OKAY. IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR, YOUR, UH, EXPLANATION? NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING BOTH THE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY SIZE, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE, AND THEN A VARIANCE FOR THE TYPE OF FENCING THAT IS BEING USED FRONT OF THE FACADE, AND ALSO SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HEIGHT OF FENCE. ALRIGHT. I GUESS THAT, UH, EDUARDO, THAT, THAT'S, UH, ALL YOU HAVE INPUT AT THIS TIME? UH, YES, SIR. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'M, I'M HERE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE HOLD ONLINE WHILE WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS READ INTO THE DEFI. THERE ARE NO LIVE CALLERS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD OR THAT MAKES LIFE EASY, DOESN'T IT? OKAY. SO, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE ONLY QUESTION I SEE IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE VIABLE OR THE SAFETY OF THE PERSON PULLING OUT OF THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE FENCE IS, WOULD BE THE BACKYARD FENCE OF ANOTHER HOUSE, IT STILL IS ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH LIMITS THEIR VISIT VISION FOR STREET TRAFFIC AS THEY PULL OUT. IS THAT CORRECT? AND [01:25:01] THE STAFF CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO KEEP IN MIND, CLEAR VISION IS AT 15 FEET. THEY HAVE 13 CURRENTLY. SO IT'S REALLY A TWO FOOT, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION. WELL, I ONLY BRING THIS UP AS A, AS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING FENCE FOR THE BACKYARD OF HER ADJACENT NEIGHBOR BACKYARD THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SHORTER AND, AND ALSO, UH, UH, SEE-THROUGH, AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHY HE WOULD, UH, SINCE HE'S, IN MY OPINION, HE'S NOT PUTTING THIS FENCE UP TO COMPLY WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S DESIRES, HE'S DOING THIS FOR HIMSELF. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS. OKAY. OKAY. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE? WELL, BEING THAT THE, THAT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR BACKYARD, THAT WOULD BE THE FACING THE HOUSE WOULD BE THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT. THAT HOUSE ALREADY HAS A CHAIN, IT LOOKS, THERE'S LIKE A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE OR MAYBE A FIVE. BUT REGARDLESS, THE, THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE, THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT YOU HAVE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY ON THAT PARTICULAR SIDE GOES TO THE, TO THE STREET AT A HEIGHT OF ABOUT SIX FEET. IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING IN THE PHOTOS. MM-HMM. ? YES, SIR. AND THIS WILL NOT IMPAIR THE VISION OF THE APPLICANT WHO MAY BE PULLING OUT TO THE STREET BACK THERE. AND I KNOW THAT HE'S ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE 15 FEET, BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY REGARDLESS BECAUSE IT'S 15 FEET FROM THE STREET, BUT YOU'RE NOT 15 FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK, AND THAT'S WHERE THE KIDS WILL BE WALKING. OKAY. UM, THE INTENT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS JUST TO, UM, BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, JUST, UH, JUST TO, TO PROVIDE A, A NICE LOOKING, UM, UH, ADDITION TO, TO COMPLEMENT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, IF, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON WHATEVER IS NECESSARY ON, UH, ON REGARDS OF THE FENCE. UM, WHEN, UH, THE OWNER PUT IT THERE, HE, UM, YOU KNOW, HE PUT IT ON THE BEST INTENTION TO, UM, UM, UH, AND, AND DIDN'T, DIDN'T SEE IT AS A PROBLEM. BUT AGAIN, IF, IF, UH, IF, UH, THE BOARD SO CONSIDERS IT, WE'LL WORK WITH, UM, WITH THE, UM, WITH THE STAFF TO ADDRESS, UH, THOSE TWO FEET OR, UM, AS, AS REQUESTED AS, UH, I BELIEVE WE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH STAFF AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN. UM, SO WE WERE KINDLY REQUESTING THE, THE VARIANCE FOR THE TWO FEET FOR, FOR THE, UM, FOR THE PROPERTIES, SINCE THEY STILL HAVE PLENTY OF, UM, PLENTY OF, UM, AREA TO, UH, TO, UH, MANEUVER EXITING. BUT WE'LL LET IT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE, TO THE BOARD, UM, UM, DECISION. OKAY. ALL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MANNA, MR. MANO, MINCHA AND MR. MINCHA? MR. MANNA, GO FIRST THEN, MR. AK. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE CITY, SO, SO THE PROPERTY THAT'S ON BANK STREET, THIS IS THE DIS FENCE, IS BASICALLY ON THEIR BACKSIDE. UM, WOULD THAT HOMEOWNER ON BANK STREET BY RIGHT, HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT UP A SIX FOOT FENCE ALL THE WAY TO THE EXISTING FENCE LINE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE? THAT IS CORRECT. THEY, THEY COULD, UM, AND KEEP IN MIND THEIR DRIVEWAY IS FAR ENOUGH AWAY AFTER TRAFFIC REVIEW THAT THE DISTANCE OF THEIR DRIVEWAY, UH, THEY MORE THAN MEET CLEAR VISION, EVEN IF THAT FENCE WAS THERE. OKAY. THANK, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW, UH, MR. MACHACA, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. UM, THAT SATISFIES MY QUESTION RIGHT THERE. WHAT WAS ASKED, I WAS CONCERNED, UH, FROM THE GATE TO THE WALL OF THE FENCE, IS THERE ENOUGH VISION BACKING UP? AND IF THERE IS, I UNDERSTAND NOW WHAT, UH, WHY HE DID IT. SO A FOUR FOOT ISSUE IS, I'M NOT CONCERNED, I'M MORE CONCERNED, CAN THE GUY BACKING UP REALLY SEE UP AHEAD OF TIME WITH FAR ENOUGH, UH, SPACE? SO MR. MANNA ANSWERED THAT FOR US. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? ALL RIGHT, NONE BEING THE CASE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION HERE. AND I'LL DO IT. ANYONE BUT MR. DORIAN, BECAUSE I CAN BARELY HEAR HIM. OKAY. PAPERWORK. WHO, WHO, WHO SAID THAT? DOCTOR, PLEASE. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET ME MAKE [01:30:01] SURE I GET ON THE RIGHT PAGE THIS TIME. OKAY, SO THIS IS, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO BREAK THIS ONE UP INTO TWO PIECES. UM, AND THIS, THIS VARIANCE INTO TWO PIECES SO THAT WE CONSIDER THE LOT SIZE AND THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS SEPARATE. UM, SO FIRST I'M GONNA, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 4,486 SQUARE FEET, UM, SITUATED AT FIVE NINE DOWDY APPLICANT BEING EDUARDO D LORETO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AT THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY THE LOT SIZE THAT MAINTAIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. UM, A SMALLER LOT SIZE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO LOT SIZE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY GOING THROUGH REZONING PROCESS AND DELAYING PLATTING PROCESS. THE REQUIREMENT TO RE OKAY, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE INTENT OF THE CODE, RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW, THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REQUEST TO PRODUCE THE LOT SIZE, UM, OBSERVE THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AND LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS THEIR, UM, UM, AS THIS IS JUST AN ISSUE OF THE, OF THE CURRENT LOT SIZE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL. ALSO, GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO, UM, FINANCIAL LIMITED BUDGET. THE OWNER COULD NOT SPEND NOT THE FAULT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE COMMUNITY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT THEN. AND MARIA, YOU GAVE THE SECOND? YES, SIR. NOW LET ME GET THIS CLEAR. YOU'RE ONLY OFFERING THE VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY SIDE. I DID NOT HEAR YOU INCLUDE THE, UM, THE VARIANCE FOR THE, UM, RO ROGER. AND THIS IS WHY, UM, I THINK CLEAR VISION IS SUCH AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE, UM, SUCH A CLEAR SAFETY ISSUE THAT I REALLY WOULD PREFER THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IT SEPARATELY. WHERE THE LOT SIZE IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK, UM, I THINK THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND I JUST PREFER TO CONSIDER THESE TWO ISSUES SEPARATELY BECAUSE OF THE CLEAR SAFETY ISSUES, UM, THAT ARE FOUND IN CLEAR VISION. SO I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CLEAR VISION OR THE WAY THAT I WOULD VOTE IN THAT SITUATION. SIMPLY THAT BY GETTING RID OF, BY ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE OF WHAT SIZE WE, UM, WE CAN CLEAR THIS OUT OF THE WAY AND THEN SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CLEAR VISION. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE THAT THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT? AND, UM, I TEND TO SYMPATHIZE IN THAT PARTICULAR DIRECTION AS WELL. BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS, UM, WE'RE EITHER GONNA HAVE TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, FENCE HEIGHT, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE, OR WE'LL HAVE TO DO, UH, TWO, TWO ADDITIONAL MOTIONS, SEPARATE MOTION. WE MAY HAVE TO DO THREE MOTIONS. THREE MOTIONS TOTAL? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND YOU ALREADY OPENED YOUR DISCUSSION UP, DOCTOR, SO DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION? NO, NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. MARIA, DO YOU HAVE ANY, TURN YOUR MIC ON PLEASE. [01:35:06] MARIA, YOUR MIC IS OFF. THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. UH, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE VOTED SEPARATELY, UH, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER PERSON YOU'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THEMSELVES IN THIS DISCUSSION? DON, YOU CAN PUT YOUR INPUT. I JUST HAVE, HAVE YOU SPEAK LOUDER. YEAH, I, I, UH, UM, IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE, TO THE LIGHT SIZE AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DOING IT AS DIFFERENT MOTION. UM, THAT'S FINE. THE LOT SIZE IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME, AND THEREFORE IT HAS REQUIRES THAT WE ALLOW A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT SIZE FOR THE, UH, COATING SO THAT THE HOUSE CAN BE OCCUPIED AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY COULD BE ISSUED. YES. DID ANYONE ELSE, DID DON, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? OR MIKE'S OKAY? OH, YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. NO, NO PROBLEM WITH THE LOT SIZE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO NO OTHER INPUT ON THAT, ON THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE BLOCK SIZE AND THE VARIANCE. