Okay.

Well, we're going to go ahead and get started.

It is 106.

I call this meeting into session.

We can have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a those.

La persona could prefer escuchar esta audiencia in Spaniol.

Pass it for the part de atrás of la cabina para que les proportionemos un aparatito para escuchar.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

And let's have a roll call, please.

Commissioner Barrington.

Here.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ivana.

Here.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Commissioner Boniath.

Present.

Chair Orion.

And I'm present.

So we have nine, we uh which is minimum for a quorum.

If everyone can please stand and join me in the pledge.

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

Undergone individual.

With liberty and justice for Honor of the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One state under God one and indivisible.

All right, let the record show.

So before we proceed with today's cases, I'd like to offer a few words of explanation.

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

The 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 ask that the board members submit these announcements to me as a chair, and I will read them at the appropriate time of the meeting.

We are private citizens appointed to this board by the City Council.

The board is supported by the members of the city staff competent in the rules and regulations governing the city's zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

We only examine the facts pertaining to the release law and 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 the dis from a decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions allowed under Chapter 35 and to authorize variances from the zoning regulations required in Chapter 35.

We also serve in an advisory and appellate capacity to the Director of Development Services regarding requests for variances from regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 285.

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 fact, and every finding of 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.

The burden of proof and granting the release sought rests with the applicant.

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

Appeals from the decision of this board regarding appeals to an administrative official, special exceptions or variances, are made to the district or county court at law based on the record of these proceedings.

Appeals from the board's decisions regarding chapter 28 are made to the city council.

Please submit your presentation and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case.

Staff thank you.

Staff will begin each case 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 property within 200 feet of just subject property.

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

Upon this presentation and questions by the board, the applicant will present their request.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, so we've we're gonna get rid of some housekeeping to begin with.

We have three cases that have requested a continuance, so we're gonna knock those out.

The first one is item number two, who's requesting a continuance to October 6.

So if I can read down to the record real quick, BOA item number two BOA 251030160, request by uh Banera Cordova for a 185-foot variant for require 200 foot separation to allow a mobile food core within 15 feet of a residentially zoned or use lot located at 3803 Southwest Military Staff recommended recommending denial, requesting a continuance to October 6th, no public comment.

All right.

Uh is there a commissioner that'd like to make a motion on that?

Move to continue to October 6.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh motion passes.

Uh who was the second?

I'm sorry.

Uh Bragman.

Was there any public comment on that?

No.

Not on that one.

All right.

Um, item number five.

I'm sorry.

Uh the next item I had was item number um 10, which I have to recuse from.

So I will be looking at the real quick if you want.

Pardon me?

We can do 11 real quick.

Sure, let's do 11 real quick.

So item number 11, uh, BOA 25103100176, request by Alf uh Alfredo Enrique de la Riva request for uh 787.5 square foot variant for the NCD five standard to allow maximum accessory structure for a combined 1,500 square feet, a two-foot four-inch variant for the minimum five-foot setback to allow an accessory structure to be two feet eight inches for the property line and a two-foot nine inch variant for the minimum five-foot side setback to allow accessory structure to be two foot three inches for the western property line, and 190 foot variants, square foot variance for the maximum eight hundred uh ninety square foot to allow a 1,080 square foot detached accessory dwelling located at 703 West Rosewood Avenue.

Staff recommended denial.

Um they are requesting uh continuance to the 20th of October, and we do have two voicemails on that one.

All right, let's hear them.

Hello, my name is Cynthia Walker.

I live at 1038 West Summit Avenue.

Uh my phone number is a one-eight four eight nine two five nine nine.

I'm calling in reference to face number BOA 25-103-00176, 703 West Rosewood Avenue.

Here, Board of Adjustment Members.

By the way, I'm calling for Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association.

Here, Board of Adjustment Members.

Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association request a continuance on this case until after October 6th, when the applicant, Mr.

Alfredo, Enrique Delariba will be able to present to the residents of Beacon Hill at our neighborhood association meeting.

We understand from Miracle Mara V from DSC that the property owner agree to request a continuance to the October 20th BOA meeting, but we didn't, but we did notice this property was still on the Jenna for September 30th.

If a continuance is not granted, we respectfully ask that you deny the applicant's request for an increase to the square footage of accessory structures as well as rear size setback variances, which go against our NCD5 standards.

We would like to give the opportunity owner the opportunity to present this case to the neighborhood.

Thank you, Cynthia Walker.

Hello, my name is Robin Rogers, and I live at 702 West Rosewood Avenue.

Umber is 2107254860.

I am submitting this public comment regarding case number BOA two five-1030176 for the property at 703 West Rosewood Avenue.

I strongly oppose the variance request.

The applicant is seeking approval for massive construction.

That was illegally started by a prior owner, and knowingly remodeled by them in deliberate violation of city code.

Their remodel with a knowing disregard for the rules.

Second, approving these variances would substantially harm our neighborhood.

The requested 1,080 square foot detached dwelling and over 1,500 total square feet of accessory structures or gross over development of our single family district, creating excessive density.

Negatively impacting statement properties by blocking lighting air third.

Granting the request wouldn't set a dangerous president.

It would signal to future develop developers that they can illegally construct buildings.

And then see correct retroactive approval, undermining the video code enforcement.

And our community standards.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

That's all the public comments.

Okay.

Uh with that, they're requesting until October 20th.

Uh is there a commissioner like to make a motion?

Move to continue to October 20th.

Okay.

I have a motion by Commissioner Barrington, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor, say aye.

All right.

All yes.

Um any opposed.

Hearing none, motion passes.

The case is continue to October 20th.

I'll now passing um the gavel over to Commissioner Azuna for my recusal on item number 10.

Which approach okay?

So regarding case number 10, this is seeking a continuant as well.

I'm gonna read it to the record real quick.

Uh on number 10 BOA 251030175, request by uh KFM engineering and design for a 10-foot variant for the minimum 30 foot uh setback to allow a 20-foot rear setback located at 8338 Broadway Street.

Staff recommended approval.

Um applicant requesting a continuance to the October 20th meeting.

No public comment.

All right, all right.

Do we have a motion for continuance?

Move to continue to October 20th.

Second.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All of mine are all right.

The continuance does pass.

Let's get over a steam.

All right.

All right, it's one eighteen.

I've returned.

We're on item number one.

Item number one is case number boa-25-1030152, the address being 143-145 and 147 Forest Avenue in Council District 5.

The applicant is Anthony Almaras.

Let's just wait a second.

Um, we are gonna have 11 soon.

And in about an hour estimate.

I'm thinking about going to the approvals first and hitting the denials uh until we have a full board.

Uh the next uh I apologize for those uh if that was your case, but uh what happens is is that we have to have nine votes, so there's ten people seated.

Uh so anytime staff is recommending a denial, we usually like to have a full board just to give that benefit to the applicant.

So we're gonna move to item number three, uh located at 116 Rose Lane, where staff is recommending approval item number three is BoA-25-1030165, located at 116 Rose Lane in Consul District 3.

The applicant is Jose Eduardo Flores Garido.

A request for one uh 1,101 square foot variance from the minimum six thousand square foot lot size to allow development on a four thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine square foot lot, and two a nine-foot variance from the minimum required fifty-foot lot width to allow a development with a 41 a 41 foot lot width.

The zone is R6.

The subject property is located between Macullah Avenue and North St.

Mary Street on Rose Lane.

According to the submitted survey map, the current lot size is 4,899 square feet and 41 feet wide, which is less than both the 6,000 square foot minimum required lot size and the 50-foot minimum required lot width as prescribed by the lot development standards of the R6 base zoning district.

Due to the substandard lot size and lot width, the applicant is requesting variances to these standards to proceed with the development of a new single family home on the property.

Alternatively, the applicant may request a change of zone into the R4 base zone and district and lot development standards, which are more consistent with the existing lot dimensions.

And this is a site plan.

Um submitted by the applicant highlighting the lot size and the below minimum lot width.

This is a historical view of the property.

Now that separated the property to the left from the subject property.

And now the current view.

And the surrounding area, this is another substandard lot size.

And a V downros lane.

Stats recommendation for the minimum lot size and lot width variances are an approval in BOE-25-1030165 based on the following findings of fact.

The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as similar developed substandard lot sizes were observed on a neighborhood lock face.

And two, the property will maintain all other lot development standards, including minimum setback requirements of the R6 zone and district.

36 notices were mailed, one received in favor, and zero in opposition.

We received no response from Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association or the San Antonio District One Resident Association.

And this is the response received in support.

This concludes Task's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello.

Hello.

My name is Alexei Contreras.

He's Eduardo Rosales.

And basically, yeah, she say everything while we're looking for trying to build a nice home.

And just for approval of the variance of the lot.

Okay.

And it's going to be a single family home.

All right.

Uh just uh the only question I had was uh was there an existing existing home there before?

Ex Construction?

No, was there ever a home there previously?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Hearing none, is there anyone signed to speak or voicemails?

No public comment.

Well, that's easy.

Uh is there any uh commissioners like to make a motion on this?

Fragment.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030, no 00165.

I'm in the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a one hundred one thousand one hundred one square foot variance from the minimum six thousand square foot lot size to allow development on a 4,899 square foot lot, and two, a nine-foot variance from the minimum required 50-foot lot width to allow development with a 41-foot lot width situated at 116 Rose Lane.

Applicant being Jose Eduardo Flores Garrido, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we've determined show 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 one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The variance will preserve the neighborhood character by adhering to all other lot development standards, including setback requirements.

At 45 41 foot wide, the lot is sufficiently large to accommodate driveway access and usable front yard space.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

The ordinance would prevent reasonable development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding area, despite the proposed home complying with the minimum setback requirements and other lot development standards.

Three, by granting the variance sphere of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

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 conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The lot size and width are reasonably sized to develop the proposed single-family home while maintaining adequate separation from adjacent properties for the purpose purposes of maintenance, access, walk, water runoff, and fire safety.

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

Staff finds that the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

That's the narrow width of the lot limits the ability to meet the minimum score of footage required by the R6 zoning district.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Brackman.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion.

Uh the fact that it's going to meet all the uh side and rear front setbacks.

Uh there's no opposition from uh neighbors.

Um as always, we're trying to make sure that any uh empty lots are being utilized, so this is a small variance request.

Commissioner Benavides.

I agree with uh Colleen Brackman uh for all the same reasons.

I will be supporting this motion.

All right.

If there's any other commissioners who would like to add yeah, Commissioner Barriton.

Um this might be uh conclude as a friendly amendment.

Uh I just want to point out that the first bold sentence under number three needs to be a complete okay.

Um is there a suggestion uh that you would like to offer?

Um fission separation will remain between property.

Commissioner Braggman.

Accepted.

All right.

Uh is this and the second Commissioner Benavides.

Is that accepted?

Accepted.

All right.

So thank you very much.

Uh let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Yes, I would concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Stephen.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonith.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vith.

I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur.

So motion passes unanimously 10 to 0.

Uh, the next item that has a full approval is item number five.

Item number four is BOA-2.

Five.

Oh, sorry.

So it's okay.

Item number five is BOE-25-103-00168 addressed at 118 Park View Drive in Consul District 3.

The applicant is Annalisa Alvarado.

She is requesting one, a 250-foot square foot variance from the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size to allow development on a 4,750 square foot lot, and two, a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 45-foot lot width to allow a development width of 38 lot width, 38-foot lot width.

The zone is R5 in the historic mission district.

The subject property is located within the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association and is generally bonded by the San Antonio River to the west and north and mission road to the east along Park View Drive.

According to Connie Records, the lot is 4,750 square foot in size and 38 feet wide, which is less than the 5,000 square foot minimum required lot size and the 45 foot minimum required lot width to develop within the R5 base zoning district.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family home on the property.

Alternative lead the applicant may request a change of zone into the R4 base zone and district and lot development standards, which are more consistent with the existing lot dimensions.

This is a summary provided by the Office of Historic Preservation.

This property is located within the mission historic district.

Any exterior modifications or new construction will require approval from the Office of Historic Preservation.

Approval of a site plan or material submitted as part of advanced application does not supersede any requirements for design review outline in Article 6 of the Unified Development Code.

On June 4th, 2025, the Historic and Design Review Commission approved the request for new construction on the vacant lot located at 118 Part V drive.

All stipulations from the HDRC continue to apply.

And this is the site plan provided by the applicant with park view to the north and highlighting the lot width and the minimum lot size.

This is a historical view from 2007.

The property was undeveloped as far back as 2007.

And this is the current view.

And the surrounding area along Park View.

Staff's recommendation for the minimum lot size and lot width variances.

Staff recommends approval in BOE-25-103-00168 based on the following findings of fact.

The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the neighborhood block face is predominantly comprised of substandard lot sizes.

And two, the property will maintain all other dimension regulations and setback require requirements of the R5 zone industry.

Twenty-seven notices were mailed.

Received one in opposition, but Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association is in support.

And this is the support for the neighborhood association.

And this was received in opposition.

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

Thank you very much.

I understand there's a voicemail on this one.

