All right.

It is 102.

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

Can we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please?

Good afternoon, everybody.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Present.

Commissioner Dean?

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mena.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Chair Orion.

And I'm present.

We currently have nine, but we're expecting two more to join momentarily.

But in the meantime, if anyone could please stand and join me in the pledge.

A pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic or stand under individual liberty addresses for all.

Honor of the Texas flag.

Texas one state.

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 competent in the rules and regulations governing the city's zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

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

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

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

We have the authority to hear and decide appeals from 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 Element Services regarding requests for variances from the regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 28-5.

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

The burden approved and granting the release sought rests with the applicant.

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

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

Appeals from the board's decisions regarding Chapter 28 are made to the City Council.

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

Thank you.

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

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

Checkmarks and a case of property owners in favor of the requests.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

So I understand that item one has been postponed, and that item five is requesting a continuance till January 26.

If staff could do a brief presentation on item five.

So item five is uh real quick.

Uh Commissioner Bonneas, can you uh hear us?

Can you give us a sound check real quick?

You can unmute yourself.

Let me read our item five.

Um, testing.

Yep, we can hear you.

Can you hear us, sir?

All righty.

Um item five, BOA 251030238, request by Sargon for a three-foot special foot fence height special exemption for the massive three foot privacy fence to allow six foot front yard privacy fence and a ten-foot variant for a minimum fifteen foot driveway clear vision to allow five-foot driveway clear vision.

Located 9310 Magnolia Grove.

Staff recommended now in District 4.

And the applicant is requesting a continuance to January 26.

All right.

Is there a motion to continue to January 26th?

So moved.

Uh, and the second by Commissioner Manna.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

Item is continued to January 26th.

Uh we're on item number two.

Good afternoon, y'all.

This is item number BOA 251030195.

And it was continued from 111725.

It is addressed off 602-606 North New Bromfels and 1513 Dawson Street.

It is Council District 2.

The applicant is Iskander Skehill.

The request is an elimination of the required 200 foot separation to allow the use of a mobile food court within 200 feet of a residential lot or use.

The zoning is C2.

The subject property is located on the corner of North New Bromfels and Dawson Street.

The applicant is proposing the development of a new mobile food court on the three current vacant lots.

The unified development code requires that mobile food courts be established no closer than 200 feet of any single family residential use or single family zoning district.

The current distance to the residential lot is zero.

As the next door lot is zoned R for uh residential single family district and is used as a single family residence.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

The surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA 25-1030195 based on the following findings.

Fact.

One, eliminating the residential separation was injure residential properties as it does not provide sufficient distance between residential and non-residential uses intended for protection from potential noise and light pollution.

And two, the property owner may reduce the number of uh proposed mobile food court establishment to allow the maximum to operate without a variance approval.

There were 26 notices mailed, six in favor and two in opposition.

Both of the neighborhood associations are in denial.

Uh we asked again, uh, and they sent another denial letter.

So if you go to the next one, these are the ones that are in support.

And this is the original denial letters, and then they sent updated ones uh on the 17th, I believe, the morning of the 17th and the 16th.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

Good afternoon.

My name is Scandal Sakel.

Uh last time when I left, I did get in touch with the two ladies, the one that opposed, and they uh recommend for me to go to the ARC chair because they really cannot make that decision.

I said, no problem.

Uh did reach out to Ms.

Lulu Frank Hoy.

Hopefully, I got it right.

And uh we uh contact a couple of times, and we were on Zoom with another two or three ladies together.

And uh they ask a lot of questions, and I pretty much answered every question they asked.

And some of the questions they were worried about is how the trash is going to be picked up, the parking, which is I answered all the questions, and then the last thing they want to know the hours of operation.

And I gave them the hours of operations, what time we're gonna open, what time we're gonna close.

And then they asked me how many food trucks I'm planning.

I said right now my it's between eight and ten, and pretty much they adjusted.

How about if you do four?

Start with four and then you can build on it and see how that goes.

I'm okay with I told them I would look into it.

Absolutely shouldn't be a problem to look at it.

I can start with four and see how that goes and go from there.

At the meantime.

Why are we doing that?

Can you put this on the next one, please?

I know we have this circle.

So we can cover the two hundred feet.

I know that it's about six they send letters, but I did go out to every address and I got all their signatures.

Every address and they all pretty much uh pretty much all excited.

There's not one single resident in that four.

Excuse me.

One single resident, they say no, we don't like it.

Everybody pretty much excited.

Yeah.

With what's happening over there, I think it's something good for the neighborhood.

And um willing to do whatever it takes to get that things moving and on the right track in that area.

Okay.

Uh two questions for staff.

Uh on the presentation where there was a where the green check marks are in support, some of the check marks are uh straddling a lot line.

Is that in is that uh individuals who own piece pieces of a lot, or is that uh Okay.

So the so 1517 and 1523 are are in support, but not 1527?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm not sure why it appears that way, but when I had it on my computer, it was on the full lot line.

Okay.

And secondly, um we heard from the applicant of his discussion to limit it to four.

Are we allowed to impose a condition on this approval to four?

We're not okay.

So I'm putting that out there for everybody.

Commissioner Manor.

So I guess um what is the max that can be at this location?

So I guess there's three lots that we're looking at, and so there's is there a max per lot?

Uh two uh would be uh regular food service establishment once they go above two, then it's considered a mobile food court.

And I believe it is ten maximum.

So um so it's three lots, so would it be for that entire space that would be a max, or is it um that would be the number per lot with the three lots?

So in other words, by right, it's six on this on this particular property.

Correct.

And if you have three lots he can do six by right.

Um obviously he has to meet all the other standards of parking and all that stuff, which I think there might be an issue with the small lots, but six by right um and two and by three lots would be eighteen.

I'm sorry, he's saying two per lot.

So by right.

Two per lot.

Which is by right, by so it would be six.

Correct.

Okay.

But he would have to go through some significant work on like divvying up the property into three separate units, whatnot, um in meeting those regulations.

And if we approve this, then it's how many per lot?

Ten at a max.

Ten at a max per lot, so thirty.

Correct.

Okay.

So uh are you to the applicant, are you platting this as one lot or multiple lots?

Uh right now I'm not doing anything to see what we're gonna do.

I'm planning at some point to plot it all one lot.

But uh not at the moment right now.

Okay.

But just the question to answer uh I think 30 trucks it's way too many for that lot.

And I really want to stick with eight maximum ten, that's my goal, not to go and exceed the eight or ten.

That's my goal for now.

Okay.

What what I'm hearing uh from staff and from the applicant is that if you were to plant this as two lots, he could do four, which is what the neighborhood association seemed uh didn't wanted to try out first, uh, which would mean that he could then at that time come back to us if he wanted to get more with potentially a support letter from the neighborhood association.

But it is actually three lots, so you are gonna have six at this point.

He could, but but as staff said, one of the lots is really small, and it when you have parking and driveway access, logistically he may not be able to get that that.

But I think that um just to yeah, to clarify I see you know you're mentioning yes, there are three lots, but we wouldn't say you could do all of you know all the they would have to be seen designated as three separate uh locations, and so you could like each location would have to meet the minimum requirement of parking of landscaping and all those other items, like you wouldn't be able to push like all the food trucks in one location and all the parking to another location because then you would be considering that as one.

I mean, realistically you would want to plat this as two lots and have ingress secrets easements and come up with a cooperative parking agreement and then he could get do four and then come back to us and do up to 20 if he really wanted to.

But I mean I'm I'm just right.

Well well I think that I could get the six on those lots looking at the lots and designed so if I push them to the exteriors or whatever and allow for the parking in the center and/or you know the the the combined.

So I think I I would think I could get six on that lot if I if I was determined.

You know, and so that's where I was going with regards to you.

I think okay, the path you were going down was doing nothing and letting him plat it as his two lots and have them do four and see how it works out and then come back later if the neighborhood association approves.

Right.

And that's what that's kind of where so that's what I would say.

So he actually potentially could have six, and and so growth from the excuse me, either C Vineyus.

Um the focus here is on the elimination of the required two hundred foot separation to allow the use of a mobile food court within two hundred feet of a residential lot or use.

So it to me it seems kind of well the reason why we're talking about it is is that if we approve this today, the applicant if he plants it as two lots, he can have 20 units, which is grossly uh away from what the neighborhood association wants.

But would it that still require him to have the 200 feet?

Not if we approve separation to the residential.

Not if we approve this.

If we don't approve it, he's limited to two per lot without the 200 feet.

So that's that's why we're talking about that is because he's he's the neighborhood association could get behind four units.

If we if that was the case, if we should just do nothing and let him plat it as two lots, put it in his four units and see what happens.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah.

Is there any other questions?

And real quick, if that's your intention to see how it goes.

Um I would suggest to um either get the the buy-in from the applicant because he's gonna have to withdraw his request, because if this gets denied, then he has to wait a year.

And if it goes well for the next few months, then he still has to wait a year to reapply this FYI.

I mean, that's I'm I'm just that's just what I'm thinking.

I don't there's still 11 of us on here.

I don't know what everyone else thinks.

But Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Could I see the the letters from the neighborhood association again?

Chair Mayor.

Yes, Commissioner Reed.

Um have you had a conversation with the uh Dignity Association here?

I called and uh I sent an email.

Okay, so it looks like they have a number of questions that they may have wanted to be addressed, and I'm just curious if you had the opportunity to do so.

I did spoke to all of them on the phone.

We were supposed to be on Zoom.

We couldn't connect uh on Zoom, so I was on the phone with them with an ARC chair also Lulu.

She's the one Ms.

Francoe.

And uh she was directing the meeting.

They did have a lot of questions, and I believe I answered every question right or wrong to them, you know, but I did answer them all.

Okay, and I was curious if that conversation was happened after this letter was written, and if it appears since they have two letters, they didn't change their uh opinion.

But yeah, their their letter is they seem to be against the 200 foot rule violating that, yes.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yeah, uh for the applicant.

What days are you planning having this operating?

Is this uh uh through Sunday thing or are you doing weekends only?

Uh my plan is to go Wednesday through Sunday.

Okay.

What are the hours of operation for Wednesday, Thursday?

Those change over the weekend.

What excuse me, said again?

What are your hours of operation?

Weekends are they are you gonna stay over later?

No the plan is uh Wednesday, Thursday.

It'll be like uh 11 for lunch and then till about 10 o'clock in the evening, and uh have to evaluate when uh Friday and Saturday.

My plan is no later than uh 11 30 midnight.

That's the latest.

Okay.

Um here there are some boards that sell alcohol and sell alcohol here.

No I have no plans to sell alcohol, and I don't believe the trucks will sell alcohol.

No alcohol at all.

Okay.

Uh next question would be.

You have I know you had a site plan, but you have like a design plan of you could put the trucks where cars would enter, where they would exit, and where they would park.

Do you have something like that for us?

I don't have it handy, but I can provide that.

I do have a picture of the land and the big entrance.

Let's see if I have that here.

I don't know.

This is based on eight to ten food trucks.

Right.

And if we see where Dawson is, that's where the whole two big gates will begin, in and out from Dawson Street.

The center one, the center all tables, seating tables.

So there would not be any entrance from North New Braunfolds, because that's the main street.

I think you're on mute, Commissioner Bonias.

No, I I think we lost your audio, sir.

See, that's where the gates is gonna be.

And the gates right now is about uh a little bit over twenty feet.

Why?

So all the parking would be on the street, sir?

Excuse me.

I'm over here.

Missy Missy Minus.

All the parking is on the street?

On the street, and I uh I have a lot right there close to that also.

It's wide open.

Smile lot also is open.

My plan is to open the gate also for people to park there.

Yes.

What is the address of that other lot for the parking?

Uh 1517.

Dawson.

Okay.

So right now 1513 is one of the lots.

15 15.

I have a house on it also that's belong to me also.

And 1517, it's empty lot.

1515 is your lot?

Yes.

Okay.

So you still have to go through a zoning change to change the R4 to a to like an O one or something that would allow for commercial parking?

Yeah.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Hello, Bonias.

Commissioner Bunis.

There you go back now.

Um I had another question for the applicant.

Do you plan on having like an outdoor uh audio system, speakers?

They do at some of these food courts?

For music?

Uh uh pretty much, yes, that we're gonna have lights.

Not a strong lights, and we can have some kind of music, not a loud music, but will be some music.

Again, if if uh if the music gonna cause headache.

Do you have any plans like if you couldn't get this 200 feet?

Do you have something where you could settle maybe like on a hundred feet and still make this work?

Or does it have to be do you have to be the you do you need that this variance to be the full 200 feet?

Do we need to give you all of that for this to work?

So if he um I can't hear him now.

All right.

Can you hear me, sir?

Can you hear me, Commissioner?

I think the requirement is 200.

So uh uh I'll I'll just I I I heard the question is is the only lots in question, all the MF across the street.

I can't hear anything they're saying now.

Okay, I can't hear you all.

I'll type this in the chat, but if the intention is to rezone that property, the R4 property, then that would reduce it by about 35 feet.

Um so he would still need uh 165 foot um variance.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, any other questions?

Commissioner Manna?

So um this is uh I guess looking at the zoning maps, uh so C2 lots.

And so have you pursued um any type of we'll save um restaurant business there, so so buildings of that?

I I I've been getting requests, a lot of people asked me to do that.

I really did not do any of that.

Um I really didn't think about the food truck, but when I was there walking one night and see a bunch of people just walking late in the evening, and there's no much restaurants around.

They have to cross the street to go to restaurants.

That's what made me feel like to put a food truck in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Um just a question for the applicant right here.

You've got all this support by the neighbors that are directly impacted by this project.

I'm curious what the neighborhood association had to say when you presented that support to them.

Uh they like I said, they have few questions.

Well, I'd say few problems uh they asked the worry about the trash, who's gonna pick up the trash, restrooms.

Um we did cover the parking and um they asked the operations, the hours of the operations, which is I told them I don't think they oppose that.

And the biggest thing is how many food trucks I'm planning on putting.

That's the biggest thing.

And I think that the more than one that recommended let's start with four or five max, and then see how that goes with the traffic, with the trash pickup, with the music and all that stuff.

And then we look at it after that.

And I don't have an issue to do that.

I think uh start with that many.

I'm open to that, absolutely.

So across the street from Dawson, because I'm I'm confused about the green check mark that's uh what what which are the single family homes uh that are located across the street at Dawson?

I'm looking at 307, 311, 317, 323, and 327.

Which one of those uh was in support?

And I'm asking because uh the properties on the other side of the alley are are not as uh concerning to me as the ones who are going to have to put up with the street parking on Dawson.

And since the applicant owns the abutting property, those lots across the street uh kind of have some more priority to me as whether they're in support or not.

And they're addressed off of Gulf.

So you might need to look at Gulf.

Okay.

That was in support.

Okay.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Uh, just for everybody on the board, I'd I'd like to point out that they are addressed off of Gulf Street, so it appears that Dawson is the rear of these houses.

327 and 317 Gulf.

Okay.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I had a question.

So let's say we're progress uh progressing with the path of like the four food trucks.

What is the pathway if he wants to add more than the four?

Does he have to come back before the board to get that variance?

If we if we approve this, he can have up to thirty.

Right.

But if we don't, and he goes the route of the replat to get the four, then by ride.

Then he'd have to come back.

He'd have to come back for the board to get the variance for the setbacks to allow more than four trucks.

Yeah, the the issue is is we can't impose conditions.

There's no deed restrictions that we're negotiated with the neighborhood association.

So at this point in time, we either are going to give him the ability to realistically have up to 20, because if he plants it as two lot and has realistic parking, I think he could probably get 20 on there if he really wanted to.

Uh or we could do nothing and let him have four and see how it turns out.

It all depends on whether or not uh how how much weight you want to give the neighborhood association.

Because all the neighbors seem to be in support.

So the neighbor support was based on an unlimited right, other than the site plan.

I don't I don't know what they were.

They may have been told eight or ten.

I have no idea, but we we don't get involved with that.

If we approve it, he can realistically get twenty on there.

It's not none of the really ask how many food trucks I'm planning on putting.

The only one asked is the team, the association.

That's the only one.

Commissioner Braggman.

So the letters from the associations are dated October 20th and November 16th.

