All right, are we recording?

Okay.

All right.

It is one o'clock.

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

We have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you very much.

Staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reid.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ivanez?

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana?

Present.

Commissioner Bagman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Azuna?

Present.

Commissioner Vavkez?

Present.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Present.

Chair Orion.

And I am present.

So we have 11, 10 here, and one by uh WebEx.

All right.

If anyone could everyone could please uh join me with the pledge.

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

To the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with a liberty and justice or all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One state, under God, one and indivisible.

All right.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have the authority to hear and decide appeals from a decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions allowed under Chapter 35 and to authorize variances from the zoning regulations required in Chapter 35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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.

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

Staff.

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

For those that signed in to speak or uh for or against the proposed variance or special exception, you will be called in the order that you signed 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 the maximum time limitation.

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

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak.

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, I I see that item number 11 has been withdrawn.

So if there's anybody in the gallery here that's uh for uh the case located at 505 Arbor Place, that will not be heard today.

Uh staff, is there any uh cases requesting a continuance?

Uh no continuances being requested.

Item 12 is postponed to January 12th.

So if anyone here is for is here for uh the property at 214 North Czarza Morris Street, that will not be heard today.

Um so we're gonna begin with item number one.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, planner with development services.

Item number one is requested by Rob McClinnon and is requesting for a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental on the block face located at Consul District 2.

The subject property is located at 626 Del Mar Street unit 202.

Surrounding uses include residential single family lots.

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

There is currently one active type two short-term rental permit on the block located at 626 Delmar Street unit 201 and is owned by the same person as this subject property.

Having been approved on August 11th, 2025.

Or 12.5% of the total number of single family, duplex, triplex, or quoteplex units on the block face.

There is a total of 15 units on the block face, one active STR type two being at 626 Delmar Street unit 201 issued on August 11th, 2025.

The block face is currently at 7%.

And if the second type 2 is approved, the block face will be at 13%, exceeding the 12.5 density limitation for type 2 STRs.

This property has no active listings, and this property also has no code enforcement history.

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

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

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

And a total of 37 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

No response from Denver Heights Neighborhood Association, and no response from our five citywide groups.

This concludes that presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name.

Tell us about your uh short-term rental.

Hello.

And my name is Rob McClellan.

Uh my short-term rental that I currently have is the uh the Oh really?

Is that better?

Oh yeah.

All right.

Uh hello everyone.

My name is Rob McClellan.

Uh I have the uh the short-term rental.

Uh to explain it further.

I try to I've been in the hospitality industry for I don't know, 25 years.

And um moving here, I was just trying to uh increase that as I had quite difficulty in uh the rental aspect of long-term rental, whereas in damages were happening, and I was just trying to go forward um to um extend it for that one extra last property that I have.

Um I've had a lot of five-star ratings, and I'm just trying to increase that further.

Um this is also my first time ever doing this, so I am pretty nervous, but I do appreciate all of your time.

I'm not sure if you do have any questions by all means.

I'm more than happy to answer.

All right, is there any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Manna?

So um question is so so how many units are already on this property?

So there's there's four units total.

Okay.

I live in one of them.

Okay.

Um due to the uh the way that you have your bylaws, I'm allowed to have one beside me.

The other one is the STR2, and then the one beside that is the one that I'm uh going along with.

So it would be 202 that we're trying to um have approved.

So so you have two type ones there?

Yes, I have two type ones.

So um so try to understand.

So so do you you can't live in both?

No, I live well.

Okay.

And then because it's attached to my uh property, they stated that there is an exemption for 101 to be uh a type one still.

Um and then 201 is the type two, and 202 is attached to 201.

So it's that's the extra property there.

It's all on one uh one lot.

So just to just to confirm with the city.

So so uh that's correct with regards to you could have a type one attached to uh a bedding another type one?

Uh correct, yeah, for multiple units on one property, um additional type one can be approved for one non-owner occupied unit.

So a type one will be issued for the owner-occupied unit and an additional non-owner occupied unit can qualify for a type one.

Anything in excess of that would have to apply for a type two?

Yeah, that's the first time I've heard that one.

So that's okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

What about um?

Uh the address at 614, that's also a type two, right?

Our records are it's for a type one permit.

Oh, I apologize.

I was looking at the color wrong.

All right.

Any other commissioner questions?

Mr.

Zuna?

Yeah.

Just uh so my question is in regards to parking.

How do you park this with a single one-band um parking?

You have to back out all the cars to Excellent question, Andrew.

Um yes.

So there is a laneway, and then there is two um parking spots behind the uh first building, and then there is two additional, sorry, two additional parking spots behind that building as well.

So what's that adequately parked and it would be adequately parked for the short-term rental if it was approved today?

Yes, it would be out of park.

There's a parking spot for each individual unit.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Ibanias?

Um Mr.

McLeland, um I'm looking at what you have for STR1s.

So you say that you have one STR1.

You live in the other apartment.

So that apartment really shouldn't have a listing as an STR1?

No, I rent that out as well if I'm not there.

So if I'm away, I will rent that unit out.

Okay.

And you have the other two spaces behind those two units?

Correct.

So just follow up on that question uh on that question there.

So you have two type twos, or I would say one type two, two type ones.

Um you live in the one, which implies that you can round a part of it.

And then uh the the exemption means you could use the other one as a full rental, so it more or less uh it's a hidden type two on that property, right?

So and so the one you you said that you when you are there or not there, so do you rent that whole the the the one that you live in, or is that one always you're always living there?

The one that I'm living in I would only rent if I was to be departed from going somewhere if I wanted to go to Dallas or see my mother in Canada, then I would rent that out.

Okay.

Okay.

Pony is Commissioner Mooney.

Could you please explain to us how it benefits yourself and then how it maybe benefits that surrounding area to add this as an additional STR instead of a long-term uh tenant?

To benefit for myself would be to pay my mortgage.

And then also to benefit for everyone else in the community, if there is anyone that if I was ever to be so busy is to hire staff, I would definitely be searching for any locals in the area.

Um there is the neighbor across the street that I've uh very nice gentleman named Fred.

I always bring any extra non-perishable items over to and uh help any family in the area that's local.

Have you um how long have you been doing uh short-term rentals for?

Uh I've been doing short-term rentals since uh I got here, which was uh January of 2024.

Gotcha.

And you purchased these, they were already built, or did you have a lot of people?

They were yes, they were already built.

I purchased them.

They were all long-term rentals and they were um in uh a bad state.

Um all those tenants had left on their own.

Um then I decided to go into the hospitality industry, which I'm I'm used to.

Gotcha.

And uh you said you have how many five-store ratings?

Uh probably around 200.

Yeah.

Vineus?

Yes.

Uh are you aware that district two is one of the highest uh districts with the most other than District 1 with the most STRs 2s in the city?

No, I was not aware.

And that community has really struggled with not having long-term rentals or affordable housing because of the history of STRs in that community.

I just wanted to know if you were aware of that.

No, I'm sorry, I was not aware.

Okay.

Being new.

I'm learning as I go, especially getting around the town.

And so I I really wanted to ask about parking.

So the staff says that you have two in the driveway.

Uh can you talk about how many spaces you can fit on here?

Yes, certainly.

So I could uh potentially fit five parking spots uh comfortably.

Um I wouldn't fit any further.

So there is the two just behind that building in the picture there.

There is two that you back into or drive into, whichever you wish, and then behind that building that you can see in it, the one in the back, uh, there's two parking spots behind there as well.

I had submitted the uh the parking photos in uh my request.

All right.

Any other questions?

Uh yes, Reed, yes, Commissioner Reed.

Um, if this were not granted, um have you explored midterm rentals between one month and one year?

Yes, I have explored that as well with either uh nurses without borders or traveling nurses, things like that.

Um there had there was a success for if I had for six months, and I was just trying to have this as a backup just in case that wasn't ever panned out as well.

Ragman?

Commissioner Braggman?

Um so on the rental, you said you tried renting it out long long term.

I have done that, yes.

Okay.

So what would you say the comparison rates are that you were going after for long-term rentals compared to what is typical for the neighborhood?

I'm just trying to find out whether the long-term rental is at a price that would um attract people locally, or if it's if it's just out of reach for from us people in the area?

Um I'm not sure for the the area I've been told from the property manager I had at the time.

It was uh between 1,300 to 1,500 for a two-bedroom, and I was within that standpoint.

Um I had no applicants that had come in from the property manager they had vetted.

I'm not sure who or who has not, um, and then opposed to you know Facebook or other local uh marketplaces that I can try and find someone without success.

All right.

Bonias, what do we have?

Commissioner Bunice?

Uh did you try to reach out to Denver Heights?

And if so, what's what's come of that?

I know we didn't get a response from them.

No, I have not reached out to Denver Heights as of this moment.

Um I'm more than happy to do so and speak with the community further.

I know that some other commissioners on this board really, you know, they they like that.

They like to see some type of communication with the neighborhood association.

And then and if uh or approval from them would be even better.

Um I know I know that some some of the members here really like that.

That would be not a problem at all.

If I have no qualms about reaching out to them at all.

So staff, so when they when you apply to the BOA for something like this, don't you have to prove that you reached out to the neighborhood association?

That's the there's a change of zoning.

Uh we built that into the UDC during the last amendment cycle that says that you have to show staff proof that you attempted to contact the neighborhood association, but that is not a requirement for this board.

Okay.

That's where I was getting that.

That may be a suggestion for review of an upcoming.

Sounds like something we can bring up.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, there's nothing else.

Is there any voicemails that anyone signed to speak?

No public comment.

All right, I'm looking for a motion.

First of all, was he?

If he is looking for approval from the neighborhood association, would that come before a motion?

Uh we can ask for a continuance if someone would like to do that.

If that's something the applicant is interested in in doing.

Okay.

How much time would you need?

I know for Denver Heights, I usually need at least 30 days.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

That's not a problem for myself as well.

Like, okay.

So that would bring us to uh January.

12th 4th, 5th?

12th 12th.

Oh, wow.

All right.

Can we go that far in advance?

More than four weeks?

I don't know why I thought we couldn't do more than a month.

Is he operating in the interim or would he allow to be operating in the interim?

Well, he's he already has some SDRs there.

What the specific unit?

Not that unit.

This unit would not be able to be operated in that time.

All right.

So if someone would like to make a motion to January 12th.

So moved.

Okay.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none?

Uh you have till January 12th, and let's see if we can get something from uh Denver Heights.

Okay.

Thank you very much for all your time.

You got it.

Thank you.

Item two.

Item two.

Item two is BOA-25-1030185, the address being 2119 San Pedro Avenue in Council District 1.

The applicant is George Rodriguez.

This is a request for a 59.75 square foot variance from the NCD 2 freestanding size sign size maximum of 12.25 square feet to allow a 72 square foot freestanding sign.

And two, a 10-foot variance from the NCD 2 freestanding sign height maximum of 8 feet to allow for an 18-foot tall freestanding sign.

This is as uh the request was originally advertised.

Um we have since received a modification to this that I will show on a later slide.

Um the zoning for this property is C2.

Uh the subject property is located within the Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation District, which limits sign dimensions to be proportional to the existing building.

The applicant is proposing uh a new freestanding size, uh free standing sign at a size and height greater than what the NCD currently allows.

According to the NCD design standards, freestanding signage shall be limited to a height of four inches per each foot in building height up to a maximum of eight feet, and a sign area of 36 square inches per linear foot of building frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet.

Uh given the property's building height of 27 feet and the building frontage of 49 feet, the maximum allowable sign height and size on this property is eight feet and 12.25 square feet, respectively.

Uh the Unified Development Code permits a 24-foot sign height and 150 square foot sign outside the NCD design standards along the primary primary arterial type B, uh which is not exceeded by this request.

Uh this is a site plan showing the rough location of where that sign would go.

If we can go to the next slide.

Um here is the subject property.

And this is the original proposal as originally advertised again at 18 feet and uh 72 square feet in size.

Uh this project was originally going to be put before the board on October 6th, that it's has since been continued uh to facilitate community engagement with the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association.

On the following slide, we have the current design proposal by the applicant uh reducing the original.

Um so now we're at a 10-foot proposed sign height and 25 square foot proposed sign size.

So that's a two-foot variance and a 12.75 square foot variance, respectively.

And here is the surrounding area, just to highlight some of the existing signs along this corridor.

Across the street, there is a sign of similar form.

Um this one only goes to about 14 feet in height.

Um that is taller than the NCD currently allows.

The only uh thing that we can kind of see here is that this uh sign predates the NCD standard.

Uh staff recommendation for the NCD two sign variance.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030185 based on the following findings of fact.

The variances would be contrary to the public interest as the proposed sign exceeds both these limitations in area in an area where the preservation of existing character is prioritized, and two, such a variance would establish a precedent for increased sign sizes in this area, thereby undermining the intent of the neighborhood conservation district.

Staff mailed 27 notices, zero were returned in favor, two in opposition.

The Alta Vista Neighborhood Association is in opposition, and the Mona Vista Historical Neighborhood Association did not respond.

The San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association did not respond.

Shown here are two of the responses staff received again.

These are directly in response to the request as originally advertised.

We also received a response from the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association.

They are in opposition, although the property is not within 200 feet of the neighborhood association.

And the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association is also in opposition.

Again, this is also in response to the request as originally advertised.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Can you bring those uh uh neighborhood association?

I'm looking at the I wouldn't want to see the dates.

October 5th.

Okay, so these are older.

Correct.

The uh revised sign design was received uh today.

Oh, today.

Okay.

Correct.

Any questions?

Commissioner Man and then Cruz.

What was the dimensions again of the revised sign?

Yeah, if we can go back to that slide.

They're looking at uh 10 feet in height, which is two feet over the maximum, 25 square feet in size, which is 12.75 square feet over the maximum.

Commissioner Cruz?

Uh yes.

So then that means the uh associations have not been given notice uh of the change of of the signage.

They have not provided uh comment on these changes, correct?

Okay, but you said you just received it today, so I'm assuming they got notified today also, correct?

Correct, correct.

All right, thank you.

Is he is the uh um but due to advertise due to advertising, it still advertises with the previous, you couldn't drop what is being advertised to what they're asking for.

Um this is uh essentially a reduction of the um, I know we can do it.

I'm just wondering, but there's no publication that reflects you got everything today.

Correct, correct.

All right.

Let's have the uh applicant come forward.

And just one clarification that sign across the street is not in the NCD district.

Okay.

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

Hello.

I'm very far away.

Um I'm Kim Dixon.

I'm representing the sign company.

So we did reach out to all Alta Vista.

We went to a board meeting.

We reduced the sign four times since that meeting.

Unfortunately, with Thanksgiving and and the scheduling conflicts, we weren't able to give them the new one.

Um we had thought it is the square footage of the building, which we thought we would have that 50 square foot, so we thought we would be okay with that.

But it's actually the linear foot, so it's only the width of the building, which gave us a lot smaller square footage than we had assumed, which is why we reduced it again today.

So our third attempt to reduce the sign was what we thought was the square footage allowable and only two feet higher.

We did submit some pictures.

Sorry, there we go.

Um so basically in this area, this sign is right next door.

I don't know if you can see the graffiti on the polls, but also the sign is ripped.

Every sign within this area that is within that eight feet either has vandalism or graffiti because it is so short.

So you're looking at a sign that's a four feet off the ground, so it's easy to to kind of manage it.

And then we have a couple more slides.

This one is a damage sign that's under eight feet, so you could see how somebody has pushed it, bent it.

It's kind of human nature.

If something's within reach, you're maybe going to jump and smack at it and play with it a little bit.

Um this is a sign that's two blocks over, which is I believe it was 18 feet high, and there's no damage on this one.

So what our client is really wanting, and then this, of course, is above regulation.

You can see the street sign, and this they're all grandfathered in.

But what we're trying to kind of establish is that, and then this you can see graffiti on the bottom part of it.

This is directly across from there, and then there's also indentions in the top of the sign where people have pushed in the sign because it is within reach.

So we absolutely respect and understand that it's an historical district, but we also don't want our sign to be easily damaged because it is it's not an inexpensive thing.

So what I just have a comment.

Uh the signs that we're seeing as examples, why do they look like they're in the public sidewalk plane of the public sidewalk?