I'd like to hear that first, please.

Morning.

That's in regards to the K 168.

And basically, we we believe that such modification rates by the owner of the Lord 118 Park View Drive will negatively affect existing homes in the German area.

So we request that your unit boundaries of the lots be preserved in order to maintain the safety and and value of the surrounding property.

And I sorry, you know, defined by the CD.

So I think that's all that we have to say about it.

Thank you so much for your attention.

How wonderful date.

In this case, we are in opposition of the modification of this case.

I wonderful date.

Bye-bye.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Please state your name and tell us about your project.

Analisa Alvarado, I'm the homeowner or I'm sorry, property owner of 118 Park View Drive.

Uh, and I'm basically requesting the variance for the um approval for the build of a primary residence.

All right.

Uh so I'm gonna start off with a couple questions.

Are you honoring all the setbacks?

Yes.

Okay.

I also notice that your lot is comprised of a whole lot and then like 12 feet or some odd of a of a lot next to you.

Yes, so in theory, you could be plotted.

Yeah, in theory, you can actually build on the one lot you have and ignore the rest of it, which seems ridiculous.

But uh, I did want to ask according to some of the pictures I'm seeing online.

Uh is this a predominantly zero lot neighborhood?

Like are there homes that are really close to their property lines, which may not be apparent because they're all parts of other lots.

And that's what I was noticing because you'll be one of the handful of people who actually have setbacks on both sides of your house.

Okay.

Any questions for the commission?

Fragment.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um, I notice on the current view that there's three rather large trees in the front of the property.

Are you planning on keeping those?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to uh have it have any questions?

Uh hearing none, thank you very much.

Um is there anyone sign up to speak?

No other public comment.

All right.

Well, then with that, I'm looking for a motion.

All right, I'll move it.

Commissioner Barrington.

Uh, regarding case number BOA 20-25-1030168.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant the request for one of 250 foot uh square foot variants from the minimum five thousand square foot lot size to allow development on a 4750 square foot lot, and two a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 45-foot lot width to allow a development with a 38-foot lot width situated at one eight Parkview Drive, the applicant being Annalisa Alvarado, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Staff finds this request is not contrary to the public interest as the applicant will preserve the neighborhood character by adhering to all other lot development standards.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Literal enforcement would prevent reasonable development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding area.

Despite the proposed home complying with the minimum setback requirements and other lot development standards.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

Granting the variance would support the spirit of the ordinance, which is to provide sufficient separation between properties with minimum lot size width and setback requirements.

The applicant intends to observe all other requirements of the R5 zoning, yesterday.

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

No other uses than 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 essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The lot size and width are reasonably sized to develop the proposed single family home while maintaining adequate separation from adjacent properties for the purposes of maintenance access, water run, as far as safety.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds the plight of the owner for which the variances are sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, as the narrow width of the lot limits the ability to meet the minimum square footage required by the R5 zoning district.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brackman, Commissioner Barrington.

This is as simple and straightforward a case as they come.

And so the owner has the right to develop the property.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bragman.

I agree with my colleague.

In addition, the applicant is planning on keeping the trees that are existing on the property.

And we are always looking for lots to be developed.

So yeah, I'll be in support.

All right.

And I just wanted to add that it looks like you also already have an existing water service in the ground already for a house.

So I'll be in support as well.

So let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Barrington?

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibame.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner is there not?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vafka?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

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

All right.

Next item that has listed a full approval is item six.

This is at 7802 Farland Park Drive.

Afternoon.

Item number six being BOA-25-1030 170, address being 7802 Farland Park Drive within City Council District 7, applicant being Israel Garcia.

Requesting a request for a 1-foot 6-inch special exemption from the maximum six-foot solid fence to allow a 7-foot six-inch privacy fence in the side and rear yard zoning being R6.

The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Cedar Park and Farland Park Drive, just north of Prue Road.

Court enforcement investigations of the site began in August of 2025 when a notice of violation was issued to the property owner for building without a permit, a privacy fence over six feet in height.

Prior to issuance of a building permit for the as built fence, the owner must obtain a special exemption to allow a privacy fence of seven foot six inch in the side and rear yard.

The fence was built along the southern and eastern property lines, which abut a vacant lot and the cedar park right away.

The owner does not intend to construct similar fencing along the western property line, which is shared within another residential use.

The subject property fencing there on the subject property.

More photos of the surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation for the fence height special exemption is approval in BOA-25-103017 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed special exemption will add privacy and security to the subject property.

Two, the fence height special exemption will now alter the essential characteristics of the juristrict district in which the property is located.

We mailed out 22 notices, one in favor, zero in opposition, and no registered neighborhood association within those two hundred feet.

Notice and support.

And that's concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

And just to verify the request is solely for the taller fence along the green space in the back and along the Cedar Park Street.

Correct.

Okay.

Just want to make sure.

All right, thank you.

Let's have the applicant go forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your fence.

Uh well, I'm Israel Garcia.

I'm the contractor for Staria Black.

Okay.

She's the owner of the fence.

And um, we were just building it.

I was uh under the oh, I had the uh home association approval she had and I was under the oppression when I started building that I had the okay, and uh that brought us in today.

So this this property is within a mandatory HOA or a non-mandatory.

Um I'm not sure.

Okay.

Uh she did have the HOA approval, and I did submit the letter from the HOA and their architect.

Staff, did you receive any documents from uh HOA?

I did not.

Okay.

Um I don't have the copy with me.

All right.

Um staff, is there is there a I know there may not be uh is this a mandatory HOA to your knowledge in this area?

No.

All right, just curious.

All right, keep uh continue, sir.

Well, um that brought us in today.

So the project was stopped, and then I came to file the uh the permit, and I found out the permit when I was filing that I was seven feet, so the minimum was six, and that brought me in for the exemption if we can have the approval.

Are you are you having a taller post or is the entire fence taller?

The taller post.

So the entire fence is seven feet, but the post went up because there's a light that goes on top of it, it went up to a half inches, which brings it to seven six.

Okay, so if if we wanted to, this uh the the commissioner makes a motion could make a motion for a seven-foot fence with seven foot six posts.

Yes, six posts.

All right.

Um is there any public comment or voicemails?

No public comment.

All right, is there any commissioner questions?

All right, hearing none.

Um, thank you very much.

We're gonna see how this turns out.

I'm looking for a motion, and I'd just like to remind that this is solely for the east side uh along the Cedar Park Street and the rear along a green belt.

Okay.

Ozuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030170.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant's request for a one-foot six-inch special exception exception for the maximum six-foot solid fence to allow a seven-foot primary fence with seven foot six inch posts on the east side uh of the of the property line, which is uh along the cedar uh what is it, Cedar Cedar Park, Cedar Park right away, and the rear, which is along the green belt, uh situated at 7802 Farland Park Drive.

Applicant being Israel Garcia because the testimony presented to us.

The facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

If granted, staff finds the request would be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance, as it would provide enhanced privacy and security for the subject property along those property lines with the with with which abut a public right-of-way to the east and a vacant property over an acre in size to the south.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

Granted, the special exception was essentially served the public welfare inconvenience as a proposed fence would provide screening from the roadway and adjacent vacant property for the subject property without a substantial change to the existing character of the immediate surrounding area.

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

The neighboring property will not be injured as a fence height, special exception, creates enhanced security and privacy for the subject and adjacent property.

The fence height will not interfere with the existing use of the property or create significant loss of light airflow or visual openness.

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

The special exception will not alter the essential character of the district or the surrounding area as the additional fence height is limited in scope and specifically situated in a location that minimizes its impact on the broader community.

And E.

The special exception will not weaken the generous purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the specific specific district.

The special exception is compatible with the existing characteristics of the name of the district, and the proposed fence placement ensures that the overall character of the of the area remains intact.

In a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yeah, so I'm going to be supporting the applicant brought in at least verbal testimony that the neighborhood association supported uh the uh the fence height.

Uh we're limiting it to seven feet with the seven foot six inch only on the poles.

Uh the area of the fence is is uh that is screening the roadway and the green belt, which is not affected by any neighboring properties, and there's no neighborhood opposition for the request.

So I am supporting the motion.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Braggman.

I agree with my colleague, I'll be in support.

All right.

Are there any other commissioners like to add?

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

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bavke.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the financy fact.

Motion passes.

Uh congratulations.

Uh the last item that we have that staff is recommending approval is item number twelve.

Good afternoon.

Item 12, B0825, 1030177.

Address is 126 West Carolina Street, Council District 1.

Applicant is Ron M.

Alvarado, AG Associates Architects.

Request for a 4 foot 11-inch variance from the minimum 5-foot site and rear setback to allow structure to be one inch from the side and rear property lines.

Zoning is IDZ 2 with uses permitted in C2 commercial district for 10 dwelling units.

Subject property is located along West Carolina, east of South St.

Mary Street, between the intersections of Marplay and Presmore.

This property's infill development zoning ordinance permits 10 dwelling units.

The applicant is requesting a 4 foot 11-inch variance to allow a structure to be one inch from the side and rear property lines.

A significant amount of space exists between the property line and the roadway.

The previous use was a nightclub named El Fandango, and the structure was demolished after February 2022.

This development will be the only structure on the block face when completed.

Here's the site plan of the property.

And this is the elevation plan provided by the applicant.

And here's the subject property.

It's the empty lot where the vehicles are.

And then the subject property from the side.

And your surrounding areas.

Staff recommends approval in BOA 25-1030177 based on the filing findings of fact.

The limited development space on the lot prevents the full use of the infill development.

And two, the variance will not alter the essential character of the district, as this development will be the sole structure on this block face.

Notification plan.

Staff note out 38 notices to return in favor for returned in opposition.

The Lavalka Neighborhood Association is in favor, and no response from the community organizations.

And here is the letter from the LaValca Neighborhood Association.

And these are the two in support.

And the following are the oppositions that we received.

And this includes staff's presentation and applicant as available.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

If you could please state your name and tell us about your project.

Yeah, Ron Alvarado with the aging associates architects.

How are y'all doing this afternoon?

We're here to uh just to explain the project that we have.

There is a 10-unit development.

It's uh comprised of one building with those 10 units.

We are following the zoning that is currently at, and we do request for that additional uh variance that that we're up here for.

Um the project is will continue to enhance the surrounding area, the type of development that has been going on, and we feel that it will bring a lot more people to the to the area, and it'll also benefit the high school, which is less than a block away.

And I think that would be really good for parents that have kids that be going to high school, and it's just a walk away from them.

So we wish to hope that we get your support for the project.

All right, let's see, uh Commissioner Bragman.

Are these going to be condominiums or rentals?

Uh condominiums.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions from the commission?

All right, so I have uh just a couple of questions.

Um was this rezoned?

I believe it was rezoned four or five years ago.

Okay, relatively fresh.

2021.

2021.

All right.

And then um, let's see here.

So off of uh Carolina Street, you do have some overhead electric, but you're honoring the setbacks at that location.

Okay.

And all right, thank you very much.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone sending the speaker voicemails?

No public comment.

Is there any uh anything else from the commission before we move on to a motion?

Uh Ivan, yes.

Commissioner Bon, yes.

Um, I'm happy to see that that vacant lot is going to be finally developed.

I grew up in that neighborhood, went to Brackenridge High School, and um I like the development that's happening around there for housing.

I think that it for our students at BRAC shows how the neighborhood is changing and the growth that is happening is in in a positive way, you know, not with bars and not with automobile repair shops, which are all along Roosevelt Avenue.

So I I really appreciate your project.

I think it's a really beautiful project.

Thank you for doing something with that vacant lot.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing none, I'm looking for a motion.

Regarding case number BOA 251030177.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a four-foot, 11-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side and rear setback to allow a structure to be one inch from the side and rear property lines.

Situated at 126, 114, West Carolina Street.

Applicant being Ron M.

Alvarado, A.G.

Associates Architects.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have 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 an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interests.

The requested one inch side and rear setback variances will not impose an increased risk of fire spread or damage from excess water runoff as the rights of way provide adequate separation from the adjacent property.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.

In this case a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as it would prevent the applicant from developing the full potential of the lot three by granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

The request appears to be in the spirit of the ordinance as the infill development can be maximized and significant space exists past the property line before the roadway.

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

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

Five such variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

If granted the proposed development will be one inch from the side and rear property lines this will not injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties nor directly affect the surrounding properties in the immediate area.

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and does not appear to be merely financial.

The limited development space on the lot prevents the full use of the infill development by Commissioner Bonias Commissioner Ivanis.

I'm going to be in support of this motion as I said earlier I'm really happy to see that that vacant lot that has been vacant for many many many years is being utilized for housing and I think it it would be a positive influence for that community.

Thank you very much Commissioner Bunnys.

I agree with my Commissioner in addition this lot doesn't really so I don't think that that really matters with that inch there.

In addition it's it's zoned IDZ so that was the the intention of this zoning was to maximize space and that's what this is doing.

All right is there any other commissioners would like to add I just want to say I'll be in support because there's uh the only electricals on the front where they are meeting the setback so I'm happy with that so let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Ibaneth I concur Commissioner Bonet I concur.

