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

Have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes para aquellas personas que requieren the interpretación al Espanyol, por favor, passing a la cabina because encuentra in the parte trasera del salon.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Stephanie Call roll.

Commissioner Barrington.

Here.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz?

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

One more time, Commissioner.

Gotcha.

Commissioner Ozina.

Present.

Commissioner Dothcat?

Present.

Commissioner Bunyath.

All right.

Chair Oyan.

And I'm present.

So we've got 10 seated at this moment.

If everyone could please join me in the pledge.

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

And two are republicans.

One nation.

Under God.

Honor the taxes like I pledge at least.

All right.

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.

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 the chair, and I will read them at the appropriate time in the meeting.

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

The board is supported by members of the city staff competent in the rules and regulations governing the city's owning 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 relief sought, and we do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties.

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

They are clearly defined in Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 35 of the City Code, and other ordinances passed by the City Council.

We have the authority to hear and decide appeals from 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 28-5.

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 the findings of fact.

And every finding of fact must be supported in the records of the board's proceedings.

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

In order for a motion to carry, it requires a concurring vote of 75% of the total board members, whether present or not, which is nine votes.

The burden of proof in granting the release law rests with the applicant.

Appeals from the decision of this board regarding appeals from administrative officials, special exceptions of 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 limit your presentation and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case.

Thank you, Chair.

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 special exemption or appeal.

And property within 200 feet of the subject property.

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

For those that sign up to speak for or against the proposed variant special exemption or appeal, you will be calling the order to sign up to speak.

For those in support or opposition, will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker.

You're not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, so there are ten cases on the agenda.

Items one and two, located at 122 uh Vitcher Place and 235 East Commerce have been postponed.

So if you're here for those cases, or if you sign up to speak, uh if you could let staff know, we will still give you an opportunity to say something if you wish.

Uh item five, located at 174 Brookshire, has been withdrawn.

They will will not be hearing that case today.

Uh and uh I'd like to start off with uh item number nine, which is requesting a continuance uh to November 3rd of 2025.

Uh will there any voicemails or anyone send them to speak on number nine?

No, but we comment and then I'll just read it into our record real quick.

BOA 251030185 request by George Rodriguez for uh 59.75 square foot variant from the NCD two freestanding sign maximum of 12.25 square feet to allow a 72 square foot sign, freestanding sign, and a 10 foot variant from the NCD 2 freestanding height maximum of 8 feet to allow for 18 foot tall freestanding size located at 2119 San Pedro Avenue.

Staff recommended denial applicant requesting continuance to November 3rd.

No public comment.

All right.

Is there uh commissioner like to make a motion to continue November 3rd?

So moved.

Second.

I'll give that to Barrington, the second by uh Commissioner Bragman.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

The motion is continued.

Uh the case is continue to November 3rd.

And before we begin, uh so last week we had last week we had a special meeting uh and we had a motion to continue to extend uh a case uh to today, but there wasn't enough notification to adequately publish it, so it cannot be heard today.

So at this point, uh I am going to do something we don't rarely we rarely ever do, but we actually can um is that I'm I'm moving to add to the uh October 20th, 2025 agenda, BOA case number BOA-25-1030160 from last week's agenda uh to change the date of the meeting where it will be heard so that it will be heard October 20th, 2025.

Uh and then we can we don't have to start the process all over again.

So is there a second for that?

Second, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh, we will be hearing that case on the 20th of October.

So that moves brings us to item three, located at 2306 East Houston Street.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Leos, senior planner with development services.

Item number three is BOA-25-1030179 at 2306 East Houston Street in Council District 2.

The applicant is uh Vencata Can you Murray, and the request is for a special exception to allow for one additional type 2 short-term rental on the block face, and the current zoning is R4 for residential single family.

Um again, the subject property is located at 2306 East Houston.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

Uh again, they're requesting a special exception to allow for one additional type two on the block face.

Part of the code type two short-term rentals shall be limited to no more than one eighth or twelve point five percent of the total number of single family duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on a block phase.

At least one type two shall be permitted per block face, regardless of the total number of units on that block phase.

Uh so this is the type two density count.

There are 11 units on this block face.

Um active type 2s are currently there at 2314 and 2344 East Houston Street.

Uh the block face is currently at 18%.

And if this type 2 is approved, it will be at 27%.

Um this is the um inactive listing that we had found.

Um, and the subject property does not have any code violations.

This is a site plan.

The subject property and then the surrounding areas.

Staff recommendation for the special exception.

Staff recommends a denial.

And this is the notification plan.

We mailed out 41 notices.

Uh, we received zero in favor, zero in opposition, and we had no response from the Jefferson Heights and Harvard Place East Lawn Neighborhood Associations.

Um, additionally, the three citywide groups uh were notified with no response.

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

All right, thank you very much.

Please state your name and tell us about your project, uh, your case.

Jessica Flores.

Um I'm here for representing the property owner 2306 East Houston.

Um basically um we're trying to do a request for the special expectation to obtain a short-term rental for this property.

Um I know that y'all had already listed it up here as it being um active.

So we did have it listed under just like um like a lease case by which didn't need it, didn't require an actual permit.

Um so we did have that, but we do recognize that the application extends the standard two point, I'm sorry, the 12.5 blackface density threshold.

And therefore, we're just requesting a board of approval approval.

However, we're just like trying to help and develop the you know, the area as tourism and stuff like that that we're just trying to help it like um to gain growth, and we do know that um the San Antonio tourism industry generates over 21.5 billion in 2003 and perceiving 27 million in tax revenue, including nearly a hundred uh million from hotel occupancy.

Um else we have here.

Just give me a minute, I'm sorry.

So basically, we're just trying to see if we can get this approved.

Um we know that there is other short-term rentals on the property.

Um we just feel that our property will give more to the to the community, and we are very careful as how we handle like noise reduction.

We don't want to cause any of that.

So we're we're handling it really well, and we just feel that this is something that can be um done in the right manner.

Okay.

Uh a couple quick questions.

Is this property ever been a short-term rental before?

It has not.

It has been only a long-term rental, which we did have like a lease, and we would give it out for the 30 days, which doesn't require a permit.

All right, thank you.

Uh, any commissioner questions?

Uh hearing none, uh staff, is anyone sign up to speak on this?

I noticed that there weren't any voicemails.

No public comment.

Okay.

Um if there's nothing else, uh, thank you very much.

And we'll look for a motion to see how this turns out.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh who would like to make a motion on this case.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030179.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated 2306, East Houston Street applicant being uh Vencata Condamori because the testimony presented to us and the facts, so we determine show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in this hardship specifically.

We find that A, the special exception will not maturally public public.

I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Can we use the my the microphone seems to have gone silent?

Okay.

So better, yeah.

Okay.

I can start over or just pick up.

Okay.

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

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

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

The neighboring properties consist of single family structures.

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

The adequate utilities access road storm drainage, recreation, open space, and other necessary facilities have been are being provided.

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

Either the applicant or owner of the special exception does not have any previously revoked short-term rental license.

Confirmed citations are adjudicated offense offenses, uh, convictions or violations of chapter 16, Article 22 of the city code within one year prior to the date of the application.

The applicant or owner does not have previously revoked licenses, confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses or convictions.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Azuna.

All right.

So I didn't see any um opposition to the uh neighbors that would be most affected.

Uh no opposition from the neighborhood association here.

I understand that it would exceed the density count, but um, you know, I think if if approved, it would be for three years, correct?

Um they have not been operating as a as a short term rental as they indicated.

So I I support the motions, right?

