I know there's a handful that uh staff is recommending approval on that we can start with, so that's what we'll do.

So it is 102.

I hereby call this meeting of the Board of Adjustments into session.

We have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Uh staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Barrington.

Here.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ibanez?

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana?

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Azuna?

Present.

Commissioner Boniath.

Here.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Chair Orion.

And I am present.

So right now we have nine, which makes a quorum.

We're expecting one more for ten later.

If everyone could please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

One nation under municipal liberty and justice.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One of it one and individual.

All right.

So before we begin with today's cases, proceed with today's cases, I'd like to offer a few words of explanation for those in the gallery.

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

The cases are listed by number with the name of the applicant and street address.

Following the conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting, followed by a director's report.

Lastly, as chair, I will make announcements such as community calendar events.

I asked the board members submit these announcements to me as a chair, and I will read them at the appropriate time in the meeting.

This is an administrative body and not a court of law.

We only examine the facts pertaining to the release sought, and we do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties.

Specific powers have been granted to us by the Texas legislature and the San Antonio City Council.

They are clearly defined in Chapter 211 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 at a decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions on allowed under Chapter 35 and to authorize variances from the zoning regulations required in Chapter 35.

We also serve in an advisory and appellate capacity to the Director of Development Services regarding requests for variances and regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 28-5.

Um in addition, we have powers to hear cases and other matters authorized by City Council under Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code.

Every decision or recommendation to the board must be based upon findings of facts, and every finding a fact must be supported in the record of the board's proceedings.

The applicant or his representative will present the petition and they will be questioned by the members of the board.

Any opposition to the request will be presented in a like manner.

After everyone has heard the case, it will be closed, and a member of the board will make a motion.

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 approved and granting the release law rests with the applicant.

The applicant must present facts in which the requested relief can be legally granted and supported.

Appeals from this decision of the of this board regarding appeals from administrative officials, 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.

So please limit your presentation and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case.

So at this moment in time, we have nine uh board members present, and you need nine votes to get something approved.

Uh we do have one more member who will be joining us shortly, and until they get there, we're going to be moving up cases that have a recommendation of approval and uh who have the least amount of public commentary.

Uh just to be fair.

Um and we're gonna go ahead and start with the minutes, just because.

All right, uh real quick.

Um staff will begin each care with a short presentation of the request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for the variance for special exemption and properties within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks indicates those property owners in favor of the request, and X indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation, and questions about the board, the applicant will present their request.

For those that signed up to speak for or against the proposed variance for special exemption, you'll be called in to order that you sign up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum three minutes per speaker.

You are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

For those that are like to give up their time to the speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving out their time for a total of nine minutes.

Those going with their time must be present and signed up to speak.

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for a rebuttal limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit along with the opportunity to address board questions.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

Um we are going to start with a minutes.

Uh does any commissioner have any amendments to the minutes?

I did not see anything that looked good to me.

Okay.

Is there a motion for approval?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, second by Commissioner Manna.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Uh motion passes.

Uh we have another quick one is the addition of an additional meeting.

Uh that's item 13 on the agenda.

Uh, we have recommended uh recommendation of September 29th, with a which is a Monday, September 30th, a Tuesday, or October 3rd, a Friday.

Is there any uh discussion from commissioners on a day?

I I personally like Mondays, but I'm not available on that Monday.

On that Monday, is the same thing.

It would about the Tuesday, the 30th.

Yes.

I'm available on the other two dates, which is just not the first date.

Okay.

And I'm not a fan of Fridays.

Uh I know I don't want to be here till five or six o'clock on a Friday.

So if if nobody is a is against, uh I would I move to have the additional meeting on Tuesday, September 30th.

And currently um the responses that we received was eight for Monday, seven for Tuesday, and seven for Friday.

Um would that that include alternates or is that just that includes uh alternate that does include alternate?

Out of the uh seven that voted on Tuesday and and on Monday, how many of them were from the uh appoint the uh so right now the only votes that we don't have is Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Boniaz, Commissioner Ingalls, uh, Commissioner Kaplan, Commissioner Riahi.

Commissioner Bonet is this Tuesday the 30th acceptable.

So I've I've made a motion for Tuesday, uh the 30th of September.

Is there a second?

Second, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

So our new next meeting, uh additional meeting for the month will be on the 30th Tuesday.

Okay.

So with that, going through the list, uh, we uh of the remaining cases.

The first one that is recommended for approval is item number six.

Was there any commentary on that one or anyone opposed?

There was nobody signed up to speak.

Well, then we're gonna start with number six.

This is over at uh 150 story wood.

So staff.

All righty.

Item number six is case BOA-25-1030130, uh, the address being 150 storywood drive in Council District 1, the applicant being Kim C.

Jones.

This is a request for a 3 foot six variance from the minimum 5 foot side setback to allow a 1 foot six inch carport side setback in the rear of the property, and two a 12 foot eight inch variants from the minimum 20-foot garage entry setback to allow a 7 foot 4-inch garage entry setback.

The zoning is R4.

The subject property is generally located between Vance Jackson Road and West Avenue along Storywood Drive.

Historical imagery indicates a carport has existed in the rear yard of the subject property since at least 2007.

The property owner began a project to convert this existing carport into a garage, which was subsequently placed on hold following the issuance of a notice of violation by code enforcement staff for building without a permit on July 1st, 2025.

The structure is currently enclosed on three sides of with two walls having recently be added been added by the property owner.

The property owners intent to improve upon the existing structure requires the issuance of a residential improvement permit before proceeding.

Uh further, the enlarging the structure would prevent non-conforming registration issuance uh prior to the issuance of a new permit of variance approval must be obtained for the reduced side setback of the structure.

Uh shown here is a site plan of that structure again, existing carport uh in the rear yard there.

Um and this is uh uh one a request for either a carport setback or a request for a garage entry setback.

Uh shown here is the subject property from the front yard, uh, and that is the carport located in the rear off of Saxon.

And this is a historical image of that same structure from November 2007.

And another historical image from June 2024 showing that that structure has been a carport on that property during that time.

And this is a current look at that structure.

As you can see, it's enclosed on three of four sides.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the carport side setback and garage entry setback variants.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030130 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the reduced setback would be limited to the corner of the structure closest to the rear of the property, and two, the structure's footprint will remain unchanged and is separated from structures on neighboring lots by the alley right-of-way, thereby minimizing any increased fire safety or water runoff concerns.

Staff mailed out 32 notices.

Four were returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Delview Area Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the San Antonio District One resident association did not respond.

Shown here is the support received by staff for this request.

And one more notice of support here.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So I believe this is the second uh notice that we sent out to the community.

This one included the uh change of the addition the the change to be the garage itself, that's correct.

And both of them we didn't receive any feedback uh regarding uh opposition, right?

So last week we didn't receive any opposition as well or last meeting.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Let the record show uh Commissioner Cruz is joined at 114.

Uh so I have a question about this.

Um this is the considered the um rear of the property.

And if it's a carport versus a garage, how does a rear setback work with the alley?

I think as an accessory structure, uh the rear setback would be the same five foot required from the rear property line.

Um whether it's a garage or a car port, that accessory structure is still allowed that half distance of the alley as an allowance.

So the the crux of my question is is on the attachments, it's showing item one uh as being measured to the property line, and it is it's it looks like it's a intended to be a side setback.

Is this a side setback issue or a rear setback is a side setback issue?

And it's to the property line if this is going to remain as a carport.

Uh it's to the back of the sidewalk if this is going to be a garage.

That's the requirement.

But it's it was this advertised as a side setback versus a rear setback?

Is that is that an issue?

Correct.

It was advertised for a side setback.

Okay, I just want to make sure.

Sure.

All right.

So is there any other questions?

Hearing none.

Is that the application of the board?

All right.

State your name and tell us about your uh carport slash garage.

Well, uh, yeah, I was here uh on the 18th of last month, and it's pretty much the same uh sentiment as that that time, but um it's I think it's been there probably since the mid-60s that carport that's existing there.

I wanted to use the frame uh that's already built.

It's really built well.

That thing was like, man, it's strong.

So that's why I wanted to build on the same footprint.

Um, we just want to be able to lock up our our vehicles.

We haven't been able to do that for the 30 years we've been living there.

All right.

We've lived there since 95.

So all right, thank you.

And uh yes, Commissioner Manna.

Can you please stitch your name in uh your name?

What's that?

Can you please state your name?

Because I'll look again.

Kim Jones.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Um is there since no one signed up to speak?

There's no voicemails.

All right.

Hearing none, this I'm looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bregman.

Regarding case number boa dash 25-1030130.

A move to the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a three-foot six-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a one-foot-six-inch carport side setback in the rear of the property, and two, a twelve-foot eight-inch variants from the minimum twenty-foot garage entry setback to allow for a seven-foot four-inch garage entry setback situated at 150 storywood drive.

Applicant being Kim C.

Jones, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the reduced setback would be limited to the corner of the structure closest to the rear of the property, abutting a right-of-way minimizing any increased fire safety or water runoff concerns.

Two to due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as the variants would only be required to authorize the issuance of a permit to improve upon the structure and no further encroachment into the minimum required sites setback is proposed.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done, as the structure would remain adequately separated from neighboring properties by the adjoining right-of-way.

Such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conformity property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The structure would remain in existing location in its existing location, which is sufficiently separated from adjacent property when accounting for the width of the adjacent right-of-way and alleyway.

Sixth applied of the owner of the property, which the variance is sought as a duty, unique circumstances existing on the property, and you and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property or not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property, which variants is sought is due to unique circumstances of the structure's location, which appears to have been established between before 2001.

End of motion.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Braggman.

Uh yeah, I'll be in support of the motion uh for various reasons.

Uh the abutting right-of-way, the uh alley, and the support of the neighbors, and the fact that the structure has been in place uh since before 2001.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague, and and we gave the the community uh two efforts or two two notices here.

So I think that everyone you know agrees that they're in favor of this, so I'll be in for favor as well.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, so have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanith?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

All right.

Uh, if you have any questions, you can get with staff.

Uh, next item.

Uh, since we don't still don't have a full board till a little bit later, is I item eight that is recommending a full approval.

What do we go from here?

Thank you.

Item number eight is BoE-25-103-00141.

Address at 83 Kaliber Road in Council District 1.

The applicant is Ivan Almagir.

A request for one, a three-foot-two-inch variance from the minimum 13-foot-two-inch rear setback to allow a development with a 10-foot rear setback abut in a 13.7-foot alley, and two, a one-foot-nine-inch special exception from the maximum five-foot predominantly open fence, allow a five-foot-nine-inch predominantly open fence with six-foot nine-inch storm pillars.

The zone is R6 with a conditional use for four dwelling units.

The subject property is vacant line located along Kaliber Road just west of IH 10.

The applicant is proposing the development of four dwelling units on the subject property, an increased density permitted as a conditional use in 2025.

The original site plan submitted as part of the rezonant application depicted the driveway access from the western frontage.

However, the presence of a storm sewer at this location necessitated the relocation of the driveway.

The applicant indicated that the centrally located existing entryway is insufficient in width to accommodate the proposed design.

Subsequently, the site plan was revised to position the driveway along the East Art frontage.

This updated layout includes a 10-foot rear setback to fulfill the minimum parking requirement of six spaces.

A variance is therefore required to permit the reduced 10-foot rear setback, which abuts a 13.7-foot wide alley.

Half the width of this alley is accounting for the minimum required rear setback.

This effectively reduced the minimum required setback from 20 feet to 13 feet 13 foot two inches.

Additionally, during a site visit, staff observed an existing predominantly open fence with stone pillars exceeding the maximum allowable height of five feet.

A special exception is required to allow the existing fence to remain as constructed.

This is the site plan highlighting the location of the items for review.

And this is an aerial view of the subject property currently undeveloped.

This is a historical view from 2007 showing a predominantly open fence, no storm sewer or sidewalk.

And another view from 2011 showing sidewalk and the storm sewers.

Another view representing the new um fence with the storm pillars exceeding the five feet predominantly open.

And its current view.

Staff mailed 34 notices, one returned in favor.

And this is from the Martinez Creek Neighborhood Association.

They fully support the approval of the request.

They state that removing barriers like these to build in housing helps to combat our housing shortage and should help to calm traffic on Colabra Road by now in the field of vision.

This concludes staff's um presentation.

The applicant is present.

Thank you, Mana.

Commissioner Manna?

So the shows of CD.

Um do you know I guess when that CD was approved and and what was the I guess granted within that city itself?

It was in January 2025 this year, granting for four dwelling units.

And so what would be the normal for a um for an R6 lot?

Um, you know, what what would be there by I guess by right?

Uh one residential unit.

Okay, and so we increase it to four.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so the applicant come forward.

Uh please state your name and tell us about your project.

Hi, uh I'm Ivan Almagher.

Uh we are trying to build uh two duplex there, so four units.

And um we want to stay with uh uh same fence, so we don't want to take a par and get uh a little space, more space on the back.

Okay.

Uh are you uh uh wanting desiring to use the alley as a means of accessing your property?

No.

Okay.

I noticed most of it wasn't paved anyway, but uh is there any questions for this applicant?

Commissioner Manna.

So I don't uh with regards to the and this may be a question for the city with regards to parking and ensuring that um adequate parking is provided or or I guess what is the requirement, and I'm assuming this meets all of the requirements.

For uh units for four units it would be one point five spaces per unit, so it would have to be about six spaces.

And so that would be requirement as they go through the permitting process that they complete that part of it.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

If there's no other questions, uh I didn't see that there was any voicemails on this one, so no public comment.

I got I got one.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

How much impervious cover is on this?

It's a good question.

Is it paved all the way around your driveways?

No, we want to leave on the back on the back.

So we have a patio there with uh trees.

So all that line.

Yeah, that one.

Is uh will be a patio there.

And also a cover patio.

Right there.

So on the west and is this is this site plan the one that was approved with your conditional use?

Yes, just by city council.

Uh we move just a little on the front and uh on the middle, and then on the back to put another car on the top on the right, I can see that's where you're getting your six cars.

All right.

Is there uh any other questions?

All right, hearing none.

Thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

All right.

Thank you.

Anna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030141.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for a one-foot nine-inch special exception for the maximum five-foot predominantly open fence to allow a five-foot-9 predominantly open fence with six-foot nine-inch stone pillars situated at 838 Calibra Road.

Applicant being Ivan Almaguer, because the test mate presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that A, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter, as the six foot nine-inch predominantly open fence provides visual openness of the property and does not interfere with driveway clear vision.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served as the fence is appropriately set back from the sidewalk and public right-of-way maintain visibility and openness that support a sense of community.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed uses as the fence maintains a the required 15-foot clear vision and the majority of the fences will exceed the height standard by nine inches, which does not obstruct the visibility uh needed for safe access on to Collabor Road.

D, the uh special exception will not alter this the essential character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought, as the fence preserves visual openness to the property and complies with driveway clear vision requirements.

E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the district for the specific district as the predominantly open fen uh design maintains visibility on the property, complies with driveway requirements, and preserves the essential character of the district.

End of motion.

There's a second.

Okay.

Second by Commissioner Blackman, Commissioner Manna.

So I'll be voting in favor of this.

Um I think just a notation that this has been reviewed by I guess the planning commission as we're going through that step, as well as um the community itself uh being in favor of this.

And uh it does look like uh you know an uh an effective use of this property, and so I see no issues for not approving that.

Thank you, Commissioner Braggman.

I agree with my colleague.

Uh especially what the um association called out in terms of uh increasing uh available properties uh for people to live in to increase our housing stock.

So I'll be in support.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh all right.

Let's have a roll call vote on the fence issue, please.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Isina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonif.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

So the the uh item regarding the fence height, uh special exception is passed.

And now we move on to the variance for the setback.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030141.

I moved that to board adjustment.

Grant a request for a three-foot two-inch variance from the minimum 13-foot two-inch rear setback to allow a development with a 10-foot rear setback abutting a 13-foot 7-inch alley situated at 838 uh Calibra Road, uh applicant being Ivan Maguero, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined shows the physical character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the reduced setback of 10 inches includes half of the alley, which allows for the development to have adequate space uh for the maintenance of structure fire safety and water runner router runoff hazards.

Two, due to special conditions, their little enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship, as it would require the redesign of the development to comply with rear setback requirements, minimum parking standards, and reasonable uh apartment unit sizes all constrained by the square footage allowed under the conditional use.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, and substantial justice will be done as the reduced setback, the reduced ten foot setback maintains sufficient separation from the rear property line with the adjacent alley further contributing to fire safety and water runoff.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses particularly authorized in the zoning district in which his variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent for a property or although the essential character of the district in which this property is located.

Adequate separation for maintenance access, water runoff, and fire safety will remain with the proposed variants.

The plight of the owner six the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

Unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which this property is located.

The request is due to unique unique circumstances on this property, including its development as a four-unit complex under its conditional use and the presence of a rear alley that provides additional separation from the neighboring properties.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brackman, Commissioner Man.

Um yes, for really the same reasons that uh that uh I agree with the first um set of motions.

Um, I'll be voting in favor of this.

