All right.

It is 102.

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

If they have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes a those.

Las personas que prefieren escuchar esta junta in espanol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much.

Staff, if you please call roll.

Commissioner Barrington.

Here.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

Present.

Commissioner Mana?

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Benavidez.

She's about to walk in.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Present.

Commissioner Vafkith.

Present.

Commissioner Brown.

Here.

Chair Orion.

And I'm here.

So we have all 11.

So that's great.

We have a quorum.

And if everyone could please join me in the pledge.

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

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation undervisible with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state.

I'm going to one and indivisible.

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 will make announcements such as community calendar events.

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 the power 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 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 asserted 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 in granting the release law rests with the applicant.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

And property within 200 feet of the subject property.

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

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

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

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

Those given out their time must be present and sign up to speak.

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

So today we'll be moving item number 11 up to be heard first.

So if staff could please uh start on item number 11.

Good afternoon.

Item number 11 is BOA-25-103-00193, addressed at 1058 Steves Avenue.

In console district three, the applicant is Omar Akrama and a request for one, a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum five-foot site setback to allow our carport to be one inch width overhang from the west side property line limited to 37 feet in depth.

Two, a four foot six-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure to be six inches with overhang from the east side property line, and three, an eight foot two-inch variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clairvision to allow a six foot ten-inch driveway clairvision.

The zone is R4.

The subject property is situated on Steve's Avenue, just east of South Press Street.

The property currently contains a single family home with an attached carport and a shed located in the rear yard.

The applicant has obtained permits for residential repairs in addition, following a stop work order issued on February 5th, 2024.

Since plans and a defined scope of work for the shed remodel have not yet been submitted, the applicant is also requesting a variance to maintain the shed at its existing distance from the east side property line.

Due to the extent of proposed work on the carport by repairing the base and replacing the roof, it qualifies as new construction and would require variants to rebuild within the original setback.

A build-in permit for the carport has not yet been submitted.

The recently installed wrought iron fence in the front yard complies with the maximum height requirement.

However, it is within the driveway clairvision area would require variants to remain in its current location.

This is the site plan highlighted the locations of these side sec variants and the driveway clear vision.

This is a historical view from March 2009.

You can see the previous fence and the carport already there as well.

And this is the current view with the new wrought iron fence and the current carport in the same location.

And this is just a closer view of what the side setback would look like with the overhang and the access restructure in the rear yard.

And highlighting the driveway clairvision and the surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation for the driver clairvision is approval in BOA-25-103-00193 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the requested variants will not alter the essential characteristics of the district as similar fences located within driveway clairvision area have been observed in this historically older neighborhood.

And two, the predominantly open design of defense does not impede visibility for traffic along Steve's Avenue, nor does it obstruct safe ingress and egress from the property.

Staff's recommendation for the carport and accessory structure site setback is denial in BOA-25-103, 00193, based on the following findings of fact.

One insufficient space will remain between neighboring properties for the purposes of water runoff, fire safety, and the maintenance of the carport and accessory structure.

And two, as a renovation is proposed, the accessory structure can reasonably be reasonably be redesigned to adhere to the required site setback.

Staff mail 32 notices, zero were received in favor, and zero in opposition, and the subject property is not located within the boundary of a registered neighborhood association.

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

All right, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

My name is Denise Lopez.

Okay.

And tell us about your project.

We're working on remodeling the house.

It's quite old.

And I don't think in livable situation now.

The carport and that back building have been there for years and years.

I think that the statement saying that it's unsafe, that it's too close.

The neighbors have no objection to our carport or the back building being that close to the fence.

Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous.

This is the first time I've ever done this.

I'm not sure what else I need to add.

But well, let me start off with some questions.

Okay.

Does your uh proposed car port have gutters?

If we need to add that, we can.

Well, we cannot impose conditions.

But as the applicant, you were uh completely allowed to amend your application to include gutters.

If you would like to do so.

Yes.

Okay.

Say if it's a requirement or something that will help this process, then I'm very happy to do that.

Okay.

And on the with regards to the accessory structure in the back, uh, are you reusing the foundation?

Or are you just doing minor repairs to the accessory structure?

We were hoping to keep it and then just use it as storage once we've updated it.

I'm not sure if it has a concrete slab or not.

Um I really was more focused on the house and what we needed to do with the house than and maybe the staff know if that shed is sitting on a concrete slab?

I do not.

Okay.

Um and then I also noticed that with the application that accessory structure was at a slight angle.

Do you know?

You know, we're here to talk about a setback, but is a majority of the setback?

Uh I'm sorry, a majority of the accessory structure five feet away.

Or can you talk about its positioning in relation to the side property line?

I have not measured it.

I do know that it is close to the fence.

Okay.

But on the corner that's closest to your home, is it much further from the fence?

Like let's say five feet.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Staff, can you bring up the um site plan?

So the site plan is showing the accessory structure at an angle.

Okay.

Now I'm trying to see, you know, if how far away it is at it at the corner closest to your home.

It's not very close to the house.

It's to the side to the fence.

To the fence.

Okay.

Is there any commissioner questions?

And just to uh clarify when we discuss this with the applicant, um, we put this on here because they were showing interest in either remodeling or rebuilding this accessory structure.

Okay.

Um that's why we included it on here.

Okay.

Yes, yes, I'm aware of that.

Thank you.

Yeah, this this board will sometimes receive requests which can be changed a little but still meet the need of the applicant.

So I was just curious if six inches uh was necessary, or is that could it be increased?

I'm not sure.

I would need to go back and measure the carport and see.

Well, the accessory structure.

The accessory.

Okay.

Is there any uh voicemails anyone's honored to speak?

One voicemail.

Okay.

Uh is there any before we hear the voicemail, any questions from the commission?

Any questions from the commission?

I don't hear none of this I have a voicemail.

I mean it's Michael.

Address 1059.

Telephone number?

210 317 415.

25.

103 00193.

I am in favor of the uh request.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh if there's no more questions from the commission, uh, is there anything the applicant would like to um let us know before we move to a motion?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

I have a question.

Yes, Commissioner Brown.

I'm looking at the uh the property on this computer, and she wants to Commissioner Brown.

Can you make sure your mic's on?

You gotta hold the button down.

I'm holding it down.

Okay.

I'm looking at the picture.

If she wants uh a variant of how many feet from the property from her property line, the fence.

She wanted a variance, is that correct?

For the carport, it's at the one-inch property line.

And for the accessory structure for the six inches, for the carport, not for the not for the the uh correct.

The accessory structure will have six inches eight inches from the from her property line.

Correct, from the rear uh side property line.

Okay, so that is eight inches from her neighbor.

Is that what you're saying?

Eight inches from I'm sorry, six inches from her side property line, um, as indicated in item number two on that picture.

Well, I'm looking at this picture here.

I guess this is number two.

Um I'm looking at the one with the site plan.

So the the uh carport is going to come out further than it's supposed to be.

The carport is going to stop at the one-inch side setback.

The one inch side.

It's going to be one inch from the side property line, so one inch from the neighboring property for the carport.

As for the accessory structure, it is six inches from the property line, six inches from the neighboring property.

And your neighbor is okay with that.

Yes.

The neighbor's yes, the neighbor is accepting of that.

So she's okay with it now.

How is she going to be okay with it?

I went and spoke to the neighbor.

And they have no objections.

So she's not changing the instructions.

So it's a sample.

Yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

Eight inches from 75.

Okay.

Uh there's no other questions.

I'm looking for a motion.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030193.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for one, a four-foot eleven-inch variance for the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters to be one inch with overhang from the west side property line limited to limited to 37 feet in depth.

And two, a four-foot-six-inch variance for the minimum five-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure to be six inches with overhang from the east side property line.

And three, an eight-foot-two-inch variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a six-foot-10-inch driveway clear vision situated at 1058 Steves Avenue applicant being Omar Arama, uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical characters property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The carport and accessory structure side setback with the reduced site setbacks will provide sufficient spacing between the properties for the purposes of water runoff, safety concerns, and structure maintenance.

And for driveway clear vision, the predominantly open fence is sufficiently set back from the public right of way and does not impact safe ingress and egress onto Steve's Avenue.

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

For the carport accessory structure side setback, uh redesigning the shed to comply with the required site setback would limit the functional use of the rear yard.

The carport supports support posts cannot be uh repositioned without significantly compromising the functionality of the structure to provide coverage for a full-size vehicle.

With regarding the driveway clear vision, the new fence was installed in the same location as a previous chain link fence and will continue to provide the property owners with security and privacy from Steve's Avenue a secondary artillery arterial.

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

The carport and accessory structure side setback will provide sufficient space.

Uh sufficient space remains between the carport and the property to the west, as well as between the accessory structure and the property to the east.

And regarding the driveway clear vision, the fence is not significantly encroached into the public right of way or impact pedestrian and traffic safety.

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

Regarding the carport and accessory structure setback, uh, if the variance is granted, the reduced setback will not injure appropriate properties, nor will it increase the risk of fire aggravation or potential water runoff into the neighboring properties.

Regarding the driveway clear vision, the fence location along the front yard does not alter the essential character of the district, as this neighborhood streetscape consists of fences installed along the front in a similar manner to the subject property.

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

Regarding the carport accessory structure, uh redesigning the accessory structure to comply with the side setback requirement will reduce the functional use of the rear yard.

Additionally, the carport overhang cannot reasonably be repositioned without compromising the intended design and usability of the structure.

Um regarding the driveway clear vision, defense does not obstruct clear vision for traffic flow on Stees Avenue or hinder safe ingress and egress for the property.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Azuna.

Uh Commissioner Manna.

So I'll be voting in favor of this.

Uh one, you know, so the city has looked at this and and they were uh recommending approvals, so from that perspective.

I think being that um that there was not any negative feedback from the community itself, uh, so I don't see anything there.

And then also leveraging the existing um footprint of what's already there seems to be consistent with what is that does what I would normally approve on uh from this board.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I support for the same reasons.

In addition, the applicant well stated that she'll be uh putting gutters and it will the one inch would have to comply with the with the gutters.

Also, if you look at the aerials, uh the neighbor from that area for the one-inch setback, the neighborhouse is set back uh far enough that I don't think it's going to be any kind of a fire break condition, and she would have to meet all building uh permits, an applicable fire code for that.

So, for all those reasons I'm supporting the motion as read.

Uh I have a request uh Commissioner Manna, can you can you uh update the references to the word fence to predominantly open fence?

Certainly, I'll accept that.

Um predominantly open fencing.

Thank you.

Commissioner Zuna, do you accept that?

Yes, accepted.

All right, is there any uh the other Commissioner comments or like uh comments I'd like to add to this?

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

Commissioner Manor?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vaska.

I concur.

Commissioner Brown.

Aye.

Chair O'Reilly.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Yay, thank you.

Very much.

All right.

Uh, we are back on number one, item one.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, Planner with Development Services.

Item number one is requested by Mitchell Gonzalez and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to Hawk collection located at 704 Connectway.

The subject properties located at 704 Cunningway.

Surrounding uses include residential single family as of March 10th, 2025.

Platforms that directly remit state hot also now directly remit City Hot to the city's finance department.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the permit was revoked on July 29th.

So there's a total of six units on the block face one active STR type two permit is already on the block, located at 716 Kunnyway, issued on March 14, 2023.

The subject property does not have any code violations.

And a bit of the background history.

This is the communication sent out from Avenue to the applicant.

And this is the site plan of the property submitted at the time of the application.

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

And there were a total of 38 mil notices.

Zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is in favor, and three citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alright.

One quick question.

Do they currently owe any money?

Okay.

All right.

I have a question as well.

Yes, Commissioner Zuna.

Okay, so the subject is a type one, right?

Uh permit?

Yes.

But if you look at their listing, it says the entire home is available.

Right?

Is uh does the applicant make I guess accommodations for them to be staying at the house when the I believe this is something the applicant would be best at answering, but this is as a type one.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um question.

You're saying that the Democrats neighborhood association is in favor, but your notification plan says they were opposed.

So were they opposed and then they changed it?

So they they were opposed before being continued, but now they are in favor.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Well, let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

All right, Steve.

Good afternoon.

Mitchell Gonzalez.

All right, and tell us about your uh SDR and what's happened since your continuation.

So I've come twice since the first time I came here.

Um what the situation was was the association wasn't in favor, so I actually scheduled to be part of the board meeting.

I've told them about my STR.

They were very supportive about it, and then they did change their mind, which is why now they're in favor.

Um to answer your question on the type one.

Um the last time I was here.

Um I don't so I rent out the whole house, but I also stay there.

My wife's a traveling nurse, so we are there.

Um, but I know that's the question they asked one of the gentlemen over here.

Um, if it should be considered a type one, and it does fit in those guidelines.

Um so that's kind of like currently where I'm at on it.

Um other than that, um the associate the association loved that I maintain the property that's nice property on the block, and um we've had no complaints.

Uh no police have been called, uh, have very strict rules.

Um I'm in communication with my neighbors.

Like I have no complaints with them, but I don't communicate them on the daily basis.

Like we're not, I don't have um their communication with them uh currently.

But um I've had no complaints other than that, and that's pretty much it.

Oh, and then the reason obviously I I did get my permit revoked was I missed November of 2024 hot taxes, and I didn't catch it until like they pretty much revoked because they sent one email and then they sent the next email they sent was I was revoked.

So I I did get the letters, but I honestly didn't know that they were from the City of San Antonio because they had a weird logo on them.

It didn't say City of San Antonio.

It I thought it was junk mail, so I just kept throwing in the trash.

And then I didn't know until I got an email to my email, and it was only two emails, and then they revoked my license.

So um I didn't miss November of 2024 and I didn't catch it until July of 2025.

But we are caught up.

Have you made all your filings and you and do you owe any hot tax to your knowledge?

No.

Okay.

Staff, uh, is that verified?

So he does owe for two months for December 2023 and December 2023.

He obtained his permit November 7th, 2023.

He owes a filing or he owes hot tax?

Both.

Filing and hot.

We we we do need to do August and September and I didn't work, I'm gonna work on that this month, but I haven't been running it out since we've been going through this process because I just wanted to get this finalized and decide what I'm gonna do, because if I if unfortunately, if I do get it revoked, I'm gonna have to sell the property because I just go ahead.

So for staff, uh if this gets approved today uh and he still won't get a permit until he makes good on that that pass due amount and filing, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

I I also want to mention that the testimony that was presented at the last board meeting was such that when the property is booked, he is not at the property, he resides with relatives, so it's also entirely possible this will need to be resubmitted as a type two application should the board decide to um should the board find that staff made an error.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions from the commission?

How about it?

Commissioner Benavides?

I'm just curious.

So I see that you kind of spot pay decide when you're gonna pay your taxes.

I'm just curious as to why you pay them certain months.

I mean you obviously know that they're due.

Yeah, right, but then you fall behind.

It's no excuse, uh, but I I do leave I have a lot of responsibility, so I I do leave this to my wife, and she did get pregnant during that time, and uh she was kind of sick during the beginning of that, so she we fell behind and November of 2024 is when they uh they revoked my permit because I missed that month.

Um now these last two months uh we really just we report like about two months out.

Like we we c we keep ourselves within the time frame of where we're not gonna get revoked, but we still report to cat uh to catch up every month or every month or two.

So we don't do it on a monthly basis, we usually do it every two to three months that we report for the last two to three months.

But this but in November, I didn't know we missed that month until July.

So it was just like, oh my god, it caught me off guard, and and then by then it was they were like, well, you got your license revoked, and I was kind of thrown off guard, but um that's pretty much why but you do realize that when you sign up for the permit, uh one of the requirements is that you you file your taxes at the end of you know, uh after that month.

Yes, yes.

Yes, I'm gonna do it.

Yeah, yeah.

We like I said we keep up with the I've never had issues.

I've I've had this permit since 2023, so like we've done that and it's been good if we just missed six like we missed that one month and it six months passed.

So we we've never had issues with ever getting any close anywhere close to having our permit revoked.

Even though we don't report every month, we've still never gotten close to having it revoked until this time, and we just missed it.

I mean, I wouldn't have missed six months ago, a month in November of 24.

Commissioner Manning?