Commissioner Manna?

So uh unfortunately I won't be in agreement with my colleague.

And so um as I take a look around, this area is well represented from short-term rentals.

Uh, within a quarter mile, there's uh 25 additional um STR2s and five STR1s, so it does look like it's you know pretty represented there.

And I think you know, being the applicant mentioned that they were doing 30-day rentals, you know, look they have a path there uh which they can leverage.

So I will not be voting in favor.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh Ivan Yes.

Commissioner Bonstra.

Um I am not going to support this request.

Um for the reason that there's already two on the block face.

And this is an area that like Dignity and uh Denver Heights is being saturated, wanting to be saturated with Airbnbs.

Um so I will not be in support of this request.

Okay.

Uh thank you very much.

Anyone else?

All right, hearing none, let's have a uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ivanez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Brackman.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Oh, thank you.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur.

Motion fails uh two to nine.

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

Uh item four.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, planner with development services.

Item number four is requested by Raman Deep Carr and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to a hot collection located at 6215 via La Contera Unit 285.

The subject property is located at 6215 via La Contera Unit 285.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot also not directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

All STR operators are still required to continue the to file revenue reports and pay Bear County hot through avenue on a monthly basis.

Seven notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue between November 2024 through March 2025, and the final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on July 28, 2025.

No payment was made within the 90 days.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on August 12, 2025.

There are total of 325 units on the block face.

Three active STR type 2 permits are already on the block, and the current density is 1%.

So a little background history.

On June 7, 2023, there was an open investigation for operating without a permit.

The owner complied, and then the investigation has then been closed.

And in terms of permitting on August 2nd, 2024, the applicant applied for a short type 2 short-term rental.

And on August 27, 2024, the STR type 2 permit was issued.

And then moving forward a year later on August 12, 2025, the STR permit was revoked due to hot delinquency.

This is the current active listing.

And this is the communication that was sent.

This is the site plan of the property submitted at the time of the application.

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 16 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

The property is now within a registered neighborhood association, and four citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

Just a quick question.

Yes, they have.

Okay.

I'm just curious because they've been around for a year, like how many out of the last 12 months did they actually file they filed like uh three or four times, but it did like a couple of months at a time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's say the applicant come forward.

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um dear member and uh member of the board, my name is Chatendrapal Singh.

My name is Jitinder Paul Singh.

And I am presenting this appeal on the behalf of my spouse, Ramandipkar, uh member of Ramanant State LLC, who is currently pregnant and in her third trimester and unable to travel due to medical travel restrictions.

We base in California.

And I flew from California yesterday and I'm presenting this today.

So thank you for taking your time today.

So this is our first year, like on uh in Shannon Chony and short-term rental through Airbnb.

And I would like to begin with by saying that we take the full responsibility for the misunderstanding related to our HOT payments.

We truly value the compliances with the city's um short-term rental regulations, and our goal has always been to operate responsibility and transparently.

So in April, we uh received an email from Avenue, starting that our account appeared to be a filed under a wrong category, listed as a hotel instead of short-term rental, and needs to be corrected to stay in good standing.

So, right after receiving that email, so I contacted the avenue to understand what needs needed to be fixed.

Um their support team, amazing support team helped me through the process and uh and the account category was corrected at that time.

So I have actually overpaid this taxes under the wrong category, and I assume that overpaid taxes would automatically roll over and adjusted towards the following months.

But that assumption was my own misunderstanding.

So earlier this year, we had received the letters from Avenue about HOT payments, but at that time, I believe um Airbnb was already handling tax uh collections and remedies on our behalf because we received an email from AirPn B saying we are taking care of the taxes.

Later, when we received a permit revocation notice in August, I was generally surprised because I believe everything has had been taken care of.

But after reviewing the account again, I discovered that while Airbnb pays most of the required taxes, a small local portion still has to be paid directly to the look directed by the host.

So once I understood that, I paid the remaining balance in full.

Now our account is fully paid and up to date.

This experience has been a real learning move uh moment for us.

We are now fully up to date and our required payments, and I have uh set up a monthly review process with our accountant to make sure future filings are accurate and on time.

We are always acted in good faith and promptly corrected every issue as soon as we become aware of it.

I sincerely apologize for the confusion and respectively ask the city to reinstate our short-term rental permit so we can continue operating in full compliance moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh a couple questions.

Uh so there's a difference between having the taxes paid and having the filings done.

So you're here because you haven't been making the filings.

Uh is that correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

And and then um the applicant had mentioned that there was a small portion of taxes that is not collected by Airbnb or something.

Is there a small piece that is not collected that they have to pay?

So prior prior to the March 2025 of the tier, um, Airbnb and Verb were only required to pay state hot taxes.

They were owners and operators responsible for paying city and county hot taxes to the city as of March 2025.

They were owners and operators responsible for paying city and county hot taxes to the city as of March 2025, verbal and Airbnb are now responsible, meaning city hot taxes on behalf of owners and operators.

But owners and operators still responsible per revenues avenue and pays county hot taxes on a monthly basis.

Alrighty.

Commissioner Manor, then Azuna.

So I was trying to understand the app the applicant here was talking about that he had paid or was miscategorized and was paying into the system as a hotel.

And then if I heard correctly was dialogue with regards to uh monies not being forwarded.

So was the money sent back to him or there was the account accrued or was there any money you know that the city just try to understand that that notion of what was stated?

There is nothing no case um notate on his account as anything being moved or transferred.

What I will say is whether it's a hotel or a short-term rental, it goes into the same pot.

Um when hotel occupancy tax accounts are created, one of the things that we enter in is called the NACS code, North American Industry Classification System.

That just helps the finance department understand is this revenue coming from a hotel or is it revenue coming from an STR?

Um Avenue may reach out to correct that if it's miscategorized, but it goes into the same pot of money.

And then the second question with regards to um monies that it so I kind of heard a little bit maybe com opposing dialogue here.

Um so was it the case that it was just that he wasn't filing the hot tax forms, but it monies weren't due because he was paying that as well, or was there always monies due?

It was always money money due.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yeah, so my question is uh in terms of the notification, are you saying you were not getting the notifications, the emails or the letters that were sent out to you to uh tell you your account was due?

Uh I was paying on the other category, the the uh listed as a hotel HOT, but I was not aware on like if that is the right category or not.

So I was I'll keep paying that.

So were you getting um my question is the notifications, the letters that the city sent out, were you getting those?

Yeah, I get that.

Then I called them and you went to change the category.

Uh I'm confused.

I uh sir, I I think what the issue here is is that it's no one's questioning whether you put money in one category or another.

Aside from that, and completely independent of that, you're required to monthly go online and tell the city, you know, your activity.

And that's what's not being done.

So when you receive those letters, those letters should tell you that you're supposed to get online and make these filings, which has nothing to do with anybody collecting taxes or paying taxes on your behalf.

Completely separate.

And I and and so I I'm trying to figure out like do you do you know that?

Yeah, we we know that in j in July, yeah, we get that letters, and then only we start uh fixing the things like why why we are getting those letters.

So we were paying actually we were paying on the wrong category.

We were in dun zombie.

It's not about paying.

This is about filing two different filing the tax filing the returns over there in the portal.

The the reports on the report.

So you you have gotten online and filed a report.

Yes.

That's okay.

When we go online and put in the uh there is an option called filing a report, and there is a category over there.

So we were doing an etched a hotel category.

And I wasn't the impression like we are doing it.

And then we get the letters like like from the from your side, like we are not doing in the right category.

Okay.

