So it looks like we have uh all 11 members and we're recording.

All right.

It's one o'clock.

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

If we can have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you.

If everyone could please uh join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and public for which it stands one nation under God.

Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and individual.

Staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reid.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ibanis.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Present.

Commissioner Gomez.

Present.

Commissioner Mana.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Present.

Commissioner Bunnyas?

Chair Orion.

And I am present.

So we have eleven seated today.

And before we begin 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, I will make announcements such as community calendar events.

I ask that the board members submit these announcements to me as a chair, and I will read them at the appropriate time 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 zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

The burden of proof is granting the relief sought rest with the applicant.

The applicant must present facts upon which the request of relief can be legally granted and supported.

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

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

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

Stafford Thank you.

Staff will begin each case with a short presentation.

Other requests, part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for the variance or special exemption and properties within 200 feet of the subject property.

Upon the presentation, any questions about a board, the applicant will present their request.

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

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

Two people get out their time for a total of nine minutes.

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for a rebuttal.

Limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit along with the opportunity to address board questions.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

So the first item uh on our agenda is some housekeeping.

We have nominations and considerations of the chair, vice chair, and pro tem.

I'll be turning this over to staff to run that election.

Do we have a nomination for pro temperature?

Uh I would start with chair first.

Yeah, work the way down.

How about you?

Do I have a nomination for chair?

Cruz.

I would like to nominate Mr.

Donald Orium for Chair.

I second.

Commissioner Cruz and seconded by Commissioner Benavides for Commissioner Orion for Chair.

Any other nominations?

If I can get a voice vote, um anybody anybody opposed?

All right.

So it's all uh congratulations, uh Chair Orion.

Can I get a nomination for vice chair?

Cruise.

I'd like to nominate Mr.

Um Andrew Olduna for Vice Chair.

Second.

Who was the second?

All right, got a Commissioner Ozuna.

Um any other nominations.

We'll take a voice voice vote.

Anyone in opposition say nay.

All right.

Congratulations, Commissioner Ozuna.

Um you have a nomination for the pro tem.

Bonus, I would like to uh nominate Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Um I abstain.

Or actually I prefer not to be elected.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

If I could if I can refer if I can pull out, that would be my point.

I nominate Bragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

She had she had texted me and asked that uh she would be willing to serve again.

I second.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

Oh, Commissioner Cruz.

Any other uh nominations.

All right.

Take a vote for it.

Uh if you are good with it, say aye, please.

Any nays?

All right.

Congratulations, Commissioner Bragman.

And and thank you all for for the vote.

But uh but thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, we're on item number two.

Uh and I understand they asked for a continuance to March 9th.

No, no, no.

Um sorry, item number three.

This March 9th, number two is February 23rd.

Yeah, we have it in the different order, sorry.

Um, it's item number three.

Um I'll read this into the record real quick.

Number three for BOA 25103025 for a 20 uh for 15-foot rear setback for a bar bar fence and a UDC accessory structure uh variance located at 154 Babcock.

Staff recommended denial, and we do have one speaker.

They're rec uh requesting a two-week continuance um to February uh 21st.

23rd.

Okay.

Mana.

Commissioner Mann.

So was this before the board once before?

It was had to get re-advertised because of uh we had to add for uh bar wire setback, so it was re-advertised.

Okay, thank you.

Is and and is this gonna push our caseload to 18 for the 23rd?

Correct.

Oh, jeez.

How's uh March 9th looking?

I believe we have nine.

Uh yeah, both were acceptable to the applicant either the 23rd or or March 9th.

Uh and right now we have a caseload of about nine cases for the whoever makes a motion to pick a date, 23rd or March.

No, that we do already have 17 for two weeks from now.

Uh speaker for item number three.

Speaker come up.

Mrs.

Maldonado.

Bianca Maldonado with Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, PO box one zero zero three one five, seven eight two zero one.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Yes, this isn't continued case, and if I had to weigh in, I would say please push to the March state.

We would prefer that.

It would make our schedule easier.

But I would want to fill you in on something that is instrumental in the notification and how cases are managed, specifically this particular case.

So as you know, it's continued from December.

Thank you for that.

Gave us an opportunity to meet with the applicant.

Um there is a new case manager, and so on Wednesday, um I was notified as a registered neighborhood association within 200 feet of this case that there was a new case manager.

So on Wednesday, um I was notified as a registered neighborhood association within 200 feet of this case that there was a new case manager.

And I asked the new case manager, are you the new case manager?

Because you just assume, I guess, when you get a new email that that might be the person.

And could you please let me know if this case is going to be continued on Monday?

And I never got a response.

So I treated it as though there were not going to be the opportunity to leave a voicemail.

So once voicemails are removed, I would have taken off time to come all the way down here to find out that this case was continued because staff failed to communicate with us.

So I just want to tell you the value of voicemails and how they're an integral part for people to be able to engage in their public government and their government and these cases and how I know you consider our opinions, especially when cases are continued for those comments to be able to occur.

And so it is very important for staff to engage with us in a timely manner.

So thank you for that.

And I also want to let you know public comments wasn't on your agenda.

So if I wanted to make a comment about Board of Adjustment voicemails in general, not pertaining to this case, I wouldn't have been able to do so today because it's not noticed on your agenda.

Thank you for that.

Manna?

Commissioner Manner.

So I have it's been a little bit so I did get a notice with regards to the city that we're going to stop public comments uh next uh I guess in April, correct?

Yeah, uh information uh we're gonna put out we put out online.

Uh we're also gonna put it out there in the director's report.

And that's voicemails only, just for context.

That's the same thing.

So voicemails only.

Correct.

So um so I guess you know, so I know that uh Monticello uh and and you know the other communities um you know in and around you that are established neighborhoods, you know, that is one of the primary means that it is feedback is provided to several of the groups, including us.

So just want to understand what the impact of of that is.

And then the second question on top of that is do we would in the past we haven't really opened um a place for comments for this board, and is that something that we should consider?

I guess maybe it comes back to that.

Yeah, I know that other uh boards I've been on have done that.

Um if I think that if there's somebody, I personally think that think that if there's somebody who would like to make a comment about our board in general, um having a uh a place to do it isn't I'm not opposed to it.

I don't know if that's because we're of what we do here.

Is that something that is allowed or not allowed?

We can uh this Joseph Varney, City Attorney's Office.

We can look at that.

Yeah, BOA traditionally has not had a general public comment section uh uh because of just the the nature of the specific specificity of the of the cases.

Um but if that's something you would like us to entertain, we can take a look at that.

I just want to be careful about how it's done to make sure it's you know that the comments are not.

Yeah, that's been the issue as far as comments germane to um you know an agenda item as opposed to for instance city council, which has the public comments on Wednesday evenings where basically you can say talk about anything.

I think that I think it would be important if we had something on our agenda that wasn't a very specific item, like perhaps uh maybe an appeal that would have some s if there was an appeal on our agenda that maybe had some sort of long-term effect about how the city does stuff, or maybe when we had one when UDC amendments that would be a good time to do that, because I know our board does recommend some of those.

Uh um I would like just for you to find out and then we'll we'll take it to a vote.

I'm not gonna make that decision.

I'd like the the commission to vote as whether or not they'd like to open that up.

And man, so and one question, you know, like we regularly see cases on fence sites and you know on the funds of property and and corrugated metal fencing, and so it may be good to get community weigh in with regards to overall the position, you know, for for we'll say a lot of the things that we have that are repetitive and kind of here the community's perspective, you know, versus you know, we'll say the kind of one-offs, and and I don't know if we just have a meeting where we just say an agenda item is let's talk about you know corrugated metal fencing, you know, so that so that we are really listening to the citizens as they come through.

I know we have uh we're gonna have the suggestion items for UDC amendments that we've pauled together for BOA cases, especially the ones that are repetitively approved in a same scenario.

And we're gonna suggest that to the board.

Uh obviously that would be an opportunity to is there a target date for us to entertain that?

Uh we don't have a target date yet, no.

Does this board want to set up a committee to to do that sort of thing to at least have one meeting to discuss that?

I can share that part.

Okay, so I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna move to add to the agenda for next week uh to set a a date for a uh a board workshop to discuss potential changes to the UDC.

If we could get that on next week's agenda, is there a second to that?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Okay.

Any opposed?

Uh hearing none.

So we'll get that on the agenda to set a date for a a workshop.

Um, you know, if if anybody on this board would like to attend that workshop, please uh notify staff so we can get a date, you know, locked in.

Um I know it'll be interesting.

I know I have a list.

So all right.

And then for the second or for the first question with regards to uh public comment, um, you know, it's so that uh so they can be recorded, so thank you.

Yeah, maybe maybe we do it once uh once every two months or something, one meeting every two months or every three months, just to not to have it on every single meeting.

You want me to answer your question?

I'm sorry, yes.

I do, thank you.

Um I will tell you I can't imagine that everybody has the flexibility to take off time and from work to come down here.

And I don't know that everybody could stand up here and speak quite so eloquently sometimes as they do in voicemails.

There are people who fear public speaking, and I believe that you know in history, if you look at it, public engagement as a whole has increased with the number of voicemails and the opinions you've been able to receive from people.

And I'll be frank.

Um at times when you submit information to staff, it is not conveyed in the same manner that it is presented to them, nor is it communicated to you in a timely manner.

Um and that goes across all boards and commissions.

And so I have examples, but this is not the time or place for that.

But obviously, it is something to be mindful of that voicemails you hear from that person.

And I think you all have a generous amount, you allow three minutes.

Other commissions allow two minutes.

So uh they but they do value it.

So it is unfortunate that there is a proposed change on the table that occurred without public input.

Thank you.

And as re um and I I don't know who I've asked, but but I know that um thank you.

So so and I know that we've had some challenges in the past with regards to, as was mentioned, the timeliness of the of the written comments.

And so if it is that we're removing one of the avenues for said feedback or or input for our cases, we seriously need to ratchet up our uh that communication so that we do have it timely and as available as possible as soon as you know, really when it comes in.

Um especially when we have cases where we have a hundred people in the past where we had a hundred people comment, you know, receiving that the morning of is not going to be acceptable.

And especially when it is that you know it um you anyways, so we did need to figure out how to manage that, so sorry.

And just keep in mind that the cutoff is at 10 o'clock in the morning, and the majority of voicemails and public responses that we get for some reason come down to the wire.

Um why that's done, I can't speak to that, but uh staff does try as soon as we get them, we try to compile them up and send them out to the BOA as soon as we can.

So I I will comment that that's we need another answer.

That's not the right answer.

And so my answer would be that we help with the community to ensure that let them know that we need their feedback as soon as possible, first.

And second, as soon as it's made available to the city, I think it should be available to everybody on staff.

And it is and it isn't a 11th hour delivery.

It's really as needed or as it comes in.

That would be my preference.

All right, thank you.

So the next item that was requesting a continuous.

Do we officially continue this to No, not yet.

So we have a we're looking for a motion to continue to March 9th.

So moved.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Good.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

All in favor say yes.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh uh cases continued.

Uh, what is the next item?

And item number four, BOA 250 uh 1030276 uh for a 12 foot variance for the uh 13-foot corner clear vision and a fence entrance of nine foot on 1038 Sherman Street.

Uh staff recommending uh approval for a first one a clear vision, denial for uh special exemption, uh requesting our continuance to March 9th.

No public comment on this one.

All right.

Looking for a motion.

Oh news motion to move to March 9th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by commissioner crews.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes case is continue to March 9th.

So now we are on item number two.

Good afternoon.

Um item number two, uh Mercumrave principal planner.

Uh, number two is BOA 25103007.

Um located at 118 Park View.

This is for a uh variant for uh development on a 2680 square foot lot and 37 uh foot lot width.

Subject properties located at Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association.

Um key thing about this one.

Uh this was approved by the Board of Adjustment on September 30th.

However, uh greater variant for square footage and lot width is required uh by half an inch, and I believe it was off by about 200 uh square feet um for the lot size.

Uh these are OHP comments, probably located in Mission Hill.

Exterior modification near uh construction will require OHP approval.

Approved site plan and materials submitted part of the application, and on June 4th, 2025, uh HDRC approved the request for a two-story new construction.

This is the site plan.

Historical picture and current view.

There is a Saw's uh facility to the north.

Uh staff recommends approval.

This request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as a neighborhood block face, dominantly comprises substandard lots and probably maintain all other dimension regulations set back requirements by the R5 zoning district.

Twenty-seven notices were sent out, none returned in favor or opposition, and no response from the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association.

That concludes the status presentation and applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

Cruz.

Can you check can you show where the umpposition is?

Because it's not showing on our we did not receive any uh Oh, no opposition.

No, ma'am.

Oh, okay.

Not even from the neighborhood association.

No, ma'am.

All right, thank you.

Mana.

Commissioner Mans.