Um also I think uh having that that alleyway in the back is a significant um I guess advan or a significant reason why it is that I don't see this as an issue, so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um I concur with my colleague and as the previously uh stated comments that I made, I'll be in support of the motion.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to add to the discussion?

Uh hearing none, so have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonith.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner is in that.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonia.

Yes, I concur.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Uh, congratulations.

If you do happen to have any questions, as always, you can get with staff.

Uh the last item that had a full approval is item number 10.

So we're gonna jump to item number 10.

Item 10 is case BOA-25-1030145, the address being 5207 Rogers Road in Council District 6.

The applicant is Austin Ford, and this is a request for a five-foot special exception from the maximum three-foot fence height to allow for an eight-foot solid front yard fence.

Uh, the zoning is C3.

The subject property is generally bounded by Texas Highway 151, Wiseman Boulevard, and Rogers Road.

Construction of a new data center is currently underway on the property, and this request for a special exception would allow for an increased security fence height in the front yard where an eight-foot fence is already permitted along the rear and side yards of the subject property as the property abuts a secondary arterial street.

A similar exception was granted just south of the subject property on Rogers Road in September of 2023 by the Board of Adjustment.

Shown here is a site plan of the development highlighting in red there the location of the fence, which requires a special exception.

And this is the subject property in its current view.

And the surrounding area off of Rogers Road.

Staff recommendations for the fence height, special exception.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030145 based on the following findings of fact.

Other instances of increased front yard fence heights were observed in the area as a characteristic of the surrounding uses, and two, the fence would provide additional security and screening for the data center.

Staff mailed eleven notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within two hundred feet of the subject property.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh so have the applicant come forward.

You can please state your name and tell us about your fence.

All right, good afternoon.

My name is Ted Guy.

I am the representative for Austin Ford, the applicant on this project.

So, as uh this gentleman very well uh put out in the presentation.

In the vicinity of the area to the east side, there is a medical building so there's really no properties.

There is a open or a lot that's not cleared between us and the hospital.

And then on the north side is another data center property that does have an eight-foot fence.

So overall, we're trying to keep a uniform eight-foot fence height on all elevations of the project.

And yeah, that's basically what we're looking to do.

All right.

Sounds simple enough.

Any questions from the commission?

Oh, Zuna, I'm just curious about the uh material.

Is it uh what material are you using for the fence?

This is a welded wire uh mesh fence, so it is I believe three-eighths inch, so it's a security fence, not your typical K-12.

Uh basically uh a welded wire material.

Do you know no ball or any other type of no sir, no barb wire on this one?

Do you feel that the fence is uh considered predominantly open, being 70?

Is it 70 percent open?

Correct.

In your opinion, is it close to 70 percent at least?

I would say yes.

I mean it's it's a visible see-through fence.

It's just like uh like a mesh, kind of like a it's like a metal chicken coop essentially, is what the material looks like.

Hard to see on that.

But yeah, I mean you can see some of those uh panels very good put in place on the elevations, and you can see right through.

All right.

Any other questions?

Hearing none, let's have a motion.

Commissioner Zunit.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030145.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for a five-foot special exception for the maximum three-foot fence height to allow for an eight-foot solid front yard fence situated at 5207 Rogers Road applicant being Austin Ford.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we did we have determined to show that the physical character of this property is such a literal enforcement of provisions that the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this chapter.

As a special special exception would allow for an eight-foot front yard fence to match the proposed eight-foot side and rear yard security fence and provide additional security and screening for the data center.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served as the instances of similar fencing were observed in the area, which is primarily comprised of similar large-scale private facilities and heavy commercial uses.

C, the neighboring property were not substantially injured uh by such proposed use as other instances of increased front yard fence heights were observed in the area as a characteristic of the surrounding uses.

D, the special exception will not alter the essential character of the district and location of which the property for which the special exception is sought as.

Neighboring properties are occupied by similar large-scale commercial and office facilities, which generally employ increased security method methods such as the increased fence height and guarded gate entrances.

And E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for the specified district, as increased security will be provided to the new data center to meet the security standard established by surrounding businesses.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor, Commissioner Azunek.

Yeah, I'm going to be supporting this motion.

The this uh this board has granted very similar uh variances on properties adjacent to this.

Uh it is within the character of the of the area to have these eight-foot uh fences that I would say are predominantly open.

Um it provides a security and screening for significant investments that these applicants have made in their dentist data centers, and there is no opposition from neighborhood association or uh properties that would be most affected by the variants.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

So request for a friendly amendment, which would be basically stated as predominantly open versus solid, because I think that we still are talking about the height, uh, which is really what we're talking about here, but but as it is that the applicant stated, it is predominantly open.

And if you look at all the other communities around it, they are all predominantly open.

What do you think, Commissioner Zuna?

Yeah, accepted because that is the constructed method that you all did with the existing fence, right?

Predominantly open.

And to the appeal, you have no intent of having solid, right?

No, sir.

No intent for anything solid.

So we have an amended motion to uh state it as an eight-foot predominantly open front yard fence.

The amendment accepted.

All right.

Uh is there any other discussion from the commission?

All right.

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibande.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonia.

I concur.

Commissioner.

Yes.

I concur.

Chair O'Reilly.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So now what with the cases that we have left after going through who's who is uh any opposition or people time to speak?

We will be doing item number three, who has uh no opposition uh as well as uh no voicemails, and then we'll go to item number seven, and after that we will go straight back to the agenda.

And just if I we're not expecting any more commissioners, Commissioner Stevens is not going to come in.

Correct.

All right.

Well then I guess we can hit number one and go back to we'll just go to the agenda.

All right.

All right, so for those in the gallery, we were we're trying to hit the ones that would that would seem to have the least opposition uh because we were thinking another commissioner was gonna show up, but we are we this board will only have 10 members for the remainder of the meeting, so we're back on item number one.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, planner with development services.

Item number one is requested by Nathan Lang and is requesting for a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental on the block face located at Consul District 1.

The subject property is located at 647 Lay Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family and vacant lots.

The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term mental on the block face.

There is currently one active type two short-term mental permit on the block located at 639 Lay Street, having been approved on June 17, 2022.

This type 2 short-term mental permit has been renewed and does not expire until June 17, 2028.

Per the code type 2 short-term mentals shall be limited to no more than 18th or 12.5% of the total number of single family duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on the block face.

There's a total of 14 units on the block face, one active STR type 2 being 639 Lay Street, issued on June 17, 2022.

The block face is currently at 7%.

And if the second type 2 is approved, the block face will be at 14% exceeding the 12.5 density limitation for type 2 STRs.

The property has had investigations for operating without a short-term rental permit, but was closed when the owner was issued their permit, and the property has no active listings.

And this is the subject property, and the next few slides are the neighboring properties and surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a special exception.

And there were a total of 31 male notices, five in favor, zero in opposition, and the Lavaca Neighborhood Association is in opposition.

No response from our four citywide groups.

And this concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

Yes, they they were, but they didn't renew their permit.

And then the other one came in.

No, so that one already had its permit, just that when it was issued, it was in the rounding.

Okay, I understand.

Thank you.

Any other question questions from the commission?

Commissioner Bragman.

So when did that permit expire?

Is that the February 16th, 2023?

640 Lee Street, that one expired.

Let me double check on that.

Could you answer your question?

The permit expired on June 10th, 2025.

All right.

All right, thank you very much.

Shake you.

I'll send the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your SDR.

Yeah.

So Nathan Lang.

Um hold on here.

So just to clarify the 2023 thing that they brought up, that was an error on their part.

If you count back three years, I already have it in 22.

And then I had it back to the case.

Oh, sorry.

Then they had it back in 19.

So FEO 19, 22, 25.

That was just an error on their part.

So there was no get the I didn't get if I got it in 23, I wouldn't go for it until 26.

Just for clarification.

So uh we heard that this was issued the second one was issued due to rounding that we did look at these differently years ago, and we did round back then.

So I'm talking about when he mentioned that I was an investigation in 23.

That was an error on the city's part.

That's why there was no that that went away.

The staff did state that that went away.

So yeah, yeah.

I just want to clarify that because my permit was I've been in here for eight years with operating for it.

And then um the way we're please continue, yes.

Okay.

So you want to put the little slideshow.

All right.

Um, so um I live on Lay Street also of my personal residence.

Um I'm here today just to request a variance for the 647.

Um I've been a lock the lock uh on Lavaca Street resident for years.

I've operated this one since 2017.

Um I've never had any issues with law enforcement complaints or any of my direct neighbors.

Uh my permit lapsed just by one day.

The way the process works here, if y'all don't know, they send you an email about three months before, which would have been in March.

I'm gonna count it by nature.

You can probably guess I was just buried, logged in, paperwork I didn't have, just kind of slipped my mind, and then the next thing I got was an email saying your permit's expired.

So I immediately logged in that day, tried to renew it, the renewal option wasn't there.

I called the city and they said, Oh, you gotta reapply.

Then when I reapplied, it was denied because of the 12 and a half percent thing.

So it's really just a a one-day thing, and I'm not sure why they don't send out more reminders, another reminder a little bit closer to the laps, but the only reminder they send is three months ahead of time.

Um the six conditions, slide three.

Here's the six conditions according to the code, I'm sure y'all are aware of.

Um, I'm gonna go through each one of these just quickly today, and then answer any questions you have.

So the first one about public health and safety.

Um, I've been in eight years of operation here.

There have been zero safety incidents at this property.

Um, I do carefully vet the guests.

This is not just a home that I'm trying to make money off of.

This is actually a family home that my family still uses.

And um, so we we have very expensive furniture in there and things like that.

So I'm not just trying to maximize the thing that's really just to kind of offset some of the costs that we have there.

But there's been zero safety incidents.

Um, I vet all the guests.

Um, I went back and looked the last 12 months, about four to six days a month is all that people actually stay in the house.

Um, and then I you know, with me living on Lee Street, I also have the safety concerns and wanted to make sure that our neighborhoods, you know, well done.

Uh condition B, no public new new uh nuisance.

Uh, there's never been any noise or nuisance complaints from the home.

I enforce quiet hours, um, no parties.

I monitor every reservation personally, I have a front camera on the the patio so I can see what's going on.

Um the hook home, you know, continues to operate like a normal single family residence.

Um just to enforce that.

Um, just so you can kind of see a little excerpt from my welcome letter that kind of goes through the house rules.

Um, even in the intro of that, one of my neighbors has a little kid, so I specifically call out, you know, hey, can't be loud.

I've got a neighbor with the baby.

I want to make sure y'all are respectful of that.

The neighbors have my phone numbers, they can call me if there's ever any issue.

Um so anyway, I think I try to run it as as well as you can.

Um condition C no substantial entry to the neighbors.

Uh, you know, I I maintain the property, the very high standard inside and out with the local, I have local people that I try to employ to help, you know, any of the cleaning, the yard work, any of the maintenance that um I do for it.

Um, and since you know, I am on the same street.

If something comes up, I can walk down there, it's three doors down to to help, you know, take care of it.

Um adequate infrastructure.

Uh, we're connected to all the city utilities.

Um, I buy the larger trash cans to make sure we have plenty of trash, there's nothing ever on the side.

Um I have all street parking.

I asked people to make sure that they are, you know, if there's nothing available right in front of the house on the street that they use some of the parking spots in the back.

Um, you know, there's no different additional strain on the roads, the drainage or the city served city services.

You know, in fact, with how little this house is actually used for third-party stuff, the footprint of the short-term uh rental is actually lighter than what a full rental would be.

Uh condition E for my compliance record.

Um, like I said, I've no uh issues or any licenses revoked.

Um citations are ejecting offenses under the city code uh in my eight years of operating this condition F neighborhood character.

The home looks and operates like a single family residence, it's not a business.

Um, just to give you some background, we actually bought this house in 2017.

It was a new construction, so we personally designed it.

And the original plan at the time, I was living in Austin.

My parents were living in the Rio Grand Valley.

My mom uh was pretty sick and coming up here for medical treatment at the military base.

Um, and we also had Spurs season tickets, so it just seemed like a nice meeting place to we could go to dinner downtown, go watch some Spurs game, uh spend time with the family.

You know, since then my mom has passed, and um my dad still is remarried now, so they still use it.

Um but we do we want to keep the house our plan.

We don't really want to sell the house, we love it, and um so we're really just trying to offset costs more than you know anything else with taxes doubling insurance quadrupling in the last four or five years.

Um so anyway, and you know, when I talk to my realtor to find out, you know, hey, if this doesn't, what is it?

And he says he has a client that's a traveling nurse that could do a type one.

I don't prefer that.

I'd rather vet my own, you know, customers or people that are gonna stay there since I own the property, and again, I you know, furnish it you know very nicely and things like that.

So a little bit of that is selfish, but that's just the way it is.

Um so in closing, I think I've addressed all six of the conditions required for this variant.

Um I think I've shown that I've operated it responsibly for eight years with no complaints while maintaining the property and supporting some local workers.

Um we did get as he said, I think we had five of the neighbors have all you know put into favor for it.

Uh the Lavacan neighborhood association.

I did talk to her name is Melissa, the president of it.

She told me they just do blanket denials, and I asked her, I said, Well, how can you deny it?

You never even called me to hear my facts or my circumstances, and she said, Well, they're just blanket.

And um, you know, and she suggested to me this morning, she's like, you know, make sure you have neighbors are really more of a neighbor, you know, how it affects your street versus the entire association.

Um, and then you know, as we know, we're not in an HOA, it's not required to be you gotta pay to be a member of the Lavaca Neighborhood Association.

So, you know, to me that should have a little less impact on it since it's not they're not actually going out, it's only people that want to be part of that association, and most likely they're gonna be more negative on things, but um, you know, they they did not hear any of my case or whatever when they sent that letter out.

They didn't ask me for any facts, any circumstances or anything like that.

She said it's just a blanket letter that they send out every time they're asked that question.

So that's closing, and I'll open it up to any questions you guys have.

Bragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

This is actually a question for staff.

Uh the applicant indicated that um he let the permit lapse by one day.

If he had renewed it within the time period that the permit was still active, would he have been approved or would he have still had to come here to the board?

If he submitted his renewal prior to the expiration date, he would be subject to the rounding up rule that was in place back in 2019 when he initially got the permit and would not need to go to BOA for a special exception.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Zunan.

Do we know how much when he was operating as a short-term rental?

How much did we collect from hot taxes?

Uh, like um, I guess is the peak year or something.

Give us just a second.

Commissioner Manna.

So um let's see.

So um, as a member of a neighborhood association that is not mandatory, be kind to them because they truly don't have anything for you know that they're trying to do the best they can to support the neighborhood.

Yeah, and that's what I told her.

And I respect it.

There's a lot of stuff that she's been involved in, you know, the gas station on Fordest Street that I think none of us wanted in there.

I wish they could do more with the Victoria Commons behind us, where we're gonna have hundreds of homes and a lot of type one rentals going in there where we're gonna have a ton of transient people going in there.

But but thank you for reaching out to them.

So and I did, and so you know, part of the notice here, you know, that was um that they did provide kind of I won't say necessarily looks like a a blanket statement, but it did say that um they're not aware of any unique circumstances, and I think that we've heard some unique circumstances here in this dialogue.

So I would so I would say that it you know it doesn't necessarily apply with regards to what it is that they wrote here.

And and I'd ask if they're listening, you know, that they do provide better guidance in that to you know, as we kind of listen to these kind of cases.

Yeah, and and and on that note, you know, this one is a little unique because it's got the it's kind of on a dead end street, sort of uh there's a there's I-37 to the east.

You've got a large park behind you.

You're you're not in the meat of an of the neighborhood, you're kind of on the outskirts.

And you do own it personally, it's not in a corporation's name or anything.

Okay, so that if you ever sold it, it would the permit would just go away.

So that's something.

Commissioner Manor.

And so this is a question for city staff as well.

So so um being that this no longer kind of in the grandfathered situation um in three years' time, does uh will this applicant have to come back and and address this question again?

Yes.

Okay, and then staff did you get an answer to Commissioner Zuna's question?

Um it would be it would be three thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars and eighty-three cents.

All right, thank you.

Uh any other questions from the commission?

I hear none.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh, there were no additional voicemails or anything.

What were there?

We do have one president of Sana to speak.

Oh, okay.

Well, let's have them come up.

Uh May Fernandez.

Good, go back.

Yes.

Hello, uh, please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

Hi, my name is Mae Fernandez.

I uh live on 655 Lay Street.

I also have another property where my mom lives on the same street, and I totally understand what he's saying.

He should be able to supplement his income for tax purposes.

The taxes are going to be getting outrageous if we have the Spurs arena there, and we should not be held back from trying to make those taxes to pay those bills that we have to do.

Okay.

So I agree that he should be able to, and maybe those that adjustment of 12 and a half percent needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Like you said, there is nothing in back of us.

We're not impacting anybody.

So in the future, I would like to see if they can adjust that a little bit more, since, like you said, we are at the edge.

We're not in an association at all.

So I'm for him going ahead and getting that, and uh would like for other people to be able to do the same just to pay our own taxes for our own homes that we own.

That's pretty much Mana.

So I have a question for you.

So so or just comment.

So so the city is getting ready to go through another what's called a UDC rewrite, and one of the things we do is go back and look at the existing code.