Then we fix the category.

And then we were thinking like, okay, we fixed the category because we already paid for those months, and then it may be it it is already in the same portal, it goes over to the same category.

So for the last 12 months, have you gone online 12 different times and filed 12 different reports?

Every two months we do that.

Every two months.

And staff, you do you have record that they're doing some activity every two months or attempting to?

So yeah, I I will say that going back uh to October of 2024, uh there was reporting in December of 24, April of 25, and then following the permit being revoked, he reported and paid in August for Yeah, that's uh May, June, and July were made in August.

So across approximately 14 months, there have been four days that they made reports.

So it was not occurring monthly.

All right.

Any other commissioner questions?

Dean, Commissioner Dean.

All right.

So it says unit 285.

Is this condo or it's an apartment?

It's an apartment.

And you can does your apartment allow this type of activity?

Yes, sir.

To do short-term rentals as a Yes.

So I while applying for the license, we submit that letter from the permit from the approval letter from the society from the community.

Do you have that today?

Do you have that evidence today?

No, I submitted at the time of license, applying the license.

I don't have right now.

Okay.

And then if I may, um city staff over here.

We do have written permission from the apartment to operate the unit as an STR.

We we require something in writing from the property management association, which we received, or it has to be expressly authorized in the lease.

Okay, perfect.

And then also apologize.

Now that requires he doesn't have to be there generally or I'm just uh that's correct.

Type two is non-owner occupied, so entirely dedicated towards a short-term rental.

Okay.

All right.

That's no further questions.

All right.

Anyone center to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

So thank you very much.

We're gonna look for a moment on this.

Who would like to make a motion Mana?

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030180, and we did the board adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 6215 via La Cantera.

Uh Unit 285.

Applicant being uh Ramadi COR, because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error enforcing Section 116 or 16110 when revoking the short-term rental permit and a motion.

I'll second.

All right.

We have a second by Commissioner Ibanez.

Commissioner Manick.

So you know, if I'm looking straight at uh the dialogue with regards to did the city make an error you know, looking at um I guess the non filing every month and only getting four over the last, I think I heard 16 months.

It does not appear to be the case that um you know that that the applicant was meeting that requirement.

And so because of that, I don't think that the city made an error, so I will not be supporting this motion.

Commissioner Ibenez?

Um I'll be contrary to Commissioner Manis non-support.

I'm gonna support this.

Excuse me.

And though I I think that the applicant must be aware that he must go every month, not wait two, four, five months to pay, or even just to notify if payment was done.

I I agree with uh Commissioner Manor that it was not an error by the staff or the city.

Uh but I can understand the confusion.

Uh we've heard over and over again uh people coming in because of the changes that have happened with the systems that are used to uh for filing the taxes uh with Avant and Airbnb.

Um I understand that uh this is a different density than what we see on block face.

This is a apartment unit that has 325 units.

They are allowed to have more Airbnbs because of the number of units.

Uh so I'm I'm gonna be in support of them the vic the request to allow them to get their permit.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else like to add?

I have a Commissioner's Unit.

Comment and question in in regards to like the notification, do all 320 apartment units get notified, or how how does notification occur with the project like this?

We are talking about notification for today's hearing would go to the property owner, not to the owners.

So that the tenants would not have opportunity to interesting.

Okay.

Um I I see, well, obviously no opposition from the from the landlord on this uh but I mean I I do concur that there is uh you know some notification issues here.

I don't see an error, but I don't think there's a density issue or an issue about the neighborhood fabric if operating a short-term rental within the unit.

I don't see the same issues here that we would see in other either downtown areas or tourist areas, and uh I don't see an issue with uh the city collecting taxes here for the hot for to run this uh this short-term rental.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Uh I'm gonna close by saying I'll be in support as well, mostly because it's in Lock Interra, it's surrounded by a large commercial shopping center in Fiesta, Texas, and completely different than other SDRs that we see.

And the density is less than one percent.

So with that, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Vanna?

I do not support the appeal.

Commissioner Yabanith?

I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Backman.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Elzuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Chair Orion.

Uh and I concur, but the motion does fail seven to five uh four.

I'm sorry, six to six to five.

Uh so if you have any questions regarding that, uh please get with staff.

All right.

Item number six.

Good afternoon.

Item six is case number BOA-25-1030157, the address being 1206 and 1200 West Avenue in Council District 1.

The applicant is Calvin and Isala Medrano.

There's uh this is a request for uh variance from the fence material standards to allow for a corrugated metal fence, and two, a two-foot variance from the maximum allowable eight-foot rear yard fence to allow for a ten-foot rear yard fence limited to the east property line and the north property line.

The zoning is 01.5.

The subject property is generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Avenue and Sacramento Street.

The active use is a tire shop, which was registered as a legal nonconforming use in an O 1.5 base zoning district in August of 2025.

Code enforcement staff identified the use of an unapproved fence material during an inspection of the site in June 2025.

And the subject fence was also observed to be 10 feet tall in overall height.

The subject property abuts an alley to the side, which allows development of an eight-foot fence on the side and rear.

And requests for fences higher than nine feet for a commercial zone property shall require a variance and not a special exception.

Shown here is a site plan outlined in blue is the location of that fence.

Uh the 10-foot fence is limited again to the north and the east property line.

Subject property shown here.

And the subject fence in the side and rear yard.

Again, that same fence in that uh northeastern corner of the property where it's about 10 feet tall in height.

And that's looking southwards.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the fence material and height variances.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030157 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the fence utilizes a material expressly prohibited by the code, and the increased fence height would allow uh would significantly impact the adjacent property's access to light visibility and free airflow.

And two, the fence material and height are not impacted by any circumstances existing on the property and were created by the owner of the property.

Staff mailed 37 notices, eight were received in favor, zero in opposition, and the Los Angeles Heights Neighborhood Association is in opposition.

This is a community petition provided by the applicant for those eight notices of uh support.

And this is the opposition received from the Los Angeles Heights Neighborhood Association.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Okay.

So a couple of clarification issues.

It looked like the neighborhood association was only opposed to the type of material and not necessarily the height of the fence.

I just wanted to see if there was any other correspondence where they were opposed to the height.

And the other question is on the picture within the presentation, it shows a dimension for the 10-foot fence.

Is that the only location for the 10-foot fences within this?

So that's the that's the highest point you'll see just to the right of that, it's go back to that.

Just a little bit short.

Sorry, can we go back to that one?

Just to the right of there, it's just a little bit shorter, but that's still taller than nine feet.

So uh the premise of my question is is that so this is a tire shop that has a nonconforming use.

And it w where they're actually conducting the work, is that perceived as a fence or a wall?

That's what I'm trying to find out.

Because if if you look at it as a wall, it's it's just an incomplete wall.

Sure.

Yeah, it's a fence.

The wall has to be within the uh building setbacks.

No, I mean uh a wall for the garage.

So like you know how a carport has to be, you can't enclose it in all this in more than two sides or something.

So is there is there is staff looking at this as to where it's look looked at as a fence, but uh and I'm looking at it as because I got a masonry wall, there's this place where work is conducted, it seems different than a carport.

It kind of seems like it's more part of a it's wall to the facility.

Partially enclosed shade structure there.

Yeah.

I think that if I would recommend uh that we proceed as considering it a fence if we start to look at it as uh walls of a structure and then we're getting into the enlargement.

And then and then lastly, if this board, they're allowed to have up to eight feet.

So if we don't approve the height part of it, is there is the only uh fence that's that's in violation is the one that is encapsulating this work area.

That's correct, yes.

