[00:00:02]
YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.[Call to Order]
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.I'M THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULAR NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION.
ARE WE GONNA HAVE OUR INTERPRETER, UH, INTERPRETERS SPEAK RIGHT NOW? THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE IT'S TIME TO DO A ROLL CALL.
MS. FISHER PRESENT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ PRESENT.
BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASE, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.
THE BOARD OF, UH, IS AN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTINENT TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS, UH, HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND, AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE, UH, A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 35 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
UH, WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULAT REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28.
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'S PROCEEDINGS.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON EACH MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF, UH, 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS PRIMARILY ON THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST, UH, PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURTS OF LAW BASED UPON THE RECORDS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL.
PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT.
STAFF, PLEASE PROCEED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW DOT SAN ANTONIO.
DO GOV SLASH DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3.
TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES, AND THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED, AND STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.
LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT CALLED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE HAVE, WE'LL 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
[00:05:01]
TO ADDRESS QUESTION.UH, LET'S SEE, WHERE ELSE DO WE GO HERE? WE'RE READY.
I'M READY TO START ITEM IF YOU'RE READY.
WE'RE READY TO START WITH THE FIRST ITEM IF YOU'RE READY, SIR.
UH, YES, I'M LOOKING FOR THE LIST OF ITEMS RIGHT NOW.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE FIRST CASE.
[2. 20-5538 BOA-20-10300079]
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD.WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH, UH, CASE 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 9.
ADDRESS IS 87 36 WBA ROAD, ST.
APPLICANT IS IN COCHRAN, UH, ONE IT'S REQUEST FOR SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIRED, UH, TO ALLOW BUFFER YARD TO BE SEVEN FEET, SIX INCHES ALONG THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY.
LINE TO, UH, SEVENTH FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C OFF YARD TO BE SEVEN FOOT SIX ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE THREE, A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT.
14 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT AND CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS ABUDDING A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST SIDE.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN MEETS BOTH FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE EXISTENCE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON R SIX TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST.
SUBJECT LOTS NEED 30 FEET, UH, 30 FOOT SETBACKS, ALONG WITH A 15 FOOT TYPE C BUFFER YARD.
HERE'S A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THAT ROADWAY IS A PRIVATE ROAD THAT, THAT ABUTS.
THE, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF D O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 7 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS.
INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED ABOVE YARD WILL PROVIDE IMPROVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN PLACE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND A 14 FOOT SETBACK WILL REASONABLY ALLOW ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACE AND PRIVACY FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
10 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, MR. IAN COCHRAN.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN BEGIN.
MY NAME'S IAN COCHRAN AND THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 87 63 WBA ROAD, AND WE ARE PURSUING THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT HERE.
WE PURCHASED A PROPERTY ABOUT, UH, FOUR TO SIX MONTHS AGO WITH THE INTENTION OF DEVELOPING IT INTO A CAR WASH AND A ONE STORY RETAIL BUILDING.
WE HAVE OUR PROSPECTIVE USER FOR THE ACTUAL BUILDING ALONE FOR A LAUNDROMAT, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THREE OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN SOME OF OUR EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS, RANGING FROM THE 3,600 TO 4,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, FOOTPRINT.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO HERE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS KIND OF A TIGHT SIDE AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS MOST WORKABLE AND CAN WORK WITH THEM IN GENERAL BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PROXIMITY OF THE MEDICAL CENTER AND JUST THE OVERALL TRADE AREA.
SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING AS WELL AS THE CAR WASH LAYOUT.
AND WE ARE, YOU KNOW, REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENTS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SITE PLAN.
AND, UM, ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP IN GENERAL, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.
UH, LIKE I SAID, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, MEETING THE NET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE ARE FACT JUST ENCROACHING INTO THE, UM, 15 FOOT REQUIRED BUFFER IN GENERAL.
BUT, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM WIDTH.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, PROCEEDING OVER THE ACTUAL SEVEN FOOT SIX INCHES THAT ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED TO BE HALFWAY.
UM, I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, AS YOU SEE THE LOTS BEHIND US TO THE, I'M REFERRING TO THE NORTH AS THE SIDE THAT'S ACTUALLY OUT TOWARDS WARDBACK AND THEN THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR YOU SAY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UM, WHICH YOU CAN SEE LOOKING AT AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT OUTSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY LINE.
THERE IS IN FACT A COMMON DRIVE FOR THE ENTIRE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT SERVES AS A A 25 FOOT WIDE, IF NOT MORE, ACTUALLY FOR FIRE ACCESS ALONG BOTH OF THOSE SIDES.
AND SO THERE'S QUITE A DISTANCE IN BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY LINE AND THEN THERE'S SOME GREEN SPACE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE AS WELL AS THE, UM, FIRE ACCESS DRIVE THAT GOES ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE THAT SERVES THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.
AND THEN FROM THERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME PARKING SPOTS AND THEN
[00:10:01]
GREENWAY AREA UP TO THE APARTMENT.SO THERE'S ACTUALLY IN FACT A GOOD AMOUNT OF DISTANCE IN BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AS WELL AS ANY, UM, RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF OUR LOT.
UM, I GUESS I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE AS I COME.
ALRIGHT, JUST A MINUTE THOUGH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOME QUESTIONS AFTER WE'VE HEARD SOME OF, UH, OTHER WITNESSES.
ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANYONE SPEAKING ON THIS RE UH, CASE? NO, SIR.
NOBODY'S SIGNED UP AND THERE'S NO CALLS.
OH, THAT MAKES IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER.
THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT.
AND YOU'RE STILL HERE, CORRECT? SURE.
UH, I'M GONNA CALL UPON THE BOARD HERE TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD, UH, INTERESTED? GO AHEAD AND SPEAK.
UM, SO ON THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE, UM, I SEE YOUR BUILDING IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WITH, YOU'RE WITHIN THE SEVEN AND A HALF, BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULD GO DOWN TO HALF SO LONG AS YOU HAD NET COVERAGE EVERYWHERE ELSE.
WAS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THE, UH, SIDE BUFFER YARD COMPLIANCE WITHOUT A VARIANT? AND SO I'LL JUST SAY THIS TOO, THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION THAT I HAD GOING INTO THE MATTER AND
UH, BUT I THINK, UH, MR. COCHRANE COULD ANSWER A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK YOU, YOU EXPLORED THAT OPTION AND GO AHEAD.
I MEAN, PRIOR WE HAD A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN THAT, UM, HAD MORE OF AN ENCROACHMENT, BUT WE HAVE IN FACT SHIFTED THINGS AROUND TO MAKE IT WORK.
SO WE COULD ACTUALLY GO DOWN TO THE SEVEN FOOT, SIX INCH AND GO HALFWAY.
BUT A QUESTION THAT I DO HAVE, IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING FOR ME THAT I'M ASKING STAFF THE SAME QUESTION.
IF WE IN FACT MEET THE NET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE THAT ARE SHOWN.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.
I DID SEND THOSE OVER TO THE CASE MANAGERS SO WE COULD, UM, LOOK AT THOSE AND ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS AND SEE EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE IN FACT MEETING, UM, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT THE, UM, B O A ACTUALLY ENCROACHMENT NEEDED TO GO THROUGH YOU GUYS.
'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING, THE BUILDING ALONE ACTUALLY GOES INTO THE BUILDING SETBACK.
AND SO I ALREADY KNEW GOING INTO THIS, I'D HAVE TO KIND OF ADDRESS THIS, THIS ROUTE FOR THE BUILDING.
BUT THEN THE LANDSCAPE, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED WELL TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE MEET NET BUFFER AND THAT WE DON'T GO PAST OR MORE THAN HALFWAY INTO THAT ACTUAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S REQUIRED.
AND SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I'D KIND OF LIKE TO CLEAR UP, AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT PRIOR TO THIS, AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH RICARDO ESPINOZA WHO'S THE LANDSCAPE REVIEWER.
I SHARED THESE PLANS WITH HIM AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE FEEDBACK I GOT FROM HIM WAS THAT NET BUFFER IS IN FACT GOOD.
AND THEN HE JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND, UM, WANTED SOME OF THE TREES, THE PROPOSED PLANTINGS TO BE KIND OF SHIFTED AROUND TO PROVIDE MORE OF A VISUAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN BETWEEN THE RETAIL BUILDING AND, UM, THE ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE IF WE'RE ACTUALLY STILL NEEDING A B O A VOTE FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER MENTS MORE SO IF IT'S JUST THE ACTUAL BUILDING STEP BACK.
WERE YOU, UH, THIS IS STAFF JUST TO HELP CLARIFY.
SO, UH, THE PROVISION THAT MR. IAN'S TALKING ABOUT, UH, NO, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THAT AVERAGE OF, UH, THE REQUIRED BUFFER, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN THE 15 FOOT.
UM, THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO GET IT WAIVED DOWN TO HALF WOULD'VE BEEN TO GET PROP UH, PERMISSION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THAT.
AND, UH, BUT WE NEVER RECEIVED THAT EITHER.
SO IT'S MUCH MORE CLEAN TO, IF YOU HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING SETBACKS THAN TO INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPING AS WELL.
THAT AND AS WELL AS SINCE WE'RE, WE ARE REQUIRED ON, UH, THE ISSUE OF NUMBER THREE, THE VARIANCE OR THE SETBACKS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL TAKE CARE OF IT IN ONE CASE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY IT'S BROUGHT UP.
IT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, AND SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR THE LANDSCAPE PORTION ONLY.
UH, AND THAT'S ALL IT, IT'S, BUT IT
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANYONE ELSE? I DON'T S OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE, SO I AM ASSUMING WE DON'T, UH, THEREFORE I'M GOING AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND WE ARE GOING TO, UM, MO MOVING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
[00:15:01]
I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR WHO ELSE WAS SPEAKING, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND LET MR. MANNA READ THE, UH, MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 9.I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ONE GRANT, A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE PROPERTY YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFERY YARD TO BE SEVEN FOOT SIX INCHES ALONG THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE TWO, A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 15 FOOT TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BUFFER YARD TO BE SEVEN FOOT SIX INCHES ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY.
LINE THREE, A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT.
14 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 8 7 3 6 WBA ROAD APPLICANT BE IN IAN COCHRAN.
UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT 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 EMITTED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE 50% REDUCTION OF BUFFY YARDS ON THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINES IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTERNAL STREET ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CREATES ADDITIONAL BUFFER AREA PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACE TO GET ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT LOT WILL BE, UH, BENEFICIAL AND A NET IMPROVEMENT TO THE SURROUNDING VICINITY.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS INTENDED DUE TO THE LOT SIZE CONSTRAINTS AND ESTABLISHING NEW BUFFER YARDS AS THE CODE REQUIREMENT FREE.
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 BUFFER YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT FIRE SPREAD, INCREASED PRIVACY, AND SEPARATE USES, UH, WITHIN A DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ALONG THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE FOUR.
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 OF SOUGHT IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED, UH, BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORM PROPERTY OR ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE, IN THE INTRODUCED BUFFER YARDS TO THE PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USED PROPERTY WOULD ENHANCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE SITE.
STREETSCAPE AND NEIGHBORHOOD BESIDES THE REQUESTED SETBACK, WOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE IN CREATING PRIVACY AND FACILITATING LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE, WHICH WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY.
SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR RESULTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING HERE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR IS IT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IS LOCATED END OF MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, UH, APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WHO WAS THAT? ORIAN, MR. DORIAN.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, OPEN THE DISCUSSION.
MR. ARMANA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A FLOOR? YES.
I'VE LIVED, UH, OFF THE STREET FOR THE LAST 40 PLUS YEARS, AND SO VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH, UH, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
AND I THINK THIS, UH, FROM, FROM THE, UH, SITE PLANS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN WELL DESIGNED.
UH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE, UH, PROVIDED, UH, LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE, UH, IMPROVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, THEREFORE I WILL BE APPROVING THIS.
UH, MR. UH, WHO, WHO SECONDED THIS? THIS WAS IAN.
HEY, UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
I THINK THE SIDE PLAN LOOKS FINE AND, UM, LOOKS LIKE IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT AND I'M, I'M DEVOTING TO APPROVE.
DOES ANY OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY INPUT? I, GO AHEAD.
UH, I'M OKAY WITH KATHLEEN, BUT, UH, HAVING, UH, USING A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THIS NEXT TO AN APARTMENT OR A COMPLEX
[00:20:01]
LIGHT AT NIGHT,AND THAT'S JUST THE THING THAT I'M MENTIONING IN TERMS OF SOME THESE BUSINESS TO CONSIDER, ESPECIALLY CAR KEPT AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL OR APARTMENT AREA LIGHT AND LIVING MEXICO CAR OPEN 24 7.
ALRIGHT, CHAKA, IF I COULD, UM, COULD YOU ADJUST YOUR, UH, AUDIO VOLUME? JUST MAYBE INCREASE IT SO YOU GO IN AND OUT WITH YOUR AUDIO AND SOMETIMES WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SOMETIMES WE CAN YEAH, I HAVE IT TO THE MAX NOW.
EVEN MY NEW COMPUTER WENT DOWN ON, ON MIC SITUATION AND, UH, NO MATTER WHAT I, AT THE END, I'M HEADSET.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE, UH, ANYONE ELSE, UH, WOULD ADD SOME INPUT BEING THE CASE, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A ROLL CALL.
MR. MANCHACA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MS. BRAMAN, MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE, MA'AM.
OKAY, MR. BATTLE, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DELMER, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. FISHER, MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE, MA'AM.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, THE MOTION DOES CARRY, UM, 11 TO ZERO.
UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND, UH, BE SURE AND, UH, KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE STAFF, UH, AS YOUR PROGRESS PRES PRESENTS ITSELF.
CAN WE GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE?
[3. 20-5539 BOA-20-10300088]
OKAY, WE'VE GOT CASE 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 8.THE ADDRESS IS 7 2 3 2 DALE ROAD.
REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY.
AND TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING FOR AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY.
CURRENT ZONING IS N P EIGHT, WHICH IS NEIGHBOR PRESERVATION.
SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY VACANT IS A 31,916 SQUARE FOOT LOT MEASURING 101 FEET IN WIDTH BY 316 FEET IN DEPTH.
IT IS SITUATED ALONG A BLOCK OF, UH, SIMILAR SIZED LOTS SITUATED ON DALE ROAD AND NORTH.
UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE, OF THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD IS DEVELOPED WITH 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AS INTENDED BY THE MP EIGHT.
THE INTENTION OF THE OWNER IS TO CONSTRUCT A 4,000 SQUARE SQUARE FOOT HOME BEHIND TWO MATURE HERITAGE PECAN TREES, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE STANDBY WHILE CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY DETACHED WELL UNIT WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THIS WILL LEAVE APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET OF OPEN SPACE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS LIMITED TO 35 FEET TO TWO HERITAGE PECAN TREES.
ONE IS 27 INCHES WHILE THE OTHER IS 30 INCHES.
THE HOMES WITH THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, REGARDLESS THE SIZE CONSTRUCTED, UH, 20 OR 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE THE SIX LARGE LOTS ON DALE ROAD WITH BLOCK WITHIN BLOCK TWO ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE DEVELOPED BETWEEN 50 FEET TO 85 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WITH THE MEDIAN SETBACK OF 67 FEET, UH,
[00:25:01]
LOTS ON NORTH VANDIVER STREET WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK CONSISTS OF ANOTHER SIX LARGE LOTS WITH MEDIUM SETBACK OF 82 FEET.THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WILL BE OVER 200 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
A DIFFERENCE OF 135 TO 150 FEET TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BLOCK TWO WITHIN THE N C B.
THAT BEING THE 12 LOTS IDENTIFIED AS LARGE LOTS ARE THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE MEDIAN SETBACK CALCULATION, ILLUSTRATION OF THE AVERAGE SETBACK ALONG THAT BLOCK FACE.
THIS IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE HERITAGE TREES ARE DEAD CENTER OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THIS IS THE, THE MAJOR, UM, ISSUE.
CONNELL WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THESE TREES WHILE, UH, WHILE PRESENTING THEM TO THE THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOLLOWED BY THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF NUMBER ONE, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE THAT NOT DOES DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, BOTH SPECIFICALLY TO BLOCK TWO WITHIN THE N C V AND THROUGHOUT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THERE EXISTS ADEQUATE SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY FOR, FOR THE PROPOSED 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME TO BE LOCATED, UH, WITHOUT DAMAGING OR DETRIMENTAL, DETRIMENTAL VISIBLE IMPACT TO THE HERITAGE TREES.
AND THERE EXISTS NO HARDSHIP TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST.
AS A PRIMARY ATTRIBUTE OF THE, OF APPROVING.
A VARIANCE IS TO DETERMINE THAT A DENIAL OF A VARIANCE WOULD CREATE A DIS DISPROPORTIONATE HARDSHIP.
AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DUE TO PERSONAL DESIGN LAYOUT.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NUMBER TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PARKING FOR THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OF FRONT PROPERTY PARKING FOR THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AS THERE EXISTS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES WITH EXTENSIVE FRONT PARK PROPERTY PARKING AND THE VARIANCE REQUESTS WILL NOT GO BEYOND THE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION.