And so then this could be one of the codes that we go back and look at.

And so if the community comes back with we'll say strong favor or wants to review it, then we certainly can go back and take a look and adjust the numbers if it's truly what what it is that the community, the businesses and everybody else wants to do.

And so it's something left to the citizens to help us figure out.

Okay.

And also they're selling brand new houses, really crazy prices, and one of their selling points is they're doing them as a duplex or mother-in-law suite, and the selling point is you can ADU them to make up the extra money that you're paying.

They're saying, okay, you can go ahead and rent out half of the house to pay your tax or for whatever reason, but they're already a um they're already putting it out there as a sales pitch.

So why should we get hurt if somebody that's paying seven, eight hundred thousand coming in, and they're either being lied to or you know, something's wrong.

And if it's good enough for them, we should be able to do the same thing because we've been there longer.

These are newcomers who know where I don't know where they're coming from, but they're newcomers, they're paying a lot of money for these properties.

I don't think it's worth it personally, because I know what it costs to build those houses, but that's a different, totally different uh agenda there.

But uh I'd like to see more pro for that one little strip, because that was originally what they were planning on doing when uh a corporation was originally gonna buy the whole strip, and these were all gonna be Airbnbs.

Okay, but there was a lawsuit that came into place and uh canceled that, and they said since taxpayers' money went into this these houses infrastructure that they had to go ahead and send it, give everybody a chance to own these.

So we shouldn't be penalized when the corporations doing the same thing again, you know.

They're building brand new houses and saying you can ADU them, so it's okay to spend seven, eight hundred thousand dollars on a duplex, basically.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Have good to hear.

Here you are.

Yes, Commissioner Evaneth.

Um and I'm I'm normally don't support having more than one STR2 on a block face.

But since it's so such a little percentage on that block face, just up to 14 percent and instead of what we've been seeing in the past going up to 25 percent and more.

Um I think that that um and and being that Mr.

Lang has been in with this Airbnb for quite a few years.

Um I I want to support this uh this request.

All right, thank you very much.

If there's uh no one else like to add, we're looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

I move the Board of Adjustment grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental situated at 647 Lee Street.

Applicant being Nathan Lang, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined.

So the physical character of this property is such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that A, the special exception will not materially endanger the public health or safety.

The board finds the request to operate an additional short-term rental is unlikely to materially endanger the public health safety or welfare.

There's nothing obvious that would distinguish a short-term rental versus a long-term rental at this facility.

B, the special exception does not create a public nuisance.

There does not appear to be a reason to believe a public nuisance would be created if an additional short-term rental permit was approved.

C the neighboring property would not substantially would not substantially be injured by such proposed use.

The neighboring properties consist of single family ad vacant structures.

Sorry.

This scenario does not cause reason to believe that it will substantially injure neighboring property at its short term as a short as a type two short-term rental.

D, adequate utilities, access roads, storm drainage, recreation, open space, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided.

The subject property provides off-street parking and appears to have adequate utilities access and open space.

E, the applicant or owner for the special exception does not have any previously revoked short-term rental licenses, confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses, convictions for violations of chapter 16, Article 22 of the city code within one year prior to the date of that of the application.

The applicant or owner does not have confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses or convictions for this property as they only received a notification, notice of violation for operating without a permit, and submitted the SDR application shortly afterward or other properties.

The owner does not have previously revoked licenses at this property.

F the special exception does not alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property for special exception is sought.

The special exception is located is close proximity to other residential.

With the property owner providing off-street parking and maintaining it from the neighboring property, the special exception does not appear to alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property is seeking the special exception end of motion.

Second second by Commissioner Zuna.

Commissioner Braggman.

The fact that the previous permit lapsed by one or two days.

Thank you, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I normally don't support these kind of uh variance requests exceptions here, and I went in thinking that I wasn't, but hearing the testimony from the applicant, seeing the the one-day lapse, uh, the his history of operating this property, all the support he got for the neighboring property owners, the the really almost non-existent impact of the neighborhoods here, um, and then the hot taxes that the city collects of over $3,800 per year.

I think is meaningful, and I support, and also given that he has to come up for renewal in three years, right?

It's not an automatic renewal.

So for those reasons, I I'm supporting this variance as requested.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, let's have a roll call vote, please.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Zena.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanith.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I don't I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vaufkith.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can cover the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to one.

Uh, if you haven't had any questions, you can get with staff.

All right.

Item number three.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tyler Adam, planner for development services.

This is BOA-25-103-00149, located at 414 Mason Street in Council District 2.

Applicant Manuel Esprago.

And this is for an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit located at 414 Mason Street.

This is a type 2 short-term rental and it is zoned residential single family.

Subject properties located 414 Mason Street.

Surrounding uses include residential, single family.

Short-term rental operators are required to report hotel occupancy tax to the city's finance department on a monthly basis.

This includes reporting zero dollars if no revenue was collected.

In March of 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot also now directly remit city hot.

All short-term or all STR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports monthly.

Eight notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue between July 2024 through March 2025.

And a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on June 30th, 2025.

Section 16-1110D states the failure timely report, hotel occupancy tax within 90 days shall result in permit revocation.

This permit was revoked on July 15th, 2025.

As of September 7th, uh this account is now current.

It is a type 2.

It is I'm sorry to interrupt.

It is current as it is.

It is current now, yes.

Thank you.

It is a type 2.

There are seven units on the block face, and this is the only type two short-term rental on the block face.

Notice of violation was issued and owner complied in May of 2024.

Um that investigation was closed.

There is a current investigation, um, also without operating also for operating without a short-term rental permit, uh, pending resolution of um this hearing.

There is an active listing, site plan, and then subject property and the neighboring properties to follow.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

Uh the ordinance requires that staff revoke the permit for the violation described in this report.

The owner operator uh of the short-term rental permit violated the STR ordinance by failing to timely report revenues, and the owner operator failed to comply with the ordinance even after attempts were made to inform the applicant of their delinquent status.

33 night notices were mailed out.

Um we actually did receive three in favor this morning.

Uh zero in opposition, and Government Hill Alliance Neighborhood Association responded in favor as well.

Uh no response from the three citywide groups.

All right.

Uh so the on the PowerPoint presentation, it said that the hot tax was not up to date as of September 3rd.

But correct.

I updated that this morning after verifying with the with the applicant that payments were made over the weekend.

All right, thank you very much for clarifying Commissioner Commissioner Man and then Braggman.

So uh I guess this will come out maybe throughout the dialogue here, but uh questions of the city.

Um so uh what are our modes of notification um to the applicants you know through this through this process here?

And so so I'm sure it's more than just an email, and so just want to know what all of those were, please.

So the procedure is if uh once a park becomes 90 plus days, delinquent our third-party system avenue mails out notices to the mailing address that was on file for the permit record.

And for this property, uh as Tyler mentioned, seven notices were mailed from the periods between August, July 2024 through March 2025, and then uh staff sends a final notice email on through build essay on June 30th, 2020 to the email that's on file, and then when payments were not made, the revocation notice was also emailed through the build essay system.

And is snail mail also used in that in any of those notifications as well, if I understood correctly?

All the avenue notices were sent via mail.

Via mail, okay.

Correct.

Um second question is the uh what was the what was the dollar amount of delinquent hot tax while it is that they weren't, and so was it zero or was it truly was there amounts there?

Um our system had no payments made at all.

So um but afterward, you was it was identified that it was indeed there was tax owed.

In other words, they were running it but just weren't paying the hot taxes.

Does it make sense what I'm asking?

And then the final question is um if I understood correctly, once the license or once the permit was revoked, uh they were still operating um and and then at that point that they also rented out um yeah without paying the hot tax.

So just try and understand those two nuances there.

Uh Commissioner, to answer your first question, um yes, the report provided by the applicant this morning from his payments do show that um there were um revenues being generated each of those months.

Thank you.

And then um Commissioner, answer your second question.

So once a permit is revoked, if the applicant submits an appeal to the BOA, the revocation stands per the decision of the BOA.

So at the time he continued he can't continue listing and until the board makes a decision.

Thank you.

Okay, but um but the one year where he can't apply again started on what date the day we revoked it on July 15, 2025.

Okay.

Commissioner Bragman.

Uh this is for staff.

Uh the three in favor, what were the addresses?

We'll look into that if anyone has any other questions, we'll give you that answer shortly.

Are those are they the green check marks that are on the uh screen right now?

Oh the screen.

Yeah, the plus plus signs.

Yeah, they're they switch it up on us sometimes.

There it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh any other questions before we have the applicant come forward?

Hearing none, let's have the applicant come forward, please.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your STR.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Manuel Esparrago, and I am the owner of 414 Mason Street.

Um I try to do everything by the book, but sometimes we some things can sleep.

Um I manage the guest communications and the maintenance of this property.

My wife was supposed to be helping me a little bit with paying the hot taxes.

And we have five daughters, uh, 16, 14, 11, a two-year-old, and three month newborn.

The house is too small for us to live there.

And at one point we've been trying and looking at renting it long term, unfortunately, due to the surrounding homes.

It's hard to get a long-term uh tenant that will pay to cover uh cost of mortgage and and taxes, etc.

So we chose to to go the short-term rental route.

Last year there was I guess uh news that uh that my wife misinterpreted thinking that Airbnb was paying directly the hot taxes to the city.

Well, we came to learn that didn't truly happen until it's starting to happen until March of 2025.

We thought that was already March of 2024.

Um the letters I I heard uh the team from the city mentioned that we received some letters from Avenue that looked like they almost looked like their junk mail, and uh the notices that we receive in the email was my personal email.

And the 90-day notice had come here actually on July 15th when I realized and that that was the time that expiring and even though the the staff, which is fantastic, they've been very helpful in the development services, and so I don't have anything but great things to say about them.

They told me that unfortunately it was that they that what that it was too late.

So I was trying to figure out how to make how to make those uh those payments and try to to get back caught up.

And during that time that we got the notice, my wife was in the hospital for four weeks in bed rest because our our uh high risk pregnancy, and then our fifth daughter was in the NIQ for six weeks.

So I even have a letter from the hospital that can prove that so that 90 day notice we were living in basically in a hospital.

My wife was in the hospital I was trying to take care of four other daughters.

So we have there even like I did until July 18th and so we are like it's like a personal circumstances that really kept us from being staying on top of some things and I we truly apologize for that.

And I spoke to multiple of my neighbors in fact I have like five of them of my neighbors that actually signed this petition but then I have a total of eleven on the whole government um government hill neighborhood that are actually in favor.

And so it's just not like I go to the association meetings they know me and everybody signed it without any question about it.

The president of the Government Hill Alliance Rosemary Hill also knows that I we've been taking very good good care of this property there has never been any incidents and that is also supportive of the city to grant the exception to to reinstate the permit.

If you look at the properties around it unfortunately I'm one of the few neighbors that actually takes good care of the property and that's I think why the Government Hill Alliance is in favor of reinstating this STR.

And we are caring now we like I said like we we like we just personal reasons got in the on the way of stay on top of on all the of other mothers we apologize for it and apologize on the behalf of my wife that she cannot be here she's at home taking care of two babies right now but we we try to make it right and and we you know we we have the our reassurance that going forward we'll we'll stay on top of it.

In fact I think I overpay because I paid for since March 25 two through last month and I think overpay because I think I double pay I think Airbnb paid the city and I think I paid as well.

So I probably had to go back and try to figure that out over the last two and and from March 2024 to March 2025 actually Airbnb didn't collect taxes on my behalf.

I've been trying to fight with them well not five trying to find a solution and find why didn't they collect the taxes I've been working with them for three months and there's no resolution yet they cannot figure out so I have paid the taxes out of my own pocket and I think we have actually double pay for the last five months because Airbnb now tells me and the city tells me that they have been paying so if there is an issue I think the city now has even more money than where we supposed to so we we hope you reconsider our request.

Is that possible that there was an overpayment if Airbnb pays and I pay sorry hold on sir.

Yeah when the applicant reports in Avenue when an applicant reports in Avenue is what they reported it doesn't double pay or take double payments.

Okay so when so I uh the the applicant mentioned that perhaps Airbnb may have collected the hot tax recently uh and then submitted that to the city uh I'm just wondering if if that happens or not not really well I'm sure you'll get uh a resolution I'll figure it out sure yeah okay uh then you can make your questions is this your only short term rental property yes I have a small apartment nearby but it's rented long term I have a uh step one there but it's it's rented on long term yes I don't I don't own properties everywhere or anything like that is in where there's a family men.

Okay.

Any other questions I I have just some clarification to the staff.

Is this the only STR two on that block face yes all right any other questions?

Anyone sent to speak?

No public comment chair may just make a comment yes absolutely all the changes that we have made in the past for um the short term rentals uh for STR1s and S T R2s um I think have confused many of those users um I think that when the change occurred because I hear this from from many um people who have like what your situation is um that it was very confusing when those changes occurred um so I I believe you when you say hey I thought Airbnb was taking care of this and and um I think that for our departments there has to be uh maybe when we do look at it in a UGC code uh some of those changes may have to be covered on there I know that three months is uh

Um that it was very confusing when those changes occurred.

Um so I I believe you when you say, hey, I thought Airbnb was taking care of this, and and um I think that for our department, there has to be uh maybe when we do look at it in a UDC code, uh some of those changes may have to be covered on there.

I know that three months is uh a lot of time for you to look at and say, hey, I got this notice, let me take care of this.

But sometimes things do happen for the applicant.

Um I hope that that um you can get some clarification on what is happening with the city, Airbnb, and your responsibility for it.

Since you're the only one on that block face, and um seeing that you brought some of your evidence of what was going on in your personal life that would kind of make it kind of foggy of what is going on.

Um I'm gonna support your request.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanyan.

All right, thank you.

Mrs.

Commissioner, can I just um clarification real quick?

Go ahead.

Um I do want to clarify that when we issue permits that are approved, uh staff sends a follow-up email and identifying their taxpay RD and clarifying that the owner is responsible for report hot taxes on behalf and that Airbnb and platforms are not responsible to do that.

And provide the contact and email communication for Avenue on how to report monthly hot taxes on a regular basis.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manna.

So question for city staff and just some just general observation.

So so you know the um people starting small businesses, you know, that kind of going through this process.

And so one of the questions is do we have ongoing community outreach that teaches people you know how these work you know on a regular basis to say here's here's how this works.

I know we have advocacy advocate groups out in the community that do this, but does the city do that in general?

So that's the first question.

Second question is you know, um so so we've we in the past we've had dialogue with regards to the types of communication that we that we do the outreach with.

And you know, the um and so so I'm glad to hear that we're doing a lot of the snail mail uh or postal services, sorry, postal service uh outreach um with regards to uh the you know additional thing.

I know that um in in a in a big business world, you know, the the if the email didn't work and the and the mail didn't work, I was on the phone calling them, you know, kind of as the last resort, try to make that that piece.

And so so you know, one of the questions would be as we kind of go through and review what are the other messages, you know, um or potential options for reaching out to the to those members, you know, again noting that they aren't necessarily on the professional level uh that we'll say the other groups are.

So sorry.

So I I I could start with your first question.

So you we certainly have material that is available online and we work very closely with the STR association of San Antonio as we try to push out information on the transition as it happened uh you know several months ago.

I will also say that to Lauren's point, we deliver a personalized email that walks people through exactly what they have to do.

We provide links to the websites they need to report.

Um, you know, in part at least based on communication over the years from the board, we have really expanded what we try to do to get the word out.

Um we have emailed communications, we have mailed communications.

I I'll be blunt.

We've got about 3700 STRs operating in San Antonio, and I have four staff members.

I don't have the capacity to place phone calls to every operator to remind them to pay their taxes.

Um, one of the things that we hear time and time again, it was mentioned in the previous case, you know, that they didn't get the emails.

It it always seems that we get the email with the permit.

We always seem to get the email that says you're good to go, but we never seem to get the email that says your tax delinquent or your revoked.

It's the same email that it goes out to.

Um just because it was mentioned a moment ago, you know, UDC amendments certainly can be an opportunity to enhance processes.

The 90-day window, that's not codified in Chapter 35, that's in Chapter 16.

So unfortunately, the UDC amendment cycle is not going to be our opportunity to amend that.

Um but I am at this point in time confident in saying that we have a robust outreach uh when it comes to issuing and and reviewing and managing these permits.

And and and I and I recognize the frustration because it is kind of um a difficult and and so I know that one of the things that uh um I've done in the past is is return receipt required with regards to emails and saying, you know, please you you need to click on this button to acknowledge that we have the correct email and that you know that this email will be where we use all of our future communications to to be able to check that box.

And so do we do that by chance?

So we have looked into that.

The communications uh that go out are through our permitting system, and that is not a functionality wrapped into that.

So that is not something that we would be able to do at least for the time being.

Today, all right.

So uh we do we have any uh I don't know if I have asked I don't recall do we have voicemails or anyone signed to speak on this one?

No public comment.

Okay.

Um I'm I think that we're ready to move on to a motion on this.

Uh if someone would like to make one mana.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 25103-00149.

I moved that to board adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 414 Mason Street.