And it would be allowed to be up to eight feet because they're adjacent to that alley there in the side and rear yard.

Okay.

Any staff questions?

I mean not staff, any commissioner questions?

Before we move on.

I I do want to uh say as well for the board's consideration that any fence in excess of eight feet, even if it is approved by the board, is going to be uh required to have engineering submitted with it to show that it can sustain the wind load on that fence.

All right.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, uh, board members.

Uh my name is Calvin Madrano.

Uh we are here to ask for leniency on this fence.

Um what I did was just replace the outside fence with what was already there.

It was already existing.

It was just shorter.

I made it a little higher so that we can have a little security in the area as people are walking by back and forth.

A lot of homeless people uh do walk by there and um you know it was kind of short to where they can peek over.

So um I did want a little security uh for our yard back there because we have a lot of valuable stuff back there.

So um that was the only thing that I replaced, all that was already there.

My wife and I did take over from uh my father-in-law who passed away in 2021.

And uh so all this was already there.

Um the only thing we did right there where it says a 10 feet?

We added a barrier right there on that that uh that mesh fence because it gets pretty cold during the winter.

So the we're blocking the wind with that.

That could be taken off if it needs to.

Um but the exterior fence that goes along Sacramento Road, um that I did replace.

We did uh um purchase the building that's adjacent to ours.

Uh the the side where it says auto repair, we purchased that recently.

So the back fence to that part right there was really what we added to the to the whole structure.

Um right there where it says the uh the little sign right there.

Okay.

Um but other than that, I mean I just wanted to make it look a little nicer than what it would already was.

So quick question.

Was it corrugated metal when you re- Okay.

And staff, uh if the fence is there a date if that corrugated met fence uh predated a certain date where it wouldn't have been in conflict with the code?

Is that like 87 or the 2001 UDC or something?

Usually if it's if we can see that it was there by the the conversion um and there's no addition or replacing.

Uh we do we usually don't require them to consider board of adjustment.

However, there's nothing in the UBC.

And then the question for you is uh or actually it'll stick with staff.

If you replace 25% or less of an existing fence that's considered nonconforming, does it change any of your nonconforming status?

Because you know how 25 percent is that magic number.

How does that look?

Because I'm gonna about to ask the applicant if if the the fence that he replaced was in excess of 25 percent of his existing fence.

So for non residential, it's 50 percent of the um structure.

So if we're just talking about the fence, it would be 50 percent of the fence.

Okay.

Did you replace or alter more than 50 percent of the five?

No, sir.

Do you have any pictures or anything?

It's right there.

Okay.

Um if you go back to the last one.

Historical pictures?

The only thing historical?

I don't have any historical.

Because here's what happens.

Uh if you from what I've and staff, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you replace less than 50 percent of your fence and you did not exceed eight feet in height, there you could theoretically still be acceptable under the nonconforming use.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh the fence that is over eight feet is something that we would have to entertain because you did admit that you did replace it taller.

Well, the only thing that we replaced or put was the barrier that was on top.

Um it was probably like about four feet.

Um it was just to cover the wind.

So those those are those are just attached to that screen that's just the way we entertain it, we just want to know that there's certain the way we would read a variance or how we look at stuff.

So Commissioner Manning?

So can you bring up Google Drive and and shit.

And a quick correction.

Um for non-residential at 50 percent of the uh value, uh residential for the footprint.

So I said that backwards.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It looks like it was corrugated way back when go back one more, yeah.

One more one more click back towards the back back property where the fence is.

There you go.

Keep going back.

Yeah, down Sacramento?

Further down.

There we go.

Okay.

So so yeah, so it looks like it was maybe six foot in height.

Um, if he've replaced it and went no higher than eight foot and the value didn't exceed 50 percent of the value of the building, then in theory it would be okay.

Right.

Is that fence around along the street?

Is that higher than eight feet?

This one, the one existing already?

Well, I bought eight-foot pedals.

Okay, so that answers that question.

And I cut it to level it off.

So it's a little shorter.

So I just want to the reason why I'm asking you is because if this variance does not pass today, then it looks like you might only have to remove the part within your garage part area.

Okay.

And real quick, uh just to clarify, obviously we're not here determining whether a nonconforming would be approved or denied here.

Um but a structure or reading this is a building, so it does not appear that a fence would meet the definition to qualify for a nonconforming.

So is there is it then limited to 25 percent or something?

I mean, you you are allowed to replace 25 percent of a fence with the same without a permit, but you are the the section that is being quoted, the replacing 50 percent of the replacement value deals with nonconforming structures, and structures are defined.

It starts off with a walled and roofed building.

That's not a fence.

So, yeah.

Yeah, so that so that's and this is good for our commission to know is that if somebody ever repairs a fence that may have been nonconforming, there is no nonconforming on a fence.

Just that I think that's important for us to do that.

It's the same thing as sometimes they build an accessory structure that does not require a permit, but it still needs to be within the setbacks.

Commissioner Manic?

So did you have a chance to talk with the neighborhood association to find out?

No, sir.

Okay.

So I I think the board knows where I'm going.

So just you know, and so maybe that's something you know we either.

So the it is very common for this commission to put a lot of weight onto the thoughts of your neighborhood association.

Yes.

Uh would you like to request a continuance to meet with your neighborhood association to figure out if they could be in support of this or not?

Sure, yeah.

I believe my wife has talked to them before.

Uh not for this uh situation, but I believe she has talked to them before one of the members.

Well, we'll leave it up to you.

If you would like to request a continuance, we'll be open to it.

If you'd like to move forward, we can do that as well.

Yeah.

That would be perfect.

Okay.

Which one would you like to meet with the neighborhood association?

How much time would you need?

Uh like a month.

Is November 3rd getting a little full?

So I would re um suggest November 17th.

Uh November 3rd is pretty full.

All right.

November 17th, is there a motion to continue?

Is there any voicemails or anyone signed to the speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Um unless anyone is opposed, I'm looking for a motion to continue to November 17th.

Um to continue to November 17th.

And I'll give the second to Commissioner Braggman.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Uh we'll see you on the 17th, and we're looking forward to see what you hear from the neighborhood assistance.

We'll see you on the 17th, and we're looking forward to see what you hear from the neighborhood associated.

All right, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number seven.

Good afternoon, y'all.

I'm Sean Shuly.

I'm a planner with development services.

This case is BOA 251030178.

The address is 203 West Buchanan Boulevard.

It's in Council District 3.

The applicant is Jesus Tourist Day.

The request is a request for a fence material variance to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal with a cap limit to the as-built portion in the rear yard.

The zoning is C2NA C D, which is a commercial district with conditional use for a auto repair shop, and it's a non-alcoholic sales district.

This is the site plan.

As you can see the future building in the front with the current as built proportion of the fence in the back, highlighted in blue.

That's the subject property, and in the rear you can see the corrugated metal fence.

Okay.

So sevamoant limpio.

I've had uh received several notifications where the property is dirty and uh he has it uh he's cleaned it up.

And comply with the rules, he will be trying to comply with the rules.

Okay, so he's received the signatures of the people who are right next to his property, and it seems like it's okay.

And uh what he's looking for is that he gets a permit to be able to use that property.

Okay, so the metal fence is uh right next it's not right next to the street, it's three hundred and fifty feet away.

And so no creo que sea malguin.

I don't believe that uh it it doesn't s uh it doesn't look bad.

I don't think it uh interferes with anybody and frented my property is the metal tambien.

And also the properties that are right in front of his property also have metal fences.

So uh that's that's it.