So um the city has allowed for some uh I guess to allow some administrative variances.

What is it?

Or there's a is there a percentage or number?

Uh we are limited to uh six inch for setback or hype purposes.

Um that's all we are permitted to do administratively.

Not square footage.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

All right, so the advocate come forward.

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

Analisa Alvarado, I uh am the homeowner or the property owner at 118 Park View Drive.

And uh there actually was support previously when I from the Roosevelt uh neighborhood park association previously.

So um, but yeah, it's just for uh new construction project.

Okay.

And so and what was the size last time that we approved?

It was off a little bit.

4750.

4750.

Okay, so it went from two at 250 to 320.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Hearing none.

Thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

No public comment.

Stevens.

Commissioner Azuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10307.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grants a request for one and eight-foot variance from the minimum 45-foot lot width to allow development on a 37-foot lot width and two at 320 square foot variants on the minimum 5,000 square foot lot to allow development on a 4,680 square foot lot situated at 118 Park View Drive.

Applicant being Analisa Alvarado, because the testimony presented to us a fact so we determined show 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.

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

Steph Binds, this request is not contrary to public interest, as the applicant will preserve the neighborhood character by adhering to all of the lot development standards.

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

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

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

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

The applicant intends to observe all the requirements of the R5 zoning district.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use.

Other than other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variants are located.

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

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

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

Six the plot of the owner of the property for the variance of solid is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

And the unique circumstances were not currently but created by the owner of the property, not merely financial, not due to other results of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds apply to the owner of the property for the variance of salt.

The variances are sought is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property as the narrow width of the lot limits the ability to make the minimum square footage required by the R5 zoning district.

In a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I'll be supporting the motion as read with the with the two variance requests.

Uh uh obviously affordable housing is so important and needed in the community.

This provides the ability to develop a lot with the variance being very minimal on a percent basis to allow the development to move forward.

And we've uh the the this project has been before the board prior with the variance all approved, so if you need to use uh additional variances to get the project approved.

So thank you.

Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with Commissioner Azuna.

This appears to be a prime lot for infill development, so I'll be in support.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none of a voice vote, please.

I mean a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Isina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanith?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana?

I can occur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavidez?

I concur.

Commissioner Ponieth?

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings.

In fact, motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Next item is item number five.

It's okay.

Item number five is BOA 2-25-103-00282.

The applicant is Artemis Moore.

It is in Council District 1.

The location is 371 Everest Avenue.

The zoning is R4.

And I'm the case manager, Sean Sheeley.

The request is for a 14-foot variance from the minimum required 20-foot rear setback to allow a six-foot rear setback limited to the north, 28 feet of the primary structure.

The subject property is located along the end of the block face near the corner of Everest Add uh Avenue and West Terra Alta.

The property is surrounded by other single family and multifamily uses.

The property was split from the adjacent lot to the north through a replat in 2014.

Due to configuration of the lots on this uh block, the subject's property rear yard abuts the west adjacent property side yard.

The applicant requests a variance to reduce the minimum required rear setback of the prop uh property to accommodate a proposed addition to the rear of the existing home.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And the surrounding area.

Staff recommends the now in BOA 25-103-00282 based on the following findings.

Twenty uh notices were mailed.

Zero in favor, zero to opposition, and the Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association did not respond.

That's the end of the uh presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh so have the applicant come forward.

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

I'm Artemis Moore.

And um the project is um a master bedroom on the back side of the uh garage.

Um obviously that wouldn't be visible to the front of the um of uh 371 uh Everest, uh so it's not visible from the road.

Um so it wouldn't uh change how everything looks in the neighborhood per se.

Um this project is um is going to add another an additional uh 300 square feet uh to the uh property, approximately 300, 350 square feet, which would add some value to the property.

All right.

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

Is it is the the greenery in the back is is that um grass or is that turf?

It's turf.

Okay.

And and how is this project going to affect the two downspouts that are shown in the picture?

So how is it affecting what exactly?

Well, the picture shows that there's a downspout uh apparently where the additions there's two downspouts that are collecting from the apparent flat roof.

Are they just is the roof gonna is that gonna maintain or are they so the roof would be maintained exactly the way that it is?

Um the the addition would take place um in terms of it'll be the same height as as the roof it is right now, nothing changes whatsoever.

The addition will simply come out to where you see that that actually is perfectly they do it like that.

That's that spout would have to go.

Okay.

Uh right.

The one next to the uh to the uh window right there.

That one would have to go.

That one, thank you.

Um however, uh everything else stays the same.

The project will simply go straight across from there.

The reason why I ask is uh a lot of the times drainage is a big concern and so point discharge off to uh downspouts if they were going to be maintained as a as this ex addition were to occur that's moving it really really close uh to the neighbor's fence and I was just curious to see how how that was would be handled because with it being turf it's just going to shoot out in a concentrated manner.

So in terms of the uh the turf as it is right now I know that it's there now however the plan is to get rid of the turf altogether.

And then finally question for staff this addition looks like it's getting rid of the the rear door does the international resident resident code do they still require a rear door at a at a residence because I don't see one on the when you say it's getting rid of the real door um that door goes all the way across um the back side of that that that that property it is is very very wide.

So there's there's a door uh there and then there's an additional door on that side.

We're getting rid of one of the doors.

Okay.

That's closest to the garage.

I'm looking at the site plan and next in between um the dining uh tables it looks like there's a uh purple arrow pointing to where where I think the door is so it looks uh there is another door going to the rear yard correct to the to the to the left of that purple arrow there's there's another door right there.

All right thank you.

Any other commission questions.

Yep Bonias uh for the for the rear there I know City had said that maybe this was an intrude on privacy of of the neighbor uh but this is your rear yard and then that that fence there is that their rear yard as well?

Correct.

Right?

Okay.

Correct.

Then do you have any windows planned to be put on that that rear elevation?

Any windows will be on that?

So there'll be windows on the new addition um this where you see the blue um lines that is um that's gonna be a door right there that that goes out to the courtyard and then there um in terms of the uh window um on the on the on the wall closest to the fence there will be one rectangular window right there gotcha and you got a privacy fence there so okay correct thank you all right any other questions manna commission so the um if you bring up like one stop or an overhead view I just want to confirm so so the so where it is that this uh addition is going to uh is being proposed um basically um but's to the backyard of the person behind them which is mostly uh uh undeveloped correct correctly so very large open space in the back okay I just want to make sure that I understood that correctly correct all right uh any other questions is there anyone time to speak uh no public comment I'm still looking for the uh IBC code for requirement of a rear door uh well the applicant mentioned that there was an additional door I just wanted to make sure that I'm sure no public comment during permitting that'll come up I'm sure okay well if there's nothing else um I'm looking for a motion commissioner Bonis regarding case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero two eight two I moved that the board of adjustment grant a a request for a 14 foot variance from the minimum required 20 foot rear setback to allow a six foot rear setback limited to the north 28 feet of the primary structure situated 371 Everest Avenue applicant being Artemis Moore because this testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of the property is such that little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case the request would support the public interest as the reduction is modest and would leave adequate space between the property to the rear and is limited to 28 feet to due to special conditions a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship the special condition present on this property is the reverse configuration of the lot as compared to others on the block face this circumstance directly contributes to the lack of depth to allow for adherence to the typical minimum rear setback.

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

Such variants would meet the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback is minimal and the proposed rear setback is greater than the minimum side setback that is required of the of the lot directly to the north.

Four the variants uh will not authorize operation of a use other than those specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located no uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation and no substantial reduction of privacy.

Six the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and or not due or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located the plight of the property owner is due to the unique circumstance of the depth of the rear yard which leaves little room for additions or improvements of the existing structure in emotion.

The plight of the property owner is due to the unique circumstance of the depth of the rear yard, which leaves little room for additions or improvements to the existing structure in emotion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bunny.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in favor of this.

Uh I think the applicant had said that you know, as far as the drainage concerns, he's gonna take care of those.

Uh he's also gonna remove the the turf, which will help with drainage out in that in that way.

Um there is there's still gonna be a rear door there, and he does have a a odd-shaped lot.

Um, and and it does face uh different than some of the other lots in that area, and where he's building it is is um facing their rear yard as well too.

So I don't think it really has a privacy issue there.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with my colleague.

Is there any other commissioners like to add?

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

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur with the findings of the fact.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I can cur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I can curve Commissioner Penavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, item number six.

This is case BOA-26-10301.

Uh the applicant is Peter von Perdzek.

Uh it's in Council District 2.

The location is 4028 Colonial Sun Drive.

Uh the zoning is R4.

And the request is for a four-foot, six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a six-inch side setback, and a six-foot variance from the minimum ten foot front setback to allow four foot front setback for a carport.

The subject property is located along Colonial Sun Drive at the end of the street and off the cul-de-sac.

Uh, the applicant proposes a new carport located over the driveway.

Although the house is built along the property line, this does not appear to be a zero lot line development, and any new construction is required to abide by the current uh setback standards.

The dwelling and surrounding uh dwellings were developed prior to annexation of the city of San Antonio in 1994.

The applicant's proposed location for the carport requires that variances for the front and north side setbacks be obtained prior to permanent issuance.

This is the site plan, and as you can see, uh the location along the cul de sac and the side and front setback.

This is the subject property, and as you can see here, you can see the estimated property line uh along the cul-de-sac and where the carport will be situated.

This is the subject property in the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA 26 10301, based on the following findings of fact.

The producer the proposed reduction of the setback would result in the watershed spreading to the surrounding property and the pedestrian right away.

And the product proposed reduction of the front subact would disrupt the open front yard area that is consistent in uh future futures of homes in the area.

There are 50 uh notices mailed, and for context, the uh three in opposition were by one property owner.

They own all three of those properties.

And then uh the applicant also brought in right before the meeting two other letters that I will be showing when he speaks.

And there's no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

That uh this is the uh letter in opposition from that property owner of the three properties.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right.

Uh thank you very much.

Any uh questions from the commissions for staff.

Mana?

Commissioner.

So did you did you say you had letters in uh in favor?

Yes, sir, in favor.

Is that it right there?

Or no, we got them right before the I'm gonna show them on the screen.

Okay, I was looking for this.

Okay.

And and uh so I have a question.

So did the applicant submit a plan or is it just an idea at this time?

Well, we did receive a site plan only, correct?

Okay.

All right, I'll I'll say my questions for the applicant.

There is no current pending permit on this.

All right, thank you.

Well, let's have the applicant come forward.

All right.

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

You can use this to point.

What?

Oh my god.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Peter from Petatselka.

And I'm owner from the Colonial Sun Drive, uh, Texas, San Antonio.

And I got a plan to put a carboard up front, because afternoon, the sun shines always.

It gets kind of hot and blessed for the health storm.

Because sometimes we get the last time we had a real health storm out there, it damaged a lot of stuff on my house too.

On the solar panel and on the stuff.

That's why I want to get the clockboard to protect the cost too.

Because my son just got a brand new car too.

Okay.

So let me ask you a couple of questions.

How does your property drain?

Does it drain to the cul-de-sac or to the rear?

No, to the site.

To the side?

One goes to mostly time hardly by me this way.

And this way, and then the other way this way.

The neighbor.

Because hardly water comes by me by So the how is your your roof is pitched left to you know, left to right.

So you have half your water going to one side of your home, the other half going to the other.

Yeah, I'll decide by my neighbor.

And the other one over there more to the right.

Do you have a plan for the carport that you like to share?

Yeah, they can uh that'll become part of the record.

They can broadcast it.

And that's the Tennessee.

Uh well let's see what what what is in there.

What I'm trying to find out is uh your intent is the car port, is it going to be a flat roof or a pitched roof?

No, it's gonna be flat a little bit down, just the way the water towards the coal towards the front.

Towards the front.

Yes.

Nothing to the site.

And is your is the you know the uh the middle siding?

Yes.

Well goes up if the water doesn't go to the neighbor.

Okay.

Straight down.

And do you have uh is your car port intending to go closer to the side property line than your house or or further?

No, to the the left side when you look up to the house.

It'll be a little bit um inside the ground by some by side uh concrete.

Okay.

All right.

And no, thank you very much.

That's what I was trying to find out.

Yeah.

Uh any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Manna?

So this is this is a zero lot line property, correct?

Yeah, that's um, when you see the fence like that, this little piece, but this much is my property.

The other side, I'm okay.

This the one on the left I guess uh to have a zero line like that.

And and so followed up with uh uh my colleague's question.

So so there's gonna be no structure over that line.

No.

Um and so you'll be following the the the building footprint or I guess from the back all the way to the street, correct?

Exactly.

And then um and and so while I was so I I Google drove around the neighborhood and I saw on the abutting street behind you that there are like three structures, but there aren't many there aren't that many car ports here in your community.

So you are kind of setting you know a precedent there.

And so uh did we see how many letters that he got for uh for approval?