Applicant being Manuel uh Esparago, because the uh information provided uh by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Manna.

So um normally I you know I so I do not think that the city made a mistake here.

And so whenever I go down this path, you know, generally that's a dialogue and that's where I ride.

And so, however, that said, um, you know, I think that there's a couple of pieces here that I think are relevant.

Um so one being that uh the neighborhood association is in favor of this, and I rarely try to go against neighborhood associations.

And the second is that um as was brought up by my colleague um that this is the only short-term rental on this block, and so uh it's a matter of uh just a delay before it would uh this applicant be apply again.

So uh because of those two things I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yeah, so I'm I mirror my my colleagues' comments there.

Uh extenuating circumstances.

I don't believe there was an error on the city's part in the notification.

However, I do believe there were some extenuating personal circumstances that led to the uh the lapse of the taxes here.

Um I think that the applicant probably hasn't learned in kind of a little lesson here, and and hopefully we won't see him uh before the board again with any uh issues here.

So I'm supporting the motion as read.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh I'm gonna add this, and I'm gonna be in support.

Uh I'm I my first son was in NICU for a month, and I remember I didn't know what was going on.

Going to see him every day.

So um let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

Um yes, I agree with the appeal.

Commissioner Azina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Iboneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orient.

And I can cover the five fact uh appeal passes uh nine to one.

Uh thank you.

We hope to not see you again.

You don't want to see me again.

Thank you to the development of services office.

All right.

Uh item number four.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alares, planner with development services.

Item number four is requested by Mitchell Gonzalez and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental due to hot collection located at 704 Kanyeway in Consul District 2.

The subject property is located at 704 Cunnyway.

Surrounding uses include residential single family as of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot, also not directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

All STR operators are still required to continue to find out file revenue reports and pay Bexart County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

The applicant is current on their heart as of September 2025.

Seven notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from July 2024 through March 2025.

And a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on July 14th, 2025.

No payment was made within the 90 days, and only partial payment was made after receiving the final notice of delinquency on July 14, 2025.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on July 29th of 2025.

There is a total of six units on the block face, one active STR type two permit is already on the blog being 716.

The subject property does not have any code violations, and the subject property does have an active listing as of today.

And this is the subject property, and the next few slides are the neighboring properties and surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And a total of 38 male notices.

Zero in favor, zero in opposition.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions, and finance is also here to answer any hot account questions.

And so just to be clear, this is an appeal for a type one STR.

Yes.

Type one.

Okay.

Thank you.

The applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name and tell us about your STR.

How are you doing?

Mitchell Gonzalez.

I have the type one on 704 Cooney Way.

A little bit about the property.

I've had the permit for about two years.

She um we've been obviously we maintained it.

We brought it back up.

I probably put I probably put about 30 to 40k renovations when we bought it.

Um we're probably one of the nicest houses on that block.

Um no complaints from neighbors, other neighbors have my number.

I'm in clear communication with them because I don't allow parties.

So if there is some type of party going on, they do call me, but it really it hasn't happened.

Um we rented out like I said when we're not home.

Um other than that, the reason that this got um the reason that this got revoked was because uh kind of similar to the last guy, it's kind of crazy what the way he was talking, but like I my wife got pregnant in December, or I'm sorry, November, and we just had the baby, and she's in charge of maintaining the hot.

And so um she had told me back in March that Airbnb was gonna start collecting it.

So I was like, okay, great, like we don't gotta worry about filing anymore.

And so we just kind of left it that way.

Um and then in July, I got an email saying that we were uh delinquent.

I thought we were only delinquent.

Uh I got it in July 14, so I thought we were only delinquent November, but we were delinquent November and December, so I only did November, and then a month later, July 29th, I got another email.

Uh so a total of two emails.

Uh the second email was like you're revoked, and I was just kind of like, what?

Like I didn't understand what had happened, and um I realized that we missed December when we first when we got that first email.

Um I did get a couple of mailed um things by the city, but again, um I thought they were junk mail.

I didn't realize they were from San Antonio because it doesn't have San Antonio on there, has some random company name on there.

Um so we didn't really know we were delinquent until then.

But if you do look back in October of 2024, we were on time every month, and we've had this um permit for uh going on two years.

Um but other than that, that's pretty much my situation.

Uh no complaints, uh, no violations, no uh police or any type of incidents have occurred on the property.

Uh we have four cameras all the way around, so if anything happens, we're aware of it.

Um other than that, that's pretty much my case.

All right, thank you very much.

Commissioner Manning.

So is this your home?

Yes, yes, I have my ID as well, matches that as well.

So we're we're there and back, like we travel a lot with my wife, so right now she's on maternity leave, obviously, but yes, this is our home.

Okay.

So um so by being here, I guess I don't understand the travel the travel perspective.

You know, because trying to differentiate between type one and type two.

Yeah, type one is where you live there, and you also Airbnb.

So that's what that's what the permit we have there for it.

Well, the my wife, we try I travel with my wife a lot for her work, so we're not there all the time.

And then when we do get booked, um, if it's booked on a day that we are in town, we'll stay with the in-laws.

Um, you know, we'll do things like that.

But other than that, that's well let's let's get to the the root of the question is uh how often are you away from the house?

I will say maybe a couple weeks out of the month, maybe like two weeks out of the month, but it really varies depending on where she's needed at.

So should this be a type two or or type one?

Like if they if this is his place of residence, but one or two weeks a month, they're going to other places on his for his wife's work.

Is it still considered a type one?

Yeah.

What the organ says is that a type one is a facility or a home in which the owner is generally present.

So we have had a couple folks in the past that you know maybe they're in the military, you know, they're there seven, eight months out of the year and then deployed for a couple months.

But if they're generally present, uh we would allow that as a type one.

Okay.

I just wanted to clear that.

And then uh on Commissioner Manning, did you have any additional questions?

Oh, sorry to add in um hold on a second.

Sorry, okay.

Commissioner Man?

So yeah, so I guess so the city's position is that that this is being um appropriately um I guess typed as a type one with regards to what is that's been stated by the applicant here?

Yes.

If what the applicant is saying is that they are you know out of the place for one to two weeks a month, then yes, that would be fine.

And and so the reason uh the upkins here is because the hot tax uh delinquency, is that correct?

And um, okay, thank you.

Okay, so my Commissioner Bragman?

Um so I I just wanted to confirm you said that um when there are bookings when you are here in town, you go and stay someplace else.

With my in-laws, oh yes.

They have extra room.

So it's it's not it's it's also a source of income for us.

So like it's not just like um it's a source of income for us.

So when there is days that we can't cancel, obviously, because we get charged if we cancel them, we'll stay with the in-laws, and we have like a whole thing set up there.

So it's not an inconvenience for us to be honest.

Um it's just more of if we get a booking great.

If we don't, then we're staying at home.

So just a follow-up.

So when you have bookings and you're here in town, you are never staying in the house when you have guests there.

No, no, because it's a f I don't want to be part of that like with people there.

Well, it's it's this sounds like this this needs to be uh looked at as things that can happen with SDRs.

Yep.

We're gonna have to reach out and have a conversation then.

Yeah, so so the way, just so you know, uh a type one means that you're the intent is that you're there when people are staying there, not you're not there.

Oh, I wasn't I wasn't aware of that.

Well, you really need to talk to staff after today because there may be more issues that come up uh uh after today.

But Chair, just to clarify.

Um the code right now says otherwise.

So he is following the code for an STR1 in that generally the word was generally present.

And it did it it doesn't say that you have to be in the house because we had a case like this some months ago.

Yeah.

And so right now the code says that he can have it as chairman.

So what what I would what I would ask the board to do today is consider a type one before you.

We will look into whether or not this is a type one or a type two, but the board today should proceed as if this is a lawful type one.

And and we're looking at him asking because he's skips payments, that he didn't pay his payments on time.

Well, I'm gonna ask now that's the line of questioning I have for for finance.

So he the applicant stated that that he was missing December and uh uh and November of 2023.

2024.

Well, hold on.

Uh so he so just from what I'm seeing here on the on the PowerPoint, he had he was originally delinquent for November of 2023, December of 2023, and then November of 24 through February of 25.

Because the November and December of 2023 was only two months and not three months, this didn't really start kicking in until November of 2024.

That's when he hit 90 days, and that's when y'all started initiating compliance.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then when the applicant made the payment from November, how does that does that clear it, or does that go back to him missing two, and then when he missed December, that kicked it in again?

So part of the mail notices sent out by Avenue, they identify the months and periods you are delinquent for, and that's how staff verifies if they became current is based off the letter that Avenue is sent out of the months they are missing.

And as an aside, is it possible for you to to just uh uh uh it eternally be missing two months and and never really have that third one kick in and then kind of skirt the whole issue of the 90 days?

What will happen in that instance?

Uh let me say what should happen in that instance, and we're pretty good at catching it is you will continue to receive mailed notices of delinquency up until you go to renew your permit.

Okay, renew your permit, and we see that there's missing months.

You're not getting a permit until there are no missing months.

Okay.

All right, any other questions?

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

I'm just curious.

Did you have a conversation with your neighborhood association?

Because it says Denver Heights is uh is in opposition, and I'm trying to figure out why.

Uh good question.

Um so I did call them.

I didn't email them, and I did not get a call back.

I did send an email out, and I am waiting for that to get ref that I didn't talk to anybody, so I guess they just denied me.

But I did call multiple times and that voicemails, uh no response.

I did email, and I'm so wearing non-response.

Thank you.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I was just confirming.

So the type one does not have the block density requirements, right?

Like a block two, so that could be um as many type ones as the fit on the block.

So thank you.

All right.

So there's nothing else.

Any voicemails on the side of the speech?

No public comment.

If there's nothing else, let's go to a motion.

So uh um, mana, commissioner.

Um should we consider um that the applicant um reach back out to um Denver Heights um to get their input um because I think that may be relevant here in this case to understand why it is maybe that they are in opposition and maybe they have some of the some questions that we've been asking here relative to how the house is being used and you know and anyways.

I I would suggest that personally.

But okay.

Well, there are uh ten of us here.

If there's another commissioner that would like to propose a continuance, please speak up.

I would like to propose a continuance.

So there's two.

So um how long how long would you need, sir?

Uh I already sent the email out.

If they don't respond to that, I'm gonna treat a cut try to keep calling.

It's just one point of contact and one email, so um and he has an AOL email, so I'm not sure like if he's checking it or what the fit well, I don't know.

I I I'm just gonna keep trying to reach out, and I can try as hard as I can to get some type of response because there would be no reason why they would be in opposition because I've never even heard from them.

Okay.

Well, uh, today is the 8th.

The next meeting that we have is on the 22nd and on the 30th now.

So is there a date that you would uh like the 22nd or the 30th?

The 22nd should work.

The 22nd will work.

Staff, is that acceptable?

Are they are we all booked up for the 22nd?

Uh that'll be 13 cases total.

But um Yeah, that's how we probably do that.

All right.

So is there a motion for continuance of September 22nd?

Motion.

Is there a second?

I second.

Second by Commissioner Ivanis.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

We have one opposed.

Motion passes.

We will see you in a in a few weeks.

Thank you so much.

And the city should be able to assist you with trying to reach out to the community.

All right.

Item number five minutes.

Item number five is BoA-25-103-00110 at 422 Heart Line Drive in console district two.

The applicant is Arnold Uribe.

A request for one a fence material variance to allow for sheet, roll, or corrugated metal on the northern side, and rear property line limited to the as-built portion.

Two, a 15-foot variance from the required 15-foot landscape buffer to eliminate the landscape buffer, and three, a two-foot special exception from the maximum six-foot privacy fence to allow an eight-foot fence in the front yard on the northern property line.

The zone is C2NA with the conditional use for oversized vehicles, sales service, and storage.

The subject property is located between Austin Highway and Northeast I-35 and loop 410 on Hartline Drive.

This case is a result of a court enforcement investigation for the non-permitted uses of oversized vehicle service and storage and construction supply dump storage occurring on the property.

These uses are not permitted in the C3NE and R5 based zone and district.

This investigation triggered the need for rezoning, a plan amendment, and board of adjustment and review.

City Council approved the rezoning of the property to C2NACD.

Commercial non-alcoholic sales with the conditional use for oversized vehicle storage service and storage with a site plan that approved a six-foot chain link fence in the front yard and a six-foot privacy fence in the northern lot line of the front yard.

The applicant has reduced the number of front driveways to two.

Traffic reviewed the site plan and concluded at no administrative variance is required and no site vision issue exists.

An eight-foot fence is permitted by right in the rear and side yard.

However, the continuation of that fence past the front facade requires a fence height special exception.

And this is a site plan highlighting the areas before the board for review.

And an overall aerial view of the subject property.

And this is the current view.

This is one of the driveways that is kept.

The previous photo, I believe, is the one that was eliminated.

And the northern most um driveway is the second driveway that's currently there.

This is the fence into the front facade on the northern side.

And this is the continuation of it on the northern side.

And the rear.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-103, 00110 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the fence material utilized is prohibited within the city and approved use of corrugated fencing was not observed in the immediate surrounding area.

And two, the requested variants will alter the essential characteristics of the district in which the property is located.

Stats recommendation for the front yard privacy fence height special exception.

Staff recommends denial in BOE-25-103-00110 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the neighboring property will be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as a fence will create a visual obstruction in the front yard of the neighboring property to the north, and two, the requested variants will alter the essential characteristics of the district in which the property is located.

Staff mail 36 notices, one received in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

So maybe just comment in general.

So when it is that we have a case that comes before us that we'll say received like a a CD or something like that, it may be beneficial for us to kind of get some case information with regards to when it's presented in front of planning so we can understand the community's perspective.

You know, maybe larger as we come to these.

Was there community outreach?

And did anybody provide any additional information?

You know, because we're going back to the community a couple times here.

And so did was there any dialogue?

Um, you know, because um yeah, I'll say that um to have you because it sounds like this was done unpermitted, and then they went through the city to get a CD to basically allow it to happen.

Um, and so there was some reason why it was, I guess why it had to go through that process.

And so so you'll just try to understand that workflow of you the I guess my premise of the question is was there any uh um opposition when it was reaching for the CD component at of the case itself?

So I can give a brief um a brief on the zoning since I was part of that.

It was rezoned only less than a month ago.

Um they did reach out to neighbors.

There was originally opposition just because of there were some code violations, but they've resolved that.

They ended up going door to door, getting um, and they got a lot of those folks to turn their um opposition to support.

And so there was a significant amount of support when it did finally go to city council for this.

And and and on that, I'd like to also see the uh conditional use site plan that was approved by city council just to see if if there's any deviation from what we're seeing.

And then also, you know, so maybe follow up on that.

So because you know there's part dialogue about the type of fencing, so was that part of the dialogue and initial thing.

And then also with regards to buffering and you know those kind of things, um, you know, because I would hate to think that you know we'd be able to sneak something and kind of or not necessarily sneak, that's a bad word, but but have something code through that it wasn't really what the community was was buying.

But I I am very happy to hear that the community was engaged and and for this.

For for the benefit of the board as well, I do want to highlight that on any site plan that is submitting uh that's paired to a change of zoning case, whether it's conditional use or specific use authorization, you know, they have to acknowledge that they will abide by the UDC.

They have to abide by the site plan.

Um for instance, if the city council were to impose a condition that says that as part of this conditional use, you have to have an eight-foot tall fence.

They could not come to the Board of Adjustment to seek relief from that.

That would be rezoning the property within the site plan.

So we'll be happy to provide a little more context on these moving forward, but uh I do want the board to understand that what is before you is not amending what was specifically authorized by city council.

And well, on that, uh here's some issues with this with this one.

So you have you have an existing or two existing buildings um, but there's also multiple lots.

Uh so you so the open yard is shown as lots nine through eleven and then a lot five further to the south.

Is there C of O tied to the use of the entire property?

And I'm asking because the 15-foot landscape buffer that we're being asked to remove, is it is that only subject to a C of O they may have received on the lots that contain the actual building, or were or was all of the property included in the C of O and a 15-foot buffer is uh is somehow required to or a condition of a C of O.

I'm trying to figure out is some of this 15-foot landscape buffer uh tied to any any C of O that's being held back, and and we're asking for the rest of the lots solely just to kind of close the gap and unify this the property.

You know what I'm getting at?

Um maybe Yeah, so this is a property, this is one property, it's described as multiple lots, but this is one property.

Um and then second, this is the site plan that was approved by city council.

We took out the language of the property owner, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, two on front zoning.

We just put the um various overlays on it.

This is the site plan that was approved.

And the entire property is zone C2.

So that buffer will be necessary for the entire property.

Well, that is a budding single family residential.

Like if you when you apply for a permit and I've got three commercial lots, and let's say like lot five, for example, if it's just gonna be an undeveloped yard, uh, I could theoretically exclude that from my application and therefore not need to put a buffer there to get a C of O.

That's at least how I understand it.

So I'm just trying to find out.

Yeah.

Like if we don't approve the buffer, is he gonna be forced to build one all the way down or just for the first half?

Yeah, so kind of to Murko's point, while it is legally described as multiple lots, it is actually one tract.

So they are going to apply the standard across the entire tract.

Okay.

So that's why it's approved.