All right, thank you very much.

Um just a quick question for staff it it one of the pictures it shows Cory the very last picture uh and the attachments it shows a what appears to be a metal fence.

Is that is that the neighbor?

Okay, yeah, that would be the neighbor, okay.

All right, it's across the street.

Yes, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh this is for the applicant.

Um can we go to the site plan?

Uh one.

So he said that the the fence was I can't hear you.

Yeah.

He said that the fence was 300 feet away from the property line, but this side plan shows it's right on the property line.

Okay, usted commentoke piece de la calle, pero esta este plan ista justo in la linea de la propias.

No, la calle is la bucana que está onda fence de tela, está 350 para entro.

Buchanan uh street has a cloth a cloth wall or fence.

Right.

And it's three hundred and fifty feet inward.

Okay.

So the the metal fence is on the property line in back.

Is that correct?

I don't know about your microphone.

Can you hear me?

Hello?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so it's talking.

So your question is I'm sorry again.

So the the fence is on the property line in back.

It's it's right on the property line, the metal fence.

In back.

A part a part of the property was divided.

The premise of the question is is whether or not the corrugated metal fence in the rear and on the sides, are they on the property line or are they set in to the property?

Okay, entonces can say la linea de la propient.

So the residential homes also have their own fence behind yours.

Right.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner questions.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Okay.

So I'm looking at the picture that they have right now up there.

How high is the fence right now?

And I thought he said it's already covered.

Is that correct?

C at the B.

Seven feet.

But it's already capped, correct?

See, yes.

Yes, it's got a cap.

Uh-huh.

But I'm going to see what you say, yes, but I can also say on the scarlet, okay.

It's for that.

Okay, the reason being uh they made the fence for seven feet tall, so the cars will you could not see the cars.

And does he know what what they make the property across the street, what it does?

Because they have a fence just almost like it.

See, in the part of the trash el vecino tenant fence de metal dominant.

So the neighbor right behind uh his property is also has a metal fence.

Yeah, the uh across the street across Buchanan, that's the flea market, right?

Okay, so it's a business like a flea market and it's got all metal.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Any other questions?

Is anyone signed up to speak or voicemails?

No public comment.

Right.

Manna?

So Commissioner Manna.

So um with regards to seven foot, so we're lead we're allowed to kind of go through that?

Correct.

They're permitted up to eight foot fence.

This is commercial against residential.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

With that, if there's nothing else.

Thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

Bragman.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Braggman.

Okay.

Was there a cap?

Whoa.

Okay.

It was a cap.

Regarding case.

Can you hear me?

Can't hear me.

Yes, you can.

Regarding case number BOA-25.

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

The requested variance is not contrary to the public interest as the fence material will provide additional security and privacy for the property.

Two special conditions and a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement of the fence material ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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 of the property or not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Safety and security the defense provides ends emotion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Braggman.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague and just want clarification from the city.

So so the so the entire fence is as built, it's already built with regards to, and that's what we're voting on, is just the as built.

And so yes, I concur.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibaniath.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vafkis.

I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Item number eight.

Item number eight is BOA-25-103-00184.

Located at 519 West Highland Boulevard in Council District 5.

The applicant is Gina Perez.

And he is requesting one, a 400 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square foot to allow development on a 5,600 square foot lot, and two, a 10-foot variance from the minimum 50-foot lot width to allow a development on a lot with a 40-foot lot width.

The zone is R6.

The subject property is located west of Roosevelt Avenue along West Highland Boulevard within the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association.

The property is currently a vacant lot since the demolition in 2023 of the previous previously existing residence, which sustain significant fire damage.

At 5,600 square feet, the lot size is below the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement and 10 feet below the minimum lot width requirement for the R6 baseline district.

As a result, variances from the minimum lot size and lot width requirements were previously requested and subsequently approved by the Board of Adjustment on June 3rd, 2024 to enable the redevelopment of the property.

However, no building permits were applied for within the 12 months as specified in a notice of decision letter, therefore rendering the variance is invalid.

Consequently, the applicant is requesting once again lot size and lot width variances to allow for the redevelopment of the property with the new single family residence.

And this is the site plan with the proposed dimensions of the home.

This is the historical view from October 2007.

You can see that there was previously an existing single-family home, as well as in January 2022.

And this is the current view of the property.

It is undeveloped.

This home adjacent on the east is a home that the applicant has also renovated and restored, and the aesthetic will be similar for the new um building.

And this is the surrounding area.

Stats recommendation for the minimum lot size and lot width is approval in BOE-25-103-00184 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the request and variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as it will revive and maintain the aesthetic of the neighborhood block phase.

And two, the property will abide by all other lot development standards of the R6 zone and district.

30 notices were mailed.

We receive seven in support, zero in opposition.

Actually, it's um yes, seven.

No, eight.

Sorry, that should be eight.

Um response from the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association.

And these are the receipts of support.

And opposition, the applicant is present.

Thank you.

Were there any voicemails or anyone signed to the speak on this?

No public comment.

Okay.

I hate I I know I don't like to do this.

Is there any commissioners have have it take any issue with this?

No.

Does anybody want to make a motion now just to move this along?

I will.

Commissioner Yvanes.

Regarding case number.

Regarding case number BOA 25103 00184.

I move that the Board of Adjustments grant a request.

Let me move this over a bit.

For one, a 400 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement of five of 6,000 square feet to allow development on a 5,600 square foot lot.

And two, a 10-foot variance from the minimum 50-foot lot width to allow a development on a lot with a 40-feet width, situated at 519 West Highland Boulevard.

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

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

The applicant intends to abide by all other development standards, including minimum setback requirements to ensure adequate separation between structures.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would prevent reasonable development of the property consistent with the surrounding area.

Despite the proposed home complying with the minimum setback requirements.

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

Adequate separation between properties will be maintained regardless of the substandard lot size and width.

The applicant intends to observe all the requirements of our six zoning district.

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

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 dimensions are reasonably sized to develop the proposed single family home while maintaining adequate separation from adjacent properties for the purposes of maintenance access, water runoff, and fire safety.

Staff finds the plight of the owner of the property 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 comply with the minimum lot size requirement by the R6 zoning district.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Ibanez.

I agree with the findings of the staff for approving this case.

It's meeting all of the minimum setbacks for this new housing on a vacant lot.

This neighborhood is the Roosevelt neighborhood, and there's quite a few vacant lots in this neighborhood.

So it's really wonderful to see that someone is going to be building a single family home on one.

So there's be one less vacant lot in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I agree with her.

I don't see a problem with it, especially since he does have quite a bit of support from the neighbor neighbors, even though the neighborhood association did not respond.

But I think that will be a good uh function for that area.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Yeah, Brewerton?

Yes, Commissioner Barrington.

Uh question of staff.

Is there a proposal in the pot for the revision of the UDC to allow for administrative variants in cases like this?

I think we talked about that one time.

We have that in our proposed uh suggested UDC amendments for 28 to 27.

That's on my list as well.

I'll be bringing that up as well.

Cool.

All right.

Anyone else?

Here now is a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

I concur with the findings and facts.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Thumbs up.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vafkith.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Thumbs up.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings.

In fact, motion passes unanimously, 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

You have any questions you can get with staff.

So item 9 was continued, leaving only item 10, which I will be recusing myself.

And I'm turning the reins over to uh Vice Chair Azuna.

All right, Steph.

The time is uh 10-6.

Senator Chair Donald has recused himself.

All right.

Item 10 is case BOA-25-1030187.

The address is 3038 Eisenhower Road in Council District 10, the applicant being Stephen G.