So so I guess uh yeah um so as a owner of a business, yeah, I guess I'm looking for I guess a um a commitment that it's not going to be kind of as determined by you, but as required by the city, you know, because I I am struggling here a little bit, you know, because normally people are coming and said, okay, I want to make it right, and you know, it will be consistent and part of the part of the revenue that is brought in is paid directly back to the city as an ongoing process.

And so so you know if you aren't committing to that, then I don't know that I can commit to you to say, okay, you know, that that you know that this is right.

So I I you know I'm struggling there a little bit.

I I think the reason that we weren't doing it every month is because we've been doing this for a long time, so like when we would do it every two to three months, it didn't affect us at all.

Like it didn't affect us with the city, like the city would never reach out to me.

Okay, so so okay, so so yes, it did pack you for the city, you just weren't responding to it because they're you're you are delinquent at that point, you know, if you aren't doing it every month, because that's what the city contract says.

So so so you are basically not not consistent with the city's requirement, but you aren't being um punished for it.

I'll I'll use that uh you know, with regards to the the other side of the city.

So so you know, so I guess I have a problem with the way that you're stating that.

I'm sorry.

I know and it's 100% understandable.

I guess I might I did not know we were delinquent because we had been doing it, and I never got any notice that I was ever delinquent until November of 2024.

That was like and then the the notices obviously that came after that.

I didn't even know that I got them.

So to answer your question, I never knew that we were delinquent when we had been doing this for a whole year, and we had been catching every time we would wait, you know.

It not that we would wait, but we would just catch it like you know, a month out, and we would just catch back up.

And so it never we never got like between that time we never got letters like he he even showed like we never got letters when we filed a month later.

Like it so I didn't know I was delinquent.

I thought I honestly thought that we could as long as we're staying within that two month time frame, we should be fine.

So question for the city staff.

So um are there so when when an applicant does miss a payment from Avenue, um are they notified immediately uh within that month that they're now delinquent?

Or or yes, what is the communication back for the city, I guess, yo, through this process?

Yes, they do receive 30, 60, and 90 day notices.

Avenue has continued to send out letters after the 90 days.

Um and I'd like to add on this account, in the 22 months that he had his permit, he only reported and paid three times.

So he went into the system three times only.

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission?

So uh boy city staff.

So does that mean he would still be high on hot taxes?

Even though he's he only was going in maybe two times a year?

Yes.

So he's delinquent November 23 and December 23.

He did have states for those two months.

Okay.

But currently, I mean he's delinquent for those two months, but right now the platforms will be submitting the hot tax.

Correct.

So okay.

So now it's a mostly a filing issue.

Yeah.

Right.

Um is there any voicemails or uh anyone signed up to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Any further questions from the commission?

All right, thank you very much.

We'll look for a motion, see how this turns out.

Okay.

Commissioner Benavese.

Regarding case number BOA 251030150.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 704 CUNY Way.

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

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Benavides.

Um I I will not be um in favor of the applicant.

I apologize, but I I think it's irresponsible.

Uh I think the city um and the the city of San Antonio depend on those hot taxes that they're paid.

I think you were, you know, by signing the agreement at the end of the 30 days and the at the end of each month you're responsible whether you uh whether it is um rented out or not to uh to make your account current.

Thank you, Commissioner Manett.

Um I concur with my colleague.

And so yeah, um reviewing whether or not the city made a mistake here in revoking it.

Um I don't see that a mistake was made, and so because of that, um I won't I will not be supporting the appeal.

Any other commissioners like to add?

I I just have to question, Mr.

Chair.

So if it's denied here today and he reapplies as a short term term too, would that be a whole different process or staff?

No, there's a one-year uh prohibition on a subsequent STR application.

Okay.

So the property could be rented for longer than 30 days without having to obtain a permit, but no STR permit would be allowed for one year.

One or two.

Thank you.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Any other commissioner commentary?

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

Commissioner Benavid?

I do not concur.

I do not support the appeal.

Commissioner Barrington?

No, I do not agree.

Commissioner Stevens?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Glomez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Alzuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vafkas.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Brown?

Absolutely not.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur, motion fails one to ten.

All right.

Next item, item two.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number two is BOA-25-103, 00155, located at 311 wearing drive in Council District 1.

Uh the applicant is Jennifer Reese Holliger, and the request is for a special exception to allow for one additional type 2 on the block face.

And the current zoning is R5 for residential single family.

Again, the subject property is located at 311 wearing drive.

Surrounding land uses include a residential single family.

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

Per the city code type two STRs shall be limited to no more than one-eighth, or 12.5% of the total number of single family duplex, triplex, or quadruplex units on the block face.

So this is the type two density count, and there are 10 units on this block face, which extends from 303 to 427 wearing drive.

One active type two is currently there at 423 wearing drive, as indicated by the red marker.

With that, the block face is at 10%.

And if this additional type 2 is approved today, the block face would be at 20%, which exceeds our density limitation for type 2 STRs.

The subject property doesn't have any code violations or active listings.

This is the site plan, the subject property, and then the surrounding areas.

Staff recommendation for the special exception.

Staff recommends a denial of the applicant's request.

And this is the notification plan.

We mailed out 25 notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

We had no response from the Sharer Hills Ridgeview Neighborhood Association.

And the four citywide groups were notified with no response.

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

Just a good question.

No, sir.

All right.

So the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your short-term rental.

My name is Jennifer.

My husband was supposed to be here, but he got he got called out.

So you have me.

We love San Antonio, so that's originally why we purchased this home.

We come out here, we wanted a place to bring our family, our friends, instead of keep coming back and staying in hotels.

We found this area because it's close to the airport, close to all the attractions.

And eventually hopefully we can move out here.

And so that's why we fell in love with it.

Because we can't be here at the time, right now, we got this in hopes we can do a short-term rental with it to help offset the expenses when we're not here.

That was the biggest contingency on us closing.

So we went ahead and closed March 18th, come to find out when we went to apply.

One was just uh provided, a permit provided, 423 on March 21st.

So that's stung.

Uh and now here we are trying to figure out what we can do.

Um we've invested in education for STR.

We didn't go out, we're not go you know going at this blindly, not trying to wing it.

We spent about six months um learning how to do an STR, uh figuring out how to do it from start to finish, run it, all that fun stuff.

Um we've also engaged and um invested in a design company to help you know attract families because that's our biggest target.

We're a family, we have families.

So we want to um so that's what we're trying to do.

But we just need that permit, unfortunately.

Um after the denial, so that's the the well, that's the company that we work with.

I still have friends with a lot of them, have contacts, so it's not like again, I'm not going at this blindly.

If I have any questions, I can easily pick up the phone and give them a call.

Um after the denial, my husband and I tried to go look at options for long-term rentals.

But long-term rentals with our mortgage and the costs, we it just won't happen.

It just can't happen to help offset the costs.

Um plus it just defeats the purpose of why we originally purchased this home.

We wanted to have a place where our family of friends can come to San Antonio and fall in love with the home as we have you know the culture, the history, the city.

Um so that's why we're here asking for an exception.

Um, like I said, we love the city.

We have support.

We I mean we just that's why I'm here.

Okay.

So this would be clear you purchased it in March of 2025.

We did.

And prior to closing the biggest contingency was no permits.

Have you put any money into uh remodeling the home?

We have.

And and with that design program and the company that we have worked with, uh, we um we have put money into that as well.

All right.

And fixing up the home and uh staff, is there any voicemails or uh anyone signed out of the speech?

No public comment.

Is any commissioner questions?

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

And maybe a question for city staff or or maybe the applicant as well.

So so I I know that you know so we had the short-term rental space with regards to how how people look for places to to get to.

And are there similar spaces for those for like the 30-day plus rentals?

So the the longer-term rentals, are there is there a space you know that's that's available or you know that people go to normally for those kind of things?

Certainly uh nothing that DSD provides, nothing that I'm aware the city provides.

Um there are certainly cities out there that require registration for all rentals, whether it's long or short term.

San Antonio does not require registration, so I don't know of a portal to go to to see of anything like that.

So it maybe uh uh I'll ask travel time through the swing here.

So are there um services out there where it is that one can list a home for more than 15 days?

So a 30-day rental where you can list it.

And I I'm I just you know don't know if that exists or not.

I'm I'm just making that assumption that there are services out there where you can say I want to, you know, I can go out and look and say I want to move to some city for 30 days and I can go look someplace for that.

I imagine there are.

I think Zillow advertises the long-term rentals, some other platforms like that, but I'm I'm not exactly an expert in that territory.

Okay.

So and so kind of bring around the question.

So so as you were looking for we'll say when I think of long-term rental, I'm thinking a year period when it when I think of long-term rental, and I don't know what the intermediate rental is for like the the 30-day business class of user, and so I don't know what space that is.

And so when you were doing your research, um, you know, were you looking at the full year rental where you it wasn't going to resolve itself versus we'll say that intermediate business class?

Correct.

So, like monthly, as it says right here, like 2200 is what it was going for.

Or similar homes, because we're a four-bedroom, two-bathing.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Yes, Commissioner Brown.

To staff.

I'm looking at this uh notification plan.

Excuse me.

And I'm looking at her properties.

So are there one, two, three, four properties that are short-term or long-term rentals in that area?

Is that what I'm looking at?

So can can we go to the green map?

I'm sorry.

So the green map on the screen is the notification plan.

This is different?

Yeah.

I I think there are nine properties on this block face.

Is it 10 properties on this block face, and that one at the top of your screen is the location of the other type 2 STR.

So how many is in her block face?

Just one?

Right now it's one.

And how many around around the surrounding area?

There are no others.

Uh we on this screen we would map out the presence of any others.

So the only other one is the one that's on this same block face.

There's no others on other streets, at least as far as that map is showing.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh and what day did you close in your house?

March 18th.

Okay.

It looks like the other short-term rental was issued March.

21st.

March 21st.

That's close.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh if there's no other questions.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna?

Mana, man.

So and just to answer for um uh Ms.

Brown here.

And so there's there's four other listings of type two within a quarter mile.

And so not as dense as uh we seen elsewhere.

So that I'm looking for a motion.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

Um regarding case number BOA 251030155.

I've moved to the Board of Adjustment, grant a special exception to allow for one uh a type two short-term rental unit situated at 311 Waring Street.

Applicant B and Jennifer Reese uh Hulliger, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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

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

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

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

C, the neighboring property will 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 2 short-term rental.

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

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

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

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

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

The subject property is located in close proximity to other residential uses, with the property owner providing off-street parking, maintaining it from the neighboring property.

The special exception does not appear to alter the central character of the district and location in which this property is uh seeking the special exception and a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Manor So that um so I generally uh you know am pretty strict, I guess, with regards to my position on short-term rentals.

But looking at this property where it sits and the number of short-term rentals in this area, I don't think that that area is oversaturated.

And I think unfortunately, it's an unfortunate set of timing.

Uh, and we just we're having dialogue in this, but in this case, I think I will be voting in favor of the candidate.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Benavides.

I I agree with my uh colleague um Commissioner Manna.

I um I I agree with the the density um of this area, and also I think it's unfortunate that you close on the 18th, and it was um issued a few days later talking about the luck of the drawing that hurt.

Um so I I will be in favor of the motion.

All right, anyone else like to add.

Uh I'm also gonna be in favor of this one.

Uh, you know, no one's opposed to it.

And uh this was just rough timing for the applicant who apparently is is is joined uh an org uh support organization has tried to do everything the way they they needed to, but it was just tough.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, so I'll be in support as well.

The re the uh permit will be up for review in three years, so if she's not operating it in good order, uh we'll have the chance to review and decide whether or not we can renew the permit or not.

So I'll I'll be supporting.

All right, thank you very much.

If there's no one else, let's have roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I'll concur.

Commissioner Glometh.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bafket.

I concur.

Commissioner Brown.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I encourage the findings of fact.

Motion passes 92.

Uh we'll see you back here in three years.

Thank you.

You have any questions, please get with staff.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Item three.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Advice, Senior Planning with Development Services.

Item number three is requested by Kimberly Devote and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to Hawk collection located at 1211 South Pine Street.

The subject property is located at 1211 South Pine Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family as of March 10th, 2025.

Platforms that directly remit state hot also now directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

All STR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Burr County HOT through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Seven notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from September 2024 through March 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on July 14th, 2025.

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

Therefore, the permit was revoked on July 29th.

There are a total of four units on the block face.

There are zero active STR type twos on the block.

And a little bit of the background history.

On April 19, 2023, they there were operating without an active permit.

There was no violation and it closed shortly after.

They submitted an application on April 21st, 2023.

On May 1st of 2023, they were issued their type two.

And on July 29th of 2025, the STR permit was revoked due to autocollection.

And the subject property does not have any active listings as of today.

This is the communication that was sent out from Avenue.

And this is the side plan of the property submitted at the time of the application.

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

Staff recommended denial of the applicants' appeal.

And there were a total of 33 mill notices.

Seven in favor, zero in opposition.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is in favor, and three citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

So just to be clear, since the last time they were here, they had no support and now they have seven residents and the neighborhood association.

So before they were continued, they did have the seven in favor.

The Denver Heights wasn't in favor until they presented it to them on the 13th of October, and then they switched their their um decision to be in favor.

And do they currently have any outstanding filings or indebtedness to the city on this?

Um July 2025.

They have not reported.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Um my name is can I move this?

Um my name is Kimberly DeVault, and I have the STR at 1211 South Pine.

Um we originally were going to open that piece of property to utilize for our foster kids that were transitioning out of foster care.

Um as I'm active with CASA children's court, and I really wanted to do that.

But after polling from the neighbors in the area, they preferred that the property not be utilized for that because they didn't know who was going to be coming and going from that property.

So I re-evaluated by um questioning and having sit-downs with the neighbors, and they agreed to short-term rental that they wouldn't have a problem with it.

And so I engaged with them in how we would notify each other of the comings and goings of individuals that were going to be exiting and entering the property so that they felt safe, you know, for their children and individuals that were within that neighborhood.

Um so my intention is not to um or it is to provide the support that shows that um I did not intentionally not pay my hot taxes, um, that it was due to portal um poor communication and inability to express why during that period of time I was unable to pay my hot taxes.

Um I think one posted on there that I was um I think it was in March where I was running it active and I didn't I I wasn't running it active when people were utilizing it.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Um can you go down to one so I can read off there?

Or up to one so that I'm not having my eyesight's poor.

Um so from November 24th through July 25th.

Um I made repeated attempts to resolve my short-term rental obligations.

Um I was trying to inform them because I did have it as STR, and it was still registered as STR, but I allowed my stepson to move into the home.

Um he was not maintaining it, but I was trying to get a hold of the city and Avenue, which I believe it was legacy before that, um, to let them know that it was not going to be operated as a short-term rental at this time as I had a long-term um renter in it.

Um I was able to get a hold of individuals.

They did mail um invoices or um receipts from Avenue, but there is no area within that mailing that allows you to state it's not being utilized as a short-term rental.

I have a long-term rental in it.

Um I don't need to pay my HO my HOTs and the portal was not um acknowledging me in the portal.

So I was unable to even access it to put a zero amount in there.

So I called the phone number that was on the mailer that I got, which is the number there, and it said that the phone number wasn't working, there was no live agent for me to get in contact with to be able to do that.

I sent multiple emails as it relates to delinquency and short-term taxes.

The lines were busy, I would have to call back at a later time.

So I was not able to establish live communication with any single person.

So I continued to make consistent communication.

Even while it was under construction, my stepson was staying in there from October 24 to June 25.

And I evicted him due to my neighbors not appreciating him, not maintaining the property and having individuals over and loud.

So I was like, you need to exit the property.

And I did receive, I don't know that I have to read through all of this for you guys.

Melissa assisted me in the different phone numbers, who I needed to talk to.

I made every effort to get that taken care of, which I did pay all of my HOTs.

But no, I didn't have to pay them because I didn't have anything to report.

So it should have been zero, which I couldn't get on the portal to be able to pay or to put zero.

So when I was finally able to get into the portal, I was charged a $20 late fee for every month that I was not able to report HOT.

And then when I received the notice in July, Melissa helped me.

I believe Tyler is the other one that I reached out to, and he was able to help me.

There were two in the portal that were still in the processing zone and they were stuck there.

Like I couldn't click on the button, I couldn't do anything.