So just how many?

Two?

Okay, so two.

So so you're helping set that within the community itself.

So just you know, just understanding that.

So thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

Commissioner Cruz?

Excuse me.

Um letters the gentleman brought in that are stating they are supporting him.

Are they is any one of them from his next door neighbor?

The next door neighbor would be.

No, ma'am.

Okay.

How about the one to the right?

So what are the addresses if you can read them?

4020 uh 40 32.

That would be two houses to the left.

4027.

That's across the street.

Across the cold second.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Uh is there any voicemails?

Anyone signed to the speak?

Uh we have one uh speaker that signed up.

And just to clarify on the zero lot line.

We believe this was considered a zero lot line uh development when it was a R7 because R7 uh allowed it.

It's not on the plat in any uh development now would have to abide by the zoning code, which is why we're gonna get it.

Yeah, that's uh the old UDC, it was just part of the zoning.

It didn't have the same caveats that we have today.

But was this was Sir was your home in the city limits when it was constructed, or was it county?

No, there was the county.

The county was the first.

And then was later on the city took over.

Okay.

All right.

Well what's the one that's going to do is we have someone signed up to speak.

We're going to hear uh from that that individual, and then we'll see if we have additional questions.

Okay.

So let's have the uh the signer come to.

Oh.

Dr.

Sittel?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Hello, please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

I'm Debbie Johnson, and I am his next move uh uh the um which uh there is two mics up there, which I think it's that one.

I'm short.

Okay.

Sorry.

Okay, I'm the neighbor at 4030 Colonial Sun.

I also own 4029 Colonial Sun and 4024 Colonial Sun.

And this is a zero lot line property, and I have a certified copy of that from the deed records.

Okay.

With me.

It was done by by individual deed or restriction.

The um well, the lot lines, that's the way it went.

Yes, when we bought the when we bought the home.

Yes.

Yeah, that that's the way it was done.

That I got recently.

I think it's in there.

Is it there?

Or did I?

I've been going through this.

Where we have a five-foot maintenance easement free of access upon across the adjoining property for the sole purpose of maintaining the exterior wall.

Um most of the properties out there, very few on a cul de sac, because our properties are pie-shaped, have a carport.

Uh it it interferes with, well, I have pictures.

Uh with uh the four the few that I found, I found about two or three.

They are affixed to the existing driveway as not to interfere with the easements or anything or the neighbors of any sort.

His property, he does have drainage, uh the back part of his gutters goes into his backyard, but he had it put on the side of his house where it was going into my yard, and we had him turn that with uh I think my husband bought a splatter thing uh stone for it because it was making uh a river through there when it rained.

So I am kind of concerned about that.

I do have a picture of his property showing that there is plenty of room if he does want a carport to affix it to his existing drive because he had his driveway extended.

Uh this is my view from my front door.

So if there's anything there, it will be obstructing that.

We also have an iron fence along the side property line on our side.

That's standing right in my front door.

So all you see is his car and the side.

If you walk out further on the sidewalk itself out front, then you can see the street.

But it's gonna be obstructing our view totally.

We also have uh meter boxes right there on the at the end of the fence line.

Now these are pictures of the only two cul de sacs that I could find, and as you can see on them, they are fixed onto the existing driveway.

And I also have one showing the gutter that I was talking about.

This is the back of his house.

I think one of the other ones that you have shows the side where the gutter is.

Well, here's it's going down our side.

Here they are.

Originally they had turned this towards our home where it was making a a river, and we had them turn it the other direction.

Uh because we have zero lot lines, and I know this doesn't interfere with this case, but he took his dryer vent from the back of his home and decided to put it on the side of the house through his garage, which blows directly at my front door.

So I have lint.

Depending on the color on what he's drying at the time.

And I don't know, would we, you know, is our fence is on our our side of the property line.

And I just wondering if that's gonna interfere.

Am I gonna have to move my my fence?

It's been there for four or five years.

Well, he's not allowed to construct on your land.

He only has a five-foot easement for maintenance of my property.

But I own the land that the easement is on, and I grant, according to my deed, permission for the utility companies to come across that easement for any repairs that they need.

Yeah, but the but uh the the purpose of a maintenance easement is for that the homeowner, your next door homeowner can go with the money.

It says the sole purpose is for him to maintain his exterior property.

But he can't build on your property, if that's what you're wondering.

Yeah, I guess.

Okay.

So it's not gonna affect my fence line or anything on the property line.

No, he's not allowed to construct anything within your he can show up with a ladder and paint the side of his house, but that's you know that's so um so I don't see why it's necessary to change any of the easements.

He's not uh he he's here to ask uh because it today, if you were to build this neighborhood today, the it would it would be a different process to do a zero lot line.

It would have to be on your plaid, there would be different there's different rules.

But it was on my plat, a zero lot line.

Oh, but they don't do that anymore.

No, they do they it it's a different process today.

Okay so the way it was done back when your neighborhood was developed, they would do put a lot of it in the deed records.

Uh not necessarily is it it's codified differently today.

So how would we be sure that the drainage won't be on my site?

Well, that's why we're asking questions about drainage.

And so this the just so you know the applicant is here to ask to build a car port.

Typically it would have to be five feet away, but because it's he's asking for a variance to go down to six inches, that's what he's asking for.

And so that's what we're here to find out.

And hear your thoughts about.

Okay.

So is there any questions for the speaker?

Manna.

Commissioner Manor.

So uh just so just to clarify, so so you currently have that that wrought iron fence along that sideline, right?

So it and that's in your yard, as that's Dylan in your yard.

And so if he builds a carport on the other side of that fence, um, which is what he has to do.

So do you have as you know, uh are your concerns um do you still have concerns, I guess, with regards to that?

Because what we're really talking about, you know, is how close he can have it to the street, is that's really what kind of one of the things that we're talking about here.

Um and so do you have a a question with regards to that if he stays on the other side of that?

Yeah, that's what I said.

That that one picture shows what my view is stepping outside my front door because I'm right in the middle of the U.

So my house sets way back from his.

So one of the things that's so if he so we'll say by right, um he can build it ten feet away from we'll say from the street.

Okay.

And so so he can do that, so it would be a little bit shorter.

Uh, but he still can put a carport there, probably to the front of where his truck is there, you know, kind of by right with regards to how close to the street he can get.

Um and and so you know, just recognizing that you know, perspective.

And so the question is uh you know s sometimes people have longer vehicles and they're looking to shade that, and that's kind of why it is that we you know people come for us to see if they can shade a little bit more of their vehicle versus the length, you know, the f the full length of driveway versus a partial length versus uh just whatever the minimum is.

Well, and then I also worry about the drainage situation because of what we went through before.

Right.

And so one of the things that we do ask regularly um is that you know um we never like to see anybody produce water on anybody's property and try to design either ask for the designs or state such with guttering and or whatever, so that so that is never an issue.

And so if we took care of the water issue, that would be one of the other concerns that you had, right?

Okay.

I just want to make sure that that earnest your request.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And I have a question about the plans.

You still have the plans.

This is how far back my property sits from his.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um if there's no other questions for the speaker.

Here we go.

Thank you.

We'll have the applicant come back up.

We do have one voicemail we need to play.

Okay, let's hear the voicemail.

Yes, yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

The voicemail.

Oh, yeah.

We're gonna hear a voicemail first and then we'll you can stay there.

It's okay.

You can stay there.

We're just gonna listen to a voicemail.

And I'm at 210, 47, 3, 3, 8, 7, 1.

I'm calling reference to board of adjustment.

Uh meeting or board of adjustment.

Uh 26, 100, 0.

Zero one.

And that's uh in reference to someone uh expanding a request for a four-foot from the minimum required five foot that I'm okay with the request for two foot variants.

I have no problem with it.

And it's uh I am an active board member on the uh homeowner and I'm also within the 200 feet variance or perimeter of the so again um is okay with me for them to deviate from the uh prescribed uh uh stated uh law or whatever okay thank you you give give me a call back being any questions all right so is we wanted to give you a chance to provide any sort of rebuttal to what you had heard and also see if there's any other questions from the commission.

Uh well I'll build a carport what I can do with a gutter, cut it up, put a curve on the top, the roof, and let the water run down.

There's no problem.

So on the plans that you you provide that was the architect, it did that.

Okay.

These these are calling for it to be a straight slope to the front.

That's true.

Okay.

Yes.

No problem.

And not too deep, but guess that's the way the water don't look if you go deep, the one that go goes fast.

So is this can we make these plans part of the record?

Can we we we're gonna need to keep that so that's okay.

Oh, you can make a copy for me or what?

We can make a copy.

That's why I have a in case I want to build it, so we can pick up the uh the switch goes on the top of the house.

Okay.

It what what happens is um we let me let me make sure I'm clear about this.

So as the applicant, are you saying that that is the carport you would like to build and make it part of your application?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, this will go do so.

What happens is now that we have something tangible that we're actually looking at that's being requested.

So is there any questions from the commission regarding um this new information?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So uh and I can't see the image with uh I can my eyes aren't that good.

So do we have um the length or be checked on the screen?

So I was looking to for the length to be determined for it for the from the wall of the garage, the existing garage, what is the length of the proposed carport that you're talking about?

How long is your carport going to be?

So it's gonna be uh from the garage down to the slope because you've got to have 11 feet from the street is yours.

With a where you dive in because they they made a construction inside when city went farther back in.

So the picture that the city showed, it it shows the red line being well in front of the truck, is where I was going.

And so the question I was asking is can it be shortened any?

Do you it can be shortened if you want me to?

May I see those plans?

So long the car didn't get damaged, no one not my truck, the other one.

It does show a 23-foot depth on his plans.

Yeah, so 23 is is a you know you know listening to the neighbor, you know, with regards to the concern and 23 foot um is a little bit long, and you know, so if it was shortened a little bit, then it may you know alleviate one of those questions that the neighbor had.

Because right away the neighborhood, I went around the neighborhood, I got pictures, and they're not legal.

You can tell.

That's why I tried to fight it, because I called the city op uh number and told me no, and then we got listened.

So I took a picture, and they're not legal, not either.

And so the nice thing is, or the we'll say uh and and a uh uh an event that maybe occurs out of this is that we also drive around and they come before us and they have to you know kind of talk to us because of that as well.

So we do try to keep up with that.

Thank you.

Okay.

So right now we have an application for a 23 foot long car port that is that is sloped continuously to the front of the cul de sac.

That's what's currently before us at this point in time.

Um and it's six inches, uh no closer than six inches to the side property line, and at its worst, four feet to the front property line because it does get it does get further away as you turn to the cul-de-sac.

So is there any questions from the commission regarding what's before us or any questions of the applicant?

So Mana.

Commissioner Manor.

So if we asked for it to be 20 foot in length, do you think that would be okay with regards to the depth of your carport instead of 23 foot made it only 20 feet deep?

It's okay with me.

Twenty-foot.

Twenty to little bit too long, right?

Just a little bit too long.

And I and I think so that then that addresses your neighbor's question, and I think that brings it into your because it isn't a call de sac, and and you're you're sharing that that view, that view shed, and so I think Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Dean?

The footers are the footers going to be built strictly on your property line?

Yes.

Yes.

That's square.

They square.

Square.

Do you know the size of them?

No, it's got to be longer.

It goes up.

Uh-huh.

And then when you go a little bit down, farther down, gotta be longer.

Right.

It goes right over the garage.

On the plans, the footers showed two foot by two foot.

See, that's going to be of an issue because if he runs a post in the middle of that, he's not going to be six inches away from the side property line.

Yep.

What?

So what happens is uh your variance is to be no closer than six inches to the side property line.

Okay.

So if your footer is two feet by two feet.

No, it's uh it's just square ones, just square ones.

No, we're talking about the concrete in the ground.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, that that can't that can't go over your property line.

Okay, it just got to be on cemented.

Yeah, so the so what happens is that if you were to build it that way, you would have to be twelve inches away from the side property line.

So I've got to put the left side gotta be on the concrete.

On the side of the driveway.

The drive line.

Well, the he just can't construct anything outside of the property line.

Right.

So if he if if he makes his footer slightly smaller, or if he if we give him a variance for I mean nine inches or something, I mean instead of six.

The post how big are the posts?

Are they six by six?

They're small, they're square.

They're not as big.

Looks like they're four by four by three eight three sixteenths.

Yeah, so they're steel, so they're you know, at four by four minus twenty.

So it would be ten inches off.

So he would need right if he were to build it as per that plan, he'd he'd need to be ten inches away.

The post would be closer than six inches.

Unless he made the footer a little smaller.

But we can't make them smaller, yeah.

But but it would have to be re-advertised to change that that's the same.

No, no, I know I know.

I mean if he were to the c we're not here to tell him how to make his concrete footer.

If if it's if his structural engineer would make the concrete footer a little bit less in diameter, then it wouldn't be a big deal, is what I'm getting at.