Cook Engineering Incorporated.

This is a request for a 145-foot variance from the maximum allowable 90-foot front setback to allow a structure within 235 feet with a 235 feet front setback.

And two, a 30-foot variance from the minimum required 40-foot rear setback to allow a structure with a 10-foot rear setback.

The zoning is MF33.

The subject property is generally located between North Van Diver Drive and Rainbow Drive along Eisenhower Road.

The asymmetrical shaped lot is surrounded by established residences and apartment complexes.

Ultimately, the applicant intends to utilize this complex as a supportive housing campus and a request for a specific use authorization via the change of zoning process is currently under review.

As the base zoning district is not proposed to change, the board may consider the variance request as proposed.

The MF33 base zoning district has a 10-foot rear setback normally.

However, when adjoining a platted subdivision zone for single family residential use, as in this case, the rear setback increases to a minimum rear setback of 40 feet.

Shown here is a site plan of the development.

Item number one is that increase to the maximum front setback beyond the 90 feet.

And item number two is the reduction of the minimum required rear setback.

Shown here is the subject property.

And the current access to that property and the surrounding area off of Eisenhower Road.

Staff recommendation for the front and rear setback variances.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030187 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed rear setback would provide adequate separation between structures and would not create a substantial loss of light visibility or airflow for adjacent properties.

And two, the proposed front setback would not significantly disrupt the character of the Eisenhower Road streetscape.

Staff mailed 85 notices, three were returned in favor, zero in opposition, one returned with no position.

The Oak Park Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association is in support, and the Woodbridge Condominium Association is in support.

Shown here is a letter from the Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association in support of the request.

And the response from the Woodbridge Condominium Association in support of the request.

And another comment in favor.

Thank you.

Let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Oh cruz.

Ms.

Cruz.

Just for my confirm confirmation.

This is an apartment complex that he's taking over.

Is that correct?

It's a new development.

The proposed use is a supportive housing campus, which is not currently permitted, but they are going to pursue a change of zoning to allow for that.

Okay.

All right.

I'll I'll ask the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cruz.

Good afternoon.

My name is Faye Hunter and I'm with Stephen G.

Cook Engineering.

Our office is performing subdivision plotting and surveying services on the project.

So our project is for the development of a new campus for the New Choices Treatment Center, a facility providing drug and alcohol recovery services.

This facility currently operates at 3050 Eisenhower Road at the property, immediately abutting the subject site to the northeast.

And while functioning, it does not provide the space desired for robust provision of services.

The proposed site will offer better sized facilities and real interior open space.

So when the land became available, the owner felt it was ideal to relocate the facilities.

Because the type of use is for a supportive housing campus, which requires a special use permit in all circumstances.

We also have a change of zoning application for a special use permit under zoning case Z-2025-1070233.

We have two variances being requested.

Number one is relief from the 90-foot maximum building setback from Eisenhower Road lots zoned MF-33 that have over 100 foot 100 feet of frontage.

And number two is preemptive relief from the 40-foot rear setback for lots zoned MF-33 that abut a platted single family use.

So this request is technically not required for our development as the single family home parcel abutting our project is not platted.

Because I had more tips on it.

So this area right here is the drainage easement I'm talking about.

Like this is a huge drainage channel.

So as for the second variants being requested, the MF-33 zoning district has a 10-foot rear setback, which becomes a 40-foot rear setback when abutting a platted single-family zoning district.

Down here you can see that this is unplatted.

So the 10-foot works now, but again, we're preemptively asking for the 40-foot in case it becomes platted in the future.

So technically we have three rear property lines because of the unique shape of our lot.

So up here, this is a rear property line, but as you can see, there's only a 20-foot strip here, so this is pretty unusable.

Down here is our main concern.

This L-shaped building will be the residential area.

So this is where we're asking for that preemptive variance.

And then down here we have met the preemptive 40-foot variants or 40-foot setback for this rear setback or rear property line.

So let's see.

The central property line where the lot offers the most usable space, which again is right here.

Further due to the existing site grades, this L-shaped building will drop approximately five feet and have a retaining wall along the rear property line.

So it will appear lower than a two-story structure to the neighboring property.

And additionally, it's not a typical apartment building, so it's not going to have like uh balconies that would be facing the residential area.

So as mentioned by city staff, we have reached out to Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association and Woodbridge, and we walked the site with Oak Bridge and uh Oak Park and they recommended approval.

Um please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Uh let's see if we have any questions for the applicant.

Ms.

Cruz.

So um how many residents uh apartments are you thinking of making there?

I see the admin building and I understand that one and of course the dining room.

So how many patient rooms are you all thinking of making?

Uh about 20 in that L-shaped building.

So they'll be one room for each patient, is that correct?

And right now there's nothing there, correct?

Correct.

So um because I can't unless they bring it up on Google map.

I'm not sure of the area.

Yeah, so so there's on our proposed site plan, there's not there's nothing there currently, like this is all empty.

Um however, our facility is currently operating out of this site.

So we're just looking to build over here and move the facilities from here to here, just so we have more space.

Because we want um, you know, we want the residents to have you know the courts and more area to utilize.

Okay, in your current space, how many residents do you currently have?

Um that I'm not certain about because um the owner couldn't be here, unfortunately, she's out of state.

But I don't know how many she currently has in the current facility.

But it wouldn't um it would be pretty similar.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cruz.

Manna.

Mr.

Manna.

So um if we bring up the drawing again for just for a second here.

So there we go.

So the um so on the property for the sloped side, there we go, this uh the slope side.

Uh that that only requires a 10-foot setback simply because it's still considered the side property, correct?

Um correct, yeah.

And then and so and truly what we're talking about is the 40-foot um on the south on the on the bottom part of that L bracket, correct?

Correct.

So um and then the neighborhood association representing the houses um representing those those lots south of that or or along at L are the um Oak Um Oak Park Northwood.

And they're the one ones that said they were okay with the Yeah, so both the both the neighborhood associations were in approval.

So all the buddy, I just all the abutting properties have said they were for it, is where I would go on.

Yeah, so so when we had talked with Northwood on site, they actually said, you know, they were in favor of this because they've never had any issues with the current facility, they're good neighbors, so and um one of the applicants uh or one of the one of the citizens that that did write in talked about um um drainage and drainage challenges.

Do you do you understand what they were trying to address or or how you're gonna do that?

Yeah, so um well, you know, part of it is that huge drainage ditch in the front of the property, which I mentioned we're like during plating, we're gonna have to put an easement around that.

Um so that's part of the drainage, but all of the drainage coming onto the site we're also accounting for by um we're gonna have like inlet drains that all pool and drain off the site.

So we are planning for considerable drainage infrastructure.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Very nice staff.

Do we have any voicemail on public processing?

Two voicemails and two speakers.

We'll play the uh voicemails first is Debbie Reed.

At 702 Thunder Drive.

San Antonio Texas 78209.

210, 300 9681.

Calling in regard to BOA K 187.

The Quakers consult with me on the project, which I am in opposition.

As a member of the city management advisory board, we know that every increase and impervious surface increases flooding.

In summary, the entire setback is required to mitigate flooding.

And to protect the rights of a buddy.

Thank you.

Um considering increase number BOA 2510187.

Um we are just fine with the setback issue.