I just wanted to see if there was some of it that was critical and some that was just being tied.

Okay.

Uh any other questions before we hear from the applicant.

So the image that you have there with was with this what is being listed, or I guess the one and three there.

Um so they're looking for a variance from what was on that sheet there?

Is it so that so with regards to the buffer?

Basically, when folks are submitting a change of zoning application and they have that conditional use site plan, they'll call out that you know buffers may be required, but it doesn't specifically most likely the plan just said buffers to be as required by UDC.

And now they are coming to you because y'all are the only entity that can wave a buffer.

City council does not have that authority.

And and if I can expand on that a little more.

The reason that you are allowed to consider this is because as far as the buffer yard is concerned, they just said follow the UDC.

So follow the same standard that any other property owner in town would have to follow.

So for the Sound I was so that was why my first question was very important with regards to how the community engagement was and what they were, you know, what they agreed to, and this seems like it's now slightly changing.

And I don't know if the fence was also in the dialogue about here's what their vision was, um, you know, when they when they presented this to the community, um and so just trying to follow along with those.

I mean those are certainly staff's concerns.

That's the reason for the denial.

I if I may say one more thing.

If city council imposed specifically a condition, there must be a 15-foot buffer, this would not be before you today.

Yeah, that would have to go back to council.

Yeah.

And and just so for the board knows when you when people do these these site plans tied to zoning, they are usually very, very generic.

They're not they're not incredibly specific.

And they and there is just you know a note that just says comply with the UDC.

Um, you know, they're not they're not really reviewed by all agencies.

And I personally think some agencies should review them, but you know, but that's just my two cents.

Anyway.

So let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and uh tell us about your project.

Hi, thanks everybody.

Uh my name is Arnold Louriwe, and I uh I'm coming forward to give you a little bit of information about this.

This whole process has started because lot five was rented to a uh to a city contractor, and they start Can you speak a little bit?

Thank you.

This all started because lot number five was uh rented to a uh city contractor that was doing sidewalks in the neighborhoods around it, and they were parking big trucks and stuff like that.

We uh victim.

Now the the the lot the lot is empty and it will be it will remain undeveloped.

Um about the fence, the fence was put in, I want to say about 20 years ago.

It's been there, there's there was a wood fence behind it.

There is a wood fence behind it.

And uh when I went personally and talked to each of the people that were in opposition trying to get their signatures, uh they like the privacy of the metal fence.

Uh we told them if we if they request or would they dislike the the um the metal fence and they didn't say they had a problem about the buffer, there is a five-foot buffer right now.

Uh I don't know if we can put a narrow picture of the thing.

There is a narrow uh a five-foot buffer.

You can hardly see it, but uh there are some plants right there.

There, I guess they're not right now.

We can I can say the there there are pictures provided in our file that do show Yes.

And I mean we're willing to comply to whatever whatever the the CEDA recommends.

It's not a problem.

Uh everything from where that red point is to that is empty lock, it's a lengthy lock right now.

So it's going back to stay that way.

Everything else on this side is for the for the bigger trucks.

So are you saying that the corrugated metal fence has been there for 20 years?

Okay.

And and you have no intent to put a fence along Heartline only on that northern property line that between you and and that parking lot to the north?

I wasn't planning, but if it's requested, we we'll be willing to do it if necessary.

And then for staff, does this does this facility currently have a C of One?

My understanding is this the tenant that it's on the left-hand side has applied for a COO.

It's pending the um today.

Okay.

Um and you and you wouldn't be opposed to a five-foot buffer between you and the neighbors because you already have basically.

Okay.

Uh is there any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Manor?

So you said that you had documents from your neighbors stating that they're okay with the pens.

Can you go ahead and hand those over um so that's I just have what they displayed here.

I went and collected Perfect.

Yeah, if you can hand it to the staff here, they'll they displayed it on the on the screen.

That's it.

It's the same page.

Yeah, they did.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, I guess I missed it the first time.

Any other questions?

Anyone sent them to speak, any voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

Well Commissioner Bregman.

Uh we've talked a lot about corrugated metal fences before in the past, and given that this backs up to a residential neighborhood, is there a cap on the on the on the corrugated metal fence?

A cap on it?

A cap on it.

No.

Would you be willing to amend your application to include a cap on top of the metal fence?

Not a problem.

We can we can put a cap on it if if necessary, but uh most of the neighbors like it.

The ones the the houses are on the back, they like it.

They have a a wood fence, a six-foot foot.

Well, the the we can't impose conditions.

No, and but it is very common for this board to um be more amicable to a corrugated metal fence if there was a cap uh stopping any exposed metal on the top.

Edging.

So is if so we always like to offer an opportunity for the applicant collectively to uh amend their application to include a cap on their corrugated metal fence.

We we can do that stuff.

All right, so we have an amendment to the application to include a cap as part of as part of the request for the corrugated metal fence.

All right.

Uh if there's nothing else, I'm looking for a motion.

I'll read one of them.

I haven't read one yet.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00110, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for a one, a fence material variance to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal uh with a cap on the north and side and rear property line limited to the as-built portion, and to a 10-foot variance from the required 15-foot landscape buffer to provide a five-foot landscape buffer uh situated at 422 Heartland Heartline Drive.

Applicant being Arnaldo Uriba, because the testimony presented us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of the property is a little such that that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amendment would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the fence material provides increased security for the property and related equipment and storage for the business.

The buffer elimination would not leave the abutting established residential homes of the rear exposed to increased noise from the auto repair use and other related disturbances of the relocation of the repair shop is adequately spaced from the rear property line.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as the property owner would have to remove the current fence and install the new privacy fence in compliance with the unified development code code's guidelines.

Likewise there is sufficient spacing from the rear of the property, which limits noise-related disturbances.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, and subsential justice will be done as sufficient spacing remains between the commercial and residential properties.

The unapproved fence material abutting the residential properties provide screening and privacy from the commercial uses located on the property.

Four, the variance of unauthorized operation views other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

No uses on those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five.

Such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the central character of the district which the property is located.

As the metal fence is located along the rear inside of the property perimeter, it would not alter the central character of the district.

The reduction of the landscape buffer uh will not expose a neighboring residential properties to increase hazards and noise as the location of a commercial use is adequately spaced on the rear property line.

Six.

Apply to the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

And the unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property, are not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

There is sufficient spacing to the rear property that provide separation from the abutting residential uses.

The current fence material provides security and privacy for both the subject property and the neighboring properties in a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

I'll be in support of this for a couple of reasons.

The fence has been there for 20 years, and based on the amendment by the applicant, there's going to be a cap on the fence.

Secondly, uh there is uh uh I'm not a big fan of totally eliminating buffers, but going down to the five feet that historically has been there uh makes this seem fine to me.

And three, because this went through a conditional use and a zoning change.

This already went through the scrutiny of public commentary, and it looks like everything seemed to have been worked out.

So with that I'll be in support.

Commissioner Manna.

Um I agree with my colleague, and um I think um getting the signatures from the residents that back up to it.

Um they would have recognized um the buffer sizes and would have said something else about it.

And so because they are okay with it, then I'll be okay with it.

Is there anyone else who would like to add?

Yep.

Commissioner Barrington.

Uh a friendly uh editorial amendment.

Uh paragraph one, the bold uh print.

Second line, you read it as written by the staff, but the buffer reduction.

I missed that one.

I I I would like to amend the findings uh under one to set to replace the buffer elimination with the buffer reduction.

Thank you very much.

I thought I caught the other ones.

Right.

Is there any other commissioner like to add to the discussion?

All right, hearing none of us have a roll call vote on the variances.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Iboneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Uh now we're gonna uh I'll read a motion for the um the special exception for the fence.

Uh regarding case number BOA-25-103-00110.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for a two-foot special exception from the maximum six foot privacy fence to allow an eight-foot fence in the front yard on the northern property line situated at 422 Heart Line Drive.

Applicant being Arnaldo Uri Bay, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined.

Show that the physical character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, you find that A, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter, as the privacy fence would not obstruct visibility across the front yard or impede safe access and exit onto Heartline Drive.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

As the increased fence site appears to serve the public welfare as is limited to the northern property line, it does not reduce visibility nor pose a risk to vehicle safety to traffic on Heart Line Drive.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such a proposed use as there is no visual obstruction in the front yard or the neighboring property to the north.

D, the special exception will not alter the central character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought as the increased fence site is appropriate given the property's commercial use by providing enhanced security in its location to other surrounding commercial uses to the north and northwest.

E.

The special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or regulations herein established for the specific district as a sense of openness on the neighborhood block face as hardline drive is still maintained as the increased fence height is limited to the northern property line.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

I'll be in support of this.

It's just a small little piece of fence just to kind of close that line on the north side.

Uh and so I don't have a problem with it.

Uh Commissioner Manna?

I concur with my colleague.

Also it's uh MF33, so that's probably not an inappropriate uh barrier between the two.

Right.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion.

Uh yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yabaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vafkith.

I concur.

All right.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

If you happen to have any questions, you can get with staff.

Thank you.

All right.

So we're going to take a little break.

It is 308 309.

We'll see you all back in about seven or eight minutes.

Meeting rolling again.

Item number seven, please.

Okay.

Oh, is he?

Is he not back?

Commissioner Bonias.

Thank you.

Here we go.

All right.

Item seven is case BOA-25-1030138.

Uh address being 7422 Aurora Circle, Council District 4, the applicant being Lizette Miranda.

This is a request for a 4-foot 11-inch variance from the minimum five minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow for an addition with a one-inch side setback from the north side property line and limited to 13 feet in depth.

The zoning is R5.

The subject property is generally located west of the intersection of Ray Ellison Boulevard and Southwest Loop 410.

The home on the subject property was built in 2015 as part of the Solana Ridge subdivision.

Observed on July 18, 2025.

An addition was constructed in the northern side yard of the existing home.

Such construction violates the minimum required five-foot setback in residential zoning districts.

This request is to reduce the minimum required set side setback for the new construction only.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property highlighting that addition done.

Shown here is the subject property.

And that addition and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the side setback variants.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030138 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the variance would be contrary to the public interest as insufficient space would remain to perform general maintenance to the new construction without accessing the adjacent property.

And two, the reduced distance between structures would aggravate the risk of fire spread and damage from water runoff.

Staff mailed out 36 notices.

Zero were returned in favor and zero were returned in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet of the subject property.

This concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is present.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your addition.

So it's basically just a small storage shed for kids' bicycles and things like that that just so they have easy access to it.

We did put it on the side just because we do have a canine dog in the backyard.

Okay, so this is uh is does your fence have a gate in front of this?

It does.

So then the premise is you would they would open the gate and then there would is this is this addition um got a door on it, or is it just open?

Um it would have a door.

Okay.

It would have a small door right behind the gate.

Okay.

And then it but within the addition, can you get within your home, or is it completely isolated from the house?

Um or can you get in your garages or door into the garage?

Oh, yeah, we can go in the garage.

It's not like it doesn't have anything to do with the garage, it's right on the side of the property.

Oh, you said one of so if I'm on the outside and I open up the gate, the wood gate, and I and I'm looking at your addition, your intent was to put a door into the addition.

Yes.

When I'm within the addition, can I go into your garage?

Okay.

So it is you didn't change that wall, that existing wall on the side of the garage.

No, we didn't change that at all.

Okay.

And um and there's no gutters on it, right?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

This is question for staff.

Commissioner Zuna.

I know that you started construction without a building permit.

Uh staff, would this be uh it would have to go through building uh permit and building review what if this variance is approved?

Correct.

It would have to go through all the normal um permit reviews.

Permanent reviews, and then part of that would be kind of a firewall or fire rating because it would be within that five-foot easy.

Correct, they're not exempt from it, even with BOA approval.

Yeah, so understand that if the variance is approved, you'd still have to submit the building plans for a permitting process through the city.

And some of that permitting process would require a fire-rated wall.

Oh, I wasn't aware, but I would maybe we'll do whatever we can to be able to have that there.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna?

So is it such that the structure is built all the way to the fence?

And so essentially opening that front that front fence, I would not be able to get to the backyard because I'd have to go through the structure.

So it's blocking access to the backyard on this side, is that correct?

Um we're gonna have two doors, one in the front of it and one behind it, so we can go right through it.

Uh Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Ivanis.

Ms.

Miranda, uh the fence, the privacy fence that is right on the wall of your storage.

Are you planning to to take that fence down?

You have access to that wall.

Just having the fence from the back corner of your shed.

We would to the backyard.

We weren't planning on removing the fence.

Um if we did need to do anything to the site of that shed um to like maintain it, um, we would remove it and then I'll like just put it back if need when we need to.

We wouldn't just completely remove the fence.

Are are you planning to put gutters on there?

If we need to, yes.

Um I wasn't sure if we did need to or not.

Uh do you do you have a gate into your backyard off of Blazer Way?

Yes, we do.

Okay, so you can't get into your yard without using this area.

And um, do you do you is your fence removable at this location?

I noticed that the wood is is like you may have replaced those pickets.

That did you put it like to where that that whole panel can come off and expose the side wall, or is it uh nailed in?

No, it's nailed in.

Okay.

All right, and Commissioner Man.

So by assumption that this is not a zero lot line community, um, you know, because essentially if I'm looking at this, because it is attached, that's essentially what this house is being built as is kind of right on that property line.

Am I understanding that correctly?

That is correct.

Okay.

Fragment.

Commissioner Brangman.

Well, my question about putting gutters, then it would hang over the property line, wouldn't it?

Yeah, and and on that staff, can you bring up the picture?

Not this one, but there's one where you're looking directly at it, but a little closer.

Um one moment, I'll pull that up right now.

Yeah.

It's it was right before the one that you had up.

That's it.

No, there it's in the stat, it's on the if I download it from the website.

It's in the attachments.

Um and what I'm trying to express is that if you're really, really close, you can see how much that front yard completely uh slants towards uh this applicant's home.

And um it looks like if water were were to fall off that roof, it's just gonna roll immediately back towards their property and not really pose any any issue to the neighbors.

Uh is this is this addition on a concrete foundation with that's beamed into the ground.

Uh or is it just on like a on concrete flat work?

Yeah, that's the same.

That's on uh they added a slab of concrete on there before building on it.

It has concrete, but is it beamed into the ground?

I believe so.

I believe they did put beams on it.

Because what I'm concerned about is if you look at the picture that's up on the screen, any water that falls off is gonna come right back to that foundation.

If that isn't beamed down into the ground very well, it's gonna really mess up the integrity of that uh concrete that you may have there.

So I'm just I'm just concerned about that.

Um, so the stormwater runoff it's it the only person that's really gonna hurt is well is you.

Uh because it's gonna come, you can see it on the slant of that thing, it's gonna come directly right back towards your seam line.

So just putting that out there.

All right.

Any other questions?

Any voicemails, people send to the speech?

No public comment.

And and as it's mentioned during the presentation, it's 13 feet long.

All right, so it's limited to the 13 feet, that's there now.

So whoever makes a motion should probably incorporate that into the motion.

All right.

If there's nothing else, let's look in for a motion.

Okay.

No one wants to make a motion.

Mana.

Commissioner Man.

Regarding case number BOA 251030138, I moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for a two-foot variance.

I'm sorry, uh uh two-foot variants from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow an addition um uh to be uh three feet away uh on the side setback.

This is item seven.

I'm sorry?

Uh item number seven.

Sorry?

That's okay.

I thought he was amending the I am amending it.

Oh, I'm I'll apologize.

Continue.

I thought you were reading it from the uh recommended right one.

Yeah, if you're amending it, then you were in the right one.

Okay.

I was reading the right one.

I apologize.

So no worries.

Um limited to a 13 foot in depth, uh situated at 7422 Aurora Circle, applicant being Lisette Miranda, uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character's property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find the variance is not contrary to the public interest, as sufficient space would now be provided uh revided provided uh that would uh remain for the purposes of maintenance, water runoff, and fire separation.

Due to two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as uh the existing lot configuration is such that uh additional storage space is needed uh within the side of the home.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as sufficient spacing um now remains between the new construction and adjacent property to support maintenance water runoff and fire separation.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which this variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed within this variance.

Five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district uh in which this property is located, as adequate separation will now remain between the new construction and the existing property.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and unique circumstances for not created by the owner of the property that are not merely financial and not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which this property is located.

The existing property is such that additional storage is needed in the side yard of the home.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman, Commissioner Manna.

So normally when we see this types of um requests, it's for car ports, and and generally, you know, I'm a little bit more um lenient with regards to that simply because of the open space and allowing for that transit between between here.

But I I brought the question with regards to the zero property line, because essentially that's what this home is establishing for the neighborhood.

And from my perspective, that's not conducive with this community.

Um, and and I read it so that it had to be reduced in width to allow for one to allow you still have a storage space on the side, but not to be as wide as what is that you're requesting.

And so as I amended it, I would I would approve it as that.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with my colleague, I'll be in support uh based upon the amendment.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Right, hearing none, uh, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

No, no, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibnith?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I can I concur.

Commissioner El Senna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunyez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

Uh I concur.

Uh, but motion uh fails uh seven to three.

Unless there's someone on the prevailing side that would like to offer anything to the alternative going once.