So they stated I needed to reach out to Avenue again, which took a couple hours for me to finally get a live agent.

They had to go back in the back end of the portal to be able to reset my portal again, and then the payments processed.

So up until this point, I never had an issue paying any of my hot taxes.

They were paid on time.

I had no delinquencies every month was paid for every time I had somebody staying within the rental.

Okay, so uh the payments that you made were just late fee payments?

Exactly.

Okay.

Staff, if somebody has a long-term rental uh on a property that's an STR, they still have to file the hotel.

That is correct.

The response report zero for that month.

Um that communication was expressed when the permit was issued.

And on the avenue letters, the first paragraph, which we can pull up for you, does identify if no revenue was generated to report zero.

All right.

For that month.

Uh is there any voicemails and anyone's under the speak?

No public comments.

Any commission questions?

Yeah.

Commissioner Manon.

So when it is that a um the short-term rental um owner um has zero revenue and and they fail to uh fail to report, then there's a twenty dollar twenty dollar penalty for having not reported, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um the there was dialogue here with regards uh from the applicant stating that uh they were not able to enter the zero amount for some reason.

Do we do we have an idea of what that was about or understand what may have been going on at that point?

No, not that I'm aware of.

I mean, we have 4,000 people reporting online.

I I I will say certainly Zabrina.

Please chime in from finance as well.

The what was described, the phones not working, the inability to report.

I I haven't heard that from any other customers.

So that number that was listed is correct number?

So remember she's referencing on her email, that's not the phone number email address that's identified on the mobility letters that were sent out as we have on screen.

It identifies SA HOT insights as well as that 88800 number on the letter that's on the screen right now.

That's sent out to her.

I think some of the confusion as well is that when the applicant reached out to us or was able to forward us some of the information where she was not getting responses, there were emails sent to support team and or emails sent with typos in the email address, right?

Yeah.

So when the customer emailed, she emailed S hot instead of SA hot at on and on and on.

So there were other communications that were sent to non-existent email addresses.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I have a question.

Yes, Commissioner Brown.

Um, when you were trying to make all these fatal attempts to to, I guess to reconcile whatever it was that you were trying to do.

Did you did it ever dawn on you to bring yourself physically down here and talk to somebody?

Yes, ma'am.

Um I own a business and I travel frequently, and so um the last two years I've been back and forth in Seattle.

Um so it it would it it just was not I didn't have the time um in my day um to come during the working hours here.

So I did call consistently.

Um I think my biggest problem was not being able to access the portal and the notices when I did come home when you receive a notice like this, not from the city but from Avenue, it has remit.

So that's all you can do is remit.

You can't say I'm not I'm no longer using as an STR, there's a long-term renter in it.

There's there's not that ability to communicate that information.

Well, it it would have been that ability had you brought yourself down here.

Absolutely understand that, ma'am.

It wouldn't have taken that long for and this is a part of your business also, so it wouldn't have taken that long for you to come down here and resolve whatever the situation was.

Yes, ma'am, I understand that.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Benavides.

Yeah, I I I'll have to agree with my uh my colleague.

For nine months, that's a long time from to not to not try to make an effort of uh uh effort to get this resolved.

Even though you had a long-term um tenant in there, you still are responsible once you receive the permit to um to enter a zero um balance for the month, all right.

Anyone else like that?

All right, here none.

Uh if there's any other comments you like, we'll turn this over for a motion.

All right.

Who would like to make a motion?

Benavides.

Commissioner Benavides.

Regarding case number BOA 251030164, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 1211 South Pine Street, applicant be in Kimberly Devolt, because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Benavides.

Thank you.

I I cannot um I am not in favor of uh the appeal.

I don't think that the city made um an error in this, so I will not be supporting the Commissioner Cruz.

I agree with Ms.

Benavidus.

I don't see a reason of why it took so long for it to get uh corrected, so I cannot support the appeal.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Uh I'm just gonna say I'm I'm actually gonna be in support of this one for two reasons.

Uh we rarely see so much community support uh from the neighborhood association and from neighbors for STR.

So when I see them, that does uh sway me somewhat.

And um I have to say that her renting this out as a STR uh seems to be better than the alternative, which is having your stepson go back out there, which it seems like the neighbors do not want.

So I would rather have the city try to make some money off of this uh as opposed to making the neighbors unhappy.

So I'll be in support of this.

So I have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Benavides?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I conclude.

Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with the appeal.

Commissioner Osana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Brown?

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur.

But motion fails six to five.

You could reapply in a year, but if you have any questions until then, please get with staff.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I say one more thing?

Sure.

So when I did pull the neighborhood, um probably about 40 percent of the homes that are with on that street are rented out to other individuals, and they're very poorly taken care of.

So I think having the long-term rentals is not you know more advocacy to the community.

Okay.

So I just wanted to make that statement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item four good afternoon.

Uh Tyler Adam, Planner Development Services.

Um this is BOA-25-103-00194.

Subject properties one 104 Dickey Avenue, Council District 5.

Applicant is Sandra Montez, and this is a request for a parking adjustment to waive the one required off street parking space for short-term rental.

It is a type 2 short term rental and is zoned residential, single family.

Subject properties located at 104 Dicky Avenue.

Surrounding uses include residential, single family office, and a parking lot.

The applicant is seeking a parking adjustment to waive the one required off street parking space.

The short term rental ordinance states that an off-street parking spot should be provided to qualify for a permit.

This is the current block face.

There are four units along this block face.

Zero active type two short-term rentals, zero short term rentals in total.

So the block face density currently would be zero percent.

Um August 26 of 2025, the application was submitted for review.

On September 2nd, applicants spoke with our traffic team.

Traffic determined that the property lines fall eight inches short of the required width for a parking space.

And on September 4th, the application was placed on pending BOA decision.

Uh investigation permitting history.

This property with um property owner um did previously have a short-term rental permit issued in July of 2022, which expired at July 23rd of 2023.

Uh there's no code investigation history and no active listings.

This is the parking plan that was submitted as long as well as a photo from the site visit showing the um parking space to the side of the house.

And this is a photo of the street showing um the surrounding parking um along that street.

The floor plan that was submitted.

And then this is the subject property as well as the surrounding properties.

Uh staff recommends denial.

And the notification plan, 36 notices were mailed, zero refer zero received in favor, zero in opposition.

Uh they are a part of Collins Garden Neighborhood Association who has responded in opposition.

Uh four citywide groups were notified with no response.

And this concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here for questions.

Okay, a couple questions.

You said this was a short-term rental previously, but if they didn't meet the parking today, how did they get one before?

Was it just an error?

I think probably similar to my presentation in work session.

It was missed by staff at the time.

And then a question for um I believe we have a representative from the uh street team here.

Uh question about the parking.

So there's showing parking on either side.

Is the one that's eight inches shy, the one on the right side or the one on the left side.

I don't know.

Unfortunately, I was not there, it did not make the measurement.

Um I will say that the one on the left is not even paved, so that would not meet code.

If it is on the right side, it is appear to be paved.

But even then it would apparently be not wide enough.

So do you have any idea?

I mean, I don't know, since you you mentioned you didn't weren't out there, but how wide is this street?

Because it does we heard uh it looks like the street may not be wide enough to allow for parking.

Don't you have to have at least uh I don't know, 18 feet of paper width or something to have uh to park on the on one side of the street?

Trying to remember what that table from the UDC.

Uh to my knowledge, the table from the UDC says you have to have 28 feet of paved width, or you can only park on one side of the street.

That's right.

But this this particular I I can't tell you exactly, but it's about twenty twenty-two feet.

Yeah, there's no way that that's even close to twenty-eight.

Okay.

Manna Commissioner Manon.

So the so the eight-inch so trying to understand what the eight-inch is uh what it's short of.

And so as I take a look, is it is it available space that's being used as uh uh a driveway or yeah, as a driveway parking space, or is it the width of the street is the eight-inch piece.

So I'm trying to understand where that eight inches is.

Yeah, my assumption is like I said, I don't know if they measured on the right or on the left, but um measuring for a nine-foot wide minimum parking space, right?

Um, but there was only apparently eight foot, four inches between the side wall and the property line.

Okay.

And then um the Google drive on this thing looks very narrow.

And so is there a um a minimum width required for a fire truck to be able to get down this component because it barely looks wide enough for a fire truck with zero cars parked on the street.

And so if we're blocking it at all, you know that's that seems like that's a health hazard for everybody on the street.

Is that it might be misreading that or it's generally 20 feet, yes, sir.

Twenty feet.

Okay, yeah, because I mean the truck, there's a picture of a truck park there.

We'll give it twelve inch tires.

It looks like that street is fifteen feet, you know at best.

So it looks very narrow from my perspective.

I I will say just high level, you know, there are certainly parts of San Antonio that were built well before modern fire codes and all that was taken into consideration.

So the other thing that the fire review team will often look at is the ability to lay hose from even if they can't physically get a truck on site, they can get a hose on site.

So the the board should um at least be uh aware of that as well.

Right.

And that's within looks like it's within two hundred feet of Nogalitos, but yeah, even then the fire trucks are 20 and they let you go down to 14 if you're going through a gate.

That's about it.

Um I was just curious about because if it's eight foot, if it's eight inches shy, so it's eight foot four inches.

Um I mean the picture that we're showing, I'm just wondering, is that eight foot four at the choke point, or did you try to draw a nine by eighteen box and is it and does it have it past the corner, that front corner of the home.

Like do you know where that measurement was taking place?

Uh I do not.

Um I did not speak with the traffic team or with the individual um who spoke with the applicant.

Um so I don't know where that measurement alternate from.

If there's no other questions, have the applicant come forward.

All right.

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

Yes.

Uh my name is Sandra Montis.

And uh and I do have and I did submit the land survey with the measurements.

I don't know what happened to it.

They can uh project it if you uh hand it.

Okay.

So this uh property was uh a short-term rental.

Uh uh it was arbitraged by someone else.

And uh so they I have the addendum and all that paperwork that's required for the owner to allow somebody else to uh rent it out.

Um yes, they had uh vehicles park on either side of the house.

Uh it was never an issue.

Uh the problem uh in 23, he had uh stop um being able to um rent it out as an Airbnb because uh the house next to it um was uh rented um by um Haven for Hope tenants in transition.

And it was uh there was a lot of uh transients in the area.

So the he was having a hard time renting it out because of that.

Then as a result, uh there were two fires there.

So uh what I was proposing uh was not to um not to have parking on the right side of the house, but rather on the left because it is an eye sore in here is a picture of uh what uh I was hoping uh to do.

Um yes, the the street was an alley.

Uh I would say it was an alley.

I was born and raised on that street.

I lived on uh a couple of those houses, and then uh my mother and my grandmother, we moved on up to the other side of Nogalitos on uh Alvarez.

And um so when I bought this property um there were four houses.

This uh house was built in 1932, and all these houses were built for the stockyard uh workers who would go to the red land uh that's under the expressway that didn't exist in that at that time.

So there's they didn't have cars, they walked to work.

So um now uh people do wal uh park in their yards, whatever area they can find.

And I have pictures of uh of other people parking, what they what they can do.

Uh also uh Maria's cafe is Caddy corner to my house.

And uh they have a parking lot that's right next to me.

So where that truck is or that van, uh there's uh an empty parking lot that uh is utilized during uh Maria's cafe being open.

And um uh so that is I mean it is an open space, it's uh cars are able to go in and out from that side approach uh the driveway from that side of uh the street.

So you see how there's cars that park just in the art.

That's an empty lot next to a house, so they're able to park there.

That's the corner house, and they're they park on the side of their house.

Um the neighbors uh were well aware that the property was being used as a short-term rental, and they were happy with it.

Uh they were more concerned about the house that burnt down and the people that were living in that house.

And so now that it's burnt, uh it the property's been sold to someone else who's working on getting it fixed.

Um I think they're jumping through hoops too to try to, because it has to be demolished.

Um yes, uh there was no nobody ever said anything about needing it to be paved or have uh an approach.

And uh I spoke to the traffic people uh a couple of times in September when I was told that I needed to have a parking space.

And uh the young man uh gave me uh a diagram of what was needed, but it was um it was for a street that had a curb and uh sidewalk, which it doesn't have, and I explained that.

And so he said, well, uh, you know, you can probably get away with um it not being as wide uh or as long.

And you know, so that that's why he said that I needed to come here to talk to you about that.

So um I do have to have an approach, and I've talked to uh a contractor about that, and an engineer is supposed to come and uh give me um some diagrams on how to do that, but I didn't want to make that expenditure until I know if this is gonna go or not.

Otherwise it'll have to be uh long-term rental, which I really would rather not do.

Um because the short-term rental, of course, would provide more income for me, and I've invested a lot into this house.

Um I've uh I've upgraded everything, electricity, roofing, plumbing.

Um I do have uh uh some reviews when it was uh uh in a short-term rental.

I mean you can see the little picture of what it looked like.

I mean, we put a chucuzzi tub in it and uh all the appliances have been uh updated, new water heater, uh like I said, electricity, plumbing, and a new roof on it.

Uh we've added insulation to the walls and into the attic.

Um it is a nice little property.

Uh so I'm gonna concentrate on the parking issue.

Okay now.

So City Code question, a residential home that you know isn't located off of an alley and very, very narrow.

The typical city requirement is a 10 to 20 foot driveway, correct for residential.

And so if if um it from the survey that she had uh projected, if you could bring that back up, it looks like she has uh from the proper land of the corner of the house like eight and a half feet, and it and then at 8.6 feet, and it looks like there is a 9 by 18 box that is available on the side of the home, but the issues could are seem to be that it's not paved and that there's that choke point of 8.6, so she can't meet the minimum driveway.

Are those two issues that she can work out with an administrative variance with staff, or does that have to come here?

Because the current design would be a 100% deficiency in parking, right?

Right.

In other words, all of the required parking is one space and to not have one space that's compliant, that's what send it to the board.

And as far as the pavement concerned, we we do see some driveways that have ribbon uh pavers where the tires roll on, but the rest is grass.

If if this applicant were to do that, that would alleviate the paving portion of this issue.

That would be an option, yes.

Okay.

So what so really what this board is is dealing with is is this choke point of eight point six feet until you get to a nine by eight parking space.

So I think that that's what the real premise of this of this application is.

So um I just wanted to make sure I I I point those things out uh to the Commission as we deliberate on that.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

Could you uh um on this map that's showing here at your t talk about the choke point in your d describe what is it you're you know pointing to or something?

So on the right on the left of the front corner of the house, so there's a dimension of eight uh foot, eight point six feet.

So that's slightly over eight and a half feet.

And so uh a vehicle parking space compliant is nine foot wide by eighteen feet wide.

So once the vehicle passes past the corner of the home, there is an available space that is nine feet wide by eighteen foot deep.

I think what what's keeping this from being considered compliant with staff is that it's not paved, which could be alleviated by some pavers along where the wheels would go.

Uh and uh this choke point being less than nine feet wide or or ten foot wide because a city driveway theoretically should be ten foot wide on a on a residential home.

But because this is off an alley built in nineteen thirty-two, there's just some properties that just can't do it.

That's why if you go to some parts of town you might see uh very narrow homes sharing a driveway apron that are straddled on a property line, if you've ever seen that.

Uh there's actually some of that on the block opposite here, or at least there was a few years ago.

Um and that's so that that does happen sometimes.

So this I think the real issue here is that 8.6 dimension is not uh meeting the ten foot minimum for a driveway, and then also um the fact that it's not paved for the parking area.

Dean.

Commissioner Dean.

The gas meter also exists on that side.

Yeah, I was gonna bring that's what I think.

I would also like to add, you know, back back then the house, you know, there was not short-term rentals back then.

This is a newer feature uh since 2019.

Um so you introduced risk of you know not being fully compliant, uh essentially um.

So just keep that in mind as well.

Over.

All right.

Subna, so that's what I was gonna I was gonna bring up.

So looking at the street view, uh looking at this house.

So the telephone pole that's there, it looks like it's lined with the front corner, so that one may not be in the way, so it's not necessarily blocking uh entry there, but it does look like there's a lot of concrete or asphalt there that's provided from the other parking lot.

So um so it looks like it's almost there uh except for the component with regards to the gas meter being there.