Right.

So when we did the intake for this project, we actually did not have this uh these plans that the applicant has provided.

So the intent was to just advertise, you know, the or or the the applicant's intent of having it no closer at any point of that carport six inches.

So we can make it ten inches and move on, or we can or leave it and have them figure it out.

That's why we want to.

Yeah.

Okay.

So uh with that in mind, uh, if there's nothing else, I think it would be perhaps best to make a motion uh for the six-inch side and for a twenty twenty-foot-long carport.

Whoever would like to make that with the con referencing the application to have a continuously slope roof, you know.

Mana?

Commissioner Manna.

So recording case number BOA, I think I understood I I think I understood your request, but we'll see where it goes.

Uh BOA 2610301.

I moved that the board adjustment grant a four foot six inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a six-inch side setback, and two a three-foot variance from the minimum ten-foot set front setback to allow a seven-foot front setback uh uh situated or setback for a carport, um, I guess as modified per the submitted plans, uh situated at 4028 uh colonial Sun Drive.

Uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement other provisions that UDC has amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the proposed carport would not be contrary to public interest, as the carport would have enough space to allow for pedestrian asset access and is consistent with the existing setback of the primary structure.

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

The special condition of this property is the location of the existing home and driveway being very near to the side and front property lines.

This pre-existing condition limits the area in which the uh functional airport or functional car port can be located over the existing driveway.

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

Such variants would meet the spirit of the ordinance as a reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no significant significant hardship to either property abutting the slot, specifically with the slope of the property or slope of the carport uh moving water to the front of the property.

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

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

Five, such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent for property or alter the central character of the district in which his property is located.

Granting this variance will not substantially injure the adjacent property owner as there is sufficient separation and the variants would not reduce access to the property or the public walkways.

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

The applied of the property owner is due to unique circumstances on the depth of the front yard, which limits the available space for establishment of a carport and location of the house along the side setback.

These circumstances were not created by the owner and are not merely financial.

End of motion.

I'm gonna second that uh and and ask uh for a slight amendment to the uh reading uh to reference the the plans provided by the applicant at the podium to become part of the record modified uh to be 20 feet in length as opposed to 23 feet in length.

Accepted it, I thought I said that, but not as clearly as you did just now.

So thank you for the clarification.

And so I accept that modification.

Okay.

So that's what's before the commission today.

Uh Commissioner Mando.

So um so I think that we met so almost everything that you were asking with regards to you know what is being permitted and you know what you asked for from the from the neighboring property.

Um then also we had the and it appears that there is a neighborhood association um that isn't necessarily officially officially recognized by the city, but they weighed in and said that they were okay with it kind of as is.

Um and so um so I think this is kind of a good compromise between the dialogue here and I think that you know we get to protect the vehicle as well as protect your viewing your via front door, and so I think that makes this a uh a good compromise here.

And so I'll be voting in favor as read.

And I'll be in some hold I'll be in support as red as well because uh the length was reduced from 23 to 20 feet, and now that we have something tangible to reference in the motion, which is a continuously sloped carport towards the front uh that alleviates the drainage concerns I personally had.

Uh so I'll be in support as red.

Is there any other commissioners like to add in?

Chair.

Uh regarding the footer conversation from earlier, so that this assures that it won't go past the property line and it has to be flushed to the ground.

Uh yeah, we so this variance is for nothing that's above the surface of the ground.

Uh well, nothing can be outside of this property line, but nothing above the surface can be within six inches of the property line.

How he does that if he gets his plans redone by the structural engineer or if he moves it over.

But he can't have the post, the roof, nothing can be closer than six inches to the property line if this gets approved today.

So let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Chair Orion.

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

All right, it's unanimous.

Um there was those modifications we talked about.

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

All right.

Yes, sir.

Uh no, not anything to not get the butch up front.

I would have got it up front.

Well, we left site.

You have a your plans call for uniform.

I'll put up front.

What it doesn't run off all the way up to the street goes to the plant.

And and this will all be worked out during permitting, but what we did was allow you to be within six inches and then no more than twenty feet long.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

All right.

Item seven.

So item seven.

Um usually we do these in separate agendas, um back to back agendas, but because of the weather alert, um, we're gonna do these in both um back to back.

Um so item number seven, uh the applicant is gonna present to you evidence.

You're not gonna make a decision on the variance, but you're gonna make a decision whether he is able to proceed to have his case heard, which is item number eight, um, within twelve months of previously uh being denied by the board of adjustment.

Um explain to the board what new evidence you have that you want to present to them.

So this is not regarding the parking variable, just whatever you are requesting.

Okay.

I don't know what you're okay.

Uh my name is Raul Garcia, and I am the property I'm the property owner before you today.

I am requesting a parking variance to reduce the on-site parking requirement from four spaces to two spaces for a resident residential development that has already been approved by the city.

To give a brief background, this property was successfully rezoned to R4 with a conditional use allowing two duplexes for a total of four residential units.

That zoning and density were reviewed and approved by the city, and I am not requesting any increase in density, height, or intensity beyond what has already been granted.

The challenge before you today is a site-specific hardship related to parking.

Due to the size and configuration of the lot, it is not feasible to accommodate four on-site parking spaces while also complying with other developmental standards.

Strict informant enforcement of the parking requirements effectively prevents the reasonable use of the property as already approved under its zoning.

This hardship is not self-created.

It arises from the physical limitations of the lot combined with the parking standard.

Not from any action taken after zoning approval.

The requested variance is the minimum relief necessary to allow the project to move forward as intended.

Under the proposed plan, two parking spaces will be provided on-site, and the remaining parking demand can be reasonably accommodated through existing on-street parking.

The street already functions with on-street parking today, and this request does not change that existing condition.

Importantly, this is a request to reduce on-site parking only.

It does not increase the density traffic or overall parking demand beyond what has already been contemplated when the zoning was approved.

I would also like to note that all required notices were properly sent to surrounding property owners.

A total of 38 notices were mailed, and I did not receive a single written objection from any adjacent or nearby neighbor.

The only opposition I am aware of is from one representative of the neighborhood association, not from the surrounding property owners themselves.

Granting this variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood or set a president beyond the specific property.

This request is about whether the development standards can be reasonably applied to this specific lot.

Any property owner in the same situation would face the same limitation and would require the same relief.

In closing, this is a modest and reasonable request, supported by the lack of neighborhood objections, consistent with the approved zoning and necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.

Thank you for your consideration.

All right.

So what's before us today is solely the whether or not we will hear this or he has to wait.

When was this heard originally?

November?

Okay.

So he either has to if if we don't approve this, he has to wait till November to come back to us.

So uh with that, is there any questions for the applicant regarding whether we should hear this or not?

Just good.

Mr.

Chair, just quick verification.

So this specific item came before us in November for the parking uh issue, and then it was voted against and then.

It was a setback.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

It was a setback that I brought forth uh in but not not the parking.

Not the parking.

So this is new then.

This is new.

So the well, why why does it have to what's with the 12 month then if it's the 12 months is not distinguish what request it is with the property?

Um it doesn't distinguish it's it's not the same request.

Yeah, so that sounds like something for our new committee to talk about.

Yes.

Yes, I I will recall this um case being heard before.

And at that time the entire structure is the same footprint as is now, but it was pushed back.

And I believe the suggestion of this committee was to move it forward to retain some green space in the rear and look at a parking variance.

So I believe that's what the applicant um has followed through with.

Okay.

Now that's wonderful.

I I have to tell you I really thought that we had uh entertained parking.

So it was set back related to parking.

But it was the request both for a setback.

Okay.

Well, thanks, Commissioner Reed.

Um any other questions?

Hearing none.

Clarification on the vote, is it just the majority or is it a nine to the Do we need nine or a majority on this sort of thing?

For this it would uh be majority.

All right.

So uh we'll just go ahead and have a roll call vote if someone would like to make a motion.

Motion for uh rehearing this case, although it's new motion to waive the 12 month time limitation.

Yes.

All right.

Is there a second?

I second.

Second by I'll give that to commit Commissioner Reed.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Uh aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

We'll go ahead and hear the case.

Item eight.

Oh, sorry.

Item number eight is located at 5703 MacDonald Street.

Uh the zoning is R4 C D with a conditional use for four dwelling units.

The request is a for a 50 percent variance from the minimum required for off-street parking spaces to allow for two off-street parking spaces.

The property is currently vacant land with a proposed development of two duplexes.

The increased density was permitted as a conditional use in 2024.

The property is surrounded by single family dwellings except to the east where commercial strip mall is under construction.

The board previously denied a request for reduced rear setback to accommodate additional parking in the front yard on November 17th, 2025.

The proposed development of two duplex structures requires four off-street parking spaces.

And the request is for to be for it to be reduced to two off-street parking spaces.

This is the site plan with the parking spaces kind of called out at the bottom.

And some of the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial, NBOA-26-10302, based on the following findings of fact.

One, the request would result in an increased on-street parking congestion, reduced traffic safety, and spillover impacts onto neighboring properties that are required to meet parking standard standards.

And two, the variants would allow two parking spaces for four dwelling units, which may not be adequate to mitigate the expected increase in traffic to the neighborhood.

There were 38 notices mailed out for this case.

Okay.

That concludes staff's presentation.

Um I want to point out that I did add a notice this morning.

It's on the slide before, so I would change the count slightly.

But the notice will be on the slide before this.

So I have I have a quick question.

Um I noticed that the pavement doesn't extend the entire depth of the uh frontage of the property.

Um are you allowed to park a car in in in the grass if it isn't paved?

How does that work?

Um I can get an answer for you.

I don't know.

I mean it usually talks about street width, but the street doesn't I don't know.

I do believe it is part of code that you cannot park on grass in the front yard.

All right.

I just wanted to ask.

Uh is there any uh questions for staff before we move forward?

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um my biggest thing is if I remember correctly, it is a dent in uh where the apartment compli the apartments are going in.

And so if it's a den in and with the new building across the street.

And so if it's a den and with the new building across the street, um I'm trying to figure out if how do you put in four cars instead of two?

Well, they have two on their property.

I'm wondering if if they could fit two on the street legally, that would kind of help me out there.

Yeah, and the bad part is well, it blocked the neighbors.

That's the only thing is because there is still three other houses in that area.

And man.

And then of course, with the new building going in, I don't know if that's gonna affect it at all or not.

Right.

Commissioner Manna.

And so I'm trying to and so as the applicant comes toward you.

I'm trying to recall the prior conversation.

And as I recall, we we were talking about them figuring out how to set it so that they could park the four cars in far in front of the property, which is why it is that we didn't allow for the variance, you know.

So basically said figure it out.

And so um you know, and and so and I would always question if we're going to allow development that doesn't provide for the parking, you know, that that's kind of going against really, you know, the people have additional cars, you know, I guess that they bring to a property.

And so is is that really truly what we were asking for in prior dialogue, and that's not what I recall.

So I'd be curious to know how the that discussion must have come up during the zoning change, I would think.

Um yes, Commissioner Reed.

Yeah, and I I think part of um my concern with parking for there with the previous site plan was in fact that this road dead ends before the end of the lot, so access to park all four of those cars would have been difficult.

And it does seem like there's a fair amount of street parking available here.

Um I I don't know if you can park head in in that dead end or well they he he can get he's he's putting two cars on his property.

And so he's so one thing I I I just looked at the plat, and Macadona Street is a 50-foot right-of-way.

Uh so it means that the pavement would be 30 feet wide, which means you are allowed to park on either side of that pavement legally.

So one thing that one thing that the the applicant could do is extend the pavement a little bit so that he could easily fit the cars.

But he also could fit them on either side of the street.

Uh it looks it it I don't know.

I guess we'll have to wait to hear from the applicant.

Let's have the applicant come forward, please.

So you've heard some of our thoughts.

Um we just want to make sure that it is possible to get at least four cars.

I notice you have two on your property and the two in the street.

I don't know if they can legally park there because once you build your driveway, do you have enough pavement beyond your driveway to fit a car?

I would say yes.

Uh to the right, there's no adjacent house.

And that is what would kind of be a rough cul-de-sac.

So and being that I have seen um the new commercial building that is um being built right now, and it has its own parking.

So I do believe that in that little T shape of the street, there would be more than enough parking spaces for two cars.

Your plan shows your driveway to be slightly uh further south, slightly not dead center, but slightly further south, and the dead end of the asphalt is what about two-thirds of the way up?

Okay.

So looking at the picture from here, I would say if we're debating whether the entrance is on the left, I think regardless, if you look at the the top and the right, I believe.

There's a pointer you can use.

Sorry about that.

Uh on the top and on the right, I believe that there is adequate space, even if we take this out of the equation.

Okay.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Who does land belong to after that dead end?

Um is that city property?

Yeah, let me see if it's I still got the plat up.