Did you have a conversation with the ladies after that time frame?

After.

Afterwards.

Thank you.

All right, is there anything else?

Is there any voicemails anyone's under speak?

Hello, this is Valerie Contest calling with the Dignity Hills Historic Neighborhood Review Committee regarding BOE K 25103 00195, located on North New Bronx Avenue and Dawson Street.

We agree with staff's recommendation for denial of the elimination of the 200 foot separation between this food court and the residential lot at 1513 Dawson Street.

And we support the applicant's ability to rent up to four food trucks on the lot.

What we are not in favor of is abatement of the 200 foot zone that separates the commercial lot from the applicant's residential lot, which is used as a rental property.

This is what we are referring to when we talk about commercial creek.

The city has established this 200 foot barrier for a reason to protect the residential property.

What happens if this food court is wildly successful with eight trucks selling food?

There will be vehicles parked on both sides of Dawson and possibly Nolan, which will cause traffic congestion for the residents.

Questions and concerns we have are as follows.

How often will the portal potties be maintained and clean?

Will this be gated at night?

What type of lighting will there be?

What type of guarantee will there be that a security guard are always on location?

Are there guarantees that a food court vendor won't sell liquor or beer?

What are the working hours of this proposal to report?

If this request is approved, it can open in a federal that will not be able to be contained.

Which the applicant told us is between two and four.

This would eliminate the need of the two of this would eliminate the need for the 200 foot separation between his mobile food court and the resent residential homes in the immediate area.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is Commissioner Bonis back on?

Does he have any additional questions?

Or not?

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission?

Is there any last uh concluding statements you'd like to make?

I'm good.

Okay.

Uh do you would you like to request an opportunity to further meet with Dignity Hill and perhaps work out some of these questions that they have?

I would love to meet with them.

I requested uh one-on-one meeting and uh they say we'll do it through Zoom or through the Okay, would you like a continuance to do so?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Uh when how long would you need?

I'm open.

You I mean it's holidays, I'd say a month.

Yeah, probably uh what's the second meeting in January?

January 26th.

January 26.

Is um anyone like to make a motion to continue this to January 26?

Read a motion.

All right.

Uh is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Ragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

We have one opposition, Commissioner Dean.

Uh motion passes.

We'll see you on January 26, staff.

January 26th.

Okay.

Yes.

And uh you've heard all the concerns, and we we look forward to hearing uh some positive news.

I'll I will have a lot of answers with that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Commissioner Manor.

Could the city also get uh with the applicant to discuss some of the things we're talking about with regards to workflows if lets it pass and timings that are allowed for him?

Um so if he just dropped it and then what that would provide for him in the future.

So that way he kind of knows all of those as well.

Yeah, we're welcome through that.

And there's nothing stopping you from doing deed restrictions to address neighborhood association concerns, just so you know.

Sure.

Certain commissioners might like that.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Item three commercial command uh bananas are able to hear us.

Uh we have Commissioner Reed ex uh recusing from item three, it's one thirty-seven.

Commercial Bonales are able to hear us.

Can we sending him a message or something?

I have called in before on to the public access number and was able to listen in to the meeting, although the dialogue was delayed by a few seconds, but that's a viable option if we need to.

Okay, and I uh really would rather not hear this case if staff's recommending denial with only nine members.

Um I think maybe we get read back in here and work until this gets resolved and we can get some of the ones where staff is approved.

There's no there's no approvals.

None left.

Do number eleven.

All right, staff.

Uh we'll wait till we get back in here and let's uh hear the presentation on eleven.

Yeah, we'll back in.

It is one thirty-nine, and Commissioner Reed has uh rejoined the meeting.

Item eleven.

Item number eleven is boa-two five-one zero three zero zero two five six at two thousand seven West Martin Street.

The applicant is Richard Ruby.

A request for a one-foot fence height special exception from the maximum five foot predominantly open fence to allow a six-foot predominantly open fence in the front yard.

The zone is C2.

The property currently maintains a six-foot predominantly open fence along the southeast portion of the front yard.

The Board of Adjustment approved a fence height special exception to construct this existing fence in in April 2024.

According to the applicant, continued instances of vandalism and loitering have taken place on the property, which has prompted the intent to fence in the remaining southwest portion of the front yard.

For this proposed new fencing, the applicant has requested a fence height special exception to maintain a consistent height with existing fencing.

The proposed new fencing fencing will not encroach into the minimum required site distance area at the corner of West Martin Street and North San Jacinto Street.

This is the site plan where in blue, which is the remainder of the front yard that remains unfenced, the board approved this area in 2024.

And this is a current view of the property.

And just highlighting where that existing front yard fences.

And the remaining photos of the surrounding area.

Based on the following findings of fact.

The increased fence height still promotes a sense of community while providing enhanced security and safety for the property, and the increased fence height will not alter the essential character of the district as a six-foot fence already exists in the southeast area of the front yard.

Twenty-four notices were mailed, one received in favor, zero in opposition, and the West End Hope in Action and Gardendale Neighborhood Associations are in favor.

And there was no response from Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association.

And this is support from the neighbor at 2113 West Martin.

And comments from the West End hope in support.

And from the Gardendale Neighborhood Association.

The applicant is present.

All right.

So the applicant come forward.

Good afternoon.

Please state your name and tell us about your fence.

Yes, my name is Alma Brown.

And this is our commercial property for uh our company, Lift Fund.

We're excited about moving back to 2007 West Martin.

And for the safety of employees, the safety, there's a school right behind us, uh Marhill Elementary.

Um we are requesting this one foot variance.

Essentially, it's a tree where the loitering is happening, where the trash is being collected, and so we would like to just move this fence around the tree so that it's within our property and not in the corner, you know, where the uh the bus stop is.

And this fence will tie into the existing wrought iron that we previously prevented.

All right.

That's correct.

Any commissioner questions?

Hearing none, any voicemails, anyone sign up to speak?

No public comment.

Well, then I'm looking for a motion Braggman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030256.

I move the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for a one-foot fence height special exception from the maximum five-foot predominantly open fence to allow six-foot predominantly open fence in the front yard situated at 2007 West Martin Street.

Applicant being Richard Ruby, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined sure the physical character of this property.

Is such a literal enforcement of the in of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the special except A, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter, as there is an existing six-foot fence located along the southeast area of the front yard.

Continuing the six-foot fence along the southwest area of the front yard will support the effectiveness of having an increased fence height for the purposes of safety and security for the property.

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

The predominantly open fence retains visibility and openness of the property while maintaining the security of the property.

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

The continuation of the six-foot predominantly offense fence along the southwest area of the property would not injure and injure neighboring properties as the fence complies with the site distance at the corner of West Martin Street and North San Jacinto Street and pain maintains visibility required for traffic safety.

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

The special exception will not alter the essential character of the district, as the property currently has an existing six-foot predominantly open fence along the southeast portion of the front yard previously approved by the board in 2024.

E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

The property is located is zoned commercial and the increased height is just one foot above the required five foot, which would provide additional security for the property.

End of motion there a second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bragman.

Uh yeah, I I feel like this is um pretty much a no-brainer.

It's a very small ask.

Um and obviously will secure the property even even more uh than the existing fence, so I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing now, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur the findings of facts.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Luna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Bonias and Chair Orion.

Yes, I concur.

The motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Is Commissioner Bonnie's fully back on?

We can take like a three-minute break.

Uh to try he's on, but we're trying to get the audio up.

All right.

Um before we do, I guess we can hear the minutes or something.

Um anyone had a chance to look at the minutes?

I looked through them.

I didn't see any adjustments needed.

Yeah, me neither.

Uh is there a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Manna Commissioner.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing nine minutes pass.

Uh we're gonna have a three-minute break.

We'll see everybody back here at 150.

We're gonna proceed to item three.

It is and then we'll hit item number seven.

It is one fifty-two.

Commissioner Reed is uh recuted recusing from items three and seven.

Oh, and Commissioner Cruz will be back momentarily, hopefully.

I'll give her a little bit.

Yeah, I think why she's coming.

All right, you can go ahead.

Item number three is BOA 25-103-0028.

The address is 120 East Agarita Avenue in console district one.

The applicant is Don B.

McDonald Architects.

A request for a 19-foot 11-inch variance from the minimum 20-foot rear setback to allow an attached carport with a one-inch rear setback.

The zone is R for historic.

The subject properties located within the Monte Vista Historic District on East Agarita Avenue.

The applicant proposes a new bedroom addition to the existing home at a split level above a new carport at the rear of the property.

Because the carport and bedroom will be attached to the primary structure at the rear, the 20-foot rear setback standard for the primary structure applies rather than the five-foot setback standard used for detached accessory structures.

Based on the submitted site plan, the addition falls within the rear setback at one inch from the rear property line, which abuts a 20-foot alley.

Per section 35516C of the UDC, lots that abut a public alley, one half of such alley can be considered as part of the minimum required rear yard.

Therefore, 10 feet of the alley can be applied to, in effect, reduce the minimum required rear yard from 20 feet to 10 feet.

This is just a summary given by the Office of Historic Preservation that the properties located within the Monte Vista Historic District.

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

Approval approval of a site plan or material submitted as part of a variance application does not supersede any requirements for design review outlined in Article 6 of the Unified Development Code on October 15, 2025.

The reviewed and approved the request to construct a rear addition.

And this is the site plan as submitted by the applicant.

Highlighted in yellow is where the addition will be, and the gray area is the existing home.

And this is just to give reference to what that would look like, with it being an addition and a carport, the first and second floor.

This is just the current view from the front and a garita.

And an overhead so you can see the full scope of the rear yard.

However, the addition is just going to be in this area.

And this is the rest of the area on East Agarita.

And the rear where the alley is.

If we apply the in effect, correct.

Okay.

The applicant come forward.

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

I'm Don McDonald.

I'm the architect and immediate neighbor to this project.

All right.

Um it's unusual in that um there's a it's a this is a young couple who recently purchased the house and and looking to add a bedroom to the to the cottage.

And because we're in Montana Vista, we cannot go to on the second floor in the front of the house.

And it even if we could, there's a two large tree limbs we would have to cut up on this part of the house.

And so the the next obvious solution is to go further back on the property.

But if you look at the side yard images, the property drops off about uh I don't think this is that property.

They may not be the side yard, anyway, the side yard drops off six to eight feet on either side.

So if we were to put the second floor um, you can see the side here.

You can see if we were to put the second floor um in place here, it would end up being 16 to 18, the floor would be 16 to 18 feet above the ground.

And so obviously both neighbors are highly opposed to this.

And so the least worst scenario is to go six to seven feet lower and put the the new bedroom on the back of the property above a carport.

Um the idea is that this would allow a carport to be inserted directly underneath it.

So the whole project has been pushed back as tightly as possible because the house with a minimum um uh staircase that that comes up from the back of the house uh to this structure.

Um looking so so it's it's it's the most sensitive um approach to the house, to the architecture, and to the neighbors.

It's it's just a 50-foot wide lot, so the idea of putting it where we could without a variance above the structure would just be really highly offensive to both neighbors.

And and so this is is where we landed and uh I think this speaks to that.

There the only other option is in there's a maybe a picture here of a tiny backyard, and and it would fill up the entire backyard.

You can see how this drops off.

So the second floor would essentially create a three-story house, which uh this neighbor has a patio that overlooks the house.

On the other side, the neighboring house is on this side.

Uh they're both larger properties, just a tight property.

Okay.

And so uh so that's where we're at today.

Um quick question.

Are you um if I'm inside the main house, can I is there a continuity of travel to get to the second floor area or is it completely accessed by an exterior stairwell?

You you you you can you go back one to that last picture where that one right there.

Okay, this is the existing kind of um laundry room back of house.

And so you'd essentially have to go down, it's a split-level house.

You'd have to go down six to seven steps and then go back up to get to it.

But but the alternative is to go up 19 steps to a high second floor.

So it's it's better than the alternative.

I'm just wondering if if I'm in the main house, I can get to the bedroom without getting the floor.

Well, yeah, that was the goal.

At that location would be a little stair that that S is back and and discreetly kind of tucks up to this bedroom.

All right.

Any commissioner questions?

Ma'am.

Commissioner Manna?

And so I I assume uh it's just the way this is worded.

So there is a I think a letter sent about you uh with regards to I was confused by with regards to uh strong desire to discourage any second floor addition and uh above the main house.

So that's what you are talking about is not to do that, but you're fine with the.

I know we could do that legally, but but both neighbors are very much against it.

Okay for obvious reasons.

Perfect.

Okay, I just want to make sure that I understood your your point there.

So great, thank you.

Any other commissioner questions?

Just concurring.

It's a 10-foot variance, right?

And not the 19-foot as 11 inches as stated in the variance motion.

So we we just stick to the um 19 foot 11-inch.

Um even we just highlighted what they can do by reducing it in the alley.

But just to keep the motion clean, we're just gonna go with the um regular 20-foot required setback uh with a 19-foot 11-inch variance.

So that's what is recommended then.

Sure.

And then I have a lot more questions.

In one of the pictures, is there an exterior fireplace or something at the at the base of that home, just to the left of the door?

Oh, no, that's just a a um little stone foundation, it's just a decorative element.

Okay.

It's a good one.

It's very interesting.

All right, great.

Uh well, if there's no other questions, I'm looking for a motion.

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Azuna.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030228.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for a 19 foot 11 inch variance from the minimum 20 foot rear setback to allow an attached carport with one inch rear setback situated at 120 East Agorita Avenue.

Applicant being Don B.

McDonald architects because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined shows that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

One, the variance is not contrary to public interest.

A one inch uh at one inch away from the property line, the carport is sufficiently spaced from the shared alley right away.

It would not interfere with the appropriate use of alley for public utility access.

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 only reasonable manner to expand the home built to 1918 is and preserve its historical character is by extending towards the rear.

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

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed and by granting the variance as the primary structure footprint extension would not contribute to congestion of the alleyway or limit it or limit its access.

Four, the variance is will not authorize the operation of use other than those you 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 its variance.

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

Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of this district as the extension is located in the rear and out of sight, thereby having no impact on the neighborhood uh block face aesthetics.

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

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

Staff finds the flight to the owner of the property for which the variance is saw is due to the unique circumstances existing as the property's historic designation and any expansion must be within the rear to preserve the original structures front facade and character in a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I'll be in support.

The alternative here is for the uh applicant to uh build up, and as you mentioned, it would be almost uh 30 foot imposing on to neighbors on either side.

Uh the neighbors have agreed to the proposed solution here, which is pushing towards the rear.

It's a uh which I believe is is a reasonable uh compromise, and uh we have the buffer with the alley that provides adequate uh spacing between the properties to the rear.

So I'm supporting the motion as read.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague additionally, you know, so we had the historic district agree with it.

Um and then um three quarters of the properties that back up to this um to Zalley have similarly spaced structures uh to this facade, so it looks like that's just by design how this is going to be.

Great.

Any other commissioners like to add?

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

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevenson.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 9 to 1.

Uh, we're now going to hear item number seven.

No, he has to requise on that one.

Item number seven is BOA-25-1030251, the address being 116 East Agarita Avenue in Council District 1.

The applicant is Don B.

McDonald Architects.

And this is a request for a 3 foot 6 inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow a carport in the rear yard with a 1 foot 6-inch side setback, including a three-inch overhang limited to the west side property line.

The property zone R4H.

The applicant has proposed the installation of a carport in the rear yard of the property to be accessed through the alley.

The carport is proposed to be only one foot six inches away from the side property from the side property line.

Uh therefore the applicant has requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment to permit a side setback reduction for the construction of the proposed carport.

No construction has begun and no permit applications have yet been filed.

Shown here is a site plan of the property and the proposed carport.

Now this differs from the case that we just heard.

This is a detached structure.

So the rear setback here is satisfied due to the allowance of the alleyway there.

This is regarding just the side setback and the uh proximity that they are proposing there.

Um if we go to the next slide, we can blow it up a little bit more.

Yeah, this is a little bit of a clearer image.

Um you can see there next to the one icon is showing one foot nine to the post.

Uh counting for the overhang, the setback would be one foot six inches.