And so if I'm uh eight foot uh five inch there and the meter sticks out another foot or two foot, then I'm really only six and a half feet there to get by to that back section.

Um so that's potentially you know another risk or different different kind of risk.

Have you reached out to the to the neighbor to see if they would allow you to at least drive on their property to get to your parking space, or have you had any communication with the property?

Well, uh that would be uh Maria's cafe and we and we've been working together, I mean, since I bought the property in 2016.

Uh it's I mean it's uh essentially it's just I should wish I wish I had taken a picture.

But it's an open lot.

And uh so yes, I mean that's what we do.

Well it's open now, but she does have uh toe away signs, it doesn't apparently.

Right.

Well, I mean I I wasn't gonna park there, but I mean they can make the turn into the driveway, is what I'm saying, to avoid.

Okay.

Manna Commissioner Manna.

So um can can you also pick up you had a rendition where you're showing uh uh um I guess where the your proposed parking space there?

So um and that was in her presentation, I think.

So just trying to understand that picture there.

So the proposed parking, is that um is that after remodel and that's the existing structure now?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And so that space there, is that is that space actually parking um on your property and not on any of the um cafe?

So it's let's see.

Well, to be honest, I mean it maybe there is part of the vehicle that is on the cafe side.

That picture that's shown on the right, is a gas meter gone?

What is it?

No, we have a polled, uh concrete pole that protects that from uh and by the on the side of the gas meter.

Okay, I can see that now.

All right, any other questions?

I have a question.

Uh are we talking about the remedies here for the parking on the left side in lieu of the uh waiver of the one street parking space?

So what would it be?

Because she doesn't provide a compliant parking space.

And that that the issue of compliance is twofold.

It doesn't have a ten-foot access driveway, and number two, it doesn't have a nine by eighteen space uh that they could.

So the discussion here is to provide that compliant or something.

Well, I was I was trying to figure out how far off it was.

So if it was possible for a car to be there and it was off three inches from being the city minimum width, vehicles aren't allowed to be more than eight feet wide anyway.

So it's not I and I know they have a requirement of nine feet, but if she can show it like if I were to see that there was eight and a half feet or eight point six feet of available room that widened up a little bit as you got past the corner of the home, that might uh do it for me, but that was just where I was going with it.

That would be you waiving the requirement for the short term.

That would be me agreeing with the waiver.

We're agreeing with the waiver because she can comply with us.

That was yeah.

If we agree with the waiver, a car if a car could fit there, but it didn't meet the the standard minimum from the city, that was just something I was just wondering.

Commissioner D.

Well, uh just can I just say one thing?

So a little bit please.

Commissioner Dean.

The the road, I mean, it seems somewhat recently paved concrete, and the city didn't put in uh a driveway.

And I assume because it it couldn't fit uh right a compliant one, um and then we know that it has to be paved spot, right?

That's that's part of the compliance too.

The not only the length and the width, but the the paved portion of it.

Right.

Um so uh just putting that out there.

That's what I was asking about the ribbon curve, because you have some people that will put just like pavers down just where the wheels ride, and that seems to work, you know, and and near SAC and stuff like that.

If I may, Chairman.

Yes.

Um so with the measurements provided on the survey, we're we're effectively talking about a parking area that is deep enough, it is not wide enough by 4.8 inches.

Um we don't take uh requests to the board to modify the city's adopted standard for a parking space width, which is why this is not processed like a uh a variance to the minimum width.

The alternative is simply to waive the parking space entirely because the the space provided on site does not meet the minimum requirement for a parking area.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So that we're where I was heading to is I know that the city on occasion will give an administrative variance as they look at various codes.

And so where I was going is if I ignored, or if we didn't vote on this at all, could the city come back and give an administrative variance on the width here?

Um we are uh under very limited circumstances able to grant up to six inches administratively, but that is for the purpose of a setback or a fence uh height measurement that does not apply to the measurement of a minimum uh width for a parking space, so that's not something we could do.

Well, okay.

If there's no voicemails, anyone sign up to speak on one voicemail.

We do have uh one speaker and two voicemails.

Well, let's hear the voicemails and then we'll hear the speaker and then we'll see if there's any questions.

Give us one second, we're having some technical difficulties.

I got a Mr.

Tim Biza.

Sir, just to verify, did you leave a voicemail?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you want to speak or do you want your voicemail to speak?

Okay.

Okay.

Good afternoon, guys.

My name is Tom.

Yes.

And she hears.

Sir?

You have to say your name in the microphone.

Okay.

My name is Tom Bessa.

Yes, sir.

All right.

We were sent these letters around our neighborhood.

We are adjacent to her home, which she's talking about.

The biggest problem, just to correct everybody else around here asking questions, the width of the street is only 13 feet, six inches.

Because I've measured it many times, and I was there when the digital.

Sorry.

Oh.

Don't put it on pause.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Okay.

It is extremely hard for anybody to park in the street.

Almost of the time at the cafe every single day.

I'm always observing, trying to help people park.

We understand they want to do this and the other.

I asked them to park so away or go around the corner.

Extremely difficult for a fire truck department.

She just stated that there was two fires.

When we came to work one morning, the fire was going on.

We had to drive all the way around, and for me to walk in between the fire truck and the edges of the st of grass, whatever I could was very difficult.

So that's how narrow narrow the street is.

I guess the neighbors around there are probably have uh misunderstood that they were asking for maybe be allowed be allowed to be parked on the street.

So this is the reason why we're here because this is our first time here to uh and I I I back her up a whole hundred percent.

It's an unfortunate that her parking area that she's asking for is not wide enough for the measurements because I don't know anything about that.

Now she did say about our parking spot at Maria's, we do, and you're right about having those uh signs up.

Well, unfortunately, last week, Saturday when we're leaving, the signs were taken down.

Don't know from where.

Uh more likely, and I'm only stating something, there is a bar right around the corner, just recently opened, I guess last year sometime.

And there's a lot of people at nighttime that love to park there.

And especially in her little spot.

And in front of my that the house right across from her belongs to us.

The empty lot belongs to us.

And the problems that we've had when the bar was way before this one opened, everybody parks anywhere they can, they'll be trash, bottles, whatever else you can think of, that's what they do.

Recently, when we left Saturday, we noticed that those uh uh tone signs were gone.

It could have been maybe the people in the not not them, but maybe uh but uh people that go to that place might have taken it down so they could take advantage of parking our lot.

We have never been against any of her renters parking there.

Never have.

Uh if somebody parks, say after where we we go to the store after we come back and I see somebody parking a lot, I'll knock on the door and I'll ask them, please, guys.

I'm only I'm trying to help you out.

You see those uh tone signs right there?

Uh when we're gone, your car would be towed.

There's a small parking area on either side of the of the house.

I would ask you to park on the right side of the house, not the left because of the concrete barriers that she has on the on the thing on the on the gas meter.

Um sometimes during the morning time when we get to road, um you ready to speak.

Yeah, it's it's uh the three minutes are up, but I wanted to ask you a question.

Are you in support of of this waiver?

I would I'm gonna surprise I well, like I said, we didn't know that's what she was asking for.

A driveway for her own either side of the house.

But uh I always stating that uh it's the street's very narrow.

I know you all talked about it for a while.

But uh I'm I'm um that's all I need to say.

Okay, thank you very much.

So we have one voicemail to listen to the house at 1050, right in front from 105 104 D.

I'm calling to oppose the case number B0A 251030194.

The little street is too narrow, to park vehicle, no room for trash trucks or emergency vehicles.

Thank you.

All right.

So the applicant come back forward.

Oh sorry.

We'll see if there's any questions.

Is there any uh questions from the commission?

Is there anything you'd like to add before we deliberate?

I was just going to mention that I was when I was looking at the codes that there was uh an option for compact car parking, which is uh uh the requirement was eight foot wide.

Well the the compact parking is only allowed uh to a certain percentage, but it can't be the sole space you have.

Is that true?

It's 30 percent.

30 percent, but it can't be the only thing.

All right.

If there's no other questions, I'm looking for a motion.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Regarding case number BOA 251030194, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for a parking adjustment to weight the one required off-street parking spot space, I'm sorry, for a short-term rental unit situated at 104 Dickey Avenue, applicant being tendremontes 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 little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find the applicant has successfully demonstrated that they meet that criteria for parking waiver and a motion.

Second.

Uh second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Cruz.

I'm kind of in a split area here.

I know the area.

I know how hard it is to get in there.

Um fortunately, since the uh neighborhood association has also declined this recommendation, it's kind of hard to say what it can and can't do, but I'm gonna have to go with uh with everyone else in the area and and disagree with this um parking variance.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Cruz.

I mean Commissioner Mann.

So I um I'm going to agree with my colleague.

Um I think uh with the neighborhood association not in support.

Um and then the recognition of just the narrowness of the street that I brought up in the beginning, I um I find it a little bit difficult here to be able to support you know not having uh an off-street parking spot in this location.

Um so I will not be voting in favor.

Okay, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so my own my only uh thought here was to possibly look for a uh reconsideration of the motion if it fails here to allow the applicant to consider an easement to be able to get across the neighbor's park parking lot to get into the back lot to park a car.

I think there is adequate space in the back.

She just needs to get there, and I don't know if there is an easement or some kind of a shared parking agreement that would allow for the short-term rental one space rule to be met.

So that was my thought.

Maybe look for continuance of the continuance or if the motion fails to at least.

Okay, I'm gonna table the motion for a second, go back to the public hearing.

One quick question for the applicant.

Uh would you be willing to take some time to go meet with uh Maria to see if you can acquire a slight easement so that you can somehow obtain a compliant parking space?

Yes.

We need about two or three feet.

So let me just say that any I mean, certainly no matter what happens here today, entertaining easements is certainly an option moving forward, but it's really nothing that would fall under the purview of the Board of Adjustment.

So even if there were to be a continuance, any discussion along the lines of an easement would be outside of this board.

Um I was just wondering if we if we just granted a continuum to see if she could pursue communication with the neighbor, and uh maybe she doesn't need to come back here.

Maybe but I wouldn't I would uh if that's uh acceptable, would you need like a money?

Well, I mean uh the gentleman that presenter that came up is uh Miss uh Maria's husband, so I I don't think I mean I know that parking is very limited in her parking lot for customers.

So basically if you're not asking for a his parking, you're gonna be able to do that.

You're asking for a two-foot wide easement so you can get to your parking.

Oh, so you're saying like to come exactly to cut the cross.

Oh, well, I mean, yeah, and they'd be willing to.

So if the maker of the motion would like to uh change their motion to be like a month continuance to work to hammer something like that out.

Okay.

What do you think, Commissioner Cruz?

I would venture to say we can give it a try, sir.

And Commissioner Manna?

I concur.

So would Commissioner Cruz would you like to uh change your motion to uh be a continuance to uh November is it 17th?

Yeah, the November 3rd and November 17th are next to you.

So November 17th.

November 17th would be a good continuance.

Is that acceptable, Commissioner Manna?

Agreed.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second for continues to November 17th.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

We will see you in about a month.

Okay.

Uh please talk to staff about what your needs are, and maybe you don't need to come back here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item five.

Oh, okay.

Let the record show that uh Commissioner Brown opposed the uh voice vote on the continuance.

Item number five is BoA-25-103-00160, located at 3803 Southwest Military Drive in console district four.

The applicant is Vanera Cordova, and she's requesting a 185-foot variance from the required 200 feet separation to allow the use of a mobile food court within 15 feet of a residential zone or use lot.

The zone is C2 with a sp a specific use authorization for a party house, reception hall, and a meeting facility.

The subject property is a corner lot located north of Southwest Military Drive and west of Holder Avenue.

It is situated along a primarily commercial block face on Southwest Military Drive with an alley separation from the reset residential uses to the rear.

The applicant proposes to develop the site into a mobile food court, initially operating with four food trucks and gradually expanding to the maximum permitted number of ten food trucks on the commercial lot.

As the property is located within 200 feet of existing single family residential use at the rear, the applicant is requesting a 180 foot, five-foot variants from the minimum required 200 foot separation distance.

This would allow the proposed mobile food court to be situated 15 feet from the single family residential use with the alley serving as the separation.

The lot abut in the West has a use of three residential dwellings, which would not require the 200 foot separation as a standard only applies to single family use or zoned lots.

This is a subject property with showing at that point in time a residential home up until 2024.

And now it is graded for the mobile food court.

And this is the abut and 15-foot alley from the residential use, and this is from the rear.

And the surrounding area on holder.

And looking down on Southwest Military.

And across is a church.

And more views of Southwest Military.

Staff's recommendation from with the mobile food court residential separation is a denial in BOE-25-1030160 based on the following findings of fact.

Reducing the residential separation to 15 feet would injure residential properties as it does not provide sufficient distance between residential and non-residential uses intended for protection from potential noise and light pollution.

The property owner may reduce the number of proposed mobile food establishments to the allowable maximum to operate without a variance approval.

Staff mailed out 25 notices, zero return in favor, one in opposition, and no response from the Quintana Community Neighborhood Association.

And this is the opposition received.

We're going to need a translation.

Okay.

The applicant is present.

Is that the applicant come forward?

Is there is there a translation?

Yeah.

So hi, my name is Vanita Cordova.

One second, please, I'm sorry.

We have the Spanish interpreter come back, please.

If you could please uh translate uh what is listed on the opposition comment.

Is it too close to my own?

It's too close to my property.

A lot of noise.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh please uh here for property 3803 Southwest Military.

I am requesting uh permission to be able to allow for food trucks on the property.

Um I place as an example of where the food trucks would go, but I'm able to move them around if that's something that you would like me to do.

Um I just think that this would give uh another purpose to that property that was once a abandoned home and very vandalized and uh unsafe.

Um now would now it would uh if approved.

Um give uh a place for families to gather from the neighborhood and eat and feel uh I mean now it's gonna look nice since we have plans for the landscaping and making a fence that has been already approved.

And um pretty much is that's uh we are not thinking to do anything that is not out of the normal with other businesses in that same pro uh same street that is full of businesses and other food truck um trucks in the area that also operate there.

Um just normal.

So you you have another is another food uh food court establishment down the street?

Uh uh food trucks down the street um there is.

Okay.

And staff it's it's you can have up to three without being considered a a uh two.

Two.

Okay.

Correct.

All right.

Commissioner Manna.

So um so the zoning of this property or zoning of the the abutting property, um Let's see, I guess, or let me go back.

The zoning of this property, the food trucks are permitted uh simply because of right, correct?

And so the the objection that was listed in the one note, basically uh they're objecting to a food court when it is permitted.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It is permitted by right.

It's just again it has to comply with the uh standard distance requirements from any single family residential use.

And the budding property on military, is it uh single family resident or is it commercial?

It's a triplex, so it doesn't have to be.

So it doesn't have to.

Okay.

So so that one is by right, they they kind of don't have to abide by that.

And then so for the applicant here, so so one of the notes that it says is that you're trying to maximize the number of food trucks on here.

And so what is a distance?

Um it's it says 200 feet.

Um what's the depth of the property itself?

Um would you be able to put any food trucks on at all?

Um if you had to be 200 feet away from the the properties on the back side and also uh across the street there.

So what's just uh to be clear this is property line to property line, so if any part of that 200 foot hits that property, it's the entire property I can't.

It's not like they can put the food trucks along military and be two hundred feet away.

So basically it's it's all or none.

You know, two they could have two by right.

Um then outside of that it requires this.

Okay.

So two what I believe uh there's permitted two uh right now at the property two are able to be there at the moment.

Right?

If just sort of that's what I've been told many times I've asked.

This is just an odd question.

Because it's C2 and they don't have a lot size minimum.

Could she plat this and make two lots out of it and then have two on each lot?

She can.

Um need to meet the uh parking requirements, uh that kind of stuff.

Just curious.

I just uh I can't believe no one's ever tried that yet, but maybe someday.

Uh questions.

Uh Commissioner Cruz.

Okay.

Um I'm looking at the map of where it's at.

And what is the side street there next to you?

Uh I forgot the name, something with an H.

Do you have that in?

Because I can't see it.

Holder, is it?

Holder?

Holder Avenue.

Okay, I I know there's a pretty big street.

Is there is there any right across the street from you?

Um a little bit further down.

There's a I guess like oh, used to be like a gas station or something like that.

Yeah, I've seen that one.