Commissioner Barrington Yes I concur.

Commissioner Stevens Commissioner Cruz I concur.

Commissioner Bragman I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Benavidez.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna Yes I concur.

Commissioner Vasquev I concur Chair Orion and I concur with the findings of fact motion passes 10 to zero congratulations should have someone joining us soon so I'm going to try to stall a little bit longer and we're going to go to the meeting schedule for next year.

Item number 13 I notice that the only two to holidays and also November just to make sure that we have some clearances between our meetings is there any Commissioner input on this on the link but um I'm sure they'll bring it up in a second there we go in January we are on the second and four

All right, there we go.

So in January, we are on the second and fourth, just so that we have uh two weeks separation between those two meetings, and then this occurs again in September, due the Labor Day holiday and then November uh just to get away from uh just to hold that two-week offset.

We had to do we had to push October, November down to the second and fourth uh Monday.

So that should give us some good separation between our meetings.

Is there any commissioner uh questions or input?

All right, hearing none, let's um looking for a motion to approve.

Oh moved.

Commissioner Barrettin has a motion, is there a second?

Second, second second, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes our calendar set for 2026.

Uh item 14, approval of the minutes from September 22nd.

I didn't have any comments.

I have any amendments.

Hearing none, we're looking for a motion.

Move approval.

Commissioner Commissioner Barrettin, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right.

Is there anyone opposed?

Just going to ask.

Hearing none, motion passes.

So we are on item number one.

No more delaying the meeting.

Uh we do have 10 seated, so we'll have to start with uh the few that are remaining where staff is recommending denial.

Pardon me?

Luckily, item number one is a continuance, so most of y'all have already been briefed on this item.

Item number one is case BOA-25-1030152, the address being 143-145-147 Forest Avenue.

In Council District 5, the applicant is Anthony Almaraz, and this is a request for a half-story variance from the maximum 2.5 stories to allow for the development of three single family homes built to three stories in height.

The zoning is IDZ1.

Use is permitted for three dwelling units.

The subject property is generally located between Nogolito Street and South Flores Street along Forest Avenue.

A request was received in November 2022 to change this property zoning designation from R5 single family to IDZ1 limited intensity infill development zone to build three new homes at proposed height of 2.5 stories.

Amendments to the UDC, which took effect on January 1, 2023 updated the definition of a half story.

And 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 the resident for residential buildings in IDZ1 is 2.5 stories, a variance to the maximum allowable building height is required to proceed with a proposed construction design.

Shown here is a proposed site plan for this development.

And the proposed elevations showing the three stories in height.

Shown is an aerial view of the subject property and its current state.

And the subject property.

And the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the building height barriers.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030152 based on the following findings.

One homes in the immediate surrounding area are built no taller than a single story in height.

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 is the support received for this request.

And the opposition received.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Commissioner Manna, this is a continuance.

Do you need anything represented or you can participate with this one?

Great.

So we do have eleven.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Anthony Elmeras.

Okay, so we're going to try this one more time.

And I want to start again with these emails, just so I can maybe bring this home one more time.

So as he's pulling that up, from this email standpoint, if this would have not been told to me that we are we are good, we're able to be moving forward, then I would have done the channels that were needed to be performed to make sure that I wouldn't be here today.

In this email, I was told, and we'll we'll go through this and and I'll read it because I want to make sure that you know I explain this in in depth.

Um but if you're told that hey, nothing is needed on your end, you would take that and understand that that hey, I've done everything on my end, I'm good to go.

If there was something that I was missing, then I wish that would have been a little bit more clear in these emails because if I realized or recognized that something was missing, then I would have made sure that I rectified it so I'm not in this position because before 2023 took effect, um, what my plans were were 100% okay.

I was okay to be able to move forward, I was okay to be able to present this project.

The half story that we're looking at that is now considered a three-story in definition before in 2022 when this was presented was permissible.

And you'll see in this email that everything was okay based upon me submitting a site plan.

And I'm gonna go ahead and start with reading this email so we can kind of understand the full context.

Uh I am going to present a lot more information because I'm here today on the steps that I had to do, but again, those steps should have never been taken place if we would just be looking at this email.

So uh it starts out, hi Anthony, and and just so I can give uh again more context.

Uh this had to do with um rezoning and replatting.

I uh previously purchased two properties, and then in purchasing those two properties, we were looking at um replatting, rezoning to make this three properties.

Uh there was a structure on one of the properties, there was like a shed on another property.

Um according to the HOA, they felt like that was a historical uh building, which I don't I don't want to explain what what that is.

You'll see in photos what that is, uh but it's nothing historical about that.

Um even though that was their thought process, and hey, don't knock this down.

I had to go all the way to city council in front of mayor, and that was able to get approved with doing site plans on construction.

So as it sits right now, that's not a concern according to HOA.

So it starts out, hi Anthony.

I wanted to follow up on our conversation from earlier this afternoon with an email because I have a few things to clarify address.

Right now there is nothing in the UDC that defines a half story.

The criteria we spoke about yesterday on the half story being determined based off the square footage on 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 that or I'm sorry, with what will constitute a half story when it comes time to pull the permits.

So the structures will in turn be out of compliance with the height requirements of the IDZ1 based zoning district.

So in other words, as it sits right now, we're good, and this is marked December 1st, right?

I have plenty of time to make sure that I need to do what I need to do.

I have a whole month before this happens.

So next sentence or paragraph, I should say.

So what uh what we need to do to keep everything moving forward is to keep the request as IDZ1 for three units and get the ball rolling on the site work permit before January 1st, 2023.

You need to you need to put this site plan permit application in before these UDC amendments go into effect.

That way you have a 2022 permit application and all is in compliance.

The attached site plan is good to submit for that application.

Again, this the attached site plan which I attached is good to submit for that application.

In a regular zoning development scenario, this is definitely putting the cart before the horse, in that the site work permit will get flagged for a zoning review as the properties are zoned SF.

But with these amendments, it's just the way it has to go.

So already this is a little unconventional.

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 zoning designations, but IDZ is a special district, so the setbacks as you have them are fine whether you replant the lot into three individual properties for sale or keep it as one.

So you just need to replot to build across the lot line.

But I just want to clarify because I know yesterday you left thinking the only option was to replant into one lot and go with the management company.

Sorry about the confusion.

And then if we can go to the next email.

Hi Ann.

Thank you so much for your time yesterday and all the information you have been able to provide.

How do you move forward with this submission?

Can we do this with you?

I'm wanting to proceed to make sure that we're good to go.

I'm asking the questions as a typical person would not know these steps.

We can go to the next one.

This is dated December 1st.

December 13th, I still haven't received an email, but I did submit a site plan.

You can see that there's CC, there's an Anne and I think that's Kelly.

So I personally sent her an email of our site plan because I have a meeting coming up.

So and again, this is for zoning and replatting, but that meeting was important to make sure that I already had my lot, uh, the plans and everything else that was going to be submitted because I'm going to end up going in front of City eventually, and they need to see what is going to end up being there.

Not just that I'm going to be re-platting.

They want to see what is going to end up being developed.

So hello, just following up again.

Not sure if you received my previous email wanting to see if there's anything that is needed to be done on our end.

Again, I'm I'm seeking now what the next steps are.

I'm not getting a response.

I'm taking initiative to be able to get those responses to make sure I'm doing what I need to do as an applicant.

So we go to the next email.

December 13th, I get a response.

Hi Anthony, sorry for the delay in my response.

Nothing is needed on this end for tomorrow's planning commission.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm good.

Nothing is needed.

I don't need to submit anything because that site plan that I sent over is the uh the thing that needs to go ahead and get looked at and get approved.

So the meeting starts at 9 a.m.

Staff is recommending approval.

I think, hey, I'm good.

I submitted the site plan over.

We're we're recommending approval.

There's nothing else that's needed on my end for 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 may have.

In the event that the item is pulled for individual consideration, you can use a link below to look at the past commission's uh commission meetings to familiarize yourself with the format.

Unfortunately, as the commissioners and my supervisors have work session tomorrow before the meeting, we will not know right until the meeting starts for sure whether or not this case will be pulled.

But given the staff's recommendation and the lack of opposition for this case, I would say you are in great shape.

You would uh you would like if you would like any visual presentations ready, please let me know.

And I will have your site plan ready just in case also.

This is a site plan that I'm referring again that I had submitted.

And this is what was needing to be submitted in the previous emails to make sure that I'm not here today, right?

So as far as I'm concerned, as I'm reading these things, I'm doing everything in my power that needs to happen.

Right?

We look at the next email.

December 19th, six days have passed.

Hi, Anthony.

Planning commission went great.

No worries on that.

I think everything's fantastic.

The case is scheduled for tomorrow's zoning commission meeting beginning at 1 p.m.

Even though staff is also recommending approval on on that portion, I would still come prepared for the item to get pulled for individual consideration.

The format for this meeting will be almost identical to the last meeting.

But I would expect the question to be more specific to your site plan and more geared toward the development details.

I would also definitely contact the district office and the neighborhood association before tomorrow's meeting.

They're in denial while the approval is not necessary, uh not necessarily required for the case to be approved in the end.

But it will definitely come up if there hasn't been any kind of attempt to work with them.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they attended tomorrow's meeting.

Uh let me know if you need anything.

And I ended up showing up to this HOA meeting because I wanted to make sure that I get approval of the HOA because I believe what their values and their concerns are as a neighborhood are important.

And if there's anything that needs to make make as changed, um those those changes would be made.

I don't want to jump the gun, but uh I ended up changing these site plans uh according to what the HOA's concerns were.

There's five people present in that meeting.

Uh three people had voted, and three were uh opposed to it.

Um I ended up walking with uh Mr.

John Bustamante uh in that neighborhood um after having a continuance on one of these stages as well, and Mr.

Bustamante was actually able to walk with me, and out of those three people that were opposed, I have signatures that two of them actually changed their mind and went for approval.

So if we're considering HOA, which HOA is important, right, on approval, then technically we have a swing vote because the three that were opposed, two are in favor, one is denied.

So in my recollection, that would mean HOA is an approval according to signatures and according to the people that voted.

Um also um out of the five people that attended and three people voting, I have double the amount of votes uh that asked for it being approved.

And the concern and the changes that I made to these plans after already submitting these again before 2023, is they were concerned about the parking.

I ended up changing the the the garage so we can actually fit two cars inside the property line, which is important for you know not having more traffic in the roadways.

Um there was also a concern of a three-story structure, and I have uh a lot of evidence on these three stories, but it was specifically mentioned that the person behind me wouldn't have field of view, that would probably be a hindrance, right?

So the great thing is I want to talk to these people, you know, according to what people think and the perception is, but what the reality is.

And the reality is, although that came up in context, I talked to the neighbor directly behind me, and she signed in favor of these three-story structures.

Hers her house actually takes up the full surrounding behind it.

Um so I think we can go to the next email.

I believe this might be the last one.

Thank you, Ann.

I'm confused uh what this meeting is for.

I thought the previous meeting was approved.

So I I think I think I'm good to go, right?

There's some confusion in it.

I I thought we were already approved on this.

Uh I didn't know we had to uh take it uh quite a bit further.

Hi, Anthony.

The previous meeting was for the plan amendment portion of the process.

We still have the zoning commission and then city council before the development is ultimately approved.

That was December 19th.

Um I don't have anything else after that, is that correct?

Okay.

And then we can end up looking at um what was on those those previous uh I I do want to jump into this as well, but um can you can you show from that other thread that we have?

No.

Um I think it was from like the last emails that we have the signatures that you want to show the signatures of the signatures.

Okay, this is what you're doing.

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay, so these are the signatures that we were talking about.

Um we can actually pull up uh the map as well, and if you want to maybe just uh screenshot that but 108 um actually takes up, if I'm not mistaken, yeah, 108, there's no divider there.

It takes up the whole property from 145, 143, and 147, uh, which is that.

And that one is the one that is in uh approval.

Forgive me.

Uh that's I believe the old email.

Um sorry, that's the old structure that we actually ended up having on this one.

Was it 143?

Because it's the one directly behind 108.

108, okay, sorry.

So 108, and then you know her address is right there.

Now uh according to you know uh this area um we said last time that there's not any three-story structures that are similar to this, and we don't want to end up changing uh what's present.

I actually uh drove around and marked everything on a map so we can actually see uh there's 28 three-story structures.

You can see where Forest Avenue is at, and literally we're talking a couple streets over, a few streets over, uh, just to clarify that.

All in Lone Star District.

Um and there's 28 of these uh different different setups.

So if we can maybe just slide through on all these photos.

Unfortunately, I was going to get some signatures after this.

Uh it seems like nothing is in my favor.

I was in a car accident as I was doing this.

So uh wasn't able to get any signatures, but these are all the structures, and you can see um these are quite uh bigger actually than than my uh my proposal on these.

The square footage on on these are 2800 plus square feet.

Mine would be 2,000.

We can see there was 10 over there next to Savaios Street on Simon Street, East Fest Street.