15 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, NINE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THREE RESPONSES IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT AREA AND THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THEY'RE NEITHER AGAINST OR IN FAVOR.
CONNELL, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE WILL HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR DR.
JUST LET US KNOW WHAT SLIDE YOU'D LIKE TO US TO HIT AND WE'LL GO THERE FOR YOU.
CAN I, CAN I BE HEARD BY THE BOARD YOU'RE ON NOW, MA'AM? YES, YOU CAN BE HEARD.
UH, I THANK THE BOARD OF, UH, ADJUSTMENT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TODAY, AND I WANNA SAY A THANK YOU UPFRONT FOR THE WONDERFUL RESPONSE OF MY NEIGHBORS IN A COVID ENVIRONMENT, UH, TO MY REQUESTS THAT THEY SEND IN, UH, THEIR OPINIONS REGARDING THIS VARIANCE.
UM, I HAVE LIVED IN, UH, SAN ANTONIO SINCE 2015, AND I HAVE BEEN SEEKING PROPERTY TO BUILD MY FOREVER HOUSE, A HOUSE WHERE I HOPE TO LIVE IN UNTIL THEY, THEY BRING ME OUT IN A COFFIN.
UH, I WAS SEEKING A HOUSE THAT WOULD BE IN A URBAN DIVERSE COMMUNITY, PREFERABLY A VACANT PROPERTY SO THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO TEAR DOWN ANOTHER RESIDENCE.
WHEN 72 32 DEL CAME ON THE MARKET, I HAD FOUND MY HOME.
IT IS THE LOCATION OF MAJESTIC TWIN TREES, AND I BECAME INVOLVED ENTHRALLED BY THE PROPERTY.
IT HAS BEEN MY INTENT FROM THE BEGINNING TO PRESERVE THE VIEW OF THE TREES FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND NOT JUST PRESERVE THE TREES FOR MYSELF.
AS I BECAME FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, THE HARD REALITY SET IN OF ITS DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES, COMPLETING ENGINEERING STUDIES, I FOUND THAT THE MIDPOINT OF THE TREES WAS 155 FEET BACK, DIVIDING THE LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE, UH, PROPERTIES, BASICALLY BIFURCATING IT.
LAST WEEK I LEARNED THE DEVELOPMENT CHANNEL, UH, CHALLENGE WAS FURTHERED BY, UH, A CONVERSATION WITH ROBIN LLOYD, WHO INFORMED ME THAT THERE WOULD BE A 60 FOOT TREE, UH, CANOPY PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE LOT 30 FEET IN FRONT OF EACH OF THESE TREATIES, AND 30 FEET BEHIND FURTHER REDUCING THE
[00:30:01]
PROPERTY BILLABLE AREA.BEFORE I BEGIN MY PRESENTATION, I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT MY BACKGROUND.
I HAVE BEEN IN ACADEMIA, I'VE BEEN IN THE FIELD OF, UH, FINANCE, I HAVE BEEN IN JOURNALISM, AND I AM VERY PROUD TO SAY THAT I HAVE 14 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, SIX YEARS AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL AND EIGHT YEARS AT THE STATE LEVEL.
I HAVE CHAIRED JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.
I HAVE MADE OVER TWO DOZEN PRESENTATIONS TO RATING AGENCY.
SO I'M WELL AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE AND, UH, LEGALITY OF WHAT YOU ARE, UH, DEALING WITH TODAY.
AND I AM TREMENDOUSLY ENCOURAGED BY THE USE OF THE WORD FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, I UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO REPORT THAT I HAVE, UH, CONCLUDED THAT THE STAFF REPORT IS RIDDLED WITH UNSOURCED INFORMATION, SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS, AND OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENTS, UH, STATEMENTS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE FINDING OF FACT THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE AS A BOARD.
THESE ARE MISSTATEMENTS THAT WILL AFFECT THE HEIGHT OF TREES, THE DISTANCE OF THE A D D U TO THE STREET, THE AVAILABLE AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE.
UH, THESE ARE KEY CENTRAL FACTS, UH, ACT OF CREDIBILITY, UH, THEN CREATES PROBLEMS. LET'S GO TO SLIDE TWO.
WE CAN SEE THE CHECKING, UH, THE FACTS HERE.
WE FIND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF WAS INCORRECT WITH THE 57 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION.
THEY MEASURED IT ON THE PROPERTY BY NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION STAFF USING AN ARM TECHNIQUE.
I ARRANGED ON SEPTEMBER 16TH TO HAVE AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, MEASURED THE TREES, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY WERE OFF BY 9% ON THE LEFT AND 18% ON THE RIGHT, ON THE HEIGHT OF THE TREES.
THEY WERE WRONG IN TERMS OF THE, UH, LOCATION OF THE TREES BY 29%.
UH, THEY ARE WRONG IN TERMS OF HOW DISTANT THE CARPORT AND THE A D D U ARE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THEY'RE 65 FEET, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY, UH, LINE.
UH, AND THE, UH, THE CARPORT IS MY SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR, UH, IS IN FRONT OF ME BY, UH, FIVE FEET WITH A 60 FOOT, UH, SETBACK.
AND MY NORTHERN NEIGHBOR BY 72.
THE, UH, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE WILL ACTUALLY BE 38 FEET GIVEN THE FOUNDATION.
AND AS I POINT OUT ON THIS SLIDE, THIS SLIDE, THERE IS NO UNIFORM LOT LAYOUT ON SIDE L.
IMPORTANTLY FOR THE BOARD TO REALIZE THE STAFF REPORT AUTHORS NEVER ACCEPTED THE INVITATION TO PHYSICALLY SURVEY THE PROPERTY WHILE THE TREE PRESERVATION STAFF VISITED THE PROPERTY FOUR TIMES.
CAN WE GO TO SLIDE THREE BUILDING BY THE NUMBERS? I'M A NUMBERS PERSON AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A FINDING OF FACT TO UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS.
THE BILLABLE PROPERTY THAT REMAINS IS 101 BY 216, TAKING OUT THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS OF 40 FEET AND TAKING OUT THE 60 FOOT PENALTY THAT IS IMPOSED AS A RESULT OF THE TREES.
WE THEN END UP WITH TWO IDENTICAL PAR PARCELS, ALMOST 79 BY 105 AND 79 BY 111.
LET'S, UH, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS A PHOTO OF WHERE THE A D D U WILL BE NESTLED, UH, INSIDE THE TREES.
I'LL WAIT FOR YOU TO GET TO THAT SLIDE.
ARE YOU ON THAT SLIDE ACTUALLY? EXCUSE ME.
A D D U NESTLED INSIDE THE TREES TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BACK, AS I SAID, 65 FEET FOR THE CARPORT AND LITERALLY, UH, 89 FEET FOR THE HOUSE.
IT WILL SIT ADJACENT TO MY NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE AND IT WILL BE NESTLED WITHIN A, UM, A GROVE OF TREES THAT ARE BACKED UP TO THE FENCE LINE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY A D D U IS, UH, THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR'S, UH, DETACHED LIVING AREA, UH, KNOWN AS THE D L A.
UH, THAT WAS, I BELIEVE THE TERMINOLOGY USED PRIOR TO AN A D D U.
HIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, UM, SEVERAL DECADES AGO, AND THAT PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT FROM MY A D D U.
THE MOST CRITICAL, UH, SLIDE IS SLIDE FIVE, AND I'D ASK THAT WE ROLL TO SLIDE FIVE.
THAT IS, UH, THE SLIDE WHICH SHOWS THE HERITAGE TREES CREATING A TOPOGRAPHICAL HARDSHIP.
ARE WE ON THAT SLIDE YET? YES, MA'AM.
IF YOU'RE REVIEWING IT ONLINE, IT'S A DELAYED, UH, IT'S A DELAYED, DELAYED
[00:35:01]
ON THE, SO YOU'RE GOOD.THIS IS A CRITICAL, UH, FINDING OF FAX SLIDE.
UH, IT SHOWS THE HERITAGE TREES MID PROPERTY.
IT SHOWS THE CANOPY AROUND THOSE TREES 30 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION.
IT SHOWS THE TWO ALMOST EQUAL BILLABLE PLOTS, UH, IN FRONT AND BACK OF THE, OF THE TREES.
IT SHOWS THE CARPORT AND THE A D D U.
IT INDICATES THAT MY NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IS SET BACK 72 FEET IN THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, UH, BY, UH, 56 FEET.
IT ALSO INDICATES, UH, THE FOLLOWING, UH, THAT, UH, THE, UM, IF, IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE AND PLACE IT IN THE FRONT BUILDABLE AREA, AND IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE AVERAGE MEDIAN 67 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET THAT THE STAFF REFERENCES IN THEIR REPORT, INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD AT 20 FEET BACK, I WOULD BE A BUILDING AT AN AVERAGE OF 67 FEET BACK.
THAT IS ANOTHER 47 FEET FURTHER FROM, TAKEN FROM THE 105 FEET.
SO I WOULD HAVE 58 FEET IN LENGTH AVAILABLE TO BUILD IN THE FRONT PROPERTY IF I WAS REQUIRED TO BUILD A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME IN THE FRONT PROPERTY.
CLEARLY THAT DOES NOT WORK IN A PROPERTY OF THIS SIZE.
I WANNA QUICKLY GO THROUGH, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS SLIDE NUMBER SIX.
THIS IS THE, UH, UH, PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE CITY THAT YOU CAN SEE THE VIEW OF THE TREES.
IF INDEED, UH, WE BUILD 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
YOU CAN SEE YOU CAN HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT VIEW WITH MY, UH, APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE I'M OVER TO THE SIDE AND I DON'T BLOCK THOSE TREES.
ON SLIDE SEVEN, WHICH IS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU LOSE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TREES.
THIS IS BASED ON A SCALE THREE D MODEL GENERATED BY THE ENGINEERING COMPANY USING STANDARD SOFTWARE TRIMBLE SKETCHUP, IT MEASURES DIRECTLY THE IMPACT OF A BUILDING IN TERMS OF LINE OF SIGHT.
A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE VIEW OF THOSE TREES WILL BE OBSTRUCTED, UH, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE STREET.
IN FACT, YOU WILL SEE NONE OF THE STREET, UH, THOSE TREES UNLESS YOU BACK OFF TO THE VERY END AT VENT BOW STREET, WHICH IS A ONE BLOCK STREET THAT, UH, YOU'RE BACKING OFF ABOUT 400 FEET AT THAT POINT, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE JUST THE TOP OF THE ONE TREE.
IT'S A MISLEADING CONCLUSION TO SAY THAT YOU CAN PROTECT THE TREE, UH, VIEW.
ON SLIDE EIGHT, WE GET TO THE CHALLENGE OF VIEWING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER VERSUS NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT.
I'M VERY PROUD THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED OVER 40% OF THE, UH, RESPONSES OF THE, UH, 200, UH, FOOT PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA.
UH, AND OF THAT 47, UH, THE 40% WHO RESPONDED, 87% OF MY NEIGHBORS SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THESE COMMENTS HERE, WHETHER IT'S FROM NEIGHBORS WHO'VE LIVED HERE FOR 26 YEARS, NEIGHBORS WHO'VE LIVED FOR SEVEN, THEY LIVED FOR 45 YEARS ON THE PROPERTY, UH, A WOMAN WHO WAS INVOLVED WITH THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HERSELF, THEY ALL ARE ADVOCATING SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, ORDINANCE FOR THE VERY, OR THIS VARIANCE FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT I'VE ADVOCATED.
ON SLIDE NINE, WE POINT OUT THAT THE VARIANCE CHECKLIST, CONTRARY TO THE CITY REPORT, MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE, UH, NEIGHBORS HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED IT.
UH, THE A D D U WILL NOT BE SEEN, UH, BY THE STREET BECAUSE IT IS IN A, A GROVE OF TREES THAT IS BACKED FOUR FEET FURTHER THAN THE FURTHEST TREE THAT EXTENDS OUT.
SECOND, THERE IS A TOPOGRAPHY, UH, HARDSHIP ON THIS LOT OF 60 SQUARE, UH, 60 FEET OF CANOPY THAT IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, IT'S TOTALLY ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT YOU WOULD BUILD A A D D U CARPORT IN FRONT AND PUT THE A D D U IN BACK.
SO I CERTAINLY DON'T SUPPORT THAT ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WHICH IS CHECK MARK, NUMBER THREE, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
IF YOU VOTE WITH THE STAFF, YOU ARE DESTROYING OVER 40 YEARS OF LEGACY VIEW OF THE TREES.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING.
WE DON'T INJURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
IN FACT, MY NEIGHBOR BARRETT TO THE SOUTH HAS ALREADY RESPONDED.
UH, HIS, UH, HE WOULD'VE RESPONDED IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT HIS GRANDSON WENT INTO THE HOSPITAL ON
[00:40:01]
SATURDAY FOR SURGERY AND WAS IN THE HOSPITAL ON FRIDAY AT THE TIME OF THE DEADLINE.SO HE WAS ONLY ABLE TO INDICATE SUPPORT.
MY NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IS STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE AS WELL, AND SHE IS IN MEXICO, UNFORTUNATELY, COULD NOT GET HER COMMENTS SENT.
SO WE HAVE STRONG SUPPORT OF OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORS AS A WHOLE.
AND CLEARLY WE HAVE A, UH, DIFFERENCE OF REALITY BETWEEN THE STAFF WHO DID NOT DO ANY ANALYSIS OF, OF THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND THE, UH, THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE TREES.
THE 10TH SLIDE SUMMING IT UP, I THINK IS THE, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT AT CRUCIBLE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SIMPLY INVALID.
THE REPORT IS RIDDLED WITH INACCURACIES, KEY EMISSIONS AND SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT.
IT IS A BLATANTLY FALSE STATEMENT THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE VIEW OF THE TREE.
UH, THE STAFF PERSON, UH, ARGUED THAT IF YOU TOOK THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT OF THE TREE AND SUBTRACTED IT FROM WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS 57 FEET, YOU'D HAVE 22 FEET OF SPACE.
ANYONE REALIZES IF YOU'RE STANDING AT A FOOT OF A BUILDING THAT'S 35 FEET HIGH, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANYTHING UNLESS YOU'RE STANDING ON THE ROOF.
MY NEIGHBORS WILL NOT BE STANDING ON THE ROOF.
AND SO THERE THAT FACT HAS BEEN DISPROVED BY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY.
TWO, THEY ADMITTED THE STRONG STAFF FOR SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE.
THREE, THEY ADMITTED THE VERY COSTLY PENALTY, ALMOST 20% LOSS OF BILLABLE LAND.
THEY, UH, DID NOT REFERENCE THE DIVIDING OF THE PROPERTY INTO TWO, UH, REDUCED LENGTH PLOTS.
UH, THEY DID NOT REFERENCE THE, UH, THE DETACHED, UH, LIVING UNIT OF MY NEIGHBOR.
UH, AS AN EXAMPLE OF A, UH, CONFORMING USE, UH, I THINK NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE DEFINED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT BY NEIGHBORS WHO BLED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND A MEDIAN OVER OF OVER 24 YEARS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL DESIGN LAB THAT'S A PEJORATIVE PUT DOWN.
IT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE COMMITMENT TO PRESERVING THE TREES OF, OF THE, AND TO PRESERVING THE TREE VIEWS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
THE LAST SLIDE, SLIDE 11, UH, IS A LEGACY DECISION.
I'M ASKING YOU AS A BOARD TO PONDER WHAT YOUR LEGACY DECISION IS HERE.
YOUR APPROVAL OF MY VARIANCE SUPPORTS OVER 40 YEARS OF, OF THE COMMUNITY'S VISUAL ENJOYMENT OF MAJESTIC TWIN PEA POND TREES.
IT ENSURES THE LEGACY OF THOSE TREES TO BE SHARED BY YOUNG CHILDREN.
IT ENDORSES THAT SAN ANTONIO AS A TREE CITY U S A, AND IT'S, AND IT RESPECTS ITS TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
I ASK THAT YOU CELEBRATE THE MAJESTY OF THESE TREES.
TREES WHO STAY DEEPLY ROOTED WHILE REACHING FOR THE SKY.
AND THE FINAL SLIDE GIVES YOU A FEELING OF WHAT IT IS LIKE TO SIT UNDERNEATH THOSE TREES.
THAT WOULD BE SLIDE 12 AS YOU LOOK UP UNDER THOSE TREES.
MAYBE YOU CAN REMEMBER THE WORDS OF ONE OF MY FIVE YEAR OLD NEIGHBORS, ONE OF A, UH, THREE TRIPLETS WHO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, WHO SAID TO ME AS HE STOOD UNDER THOSE TREES THIS LAST WEEKEND.
THOSE ARE OUR TREES TOO, AREN'T THEY? THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ALRIGHT, UH, DO WE HAVE, UH, ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES? NO LIVE WITNESSES.
I DO HAVE 11 COMMENTS TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
FIRST LETTER IS FROM ROBIN AND DARRELL, UH, LANHAM LOCATED AT, UH, 73 50 SDEL.
THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT AREA.
I'M WRITING A RESPONSE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE 72 32 DEL ROAD.
MY HUSBAND AND I RESIDED AT 73 50.
WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOME SINCE 1994, SO WE ARE NOT NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE FAMILIARIZED OURSELVES WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE UNDER REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS AND IN FACT, ONLY POSITIVE IMPACTS FROM LOCATING AT A D D U AND PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AT 72 32 DEL THE ALLOTTED DEL CONTAINS TWO, UH, MAGNIFICENT, UH, TEXAS PECAN TREES.
THEY HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS HERITAGE TREES.
THEY HAVE BEEN A PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOME OF US HAVE BEEN LUCKY ENOUGH TO GATHER A FEW OF THOSE, UH, BIG PAPER SHELL PECANS, UH, WHICH THESE TREES BEAR.
KAMALA APPRECIATES THESE TREES AND HAS TRANSFERRED HER LOVE OF THESE TREES INTO A THOUGHTFUL PLAN, UH, FOR BUILDING HER HOME.
INSTEAD OF BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT, BLOCKING
[00:45:01]
THE SIG, UH, THE SIGHT LINE OF THE TREES FROM THE STREET.UH, SHE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD THE MAIN DWELLING BEHIND THE TREES.
SHE HAS LOCATED HER SMALLER A G D ON THE SIDE OF THE LOT WHERE IT ALSO WILL NOT HINDER A VIEW OF THESE WONDERFUL TREES.
PLACEMENT OF THE A G D WILL NOT, UH, WILL HAVE NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT OF THE PROPERTY, STREET VIEW, OR NEIGHBOR'S PRIVACY.
IT WILL ONLY IN, UH, ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORS TO CONTINUE TO SHARE THE GLORY AND HISTORY OF THESE TREES, UH, THAT THEY PROVIDE US.
THEY ARE CONSTANT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONE THAT WE ARE HAPPY.
CONNELL RE, UH, RECOGNIZES IF DR.
CONNELL WERE TO BUILD HER MAIN HO UH, DWELLING IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT, IN ORDER TO PLACE A D D IN THE THE REAR, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO, TO ENJOY THE TREES IN PASSING SINCE THEY WOULD EFFECTIVELY BLOCK, UH, COMPLETELY THE VIEW.
OURS IS A DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY HOME THAT FACES FIDEL.
SO WE GO TO THE NEXT LETTER FROM WILLIAM BARRETT AT 7 2 18.
I'M AN, UH, NEARBY NEIGHBOR OF THE AT, OF THE LOT, LOCATED AT 2232.
I HAVE REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AND I AM IN SUPPORT, UH, APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED A LOT OF, FOR THE PROPERTY IS LONG WITH TWO TREES LOCATED SOMEWHAT IN THE MIDDLE.
I BELIEVE THESE VARIANCES ALLOW THE OWNER TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE ENTIRE LOT WHILE PRESERVING THE TREES.
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THESE CHANGES WILL HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS FROM SUSANNA MERRIWEATHER.
UH, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE, THE ABOVE REFERENCED VARIANCE REQUEST.
MY NAME IS SUSANNA MERRIWEATHER AND RESIDES AT 72 13 DEL ACROSS THE STREET FROM 7 2 32.
MY FAMILY HAS RESIDED AT, AT THIS ADDRESS FOR THE PAST 45 YEARS.
I'M RIDING IN SUPPORT OF KATHLEEN, UH, CONNELL'S BUILDING PLANS, WHICH INCLUDE THE THOUGHTFUL PLACEMENT OF MAIN HOUSE BEHIND THE HERITAGE TREES AND ACCESSORY VARIANCE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
CONNELL HAS GONE, UH, TO GRACIOUS EXTREMES TO EXPLAIN THE NEIGHBORS, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORS, HER PLANS FOR THIS EXCEPTIONAL PIECE OF LAND.
I APPRECIATE THAT SHE HAS INCLUDED ALL OF THE POTENTIAL NEW NEIGHBORS IN HER, UH, EXCITEMENT TO BUILD IN HER IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE WATCHED HER DAILY, UH, PULL UP IN HER CAR AND, UH, PUT A FOLDING CHAIR UNDER THE TREES AND ENJOY.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY ACTIVE AND FRIENDLY PART OF THE TOWN WITH LOTS OF JOGGERS AND WALKERS ENJOYING THE SHADE, UH, GREENERY AND ALMOST, UH, COUNTRY FEEL LIKE IN THE STREET OR TO THE STREET.
UH, THE DRAWINGS, THE SCHEMATICS SHE HAS, UH, SHARED, APPEAR TO EMBRACE THE CURRENT FEEL WE ALL ENJOY ALONGSIDE DELL ROAD.
I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOPE THAT, UH, YOU'LL APPROVE THE PLANS.
SO OFTEN I HAVE SEEN HOMES PLACED IN LOTS WITHOUT TAKING AMAZING TREES INTO CONSIDERATION AND SIMPLY CUTTING THEM DOWN IN ORDER TO, TO PUT A HOUSE IN AS OBSERVED TREES, UH, SNEAKILY CUT DOWN IN THE NIGHT AND THE CITY HAS REQUIRED APPROVAL BEFORE THEY CAN BE CUT DOWN.
I APPLAUD HER EFFORT AND NOT, UH, IN, TO NOT IMPACT THE TREES AND BUILD HOME.
NEXT ONE, FROM KEITH KENNY, I BELIEVE AT 7 1 47, UH, VANDIVER.
THIS ONE SIMPLY SAYS IN FAVOR.
NEXT ONE IS FROM CAROL AND STEVE SPEARS.
FIRST THE SUBJECTS, UH, RESIDENCE THAT SITE PLAN IS, HAS SUBMITTED WOULD CAUSE THE RESIDENTS NOT TO BLEND WITH THE HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AREA.
SECOND, THE VIEW FROM SEL TO THE TWO LONG DRIVEWAYS, UH, TWO OPEN CARPORTS AND THE SIDE OF AN ACCESSORY DETACHED WALL UNIT WOULD BE UNATTRACTIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NEXT TO NEXT IN VIEW WOULD BE THE SECOND FENCE PART OF THE TREE.
NEXT IN VIEW WOULD BE THE SECOND FENCE PART OF THE TWO TREES AND THE PROPOSED MAIN RESIDENCE.
IT WAS NOTED THE REASON FOR HAVING THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS TO, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD SEE THE TWO LARGE TREES HAVING SO MANY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD.
A FIVE FOOT FENCE FROM THE SECOND FENCE OF SIX FEET WOULD CLEARLY REDUCE ANY DUTY.
THE TREES, UH, MIGHT PROVIDE MOST OF THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDE THOSE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SUBJECT.
[00:50:01]
POSITIONED IN THE STANDARD ATTRACTIVE LAYOUT FEATURING THE MAIN HOUSE TOWARD THE FRONT.WE WOULD PREFER THE HOUSE TO BE STANDARD POSITIONED TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE, THE LOT RATHER THAN HIDDEN IN THE BACK.
THIS WOULD, UH, THIS IS A TWO PLACE, THE A D U AND BOTH CARPORTS BEHIND THE RESIDENCE IN THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE OF THESE POINTS, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT, UH, TO BE BE LOCATED WITHIN FRONT PROPERTY.
WE ARE IN OPPOSITION FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING, UH, FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS TO BE LOCATED IN FRONT AS WELL.
ALRIGHT, NEXT, NEXT LETTER IS FROM TIM EY, UH, 28 31, UH, BENT BOW.
ALL IT SAYS, IT SIMPLY SAYS IN FAVOR.
THIS ONE IS FROM TINA LARSSON.
IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT AREA.
I'M WRITING SUPPORT, UH, TO SUPPORT THE GRANT REQUEST, UH, FOR 72 32 DEL BY DR.
KATHLEEN CONNELL IN ORDER TO BUILD N A D D U IN FRONT OF HER LOT AND CONSTRUCT OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE, OF THE REAR.
THIS PLAN ALLOWS PRESERVATION OF TWO VERY LARGE TREES, MATURE TREES, AND ARE ALSO GIVES NEIGHBORS CONTINUED PLEASURE OF SEEING BEAUTIFUL GREEN BELT.
AND, UH, THESE TREES FROM THE STREET, IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF 72 32 HAVE ALREADY ADDED ADDS IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN IN THE PAST.
UH, ONE WAS AN ADDED BUILDING, 1200 SQUARE FEET FOR THE, FOR AN IN-LAW SUITE AND OTHERS WITH AN ADDITION MAJOR, UH, ROOM BUILT ON TOP OF HER, THEIR EXISTING FRONT GARAGE.
SO PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORS BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD.
CONNELL HAS ALSO HAS ALSO SUPPORTED, UM, HAS SUPPORT FROM ALL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WITH NONE OBJECTING THAT I'VE HEARD OF.
CONNELL HAS ALSO HAS SUPPORT FROM THE, OF THE HEAD ARBORIST OF SAN ANTONIO AND A PRESERVATION GROUP.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I I LOVE MOST ABOUT THE 50 YEAR PLUS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD IS NO TWO PROPERTIES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
THERE IS NO H O A OR N O A TELLING, UH, OWNERS WHAT COLOR THEY NEED TO PAINT MUST PAINT, OR WHAT BRICK THEY MUST USE, OR SPECIFIC ROOFING MATERIAL OR FLOOR PLAN, ET CETERA.
LIKE, UH, ANY OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SAN ANTONIO, I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT DR.
CULLS IN HER REFERENCE TO SAVE THESE MATURE TREES AND THE VIEW, EVEN IF, UH, HER DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN MOST, UM, THAN MOST, IF HER NEIGHBORS DO NOT OBJECT, WHY SHOULD YOU? NEXT LETTER.
IT READS FROM PATTY WALL, VICE PRESIDENT OAK PARK, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 72 32 SDEL IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OAK PARK PARKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HOWEVER, WE ARE BY THE BOARD, UM, NEVER RECEIVED A NOTICE OF COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS REQUEST.
WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY, WHY THIS HAPPENED.
WE DID CLEAR THAT UP, UH, THERE CONTACT INFORMATION WAS UPDATED OR HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED WITH A VERY SHORT PERIOD IN TIME WITH CONSIDERATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE BOARD WILL LEAVE, UH, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, UH, TO THE BOARD WHO JUST WENT TO THE RESIDENCE NOTIFICATION.
THE BOARD HAS BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE A D D U VARIANCE, UM, ABOUT THE CITY.
IF THEY, IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP OF SOME KIND, THE D O P N N A EXPRESSES NO OPINION WHETHER HARDSHIP EXISTS IN THIS CASE OR NOT.
MY NAME IS PAMELA MARSH AND I LIVE AT 2030 BENBO.
UH, MY RESIDENCE IS ACROSS SDEL.
I'M REACHING OUT TO YOU TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS, THE VARIANCE OF THE PROPERTY.
I FEEL THE BUILDING PLAN WILL ENHANCE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALLOW US TO ALL ENJOY THE BEAUTIFUL PECAN TREES.
THIS ONE IS OUTSIDE 200 FOOT AREA.
UH, HE IS, LET'S SEE, WHERE IS HE AT? 7 2 0 4 SDEL ROAD, UH, WHICH IS ONE OF THE HOUSES FROM THE VACANT ONE HOUSE FROM THE VACANT PROPERTY.
AT THE SUBJECT OF THE B O A REQUEST, I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST BY DR.
CONNELL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE TWO HERITAGE UPON TREES CENTER, UH, THE PROPERTY MAINTAINING THESE TREES IN CENTRAL ESSENTIAL TO THE CURRENT ISSUE AND SHOULD BE OBVIOUS REASON FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS A TREE CITY U S A WITH A TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
THESE TREES PROVIDE HABITAT, UH, SOIL STABILIZATION, SHADE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE EXTENSION.
AND BY EXTENSION, THE CITY AND STATE
[00:55:01]
REMOVAL OF THESE HERITAGE PECAN TREES SIMPLY DUE TO EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND WOULD TAKE DECADES, UH, FOR, FOR GROWTH OF NEW TREES.UH, BUILDING PLACEMENT AT, AT QUESTION IS WHETHER ACCESSORY, BUILDINGS AND PARKING STRUCTURES SHOULD BE IN, IN, IN THE WEST, FRONT OR EAST OF THE PROPERTY.
ASSUMING THE PRESERVATION OF THE, UH, CENTRAL PECAN TREES, THE ASSOCIATED ISSUE BECOMES THE LOCATION OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE.
THE ORIGINAL 1930S AND 1940S HOME INSIDE DELL HILLS ON LARGER DEEP LOTS ARE ALL PLACED IN THE CENTER OR REAR OF THE PROPERTIES.
THE COMMONWELL RESIDENCE IS AS REQUESTED BY THE OWNER, UH, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BY BEING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND SHADED FROM THE DOMINANT SUN, UH, TO ITS WEST FACE BY THE CENTRAL PECAN TREES.
UH, WHICH WOULD BE, WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY'S ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL LOAD.
DISAPPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE MAIN RESIDENCE TO RESIDE IN THE FRONT HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THE PECAN TREES.
A LOCATION THAT IS NEITHER AESTHETICALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WELCOME TO, UH, BY ITS NEIGHBORS SMALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND OR CARPORTS AT THE FRONT OF THE SIDE.
THE PROPERTY ARE MORE APPROPRIATE AND PALATABLE.
I ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO APPROVE THE B O A REQUEST AT THE TIME ON THAT ONE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY.
WE DO HAVE MARK, WE DO HAVE MARK BYRD, OUR CITY ARBORIST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, UH, ASK OUR QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF BOARD.
SO IF, IF ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS A QUESTION ADDRESSING THE, UH, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FROM EITHER THE ARBORIST OR CITY STAFF, LET'S START WITH THOSE QUESTIONS.
ORIAN, MR. ORIAN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES.
UH, SO WE, ON, ON ONE OF THE, UH, LETTERS FROM ONE OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORS, UH, THE COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE SIX FOOT FENCE.
I JUST WANTED STAFF TO CLARIFY.
THAT IS GONNA BE A, LIKE A, A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, CORRECT.
'CAUSE IT'S IN THE FRONTAGE, THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, THE PLANS CALL FOR A, UH, AN A D D U, BUT IT ALSO HAS AN 11 FOOT GAZEBO.
DOES THAT ALSO COUNT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WE NEED TO, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BECAUSE THE, IT APPEARS IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR JUST ONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THE GAZEBO WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED PART OF THAT, BUT YES, IT CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD.
FOR US IT WAS JUST STRICTLY THE A D D U.
AND AS FAR AS THE FENCING GOES, UH, I THINK THAT'D BE MORE FOR THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS DESIGN GOES, UH, ONCE HE STARTS CONSTRUCTION.
BECAUSE THAT, THAT, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS RAISED.
THAT IF YOU WERE TO PUT A PREDOMINANTLY, UM, OPAQUE FENCE THAT YOU WOULD BLOCK VIEW OF THE TREES.
SO I'D ASSUME THAT IT WAS OPEN BECAUSE OF WHERE IT LIES.
SO THE EXISTING SOLID FENCING, IF SHE WERE TO GET THE, THE HOME IN THE BACK SO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU CAN HAVE A SOLID FENCE UP TO THE FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORS AS IS.
SO REGARDLESS OF HOW FAR BACK HER HOUSE IS, THE NEIGHBOR'S F FACADE WOULD BE THE POINT WHERE THE SOLID FENCING COULD START.
THANKS FOR CLEANING THAT UP, AKA MR. MENCHACA, YOU'RE BEING RECOGNIZED.
UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, ACCURACY INFORM HEIGHT AND BEING REFERRED TO FOLLOWING THE C D COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT, I WANNA GET TO THE ACTUAL HIGH, THE QUESTION HERE AND THEN THE THING THAT CANOPY AROUND IT.
UH, HOW DO WE MEASURE OUR TREES? FYI INFORMATION.
MR. MENCHACA, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SIR.
YOU CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH.
HOW ABOUT NOW? BETTER? WE'LL, WE'LL TRY, GO AHEAD.
UH, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO CONFIRM TO GET TO THE RIGHT INFORMATION HERE.
IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE TREES, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW DO WE MEASURE THE, FROM THE S POINT OF VIEW VERSUS COMMERCIAL THAT WE'RE ALSO WITH.
AND THAT SEEMS THE CONTENTION POINT HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S QUESTION FOR THE ARBORIST.
WE DO HAVE THE ARBORIST AVAILABLE.
HE'S GONNA HAVE TO REPEAT THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, SIR? MR. MARTINEZ? YEAH, WE CAN'T HEAR THE
UH, MR. MANCHACA, GET AS CLOSE TO YOUR MICROPHONE AS POSSIBLE AND RE AND REPEAT THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE TREE.
I TRYING USE HEADSET, THE COMPUTER.
HOW ABOUT NOW? LET'S TRY, OKAY.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK IS TO GET
[01:00:01]
TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION WE'RE GETTING AND THE DEVIATION OF THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE CONTENTIOUS POINT HERE.UH, HOW DO WE MEASURE FROM THE CITY, THE TREE'S ACTUAL HEIGHT VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL SO WE CAN REST ASSURED THAT WE DID THE ACCURATE INFORMATION ON BOTH SIDES.
SIR, AM I ON? YES, YOUR HONOR.
THIS IS MARK BIRD CITY ARBORIST.