Um and there is an existing CMU plaster wall that you can see here on the site plan, and we can take a look at what that looks like on the next slide.

So here's the subject property from the front, and here's the rear yard, the location of where that carport is going to go in the rear yard, and you can see the plaster wall, the CMU wall there to the right.

Uh this is the surrounding area.

Uh this is the entrance of the alley.

And then deeper in there, this is the surrounding area again from the alley.

Uh that's the uh where the entrance of the of the carport would go for this property.

You can kind of see the the wall there again uh on the left side of that there.

And this is just some images of similar uh entrances in the area through the alleyway.

Uh staff recommendation for the carport side setback variant.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030251 based on the following findings.

A fact uh one, the variance is contrary to the public interest as there would be insufficient space to support the maintenance of this structure, and two, there is uh sufficient space within the rear to support the construction of a smaller carport without encroaching into the minimum required side setback area.

Staff mailed out 28 notices, two were returned in favor, zero in opposition, the Monovista Historical Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the San Antonio Texas District One resident association did not respond.

And here is the support received by staff for this request, and this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Alright, thank you very much.

So you said CMU wall?

Yeah, it's that stone brick wall there that you can see if we can go back to it there.

Uh it's pre-existing on the property.

So what's it what is CMU stand for first?

So I don't know.

Oh, one of the engineers maybe on the board can answer that.

Concrete masonry unit.

Concrete masonry unit.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so um, and that's taller than six foot.

It definitely is, and uh the best research that we could find on the property is that it's it's existed uh on the property um for for some time, and I think the applicant can probably Yeah, the house was built in 1928, but I'm sure the applicant being an architect can provide a lot of so my subsequent question then um is uh fire spread.

If there is a CMU wall between one structure and another, does that resolve fire spread dialogue if it's that tall?

Well, the CMU wall is definitely I think that's a two-hour fire rating, could be a four, depending if it's filled or not.

And it's getting a little bit too technical, but I know it's it is a rate, it's considered a rating.

Okay.

At the permitting stage, I'm sure the permitting staff would be able to kind of uh consider that um as part of that review process.

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

Um I'm Don McDonald, and uh this is an unusual condition because this driveway and wall originally belonged to the adjoining property.

And so 20 foot was purchased in order to put the driveway in place here 30 years ago.

And so um the the setback was established because that was essentially a firewall that was there that would would support I think there was probably uh a garage here at one point that was for the neighboring property.

The the drive circled around and exited on Maine back back originally.

And so and so uh it we could have purchased more land at the time.

I mean we could have expanded it, but felt like it was getting a little aggressive for the adjoining property.

And uh and so it was just a good place to make that break.

There's also an additional five feet between the wall and the neighboring building that's there already, anyway.

So the goal is just to simply put up a carport between uh that existing wall and the wall that that we built about 15 years ago on the opposite side.

And uh allowing just to come in off the alley.

Commissioner Manna.

So so is the plan to have the carport uh attached to my new CMU learned wall.

Yes.

So it's good so it's gonna be attached to it and it essentially will function as a sheer wall for the carport.

So it's just a real simple, straightforward uh resolution.

Uh someone mentioned earlier that that it's it's typical on this block.

We counted 20 different outbuildings that abutted the alley.

Um and and uh half of those are up against property lines for various reasons, some are attached to other garages.

So um so the wall is owned by you all or by the applicant and um and it's apparently one foot six inches off the property line.

From from the wall itself is or the or on the other side.

The proposed carport.

Well I'm just trying to take into the thickness of the wall.

If you own the wall and that that's part of it, or is or does the wall become part of the carport?

Can we zoom into that dimension?

I think there was a I just saw that.

I just saw the blow up of that.

Uh what is that dimension, Lord?

You know?

One six.

The assumption is it is an eight-foot wall, it might be a twelve inch.

So that we're six inches off the property line.

Six to eight inches off the property line.

The the existing wall.

The proposed car port would then technically be incorporated into the wall, right?

So if w we're w what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioner is that you're you're attempting to build a carport which is attached to the masonry wall.

Yes.

Okay.

And because it's attached to the masonry wall and it only has a wall on one side, it's still considered a carport because it's not covered on multiple sides.

But since that masonry wall is part of the carport, does that mean that the masonry wall has to be included with any setback evaluation?

Correct.

So if he's if if he's uh right now it's been advertised to be 18 inches, but it's really it's only six inches, and we can't go that low, so should should this have to come back to us with the re-advertisement?

Correct.

Yeah, if he's attaching it to the masonry wall, that changes the configuration that makes the wall part of the carport.

So uh so just uh for the applicant we can't go less than what was advertised and it was advertised to be eighteen inches.

So because it's attached, your carport is attached to the masonry wall, we have to include that with any setback evaluation, which means we we really should have advertised this with a setback of six inches.

Uh so we're not allowed to vote on that today.

Um staff I'm sure can bring this back to us as soon as possible.

Um but I apologize.

But luckily you're here for another case in.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, very good.

Okay.

So if you get with staff, they'll tell you about when you can come to the meet next meeting.

Uh I don't know with our timing uh because there do there has to be so many days' notice.

I don't know if you can catch the first meeting in January if it's that the timing is possible, or is it has to come on the 36th?

Okay.

Could we uh not attach it to the wall structurally?

So if you don't want to attach it to the because that's what we're attracting.

We're attracting the carport is gonna be one and a half feet from the um property.

From the uh from the wall.

But if you're not attaching it, or if you're not attaching it, that means you have um one second.

If you're not attaching it, it'd be we could vote on it today.

We don't tie it in with the structure if we change the engineering.

But we'd have to come back.

But then the other thing is that if you come back, now your your masonry wall is included and you're there's the you've kind of fixed all these outstanding things.

Well I have to go back to the engineer to find out if we can pull that off.

It doesn't matter to me if we attach it or not.

And just to say, if you have three feet with no overhang past those three feet from your property line and it's not attached to the wall, you don't need to go to the board of adjustment at all.

You just need a three-foot setback from your property line with no overhang past that three feet.

Which it would have to be closer to in three feet.

Yeah, so I I would recommend this just be postponed, re-advertised as it and the staff will talk to you about your options and what the appropriate way to do that is.

Okay.

Okay.

I mean that way we're and manna.

So and and and if it comes back and and you want to not attach it to the wall, you have that option.

You know, if you code through this, and that's a that gives you those two options then at that point.

And we do have a voicemail.

And we'll and and after we hear the voicemail, do we have to make a motion or can you just postpone this?

No, yeah, we can't make a motion because it's more than what was advertised.

So we could hear the voicemail, but we're gonna have to play it again during the voicemail.

Hi, Susan Dicky phoning.

I'm at 129 East Agarita.

Uh my number is 210, 2130924, and I'm calling about case number zero two five one.

I am calling to fully support the variants that they're requesting.

Uh I see absolutely no reason why they should not get this variant approved.

So we are for it as neighbors across the street.

Thank you.

Bye.

All right.

So with that, this item is considered postponed.

Um please discuss thoroughly with staff and the next time it comes to us, we'll take care of we'll see how it turns out.

For sure.

Thank you.

All right, we are back on item four.

And if you can have Commissioner Reed, yeah, come back in the right.

Item number four is BoA-25-103-00236, addressed at 2769 Nakadochis Road in Consul District 10.

The applicant is cold Smith.

A request for one, a six foot six inch and twenty-six foot six inch variants from the minimum required 10-foot side and 30-foot rear setback to allow accessory structures with a three-foot-six-inch side and rear setback.

Two, a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow accessory structures within the side and rare setback area of a non-residential district, which abuts a residential district.

Three, a shipping container design variants to allow shipping containers altered without siding and a roof.

And four, a fence material variants to allow for sheet, roll, or corrugated metal limited to the as-built portions, the zone is C1.

Currently on the property is an unoccupied restaurant with outdoor dining and seating areas, a playground, a barbecue pit room, storage sheds, and shipping containers utilized for storage.

This case originated as a court enforcement investigation in April 2025 for building without permits regarding the outside patio cover and the addition of another storage container.

Because the property abuts residential districts to the side and rear, the standard requires all accessory structures to meet a 10-foot side setback and a 30-foot rear setback rather than the typical five-foot side and rear setbacks required for detached accessory structures.

While the use of shipping containers for storage as a primary use on the properties not permitted in the C1 base district, they are allowed as a secondary use on the condition that a building permit is issued for the installation and alteration of the shipping containers' appearance to include siding and a roof.

Staff also observed the use of prohibited prohibited metal fencing material at various points along the front side and rear property lines.

For the side setback, it's should be 10 feet, and no structure should be located in the side setback or the rear setback unless it's a carport in non-residential districts.

These accessory structures were found to be at least three foot six inches from the side and the rear.

And the current view of the restaurant area.

And what the current shipping container design is without a roof and siding.

And the side setback, and you can see a use of the metal fencing as well in the fence design.

And some other examples located along the fence area.

And these are the surrounding areas.

Based on the following findings of fact.

One, there is insufficient separation between the commercial and residential uses, which would result in a significant loss of light visibility and airflow on the adjacent residential residential properties.

And two, accessory structures except for car ports are prohibited within the side and rear setbacks of lots adjacent to a residential district.

Staff's recommendation for the shipping container design variants is denial in BOE-25-103-00236 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the current alteration does not appropriately conceal the appearance of the shipping containers, nor does it incorporate siding and a roof into the design.

And two, the property owner has the option to rezone the property with a specific with a specific use authorization for storage shipping container rather than to comply with the design standards.

Staff's recommendation for the fence material variants is denial in BOA-25-103-00236 based on the following findings of fact.

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

And two, the utilization of metal in the fence in design does not appear to enhance security or privacy for the property.

Twenty-three notices were mailed, one received in favor, and the subject property is not located in the boundaries of a registered neighborhood association.

And this is the support received.

This concludes staff's presentation.

So the on the corrugated metal, um, I didn't see item number four on the site plan.

Do you have uh uh a depiction of where those existing locations are?

Because well, in the photos they are, but the rear side, there's some metal fencing, and in order to highlight it, I just left it as to the as built portions, but you could clearly see it along Nakadoches on Woodbury and even a button that side.

I was just asking because uh whoever makes a motion on that.

I know I personally like to be more specific, whether there's there's something tangible to say, hey, this is where it is, this is what we're approving.

Uh uh as opposed to that uh is it like would you say 50 percent of the of the fencing is corrugated metal?

No, I would not say 50 percent.

However, from our view, we're unable to see this portion, so put in a number to it.

Maybe the applicant can help us.

Okay.

We'll have the mana.

We the uh side plan on the attachment has the number four illustrated on it.

We'll put it on there while the applicant speakers.

Oh, it does?

Uh I apologize.

This is not on here for some reason.

I think it fell off.

Like y'all might have something, and we're gonna he's uh and do you know how this case was brought you brought to y'all's attention or brought to our attention.

Yes, this was from a code enforcement investigation.

So there were two active investigations, one for the installation of another shipping container and the addition of a covered patio.

Was it a community called it in or was it just drive-by-do you know?

That part um uncertain of.

I can definitely check into that.

Please do.

Okay.

Well, let's have the applicant come forward.

If you could please sure.

As soon as uh we if you do talk, I have to have you state your name.

Sure.

Uh so we have that on the record.

And so state your name and tell us about your project.

Very good.

My name is Rick Greenfield.

I'm the owner of the property.

Um I'm a local businessman entrepreneur and uh bought this property in uh late 2024.

Okay.

And this is Colt Smith.

He's my employee, general manager, property manager, and he's also got a background in general contracting, so he's kind of helped me navigate some of these processes.

Okay.

I'd like to start if possible by even just going back to one of the first slides where it talked about and what you just mentioned about opening up this investigation.

Everything that we're talking about today was in existence when I bought the property.

Um it had an operating uh restaurant.

Uh there was a certificate of occupancy.

Um we had to we had some open permits when we bought the property.

There were some electrical permits that uh we had to get closed in a plumbing permit.

Actually, spent a ton of money upgrading all the electrical to be able to close out these permits in the process of final inspection.

That's when someone decided to open up these cases.

But all of this was 100% existing when we bought the property.

Just want to make that really clear.

Um, oh, okay, that's good.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um I don't know what um if we want to just start by asking questions or if I should just explain that uh, you know, again, uh, the connexes are here.

They provide a barrier between this restaurant, there's an outdoor yard that um there's live music, there's lights, um, lots of people, there's kids playing.

Um you know, so again, I did not know that there were any code violations and wouldn't have expected to there have been with the operating CO in place, right?

So two uh two operating COs.

Um and even satellite imagery shows that these were there probably at least uh from 2018 or longer.

They have painted murals on them.

Um they're really pretty, I think, especially if you're in the restaurant and whatnot.

They're not really highly visible from the roadway.

That picture that you see is like walking all the way up to the fence and and taking those pictures.

But from the roadway, they're not even very visible.

Um we've done a lot to and uh beautify this property from where it was when we first bought it.

Everything from landscaping to painting to cleaning up the grounds.

I even paid $6,500 to get the church.

A new sign because it was dilapidated, and I thought that would help the community look a little bit better.

Um I certainly want to be within compliance, but to remove these would be an astronomical fortune and would severely degrade the atmosphere that that was created by the previous owners.

And that I for the reasons I bought the property, quite honestly.

So I don't even really know what to ask for.

Just like some form of leniency on allowing us to keep these containers.

Again, that's been there for a very long time.

It's also aesthetic.

I mean the BCAD shows that the restaurant was built in 1948.

So it seems like it's been a restaurant for a long time.

What are you using the storage containers for?

Is there like a bar coming?

No, well they were actually loaded with tons of junk, and we've emptied them out for the most part.

We are using them for light storage at this point, just uh restaurant supplies.

Some of them are almost completely empty.

Um one of them is or was, I should say, utilized as an office, but we've taken everything out of it.

And they're really just there.

They provide a barrier, like I said, really between us and there's an apartment complex on this side where it says 30 foot rear setback.

That's a parking lot and apartment complex.

You have a massage place, uh commercial zoned place right over here.

And then there's a couple of residences on that back left-hand corner.

The reason why I ask is uh the picture that shows the light blue connects with the hamburger rocketing up in the air.

It looks like there it like there's some sort of a window or something that opens up that could be a a distribution, like a like a bar or something.

No, that that's where the office was.

Okay.

Um it's it's it's set up like a little office in there.

We actually just keep some musical equipment in there for the bands.

Okay.

Any commissioner questions?

Manna?

Commissioner Manor?

Question for city staff.

So so should this be approved?

Um I guess what uses could those connect containers be made uh utilized for?

You know, uh are there limitations or or is that opening up completely then at this point?

I mean, they could be used for anything that is permitted by right in a C1 or accessory to the restaurant use.

In other words, so could they um make it a uh not so mobile food court and start selling food out of those those containers?

Well, again, they would have to be um and I apologize, I need to strike that original item.

So it couldn't be just anything in a C1 use because then they would have to comply with setbacks.

It would have to be if they're going to be kept as accessory structures, it would be accessory to the restaurant.

And um that they could also serve food out of there, but again, it would have to be accessory to the restaurant use or whatever is the main use of the or the use of the main structure.

Does that I hope that makes sense?

Okay.

Any other questions?

Stevens and Mr.

Stevens.

Have you ever had any complaints from your neighbors on the south side?

That's probably what I'm more concerned about from a setback standpoint on the on the west side, northwest side, you're abutting multifamily parking lot.

So uh I think being closer to that line line is okay.

But no, we've not had any complaints.

And I'm sorry, just to also reiterate uh Commissioner Manna, you had a question.

It looks like it was uh the complaints were voiced in through the call center, so somebody did call, but they didn't leave any information or anything like that.

Okay.

Commissioner Cruz?

Okay.

Um, got me thinking.

So if there was a complaint through the phone, did you all know about this?

Or was it something totally new to you all that all of a sudden somebody uh that's why you all got inspected?

No, uh I have honestly I have no idea.

I've not heard of any complaints.

That's the first I've ever heard of any sort of a phone call complaint.

I actually don't know a hundred percent why this was this case was opened up, um, but it was temporal to when we were being inspected for some permits that we were getting closed, and then uh a lot of questions got raised about you know, what are these connexes doing here and so on and so forth?