So some of them are.

Okay.

Was there a right-of-way taking that made it occur?

So before this, um so what we're looking at, the new the new laws that were put into place to really restrict that area.

Some of these are before that.

So this one has the appropriate setback, but the other ones don't have an appropriate setback, but they're older signs before uh the regulations were changed in that area.

And your sign is not being proposed over any right of order.

No.

We are we're following the raw the rules and the laws of the setback.

So when we originally proposed the sign, we were doing it to UCD standards.

So it's a bigger sign, taller sign.

It's on an RTRL A roadway, so we're allowed a really big sign.

We did not realize that we were in the Alta Vista area.

Um so that drastically changed our scope because of course we want to adhere to all the laws and regulations in an area.

But unfortunately, when you're putting something right next to there's a bus stop right across the street from us.

So when you're putting something really low where you're having a lot of foot traffic, and unfortunately it's not the best area, there's there's going to be some graffiti and vandalism.

So we're just trying to to maybe put a little bit higher.

We're not opposed to s making it smaller if that's what needs to happen.

But we would like it taller to hopefully negate some of the damage that unfortunately may happen.

So just to be clear, you're you're putting the sign on the San Pedro side or the San Pedro side.

And your side of San Pedro is in the N C D, but the other side of San Pedro is not in the U.S.

It's it's really it's so hard because our our our business, you can see a billboard within two and a half blocks of us, which is right outside of the zone and right across the street from us, so you can see all these huge signs that are not in the zone.

So because of where we are on the side of the street, it really changes us.

But we were willing to work with we're willing to work with that.

We absolutely understand that that's the situation.

But we're just asking that it's a little bit taller.

Yes, staff, what is the max height and and size of a sign if you're not in the NCD?

It's on the first slide.

Um Joel, he actually did all the work on this.

Correct.

That would be four feet.

And 150 square foot sign.

So that's huge.

Okay.

Any commissioner questions?

And just to uh clarify the pictures, the uh Liberty Tax, uh restaurants and a laundry mat are all on the other side of San Pedro.

They are.

I'm so sorry.

Commissioner clarified that.

The only but the one that is on the same side is the one that has that bent sign that is the eight feet.

So all the damaged vandalized signs are on our side of the street.

Okay.

And what that's what we're trying to avoid.

So I had a quick quick question.

So is that the main hardship you're you're contesting today is the graffiti and the vandalism?

Absolutely.

If you can see signs being vandalized weekly, monthly, and you're seeing these people have to redo them, reface them.

Um it's it's just an eyesore.

So our side of the street looks desolate and looks totally uh like it's just been through damage after damage, and the other side of the street is gorgeous because nobody can really reach their signs.

So uh we understand the historical aspect of it, but it we'd also like it to just look a little bit nicer.

Nobody wants to see damaged signs and graffiti.

Commissioner Reed?

Uh yes, I've got two questions.

Um would be uh in reference to the graffiti, is the building itself receiving any graffiti?

So we have had uh damaged pots and two times that we had to repaint the graffiti.

Um and then the sign directly across the street, they have to do it every um I think they told me every month or so they have to paint it black.

So you can actually see multiple layers of black on the sign right across the street, but that's also right next to the bus stop.

Okay.

And the second question would be um have you explored building signage or what are the what are the requirements?

We do have a blade sign as an option.

So for wall signs in this particular district, you cannot be blocking windows.

And um, I don't know if we can go back to the picture of the building.

We have windows everywhere.

Um so wall sign really wouldn't be possible because we have it's only about a three-foot strip where we could put a wall sign, but uh we do have an option to put a blade sign.

Of course, it would be blocked by trees.

So we're we're trying to explore options.

They would prefer a pylon sign just for visibility purposes, but they also understand that we have to adhere to the new regulations that are on our side of the street.

I mean I could see a blade sign on that curved corner there.

Yes, that's obviously it wouldn't be as visible.

Right.

There are options.

Uh we're gonna either way, we are allowed an eight-foot sign and twelve point two five.

So we would do that regardless, but we would just love to have it if we could have it higher.

So it we could potentially avoid damage.

That would be preferable to us because he just doesn't want to have to redo a sign constantly.

Um sorry for asking all these questions, but back to the blade sign.

Is there a height requirement there if you were to mount it on the second story of that building?

Uh that would be regulated by the Chapter 28 sign code.

Um I can find that.

Um as far as I'm aware, there's no regulation as far as how high on the building it needs to be or it can be, but it has more of an area requirement with respect to how big it can be with regards to the face.

Sorry, I was looking around trying to figure out who I think.

Oh no, thanks.

And with that, actually, it would be a much larger sign.

I believe we had 198 square foot allowable for a blade sign, which is huge and uh not it would just be uh better to have a pylon because that's a big sign.

Commissioner Manna Manna.

Um so I understand I get the the the dialogue with regards to height.

Um but it is exceeding the this the size of the sign itself with regards to regulations.

We're totally willing to reduce that as well.

Like I I absolutely understand we're asking for more than what is allowed, but we're willing to change that.

Height is kind of the the deal breaker for us because that's where most of the damage occurs.

It's square footage isn't going to change any of that.

Visibility, of course, is better if it's bigger.

Um and in San Antonio, we would be allowed it a hundred and something square feet if it was directly across the street.

So we're just trying to ask if it's not gonna hurt us to ask a little bit if you guys say no, I completely understand.

Got confused here a little bit because there is a law for us down down the street that has a relatively small sign, you know, that looks more boutique like, which is I think what they're looking for on that you know in that area.

And that is exactly they actually said that during the board meeting.

They are looking for boutique like.

Um it is not the aesthetic of my client.

Yes, it it does, yeah.

There's a contrast between those two.

But if it was that size, you know, so so uh yeah, so I think that I'm okay with the height, you know, per the dialogue.

And uh and I'm willing to bet that they would be too, you know, if they're gonna be able to do that.

Right, and they weren't and we weren't able to present it with Thanksgiving and the way that their meetings were scheduled, we weren't able to present it.

Because of course I had to get approval from the client before we could go back to the to the city.

But during that board meeting, they did say that they were they were willing to listen to certain things.

Um they did say votique and they did uh have a uh a feeling about the aesthetic, but unfortunately that's not something I can change.

Reed one more commissioner Reed.

Um personally, I I think that you need to have the conversation with Alta Vista before I could be in support of it.

Um we have understand I hate to kick the can down the road and yeah, we have had several uh we have met with their board, and that's when we started changing our dimensions and our sizes and everything.

We are absolutely fine with having the dimensions, the the necessary things.

Um the two feet, it didn't seem like that was a deal breaker for them.

I but we would have to go back and see them, so that would require us to have another extension.

And they think this is our third one, which we would absolutely be willing to do if that's a deal breaker.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other commissioners have a question?

Hearing none.

Uh anyone sent them to speak?

Voicemail.

We have one voicemail.

All right.

Well, we're gonna hear a voicemail and we'll see if there's any other questions.

Regarding case ending in 185 or 2119 San Pedro.

Dear Board of Adjustment Members.

Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association does not support the variance request for size and height from the NPD2 and UDC standard for a freestanding sign at 2119 San Pedro Avenue.

A variance one, a variance from the NCD2 free standing sign, maximum size of 12.25 square feet to allow a 59.75 foot free standing sign, and two a variance from the NCD to free standing sign, maximum height of 10 feet to allow an 18 foot tall freestanding sign.

It is the policy of Beacon Hill to support its neighbor's decisions regarding variance requests, and in this case, it is particularly important.

We also support staff recommendation for denial.

A sign of the requested size would be contrary to the preservation of the existing character of the neighborhood in the corridor.

Even though the property is located in a commercial area of the Vista and Mona Vista, it is surrounded by single family residences and multifamily residences, who would suddenly find the look of this corner fundamentally changed by a much larger sign than allowed.

We also fear that the approval of this larger sign could set precedent.

We could also argue that a Google search for a business would more likely direct client traffic than such a large sign.

Beacon Hill respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment not approve the applicant's request for variances for height restrictions and size.

Thank you.

Cynthia Walker, Chair of the Zoning and Urban Design Committee, Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association.

All right.

Yes, Chair, um to the city.

Um since the changes were made and they don't match what is on the application that we see here.

Does it need to doesn't it need to show those changes before we vote on it?

So no, you can vote on it now.

Um the uh they're bringing down the request.

They're obviously not increasing it.

Um obviously the the uh neighborhood association did not have that information when they made a decision.

I don't know if that would change it or not.

But the Board of Adjustment can make a decision now off of this.

So, Chair, wouldn't it be uh equitable for for them to present the new dimensions?

Because what we just heard right now has the old dimensions.

And I don't think it's equitable to the applicant.

Right.

That's why we're uh contemplating continuance so that they can get that advertised.

We're absolutely fine with that, so that we can again, yes, so that we can again reach out to them and and try to have that that dialogue.

Um we just wanted to present it to you guys to show, hey, we are we have reduced it four times, we're working on it.

Let me ask you uh take me through the the three or four times that you reduced it.

So the first time you reduced it.

The first time we reduced it, we went to 15 feet tall.

So we started at 18 feet tall.

So we went down to 15 feet and we reduced it 10 percent.

Second time we went down to 12 feet, reduced it another 10 percent.

And then we went down to 10 feet.

So um and but the neighborhood association, the last time that they looked at it.

The last time they looked at it was at 15 feet, I believe, because we had Thanksgiving.

Okay.

So we missed we missed our ability to kind of show them, and then even at that, they they weren't really happy with it.

So then we reduced it again since then.

What what I'm where where I'm going with this is I'm trying to figure out their the method of thinking or perhaps any dialogue they had.

So when you went there and you said, I'm gonna put this bigger sign in this taller sign, did they ever come back and say, well, we we see that across the street.

There's they don't have the same standards.

So we'll give you, you know, we can live with it.

If I'm being really honest with you guys, I think the problem with it was more aesthetic versus sign.

And as my client was unwilling to change his picture on his sign and and the aesthetic of the sign, they were looking for more boutique.

They were looking for for a different aesthetic than my client is willing to give.

I do not believe if even if we go back with a square footage that they approve and ten feet, I do not believe that they would approve it.

If I'm being a hundred percent honest, and I'm very sorry to do that.

That's why I was wondering because it uh you know when you go when you're talking about four times you're changing it.

We have to have given you some.

Last time I was here, um one of the board members told me to get that approval.

I took it to heart.

I was gung-ho to get that approval.

That's why we reduced it so many times.

And that's why I I worked so hard with my client.

I tried to he was unwilling to change the aesthetic.

And I believe that's what they really had the issue with.

Yeah.

Um and there's just nothing I can I can do about that.

I just think that we're at an impasse.

So even if we stop this today, go back and just ask for that two feet, because right now I would I would be so happy with that just because I feel like it would be less damaged.

I don't I really don't think that they would approve it.

Well, I'll leave the sum of the board.

I'm ready to vote on it today, or we can give them a extension.

I just don't know what good it'll do.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Would you be willing to drop the square footage request?

I will drop the square footage request.

We can put that down to twelve point two five just to make sure that it's within signage.

The the damage is at the height level.

So the square footage, it's an aesthetic thing.

I'm gonna ask because my client right asked me to.

Um, but I will give that up.

Okay.

Well, then here's what here's what I think we should do.

Uh I'd like to hear uh I'd like to see a motion.

Let's like to vote on this today if someone would like to make one.

Commissioner Manor.

So I'm going I'm going to leave off the first part of the motion and just read the second one, which is a sign height.

Um so um regarding case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero one eight five.

I moved that the board of adjustment grant a request for a ten-foot or I'm sorry, for a two-foot variance from the NCD uh two freestanding sign height maximum of eight foot to allow for a ten-foot tall freestanding signated at 2119 San Pedro Avenue.

Applicant being George Rodriguez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical characters property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The proposed sign uh heights would not be substantially deviation from the established characteristics of freestanding signs on this portion of San Pedro Avenue.

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

A little enforcement of the conservation district's limitations on signage would result in unnecessary hardship as proposed sign height.

Um is similar to the size in existing signs in the area.

Uh these establishments would enjoy greater advertising capabilities that would not be afforded to the subject property.

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

The variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance as a proposed sign height would be similar in size or similar in height to existing signs in the immediate surrounding area.

Four, the variants would 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 the appropriate use of adjacent correlate property or alter the central character of the district in which this property is located.

The variants would allow for a continuation of an existing pattern of development that is characteristic of freestanding signs along the portion of San Pedro Avenue.

Six applied on the owner of the property for which the variance of 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 or not due to or the resulted general condition in the district in which his property is located.

The conservation district design standard seeks to limit new freestanding sign dimensions to be proportional to the existing structured dimensions.

Second.

So um So I think a two-foot variance, um, you know, keeping the sign the size, the same uh the sign, the uh fit fitting within the NCD standards to be makes you know is part of the aesthetic that they're looking for with regards to the size of the the size of the sign itself.

And I think lifting it to two feet would provide uh the applicant here, you know, the the goal of of not having it impacted uh by you know uh I guess uh vandalism, et cetera.

So so because of those, I would be voting in this regard.

So because of those, I would be voting in this regard.

Commissioner Braggman?

Uh I agree with my colleague.

It sounds like the applicant has made every effort to uh work with the neighborhood association uh to try and get within the NCD standards.

Uh but I do think that the two foot uh height variants will um serve the purpose of uh securing the the sign because it's expensive to replace signs like that.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Commissioner Zuna?

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

I think the alternative if this uh motion were to be denied is a blade sign, which they could go up to 198 square feet of that same copy with Marco's face on it, which I don't think the neighbors would appreciate.

So I think they would be very opposed to that.

Exactly.

So I think the compromise here is to maintain the score footage which is allowed within the NCD and then the height to minimize the uh graffiti and the ventilism is the appropriate compromise here.

Anyone else like to add?

Um before we take a uh we'll just have a roll call vote.

Chair, may I just say something before we move?

Um I just want to tell you thank you for being frank about everything that you shared with us today.

I think it it clarified a lot of things.

So I I didn't really want to, but it was um I've been to a lot of these.

I work for a sign company.

It was the most possible board meeting I've ever been to.

Um sorry, just didn't think there was gonna be any wiggle room.

I just didn't want to say that.

Thank you.

Uh several call vote, please.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

I concur.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Uh so a question for staff.

If this applicant wanted to appeal this board's decision to City Council to tack on this, can they still take on the sign square footage if they wanted to pursue that with the neighborhood association?

Uh because we didn't vote on it, I didn't know if that takes away her ability to do so.

Yeah.

Because there was no motion on the area portion that could technically be appealed as a denial from the BOA.

Okay.

I just just in case, because this is one of those few instances where you or the only instance that you can appeal the city council.

So if you really wanted to go to the neighborhood association and really wanted to get a bigger sign, you could theoretically do so.

I I get yelled at by a lot of people.

I don't really want to.

I just like to do that.

But I appreciate you throwing that out there.

Thank you.

Item three.

Thank you guys very much.

Have a good rest of the day.

Item three is case BOA-25-1030227, the address being 835 West Magnolia Avenue in Council District 1, the applicant being DRK works.

The request is for a variance from the NCD 5 building size and massing design standard to allow for multifamily development across four separate structures on one lot.

Two, a half-story variance from the N C D 5 building height design standard to allow construction of four three-story structures.

Three, a 21-foot variance from the N C D 5 paving design standards to allow for a 36-foot wide driveway curb cut and the 32-foot wide driveway.

Four, a variance from the N C D 5 carports design standard to allow carports as an attached or integral element of the principal structure without a five-foot recess beside uh behind the principal structure's front facade.

And five, a 51-foot variance from the N C D 5 lot size design standard to allow a multifamily use parcel to be replatted with a 126-foot lot width.

The zoning is MF-33.

The subject property is currently vacant and requires a new plat for development.

The applicant proposes to replat the property into a single lot and develop a four-structure multifamily development on the property with a shared driveway off Magnolia Avenue.

The proposed design is not aligned with the existing neighborhood conservation standards for residential development regarding building massing because there's separate structures on one lot for a multifamily development.

Building height, driveway width, architectural features because of the location of the carport, and lot width regulations considering that proposed replat.