Right there on King Dana and uh military.

Uh-huh.

And they so they have a food truck there and they have uh like a picnic area, outdoor space, and all of that.

Okay.

Uh now I know where it's at.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner is in it?

Right.

So the opposition that's coming from the neighbor to the left as you're looking uh from Southwest Military.

Is that from the property owner or from the tenant you mentioned as a triplex?

Who knows who provided that opposition?

We can check the name against the mailing list, but all mailed notices is sent to the owner.

To the owner.

Okay.

And then the next question is at what point, uh, what number of trucks do they also have to provide facilities on site, whether it's the bathroom or a kitchen or something on site to accommodate the uh food trucks.

Well, he's pulling that up.

I will say that there is a a separate use.

I think it's called mobile food court base operations.

Um that is not what is contemplated here.

Uh there is a requirement that food trucks have to leave the property overnight to return to a central location for cleaning and emptying grease traps and all that.

So that that would not be allowed on this site, regardless of the board's uh outcome today.

So they couldn't stay 24 hours.

The trucks would have to leave and come back to the site.

That's what I'm hearing?

They cannot um repackage um clean or anything of that sort.

All they can do is sell on that property.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

So they they they leave the property, they go to there are other locations whose primary business model is receiving these food trucks for cleaning and emptying so that they can return to whatever site they may be at the next day.

Um but that sort of draining of you know the waste product, the grease traps, etc.

That all has to occur off site.

So when when the no the neighbor on the left opposed the like the smell or I mean that may or may not the smell.

Yeah, I I think that the reason the ordinance requires that um has more to do with you know large concentrations of people gathering and noise and light pollution.

And it is also the reality that a food truck probably smells pretty good for a day or two, but you start smelling you know that good food day after day after day that starts to wear on people.

Those are the reasons that the 200 foot spacing is about.

Can we limit those?

There is no restrictions on hours of operation, but if for a mobile food court, a permanent restroom facility shall be provided.

So they will need to have something of a permanent restroom location on the site if they do this use.

Correct.

That's what I was thinking.

Yeah.

Does the applicant know that?

Do you know that?

Um I had asked for that information, but they weren't able to give me an exact into this until I came here and the meeting and none of that.

But I knew somewhat that I would have to have a restroom.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So just some for some clarification.

You know, so we do have a few food, smaller food things in our neighborhood.

And I never see the vehicles leave ever.

They've been there for months, years.

Um is it because they are not creating disposal stuff is why it is that they don't have to move, or is it that they are able to manage it somehow other ways?

You know, so and some of them are pretty fixed within have whole communities built around them, playgrounds, courtyards, and all kind of things where it would be impossible to move it.

Are they are they more than two?

No, all of them have two, so it's two.

And so and so I have three of those in in surrounding my community.

And so as I look at this one, you know, it's kind of the same kind of thing, is like so is it that that's invited that's that particular thing is in violation or just try to understand that.

Um I apologize what I'm doing.

Yeah, so I'm just just reading from the business and licensing uh information for mobile food vending uh on the Metro Health and 311 website.

It says the property must be commercially zoned and you must move the unit daily.

Okay.

All right, something for your neighborhood association to think about.

So is there any other questions?

All right.

Um is there any uh voicemails or any other?

No public comment?

Okay.

Um Thank you very much.

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

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030160, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant will require for a hundred and eighty-foot variants from the required two hundred foot separation to allow the use of a mobile food court within 15 feet of a residential zone or use lot zoned or use lot situated at 3803 Southwest Military Drive, applicant being Banita Cordova, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we determined show that the fiscal character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC is amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one of the variants is not contrary to the public interest.

The proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest because the reduced residential separation of 15 feet will ensure appropriate distance between commercial and residential uses and maintain privacy and protection from noise and light pollution.

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

The literal enforcement of the residential separation ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as would prevent the property owner from developing the site as a mobile food court.

Three by granting the variant of spirit of the ordinance would be observed.

Granting the variants would support the spirit of the ordinance, which is to maintain sufficient space between commercial and residential properties for the variants without authorized the operation of use or the noise specifically authorized in the zoning district, which are the variants located.

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

Five such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district, which the property is located as as granting the variants and reducing the required separation when up substantially injured the appropriate use of residential properties to the rear so sufficient separation from residential uses remain to protect against successive noise and light exposure from the proposed mobile food court.

And six the ply to the owner of the property for its variance of solid is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

The staff lines apply to the owner of the property for its variance of solids due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

This LA provides reasonable separation for the proposed mobile food court use and a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manic.

Commissioner Zunan.

Yes, so I'm going to be supporting the motion as read.

I think that for the rear, the 15-foot alley does provide a buffer to those rear properties.

It is along a commercial uh property, Southwest Military Drive, but there's no reason why you know a restaurant couldn't be located at that same location, which provide the same uh kind of uh you know uh somewhat of nuisance issues to the commercial property to the left.

So I don't think that uh that we should prohibit the applicant from being able to use her property for commerce for the mobile uh food trucks, and we heard from staff that they'd be moved have to be moved nightly or such to provide the clean off all premises.

So for that I'm supporting the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Um I'm not gonna be in green uh with my colleague here.

Um because um yeah, this appeared to be you know a residential property at you know not that long ago, surrounded by residential properties, and you're changing the property view of those abutting homes.

Um we've looked at other lots that were larger where they're able to move away you know and minimize the impact, but here I think that it's just too close to those existing properties, and because of that I won't be able to support the motion.

All right, anyone else like to add uh hearing none of a roll call vote, please Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benamides.

I concur.

Commissioner Golfkith.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Brown.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur.

Uh motion fails five to seven.

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

All right, we're gonna take a slight break, six, seven minutes, and we'll come back to item six.

Uh, you recusing your board of adjustments back in session.

The time is three fifteen.

Our chair Donald Orion will be recusing him from this case number six.

Uh, I guess everybody back in panel here.

One, two, three.

Oh, that'll be the second.

We'll docker pay.

Okay.

All right, staff.

Would you let's commence with uh case number six.

All right, good afternoon, Mercamoravi, Principal Planner.

Um BOA 251030175 is on 8338 Broadway Street, Council District 10.

Apkin KFM engineering and design.

As for a 10-foot variant from the 30-foot required setback to allow a 20-foot rear setback.

Is that zone C3?

So their property is located just north of uh just south of San Antonio International Airport on Lou 410.

Property was previously occupied by a restaurant, which has since been demolished.

Uh granting the rear variants will allow development of a new uh commercial building to be 20 feet from the rear property line.

Development has not yet been constructed.

There is a current apartment complex located behind the subject property, which is set back approximately 50 feet from the shared property line.

BOA previously approved a 10-foot rear setback to the adjacent commercial property north of the subject property, with staff recommending approval on that case.

This is the subject property Broadway to the left and/or west, and then the uh setback and that uh tan colored.

Next slide.

The picture of the property.

And if you see the property there to the left, that one was approved a few years ago.

And you see the apartment complex to the rear.

And facing north.

Staff recommended approval on BOA 25103175 based on the following findings of the fact the development space will significantly re be reduced, reduced the size of the lot, uh required parking for the use and proposed drive-through area.

The multifamily lot directly above in the rear has parking against the commercial lot with building setbacks approximately 50 feet from the property line.

Staff mailed out 16 notices, received one in favor, no in opposition.

Old Park Neighborhood Association and the San Antonio District One Resident Association did not respond.

And this is the one response.

Uh this is updated from what was sent out this morning.

None opposition.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Uh the applicant is present.

Marco, can you send can you show the uh the matrix we show the opposition support again?

One more.

And this is the same one that we previously uh received in opposition.

Okay.

They turned it in, they changed it to support.

Now I recall the little history on this.

Didn't we previously approve a variance for the same project?

Do you know?

It was the one right north of it.

They did an addition, um, which is a shorter, uh reduced uh only a 10-foot setback that was approved to the property just to the north of it.

And that was the improved property that we saw in the pictures or correct.

Is that uh right there?

So that would the request here would kind of extend that same building line to the rear or so.

That one's the this request is going to be a little further away from what you all approved.

This is a 20-foot rear setback.

You guys approved a 10-foot rear setback on that one.

Gotcha.

Okay, let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Hearing none, we'd ask the applicant uh please come forward and let's hear the case.

Thank you.

I don't have a presentation.

Good afternoon, uh, board members.

My name is Rob Killen.

I'm an attorney of the law firm of Killing Griffin and Vermont.

Our address is 10101 reunion place.

And San Antonio, thank you, uh staff Merco, for uh all of your work on this.

And do I have control?

You have control.

You have control.

Okay, great.

Let's go ahead and advance the slide.

I'm here on behalf of the property owner requesting a 10-foot variant from 30-foot rear uh setback, so we can do an Andy's frozen uh custard.

Um let's go ahead and advance the slide.

This is the subject property.

Uh as you know, this is a piece of property back in 2019.

You approved a uh rear setback variance.

The original plan was to put a 7-Eleven on this site.

And so we got the uh got that approved in 2019.

Uh we came back in 2022, and I've I'll show it to you later in the presentation, and and reconfirmed.

Okay, that's fine, we can stop there.

It's good.

No, no.

Wherever you want to be.

I'm good.

Uh so got that approved.

The 7-Eleven was uh never built.

7-11 clearly a more intense uh use than a restaurant.

In this case, a restaurant, it is uh Andy's frozen custard.

You may have seen uh just a few other.

I guess last month a piece in the paper talking about the uh proposed development, a two million dollar uh investment on Broadway on this site.

Uh Andy's is still relatively new to San Antonio.

It's a franchise.

There are another in Texas, uh, but this is going to be the I think the fourth location.

Thank you, fifth, the fifth location in the San Antonio area.

There's one out the rim that's near where I live, and I eat there all the time, but unfortunately it's really good.

Uh so let's go ahead and advance the slide.

Uh as noted, this is just south of 410.

Let's go ahead and go in one more.

Uh let's go ahead and go in uh one more.

You got uh 410 diner across the street.

Here you've got it's Broadway and Greenbrier.

Uh you can see where it says sit go, that's the gas station, and then you can see the footprint of the old restaurant that was there.

Oh, thank you.

I'm always afraid of hitting someone in the eye with this.

So you can see here's the footprint of uh what was Shu U.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh MF33, and you can see that the depth, it's it's not a very deep uh piece of property, and we're backed up to MF33, zone C3 currently.

Let's advance.

Uh okay, here we go.

Uh Broadway, green briar.

Got the gas station here.

We've got the take five, uh, oil change facility right here.

That's a deeper property.

Then we've got the apartments right behind it.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh you can see to the bottom of the screen.

This is truck cars will come in off of Broadway.

They've got this queuing area.

They come around the building, and then via an easement, they come out through the uh gas station property.

And so we've got parking all in front and then a landscape buffer in the back.

Let's go ahead and advance.

And uh something about the building footprint.

The footprint is what it is, right?

These are a standard design that are universal wherever you see Andy's.

It can't be any smaller than they are.

So this is a picture from a few years ago.

This is a shoe you some of you may remember the old Chinese restaurant that was there.

It's a red brick building.

That's from the front.

This is a picture of the back taken from Green Bar to the left over here are the apartments.

This is the gas station in this wreck brick building is or was the Shu U before it was demolished.

Let's advance one more.

This is better.

There's a period where the fence was temporarily down.

Pair of the apartments, and you can see that the restaurant was built right up to the property line.

You can see even better in this picture right here, it was built right up to the property line.

So we're asking for a 20-foot setback, so a 10 foot variant, so we'll be 20 feet off the property line.

So significantly different than what was on the site for many, many years.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Um back in 2019, staff recommended approval again.

That was for a 711, but really it went to the depth of the property.

There just wasn't sufficient space for uh queuing of vehicles and uh for parking.

Let's go ahead and advance.

And then we went back, we got this verified in 2022.

The stole plan still possibly do a 711.

Uh it was still valid as of 2022.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh so we think we meet all the criteria.

Let's go ahead and advance one.

Uh again, you can see the property.

You can, there's a little bit different exhibit.

I've got a couple more exhibits that give it a little more clarity.

Uh, contrary to the public interest.

So we met with Oak Park Northwoods Neighborhood Association.

Um go ahead and advance one more.

So they don't issue letters of support, but they issue letters of non-opposition.

So uh met with our president Gina Galabis uh Eisenberg, who some of you may know, and they said we're not gonna uh support it, we're not opposed.

We understand what you're asking for, so we are not going to oppose it.

Some neighborhoods just don't like saying we support something uh oftentimes they'll just say they don't oppose.

Now, when we came here uh three weeks ago, uh you'll remember that was one of your odd meetings.

We have a Tuesday meeting.

So Monday night, uh we we'd reached out to the owner of the apartment complex a couple times, had gotten no response.

And then Monday night, uh they sent a letter to to staff to Merco saying that they were opposed.

They had some questions and concerns.

And so that's why three weeks ago we asked to continue this case.

And so we've been spent the last three weeks working with the apartment complex to address their concerns.

And what I'll do is when we get a little further in the slides, should talk about what things we did, changes that we made that address their concerns.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh literal enforcement, unnecessary hardship.

Again, we've got a uh parking uh lot issue, which I'll show in just a minute, and then just a real depth issue for uh queuing purposes.

So if we were to take this building and push it forward again, Broadway over here to the left, green buyer up here uh to the north.

So if you take this rear area back here, this is showing it at 20 feet.

If you push it back just 10 feet, it's not much, but it means you eliminate these six spaces.

So as designed, we have 17 spaces.

The code requires 12.

So we actually have more spaces than the code requires.

And the whole purpose of that is to get people on the site and park so they're not queued up in the drive-thru.

They've got an option, so if they want to get their custard, uh, they can park and walk up, which is a great option.

I do that the rim one, it's a lot easier uh doing that.

But just by pushing this 10 feet, you would eliminate these six parking spaces.

So we would go from 17 spaces to 11 spaces, which we may be underparked per the code.

Not only that, it just means there's six fewer places for people to park, which means they're more likely to want to get in line, which means you've got a queuing area that is now 10 feet shorter, and what we don't want to do is have people just spilling out queuing into the street.

So the setback reduction allows us to extend this queuing area and keep these six spaces.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh spirit of the ordinance is the intent of the code.

Again, uh we think we meet the spirit of 10 of the code.

Let's go ahead.

Um we're zone C3.

You can do this is basically just food service.

You can do food service in almost any commercial zoning district other than O1 and I2.

So uh we clearly can do this by right in the district.

Let's advance.

And we'll change the character of the area.

This is the Broadway corridor, it's a commercial corridor.

You've got other food service establishments.

It is a nice fit and relatively low intensity, especially since we were considering a 7-11 here at one point.

This is a good fit for that site.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Again, you made a finding of a unique circumstance back when we're here in 2019, and that goes to the depth of the property.

We just can't make the property any deeper than it is.

Let's go ahead and advance.

And this gives you a sense again, just reminding you of the queuing space and the parking lot.

And this is the side facade, the front facade.

Let's go ahead and advance.

So staff's recommending approval.

We really appreciate that.

But let's go ahead and advance and let me talk about our communications with the neighbor.

So when the neighbor first reached out to us, they asked about the hours of operation.

They asked about amplified sound in the rear.

They asked about the landscaping.

They didn't want any mountain laurels.

They asked us to take out uh excessive signage and lighting in the back.

They wanted a photometric study, and then they asked for a new fence.

Let's go ahead and advance the slide.

So if you have not been to an Andes, the way it works is you pull into the drive-thru instead of having one of those speaker boxes like you'd have at Bill Miller's or someplace like that.

There's someone standing there that comes out with an iPad and they take your order via iPad.

So instead of yelling into the speaker box, someone's just taking your order, putting in the iPad.

So you don't have a speaker in the back in the drive-thru.

So that's something that is relatively unique for drive-throughs.

That's it's part of the Andes model.

Uh landscaping.

So we've removed the mountain laurels.

I'll show you the landscape plan in just a second.

We remove the Mount Laurels, replace them with Blue Point Juniper and Pride of Houston Hollies.

And so to address the questions about the type of plant.

And then for the neighbor, uh so that on the apartment side that they can install their own landscaping, we're going to contribute 5,000 to them so they can put landscaping on their own side.