And so we've been in a very long process at this point working through these issues.

Okay, so how long has the business been closed before you bought it and started working on it again?

There was an uh operating business when I bought it.

Okay.

And I continued operations of that business up until uh October, and I actually ceased operating my restaurant in October.

But it was an operating business when I bought the land, and I continue those operations.

All right, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Any other questions?

Is there anyone centered to speak or voicemails?

No public comment.

Okay.

Um is there any uh anything else you'd like to add before we move on?

And oh I actually I do have one question.

You had mentioned it was I know it would be very difficult, but you could theoretically move some of the these connex boxes.

How far away could you move one?

And more particularly uh the ones that are abutting the homes.

Um if we needed to meet the variance, I mean meet the requirement, which I believe is ten feet.

Because there are roughly five feet right now.

One of them is a little bit more like four feet.

Um, I I don't know what all is involved in moving a connect like this.

Um I think it could cause us to tear up some of that like astro turf that's in there and whatnot.

But um there wouldn't be any major harm in moving them another five feet out.

I mean, obviously we'd lose some of the play area uh space there.

Um but it certainly could be done.

I I'm obvious I'm much more concerned about this 30 foot variance on the side that's up against the uh parking lot in the apartment complex, because that that would just I'd have to just remove it.

And what what year did that there was an additional connect added?

Do you know when that was done?

We didn't add any additional connexes.

Everything on the property was there at the time that I purchased it in the city.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Let's move on to a motion.

Um looking for a motion.

Stevenson.

Commissioner Stevens.

Mm-hmm.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030236.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a six foot six inch and a twenty-six foot six inch variance from the minimum required ten foot side and thirty-foot rear setback to allow accessory structures with a three-foot-six-inch side and rear setback.

Two, a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow accessory structures within the side and rear setback of a non-residential district, which abuts a residential district.

Three, a shipping container design variance to allow shipping containers altered with siding without siding and a roof, and four, a fence material variance to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal limited to the as built portions situated at 2769 Nacadochis, applicant being Colts Smith, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The accessory structures are sufficiently separated from the abutting residential properties to the side and rear and would not adversely impact those residences.

The shipping containers are altered with an artwork which appropriately conceals the conventional appearance of a shipping container, and the fence material is sparsely used along limited portions of the property lines to complement the design of the primary structure of their fire therefore thereby having no substantial effect to neighborhood aesthetics.

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

Relocating the accessory structures to be outside the rear and side setback areas would significantly reduce the size of the established outside dining and entertainment areas.

The current property owner would have to improve the shipping containers by adding roofing and siding to each of the container units which were placed on the property prior to their ownership.

And the middle fencing would need to be removed and installed with an allowable material thereby removing the visual cohesion of the restaurant and associated structures on the property.

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

The structure separation from adjacent residential uses with minimum three foot six inch side and rear setback is sufficient for the prevention of potential nuisances and would not create a substantial loss of light visibility and airflow on those adjacent residential properties.

The current appearance of the shipping containers preserves the characteristics of the surrounding area by incorporating artwork to promote a welcoming and neighborhood friendly atmosphere.

And granting the variance would not under undermine the intent of the ordinance or contribute to a visual blight within the neighborhood.

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

The appropriate use of the conforming properties to the rear and side would not be injured as the setback reduction provides an adequate separation between commercial and residential uses necessary to reduce potential nuisance of light and noise pollution.

Granting this variance would not alter the essential character of the district as the artwork can be considered an improvement to the to the typical appearance of a shipping container.

And the fence material and the manner of which it is used on this property are not uncharacteristic of a pro of a properties and district designated for non-residential use.

The part 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 the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds that the unique circumstances for this variance requests were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial.

The current owner purchased the restaurant along with its existing accessory structures used for storing necessary restaurant supplies and equipment.

Staff finds that the variance requests are from unique circumstances on the property, specifically that the shipping containers were placed on the property in 2019 prior to the applicant's ownership.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the location of the property on the secondary arterial and the need for privacy screening for the associated outdoor dining and activity areas.

End of motion.

All right.

Not having had any issues with your neighbors directly to the south was my primary concern, and it appears that there is adequate space around these containers to maintain them.

The containers on the north northwest side, but a parking lot, so I think that there should be some leniency in terms of setbacks there and asking for you to pull it 30 feet off just seems like an issue in terms of your business and losing space to sell to patrons.

So I'll be in support.

Alright, thank you.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

And so for a couple of reasons.

One is that with regards to the setback on the one.

So essentially these become, from our perspective, tall fences that are kind of sound insulating this business from those neighbors.

And so I look at that as a little bit of a benefit.

And while it is a we'll say a little bit unique with regards to having these structures there versus we'll say what we normally see as structures, I see that this is an appropriate use or not an inappropriate use on this property.

So I'll be voting in favor.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I think with the uh the existing setback, there's adequate space for them to maintain that backside between the fence and the uh container unit.

So I don't think there's an issue with them being able to get back there and maintain that space.

So again, anyone else?

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

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibandes.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of the fact.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orient.

And I can concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

If you happen to have any questions, you can get a stat.

We do the fencing material.

The fencing, I think, was part of this because it's a variance, yeah.

All right.

So we are on item number six.

Item number six is BOA-25-1030250.

The address being 718 Trafalgar Road in Council District 1.

The applicant is Ivan Rubalcaba.

And this is a request for one, a three-foot-eight-inch special exception from the maximum three-foot solid fence to allow a five-foot-six-inch solid fence with six-foot eight-inch columns limited to the free standing wall as constructed in the front yard.

Two, a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 25-foot corner clear vision area to allow an 18-foot corner clear vision area.

And three, a four-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear division area to allow an 11-foot driveway clear division area limited to the gate in the rear yard.

The zoning is R4.

In October 2024, during an investigation of the subject property, code enforcement staff observed a new stone wall constructed in front of the home.

The wall was noted to have been constructed over the maximum allowable three feet and without a building permit.

The property owner's intent is to cover the wall with foliage as a landscaping feature.

However, UDC Section 35514A3 states that freestanding walls, not integral load-bearing portions of a structure, whether constructed of masonry or wood framing, shall be considered fencing, and thereby must abide by fence height standards.

The free standing wall in the front yard exceeds the maximum allowable fence height and encroaches into the minimum required corner clear vision area.

A gate installed along the side property line and in the rear yard also encroaches into the minimum required driveway clear vision area.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property, item number one being that freestanding wall and the height of that wall.

It also encroaches into the corner clear vision area there on the corner of the Jones Maltzburger Access Road and Trafalgar Road.

And then three, towards the rear of the property, there is a gate that was recently installed in front of that driveway that is within the driveway clear vision area.

And this is a historical view of the property from January 2023.

And this is the current view of that property with that freestanding wall there in the front.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special exception.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030250 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the fence height special exception would not support the spirit and purpose of the chapter as the freestanding wall creates a visual obstruction in the front yard area of the property.

And two, the neighboring property would be limited in its access to a free and open view from their own front yard by the visual obstruction the freestanding wall creates.

Staff recommendation for the corner clear division.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030250 based on the following findings of fact one, the variants would not support the spirit of the ordinance as the visual obstruction of the freestanding wall at the corner of this lot creates a traffic hazard, and two, the variants would substantially alter the essential character of the district as no similar obstructions in the corner clear vision area were observed in the immediate surrounding area.

And staff recommendation for the driveway clear vision area.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030250 based on the following findings.

A fact one, the variants would support the spirit of the ordinance as there is sufficient clear vision area to safely exit the gate.

And two, with less traffic utilizing this access road, there is no significant traffic hazard created by the proposed driveway clear vision area reduction.

Staff mailed 18 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Crown Hill Park Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the San Antonio, Texas District One resident association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

So just a good question.

Does that apply on the entire block face or is that only in front of those two homes?

I can look into that just by doing a quick Google street drive-by.

I'm actually not sure off the top of my head, but I can get that info for you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I'm just trying to try to see if no cars are allowed anywhere on that side of the block that helps enlighten me on traffic concerns.

Absolutely.

Let me let me grab that.

Okay.

Commissioner Manner.

So there is a no parking sign with a single arrow on the butting property pointing towards that corner.

So it does look like it's one houses deep.

Yeah, I didn't see.

I didn't catch that one.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's turned kind of sideways, wonky-ish.

Oh, there it is.

Apologize.

Yeah, so it looks like it's it's just for the for those two homes.

Okay.

Hello.

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

Okay.

My name is Nancy Allen's.

I am representing my ECM student.

Yes, speaker.

Ma'am.

I have to tell you, I can it's I can hear everything, right?

I know it's tougher for.

You're spoiled right there.

Okay.

Okay.

My name is Nancy Alanis.

I am representing my nephew Ivan Rubikava.

He is a medical student.

He wanted to be here, but his class, he had class commitments and could not be here.

He is the owner of the property at 718 uh Trafalgar.

Uh I wanted to address uh the one question you had at uh in the beginning before begin.

You asked about the parking signs, and the nadatorium is directly across the street, and every week there are cars parked all the way down on both sides.

They irrespective of those do not parking signs.

So there's uh they have activities at that nadatorium all the time, and that both sides of the street are just loaded with cars on that side on the on the on the side street where the driveway is, they're packed all it's all the time.

It's a routine.

Um, to begin, my nephew applied for this variance, and uh in support of the variants, he went block walking to 50 homes in this neighborhood, talked to neighbors, showed him his variants, showed him the emails, uh, his communications, and he received uh 50 signatures from neighbors in support.

And uh his uh I would like to begin by saying in 2022, when he purchased this property, he uh Crown Heel Neighborhood Association was having meetings, and in the meetings they were asking neighbors to support the construction of a 350 uh unit complex across the street from his home.

And uh during the meetings, uh Councilman Bravo was appearing at the meetings, and he was urging uh urging the residents to support the project and in lieu of neighbors' concerns about the uh increased traffic, increased noise, increased uh vehicle uh traffic.

He said, you know, uh we know you guys are going to have fencing concerns, uh, et cetera.

Go to the City of San Antonio Development Services, and we can uh we can uh help you do landscape walls, fencing, and we will be supportive.

And so my uh they handed out an information bulletin number 171, and uh that's exhibit one that uh was attached to the application and in relevant parts.

I'm gonna stop here.

So you mentioned a uh 50 signatures, and now you are on this infobuletin.

Is any of that staff can you show any that for the back?

I provided uh the signatures to uh Joel.

Okay.

Can you oh there we go?

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's at exhibit eight.

And if you'll flip the first page, 10, the second page, 10 signatures, the third page, 10 signatures, the fourth page, 10 signatures, the fifth page, 10 signatures, and all the neighbors were in support, and he didn't have anybody objecting, and everybody was familiar with his wall.

He took photos.

Uh if you uh take a look at the uh application, the signature application, uh he identifies what he's given to neighbors, there his emails, the application, the uh variants uh uh information provided by Joel, and uh it's all listed, everything he he took to the neighbors, every house, and neighbors were allowed to look at the materials, the emails, everything.

And so he did collect the fee.

But uh was I think the mic.

Okay, that was me.

I apologize.

So basically, the uh at these neighborhood meetings he was given bulletins.

Uh the neighbors were given these bulletins.

It was bulletin 171, and on page 206, there's a heading called landscape walls, and it says landscape walls are designed by landscape architects or other strictly for landscaping purposes, though not strictly defined.

They may be large, heavy boulders, limestone blocks, placed for landscaping purposes only.

These landscape walls are included in the scope of this information bulletins, since they are stand-alone walls and soil is retained.

Landscaping walls will be recategorized as retaining walls if the wall is 10 feet or higher in height.

And so that was bulletin 171, and it was dated March 19th, uh 2010, revised January 6, 2022, and this is what was being handed out at the Crown Hill Neighborhood Association meetings.

My nephew, thereafter, he uh it's exhibit two, Joel, if you want to show them.

He went to uh he uh went to development services, he took a diagram down to development services, and he showed them this is the landscape wall I would like to do in the front of my property, and he was given the name of Leslie A.

Zavala, Senior Plants Examiner, City of San Antonio Development Services Department email, Leslie.zavala at San Antonio.gov.

And then uh after he took it down, he started having communications with Leslie.

And uh exhibit three, Joel is my nephew's uh, this is his email to Mr.

Vala.

He said, I'm designing a landscape wall for the front of my house that is not more than 10 feet in height.

Can you please let me know whether I can begin building or if I need to submit any further application with the city?

And then exhibit four.

She uh uh Leslie Zavala responded to Ivan on November 23rd, 2022.

And she the she said, I apologize for the delay in your response.

A permit is not required for construction as long as your proposed landscape wall is strictly for landscaping, not more than 10 feet in height, and does not support support a surcharge.

You may start construction at any time, and no inspections from the City of San Antonio are required.

And I would I would place an emphasis added on that.

And the email goes on.

She's explaining other things, but that is the key uh information on her email.

And my nephew relied on that, and uh he fully relied on that information.

He talked to contractors, he talked to uh you know uh builders, he talked to, you know, uh in you know, investigated the type of rock or stone or whatever he was going to use and invested over $5,000 in in getting materials and stuff to build this landscape wall.

I just wanted to chime in on that.

Sure.

So there's a difference between a fence, a wall, a landscape wall, a retaining wall, retaining wall with the surcharge.

The staff wasn't in error when they said that you can build a landscape wall and they put the imposed conditions.

But on your plan, those those stone limestone blocks are what we call butter bars are about two feet, 18 inches to two feet by about five feet.

You can see them in the front uh right right behind them, directly behind the mailbox.

That's a land that could be a landscape wall.

But the the wall in question that we're discussing today, that's not a landscape wall unless I'm well he was he showed uh that's why I read it But he didn't turn in for a permit.

Right.

And Leslie and Leslie said uh or the bulletin that he shared with Leslie that he was given was the one where it says you can l use large heavy boulders, limestone blocks placed for landscaping purposes, and or maybe walls placed in the cut or fill application strictly for the protections by existing trees.

Yeah, that's but I I I understand, but that's that info bulletin has no application towards the wall that is before this board today.

That's not a landscape wall, and it should have never been perceived as one.

Uh staff, if you can bring up the picture that shows the front of the house.

Right.

No, and he actually spoke to Leslie about what he was using.

Leslie wrote back the email correctly.

Yes.

You know, she reiterated the code.

But if you look at that picture, those small blocks in the front by the stairs, that's a landscape wall.

The the the mason that masonry product behind there that's approximately six feet tall is not a landscape wall.

Right.

But before he bought the bought the cinder block, he asked Leslie.

But he didn't apply for a permit.

Right.

If he would have turned that in for a building permit, staff would have said no.

Okay.

So, you know, I am just letting you know that.

Right.

Okay.

That doesn't have any bearing for what we're doing.

All right.

Well, I'm I'm just saying he did go to Leslie before he even purchased anything, and he uh communicated with her.

I personally went with him at least five times to development services to get more information on landscape walls.

And uh and the best information we got was you can use any materials, but that it has to be recessed back off the property line.

Well, what tree what tree is it is this landscape wall holding what what vegetation is it holding back?

I mean, the purpose of that was for a tree well, or you have a you have a tree that is lifted and you are trying to build something around it to help you.

It says or maybe walls placed in cut or fill application strictly for the root protection zone.

For the root protection zone.

That's that's the one.

That's an or in the Yeah, that's that's not what that is doing.

But I don't want to get off on a tangent of that.

And I had a question as well.

So the question maybe for city staff.

So looking at this property the way it is sloped, um yes, there is a significant slope coming from the house a line to the street.

And so it looks to drop, we'll say, well, I'll give it five feet.

Um so so if they had not had the center blocks there, or they're brought in those uh limestone blocks, and they had not brought any of the fill dirt between the wall and the current um limestone blocks, and put a fence there.

Uh so had the existing fence there.

So basically it so the fence itself did become the retaining wall for for the yard, would the height of it had been limited to the ground level that was being established?

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

So if the the wall right now in question would be acting as a uh landscape wall, is that what you are asking?

Yeah, so the so the so if it was the case that the limestone wasn't there, none of the dirt was there, and so now we have that slope going on and the wall and the existing wall was going down to we'll say uh surface level and then on the back side it was retaining soil.