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, A ROLL CALL. VOTE QUESTION. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. ALL RIGHT, DR. ELLI? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. TREVINO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF PACK. MR. DELMER. YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF PACK THE MOTION. PERRY, UH, UH, PERRY'S AND THE VARIANCE IS ALLOWED FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE DEFENSE. NOT THE EXCEPTION, JUST THE VARIANCE OF THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD, UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO DO IT. ANYONE WANNA DO A BRIEF MOTION ON THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD? CLEAR VISION CRUZ? OKAY, QUESTION? YES, MARIA? UH, ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT SINCE HE HAD ALREADY REMOVED THE FENCING, OR DO WE STILL NEED TO DO ON THE OTHER SIDE? THIS IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE HERE BECAUSE HE'S PUTTING UP THE FENCE, BUT HE'S STILL IN, IN ON THE OTHER SIDE. HE'S STILL EXCEEDING THE FRONT FACADE AS WELL. AND TO ME, THIS IS, UM, UH, IS OBJECT. THAT'S, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THE EXEMPTION. RIGHT NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD AND THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD IS, IS IN A VIOLATION ON THE ONLY ON THE SIDE WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE, WHICH IS THAT SIX FOOT FENCE THAT, THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE FOUR OR FIVE FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE, IF, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER. SO ULTIMATELY, THE FENCE PREVIOUSLY DID EXCEED THE FRONT FACADE OF THE, EVEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SINCE THEY HAVE PULLED THE FENCE BACK AND IT MATCHES UP WITH THE NEIGHBORING FACADE, TECHNICALLY IT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE. OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE CAN, WE CAN JUST LET THAT ISSUE DROP. STANDBY. WE'RE DISCUSSING INTERNALLY REAL QUICK. THANK YOU. THIS, THIS IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THAT GATE, DOUBLE GATE IS, THAT'S ACTUALLY HIS BACKYARD. SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT. ONLY THE PROPERTY THAT'S FACING THE STREET IS THE ISSUE, BUT SINCE HE'S PUTTING UP THE FENCE, I WOULD STILL THINK THAT A VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. SO ULTIMATELY, SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS PULLED THE FENCE BACK, IT TECHNICALLY NO LONGER EVEN NEEDED BECAUSE THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF, OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, IT MATCHES UP PERFECTLY. AND NOW SINCE THEY PULLED THE FENCE BACK TO MATCH UP WITH THE FACADE OF THE NEIGHBOR, THE [01:40:01] NEIGHBOR'S ALLOWED A SIX FOOT BY RIGHT UP TO THAT POINT. SO YOU'RE CLAIMING WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A RULING ON REGARDLESS. NO, SIR. SO ULTIMATELY, SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS PULLED THE FENCE BACK, UM, SINCE THEY DID THIS WEEKEND, SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS ACTUALLY NO LONGER NEEDED. IT'S JUST A CLEAR VISION, UH, VARIANCE, BOTH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THE VARIANT NEGATIVE, SIR. JUST THE, THE VARIANCE IS STILL NEEDED FOR THE CLEAR VISION. IT'S THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD THAT IS NO LONGER NEEDED SINCE THE APPLICANT, UM, WENT OUT THIS WEEKEND AND PULLED THE FENCE BACK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THIS. OKAY. BECAUSE THE, THE NEIGHBOR, UH, THAT HAS THE BACKYARD IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE BACK OF HIS FENCE, ALTHOUGH IT'S BEING PUT UP BY SOMEONE ELSE. SO, UH, DID WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, DID WE? NO, SIR. THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THERE'S NO, UH, LIGHT COLLARS. OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE STILL VOTING ON IS THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING LEFT. AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FENCE THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT WITH A SIXTH DEFENSE ON HIS BACK. IT'S BECAUSE THE CLEAR BASICALLY SINCE SAYS DRIVEWAY IS THERE, IT REQUIRES A 15 FOOT FROM THE EDGE OF CURB AND THEY'RE AT 13. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE CITY CITY STAFF SAYS THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. I MEAN, THE TRAFFIC STAFF DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. CORRECT. SO WE SUBMITTED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN WE HEARD FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AFTER, UH, STATING THAT THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. WELL, I I, I, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUE OF THE APPLICANT TRYING TO BACK OUT THAN I AM THE NEIGHBOR. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO WE'RE, SO THE ONE ISSUE WE'RE DEALING WITH, WE'RE NO LONGER DEALING WITH THE EXCEPTION. WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD. SO, UH, IF WE LEAVE THE FENCE THE WAY IT IS, IT WILL NEED A, IT WILL NEED A VARIANCE. IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, THEN THAT FENCE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK, UH, A COUPLE OF FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD. THAT IS NOT, WHETHER IT'S WHETHER THE CITY WANTS TO BE ACCEPT IT OR NOT IN MATERIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S THE CODE. SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO ISSUE A, A VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD? DO I HAVE A MOTION? ELLI? OKAY, DR. ELLI? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. AND, AND JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, ZEKE, WHEN I'M MAKING THIS MOTION, WE ARE REALLY, WHAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IT'S THE NORTH SIDE. THE NORTH SIDE, CORRECT. THAT IS WHERE THE SIX FOOT FENCE IS STILL IN PLACE? THAT IS CORRECT. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UH, FRONT'S ON BANK STREET AS THE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGES THERE MM-HMM. , IT'S THAT NORTHERN PORTION. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UM, CHAIRMAN MARTINEZ, IF, IF IT'S OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. YES, GO AHEAD. OKAY. OKAY. SORRY. UM, OKAY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW, OH, AM I ON MUTE? NO, YOU'RE NOT ON MUTE. OH, OKAY. SORRY. I HEARD SOMEONE. OKAY. UM, THE VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS WILL ALLOW A FENCE TO BE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD SITUATED AT 5 0 9 DOWDY APPLICANT BEING A RETO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY AN, UM, TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND CLEAR VISION FIELD AREA THAT ENHANCES PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. DEFENSE LOCATED WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION, UM, IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE LOT SIZE WOULD, LOT SIZE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. UM, THE REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE FENCE HEIGHT WOULD'VE PLACED THE HOME SAFETY AND PRIVACY AT RISK, RESULTING IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE [01:45:01] ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, OF THE INTENT OF THE CODE, RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. UM, THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO ESTABLISH COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE CLEAR VISION FIELD OBSERVES THE INTENT OF THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE VARIANCE IS NOT, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF ABUSE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT THERE'S STILL ADEQUATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY FENCE AND THE STREET AND WILL NOT HARM MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS. THE FLIGHT OF THE PROPERTY, THE FLIGHT, THE FLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. YOUR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, UM, IS, IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT A RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. END OF MOTION. OKAY. SECOND. OH, CHAIR, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, I CAN. GO AHEAD, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, MARINA. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS? DOCTOR? WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOUR INPUT? YEAH. UM, I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE CLEAR VISION, THE CLEAR ANY VARI ANY VARIANCE TO THE CLEAR VISION OR EXCEPTION TO THE CLEAR VISION? I'VE LOST MYSELF AT THIS POINT. I'M SORRY. UM, I REALLY DO STRUGGLE WHENEVER GIVING THESE KINDS OF, UM, OF MOTIONS. I, UM, AM GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I AM, I AM IN SOME WAYS GUIDED BY TRAFFIC DECISION, UM, THAT THIS AND THE, AND THE FACT THAT THIS FENCE BACKS UP TO THE OTHER PERSON'S BACKYARD YARD. UM, AND I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE TO ALLOW FOR THE, THE, UM, FOR A SAFE DRIVE, UH, A SAFE, UM, EXIT FROM THE PROPERTY. IT IS A, ESSENTIALLY A TWO FOOT, UM, VARIANCE FOR CLEAR VISION. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE IN REPORT. VERY GOOD. MARIA, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? UM, NO. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND AGREE MY, BUT BIGGEST THING IS THAT IT, THAT IS A VERY SMALL STREET. IT DOESN'T GO INTO A, A BIG STREET UNTIL A BLOCK LATER. AS LONG AS THE NEIGHBORS DON'T COMPLAIN, I THINK HE'LL STILL BE GOOD. BUT THE TWO FOOT CLEAR VISION WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER, UH, MOTIVE FOR HIM TO, UH, DO THE FENCE. YES, IT WOULD BE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GONNA GRANT OR NOT GRANT THE VARIANCE. ANYONE ELSE HAVE INPUT ON THIS? UH, CLEAR VISION STANDARD ORIAN. MR. ORIAN? SHOULD, SHOULD WE SPECIFY THAT IT'S A TWO FOOT VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO TYING IT TO THE FENCE? NO, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT SHE DID. DID YOU NOT? I, I THIS IS ELLI. I THOUGHT I DID, BUT IF I DID NOT, THEN YES, MR. ORIAN, THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. IT'S A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ELSE? I'M SORRY, MR. OREN, DID YOU SPEAK SOME MORE? UH, YES. I JUST SAID THANK YOU. I I DIDN'T HEAR, UH, A DIMENSION. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST TIED TO THE FENCE AND THEN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE FENCE WAS TWO FEET. OKAY. ANY OTHER INPUT? [01:50:02] I'M GONNA TELL YOU THAT I'M GONNA VOTE BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. AND THE REASON IS VERY SIMPLE 'CAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT. I BELIEVE THAT THAT TWO FEET, UH, COULD MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD ON, ON A CHILD'S SAFETY WHO MAY BE RIDING A, A SCOOTER OR A SKATEBOARD OR ROLLERSKATING OR WHATEVER DOWN THAT SIDEWALK BECAUSE I, I BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE REASON FOR THE, UM, MOTION, I MEAN THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD. AND SO, UM, I, I KNOW IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, BUT TO ME, SAFETY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST COMPLIANCE. SO ANYWAY, THAT, IF NO ONE HAS ANY MORE INPUT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL. VOTE MANNA. MR. MANNY, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, SO, UM, SO ACTUALLY I, UM, I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THIS CRUISE JUST FOR A SECOND HERE, AND THAT IT IS, WHILE IT IS A MINOR STREET THAT IT SITS ON THAT STREET, UM, UH, UH, HITS LERS, WHICH IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY HOMES, UM, PAST THAT HOUSE TO GET TO, UH, SOUTH FLOORS. AND SO, SO BASICALLY TO GET TO IT, A LOT OF HOMES WOULD HAVE TO USE THAT STREET. UM, SO, SO IT, IT POTENTIALLY IS A PRETTY BUSY STREET. WELL, THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR THE, FOR MOST NEIGHBORHOODS TO HAVE. I MEAN, MY STREET NOT PREDOMINANTLY A FEEDER STREET, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE USE IT AS SUCH BECAUSE IT'S EASIER, SO CORRECT. UM, BUT ANYWAY, THAT, THAT'S, AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE REASONING. I HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS? THAT'D BE THE, THAT'S IT ALL. ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. DR. ELLI. UM, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT. MR. MENCHACA, UH, DO NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. TREVINO. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. THE THE MOTION FAILS, UH, THE CLEAR STANDARD, A CLEAR VISION STANDARD WILL, UH, BE, BE IMPOSED. UH, I BELIEVE, UH, THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO JUST GO, UM, BE, UH, UH, NOT ENTERTAINED BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE, ACCORDING TO STAFF. UH, DOES STAFF AGREE? DO AGREE? VERY GOOD. SO THAT CONCLUDES, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 2. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE. NEXT CASE [4. 20-3552 BOA-20-10300047: A request by Gloria Vasquez for a 29% variance from the 50% front yard impervious cover limitation to allow 79% of the front yard to be covered in impervious cover, located at 5554 Kensington Run. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 7) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] IS BOA 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 7, LOCATED AT 5 5 5 4 KENSINGTON RUN. THE APPLICANT IS GLORIA VASQUEZ TO REQUEST FOR A 29% VARIANCE FROM THE 50% FRONT YARD IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION TO ALLOW 79% OF THE FRONT YARD TO BE COVERED IN IMPERVIOUS UH, MATERIALS. CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE M L O D TWO MLR ONE. NEXT SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO KEEP THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AS IS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY MEASUR MEASURING AT 79% IN PREVIOUS COVER. IT IS 20, IT IS 29% ABOVE THE 50% LIMITED LIMIT ALLOWED BY CODE DURING FIELD VISITS. STAFF DID, DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA WITH SIMILAR CONCRETE COVERED, UH, FRONT YARDS TO THE EXTENT AS THE APPLICANT, THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION FOR FRONT YARD AND PREVIOUS COVER VIOLATION. NEXT SLIDE. SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF VARIANCE. BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT, REQUEST REQUEST. IMPERVIOUS COVER REDUCES THE ABILITY FOR STORMWATER TO ENTER THE GROUND, WHICH CAN HARM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER HAS [01:55:01] CREATED AN INCONSISTENCY AND HAS ALTERED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 35 NOTICES SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE BRING ANY QUESTIONS UPON STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS GLORIA VASQUEZ AND MS. VASQUEZ, YOU'RE READY TO GO? WHENEVER, WHENEVER YOU'D LIKE. MS. VASQUEZ, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU CONTINUE. MAKE SURE SHE'S UNMUTED. YES. HELLO, THIS IS GLORIA VASQUEZ AT 55 54 KENSINGTON RUN IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. OKAY, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR EXPLANATION. YES. UH, THE REASON THAT I ASKED FOR, UH, A VARIANCE ON THIS MATTER IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE, UH, CONTINUOUS EXPENSE THAT WE'VE, UH, INCURRED IN TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, UH, YOU KNOW, APPEARANCE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE FEVERS, WE'VE DONE GRAVEL, WE'VE DONE MULCH, WE'VE DONE BRICK LANE, WE'VE DONE SO MUCH TO THE FRONT AND BACK PROPERTY TO, UH, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO HAVE THE NICE YARD. BUT, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE BOUGHT TILLERS TO BE ABLE TO TILL THE, THE, THE FRONT, UH, AND AGAIN, JUST TO TRY TO MAINTAIN, UH, THE PROPERTY. UH, AS YEARS HAVE GONE BY, THE, THE, OUR CHILDREN HAVE GROWN, UH, THERE'S MORE, UH, THEY, THERE WAS A STREET, UH, THAT WAS CLOSED AT THE END OF OUR, OUR STREETS THAT IS PUSHING MORE TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR STREET. THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, MORE VEHICLES ARE NOW PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, UM, THEREFORE CAUSING CONGESTION. A LOT OF TIMES WE'VE HAD TO PARK OUR CARS AROUND THE BLOCK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PARKING. SO NOT ONLY THE, THE MAINTENANCE, UH, THAT WE WERE, UH, EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRING, BUT ALSO THE SAFETY OF OUR, OUR CHILDREN, OUR, THE, OUR NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, WE HAD NOWHERE WHERE TO PARK. SO, UM, THIS WAS SOME SORT OF A RESOLUTION FOR US. NOW, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S AN OPTION, WE'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, IF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, IRRIGATION, WE'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, UH, SEE IF WE CAN DRILL HOLES ON 'EM. THERE, THERE ARE, I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN GETTING INFORMATION TO HOW MAYBE WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WATER GOES INTO THE GROUND SO WE CAN, UH, DRILL HOLES TO WHERE WE CAN, UH, ALLOW THAT ACCESS, THAT WATER TO, UH, HAVE ACCESS. UM, SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SAFETY ISSUE, UH, AS WELL. UM, THERE'S THE VEHICLES TURNED AT THE CORNER SO FAST THAT IT'S, IT'S DANGEROUS. WE, UM, UH, WE'VE HAD A FEW ACCIDENTS ALREADY OCCUR, NOT ONLY TO PERSONNEL, TO PERSONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE, BUT ALSO OUR, OUR VEHICLES, NEIGHBOR VEHICLES. SO, UH, GIVING US MORE ACCESS, UH, TO PARKING WAS, UM, CRUCIAL. UM, ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, FROM PICTURES THAT I'VE PROVIDED, THERE'S ONLY A ONE STREET. I MEAN, EVERYBODY PARKS ON THE SIDE. SO BY US BEING ABLE TO, UM, MOVE OUR OUR VEHICLES OUT OF THE WAY, IT GIVES THE PEOPLE COMING IN, UH, INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR LEAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO PULL, PUSH ASIDE, YOU KNOW, TO BE, ALLOW THE OTHER CAR TO COME THROUGH. UM, AND AGAIN, UM, SO IT'S JUST SAFETY, UH, ACCESSIBILITY AND APPEARANCE AND, YOU KNOW, BUT WE'LL BE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH THE BOARD. AND, UH, HOPEFULLY THE APPEARANCE IS APPROVED. AND, UM, I LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, GLORIA. THAT VERY, VERY GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHAT YOUR SITUATION. I, UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS UP FOR QUE UH, BEFORE I CONTINUE, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC ISSUES OR PUBLIC STATEMENTS BEING MADE HERE? NONE TODAY. THERE'S NO LIVE CALLERS OR STATEMENTS. OKAY. SO WE CAN GO ON WITH THE QUESTION PORTION OF, I'M SORRY, ONE SECOND. I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, WHO HAD THE FIRST QUESTION? BRAGMAN, MR. BRAGMAN, GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION. UH, SO THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, IS IT A ONE CAR GARAGE OR IS A TWO CAR TANDEM GARAGE? HOW MANY GARAGE PARKING SPACES DO [02:00:01] YOU HAVE? IT'S A ONE CAR GARAGE, BUT, UH, AS YOU CAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE, UM, ACCESS TO ANY PICTURES I'VE SENT. WHEN I PARKED AGAINST THE GARAGE, MY HUSBAND WOULD PARK IN FRONT AND HIS, THE FRONT OF THE TRUCK WAS ON THE, ON THE SIDEWALK. SO WE COULD ONLY PARK ONE VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY, UM, BECAUSE TWO VEHICLES WITHOUT AN OPTION. UM, WHAT ABOUT I HAVE IN THE GARAGE? MM-HMM. PARKING IN THE GARAGE? WELL, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION BECAUSE, UM, WE, WE WORK, I MEAN, ON, ON A DAILY BASIS AND JUST THE, UH, THE GARAGE IS KIND OF SMALL FOR US TO BE USING IT FOR CAR STORAGE. UH, AND THAT ALONE WOULD ONLY, UH, HOLD MAYBE TWO VEHICLES LIKE THE, THE ONE IN THE GARAGE AND ONE OUTSIDE OF IT. UH, AND WE HAVE A TOTAL OF SEVEN. WE HAVE SEVEN VEHICLES. MY CHILDREN, THEY, THEY, THEY'VE, THEY'RE GROWING. THEY'VE GONE TO WORK, THEY'VE BOUGHT THE VEHICLES. UM, AND IF THERE'S OTHER IMAGES, YOU'LL, YOU ARE WILL ABLE TO SEE HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLY OUT ON THE STREET. EVEN WHEN OUR VEHICLES ARE OUT IN, IN THIS AREA, THERE'S, IT'S CONGESTED. AND US BEING AT THE END OF THE, OF THE STREET AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE, UH, AGAIN, THE SEATING AS THE VEHICLES ARE COMING IN OR GOING OUT, UH, REALLY CAUSES A, A PROBLEM AND SAFETY FOR OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS. US DOING THIS ALSO HELPED OUR NEIGHBORS, LIKE I MENTIONED, FREE UP SOME SPACE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO PARK AROUND THE CORNER WHERE WE'VE EXPERIENCED A LOT OF THEFT, UH, AND, UH, TO OUR VEHICLES. UH, AND IT'S, AND IT'S DANGEROUS 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE STREET BY THE MAILBOX AREA. UH, AND IT'S, IT'S JUST DANGEROUS AS WELL TO HAVE TO PARK OVER THERE AT, IN THE EVENING, AT NIGHT AND THEN JUST WALK IN HOME. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, WHO DID THAT? WHO WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION? OZUNA? OH, MR. OZUNA, GO AHEAD. YES, THAT QUESTION IS REGARDS TO THE WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED WERE PERMITS PULLED FOR THE CONCRETE WORK, AND WHO WAS THE CONTRACTOR THAT, UH, COMPLETED THIS, THIS CONCRETE WORK? YES, AS FAR AS I KNOW, UH, THE PERSON THAT DID THE CONTRACT OR THAT DID THE CEMENT WOULD'VE DONE ALL THAT. I DON'T, I DON'T WORK FOR, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, SO WHO WAS THE CONTRACTOR AND DID HE PULL A PERMIT FOR THE WORK? AS FAR AS MY, AS FAR AS I WOULD KNOW THAT THEY, THEY SHOULD HAVE, YES. AND WHO WAS IT? DO WE HAVE THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR? UM, HE ONLY HAVE IT HANDY, BUT, UM, OKAY. AND, AND THEN IN TERMS, I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION HANDY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IN TERMS, EXCUSE, LET'S, LET'S, MR, MR IF I MAY STEP IN, UH, FOR FLAT WORK, THE, THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE PERMITTING UNLESS YOU'RE TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF WAY. IF YOU'RE GONNA EXPAND THE CURB CUT YEAH. THEN YOU WOULD REQUIRE A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. BUT FOR FLAT WORK, UM, WE ACTUALLY DON'T REQUIRE IT. HOWEVER, IT IS IN VIOLATION, OF COURSE. THE U D C. YES. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UM, THANK YOU. THERE, THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES INVOLVED WITH FLAT WORK, BUT THAT'S, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET INTO THAT. I'M MORE CONCERNED AT, IN LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY VIOLATED THE, UH, PUBLIC ACCESS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THE PROPERTY LINE IS, IS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET FROM THE CURB. AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN, THERE'S NO, THERE'S, UH, THAT, THAT'S, THAT AREA WAS, WAS COVERED WITH CONCRETE, WHICH WOULD BE PUBLIC LAND. AND MY QUESTION IS, IS, IS A SURVEY BEEN BEEN REVIEWED ON THIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONCRETE HAS BEEN POURED ON PUBLIC LAND? IT'S, WELL, IT'S, IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT IT'S, UH, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL. UM, NO SURVEY WAS DONE, OR WE, AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE ONE THAT'S GONNA IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHERE THE, WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, STARTS. BUT BASED ON THE IMAGES, YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN THE RIGHT WAY. YEAH. I'M JUDGING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT THE PROPERTY LINE DOES START 10 FEET FROM THE STREET, THEREFORE, THE CONCRETE THERE IS IN VIOLATION OF BEING PLACED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. THE, UH, THEREFORE THAT'S REALLY NOT GONNA BE A PART OF WHATEVER WE RULE OTHER THAN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT CITY WOULD'VE TO TAKE CARE OF. THE ONLY THING WE ARE ENTITLED TO, IN MAKING ANY EXCEPTIONS FOR OR ANY VARIANCE FOR, IS ON [02:05:01] THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. SO THAT ISSUE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY, UH, CODES AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FAR BEYOND OUR BUR. SECONDLY, IT, UH, THE OTHER ISSUE WOULD BE THAT, UM, IT IS BEING, IS CURRENTLY BEING ATTACHED TO THE APRON, WHICH IS ALSO REQUIRES PERMITS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THAT NEEDS, UH, ANY APPROACH ON ANY DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE CLEARED BY THE CITY. UM, UH, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY CUT THE CURB OR ANYTHING. SO THAT DOES, THAT DOESN'T BRING UP AN ISSUE THAT IS A ONE ONE CAR GARAGE. I, I, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE BUILT THAT WAY TO SAVE ON COSTS. HOWEVER, SEVEN CARS IS AWFULLY HARD TO PUT IN ONE GARAGE INTO A DRIVEWAY, AND THAT CREATES A PARTICULAR PROBLEM. UM, IN, IN THE EVENT THAT, LET'S SAY THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT WOULD CLEAR THE CONCRETE THAT WAS PLACED IN PUBLIC R RIGHT OF WAY, WOULD THAT AFFECT THE IMAGE OF THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE, UH, BEING ALLOWED FOR, UH, THE, UH, COVERAGE IN PERIAL COVERAGE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF CONCRETE THAT'S THE Z IF I MAY, IF I MAY, THIS IS GLORIA QUES, UH, THE, THE ANGLE OF THE PICTURE, YES, IT LOOKS LIKE IT ISN'T A LOT OF PROPERTY, BUT, UM, IT JUST LOOKS LONGER RIGHT HERE. UH, BUT LIKE I MENTIONED, UH, TWO VEHICLES DO NOT FIT IN, IN FRONT OF THE, THAT, UH, THE CAR THAT'S FACING TO THE STREET, UH, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S, IT'S ALREADY ON, UH, AS, AS A FACT ON THE, THE SIDEWALK AND EVEN ON SOME, SOME OF THE STREETS. SO IT DOES LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT LONGER. UH, BUT AGAIN, WE'VE ONLY TRIED TO MAKE IT, UH, USABLE FOR NOT ONLY OUR, OUR, OUR VEHICLES AND OURSELVES, BUT ALSO ACCESSIBLE AND, UH, FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, AGAIN, IN THE SENSE THAT WE'VE EVEN PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AND SAFETY, UH, MEASURES BY ALLOWING VEHICLES THAT ARE COMING IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER AROUND EACH OTHER TO GET TO THE BACK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT. YOU ONE CAR WOULD GET STUCK IN FRONT OF ANOTHER ONE JUST TRYING TO GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING. UM, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THAT'S OKAY. THE QUESTION I ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP HAD MORE TO DO WITH PUBLIC PROPERTY. UM, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO, TO FOUR BUILD OR DO ANYTHING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY. AND, UM, OF COURSE, IF EZE WAS, WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW, UH, PERMITTING, HE PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND ONE FOR THIS, UH, FLAT WORK BECAUSE OF THE SHEER FACT THAT IT DOES ENCROACH UPON PUBLIC PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. YES. SO ULTIMATELY WITH THE, THE CODE VIOLATION, THERE WERE NO PERMITS PULLED, WHICH WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE BEEN A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT TO DO ANY OF THAT WORK. AND NONE, THERE'S NONE ON RECORD. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. SO, UH, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I JUST OBSERVED HAPHAZARDLY ON THIS, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF OUR, UM, UH, VARIANCE OR, OR, UH, ON THIS. UH, SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE CHOOSE, THAT AREA IS GONNA HAVE TO BE BROKEN UP AND REMOVED UNLESS THE CITY DECIDES TO. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT, BUT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DECIDE TO, TO BASICALLY GIVE THE PROPERTY AWAY THE, UM, DO I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? MADAM, UH, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YES. UH, ON ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT SHOWS THE CONCRETE GOING WAY PAST THAT GATE, HOW FAR BACK DOES THAT GO? IS THAT USED FOR PARKING AS WELL? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION DIRECTED TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. SO THIS IS GLORIA VASQUE AGAIN. YES. SO A LOT OF TIMES WE DO NEED TO USE THAT FOR, UH, FOR PARKING, UH, JUST TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE, UH, TO OUR BACKYARD, UH, IF MY HUSBAND IS GONNA CHANGE THE OIL TO THE CAR, THINGS LIKE THAT. UH, THE ONLY THING IS THAT THE, WE ALL COME IN, COME IN AT DIFFERENT HOURS OF THE DAY, LEAVE AT DIFFERENT HOURS OF THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON. UH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY HUSBAND LEAVES MAINLY AT FOUR, FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SO IF HE WERE TO BE THE FIRST ONE PARKED IN THE FRONT, UH, ONLY ONE OTHER VEHICLE FITS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE [02:10:01] AND BEHIND THAT GATE. SO IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT LIKE, UM, WELL, WE HAVE, WE COULD PARK THREE OR FOUR CARS IN THE BACK. THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. RIGHT? WELL, REGARDLESS, THAT'S NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING ANYTHING FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I MEAN, IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT ACTUALLY, THAT PAD ON THE SIDE THERE IS, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT. SO YEAH, THE, THE PREMISE OF MY QUESTION WAS, SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE WANTS THIS EXTRA IMPERVIOUS COVER SO THAT THEY CAN PARK CARS OFF THE STREET AND BE SAFE, BUT IF THEY HAVE AN ENORMOUS WAY THAT GOES DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOME, THEY ALREADY HAVE A PLACE TO PUT CARS THAT THEY NEED IT, UH, UM, AS OPPOSED TO IN THE FRONT YARD. AGREED. AGREED. I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. THE, UH, THAT IS, BUT YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE DRAWING THAT THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THAT'S NOT EVEN BROUGHT, BROUGHT UP THAT I CAN SEE. SO, BUT, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT IS ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO CHAIR, LEMME JUST KIND OF CHIME IN HERE JUST TO KIND OF, UH, WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT THE VARIANCE IS. SO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ALL OF THE CONCRETE IN THE FRONT YARD. EXACTLY. INCLUDING, INCLUDING THAT, UM, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT LEADS TO THE BACK, BUT AGAIN, IT'S ONLY FROM THE FRONT FACADE, UM, BEYOND UP TO THE STREET OR UP TO THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK. SO IF THE BOARD WANTED TO ENTERTAIN ALLOWING THAT SECTION TO REMAIN, THE MEASUREMENT HERE WILL HELP. AND WE CAN GET TO THAT PERCENTAGE, THE ULTIMATE PERCENTAGE THAT WOULD BE, UH, GRANTED AS PART OF THE VARIANCE. YES. BUT CATHERINE, ARE WE ENTITLED AS A BOARD TO BASICALLY ALLOW CONCRETE TO BE POURED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY SO THE CONCRETE IS POURED UP INTO THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK. ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES THE SIDEWALK NEEDS A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. THE SAFE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS ON THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK. SO TECHNICALLY THE CONCRETE IS ON, PROBABLY ON HER PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE IT TOUCHES THE SIDEWALK, IT NEEDS A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. PERMIT, RIGHT? YES. SO, BUT GENERALLY, SO I DON'T GENERALLY SPEAKING ON ALL PROPERTIES BUILT BY THIS PARTICULAR BUILDER, WHICH I KNOW WHO IT IS, THEY ALWAYS HAVE THEIR PROPERTY LINE BEGIN 10 FEET FROM THE CURB. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, ALTHOUGH THE SIDEWALK, YOU COULD, YOU COULD SAY THAT'S PART OF THE SIDEWALK, THAT'D BE AN OVERSIZED SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF A DRIVEWAY. SO, AND WE ARE GOING TO ASSUME WITHOUT A SURVEY THAT THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS ON THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK. IT MAY NOT BE 10 FEET, BUT THAT'S THE SAFE ASSUMPTION FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. ALRIGHT THEN. UH, I JUST, JUST HOPE THAT, UH, THAT SOMEONE DOES CHECK UP ON THIS BECAUSE IF THIS ALLOWED TO OCCUR, WE MAY SEE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THIS. AND THERE IS A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE UTILITIES RUNNING THE FIRST, UH, 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, NAMELY WATER AND SEWAGE AND EXIT. AND IF EVERYBODY COVERS THAT UP, THAT COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE CITY SHOULD THEY NEED TO WORK ON. BUT ANYWAY, UM, SO LET'S, LET'S JUST CON CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD IF WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. MANNA, MR. MANNA. UM, SO, SO I, SO ONE QUESTION. YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS LINE HERE FOR WHAT PART THE CITY OWNS VERSUS DOESN'T OWN. AND SO IF THE CITY DOES OWN 10 FEET, IS THAT 10 FEET PART OF THE CALCULATION FOR 50% OF THE, UH, OF THAT PROPERTY? OR IS IT THE REMAINING PIECE? SO IF THEY, IF THEY CLAW OUT, UH, THE, THE FRONT PIECE, WILL THEY, THE FRONT 10 FEET, ARE THEY STILL IN VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SECOND STRIP COMPLETELY PAVED AS WELL? AND SO THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BASICALLY REMAIN THE SAME AS FAR AS THE PAVEMENT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? YES, IT DOES. BUT AGAIN, OUR, OUR ASSUMPTION WITHOUT A SURVEY THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY WAS, UM, WE, WE ASSUMED THAT THE PROPERTY LINE STARTED ON THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK AND CALCULATED THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PERCENTAGE FROM THERE. OKAY. OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. ESSENTIALLY 80% OF THE FRONT YARD COVERED UP. YES. UM, THE SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, THERE'S THE, UH, THE APPLICANT ASKED ABOUT, UH, DRILLING HOLES, UM, INTO THE DRIVEWAY. AND SO ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING, UH, OR [02:15:01] CREATING A, UH, PREVIOUS COVER, WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF, OF A SOLID VERSUS HOLD WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR IT TO BECOME, UH, A PERVIOUS COVER THAT, UM, I GUESS, UH, WOULD BE ALLOWED, I GUESS WOULD, WERE, WOULD NO LONGER PLAY A ROLE OR BE PART OF THIS CALCULATION OR WOULD ALLOW FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED AS NOT BEING PART OF THE CALCULATION? SO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE LIMITS YOU TO 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FRONT YARD. THERE IS A SECTION OF CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT PERVIOUS MATERIALS. NOW, SHE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT, IF SHE'S TALKING ABOUT CHANGING OUT THE MATERIAL TO SOMETHING PERVIOUS, UH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES, UM, IDENTIFIED IN THE U D C THAT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE ALLOWED. OF COURSE, THE SOLID CONCRETE WOULD NOT, AND THAT WOULD'VE TO BE REVIEWED IF SHE LOOKS AT, IF SHE'S LOOKING TO ADJUST IT. BUT 50% OR MORE IS, UH, STRICTLY CODE VIOLATION FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. RESIDENTIAL. WELL, I THINK, I THINK MR. MAN'S QUESTION WAS, IF THEY WERE TO DRILL HOLES IN THE CONCRETE, WOULD THAT COMPLY? THAT WOULD'VE TO BE REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING AND STORMWATER. UM, ULTIMATELY, LIKE I SAID, THE, THE U D C HAS SPECIFIC TYPES OF OUS MATERIALS. UM, DRILLING HOLES I DON'T THINK IS ADDRESSED IN THE E D C. WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE WANTED TO FIND OUT. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. AMANDA? YES, IT DOES. THANK YOU. THAT'S EXACTLY OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE A FOLLOW ON QUESTION. UM, I RECALL IN PREVIOUS CASES THERE WAS, UH, SOME RESTRICTION OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CARS PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD THAT ARE NOT, UH, LOCATED WITHIN LIKE A, WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY WITH THAT FRONT YARD RE REQUIREMENT. ALSO BE IN PLAY HERE WITH THE CARS PARKING, WHETHER OR NOT IS CONCRETE OR IMPERVIOUS. SO VEHICLES PARK IN THE FRONT YARD, THERE MUST BE A EITHER PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL WHERE THEY ARE ON, WHETHER IT BE A GRAVEL MATERIAL OR NOT, UM, THEY JUST CAN'T PARK ON GRASS. I, I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED AS FAR AS PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD. THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF MATERIAL THAT YOU'RE UTILIZING. OKAY. UH, WE HAVE SEEN SOME USE THE GRAVEL, SOME USE A TYPE OF PAVER. UH, IT'S, THERE'S A PERVIOUS PAVER THAT ALLOWS WATER TO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH IT. UM, THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROCKS THAT THEY COULD, UM, BE CONSIDERED, BUT OF COURSE WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. AND OF COURSE, THE CODE LIMITS YOU TO ONLY 50%, SO THAT WAY YOU AREN'T JUST USING PERVIOUS MATERIAL AND THEN PARKING IN YOUR ENTIRE FRONT YARD. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, SO CAT, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? I'M SORRY, BECAUSE I, I, I HAD THAT QUESTION IS COULD THEY JUST CHANGE EVERYTHING TO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN PARK A HUNDRED PERCENT? SO THE ANSWER IS NO. NO, NO, YOU CANNOT. SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE PERCENTAGE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PERCENTAGE, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S SUPPOSED TO, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PARK IN YOUR ENTIRE FRONT YARD, EVEN IF YOU HAVE PERVIOUS MATERIAL. OKAY, THANK YOU. THERE'S A PERCENTAGE TO THAT NUMBER. IT'S 50%. IT'S 50% CORRECT. I KNOW, BUT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VEHICLES BEING PARKED ON IMPERVIOUS COVER. RIGHT. AND THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR YOU TO DO THAT ON YOUR FRONT YARD. OKAY. SO SHE'S CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK, OUR PLACE, . OKAY. UH, ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOW WE'RE DEALING STRICTLY WITH THE, UH, PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER OF CONCRETE ON THE FRONT YARD. UH, SINCE WE HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT, I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEAL WITH THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. MANNA MR. MANNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 29% VARIANCE FROM THE 50% FRONT YARD, FRONT YARD IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION TO ALLOW 79% OF THE FRONT YARD TO BE COVERED IN IMPERVIOUS COVERED LOCATED AT 5 5 4 KENNINGTON RUN APPLICANT BEING GLORIA VASQUEZ. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT AURAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LIMITATION PRESERVES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BY REDUCING RUNOFF AND INCREASING STORMWATER TRAVEL TIMES. FURTHER, THE REGULATIONS ARE PROVIDED TO PREVENT FRONT YARDS FROM BEING COVERED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, WHICH CAN DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. THE BOARD FINDS REQUEST AS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED STREET [02:20:01] PARKING, THEREBY CREATING UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 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 IMPERIOUS COVERAGE LIMITATION REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT WATER FLOODING AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. ALL INTENTS OF THE CODE SHALL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. SIX APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITION OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. IT APPLIED TO THE OWNER EXTENDS FROM, EXTENDS FROM INCREASED ON-STREET PARKING, LEAVING TO LEAVING THE OWNER TO INCREASE AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE OFF STREET PARKING AS INTENDED. END A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND, UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? ANYONE WOULD, THIS IS OZUNA. I MEAN, I WOULD ASK TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT CAN KIND OF CONFER WITH THE CITY IN REGARDS TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE USE OF THE, UH, DRIVEWAY THAT'S TO THE EAST, I GUESS, OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK THERE'S STILL A LOT OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT HERE BEFORE WE TAKE A, UH, UP AND DOWN VOTE ON THE VARIANCE. AND I WOULD MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO LOOK TO POSTPONE AND HAVE THIS APPLICANT A CHANCE TO MEET, UH, WITH THE CITY STAFF, UH, TO HAVE A FIRM POSITION. MR. ZUNO, WE DON'T, WE, WE HAVEN'T EVEN COMPLETED THE FIRST MOTION. YES, SIR. YEAH, WE HAVE NO, WE HAVE NO SECOND AND WITHOUT A SECOND WE CAN'T PROCEED. YEAH, UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE FIRST I SECONDED IT OR DID WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. OREN DID? YES. UH, OR SECOND? GIMME A SECOND. OKAY. UM, NOW, MR. OONA, ARE YOU GONNA RECOMMEND, UH, A MO UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO SEEK A POSTPONEMENT OF THE, UH, VARIANCE, UH, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO MEET WITH CITY STAFF TO SEE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS SHE HAS IN REGARDS TO SEEKING THAT. THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, A FRIENDLY MOTION, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE, UM, PERSON MAKING THE A, UH, MOTION CHAIR. IF I MAY, LET ME JUST KIND OF CHIME IN HERE. UM, LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT THE MOTION FAILS FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION. THE CODE ALLOWS YOU FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER UP TO FIF 50%. IF THE MOTION FAILS, WHAT SHE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO IS THE DRIVEWAY ON YOUR SCREEN THAT IS ON YOUR LEFT SIDE, THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT DRIVEWAY WOULD MOST LIKELY BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN THAT LEADS TO THE REAR YARD, BUT THE REMAINDER IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED IF THE MOTION FAILS TODAY. SO THAT IS WHAT SHE WOULD BE ALLOWED BY. RIGHT. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THE REASON WHICH APPROPRIATE PERMITS, OF COURSE, YES. AND I, THE REASON WHY I, I'M ENTERTAINING, UH, MR. UNA'S MOTION IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS TO, TO ALLEVIATE THE ISSUE OF, OF, UH, HOW WE DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. BECAUSE I, I HONESTLY FEEL THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A PORTION OF THIS. THE BOARD MAY ALLOW, BUT THEY WON'T ACCEPT THE MOTION. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND FINISH THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THEN ENTERTAIN A ALTERNATIVE MOTION? YES, I'D SAY FINISH THE MOTION, SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT MOTION, AND THEN IF THAT MOTION FAILS, YOU COULD ENTERTAIN AN, AN ALTERNATE MOTION IF THERE IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. OKAY. BUT THE RECONSIDER, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE, UH, IN THE PREVAILING SIDE? THAT'S CORRECT. SOMEONE WHO VOTES AGAINST THE MOTION. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. [02:25:01] SO IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THEN, WE HAVE A MOTION ALREADY, AND WE HAVE A SECOND. LET'S HAVE A SHORT DISCUSSION. MR. OZ, HOLD YOUR, UH, ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR THE END OF THE CASE BECAUSE IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THAT. MR. MR. JOSEPH? YES, I, I UNDERSTOOD. SO PLEASE RECALL YOUR MOTION. I RESET MY MOTION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION, UH, ON THE, UH, MOTION AT HAND. MR. UH, NANA, I BELIEVE YOU MADE THE MOTION. YES. UH, UM, I WILL NOT BE APPROVING THIS MOTION AS READ. UM, I THINK THAT SEEING A, UH, YARD AND, YOU KNOW, DRIVEWAY IS, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, HAVING DRIVEN AROUND IT AND ACTUALLY DRIVEN THROUGH LOTS OF SAN ANTONIO, YOU DON'T SEE THIS KIND OF DRIVEWAY, REALLY IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, SO, SO, UM, I, I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE, UH, WHO MADE THE SECOND MR. ORIAN, UH, ORIAN. OKAY. MR. ORIAN? YEAH, SO I'M, I I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF, OF THIS BEING OF BIG SEA, OF, OF CONCRETE EITHER. UH, I JUST, I, I JUST WANTED JUST TO, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT VOTED ON. BUT I DO THINK THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CITY COMES IN AND DETERMINES WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE IS AND GETS RID OF THE TWO PIECES OF CONCRETE, UH, YOU KNOW, ABUTTING THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK, AND THEN THE, THE, THE O THE APPLICANT LOOKS AT WHAT 50% MEANS, I, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA PROBABLY END UP WITH THAT PORTION ON THE LEFT SIDE AND, AND REMOVE THE PORTION ON THE RIGHT SIDE. BUT YEAH, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT BEING THE WAY IT HAS SHOWN TODAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE INPUT? NO ONE. UM, I'M, I'M, I'M RELUCTANT TO, TO CONTINUE WITH THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT, UH, WE ALREADY HAVE ALTERNATE MOTIONS ALREADY SET UP, BECAUSE I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS EITHER, AND THAT THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT WILL KILL THIS CASE. BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE PROCESS, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ORIGINAL MOTION. ALRIGHT, DR. ELLI, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. FACTS. MR. MINKA NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. CRUZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. TEAL. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ORIAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. BRAMAN? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. TREVINO. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. OH, HE MIGHT HAVE, LET'S SEE IF HE'S NOT ANSWERING. HE, HE DID, HE, HE TEXTED THAT HE HAD TO JUMP OFF THE CALL AT A CERTAIN TIME, SO HE'S NOT HERE. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. OKAY. I DO NOT INCUR, THEREFORE, THE MOTION HAS, HAS, HAS FAILED. ALTHOUGH WE WERE GOING TO ENTERTAIN ALTERNATIVE MOTION, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO, UM, CALL FOR A, A FRIENDLY SUBSTITUTE MOTION. WELL, NO, ACTUALLY THIS WOULD BE A WHOLE NEW MOTION. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A, A MOTION. OKAY. I NEED, I GUESS I NEED APPROVAL FROM THE, UM, WINNING SUMMARY. I ACTUALLY, IT'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST. MOTION TO RECONSIDER. YES. ALL RIGHT. YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND YOU MAY MAKE YOUR MOTION IN WHATEVER FASHION HE WANTS IS EVERYONE WAS ON THE PENDING, RIGHT. SO THE MOTION HERE IS TO POSTPONE THE, UH, POSTPONE THE CASE UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS A CH TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO MEET WITH CITY STAFF TO DETERMINE, UH, WHAT THEIR REMEDIES WOULD BE IN TERMS OF MEETING THE, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS, UH, AND, UM, SEE WHAT OTHER VARIANCES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED, UH, TO MOVE THE CASE FORWARD. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, I'M, I'M RATHER DUBIOUS ABOUT SUCH AN ACTION BECAUSE ONE WOULD ASSUME, YEAH, THIS HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY MM-HMM. BY STAFF TO TRY TO AVOID IT COMING TO THE BOARD. UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ALWAYS THAT POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WERE NO, UH, NEGOTIATIONS WERE ACTUALLY TAKEN. MM-HMM. WELL, I WOULD YOU SAY THE NEW EVIDENCE WAS A REQUEST WAS TO SEE THE, UH, PREVIOUS MATERIAL THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AS A, UH, ALTERNATE. RIGHT. BUT ACTUALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE ON THIS CASE, A CONTINUANCE. YES, EXACTLY. AND, UM, [02:30:02] THAT, THAT, UH, ITSELF IS, IS A GOOD QUESTION. UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE ON THIS CASE? SO FIRST, FIRST, NOW WE KNOW THE INTENT OF WHAT HIS MOTION WILL BE, BUT I STILL NEED A SECOND FOR THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT FIRST. OKAY. LET'S, LET'S HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY MR. UNA? WHO IS MAKING A SECOND? TEO SECOND MR. THIEL, YOU'RE MAKING A SECOND THERE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER DR. ELLI. YES. TO RECONSIDERING MR. MANCHACA. NO, NOT RECONSIDER. MS. CRUZ? YES. CONSIDER MR. TEAL. NO. MR. MANA? NO. MR. ORIAN? NO. MR. MS. BRAMAN? NO. MR. OZUNA? YES. MS. TREVINO? NO. CHAIR MARTINEZ? YES. REGARDLESS, THE MO UH, THE MOTION, UH, MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING VOTED NO. SO THE MO THE, UH, RECONSIDERATION MOTION HAS FAILED, THEREFORE, THE, UH, THE STANDING OF THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS OF THE BOARD STAND. SO YOU'LL NEED, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO GET BACK WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE HOW THE PROCESS CAN BE TAKEN FORWARD. AND, UH, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT ARISES. I'M GOING TO REQUEST A, UM, A QUICK 10 MINUTE BREAK FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT NEED TO TAKE, YOU SEEM A LITTLE ANTSY ON THE FILM , SO IT IS, UH, EXACTLY 3 34. PLEASE BE BACK HERE BY, UH, UH, THREE, UH, 3 49. OKAY. SO, UH, YOU SEE DONALD, I DON'T SEE DONALD. THAT'S OKAY. YES. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD. UH, NOW IT'S, UH, UH, [5. 20-3611 BOA-20-10300048: A request by Hector Aguilar for a 3’ variance from the required 5’ side setback to allow a carport to be 2’ away from the side property line, located at 162 Idell Avenue. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 3) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, Dominic.Silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] 3 47. WE'RE RESUMING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE STARTING CASE NUMBER 0 4 8. THAT'S CORRECT. UH, CASE NUMBER 0 4 8. IT'S 1 62 IDEL AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS HECTOR AGUILA TO REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR A H O D. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO, TO KEEP AN ATTACHED CARPORT BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK. THE CARPORT IS BUILT WITH THE SAME STYLE AS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH MINIMAL AND IMPERVIOUS COVERED, UH, UTILIZING DRIVEWAY STRIPS AS THE PRIMARY COVER DURING FIELD VISITS. STAFF NOTED NUMEROUS OTHER CARPORTS BUILT WITHIN THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT INITIATED THIS CASE ON APRIL 17TH, 2020, AND THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE ON MAY 13TH. NEXT SLIDE HERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DOES HAVE FIVE FEET PLUS THE TWO FEET, UH, TO THE CARPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE OF BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 4 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST ADHERES TO THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE, AND THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVE NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND ADEQUATE SPACE WILL BE UTILIZED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, AND ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE. MAILED OUT 30 NOTICES. FIVE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE HIGHLAND HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, PREPARED TO SPEAK. HIS NAME IS HECTOR AGUILAR. MR. AGUILA, PLEASE, UH, GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MY NAME IS HECTOR AGUILAR. MY ADDRESS IS 1 6 2 IIL AVENUE. SIR, IF YOU CAN, THE, UH, WHEREVER YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE MEETING, COULD YOU HIT MUTE? OKAY. OKAY, THERE YOU GO. I, I DID IT. OKAY. MY NAME'S GUI. I'M AT 1 6 2 [02:35:01] IDEL AVENUE. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR EXPLANATION. OKAY. UH, THE REASON I WENT THAT I'M, THAT I'M REQUESTING THIS, UH, TWO FOOT VARIANCE IS BECAUSE IF IT'S, IF I DO GO WITH A FIVE FOOT LIMIT, I WON'T BE ABLE TO GET MY TRUCK INSIDE THE CARPORT. IF YOU NOTICE, UH, ACCORDING TO THE DRAWING, HOW NARROW THAT SIDE OF THE, UH, PROPERTY IS. AND, UH, AND THESE ARE OLDER HOMES. THESE HOMES WERE BUILT IN 55, AND WE HAVE WINDOW UNITS, AND I'VE GOT A WINDOW UNIT SITTING THERE. SO EVEN IF I DID GO WITH A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, I CAN EVEN GET IT INTO THE DRIVE AND THEN WITH AIR CONDITIONED IN THE WAY THAT IT EVEN BE MORE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL RIGHT. UM, IS THAT, UH, THE EXTENT OF YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, NO, SIR. ALSO IS, UM, I, I, I HAD THIS CARPORT BUILT BECAUSE I JUST GOT TIRED OF IT. EVERY TIME IT RAINS, I WALKED OUT THERE. I'M CONSTANTLY GETTING WET. I'M 68 YEARS OLD, WELL, 68 YEARS OLD ALREADY. I RETIRED RECENTLY, AND I'VE GOT A LOT OF ISSUES. I GOT BACK PROBLEMS. I'VE GOT FEET PROBLEMS. AND GOING OUT THERE WHEN IT'S RAINING AND TRYING TO GET INTO MY VEHICLE, IT'S JUST, IT CREATES A, A LOT OF PROBLEMS. AND I'M TRYING TO PROTECT THE LITTLE I'VE GOT NOW, WHICH IS MY TRUCK. AND, UH, WITH THIS CARPORT, I FEEL THAT IT'S GONNA PROTECT MY VEHICLE, PLUS IT'S GONNA PROTECT ME FROM THE ELEMENTS WHENEVER I HAVE TO GO OUT TO MY VEHICLE. AND I'M NOT HINDERING ANYBODY'S, UH, OR MY NEIGHBOR'S, UH, MOVEMENT FROM GOING AROUND ON HER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, I'M NOT HANDING, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HURTING HER VIEW AT ALL. AND IT'S ADDING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IF, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAME BY AND SAW ALL THE HOMES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WELL, OUR ARE OLD. THEY STARTED LOOKING BAD. AND THERE'S SEVERAL HOMES WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE LOOKS OF OUR HOMES TO TRY TO ADD A LITTLE TO THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING ALSO, IS NOT JUST DOING IT FOR MY SAKE, BUT ALSO TO TRY TO IMPROVE THINGS. A LITTLE. GOOD FOR YOU. VERY GOOD MEETING. ALL RIGHT. UH, SINCE, UM, JUST SO WE'RE GONNA HOLD OFF ON, UH, FOR A SECOND HERE. PLEASE STAY ON THE LINE. DO I NOT, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO LIVE CALLERS, BUT WE DO HAVE FIVE COMMENTS. ONE IN SPANISH, WHICH WE'LL START OFF WITH TRANSLATION SERVICES ON THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. GO. PLEASE DO, LET'S GO. ENGLISH. ENGLISH TRANSLATED. OKAY. THE NEXT COMMENT IS, WAS IN SPANISH. IT WAS FROM BLANC. THE WHO RESIDES IN 1 54 ILE AVENUE. SHE IS IN FAVOR, AND SHE SAYS THAT THE HOUSE GIVES A VERY NICE VIEW TO THE BLOCK. SIGNED BLANCA AMRO. OKAY. AND, AND THE NEXT FOUR, I'VE GOT ROBERT WHITE AT 1 55 ILE AVENUE. UM, I'M FINE WITH, SEE, FINE WITH ME TO MAKE, FORGIVE ME, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT STATES HERE, BUT LOOKS IT LOOKS BETTER. UM, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT. UM, THERE'S A MARIA AT 1 58 IDEL IN FAVOR. THE CARPORT, UH, THAT MY NEIGHBOR BUILT HAS ADDED A NEW APPEARANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UR VELAZQUEZ AT 1 59. IDEL IN FAVOR, IMPROVES AND ADDS TO THE, THE AMBIANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DIANE COVEY STALLINGS AT ONE 50 IDEL IN FAVOR. IT'S ADDING APPEARANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE STATEMENTS. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT. UM, IS THE APPLICANT STILL ON? YES, I AM. OKAY, VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD. YOU HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. THAT'S WONDERFUL. NOW WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, CORPORATE STAFF, CHAKA, I HAVE VERY MANY PEOPLE ON MY SCREEN. I CAN ONLY SEE THREE OF YOU, AND THEY ALL HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE OFF. OKAY. AND CHAKA. MR. MINKA, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? PLEASE ASK? YES, SIR. CAN I SEE THAT, UH, PICTURE [02:40:01] AGAIN WITH A CARPORT AGAIN, THE EXTENSION RIGHT THERE. HE WANTS TO ONE YOU. I THINK WE COULD SEE THE FENCE. YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, THAT IT'S RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY NOT. NOPE, IT'S ALL OKAY. YEAH, IT APPEARS THAT THE POSTS ARE, ARE CLEAR TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DOES EXTEND ANOTHER FOOT. UM, BUT I CAN HONESTLY SAY IN COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CARPORTS, I THINK THIS IS MUCH MORE IN COMPLIANT. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? DON, ARE YOU THERE? I, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE DON WITH US. UH, CAN CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU CAN. OKAY. YES, GO AHEAD. SO, YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, UH, I WILL COMPLIMENT THE, UH, THE OWNER THAT IT LOOKS REALLY, UH, LIKE IT WAS BUILT WITH THE HOUSE FROM DAY ONE. VERY NICE. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU? NO, I THINK HE'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB OF ADDING ON, UH, IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE IF HE WOULD'VE PULLED A PERMIT. UH, IT SAVED HIMSELF SOME EXTRA COST HERE. UM, BUT THE, UH, IT DOES LOOK A VERY ATTRACTIVE COVER. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE, IN MY OPINION, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE INTERFERING WITH THE NEIGHBORS. SO, UM, SINCE WE'VE PRETTY MUCH HEARD EVERYTHING AND NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO CLOSE THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO OPEN THE, UH, UH, MOTION FOR, UH, FOR THIS CASE. ORIAN. WHO? ORIAN. MR. ORIAN. I GOT MY, I FINALLY GOT MY AUDIO BACK. I'M READY TO READ SOMETHING. , PLEASE. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 20 DASH OH 3 0 0 0 4 8, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BRAND A REQUESTS FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 62 ADELE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING HECTOR AGUILAR. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PIT 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. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY SETBACKS. IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT CARPORT MAINTAINS ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE OF FIRE SEPARATION, WHILE WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THE COMMUNITY IS CHARACTERIZED BY ATTACHED CARPORTS WITHIN THE SIDE. SETBACKS. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETBACK LIMITATION WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PROHIBITING THE OWNER TO UTILIZE A POWERPORT AS IT WAS INTENDED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF 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 LIMITATIONS TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE AND ENCOURAGE PROPER STORMWATER DRAINAGE. ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED IF APPROVED. FOUR. THE PARENTS WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OF THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING. DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OR CHARACTER OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE STRUCTURE, THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR FOLLOWS A COMMUNITY NORM OF REDUCED SIDE SETBACK BUILT WITHIN THE AREA. SIX. THE P OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CARPORT IS BUILT IN CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ADEQUATE SPACE, UTILIZE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE, STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESSIBILITY TO LIGHT AIR AND OPEN SPACE. END OF MOTION. SECOND, UH, CHAIR. MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, BUT I HEARD MR. MANDA MAKE THE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MR. MANDA MADE THE SECOND. SO, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSS? SURE THING. UH, THIS, UH, I THINK IS A VERY, UH, ATTRACTIVE CORE CARPORT THAT ISN'T EXTENDING TOO FAR INTO THE SIDE SETBACK. IT HAS ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IT LOOKS, UH, LOOKS GREAT. I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT IT SLOPES FROM FRONT TO BACK SO THAT IT'S NOT DUMPING WATER ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, BUT, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE, UH, THE RESIDENCE [02:45:01] PROPERTY. SO I THOUGHT THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THAT WAS A GOOD, UH, GOOD THING. UH, AND I, AND I THINK IT'S NOT TOO WIDE. UH, I THINK AT 12 FEET WIDE PER THE SKETCH, UH, IT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO FULLY OPEN DOORS AND GET IN AND OUT SAFELY. SO I'M GONNA BE IN FULL SUPPORT. VERY GOOD. I, AND, AND YOU SAID MR. OZUNA MADE THE SECOND. MR. MANA. MR. MANA. OKAY, MA'AM. MR. MANA, PLEASE HAVE YOUR INPUT. SO I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. UH, THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS ALSO, UH, LOOKING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH, UH, THE WAY THAT A LOT OF THE OTHER HOMES LOOK. AND SO, SO IT FITS IN WELL WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND I THINK OUR FEEDBACK FROM EVERYBODY KIND OF SAID IT DID COMPLIMENT AS WELL. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER PERSON ON THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AND GIVE SOME INPUT ON BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION. ELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE MR. MINKA. I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN. UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. I CONCUR OF FACT, MR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF THAT. MS. . YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THAT. AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I THE MOTION DOES PASS. UH, YOUR APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN. PLEASE, PLEASE, UH, ADVISE THE APPLICANT. YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH STAFF CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE CODES, UH, FOR THE STRUCTURE BEING THAT IT'S WITHIN BY THE PROPERTY LINE. AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. UH, [6. 20-3622 BOA-20-10300032: A request by Silvia Torres Castaneda for 1) a 6’ variance from the required 10’ front setback for a carport to be 4’ away from the front property line, and 2) a 3’7” variance from 5’ required side setback for a carport to be 1’5” away from the side property line, located at 1002 S Pine Street. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 2) (Azadeh Sagheb, Planner (210) 207-5407, Azadeh.Sagheb@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] LET'S GO ON FOR LAST AND FINAL CASE. UH, THAT LETTER DECEMBER OH THREE TWO ON SOUTH PINE STREET. OKAY, SIR, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE TRYING TO REACH THE APPLICANT AT THIS STAGE. WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY REACHING THEM. I'LL READ THE ITEMS TO THE RECORD AND IF WE CAN'T REACH THEM BY THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, UH, WE'LL ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE AT THAT POINT. SO THIS IS FOR CASE D A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 AT 1002 SOUTH PINE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REENA. INSERT ONE REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FOR A CAR PARK. BE FOUR FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT COPY LINE. TWO, A THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOTER APART. SIDE SETBACK FOR CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FIVE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R M FOUR A H O D. THE APPLICANT BUILT AN ATTACHED CARPORT WITH A ROOF HAVING A SWIPE SLOPE TO THE NORTH SIDE WITH AN 11 INCH OVERHANG AND 17 INCH SITE SETBACK. THE CARPORT IS ENTIRELY MADE OF WOOD MEASURING 11 FEET, THREE INCHES IN WIDTH AND 60 FEET, EIGHT INCHES IN LENGTH. THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO GUTTERS IN THE CARPORT DURING SITE THAT THE STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE ANY OTHER SIMILAR CARPORTS, UH, COATED PORTION NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON AUGUST 7TH, 2019 FOR CONSTRUCTING A CARPORT WITHOUT PERMITS. HERE IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. NEXT IMAGES ARE OF THE CARPORT, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF D O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 BASED ON THE, THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE TO, UH, STORMWATER RUNOFF AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE. AND THERE'S NO ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT THAT WARRANT THE REQUEST. THREE SIX NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE NEIGHBOR, UH, DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. IF YOU'LL STAND BY. WE'RE WE'LL TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN REACH THE APPLICANT ONE MORE TIME. ALRIGHT. HEY DON, IF I CAN SEE YOU NOW. [02:50:01] IN THE MEANTIME, CHAIR, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, WE CAN ANSWER THOSE UNTIL WE GET CONFIRMATION WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT GETS THERE. OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE BOARD? I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE FOR THE STAFF AND IN MEASURING THIS CAR FORWARD, UM, I SEE THAT, UH, IT SHOWS THAT IT IS A FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? OR SO, MAYBE A FOOT AND A HALF THAT THE OFFICER OBSERVATION IN OBSERVATION, I, I SEE THAT THE RUNOFF ON THE ROOF IS DIRECTLY ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. OKAY. YES. THE SUPPOSED RUN A FOOT AND A HALF IF, UH, ALLOWED TO REMAIN, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THERE ARE GUT, SO THAT WAY A, UH, WATER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY. OKAY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, MY NUMBERS ARE PRETTY MUCH CONCISE WITH WHAT OR CORRECT. YOU SAID WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE SHOWING IT. IT'S ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF OF THE POST AND THE, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT, UH, APPARENTLY THE PHONE IS DISCONNECTED THAT THEY GAVE TO US. UH, SO THEY'RE UNREACHABLE AT THIS TIME. WE WOULD RECOMMEND A CONTINUANCE TO THE NEXT MEETING. ALRIGHT. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS CASE. I SECOND A AND THAT WOULD BE FOR JULY 6TH. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A CONTINUATION MADE BY, UM, MS. MS. CRUZ. YOU MADE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE CASE SINCE JULY. JULY 6TH? YES, SIR. JULY AND THE SECOND, MR. MINCHA. OKAY. ALL THOSE, UH, ALL THOSE, IS IT ALL THOSE THAT WE'RE GONNA AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL ALL VOTE ON THIS MOTION? YES. ON THE CONTINUANCE. MR. MENCHACA? YES. ON CONTINUANCE. MS. CRUZ? YES. ON THE CONTINUANCE. MR. TEAL? YES. ON THE CONTINUANCE, MR. YES. ON THE CONTINUANCE. MR. ORIAN? UH, YES. ON THE CONTINUANCE. MS. BRAMAN? YES. MR. UNA? YES. I'M CONTINUOUS. UH, MR. GENIO? YES. I'M A CONTINUANCE AND CHAIR. MARTINEZ? UH, YES. FOR THE CONTINUOUS, THE MOTION, UH, PASSES FOR CONTINUING THE CASE TILL JULY 6TH. UM, HOPEFULLY BY THEN WE'LL GET THE APPLICANT, UH, AVAILABLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REMAINDER OF THIS NUMBER SESSION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE VIDEO CONFERENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AT LEAST FOR, UH, JULY. UM, AND POSSIBLY AUGUST. SO, UH, BUT YES, THE JULY MEETING FOR SURE WILL BE, UH, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. OKAY. SO IT GIVES PLENTY OF GENERAL BATTLE TOGETHER CONNECTIONS. THIS IS, IT IS RATHER COMPLICATED. ROGER, I JUST, UH, GOT AN EMAIL THAT MY HUSBAND JUST SHOWED ME. UH, THEY'RE HAVING, UH, SERVICE ISSUES FOR ALL OF VERIZON AT AND T AND SCREEN CUSTOMERS. THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOMEONE'S TROUBLE. TROUBLE. IT WENT OUT LIFE. OKAY. WELL, ACTUALLY, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH HIM AND THAT IT STILL, IT IS SLOW AS MOLASSES. SO I'LL JUST BE IT THAT, UM, NOW [7. 20-3640 Consideration and Approval of the June 1, 2020 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes] THIS NEXT THING WE NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION HERE ON DIMINISH FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING BECAUSE EVERYONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM. YES. UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE, HUH? NO. OKAY. THEN LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. A MOTION AND A SECOND. I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT THE MEETING AS AND MS. CRUZ MAKES A SECOND. OKAY. DR. YES? YES. APPROVE MINUTES. MS. CRUZ? YES. ACCEPT MINUTES, MS. KEEL? YES. I ACCEPT MINUTES AS WRITTEN. MS. YES, I ACCEPT MR. . [02:55:03] I CAN'T HEAR YOU, MR. DO I CAN'T EVEN SEE HIM. I CAN SEE HIM, BUT I'M GONNA, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES, I CAN GET, UH, YES, I ACCEPT. HEY, MS. RACKMAN? YES. I ACCEPT THE MR. YES, I ACCEPT THE, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO JUMP OFF THE CALL HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. YES, I SET THE MINUTES AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. I APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. THEREFORE, THE MINUTES PASSED. UH, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE LAST, THE MINUTES I'M SUPPOSED TO APPROVE. SO IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE THOSE GET, UH, SENT TO ME BY EMAIL, I CAN SIGN 'EM DOWN AND RETURN THEM BACK TO YOU. WILL DO. OKAY. OH, THIS CONCLUDES THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. IT'S PRECISELY 4:10 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE. UH, WE'VE BEEN HAVING A GOOD TIME. WELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING AND HEARING FROM YOU THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. SO HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND AND HAVE A GOOD FATHER'S DAY TO FATHERS. AND FOR THOSE ARE MOTHER, THAT FATHER, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * 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.