And you you wonder if you could.

That's all city right-of-way.

It is.

It's all city right-of-way.

If I may one more thing, um I asked the city about the same thing.

They told me it was an easement, and also one of the slides that she added this morning was that I contacted my district five councilwoman, and I was able to get this street considered to the IMP uh so that they can make improvements.

And I'll even go a step further and hopefully I can make a discussion with them.

I'll I'm more than willing to take care of all the cement.

Uh but obviously not the street.

So from the street left, including my cement sidewalk, I'm more than prepared to uh put it up to cold or whatever they prefer.

And then the rest of the street, I'm asking that they repair it.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh any questions for sir?

We might have some qu we might have some questions for you.

Any questions for the applicant?

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um on the councilwoman's uh office, did they give you a definite uh reply to the street uh function if they can get it done or not?

No definite uh reply.

Um that's the information they gave me.

Uh step two, if I want to kind of uh improve that possibility, I can definitely um go ahead and speak to someone further about that.

Okay, because I know that would have to be added into city budget, and that's not gonna happen until September.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Should we be concerned about a fire truck or anything?

Uh you being the fire fire expert.

Well, once the the fire truck in uh can go up to 150 feet uh and experience a dead end condition, so when it comes down the the the base of the T, it could make a it can make a right turn.

How deep is your lot?

How often?

How deep uh is your lot?

Um sixty-five feet, I believe.

No, a hundred.

Okay, so yeah, with 150 foot, it could hose lay and touch that, so it would be fine.

You're not putting in a sprinkler system, are you?

A sprinkler system?

Um at the moment, not that I'm thank you.

All right.

What uh uh chair.

Yes.

What about the uh or maybe the applicant uh the mailbox situation and how the mail is received for the duplex?

Is it gonna be on single pole or the how is that is cluster box or um so at the moment there has never been a residence uh but moving forward I would assume a cluster box of some sort uh available at the sidewalk?

Okay, and does that affect your parking or I think it's uh wide enough to where I can position the cluster box to the left and it won't impede egress or ingress.

Well, with the with the 50-foot right-of-way, you have 10 feet from the face of curb.

Traditionally you have a four-foot sidewalk on residential, so the box would go behind the sidewalk.

But but the line of questioning, and I was gonna bring up uh trash and and recycle pickup.

You know, we're trying to make sure that if a vehicle was parked there, like if you weren't successful with the council's office and this is just the way it was going to end up being, if there was two of those vehicles parked on either side of that road, what what is the reality of of this of this property experiencing you know postal use, uh trash pickup?

Can two cars be parked there and not conflict with the that's those weak those things that have to happen daily or weekly.

Yeah.

I think that given that it's 65 feet wide, I think that there's ample space for two cars and then or three, and then there's enough space for the trash and uh mailboxes.

And these units are two bedrooms?

Each unit will be a two-bedroom, correct.

Okay.

Two one.

Because it because if we approve that today, we're basically approving permanent parking on the street, you know.

Understood.

Basically forever.

So there any other questions?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens?

Uh can the city confirm that they reviewed and approved the two proposed spots that are off-street, that they meet the parking requirements.

Are you talking about they're under original rezoning?

Uh just what we're looking at right now on the screen, parking space one and two off street.

I I'm a bit skeptical that those are actually functional parking spaces.

Uh we did notify the applicant um he still has to go through traffic review.

Um and then uh the requirement of 54 or 50 percent impervious cover.

Um, but there's no official plan turned in, uh, obviously because this is not approved yet.

So when I look at this like a shared curb cut, I look at if if I picture somebody parking in space one, I'm I'm not sure that you could even access space two with that limited curb cut width.

Are you are you confident that that's still a functional space or can you increase the curb cut width?

I think that's where I'm getting a little jammed up.

Um so again, uh being 65 feet wide, I think if someone were to enter, go left to parking space one, I believe that there's enough space to go right into parking space two.

Uh but again, uh I'm available I'm open to widening that egress and ingress area if I have to do new cement to kind of widen in that entrance area, I'm prepared to do so.

Well, uh parking space is 18 feet, 18 feet, and with 90 degree parking, they want 25 feet behind.

So that's 61 feet.

That doesn't give you a lot of room.

You you'd have to put the cars all the way to the ends, and your side driver would basically have to be in the middle.

That's why a concern for one is a is a concern because without your apron being in the middle of that that property, it they the car is going to be overhanging in front of the driveway apron.

And so that's and so and if you move the driveway open further to the right, you may not have enough room to park a car next to the apron.

You don't have a fire hydrant there or anything, do you?

Um there might be one further down the street, but not in the right.

So Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So just trying to recall the prior dialogue.

So because um you there's a back a setback on the back side, so the back property line.

And so has that been part of this dialogue?

Was that part of the dialogue in the prior dialogue?

If we said no, you can't push it back any further.

And then I was advised by uh one or two members of the board to perhaps try a parking variance in the future and stand before you.

So um and so I guess uh one question would be the size of the property itself.

So you know you so you haven't built the structures.

So uh what leeway do you have or what what opportunities do you have with regards to the size of the existing structures?

So they're the small they're the biggest or the smallest that they can be.

Um I would say neither the the smallest or the largest.

I would say they're adequately roomed for their purpose, for their intended purpose.

Additionally, if I can say one last thing is um I've been doing this for you know two years going now.

And uh one, I'm curious to see what exactly the the original rezoning said, right?

I wonder if we they took that into consideration when I did that in 2024.

I believe that something might there might have been some words, a paragraph or two in respect to parking.

Um but also uh carrying out these procedure.

Last time um I attempted to get the setback variance, it was denied, and this is my uh last avenue to accura to just build like I intended to for rezoning purposes.

Staff, can you zoom out a little bit?

Yeah, what is it?

It shows the 20 feet in the rear.

Correct.

Okay.

And what did we approve last time?

Uh it was denied for a five year old.

For it to be moved back ten feet.

Ten foot rear setback.

Okay.

So he so we denied him moving it back, so now he's looking for a parking variance.

I personally wouldn't care if he moved it back to feet, but yes, Commissioner.

Okay.

And I I I think I was actually the one that suggested the parking variant, so I'll I'll I'm not gonna leave him hanging here.

But um I I think the thought was uh ten foot rear with parking in front allows for very little permeable ground ground cover.

And by moving it forward since it did appear that there is street parking available, it did uh allow for some space in the rear, green space permeable.

Commissioner, could you repeat that a little louder?

We couldn't hear you down here.

Uh yes, yes.

I I I think um since I had suggested last time around that he consider a parking variance instead of having the building push back ten feet.

The thought was um to increase the amount of permeable ground cover uh by moving the buildings forward and allowing green space in the rear.

Otherwise you have uh a lot of lot covers between the building footprint and if you were to have four parking spaces in the front.

I'll make another suggestion.

These buildings are just over ten feet apart.

What can't we sneak a parking space between them, just one next to the two stairwells?

So he he can do that.

He's not he's got he's not gonna be limited to the site plan.

If you approve for a reduction of the two parking spaces, he can make that adjustment.

But is he processing this as a COD on two different lots or is he doing it as like a master?

Because you can't have a parking space centered on a lot line like that without some sort of an easement.

I guess you can get an easement for it.

I've done I mean I've done that before.

Hannah?

Yes, Commissioner Manna?

So also d I guess is the so on the back property, is that possible for parking?

So I have a driveway all the way to the back.

Oh, that's a lot of impervious.

Well, I'm just you know, uh we go through impervious cover versus parking on the street.

And so I know that we've seen some development standards in the past where they do have parking in between or the back side moved all around you know the properties themselves.

Staff, is he allowed to park in the rear on a R for development?

Yes.

Okay.

So he could put in like a ribbon drive or something and get some parking in the rear.

I believe that's what the original rezoning case kind of saw with the original site plan.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

So I think that I would be privy to give him a variance for one parking space.

Just and then we'll see which way he wants to go with that.

Instead of make it three parking spaces instead of two.

Because he could he could he could have one up the middle and he could park one car on the street.

Or if he wanted to, you could put like a little ribbon drive in the back and put some parking in the rear.

He can do that.

He can always do that.

Well, I thought that's what we had proposed before, and we didn't.

Well, sometimes you have to make a make the variance work to get him to do something, you know.

Yeah.

That's true.

That would be a good suggestion.

Chair, this Ivanus.

Yes, Commissioner Barnings.

I don't have a problem with him having the two parkings on the street.

There's plenty of space there.

I I think that we're trying to make a foot fit into a shoe that we kind of designed.

Right.

And um so I I think that being the project that he has asking for that those two cars.

Two cars to be parked on the street.

I don't think that's a problem.

Um I also think that it it it's more dangerous to have that a car in the middle of those two plexus.

I made the suggestion because I don't know if we can get to nine uh as as requested.

And so, yes, Commissioner Manna?

And and I would uh I don't necessarily agree that it we designed it.

We are not the architects here of the property.

And so they were given, you know, they were given uh a lot of leeway with regards to what they wanted to do, and the design they came with is doing what it is that they are asking us to do.

And so they're trying to fit a whole lot of stuff onto a property, and they don't have enough space on the property.

And so now they're asking you know for us to kind of you know ask for the forgiveness.

And so I don't want to I I don't want to say that I had anything to do with you know the uh them presenting their problem.

This is well, he did ask for a variance for setbacks to push that back so he could fit four cars in the front.

Don't disappear.

And we're kind of making um trying to make an assessment of his requests of having a and the other thing he could do is he could park two cars next to each other, right next to the stairs in front of each lot if he would just move the back a couple feet and just put two different driveways.

I mean he has other things the options he can do.

So I think there's lots of options that are available for the off-street parking.

And so um, I I'm gonna leave it to uh is there any one center to speak of voicemails on this?

No public comment.

Okay, so I'm what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna leave it for whoever is feels that they're maybe not uh uh in favor of this, maybe to make the motion and make a motion for what they could live with and start from there, maybe.

Uh Bone, so I got a question for the Commissioner, real quick.

These are each one of them is a duplex, right?

They're two stories?

Correct.

Okay.

Is that per floor?

Is that perfect?

That's per floor.

That's per floor.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Per unit.

And then those are the stairs right in front.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Anybody like to make a motion?

Anyone?

I'll make a motion as as proposed as a variance states, and we can go ahead and vote on that and it goes.

So regarding case number BOA-26-10302, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant to variance request for a 50% variance for the minimum required four off-street parking spaces to allow two off-street parking spaces situated at 5703, McDonald Street applicant being Raul Garcia.

Because the testimony presented to us, in fact, so we determined so 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 hardships specifically.

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

The proposal to reduce this minimum would not be contrary to the public interest as the only lot with access from a dead end as the only lot with access from a dead end.

And any spillover parking on the street would not negatively impact surrounding property owners.

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

A literal enforcement will result in unnecessary hardship because there was an inadequate space on the subject property to accommodate the required four parking spaces.

Three, but granted the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed in substantial justice will be done.

The spirit of the ordinance will still be observed as as this property is the only lot on a dead end.

And any negative effects from the spillover parked on the street would be minimized as the street would only serve the residents of the subject property for the variance would not authorize the operation of use other than those used specifically authorized the zoning district which the variants is located.

Four, the variants would not authorize the operation of use or those use specifically authorized the zoning district once the variance is located.

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

Such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent forming property or also the essential character of the district once the property is located.

Does any negative effects from spillover park on the street would be minimized as the street would only serve as the residence of the subject property?

And six, the plot of the owner of the property for which the variance is saw it is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

The unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property.

The plot of the property owners due to the unique circumstances of the subject property being the only lot with frontage on the dead-end portion of McDonald's Street.

Furthermore, the published rezoning ordinance holds a development to the property to the site plan is approved by city council, which is not depict parking on the property, but instead on the street.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I read the motion as as it was uh presented to us, and I am gonna you know vote in favor and see where word where it lies within the board.

I mean, I think that there is adequate space off site.

I think it provides much needed affordable housing.

I'm sure that the rental mark is gonna be tested with having you know the parking offs off off premise, and uh I think that's gonna be reflective in the rental rates, and I think it would provide kind of an affordable housing solution for this much needed um much needed area.

All right, Commissioner Manna?

So um I'll be voting not in favor of this for a couple of reasons.

You know, one, you know, the community is weighed in with regards to the neighborhood association, and so while it is that the applicant stated that he did talk to the um abutting neighbors, uh you know, the community has said no.

And they said no for a couple of reasons.

And so they they talked about some of the issues that we brought up uh with regards to service issues, um, and then also you know, the just policy in general.

And so you know, I don't know that it's uh you know that it it is good practice to um say that builders can build things without providing for the parking, you know, because that's that is part of the things that we're supposed to be thinking about.

And then um and then also I think just the notion of um so this you know this was granted as an R, you know, was started out as an R4 with residential parking, you know, a standard single lot, and now we've made this essentially you know a a quadplex on this property.