So it it actually is working that process, how tall could that fence be as a retaining wall?

Is it at it can only be as tall as the land that or the uh soil that is uh keeping from away, or could it be three feet above that, or could it be as ten feet tall?

So just try to understand.

So if I mean I can answer that.

So you can retain earth and then whatever your fight fence height is, you can have it above that.

So if your fence is three feet, you can retain five feet, and then you can go three feet above it.

That's all.

But but if you but if you're retaining more than four feet and you have a fence product on top of that, the fence is considered a surcharge, and that requires a retire retaining wall child permit on the fence application.

And please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's my best experience with those things.

Fragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

So what you're saying is if that cinder block wall was in the location of where those stones are.

And it was only three feet above the soil level that it was retaining, it would be legitimate.

It'd be it'd be legitimate, but this but in this case that wall is like six feet tall.

Yeah.

Just uh kind of brief with uh Commissioner Manna's question.

There is a stipulation that you could raise a r fence if you have a significant grade change of over four feet, but we don't allow that in the front.

It's only with shared property lines, so it typically would only be along the side or the rear.

Now, just to kind of state though, say that fence was all the way to the front and you had all that fill, that soil being pushed against there, wo that first section that's holding fill, we would not consider that as part of the fence height if I was to be, that would be considered grade.

So anything that's not containing soil would then be considered part of the fence height.

And that would be where you would start kicking in in the front three feet solid or five feet.

And that exactly how I would have understood it too.

And so as as uh he explained.

So perfect.

Okay.

Uh is there any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Reed.

Yes, read.

Um so that one exhibit you showed had the uh hand drawing of of the wall.

Yes, sir.

And was that provided in the email sent to uh Yes.

It was provided as part of the application.

That does clearly show six-foot height Mart.

Uh I'm just curious why that would have been found acceptable.

Um it's not really clear there what it's retaining, but uh but just wanted to reiterate again that I did go to development services with my nephew at least five times, and we kept inquiring.

He told them the materials he was going to use.

He never I do paralegal work and I told him it's so important to get things in writing, do not proceed without uh you know, uh some confirmation in writing.

And that's what prompted this whole thing.

And he never uh he never would have even uh took step one, you know, uh he never intended to, oh, I'm just gonna violate all the city rules.

We kept going and going, and the best information that finally somebody gave us on landscape walls was uh it will be considered a landscape wall if it's recessed off the property line.

It's got to be in the middle of the property.

And so uh and what my nephew really wanted to do was uh also create like a garden look, have vines growing over it, uh do uh a landscaping pottery and stuff, but when he got a work stop order, that's when he stopped and did not do anything else.

You know, he wanted to comply with whatever the city uh, you know, he wanted to get all of this clarified because he uh you know, like I said, it was never his intention to just go and and do something without uh doing this due diligence.

And we I told him he talked to an attorney, showed him the email, and the attorney told him, yeah, that's binding.

They're telling you the you do the landscape wall cannot be over ten feet.

So he's you know uh relying on the city email an attorney uh email and so I feel like no one is no one is saying that y'all intended to do anything.

Right.

No, and I feel bad because I just want to reassure you that that never was never his intention.

As a follow-up, um this drawing is existing foundation.

What what was that foundation for?

Well, apparently the existing owner started doing something similar because when he got that property, when you looked at the sidewalk, the soil was the the soil just was the sidewalk was uh dirt, basically.

You could see the dirt just always going off into the sidewalk.

So the when he bought the property, the previous owner actually was starting to do a uh apparently a landscape wall to stop the the dirt from going, you know, into the you know, off the the property line, you know, off the property.

So anyway, so he uh so that's what prompted him to go to the city and of course when Councilman Bravo was talking about it, he was talking about avoid you know, reducing noise, reducing traffic, uh, you know, uh all this stuff.

And so you know, he was getting mixed signals and well and and not to cut you off, but did your nephew also install those limestone rocks, which are I guess a more typical landscape wall because they are retaining earth?

Just just like uh he uh he uh the previous owner started them and he found more uh blocks to finish it.

Yeah, the previous owner had started like i it was clear, but not to my nephew at the time uh what was going on until he realized, oh, this dirt just keeps on uh you know going.

And I told him that will eventually, you know, affect your foundation.

It's gonna affect everything.

And uh so anyway, so there you know, the project had been started by the previous owner.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Manor.

So um so I don't have a good view of the side uh the or the yeah, the side yard between this house and the uh abutting home uh that's uh I guess further up the street.

So is there is there a view?

Or so what type of fence is there on that side uh of the home?

This is so that's uh butting the other home.

So no, on the so you have a fence going out into the front yard, and then along the road.

There's no fence in the front yard.

Uh not unless you is are you saying the landscape wall is the fence?

Sure, the the landscape wall.

Yeah, there's uh it's not uh enclosed.

Did they show you a picture?

It's not enclosed, it's just a standalone.

It's hard to see.

It's so you're saying on the um and I don't know my directions here, so facing the in front of the house on the right hand side, the the wall that is there um goes all the way to the property line.

And then going back from that property line uh back to the house, what is that what does that look like?

And then the second question that I have is did the uh buddy neighbor there weigh in with regards to providing their feedback on were they one of the homes that said yes, we're okay with this?

Yes.

Yes.

It's the Falgar address.

Okay.

I bel yeah, it's uh it could be 70 yeah.

Because the one picture here looks like there's uh some kind of fencing going to that front side, that front corner.

And I'm just wondering what kind of fence it was.

Was it a solid, a solid wall or was it?

Oh no, so the previous owner had started are you talking about what the previous owner started?

Well, this fence right here shows uh on the right hand side that it butts the neighbor, it's got some type of fencing.

You can see kind of green.

Right, and it's a standalone wall, and it just goes to the end and the it doesn't uh it's not closed off on the on the neighbor's side.

So it doesn't wrap back beyond the closed off.

It looks like there's some kind of fence on that side.

I'm just trying to determine if it's predominantly open or if it's completely closed in.

Oh, there's a chain link.

I think the neighbor has a chain link fence.

There it appears to be a wood fence at s past the corner.

Oh, okay.

No, if you zoom in.

Well, well uh zoom into the picture that's part of the presentation.

You can kind of zoom in there, you can what appears to be a wood fence.

There's another picture that kind of shows something.

I I I'm sorry, I can't see where that's the same.

That one right here.

Zoom zoom in to that guy.

Zoom into that picture on the side.

There you go.

It looks like there might be a wood fence there and there's something holding up some vines of some sort.

Okay.

Yeah, that's his that's the bush in it in front of his house.

Yeah, that's the shrubbery.

Right.

The fence actually comes off the front.

There's just a little bit, just a little.

That's what the neighbor had started.

The neighbor had started the side parts, and all he did was just put the, you know, when he was looking at what the previous neighbor was doing, that's when he realized I think he was going to build something to uh, you know, stop that dirt from so he wasn't, you know, so he just did it.

I mean, there was multiple reasons.

But it was for purposes of this application, that anything on the side, is that on your neighbor's property or your property?

It's on his property.

Okay.

Right, right.

Yeah, everything is on his property.

Nothing's on the neighbors.

Any other questions?

And and he has the neighbor's approval.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Bunny is.

Did he pull a permit for the wood fence?

That's not his fence.

That's the neighbor's fence.

No, on his property.

That that that tall one where the where the the wood uh pickets are running uh horizontal.

He's talking about the other side uh on the apartment side.

That was all started.

That was all pre-existing from the previous owner.

And uh so he he the previous owner had uh had these um uh metal uh metal uh metal uh uh four by fours, you know uh something to that effect.

And he told my uh he told my nephew that he was just dropping the wood in there, just dropping, and so it's like it's like a portable, you know, uh fencing he was doing.

Or it wasn't really even fencing.

He was just uh I think it was for a dog, it was for a dog thing.

Okay.

Staff, uh is that side fence facing the apartment complex part of this variance application since it's considered in the front yard?

It is not because honestly, we considered this because Jones Maltzberger Road goes along the side there, and because it is uh they're permitted up to eight feet.

Okay.

Jones Malzberger being a arterial road.

So they are permitted up to eight feet along the side.

Commissioner Bunny is all right.

Any other questions?

Commissioner?

So one of the things we talk about are hardships.

Um so um what is permitted is a three-foot fence with um and and can be discussed with regards to the fencing on top of that predominantly open.

And so if we were to ask you to uh change this fence so it is only three foot in height from a solid perspective, what would be the hardship of that?

So basically removing you know half the fence and you know, kind of talk about that a little bit.

Um, financially, I don't know, I don't think he has the money to do it.

Uh he's a student.

And um, so that would be a real hardship.

And I don't know what a contractor would charge to come and charge I I bet I am sure it would be about five thousand dollars to staff is is has a fence permit been applied for for this element?

No fence permit has been applied for yet?

It has been?

No.

So uh depending on how we vote on this, if if it's approved, they will have to come back and get apply for a fence permit.

And just and just so the benefit of the board knows any time anybody applies for a fence permit and you have a corner lot, it goes to a more intensive review uh team at the city to make sure it's not just you know nonchalantly approved.

They they actually look at corner lots.

Just so you know.

Okay.

And Reed, I have a Yes, Commissioner Reed.

Um do you know um what sort of construction was used on this wall?

I mean, I I assume it's CMU with uh stuck up the case.

Yes, they did cinder block and poured teamant through the cinder blocks.

Okay.

Was it built on top of uh foundation?

Yes, that's that was the existing more than that.

That's what the existing the prior owner, my nephew saw that existing.

So that's the in uh existing foundation.

Yes, there was an existing foundation uh there.

And so he just built right on top of the found the existing foundation that the previous owner had.

Well, I think we have heard a whole bunch of stuff on this uh property.

I think for your voicemails or anyone sign up to speak.

Right.

Not public comment?

Commissioner Bragman.

We didn't discuss the clear vision on the corner.

Okay, let's talk about clear vision.

Um staff, is there any the traffic chime in on clear vision?

Traffic reviewed them.

Um they correspond with our recommendation.

Okay.

Any other questions?

What was the recommendation?

It was approval, right?

Then I offered a corner one, approval for the driveway one in the rear.

Oh okay, the driveway.

Yeah, approval for the uh clear vision.

Yeah, for the driveway, right.

Okay.

Not for the corner.

So is there uh and if there's nothing else, I'm looking for a motion.

I've got a question.

Yes, Commissioner Braggman.

So how far back would they have the move?

They'd have to move that corner fence back seven feet if we didn't approve it.

You talk about the driveway or clear visit?

Yes, uh seven feet to the back uh back.

And and as a to build on that, if they were to drop that fence down to three feet, would there be a clear vision problem?

No, clear vision.

Okay, so that's and that's the conundrum.

So clear vision, if I'm on the road, I measure four my eyes forty-two inches tall.

I'm losing two feet because of the limestone, I go to the it doesn't serve a purpose anyway.

You know, they went down to three feet, there's still going to be a visual obstruction.

So I don't so I don't think that that's a I believe actually the clear vision would still be there if they drop that fence because it's the clear vision is three feet from the edge of the curb.

So if you've got that fill there and then that fence is an additional three feet, that's going to be over that three feet from the curb.

Yeah, those curves are way past.

I mean that's a that road, that those limestone blocks are about ten feet away from that curb.

Just saying for the height, if you brought down the fence, because that's the item that's within the clear vision.

Manna?

Commissioner Manor.

So so with regards to I guess the driveway, uh um it's not dropping out onto Jones Malzburger, correct?

And so it's like a little side street or the access road.

For those who are familiar with the area, if you park at the shopping center, you know, up there by the across uh 281 from the mall, a lot of people go through there and drive through Coronet and Marquees and they go the back way to get the it is inundated with cars.

It is.

A lot of a lot of we a lot of uh, you know uh uh traffic bumps and and uh this has been an ongoing issue since the card that actually uh had an accident and went up on to part of his yard.

Yeah, about a year.

So there's a point made about it being on Jones Malzberger and someone's allowances there, but that's not truly subaccess.

So it's not truly on Joel Smallsberger, so a little bit different, but there was some kind of dialogue granted or restricting something with regards to clear vision.

Yeah, it's still I mean it's still one big arterial, even though it has its little sub zones, but it's it still has that it's still considered a corner, because it's still right-of-way, I mean, right.

It's still a corner, but yeah, just that corner is not necessarily Joan Smalzburger.

Yeah, it's it's a little different than what we are used to seeing.

Oh, is it?

With that said, I don't know if traffic has proposed uh provided like a triangle cone for for uh clear vision because the fence is set back.

I do have a concern with the number of cars that go through there specifically because the netatorium is there.

A lot of cars, a lot of kids, a lot of families kind of driving.

And they block his driveway all the time.

But for more reason that you want to be able to get a clear vision of cars coming through as you make that turn onto Nakadocha.

So I don't know.

What the if we can get a clear vision cone, I guess, from traffic, I'd feel like they're asking for a seven-foot variance from that 25 foot corner.

So they're still 18 feet.

Fortunately, there's they're not supposed to be parking there, but the signs.

Yeah.

So I don't know.

Oh yeah.

I should have bought those pictures.

I've taken so many pictures, block driveways.

They park on the no parking side.

Yeah, all the time.

There's just cars almost every week, just it it's like the big party there.

You know, the Yeah, with an annatorium in the apartment complex, it's you you're getting a lot of attention.

Right.

Okay.

Um is there any other questions?

No?

All right.

Is anybody like to make a motion or is it?

Yeah, I already did there's no voicemails on this one.

And one more question, sorry.

So the fencing on the side there, um, so so um any clear vision space you can't have shrubbery over three foot tall, right?

And so so the landscaping itself becomes part of the hindrance for clear vision, correct?

I'm sorry, sorry, one more time.

So for the driveway, um landscaping uh plants becomes part of the impact analysis for clear vision.

Correct.

Are they not included?

One second.

I know on cornered on corner lots it uh your I've had dialogue in my community with regards to plantings because the plantings basically block the view, even if you have uh an openly open fence, and so it becomes a solid friend and and basically and I think the code does say specifically you can't have landscaping in that space.

Well, I think that's why they should have, you know, if we had a permit in place on this corner live, I think we would get more information.

So trying to confirm it is difficult because this is going into traffic's realm.

Um so they could be more specific on this, if any kind of because from what I've gathered, basically anything within anything that has height really should not be installed.

But again, I cannot confirm because this is more of traffic.

Yeah, I I think I think the code actually talks about you you you put a skinny tree there uh but it has to be above seven foot and nothing between above three foot.

So the three to four the three to seven foot range has to be completely open, as I seem to recall it.

But site distance, not clear vision.

Um so maybe that's a difference there then.

And now and I just want to reiterate that my nephew did go to 50 homes.

He did speak to neighbors.

He did show them everything.

He told them what his understanding was.

Uh we told neighbors that I did go to the uh development services, and nobody could ever give a clear answer on landscape walls.

We asked about materials.

We got approval on materials, that you a landscape wall could be anything as long as it was recessed back off the property.

And so we were always getting conflicting information, but the best thing we had was the Leslie email, and neighbors were supportive and uh you know actually gave us an example of they said at least you all uh made an attempt to communicate and get permission, and then they gave an example of somebody else in the neighborhood uh somewhere else that tried to do a landscape wall and got made no attempt to get any permission.

And uh so people oppose that and but people the neighbors were very supportive.

Uh and like I said, you know, he has fifty signatures of neighbors supporting the variants, you know, for hardship reasons, you know that uh you know.

So if you all could take that into consideration, I would appreciate it.

Okay.

Well, it seems like we've been on this case quite a while.

So if if uh I'm I'm looking for someone in to make a motion to move this along a little bit.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030250, I moved that the Board of Adjustment Grant requests for a three-foot eight-inch special exception for the maximum three-foot solid fence to allow a five-foot-six-inch solid fence with six foot eight-inch columns limited to the freestanding wall is constructed in the front yard.

Situated situated at 718 Trefalgar Road, applicant being Ivan Rubel Kava.

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

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

The fence height special exception would allow for sufficient open space and unobstructed views of the front yard area of the property.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

The public welfare would be served as the freestanding wall does not enclose the property or create a significant visual obstruction of the front yard area.