The applicant requests a variance to each of these standards.

Shown here is a diagram of each of these standards starting with one and two, again, one being the separation of multifamily dwelling units across four structures.

The standard is to uh maintain all dwelling units within a single structure.

This would be one, two, and then three and four behind.

Um request two is for a height variance to increase to from the maximum two and a half stories to three stories.

Uh request three is for the width of this curb cut and the width of the driveway.

Uh request four is the location of these carports.

The standard is to recess these carports five feet from the front facade.

Uh the proposed recess that you're seeing here at each of these is only about two feet.

And the request five is for the total lot width here.

Again, this is a parcel made up of multiple lots.

Uh to replat this, the standard for the NCD is that the overall um lot width be no greater than uh I don't have that maximum here, but it's a 51-foot variance to allow for a 126 uh lot width here.

Shown here is the subject property and the surrounding area.

This is a multifamily development across the street and the rest of the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the NCD five design variances.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030227 based on the following findings.

Of fact, one, the proposed variances are contrary to the public interest as the proposed design does not align with the neighborhood conservation district standards, and two, the proposed development would represent a significant and conspicuous departure from the existing character of the neighborhood in terms of building massing height, driveway width, and architectural features and overall lot width.

Staff mail 25 notices, one was returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is in support, and the San Antonio, Texas District One Resident Association did not respond.

Shown here is the Beacon Hill response in support of the request.

And a letter received from a resident in the area also in support.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

So quick question, they're not getting a COD on this, right?

They're attempting to plant this as one lot.

Uh no, they would be going for a full replat.

And the applicant was made aware that if approved, the approval would only be good for a year's time.

And then uh is there any alternatives to coming to the BOA?

Is there a change of zoning like going to IDZ?

Is there some making it two lots?

Is there anything that would that would remove some of these variances through other avenues?

Um the IDZ might take care of these are all N C D standards.

Um these are a lot of variants.

I mean, these are five variances is a lot.

And you know, if if an IDZ zoning change could get rid of four of them, that's something.

At least I go through a public hearing and whatnot.

I'm just curious what uh what we're dealing with here.

Mana?

Yes, Commissioner Mann.

Could you explain yo the your your where you're going or your thought here?

So just try and understand your theory.

Sometimes you know it's it's I always like to see if if if an applicant does certain things that uh that where they can do it by right.

So let's say they they planted this as two lots, that making making it uh two smaller driveways, making the massing different.

Um if they platted it as two lots, which has nothing to do with the public hearing, they would just be able to do it.

Does that make some of these go away?

If they went through IDZ zoning to where you know they could they could have public hearings about you know sculpting something that that would that everyone could live with you know that they'd be locked into a side plan, that's something that I'd like to know.

Um, but um, some of these things is just five variances is just a lot.

So I'm just curious, are they just trying to avoid a zoning change?

So if if I may quickly, just running through the the list here one through five, whether it was zoned IDZ or not, those are all NCD specific design requirements.

So a change of zoning would not negate the necessity uh for that.

So IDZ doesn't have any sort of overwrite.

No, uh the quite the opposite, actually.

The N C D specifically overrides the IDZ regulations.

Oh then that's all I need in it.

Thank you very much.

And the maximum uh plat width uh was seventy-five feet.

Uh okay.

And also, yeah, so if they platted this into four separate ones, then that would eliminate number one, but that's about it.

See, I was just curious like they platted it as two lots, and then they slept an Inger Seeger season and they made the driveways eighteen feet and eighteen feet.

Does that make that one go away too?

I'm just curious.

I don't believe so because that's the overall driveway width.

Okay.

And then if it's two lots, then it would still be two separate structures.

Uh I just want to point out that Beacon Hill is supporting this, and they're one of the hardest neighborhoods to get in.

It is a glowing recommendation.

But you know, I was just trying to figure out why you're going down the path.

Just as you know, if there was a delta that would occur, you'll go down the other paths versus here.

Oh, got that, but yeah, so okay.

I just that's why I asked the question.

So the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name, tell us about your project.

Hi, I'm Reed Kirksy, the owner of the property and um the contractor as well for uh the proposed uh buildings.

Uh we uh purchased this lot thinking it would be a great opportunity to build housing in the area.

Uh we've worked closely with the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association to design something and put something there that fit the neighborhood that added a lot of housing, uh was still within the zoning that we're already zoned for, um, but wasn't too dense.

We felt that we could go up to twelve units there.

We decided at eight as a place to that still allowed for some yard space for just to not make it so crowded.

Um something that would sell and be uh desirable to live in.

Um with that said, we we got uh support for all of our variance requests from Beacon Hill.

We met with them many many times.

Um that's where we're uh I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Cruz.

Okay, um, so if there's four buildings and you've got two apartments in each building, so will there'll be enough parking spaces for um for each family since you're saying each apartment is two two two bedroom apartments, correct?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Um so more than likely at least two cars for every apartment.

Yes.

Each each unit has two spaces in the carport and uh um potentially more on in between if we can see in between the buildings between the buildings there.

Okay, I wasn't sure you can't really see it from here to see if there's room to have more vehicles uh uh parking in case they need it.

All right, that's what I want to make sure.

Thank you.

And our traffic department looked at this plan.

They don't have any parking uh issues on this one.

Commissioner Braggman.

Um so are these rentals or are these uh for sale?

Uh ideally we would build to sell.

Um if the market is not allowing that, then we would turn them into long-term rentals.

Um, but in an ideal world, we we sell them.

All right.

Anyone else?

Sorry, left.

And was that proposed to the neighborhood association?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

There's no other questions.

Uh no voicemails, anyone's time to speak?

We have two voicemails.

Two voicemails.

I thought I saw on your list you didn't have any.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Cynthia Walker.

I live at 1038 West Summit Avenue.

Uh I'm calling about the Board of Adjustment Case 25-1030227 at 835 West Magnolia Avenue.

Dear Board of Adjustment Members, the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association voted unanimously in the regularly held and advertised meeting on February 10th, 2025 and October 13, 2025, to support the NCD variance for a wider driveway cut for creating a series of duplexes instead of all the units in one building.

An additional half story and for a carport variance at 835, but technology.

So that the residents voted to support for the following reasons.

The driveway cut to facilitate the entrance of emergency vehicles and for the benefit of the residents.

The separate units are more compatible with surrounded neighborhood.

Even though the applicant seeks three stories, the units will be held at the 35 butt limit, and this variance is of a half story.

The project is surrounded by multi-story buildings, including a three-story black hill apartment.

The car for variance request places it under the main unit instead of behind the thought.

Isn't it because of the lot is not large enough for separate car parking?

The alternative is that the applicant would create one less unit, which is unreasonable burden.

We appreciate the recurse efforts to work with our neighborhood promised to include projects for the residents of this project.

While we value and encourage dental housing and the appropriate zoning and land use, we also value our NCD five standards, which are community standards that have to create a more stable neighborhood as we inverse change, preserving what residents shows as the most important elements of our built environment.

Thank you, Cynthia Walker.

Code McColvin, 817 West Magnolia Avenue.

Case ending in 227 or 835 West Magnolia.

Dear Board of Adjustment Members.

I have lived at 817 West Magnolia Avenue for 20 years, and I'm glad to see this lot finally being developed.

I am also a longstanding member of the Beacon Hill Zoning and Urban Design Committee and have participated in many discussions in both regarding zoning and BOA requests.

Although I was not in total agreement with the vote of the membership to support all five variances, I am not going to oppose.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to comment that I think it is a concern when a developer plans the project first and then comes to the community with request for variances when their plans don't comply.

As opposed to understanding the UDC and NCD requirements first and designing their project within those confines.

All of the variances requested enable the developer to build more density, which typically leads to more profitability.

Other recent developments in our neighborhood that planned their designs within our NCD in mind were not able to achieve the same density.

In my mind, this leads to giving one developer a financial advantage over others.

I have brought this to my attention to the attention of my neighborhood association, and I ask that you consider that factor as well in your deliberation.

Thank you for your service.

All right.

If you have you have a rebuttal that you'd like to add or the list was zoned to MF 33, so I could potentially build up to 12 units on this property, and I'm choosing to build eight.

Okay.

Sounds good to me.

Any other further questions before we move on?

Hearing none, let's have looking for a motion.

Braggman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030227.

Move the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a variance from the NCD 5 building and massing design standard to allow for multifamily development across four separate structures on one lot.

Two, a half story variance from the NCD5 building height design standard to allow construction of four three-story units.

Three, a 21 foot variance from the NCD 5 paving design standards to allow for a 36-foot wide driveway curb cut with a 32-foot wide driveway.

Four, a variance from the N C D 5 carports design standard to allow carports as attached integral elements of the principal structures without a five-foot recess behind the principal structures front facade.

And five of 51 foot variants from the NCD 5 lot size design standard to allow multifamily use parcel to be replanted with a 120-foot 26-foot lot width.

Situated at 835 West Magnolia Avenue, applicant being DRK works, because the testimony present presented to us in the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variances are not contrary to the public interest as the proposed design would not allow for a significant disruption to existing neighborhood characteristics.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would prevent the reasonable use of this parcel, and the lot would remain undeveloped.

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

Granting these variances would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed design would not represent a significant departure from the existing character of the neighborhood, which these standards aim to preserve.

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

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

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

Such variances will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent property or alter the essential character of the district as a proposed multifamily development would enhance the neighborhood by the utilization of a current currently vacant lot.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for its variance.

So is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property.

They're not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, including the limited developable of space, which limits the ability to provide adequate residential parking and open space at the proposed dwelling unit density.

This circumstance, this circumstance is not merely financial, is not due to or the result of general conditions of the district and a motion.

Second second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Bragman.

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

As noted earlier, the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is not overly amenable to changes or alterations outside of the NCD standards which have been developed.

And although the second uh caller did uh voice regerns about the um building, uh the applicant did point out that because this is multifamily, he could build much uh denser uh units on this lot.

So I'll be in support.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I concur.

I'll be in support and concur for the same reasons as my colleague.

Um as she pointed the applicant pointed out that the zoning allows for 33 uh M33 allowed for 12 units versus the eight that he's proposing.

And I do believe it provides much needed housing, whether it is for sale or rental in the neighborhood, and we just saw you know uh continued need for housing in that area.

So Mana.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

Um friendly um friendly amendment uh which would be to um have the design um as per submitted so as to ensure that it's locked in in the in the dialogue and agreement that they had with the community.

So as designed or as submitted.

Accepted.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, I accepted.

All right.

So we've added that to the motion.

Uh if there's nothing else.

Looking for a roll call vote on an on the motion as read with the amendment to um to add the site plan uh as to be compliant with the site plan as submitted.

With a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Azuna?

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Vazkaz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Concur.

And Chair O'Reilly.

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

Congratulations.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Item 4.

Item 4 is case BOA-25-1030232, the address being 157 West Broadview Drive.

In Council District 7, the applicant is Carlson Briggins and Doring Incorporated.

This is a request for a 1 foot 3-inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot rear setback to allow a primary structure to be 3 feet 9 inches from the rear property line limited to lot 9.

Two, a two-foot variance from the minimum 50-foot right-of-way width to allow 48-foot ride-of-way width.

Three, a three-foot-three-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot rear setback to allow primary structure to be one foot nine inches from the rear property line limited to lot nine.

Four, a one-foot ten-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot rear setback to allow primary structure to be three foot two inches from the rear property line limited to lot ten.

And five a six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot rear setback to allow primary structure to be four foot six inches from the rear setback from the rear property line that is limited to lot eleven.

The zoning is IDZ1 with uses permitted for twelve dwelling units.

The applicant is proposing to reply the parcel as a 12 lots fronting a new public right-of-way, which is that cul de sac you see there on the exhibit shown.

A new single family home is proposed for each new lot, and the unified development code requires a minimum five-foot perimeter setback for all construction within an infilled development project.

That five-foot perimeter setback is noted here by that blue band around the perimeter of the development.

You can see lots 9, 10, and 11 with the current design currently encroach within that blue band there.

Next slide.

So the applicant has proposed two kind of pathways to uh for the board's consideration to get around this.

Uh the first is variances one and two.

Uh first to propose a 40-foot, excuse me, 48-foot wide right-of-way.

Uh that's a two-foot reduction from the minimum 50-foot right-of-way requirement.

Um this would give the necessary lot depth to lot 10 and lot 11 to fit those footprints within uh the required five-foot rear setback.

Uh, it would not allow enough space on lot nine to fit the desired footprint as proposed by the applicant.

So that's why there's also a request here for the one-foot three-inch variants to allow this distance from the rear property line, three foot nine inches.

These are kind of hand in hand here.

Next slide.

Uh the alternative is to leave the right-of-way width as is uh for a public street that they're proposing, 50-foot right-of-way.

Um again, lot nine, ten, and eleven would encroach into that five-foot band that you see there.

Um so each of these represents uh a proposed variance to that five-foot uh required setbacks.

So three foot three-inch variants for lot nine, a one-foot tench variance for lot ten, and a six-inch variance for lot five, uh, excuse me, lot eleven.

Lot eleven could uh theoretically be uh resolved through an administrative um variance process, but as this process this entire project is being considered for um by the board, um, we've we've submitted this here for you all to consider as well.

Uh staff recommends the board consider either variances one and two, uh reduced right-of-way width in conjunction with a reduced setback on only lot nine, or variances three, four, and five, which is a reduced setback for lots nine, ten, and eleven with no adjustment to the minimum right-of-way, although the board is free to make motion on any and all of the variances as shown.

The subject property uh is shown here.

This is an aerial view.

It's kind of sandwiched between two existing multifamily developments on either side.

And this is the subject property on the ground and the surrounding area.

If we go back to that first surrounding area photo, um this first uh this is the uh one more back right there.

Uh so this is the subject property here to the right.

This fence line right here is kind of the subject property line that we're here to discuss, uh which abuts the parking lot of the adjacent multifamily uh development.

Staff recommendation for the right-of-way width variance.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030232 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the right-of-way would remain sufficiently wide to support ingress egress traffic for this development, and two, the right-of-way would only serve traffic generated by the residents of this development.

Staff recommendation for the rear setback variances.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030232 based on the following findings.

Of fact one, the need for variance is caused by the desired footprint of the proposed structures which would encroach on the minimum required setback.

And two, there would be inadequate separation from the rear property line to support maintenance access for the structures, privacy for the residents, and the protection against potential noise and other nuisances created by the abutting multifamily parking lot.

Staff mailed out 14 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and the Woodlawn Hills Neighborhood Association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Okay, I've got a series of questions about this.

So this is IDZ.

So my first obvious question is why why are we hearing a right of why is a right-of-way reduction?

Isn't that a planning commission variance to the street standard during plating?

Uh no, this uh actual section of the code for the minimum public street right-of-way, uh it falls under the per or the purview of what the board may consider.

Um and so the applicant did consider also uh the possibility of a private right-of-way here, which would allow for a much narrower um right-of-way there.

Uh this is just their preference to to install a public right-of-way there.

Well, because um uh according to the IDZ1 code, you know, the the the street construction stretches is street construction standards uh don't apply to infill development.

Uh and so making this a public right-of-way is a local, I guess, A.

Uh I mean, I the at the minimum of 50 feet, I really think that's a planning commission issue, and I'm I'm confused why we're and the other thing is what about the 10-foot CPS easement that's required outside of the public right-of-way.

And so how does that come into play?

Because what uh what it looks like this applicant is trying to do is provide the 30-foot strip so they can have parking on the street and not have problems with fire trucks and all that good stuff.

But then they're using the other 10 feet that's beyond the face of curb as their utility easement, and CPS is gonna come back and say, no, you're gonna make it a public street.

We want our 10-foot easement outside the public street.

I really think this a lot of this is a more of a planning commission uh review issue than a BOA issue regarding the right-of-way.

Um but I'm just putting that out there.

I I just I just don't think we have the authority to do a two-foot reduction in the right-of-way.

So and and for that reason, or maybe not specifically for that reason, but we are we do have the benefit of the alternative um request as put forth by the applicant of the proposed reduced setbacks for all three of those lots as well with no right-of-way adjustment, if that's something that the board were to consider.

But um, no, I mean I I'm I'm a fan of the right-of-way.