WE MEASURE OUR TREES TO DETERMINE PROTECTED SIZE BASED ON DIAMETER AT BREATH HEIGHT.
SO THAT'S MEASURING THE TRUNK SIZE, NOT THE HEIGHT.
AND UH, WHEN THERE'S NO CALCULATION FOR THE HEIGHT OF A TREE, I BELIEVE WHEN, UH, DOCTOR REQUESTED, UH, SOMEONE TO ASSIST WITH THAT THEY DID THEIR BEST IN THE FIELD, WE GIVE A VERY ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THE TREE.
AGAIN, DIAMETER AT BREATH HEIGHT, SO THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON OR PROTECTIONS BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF A TREE.
IT'S ONLY ON THE DIAMETER SIDE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MENCHACA? YES, SIR.
UM, ANY OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION? MA MANNA? MR. MANNA? SO THIS IS PART THE, UH, I GUESS OUR CITY ARBORIST AS WELL.
SO THERE'S DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO THE CANOPY AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT CANOPY AND THE, AND THE, AND THE DISTANCE, I GUESS STATED THAT HAS TO BE AWAY FROM IT.
AND SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT THOSE, UH, RULES ARE? WITH REGARDS TO HOW CLOSE I CAN BUILD TO A TREE CANOPY, WE, WE HAVE, UM, LIMITS THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT WHAT'S CONSIDERED THE, UH, UH, ROOT PROTECTION ZONE.
IT'S BASICALLY, UH, SIX INCHES PER DIAMETER INCH.
SO I'M NOT RECALLING THE SIZE OF THESE TREES, BUT JUST SAY IF IT'S A 30 INCH TREE, THE MINIMUM ROOT PROTECTION ZONE FOR A TREE LIKE THAT WOULD BE 15 FEET AS AS A RADIUS? YES.
SO OVERALL, THAT'D BE 30 FEET FROM EDGE FROM, UH, OUTER CANOPY TO OUTER CANOPY? YES.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MANNA? THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.
SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, SO, SO THERE'S THE, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE B L A, WHAT A B L A IS.
THEY TALKED ABOUT A B L A BEING IN THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO, SO WHEN I LOOK AT GOOGLE, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, THE TWO HOMES NEXT TO IT, IF THEY DO HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, THEY'RE ATTACHED AS PART OF THE INITIAL, AS, AS THE HOMES WERE IN THIS ONE, IT IS A, IT IS A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING.
AND AM I GETTING THAT CORRECT HERE FROM WHAT THE REQUEST IS? AND, AND YOUR OBSERVATION ON THE FIELD? THAT'S FOR FROM THE FIELD? THAT'S FOR CITY.
SO THIS STRUCTURE, YES, IT'S GONNA BE A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING.
WE DIDN'T NOTICE ANY WHILE WE'RE ON THE FIELD OR BY AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWING ANY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT.
UM, WE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE, WE COULD NOT.
SO THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT WE BASE OUR DECISIONS ON WHAT WE DID.
AND SO MAYBE ONE MORE QUESTION AS A FOLLOW UP THEN, AS FAR AS DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, UM, IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, HOW COMMON WOULD THAT BE? OR HOW YEAH, HOW SO, HOW OFTEN, I MEAN, DO WE SEE THAT OR HAVE WE ALLOWED FOR THAT? I MEAN, IS THAT A, I I DON'T, I HAVEN'T SEEN VERY OFTEN.
SO I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT? SO KAT'S NODDING THAT SHE'S SEEN ONE OR TWO IN HER TIME WITH THE CITY.
SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY QUITE A TI.
UM,
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD, ROGER? I'VE GOT, UM, SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.
ALRIGHT, MR. HOW HAVE YOU HAVE MOVED ON? UH, I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM, FROM THIS PROPERTY AND MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET HAS AN A D D U IN FRONT.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO IS OUT THERE LOOKING FOR CITY STAFF, BUT ALSO THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HER LOT HAS A, A DWELLING THAT IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE HOME, LITERALLY ACROSS
[01:05:01]
THE FENCE THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT.SO THERE, THERE ARE THREE THAT I KNOW OF WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THAT PROPERTY.
UM, AND CITY STAFF SAID THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY, BUT I LIVE RIGHT HERE AND I KNOW THEM.
UM, IS IT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YEAH.
UM, EXCEPT THOSE WERE BUILT A LONG TIME AGO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN AND IF THEY EVEN WENT THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY STAFF CAN FIND THAT OUT OR IF IT EVEN MATTERS TODAY, UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE Y'ALL AWARE OF THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. DOMER.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED? DO ANY QUESTIONS BE TO BE ASKED OF THE APPLICANT? YES.
UM, DID THE APPLICANT GET, UH, UH, UH, CALLED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND REQUEST FOR AN APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? UH, IS IT, UH, APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO RESPOND? YES.
MR. DELMER? UM, YES, I DID CALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THAT IS WHY TINA LARSON CAME OUT AND, UH, SHE WAS THE ONE WHO DID WRITE A LETTER OF SUPPORT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I DID NOT GET NOTICED ABOUT THE, THE HEARING, AND SO THEY DID NOT TAKE AN OFFICIAL ACTION.
UH, SHE HERSELF HAS BEEN THE, UH, TREASURER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MADE A POINT OF COMING TO THE PROPERTY AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WROTE HER POSITIVE LETTER OF SUPPORT, UH, REGARDING THE A D D U.
AND SHE, LIKE YOU, MR. DONNER, POINTED OUT THAT SHE HAS SEEN, UH, SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREA THAT HAVE A D D USED IN FRONT.
THAT WORKS ALONG WITH WHAT YOU JUST STATED.
UH, MR. DELMER, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UH, I BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED THE, UH, WITNESSES AND WE ADDRESSED THE APPLICANT, WE'VE ADDRESSED THE STAFF QUESTIONS.
AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS, SO PORTION TO THE PUBLIC AND, UH, LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS, UH, CASE ORIAN.
DO I HAVE A, UH, DO I HAVE SOMEONE LOOKING? WHO WAS THAT? UH, ORIAN.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 20 DASH OH 3 0 0, MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED FRONT PROPERTY AND TO A VER TO ALLOW PARKING FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITH DIFFERENT PROPERTIES SITUATED AT 7 2 3 2 CIDAL ROAD.
APPLICANT DEAN, KATHLEEN CONNELL.
MR. ORIAN, CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT AND, AND YOU'RE CUTTING OUT A LITTLE BIT TOO.
IS THAT, UH, IS THAT BETTER? YES, A LITTLE LOUDER LIKE THAT.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 8 8, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED.
OKAY, MR. ORIAN, YOU'RE CUTTING IN AND OUT.
I, I'M NOT ABLE TO HEAR MOST OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UM, I'M GONNA WALK, WALK CLOSER TO THE, UH, I'M GONNA WALK CLOSER TO, IS THAT BETTER? AM I I'M GETTING CLOSER TO MY, UH, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CUT OUT, WE'RE DOING FINE.
UH, A, UH, WHAT IS THAT? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME A LOT BETTER NOW? I CAN HEAR YOU CLEARLY, BUT YOU HAVE BEEN CUTTING OUT.
I I JUST WALKED ABOUT 10 FEET CLOSER TO THAT.
SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 8 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY.
AND TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELL, ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY, SITUATED AT 7 2 3 2 CYTO ROAD, APPLICANT BEING KATHLEEN CONNELL.
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
[01:10:01]
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.SPECIFICALLY, YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, VARIANCE IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO BE NOTICED FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IT IS NOT DETRACT IS NOT DETRACTING.
VISUAL APPEARANCE AND PROPERTY USE TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY.
LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PROHIBITING THE OWNER TO ENJOY THE FLICK EXTENT OF THEIR PROPERTY AS OTHER NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE AREA HAVE DONE BY ALLOWING THE MAXIMUM EXTENT OF THE FRONT PROPERTY FOR BOTH AN ACCESSORY ATTACHED BLOWING UNIT AND PARKING TO BE ALLOWED.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, A 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 ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS IS TO CREATE UNIFORMITY AND PROTECTED PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT WILL MAINTAIN ALL SETBACKS AND LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVER BELOW 50% OF THE FRONT PROPERTY.
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 IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A 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 TO ALLOW AN EXCESS, AN ACCESSORY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT AND IS PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SIX, EITHER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE LOT WARRANTS THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED OF THE LIMITATIONS CURR BY THE ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ORRAN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, UH, MS. PRAG? UH, MS. FISHER.
UH, MS. FISHER, THANK YOU MUCH.
UH, MS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? SURE.
UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, REQUEST BECAUSE, UH, I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UH, HARDSHIP THAT KEEPING THESE TWO TREES IS, IS GOING TO MAKE A DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT AND THAT IT, UH, IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE LARGER STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A, A GOOD FIVE FEET LOWER ACCORDING TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE, OF THE, UH, PLANT SUBMITTED, UH, IN THE REAR.
I THINK THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE A D D U AND OTHER ACCESSORY ITEMS LOCATED ON THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE CONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND.
UH, MS. MS. FISHER, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? YES, I DO.
I AGREE WITH, UM, MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBER.
I HAVE, UH, SEEING SEEN, UH, VERY MANY LARGE AND UNIQUE PROPERTIES WITHIN SAN ANTONIO AND ALAMO HEIGHTS THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH, UH, PARKING STRUCTURES, LET'S SAY IN THE FRONT BECAUSE OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF A UNIQUE, UH, TOPOGRAPHY.
AND IT MAXIMIZES THE, UH, UNIQUE DESIGN OF THE TREES, WHICH IS JUST, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALL STRIVING FOR, IS TO PRESERVE THE HERITAGE TREES AND, UH, PLACE THEM IN A, OR NOT PLACE THEM, BUT WORK WITH THEM IN THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT MR. OZUNA, PLEASE? YOUR, WELL, I THINK THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A VERY THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATE, UM, UM, SUPPORT OF HER, UH, REQUEST.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY, VERY WELL METHODICAL THOUGHT OUT.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, I WILL SUPPORT THE VARIANCE SHE'S REQUESTING.
UH, ANY OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBER? DELMER.
ALL RIGHT, MR. DELMER, PLEASE.
UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL.
UM, THESE, THESE LOTS ARE BECOMING HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND, UM, IN SAN ANTONIO.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STUCK WITH WHAT YOU HAVE AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE
[01:15:01]
THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE, OF THE LAND.AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S DOING.
I THINK ANYBODY THAT'S GOT AN ARGUMENT THAT, THAT THE A D D U IS GONNA TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM THEIR VIEW, A LITTLE CREATIVE LANDSCAPING CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT.
THAT'S, IS THAT ALL THE, UM, INPUT WE'RE GONNA GET FOR THIS CASE? VERY WELL, THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I SUPPORT THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASON PRESENTED BY MY COLLEAGUES, MS. CRUZ.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DELMER.
MR. ORIAN CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS.
MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, I WOULD, UH, WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CITY STAFF ON THIS TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND I'M SURE THAT, UH, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE CARE OF WHAT YOU HAVE.
SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.
[4. 20-5536 BOA-20-10300076]
WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 76 AT 1707.ANN ARBOR IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR.
APPLICANT IS CELLULAR SCIENCE TO REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A REGISTRATION OF A ONE OPERATED ABUSE DUTY BARBER SHOP WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
CAN SOMEONE WHO'S GOT THE MAKING SOME NOISE, MUTE YOUR MIC? WELL, WE CAN MUTE THEM FROM HERE.
WE'RE GONNA MUTE THEM FROM HERE.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A NEW REGISTRATION OF A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY, UH, BARBER SHOP WITHIN A, A RESIDENCE.
THERE IS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT RECORD FOR THIS PROPERTY CERTAIN THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY OCCUPIED BY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
AND THAT'S THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.
AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION N B O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 7 6 FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS, TWO YEARS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUEST MEETS ALL CRITERIA FOR GRANT TEAM THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THAT, UH, THE EXTENT, THAT IS THE EXTENT OF IT.
AND THERE'S ONE IN OPPOSITION, NO NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, AND IT'S LOCATED 200 FEET AWAY FROM YALE DEL, SO H O A.
AND THEY DID NOT RECEIVE IT, NO RESPONSES FROM THEM.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE.
UM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
HOW YOU DOING? UH, MY NAME IS EDUARDO NCIO, 1707 ANN ARBOR DRIVE.
AND THIS IS, YEAH, REGARDING A, UH, HAIR SALON, BARBERSHOP, JUST THE, UH, IN A ATTACHED GARAGE PART OF THE HOUSE.
UH, MOSTLY IT'S GONNA BE ONE PERSON AT A TIME, TWO OR THREE PERSON A DAY AT THE MOST.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE A REGULAR BUSINESS THAT PEOPLE WILL LINE UP TO GET IN THERE, OR THERE'LL BE PEOPLE ON WAITING.
THERE'LL BE NO PEOPLE IN THERE EXCEPT ONE PERSON AT A TIME, TWO OR THREE TIMES DURING THE WEEK, OR FOUR TIMES DURING THE WEEK.
UH, PEOPLE WILL BE WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING OR EVEN THE PARKING.
IT'S GONNA BE OPERATED BY MY WIFE.
UH, SHE'S A LICENSED, UH, BEAUTICIAN.
AND, UH, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, I THINK.
UM, NOW ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, INPUT FROM, UH, THE PUBLIC? YES, SIR.
UH, WE GOT TWO COMMENTARY CARDS AND ONE VOICEMAIL.
I'LL READ OFF THE QUICK CARDS.
WE KNOW THEY WILL FOLLOW ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS.
THIS IS FROM JOSE AND DEANNA RIVERA, THE 1718 ANN ARBOR.
[01:20:01]
I CAN'T READ THE FIRST NAME IN, UH,IT APPEARS THEY'RE IN SUPPORT.
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA PLAY A VOICEMAIL AT THIS TIME, SIR.
THIS IS EVARISTO RODRIGUEZ, JR.
AND THE LAST THREE NUMBERS OF THE CASE NUMBER ARE 0 7 6.
ADDRESS IS 1710 ANN ARBOR DRIVE.
AND I AM IN OPPOSITION TO, I'M IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF INCREASED POTENTIAL TRAFFIC, INCREASED CONGESTION, INCREASED NOISE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCREASED POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A CAR ACCIDENT STREET.
UH, AND IT'S NOT, THE STREET IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE SIZE TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, INCREASED PARKING ON THE STREET DUE TO LACK OF PARKING SPACES, DESTRUCTION OF, OF, UH, OF A PEACEFUL HOMEY.
IN ELEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE BUSINESS WILL BRING MORE THAN MORE NON NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS THAT DO NOT MAINTAIN A COMMITMENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED TRASH, INCREASED POSSIBILITY OF CAR AND HOME DEATHS, BREAK-INS NOISE.
IT'S SETS A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
INCREASES THE DANGER OF, INCREASES THE DANGER ELEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE STREET, RIDING THEIR BIKES IN THE AREA TO BE, UH, RUN OVER AND HURT.
A ARUN CUSTOMER CAN BRING A DANGER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT ONLY TO THE BUSINESS.
AND THAT'S JUST TWO MINUTES ON THAT ONE.
THE, THE VOICEMAIL CONTINUES ON FOR ANOTHER MINUTE OR SO.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE COMMENTARY.
I ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC INPUT? YES, SIR.
UH, BOARD, UH, NOW WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE APPLICANT AND OR STAFF QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
IS THERE ANY MR. CRUZ? MR. DID MS. CRUZ, YOU'RE BEING RECOGNIZED FIRST.
UM, ZEKE, IS THIS THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY APPLIED FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION? THAT IS CORRECT, MA'AM.
THAT'S WHY IT'S THE TWO YEARS.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.
ANYONE ELSE?
'CAUSE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THAT THOUGH.
WELL, WE CAN, WE CAN DELINEATE A SPECIFIC TIME IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE GONNA ALLOW IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THAT COULD BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.
SO, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL GET TO THAT, UH, PROBABLY DURING THE DISCUSSION.
UM, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, DELMER, UH, UH, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, ARE YOU GONNA, UH, HOW MANY CHAIRS ARE GONNA BE IN THE SALON? OR A BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE HOW MANY CUSTOMERS DO YOU ANTICIPATE HAVING AT ONE TIME? FIVE.
I KNOW THE, UH, NEIGHBOR WAS UNAWARE, OR, OR PROBABLY OUR, OUR PURPOSE IS ONE PERSON AT A TIME DURING THE DAY, BUT IT WILL BE CONSIDERED BUSINESS HOURS, EIGHT TO FIVE, IF ANY.
BUT, UH, THEY WILL NEVER BE MORE THAN ONE PEOPLE AT A TIME DURING THE DAY.
AT THE MOST WILL BE TWO, BUT USUALLY ON ONE CAR.
SO THERE WILL BE NO, UH, SPECIFIC HOURS, BUT IT'S GONNA BE BUSINESS HOURS AND IT'S GONNA BE ONLY ONE PEOPLE AT A TIME.
SO WE'VE GOT OUR HOURS BEING SPECIFIED FROM EIGHT TO FIVE 30, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID? UH, YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
[01:25:01]
REGULAR.AND THEY, UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONE PEOPLE AT A TIME, SO THERE'LL NEVER BE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THEY'LL BE PARKING ON MY DRIVEWAY.
