The property also presents unique circumstances due to its age, lot size, configuration, and the historical development pattern, which are not common to newer properties within the zoning district.

Granting the variants would be in harmony with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance, allowing the continued productive use of a historical structure while preserving the established character of the area.

The requested variants will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it substantially or permanently injure adjacent properties.

The site has long history of safe, compatible use under the existing layout.

And this request is you know limited in scope and seeks only to formally recognize an existing lawful um non-conforming parking condition tied to a historic property that is already demonstrated long-term compatibility.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the board's approval.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

The board, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Um I'm just this is I guess more of a comment than a question, but it appears that you could feasibly do tandem parking in the back.

I mean, if you're for employees.

Are you talking about the back the back baseline?

You could between the two behind the two yellow spots.

You could feasibly say somebody gets there early, they could park.

Somebody could park behind them.

Park behind them.

They would be parked, yeah.

I mean somebody would they wouldn't be able to get out.

Yeah.

But I mean, for employees, that's that would be feasible.

Correct.

Anyone else?

I have a question.

Sir, um this parking variance you're asking for is based upon this building staying in place.

Is that correct?

Correct.

It was something mentioned about seeking demolition for this building or no.

So Scott's explanation on demolition is just to explain the the zoning district and overlay on it.

So the zoning district is um it's neighborhood commercial with demolition delay overlay.

So Scott just wanted to explain what that demolition delay overlay means.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no, no changes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

He also mentioned one more thing.

You said something about in your in your uh when you're what you presented to us, there is no plan change in scope or in or increased use.

Because if you open up a second, okay, you rent a part of the building to a second partner.

That person will need parking, and that would expand the scope of utility for this huge facility.

But you say you have no plans for that.

Expand the well, the the building is occupied is going to be occupied by the owner.

Of course.

Um based on the you know, there's been no changes that would you know from the past that would you know change the number of parking spots.

They they use the same number of parking spots 10, 15, 20 years ago that we would be using today.

My question would be that you're saying that you don't plan to increase that.

Well, uh don't think there's a way to increase the number of space.

Occupants, not parking spaces.

Well, we don't I would imagine some some occupants will be coming in, you know, staff come and go.

Um, but the building can only hold a certain amount of people.

I would imagine that the current layout would would cover that, you know, cover the parking necessary.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I I have a question to my colleague here.

When you say occupants, are you talking about individuals that will be running businesses out of there or people who are coming in to Patriot?

For example, if he has uh um one uh attorney, two attorneys, and two admin, and then it increases to four attorneys and eight admin, then all of a sudden we have a dramatic increase in parking.

Um that's my question.

Is is does do they plan to increase the utility, the scope uh of what they're doing presently.

They qualify presently, but as a business grows, are they gonna have room to grow?

That's my question.

I don't think that there would be enough growth.

There, you know, not enough offices to have that concern.

Yeah, but I'm talking about customers or clientele talking about people who work there.

So you the current amount of office space in there, you know, if if the office was entirely full, we would still have enough parking.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for board discussion.

Thank you.

I've uh got here 91 with the Air Force.

I've known that building since I got here.

It's uh it's a great building.

There's a building next to it burned down, and they had a rebuild it.

Uh I think it's a great asset to the community.

And it's it's a great, it's great.

It's on central, it's it's a growing uh the whole place is gonna transform.

And I hope that this building is there a hundred years from now.

I agree that um having served on HCLC and seeing some beautiful buildings lost.

Um I think that we have to give a little bit of leniency in the interest of preserving the historical architecture, and I can support this.

As Ms.

Freed said, there's uh you you could do tandem parking back there.

Um you could add a couple spaces if you needed to.

If you had to.

I think they're really close that we just put them two off at that point.

So I could definitely support this.

If no one else would like to make a motion for B AR dash two six dash zero one zero.

BAC, sorry.

Keep the same BA.

Uh the presentation.

The BAC dash two six dash zero one zero.

Is that correct?

Yes.

As written.

I'll second.

I think we have a second from Ms.

Powell.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.

Okay.

So for case BAC-26-010, we have a motion to approve the case as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Garza and second by board member Powell.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next step is uh BAR 26012.

The next item on the agenda is case BAR-26-012.

The subject property is located at 1910 Amanda Avenue.

The property owner is Jack Teeler, and the applicant is Tiffany Bassetta.

The property is zoned A-5, one family residential district, and is also within the stop six overlay district.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the one family A-5 development standards related to minimum lot width.

The required minimum lot width in the A-5 district is 50 feet, and the applicant is requesting approval of a 43.05 foot wide lot.

This results in a deficiency of approximately 6.95 feet below the required minimum lot width.

The subject property is currently a vacant lot located within an established residential neighborhood.

The lot does not have alley access, it's relatively flat and contains mature trees.

The property is not located within a floodplain.

The property previously had a residential new building permit application, which was withdrawn on June 12th of 2025.

A recent survey indicates that the property to the north encroaches approximately 10.03 feet into the subject property.

Because of this encroachment, the property owner will be required to replat the lot in order to resolve the encroachment issue.

As a result of the replot and the existing encroachment condition, the applicant is requesting a variance of a lot width of 43 point 43.05 feet rather than the required 50 feet.

These are the regulations to the case.

And this concludes staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

So