Going twice.

Uh okay, so this motion is completely failed.

Uh if you have any questions, you can get with staff about your next steps.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number nine.

Uh we already did eight.

And we did ten.

Item number nine is case BOA-25-1030143, the address being 218 Woodleaf Street in Council District 1, the applicant being the Lanfear Law Firm PC.

Uh this is a request for one, a fence material variance to allow for corrugated metal fencing, two, a nine-foot eleven-inch side setback variance to allow for a one-inch side setback for a barbed wire fence, and three, a 29-foot 11-inch rear setback variance to allow for a one-inch rear setback for a barbed wire fence.

The zoning is C1.

The subject property is generally bounded by North Florida Street and San Pedro Avenue and is just south of Fredericksburg Road.

Code enforcement investigations of the site began in July of 2024 when a notice of violation was issued to the property owner for the use of prohibited barbed wire and razor wire.

Uh after the case was transferred to a zoning code enforcement officer, the property owner was made aware of a violation of the fencing material standards for the use of corrugated metal as well as a use violation on the property for conducting outside storage on a lot zone C1 like commercial district.

To correct these violations, the owner submitted a request for an administrative variance for the use of barbed wire and razor wire on uh in January of 2025.

But this review was placed on hold, and the applicant was directed to resolve the existing zoning use violation and obtain a variance for the proposed location of the barb and razor wire as the minimum required setback standard was not met.

In July 2025, the application for the administrative variance for that barbed wire expired.

Uh in April of 2025, research conducted by staff found that the property did qualify for a legal non-conforming use certificate for outside storage use.

But the accompanying request to register the corrugated metal fence and barbed wire as legal and nonconforming was denied.

The nonconforming registration for an industrial use allows for an industrial fence standard of eight feet.

Additionally, uh a condition of screening from public right-of-ways and adjacent properties was placed on the nonconforming use.

In June of 2025, the corrugated metal fence was covered with a compliant wood material.

However, corrugated metal is still part of the existing fence construction.

Before considering another request for administrative variants to permit barbed and razor wire, the applicant must obtain a setback variance due to the barbed and razor wire's proposed location along the perimeter of the property.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property.

Per the code does need to abide by these building setback lines, and that's the reason for items two and three on this request to reduce those to the maximum or to the minimum.

Shown here is that subject property in March of 2022, a historical image here.

And the current view of that subject property, as you can see, it's been covered uh with a compliant wood fencing material.

However, that corrugated metal uh is still part of that fence construction.

Uh it's not visible from the street, but it is still uh part of that fence construction behind that wood fencing.

Uh and this is a view of that same property, but from Fredericksburg Road, effectively the rear property line.

And this is just to show the the construction of that fence.

Again, that wood fencing in the front, corrugated metal still existing on that.

And this also includes some of that barbed and razor wire still existing on that on that fence.

And the surrounding area.

This is on Woodleaf Street here.

Staff recommendation for the fence material and fent uh setback variances.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030143 based on the following findings of fact.

One, other methods of securing the subject property and deterring instances of trespass are available to the property owner while using approved fencing materials, and two, the variances would create a significant risk of harm to residents and create an unsightly streetscape.

Staff mailed 24 notices, two were returned in favor, one in opposition.

The five points neighborhood association did not respond, and the San Antonio District resident uh San Antonio District One resident association did not respond.

Shown here is the support received for this request.

And shown here is the opposition received for this request.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

So the variance is for the use of barbed wire and not razor wire, or does it have to be specified?

So the use of barbed or razor wire is going to come through an administrative variance if this is approved for the setback reduction.

Um the actual use of barbed or razor wire is not part of this uh this request.

Okay.

I just wanted to ask because I I kept hearing razor wire, but the motion and the and it seems to be advertised without the use of the word razor wire, which you know if I'm looking at a setback, razor wire seems a little more something I care about than the barbed wire.

Gotcha.

Um in terms of the actual construction, what that's going to look like, I'm sure the applicant may be able to shed a little more light on that.

And then finally, it can we if this were to approve on the corrugated metal, are we allowed to say um so long as there's wood cladding on the outside, which is apparently what they did.

Can that be a part of our motion?

Because that I mean if if someone wants to have a metal fence and then put wood on the outside of it, that sure means that makes me feel better about it.

I don't believe that's something that we can impose on them.

Um I don't even think that's something that they can add because it's separate from the corrugated the actual corrugated metal.

They do have it on there, obviously.

Yeah, I know.

I'm I I don't think anyone is ever seen anybody try that.

I'm just curious if that was uh something we can if we say as constructed, does that constructed portion would be only for the corrugated metal?

Just checking.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

So and and I think I know the answer to this question, but so so uh say I have a wooden fence all the way around my property, and then I add on the inside of that property a section of corrugated metal um to cordon off you know part of my area.

Would that new metal fencing require um a zoning or or a uh uh uh notice before the BOA because it because it's a different correct it's acting as a fence.

The only way it wouldn't if it was part of like a courtyard or something like that, then we would look at it as part of the house, which is different standards.

But if it's acting as a fence, then it's has to be the can't be corrugated metal.

How big of a courtyard can it be?

Has to be within the building setbacks, um, has to be enclosed.

Um something characteristic I'll forgetting.

Enclosed, right?

And then within this building setbacks, I think is the main uh characteristics.

And it would basically have to be look like an extension of the building itself.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your uh fence.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dan Lanfear.

I'm the applicant's lawyer.

Um this is Dominica Castillo with me.

Um I think it's important for the board to understand that uh my client and her husband purchased this property in June 8th of 20 2004.

The fence, the metal fence was in place when they purchased the property.

It had been built there by the prior owner.

Uh same thing with barbed wire, and there was razor wire at one point.

There is no razor wire at issue.

Um they've taken the razor wire down.

Uh but the barbed wire wire is important to them.

They have a uh restaurant supply company and they're zoned.

They have a certificate of use that allows them to store uh restaurant equipment in this uh otherwise vacant lot.

Um that's what they do.

The barbed wire is obviously to prevent uh trespassers from getting into the property.

It's a fairly high crime area, and uh trespassers have been an issue.

So that's the purpose of the barbed wire, which again uh was on the property when my clients purchased it, uh the previous owner having also used uh the lot for outdoor storage.

Um so I don't know.

Dominica and the the setback requirements as uh Joelle correctly advised, is just uh in the event that barbed wire is allowed to be part of the fence, uh it would make uh the setback requirements are necessary uh for the barbed wire to remain where it is.

So so my first question would be is how long has that fence with the barbed wire been there?

Since at least uh 2004.

Is if it pre is in 2004, was there still a requirement for for the setback on the barbed wire?

It was during the nonconforming process, um we looked at the adding the fence on there and we saw that we did not find enough evidence to grant a grandfathering for the fence.

Okay just for the use.

Did you know when that code came into effect?

It was previous to uh 2001.

Um if it was it was under the 87 UDC it would be okay.

Correct.

It wasn't clearly written as it is now, but when we evaluated, they did mention uh I forgot exactly how they mentioned it, but then your neighbor, it looks like you have a home.

Uh if I'm facing your property, there's a home, a residence to the right, it's vacant to the left.

Um is that correct?

Well I wanted to first say that uh Mr.

Grenari.

Oh, can we uh state your name, please?

Dominica Castillo.

Thank you.

The family that we bought it from had a certificate of occupancy as uh since 1998 for the use that we're currently using it as.

Okay.

So everything was already on there.

So so for the rest of the board in 2001, May of 2001 is when the UDC changed.

Prior to that, it was under the 87 UDC where it was questionable whether or not barbed wire was required to be outside of that setback.

So with but I was asking about the homes.

Yeah.

The home to the left burnt down because of uh homeless.

Okay.

And the home to the right had a commercial building in the back.

That was also um set off like years ago.

But is there somebody living there now?

There isn't, I believe he well, actually he's it's under renovation, the personnel that lives there?

Um my line of questioning is trying to find because it's zone C1 on either side of you.

I'm trying to find out uh which side of you is the where the intent is to for it to be a residence as opposed to a commercial use.

I see I think there's a map in here.

And then the other question is is you're asking for um the barbed wire uh within the setback on both of the side property lines.

Is there a uh need to have it across the entire property line, or can it stop where the moment a structure exists?

The barbed wire was already there around the entire property.

The neighbor next door also has barbed wire and the metal fencing.

That's the home that you see on the on the patch.

Oh, there's pictures that show corrugated metal, I'm sure we might see that later.

Yeah uh come at.

That's what I'm trying to find out.

And so staff, did you have do you happen to know because on the on the staff report it's showing uh a single residence uh to the predominantly to the east to the west, it's it's vacant residential, which the applicant has stated that there was a fire and that the structure was compromised.

But but in y'all's opinion, when y'all were out there, did you feel that it was going to be resident on the east?

And that's the property at 214 Woodleaf that you're asking us about.

Uh yes, there's an existing home there.

Um when we were out there, uh I mean I we didn't observe anyone occupying it, but it did not look dilapidated to the point of vacancy.

All right, well, that's my line of questions.

Is anyone else on the commission have any uh thoughts?

Manna Commissioner Manor?

Uh there was a notif on the notification showed uh was it different than what's posted?

So look I thought I recall seeing someone in opposition.

Was that true?

Yes.

Okay.

So that property that is the house is in opposition.

Yeah, that's why I would probably not be a fan of the barbed wire on that.

Right.

And so yeah, so um yeah, concur.

All right.

Any other commissioner would like to have any questions, add anything?

Uh is there any voicemails anyone signed to speak?

This is uh two voicemails.

All right, let's hear them.

Uh uh hello, uh yes.

Uh my name is Carmen Hughes.

I live at 503 Marshall Street.

I'm calling in reference to case number B08-25-1030143 at 218 Woodley.

Uh I'm not in favor of this business purchasing this property at 218 Woodleaf.

Um we do not need this company purchasing uh the residential property and then using it for commercial uh maintained property.

It is not maintained, it would create uh many rodents and uh much debris in the neighborhood.

We already have issues with money possibly and loaded uh, etc.

Um in our area.

Uh we are just at the point we're trying to clean up uh the neighborhood, and this purchase would not um contribute to our cause.

The house is in total disarray, shambles.

Uh we're going to be getting uh new a lot of new people here at 425 uh apartments, and there'll be many children also in the area, and I just do not feel like this would be an asset to our neighborhood.

Uh we do not want this being sold um for commercial property.

And um we just asked that you do not allow this.

Thank you so much.

Hi, yes, this is Roxanne Garza calling from 505 Marshall Street.

I am calling in reference to 218 Woodleaf Street, 78212, BOA 2510300-143.

I'm calling to recommend denial of this request, as this is a uh predominantly residential area.

This applicant has had other properties in the immediate area and has demonstrated that they do not maintain their properties.

They have a high incidence of rodents, abandoned appliances, and utilization of streets for commercial loading and unloading uh and disregard for residential use.

Again, this is for BOA 251030143, 218 Woodleaf, San Antonio, Texas, 78212.

Recommend denial of the request.

Thanks.

And just as a note, those two voicemails were from outside the 200 foot notification area.

All right, thank you.

So is there anything else that you like to add before we move on to a motion?

Go ahead.

Well, there is one thing I want to add.

The properties that you see there were all industrial at one point.

When we move wouldn't we've been in the neighborhood for 40 years.

And they were all industrial.

That particular lot was industrial.

And they're also in commercial now?

Um.

Well, everyone on your except for one, everyone on your block C one.

So is there any other questions for the from the commission?

I I just wanted to clarify.

Um the fence that uh on the side that on the map it showed that uh the house that's I don't know what side it's on.

Yeah, it's uh I would say the eastern side.

Eastern side um has the uh barbed wire on it as well and and they're not sure you're not sure if that owner is going to make it residential, but on the map it shows that it's C1.

So if it turns out that it's residential, would they change the zoning that he's gonna live in that house?

Would you consider taking the barbed wire down from that side?

Yes.

All right.

Awesome.

So with that, if there's we're looking for a motion, and I would I'm just gonna put it out there, I'd recommend not including the barbed wire on the eastern side of the property.

Okay.

All right.

So that's I'll go ahead and read it since I don't hear anybody getting excited.

So I did have a question.

So the what was just being talked about though was on the western side, correct?

Well, um this is kind of on the southeastern side.

It's a what it's a side.

So northwestern side is also maybe in dialogue here, isn't it?

Well, that's a commercial that that side is commercial owned property that got that was a home at one time that got burned down.

There's nothing on that lot.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So regarding case number BOA-25-1030143, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a fence material variance to allow for corrugated metal fencing.

Uh two, a 9 foot eleven side setback on the westernly side uh variants to allow for a one-inch side setback for a barbed wire fence on the westernly side only.

And three, a 29-foot eleven-inch rear setback variants allow for a one-inch rear setback for a barbed wire fence located at 218 Woodleaf Street.

Applicant being the landfair law firm, PC, because of the testimony you present 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 in the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the fencing material along the perimeter of the property would not would provide increased security to the property.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the properties not conforming outside storage use necessitates the implementation of increased security methods to project to protect property stored on the lot.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as the property stored on the lot would be uh would be at a lower risk of theft and damage due to the increased security provided by the proposed fence.

Four, the variance of not authorized the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

No uses of those allowed within the district would be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants are not substantial injured the appropriate use of adjacent foreign property or alter the character of the district in which the property is located, as this lot is is near property zone for industrial uses, which lends to the overall intense character of the immediate immediate surrounding area.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for the variance assawed is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property or not merely financial owner, due to other results of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The property is currently operating as a legal, non-conforming outside store lot and requires additional security measures to prevent theft vandalism and trespassing.

End of motion?

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

Uh so I'll be in support as read.

Uh I did take out the barbed wire on the easternly side that abuts the uh existing uh residents.

Uh I also feel that because this side this property was developed and put into motion prior to maybe May of 2001, it's non-conforming use pretty much allows for everything they have there now.

Um so I'm not taking out the barbed wire on the eastern lease side is is completely enough for me to be in support.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with my colleague for all the same reasons.

All right.

Uh anyone else.

The was this for the metal fence?

Uh this was for everything.

Everything?

Yeah, except for we took the barbed wire off of the easternly side next to the home.

Are we are we looking to get a cap on is is uh is there currently uh I'm gonna go uh go back to the public hearing component.

Uh is there a cap on the fence?

My understanding, I heard the discussion.

Can you uh speak to the you have to get close to the mic?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

My understanding is that there's no exposed uh corrugated metal.

But we the issue is we can't put a condition of a wood fence.

Uh so we there's no way for us to guarantee expect you could take the wood fence down.

So is there an would you at this time like to amend your application to ensure uh cap or otherwise protection to from the metal fence?

She's willing to do that.

So we have um all right, thank you.

Uh so I'm gonna amend my motion as read to include uh the provision as as amended by the applicant for the metal fence to include uh a cap or otherwise be protected, uh which currently is the wood fence um from exposure.

Okay.

Is that is that uh um acceptable, Commissioner Braggman?

I accept.

Okay, so we're back to discussion.

Commissioner Brackman.

Um I agree.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner So just as a uh so generally, yes, but we're we're talking about barbed wire on top of it, so so it seems like uh you know we're gonna be able to do that.

We we we treat everyone the same here.

I know, so I just I didn't so normally I do fight for these, but you but it is but yeah, so just interesting note.

Yeah.

Uh let's have a roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Brackman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I can curve.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right, motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

And you heard what what was said about the uh protection and the capping and no barbed wire on the eastern lease side.

Right.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Item number 11.

Thank you.

Item 11 is BoA-25-1030146, located at 436 West Craig Place in Consul District 1.

The applicant is Michael Reynolds.

He is requesting one, a three-foot special exception from the maximum two-foot N C D 2 privacy fence standard to allow a five-foot privacy fence.

Two, a seven foot five-inch special exception from the maximum two foot N C Dwo privacy fence standard to allow a nine foot five-inch privacy fence limited to six feet two inches in width for a gate entrance.

Three, a seven foot nine-inch variance from the minimum required 13-foot rear setback to allow a primary structure with a five foot three-inch rear setback, a butt in a 14-foot alley, and four, a 14 foot eight-inch variance from the minimum 25-foot corner clear vision to allow a 10 foot four-inch corner clear vision.

The zone is R6.

The subject property is situated at the corner of West Craig Place and Breeding Avenue, West of San Pedro Avenue, within the Alta Vista neighborhood conservation district.

This case or originated from a court enforcement investigation concerned in building without permits for a new privacy fence and residential addition.

According to the privacy fence standards for NCD2, new front yard walls constructed of solid material shall be no more than two feet in height.

This connection will effectively make the garage part of a single primary structure.

The R6 zoning district requires a minimum minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet for primary structures.

Per section 35-516 C of D UDC.

Lots that a button alley, a public alley, one half of such alley can be considered as part of the minimum required rear yard.

Due to the presence of a 14-foot alley at the rear, seven feet can be applied to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 20 feet to 13 feet.

With the existing five foot three-inch distance between the garage and the rear property line, a seven foot nine inch variance is needed to permit the new primary structure to remain.

The Alta Vista neighborhood conservation district was established on May 8th, 2003 and amended on May 18, 2018.