ALL RIGHT, WELL THAT DEALS WITH THAT ALL.
UH, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. DELMER? YES, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OH, MINKA, MR. MINKA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
DID YOU SPECIFY THE WEEKENDS OR JUST MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY? UH, I DID NOT SPECIFY.
THE WEEKENDS ARE UNLIKELY, BUT LIKE I SAID, IF ANY WILL BE ONE PERSON AT THAT TIME DURING THE EIGHT, UH, NO LATE HOURS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I CAN.
UH, SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY ON A WEEKEND, BUT IT'D BE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MICKA? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION? BATTLE? OKAY.
I CAN BARELY HEAR WHO ASKED THAT QUESTION.
YOU HAVE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO ASK THE QUESTION, PLEASE.
UH, THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY FOR THE STAFF.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UH, UH, BARBERSHOPS OR SALONS THAT ARE REGISTERED IN, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT'S, AND CAN YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT THE, UM, PROXIMITY RESTRICTION IS? IF THERE ARE? THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PROXIMITY RESTRICTION ULTIMATELY WITHIN THE U D C.
UM, IT ACTS AS A HOME OCCUPATION, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE FEW HOME OCCUPATIONS, UH, THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE BOARD.
AS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF, I'M UN UNAWARE OF ANY IN THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, THE FIRST TIME YOU, YOU GET YOUR REGISTRATION, IT'S FOR TWO YEARS.
THE BOARD THEN REVIEWS AFTER TWO YEARS AND THEN CAN EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS AFTER THAT.
SO THIS WILL BE THEIR FIRST TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, ALL RIGHT.
UH, NONE, NONE BEING THE CASE.
WE HAVE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE ISSUES HERE.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
BRAMAN, MS. BRAMAN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, PLEASE.
UH, REGARDING THE CASE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 6.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, ONE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SORRY, GRANT ONE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW REGISTRATION OF ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBER SALON WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITUATED AT 1707 ANN ARBOR, APPLICANT BEING CELIA SESE.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN A UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER IN THAT THE PROPOSED ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY SALON WILL FOLLOW THE SPECIFIED CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 99 DASH 0.01.
IN THE HIGH DEVELOPMENT CODE B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SERVED WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST, AS IT WILL PROVIDE A VALUABLE AND NEEDED PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT WILL NOT NEG NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL PRIMARILY, WILL BE PRIMARILY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE BEAUTY SHOP WILL OPERATE WITHIN THE MAIN STRUCTURE, AND THE FACT THAT A BEAUTY SHOP IS BEING OPERATED FROM THE HOME WILL LIKELY BE INDISCERNIBLE TO PASSERSBY.
AS SUCH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
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 REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE USE WILL LIKELY BE INDISCERNIBLE TO PASSERS BACK.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IS TO PROMOTE THE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY.
THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THESE PURPOSES, NOR WILL IT WEAKEN THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED FOR THIS DISTRICT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND CREW? SECOND.
MS. CRUZ, UH, MS. BRAGMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? YES, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
UM, THE BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY IS SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND GIVEN THIS TIME THAT WE'RE IN, WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS OR NOT HAVE WORK TO BE ABLE TO CREATE, UM, A JOB OR INCOME FOR THIS FAMILY,
[01:30:01]
I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.MS. CRUZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE? UH, YES.
I GO AHEAD AND, UH, SUPPORT, UH, MS. BRACKMAN ON THIS ALSO TO, UH, TO PLEASE INCLUDE THAT, UH, HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE 8:00 AM TO 5:30 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
ALRIGHT, CONSIDER THAT A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
MS. BRAGMAN, YOU ACCEPT THAT? HELLO? MY, SORRY, QUESTION.
WHAT ABOUT THE WEEKENDS? HE SAID THAT THERE MIGHT BE, UM, APPOINTMENTS, SINCE THIS IS AN APPOINTMENT ONLY BUSINESS, CAN WE CHANGE THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE ALL DAYS OF OPERATION? WELL, YOU CAN LIMIT THE HOURS TO, TO ANY DAYS, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DO JUST DESIGNATE THE DAYS OF THE WEEK.
WE GENERALLY DON'T ALLOW UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY REQUEST SUNDAYS.
I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT THEN, IN TERMS OF, WOULD HE DO MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND NOT SUNDAY APPOINTMENT MONDAY, BUT LIMITED TO EIGHT TO FIVE 30? YES.
SO YOU'RE GONNA AMEND YOUR MOTION FOR THAT CASE.
DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT? WELL, WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T PASSED.
IS CAT THERE? CHAD HAD TO WALK AWAY TO ANOTHER MEETING, SO I'M ACTUALLY TAKING OVER AT THIS POINT.
LEMME, I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT THIS IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I'M JUST GONNA ASK FOR A QUICK ROLL CALL OR VOTE.
DOES ANYONE DISAGREE WITH THAT BEING ADDED TO THE, UM, UH, TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION? THOSE IN DISAGREEMENT SAY, SAY, UH OH, PLEASE SAY SOMETHING, THEREFORE I HEAR NOTHING.
THEREFORE, THAT WILL NOW GO AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, APPROVE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT APPROVED TO BE A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
UH, AND WE ARE GONNA CON CONTINUE ON WITH THE DISCUSSION.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE INDICATE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON THE, UH, ORIGINAL MOTION WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
MR. MACHACA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS, MR. OZUNA FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THEREFORE, THE MOTION TO PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR, UM, UH, UH, BEAUTY SALON AND, UM, WE'LL GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE UNLESS WE HAVE SOMEONE NEEDS A BREAK.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE ON WITH, UH, CASE NUMBER 0 7 7.
COULD WE JUST TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO FIND OUT.
OKAY, THEREFORE WE'RE NOT CONTINUING.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SAY BE BACK BY 2 45.
ALRIGHT, NOW IT IS 2:44 PM UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WE'LL, UH, CONTINUE IT SESSION FOR, UH, SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2020.
[5. 20-5537 BOA-20-10300077]
TO OUR NEXT CASE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS CASE NUMBER 0 7 7.SO IT'S 2313 EDISON DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
THE APPLICANT IS CONNIE HIGH TO REQUEST FOR ONE, A TWO FOOT, 11 INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO FIVE FOOT 11 INCHES TALL IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD.
CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR A H O D.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A VARIANCE TO KEEP A FIVE FOOT, 11 INCH TALL CEDAR FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD.
APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY BUILT THE NEW FENCE AS THE ORIGINAL FENCE WAS ROTTED OUT AND FELL CAUSING HAZARDS.
THE APPLICANT STATES THEY CONSTRUCTED THE PRIVACY FENCE DUE TO THE SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES.
UH, THERE IS AN OPEN CODE CONFINES RECORD FOR THE FENCE, UH, BEING BUILT WITHOUT PERMIT.
[01:35:01]
ALRIGHT, IS THAT THE, SO THAT WAS THE, THE, THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY.THERE'S CURRENTLY AN OLD STONE, UH, FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD.
NEXT IMAGE, AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT, THAT'S THE, UH, CEDAR FENCE THAT WAS BUILT.
THE STONEWALL FENCE, UH, CROSSES APPROXIMATELY THREE OR FOUR, UH, PROPERTIES SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF D O A 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 7 OF THE REQUESTED, TWO FOOT 11 INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO FIVE FOOT 11 INCHES TALL IN THE FRONT YARD.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FOOT 11 INCHES WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY, AND THE FENCE WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BY BEING A SOLID WOODEN FENCE, UH, WITHIN THE REAR YARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, HOWEVER OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW FENCE TO BE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF EFFECT, THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE ONLY TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPO, THE PROPERTY DRIVEWAY THAT WILL VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY NINE FEET, THREE INCHES FROM THE EDGE, AND 30 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.
TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, TWO WERE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT COUNTY HIGH ON THE PHONE.
UH, MS. HIGH, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
MY NAME IS 2313 ADDISON DRIVE, UH, K 77.
AND I'M REQUESTING TO THE BOARD TO PLEASE LET ME KEEP MY FENCE THE WAY IT IS FOR SECURITY REASONS AND MY SAFETY.
I'M 74 YEARS OLD AND I NEED TO FEEL SAFE AND STRESS-FREE.
I DID NOT GET A PERMIT TO BUILD BECAUSE I HAD A FENCE THERE ALREADY THAT HAD BROUGHT IT.
I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1997 AND I PLAN TO BUILD A FENCE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF YOU LET ME KNOW FROM THIS, UH, MEETING, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, UH, SEVERAL NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN BUILDING FENCES AND START, AND I STARTED THINKING MAYBE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH HOMELESS ROAMING AROUND THE ROAMING AROUND THE DAY AND TIME AT NIGHT ON FREDERICKSBURG ROAD BY GOODWILL AND THE AUTO BUSINESS, BILL MILLER'S AND BOTH LOCATIONS ARE VERY CLOSE TO ME WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE.
AND I MYSELF REPORTED SOME HOMELESS GUY BEHIND MY, UM, BACKYARD.
IT IS FENCE STAND, BUT THERE WAS ONE PORTION OF THE, OF THE BACK THAT WASN'T FENCED IN.
SO THEY WERE COMING IN AND USING MY ELECTRICITY SOMETIME BACK, NOT MAYBE I REPORTED THAT, DID REPORT IT TO THE CITY AND THEY'RE STILL THERE.
THEY MADE LIKE, UM, A SHACK IN THE BACK.
SO THEY MAKE NOISE AT NIGHT AND THEY WAKE YOU UP AT NIGHT.
UM, BUILDINGS THAT TRACK THAT THEY BUILT, THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE I REPORTED IT.
ZEKE, HAVE WE LOST HER? UH, NO, I'M HERE.
I WAS GONNA TELL YOU THE SAME, UM, PEOPLE THAT LIVE BEHIND, UH, THAT LIVE NOW BEHIND MY BACKYARD, PUT, I MEAN THEIR BACKYARD, BUT IT'S, UH, THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT BELONGS TO, BUT THEY KEEP YOU AT NIGHT BOARDING THOSE THINGS THAT THEY'RE BUILDING OUT THERE IN THE BACK.
UH, THEY PASSED THROUGH MY YARD.
THEY WEREN'T PASSING THROUGH MY YARD TILL I HAD MY SON BUILD THE LITTLE FENCE ON THE SIDE, AND THEY WERE PASSING BY THERE DURING THE DAY AND USING MY ELECTRICITY AND SCARING ME AT NIGHT OR DURING THE DAY WHEN THEY PASS BY.
SO THAT'S WHY I WANT A FENCE ALL AROUND THE HOUSE.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION, MA'AM? YES, SIR.
[01:40:02]
ALL RIGHT.UM, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES, UH, OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC INFORMATION WE HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTARY THAT I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD, SIR.
FIRST ONE, I'M GONNA MISS PEN PRONOUNCE HIS NAME, JOHN GEHRING AT 2317 FRESNO IN FAVOR.
THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE, UH, GRANTING A VARIANCE.
SECOND ONE IS FROM, UH, PAUL CHAUFFER.
MY NAME IS PAUL S CHAUFFER, AND I'M A, UH, THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OF RICK AND CONNIE AT 2313 EDISON DRIVE.
THEY DECIDED TO BUILD A NEW FENCE, UH, BECAUSE THE LAST ONE WAS VERY OLD AND FALLING APART.
THE NEW ONE LOOKS GREAT, AND IT DOES NOT BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE STREET WHATSOEVER ON EITHER SIDE.
AND I'M IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THEM, UH, THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION.
THIS IS FROM THREE DIFFERENT FOLKS LISTED ON THE SAME EMAIL FROM A CECILIA ROS AT 2311 EDISON ISAAC MARTINEZ, THEN THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND MU MARTINEZ NO ADDRESS LISTED.
THIS ONE READS, UH, THIS IS A CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT.
UH, CITY OF ORANGE EXISTS TO ENSURE THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE PROTECTED FROM SITUATIONS SUCH AS THAT WHICH ARE, UM, WE ARE NOW FACING.
IF THIS NEIGHBOR IS ALLOWED TO BREAK THIS ORDINANCE, UH, WE BELIEVE OTHER NEIGHBORS WILL WANT TO DO THE SAME.
WE HAVE AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM, AND THE FENCE WILL COMPLICATE ITS PURPOSE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT SIX FOOT PRIVACY CEDAR FENCE CAN ONLY BE INSTALLED WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE STREET.
THE FRONT YARD FENCE, UH, SHOULD BE THREE FEET OR LOWER.
THE FENCE IN QUESTION WAS CONSTRUCTED APPROXIMATELY, UH, SIX FEET HIGH.
I HAD DISCUSSED THIS, UH, THE CITY ORDINANCE WITH MY NEIGHBOR PRIOR TO THE FENCE GOING UP.
HER RESPONSE WAS THAT IT WOULD, UH, BE PUT UP REGARDLESS OF ANY EXISTENCE.
THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE TO FENCE IT AS IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
COMPLETELY OBSTRUCT THE VIEW TO MY HOUSE ON THE SIDE OF THE YARD, AND MAKES IT DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS TO DRIVE OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY AS IT MAKES IT, UH, IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IN THAT DIRECTION FROM THE PROPERTY.
FURTHERMORE, MY, MY HOME IS THREE HOUSES AWAY, UH, FROM BILL MILLER'S ON THE CORNER OF EDISON AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD.
UH, THE, THAT AREA IS KNOWN FOR ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND BAD THINGS OFTEN OCCURRING IN THAT VICINITY.
LATELY, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE SLEEPING AT THE BILL MILLER'S PARKING LOT.
SOMETHING, SOMETIMES THOSE SAME PEOPLE WANDERING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS VERY SCARY TO NOT TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THEIR AREA AND NOT TO BE ABLE TO SEE SOMEONE APPROACHING UNTIL THEY ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU.
UH, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO ENDURE, UH, THIS, JUST SO THAT ANOTHER CAN BREAK THE RULES.
UH, PRIOR TO THE SIX FEET FENCE BEING ERECTED, I USED TO SEE THEM, UH, WALKING TOWARDS MY HOME AND COULD QUICKLY GO INSIDE AND, AND LOCK MY DOOR.
UH, RECENTLY A MAN APPROACHED ME WHILE I WAS WATERING MY PLANTS AND ASKED FOR MONEY AND USED MY RESTROOM.
FORTUNATELY, MY NEIGHBOR FROM ACROSS THE STREET WAS ALSO AT THE YARD AND ASKED THE MAN TO MOVE ALONG.
THE LETTER EXTENDS A COUPLE MINUTES MORE.
UM, ACTUALLY IT'S CAESAR AND PATRICIA ROJAS, 2324 EDISON.
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE MY PREVIOUS EMAIL.
AFTER GETTING MORE IN, MORE INFORMED ABOUT THE SI SITUATION, WE HAVE TO POSE, UH, THE FENCE.
IT WOULD BE A LIABILITY TO THE SURROUND NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE COMMENTARY FROM THE, THE COMMUNITY.
NOW, ZEKE, YOU'RE I, BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS E LAST EMAIL OPPOSE IS AN OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINAL LETTER SENT.
THAT WAS, THAT'S WHAT, SAME HERE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PRIOR TO, I THOUGHT I SAW A ROJA A MINUTE AGO.
ONE OF THE FIRST ONES YOU READ? UH, NO, THE FIRST ONE WAS FROM, UH, JOHN GEHRING, THEN A PAUL SCHAFFER.
THE NEXT ONE WAS THREE DIFFERENT FOLKS.
ONE WAS, UH, CECILIA, ROS, ISAAC, MARTINEZ, AND MARTINEZ.
OH, THERE IT'S, YEAH, C AND PATRICIA ROJAS.
THAT WAS THE LAST ONE I THOUGHT I SAW.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
UH, AND THAT'S THE, THE TOTAL OF THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.
UH, SO I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD AT THIS TIME
[01:45:01]
TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM STAFF, FROM THE APPLICANT.WE CAN'T ASK QUE QUESTIONS FROM THE, UH, PUBLIC.
SO WE'RE JUST TO COME UP WITH QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT.
IS THERE ANYONE INTERESTED, MS. DORIAN? YES.
SO, UH, ZEKE, UM, CAN YOU, CAN YOU, UH, UH, GET INTO WHAT THE 25% RULE IS? I MEAN, SO IF YOU HAVE A ROCK FENCE AND AN EXISTING REAR FENCE, AND THERE WAS A FENCE AT ONE POINT WHERE THE, THE ORIGINAL FENCE WAS ROTTED OUT, COULD THIS, I I, IF THIS WAS, UH, NO MORE THAN 25%, WOULD THIS EVEN BE AN ISSUE WITH THE BO O A? SO IT, THE 0.5% RULE IS FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES.
UM, IF YOU'RE REPAIRING A FENCE UP TO 25%, YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PULL A PERMIT FOR IT.
THE ISSUE STILL IS THE PREVIOUS PEN FENCE WAS NOT A SOLID FENCE AT SIX FEET.
UM, LOOKING AT GOOGLE IMAGES, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THIS WAS MATCHING ANY OLDER FENCE.