And all the way on Bank Street, we have those down there.

So I'm again, I don't want to make this about, well, is there stuff here that are maybe similar?

You know, what are we maybe looking at?

Because again, I want to go back to this email.

And the email again is the misinformation that I believe that I read that you're good and you have nothing else to move forward with.

I submitted the plan.

I do I did as I was told, and with it, I'm asking for favor as we look at this email that you're good, and I read that as we're good.

If I was told that you're not good and you need to do something else, I would have done that in which we would have been fine in the old context of a rules and regulations.

All right.

So a quick question for staff.

Um the the elevation and site plan that that that is before us today, would this have been allowable prior to 2023?

Yes, I think when we evaluated his uh his um site plan or elevation plan, we saw that it was permitted before the UDC amendment.

All right.

That's good enough for me.

All right.

Is there any uh commissioner questions for the applicant?

Manager Mana.

So maybe a question for city staff.

So so there's you know, so it was a three-step process to get here, right?

So before we got here.

And so the plan amendments uh change and zoning change.

And so I know that you know, as I recall, as it was that we did the UDC rewrite, we had a whole slew of uh developers coming in, you know, trying to make sure that they fit within the umbrella of the three-story versus two and a half story, and we're we had a lot of that going on.

And um and was there I guess when was what was required for the applicant to have turned in where he would have been saying grandfathered in, and what wasn't that piece that he turned in, I guess that that why it is that we're here today.

As Ann had stated in her first email that he needed to um submit for a site plan uh permit, which is done through plan review.

And um so that's basically what he needed to start, which he did not.

So a site plan, so um, so when did you submit your site plan?

Please well, and and if we can look back to that email, I I sent her specifically the site plan, and that's where I wasn't getting any response.

And so yeah, I it's uh but zoning turning into the zoning is not a permit, correct?

It's the site plan for the permit review, not the zoning.

Correct, yeah.

It would have had to be a construction permit application separate from the zoning.

So that is basically what the concern is.

Okay.

Your your plat is a night is a 2023 plat.

When when when was that submitted?

I'm looking.

And I'm not trying to say that turn I mean a plat is theoretically a permit when you look at you know rights and all that good stuff.

But one thing that you do with a plat is that you also are turning in uh uh site plans like for the drainage submittal.

So sometimes it's so the plat was submitted October 2023.

Okay.

So that was after the January 1st.

All right.

And then questions?

So then we did have di, or we we had a position on two and a half story.

So I'm trying to I was a little confused with regards to that note there of what a what a delta was between a three-story and a two and a half story.

So sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

I didn't what's the end of your question?

So I guess the question is what what was the delta between those two?

And as submitted right now, um what is what is that delta between the two and a half story?

Because he's not far from the two and a half story as far as as far as my understanding of what's going on.

Um really it's about the location of of that top story and the amount of amount that's up there, right?

So the old um interpretation for a two and a half story is as top as your top floor was only like livable space was only 50 percent of the bottom floor.

So it didn't matter if you had walls to the edge.

Um, basically as long as your livable space, and that's including just your bedrooms, any living spaces, it's not including bathrooms or uh hallways, those kind of items, they were not part of that living space.

So as long as the living space though was less than half 50 percent of the bottom floor or the floor underneath it.

I'm not exactly certain.

Whereas now the current code is you have to bring in walls on the sides and um still meet that 50 percent on the floor underneath it.

Bring in 20 percent, and then you also cannot have a terrace.

Correct.

You could not have um like your the old version would permit balconies, terraces on that top floor that is open, but no, that is not uh permitted now.

Okay.

Uh but and also I wanted to add that that while this applicant really could have pushed uh these buildings to be much more massive, because IDZ allows for a five-foot exterior, which is surrounding all three with in interior-wise, like he's showing ten feet between.

You didn't even have to do that.

Correct.

And so this is um one thing I'm noticing is is that the footprint of the structure is pretty darn small to what I usually see on IDZ.

So uh any other questions?

Commissioner Zuna.

Um so you have the support of the neighbor that abuts the rear of the property line.

Did they see the they were uh privy to the plans and the yes, sir.

First time around, and then I have their signature, and then the second time around just to confirm since we have this meeting.

And those would that would be the most affected property on the side to what you are planning.

So thank you.

All right.

Uh is there any voice?

So uh well, as a so 139 is uh buts at the other side of the property.

So so that one is going to have you know basically a wall there as well.

So but but I think you know to your point, I think that it certainly is more impactful on the 108, but that there is a 139 there.

I just got some of the first city.

Is this a historic uh in the historic district?

No, it is not.

It's because I'm noticing Collins Garden um, I guess had some issues with thinking it's historic, but it's it's not correct.

Correct.

There's no historic overlays or any N C D overlays that I see here.

Is anyone sign up to speak or voicemails?

No public comment.

All right, Commissioner Braggman.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you leaning forward to come.

Uh any other questions from the commission.

I thank you very much.

We're gonna look for a motion and see how this turns out.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I have one more for the for the Commissioner Woody Leaves actually.

Um this top story of these of these homes, um, what's what's on that top story?

Is it is it living space?

The photos that I took or of our of mine.

Uh of these of these houses when they're built, what is that third story gonna be?

Is it a Yeah, the third story uh facing uh forest?

Um that's actually just like wood cladding on that third story on the back is actually the balcony.

It's all balcony, the third story?

No, fifty percent of living space is of the first floor of the third floor.

Is that like what is happening up there?

He's asking what is happening.

Is it like a bedroom?

Is it a couple of things?

Oh yes, it's uh the master.

Master.

So it's bedroom, closet, and master bath.

Gotcha.

So if we have to alter this in any way, does it does it change that?

Right?

Yeah, it would uh we we looked at what it would be.

They gave me a mock uh to see on that y'all call it a pancake, I guess at the very top.

Um it uh literally will take take away everything um of that third story.

So you lose that bedroom.

I lose a staircase.

I can't even get up to uh the third story by changing it or altering.

Gotcha.

So you lose occupants, you lose a master bedroom, you lose a lot if we don't kind of look at it.

My my fear on this is that he would he would take these buildings to be three feet apart and make a massive you know footprint instead of thinner.

So that's the other uh item up.

When uh another question for the applicant, so I know when you were speaking with Ms.

Benavitas um going back and forth, you were kind of confused there.

Did she ever tell you because it a city was a construction permit that was missing, right?

Again, um he needed to either start a site plan, a construction site plan or submit construction plans.

Gotcha.

Did Ms.

Benavitas in any of those emails specifically tell you any of those items?

No, what I what I brought was in the context of what I understood, and that's where I was trying to figure out what else I needed uh from her.

Because that's what I got in like the first one you're asking, like, hey, what what's what is the state?

You asked for an update on that, but then never do you get a reply back stating specifically you also you need to get this construction permit pushed as quickly as possible.

I didn't see that in uh in a replay, right?

Uh I didn't see it if you didn't see it, no.

Mana?

Commissioner Manna?

So question for say staff here.

So so if you go back to the the picture of the building itself, and so I'm just looking for some naming qualification or so some naming um standards.

So so we've seen this once or twice where the lower story is smaller than the subsequent second story.

Um so what is that design called?

So a build out or or you know, because you got um you know it looks like two feet or three feet on both sides there uh front that are larger than the the bottom floor.

So what would you call that middle section?

I couldn't I couldn't say I'm not an architect.

So any architects here?

So what would you call that?

So just try to understand it as we talk about that.

Um then the second Kenneliever?

Okay, so Kennilever.

So is the square footage based on the Kennilevered space or is it on the first floor space?

First floor.

First floor.

Okay, thank you.

I'm I'm just confirming.

I'm looking at the old I'm trying to look for the old IB information bulletin that talked about the old school way of um interpreting this.

Fragman?

Commissioner Bragman.

Um what is the distance between the proposed uh structure that's furthest to the east and the neighboring property, which is one thirty-nine, I believe, forests?

That would be um you've got five foot it's showing on the site plan, and then how far to the structure at 139?

Yeah, I'm five feet from uh the neighbor, the fence line.

Right.

But I'm saying the actual structure on 139.

How they're almost on a zero lot line, so they have maybe like two feet.

Got it.

So essentially about seven feet.

Seven feet away from your structure.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manic.

So um with regards to the plan here, so if we were if we were to read in the motion and and wish for it not to change more than what is currently pictured, um, is there a way that the motion could be read so as to ensure that this is the most that we're granting?

Yeah, is uh is the site plan and elevation part of the package that could be referenced by the maker of the motion?

Um I would believe that you could technically um I believe that was what y'all did uh the last time when this was continued.

Somebody had note noted the um architectural plans as when they read in the motion.

It was presented during today's meeting.

Um, I would I would suggest recommending the site plan and the elevations pro, you know.

Yeah, plans as submitted and reviewed during the 930 BOA meeting, just to confirm.

And then just sorry, uh backtracking the old school way we used to um interpret the half story, it would be based off of the square footage on the ground floor.

So ground floor, yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Last question.

Yes, Commissioner Brangman.

Um did you speak to the owner of 139 forest, the one that's closest to the East building?

Um the renters on on that one.

I wasn't able to get a hold of the owner.

Did the renters have any objection?

I think if we can pull up maybe the first signatures, I don't know if I got their signatures the first time around.

Um, it doesn't look like I I did.

All right.

And just to uh highlight on now just to clear up any confusion, um whenever the earlier conversation between zoning staff and the applicants um mentioned site work permit.

Um we were indicating that is a different process.

I understand that the applicant thought that it was a process of the site plan.

Um I don't think the applicant just didn't do nothing on purpose and waited for years to do it.

Um I just think there was a misunderstanding, but the zoning staff did say site work permit needs to be turned in before this certain date.

Um so just want to clear that up since it was brought up.

All right.

So with that, if there's uh no other questions, I'm looking for a motion Anna?

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030152, I moved to the board of adjustment grant the request for a half-story variance from the maximum 2.5 stories to allow for the development of a three-story single family or the three single family homes built to three stories in height.

Situated at 143, 145, and 147 Forest Avenue.

Apple could be an entity uh uh Al Mara's because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character is property as such, the little enforcement of provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the could the variance is not contrary to the public interest, as there would be no significant disruption to the character, form, and size of homes in the immediate surrounding area.

Two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as the applicant would be required to alter the proposed designs of the home, which would significantly reduce their overall square footage.

Three, by granting the variance of the spirit of the ordinance would be observed and substantial justice will be done as the heights of the structures, including the proposed third story, would not exceed the overall maximum allowable height limitations measured in feet for the distance or for this district.

Uh four of the variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which these variances are located or is located.

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

Five such variants uh will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforty property or alter the essential character of the district, in which is property is located as a typical height variation between structures in this area would not be significantly disrupted or otherwise to uh departed from by granting this variance.

Six by plot of the owner of the property of the property for which this variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial or not due to the result of general conditions in the district in which this property is located.

Uh the variance is sought uh being uh the the variance is being sought as the unified development code was amended during the time at this project original proposition by change of zoning and the current state, making the proposed design non-compliant with the current code.

And I'm going to add, I apologize I missed a point in the beginning with regards to that the restrictions being um defined by what has been submitted here before the board, and so what include that in there with regards to the initial reading.

So I apologize for missing that.

All right.

I'm sorry.

The summit is uh September 30th.

Today's with today's date.

Okay, thank you.

So for today's date, which is uh 9 30, and so as submitted in today's date.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh zero second.

Commissioner Boonies, uh, Commissioner Manna.

So thank you for going back and and and doing um uh um a very good job with regards to giving some of the details with regards to the workflow, and I appreciate that significantly.

Um so uh so part of the dialogue you know for the for the light, you know, as we looked at that with regards to the EDC rewrite, you know, I think it was uh you know there's a lot of relevance to it, and and and I think that you are providing that with the structure as been defined.

You know, there was some dialogue with regards to allowing people up there, so that's a that's a kind of a nuance kind of thing.

Um but I think because it is that you are limiting that top story to less than 50 percent um as um you know that as which is really kind of what the goal of the um you know both before and after.

Um I think that's appropriate.

I think um you know having the community around you in support is also of relevance.

Um and then I also think that maybe um you know, overall with regards to how this plan was submitted and some confusion there.

Um my preference would have been that this confusion would have been laid out right after all of this stuff happened and it would have been an easier conversation from my perspective.

But that all that said, uh I will be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Bonis.

Yeah, I agree with uh Commissioner Manow.

Um also I I think that uh losing any space on that third floor loses the master bedroom.

I think it's important to keep that up there.

Um I think he did try to communicate with City and get some answers.

Uh I think it was just timing and and delays kind of was uh the issue there.

Um and and uh yeah, I'll be in support.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

I'll be in support as well.

I think if this uh variance were to be denied, the alternative would be a much more denser development to try to maximize the use of this property.

And I think what he's proposing here with the variance is the most um uh I think most least impactful to the neighborhood, and I think given the neighbor's support behind him, I'm supporting the variance as requested.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, is that a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonia.

I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

One more time, Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibaniath?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Ryan.