I'm just afraid what's going to happen when they submit a plat and CPS says give me my ten foot, and how does that affect their design?

I'm just wondering if we're wasting our time with some of this if it hasn't gone through that review yet.

So the traffic team did review um the proposed right-of-way reduction.

Uh they um recommend or were behind us with the recommendation for approval of that reduction of two feet.

Um I do not know if the full scope of what you are asking was reviewed by the Yeah, because what happens is you got 30 foot of pavement, and then you have a the curb is nine inches wide, city standard curb, then you have a four-foot sidewalk, and then you got to have twenty-four inches for the this the uh the uh saws uh meter box.

I got you.

So 48 foot can accomplish all that.

That's not a problem.

But CPS, which has nothing to do with the traffic review, is going to come back and say, I want 10 feet outside of that.

And does that push their buildings back, causing a rear setback issue beyond what we're seeing today?

Yeah, and and I don't believe those items have been reviewed for uh this property has not been re-platted into all these individual lots.

Yeah, we'll hear from the applicant about it.

Um this this property has not been replatted into all these individual lots as uh and the public street has also not been platted in place.

Uh that review is forthcoming, uh pending approval from the board for that property.

I'll ask the applicant, I'm sure they know more about this and Commissioner Mann.

And so um so looking at the motions, you know, that that you know, or all of the line items that are there, um and if we were to go down the path of keeping the the um the street alone, but go going for the others, you know, what all what all is canceled out?

Because I I got confused trying to keep up with the change versus you know, I guess where it's going.

So we just uh not read any of the others and just go for it.

That that's what uh we would recommend if you're gonna go with either or again, you can make any motion on all any and all of them if you if you'd like.

But if we go back uh two slides, uh the kind of grouping is going to be uh uh items one and two on your uh motion sheet or uh three, four, and five.

Okay.

Yeah, because uh you know, just what was again going down an earlier dialogue, what was um presented to the community, you know, and does this fall in as a narrower or narrowing or you know within the bounds of what was advertised?

And so what you know, what is being recommended.

So all were advertised, um, the the the full group of of all five were were advertised to the community.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

You've heard some of our concerns, so if you could integrate some of those into your presentation, that would be great.

Uh please state your name and talk about it.

So I'm Matthew Harrell, I'm the lead engineer for Carlson Morgansen Dowering here in San Antonio.

And the original Board of Adjustments application was for points 3, 4, and 5 just to encroach in the rear setback line without any right-of-way adjustments.

One point we would like to make is this is not the preferred uh layout for the building pads.

It is the minimum square footage, which is 1250 square feet uh by IDZ1 regulations.

So it's not a preferred, it's the required minimum.

For the CPS easement, we have done a UPPR meeting with CPS, and they are on board with a five by five easement inside each lot perimeter, which would be a total 10 foot wide, five feet into the lot for their pedestals, transformers, and all of those natures.

We have discussed with them that since we have more space on the lots 9 through 12 side between each building, that's where the main transformers will go.

They have verified the 10-foot CPS easement and not a 14 since it is a single phase and not a three-phase electric, so it will be 10 feet on our side, not 14.

On the north side of where it says West Broadview Drive, there will be overhead electric that comes down, it will then go underground at that point as a riser and go underneath the driveway and then run along lots 12, 11, 10, 9 up until the cul de sac with secondary going across the street.

So everything has been cleared with CPS and UPPR in that standpoint.

Again, the original ask was for points 3, 4, and 5.

We then talked with the plating department with streets and traffic, and they're the ones who advised us to come in with a change in the width of the right-of-way and bring that to the Board of Adjustments.

Essentially, for you guys to give them the blessing to approve it later since the public street minimum is 50 feet for a local A, they essentially said they want it your blessing for them to change it.

Yeah, that and where I'm concerned about that is so in the UDC um section 35501 C, it talks about administrative exceptions to that for the street standards are part of during the during street and plat review.

But the appellate to that is it s clearly says it's the planning commission.

So that's why I'm saying I don't think we have the authority to even vote on that.

Really confusing uh to me on that.

And as far as CPS goes, they're one of the they're allowing you not to do your loop on just one side of the road and not and do crossings and have all your pads on one side of the road.

Correct.

Okay.

And they're not they're not having are you doing like an eight-inch main with the two inch HCPE at the around the cold sack?

For the water, yes.

So with the water standards now being lowered to five feet, are you going to have any problems with those crossings?

Because CBS, you're going to be okay with that?

All right.

Water can bend under anything.

It can bend over and under.

I just want to make sure because they dropped it, it kind of makes things a little goofy.

All right.

Any questions from the committee?

Commissioner.

Okay.

All right.

Um side of the speech.

Uh no public comment.

All right.

Is if there's nothing else.

No, I just have a question.

So are we being asked to either read one and two or three, four, and five?

Is that is that the point?

Or or all of them.

All of it, but the wide-away width, I guess it's the same.

I mean, I I don't mind reading the right-of-way width.

I just don't I just think it's a it's it's an A V E R then a planning commission issue and not a BOA issue.

But I don't mind being in full support of it.

I think it is fine.

And so I guess uh from a public safety perspective, and you know the points you brought up with regards to you know access for fire and safety, you know, does I guess the city.

Yeah, what percentage of the streets that we have in the city of San Antonio are 48 feet right now.

Well, it is just the right-of-way.

So what happens is if you're if your pavement is 30 feet wide, you are allowed to park on either side of the street.

If it's less than 30 feet, you cannot.

So their alternative to doing a public right-of-way is an irrevocable in Gorcagas or a private going down to 28 feet uh and then limiting parking.

Their run isn't long enough to require the hands width on a fire truck.

I think that I think that's like 450 or 750 before you need to go wider.

Correct.

And also to clarify, every single lot here has a two-car garage as well.

So there will be minimal on-street parking unless it would be visitors only.

I was just more concerned about CPS coming back and saying gimme gimme gimme and it causing a problem with you meeting stuff.

Correct.

We've we've talked to everybody, saw CPS, the city, every reviewer possible before we went and platted this thing just to kind of clear it all out.

Okay.

So we heard that we did hear from staff that uh we either go from one way or the other.

Uh which way is more preferable for you?

We prefer three, four, and five be approved and we don't have to worry about anything else.

Okay.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens?

So with regards to number three, I think that's the one that I have an issue with.

I'm not sure how somebody maintains the south side of their house with one foot, nine inch access.

Essentially, they technically wouldn't.

Um that wall that would be there in red would be a non-access wall anyway.

There would be no windows, no doors since it's within five feet of a property, so it would be a fire-rated wall.

Therefore, we gave lot nine a ten-foot side yard on the right and a further expansive multi-width on the left, and their garage would have a side door access to the left side of the property to give them more side yard than a rear.

I mean, personally, I think you don't have a lot of lots.

I would rather see the ride-of-way width be reduced to give a little at least at least two or three feet.

I mean, in the back one nine is just really bad.

Are you doing flat roofs or are you doing overhangs?

Uh that would be an architect question.

Yeah, the reason I ask is you're at one foot nine, you're talking about water going over to the next guy's lot if he has a a 12-inch.

Well, they've got a about four-foot drop on the back side of that apartment complex.

It's a one-to-one slope with concrete, and it goes right into a drainage system, so it wouldn't really matter.

Okay.

All right.

Uh leave it up to whoever would like to make a motion to get this ball rolling.

I personally think uh, geez, I mean, I would I I'd like to see it go down to 48, although I don't I think that's more of a PC issue, but um who would like to mean in all five or or just the first two.

I I have a problem I I I agree with Commissioner Stevens.

I'm not a big fan of uh of a new house having such a really small rear setback.

I mean, I I would take number three and and and and make it three feet, almost forcing them to go to the 48 feet so that they could at least provide three feet back there.

Well, if you just read one and two, that kind of pushes that point, right?

Yeah.

So that's why I was asking the question with regards to the safety, then you know, and and lowering the di or lowering the width and you know, just making sure that that wasn't compromised, and and I would concur with Stephen.

I think one or two would be better.

Yes.

But I do think that they will still have to go through.

I think we're just be we're just stating our support of the item.

Yeah, and that support would go towards um an AVR later on.

Um that we would consider when the AVR is turned down.

I mean this IDZ, I mean, this is 48 feet wider than you usually see anyway.

I yeah, I I was about to say on IDZ development.

I dare say it's uncommon to find 50-foot right-of-way.

Yeah.

They know part of it just I'm just going to make a statement.

SAWS is now wanting 50 feet of ride-of-way.

So that I don't know if that was a driver for you asking for the public street.

Because they are really hard on the phone.

You got 30 feet of pavement.

It will be.

Correct.

I mean, if we went to 46 feet nine inches, then every lot would be outside the five-foot setback if that was an option as well.

I am not sure y'all could read that in or not.

Well, and uh IDZ isn't the five-foot perimeter setback on the whole project and not necessarily along the frontage of this new road that they are building.

So you don't even have a front setback.

Technically, no, these would be zero lot setbacks in the front.

Because yeah, IDZ allows that.

So I uh I I would support one and two if anybody would like to read that.

Commissioner Manna?

Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030232, I moved to the board of adjustment.

Uh grant the request for one, a one-foot three-inch variance from the minimum five the minimum required five-foot rear setback to allow our primary structure to be three feet nine inches from the rear property line, limited to lot nine, and two, a two-foot variance from the minimum five-foot right-of-way width to allow a 48-foot wide right-of-way.

Um get to the applicant.

Uh situated at 157 West Broadview Drive, Apple being Carlson, Brigands, and During, uh, 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 UDCS amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest as a right-of-way would be of sufficient width to support traffic generated by this development.

And uh the rear setbacks, the variances are not contrary to the public interest, as adequate space would remain between the proposed structures and the rear property line.

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

Um right-of-way width, uh an unnecessary hardship would be created as motors and uh pedestrian traffic along the public right-of-way would be created only by the residents of this development.

And with regards to rear setback, an unnecessary hardship would be created as a proposed building footprint would require modification to adhere to the required setback.

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

With regards to the right-of-way, the variance would support the spirit of the ordinance as there would be adequate space to support motors and pedestrian traffic within the development.

And with regards to the rear setback, the variants would support the sub spirit of the ordinance as adequate space between the proposed structures and the rear property line.

Four, the variants would not authorize the operation of use other than those uh uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which is 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 conformity property or alter the essential character of the district in which this property is located.

With regards to the right-of-way width, the variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conformity property as a new right-of-way would only support traffic created by the residents of this development.

And with regards to rear setback, the variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent property as the reduced setbacks would pose no significant increased risk of fire hazards, water runoff or water runoff damage, or other potential new nuisances.

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

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

With regards to the right-of-way, the plight of the owner uh is the result of the unique circumstances of existing a public right-of-way as part of the development.

The minimum required width of public right-of-way would normally serve through traffic.

However, this right-of-way would only support ingress egress traffic for the residents of the development.

With regards to the rear sitback, the plight of the order is the result of the unique circumstances of the limited developable space on the property to accommodate the proposed structures.

End a motion.

And if you could just uh clarify, Commissioner, it was uh two-foot variants from the minimum fifty-foot right-of-way width to allow 48-foot right-of-way, correct?

Just for the record, 50-foot right-of-way.

Sh yes, I'm sorry if I didn't read it that way.

Yes.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna.

So I think, yeah, looking at the the two options, and I think with regards to the you know having the the the my question addressed with regards to safety, I think to me uh the um the first option you know that we were talking about seems to be the best option for my perspective.

And so with that regards, I'll be voting in favor.

Commissioner Stevens?

Uh I concur with Commissioner Manna.

I think this is the the option that gives me the least amount of heartburn.

You guys obviously did your due diligence with the UPPR or CPS, so I'll be in support.

Anyone else like that?

Is that a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bede.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanith?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Brackman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Azina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of the fact, motion pass it unanimously.

Congratulations.

Thank you all.

All right.

Item five.

Item five is BOA-25-1030235.

The address being 7503 Parkwood Way in Council District 7.

The applicant is Joe Arisa.

This is a request for a 15 foot variance from the minimum required 20 foot rear setback to allow an addition to the primary structure to be five feet from the rear property line.

The zoning is R5 C D with a conditional use authorization for the for a 45 foot minimum lot width.

The subject property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac in a subdivision north of Prue Road and west of Leon Creek Greenway.

The property abuts and undeveloped land uh to the rear, and the property owner is proposing a new addition to the existing home.

Uh the addition would extend towards the rear of the property with a proposed five foot rear setback.

Currently there is a backyard deck which would be demolished to accommodate for the proposed addition.

And although the lot is considered irregular due to the cul-de-sac frontage, the proposed design would not comply with the allowable rear yard reduction for irregular lots, which is 15 feet.

Therefore, a variance from the standard R5 minimum rear setback is required.

Shown here is a site plan of the proposed development.

Again, that 16 by 16 addition is what is proposed in the rear yard to be five feet away at the closest point from the rear property line.

Shown here is an aerial view of the subject property.

And the subject property in the rear yard.

What is highlighted there in red is uh an approximation of the footprint uh uh of where that addition would go um including that that deck space and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the rear setback variant.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030235 based on the following findings of fact.

One, there is sufficient space elsewhere on the property to establish an addition without encroaching into the minimum required rear setback, and two, the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed as a usable rear yard would effectively be eliminated on the subject property.

Staff mail 19 notices zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and the riot commons community organization did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you very much.

Hello, state your name and tell us about your project.

Hi, my name is Joe Ariza.

I am just proposing to put an addition.

Um the deck was getting old, and my wife and I were talking about rebuilding the deck, but then uh we started thinking about our children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters that always come over for the holidays, and we just said that maybe we can ask for uh uh uh permission to allow just to to build a 16 by 16 foot uh addition to the home, which will bring us a little closer to the there is right now there is an 18 by 10 foot deck, and I just want to build a 16 by six foot uh room there.

So you're still gonna have the deck outside of the addition?

No, that's gonna be demolished.

Okay.

Uh any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Zooman.

One of staff's recommendation uh for denial was that the addition could be moved to another place within the property.

It was is that a hardship for you, or can you talk about the hardship of the uh area they were talking about that they were saying they could be built?

Because to the right, there the for the property line to the left, uh the restroom to the master bedroom was right there.

Um there's not no only one and the other ones are there.

The bedrooms are right there on this on the left side.

So do any addition is to the barrack.

Thank you.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So the so the property that uh is behind you.

So is that owned by the city?

It's opened by the city and it's empty and it just starts sloping all the way down.

There's uh there is no uh future projects that I would that I understood to uh build into that area.

There's just a greenway that's has to uh become so the point I'm asking, or the reason why I'm asking the point, I guess, is that that we would not be impacting any other neighbors.

It's basically the only impact is to um to myself and and then also to that you know to the open space.

So okay.

All right, any other questions?

And just to answer that question, yes, it is city on that property to the root all right.

Um anyone else.

And I your zone R5 C D, what is the C D for?

The C D was to allow for a 45 minimum uh lot width, uh which is I think five feet smaller than the normal.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

All right.

If there's no other questions, no voicemails and speak on this one.

No public comment.

All right.

I'm looking for a motion.

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030235.

I moved that the Board of Adjustments uh grant a request for a 15 foot variance from the minimum required 20 foot rear setback to allow an addition to the primary structure to be five feet from the rear property line.

I'd also uh would like to enter into evidence the uh site plan.

So uh the continuous use of uh of the uh setback would not be for the entire rear property line, but for generally that area that's being identified within the site plan.

Um situated at 7503 parkway, uh Parkwood way applicant being Joe Ad Isa, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we had determined to show that the physical character of the property is such that our literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDCAS amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest, as there would be adequate separation between the structure and the rear property line.

There would be no apparent overcrowding of structures as the abutting property to the rear is vacant and undeveloped.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the property is irregularly shaped and there is limited existing space in the rear yard to otherwise support a home addition.

Three by granting the variants.

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

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

The variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property as the lot of buttons vacant undeveloped land to the rear.

The proposed addition does not extend towards any property currently occupied by another use.

Sixth applied to the owner of the property for which the variance is saw it is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

The plot of the owner is due to the unique property shape and limited lot depth caused by the frontage along uh the cul-de-sac, thereby limiting the available space in the rear to extend the existing home.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yeah, I'll support the motion as read.