UM, PRIOR TO, SO CODE CON COMPLIANCE WAS CALLED OUT APPARENTLY, AND, UM, CITED, UH, THE APPLICANT AND THAT'S WHAT BRINGS HER HERE TODAY.
I WILL SAY THIS, THAT CEDAR FENCE IS ON ONE SIDE.
SHE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A SIMILAR CEDAR FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE YARD AS WELL.
NOT REMOVING THE STONE, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE BETWEEN HER AND HER OTHER NEIGHBOR.
AND, AND THEN, UH, SECONDLY, WITH THE, UH, CHANGE, UH, ON THE LAST, UH, PUBLIC INPUT, WHAT DOES THE COUNT FOR, APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THAT FROM THE RESIDENCE? WELL, WE CAN'T USE, REALLY USE THAT MAP BECAUSE WE HAD SEVERAL APPLICANTS REPLY.
UM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM WHAT THE MAP SHOWS, IT'S 50 50.
BUT I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE LEANING TOWARD APPROVAL, UH, FROM THE REAL ISSUE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.
AND TWO, WERE IN FAVOR, UH, FROM THE LETTERS AND TWO IN OPPOSITION.
SO 50 50 MS. CHACO, MR. MINCHA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES, SIR.
JUST CAN YOU SHOW US A PICTURE OF WHAT THE FENCE LOOKS LIKE AGAIN, FROM THE STREET, THE PICTURE FROM THE STREET, WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.
THAT ONE, THERE'S, THAT'S THE FENCE THAT THEY PUT UP.
AND THEN THERE'S THE ROCK WALL.
SO THERE YOU COULD SEE THE FENCE ON THAT SIDE AND THE OLD ROCK WALL.
AND THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE ROCK WALL IS NOT OF ISSUE HERE.
IT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE CODE, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
WE'RE ONLY GONNA BE INTERESTED IN THE REPLACEMENT FENCE THAT WAS PLACED IN VIOLATION OF, OF THE EXISTING CODES.
THE ISSUE, UH, THAT ZEKE WAS TRYING TO BRING UP WAS THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN FENCES AND BY MAINTAINING, YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO PUT UP, UH, OR TO PULL A PERMIT UNLESS THE MAINTENANCE IS AREA COVERED IS IN EXCESS OF 25%.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SHE REPLACED THE ENTIRE FENCE, A PORTION THAT IT WOULD BE CO UNDER CODE, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PORTION FROM THE HOUSE TO THE STREET IS UNDER REVIEW.
THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE CLEAR REVIEW PART.
WELL, IT'S IN THIS FENCE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CLEARVIEW BECAUSE THAT'S 15 FEET BACK.
AND OBVIOUSLY IF THIS GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE STONE FENCE, IT'S IT GOING BE IN VIOLATION.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THIS IS PHILLIP MANNA.
SO, UM, SO I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE ONE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO CLEARVIEW.
UM, IF THIS IS GRANTED, UM, WITHOUT, WITH, WITH ONE BUT NOT TWO, UM, THEN THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ON THE FRONT, UM, UH, AS FAR AS THE FRONT WALL'S CONCERNED.
SO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALSO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CLEARVIEW.
UM, AND, AND THEN, UH, SHOULD THERE BE PURSUE, UH, THE DEFENSE ON THE OTHER SIDE, WOULD IT ALSO BE THE CASE THAT IT, UH, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET PAST THE, UM, UM, CLEARVIEW LINE, BUT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT OTHER FENCE TO BE BUILT AS WELL? I HAVE A QUESTION HERE FOR STAFF ON THAT, BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE IN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, A REQUEST FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE FRONT.
IT JUST, UH, BUT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT WE'RE WE'RE GONNA PROVE A, UH, FIVE FOOT, 11 FOOT FENCE FOR THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WENT WITH IT.
OKAY, SO THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING FOR.
[01:50:01]
IS CORRECT, YES, SIR.SO SHE WOULDN'T, IF WE WOULD GRANT ANY VARIANCE, IT WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD.
NOW WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO CREATE A SMALLER PORTION, UH, OF, OF THE, UH, ALLOWING A FENCE TO BE THAT TALL.
BUT THEN WE ALSO NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE, ARE, UH, CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN THIS BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THEM AS WELL.
UM, SO, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, I'LL TRY TO CONTROL THE MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL, UH, ONLY, UH, INCLUDE THE AREA THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE ACTUALLY WHAT I HEARD HER SAY, SAY IS SHE WANTS TO KEEP THE EXISTING FENCE.
SHE PLANS ON DOING SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, BUT, YOU KNOW, PLANS ARE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE.
IS THE EXISTING FENCE IS WHAT'S BROUGHT HER HERE TO THE BOARD BECAUSE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT, UH, UM, UH, UH, PENALTY OR, OR I THINK, UH, UH, VIOLATION.
WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, UM, ON THE PICTURE THAT'S UP RIGHT HERE, UM, IT, IT SHOWS THE BACKYARD FENCE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A FENCE THAT GOES ACROSS THAT BY, RIGHT.
UH, A FENCE CAN BE BROUGHT UP TO THE FRONT YARD AS FAR AS THAT HEIGHT.
AND SO, SO, UM, THE NEIGHBOR THAT SAID THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH THE FENCE WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WERE THEY AWARE THAT THIS OTHER REQUESTS MAY COME IN.
AND BY GRANTING THIS, BASICALLY WE'RE ALLOWING HER TO BUILD A FENCE ON, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO HIS PROPERTY, WHICH, WHICH I, WHICH IS A MUCH SMALLER PROPERTY LINE AS WELL.
AND SO, UM, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS BRINGING UP THE QUESTION.
WELL, THE QUESTION IS VERY VALID, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT BECAUSE OF THE WORDING, UH, OF, OF THE WAY, THIS IS ALL THING WORDING THAT, UH, IT WAS ONLY BROUGHT UP FOR THE EXISTING FENCE THAT HE SEES AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT HIM ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT WAS NOT IN QUESTION AT THE TIME.
SO WE COULD ALMOST ASSUME THAT REALLY WHAT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE EXISTING FENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE DOES SEE.
UM, SO THE ANALYSIS THAT WE, WE PRESENTED ON THE CLEAR VISION WAS SPECIFICALLY THE SIDE THAT WOULD BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE.
THAT NINE FOOT THREE INCHES WOULD BE THE NEIGHBOR'S CLEAR VISION FROM THEIR DRIVEWAY.
THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED THAT STATEMENT.
UH, IN CASE SHE WERE TO BUILD IT, THAT'S WHERE THE CLEAR VISION ISSUE WOULD POP UP.
AND THEN SHE, AND, AND YES, IN THAT POINT THE OFFENSE WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT BACK DOWN TO THREE FEET SINCE IT'S SOLID IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING CODE.
NOW SHE CAN DO A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE UP TO FIVE FEET, UH, ON THE SIDES.
BUT THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S A 70% VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE, UM, WHICH MEANS THE FENCE THAT SHE CURRENTLY HAS DOES NOT COMPLY.
AND THE FENCE ON THAT SIDE THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT WAS FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE DRIVEWAYS THAT IT REALLY WASN'T A CLEAR VISION ISSUE FOR THOSE, FOR THAT SITE, IT WOULD BE THE NEW FENCE THAT WOULD CREATE THE CLEAR VISION PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BETWEEN HER DRIVEWAY AND HER NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY.
NOW, UM, DO WE, UH, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY B MR. MANN, I SEE YOUR BOX.
SO THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS THE NEIGHBOR TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VIEWS, UH, INTO THE YARD AND, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.
AND THEN ALSO THE LAST MESSAGE WAS STATED WITH REGARDS TO HAVING THE ABILITY TO SEE, TO REALLY PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS, WHERE IF YOU PUT UP THE WALL, THEY FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE LESS SECURE.
AND YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT, PLEASE? THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS IT FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? SIR? FOR APPLICANT.
SO, SO I WOULD LIKE FOR HER TO COMMENT ON, UM, THE TWO POSITIONS THAT WERE, UH, IN OPPOSITION, STATING THAT THEY FELT THAT ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE LESS SECURE, ESSENTIALLY, UH, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BLOCKING, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING THE VIEWS OF WHAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE CURRENTLY OF WHO'S COMING INTO AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SHE, UH, MY NEIGHBOR SAID THAT, UM, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OR NOT, BUT BEING THAT THE ROCK FENCE IS THERE, IF SOMEBODY APPROACHES YOU, YOU CAN SEE IT FROM WHERE SHE'S AT.
AND THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND, THEY, THEY GO EVERYWHERE.
THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL POP UP ANYTIME.
SO I FIGURED IF I BUILT THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE,
[01:55:01]
WHICH WON'T BE THAT LONG, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH WHAT I HAVE NOW.'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA SPEND ANY MORE MONEY BEING ON VIOLATION.
SO THAT'S WHY I NEED TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GONNA BECOME OF THIS, AND THEN I'LL BUILD THE FENCE ALL AROUND MY PROPERTY THE RIGHT WAY.
BECAUSE I AM AFRAID OF THESE PEOPLE JUST, YOU KNOW, POPPING UP LIKE THE NEIGHBOR SAID, I MEAN, I WAS WATERING THE LAWN MYSELF, AND THERE WAS SOMEBODY RIGHT NEXT TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS HOMELESS OR NOT, BUT HE WAS ASKING QUESTIONS, SO I LEFT MY WATER RUNNING OUTSIDE AND WENT INSIDE.
I TOLD HIM I HAD A PHONE CALL OR WHATEVER.
SO IT, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GETTING BAD AND I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND.
I MEAN, I'LL GO LOWER JUST TO WANNA GO THREE FEET.
ALRIGHT, FOR YOU, MR. MAN, THAT'S, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU.
UH, OR I, I, WHO, UM, WHO WAS THAT? DONALD, WAS THAT YOU? YES, YES.
SO, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, MESSIAH, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU WANT SECURITY.
YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT MENTIONED THAT THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THINGS, AND YOU, YOU JUST STATED THAT YOU COULD GO A LITTLE LOWER.
HOW LOW WOULD YOU BE, YOU WILLING, UH, YOU THINK WOULD SERVE, UH, THE FUNCTION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT YET STILL ALLOW FOR SOME VIEW OF WHO'S WALKING AROUND? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOUR FEET OR FOUR AND A HALF FEET? CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME, UH, COMMENT ON THAT? SEE, MY THOUGHTS WERE, I DON'T REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FENCES.
I JUST WANTED SECURITY AT THE TIME.
SO IF I'M ABLE TO MAYBE SECURE HER DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS PRETTY MUCH IN HER HOUSE AND MY HOUSE ARE IN THE BACK, THEY'RE NOT LIKE THE NEIGHBORS IN FRONT OF US.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ABLE TO DO LIKE A, LIKE AN OPEN FENCE KIND OF ON THE, UH, ON THE CART.
THAT, BUT IS THE, IS THE, IS THE FIVE, IS THE FIVE FOOT 11 WITH AN OPEN FENCE MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING A, A CLO UH, A NON-OPEN FENCE? IT'S A LITTLE SHORTER.
UH, MR OR MR MR. OR ORIAN, LET, LET ME REPHRASE THAT FOR HER SO SHE BETTER UNDERSTAND.
UH, YOUR PARTICULAR, YOUR PARTICULAR REQUEST IS SO THAT YOU WANNA HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTECTION SO THAT PEOPLE CAN'T APPROACH YOU.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M TALKING TO THE APPLICANT.
MA'AM, ARE YOU STILL THERE? YES, I'M HERE.
THE BOARD THAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU A QUESTION, MA'AM.
I'LL REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR YOU.
THE, THE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, OR YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM ACCESSING YOU, YOU OR YOUR YARD FROM THE SIDE AND, AND FRONT TO PROTECT YOU FROM BEING APPROACHED, UH, WITHOUT SOME SORT OF RESTRAINT.
YOU ARE ENTITLED BY CITY CODE TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ON THE FRONT AND SIDES OF YOUR HOME, WHICH MEANS THIS, AND THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN INFORMATION.
YOU COULD PUT UP WHAT, WHAT'S COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS AN OPEN PICKET, OR YOU COULD USE, YOU COULD USE AN ORNAMENTAL IRON OR, OR, OR CUSTOM MADE IRON FENCE THAT COULD BE AS TALL AS FIVE FEET BUT HAS 70% VIEWING THROUGH THE FENCE.
IT WILL STILL PROTECT YOU FROM PEOPLE COMING AT YOU, BUT IT'LL STILL ALLOW YOUR NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO SEE CROSSWAYS ACROSS THE PROPERTY.
AND YOU COULD BUILD THAT IRON FENCE ON TOP OF YOUR BRICK FENCE UP TO FIVE FEET.
AND YOU WOULD, IT WOULD, UH, AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE TYPE OF SECURITY YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UH, AND YOU ACTUALLY WON'T EVEN NEED, UH, YOU WON'T NEED TO HAVE A VARIANCE, BUT YOU ARE AN, EXCUSE ME EXCEPTION, BUT YOU STILL WOULD NEED A PERMIT.
RIGHT? AND THAT, THAT'S I BELIEVE WHAT MR. ORIAN WAS TRYING TO GET, GET AT IS THAT THESE ARE WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU.
IF, IF YOU ARE WANTING TO, YOU CAN ASK FOR, TO DO IT UP TO SIX FEET IN THE FRONT, AS LONG AS IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE, WHICH YOU'RE HERE FOR, UH, RIGHT NOW.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO FIVE FEET, WHETHER, WHETHER YOU COME TO THE BOARD OR NOT.
[02:00:02]
YES.AS LONG AS IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
AND I THINK, UH, CITY STAFF SHOULD HAVE SHOWN YOU THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND, UH, THE, THE FENCE THAT IS THERE.
NOW, THERE A WAY I CAN DO IT THAT WAY OR I HAVE TO LIKE CUT IT OR WHAT? WELL, LET ME, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
SINCE THE CITY STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU'VE SEEN WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CATTLE PANELS, CORRECT? THAT'S WELDED WIRE, THAT'S ABOUT FIVE FEET AND 16 FEET LONG AND WHATEVER THEY USE THEM TO CONTROL, UH, LIVESTOCK, RIGHT? OKAY.
THOSE PANEL, YOU COULD TAKE THE WOOD DOWN AND LEAVE THE POSTS THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, AND YOU COULD ATTACH A FIVE FOOT TALL PANEL, UH, ON THAT AREA THERE.
AND YOU WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, UH, WITH THE CITY CODE AT UP TO FIVE FEET.
AND IF YOU WANT US, WE COULD APPROVE IT UP TO SIX, SIX FEET.
BUT, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE THE 70% VISIBILITY AT THE LOWEST COST.
UH, CHAIR, I HAVE A, UH, A, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
HAS THIS BEEN ADVERTISED AS A PRIVACY FENCE? ARE WE ALLOWED TO GO TO PREDOMINANTLY OPEN TODAY? YES, SIR.
UM, IT JUST, WE JUST CAN'T GO BEYOND IT.
SO WE DID ADVERTISE FOR A SOLID FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND THEN PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE IS LESS, AND I SAID FIVE FEET, WE ACTUALLY, WE'D BE LIMITED TO FIVE FEET, I MEAN SIX FEET, WE WOULD HAVE TO LIMIT TO FIVE FEET, 11 INCHES TALL, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THOSE CATTLE PANELS ARE AVAILABLE IN.
AND I ALSO KNOW THEY'RE AVAILABLE IN FIVE FOOT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS ONE WAY THAT YOU CAN COMPLY AND, AND MAKE AND, AND GET THE TYPE OF SECURITY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU YOU SOME OPTIONS OF WHAT TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE JUDGING BY WHAT I'M HEARING HERE, IT PROBABLY UNLIKELY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO KEEP A PRIVACY FENCE AS TALL AS YOU'VE, UH, IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT BEHIND IT.
AND, UH, IN YOUR CASE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MORE SECURITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SECURITY, I JUST CAME UP WITH AN IDEA.
IT'S UP TO YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
BUT I SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE PRETTY BLOCK NOWADAYS.
SO THE WAY IT IS NOW, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S NOW, I WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT DOWN OR DO THE, UH, METAL FENCING THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH.
OR MAYBE AM I ABLE TO SKIP, YOU KNOW HOW THEY, THEY BUILT SOME WOODEN FENCES OR CEDAR FENCES LIKE I HAVE, IF YOU SKIP ONE AND DO THE OTHER AND YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT, WELL, OKAY, IS 70 LESS, YEAH, 70% VISIBILITY IS NOT NECESSARILY EVERY OTHER PICKET.
THEY HAVE TO BE SPACED FURTHER APART.
THE LARGER THE PICKET THAT YOU, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH WHETHER IT WAS ONE BY SIX OR ONE BY FOURS.
BUT, UH, BUT THE POINT BEING IS THAT 70%, AND YOU HAVE TO, YOU CAN FIGURE THIS BY FOOT, 10 FOOT OR WHATEVER, BUT 70% PERCENT, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO VIEW THROUGH THEM COMPLETELY.
RIGHT? OKAY, SO LET'S JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE, OF THE DISCUSSION HERE, WE'D SAY YOU'D, YOU'D HAVE A, A SIX FOOT PICKET OR SIX INCH PICKET, WHICH IS GENERALLY FIVE AND A QUARTER.