And I can give the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Uh, congratulations.

Thank you.

Is there anything else that I need to do?

No, I I think you've waited in this room long enough.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Apply for your permit.

Please go to customer consultations and get those applications started.

Thank you, again.

And remember, you have one year to apply for a permit, or this becomes void, this decision today.

So it's already going to be go full.

Or get a permit.

Is it get a permit or apply for a permit?

Apply.

Apply.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

We're going to take a seven minute break.

We'll see you all back at 247.

We are going to go back into session.

Uh we're going to move to item number seven.

Um, which is at uh 1323 West Theo.

Good afternoon, B.O.

E 25103 00171.

Address is 1323 West Theo Avenue, Council District 5.

Applicant is Roberto Aguilar.

Request a four-foot variance from the minimum five-foot side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be one foot from the side property line.

Zoning is R5.

Subject property is located along Westale Avenue, east of South Sazamora Street.

The applicant being the property owners requesting a four-foot variance to allow a carport to remain one foot from the side property line.

The applicant pain obtained a permit to construct a carport in February of 2025.

However, the applicant deviated from the proposed five-foot side setback as shown on the company's side plan to allow for two cars to park under the carport.

During a staff site visit, the carport was reserved to be one foot from the side property line.

The carport is approximately 18 feet wide.

The subject property.

Staff recommendation, car carport site setback variants.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 25.

103 00171 based on the following findings.

Two, the requested variants will alter the essential characters of the district in which the property is located.

Notification plan.

Staff know that 41 notices, zero uh received in favor, zero received in opposition.

No response from Palm Heights Neighborhood Association, and no response from the community organizations.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

Uh let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name.

Tell us about your carport.

Hi.

Um Robert Aguilar, homeowner, born and raised here in San Antonio.

Um it's taken me 15 years to basically save up to finally upgrade my house.

Um the existing structure of the carport that was on the already there was for two cars to be inside the carport.

Um I thought it was easier to break it down and put in a new one and have no issues, but uh through my naiveness, I've never gone through this whole process.

Uh I didn't know what are the ins and outs of every permit that you have to do and what are the requirements, etc.

But upon the contractor indicating to me that with the five-foot variants, there was no way that I could put two cars in there.

Uh and so he said, you know, this is where it could be safely to fit two cars.

I said, go ahead, put it right there.

I didn't know what the implications were.

Um, so my I guess my four-foot variants now, so that I could stay one foot away from the property line is what I'm asking for.

Uh and the reason I'm asking for it is because again, put two cars in there, but more importantly, um Theo Avenue is an avenue, one-way street on a daily basis.

We have cars coming the wrong way.

On a daily basis, there's cars zipping through uh Theo Avenue.

It's a racing kind of street for Southerners.

Um, and so it's really important to be able to park our cars further in than out sticking towards the actual um road.

Uh more specifically on our avenue, there's no way to park on the side of the road of our home.

It's got to be on the opposite side, which is typically full of everybody else.

Um, and so I have nothing but girls, and I my girls are the ones that live in my house.

I actually through work live in Houston now, hence what you see.

Um, but I'm asking for your uh lenience on having this variance.

Uh my front door neighbor has the same variance right at the line, two doors down.

My neighbor has the same sort of variance on the actual property line.

So I don't think I'm changing the appearance of the neighborhood by having it the way it was.

Um I don't know if you have the historical perspective view of what it looked like.

Um, but the post that we're holding the carport prior to were on the property line before.

Now I brought them back one foot away from the property line.

So hence you know why I need these variants.

The carport's not fully finished because we got stopped, of course.

And so I do intend to put a gutter system so that there is no water, sort of to my neighbor.

My neighbor, uh she's a little older now, but I did talk to her.

She's in approval.

I don't have records of that.

Um Ms.

Suniga has stated to me and my wife to have a very good relationship, her and my wife, so there is no issues with my neighbor.

Um if granted, I will put the the gutters so that the water is goes straight into the street.

And then as far as any whatever I need to do to have it so it's fire retardant, that's what we're gonna do.

And I will amend my permit to make sure that it's within code.

So are you amending your application uh at the podium to include gutters?

Um I don't know, that's a what I have to do, but we can't do conditional uh, you know, you you either have an application before us that includes gutters or it does not.

My application does not.

Okay, would you like to add gutters to it?

Yes, please.

Okay.

So we have an application that's been amended by the applicant to now include gutters uh on the on the uh west side.

All right, great.

Uh is there any commissioner questions?

Bragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um so looking historically, it looks like that previous um carport was there since 2007.

Have you owned it?

I I've owned it since two uh since 1989.

And it's been there forever.

It has okay.

And then on the um the side closest to your neighbor, Miss Zooniga.

Zunaga, thank you.

How close is her house to the fence?

Yes.

Uh I would say about four or five feet away.

All right.

Any other questions?

Anna?

Commissioner Manna.

So uh so I was trying to keep up uh the with uh I guess how it is that we got to where we are.

And so you indicated that the builder um that was that you're working with, he said that uh it has to be five feet away.

Um I guess can you go through that dialogue again?

And then also what was the builder's name?

Um Tony is his name.

It's not a company.

Okay.

Um again, I'm just a household homeowner, whatever.

Um and so uh he asked me, did I get a permit?

I said yes, here's the permit.

He saw the permit, he marked down where it wouldn't go, and then he laid down the tape measure and said, You're not gonna fit two two cars in the space.

And so he said, where do you want me to put it?

And I said, where does it fit?

And he said, Well, it fits here barely, and that was at the one foot.

I said, let's just do it there.

So yes, I gave him the go-head, but I didn't know what that implied.

Um I will amend my permit accordingly if granted permission to do so.

Well, so what I'm seeing here is is that previously your posts are in the same place, but the cover didn't go past the side of your home.

And so it's either way, it still would have been in violation.

I mean, so does he have a last name?

The Tony?

Yeah.

And I'd say I just want to so uh so I'm on a mission to kind of understand who all of our builders are, and as it is that we have some that aren't necessarily okay, thank you.

That's for Ivanis, just for the record.

I don't think that our board should be policing this kind of thing of who builds what.

I I really believe bottom line, it's the homeowner's responsibility for these kinds of projects.

Bottom line.

And and what and so I do agree that this it's a city's role for policing these, and um trying to work them into keeping a list of this, and that's why I keep asking for that question.

Well, they need to ask it, not us.

Okay.

I'm not gonna get into that discussion.

Uh but uh are there any other uh questions regarding this carport?

Uh all right.

So in in your your if you have gutters on the side, they'll be easily located.

Where's your site uh drain?

Is it usually does it drain towards the O or does it drain to the rear?

It drains towards Theo.

Okay.

All right.

Uh is there any other questions?

Are there any voicemails anyone sent it to speak?

No public comment.

Okay.

Uh well then with that I'm looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030171.

I move to the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a four-foot variance from the minimum five-foot side setback requirement to allow an attached carport to be one foot from the side property line, including gutters on the west side of the property, situated at 1323 West Leo Avenue applicant being Roberto Aguilar, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the United Hide Development Code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The side setback variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Sufficient space will remain for the purposes of water runoff and fire safety concern.

Two due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the applicant cannot reduce the size of the carboard to be within setbacks on the lot.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

The requested side setback variants does not appear, does appear to be in the spirit of the ordinance, as sufficient space will be will remain for the purposes of water runoff and fire safety concerns.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district when the 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 conforme property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds the side setback variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent properties.

Sufficient space will remain for maintenance of the carport, and the risk of potential fire spread would not be aggravated.

Six the plight of the owner of the property, which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner property and are not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds the unique circumstances existing on the property are not merely financial that are not a result of general conditions in the district, as a carport could not be located on this property to follow the setback requirements and motion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion, especially since the applicant amended uh his application to include gutters, um, and the fact that the uh previous carport was actually one foot further over to the west, closer to the further into the side setback lines by witnessed by uh Google Maps going back to 2007, and the applicant said since 19 uh 98.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, uh I agree with Ms.

uh Braggman, and I don't see any problems, especially like she said he did amend his application to include the gutters and and that was a big concern for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, sir I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

All right.

Have any questions, please get with staff.

We're back on item number four.

Item number four is BOA-25-103-00167.

Addressed at 376 Hawthorne Street in Consul District 5.

The applicant is Yes Vic Investments LLC.

A request for the elimination of a 15-foot landscape buffer on the west, south, and eastern property line.

The zone is C1 with a conditional use for motor vehicle sales.

The subject property is located off the interstate highway 35 south access road on Hawthorne Street.

The applicant proposes to develop the lot for motor vehicle sales.

Given the C1 zone and designation, 50 15-foot landscape buffers are required along the eastern and southern property lines, which are shared with residential districts, and along the western property line abut in IH 35.

The applicant is requesting a variance to eliminate these landscape buffer requirements to allow parking of the motor vehicles for sale within the designated buffer area.

And this is the site plan.

And the residential uses were on the west and the um south.

This is a historical residential view from 2007.

And uh as of current of January 2022, before the rezoning and the state as is.

Great.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

If you can please state your name and tell us about your project, and what I would like to hear is uh do you agree with staff's alternate recommendation at some point during your presentation?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Jessica Ramirez with Yes Vic Vic Investments for 376 Hawthorn.

Today I'm here to ask for the elimination of the landscaping buffer for both sides of the property, as this buffer would not allow for our small use car dealership to properly have a display area with the very limited space that we do have.

Uh when highway 35 was built, the properties became much smaller, and now wanting to create something that will bring value to the community that surrounds that would almost make it impossible for for us to be able to do that with these buffers and sp in place.

Uh we did speak with Mr.

Mark Burt, City Arborist with uh land development of having the four-foot shrub uh shrubbery buffer on the back, which is the south side of the property.

And even though it does reduce a little bit, I don't think we have any issues, and I think that would be a great compromise for us to be able to still conduct our business.

Uh we recently had a zone change a few months ago uh from residential to commercial, and we did have about five or six neighbors that surround us in favor, especially the one uh next to us on the east side uh being the one that would actually be affected.

We're doing like we're doing a six-foot privacy fence to reduce noise or anything and their privacy, so we we do have that in place.

Okay.

And the trees that are there were they're staying and everything.

All right, thank you.

Uh so a couple questions.

Was the zoning change initiated initiated by you or was it initially?

By me.

By you.

Okay.

And for staff, uh, you're also recommending uh the elimination of the buffer on the uh uh on the side near the existing home, except for these two trees.

Uh what does that mean exactly?

Do they do they have to have the root protection zone or not?

Or or what um so they have to have whatever is required for those two trees as indicated on the site plan.

Um required to have those trees are gonna have to have that area.

Um they will have to have a six-foot op privacy fence along the uh residential there.

And do you and do you I noticed your property?

Is there a hose bib on the rear of that building?

Yes, there is.

Okay, so if you were to keep those two trees and have that buffer in the rear, uh you would have to have uh hose bed within a hundred feet.

Okay.

Any commission questions from the commission?

Commissioner Azuna, then cruise?

Uh right here.

Uh just curious, are you going to do any like uh auto repair or body shop?

No, we don't have a mechanic on site, so as we bring the vehicles in, they're already a good 90 percent ready, just clean them out and get them ready to say.

And then lighting, what are the hours of operation for the uh it is nine to six thirty p.m.

Okay.

Monday through Saturday.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cruz?

Um I noticed that the councilwoman's office uh is opposing do you know why?

No, I do not.

I just found out as I was walking into the meeting.

Did you talk to the councilwoman's office at all?

No, I did not.

I didn't have any knowledge that there was going to be any opposing since I I knew I had already talked to my neighbors around and nobody had issues, so I did not know.

Yeah, but if they didn't talk to the councilwoman's office, there's a big issue there.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna?

I I would I I honestly would recommend um uh a continuance so that uh the applicant can go and speak with the office because the office likely received input from other voters who did not provide their input here, and I would have a hard time, you know, going against the the office because that is you know that that is a big say larger than these neighbors, it's really the whole community saying, you know, that given a position.

So I would I would want to probably hear that.

Staff, is there did you hear anything from the council's office as to any reasoning or any just narrative?

Um just what was uh presented um here.

That's the only uh indication that our only information that we receive from them.

Um and just additionally, the ordinance passed that restrict hours of operation Monday through Saturday, 9 a.m.

to 6 30 p.m.

and no outdoor amplification of sound.

Yeah, we we had already agreed to that when we did the zoning change.

Uh can you bring up the conditional site plan when this what when would when did the zoning go through?

Uh I want to say it was February, March?

Of this year?

Yes, it was to this year.

Okay, so there's your site plan.

Chair um I while we're looking at the site plan.

Um, where would your other driveway be for see it on the plan?

I saw see the one on the front.

It's the existing driveway.

So you're only going to have one entry and exit.

And and that's on the rest and that's the street where the residential properties are.

Um you're not going to have uh an ingress or egress on a driveway on the highway.

No, sorry, I'm not sure.

That we could just have that.

You can just have one.

I will state um when she was going through the rezoning, we contacted Text Dot about this, and I think they had concerns about the access off of the frontage road, hence why she was sticking to the front.