I I limited the uh space to the site plan that was uh submitted.

Um and there is no impact.

We did not get any opposition from the neighbors from the neighbors uh to the left.

Uh the rear is the property's parkland owned by the city, so no impact uh to that to that side.

And it provides a way for the applicant to kind of age in place and provide for the needs of his family for uh bedroom or space back there.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with my colleague.

In addition that it still provides five feet for maintenance of the um new addition, so I'll be in support.

Anyone else like that?

Mana?

Commissioner Manna?

So so it uh I live in this community.

So so um just be cautious of your building standards because that whole area it has a lot of weird shifting ground and houses have fallen off in this you know not barber mirror.

So do a good job on your construction yes, you know, do good permitting, please.

Thank you.

All right, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Breckman?

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Steven.

Yes, I can concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

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

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We can take a quick break.

We will see everyone back in about seven minutes.

It is 240.

I couldn't be in small records.

250, we're going to get this meeting back in session.

We are on item number six.

Item number six says BOA-25-103-0024.

Address at 195 Coventon Road in Council District 2.

The applicant is Stefan Engel.

A request for an 18-foot variance from the minimum 25-foot corner clear vision area to allow a seven-foot corner clear vision area.

And two, a variance from the transportation and street design intersection site distance standard to allow a reduced site distance by the encroachment of a six-foot-tall wooden privacy fence built in line with the front facade of the existing home.

The zone is R5.

The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Covington Road and Crest Hill Road.

This case originated from a code enforcement investigation of the installation of a six-foot privacy fence built in line with the front facade of the existing home and was subsequently cited for building without permits and violating the required corner clear vision area.

As determined by the public works department along with code enforcement, the newly installed privacy fence was found to obstruct the intersection site distance necessary for safe traffic safety for travelers turning westward or eastward, as there is no stop sign located on Crest Hill Road.

Upon staff's visit to the site, the privacy fence was observed to be outside of the 25-foot corner clear vision area.

However, the existing predominant predominantly open chain link fence was observed to be within the corner clear vision area.

Therefore, the property owner is requesting variances to allow the privacy fence and predominantly open fence to remain in their existing location.

This is the site plan as submitted by the applicant.

The yellow highlighting the property line, and also along the front is the existing predominantly open fence.

The number two is the privacy fence that's located along the front facade.

However, for item for consideration is specifically where that two is.

That's the obstruction of the cor the site distance at the intersection.

This is the subject property currently.

And the corner clear vision for the predominantly open fence highlighted in the circle.

And then for consideration for the site distance is that circled area and approximation.

And this is the surrounding area.

And two, the front yard of the property provides adequate space to relocate both fences while preserving privacy, security, and the functional use of the front yard.

28 notices were mailed out.

We received zero in favor or opposition, and the subject property is not located within the boundary of a registered neighborhood association.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Yes, the front privacy fence is outside of the 25.

However, per public works determination, traffic on Covington Road at this point, it prevents them from seeing down this way since Crest Hill Road has no stop sign.

Okay.

As quoted and stated by the public works representative who came on site, it was section 35-506 D5A.

Okay.

I thought once you had the 25 by 25, your golden.

Yes, so that fence is outside the corner.

Um Clear Vision, however, it's messing with the site distance at the intersection.

All right.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Uh with regards to request number two, what is the target distance that they would have to be at?

Um per that section, um, we didn't get an exact measurement, but it says if it's a major arterial, they would need a 18-foot behind the curb line or otherwise the decision point will be 14.5 feet.

We never got that exact measurement, but he was told that if he removed at least 12 pickets, that would be in compliance for that intersection site distance.

Or he could put up a stop sign.

That as well.

Okay.

Any other questions?

The applicant come forward.

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

Yes, sir.

Hello, my name is Stefan Ingle.

Um, the owner and the residence of uh 195 Covington.

Um so I did initially start building my own fence, and uh the same day that they came out and said I did it without a permit, I filed for a permit and it was issued.

Um the variance one is for the existing fence.

I think the clear vision states that I have to be it could be no no higher than three feet, 36 inches.

My existing fence, it's been there since the I don't know, 70s, 80s, it's 39 inches, you know.

Uh it's never been an issue with code compliance.

They haven't sighted it, but when Board of Adjustments went out, they noted they just wanted to notate that it is 39 inches and not the 36 inches.

Uh now to the number the variance number two.

Um with the 506 Dision, uh site intersection, clear vision.

Um they they came out, traffic came out, they said that uh I was about five feet or twelve pickets away from that corner intersection.

But what they didn't tell me is that it would it would create like a triangle.

Basically, my fence, my fence would have to resort to not being on the property line, but five feet away from the property line and going uh diagonally to from right here from this point down, it would it would be five feet, but then it would cut diagonally all the way to over here.

So then I wouldn't be able to to finish my fence along my property line.

I would have to do it five feet down and then at an angle, you know.

And so that would really just cause a um aesthetics, it just wouldn't look right, right?

Uh so that was one of the things.

The primary reason for me building my fence is of course I'm on a corner lot, I'm open 360 degrees when people turn and can see everything, as well as for my dogs and for security.

Uh Covington does go into a dead end road, so the only people traveling up this way going upwards, it's a dead end road up here, so it's only residents right here.

Going this way, it's one more street and then a dead end as well.

And then this leads off into kind of a dead end area as well.

Um I did uh Did they not send a voicemail about?

Um so I have talked to all my neighbors, pretty much all my neighbors.

I've I've grown up in this neighborhood uh on the next street actually on home green.

Uh this was actually an old family friend's house who I purchased and kind of stayed into the neighborhood.

Uh not only not only am I in obstruction of this uh clear vision, site distance intersection uh violation, but every one of my other neighbors is not in compliance as well due to their vegetation and to and their trees as well.

So at least two of us are have been going back and forth to the city of San Antonio fighting this, cutting vegetation down, all that.

Two of the other ones, I'm unsure if the city has even sighted them because they have, you know, in the last six months that I've been dealing with this, they have not done one single thing to their property.

So again, I don't know if it's just me being targeted or what, but you could clearly see right there, they're not in compliance with the site distance.

They're not in compliance with the site distance, they're not in compliance with the site distance.

And I was I was never in compliance with the site distance because of all the vegetation and trees I have on here.

But now all of a sudden when I put up my fence, they uh they turned it into a big deal about the 25 by 25 clear vision intersection, which I complied, but I just was unaware of the intersection clear vision site distance, and it took me about probably two to three weeks to even get with anyone in traffic to explain that to me and show me how to calculate that uh those dimensions.

So for ever for any average citizen, it's hard to understand and know what the intersection site distance is unless you go above and beyond and caught make a whole bunch of phone calls.

I did get with traffic and traffic did point me in the direction of hey, if we if the city added two more stop signs there, uh then the site distance wouldn't even be an issue.

So I contacted the city, traffic came out there, they put uh they put their recording devices in the street uh for less than 24 hours the next day on a Thursday, the next day, Friday at 7 a.m.

they took everything on.

I I just felt that wasn't even a sufficient amount of time to collect the proper data to tell me if if that's that intersection was applicable for uh a stop sign.

My other neighbors did call traffic as well because they're all trying to get a stop sign too, because this has been kind of an ongoing issue for all four of us in that intersection right there.

Due to our vegetation and all that.

So the chain link fence, you want to keep that?

Yeah, yeah, I want to keep the chain link fence.

You know, I've I wasn't it was never my intention to take it off.

Again, the Board of Adjustments just added it, threw it into here because it wasn't in compliance with uh the three foot.

You have a laser pointer.

Can you bring up the site plan and uh staff uh kind of let us know?

I see the one on the corner, but you have a wood fence on that red line, and you also have a a red line that goes right there.

Where is there a chain link fence?

All this in yellow is all chain link, right?

So you're gonna talk about the double fence?

No, no, no.

From so the variance number one is this corner, right?

This 25 foot by 25 foot clear vision intersection.

Uh that is not in compliance.

It's existing from the 80s, but it's 39 inches instead of 36.

But you no, but you're saying that that yellow line that runs that do you have a chain link fence that runs parallel with the street?

All the way this way?

Uh down this way.

That way.

There's one right there too.

Yes.

So you're gonna have a chain link fence and exactly like this right here.

Okay, I see that.

So yeah, just like this picture.

So this three-foot fence will never go away.

I I do plan to keep that.

It's just this new privacy fence right here.

Well, so my question for staff is that if you can have two fences like that, I mean a privacy and then a chain link as long as I guess the chain's like three feet tall.

So as long as they comply with the height standards, which um you know generally these fences do, uh, it's only on that corner that they don't.

And generally, you know, uh a chain link fence as old as that um is is not something that we I think would norm normally consider uh in a case like this, but the property was cited by code enforcement both for corner clear vision, the section uh section of code on that 35514, as well as the site distance uh section of code 506.

Uh so we did add this encroachment for that chain link fence, even though it is so old uh and in an effort to help them rectify that violation that has been issued by code enforcement.

So right below the white part on the corner, the does the chain link fence turn 90 degrees and go towards the number two, yeah.

Lower down, lower down?

It would eventually oh right here.

There, yeah, no, no, no, it doesn't turn this way.

It just goes straight across the front of my property line.

And I I mean I've I've halted construction since June because of the issues that I've had with the city.

So all this would eventually be uh privacy fence as well.

Okay, commission questions?

So just for clarification with the city, so regardless of the wood fence coming in, um the um we'll say that the old fence that was installed is out of compliance on that corner simply because it's a chain or it's a fence over three feet tall.

Correct.

Correct.

And so and so even a chain link fence of three foot, four foot, or four foot, five foot would would come before the board um on that regard.

Correct.

Any fencing taller than three feet within that twenty-five by twenty-five area.

Perfect.

And so and so so just um uh so I I work in a uh uh uh in my community with regards to a lot of corners.

And so part of you know it's always about safety and and there is a thing about the vegetation, because a lot of times people plant put plant they plant in that clear space that starts to exceed that you know that safety standard.

And so we have corners in our neighborhood that are blocked with with plants when they when they shouldn't be there.

And so keeping low plants, not a problem.

But but if they grow and they start to impact that corner, then you know that that can be a challenge.

Um so so you know, so uh I yeah, I don't see a problem here outside of you know yeah, I don't see a problem.

Outside of keeping your bushes trimmed.

Yeah.

And so for that for uh for the item number two, that it was only off 18 inches across the whole for for number two uh not 18 inches.

This is 18 foot was for the three this uh three the 39-inch height chain link fence existing.

But for number two right here, it's about a five feet from from my chain my existing chain link that goes along Crest Hill.

It's uh according to traffic, I am five feet away from being compliant.

So what happens is when a car is going up the street, they they the green book when you don't have stop signs, they make you for for negotiation purposes, there's a part where you look over.

So it looks like staff is saying you if I were to take five feet down from Crest Hill and then connect the and then connect the dot all the way to the rear property line, that that triangle that's made is a clear vision triangle that that's what really number two is about.

So it so it and uh so would it just be the the fencing along?

Yeah, you would you would connect the dot at the rear corner on the left.

But but if you put chain link fence on five feet of it.

They're saying go from that point less correct me if I'm wrong.

You're saying go from that back corner all the way to five feet.

So it wouldn't really be this triangle.

It would it really be this back corner.

It's actually the way because I studied I studied it and I actually bought the traffic book to really understand it, you know.

And so basically they say so I I don't have sidewalks or curbs on this street right here.

So basically it says where the road ends, or like these sidewalks just die in right here.

But over here, the road ends here.

It's it's kind of it's kind of a uh sticky situation because we really don't have a consistent uh curb line to measure off of.

But they say basically from like this curb line you measure 14 and a half feet back, and in the center of this lane, you should be able to look 310 feet or 315 feet that way.

So if if this was an ETJ plan, they may actually make you put clear vision easements on the platform.

It's kind of interesting.

Even if it's only five inches, I've done five inch ones before.

I mean, it's hilarious.

So basically what would have to happen is because I measured it and I had someone stand way over there, it would basically be at a triangle from like right here where this big significant tree is from right here at an angle and it'll kind of slope to five feet to right on top of it.

So that's really what this is about.

Okay.

That's the first I've heard this come out with regards to well, their vision that that aggressive one.

Well, they make it normally if you have a stop sign, you don't have this problem.

Yeah, yeah.

If you have a stop sign, that's what tra and the the people at traffic really try to help me, but then when I filed with 311 for a traffic review for stop signs, they I mean they put their devices on for less than 24 hours, and I thought I was going to be there a week.

Like they're gonna monitor the actual traffic and well I just wanted to make sure everyone understood what we were what what the what the the scope of all this was.

So what what I'm requesting is to see if I could just continue my my uh six foot privacy fence on the same property line where my chain link fence is.

So the section from here to here, the chain link would come out and uh uh built it yet.

No, I haven't built it.

I I think it's and so would it would the stop sign be required off off of um Covington or Crest Hill or both?

No, so right now there's stop signs on Covington in both directions.

And so when you're here when you're here and you look left, you should see you should be able to see a 315 feet that way.

Went in both directions, actually, in here as well.

And so actually none all four of us are not in non-complete.

That's why you see a lot of fences set back further than you think they should be, is to meet those corner clearances like that.

But it's just you know just something to think about.

I mean if you haven't built the fence yet, I mean it'd be but but uh but but part of the dialogue though is if there was a stop sign put up on the other two corners, then then this would be moot, right?

Then so yeah.

None of us none of all four of us would have to deal with this because we all have a ton of vegetation.

I mean, this is my property was from according to my neighbor is an old pecan orchard, so it's just trees and stuff everywhere, you know.

My neighbor across the street just went to uh court today or to like uh I guess like a hearing for his vegetation, and he's still not in compliant, but there's a big pecan tree in the way and it's a heritage tree, and so there's they basically told him, okay, well, good enough.

Uh for the the 25 by 25 corner clearance, a real issue is a chain link fence, not the wood.

Yeah, yeah.

So and so have you have you talked with your council member at all?

No, I haven't.

So that's that's who I work with whenever it is that I'm looking for signage, street signage in that.

And they they can make that happen for the Yeah, that's that's what uh the also the city here told me as well.

You know, I just I'm I'm always working and busy, so it's hard for me to mean it's not much Yep, that's exactly how this is kind of a crude mock-up of the area of the site distance that would be affected here.

But essentially this red line represents that privacy fence that was established.

Again, this case originated by code enforcement investigation who employed the assistance of public work staff to identify this uh site distance area, and their determination was that this red line, this little encroachment into this overall kind of site distance area for really concerning folks that are coming along this roadway here.

Um that length right there is about uh uh equivalent to twelve pickets of the existing fence.

So the decision before the board today is to determine whether or not uh twelve pickets need to be essentially reduced from the existing fence or if the fence may remain as constructed.

But the fence isn't constructed along Crest Hill.

Correct.

So along going this way, it has not been constructed, but from the front facade of the home towards Crest Hill, that is constructed.

If we could pull up the slightly move the whole Crest Hill fence back either at an angle or five feet or if you were to continue construction, so it it is built towards Crest Hill, and the intention is to build a long cresthill.

If he was to build along Crest Hill, it would have to also you know be outside of that site distance area.

If the variance was approved today, and that site distance area was was kind of um if the variance was granted, he could build that fence along that.

Correct.

The chain link fence is extends from this corner where the privacy fence is forward and then cuts across the front of his property there.

Again, it's an old fence, it's been there historically, uh, but he was cited by code enforcement for that as a violation as well.

So to hopefully close that case, we presented both uh requests to the board.

Okay.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Just want to confirm we're talking about three inches for number one.

Okay.

That's crazy.

And it depends where you measure from.

Yeah.

All right.

So if there's no uh public commentary uh on this one.

We do have one voicemail.

All right, let's hear a voicemail.

Hello, my name is Girky Bropper.

I live at 190 Covington Road.

I'm calling you in regards to the meeting or E role 745.

Um I do not oppose the fence being up.

It is not a nuisance in my opinion.

Um for the neighborhood.

And uh if there's any questions that can be reached at 2564, 8839.

Again, my name is Jesse Bumpers.

I live at 190 Covington Road.