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

The freestanding wall does not limit light, open and unobstructed views or otherwise substantially injure the neighboring property.

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

The free standing wall does not enclose the and isolate the property from the neighborhood or otherwise alter the essential character of the district.

E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for the specific district.

The special exception would not weaken the general purpose of the district as sufficient open space in the front of the yard of this residential district is maintained.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor.

Commissioner Stevens.

And your nephew did obviously put in effort to make things right, but this is a wall and not uh this is a fence and not a landscape wall.

Um I don't have an issue with the height of it given the 50 plus signatures from the neighborhood, so I will be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

So I do uh I concur with my colleague.

And so I know that when we've gone out and looked uh it's not it's not often we see solid fences in the front yard.

So that's just a given.

So that tall, it's it that doesn't happen that often.

Um but we do see when it is um I guess on major streets where we do have a lot of um we'll say activities uh around it like the nadatorium and that you I have seen where we have granted this in the past, you know, from that perspective.

Um and then and and again, because of all the signatures and community basically supporting it.

So I I guess for those two reasons I'll be in favor of this.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh Reed?

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I I agree.

I think um generally I would not be in support of a wall in the front of a home of this magnitude, but I think there are some special um exceptions here with an auditorium with the development going in across Jones Mallsburger, and also the fact that um clearly made an attempt and understood that there is miscommunication, but it it seems like your nephew followed what he believed was the correct process in order to have permission to go ahead and build.

Thank you, sir.

Dean.

Commissioner Dean.

One quick question.

Is it uh is this a duplex or a single uh like now he's using it as a single family?

But is it configured like a duplex?

Uh it could be, but I I'm staying at the other at the other side right now.

So uh so it's uh he right now it's a single family.

Wait, so you live in there and and I use his kitchen and I use his.

But it is it is uh yes, separate, but I do use his staff.

That's right.

That's why I'm very familiar with uh he needs a permit for that.

Are you paying for me to live there?

No.

No.

So this property uh family.

This property does fall under the beta-R4 conversion.

Um as long as he meets those guidelines, they can't have a duplex by right.

Okay.

Well, that answers that question.

Okay.

All right.

Anyone else?

Yes, Commissioner Benese.

I'll be in support of this.

I I think he tried to go through the right channels to get this uh get this approved.

Uh I think he got over fifty signatures uh by nearby neighbors.

And then um also in addition, you know, uh as just a side note to you guys, and like 27, they're gonna be tearing down that robins and they'll be making that a parking lot.

So hopefully you won't have to put up with that much longer.

The audience court.

Oh, okay.

Great.

Fantastic.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibani?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Abstain.

Commissioner Cruz.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnez.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes nine to one with one abstention.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

So this only is the first motion there.

Two more.

We still got some more to go.

Okay.

Looking for a motion on the variance.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103025.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant and request for one, a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 25-foot corner clear vision area to allow an 18-foot corner clear vision area, and two, a four-foot-three-inch variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a 10-foot nine-inch driveway clear vision area limited to the gate in the rear yard situated 718 Travel Trafalgar Road, applicant being even rubalcava, because the testimony presented to us and the facts of the that we have determined show the physical character of the property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The location of the wall and gate are as constructed allows for sufficient corner and driveway clear vision areas and is thereby non cont not contrary to the public interest.

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

The wall and gate would need to be relocked relocated to comply with a literal enforcement.

However, there is already an adequate clear vision area.

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

Granting these variances would support the spirit of the ordinance as sufficient clear vision areas exist at the corner and driveway to support the traffic safety.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those are 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.

There is no significant increase in traffic hazards for adjacent property created by the reduced clear vision areas at the corner or driveway of this property.

Six, the player of the owner of the property for which the variance 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 the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The unique circumstances exist on the property is the corner created by the intersection of Jones Maltzburger Access Road and Traffler Gur Road.

The access road supports a relatively low volume of traffic, therefore there is no significant increase in traffic hazards created by the reduced driveway and corner clear vision areas.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Zuna.

Commissioner Stevens.

I will be in support of this variance as well.

I think you still maintain 18 feet of clear vision, which is pretty good.

You have a little bit of buffer with the access road.

I think if that access road wasn't there and this truly was on Jones Maltzburger, I'd probably have a different opinion about that.

And I think that the access to the side uh driveway area seems adequate for my perspective, so I'll be in support.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Zena.

Yeah, I concur for the same reason.

I think that access road from uh Jones Maltzburger does provide somewhat of a buffer, not a lot of traffic going along that area than the 18-foot uh clear vision uh distance also I think provides some relief there, so I'll support.

Fantastic.

Is there anyone else like to add to the conversation?

So Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So um I didn't necessarily see what it looked like on the one side of the other solid fence.

And so um do we need are we concerned about that as built or anything?

You know, can anything change it?

Can anything be changed to where it currently is to make it worse?

The way it's been read, I guess is where I'm going.

So as far as that the that corner.

Okay.

Um understand what I'm saying?

So I just want to make sure you know there's there's fencing that kind of has some openings and in can it be made worse than what is currently there showing.

So it's just add as built, and that would resolve that.

Um just trying to you know make sure this doesn't get worse than it is.

Okay.

Uh staff, can you bring bring up the street view and just show that corner?

Please.

And I would be happy to accept an amendment to my motion referencing as built conditions.

Yeah, because if if you bring up the street view and you're shooting at that corner, the fencing that goes down that you can see on the top on the left side behind that wall is actually in line with the house.

So it's set really back.

Right.

And that's why that's why I would make sure that it didn't get extended further out into the street, because then all of a sudden it that becomes much different.

So we could so there's been an amendment.

Uh would you like to I'll just offer a friendly amendment to include the as well condition on the side fence.

I'd be happy to accept that.

You accept that too.

Accepted, yes.

Okay, so that's the amended motion before us.

All right.

So is there any other uh commissioners like to chime in?

All right.

Hearing now, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Elzina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I abstain.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes nine with two extensions.

Um congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are on item number eight.

Eight.

Oh, I'm done.

Okay.

Thank you all very much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Item eight is BOA-25-1030252, the address being 843 Brady Boulevard in Council District 5.

The applicant is new look LLC.

This is a request for one, a three-foot special exception from the maximum three-foot front yard solid fence to allow a six-foot front yard solid fence limited to the east side property line.

Two, a one-foot special exception from the maximum five foot predominantly open fence to allow five foot predominantly open fence with six foot posts in the front yard, and three an eight-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow seven foot driveway clear vision area.

The zoning is MF33.

Shown here is a site plan of the fence.

Again, there on the east side is where you have the six foot solid fence everywhere else along the front yard is fenced in at five feet with six foot posts predominantly open.

And then there is a driveway there on the left side hand uh left hand side of the property that encroaches into the minimum driveway clear vision area as measured from the curb.

Shown here is the subject property again, illustrating that solid fence on the east side, predominantly open everywhere else.

And here's a better look at that solid fence there on the side, six feet tall.

It is increasing uh with the grade of the property that increases towards the home.

At no point is it taller than six feet from grade.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the driveway clear vision area variants.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030252 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the existing fence poses a visual obstruction within the minimum clear vision area, thereby creating a traffic hazard for motorists along Brady Boulevard and vehicles exiting the subject property.

Two, there is sufficient space on the property to construct fencing for security purposes while avoiding any encroachment into the driveway clear vision area.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special exception for the solid fencing.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-103-00252 based on the following findings.

A fact one, the solid fence diminishes the appeal of the streetscape within this community, and two, the fence height would limit access to an unobstructed view of the front yard area for the neighboring property.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special exception for the predominantly open fence.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030252 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the special exception would be limited to the height of the fence posts, and two, the fence generally resembles permitted front yard fencing for residential areas.

Staff mailed out 35 notices.

One was returned in favor, five, it were returned in opposition.

The El Charo Neighborhood Association is opposed, and the Brady Gardens Neighborhood Association did not respond.

Shown here is the uh comment and support that staff received and the opposition received by staff.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Alright, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello, said your name and tell us about your fence.

If I may uh tell a story previous to the fence and how he got to be, uh in 2023, I bought this uh this home that uh was uh unoccupied since 2004.

Uh the house was uh vacant.

It was uh uh in disarray.

It was a home for vagrants and uh people uh on the street that came back and forth.

In fact, uh when I took possession of the property, uh I uh I called the police to escort me in because there was uh two vacrants uh leaving inside.

The reason why I'm mentioning that is because uh since 2004 until 2023, uh none of the neighbors seemed to show any interest in uh in beautifying uh their black.

Uh I came in I uh with all the property uh and needed uh permits.

I fixed uh the home to make it my own.

And um and there uh my wife and I will reside with my daughter and uh uh and my granddaughter, that's uh nine years old.

Uh uh as we leave there, I encounter a problem that required uh me calling the the police a few times, but uh but with no uh solution.

Uh to what extent uh well uh caps are called uh police officers are called to this house uh uh uh several times a day.

Uh he uh uh stole things uh from my uh uh house from my front yard from my backyard.

Uh he uh uh screamed of obscenities uh to my family members, including my nine-year-old uh granddaughter.

Uh and uh uh this is a house that I think is uh used uh for the drug dealing.

Uh if they can prove that or not, I don't know, but uh uh it attracts uh the visits of uh uh vagrants that uh uh walk in, walk out, uh ride on their bicycles, ride uh out of the homes, these vagrants uh call obscenities uh to my family members.

So uh that uh moved me to uh uh build a fence.

Uh in fact if you uh look at the picture it's a it's a nice looking fence.

It's a well-made a fence uh with clearly the proper uh permits and through the process of me building this fence I decided to put a salad uh a wooden fence attached to the to the steel fence that would uh uh protect the division of my neighbor.

And um uh for the past two months that the fence was built, I lived in peace.

I I lived in uh in a state of uh very different to the way i it was uh the past uh uh uh year or so.

And uh I I simply forgot that my neighbor existed.

And I uh uh and I'm I'm I'm hoping that uh uh this uh this panel will see the the need for my family, my wife, my daughter, my granddaughter, and myself, being that uh we are of a certain age and uh to live in uh in a state of uh uh peace.

Uh in regards to the to the to the vision uh as one uh drives out and drives in, I made it a point uh to build the fence, the front fence uh where my side fence in question ends ten feet uh from the street, I I actually matched uh the rest of the fences in uh in uh in the neighboring uh streets.

Uh the vision is good.

Uh when you pull out, you are able to see left, you're you'll be able to see right, uh and I simply uh didn't see the need uh to uh to pull uh the fence any further back.

Uh and that gives me the the the security and the peacefulness that that I'm seeking living in in this uh house and in this neighborhood.

The wood fence that comes uh between you and your neighbor, how long are those panels or those six foot or eight foot panels?

No, they're six feet, sir.

Six feet, yes, sir.

All right.

And would it be um do you think you would still have the same privacy if that very first panel of six foot wood was replaced with um something that was predominantly open like you have on the front of your property?

Uh you mean uh like uh a certain amount of feet from the street?

Uh the first panel, let's say the first six feet of wood fence.

Uh yes, portion right here.

This first panel this was replaced with predominantly open.

Um do you think you still have the same sort of privacy from your neighbor?

Uh this gives me gives me total privacy that makes me very very comfortable.

Uh and my wife agrees and my my kid agrees also.

Uh if there was no other way and and the panel uh allows me to keep the rest, I'll be more than glad to took well clear vision is a safety issue, and so that's the reason why I'm just asking.

No need to be.

Any commissioner questions?

So thank you for bringing up so I always have a concern for neighbors and you know, and so part of the whole notion is being able to see out of one's driveway when one's backing out.

And and I'll say that your current fence doesn't allow for that for the neighbor.

And so I would never support it where it currently is going that far up along the way.

And I think it's a I think it's I think that it is relevant to say how far should we move back.

And I guess you know, so a question for the city staff would be to make it so that that corner isn't necessarily clear vision.

How far back would it go back for uh how far would it need to be from the street from a code compliance perspective if it was three foot um in height?

So for for that clear vision.

So for uh driveways, I believe it is fifteen feet back, but let me just confirm.

And that would be fifteen feet from the street.

From the street, yes.

Yeah, so if you if this fence is ten feet back and you go back six, there's sixteen.

Yeah, so I just so I it was just that you know that that notion of that six foot so um or or that clear vision component of it, whatever the distance is.

So that would make me feel more comfortable overall.

Me too.

Um is there any other questions from the commission?

I do understand we have a voicemail on this one.

We're gonna hear the voicemail.

Is there anyone signing to speak as well?

Just a voicemail.

All right, let's hear it.

One moment it's loading.

Also, could you show the um comments from El Charo?

President of the Chattanooga location, calling in regards to case number and five G.

Test test uh 843 Brady Boulevard is in regards to the U.S.

Well, can I ask a question while we wait?

Of course.

Okay.

Um in regards to the front fence, it appears there you were um granted permission for a five-foot fence, but it was built to six.

No, no, no.

It's the post.

Oh, I see.

Okay, I'm sorry.

But the panels are five feet.

They're secure.

Yeah.

Can you put the microphone on the laptop or that's what we're attempting to do?

I'm the computer is giving issues, hence why we were not able to play the voicemail there.

If I'm reading most of these notices, um all of them are really discussing the five-foot solid fence along that corner, it or so it appears.

President of the Chattanooga Associations.

Um if he pulled permits as we had discussed with the homeowner.

We cannot obscure I know notifying obscure the vision coming in and out.

Uh but it would totally be up to the board to see which way they want to do that.

He had said that somebody notified them of pain and exemption, but if we continue to allow people just to pay uh exemptions or pay uh adjustment fees, then that means anybody can get away with what they're doing, and we should be we're gonna have to go back and look at other people's uh.

So at this point and moment of time, El Toronto does not approve the adjustment uh on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions before we move on to a motion?

If y'all don't you don't mind, I'd like to make the motion.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030252, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a three-foot special exception from the maximum three-foot front yard solid fence to allow a six-foot front yard solid fence limited to the east side property line, no closer than six feet from the front property line.

And two, a one-foot special exception from the maximum five foot predominantly open fence to allow a five-foot predominantly open fence with six foot posts in the front yard, situated at 843 Brady Boulevard applicant being new look LLC because the testimony presented us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of the pro 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.

The special exception would support the spirit of the chapter as adequate undestructed views of the front yard to support a sense of community would be maintained.

B.

The public welfare and convenience would be substantially served.

The public welfare would be served as a fence as constructed allows for adequate, unstructed views of the front yard to promote consistency and sense of community along the streetscape.

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

Neighboring property would not be substantially entered by such proposed special exception as the additional fence site is limited in scope and the fence does not diminish the sense of community within this area.

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

The special exception would be limited in scope and therefore would not substantially alter the essential character of the immediate surrounding area.

E.

The special exception would not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for the specific district.

The special exception would not weaken the general purpose of the district, as the increased fence site would be limited in scope and would still serve to promote a sense of community and of motion.

So just before a second is done, what I read was making a motion to approve the six foot solid fence limited to the east side, but six feet away from the front property line, which would account for the panel.

And then the second part of it would allow for a five foot predominantly open with uh six foot fence posts elsewhere in the front property.

Is that when I when I read it as a limit to the solid and I read the predominantly open and use the word front property, does that cover anywhere in the front property aside from that privacy fence?

Um privacy fence on the motion we put on the east side property line.

So that limits it to just decide that it's on coverage.

Yeah, I put east side uh commencing six feet away from the front property line.

So I guess I would have said fifteen feet from the street.

Um because that is the clear vision space.

I will I I can do that.

Um that seems a little bit more direct with regards to allowing for the second part to to to allow for that.

So it's six feet confused me all of a sudden now it's six and you have to figure out the math for 15 feet from the street.

I did the six because uh the the street is a fifty-foot right-of-way.

And so if I take ten feet away from the thirty, that's where I came up with.

I was going to say we actually do have that third item that uh resolves or looks into the Well, I I didn't want to on the third item which deals with clear vision, correct?

I wanted to make sure the fence got approved with that being predominantly open for that first section.

Yes.

I wanted to make sure that got approved.

I was just I was yeah.

Well, I was telling Commissioner Manna, because it seemed like you wanted to also add on that clear vision item, but we do have it as the third.