Um I am clerk of the property committee for the transmiting in San Antonio at seven zero five to uh Van Diver immediately north of the or immediately west of the property uh considering in case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero one eight seven um we are just fine with the setback issue and we're fine with the uh changes in zoning however we are quite concerned about that the uh proposed parking lot uh will produce considerable runoff particularly in the rain and the way things appear from the map to be set up the drainage will go into a rather large gully that does not occur on the it's on the east side of the property in question the east edge of it um and it's on our the west uh the sorry the west edge of the crowd of that on our tower um at any rate we are concerned that it's probably been bit of mitigable but we would we're concerned that it will undercut the city um yeah the the tube the drainage tube that comes down from the diver and dumps things into the essentially a creek um we're concerned that unless it is mitigated in some way so we will cut the uh side of the property and cause trees to fall so um I want to get that in the record um I reachable at 2104870696 or at property at saquakers.org or s a q u a k e r s dot org um but as I said we have no problem with the setback and no problem with the change of uh zoning but there is there is a potential problem with um uh the proposed trainage thank you all righty first one is speaker is uh gorgeous thank you hi my name is Goggy Gabriel and we own the property at 319 rainbow which is um right there um right in back of the drug rehab center can we get can you can you use a pointer uh sorry I don't know how to use this thing just right okay so that's our property right there at 319 the um the drug rehab center is right there and they use part of this little strip thing uh driveway as a um smoking um environment and my concern is that right now they don't have a tall fence we just have a um just a regular fence there and we wanted to know that when they built back here if they built back there that they're gonna be putting up a tall eight foot fence because right now even though they have the their tenants the drug recap people they smoke back there and my tenants I can't really rent to a family because of them being back there.

I have gentlemen living there right now which is fine you know but the um they have not put up a a tall fence now so my question is are they gonna put up a tall fence behind us you know because we don't want to see all that and I mean I don't live there but my tenants live there and um and if I rent to a family I certainly wouldn't like the children being back there with the drug rehab people in view is that did y'all understand okay thank you Miss Gabriel and see if we have any questions thank you for your time here.

Thank you.

All right next speaker is uh Richard Earhholz Hi should have brought some water have been there all day and now my voice is shot I live in two thirty five rainbow which is the N lot can we get can we get your name for the record please Richard Erholtz Richard Erholz thank you.

Now my voice is shot.

I live in 235 Rainbow, which is the end lot.

Can we get can we get your name for the record, please?

Richard Earholtz.

Richard Erholtz, thank you.

E-R-H-O-L-T-Z.

Okay, please.

I live on this lot right here on the end.

And I have a garage that basically ends, it's a two-story that's like a little hobby shop.

I'm getting ready to retire in four months, and I've got a boat project and a car project I'm doing.

So I don't know if you know anything about the buoy apartments, but they evicted everybody there a few years back, and they closed the place down, and the city was involved with that, and they decided they were going to build restore it or rebuild it.

And so they said they were going to put cates and all this stuff, and well, none of that ever happened.

Now it caught on fire, and I had actually called my Congress or my uh city representative, county representative, because they were throwing trash over my fence.

They have a building they're planning to build right here.

I'm not sure what that building is.

It looks like it's some sort of a bus building.

I don't know what that building is.

If that's a resident or if what it is, but my my property line is right there.

I have the only lot that goes all the way to the back where the drainage ditch is.

So there's like a there's like a six-foot drop-off right on this line right here, and that's the car ports for van Diver apartments are are down right on this line back here, and that's a six-foot drop.

Well, five foot, whatever.

This is a hill right here.

This is the top of the hill on rainbow, and the water definitely runs downhill this way to this line.

So anyway, I have a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of classic cars and uh a garage with tools in it, and I would like at least an eight-foot fence along this end and maybe this side.

I know that I think you live right next to me, right here, and you probably want it too.

No, we do, then there's a lot of overgrowth there.

But anyway, I'm very skeptical that things aren't gonna happen when they move these people over because of just you know, if I can't get it secured enough to where I feel comfortable.

The other issue I have is the parking lot.

If they're gonna have light poles instead of covered parking, my bedroom is right about here, and basically there's there's no the the house is set back quite a ways in the lot.

And the house next to me is far quite a bit in front of my house towards the street.

So, sir, your you're concerned.

This is Ivanis over here.

You're concerned for about three things.

You're concerned about the flooding, you're concerned about privacy, and you're concerned about the light pollution that can occur on that property.

And where the air conditioners are gonna be and where the noise is.

So the noise coming from.

Okay, so four things.

Yeah.

All right.

So that the applicant can hear what you're concerned about.

And the other uh uh person who spoke is concerned about privacy.

And noise.

Okay.

And she's probably concerned about security also, because a really strange street.

It's only a block long, and the buoy is right right now.

There is the whole, I'm surrounded basically.

And then on the back is the van diver apartments, but they're long way away, and and their carport is like six foot below, so I can't even see their carport from my yard.

But the buoy has deteriorated into a terrible, terrible situation.

Has there been flooding, sir?

Uh rec, you know, from the last rains, the real severe rains we had.

Did you have severe flooding around there?

It runs right through in between our yards.

Basically, it runs down and behind beside my house and right straight through.

But it's not it's in a good spot.

It's on the top of the hill, so it's only that's the beginning of where the foot water, I mean where the water runs.

So it's it's manageable.

I'm not that concerned about the flooding per se unless they like building a few.

Anyway, th those are my reservations.

Thank you, Mr.

Holst.

Thank you.

See any other questions?

Staff, any other uh public comment or public comments.

Um but if I just clarify what um they are required uh to build a six-foot fence uh against that non-residential to residential um lot.

They are able to build an eight-foot fence.

They're not required, but they're able to build an eight-foot fence without the approval for the Board of Adjustment.

And also during the rezoning process, if you wish to make your voices heard over there, uh City Council may require them to do an eight-foot fence with the approved ordinance if approved.

So those are the options uh or the situation with the fence.

Uh sorry.

No, the board of adjustment can't cannot.

No, they cannot.

So the board of adjustment can allow them, but they're already allowed.

They can't require them.

Uh Mirko.

Um would that also include uh that other little section that is behind the property that they already have the apartments, it would be yes, that that little lane.

So they're required to put it up against the single family residential.

Um but again, City Council can require them to put it up to eight-foot fence.

And it would only be for the property that is the subject property, it would not they could not enforce the existing, no.

So the property for the concern of the first uh person who's who spoke.

Ms.

Gabriel.

Yes, Ms.

Gabriel's uh could they also include that fence as well?

Again, as Mirko said, they are going to be required to put a six-foot solid screen fence there.

So um that is along any of the property there, including along Miss Gabriel's um property.

Um they could potentially go up to eight.

It's not required, but again, as Marco said, it could be an item that would be could be discussed during the change of zoning.

Ms.

Gabriel, so um can you come back up to the front for a second here?

Apologize.

Make sure that you understood what was being said there.

So if if you so there is dialogue here with regards to it's mandatory to have a six-foot fence behind your property.

Right.

Okay.

And then um if it is that they bring this case before zoning, then council and and you all could recommend eight foot, um, and it would be an eight-foot fence then at that spot.

And so they can make that mandatory.

So it's something that you can work with, you know, with the applicant as well as with your city council should this move forward.

Does that make sense?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um basically that little drive that little driveway.

Um we would really only need the fence where their property ends.

I mean where the building ends, because the rest of it is just vacant.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I have to help the applicant to come forward and and address that fence issue.

Yes.

Um I am not certain about a fence at this point.

Um I'll have to check with the architect on that part.

But as far as this side along the residential side, so we will be putting in a retaining wall so we can lower the grade um to kind of even the site out, because there is a pretty drastic grade change, and I know there's a lot of concern with drainage as well, and that's why we're putting in um drainage infrastructure underground with inlets to capture all of the flow, not only from our site, but from like incoming um onto our site.