Uh that's you know the I think they have to figure out how to make it work if that's truly what they wanted.

And and you know, so I'm not gonna be in favor of this.

All right.

Anyone else like to address it?

All right, hearing none, um call vote.

Commissioner Ozena.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

Uh I concur with the findings.

In fact, the motion fails, uh, seven to three with one extension.

Is anyone on the prevailing side like to offer um motion to reconsider to with the read with the with the change in the amount of uh parking?

All right, hearing none.

Um you have to get with staff and see what your options are, but you've heard some mentioned today.

Uh, so you certainly can pursue that.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Item number nine.

Item number nine is located at 9218 Echo Port Drive.

The zoning is R6 residential single family district.

Uh the request is for one, a three-foot and one-foot fence height special exception from the maximum five-foot predominantly open front yard fence to allow for three eight-foot tall gates and a six-foot-tall fence along the front property line.

And two, a four-foot-eight-inch variance from the minimum fifteen-foot driveway clear vision to allow a ten foot four-inch driveway clear vision.

Their surrounding areas primarily developed with single-family residences on lots zoned R4 and R6.

This case originated from a code enforcement investigation in response to a citizen call regarding the installation of an eight-foot-tall wrought iron driveway gate and supporting beams exceeding eight feet in height.

Following the citation from the stop work order stemming from there being no fence permit applied for, the applicant removed the driveway gate and applied for a residential fence permit proposing five-foot-tall front yard fencing.

The applicant is requesting a fence height special exception to allow the installation of the originally plant eight-foot-tall gates and the eight-foot tall supporting beams with the six-foot tall predominantly open fence in the front yard, as these raw iron items have already been designed and completed at those heights.

Additionally, the proposed driveway gate is within the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision area and would require a four-foot-eight-inch variance to remain in that area.

Staff notified the property owner of the front yard and perv use cover standards, and they determined no request was required.

This is the site plan with the special defense site special exception just along the front property line and then the clear vision.

Staff recommends approval for the driveway clear vision based on the following findings of fact.

Staff recommends denial in the fence height special exception based on the following findings.

And well, I'm obviously already know why I'm here.

Not just because of personal warnings because of uh safety, safety and uh uh for safety on my home and my family.

So we have uh pictures and we went around other neighbors and they oppose they they do and for the South West Community Associations as well.

I'm just gonna handle everything to you.

Can that be also displayed on our monitors here at the shared monitor?

Thank you.

All right.

So I'm gonna start off.

Uh you're asking for three eight-foot tall gates.

Eight foot.

Are you talking about like a speaker of the art the design of the Do you have any plans or anything that shows like what it is exactly?

Some pictures right there.

Uh mainly because of security because I got some pictures of this uh man going into my property.

I have my wife stay home and two little kids, six and eight.

So arguments with that person there for him to put his reports as well for him uh okay.

So when you when the request is for three, you're saying that two of the three are the is this main gate.

Yes, because it's two panels.

Okay.

And and there's just uh six foot panels, they're gonna be in between.

That's uh other uh neighbors' properties.

They're like way closer than mine.

Uh mine is like a little bit set more back.

We got more more clearance in the front.

Okay.

That's basically the site, the distance where our fence is starts from one of our neighbors.

Uh the reason I build it that high because that person, that neighbor next door, she told us that that per that man literally jumped their fence and was just like walking inside their property, and uh I don't know, he's not all there and drugs or whatever, but just basically building this for security.

Yeah, those pictures are very dark.

It was hard to tell what exactly it is we're intending to look at.

Those are my wife, yeah.

Please state your name and and department class.

Okay.

Um those pictures are because just so you could see uh how it is at night.

It's really dark.

There's a light, a city light, but it's so you weren't emphasizing somebody walking down the sidewalk.

So we have um police reports that we've made because that that same individual has been always walking into our property if we have like the side gates open, he will walk to the backyard.

We've got our mailbox also right in front of it and also broken into it.

Yeah, we made a police report for that because the mailbox is literally right by our house.

And individuals went in their car and they broke into the mailbox, and we're just worried we know we have children and set and I you never know where they decide to get into our house.

And what he was talking about, the other gates of the neighbors, I just took pictures so you can see that some of them have a five foot, and that individual he doesn't care, he still jumps those fences.

And they're reports on that, so we're kind of like it's we we do get requests because uh sometimes we see gates that have a certain look and maybe they need to be a little bit taller to accentuate the look.

Eight feet is just pretty tall.

That's all we have there, like how it looks uh one of the gates.

So we hadn't finished because I um they said that we had already finished the whole fence.

The whole fence is not made, it was just that one.

And he had gone to put it to see how it looked, if we liked it.

The post are we gonna cut them down to meet the fence?

Is it is the gate gonna be manual or automatic?

No.

No, it's just gonna be like open ma manual.

Okay.

Any com any commissioner questions?

So is is there another example anywhere in your community with a fence gate that is that tall?

Because it I know you provide all the fences you showed were four foot.

Um and maybe one five foot fence that I saw.

And so you've now extended at three feet over what I saw as the tallest fence in your community.

And you know, that's uh that I look for I look for consistency and and so I don't see that as a consistent, you know, the consistent thing.

So the main reason is because of security.

That person doesn't care the high he will jump that fence.

I got a door man, that doorman will jump that four foot fence.

So it's uh it's it's uh just curious about um the adaptability of the eight-foot gates.

Okay, you know six feet, you know, you can do a five foot predominantly open fence.

Six feet is one thing, eight feet is something completely different.

That's so okay.

Um is there any voicemails anyone sent it to speed?

No public comment?

All right.

Is there any other commissioner questions?

So those uh signatures were in favor, and we also have in favor for the South West Ummunity Association?

And emailed um the pictures and the company?

Yes, Commissioner Bonice.

Have you guys already purchased all the material for this fence?

Yes, some of you have it.

We already just what you saw on those pictures, that's all we have right now.

We've also been having trouble with the then what's the total so do what's the total on the the people that are in favor of this, or do you get what's the total number of how many we have in favor?

Or do you get what's the total number of how many we have in favor?

Association.

Seven plus a neighborhood association.

Chair, what's the tallest fence you ever remember approving?

Eight foot, but not for residential in front.

I mean, we've done, you know, we've done um I recall doing a taller fence on one of these two-acre estate lots.

Uh I recall doing a taller fence uh when they were a butting commercial or whatever, there was some issue about that, but but an eight foot on a gate is is high.

Uh I don't recall doing anything higher than like seven on an architectural gate.

So I I this one's odd because so many people are in favor of and and the neighbor association, which is very different.

They're all in favor because they also wish to have their fences that tall.

Because the microphone, please.

Yeah, we have to record everything.

Can you hear me?

Okay, so they're in favor because they also you saw the fences, and since they're only permitted five feet, um they also agree that you know they're always having trouble with that one neighbor.

You know, they call the cops and yes, they arrest him, but then he gets out and he's in everybody's property, they're always having issues with him.

So they they thought that it was a good idea, like oh, to have a fence like that for you know, family protection.

Okay.

I mean, I'm not opposed to the six feet.

Uh I'm just the eight's kind of tall.

So Chair, did did they discuss the side fence also?

I mean, what keeps the guy from jumping the side fence?

If the uh would they be allowed to do the same height along the front?

They they couldn't do more than five feet down the side unless we do we have a variance on the side fencing?

No, it's just the front.

No, the request on the property line.

Did you have any intent to run that that six foot wrought iron down the sides?

Um in the future we want to do well, one of them is um as you can see, it's their backyard.

Um to the if we're looking at it to the left.

Yeah.

That's their backyard?

Is it is the neighbor's backyard and the side.

And you already have a a red iron fence on the side?

That one that's not neighbors.

That's the neighbors.

It's because you know part of the discussion was okay.

You have your front, so we can just go to the neighborhood jump.

Yeah.

So I mean that is the plan in the future, but we didn't know we had to ask for a variance and we have our dog and the dog is in the back from that fence over there.

That being said, it could have let them out to the front.

Yeah, so you you didn't want to come you didn't want your variants to include the side at all.

I mean, because you know, right now we can only vote on the case.

So my Mr.

Chair, my thought here is that if you were having to reapply, you'd have to pay to reapply for the side variants.

Why not just do a continuance here?

We can go back and add a side setback is that possible to do that.

A continuous uh is not gonna solve the problem because we'd have to re-advertise it to add that request.

I think it would just have to be to where the house is because they told us that we're gonna do that.

So what mechanism is?

When the house could they you're allowed to do six feet?

Readvertise but still come back to the case.

Anything in the front of the yeah, yeah.

So staff what was the readvertising fee?

200.

Okay.

So for 200, you can amend your request to include the side property line up to the front of your house.

Once from the front plane of the house towards the street, it's considered front yard and it has that five-foot wrought iron uh limitation.

Just like the very, very front.

But because you are advertised along the front property line, we can't do anything more than that.

We can't we can't uh approve anything beyond that scope.

But then but if you were to have to re-apply completely for the side, then it's a whole new reapplication fee versus just the readvertising fee.

So yeah, you're saying for us to pay another 200 just to apply for the side.

If you wanted to answer that question now.

Yeah.

And lock it in or not.

Does it count when it's their backyard?

Because I think he was telling us that we would it would have to be um like he didn't know if they would have to apply.

Yeah, you're not allowed to build a fence above five feet from the front plane of your house.

So like in theory, your neighbor could have his own variants, you could have your own variants or and have two different fences.

I mean, man, and I think specifically we're we're talking about the property to your right hand facing his on the right hand side.

And so if you are looking to for that fence to be taller, it would require that you either reapply for or apply for a permit for that and or modify it and modify and be cheaper than applying for a second permit for that.

If you're going to do it in a relatively close amount of time, if you're going to do it ten years from now, maybe it doesn't matter.

So we were applying today.

If you desire to.

Well we can we can we can vote on what's before us today and that'll be that.

I mean, we didn't want to move too much because we're you know it's it's a lot of money to be applied to me.

So how the assurance at the entire side, because you need the side.

Yeah.

As much as you need the front.

So it doesn't help if you just get the front approved and we don't just come back with the whole package so you get all your security needs.

The other item is, and I hate to s I hate to even bring this up, but you know, there might be some commissioners opposed to an eight foot tall gate.

And that would be an opportunity to possibly adjust that if you wish.

Yeah, we can we can do that.

We can do the side too.

Okay.

Commissioner Dean.

Chair, once approved, they have to build on it within a year.

Yeah.

We already have the permit.

Yeah, they already have a permit.

But for that side section, if they get it.

If if their request isn't correct me if I'm wrong, if the request is for the frontage in the right side, uh, because they already have a permit in place, they'd be locked in if it got approved.

Is that correct?

Once they started construction on the work.

Yeah, they're they're locked in once they get the permit.

So if we if they were to come back and we approve it because they already have a permit, they would be set.

Okay.

So uh the parking situation.

Uh how many cars you plan on storing inside the fence?

Three.

It'd be three.

Is it and you can maneuver them out of the fence?

Yes.

Because they would open out.

These three panels will be gates.

That one right there, this one right there, and that one will be three front gates.

For in the future, we'll plan to request an approach right here so we can be uh easy access to those.

Yeah, we discussed that with Diapca and also let we let them know about the impervious cover restrictions of 50 percent, so they are aware of that.

Okay.

All right.

So with that in mind, uh we can entertain this today, or if you want to want to come back later and try to wrap it all up, we can do that.

That way we can get it wrapped up.

And just quick uh since it was brought up, uh and don't ask how I remember this, uh September 2019, Board of Adjustment did approve an eight-foot privacy fence in a front yard of a residential on Markham Drive.

That's the only one I remember though, back in 2019.

Wow.

Thank you, Mark.

I was here for that.

I guess I just don't remember so long ago.

We looked it up and said, Okay.

So do would you like us to vote on this today and not include the side, or would you want to include the side?

Well, we're not allowed to today.

That's what that's the problem.

Because we are only allowed to vote on what's advertised before us, and the side was not included in your advertisement.

If you would if we vote on this today, it would be another six hundred dollar application fee to come back to us.

Or this side.

Yes.

Isn't residential four hundred dollars?

If they have a homestead exemption.

Is this your homestead?

Yes, we're living there, but they we had it last year, but they took it off and we need a well if you have a homestead exemption, it would be four hundred dollars.

So if you want, you can we can vote on it today and only include the front.

Yes.

Or you can come back for two hundred dollars and we can include the side with your application.

What would you like to do?

Um I think we just want to do the front for right now because it also takes money to build.

I completely understand.

So with that, if there's nobody signed to speak or voicemails we need to hear.

No public comment.

I'm looking for the phone.

Commissioner Bineyus.

What would be the the shortest acceptable fence you think could keep I guess uh people out?