This is the site plan highlighting the areas of requests as well as the NCT N C D 2 fence design standards.

And this is a historical view of the property from April 2011.

And another from 2019, where the fence is removed.

And from 2022, no fence along the front.

And this is the current view.

And from the side.

One, sufficient space in the rear will remain for water runoff, fire safety, and maintenance of the structure.

And two, the requested variants will not alter the central characteristics of the district in which the property is located.

Stats recommendation for the fence height, special exception and corner clear vision.

Staff recommends denial in BOE-25-103, 00146 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the increased privacy fence height exceeds the NCD two standards significantly, creating corner clear vision issues at the intersection of West Craig Place and Breeding Avenue.

And two, the requested special exception will alter the characteristics of the district in which a property is located by setting the precedent of design standards that conflict with those of the neighborhood conservation district.

Staff mailed 25 notices.

And there was no response from San Antonio District One Resident Association.

These were support received.

As well as sign signatures provided by the applicant.

Some of those were already counted for too.

And this highlights the comments from the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association.

With the exception as seen in paragraph 4, they state regarding the fourth variance and consider an importance of pedestrian and vehicular safety.

We do take an exception.

However, we also acknowledge that the fence has been in place for almost two years without incident or complaint from neighbors.

We support a solution that includes a predominantly open fence increased visibility, provided the city's governing body's interpretations allow it.

We also acknowledge that the stop sign at this corner is position much farther than at other intersections, necessitating extra caution at that intersection, regardless of any potential obstruction.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, so just really quickly.

And so the the whole reason for the rear setback is because the addition is going to connect the existing garage.

Correct.

So now it reduces it to a complete primary structure.

Got it.

Alright.

Any questions from the commission?

Mana?

Commissioner Manna?

So I'm trying to understand.

So it does look like I guess one of the things that's drawn tension, at least from the community's perspective, is the clear vision and the city's position as well.

And so I was looking for a better position or better picture or making sure I'm looking at the right picture.

And so there's one in the slide that's page eight, I think it says current view.

Is that the fence that we're talking about there?

And so and so to be compliant with regards to clear vision, it's over it's four foot, so that's so that's one of the challenges.

So we would have to take a look at that with regards to height, correct?

And then also predominantly open, correct?

Those would be the two things to address from a clear vision perspective.

For the clear vision, it's anything above three feet, whether it's predominantly open or privacy.

Right.

But um but the community's perspective was predominantly if it was predominantly open, they would be a little bit it was they were amenable amended uh amenable to um predominantly open here, but we still have to do the thr the four football.

Yes.

Okay.

And um with regards to the the spacing here, um what is the number of feet that have to be available from a corner uh for predominantly open or for um for clear com uh 25 feet.

25 feet?

Okay.

So would that also include I don't know what the distance is to the uh to the backyard fence or whatever, yeah, the backyard fence.

Would that also be included in then?

Because I don't know that doesn't look like 25 feet there.

Um they required uh 15 feet in the for alleys or driveways.

So on this picture here, so so that so the backyard fence is compliant.

I don't believe they put anything in the rear yard.

I think the only fence that they put was in the uh front yard.

Is that correct?

Or is it right?

But so we're talking about clear vision, and so did would that still not apply, you know, from a clear you know, if it's not 25 feet from that corner.

I think they have enough room forward of the property line to cover their um driveway clear vision, if if I remember correctly.

And if the fence has been there a really long time, I don't know when that came into effect that the clear the clear vision.

What is well I just you know as I was going to my as I'm going to my thinking, you know, I'm assuming the new piece added is truly all we're talking about, but want to make sure that it doesn't include you know the the fence that was there that looks like it's been there.

That fence to the left of the garage opening that looks like because there was a car that kind of fits on there on the pick one of the pictures.

It looks like they're within that 15 feet that they require.

Okay.

Yes, the photos that we took on that day show that uh there was a 19-foot uh between that fence and and the back of the curb there.

19 feet, which is which is compliant with the required 15 for driveways and alleys.

And then uh for the corner at West Craig, could they chamfer the fence and put it and put a 45 degree angle or do they have to move the whole fence?

I mean, because you know, would that would that be sufficient if they were to put a 45 degree chamfer at the corner?

Yeah, so I think they're uh this fence was kind of constructed in a clear vision way, it just wasn't done enough.

Um I'm not sure how much more they're off, but the way this fence is built on the corner is the correct way, it just wasn't done enough.

Okay.

So so if if the board was to go through a predominantly open four-foot fence um in the space, um would that I mean could we specify that?

I guess if we it still would um encroach the clear vision, anything over three feet.

That's including predominantly open fences or just a regular solid fence.

But what if we gave a variance that was less than that?

Like they're asking for 14 foot eight inch variance if if it's really close.

Could we do like a 10-foot variance and have it be sufficient?

Yeah, I mean, that's if if you guys can approve um any distance between the required and what's on there.

Okay.

All right, let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your project.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Michael Reynolds.

I live at 436 West Creek.

Um there's a few reasons why the fence was in place for of course security reasons to mediate noise.

Um there's a few homes in the area that were burglarized.

Um I live two blocks away from San Pedro Springs Park.

There's a lot of riff raft that comes down that street, and um it is a high crime area.

Also, I do have a service dog that I'm trying to keep in within the fence lines.

But the r the issue that I have is the street is narrow.

It's not your standard size street.

So that does affect the 25 foot rule.

In addition to that, the stop sign is very far back from the standard um spot that it usually would be at.

Another issue that I have, there's a telephone poll, if you can see in one of the photos.

Can you put that they can project that up on the screen?

We can check that out.

So my street um allows street parking.

So it there's no signs as you could see.

So my issue is a car could park park anywhere on that curb right there, and it would obstruct um that turn regardless.

Also, when it came to the measurements, the city when they came out, they measured from the public right away.

And above that retaining wall is my property ground level.

And from what I was told through a few uh city um officials that um the fence should have been measured with inside the property on the grade of the property line, um if that makes any sense.

It was measured with the retaining wall, um, and of course at its highest peak.

Um the fence is four feet in height.

Um it does have uh visibility.

Um and I spoke to the neighborhood association, I'm willing to create more visibility.

Um the only issue is is you know, if you can compromise with me as far as the height, um I do have a Belgian mile wall and a thing can jump 10 feet tall.

Uh so I just want to have some type of security as far as you know, as far as that.

No, I understand.

Um is there any questions for the applicant, man?

Bragman.

Uh so go ahead, Commissioner Brain.

What are you proposing in terms of making it more I would make it complete more visible?

Um I would I would have the um the metal, the metal mesh so you could see right through it.

Oh, yeah, wrought iron.

There would be no obstruction whatsoever.

Um, sir, are you talking about the first two panels from the the panel from the each from that corner?

Yeah, yeah, what I would remove I would remove every single panel except the top and the bottom, and then I would I would have metal in those areas so you could see through them.

I don't want to point out what you're talking about there.

Yeah.

So um here's the property line.

You could see there's some some trees in here, some some landscaping palm trees.

Yeah, this is the property line.

This is um where it should have been um measured.

So this is actually four feet.

Um I know here it is five feet, but remember the retaining wall.

Um so I'm I'm willing to remove one, two, three, four, uh, whatever you need me to do.

Um I'm willing to comply and and and do whatever it takes uh to make this more visible to help the turn.

But um I mean the turn in general, there's a lot of issues that don't involve my property, like the stop sign and and and and with the street parking, um, the narrow street and whatnot, but uh that that's what I wanted to you know inform you guys with.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So so two questions just to make sure so did you talk about this with the I did, and they were totally on board.

Okay.

Yeah, they they love the idea.

And so the and so the second qu uh the second point, uh you know, I don't know uh that's why I was trying to ask some of the questions with regards to predominantly open and what that means and and you know what um what what we can state because we try to give you we try to set it limits and try to make sure that everyone's getting what it is that they want to get.

Right, you know, um as we go through the dialogues.

And so so if the applicant commits to predominantly open, um I guess if you meant some his application so that he's gonna state that this is predominantly open, there's can that be submitted with regards to the dialogue and then we go through and say that we're okay with the four foot height?

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

So if yeah, so the same way as adding caps if the applicant does state that they're doing predominantly open, that could be included in a motion for the clear vision.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

Also, just to touch on the point that he made, yes, if that is a retaining wall, it does not count against him.

Um obviously he's still over the N C D standard and the clear vision standard of three feet, but if he's saying that that's a retaining wall, that one foot does not count against him.

Uh one question I have is so from the absolute corner, if you go back one panel, uh and let's just say that those panels weren't there at all, would he meet clear vision?

Which panels, I'm sorry?

Like from the hard corner at West Craig uh and the side road, there's a there's a there's a single post and then there's a there's this is a panel uh that goes in either direction from the hard corner.

So if you have a sketch, you can yeah, that right there.

That first yeah, the one that's actually at the there you go, that one that you're you're singling on.

If you go back one panel to the left, you know, behind and then to the right, and if there was no fence there at all, would that meet the clear vision?

If there's no fencing within that 25 foot area.

Well, that's what I'm asking you is what we don't have those methods.

The applicant is talking about getting rid of potentially a panel and replacing it with predominantly open.

So if we were to read the motion and say that uh you know, clear vision was approved uh, you know, if a predominantly open fence was provided in that area, would one panel be sufficient to meet that area?

But again, just going back, a predominantly open fence is still against clear vision.

So it doesn't I mean I get it that there's some more visibility there, but it would still go against the clear vision.

It does, but I I thought I heard that we could read into the motion that a predominantly open fence was present in the sub in that clear vision area as a means of a as it's right.

Yeah.

If the applicant amends our area, if he amends the application.

I think what you're saying is the old the area that uh Joel was pointing at is the only thing that's going into the clear vision, I believe.

Is that correct, Joel?

That's the front fence, uh the one that you pointed at?

That's the only part.

Wouldn't the front that front corner fence also need to be?

There's a better picture that we can bring up and there's one where you're looking at an angle with a fence there.

And maybe it was the picture that we were looking at being projected that I'm confusing the.

So I guess you know, I guess I would ask the question, if it is, you know, whatever the distance is, you know, that's required for uh the f the 25 feet.

So that's required for the clear vision.

So if so whatever the distance is.

The picture, yeah, this one right here.

So if you take if you take one panel in each direction and it was replaced with a predominantly open fence, um or let's just for purposes of of discussion, if there was no fence there at all, would that be enough to meet clear vision?

I I don't know where the 25 puts you, I guess is one.

Yeah.

I mean, obviously this is within clear vision.

I don't know if the other side is also within clear vision off top of my head.

Okay, because where I'm going with this is is that uh I would suggest reading the motion so that so that um right now he's short 14 foot eight inches, but how long is that panel?

Is that an eight-foot panel between the posts?

I mean I I'd be willing, uh I think it would be appropriate to go down to a 10-foot variance and then just saying anything in that area should be predominantly open if the applicant was willing to amend his application.

But that's just my two cents.

What what is a what is is there any uh anything from the commission that any questions regarding that at all?

Well, I guess going to be so what was your intention?

I guess you were talking about uh what did you discuss with the community with regards to putting in um we'll say the metal fencing behind those two slats?

How far back were you gonna go?

Were were you planning on doing it?

The entire front.

So the entire front?

The entire front.

I was gonna change the whole, keep it all visible.

Okay.

And then and potentially one panel going back towards the um uh or I guess one section going back towards uh your um gazebo, or or were you gonna leave the front completely clad?

No, I'm I'm gonna open it all up for you guys.

So all I'm doing is I'm just I'm keeping the top and the bottom, and this is all gonna be visible throughout the entire front fence going.

Across the whole thing.

Okay.

So then so I think from that perspective, then I think it's just really a dialogue for predominantly if he if he's going to submit it from predology open, then I think we're covered.

Yeah.

I mean, what do you does anyone else have any commentary?

I personally it's it's there it doesn't bother me except for the clear vision.

I mean that's my thing.

Yeah I'm trying to limit what I'm sorry.

Well I mean if if the neighbor association is fine with everything he's done and all the neighbors seem to be fine with the exception of the clear vision I I'd hate for him to get rid of all that wood fence that everyone seems to be happy with.

I'm just trying to figure out what's the minimum that he could do to make the clear vision happy.

Well to me it would be the 25 feet.

You know so that so I and so if he complies from that I think we're good um whatever that distance is and then he can choose from there to do as much of the fencing as he chooses you know so we can read the motion as saying that um uh a violation we can read the motion as read but it's just a predominantly open fence.

That's where I was going.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sounds like a plan.

Is there any voicemails well predominantly as submitted by the applicant or the applicant amended his application for predominantly open.

Is there voicemails?

It's two voicemails.

Okay.

Before we go to the voicemails, are you willing to amend your application to include predominantly to provide a predominantly open fence in the clear vision area.

Absolutely okay I had a question.

Yes Commissioner Zoom I'm just curious as to who the fence contractor and who the contractor was that was building the connection between the house and the garage it was myself.

Yourself okay so now you know that there's a building permit requirement to the city now right and anything that if we do approve this variance is um a permit will need to be pulled for the wall absolutely the voicemails good afternoon.

This is Charles L Cotrail C O T R E L L I'm a owner of properties and I live at 508 West Craig Place.

I am Paulin concerning case number B is boy O is an orange A is an Albert dash 25-1030146.

I would like to record that I am in favor of the request for um before the Board of Adjustment uh made by the property owner at 436 Craig Place my phone number is 2105084596.

Again I favor the uh recommend approval to the Board of Adjustments of the request made by the owner at the who resides at 436 Craig Place.

Thank you very much my name is Francisco Solis my address is 701 West Russell Plate.

I am calling in regards to a case for 436 West Craig plate.

The last three digits are one four six I'm calling to support uh my neighbors um ability or desire to build their fence I have no objection whatsoever to their private defense um thank you very much should you need any information please call me at 210 3793438 again this is um a call regarding 436 West Craig plate uh case num last two digits of the case number one four six um I'm calling in favor of allowing him to build his fence I have no opposition thank you all right so if there's no other questions I am looking for someone to read a very long motion it's a double Commissioner Manna So regarding case number BOA 25103 00146 I move that the board adjustment grant the request for one a seven foot nine inch variance from the minimum required 13 foot rear setback to allow a primary structure with a 5 foot three inch rear setback abutting a 14 foot alley and two a 14 foot eight inch variants from the minimum 25 foot corner clear vision to allow a 10 foot four inch corner clear vision using utilizing a predominantly open fencing as amended by the applicant situated at 436 Craig place appearing being uh Michael Reynolds because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the rear setback, the historical, the historically established reduced rear setback of 5'3 inch remains adequate for the maintenance of the structure and would not imp uh impact fire safety or water runoff hazards.

For the clear vision, the reduced corner clear vision would not create uh potential risk for uh actually the clear the not the reduced the yeah, I guess the reduced clear corner vision would not create a potential risk for trace uh for traffic safety as the intersection of West Craig Place and Breedon Avenue because of the uh allowing or for because of the installation of permanently open fencing.

Um, due to special conditions or little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the rear setback, the garage has been in place since uh 1988, requiring compliance with the rear setback memes would necessitate demolition of the garage and thus eliminate its intended use.

And with regards to clear uh corner clear vision, the fence would have to be installed further from the corner, thereby reducing the usability and functionality of the front yard.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as regarding the rear setback, sufficient spacing between neighboring properties will be maintained, and the presence of the alley also increases the separation of the rear lot.

And regarding corner clear vision, uh the visibility for traffic safety uh will not be obstructed at the intersection given that the applicant has committed to putting in um predominantly open fencing.

Uh four, the variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which this variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants have not substantially injured the appropriate use of adjacent forming property or alter the central character of the district in which this property is located as regarding the rear setback connecting it to the primary residence in to form a single structure would not encroach on the rear property line and will preserve adequate separation for maintenance access, water runoff, and fire safety.

And with regards to corner clear vision, the predominantly open fence would not obstruct clear vision at the intersection as been indicated by the applicant.

Um, the plight of the owner property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which this property is located.

Regarding the rear setback, there is sufficient room to the rear of the property for water runoff, fire safety and maintenance of the structure.

And with regards to clear corn uh corner clear vision, the property owner uh would have to install a fence further from the corner, thereby reducing the usability and function of the front yard.

End of motion.

Second.

Thank you, my commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Manna.

So I think uh you know uh with the applicant committing to the probably open fence, um, the the rest of the community as well as the neighborhood association um concurs with with everything that you've done.

So with that regards, I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with my colleague for all those reasons.

There are any other commissioners like to add.

Hearing none have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnieath.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair O'Reilly.

And I concur with the findings of the fact.

Motion passes regarding the variances.

And just so and just so you know that was what we discussed for that 25 feet from the corner.

Um, because you amended your application, we're looking for a predominantly open fence.

If you want to do more than that, I guess you're more than welcome to, but the minimum is for that corner clearance area.

Uh, the next variance is for the fence height.

Regarding case number BOA 251030146, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for one, a three-foot special exception from the maximum two-foot N C D privacy fence standard to allow a five-foot privacy fence, and two, a seven-foot-five-inch special exception for the maximum two-foot NCD privacy fence standard to allow a nine-foot-five-inch privacy fence limited to six foot two inches in width for a front entrance.