And that is why I was asking for the 15 feet, because that way it's it's covered by that point.

And that's what I was and so if if it if it's read and it works, that's fine.

But you know it's I can change the uh that's why I wanted to wait before a second was read.

I can alter the motion to say a uh for item one to say a three-foot special exception for the maximum three foot front yard solid fence to allow a six-foot front yard solid fence limited to the east side property line no closer than fifteen feet from the face of curb on the public street.

I was trying to keep it all with the property line, but I can read it that way too.

That is up to you guys.

Exactly.

So that's what I would prefer to what I was to ask as well.

Would you like to second?

Just a little bit because and I was going to second it, but that's how I understand.

So I have officially changed my motion to to be read to be fifteen feet limited to 15 feet from the front face of curb on the east side.

All right.

So is that a second?

That was my second.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second.

Uh I am in support as read.

Um because the predominantly open doesn't bother me.

I think it helps with clear vision and addresses a lot of the people who are against this that we had uh document uh written comments submitted.

Commissioner Manna.

And and I concur.

And I think even with uh Chato, what they what they were stating was really that clear vision for as I was listening to it, although it was a little bit hard to hear.

Um and so really again it's about providing safety for everyone in the community, including your neighbors, and by by wrapping it around you know, for wherever panel works for you for ensuring at least 15 feet is cleared and however it works out for you would uh satisfy me.

So with that I'll be voting in favor.

All right.

Uh any other any commissioners would like to add to the conversation.

I'd like to offer an amendment to keep it the way it is.

Let them have the solid fence all the way up to the front.

All the way down.

Okay.

Is there any commissioners that would be in support of that?

I I personally think that the way I read it is was kind of making a lot of the the neighbors happy and the neighbor association happy.

But um, is there anyone on the commission who would like to go back to the the motion as as suggested originally?

Hold on, sir.

I I'll say that other fences that are built similarly on the street do cut back to allow for the clear vision.

So I didn't see any others that ran all the way up, and so I would have a hard time supporting that.

So I'm not gonna accept it.

Would you like to make a formal amendment?

I think I'll just go as it is amended 15 feet from the curb, correct?

All right, thank you.

Uh any other commissioners would like to add?

Hearing none of us have roll call that vote on the fence height exception.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivazquez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

One more time, sir.

Thumbs up.

Okay.

The vote is 10 to 1.

Motion passes on the fence height.

The next item is regarding clear vision.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-103-00252.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for eight-foot variance of the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a seven-foot driveway clear foot clear vision area situated at 843 Brady Boulevard appearing New Look LLC because the test and we presented us and the facts that we have determined, showing that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance would not be contrary to the public interest, as adequate space would remain to safely exit the driveway on the property.

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

Given that there is adequate clear vision area, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to relocate the fence, relocating the fence further from the curb, but also reduce usable space in the front yard.

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

Spirit of the ordinance would be observed as a fence near the driveway would not create a significant traffic hazard at the intersection of the driveway and right away.

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 on those allowed within the district would be allowed with this variance.

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

The variance does not alter the essential character of the immediate surrounding area as the encroachment into the minimum driveway clear vision area is not significant departure from other front yard fence designs in the area.

Six.

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

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 is due to unique circumstances of the reduced distance between the curb and the property line.

This condition was not created by the property owner.

It is not merely financial, it is not a result of general conditions in the district.

End of motion.

Second.

We have a second by Commissioner Manna.

Um I'm in support of it now that the uh predominantly open fence for the first uh for the first panel is gonna be was addressed previously.

Commissioner Manna.

And and the only reason this is read is because it's over three foot, correct?

Even if it's predominantly open, and that's that is correct.

And so because of that, I'll be voting in favor.

All right.

Is there any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing none of us have a roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

All right.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

If you have any questions about uh what we just did, uh you can get with staff and they'll help you out.

Uh does anybody need a break?

Okay, we are going to take a short break.

We'll see everybody back here at 405.

407, we're back in session.

Item nine.

Item number nine is BOA-25-103-00254, the address being 4338 Greco Drive in Council District 3.

The applicant is Elizabeth Valenzuela.

This is a request for a 9 foot 11-inch variance from the minimum required 10-foot front yard setback to allow carport with gutters with a 1-inch front setback, and two, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow carport with gutters with a one-foot six-inch side setback.

The zoning is RM4.

Generally, homes in this subdivision were developed with a zero-foot setback from one side property line and a ton foot setback from the other side property line.

And the subject property was constructed with a zero foot setback being on the east side.

A code enforcement investigation began on this property in October 2025, and notices of violation were issued for setback encroachments and for building without a permit.

Prior to permit issuance, the property owner must obtain a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment for the carport's encroachment into the minimum required side set side and front setback areas.

So this is a site plan of the construction.

Again, on that uh east side property, so shown here the left side of the property is where that zero foot setback is uh as constructed by the or as established by the primary home.

Um the carport does encroach into into both the front setback and the side setback.

And uh here's a photo of the subject property and the carport as constructed.

And here's kind of a better view.

Those red lines kind of show the estimated property lines for this lot.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the carport front setback.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030254 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the variants would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as the carport would be insufficiently separated from the front property line and the pedestrian right-of-way.

And two, an existing garage exists on the property, which the owner may use for storage of vehicles instead.

Staff recommendation for the carport side setback.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030254 based on the following findings of fact one, the carport is constructed of non-combustible material and will utilize gutters to redirect water runoff, thereby mitigating any increased risk of damage or nuisance to the adjacent property, and two, the existing primary structure uh is already set back less than the carport uh into the side setback.

Staff mailed 47 notices.

One was returned in favor, zero and opposition, and the PCAN Valley neighborhood association did not respond.

And here is the uh comment in support received by staff.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello, state your name and tell us about your car port.

Hello.

Um I'm Elizabeth Valenzuela.

And I am here to thank you.

Um to keep my car portal.

Okay.

Um I'll start off with a few questions.

I notice on your site plan that your car port is about 20 feet long.

Uh so you're not you're not in any way exceeding what I would consider normal.

Uh but you are you are detached from the rest of your home, right?

Those proposes.

And um.

Well, that's all I need to know.

Is there any other questions from the commission?

Commissioner Azuna?

Yeah, just curious the way the gutters kind of rain water, what does it fall to the front of the property or to the sides of the property?

Uh the gutters that I have right now, they fall in front of the property.

So there's I don't see gutters on.

Not on the carport.

That's what I was asking about the car.

I will have those um put on there.

Okay.

Does your carport slope from the back to the front?

Slopes towards the street?

Towards the street.

Okay.

I don't think you need them.

Yeah, you probably don't.

Well, I wouldn't recommend.

I don't think you need them.

If it slopes to the front of the property and the property, then there's a ridge on the side of the existing metal top that wouldn't allow water to dump off the side anyway.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

None?

All right.

Uh does there any voicemails anyone send to the speech?

Commissioner Cruz had a question.

Oh, Commissioner Cruz.

Thank you, sir.

Um just see obvious is your neighbor, I guess looking at it now to your left of you, the has no objections to the carport because they didn't submit anything.

I just want to make sure.

No.

I've talked to her, and this was like way back because my carport has been in existence for about a year and a half already.

Um I didn't I didn't have any problems with anybody or even Alex, the one that is on the left side, which is closer to his house.

He was like, go for it, you know.

You need it.

Okay.

Well, because I don't see any others close to you.

That's why I want to make sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I I I just wanted to bring something up with staff.

This is on regarding the side setback.

I know it's a zero lotline subdivision.

I actually noticed that.

Um this in the 80s, this was zoned R7, which allowed for zero lot line.

But because it converted to an R4 when the O one code came out.

Don't wouldn't this applicant qualify for development preservation rights because of the conversion and also the which allows for the expansion and additional permitting uh of use on their property.

Would the side setback be something that would be covered under development preservation rate?

Development preservation rights is for the uses.

Um it wouldn't go for the uh detached accessory structure setback standard.

Okay.

I just wanted to ask because I just curious.

All right.

If there is nothing else and there is no one time to speak.

No public comment.

Then looking for a motion.

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Zunan.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030254, I move that the Board of Adjustment grants a request for one, a nine-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum required ten-foot front yard setback to allow a carport with gutters with a one-inch front setback, and two or three-foot six-inch variants from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters with a one-foot-six-inch side setback situated at Ford 338 Greco Drive applicant being Elizabeth Venuswella, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest, as adequate separation would remain between the carport and the property lines.

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

The special condition on this property is that the location of the existing home and the driveway, which limits the potential area for the placement of a carport.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would prevent the property owner from establishing a usable carport over their existing driveway.

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

Such variants would not be in the spirit, such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as there is sufficient separation, the variants would not reduce visibility.

Four, the variants would not authorize the operation of a use other than no use specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

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

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent corning property.

They are also the essential character of the district which the property is located.

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as a reduction of the setback as minimal setback is is minimal and will cause no hardship to the property abutting this lot or the public right away.

And six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variants are sought is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, the unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property and are not bully financial, not due to other result of general conditions of the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the property owner is due to the unique location of the existing home and driveway, which limits the available available space for the establishment of a carport in a motion second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Zubman.

Yes, I am supporting the motion as read.

No opposition from either of the neighbors that would be most impacted.

No opposition from the neighborhood association here.

It is a zero lot setback.

The applicant is set is irrespective of the zero lot, they are respecting a one-foot six-inch side setback.

And the property uh the carport has built uh kind of slants to the front, so any rainwater would drain to the front right-of-way, the front uh street and not to the neighbors.

And so therefore I am supporting the motion as read.

All right, Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur with Commissioner.

I don't see a problem with it since like it's like he stated, none of the neighbors complained, so I see no problems with uh approving this.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh Chair?

Yes, Commissioner.

Uh, it was pointed out that the gutters probably were not necessary because of the slant of the roof going to the street and because of the lip on the left and right of the carport.

So should this be amended to take the gutters?

No, we did not include gutters.

Did they the the the maker of the motion did not read it with gutters?

No, I did not.

Okay.

So he explained.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

It was read with gutters.

Would you like to Oh yeah, yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah, because the original motion as the city prepared had yeah, I I strike the gutters, no gutters.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cruz, you accept that amendment?

Yes, I do.

All right.

So now we have for sure a motion with no gutters.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

I just wanted to also point out.

So you know, so I like to Google drive around the neighborhood, and there are several car ports here.

Some of them have their posts pulled back a little bit, but they have overhang going to this location.

So it seems like uh this community was built with very short driveways, and so this seems to be there's another dozen carports here that are similarly configured with regards to how being how close it is to the to the 10-foot line.

So I don't see this being inconsistent.

All right, thank you.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Ozuna.

I'm sorry, yeah, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Steven.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

One more time, sir.

Thumbs up.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of the fact motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Item number 10.

Item number 10 is BOA-25-103-00255 located at 154 Bobcock Road.

The applicant is Gilbert Vargas.

A request for one, a 25-foot variance from the minimum required 30-foot rear setback to allow an accessory structure with a five-foot rear setback.

A 10-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot buffer yard to allow an accessory structure with a five-foot rear buffer yard and three a variance from the UDC access restructure regulations to allow an accessory structure within the rear setback of a non-residential district that abuts a residential district.

The zone is O2.

On the property, there is an existing real estate services office building under renovation and a fire damage accessory structure which is slated for demolition.

The applicant proposes to construct a storage shed to house materials and tools for minor home improvements on clients' homes listed for sale.

UDC standards prohibit accessory structures other than carports within the rear and side setbacks of non-residential properties above in residential properties.

The proposed accessory structure is also within the required rear 15-foot buffer yard.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the storage shed to be located and used within the minimum required rear setback and buffer yard area.

This is the site plan highlighting the rear setback, the proposed location of this accessory structure, which would be five feet from the rear property line.

This is just an aerial view to get a full scope of the property and where that existing storage shed is.

Can staff chime in on how that works?

Specifically to the setback you are asking?

Well, because under in the UDC, there is a definition that doesn't consider it multifamily until you are more than four.

But but since the restriction about the 30 feet is limited to residential, that's any kind of residential, any kind of multifamily?

That is correct.

Okay.

I just wanted to ask.

Thank you.

All right.

The applicant come forward, uh, state your name and tell us about your project.

Thank you.

My name is Gil Vargas.

And um I want to pick up right where you left off about that question.

We actually met with development services on the required setback, and we had to research that saying, well, this is multifamily, and if I could actually see um get the slide that has the aerial on it.

So there's a multi-family uh apartment complex right uh behind this particular lot.

You can you can see it there, and in particular were that uh that apartment complex, and I don't know exactly how many units have they have, but there's more than four for sure.

There's several buildings, they actually have the dumpster and parking right up against the back of that particular okay, sure.

So here's the site, here's the site right here.

Speaking to the mic, please.

Yeah, here's the site right here.

Here's the apartment complex, and right here is where you have the dumpsters for the apartment complex.

Right here behind the lot, and then there's some parking right here.

Um so when we were talking to development services, they were pointing out that well this is residential and that's required 30 feet.

And at 30 feet, if you go in and you try to put that setback in that particular lot that you know at one time was probably residential, and now it's um commercial, you're really using quite a bit of the allowable space.

And for this particular business where they like to there's not much parking in the front, but there is parking in behind the main structure, it allows them to have trucks and trailers to do what they need to to conduct their business, but having that 30-foot setback makes it very difficult for trailers and trucks to circulate in there and then also to be able to get you know what they need to uh to to operate their business.

So just allowing that that improvement of uh the variance of 25 feet, we still have a setback, but by allowing that 25 foot variance and the buffer, uh that would it would open up a lot more space than what the owner would currently have here, and there would be I'm gonna say that just intuitively no one from the apartment complex is going to complain about it because that's where the dumpster is, and the neighbor right next to him says she's fine with it, she's right next to it.

And there was no comment from the business as you can see next to them as well.

So from a from a you know, just a beautification or a view, uh, you know, there's there's very little for people to complain about in that regard.

And the owner of the property would be able to operate much more effectively with a much wider space in the behind the main structure, which uh would do quite a bit for him to operate.

The added bonus to that is right in here, uh there's an there's an alley.

Um this alleyway has been a uh a problem for this area because there's a lot of homeless that go into that area.

And uh like it happens so often that people jump the fence and they get in the properties.

Um and you know, to a large extent they want to just survive.

But having that 30-foot setback and then having a structure allows them to get back there and and hide and do things you can't see them.

And by bringing bringing the setback much closer, you know, it would it by five feet, it would basically really eliminate much for them to do there.

And currently where the apartment complex has the dumpster and you know, that's sort of a natural attraction where they're going in and getting stuff.

Now, with a 30-foot setback, they could jump over, hide behind uh uh uh auxiliary structure and then do things that they shouldn't be doing with the owner likely not seeing them because they'd just be hiding back there.

So it would be a tremendous help to solve that problem by allowing you know the setback to be pushed back to five feet.

Um I mean that's sort of it in a nutshell.

Okay, Commissioner Bragman.

Uh two questions.

Um how large are you proposing that accessory structure to be?

Um right now it it's gonna be somewhere right between 300 to 600 square feet.

Okay.

So 10 by 30.

10 by 30.

Yeah, probably two 10 by 30 structures.

Okay.

And is it going to be on a foundation or on the I mean it would be constructed per per the city codes, whatever what they require in terms of a structure.

Okay.

How tall is it going to be?

Um it's not defined, but it but it would be one story.

I mean it wouldn't be two.

Commissioner Manott.

So the property at uh 342, whatever the street is behind it.

Which one is three?

Lemming.

Yeah, lemming.

So those houses behind it are not in play here with regards to the distance.

Um from the back of the property to the multifamily is the issue.

So is it because there's an alley there or so they're not really there's a little space on that abutting property 166 backcock that is not having them a butt it directly, even if the if the alley wasn't there, they would still not be abutting it.

Okay.

Well, I did yeah, I know I draw a pencil from the corner of that lot and it does hit 346 and maybe touches 342 as well, lemming.

So um so just wanted to call that out.

Um and then second, so is it if I saw correctly there was a dialogue about um a previous structure that um burned down.

So was that in the same area or is it elsewhere on the property?

No, it's it's on the property.

