* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:06] OKAY, RELYING. GO AHEAD, SIR. [Call to Order] GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS DONALD ORIAN AND I'M THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I HEAR MY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF ANTONIO, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTO SESSION. WE HAVE OUR INTERPRETERS READ THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR THIS MEETING, PLEASE. THANK YOU. STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL. . MICHELLE. PRESENT MR. MACHACA? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. TEAL PRESENT. STANDBY. MR. MANA PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT. MR. UNA? PRESENT. MR. VINNO? PRESENT. MS. FISHER? PRESENT. MR. DOMER PRESENT AND CHAIR ORIAN. I AM ALSO PRESENT QUORUM. MS. PRESENT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOC AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. PACIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 35 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE RELIEF REQUEST A RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW ARE MEETING FORMAT STAFF. UH, PLEASE PROCEED TO PREDICT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. THESE MEETINGS STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SU SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE, THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE C OVID 19 CRISIS AND OR IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING, UH, SAN ANTONIO.GOV/DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3. NEXT SLIDE. TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR, OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT. STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED. STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL. LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, UH, WE WILL CALL THEM TO THE, UH, TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS. SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONING QUESTIONS. [00:05:06] OKAY, FUTURE BACK, FUTURE TEACHER. THANK YOU. UH, LET'S PROCEED [1. 20-6349 (POSTPONED) BOA-20-10300098] WITH THE FIRST ITEM, UH, ON THE AGENDA. UH, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 98 CASE 98, SIR. WAS POSTPONED. OKAY. WILL BE PROCEEDED. SO CASE 86 8 6. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM [2. 20-6400 (CONTINUED from 10/19/2020) BOA-20-10300086] NUMBER TWO, CASE BO O A 21 0 3 0 8 6. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FOUR 30 EAST MYRTLE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS LISA DALE ROBLIN. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT ON THE BLOCK SAFE. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED IN TOBIN HILL. HISTORIC DISTRICT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED MID-BLOCK ON EAST MYRTLE STREET BETWEEN MCCULLOUGH AVENUE AND NORTH ST. MARY'S. THERE IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. THE OWNER AND APPLICANT CURRENTLY RESIDE ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE WEST. DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR A TYPE ONE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY DON'T RESIDE ON SITE. THE APPLICANT'S SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE TOTAL OF ONE DWELLING UNIT IN THIS CASE, THE BLOCK FACE IS DE DEFINED AS THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST MERLE STREET BETWEEN MCCULLOUGH AVENUE AND NORTH ST. MARY STREET. THERE ARE 33 LOTS ALONG THIS BLOCK FACE. AND ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE RECORDS, THERE ARE 40 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE RESULTING IN FIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS PERMITTED BY RIGHT SIX GRANDFATHER. TYPE TWO. SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED ON THE BLOCK PHASE, SO IF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WERE TO BE APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL OF SEVEN TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS RESULTING IN 17.5% OF THE BLOCKS. THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARKING FOR THE, THE UNIT AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THIS IS SHOWING THE, THE, THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UM, AND THEN OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, ISSUED IN THE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIALS OF VARIANCE IN D O A 2103, SORRY, EXCUSE ME. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, IN D O A 21 0 3 0 8 6, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACTS ONE, THERE ARE CURRENTLY SIX ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORTTERM RENTAL UNITS ON THE BLOCK DATE. STAFF MAILED 37 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. FOUR RETURN IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION. ONE WAS IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, AND THE TOPEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. NOW WE'LL PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. HELLO? HI, THIS IS LISA. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. UH, MAY, UH, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, UH, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YES, THIS IS LISA MCC ROBLINE AND I RESIDE AT 4 2 8 EAST MYRTLE. GREAT, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS. UM, REAL QUICKLY, LEE, YOU GUYS, BEFORE I GO OVER ANYTHING, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK IF WE CAN CONTINUE AT THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW WE NEED NINE VOTES AND NOT EVERYONE IS PRESENT TODAY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, MY HUSBAND HAD TO ATTEND A FUNERAL AND HE'S THE RIGHT OWNER AND WAS SET TO SPEAK FIRST. UH, SO WITH RESPECT, UM, CAN YOU GRANT US THAT, UH, MS. MS. ROBLIN? UH, JUST, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE 11 MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY. DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR DIS UH, REQUEST IN ANY WAY? WELL, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT WITHOUT MY HUSBAND AND OKAY. I, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF ALL 12 WERE THERE. YEAH. OKAY. UH, STAFF, UM, STAFF, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONTINUED ONE TIME. ARE THERE ANY, UM, PROCEDURAL ISSUES WITH DOING A, A REQUEST FOR A SECOND CONTINUANCE? SHE CAN REQUEST ANOTHER CONTINUANCE IF, IF SO, UH, REQUESTED AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. AND WHEN WOULD BE THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING? [00:10:04] NOVEMBER 16TH WILL BE THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE? ZUNA? A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FOR CASE NUMBER BO O A 20 DASH 1 0 3 8 6 TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE BO O A MEETING? NOVEMBER THE 16TH. YOUR SECOND, SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. UH, STAFF PLEASE CALL FOR A, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? CASE STAFF, PLEASE CALL FOR A VOTE. MICHELLE, I APPROVE OF A CONTINUANCE. MR. MANCHACA, MAY I APPROVE MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I APPROVE MR. MANNA? YES. MS. MOND? YES, I APPROVE. MS. VINNO? YES, I APPROVE MS. FISHER? YES, I APPROVE MR. DOMER? YES, I APPROVE MR. OZUNA? YES, I APPROVE. AND CHAIR ORIAN. UH, I ALSO APPROVE, UH, MOTION BEING, UH, UNANIMOUS. UH, THIS HAS, THIS IS TO BE CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 16TH, UH, HEARING DAY. UH, NEXT CASE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. BYE. MM-HMM. . [3. 20-6348 BOA-20-10300102] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS CASE BO 8 21 0 3 0 0 1 0 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT SEVEN 18 WEST HILDEBRAND AVENUE. THE APPLICANT BEING KILLED GRIFFIN, IN FAIRMONT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE, 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM FRONT BUILDING SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE 35 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED AT GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES LOCATED IN THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ALLOW A NEW CAR WASH TO BE BUILT 35 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE SITE WAS ONCE A MULTI-PAY CAR WASH. CURRENTLY, IT IS VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED WITH THE EXISTING CAR WASH BAYS DILAPIDATED. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO IN ORDER TO, UH, CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE BAY AUTOMATIC CAR WASH STATION HERE. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF D O A 2 8 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES DICTATE THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK, AND TWO, THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK CREATES UNIFORMITY IN OF THE WEST HILL DE GRANT AVENUE. YOU STAFF MAILED 43 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE WILL RETURN IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. NOW WE'LL PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND RECORD. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MY NAME'S ROB KILLEN. MY ADDRESS IS 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 WITH A LAW FIRM OF KILLEN GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT. UH, WE'RE, WE HAVE A SLIDE PRESENTATION AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT THAT UP, BUT IF IT IS UP, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA THANK, UH, STAFF AND DOMINIC IN PARTICULAR FOR, UH, THEY'RE VERY CAREFUL REVIEW OF THIS AND FOR THEIR REPORT, NOT FOR THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT CERTAINLY FOR THE REPORT. UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SEVEN 18, UH, WES HILDERBRAND. SO IF WE GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE TWO, UH, AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE, WE UNDERSTAND WITH THE, UH, CHALLENGES OF TECHNOLOGY, UH, WE WANT TO KEEP THIS SHORT AND STREAMLINED, SO IT'S GONNA BE A SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER PRESENTATION FOR THOSE OF YOU'VE HEARD ME BEFORE THAN TYPICALLY YOU WOULD HERE. SO ON SLIDE TWO, UH, YOU CAN SEE, WELL, OUR CURRENT REQUEST IS AS WAS STATED BY STAFF, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK. SO WE CAN PUSH A BUILDING BACK, UH, 35 FEET. IF WE GO TO SLIDE, UH, THREE, OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS A 35 FOOT VARIANCE, SO WE COULD PUSH THE BUILDING BACK 60 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. BUT, UH, WE WORK WITH STAFF. THEY ASKED US TO REDUCE THE VARIANCE. SO BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE REDUCE THAT VARIANCE FROM A 35 FOOT VARIANCE TO A 10 FOOT VARIANCE. WE CAN GO TO SLIDE, UH, FOUR. I THINK THAT WILL HELP. OKAY, SO [00:15:01] WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE ON SLIDE FOUR WAS OUR, UH, ORIGINAL REQUEST. AND YOU CAN SEE WE PUSHED THE BUILDING BACK, UH, QUITE A WAYS BECAUSE AS YOU'RE COMING OFF THE HILDEBRAND, IF THE BUILDING WAS PUSHED UP, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE AN IMMEDIATE LEFT AND THERE WOULD BE NO ROOM FOR CARS TO STACK. THERE'S NO QUEUING SPACE THERE UNLESS YOU PUSH THE BUILDING BACK FURTHER ON THE LOT. HILDEBRAND, AS YOU KNOW, IS A VERY BUSY STREET. WHAT WE DIDN'T WANNA DO IS HAVE CARS STACKED UP ON RA BLOCKING TRAFFIC. SO THAT'S WHY THE BUILDING IS PUSHED BACK TO ALLOW FOR SAFE QUEUING OF CARS ON SITE. WE GO TO SLIDE FIVE. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON SLIDE FIVE IS THE REVISED SITE PLAN, UH, THE CURRENT REQUEST BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF. AND SO, UH, WHAT YOU CAN SEE, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TAKEN THE VACUUM BASE AND INCORPORATED THAT AS PART OF THE BUILDINGS. WE'RE ABLE TO PUSH THOSE UP FURTHER ON THE PROPERTY TO GET 'EM CLOSER TO THE SPIRIT OF THE, UH, N C D MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK AND STILL ALLOW FOR PLENTY OF ROOM TO QUEUE TRAFFIC AND FOR SAFE QA. SO IF WE CAN GO TO SLIDE SIX. UH, SO SLIDE SIX IS THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF, LIKE I SAID, DID A REALLY GOOD JOB. UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST CRITERIA, UH, NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THEY NOTE THAT REDEVELOPING A CURRENTLY DILAPIDATED AND VACANT LOT WITH INTRODUCTION BUFFER YARDS WILL INCREASE THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. WE GO TO SLIDE SEVEN, UH, SECOND CRITERIA, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT, NECESSARY HARDSHIP, UH, STAFF NOTED AGAIN, THE GREATER BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. SLIDE EIGHT, UH, THIS IS CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR. VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN, UH, WHAT'S PERMITTED. BUT THE ZONING CURRENTLY PERMITS, UH, CAR WASH AND THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY AS A CAR WASH. SO, UH, WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE SITE. WHAT WAS ACTUALLY USED FOR, UH, SLIDE NINE IS CRITERIA FIVE. UH, THIS AGAIN, IS STILL FROM THE STAFF REPORT. UH, SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT OR CONFORM ADJACENT CONFORMED PROPERTY. IT ACTUALLY IMPROVES THE, THE CONDITIONS FOR FOLKS THAT ARE NEARBY, UH, BECAUSE AS THEY NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STRUCTURE WILL BE FURTHER FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES. SLIDE 10, UH, THIS IS APPLY TO THE OWNER, WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW DUTY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. UH, AND THEN GO TO SLIDE 11. STAFF AGAIN NOTES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE A LARGER BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE REAR AND COMMERCIALLY USED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHILE INTRODUCING BUFFER YARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LACKING. SO OF THE SIX CRITERIA, UH, STAFF IN THEIR REPORT TOUCHED ON FIVE OF THOSE CRITERIA, UH, NOTED THAT WE MET THOSE CRITERIA. THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT THEY DIDN'T TOUCH ON THAT WE WILL TOUCH ON IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. UH, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE 12. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN SLIDE 12 IS A STREET VIEW FROM 2011. AND YOU CAN SEE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED AS A CAR WASH. YOU CAN SEE THE, THE BAYS TO THE BACK THAT ARE STILL THERE, AND THEN THE BAYS IN THE MIDDLE THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE 13. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON SLIDE 13 IS THAT THE BUILDING IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REMOVED THEN. SO IT WENT FROM A CAR WASH TO USED CAR LOT, AND NOW IT'S JUST SITTING VACANT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A WHILE NOW. SO IT WAS A CAR WASH AND IT WAS USED CAR LOT, AND NOW IT'S SITTING EMPTY. BY REMOVING THAT BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, THE ONLY BUILDING ON THE, ON THE SITE IS THE ONE THAT'S PUSHED ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK, UH, WHICH BY THE WAY, SITS IN THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK AND ALSO SITS IN THE, UH, REAR BUFFER YARD. LET'S GO TO SLIDE 14. UH, REAL QUICK, SLIDE 14. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY. IT IS TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE. ON SLIDE 14, YOU CAN SEE HOLD, RAN LOOKING, UH, LOOKING EAST. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE 1515. YOU'VE GOT AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, FROM ON, ON SITE. SO LET'S GO TO SLIDE 16. SO HERE, SLIDE 16, YOU CAN BETTER SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THERE. AGAIN, IT IS, IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NOTHING. IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH U D C, IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE N C D. UH, IT'S PUSHED BACK AND IT IS BUDDING RIGHT UP AGAINST THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE, TO THE TOP PART OF THE PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THOSE HOMES AND THOSE YARDS THAT ARE BACKED RIGHT UP TO THIS UGLY OLD, UH, NOW VACANT, UH, CAR WASH [00:20:01] BAY STRUCTURE. THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING ON THE PROPERTY, THERE'S NO BUFFERING, NONE OF THAT. SO LET'S GO TO SLIDE 17. SO SLIDE 17, YOU CAN SEE IF WE CAN REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH THIS VARIANCE. YOU GET A 15 FOOT REAR, UH, LANDSCAPE OFFER A 30 FOOT REAR BUILDING SETBACK, AND THEN A 15 FOOT FRONT, UH, LANDSCAPE OFFER. AND SO IF WE COMPLY WITH THE UD C FULLY COMPLY WITH THE U D C, YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR DEVELOPABLE AREAS IS PRETTY TIGHT. IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO, UH, SLIDE 18. AS I NOTED A FEW MINUTES AGO, UH, STAFF DID A, A GREAT JOB IN THEIR REPORT. WE MEET ALL THE CRITERIA. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS REALLY LEFT AS AN OPEN QUESTION WAS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND SO THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE U D C. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES. AND SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES TALK ABOUT A MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK. AND HERE'S HOW THEY DESCRIBE IT. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IN SLIDE 18, THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES ALONG BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROADS MAINTAIN SHALLOW SETBACKS THAT BRING THE BUILDINGS CLOSE TO THE STREET, CREATING A STREET EDGE THAT IS MORE INVITING TO THE PASSERBY AND TYPICAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. MAINTAINING THE STREET EDGE IS THE FOCUS OF THE SETBACK STANDARDS. AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD AND MAINTAIN THAT STREET EDGE ALONG BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. LET'S GO TO SLIDE 19. SO, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DOESN'T JUST TALK ABOUT IT IN THE TEXT. THEY ALSO HAVE EXHIBITS, AND THEY HAVE A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS EXPLAINING THIS MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK. AND THE EXHIBITS ARE FREDERICKSBURG ROAD AND BLANCO ROAD. ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF HILDEBRAND AVENUE. INTENT WAS CLEARLY TO ONLY APPLY TO BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT IS DRAFTED, IT IS NOT EXPLICIT, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE. ALTHOUGH CLEARLY THE SPIRIT WAS BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG. IT SAYS IT IN TEXT, IT SAYS IT IN THE EXHIBITS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE 20 IF WE CAN. SO ON SLIDE 20, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARE STREET VIEWS OF FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. AND YOU CAN SEE ON FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, THE BUILDINGS ARE FRONTED UP ON THE STREET AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THE N C D DOES. SLIDE 21, PLEASE. SO ON SLIDE 21, YOU ARE LOOKING AT BLANCO ROAD, THE SAME EXACT STORY. WE'VE GOT BUILDINGS THAT ARE FRONTED UP ON BLANCO ROAD. INTENT OF THE N C D WAS TO PROTECT THAT CHARACTER. NOW, LET'S GO TO SLIDE 22, 22. WE'RE LOOKING AT HILDEBRAND HILDEBRAND. THE SETBACKS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. THERE IS NO TRADITION OF FRONTING STREETS UP ON HILDEBRAND. SO THE N C D WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE SETBACKS ON HILDEBRAND BECAUSE IT'S SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THE STREET SOMEWHERE FURTHER BACK. UH, IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE 23, LET'S GO TO SLIDE 23. THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE BLOCK THAT INCLUDES THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STEP BACKS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. AGAIN, THERE'S NO CHARACTER THAT THE N C D WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT IN HILDEBRAND SPECIFIC TO BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. UH, LIKE I SAID, I'M GONNA TRY AND KEEP THIS SHORT IN THE INTEREST OF OUR TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES HERE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE, UH, 24. SO SLIDE 24. UH, THIS IS THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR VARIANCES. LIKE I SAID, WE WANT TO PUSH THE BUILDING BACK SO THAT WE CAN CUE CARS ON THE PROPERTY SO WE DON'T HAVE CARS STACKING ON HILDEBRAND WALKING TRAFFIC ON HILDEBRAND ROAD. THE REQUEST MEETS ALL OF THE THE VARIANCE CRITERIA. WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO TAKE THE VARIANCE FROM A 35 FOOT VARIANCE TO A 10 FOOT VARIANCE, SO WE SIGNIFICANTLY RE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF VARIANCE WE'RE ASKING FOR. THE EXISTING CAR WASH BASED STRUCTURE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE N C D MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK. SLIDE 20 PLEASE. THE EXISTING CAR WASH PAY STRUCTURE IS ENCROACHING IN THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK AND THE REAR LANDSCAPE BUFFER. SO LEAVING AS IS, YOU'VE GOT A NON-CONFORMING BELT. IF WE GET THE VARIANCE AND REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY, WE WILL FULLY COMPLY WITH THE UD C'S LOCK LAYOUT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING A 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUFFER, INCLUDING THE 15 FOOT FRONT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. NOW WE GO TO SLIDE, UH, 26. UH, THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK WAS ONLY INTENDED TO APPLY TO BLANK ONE FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. IT IS EXPLICIT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE N C D. THEY JUST DIDN'T SAY, AND THEY'RE DON'T APPLY IT TO OTHER STREETS, BUT IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY BLANK ONE. FREDERICKSBURG NEVER SAYS . DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WILL LEAVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE AND THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN, UH, VACANT. SO WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS AND HUMBLY [00:25:01] ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU STAFF. HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO. OKAY. UH, I'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR COMMISSIONER. UH, WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. CRUZ, ANNA CRUZ, UH, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, SIR, UM, ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW WITH THE BUILDING IN THE BACK, ARE YOU ALL PLANNING ON TEARING THAT ONE DOWN AND THEN MAKING SOMETHING BRAND NEW? YES. STAFF, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE, UH, SITE PLAN, I'D APPRECIATE IT. UH, SO YOU CAN SEE IF, AND I'M ON A TAPE DELAY HERE, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN WE USE SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE WE REMOVED THAT BUILDING. IT GOES AWAY COMPLETELY. SO WE'LL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE U D C IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. SO HAVE A, A REAR LANDSCAPE BUFFER, A REAR BUILDING SETBACK, AND A FRONT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. OKAY. SO BEHIND IT, THEY'RE, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE BACK OF THIS UGLY OLD BUILDING, THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT TREES. OKAY. NOW THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS IT ONE BUILDING OR TWO? IT IS ONE SINGLE BUILDING. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, MANNA, YOU ARE NEXT. YES. SO, UH, UM, SO IT SHOWS A 35 FOOT DRIVE, UM, IN THE FRONT, AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A CARPORT OR, OR COVERED PORTION THERE. UM, SO, SO WHAT IS THE, SO WHAT IS THE DRIVE ABOUT THAT'S LISTED ON THIS LINE HERE? AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS HOW FAR AWAY IS THAT COVERED? IF THAT, IF THAT IS INDEED A, UH, A, A CARPORT COVERED AREA FROM THE STREET ITSELF? OKAY. SO, SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS FROM OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST HAD THE VACUUM BAY SITTING UP ON FRONT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, UH, UNCOVERED AND AS JUST BASICALLY JUST KIND OF SITTING OUT THERE. SO YOU GO WASH YOUR CAR, THEN YOU COME AROUND TO THE VACUUM BAY. SO BASED ON WHAT STAFF ASKED US TO DO TO REVISE THE SITE PLAN, WE TOOK THE VACUUM BASE AND PUSHED THEM UP AGAINST WHERE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE BUILDING. WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE BUILDING OVER TO COVER THE, UH, VACUUM BASE. SO IT ALL BECOMES ONE SINGLE STRUCTURE. OKAY. AND SO THE, SO THE DISTANCE THEN FROM THE VACUUM BAY TO THE STREET, THEN WHAT DOES THAT JUST, THERE? IT'S 35 FEET, SO THE BUILDING ITSELF IS BEHIND THAT. SO, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE BUILDING MEAN BACK, BUT THE, BUT THE BAYS THEMSELVES WILL BE 35 FEET FROM THE STREET ITSELF? THAT THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY OUR REQUEST IS, IS JUST A 10 FOOT VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL, UH, 35 FOOT VARI THAT WE INITIALLY REQUESTED. OKAY. UM, AND THEN, UM, AND JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION THEN. WILL THAT CAR WASH, IS IT GONNA HAVE LIKE A JET AIR DRYER THING GOING ON, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND IT? YEAH. AND, AND I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT THE ACTUAL CAR WASH DEVELOPER SITTING HERE SOCIALLY DISTANCED. OF COURSE, HE IS MORE THAN SIX FEET AWAY FROM ME, BUT, UH, I'LL LET HIM ANSWER THAT. IAN? YES. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? UH, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YES, MY NAME'S IAN COCHRAN WITH GEO FIRE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT 56 0 2 WEST HOUSEMAN ROAD. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. AND THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS, UH, THERE ARE RESIDENCES BEHIND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND SO IS THERE A JET DRYER THAT COULD BE GOING OFF, YOU KNOW, UM, AND WHAT ARE THE HOURS, I GUESS, OF OPERATION WHERE THAT'S GONNA BE DISTURBING THOSE NEIGHBORS BEHIND YOU FOR THE HOURS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE USING IT? OH, UM, SO THE BUSINESS WOULD OPERATE, IT'S A, LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMPANIES, YOU GO, IT'S A 20, IT IS OPEN 24 HOURS. THERE'S NOT, UM, PEOPLE ARE EXACTLY ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES, BUT WE HAVE A GROUP THAT GOES AROUND AND SERVICES OUR CAR WASH THAT ARE EXISTING AROUND TOWN. SO YES, IT IS A 24 HOUR OPERATION. YEAH. UH, AND THE, UH, U D C DOES NOT ALLOW US TO PUT THE VACUUM BASE IN THE, UH, BUILDING SETBACK. RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY A BUILDING, IF THEY'RE JUST VACUUM BASED FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING, I THINK, THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE RAISING, AND THAT IS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. NOW, THE WAY IT'S CONFIGURED NOW, THE WAY THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED, THOSE VACUUMS WERE RIGHT THERE ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO WE'RE LINE, SO WE'RE, INSTEAD OF HAVING 'EM RIGHT THERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE MOVING BACK A GOOD 50 PLUS FEET, PROBABLY 70 FEET OR SO FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. YES, CORRECT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSES BEHIND THE PROPERTY. SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING OR TRYING TO FROM THIS POINT WILL NOW ADHERE TO THE U D C BECAUSE WE [00:30:01] HAVE THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEN ALSO THE 30 FOOT BUILDING SET BACK. WELL, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS, UM, I KNOW THAT SOME CAR WASHES HAVE A DRYER, AN AIR DRYER, A JET DRYER INSIDE THE WASHER FACILITY ITSELF. SO AS THE CAR IS LEAVING, IT TURNS ON THE AUTOMATIC JETS THAT BLOW IT OFF. AND THOSE ARE EXTREMELY LOUD, GENERALLY SPEAKING ABOUT THOSE. SO, I MEAN, I, I WILL SAY WE USE THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ALL OF OUR NEW BUILDS. WE'VE BEEN BUILDING THEM FOR ABOUT SIX AND A HALF, SEVEN YEARS SO FAR. AND THERE'S BEEN DRASTIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF THE EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING MOVING FORWARD FOR SO REASONS OF LIKE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT. SO, YES, I MEAN, THERE ARE BLOWERS THAT GO OVER THE CAR, TURN ON JUST WHEN THE CAR IS EXITING AND THEN, I MEAN, THEY GO OFF RIGHT AS SOON AS THE CAR LEAVES, SO. OKAY. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER MANON. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? FISHER, UH, FISHER, PLEASE? UH, YES. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU ALL HAD, UM, TALKED WITH THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. IT APPEARS THAT THEY HAS NOT MADE EDDIE'S STATEMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OTHER WE DID NOT REACH OUT TO, TO . THIS IS THE VERY EDGE OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MM-HMM. , AS I NOTED IN MY COMMENTS, THE, WE REALLY THINK IT'S JUST A DRAFTING ERROR IN THE, ON THE PART OF THE DISTRICT GUIDELINES, UH, SINCE CLEARLY THE FOCUS WAS ON BLANCO AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. SO SHORT ANSWER IS, UH, NO, NO, WE DID NOT REACH OUT TO 'EM AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND AS, AS STAFF IS DULY NOTED, UH, WE THINK THAT THE NET EFFECT IS IT'S MUCH, MUCH BETTER, UH, REDEVELOPED THAN IS CURRENTLY. THANK YOU BRAMAN, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. HOW LONG HAS THIS PROPERTY BEEN VACANT, ABANDONED, NOT IN USE. HOW, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, LESS THAN TWO YEARS, WE BELIEVE. SO PRIOR TO THE, THAT IT WAS AN ACTIVE CAR WASH? NO, IT WAS A, IT WAS A USED CAR LOT. IT WAS A CAR WASH, AND THEN THE LAST FEW YEARS IT'S BEEN A USED CAR LOT. OKAY. SO, BUT IT'S BEEN BASICALLY EMPTY FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, LESS THAN TWO YEARS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? OKAY. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ASK, UH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM, AND THIS IS FOR A CLARIFICATION. SO THEY'RE COVERING UP THE, THE VACUUM BAYS, UH, AND THE EDGE OF THE COVER IS 35 FEET FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE IS IF THEY WERE TO MOVE THE BAYS 10 FEET CLOSER TO HILDEBRAND, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO VARIANCE. IS THAT, IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? WELL, UH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A LOGISTICS OF LAYOUT. IAN, DO YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT? YEAH, SO, OKAY. I'LL JUST, MY UNDERSTANDING KIND OF GOING ABOUT THIS WAS TRYING AND GET CLARIFICATION, WHICH IS WHY WE CAME TO THIS FIRM TO KIND OF GET ALL OF THIS WORKED OUT. SO ORIGINALLY THERE WASN'T A STRUCTURE THAT WAS TO BE COVERING THE VACUUM BASE MM-HMM. . AND SO THE VACUUM BASE WERE PUSHED UP AGAINST THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE WAS A COMMON DRIVE IN BETWEEN THE VACUUMS THAT THEY WERE UP AT THE FRONT AND THEN WHERE THE CAR WASH, YOU SEE IT NOW. AND SO NOW BY DOING SO AND WORKING WITH STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WANTING HOW TO COME UP WITH A GOOD COMPROMISE WAS A MATTER OF PUSHING THE VACUUMS BACK AGAINST THE BUILDING AND EX EXTENDING A CANOPY STRUCTURE OVER THEM. SO IT'S PART OF THE PHYSICAL BUILDING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, NOW CLOSER TO WHAT I GUESS THE BEACON HILL N C D IS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE US OR ASKING . WELL, I GET THAT, I GET THAT. BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS I'M ASKING A A JUST A QUESTION. IF YOU WERE TO EXTEND THAT, THAT CANOPY CONNECTION AND MOVE THE PARKING 10 FEET CLOSER, WOULD THERE BE A VARIANCE? AND MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF. YEAH, AND I, I, I WOULD'VE, I WOULD DEFER TO DOMINIC. DOMINIC IS HELPED US WORK UP, UH, THIS PLAN. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH ROOM DO YOU HAVE TO MANEUVER? 'CAUSE CARS HAVE TO BE ABLE NO, I GET THAT. I'M JUST, I I'M, I'M, I'M JUST SIMPLY ASKING IF IT WERE TO BE SHIFTED, NOT THE BUILDING IN THE REAR, BUT THE FRONT, JUST THE CAN BE A VACUUM. SO CHAIR, THIS IS ZEKE. SO ULTIMATELY WE, WE BASICALLY, WITH THE BAY ITSELF, UM, EVEN IF YOU'RE TO ROOF IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A BUILDING. UM, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE AND IT WOULD NOT QUALIFY. SO EVEN IF YOU WERE TO ROOF THAT BUILDING THE, THE, THE VACUUM BAYS AND MOVE IT FORWARD, IT WOULDN'T QUALIFY. IT WOULDN'T SATISFY THE M C D. AND SO THIS IS SATISFYING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE EXTENDING THE REAR BUILDING TO THE COVER OVER THE, THE VACUUM BASE IS, IS AN EXTENSION OF THE REAR BUILDING. YES. IT'S [00:35:01] ALL, ALL ONE STRUCTURE. AND SO WHAT WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE THE VACUUM BASE 10 FEET CLOSER AND, AND EXTEND THAT EXTENSION AND, AND STILL MAKE IT ONE BUILDING, AND, AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS I SEE THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING 35 FEET FROM THE FRONT. IF YOU WERE TO MOVE THAT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHERE THE REAR BUILDING IS. CORRECT. IF, IF YOU CONTINUED EXTENDING IT OUT, I, I THINK THAT CREATES OTHER LOGISTICAL ISSUES FOR, AND WHAT, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT IF, IF YOU DIDN'T WANNA GET A VARIANCE, YOU COULD EITHER MOVE IT ALL CLOSER 10 FEET, OR YOU CAN CAN JUST MOVE THE VACUUMS CLOSER AND PROVIDE A LONGER EXTENSION. AND, AND I JUST, UH, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MYSELF AND THE REST OF THE BOARD, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT IF THIS VARIANCE, WHETHER IT GETS APPROVED OR DENIED, IF IT GETS DENIED, THERE IS A WAY FOR THEM TO ADDRESS IT. BUT WHAT IS THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT, OF, OF ADDRESSING THAT? AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD SPEAK WITH. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR STAFF IS, UH, HILDEBRAND ROAD IS A, UH, SECONDARY ARTERIAL, I BELIEVE. AND IS, IS THIS DEVELOPMENT GOING TO INCUR THE PROVISION OF A 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK? AND AND I STATE THAT BECAUSE, UH, WITH HILDEBRAND SEEING, SO BEING SO CRAMPED, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY, WOULD THERE, WOULD THERE BE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION REQUIRED IF THE, IF THIS WERE TO BE PLATTED SUCH THAT A 35 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE, WOULD TURN INTO A 25 FOOT SETBACK, UH, IN THE, IN THE, IN THE DISTANT FUTURE? SO LET ME, UM, ANSWER, UH, THE FIRST QUESTION, A WALL HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM OR THE MAXIMUM FRONT STEPBACK. SO JUST THE, UM, JUST THE EXAMPLE OF TRYING TO EXTEND A CANOPY COVER CLOSER TO THE SETBACK WOULD NOT SATISFY THE DESIGN STANDARDS. OKAY. THE SECOND, THE SECOND QUESTION RELATED TO THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME, UM, EVALUATION BY THE STREETS ENGINEERING TEAM TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE CURRENT, UM, ENVIRONMENT, WHAT IS THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE SIDEWALK TODAY MM-HMM. AND, AND, UM, THOSE FACTORS WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THAT BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. OKAY. 