San Antonio Texas 7820.

My phone number is 2569 8839.

All right.

So I'm looking for a motion.

Anna?

Commissioner Manning.

Regarding case number BOA 251030240, I moved that the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for one, an 18-foot variance from 25-foot clear corner vision area to allow a seven-foot clear corner vision area, and two, a variance from the transportation and street design intersection site distance standard to allow a reduced site distance by the encroachment of a six-foot tall wooden privacy fence built in line with the front facade of the existing home situated at 195 Covington Road.

Applicant being Stephen Dengle, because the testimony presented us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions or the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The location of the privacy fence 35 feet from the corner would not obstruct the visual openness of the property that is necessary for visibility for the westward incoming traffic on Crest Hill Road.

The chain link fence being predominantly open and with an increased height of about six inches above the maximum three-foot corner fence height preserves clear vision visibility at the intersection.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the relocation of both fences would reduce the visible space in the front and side yard.

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

Granting the variances will observe the sphere of the ordinance because the visibility at the corner of the property will be preserved for motorists to safely maneuver into the intersection.

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

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

Five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent corner property or alter the essential character of the district in which his properties located.

Granting the variances would not injure the appropriate uses of adjacent properties and would not and wouldn't and and would not create an increased risk of accidents.

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

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

As a privacy fence is located 35 feet from the corner, and the fence in the corner clear vision area is predominantly open with no modifications since it was historically established along the front property line.

End of motion.

So just to clarify, uh Commissioner, you read the motion as uh the encroachment of a six-foot tall wooden privacy fence built in line with the front facade of the existing home.

If the intent of the board is to allow the applicant to extend that fence along Covington Road, you may choose to omit the phrase the fence built in line with the front facade, just so that he's not limited to that down the line.

So I'll leave that for the board's decision.

Explain that to me again.

So there was some discussion uh about potentially extending the fence.

It's currently built.

Uh looking at it into perspective currently, it's it's currently built from the front facade of the home up towards Covington Road.

Um excuse me.

Can you go back to the site plan?

Uh I think it's Crest Hill, actually.

Up towards Crest Hill, the applicant is considering extending it along Crest Hill towards the left there.

Um as read, the motion considers this uh a variance to reduce the site distance by the encroachment of a six-foot-tall wooden privacy fence built specifically in line with the front facade of the existing home.

If you were to omit in line with the front facade of the existing home, he could extend the fence.

Um I'm not I'm just not sure if that's part of what the board was was considering to just include just the fence as built or to allow the opportunity to for the fence to be extended along that northern property line in the future.

Yeah, he's in instead of instead of instead of having the fence drop down or angle a little bit.

Do you want him to be able to build it parallel to the road where he stopped it now?

Like to continue.

Yeah, I'm still I'm still confused a little bit, but but um so um as show that one with a side distance triangle.

Yeah, could you bring up that?

So I'm not trying to do the side distance triangles, what I'm not trying to do.

And so basically built it you know as designed following the chain the existing chain link fence you along the road is what uh was trying what is I thought I was reading.

Um staff is saying that if if as the per the template, it would not allow him to construct it.

Like he would have to put the fence at an angle.

Yes.

So not that.

So then I so what do I strike then?

So make it just built in line with the front facade of the extent.

Okay, built in line with the front facade of the existing building.

So I'm going to omit that.

Strike that.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So does that make sense what I said then, everybody?

So yes, so looking to you know, basically maximize the fencing on the property itself.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Who's the second on that?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna.

So thank you for doing all of the research and help and helping educate me and and maybe some others here on the on the board here with regards to fencing, because um, you know, this is something new for me.

Um also I think um, you know, d as you discuss, you know, you you are working with your community to understand you know how all of your neighbors are going to be impacted by this.

And and I think you know, it sounds like you have a lot of commitment, you know, going through and helping you know resolve this.

And I think stop signs at all of those corners would do it, and you know, again, reaching out to your um you know, council members would help uh uh facilitate that and and make it safe for everybody in your community, which is ultimately what you know what a lot of things that I drive for.

And so I think because you have that at heart um and and everything else listed, I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with everything Commissioner Manor said, and I I would I would say continue to reach out to your council person and and start a coalition with your neighbors and hopefully they don't have to go through the same thing that you did.

Yep so I'll be in favor.

All right.

With anyone else like to add here now, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mattmann?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reid.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bemeth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Isuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

Yes, I concur.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Awesome.

If you haven't had any questions, you get with staff.

Oh, thank thank y'all so much.

Great.

Item seven.

Good afternoon, y'all.

I'm Sean Sheeley.

I'm a zoning planner with the City of San Antonio.

Uh this is BOA case 25103-00242.

The address is 3117 and 3115 Howard Street and 309 and 311 Millard Street.

It's in Council District 1.

The applicant is Robert Royal.

Their request is for a half story variance from the maximum 2.5 stories to allow for development built to three stories in height and two a one-foot variance from the 35-foot height maximum to allow for development up to 36 feet in height.

The zoning is MF33 PUD.

The subject property is located along the intersection of Millage Street and Howard Street.

The applicant submitted residential plans to build a new three-story townhomes and the lots located at 309 and 311 Millard Street and 3713 and 3715 Howard Street.

And the plan review team noted that on the lot located at 301 Millard Street, they currently exist as single family residence.

According to Table 35-310.01 note 4, that development within this particular lot would be developed to an R4 residential single family district standards, making Note 11 from the same table apply to our subject properties, limiting the development of the lot to the R4 single family uh district height and stories limit, triggering the need for stories and height variants from the Board of Adjustment.

Located on the site plan, you can see where the uh development's gonna take place.

This is the rendering of the building and the three stories and the height.

This is the subject property.

This is the subject property.

This is the uh single family residence that's located on the corner.

This is the same one, and then this is the surrounding area.

Uh staff recommends denial and BOA 25-103-00242 uh based on the following findings of fact.

The existence of a single family resident sharing the property line, and two, the height and story requirement would lead the single family residents to have less access to light and be subject to the shadow cast from the new taller structure.

Twenty-three notices were uh mailed, three in favor, uh one outside, and then the uh applicant also gave me six more uh that were in favor, but they were all outside the 200 feet.

And the Kenwood Neighborhood Association did not respond.

These are all located within the neighborhood around the subject property.

And these are the two that are located within, and then the one that's located without in support.

That concludes SAS presentation.

I notice this is also PUD zoning.

Is there a PUD plan or anything that there's a PUD plan?

Does it provide any information that might this board might need to know about?

As far as the PUD plan, uh it's basically nothing vertical, it's all just platd and whatnot.

Okay.

Awesome.

Uh any questions for staff before we move on to the applicant?

I guess have the applicant come forward.

How do you turn it on?

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

Hi, I'm I'm Bo Brough, aka Robert Brough.

Uh I'd like to thank the board for hearing my uh my uh case today.

Uh the property is located within 50 feet of a single family residence in a multifamily uh zoning district.

Because of that, the proximity, the height limits, uh defaults to single family base height, even though the property zone MF33, which normally allows more density and greater height.

For this reason, a variance is required to build a three-story.

Uh my property does have an approved uh uh San Antonio uh PUD plan that was approved in 2019 but with the intent of a three-story development.

Can y'all put this up?

As you can see to the left, the the left about I would say three inches from the bottom.

You can see I uh illustrated that what my plan was for this property to build a three-story uh town home project.

It's on the approved PUD plan.

So it was discussed and and planned for.

Uh Sir, what is the name of the PUD?

Howard Crossing.

Howard Crossing, thank you.

And so, you know, it looking at my design, there's some flag lots in there.

We could have ref knowing this, if if this was going to be an issue, I could have possibly redesigned the plat to accommodate the these three stories and get a little bit further from that single-story residence.

Uh you know, I I've I've owned this property over 20 years.

You know, I've I've cut it, I've dealt with vagrants, I've uh you know, dealt with dumping, and um it's time to develop it.

As you can see, the neighborhood's ready for it.

There's nine approvals and no opposition that I'm aware of.

So uh the I feel uh uh privacy is protected through a uh through window orientation, landscaping, and fencing.

Uh all required setbacks are maintained.

I feel that the structure does not block sunlight or create overbearing appearance for the neighboring homes, which is one that it that would be affected to this ordinance.

The project brings uh several benefits.

It adds needed housing, improves appearance and value of the property, increases tax revenue and supports uh responsible in field development.

Uh building upward preserves open space and creates a cleaner and more efficient site layout.

Um in summary, the hardship is tied to the land physical character characteristics and three-story design is the most reasonable and compatible solution.

It respects neighboring homes and provides benefits to the community.

I respectfully request approval of the height and three-story uh variants.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brough?

Yes, sir.

Uh my name is Ivan Yes.

Um that single uh family home in the corner is it looks vacant.

Is there someone living there right now?

Yes, there is.

And how did they have you spoken to them?

How do they feel about the project?

I've you know, have offered to buy that house.

So yes, I I have spoken to them.

Uh she's open to selling.

We haven't negotiated a price and come to that.

Thank you.

Bragman?

Commissioner Braggman?

Um, so you have spoken to her.

How does she feel about the um proposed structures being three stories?

Has she voiced any opinion about it?

Because she would have obviously had an opportunity um to be to be notified and to respond, and we don't see a response from her.

So ma'am.

We have if as you can see in the pictures, we have other foundations down.

Uh she's well aware construction is is happening.

She's not opposed to it.

I had she hasn't expressed that to me.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So if there was not a house on this property, um, could it's listed as single family, you know, on BCAD.

Um and so it's not necessarily the single family B CAD listing that is uh we'll say setting these requirements, it's because there is a single-family home located on this property.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So can I add that that house sits on a multifamily MF33?

Yes, so I understand that part.

And so I have those in our community as well.

And some are you know that they were done 40 years ago and they didn't really know what they were, you know, how they wanted to lay out the community.

And so it's uh and on PUDs is is particularly where that happened.

And so I have a whole PUD community with all single family homes, and that's always asking that question.

And um and and there's one outlier that that will say changed a lot uh from what it was the rest of the community had, and simply because the access, you know, and and other things.

So and the single family thing is important, but but it doesn't weigh into this picture uh from BCAP perspective.

So okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Ragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

So do you own any of the other properties around besides the ones on Howard and and Millard?

You just I have built in that neighborhood on on uh 140 O'Dale uh in the past, but currently no, ma'am.

I don't own any other so none of those PUDs that are around your properties.

The only property I own currently right now is this.

Well well, I'm sorry, the whole development.

We're developing 33 units.

Okay.

And these things, these these buildings looking the same.

It's gonna look funny.

Uh you know, we're gonna create three out of place, I I guess, uh situations, uh, you know, if I'm denied, you know.

So I'm trying to keep, you know, this thing the only there's four there.

Uh we got a total of 33 doors.

Okay.

So you do own that whole parcel.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

I didn't understand your your question.

Manna, and for clarification, that's that whole wedge, right?

So the green wedge there, you own that whole wedge except for the one property that's a MF?

The whole triangle.

Yeah, except for that one corner, right?

Except for the corner.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

This did this I know that there's a PUD plan, but did it did it go through PUD zoning and actually have a PUD zoning approved by City Council?

Based on the plan?

The reason why I ask is that the the approved PUD plan is showing like a picnic area and the lots aren't as small off of Millard.

Can you talk about that?

And the public was approved in 2007.

Yeah, I'm looking at it.

I just I I brought it up.

I'm just curious because it it doesn't look like what what I'm seeing here.

The plan changed a little bit and and the design got we got a little bit more efficient with the the lot layouts.

But it yes, sir, it did change uh slightly.

Braggman?

Commissioner Braggman.

So it looks like from Google Earth that there is a railroad track behind that.

Correct.

It is.

Okay.

So that makes it even more so that uh you going in there and developing this a benefit to the neighborhood because that would be a deterrent for a lot of people.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Cruz?

Um with the homes that you're trying to build, you're saying you're gonna make 33 of them.

So the only problems you are having is with this two that are current that we're currently discussing, and all all of them will be three-story?

Yes, ma'am, all the same.

There's there's four doors, the the two buildings.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so just uh so um with regards to um building heights and story limitations, because it's in this PUD, would any of those other properties have that same dialogue, or is that would that be permitted just by right?

Um, yeah, so the by right height allowance would be the three stories.

Uh these two properties, these four units that are uh in question here today, they are only held to the single family height standards because they're within 50 feet proximity of the adjacent uh single family use.

So the others are fine.

Okay, thank you.

All right, anyone else?

Can I say something else?

There was uh you you addressed, I think when the the PUD was the PUD was voted on, it was 2019.

December at Lavit is when that was approved.

Yeah, I only found the 2007 on the city records, that's why I was so confused.

We have the 2019 one.

Okay.

No, that I feel a lot better.

Thank you.

I was just wanted to make sure.

All right.

Any voicemails?

Looking for a motion.

No public comment.

Thank you.

You sure?

We're on seven, yeah.

All right.

Okay.

Uh regarding case number BOA 251030242.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a half story variants from the maximum two and a half stories to allow for development built to three stories in height, and two a one-foot variance from the 35 foot height maximum uh to allow a development up to 36 feet in height, situated at 3713 and 3715 Howard Street and 309 and 311 Millard Street.

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

Specifically, we find that number one, the variance is not contrary to public interest, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as proposed as the proposed height and design is in con is consistent with the surrounding development of on this parcel.

Number two, due to the special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement would result.

Uh would result a redesign of these structures to be inconsistent with the rest of the plan development on this parcel.

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

The variants would the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance and there and the as there is adequate separation from the adjacent single family use to mitigate any potential adverse effects related to an increased structure height near an established single family home.

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

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

Number five, such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

All other structures as part of this development will be built to the same specifications and as such would not substantially alter the essential character of the district or injure the appropriate use of the adjacent property.

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is salt is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the proximity to an existing single family home that was established on a parcel designated for multifamily use.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Bunny is Yeah, and I'll be in support of this.

I do think, you know, it's it's kind of this this quarter house that's kind of limiting all this development from happening.

Um I feel that this owner, you know, owns all the other properties, and he's going to keep all of them in the same type of fashion in design.

Uh but I think this will be good for that area, and that that parcel of land that is set there, you know, vacant forever.

I'm you know, familiar with this area, and I think that'd be good for this area.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with my colleague.

Um according to the applicant, he has had a conversation with the owner of the single family home.

Um currently she doesn't have opposition to it, and they're in negotiations right now to her selling him the property.

So uh I kind of feel like this is a a win-win for for her as well as the rest of the community.

So I'll be in support.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

Um I think because of the location of the house itself, it is pushed closer to that corner.

And so you know, part of the dialogue that we had with regards to when it is that we put in some limitations, you know, is about light and and access to you know around a home itself, when in the but when it is a larger development, uh but a um we'll say residential home.

And I think because there is enough property around this, it is still providing for that for that light, you know, um and and air space.

So I think that's a good sign.

And then also, you know, uh noting that the applicant or the uh the person who lives there didn't file an objection, you know, so when they had the opportunity here, you know, we'll say that they're kind of you know understand what's good and ready to happen.

So because of those reasons I'll be supporting it.

All right.

Anyone else?

And uh let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Benavides.

There we go.

Commissioner Azina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

Item eight.

Do you have a item eight is case BOA-25-1030244, the address being 105 Quinta Road in Council District 3.

The applicant is Marjorie Gonzalez, and this is a request for a 4 foot 11-inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow a primary structure to be one inch from the south south side property line.

The zoning is R4.

The subject property is located at the intersection of Vista Road and Quinta Road.

According to a survey of the property, the home was constructed with an encroachment at two points into the Vista Street public right-of-way.

To account for this encroachment, the property owner has obtained a public street encroachment permit from the City of San Antonio Public Works Department.

The property owner recently initiated a project uh initiated a project to remodel the existing portion of the two-story home to include enclosing an existing balcony that fronts Vista Street.

The project scope of work does not include any further encroachment into the right-of-way, and all work is contained within the pre-existing footprint of the home.

Code enforcement staff issued a notice of violation and stop work order for this project for building without a permit.

Although the encroachment permit accounts for the structure's encroachment into into the right-of-way or past the property line, a variance must still be granted to account for the structure's encroachment into the minimum required side yard.