I think he said that they've approved seven, right?

Well, we uh we just heard test we we've approved an eight before.

I'd like to find out the address because that is that is uh um it does say large estate lots um in that community, so I just want to make sure uh what the address was when I would just on Markham Drive uh 6614.

Um there were some historical similar fences there also.

Um if I remember correctly, they provided also police reports on that one too.

Okay.

That was the one with the deer jumping over the fence.

This was on the that was on Lock Hill, so that was in my neighborhood.

Okay, so we're gonna vote.

We're gonna look for a motion today.

Uh out of curiosity, if we can't get to nine, is there a height that possibly we could defer to as seven something on the gates that you could live with?

Okay.

So we we could start at eight and see how this works out.

I mean, I think the fence is really open concept.

You can see it doesn't obstruct anything.

Okay.

The other one, the eight foot?

Like you can see into the house, it doesn't end.

Well, let's let's look for a motion on the special exception.

And you Jared, just one more question.

You said the plan is to have three opening gates for three vehicles.

Yes, so the the driveway counts as two, because it's two individual panels.

Right.

Two individual panels for three spots, future spots.

Yes.

That aren't approved yet.

No, no, no.

So the driveway would be one panel, two panels, and then you'd have an a singular panel for a man door, or are you talking about another vehicle?

Those uh single panels are just state, state on all the this one's right here, that one, this one right here on the tree, and that one right there.

Those all be six foot.

Yes.

That one right there, this one in the middle will be six footers.

And the gates, because they have the arc.

So most of your frontage will have Bt tall.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm sorry, repeat what you said.

Thanks for bringing that up.

So he's I I I was under the impression that when they said three gates, that the driveway was gate one, gate two, and then there was a man gate.

But they're saying that there's multiple vehicle gates.

And so therefore, a majority of the of it will be eight feet tall.

So I'm starting to have starting to have some more concerns now.

So the reason we have the vehicles inside, and especially today we went with one of the neighbors to get a signature to get to see if they were approved, you know.

Um we're always hit besides that we're hearing the stories, they're always driving up and down very fast, super crazy.

So we have the cars inside for that reason.

Because our neighbor, she actually they ran into both her cars.

One car was just driving in the middle of the night super crazy, and then ran into their cars.

So that's the only reason we're putting the vehicles inside.

Well, I I think we all understand what you're trying to accomplish.

Uh we need to look for a motion that that I think we can get behind.

Is there someone uh who would like to make one that might not be in favor of what they're asking for, but they can make a motion for what they can live with as a starting point?

Or I'm looking for someone to make a motion on the special exception.

Uh another question for the applicant.

So uh so what we're saying here is if we were to able to do seven feet, that means those arc gates would be down to seven feet.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that you guys are also understanding what we're maybe if we go with seven Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Um those existing the already fabricated arch fences.

If you remove the arch from the top, what's the height of the fence?

Six foot.

Yeah, that one right there.

This if you remove from here up, that will be six foot, which is the same height as this one.

Okay.

Okay.

Manna.

Commissioner Manor.

So as I see this, there's two motions here, right?

So the first one is for clear vision, um, which the city has recommended approval, and then the second one is for the fence heights.

So I'm gonna go ahead and read the clear vision one first.

We just we just went down to ten.

Uh we had a commissioner leave.

I'd be safe to do the clear vision.

Yeah, do the clear vision first.

Yeah, that's why I was gonna do clear vision first.

Go ahead.

So regarding case number BOA 26103-0004.

I moved that the board of adjustment grant to request for a four-foot eight-inch variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a 10-foot four-inch driveway clear vision situated at 9218 Echo Port Drive.

Applicant being Erasmo uh Gonzalez, 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 EDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the public interest is represented by the driveway clear vision standards.

Uh there would be adequate distance to still provide a path, clear path of vision for drivers to back up into the residential street.

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

The special condition on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, leaving little room to expand the clear vision area without substantial loss of the functional fence area fencing area.

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

Granting the variants would support the spirit of the ordinance as there is no significant encroachment into the right of way that would impede traffic or pedestrian safety.

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

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

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

Granting this variance will not substantially injure the appropriate the adjacent property owners as adjacent properties retain full functionality and no traffic impacts or circulation conflicts are expected.

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

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

The plight of the owner uh is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property as a proposed fence would align with the front property line and provide continuous uniformity of the streetscape.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna.

I s I agree with the city's uh position and I don't see uh you know we regularly approve open uh predominantly open fencing, you know, in the front in these areas, so I don't see a problem, so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I would concur with my colleague and I'll be in support of this.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reid?

Yes, I concur with the fundings of fact.

Commissioner Ivaneth?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can go with the findings of fact.

Uh motion for the clear vision passes.

Uh now for the uh tricky one, the fence.

Um who would like to make a motion to get that ball rolling on the fence height?

So this I I was going to start at six, and then we can figure out where it goes from there.

All right.

So uh regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero zero zero four, I moved the board adjustment grant to request for a one-foot um height uh fence height special exception uh from the maximum five-foot predominantly open fence yard to allow for a six-foot-tall gate and six-foot tall fence along the front property line situated at 9218 Echo Port Drive, Apple and being Erasmo Gonzalez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined showed the physical characters property such as a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment will result in unnecessary hardship.

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

If granted, the increased fence height would not significantly impact the uniformity and sense of community of the surrounding neighborhood.

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

In this case, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served as the taller fence provides a degree of security and privacy for the property without compromising the safety of motorists or pedestrians in the area.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed uh special exception, despite the increase in height, there should be no visual impairment from the proposed fence.

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

The special exception would not alter the essential character of the district in which his property is located as a special as a fence height special exception is limited to the front yard area.

It would not impact any other fence standards to which the subject property is required to adhere.

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

The requested special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district as a taller fence provides a degree of security and privacy for the property without compromising the safety of motorists and pedestrians in the area.

The fence height special exception is limited to the front facade and would not impact any other fence standards to which the subject property is required to adhere.

End a motion.

I'll second that and I'm going to move to amend the motion formally to see how the commission feels.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Azuna.

Everyone knows what I'm trying to accomplish here.

I'm just wanting to see what the count would be.

Let's have a roll call vote on going on.

Anna, before we start.

Yes, go ahead.

Push for city staff.

So we talked earlier with regards to administrative variances or what was allowed.

Um and so for a six-foot fence, uh, is there a variance that would be provided from an administrative perspective?

Like the six-inch dialogue that we had earlier.

So just trying to figure out so the highest we could do with an administrative exception is six inches.

So it's so by so six foot six inches, if we read it at six foot, would be more or less if if it was uh permitted as an administrative.

We can add on top of it.

It's not an automatic approval though.

We have to see like just one that so just as a reminder, so you know if we're going to ask them to whack it as far as the height, you know, it's a matter of six inches versus a foot versus you'll whatever.

So I'm um I just want to see where seven, I'm just taking seven foot for a ride on the gates.

I just want to see where it turns out.

Well, I just wanted to bring up that point.

So it's so what and what Commissioner Manor is saying is that if the seven-foot would be approved, they could theoretically do seven and a half feet if they got it approved administratively by staff.

And or six foot would be six and a half foot.

If they got it administered approved administratively by staff.

So that's just putting that out there.

Uh so we have uh an amendment on the table to see how that turns out.

Let's have a roll call vote on the amendment.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed.

No.

Commissioner Stevens?

No.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Yes.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

No.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Mana?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

All right.

The amendment fails, six to five.

Uh that lets us know where everyone kind of is on the Chair.

Yes.

Uh it's a majority vote on the how interesting the amendment passes.

So the motion on the table now has a seven-foot gate.

The fear I have is is that it's not going to pass.

Uh so if the is so since that's the motion on the table, can the maker of the motion change it back to six if I accept it?

Yeah, you can withdraw it.

Okay, so would you like to withdraw the motion on the table that we amended against your will?

Um so it can be remade as you originally stated.

Yeah.

So yes, I guess so yes.

The motion is withdrawn.

Would would uh anyone like to make a motion for a six-foot tall fence as originally stated?

Yes.

With the same uh Yes.

Okay.

So and I'll second that.

So we're back to a six-foot-tall fence with the potential to go to six and a half feet if it gets approved administratively.

I think we've beaten the subject to death.

Let's have a roll call vote on a six-foot fence.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur with the fund is a fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstained.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes.

All right.

Motion passes uh 10 to 0 with one abstention.

You can have a six-foot fence.

You can ask for 6.5 if you get it approved administratively.

And wish you well with your endeavor.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yep.

Okay, we're going to have a little break.

319.

We'll see you all back in seven minutes.

All right.

We're calling this back into session.

327.

Item number 10.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joel Villas in your planner.

Item number 10 is case BOA-26-103005.

Applicant being Rafael Moreno Cesada in Council District 2.

The location is 510 Belmont.

And this is a request for a three-foot variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow a primary structure with a two-foot west side setback.

And two, a four-foot-six-inch side setback to allow a carport with a six-inch east side setback to include an 11-inch overhang.

So there's a single family home on the lot that was built in 1920 and a carport that was built sometime after 2016.

That's based off of Google imagery in the area.

In June 2025, a residential repair permit was issued for renovations to the existing home.

And during a framing inspection in November 2025, staff identified the work done to be outside the scope of that repair permit.

So a residential building application was then filed for the full scope in December 2025 to review a complete renovation and a small addition to the home.

So basically considering this structure, a new home at that point to comply with current standards.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property and the subject property.

And that's a little bit of a better view there of the home and the carport.

And here is the west side of property line.

Shown on the survey, the existing fence does not actually lie on the property line.

So we're estimating there just to show you a good visual for the photo.

But based on the architectural side plan provided by the applicant, the wall is three foot four away from the property line and the overhang being only two feet away.

So that's what the request before you is two feet from that property line.

And this is the east side property line in that carport that again was built sometime after 2016.

That was prior to the current owner's ownership of this property.

Uh but it was done seemingly without permits without variance approval.

Uh and as far as I understand, the property owner would like to keep it there, and that's that distance that it has from that property line.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the side setback variances.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103-00005 based on the following findings of fact.

One, no unnecessary hardship would be created as the property owner is currently undergoing renovations and the roof overhang may be modified to minimize the encroachment into the setback area.

And two, the adjacent single-family residential lot and vacant lot deserve equal protection intended by the zoning setback ordinance to appropriately use and develop on those lots.

Staff mailed 34 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and the Jefferson Heights neighborhood association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

So a quick question.

Three foot four.

And the overhang is one foot four.

So the house was built in 1920, which predates the 1938 zoning code.

What was that would this was allowed back in 1920 to have it?

Correct.

I think it was a three-foot minimum setback.

Um, I mean, prior to the zoning code, there was no minimum.

So but on the homes after the zoning code where they had a three-foot setback, did it account at all for roof overhang?

Um I believe that's the minimum distance.

I know that's what we do.

That's what we do now is that they want the house five feet, but you can have features that go up to two feet in.

But back then, was it three feet was what was what was happening plus an overhang?

I mean, uh it just seemed like roof overhangs were the oh not sure the overhang was included on the on the like it is today.

Um I know we do have the three-foot in a lot addition to cover the code back then, but I'm not sure if it includes the overhang or not.

Okay.

I'm just curious about you know that if uh it just seems like it would be normal for a house to be three feet with a one-foot overhang in 1920 or 30 or whenever.

Uh so I'm just curious.

All right.

Manna?

Yes, Commissioner Man.

And so the picture here is on on one side of the home structure, which is not the carport side, right?

And the other side is carport.

And so we're talking about two things going on, right?

And so this one is essentially the um they match the the previous facade and and simply because the amount of construction is why it is that this is a dialogue.

That's correct.

Uh one because of the amount of construction, but there's also a small addition in the rear, which is brand new, which is in line, which matches that same setback.

Perfect.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was not there prior.

Commissioner Zuna.

What is the distance between this structure and the nearest structure to the to the east or to the right of the building?

Yeah, so on the west side, so so that structure there, you they've got their whole side yard there.

The carport actually doesn't have an adjacent structure.

And on the other side.

On the other property line.

If we're discussing the west side, that's a vacant lot to the west side.

That's commercial vacant lot.

That's a commercial vacant lot.

Correct.

And what would the zoning setback require or setback requirement be on that?

I recall it's like twenty feet or something.

Yeah, it would kick in because there's a residential lot there.

Residential, yes.

I think it's 10 feet for a side setback for commercial to residential for a side.

Depends on what the address is, right?

If the address is off of Walters, it would be the rear.

So let me let me go ahead and just um.

This looks like it's addressed off of east commerce, the vacant lot.

Correct.

It would depend on the orientation of the adjacent commercial lot.

So it's either 10 or 30 if it's a rear.

10 or 30.

Okay.

Either way it's adequate.

I mean we don't.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um let's have the applicant come forward.