UH, IN OTHER WORDS, IT, TO ACCOMMODATE THE 70%, UH, RULE, YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A, UM, SEVEN INCH SPACE BETWEEN PICKETS, WHICH, AND THAT IS POSSIBLE.
UH, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE OPTED FOR THE, LIKE THE ORNAMENTAL PANELS YOU'VE SEE IN THOSE BLACKS, WR IRON FENCES, RIGHT? THOSE PICKETS ARE GENERALLY FOUR AND A HALF INCHES APART.
AND, AND, BUT THE PICKETS ARE VERY SMALL, SO YOU HAVE A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF VIEW THROUGH THROUGH THEM.
AND I THREW UP THE OTHER OPTION THAT I KNOW THAT YOU CAN BUY AT MCCOY'S, THEY SELL THOSE, THEY SELL THE, THE CATTLE PANELS, AND THAT COULD BE ATTACHED TO THE POST THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.
BUT, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THE FENCE AND COULDN'T A PERSON JUST GO RIGHT THROUGH 'EM? IF IT'S FOR THE CATTLE, NO CATTLE, IF IT CAN HOLD, IF IT CAN CONTROL CATTLE PEOPLE, THEY CAN CLIMB OVER 'EM OBVIOUSLY,
[02:05:01]
BUT THEY CAN CLIMB OVER ANY PRIVACY FENCE, RIGHT? SO THE POINT BEING IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS YOU'RE TRYING TO SLOW DOWN ANYONE TRYING TO APPROACH YOU, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS DISCUSSING IN REGARDS TO ONE OF THE OPTIONS.BUT, UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
YOU'VE GOT 50% OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE IN, IN YOUR FAVOR AND YOU HAVE 50% THAT AREN'T.
AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A, A BIG ENOUGH PERCENTAGE TO GET YOU WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
BUT, UM, SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH THIS CASE IF YOU'D LIKE.
WE'LL PROCEED WITH THIS CASE WITH THE WAY YOU, YOU'VE STATED IT, WHICH MEANS YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL CASE, UH, ORIGINAL AND WE'LL SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES.
AND, UH, WILL YOU BE WHAT, APPROACHING MORE NEIGHBORS OR NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING HERE.
WE'RE, WE'RE WE, WE HAVE THE OPTION HERE.
YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF CONTINUING THIS CASE WITH WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, KNOWING THE FACT THAT 50% OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE AGAINST YOU AGAIN ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, WHICH IS NOT IN, IN, IN YOUR FAVOR.
OR YOU CAN, UH, YOU CAN GO WITH ANOTHER ROUTE, UH, OR, OR YOU CAN JUST, UH, OR YOU CAN ASK FOR A LOWER HEIGHT.
UH, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME YOU COULD SAY, CAN I BUILD IT FOUR FEET TALL, SOLID? AND WE WOULD TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION IN OUR VOTE.
OKAY, SO IF, WHEN DO I REQUEST IT RIGHT NOW? IF I CAN GO, FOREFOOT, YOU ALREADY PAID YOUR MONEY, YOU MIGHT AS WELL GET WHAT YOU'RE DUE.
I'M SORRY, I SAID YOU'RE THE CASE IS HERE BEFORE THE BOARD.
IF WE, IF WE TRY TO CONTINUE THIS CASE, YOU WON'T, WE, YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL PROBABLY TWO MONTHS BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN.
SO THE POINT IS, IS THAT YOU HAVE US RIGHT NOW, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT FROM FIVE FEET, 11 DOWN TO FOUR FEET, UH, WE'LL TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION, UH, AND PUT IT BEFORE THE BOARD AND SEE HOW THEY RESPOND.
OKAY? CAN WE DO THAT? GO FIVE FOR, UH, FOUR FOOT.
NOW YOU, WE ARE ALL IN DISCUSSION WITH THIS.
I WANT, I WANT PEOPLE TO GIVE US SOME INPUT ON, ON HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HER PERHAPS MODIFYING HER HER INITIAL REQUEST.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
WELL CHAIR, I CAN MAKE A MOTION AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT UM, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WERE THEY GONNA MAKE THE MOTION AS WHAT'S THE ORIGINAL REQUEST OR ARE WE GONNA TAKE IN CONSIDERATION A MODIFIED REQUEST? I WOULD MAKE IT MODIFIED, YES.
SO CAN WE, YES, WHAT I'M WANTING TO KNOW IS, BESIDES THE FOREFOOT OPTION, CAN WE PROPOSE TO HER POSSIBLY THE CATTLE FENCE, WHICH IS, IS LESS NOW THAT'S, WE, SHE HAS TO, WE CAN'T MAKE A RECOMMEND.
WE CAN EITHER VOTE ON WHAT SHE'S ASKING FOR, YES OR NO, SHE'S, SHE, AT THIS POINT, SHE'S WILLING TO MAKE A RE A RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCING THE NUMBER REQUESTS, HOPEFULLY IMPROVING HER, HER POSITION AND GETTING IT APPROVED.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, KIMBERLY.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE SOME INPUT? MANNA, MR. MANNA? SO DRIVING DOWN THE STREET ON GOOGLE, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SOLID FENCING, UM, ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET.
AND SO, UM, THERE ARE SOME THAT DO HAVE THE, UH, DECORATIVE METAL, UM, PICKET FENCE, UM, WE'LL SAY AT THE CLEARVIEW UP TO THE, UP TO THE STREET, YOU KNOW, SO I GUESS I WOULD HAVE CONCERN GOING, HONESTLY, GOING FOUR FOOT ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET IS, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THE FOREFOOT.
SO I THINK THAT THE, THE CATTLE IS A GOOD SOLUTION OR A MORE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION REALLY FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
SIMPLY LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER FENCES THAT YOU SEE ON THAT STREET.
AND THIS TO ME WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER.
SO I, I, I STILL STRUGGLE WITH IT A LITTLE BIT.
AND ANYONE ELSE HAVE SOME INPUT YOU'D LIKE TO OFFER MENKA? GO AHEAD MR. MENCHACA.
I THINK I HEARD YOU ASK THE FLOOR.
I, UH, I AGREE WITH MR. THE FENCE IS, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN THAT WAY TOO MUCH.
SO THAT'S ALL I WANNA SAY ABOUT IT.
ANYONE ELSE FOR THOSE INPUT? ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FOUR FOOT FENCE,
[02:10:01]
BUT I WOULD NOT, UH, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO, UH, TAKE IT TO THE STREET.I THINK WE SHOULD, I, I'D BE MORE INCLINED TO, UH, UH, VOTE FOR A FOUR FOOT AND, AND NOT VOTE FOR THE CLEAR VISION.
WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D SAY SHE CAN HAVE FOUR FEET UP TO THE 15 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SHE HAS REDUCED IT DOWN TO THREE FEET.
SHE'S ENTITLED TO THREE FEET BY RIGHT.
EVEN AS A SOLID FENCE BATTLE, NOT MR. MANNA BATTLE.
WHO WAS ASKING THE QUESTION? UH, BATTLE.
JUST A QUESTION AS, AS WE'RE CONSIDERING, UM, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, WHILE, WHILE SHE HAS THE BOARD'S, UM, ATTENTION ON THE MATTER, AND WHILE WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT THE HEIGHT AND, AND THE DISTANCE, DO WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY, UH, SINCE IN THE PLANS IT MENTIONS PLANS TO DO THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE? DO WE HAVE THE, THE, THE ABILITY TO AMEND OR INCLUDE WHATEVER OUR DECISION IS TO APPLY TO BOTH SIDES OF THE HOME? IF WE MAKE A RULING, IT WOULD APPLY TO THE FRONT FENCE? THE FRONT FENCE IS DESIGNATED BY CODE AS YOU TAKE A LINE DIRECTLY FROM THE FRONT PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON BOTH SIDES AND TOWARD THE STREET, THAT'S CONSIDERED FRONT YARD.
THEREFORE, IF WE ISSUE A, A, A, A DETERMINATION THAT THE FENCE COULD BE, LET'S SAY FIVE FEET, 11 INCHES.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I WANTED TO BUILD ON, I, I, I THOUGHT THAT WE COULD RESTRICT EITHER THE WEST SIDE OR THE EAST SIDE.
WE CAN RESTRICT, SO IF WE WANTED TO, WE COULD APPROVE IT ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER.
HE WAS
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, ZEKE, THE, DID YOU, DO YOU, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE? YES.
SO THE CHOICE REALLY IS YOU, YOU CAN HAVE US CHOOSE TO, TO TRY TO GO FOUR FEET, BUT YOU'VE HEARD WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD ARE, OR YOU CAN, YOU CAN REQUEST FOR YOU KEEP A SIX FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE UP TO SIX FEET, AND YOU WOULD GET A VARIANCE, UH, ALLOWING THAT TYPE OF FENCE.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED OPTIONS, WHICH ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ORNAMENTAL IRON TYPE, WHICH ARE KIND OF, KIND OF EXPENSIVE OR THE DECORATIVE, UH, OF THE DECORATIVE, UH, CATTLE PANELS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT, UH, YOU KNOW, MOST OF YOUR FARM AND RANCH STORES, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU CAN GET UP TO SIX FEET TALL.
UH, YOU KNOW, JUST, WE'LL CALL THAT WITHIN AN INCH OF FIVE 11.
AND, UH, THEREFORE YOU COULD HAVE A TALL FENCE, BUT IT WOULD BE CLEAR VIEW, WHICH WOULD MEAN BE, BE, SEE THROUGH IT VERY EASILY.
IT'D BE TO YOUR BENEFIT, ACTUALLY.
WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT US TO APPROACH THIS? UH, I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED NOW,
THEY BEAUTIFUL, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD THAT.
WELL, THEN YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR VOTE.
NOW, IF WE VOTE THIS DOWN, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPROACH THE BOARD FOR ANOTHER YEAR FOR A D FOR A REQUEST, UNLESS IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OR MM-HMM.
GIVE YOU SOME TIME TO INVESTIGATE WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE.
SO WHY DON'T WE GO WITH A CONTINUANCE THEN? ALL RIGHT.
UH, ZEKE IS CATHERINE BACK? I'M HERE, SIR.
THE, THE CLIENT IS, OR THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF, TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE OTHER OPTIONS.
WHEN WOULD BE THE, THE, UH, POSSIBILITY OF THE CASE BEING BROUGHT BACK? THE FIFTH IS FULL.
ALRIGHT, SO OCTOBER 5TH IS THE NEXT MEETING.
IT IS FULL WITH CURRENT CASES.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH WOULD PUT US TO 19TH.
[02:15:01]
ALRIGHT.UH, SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS THE OPTION FOR CONTINUOUS.
SHE DID SAY THAT SHE'D LIKE TO PURSUE SOME OPTIONS, SO LET, WE CAN GIVE HER A CONTINUANCE.
I'LL NEED A MOTION FROM, UH, THE BOARD FOR CONTINUANCE SPECIFYING OCTOBER 19TH AS THE, THE DATE POSSIBLE DATE.
ORIAN, UH, DO I HEAR ANYTHING FROM THE BOARD ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE.
CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 20 DASH OH 3 77 TO, UH, SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER.
SO YOU HAVE A, A STAY ON YOUR, UH, ON MUNICIPAL COURT CASE AND YES.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
WILL EZEKIEL, WILL YOU TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE.
OH, BY THE WAY, DID WE HAVE A SECOND? MARIA WITH ME? SECOND.
DO WE NEED TO DO, ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A DISCUSSION ON THIS? OKAY, THEN, THEN THE CASE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON CONTINUING THIS CASE.
OKAY, I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE, IS IT THE MOTION MADE BY MR. ORIAN AND SECOND BY MS. CRUZ? THAT'S CORRECT.
MS. MENCHACA CONCUR WITH A CONTINUANCE.
I CONCUR THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE CASE TILL OCTOBER 19TH HAS BEEN MADE.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A LETTER SO SHE CAN APPROACH THE MUNICIPAL COURTS FOR DELAY ON THE DECISION ON HER CASE.
UH, THIS WILL GIVE HER PLENTY OF TIME TO INVESTIGATE OTHER OPTIONS TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND, UH, OR WHETHER SHE WANTS TO EVEN COME BACK TO THE BOARD.
IT'LL BE UP TO HER THE, BUT, UH, USE YOUR TIME WISELY AND, AND, AND LOOK AT WHAT'S OUT THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL THINGS OUT THERE.
[6. 20-5419 BOA-20-10300075]
LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND GO TO OUR NEXT CASE.WHICH NUMBER, UH, I THINK IS OH SEVEN FIVE.
JUST TO, UH, MAKE SURE MR. OONA, ARE YOU DROPPING OFF NOW? THAT MAKES SENSE.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THIS NEXT CASE IS GONNA TAKE, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND EXIT, UH, FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WE HAVE MR. WHO WILL SIT IN FOR HIM AND HE'S NOW PRESENT IN THE MEETING, SO WE'LL NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
UH, HE'LL SIT IN ON THE NEXT FEW CASES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO ON CASE TO OH SEVEN FIVE.
IT'S AT TWO 20 EAST LA CHAPPELLE.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS, UH, J OH SEVEN INVESTMENTS, L L C'S A REQUEST FOR 3,210 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 2007 90.
CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX A H O D.
THE CURRENT LOT IS VACANT WITH A, UH, DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED IN WAY OF A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
DUE TO THE UNIQUE LAYOUT OF THE COMMUNITY AND PATTERN OF SMALL LOTS, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE A LOT.
UM, LIKE EVERY OTHER HOMEOWNER WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, A VARIANCE TO THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DEVELOP ON THE LOT.
ALL SETBACKS WILL BE ADHERED TO.
THE APPLICANT'S ACTUALLY APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION AND WILL NEED TO MEET THE LOT SIZE USING THE VARIANCE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE IDENTIFIED DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER AS EMPLOYMENT FLEX MIXED USE.
AS SUCH, THERE'S A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND MIXED USES, AS WELL AS A SET PATTERN OF SMALL DENSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS UNDER THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.
[02:20:02]
HERE'S THE SITE PLAN, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND SURROUNDING AREA.UH, THERE ARE 26 NOTICES SENT OUT.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT LINE FROM J OH SEVEN INVESTMENTS, L L C.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
THE, UH, PROPERTY ADDRESS IS TWO 20 E SLASH CHAPPEL SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, SEVEN EIGHT.
UM, SO WE ARE FILING FOR THIS, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE PURCHASED A PROPERTY BACK IN JULY AND, UM, UH, AT THE TIME THE, UH, PROPERTY HAD NEVER BEEN PLATTED.
UM, SO, UH, IN ORDER TO GO AROUND THAT, UH, WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY THAT WE HAD TO FILE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
AND, UH, OUR PROPERTY MEETS ALL CRITERIA FOR THAT CERTIFICATE, FOR THE EXCEPTION OF THE MINIMUM BLOOD SIZE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS 6,000 AS PREVIOUSLY STATED.
UM, SO THIS IS WHY WE'RE, YOU KNOW, HERE, HERE ON THE LINE TRYING TO, UH, UH, GET THAT ZONING VARI SO WE COULD, UH, CONSTRUCT A A BRAND NEW TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON, ON THE LOT.
ALL RIGHT, ZEKE, IS THAT, UH, THE EXTENT OF HIS PRESENTATION, SIR? IS THAT IT? YES.
I DO HAVE ONE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT IN, IN OPPOSITION TIMER'S READY? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT.
SO THIS IS FROM MARSHA ANO, UH, MY SPOUSE, MARSHA ANO AND I ARE FIRMLY OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED FOR VARIANCE.
WE'RE ALSO THE OWNERS OF, UM, NEVER TOO LATE BUSINESS CENTER THAT OWNS OTHER PROPERTY ON THE BLOCK, UH, TO THE SIDE.
AND IN THE BACK WE VOTE, WE VOTE OUR COMPANY AS ALSO BEING FIRMLY OPPOSED, UH, TO THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.
THAT LOT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE LARGER LOTS TO THE EAST OF THIS ONE, HENCE THE ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOT REQUIREMENT.
I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY SOLD TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND PERHAPS, UH, BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER.
AND PERHAPS THE PURCHASER FAILED TO CONDUCT A DUE DILIGENCE, UM, ON WHAT COULD REASONABLY BE DONE.
THE STRUCTURE OCCUPYING THIS SMALL LOT NOW WAS PROBABLY BUILT DURING LONG ABSOLUTE LY BUILDING CODES, WHICH RESULTED IN WHAT ARE NOW CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD HOMES, UH, BEING ALLOWED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY.
THE CITY USED TO ALLOW OUT, UH, ALLOW OUTHOUSES NOT SO LONG AGO.
THAT IS A BIT OVER THE TOP AND I SHOULD PROBABLY RETRACT, BUT, UM, I, BUT HOW ELSE TO DESCRIBE THE UNFORESEEN IMPACT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
UH, WOULD A NEW STRUCTURE ON THE LOT MEET CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE STREET AND FROM THE NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORS US? UH, WE DOUBT SPACE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PARKING, WHICH WOULD MEAN CAR OR CARS WOULD PARK ON THE STREET OR WORSE ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE ASKED THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD NOT, UH, TO GRANT THIS VARIANT PUT THEMSELVES IN OUR SHOES.