So to assist with any drainage issues as well.

Okay.

Well, but I will bring the concern of the fence back to the owner and the architect and let them know that.

I mean the architect's going to be aware that it's mandatory to have the fence.

So I'll let them know that you know, based on public concern, an eight-foot would probably be the best course of action.

All right, thank you.

Anna.

Mr.

Manna.

So there no worries.

And so the um so on the um building that is uh going down that small it uh that small section at the very bottom of their very south end of the property.

So so there's um it looks like a building and then the back side of the building is a courtyard or something on the back side.

Uh um it won't really be a courtyard, it's just open space.

Um, yeah, green space.

Okay.

Oh.

So he's talking about this area down here.

It's just open space.

Um previously we were planning to have a longer building, and we are gonna have some like basketball courts in there, and it's also um just office space to meet with the patients or the tenants.

And um so we've we've just shortened the building a little bit to I guess give that additional space for the 40 feet setback in case that ever become became platted.

Um, because we could we did have some wiggle room on that side.

Okay, and then um so I know that um and I didn't get who the name was, but a stormwater advisory board.

And so they talked about uh uh you know they were recommending um uh against this simply because of management of stormwater.

And so have you worked with the stormwater um uh board with regards to managing water or you know trying to address what it is that they're concerned about?

So that will be addressed during plating.

So we have kind of put plating on hold while we worked out the site plan and and got this underway, and then when we found out from the city that we were gonna have to go through the BOA and and specific use, um like we're trying to work through all of that, and now that that's wrapped up and as long as this you know gets approval at that point we put the plat back under review, and Stormwater has to review that thoroughly.

And they um make recommendations or changes to that, and I'm pretty certain they're gonna require a drainage easement around that big drainage area.

That's what I mentioned earlier.

So they will be reviewing it thoroughly.

And our grading and drainage plan that shows our infrastructure, like the inlets and whatnot.

Is this property large enough to require retention?

No.

Okay.

Ragman?

Ms.

Brackett.

Um, one of the concerns of the speakers was regarding lighting that would um go on to his property, especially the bedroom.

So is there gonna be lighting and will it be focused in towards the property or what unfortunately that I'm not sure because that would fall kind of to the architect as well.

Um but again, it's something that I wrote down so I could bring it up with them to see.

So what direction does it face?

Because it it seems to be it would probably be similar.

I'm not sure.

Well, so the thing with the existing site is that um the owner of the facility does not own that property.

She's renting it from someone else.

So they kind of came in and just you know made it work.

So you know, their intention with the new site is to make it work better for them than what they had there because you know they just made it work.

Um but yeah, I I will have to ask the architect about planned lighting.

So I'm glad that you have it on the list though.

Yeah.

I wrote it down, all the concerns, so I can make them aware.

Manna.

Mr.

Manna.

So with regards to lighting, um, so as the business come in, do they have to comply with regards to um edge of property lighting and and what kennel gets past that lighting?

Yes, I do know that there are nuisance um code items that our electrician um plan review team reviews to make sure that there's not bleeding of um lighting and to you other properties surrounding properties.

I I don't know the exact terminology, but yes, it is something that our um plan review team reviews.

Do we know what the difference is between mill spec lighting versus we'll say normal lighting?

So we'll say uh um I guess just rhetorical lighting with regards to coming from a business.

So mill spec lighting certainly is what we have around Camp Bullis and other areas with regards to how much light and downward lighting, basically everything's downward lit.

And so um you know, so just try and understand you know what those deltas are.

And so um, so just try and understand you know what those deltas are sorry, um can Mr.

Can Commissioner Benavides and Bonias please come to the screen.

Thank you.

Um to answer about the question for the um the different types of lighting, again, that would probably be better answered by our electrician teams that review these questions.

But it but if I understood correctly, there there is dialogue with regards to amount of light that's able to leave a property, and and I know that whenever it is that the light does leave a property, there is code compliance starts to get engaged in those dialogues.

That is correct.

I know that they do go out there at nighttime sometimes and they have uh meters that will review these kind of items.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions for the applicant.

Hearing none, I believe that closes a public portion of the meeting.

I'd ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Ragman.

Ms.

Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00187.

I move the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one a hundred and forty-five foot variants from the maximum allowable 90-foot front setback to allow the structure with a 235-foot front setback, and two, a 30-foot variance from the minimum required 40-foot rear setback to allow a structure with a 10-foot rear setback situated at 3038 Eisenhower Road applicant being Stephen G.

Coke Cook engineering uh because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property, such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code, as amended would have resulted in unnecessary hardship.

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

The proposed rear setback would provide adequate separation between structures.

It would not create a substantial loss of light visibility or airflow for adjacent properties.

The proposed front setback would not significantly disrupt the character of the Eisenhower Road streetscape, as the new development would be situated behind existing multifamily uses.

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

The irregular lot shape limits the developable space on the property as the lot is not wide enough to support development within the first two hundred and thirty-five feet of lot depth.

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

The unified development code normally accounts for lots with limited frontage to relieve them of front setback requirements.

However, however, this lot does not meet the exact definition of a flag lot and therefore is not afforded such relief by the UDC.

Four, 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 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 proposed development would have the appearance of a continuation of existing multifamily developments that surround this property rather than a noticeable deviation from existing development patterns.

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 of the property and are not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions of the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owners due to the unique lot configuration and shape and the existing drainage infrastructure along the property's frontage.

These conditions and a literal enforcement of the applicable ordinances would prevent development on over two acres of otherwise developable space.

End of motion.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Second.

I'll be in support of this motion.

I think this variance is just a first step in the process.

I think the appling is going to be required to meet an awful lot more requirements, both drainage, lighting, uh, fences, which again, those still have to be approved by the other boards and commissions.

This is just a first step in terms of the setbacks.

So I'll be in support so that this variants can move forward.

Um and they do have support from uh some neighbors and also the uh associations uh in the area.

Thank you.

Mr.

Manna?

Yes, I concur with my colleague.

And then also, you know, I think um as we're kind of taught having the dialogue, I think some of the issues that were brought up, I think, are going to be addressed automatically by the overall workflow of how this is going to happen.

So I thank you all for coming you know forward and talking about those.

And then also recommend you know talking with your neighborhood association and and work continue to work with them to continue you know to have a stronger voice with the applicant as they kind of come through.

Um then um and and really the only concern I have is that the only concern I had really um that maybe hasn't fully been addressed is the stormwater dialogue.

But uh you know, as been said, it does appear that that's gonna be resolved as part of this workflow as well.

So um I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Mr.

Manna.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in support of the motion as well.

I think the the issues have been resolved, uh although you would need to stay in contact as his case uh kind of advances to to counsel in regards to the eight-foot fans to make make your um your testimony be heard in front of them so to get the opportunity to get that eight-foot fans.

I know the applicant is aware of the of the um issues, and I think they'll work to kind of remedy and implicate the neighbors with that.

So with all that said, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Oh, any other comments from board?

Hearing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bragman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanet.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commission Commissioner Vafket.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

And Vice Chair Ozuna.

Yes, I concur with uh ten in favor, zero in opposition.

The variance uh does pass as red.

Congratulations, good luck with the project.

I encourage you to stay involved with the with the uh neighbors there.

Uh the time is uh 301 and uh our chair Donald is back.

So we don't have any minutes to go over today, and that we don't have any more cases in a director's report.

No director's report.

Well then I it's 302.

We're adjourned.