So the property is currently under renovation.

And it was delayed for a variety of reasons.

One, it didn't have a plat, and two, they had to go get some permitting for it.

And during that time, and you can see it there, and that's that red building there.

Umless people were coming in and probably trying to get some shelter and started a fire.

And so the structure got ruined.

So the original structure or the or so that structure on the right is one that got damaged, but you're building the what we're talking about is one at the back space.

I want to make sure it was a separate building.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

And just to uh clarify what was asked earlier um about the multifamily note two does specifically call out residential or multifamily to be included in the definition of residential.

That's the only reason we use it on there.

Oh, thank you for clarifying because I sometimes I I hear so many different because sometimes multi-family is considered commercial in the eyes of other things.

There's only a few places where it's specifically states in the UDC that this will multifamily will be considered residential for this rule.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

I mean any other questions.

Hearing none, is anyone signed to speak?

Any voicemails?

Uh two people sign out to speak.

All right.

Well, we're gonna hear from uh a couple uh citizens signed up to speak and we'll see how this what their thoughts are.

Um Mr.

Tom Simmons is also yielding his time to me.

Sorry.

Okay.

Was that the other individual signed up?

Mr.

Simmons?

Okay.

And you're giving up your time, sir?

Yes, yeah, six minutes.

All right.

You have six minutes.

Great.

If we could start with this photo right here on the subject property, but I also have a file that has some photos for you also.

Good afternoon.

My name is Bianca Maldonado, P.O.

Box 100 315, 78201.

I'm president of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association offering comments on behalf of our 10 member board of directors.

154 Babcock sold um earlier this year on March 3rd of 2025 to United Homes contracting LLC.

A little bit of history about this property.

There used to be a lot of front loaders, a lot of construction equipment that was on here.

We had some a lot of zoning violations that went on prior, the prior owner, but we're really focused on the owner that took over and acquired the property in March of this year.

Unfortunately, um in September, September 25th of this year, there was a substantial fire that was started by I would not be giving them as much credit as homeless as they are vagrants, unfortunately, in this situation.

Um if you go to this aerial photo and you zoom in, you can see the buildup of the stuff behind the accessory structure.

Folks, that didn't happen overnight.

There's been a fence on this property, and that kind of buildup behind an accessory structure doesn't happen overnight.

The buffer is very important because of the multifamily that is adjacent to it.

But they still offer affordable rates for individuals who want to reside on that property.

And directly behind the fence at 154, Babcock is a parking lot, and there are front-end head-end parking.

Now, behind the fence on the Lemming Street property with the homes that live on Lemming Drive, that's where the dumpsters are located.

This alley that's being talked about is not an alley.

It is an abandoned drainage easement.

City doesn't maintain it, nobody maintains it.

Um it's not really what you would think of as a service alley or really an abandoned alley.

It's really one of those oddly easements that exists throughout the city.

The big concern is that when you look on the southeast corner, which in this photo orientation would be the lower left-hand corner of the property, it is very close to those residential properties, okay.

And in this particular situation, the fire that occurred in this accessory structure actually traveled to the adjacent property.

So I can understand why that law office doesn't want another accessory structure up against them because they don't want history to repeat itself.

There were people grilling food behind there.

I want to reiterate this doesn't happen overnight.

When we look at the history in the build essay, the strike teams involved, several of their permits are on hold pending approval.

You heard today, just as we heard that there could be a three to six hundred square foot, you know, uh accessory structure built, and it'll be built to code.

But what does all that mean?

You asked a good question.

What's the height going to be?

You know, these are all unknowns.

But we have to look at somebody's track record.

And in my opinion, we make our recommendation on that.

We look at the struggles that we've had with this property.

Come to us with a full plan, not a partial made plan.

This isn't a full plan that's being presented to you.

Our biggest concern has been fire in our community.

You know, you you hope that that never happens in an apartment complex, but directly across the street on Babcock, it backs up to Babcock, the Fredericksbrook Road place apartments, they too had a fire in the back of their uh units recently.

And then there was a big fire on the 100 block of Vance Jackson.

These are all within 15 months, folks, in addition to the fire at this property.

These people want to start fires because they want to grill, or you know, fires happen for life safety, you know, electrical reasons.

And I think what we're really focused on here today is maintaining that rear setback.

I know the property owner wants to have that negated because they feel that they would close that gap where someone would be able to hide.

Well, they've been hiding in open site all this time.

People have been driving by, and you know, there the really the concern is being a responsible property owner, and we don't feel that negating that that rear setback meets that obligation.

So we're asking you to support staff's recommendation for denial.

When you look at an accessory structure, what goes in it?

You can't regulate its contents.

You can have paint, you can have flammable equipment, you can have more wood.

It could become stacked from the board, you know, from the floor to the ceiling.

Those are things you can't regulate.

So I think of when you want to put a structure that large that close to the rear setback, you have to take all that into consideration because all that is possible.

When you look at its current location, it's going in the most vulnerable location.

It's going underneath a tree, and it's going in the southeast corner, closest to where there are residential houses.

Granted, there is some setback on the on the apartment side, but there would be front-end parking.

So think about accessibility in a fire.

So that's a fire lane down on the Parque de Oro side where that where that front-end parking is and where those dumpsters are located.

But where would you how would you get to that structure, that rear structure in a in a fire?

Would you come onto Parque of the Oros or would you try to do a ladder truck off of Babcock?

We recently had a fire here and it spread and damaged the neighbor's property.

If you could pull up the pictures that I have, please.

It's a file.

I gave it to them ahead of time, I'm sorry.

I took pictures for today, just so y'all can see what we see.

Sorry.

Did I crash the system?

Okay.

Well, those aren't your pictures, but I just have awesome questions while I was figuring this out.

So this was a construction company before.

Well, they stored construction equipment on site, so they may have isn't it?

Can you do that on an O2?

You're not supposed to, like I said, there was some violation history, but when they talk about accessibility being able to turn around in the parking lot, we're talking flatbed trailers pulled in here with front loaders, bobcats.

So I question the maneuverability of the parking lot.

So I'm I so you had a chance to, as your neighbor's association had a chance to speak with the applicant at all?

No.

Okay.

Hold on, we got the pictures up.

We'll go back.

Oh, here we go.

See, this is the front picture and the red building in the back with the door wide open.

It's been wide open since the day of the fire.

Could you go to the next picture, please?

This is the structure looking from the adjacent property neighbors.

There's two and two unsecured doors.

My understanding this is supposed to be demolished.

If you could go to the next picture, this is where the fire was on the back side of that property.

And you can also see where it spread to the adjacent property.

And that used to be that's a new owner too, has invested a lot of money into their property, so I can understand why they're supporting, hey, move it back, get it away from my property.

That makes sense.

But I think it's home ownership, but you can also look at the um main commercial building, you can see it's all boarded up.

And it's all raw and there's a big pile.

But that wasn't the only fire on this property.

There was a fire at the rear of the fence.

So the black rod iron fence is the fence of Park of the Oral, the wood fence is the property at 154.

And that little section between those two poles between the black pole and the wood pole, that's the next door neighbor.

And it's a very small section before you get into the residential right across the way.

So our big concern is that when you see this occur under the current ownership, and you see somebody who wants to negate that, we've supported adjacent development to this property.

They the little strip center right next door, and then the house that's a uh uh work housing mixed use location right next to it.

So they're very successful um redevelopments that have occurred on this one block.

It's just unfortunate in this particular situation, trying to negate the rear setback with unknown unknowns, unknowns, given the history that has occurred with life safety on this property, it has raised substantial concern in our community.

So that's why we're asking you to support staff's recommendation for denial on all three requests.

Okay.

Uh so just a quick question just to follow up.

So I know that um we have two things before us.

One is a buffer, a 15-foot buffer, and the other one's a setback.

Is is is there I know that you haven't talked to the applicant.

Is there anything that the board maybe discuss that you could ever live with?

A 15-foot setback?

Uh keep it keep the buffer, but give them 15 foot, is that something you think the board it may be discussed?

I think when we don't know what's going to be built, the 300 to 600 square feet, sir, that's pretty that's a pretty wide flop.

Not knowing what the construction uh materials are going to be.

Uh we could start talking about fire-rated walls.

Is this going to be a shed?

You know, it's just an accessory structure, so it doesn't really have to have any kind of fire rating on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So those are all the things that come up when you come into life safety.

I think if we had more answers to these questions, I think there could be a a better outcome of maybe a le uh a reduced set uh setback is what your last one.

And just for just out of curiosity, if for some reason we didn't want to the board didn't continue this so they could go meet with the neighbor association and hammer some things out.

Is it possible for us to set a square footage limit, like say give them a variance of 15 feet, but only for a structure not to exceed 300 square feet or something?

Is that something that's possible?

So you're only reducing the setback?

Um you can reduce it or limit it to the width of the accessory structure.

But at that point, they can go as far as I'm just curious to know what we what we could do in those cases.

Commissioner Manna.

So the first question, so I'll ask you the first question, then they'll drop to them.

Um so there there are three options here.

And so let's say that we were able to isolate the the accessory structure somewhere else on the property that gave you lots of buffer space all the way around.

So is so for example, pushed against the existing building.

Um would that become more palatable, I guess, from your perspective of the the concerns that you listed.

You know, um it so if it is that you had a hundred feet, I don't know how deep the property is, but so we'll say fifty feet uh to the back of the property where as they listed that be able to drive around it so be able to do the things still on the back side of the property, but push the building all the way against the existing building.

Um and if it was centered, so it wasn't next to everybody's property.

Um would that be you know something that would you know that you would consider to be maybe an appropriate use if you're gonna add an accessory structure on this on this property?

As long as the rear setback is maintained, and to your point, we don't want to push it one way or another, because we see the applicant or the the the adjacent property owner who said they are in favor of because they don't want it on their property line, and we don't want to push it to the other new construction that occurred about eight, ten years ago either.

So to your point about having it float in the middle and and so forth, they are a unique property because they have two driveway approaches that go around the building for circulation.

You don't always see that in a commercial building.

So I think there's a lot of things that are on the table.

We just have a lot of unknowns, and we just want to make sure that the fire safety risk is paramount in conversations, knowing all the variables that you can't regulate, like content, like building materials.

You know, when they say accessory structure.

So to city staff then, so so it's an O2 on one side and a C one on the other.

So are there um setbacks on the sides that are that are required?

No, just the uh just the rear because of the MF.

So they could build they could put the anything on either side and it would be compliant.

So it's simply because of the zoning.

They don't have to fire rate the wall if they put it back to the back.

Yeah, they still have to fire rate um the regular fire rating with the permits, but any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh so there's no voicemails and no one else signed to speak.

Uh just the two speakers.

So one more one more question, sorry.

So if this structure was attached to the existing structure, then it is no longer accessory dwelling, and it would be they could basically provide storage by attaching it to the existing building, correct?

So long as they're not within 30 feet of that rear setback, it could be attached or detached.

And the whole notion uh the side setbacks being none, they could put put that attachment wherever they want to do it.

Correct.

And and was the existing building damaged enough to where if they ever tried to reconstruct it, they would have to comply with all the current code, including fire.

Um, we didn't examine that because they were there were uh prepared they were planning on uh demolishing it and it wasn't an issue for us.

So you've heard some concerns from the neighbor association, uh some commentary from the board.

Uh is there anything you'd like to add or I'd like to clarify one thing.

So the adjacent property owner that was mentioned saying that uh she's in favor only so she could move it out of that area.

I know her personally, and I've talked to her at length.

And essentially she has the same problem that 154 does.

I mean, it's a law firm and um the homeless are a threat.

And um she wasn't she wasn't saying, and you can look at her letter, she wasn't saying that she wants to m move that structure back simply because she didn't want it by her.

She basically understood that their property is relatively small, small use, and that that it makes sense because you know, why have a setback that far because she she would have the same problem if she ever did something like that?

Why have the setback so far from the rear property that would allow vagrants, homeless, vandalism to come in and get in behind there?

This is just not a very good use of that particular setback because if you have people getting back there, they just can't be seen.

So th there is a five-foot setback on the side property, and you know, that sort of just made sense to just carry it all around the place.

Well, you don't have there's no setback on the side.

And I'm sorry, one correction.

I didn't realize that was a single family residential on the left side, so they would have the regular uh 20-foot side setback for the side.

So I apologize for that.

Okay.

So currently there's a 20-foot side setback that's not being that's not part of this application at all.

So on the lot of on the lot that's uh addressed as 166 Babcock, that's a single family residence.

And they have a and there's a 20-foot setback there.

Correct.

Well, we went they said it was a five-foot, but um, that that structure was.

Oh, sorry, I'm I'm talking about if you connect it to the principal building.

That's what I was talking about.

Okay.

But not as an accessory.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I just want to at least clarify that part that As long as it's detached, you don't have the 20-foot.

But I'm just saying that the support from the neighbor, who this is after the fire, by the way.

Um she was a support of saying yes, let's let's um put the variance in place to allow for better use of the property because they all have the same she has the same problem of having the setback.

And it wasn't because she was just trying to move it further away.

And you're gonna use this as an office.

You're not gonna try to I mean you're gonna it's gonna be a business, you're gonna be there Monday through Friday kind of a thing.

Correct.

Okay.

Right.

And it's currently vacant.

So that's been sort of a problematic of having a lot of people.

Well, what is the hardship for you not being able to move the accessory structure to w outside of thirty feet?

I mean, it looks like you have a whole bunch of room there.

No, no.

I mean it looks like it, but when you get trailers in and trucks, um you you need to turn them, you need to move them and you gotta work around it.

Well wait, why are you having trailers and trucks in there if it's a resident if it's an office building?

No, no.

This particular one is a home is a home maintenance building.

So there are just times where the contractor goes out.

Can you run a home maintenance building on an O2?

So they can't have um obviously any displays out there.

Um the office, I'm assuming is going to be in the personal structure.

So as long as they are the equipment is inside the accessory structure.

Then there is nothing that's prohibiting it.

I mean it looks like this is like a contracting company.

Yes, I think not construction.

It was described to us at the outset as a real estate office and the accessory structure was going to be used to store materials for small home maintenance and the other.

So what is a what is the function of this business that's going to be run out that you're intending to run out of there?

When you say residential services, are you what do you what are you doing?

Residence homes where you're changing out light bulbs, filters.

What does that mean to you that you have to do that?

So I believe what he's doing, uh the real estate or the property management office, and then in the back any like equipment to service those uh properties.

That's what it sounds like that's what it sounded like to us.

And I think that's what he's saying right now.

Which is fine.

The accessory structure is there to provide a storage of that, but the use on the principal can only be an office, which is what they are doing.

Okay.

And are they limited by the accessory structure the awards like 20 percent or something or 30 percent of the prime floor plan where they can do something that might not normally be allowed in an O2?

Um this is yeah, that's for accessory use.

This is an accessory structure to the principal use.

If that makes sense.

There's no separate use.

Okay.

I just wanted to make it just sounds like it's more than an office.

So yeah, and actually I want to come back to that question, but I do have another question.

So so earlier so I was talking to um the um the other person came up to speak with regards to where the building was gonna be placed.

And so you stated that it needs to be scooted all the way to the back so you can bring a vehicle and make make maneuvers.

So um could it be the case that it was moved all the way against the existing building so that you didn't you basically had the same space, just one's behind the accessory structure versus the other one that's in front of it.

So try to understand why you why would why it couldn't be that you would have the accessory structure adjacent or connected to the existing building.

Well, uh I mean I'm not saying it's impossible to do that, but I'm just saying that the owner doesn't want to do that in terms of efficiency, because if you're if you're gonna say, well, I'm gonna put that structure all the way up to the main building, it it almost makes sense that we'll just make it part of the main building.

And maybe you just don't want those things, you know, there.

You want them away and you know it it's with the idea that you still have um I mean the owner has his own reasons for setting up his operation.

Uh they are doing a renovation as it is, and they've already established how they w would like it.

So this was just part of, you know, just like having a detached garage, you know, you just want these things away from your main office because it is not they will don't really go together.

Okay.

Well, I you know I've um and then I forgot the second one and train of thought exploded there.

Okay.

Um I'll come back to it here as I think about it more.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there any other questions?

I I I have something.