Uh state your name and tell us about your project.

It's Rafael Moreno Caesar.

In uh restating some of the facts of of that uh Joel presented a little earlier.

Uh we I'm the home owner of the property.

We bought the property in June of 2025.

We opened up some of the walls, notice that some of it's a 1920s house, so some of the framing had uh or significant amount of framing uh and some of the the siding had uh significant termite damage.

Uh so it it made sense to uh to replace some uh some of that uh some of that framing, but that did result in in ultimately replacing uh more than or two of the the exterior walls, as you can see in those um in the picture of the new new properties or the remodel.

Uh a little later uh when we were doing the the framing inspection uh in November, uh the the city let us know that that it met the criteria to have to pull a new build permit.

So in that process now with the site plans, the architecture uh diagrams, uh it was just noted that it was uh it was within that setback limit and and uh a variance would need to be uh requested.

Okay.

Um commissioner questions.

Okay.

How is your your car port?

Is it gonna let's see what we have here?

Are you are you rebuilding the carport?

No, there's no plans for the carport.

Uh there were none in the original uh your permits that were pulled from the property.

Your current carport slopes to the front.

It it book yeah, it just extends from the from the from the property from the left side, right?

Looking at the property over on the left side, it'll uh this is looking at the coordination.

Yeah, it's ribbed ribbed from the back to the front.

Yep.

Yeah.

Correct.

Correct.

Well, then mana.

Yes, I think.

And so and so I just noticed it does look like there's maybe a small chain link fence that abuts the carport there that they have covered in bushes.

So this is there, is there is that's on the neighboring property, I'm assuming the chain link fence that's abutting the carport?

Yes.

That is a good question.

Uh so we have I mean, based on the on the survey, uh I believe it I mean it's just right on the on the property line.

Uh so I guess uh um is it owned by the neighbor or owned by y'all?

The fence.

I'm not actually sure.

I'm I'm unaware of of who actually because it is it raised is it looks like it's also in a bed, so a raised bed.

Um because there's plants on it it looks like there's plantings and stuff in there.

So I'll just try to figure out it the either way, it looks like it's been designed for a while because it has a pretty good shrubbery line, so it's been well established there for quite some time, I guess.

It was there prior to when we when we bought the house, so we're uh we're not sure.

The house next to us is is has been completely empty for the entire remodel, so we we haven't uh chat with anybody at that property.

All right.

Well, is there any voicemails anyone sounded to speak?

No public comment.

Is there any other additional questions?

Just to jump in on the question that was asked earlier.

I I misspoke.

The the property to the west there is actually zoned IDZ.

The site plan that was adopted with it shows a proposed ten foot separation between any structure that they build there and the subject property.

So you can see that there.

Uh it's uh all that lot is IDZ.

Okay.

And there and they were showing um what are they building there?

Do they have a side you have a site plan?

So it's showing uh uses permitted in C1, a multi-tenant retail space.

Oh, yeah.

So the okay.

All right.

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

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant requests for one, a three-foot variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a primary structure with a two-foot west side setback.

And two, a four-foot-six-inch side setback to allow a carport with a six-inch east side setback to include an eleven-inch overhang situated at 510 Belmont applicant being Rafael Moreno Caesar.

Because the testimony presented to us and the fact that we facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the 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 the variance is are not contrary to the public interest as the proposed setbacks would provide an adjacent property with adequate protection for potential negative effects from crowding structures along property lines such as damage from water runoff and fire spread or reduced privacy.

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

The footprint of the existing structure is being reutilized as part of the remodeled of this remodel and addition, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to correct a pre-existing setback violation, which is outside the bounds of the intended scope of the project.

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

The spirit of the ordinance and the substantial justice would be served as there would be adequate separation between the carport and structures on the east adjacent property.

Furthermore, there is currently no existing structure on the adjacent west property to create a separation concern.

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

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

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

The variances would not injure the appropriate use of the adjacent properties.

Those layouts may be utilized and developed in accordance with the current standards without creating a significance of concern for crowding structures, water runoff, or fire safety.

Six, the player of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought 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 the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Pre-existing conditions such as the location of the home and the construction of the carport within the setback area were not created by the current owner are not purely financial and are not the result of general conditions.

The applicant's intent is to improve the property for the benefit of the neighborhood despite these circumstances.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Stevens.

I'll be in support of these two variances.

I think maintaining the footprint of a hundred-year-old home makes sense, and keeping your addition in line with that western wall makes sense as well.

It appears that you have adequate space on the West property line to maintain your home.

And uh the carport that you're keeping appears to be about the same area as the home.

So I don't see any reason to try and move that at this point.

So I'll be in favor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manna?

Um suggest friendly amendment, which would be um limited to as currently built.

Um you're trying to make sure that the home isn't two feet in the account for the room.

The home and/or the carport.

So I would say both structures, you know, as built currently.

And so that way if they want to make any changes, they have to come back, but but limit it to that.

If we wanted to put a number on it, would it would it would it just be to include up to a 12-inch roof overhang or something?

Or as design.

I mean, so as currently submitted.

So that's what I was asking, or as currently built.

That's fine too.

So are you attempting to limit his ability to rebuild that carport in its current position?

No, just for the home.

For item one, he wants to make sure that that a home isn't built two feet off, that it's a home that's three feet, no closer than three with an overhang.

Okay.

But he's saying match whatever is there now.

And then for the car part, I mean so I don't mind him rebuilding it, but any not any larger than it currently is, I guess is would be the point there.

So I I think keeping both structures as is and allow them to make those changes.

You know, not to not to exceed the cur the the current footprint and placement of the existing structures.

Yes, yeah, along that line.

I like that.

All right.

So it looks like uh the maker and the second both uh accepted, so that's what's before us.

Uh let's if there's no other comments.

All right, 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 with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonneth.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

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

Cool.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last item, item 11.

This is BOA 26-10306.

The applicant is Edward Diaz.

It's in Council District 8.

The location is 7830 Louis Pasteur Drive.

The zoning is RM4.

And the I am the case manager.

Or it's C2, sorry.

The zoning is C2.

The request is for a one-foot special exemption from the maximum allowable five-foot front yard fence height to allow a six-foot tall front yard fence.

The subject property is located along the south uh located southwest of the intersection of Louis Pasteur Road and Fredericksburg Road.

The property is surrounded by a variety of commercial uses, including medical offices, a restaurant, and a convenience store.

The applicant proposes a six-foot tall, predominantly open face fence to secure the front yard area of this uh commercial property.

Prior to the issuance of the fence permit, the applicant must obtain a special exemption from the Board of Adjustment to allow for the increase in fence height.

The applicant attends to abide by all other development standards, including maximum site distance in each driveway approach, as well as uh they contacted VIA in order to see how far back they have to build from the bus stop that's directly in front of their property.

This is the uh site plan and the via bus stop is like right here.

But they in they have contacted via already to see how far back they have to build from there.

This is the subject property and the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial on BOA 26 uh dash 10306 based on the following findings.

Fact is not consistent with surrounding commercial properties in the area.

And the proposed uh fence would create a visual barrier between the businesses on the subject property and the surrounding area.

We mailed 12 notices, there were none in favor and uh none in opposition.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Did you have any questions?

Uh do you have any questions for the rest of the commission for staff?

Yeah, we'll wait for the applicant.

Let's have the applicant come forward, please.

Sorry.

It's fine.

My hips.

Hello, Edward Diaz.

Uh thank you guys for hearing me.

You have to be straightforward.

But I think I'd like to get you get a little closer to the mic.

I can hear you fine, but there you go.

Better.

Yeah, you can move it down.

Very good.

Thank you.

So tell us about your project.

Um, well, so as you can see, it's it's uh in the medical center.

There's a bunch of commercial stuff around it.

The biggest issue is that am I doing this right?

From from all directions, there's a bunch of homeless, and as you can see, there's an arcade.

Red button.

Right here?

Okay.

So there's an arcade right there.

And it's about six or seven feet wide all the way around the front.

People come in and get out of the rain and elements and whatnot.

It's not a problem for us.

I'm I'm part of the group that owns the property.

The problem is our neighbors.

Uh and some of the people that hang around there, uh, are doing some stuff that's not kind of dangerous.

Uh caught people smoking meth.

Uh, I've had people threaten all kinds of stuff.

So that's why we're doing the fence.

We are currently constructing a fence that goes from here to there to the back, and all of that is chain link.

But we wanted to do a square tube black fence around the front to make it a little more aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood.

I mean, it's right in the middle of the medical center.

And the reason we are asking for a variance of one foot is because of the height, right?

Five foot is a deterrent, but it's not as effective as a six-foot fence.

So that's what we're that's what we're asking for.

We are going to, as as uh he had mentioned, we have reached out to via.

We're waiting on them to get back with us, and we have also reached out to traffic.

We're waiting for them to tell us what setbacks, what all the different dimensions are going to ask for, parameters and whatnot.

We will comply with all of them.

The only variance we're asking for is the height so that we can make it harder for people to get in.

Are you looking for an automatic entry gate?

We have planned to put one in here on this side, because it's further from the main intersection, giving more room for traffic, and this one will be manual.

They will be open during business hours.

Uh we currently don't have a tenant.

We are in negotiations with finding a triple net tenant to uh rent the place.

And as I mentioned, this will be uh automatic.

This will be manual.

And there's there'll be chain link here and here, so this part of the parking will be for customers and this will be for staff.

Okay.

Sounds simple sounds uh cutting dry enough.

Uh is there any questions for the applicant?

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So and I just so in the uh in the motion the way it's read.

Um so so this is predominantly open fencing uh all the way around, right?

And so yeah.

So that would be the only thing I would add, I guess in the reading is just to ensure that that is part of the motion.

But yes.

Okay.

Anyone else have a question?

Is there any voicemails anyone signed to speak?

No public comment.

No one back there.

All right.

Well, if there's anything else you'd like to add before we move to a motion.

No.

All right.

Well, I'm looking for a motion.

Whoever would like to.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 2610306.

I moved to the board adjustment, grant the request for a one-foot special exception for the maximum allowable five-foot front yard fence to allow a six-foot predominantly open front yard fence situated at 7830 Louis Pasteur uh drive.

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

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

This fence height modification aligns uh with that intent because it provides the necessary amount of security and modesty and a mostly proposed fence height increase.

Um height increase.

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

The taller fence provides a degree of security for the property without compromising the safety of motorists or pedestrians in the area.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception because a property is located within a commercial district.

There is minimal minimal visual or physical impact on adjacent properties.

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

Due to the special property residing within the commercial area and similar fencing existing on the multifamily development across the street, the proposed fence heights would be in character with the surrounding area.

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

Allowing a modest increase in fence height in this unique location does not undermine these goal, those goals as it is a commercial site and the neighboring character the neighborhood character would not be altered.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna.

Um I don't see it being approved as I read it.

So I'll be able to do that.

Commissioner Stevens?

I agree with my colleague and I appreciate your need to protect your property, so I'll be in support.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none of us have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

I concur.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

You have second.

Chair Orion.

Yes, I concur.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you all so much.

All right.

Next up is the director's report.

I mean, I'm sorry.

Minutes.

Anyone have any amendments to the minutes?

Anyone like to make a motion to approve the minutes?

All right.

We have a motion by Commissioner Stevens to approve the minutes.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

All in favor, say aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Uh motion passes.

Minutes are approved.

Staff you have a director's report.

Um I believe there was some discussion, but we are going to be stopping accepting uh voicemails start um on April 1st.

minutes all right we have a motion by commissioner stevens to approve the minutes I'll second by Commissioner Benavides all in favor say aye any opposed hearing none uh motion passes minutes are approved staff do you have a director's report um I believe there was some discussion but we are going to be stopping accepting uh voicemails start um on April first that voicemails were not will not be played and this is coming from our city clerks and city manager's office okay uh I would like to add two things one uh a reminder about your financial disclosure uh submittals I haven't heard anything any chatter about that of course we haven't really been meeting too much recently uh and the second thing is is uh at the next meeting uh we'll be voting on a date to have a workshop and so just so everyone knows uh we'll hopefully be meeting in the s smaller with the Tobin room over there and uh just kind of talking about things that that over that over the last few years that that we may see recurring bases that we might want to add to the UDC.

Um if you can't make it uh you just make a list and submit it to staff and it'll make sure be or or you know make sure we'll bring it up and discuss it.

I already have myself a little working list uh so I can't wait to uh share that with everybody um and so that way when when those amendments come our way we'll be ready to go with any that the board would like to move forward with so is there anything else anyone would like to uh comment or add?

Hearing none great and we have 17 cases next time so please please review the agenda because I will be on fire moving quickly.

And Bill Miller's if you order dinner I'm just as what I was going to say don't forget the good the good dinner okay and I'll put tape over my mouth all right we're adjourned.

It is 354