Situated at 436 West Craig Place, applicable being Michael Reynolds because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical care of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that a, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit purpose of the chapter, as the five-foot privacy fence with a nine-foot gate entrance would not disrupt the visual character of the neighborhood.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served as the increased height does not reduce visibility or pose a risk to vehicle safety in the intersection of West Craig Place and Breden uh Breedon Avenue.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use as the taller fence still remains openness, maintains openness and visual continuity of the street.

D, the special exception will not alter the central character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought as.

The increased fence height promotes visual harmony along the neighborhood block face.

And E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district, or the regulations here and established for the specific district as the increased fence height enhances safety and privacy while preserving the visual openness of the property and the gate entrance complements the historic design of the home.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Manna.

And question for the group here.

So we did read it for the uh the full height with regards to the height, but there is the exception with regards to the block face up.

So should everything be reduced by a foot with regards to the fence itself, or just leave it like it is.

And I'm open for amendment there.

Okay, so yeah, you know, I looked at the I looked at the picture where uh has five feet, but it also looks like above the retaining part, that sure looks like four feet.

I mean, I would just keep it the way it's well so by reading it so reading up the way it is would allow him potentially to lift it another foot if he wanted to.

And that's why I was No, I mean the wood portion of that fence looks like it's already four feet.

I uh uh that's what I'm saying.

I I I get that that's the height of the fence.

However, by reading it the way that we've read it, would allow him to actually replace a fence and put a one-foot taller fence in the future, I believe.

Is that that?

Oh, I see what you're saying because he's saying you the wood fence that you built now from the absolute ground is four feet tall, or is it a little bit more than four feet tall?

No, four feet.

I mean, I would make it six inches.

I mean, I'd I would give him I would change it to two and a half foot instead of three, just uh I don't know.

So do you understand the question we're asking?

So so generally we would we you know so I don't necessarily disagree with what it is that we're talking about, but we tried to make sure that as we give it, we're keeping protecting the community as well as yourself.

And so the question is we want to give you whatever it is that you're looking for with regards to that height.

And so if we said uh um two foot six inches, that would still give you enough space to put your fence in and maintain the height.

So what happens is when we give you a variance, it's forever.

It's tied to the house forever.

Whether you you knock the fence down or whatever.

So it's it's uh we don't we don't want to ever do more than what you're looking for.

And because you get credit for the retaining part of it, um we we you theoretically could make your fence a foot taller if we read it the way it is.

But if we do it at two foot six, I I would feel better because we don't have an absolute measurement.

So I'll accept two foot six and just all of the dialogue accordingly.

Commissioner Braggman?

I accept.

All right, so the motion is for a two foot six variance to the um to the to the requirement to allow a four and a half foot tall fence.

Let's have a roll call vote.

And also I just kind of wanted to clarify it's not exactly forever.

You have to build or submit an application within a year of this.

He's already built it.

I know, he's already built it.

His will be forever.

I'm not going anywhere.

But thank you.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

I concur.

Commissioner Ibannath.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can give the findings of fact motion passes.

If you haven't had any questions, you can get with staff, but congratulations.

Thank you so much, guys.

Thanks for going easy on me.

Question for staff.

So can you explain the thing?

So it's not forever.

Well, it wasn't built yet.

If it wasn't built or if he wanted to rebuild, it would have to be within a year.

Or yeah, within a year of y'all's motion.

The permits have to be applied for after the permit says applied for the then it's VM.

We do get a lot of things that are built already.

So since it is built already, you shouldn't have that issue.

Yeah.

Item 12.

Item 12 is case BOA-25-1030152, the address being 143, 145, and 147 Forest Avenue in Council District 5.

The applicant is Anthony Almaraz.

This is a request for a half story variance with the maximum excuse me, a half story variance from the maximum 2.5 stories to allow the development of a three to allow the development of three single family homes built to three stories in height.

The zoning is IDZ1.

The subject property is generally located between Nogolito Street and South Florida Street along Forest Avenue.

A request was received in November 2022 to change this property zoning designation from R5 residential single family to IDZ1 limited intensity infill development zone to build three new homes at a proposed height of 2.5 stories.

Amendments to the UDC, which took effect on January 1st, 2023 updated the definition of a half story.

When applied to this proposed construction, the three proposed new homes at the subject property would be three stories in height under the new half story definition.

Because the maximum allowable height for residential buildings in IDZ1 districts is 2.5 stories, a variance to the maximum allowable building height is required to proceed with the proposed construction design.

Shown here is a proposed site plan for this construction.

This is what was approved by council for the IDZ change of zoning.

And an aerial view of the existing property.

And shown here is the current view of the subject property and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the building height variance.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030152 based on the following findings of fact.

One, homes in the immediate surrounding area are built no taller than a single story in height, and two, the essential character of the limited infill development zone would be substantially altered.

Staff mailed 41 notices, six were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and the Collins Garden Neighborhood Association is opposed.

Shown here are the signatures received by the applicant in favor of the construction.

And shown here is the opposition by Collins Garden Neighborhood Association.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, I have a question about this.

So I know when you said that the half-story half-story definition changed, is he attempting to put something on the third level that is not uh full blown the size of the ground below it, but it's somewhere between half and or has it got a flat roof or is it got a little bit of a so I can go to pull up a photo of what exactly it looks like.

We do have those renderings.

I should have included that in the presentation, but at the time when it was proposed at IDZ, it was fell under the definition of a half story.

Um it's just currently those permits have not been uh issued yet.

Uh under the current standard, the new definition, it does not meet it.

Let me pull up that photo.

Yeah, elevations are important, I think in this dialogue.

So the reason I ask is you know, when somebody wants to do a full third story, they would do IDZ two.

They wouldn't do IDZ one.

So if if this went through city council in 2022 and they had uh a detailed you know planning and all this stuff, I mean I'd I don't know why they're not grandfathered because I don't know.

Shown here is the proposed elevation.

Okay.

Well it looks like it's a full level.

Yeah, so it's so that's doesn't even look like a two and a half.

Yeah, at the time it it did qualify as a because of the vagueness in the in the old definition of a half story, it did qualify as a uh this was a two and a half story construction at the time with the updates to it to make that definition of a half story more clear uh and to meet more uh the intention of the code.

Um you know, obviously this wouldn't qualify because it is you know much more closer to a full third story here, what is being proposed.

So um besides the wedding cake dialogue, um I guess with the new UC, so what is the uh footprint on the third floor or the the the top level um what is that max amount, I guess um sands will say that the wedding cake solution is it 50 percent of the top floor?

Y'all that's uh um the wedding cake obviously has to be um within the setback.

Um I don't think there's any room for the wedding cake approach on this one.

Is that what you're asking?

Well, uh well, I guess we're so part of the notion, you know, was trying to clarify one was that the visual the visual uh the visuals of the the abutting properties was kind of the whole dialogue as uh as we're going through that UDC UDC discussion to talk about those the stories there.

And then the question was we also included um a percentage around um in that wedding cake design to say here's what would be what you would have to meet for that third layer.

And so so because there's two dialogues here.

One is could you push it all the way so it's not necessarily wedding cake, but you still have uh what's currently um zoned as that as that second story.

Um so if we met that criteria that may sway somebody here in that dialogue if that makes sense.

So I've got the definition up for the newer 2023 update.

Um the utmost story containing space completely within a sloping roof or um springing from the top plate of the story below and broken only by dormers.

Or a flat roof where the top or the um half story is set back 20 percent of the depth from all opposing walls.

So in the previous definition, you couldn't do a flat roof.

Well, no, actually the old way that the we would regulate this is basically we would just look at what your footprint is on the first floor.

And anything on that top floor is as long as the livable space was under 50 percent.

So it didn't matter what it looked like on the outside.

And the other issue is is that uh uh I'm kind of concerned with.

So I pulled up the city ordinance that actually changes the IDZ1, and on the side plan it says two and a half stories.

Is that something that we're allowed to do if if council approved this as a condition of the zoning?

Are we even allowed to go there?

So like the buffer previously, this is what was um this is what is permitted, um, and that's why it's on the site plan.

It's nothing that was added on by city council.

So that so even though council approved this with the restriction of it being two and a half stories, we're allowed to deviate.

Right.

The two and a half stories uh is an IDZ one restriction, not something that was put in by council.

Okay, I understand.

All right.

That makes that clears that out.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure we're even allowed to talk about it.

But okay.

Um let's have the applicant come forward.

And one thing that that uh as part of your presentation that I would like to hear is uh IDZ one does require a five-foot setback.

And so whatever it is that you're building, is the entire structure going to be set back five feet because this board does has previously heard that that um a projecting an entire level two feet out from the from the foundation is not an architectural feature and cannot project into the five-foot setback.

So just kind of be aware of that.

We're we're we're wanting to hear some commentary on that.

So go ahead.

Yes, sir.

Uh Anthony Almanas, uh so I'd like to just start from the very maybe beginning, if that's possible.

I know I I think I'm the last one, so just give me some grace in it.

And I think this whole case is uh just a little bit of grace.

So is there any way you can show the email threads when I uh started this process?

So uh new to the rezoning replatting, but you know, this was a whole process that I had to go through uh in order to finally get this finalized.

Part of that rezoning and replatting uh was getting with uh Mr.

Bustamante, we ended up walking the whole neighborhood because from that understanding the neighborhood was actually against it.

So Mr.

Bustamante and myself uh we actually walked and talked to each neighbor.

Um I have some old signatures that was actually part of an approval letter.

But um and we made some changes uh based on and originally we had a garage, uh and then from that garage, uh, you know, I I think some of the concerns uh was parking.

So we ended up changing the parking.

Uh we ended up changing the parking uh from having a garage, I got with the architect, and then we ended up making that a carport.

Uh from that, uh I think is when we got neighborhood approval uh going door to door, Mr.

Mr.

Bustamantes will uh was able to see and talk to the people that were apparently opposed, but once they saw that we made those changes and made sure that we rectified the concerns of the neighborhood, um I think that's where we started getting the approval.

Now, starting from this, I think that's where the confusion maybe starts taking place on on my part.

So forgive me on uh my negligence.

But um in this, this is kind of just the the first dialogue.

So it says right now there is nothing in the UDC that defines a half story.

The criteria we spoke about yesterday and the half story being determined based on the square footage of the ground floor enforced by our department.

However, one of the UDC amendments to be passed January 1st, 2023 seeks to clearly define the half story.

The plans as they exist are out of compliance with what will constitute as a half story when it comes to uh time to pull the permits.

So the structures will in turn be out of compliance with the height requirements of the IDZ uh one base zoning district.

So what we need to do uh to keep everything moving forward is keeping IDZ one for three units and get the ball rolling on the site work permits before January 1st, 2023.

You need to put this site plan permit application in before these UDC amendments go into effect.

That way you have a 22 uh 2022 permit application and all is in compliance.

And this was the current plans that we had at that time.

At that current time, it was half um half the story of the first floor for the third story.

Uh so at that time the the plans worked and they they they were good.

The attached site plan is good to submit for the application in a regular zoning development scenario.

This is definitely putting uh the cart before the sorry, this is a little far for me to read uh before the horse in that the site work permit will get flagged for zoning reviews as the pro uh properties are zoned to SF.

But with these amendments, it's just the way this has to go.

Also, yesterday I told you that when IDZ-based zoning district is replatted, all replatted lots need to be in compliance with IDZ setback regulations.

This is the way it works with other zoning uh designations, but IDZ is a special district, so the setbacks as you have them are fine whether you re-plat uh the lot into three individual properties for sale or keep uh keep it is uh you know keep it as one.

So I think that's kind of the whole point of that.

Um we can go into the second one.

And it says sorry about the confusion.

I actually I think that's important.

Even she recognized can you scroll up one more time?

I probably should have read that last one.

Um but I just want to clarify because I know yesterday you left thinking the only option was to replat into one lot and go with the management company.

Sorry about the confusion.

And then she's you know letting me know if there's any confusion.

Next one, and this gets a lot quicker, so I'm not gonna have her have to read a lot.

Uh hi, hi Ann, thanks so much for your time yesterday and all the information you have been able to provide.

How do we or how do you move forward with this submission?

Can we do this with you?

So this is what I'm now trying to figure out okay.

Well, how do we submit this to be able to get approved if we're at a deadline uh for my understanding that we have to move forward before these laws or changes, not laws, but um, you know, uh make make effect, right?

So then we can go to the next one.

Um and then I didn't get a response.

So, you know, I'm trying to, you know, again, uh move forward so we can we can be good on this process.

Hello, uh uh hello, just following up again.

Not sure if you received my previous email, wanting to see if there is anything that is needed to be done on our end.

And then and that's December 13th.

Uh she replies December 13th.

Hi, Anthony, sorry for the delay in my response.

Nothing is needed on this end for tomorrow's planning commission.

So in my thought process, hey, nothing's needed, we're good to go.

But again, maybe I'm needing to clarify and and read a little bit deeper.

Are you talking about the planning commission for the plan?

No, because that you wouldn't go to these.

This is about the land use plan.

No, this is during his rezoning process and he needed to do a plan amendment.

Oh, plan amendment.

Okay.

So this has to do with the half story is what all this is referring to because she's saying in order to make sure that I'm good and I don't have any issues with the half story, that has to get moving forward.

I'm asking what what do I need to do and what do I need to submit in order for me to make sure that I'm good and I don't have any issues with this half story with the changes that are going to be happening on the 2023.

So from these emails, that's what I'm trying to just showcase.

Okay.

But zoning isn't a permit.

Zoning is platting could be a permit, but zoning is not.

So him going to the basically what we were trying to what it sounds like is that we were trying to stay if you go ahead and get started with that site work permit that you would be um reviewed under 2022 regulations.

And so I am it looked like there was a miscommunication here because he was thinking he was asking about how do I get that started, but she was still under the impression he was asking specifically for zoning.

So he should have applied for a site work permit and then worked on the zoning and planning.

Right during this before it became dormant or something.

That is correct.

Okay.

So that's all right.

All right, go ahead.

Okay.

So um and then she says staff is recommending approval for the planned amendment item tomorrow, so hopefully the item remains on the consent agenda.

However, you should be prepared to come tomorrow to present the item and answer any questions, the commissions, you know.

We're recommending approval.

I had to get with the architect, you know, obviously have some some changes, things along that sort.

Um so I I I believe that I'm good.

So you know that's why I'm saying, hey, if we can have maybe a a little bit of grace in this case, because uh again, I think there's just confusion, you know, in this whole process.

Um and then uh you know, then then it kind of explains you know the next steps on everything.

But I have uh you can kind of go to the other um we can get out of the emails unless we want to continue going through that.

I mean there uh there's more emails, but that's kind of the consensus, so I'm not holding you all up.

And then you know the the plans um, you know, as we kind of scroll down, you can kind of see the foot plant uh footprint.

So everything from you know A to Z from the very beginning, everything was a step process, but part of uh the platting and rezoning was getting approval on the plans.

Plans are always a part of the approval process when it came to plat and zoning.

I had to make changes to the plan.

So I'm thinking in my head, okay, these changes in my plans is part of this whole process, and from my understanding, I'm good based on those communications based on those emails.

So, you know, it it shows that we have you know half uh the third story is half of the first uh floor according back to those regulations back in the day, those were the good uh plans that would have got approved, right uh back in the 2022.

So um and then you know, I have those other signatures.

So I went back just to make sure that hey, we're good, just you know, nothing changed recently.

Uh so I have old signatures that we can maybe show.

And then you know, that was approved back in the day uh uh based on these plans.

And then I went back recently um just to make sure, hey, are we still good with everything that we plan on doing?

Um this is a three-story structure, you know, it's well two and a half story structure.

I I think again I'm getting confused on what I call it now.

Um but but yeah, that these were the signatures um that were approved recently.

Um I don't know if we have have those that we we can maybe show.

Well, let's let's first of all the plan that we're seeing up here, is this what you want to move forward with?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um because of the definition for a half story, is it possible for us to grant variants to just the deviations to the half story and not just say three stories?

Um the reason why I ask is because you know, if his if his plan is limited to half of the floor below it and it meant the intent and spirit of what he had started to do in 2022, I always I'm not a big fan of just saying carte blanche three stories.

I'd rather say, you know, per that plan, and let's look at what the few things that it's in violation of for it being considered a half story, so we're not just giving them a whole third floor.

I don't know, that's just what I think.

So I was wanted to do some math.

And so what is the what is the square footage on the bottom floor versus a square footage of the top floor?

Do you know what that's I have those marked on you know from the architect.

Um so it'll have it should have the square footage.

I want to zoom in a little bit.

I want to see the top dimensions of the three units.

There you go.

22, 22.

Okay, what's on the far left?

Looks like 38.4.

Oh, actually, it might be 44.4.

But the the width is the same on every one.

Yeah, these are all.

You're not doing any units that stick out left.

No, they're they're all the same.

They all have uh five inch uh five, I'm sorry, five foot variants from the left and the right and rear setbacks.

Well, because IDZ1, your site has a five-foot perimeter.

As long as they're set back, not a variance.

You don't have an interior setback.

The only things of that I'm concerned about is on the west side.