Uh signage, and I'll show you a picture with the signage in just a second.

Uh for the rear of the property facing the apartments, we're not going to have any signage, and we've also reduced uh some of the lighting.

We'll show you that in a second.

And then fencing.

So the fence that's there now is good, but at some point it may need to be replaced.

So in acknowledgement of that, uh, we're also going to be contributing $25,000 that the neighbor can use to replace the fence when they're ready to replace that fence.

So let's go ahead and advance the slide.

Uh this is the again, here's Broadway.

This is the apartment.

This is the landscape plan.

You see, we have Blue Point Junipers and Pride of Houston.

No mountain laurels.

They didn't want the mountain laurels.

We've got some desert willow over here, and that just gives you a sense of how that works.

Again, here's the the building itself and the canopy for it.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh this is the rear of the building.

So if you're behind the building, they were concerned the neighbor was concerned about uh this lighting.

So this light bar has been removed from the rear.

There's a sign on the rear, it's been removed, and then a wall pack light fixture that would have gone here that's been removed as well to address the concerns.

But let's go ahead and advance one more.

This is the photometric study.

You can see under the photometric study, you can see these circles.

There is no spillover into the apartment parking lot.

So we provide this to the apartments, and they've had a chance to review it.

And so you can see with this lighting plan uh that they won't have any spillover lighting.

Let's go ahead and advance.

Uh and then uh as you know, they have changed their position from opposition to support.

So we've got the non-opposition by the neighbors association as well as support by the Green Briar Apartments.

And I believe that's my last slide.

Let's go ahead and advance.

And then just leave it up with staff recommendation.

I appreciate your time this afternoon.

I'm happy to any qu answer any questions you all might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Killen.

Let's see.

Any uh questions for the applicant?

Cruz.

Ms.

Cruz.

My only question is on the drive-thru, and I thought I heard you correctly.

You did say some of the exit park parking will be towards the gas station, or you're not going to be using it at all.

So uh let's go back to I think one of my first exhibits.

Uh keep going back, back, back, back, back.

I got yeah, there we go.

Yeah, this is for so uh so Ms.

Cruz, what happens is the park the cars will come in this way.

They'll come around, they'll they'll place the order, they'll pick up the order here, and they'll come out.

And this is the gas station property.

We have an easement.

So what they'll do is they'll come out this way.

So they won't come back around.

So people are really just coming in here and they're exiting here.

So all of our parking though, so access to these side parking spaces is through the gas station space again through an easement.

And then we've got these parking spaces.

If you come in this way instead of going to the queue, you can take a left and park here.

But when you pull out, you're not gonna come out this way, you're gonna come out this way.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Cruz.

So, yeah, so curious about the easements.

So, I'm not used to seeing that.

So, so is that like a long-term arrangement made with the budding property?

And so it's just included with it.

So I'm not used to seeing that.

So, uh, when we came in 2019, uh, we were representing both properties.

This is still under one ownership.

Our client uh Andy's has this property in your contract.

So it's all one over right now.

So everything from green briar to the edge of the property is all under one ownership.

So when they convey it away, they'll leave an easement to access it.

So it's not like we have to go back to our neighbor and beg for it.

It's part of the transaction.

Typically that's title insured and it conveys with the uh transaction.

Sir, you must be a banker, you understand that.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions?

All right.

Um Marco, do we have any voicemail or public comment to be read in for the record?

No public comment.

All right.

Any uh last closing remarks, Mr.

Thomas?

I don't want to take up too much of your time, so I will shut down shut up and sit down.

All right.

Well, that will close the public portion.

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

Go to motion.

Mr.

Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 25103 00175, I have moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for a 10-foot variance for the minimum 30-foot setback to allow a 20-foot rear setback situated at 838 Broadway Street.

App being KFM engineering and design because the testimony presented to us and 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 amendment would result in in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The applicant is requesting a 10-foot variance from the minimum 30-foot rear setback requirement to allow a structure to be 20 feet from the rear property line, which does not appear to be contrary to the public interest, as there is adequate space remaining from the property line to the proposed structure.

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

The development space will be significantly reduced under a little enforcement of the setback standard due to the size of the lot, the minimum required parking needed to support the proposed use and the proposed drive-through area.

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

The request will observe the spirit of the ordinance because the proposed structure will still maintain a reasonable distance between the structure and the surrounding properties.

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

No uses other than those allowed within this 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 this property is located.

There will be a remaining 20-foot between the structure and the property line.

Therefore, the request would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Additionally, the multi the multifamily lot directly abutting the rear has its parking against the commercial lot with building setbacks approximately 50 feet from the property line.

Six supply of the owner of the property for which this variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing in the property and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property or not merely financial, they're not due to the result of general conditions in the property for which is or in the district in which this property is located.

The rear setback variants sought is due to unique circumstances existing in the lot, such as the size of the lot, parking required for the proposed use, and proposed drive-through for the use.

End of motion.

Thank you for the second.

Second.

Ms.

Cruz, second.

Mr.

Manna.

So I'm going to agree with the city's position and very good presentation with regards to explaining all of the uh details.

Um I think having the the parking to park or the driveway abutting the parking lot, you know, just makes sense.

Uh getting the the um the um uh multifamily or for the departments to agree to the dialogue and also the non non-opposition letter from the neighborhood association uh dissatisfies all my requirements, so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Ms.

Cruz.

I agree with Mr.

with Commissioner Manna.

Um I don't see any problems with it, especially since they do own both lots and it they still will have plenty of uh driveway.

Thank you.

Any other uh comments from the board?

Here or not, I'd ask staff to what's please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Glamath.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavidez?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes, I concur.

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

The variance does pass.

Good luck with the project.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

All right.

The time is uh 336, and our Chair Donald Orion is back.

Hello, good afternoon.

Mark Travis, senior planner.

Item number seven, it's BOA-251030176, located at 703 West Rosewood Avenue, City Council District 1.

Applicant being Alfredo Rico de la Riva.

Request for a 1785 787 and a half square foot variants from the NCD5 centered maximum allowable accessory structure to allow for a combined 1,500 square feet of accessory structures, to a 2 foot 4-inch variance for the minimum 5-foot rear setback to allow for an accessory structure to be 2 feet, 8 inches from the northern property line.

Three, a 2 foot 9-inch variance with a minimum 5-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure to be 2 feet 3 inches from the western property line, four a 190 square foot variance with a maximum 890 uh square foot to allow a for a 1,080 square foot detached accessory dwelling zoning R6.

Subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Rosewood Avenue and Beacon Avenue and is just south of West Hilderburn Avenue.

Code enforcement investigations began in March of 2025 regarding work on an accessory dwelling unit.

Code enforcement did find an active permit.

However, the approved scope did not include an addition that was done without permits.

The applicant was informed by code enforcement staff that the scope of work done without permits would require a residential improvement permit.

Use an aerial imagery staff determined the accessory dwelling was increased in size sometime between 2020 and 2021.

And two accessory structures were built with non-compliance setbacks sometime between 2010 and 2012.

The property owner was unaware of the work that was done without permits as it was conducted before their ownership of the property.

This is the side plan.

Subject property, but this is the rear.

Surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the NCD5 accessory structure size and the UDC setback and UDC accessory dwelling size.

Staff recommends denial and VOA 25-1030176 based on the following finds in fact.

One, the variance is what alter the sensor character of the immediate surrounding area by setting a precedent for reduced setbacks and increased exercise.

Increased accessory structure square footage.

Two the oversized accessory structures and dwelling would result in a cluttered and inefficient use of the property where the primary use is not clearly identified identifiable.

41 notices were made out, three return in favor, one in opposition, and the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is an opposition to those four requests.

Third one in support.

And this is the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association letter we received.

Yeah.

That does conclude staff's uh presentation.

Applicant is present and uh they are looking to amend their requests.

And and Audio Kirchy, what are these the accessory structures?

What what are they?

Like the There's two sheds and one accessory dwelling.

So two sheds.

Yeah, those two on the left are the sheds.

Northern top right is the accessory dwelling.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello.

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

Good afternoon.

I'm Anisa Shell, uh representative for the applicant 112 East Pacan.

Um can you you can go to the next slide, please?

So this property is an existing single-family home with a detached accessory dwelling unit and two storage sheds, as noted by staff.

Um it's zoned single family, and um this property was purchased by Mr.

Delariva in February of this year.

Um, as staff noted, there was a lot of work done to this property that was not permitted prior to his purchase.

Um he was unaware that this wasn't permitted, but the property was in bad condition when he acquired it.

Um next slide, please.

Upon purchasing the property, he started um getting permits to repair the property, um, both the primary structure and the accessory structure.

Um he pulled permits uh in April for the accessory dwelling unit, and during a framing inspection, um the inspector realized that the accessory dwelling unit was larger than what was on BCAD and what was and it was also larger than what is permitted by the UDC and the neighborhood conservation district for this area.

And during a framing inspection, the inspector realized that the accessory dwelling unit was larger than what was on BCAD and what was and was also larger than what is permitted by the UDC and the neighborhood conservation district for this area.

As noted, that was done sometime between 2019 and 2021.

So at that time he applied for a variance to be able to pull the permit to correct that error.

The original request as staff detailed it.

We met with the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association in last week on the 20th.

We also met with their zoning committee in September.

They had concerns over this proposal in general.

It is a lot of lot coverage with those two sheds and the additional square footage on the ADU.

When you look at the orange outline of the accessory dwelling, you can kind of see a shaded area.

That's approximately the additional square footage that was added by a previous property owner.

During our discussion with the neighborhood, or after our discussion with the neighborhood, rather, we decided that we could go ahead and eliminate those two sheds.

So we are amending our request.

Next slide, please.

So we're taking off the two parts of the request for the side and rear setback variances.

And that affects the first part of the request.

The neighborhood conservation district limits the amount of accessory structure square footage to be 40% of the primary structure.

The accessory structure obviously exceeds that, but if we eliminate the roughly 420 square feet of the sheds, that reduces that first variance request to uh 368-foot variants rather than 787.

We are still asking for the variance for 190 square feet on the accessory structures to allow it to remain the same size.

He's not increasing the square footage at all.

This is the same size as it was when he purchased it.

He's just renovating it.

The work is extensive.

He took it all the way down to the studs, put on new siding, and so it can't be grandfathered because it is too much work.

But this was a problematic property for the neighborhood.

My understanding is it was a candidate for the city's DART program.

It was a dangerous premise in a lot of ways.

There were too many people living on the property, a lot of work done without permits.

So it was a nuisance before it was purchased by Mr.

Delariva.

He did pull permits.

And I I did walk through the rest of this timeline, but he is trying to bring it into compliance through these variances.

This is a list of the permits he pulled from the time he purchased it until today.

It's 30, there are 30 permits.

So again, the amended request would just allow for this 1,080 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is existing.

If you grant the variants, it will allow the city to issue a permit so that he can finish the renovations.

He's been working hard, and as you saw previously, he has the support of the surrounding neighbors.

One of the items that he has worked on with this renovation is he moved the door from the side that faces Beacon Avenue to face the backyard.

One of the things that Beacon Hill cares a lot about is the owner occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units.

So now the front door for the accessory dwelling does face the main house.

So findings of fact we believe this is not contrary to the public interest.

It will provide additional housing at the neighborhood scale, and it allowed it will allow him to complete these renovations in compliance with the UDC.

A lital enforcement would cause an unnecessary hardship.

He would have to take down the additional square footage.

Also, some of the properties around this area are zoned RM4, so there are multiple properties in this area with more than one dwelling unit on the property.

Only permitted residential uses will take place on the property.

And the extra accessory structures are existing.

Uh the owner did not cause this condition.

Um again, here's our support from the surrounding neighbors.

And we did meet with the Beacon Hill association twice.

Uh they did vote to oppose this, but we felt that um eliminating the sheds, although it would not address all of their concerns, would address many of their concerns with the overcluttering of the lot, which is also something that staff mentioned.

So we're here for any questions.

So when you met the second time with Beacon Hill and you talked to them about the removing the sheds, moving the door to the side.

Did the vote change at all?

I mean, did you get anybody who was positive from the neighbor association?

So we did not um discuss removing the sheds at the last meeting we had with them.

Uh we made that decision after meeting with them.

Um their process is you meet with their zoning committee first and then they take it to their general body to make a recommendation.

Um I do believe they have someone here that is willing to speak to their thoughts.

Um but we did present to their body.

Um we had a lot of questions.

Uh the sheds came up a couple of times.

Could they be moved?

Could they be moved further in?

But overall the lot coverage and being so far out of compliance with their NCD seem to be a large concern.

So we discussed that after the fact, and that was an amendment we decided to make last week.

And and the accessory structures in the rear, the addition that's on the side uh you know away from the street there.

Is it is it all living space?

Is there anything about it other than living space?

It's all living space.

But it's single story.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Uh is there any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Cruz and Azume?

Okay.

So with the amendment that you're doing so you will only have two buildings in the on the property, correct?

Yes.

The main house and the accessory.

And uh two sheds will be torn down?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yeah, I was just seeking concurrency.

Applicant uh amended the request for the 368 square feet, and uh I would just wanna see concurrence from staff.

Is that correct on the numbers if we remove those two?

That math does check out.

Thank you.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So um was it so try to understand um there was a structure there that was a structure there before the let's see.

How long has there been two ADUs uh um on this property?

Has there always been two?

There's only one ADU.

Okay.

Uh well how long has that ADU been in place?

So I don't know how long the original portion of the ADU has been in place, but it was expanded sometime between 2019 and 2022.

We know that from Google Street View being able to go back through that history.

Um, but I don't know when the original square footage of the ADU was constructed.

And so do we have so was the original ADU compliant with regards to the size uh for the property itself from a square footage perspective?

So I don't know.

So just looking at bait uh BCAD, it shows that the detached living area was possibly built in 1946 when the home was built.

And so um I'm not certain off the top of my head what zoning was on I meant definitely not on square footage minimums, I believe.

And then in 2019 the property so the ADU was expanded.

Um so is that line what was the the addition there?

Is is that grayed out or the hashed area?

Yes, the dashed line and the hashed area is where um the additional square footage came from that a previous property owner put on.

So with regards to the percentage then so is it the same percentage then uh that were over?

So I think I saw a noted notice about how much over the percentage of the ADU was relative to the main structure.

So is that number provided?

Because we had the 40 percent number and 50 percent in the what the number current numbers?

So this had to be broken out.

Um the neighborhood conservation district, Beacon Hill has a 40 percent for all accessory structures.

And so that's why you're seeing a different number versus what the ADU vers per UDC code is.

So again, what sh you know that 386 would be the to the 40 percent for the NCD.

Um then you're also voting on the 1080 um, the additional 190 square feet uh regulation because they're wanting to keep the building of 1,080 square feet, which can be up to half of the original or the main structure.

And um so I know that I on my property I can put up a 300 square foot um structure in my backyard without getting a permit.

Um would this allow that as well?

So even if you don't have to get a permit, you still have to be within the either UDC or N C D guidelines.

So there's some um small buildings, yeah.

They can get uh they can put under 300 square foot, but if it doesn't meet uh UDC or neighborhood conservation district guidelines, they're gonna have to come back here.

Okay, so they couldn't they couldn't go back after the fact if they tore out these and put them back after, they'd be uh once again out of more out of compliance than what they're currently working through.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I wanted to chime in on that.

So the the the for the variance for the ADU it's 50 percent.

Uh but in in uh 1946, it looked like the ADU they built was 880 square feet, which would just under the 890 allowed.

So the addition that they did in 2019 is what put it over the edge.

And when did that NCD come into effect?

December of 2005.

Okay, this has been there quite a while.

So right.

Any other questions?

I have a question.

Commissioner Commissioner Brown.

Is this considered a historic district here?

It's not no, it is not a historic district.

Okay, because I noticed the different different windows.

There's a one over one and a two over two, and then the little windows on the I I guess the front one is the uh original resident, and on the ADU it's um different.

I believe the uh the windows that were based on neighborhood conservation territory have been reviewed.

Um we didn't find any issues with the windows.

I'm just talking about consistency here.

You know, even if it isn't a historic district, the window should be consistent.

Thank you.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna, you have a question?