So that's the five feet before you get to that side property line.

Both approvals must be obtained before the property owner may be issued a building permit for this project.

So here's kind of a depiction of what we're looking at.

The green line, this is the survey that was provided by the property owner's uh surveyor.

Uh the green line represents the property line for this uh for this lot here, and as you can see, the existing home does encroach uh within the five-foot side setback area and beyond the green line into the Vista Street right-of-way.

Again, that's been accounted for by public works.

They have obtained a right-of-way permit.

Uh so the request here today is for the encroachment into this blue area, the five-foot side setback area.

Uh and here's just a quick look at the public street uh encroachment permit.

Again, just uh noting here the the area that the public works department has identified as encroachment.

So this is a historical view from 2022.

Again, you can see the second floor balcony there pre-existing.

This is uh the same configuration that the home has existed in for decades.

Uh next slide.

Uh and this is the subject property today.

Uh same footprint.

Uh if anything, I think there's uh overhang here that was pre-existing that was removed.

Um everything else is the same and they're looking to enclose this second story uh balcony up top.

Um this is kind of another look at you can kind of see that red line there's estimated property line according to uh best you know kind of looking at what the survey shows.

Um again uh everything beyond that red line estimated there uh has been approved by the public works department, including this fence here um is all uh been signed off on.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the side setback variant, staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030244 based on the following findings of fact one the property owner is not seeking any further encroachment into the side setback area or right of way, rather the intent is to improve upon their existing home in its ex uh current configuration, and two, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship for the property for the property owner to abate the encroachment which has existed for decades prior to their ownership of the property.

Staff mail 24 notices, six were returned in favor, zero in opposition, there is no neighborhood association within two hundred feet of the subject property.

Uh and here is a petition that uh signatures collected by the property owners uh for those six uh voices in support.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you very much.

So um a lot of footprint here on the property, you know, covering the property itself.

So as far as um impervious cover percentages, everything's fine from that perspective.

Correct.

I believe impervious cover um more deals with uh uh just front yard area um as it pertains to residential uh projects.

So this this property is uh not violating any of those standards.

It looks like the home was built in 1986 and the the UDC change in 87 and then 2001.

That is correct.

So this may not have been subject to much anything.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, uh let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hi, uh please state your name and tell us about your process about your project.

My name is Milton de Leon.

Uh no el conocimiento de actor.

Well, the reason why I'm here is because uh sometimes we don't have the knowledge before we start acting.

As you can see, the house is in bad condition due to the number of years that it's been renovar uncambio, but my wife and I found uh we wanted to remodel the house, but but uh we realized that the costs were really high to be able to rebuild the house.

Or we would have led it as he it was before.

Semir ahí.

The reason why we started uh uh uh uh remodeling it is because it was just about to collapse.

So you can see you can see it in this picture.

So we wanted to close that up uh to avoid accidents with our children.

At the same time, I want to apologize for having uh done something without permit.

Yeah, yes, nospararon por eso errores.

And uh then they stopped our construction, and that is good because that's the way we learned from our mistakes.

And uh we all leave this in your hands.

If um if you allow us to continue, we're gonna do it.

Otherwise we can just leave it as is.

So that's the property uh the the other side property line that does uh about a drainage ditch.

The property line we're talking about is that one on the south side there along Vista Street.

Okay, so the north is the drainage ditch.

So that part's not in Okay.

Great.

Yeah, because you had lines saying with regards to the corners there, but okay, perfect.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions?

Uh Bunnyas.

Commissioner Beneas.

Is this your your primary residence?

Is this where you and your wife both live?

See.

So that's why we closed that uh that area there, but uh commission.

Even this was closed.

Then they broke into the house on on the back of the house.

Commissioner Beneas?

Okay, you just what and do you have a homestead exemption on this house?

BCAT doesn't show that there's one extension.

Do you do you mean the the monthly ta the yearly taxes that I pay?

Yes, they are even even the taxes are high because of the area, but I have to pay for it.

Right.

Because I don't see it on there.

Yeah, BCAD doesn't have it listed as an example.

I I tried to do that, but they didn't do it.

They didn't accept it.

Does he have another house that he lives in here or is this the only house home that they own?

No, it's launch.

No, that's the only one.

You may want to head back there and definitely see about getting that homestead exemption on there, because they should they should grant it to you.

Um because I I was just noticing that tax roll.

Um so I was uh I was wondering, did he have another place where he was living or was this a rental or something, but he says it's his home.

So okay.

All right, any other questions?

So I'm going to go again to go back there to see if it can be granted to me.

It's good to have uh guidance from people like you, because we as community many times we don't know what to do.

All right.

Well, if there's no other questions, is there any voicemails or anyone signed to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Um I'm looking for a motion.

I uh Ibanez.

Regarding case number BOA 25103 00244.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a primary structure to be one inch from the south side property line situated at 105 Quinta Road, applicant being Magori Gonzalez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined showed that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance would not be contrary to the public interests as the side property line fronts a public right-of-way, and the home has existed in its current configuration with no recorded prior issues since before the applicant's ownership of the property.

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

A liter literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as a significant portion of existing home, including portions which are currently not under renovation, must be about demolished to abate the existing setback encroachment.

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

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

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

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

No further encroachments into the side setback area or the public right-of-way are proposed by this project.

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

This circumstance was not created by the owner of the property, is not merely financial, and is not a result of general conditions in the district.

Second by Commissioner Benez, Commissioner Ivanez.

And he's wanting to repair his home on the same footprint.

So I will be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Beniz.

Yeah, I I also will be in support of this.

I agree with uh my my colleague and everything.

She said um, and you know, this is his homestead as he claimed, so I think you should have that right to make these repairs to his to his homestead.

All right, anyone else like to address it to have a roll call vote?

on this property um and he's wanting to repair his home on the same footprint so I will be in support thank you Commissioner Beniz yeah I I also will be in support of this I agree with uh my my colleague and everything she said um and you know this is his homestead as he claimed so I think you should have that right to make these repairs to his to his homestead all right anyone else like to add to have a roll vote Commissioner Ivaneth I concur with the findings and facts Commissioner Bon yes yes I concur Commissioner Reed yes I concur Commissioner Stevens yes I concur Commissioner Cruz yes I concur I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Bragman I concur with the findings of fact commissioner Benavides yes I concur Commissioner Zuna yes I concur Commissioner Vasquez I concur Chair Orion and I care with the fancy fact motion passes congratulations thank you so much and God bless you thank you item nine this is boa case two five one oh three zero zero two four six the address is one oh six Saddlebrook drive it's in council district four the applicant is Daniel Mederno the request is a six foot variance from the minimum five foot side setback require uh six inch variance from the minimum five foot side set back requirement to allow a carport to be four feet six inches from the side property line and two a seven foot variance from the minimum required ten foot front setback to allow the carport to be three put three foot from the front property line the zoning is R6 the subject property is located just to uh west of the corner of Emerald Glade and Saddlebook Drive code enforcement staff is dispatched to the property in response to a citizen call and found the carport was built without permits and within the side setback.

Upon a uh zoning staff visit it was found that the carport is also within the minimum required front setback a variance from the board of adjustments and the minimum front and side set acts is required for the carport to be remained as constructed this is the site plan and one is the side setback and two is the front setback.

This is the subject property this is the surrounding area they have uh similar car ports uh surround in the surrounding area staff recommends approval in BOA uh 25-1030246 side setback based on the following findings of fact the unique location of the driveway offers limited side yard space for the carport to be built there's adequate space between the carport and the side property line to support maintenance of the structure and avoid aggravating the risk of damage from fire spread or water runoff staff recommends denial and BOA 25-1030246 front setback based on the following findings of fact there's adequate developable space available to set the carport without encroaching on the front setback and the reduction of the front setback would lead to less visibility and will alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood we mailed 36 notices zero in favor and zero opposed and that concludes staff's presentation come forward hello sir please state your name and tell us about your carport my name is Daniel Medrano I'm from 106 Saddlebrook and uh like you said I built this uh without a permit but uh I didn't know and the reason is that I have two vehicles and uh my my vehicles have been damaged by hail three times and you know that causes uh a little bit of strain on finance uh this last recent one the windshow was broken on both vehicles and and we just uh we're retired so we have limited you know uh financial and uh basically took a little drive around the neighborhood uh going uh west on Saddlebrook drive all the way around and then on uh Heritage and then from heritage to Saltuth and then down uh uh Sugar Loaf and then uh up to uh uh Cypress Way which is the street that right over from my house and I took a little video but I tried to send in and it was too long but there's several houses that are just about like mine you know right on there some of them are a little bit past and they've been there for quite a while and I don't think anybody has ever complained and uh so it's just you know we we just talk it rains we have we get soaked the hails we get damaged and uh so uh that's uh why wouldn't it okay is there any commissioner questions Commissioner Braggman um you have a two car

And uh so it's just you know, we just talk, uh it rains, we have to we get soaked, it hails, we get damaged.

And uh so uh that's uh why we didn't.

Okay.

Is there any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Brangman.

Um you have a two-car garage?

Uh yes, but they're not big enough for my cars.

Yeah, we we have uh SUV and uh uh uh a RAM uh 150 and those d those uh garages are not big enough for cars like that.

Maybe for uh Toyota or something, you know.

You might be able to get one in there.

Uh Bonias or City?

Yes.

Just to confirm those front posts are three feet from the property line, yeah.

Correct.

Is that what we were saying?

Correct.

So so that property line isn't sidewalk.

It's further up or further back, I should say, from the sidewalk.

No, sir.

It's three foot from the property line from what we measured.

It's not the sidewalk where the property line is.

Yeah, gotcha.

Okay.

Yeah.

The side plan submitted is a little um wonky, I think uh, but um that three foot measurement is to the property line.

Okay.

Uh no.

Okay.

If staff could bring up the uh picture, there's one there's a good shot right from the front.

That one right there kind of shows the perspective.

Uh Commissioner Manna.

So the um a budding property, so they also have a car port, but that one is within um I guess appropriate distance with regards to setbacks.

That would be at 102.

I don't believe we got a measurement for this particular um carport.

Give me one second, I'll I'll I'll research to see if they've had prior approval.

Yes, uh so one of the things I look for is you know, so how's the neighborhood doing and how are they building all of their car ports?

And and so um and it is confusing with regards to um what the set front setbacks are and you know just overall across the city.

But but I do like to look for consistency and see where what everybody else is building and how far away and so your your next door neighbor um does look like they provided a little bit more space, you know, uh along that uh you know from the street to their to their car port.

And so your so yours is yours currently is is appears to be extending out further than it.

Um that one we're looking at.

Uh the poles look like they're about ten feet away from the property line.

And you can have overhang up to five feet so long as that overhang doesn't go into that three foot.

And so and so just so for clarification of that, because that's a nice ruling there, or nice dialogue.

So the poles are back ten feet, you can have a five foot overhang from that space, right?

So long as that overhang does not encroach into the three foot.

It it's so you get three foot there.

So the one in the picture that's being shown, it doesn't look like it's as long.

Like as deep.

You know, like it looks like it's maybe a few feet shallower.

But it but it has a a huge extension over the top, and and so it has five foot overhang.

And so part of the dialogue is you know, the is there capability of moving the front poles back any um and and you would still be able to keep the the coverage on top, but if you're able to move the poles back any, and so um you know is that a possibility you know from your perspective?

Yes, if uh if I can just move the poles, I'll be happy to do it.

And it probably won't be that much strain on us.

Uh okay.

Uh but since we don't know a definite dimension, I I'd think he needs some kind of a variant, even if it's just a few feet or something.

Yeah, this one because the overhang looks like it stops right at the property line.

It's inside that three feet, so the variance would have to stop wherever this overhang is, whether the poles are on the property line or not.

Braggman?

Commissioner Brangman.

Do you know how um far inside the overhang the post, the two front posts are?

Is it right to the edge of the of the carport or is it in the yeah, they're they're to the edge.

But uh I measured from you know where the uh I measured from the pole to where the uh line is and it's like seven feet uh some inches.

Yeah, they're they're to the edge, but uh a measure from you know where the measure from the pole to where the uh line is and it's like seven feet uh some inches from the sidewalk back a sidewalk.

Uh yeah.

Uh no, it's it's uh from like the end of the uh of the uh sidewalk to the pole is about 19 feet and some inches or 17 feet and some inches and then uh from the uh where the driveway makes that pyramid, it's uh about seven feet.

I didn't write it that down because I didn't know beforehand.

But staff, when you do your measurements, you're you measuring from the pole to the top of the driveway apron, which is where typically the property line is.

Uh that's correct.

That's why we're looking at it's not always exactly where that uh apron ends, uh, but it's usually very, very close to that location.

Okay.

So, you know, we I think we've all seen this before, you know, we all know what we're looking at.

Um we have an opportunity to either approve as requested or give him some sort of a variance, even if it's five feet, which would force him to move the post back and provide an overhang.

So um, Chair.

Yes.

Ivan Yes.

Um I I think it would be a financial hardship for this gentleman uh to have to do that.

I I I move that we uh just go with the requested.

Yeah, and my issue with it is is that if you just move the post back, it may not be designed for a can or leverage overhang.

So um yeah.

Okay, so we'll leave it up to the commission to vote on.

Is there anyone signed to speak or voicemails?

No public comment.

Okay.

Anything you'd like to add before we move on, sir.

Okay.

All right.

I'm looking for a motion.

Bragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-22-1030246.

I moved the Board of Adjustment Grant one, a six-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback requirement to allow a carport to be four foot six inches from the side property line, and two, a seven-foot variance from the minimum required ten-foot front setback to allow a carport to be three feet from the property line situated at 106 Saddleburg Drive, applicant being Daniel Madrano, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we've determined show the physical character of this property is such that a little reinforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there's adequate separation between the property line and a carport.

In this case, there would be adequate space from the front as the carboard leaves open space in the front yard.

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

The special condition in on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, which were originally established in the reduced site setback.

To build the carport in line with existing home, the carport would also maintain a reduced site setback.

The special condition on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, leaving little room lengthwise for a full carport.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as a reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship or increase fire routes to either property.

Such variants would be in spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship to either property abutting this lot.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient space between the building even with the buildings within even with the reduced site setback.

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation and the variants will not reduce visibility.

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

The plight of the property owners due to the unique circumstances of the driveway location, which limits the side yard area for the establishment of a carport.

Plight of the owner, the plight of the property owners due to the unique circumstances of the depth of the front yard, which limits the available space for the establishment of a carport, end of motion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Bonnie's.

Commissioner Braggman.

So I agree that I think it would be a financial hardship for the applicant to move those posts.

And one of the things that we typically look at is how far away it is from the sidewalk.

And there seems to be a fair amount of distance from the end of the side the back of the sidewalk to the carport.

The cars don't stick out into the uh sidewalk.

Um as for the side setback, um, I don't have an issue with that.

It's only six inches, so I'll be in support of the motion.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Boniz.

Yeah, I will also be a support of this.

Uh I think you can look in this neighborhood, and it really doesn't take from the character of it.

You can you can go down several of these streets and you see similar car ports, even with the post a little closer to the sidewalk, probably on the property line or even over.

So uh I'll be in support.

Anyone else like to add?

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

So I I agree with my colleagues, you know, with regards to you know the size of the carport.

And it is consistent.

You know, I think uh we may need to go through and take a look and do a better job defining you know car ports and distances and and help citizens there.

Um but just as a note, there was you know this was reported, and so there is at least a neighbor who you know uh did object to this and don't necessarily know who that was.

Um but but you know, drive around the community.

I do see some polls push back, but with um cannon levered roofs being as close if not closer.

And so that it does seem consistent with the community, but the polls are you know too close from city's perspective.

So I'll be voting in favor.

This chime, it looks like somebody is asking about the how to build these things correctly.

All right, anyone else?

Hearing now let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bagman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonnie?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner A.

Bonne.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Zena?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I incur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Last item, item number 10.

This is BOA case 25-1030247.

The address is 1445 Brady Boulevard, Council District 5.

The applicant is embassy real estate agency, LLC.

The request is a fence material variance to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal with a cap along the perimeter of the property.

And two, a five-foot special exemption to the maximum allowable three-foot solid fence height to allow for an eight-foot solid fence fight in the front yard here.