So just a single driveway off of Hawthorne?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I I'm just gonna chime in.

I mean, your site is how wide at the rear.

I think 50 feet, and you're being asked to put in a 15-foot buffer on either side.

That that is that's more than half.

It's actually just it's a whole, yeah.

Okay.

Um it would just leave us about 20 feet.

I I uh I just have to say, I mean, this this site plan that went through zoning commission public hearings and city councils that specifically says landscaping none on it.

I mean I don't know.

I just feel like they've had their bite at the apple.

I mean, I I'm I'm not opposed to a continuance, but I don't see I don't think it's necessary because you know I I personally would only I would only support the staff's recommendation to keep the trees, which means you have to have some lands some green area around the trees.

And we completely agree with that as well.

But I'm gonna leave it up to the board.

I mean, I think that if someone moves to make to continue this and it passes, well then that's what uh you know you should do is go talk to the council's office.

But I I will not be in support of the continuance.

Mr.

Chair, I I'd also like to add that on uh Interstate 35, the the commercial property that's just to the north of you only has access off of the Hawthorne Road as well.

They don't have access off of 35 right there, so that's not an unusual condition to have the access off of uh Hawthorne.

Right.

Any other commissioners like that?

Uh so we're gonna leave this up to the commission for whoever would like to make a motion for whatever.

Thank you.

Does anybody want to make a motion for anything?

Motion to uh on this.

Okay.

So just make a motion then.

Yeah.

Make a motion.

Now, does this motion read as what was recommended?

As the alternate uh recommendation is written.

I'm sorry.

Um, it was written as requested, sorry.

Yeah.

You want me to do it?

Okay.

It's okay.

Okay, let's see here.

I just want to pull up this uh with the side plan to see which ones decides the east and the west.

All right.

Yeah.

I got it here.

Our recommendation does call out the southern property lines and then the western, eastern and western property lines.

Yeah, you you I didn't see your template as a you don't have a template for the alternate, right?

I have the alternate recommendation displayed on screen.

Okay, I got it.

Yeah, keep that up, please.

So regarding case uh number BOA-25-1030167, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for the elimination of a 15-foot landscape buffer uh on the west side of the property, which abuts I-35, and a an elimination on the east side of the property uh with exception of two large native species trees and two understory native species trees, uh, and the reduction of the landscape buffer on the south side uh down to four feet, a 11-foot uh variance of the 15-foot landscape buffer on the south south side, uh resulting in a four-foot landscape buffer situated at 376 Hawthorne Street, applicant being Ezekiel Maria Elena Ramirez.

Because the test Yes?

On the highway I kept it.

They recommended it.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Um because the testimony you presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the revisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

The buffer elimination only the east and southern property line would not impact uh the I'm sorry, the buffer elimination along the west uh property line would not impact the property uh and safety necessary for residential use as a six-foot solid screen, opaque fencing is required.

Likewise, due to the sidewalk separation from IH 35 south, eliminating the buffer along the west side would not expose the subject property to an increase in hazards from the roadway.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance which resulted in unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement of the ordinance which resulted in unsafe hardship as complying with the buffer requirement along the east, west, and south property lines that have would leave insufficient space for the reasonable and functional use of the property.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

Granting the variants would support the spirit of the ordinance.

There is an all there's an alternative to no buffers per DSD tree and landscaping recommendation.

This includes uh what is being uh motioned, a four-foot buffer at the south end of the property to be provided as an alternate to no buffers along I-35 and the adjoining residential lot.

The applicant would need to plant two large native species trees uh and two understory native species trees within the four-foot planting strip.

But that wasn't part of the uh recommendation.

I'm sorry, that was I'm just gonna I'll reread that.

This includes a four-foot buffer at the south end of the property to be provided as an alternate uh and the and along the adjoining residential uh along the adjoining residential lot, the applicant would retain two large native species trees and two understory native species trees uh uh uh along the east property line.

In the west.

Oh and the west?

Yeah.

On the west, west property line.

Four.

The variants will not authorize the operation of a use 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.

Are you sure it's the west because the the highway side is the west side?

There was one tree, I believe, that was proposed over there.

It's on the corner of Hawthorne and 35.

Okay.

Yeah, and that one's staying there.

So it's just one tree.

Okay.

So there's four trees in total.

One on one side, one on the left.

Finding three by granting the variance to spare the ordinance will be zero and substantial tests will be done.

Granting the spare the the variants would support the spirit of the ordinance as there is an alternate to no buffers per DSD tree and landsaving recommendation.

And I'm going to stop there.

Number four, the variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the advance 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 conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

Granting the variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent property or alter the essential character of the district by reducing the required buffers down to the staff recommendation.

The neighboring residential uses and not be exposed to increased noise and lighting, nor will their safety and privacy be reduced.

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

Staff finds apply to the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property sous such as its small lot size, which limits the ability to comply with the above requirements for abutting adjacent residential uses and a super arterial and develop the property within reasonable and functional uses and of motion.

And to clarify this motion is for a an elimination of the uh of the buffer along the highway side, the west side, the reduce reduction of the buffer down to four feet along the south side, and uh the elimination of the buffer along the east side, except for the existing trees, which are two native trees and and some understory trees, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

Uh I'm in favor of the staff recommendation.

This lot is ridiculously narrow.

And going through a zoning change with a conditional use which requires a site plan and which specifically said no landscaping that that passes only Commission and Council is good enough for me.

Commissioner Benavides.

I would support this motion as well for the same reasons.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, so I've local Commissioner Barrett.

I just want to suggest that in a case like this, where we have an alternative staff recommendation, considering the difficulty of rewriting the resolution on the fly, it would be helpful if we had both a draft resolution approving the application and right behind it a draft resolution expressing the staff alternative.

We would make life a lot easier.

I will say that uh Commissioner Cruz and I remember them actually doing that eight years ago, but everyone here is new, so no offense.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Benavides?

I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozana?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Bonias.

I concur.

Motion passes nine to two.

Congratulations.

You have any questions, get with staff.

Thank you.

Item seven.

Um, item eight, sorry.

Can you do uh one more sound check, Commissioner uh Vasquez, real quick?

We were kind of hearing.

One more time, please.

Can you hear me?

Okay, I think we hear you a little better.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Merkel Moravi, principal planner.

Um BOA 251030172 located at 409 Eleanor Avenue, District 2.

Applicant being uh Taylor Fording.

Uh, there's a request for a 40-foot variant from the maximum 50 foot, 50 percent impervious cover to allow 90 percent impervious cover in the front yard, zone MF33.

So your property is located just east of Broadway and north of Joint Base San Antonio within the Mahanky Park neighborhood conservation district.

The applicant who recently purchased a property was cited by co-compliance for starting to pour concrete on the front yard without permits and exceeding the maximum impervious cover.

The applicant's goal is to enhance safety and functionality of the property by allowing additional parking in the front yard.

While the property is in a conservation district, the request variances for the unified development code standards.

This is the sub the uh site plan showing the proposed concrete um parking areas in the front yard.

This is what the subject property looks like right now.

Um obviously the uh work stopped once they were cited by code compliance.

Close-up look.

And surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial of BOA 251030172 based on the following findings that a fact, granting a variance to nearly double the allowable impervious services on undermines the intent and set presence that could lead to widespread uh degration of front yards in the district and a front yard that is over 50% pay would have visually would be visually out of character with the surrounding conforming properties, disturbing the uniform and landscape appearance of the neighborhood.

Uh uh 30 notices were mailed, one received an opposition.

The neighborhood association is in opposition.

And here is the uh on top from the uh neighborhood association and the bottom from uh neighbor.

This concludes staff uh presentation.

Applicant is present.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh let's have the applicant come forward.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So do you have the notice uh the letters in a folder that's available on our drive so that we can look at it uh outside of the flat the blipvert that happens um because I was not read able to read any of that.

And so is it available in our drives yet?

Uh it should be a uh I know we're though the drive the share drive we're working on that with our IT folks.

Um, but we should you should have got an email this morning with those um public responses.

I I unfortunately didn't get to look at it today.

So yeah, if you could bring that letter back up.

We can put the uh public maybe you can make it a little bit bigger if you could quite that letter insinuates that the concrete's already been poured.

Has it been poured?

Has not been poured.

No, it's been poured.

It's been poured okay.

So it's been poured.

All right.

Commissioner Manis still has the floor.

No, that's fine.

So I got to read it, so thank you.

Okay.

Uh if you could please state your name and tell us about your project.

Yeah, hi guys, my name is Taylor, last name 40, and I'm here representing 409 Eleanor.

I own that home.

Uh in the last 94 days, my home has been the center point of gunfire on two separate occasions.

And so I bought the home with no homeowners association.

I quickly learned that the city is far more powerful than the homeowners' associations.

And so after the second gunfire, my thought was if I poured concrete in the front of my house, there would be an appropriate visualization to be able to park a vehicle in front of my son's window so that the next bullet doesn't hit him.

Um it was made made known quickly on Saturday.

I noticed that there was a lot of city officials.

I've seen a lot of familiar faces that have come outside my home and taking photos and paranoia was at an all-time high.

I finally went out.

I uh I addressed one of the city officials.

I found out what the issue was, and it was on a Saturday, and that Monday I was here to do anything and everything I could to get this approved.

The uh concrete that you guys are seeing that was already paid for in full.

And I acted out of a motion immediately in order to be able to like appropriately and respectfully park a vehicle there.

It was in no way, shape, or form to disrespect any of my neighbors, and it was uh unfamiliar to me that there was an issue doing so.

Um I came here just out of respect to follow suit all the way through and through the concrete being poured right there in front of that window that was shot out that 25 by 146.

I've got no issue covering that up with turf.

That's uh I mean I've already bought the turf and I'm already understanding if that's what needs to be done, that's what needs to be done.

I only came here to to vocalize to everyone and to communicate that I'm not here to disrespect anyone.

I'm not here to get attention from anyone, I'm not here to do anyone wrong.

Um it was a safety thing that I acted accordingly in the fastest way possible.

If I could have sold the home and that was a favorable decision, it would have been done immediately.

That wasn't what was in favor, and so this was the next best thing is to improve the home for safety and functionality.

All right.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Zuna.

You have a police report that you could provide as as a for the way.

So that's what it was extremely frustrating.

The first shooting happened the week prior to closing and so on.

Good faith.

We closed the house, and the second shooting I called the police.

I waited outside my house for three and a half hours for them to show up because they stated that they were gonna come and they were gonna do a police report.

And they never came.

And uh that's why I thought it was funny that the neighbors I mean, I'm friends with all the neighbors next door to me in front of me, and there's no issues in the neighbor that wrote that email when the guns were firing.

Um I wish they had made an appearance, but I'm thankful I have their attention now.

Other question, this is for City.

Uh, if he does install the turf, it would still have to meet the impervious requirement, correct?

Uh on the material that he was to install.

Yes, he can use uh pervious material, which is material right for the turf.

Right.

Okay.

Uh my question is is uh th this according to the site plan, this thing is showing a 24 foot by 21 foot piece of concrete.

Well, actually it's even longer than that.

You got three pieces of concrete subdivided by turf, and it was to try to show respect to the neighbors to kind of give it a more um something a little bit prettier than just a car.

Well, that's but that's showing six inches of turf, right?

Six inches in between each slab.

Okay, so if your goal is to park a car in front of your home, uh you don't need all that concrete.

No, so if you look at the 25 by 146, that window where that garden, that 13 by 4 garden, yes, that was the first window that got shut out.

And then if you see number one, that's my son's room, and that's where the second the attempted robbery and then the second gunfire occurred.

But at the end of the day, I'm I'm only here out of respect.

I understand that I can cover the 25 by 146, no issues that can be done as soon as tomorrow.

It's the 21 by 11 that is my big concern.

Okay, well, I mean, it if if if all he does is that, I mean, his requirement is 50 percent impervious cover.

That if if he got rid of that one panel on the left and the panel closest to the front sidewalk, he'd easily be under 50 percent, correct?

Um I'm not sure of the math off the top of my head, but we'll think sounds accurate.

Okay, we'll look at that.

Um is there any other commissioner questions?

Commissioner Cruz?

Oh, sir, how long have you had the property?

I've only had the property less than 90 days.

Okay, so the the homeowners before you m uh moved out and there was some issues, I'm assuming.

Uh he moved because his family was having health issues, and he wanted to be closer to them.

But if you look at like the history of the sales on the street, which I was naive to, like every house that's been for sale on the street's been for sale for over a hundred days.

I it it's a far busier atmosphere than what I had anticipated.

Well, yeah, I mean you've got the base here.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh is there any other questions?

We have one speaker.

Um Scott.

Yeah, coming up.

State your name, tell us your thoughts.

Good afternoon.

Uh Scott Day with the uh vice president of the Mikey Park Neighborhood Association and co-chair of the land use uh committee.

Uh Mikey Park's neighborhood position is that we are adamantly opposed to the project as is, unless it's changes to meet the conservation district guidelines that are presently written and approved by the city council.