'CAUSE WE'RE, WHAT'S, WHAT'S REALLY, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, WHAT WHAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR ME TO KNOW IS, IS THAT AS TIME GOES BY, IF HILDEBRAND IS, IS OF SUBSTANDARD WIDTH TO THE 70 TO 86 FOOT MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, I'M WONDERING HOW SHY IS IT? IF IT'S SHY ENOUGH TO WHERE THE, UM, WHERE THIS SIDE OF THE STREET IS SHORT, 10 FEET, LET'S SAY, THEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A 25 FOOT SETBACK IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AS TIME GOES BY EVENTUALLY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHETHER I SHOULD BE FACTORING THAT INTO, UH, MY WEIGHING OF THIS, THIS CASE. SO FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, WHAT DO YOU KNOW THE CURRENT RIGHT OF WAY OF HILDEBRAND AND, AND WHAT ANY SHORTFALL IT MAY HAVE FROM THE INTENDED? I, I, I APOLOGIZE MR. CHAIR. UM, I KNOW THAT THE ENGINEER IS, IS LOOKING AT THAT. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO, TO FIGURE THAT OUT. SO YOU DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT RIGHT OF WAY OF HILDEBRAND IS RIGHT NOW? I DO NOT, NO. YOU DON'T HAVE THE SURVEY OR ANYTHING AVAILABLE? I DO NOT HAVE THAT IN, IN MY MATERIALS, YES. OKAY. I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE STREET MAP. IT'S, IT'S FOUR LANES AND IT, AND IT'S RELATIVELY NARROW SIDEWALK. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T THINK YOU EVEN, YOU'RE HITTING THE 70 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO, YOU KNOW THAT, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I WAS JUST, WAS WONDERING. SO, AND IT'S, I'M, I'M DONE WITH THE QUESTIONS AND IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, DO A FOLLOW UP? OKAY. THAT BEING SAID, UH, THE APPLICANT IS THERE. IS THERE ANY, UH, ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS? UH, NO. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR ALL. I WANNA THANK EVERYONE FOR, UH, PARTICIPATING TODAY. I WANNA THANK STAFF FOR THE REVIEW AND REMIND YOU THAT THE, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE HERE IS THE, THE ORDINANCE, THE N C D IS DRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S FOCUSED ON BLANK ON FREDERICKSBURG, BUT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE HILDEBRAND. SO I THINK WE'RE CLEARLY WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, I I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE N C D ULTIMATELY, UH, IS REVISED. UH, FOR OUR PURPOSES, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, CARS CAN SAFELY ENTER, EXIT AND CIRCULATE THROUGH, UH, THE LOT. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO BE MINDFUL OF, AGAIN, THE, THE INTENT OF THE N C D AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. [00:40:01] UNA MA'AM. UH, UNA, YOU HAVE A BEFORE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 2. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MAXIMUM FRONT BUILDING SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 35 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT SEVEN 18 WEST SILVERMAN AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, KILLING, UH, GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINE SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACTED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. AND THIS CASE REDEVELOPING A CURRENTLY DILAPIDATED VACANT LOT WITH AN INTRODUCTION OF A BUFFER YARD, WILL SUB SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ENFORCEMENT OF BOTH THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK, AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE SPACE, UH, DEVELOPABLE SPACE FOR BOTH THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS EFFICIENT AND SAFE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. AND THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SU SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY CREATING LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS AND REDEVELOPING IT CURRENTLY DILAPIDATED A LOT THAT WILL BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY FOR THE VARIANCE WITHOUT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE YOU SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE, UH, USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT FIVE. SUCH A VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OF IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CURRENTLY VACANT STRUCTURES LOCATED A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL CONFORM TO THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND MORE CLOSELY FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. SIX, THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, ARE THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND NEITHER DUE TO THE, THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR ARE DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE DUE TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK REAR ARE SETBACKS ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND INTRODUCTION OF THE BUFFY YARDS THAT ARE NON-EXISTING. CURRENTLY, THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE LAND A SPACE IS REDUCED AND A MOTION. SECOND, WE CAN'T HEAR CHAIR ORIAN, CAN YOU START TALKING AGAIN? WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU UHOH. WE STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. MR. OZUNA, I GUESS YES. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THE MOTION OR POINTS THAT I'M SUPPORTING? YEAH, DO YOU WANNA START THAT WHILE, UH, THE CHAIR TRIES TO FIX HIS, UH, HEADPHONES, MIKE? OKAY. YEAH. I'M IN SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION AS, AS, UH, REQUESTED. UH, GIVEN THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, N C D UH, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY DEFINED THE AREAS FOR THE, UH, FRONT SETBACK LIMITS AND THAT BEING BLANK ON FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, I DID LOOK AT, UH, THE SUBJECT HILDEBRAND ROAD. I DID NOT SEE A, A CONFORMITY OF SETBACKS THAT I THINK THE N C D WAS TRYING TO, UH, TO ENFORCE. SECOND, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE, FROM THE LANDOWNERS THAT'D BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE, UH, BY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SO IT WAS, IT WAS SUPPORT OF THE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, BY, BY NO OPPOSITION. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK UP. SO, UM, FOR THAT, AND THEN THE ABILITY TO REDEPLOY A PROPERTY INTO, UH, INTO USE AND, AND GET, YOU KNOW, SOME VALUE TAX OUT OF IT. I SUPPORTED THE MOTION DELMER. I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND TALK, UM, CON ABOUT THIS AND, AND KEEPING IT VACANT IS NOT GONNA BE GOOD FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, PUTTING SOMETHING NEW AND, AND NICE, UH, OUGHT TO ENHANCE IT. SO I WOULD AGREE. THANK YOU SHALL MR. OZUNA, I'M GONNA, UH, GIVE IT TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK MR. ORIEN IS TRYING TO RECONNECT. SO, MR OKAY, THANK YOU. I WILL TRY TO, AND I HAVE NONE OF THE, UM, INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHAIR IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S OKAY. UM, THERE, WAS THERE ANOTHER, UH, MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEAN? YES. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME NOW? YES. UH, [00:45:01] YES, JUST IN TIME. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST, I PINGED IN AND OUT. IT IT, I COULD HEAR Y'ALL GREAT. I JUST COULDN'T TALK. UH, I WAS WONDERING JUST QUICKLY, WHO SECONDED THAT SECOND? WHO WAS THE SECOND NCHA? OKAY. AND SO IS, UH, I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS. UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND THE REASONING WHY IS, IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT EVEN IF THIS WAS DENIED, THEY COULD JUST CREATIVELY, UH, COME UP WITH A A MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING. THIS JUST PROVIDES MORE ROOM. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, HILDEBRAND ROAD IS, IS A SUBSTANDARD WIDTH, IN MY OPINION, ACCORDING TO GOOGLE MAPS AND WHAT THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN INTENDS TO THIS AREA. AND I JUST THINK AS A FUTURE ROLLS ON THIS 35 FOOT SETBACK IS GOING TO GO DOWN TO A 25 FOOT AT SOME POINT. SO, UH, I WILL, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? SHE, YES. UH, COMMISSIONER SHELL, UM, I ALSO AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. UM, I, I WOULD'VE PREFERRED IF THE APPLICANT HAD REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, SINCE IT IS IN AN N C D AND THEY'RE VERY ACTIVE. BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY, UM, AND TO HILDA BRAND OVERALL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. FANTASTIC. ANYONE ELSE? MANNA ? UM, YEAH, I CONCUR, UH, WITH MICHELLE THERE. UM, REGARDING, YOU KNOW, REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, I THINK, OR ESPECIALLY THE NCDS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE, UM, UM, IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I AM GONNA SUPPORT IT SIMPLY BECAUSE AS I LOOK DOWN, UH, PUR , UH, MENTIONED THERE, IF I LOOK DOWN ALL OF EBNER, I SEE MANY BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY AT 35 FOOT SETBACKS ALREADY. AND SO TO ME, IT'S NOT SUBSTANDARD WITH REGARDS TO THE 35 FOOT, UH, UH, LINE. AND THEN, UH, JUST TO, JUST TO NOTE ALSO WITH THE CITY'S ASSURANCE THAT IT'S A PHYSICAL BUILDING THAT HAS TO BE, OR PHYSICAL WALL THAT HAS TO BE AT THAT 35 FOOT LINE. AND SO THE, SO THE, UH, UM, UM, THE GROUP HERE DEVELOPING PROPERLY, YOU HAVE TO RESOLVE THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANY ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. UH, HEARING ON LET'S, UH, MOVE ON TO A VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR, OREN, IF YOU CAN, UH, YOUR CAMERA. YES. WE CAN'T SEE YOU ON THIS END. GO AHEAD AND START ROLL. I'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE ROW, BUT WHILE YOU WORK ON THAT, MICHELLE, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA, I SUPPORT THE APPLICANT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. YES. YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MONA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. VINNO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. I ALSO CONCUR. AND MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. AGENDA [4. 20-6374 BOA-20-10300094] ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS CASE BO A 2103 0 0 9 4. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT TEN FIVE TWO THREE MILL SPRING. THE APPLICANT IS AMANDA CHRISTINA GRAHAM. THE REQUEST IS FOR A EIGHT EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE. THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED PERGOLA AND OVERHANG TO BE 11 FEET THREE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT TEN FIVE TWO THREE MILL SPRING. THERE'S CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY. THE ACCIDENT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTING AN ATTACHED PERGOLA IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND IS PROPOSING IT TO BE USED. UM, USED TO HOUSE SOLAR PANELS. THE PERGOLAS ATTACHED TO THE RESIDENCE AND EXTENDS 19.8 FEET PAST THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE CAUSING THE STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH, ENCROACH EIGHT FEET, NINE INCHES INTO THE REAR SETBACK. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IT TO BE 11 FEET THREE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UM, THAT IS MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF THE OVERHANG. STAFF MEASURED THE DISTANCE FROM THE POST OF THE BURGLAR TO THE FENCE, WHICH WAS 17 FEET, EIGHT INCHES. DURING THE RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, ANY SUBMITTED PLANS, UM, BY THE APPLICANT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY AN ENGINEER. [00:50:01] EXCELLENT. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PERGOLA IN THE REAR. THIS IS SHOWING THAT IT IS ATTACHED. THIS IS THE 17 FOOT EIGHT INCH MEASUREMENT FROM THE POST TO THE FENCE. AND THIS IS ALL THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING VARIANCE IN D O A 21 0 3 0 0 9 4. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THE PROPOSED PERGOLA AND OVERHANG WILL BE CONSTRUCTED 11 FEET THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND TWO OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL REMAIN MORE THAN 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE. STAFF MAILED 26 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. THREE. RETURN IN FAVOR, NONE WILL RETURN IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE VAN VANCE JACKSON HEAD ASSOCIATION. I'M GONNA PASS, PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. MS. GRAHAM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HI, THIS IS AMANDA GRAHAM. AND CHRIS GRAHAM. MY HUSBAND'S WITH ME AS WELL. WE BOTH RESIDE AT 1 0 5 2 3 MILL SPRING. OKAY, MS. GRAHAM, YOU CAN CONTINUE ON WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. UM, WE JUST, UH, WE ARE APPLYING FOR THIS VARIANCE. WE ORIGINALLY, UH, TOWARD DOWN AN EXISTING PERGOLA STRUCTURE THAT CAME WITH THE PURCHASE OF OUR HOME. UH, WE REBUILT IT PER SPECIFICATIONS OF, UH, THE SOLAR PANEL COMPANY THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH, UH, TO ENSURE THAT THE SOLAR PANELS WOULD BE STRUCTURALLY SUPPORTED BY THE NEW PERGOLA. UM, JUST BASICALLY LARGER, UH, TIMBER LARGER POSTS TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE PANELS BEING ON TOP. UH, WE WERE TOLD, AND WE WERE, UM, IN A CONTRACT WITH THE SOLAR COMPANY, UH, WHERE THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD BE TAKING CARE OF ALL THE PERMITTING FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. AND THEN AFTER EVERYTHING WAS INSTALLED, WE FOUND OUT THAT THEY HAD NOT PULLED PERMITS FOR THE ACTUAL PERGOLA ITSELF. SO, UM, MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH, UH, PULLED PERMITS FOR THE ACTUAL PERGOLA STRUCTURE. AND, UH, THEN WE WERE, UH, INFORMED THAT THE ACTUAL PERGOLA THAT WAS REBUILT, UH, EXCEEDED THE, UH, SPECIFICATION OF THE 20 FEET, UH, TO FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO WE ARE APPLYING FOR THIS VARIANCE TO HAVE IT APPROVED TO HAVE THE EXTENSION TO GO TO 11.3 FEET FROM THE REAR. OKAY. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO, UH, REGISTERED TO SPEAK? NO, SIR. NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND NO COMMENTS. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M UM, GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, THANK YOU, SIR. UH, CAN THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS, UH, THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS PLACE YES, MA'AM. WRITING THAT NOW? OKAY. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ZEKE. UH, MS. GRAHAM? YES. UM, I WAS LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT BEHIND YOU DID NOT SUBMIT ANY REPLY. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM AND DO THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING? YEAH, ACTUALLY I THINK THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED 'CAUSE THEY CAME TO ME, UH, AND THEY THOUGHT THAT WHAT THEY WERE, UH, NOTIFIED WITH WAS FOR ME. AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT WE WERE DOING AND SHE SAID, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE THOUGHT THAT I SHOULD HAVE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO ME AND NOT HER. UM, AND SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR STANCE REALLY IS ON, ON IT, BUT SHE DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE. SHE SEEMED TO THINK THAT IT WAS, UH, BECAUSE IT HAD MY NAME ON IT AND THAT IT WAS, UH, A VARIANCE REGARDING MY ADDRESS THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. SO SHE HAD COME OVER AND ACTUALLY DELIVERED THE MAIL THAT WAS SENT TO HER TO ME. OKAY. SO IF WE NEED TO , DO YOU REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE DOING THEN? I EXPLAINED TO HER WHAT IT WAS AND SHE SAID, OH, OKAY, THAT HAS TO DO WITH YOU GUYS ON YOUR PROPERTY. [00:55:01] SO, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK SHE WAS OPPOSED TO IT, BUT I REALLY COULDN'T COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE SHE HAD COME OVER TO ME TO DELIVER, TO LET ME KNOW THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED THAT MAIL THINKING IT WAS FOR ME AND NOT HER. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN I HAD READ OVER IT, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST NOTIFYING HER AS WELL. RIGHT. ABOUT, ABOUT YOUR, YOUR CONSTRUCTION. UM, SO HOW MUCH SPACE IS ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, YOUR PROPERTY LINE AND THEIR PROPERTY LINE? IS THERE, IS THERE STILL AT LEAST 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE BACK GATE, FROM THEIR BACK GATE TO YOURS? YES. IT'S 11. I THINK WHAT IT SAYS IT SHOWS IS 11.3 FEET AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE. SO YES, IT'S DEFINITELY STILL OVER 10 FEET. OKAY. SO BECAUSE IT'S, UH, UM, BACK, BACKYARD TO BACKYARD, CORRECT? YES. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. FISHER, UH, COMMISSIONER FISHER? YES. I JUST HAD A, A QUICK QUESTION. UM, AS I WAS HEARING IN THE, IN THE DISCUSSION, IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAD A PERGOLA ALREADY WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE HOUSE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THAT IS BASICALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE AT THE PRESENT TIME. IS THE OVERHANG GREATER THAN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OR HOW DOES IT COMPARE? IT'S, THE OVERHANG IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER. UH, BUT THE POSTS, UM, THE STRUCTURE OF IT ARE IN THE SAME PLACE THAT THEY WERE FROM THE ORIGINAL PARKING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, IS THAT WE USED A SIX BY SIX POSTS VERSUS A FOUR BY FOUR AND THEY'RE LARGER. UM, THEY'RE LARGER, UH, PIECES OF WOOD GOING FROM THE HOUSE OUT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND. LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE THE ENGINEER WHO KIND CAME OUT TO, TO, UH, STRUCTURE THE, THE NEW REBUILD OF THE PERGOLA SAID THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE STRONGER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HELD THE WEIGHT OF THE NEW PANELS BEING PUT ON TOP OF IT. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. MM-HMM. . OKAY. UM, ANYONE ELSE? MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO YOU STATED THE INTENTION OF THE PERGOLA WAS TO SUPPORT, UH, THE INSTALLATION OF SOME SOLAR PANELS. ARE THOSE SOLAR PANELS COULD BE SITTING FLUSH ON TOP OF THE PERGOLA OR IS IT GOING TO NEED TO ANGLE OUT, UH, YOU KNOW, TO FOLLOW THE SLOPE OF THE, THE ROOF OR SOMETHING? OR HOW, WHAT'S THE ANGLE OF THE, OF THE SOLAR PANELS GONNA BE RELATIVE TO I GUESS, YOUR NEIGHBOR? SO, SO ARE THEY GONNA SEE A GIANT IS IT DOES BE HIGHER UP, I CAN GUESS, UH, ON ONE SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER, OR IT JUST BE FLAT ON THE PERCOLATE ITSELF? HI, THIS IS, UH, CHRIS GRAHAM. UH, IN THE CURRENT PHOTOS, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE SOLAR PANELS ARE ACTUALLY MOUNTED CURRENTLY. SO THEY, THEY DO SIT FLUSH, BUT THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN PROPRIETARY GRID AND THE GRID IS APPROXIMATELY TWO INCHES TALL. SO THEY ONLY SIT, UH, ABOUT THREE OR FOUR INCHES IN TOTAL. THEY BASICALLY SERVE AS A ROOF ON TOP OF THE PERGOLA, SO YOU CAN'T EVEN REALLY SEE IT 'CAUSE THEY SIT FLAT. THANK YOU. MINKA. ANYONE ELSE? UH, MINCHA. MR. MINKA? I HAVE A SMALL QUESTION RELATED TO THE OTHER ONES. UH, VERY SMART OF BUILDING THAT WITH A PANEL ON TOP. YOU DON'T HAVE, IN THE FUTURE IT'S A LOT EASIER, BUT WITH THE LINK EXTENSION DUE BECAUSE OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PANELS THEMSELVES AND THE NUMBER OF PANELS, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASSUMING. UH, THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH, IT WAS KIND OF MY DESIGN. 'CAUSE I DID, WE JUST GOT A BRAND NEW ROOF, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO, UH, TAKE AWAY FROM THE VALUE OF THE NEW ROOF. SO I DID HAVE THEM PUT ON THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE PERGOLA AND WE DID EXTEND THE TOP JUST SO WE COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL SOLAR PANELS AND THE KILOWATTS THAT WE NEEDED TO OFFSET THE COSTS ON OUR ELECTRICITY AND . THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, I NOTICED ON THE, ON SOME, UH, MAPS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE UTILITY POLES THAT ARE ON YOUR REAR PROPERTY. ARE THE UTILITY POLES FLYING IN YOUR NEIGHBOR'S REAR YARD OR YOUR REAR YARD? REAR YARD? UH, WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA GO CHECK RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SURE. SO WE WILL CHECK THAT OUT RIGHT NOW. YES. UH, THE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE UTILITY POLES ARE [01:00:01] NOT IN OUR YARD. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, SO IF THERE'S, UH, NO MORE OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, CLOSE, CLOSE THE, UH, UM, PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION MAN, NANA FISHER. UH, COMMISSIONER FISHER? YES. REGARDING, UH, CASE NUMBER D O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 9 4. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A REQUEST REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED PER GOLA AN OVERHANG TO BE 11 FEET, THREE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 0 5 2 3 MILL SPRINGING APPLICANT BEING AMANDA CHRISTINA GRAHAM. 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 WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED PERGOLA AND THERE IS STILL 11 FEET, THREE INCHES OF SPACE BETWEEN IT AND THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED NECESSARY HARDSHIP WITH THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, MOVING THE STRUCTURE FARTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WILL RESULT IN A LESS SPACE PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED SOLAR PANELING. 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 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT WILL STILL MAINTAIN SOME SPACE BETWEEN THE PERGOLA AND THE STRUCTURE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THE 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, SPECIFICALLY, THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAL SETBACK 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, SEEING AS THERE WILL BE NO MORE THAN 10 DE OF SEPARATION. THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WILL ALSO NEED TO BE SIGNED OFF BY AN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY FOR THE SOLAR PANEL PANELS. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW 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 GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED PLANS FOR THE LOT WERE WARRANT FOR THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST. THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED OF THE LIMITATION INCURRED [01:05:01] BY THE ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? WHO WAS THAT STAFF? WHO DID THE SECOND FISHERMAN? IS THAT YOU, SIR? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT, FANTASTIC. ALL RIGHT. UM, MS. FISHER, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, BEGIN. YES, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THIS VARIANCE. UH, IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, OWNERS HAVE GONE AHEAD AND, UH, CARRIED THROUGH TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, THE PLAN. AND AS THESE, THIS IS A, UH, BASICALLY A RECREATION WITH AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE SOLAR PANELS, I THINK IT'S AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. UH, ? YES. SECOND WITH, UH, A C FOR THE SAME REASON. MR. MAN, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU AT ALL. OKAY. LEMME GET CLOSER HERE. OKAY. THAT'S BETTER. I CONCUR. ALSO, UH, MY, UH, COLLEAGUE FISHER, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS, AND DUE TO THE DILIGENCE PRETTY AROUND THE WHOLE THING, I'LL SUPPORT THIS MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, SPEAK THEIR MIND? ANYONE? OKAY. THEN, UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADD, UH, MY COMMENT. UH, I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT, UH, TWO REASONS. UH, I, THE IDEA THAT THE, THE LENGTH WAS BASED ON THE, ON THE, THE LENGTH OF THE, UH, SOLAR PANEL. UH, WHICH, WHICH, UH, I THINK, UH, BECAUSE IT'S THE INTENDED USE IS, IS, IS HELPFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND, AND GOOD FOR THE ELECTRICAL GRID. THAT'S GOOD. AND SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE, THE, UH, OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES ARE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO THERE'S GONNA BE, UH, 10 FEET OF SEPARATION FROM, UM, OUR LINES, FROM THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL. MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. VINNO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER? YES. I CONCUR. MM-HMM. , MR. DAHMER. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. UH, I ALSO CONCUR THAT BEING UNANIMOUS. UM, MOTION PASSES. UH, NEXT CASE, PLEASE. UH, OH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, CHAIR, WE CAN HAVE ONE MOMENT. WE'RE HAVING SOME, UH, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. UH, THAT'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL. UM, DO YOU NEED A, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK OR IS IT GONNA BE QUICK? YES, SIR. FIVE MINUTES WOULD BE GOOD. OKAY. THIS FIVE MINUTE BREAK WILL CONCUR AT 2 22. THANK YOU, . IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S EVERYBODY. SO LET'S, LET'S GET THIS, UH, LET'S GET IT RIGHT. NUMBER FIVE, GO AHEAD. OKAY. CASE NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PLEASE. [5. 20-6405 BOA-20-10300095] ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS CASE BO, A 21 0 3 0 0 0 9 5. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24 12 CINCINNATI AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS ADRIANA AL. THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE, A FOUR FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE TO THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A CARPORT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SEVEN INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ATTACHMENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE THREE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FRONT YARD [01:10:01] FENCE TO BE FIVE FEET TALL. AND FOUR, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF CINCINNATI AVENUE AND NORTH GENERAL MCMULLEN INTERSECTION. THE APPLICANT DID RECEIVE A CITATION NOTICE FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. UPON VISITING THE SITE, MULTIPLE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED AND ADDRESSED DURING THIS PROCESS. THE CARPORT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACK AT MOST BY FOUR FEET, FIVE INCHES. THE MEASUREMENTS TO THE FENCE DID VARY. SO WITH THE SMALLEST MEASUREMENT WE HAD WAS SEVEN INCHES FROM THE CARPORT TO THE FENCE, AND THE LARGEST MEASUREMENT WE TOOK WAS ONE FOOT THREE INCHES. THE PROPERTY OWNER STATED THAT THE FENCE IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE DUE TO IT BEING CONSTRUCTED WITHIN, WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY. WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT ON A PICTURE. UM, IN A COUPLE SLIDES. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION, THE CARPORT IS ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO A VARIANCE, THE REAR SETBACK WAS ALSO REQUIRED. THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE IS FOR 19 FEET TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. HOWEVER, UH, WE DO WANNA NOTE THAT THERE IS A 16 FOOT ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO WITH HALF OF THE WIDTH OF THE ALLEYWAY CONTRIBUTING TO THE REAR SETBACK, THE VARIANCE COULD ACTUALLY BE CONSIDERED AS 11 FEET IF, IF YOU'RE TAKING THE ALLEYWAY INTO CONSIDERATION. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A SECTION OF SOLID SCREEN FENCING THAT EXTENDS PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME, AND IT IS FIVE FEET TALL. UH, THERE'S ALSO A SECTION OF THE SIDE YARD FENCING THAT IS EIGHT FEET TALL. SO SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS BEING, UH, SOUGHT FOR THESE TWO. UH, LAST THING TO NOTE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A COR, HAD CORRUGATED METAL AS A FENCING MATERIAL. UM, HOWEVER, AFTER WORKING IT OUT WITH THEM AND COMMUNICATING WITH THEM, THEY DID STATE THAT THEY, UM, NO LONGER WANT TO USE THE METAL. SO THEY AREN'T RE AREN'T REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE MATERIAL. UM, BUT IF IT, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED, THEY WOULD REPLACE IT WITH WOODEN MATERIAL. HERE IS A IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN. THAT YELLOW, UH, HIGHLIGHTED AREA IS THE, IS THE CARPORT THAT IS CURRENTLY BUILT. AND HERE'S THE SURVEY OF THE, UH, THE PROPERTY. HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OH, AND THAT IS THE CARPORT BOTTOM. THIS IS THE, THE SIDE OF THE CARPORT TO THE FENCE. THE PROPERTY . SEE, YOU CAN SEE THERE AREN'T VERY MANY. THERE ISN'T A LARGE AMOUNT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND OVERHANGS. SO THIS IS THE SMALLEST MEASUREMENT WE TOOK, WHICH WAS SEVEN INCHES. THIS IS THE POST TO THE DRIVE, THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS ABOUT A FOOT. THIS IS THE WIDTH OF THE CARPORT. IT'S SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 16 FEET WIDE. THIS IS THE ATTACHED, THE CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE MAIN PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO THIS IS, UH, AT THE, AT THE SITE VISIT, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS SHOWING US THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND WAS STATING THAT THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS ACTUALLY THE ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. IF YOU LOOK FOR THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCING, THOSE TWO, THIS IS THE FRONT YARD FENCE MEASURED AT FIVE FEET. AND JUST, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THAT THERE'S NO CLEAR VISION ISSUES WITH THAT FRONT FENCE. THIS IS A SECTION OF THE SIDE FENCE THAT IS SAW, THAT IS THE CORRUGATED METAL THAT THEY HAVE STATED THAT THEY WILL NOT, UH, PURSUE TO KEEP. THERE'S MORE OF THE METAL AND THE EIGHT FENCE. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHOWING HOW, HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND FINALLY, THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED FOUR FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE, THE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIZE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. UM, THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 9 5. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THE CARPORT HAS A WIDTH OF 15 FEET, EIGHT INCHES. [01:15:02] THERE IS ONE FOOT OF SPACE BETWEEN THE POST AND THE DRIVEWAY. AND THREE ADJUSTED WIDTH OF THE CARPORT WILL BE THREE 13 FEET, THREE INCHES. NEXT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF B O A 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 5 OF THE, UH, REST OF THE REQUEST, INCLUDING THE 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE THIRD REQUEST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SOLID SCREENS FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE FIVE FEET TALL. AND THE FOURTH, REQUEST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT. ONE, THE FRONT YARD SOLID SCREEN FENCE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH CLEAR VISION REGULATIONS. AND TWO, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD FENCING WILL OFFER ADDITIONAL SECURITY. AND THREE, THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH CONTRIBUTES EIGHT FEET TO THE REAR SETBACK AND PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE, SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES. STAFF MAIL 26 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE UNIVERSITY PARKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. NOW I'LL PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. UM, MS. ROSCO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND MR. ROCO IS ALSO ON THE LINE. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ADRIANA ROSCO. UH, I AM THE OWNER OF 24 12 CINCINNATI AVENUE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. AND MY HUSBAND, UH, MANU VICTOR OROZCO, HE IS ALSO HERE WITH ME. WE, I'M SORRY. YOU CAN CONTINUE. SORRY. UM, ALL I WANTED TO SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT I REALLY, UH, HOPE AND, UM, WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF Y'ALL REALLY CONSIDER, UH, ALLOWING US THIS VARIANCE FOR THE CARPORT. UM, I REALLY HOPE THAT IT COULD, UH, POSSIBLY STAY THE WAY IT IS JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT IF, UM, WE KNOW AND WE ARE AWARE THAT, UM, THE FENCE, THE WOODED FENCE, IT'S, UH, BUILT INSIDE OUR PROPERTY. AND, UH, WE REALLY WOULDN'T LIKE TO MOVE IT OUT TO OUR PROPERTY LINE JUST FOR THE FACT THAT WE WILL, UH, BE TAKING SOME OF THE SPACE THAT MY NEIGHBOR USES FOR, YOU KNOW, TO PARK PARK AND WHERE THE KIDS PLAY AND RUN. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE LITTLE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE BETWEEN THE HOUSES. THAT'S WHERE, UM, HER GRANDKIDS PLAY. UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY WERE VERY NICE ABOUT IT WHEN WE DISCUSSED TALKING ABOUT IT, UH, BUILDING THE CARPORT. AND, UM, THAT'S WHY THEY GAVE US THAT LETTER SAYING THAT THEY HAD NO OBJECTION. WE OBJECTION. WE REALLY, WHEN WE, UM, UM, STARTED, UH, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTING THIS CARPORT, WE REALLY DIDN'T THINK THAT WE NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE WE WERE JUST FOLLOWING THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT IT, IT ALSO SHOWS, UH, ON THE SURVEY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. WE JUST FOLLOW WHAT WAS THERE, YOU KNOW, AND WE FOLLOW THE TWO FEET VARIANCE, UM, THE TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS THERE. UM, SO, AND EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, IT SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL DISTANCE FROM THE CARPORT THAT IT'S THERE, IT'S THE 18.6 UH, FEET, YOU KNOW, SO WE KNOW THE DISTANCE THAT WE HAVE. UM, BUT WE REALLY WOULDN'T WANNA MOVE ANYTHING SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO, UH, KIND OF, UM, DISRUPT MY NEIGHBOR. AND, UM, THAT'S WHY WE USED, UH, METAL, SO THAT IT WOULDN'T IMPOSE ANY, UH, DANGER TO HER, UH, PROPERTY EITHER. THE CARPORT IS, UH, ALL BUILT WITH METAL. AND THEN, UM, LIKE, UM, THE OFFICER WAS SAYING, UH, I KNOW THAT WE USED THE METAL IN THE BACK FENCE, UH, ON THE SIDE, UH, BECAUSE, UH, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN, UH, ROBBED TWICE. SO WE ARE A VERY PRIVATE, UH, FAMILY, I GUESS. UH, WE KIND OF KEEP TO OURSELVES. SO, UH, WE JUST LIKE TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN OUR OWN THING. SO WE, WE ARE, WE ARE A VERY PRIVATE FAMILY. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN EXPLAIN MYSELF LIKE THAT. UM, WE TRY TO KEEP OUR HOUSE CLEAN, UH, ALWAYS LOOKING NICE. WE TRY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY VALUE, UH, YOU KNOW, UP TO DATE. SO WE'RE ALWAYS MAINTAINING OUR, OUR HOUSE THE BEST THAT WE CAN. AND, UM, IF WE ARE GRANTED, UH, ALL THESE [01:20:01] REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE, THESE VARIANTS, UH, WE ARE, UH, WE WILL REMOVE THE METAL THAT WE USED ON THE SIDE AND ON THE BACK. AND, UH, WE WILL USE, UH, WOOD TO REPLACE THAT. AND, UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF, UH, WE HAVE TO, UH, DOWNSIZE TO FOUR FEET OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT IT'S, UH, ALLOW IN THE FRONT. UM, UM, BUT, UH, I REALLY HOPE THAT Y'ALL CONSIDER, UH, ALLOWING US KEEPING, UH, WHAT IT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BOTHER OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, ALLOWING US TO TALK AND PRESENT OUR CASE PRESENT TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US, UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO, THERE'S NO, NO ONE RESPOND. OKAY. UH, WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER. QUESTION QUESTIONS. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? ANYONE THE HAVE THE FLOOR. SO, UM, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE HOUSE TO THE CURRENT FENCE? RIGHT NOW? THE, THE HOUSE, IT'S, UH, FROM THE FENCE? YES. SO, OR WIDTH, THE CARPORT ITSELF. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DISTANCE IS THERE TO THAT SIDE FENCE. 16 FEET, IT'S 16 FEET. THE CARPORT IS 16 FEET WIDE, AND I HAVE 18.6 FEET FROM THE, I GUESS FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO WHAT MY ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE IS. THE, UM, SO, SO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, YOU OR THE ORIGINAL, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, IS THAT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? AND THAT WAS THERE WHEN, I GUESS, WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THEY, THEY ALL SEEM TO HAVE THAT SIMILAR STRUCTURE. UM, YOURS SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST TO INSTALL A CARPORT. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS AROUND THERE THAT HAS AN EXTENDED TYPE CARPORT? THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORS DOWN, DOWN THE STREET. THEY MIGHT NOT BE SIMILAR TO MINE, BUT THERE ARE CARPORTS THAT THEY USE OTHER MATERIALS AND, AND THE FENCE IS ALSO VERY CLOSE TO THE CARPORTS, OR THE CARPORT IS ACTUALLY THE FENCE TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE USING THE, WHAT THE CARPORT POLES ARE, ARE TO BE THE, THE PROPERTY LINE. SOME OF THEM DON'T EVEN HAVE FENCES. WE HAVE THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE THE PRIVATE FENCE, AND THEN WE HAVE ALL THE STRUCTURES SIT IN OUR PROPERTY. WE DIDN'T USE ANY OF MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AT ALL. WE TRY TO, WE TRY TO KEEP EVERYTHING INSIDE AND EVERYTHING IS INSIDE OUR PROPERTY, IS INSIDE OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA DISTURB OUR NEIGHBOR AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THE FENCE IS INSIDE OUR PROPERTY. AND ALSO THE RAIN WHENEVER IT RAINS, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, THEY SHOWED YOU THE VIDEO THAT WE SUBMITTED WHERE IT SHOWS THAT WHENEVER IT RAINS, ALL THE WATER DRIPS INTO MY PROPERTY. OKAY. THAT'S VERY GOOD. I WAS GONNA BE A, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. AND THEN ONE QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE ASKED, YOU ASKED YOU TO MOVE, UM, THE POLES IN BY, UM, TWO, TWO FEET, WHAT KIND OF CHALLENGES WOULD THAT PRESENT FOR YOU? WE DON'T, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY. I MEAN, BECAUSE WE WERE FOLLOWING THE ACTUAL CARPORT THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. OKAY. OKAY. WE WILL BLOCK THE, OUR DRIVEWAY PRETTY MUCH. IT WOULD BE KIND OF LIKE A LOOK, A FUNNY LOOKING DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WE FOLLOW WHAT WAS THERE, WHAT HAS BEEN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, THAT YOU WERE FOLLOWING THE EXISTING CARPORT. THE SURVEY THAT WE HAVE AS PART OF THE, UH, PACKAGE DOES SHOW AN EXISTING COVERED ASPHALT AREA, BUT IT DOES NOT, IT, IT'S VERY, VERY SHORT COMPARED TO WHAT IS IN QUESTION TODAY. 18? YEAH, WELL, THE ONE IN THE BACK, THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE EXTENDED IT, THAT WE EXTENDED THE, THE 40 FEET. YEAH. IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONE IN THE BACK WAS APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 20 FEET, BUT YOU MORE THAN DOUBLED THAT EXTENSION. IS THAT CORRECT? ? RIGHT. OKAY. MM-HMM. . AND HOW FAR AWAY IS THE EDGE OF THE CARPORT TO THE NEIGHBORING HOME [01:25:02] ON THE OTHER, ON THE OTHER LOT. YOUR NEIGHBOR'S LOT? UH, SAY YOUR QUESTION AGAIN PLEASE. UH, WELL, FROM AN AERIAL PHOTO, IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS A HANDFUL OF FEET AWAY FROM THE FENCE. AND SO THE PROVISION OF A CARPORT THAT EXTENDS BETWEEN YOUR TWO HOMES, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW FAR AWAY. NO, YOUR CARPORT IS FROM THE, FROM THE ACTUAL HOUSE. FROM HER HOUSE, YES. NO, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE, 'CAUSE IT'S LIKE PROBABLY LIKE SIX FEET. SIX SEVEN. OKAY. SIX OR SEVEN FEET, BECAUSE YOU GOTTA KEEP IN MIND THAT MY FENCE, THE PROPERTY LINE FENCE, MY PROPERTY MM-HMM. , MY PRIVATE FENCE, PRIVACY FENCE. IT'S ALMOST TWO AND A HALF FEET INSIDE MY PROPERTY LINE. SO TO, TO THAT, ADD THE SEVEN INCHES THAT ARE STILL THERE. MM-HMM. , SO THAT'S ALMOST THREE FEET. RIGHT. AND THEN WHATEVER SHE HAS ON THE OTHER FACE, SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE FIVE FEET. OKAY. FEET, BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR SURVEY DIMENSIONS, UH, 18.6 FEET FROM YOUR HOME TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU, YOUR, SO THAT MEANS YOUR CARPORT EXTENDS 15 FEET OFF OF YOUR HOME? 16. 16 FEET. 16 FEET. SO THAT LEAVES 2.6 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF CARPORT TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE. RIGHT. AND THEN YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY, YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET OR SO UP THERE? YES. UHHUH . OKAY. SO LIKE, LIKE SIX, SEVEN FEET. AND IS THERE ANY, UH, I NOTICED ON ONE OF THE PICTURES, IT'S KIND OF TOUGH TO, TO, UH, MAKE OUT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE IN THE BACKYARD, UH, I'M LOOKING AT, UM, UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A SMALL ROOF EXTENSION THAT COMES FROM THE EXISTING HOME. UH, IS THERE ANY GATES OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD HINDER, UH, FIRE PERSONNEL FROM DOING THEIR JOB IN CASE SOMETHING, UH, WERE TO HAPPEN? NOT AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. OKAY. BECAUSE I JUST SEE WHAT, WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SMALL FOUR FOOT, A THREE FOOT FENCE BETWEEN YOUR DRIVE AND THE EXISTING HOME LINE. UH, AND THEN FINALLY YOUR, YOUR SURVEY CALLS FOR THAT REAR STRUCTURE TO BE A GARAGE. IS THAT A FUNCTIONING GARAGE OR IS IT BEING USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE? IT'S JUST STORAGE, BUT LIKE THE INSIDE IT HAS LIKE NO, UH, FLOOR OR ANYTHING. OKAY. BUT THE GARAGE DOOR, IS IT, DOES IT, COULD YOU FIT A VEHICLE THROUGH THERE OR IS IT BEEN ENCLOSED? NO, IT'S BEEN ENCLOSED. IT'S JUST, IT IS JUST BEEN ENCLOSED. YEAH. MM-HMM. . OKAY. WELL, THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS IS IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, UM, LET ME KNOW. CRUZ, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, MA'AM. UM, YOUR SIDE FENCE IS EIGHT FEET HIGH. WHY DO YOU NEED IT THAT HIGH? THE SIDE, UH, A FEET HIGH BECAUSE, UM, THE PROPERTY ON THE SIDE, IT'S A RENTAL, SO THERE'S CONSTANTLY NEW PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT ALL THE TIME. IT'S NOT LIKE OWN, SO WE DON'T GET TO KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS LIKE WE DO OUR NEIGHBOR ON THE, I GUESS IF YOU LOOK AT MY HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE ONES THAT SENT THAT GAVE ME THE LETTER, THOSE THAT HOUSE IS LIKE HOME OWNED. LIKE WE OWN KNOW THE OWNERS BECAUSE THE OWNERS LIVE THERE. BUT ON THAT SIDE, IT'S, UH, IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY, SO IT'S CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY PEOPLE, UH, THEY'RE SWITCHING, UH, PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE AND THEY HAVE ALREADY, UH, JUMPED OVER TO OUR, UH, PROPERTY A COUPLE OF TIMES. OKAY. THE ONLY THING QUESTION WOULD BE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OFF, IF YOU LEAVE IT AT EIGHT FEET, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OFF THE ALUMINUM. YES, MA'AM. I, I, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I SAID THAT IF BRANDS HAVE PERMISSION, UH, TO KEEP IT EIGHT FEET, I WILL SWITCH IT TO WHAT MACHALA HI, COMMISSIONER MACHALA OBJECT FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, THE SURFACE AREA OF THE HARDBOARD, IT'S QUITE A BIT, AND IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF WATER IS FALLING ON HER PROPERTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT A GENERAL SLOPE OF THE ROCK TRYING TO BREAK UP THE WATER, FALLING DOWN. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WATER'S NOT AFFECTING THE OTHER PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S A LARGE SURFACE AREA, A GENERAL RAIN I CAN UNDERSTAND, BUT A HEAVIER RAIN, THE OTHER PROPERTY IS BEING AFFECTED BY THE RAIN SO MUCH WITHOUT A GUTTER. IT'S MY CONCERN ON THAT PART. , UH, I CAN, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD A GUTTER IF, UH, THAT'S A CONCERN. BUT, UH, ALL THESE COUPLE OF TIMES THAT IT HAS, UH, RAIN PRETTY, UH, SEVERELY, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DAMAGED. WE WERE ALWAYS KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT, UH, [01:30:01] ANY, THAT WE DIDN'T CAUSE ANY TROUBLE WHATSOEVER TO MY NEIGHBOR. UM, BUT, UH, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD A GUTTER TO IT IF IT'S NECESSARY. LIKE I SAID, WE ARE TRYING NOT TO CAUSE ANY TROUBLE WHATSOEVER TO OUR NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANYONE ELSE? I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO. UH, ONE IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THE, UH, SETBACK ISSUES. UH, THE SECOND ONE IS GONNA BE DEALING WITH THE FENCE. AND, UM, JUST TO POINT OUT TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION THAT STAFF HAD COMMENTED THAT, UH, DUE TO THE REAR, UH, ALLEY, UH, THAT THE, THE VARIANCE COULD BE REDUCED TO AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE NINE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO, UH, GO IN THAT DIRECTION. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT THERE WAS, I I, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THERE WAS SOMEBODY THAT HAD A, UM, OH, PLEASE PROCEED. WE GO AHEAD AND ASK ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SOMEBODY HAD BEEN IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, DID THEY? COMMISSIONER TREVINA? HELLO? YES. HI, I'M, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. UM, THERE, THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION, UM, THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE, UH, THE MAP, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT COULD BE, UM, RIGHT INTO THE RECORD STAFFED. NO, THERE WERE NO COMMENTS MADE. IT WAS JUST, UH, THEY JUST MARKED THAT THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION. UH, COMMISSIONER VINNO, IS THERE ANY FOLLOW UP YOU'D LIKE TO NO, THAT'S IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO I'LL, I'LL BE CLOSING. UH, OH. UM, THAT, THAT ALSO KIND OF PROMPTED ME TO, UM, ASK. I, I KNOW THAT THIS, UM, CAME UP BECAUSE OF A CODE VIOLATION. UM, I JUST WAS CURIOUS IF, UM, IT WAS BECAUSE CODE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED A COMPLAINT, OR IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A DRIVE BY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. STAFF, WE WON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. BUT ULTIMATELY, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE WORKS FOR THE 50 50, UM, 50% CALLINS, AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THEY'RE OUT ON THE SITE, THEY'LL EVALUATE THE AREA TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ISSUES AND THEY GROW AT THAT STAGE. THIS ONE IS UNCLEAR IF THERE IS A PROACTIVE OR CALL-IN, BUT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE BEING, YOU'RE HEARING TODAY, UM, THE CODE, CODE VIOLATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE CARPORT, BUT AS WE GO OFF ONTO THE SITE, WE'LL NOTICE THE FENCE, WE'LL NOTICE THE ALUMINUM, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE ADD THOSE ONTO THE I TO THE CASE FILE. USUALLY IT'S ONE ITEM ITEM, AND THEN AS WE SEE THINGS, UH, WE'LL ADDRESS 'EM AT THAT TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ASK A QUESTION? OKAY. UM, CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSIONER ARMANA. OKAY. OKAY. UM, LET'S SEE. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT FOR A ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE THREE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN B O A 2 0 1 0 3, 0 0 9 5, UM, AND TWO, A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT, UH, 2 4 1 2 CINCINNATI AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ADRIANA OROZCO. UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH TO THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE CARPORT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE APPLICANT HAS ENOUGH SEPARATION FROM NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES AND HAS WATER DRAINAGE, UH, INTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE REAR SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE PROPERTY, AND HALF THE ALLEYWAY CAN CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE SPACE. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT DISEN FORCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS EXISTING PRIOR, AND THE ADDITION OF THE CARPORT WAS AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. 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 [01:35:01] THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACEY BETWEEN LABORING STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT WILL STILL MAINTAIN SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND WATER. DRAINAGE IS NOT AFFECTING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. 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 IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT FIVE. TEST 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 BOARD FINDS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE AND MIRROR SETBACK 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 SIX SUPPLY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUM CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WAS WITHIN THE SETBACK, WHICH LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CARPORT, EXTENSION, AND OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? UH, IS ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND? OKAY. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER AMANDA, CAN YOU PLEASE LEAD THE, UH, DISCUSSION? SO, UM, WHILE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND, AND LOOKING AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I, I KIND OF AGREED THAT I THINK THAT A TWO FOOT VARIANCE WAS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE, UM, IN THIS CASE TO MOVE THE, UH, MOVE THE, UM, THE CARPORT SIDE TO, UH, THREE FOOT FROM THE, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, I THINK THAT THE BACK PROPERTY, UH, TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE LIKE THAT. SO TO ME, THAT'S, THAT SHOULD JUST BE GRANDFATHERED AND ACCEPT IT AS IS. AND SO THAT'S, UH, SO I, UM, WE'LL BE, UH, ACCEPTED THE MOTION AS I MODIFIED IT TO DO THE, UH, TWO FOOT VARIANCE. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER UNA? YEAH, FOR THE SAME REASONS I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION, UH, AS MODIFIED, UM, WITH, WITH THE, UH, WITH THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO 11 FOOT. UH, SAME REASONS APPLY. I MEAN, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUCH THAT THERE ARE THE, THE PACK STRUCTURES AND, UM, UM, GAR, UH, CARPORTS, UH, ARE PREDOMINANT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION. OKAY. UH, UM, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, THAT, THAT THE MOTION READ WAS FOR TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK TO, TO ALLOW IT TO BE, UM, UH, UP TO THREE FEET. AND, AND COMMISSIONER MANNA, YOU DID NOT, UH, INCREASE THE SETBACK, THE EIGHT FEET, YOU KEPT IT AT ONE FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO, UM, IS ANY, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO, UM, CHIME IN, UH, HEARING NONE? UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, STATE THAT I ALSO CONCUR WITH, UM, UH, BOTH COMMISSIONER MANNA AND UNA, UH, AS TO, UH, THE REASONINGS BEHIND THE REDUCTION IN THE SIDE SETBACK AND THE SUPPORT FOR THE EXISTING, UH, REAR GARAGE, UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MANCHACA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH POINT OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT MRNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. VINNO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. DOMER. I CONCUR. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. YES. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, WITH THE VOTE OF 10 TO ONE MOTION PASSES. UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION REGARDING, UH, THE, THE, UH, THE FENCING. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT ISSUE? LANA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, I MOVE THAT THE, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 0 1 0 3 9 5, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, UM, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SOLID SCREEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT TALL AND, UH, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 2 4 1 2 CINCINNATI AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ADRIANA OROZCO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US [01:40:01] AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE UC STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY OF THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, E THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THE CRITERIA WILL BE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. A FIVE FOOT TALL FENCE, SOLID SCREEN FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE YARD WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJU ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE MATERIAL AND STYLE OFFENSES SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES AND IS NOT NOTICEABLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SAW THE FENCING DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FENCING IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PRE-EXISTING FENCING MATERIAL. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE USE, THE CURRENT USE, UH, OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE MOTION THERE. SECOND CRUZ. ALL RIGHT. UH, CRUZ HAS GOT A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER AMANDA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YES, I, I REALLY DIDN'T SEE, UH, ONCE IT IS THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT COMMITTED TO REMOVING THE, UH, CORRUGATED METAL. I REALLY DIDN'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE FENCING AFTER THAT. SO, UM, UM, I WILL BE, UH, APPROVING IT AS READ. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. AS LONG AS THE, UM, ALUMINUM SIDING IS BEING REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, THEY WOULD BE, UH, VERY WELL, UH, TAKING CARE OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, CHIME IN? CHAKA, UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA? I AGREE. FOR THE REASON, JUST STATED FROM BOTH OF MY COLLEAGUES. OKAY. UH, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. UH, I'M JUST GONNA SAY I ALSO CONCUR, UH, AND I, AND I WAS IN SUPPORT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A CLEAR VISION ISSUE, UH, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, UH, TO ME. SO IF WITH THAT STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE. MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR ORIAN? YES. I ALSO CONCUR WITH UNANIMOUS MOTION PASSES. UM, SO NEXT CASE AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER [6. 20-6385 BOA-20-10300100] SIX IS CASE BO, A 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 100. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9 3 1 BLUE LANDING. THE APPLICANT BEING RANDY BURT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET, THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9 9 3 1 BLUE LANDING BETWEEN MITCHELL LAKE EAST OF HIGHWAY US HIGHWAY 2 81 SOUTH AND 40 FEET AWAY FROM MISSION DEL LAGO. GOLF COURSE NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, PREDOMINANTLY OCCUPIED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MISSION DE LAGO TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MI MINOR VARIANCE OF NINE INCHES FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDE STEPBACK REQUIREMENT ON THE EASTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE HOME IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION [01:45:01] AND IS NEARLY COMPLETE. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE BY THE FOUNDATION COMPANY RESULTING IN A NINE INCH EXTENSION OF THE HOUSE OVER THE SIDE SETBACK. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN. HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF D O A DASH 21 0 3 0 0 100 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DIS OF THE DISTRICT. AND TWO, ADEQUATE SPACE WILL BE UTILIZED TO PREVENT STORMWATER RUNOFF PROPERTY AND STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASS. STAFF MAIL TWO NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN TWO FEES. UH, NONE ARE RETURN IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD RE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE'RE GONNA PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. MR. BURT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS RANDY BURT AND I'M REPRESENTING LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS. THE ADDRESS IS 9 31 BLUE LANDING. UM, AND OUR OFFICE IS OUTTA SAN MARCUS. AND DO I CONTINUE ON? YES, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH, UH, YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. SO, UM, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION, UM, THE FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR, UH, UH, THERE'S SOME LOGISTICAL CONFUSION I THINK. AND, UH, THEY DIDN'T WAIT FOR A, UH, UH, A FORM CHECK. UH, WE'RE THE SURVEYING COMPANY USUALLY PROVIDES A FORM CHECK. AND, UH, THEY WENT FORWARD WITH POURING THE FOUNDATION. UM, SOMEHOW THE STEPS GOT MISSED AND THE FOUNDATION HAD BEEN POURED BY THE TIME WE HAD, UH, MADE IT TO THE SITE TO CHECK THE FORM. UH, IT WAS ALREADY POURED AND THE HOUSE WAS, UH, 90% COMPLETE. UH, THEY MOVED PRETTY FAST IN THESE NEW SUBDIVISIONS, OBVIOUSLY. UM, SO AT THAT POINT WE CALLED THE, UH, THE BUILDER AND TOLD THEM TO HALT CONSTRUCTION AND WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO, UM, PURSUE A VARIANCE, UH, FOR THIS NINE INCHES. NOW AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THE HOUSE IS WITHIN THE SETBACK. IT'S JUST GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A SKEW TO IT, WHICH PUTS THE VERY BACK RIGHT CORNER, ABOUT EIGHT AND A HALF TO NINE INCHES INTO THAT SETBACK, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, REDUCES THAT, THAT SIDE SETBACK TO FOUR FOOT THREE INCHES AS OPPOSED TO THE FIVE, UH, UH, THE FIVE FOOT. UM, IT'S ABOUT, IT'S ABOUT THE GIST OF IT. UM, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, UH, STAFF? HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO, THERE'S NOBODY SIGNING TO SPEAK. OKAY. UH, SO WE'LL OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. ANYONE LIKE TO START? CRUZ ZUNA, COMMISSIONER CRUZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZUNA. OKAY. UH, I'VE JUST GOT ONE QUESTION, SIR. ON THE, NOT THE SIDE, CHECK BACK THE NINE INCHES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, AS YOU'RE LOOKING INTO THE HOME, IS IT TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT OF THE HOME? YEAH, SO ON THAT ONE PICTURE, IT'S TO THE RIGHT REAR CORNER IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOME, WHICH, SO THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOTHING THERE NEXT TO IT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IT IS GOLF COURSE LAND CURRENTLY, YEAH. SO THAT, THAT'D BE NO PROBLEM. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS SEEING AND I'M LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE GOLF COURSE BEHIND IT, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, BUT I DO WANT IT TO DOUBLE CHECK. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. UH, COMMISSIONER ZIGA. YEAH, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. WHETHER THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT WAS, UH, EVEN ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE OR IS IT, UH, UH, A GOLF COURSE ZONED, WHICH WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED? UH, UH, STAFF, CAN YOU, CAN YOU, UH, PLEASE, UH, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED, UH, BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA? 'CAUSE UH, YOUR, YOUR AERIAL SHOWS IT TO BE VACANT RESIDENTIAL. CAN IT POTENTIALLY BE A HOME OR IS IT LIMITED TO LIKE A GOLF COURSE USE? YES, THEY CAN CONTINUE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL. UH, IT IS ZONED R FIVE. AND IS THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY LENNAR AS WELL OR IS IT, UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS. SO 'CAUSE THE REMEDY HERE, I MEAN, IF THE VARIANCE WAS TO BE DENIED, WOULD, I GUESS THEY'D HAVE TO RELAID IF THEY OWN THE LAND TO JUST CAPTURE THAT ADDITIONAL ACREAGE, UH, TO COMPLY. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH JUST SEEING KIND OF A REMEDIES HERE. YOU'RE, SIR, YOU'RE [01:50:01] RIGHT IN THAT IF THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A FLAT PROCESS. WE'RE LOOKING UP OUR RECORDS TO SEE WHO DOES OWN THAT LAND. AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, UH, CATHERINE, I NOTICED THAT THE ZONING IS, IS THAT PUD AT THE END? SO IS THERE A PUD PLAN IN EFFECT THAT COULD DETAIL WHETHER THERE WAS EVEN ROOM WHERE, HOW LONG WAS STONE PUD? NO, SIR. SO WE CHECKED WITH OUR PLANNING FOLKS, THERE'S NO PUD CURRENTLY. OKAY. ALSO, KEEP IN MIND IT ISN'T A TOUR, THE TAX REINVESTMENT ZONE. SO BECAUSE IT'S A, A TAX GRANT AND FINANCING PROGRAM, IT WOULD NEVER BE BUILT AS A PUD ANYWAY. OKAY. IT'S BECAUSE THE ZONING SHOWS, YOU KNOW, R FIVE PUD, SO THEY, THEY DID A, THEY DID PUD ZONING WITHOUT A PUD PLAN. YEAH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS WELL BEFORE. UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES. I KNOW . YEAH. SO ULTIMATELY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OWNERSHIP CURRENTLY TRYING TO GET THAT FOR YOU. RIGHT. UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND ON THE PUD ZONING, UH, SO BEFORE THE LAST U D C UPDATE, THE PROCESS WAS THAT YOU WOULD GET A ZONE P WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, AND THEN WHEN YOU WERE READY TO PLAT THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU WOULD GO THROUGH AN APPROVED P PLAN WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THE PLA, SO ALREADY ZONE P THAT DID NOT HAVE A SITE HIM. OKAY. RIGHT. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT, CUT YOU OFF. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, IS THERE ANY, UH, NO, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. WE'RE JUST WAITING TO HEAR. I MEAN, UM, I WAS JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE THE RE REMEDIES HERE WOULD BE TO, TO RELA IF NEEDED, BUT I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH, UH, VARIANCE PASSING, BUT IT WAS JUST MORE CURIOSITY ON MY PART. SO NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. AND WHILE STAFF IS LOOKING AT DOING SOME MORE RESEARCH, IS THERE ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ASK THE QUESTION? OKAY. I SHOW IT BY NAR HOMES. YEAH. OKAY. SO, OKAY. SO THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, IF THEY, IF THEY WERE TO CONTINUE AS THEY PLAID, THEY COULD, THEY COULD REMEDY THAT LOT LINE IF THEY WANTED TO. SO SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S IT. UH, LET'S, UM, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, UM, UM, A CLOSING STATEMENT. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, UH, THE HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, REGARDING HEARING NUMBER 20 OH, I MOVED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR THE NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET, THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 9 3 1 BLUE LANDING APPLICANT BEING RANDY BIRCH. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT ON THE PROVISION, SO THE UDC IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. THE PUBLIC STATE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON A CURRENTLY VACANT LOT, WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. THEREFORE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE USES IN THE COMMUNITY TO TWO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITTLE, A LITTLE I PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS MINOR AND THE HOME IS ALMOST COMPLETE. SO THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CREATE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING PROCESS BY GRANTING THE, THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS, IS THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIZE SET BACK BY NINE INCHES WOULD STILL ALLOW THESE STANDARDS TO BE MET. THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE WILL NOT BE NOTICEABLE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT ADHERE TO THE CODE REQUIREMENT. IT WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE RIGHT SIDE. PROPERTY LINE, OR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT PERMIT AND USE THAT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING [01:55:01] PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF DISTRICT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST FOR REDUCE THE SITE SETBACK WOULD NOT POSE THE RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. IT WILL NOT ALTER THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL TECHNICIANS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THAT FINDS THAT THE MINOR SIZE OF SETBACK SHALL WARRANT THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST. IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, ADEQUATE SPACE WILL BE RESERVED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT TRESPASS OR MOTOR CONTROL AND ADEQUATE FIRE SEPARATION AND OF MOTION. SECOND, MS. CHA ENC CHAKA. SECOND. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, PLEASE LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. UM, YES, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. IT'S SOMETHING VERY SLIGHT. IT, IT WAS SOMETHING THEY WEREN'T EXPECTING AND LIKE, SINCE IT IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION, THEY WOULD, UH, UH, HARM 'EM A LOT MORE AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDO THE HOUSE COMPLETELY. SO I'LL, UH, APPROVE THIS REQUEST. MR. MENCHACA, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE SAME REASON, MAIN THING, BUT, UH, I'LL, I'LL APPROVE THIS. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD COMMENTARY? I'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE THAT. UM, UM, I WON'T, I I AM ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT, UH, THE, THE CITY ONCE DONE THAT DOES SHOW THAT A PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS BEEN FILED, UH, FOR THE LA ABUT LAND MIX STOOL. SO IF THIS MOTION WERE TO FAIL, IT WOULD, IT COULD EASILY BE CORRECTED SINCE THERE IS A PLATINUM MOTION. SO, UH, WITH THAT STAFF, IF YOU COULD AT LEAST TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. THANK YOU, MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR WITH THE PLAINTIFF FACT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT. MR. JIMA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. RAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. YES, I CONCUR. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. DOMER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR ORIAN? YES. I ALSO CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, WITH A UNANIMOUS DECISION. MOTION PASSES. UM, SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT , UH, STAFF. NEXT CASE PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM [7. 20-6383 BOA-20-10300089] NUMBER SEVEN IS CASE BO A 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 89. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 61 1 9 FAIR BRANCH. THE APPLICANT BEING DONALD SMITH. THE REQUEST IS FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY, WOOD, WOODEN, AND FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A VICINITY, WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FEET TALL SOLID SCREEN WOODEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES. THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN APPROPRIATE PERMIT. THERE IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT RECORD ON FILE FOR THE PROPERTY. WHITE SLOPE HAVING LESS THAN TWO FEET. HEIGHT IS PRESENT ON THE LOT. THE GROUND HAS NOT BEEN EVENED OUT AND THE EIGHT FEET EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE HAS BEEN UTILIZED ON BOTH THE SIDE AND REAR OF PROPERTY SIDE, SIDE AND REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE FENCE APPEARS TO HAVE A HIGHER ELEVATION ON THE REAR SIDE. THE APPLICANT STATES CONCERNS THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING ON THE UNLEVELED BLOCK. HERE IS AN IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HERE IS THE IMAGES OF THE FENCE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 8 9 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. [02:00:02] ONE DEFENSE WILL REMAIN IN HARMONY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT BY BEING A SOLID SCREEN WOODEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. AND TWO, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE UNEVEN GROUND. 