So the um so can so if we had a we'll say uh even though the the house has been replaced, if there was an original footprint, we'll say from 1940, whatever um and we went back to that building to say um can it be can the motion be read, I guess, adjusted for how many square foot we can allow, I guess over you know, going back to the original 1942 um original ADU that was there.

Can can a motion be read where it is limited from that perspective, or is it an all or none thing?

So right now they're requesting for the full 1,080 square feet, um, and that's the limit.

But if you if BOA makes a motion for less than that, that's that's what they're gonna have to do.

So that's permitted.

Okay, I just want to make sure that.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and and in the the 1946, the 880 square foot, did that violate the NCD if the sheds were gone?

I believe the limit was 800 square feet.

Uh but I have to double check that.

Oh seven eighty seven.

So yes, it's so the nineteen foot.

It's it it it always violated.

When the NCD came in, there was non-conforming to the N C D.

Yeah, right.

And 2005 when the N C D came into effect, what was in the backyard became a non-conforming use?

So it looks like it does look like that um the 40 percent of the main structure is about seven approximately seven hundred and thirteen square feet.

So you're correct, an eight hundred and eighty square foot existing structure basically was non-conforming once Beacon Hill N C D was adopted.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Any voicemails?

Anyone sent it to speak?

That's two voicemails and one speaker.

All right, so they're the voicemails.

I'm calling for the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association regarding a VOA 2510300176.

Can you pause that real quick?

Mrs.

Cynthia?

Yes.

Is that your voicemail?

You want to speak or did you want the voicemail played?

Okay.

This regards disregard.

Go ahead, keep playing.

Dear Board of Adjustment members, Rahana voted it as regularly to get a meeting lock in support.

The applicants requested four variants for the N C D five.

Can you cut that variance for two accessory unit?

A variant for the size of an ADU and a variant for the five of all the accentory units combined.

The residents voted on each variance individually, not a support for the following reasons.

The NCD5 standards require that an NDU be no bigger than 40% of the main structure, and the UDC requires no more than 50%.

Consider the variance extreme, creating in effect two full units on single family zone lot.

This sets the precedence for other properties to create a large and allowed ADU with features, future BOA cases.

The variance regarding the setbacks and combined size and accessory units create a single family property with multiple units, which is different than the throttle properties.

Bahana recognizes the owner purchased the property with the oversized ADU and other accessory units, but these were relatively recent additions built between 2019 and 2024, with no permitting by the previous owner generating 91 serious violations involving electrical structural water runoff and plumbing issues according to a dangerous premises investigation report of June 2024.

We feel that the new owner should have been aware, particularly as he is selling the property, and we assume that the owners and business of buying these types of properties to rehab is in a common retrain by developers, rehabbers, and farmers, clippers that they were unaware of previous issues.

Bahana suggests that the owner rezoned R6 CD for two units, which would accommodate a duplex, which is more accurate description of this property, and is supported by the midtown neighborhood's plan use description of low density residential.

This would alleviate the temptation, temptation for an investor, an investor to rent out both units without living on the property, which is illegal.

Building changes are more expensive than variances, but the property will be worth more.

We want to thank the representatives of the owner Ortiz McKnight PLLC for working diligently with the Vegan residents.

In particular, Anita Schell, who gave an excellent presentation.

Beacon Hill's N C D five standards are created and arrived in revised by the community to create a more stable neighborhood as we embrace change while preserving what residents choose as a most important element of our built environment.

Unless there is a safety health issue or an unavoidable building issue, we believe that the NCD five standards should be supported.

We found needed communication in this particular instance.

Thank you, Cynthia Walker.

My name is Robin Rogers.

I live at 702 West Rosewood Avenue.

Um my telephone number is 2107254860.

And this is in regards to case number one seven six.

My name is Robin Rogers, and I reside at 702 West Rosewood near the property in question.

I'm here to I am calling today to voice my strong opposition to the variance request for the property at 703 West Rosewood Avenue.

This request is a brazen attempt to seek retroactive approval for the massive construction project that was not only built illegally by a prior owner, but was also remodeled by the current applicant and deliberate defiance of city code.

The applicant's actions, including misrepresenting the project to obtain a permit, demonstrate a pattern of willful disregard for the law.

The applicant is requesting variances for legal structures they purchased and subsequently remodeled.

My opposition is based on three core issues: the applicant's deliberate and knowing violations, the substantial harm to the neighborhood, and the dangerous precedent that decision was set.

The hard set stems from the applicant's knowing and deliberate actions.

While the illegal structures were initially built by a prior owner, the current applicant has, through their own actions, created their hardship.

Upon purchasing this property, the applicant failed to conduct proper due diligence, which would have revealed the prior legal construction.

The applicant's original permit application was incorrectly filed as a remodel uh as a minor remodel.

This is a crucial point as a minor remodel permit cannot be used to legalize existing structures.

The permit application itself represents a misrepresentation of the scope of work.

And a knowing violation.

The incorrect permit filing resulted in a in a stop work order.

After this, the applicant obtained new permits that by standard practice would have made him aware of the specific UDC and NCD5 rules, including setback and size limitations.

Despite this, the applicant continued with a remodel that violated these rules.

Their actions demonstrate that their violations were not based on ignorance, but a knowing disregard for the code.

Did fancy on your UDC is clear that a variant cannot be created.

Oh please delete this.

I am reading my whole statement.

Oh we got Ms.

Cynthia.

All right.

State your name and tell us your thoughts.

I'm Cynthia Spielman.

I live at 900 Westwoodlawn.

I am a member of our Zed Committee as well as sit on the board.

I don't want to repeat.

I hope you heard everything that Cynthia Walker, you know, let you know because she had to read it very quickly.

You know, our neighborhood, um, our NCD five is important, but so are ADUs.

We just don't feel that having two homes on one lot, I think it defeats the purpose of ADU.

That then becomes a duplex.

And we have suggested that the owners seek um, you know, uh uh zoning uh change for our six CD for two units, which would be more accurate about what's now sitting on that property.

Um again, you know, we know that that's a more expensive process, but his property would be worth more, and it and to me it would be more conforming to what's in our neighborhood.

Um at our neighborhood meeting, we presented both sides.

We advertise it in our newsletter.

I know to go to different neighbors, there's a lot of miscommunication.

You heard from one neighbor here.

There was another neighbor that was for it because she said, well, the owner's gonna put his elderly mother in the ADU, and I don't know what was said to her, but to us what was important is that the developer the the uh the attorney or the the representative for the applicant, Anissa Schell, came to our neighborhood, which was our association meeting, which is advertised that we were going to hear this case.

A lot of people showed up.

She did an excellent, probably the best job I've ever seen anybody do in our neighborhood for presenting.

We also presented our case, we presented our recommendations.

We don't share recommendations ahead of time.

We're not here to bias anybody.

What we're here is to help neighbors make informed choices.

Um they chose, they made a motion to hear ever to vote on each individually.

They talked about it, and they decided that they did not want a lot of buildings, but particularly two buildings that are around the same size on a single family lot and were open to the idea of um a zoning change.

So I'm hoping that you will support the neighborhood.

Um I know you know it's hard.

Anissa's actually a friend, so it's very difficult to talk uh against a case that she's for, but this is what our neighborhood residents felt was important.

Thank you.

Mana, I have questions.

Commissioner.

Okay, so um so I'm uh I'm confused a little bit with regards to uh um saying let's go ahead and put in a CD change or or or a uh a zoning change, and then it's okay.

Um, versus you know the property as it's built.

Sure.

So from the size, because we aren't changing the size here, you know, but change the zoning and try to understand the community's perspective on that.

Well, the perspective was that you have these two units on the the ADU is as big as many of the houses in the area.

So there's a sense that you have two units sitting on a single family lot that are home-sized units.

I think the idea is the neighbors have they've struggled with the previous owner, not this owner, but a previous owner.

What happens in our neighborhood is investment companies buy these properties and they rent out both.

When by law they're supposed to live in one and rent out the other, and then it's up to neighbors to constantly have to report this, and then you're stuck like, okay, I don't want to turn somebody out.

So it becomes an issue.

Our neighborhood plan land use supports um duplexes on R6s on on, I'm sorry, on low density residential.

And if he were to get that zoning, then you've got he can keep what he has.

He's got two full units on a lot, and it now becomes a legal duplex.

And someone can buy it and use one as an ADU if they want to, but you know, investors they if somebody wants to rent it out both of them, they can.

Well, there's there's pros and cons of both of that.

Uh sure.

Right now, um, if we going through us, there's a limit to what you could do.

So we could set that limit because she got rid of the sheds, we could say what's there now is all you're ever gonna get.

If you go through the zoning change route, then correct me if I'm wrong, then you could put 50% accessory units on each of the units and really go to town on the on the on the boxes in the backyard if the zoning change were to be approved.

I I don't believe you can put ADUs um accessory dwelling units on duplexes.

And you certainly couldn't rent them.

So you can put an accessory dwelling unit.

However, the NCD standard would still apply for the overall property if there was a change of zone.

So if you had two you had two units, a duplex, something zoned for duplex, you can put ADUs on the duplex?

So I'm sorry.

So the property owner, so the same rule will still apply.

It can only be one property owner, so it would only be one uh accessory dwelling unit.

But if you had if they got a CD for two detached units, not a true duplex where they're joined.

How do you apply the 50 percent rule when you have two detached primary structures?

50 percent rule for an ADU?

For each?

Well, again, there would only be one ADU per lot.

So you would only look at one ADU and we would basically do 50 percent of one of those units.

Correct.

To CD, and now you have two primary buildings.

Correct.

Could I put an ADU in and make a third building?

Correct.

You could do a third unit as an ADU.

It would be the most restrictive one.

So the smaller one.

So you would you would be able to put another ADU, but it would be 40 percent of one of the two buildings.

If the owner lived in the well, I'm just we're talking about potential.

Um I'm I'm looking at potential.

So if the neighborhood is if going through this board, all they're ever going to have is two structures.

Going through a zoning change, you could get three with sheds.

You could not you could not um rent them out if if I was someone who bought two units and I'm renting them both out.

You can't rent out a third unit.

Well, you can't do that now if we pass it.

Right.

If I own one of the units, if they become single family properties, then I guess you could then one would be an ADU or one I think.

Well, if the zoning is.

If you had a zoning change, you'd have two primary structures.

It could be a third ADU, and then somebody could conduct them out, and then you could have three different people living there.

But it's a duplex.

So um I guess you could own one of the property owner lives on one of the two units or the accessory dwelling unit, technically you could do that.

So I'm trying to figure out what is more important to the neighbors association, the potential to have three or more structures, or to have two structures without ever having any more structures.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, no, I understand it is.

If we didn't pass this, could they get rid of the 13-foot extension that they did on the west side of the building and have it be compliant, or are they stuck now?

So I mean, if this is approved as is, they can reduce the ADU.

Um, no, like if we don't approve it, could they go back to what it was in 1946 and have the 880 square foot ADUs?

I don't think so.

They expanded, so once you expand it uh any NCU would go away.

Okay.

But I think the neighborhood, I can't speak for the neighborhood.

I can speak for myself, but I have a pretty good temperature of how people feel in my community.

I think they would be willing to live with an ADU that was smaller.

And we could justify it like if that was there originally, okay.

You know, we're not we're not trying to, you know, hurt this man, but but so that 800 might be something that people could live with, or the idea that, okay, now it's an ADU, it's sort of grandfathered.

Um people did not seem upset at the idea of rezoning.

I know uh Anissa kind of brought up like you realize those will be renters, and you know, renters, a lot of them run our neighborhood association.

I mean, we have a really good.

I'm just I'm trying to listen to I'm trying to gauge what's more important to y'all.

What what we could live with is the idea that it went back to the 800.

Like we could we that would be um more appropriate than what's there now.

I think people that was what they objected to is such a large, too large unit.

And do you think and you know you obviously you are I'm gonna get in trouble from the I know it's but in your and and and from what you your experience with the neighbor association, are are the removal of the sheds a big deal or not a big deal?

They seem to be a big deal.

The idea that it was all of these um buildings on one unit seemed to be a problem for me, and the setbacks was a problem.

Yeah, I know the part of that shortage shortage is that if we if we approve this today and and there's some violation with how they're being rented or what have you at least you have on the good side of that, you can just make a free phone call to the city and say, hey, you're violating zoning.

I mean, we you know we have a pretty strong zoning committee, it's a lot of work to keep up with who's renting and what.

I think I think people want to be able to have someone live in the house and and an ADU rented out.

I mean, that's what the property is now.

Certainly, that's what we'd like.

We just we just don't think two full units should be on one lot.

Commissioner Mann.

And you know, and one of the other points is that and so certainly the notion of going back to zoning is not out of the question then, even with the smaller um ADU, because then it that offers some other perspectives then that they would be able to maybe make some additional changes and or add some additional structures.

So I didn't use the word recommend.

I mean, you know, that's certainly up to the property owner.

But I'm I'm just saying these are maybe some remedies or alternatives, Anissa, would you like to speak?

Yeah, so let's you've heard a bunch of stuff.

There's pros and cons and you've heard commentary so we can do that.

Um so a couple of things that I wanted to share is um when we met with the neighborhood association, they took a vote on each of the four items within the variants separately.

And the the thing that was pretty well opposed, pretty one-sided, were the two sheds.

Um the additional square footage on the ADU was really split.

It was a close vote, which is why we felt like that was a good compromise.

Um to your point and to your question, could they add sheds on?

If he takes the sheds off, can he add them back?

If there wasn't an N C D, possibly.

But there is an N C D and that restricts the overall lot coverage.

So he can't bring the sheds back without requesting a new variance.

Um I don't know if you want to come up.

Yes.

This is the property owner.

Please state your name.

Alfredo Elarriva, and I'm really good at building stuff, really bad at speaking.

So but bear with me.

So I just think a little bit of uh the misunderstanding is I feel this a lot of uh anger with some of the neighbors of what had happened in the past that I didn't know about.

Uh I know the caller said I didn't do my due diligence.

I did.

I came multiple times to the city, um, always check uh permits uh if there's anything pending, nothing on either the structures, right?

Uh when I did my final for the main structure, they told me there was a um a permit that uh they didn't finish for an extension on the main house, right?

Which I go, fine, give me permits.

I believe in getting everything permitted all the time, getting my my everything in order.

I have to go through that.

And that point I went uh and I talked to Mr.

Mark.

We reviewed the ADU, we reviewed uh what I could do and could not, and to the gentleman's point about the windows or or the ma'am, um they told me I could not modify the style of windows and sizes, right?

So we kept it to the size that uh they recommended, that's why they're not equal.

Um we did uh pull payment permits for framing for everything.

Not until after several visits to the city, not until the last the final inspection for the framing.

That's when they told by the way, this looks new.

Let go get an addition permit.

And I okay.

So I came to get the addition permit, they gave me the addition permit.

I went to the other department.

Well, I I don't remember what's called with a conservation.

They go, well, there's an issue.

And I go, no, no, no.

I complied with the sightings, I complied with everything.

That's not the issue.

I go the issue is that you went over 40 percent.

And I I did not know until that point that that was the situation, right?

But I think a lot of uh the feelings come from what happened before.

At no point we wanted the sheds, if you go see them, they're still just storage right now for material.

At no point we wanted to keep them.

Um that property, I have a a buyer, which is a relative of mine that they are gonna use the house for an ADU what does it matter or not?

But that's what the purpose of that house is.

That's why we moved the door and everything, right?

So obviously when we do stuff like this, we do want to uh keep in mind our profits and that we don't lose money, otherwise that that won't be a business.

But um nothing uh that we did was uh I think everything that we did help that community and that neighborhood, and I know they have to be in agreement that that corner was a mess.

There were eight families leaving in that in that corner.

They called the police every day.

We call so I I get the resignment, but that's not the case.

We're just asking for that extra 190 square feet that uh it was there, right?

Um I really have nothing else to say, like I said, I'm not very good at uh explaining myself.

The accessory dwelling units are currently in construction.

Yes.

At what stage of construction are you in right now?

Fine.

Uh we're just uh waiting for the framing uh to pass, and we're ready to sheet rock and and move forward.

But all the plumbing path, electrical paths, uh a mechanical path.

The reason why I'm asking is is that so we have this 40 percent rule, this 50 percent rule, and that's applied the 50 percent rules applied on on it's all the structures and the 40 percent it's 50 percent which one's tied to the ADU?