Um the applicant did file an earlier request for a variance for a rear addition to the property.

So he's aware that there are conservation guidelines uh for the property.

Um the steel went into place for the slab in August.

Uh we called on August 15th when other neighbors called us.

Uh so it was uh over three weeks before they actually poured the concrete uh in the house.

There are several specifics.

So when there's uh variations between the two, sometimes the conservation district wins out over the over the UDC.

One of the key things here is that driveways in a conservation district cannot be, and our conservation district cannot be any less than eight feet in width and no more than 12 feet in width.

There also needs to be a separation between a designated sidewalk between the front door and this and the uh the main sidewalk in front of the house.

That separation is not supposed to be less than uh four feet.

One of the key things in the god and the guidelines and the why re reason it is written that way is the neighborhood hopes to promote these surprising consistence, consistency of existing driveway configurations and composition.

If you look through the whole neighborhood, this is the way it's laid out.

Furthermore, it is intended to limit the percentage of per impervious front yard coverage, promote the existing rhythm of narrow driveways and landscape, and to promote barrier-free access, pedestrian access between and across the lot.

Single car ribbon type driveways are found to be prevalent in the neighborhood and are strongly encouraged.

So what you are seeing is humongous.

And as poured right now, all the water is going to his neighbors.

I hate to be the downhill neighbor in that that instance.

So uh again, we are adamantly opposed, uh we'll support the project if it comes into compliance with the conservation district guidelines.

Thank you.

Okay, so a good question for staff.

Uh the conservation guidelines that you that this uh speaker just mentioned, if this applicant removed the concrete at least four feet away from the sidewalk, then it would be in compliance with the NCD and only in violation of the UDC with the impervious cover, because the driveway, once you turn left and park off the driveway, it's not a driveway anymore.

Is that correct?

So the neighborhood conservation and district standards, um, the reason we didn't put them as a request is it's not a walkway, so the four-foot separation would not have to be there.

Um this is not a new construction as far as the principal structure.

So essentially he's grandfathered in from requiring a walkway.

Um if this was a new house, he would have to have that walkway.

Um the absence of a walkway does does not make it have to have one if it's if it's already grandfathered in.

Um these are not neighborhood conservation district standards, this is just the unified development code standard that we're here that that's in violation.

Okay.

But but the neighborhood association has expressed that that this that they're not subconscious.

Correct, yeah.

No, they're they're very much not in support.

Okay, because I mean I'd like to know that as well.

Uh Commissioner Manna?

So and maybe for if you can come back up for a second here.

So the no, the um neighborhood for neighborhood, yeah.

So come up.

So part of the dialogue here is um, I guess that we've had is if it is that they eliminate on this picture here that's showing the oh no, um go back to your uh the the uh site plan that was that was on page there you go, thank you.

Uh the 25 by 14 foot, if we eliminated that and then the front piece of the 21 21 by 13 and we left the first one there, the 21 by 11.

So is that more aligned with your what is that your neighborhood?

No, uh if you if you look at the design guidelines and the way the neighborhood is laid out, originally there are ribbon drives that went down the right-hand side.

This drawing is actually not properly laid out.

The driveway that's shown there is not the scale.

The driveway that was originally with the house in the previous photo went over to the yellow line on the right side and it goes past the house.

Um what was there met the guidelines?

He's taken that out and has paved the entire front yard.

So the question for city staff then, so if it had been the case that the applicant come through and um had not included the 25 by 14 and the 25 or 21 by 13 and just included the front facing one, the 21 by 11, would this have um would this have been addressed by the NCD violation or would this not have been included with that?

There would be no um review that would be stopped by zoning from what I'm tracking if he was under the 50 percent impervious cover.

And he was correct, um under the tree is more driveway.

We just kind of fit in his site plan to what was on the Well, I guess I was just trying to address the so what is being stated with regards to permitted, if I'm hearing correctly, from your review of the N C D of the N C D as the way it stated that the one would the one closest to it would be would not have required them to come here before the BOA.

Correct.

As long as they're under 50 percent.

Okay.

We didn't find any other violations.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh I just to clarify, this is Ivanious.

Um can you bring up the old photo that you showed of of the historical Mr.

Fordy?

So did you replace that whole driveway that was there?

Or is that the driveway that we're seeing in the current photos?

Is it that driveway?

So there's one piece right where that arrow was right here.

It was just it was damaged and it needed to be repaired, and that was the only part of that initial driveway that had been replaced.

Okay.

So that's the driveway that came with the house.

Yes, ma'am.

That you purchased.

Yes, ma'am.

And now you're saying that maybe you want to if if you put impervious impervious cover and just keep that uh cement uh area in front of the porch.

Yes, ma'am, that's the only one that's important.

And you're willing to put the rest of the yard as well.

Whatever whatever is needed, I'm here to wrong my rights or write my wrongs.

And there's a fence going in, and when he spoke on when I got my permits, it was I did everything at once.

So whatever date he stated that I came in and got my permits for the fence, I came in and addressed the issues with my driveway, so I didn't know that I was doing wrong by any means, and I'm here to fix whatever I need to do.

But there's gonna be a fence that blocks all that in.

Uh so you won't even see any of that concrete.

And then as far as the runoff goes, if you see everything that it's angled.

And then on the side of the house, there's a there's concrete that goes, and so um none of this was done with any like unproper planning.

All the runoff remains the same.

There is no liability going towards my neighbor's home.

Uh those two young ladies I've spoken with.

I mean, there's not a lack of communication.

And my take is when I talked to all the neighbors about this incident today.

Hey, do I need to write a letter?

Do I need to support you?

I said no, if you just don't approve it, by all means let the city know.

You know, I didn't want to inconvenience anybody.

Commissioner Braggman.

Um Mr.

Fording, could you take the light laser pointer and show us on the screen there?

The the the shot with the um the site plan, if we could see the site plan.

Can you bring the site planning back up?

And show me where you said the fence is gonna be.

So the fence is gonna cover this whole area.

So all this right here, it's all been approved, it's all been processed, it's all good to go, and there's gonna be a fence that goes around my the whole front of my house just for extra security.

What's the height of the fence?

They're it's gonna be 42 inches.

42 inches tall.

Predominantly open.

It's gonna it's it's gonna be two feet off the fence line off the property line, and then there's gonna be a uh opening.

No, but is it is the fencing gonna be um privacy where you can see is it just no, you're gonna be able to see through it.

It's not gonna be privacy.

I thought that would kind of be disrespectful.

So then so then you are allowed to go up to five feet predominantly open, but you're doing 42 inches.

I'm doing 42, yes, sir.

Just because it was uniform to the neighbor next door.

And the N C D does only allow up to four feet.

Okay, so he's not that's not in violation of anything.

Okay, but but your long-term goal is to be able to drive up your driveway and then turn left and park a car in front of uh what we see as your porch and and the street picture.

Right here, because this is where my son's room is.

This is where the first shot happened and he went through this window into the living room.

And then the second time that had the gunfire occurred at the house, it was right here in front of his room.

And so here's the driveway, and I just want to be able to park a car here because I'd rather my car get shot than my house.

Okay.

Uh because w what's happening is is that the only thing before us is the is the exceeding of the 50 percent of the impervious coverage.

If you if you were to park um uh uh uh uh a nine-foot wide strip, you know, off of that driveway in front of your home, you wouldn't be in violation of the N C D and you wouldn't be in violation of the 50 percent.

Although I think that that uh you know, just to play it safe, I think we ought to give them a 10 percent break, you know, just in case.

But this right here was the addition that was in question.

So if we just left it at this, it was 50 percent.

So after I came here to get my permits for my ad fence, they had told me that I didn't need to come in and well the the driveway does count towards the 50 percent, correct?

Yes, so correct.

So what's the width of your house?

Um I don't know what's up my head.

I'd have to pull my phone out.

I don't want to be disrespectful and pull it out and get you guys that what I had submitted.

I it submitted the measurements.

I think right here, just because the fence off the top of my head was uh I don't want to lie to you.

I thought it was fifty-three and thirty-three or maybe it's fifty-three feet across.

According to your dimensions, uh at 14 and 20.

I mean you your house is a approximately 45 to 50 feet wide on your lot, it looks like.

I mean, you're saying that piece of concrete is uh is uh 13 21 foot deep, the first panel and the one on the left is 14, so that's 35 feet right there.

With the six inches that's 35 and a half plus your driveway.

How wide is your driveway?

I'd say six feet.

Oh, it's gotta be wide in that.

I mean a car is eight feet wide.

Well, my truck doesn't fit in the driveway.

Yeah, it's uh it's a smaller driveway.

I don't want to lie to you on any of the measures.

Even if it's eight feet, that's still that still gets you to like let's say it's 45 feet.

I'm just trying to figure out what we need to do to make it right for the 50 percent variance for 50 percent.

Well, if you do 50, you don't even need to be here.

Well, I did coming here today was really more out of a respect because this has drawn a lot of attention to the neighborhood, and I understand that by doing this I was disrespecting a lot of people, and so my thought is if I came here and I let it be known like I'm willing to you know do the right thing.

That was kind of my intentions.

At the end of the day, my mindset no matter what was that this area here needs to be covered so it looks like a traditional yard and I fall under the 50 percent.

So that was something that I had understood that I was gonna do regardless.

Me coming here today was really more out of respect to my neighbors and in the city, because I did this without understanding.

Well, without having the specific numbers, I I I don't know.

I I would suggest that we give them 10 percent just to make sure it's safe, but that's just my two things.

I I guess I would um I I was trying to do the math, you know.

So and can the city offer because you came up with 90 percent with the with the addition of this, and so if we took off the 623 feet, uh yeah, I it you know it looks to me that it would still be within the 50 percent.

And so I I I wasn't I wasn't keen on giving more if it wasn't necessary.

Okay.

That would be my perspective.

So and and it is that six hundred and twenty-three square feet that would be pulled out of that.

Um stop there rough calculations, estimated front yard square footage is four, ten square feet.

Um all of the total concrete areas to include a driveway, we estimate it at twelve, thirty-five square feet.

Um so he's short about five hundred and thirty-five square feet.

He's over by around five hundred and thirty-five square feet.

So if we reduce it by six hundred and twenty-three, which is be the those two lots, then he would be under the fifty percent, right?

Correct.

Yep.

Correct.

Okay.

Well.

It was I'm here out of respect.

Okay.

Does anybody want to offer him anything, or do you just add this die for lack of motion?

Uh eat real quick, Bonis.

Yes, Commissioner Boniz.

Okay, I'm still trying to just understand here.

If he gets rid of the 25 by 14 large concrete, he's good, yeah?

Yeah.

Correct.

So if he just gets rid of that, that's about 350 square feet, he will still be over the 50 percent.

By how much?

By about 200 square feet.

What what is that as a percentage?

I'm just trying to know how much we would be over the fifty at that point.

The only reason why I was suggesting the 10 percent give is that for him to turn into a parking space and not actually be a butting his house, he'd have to have some kind of a separation, maybe a slight little curve or a chamber or something just so his car can make the turn and not like hit the porch with this bumper or something.

That's the only reason why I was suggesting 10 percent.

Put a ribbon down the center I just want this is Ivan Yes.

I just wanted some clarification because if he's saying if if Mr.

Fording is saying um I'm willing to not do the pervious cover uh on the left side and the front side, and we allow him, we we say, okay, we're gonna allow you to do the one that is close to the porch.

Um I noticed that that one was six feet wide.

So if he's planning to use it more as a driveway to park his truck, it would have to be a little wider.

Well, that's why I was saying if you give him 10 percent, he'll he'll have the room to do something.

Okay.

So yes, sir.

So as if you got rid of that driveway, he would be at around 64 percent, just doing rough math.

Okay, so that would be a 15 percent play.

But if we wanted to be strict, uh I mean, I I'd be open to 15 percent.

So I'll tell you what, why don't somebody make a motion?

We'll just see how it turns out.

I had a quick question for the applicant uh before.

Yes, Commissioner Bunny is uh all of this is porter ready?

Yes, sir.

And you're you're okay with taking some of it up.

Whatever you guys like at the end of the day, it's y'all say over mine what I need to do in order to make this right, I'm happy to do so.

My thought and belief was this this side that's in front of the window, the bigger portion of it that I could just turn that into a yard without any issues or concern.

And now we'd be able to say face for what we need in order to appear as a front yard and not a parking space or uh disrespect to the uniform of the neighborhood.

And if I need to make more of that a yard, I'm I'm happy to do so.

I'm not here to try to disrespect anybody.

So at the end of the day, if more of that needs to be covered and look like a front yard, I'm happy to do so.

Okay.

All right, is there any voicemails?

Uh no other public comments.

All right.

I'm gonna make a motion and just get this thing rolling because I feel like we're just kind of getting stagnated on this issue.