The zoning is C2NA C D, and the CD is for auto paint and body.

The subject property is located in the middle of the block face of Brady Boulevard between Armoretta Street and Couples Road.

The applicant proposes the use of corrugated metal for an eight-foot tall perimeter fence.

The proposed material is not permitted by the UDC, and the maximum allow a solid solid fence height along the front property line is three feet.

The applicant is requesting a variance and special exception to these standards.

The property will be used as an overflow parking parking lot for the auto paint and body shop on the adjacent lot to the east.

This is the site plan.

As you can see, this is where the fence will go.

Right here, there is a uh cell tower, and then this is the lot that they own.

Uh the five-foot special exemption will be this front portion right here.

This is the subject property as it is right now.

There's currently barbed wire, but all this fence will go and be replaced with corrugated metal, is what they're proposing.

And it will be the whole lot.

There's the cell tower right there.

And then that's the subject property as well.

This is the surrounding area.

That's across the street.

This is more of the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 25-103-00247 based on the following findings of fact.

One, uh security can be provided on lot by a non-perhibitative fence material and the use of corrugated metal does not appear to provide any additional added security.

And two, the property is about single family dwellings to the north.

Uh and staff recommends denial and BOA 25-1030247 based on the following findings of fact.

The eight-foot front fence obstructs the line of sight for ingress US traffic.

And two, the fence height special exception will also the essential characteristic of the district in which the property is located as a majority of the fences are open-faced.

We mailed 17 notices, zero in favor, zero opposed, and the Westwood Square Neighborhood Association did not respond.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Manna.

So if this had been classified as a um frontage road, would that have changed any of the coding at all?

I believe it would have, but this uh road right here is uh not actually on the highway.

So it changes a little bit.

So to clarify, also those exceptions would be for the side and rear yard uh for fencing.

This um the eight-foot fencing would not be permitted uh regardless of the of the street classification in the front yard.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other com uh commissioner questions for staff?

Yes, read.

Commissioner Reed.

Um for the auto body shop, it looks like there is a uh uh sheet steel fence.

What is the height of that?

Eight feet.

Are they gonna be coming here next or what?

Same owner.

That looks like more like six foot just as a comment.

It's below the roof of that F-250.

All right, any other questions?

Is that the applicant come forward?

Six feet well it's got a barbed wire on front top of it.

Yeah, the fence.

And the post go up really tall.

My name's Amanda.

Um I work for embassy real estate and embassy collision.

Um so there you go.

Okay.

I can hear you five, but my name's Amanda.

I work for embassy real estate and embassy collision.

So my boss, he basically owns um the collision.

He owns the lots on both sides.

So he owns like three three lots over, and then where the collision is, he owns it.

So he owns all of those properties.

Um basically he wants to um I don't know how to use this.

Where this one?

Yep.

Okay.

How do I move it though?

Like the slides.

I don't know.

No, no, no.

I'm saying the slides.

Oh, okay.

So where it shows like the in the front, yeah, like right there.

You can see right there.

Um we actually have a metal fence right there in the in the front.

And he wants to open the so right now it's like separated.

Can you see where it's like separated?

It shows he wants to basically knock that fence down and open it to the collision.

So okay, so yeah.

So it separates where the the collision and the lot we're talking about, 1445.

He wants to um knock the fence down and just open it up so we can go ahead and park all the time.

Behind the cell tower.

Yes, behind the cell tower.

Yeah.

Um but like there's a lot of theft in the area.

He he just wants to keep it as private as he can for the reason that there's a lot of theft.

We've had lots of break-ins over the the years.

Um that's really what it is.

It's for privacy.

Security, yeah.

Uh I was gonna ask you a question.

Directly north of your property, there seems to be an isolated lot.

Is that yours as well?

A lot where behind or in the sides.

Yeah, right.

It's it's better to look at the staff report.

Uh the aerial that one.

So right north of you, it looks like there's an isolated lot.

That that's not your property, is it?

No, right to the north, right behind you.

Oh, behind uh no.

It's it's a landlocked piece of property.

I was wondering, is that is that your land as well?

He owns um on the next street is patent.

He owns uh 634.

634 patent right behind like it's centered between the collision and the but the property to the west of that one, is that one yours as well?

No.

The R 4?

Right there?

No.

Okay.

I'm just trying to figure out it looks like there's something going on there.

I didn't know.

Okay.

Wait, it's not a good idea.

No.

Okay.

No, he owns the 634 that it's like that one?

Yeah, that's that's common between both your rear property lines.

Yeah.

Okay.

So any commissioner questions?

Cruise.

Mr.

Grease?

On the auto shop uh fence that you have currently, that's what, six feet and then uh two feet of barbed wire?

Or is it all eight feet in front?

In the front, it's I believe it's all eight feet.

It doesn't look like it.

It looks like it's six feet of a fence and then two feet of barbed wire, if I'm correct.

Because I know the area and I've gone through there lots of times.

So I'm trying to petrate of why I and I know he owns the the rest of the properties, so I'm trying to figure out of why it would still need to stay eight feet.

I can see six, but I can't see eight.

On the metal?

Right.

The metal is six feet and then two feet of barbed wire.

Uh he has Oh, I guess it's well the the one where the barbed wire, that's that's like eight feet.

That's not six feet.

The fence?

No, because that means that would be ten feet tall.

And it's not a good thing.

The fence is eight feet and then two feet of barbed wire.

That would be ten feet and that would definitely be.

The existing fence door right there.

It's because we have two we have a gate that's um that's where I'm kind of confused.

If if you go more right here in the front?

Are you talking about the the collision or the No the collision, right in front of the collision store, the the paint and body shop.

You might want to bring on a street view.

Yeah, street view.

Yeah, street view in front shows the the truck parked in front.

So you kind of get an idea of the height.

Okay, yeah, right there.

And if you cruise a little bit uh for the that way.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that's yeah.

Okay, then I guess it's six feet.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, unless you're measuring the post height.

The posts are really tall.

Yeah, the post look like they're eight feet, but the fence itself is six feet and uh about two feet of uh barbed wire.

I mean, if we could do the same thing we have there.

But the barbed wire is something that we that's not what we're reviewing today.

Right.

Is your intent to pursue barbed wire?

No, that wasn't told to me.

He just was an eight-foot fence with a cat.

From my conversation with him, he said no barbed wire.

Okay.

So the fence would stay the what the way it is on that property and on the extension that he wants to make for the adjacent property, it would be eight feet tall.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

So for this property, if it so if we granted six foot, could they add the two foot of or eighteen inches of barbed bar on top of the existing fence as permitted, or they would have to go through additional permitting to put barb bars?

They have to apply for an uh administrative variance for that approval, but if it they could if approved for that, they could do six-foot fencing with an additional up to eighteen inches of barbed wire again, if approved, but that's a separate review process.

Right.

Okay.

So essentially duplicating what they currently have would be.

Bonus.

Commissioner Bunny.

For the applicant.

Uh so the city's opposed to it because they think that um pretty much you can provide security with some other with some other type of fence material.

Can you, you know, being uh the occupant there provide something to us why the privacy fence does provide that security?

I mean it's we have a lot of vehicles there.

So if you're just driving down there and you could see through there, like it's obvious that you know it's it's like if you a kid going down and he sees candies, like he's he wants to go in there.

You know.

So I mean, if it's private, I'm not saying it's gonna avoid any theft because obviously we've had theft, but I guess you won't draw as much attention to it.

And and so a wood fence is probably what the city is more more wanting you to lean towards if you're gonna do something that's privacy.

How does that not uh provide enough privacy?

Um I feel that wood fence is probably easier to break into.

It's it's not as strong as metal.

Okay, I'm good, thank you.

All right, so Mike, so I'm gonna continue that line of questioning.

Is the issue privacy from the front?

I mean, do you need eight foot down the side and then the rear by the residential area?

Is that is that necessary?

I mean, in the I guess in in the behind, I mean six feet could work for us.

Um but he does own like the the side of that lot, but it it he'll eventually like rent it out, so we still would need to have um privacy on that side.

So on the front, I I see the front.

You got a highway there.

Um you know, I see that understand the privacy there, but uh yeah, again, against the side against the rear.

I don't see the need as much.

Um but you're but you're wanting it on the west side and on the frontage.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, because he's gonna open it in the middle.

So right there he wouldn't need it because it's gonna be open to the collision.

I'll just put it out there.

I uh me personally, I'm not a fan of it in in the rear against the homes.

Um and um I don't think it's necessary along the uh you know, along with the cell towers, but on the front and the side I see I guess where your perspective is.

Chair uh Vineus.

Um I was noticing that the properties when they did the the Google map, that the properties in the back uh have very deep backyards.

Um I can see I I can see where that for their type of business that it would be needed for security.

And um and the corrugated fence that you have or the metal fence that you guys have in the auto body um is not your typical roll out metal.

It looks uh like a more um secure metal fence.

Um so I'm assuming that that is the same style that you would be using for the security of the other property.

Yes.

Bonias.

Commissioner Bonus.

Have you guys had any threats from those rear properties or any break-ins from those rear properties where you need it along the rear fence line?

Um we just recently last week we had um uh I it's like a homeless person jump over from the side where the where it used to be the church, he jumped in the back over to our side and he got in.

He didn't like take a vehicle or anything, but they did break in and took some things from the vehicles.

Okay.

Okay.

And you didn't get any uh communication with the property owners behind you about corrugated metal versus a wood fence?

No.

Okay.

All right.

So there's nothing else.

Uh we need to get this rolling along if someone would like to make a motion.

Bonus.

Commissioner Bonnie is we're on is this 12 10?

Item 10.

10, 10, 10, 247.

Oh man, it's two.

I don't know.

Uh okay.

Here we go.

Regarding case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero two four seven.

I move that the board of adjustment grant a request for fence material uh variants to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal with a cap along the perimeter of the property situated at 1445 Brady Boulevard.

Applicant being uh embassy real estate agency LLC, because this testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended will result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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

Number two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship on a literal enforcement would result in the applicant not having the additional security and privacy that the requested fence material would afford them.

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

The requested variance observes the spirit of the ordinance as the requested fence material will provide additional security for the property.

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

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

Number five, such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The requested variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent properties or alter the essential character of the area as there are uses or of similar intensity and proximity to the subject property.

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

The unique circumstances existing on the property is the need for additional safety and security that the fence provides.

These this circumstance was not created by the owner, is not near is not merely financial and is not the result of general conditions within the district.

End of motion.

Do I continue the next?

No.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Manus, second.

Commissioner Bonis.

Yeah, I'll be in support of this.

Um, you know, I I know that the city doesn't view you know metal or corrugated as providing enough uh privacy, but but I really feel it does.

I think even with wooden uh with wooden fences, you know, once they start to to wear and get older, the you know the the gaps in them are are very easy for people to see see through.

And and like she said, you know, when you're a kid in a candy store or when you're somebody looking for something of value, being able to see it uh is the first thing that they're there that will motivate them to want to jump that fence or get on that property.

So uh I I feel metal fences do eliminate that as long as they keep the cap on there, I'm good with it.

Commissioner, I concur with my colleague.

Okay, anyone else like to add?

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

And this is on the fence material uh fence material only Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Chair Orion.

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

Uh now we need a motion for the um uh fence height.

I'll commit Bonias.

Commissioner I I kind of called myself out with it, right?

Uh regarding case number BOA 251030247.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a uh request for a uh five-foot special exemption to the maximum allowable three-foot solid fence height to allow for a eight-foot solid fence height in the front yard situated at 14445 at Bradley Boulevard.

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

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

The proposed eight-foot fence aligns with the purpose of this chapter as it would provide screening from the right of way and necessary protection and security for the property.

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

This property is close to the interstate adjacent to Brady Avenue and will screen the property from view.

Uh C.

The neighboring property will not substantially injured by such proposed use.

Uh the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exemption because the property is located among various other commercial uses and is adjacent to the interstate from Brady Avenue.

D, the special exemption will not alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property for which this special exemption is salt.

Because the property is at the outermost boundary facing a major transportation corridor, its context is distinct from interior lots.

The proposed fence will not uh be dissimilar from other commercial fencing along the same street.

E.

The special exemption will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations hereon established for the uh for the specific district.

The general purpose of the district's regulations is to protect neighborhood character, promote safety, and ensure consistent development patterns.

Allowing a modest increase in fence height in this unique location does not undermine those goals, as it is based on the specific conditions that do not apply to most lots uh into motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bonneese.

Yeah, and once again I'll be in favor of this.

I I feel that uh this property is unique and and kind of where it sits and a three-foot just doesn't do uh the justice needed.

They do need the full eight-foot fence uh to um to to get the uh security that needed.

All right.

Commissioner Manna.

So I'm gonna be slight disagreement here.

Um and and so I uh concur that the three foot is is not adequate.

Um and but they are using six foot next to it, and it looks like all the fencing there is six foot, you know, um and and I I would be very comfortable with that part.

And I think the extra two feet would change the dynamic of the street.

And I don't know how many times we have approved for an eight-foot fence along the front of a property.

You uh I don't know that there's that many.

And so to me that's a little bit off.

Um so you know um at as eight at eight, I probably will reject it, but if you take a friendly amendment to six, I would go down that path.

But is that six only along the uh uh the front, yes.

Yeah, and this is really only for the front as far as the dialogue as as I read it.

So but um anyways, that was my perspective.

And so you can read it as is, but I wouldn't be able to support it at eight, but I would be able to support it six, but you can choose you know how you think the rest of the board will be.

So for so that's what I was asking, because uh the way it's it's uh advertised it says uh eight foot fence in the front yard.

So is that forward of any potential building is eight feet?

Like if we were to that's correct, and because there's no building currently, it really only needs talking about the front property line once a building were to be established, hypothetically, uh you know, more of a front yard would be established in the absence of a building, it's just the front property line.

On the side and the rear, an eight-foot fence is permitted because it's adjacent to single family uses.

Yeah, just uh I I I just say if we drop it to six along the front and he builds eight foot on the west entire west side, the moment they pop a building there, that little piece on the side would be would be noncompliant.

At that point, correct.

Um up until that point.

You follow me?

So if so on this on the sketch up there, we're we're just talking about the front yard, but the front yard isn't established because there's no building.

So right now it's just what's what parallels uh Brady.

Um and so uh but the moment he they pop a building on there from the front of the building to Brady on the side, say it's forty feet or something, that little stretch, if he makes it eight feet will immediately will instantly become noncompliant because it's now considered the front yard instead of a side yard.

And so today the front yard is only the the stretch that parallels um Brady, but when they put a building in, it'll be the the front plus whatever goes up the side to the front of the building.

And so that's the same thing.

So if you so um if I heard the conversation, uh I thought this was solely for placing cars in the building that they are talking about was for the abutting lot.

No building.

Oh, there's no building.

Yeah, no building.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

Yeah, and so the building is on the s on the subsequent property further down, I think is is what I heard.

I apologize.

I I wanted to make I didn't know what you're gonna do in the future.

So we're we're just gonna open it up, uh open the division between the collision and that uh lot.

We're just gonna knock the fence down and open it up.

But it's no building, nothing.

We have the collision only.

Okay.

So there's a friendly amendment to take the frontage along Brady down to six feet.

Is that accepted?

I accept it.

All right.

So that's our new motion is to make it a um instead of a five-foot variance, it's a it's a three-foot variance to allow a six-foot fence along the front edge.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanias?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Share we.

And I concur with the findings of the fact.

Uh that motion passes for six foot along Brady.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

But I have a quick question.

So the side and the back, we can still do the eight.

Yes.

Okay.

Just the front.

We're doing six.

Joel uh we'll explain it to you.

Yeah, they'll Okay.

Sounds good.

Last is the minutes.

Thank you.

Anyone have any uh amendments or are everybody happy with what they saw?

I didn't have any, but looking for a motion then.

I move that we accept the minutes as written.

Okay, is there a second?

I second.

Second by Commissioner Vasquez.

All in favor say aye.

Motion passes.

Is there a director's report?

Uh not director's report.

Just uh one quick comment about the car ports.

Uh I think somebody made a statement about reaching out to the community.

Um obviously we do reach out whenever they come to the counter.