Fifty percent.

50 percent.

And so you're violating both, but it's I think part of the issue is is that the bigger AD the bigger of an AD you have, the more potential for it to be more intensive or impactful, then it it becomes more like a main house.

That's what we're hearing about so many changes.

So is there any convertible part that's under the roof right now that you can turn into an exterior access store shed or a carport or can you do something with it other than a so I I mean it won't be ideal like I said the the uh the the the main issue not to make more money off of it, uh but I mean not I if I would have known since uh from day one when they uh if they wouldn't explain to me, listen, you're exceeding uh some percentage.

I would have extended only or would have completed only what it what it would have been done, right?

So a question for staff.

So let's say on the west end of the assessment, just uh just to make sure I just want to make sure if I'm thinking this correctly.

If he knocked off 190 square feet on the west end of this of this structure and he made it into a a an unaccessible, unc air conditioned storage space, would he only be had needing one variance from us at this point because he would have he's removing you know the the 40, the 50 percent rule on the ADUs.

That's correct.

He wouldn't need the acceptance the UDCs as a risk.

And or removing walls and making it a patio cover.

Yeah, I mean it's it's the air conditioned space that it is hit up.

So so fortunately I I didn't know, but fortunately the way the way the layout is, if you go from the street up, you have uh the the master bedroom with a master uh bathroom, the living room, the kitchen, and then he has a hallway for the two additional backrooms.

So that can be uh closed off and and be kept as a smaller ADU, that's the case.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

I'm not sure what that actually accomplishes.

Well I mean if he uh he omits one piece of ductwork from his project and I don't know if that satisfies the neighborhood, but and if it does, why?

You know, like well what uh what I'm saying is is that he he has uh we can remove a variance request.

And because when I when I'm what I'm hearing from when I heard testimony from the neighborhood association, when the moment they said it it's okay to do a zoning change, they don't seem to be opposed to having the the the roof there.

But I think part of the issue is is that the air cond the the livable part of the home is becomes too big.

And that just seems like it that's their the big problem.

And so I'm trying to re see what we can do to remove some of that.

But but then it's not an issue if he goes and rezones.

Well, that's why that's fine.

I I suspect there would be a lot of opposition if you went and tried to rezone and it's moving of goalposts.

That's why that's why I think it should stay here, only because we can make it to where it can't get any bigger.

If you if the if a rezoning ever happened, you can start slapping more stuff in the backyard and that or conduit conducting it out, and then it it really gets to be uh adversary to what their goal is.

And so I think that if we could I'm trying to think of what limits we could oppose where he could still have it be functional but not have it be more that would make the neighbor association happy.

So for me for me personally, it's an existing building and we're talking a couple of square feet, so to me it's uh I mean I am I'm in favor of this.

I mean I'm I'm personally removing the shed and locking it into whatever the structures at now when he bought it.

I'm happy with it.

So I don't know what it everyone else's thoughts.

I was just trying to find something that would uh that would hopefully gain some garner support with the commission by imposing something.

What do you think, Commissioner Manor?

So that's why I was talking about you know the dialogue about the original footprint, because that even though it's still out of compliance, it's it's at least historically what was there on the property itself, and I think that I heard from the community that they were fine with that part of it and and so I think that there could be things done with that back portion.

I'm I'm gonna put something out there.

I think that I'm gonna recommend that when a motion is read that just to make sure that we can get close to maybe getting nine votes, that we set the limit on the accessory to what the previous building used to be, which was eight hundred and eighty square feet, but grant the variance on the forty percent so that uh they could somehow convert the covered part to a patio or something.

I'm just trying to see who would I'm I'm trying to make sure we can get to nine votes somehow.

It just seems like a huge waste to me to have the I mean we're just gonna he's gonna rip off a section of his building and throw it in the dump.

I mean, well, how about we uh let's move on to a motion so we can start to start the the horse trading here.

But part but okay, so but part of the thing he was ripping off is something that wasn't supposed to be built to begin with.

And so someone heads down this path, you know, the um and we have bad actors, not that you're the bad actor, but the prior person was a bad actor.

You know, how do we how do we keep that from going on and on and on?

You know, that's yeah, I think I uh my recommendation is is to make a motion uh for what he is asking without the sheds being there.

And then I would strongly urge another commissioner to make an amendment to go down to uh the original square footage of the building on the ADU just to see if it can see where we can get nine votes.

If the amendment fails, then we know where people know where people stand on this stuff.

Excuse me, can I say Commissioner Brown?

I you know, we know we all know that this property was built illegally, but it's here now.

So why are we going to ask this man to chop off 400 feet of his house just to accommodate something that is a law now?

I I this is this is crazy.

I I can't see him chopping off half of his ADU just to accommodate something that was built illegally in the past.

I I don't I don't understand that.

That's that's ridiculous.

Okay.

I think that I think that we might be okay with taking the square footage for the sheds off.

If staff could tell us what the new numbers are.

It would be a 368 square foot variance for the uh NCD.

Who would like to read this motion?

And 190 for the UDC.

I'm hearing my name somehow.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00176.

I move the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for a three uh three hundred and sixty-eight square foot variants from the NCD5 design standards, maximum allowable accessory structure to allow for a combined one thousand and eighty square foot of accessory structures, and two, a two-foot four-inch variance from the minimum five-foot rear set to allow.

They took out numbers two and three.

Oh, two and three are I believe the app can remove those.

Is that correct?

Yep.

Okay, apologize.

Skip two.

Uh moving on to the last item, and and two, a 190 square foot variants from the 890 uh square foot uh maximum maximum to allow for a 1080 square foot detached accessory dwelling situated at 703 West Rosewood Avenue, applicant being Alfredo Enrique de la La Riva, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property, such as a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended, would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Um for the purposes of maintenance, water, runner, fire safety, NCD five accessory structure size, a properties adequately sized to support the proposed overall accessory structure, square footage as it is size just over 10,000 square feet, uh and the accessory dwelling would remain subordinate in size in function of the primary residence.

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

Um C D Vive accessory structure size of property owner would have to significantly reduce their proposed structure size to ensure compliance with the development standards outlined in the NCD.

The accessory dwelling was expanded by previous owner and the applicant does not propose further expansion of the structure.

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

Uh the overall score footage of the accessory structures will be proportional to the primary structure and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as the accessory structure will remain smaller than the primary structure.

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

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

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

The character of the district in which the property is located would not be substantially altered by the presence of such accessory structures, which are subordinate to the primary residential use.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Yes.

A friendly editorial amendment.

Your references to accessory structures.

Plural should be singular with only one at issue now.

I will amend my findings to do that for sure.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm okay with it as red because it limits them ever putting any more structures on the property.

And if there's any issue with uh you know who's living where they can always uh file with the city and have them pursue it as a as a zoning violation.

So Commissioner Stevens.

Uh yeah, I I'm in support of this.

I think it's an existing structure.

If he was if he was proposing to build this, it would be a different conversation.

Obviously, he's polled like 30 permits, so the city is getting their permitting fees.

Um the lot is a corner lot that appears to be able to afford this type of structure.

So I'm uh in support.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I'm supporting as well.

I mean, if they were to pursue the zoning option here, I think it would open the availability opportunity to build more structures here.

So I think the best solution for the neighborhood protection is uh going down the route with the variance which limits it to uh what's already the footprint of the building anyway.

So supporting any other commissioners like that.

Nana.

Commissioner Mann.

So I'm not in agreement with anybody who spoke before me.

Um so basically, you know, we're just giving anybody the right to just build whatever the heck they want and then beg for forgiveness uh because we aren't keeping up with the permit community perspective.

And you know, this is in violation of the city code and now in violation, not to mention the the the the NCD.

And so at best it should be 50 percent, you know, and and the numbers are way above that.

And so they would if they triple the size of the house, then they would finally be in compliance.

So if they triple the size of the main home, then now they would be in compliance.

So go down that path from my perspective.

You know, and so that you know, I just can't get behind you know, accepting that somebody violated it, you know, a year ago and now we're going to let it ride, so sorry.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else like to add?

Uh hearing none, um, let's have a roll call vote.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Luna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Goffgath?

I concur.

Commissioner Brown.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

It's uh 10 to 1.

A motion passes.

All right.

Item number seven.

Thank you so much.

Excuse me.

Uh Chairman.

Yes, Commissioner Brown.

Could we do the property located on uh I think it's New Bronzeville and uh I don't know, some street, but um because I'm leaving at five o'clock, and um I wanted to specifically hear that one.

Well, we we we don't we don't do that only if there's extreme circumstances.

The first we move the first case because of the sign language interpreter.

So we're moving on, we're keeping on number eight.

Item number eight is BOA-25-103, 00190, located at 191 remote drive in console district two.

The applicant is Abiel Chavez Espinosa.

A request for one, a four-foot-five-inch variance from the minimum five-foot site set back to allow two accessory structures to be seven inch with overhang from the east side property line, and two, a two uh four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot side set back to allow a carport to be one inch with overhang from the west side property line.

The zone is R6.

The subject property is generally located between Frat Road and North Interstate 35, situated on Remont Drive.

This case originated from a quote enforcement investigation regarding the construction of two accessory structures in the rear yard without the required build-in permits.

A stop work order was issued, and the property owner was notified of the need to obtain the appropriate permits.

During a site visit, staff observed that the structures were built seven inches with an overhang from the eastern site property line.

The applicant has indicated that the intended use for the structures is to serve as a game room and a storage shed.

No permit records were identified for the current carport and historical imagery indicates it was likely constructed sometime after February 2022.

The carport was also observed to be within the western side property setback.

As a result, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the accessory structures and carport to remain in their current location within the side setback areas.

This is the site plan site plan highlighting the location of those variances.

And a picture of the setback.

One, insufficient space will remain for the purposes of water runoff, fire safety, and the maintenance of the structures as a rear yard is adequately spacious for the accessory structures to be properly set back from the eastern side and still maintain a usable rear yard area.

And two, the carport setback variants will eliminate the visual separation that setbacks are intended to provide and set a precedent that encourages driveways as a buffer from adjacent properties.

This is my first home, and I don't have experience having permits issued.

So I just copied the same.

And now I know it's a mistake.

And it shows a game room.

You can see you know you can watch T V or you can do some gaming there.

Nothing that is going to damage anything outside.

That's all that will be all right thank you very much.

Any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Cruz can you ask him the property that's next to him where the carport is that supposed to be an alley or something was there before and they just removed it.

No it's uncallejón que me vecino yo desde que llegué mustan nosotros that is an alley that my neighbor and I keep clean and nobody nobody else goes in.

But we are maintaining that clean.

Okay so does it belong to anyone it just part of what the city owned investigamos si era del condado o de la ciudad al Yamara.

So we try to investigate that and when I call the city who belongs to that alley to the city said is the property is from the county.

And when my neighbor called the county who is the owner of that alley they say the city.

And the property is belongs to the city of San Antonio currently so it would be considered an alley correct it's not a right of way so it's not an alley.

It's city owned property I can't find it on Bear County clerks records.

So I don't know how it was conveyed or why it is very odd.

Usually the city doesn't go around buying strips of land unless there's some purpose to it but um I have no idea.

Yeah that doesn't make any sense it does show in one stop so it being belonged to the city.

So it it's odd that I can't find a conveyance you know like it usually you would take it because they want it for right away or they need it for something because it's a big chunk of land in the middle of the block.

I mean what else is it what's its purpose?

But I can't I can't seem to find a reason or any background to it.

Do you think you do question for the applicant?

Okay.

I don't know if you can see that I have a trailer right there.

I work in construction so the property now is in better condition that the property as I got it originally.

I still have a sign's unit question for the applicant did he have a chance to talk with his neighbor to the left that shares that same property line where the sheds are do they have any issue with the property being so close the building so close to the property line le comment yell me dijo que él affect nada pues se la pasa trabajando el solo llega dormir no que está indo que estaba bien para él.

So the neighbor um because I talked to the neighbor I and it's not affecting him.

The neighbor the entire day is out because he's working all the time and he's not affected when he comes back.

I asked him if he will send the paper here because that will help me but apparently he didn't.

Okay because that would be helpful.

Stevens Commissioner Stevens question for city staff if the city owned lot to the west of the of the property in question if that were a right of way would they find relief from their side setback requirement.

Okay.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So if you uh bring up Google map and do an aerial above the property um looking specifically at the um for the accessory structure on the back.

Um so it looks like the budding property is also shares that property line.

So is there any concerns with regards to it being close to that same property line on the back corner as well?

So if I zoom in, it it almost looks like it's riding on that line itself.

Could they have a str they look like it has some kind of the abutting property looks like has a structure that goes all the way to the back fence and that back corner?

If I saw the read the um uh plans correctly, it's also sharing that back corner.

So is there they would have to comply would they have to comply with any kind of fire code or anything back there if that other side is a living structure?

Yeah, they're they're not gonna be exempt from any fire code.

Um I'm not sure about the distance um of the neighboring property, but yes, they would have to abide by all fire codes, they wouldn't be exempt from it.

Yes, go ahead.

Mr.

Menne.

All the properties are in that way.

They are very close, all of them.

So the only so a challenge that we talk about regularly is making sure that we don't potentially um create a hazard on a debutting property, uh especially when we have two structures close by.

And so I want I just want to make sure that you know that we aren't causing uh you know some kind of uh hazard, you know, by by having those properties uh butting back at that back corner.

And so as I look at the overhead, the uh butting property has built an extension back further from the house that looks like it would be um close to potentially where where the uh those structures are.

So on that map there, you know, so where where is the accessory structure that you have built?

I'm sure.

So is the same distance from my construction that from their home to their construction?

So it's going to be like mutually the hazard will be mutual, sharing them and me.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

Is there any voicemails anyone's under the speak?

Uh no public comment.

All right.

I think we're ready for a motion then if someone would like to uh pursue uh read one.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BO8251030190, I moved that the board of adjustment.

Grant the request for one, a four-foot five-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow two accessory structures to be seven inches with overhang uh from the east side property line, and two, a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a car port to be one inch with overhang from the west side property line situated at 191 Remont Drive.

Applicant be in uh Abel Chavez Espinoza, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical characters property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC S amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The accessory structures side setback variance is not contrary to the public interest as there is adequate space for water runoff, fire safety, and maintenance.

The carport variance is also not contrary to the uh adjacent driveway as the adjacent driveway provides separation from the nearest residence on the west side.

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

Relocating the accessory structures outside the eastern side setback would significantly limit the functional use of the rear yard.

If the car port were rebuilt uh to comply with the side setback, the limited width of the side yard would prevent the accommodation of the full-size vehicle.

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

The risk of fire and water runoff hazards is unlikely to increase significantly due to the reduced setback as there is sufficient distance between the structures on the property.

The carport's location near the property line maintains reasonable separation consistent with the intent of the side setback requirements.

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 the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants will not substantially injure uh the appropriate use of adjacent forming property or alter the essential character of the district in which this property is located.

The accessory structures reduce setback will not significantly increase the risk of fire aggravation or water runoff into the neighboring properties.

The carport variants will not negatively impact the appropriate use of the adjacent form the adjacent property to the west, as the existing driveway provides sufficient separation of the nearest residential structured location further west.

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

The rear yard does not provide sufficient space to locate the structures outside the eastern setback without substantially reducing its functional use.

The carport support poles cannot be positioned at a reasonable distance from the West property line without compromising the space needed for a full-size vehicle.

End of motion.

Second.

So I read this as uh submitted, and um I'll be voting in favor of it.

Um partly because you know that there is going to have to be compliance with regards to um fire fire uh safety on the one wall um at that back corner, which is very important um being that adjacent or a caddy cross from that particular lot, appears to be a storage of planks of pallets, and so it's a whole yard filled with planks uh that's would be a concern to me from a fire hazard perspective.

So um, but but knowing that the city is going to ensure that uh that is built to safety concerns uh mitigates or at least minimizes uh some of that concern.

So I'll be voting in favor.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Cruz?

Um I agree with uh Commissioner Manna.

I I know there is some concerns on that property, but more than anything, especially on the driveway, because the property next to him, uh, nobody can claim except supposedly the city.

So I don't see a problem with it.

I would agree with that.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.