UH, WHY WOULD, WHY THEY'D LIKE TO LIVE THIS OR WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE PLACED ON IT IN THE FUTURE? IT WAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTINUE AT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE FAMILY ATMOSPHERE THAT HAS EVOLVED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND WILL LIKELY ACCELERATE.
UNFORTUNATELY, MY SPOUSE AND I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN DURING THIS SCHEDULED, UH, SEPTEMBER 21ST HEARING.
I'LL BE IN A REMOTE PART OF THE COUNTRY AND OUTTA THE CELL PHONE RANGE.
MY WIFE WILL BE IN WASHINGTON DC AS NO EXPERIENCE WITH WEBEX.
PLEASE POSTPONE THIS ITEM BY A WEEK OR MORE THE DATE THAT WE CAN PRESENT.
AND THAT IS THE TWO MINUTE TIME.
THAT IS ALL OF THE COMMENTARY FROM, FROM THIS CASE.
UH, I'VE NEVER RUN ACROSS THIS REQUEST BY A, A, UH, UH, A PUBLIC SPEAKER, UH, TO A CASE REQUESTING A DELAY, SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE EVEN NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE WITH THE CASE AT HAND.
UH, BEFORE WE CONTINUE, I KNOW THAT WE, UH, PROBABLY SHOULD BE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND APPLICANTS, SO I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS TO ORIAN, EXCUSE ME, ORIAN, MS. DORIAN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, PLEASE.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR, UH, UH, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
UH, WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING HOME, UH, IT ALSO REFLECTS, UH, AN EXISTING CONCRETE APPROACH ON A VERY, VERY NARROW, UH, 25 FOOT, UH, PARCEL
[02:25:01]
TO THE WEST.UH, WAS THIS, WAS THIS TRACKED RECENTLY PURCHASED AND BROKEN OUT FROM AND SEPARATED FROM THE 25 FEET PARCEL ON THE LEFT SIDE? IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING FENCING IN THE DRIVEWAY, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE, THE CREATION OF THE LOT BEING ONLY 30 FEET WIDE AND OF THE SIZE IS, IS RELATIVELY RECENT.
AND THIS, I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE AS FAR AS WHEN IT WAS BROKEN OUT, I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING FOR THE INFORMATION NOW THROUGH
HI, MY, MY NAME IS GABRIEL APPLICANT.
UH, WHAT I WAS TOLD BY THE CITY WAS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UM, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, FROM AN AERIAL VIEW OF, OF THE BLOCK, UM, THERE'S A STREET RUNNING, UM, THAT WOULD HYPOTHETICALLY RUN THROUGH THERE.
UM, IF THE STREET WERE TO CONTINUE THAT, THAT WAS, OR THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY, UM, AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO, UH, BE, UH, PART OF THAT ROAD, THE ROAD WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH, UM, THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY, UM, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
UM, BUT FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD FROM THE CITY IS THAT THE CITY STILL OWNS IT.
UM, BUT THAT IT'S, IT'S SO SMALL THAT THEY'LL NEVER DO ANYTHING WITH THAT LITTLE PIECE OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, IT'S 15 FEET OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THAT THAT THAT SMALL NARROW PIECE OF LAND, UM, THAT THAT COMES UP AND IT LOOKS LIKE A DRIVEWAY FOR, FOR THE PROPERTY.
I, I WAS JUST, UH, HAVE, HAVE, HAVE YOU, HAVE Y'ALL DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY ABOUT POSSIBLY BUYING IT? IT SURE WOULD SEEM TO HELP YOUR, UH, SITUATION.
I I HAVE TALKED TO THE CITY, UM, ABOUT POSSIBLY PURCHASING IT.
THAT'S STILL, UM, YOU KNOW, A POSSIBILITY ON OUR END THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE, UM, EXPLORING.
IT'S AN OPTION THAT, THAT WE'RE EXPLORING.
BUT, UM, FROM, FROM WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY OFFICIALLY OWNS IT, THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL, UM, THAT THERE'S NOT POSSIBLY ANYTHING THAT, THAT THE CITY COULD DO WITH THAT LAND.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
BUT YOUR, BUT YOUR PLAN IS THAT IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU WOULD CONSTRUCT, YOU WOULD DEMO THIS HOUSE WITH A BRAND NEW ONE HONORING ALL THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
IT'S FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE AND, UH MM-HMM.
YEAH, IT ACTUALLY, IT APPEARS THAT ORIGINALLY THE CITY HAD PLANS ON GOING THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND CONTINUING THE STREET ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
BUT I THINK AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I DON'T SEE ANY PRACTICALITY OF THE CITY TRYING TO DO THAT AT ALL.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS IF THEY, IF THEY GOT RID OF IT, IT DOES THE CITY OWN THAT FEE SIMPLE? 'CAUSE IF IT'S JUST RIGHT OF WAY, THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, EACH SIDE PERSON WOULD BE, DO HALF OF IT IF THEY WERE TO CLOSE IT, UNLESS THEY WORKED SOMETHING OUT.
WELL, THE CITY WOULD BE BETTER OFF COLLECTING TAXES ON IT THAN NOT.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION HERE IN REGARD TO THIS.
A PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UH, YOU'RE GONNA BE BUILDING A, A RESIDENTIAL HOME ON THIS PROPERTY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
AND, UH, I CAN'T READ THE DESIGNATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IS THIS A, IS THIS A P FIVE PROPERTY OR, I'M TRYING TO READ THE CODE ON THAT.
IT'S JUST R SIX FOR RESIDENTIAL.
ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH R SIX REQUIREMENTS.
BUT ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IS TO GIVE THEM A VARIANCE TO THE SIZE.
WE'RE NOT GIVING ANY VARIANCE TO, UH, SETBACKS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL, IT'S, IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT AT THIS, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, WE'D PROBABLY BE BEST, UH, JUST VOTING ON THAT AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO DEAL WITH THE CITY WITH O OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY.
BUT AS LONG AS WE WOULD GIVE THEM THE, UH, DESIGN OR FILL IN THE DESIGNATION, R SIX, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD GIVE THEM BETTER STANDING IN DEALING WITH THE CITY.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARD TO WHAT I JUST SAID? COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT AGAIN, MS. LEGGER, AKA WELL, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO, LET'S SAY YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN APPROACH THAT IS, IS, UH, RIGHT AWAY FOR THE CITY AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED R SIX, AND THIS IS THE INTERESTING PART ABOUT
[02:30:01]
IT, IS THAT HE CANNOT REALLY NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY TO SECURE THE REST REMAINDER OF THAT PROPERTY UNTIL HE GETS A, A DEFINITE DECISION ON THAT PROPERTY.UH, ONCE HE DOES, SO HE COULD ACTUALLY REQUEST THE, AND WHO KNOWS, THE CITY MIGHT EVEN GIVE HIM THE PROPERTY, UH, JUST TO GET THE TAX BASE, AND THEN HE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE AFTER THE FACT THAT WE OFFERED THE VARIANCE.
SO, I MEAN, THE, THIS PARTICULAR REGARD THAT, THAT RIGHT NOW IS, IT, IT IS BEST DESCRIBED AS, AS AN A PAPER, A PAPER STREET.
A PAPER STREET ACCORDING TO, TO THE CITY RULES MEANS THAT IT'S DESIGNED TO BE ONE, BUT IT WAS NEVER DONE.
AND SINCE SAN ANTONIO DOESN'T BUILD NEW STREETS, THEY ONLY, UM, UH, REPAIR OLD STREETS, UM, THAT, UH, IT WOULD NEVER BE A STREET, ESPECIALLY GOING INTO THE RAILROAD TRACK.
SO, UH, AND DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I, I RECOMMEND THAT WE GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH TWO ZERO DASH 1 0 3 0 0 75, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A 3,210 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 2,790 SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT TWO 20 EAST LOS CHAPPELLE, APPLICANT BEING J ZERO SEVEN INVESTMENTS, L L C.
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.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A CURRENTLY UNDERUTILIZED LOT WITH A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE.
THE SURROUNDING AREA PREDOMINANTLY CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
STAFF FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A SQUARE FOOTAGE LESS THAN THAT THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
SO A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CREATE A DIFFICULTY IN CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE SER 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 MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS IS TO CREATE UNIFORMITY AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT WILL STILL MAINTAIN THE SIDE SETBACK, CREATING ENOUGH SEPARATION FROM ABUTTING PROPERTIES.
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 IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH A 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 TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER, OF, 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 AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE LOT WARRANTS THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED OF THE LIMITATIONS INCURRED BY THE ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
MR. MR. THIEL, CAN YOU, DO YOU WANNA START A DISCUSSION? UH, YES, SIR.
I'LL, I'LL BE, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THESE, UH, UH, SMALL LOTS, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE, THAT ARE, I GUESS NOT, UH, CONFORMING WITH THEIR, THEIR UNDERLYING ZONING.
UM, I'M, I'M BIG FAN OF, UH, INFILL DEVELOPMENT, AND SO, UM, I WISH THESE GUYS THE BEST OF LUCK.
ALRIGHT, UH, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY
[02:35:01]
ANYTHING? UH, YES.UH, I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT.
UH, THIS HOUSE TO THE WEST HAS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL.
IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED TODAY, THEN NEVER GONNA BE ANYTHING, UH, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY SEEM TO BE TRAPPED BY THIS LAND, OWNED BY THE CITY TO THE, TO THE EAST.
SO IF THIS, IF THIS, UH, APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE A GO OF IT AND, AND DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE AREA IN OUR TAX BASE FOR THE CITY, I THINK IT'S GREAT.
ANYONE ELSE? I'M GONNA MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT HERE ONLY, AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY STATED MOST OF MY POSITION ON THIS.
UM, MR. OREO IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT, UH, UH, IT IS, UH, NOTHING WILL BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY UNLESS THE DECISION IS MADE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
MR. THIEL'S VERY MUCH CORRECT BECAUSE HE SAYS ANYTHING THAT, UH, IN FILLS THE, THE VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS VERY GOOD AND ADDS TO THE TAX BASE.
UH, I FEEL THAT GIVING THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE AT THIS TIME WILL GIVE THE, UH, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO ENLARGE THE PROPERTY.
AND IT'S STILL, AFTER LOOKING AT IT VERY CAUTIOUSLY, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE VARIANCE ANYWAY.
SO, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A VARIANCE IS REALLY WARRANTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION.
MR. MANCHACA, I DO NOT CONCUR.
I DON'T SUPPORT THE APPLICANT.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN, SORRY, I MEANT TO CALL YOU TOWARDS THE END.
I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN? UH, I CAN CONCUR AND MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
UH, THAT'S, UH, 10 TO ONE MOTION PASSES.
UM, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT.
UH, PLEASE, UH, RECOMMEND YOU PURSUE EVERY AVENUE YOU HAVE TO TO MAKE THIS A WONDERFUL PROJECT FOR YOUR, YOUR OPERATION.
[7. 20-5547 BOA-20-10300080]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE CASE NUMBER OH EIGHT OH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ON NEVADA STREET.UH, THAT IS 5 0 8 NEVADA STREET COUNCIL.
DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT IS DAVID OLIVARES.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A 542 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 3,458.
CURRENT ZONING IS RMM FOUR A H O D.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF NEVADA STREET BETWEEN SOUTH MESQUITE AND SOUTH HACKBERRY STREET.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A DUPLEX ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH ALL REQUIRED SETBACK, UM, WITH ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS.
A DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2020, DEMOLISHED THE ONE STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
PLAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'LL BE DEMOLISHED AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS LOT APPLIES THAT THE PROPERTY IS 3004 58 SQUARE FEET AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
39 NOTICES ARE SENT OUT, ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
BACKUP, NO RESPONSE FROM THE AMO GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, MR. OLIVA, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
OLIVA, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR, UH, TAKING THE TIME TO VIEW MY, UH, MY CASE TODAY, BUT, UM, TO FURTHER DISCUSS, UH, WITH REGARD TO, UH, PROPERTY 5 0 8 NEVADA, UM, ZIP CODE 7 8 2 1 2 0 3, UM, I'M REQUESTING A 542 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT
[02:40:01]
SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, TO ALLOW LOT SIZE TO BE 3,458 SQUARE FEET, UM, AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.AND REASON BEING IS, IS BECAUSE THE, THE CURRENT LOT IS, IS ZONED R FOUR.
AND IN ORDER TO, UH, BE IN COMPLIANCE, UM, CODE IS REQUIRING A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN EFFORT TO, UH, UM, GET A C O D, UH, TO BEGIN, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THIS PRESENTATION.
ZEKE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, UH, PUBLIC INPUT? YES, SIR.
JUST ONE, UH, FROM, UH, EDUARDO
NO, NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IN REGARDS TO HIS, UH, REQUEST GOING ONCE, UH, ORIAN? MR. ORIAN? GO AHEAD.
I, I, I, NO, I'M PRETTY SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IF THERE WAS A, A, A FUNCTIONING STRUCTURE ON A, ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT, DON'T THEY HAVE LIKE A YEAR, UH, LIKE IF THEY DEMO IT AND REBUILD IT TO WHERE THEY CAN STILL MAINTAIN THEIR NON-CONFORMING STATURE? AM I JUST CONFUSING THAT WITH SOMETHING ELSE? NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE? YES.
UM, AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT WITHIN A YEAR, BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS, IT'S ON PORTIONS OF LOTS.
A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION WAS REQUIRED AND THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT 'EM TO US AS FAR AS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THAT, THAT C O D.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, UH, SOUNDS LIKE WE SWEPT THROUGH THIS ONE PRETTY QUICKLY, SO I'M GONNA BE ENTERTAINING A MOTION MANNA MR. MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER D O A.
MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE HERE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A 542 FOOT SQUARE VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 3,458 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT 5 0 8 AND NEVADA STREET APPLICANT BEING DAVID ALVAREZ.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IT DUE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX ON THE CURRENT VACANT LOT.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
STAFF FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A SQUARE FOOTAGE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, SO LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE ISSUES TO OBTAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT ON THE PROPERTY.
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 MINIMUM LAW DIMENSIONS IS TO CREATE UNIFORMITY AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC WILL STILL MAINTAIN ALL OF THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, CREATING ENOUGH SEPARATION FROM ABUTTING PROPERTIES.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A 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.
SUCH VARIANCES 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 IS TO ALLOW THE REDUCED LOT SIZE DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF 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,
[02:45:01]
AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.THE BOARD FINDS THE SMALL CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT MAY WARRANT THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED OF LIMITATIONS INCURRED BY THE ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FORBEARANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND A MOTION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND OPEN A DISCUSSION ON THIS, MR. MANA.
YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE'S WAS EXTREMELY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK AS, AS WE SEE THESE CASES FOR, THERE'S ASKING FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH REGARDS TO THE ZONING.
WE KIND OF GO WITH THIS AND THEREFORE I WILL BE GOING WITH THIS 'CAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD WARRANT NOT, UH, SUPPORTING THIS CASE.
UH, UH, MARIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD SOME UH, NO, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PROJECT AND, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S GOT EVERYTHING IN ORDER SO IT CAN GO FORWARD.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME INPUT THEN BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
MR. MANCHACA CONCUR WITH P FACTS.
MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. MANA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MS. BRAMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING THE FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT.
UH, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS OUR LAST CASE FOR TODAY.
[8. 20-5139 Consideration and approval of August 17, 2020 minutes.]
THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.DID EVERYONE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THEM? DID EVERYONE RECEIVE THEM? YES.
DID ANYONE MAKE ANY NOTATION OF NE THE NECESSARY CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS? I DIDN'T SEE ANY.
THEN LA UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES PRESENTED? APPROVE.
AND WHO'S GONNA SECOND THAT? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL.
YES, I APPROVE MR. KEEL? YES, MR. MANA? I APPROVE MS. BRAGMAN, I APPROVE MR. BATTLE? YES, I APPROVE MR. DELMER.
OH, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING? NEXT MEETING, UH, NOTHING TO BRING UP, BUT WE'LL HAVE A FULL CASE LOAD.
FULL CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, SIX OR 10? SEVEN.
ARE WE GONNA CONTINUE WITH THESE, UH, WEBEX MEETINGS FOR THE TIME BEING? YES, WE ARE.
IF WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHEN THEY MAY END? UM, IT, IT WILL DEPEND ON WHEN THE CITY STARTS TO OPEN UP, UH, THE BUILDINGS.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO VIRTUAL AS WE, WE ARE STILL, OUR, OUR, OUR FACILITY IS STILL CLOSED.
WE'VE GOT A, I KNOW THIS IS, UH, AWFULLY INCONVENIENT.
I KNOW IT IS FOR US BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE COMPUTERS ARE GREAT, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO HEAR.
AND ALSO IT'S, IT, IT IS SO MUCH NICER TO DO THIS IN PERSON.
[02:50:02]
I KIND OF MISS SEEING ALL YOU PERIODICALLY.IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING? THAT'S IT FOR US, SIR.
THEN I OFFICIALLY CAN, UH, CONCLUDE THE, THIS, UH, DAY'S, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS THE FIFTH.