Uh regarding case number BOA-25-103 00172 and move the board of adjustment regarding a request for a 10 percent variance from the maximum 50 percent impervious cover allowed 60 percent impervious cover on the front yard situated at 409 Eleanor Avenue, applicant being Taylor Fording, because the test when we presented us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

So we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The enhanced impervious cover will not create traffic or safety concerns for neighbors or passers by.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

The property specific vulnerability security threat, so it's a such its location in your high traffic area corner, lot exposure or lack of reaccess creates a hardship if limited to only 50 percent of the purview's cover.

Three, by graining the variance of spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

This request will be in the spirit of the ordinance as it proposes hardscape that addresses an urgent need for safety while maintaining appropriate drainage and using materials that maintain aesthetics, harmony with the neighborhood.

Four, the variance will not authorize operation of the use 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 in which the property is located.

The requested variants will be implemented with designs and sensitivity to neighboring properties, including uh visual screening, landscape offering, and maintaining consistent front yard setbacks.

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 or not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The request is not based on financial reasons or cosmetic preference, but rather on legitimate need for sir secure access and monitoring, which cannot be sufficiently achieved under the current 50 percent impervious cover limit, end of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Now I read this just to get this thing going.

I'm open to anything.

Um I just wanted to give the applicant 10 percent so we have a little bit more leeway as far as how he provides uh this parking space in front of this his son's window.

Uh so as read, I'm in support.

I'm in support for a 15 percent.

I'm a support to open to any amendments from anybody.

Commissioner Manna.

So I was going to let this um not be read.

And so I was I didn't think that there was anything needed.

And so just as clarification, the one concrete pad that is there is 21 by 11.6 feet.

So it's 11 foot wide with regards to the one lot that's there in front of the house.

And so it is a fully usable driveway.

Um and and and not you know, so it is a full width.

And so uh because of that, I didn't think that anything else was needed, and and as this board knows, I generally want less concrete, and so I always vote for less concrete.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Okay, so we'll just see how this turns out at uh at at the at the low 10 percent.

Uh let's have a roll call vote.

Sir, if if you don't mind, real quick, that six by three garden.

Uh it actually ties into the twenty-one by drainage or sewage or yeah, it's uh I'm just I'm gonna take this brief moment just to explain that you you know, just to let you know that you need to have nine out of eleven people vote for anything.

And so you know, just from what we've heard, I'm just putting something out there.

Yes, so let's have roll call vote.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Yes, I concur.

All right.

Motion passes 9 to 2.

So you get 10 percent.

You know, measure your front yard as hard as you can and don't exceed 60 percent, including your driveway.

Okay.

Please talk to staff about what that means and you know everyone's watching.

So make sure that's how that done this week.

I appreciate it.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, guys.

Item nine.

And Marco Maravi, principal planner.

Uh item number nine, BOA 251030174, located at 1155 Arrowhead Trail, District 4.

Applicant being uh Sherry Betty.

I request for a nine foot 11 inch variant from a minimum ten foot front setback to allow carport with uh one inch carport front setback zone R6.

Subject property is situated south of Petranco Road, just west of Cody Elementary.

The property owner in collaboration with their contractor is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum front setback of the proposed carport down to one inch.

The existing residence is located approximately 20 feet behind the front property line, making it impractical to construct a functional carport without encroaching into the minimum required uh setback area.

As a result, uh requested variance is necessary to provide usable covered parking on the existing driveway.

The property currently includes a two-car garage.

Staff have identified numerous code violations on properties in surrounding area related to carport setbacks.

This is a site plan showing where the uh uh carport is gonna be.

Um and that's only a 20-foot um depth that they have to fit a vehicle on there.

Subject property.

That fence to the right is out of compliance, but it's not the not the subject property.

Next slide.

Surrounding area.

Staff recommends a now and BOA 251030174 based on the following finds out of fact.

Uh the president of two-car garage provide adequate uh covered parking, so the inability to add a carport is not constitute an unnecessary hardship.

Also, in the established uh bill in line with the carport near the sidewalk can change the uh essential character of the district.

Slide.

Um the applicant did turn in um some uh public responses that we'll show here in a second.

Um this is just showing by 10 o'clock, but uh we'll have those slides pulled up.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

Did uh I'm sorry, uh did did you state that that was uh I guess a president or or precedent or other things that you were seeing within the community itself of similar carports?

Yeah, uh I believe there was four, maybe five carports that were built recently with no variance.

Um co-compliance should be going around those in the area.

So my question is is on the site plan that some of these dimensions are pretty blurry, I can't read them.

What uh what is the length on the side?

There's some dimension strings on the side of the uh yellow uh carport.

Is that say 20 feet um I think it said 18, but um the contractor is here, they'll be able to tell us uh Okay.

I'm just curious.

I'm I'm just wondering.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Do you want to show the public comment?

Oh, yes, and this is the uh quick the updated public comment.

Uh these three properties um were turned in.

And then uh it's letters from the uh property owners.

All three of them within 200 feet.

And that concludes that's presentation.

All right, thank you.

Hello, sir.

Please state your name and tell us about your car report.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Martin Lamas.

Uh, we're the general contractor's uh requesting this variance uh for Ms.

Bayette.

And uh we're trying to protect her her belongings.

Uh she's a teacher, served uh students for 20 plus years, and uh she is wanting to protect her investments, her vehicles.

Um car and a truck, uh, and then her husband has a vehicle as well.

They also have invested in some personal crafts that they keep in the garage along with other uh important belongings to protect from how would I put this uh any opportunities of involuntary loss of personal property.

So that's why they keep that stuff in the garage.

And um they would simply like to protect their their vehicles from number one, the the protect the UV rays from the sun, because it does cause oxidation as one of the vehicles has serious oxidation from excessive sun uh damage.

Uh furthermore, there's been some hell storms that caused some damage to their vehicles, and uh we're trying to do everything we can to help protect protect their investment.

Since we only have 20 feet from the apron itself going to the house, we we'd need at least uh the nine foot eleven inch variants uh with the board's permission, of course.

We want to do whatever is necessary to comply with what is necessary to satisfy her needs, but of course, satisfying the city of San Antonio and do everything the way it needs to be done in a proper manner.

Okay.

Uh the sidewalk that's abutting the curb on this property is it four foot sidewalk?

The sidewalk, the width of the sidewalk, I'm not sure the width of it.

It's standard, I would imagine is four foot.

Okay.

Like this home was built when it was in the city limits, right?

Not the county.

It's in the city limits to the best of my knowledge.

Okay.

Yeah, so that would be a four-foot sidewalk.

All right.

So it looks like from your plan that your your edge of the of the uh carport would be seven feet away from the back of the sidewalk.

Uh approximately, I think it's five feet actually.

Five foot wide.

I apologize.

That's going to the curb, so it would be three feet away.

Yeah, from what my measurements were is I thought it was five feet from the edge of the sidewalk to the very five foot one inch it would be from the sidewalk to the uh property, uh to where we're proposing the carport.

Okay.

Yeah, well, one of my personal concerns is how far away people are building things to where pedestrians travel.

So that's why I think that's the same.

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah.

All right.

Any commissioner questions?

So the 20-foot um length of the carport.

So is that I guess 20 foot depth.

20 foot depth, I'm sorry, 20 depth.

So uh what's driving the 20-foot depth?

Uh the length of the vehicle that she drives is 19 feet four inches long, so it's uh uh that way we have enough coverage for the vehicle.

Okay.

Uh any other commissioner questions?

Ragman?

Commissioner Bragman.

Where are the posts that are going to be closest to the sidewalk going to be located?

Are they going to be on the very corners or are they going to be set in the edge of the carport?

That's an excellent question.

Uh I think it needs to be a little bit away from that.

So even though it's nine foot one inch, I'm going to actually go further back to keep it a little bit further somewhere.

I would say at least 12 inches away.

And we could go even further back because I could put the post and do an overhang.

I want to do whatever is necessary to comply with with what's necessary to obviously for the safety of the neighborhood, because I can't imagine why we would need that, but you guys know more than I do as far as that's concerned.

I just want to, you know, do whatever is necessary to So to expand on Commissioner Bregman's question.

The the plan that we're looking at on the screen, has this been submitted for a permit?

I have not submitted for a permit because I wanted to find out what I need to do.

Uh we paid for the the uh meeting for the board, but I haven't submitted a permit because I want to know what I need the permit for to make sure it's in compliance.

And uh obviously if we can get this done, we're gonna definitely get the permit because we always comply with what needs to be done.

The reason why I ask is you're you're proposing a 20-foot carport and the the post is it looks like it it's it's two or three feet away from the property line per this plan.

Uh let's see here.

I mean, if you take 10 feet from the curb to the post and you and you and you reduce um well it says it's it's seven feet from the property line to the curb.

So your post would be three feet away from the property line.

That sounds a pro that sounds about right.

I'm looking at the dimensions on either side where it's seven feet to the curb to the edge and then ten feet from the curb to the post uh on the left side.

So that would give you a three feet away from the property line.

There you go.

Okay.

Agreed.

Yeah.

And I can move it further back if need be, because we can move the post closer towards the house and have more overhang if need needed.

So, you know, whatever you guys recommend, we will definitely adhere to any other questions?

Commissioner Zunan?

Regarding water, rainwater, uh fault.

Which way does the water runoff and gutters?

Excellent question.

Okay.

Right now, what we have is an architectural drawing with the slope leaning towards the road for a proper runoff.

Uh you know, if that's acceptable, then we'll do that.

The the main thing I want to do as far as the integrity of the carport is to make sure it's structurally sound so there's no sagging.

That's very, very important to me as well as the homeowner, obviously.

Uh so we've got it set up as a flat carport leaning towards uh draining towards the road as it should to protect the neighbors.

So no gutters needed then, right?

What is the material of the of the roof?

Is it like corrugated or is it corrugated?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So it would have natural lines that take it down.

Uh-huh.

All right.

Any other questions?

Uh hearing none.

Staff, uh, just out of curiosity, because this is so close to the front property line and they're asking for the one-inch, can we specify the distance from the post?

So yes, you would have to do it as an overhang.

So if you want the posts, I'll say five feet or four feet, you would like to include a four-foot overhang.

Well, because this the plan that's before us today, having them be seven feet apart is is makes a lot of structural sense.

Um, you know, I think that it would make it a little more styled.

If the further you start moving that post in, the less it gets a little bit less.

So I I mean I I don't mind uh suggesting I'm out and I will suggest uh maybe to follow this plan as far as spacing since it's before us.

But that's just my two cents.

Uh whoever would like to make a motion.

Anna?

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case numerous BOA 25103-00174, I moved the deport adjudgment grant to request for 9 foot 11-inch variance from the minimum 10-foot front setback to allow a one-inch carport front setback situated at 1155 Arrowhead Trail.

Applicant being Sherry Viette, uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical characters property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Um specifically find that the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Um the variance will not obstruct public visibility, um interfere with pedestrian access or encroach upon the public right of way.

The minimum setback for the front property line still preserves the separation from the street due to existing space between the property line and the curb.

And I'd like to adjust it just a little bit.

I apologize, I've done this twice now.

Um to include uh the plan as submitted so that there is adequate distance between the the post um and the sidewalk.

Um so as submitted, um, and I think that addresses this particular point.

Um two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

The subject property has a notable shallow front yard, which significantly limits the ability to construct covered parking without encroaching on the setback area.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

The car port will be open on the sides, maintaining visual openness and minimizing structural bulk.

Without the variance, the homeowner would be prevented from enjoying a basic residential amenity available to others without achieving any substantial public benefit.

Four of 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 a district will be allowed with this variance.

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

The carport will not block light views or access to adjacent properties.

It is designed to be visually unobtrusive and consistent with existing neighborhood character.

Six apply to the owner property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

The property's unique hardship arises from its limited front yard depth and the original city siding, sitting sitting of the home, um, which is not established by the current owner.

This layout leaves no feasible space to accommodate the carport with the standard setback limits and a motion.

And I'm still not sure what that word should be.

The sitting or the siding.

Thank you by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Manna.

So regardless of the word there.

So regardless of the word there, um so I think you know that I did Google drive around the neighborhood, and it does appear that there are many other structures in place that are very uh similarly constructed.

So it does appear that this is it is consistent with um what it is that the community is already building.

Um also uh because it wasn't you know it it it is observing the side setback, and so because of that um and also with the front post being set back, um I'll be voting in favor.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur with Commissioner Manna, and of course uh the best thing is it hasn't been built yet.

So that's even a better bonus.

But I do like what it shows, and there is quite a few home homes in that area with the same same uh carport, so I see no problems with it.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Uh hearing none, uh let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manla.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yubannis?

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavidez?

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonia.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

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

Uh thank you very much.

I appreciate the board's time very much.

And I'd like to add that the word citing is a made-up board, I think, in the realm of development.

Happens right.

I was struggling, so I don't know.

So, the position.

How about just the position on the property?

Thank you.

Well, is there a director's report?

No director's report.

And our next meeting is Monday next week.

Don't you have to advertise that tomorrow?

It was published a few hours ago.

Okay.

So we won't be hearing minutes on the next meeting.

Okay.

And thank you for uh the availability of the board members.

Oh, yeah, this is this this flew by pretty good.

So uh it is 41 411 were adjourned.