30. STAFF MAIL 32 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. THREE WERE RETURN IN FAVOR. TWO, WERE RETURN IN OPPOSITION. THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE LAKESIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M GONNA PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. MR. SMITH, PLEASE NAME, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS DONALD SMITH. UH, I LIVE AT, UH, 6 1 1 9 BEAR BRANCH, THAT'S B E A R BRANCH. UH, JUST, UH, A BRIEF, UH, DIS A A BRIEF, UH, STATEMENT ABOUT, UH, WHAT, WHAT WE HAD THERE. WE WERE TOLD, UH, BY THE, UH, COMPANY THAT, THAT LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS SET UP TO, UH, FIX THE FENCE. THE OLD FENCE WE HAD WAS, WAS A STANDARD, UH, SIX FOOT FENCE. AND IT WAS FALLING OVER BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE ON A KIND OF A SLOPE, UH, FROM WHEN, WHEN THEY BUILT THE HOUSE. AND SO WE HAVE THIS WHOLE, WE HAVE THIS HIGHER, UH, WEST SIDE FROM, UH, FROM A LOWER EAST SIDE. AND, UH, SO THE, THE EAST SIDE IN PARTICULAR WAS FALLING OVER INTO MY EASTERN NEIGHBOR'S, UH, YARD, UH, TOWARD HIS YARD. AND IN FACT, A COUPLE OF TIMES IT HAD FALLEN OVER COMPLETELY. AND WE, UH, UNTIL WE COULD GET THE MONEY TO FIX IT, UH, WE, UH, WE COULDN'T DO MUCH OTHER THAN JUST PUT THE THINGS BACK UP THE WAY THEY WERE AS BEST WE COULD. SO WHEN WE FINALLY GOT THE MONEY TO FIX IT, UH, THE, THE COMPANY THAT, THAT FIXED THE FENCE OR, OR FIXED THE NEW FENCE, TOLD US THAT IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO DO IT A LITTLE HIGHER. WELL, WE HAD, WE HAD ALREADY BOUGHT THE, THE PLANKS OR THE, UH, THE FENCE POSTS AND EVERYTHING. WELL, NOT THE POSTS, BUT THE FENCE. UH, I, I'M, I'M I'M, I'M GETTING A, LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AS FAR AS THE NAMES. THOSE ARE CALLED THE PLANKS. I'M CALLING 'EM THAT. BUT ANYWAY, UH, THAT ARE BETWEEN THE POSTS. AND WE'D ALREADY BOUGHT THAT. AND WE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE EIGHT FEET. WE THOUGHT THEY WERE THE NORMAL STANDARD FEE, UH, SIX FEET, BUT THEY WEREN'T. BUT THE GUY SAID, NO, THAT WON'T MATTER. OR HE SAID, THAT PROBABLY IS BETTER FOR YOU, UH, BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF YOUR YARD. THAT WAY, UH, IT WOULD HOLD UP BETTER. SO WE WENT AHEAD AND WENT WITH THAT. UH, BUT, UH, IT, I, I THINK NOW WE DID THE RIGHT THING BY DOING THAT BECAUSE WITH THE SLOPE IT JUST LOOKS A LOT BETTER SEE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND, UH, THE, WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, UH, WHAT, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT THOUGHT THE, THE NEIGHBORS CLOSEST TO US ON EITHER SIDE, UH, HAD NO PROBLEM WITH, WITH THE, WITH THE WAY IT LOOKED WHEN, WHEN WE PUT IT UP. SO, UH, WE JUST WERE ASSUMING THAT OUR NEIGHBORS FELT FINE ABOUT IT. SO ANYWAY, . OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS, UM, STAFF, HAS ANYBODY SI UH, REGISTERED TO SPEAK OR PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION? YES, WE DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM CHRISTOBAL OLIVARES LOCATED AT 6 1 2 3. BEAR BRANCH. I RECEIVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE FENCE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. STAFF, IS THAT COMING FROM YOUR END? YES, WE GOT IT FIGURED OUT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. IT'S GOOD. OKAY, SECOND COMMENT IS FROM PHILLIP HOPPER, LOCATED AT 6 1 2 6, BEAR BRANCH DRIVE, I VEHEMENT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 61 19 BEAR BRANCH DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ONE, THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FRONT PORTION OF THE FENCE, WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. FENCE, HEIGHT, RESTRICTION OF SIX FEET TWO, NO OTHER FENCE, NEW OR OLD IN ALL OF THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS OR IN SAN ANTONIO EXCEEDS THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION. THREE. THE FENCING COMPANY DID NOT APPLY FOR A PERMIT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES WOULD BE SIX FEET AS REQUIRED BY THE CHART BELOW. THEY ALSO DID NOT GET A PERMIT EVEN THOUGH THEY REPLACED THE ENTIRE FENCE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF OVER 25% OF THE FENCE IS REPLACED ACCORDING [02:05:01] TO THE CODE CITY, SAN ANTONIO, SAN ANTONIO CITY FENCING CODE BELOW FOUR, THE INFORMATION ABOUT FENCE RESTRICTIONS IS EASILY OBTAINED EITHER BY CALLING THE CITY, VISITING THE PERMITTING OFFICE, OR SEARCHING THE INTERNET UNDER CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. FENCE RESTRICTIONS, FIVE. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY BLATANTLY IGNORED THE PERMITTING AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE FENCE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SIX. WHEN I REPLACED PART OF MY FENCE AND OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE CITY, I WAS TOLD THAT THE FENCE CANNOT EXCEED SIX FEET AND HEIGHT. IF THERE ARE EIGHT FOOT IS ALLOWED, THEN I SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO ERECT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WHEN I PLACE, WHEN I REPLACE MY FENCE. OKAY, UH, THIRD IS FROM DEISHA MILLS. I LIVE AT 61 14 BEAR BRANCH. I'M WRITING IN REFERENCE TO CASE D O A 21 0 3 0 0 8 9. THE ADDRESS IS 61 19. I'M NOT AFFECTED BY THEIR FENCE AND FEEL IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO CHANGE ANYTHING. I APPROVE OF THEIR FENCE AND IT DOES NOT HINDER MY LIFE IN ANY WAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, NINA R CHRISTOPHER, LOCATED AT 61 11 BEAR BRANCH DRIVE. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST FOR DONALD AND SHIRLEY SMITH AT 61 19 BEAR BRANCH. AND LASTLY, MY NAME IS EDDIE PENA AND I LIVE AT 6 1 2 3 FOSTER TRAIL DRIVE. THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON 61 19 BEAR BRANCH. I'M OPPOSED TO THIS IDEA, THIS FENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED. WHAT GOOD IS IT TO ASK FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE PERMISSION IF IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE? DEFENSE INSTALLATION COMPANY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AND MADE THEIR HOMEOWNER AWARE OF THE SIX FEET MAXIMUM FENCE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT I RECEIVED. IT SHOWS THE FENCE BEING INSTALLED IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE. I HOPE THAT THE A MISPRINT, THE CITY ORDINANCE OF A MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND IF WE START ALLOWING EIGHT, EIGHT FOOT FENCES, THEN EVERY HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO WANT ONE. I SEE NO REASON TO JUSTIFY THIS HOMEOWNER PERMISSION TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THEY ENFORCE THE MAXIMUM SIX FOOT CITY ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT. DON? YEAH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, DR. OH, I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HIT THE, HAD MY MUTE ON. UH, BEFORE WE GO TO, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, EXPLAIN IF THERE'S, IF, UH, U D C 35 14 C TWO A AND THIS IS A SECTION REGARDING, UH, FENCES THAT COULD BE, UH, RAISED TO EIGHT FEET IF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING IS, UH, FOUR FEET HIGHER, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PICTURES THAT THE NEIGHBORING HOME MIGHT BE FOUR FEET HIGHER AT THE THAN AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THIS SECTION OF THE U D C, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE APPLY IN THIS CASE? NO, SIR. THE, ULTIMATELY WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE, IT WAS UNDER THE FOUR FOOT MARK. OKAY. WE LOOKED FOR THAT AS WELL TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ELEVATION CHANGES OF THAT EXTENT. I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BEFORE I OPENED IT UP. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, HEARING ALSO, UH, YES. UM, MR. SNOW? YES. I JUST WANNA FIND OUT IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN, UM, LIKE MAYBE THERE'S A COMPROMISE THAT CAN BE MADE BECAUSE IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE BIGGEST OPPOSITION IS FROM THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET. AND I'M GUESSING PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF HAVING TO SEE THAT VERY OBVIOUS SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO FENCE HEIGHTS, UM, IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES. IS THERE A WAY THAT THE RETURN THE FENCE CONNECTS TO THE GARAGE ON THE SIDE COULD BE LOWERED AND THEN THE FENCE HEIGHT CAN GO UP HIGHER ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE? UM, YES. YES. IN ORDER TO KIND OF MITIGATE THAT, UM, WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNER BE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UH, JUST TO, JUST TO POINT IN COMMISSIONER THAT THE BOARD CAN MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, REDUCE THE, WHERE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD BE ALLOWED. UH, SO WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? UH, IS THAT, UH, ARE, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PART OF THE FENCE THAT'S ON THAT'S FACING THE STREET? YES. AND NOT THE SIDE, YOU AND NOT THE SIDE FENCES, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES. THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. UH, I HAVEN'T CHECKED WITH ANYBODY TO DETERMINE THAT ABOUT WHETHER, HOW MUCH THAT WOULD SET US BACK. IF ANYTHING, UH, UH, I WOULD ASSUME I DON'T WANT [02:10:01] TO WITHOUT MY, MY WIFE ISN'T HERE, SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SAY SO WITHOUT HER, BUT I DON'T THINK THOUGH THE, THE TWO FRONT PROPERTIES IT WOULD, WOULD BE THAT DIFFICULT TO DO. BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE SINCE I HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF THIS, THIS HAS JUST NOW COME UP. I DIDN'T HAVEN'T HAD A HA CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT THAT PART OF THE THING. IF, IF IT, UH, WE WERE THINKING THAT IF ANYTHING UNTOWARD HAPPENED, IT WOULD HAPPEN TO BE TOWARD ALL OF THE, THE FENCE LINE, NOT JUST THE FRONT, BUT THE SIDES AS WELL. AND BY THE WAY, THE, THE BACKSIDE, THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE BEHIND US. SO THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THAT FENCE SET UP THERE. SO THAT'S NOT OURS. IT'S JUST THE SIDE, THE TWO SIDES AND THE TWO FRONT PARTS. OKAY. UH, WELL, THANK YOU MR. SMITH AND COMMISSIONER, UH, SHELL DOES THAT, IS THERE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS OR DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UM, I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, UM, IS IT SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING, UH, JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I PERSONALLY LIVE ON, ON A PROPERTY THAT SLOPES, I UNDERSTAND HOW AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE, BUT I ALSO DO THINK THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO FENCES, YOUR FENCE AND YOUR NEIGHBOR'S FENCE, WHERE IT'S ACROSS THE FRONT, UM, IS I, YOU KNOW, VERY OBVIOUS OF A TRANSITION. AND SO, UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIX, IF YOU OPEN TO A COMPROMISE RATHER THAN HAVING, YOU KNOW, A 100% YES, YOU CAN KEEP IT OR A HUNDRED PERCENT NO, YOU NEED TO TAKE IT DOWN TO SIX FEET. UH, WELL, UH, I, IF I TALKED TO MY WIFE AND SHE AGREED, I GUESS WE COULD, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD DO IT WITHOUT, OTHER THAN JUST CUTTING OFF THE TOP, WHICH WOULD LEAVE THE, THE PLANKS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THAT SORT OF LITTLE NOTCHES OR SLIDE, UH, DOG, DOG , I THINK YOU FOR THAT. UH, THEY HAVE THOSE UP AT THE TOP. AND SO IF YOU WERE TO CUT 'EM OFF DOWN TO WHERE THEY WERE SIX FEET, THEY'D ALL BE THE SAME WAY. ALL THE WAY ACROSS. PLUS WE, PLUS WE, UH, ON THE, ON THE SIDE THAT THE WEST SIDE, THAT'S BY THE GARAGE, UH, I HEARD SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT THAT. WE HAD, WE HAD ORIGINALLY IN OUR ORIGINAL FENCE, WE HAD THE GATE ON THE WEST SIDE, UH, FACING THE, THE HOUSE OR, OR BY THE HOUSE, UH, BUT NOT THE, UH, BUT NOT THE GARAGE. WELL, WE'D HAD TROUBLE WITH, WITH THE FENCE IN THE GATE COMING OFF AND FALLING DOWN IN A STORM. AND SO IT HAD NEVER BEEN FIXED, SO IT WAS ACTUALLY JUST SITTING UP AGAINST THE REST OF THE FENCE THERE. SO I WANTED TO HAVE THEM SEE IF THEY COULD MOVE THAT GATE FROM, FROM THAT SIDE OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH THEY DID. AND SO, UH, IT'S, WELL, SIR, SIR, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA, UM, SO WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A FENCE, WE HAVE A GATE IN THAT FENCE ON THAT SIDE THERE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. WHICH, SO, UH, MR. SMITH, WE'RE, WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE HEIGHT. AND, AND THE REASON WHY THAT, THAT QUESTION IS PERTINENT IS BECAUSE YOU NEED NINE OUT OF 11 VOTES. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE REST OF THE COMMISSION STANDS ON THIS, BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONS POSED A QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO SUCH AN ITEM. UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE TRUCTURE WELL, I WOULD, I WOULD BE OPEN, I WOULD BE OPEN TO IT IF IT COULD BE DONE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. UH, OKAY. BUT WITH THAT, WITH THE GATE ON THAT SIDE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DO IT, BUT THEN ANYWAY, I'D BE OPEN TO IT IF IT, IF IT, WE COULD FIGURE OUT HOW IT MIGHT BE DONE. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE THE QUESTION? VINNO UH, COMMISSIONER VINNO, UH, THIS QUESTION'S FOR STAFF. UM, IF THIS WERE TO GET DENIED TODAY, IS THERE ANY OTHER SOLUTION FOR HIM? DOES HE GET TO GO BACK AND WORK WITH YOU TO FIND SOMETHING THAT HE COULD DO WITH THIS FENCE? OR DOES HE JUST HAVE TO RE REDUCE THE SIZE ALL ALTOGETHER? HE HAS NO OTHER REMEDY. HE COULD SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION, UM, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT REQUEST. UM, OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN TO SIX FEET. OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUST, UM, AND JUST MAKE A STATEMENT. I MEAN, SO WE, AND THIS IS PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING SOME CLOSING, UH, STATEMENT. SO, UH, TO THE APPLICANT, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU TO MAKE A, A CLOSING STATEMENT, UH, OR REBUTTAL TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD. AND THE ISSUE AT BAY [02:15:01] HERE IS A, THERE ARE, UM, A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO, UH, AREN'T FANS OF THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND, UM, THERE WAS A COM A QUESTION POSED BY THE, UH, COMMISSIONER ABOUT ONE ADDRESSING ONE OF THE, UH, CONCERNS. AND THAT IS THE FENCE FACING THE STREET. I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO, FOR ALL THE FENCING IN QUESTION, OR WE CAN EXCLUDE THE, THE FENCING THAT PARALLELS THE STREET. UH, BUT IT'S STILL, YOU NEED NINE VOTES OR SOMETHING TO PASS. SO IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE PRIOR TO US, UH, CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKING A MOTION? WELL, JUST THE, JUST ONE THING OR, UH, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBOR, THE, THE ONE I, YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED TWO. NO, THEY MENTIONED TWO NEIGHBORS THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION. ONE IS NOT EVEN ON OUR BLOCK, IT SOUNDS LIKE. OKAY. BECAUSE JUDGING BY THE, THE ADDRESS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW HE WOULD FIT INTO THIS. HE'S NOT AN ACTUAL NEIGHBOR, I WOULD THINK. THE OTHER ONE IS A, IS THE, THE, WHAT IS IT, POTTER OR PO OR, UH, ACROSS THE STREET AT 6 1 2 6 ACROSS THE STREET. YEAH. HE'S ACTUALLY ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN MAYBE ONE OR ONE HOUSE FROM US. AND WE'VE HAD SOME BAD RELATIONS WITH HIM OVER THE PAST. HE, HE TOOK US TO COURT ABOUT DOGS BARKING AT ONE TIME. UH, AND SO I HESITATE, I KNOW THAT THAT'S, UH, HIS SITUATION. UH, HE MAY NOT ADMIT IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S PART, PARTLY PLAYS PART OF THAT. OKAY. OKAY. UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UH, KEEPING IN MIND THAT, UM, THERE WAS COMMENTARY FROM THE COMMISSIONER ABOUT, UH, REGARDS TO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE PARALLELING THE STREET, UH, MINKA, UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA, UH, I HAVE A COMMENT. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE WHERE, UH, MAYBE THAT'S A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER OR SOMETHING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT'S TIME TO ATTEST THIS AND COME BACK? UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN THAT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE, UM, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. IS THERE, UM, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD WHO WOULD LIKE TO, OH, HOW DO I STATE THAT? YEAH, YOU JUST MOVE FOR A CONTINUANCE STAFF IF, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT AVAILABLE WITH SUCH A REQUEST TO BE A FRIENDLY MOTION? MOTION? NO, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR CONTINUANCE. IF NO ONE SECONDS IT, THEN WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. STAFF IS THERE A, UH, OPENING ON THE NOVEMBER 16TH MEETING? UH, WE'LL PUT, WELL, EVEN WITH THE OTHER ONE, WE'RE GONNA BE PUSHING FOLKS TO THE FOLLOWING MEETING. OKAY. THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS ARE FULL. OKAY. SO THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS ARE FULL, SO WE CAN TAKE 'EM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CHAKA, YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE A, A MOTION, BUT IF IT'S NOT SECONDED OR IF IT DOESN'T PASS, WE'LL JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, THE MOTION. UH, THE ITEM BEFORE, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AND THE CONTINUUM OF THIS SUBJECT TO GIVE THE HOMEOWNER CHANCE THE APPLICANT CHANCE TO ASSESS THE FRONT, BOTH SIDES OF THE FRONT ONLY AND SEE WHERE, UH, COMES UP TO THE RESOLUTION FOR, FOR THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY, SO THAT'S A, A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE NOVEMBER 16TH. IS THERE A SECOND? TE UH, WE MOTION SECONDED, UH, ANY COMMENTARY FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS HEARING THAT? SO, UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. MR. MACHACA, IF I FOCUS ON MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. TE? YES. MR. MANNA? NO. MS. BREGMAN? HELLO, MS. NO. MS. FISHER? YES, I VOTE FOR CONTINUANCE. MR. DOMER? NO. MR. OZUNA? YES. AND CHAIR ORIAN? UH, NO. SO, MOTION THE VOTE IS FOR SIX TO FIVE. SIX TO FIVE. SO, UH, MOTION FAILS. IS THERE A, UH, WOULD A COMMISSION LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ITEM BEFORE US? SO, UH, COMMISSIONER SHOW, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO 8 21 0 3 8 9. I MOVE THAT WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY WOOD FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY. MICHELLE, STAND BY REAL QUICK. [02:20:01] WE'RE, WE'RE LEGAL'S LOOKING INTO THIS ONE? 'CAUSE I THINK IT WAS A SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR A CONTINUANCE. OKAY, SO SIX IN FAVOR. FIVE IN OPPOSITION OF THE CONTINUANCE. SO YEAH, SO THIS KIND, UH, THIS KIND OF MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE JUST NEEDS, UM, A SIMPLE MAJORITY. OKAY. AND SO WITH SIX, YOU HAVE A SIMPLE MAJORITY, WHICH MEANS A CONTINUANCE PASSES. ALRIGHT, SO THE CONTINUANCE PASSES. THIS WILL BE HEARD ON THE NOVEMBER 16TH CASE, UH, HEARING, UM, SO TO THE APPLICANT, JUST WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS. OH, ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, AND, AND SIR, BEFORE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ALL THE COMMENTARY YOU HEARD TODAY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING TO, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE SOME, UH, CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEIGHBORS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SO THANK YOU. OKAY? MM-HMM. , UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM [8. 20-6384 BOA-20-10300099] NUMBER EIGHT IS CASE BO 8 21 0 3 99. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 18 2 1 9 BROOKWOOD RE, THE APPLICANT BEING, UH, LOUIS ULRICH. THE REQUEST IS FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL AND THE SIDE, THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MAINTAIN THE EIGHT FOOT TALL JAPANESE THEATER FENCE DIRECTED WITHIN THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A SOLID GREEN FENCE WITHOUT OBTAINING AN APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. IT'S ABUTTING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE REAR, THEREFORE, THE OWNER IS ABLE TO BUILD UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT STATES CONCERNS OF PARKING HEADLIGHTS AND AUDIBLE NOISE CAUSED BY THE VEHICLES MOVING AROUND THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORS. NORTH LOOP 1604 WEST ACCESS ROAD IS OCCUPIED BY SEVERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN IMMEDIATE VICINITY THAT MAKES THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS UTILIZE PRIVACY FENCE, UH, TO MINI MINIMIZE VISUAL AND AUDIBLE DISTRACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE TRAFFIC FLOW RUNNING IN THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, PARKING, PARKING AREA. THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR LOCATED AT 18 205 BROOKWOOD FOREST, RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A TWO FOOT, ONE INCH, ONE AND A HALF INCH VARIANCE FOR THE SAME PRIVACY FENCE ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2020. HERE'S THE IMAGE OF THE, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE FENCE SHOWING THE MEASUREMENTS, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE, UM, SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF D O A 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 99 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. ONE, THE TWO, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY, AND TWO BEING OF SIMILAR HEIGHT, DESIGN, AND PURPOSE AS OTHER FENCES WITHIN THE GATED COMMUNITY. THE INSTALL FENCE WILL NOT DISTRACT THE FROM THE UNIFORM CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF MAILED 19 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. TWO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I WILL NOW PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT. MR. ULRICH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. ULRICH STAFF. AND WE LOSE HIM. IT LOOKS LIKE WE DID, SIR. WE'RE GONNA CALL HIM RIGHT BACK. OKAY, SIR, IN THE MEANTIME, WE DID HAVE TWO SHORT COMMENTS TO READ INTO THE RECORD. IF YOU WANNA DO THAT NOW, PLEASE DO. PLEASE DO. YEAH, PLEASE DO. OKAY. THE FIRST ONE IS FROM SHANE L LOCATE, LOCATED AT 18 5 10 EAGLE FORD. COMMENTS ARE NO IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS, PROVIDE MORE PR, PROVIDE MORE PRO PRIVACY TO THE HOMEOWNER. THE SECOND ONE IS FROM DAVID STRAND, LOCATED AT 18 2 11 BROOKWOOD FOREST. [02:25:02] HIS COMMENTS ARE, I HOPE TO HAVE THIS OKAY. RESIDENCE. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT TRYING TO GET YOU RIGHT NOW. UM, AND THEN WE CAN PLAY THAT, THAT VOICEMAIL WAS IN FAVOR AS VOICEMAIL WAS IN FAVOR AS WELL. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PLAY THE VOICEMAIL YOU WANT. WE'RE TRYING TO, SIR, THAT'S WHERE THE TECHNIC FROM EARLIER. WAS THERE ANY, WAS THERE ANYBODY WHO WAS CALLING IN TO SPEAK OR JUST THE APPLICANT? NO, SIR. JUST THE APPLICANT. HELLO? HELLO. OKAY. THE APPLICANT ON NOW. FANTASTIC. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. YES, THIS IS LOUIS ULRICH AT 1 8 2 1 9 BROOKWOOD FOREST. AND ON OUR PROPERTY, UM, WE GOT AN APPROVAL THROUGH OUR H O A AND THE FENCE COMPANY, AND WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT WE NEEDED THIS VARIANCE UNTIL AFTER THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED, SO WE PUT IN THE REQUEST FOR IT. UH, THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF ME, UH, ALSO WANTED THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UH, AS WAS MENTIONED, UH, RIGHT ACROSS FROM US IS THE VINEYARD CHOPPING MALL, AND OUR PROPERTY SLOPES FROM THE FRONT TO THE REAR SO THAT MY GROUND LEVEL, UH, FLOOR ON THE BACK IS ALMOST FIVE FEET ABOVE THE, UH, MY, MY FIRST FLOOR LEVEL. THE, THE FLOOR LEVEL IS ABOUT FIVE FEET ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL. AND SO THEN, UH, SERVICE VEHICLES, UH, WASTE, UH, VEHICLES AND SUCH, MOVING AROUND BEHIND THE VINEYARD OVER THERE, UH, OFTEN SHINE THE LIGHTS INTO OUR AREA AND ACROSS TO THE NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ME AT, UH, AT 1 8 3 0 3 BROOKWOOD FOREST. AND, UH, THEY WERE ALL PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT THAT, UH, THAT THE EIGHT FOOT WAS A GOOD SIZE FOR US. UH, THAT'S WHY WE REQUEST THAT VARIANCE AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHERS IN OUR, UH, COMPLEX HERE ALSO. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, SIR, WE'VE ALSO GOT THE VOICEMAIL WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PLAY FROM SOMEONE'S PHONE. UH, WE HAD TO REPORT IT, SO ONE SECOND AND WE'LL GET THAT GOING. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR IT? NOT REALLY. OKAY. I CAN HEAR IT ON THE COMPUTER. I CAN'T HEAR IT ON MY PHONE. HMM. WELL, I HEARD IT ON THE COMPUTER FEED COMING FROM YOUR, YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR SIDE . IS IT A, IS IT A SHORT VOICEMAIL THAT SOMETHING YOU COULD JUST READ? ULTIMATELY, IT WAS JUST A QUICK VOICEMAIL SAYING HE WAS IN SUPPORT. UM, FORGIVE ME, BUT I FORGET THE ADDRESS. I BELIEVE WE DID POST IT ON THE MAP SHOWING THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR. IS IT WITHIN THE 200 FEET? YES, SIR. OKAY. HE BASICALLY STATED HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND IT LOOKED NICE. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN. BRAGMAN. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 20 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 9 9, MOVE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL INSIDE AND REAR PROPERTY, SITUATED AT 1 8 2 1 9 BROOKWOOD FOREST, APPLICANT BEING LOUIS ULRICH. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR, FOR REASONABLE PROTECTIONS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO ESTABLISH A SENSE OF COMMUNITY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THE REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL SOLID SCREEN FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR ARE TO THE PROPERTY IS IN HARMONY OF THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER B. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE SHALL BE SERVED BY THE ADDED PROTECTION OF HIGHER, ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PROTECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND REDUCE THE NOISE AND HEADLIGHT DISTRACTION. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL [02:30:01] NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. NO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOR OTHER TRAVELING PUBLIC WILL BE HARMED BY THE PROPOSED FENCE HEIGHTS. THE MATERIAL AND STYLE OF THE FENCE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES UTILIZED WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. 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. DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? IS THAT, UM, NANA? OKAY. YES. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION, PLEASE? SURE. UM, AS MENTIONED IN THE INITIAL, UM, DISCOURSE, WE DID APPROVE, UH, HIS NEIGHBOR, UH, THE 19TH FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON. UM, AND GIVEN THAT IT'S BEHIND A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LIKE THAT, I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. GREAT. COMMISSIONER MANNA, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, AND I THINK THE NOTION OR THE, THE POINT BEING BROUGHT UP ABOUT, UM, THE LIGHT SHINING OVER ACROSS, UH, THEIR PROPERTY, INTO THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, UH, JUSTIFIES THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE HEIGHT ON THE SIDE. SO I'M, WE'D BE BUILDING PAPERS. FANTASTIC. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS I'D LIKE TO, UM, SAY ANYTHING? UH, YES, FISHER, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. I THINK THIS IS A, UH, IMPROVEMENT AND HELPS THE HOMEOWNER MAINTAIN HIS PRIVACY. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING I, I CONCUR, UH, WITH THE COMMENTS HEARD SO FAR, AND I'M IN SUPPORT. UH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF CARS DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THAT PLACE, SO I THINK THIS IS GREAT. SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MICHELLE. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, FISHERMAN, CHAKA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I MR. KE YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. HUMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. THE FACT, MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VINNO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE , MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR. MR. GILMER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. YES. I ALSO CONCUR THE FINDINGS. IN FACT, THE VOTE'S UNANIMOUS MOTION PASSES. UM, SO THE NEXT ITEM I'M [9. 20-6462 Approval of the 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting Calendar] ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE 2021 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING CALENDAR. IF, UH, STAFF CAN BRING THAT UP ON THE DISPLAY. UM, THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS, UH, ARE WE GOING DOWN TO THREE, UH, TIMES INSTANCES WHERE WE'RE ONLY HAVING ONE MEETING IN A MONTH? DID I SEE THAT RIGHT? IS THAT A REDUCTION FROM THE FULL YEARS? YES, SIR. ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, UM, JULY 5TH, THE CITY, IT'S GONNA BE A CITY HOLIDAY, SO WE HAD REDUCE IT. THERE'S A FEW HOLIDAYS THAT KICK IN. NOW, ONE THAT WE DID ADD ON, AND I WANNA GET THAT UP IN A SECOND HERE. MM-HMM. IS, UM, IN APRIL, TYPICALLY THE BOARD'S GONE THE DIRECTION OF NOT HAVING A MEETING DURING FIESTA. OKAY. WE ADDED IT ON BECAUSE OF THE REDUCTION IN MEETINGS, BUT, UM, ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO THE BOARD AS FAR AS HOW YOU WANNA APPROACH THAT ONE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, ANY COMMENTARY FROM THE BOARD, UH, REGARDING, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE APRIL MEETING OR ANYTHING ELSE THEY'D LIKE TO ADD? WELL, YEAH, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD, MARIE. OKAY. UM, THE THING IS, WE HAVE TO KIND OF LEAVE IT ON FOR RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AFTER JANUARY. RIGHT. EVERYTHING'S STILL GOING ON AND WE'RE, WE'RE ON, UH, ZOOM MEETINGS UNTIL THEN ANYWAY. SO BY THEN, HOPEFULLY WE CAN SAY THAT WE WILL START HAVING MEETINGS IN THE OFFICE, AND THAT MIGHT, THEN WE MIGHT CHANGE IT. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT IN MARCH. THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL IF WE, IF WE EVEN HAVE FIESTA. ANYWAY, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. UM, WITH THAT IN MIND STAFF, UM, AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, WHAT WOULD YOU NEED A 30 DAY NOTICE TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO REMOVING A MEETING? IS THAT ADEQUATE? I BELIEVE SO. ULTIMATELY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOTIFICATION PERIODS AND APPLICATION INTAKE. WE CAN ALWAYS PUSH THOSE, THOSE CASES TO THE POLLING MEETING. OKAY. AS, AS THE AGENDA. THE AGENDA BASICALLY, OR THE CALENDAR IS, IS JUST [02:35:01] AN AGENDA ITEM. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING WE HAVE TO PUBLISH FOR OR NOTICE FOR. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH THAT IN MIND? LET'S, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA. UM, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CALENDAR AS WRITTEN. YOU SECOND? I, I CONCUR. I SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY COMMENTARY FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? UH, HEARING NONE, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MICHELLE. MICHELLE? YES. I APPROVE MR. MACHACA. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES. I CONCUR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MADA. I CONCUR. MS. TON? YES. I APPROVE. MS. VINNO? YES, I APPROVE MS. FISHER? YES, I APPROVE MR. DELMER? YES, I APPROVE MR. UNA? YES. I APPROVE. AND CHAIR ORIAN. YES. I ALSO APPROVE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. UH, IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED. UH, THE [10. 20-6404 Consideration and approval of October 19, 2020 minutes] NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 19TH, 19TH MINUTES. UH, OR IS ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY, UH, CORRECT OR ADDITION? OKAY. UM, HEARING THAT MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, APPROVE THE MEETINGS AS WRITTEN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, COMMISSIONER TREVINO, MICHELLE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND, UH, ANY COMMENTARY? HEARING NONE. LET'S, UH, HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MICHELLE. YES, I APPROVE CCA. UH, I'LL APPROVE. MR. MAN, I APPROVE MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I APPROVE MS. VINNO? YES, I APPROVE MS. FISHER. MS. FISHER? YES, I APPROVE MR. DELMER? YES, I APPROVE MR. OZUNA? YES. I APPROVE. AND CHAIR ORIENTED. UH, YES. I ALSO APPROVE MOTION PASSAGE. UNANIMOUS. UM, WE'RE AT THE END OF THE MEETING. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, UH, UH, THIS IS, AND THIS IS GOING TO, UM, UH, MR. THIEL, UM, AS THE, UH, AS THE, UM, PAC UH, APPOINTEE. ARE YOU GONNA BE MAKING THE MEETING IN A COUPLE WEEKS? YES, SIR. I, I WAS ON THE ONE, UH, LAST WEEK AS WELL. FANTASTIC. SO I'M, I'M, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T NEED TO SHOW UP OR ANYTHING. WITH ME BEING THE BACKUP THERE. UH, AND STAFF, IS THERE ANY, UH, ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE? NO, SIR. NO NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, UH, D S D IS OPEN FOR, FOR CUSTOMERS INSIDE THE BUILDING. IT IS LIMITED TO 30 CUSTOMERS AT A TIME. UH, ONE CUSTOMER AT THE COUNTER. SO WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THE CUSTOMERS BACK IN THE OFFICE. A LOT OF PERMITS BEING PULLED. GREAT. WELL, IT'S 3 53 AND I'M MOVING TO, I'M, UH, ADJOURNING, HEREBY ADJOURNING THE MEETING. HAVE A GREAT DAY, REST OF THE DAY, EVERYONE. THANK YOU. THANK EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.